- This topic has 2,052 replies, 68 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
CS to me: “you keep ignoring, and not addressing, the many (I think 4 separate) sources in Torah I have brought.”
I felt bad not remembering exactly what it was I haven’t addressed, but then I saw that you weren’t too sure yourself, so it made me feel better! 🙂
Please recap the separate sources and I’ll see what I can do. Seriously.
Just one caveat: I don’t consider an explanation/interpretation of the Lubavicher rebbe as a source. I consider it an opinion. That doesn’t mean I definitely won’t address it, but it does mean that I feel I can disagree with it and explain/interpret things definitely.
@CS- Stop pretending to have any grasp on anything to do with the standard litvishe mehalach. Like I said, you’re so far down the Chabad rabbit hole, you cannot understand it.
and you said-
“…it should be the same for the Rebbe., who was not just a learned person in Torah, but a leader to all Yiddin , chief Rabbis, chassidish Rebbes, sefardim, askenazim, litvish and not yet frum alike…”
No it shouldn’t and no he wasn’t. To compare the Rebbe in gadlus to the chofetz chaim is a joke. like literally a joke.
CS to Neville: “For example, you complain we isolate ourselves. Yet when I join this forum, how many times have I heard the sentiment, Stop pushing your Chabad agenda. You’re only talking to us to mekarev us etc.. Think about it.”
I don’t know what Neville actually meant, but what I understood him to mean was that you isolate yourselves by not being part of other groups’ initiatives. For example, Daf Yomi Bavli, Yerushalmi, Mishna Yomis, Halacha Yomis, Shaar Cheshbon Hanefesh Yomi have never been endorsed by Lubavich
Yet it is true that when it comes to frum people Lubavich is always pushing them to accept lubavich initiatives. If I had a dollar for every time I was told that I should be learning Chitas, Rambam or even mesechta Sotah during Sefirah, I would be so rich that I would be typing this from my own private yacht moored in my own private island in the Bahamas.
Why is it OK to think that everybody has to do what chabad does but chabad can ignore the call of other gedolei Yisrael?
In a similar vein, I may easily be wrong here, but I believe that Lubavich did not take part in the Citi Field rally about the dangers of the internet. I also believe that alone among all Chareidim, Lubavich does not insist on smartphone users having filters. (I personally know a number of Lubavichers who do, but I know more who don’t.)
As close as we are to thr Geulah, let’s NOT FORGET FOR A SECOND, that we are in Galus chosech umechupal. We still have to behave like in Galus, we can’t go on behaving like we own the world. Dina d’malchusei dina. Especially with the current anti-Semitic climate, we are in constant danger of attack.
Yidden! Nemt zich in hant! L’chu venasuva el Hashem!CS can you say that I haven’t addressed ANY of the issues when I clearly addressed the first one that you raised. But this seems to be something you do often, considering something not having been addressed if the answer doesn’t suit you.
At any rate:
“”Regarding demanding / using strong language with Hashem:”You have changed your terminology to include “using harsh language” which was never the discussion. The discussion was ONLY regarding demanding from Hashem.
“1) lama nigara”
For the umpteenth time “lama nigara” is NOT a demand according to any translation. It is a question. Yes, there is an implication of a request, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO DEMAND! Furthermore, not only is it not a demand but they did not even speak to Hashem. The passuk says that the spoke to Moshe Rabbeinu. Look it up.
” 2) ad mosai in tehillim and kinos”
Once again, not a demand a question implying a strong request. Can you find me a source that explains it as a demand?
” 3) kol ma sheomer lecha habaal habayis asei chutz mitzei”
What does that have to do with it? Your – I assume it’s actually your rebbe’s – interpretation of it is very nice but it does not fit in with what you are saying. Even according to your interpretation. we (and the Shechina) ARE ALREADY “outside” and we want to get back inside. To the best of my knowledge it doesn’t say anywhere that when the baal habayis says not to come in you don’t have to listen to him.
” 4) davening for others vs oneself – Moshe micheini na, Rochel Imeinu – is Your Mercy less than mine?”
Where do we see a demand in either of the two cases above? Note: “na” means please. People who say please aren’t normally demanding.
Now I’m challenging you. Either show me how I am wrong in the above or admit that they are NOT good proofs. Don’t go back down the rabbit-hole Toi mentioned and claim that I haven’t addressed the issue, as you have done in the past. I have addressed ALL of them, except that of the Chofetz Chaim, and remember that I am the one who found and presented the source of that proof, so I am not trying to evade any issue.
I’m sorry if I sound insulting, but I – and I believe a number of other posters – are very frustrated with the way you just keep making statements without basis, challenge us to rebut them, and then when we do, you ignore our rebuttals and claim that we are the ones who are doing the ignoring.
So please step up to the challenge: rebut the way I (and others) have refuted your claims (and merely citing your rebbe is not a valid form of rebuttal) or admit that you have been proven wrong and that the only sources you have are the interpretations of your rebbe.
CS: “Creatively reinterpretating classic sources yourself, and thinking you’re on par with the Rebbe, doesn’t wash.”
1. Please (according to you that can be a lashon of demand) show me where I have “creatively” interpreted any sources. Unless you consider disagreeing with your interpretation creative.
2. Disagreeing with your rebbe, does indeed wash. I realize that you don’t like it, but there’s nothing wrong with it for those of who do not believe that he was Kodesh Kodoshim.
RSo and CS,
You are both nuts (I say that with love).
CS is a staunch lubavicher and follows the lubavich way.
RSO…..not so much.You will never convince each other in this matter. You have exhausted this topic. Move on.
“However I find it ridiculous you even bring Rav Shach into the discussion as you’re not even a litvak and hence can’t even pretend hashkafic integrity here.”
This is what really proves the isolation. Good Chassidishe rabbis reference the Gra and other litvish gedolim; good litvish rabbis reference the Satmar Ruv, Sfas Emes, etc. I’m not saying its a requirement to learn sources outside of your mesorah, but you’re talking like it’s an issur. It’s a good thing, not a bad thing. There’s no eternal struggle between Chassidim and Litvaks. Chabadniks are the only ones still fighting.
I did not mean what RSo thought I meant regarding initiatives. I meant that Chabad refuses to hear or tolorate other hashkafas as you can clearly see here on this thread.
As for the whole “what do you want me to do clap every time you get a reference?” business, I’ll tell you what we want you to do. Stop with the issue-skirting strategies they taught you in shliach school and tell us straight that you believe the Rebbe is moshiach. Otherwise, you have no business accusing us of “misunderstanding” this geula stuff.
“Stop with the issue-skirting strategies they taught you in shliach school and tell us straight that you believe the Rebbe is moshiach.”
Although I doubt CS believes the Rebbe is moshiach – and she can correct me if I am wrong – I give you props Neville for the direct and hilarious way you summed up your complaint.
CS, not to put you on the spot, but yes or no: do you believe that Rabbi M.M. Schneerson A”H may possibly be the Moshiach? Or do you believe he is precluded on the sole basis of his petirah.
@NevilleChaimBerlin
“There’s no eternal struggle between Chassidim and Litvaks. Chabadniks are the only ones still fighting.”
Just to throw some gasoline into the fire – have you been following the recent politics among the Charedim in Eretz Yisroel? FYI according to R’ Chaim Kanievski, any chossid who listened to his his Rebbe from Agudas Yisroel (which would include גור, ויזניץ, סלונים, and many others) was a משנאי ה’ and a מחלל שם שמים
(I am not commenting on the main point of the thread. No one is actually interested in hearing something different than their opinion.)
Stuartw, neville, have you seen the Chabadshlucha explain meshichists thread?
Yay, I found the thread you’re referencing!
CS, I think i got the answer from your non-answer. It gives me no pleasure to say that I now see Neville’s point.
CS: You seem to have missed this part of my last post: “stop with the issue-skirting strategies they taught you in shliach school.” This thread is about Chabad’s beliefs on geula. Obviously Meshichism comes into it and you know it. I would sum up the techniques you were using in the other thread and here, but I think Syag already did it perfectly in this comment:
“question to you: Why do you only eat fruit on tuesday?
response: The dietician spoke for an hour about the importance of eating fruits and vegetables. Im sorry if you are not able to understand her lecture. It was very clear that fruits and vegetables are important for our health and therefore we need to eat them every tuesday. If there was a part of her lecture you did not understand, please ask.
question: I asked why only on tuesday? I did not question the importance of fruit.
response: I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Every doctor will tell you how many vitamins are in fruit and what benefits they have to your body. Even small children know how important eating fruit is to our diet. Your questioning our tuesday fruit eating must be because you are used to eating junk food.
question: I am not attacking your custom, I am trying to understand why you link the fruit eating with Tuesday, we understood the importance of fruit but there was no mention of eating it on Tuesday.
response: If you really want to know more about the health benefits of fruit, please go to a dietician and speak to her. If this hasn’t explained the importance, I don’t know how else it can be explained.
It isn’t the concept of a Rebbe that confuses us, nor turning to a rebbe for brachos, nor davening at their kever, nor the concept of a tsaddik or a tsaddik gamur. those are all known and accepted concepts. it is your proofs and sources that are lacking, and that concept seems beyond your reach.”
Lol, this is classic chabad skirting the issue. She will not, under any circumstances, state the the rebbe is not moshiach. Because she believes he is. but she knows that we’ll think she’s nuts for confirming that belief, so she won’t admit it. As far as R’ Shach goes, he was viewed universally in the livish oilam hayeshivos as the manhig hador. Literally the chad bedoro. No one, again, in the litvishe oilam hatorah, would dispute this. He was seen as the hemshach of our mesorah from the Gaon and his talmidim. This is common knowledge. So CS sidelining him and saying, “wellllll, if you were his talmid, then maybe, you know” is also a joke. Every.Single.Litvishe.Yeshivamahn. Sees himself as a talmid/follower/mekabel from R Shach. And yes, the issues he raised, plus the issues that have been discussed here at length, are the reasons why 99% of the litvishe velt (not baalebatim) do not hold of lubavitch and the rebbe.
My Rav would never put himself on the same footing as Rabbi Kanievsky for example who is known to have much more knowledge of Torah than the typical learned Rav.
Notice you said rav kanievsky however any Lubavitcher feels they are on the same footing as R Shach ztl, so much so that you will not find an Avi Ezri in any Chabad House and if he is mentioned (he is a tzaddik, he might have a different opinion than you) he will be cursed out (I personally saw a Lubavitcher stick up his middle finger when R shach’s name was mentioned so I know first hand)
CS: RSo never said anything even kind of like what you’re accusing him. You aren’t going to trick anyone into thinking he did. To summarize:
-He brought a proof from the Chofetz Chaim, which almost actually helped your side
-You criticized him for using a Litvish rabbi as a proof
-He referenced HaRav Shach
-You criticized him for using a Litvish rabbi again and decided to coin the phrase “Rav Shach excuse,” which I’m surprised but glad they allowed through to show how little respect Chabadniks have.
-You were asked for an obvious clarification on your position on geula on a thread about geula
-You skirted the issue and referred us to a thread on which you skirted the issue relentlessly for 19 straight pagesDo any objective posters see anything inaccurate about this summary?
CS: What did you want to get out of us from this thread? Was it just to solicit out-on-context quotes to make Litvaks look bad? Was it an earnest attempt to convince less-knowledgeable people that Chabad Meshichism is compatible with the mainstream?
I think our position is pretty crystal clear: we hold, like our rabbis, that meshichism is kefira. That’s not an “excuse,” that’s how we posken. You can’t get away with continuously making threads that you think are subtle in their meshichism and then accuse us of being the ones turning it towards that subject. There’s just no point; we’re always going to see through it.KaiserW,
largely incorrect
they have said more than once
if but only if someone follows their Rebbe
for everything they should follow vote them for votingEvery.Single.Litvishe.Yeshivamahn. Sees himself as a talmid/follower/mekabel
also incorrect
true blue Litvak Didn’t and never work like that
they don’t perceive their leader as an emperor demagogue rather as Aristocrat Prince among Peers
I actually appreciated the chofetz chaim referenced. What I didn’t appreciate was the lack of equal treatment to the Rebbe.{wide eyed emoji}
@CS- “…Although meshichism falls under the topic of Geula, its controversial even within lubavitch (as you saw on that thread) and is really at the end of the day emuna based rather than a solid hashkafa ( altho there are sources either way.) so id rather keep that out of this discussion as I prefer on coming to common ground…”
Ya did it again. Is he or is he not? One word answer. A) Yes B) No
IITFT- You miss my point. First of all, yes, R’ Shach was regarded as Daas Torah universally, in the litvishe oilam hatorah. That’s why his de’ah on Lubavitch is the de’ah of 99% of the litvishe yeshivos. Ask someone who was around then, when R Shach came out against the Rebbe, what the popular opinion of Chabad was. It was one of passive distrust at the most. He started the campaign against it. So if you share that hashkafa (assuming your part of the aforementioned tzibbur), that’s where your views originated.
To address your actual post- I never said we look at roshei yeshiva as emperor demagogues (the famous maaseh of R’ Shach’s kasha on a R’ Chaim that prompted the famous line “mir zennen talmidim, nisht chassidim” proves that clearly). I mean that his de’ah was viewed by all as definitive daas torah, not that we were his soldiers.
As far as what I wanted to get out of this thread etc.:
I more some people enjoy threads that are confrontational and bash, where there is a winner and loser. But not me. I like finding common ground with other yidden (which is why I frequent here to begin with), seeing exactly where we agree, where we disagree and coming out with a broader knowledge of klal Yisraels (kosher obviously) hashkofos (even if I may not hold of some for myself which is fine. There were 12 shvatim, all equally valid)This seems incongruous with the statement
the-world-is-in-a-state-of-geula-and-dont-misunderstand-us
Where you seem to be forcing your views on the site
The Rav Abarbanel says that Moshiach stands for מנחם, שלה, ינון, חנינה stated in the gemora perek cheleck.
CS: “Rso it seems you are forgetting what the whole problem with demand was and that’s why you’re showing every source to be anything other than the word demand…
…
So please list whatever source you have that states why its not a good thing to demand or request strongly for moshiach that isn’t addressed by the context / sources brought.”You are deliberately evading the issue. Did you or did you not address the following post to me: “Regarding demanding / using strong language with Hashem:
1) lama nigara 2) ad mosai in tehillim and kinos 3) kol ma sheomer lecha habaal habayis asei chutz mitzei 4) davening for others vs oneself – Moshe micheini na, Rochel Imeinu – is Your Mercy less than mine? 5) chofetz chaim (you found)”So I showed you clearly how the first four ARE NOT DEMANDS. True or not? Now you say I’m not addressing why demanding is wrong. True. I ADDRESSED WHAT YOU ASKED ME TO ADDRESS!
Let’s say I address why demanding is wrong. You will probably then ask me why I didn’t address something else.
Do me (and I believe Neville and others) one BIG favor. Answer the following question: Did I successfully prove that the first four of your sources are not demands and CANNOT be translated as demands?
If you refuse to answer that you prove what others have said about you: that you don’t care about anything other than pushing the Lubvich line. Fine with me, but don’t try to obfuscate.
Now I’m waiting for an answer…
And in reply to your incessant claim that I can’t argue with your rebbe’s interpretation because he is a tzaddik and had ruach hakodesh: Years ago I used to believe that, at least to some extent, but I now longer do. And the only reason I no longer believe it is because of my myriad interactions with lubavicher chassidim on all levels of the lubavich spectrum, from gezha (I’ll let others explain that) to baalabatim, from mashpi’im to chabad house owners, from learners to bums. The sources they have cited, the arguments they have made, the proofs that they have brought, and their belief that achdus means that everyone has to be like Lubavich has shown me that the fault comes from the top. Your posts have also certainly not added to my appreciation of Lubavich haskafah.
I therefore, in my own (obviously warped) opinion, have as much right to argue with the lubavicher rebbe and to disagree with his piskei-halacha/interpretations/hashkafah as you and anyone else have in doing the same with regards to Rav Shach or anyone else you don’t consider a tzaddik.
And after having touched upon the lubavich view of achdus, I would like to hear your reply to what I wrote above in an earlier post. Why have I been told literally tens of times that I should be learning chassidus chabad, Chitas and Rambam, with none of my reasons for not doing so accepted, yet when I suggest that a lubavicher learn daf yomi the idea is disparaged because “in Lubavich we don’t hold of it”? Yes, I know there are many lubavichers who learn daf yomi, but the limud is considered non-chassidish by the major mashpi’im.
You also haven’t answered why lubavich did not participate in the major Citi Field gathering to warn of the dangers of the internet, and why so so (not a typo) many lubavichers do not “believe” in having a filter on their computers or phones.
Again, I challenge you to answer all my points above DIRECTLY and not to obfuscate and dissemble.
As it is abundantly clear from CS, she, & all the Meshichisten are playing with fire! The whole movement is very similar to X-tian beliefs CH”V.
The sooner mainstream Lubavitch excommunicates these cookheads, the better it will be for them. May they see the truth speedily, before they are swept away with the other false-meshichisty beliefs.Oh, and before anyone forgets to explain what RSo says, Gezhe means the Lubavitchers who come from the family of Lubavitchers going back prior to the last Rebbe. They usually still speak yiddish and their practices tend to be less controversial than those of the new age Lubavitchers. I’m sad you hear you had those same problems with them, RSo.
“I actually appreciated the chofetz chaim referenced.”
If that’s what it looks like when you appreciate something, then I don’t want to know what it looks like when you don’t.
“What you won’t find any lubavitcher who frequents this forum… trying to convince any non lubavitcher to accept the Rebbe as moshiach.”
We saw exactly that. The thread containing it was linked earlier on this page.
“every (ok most) lubavitchers actually shy away from the topic and aren’t so conformable with it altogether.”
Yes, thank you, that’s exactly my point. You’re purposely avoiding the topic. If you were totally comfortable with it, you would be doing more than just subtle winking.
As has already been pointed out, the headline “don’t misunderstand us” is not indicative of a person wanting to hear and appreciate other shittas. It indicates that you want to convince us that we’re abjectly wrong for questioning Chabad’s approach to geula (which is synonymous with meshichism).
“The World Is In A State Of Geulah…” Halevay we should be at the end of Galus (Rabbi Yoseif Winebergs words in ’83 or ’84). I know what I learned in my Yeshiva years (Matersdorf, Beis Shraga) and later from life experience. I have learned from the greatest and the best.
We have always known that our Redeemer will NOT be revealed, then hidden. THAT is a X-ian idea. To quote the late Sen Al D’Amato when he heard this Lubavich doctorine that the Jewish Messiah will die and be resurrected, he said: “When the Jews told us that the Savior will not die and be resurrected, we accepted it. Now, that they say the same thing, I think we have been had!” VD”L
Oy l’oso busha! Oy l’oso chlima!! Ess iz a himmelgeshray!“After he showed him what a beinoni”
Sly answer to pull on a naive fellow but no cigar
it means that he is less than virtually every & any born to a Rebbe’s familyAnd as been reiterated here That is rather mild compared to some other things that have been said overtly or subtly
To parrot it is time,
If that’s a beinoni, I guess we’re all reshaim according to the Baal hatanya and really the only tzaddikim are ?
CS: “Rso your post deserves a longer response which I will post iyh at my first opportunity”
Thanks, and I look forward to it. But how about a very short post admitting that the first four examples you brought have nothing to do with demanding?
Please please please. Prove to us that you are capable of admitting that you made a mistake.
Neville: “Gezhe means the Lubavitchers who come from the family of Lubavitchers going back prior to the last Rebbe. They usually still speak yiddish and their practices tend to be less controversial than those of the new age Lubavitchers.”
From what I understand it means more than just prior to the last rebbe. It goes back generations, often to the Baal Hatanya. And I also haven’t seen that their practices are less controversial than the others’. I think you will find that gezha look down with disdain on others as newcomers, while the others look down with disdain on gezha as Russian peasants. (I’m inclined to agree with both sides 🙂 )
“I’m sad you hear you had those same problems with them, RSo.”
No need to be sad. They annoy but I enjoy the interaction. Just as CS’s posts are enjoyable although annoying due to their fallacy.
CS: “There is a general lack of the kind of leadership and tzaddikim of yore- even during the Rebbe’s days there was a lack of tzaddikim with no yetzer hara.”
Absolute garbage and apikorsus. I am mocheh in the strongest terms.
Typical Lubavicher unwarranted chauvinism. Even in his lifetime there were many tzaddikim who were greater than him, and now there are too.
I can’t believe CS said something so revealing and stupid!
I’d like to clarify one thing.
As I have written, I do not believe in lubavich hashkafos, nor in their rebbe. However, I DO believe in much of the good work they do, such as providing services to tourists virtually worldwide.
I have availed myself of their services in five continents, and in nearly all cases they seem generally interested to help. This is a zchus that their rebbe has, and no one can take it away from them.
But when they start spreading their propaganda and show their attitude that they are at the apex of the Jewish world, it really upsets and concerns me.
Stick to helping Yidden and rack up millions of zchusim that way. Leave your weird hashkafos alone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.