- This topic has 2,052 replies, 68 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
RSo
“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.”
Where did she say that? Did the mods remove it? That would be hook-line-sinker we win/Chabad showed its true, ugly colors/we can finally stop talking about it. I would understand mods removing a comment from a Lubavitcher slandering all the tzaddikim of the last generation as they so often do, but it’s important for people to see with their own eyes that we aren’t just making all of this up.
But neville, again you are conflating anything to do with moshiach and Geula to buy synonymous with who moshiach is.
When a Lubavitcher says בקרוב בימינו ״ממש״ what does ממש refer to?
Coffee: Just to clarify, you are joking, right?
If the only thing Chabad did differently was use the word “demand” instead of “request,” I don’t think there would be that much of a deal. There’s clearly more to the issue than word-choice.
Neville,
I’m copying a pasting CS’s comment to you and replying to it
I want to know the answer from CS
Neviile: “Where did she say that?”
She definitely wrote it because I just copied and pasted. And I wasn’t even the only one who was mocheh. The mods must have removed it. Pity, because as you say, it shows their true colors.
I don’t think it was removed. It would say edit if it had been edited out.
“I see they cannot be addressed openly, respectfully and honestly on this forum, which I am fine with.”
Just to specify, that’s because you’re the one refusing to be open and honest, not us. We’ve been 100% transparent.It’s the mods’ choice whether or not they want to clarify, but I would wager that the reason they didn’t let that thread through is because of the duplication rule. You’ve started several threads now with different names that are all “Chabad Explained,” where you say all of the same things over and over and never answer anyone’s questions.
That fact that drives you bonkers to no end is that we actually DO understand Chabad quite well. It is you who wish we didn’t. If one productive thing could come out of all of this, it would be you telling other Lubavitchers “be careful what you say. The rest of the frum world is not as clueless about us as we thought.”
CS I have to admit that you are starting to make me angry!
Here is what you wrote in your first post on renewing this thread on November 1 (page 3 – cut and paste):
“regarding demanding from Hashem, I brought proof from the positive response to the demand of lama nigara.
Some have responded its not a demand.
So to respond to that, yes it is. I mean just translate it.”I replied the same day (page 3):
“CS since when is Lama Nigara a demand or even a request? It is a question, insinuating a request but only [the word “only” was an obvious typo and should have read “not”] a demand.”I have since shown that not only is it not a demand but it wasn’t even addressed to Hashem. And now we get this from CS:
“RSo: In short, I wrote demand/ strong request, because, as I recall, you had a problem with any kind of strong language. You chose to emphasize demand over request. To me it is a matter of semantics. But i would need to look up the start of your question which is somewhere on page three, to be able to properly post your original problem, and thus show these sources adress that. No time though right now”1. You wrote demand.
2. You did not write at that time “strong request” or any similar expression.
3. I chose to reply to what you wrote, not to what you changed it to at a later date after I had replied.
4. It’s only semantics if the two mean the same thing. You wrote “demand” I said it wasn’t a demand. That’s not semantics. Look it up.
5. My “original problem” as you so nicely put it is that you got it wrong and you won’t admit it.Which leads nicely to the following post of yours:
“With regards to showing I can be wrong, I have np with that if I believe that to be the case.”As with much of what’s wrong in Lubavich, האמת נעדרת.
Is there someway of conducting a poll to see who is on whom’s side. I’m not talking about voting whether CS is write or wrong; I mean a vote to see whether I am totally stupid and just do not understand CS’s replies to my rebuttals, or whether I am not that stupid and CS is indeed not answering them.
Before anyone attacks me, yes, it should be “right” not “write”. My apologies.
I was wrong. (Gee, CS, that wasn’t painful at all!)
“From the euphoria of expecting the Geula at any moment, Chabad was greeted with gimmel Tammuz. It seems in general there is a lack of the kind of Torah leadership that existed all the years, although we have Rabbanim today, its not the same…”
It was page one of this thread. The post was numbered 1547553 (I don’t know if that helps locate it at all). I missed it when she originally posted it because those posts were so long nobody could actually read every sentence. OK, I think we have what we need here, guys. We could get a 15 page essay worth of quotes from CS confirming everything we’ve been saying about Chabad from this thread alone, so I think I’m done here. I have wasted way too much time on this thread already. Oh, and RSo, I don’t think any kind of poll is necessary. You can clearly see how we’ve all weighed in on this.
Neville the quote I gave is from page 1 post #1549269. I don’t know why I found that one all of a sudden.
I would say you owe Neville an apology. He has done nothing to indicate he is having a good time, waiting to pounce or anything else. He has defended you from people who were ranting and he has refrained from calling out anything that wasn’t VERY clearly backed up by your own words. You say you won’t address his last post, which is just a cut and paste of YOUR own words…is that another way of skirting? What other reason could you possibly have for turning on someone who has been asking you to clarify your own comments? Looking for trouble? Just a rude diversion. Very uncalled for. Very unfair.
“He’s interested in making Chabad look bad…”
no, he was interested in YOU making Chabad NOT look bad. He was trying over and over to get you to straighten out misunderstandings and clearup confusion and you just wouldn’t. He would ask you to clarify and not avoid and you would change the subject. AFTER a lot of that, he became frustrated by the game YOU seemed to be playing and he said we won and should just call it quits. Not as in winning a game, it was ‘win’ as in “I cannot keep asking you over and over to defend your words or come to terms with the damage you are doing to your own movement so I’ll claim victory and call it quits” (correct me Neville if I’m wrong please)
I am very sorry CS, I know you mean well, and I know that this was said to you before in a past thread, but you have done more damage to Chabad thru your posts than good. Your own words, not the feedback or the comments from others.Guys, how are you not bored yet? Do you not see you will not get anywhere with her?
I don’t get it, CS: a)Yes b) No. One word. Nu??
When we talk about being “Mekarev es hageulah”, talking about Moshiach and Geulah takes a distant BACK SEAT to doing mizvos & maasim tovim for the sake of doing “rotzon Hashem”. CASE CLOSED!
The sooner that all you meshichisten realize this, the faster the Geulah will come. Don’t obsess about it, because this is “Dochek es haKetz”.To Rso and NevilleChaimBerlin:
CS supposedly said as following ““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.”
You both jumped to attack, calling it ‘apikursos’ ‘garbage’ ‘slandering tzadikim’ etc etcCongratulations! By doing so you have shown yourself to have never opened up a ספר תניא קדישא even to the first chapter. In fact, it is not even Tanya who is the source that Tzadikim are a real entity – Tanya quotes it from a Gemara! ראה הקב”ה בצדיקים שהם מועטים, עמד ושתלן בכל דור ודור” – יומא לח ב” The Meforshim explain that some generations only have one (!) tzaddik. If every Rosh Yeshiva, Rebbe, and Manhig is a tzaddik, there was definitely no time in the past thousand years that there was a dearth……
So to this claim, and many other claims that are based on simple ignorance I proudly say:
לא עלינו תלונותיכם כי על כ”ק הגה”ק אדמו”ר בעל התניא והשו”ע זיע”א!!And now I turn to you with a challenge:
(I know this will lead to more Chabad-bashing but I cant resist)
The בעל שם טוב הקדוש was told by משיח while he was in היכל המשיח – in the heavenly realms, that משיח will come כשיפוצו מעיינותיך חוצה. These are the words of the Besht himself, in a letter to his brother in law.Let us put aside our difference for a moment; go to your nearest בית מדרש, take out a קדושת לוי or a נועם אלימלך, a שפת אמת or a לקוטי מוהרן and learn a little פנימיות התורה. We all agree that Yidden have suffered enough in golus. Let us do something that the Besht told us will hasten our redemption בב”א
I was basing what i said off the posts of several posters who said exactly that. And from reading Nevilles posts.
Syag: “I am very sorry CS, I know you mean well, and I know that this was said to you before in a past thread, but you have done more damage to Chabad thru your posts than good. Your own words, not the feedback or the comments from others.”
Something I have indicated in the past, but said here so well!
I’m not going to comment on the substance (or perhaps more aptly, the lack thereof) being discussed here. I just want to make a point that Sinas Chinom and Pirud HaLevovos is not going to bring Moshiach any closer, regardless if you think that our (Chabad Lubavitch) derech is wrong. You don’t need to fully understand everything we do, and you are most welcome to vehemently disagree – in the appropriate place and time, and in a respectful manner.
You may believe us to be Kofrim, and you are sincerely trying to find a way to be Matzdik our beliefs – know that enough Rabbonim and Poskei HaDor do respect us, and surely if we really were Kofrim would’ve long disassociated themselves from our midst. You can still have questions, but have the humility to recognize that you are just a simple Yid, and rely on the actions of the Gedolei Olam that apparently know a little better. I’m not going to specify people, because that will just further the disagreement, but if you seek, you shall find.
Today is the tenth Yahrtzait of the Kedoshim of Mumbai, may Hashem avenge their blood. Remember and recall how Klal Yisrael truly came together during that tragic and bitter time, without denigrating one another, and slandering others as Kofrim R”L. Go back and look at what the Poskei and Manhigei HaDor said about them, and about Lubavitch in general at that sad time. It shouldn’t have to take an orphaned child crying “Ima! Ima!” to bring us together, but unfortunately, too often it does.
U’mesaymim B’tov.
Ah Gutten Chodesh to all.
CS: “So can you help me understand what exactly is the issue, and where your source for that is, so I can understand how my sources do or do not address it?”
You said we have to demand Mashiach. As far as I understand the Lubavicher rebbe said you have to demand Mashiach. Although I don’t believe in that at all, I didn’t dispute that – at least not since this latest round started on November . But I DID dispute your claim that the sources you quoted (the first of which was lama nigara) were demands and I demonstrated how none of them were. (The only exception being the fifth source, quoted later in the discussion, that the Chofetz Chaim did write that we should demand Mashiach, and I was the one who presented the source!)
Now, I can’t make it any clearer than this (and if you still don’t get it, then you really shouldn’t be posting to a forum which requires a little basic clear-thinking): DO YOU ADMIT THAT THOSE FOUR SOURCES YOU QUOTED ARE NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, DEMANDS? Yes or No, PLEEEEEAAAAAASE!
That’s all that I have been asking for a long long time
kaiserW attacking Neville and me: “You both jumped to attack, calling it ‘apikursos’ ‘garbage’ ‘slandering tzadikim’ etc etc
Congratulations! By doing so you have shown yourself to have never opened up a ספר תניא קדישא even to the first chapter. In fact, it is not even Tanya who is the source that Tzadikim are a real entity – Tanya quotes it from a Gemara!”Are you by any chance an alias of CS, because your reasoning is so similar to hers? Or is it perhaps that that is the way you are taught to learn in lubavich – attack the person who criticizes you without actually paying attention to the words they said.
My labeling what CS wrote as apikorsus had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of tzaddikim. It was because she said that there aren’t any leaders or tzaddikim in the generation of a high caliber.
And by the definition of the Gemara in perek Chelek, that is apikorsus: מאי אהנו לן רבמן. See Rashi there.
The talmidei chachamim and tzaddikim of THIS generation hold up our generation. And in the opinion of the majority of the chareidi world, they are greater than your rebbe was. You can disagree with that last part and not be called an apikorus, but to say that this generation’s Torah leadership is lacking or faulty is apikorsus.
I didn’t read the rest of your post because I don’t like being patronized, especially when you started off with such “smart” and completely incorrect statements. At least you could learn from CS who usually writes respectfully, and certainly tries too. (Who would have thought that I would compliment CS?!)
And by the way, I probably learnt Tanya before you were born. Just guessing, but it’s an educated guess.
To just pop back in (hopefully) one last time:
Yes, Syag is correct. The thread could only conclude in one of the following ways, in my mind: 1) somebody actually changes their mind based on a good argument from the other side 2) Nobody changes their mind, but we at least get answers to our questions (we did not get this by CS’ own admission) 3) One side gets definitive proof that it is impossible to debate because all sources will be disrespected and all questions will be unanswered. What CS is claiming is that I always wanted this thread to end with option 3, which is totally not true as you can tell if you go back to the first page (also, I didn’t start this thread). None of us wanted it to end like that, but it seems like almost everyone but CS agrees that it has.Kaiser: I cannot even begin to fathom how you interpreted our words as a denial of the existence of tzaddikim. I am at a loss for words.
P.S. If anyone is only seeing the last page of this thread and seeing CS accuse me of being the one making it about the Rebbe when it was just about Geula, go back to page one and read what she was saying.
CS: ” I still am looking for your response to the source of what you think is wrong with how we request moshiach abnd Geula”
(I’m getting Repetetive Strain Injury for typing this again and again…) I haven’t (at least for a while) objected to you demanding the geulah. I am objecting to your sources showing Moshe Rabbeinu and others demanding to Geulah.
They are not sources and I have proven it. Is that easy enough to understand? DO YOU AGREE THAT I HAVE SHOWN THAT “LAMA NIGARA” IS NOT A DEMAND, AND THAT NEITHER ARE THE OTHERS THAT YOU CITED?
How about before anything else you answer either just “yes” or “no”, then allow us a few minutes to digest that before you post about other things that have been discussed.
CS: “We in lubavitch have no problem giving other tzaddikim their respect. At Farbrengens, Chabad.org etc we quote stories of the heilike ruzhiner, choze fun lublin, reb zusia etc with the same respect and awe we accord our Rebbes.”
You just alluded to something that has been pointed out many times over the years. Lubavich accords respect Rebbes of earlier generation who have not been alive for many decades. Not Rebbes who were niftar relatively recently v’ein tzarich lomar live Rebbes. The most recent Rebbe you mentioned above was niftar in 5575 – over 200 years ago!
Other chassidic groups mention and admire even live Rebbes with admiration and yir’as hakavod. Not Lubavich. I’m expecting you to argue (before you do, please respond to my post about your lack of admission to Lama Nigara etc.) but it’s the way of Lubavich and all non-Lubavichers know it.
“And if we have evidence that our Rebbe is a tzadik of Tanya”
Evidence?! First, I was taught that we chassidim had emunas chachamim. Second, you have no evidence, just stories that you each spread about him. Third, sorry, but I DO NOT believe that he was a tzaddik. Many, many zchusim, yes, but not a tzaddik. Look at the fights he had with Satmar, Rav Shach and anyone who didn’t believe in Lubavich. Look- at his self-interest in promoting himself as the Nasi of the dor (something, which I’ve mentioned in another thread, has no meaning nowadays except in Lubavich, as the concept does not exist) and the probable Mashiach.
He messed you up with these concepts and all of Klal Yisrael is suffering from it. It also delays Mashiach!
Correction to what I wrote earlier. The Rizhiner Rebbe was niftas in 5611, which is 36 years after the Chozeh of Lublin. So it is a mere 168 years since the most recent of the list quoted by CS was niftar.
My apologies. Chabad chassidim will indeed praise other Rebbes even if they have passed away less than two hundred years ago.
Addendum: when I told a friend what I wrote about Lubavich only “holding of” Rebbes who are long gone, my friend corrected me. He pointed out that there are two other categories of rebbes of whom they hold:
1. Rebbes who have no continuing lineage, e.g. the Rivnitzer Rebbe zt”l. No reason not to hold of them if they can’t offer an opinion about lubavich.
2. Rebbes who have a beis midrash with no chassidim, who rely on wealthy Lubavich donors for their upkeep. They will automatically approve of anything lubavich says.“You may believe us to be Kofrim, and you are sincerely trying to find a way to be Matzdik our beliefs ”
wow, a level of understanding that it isn’t sinas chinam!“without denigrating one another, and slandering others as Kofrim R”L.”
oh, I guess not…Re: Tanya
The Tanya’s conception of tzaddik, benoni, rasha was a radical departure (unless someone can find a source) from all Jewish hashkafa prior.
Classical Judaism believes that a person can rise above their yetzer hara (cf Mesillas Yesharim) or the contrary,(cf Rashi “Vayechezek Lev Paroah”) but no one is born this way
Arguably, much of it was diametrically opposed. (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva, chapter 5)
It was a radical rupture even for Baal Shem Tov’s pious meritocratic “band of brothers”.It lay the groundwork for the development for the chassidish caste dynasties. One may even venture to say that it pulled out the “raison d’etre” of the chassidish revolution from underneath it.
The noted Chabad mechaber R’ Yitzchok Rothport recalled interestingly that during his short sojourn in Lakewood in the ‘50s, he was invited to hear a shiur/shmuess tearing apart the Tanya’s class conception.The one I said was a demand was Lama nigara. It is a demand to have the right to bring the korban pesach. Again, Lama nigara doesn’t mean, ” Is it possible for us to bring the korban too somehow?” It means, “Why should we miss out?!” Which is a demand for the opportunity to bring the korban Pesach.
I think I finally understand what CS is talking about (even though I wouldn’t call it a demand) I wouldn’t call it a request either
I would call it a טענה which is a claim but I see where you’re coming from
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.