- This topic has 208 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Avira,
“So what the Lubavitcher rebbe said did not address teaching the women the beauty of jewish femininity; the akeres habayis, the stronghold of emunah, the calm nurturing mother, the builder of klal yisroel, the daughter of Hashem – those are things beis yaakov teaches to inspire Jewish girls. And they don’t feel any less valuable because of it. Why couldn’t the Lubavitcher rebbe do the same?”So we are taught all this. But also explaining how true
feminism is Torah, which does appeal to women from all backgrounds. You think a woman wants to wear a talis for the sake of wearing it? No, she just doesn’t want to feel that the men have more of a connection than she does. Seeing Torah which values and celebrates Both genders is eye opening for many.And then the deeper dimension of the increasing importance of the feminine takes it to a different level. Today, Lubavitcher women feel just as much Chassidim of The Rebbe as the men. You could have a couple where the husband isn’t Lubavitch and the wife is. I’ve heard a few times that young women from other Chassidic groups became Lubavitch precisely because of this- they’re not just the wife of a chossid or a daughter of a chossid who assists her husband etc with his avoda by keeping a clean home etc. but she herself is a chossid. One woman described how she walked into 770 to check it out, and was happily surprised to see the girls delving into the sichos, saying Chitas etc. This new emphasis on the women, Nshei Chabad communal events etc, is because of the spiritual era we are entering more and more. In the outside world, the feminism is a actually anti women but the concept is real
Dear Avira,
I don’t know if that would work. You don’t make strong balei teshuvah through hashkafa battles. At most you have weak extremists. (This is specific to those born not frum. I don’t know why, but it is this way.)
I don’t know anything about Feminism. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m just posting about Bais Yaakov educations.
Ze, Chaim Berlin did not live in Berlin, he was born in Volozhin and niftar in Yerushalaim, being a chief Rabbi of _Moscow_ in between, so you should be ok with that!
I see commonality here on several subjects – do we look at a treif object (feminism/socialism/zionism) and see the worst manifestation of it, or do we try to see possible positive elements that might be motivating some of the adherents. This is nothing new – avoda zara started as an attempt to show respect to Hashem’s messengers; some religions started/ or became popular as misguided version of Jewish religion…
I think the hiluk is in timing: when Inquisition was chasing us it was not the time to ponder their Jewish roots; when commies were sending Yidden to gulag and closing schools it was not the time to discuss with them the betterment of the world … But, as I understand Lubavicher Rebbe quoted here, one can look at person’s motivations and try to find and strengthen the right things. As one (non-L, yeshivish) Rav told me, he was sometimes asked by non-religious people whether he is a “Zionist”. He did not want to sully the good part of it, so he responds: yes, as in “hamehazir shhinaso l’tzion”.
Asking for higher quality of baalei teshuva rather than quantity is not an answer when he have huge swaths of Yidden literally disappearing. If you think you can do better quality, go do it, rather than criticize other efforts.
neville – why would you give yourself this name – a horrible name of our past???
The question (not mine) was not what your name mean, but why did you choose it! Do we have something to learn from appeasement if we infuse some yeshiva enthusiasm in it?!
Earliest Chaim Berlin was named so in 1914 when Mr. Cham Berlain was already an adult, so he did not attend the yeshiva. So, most likely Mr. Cham Berlain was named after the _original_ r Chaim Berlin, son of Volozhin RY. This is also cler from the fact that Cham Berlain was a Mayor (Meir) of Birmingham, while Chaim’s brother was named Meir and also partioned his name from BerLin to Bar Ilan.
I’m kind is surprised why no one asked why/ what it means that geula will be a feminine era whereas golus was masculine… that would have been an interesting discussion. But never mind. Go on and discuss Zionism or whatever else…
CS, i can speak for myself in why i didn’t pursue a conversation about the Lubavitcher rebbes statements. I do not know kabala and i cannot learn about it on an anonymous Internet forum. When someone talks about sources in nigleh, i can always look it up and learn it myself .
I do have a background in learning chasidishe seforim, but i don’t delve into things that i don’t readily understand which are kabala oriented. My rebbeim taught me some concepts; sefiris, klipos, tzintzumim, fallen middos, and others. But it’s from people who i know and trust.
I do not follow the Lubavitcher rebbe and I’m not interested in his personal torah ideas. I do not accept him as a valid source of information, and this is the most common opinion in the Yeshiva world.
It’s important to realize that not everyone is interested in what the Lubavitcher rebbe had to say. Chabad is very, very interested, hanging on his every word. Other chasidim are curious and/or interested, except satmar and a few others. But litvishe, while we’re fine with other chasidishe seforim(most today aren’t misnagdim) the Lubavitcher rebbe had serious issues, and our gedolim told us to distance ourselves… But we didn’t really need to distance ourselves, because chabad made themselves a completely separate part of klal yisroel, except on occasions when they attempt to spread their rebbes influence, then suddenly it’s all about “achdus”
Avira, if you are interested in the topic, you can Google the two pesukim I originally listed (aishes chayil ateres baala and nekeiva tisovev gever), and Google Chassidus, and you can look up the original sources on Hebrew books. This isn’t The Rebbes original idea, so you can find previous Rebbeim etc explaining the topic. Why I personally am fascinated with Chassidus, is because it takes lofty obscure Kabbalistic concepts and makes it very relevant by using mashalim from our own life experience, as the posuk says “מבשרי אחזה אלוק”. But BH there’s such a wide sea of Torah learning, and as long as you hook onto something within that sea to inspire you and engrave Torah into you until it’s inseparable from every part of your life, along with special mentors etc., that’s great.
“And don’t say the land wasn’t conquered. Denying the Israeli War for Independence is crazier than denying the moon landing.”
The 1948 war was primarily a defensive war for the Israelis.
Aveirah, you and I are again having one of those rare occasions where we agree on something – I agree with most of your views on Chabad.
A little while back, I was out of town caring for a sick relative. There was a Chabad family staying in the same place I was (a bikur cholim house), and one Shabbos, the guy decided to try and convert me to Lubavitch. So he began (without my asking him at all), to tell me some of the beliefs of Lubavitch. I interrupted him, and told him, “Look, I’m not interested in becoming a chabadnik. If you want to have a discussion, that’s fine, but then you’ll have to allow me to respond to your views, and tell you the issues I have with them, along with my other issues with Chabad. If you or I feel like we’re uncomfortable with the conversation, we can stop.”
He agreed to this, and then continued telling me his beliefs. I had numerous questions, and told him the halachic issues with his beliefs. (My favorite was when he told me that zman Krias Shema is not really a halacha, it’s a nice thing to do.) Within a few minutes of my starting to tell him my issues, he told me he was uncomfortable and wanted to stop the conversation.
Many Chabadniks limit themselves to learning the Rebbe’s teachings, to the exclusion of everything else. They’ll learn the sichos, read the letters, etc. Ask them to open a Gemara, and they have no idea how to learn it. They’ll only be able to quote the things the Rebbe said about it.
The wife of the guy I mentioned earlier once told me how the Rebbe was “clearly the undisputed leader of his generation!” I replied that R’ Shach zt”l clearly disputed it, as did many others. Just because his own followers viewed him as being the greatest in his generation doesn’t make it true.Neville, there are a few answers to your question.
First, as Marxist noted, the War of Independence was a defensive one. Israel was granted legitimacy by the UN, and they begged their neighbors for peace. The Arabs did not want to listen.
Even if it would have been an offensive war, it may not have been an issue. The Or Sameach said that after the Balfour Declaration, the Three Oaths were no longer in effect. Other Rabbonim said that after the Holocaust, they were no longer in effect, since the nations had broken their part of it.Why should money from the Zionists be assur when usually issurei hanaah doesn’t transfer to money (with the exception of avodah zara)?
Seems like you answered your own question.
🦆
Also, how does Zionism not violate the core MO halacha of “thou shalt not do anything that bugs the goyim?”
Waiting for an answer
this is a ridiculous take
It is. The other approach, saying the 3 Shavuos for some reason aren’t binding, is the more common answer (which I don’t get either, since it definitely bugs the goyim)
Why should money from the Zionists be assur when usually issurei hanaah doesn’t transfer to money (with the exception of avodah zara)?
The more serious answer is that those who forbade taking money from the government wanted to distance themselves from the Zionists.
It’s hard to argue that they were wrong, as nowadays we see such a large portion of ostensibly Chareidi Yidden who are now quasi Zionists.
Could it be that your seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the Igros Moshe can be explained away by being tech savvy to know how to search for stuff on Hebrewbooks?
Precisely
n0mesorah,
“I don’t know if that would work. You don’t make strong balei teshuvah through hashkafa battles.”
I don’t think AviraDeArah was suggesting to wage a “hashkafa battle” with a potential BT, but rather to explain Jewish values clearly, honestly, and (most important) respectfully. This is not an easy thing to do, but if Jewish values are misrepresented in an attempt to make frumkeit more palatable to someone with a very different values system, they will ultimately feel betrayed.
Neville ChaimBerlin,
“Having a few solid, well-adjusted BT’s is better than having a big Chabad House full of wacky, quasi-frum am haartzim clinging on to unjustifiable shittos without ever being corrected only to have children who never fit into a real frum community.”
From my experience, the BTs who have the most success are the ones who move into established frum communities and are willing to accept that they are not the smartest or most knowledgeable person in the room. Part of the “wackiness” you’re describing is quite simply a lack of experience, and a misunderstanding of what’s important. A Shabbos spent in a frum community with a frum family teaches way more than a book.
Also, Chabad kiruv tries to “ignite the spark” with a focus on performing a mitzvah, and they are very good at this, but someone new to frumkeit needs considerable guidance. They need to be taught the priorities, so they’re not sitting in shul without tzitzis or a tallis while very makpid on wearing a gartel. I also think that the discussions surrounding frum communities and culture should be honest and not sugarcoated. Successful BTs are coming to Judaism because they want to follow Hashem. Not people.
NCB, I shouldn’t have said the word “precisely”, which was imprecise. As I recall, I was generally using the Yad Moshe (then posting hebrewbooks links).
Not sure anyone literally says that medinah money is assur b’hana’ah, it’s just a (pretty understandable) shittah not to take it.
Neville> don’t say the land wasn’t conquered. Denying the Israeli War for Independence is crazier than denying the moon landing.
I don’t think this is clear. Jews came and acquired land, mostly legally. So, this did not violate oaths, I think. Opposition grew over time and got to a point of confrontation that involved nearby countries and was prevented by British Mandate. When mandate was over, confrontation started. Would you say that were Jews accepted dhimmi status in 1948, war would be avoided? Not sure, nearby countries were not that religious to be interested in that. Also, Oaths do not include a need to submit when already in EY, self-defense (including preventive) sounds pretty legit. And net waves of immigration – from post-war Europe, from Arab countries, Russian Jews – all were people escaping or after prosecution, not coming as a wall. The only people coming as a wall are American Jews, maybe.
I was generally using the Yad Moshe (then posting hebrewbooks links).
Also Google. Obviously you can’t trust “Rabbi Google”, but many of the topics discussed on the CR are of aside enough appeal that there are articles elsewhere about them, and some of the better ones have mareh m’komos which you can look up yourself.
“Zetruth, if you’re worried about posting too much here/being kind of addicted, here’s what I did with my original account and what I’ll probably do with this one:
Type some random gibberish down and then copy it. Go to change your password, and paste that random gibberish as your new password. You will no longer know your own password and will be locked out of your account forever.”
I have an easier method: Go to change your password, and type some random gibberish as your new password. You will no longer know your own password and will be locked out of your account forever.
Participant: You need to type your new password twice and they must match.
Neville, yes, the attack was unprovoked. The new Israeli government begged for peace, but the Arabs didn’t care.
The rulers of the area agreed to the land being a Jewish homeland. The Arabs didn’t rule them.DM: “The rulers of the area agreed to the land being a Jewish homeland.”
That is inaccurate. The United Kingdom abstained in the vote in the UN General Assembly in November 1947 for the Partition Plan for Palestine, which included a proposal for the establishment of a Jewish State in a part of the British Mandate territory.
Furthermore, the Israelis took more land than was even offered.
Joseph, Britain’s vote was irrelevant. They weren’t the rulers anymore – they made the decision to turn it over to the UN for the vote.
As for taking more land, that was AFTER the declaration of the state, a part of a defensive battle.The rulers of the area agreed to the land being a Jewish homeland.
The Arabs aren’t considered אומות העולם??
Neville, yes, the attack was unprovoked.
It was provoked by the declaration of Israel’s independence
Also, how does Zionism not violate the core MO halacha of “thou shalt not do anything that bugs the goyim?”
Still waiting for an answer
> What, then, was their reason?
I am pointing out a historical loophole in the Oaths that Yidden exploited (and maybe Hashem provided) – immigration happened under Ottoman Empire and British mandate, in a large part with their agreement. So, at that point, Arab opinions were not relevant – they were subjects. So, after Brits left, Jews and Arabs were left to their devices. At this point, Oaths are not shayach as Jews are already in the land. Would you agree to that? So, whatever wisdom was in the decisions after that, this is not about oaths. Similarly, the next waves were of refugees from Europe/Arab countries/USSR, not political movements to conquer anything (and as there was a state already, oaths may not be relevant to new arrivals anyway).
DY, I know of no such Halacha.
Whether maintaining the status quo in eretz yisroel would be a continuous violation of the oaths is a machlokes between two of my rebbeim; rav belsky told me that the shevuos are a metzius; if we do X, chazal say there will be redifos and yidden will be hunted like animals. Anothet rebbe of mine held that once they’re violated, the act is done, but would apply to, say, new settlements etc..
Either way the state was made b’issur. The flimsy attempts at defending it only show the lengths some go to halachikally justify the actions of people who do noy believe in or practice halacha to begin with. To them it made no difference.
One can look at the state as being a hatzolah of jews, as some choshuve rabbonim did, without buying into the idea that it was done b’heter. But those opinions are not nogaya in our time; the gedolim established the Torah community’s approach to zionism, and those opinions were pushed out of the mesorah. Had those eabbonim lived in our time, it’s very unlikely that they would have looked at the state as they did then; they had just experienced the destruction of European jewry with a new door being opened to them, while the rest of the world wouldn’t take them in. Did those rabbonim know that it was the zionists who stoked the flames of the Holocaust and then held the hands of governments from using the fire extinguisher, and then from even saving the remnants? Probably not.
Avira > Anothet rebbe of mine held that once they’re violated, the act is done,
Ok, great, so your Rebbe (no name for this opinion!?) is looking at the same issue I was thinking about. I was trying to show that there was no violation under Turkish/British government, so it was nolad b’heter. Your rebbe seem to count from 1948, but it was not the time when masses of Yidden entered EY, it was done before. Now, maybe you can address my sevora then.
Neville > From his comment, it sounded like he meant the fact that Jews even lived there (pre-state) made the Oaths not apply and therefore matir’d conquering the land.
Not just some Jews lived there. I think we can’t easily use small old Yishuv as a justification for further expansion, but at some point pre-1948, there were masses of Jews in possession of Tel Aviv and multiple kibutzim without, seemingly, any violation of Oaths. I am not sure whether you disagree with this premise, or you don’t agree with using it as a starting point (Avira’s Tanna Kamma seems to disagree on the first point, but agrees on the second).
Not being boke in this, I googled a little. It seems that Ohr Sameach considered Balfour declaration sufficient for matir nedorim. I wonder whether we have statements on Oaths from other gedolim shortly from pre-state time, without being colored with later history. Any info?
Chofetz Chaim was for political separation from anti-religious Jewish groups in Poland, but I do not see him decreeing against those who went to EY (and he almost went himself, if not his wife’s sickness). Indeed, from his description it seems that anti-religious pressure among Polish Jewry was not different from EY. Seems that some here oppose Zionists more than Bundists or Communists. Not sure, why.
Aveirah, so you completely disregard R’ Meir Simcha’s opinion that the Oaths were no longer binding?
Da – you mean what he reportedly said following the Balfour declaration? No shaychus. The british were the baalebatim at the time, and no longer were so when the shmad-zionisrs made their chilul Hashem state.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.