Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Please see the Rambam Hilchos Malachim. Anything not mentioned by the Rambam is not al pi halacha and will not necessarily happen. The Rambam describes a very natural process of the Messianic redemption. If someone will not accept a Messianic candidate to some extent without him already building the Bais Hamikdosh, or waiting for all manner of miraculous signs (which the Rambam says will not necessarily happen), then Moshiach cannot come according to that person in the way described by the Rambam. Such a worldview is kefira.
My comments have nothing to do with mine or anyone’s beliefs regarding the messianic claims or identities of any individual. I am mere commenting on a heretical comment above.
Rambam writes in Hilchos Melachim
ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דויד הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדויד אביו כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה וילחם מלחמות ה’ הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח
According to the false logic above, no candidate would even get to even Chezkas Moshiach because as soon as he tried to rally support for his cause you would have people saying, “I won’t believe you are Moshiach until AFTER you build the Bais Hamikdash.”
II would hope that l’chol hapachus if one of the Gedolei HaTorah was a Ben David and claimed to be a messianic candidate that someone wouldn’t laugh and be dismissive because if so then they don’t really believe it is possible for Moshiach to come.
And again, I repeat, according to Halacha there is no need for an announcement by Eliyahu HaNavi, Moshiach ben Yosef, no flying eagles or men on donkeys etc etc etc.
“Why would somebody believe the rabbi shneerson is mashiach? You don’t have to believe that.it isn’t complicated .i and certainly won’t believe anyone is mashiach until they fulfill all of requirements listed in the rambam.”
That is quite the Catch 22. So when a Ben David arises to be king and he says to you lets go fight the wars of Hashem and build the Beis Hamikdash you will tell him, “listen buddy, I won’t believe you are Moshiach until after you fulfill all of the requirements,” and therefore there never will be a Moshiach and there never will be a building of the Beis Hamikdash R”L
“brilliantly devious post. One of the main tainos against chabad is the Rebbe’s interesting interpretations of 770 as the bais hamikdash and he said in a sicha that when a rebbe speaks its “shechina medaberes metoch grono”. 5ish assumes he preempted all taanois against the rebbe in this regard with this quote, as the chozeh is accepted by all of klal yisroel.
However, careful readers of my comments will note that I only criticize the chasidim – not the rebbe. And many chasidim take all these quotes to believe that the rebbe is moshiach or even a godlike figure – which they dont believe in regards to the chozeh. And furthermore, nowhere in that quote does it justify omnipotence and omniscience.”
My intention was not to be devious and I was not responding to the comments you mention. I was just posting an interesting source about the maaleh of a Rebbe from a non-Chabad source, since one of the vague taanos people make about Chabad is that we make such a big deal about the Rebbe.
Broadly the inyan of mikdash meat, makom hasharas hashecina b’bais harav, and ispashtusa d’moshe is of course applical to many tzaddikim and many places of Torah study. I don’t dispute that all of those maalos apply to the Chozeh and for his followers that is how things were revealed.
Regarding The Chozeh of Lublin, R’ Uri of Strelisk (aka The Seraph) said, “The city of Lublin is Eretz Yisroel, the chatzer of the beis medrash is Yerushalayim, the beis medrash is Har Habayis, his living quarters are the Ulam, the Azarah, and the Heichal, and the Rebbe’s room is the Kodesh HaKodashim and the Shechina speaks from within his throat.
נפלאות הרבי ע’87 אות ר”ץ
“I assume that the posters were talking about the Yeshiva/Chasidish world. I think in the modern orthodox world a lot of kids “drift” away.”
Even that is them being pushed away. They are presented with a system that is wildly hypocritical, devoid of value, and not all that enthusiastic with Torah and Mitzvos to begin with. Is there any wonder that when they are shown the alternative they jump?
If you want to know about the power of tzadikim, and preferably from sefarim written by “gedolim,” I suggest you learn the Noam Elimelech (R’ Elimelech of Lizhensk) each week in addition to the Zera Kodesh (R’ Naftoli Ropshitzer).
“So I said something like “yes, for you it is clearly the best method.”
You didn’t know what to say so you said apikorsus?
JAY,
Anecdotally, a friend of mine wrote a letter to Harav Hagaon R’ Chaim Kanievsky asking on what basis does he hold that shaving is prohibited, and he wrote back “see such and such place where my father says it is forbidden.”
If you were familiar with the sugya you would not need to ask why those who forbid it forbid it, and if you are not familiar with the sugya then of what use is it to show you sources?
An admission card is issued when all past tuition debts owed are paid. A student will not be admitted to class at the beginning of the year without this card. I imagine the problem is that according to Halacha, you are not allowed to refuse admission to cheder when parents are unable to pay. The community is supposed to force the rich people to pay for the education of the poor people. (Ramah in Choshain Mishpat (163:3)) With the tuition card system, a poor person who may not be obligated to pay according to Halacha, is forced to pay, which is akin to stealing the money from them. I imagine.
There may be different processes but my personal inclination is to learn sugyos aliba d’hilchasa.
I just get confused when anyone pronounces Segol, Cholem, and Tzayray differently. Gotta be makpid on Saygel and Chaylem.
What is Krias Hashatz? Is there something I am missing here?
CTL: Sorry. I meant to write slander which should be clear now from my formatting. I was intending to distinguish between libel and slander in the parentheses but I mistakenly wrote defamation again. I’m aware of the threshold for government and officials and matters of public interest.
“If they take pictures on the public sidewalk, and post them with a critical caption, they are open to a lawsuit for defamation ”
Wrong. Defamation (whether published which is libel, or oral which is defamation) is only a tort when the statements made are not true. There is nothing defamatory about writing “Ploni Almoni attended an antivax event, something I believe to be contemptuous.”
There is nothing illegal about the reporting of facts. That is a constitutionally protected right. A person may face civil liability if they publish libelous claims which are damaging to another but for something to be libelous it must be untrue. Merely publishing the photographs of individuals and reporting that they attended an event is not libelous. As far as your concern about doxxing/cyber-bullying, these are not crimes nor torts in and of themselves. While doxxing is considered poor edicate in instances where there is an expectation of privacy/anonymity, an individual surely cannot expect to attend a public event and expect to remain anonymous.
Terylene > all other materials
I am male.
Syriac is not similar to Aramaic. It is a dialect of Aramaic.
How can anyone write such cynical things???
I try not to stick my nose where it does not belong. Probably the regulars here know I am a Lubavitcher. However, who reads about someone who is the son of a unique Gaon, the descendant of righteous people and gaonim such as HRH”G R’ Elyashiv, The Steipler Gaon, R’ Aryeh Levin, etc. someone who is following in the footsteps of the Chazon Ish, and the thing you look to say is he is a prop? Chalillah v’Chas. Oy Lanu!
This is truly disgusting.
Also, please, remember to stop shaving your beards.
Before anyone gets accusatory, I did not intentionally use different titles to distinguish HaRav HaGaon R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and HaRav HaGaon R’ Elyashiv
“While R’ Chaim may be recognized as the Gadol Hador I am not sure if he has the title of Poseik Hador as R’ Moshe Feinstein was recognized as such or R’ Shlomo Zalman or R’ Eliyashiv.”
Both Rabbi Shlomo Zalman and R’ Eliyashiv also prohibit shaving.
Teaching Torah to Klal Yisroel = Trolling????
“The issue of shavers has always been (the Chofetz Chaim discusses this in his Likutei HALACHOS on Maseches Makos) are these machines acting as scissors or as razors.”
INCORRECT! The Chofetz Chayim writes explicitly in Tiferes Adam, perek alef that even using scissors is forbidden according to halacha because the Jewish people accepted upon themselves not to cut their beards in any way and this kabbala has the strength of a halachic prohibition.
As far as HaRav Chaim Kanievsky SHLITA”s opinions on shaving, here are exceprts of his:
The Gemora (Shabbos 152a) states: “Hadras Ponim — the splendor of the countenance — means a beard.” [With this our Sages ridiculed the Sadducee whose beard could not grow, saying to him “Blessed is the Omnipresent who has prevented you from having this [a beard]” (refer to the Gemora)]. Throughout our history, it has been a disgrace for anyone not to have a beard. It is only in recent generations that some have started to treat this irreverently, having learned this from the non-Jews.
Targum Yonoson states that one who does this transgresses the prohibition of “A man shall not wear
woman’s dress,” which means even if he cuts his beard using scissors. Sefer Hachinuch states the same,
adding that one transgresses also the prohibition of “You shall not follow their [non-Jewish] rules.” This is
quoted by the Chofetz Chayim in his Sefer Hamitzvos Hakotzer (Prohibitions 177).Our teacher the Chazon Ish was highly displeased with this practice. His displeasure was not only with
the shaving machines used today, about which the Chofetz Chayim has already written — in Likkutei
Halochos, Makkos 21b, in Ein Mishpot 7 — that one transgresses the prohibition of “They shall not shave
the corner of their beard.” The Chazon Ish was very strict about shaving machines of all kinds, and did not
permit selling one even to a Jew who shaves with a razor in order to save him from the prohibition of using a razor, but instructed [the inquirer] to sell it to a non-Jew.My father and teacher [Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky, the Steipler Gaon], of blessed memory, was also
very strict about this, saying it is very likely that [a shaving machine] is considered literally a razor, so that
one transgresses five prohibitions for using it.Our teacher, the Gaon Rabbi Elozor Menachem M. Shach, writes the same: “Regarding shaving the beard with an electric shaver, refer to Likkutei Halochos on tractate Makkos by the Chofetz Chayim, p.14b in Ein Mishpot there, where he writes that it is forbidden and that one should not be lenient in this. It is also known that the Chazon Ish, of blessed memory, prohibited using any such machine.” [In addition, the Chazon Ish] was highly displeased even with those who shave using a depilatory cream — called in Hebrew “sam” [chemical].
The Chofetz Chayim wrote an entire work on this subject called Tiferes Odom, where he writes: “It is proper to take care not to cut the beard even with scissors, for the Kabbalists write that thereby one uproots the channels of [the flow of] Kedusha from Above. Our fathers and ancestors in our land were accustomed to observing this strictly. Especially today when many of the lawless elements of our nation have the practice of shaving with a razor, it is a great Mitzva for the whole Jewish people to reinforce this observance and not to trim the beard even with scissors, thereby showing everyone that the commandments the Torah has given us to distinguish the Jewish man [from the non-Jew] are precious to us and that we are not ashamed of them, G-d forbid.”
In Kovetz Igros (volume I, #197) of our teacher, the Chazon Ish, he writes about the “sam” [depilatory cream]: “If it is not a “sam hamovess” [poison], it is not a “sam hachayim” [lifegiving potion] either, and I find this matter very painful, for it is against the [Jewish] quality of modesty and is not the Jewish style of dress but [Jews] have learned it from the nonJews during their exile, thereby negating Kedusha.” In another letter (#198) he writes: “I have never accepted the behavior of those who remove their beards [with scissors] similar to [the effect of] a razor [close cutting], for I am accustomed to this being prohibited since the previous generations, and [the prohibition] was very severe — like walking in the street with one’s head uncovered — and was considered like changing one’s clothing from the Jewish style of dress. Although this sickness has spread even among Torah scholars, may they be well, the issue has not changed as a result of this, and therefore my soul burns with rage because of this practice.”
He [the Chazon Ish] once said that when someone who removes his beard..comes in to see him, he feels so sick that he almost vomits..
May Hashem Yisborach give us the privilege of observing the Jewish appearance according to the Torah’s requirements.
Joseph, have you never had a beard nor seen someone with a beard? The beard is on the cheeks as well. My peyos are not terribly long but if I take them down they will fall over the upper area of my beard.
The world is controlled by Hashem’s Divine Providence. Nothing bad comes from the aibishter. None of the characters in the song are wrong, and the only one who is a Baal Bechira, the shochet, is not wrong for shechting cattle which is a mitzvah. I don’t understand your question at all.
Avi K,
It is not true that the tune for Maoz Tzur is taken from church music. Both Maoz Tzur, and a Lutheran choral are both based on an earlier german folk song. In fact, its use for Maoz Tzur was already popular almost a hundred years before Luther.
“Why would the OP assume that non-Lubavitchers have any favourite Chabad nigun?!”
Whether they know it or not, there are Chabad niggunim which have been accepted and spread throughout the entire Jewish world. If someone knows only one of them, it would by default be their most favorite.
Milhouse, I assumed it could not refer to the Sefer HaAruch because it was written hundreds of years before potatoes were brought to Europe. So, I assumed somehow it came up in the Aruch MeShach. Anyways I was not commenting on the validity of holding of any psak, I was just bringing up that some have such a custom.
The sefer Nezer Hakodesh, a compendium of minhagei Melitz, Ropshitz, and other related chasidic groups, brings that Reb Naftali Tzvi of Ropshitz held that potatoes are shehakol. It further mentions that the Yismach Moshe originally made Hoadama until he heard that The Ropshitzer made shehakol. He subsequently looked in the Aruch (I assume it means HaAruch M’Shach) and saw that he says potatoes and mushrooms are shehakol. There are various other sources quoted in the footnotes and I do not remember them all but if you search “the potato in halacha” there is an article from the Kof-K which notes the opinion that potatoes are shehakol because they grow from the air and not from the ground, and it cites Lekutei Maharich page 127 (old), Divrei Yatziv O.C. 1:82, Shulchan Hatohar 204:3, Zer Zahav 2,
Pnei Ha’shulchan page 367, Shraga Hameir 4:11:3, 6:119, Mekor Ha’beracha page 69:52Agav, there are those who are choshed that a potatoe is not hoadama and therefore are careful not to use potato.
“The idea of bochrim shaving is not new. Look at pictures of the yeshivos before the war. Bochrim in the Lita and many in Poland did not have beards or long peiyos.”
When they started shaving before the war, however, it was new and it was due to the influence of the haskala and the other winds of modernity. Just because something happened “before the war” in Europe does not make it a time honored Torah true tradition. R”L a lot of the Jewish world was frei then too.
“It was much easier to trim if anything.”
Yet the Chofetz Chaim writes explicitly in Tiferes Adam that the custom is not to allow any type of utensil to cut to shorten the beard and that since that was the accepted minhag yisroel it has the force of a prohibition.
The Shalishudis thing is such a moot argument. I eat probably 4 seudos every Shabbos.
1 by night, one before shachris, one after shachris in shul, and one at home.“why do chasidim dress in the same clothes as 19th century Russian nobles”
They don’t. Where did you get such an idea? In fact, the “levush” was so distinctly Jewish it was banned in the Russian Empire in an effort to modernize and assimilate Jews. That is why Litvish and Lubavitch where western style clothes because of the gezeiros forbiddin the Jewish levush. Before those gezeiros basically all European Jews more or less wore what you are calling the way “chasidim dress.”
The question about “what about chanukah lights or fake menorahs or lights in Israel used for succos” seems to be a very silly one. The problem with Krathsmach lights is that they are hung up in honor of Kratsmach. There is no issur of using decorative lighting for permissible or mitzvah purposes.
According to Kav HaYashar anything associated with an aveira or issur should not be stared at and causes a negative effect. Therefore one should not gaze at a non-kosher animal etc. The question is if hanging the lights is a part of the religious celebration. If that is the case I imagine they have impurity to them and it would be best not to stare at them. If one happens to see them then according to Kav HaYashar it is possible to reverse the effect by concentrating on the fact that it is a mitzvah not to transgress the aveira. I.E. one can think to himself Hashem has commanded me not hang up Kratsmach lights and then he is visually experiencing a mitzvah instead of an aveira. See Kav HaYashar Perek Beis
דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, אָמַר בִּתְהִלִּים (קיט, לז): “הַעֲבֵר עֵינַי מֵרְאוֹת שָׁוְא, בִּדְרָכֶיךָ חַיֵּנִי”. צָרִיךְ אָדָם לָדַעַת, כִּי הַרְבֵּה דְּבָרִים הֵם תְּלוּיִין בִּרְאִיּוֹת עֵינָיו שֶׁל הָאָדָם. עַל כֵּן נִרְאֶה לִי, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר תֵּכֶף בְּקוּמוֹ מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, אִם מִסְתַּכֵּל בִּרְאִיָּה אֶל הַבָּתִּים, יְכַוֵּן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נָתַן מִצְוַת מְזוּזָה בְּפֶתַח הַבַּיִת, מִצְוַת מַעֲקֶה לְגַג הַבַּיִת, כְּדִכְתִיב (דְּבָרִים כב, ח): “וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲקֶה לְגַגֶּךָ”. וְאִם יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ וּפָגַע בִּבְהֵמוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת הָרְאוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן, יַחֲשֹׁב בְּדַעְתּוֹ, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא צִוָּה לָנוּ לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹת. וְאִם פָּגַע בִּבְהֵמוֹת וּבְחַיּוֹת טְמֵאוֹת, יַחֲשֹׁב בְּדַעְתּוֹ אִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָן. וְכֵן אִם פָּגַע אֶחָד מֵאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, יַחֲשֹׁב בְּדַעְתּוֹ אִסּוּר חַתְנוּת. וְכָל אִישׁ וָאִישׁ, כָּל אֶחָד, צָרִיךְ לַחֲשֹׁב לְפִי יְדִיעָתוֹ וּלְפִי לִמּוּדוֹ. וְהוּא עִנְיָן גָּדוֹל מְאֹד, שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיס הָעֵינַיִם בִּקְדֻשָּׁה בִּגְוָנִין דְּעֵינָיו.
וְזֶה לְעֻמַּת זֶה. כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּדִבְרֵי קְדֻשָּׁה, הוּא עוֹשֶׂה מַלְבּוּשׁ לִרְאִיּוֹת עֵינָיו בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, כֵּן, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, הוּא לְהֵפֶךְ — כֵּיוָן שֶׁהָאָדָם מַמְצִיא לִרְאוֹת בַּדְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים וּבְנָשִׁים זָרִים, אָז מַכְנִיס אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְטֻמְאָה גְּדוֹלָה. וּרְאָיָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהָרְאִיָּה הוּא פּוֹגֵם וּמַפְגִּים, מֵעוֹף אֶחָד הַנִּקְרָא “בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה”, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי שֶׁהַבֵּיצִים מֻנָּחִים לְפָנֶיהָ וְהִיא מִסְתַּכֶּלֶת בָּהֶן, בִּרְאִיָּתָהּ — מְנַקֶּבֶת הַבֵּיצָה, וְיוֹצֵא מִכָּל בֵּיצָה אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד. וְעוֹד אוֹכִיחַ לְקַמָּן בַּפְּרָקִים חִדּוּשִׁים מִזֶּה.
I know the following is going to sound very alien but I could never get into the applesauce thing and I dislike sour cream in general. I eat latkes with ketchup, mayonaise, hot sauce, or BBQ sauce.
I just want to point out that one thing that has been proven in this and other threads is that Neville believes any criticism, discussion of, or commentary about Jews and Jewish Theology to be HATEFUL if it all contradicts his/her ideology and worldview. I suppose that is ironic because by his/her own measure, all of his/her comments should then be deemed HATEFUL. Get off your high horse. We can talk about things and disagree with one another without being hateful, and without feeling the need to accuse everyone who disagrees with us as hateful. This is the classic shoe on the other foot where non-chassidim accuse chassidim of being elitist/exclusive/hateful because they teach Jews to follow chassidic ideology, while looking past the fact that when they teach Torah and teach people Judaism they teach it according to their own understanding. What a sham of a conversation this is.
“hey hold of chassidishe hanhogos etc but don’t have a unique shitta of step by step Avodas Hashem like the Tanya for example.” Why is that a reason why the term ChaGaS is applicable. Also, it isn’t even necessarily true. There are plenty of sefarim of practical advice in Avodas Hashem. Why should the fact that perhaps they are not arranged in the same fashion be a reason why the Alter Rebbe’s shita is ChaBaD and the shita of others is ChaGaS?
Why do you all constantly feed trolls and think that people saying crazy things for the purposes of riling others up are suddenly going to write sources and have a nice conversation? Its mamesh not normal.
If you would explain to me what you think about what I said was derogatory I would be appreciative in that perhaps it would help me communicate in a way which others do not find offensive, however I can assure you that when I wrote what I wrote I did not mean to communicate anything negative or derogatory. Perhaps something has been lost in translation as they say.
The first quote is a statement of facts. There are Chassidim who choose to be insular and not to discuss Chassidus in public. This is a historical truth.
That there are Chassidim who do not study Toras Hachassidus, especially not early works is also a statement of truth. I am not passing judgement I am just pointing out that it exists.
The second quoted comment is also a fact. There is such a thing as cultural Hasidism which is an offshoot of popular Hasidism where Chassidus is understood to be the unwavering cleaving to custom and community. If you thought I was being judgemental when I said, “it isn’t my fault that…” what I meant to communicate was that Neville is confused about the ideology promulgated in early Toras HaChassidus because he does not see that ideology practiced by groups of people who use the title of Chassidim. I.E. there are different groups using the title Chassidus even though they have different ideologies. The fact that for example Satmar says X, Chabad says Y, and Stolin says Z is incidental, anecdotal, and irrelevant to my claim about early Chassidic ideology.
My third quoted statement is also plainly a statement of fact. Anyone who has studied Chassidic texts, culture, and history knows the differences between Chabad shita, Shita of the Noam Elimelech and his students, shita of Stolin and its offshoots, etc. etc. There were talmidim of the maggid who opposed the Admor Hazaken because he propogated the idea that every person has to study pnimiyus hatorah in depth in order to truly love and be in awe of Hashem. Many of them held it was sufficient for Tzadikim and talmidei chochomim to study pnimiyus hatorah and for the hamon am to be inspired by the tzadikim and for their primary divine service to be emotional prayer and simple faith.
Again, if you feel something I said above came across as derogatory I stress that that was not my intention.
be·rate
/bəˈrāt/Submit
verb
scold or criticize (someone) angrily.I am not berating anyone. I am describing potential reasons why some modern chassidim may not be aware of ideologies which are taught in early Sifrei Chassidus. I do not hate anyone, and I am not expressing hate. I am not even discussing the merits of any differening viewpoints. However, if I was expressing an opinion about those viewpoints that would still not be Sina, much less Sinas Chinam. It is not sinas chinam to disagree with you or any person.
As far as describing my claims as propaganda is concerned:
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/Submit
noun
1.
DEROGATORY
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.I claimed that ideas which you think are unique to Lubavitch are fundamental beliefs of Chassidus as evidenced by the content of early Chassidic Texts, and I provided the Noam Elimelech as a reference. None of that is misleading or biased. It is a statement of fact with reference which you can look into and we can discuss the merits of the claim. However, you have responded wildly with personal attacks. If anyone here is propagandizing it is you.
I have not berated anyone not do I hate any Jew. What I said is I am acquainted with primary source materials and they profess a certain ideology. You said you are familiar with some later sources and you don’t see that ideology mentioned there (which isn’t a stira btw) and you have friends who are chassidim who don’t profess that ideology. So I said there are a few options one of which is that perhaps they don’t learn early chassidic texts. That is not a hateful assertion, and that can be their perogative, but it is an explanation for why perhaps they don’t act or talk like that.
The reality here is that you have nothing to say so you have resorted to personally attacking me. That is not very nice but I beat you no ill will.
In fact this conversation proves my initial assertion that the people asking questions aren’t looking for answers.
Neville, don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say the approach of Chabad Chassidus is not unique. I said the things you find offensive about Lubavitchers are well rooted in Chassidus in general. By saying “you can’t bring lomdus to a metzius fight” I don’t understand what you mean. Your example of the Koran, lehavdil is misplaced because it shows that the text says A and the people do B. I am saying the text says A and people are doing A. As far as credentialing yourself by saying you learned Sfas Emes or Yismach Moshe you also missed the point. I don’t care what it does or doesn’t say in those sefarim. There are earlier texts that greatly emphasis the importance and role of tzaddikim to the extent that saying their existence and the relationship with them is crucial and fundamental and those texts are based on earlier kabbalistic texts etc etc etc. What the Sfas Emes of the Yismach Moshe mention or don’t mention is irrelevant to me. Look at Torah’s of the first three generations of chassidus. But for reference, The Yismach Moshe was a talmid of the Chozeh. The school of the Chozeh was incredibly Rebbe-centric and into what is referenced academically as Popular Hasidism, in that Chassidus revolves around the relationship of Chossid and Rebbe in a cultural or social sense. The Sfas Emes is a branch in the Peshischa school of thought were that relationship was extremely demphasized and the relationship stressed was that The Rebbe is a spiritual guide but a person has to work on himself. Breslov is incredibly Rebbe centric so clearly you didn’t learn too much. As to your line that you know Chassidim, what can I tell you? It isn’t my fault if there are people who call themselves Chassidim but don’t learn Chassidus and to them Hasidism means three types of kugel, a fur hat, shiny jacket, and sometimes you go to the tish. What you are referencing is cultural Hasidism.
What do you think the Toldos Yaakov Yosef and other foundational texts were burned for? Don’t talk about things about which you don’t know.
“Worship the Rebbe as he is the only path to salvation”
You should learn Noam Elimelech and other early Chassidic texts and then you will at least see the things you find offensive about Lubavitch (which I obviously would not consider worship) are really just mainstream Chassidus. The reason you think its a Lubavitch zach is because Lubavitchers are not afraid to teach Chassidus as opposed to others who preferred to keep things under wraps or else don’t even know what their own predecessors believed because they don’t learn Toras Hachassidus. The notion that everyone is attached to the Tzadik and through connection to them their avosas Hashem is elevated is not something Lubavitch invented. Aderaba, part of the machlokes against The Admor Hazaken was that the Admor Hazaken held that despite that fact, it is still necessary for every person to engage in a high level of avoda and it is not sufficient to rely on the Tzaddik, and the disputants held that Toras HaChassidus and Avodas HaChassidus is for tzaddikim, and its enough for others to be inspired by the charisma of the tzaddik, his miracles etc. and for their avoda to be elevated through that relationship. The same machlokes was essentially born out when the Yid Hakadosh, R’ Simcha Bunem, and the Kotzker had a machlokes with the other talmidim of the Chozeh of Lublin in that average people need to be engaged in real divine service as opposed to living off of rebbishe maysos and the emotional attachment and outer trappings of “popular hasidism.”
What a stupid question and very silly for anyone to indulge it. There are a few options here. One is that you are a stupid person. If you are a stupid person then explaining anything to you won’t help. Two is in a lapse of judgement you said something stupid, but the truth is you truly do want to know about Chabad philosophy. If that is the case you can read many of the publications which deal with the matter. Three is you aren’t truly interested and have an ulterior motive such as hoping to ensnare someone when their one or two sentences don’t do it the subject justice. If that is the case your motive doesn’t deserve an answer. In any case, anyone who answers your question is doing something foolish.
How do you know those people didn’t turn out violent? 100 years ago was November 1918, the end of WW1. WW1 was one of the bloodiest wars in all of history. Additionally, on the aggregate violence, crime, and anarchy have fallen consistently over time. We live in modern times in the least violent and least dangerous society ever.
In any case you accuse the study of not taking into various factors into account while yourself suggesting a thesis not based on any statistics.
What is wrong with you? Everything you said is false and it is forbidden by halacha to steal from anyone.
Stuart, the Shulchan Aruch Harav writes that if women put on a tallis they make a bracha. That is independent of if they should put on a tallis/tzitzis. He writes that Women do not do so because of “mechzei kyuhara.”