ARSo

tb: <emthe navi sheker gets Mitah be beit din .
not listening to navi emet is bidei shamayim.

Thanks. I figured I’d get it wrong from memory… and I did.

CS: I saw Rav Shteinman A”H, say that such an attitude is pure gaava, and he or someone else litvish shared that there was no such thing in the cheders of pre war Europe.

I saw that clip, and as far as I remember it wasn’t about kids whose parents aren’t tzniusdik or who didn’t keep important ikarei hadas. It was about kids who weren’t top in learning and maybe also in behavior. If I’m wrong, please show me where I can see that clip.

I suppose this litvak didn’t know the chofetz chaim was the same:)

The Chofetz Chaim demanded Mashiach?! Do you have a source for that?

To Avirah who wrote “One should not feel that they are frum if they abandon mitzvos, even one of them” you replied: So you keep all the mitzvos perfectly? You never fail at even one of hilchos shabbos? Shmiras einayim? Lashon hara? Etc etc?

No. We frum people do lots of aveiros, at least I do, Rachmono litzlon, but we do not ‘abandon’ even one of them. We are nichshal and hope to be better. If someone, on the other hand, marries a shiksa, he is abandoning a mitzva, not just being nichshal.

Why do you think emphasizing the negative is better and produces better results?

From literally decades of experience with kids and young adults: it works! When a kid sees that the person does something blatantly wrong, e.g. doesn’t dress appropriately, and you stress that the person has so many good middos, the kid more often than not understands that the good deeds are mechaper on the bad, and for a kid to think that is terrible and extremely harmful.

sechel to me: demanding moshiach – like we’re going to hashem and threatening him? Like the dor haflaga that’s the accusation? I don’t see how that even makes sense.

We’re not discussing what anyone on this thread said about “we want Mashiach now”. We were talking about what the LR said (and I remember it being said) about someone complaining about demanding Mashiach, and the LR did indeed say we should demand Mashiach.

CS: With my daughter, I agreed that the woman who visited was not dressed up to par, for the sake of clarity, but then taught her how to view the positive. This is how we were taught and how we uplift and are uplifted. That’s how lubavitch can hold any kind of person under its umbrella.

Very nice… in theory. But in practice what it often leads to is that the frum kid sees the other non-tznius person as ok overall, because she has been told what a baalas chesed she is, and she tends to downgrade the importance of tznius.

I’m not saying this for the sake of being argumentative. I have seen many Lubavicher and non-Lubavicher kids go off because of this type of thing: “Yes, it’s wrong that he doesn’t wear a yarmuke, but look at how he supports so many tzedoko organizations,” and the like. The kid picks up that he can trade one for the other.

IMHO (I know. You don’t think I’m humble at all. True. But my opnion is.) the way to keep the kid aligned is to say something like, “It’s great that that woman does so much chesed, but unfortunately it’s really terrible that she is not tzniusdik. What a pity. Her chesed would be worth so much more.”

CS: They were called tznuim because they were tznius when only Hashem was around…

I don’t think so. That would imply that all the other gedolei olam were only tznius when they were in company, and that is being motzi shem ra on all of them. I believe Shaul and Kimchis were singled out because they went above the letter of the law.

sechel: everyone always yeared for moshiach the way chabad does, thats why when chabad started saying “we want moshiach now” a litvish gadol said its kefira because it says im yismamea chake lo.

You’re a bit unclear here, but I think I know what you mean. Were you around when the “we want Mashiach now” chant started? I was, and I remember the case you’re talking about, although I don’t remember the litvishe gadol saying it, I just remember the LR talking against the complaint.

As far as I understood then, the Litvak’s complaint was not that people expressed a yearning for Mashiach. Rather, it was the terminology which seemed (to him and to others) that they were demanding Mashiach. Which is indeed the way the LR encouraged it.

Menachem: ARSo, I’m very curious. How exactly does this play out?
Like you’re on the subway or in shul or walking down the street, and a Lubavitcher bochur/yungerman/woman/child approaches you, strikes up conversation, and says: “By the way, I assume you know that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is Moshiach, because the Rambam says….”
Is that what happens?

That is one way it happens, although they don’t quote the Rambam. Another is when I pass a tefillin booth or similar, and the Lubavicher manning it apparently wants to make an impression on the people with him, so he calls out to me – an obviously chassidic non-Lubavitch type – and makes a comment ‘demonstrating’ how he and his cohorts are better than us lesser Yidden.

I have NEVER been the one to start the ‘altercation’.

CS: Context please! This was in response to your claim that Chabad willingly lowers standards because of baalei teshuva.

Please don’t put words into my mouth. I didn’t say that Lubavich willingly lowers standards because of baalei teshuva. What I said was that because of the baalei teshuva, and other reasons – namely concern with others, Mashiach, mivtzoim, and not enough with themselves – they overlook the vitally imporatant aspect of upholding tznius.

CS: I cannot put myself in the mindset of our people t throughout our entire golus. Maybe there was speculation (as there was by the third Chabad Rebbe) but nothing came of it, and it died out.

Other factors: for much of our history, world Jewry was separated. Ashkenazim hardly knew of the Rambam, and Sephardim hardly knew of Rashi. Which would make speculation unlikely.

Yankel berel wasn’t addressing whether there was speculation as to the identity of Mashiach he asked you: Was there no group of people thirsting for geula like you, in the whole 1900 plus years since the Hurban ?

Note, thirsting for the geula, not speculating as to identity.

CS: As if you don’t know that it was in continuation to that last one, and just wanted to clear up some possible misconceptions on posts that were approved before it was shut down…>

But you could have just let the thread stay dead.

CS: Agreed, however this doesn’t define communal yiras shomayim or even tznius for that matter. Shaul hamelech and kimchis were called tznuim because of what they did in private out of a real sense of tznius- yiras shomayim.

Shaul Hamelech and Kimchis were called tznuim because they went over and above what was required lehalacha.

Dress is only one factor, an important one, but cannot be used to define the communal level of yiras shomayim when done for external reasons.

Totally untrue! When a community – say Toldos Aharon in Meah She’arim – is extrememly tzniusdik in dress, it definitely defines the communal level of yir’as Shamayim. Sure there may be individuals who stray in private – we’ve all heard many times the anecdotal stories (which must, of course, be true) told by Lubavichers about Satmar chassidim who do disgusting things when they’re out of Williamsburg – but the public level of tznius definitely shows, and leads to, high levels of yir’as Shamayim.

A lack of tznius, even if it were only among newcomers to Lubavich (unfortunately that is not the case), leads to a downfall in the entire community. As Chazal say העין רואה והלב חומד….

CS: a Lubavitcher was trying to shop for her daughter in boro park and was surprised at the lack of selection for her three year old. When she asked the shop lady, she was told, “we’re not lubavitch.”

Another anecdotal proof that shows that Lubavichers are far better than others! Well done! (And don’t worry about the fact that even if the story is true it’s the exception to the rule. Who cares? As long as we can continue claiming that the tznius in Crown Heights is of the highest standard.)

We take pride in upholding the top standards in yiddishkeit and valuing hiddur Mitzvah.

…except in internet access for youth, the things bochurim talk about, tznius and the mixing of the genders. (You won’t convince me otherwise because I witness it firsthand numerous times each week. And I’m talking about sons of shluchim, not just BTs.)

Btw even with all your explaining of the how engaged couples act etc, it’s still well below the tznius level of other chatzeiros. Actually, that makes it sound just something not as “hiddur mitzvah” as us. I had better clarify. It’s called nevalah in other chatzeiros.

Menachem: If anyone thinks that majority of Lubavitchers wear yechi yarmulkes or majority of Chabad kovtzim say yechi on them – they are plain ignorant.

You may be right numerically, but not as far as publicity goes. Wherever you go in Israel you see Yechi signs and stickers, and in the most annoying places. It is also the ones with the Yechi yarmulkes who put out all these crazy videos etc.

CS: There’s really nothing to argue about. Denying this while the adults who learned/ taught underground is tantamount to Holocaust denial while there’s still survivors.

I didn’t deny that Lubavich had the major share of underground limud Torah in Russia. Rather, I was arguing that they weren’t the only ones.

sechel re Mashiach being from the dead: we see in gemara (at least according to the simple meaning and many rishonim) it was done

How many times do we have to go through this? The “simple meaning” is that they were telling us the name of Mashiach, whoever it will be or was. Not that they claimed their Rebbes were Mashiach. Note, the gemoro asks מה שמו – what is his name – not מאן הוא משיח – who is Mashiach. As I wrote, they may possibly have meant that their Rebbes were Mashiach (probably while they were alive), but that is NOT the simple pshat.

Furthermore, I have searched and have not been able to find ANY Rishon other than Rashi on this piece of gemoro. So please name the “many rishonim” you are referring to.

CS, are you there?

I specifically asked you to comment on my demonstrating that Habadpedia was misquoting for their own purposes, and now we have two days of your radio silence! Are you trying to prove us correct when we assert that when Lubavichers can’t provide a satisfactory answer, they just ignore the facts?

sechel, re all the people who wrote letters to the LR:

Go through seforim of all gedolei Yisroel and you will find letters with very respectful titles to all sorts of people, including those of whom the writer did not hold. If everyone wrote exactly what they believed, and kept nothing of what they really believed to themselves, there would not be even two Yidden who would talk to each other. It’s only on websites like this one that anonymous people can voice their true opinions without fear of starting a war.

As to your quote about Rav Shach: he was close to rav aharon kotler who was a known misnaged

That’s not true. He did not like Lubavich, and he was indeed a Litvak, but he was on very good terms with many other chassidic Rebbes, as can be seen from all the work he did in Agudah and Chinuch Atzmai. Just because someone thinks that the Litvishe derech is the best derech, it does not necessarily make him a misnaged, and more than the fact that your thinking Lubavich is the best derech does not mean that you hate other chassidim… at least I hope you don’t.

CS: Forgot to mention. Of course Chessed starts at home, and The Rebbes involvement in all matters of world Jewry did not detract from his leadership of Chabad, in fact it enhanced it. Baalei teshuva probably make up at least 50% of Chabad today. When the Rebbe unveiled his vision for dor shvii in his inaugural maamar, there were 100 or so Chassidim there, many survivors of the Soviet Union. They had no idea how they would change the world. Today of course, this is fact, and the tremendous expansion of Chabad, both shluchim and Anash, post Gimmel Tammuz. even without the Rebbes physical hand holding, are only testament of what the Rebbe gave us.

You’re missing the point. I know he was out to change the world, but it resulted in Lubavich itself becoming a watered-down chassidus with the push being on the outside as opposed to the outside. The number of children of shluchim and stam Lubavich youth who are off the derech, or close to it, Rachmono litzlon, is absolutely terrible, and don’t tell me you haven’t seen that yourself. Hashem should save you from such tzoros!

You yourself, in passing earlier on, wrote that you don’t know when the change came about that Lubavich as a rule now davens quickly rather than “be’avodah”. That is just one example of the changes that have come about through the focus on looking outside instead of inward. (I assume you’ll answer that chassidus means penimiyus, and looking inward, which is standard Lubavich talk, but for the majority that hasn’t been the case since you started on all these mivtzoim etc.) And there are far worse changes, that I have been harping on, mainly in areas of tznius.

CS, I have read through most of what you wrote, and I simply don’t have the emotional ko’ach to go through everything I disagree with, especially when you make claims based on anecdotal evidence of how better Lubavich is than others (because of what-you-see-is-what-you-get and the like). But I can’t always just let things ride, especially when you apparently (and I do believe that’s the case) write things that you have been fed falsely.

In response to my claim that the term Nassi you write:

I don’t think the following sefer is lubavitch (Rashi quoted as well)…
נשיא, ראשי תיבות: ניצוצו של יעקב אבינו, שיעקב “נשמתו כלולה מכל הנשמות שבישראל” (מופיע בספר קהלת יעקב מערכת “רבי”).

After some searching, I found what you are quoting. The sefer was written by Reb Yaakov Zvi Yallish (Yalles?) who was a chossid of the Chozeh of Lublin, and the author of Melo Haro’im on Shas. (I once heard that he wrote Melo Haro’im – perhaps at the behest of the Chozeh, I don’t remember – to show that the rumors that chassidim don’t/can’t learn are untrue.) Here is exactly what he wrote:

רבי הנקרא רבינו הקדוש היה מניצוץ של יעקב אבינו, ואנטונינוס מעשו, וזהו ושני גוים בבטנך אלו אנטונינוס ורבי, ועל כן נקרא רבי יהודה הנשיא ראשי תיבות הוא ניצוץ של יעקב אבינו.

So here is where you have been fooled:
1. The sefer Kehillas Yaakov is talking specifically and only about Rebbi Yehudah Hanossi. There were nesi’im in E”Y both before and after Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi, and he is NOT even referring to any of them.
2. The part of the footnote from Habadpedia that continues about nishmoso kelulah, has nothing to do with the sefer Kehillas Yaakov, and it is in fact from Iggeres Hakodesh (of the Baal Hatanya) in relation to Yaakov Avinu. Not in relation to anybody else since! (In Iggeres Hakodesh he uses that terminology first in relation to Adam Harishon, and he then says it applies as well to Yaakov Avinu, but it stops there.)

In conclusion, we have yet another example of Lubavich – not you CS, as you were fooled as much as anyone else reading that footnote – wilfully misinterpreting, and adding to, a source to make it say what Lubavich wants it to say.

Please don’t ignore this post, and admit that the footnote is at the very least misleading.

I’m going to have to keep it short and address only some points, and in short, because it is becoming very tiring. CS, I don’t know where you get the ko’ach. (Oh no! I just gave her the opportunity to say, “I get it from the rebbe!”)

Re women’s tznius. I don’t care what is in the woman’s heart (although we have a rule האדם נפעל כפי פעולותיו, and good actions will bring to good intentions). A woman who is ‘chassidish’ in her heart, and does not ‘fake’, but dresses un-tzniusdik, is being machshil many men daily. A woman who is ‘forced’ into being tznius, is saving men from being nichshal, regardless of her behavior at home.

Not sure what you’re on about. This is basic math. The Alter Rebbe was Chabad Rebbe 1, so obviously the Rebbe is 7. What’s invented?

You really don’t get it?! Since when was there a significance to dor shevi’i? Didn’t it only become significant when the LR decided that he was Mashiach, and he then used ‘dor shevi’i’ to refer to himself?

A. Was never a blanket rule (The mekubalim as a whole encouraged women’s education including gemara.)

Which mekubalim?

B. Torah adapts to every situation, Halacha changes accordingly, Rabbanim decided overwhelmingly in favor of women’s Torah education today.

Halacha does NOT change. We have to apply halacha to changes in situation, but what was halacha centuries ago is still halacha nowadays.

And Rabbanim did NOT decide overwhelmingly in favor of women learning gemara.

Btw I asked you for non-Lubavich sources for Rashi learning with his daughters (which, even if true, is not really relevant, because Rashi may have paskened hundreds of years earlier differently to the psak that we follow in Shulchan Aruch), and to Or Hachaim being what he taught his daughters.

Now I know that tradition has it that the Or Hachaim was childless all his life R”l, so I decided to do some research. And lo and behold, the ONLY source for the statement that he had daughters is… something quoted by the Rayatz that was told to him by a chossid!

And while I was doing that research I can across a thread in the Otzar Hachochma forum that discusses the Rayatz’s ‘historical’ stories, and his memoirs. If you’re interested – you will surely regret reading the posts! – search for
האם לאור החיים היו בנות? מכתב מעניין להאדמו”ר הריי”ץ

According to a number of posters on the thread, even in Lubavich many do not take the stories as being historically accurate.

Finally, in this post, my disbelieving the sundial story has nothing to do with 3rd Grade science. It is simply fantasy with the science being fictional. I challenge you to show it to a (non-Lubavich) scientist and have him explain how it works.
(And I said I was going to keep this short! 🙂 I need to take a break.)

I just saw the number of CS’s posts, and I’m sure that I won’t be able to do justice in arguing all the relevant points. (If I didn’t believe that CS is an honest, but misguided, woman, I would suspect that she wrote so much just to shut me up. But I don’t think she did.) Nonetheless, לא עלי המלאכה לגמור, so here goes…

a community (us) where the responsibility lies with the individual to care and guidelines are suggested but not enforced (so that every child can have a proper chinuch for example.)

Perhaps you would care to explain how a “child can have a proper chinuch” if he has an unfiltered smartphone. Could you be mechanech a child while he is in a church praying to osoi ho’ish?

Take this as an illustrative example. No I am not suggesting that there are no true Yarei shomayim in the other communities, but rather you cannot judge because of the different cultures, and ultimately, they’re more vulnerable than we are.

Well I’m glad even you admit this is only illustrative. The problem is, that it’s not. I’m sure that all groups have their problems and their secrets, but it is total garbage to say that others are more vulnerable than you are. Why did the LR prohibit TVs? According to you that just makes you more vulnerable.

We all know that Lubavitch was the only one overall (I’ve heard of one non lubavitch teacher who taught in Chabad’s hidden chadarim), who not only didn’t go frei themselves but kept up Yiddishkeit and community life (Mikvah, shochet etc) underground with extreme mesirus nefesh.

Not coming from Russian stock I can’t argue with that, but from what I’ve heard Karlin and Litvishe will indeed argue.

I’d like to bring up an important point, which has very likely been misunderstood by our Lubavicher friends.

What would happen if a rebbe said explicitly, “I am the Mashiach”? What should his chossid think? The answer is that he should definitely believe him! However…

1. He should not say that the rebbe has already fit the criteria of the Rambam (unless he has – but no one in the past millenium has).
2. He should not try to (mis)interpret the Rambam, or any other source, to make it fit the rebbe’s current status.
3. And he should not call anyone who doesn’t accept his rebbe’s statement a kofer or an apikorus. (I don’t believe that anyone on this thread has, but there are a number of prominent Lubavichers who have publicly stated as much in the past. I could cite at least one name, but I’d rather not.)

Now a corollary question: could there be any stage when that chossid should reject his Rebbe’s statement, and possibly even find a different Rebbe? I believe the answer is yes – remember, I am a card-carrying member of a chassidus that you are probably aware of – but it would have to be only when the rebbe crossed numerous red lines.

For example (I bet you can guess at least some of what’s coming):

1. If the rebbe was a baal machlokes with many other recognized gedolei Yisroel, or if he consistently denigrated them.
2. If the rebbe himself came up with ludicrous proofs that his way was the best way for all Yidden. An example of ludicrous proofs could be the LR’s explaining how not sleeping in the sukkah shows a higher level of halacha because one is mitzta’er that he can fall asleep due to his hiskashrus. (We’ve been through this before a number of times.)
3. If the rebbe consistently came up with heretofore unheard-of concepts to self-promote, e.g. dor shevi’I, Nassi Hador, the return of nevuah, 770 being Beis Mashiach. (There are more.)

That, at least, is the way I look at it.

At the risk of being tedious, I would like to reiterate my stance, which, it seems, is also the stance of a number of others on this thread.

1. None of the Rambam’s criteria for Mashiach apply in any way shape or form to the Lubavicher rebbe.

2. Although he may very well have been ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech, so may I, yankel berel, sechel, CS’s husband and Bernie Sanders. To the best of my knowledge none of the names I have mentioned have incontrovertible proof as to their lineage. The proof that the LR is ben achar ben has been derived by Lubavichers. Give me enough time and money and I can come up with proof of the same value (i.e. worthless) for any/all of the above.

3. Even if he was ben achar ben (and even disregarding his non-qualification in the Rambam’s other criteria), he is still not a suitable candidate because most of Torah-true Klal Yisroel considered his views unacceptable.

edited – the rest required too many edits to post

sechel, you quoted a list of anecdotes about R Chaim Zimmerman’s interaction with the LR. I never met or saw the man, but I have heard a little about him. Wouldn’t I be correct in saying that he was not considered a recognized gadol by virtually all of the chareidi world?

sechel: “@arso When faced with the Ramban who wrote that we reject yoshke because he died, – the ramban never wrote that.”

1. I was not the one who quoted the Ramban. In fact I have never even looked it up.
2. Others claim that he did write that, and you are the only one here who has disputed that. So please resolve the issue so that those of us who are too lazy to wade through the Ramban can know the truth. Perhaps yankel berel can post a quote.

“you cant call someone is wrong for following one pshat over an other.”

I can certainly call someone wrong for following one pshat because it suits what they want to believe. Deciding which pshat is correct – and I don’t know about you, but I feel those on this thread are not in the league of deciding which Rishon or early Acharon is “right” or “wrong” – has to be done dispassionately. Not with the preconception that the LR is Mashiach, so let’s reject anyone who says otherwise.