Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
yankel berel: “Spell checker sides with you. I admit defeat.”
And two periods not preceded by a space. Well done!
yankel berel, I usually really like your posts, but I have one criticism, and I hope you won’t be too offended.
Why on earth do you have a space at the end of your sentences before the period? You have done that in most of the sentences of your latest post (I haven’t checked older ones).
PLEASE STOP!
With apologies once again
Your pedantic fan ArsoMenachem, welcome back!
“I have never seen bochurim eating at the same table as non-related girls. Bochurim would not go to a friendโs house for Shabbos or for a meal if they have sisters in their age group at home.”
I have. In regular Lubavich homes all over the world.
“During the engagement (which is usually about 2 months), chosson and kalla usually meet once every 2-3 weeks (so about 4 times during engagement), the less the better. However, the Rebbe encouraged the chosson and kallah to stay be in different cities for the duration of the engagement, so, depending on the distance, the meetings are sometimes less frequent.”
I know how he encouraged that, but you’re still missing the point. When they are in the same city, as is often the case all over the world, they usually meet much more often than once it 2-3 weeks. Again, I know this from experience. But even 2-3 weeks is far too often, and thus considered a davar nevalah, in other chassidic circles. Not to mention the hours-long facetime calls that take place between those meetings. (I just did mention it, didn’t I?)
“Until about 21, pretty much all the chassidishe bochurim donโt have [smartphones – Arso]. Closer to marriage it does become more common (with strong filters obviously).”
That is so not true on both points. Again from knowledge, not conjecture.
In regards to your defence of CS about “acting on” the Rambam’s halachos. You are taking the point out of context. Of course we are meant to act on the halachos, and in the case of the criteria we – or actually the Sanhedrin, I imagine – are meant to act on it when a candidate arises to see if he UNEQUIVOCALLY fits those criteria. But CS explained that when she wrote “act on” it she meant to try to identify a candidate, not to rule whether a candidate fit. The discussion was searching for a candidate, and that’s what she was talking about.
HaLeiVi, I appreciate your concern, seriously, but when one sees people being misled along a non-Torah path by someone who invents concepts and bends others to fit himself, one is actually obligated to speak out. Even if many people held that person in high regard.
Also, please be aware that quite a few of the people who held him in high regard were relying on third-party stories and propaganda, and hadn’t actually investigated his statements, as Rav Shach, the Brisker Rov and the Chazon Ish had. A number of them were also being dan lechaf zechus.
Quoting myself for a change: “As someone once explained to me, they [family Zirkind] and others were told to keep their levush because it would fool others into assuming how cosmopolitan and accepting Lubavich was.”
I reread this and realized that people would think it was just an outlandish claim made by someone who doesn’t like Lubavich. So please allow me to clarify.
When someone joins a group he wants to be part of that group and identify with them fully. Naturally, therefore, he wants to adopt their dress code, and this is what happened in a number of cases when people joined Lubavich. One example is the brother of the Rachmastrivka Rebbe shlita who still wears the full Rachmastrivka levush even though he has been a fully-fledged Lubavicher for decades. And the reason he didn’t change is because the Lubavicher rebbe told him not to. This is not conjecture; it is a well-known fact. Go and ask him if you don’t believe me.
Now why would the LR stop someone identifying in a manner which would allow him to feel the part fully. The answer that I was given is, as I wrote, to attract others to Lubavich.
So, in contrast to what CS wrote, it is not out of caring for the feelings of those who came with a different levush.
sechel, the list you gave shows that the Lubavicher rebbe did indeed personally write a few more seforim than I said, but it clearly shows that of the 200+ seforim, most of them were NOT written by him.
From the mods to sechel: “This was not even postable. If someone taught you that, than shame on you both.”
Is there any authority that we can appeal to to force you to show us what he wrote? It sounds like the most interesting post on this thread ๐
CS: “AAQ,
โ If a lady shows interest in learning more in depth of mitzvos โ that is what gemora is in the wider meaning โ this should surely enhance her ability to look after her family yiddishkeit.โBingo. Not sure why this wasnโt obvious to all”
Not obvious to me, and I still disagree. Women learning gemoro is something that has always been prohibited. Ergo (I don’t think I have ever used that word before! Shehecheyanu…) women don’t need it. To say that times have changed and women need it now implies that when Chazal said that it was not proper they did not take into account today’s women. Perhaps when they came up with the issur of, say, muktzeh, they also weren’t taking into account today’s generation.
CS: “Bit more nuanced. Even after dor shvii commenced, The Rebbe held of the Frierdiker Rebbe as the real Rebbe, and the Rebbe as merely his spokesman (because others couldnโt hear directly from him since yud Shvat), and thus The Rebbe still referred to him as Moshiach of the generation for many years”
In other words, he eventually decided to invent the concept of dor shevi’i so that it would fit himself… which is exactly what I said.
CS re tznius in Lubavitch: “lubavitch embraces many different levels of Yiddishkeit and chassidishkeit, and we all mix with each other with an emphasis on ahavas Yisrael, so those baalei teshuva who have not gone the whole way, and the Ffb who has chilled, are equally as part of the community as the most Chassidish.”
That is so similar to my chassidus. Many of us eat on Yom Kippur so that those baalei teshuva who have not gone the whole way, and the Ffb who has chilled, are equally as part of the community as the most Chassidish. If we would enforce fasting on Yom Kippur it would turn people away, and that is the worst thing possible!
“So all in all, your comparisons are off.”
It’s not our comparisons that are off. It’s your brainwashed views that it’s more important to allow foreign influences to affect frum people negatively than it is to raise yir’ei Shomayim. And no, you do not have as many yir’ei Shomayim as any other chareidi group!
I’m sorry, but I find your arguments sick. In fact, they come straight out of the Conservative and Reform movements.
CS: “I think weโve discussed this before. The other chareidim operate on chitzonius first basis.”
Absolute garbage!
“This is my info from my personal contacts.”
Delete those contacts because they are liars!
“So if you have the perfect dress and keep the communal standards, your kids can go to the school.”
Who mentioned school? I certainly didn’t. I am talking about the lack of tznius present in many Lubavicher women, both FFBs and BTs. I have seen it and am accosted by it on a regular basis (ืืช ืืืื ืืื ื ืืืืืจ ืืืื).
“his doesnโt mean lubavitch has less yiras shomayim overall”
Wrong! It does mean it… although that’s not the only reason we others think that that is the case.
“if you have to worry about external factors, that may inhibit those struggling to open up and get help.”
There is an implication there that is truly shocking! Tznius for women is NOT an “external factor”. It is quite possibly the number one mitzvah that women have, as with a lack of tznius women is machshil literally hundreds of men every day. And that is not even dealing with the ramification that “if Mrs So-and-so can dress this way, cerainly I can.”ย edited
As to the ‘psak’ against giving back land, do you seriously not realize that not everything that happened in farbrengens became a sicha?! It wasn’t a published sicha; it was what happened at a farbrengen. Ask people who should remember (I certainly do) and they’ll tell you all about it.
CS: “The Zirkindโs and other families who became lubavitch from chasseedish were encouraged to keep their levush.”
The Zirkinds were originally Malachim, which was a group that split from, and hated passionately (more than I do!!!!), Lubavich. As someone once explained to me, they and others were told to keep their levush because it would fool others into assuming how cosmopolitan and accepting Lubavich was.
“And of course, if he was so vain cvs , why would he care for every Jew? A vain person has enough of a challenge dealing with his own community.”
You’re doing it again, mouthing a slogan without basis as if it’s fact! Who said he cared for every Jew? He did! I, and I’m confident many others on this thread, believe that he indeed cared THAT every Jew became a follower of his.
CS: “fearing and loving Hashem. You canโt fulfill these mitzvos adequately without learning about Hashem. Without learning you will not have these emotions.”
I disagree. The above is not the case for women. Women can reach true ahavah and yir’ah without learning, by fulfilling their mitzvos and trying to be ืื ืืืืื ืืช ืืื ืคื ืืื. Men have to learn, but it is the Torah that affects them, not davka learning about Hashem.
“The premise Iโve always heard is that if the Rambam put the criteria for the Moshiach candidate in a Halacha sefer, then itโs meant for us to act on it.”
I believe you’ve heard it, but the sevoro doesn’t hold water. Are we meant to “act on”, say, kemitzah, or on the planetary system the Rambam writes in his halachos?
“At the end of the day, lubavitch knows the Rebbe most intimately, and we make this judgment call of character to accept the Rebbe as our Rebbe, and therefore listen to what he says. Itโs really that simple. A liar or imposter and a authentic Torah leader are worlds apart in character and teaching etc. And the thousands who are Lubavitcher Chassidim attest to the Rebbes integrity by their choice to be lubavitch.”
There is no question that Lubavichers will listen to everything their rebbe said, and believe whatever he said to believe. And as I have written in the past, I would be totally shocked if you were to start believing what I believe about the LR just because of what we write on this thread.
The point is, however, that it’s time you realise that “We believe in our rebbe, because we (somehow) chose him,” is the only argument that we will accept as logical, albeit leading to a false belief. It’s when you start citing that he fits the criteria of Mashiach – what Lubavich publishes in books about his lineage, and willingly misinterpreting the word ‘compel’ to suit your required result, has absolutely no value in the real Torah-world – that he is a Nasi, that he was the greatest person whoever lived, that he was the greatest talmid chochom ever etc, and you EXPECT US TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE as valid arguments, that is when we shake our heads in disbelief!
“And the term connotes responsibility for all Jews, not just your community.”
CS, you have touched on a very interesting point.
I’m sure you’ll agree that despite the concept of arvus for all Yidden, a parent should definitely be more concerned about the actions of his own children that the actions of others. True? And a shul Rabbi whould be more concerned about the actions of his community than that of other communities.
The same is true with a Rebbe. Despite him being concerned with the actions of all Yidden, his responsibility – nothing to do with selfishness – is first and foremost to his own chassidim, and only then to the rest of Klal Yisrael.
In the opinion of virtually all non-Lubavichers who know what the situation is in Lubavich that I have talked to, this is a big part of the problem of Lubavich. You can claim what you like about (non-existent) Nesius, and Meshichism, but he neglected his community more than he should have. Of course I don’t mean that he ignored them, but he should have put less effort into “running the world” and more into his own followers. That is why the tznius in Lubavitch, and the numbers of youth going OTD is far worse than in any other chassidus WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
What percentage of unmarried kids in, say, Satmar, Belz, Ger, Vizhnitz, Tsanz etc have access to unfiltered internet and to unfiltered smartphones? Now what is the percentage in Lubavich? I don’t know figures, but I do know that the percentage in Lubavich is many many times greater than in the other groups. The same is unfortunately true with kids – even kids of committed shluchim – going OTD. (If you deny any of this I will conclude one of two things: either you are lying outright or you are completely insane. I KNOW exactly what I am talking about, and I have been asked many times to deal with the problem specifically in Lubavich. I’m sure you’re surprised at that, but it’s true.)
You also write, in regards to Lubavich kids doing kol minei nevoloh: “Coming from lubavitch, The ones who consistently are into learning and can rattle off the sichos in depth, are not generally the ones involved with that kind of stuffโฆ”
What you don’t realise is that for many of us, what constitutes “kol minei nevoloh” is far different to what you consider it. I’ll give you two examples. Amongst other chassidim, chassanim meeting their kallos after the engagement is non-existent or at the very least kept to a VERY bare minimum. In Lubavich it is unfortunately common practice. In Lubavich bochurim eating at the same table as non-related girls is acceptable. Not in other chatzeiros.
Even the ones who can rattle off sichos keep to these very low standards, and virtually all (that I know of – you can correct me here if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am) have smartphones which they access even in shule.
CS re the ternm Nassi: “Incorrect. Itโs in sefarim more recent than that. (Arso has looked into it- ask him).”
Arso reporting for duty! It may not have ended by the early Amora’iim – the truth is that I don’t remember what I found when I investigaed it – but it certainly ended over a thousand years ago.
“Yes lubavitch is unique in applying it to their Rebbeim. I guess as descendants of Beis Dovid, we are unique.”
I would be rolling on the floor laughing if your posts weren’t so sad. As I have written a number of times, your rebbes are as much descendants of Beis Dovid as I, and possibly your won husband, are. No proof whatsoever. And, for your information, there are many gedolei Yisroel around today who are descendants of Beis Dovid, and although they may not be able to prove it 100% with witnesses, their claims have more base to it that Lubavich’s.
” And the term connotes responsibility for all Jews, not just your community.
And yes weโre proud of it and it wouldnโt bother us if others had the same outlook- it would be great if every community looked out for the entire Klal Yisrael.”Reason for more laughter… and tears. Although I am a chassid of only one Rebbe shlita, I KNOW that there are many out there who care about – and who spend hours, days, months and years working for – the benefit and responsibility of the entire Klal Yisroel.
But we don’t make up a term in order to show (ourselves mainly, as I wrote earlier, as a crutch) that we are the best. The last well-known group who did that LEHAVDIL also came up with a unique term. I believe it was son of G-d ืขืคืจื ืืคืืืืืื!
CS: “I think the term kiddush lubavitch is a defensive term which you could ask yourself why it needs to existโฆ”
The same could be said of Kiddush Hashem. We only need that term because there are forces – physical and spiritual – who fight against Hashem’s Will. So when Hashem’s Will wins, so to speak, it’s a Kiddush Hashem. Nonetheless, when one group or another “wins” against those who malign, they don’t say “Kiddush Lita” or “Kiddush Satmar”. Only Lubavich has this chauvinistic attitued, and, as I have written in the past, I believe it’s a crutch because they know that the chareidi world has JUSTIFIED complaints against them. By being insular and only thinking about Luabavich, you find it easier to ignore those complaints rather than rectify them.
“It does seem that the bigger a group gets, the harder it is to know everyone within the community/ group, and we know โoutsidersโ even less.”
You don’t have to know all the details of all the chareidi groups to know of major personalities in those groups. It is only Lubavich who totally ignores those major personalities…. unless they can be quoted saying something in support of Lubavich.
Or unless they are from a long time ago and have no hemshech to their chassidic line. That’s why Lubavich can quote RLY of Berditchev, and Reb Zusha of Annipoli and the like, while it’s much rarer for them to quote, say, Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk. With the former there are no “yorshim” who can possibly pose a threat to Lubavich’s world view. Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk has many yorshim in different lines, and they usually pose a threat.
And there’s always the problem that ืืื ืงืจืื ืืฆื ืขืฆืื. How can any woman (again, men too, but they have a mitzva to learn regardless) judge herself favorably and say that she will learn and understand correctly, when she is noga’as bedavar?
Avirah: “If she indeed is an exceptional woman, refined in mind and middos, like bruriah, then she, knowing herself and her capabilities, will not make Torah into divrei havai.”
Is a woman to decide on her own that she will not turn Torah into divrei havai c”v? How can she decide that before she has learnt Torah and knows what the dangers are?
I would say the same thing about men (I’m feeling very woke at the moment) were it not for the fact that all Jewish men (I’m not quite feeling woke enough to say “all Jews who identify as men”.) are commanded to study Torah at all times. So that absolves them from judging themselves prior to learning Torah.
sechel: “rav shach was a gadol i agree he gave many shiurim and has around 10-15 seforim printed of his torah on talmud bavli and specificly the yeshiva mesechtos. the rebbe has about 200 sefrim on bavli yerushalmi, kabalah zohar and everything else so thats my point, if the rebbe isint than who is”
You must be extremely young if you consider yourself a Lubavicher yet you agree that Rav Shach was a gadol. Even letting that thought flit through your mind was a huge no-no a decade or two ago.
And in regards to numbers of seforim printed:
1. The number of seforim means nothing at all.
2. The 200 seforim you claim that the LR has published (In the past you wrote that he has written, but I think possibly the only one he actually wrote himself was Hayom Yom. I may be wrong, but not that far off.) are not individual seforim. The vast majority of them are adaptations of other seforim of his. Correct me if I’m wrong.coffee addict: “I thought Lubavitch now holds that moshiach can come from the dead which is why I said Rav Shach”
Sorry, you clearly don’t understand official Lubavich policy. Please allow me to enlighten you.
1. Either the LR is alive, and Mashiach must be someone who is alive, hence the LR is Mashiach.
2. Alternatively, if the LR is not alive, then Mashiach must be him regardless.
There is no room for anyone else who has died to be Mashiach. In fact, there is no room for anyone else to be Mashiach, period.
And this is all based on clear non-existents sources.
CS: “All my peers who strive to be โChassidishโ (within Lubavitch), guard their homes from any non Jewish influence. There is no TV, non Jewish books (at least for entertainment purposes), and of course would never watch movies under any circumstances.
Contrast this with a woman who grows up in a very frum home and community, but wasnโt blessed to learn and see the deeper side of Torah, itโs not hard to understand why she may find her pleasure and down time in non Jewish movies, music, books etc even if sheโs dressed tznius to the hilt, and the impact this has on her homeโฆ”
And from the mods: “disclaimer: mamash motzei shem rah”
If at all possible, it’s even worse that motzi shem ra. It’s absolute total garbage! (Yes, I know that that makes it motzi shem ra, but it’s so off the planet that there must be an even better term for it.)
Why not contrast you and your peers with neshei chayil who do not learn and Torah sheb’al peh, and who put their efforts into having a Torah home and bringing up yirei Shomayim?
We all know – it has been discussed and never denied – that the tznius and mixing of genders in Crown Heights is far worse than in any other chareidi enclave. We all know that the number of children allowed unfettered use of internet and smartphones is far greater in Crown Heights that in any other chareidi enclave. Women putting the stress on learning gemoro and chassidus instead of looking after their children’s Yiddishkeit, is worse than counterproductive!
Now if you are part of the minority who doesn’t allow the above in your home, well done (!), and Hashem should help you continue in your efforts. But we are not having a personal debate about you versus us. It is about what goes on in Lubavich versus the proper chareidi world.
CS in reply to my question as to how the LR could claim that his father-in-law was Mashiach when his father-in-law wasn’t dor shevi’i, and Mashiach has to be from dor Shevi’i: “I donโt see where you got that. What I meant was that if Nesius wouldโve ended with the Frierdiker Rebbe, there would have been no dor shvii as the dor goes by the Rebbe. Since we needed another Rebbe, that equals dor shvii”
Sounds like circular reasoning to me. The Rayatz could have been Mashiach, but since he wasn’t we need dor shevi’i to be Mashiach, and that just happens to be the LR who is the one who revealed the need for dor shevi’i.
Well done! Once again you have shown how we have no option but to declare the LR as Mashiach because he said so!
CS: “And to whoever was outraged that Chabad saved the day yet again: bH, we did in that case and many other cases. No reason to be intimidated if you have the same approach of helping any Jew. Itโs not a contest.”
I just love the way you make a claim – “bH we did” – and the only question is whether we are intimidated by Lubavich or not. You did not save the day, and you never have! This reminds me of the countless times I have heard Lubavichers argue, “We all agree that the Lubavicher rebbe is the greatest tzaddik of our time, therefore something-or-other…” They just move the playing field as we don’t agree!
Btw do you remember (obviously, you can’t, but you can ask) when the LR had a “vote” at a farbrengen resulting in a psak that land not be returned to the Arabs? The point was that since ืื-ื ืืืืจ ืขืื, min Hashomayim that psak would be followed, and land would not be returned. What happened to that prediction, or is that also to be swept under the already bulging carpet. (Please don’t start replying how we see it was a mistake to return land. That is not the point I am making here at all.)
CS to yankel berel: “you say the reason others didnโt see The Rebbe as a candidate for Moshiach (obviously among the ones who didnโt) had nothing to do with the alive or dead debate? So what was it then?”
It obviously had nothing to do with the dead-or-alive debate because at the time ALL Lubavichers said Mashiach has to be someone who is currently alive, which has been pointed out again and again.
As to the reason the vast – virtually 100% – of the non-Lubavich chareidi world would not accept the LR as candidate for Mashiach, the answer is very simple: he did not fit any of the criteria, again, as I have pointed out again and again.
One other point came to mind. The Rambam, which Lubavich quotes, says that Mashiach will be osek beTorah keDavid aviv. Any idea why davka like David? Why compare him to anyone, when the Rambam could simply have said that he has to be osek beTorah constantly, or the like? Well I can suggest an answer.
The gemoro (Berachos 4a) tells us how unbelievably humble David was when it came to learning Torah, and how he was always willing and ready to admit that he was wrong. The LR was certainly nothing like that. He was always right and never stopped trying to convince others that his way was the only correct way. One illustrative example is his constant “nagging” other Rebbes and Roshei Yeshivos to institute the study of chassidus, even though that would have been a departure from their mesores.
That, of course, is not the only time he displayed “stubborness” when contradicted with facts. One other example, which I have written about a number of times, is that it is ok according to simple pshat not to sleep in the sukka. Oh, I forgot also that washing for Shalosh Seudos is a kula al pi chassidus.
(I thought I had posted something like this last week, but it hasn’t appeared. So either it was edited – I don’t know why – or I just messed it up. Here it is again.)
In reply to sechel’s question as to who can be considered a gadol if the Lubavicher rebbe isn’t, coffee addict replied: Rav Shach.
That’s not apples for apples. Because Rav Shach is no longer alive while the Lubavicher rebbe is! That’s why my list is better because it contains people who are alive ad me’ach v’esrim.
Thanks sechel for bringing the thread back to its original (and IMHO much more interesting ๐ ) topic.
You wrote: “if the rebbe wasnโt a gadal, who was?”
Um, now that’s a hard one. How about the Vizhniter Rebbe, the Belzer Rebbe, Rav Moshe Sternbuch, Rav Meir Bergman, the Amshinover Rebbe etc etc etc (no particular order in the above)?
And I have a question. If the Lubavicher rebbe was atzmus melubash beguf, and thus all-powerful, why wasn’t he able to avoid having a stroke, and avoid dying?
CS: “Itโs been some time since I looked up that Gemara. I had remembered…”
Some intellectual honesty and, it seems (I hope I’m correct), an admission that Rashi cannot be brought to show that according to that gemoro (notwithstanding anything else) the LR who has died can be Mashiach.
“Dor Shvii only happened because as the Rebbetzin told the Rebbe…”
So dor shevi’i is only something made up to suit the circumstances. Which is the type of ‘proof’ or argument that we have been disputing all along.
“Isnโt it a tad ridiculous to expect me to trust youโre know what you know, and completely disregard an open printed statement of the Rebbe when youโre talking about what the Rebbe said??”
It would be more than a tad ridiculous, but I’m not asking you to trust me in this case. Just to hear my claim, by which I still stand.
And just for the record, coffee-addict, I loved your response!
AlwaysAsk, I disagree. If there are 2-3 talmidei chachomim who recognize someone as a t”ch, but many others consider him close to an apikorus, someone who misleads, or a meshuggene, the 2-3 are not enough. Especially when the detractors are recognized gedolei olam.
CS: “Arso- regarding women learning Gemara. Iโve learned inside the Rebbes sichos to women myself (this one quoted in beginning of the black sefer hamitzvos divided by shiur) the opposite. So Iโll take that over your unnamed source.”
I know what I know, and that is something I know. And of course I won’t ask you for a source in a sicha because I don’t believe what it says there.
Finally, if the LR did indeed say taht women should learn gemoro even when it is not directly relevant to their performing mitzvos in which they are obligated, isn’t that going against explicit halacha?
CS: “you brought sources on the Rashi- (the Rashi itself merely lists the two kgons- shades of/ examples, and youโre deciding to read it like the interpretation that it means it can only be these two. Which I donโt have to do that. And even so, taking it further โ it would seem even according to that- that that only applies to that very generation. So yes, thereโs the Ramban, and yes thereโs the explicit Gemara, The sdei chemed, abarbanel etc etc. And the Rebbe about his father in law which didnโt seem to be any issue before Gimmel Tammuz because I probably would have heard of it.”
Sorry, but you’re rambling here. I didn’t ‘decide to read it’ in any way. I translated the Rashi according to pshat, something I have been trying to do with every Rashi that I learn in Shas. You most definitely do have to translate it that way. As I wrote, ask a male who learns gemoro properly to be honest about the Rashi.
You yourself wrote last week that Rashi is not halacha lemaaseh. That is, you backtracked on your claim that we have to follow the Rashi who allows you to claim that a dead LR is Mashiach. Now are you backtracking on that backtrack? Please don’t tell us men, even if we are not the greatest talmidei chachomim, how to learn plain simple pshat in Rashi.
And what ‘explicit Gemara’. The one where the only Rishon I can find on it says that if it’s someone who has died it MUST BE Daniel?
You do realize after all this time that anything the LR said about the identity of Mashiach doesn’t have weight with all non-Lubavichers on this thread. So why do you keep quoting it TO US as some sort of proof.
Finally, even in the times of the Rayatz most of Klal Yisrael were against his Mashiach statements, such as Le’alter Lig’ula. So when the LR claimed that his shver was Mashiach it was just added to the discard pile.
CS: “Arso- not that I doubt it- he actually just went to the trouble of photographing about 6 pages of scholarly research about the Rebbes yichus- but that I know itโs not about answers with you. So Iโm glad that it is addressed in that sefer, and maybe some other time Iโll take it further.”
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to, other than my claim that there is no proof that the LR is ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech.
Although, I just realized the other day, that that is the least problem with claiming the LR is Mashiach, as perhaps he is indeed ben achar ben, even though we have no proof. Perhaps I am and perhaps your husband is. Who knows? But one thing is certain, the LR does NOT fit any of the other criteria cited by the Rambam!
One other thing that came to me, if the LR at any stage claimed his father-in-law was Mashiach, how does that fit in with the LR being the Mashiach because he is dor shevi’i?
sechel: “how many sichos did you learn? how many maamarim? of the rebbe”
I learnt a few when I was younger, but once I saw where he was leading the oilem, I stopped, and I refuse to even look into one.
sechel: “every other gadol considered the rebbe either THE GADOL or a gadal (even r shach”
Not true at all, unless, of course, you only consider someone as a gadol if he held of the Lubavicher rebbe. There were/are quite a number of gedolei Yisroel who did not hold of his greatness. And as to Rav Shach, I heard from someone close to him that Rav Shach asked for the LR’s mother’s name when the LR had the first stroke, and when the person he asked looked surprised, he said that although he does NOT agree with his shitos, he wants to daven for him because he has brought a lot of people back to Yiddishkeit.
Which is something I have said all along. If Lubavich stuck to disseminating real Torah, their kiruv work, and their Chabad Houses, no one would denigrate them. It’s their WRONGLY assuming the mantle of leaders of world Yiddishkeit, and of course the Mashiach meshigass, that we take issue with.
Avira: “Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the hostages were released because their relatives davened to Hashem, and that He is a shomeah tefilah? Why make it into a Lubavitch centered thing?”
No way! It was clearly the Lubavicher rebbe!
And don’t believe what you read. In the latest edition of Mishpacha it says that Rabi David Abuchatzira had a 50 minute private meeting with the Argentinian president, and very soon afterwards the hostages were freed. Don’t they realize that it was all due to the LR?
sechel, I have never made any claim that could even be interpreted to mean such a thing. I claim to know nothing more than any gadol, just I don’t believe that your rebbe was a gadol.
CS: “May I also add that the first (unprecedented) wave of hostages were released shortly after members of many hostages families flew from Israel (!) to NY and went to the Ohel.”
Aren’t you the one who said in the earlier thread that having a temporary ceasefire in order to have hostages released was a really stupid idea?
CS: “The bottom line is that I asked a respected Lubavitcher Rav about the topic- he told me you canโt hold according to the Rambam bchezkas Moshiach, but youโre on solid Torah ground to believe the Rebbe is Moshiach regardless. So thatโs it.”
What exactly do you mean by “So that’s it”? Do you mean that we can’t argue with it because you asked a ‘respected’ L Rav? If that’s what you mean, then I want to point out that if the Rav in question said what you claim he said, I, and I am sure many others on this thread, do not respect him at all.
And if by “So that’s it” you mean that you feel satisfied in maintaining your view, then it is simply another example of choosing what to believe in to suit yourself. Remember the moshol about shooting the arrows and then drawing the target?
CS: “aside from the Gemara, thereโs the abarbanel and Sdei Chemed who refer to moshiach min hameisim positivelys well. Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase. And then youโre arguing how to interpret the Rashi- 2 steps removed.”
I really can’t believe you wrote that, and you don’t honestly see how you pick and choose what suits you!
Does your memory go far enough back to rememer YOU citing the Rashi as proof that Mashiach can be anyone who has died? And now you say, “Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase”! Shomu Shomayim! You are the paradigm of backtracking as long as you can claim that the LR is Mashiach.
In fact, why not ignore all the Mefarshim? Just say straight out that you don’t care what it says anywhere because the LR is Mashiach, and that anyone who says different is not halacha lemaaseh!
Btw, how are the Abarbanel and the Sdei Chemed more halacha lemaaseh?
I am absolutely astounded at the dishonesty that is being displayed here!
yankel berel: “To be an ehrlich oved hashem is VERY important .
no doubt about that .
But to have a correct hashkafa and not follow meshugaas in a cult like way is not any less important .”Would you not agree that someone who follows meshugassen in a cult-like way CANNOT be an oved Hashem?
CS: “obviously- clearly alive physically would be the most straightforward, ie be option a. Nobody was looking for an option b, pre Gimmel Tammuz, although the Rebbe alluded to it.”
Once again, you are evading the issue. As yankel berel pointed out, and as I remember clearly, pre-Gimmel Tammuz the official Lubavich line was NOT that the best option is that Mashiach is alive, but that IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE WHO IS ALIVE AT THAT TIME. The standard line was, “Look around. Who is there alive today who is more worthy of being Mashiach than the rebbe. Therefore it must be the rebbe!”
There was no, “If it’s someone who is alive…”
Btw in reply to your question as to who I heard it from that the LR only wanted women to learn gemoro directly related to the halachos in which women are obligated, I won’t tell you his name, because I don’t want the innocent (namely me) to suffer. But I can assure you it was someone high up who heard it directly from one of the LR’s secretaries.
HaLeiVi, yasher ko’ach. Very well argued!
I would also like to point out that it is ridiculous to suggest that talmidim such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Reb LY of Berditchev, the Baal Hatanya, the Maggid of Kozhnitz, the brothers Reb Shmelke of Nikolsburg and the Baal Haflo’oh and others, who were all renowned talmidei chachomim, would have followed someone who did not “know how to learn” and came up with a totally un-mesorah way of serving Hashem.
And to back up my stance that women should not be learning gemoro ;-), here is what CS wrote:
“it still says dugmaso- which is the same idea- an example. In that generation, the example of Moshiach min hachaim was Rebbi and min hameisim- Daniel. I donโt understand why you understand that Rebbi was only that generation but not subsequently, yet you donโt apply the same logic to Daniel.”You are mixing up the two leshonos.
Lashon 1. If Mashiach is someone who is currently (i.e. at the time the statement was made) alive, then it IS Rebbi. No one else.
If Mashiach is someone who has already died, then it IS Daniel. No one else. Rashi does NOT mention dugmaso in this lashon. And it is in this lashon that Rashi says that the word “kegon” is lav davka. That is, it does not mean “like”. Rather it means “is”, i.e. it IS either Rebbi or Doniel. According to this explanation, the statement was not dealing at all with someone who was not yet born at that time, and that is another possibility, which, it would seem, we are left with if it is not actually Daniel or Rebbi themselves.
(Avirah, I agree kegon does not mean exactly ‘like’ or ‘for example’. I was a rebbi for a number of years and I also used to teach that it really means ‘of the type’, as in kegavna. In fact, often it is not an example at all and it is the only acceptable case. Nonetheless, Rashi here is clearly telling us that it is not to be taken as an example.)Lashon 2: Mashiach will be someone great. How great? Well, if you want to see what type of person Mashiach will be, I can show you DUGMASO – someone like him – from those who are alive today, and that is Rebbi, or from those who have died, and that is Daniel. According to this lashon, there is no mention of the actual Mashiach being someone who has died. This lashon cannot, therefore, be brought as a proof that Mashiach can come from the dead. Again, Daniel, who, by the way, has died, had the characteristics that Mashiach will have, whoever he will be.
Is there any male out there who can show me how I have misinterpreted Rashi, and how Rashi does allow for someone else who has died to be considered Mashiach. Note: I am not asking for a discussion regarding whether Mashiach can come from the dead Rather I am asking for someone to show me that Lubavichers are justified IN QUOTING THIS GEMORO AND RASHI to prove that Mashiach can be someone who has died. (I’m sorry for seeming to be so repetitive, but I am trying to get a fact into some heads that are bolted shut to simple pshat.)
CS, I will be melamed zchus and say that you, a woman, can’t be blamed for misinterpreting a simple gemoro and Rashi, but it is hard to be melamed zchus on men who know how to learn gemoro and misinterpret the Rashi to suit their agendas.
One final point. I wouldn’t be fazed even if there were a multitude of Rishonim who wrote that Mashiach can come from the dead. It would still not bring me any closer to accepting that the Lubavicher rebbe is/was Mashiach for the many reasons that I have written in the past. The above discussion is just about Sanhedrin 98b.
CS: “With regards to the Ramban, Iโm not aware of the name of a sefer that addresses it directly, but thatโs it for now. I can look into it more thoroughly if youโd like. I just thought to start with the Gemara because that obviously predates the Ramban.”
What does “But that’s it for now” mean? You can’t answer something so “that’s it”?!
And the fact that the gemoro predates the Ramban means nothing at all. The Ramban – like Rashi – was a Rishon, and there is no way we could understand the gemoro without the Rishonim. What you seem to be saying is equivalent to saying that since Chumash preceded Chazal, we should try learning it without Chazal. Coming so recently from parshas Mishpotim, I can only imagine the results. There would be quite a number of people without arms, legs and eyes!
“btw The Rebbe wanted the Lubavitchers girls high schools to learn Gemara. Although I only know of one that does.”
And I know for a fact that what the Lubavicher rebbe advocated was that they learn only gemoro that is directly relevant to halochos that apply to women, not other stuff. (Note: I, and I’m sure many others on this thread, are against even that.)
CS: “So the Argentinian guys name is Chivra- or something similar, and he belongs to Beis Rebbi, as he is an avid student of The Rebbe ๐ (in fact his first trip abroad after winning the elections was to the ohel)”
So now Mashiach is an Argentinian goy. OK. I can handle that. It’s certainly easier to believe than all the other stuff coming out of Lubavich.
CS, it’s very clear… that you have it wrong. In the first pshat where Rashi says it can be a person who has died Rashi EXPLICITLY says that the kegon here is lav davka and does NOT mean “like”! Here is the Rashi:
ืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืจืืื ื ืืงืืืฉ. ืื ืืฉืื ืืืืชื ืฉืืืื ืขืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืจืืื ื ืืงืืืฉ ืืกืืื ืชืืืืืื ืืืกืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืฆืืขื (ืคื ื), ืืื ืืื ืืืืชื ืฉืืชื ืืืจ ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืฉ ืืืืืืช ืฉื ืืื ืืืกืืจืื ืืืื ืืจืืืช ืืืกืื ืืืืจ ืืื, ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืืงื, ืืืฉื ื ืืืจืื ื: ืืืื ืจืืื ื ืืงืืืฉ, ืืืืืจ, ืื ืืฉ ืืืืืชื ืืืืื ืืืื ื ืจืืื ื ืืงืืืฉ, ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืชืื, ืืืื ื ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืฉ ืืืืืืช.According to this Rashi the gemoro makes no allowance for saying it is any dead person other than Doniel, and even that is only according to the first explanation. The second explanation doesn’t even allow for that.
Note, the gemoro is talking only about the possibility of it being someone alive at the time the statement was made, and Rashi is explaining that. It is not talking about a later time, when Rebbi is no longer alive. Clearly, then it can be someone else who is alive. Nonetheless, regarding the possibility that it is someone who has died, there is no allowance in the gemoro or Rashi that it can be anyone other than Daniel. If you want to claim it is the Lubavicher rebbe, the gemoro should not, and can not, be cited as any type of support that it is possible.
CS, please reply about the explanation of the gemoro and Rashi I gave above. If you’re going to be intellectually honest you can’t just ignore it.
Btw is there anyone out there who thinks (and can show me how) I got it wrong?
coffee addict: “what (mostly) everyone is saying is that chabad is fabulous except for the โrebbe is moshiach yechiโ stuff”
I must then be part of the minority. While they certainly do a lot of good stuff, they also have problems that are not related to the Mashiach claim. It’s just that currently that claim outweighs the others.
yb I’m clearly of the same generation, and I too lived through that major upheaval. However, I disagree about Lubavichers not claiming their rebbe was Mashiach, as I heard that when I was a kid many years before 88. The only difference was that then it was much more low-key, and you had to have people who thought that you were on their side who would tell you that. Post 91 it become public.