ARSo

Kuvult, I have no idea why you addressed this to me. I certainly believe that to be a chassid you need a live Rebbe, and my comment was to Lostspark on his trying to refute that.

Gadolhadorah, growth in numbers does not indicate growth in ruchniyus and the like. edited 

Any chance of the mods starting a thread with all the stuff deleted from qwerty’s posts? edited

sechel, this is what I wrote: “From and via are two different things, and there is a VAST difference in concept between the two in this area.”

And this is what you replied: “@arso from vs, via oh. good point. so someone was speaking and said from instead of via. so right away go accuse him of a”z. i would say the same thing then to someone who says plants grow from the rain, a”z!
basically go learn chassidus.”

Great reply! I especially like the way you attack something I didn’t write. Makes it really hard for me to rebut. Very clever!

sechel83:
ונ”ל על פי מה שאמרו רבותינו ז”ל (שם בתענית דכ”ד ע”ב) בכל יום בת קול יוצאה ואמר כל העולם ניזון בשביל חנינא בני וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין וכו’, נמצא שהיה ר’ חנינא בן דוסא הצינור המשפיע שפעו לכל העולם, וזהו [בשביל] חנינא בני, שהוא לשון דרך ומעבר, כשביל זה שהוא מעבר לכל, כן הוא היה מעבר ההשפעות לעולם,
(לקוטים יקרים ד”ו ע”ד, אור תורה פ’ בחקותי)

As far as I can translate (and I’m usually pretty good with that) this means that all hashpo’ó comes VIA the tzaddik, which is not the same at all as what you wrote in a later post:
“Everything we have in our lives comes FROM the Rebbe”

From and via are two different things, and there is a VAST difference in concept between the two in this area.

Potato: “what do you think of your landsmen that are not suffering from a shaas hadachak but not keeping cholov yisroel? And the ones who are benei Torah learning in kollel that are married and not worried about Parnasa that they go clean shaven?”

(Disclaimer: I keep cholov Yisroel, and I have never shaven my beard BH.)

I believe there are heteirim for eating what R Moshe Feinstein referred to as ‘cholov hacompanies’ even if it’s not a shaas hadchak. And I know that there are major poskim who say it is muttar lechatchilah to shave even without any concern of parnassa.

Just because you’re rabbonim may disagree with those opinions, those who act in accordance with those opinions have no need to justify their actions to fit in with your rabbonim.

Emunas: “It’s really amusing being lectured on Tanya from someone who says they barely learn Chassidus.”

Is that really your best answer to someone who quotes Tanya to argue with what you say?! If he’s wrong in his understanding in Tanya, show him how and why. But to say that you know more than him therefore you’re right is an escape and pure gaavah. Seems to me that’s the same manner Lubavichers decided that their rebbe is a navi, nassi and the Mashiach. “We just know more than you, so there’s no point in you arguing!”

“There are significant discrepancies between the siddur and the SA harav. Ending time for shabbos and fifth bracha of shema in maariv”

Therefore? Oh, I get it. Because at times the Baal Hatanya changed his mind later in life, that means that we can discount anything he wrote in Hilchos Talmud Torah if we decide that it’s ‘good’ to do otherwise. Did I get that right?

Makes sense. It’s the same thing you do when it comes to maamarei Chazal and the words of Rishonim that don’t quite suit what you want to believe, e.g. when it comes to the criteria of Mashiach.

Emunas: “in fact, it’s a chiyuv on everyone to learn all parts of the Torah that he is able to. There are many mekubalim, including non-chassidim, who have written this.”

So it’s the mekubalim who hold one should learn Kabbalah. What a surprise!

Where I come from, and hang around, learning Kabbalah as a limud is virtually non-existent for those who don’t have Shas and Poskim “in their pockets”. I believe it is because of the inherent dangers of someone whose mind is not fully attuned to Torah when he comes face to face with esoteric concepts in depth. It can lead to hagshama, and, as I have posted elsewhere, I believe that that is where many Lubavichers have fallen prey.

“Without chassidus/kaballah, it is virtually impossible in today’s generation to maintain a true connection with Hashem.”

What a terrible sweeping claim. Every Shomer Torah uMitzvos can, on his level, have a true connection with Hashem. Although I am of the chassidishe velt, and I am certainly not enamored of the Litvishe velt (sorry to all the Litvishe out there), I certainly believe that there are multitudes of Litvaks who never learn chassidus/Kabalah and who have a true connection to Hashem.

anyPotao to me: “can people on this thread speak to the lamdus of the sefer as it relates to Chazal, rishonim, acharonim and Rambam without speaking about Lubavitch?”

This is so typical of Lubavich. Trying to force the discussion into an area where you won’t feel uncomfortable.

I’m not dealing with the sefer, and I don’t even know which sefer you’re talking about. And as to your reply to my claim that when he was alive ALL Lubavichers, without exception, claimed Mashiach has to be someone who is alive, you are distorting the facts.

I personally heard many Lubavichers giving public shiurim say that 1. Mashiach has to be someone who is alive, and 2. Who alive is more worthy than the Lubavicher rebbe (In this post I’m not going to argue how this last claim does not hold water). You claim that they believed that Mashiach has to be someone who is alive only because they believed their rebbe was Mashiach. If that was their reasoning, they hid it and lied, because they claimed the reverse, as I explained, that because it has to be someone who is alive it must be their rebbe.

“there was a Toeles in telling his Chassidim about Notkin. Notkin offered the Rebbe tea that day and the Rebbe drank it so the Baal.Hatanya was teaching his Chassidim that even if you’re abused by your host you shpuld accept whst he offers.”

What to’eles is there in telling the person’s name. Wouldn’t it have been enough – if the story is true – to say that he was in the house of someone who abused him?

And from my reliable sources, that is the source of celebrating 20 Kislev. Not the printing of Tanya.

Menachem: “Again, imagine if Reb Chaim proved from a Gemara that “Talmidei Chachamim go straight to Olam Habah.
His talmidim will probably say, “Wow, our dear teacher, Reb Chaim, will go straight to Olam Habah!”
Here’s the question: Was Reb Chaim referring to himself in his statement?”

Better question: would they say that R Chaim was implying that he himself is a talmid chochom and will therefore go straight to Olam Haba? Simple answer: no! And the same is true with whatever imaginary conclusion you claim the chassidim of R Elimelech would come up with. They wouldn’t say that he MEANT himself even by implication.

Yet you yourself, and apparently all of Lubavich, claim that your rebbe WAS implying that he himself is the (non-existent) Nassi Hador, that he will be Mashiach, and that he is a Navi.

Sneaky and disingenuous once again. As I wrote in the past, you can’t have it both ways.

“I feel like I’m explaining a concept to a five year old.”

Yep, someone who understands pshuto shel Mikra and sees problems where they appear. This five year-old is not satisfied with your answers.

In light of the side discussion mentioning the greatness of the Baal Hatanya and his Shulchan Aruch, someone once asked me a question for which I have no answer.

How is it that the sefer is called Shulchan Aruch, which was the name of a sefer accepted by klal Yisrael 200-300 years earlier. The question isn’t how he could write his own set of halachos and pasken differently, there is no problem with that. But why was it given the exact same name as the original Shulchan Aruch?

yankelberel: “Mind you , the above sicha about the chazon ish was said on Purim 1956”

Ah! So it was a Purim Torah! Not a very funny one.

CS, you wrote a few days ago: “With mussar you identify with your nefesh habehamis, and as such you must constantly humiliate yourself for your selfish motivations”

This statement that I have heard many times from Lubavichers is most definitely not true, certainly not in regards to the mussar seforim I am acquainted with. They don’t tell you how bad you are. They tell you what is important and how to work to get there.

Menachem: “The Rebbe never said this about himself. The Rebbe said this about his father-in-law, the Rebbe Rayatz.”

I feel some sneaky backtracking here. He said it about the Rayatz and not about himself. So did he or did he not mean to imply it about himself? If yes, it’s as good as him saying it. And if not, who decided that he himself was Atzmus umehus melubash beguf? The chassidim? Can chassidim decide something so radical on their own without an explicit statement from the rebbe himself.

Wasn’t it R Yoel Kahn who said after 3 Tammuz that the mistake of the chassidim is that they decided the rebbe was Mashiach when he didn’t say so explicitly, even though it was the logical conclusion? I believe he said by way of illustration something along the lines that chassidim can’t come to the conclusion that 2 plus 2 equals 4 if the rebbe doesn’t say so.

Avirah, I disagree with you on one thing.

You attempt to prove that the Vilna Gaon was definitely greater than the Baal Hatanya from Litvishe sources. I don’t see anything wrong with Lubavichers believing that the Baal Hatanya, who we all agree was an absolute giant in nigleh and nistar, was greater than the Vilna Gaon.

As an aside, i have heard a number of times that one of the early Belzer Rebbes said that the world thinks that the Vilna Gaon was greater than the Baal Hatanya in nigleh, while the latter was greater than the former in nistar. This is actually a mistake as the reverse is true.

To help people remember – because I myself am beginning to forget – I’d like to start a list of questions that those on our side have and that have not even been addressed by the other side, even by quoting their own sources.

In no particular order:
1. The whole concept of Nossi Hador is something that has been non-existent for centuries, and the Lubavicher rebbe reinvented it, applied it to his father-in-law and… to himself.

2. The fact that his father-in-law, and by succession he himself, was/is a Navi without any proof other than the Lubavicher rebbe’s claim that the Rayatz predicted things correctly. And not to be overlooked is the fact that the Lubavicher rebbe predicted that no Yid would be killed in the 1991 Gulf War, and there was a Yid who was killed R”L.

3. It is now almost thirty years since the Lubavicher rebbe died, and more than thirty years since he last said anything. and he said that Mashiach was coming bekarov mamash and that Mashiach is around the corner. Thirty years, with Rachmomo litzlan thousands and thousands of tragedies that would not have happened had Mashiach come, is not bekarov mamash or around the corner by anyone’s calculation. Anyone, that is, except for Lubavichers.

4. The fact that before 3 Tammuz ABSOLUTELY EVERY LUBAVICHER “believed” that Mashiach has to be someone who was alive, and then on 3 Tammuz that changed.

5. There is someone in each generation who is fit to be Mashiach. Until 3 Tammuz “generation” meant what generation is generally taken to mean. After 3 Tammuz it means from the time the Lubavicher rebbe beame rebbe until Mashiach comes, regardless of how many years pass.

6. The claim of him being Mashiach based on the Rambam even though not one of the criteria of the Rambam can be definitely assigned to him. And don’t forget that WE KNOW that he is descended from Dovid Hamelech because he said so himself!

7. The Lubavicher rebbe was “forced” into becoming a rebbe, even though in a number of books written by Lubavicher it shows otherwise.

8. The Lubavicher rebbe was anav mikol adam and never pushed himself to the forefront. What proof is there of that? I can think of many proofs – some have been mentioned in this thread – that show the opposite. One small indication, not mentioned until now, is that visiting gedolei Yisrael had to come to 770 to visit him, and “suffer” with all types of publicity surrounding their visit. Is there any case where he visited others. In the Torah world when one Rebbe visits another, the latter repays the visit. In Lubavich the visits were only in one direction.

9. His explanation al pi nigleh how a person who is mitzta’er that he CAN fall asleep is pottur from sleeping in the sukkah. It is totally preposterous to claim that this is a valid reason. I might as well say that if I’m mitzta’er that I enjoy eating in the sukkah I am pottur from eating in the sukkah!

10. My proof from the story of the sundial that the memoirs of the Rayatz are fictional and my assumption that the memoirs were never meant to be taken literally. By the way, it is not just the story of the sundial that is unbelievable. There are many others that, while not impossible, are extremely difficult to believe.

I think there are more, but the above is what I can come up with offhand. Please fill in whatever I have missed out.

And for the Lubavichers, how about you address these points directly without obfuscating (why do all these fancy words only come to me in the Coffee Room?)?

Menachem, you said that 5783 is anti-Lubavich. Are you serious? He constantly toes the party-line to the extreme. Or did I mix up 5783 with someone else?

Re winding tefillin outwards: “I don’t think that this is even a true reason for our minhag. I’ve heard it mentioned before in jest.”

I have no doubt that that is not the reason for winding on tefillin in that direction, but I have definitely heard it used by Lubavichers taunting Litvaks, and not in jest.

“This is how a Lubavitcher could have worded it:
“As a group, you consider us meisisim umadichim, so then don’t get upset when we belittle your shitos.””

Doesn’t the Torah command us to hate the meisis for trying to convince others to follow avodah zarah? So why shouldn’t we get upset when we see Lubavichers belittling Torah-true shitos and trying to convince others to follow shitos that we see as “questionable” at best? It’s not that we care that you’re making fun of us; non-frum Jews also make fun of us all the time. It’s that you do so in the name of Yiddishkeit and Torah.

“every Chabad yeshiva has a Gemara seder on Shabbos”

Are you sure of that? The Lubavicher once said that during the week the seder should be 1/3 chassidus and 2/3 nigleh. On Shabbos it should be the opposite. Then people wrote in to him that in a kuntres of the Rashab – I think it may have been called Eitz Chaim – it says that only chassidus should be learned on Shabbos, and he retracted it. I personally have been confronted and laughed at for learning gemoro on Shabbos. (Some of this may have changed when the Lubavicher rebbe instituted learning Rambam every day of the week.)

“Many daf yomi shiurim before shachris in Chabad shuls in Crown Heights and other communities”

You must be quite young if you’re going to cite that. Lubavich, and the rebbe, were always against daf yomi. I don’t believe there were daf yomi shiurim in any Lubavich shul in Crown Heights before 3 Tammuz.

And in regards to eating gebrokts on Pesach, and putting tefillin on in a particular way. While there is certainly no “mivtza” in those areas, Lubavichers openly tell others that it is prohibited to eat gebrokts and that they put on tefillin in a more preferred manner that others.

But it is probably just a matter of you showing you age again. All these things used to be important to Lubavichers, until the last 30+ years when the Mashiach campain took over so strongly that in many parts that is all we hear about.

One question that has been basically overlooked and/or ignored by Lubavichers on this thread is why before 3 Tammuz 5754 ALL Lubavichers WITHOUT EXCEPTION were in 100% agreement that Mashiach has to be someone who is alive. Then, immediately after 3 Tammuz it was acceptable to say that Mashiach can be someone who has died? (Is it correct to put the question mark there at the end of the second sentence, when the first sentence asks “why” and the second is just a statement? On the one hand it doesn’t seem right, but on the other it does. Perhaps I should have used a semicolon instead of a period between the sentences. Oh well.)

The truth is, the most consistent view is that of the crazies who say he never died. At least they don’t have to change their original belief.

mdd: “ARSo, if someone has heretical views, it is not okay to just let it go without challenging them.”

Are you trying to say that I haven’t been challenging them?!

Menachem: “I disagree with many of your examples”

I don’s see why. They are all examples that I and others have personally witnessed. Have you never seen a Lubavicher telling a Litvak who puts on tefillin by winding it inwards, “All you care about is yourself, so you’re winding inwards. We care about others, so we wind outwards”? (It’s actually quite a funny claim, because Satmar also winds outwards, yet Lubavich were at great odds with them in the past.)

At any rate, you claim that the Lubavich shitah is the best for all Yidden, and I accept that you believe that. And that is why as a group you (perhaps not you personally) belittle other shitos. Please don’t say that you don’t – we all know that you do, especially at drunken farbrengens. But then don’t get upset with those of us who consider Lubavichers close to meisisim umadichim when they try to get us to believe what we consider nonesense, and at times apikorsus.

n0m: “No kol korei ever accurately conveyed the wishes of the leader.”

That is an amazing sweeping statement for which I see you bringing no support. What makes you say this?

Menachem: “What the Rebbe is explaining is the common practice of asking a Rebbe for brochos.”

I find it hard to accept that the question the rebbe mentioned, i.e how is it possible to ask from a rebbe, was referring to brochos. Everyone has always known that any Yid can give a brocho. What else does the greeting Shalom aleichem mean if not one Yid giving a brocho to the other? I therefore find it easier to believe that he is talking about asking direct help from the rebbe, which is a form of davening to him.

And you’re right, I did not mean davening Shmoneh Esrei to him, although I imagine that the crazy who wrote “Who Elokeinu? The rebbe Melech Hamashiach, that’s who!” probably does, as well as the person I mentioned who says “Baruch Harebbe”.

“the sicha was said at a time (5710) when the Rebbe was still adamantly opposed to chassidim even considering him “Rebbe,””

Which reminds me. You never addressed my references to two books published by Lubavicher chassidim which clearly indicate that the Lubavicher rebbe wanted to be rebbe after the Rayatz. I understand that you may be reticent to accept Deitsch’s version, as he has sort of moved away from the party line, but the other was written by Shneur Zalman Gurary, and he was loyal until the end.

CS, you asked how I was taught to get in touch with my neshama. And if I wasn’t talught how by my Rebbe, what did he teach me?

The problem with your question, as with a lot of other things that you and other Lubavichers write, is that aside from being taught a certain derech – ostensibly the derech of Lubavich – you are also taught that the purpose behind those teachings is universal and accepted by all.

So to answer your question, I was most definitely NOT taught to get in touch with my neshama, and I don’t believe that there is a need for that. Furthermore, a lot of “getting in touch” with one’s neshama is not a Jewish concept. Look at how the world is a mess because of people who “are in touch with themselves”. How does a person know that he is in touch with his neshama and that it is not merely his nefesh habehamis telling him that he is. As long as a person has base taavos and the like, he can’t judge where he is at.

So what does my Rebbe, and his forebears teach me? Not to try to get in touch with my neshama at all! To perform mitzvas and to learn Torah with yegiah and to be besimchah that I can do even the smallest mitzvah and learn even the smallest amount of Torah. Let the RBSO deal with my neshama; I have to deal with my machshavah, dibbur and maaseh in this world.

I could give you a number of very good sources on the matter… but then you’d probably figure out where exactly I belong. And if you want to know why I’m scared of that, the answer is that I don’t want to denigrate my chassidus by publicly claiming that I am a sort of spokesman of theirs.

One important question that I have: can you please provide a source – Lubavicher sources are fine here, although it has to be a primary source and not something a teacher in sem taught you – where it says that a person has to be in touch with his neshama? I would even like a source that says that a person has to know what state of righteousness he is currently at. Who cares where I am at the moment, it’s where I’m headed that matters… isn’t it?

Menachem: “Otherwise, I’m just wasting my breath.”

You won’t be wasing your breath if you explain how the story of R Chaim Brisker is relevant to those who have kashas on Lubavich.

And while I have your attention, I want to point out something that I don’t think has been mentioned – at least, I haven’t mentioned it and I don’t recall others mentioning it.

Were Lubavich to have these weird and possibly heretical views, but they kept them to themselves, I, and I assume others, would not be so vehement in attacking them. Take Satmar, for example. I totally disagree with their views on the State of israel, but I can handle them because they don’t usually try to force their views on me.

Lubavich, on the other hand, have an agenda, and that is that the entire world has to recognize that the late rebbe is the Nassi Hador and that therefore everyone has to do what he says. Learning nigleh on Shabbos or before davening is wrong. Eating gebrokts is wrong. Even putting on tefillin differently is wrong. And don’t tell me that’s not true because decades of experience – it sounds like from even before you were born – have shown me that it is true.

I’ll give you one example. My sister-in-law was in Meron this last Shabbos and on Friday she overheard a Lubavicher woman asking a Sefardi women if her daughter lights Shabbos candles. The latter said that her daughter does.
“With a beracha?”
“No. Without.”
“Well she should make a beracha.”
“But our minhag is not to.”
“The Lubavicher rebbe said girls should. Do you think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?!”

It’s this typical type of behaviour that really gets on people’s nerves, and that’s why we are so often on the attack. That, and the posters/pictures/stickers of Melech Hamashiach put all over the place, even on private property.

If you would “leave us alone” we wouldn’t go on the attack nearly as much. Of course, your answer will likely be that your rebbe wanted you to convince everyone that he is a Navi/Nassi/Mashiach, so that’s what you have to do. And that just compounds the problem.

And just to make things clear. The above is NOT my major complaint with Lubavich. It’s just the reason that I find it difficult to remain silent.

n0m: “The gemara in Chullin is a nice chap”

You’re also a nice chap!

“Assuming that all pictures are not a problem of making images, a picture would not become an idol until it is worshipped or specifically created to be worshipped”

What about if it was used to exude some spiritual power?