Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LostSpark: “RSo every time someone brings a picture of R Shayaleh into their house to get rid of mice they are committing AZ?!?”
Good question. I have always had a problem with that, and I don’t know how to justify it. Maybe someone else can come up with a justification.
Sorry about my previous post. It was meant for another thread.
LostSpark: “RSo every time someone brings a picture of R Shayaleh into their house to get rid of mice they are committing AZ?!?”
Good question. I have always had a problem with that, and I don’t know how to justify it. Maybe someone else can come up with a justification.
n0m, thanks for the quote from Yeshayah!
n0m: “Avodah zara is about worship. A physical action. Something one does to serve a higher power. It does not take place in the mind.”
Not true. See the very end of Chulin where the gemoro suggests that the reason that the mitzvah of Shiluach Haken did not save a person from falling and dying was because he may have had a “thought” of avodah zarah, in which case the mitzvah would not save him:
דלמא מהרהר בעבודה זרה הוה דכתיב למען תפוש את בית ישראל בלבם ואמר רב אחא בר יעקב זו מחשבת עבודה זרה.Furthermore, if you attribute spiritual power to a photo, you have certainly transgressed the prohibition of creating/owning an avodah zarah, even if you don’t worship it.
n0m: “Why should we know how to live our life? It’s just do what Hashem wants…. Enter Arizal.. Baal Shem…”
Because without these great Torah leaders and thinkers, together with others who are not affiliated davka with the above paths, e.g. Sfardim and Litvish, we would not be serving hashem properly, and we would be performing mitzvos אנשים מלומדה. Not that we aren’t doing so now, but hopefully these leaders/thinkers are awakening us at least somewhat.
CS you make out as if it is easy to do something lesheim Shomayim once you become aware of it.
There are very few people – and it is unlikely that any of them spend time in the CR – who do things solely for the sake of Hashem. It’s very nice that people realize that they can make a dirah for Hashem, so to speak, and it may indeed change their mindset, but to assume that that is takke the reason they are doing it, and that they no longer have personal motives, is unreal.
Kol ma’asecha yihyu lesheim Shomayim, is the finish line, not the starting line.
qwerty: “the claim that the Baal Hatanya was a Neshama Chadasha, the first in 2000 years”
I don’t know about the first in 2000 years part, but Lubavichers certainly make the claim that the Baal Hatanya was a neshama chadasha. Of course, they are the only ones who make that claim about him.
LostSpark: “How is that AZ? Enlighten me”
Are you serious? I thought I explained that. If you attribute some sort of spiritual power to an image (that can’t even be seen at the time!), isn’t that a”z?
CS: “Arso the bris thing was directed by The Rebbe.”
That’s what makes it worse! He is attributing some special spiritual power to a photo of himself!
For those who are interested in a source, I looked it up online and it can be found on the chabadpedia website, among others. Do a search for תמונת הרבי ברית סנדק (the first two words in quotes) and you will find it. The Lubavicher rebbe explains that the photo should be placed on the knees of the sandek, and the reason the chassidim put it there is because they would actually like the rebbe himself (should I be capitalizing the word “himself”?) to be sandek.
Is no Lubavicher going to address the claim of avodah zarah in regards to the Lubavicher rebbe’s picture being placed under the baby at a bris?
It seems to me that this is what the Lubavich contingent in this thread are best at. If they can’t answer by quoting a sicha or the like, they ignore the question altogether.
n0m: “The mention of the whole world acknowledging moshiach is in Sefer Yeshaya.”
Can you please provide chapter and verse? I’m not arguing, just wanting to know.
n0m: “we have been taught that it all comes down to Torah Study. Why is that so?”
It doesn’t all come down to Torah study. Someone who studies Torah and doesn’t keep Mitzvos is a posheia. Nonetheless, תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם. Furthermore, without learning Torah how will one know how to live his life?
CS: “As far as arrogant etc, a few of my friends who became lubavitch told me how they found it so refreshing- instead of doing Torah and mitzvos for themselves (to become the best ever, get Olam Haba, get closest to Hashem etc) they now put the focus on the other way around- what can I do to help make a dirah for Hashem?”
Isn’t that also selfish, albeit on a lesser level? They are happier and feeling refreshed.
First, my apologies for not mentioning the following earlier regarding avodah zarah. The truth is that I can’t believe that it slipped my mind.
Many of us – both chassidim and Litvishe – have pictures hanging in their houses of their rebbe or rosh yeshivah, and this is despite many gedolei Yisroel not being happy with the practice. The purpose of this (aside from showing others where you belong :)) is so that when you look at the picture it will hopefully inspire you to live up to the directives of the person pictured and to increase in Torah and mitzvos. If, however, you were to hang up a picture of your rebbe/RY and have it permanently covered, citing the reason that the picture itself can achieve something, that would be akin to avodah zarah. Does anyone disagree with that?
Yet in Lubavich the minhag is to have a picture of the Lubavicher rebbe hidden in the pillow holding the child at his bris. No one can see the picture at the time. If the minhag would be to show others – or even the rach hanimol, who probably can’t focus yet – the picture so that the image uplifts people, it could be understood. But please explain why hiding the picture where it can’t be seen is not an act of avodah zarah by attributing some form of power to a picture.
In one of the pamphlets put out by the Degel people in 5749, during the bitter election campaign between Degel and Agudah – they cited a story about R Yaakov Landa zt”l, the rov of Bnei Brak, who was a Lubavicher and, I believe, the house rov of the Rashab of Lubavich. According to the pamphlet, he once attended a bris, and when he saw them putting the picture in the pillow he asked what was going on. When he was told he became extremely agitated and said that it was avodah zarah. He could not be calmed down and had to be taken out of the room.
The story may not be true, after all, it was publicized by snags (!) but it certainly may be true.
n0m re the L rebbe and R Shach: “I have chased down multiple first hand accounts of The Rebbe and The Rosh Yeshiva. I don’t see a personal disagreement.”
Which is why he called him part of “seridei choshech” and why if you mention Rav Shach to a Lubavicher they bristle at the fact that you’ve given him the title Rav.
n0m re limud Torah: “Okay it’s a mitzvah. So is putting a fence on the porch. But why are we so consumed with it? Why is learning Torah so critical? It is what Hashem wants and nothing else. So let’s to some other mitzva instead.”
Because bittul Torah is an aveirah and one is meant to learn Torah during every free moment when one is not involved in any other important activity (such as writing in the coffee room?). And fine, if you have other mitzvos to do you are exempt from learning Torah at that time.
n0m, I would say that I know both Gur and Satmar quite well and that almost everything you said about them is incorrect.
Furthermore, all groups trace their lineage to the Baal Shem Tov. It’s just in Lubavich they have a longer chain of ben achar ben (with both Menachem Mendel’s being sons-in-law) than others. But then again, Rizhin has an even longer chain because they are descendents of the Maggid of Mezritch.
And you wrote: “If he had an issue, he spoke to the gadol directly and frankly.”
When was it exactly that he spoke to Rav Shach, because he certainly had issues with him?
n0m re Avirah’s claim that we don’t daven that the whole world will know Mashiach: “I do. 15th bracha of the Amidah. V’karno Tarum”
I don’t see how that means that the whole world will know Mashiach. It means, as far as understand the simple meaning, that we daven that Dovid Hamelech’s pride/fame will be uplifted (when Mashiach comes). There is not meantion of the whole world knowing it.
When Mashiach comes the whole world will indeed acknowledge him, as this is one of the Rambam’s criteria, but I don’t see where we pray for that result.
n0m: “If I am just doing what Hashem wants and nothing else, than why is learning Torah important? ”
I still can’t understand you. Learning Torah isn’t a mitzvah?! והגית בו יומם ולילה, תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם, ודברת בם etc.
We are meant to learn Torah and keep Mitzvos SOLELY BECAUSE HASHEM SAID TO. To put it simply, if Hashem said to us, “If you learn Torah and keep Mitzvos you will STOP Mashiach coming and you will hide Elokus even deeper in the world, but I want you to learn Torah and keep Mitzvos anyway,” we would have to do it and forget about Mashiach and Elokus.
BH that’s not the case, as Torah and Mitzvos do indeed bring Mashiach bimheirah and reveal Elokus in the world, but that, so to speak, is Hashem’s business, not ours.
n0m, you’re take on Satmar, Gur and Tsanz is partly wrong and partly shallow. According to what you write, if at one stage someone is hungry and then later he is not, that is a change of view. it’s not. It’s just a change of circumstance.
WWII wreaked havoc on those communities both physically and spiritually, and they had to rebuild in both areas. Where before they war they may have concentrated on one aspect, after the war they had to concentrate on others. That’s not a change of view, it’s a change of action to reach that view.
And when it comes to Lubavich you write that the voices of the previous rebbes are still heard. Are you really saying there’s no change? Before the war was Lubavich focused on outreach? Did they talk atout Mashiach as much as they do now? Of course not. Now the former could be a matter of adjustment, but not the stress on Mashiach.
As to your rhetorical question as to why the Lubavicher rebbe was involved in a number of things: I know nothing about him “wasting” resources on Litvish yeshivos or his helping opposition kashrus organizations, so I can’t comment. His “helping” Israel always seemed to me to be dictating what they should do, i.e. pushing his own view as the only correct one. And he shied away from so many controversies – not all – because he wanted to be able to be accepted by all sides.
n0m: “So why learn Torah? Why are we spending two millennia in exile? Why do we keep mitzvos in the diaspora? Why do we value Torah knowledge above all other knowledge? There is no reason to answer me. Just keep doing whatever you were doing because Hashem said so.”
To me that sounds so weird. You disparage learning Torah and keeping Mitzvos if it is solely done because Hashem said so?! Do you really need a “better” reason?
“But I have one question. Where did Hashem say to hate?”
I don’t recall ever saying I hate Lubavich or Lubavichers. But I will say that the passuk says אוהבי ה’ שנאו רע, and anything that leads people away from true Torah views is רע and thus deserving of hate.
What’s bothering me at the moment is where the goalposts are.
We are constantly arguing about whether there is nevuah nowadays, whether the Lubavicher rebbe was referring to himself as a navi, whether the criteria of Mashiach cited by the Rambam can apply to him even though he has allegedly died, whether there is a problem with atzmus melubash beguf, etc.
All of the above implies that if we resolve these problems then we would all be in agreement that he could be a navi, Mashiach and that atzmus could be melubash in his guf. I’m sorry, but I disagree, and I assume some of others in this thread would too.
Notwithstanding the many zechuyos that the Lubavicher rebbe had – in my opinion, Chabad houses are the greatest – he was not humble, pushed himself to the forefront and was very chauvinistic. (As a chassid of a well-known and well-accepted rebbe – someone who I believe even Lubavichers may acknowledge – once said to me, “For my rebbe it makes no difference if someone is his own chassid or a Lubavicher. My Rebbe will be happy if he can get him to live like a Yid. For the Lubavicher rebbe, it made no difference if someone was a Yid or a goy, as long as he was a Lubavicher.”)
So in light of the above, I don’t believe he had a chance of being a navi, or to be considered someone with atzmus melubash in him. And as far as Mashiach is concerned, I am waiting for someone on a higher plane.
Avirah: “the euphoric, emotional chasidus of poland”
Euphoric and emotional?! Have you ever been to Alexander, Amshinov, Gur, Modzitz or Sochachev? Far less euphoric and emotional than Lubavich.
Lubavich has always denigrated “Poilishe chassidim” as using the heart and not the brain, but as a huge talmid chochom and chassidishe Yid who didn’t belong to either of the above explained to me, the original appellation “Poilishe chassidim” was used by Lubavich to describe Chernobyler chassidim who, apparently, were much more into emotion. This makes a lot of sense because in Europe Lubavich would have come into quite a bit of contact with Chernobyler chassidim, as opposed to those from Poland.
At any rate, Lubavich has for decades categorized all other chassidim as “Poilishe chassidim” – even Satmar who were nowhere near Poland.
qwerty to CS: ““Every generation has aoshe Rabbeinu.”
Who was Moshe Rabbeinu in the. Dor before the Rebbe?”Who is the Moshe Rabbeinu of this dor?
CS: “What’s the point of revealing Elokus in this world?……
It’s like saying I believe in dialing the exact phone number (but forgetting the point is to make a call😀)”I don’t understand the question (or the moshol). I specifically wrote that the plan is to keep Torah and Mitzvos SOLELEY BECAUSE HASHEM SAID TO. A result of that is that Elokus will become revealed, but that is NOT the reason we do what Hashem says.
CS: “Rso- regarding more sources for Moshe Rabbeinu/ Nassi hador- I posted a sicha on it before shabbos together with the sources. I believe the first was the megale amukos”
Yes, you did, but as far as I recall none of the sources said that there is an actual Nassi Hador nowadays.
CS: “Other Chassidim I’ve met relate to this awe of The Rebbe (because their parents tell them stories etc of their original Rebbes) but hold there Rebbeim have gone through yeridas hadoros”
Two points:
1. You obviously haven’t met the chassidim that I and others hang around with.
2. So much of what you, and some others write, is based on what you feel about your rebbe. You feel he’s the greatest person who ever lived. You feel he’s the Mashiach. You feel that he is the only one who has not experienced yeridas hadors. Etc. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but feelings don’t count. Not in Torah. In Torah we have rules and criteria, and, as I keep pointing out, your rebbe doesn’t win on the necessary criteria.Furthermore, a lot or your feelings are based on “facts” without basis that were fed to you. We have heard someone claim that your rebbe knew virtually every sefer published before the war by heart. That he is direct patrilineal descendent of Dovid Hamelch (“He said so himself!”). That he didn’t want to become rebbe and it was forced upon him. (In refutation of that I gave LUBAVICH SOURCES: SZ Gurary’s book which discusses the infighting between the Lubavicher rebbe and his brother-in-law, and “Larger than Life” which says that his parents only agreed to the shidduch on condition that he later became rebbe.) That he was the most humble person. That he was the world’s greatest gaon (yes, I’m once again going to quote his nigleh reasoning for not sleeping in the sukkah to refute that claim). And more that I can’t remember offhand.
I have to agree with qwerty here. Cunin meant what he said in a literal sense. All the explaining and justification won’t change that. Does that make him an apikorus? Possibly, but don’t try to convince us that he meant something he didn’t. We’re not that stupid.
CS: “And yes, there’sa plan with this world, which is to read [I assume you meant ‘ready’ – ARSo] it for Moshiach”
I may be wrong, and if I am please cite non-Lubavich sources to set me straight, but I believe the above is a totally Lubavich concept, and quite likely a fairly recent one. The plan I believe in is that we are to keep Torah and Mitzvos solely because that is what Hashem wants, and by the way that will reveal his Elokus in the world. To the best of my recollection I have never heard that the plan has to do with Mashiach except in Lubavich circles.
qwerty to me: “you accuse the Rabbis of that shul of missionizong.”
No I wasn’t. I was merely giving an example. Just like you couldn’t be friends with and appreciate a missionary so too how can you be friends with and appreciate someone who practices a”z?
CS, you originally wrote that Aharon was greater than Moshe in Shalom, and that Miriam was greater than him in emunah. When I asked where you got that from, you replied:
“For Miriam- the women, let by Miriam had tambourines, prepared while still in the worst of golus, while the men
Didn’t- the women had more Emuna
Aharon was mourned by men and women alike because he brought Shalom while Moshe wasn’t (Rashi on Aharon’s passing and the mourning)”Neither of those show that they were greater than Moshe Rabbeinu in any way. Your “proof” from Miriam has nothing whatsoever to do with contrasting Moshe. And regarding Aharon, all it means is that he was more involved in making Shalom than Moshe was – he may have had more time to do so, I can’t say that with any knowledge – but not that he was greater.
CS: “Rso- so what… Tanya 42 also says that there’sa spark of Moishe in every yid- that doesn’t negate the Moshe shebador.”
My question was whether you could find a non-Lubavich source that explains ispashtusa deMoshe etc to mean that there is an individual in each generation who is the undisputed Moshe of that generation (not just the tzaddik hador, but the Moshe Rabbeinu).
Again, I’m not saying that there aren’t numerous such sources, I’m just asking if you can cite one or more, because I don’t know of any.
CS: “And Rso- other Chassidim are obviously more to be referring to their Rebbe when they say Rebbe, but sometimes they also could mean ours.”
Why would, say, an Amshinover chossid, while talking to another Amshinover chossid, say, “the rebbe” and mean the Lubavicher rebbe? Can you really believe that that is ever the case, unless, of course the topic just happened to be Lubavich, and saying “the rebbe” in context may mean the Lubavicher rebbe. But then, if the topic was Lelov, then “the rebbe” may mean the Lelover Rebbe.
Menachem regarding my claim that Lubavichers tell people that when chassidim of other Rebbes say, “the Rebbe” they are referring to the Lubavicher rebbe:
“I never heard this, but I guess it’s possible that a (more) ignorant Lubavitcher guy thought this once.”I’m sure it was some ignorant guy who thought this up, but it has spread, and I have heard it a number – not a lot – of times. I think I may even have seen it somewhere online, but perhaps not.
qwerty: “the Rabbis are lovely people and we like and respect each other despite pir [sic] theological differences”
That’s something I don’t understand. If you hold that their views are a”z how can you like and respect them? Could you possibly like and respect a xian who was trying to missionize you?
CS: “Arso-so what? We have that also in Tanya 42 (I’m fluent in Lashon hakodesh and Yiddish BH, no need to translate)”
We have WHAT also in Tanya 42? And my “apology” for not translating hispashtus wasn’t davka for you. It was for anyone reading who may not have understood.
n0m: “Of course I know what you mean when you say ‘The Rebbe’. I assume that Lubavitchers also know what you mean. But it seems like you don’t get what they mean.”
I’m specifically talking about – and I’ve said this now a number of times – the Lubavich claim that when other non-Lubavich chassidim say the words “the rebbe” they are openly referring only to the Lubavicher rebbe, not to their own rebbe.
n0m: “The issue with Satmar and Gur is the complete u-turns away from their earlier values. Sanz evolves so rapidly it can’t contain itself. In not even two centuries they have well over a hundred breakoffs.”
Please explain the u-turns of the first two and rapid evolution of Sanz.
CS: “Aharon was greater in Shalom, and Miriam was greater in Emuna/ tambourines”
Where on earth did you get that from?
n0m: “Amshinov, Gur, Satmar, Stolin, Klausenberg, Munkatch, and most others have abandoned most of what they had in Europe and picked up completely new ideas. Just look at all the anti chareidi movements that they gave birth to.”
Would you mind explaining that because I have no idea what you’re talking about?
CS: “please show/ quote me where Ispashtusa dMoshe is in the plural”
Plural has nothing to do with it. The explanation I have seen in seforim kedoshim is that there is a hispashtus (sorry, I don’t know how to translate that properly in context) throughout each generation. Not one person but in the entire generation.
CS: “because The Rebbe took his responsibility as Nassi HaDor”
That is weird! Is that the same as Trump lehavdil considering himself President? You don’t become something because you decide to be that thing. Unless, of course, you are extremely woke.
n0m to me: “I have a low opinion of your posts. A lot of ‘the eye of the beholder’ judgements.”
I see. Your posts are direct from Sinai, then. We are all offering our opinions. That’s what all these threads are about.
And your reply to my saying how chauvinistic and wrong it is that L chassidim say that when we others say “the Rebbe” we are referring to the L rebbe and not to our own, does not make any sense in “the eye of this beholder”. Ask us who we mean, and you will hear that you are wrong.“Gur, Satmar, or any other group, that has way less tradition and is even farther out there”
??? Gur, Satmar, Belz, Lelov, Tzanz and all others have traditions as far-reaching as Lubavitch, and even more so when you consider all the innovations made in Lubavich.
And what do you mean by “is even farther out there”?Yechi: “So you admit it [the title Nossi Hador] existed as a concept, but subsequently died out at some unknown time until the Rebbe discovered it?”
Try replacing the word “discovered it” with “reinvented it AND APPROPRIATED IT FOR HIMSELF even though it’s not applicable today”.
CS: “In the Zohar: אתפשטותא דמשה שבכל דרא ודרא”
The seforim that I have seen where this is quoted explain it to mean that the ispashtusa deMoshe is in the entire generation, not in only one individual. Perhaps you can cite me non-Lubavich sources that explain it the way Lubavich undrestands it. Btw, I am not being facetious here. I would really like to know if there are sources.
YankelBerel, I want to thank you for saving me the time by writing such coherent posts, and probably doing a better job than I could!
Menachem, funny you should say that about the Lubavicher rebbe’s anivus. On the one hand you all say that he meant himself when he said his father-in-law was Mashiach, a novi and nossi hador. Then you tell us that he was talking about his father-in-law only. You can’t have it both ways.
Was/is he Mashiach, a novi and nossi hador, or not? If yes, how do you know if he didn’t mean himself when he said those things about the Rayatz.
I don’t think you’re fooling anyone. And i don’t think he was an anav at all.
You write that he didn’t want to become rebbe, and resisted it for a year. Have you read Gurary’s book where he writes openly about the fights between the L rebbe and his brother-in-law Shmaryahu Gurary? And have you read Larger than Life who writes that because his parents knew that the L rebbetzin would not be able to have children, they made a condition of the shidduch that their son would be the next rebbe?
To CS (are you really the long-departed ChabadShlucha?), of course there WAS a concept of Nossi Hador. But not for the last thousand years… until the L rebbe reinvented it and applied it to himself.
n0m, regardless of what Lubavichers may or may not think, to say that when other chassidim say “the Rebbe” they are referring to Lubavich is ridiculous. Go and listen to them and you’ll see it’s not true.
It’s one thing to say that other chassidim all believe that the Lubavicher rebbe is the greatest – and I have heard that many times – because since you can’t really know what someone believes you can make any claim you want. But to say that they are talking about Lubavich when they are clearly not is plain stupid.
Can anyone here point out a godol beYisroel over the last generations who pushed his greatness to the forefront as much as the Lubavicher rebbe did?
I’m not referring to shitos, certainly the Satmar Rebbe did that by ignoring all other gedolei Yisroel’s opinions about Zionism and the State of Israel. I’m talking about the way, as far as I can tell, only the Lubavicher rebbe called himself a novi, only he considered himself Mashiach and only he considered himself (non-existent) Nosi Hador.
The rebbes that I have come in contact with – and over many years they have been more than a few – all exuded humiiity and shiflus. Yes, they knew they were leaders of (in some cases) thousands of chassidim, and they knew that they had to lead with a strong hand at times, but none of them ever gave me a feeling, whether in my personal contact with them or when I learnt their divrei Torah, that they personally were special and greater than other leaders.
qwerty, you keep writing that people on this thread hate you for this or that reason. Where do you see hate? They disagree with a lot of what you say, and may not like your style, but I don’t recall hate.
Why are you playing the victim?
n0m: “Other chassidim – especially the more organized groups – know very little Chassidus. The Rebbe in an organized chassidus is more likely to push learning Halachah over Chassidus. So, any mainstream Lubavitcher transposes all their terms into Chabad. This makes perfect sense to me.”
I don’t see how that justifies Lubavichers claims that when OTHER chassidim say “the Rebbe” they mean the Lubavicher rebbe and not their own.
In reference to an earlier post (I don’t remember where) regarding the possibility of someone being a partner with the RBSO in Creation, the gemoro (Shabbos 119b) says that a Yid who says Vayechulu on Friday night becomes a partner etc. (It also says the same thing (10a) earlier about a dayan who judges correctly, but that statement is more exclusive.)
The point is, though, that although one can indeed become a partner with Hashem, it clearly doesn’t mean an equal partner or one with the same powers. After all, I imagine we all say Kiddush on Friday nights but none of us (I think and hope) consider ourselves on the level of a full partner.
Yechi: “I find it heartening to see so many yidden being מפלפל in just one sentence from the Rebbe’s Torah”
You’ve got it wrong. Perhaps Menachem and other Lubavichers are being mefalpel, but we who consider it apikorsus (or close to it) aren’t being mefalpel. We are absolutely rejecting it.
When someon comes out with arguments showing that the new testament is worthless and minnus, is it a pilpul?
I don’t necessarily agree in full with YankelBerel’s understanding of the problem with Lubavich but I definitely agree with him and Avirah that major part of it is the focus on Chabad chassidus and concepts found in Kabbalah.
I have Lubavich relatives with children who try their hardest to get me to accept that the Rebbe is Mashiach and/or alive, and that he is the Nassi Hador (as I have written, a totally non-existent concept for centuries), and in order to “prove” it they quote Kabbalistic concepts which they clearly do not understand, and which I, an absolute novice in Kabbalah, understand better than they do.
I have a better understanding of math and physics than the average person, and I know not only that E=mcSquared but I can explain the meaning of the equation, but I don’t REALLY understand it. That, in my opinion, is how Lubavichers learn and teach chassidus.
Someone mentioned that there was a very good reason that they ruled that Kabbalah should be not be studied by someone under the age of forty, and I believe a major reason for the ban was that concepts that have to REMAIN abstract may be taken literally by someone younger, and lead to hagshamah – believing in a physical manifestation of Hashem c”v. To me, therefore, it is not surprising that Lubavich is able to accept people who believe that their rebbe is akin to Hashem, that he runs the world etc.
Citing the example I brought earlier, perhaps Menachem can tell us how great the outcry in Lubavich was when that crazy wrote “Who Elokeinu?… The rebbe melech hasmashiach, that’s who!” After all, it wasn’t just some looney who said it. It was published in a Lubavich publication which continued to be published long after that issue hit the stands.
Was there an outcry? Was he loudly and vehemently condemned? Perhaps someone can send us a Kol Korei against it. It should certainly have been considered a “chilul Lubavich”!