Menachem Shmei

The רמ”א says that everybody lit indoors (although he does say it would be better to light outdoors, according to the MB’s explanation).

The רמ”א says that everybody slept outside the Sukkah (although he does say it would be better to sleep in the Sukkah).

Sources to explain the practice of lighting indoors when there’s no sakana:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=53183

Thank you for sharing this source – it perfectly supports my point, and it’s a great opportunity to wrap up my argument:

To summarize: My intention was not, ch”v, to attack the minhag of lighting the menorah indoors (which I myself do) or of eating outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres.

My point is that our holy leaders have sometimes supported or encouraged customs that seem not to align perfectly with Shulchan Aruch. In some cases, because Shulchan Aruch explicitly forbids it (like Shemini Atzeres); in others, because the leniency mentioned there applies only in narrow circumstances (like Chanukah); or because the Shulchan Aruch acknowledges the common practice but struggles to support it (like sleeping outside the sukkah).

In such cases, later poskim may attempt to be melamed zchus on the minhag or bring dochakdikeh proofs to explain how it could be allowed or even encouraged.

Obviously, no one today would feel comfortable inventing such sevaros on their own. As Yankel correctly pointed out: if someone today decided we should suddenly stop lighting indoors based on their own reading of the Shulchan Aruch and complicated pilpulim (including those brought in the kovetz), no one would listen. The same applies to Shemini Atzeres and sleeping in the sukkah.

But once these practices were supported by the rabbanim of a particular community, we accept them—even if we don’t fully understand the sevaros used to justify them.

This is why I don’t criticize a Sanzer chossid who eats outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (even if I find his halachic arguments weak).

This is why I light menorah indoors, even if the pilpul needed to justify it is dochakdik.

And this is why I sleep outside the sukkah.

All three practices rely on trusting our rabbeim to instruct us the right mesorah, even when we don’t fully grasp the reasoning.

Yet Yankel only calls the third case “infallible rebbes.”
__ __ __

All of this is stated explicitly in the wonderful kovetz that Daas brought!

After offering extensive pilpulim to show that the halacha might not be as it appears in the Shulchan Aruch (and in my opinion, these are even more dochakdik than those brought for sleeping outside the sukkah), he concludes:

“Even if we don’t accept this explanation for lighting indoors, it is still clear that someone who follows the path of our holy Rabbeim and lights indoors is on a more secure path than those who treat our Rabbeim as if they were mistaken ch”v, due to not understanding their reasoning…
I am therefore puzzled by what I saw in Yerushalayim where some had the practice to light outside. I don’t know who gave this directive, but it is clear that he did not have greater authority than the Or Zarua and all our rabbeim who followed him. Even though there was no danger in their time to light outside, they still lit indoors. And anyone who deviates from the minhag – ידו על התחתונה. He is being motzi laaz on our fathers and rabbeim, ראשונים כמלאכים.”

Yankel, does the author of this kovetz consider his rabbis “infallible”? Maybe start a thread about him.

Most Poskim point to these very words , ‘besha’at hasakana manicho al shulhano vedayo’, and explain that this was a MODIFICATION.

Again, this is clearly logic that you wouldn’t rely on yourself. This is definitely not the simple pshat in the Mishna.

A) Which poskim say that you can light indoors even when it’s not a time of sakana? Clearly not Shulchan Aruch which rules that one must light menorah outdoors except in a case of sakana.

B) Why do you accept the logic of those poskim which doesn’t fit with a simple reading of Mishna or Shulchan Aruch? Is it because you think those poskim are infallible?

Is it better to light outside after the modification ? That is a separate argument. Maybe the inyan of mezuza takes precedence. Other inyanim, etc…

This is NOT A separate argument. You admitted that you yourself sleep outside the Sukkah, and we know that this has always been the custom of most Jews. What bothered you was that Chabad relies ruchniusdike reasons by their “infallible rebbes” to DAVKA sleep outside the Sukkah.

My question is: How is that different from relying ruchniusdike reasons (mezuza, etc.) by your “infallible poskim” to DAVKA light the menorah indoors (as is the minhag of many holy communities), in violation of Shulchan Aruch that this is only acceptable in a time of danger?

No posek will say that someone who lights inside nowadays is making a braha levatala.

Who brought bracha levatola into the picture? No posek says that if you don’t sleep in the Sukkah your לישב בסוכה was a brocha levatola.
The argument was about trusting your “infallible poskim/rebbes” to keep a minhag of davka doing something that seems against halacha. This argument applies equally to Sukkah and Menorah.

I am not sure why menachem insists on comparing sukka and hanukah, when their halachik difference is so clear ?

I have made one single argument this entire time, and I will persist until I get a proper answer. Or until I get tired of repeating the same simple point again and again.

Yankel, I thought we were having a nice Torah discussion. Why do you need to pepper it with nasty insults?

I understand that your question is, supposing that all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards were makpid to light only outside and all of them say that manicho al shulhano is NOT A MODIFICATION IN THE WHOLE MITSVA…

You are now saying that Chanukah is different than Sukkah, because with Chanukah it was always accepted to light indoors, so in recent generations, even though the sakana stopped, it’s not an issue to davka light indoors.
But with Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, and suddenly in the 1950s the Rebbe began allowing people to do otherwise.

But, we know that that’s not true (as brought in Shulchan Aruch, and many more places), so your entire idea falls apart.

They modified the takanah, and now the takanah is that you can light in or outdoors. Both are valid ways to do it and none is making a bracha levatala.

Where’d you get this from? It doesn’t say this in Gemara or Shulchan Aruch. In both it clearly states that ner chanukah must be lit outdoors, except in times of danger.

Any posek will tell you the same.

Aha, so now the poskim are infallible? You can’t provide me with any logic that explains that Gemara or Shulchan Aruch permit lighting indoors when it’s not a time of danger, yet because recent poskim allow it, it’s allowed!?
(Earlier poskim may have lit indoors because of the dangers in Europe, etc.).

one can have the benefit of being surrounded by mitzvot on all sides- mezuza, tzitzit and ner. Or other benefits.

So it makes sense to davka violate the halacha in Shulchan Aruch by lighting indoors, losing pirsumei nissa, because then you get mitzvos on all sides (didn’t the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch know about mitzvos on all sides when they permitted it ONLY in times of sakanah!?).
But it’s crazy to say to not sleep in the Sukkah because you don’t want to be mezalzel in the holiness of Sukkah.

Az Nidbiru has many teshuvos where he argues that it’s forbidden to light menorah indoors nowadays. Are you ready to read his seforim, and if you accept his logic, begin attacking all those who “stupidly” follow their “infallible” poskim and light menorah indoors?

Unless you give me reasoning in your own logic, logic that you would even accept from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, why we may DAVKA disregard the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch about lighting the menorah and Shemini Atzeres – I will believe that you have a personal bias against Chabad.

menachem specifically agreed in his post that he would listen to his rebbi even when he does not understand him too.
Whereas the rest klal yisrael , the non habad hasidim, would not.
That is an excellent indication of bias.

Shocker! As a Lubavitcher, I will constantly defend my minhagim and my Rebbe. What a surprise.

Nu, what’s worse? To be biased and always defend your derech, or be biased and always attack someone else’s derech?

I actually did answer, but I’ll repeat:
Eating outside the Sukkah on Shmini Ateres is indeed k’neged Halacha.
Saying Davka to sleep outside of the Sukkah on Succos is not merely k’neged Halacha; it is backwards.

You’re just repeating your point but not explaining. Just because I obey my Rebbe when I don’t understand, it doesn’t mean I obey YOU without understanding.

Why is one minhag against halacha while the other is backwards? And why do you only attack those who are “backwards” but not those who are going against halacha?

The only difference I spotted between how you portrayed both minhagim is that you only put the word “davka” in the second minhag. But we know full well that many chassidim DAVKA eat outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres because that is their minhag. Eating INSIDE the Sukkah would be violating their minhag.

Why is this minhag less “backwards” in your mind than the minhag of sleeping outside the Sukkah?

It’s backwards because it takes a mizvah and makes it k’ilu it’s chas v’shalom an aveirah

Just like many consider it an “aveira” (i.e. against their minhag) to eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres and light Menorah outside the front door. Doesn’t that sound just as backwards, if not more?

I honestly think my argument is quite simple and clear, and I’m surprised that I can’t get a simple explanation of why the Chabad minhag is bad but the other minhagim are good.

What I cannot understand is that Gemara Shabbat clearly modifies takanat derabanan of ner hanuka to put it al shulhano inside.
And people keep on ignoring this clear gemara and [mis]using it to advocate for a purim torah that it is preferable [!] to sleep out of the suka even when all kulot in halacha are exhausted.

No one used Chanukah to advocate for sleeping outside of the Sukkah. That doesn’t make any sense (strawman).

I will repeat my simple question, which no one has been able to answer:
Why do you (Yankel, Daas, etc.) insist on attacking Chabad for davka not sleeping in the Sukkah, while ignoring those who DAVKA don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, and DAVKA light the menorah indoors – both of which are seemingly against halacha.

What I cannot understand is that Gemara Shabbat clearly modifies takanat derabanan of ner hanuka to put it al shulhano inside.

Yankel: If you can erase the words “בשעת הסכנה” from your Gemara Shabbos – why’s it so hard for you to accept that the Rama modified the mitzvah of Sukkah to not include sleeping?

Is it backwards that people davka don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres?
It’s k’neged Halacha, but it’s not backwards.

Daas, be so kind as to explain your deep words to a simple person like me:
Why is the minhag of DAVKA sleeping outside the Sukkah backwards (even though it has *some* basis in Shulchan Aruch), while the minhag of DAVKA eating outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (with *no* basis in Shulchan Aruch) is not backwards?
[And again, don’t forget to explain why the minhag of DAVKA lighting the menorah indoors, contrary to the mitzvah of pirsumei Nissan – is not backwards. Thanks]

The onus is on them to explain the Gemara, not the other way around

What’s this supposed to mean? I’ll just repeat what I wrote before: “All the poskim I mentioned knew that Gemara.”

Are you trying to tell us that your mockery is indeed not directed at Chabad, but all chassidim at large? The Minchas Elazar, Divrei Chaim, etc.? So why don’t you start a thread like that.

Additionally I don’t know the circumstances of those Rebbes who sat in the rain

Ah, so you don’t know. You mock Chabad for a widespread chassidish minhag of talmidei habaal shem tov and onward, explained by giants such as the Minchas Elazar and others.
And when confronted, you admit that you know nothing about this minhag. All you know is: mock first, question after.

it’s not merely that Chabad accepted some type of kulah, but rather, it became a bad thing to sleep in the sukkah, which is backwards.

No, it’s not a bad thing, as the Rebbe wrote to those who had a minhag to sleep in Sukkah to keep their minhag.

Is it backwards that people davka don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres? Or that people davka light menorah indoors? Both of which are seemingly against halacha?

Yankel, you still haven’t explained why you attack the minhag of not sleeping in Sukkah, but not the minhag of not eating in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres and lighting menorah inside the house – both of which are seemingly against halacha.

Your only answer was because it was the Rebbe who explained the minhag (which has been in Chabad for generations) and you have your own interpretation of what the Mitteler Rebbe said (which doesn’t at all fit with his original words, which I doubt you’ve seen).

You don’t mind someone unquestionably following his rov or rebbe regarding Shmini Atzeres and Chanukah, you only have a problem with following the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

I am not well versed in these fancy English phrases and philosophical debate kind of terms that you use.

Chaim, he assumed you could just look them up online.

Avram, thanks for teaching me these useful terms.

2scents,

The Mitteler Rebbe (who was appointed by his father – the baal hatanya – to lead the younger chassidim during his own lifetime) admonished the yungeleit for sleeping in the Sukkah “ווי קען מען שלאפן אין מקיפים דבינה”.

On the other hand, Lubavitchers wouldn’t have a sip of water outside the Sukkah in the pouring rain.

The worst part of the “minhag” not to sleep in the sukkah is the reasoning given which doesn’t hold water.

The Rebbe’s explanation of the reasoning came years after the minhag was established, as a possible svorah to support why Lubavitchers are so makpid on all details of Sukkah (drinking water, rain, etc.) except for sleeping in the Sukkah.

Similar to the sevaros given by the chassidish poskim for eating outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (but with the aforementioned difference that the Chabad is rooted in Shulchan Aruch).

And the fact that it essentially rejects a chelek of the mitzvah.

Chabad absolutely doesn’t reject that sleeping in the Sukkah is a chelek of the mitzvah, ch”v. The chiddush is only that they accepted the kulah of not sleeping in the Sukkah while rejecting other kulos.

Have you recently read the sicha in its entirety in the original, or are you relying on memory, or worse – hearsay? This question is addressed there.

Sorry I just read your previous thread, if we do hold ספיקא דיומא so why do chassidim gebrokt (not sure what Chabad does) on the last day of pesach?

One of the earliest sources for the chumra of gebrokts is the Alter Rebbe (Baal HaTanya). Yet he writes:
מכל מקום ביום טוב האחרון המקיל משום שמחת יום טוב לא הפסיד.

Therefore, while Chabad is very careful to keep the matzah completely dry over Pesach, we eat gebrokts on Acharon Shel Pesach.

The Rebbe has an incredible sicha explaining the reason for this change on the last day according to chassidus. But one interesting point there is that a possible reason for this heter is in order to make a heker between the first days and the last day (which is only for sefeika d’yoma). The Rebbe compares this to Shemini Atzeres, when we must eat in the Sukkah, but we make a heker by not making a brocha. This is why some rule that one shouldn’t sleep in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres because on sleeping there is no brocha anyways, so there’s no heker (Mordechai brought in Magen Avraham).

Coupled with forceful suppression of internal dissent.
Anyone who dissented or merely was suspected of dissent ,was made to pay a very heavy price….

Are you alluding to the way Satmar or Ponevezh treated dissent? Or only the rare, unsanctioned incidents associated with Lubavitch?

This is not a deep question, like Menachem claimed at one point in this conversation.

If there is a source, would you please spell it out ?

Why do I say this is a theoretical philosophical question?

Because: Do you believe that Ravina and Rav Ashi were infallible? If you answer that you don’t, does that mean that in some instances you claim the the Gemara is wrong and mistaken, ch”v?

This is my point. The question of infalliblity is not necessarily tied to the question of obeying one’s rebbe.

P.S. I’m not trying to say that we listen to the Rebbe because he is an amora or something, don’t use that as a strawman. I am using the example of Gemara to show why the question of infalliblity is philosophical and unrelated to practical action.

Like by paskening that one doesn’t have to sleep in the sukkah anymore?

That was the Mitteler Rebbe, in the lifetime of the Baal HaTanya. Go attack the non-Chabad chassidim who paskened that one doesn’t need to eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres anymore. Start a different thread.

Like by paskening that one doesn’t have to sleep in the sukkah anymore?

You’re likely referring to the minhag of the Chabad rabbeim and many Chabad chassidim to not sleep in the Sukkah, as they were instructed by the Mitteler Rebbe in the lifetime of the Baal HaTanya (although the Rebbe instructed those who do sleep in the Sukkah not to change their minhag).

Of course, this minhag came years after the Shulchan Aruch already paskened that the current minhag of most Jews is to be meikel and not sleep in the Sukkah.

Now Coffee, please start a thread about the non Chabad chassidim who have abolished the chiyuv d’rabanan of eating in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (yes, we keep sefeika d’yoma).

This minhag has no basis in Shulchan Aruch, unlike the minhag of sleeping outside the Sukkah which was already mentioned by the Rama.

I’m waiting for your thread…

Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.

Maybe it depends what level one is on. For example, a rishon can’t say that the Gemara made a mistake, etc.

The derech in Chabad is that a rebbe can teach differently than a different rebbe, but a chossid doesn’t see himself on the level of “holding differently” than his rebbe.

He can ask questions on what the Rebbe said, but only in way of “I don’t understand, please explain,” not in a way of “what my rebbe said doesn’t make any sense, I disagree.”

This is also the style in maamarim, always using an approach of WE must understand, לכאורה צריך להבין.

This is our derech. If you think it’s wrong, okay.

I don’t think I have anything more to answer you. More than what I wrote here I don’t know.

Kol hameharher achar rabo ,,,, does that mean that every talmid is obligated to believe that his rabo muvhak is INFALLIBLE ?

I have no idea. You keep turning this into a deep philosophical question.

I am answering your question about the metzius: Why do Lubavitchers follow the Rebbe? Not because they proved he is tzaddik of Tanya, or because of a philosophy about infalliblity. Rather, as talmidim following and obeying their rebbe.

If you hold that כל המהרהר or לא תסור doesn’t apply here, that suits you. I’m not here to debate the halachic implications of those terms.

If you don’t like the idea of students just following what their teacher tells them even when they don’t fully have proof for what he said, then start a thread against the litvishers in the CR who demand that everyone unquestionably accept their “daas torah.”

You keep bringing up Shmuel Hanovi. I haven’t seen anywhere that Dovid was meant to doubt every instruction he got from Shmuel because based on the earlier incident he proved that he isn’t “infallible.”

How could Shmuel hanavi be mistaken about yishays sons ?

This proves my point. Since we saw that Shmuel “made a mistake” – does that mean that now we must take any statement of Shmuel with a “grain of salt” ch”v?

After all, according to your logic, if Shmuel could “make a mistake” about Yishai’s sons, then maybe the whole anointing Dovid as king was one big “mistake” (ch”v)?

In your case fault clearly lies with the talmid.
But sometimes the questions asked are valid . And fault lies with the rebbi.
Like in 1666.

Yankel, I actually agree with this. My disagreement with you is on which side Lubavitch falls, as I already wrote in my post from March 17, 2025 3:32 pm.

My point remains that this is irrelevant to the question of “is this tzaddik infallible.”

Menachem craft fully sidestepped each and everyone of the Questions asked.
WHY ?

Either you’re bad at asking questions or I’m bad at answering them.

why must they place more burdens on us?

This idea is completely wrong. Them suggesting that you buy a filter from Techloq is not placing a burden on you.

The level of entitlement when someone volunteers to help you with one thing, and then you demand that they spend much more money.

It’s like if I would fume that how dare bikkur cholim not pay my rent. They just have to fundraiser another few million dollars. They claim to help suffering people, yet they BURDEN me with paying thousands of dollars a month in rent.

As a matter of fact, they should pay for me to buy a house. These idiots think they’re helping by buying me some food, then they STEAL millions of dollars that I must pay for my mortgage.

What does it cost already if most people will pay anyhow?

I don’t think you understand how economics, especially Jewish economics, works. If something is free, no one will pay hundreds of dollars for it. We’re talking about millions of dollars here in total.

Maybe you go raise 1 million dollars to pay for people’s filters. TAG doesn’t claim to do that, so they don’t have to.

Here is what TAG does according to their website:

“TAG stands at the forefront in the battle of the nisayon of technology. We engage in cutting edge technology to help the filter companies come out with the best filters. We provide Awareness to the community through counseling, seforim and periodicals. We provide free community service for Computers, Smartphones, Laptops and many other digital devices to have them blocked or filtered in order to retain our Yiddishe values.

We install filters for free!*
*Any charges incurred go directly to the filter company.”

don’t also charge me and arm or a leg….
So yes I have a right to demand they pay for it. And I think it’s borderline geniva that they don’t

It’s *geneiva* that they don’t pay for *your* Techloq or Gentech subscription? Are you out of your mind?

This era of government handouts has really gone to your head.

You think R matsyhu started it just for a limited goal of “awareness” or was it to make sure you end yo having filters?

Definitely the latter, but you can only being the horse to the water. You can convince someone of the importance of protecting their internet, and even volunteer to help with it. But if they’re not even convinced enough to spend $100 a year on it, why should you also be obligated to pay for their filter?