Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
it’s that makes no sense that this mitzvah was given only for those on lower level.
Where’d you get this from? There’s an entire pilpul of the Rebbe on the subject that you haven’t learned properly. Learn it before making assumptions.
Likkutei Sichos vol. 29 pg. 211 https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14952&st=&pgnum=226For example, footnote 13:
* ואין להקשות מדוע לא מצינו הנהגה כזו בדורות שלפנ”ז, גם לא אצל הגדולים כו’ שידעו מתורת הקבלה ובודאי הרגישו אור המקיף דסובב – כי אצל יחידי סגולה אלה, גם שינתם היתה (לא רק) תוצאה מצד טבע הגוף, כ”א) מדריגה גבוה ביותר בעבודת ה’ (השייכת למקיפים דנייח). ולהער מרד”ל (ב”ר פ”ד, ט. וראה פד”א פ”ב) דבעת השינה הנשמה שואבת חיים מלמעלה.
וי”ל שהמאמר בפנים שייך לגילוי תורת חב”ד, שענינה להמשיך עניני פנימיות התורה באופן שגם השכל האנושי יוכל להשיגם, עד שיפעל על הגוף ונפש הטבעית כו’ – וע”ד נמשך המשך דסובב באופן שנרגש גם בגוף כפי שהוא בטבעו ובמהותו [שלכן תבע אדהא”מ ענין זה (העדר בטיפה) בטובה]. אצל החסידים (שיחה שבהערה 8). וראה ס’ השיחות תש”ה ע’ 33: דער מקיף פון סובב .. אלע קרעפטן דאס דערהערן זיך המקיף של סובב .. כולם יכולים להרגישו)**.
ובזה מובן ג”כ הטעם שעינין זה נתגלה ע”י אדמו”ר האמצעי דוקא – שענינו הוי להמשיך תורת החסידות באופן ד”בוינה” (סי’ השיחות תש”ה ע’ 60. וראה לקו”ש ח”ה ע’ 131. ועוד). לקו”ש אגרות-קודש ע’ שלז ואילך) – כי נוסף לזה שהמשכת המקיף בפנימיות שייכת ל”בינה”, אור בכלל, הנה המקיף דסוכה הוא “מקיף דבינה”.*) להעיר ממש”כ במ”א מחוי”ל (רש”י בהעלותך ח, ג. ועוד) בפ”ט צו’ לגה”צ שבחוץ של אהרן שלא יזו”ג – כי לכאורה תמוה, מאי קמ”ל, אלא – דאף שהרגיש כל הגיליונים שבעבודת המקדש מ”מ לא בטלו חושיו ע”י זה וההדבקה הגשמית היתה מדויקת בכל פרט ופרט (לקו”ש ח”ב ע’ 650).
**) ולכן גם אצל רבותינו נשיאינו (נש”י) ידוע היתה המשכה זו) היותה הנהגה בהתאם לזה (אף שפשוט שגם אצלם היתה השיגה ע”י המבואר בפנים הענין). ואכ”מ.The Rebbe also enters a pilpul to understand if, by not sleeping in the sukkah, one misses out on the mitzvah of ישיבה בסוכה. See there at length.
Hashem gave us mitzvos to do. Yes, sometimes there’s a p’tur, but it’s not the ideal.
Yet you’re perfectly fine with the svara that when Shulchan Aruch wrote that menorah must be lit outdoors for pirsumei nisa unless it is dangerous, it was actually modifying the mitzvah, and now, in safe times, it is *preferable* and *ideal* to light the menorah indoors, with minimal pirsumei nisa.
This svara makes perfect sense to you.
To me it’s clear that the minhag of Sukkah is the strongest of the three, as I’ve expressed, and you obviously disagree.
I’ll likely be suspected of only thinking this way because I’m biased as a Lubavitcher, but I would similarly suspect that those who strongly oppose this minhag are doing so specifically because it’s Chabad.
[No Yankel, I’m not “playing victim.” I’m just stating the facts as I see them. You can’t call me “biased” to my beliefs (whatever that even means) without me suspecting the same of you.]
MS, you’ve got it backwards. The reason people “mock” Chabad is because some of their haskafos and hanhagos are outside of the pale.
Sukkah is perhaps the most concrete example because of its clear twisting of halacha.
We are going in circles here.
What led me to believe that people are unjustifiably going after Chabad regarding sukkah is the fact that the sukkah minhag “twists” Shulchan Aruch much *less* than Shemini Atzeres and menorah do — as I’ve explained many times.
Where did DaMoshe comment about lighting the menorah indoors?
If he mocks minhagim that follow the practice of Gedolei Yisroel, and are only supported by complex pilpulim that seemingly “twist” the straightforward pshat of Shulchan Aruch – he probably mocks the minhag of lighting menorah indoors as well.
Unless he only mocks the minhagim of Chabad (sleeping outside the sukkah) and other chassidim (eating outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres) – but I wouldn’t want to be choshed b’ksheirim, ch”v.
Menachem has not answered whether according to Oz Nidberu lighting inside is a bracha levatala
I’m not sure what he paskens. But this is irrelevant, because:
A) The question wasn’t whether it’s a bracha levatala, but whether it’s permitted/encouraged lechatchila or considered a major kulah. According to you, we never accept directives from Gedolei Yisroel to establish a minhag based on something that appears to be a massive kulah.
B) Regardless of what Oz Nidberu rules, the question remains on you: Why do you accept recent poskim “twisting” the Shulchan Aruch to mean something that seemingly doesn’t align with the straightforward reading?
Is it because you consider them “infallible”? As Rav Ahronson wrote (and you choose to ignore), whether or not one accepts his pilpul, we are to follow the practice of the Gedolei Yisroel, even if it seems not to fit the plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch. Is this your new opinion? If yes, why is Chabad different?
the takanah was MODIFIED, like Rav Ahronson [brought to us by daas yochid] clearly writes .
Like the consensus of the Poskim.
Opposed by MenachemYou’re so quick to argue that you completely misunderstand my view.
I don’t oppose this pshat in menorah at all. I myself light the menorah indoors. I’m simply pointing out the obvious — that this is clearly not the poshute pshat in the Shulchan Aruch.
I don’t follow this minhag because I was personally persuaded by the pilpul. Rather, I follow it because that was the practice of my Rabbeim, just as Rav Ahronson wrote at the end of his kovetz, which I quoted earlier. The pilpul only serves as extra support after the minhag was established by Gedolei Yisroel.
I’m only questioning the minhag *leshitascha*, where you claim we don’t accept a pshat dachuk in Shulchan Aruch just because it was the practice of our Rabbeim.
How many times must I repeat this simple point for it to be understood?
Menachem , whose otherwise healthy sense of logic is nebach taken captive by his preconditioned blind acceptance of anything which passes his infallible rebbi’s lips.
We should bestow upon him the top prize for mental acrobatics. Under duress.You really can’t help yourself, eh Yankel? And then, when you fill your posts with this kind of rhetoric and I get tired of responding, you complain that I’m afraid to answer you and that “shetikah kehoda’ah.”
I did some more research on the issue, and found that the exemptions for sleeping in the sukkah are not so modern.
Of course. This has been mentioned several times.
However, to say that it became a minhag not to do so is just ignorance.
It became a minhag in *Chabad* — that’s my point.
Just as eating outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres is not permitted according to the Shulchan Aruch, but became a minhag in other Chassidic communities (not Chabad).
Just as lighting the menorah indoors was only permitted by the Shulchan Aruch in times of danger, yet became a minhag among many Jews (as cited in the kovetz brought by Daas Yochid).
All three of these practices have complex pilpulim to be melamed zchus on the minhagim—pilpulim that wouldn’t stand on their own, but serve as support once these customs were practiced by Gedolei Yisroel in their respective communities.
The reason I brought up the Shulchan Aruch is simply to show that, of the three minhagim, sukkah has the most leniencies in Shulchan Aruch — yet it receives the most criticism in these online forums (I wonder why…).
Even according to the opinions that there are exemptions, if those don’t apply, then one should sleep in the sukkah.
While you might imply that from the Shulchan Aruch, it doesn’t state this explicitly. It doesn’t say that one may only sleep outside the sukkah if they are married or it’s cold—rather, those are offered as *reasons* as to how the leniency came to be.
In fact, there are poskim who clearly write that these leniencies can be extended to others. For example, the Eshel Avraham writes that bochurim may sleep outside the sukkah, since they can rely on the fact that “רובא דעלמא” most people are exempt due to their wives.
Contrast this with the menorah: the Shulchan Aruch explicitly states that lighting indoors is only permitted in times of danger.
P.S. I’m not citing the Eshel Avraham as the source for the Chabad minhag. Regarding Chabad, everything I’ve said until now stands on its own. I’m simply contrasting sukkah to menorah: the Shulchan Aruch does not clearly state that the leniency of sleeping outside the sukkah applies only to married people or in the cold — whereas with menorah, it does explicitly say that the leniency applies *only* in times of danger.
In other words:
Shulchan Aruch regarding sukkah: “And regarding the current practice to be lenient with sleeping – that people do not sleep in the sukkah, except for those who are particularly meticulous about mitzvos – some say it’s because… But it appears to me that it is because…”
Shulchan Aruch regarding menorah: “The Ner Chanukah should be placed at the entrance closest to the public domain, on the outside… And in a time of danger, when one is not permitted to fulfill the mitzvah publicly, he should place it on his table, and that is sufficient.”
A minhag that goes against halachah is a minhag shtus, and has no validity
DaMoshe and I agree that you either mock all these minhagim or not. You can’t choose to only mock Chabad.
I personally think these minhagim (Sukkah, Shemini Atzeres, Menorah) are valid (though I keep the two that I was taught), while DaMoshe thinks they’re all invalid.
Maybe the next time a Chabadnik asks me if I put on tefillin, I’ll say, “It’s not my minhag to do that, and you know all about following minhagim that go against halachah!”
Hold it, it’s not just Chabad that you’re trying to mock!
On the contrary, you happen to practice the Chabad minhag (albeit for other reasons)!
You also mock all the non-Chabad chassidim who have a minhag of eating outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, and all the Jews who have a minhag of davka lighting menorah indoors.
How come your post ended specifically about Chabad? How does it keep coming back to that?
The minhag was, that whenever there were no cold/marriage issues, to sleep in the sukkah !
What’s your source for this?
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=53183Thank 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.
There is an argument , however and we cannot hide behind victimhood to win an argument.
You know very well that I didn’t hide. I made my argument clearly, many times.
Should I complain that you are insulting me ….
I don’t remember calling your or your rabbis’ arguments a “Purim Torah” or a “most illogical pretzel sevorah.”
You are welcome to argue, but please argue on my real position .
Not on my position you [mis]represent.I think I’ve answered all your points, and I think you haven’t properly explained why you attack Chabad’s minhag but not the menorah minhag and Shemini Atzeres minhag.
I guess we’ll leave it to the readers to decide.
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.
menachem- is (or was) CS a chillul lubavitch?
What point are you trying to make?
What do you mean by that?
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?
Not sure where lighting indoors came into this; as YB said, it’s a sugya about whether or not Chazal actually changed the tzurah of the mitzvah (which is a d’rabbonon.)
Shulchan Aruch rules that Ner Chanukah must be lit by the outer door unless it’s a time of sakanah.
You haven’t attacked those who davka light indoors (even not during sakana), and you haven’t presented any logic why they are correct.Shulchan Aruch rules that one must eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres.
You haven’t attacked those who davka eat indoors, and you haven’t presented any logic why they are correct (other than a hava aminah in Gemara which is not accepted by the Gemara or by Shulchan Aruch).Shulchan Aruch rules that one must sleep in the Sukkah on Sukkos, but accepts that most don’t do so nowadays and is melamed zechus on them.
You attack those who davka sleep indoors because you disagree with their logic.This is very suspicious.
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.
“Most Poskim point to these very words , ‘besha’at hasakana manicho al shulhano vedayo’, and explain that this was a MODIFICATION….”
“Its not the minhag of not sleeping there which is backwards .
Its THE LOGIC which is backwards.”Let me get your argument straight. According to you:
It makes sense to say that once the Mishna said that in a time of danger one can light menorah indoors, we can now have a minhag to davka light indoors even when it’s not a time of sakanah and we lack pirsumei nissa.
It doesn’t make sense to say that once Shulchan Aruch says that nowadays most don’t sleep in the Sukkah (and יש אומרים support for this), we can have a minhag to davka not sleep in the Sukkah.
Why? I can’t wrap my head around your distinction.
If your infallible rebbi would not have come up with this logic , would you say that on your own ??
If it was the Rebbe who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – would you agree with it or attack it and anyone who follows it?
what would your reaction be if a satmar hasid or a dye in the wool mitnaged would have come up with that type of logic ??
Would you defend it with the same vehemence ? Or would you have a good laugh and say – Oh well …..I mentioned the minhag of other chassidim who eat outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres. I don’t accept their logic, so I eat in the Sukkah in Shemini Atzeres. But I don’t attack them for following their minhag or accuse them of violating halacha.
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]*pirsumei nisah
(Auto correct)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.But there definitely is a clear and present danger of xtian missionaries attempting to use the obvious habad – early xtian similarities to mass convert naive yehudim to their false religion.
…That’s why we should applaud and support the courageous author of ‘harebi melech hamashiach’ , R Dovid Berger.
A) The number one tool missionaries use is Tanach. Maybe start by canceling that instead.
B) What you fail to realize is that most of these missionaries who draw comparisons between Chabad and Christianity are parroting Berger. His book — full of distortions and half-truths — is their primary source. So if you’re afraid of missionaries weaponizing misinterpretations of Chabad ideas like they from Tanach — you have Berger to blame.
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?
The Gemara calls someone that sits in the sukkah in the rain a חסיד שוטה like a servant that gets splashed in the face by his master and is told I don’t want your servitude
I know that Gemara, and all the poskim I mentioned knew that Gemara.
So because of a Gemara you learned in cheder, you’re ready to mock the minhag of many great tzaddikim and poskim going back to the Baal Shem Tov.
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 don’t think that’s considered being מחמיר I think that that is a shtus
Coffee Addict,
YOU “don’t think”, YOU “think that this is a shtus” – who do you think you are? What kind of arrogance is this?
Did you read the teshuvos of all the great tzaddikim who praised and encouraged this chumra that you call a shtus?
Did you see how the Minchas Elazar wrote about the minhag of generation after generation of tzaddikim from talmidei haBaal Shem Tov who stay in the Sukkah even in the rain!?
Why are you so quick to attack fellow Jews and mock their behavior because you have a general resentment to their group?
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.
Yankel, you still haven’t explained why you choose to attack the longstanding Chabad minhag to be meikel regarding sleeping the the Sukkah (as permitted in Shulchan Aruch) but don’t attack the sects of chassidim who don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (without basis in Shulchan Aruch)?
Another question: Shulchan Aruch rules that the menorah must be lit at the outer door facing reshus harabim. This is a necessary part of the mitzvah due to pirsumei nissah (thus, it’s probably more central to the mitzvah of Chanuka than sleeping is to the mitzvah of Sukkah).
Why then don’t you attack the Jews whose minhag it is to light the menorah specifically indoors, thus violating a central part of the mitzvah?
Don’t answer that it’s because this is how the minhag developed due to sakana, because that’s like excusing the minhag of sleeping outside the Sukkah due to the coldness in Russia.
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.
By Ponovezh and Satmar it was also rare and unsanctioned. Why would you phrase it as if that description is only applicable to Lubavitch?
I don’t know enough about their incidents to say either way. I said it specifically about Lubavitch because (a) that’s what Yankel was addressing, and (b) that’s what I know well.
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.
Menachem: Who is your Shomer?
A responsible friend from yeshiva whom I trust.
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).
No one ever ate in the sukkah on shmini atzeres, the reason chassidim (which I am noheg) (it’s not limited to Chabad chassidim) do it is because of ספיקא דיומא whereas litvaks don’t consider it.
Okay… what??? Let’s break this down:
The Gemara (Sukkah 47) brings a machloles what should be the behavior on Shemini Atzeres in chutz laaretz, and the halacha there is:
מתיב יתבינן, ברוכי לא מברכינן
We sit in the Sukkah, but without a bracha.Rambam rules (Hilchos Sukkah 6:13): Nowadays that we have two days of Yomtov, we sit in the Sukkah for eight days. On Shemini Atzeres we sit in the Sukkah but don’t make a brocha.
Shulchan Aruch (OC 668): In chutz laaretz we eat in the Sukkah by night and by day due to sefeika d’yoma, but don’t make a brocha.
Tur rules the same, but adds: “Some have a custom to eat outside of the Sukkah at night and in the Sukkah by day – ואינו מנהג.”
Mishna Berura: The custom on Shemini Atzeres is to leave the Sukkah after the day meal, but if one wants to eat again, even bein hashmashos, it must be in the Sukkah.
Despite all classic halacha being clear that one must eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, the custom of many chassidim based on a mesorah they have from the Baal Shem Tov is to not eat in the Sukkah in Shemini Atzeres. (Chabad does *not* follow this minhag, they only eat or drink in the Sukkah until Shemini Atzeres ends.)
Of course, after this minhag developed, chassidish poskim have built some sevoros to rely on, but the fact remains that this minhag has weak halachic basis, and is done purely due to the Baal Shem Tov’s mesorah.
The Chabad minhag of not sleeping in the Sukkah, while also being due to the mesorah from the times of the Baal Hatanya – has much greater halachic basis, since it was already mentioned as an acceptable minhag in Shulchan Aruch (albeit for different reasons).
My point is not ch”v to attack the chassidish mesorah. My point is to question why you, and many others, fixate on the Chabad mesorah not to sleep in the Sukkah (which was already permitted in Shulchan Aruch) while ignoring the rest of the chassidish velt that eats outside the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (without basis in Shulchan Aruch).
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?
If that sounds familiar , the reason might be that …
it really is familiar ….It does sound familiar. It sounds like this post:
“First of all, Mr. Simcha613, you should show a little more respect to our Gedolei hador. Has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe the Gedolim thought of your Genius question and decided to do what they did anyway….??? Unfortunately, like many in our impoverished generation you clearly don’t get the concept of Daas Torah.”And no, it was not written by a Lubavitcher.
This is not a deep question, like Menachem claimed at one point in this conversation.
This is a very simple question.
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.
Talking about Monitoring, WebChaver (using the Covenant Eyes technology) is incredible. They are priced very well. Very easy to put on multiple devices.
They take many screenshots throughout the day and email them once a day or twice a week to the assigned Shomer.
When the program detects anything inappropriate (pictures or links) it flags the email as Highlighted Activity for the Shomer to look at.
Major plus: All the screenshots are completely blurred. You can’t make out any of the *text* on screen (bank info, personal info, texts, emails, etc.). All you see is a general view of the page (you can make out what the user is looking at, a shiur, a cartoon, or something inappropriate.) and the URL.
I use this, and it has a huge effect knowing that anything I scroll past or open up is being watched by someone else. Whether it’s on YouTube, sent on WhatsApp, or opened from Google Drive. Highly recommended.
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.
Another plus of WebChaver/CovenantEyes on Android:
Besides for screenshots, it also has an App Lock feature similar to Screen Time on iPhones.
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…
Yankel, I think I wrote all I know on the subject.
Now, please open a thread attacking the litvishers for this post by commonsense613 on another thread:
“First of all, Mr. Simcha613, you should show a little more respect to our Gedolei hador. Has it occurred to you that maybe just maybe the Gedolim thought of your Genius question and decided to do what they did anyway….??? Unfortunately, like many in our impoverished generation you clearly don’t get the concept of Daas Torah.”
Ask how this fits with Shmuel making a mistake, the Baal Haturim, etc.
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.
Menachem should let the sunlight shine on his actual opinions …
If you want to disagree with me, fine. If you don’t like my answers, fine.
But why must each of your posts include an accusation that I am lying or avoiding you?
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.”
Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .
At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?When he blatantly rejects Torah, as Shabtai Tzevi, r”l.
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)?
Their fault was that they didn’t ask what their rebbe meant, they thought since their rebbe is never wrong and this is what our rebbe meant to say it must be that this is what he said
Coffee, where in the world do you get it that the mistake of Tzadok u’Baitus was that they thought their rebbe was never wrong!?
And if you are correct (ch”v), why do we still teach Antignos’s statement in Pirkei Avos?
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 does have a point, just ask tzadok and beisus, their rebbe said “אל תהיו כעבדים…” and they obeyed their rebbe without asking any questions
Was the problem that they misunderstood their rebbe’s statement or that they obeyed their rebbe?
Were they meant to say “Our rebbe is not infallible, he must have been wrong in saying אל תהיו כעבדים” – as you seem to be implying in this discussion about Chabad?
If the latter were true (ch”v), why do we still teach Antignos’s statement in Pirkei Avos?
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.
Yankel,
So you agree with me that there is such a thing as accepting a “daas torah” and obeying them unquestionably even when you don’t understand.
But your problem with Chabad is that you feel they’ve taken this too far.
Okay, well I disagree. I think the Rebbe is a great daas torah to be bottul to, so I am. That’s our disagreement.