Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
>>>In the end of the Lubavitcher Rebbe zatzal’s letter he asks: how is this helping you in Avodas Hashem?
Thanks for pointing this out, I actually didn’t notice that part.
Here is the last line of the letter I quoted above, responding to someone who was doubting the golem’s existence:
הפס”ד בשו”ע: בכל דרכיך דעהו. מה יתוסף אצלו (השואל שי’) בתומ”צ ע”י בירור הנ”ל?UJM,
Ok, you really want to hear what I gave to say on the matter.
The reason why I haven’t been answering is because I don’t really have much to say on the matter.
Why do Lubavitchers put up pictures of the Rebbe more then others?
I can’t really answer this because I don’t know any official shitah or Torah explaining this.
This is not an official Chabad movement, and not everything done by Lubavitchers is a Lubavitcher thing.If you’re asking for theories, you can ask anyone.
Maybe it’s because Chabad in general does things in a more public way, like menorah lightings and lag baomer parades.
Maybe it’s because Chabad is more centered around the Rebbe than others might be with their gedolim (as it was throughout the history of Chabad).
But again, those are just theories, not written anywhere.
What is written in Torah I have already brought in my earlier post.Avram, point very well said
>>>would your main takeaway from the incident be how important it is for hotels to keep their eggs hot?
Or to stop making eggs altogether.
Better no eggs then possibility of cold eggs.>>>if someone finds he “can’t” keep Shabbos anymore he is by defenition not frum. But if he “can’t” eat cholov yisroel that is not the case.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that this is not necessarily a great example, because chalav yisroel is not just a minhag or chumra rather a chiyuv derabanan.
Just because there is a rov who made a heter, that doesn’t necessarilly make it any less of an issur d’rabanan for communities that never accepted the heter.>>>When we start mixing up minhagim with chiyuvei krissus it gets a bit mishkebabal and we lose focus on what’s a frum Jew and what is not.
There is some truth in what you’re saying, but I would counter it:
When people start weighing what we do and saying “this isn’t so important, its just a minhag. We can drop it” this also causes one to lose focus of what is a frum yid.
Being frum isn’t just obeying deoraysos or derabanans, but a way of life. This is the idea of minhagim. And minhagim that are enshrined in Jewish life are vital to Jewish survival, מנהג ישראל תורה היא.
A Judaism that picks and chooses the mitzvos that they feel are more important and puts less focus on minhagim (the true concept of modern orthodox) fizzels out after a generation or two, ch”v.(Sorry for going off topic from the thread)
>>>Why … Moshiach
Hopefully this will no longer be a discussion, because everyone will already know who Moshiach is for 50 years already since he took them out of golus, amen!
Indeed, I always thought that these children’s stories have the weirdest morals.
Enter someone’s house, eat their food and sleep in their bed (after being picky!), and when caught, just run away.
Or when a girl tries visiting her grandma she turns out to be a fox who tries to eat her.
And when it comes to Torah stories, people complain that they are will frighten the children.
The Shady Chareidi,
Your story fits your name perfectly.
Are you saying that the golem came back to life?
>>>I say this because i find it important to diffrenciate. I know of a Chabad person who went OTD because she ate Cholov Stam and then threw in the towel (nebach) because anyways she did an aveirah….
I’ve heard this taana many times on various halachos/minhagim that are only kept by certain groups (like beards, mikveh, etc.) but I never understood it:
If someone is over a דאורייתא (turned on light on Shabbos, ate a cheeseburger), is that a good reason to throw in the towel?
>>>Just heard lately that the whole Golem thing is a fabrication of someone Reb Yudel Rosenberg from Montreal about 100 years ago.
As other posters have mentioned, discussions about the golem are recorded much before 100 years ago.
Don’t worry, you can still trust your childhood.The Rebbe Rayatz traveled to Prague with his father (the Rashab – definitely over 100 years ago), and he went up to the attic to see the remains of the golem.
This is the Rebbe’s response to a kuntres that doubted the truth of the Golem (due to the lack of credibility of Yudel Rosenberg):
בנוגע לס’ נפלאות המהר”ל והאגרות וכו’ שמזכיר – לא עיינתי בהם ובמילא איני מחוו”ד בזה כלל.
ובנוגע לעיקר הענין (שהמהר”ל עשה את הגולם) – בעצמי שמעתי מכ”ק מו”ח אדמו”ר שראה הנשאר ממנו – בעליית ביהכנ”ס דמהר”ל בפראג. ודיבר עד”ז עם אביו כ”ק אדנ”ע וכו’.
הקושיות שבהמצו”ב על הס’ הנ”ל – אין נוגעות כלל בהעיקר, כי מכו”כ עשירויות שנים לפני ההו”ל של הס’ הנ”ל הי’ מפורסם בתוך בנ”י שהמהר”ל עשה גולם, ואפילו – אצל הא”י, ועיין בהס’ בהספריות (כמצויין באנצקלפדיות)coffee addict,
You took the words out of my mouth
I would add even more:
Spiritually, you may already be living in משיח’ס צייטן (like the famous story of Reb Mendel Horodoker (Vitebsker) and the scent of Moshiach. Or of Rashbi with saying nachem on Lag Baomer)>>>Reading the articles is an entirely different question. There was a special gezerah on captions…
I am not learned in this sugya, but from the simple reading of the shulchan aruch and Mishna Berura (which bring the issur of captions) it seems that both are the same gezeira – משום שטרי הדיוטות
The same applies to reading ANYTHING (including lists of names etc.) aside from Torah and musar (which includes Yosifun).
>>>that’s extremely offensive.
I must say that I agree with Avira here.
Although I agree with Sechel that chassidus puts much more of an added focus on the spiritual aspects of Moshiach, with many maamarim explaining the level(s) of gilui Elokus that we will experience at that time, as well as discussing the neshama of Moshiach etc. –
That doesn’t mean that the litivshers have a solely gashmiusdik view of the Geula, as if it’s something that could be done by some Netanyahu.
This assumption is degrading and offensive.As Avira pointed out, if you look in the seforim of the Chofetz Chayim and Rav Elchanan Wasserman, you will find a lot on the ideas of לתקן עולם, and how we will be able to have a close relationship to Hashem.
And obviously, Melech Moshiach is considered by all (Torah) groups in klal Yisroel to be a tremendous tzaddik and talmid chacham (as the Rambam (nigleh) writes in hilchos melachim and teshuva: הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצוות, חכם גדול הוא יתר משלמה ונביא גדול הוא קרוב למשה וילמד כל העם)
The only ones who fit Sechel’s description are some segments of the “religious zionist” community who think Moshiach is some nationalistic idea of Jews taking control of the land of israel and appointing a king over the land. These people (like David Bar-Hayim, and the like) are not accepted in normative circles (to the best of my knowledge).
>>>I would argue that Ami should be assur to read during the week too…
The Shulchan Aruch mentions that in general people shouldn’t read these thing because of wasting time, etc.
However, someone could always claim that they need it for relaxing, etc.However, on Shabbos there is an added issur which might be harder to find a heter for.
>>>Thank you for mentioning captions
I’ve often heard people say that if reading magazines on Shabbos, don’t read the picture captions.
I find this hard to understand. The Shulchan Aruch seems to be saying that even captions shouldn’t be read. What would be the difference between captions and articles?Avira,
Neville,I guess we each understood anypotato differently.
You seem to have understood him to say, “the Rebbe is Moshiach, look, even Rabbi Schochet agrees”.
In that case, I agree. It doesn’t make any sense to say that.However, I highly doubt this was anypotato’s intention.
He could have mentioned hundreds of Chabad rabbanim who hold this. Neither do I think that he was trying to conceal the fact that the Schochet family is Chabad (a well-known fact)He was probably saying that if you think that the RCA Statement makes sense, see this rebuttal.
Again, I haven’t seen the rebuttal, but I guess anypotato wants you to see it.
Why is the issue only with reading advertisements? According to Shulchan Aruch (סי’ שז סי”ב ואילך), it is forbidden to read any unholy content on Shabbos, as a gezeira lest one read שטרות on Shabbos.
It is even prohibited to read a menu that one prepared for the meal. It is forbidden to read letters of greetings. It is forbidden to read a caption on a picture. It is forbidden to read secular books of parables or war stories.
The Shulchan Aruch clarifies that this issur is BESIDES for the general issue of bittul Torah and reading secular matters.
The Shulchan Aruch Harav (as well as Mishna Berura, etc.) writes that reading יוסיפון and the like (Jewish history) is permissible on Shabbos since it contains inspiration in Yiddishkeit.
Accordingly, it would seem permissible to read the articles with Jewish content or Jewish news, since they contain some level of inspiration.
However, the articles about national politics or historical info about wars, etc. seems to be completely forbidden on Shabbos.
This issur would seem to include most Zman articles, as well as much of Ami magazine, etc.Neville,
This would be reasonable:
If someone asks, “How can Open Orthodoxy claim that the avos never existed (ח”ו וח”ו)? This is pure kefirah!”
And then an “Open Orthodox” Jew responds: “There is a great article answering this. Google: Avi Weiss Avos Kefira response” (I just fabricated this discussion)You might say that you’re not interested in checking it up. But it would be ludicrous to say “you can’t bring OO “rabbis” to defend OO views, so I don’t care what the article says”.
The OO Jew’s response to this would be: The very fact that you’re afraid to see how OO explains their opinion shows that you’re not so sure.
קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו…>>>You can’t bring Chabad rabbis to defend Chabad views.
This is as ludicrous as saying that you, as a litvisher, can’t defend litvisher views! (mind boggling isn’t it?)
Furthermore, surprising as it may be, you are currently engaging in discussion with a Lubavitcher who is defending Lubavitch views!
According to your logic, we shouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
We should change the rules of the coffeeroom:
Lubavitchers may only defend Litvishers, and Litvishers may only defend Lubavitchers.
Liberals may only defend conservatives (you can’t bring liberals to defend liberals) and conservatives may only defend liberals.
Gadolhadorah may only defend ujm, ujm may only defend Gadolhadorah.
(Not such a bad idea actually. Would be quite interesting)P.S. I have no idea what Rabbi Schochet wrote, and honestly, it is as significant to me as the RCA Statement itself (completely insignificant).
I’m just amused by Neville’s line of reasoning.Interesting experiment:
I wonder what would happen if someone would post a controversial taanah on four Moshiach threads at once.
Would the rebutters respond the same response on all the threads as well?And would the rest of the conversation continue with four copies until someone breaks the chain?
Hmm…
AAQ,
This is from the Frierdiker Rebbe’s personal diary describing the arrest by the G.P.U. in Sivan 5687-1927 (רשימת המאסר):
ראשונה הלכו לחדר בנותי מ’ חי’ מוסיא ושיינא יחיו, לבקר בשם וידרשו מאתם לאמר להם: מאיזה פּאַרטיע המה, ויענו כי הם בהפּאַרטיע של אביהם, בנות ישראל בעזפּאַרטיינע [בלתי מפלגתית], מחבבי ארחות ישראל סבא, ממאסים בשאיפות החדשות. מפני מה? — נשמע קול נחמנסאָהן בשאלת תמהון — מפני מה — ענתה בתי שיינא תחי’ — מפני מה אינני מחויבת להשיב לכם, אתם שואלים איך היא השקפתי, ועל זה עניתי לכם ועל שאלת מפני מה אינני מחויבת לענות או לתת טעמים על
השקפתי, כי הלא לא לשם דיסקוסיא באתם לבקר את כתביי ואגרותיי.They first went to search the room of my daughters Chaya Moussia and Shaina and asked them: “Which party do you belong to?”
They answered that they were “members of our father’s party, apolitical Jewish women who hold dear Jewish traditions and despise the new trends.”Avira,
Great points about Sheva mitzvos and לתקן עולם
Allow me to add the halacha ruled by the Rambam in hilchos melachim:
וְכֵן צִוָּה משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה לָכֹף אֶת כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם לְקַבֵּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַTo answer er,
The reason this wasn’t practiced throughout the generations was because for most of history Yidden weren’t exactly on talking terms with goyim…I think jackk said it perfectly!
The democrat and republican parties were both not founded according to Torah (shebiksav, and certainly not shebaal peh) so they cannot be the perfect Jewish view.
On the other hand, there are obviously various aspects of both parties that align with Torah (this can even be said of communism, totalitarianism, etc.), and its possible that at times one party will align more than the other.
When the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe was being arrested in the USSR in 1937, the KGB asked his daughters which political party they affiliate themselves.
They didn’t say democracy or capitalism. They said they belong to their father’s party, which is the party of Hashem and the Torah.
If only all frum people would speak this way today.
Common,
Please, this is completely out of context.
Why would you bring up a random post from the height of the covid debate in 2021 here in this thread?
(It didn’t even have to do with the vaccine. Chanie315 actually agreed with the vaccine. They were arguing about the severity of the virus).This is just asking for an argument. And in a sinas chinam thread.
Come on.Common,
I didn’t take the shot, but why bring up old fights in this thread?
>>>There is NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER regarding a Rav , Rebbe or R’Ys Shitah re Chabad , when it comes to their theology because of 2 reasons…
I assume that you are referring to the Rav Hutner discussion, which you are taking completely out of context.
I was not trying to say that Rav Hutner holds of Lubavitch. Frankly, it makes as much of a difference to me as it would make a difference to you if the Lubavitcher Rebbe holds of Rav Hutner.The correspondents of Rav Hutner was brought in response to avira’s post:
“And i was waiting for someone to mention putting on tefillin once as an example of returning jews to Torah. It isn’t. Because, as rav hutner explained, the rishonim are clear that in order for a mitzva to count, even according to the opinion that mitzvos don’t require kavanah, one must believe in their existence and be aware of their existence, otherwise it’s a maysoh kof b’alma….”It’s absurd to claim that Rav Hutner was against mivtzah tefillin without knowing the lengthy correspondence where he asks the Rebbe all of his questions. He also writes that he made sure not to go public with his opinion, etc. It’s also interesting to note the sensitivity he uses in his argument.
To ignore these letters and just claim (or imply) that Rav Hutner was against mivtzah tefllin is burying your head in the sand.>>>Does ‘giving land to Arabs’ not make things worse?
It does.
It’s a clear ruling in Shulchan Aruch OC siman 329:
עכו”ם שצרו על עיירות ישראל אם באו על עסק ממון אין מחללין עליהם את השבת באו על עסק נפשות ואפי’ סתם יוצאים עליהם בכלי זיין ומחללים עליהם את השבת ובעיר הסמוכה לספר אפילו לא באו אלא על עסקי תבן וקש מחללין עליהם את השבת: הגה ואפילו לא באו עדיין אלא רוצים לבא
Regarding non-Jews who besiege Jewish cities: if they come for money, we do not desecrate the Shabbat [to protect ourselves], but if they came to kill or come with no presented reason, we go out with weapons and desecrate the Shabbat. In a city that is near the border, EVEN IF THEY JUST COME FOR STRAW OR HAY, we desecrate the Shabbat. Rem”a: Even if they haven’t come but they want to come.
Mishna Berurah:
(יד) לספר וכו’ – עיר שמבדלת בין גבול שישראל דרים בה לגבול העו”ג וחיישינן שאם ילכדוה משם תהא הארץ נוחה ליכבש לפניהם:@yungermanS,
Thanks for the inspiration. Hopefully we’ll indeed succeed in uniting despite our opposing views, and bring Moshiach.
@amiricanyeshivish,
❤️😂