Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
>>>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,
❤️😂Goldilocks,
Description from Women of the Wall website:
“As Women of the Wall, our central mission is to attain social and legal recognition of our right, as women, to wear prayer shawls, pray, and read from the Torah, collectively and aloud, at the Western Wall.”i.e. Their mission is to wage a war against Hashem Himself by publicly going against His will as it is manifested in halacha.
And all this – in the holiest place in the world – the place where the Shechina rests! ר”ל ר”ל
May this abomination be obliterated immediately.As a Lubavitcher, I follow the path of the Chabad rabbeim of being mekarev every Yid, even those with the status of מורידין ולא מעלין (See Likkutei Sichos vol. 2 pg. 620).
As the Gemara says: יתמו חטאים ולא חוטאיםWhile I wouldn’t hate Women of the Wall (since they are Jewish), and I would try to be mekarev them, their actions are definitely deplorable.
The Rebbe Rashab has a very sharp maamar know as החלצו תרנ”ט where he discusses the concept of sinas chinam at length and how to rid oneself of it.
This was particularly hard for me to learn because it so aptly describes the the relationship I have with some people, and the struggle of overcoming these feelings. I’m still working to rid myself of this sinas chinam.
Here are some excerpts:
שנאת-חינם היא, שאחד שונא את חברו סתם כך, על לא-דבר. לפעמים הוא ממציא טענה כלשהי, מדוע הוא שונאו, אבל אין זו אלא תואנה ועלילה להצדיק את שנאתו. הסיבה האמיתית היא – ישותו העצמית, שאינה מניחה מקום לזולתו. חשוב הוא בעיני עצמו, ולכן הזולת ממעט את מציאותו.…
כל אחד בונה במה לעצמו, בתורה ובעבודה, על-פי דעתו ושכלו דווקא, ואין אחד מתאחד ומתחבר עם רעהו. כל אחד מבטל את הטוב שבעבודת חברו, וכל חיסרון שימצא בה – יגדיל וירחיב עשרת מונים (אף אם אינו אלא חיצוני, שאינו נוגע בגוף ובעצם עבודתו). התנהגות זו מעידה ששונא הוא את חברו בליבו ואינו חפץ כלל בטובתו. ומהי הסיבה לשנאה זו? ישותו והרגשת עצמו, או בלשון אחרת: העדר הביטול והעדר הנחת עצמותו
Square,
Well said, you took the words out of my mouth.
>>>Re, rav hutner; I’d trust what his talmidim say over online people…
Great. You still refuse to check the written correspondence – a mouseclick away. You would rather trust word of mouth as long as it’s hateful. And then you wonder why people call it “chinam”…
Go ahead, bury your head in the sand.>>>Lubavitch information flat out spreads falsities about what gedolim said about Lubavitch.
I can say the same about Chaim Berlin.
Most people’s words can’t be blindly trusted for the fear of bias.That’s why I posted a link with written correspondence between the two gedolim. The letters speak for themselves (unless you are afraid of forgeries. Though if you look at chabadpedia you can find the original letters of Rav Hutner with the Rebbe’s handwritten response).
As usual, you would rather argue about facts without checking them despite them being a Google search away (whereas taking a trip to chaim berlin is very impractical for me). This seems like cowardice to me.
>>>Lubavitchers make lots of claims about how gedolim viewed their rebbe; if you want to know what rav hutner held of him, talk to a chaim berlin person.
Or: Read the aforementioned correspondence (google: anash correspondence Rebbe Rav Hutner) and see for yourself their relationship. Also, you will see there the status of Rav Hutner’s “hisnagdus” to mivtzah tefillin.
>>>The Vilna Gaon is who people refer to when saying “The Gaon”. The Rogotchover I don’t believe is ever referred to by that title, he’s always “The Rogotchover Rebbe”.
In Chabad also “the Gaon” refers to the Vilna Gaon, though he is usually referred to as Vilna Gaon or Gra.
I’ve never heard anyone refer to the Rogatchover as “the Gaon” but neither is he called “rebbe”.
I think he is universally called “the Rogatchover gaon” or הגאון הרוגצ’ובי
>>>a leader of [hi]s generation … has to be accepted by virtually all of klal yisroel”
Something to think about:
Was Moshe the Jewish leader because every Yid cared about and respected him, or because he cared for every Yid?
>>>I don’t know which is worse
Making fun is worse. It’s not nice to make fun of death.
On the other hand, looking at everything through the lenses of how it affects Yidden is a very good thing, as Avira wrote.
I’ll add to Avira that not only is everything that HAPPENS in the world for the Yidden, but the very existence of the world is only for the Yidden.
As Rashi writes on the first posuk:
בראשית – בשביל ישראל ובשביל התורה שנקראו ראשיתProblem #4886 with Lubavitch:
There is a Lubavitcher who doesn’t know who Reb Shamshon Refael Hirsch is.Another reason to put them in cherem.
RULES OF THE YWN COFFEEROOM (updated):
There shall be (at least) two threads about Lubavitch-Moshiach running at at every given moment.
If a day passes without this discussion, the CR will automatically be shut down forever.
Thanks for understanding.
Correction to my previous post:
The Shulchan Aruch says ואינו מנהג
(Nasty spell check)mdd1,
Please explain why all attack Chabad for דוקא being נוהג like an accepted leniency, while I have yet to see anyone attack the chassidish velt (and many litvishers) for going AGAINST the halacha in Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Brurah.Again, Shulchan Aruch mentions the minhag of not sleeping in the Sukkah and supports it (albeit בדיעבד), while it mentions the Shmini Atzeres minhag and CONDEMNS it!
I am not chas v’shalom pushing to attack anyone’s minhagim. I think every yid should follow the mesorah from his rabbeim and the tzaddikim of previous generations.
I am just upset by the blatant double standard.
If it’s a mesorah from the Baal Shem Tov passed down by polisher chassidim – it is welcomed with open arms.
If it’s a mesorah from the Mitteler Rebbe (during the times of the Baal HaTanya) passed down by Chabad rabbeim – it is “akiras mitzvos” (ח”ו עפ”ל)!I’m shocked by those who attack Chabad for not sleeping in Sukkah, yet defend not eating on Shmino Atzeres.
Regarding sleeping the Shulchan Aruch says that today most are נוהג not to sleep, and give a few reasons. Chabad explains another reason according to our mesorah from the Mitteler Rebbe.
Regarding eating in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres, the Shulchan Aruch writes that there are those who don’t eat on Shmini Atzeres ואנחנו מנהג – This is NOT A MINHAG!
There is no classic halachic source for not eating in Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres other than a mesorah from the Baal Shem Tov (which, btw is not accepted in Chabad) yet everyone is fine with that.
The vina gaon writes that one who doesn’t sleep in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres is chayav misah for violating divrei sofrim.
Certainly so regarding eating!The anti chabad bias is clear as day.
Square,
Your disrespect is shocking. If the topic doesn’t interest you, don’t post.
This fast is brought in Magen Avraham (או”ח סו”ס תקפה)
נוהגין להתענות עשרים בסיום בכל מלכות פוליןEven for those who don’t fast, it is a day that can be spent in teshuva and introspection. Davening for the end to our suffering in golus and the coming of Moshiach.
See Sefer Hasichos 5751 vol. 2 pg. 611
>>>This language was removed from subsequent prints.
This is a lie. There is no edition missing these words, because Lubavitch has no need to cover this up.
Since this has been discussed at great length hundreds of times in the CR, it is pointless to rehash.
Interesting point: Here is a quote from the Rebbe a few days after he said the sicha about sleeping in the sukkah (Shabbos Bereishis 5730):
איך האב געהערט א גירסא בשמי אז איך האב געזאגט אז מען טאר ניט שלאפן אין סוכה – איז דאס בפירוש ניט אמת, ואדרבה: דער וואס וויל – זאל שלאפן געזונטערהייט, ושכבת וערבה שנתיך, און עס זאל זיך אים חלום’ן גוטע חלומות וכו’, און קיינער זאל אים ניט שטערן. דאס וואס איך האב גערעדט, איז געווען אויף פארענטפערן מנהג רבותינו וכו’, ומנהג חב”ד, אויף ניט שלאפןDaMoshe, mdd1
If you also think Shulchan Aruch Harav and the Mitteler Rebbe are “oker Torah” (ח”ו עפ”ל) then we indeed have absolutely no שפה משותפת (neither do you have with most bnei Torah of this generation or previous ones).
>>>the mitteler did not admonish people for sleeping in the sukkah. the way everyone else has the story, his statement of “how can I sleep….” was said regarding himself, to explain his own practice of not sleeping in a sukkah.
Avira, you are obviously only interested in picking fights. You continue to argue and lie in order to bring out your point, and you refuse to check any sources I gave you to see if you are factually correct.
This is the quote from the Frierdiker Rebbe:
פעם אחד סיפרו לאדמו”ר האמצעי שאברכים ישנים בסוכה, האט ער – אדמו”ר האמצעי – זיי געגעבן דם אמת’ן חלק, ואמר: שלאפן אין מקיף, מילא לערנען אין מקיף הרי זה דחק ונכנס, אבער שלאפן אין מקיף?! עיי”ש