Menachem Shmei

The Gemara says ,”Lama Li Kra, Sevara He?” Judaism is a rational religion.

Lol, thanks for proving my point.

למה לי קרא means that you only need a posuk to prove something illogical, i.e., NOT everything in Yiddishkeit is rational!
למה לי קרא is saying, why do we need Torah for things that could be understood without Torah!

The discussion in the Gemara Taanis is the FLIPSIDE of למה לי קרא סברא הוא: Rav Yitzchak acknowledged that according to סברא it would be ridiculous to say that Yaakov is alive, but he responds מקרא אני דורש – it may not be logical, but that’s what the Torah says!

He only needs to bring a posuk because it’s not logical! If this was rational, Rav Nachman could have responded to the hekesh למה לי קרא סבתא הוא!

In answer to those who have been yelling on the top of their lungs that only a deranged Lubavitcher would be crazy enough to understand Rashi in Taanis 5b that Yaakov Lo Mes was literal:

In addition to the meforshim that I brought earlier who explain what I said at length, here is the footnote in artscroll 5b (fn 18):

“Since this verse proves that Jacob is still alive, we must conclude that Jacob only appeared to be dead to those who embalmed him (Rashi). Other commentators explain Jacob’s immortality not as a prolongation of physical life but as a form of continued spiritual existence (see Maharsha).”

Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Rashi is understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive in his kever, he only seemed dead. Maharsha and others argue.

Was Artscroll hijacked by crazy Lubavitchers? Maybe. But I would think that then they would mention the Rebbe’s teachings every now and then.

@menachem-shmei There is no such רשב״א, there is no such רא”ש

How are you so sure? Did you check up the sources in the link I posted?

My earlier post was written quickly, without checking anything up.
Now I looked into this a little.

The Rashba writes clearly that לא תסור applies to chachomim of all times:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19563&st=&pgnum=171&hilite=
(שכב)

There is no specific source for תשובות הרא”ש, so it was hard to find, but maybe it was referring to here:
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1961&st=&pgnum=64
(סי’ ח-ט)
[Happens to be FIERY teshuvos!]

and there is no ראשון by the name of ספר זכרונות.

Correct, I shouldn’t have written “many Rishonim”. That was my mistake (not from the sicha I was quoting).
Sefer Zichronos is by R’ Shmuel Abuhav (1600s). Here’s what it says:
https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=32266#p=5&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=

How could Rashi believe that Yaacov EXPIRED (ויגוע), how could he believe that he was BURIED and EULOGIZED and still be PHYSICALLY alive?

What does expired mean? I brought meforshim that explain. You ignored them, of course.

Neither Rashi, nor any of the meforshim claim that Yaacov Avinu is still walking on this planet earth to this day in his physical body.

Correct. They say he is alive in his kever. As I brought from meforshim.

I can’t grasp why you find this so complicated.

One of us just doesn’t know how to learn a piece of Gemara with meforshim (as you eloquently described earlier in your post) and I suspect it isn’t me.

Also, still waiting for your response to my rebuttal of your accusation that only Chabad “dares to say” that Rashi in Chumash doesn’t always side with Rashi on Shas.

The Rebbe spoke about this and brought many sources on the matter in Likkutei Sichos vol. 5 pg. 127 fn. 25-26.

See footnotes 25-26 here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14928&st=&pgnum=139&hilite=

Some points mentioned there (I didn’t get to look up all the sources yet, so I’ll just quote as they’re written there):

1. Many Rishonim (רשב”א, רא”ש, ספר החינוך, ספר זכרונות) hold that the mitzvah of לא תסור applies in all generations, not just the Beis Din Hagadol.
ספר יראים argues.

2. Many meforshei Rashi explain Rashi like the sifre – “only if it SEEMS.” However, from the fact that Rashi omits these words it seems like he doesn’t want to be mefaresh that way.

3. Indeed, the Gur Aryeh understands Rashi literally, ימין ושמאל כמשמעו, דאף אם הם טועים בדין – “literally left or right, even if they ERR in judgment.”

See the above link for more sources and discussion on the matter.

If anyone wants to look up the Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef that I referenced to in my previous post about יעקב לא מת, you can see them here:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47607&st=&pgnum=130&hilite=

He says that Rashi says Yaacov was buried (actually Rashi points to the word in the posuk saying that Yaacov expired but that it does not say he died, so he agrees that Yaacov expired) but at the same time Shmei says that Rashi says on the Gemorah that Yaacov is PHYSICALLY alive…never mind that that gemorah AND Rashi clearly state what being alive means and it is not that Yaacov is physically alive…to say that Rashi is saying on one hand that Yaacov was buried and on the other that he’s physically alive?! Rashi is not saying ” יעקב לא מת literally”. Does Rashi say the word “literally”? No, Menachem shmaya is saying that Rashi is saying the word “literally”.

A) I never said that Rashi was arguing on himself (in THIS case). All I said is that Rashi explains himself more in Taanis 5b than in Vayechi.

B) What do you prove from Rashi in Chumash writing ויגוע (“expired”)? If ויגוע means died, then what’s the difference between ויגוע and וימת?

The Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef all understand it literally, Yaakov didn’t die, his soul is still in his body.

They explain that the word ויגוע (“expired”) means “a deep sleep/faint” (ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף” “לא נסתלק רק גוע כמי שנתעלף”) which others mistook as death, which is why they enbalmed and buried him, which wasn’t an issue because he wasn’t moving anyway (“מה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה”).

Another reason why they did all these things is so as not to degrade other tzaddikim who do die. (-עיון יעקב)

Coffee addict, you are so right that only a Lubavitche would argue that Rashi says one thing on the posuk and a different thing on the Gemarah as if Rashi is contradicting himself.
What dishonesty. I cannot take that….He tries to make it seem as if Rashi is arguing with himself and saying a different pshat on the Gemorah than the posuk!

If so, then meforshei haShas and meforshei Rashi must all be Lubavitchers, since we find examples of Rashi on Chumash arguing with Rashi on Shas ALL OVER THE PLACE, and this is acknowledged by all the meforshim!

Some examples:

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 65b:
גמרא בעל אוב אחד המעלה בזכורו כו’. ורש”י בחומש פירש דורש אל המתים זהו מעלה בזכור כו’ ע”ש ודבריו ע”פ הברייתא בספרי ושלא כברייתא זו דבשמעתין דכן דרכו של רש”י לפרש הפסוקים על פי היותר פשוטו של מקרא…
Rashi on Gemara explains אוב different than his explanation in Chumash.
This is the derech of Rashi, to explain the pesukim according to the simplest meaning (פשוטו של מקרא).

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 66a:
גמרא מה ת”ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום כו’. ורש”י בחומש בפרשת משפטים כתב ומקלל אביו ואמו למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר איש איש אשר יקלל גו’ אין לי אלא איש שקלל אשה מניין ת”ל ומקלל אביו גו’ סתם בין איש ובין אשה כו’ ע”ש והוא ע”פ המכילתא וכמה שכתבו שדרכו לדרוש בפירושו הדרשה יותר פשוטה במקרא…
Rashi in Chumash explains איש איש differently than the Gemara, because his derech is to explain the simplest pshat.

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 72a:
גמרא ת”ר אין לו דמים כו’ … וזה הוא דרכו של רש”י בחומש להביא דרשה היותר פשוטה…
Rashi’s derech in Chumash is to bring the simplest pshat.

Maharsha, Kiddushin 44b:
דרכו של רש”י ז”ל לפרש במקום זה כך ובמקום אחר שינה פירושו
Rashi’s derech is to explain one way in one place, and changes his pirush elsewhere.

Rashash, Shabbos 83a:
הגרע”א ז”ל בגליון הש”ס העלה פירוש רש”י בצריך עיון גדול ואנכי לא ידעתי מה העיון הגדול דשם פירש כשיטת רבינו תם, ואם משום שסותר את עצמו, זאת תמצא בפירוש רש”י ז”ל הרבה
“I don’t understand R’ Akiva Eiger’s question on Rashi. If it’s that Rashi contradicts himself, this is very common in Rashi’s pirush.”

Mizrachi, Bereishis 36:5:
“Torah mentions that Korach was the grandson of Eisav in two ways.
Rashi here says that it’s the SAME Korach who was a mamzer.
Rashi in Sotah says that there were TWO Korachs.
This is because here Rashi is explaining according to Bereishis Rabba, while there Rashi is explaining according to the story there in Gemara, which differs from the Midrash Rabba.”

Philosopher, Coffee, will you admit that you didn’t know the classic style of Rashi’s pirush, and that it was wrong to attack Lubavitch (in this case)?

Qwerty,

I refrained from answering your question because I’m not interested in going down the rabbit hole of discussing Christian theology, nor do I wish to engage in the Who is Moshiach debate (something I haven’t shared my views on, for reasons explained in a previous post).

I would rather discuss a Gemara, a Rambam, a Rashi, a Maharsha, a Gra, a Likkutei Sichos, etc.

However, since you pressured me so much, I will give you a brief and honest response:

Candace Owens…asked America’s Rabbi why Lubavitchers reject Christianity because of its belief in a second coming

If Jews reject Christianity because of the second coming, why did beis din kill Yoshke In the first place?

That is my answer (it’s a rhetorical question).

P.S. Rambam Hilchos Melachim ch. 11:
אַף יֵשׁוּעַ הַנּוֹצְרִי שֶׁדִּימָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מָשִׁיחַ, וְנֶהֱרָג בְּבֵית דִּין, כְּבָר נִתְנַבֵּא בּוֹ דָּנִיֵּאל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “וּבְנֵי פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ יִנַּשְּׂאוּ לְהַעֲמִיד חָזוֹן וְנִכְשָׁלוּ” (דניאל יא, יד). וְכִי יֵשׁ מִכְשׁוֹל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, שֶׁכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים דִּבְּרוּ שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹשִׁיעָם, וּמְקַבֵּץ נִדְחֵיהֶם וּמְחַזֵּק מִצְוָתָן, וְזֶה גָּרַם לְאַבֵּד יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחֶרֶב, וּלְפַזֵּר שְׁאֵרִיתָם וּלְהַשְׁפִּילָם, וּלְהַחֲלִיף הַתּוֹרָה, וּלְהַטְעוֹת רוֹב הָעוֹלָם לַעֲבֹד אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה’.
“Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: “The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”

P.P.S. Responding that “according to some opinions beis din didn’t kill Yoshke” doesn’t refute my point.

Menachem: Would you agree that both sides of the debate, including those that say the wife goes to her second husband, would agree it is best for the wife to remarry after becoming an almana (regardless if she became an almana young or old)?

I have no idea, but that does make sense.
That’s probably why the poskim were trying to find a hetter to go back to the first husband after תחה”מ, so that she should feel better about getting remarried.

AAQ,

Well said.

I personally do try davening for non-frum hostages, as well as all Jews in Israel, as that seems to be in public opinion the right thing to do. But I do want to make sure I’m doing the right thing…Doesn’t sound like uncoditional love for anyone with Jewish blood. I assume the same applies to “lo saamoid al dam reiacha”.

Before coming to such a critical decision, I would speak to a rav moreh horaah, not rely on what people say on the internet.

can anyone give me a credible source that they’re still supposed to be in my hearts & prayers?

One is obligated to be mechalel Shabbos to save a Jewish life even in a case of safek (such as unsure if it’s a Yid or goy).
If a complete rasha is mekadesh a woman on condition that he is a complete tzaddik, it is kiddushin misafek because the person may have had a hirhur teshuva at that moment and become a tzaddik gomur.
How much more so regarding the hostages, which (a) how do you know what they believe in their hearts? And (b) how could a Jew not have a hirhur teshuvah when in such a miserable, critical situation?
So it is definitely much more than a safek.

Also, these people are תינוקות שנשבו לבין העכו”ם (literally and figuratively) whom are considered אונס according to the Rambam.

The Chazon Ish writes that the “non believers” of today are not considered real kofrim due to the hardships of their surroundings.

There are many more sources (and your entire premise about ואהבת לרעך is wrong according to many opinions), but either way, it is definitely better to err on the side of protecting and davening for another Jewish life than the opposite ch”v.

The very fact that this was a question shows on a very faulty chinuch, or a serious troll. (Or both.)

So now you are saying I said said all along that his body expired as the posek says and not physically alive!!! Over what exactly are you still arguing with me on this? Unbelievable!

I am saying that the classic understanding of Rashi’s opinion is that Yaakov was physically alive, נשמה בגוף; he only SEEMED dead.

As the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh writes, Yosef was allowed to kiss Yaakov (even though it is prohibited to kiss a dead person) because Yaakov didn’t actually die. They thought he was dead, but really he was in a deep sleep.

However, Maharsha believes that Rashi’s opinion is “דחוק” and gives his own pshat in the Gemara, similar to how you said. This means that Rashi and Maharsha have differing opinions.

Menachem shmei, absolutely Hashem doesn’t have partners in running the universe. Hashem created the world in a specific way that…….
This is the danger of Chabadianity. Just like Christianity, they mistranslate or misinterpret

Philosopher,

I didn’t interpret or misinterpret anything.

I just wanted to demonstrate that it’s silly to demand that someone only answer Yes or No to a complicated philosophical question. Judging from the length of your post, you have clearly proven my point.
Thank you.

Of course not. It was from a golf ball.

Arso,

The true Golf War was at the end of the last Trump-Biden debate. I think there was one casualty: Old Joe.

Qwerty: “Rabbi Miller said, “When great people say things they mean exactly what they say.” Let’s review the comments from the Lubavitchers on this thread.”

Also Qwerty: “In Bereishis Hashem says, “Come let us make man in our image.”:At face value this is clear-cut idolatry and many have used that literal meaning to support their idolatrous views. But those who accept Hashem Echad realize that the verse isn’t actually saying this.”

So is it okay to say things that some things demand more context or not?

I’m anti-Chabad and anti-Rebbe but I’m not an anti Semite. Candace Owens is anti-Chabad and anti-Rebbe and she is an anti-Semite. When a person makes a statement it must be understood in the context of the speaker

Well, there it is, exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Just as Candace Owens hates Jews and therefore tries to twist any potentially suspicious Jewish statement, Qwerty does the same with Chabad and a tremendous tzaddik (r”l). It’s not the content of the statements he’s reacting to, but the fact that it came from Chabad.

Qwerty’s bias is so extreme that he’s willing to ridicule a vort from the Vilna Gaon simply because a Lubavitcher repeated it.
Qwerty wrote about the Vilna Gaon’s vort: “that’s absolutely false” and that it “…downplayed Avraham Avinu’s greatness by writing in his book that the Akeidah was our Founder’s only true test which is obviously false. Leaving his homeland and sending away Yishmael were examples of Avraham going against his Middah of Chesed.” Not only is Qwerty attacking the Vilna Gaon here, but he’s also attacking Rashi on Chumash and the Gemara (that Hashem begged Avraham to pass the last test “lest it seem that the first tests had no substance” “שלא יאמרו הראשונות אין בהם ממש”)!

In an earlier chapter of the book [Rabbi Posner] wrote that there are two kinds of Orthodox Jews…

I don’t have the book, but I doubt he wrote it the way you’re presenting it. Either way:
What you have here is simply a Lubavitcher explaining why he believes Chabad’s derech is unique and important. It’s no different from a Satmar chossid saying: “There are some Orthodox Jews who are Zionists, but Satmar follows the true Torah derech of opposing Zionism.”
If a Satmar chossid doesn’t believe that his derech is the truest, and instead says that being a Zionist is just as valid, then he isn’t really Satmar, because he doesn’t even believe in his own views!

This doesn’t mean that every Lubavitcher, Satmar, Zionist, or Brisker thinks that they are personally superior. Each individual knows their personal faults (hopefully), but we believe we are following the best derech.

Your own self-comparison to Candace Owens is so perfect: She accuses Jews of “supremacism” because we dare to believe our religion is greater than all others and that Jews have a unique connection to G-d. Meanwhile, she obviously believes the same about her own religion. If she didn’t think her faith was superior, she’d convert!

Conclusion: You interpret Chabad’s statements negatively because you hate Chabad. You hate Chabad because of how you interpret their statements. This is nothing but circular logic.

I think we’ve found the perfect definition of sinas chinam. I don’t use that term lightly (I acknowledge it’s often misused) but in this case, I think it fits exactly.

I asked Shmei to acknowledge that Seichel and Cunin are idolaters because if one even gives a hint that he believes that a human has power this is idolatry and/or Amalekism.

Would you say the same about the Minchas Elozor, Noam Elimelech, Rabbeinu Bachya, Tanya, Yerushalmi and Zohar?
Because they all said things that may sound like AZ ch”v to the untrained ear (as I have asked you over a dozen times, yet you always lie and pretend that you don’t see the question).

True to form that liar changed the subject and twisted himself into a pretzel trying to prove that the Rebbe didn’t reject the Gemara in Cheilek.

Changed the subject? You called a talmid chacham a kofer r”l over ten times over the past year, including yesterday, so when I finally proved that you were wrong, you call it changing the subject!?

trying to prove

Trying!? The proofs were as clear as day. So clear, that your only response was “I will not address anything said by Shmei.”

And he certainly rejected the Gemara which said that there’s no Nevuah until Moshiach comes.

This too was answered already at length.

What does this have to do with עד אחד נאמן באיסורים?

You’re wondering if it’s an aveira for an עד or עדים to give a mistaken testimony?

Moreover the Gemara says that most Jews won’t be redeemed by Moshiach, the real Moshiach.

Qwerty, you don’t stop with this attack. You claim that trying to bring all Jews to do teshuva is worthless and contradicts a clear Gemara. You have made this claim on many occasions, and with vicious, angry tones. For example:

1. “There are serious questions with regard to Rabbi Schneersohn himself. He espoused views that contradict the Gemara. For example, he said that every Jew will be redeemed by Moshiach, with no exception, while the Gemara in Sanhedrin 111a states that only 0ne of 300,000 will be redeemed.”
2. “How could the Rebbe contradict an explicit statement in the Gemara, to wit, only one out of 300,000 Jews will be redeemed by Moshiach? According to the Rebbe all Jews, including Bernie Sanders, Woody Allen and the like will be redeemed.”
3. “For 2,000 years people learned the Gemara which said that just as only 2 of 600,000 Jews left Egypt and came to Israel, so too only 2 out of 600,000 Jews will be redeemed by Moshiach. No one ever questioned this until the Rebbhe decided that he knew the real Pshat and all Jews will be redeemed.”

And many, many more.
You go on to call a great talmid chacham “kofer” (r”l!) because you don’t understand what he said.

I will try to enlighten you:

The Rambam writes (Hilchos Teshuva 7:5) “וּכְבָר הִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁסּוֹף יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה בְּסוֹף גָּלוּתָן וּמִיָּד הֵן נִגְאָלִין” – “The Torah has already promised that the Jewish people will do teshuva at the end of golus and immediately be redeemed.”

The Baal HaTanya (Tanya ch. 3 & Hilchos Talmud Torah) understands this to refer to every single Jew, as it states לא (בלתי) ידח ממנו נדח – “no one who was banished from Him [by his sins] will remain banished.”

So, when the Rebbe said every Jew will be redeemed and we should try to reach every Jew for teshuva, he was just following the Baal HaTanya.

You may ask, how does this fit with the Gemara that you keep quoting from Sanhedrin 111a?
Well, if you would look at any other part of the page other than that one line, you would realize that what you are quoting is ONLY the opinion or Rava, but does not fit with the other opinions on the page!

I will explain:

The posuk says that at the time of redemption, “two thirds will be wiped out and one third will remain.”
Thirds of what?
Resh Lakish says that only one third of the Jews (Arpachshad ben Sheim’s descendants) will survive, all others will die.
R’ Yochanan says, “Hashem is not happy with you saying such a thing” – that so many Jews (or non-Jews, depends on which meforash) will die! Instead, one third of Sheim’s descendants will survive. i.e., ALL the Jews and many non-Jews will survive.

Even according Resh Lakish (who said something that “Hashem is not happy with”), at least a third of Jews will survive, which disagrees with Rava’s opinion that only 2/600,000 will survive. Certainly R’ Yochanan, who says that all Jews will survive, argues with Rava.

Next section on the amud of Gemara:
Resh Lakish says, Hashem will only redeem the tzaddikim; one Jew from every city and two from every household.
R’ Yochanan says, “Hashem is not happy with you saying such a thing” – that most of the Jews won’t be redeemed! Rather, he explains, the merit of one tzaddik will cause his entire city to be redeemed, and in the merit of two, their entire household.
[Rav and Rav Kahana had the same machlokes, with Rav admonishing R’ Kahana.]

Finally, after all of this, comes the statement of Rava that only 2/600,000 will survive.

I can’t understand why, from this entire sugya, someone would specifically choose the opinion of Rava that most Jews won’t make it, while ignoring all the other opinions?
R’ Yochanan would definitely say about you “לא ניחא לי’ למרייהו דאמרת להו הכי” – Hashem is not pleased that you speak this way!

Even the statement of Rava needn’t be understood literally (that most Jews will not be redeemed). Meforshim explain that the majority of Jews who won’t be present at the Geula refers to the many PREVIOUS generations of Jews from before the Geula. These people will rise for techiyas hameisim and greatly outnumber the group of Jews who were part of the generation that was present at the actual time of Geula. [See footnotes in Artscroll, referencing Maharal and Yaavetz.]

Conclusion: Even if you consider yourself among the greatest tzaddikim, in the top 2/600,000 of the Jewish people, and you aren’t interested in seeing the millions of other “lowly Jews” join you in the Geula, choosing to accept Rava’s (literal) opinion that most Jews won’t be redeemed — that still doesn’t give you the right to repeatedly label a great talmid chacham as a kofer and a liar (r”l) for following the views of the Baal HaTanya, R’ Yochanan, Rav, and even Rava himself, as understood by many meforshim.

Qwerty, I hope you will either refute my points or do some serious teshuva for denigrating a tzaddik so many times with the arrogance of your ignorance.

I will once again voice my macha’a against Qwerty’s use of vile and disrespectful language regarding a revered tzaddik, honored by countless Jews.
This tiny ant’s ignorance and arrogance prevent him from engaging in a civil and respectful dialogue.

No matter my personal views, I would never post that way about a Litvisher gadol, even one who may have viciously attacked my derech, out of respect for the many members of this forum who hold him in high regard.
I expect the same decency from the other side.

Menachem Shmei denies that Lubavitchers think that they are the “Master Race” of Judaism. Let me provide two anecdotes.

Despite these anecdotes, my previous point remains: Lubavitch is a derech, not a race. Those who adhere to this derech obviously believe it is the best one, just as the adherents of Satmar believe that theirs is the best derech, or else they would leave.

Menachem Shmei said that the Rebbe discouraged his Chasidim seeking higher education. But why did he insist that their secular education end in second grade?

Great question! If you want to read up on it, Google “Derher purity of the mind” and you’ll find a great article explaining this.

it explains why Lubavitchers like Seichel are functional illiterates

Qwerty, he’s not great with English, and you’re not great with Hebrew. I’m not ch”v blaming you for the education you received, but everyone has their own priorities in what they want to be proficient in.

Personally, I didn’t receive any secular education whatsoever (no English, math, history, etc., not even until second grade) and with Hashem’s help, I’m managing fine for what I need.

P.S. I’m surprised that with all the secular education you received, you never learned about paragraphs. Your grammar doesn’t seem worth bragging about, either. I’m not claiming mine is perfect, but I’m also not mocking others for their lack of education. (And I don’t (claim to) write for the Jewish Press.)

We have Aug 27 8:47 PM and Aug 21 4:39 pm.

Lol. You’ve been calling Sechel an עובד ע”ז all this time because he quoted Gemara in two posts!?

You wrote: “In Bereishis Hashem says, “Come let us make man in our image.”:At face value this is clear-cut idolatry and many have used that literal meaning to support their idolatrous views. But those who accept Hashem Echad realize that the verse isn’t actually saying this. So we go to the Gemara in which Hashem called Yaakov “Kel”. If you accept Hashem Echad then you understand that it doesn’t mean that Yaakov is literally god. Good. Hope you’re still with me. Now here’s the problem. Seichel, with all his Chassidus does take that Gemara literally”

How in the world do you know that? He only brought the Gemara to prove to you the same point that you yourself said as well, that just because a holy statement can be interpreted by stupid people as idolatry, that doesn’t make the statement possul!

How do you know that Sechel understands the Gemara any different than you!?

All he does in those posts is QUOTE it!

This is just like you calling Lostspark a kofer for writing an Aramaic phrase from Zohar!

we have Lostspark who gave his version of the Trinity today. But Shmei’s too busy to find it.

Aha, so you couldn’t find a single post from Seichel. So you were מוציא שם רע on him. A simple, low level liar. Wow.

Now you want me to condemn Lostspark’s post today.

All I saw was Lostspark quoting a Zohar (at least the way that it’s quoted in all the chassidishe seforim from Talmidei HaBesht), which you probably couldn’t even read.

No, I will not condemn that.

If you actually find a post that supports what you said, let me know (date, time, post number), and I will gladly condemn. If not, you’re admiting (again) to be a lowly liar.

Yet you claim to have a “love for truth” more than any of the other posters here. How embarrassing!

The Rebbe had two brothers, one

Qwerty, maybe instead tell us about the son and grandchildren of Rav Shach?