Menachem Shmei

Avira,

in the gaons time, the other gedolei yisroel said that his neshoma belonged to the rishonim

And at the Alter Rebbe’s bar mitzva he was registered in the chevra Kadisha and received the title “החכים המופלג תנא ופליג” – a title meaning that he is on the level of the tanaim! (a handwritten copy of the certificate is in the Chabad library)

the gaon was unlike anyone in his time, or for several hundred years prior, and the baal hatanya was after him, so it is not unreasonable for even a chasidishe yid to say that the gaon was bigger than the baal hatanya.

I’m sure some say that the gaon was greater than the Alter Rebbe, but others say differently:

Rav Yaakov Berman, talmid of the Rogachover, related to Rav Yehoshua Mondshine (Chabad historian and researcher): Once, the Rogachover was praising the incredible knowledge of the Vilna Gaon, but he concluded, “אבער קענען לערנען?! דאס האט גיקנענט דער אלטער רבי”

Rav Mondshine also relates that he heard from Rav Shmuel Lazanovsky (I heard this as well from Rav Segal – rosh kolel of Tzemach Tzedek Yerushalaim – who also heard it from Rav Shmuel):
The Avnei Nezer usually referred to the Gra as “haGaon”, and referred to the Baal Hatanya as “haGaon haAmiti.” He once told his grandson that in the Shulchan Aruch Harav you can find more depth than in Biurei haGra, and he showed him fourteen “צריך עיון” that the Gra left unanswered which are answered in Shluchan Aruch Harav.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24743&st=&pgnum=145

Let’s just drop the “who is a greater gadol game”, because it will get us nowhere.

ARSo,

You never addressed my references to two books published by Lubavicher chassidim which clearly indicate that the Lubavicher rebbe wanted to be rebbe after the Rayatz.

I don’t recall the references. I’m actually quite interested.
Please let me know how I can find them or what it says.

I understand that you may be reticent to accept Deitsch’s version

I’ll accept it if he presents factual proofs (Lubavitchers are always looking for hints that the Rebbe actually accepted himself as Rebbe, since they are so rare).

If he gives theories, I may as well rely on your theories instead.

(According to all the facts and letters known to me from that time period, chassidim were begging and pressuring the Rebbe to accept, and he kept refusing. He claimed that he wasn’t qualified for the job. He even said that if they continue pressuring him he would flee, and they would never find him.
He finally relented (to an extent) at the first yahrtzeit, while still referring to his father-in-law as nossi, and going often to his ohel, etc.)

5783, it’s great to have you post occasionally because all Menachem’s efforts to show how reasonable and logical Lubavich theology is, are contradicted when you come along and show how radical and ridiculous it all is!

Just pointing out that 5783 definitely doesn’t represent Lubavitch in any way, since he is a passionate anti-Lubavitcher (check out his posts).
Just in case you didn’t notice that.
(However, it does seem that he hung out with Lubavitchers a lot, as he picked up a lot of Lubavitch lingo (again, evident from his posts).

Have you never seen a Lubavicher telling a Litvak who puts on tefillin by winding it inwards…

Indeed, I have never seen a Lubavitcher telling a Litvak this.

I don’t think that this is even a true reason for our minhag. I’ve heard it mentioned before in jest.

Don’t litvishers also have cute one-liners to tease chassidim about some of their differences in minhagim? I hear them all the time.

as a group you (perhaps not you personally) belittle other shitos … But then don’t get upset with those of us who consider Lubavichers close to meisisim umadichim

Whatever. This complaint is a never-ending cycle.

This is how a Lubavitcher could have worded it:
“As a group, you consider us meisisim umadichim, so then don’t get upset when we belittle your shitos.”

Menachem: “I disagree with many of your examples”

I don’s see why. They are all examples that I and others have personally witnessed.

These are examples of things that I agree Lubavitchers often spread:

-Shabbos candles (was a mivtza of the Rebbe. Many rabbanim had correspondence with the Rebbe on the matter)

-Melech haMoshiach stickers and posters (a group of Lubavitchers are really into publicizing these, even thought the Rebbe (and many other Lubavitchers) wasn’t too happy with this).

-Navi/Nassi (they believe it’s the truth, so the more people who know the better)

Examples that I’ve never seen Lubavitchers spread (and I don’t think it’s part of the Chabad agenda):

-Learning nigleh on Shabbos (every Chabad yeshiva has a Gemara seder on Shabbos)

-Learning nigleh before davening (while looked down on in yeshivos, it is quite common among baalei batim. Many daf yomi shiurim before shachris in Chabad shuls in Crown Heights and other communities. This is definitely not something Lubavitchers try to impose on others).

-Eating gebroks is wrong (they might not allow someone to eat it in their home on Pesach, but never heard of trying to get other people to stop)

-Putting on tefillin differently (never seen this before. As I mentioned in earlier in this post)

Qwerty,

you have good writing skills

Thank you!

The problem is that you didn’t qualify your statement when I joined the thread.

I was very clear that you were interpreting the quote wrong, and that many other sources can SEEM to be “kefira” to those who don’t understand them.

It’s nice that it suddenly all makes sense to you after I gave one line of clarification, but it was really just a drop in the bucket of a much greater sugya.
I decided to leave it for you to research on your own since the full subject is beyond the scope of a coffeeroom post.

You singled out yankel berel and myself as Chabad bashers, but I think it’s clear that there are at least a dozen others in the thread who feel exactly the same way

I wrote: “(some of) the opponents to Lubavitch on this thread (especially yankel and qwerty) are staunchly opposed to Lubavitch, and will attack (almost) any argument that I make.”

The main ones who attack almost any argument I make (at least in the last few pages) are you and yankel. Simple as that.

as I’ve said at least twice in this thread, I have no problem with any group except Chabad.

And, if I remember correctly, “black hatters”.

Therefore the Alter Rebbe was bigger than the Gaon. The 5th and 6th Rebbes were greater than the Chafetz Chaim.

I assume that you say that the Gaon was greater than the Alter Rebbe, and the Chafetz Chaim was greater than the 5/6 Rebbes. How is that any different then what Lubavitch says? Because “more people” agree with you?

And the joke is that Chabad tries to sell us on the idea that the Rebbe was anav mikal adam.

How is looking at your Rebbes as the greatest leaders a contradiction to anivus? Is believing that Judaism is the greatest and truest religion a contradiction to anivus?

(Of course, I must clarify that I’m not equating Lubavitch to the entire Jewish religion. Just bringing out a point)

I decided that I just had to check out those quotes from seforim that Menachem keeps referring to

Thank you for actually checking this up (unlike others who were too intimidated)!

1. “the Lubavicher rebbe clearly said that you can daven to an atzmus melubash baguf”

Many people might misunderstand what you’re saying to mean that this is referring to davening shmone esrei or something. This is obviously not the case. I never heard of this concept of “davening to the Rebbe” from any Lubavitcher. I only hear it from misnagdim (i.e. those who are opposed to Lubavitch).

What the Rebbe is explaining is the common practice of asking a Rebbe for brochos. In the Rebbe’s words: וואס איז שייך בכלל בעטן ביי א רבי’ן, עס איז דאך אן ענין פון א ממוצע – “how is one allowed to request [בקשות] from a Rebbe? This [seems to be] the problem of an intermediary!”

The Rebbe goes on to bring the famous distinction brought in chassidus between two types of intermediaries: ממוצע המפסיק (which has the issue of AZ) and ממוצע המחבר (which applies to a tzaddik – this is how chassidus explains Moshe saying אנכי עומד בין ה’ וביניכם, and ונתתי עשב, etc.).

2. Nowhere in those quotes does it say that one may daven to a tzaddik

[The quote from Noam Elimelech brings out a very similar point to what the Rebbe is trying to say: Since a tzaddik is one with Hashem, he has the koach to draw down healing to a sick person.
But this is beside the point.]

My point wasn’t to explain or prove what the Rebbe said (and neither have I done so above), since, as I’ve pointed out many times, this is a complex topic that has been debated many times here in the CR, and I’m not delusional enough to think that with one post I can explain the whole concept. This is why I sent a reference to a shiur of Rabbi YY. There is also a 175 page sefer from Rav Pewsner “Al Hatzaddikim” (on Otzar Hachochma) that explains this sicha, with many souces from all over chazal rishonim and achronim.

This was my point with bringing those quotes:

Some people here went into a shock when they heard the excerpted line from the sicha, and decided that there is no need to research the subject before attacking Lubavitch, since the words “עצמות ומהות אליין ווי ער האט זיך אריינגעשטעלט אין א גוף” is “so obviously” AZ (ch”v).

My point was that there are many similar statements that can also be “shocking” at face value. Just as one wouldn’t discard (ch”v) a Noam Elimelech after seeing one strange-looking line (as you proved to us by trying to interpret why it’s not an issue), neither should one do this with Lubavitch.
Obviously, we don’t decide which parts of Torah are true or “false” from first-glance one-line clickbait lines that are thrown at us.

This was and remains my point.

3. The Lubaavicher rebbe was – all the chassidim agree – referring to himself!

This is also a complete misunderstanding of what chassidim mean. Of course, the Rebbe wasn’t talking about himself. The entire discussion over there is about going to the kever of the Rebbe Rayatz, and if people should still ask brochos from a tzaddik after he passed away. The Rebbe was alive then, so it obviously wasn’t about him.
Even more so, the sicha was said at a time (5710) when the Rebbe was still adamantly opposed to chassidim even considering him “Rebbe,” not even allowing them to refer to him with the title Admur.

Why, then, do chassidim say that the Rebbe was “referring to himself”?

Think about it like this: After Reb Elimelech said that a tzaddik has the power to heal since he is one with Hashem, I’m sure that his talmidim said: “Wow! Reb Elimelech is one with Hashem, and he has the power to heal! He said this about tzaddikim, and this surely applies to him!”

This is exactly the idea. The Rebbe said this idea about the Rebbe Rayatz, that he can give brochos after his passing, and he is one with Hashem, etc.
Chassidim, who consider the “Ramash” as their Rebbe, say: “Wow, this surely applies to OUR Rebbe as well! He is one with Hashem, and can give brochos!” etc.

Anyone who actually reads anything from the Rebbe knows that this whole claim of the Rebbe “praising himself” is completely baseless, and completely foreign to the Rebbe’s style.

Please , in a moment of honesty – is that the case here ? The doubts about habad are A RESULT of discarding yahadut ?
—
No, it is not. You misunderstood me.
================================
So , Menachem , what was your real intention ?

I think my intention was fairly obvious, and you’re trying to twist deeper meanings into my words.

If anyone besides for you and qwerty think that by quoting Reb Chayim I meant that doubts about Chabad are a result of discarding yahadus – then I will gladly explain them my true intention.

Otherwise, I’m just wasting my breath.

Please , in a moment of honesty – is that the case here ? The doubts about habad are A RESULT of discarding yahadut ?

No, it is not. You misunderstood me.

Avira,

Thanks for the correction. Would you happen to know where I can find the story written?

“This is one thing we both agree on.”
——————————–
Not at all sure we can agree on this one .

We can’t agree that we need Moshiach since I hold that many tzaddikim have had nevuah after חגי זכריה מלאכי!?

Wow, you seem really set on making problems.

yankel,

Okay, you’re right. I am a Lubavitcher so I am biased, so I have no right to defend Lubavitch. Only those who disagree with Lubavitch have the right to defend it. You are completely objective, as you only care about truth, so all your attacks on Lubavitch must be true, and my defenses are worthless.

Your interpretations of what the Rebbe meant trump mine, despite the fact that you barely learned any of his teachings, while I learned thousands of pages of his teachings, and heard hundreds of hours of his talks. As a matter of fact, the more I study, the more biased I become, and the less of an ability I have to understand his teachings.

This conversation now reaches a dead end, and anything I say further is pointless, unless it is attacking Lubavitch, since that is the only thing I can do objectively.

You can now join Qwerty in saying: Checkmate.

[I would just like to repeat an analogy that I used before: Someone reads antisemitic literature with some “shockingly hateful” statements from the Talmud. He approaches the Talmudic scholar and says, “I can’t believe you study this terrible book.” The scholar responds, “You have only read a few lines out of context. If you dedicate your life to studying this, and understanding it properly, you will come to appreciate its inner beauty and true meaning.” The attacker responds, “You love the Talmud so you are biased. My ignorant attacks are objective, so they have more value than your biased, learned defense.”]

Is there anything still happening with the point I raised about ‘bias ‘ ?

I don’t understand what wasn’t clear in my first post.

I’ll repeat: I know lots of Lubavitchers were parts of other groups (see above for details) and decided that the truth is in Lubavitch.

If I can’t write anything due to my bias, I can get one of those many friends to write for me. Should I do that?

I think that we need Mashiach now …. the REAL one .

This is one thing we both agree on.

the Lubavich claim that when other non-Lubavich chassidim say the words “the rebbe” they are openly referring only to the Lubavicher rebbe, not to their own rebbe

I never heard this, but I guess it’s possible that a (more) ignorant Lubavitcher guy thought this once. Okay, whatever.

“being a talmid/chasid of anyone can make you unable to see their mistakes or chisronos”

There are two reasons for this:
1. Because they are biased, and too blind to see the truth.
2. Because they have a true knowledge and understanding of their Rebbe’s teaching’s, so they might know that what others are saying are untrue or misinterpretations.

Obviously, I think of myself as a number 2 (as I think every human being does), because I love myself, and consider myself an intellectual person. Even if I’m biased, I’m to blinded to see it.

Can anyone here point out a godol beYisroel over the last generations who pushed his greatness to the forefront as much as the Lubavicher rebbe did?

This is twisting the facts and extremely disrespectful. Anyone who knows anything about the Rebbe knows his incredible anivus.

All those things you quoted were actually said about his father-in-law. His anivus was so great, that he never publicly called himself the Rebbe. He constantly said that the Rebbe and nossi was his father-in-law.

Even by the official “kabbolas hanesius” on Yud Shevat (after a full year of begging by the chassidim, and his constant refusal) he never officially said “I am Rebbe”. He just hinted to accepting it with a maamar.

Yet, he stil continued to consider his father-in-law the Rebbe.

The chassidim were the ones who pushed his greatness to the forefront. They gave him the same honor that he gave to his father-in-law.

I don’t know how to read such postings. I learn woth Artscroll.

Free translation from Chabad dot org:

B”H

Many people seek to pinpoint and characterize the vir­tues and preeminence of each of the Rebbeim of Chabad, and in particular of the Nasi of our generation — my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, הכ”מ — in various terms:2 the paradigm of self-sacrifice, a gaon, a man of exemplary character traits, a tzaddik, an individual endowed with divine inspira­tion, an individual accustomed to [performing] miracles, and so on.

When one considers how the teachings of Chassidus de­fine what self-sacrifice really means, what being a gaon really means, and so on, these are indeed extremely lauda­tory terms.

Nevertheless, the essential point is missing here. Apart from this being the essence per se, it is especially important because of the vital effect it has [in general], and in particular upon us, the community of those who are his chassidim and who are bound to him. That essential point is the fact that he is the Nasi, and the Nasi of Chabad.

For a Nasi by definition is referred to as3 the head of the multitudes of Israel; in relation to them he is the “head” and “brain”; their nurture and life-force reach them through him; and by cleaving to him they are bound and united with their Source in the Supernal worlds.

There are various categories of Nesiim:4 some Nesiim convey their influence in an internalized manner; others diffuse their influence in an indirect and encompassing manner.5 These differences may be further subdivided: some Nesiim endow their recipients with insights into the revealed plane of the Torah (Nigleh); some endow their recipients with insights into the mystical plane of the Torah, and some do both together; some instruct their followers in the paths of avodah and Chassidus; some direct material benefits to their followers; and so on.

And there are Nesi’im who comprise several of these attributes, or even all of them.6

This [essential] quality [of a Nasi] has characterized the leadership of the Nesiim of Chabad from the very beginning, from the Alter Rebbe up to and including my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, הכ”מ. They incorporated all the above attributes: they radiated both inward and encompassing influence — in Torah, in avodah, and in the practice of good deeds; [and they conveyed blessings both] spiritual and material. Consequently, [the Nesiim of Chabad] have been bound7 with all 613 organs of the soul and body of those who were connected with them.

Every single one of us must know — i.e., must think deeply and fix his thought8 on this — that [the Rebbe Rayatz] is indeed the Nasi and the head; from him and through him are directed all material and spiritual benefac­tions; and by being bound to him (in his letters he has taught us how this is accomplished)9 we are bound and united with the spiritual root, with the ultimate Supernal spiritual root.

Menachem Schneerson

3 Tammuz, 5710 [1950]
Brooklyn, N.Y.

« Previous
Instructions concerning the establishment of educational programs for Jewish children in North Africa
Next »
The Haftorah to be read when Rosh Chodesh Av falls on Shabbos
FOOTNOTES
1.
[The letter appears in Sefer HaMaamarim 5710, p. 254; it is reprinted in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XI, p. 209.]

2.
[See the discussion of these virtues in the conclusion of Letter No. 637.]

3.
See Tanya, ch. 2.

4.
Discussed at length in: Torah Or, Parshas Miketz, s.v. Mitzvas Ner Chanukah; Sefer HaMitzvos (Derech Mitzvosecha) by the Tzemach Tzedek, s.v. Mitzvas Ner Chanukah, sec. 3; and in the maamar beginning LeMaan Daas, 5669 [in Sefer HaMaamarim 5669, p. 39ff.].

5.
[Bivchinas makif, in the original.]

6.
As discussed in Torah Or (loc. cit.), end of sec. 7, Mashiach comprises the quali­ties of both ro’im and nesichim. In the Talmud (Sukkah 52b), Mashiach is reckoned among the nesichim, evidently because this is his dominant quality.

[Torah Or, loc. cit., explains that the term ro’im (shepherds) refers to leaders who draw down influence that is internalized among the Jewish people. Nesichim (princes) refers to leaders whose influence is conveyed bederech makkif (in an encompassing manner). Although Mashiach will convey both these types of influence (i.e., he will be both teacher and king), his primary quality will resemble that of the nesichim.]

7.
[In the original (as a noun), hiskashrus.]

8.
[In the original, “know” is ladaas, implying attachment born of this kind of thinking; cf. Tanya, end of ch.3.]

9.
[See Letter No. 561 which discusses this bonding process.]

Menachem Shmei who want[s] me to study the sugya which “proves” that the Rebbe is…

Qwerty,

You saying that I’m trying to prove to you that the Rebbe is … is like if I were to say that you’re trying to convince us to watch TV.

why was west coast chabad leader shlomo cunin not worried about publicizing his belief that “the rebbe runs the world,”

This is definitely a mainstream Chabad statement, I won’t argue with you on that one.

I don’t think he meant it in the way that you’re taking it.
Honestly, I’ve seen people rail about this for years in the CR, while the statement doesn’t seem so problematic to me (as opposed to the “Who Elokeinu” line, or if he would have said that he “creates the world” or the like).

Rabbi Cunin obviously isn’t saying chas v’shalom that the world isn’t in Hashem’s hands.
He literally says 30 seconds earlier “דער אויבערשטער וועט העלפן that we will have gevaldike nissim…”

With his “runs the world” statement he seems to be saying that being that they are the Rebbe’s shluchim, doing his work, the Rebbe takes a level of achrayus over them, and hopefully the world will see that the tzaddik protected them (unfortunately, we weren’t zoche to nissim).

There is an idea of tzaddikim having a level of control and responsibility for what happens in the world (given to them by Hashem).
This is the idea of צדיק יסוד עולם – that his zechus protects the world and keeps it going.

There is a vort in Midrash Talpiyos, brought in many chassidus sforim (Kedushas Levi, etc.) on the Gemara כל העולם ניזון בשביל חנינא בני:
מכאן יראה מעלת הצדיק לפני הקב”ה, ושמסר העולם ברשותו ושיעבד לו לעשות כל רצונו כו’. והטעם שכיון שהעולם נברא בשביל הצדיק וכולם נבראו לצוותו כמאחז”ל, לכן מסר הקב”ה כל העולם בידו ושיעבדו תחתיו לקיים כל מה שיגזור…
It goes on to say that if only everyone in the world knew this, that the world is in the hands of tzaddikim, they would give the tzaddikim tremendous honor.

I think that is his point. The hope that the people of the world will recognize that they’re under the reshus of the tzaddik.

And I remember an article that appeared in Beis Moshiach many years ago

I assume that you were not a avid reader of Beis Moshiach. Probably, the way that you know about the idiotic article is because David Berger made a big deal about it (he mentions it at least three separate times in his book).

“Beis Moshiach” was established as an anti-establishment magazine in the 90s by some people who felt that Kfar Chabad magazine (the official chabad magazine for decades) wasn’t radical enough for them.

Nowadays, Beis Moshiach has become a bit more mainstream (while still very meshichist), and they would never print such an article today.

The very fact that David Berger had to bring all of his “proofs” from various marginalized and anti-establishment material (such as Beis Moshiach, as well as from “Sichat Hageula” which was created to compete with the mainstream “Sichat Hashavua” etc.) – most of which wouldn’t dream of printing those statements today – shows how much this is accepted in Chabad…

Interestingly enough, after David Berger mentions this article several times in his book, he points out (in the appendix) that the article’s author later retracted what he said, and in his later works he “vigorously denies that G-d can be a human being.”

I know someone who says… “Baruch the Rebbe”

I can’t deny that you know someone like this, but I do find it ironic that as a Lubavitcher who meets thousands of other Lubavitchers from many different groups (including some very radical “meshichists”) I’ve never met someone like this.

Maybe the Lubavitchers who believe this are afraid to share their views with other Lubavitchers for the fear of being ostracized or something, which again shows how much this is accepted in Chabad…