n0mesorah

1. Of course there is a drug problem. But drugs isn’t the problem. there are deeper issues.

2. Over a year ago, I counted close to two hundred yidden (Kids and adults. Why are forty year-olds trying drugs for the first time when they have stable family lives?) that I know have tried drugs.

Dear Yankel,

I really don’t know much of these statements. They weren’t intended for me and I never met someone who uses these types of proclamations as a reason for what they think or do. If they thought that way, they will use it as ‘proof’ and if they don’t, they dismiss it. These public directives are barely educational and even less reliable.

My position is that there is nothing wrong with Chabad Hashkafah. It is on par with every other group. I have written this over a dozen times. I don’t know why their media is indicative of how they think in their heads. You have to meet real people to see what their actual belief is.

You shouldn’t be inferring from anyone’s silence where their position has already been stated multiple times.

The Lubavitchers have posted their stance. if you want to learn it from it’s source, they will respond. But not everything is teachable on this forum.

The truth is that if you nag Lakewooders on their kollel ideology, or Satmar on their stance on the State of Israel, or Mizrachi on their stance on The State of Israel, or Gur on their Kedushah doctrine, or MO on secular education, you will not get concrete justification either. They aren’t really interested in debating it. It’s something that is important to them as a group, and it won’t survive if it has to be open to constant questioning.

I think that Chabad has the better of the argument here. All the groups I listed claim that this is something that is supposed to be a maxim for all Jews. Despite it having been developed in the past century. Chabad Doctrine is only for a chassidus. They admit that it doesn’t work for outsiders. You can’t be mekabel The Atzmus of The Rebbe idea, if you don’t perceive yiddishkiet as a group project. And the foundation of these ideas are documented from over two hundred years ago.

It is more likely that Chabad is at the stage of crystalizing a part of the Torah for future generations than starting any new movement in yiddishkeit. Just like the Baalei Tosofos of AShkenaz and the mekubalim of Eretz Yisrael had a last generation, Chabad of today and yesterday may be the ones that give Chassidus it’s final format for posterity.

The other groups I mentioned still have a lot to prove. They could all be looked at as outliers to future generations. And it would become a debated topic if it ever really was authentic. The truth is, only Hashem knows what is authentic to the future. I’m just guessing.

If you want to talk Ikkarei Emunah than please do. What Moshiach’s name is, is of no consequence to Ikkarei Emunah. Tcheyas hameisim is.

Dear Always,

This was your post:

“n0 > That is the proper attitude of a talmid for a rebbe. Everything the rebbe says is unequivocally the Word of the Torah. (A wise student knows not to retain everything as is.)

This is not what some Tanna thought in pirkei avos – a sponge is a first option mentioned for those who sit in front of chachamim, but not the preferred.”

The words in the parenthesis were written with you in mind!

I disagree with a lot of the substance of your next post, but I won’t respond here. Chabad has swallowed everything else for the time being.

Dear Avirah,

With all due respect, you didn’t read her post properly.

And if she really meant what you thought, what would be the benefit of correcting her?

If was a deer heading to my sleeping grounds, and you hit me on the highway at seventy miles an hour, I would be kind of upset at you.

Dear Youdont,

“Hence, how can one say that Rav Moshe did not add to his shitos later on, regarding Brooklyn?”

One may be inclined to say so based on Raqv Moshe writing “that it is all printed at length in every detail in the first volume of Iggres Moshe. ” Rav Moshe himself clearly writes it, but some say (At least regarding eruvin in Brooklyn) that Rav Moshe is not entitled to his own opinion.

All this exact numbers stuff is what you say. It is nothing to do with Rav Moshe’s shitta. And is a very messy way to read the teshuvos.

I’m really sorry for you that you miss the essence of this thread and the reasons why the YV was so incensed twenty years ago. But you absolutely twisted Rav Moshe’s teshuva because you miss all the nuance of this sugya.

Anybody who actually knows how to learn, could see that I was tipping you off to the nuance for months. You were oblivious. You still are. Or you are pretending. I don’t mind that people use the eruv. I mind very much that people who can’t learn at all, refuse to give their attention to learn from those who do.

Dear Qwerty,

I am not lying. My apologies for being well versed in these matters. You do make me laugh a lot.

Dear Rocky,

You are comparing different things. Esrogim and the like have no intrinsic market value. The whole business is the logistics. So, the vendor charges as much as he can. Small businesses, are paying for an item and are being paid for the logistics. If they just sell for what they can get without losing any customers, they would not cover all their costs. They make their prices based on what they paid for it. And if the customers don’t want to pay for it, they lose the customers until they can’t find it for cheaper.

Basics like groceries, have nothing to do with Lakewood’s material standards. A lot of grocery prices are government regulated, so there can’t be a large markup.

In times of inflation, the lower classes get hit harder. Because nothing is forcing the higher classes to be a new car. The lower the class, the more likely their purchases are out of necessity.

Dear Arso,

Much worse than a posheia.

That is it! Why should we know how to live our life? It’s just do what Hashem wants…. Enter Arizal.. Baal Shem… Chabad…

You could disagree with what they say is the purpose. But we can’t deny that there is a place for addressing our purpose in life.

Dear Yankel,

Here is my take on your list:

A] I don’t know what the Rebbe himself thought. He was very skilled at putting distance between what he said and what he implied. (I never met him and it is really hard to find people who knew him that will talk about him as a man. For opposite reasons.)

B] This is debatable. But if you change “deify their rebbe” to ‘associate their rebbe with the divine’, Then I agree. This slight wordplay, is a big difference in theology and philosophy.

C] Possible. Again, I can’t tell for myself. You are entitled to your opinion. But I don’t see it as proof to the larger debate. It is interesting to me, that those that are obsessed with The Rebbe and those that are against him, agree on this. Those of us in the middle, aren’t so sure.

D] I don’t really understand why you could think that Ikkarei Emunah are in play here. If you think that everybody starts off being born with them and has to mess them up, then your position would seem tenable. It doesn’t work that way. Every chareidi propaganda publication, messes up on Ikkarei Emunah. How would they not?

D] Just going by your long post, it seems to me that the Rebbe followed the people on how to talk to them. Not that he lead the way. I’m not claiming that. It is just my reading comprehension of your post.

So in general … A] Agree, but isn’t evidence. B] Agree, but with a different implication. C] Agree, but it’s just an opinion. D] Disagree. Maybe I’m misreading. To me, it seems like regular everyday encouraging the people.

Dear Yankel,

The first component to engage in a debate, is different views on the same topic.

I don’t think we have agreed on a topic. I really can’t follow your posts. Maybe I’ll go back and read them all, but don’t hold your breath.

Dear Arso,

The mention of the whole world acknowledging moshiach is in Sefer Yeshaya.

What do you daven for? That he would be known in Africa? Fox news? Facebook? Win an election? A TV contest? Of course it means throughout humanity.

Dear Always,

The Chassidus of Ruzhin was more hidden.

I thought my question was clear.

The context is based on a post that it we don’t take into account the greater purpose in our actions. Our whole purpose is only to follow The Will Of Hashem. I am not disagreeing with that statement. But I doubt it’s relevance to this subject. My question is that why is there so much emphasis on learning and knowing Torah? If reasons don’t come into play at all then why is it important to keep studying. Better eat the matzo because that is what Hashem wants. A serious student has to contend with distractions and wrong interpretations or mistaken texts. Why risk not doing Hashem’s Will? Just eat good food a whole Shabbos. Easier than learning. Spend the whole week preparing for Shabbos. Ones livelihood and caring for people is also a Mitzva. One can find much easier routes to constantly doing His Will than Torah Study. Yet, we have been taught that it all comes down to Torah Study. Why is that so?

Rav Moshe makes some additional side points. These may have come from the in person discussions. And then reiterates why he didn’t stop them even though he disagrees with putting up the eruv. His wording is, ‘that it is against what he holds is the law’.

Rav Moshe Feinstein emphatically giving his opinion was not a game changer for eruvin. A year later, he wrote another teshuvah. It is just his reasons to not build an eiruv in Flatbush.

1) The assumption is that there is 600,000. One would have to prove that there isn’t. And even if they do, people won’t know about their proofs. And similar considerations.

2) The Rashba about public open places (platya). This could be even if the total population is 600,000. There isn’t a clear precedent for this complication.

3) The area can not be measured randomly. It would start at an edge. In Brooklyn’s case this would be the beach and the river. (Then he discusses if the old Coney Island would be a problem since it was only in the summer.) But it would still be the problem of people aren’t aware of the area calculations either.

Then Rav Moshe writes that all three reasons are valid even according to what they told him that there are not 600,000 in Brooklyn. Meaning, that there is no way to build an eruv in Brooklyn even if there is not for sure a rsh”r. It simply runs into too many problems that we don’t have a precedent for. So Rav Moshe held not to put up an eruv in Flatbush and avoid the problems. Which is comparable to Yerushalayim.

Then Rav Moshe mentions the city map that would make Brooklyn a rsh”r with Manhattan. But the river should separate Brooklyn from Manhattan. But still it would be a rsh”r doraisa according to that map.

For anybody who knows what happened next, Rav Moshe did not protest the eruv based on this map.

Rav Moshe continues that counting is a chumrah that there would be a definite reshus harrabim, and a kulah that in a place where there isn’t enough people to have 600,000 on the streets we would be able to build an eruv. But then he goes on to say how none of this applies to Manhattan and Brooklyn. There we would always assume there is enough to get 600,000 on the streets. Then he goes on to be lenient if there is a larger area. But doesn’t mention the maximum size like he did in the first teshuva.

There is two ways to understand Rashi in Meseches Eruvin. 1) That any city where there resides 600,000 people is always a rsh”r. Or 2) that if people enter the city daily they contribute to this number. Rav Moshe rejects the first reason because the minhag is to build eruvin even in cities with this number. So he goes with the second explanation. And it follows that commuters count toward this number.

Rav Moshe addresses the newly built Flatbush eruv that he hadn’t wanted to get involved in the project because there is many opinions on what is reshus harrabim and what is dalsos neulos and they can always consult the seforim instead of him. But once it was publicized that Rav Moshe was the one who permitted the eruv because of the previous sentence, he felt compelled to respond with his personal opinion as it was already laid out in his first teshuva.

Rav Moshe is trying to make five public points:

1) There is rational for an eruv in Flatbush.
2) The reasoning is evident in the seforim.
3) It is not Rav Moshe’s opinion to put an eruv in Flatbush.
4) Rav Moshe’s own opinion is clear from his first teshuvah.
5) People have difficulty reconciling 1 and 2 with 3 and 4.

This really is the whole story. Rav Moshe saw that people are misinterpreting what he he clearly wrote and said, and responded just to refute what they were stating in his name.

The debates that follow to our day are not really about halachah. The center of the debate since the late Seventies was, is Rav Moshe entitled to his opinion. Rav Moshe himself held he was, but others would say that the majority disagreed with him. And even Rav Moshe himself may have agreed that he wasn’t entitled to his own opinion.

Rav Shmuel Birnbaum was very bothered by this attitude. But not everybody should be a masmid like Rav Shmuel Birnbaum. He was enough for the whole Flatbush.

All the more so, to imagine what Rav Moshe was up against forty years ago, when rabbis still spoke about business acumen as a qualification for being considered an educated Jew.

Dear Qwerty.

I think you misunderstood. If the whole purpose is just because Hashem wants us to do such and such. then why is there so much emphasis on learning Torah and Torah knowledge?

Dear Arso,

Okay it’s a mitzvah. So is putting a fence on the porch. But why are we so consumed with it? Why is learning Torah so critical? It is what Hashem wants and nothing else. So let’s to some other mitzva instead.

Dear Arso,

Gur started to change already before the war. And they had already moved to Eretz Yisrael. There never was consistency in Gur. Even when their Rebbe could rightly be called the giant of the generation. I don’t know what you know about Gur. But they seem to me to be a lot further out than Chabad. Especially in Ikkari Emunah.

Satmar never had a heavy emphasis on The Baal Shem’s Torah. It was a tumultuous hundred years until it became what we see now. They may now settle into a new archetype. But there is no comparison to Chabad which goes back centuries.

My point with the Sanz dynasties is that it’s hard to read into them now. It is easy to discern which ones were authentic to the Divrei Chaim before the war, and which were more creative and visionary like. But now, I can’t really tell what they are about. Though their success is impressive.

Chabad was and still is primarily about the spread of Chassidus to bring Geulah to the the world through Complete Emunah. This can be found in the seforim of two hundred plus years ago and this is still on the lips of every devout Chabadtsker. This overrides any other consideration to them. If you have a problem with that premise, than you simply haven’t studied it. So much ink and agitation was put into this concept without ever reaching a full schism. You simply have no right to advocate for schism now, without thinking better of yourself than any Chassid or Misnagid who ever lived.

The fact that Chabad embraces innovation, modernity, and technology, is not critical to Chassidus. How one dresses or talks is not the reasons the Besht revealed himself. Nor was it to give twenty five gabbaim a job or to lead tish at a late hour to some thousand disconnected people.

Between the wars Lubavitch was into outreach. Maybe even earlier. That was a real thing in Lita. Telshe, Navardok, and others were all over it too.

Besides for his views, he helped a lot of Israeli politicians to get meetings and the like in America. And got nothing in return.

The Moshiach emphasis started right after the war. Before the last rebbe. It wasn’t uncommon then. Especially after the initial events in Eretz Yisrael. It waned elsewhere. But in Chabad it grew and grew. That is the Chabad way. They hold on tighter when others let go. You are seeing that in your debates with them.

The Rebbe helped out many yeshivos. Particularly, Torah Vdaas. He worked for mikvahs and mitzvah observance across the country. [That was the norm in post war America. Isolation was not an ideal then. Orthodoxy had to be saved.]

Could be he wanted to be accepted by all, but he didn’t say bad about any other leaders publicly or privately. If he had an issue, he spoke to the gadol directly and frankly.

And his followers never threatened to kill them. Or beat them up.

Dear Avira,

” we don’t daven that the whole world will know moshiach”

I do. 15th bracha of the Amidah. V’karno Tarum. I must be the only one…. Because even CS missed this.

Dear Qwerty,

You are being evasive. If you really think Chabad is tying to put a real plan in place, than there has to be someone who planned it to begin with. That is pure reason. Please answer.

I spent a lot of time talking one on one with Chabadzkers. Unlike many other groups, they definitely do not think of themselves as the only authentic Jews or anything like that. Lubavitch truly considers all Jews a great deal.

You would do better to claim the reverse. Chabad thinks that all Jews are Chabad!

Dear Yankel,

“Re
used socks
Please check the original post .
It was not referring to hasidic socks at all .

It was referring to changing IKAREI EMUNA , things which are the ABSOLUTE FOUNDATIONS of our belief , like used socks ”

I take exception to your posts having anything to do with Ikarei Emunah.

Dear Qwerty,

This point that is obvious to you, would only be rational if there was one who planned the “carefully constructed plan” that this is “only a part of”? Who is this ‘planner’? Some secret society in 770? The Rebbe? The Previous Rebbe? The Baal Hatanya? The Baal Shem Tov? The Arizal? Moshe Rabbeinu? The Illuminati?

“..the plan is to keep Torah and Mitzvos SOLELEY BECAUSE HASHEM SAID TO.”

So why learn Torah? Why are we spending two millennia in exile? Why do we keep mitzvos in the diaspora? Why do we value Torah knowledge above all other knowledge? There is no reason to answer me. Just keep doing whatever you were doing because Hashem said so.

But I have one question. Where did Hashem say to hate?