Non Political

@ ARso

Thank you for explaining the Har Grizim quote

@ YB

You wrote: I do not see in your post any response to my Q…

Fair enough. I wrote a post showing why HaKatan would hold it rejects #8 The Divine Origin of the Torah (its one of the three regarding which he said “anyone can easily see that establishment of any state before Mashiach comes is a violation of…”

@ YB

I am going to respond to your points on behalf of HaKatan (based on things he wrote). He is welcome to correct me if he thinks that I misunderstood or am misrepresenting his position.

You wrote: All your arguments are against the Zionists who were heretics and lived their life against torah.
But that was not the Q.

HaKatan wrote: “Religious Zionists” are of course not what you stated. Rather, as Rav Elchonon wrote, which holds true ever since, the “Religious Zionists” believe in both religion (Torah) and the idolatry of Zionism. They happen to be even more fanatical in their Zionism than are their secular counter-parts, because they worship Zionism “for real”. They literally hold that the “State” and everything about that “State” is holy, a”l.

“The idolatry of Zionism” means here to identify as a nation primarily based on a common ancestry, culture, language, and land. Furthermore, it means being lead by a political body representing it’s entire constituency (especially the majority secular one), hereafter “The State”. This is Nationalism. Being a secular Nationalist is kfira. Being a religious Nationalist and holding that “The State” is Kodesh is A”Z.

So per the above: All Zionism = Jewish Nationalism = Kfira or A”Z

The fact is that common ancestry (being descendants of Avroham, Yitzchok, and Yaacov), language (Lashon HaKadosh), and land (Eretz Yisroel) are not exclusively components of secular Nationalism but are, in fact, crucial components of our Jewish National identity is probably not lost on HaKatan. I think this is why he makes a point of writing in terms of “The State”.

I rather like your mashal of “ripping the shovel out of their hands”. I think it is a good mashal for what is probably the majority position.

@ Hakatan

You wrote: We just read this past Shabbos that Hashem made us into a People at Har Sinai stating that we will be a “mamleches kohanim viGoy kadosh”,

This pasuk speaks to the status of the Jewish nation (Kadosh) and role of the Jewish Nation (mamlechis Kohanim. There was an existing nation being addressed here, no? But this is a minor point, because I think everyone (who is not secular) agrees that the Torah is essential (as in not incidental) to Jewish Nationhood.

You wrote: As opposed to being the Zionists’ active redefinition of Judaism (shared by the “Religious Zionists”, other than the “godless” part) to just another European-type godless nation (meaning common land, language and culture, etc.) whose nationhood is based in the portion of the holy land…

Do you have written evidence from recognized Dati Leumi Roshei Yeshiva to substantiate the above claim? If not, then it’s simply motzeh shem ra. Probably b’shogeg, but motzeh shem ra nevertheless.

You wrote: While all the gedolim have written that Zionism is against the Torah (and the Brisker Rav – not only the Satmar Rav – wrote that Zionism/its “State” is against “the entire Torah”

So, is it (1) “all the gedolim” or (2) the Satmar Rebbe and the Brisker Rav,

You wrote: you have an open example of Zionism being in violation of multiple of the 13 ikkarim (from Chabad org), including:
5. The imperative to worship G‑d exclusively and no foreign false gods.
7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
10. The belief in G‑d’s omniscience and providence.
11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.
12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.

Once again, either substantiate your claim that Religious Zionists reject the above ikrim or please do teshuva for motzeh shem ra.

@ HaKatan

Rav Saadiah Gaon established the Torah principle that the Jews are a people only through the Torah and not a nation like all others. We literally just read about this yesterday”

This statement is self contradictory. Was it established by R’ Saadiah or is it clear in the Torah itself? Please clarify.

As an aside, I don’t know a single religious zionist who is of the opinion that the Jewish nation is “a nation like all others”

Also, one would have to be a very creative individual to find a way to understand the Kuzari, Ramban, and Maharal in a way that trivializes the importance of Jewish Nationhood and Eretz Yisroel. I’m talking here even before the coming of Moshiach.

CS Wrote: “The Rebbe would be the honorary Golus Moshiach and the Assistant who led the Geula physically will be crowned Moshiach.”

Are you saying that the person who actually fulfills the requirements for Mashiach, the one who is “crowned Moshiach” will be the assistant? And the “Golus Moshiach” who did not fulfill the requirements for Mashiach will be main Moshiach?

CS Wrote: The Rebbe, an absolute tzaddik, referred to the Frierdiker Rebbe as Moshiach and said many times, hekitzu vrannu shochvei afar, vhu bsocham, vhu yigalenu.

So was he right about the Frierdiker Rebbe being Moshiach?

CS wrote: I think any rational person will see The Rebbe had the greatest influence from the entire Jewish people on every community and even goyim

I do have may noticeable shortcomings. However, no one who knows me would count an absence of rationality among them. Here is my list of what has had the greatest (positive) influence on the entire Jewish People

I think the greatest influences (by far) have been:
1) the founding of Beis Yaacov
2) the rebuilding of Yeshivos
3) Kollel (including community Kollelim)
4) The flourishing of Torah in E”Y

@ Yserbius123

“She confirmed that Chabadskers are unaware of how they are perceived by the other 95% of frum Jews.”

I think CS is quite aware, actually. ‘The idea is to package things in a way that appears normal. Oros d’tohu b’keilim d’tikun

@ DY and @ YB

You guys do know she is drinking the Reuven Wolf kool-aid, right?

@ 741

You wrote: “there are lots of views on this topic, but it’s definitely a valid shita…please read through the תשובה in מנחת אלעזר חלק א סימן ס״ח, over there he goes through in depth about this topic and he holds that you can ask the neshama directly to intercede on your behalf.

There are:
1) Yiddin who daven to Hashem at kvorim and DO NOT request the nefesh of the nistalek to intercede on their behalf (rather it is understood the the Nefesh may do so).
2) Yiddin who daven to Hashem at Kvorim and, per the referenced M”E, do request the nistalek to intercede on their behalf.

Neither of the above sounds like what CS is describing.

@ CS

Philosopher asked (Question 2):
“Do you pray to the rebbe?

You responded:
I do what all frum Jews [do], daven to Hashem and ask my Rebbe for assistance via brachos etc. Again PB TANYA”

Here’s the thing…

I think that “all frum jews do this” when (1) The Rebbe under discussion is here in olam hazeh bguf v’nefish or (2) the Rebbe was nistalek and the intent in that he be a malitz yoshor on behalf of the mispallel.

Do you believe either of the above?

Or maybe you mean that (3) the Rebbe “lo mes” and continues to be present in this world with a guf sheini and it is therefore appropriate to continue to relate him in the same way as one would if he was here in olam hazeh b’guf v’nefish? And by “all frum Jews do this” you mean how we relate to living rebbeim?

Please clarify

@ AAQ

“While not being a bokeh in accounting, I agree with Chaim that having an independent profession is valuable, and especially in our time. And so says Gemora requiring teaching umanut.”

Why did you decide that the Halacha follows R’ Yehudah vs. the Tana Kama (Stam Mishna)?

@ Neville

I don’t understand where you are coming from here

You wrote: Here are some examples of Philosopher invoking her “proof” by bringing a posuk to argue on rishonim, something that is not done in frum circles:

Example 1: “I am saying that Rashi does NOT CONTRADICT any posuk in the Torah, period. Therefore, if it says in the Torah that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father DIED, Rashi who knew Torah better than you, did not mean to say what you are saying he is which is that his GUF was alive.”

Example 2: “When you want to have a Talmudic discussion you can bring a rishon. But to say that the comment that Rashi is making on a pasuk contradicts another posuk in the Chumash is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Rashi did not contradict the Word of Hashem.”

Example 3 “Neville, you are unwilling to say you are disagreeing with Rashi because never said that Yaacov’s guf is alive forever.
You are also disagreeing with a pasuk in the Torah.”

None of these examples involve arguing with a Rishon. What Philosopher has consistently claimed is that the proposition that Yaacov was buried while physically alive (in the sense that his body was still animated by his Nefesh) contradicts a Pasuk. I have broken this down step by step previously. Here it is again, simplified:

1) the Pasuk says Yaacovs sons saw their father died

2) It is not reasonable to understand this as meaning that he was still completely physically alive (he was breathing and had a heartbeat) but somehow they missed this.

3) Such a position would contradict the Pasuk because the Torah says that “they saw he died” so clearly they must have seen sufficient indication of death.

To claim that she is arguing with a Rishon you would need is a Rishon who says explicitly that Yaacov was completely physically alive (he was breathing and had a heartbeat) at the time his brothers buried him. This is the proposition she (correctly) rejects.

Next

You wrote: Do you think that every time a yeshiva learns a sugya in gemara, the shiur splits into groups based on which man d’amar they’re “siding with” in a machlokes? Some meforshim say one way, some they another. It’s irrelevant which ones make more sense to a random Joe Shmo posting on the CR in 2024. You need to just get over the fact that not all meforshim are going to make sense to you all the time.

She hasn’t “sided” with any of the meforshim cited in the above discussion (Ramban, Or HaChayim, Rif, Maharal, Maskil L’David, Taz). She did (correctly) disagree with Arso’s interpretation of the Ramban, OrHaChaim, and Rif. She even went to the trouble of explaining exactly how she understands what the Rif wrote. Now, you are certainly welcome to disagree with how she understands the Rif (I don’t) but that doesn’t justify a claim that she is “taking sides”.

@ Philosopher

“I have NOT changed anything I said. I repeated the same thing from the first post I posted on this topic”

והאמת יורה דרכו

Correction in post to Arso

“You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume…..”

“You wrote” is a typo here. My response to what you wrote starts with “I don’t think it’s fair to assume…..”

@ Arso

You wrote: You are assuming that he is suffering because you imagine yourself being buried alive. But as it would clearly be miraculous for Yaakov to be alive even after he has been buried for some time, I think it would be fair to assume that Hashem ensured that he was not suffering.

You wrote: I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Hashem does things he is not on record saying he does. You don’t have a single unambiguous source for the proposition that we should interpret Rashi / Chazal as saying that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense of the word. You have many sources that say clearly not like that.

You wrote: she has been referred to that Ramban, and ignored it, so many times!…In fact, I just saw that she does it again in the very post that immediately follows the post of yours that I just quoted! How are you going to justify that?

I am going to wait to read her response to my question (if she wants to respond). I think her primary issue is that one cannot use that Ramban to justify the position that Rashi holds that Yaacov is alive in the full physical sense. She is certainly right about that.

You wrote: I don’t think she is worth arguing with because she bases her “Torah” understanding on her own prejudices and misunderstanding.

That is not my impression.

@ Philosopher

” It says in the Torah that Yaacov himself said he is about to die. אָבִ֞י הִשְׁבִּיעַ֣נִי לֵאמֹ֗ר הִנֵּ֣ה אָנֹכִי֮ מֵת֒ בְּקִבְרִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר כָּרִ֤יתִי לִי֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן שָׁ֖מָּה תִּקְבְּרֵ֑נִי וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃ and his sons saw that their father died. וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

“The Ramban himself is not saying that Yaacov is alive forever he himself says alive spiritually. But on the words of Rashi he is saying that “to them (the shevatim) he was dead or perhaps they did not know all of this”

Right. So according to Rashi, as the Ramban understands him, the above psukim can’t be proof texts that he died. Of course, that does NOT mean that he understands Rashi as saying that he is literally alive or buried alive.

@ Philosopher and YB

I am not defending the proposition that it is and appropriate application of emunas hachamim to say that a particular HaCham or Tzadik never made a mistake. I was saying it’s not a”z. Something can be very wrong (even close to apikorsis per YB) and still not be a”z, no?

@ Lostspark

1) You are speaking about a derech you clearly know nothing about
2) At least one poster on this thread is certainly Chasidish

But that’s ok. Carry on.

@ Arso

“At any rate, I don’t know whether option 1 or option 2 of yours is what is meant by Rashi et al.”

Well if it’s number 1 then I don’t think anyone is arguing. You and Philosopher are simply using terms differently. I did not see in any of her posts that she rejects the possibility that Yaacovs Nefesh maintains a kesher to the guf to the extent that it keeps the guf from getting buggy or decomposing.

She clearly objects that Physically Alive means that all conditions of being alive apply to the buried body. Since there is no justification in ANY of the meforshim for such a position (including the Rif and Or HaChaim) it is my opinion that she is fully justified in strongly rejecting it. The question is, why are you unsure? What reason do you have for entertaining the possibility of such a position?

@ Arso and Neville

Arso: “I definitely see philosopher having a cavalier attitude to Rishonim, starting with her writing countless times that Rishonim can’t argue with a passuk”and thus ‘proving’ that Yaakov Avinu died, despite it being pointed out to her countless times that the Ramban explains that according to Rashi the Shevatim believed that Yaakov had died even though he hadn’t.

This just proves that she has a cavalier attitude to your understanding of the Rishonim.

Neville: Did you really just read that one post or her’s, or are you just pretending you didn’t see all the posts calling it “dumb” to believe Hashem has a guf

She brought you an opinion above of the Piaseczner Rebbe based on which she is saying that even according to the Ra’avid the Gedolim and Tovim where not ascribing corporality to the Creator. That soesn’t sound like a cavalier attitude to Rishonim. But, even if we accept the simple reading of the Ra’avid I don’t think her sentiment demonstrates a cavalier attitude to Rishonim for the reasons I provided in previous posts.

Neville: ….and name calling everyone who doesn’t bow down to her undeniable genius?

I didn’t see these posts. But, even if they exist they would not demonstrate a cavalier attitude toward Rishonim.

Neville: The point with the Raavad is that she is saying it is pashut and obvious from pasukim that Hashem has no guf (no need for rishonim to even tell us so

You seem to understand that she is saying that anyone without any background can simply pick up a Chumash and know that Hashem is incorporeal. I don’t think this is here position because at the very least such a person would be confronted with contradictions in the text. I imagine that since she is posting in the TWN coffee room she is trading on propositions that are currently universally accepted when reading Psukim. Not many people learn Jewish Philosophy b’iun (Emunos v’Daos, Moreh Nevuchim, Milachamos Hashem, OR Hashem). Therefore, not many people appreciate how much work went into establishing propositions that today are taken for granted. This is not indicative of a cavalier attitude toward rishonim.

@ Neville

I wrote: ““It is therefore perfectly legitimate to cite proof texts that such position is false. This is in no way disagreeing with the Raavid.”

You wrote: Why are you still defending her on this?

Yes. Because it does not follow that citing proof texts (or strong svaros) that Hashem is not physical means, perforce, that someone disagrees with the Raivid.

From her posts she does not seem like someone with the cavalier attitude to Rishonim that you guys are ascribing to her.

@ Philosopher

You mention 4 beliefs
1) he runs the world
2) that he’s everywhere
3) that you can pray directly to him
4) he never made mistakes.

Points 1-3 are a”z. It seems, at this time, that the majority of Chabad doesn’t hold these beliefs. I am basing myself on the current policies of major Hashagacha organizations who rely on machischist mashgichim (including for wine) and on statements by R’ Aaron Feldman (who holds not to rely on them.

Given the number of yiden involved we can only daven that with Hashem’s help they will pull back from the abyss.

Belief 4 is not a-z. It is a misguided understanding of emunas chachamim. It is not an error unique to Chabad

@ ARso

Imagine a group of people who are taught from a young age that all Psukim (including the ones ascribing hagshama to the Borei) are to be taken literally. Some of these people may progress in there studies and eventually become very knowledgeable in Mikra and Shas. Some may even progress to more esoteric areas of learning. Such scholars may even gain renown for their pious observance of Mitzos and Torah knowledge. The Raivid’s point is that such a person is not a min.

We are not working from the premise that all Psukim (including the ones ascribing hagshama to the Borei) are to be taken literally. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to cite proof texts that such position is false. This is in no way disagreeing with the Raavid.

@ Neville

I wrote re: ARso’s post: “I just can’t figure out how to make your 2 posts that I quoted above shtim.”

You erote: Simple, the first time he said “men” it was a slight towards Philosopher for being a woman. The second time, he meant it in the sense of being mortal.

I guess you missed that his post is internally contradictory.

Next

I Actually showed in my posts above that not a single Mefaresh under discussion understands Rashi to be saying that Yaacov is physically / literally alive the way you, ARso, and Menachem Shemei seem to want to understand Rashi.

@ Menachem

“Rashi on Taanis however is simply understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive”

The way the Rif and Maharsha are explaining Rashi is that Yaacov was not subject to a misas haguf. Meaning, that unlike others who die, Yaacov’s Koach HaNefesh stayed in his body and did not separate from the body (the double lashon is from the Rif) so that there was no need to embalm him to protect him from worms since the Nefesh will protect him just like the Nefesh of the living protects his flesh from getting buggy and their also no need to bury him since the purpose of burial is for the flesh to decompose.

The above proposition is that the conditions of physical death did not apply to Yaacov. Are you understanding that this also means that all conditions of physical life did / do apply? Please clarify.

ARso

Regarding the Raavid that you are quoting

I think what Philosopher did was to trade on the (by now universally) accepted position that Psukim ascribing hagshama to the Borei should not be taken literally then proceeded to show from other Psukim why that position is compelling. Of course, if someone had a mistaken commitment to interpreting all Psukim and Agados dealing with hagshama literally they would have to resolve the Psukim she cited accordingly. The Raavid says such a person is not a min. That does not mean her proofs from the Psukim are not compelling.