Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
See Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb’s wonderful audio shiur on this very topic. It’s called “Speaking About G-D” and is in english. It’s available free on simpletoremember.com
(If the direct link is disallowed I’m writing out the website name: simpletoremember dot com)
Once on the site click on Audio/Video Shiurim (top of page), then click on Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (right of page).
“The negative side must be directed to the kelipos”
Yes, clearly this is accessible to all.
@ Avi K
“See Pitchei Teshuva YD 116:10 that there is an opinion that someone who does not accept an observant Jew’s word that his food is kosher is a heretic as he opposes Chazal, who said that a single witness is believed regarding prohibitions. As for his kashrut not being up to “your standard”, what about one’s standard in ben adam l’chaveiro, avoiding mechzi k’yuheira, etc.”What exactly is it about upholding your community’s or family’s custom in Kashrus would make you heretical, machzi k’yuhara, and lacking love of another Jew?
@ Avram in MD
“Hold your heretic hurling horses there. DovidBT and knaidlach were very clearly talking about non-observant Jews”And if they where talking about Observant Jews would you agree with Ai K’s statement?
I never learned Yiddish. Recently I discovered the HaRav Chaim Kanievsky has a Daf shiur on the Hebrew Kol HaLashon site, unfortunately I could not understand it. I Had the same problem understanding HaRav Malkiel Kotler at the internet assifa a few years ago.
And another thing. A yerushalmi avreich told me years ago while learning the Mishna Brura that while the Chofetz Chaim wrote in Hebrew he thought in Yiddish and someone who is not fluent in that language will miss the nuances of his intent.
Not sure why “chassidish” is equated with “move to the right” It’s certainly a great (profitable) perception for the haimish food businesses but it is false. That is unless ones idea of “to the right” is limited to wearing a strimel and bekisheh.
@ IITFT
“Kiruv is for Tinokos She’nishba…”This is the second time you said this in this post. Just stop. This is just plain wrong. Have a look at the work being done today by kiruv professionals (and addiction recovery professionals such as Amudim) . A huge amount of work is being done (and more needs to be done) reaching out to people who come from frum backgrounds. You, who are zealously protesting the perversion of the Torah, what do you think you are doing? Do you have any Halachic basis for your assertion? I know that you do not.
That said, I do want to be clear that nothing in this post should be construed as support for an Orthodox Rabbi taking a position in a LGBT temple. Especially given the current cultural climate, I don’t know how anyone can possibly support such a position. A quick google search brought me to (Rabbi) Mike Moskowitz’s website which says:
“Rabbi Moskowitz explored academic Talmud at Yale and at Jewish Theological Seminary, where he is currently completing a Doctorate in Hebrew Literature”
I am unaware of any Orthodox Rabbi who is affiliated with JTS
@ DY
“I think performing a civil ceremony falls into category 3”
How? When a person is working on Sh’vis they are doing a prohibition. What prohibition is occuring during the preparation and execution of civil legal documents?
@ DY
“It’s certainly no better than wishing success to someone plowing during Sh’viis.”
I’m not so sure
1) The Mishna’ot in the 5th Perek of Shv’is permit selling / lending farming implements to people who are choshud al Sh’viis provided that there is some other possible use for the tool. Those farming implements are obviously used for farming most of the time, still Chazal where lenient mpnai darchai Shalom. Only those tools which have no uses other then farming are prohibited to sell / lend. There are benefits to being civilly married even if the couple is celibate.
2) Even those farming implements that where permitted to sell / lend mpnai darchai shalom did enable working the land. Given the current societal standards (lack of standards) it’s doubtful that a civil marriage enables anything.
3) Wishing someone success at the time that they are actively engaged in a prohibited behavior is another matter altogether.
Your posts are generally very thought out, I assume you considered the above and disagree. I would be interested to know why.
Even by the Torah prohibition of לפני עיור (and certainly by מסייע) there is considerable discussion in the contemporary halachic works when dealing with not yet religious person if failing to provide a service will cause animosity and the issur is one which they are not aware of.
Don’t you guys think CTL would have asked his Rav a Shaila about something like this?
@ NCB
““1) Negative stereotypes about the groups”
You mean like saying Chassidim spend too much on weddings and don’t give tzedakah?Yep. That’s a great example. Couldn’t agree with you more.
“3) When assimilation is only regarded as such when it cuts to the left”
What does this even mean? Religious left or political left?”Both actually. Assimilation means adapting non-jewish ideas / culture. Somehow assimilation to the right is given a pass.
“I don’t even know that CTL denies that his views might mesh well with parts of the MO”
He denied it loudly and clearly.
“he admitted that he poskened like Rabbi JB Soloveitchik, so how could he not?”
Um, as I pointed out above HaRav Meiselman considers himself a talmid or RJBS. I don’t know anyone (in their right mind) who considers HaRav Meiselman MO.
@ Midwest2
“the whole business of labeling other Jews with denigrating labels – MO, Chassidish, Litvish – or any label at all, is revolting”
For the most part the above labels are not denigrating. People tend to self identify with certain kahilot. What is revolting is
1) Negative stereotypes about the groups
2) Historical revisionism
3) When assimilation is only regarded as such when it cuts to the left
4) When a 9TH GENERATION frum Yid self identifies as a classic litvak and is being told by people who don’t know him personally that he is MO. And then not a single shred of evidence is provided to substantiate their statements save for some obscure references to “other posts”.@ Joseph
“NP, it is you (not I) who is repeating yourself. I’ve already refuted all your repetitive points.”Ok, if you say so.
You do realize that there are many MANY yidden who are talmidim of Ponovich, Brisk, and Mir who are currently very successful businessmen and professionals. They learn, work, and offer (substantial) support for their Yeshivos as well as their local community institutions. Not to mention the many small frum businesses and tradesmen in their communities.
@ It’s Time For Truth
The Classic Litvak has/had a disinterest for money, as well an aversion for ostentatious goods.I’m sure we can all agree that the raison d’etre of a Yid is coming closer to Hashem through Torah and Mitzvos. What does that have to do with a disinterest in money? We do pray for parnassa 3 times a day. Ostentatious goods is relative to your peer group.
@ Joseph
“NP, I explained above the answer to your questions.”
Why are you repeating yourself? Your “explanation” was not overlooked or misunderstood. It was rejected.
“The application of the term Classic Litvak, as defined here, is a historical revisionism.”
No it isn’t (see CTL’s post on page 1). You are the one doing the revising.
True Classic Litvaks are Rav Moshe Shternbuch, the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chofetz Chaim…”
The above statement in TBU (True But Useless). Yes they are classic Litvaks and there where / are others as well (see my post on page 1).
”
@ It is Time for Truth
“The Classic Litvak has/had a disinterest for money, as well an aversion for ostentatious goods”
Having money is not the same as having an interest in money. One does not take an oath of poverty in our religion. Growing up / living in poverty is a nisayon it is not a prerequisite. I know some low income people who are very interested in money. They are always talking about “the waste” when wealthier people have nice cars, clothing, houses, weddings, etc. If they had the resources they would most certainly conduct themselves like the prototypical nouveau riche. They just don’t have the opportunity. One who is blessed with wealth has their nisyonos, some do better then others. This has nothing to do with being a “classic litvak”. Have you taken a ride through the nicer parts of Lakewood lately?
@ Is it time for truth
I’m not following. First you respond that Rabbi Moshe Meiselman and Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb are “1000% not” MO them you say “if they are anything they’re either anti MO or very Far right wing MO”
Is that contradiction or just legal speak?
Also,
I wasn’t setting up a strawman or putting phrases in peoples mouths. Just trying to figure out why CTL was labeled MO when he identified himself as a classic litvak. Based on his posts
1) Hw has an advanced secular education (law)
2) He has a profession (attorney)
3) He is financially successful
4) He is politically active
5) He likes nice cars (Jaguar) and quality furniture (based on a previous post)So, let’s turn this into a multiple choice question. Based on the above why would someone be compelled to label him MO?
take your time…
The answer is #1.
No one thinks having money posuls you from classic litvishkeit. Political activism doesn’t either (think Agudah in America and Degel is EY). So cross off 3&4.
I know that #5 is a tempting contender but it’s the wrong answer. Here is why. To give that answer you would have to compare the vehicle and furniture choices of successful politically active attorneys in his locale amd determine that the possession of such items is not the norm.
Surely having a job (#2) doesn’t disqualify CTL from being a classic litvak.
He doesn’t claim to be a famous Rosh Yeshiva who make large weddings for his grandkids so that can’t be the problem.
That leaves #1, having a secular education. So that’s what I addressed.
So let me see if I follow. Anyone with a secular education is MO. Is that the criteria?
There was a historic conversation between the Or Semaich and the Chofetz Chaim where the CC traveled to speak to the OS regarding the government edict that Yeshivas would be forced to include Russian in their curriculum. The OS responded “Nu, what’s so terrible if bachurim learn to speak russian?” The meeting ended at an impasse. Was the Or Semaich MO?
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman and Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb both have PHDs. Are they MO?
@ Time Time For Truth
“Name one classic Litvak who had positive views of the Upheavals and ‘liberation’ of the ’60s”Why? Who expressed a positive view of the upheavals and liberation of the ’60s? Surely you don’t think that stating the HISTORICAL FACTS that: 1) there was widespread discrimination, 2) the Civil Right Act helped = a positive view of 60s era upheavals and liberation.
“an unfortunate of families like yours is after striving and treading water for long they fall into an inertia”
This is certainly not the impression I get from reading CTLs posts. What gives you the impression that they are treading water?
@ NCB
“Non-Political: It’s not circular logic It’s years of being on the CR, and talking to people outside and observing how consistantly petty the MO is when talking about those more frum than them. It’s to the point of being boringly predictable.I certainly can’t claim the coveted credential of years being on the coffee room. I can say that having likewise gone outside and even occasionally talked to people my experience differs from yours.
In this very post CT Lawyer wrote that he “may be a classic Litvak” only to be told that his world view would give classic Litvaks indigestion. Where does that rate on the pettiness scale?
Also, I wasn’t really trying to say that the logic was circular. There was no logic of any sort, It was just a blanket attack on a whole segment of Klal Yisroel. And given what some people seem to regard as MO (per attack on CT Lawyer above) it may be a pretty large segment.
@NCB
” This thread is making the entire Litvishe velt look like a petty, jealous joke”Why are you assuming that the attacks are coming from people associated with the Litvishe velt and not disgruntled chassidim?
@ Joseph
“It is generally the modern crowd that comes up with threads and pathetic arguments like this; not the Litvaks (whose Torah world is very close to and even integrated with the Chasidim”I get it
1. ONLY the modern crowd EVER makes pathetic arguments
2. litvaks are close to and integrated with chassidus, they are NOT “the modern crowd” and are therefore incapable of making pathetic arguments
3. this is a pathetic argument so it must be made by the modern crowdThe above is truly the holy grail of logic and reasoning
Nebach
@ SCS
“as the Re’ma states that you need to be over 40 and full of Shas and Halacha. Look it up.”You do know that The ARI and the RAMCHAL where both nifter before the age of 40 right?
Also, isn’t the over 40 criteria from the SHACH?
Also, why is the Gorel HaGRA being given the same criteria as the starting age for learning Kabala?
I will just point out that given the descriptions we have of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s wealth and lifestyle you would say the same about him. Forget grandchildren, his stable hand was richer then Shivur Malka (the king of Bavel in the time of Rav and Shmuel).
A few months back I went to a fundraising carnival for a well known and respected organization. It was a family event and attended by all sectors of the frum community. The music was basically 90s house music. I actually played James Brown is Dead to few people to make the point clear (hearing is believing). This is not elevating non jewish music. Sorry. The music and the way it moves you is the same. Not similar. Not an adaptation. The same.
@ RBS Gimmel
“If Big Pharma is in cahoots with China, how are they allowing Chinese medicine?”
Huh?? Big Pharma and China are NOT allowing traditional Chineses medicine. As I explained, they are united in their opposition to the the righteous chiropractors, applied kinesiologists, homeopaths, and traditional chinese medicine practitioners in the hope of weakening the West.
Really the root of the problem goes back to antiquity when the enemies of all that is good led a conceptual revolution and succeeded in spreading the falsehood that we need empirical evidence for medical intervention to be deemed reliable.
As I already pointed out in the comments on the article re: Rich Roberts.
Obviously all the pro vaxx docs are on the take from big pharma. But that’s just the icing on the cake. It’s really much worse then that. You see, big Pharma is really in cahoots with Russia, China, and North Korea to spread autism in the West.
The whole medical establishment is one big sham. They’re just in it for the money! Thank goodness for the righteous chiropractors, applied kinesiologists, homeopaths, and traditional chinese medicine practitioners out there. They are holding up the fort and fighting the good fight to keep us well. And of course אהרן אהרן חביב the holy malpractice lawyers. These paradigms of chesed are never EVER motivated by profit.
@ Gadolhadorah
perhaps we should consider imposing a sunset provision on all minhagim so they terminate every 100 years unless renewed by the gadolim of the current generation based on whether it is still “relevant”.
Sunset provision doesn’t help.
Exhibit A – The ban on 2 wives@ Toi
“That’s ridiculous. Just because chabad has some sort of self-soothing fairytale doesn’t mean it’s credible.”
The fact that you felt a need to respond to my overt badchanus as if it was meant as a credible argument means that next it will be hijacked and actually used by someone as such.
@ 5ish
“This is one of the things which is a machlokes between The Nefesh Hachaim and the Baal Hatanya. (It is entirely possible that this machlokes has earlier roots but I am not in the know about that, and since we are speaking about Chabad chassidim and their beliefs I feel it is relevant to mention that there is a major machlokes about how tzimtzum works and The Baal Hataya holds one way while the Nefesh Hachaim holds the other way”
That’s fine. They certainly do disagree. I think SL or DY already pointed this out. His position on this matter is crystal clear to anyone who cares to read it.
But let’s not be hasty. Let’s not jump to the conclusion that citing his words as a support was a deliberate misrepresentation. Let’s not assume that it was an error in interpretation. Let’s not attribute it to a failure to even bother reading what he wrote in context.
There is an alternative explination
Perhaps Rav Chaim repented his position. Really he agrees with the Ba’al HaTanya and and was mramez it hiddenly in his sefer, you just have to know where to look. This way he will rectify the error of his Rebbe, the GRA, who refused to meet with the Baal HaTanya. Some might even say that the Gaon himself instructed his talmid to do this. This supposition, while not 100% verified is eminently reasonable since everyone knows that the GRA repented his hisnagdus and was seeking a way to be mitakein the situation. Of course Rav Chaim didn’t write any of this openly so that his sefer would gain acceptance in the Litvish world. He knew b’ruach haKodesh that the truth would eventually come out. And loe and behold, Adif Chocham M’Navi! Here on YWN we learn the truth.
The above dovetails nicely with the messorah from YDS (mentioned in the mashichistim explained thread) regarding the reason the GRA jumped out of the window to avoid meeting the Baal HaTanya. Of course the rest of Beis Brisk also know this messorah they where just hiding it until the right time.
Freilichen Purim!!
@ Eli Y
“The reason I posed this question to the forum is to demonstrate that those on earth can affect the deceased. It is reasonable then to conclude the deceased can affect those on earth and hence, can affect where a person turns a page to a particular igros.”
This is not reasonable. It is actually 5 steps removed from being reasonable, because:
1) You are saying that if A can influence B then it follows that B can influence A. This is a false premise. For example you can mold clay, clay cannot mold you.
2) Even If we where to concede that the deceased can influence matters in this world we would still have to determine that such influence extends to determining the page to which a person turns a page in a book.
3) Even if we where to concede that such influence does extend to determining the page to which a person turns a page in a book we would still have to determine what is an effective median for affecting such an influence.
4) Even if we concede that a particular median is effective we would have to determine that it is permissible.
5) Even if we concede that it is permissible we would still have to determine that it is reliable (see Derech Hashem section 3 chapter 2).
You also wrote:
“Your explanation apparently leaves Hashem entirely out of the path between living an deceased. By adding Hashem into the “model”, Kaddish affects the deceased through Hashem. The Kaddish moves Hashem to ease the cleansing of the soul of the deceased. Unless someone wants to argue that this is a “one-way street” , the deceased can affect the living through Hashem. Hence, a holy soul (eg., Metatron like?) can influence Hashem to act in the world.
How did the answer given leave Hashem “out of the equation”?
What do you mean by “moving Hashem” and “Influencing” Hashem?
Metatron is a malach, why do you refer to a malach as a soul?
“This is a reasonable mechanism that can explain the selection of the appropriate igros as well as other actions and “miracles” we observe.”
The mere fact that a proposed mechanism “can” explain something does not constitute positive evidence of its existence. The conjuncture that a mechanism exists without any positive evidence is not reasonable.
@ Kovno
“please dont start qouting nefesh hachaim because there are numerous things mentioned in this chat that he is specifically worried about .”
+1
To quote the Nefish HaChaim in support of “a Rebbe is atzmuso umchuso areingishtelt bguf” is an obscene distortion.
1) In the perek being quoted the Nefish HaChaim compares Yiddin / Tzadikim to the Beis HaMikdash. The dwelling place for Hashems presence. Nobody says that the Beis Hamikdash is “atzmuso u mahuto”.
2) The Nefish HaChaim is very clear that we do not even speak of “atzmuso u mahuto” when speaking about Hashem. All that has ever been taught is regarding how Hashem relates to us and the Midos that he created to relate to us. The Nefish HaChaim teaches that this is true even regarding the Shem HaMiyuchad.
3) The Nefish HaChaim states in no uncertain terms that we are forbidden to relate to the world as everything being Elakus (pantheism). To do so would leave no room for the Torah and Mitvos which are premised on our relating to the world as we are designed to experience and understand it.
@ CS
To support the proposition that the Rebbe was a Tzadik Gamur who was completely batul to the Will of Hashem you wrote:
“The Rebbe never exhibited any signs of struggle with the bad. What did he cry about? That the shechina is still in gadlus, that Jewish children don’t know Alef beis. What made him happy? Activities furthering Torah and mitzvos.
Besides there’s a whole mystical side of a Rebbe that can be sensed but I can’t put it into words as I am kind of clueless in that area. But people that met the Rebbe will share of that.”
Are you proposing the above as sufficient positive evidence to substantiate your proposition? Or is it merely sufficient for one who is already a Chabbad Chassid (such as yourself), whereis a non Chabbad Chassid (such as me) should accept the proposition based on a leap of faith?
@ CS
“For me: I know, as all Chabad Chassidim know, that the Rebbe lived his entire life as a Tzaddik Gamur of Tanya”
“However, The Rebbe lived his entire life desiring nothing but what Hashem wanted. Before he went to cheder he was already picturing how the Geula would look. He never took one action, word and we can assume thought against Hashem.”
How do you know this? Better yet, how can anyone know such a thing? You would need knowledge of all the details of someone else’s life including intent.
“)I’m really not interested in how many people were for it not for it etc. because the Rebbe is known as a tzaddik gamur and never did anything against Hashem, so this must also be truth.”
This is incorrect on religious grounds, rational grounds, and practical grounds
1) Religious grounds. We are bound to follow the consensus of the Hachmai HaDor. You DO have to care how many people are for it or not for it. If a dayah is nidcheh you cannot follow it. And no, you do not need a vote for that to happen as per my 2 examples above. There was no “official vote” regarding incandescent light bulbs or the authenticity of the Zohar. Still, taking a contrary position on those issues is not acceptable.
2) Rational grounds. When evaluating evidence to determine whether to accept or reject a proposition on a given subject It is not rational for a layperson to maintain a position which is contrary to a consensus of subject matter experts.
3) Practical grounds. According to your position, there would be no practical way for any community who came to erroneously believe that a certain person was / is a tzadik gamur to be shown that they are in error. We all know that such things do occur, communities large and small do come to such false beliefs.
@ Eli Y
“I can tell you that our great defender in this thread is far too arrogant to speak for most members or about Chabad philosophy”
This type of ad hominem attack is completely uncalled for. In this case it is also unfounded. CS has, to the best of her abilities, taken a significant amount of her time to provide comprehensive answers to just about every person who raised a question (even those posed with hostility). In every instance where she has been insulted she has taken the high road, refusing to lower the standards of respectful dialogue. Arrogant?? How so? Please quote a post which you think displays arrogance on her part.
@ CS
“OK but there are also plenty of times where a yachid reveals a chiddush which is a valid path in Avodas Hashem. Shivim panim laTorah”
Which Gedolim (past or present) are on record endorsing that a Rebbe is mahuto v atzmuto mamish areingishtelt b’guf ? Can you cite a credible example of even one?
From your posts it is clear to me that you are a sincere person. You know very well that the objection to this chiddush is not only from one Gadol. I’m very surprised you would claim such a thing.
“Also it seems to me, although I could be wrong, that there is a halachic “due process,” like by the gemara they hashed out their proofs for their opinions, and then voted on the final halacha.”
There are many examples post chazal where there is closure in halacha and dayos. For example:
1) Turning on a incandescent light bulb is chillul Shabbos
2) The Zohar HaKadosh is authentic@ CS
“It is an oxymoron to say the Rebbe is a Torah giant but his position here is kefira, because that would make the Rebbe and chassidim who follow him the opposite of ovdei Hashem, and you can’t then say that you respect the Rebbe as a Gaon etc.”
This is just plain wrong. For example:
In matters of Dayos
There is a dayah in Chazal “Ain Moshiach L’Yisroel.” There are 2 ways this opinion is dealt with. 1) The Ran explains that it does not actually mean what it appears to be saying. 2) That it does mean what it appears to be saying and is the opinion of a Yachid which is rejected. Now, if someone today would like to understand this chazal kphuto and adapt this belief for themselves they would be kofrim in one of the yud gimmel ikkrim.In matters of Halach
If someone today would follow the opinion that you can bmchalel Shabbos for Makshirai Milla such a person would be considered a mchallel Shabbos and we would not drink their wine.In both of the above cases the proponent of the subsequently rejected opinion wa a Tzadik and a Gaon.
@ SH
“I’m not sure what practice you’re referring to, I possibly missed a few posts, but I can tell that connecting to a Tzadik is a way of connecting to Hashem. As Rashi says:
ולדבקה בו. אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמָר כֵּן? וַהֲלֹא אֵשׁ אוֹכְלָה הוּא? אֶלָּא הִדָּבֵק בְּתַלְמִידִים וּבַחֲכָמִים וּמַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ נִדְבַּקְתָּ בּוֹ”
This is a perfect example actually. The word “davek” means to cling / attach to. So for example some things that are included would be
-Becoming a talmid of a Talmud Chacham and serving him
-Supporting the learning of a Talmud Chacham
-Marrying off your daughter to a Talmud Chacham
-Doing business with a Talmud Chacham
-Partaking of a sudeh with a Talmud ChachamThe above are all ways Chazal tell us to be m’kayem being “davuk” to a Talmud Chacham. No one is questioning those practices.
@ 5ish
“I know a man who thinks he can connect to God through making a series of motions with his arms and a pair of inanimate objects. Surely this seems like Avoda Zara…”
The example of Tephilin (and all other Mitzvot) are not relevant here. (Frankly I’m surprised you didn’t use the example of Kruvim.) All the Mitzvot connect us to Hashem. He commanded them. Are you implying that the practices mentioned in this thread are on somehow on par with Mitzvot from the Torah?
“If the issue is purely hashkafa, and you don’t know who the Rebbe was, wouldn’t you trust R Moshe Feinstein who was the posek hador for halacha”
The fact that HaRav Moshe Z”L (and other Gedolim) held a high opinion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L does not = an endorsement of his specific position, especially the ones mentioned in this thread. This is true even when the position is built on the words of Chazal. What you need is examples where HaRav Moshe (or other Gedolim) are on record supporting the specific position under discussion.
Merely citing the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L as a source in these cases is not enough. Why Not? The problem is NOT that he is not a legitimate Torah source. No, the problem is that when a legitimate Torah source takes a novel position and:
1) all Gedolim (for who we have evidence that they are are familiar with the position) are opposed
2) no Gedolim (for who we have evidence that they are familiar with the position) are in favor
such a position is rejected.I have raised this point twice before in this thread and you have ignored it. Why? This is not a controversial point. In fact it is blatantly evident both from halachic sources as well as simple logic.
Your response would be greatly appreciated.
@ CS
“the Rebbe was accepted by many gedolim as a tzadik gamur. A revelation of Hashem in this world.”
Which Gadol described the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L in this way??
CS and SH
R’ Eliezer the Tana held that you can be mchalel Shabbos not only for the Mitzva of Milla but for maksherai Milla as well. His whole town followed his psak and where even saved from a terrible decree for doing so. Can I bring his opinion as evidence in a halachic discussion on the subject? No. Why? Because while EVERYONE held that (1) He was a great Tana and (2) his town was certainly obligated to follow his psak his opinion on this matter was rejected by the rest of the sages of his and subsequent generations. So…
1. In light of the above when answering questions regarding matters where the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L took a position that has not been accepted by others it doesn’t make sense to use him as the source for your answer. The refusal to accept such an answer does not = rejecting the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a Gadol B’Yisroel and does not = refusing to accept all legitimate Torah sources.
@ “Alter Rebbe was given this special neshama and tasked with taking pnimius HaTorah and bringing it into intellect”
The RAMCHAL did a masterful job of this already.
Joseph,
Would you please explain how we go from Rabbi Millers proof for the existence of G-D that you quoted in the OP to the proper conception of G-D that you quoted a couple of posts back?
@ beee
“i think that there are ways to prove G-d in this world but there are people that will rather take clear proofs that there is a G-d running the world and explain it according to nature. So yes, everything really douse come down to having emuna!!”I think you meant to say: there are people that will rather take clear proofs that there is not a G-d running the world and explain it according to nature
If that is what you meant to say it’s incompetent. There are no such proofs, not even fuzzy ones and certainly not clear ones. Not even the most ardent avowed atheist / materialist has proposed PROOFS for non existence.
@ Zahavas Dad
“You cannot prove the existance of God , thats why there is EMUNAH”
This depends entirely on your standards of proof. If you apply the Cartesian standard then you can’t prove your own existence either. If you apply the Empirical standard you can’t prove the existence of anything witch is non – physical. If you use the same standard of proof that suffices for everything else for which we demand evidence the above proposition is false.
@ Zahavas Dad
“Why is it OK to question Chabad on messanism , but not OK to question Satmar on Anti-Zionism?”
Surely you do know it is a matter of historical record that anti-zionism was / is a mainstream position among the Gedolim. The issue of contention is a matter of degree and tactics. (Before all the tzionim on here start listing names of Gedolim who where not anti-zionist or neutral on the issue notice I said mainstream to all.) Chabbad mashichistism (even mashichistism-lite) certainly was / is not mainstream. Lo matzinu lai chaver outside of Chabbad and even within Chabbad it is a matter of dispute (see posts by Sechel HaYashar on the relevant thread(s).
@ GAON
“The issue in concern is when the title of Foodie is given on the account of one being obsessed with food”No one defines foodie this way so to give a person obsessed with food such a title would be misusing the title.
As an aside, if you read the referenced wikipedia article you notice that even using the term foodie to define the concept as it IS used in the definition is a point of contention. Why? Because the term carries a certain negative connotation which is not congruent (doesn’t shtim) with the concept in the definition.
The above quote from Rabbi Miller is an example of a version of the fine tuning argument.
Even if you would accept the fine tuning argument at best its utility is against the position of randomness. What’s the next step? Most world religions would accept this argument as would the classic philosophers yet their conception of G-D is certainly false.
When (most people) ask for proof of the existence of G-D what they really mean is proof of The G-D who gave US laws, runs (present tense) OUR world, hears OUR prayers.
It is Yitzias Mitzraim and the Revelation at Sinai that is the only rational evidence of revelation. And it is through revelation that we know everything else. Post revelation a study of our unique history as the chosen recipients of the Torah is also relevant evidence.
@ DovidBT
“An atheist could argue that everything in the above post can be explained by science”
1) What someone “can argue” is not relevant. Ever. A “could argue” without positive evidence is a very weak position and not worthy of a response.
2) Explaining the mechanism by which natural events occur is not an argument against the existence of G-D. It is a straw man argument built on the false premise that believers have no positive evidence for the existence of G-D and use Him to explain what is (was) to them otherwise inexplicable phenomena.
It is also worth pointing out that essentially Emuna is the natural experience we are endowed with by our Creator. Rational argumentation is a tool we use against the the olam hagashmi, the yetzer ha-ra, the culture of the umos haolam, and our own sins which obstruct / corrupt this experience. See Kuzari shar aleph. Also see HaRav Aaron Feldmans excellent article in the latest issue of Dialogue.
Here is the Wikipedia definition of foodie word for word:
“A foodie is a person who has an ardent or refined interest in food and alcoholic beverages. A foodie seeks new food experiences as a hobby rather than simply eating out of convenience or hunger. The terms “gastronome”, “gourmand” and “epicure” define the same thing, i.e. a person who enjoys food for pleasure.”
Nowhere in the above definition is there any mention of:
1. eating for pleasure alone (as in eating only for pleasure)
2. making food your only (or even primary) interest in life
3. eating in an impulsive or glutinous / ravenous mannerIt is the above behaviors that are problematic by the sources cited by GAON and others
The Rambam quoted above by GAON teaches us that when we are engaged in activities that bring us physical please we should not be doing the activities ONLY for the pleasure.
Making food your primary interest in life substitutes our true purpose for materialism.
Eating in an impulsive or glutinous / ravenous manner would actually be counterproductive to deriving maximum enjoyment from your food.
@ Jakob
“but don’t fool yourselves. ask yourself are you looking forward to the weekly family restaurant date & each week count the days down towards it or is it a pleasure & mitzva to make your family happy?”
If I look forward to the dessert at my friends chassuna, for which I drove 3 hours so that I can be meshtatef in his simcha, surely you aren’t saying that my intent for attending his simcha was the dessert!
I’m sure you are also not saying that we are not meant to davka avoid deriving pleasure from from the very things we are created to experience pleasure from.
@ Jakob
“an erlicher yid eats for one reason only, he eats so that he/she can have strength to serve Hashem.
There are many ways one can eat Lshem Shamayim that don’t involve fooling yourself.
1) Eat food that is healthy and avoid impulsively eating foods in quantities that compromise your health and be mikayem the Mitza of guarding your health.
2) Eat mindfully, actually appreciating the pleasure and nutrition that the food is bringing you. Express that appreciation to the One who provided the food by making the brachos with kavanah. You can also be mkayem the Mitzva of Ahavta L’Raecha Kmocha by intending that your bracha should increase the sheffa of bracha to all of Klal Yisroel (see Nefish HaChaim regarding meaning of the word baruch).
3) Take your wife out to lunch or dinner. Take your kids (one at a time) out for ice cream. Making time for those close to us and shared PLEASURABLE experiences should be common and are an important ingredient in Shalom Bayis and effective Chinuch.
4) Appriciating that for every food that Hashem assured there is a comparable food which is permissible. This is a Chazal.
5) Put aside the best foods lkavod Shabbos, Vkarata Lshabbos Oneg.
Consider the machlokis tana’im on the matter of why a Nazir brings a korbon for being choteh al ha-nefish. Is it because he withheld permissible pleasure from himself and it is sufficient what the Torah forbade? Is it because he is bringing himself from a higher level of kedusha to a lower level by ending his term of prishus? Is it both?
Also, consider the Yerushalmi that a person will have to answer for what he had an opportunity to derive pleasure from and doesn’t.
Obviously, making pleasure seeking ones goal in life is contrary to Yidishkeit. Intent matters.But it cuts both ways. You can use the Yerushalmi to become a baal taiva and you can use prishus to become a baal gaiva.
Also, maintaining awareness of our purpose for being in this world and working on our midos are not matters that are lefnai meshuras hadin left to chassidim and baalai musser. They are incumbent on every single yid.