Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Gedolim who opposed the Lubavitcher Rebbe (in no particular order)
The Satmar RebbeRav Hutner
Rav Aaron Kotler
Rav Shach
Rav Weinberg
Rav Ruderman
Now it’s also true that there where Gedolim who held (and hold) the Lubavitcher Rebbe in high esteem.
Harav Belsky Ztl as quoted in Mishpacha
Present-day Chabad has become a personal cult centered on the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe. Everything they do from beginning to end, revolves around this. They constantly project his image, talk about him and how great he was, how smart he was, how he was a better strategist than all the generals, that he was Mashiach. etc. This is the way people talk about a cult figure. There’s no room in Yiddeshkeit for a personality cult in which an individual is deified and glorified. Whether he was great or wasn’t great is immaterial. There have been many great people in Judaism. The personality cult of glorifying an individual person, giving him unique titles, elevating the shape other building he was active in. etc., has
Link removed
This is a link to Harav Aaron Feldman’s letter to Gil Student. Anybody who wishes (and understands Lashon HaKodesh) can read it and see if you think SH accurately portrayed Harav Feldman’s position.
@ SH
Did you see the list Ysrbius123 provided? There are more names but you did only ask for three.
So the video.
1. Notice that a portion of the testimony (re: who the other Rabbi was) is contradicted by the speaker himself.
2. What he is trying to infer / imply by the use of the title HaGaon HaChasid is laughable to anybody with even a smidgon of familiarity with the Torah of the GR”A and his Talmidim.
3. Even if we where to suspend all reason and accept this as testimony and polite that every word attributed to the GR”A was actually spoken by him it would actually prove the opposite of what you are trying imply.
4. The Baal HaTanya attests himself (in letter quoted in Baal HaTanya u Bonaire Doro) that The GR”A considered his (The Baal HaTanyas concept of Tzimtum A”Z
5. The published works and derech of the GR”As talmidim do not demonstrate the acceptance of Chassidus in general and Chabbad Chassidus in particular. Quite the contrary.
I wouldn’t, because Halacha as brought in Rambam clearly doesn’t hold like that Deah.
You are putting the wagon before the horse. We know to accept the Rambams psakim because (following initial controversy) The Rambam was recognized as one of Klal Yisroels greatesty sages by all competent Halachic authorities throughout the generations. See Rambams intro to Mishna Torah that this is the same principal that makes the Shas itself binding.
@SH
All of your arguments are based on the myth that somewhere in Halacha it says that Moshiach cannot be min hameisim, or have an early Techiya.Nowhere in any of my posts have I stated that the Halacha says this. Nowhere in any of my posts have I used it as a premise for anything I did say. You are either misunderstanding or misconstruing what I did write.
Re: Rabbi Berger. Not sure why his openly discussing a struggle he had in his youth is relevant.
Rabbi Yaacov Emden wrote an autobiography. I don’t think it says anything negative about him. Do you?
Re: Poskim, Talmidai Chochamin and Tzadikim.
What criteria would you propose we use forRe: Brisk Meaorah
You did not witness this personally. Did you see / hear a recording of this yourself? Did you at least hear first hand testimony from someone who did?Who said it’s not? Secondly a family mesora is just that, a family mesora.
It is reasonable to expect that such a mesorah would make a roshim in Bais Brisk in there yechs to chassidus in general and to Chabbad in particular. That would constitute collaborative evidence that it is true. Now if we had direct or public testimony from The RAV that would be something. Do we have that??Or because he wasn’t Yeshivish maybe you don’t accept his word?
C’mon now. Do you speculate that I am MO because I CITED Rabbi Berger or Yeshivish because I questioned the Ravs alleged testimony?Rabbi Berger is a Rabbi and a Professor. Hence his titles Rabbi Doctor
I didn’t make any claims about whether or not many Gedolim and Rabbonim agree with Rabbi Berger. I said many Gedolim and Rabbonim came out against the Lubavicher Rebbe. Surely you aware of this.
Please see the Ramchal regarding interpetIons of Agadah. There are Agados that are not to be taken literally for example. It is not a free for all when anyone can interpret as they see fit as long as it doesn’t contradict a Halacha. And even if we somehow know to take it literally we still have various ways of interpreting it as you saw In the beginning of the thread. Would you accept an argument based on a different Chazal that would deny that Moshiach is coming altogether? What about proofs from Chazal that there is no problem playing an organ in Shul on Shabbos? What about women getting called up to the Toarah? All of these are deviations from normative Jewish beliefs and practice. Halachic process dictates that innovations to Jewish beliefs and practice are to be initiated or, in the event that they arise spontaneously, be sanctioned after the fact by the Gedolim of the generation. That has not happened in this case and therefore contradicts normative Halachic process. Whether a Tanna or Ammorah did or did not historically hold this position is not relevant.
This story is not the mesora we have in Lubavitch of the meeting between the Gra and Baal HaTanya, (as I discussed earlier in this thread) but rather the version that Rav YB Soleveitchik had received in his family, being a descendant of the Gra.
Considering that this is a “family mesorah” one would expect it to be well know among the Brisk Rabbonim, Roshai Yeshiva, and their Talmidim.
Also, why are you making a personal attack against Rabbi Berger? Is it because he came out against certain elements in Lubavich? As you are well aware there are many Rabbonim who did (do) the same. Among them Gedolim whose reputation and scholarship is beyond reproach.
@SH
“The premise that it is legitimate to hold such a belief undermines the very fabric of the Halachic process itself”
We’ve been through this so many times here…
As I asked earlier, which Halacha does this contradict?You missed my point. Before discussing whether a specific practice or belief is or is not against Halacha there has to be a comittment to the Halachic process itself. Siting an Agadah to sanction an unprecedented theological shift among Klal Yisroel is unacceptable. It would be problematic even if it was done by a Gadol. As you yourself have pointed out repeatedly there has been no Gadol who took this position. I would be able to use such a meathod to uproot many established practices and beliefs (among other them Ikrai HaDaat.
I cannot comment on whether Rabbi Berger is a Talmud Chocham or not. Never spoke to him, read his articles, or heard his lectures. I did read his book. In it he expressed:
1) His great admiration for the Lubavicher Rebbe
2) His concern for the direction certain elements within Chabbad where headed which he saw as deviations of the Lubavicher Rebbes teachings
4) His conviction that more needs to be done by the Agudah and RCA Rabbionim to
A. Publicly come out against those deviant elements
B. Strengthen the Rabbonim in Chabbad who where fighting these deviations.It’s clear from SH’s post above that not all Lubavichers learn the Tanya that way. Rabbi David Berger contends that they are unfortunately the minority. I’m not an insider so wouldn’t know.
Thank you for sharing your personal experiences.
it certainly turned into CS and a few others trying to explain to non-lubavitchers why they should believe or at least accept the possibility that the lubavitcher rebbe is moshiach.
Where has CS done that? She said it was rational for her and other Lubavichers to accept the teaching of their Rebbe.
Based on one of her earlier posts I suspect she would agree with your understanding of Emuna though…
Are you saying there is no rational basis for our knowing that the Torah is true?? That our Emuna requires a “leap of faith”?
Do you realize the implications of what you are saying?
It is eminently reasonable to rely on your Rav. There is actually an issur of מהרהר אחר רבו.
If you are questioning the rationality or what CS believes your questio does not start for the above reason.
Are you questioning the status of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a reliable source? If so, please share your standard for establishing reliability?
Sorry for the patronizing tone in the previous post. It was uncalled for.
@Dos Yachid
You wrote: Did you notice the לשון רבים there?Did you notice the end of his post
Also as it’s known, Rebbe is Roshei Teivos “Rosh Bnei Yisrael”. Any Rebbe..
I’m not being a Lubavitch supremacist:)Rso,
Your question really is not that spectacularly difficult to answer. As a matter of fact it doesn’t even get off the ground. I will explain why, listen (read) carefully.
If someone where to attack any of the basic yesodos of our emuna (let’s say an academic bible scholor attacks our belief that Torah is min HaShamayim). He would then challenge us to a debate on the condition that we cannot bring any Jewish sources to support our position. What would you think of his condition? Would you accept it? I hope you wouldn’t. It is not a reasonable stipulation. Our response (provided we where inclined to agree to such a debate) would be that any evidence to our position is acceptable provided that such a category of evidence is generally deemed reliable. The teaching of ones Rebbiem is a category of evidence generally deemed reliable in Klal Yisroel. So…
Unless you can show that:
1. There was a concensus of all (or most) of Gedolai Yisroel that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not to be relied uponOr
2. That she is misrepresenting what he said
You have no question.
CS and SH are you still intending to reply to the points I raised in my previous posts?
CS, Glad to see I understood your position. TY for taking the the time and effort to have this discussion. I can certainly say that my understanding of the authentic Chabbad position has been enhanced. Thanks in no small part to responses from SH. I am very interested in what you and SH would respond to the other 2 parts of my 3 part post.
Re: Rational basis for Moshichists
Th position that the Rebbe IS Moshiach even after he was niftar is not defensible however. There is not a shred of positive evidence for this position therefore asking to bring bring Halachic proof against it is completely besides the point. The premise that it is legitimate to hold such a belief undermines the very fabric of the Halachic process itself
Just to summarize my understand if the rational basis for the mashichist position.
1. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was a leader and teacher in Klal Yisroel.
2. The Gedolim of his generation knew him.
3. There was never a concensus among all or even most of the Gedolim to denounce him as unfit to be a leader and teacher.g
4. Per the above his Talmidim have a right and obligation to follow the teachings of their Rebbe. (Also, per the above others are obligated to accord him the honor due to a leading Talmud Chacham.
5. The inference from the Bati L’Ganni speech was sufficient for the Brisker Rov to declare that the Lubavitcher Rebbe thought he was Moshiach. Such an inference is clearly not unreasonable.
1. The rebuilding of Yeshivos, Baitai Chinuch, and Bais Yaacov’s is no less an expression of Avavas Yisroel for every Yid then sending Shluchim. It was (and is) and disagreement regarding what you is the best meathod of Harbatzas Torah.
2. Demanding Halachic proofs against Mashichist beliefs is besides the point. If you make an error regarding a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch or Ramabam that’s one thing. But let’s say you believe in something for which there is no direct positive evidence and insist that it is your religious duty to believe so based on personal feelings, revelations, miricles, etc. You have just legitimized the revelation narrative of every world religion and cult.
3. I take personal offense at the statement made by CS that the Vilna Gaon saw the Alter Rebbe of Lubavich through a key hole, realized that if he would meet him he would have become a chossid and ran away. But this is just a symptom of the above stated problem.
(Continued from my previous post)
Or maybe the above is just a very krum hashkafa taken to its logical end.
Thanks to the abundant mercy of the Ribbono Shel Olam the Da’as Torah of R’ Yochanan Ben Zakai and the Sages of Yavneh preserved the continuity of the Torah and the survival of Am Yisroel. Much like the great Torah Leaders in the generation of the Shoah succeeded to fan a mighty flame of Torah from ashes and burning embers.
Zahavasdad wrote “Because of the actions of Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkolos (The Godol at that time) the temple was destroyed”
My point exactly. After all even the Senhedrin HaGadol could err (see first Mishnah in Horiyos). So what we learn from this is that since it is possible that Gedolim can err, especially errors of such great magnitude in matters of such importance to Klal Yisroel the logical solution is to just ignore them altogether. Come to think of it who says the ma’atikai ha shmuah got it right, and maybe the navi’im also misinterpreted their nevuah. So who knows what the truth is anyway, it’s all relative. So everyone should just do what “feels right” and “makes sense”. Let’s just go back to the drawing board and set up a society based on the enduring, timeless values of western democracy, humanism and rational self interest.
All initial efforts to establish Yeshivot and Frun communities in this country had met with failure. The success enjoyed by the Architects of Torah after the Shoah by their own account was simply not b’derech ha-teva. One does not willingly put themselves in a place of certain spiritual destruction.
But then again maybe I’m missing something. Maybe upon carefully examining the words of our prophets, sages, and the history of klal Yisroel we will discover that the churban bais rishon and sheini, expulsions, crusades, inquisition, and other mass tragedies we survived by the grace of Hashem could have been averted if only we had done a better job of ignoring the instructions of our Gedolim.
There are 2 issues here
1) Pushing people away. This is a very real issue and a difficult tightrope to toe. Consider that Timna was pushed away by our Avos Avracham an Yitchok. Obviously they had very good reasons for pushing her away – and yet from the gemmara (Senhedrin and Rashi there)it is clear that we are still suffering for this. Any decision that effects a yiddish neshamah has to be made with the requisite fear and awe – sadly this is not always the case.
2) The continued fable that people who choose an assimilationist life-style and publicly trample on clear-cut halacha somehow have rebbonim they rely on that sanction this. This creates much confusion for many people who naivly belive that this is just another machlokes between legitamite opinions.
Now Sam2 tells us that there exist poskim that allow knees and elbows to be uncovered. We are even treated to a remarkable bit of lumdus regarding tephach b’isha erva. (no doubt a self made biyan av / ma-metzinu from R’ Moshes teshuva about married womens hair. This is truely an impressive exercise in self delusion. We are STILL waiting with baited breath from a real source that allows women to do out in public with their knees and elbows uncovered.
Menachem Melamid – Still waiting to see the name of gedolim and poskim who say that knees and elbows do not need to be covered.
Statements based on wishful thinking with nothing whatsoever to back them up only serve to cloud the issue when it is indeed clear cut.
Not covering hair and elbows is against halacha. PBA made this point above a number of times and it keeps getting ignored in favor of self serving justifications.
A women who today publicly refuses to comply with halachic standards which are widely observed and known has nothing in common with a Europeen or American women in the mid 1900s who was making an effort to learn and do the right thing.