Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CS: “If you give weight to an individual who had a strong agenda against lubavitch and knowing the story of hei teves etc. and cite that as an acceptable source, all that shows is how your bias against lubavitch is negatively affecting your objectivity. (No I havenโt read it nor have I am interest in it)”
I have to admit that I did not explain myself well in that post. I wasn’t saying that I believe everything your rebbe’s nephew said about your rebbe – I certainly don’t – and I wasn’t clear in that. What I was trying to say is that just as you justifiably wouldn’t believe what he wrote because he had an agenda to discredit your rebbe, I don’t believe what lubavicher chassidim write because they have an agenda to promote their rebbe.
So I DID go directly to the sources – many times many years ago when he was alive and many times after he was niftar. I read hanochos (transcripts, for the uninitiated) of farbrengens, sichos, letters and lubavich publications such as Kfar Chabad and Beis Mashiach. All of my investigation from primary sources – not the ravings of some crazy who claims the lubavicher rebbe is G-d – led me to become thoroughly disenchanted with your rebbe and his hashkofos.
His initial work in kiruv was innovative and fantastic, but then it degenerated into self-serving messianism and chauvinism. As an example, I once heard a prominent lubavicher speaking to a lubavicher audience (he probably didn’t realize that I was there as a spy ๐ ) saying that the rebbe told Rabbi Hecht that the purpose of having the rebbe’s pictures on the side of mitzvah tanks is so that people would know who the Mashiach was. Perhaps the story is untrue. Can you either confirm or deny it?
And you didn’t address my latest challenge: Based on the rule you brought that “im rishonim …” do lubavichers agree that the Rashba was greater than your rebbe?
CS: “Its interesting you mention specifically the Baal HaTanya as he was held to be a higher neshama than even the other Rebbeim โ the Baal Shem Tov was excited about his birth as he described him as a neshama chadasha who would accomplish great things.”
And the source for that is… (drumroll)… the story books written by Lubavich, just as they are the source of most of the proofs brought by CS in this and earlier posts. Btw the Memoirs of the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe are considered creative fiction by the rest of the world. And I’m talking about chassidishe Yidden who are meivinim in chassidishe history and chassidic writings.
Neville: “Also, judging a rabbi by the actions taken by his followers after his death is a dangerous road to go down.”
Not if you can attribute their current actions to following his shitos, which is precisely the case here.
Their lack of tzniyus was apparent well before he was niftar, and although it is true that he at one stage said that the girls’ school uniform should be based on the BY uniform, it wasn’t the case even in his lifetime, and he knew and saw it in the many rallies he had with women and girls.
Open and unfiltered use of the internet even by bochurim: this, I have been told by Lubavichers is because the rebbe believed in using all modern methods to be mekarev Yidden. The results are horrific, and one can almost say ืจืืื ื ืืืฆืื that ืืื ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืืื ืฉื ืืช.
Mixing of genders was rife way before 3 Tammuz 5754. I remember being shocked at newly wed couples hosting other newlywed couples in all their “Shabbos finery” (see above re tzniyus).
One point I forgot to mention is the permissive drunkenness that is looked up to. I don’t know about the others here, but in our chassidic circles when someone becomes drunk he is deemed to have gone way overboard. In Lubavich it is par for the course and even lauded. If you don’t believe me, just attend any Lubavich wedding.
As to denigrating their rebbe, to which Neville objected on the ground that it is counter-productive, I disagree.
One of the “tricks” Lubachivers use when speaking to other frum Yidden is, “Everybody agrees that the rebbe was one of the greatest tzaddikim of the generation…” and from there it’s not a great leap to convince everyone that only chabad chassidus is the true derech of the Baal Shem, and that we should all be sending out children to chabad schools etc etc etc.
Lfan”d it is time that those of us who see through all this come out clearly and tell the truth as we see it.
coffee addict: “Why keep giving her a platform to spout nonsense?
For one it shows people that donโt know that much about chabad how it really is”
Another reason is to get Lubavichers to understand that the frum world at large does not believe even the basis of what they’re saying, and to leave us alone with their weird proofs. At least, that’s my main reason.
Toi: “BAM! and @rso lays it down”
Wow! Thanks for the compliment. Err… that was a compliment, wasn’t it?
Neville: “RSo, Iโm not sure I agree with all of your last post. Satmars are going to hold their Rebbe to be a tzaddik, Lubavitchers will hold theirโs to be a tzaddik; I donโt really think we need to require them to bring proofs from other sources. ”
I never said they had to bring proofs from other sources to believe. I said they have to bring proofs from other sources to make ME believe.
CS, in a long post you go on to “prove” what a tzaddik your rebbe was from stories of when he was a child and so on.
Did you ever read the accounts given by the only grandchild of the Rayatz on his uncle-in-law’s early life? I don’t expect you to believe them, I don’t believe all of them either, but then again, I also don’t believe most of the wondrous stories about the Lubavicher rebbe.
I don’t give much weight to stories that Satmar chassidim tell about their rebbe, and I don’t give much weight to stories litvishe tell about Reb Chaim Kanievsky. I am more likely to believe stories litvishe tell about Satmar and stories Satmar tells about Reb C Kanievsky. All the wondrous stories I hear about your rebbe have lubavich as their source, so I see no reason to give them much weight at all.
In your next post you again try to demonstrate that I can’t judge your rebbe the way I do. You’re wrong, because I don’t think he was a tzaddik. None of your arguments will convince me otherwise because they have all been tried on me in the past – I have a long history of studying and questioning Lubavich, and not getting satisfactory answers to what started out as innocent questions – and I found them unacceptable.
Too much of what he said and did was warped, and nearly 100% of the problems with lubavich – e.g. worst tznius in the chassidic world, most open use of internet, most interaction between genders – can only be attributed to his views, his lack of foresight, and his obsessing over concepts that should not be the primary concerns of bochurim and avreichim in the Torah world.
All the same arguments you use to prove that I have to hold of your rebbe could be used by your friends the Litvaks to prove that you have to hold of ALL their gedolim (I especially didn’t mention the name of the person you are allergic to). But they don’t work if you don’t believe in them.
CS: “Regarding pesach Sheni I think weโve both explained ourselves so we can just agree to disagree, which is fine.”
Nice to say that, but it’s not really fine when I give you the literal translation of the passuk, and you say you interpret it differently as a demand. Isn’t that what xians have done with the whole Torah? Please cite me a source to back it up other than the source I am disputing, which is either you or your rebbe.
But moving on for the time being to other things:
“the well known chazal โIm harishonim kmalachim anu kbnei adam, vim heim kbnei adam, anu kachamorim.โ”But don’t Lubavich believe that their rebbe was the greatest person ever to live! (For the benefit of those out there who don’t know what goes on in Lubavich, I’m being serious.) How about an honest answer: do you think that, say, the Rashba was greater than the last Lubavicher rebbe?
CS: “But when a Rebbe of today is NOT such a tzaddik, by his chassidimโs own admission:
I don’t know who you have been talking to – perhaps to a chossid of that fellow who asked about the tourist sites – but I and my fellow compatriots believe that our Rebbe is a tzaddik of Tanya, and that there are others who are alive and well BH. Maybe not as many as we would like there to be, but there are certainly more that you are giving credit for.
You have always displayed civility, and I have credited you for that, but I can’t always reply in a way you will find civil. I’m not talking about tone – I’m talking about content. So I apologize for what I am about to write.
I know many many of the stories of Chabad about their rebbe, and I have been around for a long time BH. I have also mentioned in other threads that I have close relatives who are Lubavichers, and I know a lot from inside. So here goes: I don’t believe the moifsim, and I don’t think he was a tzaddik, of Tanya or otherwise.
I believe he was very charismatic, and he knew how to “catch” people 60, 70 years ago and revolutionize Jewish life in the States. But something happened and he became obsessed with himself being declared Mashiach and the Nasi Hador (which, as I have mentioned more than once, is a title that he himself, or possibly his father-in-law, invented as applicable nowadays, and which, conveniently he applied to himself). How else could he have come up with the ludicrous and meaningless statement that Beis Mashiach is begamatria 770?
This alienated him quite early on from other chareidishe groups, and led him to hunker down and try to “force” his way by the Mashiach campaigns etc.. Alienating him further, hunkering down further, and so on.
You, of course, won’t agree with what I’m saying, but I know that a very large percentage of the chareidi world, both Chassidish and Litvish, agree with that, and are very sorry that that’s what happened because had he stuck to the original kiruv on which he focused he would have achieved so much more for Torah Jewry.
And as far as his great Torah knowledge, he definitely knew a lot, but the Torah world – again, both Chassidish and Litvish – considers much of what he said “distorted” (I was trying to find a nice word). Just take his “lomdus” for the reason that Lubavichers don’t sleep in the sukkah. Now unlike my Litvishe couterparts I don’t believe that there is anything necessarily wrong with that minhag – many chassidic groups have minhagim that seem wrong to the outsider but actually have sources beharerai kodesh – but your rebbe’s explanation “al pi nigleh” as to why lubavicher chassidim are exempt from sleeping in a sukkah just doesn’t make any sense to anyone who can learn a blatt gemoro.
I have even had lubavich friends (Surprise, surprise!) who will discuss with me all of my complaints and observances about Lubavich but who refuse to discuss the sukkah lomdus… because they know that on a nigleh level it just doesn’t hold water.
The “sukkah lomdus” is possibly the most extreme example, but it is not the only one.
Once again, I apologize if you have taken offence, but I feel I have to point out to you WHY we are so anti so much of what you and some others write.
Me to CS: “Me labeling what CS wrote as apikorsus had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of tzaddikim. It was because she said that there arenโt any leaders or tzaddikim in the generation of a high caliber.โ
False. I said โโThere is a general lack of the kind of leadership and tzaddikim of yore”
And that’s what I consider apikorsus.
I’ve been unavailable for a few days, but, undoubtedly to the chagrin of many, I’m back!
CS: “Yes not all 4 are demands (I only said the first one was and I still see it as such.). Happy now?”
Not yet, but getting there iy”H. Lama Nigara is absolutely NOT a demand! It is a question. Explaining it differently is just drush interpretation. And the fact that they asked Moshe Rabbeinu shows that it is a question, which is why he replied, “Stand and listen what Hashem will command you,” not as he replied to Korach.
And yes, I agree that the Chofetz Chaim said one should demand Mashiach (although I’d like very much to see the primary source to be 100%) but despite his greatness in all areas, others do not agree with him. Your rebbe did. Others don’t, and I’m not just saying this.
Btw, I’m not denying that I may in the past have said that I don’t believe in demanding, but please show me where I said it. The thread is long and it’s difficult to find things.
Correction to what I wrote earlier. The Rizhiner Rebbe was niftas in 5611, which is 36 years after the Chozeh of Lublin. So it is a mere 168 years since the most recent of the list quoted by CS was niftar.
My apologies. Chabad chassidim will indeed praise other Rebbes even if they have passed away less than two hundred years ago.
Addendum: when I told a friend what I wrote about Lubavich only “holding of” Rebbes who are long gone, my friend corrected me. He pointed out that there are two other categories of rebbes of whom they hold:
1. Rebbes who have no continuing lineage, e.g. the Rivnitzer Rebbe zt”l. No reason not to hold of them if they can’t offer an opinion about lubavich.
2. Rebbes who have a beis midrash with no chassidim, who rely on wealthy Lubavich donors for their upkeep. They will automatically approve of anything lubavich says.CS: “We in lubavitch have no problem giving other tzaddikim their respect. At Farbrengens, Chabad.org etc we quote stories of the heilike ruzhiner, choze fun lublin, reb zusia etc with the same respect and awe we accord our Rebbes.”
You just alluded to something that has been pointed out many times over the years. Lubavich accords respect Rebbes of earlier generation who have not been alive for many decades. Not Rebbes who were niftar relatively recently v’ein tzarich lomar live Rebbes. The most recent Rebbe you mentioned above was niftar in 5575 – over 200 years ago!
Other chassidic groups mention and admire even live Rebbes with admiration and yir’as hakavod. Not Lubavich. I’m expecting you to argue (before you do, please respond to my post about your lack of admission to Lama Nigara etc.) but it’s the way of Lubavich and all non-Lubavichers know it.
“And if we have evidence that our Rebbe is a tzadik of Tanya”
Evidence?! First, I was taught that we chassidim had emunas chachamim. Second, you have no evidence, just stories that you each spread about him. Third, sorry, but I DO NOT believe that he was a tzaddik. Many, many zchusim, yes, but not a tzaddik. Look at the fights he had with Satmar, Rav Shach and anyone who didn’t believe in Lubavich. Look- at his self-interest in promoting himself as the Nasi of the dor (something, which I’ve mentioned in another thread, has no meaning nowadays except in Lubavich, as the concept does not exist) and the probable Mashiach.
He messed you up with these concepts and all of Klal Yisrael is suffering from it. It also delays Mashiach!
CS: ” I still am looking for your response to the source of what you think is wrong with how we request moshiach abnd Geula”
(I’m getting Repetetive Strain Injury for typing this again and again…) I haven’t (at least for a while) objected to you demanding the geulah. I am objecting to your sources showing Moshe Rabbeinu and others demanding to Geulah.
They are not sources and I have proven it. Is that easy enough to understand? DO YOU AGREE THAT I HAVE SHOWN THAT “LAMA NIGARA” IS NOT A DEMAND, AND THAT NEITHER ARE THE OTHERS THAT YOU CITED?
How about before anything else you answer either just “yes” or “no”, then allow us a few minutes to digest that before you post about other things that have been discussed.
kaiserW attacking Neville and me: “You both jumped to attack, calling it โapikursosโ โgarbageโ โslandering tzadikimโ etc etc
Congratulations! By doing so you have shown yourself to have never opened up a ืกืคืจ ืชื ืื ืงืืืฉื even to the first chapter. In fact, it is not even Tanya who is the source that Tzadikim are a real entity โ Tanya quotes it from a Gemara!”Are you by any chance an alias of CS, because your reasoning is so similar to hers? Or is it perhaps that that is the way you are taught to learn in lubavich – attack the person who criticizes you without actually paying attention to the words they said.
My labeling what CS wrote as apikorsus had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of tzaddikim. It was because she said that there aren’t any leaders or tzaddikim in the generation of a high caliber.
And by the definition of the Gemara in perek Chelek, that is apikorsus: ืืื ืืื ื ืื ืจืืื. See Rashi there.
The talmidei chachamim and tzaddikim of THIS generation hold up our generation. And in the opinion of the majority of the chareidi world, they are greater than your rebbe was. You can disagree with that last part and not be called an apikorus, but to say that this generation’s Torah leadership is lacking or faulty is apikorsus.
I didn’t read the rest of your post because I don’t like being patronized, especially when you started off with such “smart” and completely incorrect statements. At least you could learn from CS who usually writes respectfully, and certainly tries too. (Who would have thought that I would compliment CS?!)
And by the way, I probably learnt Tanya before you were born. Just guessing, but it’s an educated guess.
CS: “So can you help me understand what exactly is the issue, and where your source for that is, so I can understand how my sources do or do not address it?”
You said we have to demand Mashiach. As far as I understand the Lubavicher rebbe said you have to demand Mashiach. Although I don’t believe in that at all, I didn’t dispute that – at least not since this latest round started on November . But I DID dispute your claim that the sources you quoted (the first of which was lama nigara) were demands and I demonstrated how none of them were. (The only exception being the fifth source, quoted later in the discussion, that the Chofetz Chaim did write that we should demand Mashiach, and I was the one who presented the source!)
Now, I can’t make it any clearer than this (and if you still don’t get it, then you really shouldn’t be posting to a forum which requires a little basic clear-thinking): DO YOU ADMIT THAT THOSE FOUR SOURCES YOU QUOTED ARE NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, DEMANDS? Yes or No, PLEEEEEAAAAAASE!
That’s all that I have been asking for a long long time
Syag: “I am very sorry CS, I know you mean well, and I know that this was said to you before in a past thread, but you have done more damage to Chabad thru your posts than good. Your own words, not the feedback or the comments from others.”
Something I have indicated in the past, but said here so well!
Neville the quote I gave is from page 1 post #1549269. I don’t know why I found that one all of a sudden.
Before anyone attacks me, yes, it should be “right” not “write”. My apologies.
I was wrong. (Gee, CS, that wasn’t painful at all!)
Is there someway of conducting a poll to see who is on whom’s side. I’m not talking about voting whether CS is write or wrong; I mean a vote to see whether I am totally stupid and just do not understand CS’s replies to my rebuttals, or whether I am not that stupid and CS is indeed not answering them.
CS I have to admit that you are starting to make me angry!
Here is what you wrote in your first post on renewing this thread on November 1 (page 3 – cut and paste):
“regarding demanding from Hashem, I brought proof from the positive response to the demand of lama nigara.
Some have responded its not a demand.
So to respond to that, yes it is. I mean just translate it.”I replied the same day (page 3):
“CS since when is Lama Nigara a demand or even a request? It is a question, insinuating a request but only [the word “only” was an obvious typo and should have read “not”] a demand.”I have since shown that not only is it not a demand but it wasn’t even addressed to Hashem. And now we get this from CS:
“RSo: In short, I wrote demand/ strong request, because, as I recall, you had a problem with any kind of strong language. You chose to emphasize demand over request. To me it is a matter of semantics. But i would need to look up the start of your question which is somewhere on page three, to be able to properly post your original problem, and thus show these sources adress that. No time though right now”1. You wrote demand.
2. You did not write at that time “strong request” or any similar expression.
3. I chose to reply to what you wrote, not to what you changed it to at a later date after I had replied.
4. It’s only semantics if the two mean the same thing. You wrote “demand” I said it wasn’t a demand. That’s not semantics. Look it up.
5. My “original problem” as you so nicely put it is that you got it wrong and you won’t admit it.Which leads nicely to the following post of yours:
“With regards to showing I can be wrong, I have np with that if I believe that to be the case.”As with much of what’s wrong in Lubavich, ืืืืช ื ืขืืจืช.
Neviile: “Where did she say that?”
She definitely wrote it because I just copied and pasted. And I wasn’t even the only one who was mocheh. The mods must have removed it. Pity, because as you say, it shows their true colors.
I don’t think it was removed. It would say edit if it had been edited out.
I’d like to clarify one thing.
As I have written, I do not believe in lubavich hashkafos, nor in their rebbe. However, I DO believe in much of the good work they do, such as providing services to tourists virtually worldwide.
I have availed myself of their services in five continents, and in nearly all cases they seem generally interested to help. This is a zchus that their rebbe has, and no one can take it away from them.
But when they start spreading their propaganda and show their attitude that they are at the apex of the Jewish world, it really upsets and concerns me.
Stick to helping Yidden and rack up millions of zchusim that way. Leave your weird hashkafos alone.
CS: “There is a general lack of the kind of leadership and tzaddikim of yore- even during the Rebbeโs days there was a lack of tzaddikim with no yetzer hara.”
Absolute garbage and apikorsus. I am mocheh in the strongest terms.
Typical Lubavicher unwarranted chauvinism. Even in his lifetime there were many tzaddikim who were greater than him, and now there are too.
I can’t believe CS said something so revealing and stupid!
Neville: “Gezhe means the Lubavitchers who come from the family of Lubavitchers going back prior to the last Rebbe. They usually still speak yiddish and their practices tend to be less controversial than those of the new age Lubavitchers.”
From what I understand it means more than just prior to the last rebbe. It goes back generations, often to the Baal Hatanya. And I also haven’t seen that their practices are less controversial than the others’. I think you will find that gezha look down with disdain on others as newcomers, while the others look down with disdain on gezha as Russian peasants. (I’m inclined to agree with both sides ๐ )
“Iโm sad you hear you had those same problems with them, RSo.”
No need to be sad. They annoy but I enjoy the interaction. Just as CS’s posts are enjoyable although annoying due to their fallacy.
CS: “Rso your post deserves a longer response which I will post iyh at my first opportunity”
Thanks, and I look forward to it. But how about a very short post admitting that the first four examples you brought have nothing to do with demanding?
Please please please. Prove to us that you are capable of admitting that you made a mistake.
CS: “Rso it seems you are forgetting what the whole problem with demand was and thatโs why youโre showing every source to be anything other than the word demand…
…
So please list whatever source you have that states why its not a good thing to demand or request strongly for moshiach that isnโt addressed by the context / sources brought.”You are deliberately evading the issue. Did you or did you not address the following post to me: “Regarding demanding / using strong language with Hashem:
1) lama nigara 2) ad mosai in tehillim and kinos 3) kol ma sheomer lecha habaal habayis asei chutz mitzei 4) davening for others vs oneself โ Moshe micheini na, Rochel Imeinu โ is Your Mercy less than mine? 5) chofetz chaim (you found)”So I showed you clearly how the first four ARE NOT DEMANDS. True or not? Now you say I’m not addressing why demanding is wrong. True. I ADDRESSED WHAT YOU ASKED ME TO ADDRESS!
Let’s say I address why demanding is wrong. You will probably then ask me why I didn’t address something else.
Do me (and I believe Neville and others) one BIG favor. Answer the following question: Did I successfully prove that the first four of your sources are not demands and CANNOT be translated as demands?
If you refuse to answer that you prove what others have said about you: that you don’t care about anything other than pushing the Lubvich line. Fine with me, but don’t try to obfuscate.
Now I’m waiting for an answer…
And in reply to your incessant claim that I can’t argue with your rebbe’s interpretation because he is a tzaddik and had ruach hakodesh: Years ago I used to believe that, at least to some extent, but I now longer do. And the only reason I no longer believe it is because of my myriad interactions with lubavicher chassidim on all levels of the lubavich spectrum, from gezha (I’ll let others explain that) to baalabatim, from mashpi’im to chabad house owners, from learners to bums. The sources they have cited, the arguments they have made, the proofs that they have brought, and their belief that achdus means that everyone has to be like Lubavich has shown me that the fault comes from the top. Your posts have also certainly not added to my appreciation of Lubavich haskafah.
I therefore, in my own (obviously warped) opinion, have as much right to argue with the lubavicher rebbe and to disagree with his piskei-halacha/interpretations/hashkafah as you and anyone else have in doing the same with regards to Rav Shach or anyone else you don’t consider a tzaddik.
And after having touched upon the lubavich view of achdus, I would like to hear your reply to what I wrote above in an earlier post. Why have I been told literally tens of times that I should be learning chassidus chabad, Chitas and Rambam, with none of my reasons for not doing so accepted, yet when I suggest that a lubavicher learn daf yomi the idea is disparaged because “in Lubavich we don’t hold of it”? Yes, I know there are many lubavichers who learn daf yomi, but the limud is considered non-chassidish by the major mashpi’im.
You also haven’t answered why lubavich did not participate in the major Citi Field gathering to warn of the dangers of the internet, and why so so (not a typo) many lubavichers do not “believe” in having a filter on their computers or phones.
Again, I challenge you to answer all my points above DIRECTLY and not to obfuscate and dissemble.
CS: “Creatively reinterpretating classic sources yourself, and thinking youโre on par with the Rebbe, doesnโt wash.”
1. Please (according to you that can be a lashon of demand) show me where I have “creatively” interpreted any sources. Unless you consider disagreeing with your interpretation creative.
2. Disagreeing with your rebbe, does indeed wash. I realize that you don’t like it, but there’s nothing wrong with it for those of who do not believe that he was Kodesh Kodoshim.
CS can you say that I haven’t addressed ANY of the issues when I clearly addressed the first one that you raised. But this seems to be something you do often, considering something not having been addressed if the answer doesn’t suit you.
At any rate:
“”Regarding demanding / using strong language with Hashem:”You have changed your terminology to include “using harsh language” which was never the discussion. The discussion was ONLY regarding demanding from Hashem.
“1) lama nigara”
For the umpteenth time “lama nigara” is NOT a demand according to any translation. It is a question. Yes, there is an implication of a request, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO DEMAND! Furthermore, not only is it not a demand but they did not even speak to Hashem. The passuk says that the spoke to Moshe Rabbeinu. Look it up.
” 2) ad mosai in tehillim and kinos”
Once again, not a demand a question implying a strong request. Can you find me a source that explains it as a demand?
” 3) kol ma sheomer lecha habaal habayis asei chutz mitzei”
What does that have to do with it? Your – I assume it’s actually your rebbe’s – interpretation of it is very nice but it does not fit in with what you are saying. Even according to your interpretation. we (and the Shechina) ARE ALREADY “outside” and we want to get back inside. To the best of my knowledge it doesn’t say anywhere that when the baal habayis says not to come in you don’t have to listen to him.
” 4) davening for others vs oneself โ Moshe micheini na, Rochel Imeinu โ is Your Mercy less than mine?”
Where do we see a demand in either of the two cases above? Note: “na” means please. People who say please aren’t normally demanding.
Now I’m challenging you. Either show me how I am wrong in the above or admit that they are NOT good proofs. Don’t go back down the rabbit-hole Toi mentioned and claim that I haven’t addressed the issue, as you have done in the past. I have addressed ALL of them, except that of the Chofetz Chaim, and remember that I am the one who found and presented the source of that proof, so I am not trying to evade any issue.
I’m sorry if I sound insulting, but I – and I believe a number of other posters – are very frustrated with the way you just keep making statements without basis, challenge us to rebut them, and then when we do, you ignore our rebuttals and claim that we are the ones who are doing the ignoring.
So please step up to the challenge: rebut the way I (and others) have refuted your claims (and merely citing your rebbe is not a valid form of rebuttal) or admit that you have been proven wrong and that the only sources you have are the interpretations of your rebbe.
CS to Neville: “For example, you complain we isolate ourselves. Yet when I join this forum, how many times have I heard the sentiment, Stop pushing your Chabad agenda. Youโre only talking to us to mekarev us etc.. Think about it.”
I don’t know what Neville actually meant, but what I understood him to mean was that you isolate yourselves by not being part of other groups’ initiatives. For example, Daf Yomi Bavli, Yerushalmi, Mishna Yomis, Halacha Yomis, Shaar Cheshbon Hanefesh Yomi have never been endorsed by Lubavich
Yet it is true that when it comes to frum people Lubavich is always pushing them to accept lubavich initiatives. If I had a dollar for every time I was told that I should be learning Chitas, Rambam or even mesechta Sotah during Sefirah, I would be so rich that I would be typing this from my own private yacht moored in my own private island in the Bahamas.
Why is it OK to think that everybody has to do what chabad does but chabad can ignore the call of other gedolei Yisrael?
In a similar vein, I may easily be wrong here, but I believe that Lubavich did not take part in the Citi Field rally about the dangers of the internet. I also believe that alone among all Chareidim, Lubavich does not insist on smartphone users having filters. (I personally know a number of Lubavichers who do, but I know more who don’t.)
CS to me: “you keep ignoring, and not addressing, the many (I think 4 separate) sources in Torah I have brought.”
I felt bad not remembering exactly what it was I haven’t addressed, but then I saw that you weren’t too sure yourself, so it made me feel better! ๐
Please recap the separate sources and I’ll see what I can do. Seriously.
Just one caveat: I don’t consider an explanation/interpretation of the Lubavicher rebbe as a source. I consider it an opinion. That doesn’t mean I definitely won’t address it, but it does mean that I feel I can disagree with it and explain/interpret things definitely.
CS: I honestly don’t understand what you mean by “the Rav Shach excuse to hate”. The only reason I mentioned Rav Shach was to show how there can be someone many people – in this case tens of thousands of people – believe was a world leader yet you and your compatriots won’t accept him and you totally disparage him and his opinions. And my point was that in the same way you can’t expect others – and those tens of thousands of people – to accept what your rebbe says simply because you consider him a world leader.
I just reread everything that was written above about Rav Shach and I fail to see where I gave any excuse to hate. Just the right – not an excuse – not to believe someone is a gadol hador.
And I find your closing line of “Rav Shach was a Litvak just to remind you” irrelevant and very revealing.
Irrelevant because, as I wrote above, I was merely using Rav Shach and his followers (no, I am not one of them) as an example of how Reuven does not have to agree that Rav Ploni is a gadol/tzadik/etc just because Shimon says so. And the fact that Rav Shach was a Litvak therefore has nothing to do with it. I could have used Rav Kook as an example, or Rav Y D Soloveitchik, or the Satmarer Rov, but I used Rav Shach because I knew that, as a lubavicher, you definitely do not hold of him.
And VERY revealing because you always give the impression that you value all segments of Orthodox/Chareidi Jewry, yet here you basically told us all that Litvaks are not counted!
CS: “For example, if that were the case, then it would be impossible to apply the anticipating moshiach every day
in practice, because if his coming is contingent on Eliyahu hanavi announcing it three days earlier, then he canโt come today as there was no announcement two days agoโฆ.”This is another assumption based on (wilful?) mistranslations.
ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืืื does NOT mean that I expect him every day. It means I will wait for him every day. Imagine a 12 year-old boy waiting for his bar mitzvah. Every day he looks at the calendar and sees how long there still is to go, so every day he is eagerly waiting for his bar mitzvah, but he does NOT anticipate his bar mitzvah happening before he turns 13. So too with Mashiach. We (are expected to) wait eagerly for his coming every day, but we know that he may not come today.
I believe (I have searched and haven’t been able to find it, but I clearly remember seeing it somewhere) that the Lubavicher rebbe referred to as marah shchorah – morose and depressed – anyone who explained it the way I have explained it above. But I fully believe (ืื ื ืืืืื ืืืืื ื ืฉืืืื ๐ ) that my translation/explanation is the correct one notwithstanding the Lubavicher rebbe’s objections.
Similarly, ืืืฉืขืืชื ืงืืื ื ืื ืืืื does not mean that we expect the yeshuah today. It means we hope for it. And by the way, that may not even be directly referring to the revelation of Mashiach, rather than to the beginning of the establishment of Malchus Beis David – ืืช ืฆืื ืืื ืขืืื ืืืจื ืชืฆืืื.
There is thus no reason at all to suggest that when Chazal tell us that Eliyahu Hanavi will come three days before Mashiach that they did not mean and believe it fully.
CS: “rso is not a litvak he is a chossid(by his own admission at least on another thread)”
Gee! You have a better memory than me! While it’s true, I don’t remember mentioning it. And I don’t consider it an admission; I consider it a matter of pride ๐
“So it really rankles when the Rebbe is a non source, but the Chofetz Chaim is kodesh kodoshim”
Sorry, but that’s the way I see it. The Chofetz Chaim was seen as Kodesh Kodashim by virtually all layers of his generation including the greatest and most famous chassidishe rebbes of his time. (I write virtually because I have heard more than once lubavitcers denigrating him, calling him a snag and the like. And let me stress, I have heard it DIRECTLY from lubavichers who are mashpi’im and high-ups in chabad mosdos, not from someone who just heard it from a lubaicher.) Your rebbe, on the other hand, was a controversial figure and many in the chassidic and litvishe worlds don’t see him as Kodesh, let alone Kodesh Kodashim.
One final point: I am not a Satmarer or Satmar inclined in any way. I find their kanno’us disturbing and often disgusting. My lack of awe for your rebbe does not stem from kanno’us.
CS: “Another double standard here is that you state The Rebbe isnโt a good enough source for you/ you want to see where the Rebbe bases it… But the chofetz chaim is a great sourceโฆ
… And the same way its unthinkable to say the chofetz chaim isnโt good enough for me, it should be the same for the Rebbe.,…
Its insulting to display biases so openly and try to guise it as intellectual discussion.…applying double standards doesnโt give me much hope for fair learned discussion.”
After all these threads and all the debates you still don’t get it! MANY or us (certainly not all) do not accept that the Lubavicher rebbe is a valid leader of Klal Yisroel, and he is certainly not a leader of the caliber of the Chofetz Chaim.
I understand that you don’t agree with that, but that, to your probable great dismay, is what many of us believe. Therefore, it is not a matter of bias. It’s a matter of whom we consider gedolim and whom not.
Please answer the following truthfully: Do you believe that the opinions of Rav Shach, who was revered as the ultimate Gadol Hador by tens of thousands of bnei Torah, carry the same weight as the opinions of the Lubavicher rebbe? The truthful answer of any card-carrying lubavicher is a resounding “No!” Why not? Because you/they don’t consider him a real leader of Klal Yisroel despite what tens of thousands of others think.
Well, it’s the same here. Many people in this forum, and in the frum world at large (including ALL of those tens of thousands of Rav Shach believers) don’t consider the Lubachiver rebbe a real leader of Klal Yisroel. They – and yes, I am one of them – consider that despite his great knowledge and charisma, he was wrong in many of his views, a number of which are messing up his followers and bringing some to views and actions that are close to apikorsus R”L.
I have to say that I am absolutely astounded that a person of your intellectual caliber – you are clearly far from stupid – just doesn’t realize that we don’t believe what you do, and that therefore the “proofs”, sources and quotes that you keep supplying from your rebbe will not convince us.
CS: “… it goes to show its a Jewish thing, not just a lubavitch thing”.
Aha! So you finally admit that lubavich isn’t Jewish!
JUST JOKING!!!
kaiserW the goalposts haven’t moved. I’m the one who found the quote of the Chofetz Chaim and I’m telling you the way he said it from the text. You don’t have to like it but that’s the way it is.
Furthermore, this is nothing like what the Lubavicher rebbe said,when he said, and this time you can be the one to verify it from the sources, that there is no reason that Mashiach hasn’t come. The Chofetz Chaim said repeatedly that first we have to keep Mitzvos, stressing Shabbos, Taharas Hamishpacha, Kashrus etc.
Not that the L rebbe didn’t agree that those mitzvos have to be kept, but he did NOT make the demand for Mashiach dependent on their fulfillment.
To clarify the quote of the Chofetz Chaim – apparently it was in a Kol Korei issued in 1914 – he says that we should demand the geulah like a worker who demands his wages after completing his work properly. To demand Mashiach merely because we are in pain (or even because we claim to feel Hashem’s pain in the galus) without doing our utmost in Torah and Mitzvos is NOT what the Chofetz Chaim meant. Read the rest of his works and this will be very clear.
I found it! At least, I found someone who quoted the source, but I haven’t found where the Chofetz Chaim wrote it.
It is in Chofetz Chaim al Hatefillah siman 168 where he says that one should demand the geulah.
So there does definitely seem to be a difference of opinion.
Any chance of someone posting the actual primary source, cited by kasierW, where the Chofetz Chaim “demands” Moshiach? It would be very interesting to see.
Thanks for the welcome back.
To take last things first (I’ve already started with your very last line), there is a big difference between accepting what people do in times of stress or anguish and saying that what they do is proper. This is one of the explanations of the statement of “avel ein lo peh” – a mourner doesn’t have a mouth. We can’t blame him for saying things that should not have been said, but it doesn’t mean that he’s right in doing so. As we see in the Gemara that even someone doing nichum aveilim is not allowed to say, “What can be done?” as it implies that if we could do something we would do it despite Hashem having decreed otherwise.
Back to the original issue: regardless of the pain they may have felt, lama nigara is NOT a demand. It is a question?
CS, you may be doing fantastic work in your chabad house etc but please realize that the rest of the coffee room – at least those who aren’t Lubavichers – won’t just accept the fact that your rebbe said something as a valid source. So please, if you want to convince us that DEMANDING Mashiach is the correct thing to do, quote us a non-Lubavich source.
I understand that a Lubavich source is good enough for you, but it’s not good enough for you to get us to agree.
CS since when is Lama Nigara a demand or even a request? It is a question, insinuating a request but only a demand.
Furthermore, deciding what gives Hashem nachas, other than kiyum hamitzvos and limud Hatorah, is dangerously close to what other sections of our brethren do, e.g. Hashem prefers people drive to shul than to stay home.
No, I’m not comparing “demanding Moshiach” to driving on Shabbos. I’m just comparing the way you decide what gives Hashem nachas.
Perhaps it would be helpful to differentiate between the halachic definition of tinok shenishbah, which, apparently, Reb Moshe held is virtually non-existent in the US, and the case of Jews being raised/educated badly and thus thinking that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing despite them knowing that the Torah considers it wrong.
The people in Pittsburgh Hy”d may not necessarily technically have been tinokos shenishbu but they may be cases of “omer muttar” and deserving of our pity that they didn’t know any better.
Does anyone else out there find it as amusing as I do that whenever a topic to do with Lubavich comes up the Lubavitchers online always end up saying, or at least intimating, how great they are, regardless of what the truth is?
As I’ve written in the past in other threads, I’ve been around Lubavicth circles for a long time and I know quite a bit from firsthand sources. The reason that it has become the trend for Lubavichers to wear their shirts out – it wasn’t always that way – is definitely because the Baal HaTanya holds that the beged has to be worn when it is an amah wide, regardless of how wide it is when pulled tight. I first heard this many many years ago from a mashpia in Morristown, and since then I have heard it from numerous mashpi’im in numerous cities all over the world.
It has nothing to do with the “tziyur of a real chassid…” or the lack of interest in gashmiyus and chitzoniyus, as mentioned by someone earlier. Go to Vizhnitz or Belz and look at the chnyuks there whose hats are bent out of shape, whose long jackets are torn, patched and stained, whose shoes are scuffed and worn down. They all have no interest in gashmiuys yet they all have their shirts tucked in.
And do those Lubavichers who “aren’t interested in gashmiyus” ever forget to put on their pants or their socks. Rather it is an image they try to cultivate, and they certainly have their own colleagues fooled into believing that they don’t care about gashmiyus.
I once heard the story of a Rebbe who walked into his beis midrash in Europe and saw one of his chassidim wearing a patched and ntorn a kappote stained with herring etc. The Rebbe stopped in front of him and asked, “How long did you have to stand in front of the mirror to perfect that look?”
Interesting too how the very chassidishe wives of these same very chassidishe mashpi’im don’t have the same disdain for “looking nice” (I don’t want to go there again. If you don’t know what I mean look at chabad’s own websites about the problems of dress vd”l.)
When he was appointed rebbe, the last Lubavicher rebbe asked his mother-in-law for the shtreimel of his father-in-law but she wouldn’t give it to him because she had wanted her older son-in-law to become rebbe.
I heard this from Lubavitcher chassidim many times over the last thirty years, and it is also written in some of their history books.
Bitul: “When the Rebbe says that moshiach is here, it obviously means that moshiach has come already, and all we have to do is improve in our middos, and then weโll merit his final and complete revelation.”
Where did you find a source that differentiates between his “coming” and his “revelation”? We say Ani Maamin about “bi’as Hamashiach”, and I cannot recall every hearing about Mashiach’s supposed revelation except from invented Lubavich sources.
So I stand by what I wrote, without meaning disrespect to anyone. If the Lubaviteher rebbe said Mashiach has come, he was wrong.
Don’t you believe that the Satmar rebbe was wrong when he said that the Torah of teh Bsh”t was forgotten? Is that disrespectful?
Bitul wrote: Wow, Rso โ and i thought that icemelters rants were badโฆ
I honestly don’t see that it was a rant. Just a statement of what I believe to be facts and a request for justification for ignoring those facts.
This is what gets me and lefi aniyas daati is the source of so much of the problem: CS writing about the rebbe’s nevuos.
They were not nevuos! In order to be nevuah it has to fit certain criteria and pass certain test (see Rambam Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 7). Yes we believe in Ruach Hakodesh but not everyone who claims to have that does. And then there are some clever people who predict events that are going to happen due to a study of past and current events. That is not nevuah. To claim it is is to lower the standard of nevuah.
Unfortunately there is no nevuah nowadays and the only one who says there is is lubvatich, and guess who they say it about…
Just for our records, can you cite any authorittive lubavicth text published before 1950 that refers to nevuah in regards to the first six Lubavitch rebbes, the Maggid of Mezerich or the Besh”t? Why is it only about the last rebbe that we hear that he was a navi, or when he himself refers to his father-in-law as a navi?
“Demanding lama nigara”?! Demanding?! Where on earth did that bit of alternate Torah reading come from?
Thanks for the reply CS but it isn’t a valid reply, as others have already explained.
It’s one thing to ask or entreat Hashem desperately that Mashiach should come (even though there are some sefarim that say that that should NOT be the main thrust of our tefillos for Mashiach – but I won’t go there because lubavitch obviously disagrees with that) and to say “he HAS TO come”. The first is fine/good. The second is wrong!
Furthermore, your reply to me from your source book is also not a valid reply. There is a HUGE difference between saying that if we do this-and-this Mashiach will come immediately to saying that he is DEFINITELY coming NOW and today. And that is what the Lubvitcher Rebbe said over 25 years ago – did he not say numerous times that you have to believe that Mashiach is coming today, and if you don’t then you do not have proper belief in the coming of Mashiach? But Mashiach hasn’t come. So he was wrong! That is what I see and that is what every single non-Lubavitcher I have ever discussed the topic with sees regardless of where they rank the Lubavitchr rebbe on the tzaddik scale. I don’t believe that there is anything you can write that will convince us otherwise.
Finally, you wrote that the Luvbitcher Rebbe said that there is nothing left to do except it is up to us.
1. That doesn’t make sense. If we have already “polished the buttons” then what is there for us to do?
2. Hashem is emess and totally just. If everything has been done then Mashiach would have come! He hasn’t come so not everything has been done! What the lubvitcher rebbe said is getting mighty close to finding fault with Hashem c’v!And with your interpretation of the famous sicha where he said it is up to us you are following Lubavitch revisionist lines. What he said was that he can’t do any more and he’s leaving it up to his chassidim. A short time later he revised it, or it was revised by others, and he said that what is missing is the will of the chassidim. It’s a change and a significant one. You and so many others have conveniently adopted the revision so that you can continue to believe in whatever it is you want to.