Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Look at a long hakdama of yabia omer vol 1 where he brings countless proofs that one is permitted , no , obligated to argue on one’s rebeim when he is higi’a le’hora’a.
This is pashut.
Arguing , means saying that the other side was MISTAKEN ….
.
.Shas Rishonim Acharonim and Poskim are full of disciples who do [respectfully] argue with their rebbeim. AND THEREFORE ARE SAYING THAT THEIR OWN REBBI MADE A MISTAKE !!! Wow. There , I said it …..
Only when they are higi’a le’hora’a. Only after they considered it from angles, in a serious manner.
Again – this is bread and butter stuff . Even Rav Aronson agrees to that . Any Rav or Rosh yeshiva does.
Someone lo higi’a lehora’a should follow his rebbi. We [or better said I] are not talking about that.I am addressing the hahmei habad shehigi’u lehora’a . Not those closed minds who can mindlessly rattle of pirkei tanya and do the same with the ikarei dinim of YD and then emerge as ‘musmachim’.
I am talking about those ‘mochim p’tuchim’ who can see the difference between a real svara and and a plastic svara. And who can come up with well reasoned hidushim of their own.
They can, and al pi torah should , [respectfully of course] state their own view. Like it was done in all locales of torah since time immemorial.
—–Have not seen any rebuttal to the above. Still waiting …..
Bottom line
have not heard nor seen any answer to this yet.
Why do hahmei habad who were higi’u le’hora’a regard the last leader and rebbi of the habad hasidim as infallible ?
Is there any clear source for this ?
Or is this just a feeling ?
Or are they concerned that they would be considered as ‘traitors’ or ‘guilty of treason’ [like the late author of ashkavte devei rebbi] if they would give a voice to the possibility of him being fallible ?
Even Menachem who valiantly tries to defend all other habad issues , has kept on walking very far around this issue.
.
.RE no 4 of my previous post.
hadarne bi. I wrote that casual was referring to sukka. Not sure about that now. Possible he wasn’t in the way I understood him.
Menachem gives us the impression that eshel avraham holds that leniencies could be extended to others.
Menachem writes the following :
In fact, there are poskim who clearly write that these leniencies can be extended to others. For example, the Eshel Avraham writes that bochurim may sleep outside the sukkah, since they can rely on the fact that “רובא דעלמא” most people are exempt due to their wives.
Sof tsitut.
Satam menachem velo piresh.
—–I looked in eshel avraham [OC 639].
He says the following – starting from the rama upon which he comments:
Rama asked why in his areas the minhag was not to sleep in the suka, which seems against the issur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka ?
Whereupon rama first brings an answer in the name of mordechai that in cold places the person is mitsta’er from the cold , so it is not ke’ein taduru to sleep in suka. Which takes away the isur min hatora to sleep outside.Rama himself appears reluctant to take this approach, and offers his own.
that married people normally sleep in the same room and since the suka is not private enough for that, there is a problem of ke’en taduru. Which in turn is matir the isur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka.Comes eshel avraham and says that at first glance rama’s approach would exclude unmarrieds and those marrieds who are in a different city to their spouse for whatever reason. Which would mean that those people would be subject to the issur min hatora to sleep outside of the sukka.
Whereafter he says that it is possible that the criteria of ke’en taduru is not something which is decided on an individual basis , rather on a communal basis, where the individuals are nigrar after the community when establishing what the ke’en taduru is.
Or on a household basis , where the other members of the household are nigrar after rosh of the household whose spouse is present and therefore his taduru would be out of the suka, so too his dependants’ and guests’ derech of taduru would also be out of the suka , and therefore also their issur to sleep outside would disappear.
He considers those options only as a safek [1] , which would not be sufficient on itself to be meikil in an issur min hatorah.
Nevertheless , since we could also use the mordechai’s approach at least as another safek [2] .
It seems that E’A understood rama’s hesitancy to use mordecha’s approach because of rama’s decision to classify mordechai’s approach as a halachik safek [2] [which, again , on itself ,would be insufficient for rama to be matir an issur min hatora].But once we accepted mordechai as a halahik safek [2] the way is open to use E’A’s safek [1] as a combination and make it into a sfek sfeika which is powerful enough to be matir an issur min hatorah me’ikar hadin.
However there still is a makom for pious individuals who would refrain of making use of a sfek sfeika to be meikil in an issur min hatorah and therefore continue to refrain from sleeping outside of the suka.
Ad kan divrei Eshel Avraham, be’erech.
—How menachem insists on somehow comparing this approach of E’A to [the unmodified issur min hatorah of] sleeping out of the sukka with the modified hiyuv miderabanan of hanukah stays an enigma to all concerned.
As said mechaber is talking on lechatchila level , not on the bedi’avad level.
On bedei’avad level both [lighting in or out] are fine.The preference of mechaber on outside lighting is only on lechathila.
Not on bedi’avad..
.
.Torah logic is just that – logic according to torah klalim.
1] In order to understand the correct definition of the mitsvot , svarot etc one has to employ logic.
the Q of bracha levatala is a fool proof indicator to the essence and definition of a takana.
Was there a change in the bracha levatala status of indoor lighting yes or no?
Which translates into – was there a change in the baseline definition of the takana , yes or no ?Hazal write – originally takana is only outdoors
Then they write – sakana indoors too .
If – at the original stage , outdoors is a bracha levatala even bemakom sakana , and subsequently not anymore, that signifies a change in the takana ,i.e. modification.I am talking ONLY regarding the base line takana . Not what is better or praiseworthy or mitsva min hamuvchar.
What I wrote is simple torah logic. Nothing more.
Any young yeshiva bachur is expected to come up with such logic on his own.
This is basic reasoning for any iyun limud.2] We are going back to a previous conversation of ours which you [conveniently] ignored.
Probably you weren’t in the mood. I must have insulted you then.
Or you were plain busy.
For sure it wasn’t because of any lack of a ready answer , has veshalom.Shas Rishonim Acharonim and Poskim are full of disciples who do [respectfully] argue with their rebbeim. AND THEREFORE ARE SAYING THAT THEIR OWN REBBI MADE A MISTAKE !!! Wow. There , I said it …..
Only when they are higi’a le’hora’a. Only after they considered it from angles, in a serious manner.
Again – this is bread and butter stuff . Even Rav Aronson agrees to that . Any Rav or Rosh yesiva does.
Someone lo higi’a lehora’a should follow his rebbi. We [or better said I] are not talking about that.I am addressing the hahmei habad shehigi’u lehora’a . Not those closed minds who can mindlessly rattle of pirkei tanya and do the same with the ikarei dinim of YD and then emerge as ‘musmachim’.
I am talking about those ‘mochim p’tuchim’ who can see the difference between a real svara and and a plastic svara. And who can come up with well reasoned hidushim of their own.
They can, and al pi torah should , [respectfully of course] state their own view. Like it was done in all locales of torah since time immemorial.
—-3] Fear of thieves and all those other reasons ranging from the practical to the esoteric, are talking about the best course of action. Not about the baseline halacha.
This is simple to any aspiring [but solid] beginner .
Pre any modification in the mitsva, one could not light indoors EVEN WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ALL THOSE REASONS PILED UP ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. For the simple reason that the base line essence of the mitsva was only outdoors . Which invalidates indoors lighting even bemkom pikuach nefesh.
Only after modification , when the baseline mitsva definition allows for and validates indoor lighting, only then can there be a discussion of the best course of action. Including thieves kedusha etc.
I wrote this very clearly in the beginning but it seems you were ‘too busy’ to give my words your proper attention.
——–
4] “Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..”
Casual was referring to suka , not to hanuka. My reaction was also.
Read it again.
.
.
.Lets remember –
According to Menachem –the xtians only thought of using habad mashiach meshugaas for their own nefarious purposes, AFTER they read R Dovid Bergers book ….
They could not think of it on their own ….
.
.
And –
According to Menachem it is not possible to disagree with habad meshugaas without a pre existing bias.
According to him it is unthinkable that said meshugaas should CREATE a bias ……
.
.
And-
According to Menachem –
Reflecting on those two above mentioned observations of the very same Menachem , those observations are NOT A PRODUCT OF menachems bias ….Menachem would have made the same exact observations even if menachem would be non habad …..
Come on … who are we fooling ?
.
.@ Menachem
Am still waiting .
In your opinion-
Was the mitsva of hanuka modified ? Yes or No ?
.
.menachem to yb:
…. I’ll likely be suspected of only thinking this way because I’m biased as a Lubavitcher, but I would similarly suspect that those who strongly oppose this minhag are doing so specifically because it’s Chabad ….
—-
Menachem’s bias is clear and obvious . Zil karei bei Rav ….Whereas:
My so called bias [to humor menachem] against habad is A RESULT of habads meshugaas. It was not pre existing at all.I did and still like habad hasidim .
I get on with them.
I count many of them as personal friends.If Menachem counts himself as a modeh al ha’emet, he can prove it, by agreeing with this point of mine …..
..
Let this be clear to menachem :
I am not ‘attacking’ habad for sleeping out of the suka.
Rather
I am proving that your rebbi is not infallible.He CAN make mistakes.
This is one of them.
Mass Mashiach Meshugaas is another one of them.
Your rebbi’s supposed infallibility is responsible for otherwise straight and lucid minds being contorted beyond recognition.
That should be protested at all available opportunities.
.
.CASUAL ONLOOKER:
…. Making cheshbonos about what which svaros make less sense or more sense is illogical, they all don’t make sense ….
——-
Lol.
Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..—-
Is there any commentary to this possible at all ?????????????????????????????????
.
.
.Yours truly argues that hanuka lighting is a modified takana.
So does Rav Aronson.
So does O’N.
So do all poskim.Besides menachem [and his infallible rebbi ?]
He still argues that hanuka is a non modified takana.
How does he explain relevant gemarot ? no problem whatsoever.It is astonishing to see the power of self delusion at work.
Otherwise lucid and logical minds twist themselves in to the most illogical of svarot and arguments.Why ?
Only because of irrational and baseless insistence on some fabricated infallibility.
Hafleh Vafeleh.
.
.
I myself heard from a child of one of the habad old timers in Russia that their father went to great length to davka sleep in the sukka.
There is no minhag in Russian habad to davka sleep out of the sukka.
One big baloney.
.Short recap of what we had until now.
Menachem agreed that O’N holds – as do all poskim- that lighting inside nowadays is NOT bracha levatala.
According to the original takana at the time of hazal before the sakana, lighting inside would be a bracha levatala.
PLAIN TORAH LOGIC dictates therefore that the mitsva derabanan was modified.As opposed to sleeping outside of the suka which is min hatora and therefore not modifiable.
Clear fom the mishna gemara rishonim that IN CASES OF NO MARRIAGE AND NO COLD AND NO OTHER PHYSICAL MITSTA”ER the minhag and the hiyuv was to sleep in sukah.For 3300 years . All across the globe.
Therefore the [….] torah advocating for sleeping outside the suka even when here is no physical mitsta’er to defend a non existent minhag , is nothing more than a [….] torah.
This [….] torah is not traceable to any of the habad rebeim.
Not the Rayats. Not the Rashab. Not his brother Raza. Not their father Maharash. Not Tsemach Tsedeq. Not R Dov Ber [mitteler rebbe]. Not Baal Hatanya.
Not his talmid R aaron Strashelle. Not the other rebbes from habad Niazin. Not the rebbes from habad Kapust. Not the rebbes from habad Liadi.
None of them .Only the one and only infallible rebbi who took all of us onto a NEVER ENDING mashiach merry go round .
With no option of getting of the ride.
Many of our Hasidim would like to get of the ride.They can’t , They are stuck.
After all their rebbi is infallible, nebach victims of menachem and his friends.They [Menachem & co] cannot point to a single source for his supposed infallibility. But this is nevertheless an axiomatic and eternal fixture within their habad belief.
So- all the unfortunates who got on to the merry go round are doomed to stay on it . For eternity.
Unless and until menachems friends/mentors will agree that a great man could also still sometimes make a mistake.Then and only then , will all the mentally imprisoned [and by now dizzy] merry go rounders , be free to get off whenever they fancy.
.
.
.Menachem has not answered whether according to Oz Nidberu lighting inside is a bracha levatala .
A bracha levatala, is a clear indication that one is not yotseh the mitsva.
A bracha not levatala, is a clear indication that one is yotseh the mitsva.
O’N agrees, like all other poskim, that it is not levatalah and that one is yotseh even inside.
Not like the original takanah, which specified only outside.So, employing simple and basic logic, O’N agrees that the takanah was MODIFIED, like Rav Ahronson [brought to us by daas yochid] clearly writes .
Like the consensus of the Poskim.
Opposed by Menachem , whose otherwise healthy sense of logic is nebach taken captive by his preconditioned blind acceptance of anything which passes his infallible rebbi’s lips.
We should bestow upon him the top prize for mental acrobatics. Under duress.
.@ujm
How do you feel about the fact that Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik (as testified by Rabbi Hershel Schachter and others in addition to photographs) was close to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and held very highly of him?
—-
The following is not that similar , but still is a valid question …How do you feel about the fact that many rabbanim chashuvim [and a clear majority of klal yisrael] (as testified by multiple reputable historians) were close to Melech Hamashiach Sh’Tz, and held very highly of him?
.
.@somejew
Had the opportunity to look again into the shitah of avnei nezer , which we discussed.
It is in YD taf nun dalet [not nun vav] from se’if mem bet to mem vav [If not mistaken about the exact se’if – could be one or two se’ifim off]He says very clearly that not the guf and not the neshamah are halachically obligated by the shavu’ot.
The shavuot only serve as an indication. An indication of the neshama’s connection to its Source and the gufs connection to its neshama.
And if that connection is severed , then there is a punishment of ‘ani matir et besarchem’.
But going against the shavu’ot is not a REASON FOR the lack of connection. It is A SIGN OF lack of connection.Ad kan divrei Avnei Nezer .
NOT LIKE SATMAR RAV !!!
.
…. the non modifiable mitsva of Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, PROVIDED THERE ARE NO COLD OR MARRIAGE ISSUES, and suddenly In the 50’s someone claimed otherwise ….
===
Please Menachem , bold letters means –
do not ignore !
pay extra attention to !===
Repeat:
The minhag was, that whenever there were no cold/marriage issues, to sleep in the sukkah !For uninterrupted 3300 years , from Sinai onwards.
Quite an old minhag, I would say. Supported by the hiyuv min hatorah to do so.
In the form of the non-modifiable mitsva of sukka.===
Menachem loves changing my position. That makes it that much easier for him to argue ….
Maybe he should change his own position, before he changes other peoples’ ….===
I never complained about so called infallible rebbes. In plural.
I complained about the supposed infallibility of one particular rebbi of Menachem. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary , that is.
====Btw. Even a cursory reading of Rav Ahronsons’s writing which Daas Yochid so kindly provided, will bring out his reasoning where posits the same line as I mentioned . That the takana of lighting was modified.
===
I am still waiting for Menachem’s response about Oz Nidberu’s shitah re the bracha of indoors lighting ? Is it levatalah ?
MENACHEM TO YB :
You are now saying that Chanukah is different than Sukkah, because with Chanukah it was always accepted to light indoors, so in recent generations, even though the sakana stopped, it’s not an issue to davka light indoors.
But with Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, and suddenly in the 1950s the Rebbe began allowing people to do otherwise.But, we know that that’s not true (as brought in Shulchan Aruch, and many more places), so your entire idea falls apart.
=====NO . I am not saying that at all.
You are misrepresenting me.[Should I complain that you are insulting me …. ]
I am saying the following ;
Chanukah is different than Sukkah, because with Chanukah the takanah was modified to enable lighting indoors, so in recent generations, even though the sakana stopped, it’s not an issue to light indoors. Because of a formal modification, by hazal themselves.
But with the non modifiable mitsva of Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, PROVIDED THERE ARE NO COLD OR MARRIAGE ISSUES, and suddenly In the 50’s someone claimed otherwise, basing himself on a most illogical pretsel svara.
You are welcome to argue, but please argue on my real position .
Not on my position you [mis]represent.
.
.Menachem – there are no insults.
There is an argument , however and we cannot hide behind victimhood to win an argument.
==Does Oz Nidberu say that lighting inside nowadays is a bracha levatala ??
==
What I wrote, is the CONSENSUS of the poskim .
Hanukah ‘s mitsva of lighting was modified. By Hazal themselves.
Before this modification, lighting inside was a bracha levatala. After the modification it is not levatala anymore.The only mahloket haposkim is the following : After the modification is there a PREFERENCE to light outside or is there no preference anymore.
Whereas sukka there was NO MODIFICATION, for the simple reason that the torah itself states that the dinim min hatorah are INELIGIBLE FOR MODIFICATION.
.
AAQ ;
Every day, someone would drive Rabbi Auerbach from his home in the Sha’arei Chesed area of Yerushalayim to his yeshiva in the suburban neighborhood of Bayit Vegan. The rabbi would occasionally ask the driver to make a detour for a few moments outside Har Herzl, the burial site of Israel’s fallen soldiers, which was on the way to the yeshiva. There he would pray, reciting Tehillim (Psalms) for important matters concerning the Jewish people.
What motivated this venerated sage to choose Har Herzl for his prayers? I think the answer lies in the following story which is so revealing of his and the Torah’s outlook on your question.
A student once approached Rav Shlomo Zalman and asked for a short timeout from his studies so he could travel to the north of Israel, where many holy, righteous Jews of old are buried, to pray at the graves of these tzaddikim (righteous people). Rav Shlomo Zalman looked perplexed but didn’t immediately answer. Sensing hesitation from his rabbi, the student elaborated, explaining he had some important personal issues to think through and he felt praying at the graves of the righteous would help him to receive the insights and guidance he was seeking. Rabbi Auerbach replied that he fully understood what the student wanted to do and why he wanted to do it, but could not understand why he would travel for hours to a faraway place to pray at the graves of a few tzaddikim when there were thousands of tzaddikim buried on Har Herzl (the graves of all the fallen Israeli soldiers), just 5 minutes from the yeshiva!
===KNOWING R SHL Z AUERBACH – THIS IS VERY HARD TO BELIEVE
Most Poskim point to these very words , ‘besha’at hasakana manicho al shulhano vedayo’, and explain that this was a MODIFICATION.
Takana originally was to put it outside. Outside only.
And if you could not and were an oness , then you are patur legamrei.Then hahamim reconvened , because of the sakana , and modified the mitsvah that one can also put it on shulhano and be yotseh that way.
After this MODIFICATION, one can be yotseh inside also even for other reasons.Is it better to light outside after the modification ? That is a separate argument. Maybe the inyan of mezuza takes precedence. Other inyanim, etc…
However – No posek will say that someone who lights inside nowadays is making a braha levatala.
As opposed to before this modification by hahmei gemara in their berayta, lighting inside would be a braha levatala.
=========I am not sure why menachem insists on comparing sukka and hanukah, when their halachik difference is so clear ?
.Mendel Roth, a 33-year-old divorcee, decided to enlist in the new “Hashmonaim” Brigade’s combat track,
BIG NEWS !
HE EVEN WROTE A SONG !
HE IS EVEN THE SON OF SOME REBBE !
WOW!
————Mendel Roth should first show he can live together with his wife and family before he becomes Klal Yisrael’s mentor.
He should bend his ego a bit and learn from ziknei hador , meleim bechochma ,meleim ba torah , meleim ba yir’ah
who counsel all yeshiva bachurim NOT to go to the army chv’sh.It is sick to hear such people [like MR] being elevated , for no reason, into some sort of pseudo stardom status to encourage other youngsters to follow in his crooked ways.
.Rav Chaim Shmulevits RY Mir writes that killed idf soldiers in the war, have the status of someone who sacrificed himself for the whole community and that ein kol berya yachol la’amod bemechitsatam ba olam haba.
Now do we have hakarat hatov to that individual who sacrificed himself for the community. Think so …
So Rav Chaim S , who R Chaim Ozer the gadol hador stood for him when RCS was in his twenties, explaining that he has to stand up when the vilna library walks in, says this .
Somejew claims that this is kfira. RCS obviously says its not.
Who will we take on their word ?
RCS or somejew ?
Somejew claims satmar rebbi and the torah support him. All the others who argue, are per force
a] not gdolim or
b] never said it .Got some news for somejew – Satmar rav also never meant this literally. He deep down also agreed that we should have hakarat hatov.
Satmar rav could not / did not want to, tolerate hakarat hatov to soldiers , because he feared the simple hamon am would not be able to differentiate between hakarat hatov and blind following of the terrible Z movement. [not being sarcastic here]
So thats why SR said LEMIGDAR MILSEH – no hakarat hatov .
But me’ikar hadin there is makom for hakrat htov to those indivuduals who put their life on the line for the klal.
But since Somejew accepts every word his rebbi uttered as literal, he cannot succeed to see past his own nose.
Feel bad for him.
.MENACHEM TO YB :
If it was the Rebbe who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – would you agree with it or attack it and anyone who follows it?
—-If it was your “infallible rebbi” who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – you ask , what would we say ?
——
I understand that your question is, supposing that all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards were makpid to light only outside and all of them say that manicho al shulhano is NOT A MODIFICATION IN THE WHOLE MITSVA.I.e. that the mitsva stays the same – only outside.
And now, after undisputed documented 16 centuries of klal israel wide acceptance of that pshat in the gemara , comes the “infallible rebbi” and argues on this 16 century klal yisrael wide acceptance ? And says inside is also acceptable ?
What would we say to him, you are asking ?
Guessing , the same as the gedolim said to moshe mendlesohn in his time …..
..
lol
satmar rav writes kook shem reshai’m irkav [if my memory serves me right] and somejew is joining his rebbi
emrai emet writes harav hagaon ish ha’eashkoliyot r avraham kook shlita,—
and somejew is still trying to argue on the same thread of his quoting the above emrai emet, that there is no real difference between the gedolim and everyone agrees and that really deep down emrei emet holds of satmar shitah …Am surprised why somejew has not been diagnosed with severe headaches as seemingly his braincells must be undergoing some real stress ….
.
BTW.
Another clear mahloket between emrai emet and all other mo’etset rabbanim on one hand and satmar rav on the other – wether there is a practical mitsvah nowadays of yishuv EY or not.According to most rabanim it is
According to satmar rav its not.The major difference between the mekatrgim on the purim torah of sukah and menachem is : that menachem specifically agreed in his post that he would listen to his rebbi even when he does not understand him too.
Whereas the rest klal yisrael , the non habad hasidim, would not.
That is an excellent indication of bias.
Menachem declares that he follows ‘the infallible rebbi’ , even without understanding .
Is he then not biased to add ‘understanding’ to something he will anyway follow ?
Is it psychologically easier to follow something you understand and agree with or something you do not ?
MENACHEM TO YB :
Let me get your argument straight. According to you:
It makes sense to say that once the Mishna said that in a time of danger one can light menorah indoors, we can now have a minhag to davka light indoors even when it’s not a time of sakanah and we lack pirsumei nissa.
It doesn’t make sense to say that once Shulchan Aruch says that nowadays most don’t sleep in the Sukkah (and יש אומרים support for this), we can have a minhag to davka not sleep in the Sukkah.
Why? I can’t wrap my head around your distinction.
===================
By Hanuka which is a derabanan – HEM AMRU , VE’HEM AMRU .
They modified the takanah, and now the takanah is that you can light in or outdoors. Both are valid ways to do it and none is making a bracha levatala.
Any posek will tell you the same.There might be extra pirsumei nisa in one case more than the other , but the mitsva is equally valid in both options.
And once the mitsvah is valid both ways anyway , one can have the benefit of being surrounded by mitzvot on all sides- mezuza, tzitzit and ner. Or other benefits.
.
As opposed to sleeping in the sukka, or better said , outside of the sukka.WHICH IS A MITSVA DE’ORAYTAH, WHICH CANNOT BE MODIFIED, EVEN BY A PROPHET.
And when rama says the minhag was to sleep outside the sukah , that HAS TO BE ATTRIBUTED to a solid de’oraytah logic which would be matir the isur of sleeping outside.
Absent that , the nonnegotiable isur min hatorah is bemkomo omed.
Thats why the poskim all stress that if there is no cold and no marriage, it is assur min hatorah to sleep outside the sukkah.So those two logics, coldness and married life, are acceptable NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUR IS MODIFIED halilah , like by hanukah.
They are acceptable because there was a clause of teshvu ke’ein taduru IN THE ORIGINAL MITSVAH. Hence no modification.
Thats why purim torah is ineligible to be matir this issur min hatorah.
.somejew seems incapable lehalek ben hadvarim.
Is political rights obtained by tsionim ‘good’ ? According to emrei emet yes. According to satmar no.
Should one be part of the zionist organization ? According to both emrei emet and satmar , no.
Those 2 questions are totally different topics.
So does emrei emet agree to satmar ? Simple answer – sometimes yes , sometimes no.
Can you say that everyone agrees to satmar in principle, as somejew tried to argue ? Absolutely not.
As simple as can be.
.The following is an Excerpt from emrei emets letter :
…. True, it was also decided in Vienna not to cause harm to the guarantee of rights given to us in Eretz Yisrael. And even, Heaven forbid (chas v’shalom), to others, for the good will come from anywhere …..
=======
Rights given in EY.
Meaning Political rights by the British Mandate [and /or League of Nations] .Even to others, meaning non-religious Zionists.
We will not cause harm to rights obtained by the non religious Zionists on behalf of the Jews.
Why not ?Because the good, the above mentioned political rights in EY will come from anywhere , even from the non religious Zionists.
This is the essence of Imrei Emets words in plain English.
This is as far as possible from satmar ravs position.
According to satmar rav, political rights for Jews in EY brought about by Zionists is nothing more than ma’aseh satan, is stopping the ge’oula and has to be dismantled in order that mashiach be able to come. All this is pashut to anyone learning vayoel moshe.
Now , does imrai emet agree to vayoel moshe ?
What satmar calls ma’aseh satan , Imrei emet calls ‘good’ ……Where is somejew’s basic logic and understanding ?
.Menachem is not getting it.
Its not the minhag of not sleeping there which is backwards .Its THE LOGIC which is backwards.
Its time to be modeh al ha’emet, menachem –
If your infallible rebbi would not have come up with this logic , would you say that on your own ??
what would your reaction be if a satmar hasid or a dye in the wool mitnaged would have come up with that type of logic ??Would you defend it with the same vehemence ? Or would you have a good laugh and say – Oh well …..
.
MENACHEM TO YB :
Yankel: If you can erase the words “בשעת הסכנה” from your Gemara Shabbos – why’s it so hard for you to accept that the Rama modified the mitzvah of Sukkah to not include sleeping?
—I am not erasing anything .
Most Poskim point to these very words , ‘besha’at hasakana manicho al shulhano vedayo’, and explain that this was a MODIFICATION.
Takana originally was to put it outside. Outside only.
And if you could not and were an oness , then you are patur legamrei.Then hahamim reconvened , because of the sakana , and modified the mitsvah that one can also put it on shulhano and be yotseh that way.
After this MODIFICATION, one can be yotseh inside also even for other reasons.Is it better to light outside after the modification ? That is a separate argument. Maybe the inyan of mezuza takes precedence. Other inyanim, etc…
However – No posek will say that someone who lights inside nowadays is making a braha levatala.
As opposed to before this modification of the gemara, lighting inside would be a braha levatala.
.There was no minhag in habad for generations to prefer sleeping out of the sukah even after all available standard halachik kulot are exhausted.
I personally knew a child of old habad hasidim who, way back, immigrated out of Russia who testified to me about their fathers stubborn insistence to sleep in the sukkah even in the face of extensive hardship.
.I did.
You must have missed it.
I quoted osef mihtavim of emrey emet zatsal where he writes on zhuyot gained by tsionim from the british and the league of nations in e’y as “huchlat lo lehitnaged lezhuyot ha’elu, ki YAVO HATOV MIKOL MAKOM … ”
Not like Satmar Rav.
—-I quoted rav yy kaniefski zatsal in karyane de’igrata that belief that the medina is athalta dege’oula is not kfira. It is a mistake , but not kfira,
Not like Satmar Rav.
—-I quoted tshuvot avnei nezer zatsal in taf nun dalet ,helek yore de’a, where he says that 3 shavuot are not mehayev yehudim lema’aseh .
Not like Satmar Rav.
—–
Even satmar rav himself is not like satmar rav.satmar rav himself will not invalidate a fully frum zionist ed for a get, and subsequent chilldren will not be mamzerim.
Not like Satmar Rav ……….
What I cannot understand is that Gemara Shabbat clearly modifies takanat derabanan of ner hanuka to put it al shulhano inside.
And people keep on ignoring this clear gemara and [mis]using it to advocate for a purim torah that it is preferable [!] to sleep out of the suka even when all kulot in halacha are exhausted.Not cold.
Not married.
Etc.And on top of that, they also want us to accept his source-less [!] infallibility …..
And to accept that their mashiach foolishness is equivalent to tanach ……
.MENACHEM TO YB:
The number one tool missionaries use is Tanach. Maybe start by canceling that instead.
====Lol.
We want to counter missionaries . We have a choice between canceling habad mashiach foolishness or canceling tanach.
Menachem proposes to cancel tanach and preserve habad’s pretsel mashiach theology ….
.
Tanach is the clear Word of God , accepted as such by ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF ERLICHE YEHUDIM FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.Mashiach pretsel theology is REJECTED BY 99 % of erliche yehudim even during the few miserly decades it exists.
Imagine an ant comparing itself to the Empire State Building ….
.MENACHEM TO YB:
What you fail to realize is that most of these missionaries who draw comparisons between Chabad and Christianity are parroting Berger. His book — full of distortions and half-truths — is their primary source. So if you’re afraid of missionaries weaponizing misinterpretations of Chabad ideas like they from Tanach — you have Berger to blame.
======Missionaries do not need and are not waiting for Berger to point out the similarities between habad messianism and early xtianity.
Those similarities are as obvious as sunlight during the day.
Anyone sees that.I myself was confronted by a Protestant Pastor in 1993 , long before Berger, re the similarities between habad then [!] and early xtianity.
I myself overheard xtian visitors to an outdoor habad event featuring their rebbi , when he was still “alive” comparing him to their ‘saviour’.
Again, long before Berger.
—-The horse before the cart is not Berger.
It is habad’s crooked theology , itself.
Berger is merely following.
From a respectable distance.
.
.
Menachem , it is time to pause , take a deep breath, reflect and think ….
.@somejew
===========================somejew to yb:
as mentioned over and over by me, the Torah and its mesorah stand on its own and it is THE authority over us. There is no such thing of a “Gadol” going against the clear Torah, the Torah that THEY claim to follow. None of this is “Satmar propaganda”, rather it is simple: If a “Gadol b’Yisroel” does or teaches something against the Torah, that is a kasha on that “Gadol b’Yisroel” NOT a kasha on the Torah.
There wasn’t and never will be a legitamat “shita” in Torah that supports any moshiach sheker like Zionism.
=========================The Torah and its mesorah stand on its own and it is THE authority over us.
AND “THE TORAH AND MESORAH” ITSELF IS COMPRISED OF ……..
…… GDOLEI YISRAEL WHO EXPLAINED WHAT WE RECEIVED AND PUT THAT INTO CONTEXT WITH THE REALITY ON THE GROUND.
Like the Or Sameach . Like the Avnei Nezer. Like the Emrei Emet. Like Rav Aaron Kotler. Like the Chazon Ish.
They all are part of the mesorah.
And clearly disagreed with that extreme daat yachid , named satmar rav.
—
Zionism does not have to be a mashiach sheker perse.
The fact that it was used in the past as mashiach sheker, does not mean that it has to stay that way forever.Rambam [another part of our mesorah] writes clearly :
A RASHA could build a palace with the intent from Heaven that years later a TSADDIQ will shelter in its shade.
Yachin rasha vatsadiq yilbash.
—–ZIONISM IS NOT KFIRAH PERSE. [Steipler – another part of our mesorah]
MEDINAH IS NOT KFIRAH PERSE. [Steipler – another part of our mesorah]
It is merely a useful tool in the hands of the kofrim.
Until we grab it out of their hands , that is.That is the hashkafa of the mainstream and majority be’echut uve’kamut of gdolei yisrael .
—–
I know that somejew and hakatan will protest with all their might.
But when pressed for proof, they will fall far short and because of lack of alternative, revert to classic satmar propaganda tools.“Or its sheker
Or he is not a godol
Or he is misinformed.”They reuse the same tactics by every argument.
No honest debate about the issues themselves and no willingness at all to consider their merits.
.@aaq
aaq to yb:
yankel > The recent history of the modern Chabad (Lubavitcher) movement of Hasidic Judaism provides insight into the development of early Christianity.
—
interesting. I also saw a paper from Harvard: Modern yeshivas provide insights into development of Qumran communities who isolated themselves from other Jews in the caves and left numerous writings mostly similar to traditional Judaism.
———————————————–There is no imminent danger of Qumran communities using modern yeshivas to mass convert naive yehudim to their false religion.
But there definitely is a clear and present danger of xtian missionaries attempting to use the obvious habad – early xtian similarities to mass convert naive yehudim to their false religion.
.That’s why this Boston university paper should start the alarm bells ringing.
That’s why we should seriously reconsider the supposed ‘infallibility’ of the late leader of the habad hasidim.
That’s why we should not let any of the good that habad does, obscure the dangerous slippery slope they have started out on.
That’s why we should not merely stand by and observe the ‘mashiach foolishness’ and dismiss it as if this was nothing more than some childish prank in a playground.
That’s why we should applaud and support the courageous author of ‘harebi melech hamashiach’ , R Dovid Berger.
.You don’t mind someone unquestionably following his rov or rebbe regarding Shmini Atzeres and Chanukah, you only have a problem with following the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
===I have a problem with your rebbi’s alleged infallibility. Coupled with blatantly false aspirations to messiahship.
That’s all .
After numerous posts asking for a source of this supposed infallibility, I am back at square one.
Nothing, nada , zero , zilch, efes.
No source.
…..
.
Menachem , you still haven’t explained why you totally ignore my post re the clear difference between lighting menorah inside the house which was MODIFIED by hazal themselves ,as per clear gemara in shabbat without any mahloket – OBVIOUSLY NOT AT ALL AGAINST HALACHA .
as opposed to
supposed preferability of sleeping outside of the sukkah in all circumstances which would necessitate either a modification of din min hatorah or some earth shattering purim torah.
===========
There was no minhag in habad for generations to prefer sleeping out of the sukah even after all available standard halachik kulot are exhausted.
I knew a child of old habad hasidim who, way back, immigrated out of Russia who testified about their fathers stubborn insistence to sleep in the sukkah even in the face of extensive hardship.
I do not believe that there was an undocumented minhag in habad going back for generations, as you portray it.============
Yes , I read the mitteler rebbi’s words . Any normal talmid haham would explain his words the way I did.
Even you would.
If your “infallible” rebbi would not have provided his own explanation, that is.
===========
Classic satmar propaganda.
Or its sheker
Or he is not a godol
Or he is misinformed.They reuse the same tactics by every argument.
No honest debate about the issues themselves and no willingness to consider their merits.
.
SOMEJEW TO ALL PARTICIPANTS:
jews for z vs jews for j … which kefira will win the battle for yiddishe souls ….
==============================
FYI. jews for z is very far removed from jews for jBoston University School of Theology, 745 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA
“The recent history of the modern Chabad (Lubavitcher) movement of Hasidic Judaism provides insight into the development of early Christianity ….”
—–
The Question is – Did the late rebbi of the habad hassidim take this into account when he embarked on his mashiach frenzy campaign , or is this an unforeseen consequence of their mashiach frenzy ?MENACHEM TO YB:
Yankel, you still haven’t explained why you choose to attack the longstanding Chabad minhag to be meikel regarding sleeping the the Sukkah (as permitted in Shulchan Aruch) but don’t attack the sects of chassidim who don’t eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (without basis in Shulchan Aruch)?
=====================
As mentioned in previous posts , I am not in the business of questioning minhagim of sects or kehillot.
Nor am I in the business of policing or ‘attacking’ chassidic , or otherwise, sects re the degree of their torah observance.The primary person who needs my policing re torah observance is myself , and there is plenty of work left, b’h.
You are missing the point ,seems like.
I questioned your rebbi’s alleged infallibilty.
Which should be called into question, when clear faulty reasoning comes to the fore.I have NO ISSUE with habad utilizing any of the available halachik kulot re suka.
And ,to let you in with a secret of mine, I [sadly] also do not have [so much of] an issue even if they use kulot which are not really available.But what I find impossible to understand is your rebbi’s alleged infallibility you [plural] so stubbornly cling to.
Sukka is a good example.
Any objective observer would agree to my observation.
Why would we surmise that the mitteler rebbi was mehadesh such an earth shattering hidush contradicting the pashtut of all tanna’im amora’im rishonim and poskim , i.e. that it is preferable [!] to sleep outside of the sukah, if there is a very simple and straightforward explanation available for the mitteler rebbi’s comment ?
He probably meant to encourage utilizing the time in the sukka with more worthwhile spiritual pursuits than sleeping.
So the original question returns with a vengeance :
Was the rebbi of menachem and his friends infallible ?
If yes , please, do you have source ?
From hazal ?
From torah logic ?
.MENACHEM TO YB ;
Another question: Shulchan Aruch rules that the menorah must be lit at the outer door facing reshus harabim. This is a necessary part of the mitzvah due to pirsumei nissah (thus, it’s probably more central to the mitzvah of Chanuka than sleeping is to the mitzvah of Sukkah).
Why then don’t you attack the Jews whose minhag it is to light the menorah specifically indoors, thus violating a central part of the mitzvah?
Don’t answer that it’s because this is how the minhag developed due to sakana, because that’s like excusing the minhag of sleeping outside the Sukkah due to the coldness in Russia.
——–Gemara in Shabbat specifically states that this takana derabanan was modified .
Not developed.
MODIFIED.
Because of sakana.
—–Hiyuv to sleep in suka is de’oraytah and was never modified. And will never be modified either.
—–
Major difference.
.Boston University School of Theology, 745 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA
The recent history of the modern Chabad (Lubavitcher) movement of Hasidic Judaism provides insight into the development of early Christianity.
In both movements successful eschatological prophecies have increased belief in the leader’s authority, and there is a mixture of ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ elements.
Similar genres of literature are used to spread the good news (e.g. miracle catenae and collections of originally independent sayings).
Both leaders tacitly accepted the messianic faith of their followers but were reticent about acclaiming their messiahship directly.
The cataclysm of the Messiah’s death has led to belief in his continued existence and even resurrection.
??????????????????????????????????
.