yankel berel

@menachem

You misread me , or mislead me that you misread me. Not sure.
But , please, read my post again .

I did not ‘attack’ habad on the grounds that they actually don’t sleep in the sukka.

I rather 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 and are a product of the yetser.

Halevai I would first rid myself from my own deficiencies in avodat hashem, before I point out those of good people who could very well be better than me.

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.

But since our rebbi , our leader and our mashiach ,

CANNOT MAKE ANY MISTAKES ,

therefore we , the collective habad hasidim , will discard the obvious in favor of the unpalatable.

That’s the question . Or with Menachem’s choice of words – ‘attack’.

Hmmm …. On second thought …..
Still prefer my choice of words. Its a question , not an attack.
.

This sukka controversy is as old as the hills.
The mitteler rebbi did not mean to encourage sleeping out of the sukka.
He probably meant to encourage utilizing the time in the sukka with more worthwhile spiritual pursuits than sleeping.

But here we are back again to our infallibility syndrome.

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.

But since our rebbi , our leader , our mashiach ,

CANNOT MAKE ANY MISTAKES ,

therefore we , the collective habad hasidim , will discard the obvious in favor of the unpalatable.

Have got news for Menachem and his ilk :

1] One can be a great person , even if one makes mistakes !

And : 2] one will obtain much more admiration and respect if one can admit that a mistake was made.

Instead of mindlessly defending the indefensible.
.

@non political

Its all a matter of perspective.

Or rhetoric , if you will.

So those name callers are sof kol sof , following in their rebbi’s footsteps.
—

We owe their rebbi and them a certain debt of gratitude .

Behind , or underneath if you will,
their illogical and baseless statements, there burns a fire of stubborn allegiance to the RBSH’O and his torah. Which stokes their emotions and blinds them from seeing the reality in front of them. And which clouds their minds ,seemingly disabling them from coherent thinking.

They to be cherished, but not followed.

somejew to yb:
you wrote:

You seem such an enthusiastic proponent of the ‘zionism is necessarily kfira’ approach , that it should be easy for you to formulate in a few short sentences why this is necessarily so .

the longest part of a conversation is defining what means Zionism. I have a specific definition in mind that was novel in the late 19th century and is still alive an well by all self-proclaimed zionists, showing Zionist ideology alive and well today, R”L.

I can offer my definition or you can start with yours. Once we have that anchor, I can answer your question as to why Judaism rejects Zionism as heresy.
——————-

yb to somejew :

No problem.
There we go :

Zionism is – support for a homeland for Jews in order to better their lot.

….. Coupled with forceful suppression of internal dissent.
Anyone who dissented or merely was suspected of dissent ,was made to pay a very heavy price….
[yb]
—
Are you alluding to the way Satmar or Ponevezh treated dissent?
[menachem]
==================

The purpose of this argument between us is NOT to see who can throw more dirt on our opponents and thus emerge ‘victorious’.

somejew to yb:
you wrote:

You seem such an enthusiastic proponent of the ‘zionism is necessarily kfira’ approach , that it should be easy for you to formulate in a few short sentences why this is necessarily so .

the longest part of a conversation is defining what means Zionism. I have a specific definition in mind that was novel in the late 19th century and is still alive an well by all self-proclaimed zionists, showing Zionist ideology alive and well today, R”L.

I can offer my definition or you can start with yours. Once we have that anchor, I can answer your question as to why Judaism rejects Zionism as heresy.
——————-

yb to somejew :

No problem.
There we go :

Zionism is – support for a homeland for Jews in order to better their lot.
.

@mdd1
Secular Zionism is based on kefira. They deny that the golus and the punishments are min Ha’Shamaim. They say it is all derech ha’teva. And that they can save the Jews by having a strong army and a medina (which is also silly in addition to the apikorsus). And they say that the golus could have been prevented by having a strong army and a strong medinah (shoitim!!).

===
You are correct , but religious zionists would disagree with you.
So , even though the secular were the majority, nevertheless , one could be a Zionist without accepting all these divrei minus.
.

@hakatan
You pathetically imitate my post while bringing zero sources in attempting to portray my shitah as accepting an idol chv’sh.
The fact is and remains , that katan brought zero proof that Zionism is absolutely both heresy and idolatry, by logic and proof only, even without the gedolim saying so.

According to katan , every form of Zionism believes in at least two things:
1. Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion, and Zionism is the current manifestation of that Nationality..
2. The Zionist “State” is the Nation-State of that religion.

the facts however speak for themselves.

1a] The Torah recognizes that Judaism is a nationality. Multiple times klal yisrael are being described with the moniker of ‘am’ . Which translates as ‘Nation’.

1b] I disagree that Zionism believes that they themselves are the sole manifestation of that nationality. I myself happen to know many Zionists who would clearly disagree with you on this point. And who consider themselves to be proud Zionists.

2] The furthest I can go towards you , is to state that according to Zionism , this State is the only one on the planet where Jews are the majority , and therefore govern themselves, without nominal jurisdiction from non Jews.

So, the torah does not disagree with the above stated points [1a-1b-2] . Vehemently or non vehemently .
There is no proof for any disagreement at all

You are beyond silly for pretending otherwise.
.
.

….. Coupled with forceful suppression of internal dissent.
Anyone who dissented or merely was suspected of dissent ,was made to pay a very heavy price….
[yb]
—
Are you alluding to the way Satmar or Ponevezh treated dissent?
[menachem]
==================

I was referring to false mashiach movements , who as part of their indoctrination tactics try to play the infallibility card.

As far as I know , none of the names you mention are playing the infallibility card, none have any aspirations to occupy the seat of our Redeemer, and none are suppressing dissent with a mashiach goal in mind.

All the controversies, arguments or fights which happened there, are ,as far I understand, arguments over real estate and finances. Nothing more.

I am surprised that you do not see this obvious difference.

The purpose of this argument between us is NOT to see who can throw more dirt on our opponents and thus emerge ‘victorious’.

The purpose is to understand the operandus modi of false mashiach movements, and to salvage from them whatever is still possible.

That’s the reason of the original question – is there a source for infallibility of the habad rebbi – anywhere ? From proofs from hazal to cold torah logic ?

Can you prove that the rebbi of the habad hasidim is infallible and cannot make a mistake ?

And , in absence of such proof , can you explain why the hasidim from habad are obstinately refusing to even entertain that possibility ?

They will do themselves, HKBH and the whole of klal yisrael an IMMENSE FAVOR for taking this option into account.

Klal yisrael will then be able to stop and eliminate any and all attempts by Xtians to pull unsuspecting victims into their net , by rightfully asking : if your rebbi can come back, so why can’t mine ???
.

Think about all those posts with sincerity , and let me know when you changed your mind about meshihiyut in habad.
.

@ujm
Please share the names of any Gedolim, if any, who disagreed with the SR on the general issue of Zionism, aside from the issue of how or whether to interact with the State or vote in elections. And very specifically tell us which position he (or they) disagreed with.
[ujm]
=============

1] Emrey Emet in osef mihtavim clearly disagrees with SR about zionism.

He writes that zhuyot in EY which tsionim extracted from the British and the League of Nations should not be protested or resisted , “ki yavo hatov mikol makom”

2] Karyane de’igrata – Steipler vol 1 – believing that the state is athalta degeula is NOT kfira. It is a mistake – but not kfira.

There are many many more.

.

There is a very similar letter in igrot hazon ish re appointing and accepting rabanut in the pre war vaad haklali of the tziyonim in erets yisrael.

Remember Chason Ish himself was an ardent supporter of withdrawing from the Tzioni vaad Haklali as soon as the British Mandate gave the option to do so.

But when confronted with the choice of having real talmidei hahamim appointed as rabanim within vaad haklali he supported membership within the vaad with all his might.

Read his eloquent defense/explanation for his shitah . Beautiful.

Seems that our case of EH is very similar.
.
Chazon Ish himself likened some kanna’im to the heroism of a soldier in the second world war , not abandoning his post , defending the positions of the first world war.

Heroism , yes. Self sacrifice , yes.

But usefulness ??? Thats already another matter.

As long as they do not bother the soldiers manning their positions in the current war, we can afford to keep quiet ….
.

@somejew

the CLAIM of Vayoel Moshe is that the author PROVES that Zionism is NESSESARILY kefira!

The long sefer labors tirelessly to prove the opposite from every angle possible, and the author spells out his every step as well as the practical halachik ramifications of the Torah teachings he lists. He says in his intro that the long maamarim are meant to be psak halacha, halacha l’massah vis a vis Zionism when it was published in the 1950s. The author followed up in doubling-down in his 1968 sefer explaining why the status has not changed and no one should be confused from the 6-day war.

IS ZIONISM IN ITSELF NECESSARILY KFIRA ?

That is the question.
[somejew]
———————————–
I have gone through most of vayoel Moshe and I have not seen any clear proof that zionism is inherently kfira.
He writes at great length and sometimes the main message can get lost like the proverbial tree in the forest.

You seem such an enthusiastic proponent of the ‘zionism is necessarily kfira’ approach , that it should be easy for you to formulate in a few short sentences why this is necessarily so .

We are ready and waiting to hear your pearls.

@somejew

serious question [from somejew to aaq]
who are the “rabunim” you would want at such a meeting that are pushing Jews to vote, chalila, in WZO?
————-
Hrav SHMUEL KAMINETSKY shlita
Hrav AVRAHAM GURWITS shlita
Hrav SHMUEL FORST shlita

and impossible untill thiyat hametim

Hrav CHAIM KANIEVSKY zatsal

——————-
methinks that those people should be good enough “rabunim” even for someone on your level .

.

@coffee addict
Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .
At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?
[yb to menachem]

When he blatantly rejects Torah, as Shabtai Tzevi, r”l.
[menachem to yb]
=====================

Interesting .
Shabtai tzevi’s first ‘blatant rejection of the torah’ menachem’s words …. was not in 1666, when he officially became a Muslim.
It started a few decades before that, when he repeatedly was “hoge et hashem be’otiyototav” he pronounced HKBH’s Name , against halacha.

and followed by bizuy talmidei hahamim , hillul shabbat , eating helev, hakravat kodshim betum’a and huts lebeit hamikdash , false prophesies ,etc.
Replete with special brahot of matir isurim and special kabbalistic pilpulim to ‘explain’ them.

NEVERTHELESS , ALL THESE “BLATANT REJECTIONS” DID NOT STOP MOST OF KLAL YISRAEL FROM BLINDLY FOLLOWING HIM.

Why not ?

Because of “Menachem-type-of-reasoning.”

Kol hameharher …..
Lo tasur …..

Coupled with forceful suppression of internal dissent.
Anyone who dissented or merely was suspected of dissent ,was made to pay a very heavy price….

If that sounds familiar , the reason might be that …

it really is familiar ….
.

Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.
[yb to menachem]
—-
Maybe it depends what level one is on. For example, a rishon can’t say that the Gemara made a mistake, etc
[menachem to yb]
———————————————————————————————–

You bring up an important point here.

Depends what level you are on.
Someone who is higi’a le’hora’a , can/should /has a hiyuv to argue. Someone who is lo hig’ia cannot.

On top of that – there is a klal yisrael wide acceptance not to argue on hahamim of a different era.

What constitutes a different era and what not , and this whole acceptance in itself, is some of the pla’im of the bri’a , where hahmei yisrael collectively , but still each one separately, arrive at the same conclusion , [as if] directed from above .

Thats why tannaim are not argued on by amora’im . Amoraim not by rishonim and aharonim do not argue on rishonim.

But within those eras , arguments are not only tolerated, they are to be ENCOURAGED.
R Moshe writes in his igrot moshe , that there is an OBLIGATION for someone higi’a lehora’a to state his opinion fearlessly, even if someone bigger is arguing .

R Shlome Zalman writes in a k’tav haskama/hasmacha to his own talmid the following- has veshalom that you should be hesitant to argue on my psak !
In any case where your own limud ‘s conclusions are not like mine , YOU ARE OBLIGATED to state this berabim .

Thats the fulfillment of lo taguru mipnei ish.

—–

In the case of habad this has been FORCEFULLY SUPPRESSED .
Remember the case of the mehaber of Ashkavte debei rebbi , a noted talmid haham and marbits torah in yeshivat torah vadaat, and aclose talmid of the Rashab, who definitely was higi’a lehora’a , who disagreed with the rebbi of the habad hasidim re whether al pi hahalach a certain mizrachi public figure was meant to be put in herem .

He was murdered in his own home as a result of this disagreement.

Inadvertently maybe , by some of the brainwashed people . Or brainless people . Whatever you want to call them.

Brainwashed that dissent is not to be tolerated .
—
In habad – you will notice – no talmid haham is afforded any title. Its THE REBBE , and moshe feinstain and yoel kahen, ashkenazi etc.

Again the same pattern . no dissent.

—-
Mistaken belief in Infallibility of their rebbe is either the result of this brainwash , or the intention of this brainwash.

OR BOTH.
—-

Take away this belief in his infallibility [which incidentally has no base in yahadut].

And the whole mashiach house of cards collapses.

—
A habad hasid should be able to learn from him , all the things which will inspire him, elevate him.

Just that subsequent events and simple logic have proven the rebbi of the habadi’s MISTAKEN in this one issue. In the mashiach issue.
—–

Thats why getting through on this issue whether their rebbi was or was not infallible is SO IMPORTANT.

—
I suspect that menachems and the other habad apologists clear reluctance to face this issue head on , is for the same reason.

Because this underpins THEIR WHOLE MASHIACH THEOLOGY.

Nafal hayesod , nafal habinyan.

@ujm
the overwhelming majority of rabbanim of klal yisrael rejected satmar shitah .

It not square who ‘shlugged him up’.
It is klal yisrael with most of its rabbanim.
.

@menachem

You keep bringing up Shmuel Hanovi. I haven’t seen anywhere that Dovid was meant to doubt every instruction he got from Shmuel because based on the earlier incident he proved that he isn’t “infallible.”
—–
I never advocated for doubting every instruction. Neither did I advance some ‘deep’ philosophy re infallibility.

Infallibility is not ‘deep’. It is extremely simple.

Can he make a mistake or can’t he make a mistake.

In a sentence of eleven words its done . Short and simple. If you want , Even shorter – Can he or can’t he ?

Thats where I request some ‘sunlight’ .

Kol hameharher and lo tasur are not guarantees of infallibility.
If a person would argue with his rebbi like the BAAL HATURIM did with his father ,the gadol hador, the ROSH , can we accuse him of being meharher achar rabo ?
Can we accuse him of transgressing ‘lo tasur’ ?

What was BAAL HATURIM’s message , in other words , to his father .[Respectfully of course.]

Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.

So for a hasid of habad , and for sure a non hasid of habad , to say to their rebbi , SORRY BUT HERE YOU MADE A MISTAKE, is perfectly legitimate.

Question is and remains – is there any source or any proof , showing that this is illegitimate ? Yes or no ?

If yes – could you say where this is ?

Its not ‘tsadiq of tanya’ . Its not kol hameharher . Its not lo tasur .

So what is it ?

As simple a request as possible .

.

@ujm

Were the yehudim in the time of tosefot yom tov atheists ?
Were they intermarrying with non jews ?
Were they doing ‘worse things’ ?

Do you have a source for that ? Or do you simply suppose that they did ?
.

@menachem
I did not merit to your pearls of wisdom on the following.

You said that habad trusts their rebbi not to make mistakes because of ‘kol hameharher … ‘

How could Shmuel hanavi be mistaken about yishays sons ?

Is that not a contradiction to your understanding of ‘kol hameharher ‘ ?
If not , Why not ?
.

@menachem

Let’s say I would be a naive hasid/talmid/follower of Shabtai Tzvi, impressed by his devotion and holiness [plus any other title I could dream up] .

I would be convinced like Menachem stated before , of “kol hameharher achar rabo ke’ilu meharher achar hashechina”

I would be convinced or even better , I would FEEL , [like Menachem stated before], a blind trust in my rebbi who goes by the name of melech hamashiach shabtai tzvi.

Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .

At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?

Or do I still persist in my blind trust ?
After all doesnt it say Kol hameharher … ?

@somejew
I’ll bln find you the exact quote in Avnei Nezer. It is very clear.

Re your claim that Zionism is against ikarei emuna. Logic does not necessitate this at all.
One can fervently believe in schar va’ onesh and also advocate for a Jewish state. Not a contradiction at all.
Ditto for believing and awaiting mashiach. Why is a state , necessarily- a mashiach sheker ? It is nothing more than a way of achieving a temporary outcome until mashiach will come and redeem the yidden build the bet hamikdash and eradicate the yetser hara and shib’ud malhuyot. Put an end to wars on the whole planet.
No realistic person can deceive themselves that there is no shibud malhuyot in the present . Even after the medina [and in many instances – because of the medina] there is plenty of it r’l.

One can support the medina without going against any of major tora problems you mention.
One can adhere to the torah viewpoint re mechalalei shabbat and kofrim who to a certain degree [!] are al pi torah not part of klal israel. E.g. their yayin is nesech etc. And still give them a right to vote , not worse than a nochri who lives and votes in the state.

Re hithabrut larsha’im , there is plenty of materiel in ba’ayot hazman by r grozovsky and karyane de’igrata by the steipler where the parameters are clearly delineated.
So this is nothing more than a great deal of illogical and baseless hype and exaggeration, with the noble intention of stopping of innocent victims losing their yahadut by following those irreligious and anti religious people.

@coffee

Your point is definitely valid.
In your case fault clearly lies with the talmid.

But sometimes the questions asked are valid . And fault lies with the rebbi.

Like in 1666.
.

@some jew
You seem to exclude one the most greats of klal yisrael .

Avnei Nezer end of yoreh de’ah who befeirush states [learn it a few times – otherwise you might miss it] that 3 shavu’ot are not binding halach lemaaseh nowadays.

I cannot see any reason why anyone , and befrat someone whose mesorah is from poskim from Poland should not rely on his shitah.
.

@menachem

Yankel, maybe start a thread asking why so many litvishers obey “daas torah” unquestionably, and also attack others who dare to question the reasoning of any decision of “daas torah.”
[menachem to yb]

———–
I cannot see any litvish ‘daat torah rav or rosh yeshiva’ pull off such a stunt.
There is not one litvish rav , named. Who could for decades publicly insist that he is not mashiach .

And then suddenly make a uturn and THEN ALL HIS TALMIDIM JOINING HIM IN HIS PUBLIC UTURN.
This never happened in the ‘daat torah’ history.
And will never happen either.

All his talmidim will abandon him at the uturn .
It is simply dishonest to compare the principle of ‘daat torah’ to the INFALLIBILITY seen in neo habad for the last 8o years.

Btw. The source of daat torah might be found in sefer hahinuch on the misvah of lo tasur [which is said about the bet din hagadol in the bet hamikdash]
Which does not refer at all to the rebbi of habad .
.

There is a clear video of R’ A. Gurewicz to vote for EH.
Matter clarified.