Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
WHERE IS THAT NEW MINHAG COMING FROM – SOMETHING OUR FOREFATHERS NEVER KNEW – TO ASK A TSADIK WHERE ONES PARNASAH IS COMING FROM ? THE TSADIK DOESNT KNOW THAT ! LIKE HE DOES NOT KNOW WHO MASHIACH IS , HE ALSO DOES NOT KNOW WHERE A MANS PARNASAH WILL COME FROM AS BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE ONE OF THE SEVEN THING WHICH ARE MECHUSIN MIBNE ADAM ! THE ONLY TACHLIT OF GOING TO A TSADIK IS ONLY IN ORDER TO HEAR, WHERE AND HOW THE PETITIONER CAN IMPROVE IN HIS AVODAT HASHEM …..
.
Sounds quite MITNAGDISH , no ?
As mentioned in previous post – this is written by the founder of Habad Hasidut !
.
Habad hasidim are not taken aback by this . Because if their Rebbe is greater than Moshe Rabenu , why should he not be greater than the Baal Hatanya ?
.
So the lesson to be learnt is – Absolute futility to bring proof or debate a Habad Hasid on theology . simply because their rebbe [in their own eyes] is greater than any source which could be used to prove or disprove his shita.
Debating them is an exercise in futility.
We should love them , respect them , but not debate them .This whole thread is a reflection of modern Habads influence and brainwash .
our Greatgrandfathers & mothers were not busy with “candidates” for Mashiach . And nor should we.
Rambam wasnt busy with it . Bet Yosef was not . Rama was not . Baal HaTanya was not . and Ben Ish Chai was not either .
.
Cf Tanya ,were he says [free translation ]
.
WHERE IS THAT NEW MINHAG COMING FROM – SOMETHING OUR FOREFATHERS NEVER KNEW – TO ASK A TSADIK WHERE ONES PARNASAH IS COMING FROM ? THE TSADIK DOESNT KNOW THAT ! LIKE HE DOES NOT KNOW WHO MASHIACH IS , HE ALSO DOES NOT KNOW WHERE A MANS PARNASAH WILL COME FROM AS BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE ONE OF THE SEVEN THING WHICH ARE MECHUSIN MIBNE ADAM ! THE ONLY TACHLIT OF GOING TO A TSADIK IS ONLY IN ORDER TO HEAR, WHERE AND HOW THE PETITIONER CAN IMPROVE IN HIS AVODAT HASHEM …..
.
Clear from Tanyas words that all of this is mere speculation , non productive and frowned upon .
But who cares about tanya anymore …. We will cherry-pick only what suits us …..The BIGGEST SOURCE – IN HABADS EYES – That Mashiach is only from the live people is HABAD ITSELF . Wall to wall , pre 1996.
Since when is Habad itself , not acceptable to Habad ????
Any Answers , anyone ?????@menachem
Not trying at all –
merely relaying information EXACTLY as I heard it .
not more and not less .
read all the maasiyot he writes – it is definitely possible , maybe even probable.@sechel
Correction – not pre 96 .
It should read pre 94 instead.@Sechel
I am still waiting for a Habad chassid to be honest and acknowledge that Mashiach from Chaim only , was ‘official Habad Policy’ ,supported and endorsed by ALL HABAD RABBANIM AND MASHPIIM pre that fateful 3 tamuz day .
.
It seems that ‘phaiphing on the world’ includes phaiphing on ‘habad pre 1996’ too ?
Habad pre 96 also qualifies as Habad – or not ?
.
If that was good for Habad pre 96, than it is also good for the rest of Klal Yisrael ….
.This whole thread is a reflection of modern Habads influence and brainwash .
our Greatgrandfathers & mothers were not busy with “candidates” for Mashiach . And nor should we.
Rambam wasnt busy with it . Bet Yosef was not . Rama was not . Baal HaTanya was not . and Ben Ish Chai was not either .
.
Cf Tanya ,were he says [free translation ]
.
WHERE IS THAT NEW MINHAG COMING FROM – SOMETHING OUR FOREFATHERS NEVER KNEW – TO ASK A TSADIK WHERE ONES PARNASAH IS COMING FROM ? THE TSADIK DOESNT KNOW THAT ! LIKE HE DOES NOT KNOW WHO MASHIACH IS , HE ALSO DOES NOT KNOW WHERE A MANS PARNASAH WILL COME FROM AS BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE ONE OF THE SEVEN THING WHICH ARE MECHUSIN MIBNE ADAM ! THE ONLY TACHLIT OF GOING TO A TSADIK IS ONLY IN ORDER TO HEAR, WHERE AND HOW THE PETITIONER CAN IMPROVE IN HIS AVODAT HASHEM …..
.
Clear from Tanyas words that all of this is mere speculation , non productive and frowned upon .
But who cares about tanya anymore …. We will cherry-pick only what suits us …..@ avira
He would quote tanya without reservation.
So – Not Mitnaged to hasidut .
Maybe to present Day Habad , – yes .@menachem
Heard from Gur Hasidim that the many Sipurim from Rayats are sourced from what he heard when very young from the women who tended to him in those years , and hence are unreliable.
Anyways ,satmar rav used to mock those who based their belief on maasiyot.Habad are really Nice guys .
But it is totally ridiculous .
Such a Pity.Edited
people who can blithely change what to them was one of the ikarei emunah to suit themselves, never had an ounce of emunah. Not beforehand and not afterwards.
WELL SAID !
@Zaphod
they are an integral part bec they believe in ikarei emuna and are mizera yisrael , but in way of thinking , how to develop an argument , what is considered a valid argument , what is not considered a valid argument,
and MOST IMPORTANTLY whether we can and should be choker after someone who was controversial [meaning some rabbanim disapproved of him ] COUPLED with the fact that part of his yerousha ruchanit was controversial , and should you be choker whether those two thing are connected or not – in that there is no common ground whatsoever .#any kugel left.
Habad ITSELF denied the possibility of Mashiach from the dead – not the so called mitnagdim . .
For many years [when it was convenient] Their Rabbanim Maspiim , their newspaper loudly proclaimed this .
.
Now it seems convenient to hold of Mashiach from the dead.
.
For many more years then not , they OUTRIGHT DENIED that Habad holds their leader as Mashiach . Those who quoted that habad designated their leader as mashiach were GUILTY OF SIN’AT CHINAM , and MOTSI SHEM RA and did so only out of hate and jealousy. They are guilty of being full of YESHUT and GA’AVA , and therefore try to blacken habads face .
.
PLEASE – WHERE IS BASIC HONESTY ?Same was argued in defense of J and Mo –
[by the Rambam]
I would search for better company ….#sechel
you conveniently left out the brackets there in tanya – for an apikorus there should be ONLY sinah . Tachlis Sin’ah ….#avira
correction . R weintraub was not a misnaged against chasidsm.There is kimat no point in arguing with habad hasidim .
Kol ba’eha lo yeshuvun .
ANY ARGUMENT HAS TO START WITH SOME COMMON GROUND . whereon the sides can base themselves on .THERE IS NO THEOLOGICAL COMMON GROUND HERE.
they are an integral part of klal yisrael , our brothers , but any argument is fruitless .
We have to – for our own sake – clarify where they come from , how they evolved , what were the driving factors behind their evolvement ,what they really believe , who and what they really worship , what the possible future developments could be.
We should be mekarev them not any less than any other yid , but still clearly and loudly call out their misguided ideology whenever it is mentioned.
Any argument with them , where they repeat their own circular ‘proofs’ of their shitah ,only serves to harden their beliefs and lends a veneer of legitimacy to their mistaken ideology.sechel 83
If so –
What was haredi about Rav Yakov Emden ,the Pne Yehoshua, the Gra , the Divre Hayim [from Sans] ?#Rso
If you’re right, then clearly he had an agenda. and all the non-Lubavich apologists who blame the chassidim for their crazy views, and not the rebbe, have it completely wrong!
.
It is clear . To any objective , non naive observer . Crystal clear . There most definitely was an agenda .
No ifs , no buts .He had an agenda , that seems obvious .
When I advocated an open discussion about the ORIGINATOR of This changing through the decades Mashiach Theology, I meant an OPEN DISCUSSION about his formative years , his education , his personality , his midot , his actions as EVIDENCED as a public figure during all the years , and also before he became a public figure . In addition it would be necessary to delve into the background , namely chabad as it was in the decades prior to the acceptance of leadership in 1951.
Some historical works such as R Rivkin’s Ashkavta DeRabi and the historical work of the r shaul shimon deutch about chabad and its leader [which are I believe , both censored by Chabad ] are indispensable to form an accurate opinion .
This , again, is not “hate” nor “Sinat Chinam” . It is perfectly possible to genuinely love all chabad chassidim and see their incredible maalot , and still refuse to settle for an incomplete, biased and skewed picture .
Aderaba , they are not mutually incompatible . Not at all .
They complement each other .Orthodox rabbi –
You are basing your shita re your theology on actual words your rebbe said .
That is totally within your rights .
But – and that is a HUGE but …. and super relevant to this whole discussion !
That only shows, and is a good example, that the Chabad Chassidim are basing themselves on their rebbes words , and develop their theology accordingly .
Which they should .
.
So the million dollar question here is – how is it possible to have an open and honest discussion about this theology WITHOUT an equally open and honest discussion of the originator of said theology?
Therefore I would venture to say that
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have a complete and honest discussion about this theology without fully including the one under whose leadership, AND WHEREFROM this theology ORIGINATED .
And as long we will be hamstrung by concerns of self censorship in this regard , this discussion is doomed to be fruitless.
My impression is that the so called meshichistim are the true followers of their rebbi .
When you read his public utterances , his sichot , his maamarim, and try and imagine that every word and action emanate straight from the RBSH”O, would you not be a meshichist ?
In my opinion al least , the Mashiach line with all that it entails come directly from their rebbe .
So how is it logically possible to have an all encompassing , honest debate / discussion without including the main originator of this theology ?Chabd is a movement which was , re theology – in GREAT FLUX .There is NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER regarding a Rav , Rebbe or R’Ys Shitah re Chabad , when it comes to their theology because of 2 reasons :
1] It obviously has no bearing at all for anything which happened AFTER the letter was written , because lo harei chabad before, ke harei chabad after.
2] Any letter or correspondence is is only valid re THE KNOWLEDGE THE LETTER WRITER HAD of chabad theology at the time of writing .
The above seems obvious ,fairminded to me and should be equally so to any honest participant in this thread .
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CAVEAT to any quoting of Rabbanim or Rebbes re their theology.You have not – but I did .
With my own ears .
Is this Debatable ? most definitely .
Does everyone agree to this ? Most definitely not .
But there is no running away from the facts .
The emet is that the subject you brought up as fact , can not be labeled as a universally agreed upon assessment .Rso is totally right . One can only have an open, honest and objective discussion about the merits of chabad theology, only after we got rid of any arguments of blaming the other of sinat chinam , hate etc etc .
One can , ‘not hate’ ,and still Criticise vociferously . Croticism is NOT sinat chinam !
It is just that – Criticism .
This is ,and should ideally be ,an unlimited , no holds barred discussion .
Otherwise we will never reach the truth.Reality has shown that when you REALLY want to know what the shitah of an Adam Gadol is regarding any issue , ranging from zionism , chabad , mizrahi or shalom bayit daf hayomi or chinuch , or what have you – the BEST INDICATION are
“the ERLICHE TALMIDIM of that Adam Gadol” ,
the ones who are not in it for the kavod or the money , the ones that were close to that Adam Gadol , and live their life according to his wishes.
They know what their rebbi REALLY WANTED AND REALLY HELD .
They are the ones who DEDICATED THEIR LIVES to follow him .
[Btw – Many times there are other Cheshbonot why an Adam Gadol is quiet berabbim about something but for his talmidim its not hidden]
So , when determining what they really held, it is imperative to hear what they say in his name .
Provided you are HONEST , and without an agenda .
Rav Hutner , in his later years ,SEVERELY criticised Chabad’s theology . I heard that myself from his greatest talmidim . That is not a contradiction at all to any previous writings and / or utterances .Chabads theology changed drastically , so the reactions to chabad changed too.
Chabad chassidim should man up and honestly address this head on , instead of hiding behind earlier sources.Chabad people are wonderful . and I mean it . The can do attitude . The genuineness. The Chesed . The acceptance . The non judgement. The Simcha. The kiruv. The Mesirat Nefesh.
Does that mean we should turn deaf and blind when it comes to their theology ?
They are our brothers . We should help them when in need , no less than any other yid.
Does that mean that we are going to have to accept as truth anything they happen to be claiming as the yiddishe theology, just because they are brothers ?
And if we don’t , does that mean we are lacking in mentshlichkeit ?
In my opinion at least , if you spearhead a movement , clearly in theology at odds with the rest of klal yisrael [no other part of klal yisrael champions mashiach from the dead like them] ,and at odds with what they themselves were proclaiming for years , its only fair to expect , anticipate and therefore accept , that you are opening yourself up to genuine and open examination of your shitot , their roots ,their essence and their consequences . That should all be part of the game .
And that as grownups, they should be able to hear any legit taanot and formulate to-the -point responses head on ,without hiding behind the screen of lack of mentshlichkeit or change of topic or other tactics .
Or not ?Its terrible. Mamash terrible . If chabad theology of the 2020s would have been presented to any yid , in any type of kehilla , in any place on the globe ,some 60 years ago . The response would be – plain ridicule , a total joke .
Now we are having pages of arguments about those Shtuyot ….
how far have we fallen …
Real yeridat hadorot……is this the best mentchlichkeit you have to offer?
because they are hateful personally and/or attack personally, or use degrading terms towards gedolim.
Interesting, have not noticed any of the above in my posts . Am willing to learn , however .test it out
My posts are never published . Wonder why .
because they are hateful personally and/or attack personally, or use degrading terms towards gedolim. That should have been obvious.
Chabad is not worried about yeridat hadorot .
one mainstream habad told me ,without blinking ,that his rebbe is greater than …. moshe rabenu .Lets look at the history , the reality , the facts – The official Chabad line as publicized by their rebbe , their chozer , their rabbanim , their Mashpiim FROM THE START ,not any Harry who claims to be Chabad — Ok ?
Lets be honest without any obfuscation and changing the topic .
In the beginning , [1] the line was -Anyone who claims that Chabad claims to be messianic is a plain liar , against chasidus , mechalel shem lubavitsh etc , Only the Misnagdim who tried to besmirch Lubavitsh said so , and it was an indication of their blind hate . Other Chasidim stuck up for Lubavitsh as the innocent victim of Hotsaat Shem Ra. All the evidence is there , in the archives of HaModia and Kfar Chabad and other newspapers of that era.
Then [2] it changed , Chabad Chassidim made a u turn , openly proclaimed their rebbe as Mashiach , but the rebbe openly criticized it . He definitely is not Mashiach . Here too, the evidence is plainly there in all the newspapers of the era . Then [3] he too followed in their u turn , openly acknowledged his own messiahship , clearly evidenced by his periodic near weekly dvar malchus dating from approx 6 months preceding his stroke in the spring of 1992 , until the stroke , also available in the archives, as well the weekly issues of the kfar chabad newspaper the official chabad public organ. . In the meantime [3A] he also proclaimed himself a navi , like chagai zecharia and malachi . Nevua ,after a hiatus of thousands of years ,has finally come back to klal yisrael. b’h. Also clearly documented in dvar malcus [parshas shoftim] . Quite a big u turn , when you compare no 1 – with no 3A. It s not finished yet , because then [3B] as Nevua [!] he proclaimed that Mashiach is here already now kipshuto and will take us bekarov out of galus , and that we are in the first generation of the geula. So as a result there was a wall to wall coallition of all official chabad mashpiiim and Rabbanim saying that [4] it is one of ikarei emuna to believe and follow a navi plus their rebbi is a navi plus he prophesied on himself that he is mashiach plus it is one of the ikarei emuna that mashiach has to finish the geula before he dies . One plus one plus one plus one – equals four . Result – it is one of the ikarei emuna that their rebbi CANNOT die before the finish of the geula . Not me , not I am saying this , This was OFFICIAL Chabad theology. Evidence is there . Its all in the archives . Read kfar Chabad weekly , sichos of yoel kahn . Sichos and articles of mendel wechter , of r ashkenazi rav of kfar chabad [the town], signed kol koreis of virtually all rabbanim of chabad kehillot.
Then [5] the unthinkable happened . He died. The minority, including yoel kahn , stayed with their previous belief that mashiach must finish the geula before he dies [the normative Jewish belief as clearly delineated by the RMBN , Rabenu Moshe ben NACHMAN in sefer havikuach] so they jettisoned the nevua parts . They admitted in being mistaken [!] in that . Here it is not sure where exactly [in their own eyes] they went wrong .. but never mind. The majority however [6] could not bring themselves to throw the navi part out of the window , so they jettisoned the dying part . No, they proclaimed loudly, mashiach can die before he finishes the job . What previously was considered part of the ikarei emuna, is now hevel havalim , or depending on a machloket , where everyone can choose what they like , whats convenient for them .1] ramban [vikuach in front of spanish king] categorically rejects possibility of mashiach from the dead.
2] chabad itself universally rejected that possibility .All their mashpiiim. All their rabbanim.
When their rebbi was alive still , it was an article of faith , one of the IKAREI EMUNA . that he could not die . Dying would be classified as a failure of mashiachs mission .
Doubting that , would classify one as an Apikores , no less.
Not me saying this . ALL of chabads rabbanim and mashpiiim ! said this.1] ramban [vikuach in front of spanish king] categorically rejects possibility of mashiach from the dead.
2] chabad itself universally rejected that possibility .All their mashpiiim. All their rabbanim.
When their rebbi was alive still , it was an article of faith , one of the IKAREI EMUNA . that he could not die . Dying would be classified as a failure of mashiachs mission .
Doubting that , would classify one as an Apikores , no less.
Not me saying this . ALL of chabads rabbanim and mashpiiim ! said this.Chabad – all its mashpiim and rabbanim [!] – considered it an article of faith , one of the ikarei emuna , no less [!] that their rebbi cannot die .
Because there [supposedly] is a nevua , no less[!] that their rebbi is mashiach. Add to that the poshute ikar emuna that moshiach has to be alive kepshuto , as simple as one plus one equals two, their rebbi cannot [!] die , and that , due to the simple calculation above , is part of the ikarei emuna [!].
We all know what ultimately happened ….
So now the ikarei emuna changed . From the above ikarei Emuna according to Chabad pre 3 tamuz, we are evolving . we are receiving new ikarei emuna [!] . the new ikarei emuna according to post 3 tamuz chabad : you can have mashiach who is dead , and returns in a 2nd coming [!] and the nevua that their rebbi mashiach is still current , whereas a minority view in post 3 tamuz chabad holds : no, the nevua that their rebbi is mashiach is a mistake[!] but we still hold on to the previous shitah that mashiach has to be alive kepshuto.
If that is not a clear-cut mockery of ikarei emuna , what is ?
Bottom line – chabad are good for putting tfillin and helping people in trouble – but definitely not to represent klal yisrael .Spinoza – Mashiach ???
He was an apikores as far as I remember