Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@shmei
you quote Rashbi speaking about himself -from zohar.
It is clear that he is referring to the NON LITERAL MEANING of being davuk to God . Not as God Himself chvsh.The point I make is : you cannot compare texts dealing with connectedness to God with other texts which discuss God Himself .
So again – ALL those texts and quotes from R Bachay etc are totally IRRELEVANT .
As continuation
There was a decades long deliberate drip-fed, dual language brainwash going on during the last 8 decades ,leading untold unsuspecting temimim who were genuinely thirsty for dvar hashem to magnify and exaggerate the gadlut of their leader to unimaginable proportions.
It is clear that the rebbi of habad hasidim quenched his hasidim’s thirst .
But he did it with a mix of genuine and bogus torah teaching coupled with a slow but persistent indoctrination of his own supremacy over all other torah leaders over the generations. Leading to the unfortunate result of many many of OUR OWN BROTHERS AND SISTERS, misguided temimim, who, even while staying within the confines of Orthodoxy, are harboring a xtian like belief in their leader., AND ARE EDUCATING their future generations to a yahadut BASED on that belief.These are the stark facts , whether on likes them , or not.
Whether one is sufficiently removed from habad in order to be able to notice them ,or not.
[After all -kol hanega’im adam ro’e huts mi nig’ei atsmo]Just open the Chumash. Did you see chassidim complaining about the Rebbe the way Jews complained about Moshe? Caze clozed.
They were the misnagdim 😉
You had some Jews against Moshe and others extremely devoted.
Think about Yehoshua, Kalev, the Leviim, etc.
[shmei]
——————
No , the leader of habad is NOT the rebbi of the mitnagdim , whereas ALL JEWS in the midbar WERE talmidim of Moshe . They accepted the Torah from him , they learnt it by him.Another example of habad misinformation.
@Shmei
As introduction –this is NOT personal against you,
is NOT personal against Habad hasidim either.
This is NOT sin’at hinam , —– simply because there is no sin’a at all.I have NO preconceived notions against habad , nor do I have any grievances against habad.
Aderaba – I LIKE habad hasidim.
But – facts ARE facts , and evidence counts.
So :
A1] One cannot be naive . Otherwise you turn into a “useful idiot”.
It is clear [without fact checking your claim when this atsmut toch haguf rubbish was said] that the future leader of habad is [more than] interested in the success of his future endeavor of leading his hasidim. That goes without saying and is obvious to anyone.A2] Just to remember, there were 2 understandings [according to the habad defense here] ,
One: the LITERAL MEANING that God resides in a guf . This IS God.[a’l] our Creator . Who continues to be Manhig lehol HaBru’im
Two: The NON LITERAL MEANING that the tsadiq connects himself so strongly to God that legodel dibuko, we could stick a title to him AS IF he would be God.To Anyone learning those early sfarim It is clear that the No’am Elimelech, R Bachay ,Minhat El’azar are referring to the second NON LITERAL MEANING
Thats why no one went crazy when those sfarim wrote what they wrote.
With the [late] leader of the habad hasidim , however, it is a totally different story. I myself remember hearing [in the early eighties] , from a mekor ne’eman that R Salamon zatsal [mashgiah of BMG] , convened a closed meeting in 1967[!] about his concern about the utterances of the habad leader .
So it is not true to say like shmei would have us believe
“no one went crazy until 1989.”They went crazy already in 1967 [and in Israel even earlier]
I am witness to habad truck adorned with a picture of their leader with the following inscription underneath
Rebbe, Advisor ,Leader ,Prophet, Redeemer, God.you cannot ignore the different language employed by their leader , different to ALL OTHER rebeim and rabbanim in this generation re his/shvers greatness
AND the different RESULTS engendered in his followers . Again – different to all other followers in other communities in our generation.
Both the language and the results are very different . This is a deliberate attempt at engendering a different result .
Think about this carefully .
@shmei @sechel and all other metaharei hasherets
Not zohar and not noam elimelech and not minhat el’azar and not the rebbi from ropshiytzA] none of them said anything about themselves, always about their rebbeim with no implication about themselves
B] there was no personal gain whatsoever to be had , for the proclaimant.
C] proof in the pudding – none of their followers interpreted what they said in any way different to the explanation offered
i.e. that they were davuk to havayehD] It had no impact whatsoever on their own followers re their followers veneration of themselves
whereas in habads case
A] it is clear that his remark about atsmut umehut had intended implications about himself
B] Equally clear that there was personal gain for the proclaimant
C] habad followers interpreted it NOT like the no’am elimeleh’s explanation of dvekut , rather like the pashtut
D] habad veneration of their leader excels by far any other veneration of hasidim/talmidim of their rebbi/leader
yb
@lostspark
quoting qwerty:“ The Chazakah is that all Lubavitchers are idolaters.”
“ I didn’t say that all Lubavichers are idolaters.”
———————–
lostspark attacking qwerty:
Which is it buddy? Is only Lubavitchers at your ChaBaD house that aren’t idol worshippers?
============================================================================
Why is the first part of your yr msg a necessary contradiction ?
Never heard of hazaka saying one thing and the metsius could be oppposite ?@lostspark
quoting qwerty:“ The Chazakah is that all Lubavitchers are idolaters.”
“ I didn’t say that all Lubavichers are idolaters.”
———————–
lostspark attacking qwerty:
Which is it buddy? Is only Lubavitchers at your ChaBaD house that aren’t idol worshippers?
============================================================================
Why is the first part of your yr msg a necessary contradiction ?
Never heard of hazaka saying one thing and the metsius could be oppposite ?@lostspark
If I am correct , then we will never hear about this debate having any connection to sin’at hinam any more
Not from you and not from any other habad apologizer.
No difference whether qwerty or anyone else answers or doesn’t answer sechels or any other habad apologists claims.This is not sin’at hinam . These are totally legit questions to put to anyone who attempts to
1] completely take over the mainstream Judaism all over the globe
2] change old age Judaism and to remake it chvsh in its own problematic image.
.
.@lostspark
Easiest is to say sin’at hinam .
That absolves you from answering to the point – seems like it’s a get out of jail card ….@lostspark
qwerty’s arguments with habad do not stem from sin’at hinam , nor from a place behind the sechel , nor from any other extraneous place.
Rather they stem from the evidence .
The evidence itself.
If you are not happy with his arguments you will have to answer them on the evidence and the evidence only .
No point to change topic and talk about nonexistent sin’at hinam.
.Meshichistim give xtianity a back handed hechsher.
Ramban writes very clearly in his sefer havikuach that we know “j” is not mashiach because he died.I had a xtian asking me – if ‘your rabbi’ is coming back to finish the job , why can’t mine come back to finish the job ?
Either you eat the cake or you keep it. You cannot have it both ways.
.A rebbe is mashiach by definition”. That is ludicrous on it’s face, and doesn’t really deserve a rebuttal.
===
Correct.Xtianity did not turn treif in one go .
Until it established trinity [a’l] as its doctrine , more than 300 years passed . They only went step by step . They kept on moving .. Over 300 years. Lets hope habad is not going to move any further , they moved enough already . Too much.@qwerty
I do not blame the habad hasidim .
I admire them .
They follow faithfully, and blindly.They are – in my opinion at least – not any less than ‘tinokot shenishbu’.
They swallow their leaders bait, hook line and sinker.
No wonder they do what they do, and think what they think.If they would start thinking [even for a mashehu] for themselves , instead of blindly regurgitating all the nonsense they are being force fed for the last 8 decades , then there would be some glimmers of hope for their future.
Sheker VeChazav
There were no complaints from the Leaders of the mitnagdim that the hasidim pray to their rebbi.
Read all the haramim by the rabanim of those times against the hasidim .
Only a naive person will believe everything [especially if convenient] which happens to be printed.
The issues against hasidim then , and the issues against habad now , are totally different.
It is clear that the last leader of habad changed a lot of things ,both in practice and in theology.
And it is these innovations which are the issue.
[Mis]Using the authority of previous habad rebbeim for new self serving innovations , equals moral bankrupcy.sechel is spewing nothing more than classic habad misinformation and propaganda.
1] No one accused baal hatanya and early habad hassidim of praying to their rebbi.
2] The arguments against the current/previous rebbi of habad have nothing to do with the polemic about hassidism 200 – 250 years ago.
It is perfectly possible to fully side with the hasidim 200 years ago and still fully side with R Shach on this argument.
It can only be a sign of lack of adequate responses if sehel reverts back to the old canard that the issues are somehow related.
sechel is spewing nothing more than classic habad misinformation and propaganda.
1] No one accused baal hatanya and early habad hassidim of praying to their rebbi.
2] The arguments against the current/previous rebbi of habad have nothing to do with the polemic about hassidism 200 – 250 years ago.
It is perfectly possible to fully side with the hasidim 200 years ago and still fully side with R Shach on this argument.
can only be a sign of lack of adequate responses if sehel reverts back to the old canard that the issues are somehow related.
Anyone out there considering neo habad claims – BEWARE !!
Do not fall in to their trap.Do not fall for their friendliness, for their idealism.
Do not fall for their warmth and their assistance to yehudim all over the globe.
Carefully consider any of their claims against all the available evidence.
Consider it with a cool head and careful reasoning.Once you are crystal clear about their theology , you will not be tempted to follow them into their cult de sac anymore
@hakatan
The choice is NOT between “pro zionist nonsense” and satmar.The real choice is between satmar nonsense and a non zionist ,mainstream,level headed, common sense torah position, as supported by the overwhelming majority of gdolei yisrael from all types of communities across the board.
As evidenced by the many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of erlihe yehudim who turn out en masse to vote in Israeli elections . Again and again.Ignoring these incontrovertible facts , is NOT going to make them disappear . But is giving your comments a clearly distasteful aftertaste.
The multitude of Gdolei Yisrael did not agree with satmar rav .
They ALL saw and read Vayoel Moshe and still disagreed with him .
.
That should settle the matter.
.@sechel
rambam where ?
prisha siman ?@prisha siman ?
@hakatan
And to me’arat hamahpelah ? Did the Jews have access to it ?@sechel
which poskim hold its not ?
Even after half an hour after hatsot, that is ….NO ONE !
After so many times asking
sechel has not been able to mention one clear posek who authorizes birhot kr
shm and Shm’E on Shabbat more than half an hour after hatsot.
@sechel
There is no reason whatsoever not to understand.
As simple as can be.Question for you – is tanya in perek 32 from its beginning, addressing Dovid Hamelech [and kings], or addressing us [common people] ?
What’s the answer ?.
@sechel
There is no reason whatsoever not to understand.
As simple as can be.Question for you – is tanya in perek 32 from its beginning, addressing Dovid Hamelech [and kings], or addressing us [common people] ?
What’s the answer ?@sechel
There is no reason whatsoever not to understand.
As simple as can be.Question for you – is tanya in perek 32 from its beginning, addressing Dovid Hamelech [and kings], or addressing us [common people] ?
What’s the answer ?@sechel
have not received an answer yet
what is the heter to say birhat kr’sh and shm’esre shabbat after hatsot ?
why is this not a braha levatala ?question is not whether one could / should daven before hatstot with less kavana
if he cannot daven before hatsot for whatever reason- he should not daven at allplease don’t just ‘drop’ marei mekomot .
pl . Explain yourself , with clear logic.Th.
.@CS and Sechel
“After he says that one is obligated to simultaneously love and hate someone who is a sinner , Tanya goes on to ask on himself if so whats pshat in tahlit sin’ah seneitim which is quoted in masehta shabbat as requiring unqualified hate ?
Whereupon Tanya answers that this pasuk and maamar hazal are talking about an apikores who one is required to hate unreservedly.”
[yb to CS]Complete distortion. He is explaining dovid hamelechs behavior, not giving guidance to people who can every jew who does something different than them an apikores or min.
[sechel to yb]
————————————-
Correct .
Sechels ‘explanation’ [think its not his – rather its his leaders] is a COMPLETE DISTORTION .
Nowhere in this perek does Tanya talk about Dovid.
Simple pshat .
He starts of with any yehudi.
Any yehudi’s obligation re love [or hate] towards other yehudim .
Again – OUR obligation toward our fellow yehudim.
Tanya delineates OUR obligation towards sinners.
He says it should be a mixture of love and hate.
Tanya asks on said statement , which was re OUR obligation towards sinners – which consists of said mixture of love and hate : How come Dovid hamelech says tahlit sin’ah [and gm ms Shabbat uses this to OBLIGATE US] with hate and no love.
So we have a contradiction whether the correct approach FOR US is a] mixture or b] hate only.
A contradiction regarding which approach WE – US should be taking.
Whereupon Tanya answers – if he is an apikores then the approach FOR US is – hate only
if he is not an apikores , just a sinner , then the approach FOR US is a mixture of love and hate.Any neutral reader of the above . Please learn Tanya slowly for yourself , It is PLAIN and OBVIOUS.
Addition:
If sechel would be correct , why doesn’t Tanya answer simply ?
Hate only – thats for Dovid only
Mixture – thats for us.Why does he need to differntiate between apikorsim and other sinners ?
@CS
Also, I was learning kuntres Beis Rabbeinu Shebivavel, which I’ll assume you know how to find, and there was a sdei chemed in one of the footnotes saying that many yidden throughout history thought their Rebbi was Moshiach including the Arizals Talmidim. I thought you would find that interesting so I’m noting here.
[Cs to yb]
——————————————-
As usual this is nothing more than a diversionary answer.
NONE ,and I repeat none ,of the above PROMOTED their rebbi as mashiach .
PROMOTION of their leader as mashiach is a recent habad invention , never practiced by any group in Judaism, anywhere on the globe .
With the noted exception of Natan HaAzati and his despicable followers re the failed and discredited false mashiach shabtai tzvi .Thats exactly where the ‘fault lines’ between new habad and mainstream 3 thousand year old Judaism run .
We are happy to be mekabel pnei mashiach when HKBH deems it right to send him.
That was and still is the default position of klal yisraels rebeim and forefathers from time immemorial.
And klal yisrael across all its varied spiritual manhigim and various components does not seem to be inclined to give up on that time hallowed position so fast. Like they are not changing other parts of our holy mesorah.@CS
For YB: firstly, you said what I quoted in perek 32 Tanya about an apikores was incorrect. I wrote it in English, here’s the original:
וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּגְּמָרָא, שֶׁמִּי שֶׁרוֹאֶה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁחָטָא – מִצְוָה לִשְׂנֹאותוֹ, וְגַם לוֹמַר לְרַבּוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׂנָאֵהוּ.
הַיְינוּ – בַּחֲבֵירוֹ בְּתוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת,
וּכְבָר קִיֵּים בּוֹ מִצְוַת “הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ” – עַם שֶׁאִתְּךָ בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת, וְאַף־עַל־פִּי־כֵן לֹא שָׁב מֵחֶטְאוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר חֲרֵדִים.
[CS to YB]
———————————
You are omitting the crucial part of Tanya which I quoted-
After he says that one is obligated to simultaneously love and hate someone who is a sinner , Tanya goes on to ask on himself if so whats pshat in tahlit sin’ah seneitim which is quoted in masehta shabbat as requiring unqualified hate ?
Whereupon Tanya answers that this pasuk and maamar hazal are talking about an apikores who one is required to hate unreservedly.
—————————–Katan gives the impression of being blind and deaf.
He doesn’t see the obvious pikuach nefesh straight in front of his eyes – blind r’l
He does not hear the Arabb Cry – that the “descendants of the apes and the pigs [the Jews]” will have to choose between the suitcase and the coffin.
We have every reason to take their threats at face value .Hakatan – please stop misrepresenting our holy torah !
Dina de malhuta dina in EY nowadays is a mahloket – NOT like katan wants you to believe.
Existence of the State of Israel al pi halaha ,is a mahloket – NOT like katan wants you to believe.
—-
Living in one of the other states who occupy part of EY ,is fraught with pikuach nefesh.NOT like ujm would want you to believe.
Fact is that no yehudim live there .
ALL the yehudim in that part of the world ,happen to live in Israel and not in any of those other countries.
Why is that ?
.
?
Katan purports to speak in the name of the Torah .
He is a fraud.If he would be honest ,he would quote THE FULL gamut of the Torah in an accurate way.
He doesn’t, because he is serving an idol .His idol is his brainwashed shitah.
So much for idol worship.
.@sechel
=============================
Happened to meet an old habad acquaintance on the street , and will quote him here :In habad now , whenever our rebbi quotes a tanna or amora or a rishon or a posek , it is not as if our rebbi needs the backup of these holy people. It is more like those holy people received back up from our rebbi that they were zoche that he quoted them ….
[yb to sechel]
=============================
….. what one chabad fellow answered you ,does not represent chabads view …..[sechel to yb]
=============================
Rewind some 40 odd years .
Had a similar type of conversation with a reasonable habad person about the prevalence of habad hasidim attributing messiahship to their rebbi.
I quoted him what I heard from an individual ,serious habad person whom I met on the street.
“Our rebbi is the greatest of not only our generation but of all preceding generations and he really is mashiach .”Our reasonable habad person told me many documented incidents where their rebbi himself reacted with anger and disapproval upon those type mashiach proclamations and that the above is only the result of the hallucinary imaginations of those crazy yehidim and for sure not representative of the habad movement as a whole and that every movement has its share of crazies.
It was only those so called ‘haters’ of habad who anyway had an agenda against habad ,who chose to represent the crazies as legit habad spokespeople.
I was younger and more naive at that time and swallowed it , accepted it .
This was not one personal story .
This was emblematic.
This type of conversation was going on in many forms and ways , on the pages of newspapers , in informal mikva’ot discussions , in shtiblah and around the shalom zahor tables ….Many people were taken by this and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Va’ani hakatan, betoham.We all know, now, with the benefit of hindsight , who really represented habad ….
And whether it is naive to be taken by that type of answer….Once burnt , second time …..
Looked up Tsemah Tsedeq OC:3 . Its quite long. So I did not learn every word of it. But I learnt most of it and skimmed through the rest.
Please – can you pinpoint EXACTLY which piece of T’T you ,and all after hatsot daveners, rely on to say birhat kr’sh and shm’e after hatsot ?
And ,if he doesn’t say it clearly , what logic you are following to reach your maskana ?And if you could tell me all that , without any denigration , that would be even more appreciated . Thanks.
sechel as a matter of policy does not give exact marei mekomot for his arguments .
Is it because he is afraid we will look it up and expose him ?
.@arso
Weekday there is nedava
Shabat not.Shabbat there is no tfillat nedava.
Shm’E Shaharit in the afternoon on Shabat is a levatala
LEHOL HADEI’OT
.
@Arso
I understand you. The point I am making is for all the non habad people .
We, the non habad , do not realise how far removed their theology is from mainstream Orthodoxy, Notwithstanding all their positive personal qualities , and they are many.I am afraid .
Afraid of a Schism opening up , potentially dividing klal yisrael . Slowly slowly .
As more and more young habad people are born , who never met their flesh and blood rebbi.
A human person, however dedicated to his cause , still with human failings and strengths , just like all the rest of us.
Young kids, Innocent and indoctrinated with all those types of garbage ,utterly convinced of this garbage being the foundations of yahadut.
Who in turn are going to be the educators of their next generation .This story is not finished yet. It is still evolving.
We – the non habad people – have to be cognizant of what’s really going on , right in front of our noses.
That’s the challenge here , in my humble opinion at least.
.@sechel
Typical habad misinformation. Again.
You drop a few mar’ei mekomot and that suffices .
THERE IS NO HETER TO SAY SHAHARIT SHM”E on shabbat afternoon . No heter whatsoever. They are all clear and unambiguous brahot levatalah .No Piskei Tshuvot . And no r chaim brisker .
The comparison to tsemah tsedeq re women’s braha is simply ludicrous.
Sechel doesnt even want to quote the rambam where supposedly its mutar . Today’s Rambam ….
.The yesod of having a logical and productive vikuach is one extremely important nekuda – Without that there is no vikuach possible.
Both sides have to agree on some ‘Muskamot’. They have to have a common starting point where they jointly agree on and the argument can start from that point onwards whereby both sides bring and dispute proofs , BROUGHT FROM THEIR COMMOM AREA OF AGREEMENT .
Why am I mentioning this now ?
Happened to meet an old habad acquaintance on the street , and will quote him here :In habad now , whenever our rebbi quotes a tanna or amora or a rishon or a posek , it is not as if our rebbi needs the backup of these holy people. It is more like those holy people received back up from our rebbi that they were zoche that he quoted them ….
It is very important that this remark sinks in , in my opinion.
We should reflect very carefully on this.This encapsulates , in very few words , where The Schism [as I call it] is happening.
It used to be that any mahloket in klal yisrael was bridgeable . You could always go back to some earlier jointly respected authority and based on it, argue it out, the classic way .
Proofs , counterproofs and rejoinders.Only because and as long as this authority is jointly revered in a similar way. Coupled with the hakarah that both sides DERIVE THEIR LEGITIMACY from that jointly recognized authority.
After reflection about the above quote, sadly , that joint hakarah that ALL LEGITIMACY IS DERIVED FROM our joint holy rebbeim [From Moshe Rabenu , torah shebiktav and torah shebaal peh coupled with our mesorah] thru the ages, is not here anymore.
If the habad rebbi does not need and does not derive his legitimacy from all those previous sources , and it is the opposite , he does those sources a ‘favor’ by quoting them , then how is ever possible to debate habads position in light of those sources ?
In every argument with habad, I sense this point as lurking in the background even when it is unspoken.
I think this a common denominator in many habad people.Please correct me if I am mistaken.
.Raabbi Lorincz keeps his hazaka of kasruth .
Notwithstanding katans unfounded allegations.@sechel
What is the mekor for hbad people to daven shm’essrei shaharit on shabbat afternoon . Why are they not brahot levatala ?My experience with hakatan taught me that any fact or shita quoted by him is suspect.
It has to be checked in its original source with critical thinking applied.Reb yeruchem from the mir wrote a letter in support. [of neohabads leaders tfillin campaign]
According to sechel.
======================
Lol.
Maybe sechel has a special postal service connecting him with Yeshiva Shel Ma’ala …….
.CS is [mis]quoting tanya 32 .
It says clearly in tanya 32 that apikorsim there is a mitsva to have tahlit sin’a against them .CS seems to argue against the tanya …”
[yb]
—
Yes he also defines an apikores The way I wrote- someone who was at your level in Torah and mitzvos, you already tried to bring them back by fulfilling the Mitzvah hocheach tochiach (according to the dinim – gently and privately at first, unless making a public chillul Hashem etc) and he refuses to return.
[CS]
===================================
I looked up the tanya [ch 32] this morning .
CS is misquoting tanya for the second time.
You cannot learn gmara or tanya or whatever if you are not exact.All those prerequisites CS mentioned are not in connection to an apikorus. Tanya clearly mentions them in regard to a non apikorus.
CS is the one who wants us to believe that they pertain to the apikorus.Not so ,according to tanya.
Mind you that ‘s from someone whose brothers are ‘besting’ the non habad people with their arguments ….
She learnt wrong pshat in her own mentors words – only to be found out by a ‘hater’ ….A clear sign that the only objective the average habad person has in learning tanya- is to find USAGE of tanyas words to support their preconceived notions of what habad stands for.
As opposed to a no holds barred limud of tanya, without negi’ut, ,only to search for and find the true meaning of the authors kavana in the tanya’s words.My experience with hakatan taught me that any fact or shita quoted by him is suspect.
It has to be checked in its original source with critical thinking applied.
One cannot take it on face value.