yankel berel

@pekak [to square]
… with your constant assumption that you can refute his [satmar rovs] entire sefer without having absorbed it from cover to cover ?
===================
There is no need to absorb satmar ravs sefer from cover to cover .

One can safely rely on the overwhelming majority of Gdolei Yisrael who were familiar with his sefer from cover to cover , and still disregarded his conclusions.

He was a very great man, but his shitah was not accepted .
This is a fact.
.

@simcha
If the army is so understaffed that Dati Leumi talmidim in Mechina and Hesder are being pulled out early…
—-
Don’t really like challenging people like you , but

is the reason they are pulled out early because they are understaffed and there is no other way besides pulling them out early,
or
is it that they do not care so much about pulling them out , so out of the various options they might have at their disposal, this was the easiest one , so why not .
.
This reminds me a bit of PM Bennet, a ‘religious’ Jew [remember him?] traveling on shabbat to make peace between Russia and Ukraine.
If he is mehalel shabat for it , imagine how important it must be ….

hi did you receive my post ?

@aaq

1] Without political Zionism, the Arabs and the British could/ would have been more accommodating to Jewish immigration . Who can know for sure but there is logic to it.

2] Even if not , the price paid was very ,very high. Too high.

@sechel

this tiferet yisrael is definitely not ‘simple pshat’ in a mishna.
It goes straight against the rama , shach and accepted halahik practice.

Rama permits/ mandates to be holek in halaha on your rebbi [even rebbi muvhak – rov torato mimenu] if you have ra’yot.
Others even if it is only miSvara.
YD242:3

Kol hameharhar ahar rabo [sanhedrin 110a] comes from the pasuk where yehudim falsely ascribed to Moshe rabenu [who provided ‘man from heaven’ as food for the dor hamidbar], that this ‘man’ has the non-existent attribute of blowing up inside one’s stomach. [rashi on humash]

In other words , making up non existing baloney as a negative for your rebbi, that falls under kol hameharhar ahar rabo.
That the rebbi made a mistake , that s not included in kol hameharhar , and is definitely possible, and is permitted to be said by the talmid. as per rama above.

Kedai to keep in mind , however, that like the rebbi is liable to make a mistake , the talmid is even more so [kal vahomer]

@simcha

@smerel
@gedolhdorah
and fellow travelers

Isn’t it ironic that davka on the issue of ‘sharing the burden’ , where the haredim are VOLUNTARILY so involved in .
The myriad gemahim literally thousands of them . All the gabbai’im of the countless tsdakka organisations .All the mothers of large families who are literally moser nefesh to care for them. Not to talk about hatsala , zaka , yad sarah etc. .
Thats Besides all the people who DEDICATE THEIR WHOLE LIVES TO OTHERS,
Davka on this very issue there is so much criticism.
Compare the average haredi with the average secular person . How much time and how much effort and how much of a share of their finances, is expended by each of them during a typical day on others vs oneself.

The seculars preach about altruism , but the problem is that they preach about their own type of altruism .
They are not prepared to recognize haredi altruism , it doesn’t fit in their worldview , therefore it does not exist in their minds.
So they are totally blind to it.
No wonder they are talking about entitlement attitudes.

They want a government controlled , a bureaucratically IMPOSED system of altruism .
From the top down.
THEY WANT TO CONTROL the haredim.
Thats THE issue, in my view at least.

 And , sad to say , we are getting influenced by their propaganda.
Hence our talk about ‘entitlement attitude’ in this context.
.

Will have to be some requirement for haredi service….

Based on ?

On Sh’A and poskim ?

@ujm
regarding the shtahim , Jrslm , the West Bank, and the Golan , that is a clear situation of p/n .
Which is doche the issur [if applicable] of the shevuoth.

Is there any rejoinder to this ?
.

@haleivi
satmar agrees to 4 ?
Does not seem like it.

Satmar holds that the existence itself is yehareig ve’al yaavor.
They seem to hold that 3 shevuot is doche pikuach nefesh.
Untenable , in my view.

Thats why they are happy to be used to stop arms shipments .
.

@AAQ
You might be very pleasantly surprised about the level of the yeshiva bahurim in EY .
When was the last time you talked in learning with one of them ?

@CS
“The only way forward , if so , is for the habad rabbinic leadership to open up a no holds barred discussion of their leaders personality.
How , even a great person , who had a lot to offer [in his hasidim’s eyes], is not infallible .…”
[yb]

Have you ever seen the Rambam describe the Mitzvah of Respecting Talmidei Chachamim? How if someone rebels against his Rebbe he’s rebelling against Hashem? How about rashi- even if they (leaders) say that right I’d let/ left is right, follow them…
[CS to yb]
=============
A] Rambams respecting talmidei hahamim has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question of infallibility.
Please CS , can you own up to this one ?

B] “Rebelling against his rebbi” is mentioned in the context of answering she’elot without the Rebi’s permission or in the rebbi’s locality.
[Cf Sh’A hilhot kevod rabbo]
Not in the context of infallibility .
Sh’A permits [even mandates] to argue on one rebbi’s halahic decisions, provided it s done respectfully.
Please CS , can you own up to this one too ?

C] Al yemin shehu smol veal smol shehu yemin , the rashi you mentioned is speaking about sanhedrin hagadol in yerushalayim where it is indeed prohibited to argue against .

So – to summarize – is the leader of habad INFALLIBLE ?
The answer is a resounding NO !!!
.

To summarize –
1] The whole idea of 3 shevuot binding halaha lema’aseh today is a davar hashanuy bemahloket.

2] Even if it does apply today in a halaha binding fashion, It is very possible that the establishment of the medina does not contravene it, because of the Mandate [based on the Balfour Declaration] which required a national home and self-governing institutions in EY and the acceptance of 1947 Partition Plan in the UN.

3] Even if the establishment of the medina was against the torah, the continued existence of the medina is not.

4] Even if the continued existence is against the 3 shevuoth , which has no logic at all , its existence is still imperative because of mass pikuach nefesh which is doche the 3 shevuoth.

Since the only matter before us now is the continued existence [and not the establishment] of the medina, we can resolve that there is no inherent issur in the existence of the medina.

We have to make sure to the best of our ability that the medina should be a vehicle for torah true ideals and not chvsh the opposite.

And that it should be a vehicle to safeguard yehudim as much as possible.

Because the medina should not be an idol with the yehudim serving it.
Aderaba , the medina should be serving the yehudim , that way it will not be an idol, and it will come to its tikun.
.

@avira

@Arso
Just as a reminder , before you debate the habad apologists, please keep in mind the following :

the leader of the habad hasidim gave explicit instructions to his followers. whenever you engage in debate with people of a different persuasion , you must do so with the condition that you [the follower] in your own mind give NO CREDENCE WHATSOEVER EVEN TO THE POSSIBILITY that he might have something to tell you that you previously did not know.

That is their starting point.

When their rebbi famously told them to phiphe on the world , it was meant to phiphe on your arguments . By the mere fact that those arguments are against habad, that ITSELF is the biggest possible refutation . All other refutations they might come up with ,are simply batel umevutal [kom lei mideraba minei] and pale in comparison .

That explains [to me] this astonishing phenomenon of having a rational conversation with [supposedly] rational people , and there we keep on going round and round , and ,after all rationality , they seem totally oblivious to it .

I don’t know about you , but this kept on baffling me again and again.

They sound and seem rational and open , but on the other side seem immunized against rationality.

I must concede – their rebbi did a good job.
He transformed them exactly in to what he wanted them to be.
.

@smerel
am curious re the seven words quote from r ch shm ?
and what was the criticism about ?
and how musmach is the source ?
thanks

@sechel
“There was no mesorah to keep yidden away from haskala – before haskala appeared .
Simply because it did not exist.”
[yb to sechel]
—–
Besides for moshiach, that you need a mesorah, please explain why?
[sechel to yb]
——
Simple .
CS keeps on repeating on these pages that ‘Mashiach coca cola meshigaas’ whereby we are enjoined to search for the most ‘suitable mashiach candidate in our eyes’ and then popularize acceptance of the individual person who won the contest, as mashiach by the masses , is an age old custom practiced in many communities along the ages.

Whereas in fact, these ideas are totally newfangled inventions by modern habad.
There is no source for those ideas in traditional judaism , nor were these ideas ever put in practice in any time in jewish history.

We have a klal anyone who departs from mesorah should bring proof.

Please Do not sell us now your lokshen torah that your last rebbi IS mashiach , which is a riculous premise, to say the least.
.

@smerel
According to Menachem Porush, Rav Schach was actually from the more resistant members of the Moetzes to joining Begin’s coalition. He insisted he would only do so if there was no chance of Shimon Peres making a coalition anyway. Because Shimon Peres had consistently opposed drfting Yeshiva Bochurim over the years and Rav Schach felt the Charieidi world owed him hakoras hatov
—-
Don’t think this is accurate.
RShach had actually a very negative view of Peres.
He even refused to meet him during the eighties and nineties.
As opposed to Rabin who did agree to meet.

@sechel

sechel to arso

amazing can you translate it into English or you just say mashiach and decided it refers to chabad?
You are misnabe about moshiach the same way we are you say he’s not the rebbe.
———
Arso – baruch shekivanti.
Already in the early nineties – before habads last u turn regarding mashiach min hachaim, , I connected This quote of sefer hasidim to the habad leader.

When the habad rebbi was crowned as a navi [or rather he crowned himself as a navi], based on his [inaccurate] prediction that nothing bad will going to happen to all yoshvei EY during the gulf war, I was already wondering , what could bring a previously respected [albeit controversial] person to make such bizarre proclamations , which in case that they do not materialize, the proclaimant stays with permanent egg on their face , in the face of the whole world.
.
This sefer hasidim is one possible explanation for this phenomenon.
.

@avirah
Not the gerrer rebbe allowed . The Moetset allowed it.
Without any extenuating circumstances.
No one made a fuss at the time about government participation. Besides those who were against behiroth, they made a fuss about the behiroth.
When giyus banot came up , aguda resigned from the gov in protest.

By the way, Rav Shach claims that when he spent a lot of time with the Brisker Rav during his final illness , the Rav agreed to his approach of being mishtatef in the governing of the medina.
So much for the protests from the brisk side.
.

@sechel
is that the only line of tnaya you know? see gemarah and rambam what is a min and an apikores. not keeping tznius dosent make someone an apikores, nor does saying the rebbe is moshiach, making fun of a talmid chachum makes someone an apikores.
and the rambam clearly says that people who were raised a certain way these halachos dont apply too, and the chofetz chaim also speaks about this that because of this these halachos dont apply
simply the tanya is coming to explain dovid hamelech, not tell you how to act today, (thats why its in brackets) vda”l
—-
Appreciate your typical habad answer.
They all seem follow the same script.

Attack the questioner. [ is that the only line of tnaya you know?]

Change the subject. [see gemarah and rambam what is a min and an apikores. not keeping tznius dosent make someone an apikores, nor does saying the rebbe is moshiach, making fun of a talmid chachum makes someone an apikores.
and the rambam clearly says that people who were raised a certain way these halachos dont apply too, and the chofetz chaim also speaks about this that because of this these halachos dont apply]

Give a non answer. [simply the tanya is coming to explain dovid hamelech, not tell you how to act today, (thats why its in brackets]
———————-

Lets ignore the first two points and concentrate on the [non]answer.

Tanya asks on his previous principle where he states a Jew [i.e. US] is meant to have also love and also hate towards a sinner. How does that fit with the pasuk of tahlit sin’a , where David hamelech is SHOWING US that the proper approach is hate only , without love.

To summarize , we have conflicting directives for US , is it love plus hate, or is it hate only ?

Answer of the Tanya is that it depends which type of sinner is it , the apikores type of sinner or the ma’amin type of sinner.

The apikores type the ‘only hate’ approach applies FOR US.
The ma’amin type of sinner ‘the ‘love-hate’ type approach applies FOR US.

That is the pshat for any unbiased learner of Tanya . This is plain obvious.

If pshat would be like sechel and all other habad apologists who are biased against the pashute pshat, why doesn’t tanya answer the question by saying the pasuk is talking about david hamelech and not for us ??

Al korchach that both his previous principle AND this pasuk are meant to be taken as directives FOR US.
.

@hakatan
Regarding the Chareidim in the Zionist parliament, that is halachically almost-impossible (read Rav Reuven Grozovsky’s biayos haZman). And according to the Satmar Rav and others, it’s severely prohibited.
====

It is more than ‘possible’…..
Haredim in Israeli Parliament is not only possible , but accepted halachic practice dating back to the very first Parliament in 1949.
This is supported by the overwhelming majority of Poskim ,Rabanim and Rashei Yeshivot in EY and in in Huts La’arets, not only as ‘permitted’, but as a Chov Gamur and as a Mitsva.

Some Kana’im do not participate , but this has no bearing on accepted halachic practice , as mentioned.

@avirah
That’s not only satmar. The rabbonim who backed away from the major israel rally a few months ago also said that demanding things from America is not the way we behave in galus.
[avirah]
——————-
Reminder- Discussion here was ,whether satmar shitah is being used for withholding arms , or not .
Whether satmar could ‘ve publicly rejected usage of their shita for blocking arms shipments.
And whether withholding arms is an issue of pikuach nefesh.
Resulting in satmar carrying responsibility for p/n.

That was the discussion.

There was no discussion about joining demo’s , nor about ‘demanding’ anything.

Now to your new point. Which rabbanim said exactly what, please ?
.

@avirah
Agudah doesn’t speak out when it’s cast wrongfully in the media either, and neither does mizrachi or zionist organizations. Your request of them is petty.
[avirah]
===

this was not ‘the media’.
This was the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.
.
You can rest assured that any of the mentioned organizations would speak up if they were misrepresented by one of the foremost officials in the country . bifrat if it would be nogea to p/n.

Your defense of them is laughable.

@hakatan
Non frum zionists could turn their state and its army into an idol. But frum Jews who serve in the Army can do so without turning the State nor the Army into an idol.

It is true that with young and impressionable recruits it is easier to shove it down their throats .

But this is not universal. Not at all.

There are plenty of haredim who went thru the Army and emerged with their emuna intact.
.

@AAQ
Not sure how contemporary science figures in this discussion.
.

@avirah
Yankel, the “who started it” is just as childish as when kids get into a fight. Both sides can point to an earlier point where there were attacks or aggression; it’s not clear at all who started it,
[avirah]
==============
This is not a playground squabble. This was a discussion about contravening 3 Shevuot , al hatsad that they apply lema’ase.

You stated that 300 villages in the hands of the Israelis contravenes the Shevuot. Whereas the fact that they are in Israeli hands is a direct outcome of real Arab attacks and threats to repeat the Mongol Massacres chvsh.
The Israeli’s proclaimed their medina when the Mandate expired. If the Arabs would have kept within their allotment under the UN Partition Plan of 1947 , the Israeli’s would too.

Remember , the Israeli’s accepted Partition. The Arabs did not, they aimed to drive the Jews into the sea.

Pikuach nefesh is docheh the shevuot. That was the point.