@Chabad Shluchah Please Explain Why Davening To/Betten a Rebbe is Okay

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics @Chabad Shluchah Please Explain Why Davening To/Betten a Rebbe is Okay

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 515 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1461285

    Toi
    Participant

    Chiefly, I’d like to know how non-meshichists and non-elokists explain hiskashrus and betten the Rebbe (especially after his passing), how to understand what the Rebbe could’ve possibly meant when he spoke about Ain Sof in a guf, why he would make a statement so easily misinterpreted, why Chabad rabbonim continue to make statements of this nature, why Chabad Rabbonim say things that sound like the Rebbe meant it literally (the infamous R Cunin video), why nonmeshichist/elokist rabbonim don’t feel a need to publicly distance themselves from views they view (or should view) as erroneous, and how a dead Rebbe can be in the room with you, hear you, answer you when you ask him for things, and not be considered idol worship. We can get to the smaller nekudos later. Please don’t think I have preconceived notions, it’s just that everything I have written occurs constantly within mainstream Chabad, not a fringe element, and that’s sort of worrisome.

    Thanks

    #1461308

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    I see it. This is kind of overwhelming because there is so much that isn’t understood here that all these questions are based on. If I answer point by point, you won’t understand or I’ll need to write a whole megilla which will be repetitive in the end.

    The way I can answer is by explaining concepts. Once those concepts are understood, the questions fall away as they are no longer questions. Does that sound like a plan? We are probably on different time zones and tomorrow is erev shabbos, but I’ll keep up until its answered (other people feel free to answer as well, it takes off the pressure and helps out.)

    I’ve done this on other threads and kept up until there were no more questions or until the thread was closed ๐Ÿ˜œ. Lmk if this sounds like a plan.

    #1461310

    Joseph
    Participant

    Just to put this conversation into perspective, the following were the previous comment that led to this new thread. Note that Toi said his question is the same as mine, but CS said it is a different question. So that sameness/difference can also be addressed. CS can respond to my question separately if she feels it’s a different question than Toi’s.

    ChabadShlucha originally wrote:

    โ€ฆwhen I was just married and my husband decided to go to kollel cuz thatโ€™s what the Rebbe saidโ€ฆ So we wrote into the Rebbe and got a letter that said that my husband should learn in a place with a โ€ฆ

    [Note that CS has stated she was born after the Rebbe was niftar. Also at Chabad chasunas today they often read a letter that is announced to be that the Rebbe wrote to the newlyweds. The question here being how is a Rebbe that is in Gan Eden giving detailed instructions to the living on what to do.]

    I responded:

    Whatโ€™s this business about you speaking to the Rebbe, writing to the Rebbe, and the Rebbe giving you answers and advice? Do you go to his Ohel for these speaking/writing and find a note from him written upstairs in Shamayim and sent downstairs to you in your mailbox?

    Toi wrote:

    I think weโ€™ll all welcome the explanation of how itโ€™s muttar to daven to a mimutzah, unless the Rebbe is Atzmuso Yisborach, like it says in his sicha, in which case weโ€™ve got a much bigger problem.

    ChabadShlucha responded:

    Anyhow back to toi, you have a different question than Joseph : his is how todayโ€™s lubavitchers maintain hiskashrus, yours is about the role of tzaddikim in general… Not to mention that in your post you are clueless, as the way you understand the Rebbeโ€™s words is completely skewed. Similar maybe, to a goy who sees Jews call themselves the chosen nation, and therefore concludes we must want to treat all goyim like the Nazis did. Completely off…

    Toi wrote:

    Josephโ€™s question and mine are the same for the purpose of this discussion… let us please not confuse chassidus , specifically that of Chabad, with Kabbalah. They are not the same…

    #1461313

    midwesterner
    Participant

    No reason to say elokist. When used in the context it is a shem avoda zara and therefore should be pronounced as chol. Elohist works just fine.

    #1461343

    samthenylic
    Participant

    When Lubavichers started saying “The Rebbe Shli”ta”, it put main-stream Yiddishkeit on edge. How could somebody on the “Oilom hoemes” be referred to as living and be written letters to, and prayed to?
    It looks like CH”V early X-tianity, where they said that X will again return etc…. I am afraid we need a Rabbi Shimon Hakipuli to make order.

    #1461366

    Kovna
    Participant

    Where is the source in the Torah for hiskashrus,and where do we find it by Torah Jews before Chasidus

    #1461389

    I get the impression, by your thinking that their questions are different and thinking Toi had a question on chassidus, that you may not be able to have objectivity in regard to what behaviors are halachically appropriate. If you are raised believing that one can dub himself mashiach, how could you possibly understand how wrong it really is? Your answers are usually directed at how to address people’s views of your actions instead of how you can justify them.

    #1461437

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    How many times do we have to go through this? Do people just want to push CS out of the CR this badly?

    She’s already explained that what she’s does is OK according to her Rebbeim (same justification all of us tend to give). We’ve already explained that we have a problem with a lot of it anyway, including myself.

    And, by the way, other Chassidim daven at graves of their past Rebbes, which is, I assume, what CS meant when she said this was a question about Chassidus in general.

    #1461432

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    First some basics as syag has a point. If I am to answer, we need to agree on the basics.

    1) there are no “Elokists” in lubavitch. It’s not lubavitch there are maybe a handful of some people, like five? Who went off r”l. So don’t equate them with lubavitch by saying meshichists and Elokists as if it’s one and the same.

    2) we had a discussion on meshichists, the term means different things to different people. May be helpful to elaborate on what you mean by that, as by one definition, I wouldn’t be, by another definition, the vast majority of lubavitch are.

    3) If we’re discussing Torah, all Torah sources should be acceptable. Otherwise were just having a culturally acceptable conversation which is not worth my time as you can’t have a fruitful discussion based on emotion.

    And by Torah sources I mean that Zohar and other pnimius HaTorah, such as Chassidus sources can be used as well. It’s the same Torah and you will find the sources in Nigle as well, but I am not as familiar with all Nigle sfarim. We shouldn’t have to bring the nefesh Hachaim because the Zohar or Tanya isn’t as acceptable. Of course you can bring in supporting Nigle sources, is all the same Torah and you’ll find the ideas in both. Gaon seems like he’s got a well rounded base of knowledge and maybe he’ll be able to help out here as well,

    Can we agree on these points?

    #1461436

    aww
    Participant

    As far as going to the ohel there is no davening to the Rebbe chโ€v. When one writes a Pan (or kvittel) the minhag is to start off with the words ืื ื ืœืขื•ืจืจ ืจื—ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื . We ask that the Rebbe should intercede on our behalf and be ืžืขื•ืจืจ ืจื—ืžื™ื from Hashem thatโ€™s how every kvittel starts.

    As for the permissibility of this the ืžื ื—ืช ืืœืขื–ืจ (who is not a lubatcher or biased according to some posts here) writes this is not only permissible it is a MITZVA. See ืฉื•ืช ืžื ื—ืช ืืœืขื–ืจ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืกื— look it up for yourself please.

    #1461435

    aww
    Participant

    Maybe you are the one thatโ€™s biased syag lechochma?

    If you really want an answer to the above question you canโ€™t be lazy and have to actually look up the sources!

    As far as tzadikim being alive after their passing see NEFESH HACHAIM 4:21 this is a litvishe sefer! I quote:

    ื•ืœื ืžืฉื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืžืงื˜ื ื•ืชื• ื•ืขื“ ื–ืงื ื•ืชื• ื•ืžืช. ื‘ืืžืช ืœื ืžืช ืืœื ื”ื•ื ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืœืขื•ืœืžื™ ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ

    . ืžืงื™ืฉ ื”ืช”ื— ื”ืฆื“ื™ืง ืืœ ืืœื”ื™ื ืžื” ืืœืงื™ื ื™ื”ื ืฉืžื• ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžื‘ื•ืจืš ื—ื™ ื•ืงื™ื ื›ื•’. ื›ืš ืช”ื— ืฉืขืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœ ื™ืžื™ื• ื•ืžืช ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืช ื•ื”ื•ื ื—ื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื•’

    ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืชืŸ ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื‘ื—ื™ื™ื”ื ืœืื™ืŸ ืขืจื•ืš

    Look this up yourself please

    #1461455

    refoelzeev
    Participant

    @aww no one says Moshe Rabbeinu shlita. There’s a clear difference between what the Nefesh Hachaim writes and claiming that someone is alive to the point that they can/will be Moshiach. Using that quote it would make more sense to say Dovid Hamelech is moshiach, as he is still alive.

    #1461459

    aww
    Participant

    I wasnโ€™t saying anyone was moshiach, that has nothing to do with what I wrote

    #1461516

    refoelzeev
    Participant

    @aww I’m just giving a practical nafka minah between the ability to tack on the title shlita and what the Nefesh Hachaim is referring to.

    #1461522

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    As far as tzadikim being alive after their passing see NEFESH HACHAIM

    Aww, sorry, your argument doesn’t wash. The Rebbe is treated as alive more than any other talmid chochom in history.

    I wasnโ€™t saying anyone was moshiach, that has nothing to do with what I wrote

    It’s hard to argue that treating the Rebbe as living and reating him as moshiach aren’t related.

    #1461526

    aww
    Participant

    These are not nafka Minas at all.

    1) The expression shlita (what it stands for) only really makes sense for someone alive in a physical body. But itโ€™s not really factually that wrong since the nefesh hachaim says clearly ื‘ืืžืช* ืื™ื ื• ืžืช* and ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ* ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื*. Direct quotes. Again Iโ€™m not advising it but if you have ืืžื•ื ื” that what the nefesh hachaim is saying is actually true itโ€™s not factually wrong that a ืฆื“ื™ืง is alive (without a physical body) just not an appropriate expression.

    2) moshiach has nothing to do with it at all. Just because someone is alive doesnโ€™t mean they are or can be moshiach. And just because someone is dead doesnโ€™t mean they canโ€™t be moshiach. The Rambam writes that techyas hameisim is one of the 13 ikkrim, so we all have to believe in it. The same Rambam writes in iggeres techiyas hameisim (which everyone agrees was written by the Rambam himself) that techiyas hameisim can happen either after or before moshiach. Now if techiyas hameisim happens before moshiach there is no source or svara to say that just because someone experienced techiyas hameisim that excludes them from being moshiach. So one of those who went through techiyas Maisim could be moshiach. Again being alive or dead or moshiach have nothing to do with each other.

    #1461540

    ๐Ÿ‘‘RebYidd23
    Participant

    If you claim the Rebbe is Mashiach after techiyas hameisim, that means you are placing him above every other tzaddik who has ever lived.

    #1461554

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Would anyone treat any other chassidic group the way chabad is treated here? and no I am not Chabad

    Why is it OK to question Chabad on messanism , but not OK to question Satmar on Anti-Zionism?

    #1461537

    GAON
    Participant

    Aww,

    The issue is not whether he can theoretically be Moshiach or not (that is a discussion on its own – refer to the closed thread: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/mesichists-explained-by-chabadshlucha)

    Rather, how it has been created as a tenet and essential part of Yehadus as a ‘movement’ on its own. There is no inyan on having to “follow” and declare one as Moshiach. Yes, you can believe whatever you wish as the Moshiach but to go to such an extent is sort of like it happened with the Shabsei Tzvi movement.

    #1461587

    Joseph
    Participant

    ZD, because anti-Zionism is the correct Torah hashkafa according to the Torah world, both Litvish and Chasidish. Messianism is not.

    #1461588

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    Since when are we not allowed to talk about Satmar and Anti-Zionism? Are you new to the CR?

    I don’t think the mods are blocking 100 Satmar threads per day while letting through Chabad ones. There’s clearly just more of an interest in Chabad right now for some reason.

    #1461591

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ Zahavas Dad

    “Why is it OK to question Chabad on messanism , but not OK to question Satmar on Anti-Zionism?”

    Surely you do know it is a matter of historical record that anti-zionism was / is a mainstream position among the Gedolim. The issue of contention is a matter of degree and tactics. (Before all the tzionim on here start listing names of Gedolim who where not anti-zionist or neutral on the issue notice I said mainstream to all.) Chabbad mashichistism (even mashichistism-lite) certainly was / is not mainstream. Lo matzinu lai chaver outside of Chabbad and even within Chabbad it is a matter of dispute (see posts by Sechel HaYashar on the relevant thread(s).

    #1461604

    aww
    Participant

    GAON that has nothing to do with the first 2 questions posted and that was my point.

    Anyways are we allowed to question misnagdim or litvish on this forum? Hereโ€™s my question how come litvish yeshiva bochrim are clean shaven when even the goyim I see donโ€™t shave (at least not clean shaven). Is it to distinguish themselves from the goyim? Ha ha just joking

    Gut shabbos

    #1461612

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    I am well aware that before World War 2 , the mainstream charedi position was anti-zionism, It was also the opinion of the mainstream gedolim not to go to the US (And this was the position of the Satmar Rebbe as well) too

    However the war and the holocaust changed things dramatically and the mainstream position has been either zionist or non-zionist (like the Chazon Ish, not the anti-zionism of Muncatch or Satmar

    #1461615

    Toi
    Participant

    1) The boreinu-niks are not extremely uncommon, not that we need to talk about them, though you will need to distinguish how whatever atzmus areingishtelt in a guf does mean doesn’t essentially mean the same thing.

    2)People who believe with unconditional certainty that the Rebbe is moshiach. To break this down, unless we’re unhinged and believed he never died, it means a belief that moshiach is here/has come, and is dead.

    3)I’m fine with any Torah sources, niglah and nistar, with the obvious exclusion of any Chabad torah from after the Baal Hatanya, simply because if we’re going to try and establish the hashkafic/halachik validity of a chassidus and its questionable practices, relying on the very texts that are extremely problematic is a bit of a fait accompli. The Rebbe’s sicha about him being atzmus can’t be accepted as a source if I’m going to try and show why it’s problematic.

    #1461616

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Lol aww enjoy! As for me if anyone wants me to answer sources etc. I need a a starter that any Torah source is acceptable, not just the ones the questioner may be more familiar with. Also would need to clarify who the Rebbe was and is because judging people lchaf zechus, it seems some are unaware.

    Since I have a halachic obligation afaik to protest the denigration of a talmid Chochom and kal vchomer my Rebbe, would need these points to be clarified before any serious answers can be posted. Lmk if you’re interested. Gutte voch.

    #1461622

    WinnieThePooh
    Participant

    CS, I would advise to stop while you are ahead. What you write will be interesting and enlightening, but will not change anyone’s opinion on these practices, if anything, it will reinforce them, which is what I think happened with the last thread. You’re just asking for certain posters to attack you and Chabad in general, and I think we’ve all have had enough of that. I am sure you have better things to do with your time.

    #1461685

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    I need a a starter that any Torah source is acceptable, not just the ones the questioner may be more familiar with. Also would need to clarify who the Rebbe was and is because judging people lchaf zechus, it seems some are unaware.

    Since I have a halachic obligation afaik to protest the denigration of a talmid Chochom and kal vchomer my Rebbe, would need these points to be clarified before any serious answers can be posted. Lmk if youโ€™re interested.

    So basically, if the Rebbe said he was G-d, we have to accept it because of who he was.

    But as Toi points out, if we’re questioning who the Rebbe was, it doesn’t make sense to accept your opinion on that as a given, and if we’re questioning Chabad philosophy, it doesn’t make sense to include Chabad sources, since we are questioning their validity as Torah sources. So making those conditions is a slick way of chickening out.

    #1461691

    Toi
    Participant

    @cs I’m entirely unfamiliar with classic Chassidic sources, and still have no problem with them being brought as sources; I thought it would be obvious that you can’t bring the Rebbe as a source if the validity of those ideas are in question. I have no problem with you clarifying who the Rebbe was. “Is” would be a bot more complicated, and probably more problematic, as he isn’t. Dan likaf zchus means that if you see something questionable and have no definite knowledge of the situation you need to be dan the individual lkaf zchus. It does not mean that when extremely problematic halachic issues have been raised, verified, and recorded in sichas, that you must ignore them. Again, I would appreciate an honest response explaining the troublesome sources, not beating around them with claims of fealty to the Rebbe. Don’t you think he’d rather you explain them and spread the light more than backing away with an lol?

    #1461712

    litvishechossid
    Participant

    When you are not confident or confused with who you are and what you believe, you constantly feel the need to defend and attack. It is interesting that noone else feels a need to defend themselves or attack every other Jew on this planet or in the next world. And if you tell me that most Jewish groups dont get attacked by others, it isnt totally true and the reason chabad gets attacked the most is because they bring it upon themselves by proactively bashing other Yidden behind the scenes in their “pep” talk gatherings and telling other Yidden how chabad is right and they are wrong, and that all need to follow the lubavitch way.
    If you would just keep to yourselves without opening up chabad centers in the most litvishe neighborhoods, complain about how there was resistance to it, and try to influence everyone to follow you, most likely your problem wouldnt exist. Its also funny how you complain about the fact that it was so hard to get a chabad center in lakewood which im totally not sure why thats necessary other than to try to inflitrate (didnt know lakewood to be such a lubavitch community). Its funny because im just imagining what kind of H— would be raised in crown heights if someone had the idea to build a Young Israel there which btw many would go to, seeing how the Carlebach Ahavas Yisroel on Albany Ave is overflowed with crown heights residents(which is totally looked down upon in crown heights and they dont have an easy time).
    Also they forget in crown heights that around 50 years ago, the place was basically a flatbush/boro park with all types of YIdden and chabad was the total minority until most Yidden moved away.

    So basically its ok for you to barge into everyone elses neighborhoods but CV”S if anyone enters yours it might be too much “competition”, “they will lower us down”, “why is everyone trying to destroy lubavitch!” Just accept that everyone follows their own and not everyone is trying to be convinced by your “inspiring” 5 words of chassidus when you meet them.

    #1461766

    Toi
    Participant

    Litvishechosid- let’s try and keep tot he source material and explaining them adequately, as opposed to bashing societal problems- we can find enough of those in any sect of Yiddishkeit, unfortunately. I also have been troubled by Chabad’s need to open chabad houses in places like lakewood and kiryat sefer, where nearly everyone is chareidi and their motives need understanding.

    #1461763

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    OK let me just clarify the situation. The Rebbe was not born yesterday and this comment was not made yesterday – it was made in 1950 before the Rebbe took on the nesius , when the Rebbe was farbrenging about the Frierdiker Rebbe’s greatness. Now I have never heard of any big shturem that erupted then in the jewish world – either they understood the comments as the chassidim did (which you don’t because you haven’t learned Chassidus and which I can clarify for you if wanted sincerely), or they realized the Rebbe is such a Torah giant that they must not have understood right.

    The Rebbe, already when he arrived in America knew the whole Shas in and out, and by Farbrengens, Rabbi Soliveitchik expressed amazement at the Rebbe’s ability to speak for hours on end, with no notes, quoting from kol HaTorah kula, both Nigleh and Chassidus.

    So I’m definitely not here to exonerate the Rebbe to you, as it is a chutzpah to think you are in the position to even question the Rebbe.

    For example, my Rebbeim did not endorse zionism, quite the opposite. However I would never tell a zionist that Rav Kook didn’t know what he is talking about cuz I know Torah better and he doesn’t make sense.

    I would never do such a thing because I’m a Torah yid abs we don’t treat Daas Torah that way. If he asks me why I’m not a zionist, I would quote what my Rebbeim said as they have the ability to disagree because they’re on the same level. But I would never deign to place myself on the same level as HaRav Kook, and I would expect the same of every Torah he.

    Now that doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions. But there is definitely a way to ask. Such as “I don’t understand how the Rebbe could have said this because I don’t see how that can fit with this Rambam….”

    And in such a case I’ll be happy to clarify, of course I can use the Rebbe to clarify his own statements.

    So if that’s what you want, great. If you are just looking to bash lubavitch and the Rebbe Chas vsholom, at your own risk, I will definitely not be party to such a discussion.

    Joseph, you had a sincere question and I’ll be happy to answer. You always phrase things appropriately in my experience. Toi let me know where you stand.

    #1461765

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    @wtp that was my mistake with the last thread. I thought respect for Daas Torah was a given. So you’re right I won’t make that mistake again bli neder. At the same time, if we can agree to that, then it can be an interesting discussion. If not, then it’s not that there are no answers, it’s that the questioner is not interested in answers, just questions. So unfortunately, I’ll have to leave him with his questions.

    #1461785

    aww
    Participant

    The trick is to answer using non Lubavitch sources that no one can have an excuse not to accept,

    I have done that for the two questions that started this forum.

    I can do that similarly with EVERY other question on Lubavitch.

    #1461787

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    I live in a very frum neighborhood and there is a chabad house that most would consider “unessasary” and they are not really welcome in the neighborhood. However I see the people who go there. it caters to a certain segment of the community that might not fit elsewhere. We have enough people and the the chabad house doesnt really “steal” anyone from any other shul

    Just because Lakewood is mostly charedi, doenst mean everyone there belong in that community, there are people there who arent really part of the community for whatever reason. Im sure the amount of people who go to the Chabad house in Lakewood is infinitesimal compared to the greater population

    And BTW there are other chassidim who are moving to Lakewood. In some of the cul-de-sacs there there are chassdic shteibels right next to yeshivish shteibels (They are not really shitebels as they are actually quite large)

    #1461794

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    I have done that for was the two questions that started this forum.

    Let’s see – the first question was betten the Rebbe. You agreed it’s wrong, andย  your denial that it happens doesn’t ring true. The second was treating the Rebbe as alive, to which you responded that ืฆื“ื™ืงื™ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืชื ืงืจื•ื™ื ืžืชื™ื, but you can’t explain why in history we never had the phenomenon of a ืฆื“ื™ืง who passed being referred to as alive the way many (most) Lubavichers do with the Rebbe.

    If you can’t do any better with the other questions, you won’t have done much.

    #1461797

    Toi
    Participant

    @cs We are not questioning the Rebbe. What we are questioning are several statements he made, to better understand what those statements mean. I’m fine with an interpretation the chassidim give, but the interpretation must a) be given, b) fit with core beliefs in Judaism. The statements he made about the Friediker Rebbe, among others, need to be understood to be accepted, not taken as a given, perhaps not by Lubavitch chassidim (they can take whatever he said on faith if they so choose) but Jews from other sects would be in remiss if they didn’t attempt to understand those statements. If the Lubavitcher Chassidim cannot offer an explanation that shtims with basic, core beliefs in Judaism, how can you expect anyone to take those statements at anything but face value, which, you’ll excuse me, sound incredibly wild, and objectively considered, border on heresy. Again, please do not get emotional- what I have stated is, as best I can see, a fact, and I mean no offense. Can we accept that perplexing statements made by anyone are up for logical explanation in a way that fits with classic sources, be they in nigla or nistar? Or do some people have a carte blanche to say whatever they want, beyond question, and expect the rest of the world to believe it, as troublesome as that sounds?

    #1461804

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    I thought respect for Daas Torah was a given.

    Of course it is, but who determines who is a valid source of daas Torah?

    #1461805

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    If not, then itโ€™s not that there are no answers, itโ€™s that the questioner is not interested in answers, just questions.

    I think that’s an incorrect assumption on your part. I know I speak for myself that I would love some acceptable answers to some of the craziness (to put it mildly) that goes on, as unlikely as they are.

    Even if you see it that way based on some of the responses, don’t you realize that this is a public forum, and there might be hudreds of people reading your comments who never even log on? Surely you don’t think every single reader of YWN has no interest in actual answers?

    #1461808

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Toi, if it sounds the way you think it does, by all means ask. Just saying that if you’d like me to answer, we need to have proper respect here. The first time you asked on the other thread, that respect was lacking. Ok happy to start answering with no further ado, as long as respect is adhered to.

    #1461809

    aww
    Participant

    Dads yochid I see you canโ€™t even read so there is nothing to respond.

    #1461811

    Joseph
    Participant

    Joseph, you had a sincere question and Iโ€™ll be happy to answer. You always phrase things appropriately in my experience.

    My expounded questions are in the third post of this thread. If you care to answer it presumably I need not repeat it. Thanks.

    #1461814

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    Dads yochid I see you canโ€™t even read so there is nothing to respond.

    Ok, so pretend I didn’t make valid points.

    #1461824

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    DY yes I am very aware of the many readers. Just if every other post I need to protest the denigration of Torah, is not very productive. So that’s why I’m setting my terms now.

    #1461823

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    DY not me and you. Another accepted Torah giant, in this case chiefly, the Frierdiker Rebbe, amongst many others.

    #1461818

    aww
    Participant

    The argument that just because something supposedly ( with no proof offered) was not done in the past by itself is not an argument.

    The institution of kollel as it exists in America or eretz Yisroel also has not existed in the history of klal Yisroel. Iโ€™m very pro kollel but my point is only to show that that argument IN ITSELF is useless

    #1461819

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    Ok happy to start answering with no further ado, as long as respect is adhered to.

    “1) The boreinu-niks are not extremely uncommon, not that we need to talk about them, though you will need to distinguish how whatever atzmus areingishtelt in a guf does mean doesnโ€™t essentially mean the same thing.

    2)People who believe with unconditional certainty that the Rebbe is moshiach. To break this down, unless weโ€™re unhinged and believed he never died, it means a belief that moshiach is here/has come, and is dead.”

    https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chabad-shluchah-please-explain-why-davening-to-betten-a-rebbe-is-okay#post-1461615

    Plus, as Joseph pointed out, the third post in the thread.

    #1461837

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    The argument that just because something supposedly ( with no proof offered) was not done in the past by itself is not an argument.

    It’s not just that it wasn’t done in the past; it’s not even done in the present by practically anyone else but Chabad chassidim regarding the Rebbe, and no one else

    #1461836

    DaasYochid โ˜•
    Participant

    Another accepted Torah giant, in this case chiefly, the Frierdiker Rebbe

    In case you didn’t know, he was also quite controversial.

    #1461870

    aww
    Participant

    Days yochid thatโ€™s even a worse argument.
    Most Lubavitchers (all that I know and I know a lot since Iโ€™m in the system) do accept the Rebbe passed and his Yahrtzeit ื’ ืชืžื•ื– is market by thousands of people visiting his tziun. (You can even see pictures on Yeshiva world as photo evidence). What are all those people doing there on his yahrtzeit. At the same time they have ืืžื•ื ื”, that a tzadik still lives on as is explained in Tanya. As I quoted above this concept is brought even in litvish Sefer nefesh hachaim were he says tzaddikim ืœื ืžืช and ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื . Why no one had ืืžื•ื ื” in this concept or talks about it is a question on them not Lubavitch . Lubavitch in general has more emuna in Torah concept than others who are influenced by rationalistic goyish philosophies.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 515 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending