Home › Forums › Rants › Joining Chabad › Reply To: Joining Chabad
NonPolitical: Simple. Since, according to both of you the NH did not rely on any novel Chassidic sources, rather any quotation are like a sima bearuvah, then obviously the only issue with Chassidus can be its novelty which is false; otherwise why place them in a cherem.
In other words:
A) Chassidus was place in a cherem, two options, 1) for good reasons, 2) for bad. Obviously for 2.
B) Chassidus was either 1) novel, 2) old news. Obviously 1, for if it was 2 then what’s the issue with it. (Novel meaning what was not thought of before).
C) Chassidus was a novel concept, 1) a completely new approach, 2) it has some new concepts, but is mainly old. (The answer for this one is a little longer, so please bear with me).
Claim: the NH has Chassidic ideas in it. A claim which was agreed upon by both you, since your claim is that although the NH says ideas that seem Chassidic the truth of the matter is that he actually took it from the same origin as Chassidus. So, our point of contention is if the NH is based on Chassidus. I claim option 1, it is a new approach, therefore, since the NH states some Chassidic ideas he must have based it on it. You claim option 2, that Chassidus has some old ideasm and for that it would not have been put in cherem (B, option 2), and the NH took those ideas, but they were put in cherem for B option 1.
Now, since Chassidus was place in a cherem for its bad (A) novel (B) ideas, {both of you seem to say that Chassidus is an invention}- and even the NH that has some Chassidic sources doesn’t take it from Chassidus (C) then obviously no talmudei HaGra held there was any truth to it, for if not, why put it them in cherem.
As for the rest of you rebuttal, saying I won’t get into it is more or less an admission, so thank you.