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.