- This topic has 66 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If this was discussed i already, I apologize, but I sincerely never hear dof this. The Rebbe said he was hashems atzmus in a body?? Can’t blame meshichists on that. If someone can explain,please do. If this specific line was explained in another thread, please post a link.
I mean I don’t know How to search threads. It was stated by toi and started Chabad shlucha please explain…
Someone brought the nefesh chaim(I think) who pretty much said the same thing. It does help to see context. One more thing- this was said by the Rebbe before he became RebbeYes it was discussed. I don’t know how to post the link though.
i don’t know either if this has been discussed elsewhere, but it is known that the Brisker Rav zl had some very strong words (out of kavod for the Lubavitch Chasidim I won’t quote him) against the rebbe because of this statement
Similarly, in משפטים and כי תשא there is a pasuk: שלש פעמים בשנה יראה כל זכורך אל\את פני האדון ה’ וגו’. it says in
זוהר חלק ב’ דף ל”ח עמוד א’: מאן פני האדון דא רשב”י.
and it says in ירושלמי בכורים פ”ג ה”ג: והוי’ בהיכל קדשו דא ר’ יצחק בר’ לעזר בכנישתא מדרשא דקיסרין.
to understand all this you must have a good understanding in אחדות ה’. a good understanding in what a נשמה of a Yid is. a good understanding in what a רבי is. you would need to learn a lot of חסידות חב”ד that discusses these ענינים with someone who is well versed in these ענינים.There was a discussion at length here before.
This has been discussed at length ad nauseum here. Not going to respond to the hashkafah here, there’s plenty of other talk on this matter, if you care enough to find it. Couple of quick facts though that are not debatable.
This was originally published in a sicha titled Basi Legani, (1951) when he became rebbe. It was not some bochurishe hava amina. He was defining the relationship between a rebbe and his chassidim mostly in terms of his father in law, but at the point where he was assuming that very mantle of leadership. I’ve heard that in versions published since the ’80s, this line has been edited out.
To knaidlach: If you want to prove that any questionable thesis or philosophy is consistent with normative Torah thought, one must prove it from outside that philosophy’s writings. Proving the Chabad hashkafah is normative Torah by telling someone to look in Chassidus Chabad puts you in an endless loop.
Hey, how funny that I punkt checked in today. This was discussed ad nauseum in an old thread. There was no good teretz. Chabadshlucha just dug in her heels and dug herself in deeper and deeper.
anyone please feel free to justify chabad’s position on identifyingchabad.org
I suggest doing a CR search and you’re sure to find it
Perhaps we can find a bunch of guys to run up and down Eastern Parkway with yellow banners proclaiming that when Moishiach comes, the shidduch crisis will be over. Then we can start a new thread combining the two most popular subjects in the history of the CR.
A few points to keep in mind when discussing this.
1) What is the definition of עצמותו ומהותו, don’t forget, that in Chabad אור אין סוף and אין סוף are distinct entities. I.e. define מכוסה and מופלא.
2) What does it mean that ever נשמת אלוקות is a חלק מאלוק ממש, emphasis on ממש.
3) Regarding point 2, how can there be many ‘levels’ of נשמות if they are all אלקות.Answer these points then you should have a clearer understanding of the topic.
@The Fake Maven – I am quite certain the language is חלקא-לוק ממעל not ממש.
It all has the “Reach Avoda Z…” R”L! Better not to look into it.
Mitwesterner. if you wanto understand a statement that someone made, wouldn’t it be best to ask the one who said it to explain himself etc.? obviously yes, so thats why i said that in order to understand this statement you must learn chasidus chabad to understand what a chebad rebbe meant when saying ATSMUS UMEHUS and what he meant by saying a GUF of a REBBE and what he meant with this statement etc.
this statement belongs to חלק הנסתר דתורה so in order to understand this statement you should delve in to חלק הנסתר דתורה. like any other question you have about any subject, you would ask the one that knows that subject well. and in order to understand nister detorah you should learn it with someone who already learned it because its very easy to takes things the wrong way.
BTW you ignored the 2 sources i brought the ZOIHAR and the YERUSHALMI@Shauli
Tanya second perek: חלק אלוק ממעל ממש.
The Ramak in Pardes Ramonim: וענין האבות מעלה גדולה מהם שאינם איברים אבל הם כל עצם האלקות המתפשט אל התחתונים.
Shefa Tal in the introduction (also quotes the Ramak): והנשמה הוא חלק אור וניצות שנחלק מהאור הגדול ברוך הוא וברוך שמו.@ CS “nefesh chaim(I think) who pretty much said the same thing”
No he did not. Nothing of the sort.
@ Knaidelach
Since you are so fond of just tossing around ma’amarei Zohar, check out the Ramchal’s sefer Kinas Hashem. You will be astonished (not in a good way) at the kind of things one can arrive at by simply taking statements of the Zohar at face value. It IS called sisrai Torah for a reason, you know.
@ Toi
Fancy seeing you here 🙂
@The Fake Maven:
First of all, your original quote left out the word ממעל.Secondly, the operative word here is חלק and the prefix מ of ממעל.
Similarly the words חלק מן האור abd the word שנתחלק (Sefer HaTal quoted above) does not infer or imply עצמות ומהות as is being suggested the Rebbe said.
Thirdly, arguably the אבות הקדושים – the מרכבה לשכינה – cannot be compared to anyone who followed them.
Friends, you are never going to get them to change their minds, and as long as they hold these beliefs, they are (sort of, consult your posak/Rov) “chutz l’machenah”. Ignore them, learn as much Torah as you can, do Mitzvos Bein adam “Makom and bain adon v’chavaro. You won’t see them at a Siym Ha Shas or any other asifah where all b’nai Torah/ G’dolai Torah. The End
The problem with Chabad (and Breslov) is that it is a chassidut without a rebbe. That is like a ship without a captain. Anyone can claim to be Chabad or Breslov or both (yes, there are such people). The “official” Chabadniks never talk like this. they even say “the Rebbe zatsal”.
” You won’t see them at a Siym Ha Shas or any other asifah where all b’nai Torah/ G’dolai Torah.”
For the record, Agudas Yisroel hardly makes up “all the gedolei hatorah” and in fact many gedolim were and are opposed to the Agudah since its inception for a variety of reasons. If they were represented by foolish chutzpadig people like you they would be saying it is you and your ilk that are chutz l’machaneh.
What does it matter if people attend your events or follow your hashkafos? Are you that self conscious that if people object to something you believe in it is the end of the world for you or you are forced to write them off?
Quit being a machriv riv. The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s statements were and are well known and despite that he enjoyed the support of many. If you want a comment on his character I suggest you look at what Reb Moshe addresses him as in his letters to him.
if i remember correctly the noted i the sichah say there is no mekor to it
I haven’t gone make nor have the time for the CR but the heading caught my attention.
“Friends, you are never going to get them to change their minds, and as long as they hold these beliefs, they are (sort of, consult your posak/Rov) “chutz l’machenah”. Ignore them, learn as much Torah as you can, do Mitzvos Bein adam “Makom and bain adon v’chavaro. You won’t see them at a Siym Ha Shas or any other asifah where all b’nai Torah/ G’dolai Torah. The End”First of all who are you to put us chutz lemachaneh?
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it right, especially when many gedoilim don’t have the same views as you. Aderabeh they hold of chabad.
Maybe of you learnt chassidus and understood what a true rebbe is (not a borocha machine), maybe you would understand. (There are many non lubavichers not understand)
Second you’re a complete lier there was many chabad rabonim/magidai shurim/liomdim at the siyum hashes and some were on stage. So either you’re a lier or just don’t hear enough to get the fact before you’re moitzei sham rah.If you want to understand what it means you got to understand these points and if you don’t have an understanding what they’re then it’s just fear to say you can’t have an opinion on the topic.
Points:
What a neshomah is.
The difference between a tzadiks neshomah and a regular
neshomah.
What does it mean melubish.
What does atzmus mean.
What is Rebbe .
What’s the job of a Rebbe
And what’s so important of having a Rebbe.You can easily get the answers if you just get off the CR and go to a lubavicher that has an understanding of chassidus and can explain chassidus well. You won’t be the first 😉
To name some that are non in the velt: Rabbi YY Jacobson, Rabbi Shies Taub, Rabbi Yossi Paltiel, Rabbi Manis Freidmen. But there are many others that are good too.And just to note.
The statement does seems radical especially to those that learned chassidus. Because atzmus can’t be nislabish, and if it is then atzmus isn’t atzmus. So obviously you need to explanation.
And it’s a no brainer that you go to a Rebbi for this not a CR.
By going to the CR you give and impression that you’re not actually sincere to understand. Rather just to…….@Shauli
If part of a conceptually infinite being (אין סוף) [as opposed to an indefinite infinity] was ‘separated’ from the rest, that which was separated will contain in it all that it had originally. Thus a ‘part’ (חלק) can be no different than from where it originated from.
Therefore all your points would seem irrelevant, since all you are proving is just that it is ‘part’ not the ‘full’ thing; but you admit to it being ‘part’ of אלוקות ממש, (unlike your original objection).
As to the Avos, see the Shefa Tal there where he draws a parallel between every Jew. But furthermore we are talking about Tzaddikim.
As it was discussed many times before, “They are a KAT like early X-ians (R”L) making a “new” religion. The LESS we dig into it, the better…!
Reply to Sish. There are Daf Yomi shiurim at OU shuls, Young Israel Shuls, Sfardi Batei Kessiot, Gerrer, Belz, Vishnitz, in Eretz Yisroel many “hesder” almni, even at many many Satmar- affiliated Shuls… but not at any Chabad shuls that I have been able to find. Please explain to us why Limud Sha”S in conjunction with all of the Torah world, NOT just Agudah is something Chabad unwilling (or unable) to join in. This, all Jews learning Torah together, is “machane Yisroel”. which we simply see Chabad “B’chutz”
Avi K
“The problem with Chabad (and Breslov) is that it is a chassidut without a rebbe. That is like a ship without a captain. Anyone can claim to be Chabad or Breslov or both (yes, there are such people). The “official” Chabadniks never talk like this. they even say “the Rebbe zatsal”.”I don’t if you realize but you’re arguing with people that are much greater then you.
You are going against the Rebbes words of what a tzadik is which is brought in tayah from a mamar chazal.
Just look it up tayah igers hakoidesh chof Zain. And look up what the Rebbe said around the time of hay taives of what a Rebbe is.
When you have looked it up you would see that chabad is not “chassidus with out a Rabbe” (aderabeh the whole inyan of a Rebbe is his chassidus, his Torah , and ahavah and yirah) and you can still say zaztal. It’s not a stirah. For people that are am haratzim everything becomes a stirah.(I don’t know what this has to do with people claiming to be chabad. But either way not everyone can claim to be chabad.)
“but not at any Chabad shuls that I have been able to find. ”
Not true. Chabad of Lakewood has. I know quite a few others. Just google “chabad daf yomi” or “crown heights daf yomi” without the quotes.
I can’t include a link to the Chabad website but if you check, you will find a daf yomi link to an online daf yom offered by Rav Avraham Meyer Zajac. There are definitely local chabad shalichim that have started daf yom classes but its not that widespread.
In the פתיחה to the מורה נבוכים the rambam writes when I find the road narrow, and can see no other way of teaching a well established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and displeasing ten thousand fools–I prefer to address myself to the one man, and to take no notice whatever of the condemnation of the multitude; I prefer to extricate that intelligent man from his embarrassment and show him the cause of his perplexity, so that he may attain perfection and be at peace.
In the פתיחה to the מורה נבוכים the rambam writes “when I have a difficult subject before me–when I find the road narrow, and can see no other way of teaching a well established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and displeasing ten thousand fools–I prefer to address myself to the one man, and to take no notice whatever of the condemnation of the multitude; I prefer to extricate that intelligent man from his embarrassment and show him the cause of his perplexity, so that he may attain perfection and be at peace.”
The rambam writes in the hakdama to the moreh. when I have a difficult subject before me when I find the road narrow, and can see no other way of teaching a well established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and displeasing ten thousand fools I prefer to address myself to the one man, and to take no notice whatever of the condemnation of the multitude I prefer to extricate that intelligent man from his embarrassment and show him the cause of his perplexity, so that he may attain perfection and be at peace.
The rambam writes in his פתיחה to the מורה נבוכים “when I have a difficult subject before me–when I find the road narrow, and can see no other way of teaching a well established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and displeasing ten thousand fools–I prefer to address myself to the one man, and to take no notice whatever of the condemnation of the multitude; I prefer to extricate that intelligent man from his embarrassment and show him the cause of his perplexity, so that he may attain perfection and be at peace.”
it says yisroel v’oraysah v’kudeshah berich hu chad hu but if based on that i say that im Hashem im still a kofer
btw in the notes of the sichah i think he writes that he has no mekor so ill those who say there are mekoros i guess he didnt hold they wereregarding reb moshe the letter was way before the moshiach stuff and he addresses him like any other rebbe
@The Fake Maven –
“Therefore all your points would seem irrelevant, since all you are proving is just that it is ‘part’ not the ‘full’ thing; but you admit to it being ‘part’ of אלוקות ממש, (unlike your original objection).”
Clearly you misunderstood my original objections.“As to the Avos, see the Shefa Tal there where he draws a parallel between every Jew. But furthermore we are talking about Tzaddikim.”
Dovid HaMelech teaches, ועמך כולם צדיקים. Toras CHaBa”D aside, there are, according to this posuk and to all hashgafos (CHaGa”S, etc.) there are far more than one tzadik in every generation, community, beis medrash o shul / Beis Medrash.“ regarding reb moshe the letter was way before the moshiach stuff and he addresses him like any other rebbe”
Right we aren’t talking about the Moshiach stuff that’sa different topic. We’re talking about this one quote and if Reb Moishe Thought it was something outside the pale of Yiddishkeit he would not have addressed the Rebbe as he did.
Kcup if no one posts the meaning and context of that quote I can for you according to my simple understanding. I’m not as well versed in chassidus as I’m sure some of the men here are. So I’d prefer they type it up but if not I’ll post for you iyH.
Chossid, while one learns the Troah of the greats of previous times (and thus we say “says”) they are not here to give guidance to the generation. Rather we go by the judges in our times. As no living person is at the helm there is no captain and anyone can claim to be a Chabadnik or Breslover. In contrast, when the Rebbe was alive he pushed out at least one person who crossed the line. Of course, if you hold seances …
Clearly you misunderstood… That may very well be, so kindly elaborate.
As to your second objection: you seem to misunderstand the meaning of ועמך כולם צדיקים which is referring to the נפש אלוקות which every jew had, and is therefore אלקות. But by a Tzadik even his גשמיות has been refined.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe didn’t say it about himself but about his father-in-law, the previous Rebbe.
There are definitely ways to interpret the Rebbe’s words that are not apikorsus at all. Why assume a bad interpretation?
Hashem is the only thing that has real existence. As the Rambam writes at the beginning of Mishnah Torah:
יְסוֹד הַיְסוֹדוֹת וְעַמּוּד הַחָכְמוֹת לֵידַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם מָצוּי רִאשׁוֹן. וְהוּא מַמְצִיא כָּל נִמְצָא. וְכָל הַנִּמְצָאִים מִשָּׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וּמַה שֶּׁבֵּינֵיהֶם לֹא נִמְצְאוּ אֶלָּא מֵאֲמִתַּת הִמָּצְאוֹ
אִם יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ מָצוּי אֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהִמָּצְאוֹת
וְאִם יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת שֶׁאֵין כָּל הַנִּמְצָאִים מִלְּבַדּוֹ מְצוּיִים הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יִהְיֶה מָצוּי. וְלֹא יִבָּטֵל הוּא לְבִטּוּלָם. שֶׁכָּל הַנִּמְצָאִים צְרִיכִין לוֹ וְהוּא בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָהֶם וְלֹא לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אֲמִתָּתוֹ כַּאֲמִתַּת אֶחָד מֵהֶם
וּא שֶׁהַנָּבִיא אוֹמֵר (ירמיה י י) “וַה’ אֱלֹהִים אֱמֶת”. הוּא לְבַדּוֹ הָאֱמֶת וְאֵין לְאַחֵר אֱמֶת כַּאֲמִתָּתוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת (דברים ד לה) “אֵין עוֹד מִלְּבַדּוֹ”. כְּלוֹמַר אֵין שָׁם מָצוּי אֱמֶת מִלְּבַדּוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹBecause Hashem’s existence is the only true existence, everything else in the universe is simply a manfestation of Hashem. Our bodies, the trees, the buildings, the planets, etc. are all made up–ultimately–of Hashem. This is the concept of אֵין עוֹד מִלְּבַדּוֹ that the Brisker Rav himself used to escape from the Nazis.
re; Beninuman – “There are different ways to interpret..” And the way Lubavich SEEMS to interpret it is it seems like they make a “smell” of A Z, why? “Chachomim, hizharu b’divrechem …etc, v’nimca Shem Shomayim mischalel”. Give a p’shat that in NOT ambigious!
Most chasidim believe this about their rebbes, to various degrees
The world was created from Tohu vavohu. Everything since has context.
He was not defining people. He was writing about a rebbe. If benignuman is correct, it would apply to every yid in klal Yisroel. The rebbe was answering an age old question as to how one is allowed to ask a rebbe to daven for him when it is established that we don’t go through a middleman. His answer was that by going to a rebbe, you are going directly to Hashem because he is an atzmus ein sof etc. He said he had no sources, and it was just a feeling. If it was so elementary, he wouldn’t have gone out of his way to apologize for it.
yisroellazear
“You won’t see them at a Siym Ha Shas or any other asifah where all b’nai Torah/ G’dolai Torah. The End”
“which we simply see Chabad “B’chutz””
Again you are completely wrong. There are many chabad daf yoimi shurim/magidei shurimin Lubaviche and some were on stage with all the chosheveh people.
And I have many Lubavicher relatives that went through Shas. (more then once)Are you not going to call them benai Torah because they’re Lubaviche???.
And those that don’t come are not beniei Torah?.Stop bad mouthing yidden. And stop with your hatred.
Yes it’s called hatred when you don’t bother checking up the facts.Re 1; Most chasidim of different rebbes do NOT in a million years believe that their rebbe is in any way “Atzmius of Hashem” Ch”V. All they believe, that their rebbe, or any tzadik, is a Meilitz Yosher, a lawyer, who has connections -i.e. “protekcia” with the Beis Din She Ma’ala, and can plead on their behalf. G-d forbid to think the rebbe is part of Hashem!
Avi K
The qualifications of being a chabad chossid are in place no matter if the captain is it live or not.
Yes there might not be a Rebbe saying to throw someone out but the “rules” are ther and there are rabbonim and the heads of the Rebbes moisdis that occasionally throw people out.
So please take back your nonsense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.