Chabad hate on YWN?

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Chabad hate on YWN?

Viewing 25 posts - 101 through 125 (of 125 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1758618

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    Grey Matter,
    I am unclear as to exactly what you are responding to in your last post. I don’t seem to have said anything further about the “question” that you raised.

    Frankly, I’m actually not entirely sure what shaychus your question has to do with this thread in particular, unless you are suggesting that “virtually all gedolim” held that the Rebbe “went off” CH”V. If you’re not suggesting that, as I don’t believe you are, then maybe your question would be better posted on a separate thread dedicated specifically to that topic in which I would happily participate.

    #1758638

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    Not sure if my post didn’t go through, or if it’s simply stuck in the (I’m sure arduous) editing process (keep up the good work mods).

    Grey Matter,
    Not sure what your last post is responding to. I don’t think I said anything that was directed toward your “question”.

    Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure I understand your posing of that question on this particular forum. it doesn’t seem to relate to the conversation above unless you are somehow trying to posit that the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY”A was CH”V considered by “virtually all gedolim” to have “gone off”.

    Might be a good idea to start a second thread with your question as the topic, I’d be happy to participate then and discuss it with you.

    #1758682

    RSo
    Participant

    keraveltheint, thanks for the source in Zohar.

    What it seems to be saying to me – and no, I don’t claim to be even a lower-level mekubal – is that when he’s alive a tzaddik is in this world, Olam Ha’asiyah, while after his passing and leaving this world (that’s what the Zohar seems to be saying “d’ispater mehai alma”) he is found in all of the [upper] three worlds.

    Is that the way you understand it too?

    #1758690

    Grey matter
    Participant

    I made My point very clearly. please read my previous posts carefully. I will summarize briefly. We know it is possible for great people to go off and the depths they can go to Is limitless. We therefore must establish criteria by wich we would know if a once great person went off. My best criteria would be if a broad consensus of gedolim said that a once great person went off. It is extremely obvious that if the Lubavitcher rebbe would have indisputably said “I am mashiach” a few decades ago and not under duress that a broad consensus of gedolim would have paseled him. I am making this point because many fellow Lubavitcher’s seem to think he is mashiach because he said so(I understand that you dispute this last point).

    #1758706

    yeshivishrockstar2
    Participant

    Grey Matter: I have a different criterium than you: I think you should judge a leader by his results. So the Rambam, even though he was attacked, accomplished only good for klal Yisroel. The same by the baal shem tov. However, lehavdil, Moses Mendelson shr”y, although personally frum, destroyed much of klal yisroel. Same with Shabsai Tzvi.
    The Lubavicher Rebbe is a mixedbag: He made tons of people frum and brought them closer to Hashem. However, he also ended up causing (albeit indirectly) many yidden to believe in kefira.

    #1758702

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    RSo,
    No that is not how I understand it. I understand it as meaning that the tzadik doesn’t leave this world, rather he is found, in addition, in the other three worlds. That’s how the Alter Rebbe understands it and explains it in Tanya, igeres hakodesh, epistle 27, and I rely on his kabbalistic knowledge. I don’t presume to have any understanding of any of these kabbalistic inyanim of my own (that would be highly intellectually dishonest and irresponsible, as I do not claim to have the ability to reach an understanding of these inyanim on my own.) Rather I rely on the Rebbeim to guide me in my understanding of it.

    However you asked where the source of the idea comes from, and I provided the source.

    #1758767

    RSo
    Participant

    keraveltheint, once again thanks for the source. Tanya does indeed say it the way you put it!

    Btw I note that at the end of that letter the Baal Hatanya writes that after his petira Moshe Rabbeinu’s neshama went into the 600,000 neshamos of Klaly Yisroel in each generation, something which in another much much much longer thread I argued was what was meant by “ispashtusa deMoshe bechol doro”, That is, the Zohar does not seem to be saying that in each generation there is only one person with the neshomoh of Moshe Rabbeinu, as has been claimed elsewhere.

    #1758817

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    Yeshivish Rockstar,
    Like I said above, when the RaMBa”M ZY”A released Moreh Nevuchim a great number of sefardim read into his work and came out believing that the chiyuv of mitzvas tefilin was only to be fulfilled in one’s mind as it was an allegorical mitzvah, thus they stopped putting on tefilin. Does that make the RaMBa”M a “mixed bag” or at some point do you simply acknowledge that people reading into Torah what they will does not speak as to the legitimacy of the source.

    The same can be said of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai with the Zohar, which was quite literally the source of Shabsi Tzvi’s kefira, does that make Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai a “mixed bag” CH”V because (albeit indirectly) he caused CH”V CH”V (I do NOT believe this, just making a point) many yidden to believe in kefira?

    #1758775

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    RSo,
    You picked up on something very complicated that if you want to PM me I would be happy to discuss at length on a theoretical level, that being nishmas Moshe Rabbeinu being the neshama klalis. It’s one of my favorite topics which I’ve put significant time and research into. But b’kitzur you are right by saying that nishmas Moshe Rabbeinu is nispashet to all neshamos of klal yisroel, but wrong (to my humble knowledge) in your implication that that means it also can’t be mislabesh in one person. Again this is not the place to go into the discussion.

    #1759982

    manomar
    Participant

    Rambam wrote that to a certain element, where the authoritative work of hyad hachazakah was intended for everyone and carried the greatest weight in practice and in essence…

    Rashbi did not disseminate it to the masses….

    The topic under discussion was given to be disseminated to all the mAsses with the sameauthority or more as the other works….

    #1760058

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    Manomar, I’m sure you’re aware that my point was to bring out that just as the false ideas taken out of those works were not found in the text what-so-ever, so too here the ideas that certain fools in Chabad espouse are not found in the Rebbe’s Torah.

    #1760258

    Grey matter
    Participant

    – [ ] Yeshivishrockstar that is an interesting criteria. One problem is there are Torah sources that don’t seem to fit with that. Chazal say there where unsure about whether or not to teach the ways of trickery to people “woe to me If I teach woe to me if I don’t. If I do tricksters may learn if I don’t they well say we don’t know there ways”. He concludes he should based on a pasuk (a second clear source) “This is the road. the righteous will walk in it and the wicked will stumble in it”. we accept a risk whenever we teach the right way. Chazal say ״Those who learn and leave it are worse than all”. Furthermore, it doesn’t solve the problem. It often isn’t clear the historical significance of a figure or work, until generations or even centuries after the author passes. I am concerned with determining whether or not an existing figure goes off.

    The Rambam isn’t an issue with my criteria as he was far from universally rejected at any point for any of his works. He was simply controversial.

    #1760698

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    These are not “certain fools in chabad”. I have been learning chassidus since i was twenty, been to many chabad houses around the country, and i know many people in crown heights. According to my most generous estimate possible, there are thousands of people who believe the rebbe is moshiach, and hundreds and hundreds who believe the rebbe was never buried. A thousand years ago this would have comprised a respectable religion.

    #1760696

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    Quit the PR game.

    #1760710

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    If they are called fools by you,
    then they have a chiyuv of al yeivosh mipnei hamaligim and to disregard you.

    #1760712

    keraveltheint
    Participant

    If you read my other posts you’ll find I’m no PR man. MANY certain fools, does that suit you better? My point was simply that these ideas represent a misunderstanding at best, and a deliberate misrepresentation at worst, of the Rebbe’s Torah and the concepts found in the Rebbe’s Chassidus. I make no claims to any estimates as to the number of these fools in Chabad.

    #1760715

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    what happened to my other posts

    it looked like several copies of the same thing so I approved the most recent one and deleted the others

    #1760792

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    Does that suit me? Almost but not quite. Why insist on calling them fools? They are merely following the mesorah that was bequethed to them by their parents, namely, that the rebbe thought he was moshiach and wanted his chassidim to reveal him as such. Don’t forget that many of these people are now young adults and like the chozrim b’teshuvah may have no way of knowing any better. Perhaps “simple minded” is a better term. This lets known to all that any simple minded minded person educated in chabad is at risk of being an apikorus or having heretical views.
    The term “fool” can refer to the lubavicher who proudly told me that half of 770 turned their backs to the aronkodesh and davened minchah (shmoneh esrei) towards the rebbe when he was sick.

    #1760908

    Yserbius123
    Participant

    Would “Tinokos SheNishbu” be a better description? How about referring to those people in the same way we would refer to Reform, Conservative, Open Orthodox, and other non-frum religious Jews?

    #1762291

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    Agreed. My objection to the use of the word fool implies that one needs to be a fool to not be maamin according to the Torah. This is not so! Just as a christian does not need to be a fool to believe in jcpenny, a lubavicher need not be a fool to have heretical beliefs.

    #1762326

    knaidlach
    Participant

    I am so surprised to see ביזוי תלמיד חכם ברבים. I am מוחה ברבים.

    #1762341

    Grey matter
    Participant

    I’m comfortable with the word fools. Pesukim in tehilim refer to those who deny Hashem as fools. the Rambam in igeret Teman refers to believers in jc as fools. perhaps being raised to think foolishly is a kinder way of wording it.

    #1763234

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    Exactly! Christians and Lubavitchers are otherwise normal people who are raised to think foolishly. Well said.

    Knaidlach, exactly which bizuy of a talmid chochom are you talking about? That they davened minchah facing the Rebbe? That’s not just a bizuy of a Gaon and Tzaddik, but a bizuy of the Ribbono Shel Olam!

    #1767227

    BneiBarakObama
    Participant

    Gevalt!

    #1768806

    AlterChnyok
    Participant

    Oy Vey. What have they done to the Rebbe? …meharsayich umachrivayich mimeayich… His dedicated chassidim, who blindly and faithfully followed him, and still do today, trample on his legacy.
    Ten years (almost) before the petirah (histalkus) of the Rebbe, there was a brilliant and exceptionally perceptive chosid who clandestinely attempted to convince some of the wiser chassidim, that the Rebbe could possibly pass away, and that we will miss Mashiach’s arrival (if you need to believe you know who he is, which is the hepech of the hessech hadaas needed for his coming – but anyway…) in this swing of the history pendulum. It has happened before. The Zohar says (Breishis 139…) that by 1648 (in our count, 5408 in the Zohar) “…dror yihyeh ba’aretz…” and techiyas hameism will be happening already. What did happen was of course is history. The Holocaust before, and until our Holocaust, the raging and ravaging Chmeilnicki mobs.
    Alas, it was etched in the Lubavitch shtuss of stone, that the Rebbe could not die. So essentially, the stone remains and, well, he didn’t really die.
    Whenever the Rebbe said those things that were taken as him saying he was Mashiach, I stood there listening, understood it quite differently (example to follow) and was dismayed at what I knew everyone else was hearing. I had been influenced by this visionary chasid. He (the Rebb) said Mashiach is here. Open your eyes and you will see he is here. I was hearing him say “…there is a successor to take the mantle. Open your eyes and you will see him.” He was talking to the blind and the deaf. No eyes to open, and ears whose sensory waves were obstructed on their way to that part of the brain of daas – judgement/common sense.
    The Rebbe rejoiced when the Lev Simcha was anointed as a successor to his brother, the Beis Yisroel. (The Rebbe would rejoice by gushing forth with Torah. He said a whole sichah about this succession!) There was hardly a Rebbe who was nistalek that the Rebbe did not stick his nose in (zai mir mochel Rebbe) to ensure that there was a succession. The Rebbe who would not (and it was obvious that he personally could not) take advice from anyone, this same Rebbe appointed a committee to draft a tzava’a, the most personal thing that anyone wants to do it “his way”, he gave to a committee of elders. (As it turns out, alteh shoytim.) WHY? Did it not occur to anyone that the request itself pointed to some type of desired result? Something he wanted but was not for him to write. (In Lubavitch a Rebbe never appoints a successor. Chassidim appoint, and there was only one instance in the whole dynasty where there was no question, and thus an immediate succession, because there was a ben yachid – the Rebbe Rayatz – and no sofek. In all other instances (in unrevised modern Lubavitch history) there was a period of consensus-consolidation.) To this wise chassid I mentioned, there was only one possibility – he wanted them to describe a system of establishing succession. They wrote one draft, he returned it with comments, and then a second, which was never heard of (by the klal) again. It was said that he didn’t sign it. End of story. It was not the end. He wrote an extremely sharp comment on the back, basically saying that you are leaving me with nothing to follow me. But yet again, as on so many occasions, he overestimated the sechel of the people. There are so many examples that it is impossible to document here, or in fact anywhere of value.
    So, those Lubavitcher chassidim who have sweated it out here, with this chassid ben chassid ben chassid all the way back to the Tzemach Tzedek documented, and beyond speculated, you ask how can it be? The Rebbe misjudged his chassidim by overestimation? The answer is in the Chumash. Mah Hashem… what does Hashem want from you, says Moshe, ki im only to fear/respect him. Poshet pshat (before the deeper pshat of the Tanya) the Gemara asks, vechi yir’ah milsa zutresei? Is such a deep respect as to approach fear, a simple matter (as Moshe Rabbenu made it sound)? Yes, the Gemara answers, simple, to Moshe Rabbenu. For him this was no big deal, this very deep respect. The Gemara (Poshet Pshat rabboisay) says that for Moshe it was simple and he thus presented it as a simple and easy goal to accomplish. He overestimated the am.
    Ay Rebbe, Rebbe, to overestimate is also part of chachamim hizaharu bedivreichem, shema…
    To those looking from outside who still don’t get it about Lubavitch today, just remember this mass movement in Lubavitch (those who cannot imagine a chassid not seeing it their way) remember them when you say “tzon kodoshim” in hoshaanos. The greatest scholar among them, stood up on a table (bechayei haRebbi) and made such a stupid declaration (which so firmly anchored this whole notion) that what do we want from the sheep that follow? (He only distinguishes himself from Yeravam ben Nevat in that he did recant, and Yeravam didn’t. But how do you move an ocean liner anchored in mud with a recant? It was too late. And so, until there is a hessech hadaas, where all yiden haven’t a clue about when and where he is coming from (vechol shkeyn who he is) we must wait and accept the matzav kemoi shehi.

Viewing 25 posts - 101 through 125 (of 125 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending