- This topic has 59 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 6 hours ago by .
-
Posts
-
qwerty613 talks a lot about assimilation and intermarriage. Ok, but what did you do to stop this? They longer have get-togethers for Jews to find Jewish spouses like they used to in the old days. Except for Chabad of course and some other events. Otherwise, who else in Bozeman is running anything so that Jews find each other? It seems to me that most people only marry people they can personally find to marry. In other words, I am in public school in bozeman, and I have no other outlet but for Friday night football, I go after the goy cheerleader. That is the market.
Anyway, 80% of people are already intermarried? What about the 20%? What about the half of the 80% who are the Jewish spouse? Are any of those women? Sometimes they divorce. Lot of spouses were found to be pretty intolerant after October 7th. Very strange and horrible, but true.A lot of complicated factors, and I’m not very interested in casting everyone off to generalize and make things simple. Then not only will you have a 95% intermarriage rate, but there won’t be anyone to intermarry with this viewpoint. So I reject it.
To always
Chabad should try to do outreach on the children of intermarried couples where the wife is a Jewess.
Part of the person being chozer b’teshuva is disconnecting from his gentile offspring. He will never do teshuva if he isn’t divorced from them.
Child support is a separate legal matter.
There is no purpose in being megayer children just because their father is Jewish. There is no such thing as half Jewish.
To rebEms. Regarding your claims that a Jew who does not observe Shabbos is equivalent to a non-Jew when putting on tefillin. I believe this perspective misinterprets a limited halachic comparison. While the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 30:15) and the Shulchan Aruch (OC 385:3) note that one who publicly desecrates Shabbos is “equivalent to gentiles in all regards,” this is not applied literally across all of Halacha. As stated in Gemara Sanhedrin 44a, “A Jew—even though he has sinned—is still a Jew.” Such disqualifications apply to specific roles, such as serving as a witness etc. but they do not invalidate the performance of mitzvos. There is no source in Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah, Even HaEzer, or Choshen Mishpat suggesting that a mitzvah performed by a non-shomer Shabbos is invalid or equivalent to a non-Jew performing it. Furthermore, many contemporary poskim today classify non-observant Jews as “tinok shenishba” which affects their halachic standing. Regarding the idea that “the only reason it would pay to do this is if they are being pushed in the direction of observing more,” the value of a mitzvah is independent of future actions. Even if you never see the person again, As the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 3:4) states that a single mitzvah can tip the scales for both the individual and the world toward merit. This shows that a mitzvah has independent value and is not merely a step toward future observance. And about your point “but not comforted to stay the same or just ignored after they put it on tefillin” Chabad does not encourage anyone to remain non-observant, nor is anyone purposely ignored after performing the mitzvah.
To qwerty “when I say that Lubavitchers have no concept of Hashem I know whereof I speak. Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, chief Chabad Rabbi of California, stated in a YouTube video in 2008 that it’s the Rebbe who runs the world and he will take us out of Golus.” The quote from Rabbi Cunin needs to be understood in context and in line with basic Chabad theology, not taken as a literal standalone statement. Chabad absolutely believes that only Hashem runs the world—this is יסוד היסודות of Judaism and is explained at length in Tanya and countless maamarim. No Lubavitcher believes that any human being has independent power, chas v’shalom. When Rabbi Cunin said “the Rebbe runs the world,” he was speaking in an emotional setting after a tragedy, using the kind of elevated and expressive language that is common in Chassidic discourse. What is meant is that Hashem conducts the world through tzaddikim. This concept is rooted in Chazal: “הקב״ה גוזר וצדיק מבטל” (Moed Katan 16b), and “וצדיק יסוד עולם” (Mishlei 10:25), which Chazal and mefarshim understand as the tzaddik being a sustaining force and conduit of hashpa’ah. The Zohar (Vayechi) teaches “אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא ודרא,” that there is a משה-like leader in every generation through whom influence is drawn down. Tanya (Iggeres HaKodesh 27) further explains that a tzaddik continues to bring down bracha even after passing, and in Chapter 2 that the leaders of the generation serve as the “head,” channeling life and connection to the rest of the body. Similarly, when he said the Rebbe will take us out of Golus, this reflects the belief that Hashem redeems the Jewish people through Moshiach. Just as the Torah attributes Yetzias Mitzrayim to Moshe—while it is clear that Hashem is the one who redeemed them—so too the geulah comes through a human leader who is completely batel to Hashem. If someone wants to take a single emotionally charged sentence and interpret it literally in a way that contradicts core Jewish belief, that says more about the interpretation than about Chabad. The consistent and explicit position of Chabad is absolute emunah that Hashem alone is the Borei and Manhig of the world, and that any role of a tzaddik is only as a conduit for His will, not an independent power.
To qwerty “Schneersohn rejected the Gemara in Cheilek which said that only a small percentage of Jews will be redeemed by Moshiach.” The claim that the Lubavitcher Rebbe “rejected the Gemara in Cheilek” isn’t accurate. the discussion is how to reconcile its statements, not whether to accept them. The Rebbe didn’t reject Chazal—he explained how to understand all the sources together. The very opening of Perek Chelek says “כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא,” which is a foundational principle. Even when the Gemara or Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah ch. 3) lists people who “lose their share,” that doesn’t necessarily mean permanent, irreversible exclusion—especially since Rambam himself writes that teshuvah is always possible (Hilchos Teshuvah 7:5). There are also clear חז״ל pointing the other direction, like “אף על פי שחטא ישראל הוא” (Sanhedrin 44a), and פסוקים like “ועמך כולם צדיקים.” Chassidus (see Tanya ch. 2) explains that every Jew has an essential, eternal connection to Hashem that can’t be erased. This is part of a broader Torah principle that “לא ידח ממנו נדח,” that ultimately no Jew is completely cast away. Moshiach itself is consistently described in Torah sources as the redemption of Klal Yisrael as a whole, such as “וְשָׁב וְקִבֶּצְךָ מִכָּל הָעַמִּים” and Rambam’s description in Hilchos Melachim (11–12) of Moshiach gathering all exiles and restoring the entire nation. Chazal likewise state “אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בציבור.” So when the Rebbe emphasized that Moshiach will redeem every Jew, he wasn’t rejecting the Gemara—he was learning the sugya within that wider framework of Chazal, Rambam, and Pesukim. You don’t have to agree with that emphasis, but it’s clearly a sourced interpretation within Torah, even if not universally accepted.
To Pekak
Thank you for your post. Obviously, it’s ridiculous to discuss Kiruv on intermarried couples.
To Kiddushclub
“All lies in jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Would you like to comment on the fact that the Rebbe called his father-in-law a Novi? And would you care to comment on Manis Friedman’s statement that no Jew today can be punished no matter what sin he does.?
To qwerty613 After checking more carefully, I realized I was incorrect about the phrase “אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בציבור.” its actually, “אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בתשובה” based on the Gemara (Sanhedrin 97b). I also want to adjust my wording by taking out the word “clear” from my sentence “there are also clear חז״ל pointing the other direction” since I recognize it’s not so straightforward. That said, i think my main point still stands. I would not categorize the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s position as “rejecting” the Gemara or being “against the Torah.” I’m always open to learning more—if you have anything to add or sources to share, I’d appreciate it.
To KiddushClubDropout
Again, I must compliment you for your menschlichkeit. This said, let me share a story. It was about three years ago on the first night of Sukkos and I was in the Chabad Shul I sometimes attend. It had been raining all that day, and the forecast was that the rain would continue into the night. In fact, it let up and so we were able to eat in the Sukkah. Someone commented, “Thank you Hashem for stopping the rain.” But he was corrected by a Lubavitcher who told him, “Hashem didn’t stop the rain, it was the Rebbe.” Truth be told, he was smiling when he said it so perhaps, he was kidding but on cue, another congregant chimed in, “Everything we have in our lives comes from the Rebbe.” To which his friend concurred, “Of course, we live in the shadow of the Rebbe.” I’m relating this because even if I’ll agree with you that Cunin didn’t mean what he said, such statements can’t be made because unsuspecting Jews will hear them and take them literally. I’ll give you another anecdote. At least five years ago a Chabad Rabbi asked me if I read Dr. Berger’s book When I told him yes, he asked me to tell him something from the book. I shared with him that Dr. Berger said that 8 senior Chabad Rabbis from Oholei Torah said that the Rebbe was god clothed in human form. This Rabbi responded, “But everyone knows that. I can prove it. We know that every Jew contains a spark of Elokus, and Rashi said that Moshe Rabbeinu had all the sparks of all 600,000 Jews at that time. Now since the Rebbe is the Moshe Rabbeinu of our Dor, he has all the sparks of every Jew who ever lived and when you add up all these sparks they equal Hashem.” If you don’t see that Chabad has deified the Rebbe, you’re simply blind. But I like you so let’s continue the discussion.
pekak,
teshuva is not necessarily a one-moment thing. A person in his environment can learn something and make decisions later.You and some other posters seem to imagine that such a person has same information and attitudes as you do, he is just too attached to non-Jewish women and pork. It is not so. His information is limited and distorted, and his value judgment is impaired. So, giving him the information in a way that he can absorb, is definitely a useful thing. I agree that chances are that children might be more receptive, so getting children to a chabad house party or an oorah event, would be something that parents can facilitate also.
To qwerty613. I think both of your points are based on misunderstandings rather than actual Chabad positions. First, regarding calling the Frierdiker Rebbe a “navi”: there is no sourced statement where the Lubavitcher Rebbe makes a halachic claim that prophecy returned before Moshiach. In Torah terms, formal nevuah (as defined by the Rambam) is not present today, and Chabad does not claim otherwise. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke about his father-in-law “seeing” or knowing things, he was referring to ruach hakodesh or very high spiritual perception—something clearly discussed in Chazal, and distinct from formal prophecy. Chassidic language often uses strong terms non-technically, which can sound misleading if taken literally, and are not meant as precise halachic definitions. Second, about Manis Friedman’s statement: Chabad does not deny punishment or accountability—Rambam Hilchos Teshuva is absolutely accepted. The point being made is that every Jew’s essence remains pure and that many people today fall under the category of tinok shenishba, meaning their culpability is different. In Chassidus, consequences are often framed as tikun (rectification) rather than simple punishment, and there’s a strong emphasis on Hashem’s rachamim in our generation—not a claim that “anything goes.” So neither claim represents a rejection of Torah; they reflect a particular way of understanding and emphasizing existing sources.
Chabad has plenty of issues, but giving matzo to intermarried couples is not one of them. The fact that people are arguing over the efficacy of doing so proves a lack of understanding of Chabad hashkafa on here. And I’m no Lubavitcher and see plenty of issues with Schneersonism.
The reasoning isn’t that perhaps the Jewish spouse will be inspired to divorce and spend a life worshipping Hashem (and/or the Rebbe). It’s the belief that every mitzvah is a world of its own and every mitzvah done is worthwhile, even if it’s the only one said person does all their life. It’s the underpinning of their Messianism, and leaving it out suggests no knowledge of Chabad beyond that old man with a square beard and yellow flags with a blue crown and Hebrew letters.@ KidushClubDropout
You are a credit to Chabbad. I have not read such quality responses for quite some time.
Can you answer some questions for me?
1) Do you believe it’s possible for the last Lubavicher to have made a mistake in Psak or Hadracha?
2) Do you believe it is possible for someone other then the last Lubavitcher Rebbe be Moshiach
3) Why is the Sefer Halacha written by the first Lubavicher Rebbe reoffered to as Shulchan Aruch stam (same question regarding the Sidur being referred to as Nusach Ari stam)Kiddush Club: “First, regarding calling the Frierdiker Rebbe a “navi”: there is no sourced statement where the Lubavitcher Rebbe makes a halachic claim that prophecy returned before Moshiach”
The Lubavicher rebbe clearly and distincly said that his father-in-law was a navi and “yesh nevuah BeYisroel”.
To chiefshmerel
I’ll apologize for not making myself clear. I mentioned the Chabad Rabbi who bragged about how he gave out Matzah to intermarried couples before Pesach as a counterpoint to the posters who were writing on this thread that Chabad is trying to make millions of Jews observant. I wanted to point out how ludicrous such a claim is. Chabad serves a valuable purpose in providing Kosher meals and sometimes minyanim to Orthodox travelers. Beyond that there’s not much more. Yes, according to Chabad theology if someone does a Mitzvah it’s transformative, even if he’s non-Observant, but clearly doing one Mitzvah does not make one frum. The concept of Mitzvah goreres Mitzvah applies when someone is moved on his own to do a Mitzvah, not when people do some Chabad Rabbi a favor and allow him to put Tefillin on them. BTW what do you find troubling about Schneersohnism?
@ Kidushcupdropout
Hello…
To Arso: Just to clarify what I meant: I’m not denying that the Lubavitcher Rebbe used expressions such as referring to the Frierdiker Rebbe as a “navi” and saying that “יש נבואה בישראל.” My point was only that while these expressions reflect a real concept, there is still a difference between that and issuing a formal halachic ruling that prophecy has returned in the sense discussed by the Rambam. Notably, the Rambam writes in Iggeres Teiman that nevuah will return as a preparation for Moshiach. Tosfos also cite one of the Baalei HaTosfos as “ר׳ עזרא הנביא” (Gittin 88a, Menachos 109b, Daas Zekeinim). Clearly, the term “navi” has been used in different contexts, and nevuah exists on different levels and in different forms. Therefore, the question is not simply whether the Lubavitcher Rebbe used the term “nevuah,” but how he intended it to be understood. That requires examining his actual words and the context in which they were said.
@Qwerty613
Thanks for clarifying about how you understand Chabad hashkafa/theology.
As to my issues with Schneersonism, what do you think it would be? Hint: Is the identity of Moshiach known at this point? Partially influenced by a previous discussion we’ve had, see https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/is-chabad-sacrificing-their-youth-in-the-quest-for-outreach#post-2476483 and your response several posts down.
To Chabad’s credit, there’s an amount of sincerity there which you see in very few other places. Sincerity doesn’t equal correctness, just that the people who believe in it believe in it very strongly. It still fills a void, with analogous benefits to Rav Kook’s belief about secular Zionism. (Which you don’t need to agree with, just note that it was based on an extremely excessive amount of Ahavas Yisrael.)To KCD
When I called Manis Friedman a Kofer for denying reward and punishment you argued that he didn’t mean what he said. And you also posited that Shlomo Cunin didn’t mean what he said i.e. that it’s the Rebbe who runs the world. And you’ll also suggest that the Rabbis who claim that the Rebbe is alive and is god clothed in human form, didn’t mean what they said. Finally, you write that the Rebbe didn’t mean it when he said that his predecessor was a Novi. So, the question to ask is, “How do you know what they meant?” So, you’ll say that you’re being Dan Lkaf Zchus . Here’s the problem. On page 1027 of the Gutnick Chumash, the Rebbe writes that there have been individuals who were prophets. He named Ramban, Raavad and the Besht among others. If he didn’t mean that they were actually prophets, then why say it? And your attempt to push off my statement that the Rebbe contradicted an open Gemara doesn’t wash. The Gemara in Cheilek says that only one in 300,000 Jews will be redeemed by Moshiach because the final Geulah will mirror the Geulah from Egypt. The Rebbe said that every Jew will be redeemed by Moshiach because the final Geulah will “NOT” be like the Exodus from Egypt. That’s blatant Kefirah. This has nothing to do with all Jews having a share in Olam Habo. The fact is that the Rebbe rejected an open Gemara and so he is a Kofer and therefore if he used the term Novi it’s understood that he meant it literally because he wanted to convince his stupid Chassidim that Hashem spoke to him.
Sorry Kiddush Club, but you’re argument doesn’t hold water.
All of a sudden when the Lubavicher rebbe uses the term navi about his shver (and the vast majority – even greater than vast – of L chassidim say he was in fact referring also to himself, he doesn’t REALLY mean navi?! Everything else he ever said has to be taken at 100% face value, but this not. Who do you think you are kidding? Many of us are well-acquainted with Lubavich beliefs, and what you wrote is most definitely not one of them.
And what on earth does רבי עזרא הנביא in Tosfos prove? How do you know that that wasn’t just his name? There are Sefardim around with names like Mashiach. Does that mean that they are considered Mashiach?
Sorry Kiddush Club, but your argument doesn’t hold water.
All of a sudden when the Lubavicher rebbe uses the term navi about his shver (and the vast majority – even greater than vast – of L chassidim say he was in fact referring also to himself, he doesn’t REALLY mean navi?! Everything else he ever said has to be taken at 100% face value, but this not. Who do you think you are kidding? Many of us are well-acquainted with Lubavich beliefs, and what you wrote is most definitely not one of them.
And what on earth does רבי עזרא הנביא in Tosfos prove? How do you know that that wasn’t just his name? There are Sefardim around with names like Mashiach. Does that mean that they are considered Mashiach?
To ARSo
KCD joins the list of non-Lubavitchers who think it’s a Mitzvah to defend Chabad and the Rebbe. Why are they so blind? It’s hard for people to admit that they were wrong. And this includes great people like Rabbi Miller and Rabbi Sacks. They had all the evidence, but they refused to accept it. Yitzchok Avinu is the paradigm of Gevurah. When he realized that he was wrong about Eisav, he didn’t blink. He was Modeh on the Emes.
@ Kidushcupdropout
crickets….
@qwerty613
Please do not misquote the gemara in Perek Chelek. If you’d actually learned it you’d know that “dorshei reshumos hayu omrim: kulam ba’in l’olam haba” (Sanhedrin 104b).If you had any knowledge of the light of pnimiyus hatorah, you’d understand that “dorshei reshumos” is what you want to be.
Take your time though.
You’re framing this as if the only two options are: either take every statement in the most literal, technical sense, or you’re “explaining it away.” That’s not how Torah—and especially Chassidus—language works. Now, regarding “Nevuah,” could it be that the Lubavitcher Rebbe meant it in a more literal sense—as a formal halachic statement about the institution of prophecy? It’s possible. And if that is indeed what he meant, then I would be wrong, However I would still assume it is grounded within Torah sources. And at the very least, before claiming that something is “against Torah,” it’s only fair to first learn everything the Lubavitcher Rebbe said on the topic in its full context.
To Yo-c
You are confusing two separate subjects. I am not speaking about getting into Olam Habo. I challenged Schneersohn from the Gemara in Cheilek 111a in which Rava said that the Final Geulah will be like the Geulah from Mitzrayim in which only 2 in 600,000 Jews (Calev and Yehoshua) left Egypt and entered the land of Canaan. The Rebbe clearly stated that the Final Geulah will “NOT” read that “NOT” be like the Geulah from Egyp because every single Jew will be saved by Moshiach. Since he rejected an explicit Gemara he is a Kofer. Nice try dummy, but it’s checkmate for you.
To KCD
Let me elaborate on my post from yesterday. I cited page 1027 from the Gutnick Chumash in which the Rebbe named a number of notables whom he claimed were actual prophets. If you would have taken the time to read what he said, there would be no question that he meant actual prophecy. He was quoting the Rambam who predicted that Moshiach would come near the end of the 5th millennium and, at that time, actual prophecy would return. To that point the Rebbe said that, in fact, at that time several people did attain prophecy and then he added the Besht as well as some of his followers which would include the Friediger Rebbe and you know who. Now it’s interesting that you’re fighting so hard not to accept the simple truth, and, of course, we both know why. If Schneersohn really meant Nevuah, then you would have to admit that he was a Kofer. For me it’s plain as day. And I have spoken to numerous great Rabbis who are in complete accord. Now if you had any real interest in the truth, you would read page 1027 and see that in fact Schneersohn is talking about actual Nevuah. I’m trying to be respectful because, unlike many other Chabad shills, you’re a Mensch, but the facts are the facts, the Chabad religion simply isn’t Judaism.
To non-political
KCD, at least is a Mensch, unlike YYA who lied through his teeth. Chabad is fueled by a very big Koach Hatumah and so it’s very hard to get through, even to their supporters. I’m surprised he’s still trying to debate me, but he’ll eventually disappear like Shimon Katz who was also a very nice guy. As Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth.” Few can.
Qwerty you have a habit of denegrating anyone who doesn’t think like you. How do you know your view is the correct one?
Sorry to go off topic but can anyone tell me if the Lubavitcher Rebbe attended R Moshe’s Levaya (And a source for this)? My son told me that he did not
To Nevuah
You must learn how to distinguish between facts and opinions. In no way do I think that my opinion is superior to anybody else’s. Hey I wanted to turn off the TV at the half last night and go to sleep, but my son convinced me to keep watching. He was certainly correct. On the other hand, when I write on YWN i present facts and they are unassailable. Unfortunately, you can’t understand this simple concept because you think that the Torah is subject to people’s interpretation and that’s Kefirah whether you like it or not.To??coffee addict
I think your question is right on topic. No, the Rebbe didn’t attend Rav Moshe’s levaya and it should be discussed. Schneersohn believed that he was the Melech of Israel and the Halacha is that a Melech can’t attend the funeral of a commoner, even one as great as Rav Moshe. I didn’t hear that this is the reason he didn’t show up but I’m inferring it from the following. The Rabbi of the Chabad shul I attend told me this story. The Rebbe had a relationship with Zalman Shazar who was one of the early Presidents of the State of Israel. Shazar was Lubavitch in Russia, but he became a secular Jew., but they would write to each other. On one occasion, Mr. Shazar asked the Rebbe why he didn’t address him as Nasi Yisrael and the Rebbe answered, “When I was a child starting Cheder (about 3 or 4 years old) I had a dream in which I had a vision of Moshiach. For me he’s the only person who I will call Nasi Yisrael.” In other words, after that dream the Rebbe decided he’s Moshiach and so no one else could have a title which even alludes to being the leader of Israel.
qwerty> Rebbe answered, “When I was a child starting Cheder (about 3 or 4 years old) I had a dream in which I had a vision of Moshiach. For me he’s the only person who I will call Nasi Yisrael.” In other words, after that dream the Rebbe decided he’s Moshiach
you seem to be reading too much into the quote. He is simply finding a polite way to explain that he does not recognize secular president as “Nasi”.
I would say that even if you would recognize it, it would be a prime minister, not a president.“your facts”
To nevuah
If you don’t know the difference between facts and opinions, then you’re not only a Kofer but you’re also a retard. Checkmate.
To always
Would you like to present a theory as to why Schneersohn didn’t attend the funeral of the Gadol Hador? Of course you can’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.