circa 1900: Letter from Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Heresy of “Religious” Zionism

To somejewiknow

Manis Friedman hss no intention of backing down from what he said. He is Chabad and Chabad believes that G-d d has been replaced by the Rebbe and therefore the world is totally Hefkee. Rabbi Efren Goldberg interviewed Manis Friedman recently. Another of his heresies is that Mitzvahs are optional. He explained that G-d has “needs” and when Jews keep Mitzvahs we’re fulfilling Hashem s needs. When Rabbi Goldberg challenged him he refused to back down arguing that since no one knows G-d how can anyone know if He has needs or not.

“I attend a Chabad shul during the week and the Rabbi told me that Gehinnom no longer exists.“

Maybe someone told him when he was a kid “the rebbe will be moshiach when gehennom freezes over

Therefore it no longer exists 😂

To Nope

Yes I hold that Toras Qwerty is bigger than all other Torahs because my Torah is logical and because I speak to a vast array of great Rabbis who agree with what I say. You seem to think that you can quote some Rabbi out of context and think you’ve won the argument. I reject many statements made by Rabbonim as do you. I’m sure you don’t agree with the Raystz who said that all Zionists are Kofrim because that means they have no Cheilek in Olam Habo and you agree with Manis Hamishugah that no Jew can be You’re a Chabad sympathizer so you have the same Din as Friedman the atheist.

To the group

Nope harassed me when I wrote on VIN. His thing was trying to convince me that Alan Dershowitz is a Tinok Shenishba. He quoted the Chazan Ish that every Jew today is a Tinok Shenishba. I told him that the Chazan Ish was talking about Jews with no religious background. He said I’m right and then changed it that Rav Kook would call him a Tinok Shenishba. Now he goes back to the Chazan Ish. Filthy liar. The first letter of Lubavic is an L it’s for liar. All Lubavitchers along with those who defend them are despicable liars.

To non-political

You’re right. Avraham Avinu taught us that we must mock idolatry. Chabad is an idolatrous religion. Don’t you agree Nope? Of course you do. That’s why you switched to our Wonderful site. I’m sure you have a bunch of anti-Rebbe zingers. Can’t wait to hear them.

Yaakov Yosef A wrote: “As I mentioned before, I really don’t care either way. It isn’t my place to judge any Yid, let alone Roshei Yeshivos or Rabbonim of any kind. If Rav Ahron Feldman holds something Rabbi Manis Friedman said is problematic, then let them meet each other and discuss it privately. Why do I need to be involved?”

Rav Ahron Feldman shlita made his comments as a public statement, ltoeles harabim. How could you possibly not care? Rav Ahron Feldman made his public comments so that you, and everyone else, should care.

You seem to not only be saying that Rav Ahron Feldman shlita is wrong, in your view, not you’re calling our Rav Ahron Feldman for making his public statement rather than, as you suggest, he sit down over coffee with Manis Friedman to (quote you) “meet each other and discuss it privately.” Yet Rav Ahron Feldman decided to make a public מחאה.

@ qwerty613

I don’t have anti-Rebbe zingers. Coffee Addict’s joke trades on the asinine belief, held by a number of Lubavicher’s that the previous Lubavicher Rebbe was / is Moshiach. However
1) You will not find in my posts anything disrespectful towards the last Lubavicher Rebbe. Also,
2) It is the policy of the major kashrus organization to rely on Mashichist mashgichim. Even HaRav Aaron Feldman, who holds not to rely on them doesn’t claim it’s because they are avdei A”Z or founders of a new religion.

ujm said – Rav Ahron Feldman shlita made his comments as a public statement, ltoeles harabim. How could you possibly not care?

No one automatically has to be מקבל anything that any given Rov says, ברבים or not, unless he is his Rov/Rebbe. Otherwise, what do you do when two different Rabbonim/Rebbes/Roshei Yeshiva take opposing positions on an issue? But to be מבזה one Rov, because another Rov criticized him, is a very not Kosher thing to do, and כלל ישראל has suffered from this sort of thing for centuries. שנאת חינם doesn’t mean without ANY reason, just that in Hashem’s eyes the reason isn’t good enough… If you and ‘qwerty’ and friends are so sure of yourselves that you are doing a ‘mitzvah’ of ‘rebuking reshaim’ (anonymously and from the comfort of your home, no sweat on your part), then be well and enjoy…

You guys don’t seem to get my point. Yidden are being killed/wounded daily, and you @#$%&! don’t have what to worry about except hocking a chainik about Lubavitch or Zionists or who cares what. Get a life.

To Non-political

You make a valid point which I will address. It is my belief that Chabad is morphing into another religion. No one is obligated to agree with me. All I ask is that I be given the opportunity to express my opinions and to that point I thank the moderators of YWN for running this and other similar threads. To be sure there are many great Rabbis who have the same view as mine.

To always ask

There is no question that the concept of Tinok Shenishba exists. What is subject to debate is how far it can be expanded. According to NOPE every irreligious Jew is automatically a Tinok Shenishba even if he was originally from and walked away from the religion under no duress. Please feel free to ask more questions, Unlike NOPE I will respond with honest answers.

To ujm

I’ll try to explain where Yaakov Yosef A is coming from. He’s not interested in what Rabbi Feldman said. He has a right to that position. What he he no right is to tell others that we can’t accept what a Godol is saying. And that’s what this buffoon is trying to do. He’s also a liar having said that he’s walking away from this thread. Maybe he needs a Refuah Shleimah. Arrogant jerk that he is. If he’s so troubled by the bombings let him go to Yeshiva and get off the internet.

AAQ – An interesting question whether every yid nowadays is a tinok shebnishba. Consider posters here. Regardless of which side of every argument you take, you would agree that half or more of the posters are confused in their learning. Even people who went to Jewish schools are not protected from misunderstanding of core concepts…

You are making a crucial point, which is central to the whole concept of לימוד זכות. The Chazon Ish (among many others, and the basis is in Chazal) basically held that the מידת הדין works in proportion to the degree of clarity a person is expected to have given the sum total of his circumstances IN HASHEM’S EYES (not qwerty’s or ujm’s). So, when we had a בית המקדש, people could be executed for some עבירות, even at age 13. Not now. Certain things are מורידין ולא מעלין, but unless someone is trying to physically kill someone ר״ל (or forcibly do certain other issurim), we don’t do that nowadays. We don’t whip people or put them in חרם anymore. So there are actual Halachic ramifications to the reduced מידת הדין. None of this is meant to condone any non-Kosher behavior of any kind or degree, for ourselves or others, but we certainly don’t need to GO LOOKING for people to be מבזה and criticize. ‘Go looking’ as in out of your own daled amos… I also don’t get why people are so excited to yell “there is punishment!” etc. Of course there is. Are all these chevrah so sure of their own tzidkus that they want to ‘wake up’ the מידת הדין ר״ל? Chazal teaches המוסר דין על חברו הוא נידון תחילה. Who needs that? And to do so NOW, when millions of Yidden are in real danger, is just vulgar and insensitive, and according to the Chafetz Chaim (based on the Zohar) downright dangerous. So who needs these debates?

There you go with your childish “checkmate” again. Well, for your information, Rashi and Rambam are both Rishonim, and have the right to argue with one another. So, who decided that this Rashi is to be understood specifically as the Rambam has it?

And, for your information, Maharal (in his Chiddushei Aggados on that same passage in the Gemara) says that Rashi means exactly what he says. He writes:

שהוא יתברך עלת הכל, ואי אפשר לעלה שלא ישפיע, וכאילו הוא דבר מחויב… ולכך אמר שהקב”ה מתאוה לברכת כהנים, כי מתאוה העלה במה שהוא עלה להשפיע. ויותר מזה ממה שהתינוק רוצה לינק האשה רוצה להניק… ולפיכך נקרא דבר זה צורך גבוה

“He is the Cause of everything, and it is *impossible* (emphasis mine) for a cause to not give forth; it is as though he is *required to do so*… Thus (the Gemara there) says that ‘Hashem desires Birkas Kohanim,” because the Cause, qua Cause, desires to give forth; ‘more than the baby wants to suckle, the woman wants to nurse’… Therefore this is called ‘G-d’s need.'”

Note that the Maharal postdates Rambam, and evidently found it quite unnecessary to say that all of this is only anthropomorphic.

(An even starker example: Sifri, Devarim 33:5, states that “when you (Jewish people) are My witnesses, I am G-d; when you are not My witnesses, I am not G-d.”)

[I can make no claim to be so familiar with Torah literature as to have found the above sources myself. ברוך שמסר עולמו לשומרים: they (and others) can be found in R. Yehoshua Hartman’s notes to Maharal’s Gevuros Hashem, ch. 23.]

—-

About your questions, answer below. I’ll first point out that it’s a sickness to demand that one “agree” with a gadol b’Yisroel who says this or that, as though the validity of their opinion depends on whether I “agree” with it. It’s time you learned the gaping difference between sports or politics or whatever, and Torah, where our lodestone is emunas chachamim and anivus and shiflus before those who have molded their thought processes according to Torah.

1. The Rayatz:

You probably mean the Rashab, as the letter quoted at the beginning of this thread is from him. Well, he *doesn’t* say that religious Zionists are kofrim. There’s exactly one place in the letter where he speaks of kefirah,* and that is in the following paragraph:

“Their entire desire and aim is to cast off the yoke of the Torah and the Mitzvot and to hold fast only to nationalism (le’umiyut), and this will be their Judaism. This was stated not long ago by one of their special leaders in a public article, blaspheming and reviling all of Judaism…”

So you tell me. Were R. Reines or R. Kook, etc., “blaspheming and reviling,” ch”v? It’s quite obvious that that paragraph is referring to the secular Zionists, of the ilk of Herzl and Nordau and so forth. Only later on does he talk about the religious Zionists, stating that they’re wrong in supporting the secular Zionists in their nationalistic aims. Now, if you can find another letter from the Rashab or the Rayatz or the Ramam calling religious Zionists “kofrim,” then we can talk.

* I could be pedantic, and point out that even there the Rashab doesn’t use “kefirah” or any form of the word; he calls their ideas שרש פורה ראש ולענה, “a root that produces gall and wormwood.” That phrase in its original context (Devarim 29:17) does indeed refer to heretical ideas, so the “automated translation” in the OP isn’t absolutely wrong, but it does point up that your arguments would be stronger if you could read the sources in the original rather than relying on translations.

2. R. Avigdor Miller:

He draws an analogy between television and ספרים החיצונים (external/heretical literature), of which Chazal indeed say that one who reads them has no share in Olam Haba (Sanhedrin 90a and 100b). To my daas baal habayis this seems a fair and in fact obvious inference, so your beef would really be with Chazal. One might ask whether any Torah authority disagrees with R. Miller on this (unlike with religious Zionism, where of course there’s an endless amount of controversy); if you can find such, then we have a basis to talk. “I don’t like what he says” is not such a basis.

(Worth noting: there are Rishonim such as Rabbeinu Bechayei (end of Acharei Mos) and the Recanati (Ki Sisa) who say that the phrase “he has no portion in Olam Haba” doesn’t mean that he’s excluded entirely, just that they’ve lost their own individual portion, and are like a poor person, having to be supported by charity from “the hidden treasures of tzedakah.” Perhaps we can take R. Miller’s statement in the same vein; in the Olam Haemes or at the time of techiyas hameisim, if I have the opportunity, I can ask.)

Yaakov Yosef A: Is all your above criticism of those who call out Manis Friedman also directed at Rav Ahron Feldman shlita, for very publicly calling out and making a מחאה against Manis Friedman?

@ Qwerty

I also read Dr. Bergers book. It’s a good book. More people should read it.

YYA > So, when we had a בית המקדש, people could be executed for some עבירות, even at age 13. Not now.

I agree w/ your general sentiment. I think things were similar back then. Gemora discusses all kind of reasons people can be off the hook for a korban – did not know this or that, were onus because they were mislead …

> Of course there is. Are all these chevrah so sure of their own tzidkus that they want to ‘wake up’ the מידת הדין ר״ל?

I think Hashem hardened their hearts for us to see how ridiculous such positions are when they are taken to the extreme – and so that we grow in our rachmonus and achdus.

To ujm

Shlomo Hamelech said that there’s no hope for a fool who’s right in his own eyes. This is Yaakov Yosef A. He has this idiotic line that Rabbi Feldman and I have to contact a Kofer who rejects the fundamental of Schar Veonesh and ask him to explain his view. There’s nothing to explain he’s a Chabad Kofer.

Have a look at Makkos 1:10 (7a): “Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, ‘If we had been on the Sanhedrin, no one would have ever been executed.'”

Now, are R. Tarfon and R. Akiva “declaring that there’s no punishment”? Are they denying pesukim in the Torah that openly say that someone who does X is put to death by method Y? Chas veshalom. They’re saying, as the Gemara there makes it clear, that they would use the Torah’s very own methods to bring up technicalities that would, in practice, cause the death penalty to not be applied in any given case.

Well, then, what prevents you from taking R. Friedman’s statement in the same vein? (A point that Yaakov Yosef has already cogently made. As for R. Feldman, see below.) Consider how in our most recent interaction on VIN you thought that anyone who regrets the deaths of the Meraglim doesn’t believe in sechar ve’onesh, whereupon I cited for you Shulchan Aruch and Beis Yosef and Shelah who indeed express such regret and practical actions on that basis. So it should be very clear that there is a world of difference between saying that there is sechar ve’onesh, and saying that it must needs apply in this case or that one.

(This also answers your pretended contradiction between R. Miller’s and, יבלח”ט, R. Friedman’s, statements. Both, of course, believe in sechar ve’onesh; R. Miller is saying that it actually applies in practice to a person who does such-and-such, while R. Friedman is saying that it does not. Really no different than any other machlokes in halachah where Rabbi A says that someone is chayav and Rabbi B says he’s patur. For more on the television issue, see below.)

——

Now, as for R. Feldman’s criticisms of R. Friedman:

I think that there’s no question that it would have been better, and smoothed things over a lot, if R. Feldman had indeed picked up the phone and asked R. Friedman point-blank what he meant and what are his sources. Does that _obligate_ R. Feldman to have done so before making his video? Well, I’m not about to tell a world-class talmid chacham what he’s obligated to do, and I don’t think that Yaakov Yosef meant any such thing either.

But here’s the critical part: there is a vast difference between what a manhig b’Yisroel (like R. Feldman) does, and what ordinary Aharons or Sheldons like you or I do. Let’s consider: you (by your own admission to me in the past) can’t learn Gemara without Artscroll. I can, but (by my own admission above) am unfamiliar with many areas of Torah literature, and have to depend on others who have gathered the relevant sources. How does either of us begin to compare with R. Feldman, who has spent his entire life studying Torah and making Hashem’s Will his will, and who has thousands of Bnei Torah to his credit? The Gemara tells us that a talmid chacham’s anger can be justified because “the Torah burns within him,” and that he needs to be “vengeful and grudge-bearing like a snake” for the honor of the Torah; do you think that these apply to people who are far below that caliber? Well, then, if R. Feldman saw something that (in his Torah-molded mind) is objectionable in R. Friedman’s talks, then yes, he has _earned the right_ – through his decades of service of Hashem – to call it out in the strongest terms (and to decide, with the same Torah mind, whether he needs to first talk to R. Friedman about it). You do not, any more than I could read a couple of books about dentistry and then decide that I can waltz into your office and start doing root canals.

(I might also add: consider how just now you thought that a certain gadol called Religious Zionists “kofrim,” when in fact (a) you had the wrong gadol, (b) he was referring to a different group, and (c) he didn’t even use the word “kofrim” or “kefirah.” And that was with the English translation right there in front of you! Can you honestly say that your “Toras Qwerty613” is otherwise so truthful, so rational and free of errors, as to use it to sit in judgment on others’ statements without at least checking with them first?! And notice, as above, how many times before that, too, you’ve taken it as a given that no one could possibly believe such-and-such – “checkmate” – and been wholly unaware of sources to the contrary that I, by no stretch of the imagination a great talmid chacham, found.)

Note, too, that R. Feldman _doesn’t_ call R. Friedman a kofer. He says that his statements are kefirah and that he’s a “bor birshus harabbim” (a pit – i.e., danger – in the public domain). You may think those are the same thing, but they are not; as an example, R. Hillel makes a statement in Sanhedrin 99a (אין משיח לישראל) which the Gemara itself harshly criticizes, and which the Radvaz says is flat-out kefirah – and he also says that R. Hillel is not branded a kofer for it, but an annus.

You, on the other hand, seem to delight in labeling anyone you don’t like, right off the bat, with all kinds of personal epithets. So yes, it is your responsibility, before doing so, to make sure that you have checked every side of the issue (and yes, that includes calling people up and asking them what they meant). And even after doing so, really, you lose nothing but your ego in staying quiet; again as Yaakov Yosef well put it, see to it that you’re in compliance with the 613 mitzvos (as, for example, R. Feldman is) before you start on this “614th” one.

——

Television:

First of all, who ever said that R. Miller’s position is “the last word”? Seems that this is yet another example of you reading something that isn’t there. In fact I asked whether, quote, “any Torah authority disagrees with R. Miller on this… if you can find such, then we have a basis to talk.” So we can start by asking which major Posek you asked, and then ask him why he holds that R. Miller’s comparison to ספרים החיצונים is incorrect (as the Gemara often puts it, “what would he do with” that analogy).

And again, that he disagrees doesn’t _invalidate_ R. Miller’s right to a different opinion. What should one do in practice? Consult one’s own rav. We might, though, also note that your Posek isn’t saying that one _has to_ have a TV, just that there’s no problem with doing so. Very well, then, one can not have a TV and be yotzei both!

Your comparison with a computer doesn’t even begin, considering the basic point that computers are used widely as a tool for parnassah, while TV is rarely if ever used for that purpose. In halachah, we have the din that it’s assur to go to certain places where women are not dressed tznius’dik (the example in the Gemara is the riverbank, where women would roll up their sleeves and hitch up their dresses to launder clothes) unless “one has no other way” to get to some other place; R. Moshe Feinstein in fact has a teshuvah on the subject (Orach Chaim 1:56) where he explains in the same vein that there is a heter, where it’s necessary for parnassah, to go to such a place and rely on one’s ability to avoid untoward thoughts, while there is no such heter where there’s no need. Again, to me that seems to quite obviously map to the distinction between a computer (necessary) and a TV (not), but again I’d be interested to hear your Posek’s views on the subject.

To non-political

I’ve been dealing with Nope for a long time so I know where he’s coming from. He’s a Chabad apologist. He refused to say whether he’s Chabad or not so I don’t call him Chabad. He’s now trying to cover up for Manc Friedman. Rabbi Feldman called him a Kofer for stating publicly that today no Jew can be punished no ma what he does. This is a clear denial of the principle of Schar Veonesh, so Nope twists what Rabbi Feldman said so that he’s not really saying he’s a Kofer and that Rabbi Feldman was obligated to call Manic and have him clarify what he meant. Another statement of Manic Friedman is that Mitzvahs are not commandments which must be kept rather they’re nice things which we do to fulfill G-d”s needs. So Manic holds that G-d d has needs literally which is also Kefirah. To this point Nope cited a Rashi which says that G-d has needs. Nope is very skilled at twisting and cherry picking statements from Chazan to cover up for Chabad. The simple and correct Pshat is that Manic is a Kofer. Similarly Cumin is a Kofer for stating that the Rebbe runs the world. This is part of the Chabad playbook. When they say he’s Moshiach it doesn’t mean they think he’s Moshiach. When they say he’s god clothed in human form they don’t mean that. Nope is clever but he’s a liar Good luck dealing with him.
,

To non-political

He’ll say anything to get the upper hand and then he’ll deny it a day later. He’s a total Chabad fraud.

You know, stamping your feet and saying “Nuh-uh” is not an argument. Watch the video again and see what R. Feldman says about R. Friedman. He calls him a “bor birshus harabbim,” a “fool,” and an “am haaretz” – but ***not*** a “kofer.” Seems that you just looked at the title of the video and didn’t bother watching it. Well, I did, and if you listen to the whole thing – it’s less than four minutes; surely you can spare that amount of time – you’ll see that the words “he is a heretic/kofer/whatever” ***do not*** appear in R. Feldman’s actual speech. So, for you to repeat, after this was pointed out to you, that “R. Feldman called him a Kofer” and to accuse me of “twisting what Rabbi Feldman said” is a flat-out lie, of the kind that you claim to be so against!

As is your claim that I said that “Rabbi Feldman was obligated to call” R. Friedman, when I ***specifically stated*** that “I’m not about to tell a world-class talmid chacham what he’s obligated to do.” I said that ***you*** are obligated to call before hurling accusations. Are you unable to tell the difference between R. Feldman and yourself? Is your ego that overweening that you think you reach anywhere to R. Feldman’s ankles?!

I also notice that you don’t actually have anything to say about the substance of the sources that I brought, just to claim that they’re “cherry-picked” and to repeat your smears. You know, the honest thing to do in such a debate would be to address those sources and explain why they’re not relevant to the topic at hand, such as “because Rabbi X explained to me that source Y actually means Z,” not “because I say so.”

And as for “a doctoral thesis,” here’s the part of my post that answered the question about whether I “agree” with what R. Feldman said:

“I’ll first point out that it’s a sickness to demand that one “agree” with a gadol b’Yisroel who says this or that, as though the validity of their opinion depends on whether I “agree” with it. It’s time you learned the gaping difference between sports or politics or whatever, and Torah, where our lodestone is emunas chachamim and anivus and shiflus before those who have molded their thought processes according to Torah.”

I’m sorry if that, a grand total of 72 words, is too much of a “doctoral thesis” for you to understand.

(As for the TV – very well, R. Fishelis said there’s no problem. It would be good, and כך היא דרכה של תורה, to understand his Torah thought process in reaching that conclusion. תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך, and of course there is also the possibility that you heard only what you wanted to hear.)

So now we’re at a crossroads. You can try to address my points rationally (since you claim that your Torah is rational). You can show where R. Feldman called R. Friedman a kofer, or where I said that R. Feldman was obligated to call R. Friedman before saying that, etc. etc., and when you can’t find those, then you can do the honest thing and retract those accusations. Or, though I hope not, you might persist in being like a character, “The Day-Old Goat,” described by R. Feldman himself in his book The Juggler and the King, pp. 54-55:

“Having nothing positive to offer, the only direction he can move in is a negative one. Realizing that he has not succeeded in earning on his own merits the glory for which he so desperately lusts, he thinks that at least he will get it by default, through eliminating all other candidates for glory. He therefore sets out to destroy the reputation of everyone around him. He imagines that when he has besmirched everyone else’s reputation sufficiently, then the people’s inexplicable blindness will at last be lifted, and, the field now being clear, they will be able to recognize his splendid qualities. That this will not work is obvious at first glance; but then, nothing is obvious to someone so intoxicated with dreams of glory.

“Rabba expresses this final effort by imaging the Torah scholar as the River Jordan and the day-old goat’s attempt to denigrate others as fouling that river and damming its flow. The goat hopes that by creating a foul odor around the talmid chacham he will prevent his Torah teachings from influencing the community. But of course, a river is not easily dammed for very long, and eventually the foul-smelling blockage is dissolved and carried away, and the pure water flows forth again.”

(Bear in mind, too, that unlike on VIN, your posts and mine here will be up for a long time to come, so that everyone can judge for themselves what is the “foul odor” and what is the “pure water.”)

I haven’t read r Friedman for years and I am too lazy to scroll up, but it seems that the controversial statement is that there is nobody to punish in this generation. I think it is dependable without denying Schar doctrine.

It is simply an observation about the generation: we are all confused, influenced by non torah doctrines, learned from confused teachers, so we are all anusim … see r Tarfon saying that nobody can receive tachaha in his generation and r Akiva replying that nobody can give …

To Menachem Shmei
Guilty as charged but the Kofer Manic Friedman says I can’t be punished. Lol.

Which Rabbi Fishelis is this that approved of having a television?

“Rather than dealing with Nope…”

Or, in other words, “rather than admitting the things about which I was wrong, as has been amply documented.” And you claim to be only standing up for the truth!

And then you double down. R. Friedman didn’t “call G-d a monster,” he said that ***if*** He had said such-and-such, then He would be that. Do you understand what a conditional statement, or a reductio ad absurdum, is? He’s saying that G-d is ***not*** saying such-and-such, therefore He is ***not*** such-and-such. Here, look at a Rashi from last week’s Parshah (Bamidbar 14:28), explaining a statement of Hashem’s: אם לא כן אעשה, כביכול איני חי – “if I do not do such-and-such, then (so to speak) I am not alive.” Previously in this thread I quoted a Sifri that says, “when you (Jewish people) are My witnesses, I am G-d; when you are not My witnesses, I am (so to speak) not G-d.” Here’s the original: כשאתם עדיי אני אל וכשאין אתם עדיי כביכול איני אל. By your “logic,” are Rashi and Sifri denying that G-d is alive or that He is G-d, chas veshalom?

And very well, let’s say R. Friedman is correct that you can’t be punished for lying. (You’ll notice that nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else, have I said that I ***agree*** that it’s so; maybe, maybe not, but the man has the right to his opinion.) But come on; are you a five-year-old, that as long as there are no punishments, then you’ll just try to get away with whatever you can? Have you no self-respect, that everyone here can see you lying through your teeth?