Clarification to mod and DaMoshe

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Clarification to mod and DaMoshe

  • This topic has 279 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 minutes ago by CS.
Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 317 total)
  • Author
  • #2259765

    As I see the other thread was closed abruptly (which I don’t mind- takes time to answer), I just wanted to clarify two last points that I thought were important.

    1) I mentioned that Chabad/ Chassidus has a different idea of Hashems Unity. I’ve mentioned before but seeing that we’re under constant suspicion I’ll just clarify that I meant that without Chassidus you may very well conclude that achdus Hashem means that Hashem is the only G-d/ One in control. Whereas Chassidus takes it much deeper by explaining how Hashem is the only Existence period (as we say in Aleinu- Ein Od, not ein od Eloka.) this has major differences and ramifications that impact many other ideas.

    Point b) if the Atzmus sicha is clearly kefira as damoshe put it, firstly, there are such lines in nigle sources as well as MS posted in other threads. So you’ll answer yes, but that’s not how you understand it. Great, same here. B) that sicha was given before the Rebbe became Rebbe. I don’t think Rav Moshe Feinstein among all the others would have any respect, use respectful titles etc for someone who engages in kefira cvs. Or, do I hold Rav Moshe and the others in higher regard than you do, because you know better, and he must have been clueless?

    Mods, I’m happy not to continue this conversation if you think that’s best. I just think those last two points it was important to mention. Maybe you can post this and close it after if you don’t want continuing discussion?


    People gave titles to shabsai tzvi originally, too. It’s meaningless. The content is severelt problematic, and those familiar with it, such as the chazon ish, did not react to it lightly.


    Thanks for the mods for allowing this discussion to continue!

    Aside from all the other stuff that I strongly disagree with, there is something very important that many Lubavichers have been claiming, and that CS inadvertently (after all, she’s a woman who doesn’t learn gemoro, and therefore probably doesn’t realize the terrible misinterpretation of the gemoro and Rashi) cited.

    When faced with the Ramban who wrote that we reject yoshke because he died, CS replied: “please answer how the Ramban could contradict the gemara (think it’s sanhedrin 98) which says that Moshiach can come from the dead or the living, and Rashi brings two examples of individuals thus suited from both”

    The gemoro says, “If Mashiach is from those alive, it is Rabbeinu Hakadosh (aka Rebbi), and if it is from those who are dead, it is Doniel.”
    Rashi gives two explanations:
    1. It is either Rebbi, who is alive, or it was Doniel, who is dead.
    Yes, according to that pshat Mashiach can be someone who is not alive BUT only Doniel. That version does NOT give you the right to say that anyone else who has died – including, of course, the Lubavicher rebbe – can be Mashiach.
    2. If you want an example of someone alive TO WHOM MASHIACH CAN BE COMPARED, that person is Rebbi. If you want an example of someone dead TO WHOM MASHIACH CAN BE COMPARED, that person is Doniel. According to this pshat, there is no reference of Mashiach being someone who had died.
    The above is the simple, non-convoluted, explanation – it’s almost an exact translation – of what Rashi is saying. If you don’t trust me, ask your husband, and if he is honest he will tell you that I am right about that.
    Now we don’t know how the Ramban learnt the gemoro, but based on his statement that we reject yoshke because he is dead, it would certainly seem that he understood it the second way rather than the first. He may also have had an entirely different interpretation of the gemoro. After all, he was a Rishon and was not bound by Rashi’s interpretations. Finally, he may not have held that that statement is an accepted view.
    The Ramban’s statement, therefore, is not at all contradicted by the gemoro.

    I would really appreciate it if you could confirm your agreement of what I wrote above, as what you wrote originally has veered from the path of the gemoro and Rashi.


    Here’s what I understand why these conversations go nowhere:

    Litvish and lubavitch grow up with completely different mindsets. It seems many litvish grow up thinking lubavitch is very off hashkafically, but not enough to assur them outright, so you can eat at our Chabad houses, daven at our shuls, use the many things we offer, but you still hold your noses at us. At least some. You also tend to think we don’t know how to learn and are overall ignorant of nigle.

    Meanwhile lubavitch grow up as Hashem being very real in our lives as a result of the tangible things we see and Laem through the Rebbe. Besides for the many miracles which we all have, it’s really the personal experience of how Chassidus infuses life and chayus into our lives that says it all. We are raised to be soldiers of the Rebbe and obviously Hashem, because it is an army that is needed to do the difficult work to bring Moshiach. The Rebbe exuded this kind of bitul to his Rebbe, so it comes natural, besides for the sense that The Rebbe is just completely above our league, so questioning the Rebbes instructions is the same as a goat doing so on the basis of his understanding. (This goat comparison comes from the time of the Alter/ Mitteler Rebbe by one of his tremendous Chassidim who was a tzadik himself. We do learn nigle in our Yeshivos for the majority of the day, and we also learn Chassidus.

    So when the two meet, the litvish person thinks the Chabad guy is completely ignorant of real learning, and is surprised when he is bested in Gemara by the Lubavitcher (happened countless times in Yeshiva with my brothers. And they’re not the top either.) They’re also self assured that the Lubavitchers hashkofa is completely off.

    Meanwhile the Lubavitcher assumes that the litvak just don’t understand the background of the one liners they’re throwing out, and obviously misinterpreting it, and try to explain. However these conversations don’t go well, because the litvak is anyway convinced the Lubavitcher is off, and doesn’t want to touch their hashkofa.

    The irony of it all is that it’s actually the other way around. The litvaks are the ignorant ones- they’re trying to tell us what Chassidus is, or how wrong it is, when they’ve never studied it. They accuse us of putting down others, when we never speak of litvaks as treif in any way. Or anyone else. We are very proud of our Rebbe, and expect the others to feel the same about theirs.

    I once saw a picture of satmar Chassidim welcoming their Rebbe with a banner proclaiming him Moshiach in the early 1900s.

    This is why the two never meet. If a litvak were sincere in trying to learn any sicha, and coming from that perspective, then we’d have some real dialogue. Otherwise, obviously we’re not gonna take you guys seriously. You think you know Chassidus better than us when you’ve never studied it

    disclaimer: This was so difficult for me to post as it is so misinformed and condescending.  🤦‍♂️


    I’m BT and as a kid you guys all looked the same to me!

    Now that I’m older I have to ask myself why don’t we have moshiach? Is it bec this group doesn’t daven like the other group and HKBH says we should all daven like them? Or bec this group learns differently from that group and HKBH wants us to learn like the other group?

    Do both groups believe in one borei haolam? Yes. Do both keep Shabbos? Yes. Kosher? Yes. Etc.

    Why don’t we have moshiach? Sinas chinam. And 80-90 percent of yidden have no connection to yiddishkeit. I see occasionally people fight about this stuff that almost looks like Israel on October 6. People arguing and arguing when our father wants us to love each other. Personally, whenever I see Chabad they seem to love all Jews everywhere all the time regardless of their observance or how they observe. They seem to be the embodiment of Ahavas chinam.

    It’s not like one group is saying you can eat non kosher or not keep Shabbos. You are talking about two groups that agree on 99 percent of everything and some people in one group think their rebbe was or is moshiach. How does that affect your avodas H-Shem? Is this argument really what your father who is in heaven and who holds back king moshiach wants? Or does he want us to perfect our avodah and love Jews?

    Just a quick and small thought from an ignorant yid who loves H-Shem and longs to make mitzvos.



    There were no “satmar chasidim” in 1900. The satmar rov was 13 at that time. His first position as Rav was in 1911 in Austria, where he was a rov, not a rebbeh with chasidim. He became rebbe in satmar in the late 1920s.

    And of course, the claim that anyone ever thought he was moshiach is baseless. This “banner” was most likely the result of reading a word quickly and associating it with a word seen often before. This happens to me as well, for instance I’ll see the word “jewelry” and think it’s “jewish.” Having been exposed to messianic literature and signage for decades, CS probably misread whatever this banner said.


    I only bothered to correct the most jarring part of that post; as the mods wrote, it’s just too much falsity to even begin to unpack


    why are you still discussing the same attacks on chabad again and again?
    btw whats the problom to say the rebbe is hashem in a body? meaning litterly? (for argument sake)
    how do you understand this weeks chumash ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר?
    dont just say its not literal, explain it to me! and explain to me what you think about when you think of hashem?
    you know even though the rambam says that someone who says that hashem has a body is a min, (and those who say ani maamin say according to the rambam) the raaved argues!
    anyway its not enough to say it, the rambam says you need to know about hashem see the first perek of rambam, i dont think you shoulld be doing anything else before you have the first perek of rambam in your mind (especially not making fun of other jews, especially tzadikim (which by the way someone who disgraces a talmid chacham is a apikores)


    btw about the statement that “today all chabad does is talk about how great the rebbe is”
    i was wondering, some people told me they dont want to learn tanya from a lubavitcher or go to a farbrengen because all chabad does is talk about how great the rebbe is,
    i always wondered who they hung around, because at the farbrengens i went to the talk is about avodas hashem, (needless to say a shiur tanya is pshat in tanya)
    now i realize these guys didn’t go to any farbrengens, they are just quoting this rav!
    where did he get it from? i would imagine he read a column of stories of the rebbe in some magazine, and figured thats all we do, like if i go to lakewoods dmv and only see litvaks getting there driving license, ill think thats all they do the whole day!

    ☕️coffee addict

    I can so see the early notzrim saying the same thing as cs and sechel

    What’s wrong with saying yoshke is part of the trinity or that he’s Hashem’s son (we say bni bechori yisrael, and the passuk says עלמה etc.)

    Please finally explain the difference, is it because lubavitchers keep the Torah? What if someone came along like Peter did and says the Rebbe told him in a dream……?


    Sechel, i believe this is the first time a Lubavitcher on here has admitted to hisgashmus haboreh r”l. Thank you for being honest.

    The “problem” with saying that a person is god is that it is against the 13 ikarei emunah, pesukim, and chazal. The targum always translates pesukim figuratively when they use terms that connote physicality.

    Case in point, in the pasuk you quoted, the targum says they saw the “yakara d’shem” twice, the honor of Hashem and the honor of underneath His throne. It’s a way of saying that they perceived the shechina.

    Ilike most heretical beliefs, it’s also shtusim. Hashem is infinite and One, and if something is quantified in any way, such as having parts, physical or otherwise, it’s no longer infinite nor is it oneness.

    This is the problem with the trinity in Christian theology.

    As for the raavad, it’s not as if the raavad held of hagshama; he said that people might be misled by agados chazal and pesukim, so such a person, who makes a mistake in learning, the raavad holds is Innocent. The rambam, who all the other rishonim and achronim pasken like(as per the majority of halacha in general) holds that a “nebach an apikores is oich an apikores,” an unfortunate apikores is also an apikores – it’s just too bad. He should have consulted the gedolei yisroel.

    So too here; the fact that one rabbi says something which was met with accusations of heresy from the rest of the Torah world that had heard it(many were unaware) should tell you something.


    *Ode to the Mods*

    Just wanted to convey my absolute respect to the mods. I think they do a wonderful job moderating and carefully editing when people of any side cross a line. My experience this time around has thus been vastly enhanced to what I endured when I first came on several years ago. I am sorry the mod found my previous post condescending, this is just what is stated time and time again by more than one litvish poster, and only CTLawyer and keith said anything back. They are both not born and bred litvish.

    That said, as the mods felt that some line had been crossed and felt compelled to close the other thread, I don’t want to continue it and risk it being closed again at some odd point. Additionally, I am behind my weekly study regimen, for other reasons as well, and I’d like to catch up. So thanks for allowing this discussion- personally I’ve sharpened my understanding of the condition of “Melech” in the Rambam under discussion. I’ve also received a wonderful treasure trove of the research done into the Rebbes yichus. Hopefully others have gained something as well. Gutte voch from my locality.


    CS” “The litvaks are the ignorant ones- they’re trying to tell us what Chassidus is, or how wrong it is, when they’ve never studied it.”

    Not quite. They’re trying to tell you that your hashkofos have nothing to do with real Chassidus, Chabad or otherwise. I know lots of chassidim of other types, as well as Litvaks, who are well-versed in Likutei Torah and other Chabad seforim, and who shake their heads when it comes to where Lubavich has been going since WWII. The last Lubavicher rebbe totally changed the direction of Lubavich and led his enthralled followers on a path to ruchnius self-destruction. Since his death you just keep on marching proudly towards the precipice.


    CS, I have to voice my respect for the mod who allowed your post even though it was as “misinformed and condescending” as the mod said it was. I would also add another adjective: garbage. (I know. That’s really a noun but here I’m using it as descriptive, in fact a metaphor. At any rate…)

    First, as I have written in the past, I am not Litvish. I am a card-carrying chossid of a well-known Rebbe shlita.

    Second, you keep demonstrating how brianwashed you are by writing what you have been told that Litvaks think. I am not a Litvak, but even I say they are not that stupid!

    According to you, Litvaks just worry about Lubavich hashkofo, while ‘we’ Lubavichers “grow up as Hashem being very real in our lives as a result of the tangible things we see and Laem [sic] through the Rebbe… etc etc”

    Does the brainwashing never end? Of course sometimes Lubavichers will best Litvaks in nigleh, but in my experience – and I reiterate for the countless time that I have many more years of association with all types of Lubavichers than you do –that is not usually the case. It’s just that so often when Lubavichers are bested by others – in anything whether in lomdus, hashkofo, even inyanei de’alma – the resort to one of two options: either changing the topic (And having said that, I note that you have not addressed at all my straightforward, almost literal, explanation of the gemoro, and instead you have gone back to ‘explaining’ to us am haratzim where the problem with the Litvaks lies.) or claiming that the other person simply does not understand the depth of your statement.

    Which leads me to another point. I have come across a lot of deep theories in many fields, and I could probably tell you many of the theories of string theory, and quantum mechanics. They wouldn’t be wrong… but I wouldn’t understand what I was saying!

    Knowing facts does not make you a deep thinker. It can, however, make you think that you’re a deep thinker. And that is one of the major problems with Lubavich. You (not you personally, rather, a generic Lubavicher) don’t have an inkling into what, for example, tzimtzum really means, but you can spend hours talking about it and quoting stuff that you have convinced yourself that you understand. This not only means that you are shallow, it results in you remaining shallow, because you have no reason to really absorb true knowledge since you know it all already.

    Those of us here who realize that we don’t know the true meaning of these lofty concepts, and we don’t understand the depth of a real Rebbe and his tzidkus, are far more likely to achieve something with our lives in terms of yiras Shomayim and the like than people who think that they know all the answers. In simple terms, swallowing a foreign dictionary does not make you an expert in that language.


    So, CS, does this mean that you won’t attempt to refute/answer any of the points that we have brought up and have not yet recived replies to?


    I’m really not sure what happened on the other thread and to be frank , I’m enjoying the break of time and focus. If the mods see fit to reopen the other thread, and if you’re still interested in my contributions here, I’ll be happy to continue…

    I will try to clarify my part of your quandry – the other thread needed to be closed because of the incoming posts, not the conversation.  There is no reason to re-open it when this thread has already begun. The disclaimer about your post being condescending – it referred to your claims about litvaks, what they think, what they believe and what is seemingly missing from their yiddishkeit. None of which was supported by any posters.  Hope this sorts things out for you.


    CS, I certainly would like to continue the discussion. I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this in the past, but there are two reasons I post so storngly (people who know me would be very surprised if they knew that I was the one posting) in regards to Lubavich, despite me being virtually 100% sure that you will never agree that your rebbe was wrong about anything, and that you will unfortunately continue to believe that he is Mashiach.

    1. I think it is very important for non-Lubavichers who may be reading this thread to see that the claims you make are really baseless, when looked at from true Torah sources.
    2. Perhaps I will be able to get you and some of your compatriots to realize that at least some of your quotes are misinterpretations and misleading, and then you will at least desist from using them here or anywhere else in the future.

    And another thing. Had you and others claimed that as far as you can tell the Lubavicher rebbe was fit to be Mashiach based on his tzidkus and Torah, while admitting that he didn’t at the time of his death actually attain the criteria cited by the Rambam, I would certainly argue with you, but nowhere near as vehemently. I personally believe my Rebbe is perfectly suited to be Mashiach based on his tzidkus, leadership etc. But I wouldn’t claim that he was a king, or that he has compelled all of Jewry to keep Torah etc.

    In truth, it makes not an ounce of difference to me if he is Mashiach or not. Who cares? He is my Rebbe and I try (and often fail 🙁 ) to live up to his guidelines. There may be others who are more suited to be Mashiach due to their lineage and military skills. Note, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere do we find that Bar Koziba was thought to be the tzaddik hador. Certainly R Akiva was, yet he declared BK to be Mashiach!

    Furthermore, what about Rebbes who were Kohanim (e.g. the Tifferes Shlomo) and Levi’im (e.g. the Chozeh of Lublin)? Their chassidim could not possibly have thought that their Rebbes were Mashiach, yet they certainlly correctly considered them tzaddikei hador.

    Deciding who will be Mashiach is so irrelevant to people who put in real effort in their avodas Hashem, that Lubavich’s campaigns in this area just reinforce my long-held view that it is merely a crutch to support a side that has veered from the Torah path that has been accepted for millenia.


    coffee addict, your post is one of the main reasons why I’m opposed to chassidus as a whole. Chassidus started because someone claimed to receive a vision in a dream, telling him to teach a new form of Judaism.


    Thanks for the clarification, appreciated. I hope you noticed in my post that I didn’t classify ALL Litvaks, I said some. And yes I do think it’s absurd to think that people tell us what we believe, based on a one liner from am entire part of Torah they’re not familiar with. We assure them they’re misunderstanding and explain or refer to where they can understand. Yet they’re still self assured that they know better our Chassidus/ Rebbe etc.

    Did you deliberately miss my point or did you not understand that I was referring to your extensive but false narrative in that post about what litvaks do, what they are taught and what they know about chassidus and lubavitch? Perhaps this is what you were taught to believe, perhaps it was your own misinterpretation, but the disclaimer was on your narrative.

    So since this is a new thread, if there are further questions you would like me to address, please repost.

    I think I left off with yankel Berel, I don’t remember the list of questions by heart, but the point was we differ on the first of them which renders the rest inapplicable. If you’d like you’re welcome to repost.

    Regarding the flip flop yb loves to post about Gimmel Tammuz and moshiach min hachaim etc. I’d like to point out that Chabad’s opponents equally flip flopped. Before Gimmel Tammuz, they assured us that we must be wrong, because not the Rebbe nor any other Torah leader was great enough to be considered a candidate for Moshiach and he therefore must come from the meisim.

    After Gimmel Tammuz they flip flopped and call thinking the Rebbe as Moshiach to be all kinds of extreme things. So I’m interested in hearing from you, as you’re very honest, why the flip flopping from the velt?

    ☕️coffee addict


    I don’t find it too distressing that they teach a “new form” as long as it’s “another way to serving Hashem” there were 12 shvatim going through their own path in the yam suf, no one said “my path is the only path”

    Additionally we say שבעים פנים לתורה


    no reason to answer all the stupid ideas of comparing chassidus to Christianity. over and over again.
    “The last Lubavicher rebbe totally changed the direction of Lubavich and led his enthralled followers on a path to ruchnius self-destruction.” anyone who says such a statement never learned tanya! learn thru tanya then tell me which part the rebbe changed.


    Well I appreciate that mod. I have seen it on this forum as well with the constant fixation on the same sicha, ignoring the answers given while maintaining the same assurance that is wrong, blanket statements against Chabad, comparing Chabad to a different religion etc, and I haven’t really seen a stand against it. So I’m happy to hear from you as an insider that you don’t think this is the general case, if I’m understanding you correctly.

    Personally I appreciate this opportunity to connect
    with and understand fellow frum Jews from all stripes, which I don’t have on a day to day basis unfortunately.

    I’ll give this one last shot – My disclaimer is on your post only. The comments posters have expressed about your hashkofa can be taken up with them. My comment to you was that your post was so full of motzei shem rah that I had trouble approving it.  That is different than arguments about your hashkofa. If you want to continue attributing the disclaimer to other things I can only assume denial or cognative disonance.



    Btw for those who actually want to understand that one quote they keep fixating on about Atzmus, would do well to learn shaar hayichud vhoemuna (part 2 of Tanya, not overly long), and perek Beis of Tanya (part 1). If you’ve done both, and are actually interested in understanding, we can talk. I’ve written it out simply for this format several times. And I think Menachem Shmei posted a yy Jacobson shiur on it.


    Coffee, yes, there are different paths, but each path needs a mesorah. Chassidus has no mesorah – the Besht did not have a teacher who taught him that path.


    I’m going to stop reading this thread bec I’m worried it is going to start entering sinas chinam and logon hora territory.

    With that said –

    Moshiach has not yet come. Why not? Our avodas H-Shem is insufficient. Probably mostly bec sinas chinam. Who cares who Moshiach is? That’s irrelevant. There’s not a single person here who the answer to that question is meaningful.


    Perfect your avodas H-Shem! Don’t worry about the other persons! He davens different from you? Not your business. He wears a shtreimel? Not your business. Your business? Serve G-d!

    As it is said – most people spend a lot of time worrying about their own gashmius and their neighbors Ruchnius. That’s backwards. Worry more about your own ruchnius and have more concern about your neighbors gashmius.

    Telling other frum yidden that they have the same beliefs as goyim is not bringing Moshiach.

    Little Froggie

    DaMoshe: Chassidus was not initiated by a “Dream”. Neither is it “a new form of Judaism” ר”ל. A renewed focus, cocentration into the heart and soul of Avodas HaShem, שמחה של מצוה etc. Nothing at all new. Straight from the pages of our vast Torah. מיט א ברען!

    ☕️coffee addict


    You know the history of the Baal Shem Tov?


    Coffee, the Besht claimed that he ascended to the Heavens, and Achiya Hashiloni taught him this derech.
    Later, he claimed to have met Mashiach, and was told that he’d only arrive when the world followed the teachings of Chassidus.
    This in my understanding is no different than a Christian claiming to have had a dream telling him to spread the words of Jesus.

    Sorry, but edited

    yankel berel

    Regarding the flip flop yb loves to post about Gimmel Tammuz and moshiach min hachaim etc. I’d like to point out that Chabad’s opponents equally flip flopped. Before Gimmel Tammuz, they assured us that we must be wrong, because not the Rebbe nor any other Torah leader was great enough to be considered a candidate for Moshiach and he therefore must come from the meisim.
    Sheker VeChazav .
    Lahadam .
    Total Fantasy.

    yankel berel

    If CS has no regard for facts so well known –
    they disqualified themselves from any mature discussion of this topic .

    This response of attributing to the non habadi’s pre 94 , the position that
    1] M HAS to come from the meisim
    2] That was the reason why the leader of the Habad Hasidim was disqualified in their view

    is a sign of either CLEAR DISHONESTY


    and should serve as a final and clear refutation of their bikush ha’emet and a total bankruptcy of the habad debating methods
    and the habad debating aims .

    Little Froggie


    You’re being extremely disrespectful towards the giant of the world. There’s an expression used in gemarah, I should be using here, I’ll spear you.

    I already wrote there was nothing “NEW” about his movement. Read what I wrote, it’s written in plain easy English. He put YiddishKite into Torah, Avodah, Yiras Shomaim. He put a dagash into Davening with feeling, doing Mitzvos with intent and understanding. Nothing he did is not found in Gemarah, Medrash etc. HE INVENTED NOTHING.

    True, the early opposers were wary of a new movement, ever since the advent of Shabsi Tzvi. They were greatly worried, however they were greatly mistaken. Time would tell – boy were they mistaken. As they say – without litvaks there would be no Torah (very untrue for today’s situation – Torah grows by leaps and bounds in Chassidishe courts in all areas התמדה, עמקות, לומדות, בקיאות, כמות, איכות), without Chassidim there would be no Yid.

    You don’t have to believe about the Baal Shem Tov meeting up with Achiya, don’t ever חס ושלום attribute a “new torah” or ” a new Judaism” to him.

    And while where at it may little me add, he did in fact have a mesorah, he was the last in line from the Baalei Shem, most of German descend

    I shudder to think what you wrote, that caring Mod had to edit your post.


    CS: “Regarding the flip flop yb loves to post about Gimmel Tammuz and moshiach min hachaim etc. I’d like to point out that Chabad’s opponents equally flip flopped. Before Gimmel Tammuz, they assured us that we must be wrong, because not the Rebbe nor any other Torah leader was great enough to be considered a candidate for Moshiach and he therefore must come from the meisim.”

    I agree 100% with yankel berel. As I have written, I was around way before gimmel Tammuz and I NEVER HEARD ANYONE say that Mashiach has to come from the meisim. NEVER EVER EVER! The only thing I heard on the topic was Lubavichers saying that their rebbe was Mashiach because he was the greatest person ALIVE (and who had ever lived, עפ”ל) and that Mashiach HAS TO BE SOMEONE WHO IS CURRENTLY ALIVE! That was standard official Lubavich policy… until ‘Mashiach’ died.

    As far as DaMoshe’s statement is concerned: How can anyone nowadays say that chassidus is wrong, was invented because of a dream, and has no mesorah?! How can the mods even allow that?

    And from the mods: “If you want to continue attributing the disclaimer to other things I can only assume denial or cognative disonance.”

    I believe it’s brainwashing that has induced the latter, so I’m in agreement that that is CS’s – and much of Lubavich’s – major problem. (Btw I forgive your typo!)

    yankel berel

    @ Arso
    Btw. That wasn’t the only major flip flop in habad theology .
    Think you asked in one the old threads about it :

    For years – no, for decades . For decades there was a major Mahloket .
    There were those , mainly Yeshivish , led by Rav Shach and other Litvish Yeshivish Rashei Yeshivot who accused Habad of crowning their manhig as mashiach . This was going on for decades . From the sixties onwards . Until the late Eighties .
    This was one of the main bones of contention in those times .
    I know , not because I heard about it . I LIVED through those times .
    I remember them , vividly .
    it was the Hasidi Olam [non Habad ] who came to the rescue , in favor of habad. They battled the Yeshivishers . The Litvish Balabatish people were also on the hasidi side . They did not understand what the yeshivish people saw in habad .

    Btw – This was one of the main arguments in the 88 election cycle where Aguda and Degel split . Aguda and the hasidim vehemently defended habad against the false [at the time] accusations that habad is aiming to crown their rebbi as mashiach .
    Hotsa’at shem ra ! An avla against habad , ehrlich people ! how can you accuse them of these irresponsible shtuyot voiced by some irresponsible hotheads . This is against their rebbi’s shitah . Against the hozer rashi R kahn . Those Yeshivishers are stam haters [sounds familiar? ] . Sin’at Hinam .
    They are the source of the galut . Etc. Etc.

    Another 3 years later – in 1991 .
    Suddenly the rebbi accepts his messiahship from his hasidim and R Kahn falls in line . All habad rabbanim sign kabalat malhut …..

    for Decades the habad critics were derided [Heard those accusations already in the sixties] .
    And were PROVEN RIGHT in the most spectacular u turn in Jewish history .
    That itself was already an excellent lesson in who has a hazaka , and who lost his hazaka ……
    Heard some rumblings then from the klal hasidi side . How they defended for years the indefensible .

    But from the habad side ? Only bliss .
    Was the bliss a RESULT of the ignorance ? Hard to believe.

    They themselves were screaming themselves hoarse that it [this Messiah aspiration] is all one big libel and a sheker .
    Ela Mai the bliss was ‘made up ignorance’ they simply decided to ignore it .

    Which in turn created real ignorance .
    For the later generation.
    Am sure CS won’t even know what I am talking about , all the while this was a clear reality I [and my generation] lived through .

    Mind boggling …


    yb I’m clearly of the same generation, and I too lived through that major upheaval. However, I disagree about Lubavichers not claiming their rebbe was Mashiach, as I heard that when I was a kid many years before 88. The only difference was that then it was much more low-key, and you had to have people who thought that you were on their side who would tell you that. Post 91 it become public.

    ☕️coffee addict

    Regarding what Keith wrote that “who cares who moshiach is, as long as they keep the Torah knocking them is sinas chinam”

    No one said we “Hate chabad” that if a Lubavitcher was drowning we would push him down and not save him, not even that we wouldn’t say “Hi” to them (or throw them out of a party (a la kamtza) what (mostly) everyone is saying is that chabad is fabulous except for the “rebbe is moshiach yechi” stuff which everyone else views as very dangerous and would like to save them from it

    I wouldn’t be surprised is in the times of the tzedukkim and early notzrim they did the same


    coffee addict: “what (mostly) everyone is saying is that chabad is fabulous except for the “rebbe is moshiach yechi” stuff”

    I must then be part of the minority. While they certainly do a lot of good stuff, they also have problems that are not related to the Mashiach claim. It’s just that currently that claim outweighs the others.


    CS, please reply about the explanation of the gemoro and Rashi I gave above. If you’re going to be intellectually honest you can’t just ignore it.

    Btw is there anyone out there who thinks (and can show me how) I got it wrong?


    Froggie, I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring your response to me. I wrote a reply, but apparently it wasn’t approved.

    Sorry, still working on it…


    Regarding flip flopping two ways, interesting. I’ve only gotten vague info on the pre Gimmel Tammuz era on how the “outside” world reacted and why, haven’t looked into it much, and wasn’t around then


    Mod thanks for explaining. I’m still not clear on what you meant. Are you saying that what I wrote (based on many posters here who hail from the litvish world) is false? That people don’t turn their noses up at Chabad (when that’s what I’m seeing repeatedly here)? No need to reply if you’re exasperated, I’m just confused as what you find to be motzei shem ra.

    Arso, quoting the rashi from memory, feel free to check up, it doesn’t זה, it says, כגון which to the best of my knowledge means For example:. For example doesn’t mean the Gemara is only referring to this person, it means someone like this person. And it uses the same word כגון, to the best of my recollection, both for the dead and for the live. Obviously, we cannot limit the live to Rebbi, and similarly the dead.

    Hope that is clear

    yankel berel

    To summarize

    CS does not know about the pre 94 non habad world , and therefore has no explanation about one of the major u turns in the Jewish world .

    CS does not know about the u turns official habad performed during the last 7 decades.

    CS does not adequately explain what their side is going to do with an explicit , centuries old, unchallenged Ramban , which clearly and unambiguously deals , head on , with the issue at hand . [as opposed to the other sources which could be explained in various ways]

    CS is ignoring their own side ‘s clear and public declarations SUPPORTING their detractors present position .

    CS is still looking with ‘innocent wonder’ at their detractors’ inability to see the yashrut and correctness of their position .

    And we are left with equal wonder at the IMMENSE POWER of negi’ut .

    Kol Hanega’im Adam Ro’eh Huts MiNig’ei Atsmo .

    Their position is riddled with u turns , inconsistencies and contradictions against centuries old , well established thought .

    They represent a small minority within Judaism .


    Mind boggling .

    Kol Hanega’im Adam Ro’eh Hut MiNig’ei Atsmo …..

    yankel berel

    @ CS
    do you realize that All your so called ‘proofs’ that mashiach comes from meisim are automatically NULL AND VOID ?

    1] In your eyes the habad rebbi and habad rabanim are THE ONLY AUTHENTIC shitah in yiddishkeit .
    The other yehudim have it mostly right but they would do best to listen to the greatest experts around [i.e. the people mentioned before]

    suppose that you [and other habadi’s] would fully agree to that statement [which is not necessarily passul]

    2] Pre 94 the ONLY AUTHENTIC shitah in yiddishkeit disregarded those ‘proofs’ .

    Obviously those ‘proofs’ MUST BE null and void .

    the only explanation – per force- is your detractors’ pshat in those ma’marei hazal .

    Why is that pshat so wrong in YOUR EYES , if the only authentic shitah of judaism approved of them ?

    yankel berel

    Am talking about the OFFICIAL LINE here . Not about what people said .
    The official line from the Hasidi hugim .

    The official line from Habad was clearly that this mashiach crowning was AGAINST their rebbi’s wishes .
    They cannot control everyone in such a big hasidut .

    That the ‘haters’ were looking for problems and magnifying some small tiny dirt which had come in from the outside .
    It was [supposedly] a result of the rapid influx of baalei thshuva who did not have the proper habad ‘mesorah’ ….
    That they were the ‘victims’ of their own success ….

    The TRUTH however was , that this was , as it seems , a ‘carefully orchestrated decades long campaign “milema’ala'” ….
    A spectacular u turn …. Or maybe the Great Deception is a more accurate description ?


    Just for a light note, I saw a video today (actually one of two connected) how the President of Argentina davened by the kosel from the depths of his heart, and then two Argentinian hostages were rescued that night.

    Mr Jeremy Gimpel found a fascinating connection:

    Of the 4 names of the one who will herald the geula- the last send the most puzzling. The Gemara says it’ll be chivra dbei Rebbi- the white one (which I assume rashi says means a leper) of the house of Rebbi.

    So the Argentinian guys name is Chivra- or something similar, and he belongs to Beis Rebbi, as he is an avid student of The Rebbe 😀 (in fact his first trip abroad after winning the elections was to the ohel)

    May the miraculous events of today only get stronger and stronger, and may it indeed herald the geula, with only revealed good for Klal Yisrael from now on!


    *Now aware


    With regards to the Ramban, I’m not aware of the name of a sefer that addresses it directly, but that’s it for now. I can look into it more thoroughly if you’d like. I just thought to start with the Gemara because that obviously predates the Ramban.


    Arso btw The Rebbe wanted the Lubavitchers girls high schools to learn Gemara. Although I only know of one that does. I don’t have a kevius in Gemara, as there’s plenty else for me to learn that’s more relevant to my mitzvos (including Chassidus) but I enjoy looking the many footnotes in the sichos/ maamarim etc referencing Gemara, and more often than not, I can bH translate a quote from Gemara when it does appear in a sicha. So I learn alot more Gemara on a regular basis than, say, Zohar. Zohar I don’t usually look up, unless I’m checking an article to make sure it’s an accurate quote. But I wouldn’t gain more clarity of Zohar by seeing the context. All the Zohar. Etz Chaim etc I know, is directly as is explained in Chassidus


    CS, it’s very clear… that you have it wrong. In the first pshat where Rashi says it can be a person who has died Rashi EXPLICITLY says that the kegon here is lav davka and does NOT mean “like”! Here is the Rashi:
    אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש. אם משיח מאותן שחיים עכשיו ודאי היינו רבינו הקדוש דסובל תחלואים וחסיד גמור הוה כדאמרינן בבבא מציעא (פה א), ואם היה מאותן שמתו כבר היה דניאל איש חמודות שנדון ביסורין בגוב אריות וחסיד גמור היה, והאי כגון לאו דווקא, לישנא אחרינא: כגון רבינו הקדוש, כלומר, אם יש דוגמתו בחיים היינו רבינו הקדוש, ואם דוגמא הוא למתים, היינו כגון דניאל איש חמודות.

    According to this Rashi the gemoro makes no allowance for saying it is any dead person other than Doniel, and even that is only according to the first explanation. The second explanation doesn’t even allow for that.

    Note, the gemoro is talking only about the possibility of it being someone alive at the time the statement was made, and Rashi is explaining that. It is not talking about a later time, when Rebbi is no longer alive. Clearly, then it can be someone else who is alive. Nonetheless, regarding the possibility that it is someone who has died, there is no allowance in the gemoro or Rashi that it can be anyone other than Daniel. If you want to claim it is the Lubavicher rebbe, the gemoro should not, and can not, be cited as any type of support that it is possible.


    Froggie (and others):
    Chassidus as originally intended by the Besht was problematic. Yes, he did introduce new ideas into Judaism. He claimed that learning Torah was not of utmost importance, and instead shifted the focus to tefillah, along with happiness. His followers did things such as turn cartwheels while davening, spoke in tongues, and other strange actions. There are other teachings which were concerning, and I won’t get into all of them. They can be summed up by his asserting the primacy of Kabbalah over traditional thought, even when it came to Halachah. Kabbalah is not supposed to be learned while young, and definitely not before one has a solid foundation in the traditional sources of Tanach, Mishnayos, and Gemara.
    Chassidus ended up becoming accepted because a few generations later, the leaders walked back on some of the ideas, and accepted the traditional views, merging some chassidic thoughts into them. Most of the things that were problematic were abandoned (although not all).
    So Chassidus as the Besht envisioned it is long gone. Yet as I said, some problematic parts do remain.
    But let’s be clear about this: The Besht did NOT have a mesorah for his teachings. He didn’t learn about the supremacy of tefillah over learning Torah from his father (he was orphaned at the age of 5) or his Rebbe.
    There are no seforim on learning from the Besht. Only quotes from his students, and mostly on matters of Chassidus. So there is absolutely zero proof that he was knowledgeable in Shas. In fact, the people who supported him had hoped he’d become a Rabbi, but he frequently skipped cheder to walk in the woods, and they gave up on him. When he finished cheder (at the age of 12), they gave him a job walking escorting the small children to cheder in the morning, and davening with them.
    My personal belief is that the stories of the Besht were inflated by those who came after, such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Yaakov Yosef of Polonye, and others.

    Since chassidus today was tempered by the traditional Jewish population, and they abandoned most of the teachings, chassidus became more accepted. But if the many of the practices were problematic, why do we think that those which remained are ok? If the source had problems, wouldn’t it be better to cut off all those teachings?

    yankel berel


    the post before about negi’ut is not meant to be condescending

    has veshalom .

    ,The gemara suspect even one of the greatest, the kohen gadol, of negi’ut .

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 317 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.