Clarification to mod and DaMoshe

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Clarification to mod and DaMoshe

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 317 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2260663
    CS
    Participant

    Arso: thanks for quoting it, although I seem to remember the Rashi as being quite short. In either case, it still says dugmaso- which is the same idea- an example. In that generation, the example of Moshiach min hachaim was Rebbi and min hameisim- Daniel. I don’t understand why you understand that Rebbi was only that generation but not subsequently, yet you don’t apply the same logic to Daniel. Just to flesh it out

    #2260676
    CS
    Participant

    DaMoshe I’m not going to respond at length as I think people here are bH sufficiently educated on chassidus in general, but just to make you aware, besides Achiya HaShiloni, the Baal Shem Tovs mentor was R Adam Baal Shem, who was preceded by R Yoel baal shem, whose teacher was R Eliyahu baal shem who was of the mekubali
    and had a Yeshiva in Worms. The ways of These Baal Shem were kept secret from the general population, except for their own students, and that’s why maybe you only heard of the Baal Shem Tov who was forced to reveal himself to the world at large on his 36th birthday

    #2260682
    CS
    Participant

    YB I do know about the major flip flop because I grew up in the wake of it. I don’t think you understand the nuance within Chabads position which are all based on the Rebbes sichos and sources: We hold that the best way is when the Nassi of the current dor who merits geula, is the final Moshiach- as his generation was the one who earned it. This is not the same as the classic Moshiach min hameisim, and obviously- clearly alive physically would be the most straightforward, ie be option a. Nobody was looking for an option b, pre Gimmel Tammuz, although the Rebbe alluded to it.

    #2260703
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    כגון does not mean ‘for example ‘

    It means “of the type/characteristic” from the lashon גוונא, color, type. Rebbeim, including myself, typically translate it as ‘for example’ to kids, but i always mention to them that it’s not what it really means, even though it’s a useful place marker for the way the term is generally used.

    #2260771
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @CS
    CS is TOTALLY missing the point , all the while pretending [?] to answer it .
    edited 

    #2260778

    lots of people here know a lot about secrets of the world. As this is way above my capabilities, I’d like to see who is the greatest here so that I take his/her views more seriously. Could you guys maybe list your accomplishments in gashmiyus so I can see who has highest intellectual abilities? maybe patents or articles. If this is too ofeensive for your modesty, maybe I could go with the highest SAT score? please help me find my bearing in this important debate.

    #2260786
    Little Froggie
    Participant

    AAQ: Here I am, your humble little i

    #2260787
    Little Froggie
    Participant

    DaMoshe

    Please, a bit of respect, deference to a Giant who has lit the world aflame with a fire and life of Jewishness in all aspects.

    No, he was חס ושלום not a bumbling wild rabble rouser as your “sources” would have it. No, he DID NOT INVENT ANYTHING NEW.
    Before you develop your personal belief, why don’t you educate yourself by reading up on real stuff…

    I find it weird that I should be writing in defense, as if R”L my humblekite should “weigh in”.

    I may address each sludge you’ve flung, at a different time, when I have time (gosh – did you read that? I’M BUSY NOWDAYS!!!) I just couldn’t let such an affront to such a giant go unchecked. You don’t get to attack, vilify, denigrate the leader and master of the MAJORITY OF FRUM JEWS.

    שמר פתחי פיך

    #2260799
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Wow! Quite the דברי בזיון on one of the most venerated Gedolei Yisroel. Actually, there is no excuse for such talk at this point in time, when you see how the greatest Tzadikim accepted the Bal Shem Tov. It takes quite the audacity to speak out like this. This can only happen to someone who isn’t careful about being לומד תורה מהאמגוש.

    The entirety of the portrayal of the proto-chasidism is based on secular writings, with a sprinkling of just outsider perspectives — given by those who were predisposed to disdain Chasidus.

    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.

    All of these ideas are not new and are not just “originally intended”. Not only that, but they have become more widespread, and are being even more widespread nowadays. (Yes, I know that you lament that.) The Bal Shem Tov obviously never negated the countless Maamarei Chazal about the supremacy of learning Torah. In fact, that’s exactly what he spent his time doing with his close disciples, who were all well-learned and most of them held rabbinic positions. Emphasising, or putting weight into other Mitzvos (which hardly take away time from learning) is not a new concept. Davenning extra-long Shmone Esrei might be a new idea without a Mesora or reason, though.

    Happiness itself is a trait that was extolled by many earlier pious groups. But, most importantly, if a Gadol has an insight into what he sees as helpful to Kirvas Elokim, that is not a new Torah. Plenty of great Rabbonium — before and after the Bal Shem Tov — have innovated, re-introduced, or narrowly focused on what others haven’t.

    His followers did things such as turn cartwheels while davening, spoke in tongues, and other strange actions.

    This is bogus. There is a mention of one particular group, which obviously plays an oversized role in the mind of detractors, who have acted out over-the-top while Davenning as a means of ecstasy. This was not the Bal Shem Tov, nor the Maggid, but exactly one Talmid. And his friends were not happy about it, and it stopped. Speaking in tongues is simply baloney, but I can’t promise that Gershon Scholem didn’t mention it, since I wouldn’t read his ideas.

    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.

    The Hashkafos that the Bal Shem Tov taught, which are by now mainstream, that Hashem is not confined to being “up there” but that He is everywhere and more importantly, nothing is outside of His realm, reach and even plan; these ideas were not really negated by the main detractors. They were merely afraid of where it would lead people.

    The Gra’s letter complains that. ‘האומר לעץ אבי אתה ולאבן אתה ילדתני’. This is a complaint against saying that Hashem is everywhere, since this would lead people to think that they can bow down to their own chairs and tables, if it is after all part of Hashem. While this precaution is understandable, we see that it didn’t turn out that way. The message was taught in a careful and well-designed manner, the way we all relate to it today.

    The Gra actually continues by referencing the Zohar Hakadosh that is quoted by Chasidim, and he says that it is a secret and not meant to be taken in its simple form. And so, we see that although to the underlying idea there was no disagreement (since the Bal Shem Tov also did not teach it in the simple way), there was suspicion as to the irresponsibility of making asuch deep ideas available to the public. And, as it turns out, it went over well. Absolutely nobody relates to physical items as Hashem ר”ל. Even though most people won’t be able to easily explain how it all ties together, the ideas went over well, as we see every day.

    Contrary to historians’ description, the Bal Shem Tov actually did not teach Kabalah to people. He discussed it with those who were already learned in it, and he did publicize some ideas from it, just as any Rav before and after him has done. And this can be seen in any Chasidish Sefer outside of Chabbad. They utilize certain Kabalistic ideas, usually famous ones, but never engage in explaining Kabalah per se. I would say that while it is true that one shouldn’t learn Kabalah before a solid grounding in Gemara and Halachah, the age is not a big deal. All successful Mekubalim began at a pretty young age.

    Post Shabssai Tzvi there was a general caution of what the unguided study of Kabbalah can do. But seriously, that happened exactly once in history, and I’d blame mental illness before blaming Kabalah.

    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.

    This is simply not true. We have his teachings, and they are relevant. And as I wrote earlier, the all-too-famous cartwheels were not from him. The ideas of Torah Lishmah are widely known and quoted, although few are holding there. IT is mentioned by the Bach, and it is the Nefesh Hachaim who suggests taking a quick break in middle of learning to strengthen Yiras Shamayim. (Like the Mishna in Rosh Hashana 29a.)

    His main ideas, which was about putting life into Yiddishkeit applied to those who learn as well as those who can’t learn enough.
    ר’ נחמיה אומר מניין שכל הכושה מצוה אחת באמונה לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם כדאי הוא שתשרה רוח הקדש עליו (מכילתא דרשב”י י”ד)

    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.

    The Mesorah aspect was already addressed, as well as the fact that Tefillah was never made to be more important than Torah Study.

    The rest is just a failed attempt at לישנא בישא. The quotes that are from him are all about parts of Torah. You can find them in a compilation called ספר בעל שם טוב. And again, just like the acceptance of any Gadol or Tzaddik is based on the testimony of other Gedolim, we can see the works of the Bal Hatanya and we know his regard for his Rebbe, the Maggid and the Bal Shem Tov. All of his disciples were Rabbanim, as mentioned above. As for having Seforim, the fact is that most Gedolim didn’t make Seforim. Did you ever see the Abrabanel’s sefer on Bava Metzia? Was he then not learned in Torah SheBal Peh? (Just in case you’d actually think so, you can see the great regard that the Beis Yosef has for him when mentioning a Pshat in the Rambam Hilchos Brachos.) Did the Rokeach write on Shas? How about Reb Yakov Pollack?

    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.

    גדול מחלוקת שמגיע עד כסא הכבוד
    So here you have someone made you happy by writing a Sefer (not of stories), and your preconceived notion of putting down the Bal Shem Tov would lead you to speak Hotzaas Shem Ra on other Rabbanim that they would simply lie in order to venerate their Rebbe. Once you speak of famous Gedolim as liars, you should have realized that you are leaving the Machane.

    Never mind that this is a chicken before the egg. These Talmidim all came to the Bal Shem Tov after having checked him out. They couldn’t have done so on the basis of their own future propaganda. Now, it is obvious from the poor insight into Chasidus that you aren’t well versed in the writings of Talmidei Bal Shem. But one thing is clear, it is all Divrei Torah, and they all reference Maamarei Chazal from all over, including Lomdish Sugyos.

    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?

    Since the premise is wrong, and no one went back on the teachings of the Bal Shem Tov, the postulate falls along with it. Even if you think that the Rebbes of the great Talmidei Chachamim couldn’t learn (somehow), being that, according to your portrayal, the learned ones hacked out a useable approach, it is after all designed by Gedolim who finally arrived at the scene.

    Besides for all of the above, you should be pragmatic. Why would you pick a losing fight? You know that when you denigrate someone who is held in the highest esteem, you will not be listened to.

    #2260802
    ARSo
    Participant

    CS: “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)”

    So now Mashiach is an Argentinian goy. OK. I can handle that. It’s certainly easier to believe than all the other stuff coming out of Lubavich.

    #2260805
    ARSo
    Participant

    CS: “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.”

    What does “But that’s it for now” mean? You can’t answer something so “that’s it”?!

    And the fact that the gemoro predates the Ramban means nothing at all. The Ramban – like Rashi – was a Rishon, and there is no way we could understand the gemoro without the Rishonim. What you seem to be saying is equivalent to saying that since Chumash preceded Chazal, we should try learning it without Chazal. Coming so recently from parshas Mishpotim, I can only imagine the results. There would be quite a number of people without arms, legs and eyes!

    “btw The Rebbe wanted the Lubavitchers girls high schools to learn Gemara. Although I only know of one that does.”

    And I know for a fact that what the Lubavicher rebbe advocated was that they learn only gemoro that is directly relevant to halochos that apply to women, not other stuff. (Note: I, and I’m sure many others on this thread, are against even that.)

    #2260810
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @AAQ
    Don’t look at the messenger – look at the message .
    If the message is correct , who cares how it got to you ? [eizehu haham halomed mi….]
    And if the message is not correct , why would you accept an incorrect message just because a clever man delivered it to you ?

    #2260812
    ARSo
    Participant

    And to back up my stance that women should not be learning gemoro ;-), here is what CS wrote:
    “it still says dugmaso- which is the same idea- an example. In that generation, the example of Moshiach min hachaim was Rebbi and min hameisim- Daniel. I don’t understand why you understand that Rebbi was only that generation but not subsequently, yet you don’t apply the same logic to Daniel.”

    You are mixing up the two leshonos.
    Lashon 1. If Mashiach is someone who is currently (i.e. at the time the statement was made) alive, then it IS Rebbi. No one else.
    If Mashiach is someone who has already died, then it IS Daniel. No one else. Rashi does NOT mention dugmaso in this lashon. And it is in this lashon that Rashi says that the word “kegon” is lav davka. That is, it does not mean “like”. Rather it means “is”, i.e. it IS either Rebbi or Doniel. According to this explanation, the statement was not dealing at all with someone who was not yet born at that time, and that is another possibility, which, it would seem, we are left with if it is not actually Daniel or Rebbi themselves.
    (Avirah, I agree kegon does not mean exactly ‘like’ or ‘for example’. I was a rebbi for a number of years and I also used to teach that it really means ‘of the type’, as in kegavna. In fact, often it is not an example at all and it is the only acceptable case. Nonetheless, Rashi here is clearly telling us that it is not to be taken as an example.)

    Lashon 2: Mashiach will be someone great. How great? Well, if you want to see what type of person Mashiach will be, I can show you DUGMASO – someone like him – from those who are alive today, and that is Rebbi, or from those who have died, and that is Daniel. According to this lashon, there is no mention of the actual Mashiach being someone who has died. This lashon cannot, therefore, be brought as a proof that Mashiach can come from the dead. Again, Daniel, who, by the way, has died, had the characteristics that Mashiach will have, whoever he will be.

    Is there any male out there who can show me how I have misinterpreted Rashi, and how Rashi does allow for someone else who has died to be considered Mashiach. Note: I am not asking for a discussion regarding whether Mashiach can come from the dead Rather I am asking for someone to show me that Lubavichers are justified IN QUOTING THIS GEMORO AND RASHI to prove that Mashiach can be someone who has died. (I’m sorry for seeming to be so repetitive, but I am trying to get a fact into some heads that are bolted shut to simple pshat.)

    CS, I will be melamed zchus and say that you, a woman, can’t be blamed for misinterpreting a simple gemoro and Rashi, but it is hard to be melamed zchus on men who know how to learn gemoro and misinterpret the Rashi to suit their agendas.

    One final point. I wouldn’t be fazed even if there were a multitude of Rishonim who wrote that Mashiach can come from the dead. It would still not bring me any closer to accepting that the Lubavicher rebbe is/was Mashiach for the many reasons that I have written in the past. The above discussion is just about Sanhedrin 98b.

    #2260811
    yankel berel
    Participant

    To the Mods
    – why was my post edited ?
    At least give me an opportunity to reread it and edit it myself ?

    And how, exactly would that be done?

    #2260837
    ARSo
    Participant

    HaLeiVi, yasher ko’ach. Very well argued!

    I would also like to point out that it is ridiculous to suggest that talmidim such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Reb LY of Berditchev, the Baal Hatanya, the Maggid of Kozhnitz, the brothers Reb Shmelke of Nikolsburg and the Baal Haflo’oh and others, who were all renowned talmidei chachomim, would have followed someone who did not “know how to learn” and came up with a totally un-mesorah way of serving Hashem.

    #2260836

    yankel > If the message is correct , who cares how it got to you ?

    yes, this is correct in many cases where it is possible to evaluate evidence directly.
    as someone told me about Rambam, “he would accept the truth regardless of the source”.
    May also depend on a person’s own knowledge and abilities.

    Here we are discussing matters that are truly beyond my abilities, and probably beyond abilities of other posters. I can’t rely on Chachamim as their quotes here seem to be contradictory and most likely taken out of context. Thus, I can only (somewhat) trust based on poster’s reputation. So, that was my first basic question – do any of the posters have any external proof of their thinking abilities. If they did not invent a new light bulb or something, how can they be sure they can figure out such weighty topics? I would suggest – to those who did not yet – do something intellectually competitive that will indicate to them how good they are at thinking and even where their strong and weak spots are. Try SAT, chess, NYT crossword … IT is not bitul zman as knowing yourself will help you a lot in learning and working on middos.

    #2260890
    Little Froggie
    Participant

    AAQ:

    It would appear to my humblekite that someone filled with Torah wisdom, someone whose very being is suffused with חכמת אלוקים need not evaluate himself via secular tests and barometers (thermometers, speedometers, altimeters) to weigh in on a Torah related subject.

    If he was once מכוין to a Tosfes’ Kasha or a Shach, that should suffice!

    #2260905
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Has anyone seen any credible data that roughly approximates the percentage distribution of the frum/charedi population in either the US or EY as between Chassidish, Litvish and “All Other” (i.e segurahs, etc) and how those percentages have been skewing over the past 10-20 years.

    #2260909

    Little Froggie croakth: he was once מכוין to a Tosfes’ Kasha

    this is true. Unfortunately, I am not aware of well-developed widely appliable tests measuring learning knowledge and abilities. Maybe you know? “knows whole shas” and “gaon” are just too wide and subjective, especially in our Lake Wabegon times, when everyone is a Talmid Chacham above average.

    You can go around, like I do, and ask people obscure questions and see who can answer it, but this is not scalable.

    I am not the only one who is interested in being able to sort out this. R Soloveichik in early YU days laments that he is giving the same semicha to all students instead of giving them a grade. I presume he would answer when a congregation calls him and asks about a specific candidate, but he felt that transparent information would be more useful.

    #2260949

    Froggie > Tosfes’ Kasha or a Shach

    There might be disagreements here. For a random example, Maharal was against training children in Tosfos, but rather on first teaching more straightforward approaches. So, a good SAT-type test should encompass multiple ways of learning.

    #2261045
    sechel83
    Participant

    i think instead of finding issues with chassidus, you guys should start learning it. i guarantee you the gra would rather you learn tanya then spend time on yw coffee room, especially writing ridiculous comments.
    the baal shem tov being a talmid chacham is almost like the people who say the rebbe wasn’t and dont bother opening any of his 200+ seforim or listening to any of his thousends of hours of sichos speaking for hours straight with no notes etc.
    (i say almost cuz there are not many seforim and recordings of the baal shem tov, but even open keser shem tov, its beyond any sefer printed the last 50 yrs.)

    #2261057

    Sechel, to paraphrase R Salanter, if you only have an hour and you have a choice between CR and chassidus – start with CR because you can learn from CR when and how to learn chassidus; but learning chassidus will not tell you to read CR.

    #2261072
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Sechel, do you think the Gra ZTL would make a Cherem on the Coffee Room?

    #2261107
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @CS
    In one post you claimed you were not aware of official Habad Policy before the Histalkus / Disappearance of 1994.
    In a subsequent post you claimed , you are well aware of it .
    Be it as it may , the following question is very pertinent –

    When will we get an unreserved acknowledgement that Official Habad made two major U-Turns in the last 60 – 70 years ?
    Or possibly , alternatively rephrased as “one Major U-Turn and one Great Deception” ?

    Thanking you [or any other habad defender] in advance , for tackling this issue with real emet like honesty

    Have read multiple posts from Habad defenders on multiple threads , and no one had the fortitude yet to look the facts and reality in the eye .
    Have not given up . I deeply believe in the inner goodness of humanity and that at least someone will find the courage to do so .

    But , Please – please , Not by saying that the non habad world ALSO made a u- turn by initially [pre 94] opposing habad ‘candidacy’ for M , based on the premise that M comes from the dead . and somehow only now [after 94] insisting M only comes from the living.
    That’s a factual non starter …

    #2261352
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @CS
    To be an ehrlich oved hashem is VERY important .
    no doubt about that .
    But to have a correct hashkafa and not follow meshugaas in a cult like way is not any less important .
    If you do not open your eyes wide open and reason SOLIDLY with an open torah mind , who knows where one can end up .

    And may I say some more [a lesson I learned from this decades long saga]

    even being a totally sincere oved hashem IS NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER that one doesn’t stumble – badly- in hashkafa .

    Habad yochi’ach ……

    May this serve as a timely reminder for all of us .

    .

    #2261377
    CS
    Participant

    Just popping in. Glad to see the positive conversation regarding the Baal Shem Tov.

    Will respond to a few now (hopefully in order) and next at my next opportunity iyH.

    Avira- thanks for the exact translation of כגון
    Arso: I meant I found the name of a sefer that addresses the Ramban mentioned, but I’m going to give my source in this info a break so I’m not pressing it for now. In any case, aside from the Gemara, there’s the abarbanel and Sdei Chemed who refer to moshiach min hameisim positivelys well. Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase. And then you’re arguing how to interpret the Rashi- 2 steps removed.

    Recently I called a Rav regarding a mefaresh on the Gemara that didn’t seem to fit with the theme I was writing on (it seemed unhealthy in attitude) and I wanted to understand how it fit in or if I was wrong in my approach. He assured me my approach was correct, and regarding the mefaresh- we don’t hold like that.

    The bottom line is that I asked a respected Lubavitcher Rav about the topic- he told me you can’t hold according to the Rambam bchezkas Moshiach, but you’re on solid Torah ground to believe the Rebbe is Moshiach regardless. So that’s it.

    Later I found out that there are others who disagree and are still garnering signatures from outside of lubavitch on the topic today. They bring the sources, the Rabbonim study them and many/ some do agree and sign.

    Regarding Argentina-no obviously a goy won’t be moshiach- point was that he heralds good news in line with geula (may it only continue!)

    Regarding more “typical” Rebbe brachos with these latest hostages, the article is up on VIN the day they were released.

    May I also add that the first (unprecedented) wave of hostages were released shortly after members of many hostages families flew from Israel (!) to NY and went to the Ohel.

    #2261380
    CS
    Participant

    “And I know for a fact that what the Lubavicher rebbe advocated was that they learn only gemoro that is directly relevant to halochos that apply to women, not other stuff. (Note: I, and I’m sure many others on this thread, are against even that.)”

    Source for your fact?

    #2261382
    CS
    Participant

    Yb
    “n one post you claimed you were not aware of official Habad Policy before the Histalkus / Disappearance of 1994.
    In a subsequent post you claimed , you are well aware of it .”

    Depends what aspect you’re talking about, and if I’ve heard something once or twice or looked into something in depth.

    Be it as it may , the following question is very pertinent –

    “When will we get an unreserved acknowledgement that Official Habad made two major U-Turns in the last 60 – 70 years ?
    Or possibly , alternatively rephrased as “one Major U-Turn and one Great Deception” ?”

    What I know is (again I was born after) that the Rebbe started off the Nesius by saying that we are the seventh generation who’s job is to bring the Shechina back down to earth (just like Moshe- seventh from Avraham). And we’re not better than other generations- it’s just our mission as the lucky 7 (kol shviin chavivin.) the Rebbe will help us but he will not do the work for us.

    There was always an emphasis on bringing Moshiach. This was nothing new- the Frierdiker Rebbe had a campaign around the Holocaust time- lalter liteshuva lalter lGeula.

    Seeing the Rebbe as Moshiach of the generation is also nothing new. At least the third Lubavitcher Rebbe was held this way, and possibly many others. The Rebbe also referenced the Frierdiker Rebbe as Moshiach during the Rebbe’s nesius. (Another reason why Moshiach min hameisim is moot- if the Rebbe could say the Frierdiker Rebbe could have techias hameisim and come back with the first wave, what’s the issue?)

    As far as the Rebbe himself being called Moshiach- at first it was probably unheard of as the Rebbe was completely batul to his father in law. In time, with whatever communications the Rebbe received, he slowly began to reveal it to those closest to him, hence the change of position, but still didn’t feel this was suitable for the world at large. Later on that changed somewhat too. So this isn’ta series of flip flops rather a one way process.

    There is more to be said about how Gimmel Tammuz affected Chabad, and I’ll save that for my next time.

    “But , Please – please , Not by saying that the non habad world ALSO made a u- turn by initially [pre 94] opposing habad ‘candidacy’ for M , based on the premise that M comes from the dead . and somehow only now [after 94] insisting M only comes from the living.
    That’s a factual non starter …”

    To be honest, I have heard this more than once, and it probably has some basis- if you could give background from your end would be nice. I never looked into it yet

    #2261395
    1a2b3c
    Participant

    I am shocked that the mods allowed DaMoshe’s last post – a terrible and utterly false bizayon of the holy Baal Shem Tov ztz”l.

    Edited

    Baba Sali, the Gaon of Vilna and the Baal Shem Tov

    When Baba Sali first moved to Israel, in 1964, he lived in Yavneh.

    Baba Sali, the Gaon of Vilna and the Baal Shem Tov
    When Baba Sali moved to Eretz Yisrael, in 1964, he first lived in Yavneh, where his son-in-law, Avraham Abuchatzira, was a rabbi. One day, he suddenly moved away. This is the astonishing reason.

    In Yavne there was a kolel of young married men who sat and studied every day. The head of this group was an accomplished Torah scholar who had become friends with Baba Sali. He would often visit the holy man and discuss many aspects of his group of students. He also shared with him the problems that faced his people. Once, during the course of a conversation, he mentioned that there was a marked difference in the level of study between the Gaon of Vilna and the Baal Shem Tov.

    “As seen from their decisions handed down and their writings, the Gaon of Vilna plumbed the depths of every subject, and touched on every single aspect of the Talmud, while the Baal Shem Tov did not delve deeply into halacha and the decisions of other masters.”

    Baba Sali was shocked and dismayed to hear the head of the kolel speak thus. He did not say anything because of that Rabbi’s position. However, when the man left, Baba Sali said, “In a city where things like this are said about the great luminary, our teacher and guide, Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem Tov — it is forbidden to live.”

    On that very day, he arranged for his possessions to be packed, and he left the city. He refused to listen to the tear-filled pleadings of his son-in-law, Rabbi Avraham. “In a place where one speaks in tones of disrespect about so holy and great a man, it is forbidden to live,” repeated Baba Sali.

    He moved for a brief period to Ashkelon, where one of his children lived, and then in 1970 to Nativot, which has a large Moroccan community. There he passed away in 1984 at the age of 94.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Adapted by Yerachmiel Tilles from Baba Sali, Our Holy Teacher by Rabbi Eliyahu Alfasi, the attendant of Baba Sali for many years.

    #2261414
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @CS
    CS promised honesty in one of the previous posts .
    Honesty does NOT equal sidestepping .

    1] Did Official Habad , up until the end of the eighties, continuously reassure the outside world [ who were critical of traces of mashiach noises within habad] that this was AGAINST habad leadership policy ?
    Did they attack their [then mashiach] critics as ‘Haters’ ?
    As opponents of torat hachasidut , and therefore biased against , and therefore misjudging habad ?

    Yes or no ? Without sidestepping , please .

    Yes or No ?

    Can we [the outside , non habad world] assume that the ABSENCE of a clear ‘Yes or No’ answer , is an indication that habad has something to hide here ?

    #2261415
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @ CS
    I meant I found the name of a sefer that addresses the Ramban mentioned, but I’m going to give my source in this info a break so I’m not pressing it for now. In any case, aside from the Gemara, there’s the abarbanel and Sdei Chemed who refer to moshiach min hameisim positivelys well. Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase.
    [CS]
    —————————————————————
    All the mefarshim who speak about mashiach min hameitim [even when it is clear that this their kavana] are speaking about someone who has not been publicised as M before , has experienced thiyat hametim , and now starts from the beginning to be go’el klal yisrael.
    Once they STARTED AND THEY SUBSEQUENTLY DIE ,its game over .

    That is the PASHTUT of their explanation .
    Thats why Rambam says that if M is killed that’s proof that he is not .
    That’s why Raman says thats how the Jews know that the notsri was an impostor .
    That’s why during the whole history of Klal Yisrael, this was considered NORMATIVE JUDAISM .
    AND THATS WHY HABAD THEMSELVES – THEIR RABANIM AND MASHPI’IM , all without fail , PROCLAIMED IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD , from 91 – 94 that it is KEFIRA in the 13 ikarei emuna to entertain THE POSSIBILITY OF Rmm’S dying before fully accomplishing the ge’ula.

    THE GREATEST SIGN OF THE UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PASHTUT ARE THE LAST 2 LINES.

    Why did habad [then] claim that is IMPOSSIBLE for him to die ?
    They would be on much safer ground , claiming that their leader is M ,without precluding his death ?

    Why ?

    AL KORCHACH – even they did not want to go against the pashtut of our mesorah , against the pashtut of the rishonim .

    Question to THE HONEST CS : please an answer to this question ?

    An answer , please . Not a sidestep .

    Not , I have an answer but will not share it now .

    Not , I am looking for a sefer which deals with it .

    Not , the mitnagdim are not any better .

    Not , wholesale ignoring of the question , hoping people will forget .

    AN ANSWER >

    #2261510
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    What are the practical ramifications of deciding that a certain person is destined to become Moshiach?

    Does it boil down to whether or not to say Yechi?

    #2261528
    DaMoshe
    Participant

    R’ Chaim Volozhin wrote the following in Nefesh Hachaim (Beginning of Shaar Daled):
    וגם כמה מאותן אשר קרבת אלהים יחפצון. המה בחרו לעצמם לקבוע כל עיקר לימודם בספרי יראה ומוסר כל הימים. בלא קביעות עיקר העסק בתוה”ק במקראות והלכות מרובות. ועדן לא ראו מאורות מימיהם ולא נגה עליהם אור התורה. ה’ יסלח להם. כי כוונתם לשמי’. אבל לא זו הדרך ישכון בם אור התורה:

    He then goes into the fact that mussar is important, and was introduced because there was a need for it, but that it was secondary to learning Gemara, Rashi, and Tosfos. He continues:
    והן עתה בדורות הללו בעוה”ר נהפוך הוא. הגבוה השפל. שכמה וכמה שמו כל עיקר קביעת לימודם רוב הימים רק בספרי יראה ומוסר. באמרם כי זה כל האדם בעולמו לעסוק בהם תמיד. כי המה מלהיבים הלבבות אשר אז יכנע לבבו להכניע ולשבר היצר מתאוותיו. ולהתיישר במדות טובות. וכתר תורה מונח בקרן זוית. ובעיני ראיתי בפלך א’ שכ”כ התפשט אצלם זאת. עד שברוב בתי מדרשם אין בהם רק ספרי מוסר לרוב. ואפי’ ש”ס א’ שלם אין בו. וטח עיניהם מראות מהבין והשכיל לבותם. אשר לא זו הדרך בחר בו ה’ כי לא ירצה. ועוד מעט בהמשך הזמן יוכלו להיות ח”ו ללא כהן מורה. ותורה מה תהא עליה:

    So as I said, in the early days of chassidus, the primacy of learning Torah was set aside in favor of learning “chassidus”. R’ Chaim Volozhin bemoaned this fact.
    In most sects of chassidus, this changed, and they now focus on Gemara. Chabad still holds closest to the original teachings of the Besht and his students, and focus on chassidus, instead of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosfos.

    As for Sechel’s claim that the Gra would prefer that people learn Tanya instead of being in the CR, I firmly disagree. I think that if the Gra were here now, he’d be appalled by what he saw in Chabad, and it would just affirm everything he feared about chassidus creating another Shabtai Tzvi. He probably would think we’re all doing wrong, whether we’re here in the CR, or learning Tanya.

    If he were here, he’d make his way to a yeshiva, would likely marvel at how many seforim are available now, and lament the fact that with so much Torah readily available, people still waste their times with other things.

    #2261542
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Da, when i learned nefesh hachaim, it was the same year i learned tanya. I’m very glad i did it that way.

    I came to a conclusion that some of the nefesh hachaims criticisms were from what the hamon am among chasidim would say and do, especially the idea that chasidus championed the idea of thinking about Hashem constantly while learning and that learning was to now play second fiddle.

    I say this because in the early seforim which contain clear instructions to their chasidim, including chiefly the tanya(which is unique in its instructional clarity, especially in the second half of the sefer) neither of the above two things are advocated for. The baal hatanya, of course being one of the gedolei achronim in halacha(quoted constantly in the mishnah berurah) spoke frequently about the greatness of learning Torah and said that one is obligated to learn and know everything.

    See shu”a harav’s hilchos talmud Torah, widely considered to be the “ba’al shmaatsa” of the sugya, even in litvishe circles. See also tanya perek 5 and 25 to see how he viewed learning.

    #2261550
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    “He probably would think we’re all doing wrong, whether we’re here in the CR, or learning Tanya.“

    Or he would be marveling in the fact that we’re here in the CR or learning Tanya as opposed to doing multitudes of assur things on the internet or in the street

    You can’t judge yourself as opposed to earlier generations if the internet was around in the times of the gr”a who knows what would’ve been (especially with a stronger yetzer hara)

    #2261552
    DaMoshe
    Participant

    So Avira, you’re saying that the Chabad chassidim who spend the vast majority of their learning time on chassidus are going against what the Baal haTanya wanted?

    #2261597
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    So as I said, in the early days of chassidus, the primacy of learning Torah was set aside in favor of learning “chassidus”. R’ Chaim Volozhin bemoaned this fact.

    And as I said, you get your ideas of what Chasidus is about from outsiders. And when confronted with facts that don’t match up, new theories are born.

    Obviously, elements of Chasidus were able to spread faster than the teaching of Torah. So yes, those towns that were hitherto known as Ameratzim, and can afford few Masechtos and whose townfolk weren’t able to engulf themselves in long hours of Torah study, were now touched by the spark of Chasidus.

    This shows you again that Chasidishe things don’t take much time. That’s why busy peasant-folk can get involved, and why serious scholars aren’t slowing their pace of learning; but rather all of their previous activities became re-invigorated.

    Surely it would be great to open a large Yeshiva in every town, but it’s impossible and Reb Chaim Velozhener didn’t either do that. Do you think that when Chasidus came about they threw out two thirds of the town’s Shas? Or just maybe, that’s what they always had, and then Chasidus came in as well.

    Early Hisnagdus was based on not interacting directly with the leaders of whom the complaints were lodged against, as much as some leaders have tried. The next generation, after having met many Rabbonim have walked back much of the complaints. But once you are already set up as a camp against something you look for things to complain about.

    Hungarians were also sceptic about Chasidus, but it looked very different, and they therefore accepted over time whatever they chose to accept. Sefardim, too, relate to Chasidish Sefarim as they do to any other Sefer, without the preconceived negativity.

    #2261604
    ARSo
    Participant

    CS: “obviously- clearly alive physically would be the most straightforward, ie be option a. Nobody was looking for an option b, pre Gimmel Tammuz, although the Rebbe alluded to it.”

    Once again, you are evading the issue. As yankel berel pointed out, and as I remember clearly, pre-Gimmel Tammuz the official Lubavich line was NOT that the best option is that Mashiach is alive, but that IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE WHO IS ALIVE AT THAT TIME. The standard line was, “Look around. Who is there alive today who is more worthy of being Mashiach than the rebbe. Therefore it must be the rebbe!”

    There was no, “If it’s someone who is alive…”

    Btw in reply to your question as to who I heard it from that the LR only wanted women to learn gemoro directly related to the halachos in which women are obligated, I won’t tell you his name, because I don’t want the innocent (namely me) to suffer. But I can assure you it was someone high up who heard it directly from one of the LR’s secretaries.

    #2261606
    ARSo
    Participant

    yankel berel: “To be an ehrlich oved hashem is VERY important .
    no doubt about that .
    But to have a correct hashkafa and not follow meshugaas in a cult like way is not any less important .”

    Would you not agree that someone who follows meshugassen in a cult-like way CANNOT be an oved Hashem?

    #2261608
    ARSo
    Participant

    CS: “aside from the Gemara, there’s the abarbanel and Sdei Chemed who refer to moshiach min hameisim positivelys well. Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase. And then you’re arguing how to interpret the Rashi- 2 steps removed.”

    I really can’t believe you wrote that, and you don’t honestly see how you pick and choose what suits you!

    Does your memory go far enough back to rememer YOU citing the Rashi as proof that Mashiach can be anyone who has died? And now you say, “Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase”! Shomu Shomayim! You are the paradigm of backtracking as long as you can claim that the LR is Mashiach.

    In fact, why not ignore all the Mefarshim? Just say straight out that you don’t care what it says anywhere because the LR is Mashiach, and that anyone who says different is not halacha lemaaseh!

    Btw, how are the Abarbanel and the Sdei Chemed more halacha lemaaseh?

    I am absolutely astounded at the dishonesty that is being displayed here!

    #2261609
    ARSo
    Participant

    CS: “The bottom line is that I asked a respected Lubavitcher Rav about the topic- he told me you can’t hold according to the Rambam bchezkas Moshiach, but you’re on solid Torah ground to believe the Rebbe is Moshiach regardless. So that’s it.”

    What exactly do you mean by “So that’s it”? Do you mean that we can’t argue with it because you asked a ‘respected’ L Rav? If that’s what you mean, then I want to point out that if the Rav in question said what you claim he said, I, and I am sure many others on this thread, do not respect him at all.

    And if by “So that’s it” you mean that you feel satisfied in maintaining your view, then it is simply another example of choosing what to believe in to suit yourself. Remember the moshol about shooting the arrows and then drawing the target?

    #2261610
    ARSo
    Participant

    CS: “May I also add that the first (unprecedented) wave of hostages were released shortly after members of many hostages families flew from Israel (!) to NY and went to the Ohel.”

    Aren’t you the one who said in the earlier thread that having a temporary ceasefire in order to have hostages released was a really stupid idea?

    #2261703
    sechel83
    Participant

    the arizal writes the main avoda now adays is davening . we see what happens to people who learn and dont daven properly.

    #2261704
    sechel83
    Participant

    i think arso and da moshe should become a rebbe. they seem to claim to know more than the baal shem tov, and every other gadol

    #2261737
    ARSo
    Participant

    sechel, I have never made any claim that could even be interpreted to mean such a thing. I claim to know nothing more than any gadol, just I don’t believe that your rebbe was a gadol.

    #2261740
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    the arizal writes the main avoda now adays is davening…

    I do not believe that Lubavitch has any special emphasis on Davening. I’ve Davenned in Lubavitcher Minyanim and it sounds like any Litvisher davening.

    #2261792
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the hostages were released because their relatives davened to Hashem, and that He is a shomeah tefilah? Why make it into a Lubavitch centered thing? I guarantee that a heartfelt tefilah with השתפכות הנפש in a shul is better than mouthing words by a kever – any kever. Not that most people mouth words at kevarim, just that it isn’t the main thing. Also, i have no idea how many were released among those who went to the Lubavitcher rebbes kever. (I refuse to refer to him as “the rebbe” or his kever as “the ohel,” because i don’t think he was special among rebbes)

    Similarly, the rescue of the last 2 hostages that were saved happened after their relatives took on mitzvos.

    #2261834
    sechel83
    Participant

    @arso “sechel, I have never made any claim that could even be interpreted to mean such a thing. I claim to know nothing more than any gadol, just I don’t believe that your rebbe was a gadol.” exactly my point, you know better than everyone! (yes every other gadol considered the rebbe either THE GADOL or a gadal (even r shach according to an article written by the yeshiva world (i think) interviewing his son and a story of r shah’s talmid asked him a question in kabala, and he sent him to the rebbe, its interesting how some of his “followers” only know of him of being against chabad nothing else, they dont care about torah, middos tovos etc. im sure he’s “very proud” of you/them. and even if this is not true, he’s one vs everyone)
    the focus of chassidim on davening is to internalize achdus hashem, to look at the world the way chassidus looks at it, the main focus is not the bakashos. thats the difference between a chassidishe davening and litvish. see at length.

    #2261835
    sechel83
    Participant

    @arso i forgot to mention, how many sichos did you learn? how many maamarim? of the rebbe

    #2261836
    sechel83
    Participant

    תגלית מרעישה: בז’ תמוז תשמ”ב כתב כ”ק מרן האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש זי”ע מכתב ארוך ומקיף ב’פרי עץ חיים’ והגרסאות השונות, המפתיע שהמכתב של הרבי מליובאוויטש נכתב להרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר מלייקוואוד תלמיד ישיבת פוניבז’ ותלמיד מובהק להגרא”מ שך – הרב צוקר הוא נכדו של הגאון האדיר החסיד הרב מרדכי רוטנברג זצ”ל הי”ד שהיה רבה של אנטוורפן למעלה משלושים שנה עד פרוץ השואה וערך את הספר על סבו שנקרא ‘יד מרדכי’.
    מדוע פנה הרב צוקר תלמיד פוניבז’ לרבי מליובאוויטש? מדובר היה בשאלה סבוכה בעץ חיים שעלה לו מתוך ספרו של סבו יד מרדכי. מאחורי המכתב כך מתברר טמון תגלית מרעישה ומדהימה כאחת שהשבוע קבלנו את הסיפור המלא לאחר תחקיר מקיף מאלו שהיו בסוד העניינים בספר יד מרדכי.
    ובכן הסיפור שהיה לפני 38 שנים, הרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר ערך את ספרו של סבו הרב רוטנברג זצ”ל. בשעת העריכה התגלה בתשובה המודפסת בסימן נ”ב בספר יד מרדכי, קושיא גדולה אודות דברים שהביא הרב רוטנברג מר’ חיים ויטאל אודות עניין הנסירה מהאריז”ל.
    העורך כתלמיד ישיבת פוניבז’ החליט לעלות את השאלה בפני ראש ישיבת פוניבז’ הגרא”מ שך. הרב שך אמר לרב צוקר: “וואס פרעגט איר ביי מיר, איך טו ניט אין די זאכן, דאס פרעגט מען ביי ליובאוויטש ער” [=מה אתה שואל אותי בדברים הללו שאין לי הבנה בזה? מי שיכול לענות לך על זה הוא האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש, תפנה אליו]
    הרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר לא התמהמה ולמרות השיוך הליטאי החליט לכתוב מכתב לכ”ק מרן הגה”ק האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש והעלה את הקושיה מתוך הספר. להפתעת הרב צוקר הוא קיבל מכתב עמוק עם היקף מדהים על כל העניין מכל הזויות האמורות. דבר חסר תקדים שהאדמו”ר מליובאוויטש בשנים אלו יתייחס בפרוטרוט לשאלה מסוג זה. במכתב כותב להם האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש שמדובר בטעות סופר וממליץ להם להוסיף בדברים העץ חיים את תיבת עילאין שנשמט. בהמשך מאריך האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש לדון בגוף העניין של העץ חיים בביאור עמוק בקבלה.
    ואכן בעקבות התשובה הנדירה של הרבי מליובאוויטש העירו העורכים בספר יד מרדכי לפי הגהת הדפוס שהאדמו”ר מליובאוויטש ציין להם במכתב.
    ואכן הספר יד מרדכי יצא לאור בשנת תשמ”ג חודשים ספורים לאחר קבלת מכתבו של האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש לעורך הספר הרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר, ובעמוד קי”ט כתבו עורכי הספר “כפי הנראה יש כאן טעות המעתיק והגהנו לפי מה שנדפס בכמה דפוסי העץ חיים וכן נראה גם מהמשך התשובה”
    אנו מפרסמים לראשונה בפרסום ראשון את המכתב שקבלו עורכי הספר יד מרדכי מהאדמו”ר מליובאוויטש וכן צילום של הספר יד מרדכי עם העמוד בו שונתה הגירסא לאור המכתב של מרן האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש
    from https://archive. jdn.co .il/breakingnews/1416853/

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 317 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.