Hi I’m back 3.0

Hashem gave us mitzvos to do. Yes, sometimes there’s a p’tur, but it’s not the ideal.

Yet you’re perfectly fine with the svara that when Shulchan Aruch wrote that menorah must be lit outdoors for pirsumei nisa unless it is dangerous, it was actually modifying the mitzvah, and now, in safe times, it is *preferable* and *ideal* to light the menorah indoors, with minimal pirsumei nisa.

This svara makes perfect sense to you.

To me it’s clear that the minhag of Sukkah is the strongest of the three, as I’ve expressed, and you obviously disagree.

I’ll likely be suspected of only thinking this way because I’m biased as a Lubavitcher, but I would similarly suspect that those who strongly oppose this minhag are doing so specifically because it’s Chabad.

[No Yankel, I’m not “playing victim.” I’m just stating the facts as I see them. You can’t call me “biased” to my beliefs (whatever that even means) without me suspecting the same of you.]

it’s that makes no sense that this mitzvah was given only for those on lower level.

Where’d you get this from? There’s an entire pilpul of the Rebbe on the subject that you haven’t learned properly. Learn it before making assumptions.
Likkutei Sichos vol. 29 pg. 211 https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14952&st=&pgnum=226

For example, footnote 13:
* ואין להקשות מדוע לא מצינו הנהגה כזו בדורות שלפנ”ז, גם לא אצל הגדולים כו’ שידעו מתורת הקבלה ובודאי הרגישו אור המקיף דסובב – כי אצל יחידי סגולה אלה, גם שינתם היתה (לא רק) תוצאה מצד טבע הגוף, כ”א) מדריגה גבוה ביותר בעבודת ה’ (השייכת למקיפים דנייח). ולהער מרד”ל (ב”ר פ”ד, ט. וראה פד”א פ”ב) דבעת השינה הנשמה שואבת חיים מלמעלה.
וי”ל שהמאמר בפנים שייך לגילוי תורת חב”ד, שענינה להמשיך עניני פנימיות התורה באופן שגם השכל האנושי יוכל להשיגם, עד שיפעל על הגוף ונפש הטבעית כו’ – וע”ד נמשך המשך דסובב באופן שנרגש גם בגוף כפי שהוא בטבעו ובמהותו [שלכן תבע אדהא”מ ענין זה (העדר בטיפה) בטובה]. אצל החסידים (שיחה שבהערה 8). וראה ס’ השיחות תש”ה ע’ 33: דער מקיף פון סובב .. אלע קרעפטן דאס דערהערן זיך המקיף של סובב .. כולם יכולים להרגישו)**.
ובזה מובן ג”כ הטעם שעינין זה נתגלה ע”י אדמו”ר האמצעי דוקא – שענינו הוי להמשיך תורת החסידות באופן ד”בוינה” (סי’ השיחות תש”ה ע’ 60. וראה לקו”ש ח”ה ע’ 131. ועוד). לקו”ש אגרות-קודש ע’ שלז ואילך) – כי נוסף לזה שהמשכת המקיף בפנימיות שייכת ל”בינה”, אור בכלל, הנה המקיף דסוכה הוא “מקיף דבינה”.

*) להעיר ממש”כ במ”א מחוי”ל (רש”י בהעלותך ח, ג. ועוד) בפ”ט צו’ לגה”צ שבחוץ של אהרן שלא יזו”ג – כי לכאורה תמוה, מאי קמ”ל, אלא – דאף שהרגיש כל הגיליונים שבעבודת המקדש מ”מ לא בטלו חושיו ע”י זה וההדבקה הגשמית היתה מדויקת בכל פרט ופרט (לקו”ש ח”ב ע’ 650).
**) ולכן גם אצל רבותינו נשיאינו (נש”י) ידוע היתה המשכה זו) היותה הנהגה בהתאם לזה (אף שפשוט שגם אצלם היתה השיגה ע”י המבואר בפנים הענין). ואכ”מ.

The Rebbe also enters a pilpul to understand if, by not sleeping in the sukkah, one misses out on the mitzvah of ישיבה בסוכה. See there at length.

How long can you (we) be arguing back and forth about the same thing??
What is your thoughts about the moshiach seuda, found any issue with it?

Short recap of what we had until now.

Menachem agreed that O’N holds – as do all poskim- that lighting inside nowadays is NOT bracha levatala.
According to the original takana at the time of hazal before the sakana, lighting inside would be a bracha levatala.
PLAIN TORAH LOGIC dictates therefore that the mitsva derabanan was modified.

As opposed to sleeping outside of the suka which is min hatora and therefore not modifiable.
Clear fom the mishna gemara rishonim that IN CASES OF NO MARRIAGE AND NO COLD AND NO OTHER PHYSICAL MITSTA”ER the minhag and the hiyuv was to sleep in sukah.

For 3300 years . All across the globe.

Therefore the [….] torah advocating for sleeping outside the suka even when here is no physical mitsta’er to defend a non existent minhag , is nothing more than a [….] torah.

This [….] torah is not traceable to any of the habad rebeim.
Not the Rayats. Not the Rashab. Not his brother Raza. Not their father Maharash. Not Tsemach Tsedeq. Not R Dov Ber [mitteler rebbe]. Not Baal Hatanya.
Not his talmid R aaron Strashelle. Not the other rebbes from habad Niazin. Not the rebbes from habad Kapust. Not the rebbes from habad Liadi.
None of them .

Only the one and only infallible rebbi who took all of us onto a NEVER ENDING mashiach merry go round .
With no option of getting of the ride.
Many of our Hasidim would like to get of the ride.

They can’t , They are stuck.
After all their rebbi is infallible, nebach victims of menachem and his friends.

They [Menachem & co] cannot point to a single source for his supposed infallibility. But this is nevertheless an axiomatic and eternal fixture within their habad belief.

So- all the unfortunates who got on to the merry go round are doomed to stay on it . For eternity.
Unless and until menachems friends/mentors will agree that a great man could also still sometimes make a mistake.

Then and only then , will all the mentally imprisoned [and by now dizzy] merry go rounders , be free to get off whenever they fancy.
.
.
.

It is astonishing to see the power of self delusion at work.
Otherwise lucid and logical minds twist themselves in to the most illogical of svarot and arguments.

Why ?

Only because of irrational and baseless insistence on some fabricated infallibility.

Hafleh Vafeleh.

.

.

CASUAL ONLOOKER:

…. Making cheshbonos about what which svaros make less sense or more sense is illogical, they all don’t make sense ….
——-
Lol.
Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..

—-
Is there any commentary to this possible at all ?????????????????????????????????
.
.
.

Daas: makes no sense that this mitzvah was given only for those on lower level.

Ard: one question here, the tannaim and amoraim were not “mitztaer” from the kedusha of sukka why should the random chabad guy (or even the rebbe)

Casual: For my own question on MS – did the Tzaddikim of all the generations not sleep in the sukkah? And if they did, were they not holding on the level to feel “Makifin of Binah

The answer to this question in its various forms can be found in my 12:28 am post, in my quote from Likkutei Sichos (ואין להקשות).
(Pretty cool hashgacha protis that the answer was posted just as the questions were being asked.)

[There are some typeos in the text I posted. See the original in the link I posted there, footnote 13.]

And if it is because they were so holy that them sleeping was “Makifin of Binah” was not a disgrace, do you concede that your Rebbe was less holy?

This is answered in the aforementioned Likkutei Sichos quote, last paragraph (**ולכן גם).

P.S. These answers seem to be more like chassidishe vertlach. But again, the Rebbe is only using it to explain the vort of the Mitteler Rebbe and support the practice of the Chabad Rabbeim.

@menachem

menachem to yb:
…. I’ll likely be suspected of only thinking this way because I’m biased as a Lubavitcher, but I would similarly suspect that those who strongly oppose this minhag are doing so specifically because it’s Chabad ….
—-
Menachem’s bias is clear and obvious . Zil karei bei Rav ….

Whereas:
My so called bias [to humor menachem] against habad is A RESULT of habads meshugaas. It was not pre existing at all.

I did and still like habad hasidim .

I get on with them.
I count many of them as personal friends.

If Menachem counts himself as a modeh al ha’emet, he can prove it, by agreeing with this point of mine …..
.

.

Lets remember –
According to Menachem –

the xtians only thought of using habad mashiach meshugaas for their own nefarious purposes, AFTER they read R Dovid Bergers book ….
They could not think of it on their own ….
.
.
And –
According to Menachem it is not possible to disagree with habad meshugaas without a pre existing bias.
According to him it is unthinkable that said meshugaas should CREATE a bias ……
.
.
And-
According to Menachem –
Reflecting on those two above mentioned observations of the very same Menachem , those observations are NOT A PRODUCT OF menachems bias ….

Menachem would have made the same exact observations even if menachem would be non habad …..

Come on … who are we fooling ?
.
.

Yankel, I’m gonna try to continue this interesting Torah discussion while ignoring all the rhetoric.

Yours truly argues that hanuka lighting is a modified takana.
So does Rav Aronson.
So does O’N.
So do all poskim.

He still argues that hanuka is a non modified takana.
How does he explain relevant gemarot ? no problem whatsoever.

A) When did I ever argue that it’s not a modified takana? I only argued with coming up with that logic on your own. Again, I myself light menorah indoors (see Casual’s summary for more details).

B) Why do you accept what Rav Ahronson wrote about modification, but not what he wrote at the end – and maskana – of his kovetz, about how terrible it is for one to consider his rebbe a טועה?

C) Where does Oz Nidberu write that the mitzvah was modified? To the best of my understanding, he refutes all the svaros to allow lighting indoors, and insists that one is obligated to light outdoors.

D) Where do “all poskim” write this modification idea? The only one who I saw that wrote this svara is Rav Ahronson. And I think also the Minchas Yitzchak (whom Oz Nidberu has entire teshuvos refuting).

What I did see in the poskim was various other reasons why it’s accepted to light indoors: fear of thieves, the bitter cold and winds, fear of mockery, etc.
Bnei Yissaschar writes that today we aren’t on the spiritual level to spread the light of Torah to the outside.
Ner Yisroel (Koznitzer Maggid) writes that in previous generations they had to go outdoors to light it up. But now we’re in עולמות התחתונים and everything is like the שוק, so we can even make light straight from inside our houses.

Why isn’t Yankel insisting that one may only light menorah indoors in these specific circumstances, but it is absolutely forbidden to make it into a minhag?
Why isn’t he mocking the Bnei Yissaschar and Koznitzer Maggid for connecting it to spiritual reasons?
Why isn’t he attacking Rav Ahronson for considering Gedolei Yisroel “infallible”?

Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..

A) Where did any of these four poskim mention that one may light indoors when it’s not a time of sakanah?

B) If you show me where they did, where did they say the reasoning was because of modification?

[I am not arguing. Just curious as to the source.]

DY (I refer to you because I it seems to me you are logic driven and not emotion driven, וד”ל):

As you so clearly wrote recently (and, like ujm pointed out, I wrote in my “summary”), your Tainah agaisnt MS is that the svarah is illogical, “backwards”. Why is it backwards? You explained twice:
“It’s backwards because it takes a mizvah and makes it k’ilu it’s chas v’shalom an aveirah (or at least a shortcoming that one isn’t “mitztaer”)”
“The notion that ideally one should be on a level to be so sensitive to the kedushah of the sukkah that he is mitztaer and therefore is pattur, is backwards.”
This seems to be one point (with two sides): The fact that MS’s svarah implies that it is a negative thing to sleep in the sukkah, and a positive thing to be on the level to not to sleep in the sukkah, is backwards – because the ideal thing is to do the mitzvah and sleep in the sukkah. If there is a p’tur, fine (like lighting indoors and eating outside on Shmini Atzeres), but it is “backwards to make the p’tur seem like a positive thing.

[I don’t really want to argue on behalf of MS, I don’t know what he holds, but I’ll do so anyway because I find this conversation entertaining and enlightening. So, read the following with the caveat that I don’t know if MS woud actually agree to any of this.]

It does not seem to me at all that it is made out to be a positive thing. From reading this shakla v’tarya, it seems to me that MS would say that the ideal would be to be so holy that their sleep in fine in the sukkah. (Like in the quote MS quoted before, which, being that you are trying to have a logical conversation with him, I am sure you actually read. After all, you can’t debate someone if you refuse to read their claims!) Just that since we are in Golus, our sleep is on a lower level, and therefore doing so in the sukkah woukd cause pain. To re-iterate, not that doing so in the sukkah is improper – just that it causes pain. The ideal (at least to me – MS, you are the one that actually knows the party line on this, so correct me if I’m wrong) that MS would hold, appears to be being on a level where you 1) feel the spirituality of the sukkah, and 2) are at the level where you still feel comfortable sleeping there. When will we reach this ideal? Knowing MS, he is bound to say “when Moshiach comes” :).

DY, this svarah seems very spiritual, and for regular people it seems like a svarah which you would never find in a gemarah or shulchan aruch etc, which is true. We are used to svaros grounded in cold, dry halacha, not in the spiritual realms of “Makkif of Binah”, whatever that is. However, Chassidim evidently do employ svaros like this.

To MS: Can you tell me if what I said above is correct? I was making a lot of assumptions on what you would hold. Also, can you explain the Chassidic practice to employ lofty and spiritual svaros such as this? Is there a precedent in halacha?

@ casual onlooker
Very nice recap
To your questions by the end, they are answered in the sicha in a footnote.
This idea of מקיפים דבינה needs a big introduction to understand what it means
In general there are different types of tzadikim, like נשמות דמה and נשמות דבן it’s not just who’s greater

Menachem gives us the impression that eshel avraham holds that leniencies could be extended to others.

Menachem writes the following :

In fact, there are poskim who clearly write that these leniencies can be extended to others. For example, the Eshel Avraham writes that bochurim may sleep outside the sukkah, since they can rely on the fact that “רובא דעלמא” most people are exempt due to their wives.

Sof tsitut.
Satam menachem velo piresh.
—–

I looked in eshel avraham [OC 639].

He says the following – starting from the rama upon which he comments:

Rama asked why in his areas the minhag was not to sleep in the suka, which seems against the issur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka ?
Whereupon rama first brings an answer in the name of mordechai that in cold places the person is mitsta’er from the cold , so it is not ke’ein taduru to sleep in suka. Which takes away the isur min hatora to sleep outside.

Rama himself appears reluctant to take this approach, and offers his own.
that married people normally sleep in the same room and since the suka is not private enough for that, there is a problem of ke’en taduru. Which in turn is matir the isur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka.

Comes eshel avraham and says that at first glance rama’s approach would exclude unmarrieds and those marrieds who are in a different city to their spouse for whatever reason. Which would mean that those people would be subject to the issur min hatora to sleep outside of the sukka.

Whereafter he says that it is possible that the criteria of ke’en taduru is not something which is decided on an individual basis , rather on a communal basis, where the individuals are nigrar after the community when establishing what the ke’en taduru is.

Or on a household basis , where the other members of the household are nigrar after rosh of the household whose spouse is present and therefore his taduru would be out of the suka, so too his dependants’ and guests’ derech of taduru would also be out of the suka , and therefore also their issur to sleep outside would disappear.

He considers those options only as a safek [1] , which would not be sufficient on itself to be meikil in an issur min hatorah.

Nevertheless , since we could also use the mordechai’s approach at least as another safek [2] .
It seems that E’A understood rama’s hesitancy to use mordecha’s approach because of rama’s decision to classify mordechai’s approach as a halachik safek [2] [which, again , on itself ,would be insufficient for rama to be matir an issur min hatora].

But once we accepted mordechai as a halahik safek [2] the way is open to use E’A’s safek [1] as a combination and make it into a sfek sfeika which is powerful enough to be matir an issur min hatorah me’ikar hadin.

However there still is a makom for pious individuals who would refrain of making use of a sfek sfeika to be meikil in an issur min hatorah and therefore continue to refrain from sleeping outside of the suka.

Ad kan divrei Eshel Avraham, be’erech.
—

How menachem insists on somehow comparing this approach of E’A to [the unmodified issur min hatorah of] sleeping out of the sukka with the modified hiyuv miderabanan of hanukah stays an enigma to all concerned.

As said mechaber is talking on lechatchila level , not on the bedi’avad level.
On bedei’avad level both [lighting in or out] are fine.

The preference of mechaber on outside lighting is only on lechathila.
Not on bedi’avad.

.
.
.

Bottom line

have not heard nor seen any answer to this yet.

Why do hahmei habad who were higi’u le’hora’a regard the last leader and rebbi of the habad hasidim as infallible ?

Is there any clear source for this ?

Or is this just a feeling ?

Or are they concerned that they would be considered as ‘traitors’ or ‘guilty of treason’ [like the late author of ashkavte devei rebbi] if they would give a voice to the possibility of him being fallible ?

Even Menachem who valiantly tries to defend all other habad issues , has kept on walking very far around this issue.
.
.

Look at a long hakdama of yabia omer vol 1 where he brings countless proofs that one is permitted , no , obligated to argue on one’s rebeim when he is higi’a le’hora’a.

This is pashut.

Arguing , means saying that the other side was MISTAKEN ….
.
.

Menachem
Even if you would be right regarding the first stage of the takana. You agree that one is yotseh bediavad inside and outside, right ?
So the mitsva is valid anyhow.

The whole Q is on the lechathila of the mitsva. Where is it “better” to light.
Which is the better way to fulfill the mitsva derabannan , which will be acceptable either way.

That has no connection at all to suka where the Q is transgressing a non negotiable issur min hatorah.

Its not going against the words of the SA which is the issue. Its going against the understanding of the torah as encapsulated by mishna gemara rishonim and poskim.

You have to understand that I am not following anyone else with my criticism about this, and most of the people who criticize your rebbi’s svara here also arrive at the same conclusion on their own .

This is a sure indication of the tremendous weakness of this svara.

You could say – we do not understand it and our leader is not any less of a great man even if he makes a mistake. Or you could double down, which makes habads reputation much worse.

Haval that you , plural, are choosing the second route.

I was not biased against habad in any way before encountering those issues, if there is a bias it is only a result of your cult like approach in defending the indefensible.

This is the first time that I write and argue about sukka. Which only serves as a good indication .

It is the mashiach issue , with its sharp twists and uturns on ikarei emuna which are the real issue for our generation and which are threatening an unfixable schism in Judaism legitimizing xtianities blandishments.

It is time for all involved to let go of their bias towards habad, examine the evidence in front of them and voice their opinion without fear or favor.

Recap

There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the obligation/right of a talmid she’higi’a le’hora’a to argue on his rebbi in halacha.

There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the supposed similarity between the lechathila miderabanan of hanuka lights which could depend on other factors and the non
negotiable issur min hatorah to sleep outside of the suka.

There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the twists and turns re the ikarei emuna of bi’at hamashiach , a] whether mashiach can die before finishing his job or not.
b] whether the late rebbi of the habad hasidim wanted to crown
himself/accept the crown his hasidim bestowed on him [after been
prodded by their rebbi to do so] , or not .

There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the incompatibility of their contemporary mashiach theology with RAMBAM hilhot melachim and RAMBAN in sefer havikuach.

There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the existence of a subgroup within habad of so called ‘elokistim’ who claim that their late rebbi and elokim are one chvsh

Menachem is ignoring the rhetoric ….

A pretender for Mashiach who happens to die before finishing his job, is that the end of his pretenses to the title , or not ?

Why did official habad change their mind on this topic , according to circumstantial need ?

Those who ignore this so called ‘rhetoric’ , does it stem from bias toward their own movement ?

Do they have valid answers and are just ‘busy’ or ‘offended’ ?

Or is this for lack of anything better, just the most convenient way of dealing with this problem ?

About arguing with your Rebbe, and the concept of infallibility:

If a chossid believes that his Rebbe is the Moshe Rabbeinu of his generation, then the ideas that are expressed about the yidden in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu apply to the chossid’s Rebbe.

For example believing (אמונה) in Moshe: ויאמינו בה’ ובמשה עבדו or וגם בך יאמינו לעולם

(And if a chossid is lacking in this area, chassidim used to say: ולא שמעו אל משה – not fully trusting and believing in the Rebbe comes from מקוצר רוח – a lacking of “Ruach”/”Ruchniyus”)

This brings to mind a story that the Rebbe said once: Reb Chonye Marozov (A chossid of the Previous Rebbe) was once asked “who do you hold more of? Moshe Rabbeinu or the Rebbe”, to which he replied “The Rebbe, because without my Emunah in my Rebbe, I would not have my level of Emunah in Moshe Rabbeinu”

Last post was addressed to @ard.

Thats a mistake it should have said @ddr instead.
.

@menachem

Wrong.

The laws of honoring talmidei chachamim are by… you guessed it – HKBH !

Given to Moshe in Sinai.

No talmid haham made anything up. All laws are exactly lefi hamesorah . Exactly as the RBSH’O told Moshe.

As opposed to the infallibility baloney, which goes frontally against Milenia of Jewish law and practice.

Open any halacha sefer , any gemara . Its clear as day . Talmididim argue with their rebeim in halaha.

If they are higi’a lehora’a. After serious and meticulous research . With respect.

But they do argue. And say that their rebbi was MISTAKEN !!!!

Which is totally missing in habad.

The only person in habad who kept to this mesora, the rosh yeshiva in torah vada’at in brooklyn, was murdered in his own home.

No wonder that no one in habad has the courage to copy him.

Its not their fault , its the fault of the people behind this terror.

Which was instigated milema’ala . Vefdai bazeh .
.
.

Wrong.
The laws of honoring talmidei chachamim are by… you guessed it – HKBH !
Given to Moshe in Sinai.
No talmid haham made anything up. All laws are exactly lefi hamesorah . Exactly as the RBSH’O told Moshe.

True. And everything taught by the Rebbe, and the Chofetz Chaim, the Rebbe Rashab, the Divrei Chaim, the Alter Rebbe, the Chassam Sofer, the Noam Elimelech, the Baal Shem Tov, Pnei Yehoshua, Maharal, Arizal, Maharsha, Raavad, Rambam, Ramban, Rashi, Rav Sadya Gaon, Ravina, Rav Ashi, Abaye, Rava, Rav, Shmuel, R’ Yehuda Hanossi, Hillel, Shamai, Ezra, Dovid HaMelech, Shmuel Hanovi and Yehoshua – was all given to Moshe on Sinai.

As opposed to the infallibility…

I wasn’t responding to your infallibility obsession. I already addressed it to the best of my ability in the last few pages, and we haven’t come to a mutual understanding.

I was responding to your mockery of a chossid basing his respect for his rebbe on that rebbe’s own teachings – something that you’ve mocked many times before, yet it’s exactly what tzaddikim throughout history have done: taught us about the greatness of tzaddikim.

@ddr

I did not know that using someone else’s non response could remake it somehow into a response …
.
.
There are multiple issues raised in my post – totally ignored by menachem .

Is it that which you are using ???
.

@ddr

@menachem

Can you explain how habads approach to their rebbi’s infallibility fits with thousands of years practice of talmidim shehigi’u lehora’a arguing with their rebbeim in halacha , who very obviously say that their rebbi was mistaken – and therefore fallible ?

Will be waiting for an honest answer for this one …
.
.

Bottom line – it seems that there is no objective source that the late habad leader was infallible.

We pressed the habadi’s again and again and there is nothing objective and logical forthcoming.

We Never despair and there still might be something logical and objective there.

But until further notice we all should assume that the late habad rebbi’s supposed infallibility is nothing more than a supposition.

A baseless supposition , that is.

Not only baseless but contradictory to Milenia of Jewish thought and practice as recorded in countless cases all over the tora spanning from the gemara to todays poskim.

.
.
.