Joining Chabad

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Rants Joining Chabad

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 497 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1697195

    Lubavitcher
    Participant

    Can we stop the hate please ? Like seriously
    Who cares what group you follow just follow torah and mitzvois and your good

    #1697196

    Lubavitcher
    Participant

    What about viahavta lireiacha kamoicha? Where your ahabavs yisroel

    #1697197

    Lubavitcher
    Participant

    Who cares what group your from as long as you keep torah and mitzvois
    I love all yidden

    #1697198

    Lubavitcher
    Participant

    Why all the hate ? Stop bashing

    #1697199

    Lubavitcher
    Participant

    “ It is not so poshut to join Chabad.

    Did you go over the 15 page application form?

    Then they have requirements that take hours of each day!

    The bare MINIMUM is you gotta spend lots of time each day doing what they call “Chitas” – the entire parsha WITH Rashi! A chunk of Tehilim. And almost a chapter in Tanya.

    But that’s not all! No youi aren’t done with the MINUMUM requirements yet!

    You also gotta do THREE preokim in RAMBAM – daily.

    They also expect you to learn many of the weekly sichos and attend regular farbrengens (almost weekly or at least 3 a month!) …

    and that is the MINIMUM requirements for…girls.

    Boys gotta do so much more!“

    You don’t k ow what your taking about everyone does what they’re able to do and girls don’t do 3 perakim they do one Perek and some do Sefer hamitzvos

    #1697200

    Lubavitcher
    Participant

    Idk if any of my lists are going thru

    #1697231

    Joseph
    Participant

    “Shabsai Tzvi and Yaakov Frenk were rejected, not because they turned out not to be moshiach, but because they became resho’im, openly rejected observance of halacha and told their followers to commit serious aveiros, and eventually committed shmad.”

    Milhouse: Many Gedolei Yisroel condemned and denounced Shabsai Tzvi long before he started committing public aveiros and was exposed as a fraud.

    #1697329

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    Who’s milhouse ?
    I remember hearing the opposite

    #1697425

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    Any: You really want people to bring sources to prove Chabad Meshichism is a thing? You don’t seem to have decided on a counter point yet, but claiming meshichism doesn’t exist is not an option. Your options are:

    The Sechel Hayashar route: “meshichism is a problem, but there are still many legitimate Lubavitchers who haven’t fallen into such kefira.”
    The Tomim route: “the Rebbe is moshiach and you’re all koifers for doubting him”
    The Milhouse/Ocasio-Cortez route: “lying to the entire world is a noble and justifiable thing as long as it’s for the right reasons.”

    If you’d like to beat around the bush and pretend to be ignorant of the entire issue, I suggest you ask Chabadshlucha how that worked out.

    #1697459

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ Fakemaven

    “Not only does the NH quote extensively from Chassidic sources, at times he even deviates from his Rebbe the Gr”a in the favor of Chassidic interpretations, case in point Tzimzum.”

    You keep repeating this ridiculous claim like a broken record without giving even one coherent example to back yourself up. And no, saying the word “Tzimzum” doesn’t count as a coherent example, sorry.

    “Chassidus interpenetrates the Arizal in a novel way, much like the the Arizal interpenetrates the Zohar in a novel way.”

    Much like you have interpreted the english language in a novel way

    “To sum it up, neither you or NonPolitical have actually quoted anything to substantiate your claims”

    We have not made any claims. You made a claim (or rather expressed a fanciful delusion) then
    you stated that anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant of the sources. I will give you an A+ for originality thorough. I do not recall anyone else in the previous threads coming up with something like this.

    #1697471

    RSo
    Participant

    To Lubavicher who asks us to stop the hate and asks who cares what group a person follows?

    Lovely thoughts, but not justified. Do you care if a person follows the reform or conservative movement? Or if they follow j for j?

    I do, because it is anto-Torah, and much of what some of the lubavichers on this forum have said is also anti-Torah.

    #1697470

    RSo
    Participant

    yehoshuaahron are you CS in disguise? Most of us have been through all this tripe on the thread that she started months ago and which has lain dormant for a while.

    In a nutshell:
    1. There is no such thing as Nossi Hador nowadays, and there hasn’t been for thousands of years. Lubavich made up the term so they can apply it to their rebbe and since no one else applies it to their rebbe/gadol (again, because it doesn’t exist) lubavich gets to trump (small T) everyone else because they have the nossi. Well guess what, my rebbe is the Reish Galusa! That beats (I don’t want to use the word trump again) the nossi title – see Sanhedrin 5a – and since lubavich never thought of that one (and neither has anyone else for the same reason that no one has thought of nossi except for you) I win.

    2. Find me a source where it says Shimshon was ever a nossi. (If you’re busy I’ll save you time. It doesn’t say it anywhere, except perhaps in lubavich fiction, and even there I haven’t actually seen it written about Shimshon.)

    3. The lubavicher rebbe did not have ANY of the criteria for chezkas moshiach as outlined in the Rambam. Saying he does is distorting the words of the Rambam and leads us to wonder whether the person doing so is indeed an apikorus.

    4. The Gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b DOES NOT say that the talmidim thought their rebbes were moshiach. Neither Rashi nor the Maharsho say so. Of course, you can interpret that that’s what the talmidim really meant (as a lubavicher you should be able to interpret anything to fit what you want it to mean, as that is what you are good at) but they don’t say that at all.

    5. (Here is another example that leads me to think that those who use this “proof” are either card-carrying apikorsim, close to it, absolute amei ha’aretz or stam plain stupid.) The gemoro’s mention of Doniel in connection with moshiach DOES NOT allow for anyone to say that any other person who is not alive may be the moshiach. Rashi gives two explanations. The first is that if moshiach is someone who has already died “IT WAS DONIEL”. The second is that if you are looking for someone who has died “TO COMPARE MOSHIACH TO” it is Doniel. To take that gemoro and say that since the gemoro says that moshiach may be among those who have already died I can say it is Ploni is, as I wrote, either apikorsus or stupidity, just as it would be apikorsus or stupidity to say that since the gemoro says that you have to make kiddush on Friday night I’m allowed to say that you have to make kiddush on Monday night.

    To summarise: you and your cohorts spout absolutely baseless garbage and R”L call it Torah even though it has nothing to do with the Torah. There is one person who is largely to blame for this, but he is no longer alive… according to some opinions.

    #1697640

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: To make this so that you too can follow along I’ll be short and straight to the point. (For reasons that would be clear at the end, I’m starting from the bottom up)/
    1) We have not made any claims. You made a claim (or rather expressed a fanciful delusion).
    Wrong. Both of you seem to claim that A) Chassidus is an invention (in the strictest sense), and B) no talmudei Ha’Gra held that it’s novelty had any truth to it, on the contrary it was put into cherem percisely for it. (As to my claim, see number 3). According to any interpretation of the English language this is called a ‘claim’.

    2) Much like you have interpreted the English language in a novel way.
    If you are referring to ‘invented’, all I can say is that if you can’t refute it then as far as we are concerned it is true.

    3) You keep repeating this ridiculous claim like a broken record without giving even one coherent example to back yourself up. And no, saying the word “Tzimzum” doesn’t count as a coherent example, sorry.
    I have already given you a source to look up my claims, (see also in the publication Heichal HaBesht many instances where the NH quoted exclusive Chassidus). [As for Tzimzum, see 3:7, and Likutei HaGra at the back of Sifrei DeTzuaseh].
    If you are intellectually dishonest or too lazy to look these up yourself, then we truly have nothing to discuss, as it is quite obvious then that you are not interested in the truth.

    #1697664

    Sechel HaYashar
    Participant

    “meshichism is a problem, but there are still many legitimate Lubavitchers who haven’t fallen into such kefira”

    Please don’t put words into my mouth. There’s a distinction between stupidity and Kefirah, albeit a fine line. In my experience with Mishechistim, which is far more vast than yours, the overwhelming majority of them aren’t Kofrim, just sincere but misguided individuals. May Hashem send them a Refua Shleima BeKorov.

    #1697673

    Milhouse
    Participant

    Joseph: Many Gedolei Yisroel condemned and denounced Shabsai Tzvi long before he started committing public aveiros and was exposed as a fraud.

    Such as?

    #1697686

    Ferd
    Participant

    @milhouse @joseph – Once again, Joseph just blows total trash out of his nose. The facts are, that no one condemned him before. These are indisputable facts. Clearly, Joseph is a total ignoramus, and the only thing he’s read is likely a Wikipedia page and never studied this in depth.

    He was first put in Cherem and thrown out of Smyrna (around 1650) after he started calling himself Moshiach (around 1648).

    He was then condemned by the Bais Din in Yerushalayim after Natan of Gaza YM”S was already roaming Eretz Yisroel with fake scrolls and letters and all kinds of public sermons.

    These two Cherems were well after he already called himself Messiah in Salonica and already was being publicly refereed to by the masses as “AMIRAH” [if you even know what this means].

    And Mr. Joseph, did you know that the TAZ himself in the year 1666 sent his two sons to “check out Shabsai Tzvi”? Did you know that he sent the TAZ back a white silk scarf or robe (debate which one) as a gift? This is in the year 1666. MANY MANY MANY years after he was claiming to be Moshiach.

    So please, cut the garbage today.

    #1697685

    Sechel HaYashar
    Participant

    “The lubavicher rebbe did not have ANY of the criteria for chezkas moshiach as outlined in the Rambam”

    Didn’t have ANY? Really? Have you ever looked inside a Rambam? He didn’t have ALL, but he definitely had some.
    Such as הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו.

    Don’t misconstrue my words, I don’t believe the criteria of Chezkas Moshiach was fulfilled in the Rebbe, but he did fit at least the first one to a tee. I won’t be the first to say that would we have been Zoche to Bias HaMoshiach during the Rebbes lifetime, there was no better candidate than the Rebbe. This is something that many people and Rabbonim outside Lubavitch stated.

    #1697695

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “Please don’t put words into my mouth. There’s a distinction between stupidity and Kefirah, albeit a fine line.”
    “would we have been Zoche to Bias HaMoshiach during the Rebbes lifetime, there was no better candidate than the Rebbe.”
    You realize this pasul’s your moderate approach for many of us listeners?

    Milhouse:
    It’s pretty common knowledge that Shabbatai Tzvi was condemned before his conversion is Islam. I know I was exaggerating when I presented your argument before, but are you really claiming it’s 100% mutar for someone to lie about being moshiach? You’re at the point of using Shabbati Tzvi’s early work as justification for Chabad meshichism?

    #1697708

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    אמר רב נחמן אי מן חייא הוא כגון אנא שנאמר (ירמיהו ל, כא) והיה אדירו ממנו ומושלו מקרבו יצא אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
    translation from sefarya .org
    Rav Naḥman says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as me, who already has dominion over the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And their prince shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from their midst” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that the redeemer is already in power. Rav says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as our saintly Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was renowned for his sanctity, piety, and Torah knowledge. If the Messiah is among the dead he is a person such as Daniel, the beloved man.

    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 (דף פה.) ואם היה מאותן שמתו כבר היה דניאל איש חמודות שנדון ביסורין בגוב אריות וחסיד גמור היה והאי כגון לאו דווקא

    @rso your saying according to the second opinion in rashi:
    ל”א כגון רבינו הקדוש כלומר אם יש דוגמתו בחיים היינו רבינו הקדוש ואם דוגמא הוא למתים היינו כגון דניאל איש חמודות:

    starting basic

    #1697711

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    “The Gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b DOES NOT say that the talmidim thought their rebbes were moshiach. Neither Rashi nor the Maharsho say so. Of course, you can interpret that that’s what the talmidim really meant (as a lubavicher you should be able to interpret anything to fit what you want it to mean, as that is what you are good at) but they don’t say that at all.”

    Sanhedrin 98b
    מה שמו דבי רבי שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר (בראשית מט, י) עד כי יבא שילה דבי רבי ינאי אמרי ינון שמו שנאמר (תהלים עב, יז) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו דבי רבי חנינה אמר חנינה שמו שנאמר (ירמיהו טז, יג) אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה ויש אומרים מנחם בן חזקיה שמו שנאמר (איכה א, טז) כי רחק ממני מנחם משיב נפשי ורבנן אמרי חיוורא דבי רבי שמו שנאמר (ישעיהו נג, ד) אכן חליינו הוא נשא ומכאובינו סבלם ואנחנו חשבנוהו נגוע מוכה אלהים ומעונה
    translation from sefarya .org
    the Gemara asks: What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheila says: Shiloh is his name, as it is stated: “Until when Shiloh shall come” The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is stated: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun; and may men bless themselves by him” . The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is stated: “For I will show you no favor [ḥanina]”. And some say that Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me”. And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted”

    explain this – why were they trying to find names of their teachers as the name moshiach???

    #1697710

    LerntminTayrah
    Participant

    The Rebbe redefined the Rambam to make himself fit its criteria better. He defined “fought wars” to mean his kiruv work, which is why they have “mitzvah tanks” and tzivos Hashem”. He also interpreted a Yalkut Shimoni (the one with the words anavim anavim hegia zman geulaschem) to mean moshiach is standing on top of the beis hamikdash me’at in golus announcing moshiach. Since moshiach=the Rebbe, 770 became the beis hamikdash of galous. This is why Lubavitchers build 770 replicas in different neighborhoods- to build a replica of what they believe is the beis hamikdash of galus. The Rebb put down a cornerstone as part of an expansion project that never really finished. As such, Lubavitchers say the Rebbe “built the beis hamikdash in its place” , ie 770 . These 2 forced interpretations work for them but not for anyone with a seichel hayashar.

    #1697703

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    You really want people to bring sources to prove Chabad Meshichism is a thing
    i know its a thing. but im not sure which comment your referring to
    ____________
    @rso
    1 “There is no such thing as Nossi Hador nowadays, and there hasn’t been for thousands of years”
    every generation has a nosi hador – it doesnt just stop ( if you KNOW what the definition of nosi hador is)

    We consider the Rebbe to be nosi hador based on our hergesh if you feel that your rov is the nosi hador -gezunterheit
    nosi hador is moshiach shebidor if you think your rov is nosi hador / moshiach shebidor we will find out – TODAY.
    i cant argue on that

    to 3, 4, and 5
    as @sh just mentioned (although we may not agree on everything but on the fact that you need to open a sefer again i think we both agree)
    open a sefer and learn the sugya – ill bring more detail soon unless someone else answers first

    on a side note based on the TRUE definition of a meshichist i hope every jew is one.

    #1697704

    LerntminTayrah
    Participant

    Even Lubavitchers would join litvaks in denouncing the crazy cults of Messianic Jews, Lev Tahor, Eliezer Berland, or Reform Judaism. That’s not hate- it’s pointing out he truth and loving all Jews, and hoping we can save them. We don’t hate the innocent brainwashed Jews of extreme meshichist chabad any more than we hate the brainwashed youth of Lev Tahor. It’s not their fault. “Hater” is the Lubavitch hijacking of the liberal “racist”, designed to change the subject into an ad hominem and deflect from the issues.

    It was kind of understood that everything the rebbe shlita (as per signs in 770, he’s the Rebbe Shlita, feel free to stop and and see for yourself- pok chazi) said about his father in law “nosi hador” was meant for himself. Later he bacame more explicit and said things like “Moshiach’s name is Menachem” “moshiach miyad”, (miyad being roshei teivos for dov ber, yosef yitzchk, menachem mendel) and moshiach mamash (mamash being roshei teivos for menachem mendel schneerson). And as per daily rebbe vido #244, you can watch him waving along with the yechi adoneinu song. In basi legani he also said that Hashem loves 7, and just as Moshe is the 7th shepherd and redeemed the jews so too moshiach will be the 7th shepherd (the last Rebbe was the 7th Lubavitcher rebbe.)
    Not hatred. He made the claim.
    As for who said it’s wrong, Adoniyahu claimed to be king as is viewed as a rasha for doing so.
    Nasi hador is a ridiculous title for a guy who had 1 tenth of the followers at his funeral than Rav Shach zt”l had. Yet he called himself that.
    (Once we’re on the topic of Rav Shach zt”l, Rav Shach zt”l was rather clear in his denunciation of Lubavitch and called it avoda zara. In return for his kind-hearted efforts to save a large portion of klal yisroel from eveira, he was called “Shach” and “mibnei banav shel Haman limdu torah bebnei brak”. He was not denouncing Lubavitchers, which is a big difference. )

    Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l, the gadol who rebuilt Litvish America, also warned about Chabad.

    That was when the Rebbe was alive and “yechi adoneinu” was sung to a living person who could at least have been moshiach based on the fact that he was alive, though the odds were greatly against.
    Now that the Rebbe has passed on , yechi adoneniu has become quite problematic. Rav Chai mKohn of the KAJ used to check the shochtim at Rubashkin to make sure they believed that the Rebbe was dead instead of alive, even if they believed he was moshiach. Rav Aharon Feldman shlit”a, who is on the moetzes, has the same view. So according to both of them, the ubiquitious “yechi” yarmulkes around Crown Heights are apikorsus. Lubavitchers say in return that they are just “snags” (“Snags” being the perjorative term used by American Lubavitchers to describe litvaks, short for misnagdim) who don’t understand chassidus. In other words, yes those gedolim hold “yechi” Lubavitch is apikorsus , but it’s only because they are litvish. Of course Rav Menashe Klein zt”l , who was a chassidish posek, said the same thing.

    Feel free to look at chabad news websites and see how the “yechi” yarmulkes are everywhere to understand that yes, it’s malei apikorsus according to many gedolim. Lubavitchers have teirutzim for everything, but why not kaleich eitzel yafos and avoid the problematic apikorsus and avoda zara?

    #1697721

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    @rso regarding #5
    are you gonna tell me that moshiach is only from the few ppl mentioned in the gemoro and it cant be anyone else (i mean it also says that moshiach is rabeinu hakadosh if its from those that are alive.
    will you tell me that only daniel or rabunu hakadosh are moshiach?????)

    have you ever learnt gemoro b4

    #1697736

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    Once we’re on the topic of Rav Shach zt”l, Rav Shach zt”l was rather clear in his denunciation of Lubavitch and called it avoda zara. In return for his kind-hearted efforts to save a large portion of klal yisroel from eveira, he was called “Shach” and “mibnei banav shel Haman limdu torah bebnei brak”. He was not denouncing Lubavitchers, which is a big difference

    several ponts to consider (i dont think any of us can say who is right or wrong)
    One was the Rebbe’s innovation of learning Rambam everyday to finish it in 1 years or 3 years. R. Shach mocked it saying that people already knew of the Rambam before the Rebbe came around, and he said that no one should follow the Rebbe’s Rambam learning cycle. (He supported daf yomi, and never rejected it saying that people knew of the gemoro before R. Shapiro). He gave two reasons: that people will pasken from the Rambam and it will disrupt seder. Neither of these points seem to be valid, as people who learn Rambam know that we don’t always pasken according to the Rambam; and the Rebbe was very adamant that chitas and Rambam should not be learned during seder.

    Another thing of contention was whether you can give land of Eretz Yisroel away. The Rebbe was very against giving away land, while R. Shach supported giving away land for “peace”.
    ______
    The Rebbe got very upset when R. Shach spoke really sharply against non religious Jews and kibbutznikim, saying that they forfeited their right to be called Jews. The Rebbe said that “every Jew is part of God” and that “anyone who berates any Jew is touching the apple of God’s eye. (The Rebbe was always careful to only speak of other Jews favourably, similar to the derech of the berditchiver.)

    as we see slowly that more and more non lubavtichers relize this (E.g. aish hatora)
    and other kiruv

    #1697818

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ Fakemaven

    “Both of you seem to claim that A) Chassidus is an invention (in the strictest sense),”

    Interesting. Where did we make this claim?

    ” and B) no talmudei Ha’Gra held that it’s novelty had any truth to it,
    on the contrary it was put into cherem percisely for it.”

    Where did we make a claim regarding what the precise reason for the cherem was?

    “According to any interpretation of the English language this is called a ‘claim’.”

    To somehow construe our posts as making the claims you imagine requires either 1) an novel approach to the English language or 2) an outright fabrication.

    As for your claim regarding Tzimzum being an example of the “many places” where the Nefesh HaChaim basis himself on Chassidic teachings and disagrees with his Rebbe the GR”A. You are very much mistaken. What the Nefesh HaChaim actually does is show how starting from the same point of departure the approaches diverge. The actual point of disagreement between the GR”A and the Baal HaTanya on this matter is not something I will not be delving into here. Sorry.

    #1697824

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ SH

    “Didn’t have ANY? Really? Have you ever looked inside a Rambam? He didn’t have ALL, but he definitely had some. Such as הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו.”

    That first criteria taken on it’s own would fit many Gedolim. Using your logic I could say that the head of the secular Israeli government fulfills one of the criteria by waging war against the enemies of the Jewish People. Those criteria are parts of a whole.

    #1697886

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: Simple. Since, according to both of you the NH did not rely on any novel Chassidic sources, rather any quotation are like a sima bearuvah, then obviously the only issue with Chassidus can be its novelty which is false; otherwise why place them in a cherem.
    In other words:
    A) Chassidus was place in a cherem, two options, 1) for good reasons, 2) for bad. Obviously for 2.
    B) Chassidus was either 1) novel, 2) old news. Obviously 1, for if it was 2 then what’s the issue with it. (Novel meaning what was not thought of before).
    C) Chassidus was a novel concept, 1) a completely new approach, 2) it has some new concepts, but is mainly old. (The answer for this one is a little longer, so please bear with me).
    Claim: the NH has Chassidic ideas in it. A claim which was agreed upon by both you, since your claim is that although the NH says ideas that seem Chassidic the truth of the matter is that he actually took it from the same origin as Chassidus. So, our point of contention is if the NH is based on Chassidus. I claim option 1, it is a new approach, therefore, since the NH states some Chassidic ideas he must have based it on it. You claim option 2, that Chassidus has some old ideasm and for that it would not have been put in cherem (B, option 2), and the NH took those ideas, but they were put in cherem for B option 1.
    Now, since Chassidus was place in a cherem for its bad (A) novel (B) ideas, {both of you seem to say that Chassidus is an invention}- and even the NH that has some Chassidic sources doesn’t take it from Chassidus (C) then obviously no talmudei HaGra held there was any truth to it, for if not, why put it them in cherem.

    As for the rest of you rebuttal, saying I won’t get into it is more or less an admission, so thank you.

    #1697898

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Lovely thoughts, but not justified. Do you care if a person follows the reform or conservative movement? Or if they follow j for j?

    I do, because it is anto-Torah, and much of what some of the lubavichers on this forum have said is also anti-Torah.

    I cant belive someone compared Chabad to reform or christianity

    #1697905

    LerntminTayrah
    Participant

    The Rebbe’s father-in-law spoke very harshly of the Jews in Europe, saying they deserved to die in the holocaust, and was opposed to the efforts of Rav Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l to save them. And it’s chabad philosophy that the Rebbe can’t make a mistake (as per the “Stump the Rabbi” series. So how can the “heintigger” Rebbe contradict his saintly father-in-law nasi hador atzmus moshiach on this point just to argue on Rav Shach zt”l, who had 10 times the amount of people at his levaya than the Rebbe and yet never gave himself that grandiose title of nasi hador?

    #1697909

    LerntminTayrah
    Participant

    So now that I have quoted gedolim who say that every “yechi” yarmulke is a declaration of apikorsus, and a simple visit to Crown Heights will unfortunately show a very large number of such apikorsus, there can be no reason to entertain a hava amina of joining Chabad, even if they do have a 10:30 shacharis with a sach vodka and shnapps. Avoid the apikorsus. I feel very bad for them, the same way I feel bad for members of the Lev Tahor cult.

    A Chabad-leaning friend of mine who was old enough to visit 770 when the Rebbe was clearly alive lefi hakol mentioned the time he was there and saw a few people davening directly to the Rebbe. The Rebbe turned around and corrected them and told them to daven to Hashem instead. While my friend reported this incident in a positive light, all I will say is that nobody “accidentally” davened to Rav Shach zt”l.

    #1697969

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    The Rebbe’s father-in-law spoke very harshly of the Jews in Europe, saying they deserved to die in the holocaust,
    Where did you see such lies ??
    If you only knew how much mesiras nefesh to he had no normal person would ever say such a thing

    #1697972

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    on Rav Shach zt”l, who had 10 times the amount of people at his levaya than the Rebbe
    So??
    Who said that’s what defines a nosi??
    I feel bad if thats how you define one

    #1697984

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    @lmt
    You have pretty random things to say nothing rellevent to this CR
    I think you should start a new thread for your apikorses

    #1698027

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ TheFakeMaven

    Was your last post a parody of a logical argument?

    “As for the rest of you rebuttal, saying I won’t get into it is more or less an admission, so thank you.”

    You consider my not being willing to engage in a debate in the YWN coffee room on the finer points of the GR”As and Baal HaTanyas machlokes regarding Tzimzum an admission to the truth of your silly deutions?

    #1698033

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ anyuser

    “@lmt You have pretty random things to say nothing rellevent to this CR”

    I for one found Lernt’s posts very relevant to the subject of this thread.

    “I think you should start a new thread for your apikorses”

    What apikorsis?

    #1698066

    LerntMin – Nasi hador is a ridiculous title for a guy who had 1 tenth of the followers at his funeral than Rav Shach zt”l had. Yet he called himself that.

    Well, if the criteria of Nosi Hadoris based on the size of one’s funeral, then the Nosi of our Dor was Nelson Mandela or Princess Di.

    How much have you sampled of the spirits for Purim?!

    #1698090

    Sechel HaYashar
    Participant

    “That first criteria taken on it’s own would fit many Gedolim. Using your logic I could say that the head of the secular Israeli government fulfills one of the criteria by waging war against the enemies of the Jewish People. Those criteria are parts of a whole.”

    Yes, many were Hoge BaTorah throughout the generations, and in this generation, I believed that before the Rebbes passing he was the best ‘candidate’ for Moshiach. Of course, Hashem doesn’t hold democratic elections for the position, and me wishing my Rebbe would’ve been Moshiach doesn’t make a difference to anyone’s life. I don’t understand how that bothers you and some of the other commenters here.

    #1698100

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    This is not my opinion nor is it necessarily the chabad opinion but I thought I might share something to clarify this whole meshichist/yechi thing- if you like it – good. if not, not. But not for upshlog.

    If someone gets inspired to do any mitzvah from learning something which everyone else says, has nothing to do with what he got inspired to do (he may have even read the words wrong)
    I hope you get the moshol.

    Nimshal
    We say the rebbe is nosi hador/moshiach shebidor

    And Al pi poshut pshat the gemora says “yaakov lo mais” -which on a simple level means kipshuto.

    From all this we get inspired to add in our observance of Torah and mitzvos.

    You say we learnt it wrong? that’s ok, everyone is entitled to an opinion. but as long as Its not taking away from Torah and mitzvos but rather it helps ppl add in Torah and mitzvos What do you care how we came to this inspiration.

    If you feel that RAK or someone else is the nosi hador/moshiach shebidor and it helps you add in Torah and mitzvos – gezunterheit.

    No need for arguments

    #1698117

    TheFakeMaven
    Participant

    NonPolitical: Was your last post a parody of a logical argument?
    Again you write words, yet say nothing, it’s quite the talent. Saying that a certain argument is a parody does not make it neither unsound nor invalid. If you see a fallacy in the argument call it out specifically; otherwise I think it fair to say that you actually have nothing to say.

    As to getting into tzimzum, no I do not expect you to, what I do think that anybody that actually knows what they are talking about would do, would be to be meramez berimizah. [Not what you said before, which is completely meaningless].

    I see a certain pattern emerging as this disagreement goes on. The more I elaborate on why what your saying is incorrect, the less you actually say. All you do is say this is incorrect etc. without providing any arguments. Please try to actually say something of substance in the future, otherwise I don’t think it wrong not to answer unsubstantiated claims.

    #1698120

    LerntminTayrah
    Participant

    It seems I have been challenged for a source about what i wrote about the 6th Rebbe. So I will quote from none other than Bryan Mark Rigg, who wrote the book on how Rav YY Shneerson escaped the Nazis:

    …[T]he Rebbe [Joseph Isaac Schneersohn] of course wanted to escape Europe and had his movement employ every means, even approaching the Secretary of State, to get him out, but when he was here in the US, he did not approach those very same people to help rescue those who had to remain in Europe. However, he did approach those people in the government to rescue his library, which he did get out in 1941. Are books more important than people? Some of the books were secular like Dante’s Inferno and books on Communism. This is a sad part of the history of the Rebbe. Also he started [publicly] condemning people who were organizing amazing rescue efforts like rabbis Kotler and Kalmanowitz of the Vad-Haatzala.

    He claimed they and Reform and Kofrim Jews were causing the Holocaust with their non-Kosher ways. Yet, we see that Kotler and Kalmanowitz helped rescue up to 100,000 people with the War Refugee Board. The Rebbe felt they were unnecessarily compromising their religious integrity by meeting with politicians on the Sabbath and secular and reform leaders. So the Rebbe made mistakes and according to Chancellor or Yeshiva University, Norman Lamm, he committed blasphemy by claiming God was punishing the Jews for their sins with the Holocaust. He claims this is a desecration of God’s name (Menachem Mendel Schneerson also said that saying such a thing is a desecration of God’s name without mentioning his father-in-law). These facts and many more show how much Chabad does to ignore unpleasant facts about their history. They just claim that when people write such things, they are jealous of their movement, do not understand their people or on a political campaign to smear them. Very weak arguments and signs of inferiority complexes. So basically this story shows that instead of pointing fingers, we need to act and make a difference. Small minds blame others; big ones blame themselves and then seek out action to make the situation better.

    What people wanted was a hero of the Jewish people fighting for their rights. Instead, the Rebbe just thought of himself and his movement and condemned others. He was not helping the problem, but creating more. He should have worked with [Rov] Kotler and [Rabbi] Kalmanowitz, or at least have tried to, instead of [publicly] condemning them and a host of others.

    #1698129

    Anyusernameopen?
    Participant

    Rebitzen I think I disagree with you pls lookup facts before you speak
    I dont think it can be any of your 2 candidates

    “Widely thought to be the largest funeral attendance in history, 15 million people took to the streets of Chennai in memory of the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, a southern Indian state”

    א פרייליכען חנוכה

    #1698130

    LerntminTayrah
    Participant

    “Nasi hador” literally means leader of the generation. Obviously the world exists only for those who keep the torah and mitzvos, so we’re limited to Torah observers. Who led more Torah observers, the Lubavitcher rebbe or Rav Shach? The answer is clearly Rav Shach. Chabad would say in response that only those who follow the Chabad way count, so the only choice is the Rebbe. Fair enough, but nobody else will fall for that.

    I love this historical revisionism, claiming the current Rebbe only loved and never opposed anything, and neither did the previous rebbes. I have documented my findings of pamphlets that say otherwise, both from Making of a Gadol and Bryan Mark Rigg. I’m sure there are a lot more but this is sufficient to dispel that myth.

    But that’s irrelevant. Let’s get back to the point of this thread. Should one join chabad? I admit the thought of a lit 10:30 shacharis with boatloads of vodka afterwards sounds like fun. But safeik avoda zara lechumra.

    Rav Shach: his secular grandchildren loved him. Clearly not the hateful man described here. He publicly took harsh stances but was much different in private.

    Yitamu chataim min ha’aretz.

    I think it’s a good idea to make a section of “soothing lies Lubavitchers will tell newbies”.
    1. The Rebbes never attacked anyone, and all their misnaged opponents were just haters.
    2. Most Lubavitchers don’t believe the rebbe is moshiach, hey just talk a lot about moshiach since the Rebbe who was the greatest man who ever lived did
    3. Ok, they believe the Rebbe is moshiach, but most believe that the Rebbe died as was obvious to all during his funeral.

    As for the idea that the rebbe is kepshuto alive, there’s a whole process in verifying a death in a hospital. And the body wasn’t buried until the next day. Finally, the Rebbe was kind of an invalid at that point after multiple strokes. do you really want him living in such a hellish state for 25 years? It’s nuts. but so be it.

    #1698173

    Chossid
    Participant

    I got one question

    Why when someone asks (whether he was sincere or not) regarding joining Lubavitche, and says that he feels that chabads hashkofa, and outlook on life is more positive, and only concern is that people will mock him, does everyone stat bashing chabad, and putting down chabad, and saying all this lochon harah, of you really care why don’t you explain to him the litvish outlook life, and explain to him how special litvish is that there is no reason to join chabad.???

    Does that make too much sense??

    #1698174

    Chossid
    Participant

    Continuation
    Why does everyone have the urge to put down Chabad every time it’s mentioned?!.

    #1698176

    2scents
    Participant

    Nowdays, what is chassidus?

    And aside from the obvious dress code and havarah, and some minor halachos what are the differences between chassidim and non chasiddim?

    #1698199

    LA boy
    Participant

    Apparently the censors don’t like when I write sad truths about r. schach and r. kotler but they don’t mind if anyone makes fun of lubavitch or the lubavitcher rebbe so I’ll try this 1 last time

    As anyusername already explained most of it so I’ll try to summarize

    The rebbe never responded to personal insults from anyone he only responded to the insults that affected large groups of Jews for example the irreligious on the kibbutzim that r. shach called non Jews or in the case of the previous lubavitcher rebbe r. Kotler refusing to give food to the lubavitcher bachurim in Shanghai since he didn’t consider them bnai Torah and causing 2 of the bachurim to die of hunger for lack of food
    As a side point halacha says הרב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול it also says (sorry I don’t remember the exact Hebrew phrase) that a talmid can’t be מוחל on his teachers behalf so even though the rebbe will never respond to the personal insults, the chassidim will so if you call the rebbe “the man sitting in Brooklyn and driving the whole world crazy” or after his stroke you say that you’ll say tehhilim that he has a refuah shleima physically and mentally (implying that you think he’s mentally ill) don’t get surprised when chassidim start hating you and making up things about you like saying (to use anyusernames example) that you’re mibnei banav shel Haman limdu torah bebnei brak.

    #1698209

    Chossid
    Participant

    Before I respond to anything I Just have a simple question.
    Why when someone asks (don’t know if it was sincere or not) and says that he feels that chabads hashkofa and outlook on life is more positive then his own upbringing, and his only concern is that he is going to be name called, why in response does everyone start bashing, name calling Chabad, and saying loshen horoah, why don’t you tell him how special the litvish outlook on life is, and explain to him how special he is for growing up in the litvish velt??
    Instead of all that you go put another group down, why don’t you bring yourself up? Isn’t that basic ahavas Yisrael?
    Why every time when chabad is mentioned do you have a urge to put them down?
    What exactly is bothering my friend?

    #1698211

    Milhouse
    Participant

    The Rebbe’s father-in-law spoke very harshly of the Jews in Europe, saying they deserved to die in the holocaust

    This is a filthy lie. You present no evidence for your claim that Norman Lamm said it, so I don’t believe you; but if he had said it then he would have been a liar. But more likely you’re the liar.

    #1698210

    Milhouse
    Participant

    Neville, first of all, what lie? I have no idea what you’re talking about. While the Rebbe was alive it was completely reasonable to expect and hope that he would be the moshiach. Where is the lie in that? Now that he’s no longer alive (at least in the usual sense) it’s no longer a reasonable thing to expect, but however unlikely it’s technically possible, so if someone wishes to hold out hope for it, and it helps his avodas Hashem, where’s the lie?

    As for Shatbai Tzvi, I did *not* write that he was not rejected before his shmad. I wrote that he was not rejected until he went off the derech. When he publicly did aveiros, and instructed his followers to do so, *that* is when those not under his spell rejected him. Not earlier. And had he not done that, had he remained a tzadik throughout his life, we would now be speaking of his memory with reverence, not contempt, just as the Rambam does about Bar Kochva, because there is no shame in trying and failing to be moshiach. The concept of “moshiach sheker” is invalid, an invention of maskilim, in order to cool off the whole idea of moshiach.

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 497 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending