Still Fuming At Rabbi Belsky And Mishpacha
Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Still Fuming At Rabbi Belsky And Mishpacha
- This topic has 270 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by Will Hill.
August 18, 2008 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #588040Y.W. EditorKeymaster
The following was submitted to YWN via email:
Chabad recognizes that there is a small (and unfortunately vociferous) group in our community which speaks irresponsibly about the issue of Moshiach. But there is no excuse for the unfortunate comments directed against the entire movement.
It is because of my great respect for Rabbi Belsky that I find his words all the more painful. Rabbi Belsky and Mishpacha Magazine owe the world-wide Lubavitch community an apology.
Sara Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Center
West Bloomfield, Michigan.August 18, 2008 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #621320
I think comments should be closed, as no good can come of it.August 18, 2008 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #621321
While your comments are directed at Rabbi Belsky, you of course aware, that his carefully chosen wording reflects that of almost all Orthodox Rabbis across a wide spectrum, excluding Lubavitch. These rabbis are both community Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva representing Orthodoxy’s Centrist philosophies; Yeshivish Litvish; Chasidish; Sefaradim.
It’s high time for the Crown Heights community not deny its children a manhig or Rebbe, so essential for its unity and the unity of Klal Yisroel.August 18, 2008 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm #621322
joseph, why do you insist in refusing to discuss the shortcomings of our rabbonim? This can only feed cynicism and utter disbelief in any Rov or Godol. For some unearthly reason, in this past century, we have made our Gedolim and Rabbonim “infallible”. If a Rov or even a Godol says something wrong or inappropiate , then the truth should be told. I have not seen , in the past, any Godol, hold himself back from criticizing other gedolim (see Satmarer Rov, see Rav Shach and may others).No, I have NOT actually seen Rav Belsky’s words (it would be useful to know where these comments appeared) but IF the report of this is correct, then, absolutely I agree with Rav Silverberg. Additionally and historically, Rav Belsky is wrong. There is no greater personality cult today than the slavish and mindless submission that the Yeshivaleit have for their Roshei Yeshiva. What’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander.August 18, 2008 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #621323
cherrybim, when you become the Mister gallup of the Jewish community, you can give the sweeping statement that you just made. Till that moment,I think you should refrain from saying such an asinine comment as you did. I cannot comment on the actual words of Rabby Belsky, not having read it, but the feeling that he semingly exhibits is not shared by any of the segments of the Jewish people that you mention. Actually, it is only some litvishe Roshei yeshiva that have this view and, as usual, this is because they are elitist and think that only they possess the real Torah. They said the same about the chassidim since the days of the gro and they have been dismissive of the Sefradim for decades.As far as the “centrist” wing, ha! Yeshiva University is scarcely better than a church in their eyes….So,please,spare us and everyone else your sanctimoniousness…August 18, 2008 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #621324
Dear Rabbi Silberberg,
I whole-heartedly agree with you. The Rebbe was a great man, and Chabad as a whole does great things with their ahavas yisroel and kiruv. The moshiach stuff doesn’t bother me, as even in the gemara there were tannaim and amoraim who were mistaken about the identity of moshiach. In Perek Chelek, four yeshivas each thought that there own Rebbe had the name of moshiach. It is good that we yearn for moshiach. The Rebbe certainly was big enough to have been moshiach if the generation had been worthy or the time had been right.
It is somewhat sad that the chassidim miss him so much that they have not appointed any successor. He was a gaon olam, and an oheiv yisroel. He never spoke bad about anybody else, and lived totally bpashtus. His over 100 sefarim are filled with amkus in nigleh and nistar. Nevertheless, we must make sure not to say or do things that could cause someone to lose his emunah. When a number of years ago, one Lubavitcher leader called a mass rally to say that the Rebbe was going to proclaim himself moshiach, the secular media came, and when nothing happened, it made everybody look very foolish. We need to be careful with things like that.
Nevertheless, this doesn’t take away from the gadlus of the Rebbe, ZTL, or with the goood things that the movement does as a whole.August 18, 2008 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #621325
You and I seem to hold the fort against the hordes…..Yasher Koach!August 18, 2008 10:40 pm at 10:40 pm #621326Matisyohu28Member
I am stunned.
Rav Belsky is a gadol. A rosh yeshiva. A tzadik gomur – how dare you, a ‘shliach’ who undermines two statements in pirkei avos with your very existence(al tifrosh min hatzibur, and the maysoh with the tanna who would not go to a different city, even though they paid him, because there was not torah there), be mored against the head of the yeshiva you have your smicha from!
You ought to have your smicha revoked – no one can call himself a rabbi and say what you said about a gadol betorah.
Pure chutzpah. You answered none of the tainos on chabad’s community – the deification is everywhere, from the meshichisten who control, literally, control the HEADQUARTERS of lubavitch, 770, to the meshuganeh ‘elokisten’ who believe the rebben really is g-d r”l, to the articles in ‘bais moshiach’ magazine about people crying out in prayer to the rebbe asking for help, to the massive chillul hashem posters and ads, not to mention cars with advertisements saying ‘moshiach is here’ all througout eastern parkway and the rest of brooklyn..dont deny the problems in your community. The rebbe, as Rav Avigdor Miller ztvk’l writes, was not in his right mind towards the end, when he said many things which led to the fervor of the meshechisten(such as, ‘the home of moshaich is at 770’, etc..) and it is a shame that a tzadik like the rebbe has such followers and such things being done in his name. The same thing happened to the tzadik Rav Odesser, who, due to his mental state, started the nach nach nachman nonsense – but that was just nonsesne, nothing too dangerous, and nothing apikorsus – what is going on in chabad now needs to be solved, for the good of chabad and klal yisroel.
Rav Belsky simply said something you dont like, because it means admitting a flaw in the community – face it, kiruv is nice, but being mekarev people with rebbe worship is not nice, and that is what will eventually, chas veshalom, take over chabad entirely unless it is solved.
Rav Belsky I am sure is in terrible pain over this – I am, and I am no godol; he is trying to do what is right, and it is painful to say these things – all this, while you sit with goyim and maybe 3 yidden somewhere in the middle of nowehre while sacrificing your family’s living in a stable kehila.
Shame on you. You’d better write an apology.
And to rabbi of berlin – you seriously sound like an apikores. The notion of thinking for one’s self againdt the roshei yeshiva is amrican and secular in the greatest sense – what do you, a balhabas writing on an internet forum, or me, a bochur doig the same thing, know in the face of a gadol beyisroel? your emunas chachamim is, at least it seems, non-existant – show some respect, and know when to keep your mouth shut.August 18, 2008 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm #621327mdlevineMember
If Elimelech Silberberg of the Sara Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Center in West Bloomfield, Michigan has a problem with HaRav Belsky and/or Misphocha magazine… why is he sending a letter to Yeshiva World. The proper and kavodik thing to have done would have been to contact the Rav himself and express his feelings either in verbal or letter form. the other option would have been to send a letter to the magazine that published the article.August 19, 2008 12:37 am at 12:37 am #621328
My point being, if Rabbi Silberberg is going to demand an apology from Rabbi Belsky, then demand it of all, because they’ve all expressed the same thoughts. There has never been another issue such as the Moshiach concern that has all Orthodox factions in agreement.
Rabbiofberlin, you can go to a Chabad web site right now and ask the Rebbe any question or ask for advice on any issue, and you will receive an instant answer from him.August 19, 2008 5:21 am at 5:21 am #621329
Rav Belsky, shlita is one of the gedolei hador.
The chutzpa and disrespect shown here is beyond belief.
Does anybody here believe that we can discuss “shortcomings of rabonim” and decide for ourselves what and who is right and wrong?
Would anyone have the chutzpa to discuss the “shortcomings” of the following 20th century rabonim – Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal, Rav Yakov Kaminetzky zatzal, Rav Aharon Kotler zatzal, Rav Yisroel Mayer Kagan zatzal (to mention just a few)?
Following das Torah does not mean you think anyone is “infallible”, but once you are given a psak by your posek, you follow it (like Rabbi Yehoshua following the psak of Rabban Gamliel re: when Yom Kippur fell out).
If your Rov / Rebbe / Dayan / Chacham / Posek doesn’t pasken like others, you are following your Rav, not being cholek with other gedolim based on your own ideas. If I don’t filter my water in NYC it’s because my posek, Rav Belsky, shlita says it’s not needed, not because “I” decided it’s not necessary. By the same token, if only Rav Belsky said a filter was needed, then I’d be obliged to be more machmir than most of the olam.
One more point about “fallability” – Emunas chachomim relies on the syato dishmayo that tzadikim have as well as their learning and secular knowledge. If you have a question or doubt, then ask your Rav, but once you have a psak – follow it.August 19, 2008 2:31 pm at 2:31 pm #621330ujmParticipant
Anyone who has the AZUS to besmirch a Gadol B’Torah like HaRav Belsky Shlita, needs their head checked out.August 19, 2008 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #621331thedmeMember
a good cHASSID should talk to the Rebbe if he has a problemAugust 19, 2008 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm #621332
Matisyohu, you need to tone down your language a bit. The ikar of Torah is menschlachkeit. From reading your posts, one would think the RBSH is a very angry being, when in fact he is malei ahavah. As far as going out of town, even the yeshivish believe that this is a big toeles, and they open kollelim in small towns, as well. I even read in the JO that there is a special havtacha that the out of town marbitzei torah will not have problems with their kids, although the environment is difficult. Second, the Rebbe was just as big as any of the gedolim of today, and if he felt it was the right way to be a shliach, who is anyone else to argue?
Cherrybim, unfortunately, the animosity against chabad started long before the petirah of the Rebbe. I once decided to leave a yeshiva 14 years before he passed away because I couldn’t stand the loshon hara against chabad. Personally, I believe it was because he went to college, and that same reason was the cause of the animosity against Reb Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik zl, and even his brother, Reb Aharon Soloveitchik zl.
BTW there is a gemara in chelek that says Ee medechayi kgon Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi, ee mdeshochvi, kgon Daniel Ish Chamudos. As far as the elokisten, we are all a chelek eloka mimaal. The Litvisher go to the kevarim of tzaddikim just the same, and daven for various requests. For shidduchim, they always tell people to go to Amuka. I don’t see much of a difference.
The ikar is ahavas yisroel to all groups.August 19, 2008 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #621333
To matisjohu28 ; Well, I, for one, am happy to be called an ‘apikores’ by matisjohu, who does not know an ounce of halacha (see other posting on what I wrote on one of his asinine comments) And, of course, he spouts the same revisionist rethoric that many of our yeshiva graduates spout today.I have news for you, the issue of “emunas chachomim”, the way you describe it, is a twentieth century invention. Never before, in our history,has ’emunas chachomim” spread to ‘milei de-alma”. matters of general interest.
If you can bring me ONE reliable view of previous generations that says that you must check your intelligence at the door and totally submit your will and mind to a Rov on MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST, please provide us with that source. “LO sossur’ applies to halacha, and not to matters of general interest. If this view qualifies me as an “apikores” in your eyes, so be it. I am probably in very good company with many other good jews.
To cherrybim: you are quite right i nsaying that I do not follow what goes on at 770 and I have little interest in doing this. I can only follow my own eyes and expereince. Chabad is responsible for tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of jews finding their mesorah again. For this laone, all else should be forgiven.
Whether the rebbe was moshiach or could be moshiach or whatever is of no interest to me.As long as Chabadniks put on tefillin and keep shabbos and all the mitzvas, who can have the chutzpah of comparing them with -chas vecholilah- X-anity. Saying that indeed comes close to motzi shem rah. I have not read the article and so I will not, in any way, judge Rav Belsky, but in the geder of ahavas yisroel, it is not.August 19, 2008 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm #621334
to “I can only try”…More revisionist talk…No one has ever said that,once you have a PSAK DIN on a matter of halacha, you can blithely ignore it. However, as far as “milei de-alma’,matters of general interest, there is absolutely no compulsion to follow the advice -not Psak- of any godol. YOu ARE making them “imfallible” when you say that you cannot discuss ‘shortcomings” of Rabbonim. And I have some news for you, R’Moshe zz’l was castigated by many a Rov and baal habayis even on his Piskei halacha! And pray tell me, must I check my own intelligence and “shikul hadaas” at the door when I speak to a godol? This attitude of ’emunas chachomim” is of very recent vintage and is totally in contradiction to past centuries.BTW, your example of Rav Yehoshua is totally besides the point. Rabbon Gamliel was acting as NOSSIH when he ordered Rav Yehoshua to come to him on “his’ Yom Kippur. And, if you know the gemoro, you will see that Rabbon Gamliel paid a heavy price for this highhandedness.The comments by Rav Belsky shelita had nothing to do with psak. IF he told you, as a matter of HALACHA, that you cannot-for example- enter 770, then YOU should follow him, as a matter of psak. His comments, however, had nothing to do with psak and everything to do with opinion. And opinions can be challenged.UJM, did you say the same when they besmirched the Lubavitcher rebbe zz’l and all his chassidim when a godol (whom I shall not name here) said you cannot be “meshadech’ with them? Do you say the same when some chareidim continue to insult and vilify the memory of Rav Kook zz’l? Do you say the same when some bnai yeshiva keep on referring to Rav Soloveichik as J.B.? Do you say the same when some in the oilam hayeshivos continually deride chassidim of all kind? Or is it only when a chareidi godol of your liking gets questioned that you bristle at the insults?August 19, 2008 11:17 pm at 11:17 pm #621335marinerMember
rabbiofberlin, just a side point, “x” is “christ”, so writting x-anity is no different then writing christianity. “x” is the greek symbol for “our lord”, as it is perfect or some such nonsense, so it was taken from the gazillion getchkes the greeks had onto jesus during Constantinople. it actually started to be used again here in america when supposedly a asheira tree seller didn’t have enough room on his sign to write christmas trees sold here, so he wrote x-mas trees, and thus began the reemergence of “x” in place of “christ”(prob a buba maaseh, the story not what “x” means). dont think for 2 seconds that “x” is a “jewish” place holder for the word christ. both “christ”, which is latin, and “x” which is greek, both mean our lord. just thought you should know. it irks me whenever i see that. especially, as many people hold lehalocha the word cant be used, so for sure they should be told this (not sure if that is why you wrote x).
*****(Moderator, please do not edit this, since the terms x, jesus, our lord,
and christ are all being used for halocha leemasseh.)August 19, 2008 11:55 pm at 11:55 pm #621336
To address your points:
1) More revisionist talk…No one has ever said that once you have a PSAK DIN on a matter of halacha, you can blithely ignore it.
In that case we are in agreement on this point.
2) You ARE making them “infallible” when you say that you cannot discuss ‘shortcomings” of Rabbonim.
Not at all. I am saying that aside from general loshon hora problems, there are the added issurim of being mezalzel talmedei chachomim. This is even when the gadol in question has actually done something wrong as acknowledged by other rabonim. If you decide on your own he has done something wrong, that is a huge chutzpa.
3) R’Moshe zz’l was castigated by many a Rov and baal habayis even on his Piskei halacha!
4) Must I check my own intelligence and “shikul hadaas” at the door when I speak to a godol?
5) This attitude of ’emunas chachomim” is of very recent vintage and is totally in contradiction to past centuries.
6) BTW, your example of Rav Yehoshua is totally besides the point. Rabbon Gamliel was acting as NOSSIH when he ordered Rav Yehoshua to come to him on “his’ Yom Kippur.
If we are in agreement on point #1 there is no need to discuss this further.
7) Did you say the same when they besmirched the Lubavitcher rebbe zz’l and all his chassidim when a godol (whom I shall not name here) said you cannot be “meshadech’ with them?
8) Do you say the same when some chareidim continue to insult and vilify the memory of Rav Kook zz’l?
9) Do you say the same when some bnai yeshiva keep on referring to Rav Soloveichik as J.B.?
10) Do you say the same when some in the oilam hayeshivos continually deride chassidim of all kind?
One additional point:
His comments, however, had nothing to do with psak and everything to do with opinion.
The reason gedolim who learn the same torah shebiksav and torah shebal peh have different conclusions as to the halacha is because they are basing their psak on their differing opinions of the correct interpretation.August 20, 2008 3:26 am at 3:26 am #621337
This business about the X reminds me of the following story. A poor yid once had no job, and somebody got him an interview to be the Shamash in the shul in Minsk which at least paid a few pennies. He did well on the interview, until it was discovered that he was illiterate and couldn’t read or write a word.
He had no choice, but to move his family to the USA to try to find work. He opened up a businesss, and slowly it started to grow. After a while it became very successful. He became extremely wealthy. One day, he was at a bank, where he was working on a 10 million dollar business deal with the officers there. When it came time to sign, he wrote an X on the dotted line. When they asked him what it meant, he embarrassingly confessed that he couldn’t read or write.
The bank’s officer said in astonishment, if you’re so successful now, imagine what you could have become if you could read and write. The yid replied, if I could write, I’d be the shamash in Minsk.August 20, 2008 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #621338
what do you, a balhabas writing on an internet forum, or me, a bochur doig the same thing, know in the face of a gadol beyisroel? your emunas chachamim
Can anyone here please accurately translate the term “emunas chachamim?” An entire Jewish school of thought is based on a mis-translation of the words in Avot.August 20, 2008 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm #621339
And as the Shamash in Minsk he would remain a frum Yid and likely bring up frum children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
As a multi-millionaire businessman in America, that likelihood drops precipitously.August 20, 2008 2:43 pm at 2:43 pm #621340
cantoresq, “emunas chachomim” TODAY is used by Rabbonim and Roshei yeshiva to stifle debate and to keep the sheep..oops…the talmidim in line. Actually, if you are a chossid of a rebbe, I have no problem if you follow him but I have a huge problem when whatever a rosh yeshiva says, it becomes “halocho lemosh misinai”. This was never the case till this century and the reasom is simple, too many things have happened recently that have disproved the opinion of many gedolim and so, they have to fall back on the old saying:: “It is so because I said so”August 20, 2008 3:00 pm at 3:00 pm #621341
to “I can only try”
To answer you briefly, because we will certainly disagree. If I go to someone to be shoiel etza, then I have put myself VOLUNTARILY under this person’s authority. It is fine ,then, to accept his advice and deem it to come with “syata dishmaya”. This was absolutely not the case with the matter at hand. Rav Belsky shelita wrote an article giving his opinion on Chabad. this is not shoiel eitzha ,nor do I, or others, have to deem it as having been written “besyata deshmaya”. As far as “zilzul chachomim”, there are many,many talmidei chachomim in Chabad too. Don’t they deserve the same respect?
I trust you were NOT around in the fifties and eaerly sixties when the Piskei halacha of R,Moshe came out. Check with your elders about some of the early reactions to some of his controversial Piskei halacha.
As far as numbers 7,8,9 and 10.
Rav Shach zz’l (to name him by name) virulently attack Chabad for years,including speculating that you cannot be meshadech yourself with them. I will find the KOl koreh’s if you want.
As far as Rav kook zz’l and Rav Joshe Ber, you must be living on a different planet if you have never heard negative comments about Rav Kook and his shittah and Reb Joshe ber and his shittah.
And, as far as 10, surely you must know that the Gro put the chassidim in cherem and this attitude towards chassidim continues today, albeit in quieter tones, as the chassidm today are too numerous anc powerful.
Lastly, there are many different Piskei halacha, NOT because the Poskim have different OPINIONS but they have different INTERPRETATIONS. Is the artcile by Rav belsky based on interpretations of halacha? Or is it just his opinion that they have strayed? A crucial difference, I think.
I must add that I have not actually read the article but I base myself on what is being reported. I have all the respect for Rav Belsky shelita but I do not have to agree with him on this matter. Chabad feels slighted and they have reacted accordingly.August 20, 2008 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #621342
rabbiofberlin you are correct, but I want to draw people’s attention to the fact that the terms, taken from the Mishne, on which they realy for this notion, does not in fact mean what they seem to believe it means. Emunat chachamim menas the “belief of the sages” not belief in the sages; which would be “emunah bachachamim.” To my mind, the entire weltanschaung is based on a gross mistranslation. I can’t however take credit for this point. Rabbi Norman Lamm once pointed it out in a lecture.August 21, 2008 12:14 am at 12:14 am #621343Matisyohu28Member
Rabbiofberlin thinks that he can debate with roshei yeshiva, once more, he accusses them of a crime – he says they reinterpret torah and made up the concept of emunas chachamim, r”l. they are stifling debate with talk of this newfangled concept of emunas chachamim – maybe, just maybe, you need to drop the negius; if you have a kasha on a rosh yeshiva, ask the rosh yeshiva, and maybe he’ll answer you – dont come to a forum with half of its members being amharatzim and spread your garbage.
America, and its ilk, came up with the concept of not taking authrotiy(i.e., hippie movements), and they preach equality, as in, there is no one who cannot be denounced – and you dare accuse roshei yeshiva of making up ideas in yiddishkeit – pumfakert, look at uyour own ‘hashkofa’ – you are taking philosophies straight from american goyim! you, and not them(big surprise) are adding to torah – you’re supposed to rely on roshei yeshiva and gedolim for daas torah, questioning them is fine, but spewing the type of motzi shem ra you ande your kind say, not to mention flat out disagreeing with them, which, lifi the mishnah beruruah is the definition of apikorsus(he says anything against daas torah is apikorsus, but maybe the chofetz chaim r”l changed the torah too – with you, who knows? maybe moshe rabbeinu also changed something to stop korach)
your disagreements, I might add, have no foundation – all you can do is say “I disagree” without articulating your point beyond goyishe reasoning which has no basis in torah.
For the record, I did not call you an apikores – a mechutzaf, perhaps, but I am dan lecahf zchus, and assuming your yatzer hora is simply filling the void in your head with nonsense, to compensate for the lack of learning.
To cantorseq – the concept of emunas chachamim is well-founded in torah literature, norman lamm’s grmmatical ‘diyuk’ if it can even be called that, does not change its definition as defined by chazal. He can wish. and you can too, that the toah fits amerian, democratic values – but it doesnt. plain and simple. Plus, I’ll take the mishnah berurah’s words over those of norman lamm – and who is ‘they’ who take it to mean emunas chachamim? every gadol from every generation? maybe they missed that little diyuk that of all people, normal lamm, caught? come on. you cannot tell me that such a diyuk exists in strength to overrule every single authority from the time of the gemora to the present day – it’s ludicrous.
Ironically, the only way we know grmmatical rules, is from the seforim, which norman lammis saying we dont need to believe – absurd.August 21, 2008 2:48 am at 2:48 am #621346
One thing though, it’s amazing the amount of achdus this inyun has caused. Amongst the various paths of frumkeit, Rabbi Lamm and the YU Roshei Yeshiva are on the same page as Rabbi Belsky and the rest of the Yeshivish/Chasidish velt.August 21, 2008 2:48 am at 2:48 am #621347
you wrote (check your posting): “you sound like an apikores”.I am ahppy that you are taking back your accusation.
As far as the actual matter at hand. You go on and on, venting your anger yet, you do not bring ONE ‘rayoh” to your concept of “emunas chachomim”. I, for one, will be happy to provide you with plenty of sources on this matter. The very simple fact is ,that, until very recently, there was no such thing as ‘infalliblity” by our gedolim. In halacha, you obviouxly had to follow your Posek’s directives but in “milei de-alma” you did not have to follow what they said. You may ask their advice, you may ask their brocho but it is incontrovertible that you do not have to take their OPINION as daas torah. Dear matisjohu, you are welcome to continue doing this but others, like chabad or me,do not have to follow you and others into oblivion.August 21, 2008 5:20 am at 5:20 am #621349thinkfactMember
OP, RabbiofBerlin, Pushite yid,
Sticking to the facts the whole facts and nothing but the facts.
Can any of you clearly define a difference between TODAY’S “X-badism”(please note the capitalized qualification) and Paul’s version of xtianity ?
Personally, after perusing their official and unofficial publications I can not.
Thus, I believe the article is mereley an explanation of the conclusion that must be reached upon honest evaluation of the evidence.
Sorry, but thems the (sad) facts.August 21, 2008 5:38 am at 5:38 am #621350
a) “emunas chachomim” TODAY is used by Rabbonim and Roshei yeshiva to stifle debate and to keep the sheep..oops…the talmidim in line.
b) the reason is simple, too many things have happened recently that have disproved the opinion of many gedolim and so, they have to fall back on the old saying:: “It is so because I said so”
c) If I go to someone to be shoiel etza, then I have put myself VOLUNTARILY under this person’s authority.
d) As far as “zilzul chachomim”, there are many,many talmidei chachomim in Chabad too. Don’t they deserve the same respect?
e) I trust you were NOT around in the fifties and eaerly sixties when the Piskei halacha of R,Moshe came out. Check with your elders about some of the early reactions to some of his controversial Piskei halacha
f) Rav Shach zz’l (to name him by name) virulently attack Chabad for years,including speculating that you cannot be meshadech yourself with them.
g) As far as Rav kook zz’l and Rav Joshe Ber, you must be living on a different planet if you have never heard negative comments about Rav Kook and his shittah and Reb Joshe ber and his shittah.
– Welcome to my world. I already mentioned the comment from one of my rabeim re: disrespect to Rav Soloveichik, and I will now mention that Rav Kook was quoted often in shiur by another of my rabeim.
i) Lastly, there are many different Piskei halacha, NOT because the Poskim have different OPINIONS but they have different INTERPRETATIONS.
– and why are their interpretations different?
j) I must add that I have not actually read the article but I base myself on what is being reported.
– I always try to get the original source to avoid mistakes. Just a recommendation, not necessarily related to this issue.August 21, 2008 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm #621351
To cantorseq – the concept of emunas chachamim is well-founded in torah literature, norman lamm’s grmmatical ‘diyuk’ if it can even be called that, does not change its definition as defined by chazal.
First of all, it is not a mere “grammatical diyuk.” It’s the actual meaning of the words. Secondly please show me where in Chazzal one finds thrd Da’at Torah and Emunat Chachamiom int he wasy currently used?August 21, 2008 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm #621352
More related to the topc of this thread, I don’t understand the ire of people here. Rabbi Silberberg, who I have known for nearly thirty years, is a Lubavitcher. He chose to Lubavitch as his derech when he was in yeshiva. Something about it resonated with him spiritually, and he followed the call and has become a wonderful Rav and manhig. I know of, at this point hundreds of people who are religious Jews as a result of his efforts. Rabbi Belsky said publicly something very uncomplimentary of Lubavitch. Is there any wonder that R. silberberg would be offended? Is this reaction so unexpected?August 21, 2008 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm #621353
Thinkfact, you need to look up the gemara in chelek which appears to allow for the possibility that Daniel could be moshiach, although he was already deceased at the time.
But the main difference is that Paul changed the religion totally, by abolishing all the mitzvos except for a few. (No kashrus, Yom kippur, shabbos, shatnez, sitting in a sukkah, etc.).
The Rebbe ZTL did not change anything, and tirelessly worked to further the observance of Torah and mitzvos his whole life.August 21, 2008 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #621354ujmParticipant
cantoresq & berliner,
To be intellectually honest, please advise everyone here what exactly the TRUE meaning of Emunas Chachomim (and Daas Torah) mean to you.
AND also please cite a SUSTAINED example from a time in Jewish history that it was actually looked at and practiced in the way you describe it.August 21, 2008 4:27 pm at 4:27 pm #621356
to ‘I can only try”:
to a) and b) ABSOLUTELY. Yup, I believe that today’s roshei yeshiva want to stifle debate.I have no problems with that, because this is how they want to control their followers, just that I don’t have to follow them on this. As far as b) Truly, I prefer not to comment on that, because of my resepct to many Gedolim but in essence, yes, I do beleive this is the case.
As far as d) goes, Go and look up some of the arguments from the gro and the Chassidim. They did tell him that he was wrong. Not from am poshete bala habayis like me, but the talmidei habaal shem worked tirelessly to show that the Gro was wrong in his attitude to chassidim.
On 6) again, you are. memechilas kevod toroshcho, missing thepoint. NO baal habayis, or even Rov, should be holek on R”Mshe’s PSAK (althought many did).It is his opinion on other matters that we are discussing. R’Moshe, thank G-d, was never political, but imagine he has an opinion about Eretz Yisroel that you do not share (say whether to go to the army). Are you saying that I cannot have my own opinion on this?
h) I don’t know whether the Litivishe gedolim wold put chassidim in cherem today, they obviously have not.My point is that there were times that the oppostion to chassidus was virulent. Today, you have the same attitude to chabad. History will show the truth, but ,for now, Rav Beslky’s comments on chabad are a parrallel to the cherem of the gro.
g)I am happy to hear you went to a yeshiva that respected Rav Kook and R’Joshe Ber. This was not always the case.
f) The machlokes was VERY virulent and Rav shach zz’l once expressed this view, about not being “meshadechc’ with Chabad. I’ll do the relevant research and get you the exact quotation.
i)Again, interpretations on halachic matters are one thing, personal opinions are another. As I said, if Rav belsky shelita “paskens” that you cannot enter 770, then this is a halachic interpretation. If he thinks you should not go there, it is an opinion,which you have the discretion of accepting or not.
UJM. the concept of “daas torah’ to which you adhere is a modern invention. Before this century, the Poskim had the full authority to give Psak and people had to follow. However, in matters of general interest, people could listen to their vsrious rabbonim and them make up their own minds.
Let me give you an example of yesteryear.In Napoleon’s times, there was a bg machlokes between the Baal hatanya and other Russian gedolim whetehr to embrace napoleons’ regime when he set out to conquer Russia. The baal hatanya was against it becuase he was worried about the influence of emancipation on his chassidm. Ohter rebbes disagreed becuase they felt that, to be liberated from the czar, was worth the risk. Well, Napoleon lost but th question is, you could have espousud the Baal hatanya’s view or his opponents. Either way, you were a good jew. There was no compulsion to one side or another.
Today, if you follow Rav kook’s shittah, you are expelled out of the machaneh! if you followed Rav Joshe ber, today, you are almost a shaigatz! And if you question anything a rosh yeshiva says, you are an apikoros! THAT was never the case previously. I can give yo uother historical examples.
so, UJM, my view is that in halacha you MUST accept the Psak of your ROV. In matters of general interest, you still have a brain and if you feel that the godol does not ref;ect what you feel, you are not an apikorus if you question his view and do differently.August 21, 2008 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #621357
Can some Lubavitcher chosid please explain why, even if someone who was niftar can be, the last Rebbe is looked at as Moshiach anymore than say the Rebbe Rayatz (the frierdiker Rebbe) or anymore than the Baal Shem is Moshiach?August 21, 2008 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #621358
…and why wasn’t a new Rebbe appointed after the last was niftar (like Lubavitch always did after the previous Rebbe’s were niftar.)August 21, 2008 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm #621359
I can only try, the laima ktannai is not an insult, it is only a question as to why they didn’t simply say I hold like tanna A or tanna B, instead of making it seem like a new machlokes. But nevertheless, amoraim never argued on tannaim, because of niskatnu hadoros.
But what I find incredulous is, what in the world is your hava amina that the Rebbe was not as great as any of the other gedolim of his time or our time? Are you saying Rabbi Silberberg should not have followed his rebbe and godol, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, because others disagree? What is your hava amina?
Finally, I am sad to write that the psak from Bnei Brak was worse than shidduchim. When the Rebbe’s wife passed away, a psak was issued that nobody is allowed to be menachem avel to the Rebbe. Thankfully, Rav Pam and others were wise enough to come anyway, as a yid was in tzara.August 21, 2008 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm #621360
But the main difference is that Paul changed the religion totally, by abolishing all the mitzvos except for a few. (No kashrus, Yom kippur, shabbos, shatnez, sitting in a sukkah, etc.).
you should’ve left sukka off your list. The rebbe abolished the mitzvah of sleeping in a sukka. And also Shaloch Seudos if I’m not mistaken.
And i’ll also join with those who think its hilarious to knock the Gedolei Yisroel based on a diyuk by Norman Lam (the title rabbi was intentionally omitted). Cantoresq, maybe you can ask Dr. Lam the brilliant question of “I can only Try” about how he would translate Emunas Hashem?August 21, 2008 6:01 pm at 6:01 pm #621361
Regarding the similarity to christianity, soon after the rebbe was niftar there were billboards from jews for J with a huge picture of the rebbe. The caption was “Right Idea. Wrong Guy.”
I didn’t see the billboard but heard about it from a prominent godol.August 21, 2008 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #621362favishMember
wasn’t Lamm the meyased of ‘centrist.whatever that entails?August 21, 2008 7:38 pm at 7:38 pm #621363
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I refer you to Moshe Sokol’s Article in Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy (The Orthodox Form Series, Jason Aronson, 1992. That article pretty much shapes my thinking on the subject.August 21, 2008 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #621364
And i’ll also join with those who think its hilarious to knock the Gedolei Yisroel based on a diyuk by Norman Lam (the title rabbi was intentionally omitted). Cantoresq, maybe you can ask Dr. Lam the brilliant question of “I can only Try” about how he would translate Emunas Hashem
Now now Charlie, please show some respect for a rav who has forgotten more Torah than you’ll ever learn. As to how to translate “Emunas Hashem” I plead ignorance to ever seeing it in a primary source.August 21, 2008 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #621365
CharlieBrown, as far as I remember, the not sleeping in the sukkah was even mentioned in the MB as being due to either too cold in those areas (teishvu k’ein taduru), or because a husband should be with his wife, and it is not tzniusdik outdoors (also teishvu k’ein taduru).
Not aware of any shalosh seudos psak. I am not a Lubavitcher, but will ask maybe they hold you can fulfill it with a bottle of schnaps. Just kidding.
Joseph, your kashya of why not the Baal Hatanya also bothered me, and why not any of many other gedolim who have long passed away. I am not endorsing their position, I am just being melamed zchus. I feel bad that they have lost such a great person, and have been having a very hard time getting over it. One can only feel bad for them. It is not something to insult them for. They do much good in the world.August 21, 2008 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #621366
yes, that’s him.August 21, 2008 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #621367
Joseph (pg 2),
I have always wished I could hear an answer to that question from a meshichist. But why stop at the Baal Shem Tov? If a dead person can be moshiach, why can’t it be Dovid Hamelech himself?August 21, 2008 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #621368GeshmakensteinMember
As long as we are on the topic can anyone explain the quote from the rebbe himself that the reason that one can “daven” to a rebbe is because he is “Atzmus u’Mahus vi Ir hut Zich areingeshtelt in a guf?” Sounds way out there to me!August 21, 2008 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #621369eli levParticipant
how many chabadskers /lubavitchers do u know that will
say their rebbe was (/is?) fallable???
can anyone please give a good answer to the following.
why o why did the rebbe encourage [waving his hands etc.] the
singing of yechi adoneinu…melech hamoshiach…?
[did he not understand what everyonelse understood that the chasidim meant
Him?!?!?!]August 21, 2008 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #621370
wasn’t Lamm the meyased of ‘centrist.whatever that entails?
Indeed it was Rabbi Lamm who coined the term “centrist.” Have you taken the time to read his basis for the term? How much of R. Lamm’s writing have you read?August 21, 2008 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #621372
Yes, there are valid reasons for some people not to sleep in the sukka if it won’t be taishvu k’ein taduru due to the cold, being in an unsafe neighborood, not being with the wife etc – each person should ask their rov.
But that’s not what I was talking about. By Lubavitch, even bochurim in warm climates in safe neighborhoods do not sleep in the sukka. The reason I have heard (and if anyone knows differently please tell me) is that the rebbe said the shechina is in the sukka and its painful to sleep there so its not teishvu k’ein taduru. And if you are not pained by sleeping where the shechina is because you are not on such a high madreiga, then that itself is painful and therefore its not k’ain taduru. The problem with that reasoning is that this would be a reason for every yid in every generation in every climate not to sleep in the sukka. So why did chazal in mesechta sukka talk about sleeping in the sukka?????August 21, 2008 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #621373
1) to a) and b) ABSOLUTELY. Yup, I believe that today’s roshei yeshiva want to stifle debate.I have no problems with that, because this is how they want to control their followers, just that I don’t have to follow them on this. As far as b) Truly, I prefer not to comment on that, because of my resepct to many Gedolim but in essence, yes, I do beleive this is the case.
2) Are you saying that I cannot have my own opinion on this?
I am absolutely not saying that.
Pashuteh Yid –
1) laima ktannai is not an insult, it is only a question as to why they didn’t simply say I hold like tanna A or tanna B, instead of making it seem like a new machlokes. But nevertheless, amoraim never argued on tannaim, because of niskatnu hadoros.
– Agreed, 100%. My point was to illustrate the kavod given to gedolim and what they said, by showing how they clearly knew it was inapropriate to argue for or against a tana from their own das.
charlie brown –
1) the brilliant question of “I can only Try”
– Brilliant? I must demur. And if I didn’t, most of my acquaintences would be happy to do it for me.
1) As to how to translate “Emunas H-shem” I plead ignorance to ever seeing it in a primary source.
– If by primary source you mean tnach, shas, and meforshim, I haven’t seen it anywhere I can remember either. I have seen it in divrei Torah and heard it in schmoozin and conversation. If I deceived anyone re: it’s source, it was unintentional.
- The topic ‘Still Fuming At Rabbi Belsky And Mishpacha’ is closed to new replies.