The world is in a state of Geula- and don’t misunderstand us!

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics The world is in a state of Geula- and don’t misunderstand us!

Viewing 50 posts - 251 through 300 (of 603 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1618637

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    RSo
    “CS: “There is a general lack of the kind of leadership and tzaddikim of yore- even during the Rebbe’s days there was a lack of tzaddikim with no yetzer hara.”

    Absolute garbage and apikorsus. I am mocheh in the strongest terms.”

    Where did she say that? Did the mods remove it? That would be hook-line-sinker we win/Chabad showed its true, ugly colors/we can finally stop talking about it. I would understand mods removing a comment from a Lubavitcher slandering all the tzaddikim of the last generation as they so often do, but it’s important for people to see with their own eyes that we aren’t just making all of this up.

    #1618639

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    But neville, again you are conflating anything to do with moshiach and Geula to buy synonymous with who moshiach is.

    When a Lubavitcher says בקרוב בימינו ״ממש״ what does ממש refer to?

    #1618678

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    Coffee: Just to clarify, you are joking, right?

    #1618762

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    RSo: In short, I wrote demand/ strong request, because, as I recall, you had a problem with any kind of strong language. You chose to emphasize demand over request. To me it is a matter of semantics. But i would need to look up the start of your question which is somewhere on page three, to be able to properly post your original problem, and thus show these sources adress that. No time though right now

    #1618769

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    With regards to showing I can be wrong, I have np with that if I believe that to be the case. in fact I have already admitted earlier on this thread to you when I realized the answer didnt satisfactorily adress the queston and that I dont know the answer

    #1618774

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Listen people I tried opening the understanding chabad thread earlier today, it has not been approved. I agree with the mods decision- it does infringe on extremely delicate subjects, and they will probably frequently find themselves in a quandary whether they can approve many posts. So sorry to disappoint you guys, but no need to hold your breath. You can discuss with any proper Lubavitcher chossid, or walk into your nearest yeshiva. As for me, I will continue to “skirt” topics that I feel are too controversial/ triggered, because I see they cannot be addressed openly, respectfully and honestly on this forum, which I am fine with.

    #1618789

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    If the only thing Chabad did differently was use the word “demand” instead of “request,” I don’t think there would be that much of a deal. There’s clearly more to the issue than word-choice.

    #1618808

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Neville,

    I’m copying a pasting CS’s comment to you and replying to it

    I want to know the answer from CS

    #1618810

    RSo
    Participant

    Neviile: “Where did she say that?”

    She definitely wrote it because I just copied and pasted. And I wasn’t even the only one who was mocheh. The mods must have removed it. Pity, because as you say, it shows their true colors.

    I don’t think it was removed. It would say edit if it had been edited out.

    #1618824

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “I see they cannot be addressed openly, respectfully and honestly on this forum, which I am fine with.”
    Just to specify, that’s because you’re the one refusing to be open and honest, not us. We’ve been 100% transparent.

    It’s the mods’ choice whether or not they want to clarify, but I would wager that the reason they didn’t let that thread through is because of the duplication rule. You’ve started several threads now with different names that are all “Chabad Explained,” where you say all of the same things over and over and never answer anyone’s questions.

    That fact that drives you bonkers to no end is that we actually DO understand Chabad quite well. It is you who wish we didn’t. If one productive thing could come out of all of this, it would be you telling other Lubavitchers “be careful what you say. The rest of the frum world is not as clueless about us as we thought.”

    #1618827

    RSo
    Participant

    CS I have to admit that you are starting to make me angry!

    Here is what you wrote in your first post on renewing this thread on November 1 (page 3 – cut and paste):
    “regarding demanding from Hashem, I brought proof from the positive response to the demand of lama nigara.
    Some have responded its not a demand.
    So to respond to that, yes it is. I mean just translate it.”

    I replied the same day (page 3):
    “CS since when is Lama Nigara a demand or even a request? It is a question, insinuating a request but only [the word “only” was an obvious typo and should have read “not”] a demand.”

    I have since shown that not only is it not a demand but it wasn’t even addressed to Hashem. And now we get this from CS:
    “RSo: In short, I wrote demand/ strong request, because, as I recall, you had a problem with any kind of strong language. You chose to emphasize demand over request. To me it is a matter of semantics. But i would need to look up the start of your question which is somewhere on page three, to be able to properly post your original problem, and thus show these sources adress that. No time though right now”

    1. You wrote demand.
    2. You did not write at that time “strong request” or any similar expression.
    3. I chose to reply to what you wrote, not to what you changed it to at a later date after I had replied.
    4. It’s only semantics if the two mean the same thing. You wrote “demand” I said it wasn’t a demand. That’s not semantics. Look it up.
    5. My “original problem” as you so nicely put it is that you got it wrong and you won’t admit it.

    Which leads nicely to the following post of yours:
    “With regards to showing I can be wrong, I have np with that if I believe that to be the case.”

    As with much of what’s wrong in Lubavich, האמת נעדרת.

    #1618837

    RSo
    Participant

    Is there someway of conducting a poll to see who is on whom’s side. I’m not talking about voting whether CS is write or wrong; I mean a vote to see whether I am totally stupid and just do not understand CS’s replies to my rebuttals, or whether I am not that stupid and CS is indeed not answering them.

    #1618858

    RSo
    Participant

    Before anyone attacks me, yes, it should be “right” not “write”. My apologies.

    I was wrong. (Gee, CS, that wasn’t painful at all!)

    #1618863

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “From the euphoria of expecting the Geula at any moment, Chabad was greeted with gimmel Tammuz. It seems in general there is a lack of the kind of Torah leadership that existed all the years, although we have Rabbanim today, its not the same…”

    It was page one of this thread. The post was numbered 1547553 (I don’t know if that helps locate it at all). I missed it when she originally posted it because those posts were so long nobody could actually read every sentence. OK, I think we have what we need here, guys. We could get a 15 page essay worth of quotes from CS confirming everything we’ve been saying about Chabad from this thread alone, so I think I’m done here. I have wasted way too much time on this thread already. Oh, and RSo, I don’t think any kind of poll is necessary. You can clearly see how we’ve all weighed in on this.

    #1618878

    RSo
    Participant

    Neville the quote I gave is from page 1 post #1549269. I don’t know why I found that one all of a sudden.

    #1618889

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Coffee addict in case you were wondering, we mean the translation – hmm hard to translate lol. I guess in actuality. The same way we mean teikef umiyad

    #1618888

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Rso your jumping too fast. I know I’m referencing from before that. Because my renewing the thread was to address the original issue you brought up beforehand. Patience please. I’ll get to it very soon iyh

    #1618890

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Neville I’ve addressed enough of your posts that I see you’re just looking for a crack to jump in and pounce because you think its fun. I’m not going to address your last one for now because I’m not looking for further static. But yes you’re welcome to leave as your obviously just looking to cause trouble. That’s not my kind of fun.

    #1618971

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    I would say you owe Neville an apology. He has done nothing to indicate he is having a good time, waiting to pounce or anything else. He has defended you from people who were ranting and he has refrained from calling out anything that wasn’t VERY clearly backed up by your own words. You say you won’t address his last post, which is just a cut and paste of YOUR own words…is that another way of skirting? What other reason could you possibly have for turning on someone who has been asking you to clarify your own comments? Looking for trouble? Just a rude diversion. Very uncalled for. Very unfair.

    #1619315

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Rso, ok I admit I’m trying to figure out what the problem is. I remember somewhere along the line, you had a problem with saying “moshiach needs to come already .” I thought it was the strong language – I used the word demand. So I brought other cases where demands / strong language was a good thing.

    You responded by saying those weren’t demands they were just strong language.

    Ok im honestly confused and figured I should just clear this up before nitpicking over each source – whether it’s demand or strong language because I don’t see what the difference is is. if the problem is speaking up strongly, it doesn’t matter what form it takes. So can you help me understand what exactly is the issue, and where your source for that is, so I can understand how my sources do or do not address it?

    #1619379

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Syag this is neville “That would be hook-line-sinker we win/Chabad showed its true, ugly colors/we can finally stop talking about it.”

    Yes I stand by my words within context. I don’t think they’re problematic. I don’t think neville truly thinks they’re problematic within context. He looking for we win Chabad loses in his own words.

    And this isn’t the first time he’s done this. My last few responses to neville have been me clearing myself of things he’s attributed to me that I never said or meant.

    OK this one I said but he’s making a huge deal out of it when I think it honestly isn’t within context. and im kind of fed up with his last few posts.

    I do enjoy neville many times. He’s witty (his name even) and he can play fair. But the last few posts he clearly isn’t interested in playing fair. He’s interested in making Chabad look bad…

    #1619727

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    “He’s interested in making Chabad look bad…”
    no, he was interested in YOU making Chabad NOT look bad. He was trying over and over to get you to straighten out misunderstandings and clearup confusion and you just wouldn’t. He would ask you to clarify and not avoid and you would change the subject. AFTER a lot of that, he became frustrated by the game YOU seemed to be playing and he said we won and should just call it quits. Not as in winning a game, it was ‘win’ as in “I cannot keep asking you over and over to defend your words or come to terms with the damage you are doing to your own movement so I’ll claim victory and call it quits” (correct me Neville if I’m wrong please)
    I am very sorry CS, I know you mean well, and I know that this was said to you before in a past thread, but you have done more damage to Chabad thru your posts than good. Your own words, not the feedback or the comments from others.

    #1619739

    Toi
    Participant

    Guys, how are you not bored yet? Do you not see you will not get anywhere with her?

    I don’t get it, CS: a)Yes b) No. One word. Nu??

    #1619774

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    I don’t know know syag that’s not the way I see it. The way I see it, neville and Co see any thread I open as a subversive attempt to convince everyone that the Rebbe is moshiach. And that is not what I meant.one thread I offered to answer others questions on what meshichism is, how it is etc m wasnt my idea. Then this thread I thought we could all agree on other topics within moshiach and Geula. But neville just can’t let go of the idea of the topic of moshiach and Geula being synonymous with the Rebbe being moshiach and me trying to subtly get that across. Which is quite frustrating for me.

    Maybe I should just go back to my lubavitch groups. At least we understand each other. Here I feel either i am misunderstood or am accused of misunderstanding others.
    I may just have to join stuartw on his coffee break if there isn’t a common language

    #1619792

    samthenylic
    Participant

    When we talk about being “Mekarev es hageulah”, talking about Moshiach and Geulah takes a distant BACK SEAT to doing mizvos & maasim tovim for the sake of doing “rotzon Hashem”. CASE CLOSED!
    The sooner that all you meshichisten realize this, the faster the Geulah will come. Don’t obsess about it, because this is “Dochek es haKetz”.

    #1619836

    kaiserW
    Participant

    To Rso and NevilleChaimBerlin:

    CS supposedly said as following ““There is a general lack of the kind of leadership and tzaddikim of yore- even during the Rebbe’s days there was a lack of tzaddikim with no yetzer hara.”
    You both jumped to attack, calling it ‘apikursos’ ‘garbage’ ‘slandering tzadikim’ etc etc

    Congratulations! By doing so you have shown yourself to have never opened up a ספר תניא קדישא even to the first chapter. In fact, it is not even Tanya who is the source that Tzadikim are a real entity – Tanya quotes it from a Gemara! ראה הקב”ה בצדיקים שהם מועטים, עמד ושתלן בכל דור ודור” – יומא לח ב” The Meforshim explain that some generations only have one (!) tzaddik. If every Rosh Yeshiva, Rebbe, and Manhig is a tzaddik, there was definitely no time in the past thousand years that there was a dearth……

    So to this claim, and many other claims that are based on simple ignorance I proudly say:
    לא עלינו תלונותיכם כי על כ”ק הגה”ק אדמו”ר בעל התניא והשו”ע זיע”א!!

    And now I turn to you with a challenge:
    (I know this will lead to more Chabad-bashing but I cant resist)
    The בעל שם טוב הקדוש was told by משיח while he was in היכל המשיח – in the heavenly realms, that משיח will come כשיפוצו מעיינותיך חוצה. These are the words of the Besht himself, in a letter to his brother in law.

    Let us put aside our difference for a moment; go to your nearest בית מדרש, take out a קדושת לוי or a נועם אלימלך, a שפת אמת or a לקוטי מוהרן and learn a little פנימיות התורה. We all agree that Yidden have suffered enough in golus. Let us do something that the Besht told us will hasten our redemption בב”א

    #1619883

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    I was basing what i said off the posts of several posters who said exactly that. And from reading Nevilles posts.

    #1619959

    RSo
    Participant

    Syag: “I am very sorry CS, I know you mean well, and I know that this was said to you before in a past thread, but you have done more damage to Chabad thru your posts than good. Your own words, not the feedback or the comments from others.”

    Something I have indicated in the past, but said here so well!

    #1619935

    Sechel HaYashar
    Participant

    I’m not going to comment on the substance (or perhaps more aptly, the lack thereof) being discussed here. I just want to make a point that Sinas Chinom and Pirud HaLevovos is not going to bring Moshiach any closer, regardless if you think that our (Chabad Lubavitch) derech is wrong. You don’t need to fully understand everything we do, and you are most welcome to vehemently disagree – in the appropriate place and time, and in a respectful manner.

    You may believe us to be Kofrim, and you are sincerely trying to find a way to be Matzdik our beliefs – know that enough Rabbonim and Poskei HaDor do respect us, and surely if we really were Kofrim would’ve long disassociated themselves from our midst. You can still have questions, but have the humility to recognize that you are just a simple Yid, and rely on the actions of the Gedolei Olam that apparently know a little better. I’m not going to specify people, because that will just further the disagreement, but if you seek, you shall find.

    Today is the tenth Yahrtzait of the Kedoshim of Mumbai, may Hashem avenge their blood. Remember and recall how Klal Yisrael truly came together during that tragic and bitter time, without denigrating one another, and slandering others as Kofrim R”L. Go back and look at what the Poskei and Manhigei HaDor said about them, and about Lubavitch in general at that sad time. It shouldn’t have to take an orphaned child crying “Ima! Ima!” to bring us together, but unfortunately, too often it does.

    U’mesaymim B’tov.

    Ah Gutten Chodesh to all.

    #1619955

    RSo
    Participant

    CS: “So can you help me understand what exactly is the issue, and where your source for that is, so I can understand how my sources do or do not address it?”

    You said we have to demand Mashiach. As far as I understand the Lubavicher rebbe said you have to demand Mashiach. Although I don’t believe in that at all, I didn’t dispute that – at least not since this latest round started on November . But I DID dispute your claim that the sources you quoted (the first of which was lama nigara) were demands and I demonstrated how none of them were. (The only exception being the fifth source, quoted later in the discussion, that the Chofetz Chaim did write that we should demand Mashiach, and I was the one who presented the source!)

    Now, I can’t make it any clearer than this (and if you still don’t get it, then you really shouldn’t be posting to a forum which requires a little basic clear-thinking): DO YOU ADMIT THAT THOSE FOUR SOURCES YOU QUOTED ARE NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, DEMANDS? Yes or No, PLEEEEEAAAAAASE!

    That’s all that I have been asking for a long long time

    #1619884

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Thanks kaiserw. Also the quote from Rashbi “Roisi bnei aliya vhem muatim” brought by the Alter Rebbe in perek 10.

    Btw if youre honest rso I don’t know where you base your gripes on an intellectual ground ( I suppose in giving in on this thread not addressing the Rebbe etc as yall can’t seem to get past it. I still am looking for your response to the source of what you think is wrong with how we request moshiach abnd Geula).

    We in lubavitch have no problem giving other tzaddikim their respect. At Farbrengens, Chabad.org etc we quote stories of the heilike ruzhiner, choze fun lublin, reb zusia etc with the same respect and awe we accord our Rebbes.

    But when the chassidim and talmidim of today don’t consider their own Rebbes or Gedolim to be tzaddikim of Tanya (absolutely no struggle with their yetzer hara sas it is drugged / gone entirely), (and I have evidence of this of youd like) then why should we?

    And if we have evidence that our Rebbe is a tzadik of Tanya, then why do you bristle at the lack of respect? There’s no lack of respect just evidence based observation.

    We apply it within lubavitch as well: reb sholom mordechai, if you’ve listened to his Farbrengens or read his books, has reached levels in Avodas Hashem higher than the rest of us. Yet we don’t call him shlita or Rebbe because he is not a tzadik of Tanya (as evidenced by his stories of his struggles with his yetzer hara.) this is no slight to him, nor does he consider it one.

    We definitely respect him and admire him as a chossid and Mashpia, because he is, but no one is according him the respect we accord our Rebbes because he isn’t. (There are other lubavitchers like that as well, just he is one of the most famous outside lubavitch.)

    So on an honest intelligent basis, I don’t see any reason for your gripe. If there is something faulty I said here you can lmk

    #1619958

    RSo
    Participant

    kaiserW attacking Neville and me: “You both jumped to attack, calling it ‘apikursos’ ‘garbage’ ‘slandering tzadikim’ etc etc
    Congratulations! By doing so you have shown yourself to have never opened up a ספר תניא קדישא even to the first chapter. In fact, it is not even Tanya who is the source that Tzadikim are a real entity – Tanya quotes it from a Gemara!”

    Are you by any chance an alias of CS, because your reasoning is so similar to hers? Or is it perhaps that that is the way you are taught to learn in lubavich – attack the person who criticizes you without actually paying attention to the words they said.

    My labeling what CS wrote as apikorsus had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of tzaddikim. It was because she said that there aren’t any leaders or tzaddikim in the generation of a high caliber.

    And by the definition of the Gemara in perek Chelek, that is apikorsus: מאי אהנו לן רבמן. See Rashi there.

    The talmidei chachamim and tzaddikim of THIS generation hold up our generation. And in the opinion of the majority of the chareidi world, they are greater than your rebbe was. You can disagree with that last part and not be called an apikorus, but to say that this generation’s Torah leadership is lacking or faulty is apikorsus.

    I didn’t read the rest of your post because I don’t like being patronized, especially when you started off with such “smart” and completely incorrect statements. At least you could learn from CS who usually writes respectfully, and certainly tries too. (Who would have thought that I would compliment CS?!)

    And by the way, I probably learnt Tanya before you were born. Just guessing, but it’s an educated guess.

    #1620002

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    To just pop back in (hopefully) one last time:
    Yes, Syag is correct. The thread could only conclude in one of the following ways, in my mind: 1) somebody actually changes their mind based on a good argument from the other side 2) Nobody changes their mind, but we at least get answers to our questions (we did not get this by CS’ own admission) 3) One side gets definitive proof that it is impossible to debate because all sources will be disrespected and all questions will be unanswered. What CS is claiming is that I always wanted this thread to end with option 3, which is totally not true as you can tell if you go back to the first page (also, I didn’t start this thread). None of us wanted it to end like that, but it seems like almost everyone but CS agrees that it has.

    Kaiser: I cannot even begin to fathom how you interpreted our words as a denial of the existence of tzaddikim. I am at a loss for words.

    P.S. If anyone is only seeing the last page of this thread and seeing CS accuse me of being the one making it about the Rebbe when it was just about Geula, go back to page one and read what she was saying.

    #1620003

    RSo
    Participant

    CS: ” I still am looking for your response to the source of what you think is wrong with how we request moshiach abnd Geula”

    (I’m getting Repetetive Strain Injury for typing this again and again…) I haven’t (at least for a while) objected to you demanding the geulah. I am objecting to your sources showing Moshe Rabbeinu and others demanding to Geulah.

    They are not sources and I have proven it. Is that easy enough to understand? DO YOU AGREE THAT I HAVE SHOWN THAT “LAMA NIGARA” IS NOT A DEMAND, AND THAT NEITHER ARE THE OTHERS THAT YOU CITED?

    How about before anything else you answer either just “yes” or “no”, then allow us a few minutes to digest that before you post about other things that have been discussed.

    #1620025

    RSo
    Participant

    CS: “We in lubavitch have no problem giving other tzaddikim their respect. At Farbrengens, Chabad.org etc we quote stories of the heilike ruzhiner, choze fun lublin, reb zusia etc with the same respect and awe we accord our Rebbes.”

    You just alluded to something that has been pointed out many times over the years. Lubavich accords respect Rebbes of earlier generation who have not been alive for many decades. Not Rebbes who were niftar relatively recently v’ein tzarich lomar live Rebbes. The most recent Rebbe you mentioned above was niftar in 5575 – over 200 years ago!

    Other chassidic groups mention and admire even live Rebbes with admiration and yir’as hakavod. Not Lubavich. I’m expecting you to argue (before you do, please respond to my post about your lack of admission to Lama Nigara etc.) but it’s the way of Lubavich and all non-Lubavichers know it.

    “And if we have evidence that our Rebbe is a tzadik of Tanya”

    Evidence?! First, I was taught that we chassidim had emunas chachamim. Second, you have no evidence, just stories that you each spread about him. Third, sorry, but I DO NOT believe that he was a tzaddik. Many, many zchusim, yes, but not a tzaddik. Look at the fights he had with Satmar, Rav Shach and anyone who didn’t believe in Lubavich. Look- at his self-interest in promoting himself as the Nasi of the dor (something, which I’ve mentioned in another thread, has no meaning nowadays except in Lubavich, as the concept does not exist) and the probable Mashiach.

    He messed you up with these concepts and all of Klal Yisrael is suffering from it. It also delays Mashiach!

    #1620183

    RSo
    Participant

    Correction to what I wrote earlier. The Rizhiner Rebbe was niftas in 5611, which is 36 years after the Chozeh of Lublin. So it is a mere 168 years since the most recent of the list quoted by CS was niftar.

    My apologies. Chabad chassidim will indeed praise other Rebbes even if they have passed away less than two hundred years ago.

    Addendum: when I told a friend what I wrote about Lubavich only “holding of” Rebbes who are long gone, my friend corrected me. He pointed out that there are two other categories of rebbes of whom they hold:
    1. Rebbes who have no continuing lineage, e.g. the Rivnitzer Rebbe zt”l. No reason not to hold of them if they can’t offer an opinion about lubavich.
    2. Rebbes who have a beis midrash with no chassidim, who rely on wealthy Lubavich donors for their upkeep. They will automatically approve of anything lubavich says.

    #1620212

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    “You may believe us to be Kofrim, and you are sincerely trying to find a way to be Matzdik our beliefs ”
    wow, a level of understanding that it isn’t sinas chinam!

    “without denigrating one another, and slandering others as Kofrim R”L.”
    oh, I guess not…

    #1620298

    Re: Tanya
    The Tanya’s conception of tzaddik, benoni, rasha was a radical departure (unless someone can find a source) from all Jewish hashkafa prior.
    Classical Judaism believes that a person can rise above their yetzer hara (cf Mesillas Yesharim) or the contrary,(cf Rashi “Vayechezek Lev Paroah”) but no one is born this way
    Arguably, much of it was diametrically opposed. (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva, chapter 5)
    It was a radical rupture even for Baal Shem Tov’s pious meritocratic “band of brothers”.It lay the groundwork for the development for the chassidish caste dynasties. One may even venture to say that it pulled out the “raison d’etre” of the chassidish revolution from underneath it.
    The noted Chabad mechaber R’ Yitzchok Rothport recalled interestingly that during his short sojourn in Lakewood in the ‘50s, he was invited to hear a shiur/shmuess tearing apart the Tanya’s class conception.

    #1620316

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Rso

    “You said we have to demand Mashiach. As far as I understand the Lubavicher rebbe said you have to demand Mashiach. Although I don’t believe in that at all, I didn’t dispute that – at least not since this latest round started on November . ”

    Right. You did before that. Which is what I was responding to when I restated the question. I suppose I could just stop here, as it seems you have retracted your objection… But because I took awhile, I will finish off…

    “But I DID dispute your claim that the sources you quoted (the first of which was lama nigara) were demands and I demonstrated how none of them were. (The only exception being the fifth source, quoted later in the discussion, that the Chofetz Chaim did write that we should demand Mashiach, and I was the one who presented the source!)”

    The one I said was a demand was Lama nigara. It is a demand to have the right to bring the korban pesach. Again, Lama nigara doesn’t mean, ” Is it possible for us to bring the korban too somehow?” It means, “Why should we miss out?!” Which is a demand for the opportunity to bring the korban Pesach.

    As far as it being addressed to MOshe- it doesn’t matter- by the harsh punishment of Korach, it was made abundantly clear, and as Moshe and Aharon said themselves “Lo aleichem tlunoseichem, ki im al Hashem.”

    The only difference was that by Korach it was an inappropriate challenge, whereas Pesach sheni was a welcome challenge, as it showed the Yidden’s affinity for the mitzvos.

    Now, in the follow up, there were objections brought to any kind of strong language when requesting things from Hashem. Hence, I brought the other sources which were all strong language and not a meek request.
    Micheini na- an implied threat, or at least a “stomping of the feet” if you will, if Hashem doesn’t forgive the Yidden, not a meek request.

    etc.

    and I wrote by those demand OR strong request for that reason…

    “Now, I can’t make it any clearer than this (and if you still don’t get it, then you really shouldn’t be posting to a forum which requires a little basic clear-thinking): DO YOU ADMIT THAT THOSE FOUR SOURCES YOU QUOTED ARE NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, DEMANDS? Yes or No, PLEEEEEAAAAAASE!”

    Yes not all 4 are demands (I only said the first one was and I still see it as such.). Happy now? But the question had been lost. And your original question I was answering you retracted upon seeing the chofetz chaim. So we’re good now on that one. Yeah?

    #1620324

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Rso
    ‘”Are you by any chance an alias of CS, because your reasoning is so similar to hers? Or is it perhaps that that is the way you are taught to learn in lubavich – attack the person who criticizes you without actually paying attention to the words they said.”

    As you falsely restated what I said below, maybe you should apply your message above to yourself (just replace the word Lubavitch with whatever kreiz you hail from). If you find that disrespectful, I didn’t write it, nor did Kaiserw… Honestly, yes Kaiserw was a bit sharp and condescending but you have been too. Maybe try to write with the same respect you want us to write you with.

    “My labeling what CS wrote as apikorsus had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of tzaddikim. It was because she said that there aren’t any leaders or tzaddikim in the generation of a high caliber.”

    False. I said ““There is a general lack of the kind of leadership and tzaddikim of yore- even during the Rebbe’s days there was a lack of tzaddikim with NO YETZER HARA.”

    Yes that should obvious. And yes, you have learned Tanya (I remember from the other thread as well, I was impressed by that) so you of all people should not have posted that to criticize and bash, as you know full well what a tzaddik gamur of Tanya, is and yes it is unfortunately a statement of fact that there is a dearth of tzaddikim On THAT LEVEL TODAY.

    Changing what I said to level further apikorsus charges is a disgrace. I would expect you to apologize for it, not for me, as I forgive you on the grounds that your passion played with your head, but on the grounds of retaining your integrity in this ongoing discussion.

    Now I will address your latest argument, about what you claim to be a lack of respect within Lubavitch towards other kreizin, although I think I did write up some solid points already. Happy to continue to discuss but lets try to keep it honest and civil.

    #1620325

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Rso
    “At least you could learn from CS who usually writes respectfully, and certainly tries too. (Who would have thought that I would compliment CS?!)”

    Appreciated.

    #1620336

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    RSo (I addressed the Moshiach thing first, so hopefully will be posted in order)

    “You just alluded to something that has been pointed out many times over the years. Lubavich accords respect Rebbes of earlier generation who have not been alive for many decades. Not Rebbes who were niftar relatively recently v’ein tzarich lomar live Rebbes. The most recent Rebbe you mentioned above was niftar in 5575 – over 200 years ago! Other chassidic groups mention and admire even live Rebbes with admiration and yir’as hakavod. Not Lubavich. I’m expecting you to argue, but it’s the way of Lubavich and all non-Lubavichers know it.”

    Here’s the rule of thumb: We accord respect commensurate with what makes sense. And I actually appreciate this opportunity as well, because it allows me to answer the other question that Chabad accords their Rebbe “too much” respect, so it comes off as weird and maybe going too far etc…

    So, in years of yore, when you heard stories of the Choze of Lublin seeing from one side of the wrold to another with his ruach hakodesh, and Reb Zusia looking at a person and listing all their sins as if he had committed them, to arouse them to do teshuva etc, Chabad chassidim teated and still treat those tzaddikim with the degree of awe and respect due a tzaddik by the definition of Tanya (ie no yetzer hara.) Such Tzaddikim are capable of these things.

    But when a Rebbe of today is NOT such a tzaddik, by his chassidim’s own admission, (although he is of course a very learned, even extremely learned individual, with a high level of Yiras Shomayim and an all around ehrlicher Yid who can guide and inspire others, and no one is saying not) why would you think we would respect them to that extent? That would indeed be weird.

    Now we have reason to believe our Rebbe is such a tzaddik, so we accord him that respect. Its really that simple and shouldnt be offensive.

    As far as a lack of respect altogether, chas vsholom! In fact, in two cities where I personally have lived, visiting chassidishe Rebbes would davka daven by the Lubavitcher yeshiva even though there was no lack of other shteiblach and yeshivos of other kreizin. Why would they choose to daven by Lubavitch if Lubavitch is generally disrespectful of Torah leaders chas vsholom?

    If anything, because we were blessed with such a Rebbe, we tend to err on the side of overestimating other Rebbes.

    I remember the time in high school when we heard how that day’s story in Yeshiva was that a visiting Rebbe had asked a Lubavitcher bochur a question. The bochur reverently listened, and then registered shock, before he recovered and answered.

    The teacher was curious what had transpired, so he asked the bochur what had happened. The bochur said the Rebbe had asked him what the good tourist sights were. He hadn’t expected such a question from a Rebbe.

    #1620341

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Post 5:
    Me: “And if we have evidence that our Rebbe is a tzadik of Tanya”

    Rso: “Evidence?! First, I was taught that we chassidim had emunas chachamim.”

    Yes what does that have to do with anything? In fact a weighty factor of ours in selecting the Rebbe was the Frierdiker Rebbe’s estimation of him. But just because we have emunas chachamim it doesn’t mean we don’t lack evidence.

    “Second, you have no evidence, just stories that you each spread about him.”

    Thousands of first person personal encounters told by the people it happened to, from all walks of klal Yisrael, on JEM, does not amount to stories we have spread about him. Lol. Aside from my own parent’s stories. Friend’s parents stories etc. (and my very own and my generations very own, as some have come out just this year by the kinnus, of course. But that’s touching on a different topic.)

    “Third, sorry, but I DO NOT believe that he was a tzaddik. Many, many zchusim, yes, but not a tzaddik. Look at the fights he had with Satmar, Rav Shach and anyone who didn’t believe in Lubavich. Look- at his self-interest in promoting himself as the Nasi of the dor (something, which I’ve mentioned in another thread, has no meaning nowadays except in Lubavich, as the concept does not exist) and the probable Mashiach.”

    Ok. I guess I am sorry for you, because you may be guilty of disrespecting a Talmid chochom (by the way you write about him as a result of your assumptions.) which is a problem halachically to put it lightly. No, I am not trying to attack you, I really just feel bad for you. If you would apply the same diligence in researching your assumptions above, as you did your fact checking on EXACTLY which year every Rebbe I mentioned above was nistalek (which is great), you would likely come away with a very different picture. I am not going to get into the dirt as that is not my role- I actually only heard of the Rav Shach debacle from this very forum- and as people were questioning me on it, I figured it behooved me to know exactly what people were on about. There’s a very factual, I would say as non biased as can be, shiur on the topic on YU. But that’s the most I’ll say on the topic.

    #1620343

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Mods thanks for the good work you do. Can you please try to post my posts in order? I forgot to number most. It confuses people when they’re out of order

    #1620391

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    The one I said was a demand was Lama nigara. It is a demand to have the right to bring the korban pesach. Again, Lama nigara doesn’t mean, ” Is it possible for us to bring the korban too somehow?” It means, “Why should we miss out?!” Which is a demand for the opportunity to bring the korban Pesach.

    I think I finally understand what CS is talking about (even though I wouldn’t call it a demand) I wouldn’t call it a request either

    I would call it a טענה which is a claim but I see where you’re coming from

    #1620403

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Coffee addict:

    “If that’s a beinoni, I guess we’re all reshaim according to the Baal hatanya and really the only tzaddikim are ?”

    See my reply to iitft above on his Tanya post. Happy to elaborate more if desired.

    #1620401

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Iitft

    Me “After he showed him what a beinoni”

    You “Sly answer to pull on a naive fellow but no cigar
    it means that he is less than virtually every & any born to a Rebbe’s family”

    Not within lubavitch. In fact chassidim were under tremendous pressure to choose the older son in law
    of the Frierdiker Rebbe as their new Rebbe from members of the family. They refused as they didn’t see him as “Rebbe” material. Until today, the Rashag while highly respected as a tremendous chossid etc is not seen as a tzadik of Tanya, and I don’t know about beinoni. It’s possible. Especially in his later years. But everyone agrees that the Frierdiker Rebbes only grandson was no beinoni. So no. No sly cigar. Honestly we probably respect the chofetz chaim more than the litvaks themselves, at least by one litvaks admission

    #1620398

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Samthenylic

    “When we talk about being “Mekarev es hageulah”, talking about Moshiach and Geulah takes a distant BACK SEAT to doing mizvos & maasim tovim for the sake of doing “rotzon Hashem”. CASE CLOSED!”

    Sam the fact you see the two as a contradiction once more shows that you have allot to learn…

    #1620394

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Iitft:
    “Re: Tanya
    The Tanya’s conception of tzaddik, benoni, rasha was a radical departure (unless someone can find a source) from all Jewish hashkafa prior.”

    If you’ll look into the first perek of Tanya where the Alter Rebbe defines these terms, you will find he concludes so based on many gemaras. (Probably other sources as well but I just remember all the gemaras)

    “Classical Judaism believes that a person can rise above their yetzer hara (cf Mesillas Yesharim) or the contrary,(cf Rashi “Vayechezek Lev Paroah”) but no one is born this way”

    I admit unfamiliarity with mesillas yesharim but based on what I do know, what you describe is the norm. There are the born tzaddikim who are the rare exception (such as Moshe rabbeinu who was born mohul, which is apparently can be a sign of such), and then there are individuals who worked so hard against their yetzer hara that they reached the level of beinoni on their own efforts, and Hashem then granted then the level of tzadik as a gift. Such as Dovid hamelech who stated vlibi cholul bikirbi as he had killed his yetzer through his fasting.

    Most of us aren’t created necessarily to become tzaddikim but we all have the potential to become beinonim. And if that seems mighty hard, we can have beinoni moments and try to make those the majority of our lives (perek 14 Tanya).

    In perek aleph, the Alter Rebbe states that the hamon am use the terms tzadik rasha beinoni as terms borrowed from the declaration of the Beis din shel maala, where an individual is termed tzadik (after he passes away and is judged) if he had majority mitzvos over aveiris. He is called tzadik because he was nitztadek badin. Rasha if he failed it due to his many aveiros and is sent to gehennom. Etc

    But the real meaning of the terms is as the Alter Rebbe terms them based on the gemaras brought.

    #1620413

    Chabadshlucha
    Participant

    Thanks coffee addict. It’s good to see that in not just talking to myself 🙂

Viewing 50 posts - 251 through 300 (of 603 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending