Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have to agree with qwerty here. Cunin meant what he said in a literal sense. All the explaining and justification won’t change that. Does that make him an apikorus? Possibly, but don’t try to convince us that he meant something he didn’t. We’re not that stupid.
CS: “And yes, there’sa plan with this world, which is to read [I assume you meant ‘ready’ – ARSo] it for Moshiach”
I may be wrong, and if I am please cite non-Lubavich sources to set me straight, but I believe the above is a totally Lubavich concept, and quite likely a fairly recent one. The plan I believe in is that we are to keep Torah and Mitzvos solely because that is what Hashem wants, and by the way that will reveal his Elokus in the world. To the best of my recollection I have never heard that the plan has to do with Mashiach except in Lubavich circles.
qwerty to me: “you accuse the Rabbis of that shul of missionizong.”
No I wasn’t. I was merely giving an example. Just like you couldn’t be friends with and appreciate a missionary so too how can you be friends with and appreciate someone who practices a”z?
CS, you originally wrote that Aharon was greater than Moshe in Shalom, and that Miriam was greater than him in emunah. When I asked where you got that from, you replied:
“For Miriam- the women, let by Miriam had tambourines, prepared while still in the worst of golus, while the men
Didn’t- the women had more Emuna
Aharon was mourned by men and women alike because he brought Shalom while Moshe wasn’t (Rashi on Aharon’s passing and the mourning)”Neither of those show that they were greater than Moshe Rabbeinu in any way. Your “proof” from Miriam has nothing whatsoever to do with contrasting Moshe. And regarding Aharon, all it means is that he was more involved in making Shalom than Moshe was – he may have had more time to do so, I can’t say that with any knowledge – but not that he was greater.
CS: “Rso- so what… Tanya 42 also says that there’sa spark of Moishe in every yid- that doesn’t negate the Moshe shebador.”
My question was whether you could find a non-Lubavich source that explains ispashtusa deMoshe etc to mean that there is an individual in each generation who is the undisputed Moshe of that generation (not just the tzaddik hador, but the Moshe Rabbeinu).
Again, I’m not saying that there aren’t numerous such sources, I’m just asking if you can cite one or more, because I don’t know of any.
CS: “And Rso- other Chassidim are obviously more to be referring to their Rebbe when they say Rebbe, but sometimes they also could mean ours.”
Why would, say, an Amshinover chossid, while talking to another Amshinover chossid, say, “the rebbe” and mean the Lubavicher rebbe? Can you really believe that that is ever the case, unless, of course the topic just happened to be Lubavich, and saying “the rebbe” in context may mean the Lubavicher rebbe. But then, if the topic was Lelov, then “the rebbe” may mean the Lelover Rebbe.
Menachem regarding my claim that Lubavichers tell people that when chassidim of other Rebbes say, “the Rebbe” they are referring to the Lubavicher rebbe:
“I never heard this, but I guess it’s possible that a (more) ignorant Lubavitcher guy thought this once.”I’m sure it was some ignorant guy who thought this up, but it has spread, and I have heard it a number – not a lot – of times. I think I may even have seen it somewhere online, but perhaps not.
qwerty: “the Rabbis are lovely people and we like and respect each other despite pir [sic] theological differences”
That’s something I don’t understand. If you hold that their views are a”z how can you like and respect them? Could you possibly like and respect a xian who was trying to missionize you?
CS: “Arso-so what? We have that also in Tanya 42 (I’m fluent in Lashon hakodesh and Yiddish BH, no need to translate)”
We have WHAT also in Tanya 42? And my “apology” for not translating hispashtus wasn’t davka for you. It was for anyone reading who may not have understood.
n0m: “Of course I know what you mean when you say ‘The Rebbe’. I assume that Lubavitchers also know what you mean. But it seems like you don’t get what they mean.”
I’m specifically talking about – and I’ve said this now a number of times – the Lubavich claim that when other non-Lubavich chassidim say the words “the rebbe” they are openly referring only to the Lubavicher rebbe, not to their own rebbe.
n0m: “The issue with Satmar and Gur is the complete u-turns away from their earlier values. Sanz evolves so rapidly it can’t contain itself. In not even two centuries they have well over a hundred breakoffs.”
Please explain the u-turns of the first two and rapid evolution of Sanz.
CS: “Aharon was greater in Shalom, and Miriam was greater in Emuna/ tambourines”
Where on earth did you get that from?
n0m: “Amshinov, Gur, Satmar, Stolin, Klausenberg, Munkatch, and most others have abandoned most of what they had in Europe and picked up completely new ideas. Just look at all the anti chareidi movements that they gave birth to.”
Would you mind explaining that because I have no idea what you’re talking about?
CS: “please show/ quote me where Ispashtusa dMoshe is in the plural”
Plural has nothing to do with it. The explanation I have seen in seforim kedoshim is that there is a hispashtus (sorry, I don’t know how to translate that properly in context) throughout each generation. Not one person but in the entire generation.
CS: “because The Rebbe took his responsibility as Nassi HaDor”
That is weird! Is that the same as Trump lehavdil considering himself President? You don’t become something because you decide to be that thing. Unless, of course, you are extremely woke.
n0m to me: “I have a low opinion of your posts. A lot of ‘the eye of the beholder’ judgements.”
I see. Your posts are direct from Sinai, then. We are all offering our opinions. That’s what all these threads are about.
And your reply to my saying how chauvinistic and wrong it is that L chassidim say that when we others say “the Rebbe” we are referring to the L rebbe and not to our own, does not make any sense in “the eye of this beholder”. Ask us who we mean, and you will hear that you are wrong.“Gur, Satmar, or any other group, that has way less tradition and is even farther out there”
??? Gur, Satmar, Belz, Lelov, Tzanz and all others have traditions as far-reaching as Lubavitch, and even more so when you consider all the innovations made in Lubavich.
And what do you mean by “is even farther out there”?Yechi: “So you admit it [the title Nossi Hador] existed as a concept, but subsequently died out at some unknown time until the Rebbe discovered it?”
Try replacing the word “discovered it” with “reinvented it AND APPROPRIATED IT FOR HIMSELF even though it’s not applicable today”.
CS: “In the Zohar: אתפשטותא דמשה שבכל דרא ודרא”
The seforim that I have seen where this is quoted explain it to mean that the ispashtusa deMoshe is in the entire generation, not in only one individual. Perhaps you can cite me non-Lubavich sources that explain it the way Lubavich undrestands it. Btw, I am not being facetious here. I would really like to know if there are sources.
YankelBerel, I want to thank you for saving me the time by writing such coherent posts, and probably doing a better job than I could!
Menachem, funny you should say that about the Lubavicher rebbe’s anivus. On the one hand you all say that he meant himself when he said his father-in-law was Mashiach, a novi and nossi hador. Then you tell us that he was talking about his father-in-law only. You can’t have it both ways.
Was/is he Mashiach, a novi and nossi hador, or not? If yes, how do you know if he didn’t mean himself when he said those things about the Rayatz.
I don’t think you’re fooling anyone. And i don’t think he was an anav at all.
You write that he didn’t want to become rebbe, and resisted it for a year. Have you read Gurary’s book where he writes openly about the fights between the L rebbe and his brother-in-law Shmaryahu Gurary? And have you read Larger than Life who writes that because his parents knew that the L rebbetzin would not be able to have children, they made a condition of the shidduch that their son would be the next rebbe?
To CS (are you really the long-departed ChabadShlucha?), of course there WAS a concept of Nossi Hador. But not for the last thousand years… until the L rebbe reinvented it and applied it to himself.
n0m, regardless of what Lubavichers may or may not think, to say that when other chassidim say “the Rebbe” they are referring to Lubavich is ridiculous. Go and listen to them and you’ll see it’s not true.
It’s one thing to say that other chassidim all believe that the Lubavicher rebbe is the greatest – and I have heard that many times – because since you can’t really know what someone believes you can make any claim you want. But to say that they are talking about Lubavich when they are clearly not is plain stupid.
Can anyone here point out a godol beYisroel over the last generations who pushed his greatness to the forefront as much as the Lubavicher rebbe did?
I’m not referring to shitos, certainly the Satmar Rebbe did that by ignoring all other gedolei Yisroel’s opinions about Zionism and the State of Israel. I’m talking about the way, as far as I can tell, only the Lubavicher rebbe called himself a novi, only he considered himself Mashiach and only he considered himself (non-existent) Nosi Hador.
The rebbes that I have come in contact with – and over many years they have been more than a few – all exuded humiiity and shiflus. Yes, they knew they were leaders of (in some cases) thousands of chassidim, and they knew that they had to lead with a strong hand at times, but none of them ever gave me a feeling, whether in my personal contact with them or when I learnt their divrei Torah, that they personally were special and greater than other leaders.
qwerty, you keep writing that people on this thread hate you for this or that reason. Where do you see hate? They disagree with a lot of what you say, and may not like your style, but I don’t recall hate.
Why are you playing the victim?
n0m: “Other chassidim – especially the more organized groups – know very little Chassidus. The Rebbe in an organized chassidus is more likely to push learning Halachah over Chassidus. So, any mainstream Lubavitcher transposes all their terms into Chabad. This makes perfect sense to me.”
I don’t see how that justifies Lubavichers claims that when OTHER chassidim say “the Rebbe” they mean the Lubavicher rebbe and not their own.
In reference to an earlier post (I don’t remember where) regarding the possibility of someone being a partner with the RBSO in Creation, the gemoro (Shabbos 119b) says that a Yid who says Vayechulu on Friday night becomes a partner etc. (It also says the same thing (10a) earlier about a dayan who judges correctly, but that statement is more exclusive.)
The point is, though, that although one can indeed become a partner with Hashem, it clearly doesn’t mean an equal partner or one with the same powers. After all, I imagine we all say Kiddush on Friday nights but none of us (I think and hope) consider ourselves on the level of a full partner.
Yechi: “I find it heartening to see so many yidden being מפלפל in just one sentence from the Rebbe’s Torah”
You’ve got it wrong. Perhaps Menachem and other Lubavichers are being mefalpel, but we who consider it apikorsus (or close to it) aren’t being mefalpel. We are absolutely rejecting it.
When someon comes out with arguments showing that the new testament is worthless and minnus, is it a pilpul?
I don’t necessarily agree in full with YankelBerel’s understanding of the problem with Lubavich but I definitely agree with him and Avirah that major part of it is the focus on Chabad chassidus and concepts found in Kabbalah.
I have Lubavich relatives with children who try their hardest to get me to accept that the Rebbe is Mashiach and/or alive, and that he is the Nassi Hador (as I have written, a totally non-existent concept for centuries), and in order to “prove” it they quote Kabbalistic concepts which they clearly do not understand, and which I, an absolute novice in Kabbalah, understand better than they do.
I have a better understanding of math and physics than the average person, and I know not only that E=mcSquared but I can explain the meaning of the equation, but I don’t REALLY understand it. That, in my opinion, is how Lubavichers learn and teach chassidus.
Someone mentioned that there was a very good reason that they ruled that Kabbalah should be not be studied by someone under the age of forty, and I believe a major reason for the ban was that concepts that have to REMAIN abstract may be taken literally by someone younger, and lead to hagshamah – believing in a physical manifestation of Hashem c”v. To me, therefore, it is not surprising that Lubavich is able to accept people who believe that their rebbe is akin to Hashem, that he runs the world etc.
Citing the example I brought earlier, perhaps Menachem can tell us how great the outcry in Lubavich was when that crazy wrote “Who Elokeinu?… The rebbe melech hasmashiach, that’s who!” After all, it wasn’t just some looney who said it. It was published in a Lubavich publication which continued to be published long after that issue hit the stands.
Was there an outcry? Was he loudly and vehemently condemned? Perhaps someone can send us a Kol Korei against it. It should certainly have been considered a “chilul Lubavich”!
I have to admit that qwerty that was a good one.
Yankel Berel had two posts which I found interesting. The first was about the appellation Nosi Hador, which, YB argued, is a new and non-existent title that Lubavich uses to show that their rebbe was/is above all others. I have argued at lenght the exact same thing in the past on another thread in the Coffee Room.
It is very much in line with their ludicrous statement – again, I’ve heard this one many times – that when other chassidim say stam “the Rebbe” the mean the Lubavicher rebbe unless they specify a different title.
The second post which I find interesting is his explanation how Lubavich managed to get so far off the track by “testing the waters”. I don’t know if he’s right, but it is certainly worth looking into.
Menachem, I have never read Berger’s book and I saw the “Who Elokeinu?” quote in Beis Moshiach itself.
The fact that Beis Moshiach had a decent enough following to allow its continued publication it its radical form shows what I was trying to prove, to wit that there are Lubavichers who believe that their rebbe is G-d and who daven to him. Just as the person who says “Barch the Rebbe” believes that his rebbe is G-d, and, I can only assume, davens to him.
I did not say that these people are the majority, and neither as far as I remember did Avirah. Just that some do, which I believe you denied. Or perhaps it was someone else who did. It makes no difference.
As to Shlomo Cunin, all the justification is unacceptable. He said that the Lubavicher rebbe runs the world, and he doesn’t. Note, he did not say “tzaddikim” he said “the rebbe”. That’s not the same as all the justifications that you and others have given.
I myself heard a few months ago when I was on a trip abroad from a Lubavicher mashpia that when the Baal Hatanya says (excuse me for not remembering the exact quote or citation) that all the shefa comes through tzaddikim (or something like that – my apologies once again) he said tzaddikim in the plural only because he was being modest, but what he actually meant was that it all comes through him alone. And that therefore “in our generation” it’s only via the rebbe.
“you never explained how you knew about my Hey Jude remark since that post wasn’t printed”
It was certainly “printed”. And I’m not a mod. I have been edited too in the past.
Regarding davening to the Lubavicher rebbe, I believe there are some who do.
And I remember an article that appeared in Beis Moshiach many years ago which said that since the rebbe can decree and Hashem will fulfill his diecree, and since if Hashem decrees the rebbe can annul that decree, therefore (and to the best of my knowledge I’m quoting the article word for word, because I found it both amazing and disgusting at the time) “Who Elokeinu? Who Avinu? Who Malkeinu? The rebbe melech hamashiach, that’s who!”
And to add a little snippet, I know someone who says (to be honest i haven’t seen him for some time so maybe he doesn’t anymore) “Baruch the Rebbe” instead of “Baruch Hashem”, and “Thank the Rebbe” instead of “Thank G-d”.
So maybe nearly all Lubavichers don’t equate their rebbe with Hashem, but there are certainly those who do.
qwerty: “Dude”
I was a pretty good chess player in my time, and I used to know all the correct terminology, but “Dude” is something I am unfamiliar with. Could you please explain?
qwerty, as you constantly mention that you are close to the Feinstein family, and you seem to consider them Daas Torah, why don’t you ask R Reuven about TVs, as opposed to your local Rabbi?
Menachem:”I don’t care who fabricated this story (I’m not accusing you, it could have been a misunderstanding on your part).
I care to set the facts straight”Either take my word for it or don’t, but it’s not a fabrication. As I said, I got the photocopies from a friend in Israel and I myself went to look up the sources. i saw both the original version, and the redacted version. My problem is that I can’t find the copy that quotes the sefer, and I have no idea of the name of the sefer. Oh well.
I have a question for Menachem, n0m, sechel and all the other Lubavichers on this thread.
I don’t know how old you are, or what you remember pre-5754, but the official Lubavich line was that every generation must have someone who is fit to be Mashiach. So my question is, who is it in our generation?
qwerty: “Hey Jude”
You jsut proved you are MO!
“But if you look up seforim in Hebrew, your mommy, totty and Hashem will be so proud of you”
Touche!
Menachem: “I’m either misunderstanding something, or your lying, or you heard it from someone who was lying, or saw a forged version.”
I’m surprised that you would accuse me of lying. I didn’t think that was your style.
At any rate, when I saw the copy of the redacted version, and I’m talking possibly over 30 years ago, I went into the local Lubavich shul and searched for the sefer that they had cited as the source. (Sorry, but I can’t find it at the moment, and as I moved house about half a year ago I may have lost it.) It was not in a regular volume of sichos, but in a blue sefer printed by Kehos publishing company. I apologize that I can’t be more precise.
n0m: “If you never listen to other people, what is the threat of them saying whatever kefira they want?”
Technicallly there can still be a problem if the follower of a min try to spread his word. Even if what they’re spreaxing is not necessarily minnus of its own accord, they are still trying to get people attached to the min himself.
Btw the above is just a point in regards to what you said in general terms. I was not davka relating it to Lubavich and atzmus melubash in a guf.
Avirah, I’m now insulted that you consider Marvellous Middos Machine children’s media. When I want to know something about middos that’s what I reference. Who has time to look up mussar seforim in Hebrew?
sechel: “He never said you can pray to the Rebbe”
Please quote for all of us the passage where he said the statement that we are objecting to. You will find that he says EXPLICITLY that davening to a tzaddik is not a problem because he is atzmus melubash beguf, so he is a memutza hamechaber, not a memutza hamafsik. I may have the quote incorrect, but that is defnitiely the gist of what he said.
sechel: “as the Rebbe brings it’s a clear yerushalmi and a Zohar)”
Can you please cite sources?
sechel: “so from 1962 (when it was printed) no one had an issue till some am haaratzim that don’t know the above seforim saw the sicha and think it’s a”z ch”v”
During the bitter Israeli election of 1989 between Agudah and Degel, the latter published quite a lot against Lubavich, as, at the time, that was the main crux of the disagreement between the two parties. Part of what they published – and I have copies, and have checked both sources. – the atzmus melubash beguf sicha, and the same sicha printed in a later volume, with the offensive passage redacted.
If there’s nothing wrong with it, why was it redacted and never reprinted in its original form?
sechel: “Great point, but think more a second, the teams job was to figure the mekoros for everything the Rebbe said, so what does that mean? You think the Rebbe read out of a toras Menachem?”
As I wrote in the very same post (and you completely ignored) any good rosh yeshivah who had a team of people working to find marei mekomos, could have a derasha of his printed with a few hundred marei mekomos. I would go even further and say that if I had a team of people working for me, I could have a derasha of mine published with numerous (probably not hundreds) of marei mekomos, and I am no veltz gaon by a long long shot!
And another thing I wrote (and you completely ignored) was that it is totally baseless to say that the Lubavicher rebbe knew virtually all seforim published before the war by heart. Ridiculous!
Avirah, I’m sorry to say that you really disappoint me.
“uncle moishy songs about never telling a lie”
It wasn’t Uncle Moishy, it was The Marvellous Middos Machine! Shame on you!
sechek83: “why do I claim the Rebbe was Baki in almost every Sefer printed before the war? Listen to his sichos, and look at them printed with מראה מקומות,
An average farbrengen the Rebbe quotes 2-300 m”m no hesitation…”As I’ve written in the past, the Lubavicher rebbe had a team of people who searched for marei mekomos for the sichos that were published. Although even I admit that the L rebbe had a lot of Torah knowledge, I still venture to say that any decent rosh yeshivah who had a team of talmidim writing and working for him, could print derashos with hundreds of marei mekomos.
And allow me to point out that you wrote that he knew virtually ever sefer that was printed before the war by heart. That claim is baseless… unless of course you’re a Lubavicher.
Menachem: “This is a complete 360.”
A complete 360 means you end up facing the same direction that you faced when you started!
mdd1 I did not miss your point at all. You asked whether one “would prefer stam that all reshoim go straight to Gan Eiden even without being killed because they are Jewish?”
And I was commenting that there is nothing wrong with preferring that all Jewish resha’iim go to Gan Eden without being punished. But it’s not up to us to decide that, and the fact is that virtually no one goes to Gan Eden without being punished. Nonetheless, why would any of us “prefer” that resha’im go to Gehinnom? What would we gain by preferring that?
sechel83: “But one thing is seems to everyone clear is the Rebbe was Baki in basically every Sefer printed before the war.”
Oh no. Not another Lubavicher who makes baseless claims about what “everybody” knows. Where on earth did you get that he was baki in every sefer printed before the war?
mdd1: “Or you would prefer stam that all reshoim go straight to Gan Eiden even without being killed because they are Jewish?”
I remember reading i(pretty sure it was n the Artscroll biography of R Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld z”l) that he said that as far as he is concerned Eliezer Ben-Yehuda – the founder of modern Hebrew and an apikorus – can be allowed into Gan Eden. However, that’s irrelevant and we had to fight him vehemently in Olam Hazeh.
I would like to correct something I wrote earlier: “The truth is that the Lubavicher rebbe didn’t write even one sefer.”
As far as I recall he did actually write one sefer before he became rebbe. It was his Haggada Shel Pesach where he cites and discusses the various halachic opinions related to the Seder night.
Menachem: “I haven’t seen anything on this, but maybe this Gemara could be considered a source, or remez?
הרוגי מלכות אין אדם יכול לעמוד במחיצתן.”Possibly, but it’s not clear that they go straight to Gan Eden. It may mean that their eventual level in Gan Eden is extremely high.
Avirah to sechel: “writing a lot does not make one bigger or smaller”
The truth is that the Lubavicher rebbe didn’t write even one sefer. He had teams of people, as well as individual chassidim, who wrote the seforim that you are referring to. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the seforim, are rewording, reworking, summarising etc. earlier seform and talks that the Lubavicher rebbe gave.
There’s nothing wrong with that, but to claim that he was the author of hundreds of seforim is disingenous (and that’s another word that I only use in the coffee room).