ARSo

CS: There’s really nothing to argue about. Denying this while the adults who learned/ taught underground is tantamount to Holocaust denial while there’s still survivors.

I didn’t deny that Lubavich had the major share of underground limud Torah in Russia. Rather, I was arguing that they weren’t the only ones.

sechel re Mashiach being from the dead: we see in gemara (at least according to the simple meaning and many rishonim) it was done

How many times do we have to go through this? The “simple meaning” is that they were telling us the name of Mashiach, whoever it will be or was. Not that they claimed their Rebbes were Mashiach. Note, the gemoro asks מה שמו – what is his name – not מאן הוא משיח – who is Mashiach. As I wrote, they may possibly have meant that their Rebbes were Mashiach (probably while they were alive), but that is NOT the simple pshat.

Furthermore, I have searched and have not been able to find ANY Rishon other than Rashi on this piece of gemoro. So please name the “many rishonim” you are referring to.

CS, are you there?

I specifically asked you to comment on my demonstrating that Habadpedia was misquoting for their own purposes, and now we have two days of your radio silence! Are you trying to prove us correct when we assert that when Lubavichers can’t provide a satisfactory answer, they just ignore the facts?

sechel, re all the people who wrote letters to the LR:

Go through seforim of all gedolei Yisroel and you will find letters with very respectful titles to all sorts of people, including those of whom the writer did not hold. If everyone wrote exactly what they believed, and kept nothing of what they really believed to themselves, there would not be even two Yidden who would talk to each other. It’s only on websites like this one that anonymous people can voice their true opinions without fear of starting a war.

As to your quote about Rav Shach: he was close to rav aharon kotler who was a known misnaged

That’s not true. He did not like Lubavich, and he was indeed a Litvak, but he was on very good terms with many other chassidic Rebbes, as can be seen from all the work he did in Agudah and Chinuch Atzmai. Just because someone thinks that the Litvishe derech is the best derech, it does not necessarily make him a misnaged, and more than the fact that your thinking Lubavich is the best derech does not mean that you hate other chassidim… at least I hope you don’t.

CS: Forgot to mention. Of course Chessed starts at home, and The Rebbes involvement in all matters of world Jewry did not detract from his leadership of Chabad, in fact it enhanced it. Baalei teshuva probably make up at least 50% of Chabad today. When the Rebbe unveiled his vision for dor shvii in his inaugural maamar, there were 100 or so Chassidim there, many survivors of the Soviet Union. They had no idea how they would change the world. Today of course, this is fact, and the tremendous expansion of Chabad, both shluchim and Anash, post Gimmel Tammuz. even without the Rebbes physical hand holding, are only testament of what the Rebbe gave us.

You’re missing the point. I know he was out to change the world, but it resulted in Lubavich itself becoming a watered-down chassidus with the push being on the outside as opposed to the outside. The number of children of shluchim and stam Lubavich youth who are off the derech, or close to it, Rachmono litzlon, is absolutely terrible, and don’t tell me you haven’t seen that yourself. Hashem should save you from such tzoros!

You yourself, in passing earlier on, wrote that you don’t know when the change came about that Lubavich as a rule now davens quickly rather than “be’avodah”. That is just one example of the changes that have come about through the focus on looking outside instead of inward. (I assume you’ll answer that chassidus means penimiyus, and looking inward, which is standard Lubavich talk, but for the majority that hasn’t been the case since you started on all these mivtzoim etc.) And there are far worse changes, that I have been harping on, mainly in areas of tznius.

CS, I have read through most of what you wrote, and I simply don’t have the emotional ko’ach to go through everything I disagree with, especially when you make claims based on anecdotal evidence of how better Lubavich is than others (because of what-you-see-is-what-you-get and the like). But I can’t always just let things ride, especially when you apparently (and I do believe that’s the case) write things that you have been fed falsely.

In response to my claim that the term Nassi you write:

I don’t think the following sefer is lubavitch (Rashi quoted as well)…
נשיא, ראשי תיבות: ניצוצו של יעקב אבינו, שיעקב “נשמתו כלולה מכל הנשמות שבישראל” (מופיע בספר קהלת יעקב מערכת “רבי”).

After some searching, I found what you are quoting. The sefer was written by Reb Yaakov Zvi Yallish (Yalles?) who was a chossid of the Chozeh of Lublin, and the author of Melo Haro’im on Shas. (I once heard that he wrote Melo Haro’im – perhaps at the behest of the Chozeh, I don’t remember – to show that the rumors that chassidim don’t/can’t learn are untrue.) Here is exactly what he wrote:

רבי הנקרא רבינו הקדוש היה מניצוץ של יעקב אבינו, ואנטונינוס מעשו, וזהו ושני גוים בבטנך אלו אנטונינוס ורבי, ועל כן נקרא רבי יהודה הנשיא ראשי תיבות הוא ניצוץ של יעקב אבינו.

So here is where you have been fooled:
1. The sefer Kehillas Yaakov is talking specifically and only about Rebbi Yehudah Hanossi. There were nesi’im in E”Y both before and after Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi, and he is NOT even referring to any of them.
2. The part of the footnote from Habadpedia that continues about nishmoso kelulah, has nothing to do with the sefer Kehillas Yaakov, and it is in fact from Iggeres Hakodesh (of the Baal Hatanya) in relation to Yaakov Avinu. Not in relation to anybody else since! (In Iggeres Hakodesh he uses that terminology first in relation to Adam Harishon, and he then says it applies as well to Yaakov Avinu, but it stops there.)

In conclusion, we have yet another example of Lubavich – not you CS, as you were fooled as much as anyone else reading that footnote – wilfully misinterpreting, and adding to, a source to make it say what Lubavich wants it to say.

Please don’t ignore this post, and admit that the footnote is at the very least misleading.

I’m going to have to keep it short and address only some points, and in short, because it is becoming very tiring. CS, I don’t know where you get the ko’ach. (Oh no! I just gave her the opportunity to say, “I get it from the rebbe!”)

Re women’s tznius. I don’t care what is in the woman’s heart (although we have a rule האדם נפעל כפי פעולותיו, and good actions will bring to good intentions). A woman who is ‘chassidish’ in her heart, and does not ‘fake’, but dresses un-tzniusdik, is being machshil many men daily. A woman who is ‘forced’ into being tznius, is saving men from being nichshal, regardless of her behavior at home.

Not sure what you’re on about. This is basic math. The Alter Rebbe was Chabad Rebbe 1, so obviously the Rebbe is 7. What’s invented?

You really don’t get it?! Since when was there a significance to dor shevi’i? Didn’t it only become significant when the LR decided that he was Mashiach, and he then used ‘dor shevi’i’ to refer to himself?

A. Was never a blanket rule (The mekubalim as a whole encouraged women’s education including gemara.)

Which mekubalim?

B. Torah adapts to every situation, Halacha changes accordingly, Rabbanim decided overwhelmingly in favor of women’s Torah education today.

Halacha does NOT change. We have to apply halacha to changes in situation, but what was halacha centuries ago is still halacha nowadays.

And Rabbanim did NOT decide overwhelmingly in favor of women learning gemara.

Btw I asked you for non-Lubavich sources for Rashi learning with his daughters (which, even if true, is not really relevant, because Rashi may have paskened hundreds of years earlier differently to the psak that we follow in Shulchan Aruch), and to Or Hachaim being what he taught his daughters.

Now I know that tradition has it that the Or Hachaim was childless all his life R”l, so I decided to do some research. And lo and behold, the ONLY source for the statement that he had daughters is… something quoted by the Rayatz that was told to him by a chossid!

And while I was doing that research I can across a thread in the Otzar Hachochma forum that discusses the Rayatz’s ‘historical’ stories, and his memoirs. If you’re interested – you will surely regret reading the posts! – search for
האם לאור החיים היו בנות? מכתב מעניין להאדמו”ר הריי”ץ

According to a number of posters on the thread, even in Lubavich many do not take the stories as being historically accurate.

Finally, in this post, my disbelieving the sundial story has nothing to do with 3rd Grade science. It is simply fantasy with the science being fictional. I challenge you to show it to a (non-Lubavich) scientist and have him explain how it works.
(And I said I was going to keep this short! 🙂 I need to take a break.)

I just saw the number of CS’s posts, and I’m sure that I won’t be able to do justice in arguing all the relevant points. (If I didn’t believe that CS is an honest, but misguided, woman, I would suspect that she wrote so much just to shut me up. But I don’t think she did.) Nonetheless, לא עלי המלאכה לגמור, so here goes…

a community (us) where the responsibility lies with the individual to care and guidelines are suggested but not enforced (so that every child can have a proper chinuch for example.)

Perhaps you would care to explain how a “child can have a proper chinuch” if he has an unfiltered smartphone. Could you be mechanech a child while he is in a church praying to osoi ho’ish?

Take this as an illustrative example. No I am not suggesting that there are no true Yarei shomayim in the other communities, but rather you cannot judge because of the different cultures, and ultimately, they’re more vulnerable than we are.

Well I’m glad even you admit this is only illustrative. The problem is, that it’s not. I’m sure that all groups have their problems and their secrets, but it is total garbage to say that others are more vulnerable than you are. Why did the LR prohibit TVs? According to you that just makes you more vulnerable.

We all know that Lubavitch was the only one overall (I’ve heard of one non lubavitch teacher who taught in Chabad’s hidden chadarim), who not only didn’t go frei themselves but kept up Yiddishkeit and community life (Mikvah, shochet etc) underground with extreme mesirus nefesh.

Not coming from Russian stock I can’t argue with that, but from what I’ve heard Karlin and Litvishe will indeed argue.

I’d like to bring up an important point, which has very likely been misunderstood by our Lubavicher friends.

What would happen if a rebbe said explicitly, “I am the Mashiach”? What should his chossid think? The answer is that he should definitely believe him! However…

1. He should not say that the rebbe has already fit the criteria of the Rambam (unless he has – but no one in the past millenium has).
2. He should not try to (mis)interpret the Rambam, or any other source, to make it fit the rebbe’s current status.
3. And he should not call anyone who doesn’t accept his rebbe’s statement a kofer or an apikorus. (I don’t believe that anyone on this thread has, but there are a number of prominent Lubavichers who have publicly stated as much in the past. I could cite at least one name, but I’d rather not.)

Now a corollary question: could there be any stage when that chossid should reject his Rebbe’s statement, and possibly even find a different Rebbe? I believe the answer is yes – remember, I am a card-carrying member of a chassidus that you are probably aware of – but it would have to be only when the rebbe crossed numerous red lines.

For example (I bet you can guess at least some of what’s coming):

1. If the rebbe was a baal machlokes with many other recognized gedolei Yisroel, or if he consistently denigrated them.
2. If the rebbe himself came up with ludicrous proofs that his way was the best way for all Yidden. An example of ludicrous proofs could be the LR’s explaining how not sleeping in the sukkah shows a higher level of halacha because one is mitzta’er that he can fall asleep due to his hiskashrus. (We’ve been through this before a number of times.)
3. If the rebbe consistently came up with heretofore unheard-of concepts to self-promote, e.g. dor shevi’I, Nassi Hador, the return of nevuah, 770 being Beis Mashiach. (There are more.)

That, at least, is the way I look at it.

At the risk of being tedious, I would like to reiterate my stance, which, it seems, is also the stance of a number of others on this thread.

1. None of the Rambam’s criteria for Mashiach apply in any way shape or form to the Lubavicher rebbe.

2. Although he may very well have been ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech, so may I, yankel berel, sechel, CS’s husband and Bernie Sanders. To the best of my knowledge none of the names I have mentioned have incontrovertible proof as to their lineage. The proof that the LR is ben achar ben has been derived by Lubavichers. Give me enough time and money and I can come up with proof of the same value (i.e. worthless) for any/all of the above.

3. Even if he was ben achar ben (and even disregarding his non-qualification in the Rambam’s other criteria), he is still not a suitable candidate because most of Torah-true Klal Yisroel considered his views unacceptable.

edited – the rest required too many edits to post

sechel, you quoted a list of anecdotes about R Chaim Zimmerman’s interaction with the LR. I never met or saw the man, but I have heard a little about him. Wouldn’t I be correct in saying that he was not considered a recognized gadol by virtually all of the chareidi world?

sechel: “@arso When faced with the Ramban who wrote that we reject yoshke because he died, – the ramban never wrote that.”

1. I was not the one who quoted the Ramban. In fact I have never even looked it up.
2. Others claim that he did write that, and you are the only one here who has disputed that. So please resolve the issue so that those of us who are too lazy to wade through the Ramban can know the truth. Perhaps yankel berel can post a quote.

“you cant call someone is wrong for following one pshat over an other.”

I can certainly call someone wrong for following one pshat because it suits what they want to believe. Deciding which pshat is correct – and I don’t know about you, but I feel those on this thread are not in the league of deciding which Rishon or early Acharon is “right” or “wrong” – has to be done dispassionately. Not with the preconception that the LR is Mashiach, so let’s reject anyone who says otherwise.

Menachem, welcome back!

“I have never seen bochurim eating at the same table as non-related girls. Bochurim would not go to a friend’s house for Shabbos or for a meal if they have sisters in their age group at home.”

I have. In regular Lubavich homes all over the world.

“During the engagement (which is usually about 2 months), chosson and kalla usually meet once every 2-3 weeks (so about 4 times during engagement), the less the better. However, the Rebbe encouraged the chosson and kallah to stay be in different cities for the duration of the engagement, so, depending on the distance, the meetings are sometimes less frequent.”

I know how he encouraged that, but you’re still missing the point. When they are in the same city, as is often the case all over the world, they usually meet much more often than once it 2-3 weeks. Again, I know this from experience. But even 2-3 weeks is far too often, and thus considered a davar nevalah, in other chassidic circles. Not to mention the hours-long facetime calls that take place between those meetings. (I just did mention it, didn’t I?)

“Until about 21, pretty much all the chassidishe bochurim don’t have [smartphones – Arso]. Closer to marriage it does become more common (with strong filters obviously).”

That is so not true on both points. Again from knowledge, not conjecture.

In regards to your defence of CS about “acting on” the Rambam’s halachos. You are taking the point out of context. Of course we are meant to act on the halachos, and in the case of the criteria we – or actually the Sanhedrin, I imagine – are meant to act on it when a candidate arises to see if he UNEQUIVOCALLY fits those criteria. But CS explained that when she wrote “act on” it she meant to try to identify a candidate, not to rule whether a candidate fit. The discussion was searching for a candidate, and that’s what she was talking about.

Quoting myself for a change: “As someone once explained to me, they [family Zirkind] and others were told to keep their levush because it would fool others into assuming how cosmopolitan and accepting Lubavich was.”

I reread this and realized that people would think it was just an outlandish claim made by someone who doesn’t like Lubavich. So please allow me to clarify.

When someone joins a group he wants to be part of that group and identify with them fully. Naturally, therefore, he wants to adopt their dress code, and this is what happened in a number of cases when people joined Lubavich. One example is the brother of the Rachmastrivka Rebbe shlita who still wears the full Rachmastrivka levush even though he has been a fully-fledged Lubavicher for decades. And the reason he didn’t change is because the Lubavicher rebbe told him not to. This is not conjecture; it is a well-known fact. Go and ask him if you don’t believe me.

Now why would the LR stop someone identifying in a manner which would allow him to feel the part fully. The answer that I was given is, as I wrote, to attract others to Lubavich.

So, in contrast to what CS wrote, it is not out of caring for the feelings of those who came with a different levush.

From the mods to sechel: “This was not even postable. If someone taught you that, than shame on you both.”

Is there any authority that we can appeal to to force you to show us what he wrote? It sounds like the most interesting post on this thread 🙂

CS: “Bit more nuanced. Even after dor shvii commenced, The Rebbe held of the Frierdiker Rebbe as the real Rebbe, and the Rebbe as merely his spokesman (because others couldn’t hear directly from him since yud Shvat), and thus The Rebbe still referred to him as Moshiach of the generation for many years”

In other words, he eventually decided to invent the concept of dor shevi’i so that it would fit himself… which is exactly what I said.

CS: “I think we’ve discussed this before. The other chareidim operate on chitzonius first basis.”

Absolute garbage!

“This is my info from my personal contacts.”

Delete those contacts because they are liars!

“So if you have the perfect dress and keep the communal standards, your kids can go to the school.”

Who mentioned school? I certainly didn’t. I am talking about the lack of tznius present in many Lubavicher women, both FFBs and BTs. I have seen it and am accosted by it on a regular basis (את חטאי אמני מזכיר היום).

“his doesn’t mean lubavitch has less yiras shomayim overall”

Wrong! It does mean it… although that’s not the only reason we others think that that is the case.

“if you have to worry about external factors, that may inhibit those struggling to open up and get help.”

There is an implication there that is truly shocking! Tznius for women is NOT an “external factor”. It is quite possibly the number one mitzvah that women have, as with a lack of tznius women is machshil literally hundreds of men every day. And that is not even dealing with the ramification that “if Mrs So-and-so can dress this way, cerainly I can.” edited

CS: “The Zirkind’s and other families who became lubavitch from chasseedish were encouraged to keep their levush.”

The Zirkinds were originally Malachim, which was a group that split from, and hated passionately (more than I do!!!!), Lubavich. As someone once explained to me, they and others were told to keep their levush because it would fool others into assuming how cosmopolitan and accepting Lubavich was.

“And of course, if he was so vain cvs , why would he care for every Jew? A vain person has enough of a challenge dealing with his own community.”

You’re doing it again, mouthing a slogan without basis as if it’s fact! Who said he cared for every Jew? He did! I, and I’m confident many others on this thread, believe that he indeed cared THAT every Jew became a follower of his.

“And the term connotes responsibility for all Jews, not just your community.”

CS, you have touched on a very interesting point.

I’m sure you’ll agree that despite the concept of arvus for all Yidden, a parent should definitely be more concerned about the actions of his own children that the actions of others. True? And a shul Rabbi whould be more concerned about the actions of his community than that of other communities.

The same is true with a Rebbe. Despite him being concerned with the actions of all Yidden, his responsibility – nothing to do with selfishness – is first and foremost to his own chassidim, and only then to the rest of Klal Yisrael.

In the opinion of virtually all non-Lubavichers who know what the situation is in Lubavich that I have talked to, this is a big part of the problem of Lubavich. You can claim what you like about (non-existent) Nesius, and Meshichism, but he neglected his community more than he should have. Of course I don’t mean that he ignored them, but he should have put less effort into “running the world” and more into his own followers. That is why the tznius in Lubavitch, and the numbers of youth going OTD is far worse than in any other chassidus WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

What percentage of unmarried kids in, say, Satmar, Belz, Ger, Vizhnitz, Tsanz etc have access to unfiltered internet and to unfiltered smartphones? Now what is the percentage in Lubavich? I don’t know figures, but I do know that the percentage in Lubavich is many many times greater than in the other groups. The same is unfortunately true with kids – even kids of committed shluchim – going OTD. (If you deny any of this I will conclude one of two things: either you are lying outright or you are completely insane. I KNOW exactly what I am talking about, and I have been asked many times to deal with the problem specifically in Lubavich. I’m sure you’re surprised at that, but it’s true.)

You also write, in regards to Lubavich kids doing kol minei nevoloh: “Coming from lubavitch, The ones who consistently are into learning and can rattle off the sichos in depth, are not generally the ones involved with that kind of stuff…”

What you don’t realise is that for many of us, what constitutes “kol minei nevoloh” is far different to what you consider it. I’ll give you two examples. Amongst other chassidim, chassanim meeting their kallos after the engagement is non-existent or at the very least kept to a VERY bare minimum. In Lubavich it is unfortunately common practice. In Lubavich bochurim eating at the same table as non-related girls is acceptable. Not in other chatzeiros.

Even the ones who can rattle off sichos keep to these very low standards, and virtually all (that I know of – you can correct me here if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am) have smartphones which they access even in shule.

CS: “I think the term kiddush lubavitch is a defensive term which you could ask yourself why it needs to exist…”

The same could be said of Kiddush Hashem. We only need that term because there are forces – physical and spiritual – who fight against Hashem’s Will. So when Hashem’s Will wins, so to speak, it’s a Kiddush Hashem. Nonetheless, when one group or another “wins” against those who malign, they don’t say “Kiddush Lita” or “Kiddush Satmar”. Only Lubavich has this chauvinistic attitued, and, as I have written in the past, I believe it’s a crutch because they know that the chareidi world has JUSTIFIED complaints against them. By being insular and only thinking about Luabavich, you find it easier to ignore those complaints rather than rectify them.

“It does seem that the bigger a group gets, the harder it is to know everyone within the community/ group, and we know “outsiders” even less.”

You don’t have to know all the details of all the chareidi groups to know of major personalities in those groups. It is only Lubavich who totally ignores those major personalities…. unless they can be quoted saying something in support of Lubavich.

Or unless they are from a long time ago and have no hemshech to their chassidic line. That’s why Lubavich can quote RLY of Berditchev, and Reb Zusha of Annipoli and the like, while it’s much rarer for them to quote, say, Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk. With the former there are no “yorshim” who can possibly pose a threat to Lubavich’s world view. Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk has many yorshim in different lines, and they usually pose a threat.

Avirah: “If she indeed is an exceptional woman, refined in mind and middos, like bruriah, then she, knowing herself and her capabilities, will not make Torah into divrei havai.”

Is a woman to decide on her own that she will not turn Torah into divrei havai c”v? How can she decide that before she has learnt Torah and knows what the dangers are?

I would say the same thing about men (I’m feeling very woke at the moment) were it not for the fact that all Jewish men (I’m not quite feeling woke enough to say “all Jews who identify as men”.) are commanded to study Torah at all times. So that absolves them from judging themselves prior to learning Torah.

coffee addict: “I thought Lubavitch now holds that moshiach can come from the dead which is why I said Rav Shach”

Sorry, you clearly don’t understand official Lubavich policy. Please allow me to enlighten you.

1. Either the LR is alive, and Mashiach must be someone who is alive, hence the LR is Mashiach.

2. Alternatively, if the LR is not alive, then Mashiach must be him regardless.

There is no room for anyone else who has died to be Mashiach. In fact, there is no room for anyone else to be Mashiach, period.

And this is all based on clear non-existents sources.

CS in reply to my question as to how the LR could claim that his father-in-law was Mashiach when his father-in-law wasn’t dor shevi’i, and Mashiach has to be from dor Shevi’i: “I don’t see where you got that. What I meant was that if Nesius would’ve ended with the Frierdiker Rebbe, there would have been no dor shvii as the dor goes by the Rebbe. Since we needed another Rebbe, that equals dor shvii”

Sounds like circular reasoning to me. The Rayatz could have been Mashiach, but since he wasn’t we need dor shevi’i to be Mashiach, and that just happens to be the LR who is the one who revealed the need for dor shevi’i.

Well done! Once again you have shown how we have no option but to declare the LR as Mashiach because he said so!

CS to yankel berel: “you say the reason others didn’t see The Rebbe as a candidate for Moshiach (obviously among the ones who didn’t) had nothing to do with the alive or dead debate? So what was it then?”

It obviously had nothing to do with the dead-or-alive debate because at the time ALL Lubavichers said Mashiach has to be someone who is currently alive, which has been pointed out again and again.

As to the reason the vast – virtually 100% – of the non-Lubavich chareidi world would not accept the LR as candidate for Mashiach, the answer is very simple: he did not fit any of the criteria, again, as I have pointed out again and again.

One other point came to mind. The Rambam, which Lubavich quotes, says that Mashiach will be osek beTorah keDavid aviv. Any idea why davka like David? Why compare him to anyone, when the Rambam could simply have said that he has to be osek beTorah constantly, or the like? Well I can suggest an answer.

The gemoro (Berachos 4a) tells us how unbelievably humble David was when it came to learning Torah, and how he was always willing and ready to admit that he was wrong. The LR was certainly nothing like that. He was always right and never stopped trying to convince others that his way was the only correct way. One illustrative example is his constant “nagging” other Rebbes and Roshei Yeshivos to institute the study of chassidus, even though that would have been a departure from their mesores.

That, of course, is not the only time he displayed “stubborness” when contradicted with facts. One other example, which I have written about a number of times, is that it is ok according to simple pshat not to sleep in the sukka. Oh, I forgot also that washing for Shalosh Seudos is a kula al pi chassidus.