Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CS: “I saw something interested last night regarding how matrilineal lives are ok”
Ok for what? For being a king? I don’t think so. And if yes, then chances are that every Yid who is not a Ger is descended from David Hamelech and fit to be king/Mashiach.
CS: “These two interpretations are related”
Who said? They could very easily be two different interpretations of the same possuk. But aside from that, where is the Yerushalmi on that possuk that it refers to Mashiach? I did a search and I could not find it.
Re my claims about the yichus of the Maharal, for which you (fairly!) requested sources: as it seems we are not allowed to post links here, I will do the best I can to send you to the source. If you go to hebrewbooks and find book number 26654 (צפונות שנה ג גלון יד) there on pages 70 and 71 there is a discussion about the Maharal’s yichus, with the author concluding that there is no source that the Maharal was descended from David Hamelech, and that some of the alleged sources are in fact clearly fictional.
CS: “Same with Moshiach- there’s the one big Moshiach, and the spark of Moshiach in every yid”
(Non-Lubavich) source please?
CS, if you do a search for the yichus of the Maharal you will find that there is a disagreement whether he was descended from David Hamelech. That surprised me a few days ago when I first saw it, but it’s there in black and white (pixels).
Secondly, if the Maharal is indeed a descendant of David Hamelech, it is through Rashi (who had no sons) and the nesi’im in EY who were descended through Shefatya, as per the gemoro in Kesubos 62b, not through Shlomo. All this can be seen from a search.
The search also showed me that it is not only in Peirush Hamishnayos that the Rambam says that Mashiach has to be descended from Shlomo Hamelech. He writes the same in Iggeres Teiman:
ודבר זה אחינו יסד גדול מיסודי אמונת ישראל והוא שאי אפשר שלא יעמד מזרע שלמה איש שיקבץ נפוצותנו ויאסוף חרפתנו וגלותנו ויגלה הדת האמתית וישמיד כל מי שימרה דברו כמו שהבטיחנו הקדוש ברוך הוא בתורתו
And wonder of wonders, I discovered that Rabbeinu Bachya – whom you have quoted regarding the disappearance, for want of a better word, of Mashiach – also writes the same on Devarim 30:15:
ביאת המשיח שהוא מזרע שלמהThirdly, the Lubavicher rebbe’s yichus to the Baal Hatanya is via the Baal Hatanya’s daughter, so he is not ben achar ben that way even if what I wrote above about the Maharal is incorrect, and the Maharal is descended from David Hamelech ben achar ben.
Simply put, the Lubavicher rebbe is allegedly (I believe it to be true, but I only know it from Lubavich sources, and you may not be surprised to hear that I don’t find them always 100% reliable) ben achar ben from the Tzemach Tzedek whose patrilineal line is unknown.
One other interesting point that I realized today, Bar Kochba/Koziba’s name was Shimon, so clearly R Akiva did not think that Mashiach’s name has to be Menachem.
CS, neither you nor anyone else has responded to the following “problem” that I have mentioned at least twice:
“…the explicit Rambam that says that whoever claims that Mashiach will not descend from Shlomo Hamelech is a kofer Bashem c”v, and the yichus of the Maharal (once again, there is no proof that the L rebbe was ben achar ben to him) was through the Nesi’im in E”Y who were descended, the gemoro tells us, from Shefatya, Shlomo Hamelech’s brother.”
Another thing. You wrote: “Also the Zohar says there’s an extension of Moshe in every generation.”
Many seforim quote the Zohar as saying that there is an ispahstusa deMoshe in each generation “בכל נפשא ונפשא”, i.e. in every Yid in every generation. Sure I believe that in tzaddikim the ispashtusa is either stronger or “closer to the surface”, but we all have it in us, not just one person in each generation.
CS, your post starting with “Just curious” is very nice, and for a change, despite what you may think, it is not particular to Lubavich. Aside, perhaps, from aiming for titles such as beinoni and “low level tzaddik”. That is, aiming for the levels? Yes. Using that terminology and aiming for it, no.
As far as I am aware, this is the hashkafa of nearly all chareidim and other fully Torah-committed Jews. I am assuming, however, that, in true Lubavich fashion – and don’t forget that i have had tons of experience with close Lubavicher family who have never stopped trying to “convert” and inculcate me, so I know what’s going on – you were taught by your teachers and mashpiot that only Lubavich feels this way. Let me assure you, they were 100% wrong.
CS: “there’s 3 stages: 1) למיודעיו 2. לוחם מלחמות ד׳ 3. גילויו לכל”
Valid sources (by that I mean not something said by the Lubavicher rebbe) please.
“We definitely see the Rebbe as king in many ways”
Correct. YOU see it in many ways, but the Rambam does not. Nor does the entire Torah-world, at least, not those who are under stong Lubavich influence.
I’ll ask you again, why did not one Lubavicher chassid EVER recite the berocho made when seeing a king when they saw their rebbe? Clearly, not even Lubavichers held that he was king according to halacha. If you can’t give a valid answer to that, you are simply contradicting yourself, or at worst lying, when you say he was a king.
As to R Akiva and Bar Koziba, I don’t know how it worked but if the Rambam lists criteria, and he then says that R Akiva consider Bar Koziba a king, then he must have fit those criteria. Something which your rebbe most certainly did not.
“Bar kochba definitely wasn’t annointed- there was no Sanhedrin then.”
Ah, but there was. According to many sources the Sanhedrin ceased to exist in the year 4185 (425 CE) which is loooong after R Akiva was martyred.
“your Sanhedrin criterion isn’t mentioned at all here in Rambam”
But all the quotes you cite from Rashi in Doniel, from Rabbeinu Bachya and others are, right? Can you really not see that you just pick and choose what to count and what not to count.
I also note that you have not addressed the explicit Rambam that says that whoever claims that Mashiach will not descend from Shlomo Hamelech is a kofer Bashem c”v, and the yichus of the Maharal (once again, there is no proof that the L rebbe was ben achar ben to him) was through the Nesi’im in E”Y who were descended, the gemoro tells us, from Shefatya, Shlomo Hamelech’s brother.
“it [that Beis Mashiach has a gematria of 770] only became significant to me when the Rebbe referenced it”
Fair enough, because you believe every thing that he said regardless of how meaningless it is. But for you to expect us to take something as childish as that seriously, indicates that you are so brainwashed that you can’t even believe that others have a totally different way of thinking than you.
“On the contrary Chabad means we engage with the mind.”
Did you perhaps leave prefix “dis” of one of the words in the above?
sechel83, is the source of your story the Rayatz’s Memoirs aka Likkutei Dibburim?
If so, I have already written in earlier threads that the stories therein are allegorical, as I have proven from the fictitious story about the sundial.
That, by the way, is not being disparaging. The Rayatz, I imagine, felt that to keep the chassidim strong in the times of Czarist persecution he had to teach lessons and hashkafa through “chassidic fiction”. Much in the same way that R Meir (Marcus) Lehman embellished his historical works of fiction in order to keep the youth in Germany attached to Torah and Mitzvos.
CS: “Here’s it says in Hayom Yom introduction (and Beis HaRav
is well known)
…The Rebbe is Ben achar Ben to the Maharal, who was known as having descended from Malchus Beis Dovid.”
You really don’t get it, do you? I, and at least a few others on this thread, don’t accept anything the Lubavicher rebbe says that could lead to a claim that he himself is Mashiach or a descendent of David Hamelech, because we believe he is just pushing an agenda.
So PLEASE, if you want to bring proofs about anything at all, use only other non-Lubavich sources, and especially nothing from the last Lubavicher rebbe!
Re the Maharal’s alleged yichus to David Hamelech (I say alleged because there seems to be a disagreement about this. Not that it makes any difference to us because the Maharal was as great as he was regardless of his yichus.), it is through Rashi WHO HAD NO SONS. So it is most definitely NOT ben achar ben to David Hamelech.
Furthermore, the Tzemach Tzedek, who was the Lubavicher rebbe’s paternal ancestor, was not ben achar ben of the Baal Hatanya, and his paternal line is unknown (other than the claim that he was a descendant of the Metzudos). So how on earth do you know that the Lubavicher rebbe was ben achar ben from the Maharal? Oh, I know. He said so himself.
CS: “In the first source, Rav Pappa did not even say anything! Just his presence was a force.”
Precisely my point. It was a FORCE, i.e. the person in question felt COMPELLED do what he thought was expected of him (see the gemoro there for full details) because of Rav Pappa’s presence. Even if there may have been, for the sake of argument, individuals who felt compelled by the Lubavicher rebbe, it was certainly not that way with the vast majority of Yisrael. And the Rambam’s criterion is that Mashiach will COMPEL ALL OF YISRAEL.
There have been, and probably are today, many Rabbonim who compel more people to keep Torah and Mitzvos than the Lubavicher rebbe did.
“The Rebbe said in chayei Sara 5751 that…”
You are forever quoting sichos. When will you understand that I and all others who are arguing with you don’t give any weight to what is says in a sicha because it is the Lubavicher rebbe pushing the agenda that he himself is Mashiach?
“Btw The Rebbes yichus up to the Maharal, is listed in Hayom Yom.”
Who wrote Hayom Yom? Oh. I remember now. The Lubavicher rebbe himself. What a coincidence!
“It’s ridiculous to say he made it up as Beis HaRav is well known.”
He may not have made it up, but it’s certainly not ridiculous to suspect that he did. Regardless, as I wrote above, it certainly needs verifiable proof, unless we are to accept all claims of yichus – including that weirdo who claims he was the Lubavicher rebbe’s son – as legitimate
“I’m sorry you’ve convince yourself that you can never think of The Rebbe as a tzadik. It’s ok, The Rebbe is still there for you EDITED”
I wonder whether the mods edited the end of your post because you were starting to sound suspiciously like a xian evangelical.
As to your claim that the Lubavicher rebbe continued to give life/death replies after the stroke even though he couldn’t speak, I think you’ll find that when a stroke victim can’t speak R”L it is an indication that the area of his brain dealing with communication has been affected. Therefore, where the ability to speak is lacking, the ability to communicate in any other way will also be lacking.
I’m not a medico, but that is what I was told by a professional after the Lubavicher rebbe had the first stroke, and subsequent investigation has confirmed that. So unless someone with professional medical knowledge will dispute what I have just written, I will remain highly doubtful that it was the Lubavicher rebbe himself who gave those replies.
I remember that very soon after the stroke, one of the Lubavicher rebbe’s aides/secretaries claimed that soon everything will return to normal ברוב שירה וזמרה. That claim was made in the name of the Lubavicher rebbe, and clearly it was false. So perhaps it was the same person who gave life/death replies.CS: “1) no one said that bracha, and see what I said about bar kochba”
You claim that the Lubavicher rebbe fits the Rambam’s criteria, one of which is Mashiach will be a king. So why didn’t anyone – not even the greatest of chassidim – recite the beracha one recites when seeing a king? The obvious, and only, answer is that they didn’t consider him a king, and for a very simple reason… he wasn’t.
Btw I believe that the expression מאן מלכי רבנן does not appear anywhere in Chazal. It is a paraphrasing of something said by an Amora in Gittin 62a, and according to that all Rabbonon are included. Nonetheless we do not find anyone, including the Amora who made the statement, reciting the beracha because even he did not mean that they had the actual status of kings. Proof being that Chazal say that a Rav can be mochel on has kavod but a king cannot. So clearly it is allegorical (that may be the wrong word, but you probably know what I mean).
CS: “the example the Rambam gives as a candidate to be Moshiach was Ben koziba. He wasn’t a king anointed etc, but rather people gathered around him and overtired his instructions”
He may or may not have been anointed, I don’t know, but R Akiva certainly considered him a king because he called him MELECH Hamashiach.
And as far “overtired” is concerned, I think that adjective may apply to a number of people who read this thread 🙂CS: “2) that’s not in the Rambam s criteria of defining bchezkas Moshiach”
What are you referring to?
CS: “3) did you look up all the sources?”
I looked up ALL the sources you gave from Chazal. I did not look up any sources from the Lubavicher rebbe because I already know that he was the leader of the arrows first system of showing he is Mashiach.
I have said it before, but “Beis Mashiach has the gematria of 770” is so childish that it’s cringeworthy.
Did you know – this is something I heard 50 years ago – that Chamor Bli Daas not only has the initials Chabad but that it too has the gematria of 770? If you want to prove things from childish gematriyos then be my guest.I forgot to mention last week that according to the Rambam in Peirush Hamishnayos, anyone who says that Mashiach can be descended from David through anyone other than Shlomo Hamelech is kofer Bashem!
פירוש המשנה לרמב”ם מסכת סנהדרין פרק י משנה א
והיסוד השנים עשר ימות המשיח, והוא להאמין ולאמת שיבא… ומכלל היסוד הזה שאין מלך לישראל אלא מדוד ומזרע שלמה דוקא. וכל החולק בענין המשפחה הזו הרי זה כפר בה’ ובדברי נביאיו.The alleged yichus of the Lubavicher rebbe reaches to David Hamelech through the Nesi’im of Eretz Yisroel, and they were not through Shlomo. See Kesubos 62b.
When I mentioned this in person to a Lubavicher many years ago, his reply was that we pasken only like the Rambam in Yad Hachozokah, not like Peirush Hamishnayos.
Aside from the fact that that is a very poor excuse for being on the level of kofer Bashem c”v, in this thread that reply is worth nothing at all. After all, if we can quote Rabbeinu Bachya, and Rashi to Doniel et al as conclusive, we can certainly quote the Rambam who is the same person who gave us all the criteria Lubavichers have been misinterpreting for decades. (Btw is there any Rishon who argues with this statement of the Rambam?)
So, is there anyone out there – Lubavicher or otherwise – who would willingly allow themselves to be considered a kofer Bashem uvedivrei neviov just because they want to follow a certain agenda?!
חכמים הזהרו בדבריכם
CS: “1) Rambam must be understandable and applicable as We are to use his halachic criteria for defining candidates for Moshiach. Regarding Melech- if he’s just starting off the process in golus and we’re not even sure he’sa candidate- he wouldn’t be a king anointed by Sanhedrin. The deals pretty done by then. The meaning is Rabbanim who are called kings- מאן מלכי רבנן. The emphasis on king is that he has a commanding kinglike presence/ leadership.”
Sorry, but that is just another instance of drawing the target after the arrow has hit. מאן מלכי רבנן is not Halachic as it’s Aggada, and we don’t interpret Halacha by taken an Aggadic statement and applying it to Halacha. (Do you follow the Satmar shita that it is ossur to have a state, based on the three shevuos mentioned in Kesubos, and on which the Satmar shita is based? I assume you don’t because no one in Lubavich, including your rebbe, did.)
And as I asked before, did any rational Lubavicher (I assume there are and were) make the berocho “shecholak mikvoco lirai’ov” when they saw the Lubavicher rebbe before Gimmel Tammuz. If not, why not? Doesn’t it say מאן מלכי רבנן?
“2) if someone has traceable yichus, they fulfill the criteria. If you are waiting for Sanhedrin, you make this criterion irrelevant and obsolete.”
Surely you mean if someone CLAIMS HE HAS traceable yichus. There was a weirdo on the internet a few short years ago who claimed that he was the son of the Lubavicher rebbe. Would you believe that “traceable yichus”?
And yes, I am waiting for the Sanhedrin because Rashi (Eiruvin 43b) says that Mashiach will come first to the Beis Din Hagadol in Yerushalayim. So unless he is referring to the Rabbanut Harashit (I somehow doubt it) there has to be an active Sanhedrin before Mashiach comes. Interpreting it otherwise is just target after arrows.“3) enjoy the sources. Regarding yachuf- here’s sources for future reference”
I have to admit I was waiting for those references. Yachuf bidvarim does not mean “encourage”, it means using words to “compel” someone. As in the first example you brought, where Rav Pappa said that if he enters the place in question, it is equivalent to compelling the person there to sign over assets. The Lubavicher rebbe encouraged but did not even use his personality to compel.
“So I choose to be a maamin.”
That’s the whole problem. You choose because you want to, not because you are forced to believe by the sources.
CS: “the sources I posted for the Rambams word יכוף- compel, I’d used in relation to convincing with words- those spaces I didn’t compile.”
Maybe it’s just me (or maybe it’s just a typo) but I don’t understand what you’re saying at all.
“I asked a Rav once the question and got the list from him.”
So please ask him again. For my sake.
“Also the Rav said that the contemporary word for convince, ישכנע, isn’t a Lashon Kodesh word.”
But there are other words, such as מפציר, or as the gemoro uses מסרהב.
CS: “So everyone can be happy now. For everyone (outside Lubavitch) it will be obvious when Moshiach is here, so you don’t have to keep fighting- you can just wait til stage 3.”
How can Lubavich be happy when you claim that the first stage – revelation to his chassidim – has already occurred yet Eliyahu has not come? Or do you claim that he has already come? I think either I or you are missing something here.
Btw I am still waiting for a source that “compel” can mean “encourage” in the words of Chazal.
I’m also waiting for a source that everyone has an individual Mashiach, although as far as I recall it wasn’t you who claimed that.
GadolHadofi: “You actually have a source that the Rebbe, zt”l informed the chassidim that he was mashiach?…
Please provide that source because from everything I heard, he couldn’t tolerate it when they said he was.”
There was indeed a stage when he would reprimand his followers for PUBLICLY referring to him as Mashiach, but that eventually changed. Look at the very clear “hints” in his sichos as to Mashiach’s identity.
Also, I was told by a very reliable Lubavich source that when he was told by Rabbi JJ Hecht that the world needs to become aware of the identity of Mashiach, he replied that they see pictures of him on the Mitzvah tanks. (I would be interested to see if anyone here can find me the source for that discussion, as I have searched for it unsuccessfully.)
sechel83: “the following ideas i have a different understanding of then you.
rebbe, chassidus, moshiach, alive, tzadik, (in one words its all yechida – go learn what that means)”As DaMoshe pointed out, the beliefs held by you and most (if not all) Lubavichers are targets that are painted after the arrows have been shot. In other words – in case the good head Hashem gave you isn’t quite as good as you think 🙂 – all these things, when attributed to your rebbe, are attributed because you want a certain outcome and you work backwards. Those of us who do not have the same agenda would not attribute them.
CS: “as you admitted, the Rambam doesn’t make sense to explain as a literal king because then he’d be in Eretz Yisrael , anointed by Sanhedrin etc and the Rambam is speaking of the person who leads the process from golus”
I never wrote anything like that! Once again, I wrote that the if we’re going to follow the Rambam, which 1000s of Lubavichers have quoted over the last 30 years, then I don’t know how it will work. But I never chas veShalom said the Rambam doesn’t make literal sense.
“If Beis HaRav are able to trace their lineage, and you have no logical reason to dispute it (besides the obvious issue of saying they were lying)”
I have lots of logical reasons to dispute it, but that is irrelevant. The Beis Din Hagodol in Lishkas Hagozis would investigate all kohanim to see if they were meyuchosim. I assume they will also investigate any claim to being Davidic. I don’t think anyone would agree with you that someone claiming to trace their lineage is good enough. That sounds ludicrous. Does anyone following this disagree with me?
“In the language of Halacha, compel is also used to mean convince with words”
Sources please.
sechel83: “you did not explain how moshiach can come. you basiclly explain its impossible for moshiach to come cuz he needsa to be a king appointed by a navi and sanhedrin…”
I never said anything of the sort. I said that I don’t know how it will happen according to the Rambam, and that that is no reason to misinterpret the Rambam, as you and others have.
Unlike you, it seems, I am able to say I don’t know.
One thing I do know, and of that I’m 100% sure: the Lubavicher rebbe is not, was not, and will not be Mashiach. I have many reasons for saying this which I have writtten in other threads, but one reason that is good enough for now is that he does not have any of the criteria cited by the Rambam.
sechel83 :so if you ask me if the rebbe is still alive (assuming commen defintion of life) i would say “he was NEVER alive!”
Since Chazal tell us that hayilodim lomus – those who are born are destined to die – and since we all “know” that the Lubavicher rebbe didn’t and won’t die, clearly he was never born. So I’d have to agree here with sechel83!
sechel83 quoted the Rambam: “If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.”
We have been through all this before on other threads, but just to refresh (and not to let sechel83 get away with it):
1. The Lubavicher rebbe was not a king. Did any Lubavicher make the berocho “shecholak mikvodo liraiov” when seeing him?
2. There is no proof that the Lubavicher rebbe is from the House of David. Sure, he claimed he was, and I think his father-in-law also claimed the same, but I don’t believe that counts. Furthermore, he is not ben achar ben, as the lineage goes through Rashi who had no sons. The standard rule for yichus is patrilenal descent. If not, then it’s likely that millions of Yidden are from the House of David.
3. The Lubavicher rebbe did not COMPEL even one single Yid to walk in the ways of the Torah. He certainly encouraged, but he did not compel, and the Rambam chose his words carefully.
4. The Rambam’s reference to wars of G-d refer to literal wars, just as Dovid Hamelech and other kings fought. This cannot be taken to mean encouraging people to keep Torah and mitzvos.Elsewhere sechel83 wrote: “a melech has to be appionted by sanhedrin and a navi! learn milchos melachim.
so explain to me the rambam please and how according to you moshiach will come.”I certainly can’t explain how Mashiach will come according to the Rambam’s definition, and I don’t know who can. But that does not mean that we can disregard the Rambam and pretend the Lubavicher rebbe was a king etc. Don’t forget, this is the Rambam that 1000s of Lubavichers have been quoting as proof since before 3 Tammuz. Just say you don’t understand how it will come to pass. Don’t try to misinterpret it.
Ysiegel, could you please give a source for a “mashiach prati”?
I’ve never heard of it, and I wonder if there is a clear source for it. Also, I’m very surprised that no one else has asked for the source.
qwerty: “The question that started this thread implies that a Chassidus is viable if it has a Rebbe…. if you had a Rebbe, like the Sfas Emes(my favorite) who made Torah study the sine qua non of life, I think the movement could go on quite well without a Rebbe.”
It seems that you don’t realize that “a chassidus” is not the same as “a movement”. While a chassidus is ALSO ‘a movement’ it is far more than that, as the former requires a rebbe while the latter does not.
Kuvult, I have no idea why you addressed this to me. I certainly believe that to be a chassid you need a live Rebbe, and my comment was to Lostspark on his trying to refute that.
Gadolhadorah, growth in numbers does not indicate growth in ruchniyus and the like. edited
Lostspark wrote: ‘“There’s no such thing as a Chasid without a Rebbe.”
Let’s inverse this true statement.
I see plenty of Chassidim so there must be a Rebbe.’
If that logic is true, then the original statement is meaningless because someone can always claim that he’s a chasid and that therefore perforce he has a rebbe somewhere somehow.
Any chance of the mods starting a thread with all the stuff deleted from qwerty’s posts? edited
Avirah, thanks for the source of the “lekovod habetten” line. Regardless, it is something I have heard Lubavichers quote numerous times.
sechel, this is what I wrote: “From and via are two different things, and there is a VAST difference in concept between the two in this area.”
And this is what you replied: “@arso from vs, via oh. good point. so someone was speaking and said from instead of via. so right away go accuse him of a”z. i would say the same thing then to someone who says plants grow from the rain, a”z!
basically go learn chassidus.”Great reply! I especially like the way you attack something I didn’t write. Makes it really hard for me to rebut. Very clever!
Menachem: “Thanks to chassidus, I and my fellow Lubavitchers possibly think more about Hashem every day than the average frum Jew”
The very sad part about your claim is that you probably believe it. And I have heard this idea, in different words, from many Lubavichers who probably also believe it.
It is such garbage that I am flabbergasted! I have a vast knowledge of Lubavich – as I believe I have demonstrated in other threads in the CR – and I have a lesser but nonetheless broad knowledge of other groups to which I do not belong, including other chassidishe chatzeiros, yeshivishe communities, and the modern orthodox. (Unfortunately, due to my upbringing and lifestyle I do not have a broad knowledge of Sfardi groups.) You may consider the above as me being arrogant, and maybe I am, but I am telling you about what I know from decades of study in various forms.
From my experience ALL chassidishe and yeshivishe groups, and MANY MOs think far more about Hashem than Lubavichers.
You and your compatriots fool yourselves into believing that you are thinking about Hashem because you have been inculcated with the belief that the Lubavicher rebbe is almost indistinguishable from Hashem (c”v), and that therefore everything associated with Lubavich is associated with Hashem.
Have you even noticed that no one anywhere else says anything other than “Kiddush Hashem”, yet Lubavichers so often say “Kiddush Lubavich”? If you don’t believe me google the phrase. I have never ever heard a Satmar chossid – and I know many – say “Kiddush Satmar”, or a yeshivisher say “Kiddush Lita”. Have you?
Lubavichers love telling mocking stories of people who say “Lekovod Shabbos” before eating like gluttons, when in reality they are only eating “Lekovod Habetten”. Personally I see the point they are making, but they are no different when it comes to Lubavich.
One should indeed eat lichvod Shabbos, but saying it once and then forgetting about it ruins everything, because the glutton has convinced himself that he is eating lesheim Shomayim, and this just leads to greater gluttony. Similarly, it would be fine for a Lubavicher to start off thinking that shitas Lubavich will lead him to avodas Hashem (Disclaimer: I believe that it won’t and that in 99% of cases it hasn’t for the last fifty years) but to then forget the avodas Hashem part and concentrate on Lubavich based on a prior intention/claim, is counterproductive as it leads to thinking about Hashem way less than the frum Jews you are talking about.
sechel83:
ונ”ל על פי מה שאמרו רבותינו ז”ל (שם בתענית דכ”ד ע”ב) בכל יום בת קול יוצאה ואמר כל העולם ניזון בשביל חנינא בני וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין וכו’, נמצא שהיה ר’ חנינא בן דוסא הצינור המשפיע שפעו לכל העולם, וזהו [בשביל] חנינא בני, שהוא לשון דרך ומעבר, כשביל זה שהוא מעבר לכל, כן הוא היה מעבר ההשפעות לעולם,
(לקוטים יקרים ד”ו ע”ד, אור תורה פ’ בחקותי)As far as I can translate (and I’m usually pretty good with that) this means that all hashpo’ó comes VIA the tzaddik, which is not the same at all as what you wrote in a later post:
“Everything we have in our lives comes FROM the Rebbe”From and via are two different things, and there is a VAST difference in concept between the two in this area.
That’s it then. Avirah, you are wrong! I always thought so, but now I know it as a fact because mdd said so.
Potato: “what do you think of your landsmen that are not suffering from a shaas hadachak but not keeping cholov yisroel? And the ones who are benei Torah learning in kollel that are married and not worried about Parnasa that they go clean shaven?”
(Disclaimer: I keep cholov Yisroel, and I have never shaven my beard BH.)
I believe there are heteirim for eating what R Moshe Feinstein referred to as ‘cholov hacompanies’ even if it’s not a shaas hadchak. And I know that there are major poskim who say it is muttar lechatchilah to shave even without any concern of parnassa.
Just because you’re rabbonim may disagree with those opinions, those who act in accordance with those opinions have no need to justify their actions to fit in with your rabbonim.
Potato: “check out psak din dot com that gives the halachic reasoning as to the Rebbe being for sure the one who will be Goel Tzedek. If you appreciate the reasoning good. Of not then it’s considered a machloikes haposkim, unless you can refute the reasoning with sources.”
It’s not called a machlokes haposkim if one side has a clear agenda to pasken a certain way, and they misconstrue Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim to “prove” that they are right.
You might as well say that whether Conservative Judaism is legitimate or not is a machlokes haposkim as there are ordained rabbis who are Conservative. And to take it one step further, is it a machlokes haposkim in regards to J being the messiah (lehavdil, of course) because there are ‘rabbis’ who believe in him nowadays?
Emunas: “It’s really amusing being lectured on Tanya from someone who says they barely learn Chassidus.”
Is that really your best answer to someone who quotes Tanya to argue with what you say?! If he’s wrong in his understanding in Tanya, show him how and why. But to say that you know more than him therefore you’re right is an escape and pure gaavah. Seems to me that’s the same manner Lubavichers decided that their rebbe is a navi, nassi and the Mashiach. “We just know more than you, so there’s no point in you arguing!”
“There are significant discrepancies between the siddur and the SA harav. Ending time for shabbos and fifth bracha of shema in maariv”
Therefore? Oh, I get it. Because at times the Baal Hatanya changed his mind later in life, that means that we can discount anything he wrote in Hilchos Talmud Torah if we decide that it’s ‘good’ to do otherwise. Did I get that right?
Makes sense. It’s the same thing you do when it comes to maamarei Chazal and the words of Rishonim that don’t quite suit what you want to believe, e.g. when it comes to the criteria of Mashiach.
Lakewhut to Emunas: “you’re implying that anyone who doesn’t blindly follow subtle messianism is a misnaged.”
SUBTLE messianism? There ain’t nothing subtle about it!
Emunas: “in fact, it’s a chiyuv on everyone to learn all parts of the Torah that he is able to. There are many mekubalim, including non-chassidim, who have written this.”
So it’s the mekubalim who hold one should learn Kabbalah. What a surprise!
Where I come from, and hang around, learning Kabbalah as a limud is virtually non-existent for those who don’t have Shas and Poskim “in their pockets”. I believe it is because of the inherent dangers of someone whose mind is not fully attuned to Torah when he comes face to face with esoteric concepts in depth. It can lead to hagshama, and, as I have posted elsewhere, I believe that that is where many Lubavichers have fallen prey.
“Without chassidus/kaballah, it is virtually impossible in today’s generation to maintain a true connection with Hashem.”
What a terrible sweeping claim. Every Shomer Torah uMitzvos can, on his level, have a true connection with Hashem. Although I am of the chassidishe velt, and I am certainly not enamored of the Litvishe velt (sorry to all the Litvishe out there), I certainly believe that there are multitudes of Litvaks who never learn chassidus/Kabalah and who have a true connection to Hashem.
Yes, AlwaysAsk, the moshol was about the Dubno Maggid himself and his mesholim, but I used it to illustrate Lubavichers who make a baseless decision and then twist pesukim, Chazal etc to show that they are right.
anyPotao to me: “can people on this thread speak to the lamdus of the sefer as it relates to Chazal, rishonim, acharonim and Rambam without speaking about Lubavitch?”
This is so typical of Lubavich. Trying to force the discussion into an area where you won’t feel uncomfortable.
I’m not dealing with the sefer, and I don’t even know which sefer you’re talking about. And as to your reply to my claim that when he was alive ALL Lubavichers, without exception, claimed Mashiach has to be someone who is alive, you are distorting the facts.
I personally heard many Lubavichers giving public shiurim say that 1. Mashiach has to be someone who is alive, and 2. Who alive is more worthy than the Lubavicher rebbe (In this post I’m not going to argue how this last claim does not hold water). You claim that they believed that Mashiach has to be someone who is alive only because they believed their rebbe was Mashiach. If that was their reasoning, they hid it and lied, because they claimed the reverse, as I explained, that because it has to be someone who is alive it must be their rebbe.
The question that still has not been answered is how is it possible that before 3 Tammuz ABSOLUTELY EVERY LUBAVICHER rejected the notion that Mashiach could be someone who had died, and then they did an about face after 3 Tammuz. Btw I am not exaggerating the facts. I have been around Lubavich, a very long time and I remember the “proof” that the then-live Lubavicher rebbe was Mashiach was the claim that Mashiach has to be someone alive and, of course, there is no one more fitting than the L rebbe.
As I wrote in another thread, the only consistent Lubavichers are the crazies who say that he did not die.
The problem is, and this has been pointed out by others and by myself in the past, that we start with the result, the Lubavicher rebbe must be Mashiach, and then we work around the facts – either rejecting or modifying them – in order not to question the result. Much like the moshol of the Dubno Maggid about the fool who used to fire the arrow first and then draw the bullseye around it.
“there was a Toeles in telling his Chassidim about Notkin. Notkin offered the Rebbe tea that day and the Rebbe drank it so the Baal.Hatanya was teaching his Chassidim that even if you’re abused by your host you shpuld accept whst he offers.”
What to’eles is there in telling the person’s name. Wouldn’t it have been enough – if the story is true – to say that he was in the house of someone who abused him?
And from my reliable sources, that is the source of celebrating 20 Kislev. Not the printing of Tanya.
Can someone cite for me the first source for the celebration of 20 Kislev being due to the Baal Hatanya being taken to the misnaged’s house?
It seems so strange – according to the story he said that the hours he spent in the misnaged’s house were worse than the entire time he spent in prison – to have a MAJOR celebration based on that. Furthermore, it seems so out-of-sync with today’s Lubavich and their claimed love of every Yid.
Menachem: “Again, imagine if Reb Chaim proved from a Gemara that “Talmidei Chachamim go straight to Olam Habah.
His talmidim will probably say, “Wow, our dear teacher, Reb Chaim, will go straight to Olam Habah!”
Here’s the question: Was Reb Chaim referring to himself in his statement?”Better question: would they say that R Chaim was implying that he himself is a talmid chochom and will therefore go straight to Olam Haba? Simple answer: no! And the same is true with whatever imaginary conclusion you claim the chassidim of R Elimelech would come up with. They wouldn’t say that he MEANT himself even by implication.
Yet you yourself, and apparently all of Lubavich, claim that your rebbe WAS implying that he himself is the (non-existent) Nassi Hador, that he will be Mashiach, and that he is a Navi.
Sneaky and disingenuous once again. As I wrote in the past, you can’t have it both ways.
“I feel like I’m explaining a concept to a five year old.”
Yep, someone who understands pshuto shel Mikra and sees problems where they appear. This five year-old is not satisfied with your answers.
yankelberel quoting the sicha about the Chazon Ish: “but 5] after Thchiyat hametim when mashiach [! – guess who THAT is …] will teach the pnimiyut of the torah”
Menachem, in reply: “[5]
Again, according to the Gemara in Bava Basra”Please tell me where pnimiyus haTorah is mentioned in Bava Basra… or elsewhere in Shas.
Menachem: “Why did you skip that it wasn’t the Rebbe’s vort, rather he was saying what Reb Foleh said and that people complained about?”
Are you trying to say that he wasn’t justifying what Folye Kahn said? If he wasn’t, why on earth was he addressing all the complaints?
“Why did you skip that all that the Rebbe added pretty much (again, in a Purim spirit) was explaining how this fits with a Gemara in Bava Basra?”
Disingenuous! Purim spirit! The Nassi Hador made a joke by justifying something denigrating someone else said about the Chazon Ish!
And again, where in Bava Basra?
In light of the side discussion mentioning the greatness of the Baal Hatanya and his Shulchan Aruch, someone once asked me a question for which I have no answer.
How is it that the sefer is called Shulchan Aruch, which was the name of a sefer accepted by klal Yisrael 200-300 years earlier. The question isn’t how he could write his own set of halachos and pasken differently, there is no problem with that. But why was it given the exact same name as the original Shulchan Aruch?
I’ve been thinking about this “spouse being best option for קנה לך חבר” opinion and I’ve decided that I don’t agree with it. Ever. Not that your spouse should not be your friend, but that it doesn’t work in the context of the Mishna.
First, to prove technically that that is not what the Mishnah means, chaver does not mean friend, despite the Yiddish and therefor Hebrew usage of the word. It means something closer to the English word peer. A spouse cannot be a peer because of the difference in gender.
But more importantly, there are vast differences between the spiritual issues that males and females face, and asking someone of the other gender to fully understand one’s issues, to empathize and then to give help is not really possible. Being a chaver, in the sense of the Mishnah, means someone who can understand you fully, and a spouse, not matter how close the relationship, cannot.
yankelberel: “Mind you , the above sicha about the chazon ish was said on Purim 1956”
Ah! So it was a Purim Torah! Not a very funny one.
CS, I’d still like to know whether you have a real source that the best person for קנה לך חבר is one’s spouse. And in case you’re wondering, yes, I do have Shalom bayis BH.
CS, you wrote a few days ago: “With mussar you identify with your nefesh habehamis, and as such you must constantly humiliate yourself for your selfish motivations”
This statement that I have heard many times from Lubavichers is most definitely not true, certainly not in regards to the mussar seforim I am acquainted with. They don’t tell you how bad you are. They tell you what is important and how to work to get there.
mdd1: “so, according to Kedushas Ha’Leivi Yirmiyahu ha’Navi was no good (c”v!!)?”
The Kedusha Levi is discussing a mochiach, not a Navi who says what Hashem tells him to say.
Menachem: “The Rebbe never said this about himself. The Rebbe said this about his father-in-law, the Rebbe Rayatz.”
I feel some sneaky backtracking here. He said it about the Rayatz and not about himself. So did he or did he not mean to imply it about himself? If yes, it’s as good as him saying it. And if not, who decided that he himself was Atzmus umehus melubash beguf? The chassidim? Can chassidim decide something so radical on their own without an explicit statement from the rebbe himself.
Wasn’t it R Yoel Kahn who said after 3 Tammuz that the mistake of the chassidim is that they decided the rebbe was Mashiach when he didn’t say so explicitly, even though it was the logical conclusion? I believe he said by way of illustration something along the lines that chassidim can’t come to the conclusion that 2 plus 2 equals 4 if the rebbe doesn’t say so.