Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How can someone be Oved Avoda Zara without Avoda Zara!? Please find me an example.
Someone bows down to an idol on threat of death. It’s an aveirah, but the person doesn’t believe in it at all.
It wasn’t a dig at all.
You could have chosen better wording than that if it wasn’t a dig, but okay.
I think a lot of these smaller issues that people bring up are really illustrations of a bigger problem, that avodas Hashem is overwhelmingly directed at (or through, if you prefer) the Rebbe, and he seems to be mentioned a lot more than the RBS’O.
So let’s say it’s fine to say let’s bring nachas to the Rebbe. What about bringing nachas to the RBS’O? Let’s say it’s okay to talk about fulfilling the Rebbe’s ratzon (or whatever the precise lashon). Where’s the focus on fulfilling Hashem’s ratzon?
All of the smaller issues people have, such as the use of pictures of the Rebbe in a way not seen anywhere else, the talking to the Rebbe, etc., perhaps can be explained away, each on its own, as acceptable. The overall picture, at least from an outsider’s perspective, emerges, however as a chassidus which has its focus on the Rebbe to to a obsessive, unhealthy, dangerous degree completely unparalleled in any other group, even other chassidim who ardently revere their Rebbes.
It seems to me that people are badly biased against Chabad
Not personally. If anything, we (meaning Litvish yeshiva trained people) are more culturally similar to Chabad than to other chassidim. The issue is purely hashkafic (I can’t speak for litvisherchossid or others, but that’s certainly how I feel).
Rebyid23 your question has already been addressed in this thread.
Where?
Maybe you’re better at explaining. Great one with bringing belzer example.
As was pointed out multiple times, the analogy is completely inapt.
but the Rebbe made it very clear to me that both ways are acceptable
I thought you were born after the Rebbe was niftar?
I talk to my mother in law too, I talk to my boss too, why are you so bothered by who people are talking to???
I hope not the way we talk to Hashem.
Please read past the thread title.
We are not arguing on giving a kvittel to the Rebbe. The specific definition of “betten the Rebbe” that you are using is not what we are discussing. It is assigning “yachol hakol” powers, making requests of him directly, atzmus in a guf, and the like which are not present in other chassidus which is the issue.
In what world do you think that is not connected to the subject of making requests of Rebbe’s and here is a specific instance of making requests from a “dead” Rebbe.
It didn’t say anything about making requests from the Belzer Rebbe
Perhaps some of you will also find the following interesting.
Perhaps interesting to some, but irelevant to the discussion. If you think it is relevant to the discussion, then you are misunderstanding at least one side of the argument.
You can’t daven to the Rebbe, you can ask for brachos.
That’s what you say now. Next post you might go back to saying you can because he was the tzaddik gamur of the Tanya. (Someone doesn’t need to be a tzaddik to ask for brachos.)
No one in lubavitch calls the Rebbe boreinu cvs. That’s a libel.Semantics. You call them not Lubavich. No true Scotsman. It doesn’t change my point that the characteristics you assign to the Rebbe besides being inherently problematic, lead to even worse.
Anyhow I think we can agree that there are different ways to interpret the gemara
And the other sources as well. Which leads us back to your accepting the Rebbe’s wild claims simply because he said them, no other reason.
and others accepted him as such as well
And others did not. You make it sound as if it’s an undisputed fact. It isn’t.
So we continue to go in circles.
That often made an impression.
I don’t think one should be worried about ‘impressions’ made by how you pay the bill in an restaurant.
Besides filters don’t really works for social media and everyone’s “tznius” pictures or ” people you may know” who you really don’t and wouldn’t want to.
That depends on which filter you use and the settings applied.
But if you schecht a beheima and it “didn’t work” no damage done and noone forcing you to consume it. On the other hand if the filter failed, you already consumed.
So don’t bother with a filter?
It’s not a minhag shtus, because it’s not a minhag at all. It’s a cultural norm, and perhaps a policy in some yeshivos.
You’re entitled to think it’s a shtus to make a norm or policy out of it (and I’m entitled to disagree), but don’t call it what it isn’t.
Let’s say for argument’s sake it does have roots in a”z. (I never studied it and don’t know anyone who uses it.) So it’s assur, and quite a big issur at that. The practitioners’ beliefs are okay, but they’re doing an aveirah.
Is that really on the same level as people who think a human being is omniscient, can do anything, and may be prayed to?
Rav Miller’s tapes are now on the internet.
Also, you keep going back and forth between saying you’re allowed to daven to the Rebbe because he’s a memutzeh hamechaber, and denying that you’re davening to the Rebbe. Please make up your mind.
And don’t kid yourself; there are people who call him boreinu; you don’t think they’re likely to forget about Hashem? Besides, shituf is assur even if Hashem is in the picture. Worshiping the sun is not only assur because one might forget Hashem.
When you shecht beheimos, sometimes it doesn’t work. It’s also very expensive to shecht every beheima you eat.
I know you brought the context for WHY Rabbi Yitzchak was referred to as Hevaya
No, the gemara was not saying he was havaya.
At most it’s an analogy, and there is a way of reading the gemara which doesn’t even make that analogy, and according to the girsa of the ככר לאדן, you can’t even read the gemara as an analogy.
The Rebbe chose to read the gemara in a way which demonstrates the problematic idea he wished to espouse, but the gemara is in no way a proof.
Curious to see what sechel says.
As am I. I have found some of CS’ comments highly disturbing from a hashkafic perspective and would like to see SHY straighten her out as he did regarding the “partner” comment.
Pig skin is assur b’hanna’ah.
I hope you’re joking.
Reb Moshe has a trshuva in the sefer that it’s a treifah.
Can you please cite the source? It would be interesting to see, since Rav Belsky was mattir based on the animals not being treifah.
Therefore there is nothing to ask Reb Dovid Or Reb Reuvain.
This is a mistake. Even if the milk from DA cows us treifah, the containers of milk you buy in the stores could be muttar because of bittul. That is the psak of R’ Chatzkel Roth, and I assume the reason R’ Dovid Feinstein is in fact mattir.
The gedolei poskim in Eretz Yisroel were in fact machmir, so there is certainly reason to buy only CY even for one who used to be meikil, but it is false to claim that those who do buy CS don’t have on whom to rely.
I can only speak for myself, I do not hate people who aren’t Chabad (majority of the Jewish world) because they aren’t Chabad.
Speaking for myself. I do not hate people who are Chabad.
Calling our Derech “Avoda Zara” and “Not legitimate” doesn’t increase the love I have for you, as my fellow Yid.It doesn’t, but at a certain point, something becomes outside the realm of acceptaable hashkofoh, and must be rejected. Not the person, the hashkofoh. Throughout the generalizations, some of the biggest ohavei Yisroel have forcefully spoken out against deviant movements.
(Maybe it’s not ok by then because they’re not talking about a tzadik gamur of Tanya, someone that is 100% batul to Hashem and doesn’t even feel like doing anything else than what Hashem wants? In which case there would be no contradiction.)…
Many chassidim, not just Chabad will address requests to the Rebbe as well.
I don’t believe “addressing a request” to a ממוצע is done by any other chassidim. When דור אנוש gave glory to the sun and moon, it was ultimately directed towards Hashem, but still a”z.
First Rambam in Hilchos A”Z:
בימי אנוש טעו בני האדם טעות גדול ונבערה עצת חכמי אותו הדור ואנוש עצמו מן הטועים היה. וזו היתה טעותם. אמרו הואיל והאלהים ברא כוכבים אלו וגלגלים להנהיג את העולם ונתנם במרום וחלק להם כבוד והם שמשים המשמשים לפניו ראויין הם לשבחם ולפארם ולחלוק להם כבוד. וזהו רצון האל ברוך הוא לגדל ולכבד מי שגדלו וכבדו. כמו שהמלך רוצה לכבד העומדים לפניו וזהו כבודו של מלך. כיון שעלה דבר זה על לבם התחילו לבנות לכוכבים היכלות ולהקריב להן קרבנות ולשבחם ולפארם בדברים ולהשתחוות למולם כדי להשיג רצון הבורא בדעתם הרעה. וזה היה עיקר עבודת כוכבים. וכך היו אומרים עובדיה היודעים עיקרה. לא שהן אומרים שאין שם אלוה אלא כוכב זה. הוא שירמיהו אומר מי לא ייראך מלך הגוים כי לך יאתה כי בכל חכמי הגוים ובכל מלכותם מאין כמוך ובאחת יבערו ויכסלו מוסר הבלים עץ הוא. כלומר הכל יודעים שאתה הוא לבדך אבל טעותם וכסילותם שמדמים שזה ההבל רצונך הוא
All that is important to them is that a gazillion years ago, some goy might have milked a cow, adulterated the milk, yadda yadda.
What’s important is that there was a gezeiras Chazal which does not become nullified unless a beis din which is greater than the one which made the gezeirah (which doesn’t exist today) nullifies it.
For those who hold that cholov stam is sufficient for their hashkafah
You seem to ignore the fact that it’s a halachah shailah (whether today’s milk fits the gezeirah).
Im curious to k now why when it comes to girl schools who have a school uniform the gorls are required to wear those uniform only during schools hours. Once off school premises they are no longer required to wear those uniform. However by bochrim, if they are caught wearing any color shirt when they are away from yeshiva , they get called into the rosh yeshivas office for a nice shmooze. No im not talking when playing sports or bain hazmanim.
Girls’ uniforms serve a different purpose than boys’ unforms. They are mostly designed to decrease the jealousy and comparisons between one girl’s clothing and another.
The purpose of the boys’ “uniforms” is mostly identification with a certain type of ben Torah. That same purpose is achieved for girls with the unofficial “uniform” of a Bais Yaakov girl – a certain level of tznius and refinement which is expected to be maintained even when not in school.
Just another word on pixelation.
To its everlasting disgrace, a frum magazine just a few weeks ago , pixelated a woman in a Holocaust photo.In this week’s edition, they printed an apology and an explanation that there was a technical issue involved. They stated clearly that it is not their editorial policy to blur the faces of women in pictures.
And since asking “Rebbe help me with…” Can sound like the same idea as davening,
Well, yes it does, and an answer that he’s atzmus araingshtelt in a guf doesn’t do anything to dispel that. I thought you were claiming that betten isn’t davening, but I think you just backtracked from that.
As far as kol yachol, if you look it says yachol hakol, not kol yachol.
Yes, and ba’al habayis al hakol. That’s not the same as saying someone is a ba’al mofes. I don’t see how saying someone can do anything isn’t total a”z. Even if you make a slight grammatical change.
I don’t have further questions, but the questions on the table haven’t really been answered.
The “betten the Rebbe” has been explained as not davening to the Rebbe, but it hasn’t been answered why he needed to say the chiddush of atzmus araingshtelt in a guf, since anyone can daven on behalf of anyone else, and nobody ever questions that fact, or even why (at least not “b’raash gadol”[although perhaps the rash gadol was only on the answer]). The fact that we are all one is enough to explain why we can daven for each other, and the whole Rebbe/tzaddik thing doesn’t need to be brought in, unless there’s something more going on.
I also don’t recall anyone answering how the Rebbe called the Frierdike Rebbe a kol yachol.
I may have missed a couple of posts, so please link or quote if these were in fact answered.
The OTD kid that steals money from the parents to finance their vices is still liable. The illness does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions.
I believe that is not what you said earlier, when you claimed that they are not baalei aveirah.
Unless for some reason you hold them liable for bein adam lachaveiro but not bein adam lamakom. If that’s the case, please explain why.
Well just look at this thread. If you don’t learn Tanya I guess got don’t get it. If it was so simple, there would be no thread.
That sichah is clearly not addressing what you think we don’t get.
Youre misunderstanding. The chiddush is WHY its OK. Not the fact that it is OK. Chassidus goes into the Why.
If the question was why, the “baalei nigleh” he refers to would not be complaining “b’raash gadol”.
You are creating context here which doesn’t fit what he is clearly addressing.
I found the following comment from TLIK:
The little I know February 7, 2018 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm
If these boys are so holy, they should be spending their time in the beis hamedrash and learning. These are hooligans who are laydig gayers, and their protests are both bitul Torah and chilul Hashem. They are the real bizayon here, not the girls. B”H none of my children are in E”Y today. If I ever caught my kid participating in this kind of despicable activity, his days in E”Y would end immediately, and I would change his chinuch to something that would guide him toward Kiddush Hashem. Probably therapy, too.
Why do you call them “hooligans”, “laydig gayers”, and “a bizayon”?
They’re cholim! Have rachmanus!
Since betten does not mean tefila, then what was the problem the Lubavitcher Rebbe was trying to answer by saying his father-in-law was “Atzmuso uMahuso araingeshtelt in a guf?” (From the context this is clearly particular to him or Tzadikim generally not all Jews, so don’t say he was referring to the fact that every Jew has a chelek eloka mimaal.)
I was going to ask the same question to Chabadshluchah. I’ll add that in the footnote, the Rebbe addresses the strenuous objection to his admittedly innovative “hergesh”, and ignores the plain meaning of the Yerushalmi to bring a “source” to it.
He should have simply said they misunderstood him, it’s not a chiddush, it’s accepted in every circle to ask a tzaddik to daven for us, and sourced explicit Chazal saying this.
SHY,
Nowhere did I imply that Moshe Rabbeinu was the Aibershter. Chas vesholom.
You used the phrase, “Moshe isn’t an entity separate from Hashem, rather, he is nullified before Hashem.”
No, I’m not accusing you of believing that Moshe Rabbeinu or the Rebbe are Hashem, ch”v. But can’t you see how use of such terminology (which seems much too common) can (and has) lead to belief in shituf?
SHY, I did read it all, thank you.
I lost you when you said Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t a separate entity.
His bitul was to such a degree that he was able to transmit the Torah faithfully. You can call him transparent in his transmission of the Torah, but he wasn’t Hashem, ch”v, he was still a human being, as much a separate entity as other human beings.
1 – Please look up shair emunah of the mitteler rebbe,
Frankly, I am not going to.
2 – what do you think betten means ?, when we write to the rebbe we write on the first line Ana liorer rachamim rabim avuri…
That question has been asked here, but we haven’t gotten a straight answer. If it merely means to ask the Rebbe to daven on your behalf, there’s no kashya to address. Nobody has a problem with that.
3 – you can watch the rebbe give dollars every time someone thanks him for a bracha he gave them, he says don’t thank me thank hashem
That doesn’t change the problematic things he said.
P.s
You sound more like you have an agenda.
rather then caring about yedishkeit, you are using this for your own stupiditiesLet’s try to keep the dialogue civil. I understand that your passions are enflamed because we are questioning and even challenging the foundations of your faith, but the nasty comments and sarcastic half answers don’t do anybody any good.
when it says atzmus umihus in a guf this is a level of
g-dleness not c”v saying anything like avoday zaraAtzmus doesn’t mean levels. It is a very specific word meant to convey that we’re not referring to a concept, but the thing itself.
Also, if it merely meant a level of G-dliness, it wouldn’t allow betten.
we also say certain expressions about every yid that can be construed that way but that is not what is meant.
You don’t say you can pray to any Yid, or that any Yid is a kol yachol.
Plainploni, excellent post.
By pushing against their (analytically questionable) interpretation, you are effectively pushing them further towards avodah zara, which no one wants.
We haven’t received anything remotely resembling an interpretation.
I agree with you, I would much rather see them force an interpretation into all of the Rebbe’s controversial statements than descend into worse kefirah and mishugas, but it appears that a significant part of Chabad has taken a lot at face value.
As I told SHY, what I would blike to see is the moderate Chabad chassidim completely reject the kofrim. Hopefully, the kefirah will be replaced by more reasonable hashkafos, but even if ch”v not, there’s no room for them in Yiddishkeit and the worry that that might become even worse doesn’t justify acceptance.
Now if the other stuff is pretty clear
The main questions have not been answered.
a slightly different version
There’s a third version, you know.
Don’t know what you’re while fuss is about.
Avoda zara, shituf, kefirah…
Any yid is supposed to be able to rule the world
What on earth are you talking about?
Add it to the list of questions yet to be answered.
CS, when referring to avodah zara, we say elohim acherim.
If I believe my Rebbe has Ruach Hakodesh, he’s probably watching me to. And if he’s passed away, he can see me from Olam Haemes.
The all seeing, all knowing Rebbe?
Wow.
A good case in point is Yom Tov Sheini for those visiting or learning in Chutz Laaretz or EY. (I won’t expound on this, if CS knows what I mean, good) Another, although not along the Meshichist – Non Meshichist divide, is the brocha on half hallel. (Again, CS, if you know what I’m referring to, good, if someone else wants to know, too bad)
Why so secretive?
I’m still waiting for SHY to explain the sichah about atzmus araingshtelt in a guf.
unless one puts the being of the tzadik above / instead is Hahem, which is why we need to be careful not to have a picture in front of us while davening.
But if you daven to the atzmus araingshtelt in a guf, why can’t you daven to the atzmus araingshtelt in a picture?
A tzadik can’t be avoda zara
Moshe Rabbeinu’s burial place is hidden so that he shouldn’t be made into an a”z.