HaLeiVi

“Yoshke created miracles.”

Don’t know about you, but I don’t believe the Christian testament. See Sanhedrin 90.

What we absolutely do not find in Yiddish Hashkafa is not to thank Hashem for a salvation, natural or otherwise, לעושי רצונו or לעוברי רצונו. The aforementioned incidents of something happening because of—or even my means of—the Satan, were not miracles and were not salvation.

This is a whole brand new ideology to start judging whether or not a salvation came from Hashem. I guess we got a new Pshat in the הווא אמינא of the עגל worshipers and Korach. חומרא דאתא לידי קולא.

So it bothers you that Hashem is מאריך אף on Jews who are in trouble? He had patience for Achav; He can have patience for our confused generation as well. Take a look at the outcome. People see miracles and they turn to Hashem. The patience paid off.

The Medrash says that Hashem will blame our sins on the ones who brought us into exile. The Galus took its toll. Have patience and allow heavenly salvation and slowly our brothers and sisters, endowed will holy Neshamos, will turn to Hashem. As we find in Yechezkel that in the days to come, the rebuke will be in the form of benefits.

Avi K, you are proving a rule of Golus from the end of Golus? I guess you can likewise prove that you are entitled to walk off with my possessions since I may walk off with it

Yankel Berel, the three oaths are learned from Divrei Kabbala, which means that they are obviously not a new Mitzvah. They are a warning. That would explain why the Rambam doesn’t bring it as a Halachah. It’s a Hangaga but not a Halacha per se.

In his Iggeres Teiman we see him referring to it, and we also see how he refers to it. He calls it ‘advice from Shlomo Hamelech’. You can’t dismiss it as Agadaic, which was never meant to be dismissed, buy that’s another story. The Gemara treats it as any other Halachic discussion with back and forth Limudim from the Psukim. And it comes in where the actual action of going up to EY is being judged.

As to the OP, we can’t ignore that Moshiach is very near. After all we have the Gemara in Sanhedrin 98:
ואמר רבי אבא אין לך קץ מגולה מזה שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, ח) ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל וגו’.
The Gemara is saying that if you see the land giving fruit you know that the קץ is near.

I don’t think there’s a natural way out. Although it is possible to imagine natural solutions, where the Iranian government gets overthrown and Iran reconnects with Israel, and the “Palestinians” are de-programmed over two decades etc. We all know that this won’t happen. I do not believe that the situation will resolve itself before Moshiach. In the contrary, this is all a lead-up.

We are inside a thick, interesting novel but we have no clue what’s in the next page and it’s written so well that nobody can guess the end.

“They also violated aliyah baChoma and dechikas haKeitz”

Dechikas Haketz is total conjecture. You’re going to accuse people who didn’t believe in the קץ as being דוחה את הקץ? How blind can you be?

And, Aliyah Bechoma is very questionable if it was violated. If you want to know what Chazal meant by Aliyah Bechoma, there’s no need to guess. The term is used in Yoma 9 and it means everybody going at once. This didn’t happen.

Now, yes. The Satmar Rav and the Brisker Rav are the two famous Kanaim. It is the mainstream majority that I’m referring to. Now am I sure that the Brisker Rav’s problem was the 3 oaths or in general being against an organization trying to replace the Torah.

Weird how your forced Pshat is “the Torah” and my quote of the Maharal is “invented”. I guess there you have it. You aren’t an honest broker. And I hereby end my discussion with you. Bye.

HaKatan, the words I quoted don’t fit your Pshat. And it’s obvious that he disagreed with the Satmar Rav TZL about something. That much you can agree? So, let’s take it one step further. You like the Satmar Rav shita, fine. But don’t force that on everyone, because it’s absolutely not mainstream. Not by Litvish Rabbonim and Chasidish.

Anon1, where do you see any oaths in the first place? It’s not the Pashut pshat in the Pasuk. But it is in the Gemara, when it is discussing Amoraim.

As to your second point, the two oaths are unrelated. One is not to rebel and the second is not to go up en masse.

According to your logic, that it only applied during Bais Rishon, who was it about? Galos Yechonya?

RightJew, do you have an incling as to my two references?

I don’t have the קריינא דאיגרתא with me now, but it seems that what I recalled seeing there is correct. This is what I found quoting him:
עיקר טענת האדמו”ר הרה”ק מסטמאר שליט”א מחמת ג’ שבועות אינו מובן לענ”ד בודאי בתחילה היה שלא כדין אבל עכשיו שאין שלטון אחר לכאו’ ליכא איסור מצד ג’ השבועות

Apparently he thought it makes sense. And this is the position of the overwhelming majority of Chasidish and Litvish Rabbonim.

“The oaths require living in galus until Hashem chooses to end the Galus. Nowhere does anyone rule that if someone breaks this rule that they could therefore now be free of the requirement to live in galus. This, of course, would be akin to “sheLo yehei chotei niskar” from shas. And if you understood that galus was for our benefit, then you would immediately see why it’s absurd to even posit such a thing.”

The oaths are exactly one thing. Don’t make up stuff. There is no Mitzvah to knock on the doors of the nations and beg to be subjegated. The misquoted Maharal that Satmar refers to explains that the Galus is unnatural and that it requires an active Gezeira forcing it in place. The three oaths are three Gezeiros that keep the situation suspended in midair. And you just can’t go against it.

There is no Mitzvas Galus. It is a warning that you can’t outsmart Hashem. By raising the importance of these oaths and turning them into Yesodei Hadas you then can’t understand a simple logic, and equate it to fire on Shabbos.

I’m very unconvinced that any of them were violated, especially since it worked and the whole idea is that it won’t. Bnei Ephraim didn’t get out successfully; the state of Israel did get established. But regardless, having a state has nothing to do with going up en masse or breaking out if Galus on our own.

Yes, it’s obvious that the Zionist organizations would have wished for mass migration and a peaceful crusade, but it didn’t happen. It’s obvious that they caused a lot of trouble in Yiddishkeit just like any replacement ideology, which is the main reason Rabbonim had to counter these organizations.

But it happened, one way or the other. And Hashem was aware of it, I’m told. No, we didn’t outsmart His Galus plans.

Hakatan: “That makes no sense and is also a lie”

You’d need to explain why it makes no sense. It isn’t enough to simply explain as much. To me it makes very much sense. If the oath is merely an activity that one shall not engage in, what does that have to do with a state that already exists?

You are making up an issue that Chazal did not mention. There is no mention of creating, living in, protecting, or keeping a Jewish state. It was only about trying to leave the Galus. There’s surely no Mitzvah of going back into Galus!

And you’d have to quote the קריינא דאגרתא fully, because i recall him making The exact point that you said makes no sense. He was responding to someone who tried invoking the three oaths, and he was upset about it.

“I don’t see why people find this offensive”

I must say, this is weird. You don’t see why it’s offensive to consider your approach to be the absolute best?

You know, plenty of Chaddarim have internal feelings of pride, or of absolute truth. This is actually ok when you keep it to yourself. It stands to reason that, being that you cannot be in multiple tracks at the same time, you tend to view your current track as the only viable one. And for you, it is actually true — since it would be counter-productive to take on both.

But the trick is: Keep it to yourself!

Mod, you wrote to Menachem Shmiel: “attacks, hate, different versions of the same PR point”.

I am not Chabbad, and I think that’s clear. And I even share plenty of the gripes written here. However, it does seem that your personal slant is coming through on the inserted comments, and you might want to be mindful of that.

Yes, calling someone’s Rebbe a lightweight is a heavy attack. Perhaps you don’t understand the relationship of a Chossid to their Rebbe, but it should be obvious that it is strong. Listing embarrassing downsides of someone’s community is an attack, whether it’s right or wrong, and regardless of the justification of doing so. If it’s OK to attack, go ahead. But at least acknowledge that you attacked.

You might say that Chabbad attacks others and so now others are counter-attacking. Fine, but it is still an attack nonetheless.

not sure if all of this was directed to me but…

I don’t really care what comes through, my “slants” are per the presentation not the content, and that comment to him was part of an older and larger conversation. Next, I thought I deleted the comment about the lightweight, I guess there was more than one.

lastly, re: “you might say…” I  wasn’t saying that at all. I barely pay attention to the content. I was referencing an old conversation about using the word attack instead of addressing the point. Period. I’m sorry it spoke to you differently.

ARSo, as a Chossid of a Rebbe and a Chossid in general, you should be careful about speaking דברי זלזול on a famous Gadol and Rebbe.

Yes, there are gripes and מילתי דתמיה but to personally be מזלזל is a big leap that you need to be wary of.

It is no doubt that many Rebbes, Mekubalim and great Talmidei Chachamim held him in very high regard. His Tefillos and Brachos bore fruit and his advice brought success. These are traditional metrics of gauging someone who is a cut above. His Bekius was attested to by Talmidei Chachamim who spoke to him, as well as written works.

I wanted to remain silent in this conversation but I’m not allowed to. Be carefull. You know the Gemara in Brachos 19a about what happens even if the Chochom doesn’t care.

ARSo, that’s true. In fact, what people don’t realize is that the Rambam writes to be careful to whom you teach. People who won’t learn seriously can and do utilize the little they learn the wrong way.

Meeting the candidate doesn’t help one bit. The opposite might be true. It’s easier to make a decision without the fake smiles. I’m sure any Gadol who does decide political issues listens to people who know enough and that he has reason to trust.

There might be flaws in relying on people, but relying on a meeting with a politician is far worse.

Red herring

Always_Ask_Questions, the way I understood that Pasuk is that, for most people and for the first decades of their life, the basis of their knowledge of Halacha is from their mother. The father is not home that much, and serves as the figure he looks up to and wants to impress.

As for trusting the military bosses, I think that would depend on how they got to their positions.

“So as I said, in the early days of chassidus, the primacy of learning Torah was set aside in favor of learning “chassidus”. R’ Chaim Volozhin bemoaned this fact.”

And as I said, you get your ideas of what Chasidus is about from outsiders. And when confronted with facts that don’t match up, new theories are born.

Obviously, elements of Chasidus were able to spread faster than the teaching of Torah. So yes, those towns that were hitherto known as Ameratzim, and can afford few Masechtos and whose townfolk weren’t able to engulf themselves in long hours of Torah study, were now touched by the spark of Chasidus.

This shows you again that Chasidishe things don’t take much time. That’s why busy peasant-folk can get involved, and why serious scholars aren’t slowing their pace of learning; but rather all of their previous activities became re-invigorated.

Surely it would be great to open a large Yeshiva in every town, but it’s impossible and Reb Chaim Velozhener didn’t either do that. Do you think that when Chasidus came about they threw out two thirds of the town’s Shas? Or just maybe, that’s what they always had, and then Chasidus came in as well.

Early Hisnagdus was based on not interacting directly with the leaders of whom the complaints were lodged against, as much as some leaders have tried. The next generation, after having met many Rabbonim have walked back much of the complaints. But once you are already set up as a camp against something you look for things to complain about.

Hungarians were also sceptic about Chasidus, but it looked very different, and they therefore accepted over time whatever they chose to accept. Sefardim, too, relate to Chasidish Sefarim as they do to any other Sefer, without the preconceived negativity.

One more thing to point out.

The common notion of Tznius is a misrepresentation of Daas Chachamim. Anywhere that the Gemara discusses what we call today Tznius, the Gemara refers to it as Kavod.

It is almost a lost sensitivity. However, people invoke כל כבודה as if it is a sentence being imposed — but for your own good. But the whole point of that verse is exactly about honor.

Picture an actual princess of old. If she is only seen from time to time there is a special respect everyone would have in her presence. But once you begin seeing her in the market every day, there is only so long that you can maintain that special attitude.

This has clearly happened in the last 100 years, or so. Men used to act more refined when in the company of women, especially non-relatives. There is still a remnant of this, that seem almost arbitrary by now. But mostly, it is gone.

You can’t turn back the clock, but you can try to capture what was veing conveyed by these descriptions of refinement. And perhaps we can still grasp on to some of it, maintain what is possible, adapt what can be adapted, and learn from the rest.

Women have indeed been mistreated in many places, in many ages. This lead to a counter reaction and an unhealthy jealousy, and a desire to act fully like men, rather than to gain their own respect. But to the outside observer, the honor and respect that had been there is gone.

What is really gained by drilling in the street? How does faking macho stuff make you proud? What’s the big idea? It’s as silly as men showing off that they can cry and hug a bear.

My bottom line is that these Maamarim are indeed advice for respect, and not sentences. If society has lost the desire for the respect, and people are interested, I don’t see the point in bringing it up. But it is a mess.

What are the practical ramifications of deciding that a certain person is destined to become Moshiach?

Does it boil down to whether or not to say Yechi?

Wow! Quite the דברי בזיון on one of the most venerated Gedolei Yisroel. Actually, there is no excuse for such talk at this point in time, when you see how the greatest Tzadikim accepted the Bal Shem Tov. It takes quite the audacity to speak out like this. This can only happen to someone who isn’t careful about being לומד תורה מהאמגוש.

The entirety of the portrayal of the proto-chasidism is based on secular writings, with a sprinkling of just outsider perspectives — given by those who were predisposed to disdain Chasidus.

“Chassidus as originally intended by the Besht was problematic. Yes, he did introduce new ideas into Judaism. He claimed that learning Torah was not of utmost importance, and instead shifted the focus to tefillah, along with happiness. ”

All of these ideas are not new and are not just “originally intended”. Not only that, but they have become more widespread, and are being even more widespread nowadays. (Yes, I know that you lament that.) The Bal Shem Tov obviously never negated the countless Maamarei Chazal about the supremacy of learning Torah. In fact, that’s exactly what he spent his time doing with his close disciples, who were all well-learned and most of them held rabbinic positions. Emphasising, or putting weight into other Mitzvos (which hardly take away time from learning) is not a new concept. Davenning extra-long Shmone Esrei might be a new idea without a Mesora or reason, though.

Happiness itself is a trait that was extolled by many earlier pious groups. But, most importantly, if a Gadol has an insight into what he sees as helpful to Kirvas Elokim, that is not a new Torah. Plenty of great Rabbonium — before and after the Bal Shem Tov — have innovated, re-introduced, or narrowly focused on what others haven’t.

“His followers did things such as turn cartwheels while davening, spoke in tongues, and other strange actions. ”

This is bogus. There is a mention of one particular group, which obviously plays an oversized role in the mind of detractors, who have acted out over-the-top while Davenning as a means of ecstasy. This was not the Bal Shem Tov, nor the Maggid, but exactly one Talmid. And his friends were not happy about it, and it stopped. Speaking in tongues is simply baloney, but I can’t promise that Gershon Scholem didn’t mention it, since I wouldn’t read his ideas.

“There are other teachings which were concerning, and I won’t get into all of them. They can be summed up by his asserting the primacy of Kabbalah over traditional thought, even when it came to Halachah. Kabbalah is not supposed to be learned while young, and definitely not before one has a solid foundation in the traditional sources of Tanach, Mishnayos, and Gemara.”

The Hashkafos that the Bal Shem Tov taught, which are by now mainstream, that Hashem is not confined to being “up there” but that He is everywhere and more importantly, nothing is outside of His realm, reach and even plan; these ideas were not really negated by the main detractors. They were merely afraid of where it would lead people.

The Gra’s letter complains that. ‘האומר לעץ אבי אתה ולאבן אתה ילדתני’. This is a complaint against saying that Hashem is everywhere, since this would lead people to think that they can bow down to their own chairs and tables, if it is after all part of Hashem. While this precaution is understandable, we see that it didn’t turn out that way. The message was taught in a careful and well-designed manner, the way we all relate to it today.

The Gra actually continues by referencing the Zohar Hakadosh that is quoted by Chasidim, and he says that it is a secret and not meant to be taken in its simple form. And so, we see that although to the underlying idea there was no disagreement (since the Bal Shem Tov also did not teach it in the simple way), there was suspicion as to the irresponsibility of making asuch deep ideas available to the public. And, as it turns out, it went over well. Absolutely nobody relates to physical items as Hashem ר”ל. Even though most people won’t be able to easily explain how it all ties together, the ideas went over well, as we see every day.

Contrary to historians’ description, the Bal Shem Tov actually did not teach Kabalah to people. He discussed it with those who were already learned in it, and he did publicize some ideas from it, just as any Rav before and after him has done. And this can be seen in any Chasidish Sefer outside of Chabbad. They utilize certain Kabalistic ideas, usually famous ones, but never engage in explaining Kabalah per se. I would say that while it is true that one shouldn’t learn Kabalah before a solid grounding in Gemara and Halachah, the age is not a big deal. All successful Mekubalim began at a pretty young age.

Post Shabssai Tzvi there was a general caution of what the unguided study of Kabbalah can do. But seriously, that happened exactly once in history, and I’d blame mental illness before blaming Kabalah.

“Chassidus ended up becoming accepted because a few generations later, the leaders walked back on some of the ideas, and accepted the traditional views, merging some chassidic thoughts into them. Most of the things that were problematic were abandoned (although not all).
So Chassidus as the Besht envisioned it is long gone. Yet as I said, some problematic parts do remain. ”

This is simply not true. We have his teachings, and they are relevant. And as I wrote earlier, the all-too-famous cartwheels were not from him. The ideas of Torah Lishmah are widely known and quoted, although few are holding there. IT is mentioned by the Bach, and it is the Nefesh Hachaim who suggests taking a quick break in middle of learning to strengthen Yiras Shamayim. (Like the Mishna in Rosh Hashana 29a.)

His main ideas, which was about putting life into Yiddishkeit applied to those who learn as well as those who can’t learn enough.
ר’ נחמיה אומר מניין שכל הכושה מצוה אחת באמונה לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם כדאי הוא שתשרה רוח הקדש עליו (מכילתא דרשב”י י”ד)

“But let’s be clear about this: The Besht did NOT have a mesorah for his teachings. He didn’t learn about the supremacy of tefillah over learning Torah from his father (he was orphaned at the age of 5) or his Rebbe.
There are no seforim on learning from the Besht. Only quotes from his students, and mostly on matters of Chassidus. So there is absolutely zero proof that he was knowledgeable in Shas. In fact, the people who supported him had hoped he’d become a Rabbi, but he frequently skipped cheder to walk in the woods, and they gave up on him. When he finished cheder (at the age of 12), they gave him a job walking escorting the small children to cheder in the morning, and davening with them. ”

The Mesorah aspect was already addressed, as well as the fact that Tefillah was never made to be more important than Torah Study.

The rest is just a failed attempt at לישנא בישא. The quotes that are from him are all about parts of Torah. You can find them in a compilation called ספר בעל שם טוב. And again, just like the acceptance of any Gadol or Tzaddik is based on the testimony of other Gedolim, we can see the works of the Bal Hatanya and we know his regard for his Rebbe, the Maggid and the Bal Shem Tov. All of his disciples were Rabbanim, as mentioned above. As for having Seforim, the fact is that most Gedolim didn’t make Seforim. Did you ever see the Abrabanel’s sefer on Bava Metzia? Was he then not learned in Torah SheBal Peh? (Just in case you’d actually think so, you can see the great regard that the Beis Yosef has for him when mentioning a Pshat in the Rambam Hilchos Brachos.) Did the Rokeach write on Shas? How about Reb Yakov Pollack?

“My personal belief is that the stories of the Besht were inflated by those who came after, such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Yaakov Yosef of Polonye, and others. ”

“Since chassidus today was tempered by the traditional Jewish population, and they abandoned most of the teachings, chassidus became more accepted. But if the many of the practices were problematic, why do we think that those which remained are ok? If the source had problems, wouldn’t it be better to cut off all those teachings? ”

Since the premise is wrong, and no one went back on the teachings of the Bal Shem Tov, the postulate falls along with it. Even if you think that the Rebbes of the great Talmidei Chachamim couldn’t learn (somehow), being that, according to your portrayal, the learned ones hacked out a useable approach, it is after all designed by Gedolim who finally arrived at the scene.

Besides for all of the above, you should be pragmatic. Why would you pick a losing fight? You know that when you denigrate someone who is held in the highest esteem, you will not be listened to.

UJM, the Chofetz Chaim was against using a razor. That’s all. The whole Kuntres was about the actual Issur.

I am aware that his Kuntres is widely mentioned, but not quoted, as proof of his disparaging shaving, but that’s not what it is. In fact, right at the beginning he wonders — in a footnote — why it is that we don’t trim beards anymore and he gives two reasons.

What we have is all Americans paying for the malpractice of some doctors, instead of those doctors being punished. Since no one can be sure that they’ll win a court case, even if they’re right, so they buy malpractice insurance — a bazzare concept — and make their customers pay for their new cost of business. Who wins? Who loses?

Is this really impossible to fix? This was a conversation many years ago and then for some reason it got buried.

You can’t call it frivolous and also be proud of winning the case. If the judge took the time, and it wasn’t based on heretofore unknown information then how can the judge call it frivolous only after being convinced by the lawyer’s logic?