Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
To qwerty613. I think both of your points are based on misunderstandings rather than actual Chabad positions. First, regarding calling the Frierdiker Rebbe a “navi”: there is no sourced statement where the Lubavitcher Rebbe makes a halachic claim that prophecy returned before Moshiach. In Torah terms, formal nevuah (as defined by the Rambam) is not present today, and Chabad does not claim otherwise. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke about his father-in-law “seeing” or knowing things, he was referring to ruach hakodesh or very high spiritual perception—something clearly discussed in Chazal, and distinct from formal prophecy. Chassidic language often uses strong terms non-technically, which can sound misleading if taken literally, and are not meant as precise halachic definitions. Second, about Manis Friedman’s statement: Chabad does not deny punishment or accountability—Rambam Hilchos Teshuva is absolutely accepted. The point being made is that every Jew’s essence remains pure and that many people today fall under the category of tinok shenishba, meaning their culpability is different. In Chassidus, consequences are often framed as tikun (rectification) rather than simple punishment, and there’s a strong emphasis on Hashem’s rachamim in our generation—not a claim that “anything goes.” So neither claim represents a rejection of Torah; they reflect a particular way of understanding and emphasizing existing sources.
To qwerty613 After checking more carefully, I realized I was incorrect about the phrase “אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בציבור.” its actually, “אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בתשובה” based on the Gemara (Sanhedrin 97b). I also want to adjust my wording by taking out the word “clear” from my sentence “there are also clear חז״ל pointing the other direction” since I recognize it’s not so straightforward. That said, i think my main point still stands. I would not categorize the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s position as “rejecting” the Gemara or being “against the Torah.” I’m always open to learning more—if you have anything to add or sources to share, I’d appreciate it.
To qwerty “Schneersohn rejected the Gemara in Cheilek which said that only a small percentage of Jews will be redeemed by Moshiach.” The claim that the Lubavitcher Rebbe “rejected the Gemara in Cheilek” isn’t accurate. the discussion is how to reconcile its statements, not whether to accept them. The Rebbe didn’t reject Chazal—he explained how to understand all the sources together. The very opening of Perek Chelek says “כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא,” which is a foundational principle. Even when the Gemara or Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah ch. 3) lists people who “lose their share,” that doesn’t necessarily mean permanent, irreversible exclusion—especially since Rambam himself writes that teshuvah is always possible (Hilchos Teshuvah 7:5). There are also clear חז״ל pointing the other direction, like “אף על פי שחטא ישראל הוא” (Sanhedrin 44a), and פסוקים like “ועמך כולם צדיקים.” Chassidus (see Tanya ch. 2) explains that every Jew has an essential, eternal connection to Hashem that can’t be erased. This is part of a broader Torah principle that “לא ידח ממנו נדח,” that ultimately no Jew is completely cast away. Moshiach itself is consistently described in Torah sources as the redemption of Klal Yisrael as a whole, such as “וְשָׁב וְקִבֶּצְךָ מִכָּל הָעַמִּים” and Rambam’s description in Hilchos Melachim (11–12) of Moshiach gathering all exiles and restoring the entire nation. Chazal likewise state “אין ישראל נגאלין אלא בציבור.” So when the Rebbe emphasized that Moshiach will redeem every Jew, he wasn’t rejecting the Gemara—he was learning the sugya within that wider framework of Chazal, Rambam, and Pesukim. You don’t have to agree with that emphasis, but it’s clearly a sourced interpretation within Torah, even if not universally accepted.
To qwerty “when I say that Lubavitchers have no concept of Hashem I know whereof I speak. Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, chief Chabad Rabbi of California, stated in a YouTube video in 2008 that it’s the Rebbe who runs the world and he will take us out of Golus.” The quote from Rabbi Cunin needs to be understood in context and in line with basic Chabad theology, not taken as a literal standalone statement. Chabad absolutely believes that only Hashem runs the world—this is יסוד היסודות of Judaism and is explained at length in Tanya and countless maamarim. No Lubavitcher believes that any human being has independent power, chas v’shalom. When Rabbi Cunin said “the Rebbe runs the world,” he was speaking in an emotional setting after a tragedy, using the kind of elevated and expressive language that is common in Chassidic discourse. What is meant is that Hashem conducts the world through tzaddikim. This concept is rooted in Chazal: “הקב״ה גוזר וצדיק מבטל” (Moed Katan 16b), and “וצדיק יסוד עולם” (Mishlei 10:25), which Chazal and mefarshim understand as the tzaddik being a sustaining force and conduit of hashpa’ah. The Zohar (Vayechi) teaches “אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא ודרא,” that there is a משה-like leader in every generation through whom influence is drawn down. Tanya (Iggeres HaKodesh 27) further explains that a tzaddik continues to bring down bracha even after passing, and in Chapter 2 that the leaders of the generation serve as the “head,” channeling life and connection to the rest of the body. Similarly, when he said the Rebbe will take us out of Golus, this reflects the belief that Hashem redeems the Jewish people through Moshiach. Just as the Torah attributes Yetzias Mitzrayim to Moshe—while it is clear that Hashem is the one who redeemed them—so too the geulah comes through a human leader who is completely batel to Hashem. If someone wants to take a single emotionally charged sentence and interpret it literally in a way that contradicts core Jewish belief, that says more about the interpretation than about Chabad. The consistent and explicit position of Chabad is absolute emunah that Hashem alone is the Borei and Manhig of the world, and that any role of a tzaddik is only as a conduit for His will, not an independent power.
To rebEms. Regarding your claims that a Jew who does not observe Shabbos is equivalent to a non-Jew when putting on tefillin. I believe this perspective misinterprets a limited halachic comparison. While the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 30:15) and the Shulchan Aruch (OC 385:3) note that one who publicly desecrates Shabbos is “equivalent to gentiles in all regards,” this is not applied literally across all of Halacha. As stated in Gemara Sanhedrin 44a, “A Jew—even though he has sinned—is still a Jew.” Such disqualifications apply to specific roles, such as serving as a witness etc. but they do not invalidate the performance of mitzvos. There is no source in Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah, Even HaEzer, or Choshen Mishpat suggesting that a mitzvah performed by a non-shomer Shabbos is invalid or equivalent to a non-Jew performing it. Furthermore, many contemporary poskim today classify non-observant Jews as “tinok shenishba” which affects their halachic standing. Regarding the idea that “the only reason it would pay to do this is if they are being pushed in the direction of observing more,” the value of a mitzvah is independent of future actions. Even if you never see the person again, As the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 3:4) states that a single mitzvah can tip the scales for both the individual and the world toward merit. This shows that a mitzvah has independent value and is not merely a step toward future observance. And about your point “but not comforted to stay the same or just ignored after they put it on tefillin” Chabad does not encourage anyone to remain non-observant, nor is anyone purposely ignored after performing the mitzvah.
To qwerty613. I would like to address some of the points you raised about Chabad and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Regarding the comment that “Lubavitchers have no concept of Hashem,” I would ask what you believe every Chabad bochur is learning before Shacharis in yeshiva? That study is centered entirely on Hashem. I am curious if you have ever learnt Tanya or any other Chabad philosophy. Furthermore, you mentioned that “their belief system is based on doing what they think Schneersohn would want from them.” In reality, their belief system founded on the 13 principles of faith, just like any other frum Jew. While they certainly try their best to do what they believe their Rebbe wants from them, it is not the sole basis of their faith. Then, you spoke of an “absolute belief in anything Schneersohn said even when he said things that were against the Torah.” Can you please explain what exactly you mean by “against the Torah”? I believe the Lubavitcher Rebbe was very careful to follow the Torah. It is a bit misconceiving to claim someone says things against the Torah simply because you may have a different opinion on certain matters.
To qwerty “I’m not criticizing Chabad for doing so, because they’re following Schneersohn’s orders”Well are you suggesting that they are just following the lubavitcher rebbe with blind Faith and that he has no sources for this in the Torah? (even if you may not agree with it, it can still be a legitimate Derech, right?).It seems to me that there’s a big difference in understanding between you and Chabad about the value Hashem has (and which Torah gives) for a individual jew doing a Mitzvah, and to what extent you should go out to help another jew fulfill it (even if he won’t become frum).Just curious when you went to a public space did you ever take a pair of Tefilin with you to see if maybe someone would be interested in putting it on? There’s no money being wasted? And you’re we’re going either way. now you might think it would better if you would learn some Torah with him instead, but I’m sure you also see value in getting another jew to put on Tefilin.
To qwerty “I’m not criticizing Chabad for doing so, because they’re following Schneersohn’s orders”Well are you suggesting that they are just following the lubavitcher rebbe with blind Faith and that he has no sources for this in the Torah? (even if you may not agree with it, it can still be a legitimate Derech, right?). It seems to me that there’s a big difference in understanding between you and Chabad about the value Hashem has (and which Torah gives) for a individual jew doing a Mitzvah, and to what extent you should go out to help another jew fulfill it (even if he won’t become frum). Just curious when you went to a public space did you ever take a pair of Tefilin with you to see if maybe someone would be interested in putting it on? There’s no money being wasted? And you’re we’re going either way. now you might think it would better if you would learn some Torah with him instead, but I’m sure you also see value in getting another jew to put on Tefilin.
To Reb qwerty613
“Chabad plays all kinds of games with Halacha”
if you’re considering a Heter from a Rov (which I’m assuming this rabbi got based on the explanation you gave for why he did it (although it could be your personal Rabbi and for that matter most Rabonim would not hold of it)) games, fine. But if you’re suggesting that this Rabbi and Chabad as a whole chooses which Halachos to keep and which to throw away, exactly like reform does, I would be curious to hear what makes you think thatTo Reb qwerty613
“Chabad plays all kinds of games with Halacha”
if you’re considering a Heter from a Rov (which I’m assuming this rabbi got based on the explanation you gave for why he did it (although it could be your personal Rabbi and for that matter most Rabonim would not hold of it)) games, fine. But if you’re suggesting that this Rabbi and Chabad as a whole chooses which Halachos to keep and which to throw away, exactly like reform does, I would be curious to hear what makes you think that“There is no Mitzvah to perform Kiruv on an intermarried couple”
Why not? They have the same Jewish status as you and me, even if the chances of them becoming frum are extremely low, that doesn’t take away from the importance and value of each individual Mitzvah you can get them to perform. And if so why are you saying that all of this money is being wasted? Its helping Jews perform more mitzvos who otherwise wouldn’t,
(I understand that you might think that there is better causes for the money to go to, but because of that to say its all going to waste is a bit extreme)