aposhiteyid

for all those ywn rabonim critizing lubavitch by saying that their practices are not chasiddishe practices since belz, gur, vizhnitz etc dont do them:
it must be noted that lubavitch/chabad is a differnt type of chassidus .
The abovementioned are chasidus chagas, whose focus is mainly on their rebbe while lubavitch is a chassidus chabad, mainly focused on the rebbes torah etc. therefore to say that chabad’s learning of chasidus for hours is not a chasidishe practice purely shows your ignorance that you are unware of the two types of chassidusen

Syag lachomacha:
“More along the lines of our Australian team here.”
Just wanted to say, since you think (and are probably right) that I am doing damage, that I am a teen, the only reason I’m on the Cr is because I had online school ( English, math science zzzzzzzzzzz) so I used this to have some fun. So when I make a good point, please consider it. But when I say something stupid, please remember how old I am.

Syag:
Of course, but you never know😉
But do U get my point?

Avirahdarah:
Chabad dosnt way the Rebbe is moshiach vadai
“Moshiach will use ruach hakodesh to identify the yichus of the shvatim, starting with shevet levi – he will clarify who is a cohen, Levi, etc. “All of yisroel will gather unto him”.”
Just interestingly my grandfather once wrote a letter to the Rebbe and he didn’t write hakohen (he is a kohen, so am I) as the Rebbe when he sent the letter back wrote hakohen and underlined it
Common saychel:
“I have a friend who is a hatzola member and they had a call that someone striped and was running around yelling he is Moshiach, does that make him moshicach because he said so?”
But is he for sure not moshiach?

Avirahdara:
Farby – vayehi ohr is not elokus. We’re not pantheistic where we think everything is god cv’s. It is an emanation and the will of Hashem manifested.

Are you saying that they are davar bifnei atzmo??
Please explain

rightwriter:
Maybe hes just looking to have some fun ( chabad topics are usually very contreversial, so fun) as that is the main point of the coffeeroom

philosopher:
“any “Rabbi” who says that their Rebbe runs the world is a fake rabbi, I don’t care if he has a large black hat and a frock and learns a lot. ”
Do you also not care about the context, what he actually meant?
Because that’s what it seems like.
(I apologize if you are finding me harsh)

Philosepher:
“our real Rabbonim”
Who said that you get to decide who “real Rabonim” are??

As he is not such a random person.
And what if he says that Moshe Rabeinu runs the world?

Philosepher,
Ill try explain myself but after this im not going to get into this argument any further.
If a tzadik is gozer and the Hashem is mekayem that same thing, would that not mean that the tzaddik is “controlling” that thing?
This is not neccesarily what Rabbi Cunin meant, just a suggestion.

Yes, for me it is Friday.

Why so?
Because more people are knowledgeable in a certain subject the knowledge is no longer knowledge
I don’t see the logic
Pls explain

And btw there is a mitzva to get married- to fulfill peru urevu

IMHO- In my humble opinion

@AviraDeArah
The message from the story was to show how much pleasure hashem gets from it.
See this: (Mod please let) No outside links means no outside links. Not sure why that confuses people.
https://www. chabad .org/library/article_cdo/aid/130303/jewish/G-ds-Nourishment.htm

Also Avirahdara:
What does Gazan mean?

AAQ:
“(I believe Chabad is not using this word and is able to do the job somehow)”
Yep. Look at these stories from Chabad.org
“Take the case of the rabbi who wrote to the Rebbe boasting that he was involved in outreach. He used the Hebrew term kiruv rechokim, which translates as “bringing close those who are distant.” The poor rabbi must have really regretted that letter. The Rebbe wrote back indignantly:

You call them “distant”?! What gives you the right to say that you are close and they are far? You must approach each one of them as though you are the King’s servant sent with a message to His most precious child!

Others who spoke with the Rebbe on the subject have similarly groped and fallen. One Chabad supporter told the Rebbe about a Shabbaton he had sponsored for over forty couples who “had no Jewish background.”

“No what?” the Rebbe responded, as though in shock.

“No Jewish background,” was the hesitant response.

“Tell them that they have a background! Their background is that they are children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!” the Rebbe replied.”

Yes
Totally agree over time this sinnas chinam has grown and we really need to try flip it over into ahvas chinam. Wether someone is breslov, satmar, chabad, mo or reform we have a mitzva from the torah to love every jew unconditionally

Why was one of my comments deleted?

Going OTD

Chabad

a lubavitcher chgassid was in prison in russia at thhe times of the communists,
he saw some breslover chassidim dancing in prison so he asked them whgats going on?
they said we are soon going to be free and the posuk says ki vesimchah sietzaiu

In english:

Acting on the advice mentioned above—to view one’s body with scorn and contempt and to find joy in the joy of the soul alone—

is a direct and easy path toward fulfilling the mitzvah, “You shall love your fellow as yourself,”1 with regard to every Jew both great and small—in spiritual stature.

Since his body is despised and loathsome, he will not love himself on account of his body more than he loves his fellow, and as for the soul and spirit, the differences between his own soul and that of his fellow surely will not diminish the love between them, for who can know their (the soul and spirit’s) greatness and excellence in their source and root—the living G‑d?

How, then, can one claim that his soul is superior to his fellow’s?

Furthermore, they are actually all equal,2 and not only equal yet separate, but, furthermore, they all have one father—one source, and within their source, they all comprise one entity.

It is on account of this common root in the One G‑d that all of Israel are called “brothers”—in the full sense of the word, and not only figuratively, in the sense of “relatives” or “similar in appearance” and the like;3

only the bodies are distinct from each other.

This explains how it is at all possible to demand that one love his fellow as he loves himself. Self-love is innate, natural to man; love for one’s fellow is not. How can a generated love match a natural one?

According to the principle stated here, this is readily understood. One Jew need not create a love for another. The love is an inborn characteristic of his soul on account of its root in G‑dliness which is common to all souls; it is as natural as the love between brothers.

Therefore, there can be no true love and fraternity between those who regard their bodies as primary and their souls secondary but only a love based on an external factor.

Since the body separates us from each other, whereas the soul is that which binds us together, the greater value one places on his body at the expense of his soul, the more conscious he is of the differences between himself and his fellow. These differences require that he create a love for his fellow, and, as said above, a created love can never equal a natural, innate love. Therefore, love between people who consider their bodies as primarily important must be only a love based on some external factor, in which case the love is (a) limited to the importance of the motivating factor and (b) destined to endure only as long as that factor is valid.

This explains Hillel the Elder’s statement concerning the fulfillment of this mitzvah: “This is the entire Torah; the rest is but commentary.”4

For the basis and root purpose of the entire Torah is to elevate and exalt the soul high above the body to [G‑d], the source and root of all worlds,

and also to draw down the infinite light of the Ein Sof into the Community of Israel—as will be explained further,5 meaning into the fountainhead of the souls of all Israel, so that “the One [G‑d] will reside within [Israel—but only insofar as they are] one,” i.e., united.

But this indwelling of the light of the Ein Sof in the Community of Israel is impossible if there is disunity between the souls, G‑d forbid, for “G‑d does not dwell in an imperfect, fragmented place.”6

So do we say in our prayers: “Bless us, our Father, all as one with the light of Your Countenance,”7 indicating that “the light of G‑d’s Countenance” can be revealed only when we are united “all as one,” as explained elsewhere at length.

As for the Talmudic statement8 that if one sees his friend sinning, he should hate him, and should also relate the fact to his teacher so that he too will hate him—how does this conform with what was said above?

This applies only to one’s companion—one’s equal—in the study of Torah and the observance of the mitzvot.

The sinner in question is a Torah-observant scholar but has lapsed in this one instance. In this case, his sin is much more severe than usual, since it is written that even the inadvertent misdeeds of a scholar are as grave as deliberate sins.9 But even this general assumption of the gravity of his conduct is not sufficient cause to hate him, as the Alter Rebbe continues. Yet another condition must first be satisfied:

He has also fulfilled with him—with the sinner—the injunction, “You shall repeatedly rebuke your friend.”10 The word used here for “your friend” (עֲמִיתֶךָ) also indicates, as the Talmud points out, עַם שֶׁאִתְּךָ—“he who is on a par with you in the Torah and the mitzvot,”11 who, nevertheless, has not repented of his sin, as it is written in Sefer Charedim.

At this point, there is no need to exaggerate the gravity of his sin: it is clearly a deliberate transgression.

But as to one who is not his companion—his equal—in the Torah and the mitzvot so that (as our Sages say concerning the ignorant in general) even his deliberate transgressions are regarded as inadvertent acts, since he is unaware of the gravity of sin, nor is he on intimate terms with him,—not only is one not enjoined to hate him, on the contrary, he must, in fact, strive to become closer to him, as the Alter Rebbe states shortly.

To hate such a sinner is surely unjustifiable, since no sin that he commits is considered deliberate. There is also no reason to keep one’s distance from him out of fear that he will learn from his evil ways (in fulfillment of the exhortation of the Mishnah, “Do not fraternize with a wicked man”), since he is not on close personal terms with him in any case.

Therefore, on the contrary: Of this situation, Hillel said, “Be one of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving creatures and drawing them near to the Torah.”12

This usage of the term “creatures” in reference to human beings means that even those who are far from G‑d’s Torah and His service, for which reason they are classified simply as “creatures”—indicating that the fact that they are G‑d’s creations is their sole virtue—even those, one must attract with strong cords of love.

Perhaps thereby one will be able, after all, to draw them close to the Torah and the service of G‑d.

And even if one fails in this, he has not forfeited the merit of the mitzvah of neighborly love, which he has fulfilled by his efforts in this direction.

Furthermore, even those whom one is enjoined to hate—for they are close to him, and he has rebuked them, but they still have not repented of their sins—one is obliged to love them too.

But is it possible to love a person and hate him at the same time? The Alter Rebbe explains that since the love and the hatred stem from two different causes, they do not conflict.

And both the love and the hatred are truthful emotions in this case, [since] the hatred is on account of the evil within them, while the love is on account of the good hidden in them, which is the divine spark within them that animates their divine soul. For this spark of G‑dliness is present even in the most wicked of one’s fellow Jews; it is merely hidden.

One may now be faced with the anomaly of a fellow Jew whom he must both love and hate. But what attitude should he adopt toward the person as a whole who possesses both these aspects of good and evil? When, for example, the sinner requests a favor of him, should his hatred dictate his response or his love?

The Alter Rebbe goes on to say that one’s relationship with the sinner as a whole should be guided by love. By arousing one’s compassion for him, one restricts one’s own hatred so that it is directed solely at the evil within the sinner, not at the person himself.

One must also arouse compassion on [the divine soul of the sinner], for in the case of the wicked, it is in exile within the evil of the sitra achara, which dominates it.

Compassion banishes hatred and arouses love, as is known from the verse, “Jacob, who redeemed Abraham.”13

“Jacob” represents compassion and “Abraham” love. When “Abraham,” love, must be “redeemed,” i.e., brought out of concealment, it is “Jacob,” compassion, that accomplishes this redemption for as said, compassion banishes hatred and arouses love.

(14As for the statement by King David, peace upon him: “I hate them with a consummate hatred,”15 reserving no love for them whatsoever; this refers only to [Jewish] heretics and atheists who have no part in the G‑d of Israel,

as stated in the Talmud, beginning of ch. 16 of Tractate Shabbat.)

farbcoffe:
“why this is on the top of cofferoom?”
because at first it wasnt showing up in the topics so they pinned it so it stays