Menachem Shmei

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 571 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2223111
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    ARSo,

    As to the story that the Lubavicher rebbe said that a poshute chossid who learns chassidus is on a higher madreiga than the Chazon ish

    He never said that. What he did say is in the sicha I brought above from Toras Menachem (Hebrewbooks).

    Hey! Did you intentionally leave me out? I’m hurt!

    I was mentioning those who are overtly vocal in a bit of an immature way.
    I feel that your style of arguing (while I strongly disagree) is more logical and less emotional than those I mentioned.

    his parents would only agree to the shidduch if the Rayatz agreed to nominate him as the next rebbe

    Reb Chaim Liberman was the Rebbe Rayatz’s secretary, and he recounts that Rebbitzin Chana (Rebbe’s mother) came to see the Rebbe Rayatz to see the kalla, and asked him for nadden. He said that they didn’t have any money. She said, I don’t need money, I want a promise for rabbisteveh.

    This has nothing to do with the Rebbe himself, and the historical facts of 5710 are known.

    it details that fights that went on behind the scenes after the petirah of the Rayatz.

    To the best of my knowledge, the fights were between Chassidism who wanted the “Ramash” to be Rebbe, and Rashag who wanted to be Rebbe. The Rebbe stayed away from the fighting.

    I’ll have to find the sefer (I think I know which one you’re talking about) and see what it says.

    Menachem, you said that 5783 is anti-Lubavich. Are you serious? He constantly toes the party-line to the extreme. Or did I mix up 5783 with someone else?

    Some quotes from 5783:

    -“you’re rebbe was never בחזקת משיח to begin with”

    -“your משיח שקר [עפ”ל!] did not say the same thing as דבי ר׳ שילה”

    -“To Menachem maybe you can explain how that דעה נפסדה fits with the י״ג עיקרים “

    -“if you learned the מקורות than please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that your rebbe was בחזקת משיח”

    -“The Lubavitcher is a משיח שקר [עפ”ל!] is because he doesn’t have any of the סימני משיח brought down in rambam”

    Yeah, you get the point.

    “every Chabad yeshiva has a Gemara seder on Shabbos”
    Are you sure of that?

    Yes. People asked the Rebbe if they should follow the 1/3 or only chassidus (each way was written by the Rebbe Rashab in different places), the Rebbe said that he preferred the first way, and he indeed spoke lengthy nigleh sichos during the Shabbos farbrengens (possibly even more than chassidus).

    Every Chabad yeshiva has Gemara seder on Shabbos. (Many don’t even keep to the “only 1/3” rule).

    Lubavich, and the rebbe, were always against daf yomi.

    Indeed, I’m not very fond of it either (but let’s please not get into that!). My point was that it’s not considered “ossur” to learn nigleh before davening. It’s just looked down on because it’s preferred to spend the time before davening learning chassidus as a hachana to thinking about Hashem.

    But it is probably just a matter of you showing you age again.

    Easy answer.

    Then when he came up with the system the first siyum “just happened” to fall on 11 Nissan, his birthday. What a coincidence for someone who never pushed himself to the forefront.

    Again, anyone who knows about the Rebbe knows how little he held of himself.

    BTW, I wonder why this didn’t disturb the many gedolim and rebbes who supported the Rambam cycle, and joined in the siyum celebrations.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2223105
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Avira,

    in the gaons time, the other gedolei yisroel said that his neshoma belonged to the rishonim

    And at the Alter Rebbe’s bar mitzva he was registered in the chevra Kadisha and received the title “החכים המופלג תנא ופליג” – a title meaning that he is on the level of the tanaim! (a handwritten copy of the certificate is in the Chabad library)

    the gaon was unlike anyone in his time, or for several hundred years prior, and the baal hatanya was after him, so it is not unreasonable for even a chasidishe yid to say that the gaon was bigger than the baal hatanya.

    I’m sure some say that the gaon was greater than the Alter Rebbe, but others say differently:

    Rav Yaakov Berman, talmid of the Rogachover, related to Rav Yehoshua Mondshine (Chabad historian and researcher): Once, the Rogachover was praising the incredible knowledge of the Vilna Gaon, but he concluded, “אבער קענען לערנען?! דאס האט גיקנענט דער אלטער רבי”

    Rav Mondshine also relates that he heard from Rav Shmuel Lazanovsky (I heard this as well from Rav Segal – rosh kolel of Tzemach Tzedek Yerushalaim – who also heard it from Rav Shmuel):
    The Avnei Nezer usually referred to the Gra as “haGaon”, and referred to the Baal Hatanya as “haGaon haAmiti.” He once told his grandson that in the Shulchan Aruch Harav you can find more depth than in Biurei haGra, and he showed him fourteen “צריך עיון” that the Gra left unanswered which are answered in Shluchan Aruch Harav.
    https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24743&st=&pgnum=145

    Let’s just drop the “who is a greater gadol game”, because it will get us nowhere.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2223039
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Qwerty (sigh),

    I have stated in this thread that I only criticize Chabad. That’s a fact. I never said anything negative about black hatters. That’s an outright lie…
    To Menachem Shmei You’re on notice. I want you to present evidence that I’m anti black hatter. All my Rabbonim wear black hats including those from YU.

    I didn’t say that you’re anti black hatter. I said that you have a problem with black hatters.

    You claim to have never said anything negative about black hatters? Nu nu. This is a machlokes b’metzius, so no point of arguing (שדי חמד מע’ מ כלל קסד).

    “To Menachem Shmei’s credit, he’s able to understand that I have a healthy relationship with my Rabbonim… Unfortunately the black hatters are so dogmatic that anyone who veers from their concept of how a Jew must act is labeled off the derech.”

    The Rebbe makes…

    In the CR, I would never speak so disrespectfully about any Litvisher gadol, even if I strongly disagree with him, and even if I think he’s not actually a true gadol.
    If someone is looked up to as a manhig by many frum Yidden, I wouldn’t talk about him to his talmidim like this.

    you promoted the notion that the Rebbe is god

    You will not find ONE POST where I said that the Rebbe was G-d!
    All I did was insist that you’re misunderstanding the quote “עצמות ומהות אליין ווי ער איז אריינגעשטעלט אין א גוף”.
    The quotes I brought were to show that such a statement is not so rare in traditional Jewish literature.
    Nothing more, nothing less.
    Find me a post that says differently.

    Sechel83 finally gave up, why don’t you do the same? The fat lady has sung.

    How will it help you in life if I give up?
    I was having a discussion. You joined in middle. You are free to leave.
    You still don’t feel that you can put me on your “checkmate list” until I leave the thread for good?

    in reply to: Thought on Chabad #2222905
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    yankel,

    will try bln to check

    https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16076&st=&pgnum=286
    (from the bottom of the page)

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222904
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Yankel,

    Can add some possible relevant info… If this is known to anyone , would like hear more detail…

    It is obvious which sicha you’re referring to (Purim 5716), but of course, every detail is way off the mark.

    The farbrengen was recorded, and you can actually listen to it on official Chabad sites.

    It was also printed in Toras Menachem and can be found here:
    https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25048&st=&pgnum=158&hilite=

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222899
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    ARSo,

    You never addressed my references to two books published by Lubavicher chassidim which clearly indicate that the Lubavicher rebbe wanted to be rebbe after the Rayatz.

    I don’t recall the references. I’m actually quite interested.
    Please let me know how I can find them or what it says.

    I understand that you may be reticent to accept Deitsch’s version

    I’ll accept it if he presents factual proofs (Lubavitchers are always looking for hints that the Rebbe actually accepted himself as Rebbe, since they are so rare).

    If he gives theories, I may as well rely on your theories instead.

    (According to all the facts and letters known to me from that time period, chassidim were begging and pressuring the Rebbe to accept, and he kept refusing. He claimed that he wasn’t qualified for the job. He even said that if they continue pressuring him he would flee, and they would never find him.
    He finally relented (to an extent) at the first yahrtzeit, while still referring to his father-in-law as nossi, and going often to his ohel, etc.)

    5783, it’s great to have you post occasionally because all Menachem’s efforts to show how reasonable and logical Lubavich theology is, are contradicted when you come along and show how radical and ridiculous it all is!

    Just pointing out that 5783 definitely doesn’t represent Lubavitch in any way, since he is a passionate anti-Lubavitcher (check out his posts).
    Just in case you didn’t notice that.
    (However, it does seem that he hung out with Lubavitchers a lot, as he picked up a lot of Lubavitch lingo (again, evident from his posts).

    Have you never seen a Lubavicher telling a Litvak who puts on tefillin by winding it inwards…

    Indeed, I have never seen a Lubavitcher telling a Litvak this.

    I don’t think that this is even a true reason for our minhag. I’ve heard it mentioned before in jest.

    Don’t litvishers also have cute one-liners to tease chassidim about some of their differences in minhagim? I hear them all the time.

    as a group you (perhaps not you personally) belittle other shitos … But then don’t get upset with those of us who consider Lubavichers close to meisisim umadichim

    Whatever. This complaint is a never-ending cycle.

    This is how a Lubavitcher could have worded it:
    “As a group, you consider us meisisim umadichim, so then don’t get upset when we belittle your shitos.”

    Menachem: “I disagree with many of your examples”

    I don’s see why. They are all examples that I and others have personally witnessed.

    These are examples of things that I agree Lubavitchers often spread:

    -Shabbos candles (was a mivtza of the Rebbe. Many rabbanim had correspondence with the Rebbe on the matter)

    -Melech haMoshiach stickers and posters (a group of Lubavitchers are really into publicizing these, even thought the Rebbe (and many other Lubavitchers) wasn’t too happy with this).

    -Navi/Nassi (they believe it’s the truth, so the more people who know the better)

    Examples that I’ve never seen Lubavitchers spread (and I don’t think it’s part of the Chabad agenda):

    -Learning nigleh on Shabbos (every Chabad yeshiva has a Gemara seder on Shabbos)

    -Learning nigleh before davening (while looked down on in yeshivos, it is quite common among baalei batim. Many daf yomi shiurim before shachris in Chabad shuls in Crown Heights and other communities. This is definitely not something Lubavitchers try to impose on others).

    -Eating gebroks is wrong (they might not allow someone to eat it in their home on Pesach, but never heard of trying to get other people to stop)

    -Putting on tefillin differently (never seen this before. As I mentioned in earlier in this post)

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222886
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    n0mesorah,

    Not every word of Torah that is taught is intended to fit with every other word that was ever taught.

    “שבעים פנים לתורה”

    Chabad isn’t going around that others should not sleep in the sukkah

    Interesting point: Here is a quote from the Rebbe a few days after he said the sicha about sleeping in the sukkah (Shabbos Bereishis 5730):
    איך האב געהערט א גירסא בשמי אז איך האב געזאגט אז מען טאר ניט שלאפן אין סוכה – איז דאס בפירוש ניט אמת, ואדרבה: דער וואס וויל – זאל שלאפן געזונטערהייט, ושכבת וערבה שנתיך, און עס זאל זיך אים חלום’ן גוטע חלומות וכו’, און קיינער זאל אים ניט שטערן. דאס וואס איך האב גערעדט, איז געווען אויף פארענטפערן מנהג רבותינו וכו’, ומנהג חב”ד, אויף ניט שלאפן
    (“I heard people saying in my name that it is osur to sleep in the sukkah. This is completely false. On the contrary, if someone wants – let him sleep enjoyably [in the sukkah] undisturbed! What I spoke about [in the sicha with the reason not to sleep in the sukkah] was to defend the minhag of the Rabbeim and minhag Chabad of not sleeping [in the sukkah].”)

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222884
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Qwerty,

    you have good writing skills

    Thank you!

    The problem is that you didn’t qualify your statement when I joined the thread.

    I was very clear that you were interpreting the quote wrong, and that many other sources can SEEM to be “kefira” to those who don’t understand them.

    It’s nice that it suddenly all makes sense to you after I gave one line of clarification, but it was really just a drop in the bucket of a much greater sugya.
    I decided to leave it for you to research on your own since the full subject is beyond the scope of a coffeeroom post.

    You singled out yankel berel and myself as Chabad bashers, but I think it’s clear that there are at least a dozen others in the thread who feel exactly the same way

    I wrote: “(some of) the opponents to Lubavitch on this thread (especially yankel and qwerty) are staunchly opposed to Lubavitch, and will attack (almost) any argument that I make.”

    The main ones who attack almost any argument I make (at least in the last few pages) are you and yankel. Simple as that.

    as I’ve said at least twice in this thread, I have no problem with any group except Chabad.

    And, if I remember correctly, “black hatters”.

    Therefore the Alter Rebbe was bigger than the Gaon. The 5th and 6th Rebbes were greater than the Chafetz Chaim.

    I assume that you say that the Gaon was greater than the Alter Rebbe, and the Chafetz Chaim was greater than the 5/6 Rebbes. How is that any different then what Lubavitch says? Because “more people” agree with you?

    And the joke is that Chabad tries to sell us on the idea that the Rebbe was anav mikal adam.

    How is looking at your Rebbes as the greatest leaders a contradiction to anivus? Is believing that Judaism is the greatest and truest religion a contradiction to anivus?

    (Of course, I must clarify that I’m not equating Lubavitch to the entire Jewish religion. Just bringing out a point)

    in reply to: Thought on Chabad #2222761
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    He writes in a sicha that the baal hatanya was greater than R Yochanan Ben Zakai because RYBZ was not in touch with his neshama , he was too busy with his avodat hashem so he had never time to check his neshama it should not be in the kelipa .

    This “quote” from the “Rebbe” may seem shocking to some of the readers (it was quoted often in the anti-Chabad rhetoric of the 80s), so allow me to clarify the source:

    Rav Yochanan Ben Zakai cried on his deathbed that he doesn’t know which path they will take him. (Brochos 28b)

    The Baal Hatanya explained that he was on an extremely high level of intellect which concealed his emotions, which led to his question.

    The Rebbe Rashab said (Toras Sholom – Yud Tes Kislev 5673) that he heard from the TZEMACH TZEDEK (no, not from the seventh rebbe) that the Baal Hatanya was on a higher level than RYBZ who didn’t know which path he would be taken, while the Baal Hatanya did (see the full story there).

    On the other hand, the REBBE explains (Likkutei Sichos vol. 16 pg. 273) that every Yid must learn from the avoda of RYBZ! The main focus of ones life shouldn’t be on himself and which level one is holding, instead it should be on the job that he was given to accomplish in the world. Only on his deathbed did RYBZ have a chance to begin contemplating his spiritual status.

    The Rebbe once spoke about this in a maamar (Shvat 5712) and he sobbed very much how every person is given a certain amount of days from Hashem, and we must learn from RYBZ to use out every single moment for avodas Hashem without wasting any time even for worrying about oneself.

    Just to set the record straight so no one should be confused about what the Rebbe said or where he got it from.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222717
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    I decided that I just had to check out those quotes from seforim that Menachem keeps referring to

    Thank you for actually checking this up (unlike others who were too intimidated)!

    1. “the Lubavicher rebbe clearly said that you can daven to an atzmus melubash baguf”

    Many people might misunderstand what you’re saying to mean that this is referring to davening shmone esrei or something. This is obviously not the case. I never heard of this concept of “davening to the Rebbe” from any Lubavitcher. I only hear it from misnagdim (i.e. those who are opposed to Lubavitch).

    What the Rebbe is explaining is the common practice of asking a Rebbe for brochos. In the Rebbe’s words: וואס איז שייך בכלל בעטן ביי א רבי’ן, עס איז דאך אן ענין פון א ממוצע – “how is one allowed to request [בקשות] from a Rebbe? This [seems to be] the problem of an intermediary!”

    The Rebbe goes on to bring the famous distinction brought in chassidus between two types of intermediaries: ממוצע המפסיק (which has the issue of AZ) and ממוצע המחבר (which applies to a tzaddik – this is how chassidus explains Moshe saying אנכי עומד בין ה’ וביניכם, and ונתתי עשב, etc.).

    2. Nowhere in those quotes does it say that one may daven to a tzaddik

    [The quote from Noam Elimelech brings out a very similar point to what the Rebbe is trying to say: Since a tzaddik is one with Hashem, he has the koach to draw down healing to a sick person.
    But this is beside the point.]

    My point wasn’t to explain or prove what the Rebbe said (and neither have I done so above), since, as I’ve pointed out many times, this is a complex topic that has been debated many times here in the CR, and I’m not delusional enough to think that with one post I can explain the whole concept. This is why I sent a reference to a shiur of Rabbi YY. There is also a 175 page sefer from Rav Pewsner “Al Hatzaddikim” (on Otzar Hachochma) that explains this sicha, with many souces from all over chazal rishonim and achronim.

    This was my point with bringing those quotes:

    Some people here went into a shock when they heard the excerpted line from the sicha, and decided that there is no need to research the subject before attacking Lubavitch, since the words “עצמות ומהות אליין ווי ער האט זיך אריינגעשטעלט אין א גוף” is “so obviously” AZ (ch”v).

    My point was that there are many similar statements that can also be “shocking” at face value. Just as one wouldn’t discard (ch”v) a Noam Elimelech after seeing one strange-looking line (as you proved to us by trying to interpret why it’s not an issue), neither should one do this with Lubavitch.
    Obviously, we don’t decide which parts of Torah are true or “false” from first-glance one-line clickbait lines that are thrown at us.

    This was and remains my point.

    3. The Lubaavicher rebbe was – all the chassidim agree – referring to himself!

    This is also a complete misunderstanding of what chassidim mean. Of course, the Rebbe wasn’t talking about himself. The entire discussion over there is about going to the kever of the Rebbe Rayatz, and if people should still ask brochos from a tzaddik after he passed away. The Rebbe was alive then, so it obviously wasn’t about him.
    Even more so, the sicha was said at a time (5710) when the Rebbe was still adamantly opposed to chassidim even considering him “Rebbe,” not even allowing them to refer to him with the title Admur.

    Why, then, do chassidim say that the Rebbe was “referring to himself”?

    Think about it like this: After Reb Elimelech said that a tzaddik has the power to heal since he is one with Hashem, I’m sure that his talmidim said: “Wow! Reb Elimelech is one with Hashem, and he has the power to heal! He said this about tzaddikim, and this surely applies to him!”

    This is exactly the idea. The Rebbe said this idea about the Rebbe Rayatz, that he can give brochos after his passing, and he is one with Hashem, etc.
    Chassidim, who consider the “Ramash” as their Rebbe, say: “Wow, this surely applies to OUR Rebbe as well! He is one with Hashem, and can give brochos!” etc.

    Anyone who actually reads anything from the Rebbe knows that this whole claim of the Rebbe “praising himself” is completely baseless, and completely foreign to the Rebbe’s style.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222683
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    You won’t be wasing your breath if you explain how the story of R Chaim Brisker is relevant to those who have kashas on Lubavich.

    I didn’t say it about “those who have kashas on Lubavich”. I said it to explain my occasional silence on this thread (to answer the childish claim of “shtika k’hodaa (no, I don’t ch”v mean that the klal is childish. I mean that it’s childish to apply it to this context)).

    My point is very simple: Over the 26 pages of this thread, it is quite obvious that (some of) the opponents to Lubavitch on this thread (especially yankel and qwerty) are staunchly opposed to Lubavitch, and will attack (almost) any argument that I make.
    Honestly, the same is the other way around: I am staunchly Lubavitch, and I’ll probably disagree with (almost) any attack against Lubavitch made here on the thread.

    This is the reason why this thread (and many other similar threads) are just going in circles with endless arguments and questions. Questions that are really meant as תירוצים for explaining the “problems with Lubavitch” or the “maalos of Lubavitch” (from each side respectively).

    Therefore, when I’m being pummeled by dozens of questions on many different ideas, and I know that most of what I say won’t actually change the minds that are already set – I’m not really interested in working on answering every single question.

    To say that this implies some sort of admission of guilt is ridiculous.

    That’s why I mentioned the Reb Chaim story in connection to my “מוחה מוחה מוחה” in response to yankel’s claim of shtika k’hodaa.

    Let me know if you need more clarification.

    P.S. Regarding your later point:

    I agree that Lubavitchers have an agenda. They feel that their derech will immensely improve the avodas Hashem of all Yidden, which is why they feel the need to spread it to anyone they come in contact with (however, I disagree with many of your examples).

    Yidden who indeed recognize great qualities in the Lubavitch derech appreciate this VERY much (there are MANY such people – I’m referring to frum Yidden. Non-frum are a different story altogether).
    Yidden who are more wary of the Lubavitch derech are (understandably) quite distressed by this (and it “really gets on their nerves”).

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222578
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Please , in a moment of honesty – is that the case here ? The doubts about habad are A RESULT of discarding yahadut ?

    No, it is not. You misunderstood me.
    ================================
    So , Menachem , what was your real intention ?

    I think my intention was fairly obvious, and you’re trying to twist deeper meanings into my words.

    If anyone besides for you and qwerty think that by quoting Reb Chayim I meant that doubts about Chabad are a result of discarding yahadus – then I will gladly explain them my true intention.

    Otherwise, I’m just wasting my breath.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222445
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Qwerty,

    If you think we misunderstood you explain yourself.

    I told yankel berel that he misunderstood me. Why do you write “we”? I wasn’t talking about you!

    Oh, I forgot. You’re on his chess team.

    I won’t consider anything said by a person who called himself god

    According to your definition of calling oneself G-d, why do you “consider anything” that was said by the Minchas Elozor, Noam Elimelech, Rabbeinu Bachya, Tanya, Zohar, or Yerushalmi – all of whom said the same idea as the Rebbe?

    Btw why didn’t you answery question tne first time I asked it?

    I answered this in the postscript of my previous post.

    in reply to: Married Couple Who Become Baal Teshuvas #2222370
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Just pointing out the obvious (Avira already mentioned):

    Every case is unique, and a rov MUST be consulted

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222333
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    the last question I asked you which you never answered… That’s not tbe only question you refused to answer.

    Well, I wasn’t the one who brought in the idea of shtika k’hodaa. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore attacks from anonymous people on a forum, and this is no way insinuates that you agree with them. I think this is obvious to anyone who doesn’t see this as a game of chess.

    When I questioned your “shtika k’hodaa” about the 7-times-question, it was only l’shitaschah that shtika k’hodaa is actually a thing here.

    The origimal Christiana supported their heresy with verses, you do the same by misapplying Chazal

    Maybe you’re the one misinterpreting the Rebbe?

    And if you say that you’re just taking what he said at face value, why don’t you also take all the tzaddikim I mentioned at face value?

    In the letter you posted, the Rebbe seemed to be saying that the Nasi Chabad is the Nasi of just Chabad. So how do you explain why most if not all Lubavichers say that the Nasi Chabad is the Nasi of all Jews?

    Because there is more than one letter from the Rebbe printed (currently, they printed most letters up to the mid 1970s, and they number over 13,000), and hundreds of volumes of his talks.

    This letter is making a specific point which is why the Rebbe calls them nesiei chabad (he’s clarifying whom he’s talking about).

    Anyone who reads a little more than one letter will tell you that the Rebbe definitely considered his father-in-law (Rebbe Rayatz) and his father (Rebbe Rashab) etc. to be the nossi of the entire klal Yisroel.

    If you need sources I can give.

    P.S. It is quite exhausting and tedious to prepare answers for every question and misunderstanding that you happen to have. This in no way implies any admission of guilt.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222332
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Please , in a moment of honesty – is that the case here ? The doubts about habad are A RESULT of discarding yahadut ?

    No, it is not. You misunderstood me.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222256
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    We’ve kept our end of the deal, but you’ve bowed out. I agree with Yankel Berel Shtikah Kihoda, If you can’t defend your position, you have no position.

    Qwerty, you haven’t answered the question that I directed at you SEVEN times.

    Shtika Kihoda?

    P.S. I asked the question in posts: #2213451 #2216778 #2216863 #2217091 #2218000 #2218095 #2220157
    I’ll repeat it again: When Lubavitch said a statement that you understood as AZ at first glance, you immediately attacked Lubavitch, and it didn’t enter your mind that there can be a deeper meaning.
    However, you do not attack the Minchas Elozor, Noam Elimelech, Rabbeinu Bachya, Tanya, Zohar, or Yerushalmi – all of whom said similar statements which can also sound like AZ at first glance to an ignorant person.

    Or, I can ask the question as I wrote it in a different post:
    What if I were to say:
    “Hashem took the four letters of His holy name (הוי’) and garbed them in a hat and kapoto, and this is the Rebbe…”
    Or: “Who is the face of י-ה-ו-ה? The Rebbe.”
    Or: “When the posuk says that Hashem is in His holy chamber, this refers to the Rebbe when he’s in shul”
    Or: “How can the Rebbe heal people if he is mortal and only G-d can give life? Since a tzaddik is one with G-d, he has the power of infinity since his life is Hashem’s essence, therefore he can give life to a sick person.”

    Would you also call this AZ even though these are just paraphrased from the aforementioned gedolim?
    And if not, why not?

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222247
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Avira,

    Thanks for the correction. Would you happen to know where I can find the story written?

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2222120
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Now- R Menachem Shmei . . should we apply the klal of Shtika KeHoda’a here or not

    מוחה מוחה מוחה

    P.S. I’m reminded of the famous story of Reb Chaim Brisker (I think). Someone was asking him questions in emuna, and he didn’t respond.
    Later, he explained why he remained silent:
    פאר א קשיא, קען איך געבן א תירוץ. אבער איך קען ניט געבן א תירוץ פאר א תירוץ…

    in reply to: Thought on Chabad #2221043
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    but next time please write it correctly it’s RABBI Troll not plain troll.

    This reminds me of a great story: In the town of Shklov lived a chassidishe shochet, who was a big lamdan but also had a sense of humor.

    One Sukkos, he passed the Sukkah of a gadol in the city, and began calling out his name, “Boruch! Boruch!”

    The gadol ran to shul excitedly, exclaiming “I just had a gilui Eliyahu Hanovi!”
    How did he know that it was Eliyahu? “I heard a voice calling me “Boruch”, instead of “Rebbe Boruch” – so it could have only been Eliyahu, who else would refer to me without a title?”

    We can thus assume that CS is Eliyahu Hanovi.

    Wonderful story

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2220903
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Please elaborate . Who else had Nevua after Chagai , Z and M ?

    #2214125

    in reply to: Thought on Chabad #2220902
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Thanks sensibleyid for the references.

    Here are some more references:

    If you want to read up on Avi Ezri, learn Rav Sholom Ber Wolpo’s sefer “ידבר שלום” (which has haskomos from Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Ovadia Yosef, the Minchas Yitzchak, Rav Moshe Stern, Rav Menashe Klein, and more – how many haskamos does Berger’s sefer have?)

    If you want to read up on the Talmud, read David Dukes’s “Jewish Supremacism” ch. 2.

    in reply to: The Rabbi and the priestly priest #2220514
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Cholent,

    Never heard that one!
    Gave me a good laugh 😆

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2220273
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    “This is one thing we both agree on.”
    ——————————–
    Not at all sure we can agree on this one .

    We can’t agree that we need Moshiach since I hold that many tzaddikim have had nevuah after חגי זכריה מלאכי!?

    Wow, you seem really set on making problems.

    in reply to: Rabbi Pruzansky and the Israeli Army #2220257
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    To the OP,

    Mitzvah #2 is definitely correct.

    Mitzvah #3 – Sometimes. If there is a clear miracle, and they openly recognize the hand of Hashem in protecting Jewish people.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2220256
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    yankel,

    Okay, you’re right. I am a Lubavitcher so I am biased, so I have no right to defend Lubavitch. Only those who disagree with Lubavitch have the right to defend it. You are completely objective, as you only care about truth, so all your attacks on Lubavitch must be true, and my defenses are worthless.

    Your interpretations of what the Rebbe meant trump mine, despite the fact that you barely learned any of his teachings, while I learned thousands of pages of his teachings, and heard hundreds of hours of his talks. As a matter of fact, the more I study, the more biased I become, and the less of an ability I have to understand his teachings.

    This conversation now reaches a dead end, and anything I say further is pointless, unless it is attacking Lubavitch, since that is the only thing I can do objectively.

    You can now join Qwerty in saying: Checkmate.

    [I would just like to repeat an analogy that I used before: Someone reads antisemitic literature with some “shockingly hateful” statements from the Talmud. He approaches the Talmudic scholar and says, “I can’t believe you study this terrible book.” The scholar responds, “You have only read a few lines out of context. If you dedicate your life to studying this, and understanding it properly, you will come to appreciate its inner beauty and true meaning.” The attacker responds, “You love the Talmud so you are biased. My ignorant attacks are objective, so they have more value than your biased, learned defense.”]

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2220157
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    It stands for “keep it simple stupid.” Too many of the posters get bogged down arguimg Pshatim in Tanya and the like. This is irrelevant. Lubavichers posit that the Rebbe is god. Nothing .ore need be said

    Sorry, but in my books, Judaism isn’t simple and stupid. The tzedukkim said to use the KISS method. Why make problems? Just take Torah literally!

    But that is not Judaism. Judaism is complicated, with lots of nuance.

    Qwerty,
    You still haven’t answered me why you accept all the Torah giants that I quoted earlier, when if using the KISS method, they would be saying that tzaddikim are G-d?
    I think I asked you this 5 or 6 times

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2220096
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Is there anything still happening with the point I raised about ‘bias ‘ ?

    I don’t understand what wasn’t clear in my first post.

    I’ll repeat: I know lots of Lubavitchers were parts of other groups (see above for details) and decided that the truth is in Lubavitch.

    If I can’t write anything due to my bias, I can get one of those many friends to write for me. Should I do that?

    I think that we need Mashiach now …. the REAL one .

    This is one thing we both agree on.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219994
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Just a small question – when their rebbe told his hasidim to “phaiph” , who do you think they were phaiphing on ?
    They were phaiphing on us , on our criticism of habad . On our questions .

    Interesting, this seems to answer my question my OP:

    You are so obsessed with Chabad because you are an unfortunate victim of the Rebbe asking people to whistle at farbrengens.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219992
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    the Lubavich claim that when other non-Lubavich chassidim say the words “the rebbe” they are openly referring only to the Lubavicher rebbe, not to their own rebbe

    I never heard this, but I guess it’s possible that a (more) ignorant Lubavitcher guy thought this once. Okay, whatever.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219870
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    2cents,

    Very important and worthy question about method of knowing.

    could you specify the source indicating that tzadikim no longer possess a yetzer harah?

    Tanya. Perek Yud, etc.

    The Alter Rebbe bases this on several psukim and Maamarei Razal.
    לבי חלל בקרבי
    ובערת הרע מקרבך
    צדיקים יצר טוב שופטן
    Etc.

    In tzaddik itself, there are many levels. Tzaddik gramur, tzaddik eino gamur. In the latter are countless levels.

    in reply to: Chris Christie – why can’t Jews rally around him? #2219706
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    It’s surprising that it’s actually accepted to bash a political candidate due to his weight. Whatever.

    It’s nice that Christie is spending all his time attacking Trump for not caring about the country and making this a personal fight, but in doing so, Christie sort of gives off the same impression of himself.

    As it says in Tanya: המתאבק עם מנוולל מתנוול גם כן

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219643
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    “I was not a misnaged. Far from it . I Was an Omed Min HaTsad. Did not understand what all those people wanted from habad . And had sympathy for the [apparent] victim of unwarranted accusations.
    Nevertheless came to that conclusion.
    So it seems that you agree that you are not qualified ?”

    I am pro-Chabad in all (or most) of my posts, so you assume that I’m a chossid and therefore biased.
    Subsequently, I should do the same with you:
    You are anti-Chabad in all (or most) of your posts, so I should assume that you’re a misnaged and therefore biased.

    So you answer that you weren’t born a misnaged, you BECAME one. And what if I became Lubavitch? Do you have any reason to assume that I was born Lubavitch?
    And if I was born Lubavitch, maybe my grandfather was born into a holy rebbishe mishpacha, yet left to become Lubavitch because he found the truth there?
    Maybe I have friends who were top talmidim in Lakewood, choshuve families in Satmar, who left and became Lubavitch, and are now shluchim around the world?

    What makes you think that you’re the only one with the right to unbiasedness?

    Listening to his talks is irrelevant to this question

    How is it irrelevant? You are trying to figure out a rabbis true kavana in how he spoke. Obviously, someone who learned his teachings know more about what he thinks than someone who didn’t.

    This is like someone who says (ch”v ch”v) that the Talmud is a horrible book that is full of hateful teachings and illogical ideas. You ask him, “How much Talmud have you studied?” He says, “studying Talmud is irrelevant to this question.”

    (However, the guy who did study Talmud has one downside: Since he spent so much time studying it, he becomes biased in defending it. Whereas the guy who never opened it up is completely objective, so his hateful remarks have more value.)

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219639
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    “being a talmid/chasid of anyone can make you unable to see their mistakes or chisronos”

    There are two reasons for this:
    1. Because they are biased, and too blind to see the truth.
    2. Because they have a true knowledge and understanding of their Rebbe’s teaching’s, so they might know that what others are saying are untrue or misinterpretations.

    Obviously, I think of myself as a number 2 (as I think every human being does), because I love myself, and consider myself an intellectual person. Even if I’m biased, I’m to blinded to see it.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219638
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    why do you think Chabad has so many misnagdim, way more than other Chassidic groups?

    Let me reword that:

    Why did misnagdim stop being menaged to most Chassidic groups, but stayed menaged to Chabad?…

    in reply to: BE AWARE!!!!!!!! #2219556
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Just drink Tropicana!

    It’s a mitzvah to buy from Jews.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219553
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Think that your being a hasid of his , precludes you of objectivity in this regard

    I can say the same about you being a misnaged.

    I used to be naive , but made a uturn on this .

    Why?

    Because you studied and listened to so many of his talks that you realized what he really meant?

    Or because you heard so many one-line excerpts of his statements?

    Or because you heard so much anti-Chabad rhetoric?

    in reply to: COLOR WAR LEVAYA #2219506
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    I remember a camp legend when I was a kid (I.e. probably made up, but we all believed it) that they did a levaya breakout once, and when they opened the aron, they found the counselor dead.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219501
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    mainstream Jewry categorically rejects this

    Who is mainstream Jewry?

    The democrats?
    The litvishers?
    The mizrachim?
    The MO?
    The chassidishers?

    If it’s the latter, which one? Belz? Satmar? Sanz? Bobev? Gur?

    If you answer all of the above, how many things do they all agree on?
    Does Belz have to give up their derech because no one else in the list agrees with them (or else they would be Belz)? What about MO? What about Brisk? What about Rabbi Miller?

    Each one of these groups is different from “mainstream Jewry” whatever that means.

    edited

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219339
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Can anyone here point out a godol beYisroel over the last generations who pushed his greatness to the forefront as much as the Lubavicher rebbe did?

    This is twisting the facts and extremely disrespectful. Anyone who knows anything about the Rebbe knows his incredible anivus.

    All those things you quoted were actually said about his father-in-law. His anivus was so great, that he never publicly called himself the Rebbe. He constantly said that the Rebbe and nossi was his father-in-law.

    Even by the official “kabbolas hanesius” on Yud Shevat (after a full year of begging by the chassidim, and his constant refusal) he never officially said “I am Rebbe”. He just hinted to accepting it with a maamar.

    Yet, he stil continued to consider his father-in-law the Rebbe.

    The chassidim were the ones who pushed his greatness to the forefront. They gave him the same honor that he gave to his father-in-law.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2219003
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    In no way are we enjoined to delve into the esoteric… but Chabad ignored all this and decided to go against the norm. It is now reaping what it sowed in violating the edict of our Rabbonim.

    You make it sound like all the rabbanim of klal Yisroel ruled that one is not allowed to learn kabbala, yet in recent years a bunch of Chabad fanatics ignored the rabbanim and started poking their noses in the wrong places.

    This is far from the truth.

    The Arizal already said: בדורות אלו האחרונים מותר ומצוה לגלות זאת החכמה
    (In these recent generations it is a mitzvah to reveal this chochma).

    Came the Baal Shem Tov and his many followers in the next generations who were Torah giants in nigleh and chassidus, and they felt that the time came to spread this Torah to Klal Yisroel more than ever before (because of the special inspiration that was need for our hard times, as well as to prepare for the geula).

    If Rav Reuven Feinstein (or any other rov) feels that this is unnecessary, does that compel Chabad chassidim to give up the derech of their own rebbes!?

    (Then you claim that CHABAD wants everyone to follow their rabbis!)

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218806
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    I don’t know how to read such postings. I learn woth Artscroll.

    Free translation from Chabad dot org:

    B”H

    Many people seek to pinpoint and characterize the vir­tues and preeminence of each of the Rebbeim of Chabad, and in particular of the Nasi of our generation — my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, הכ”מ — in various terms:2 the paradigm of self-sacrifice, a gaon, a man of exemplary character traits, a tzaddik, an individual endowed with divine inspira­tion, an individual accustomed to [performing] miracles, and so on.

    When one considers how the teachings of Chassidus de­fine what self-sacrifice really means, what being a gaon really means, and so on, these are indeed extremely lauda­tory terms.

    Nevertheless, the essential point is missing here. Apart from this being the essence per se, it is especially important because of the vital effect it has [in general], and in particular upon us, the community of those who are his chassidim and who are bound to him. That essential point is the fact that he is the Nasi, and the Nasi of Chabad.

    For a Nasi by definition is referred to as3 the head of the multitudes of Israel; in relation to them he is the “head” and “brain”; their nurture and life-force reach them through him; and by cleaving to him they are bound and united with their Source in the Supernal worlds.

    There are various categories of Nesiim:4 some Nesiim convey their influence in an internalized manner; others diffuse their influence in an indirect and encompassing manner.5 These differences may be further subdivided: some Nesiim endow their recipients with insights into the revealed plane of the Torah (Nigleh); some endow their recipients with insights into the mystical plane of the Torah, and some do both together; some instruct their followers in the paths of avodah and Chassidus; some direct material benefits to their followers; and so on.

    And there are Nesi’im who comprise several of these attributes, or even all of them.6

    This [essential] quality [of a Nasi] has characterized the leadership of the Nesiim of Chabad from the very beginning, from the Alter Rebbe up to and including my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, הכ”מ. They incorporated all the above attributes: they radiated both inward and encompassing influence — in Torah, in avodah, and in the practice of good deeds; [and they conveyed blessings both] spiritual and material. Consequently, [the Nesiim of Chabad] have been bound7 with all 613 organs of the soul and body of those who were connected with them.

    Every single one of us must know — i.e., must think deeply and fix his thought8 on this — that [the Rebbe Rayatz] is indeed the Nasi and the head; from him and through him are directed all material and spiritual benefac­tions; and by being bound to him (in his letters he has taught us how this is accomplished)9 we are bound and united with the spiritual root, with the ultimate Supernal spiritual root.

    Menachem Schneerson

    3 Tammuz, 5710 [1950]
    Brooklyn, N.Y.

    « Previous
    Instructions concerning the establishment of educational programs for Jewish children in North Africa
    Next »
    The Haftorah to be read when Rosh Chodesh Av falls on Shabbos
    FOOTNOTES
    1.
    [The letter appears in Sefer HaMaamarim 5710, p. 254; it is reprinted in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XI, p. 209.]

    2.
    [See the discussion of these virtues in the conclusion of Letter No. 637.]

    3.
    See Tanya, ch. 2.

    4.
    Discussed at length in: Torah Or, Parshas Miketz, s.v. Mitzvas Ner Chanukah; Sefer HaMitzvos (Derech Mitzvosecha) by the Tzemach Tzedek, s.v. Mitzvas Ner Chanukah, sec. 3; and in the maamar beginning LeMaan Daas, 5669 [in Sefer HaMaamarim 5669, p. 39ff.].

    5.
    [Bivchinas makif, in the original.]

    6.
    As discussed in Torah Or (loc. cit.), end of sec. 7, Mashiach comprises the quali­ties of both ro’im and nesichim. In the Talmud (Sukkah 52b), Mashiach is reckoned among the nesichim, evidently because this is his dominant quality.

    [Torah Or, loc. cit., explains that the term ro’im (shepherds) refers to leaders who draw down influence that is internalized among the Jewish people. Nesichim (princes) refers to leaders whose influence is conveyed bederech makkif (in an encompassing manner). Although Mashiach will convey both these types of influence (i.e., he will be both teacher and king), his primary quality will resemble that of the nesichim.]

    7.
    [In the original (as a noun), hiskashrus.]

    8.
    [In the original, “know” is ladaas, implying attachment born of this kind of thinking; cf. Tanya, end of ch.3.]

    9.
    [See Letter No. 561 which discusses this bonding process.]

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218699
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    There’s been a little too much heat here today for me to get a logical word in, so I’m just gonna let everything slip by.

    There’s just one thing that I feel the need to comment on:

    In one such letter the Rebbe described the characteristics of a Nasi Chabad, and I’ll quote,”Every Nasi Chabad is a Baal Mofes, and he has Ruach Hakodesh. But the main thing to know is that the Nasi Chabad is the Nasi Hador.”

    Since the Rebbe was grossly misquoted here, I feel the need to bring the true letter that qwerty is probably referring to, dated Gimmel Tammuz 5710:

    ב”ה,

    רבים המחפשים ומבארים מעלות וגדולת נשיאי חב”ד בכלל, ונשיא דורנו, הוא כ”ק מו”ח אדמו”ר הכ”מ, בפרט בענינים שונים: איש המסירות-נפש, גאון, בעל מדות, צדיק, בעל רוח הקודש, מלומד בנסים ועוד ועוד.

    וגדלו ביותר שבחים אלו, על פי ההגדרה בתורת החסידות, מהו מסירות נפש, מהו גאון וכו’.

    ובכל זה – העיקר חסר כאן. ונוסף על זה, שהוא עיקר בעצם, חשוב הוא ביחוד משום שנוגע ביותר, וביחוד לנו, קהל חסידיו ומקושריו. וזהו – מה שהוא הוא הנשיא, ונשיא חב”ד.

    כי – נשיא בכלל, נקרא ראש1 אלפי ישראל, הוא בחינת ראש ומוח לגביהם, וממנו היא יניקה וחיות שלהם. ועל ידי הדביקה בו קשורים ומיוחדים הם בשרשם למעלה מעלה.

    והנה כמה סוגים בנשיאים2: אלו אשר השפעתם בבחינת פנימיות, ואלו אשר השפעתם בבחינת מקיף. ובזה גופא חילוקים: אם השפיעו בתורת הנגלה או הנסתר או בשניהם יחדיו, לימדו דרכי העבודה והחסידות, המשיכו השפעות גשמיות וכו’ וכו’.

    וישנם כאלו, שהי’ בהם כמה מבחינות הנ”ל, או גם כולם3.

    וזה הי’ מאז ועד עתה ענין הנהגת נשיאי חב”ד, מן כ”ק אדמו”ר הזקן ועד כ”ק מו”ח אדמו”ר הכ”מ ועד בכלל, אשר כללו כל הסוגים והחילוקים: השפיעו בפנימיות ובמקיף, בתורה עבודה וגמ”ח, ברוחניות ובגשמיות. ובמילא היתה התקשרותם עם השייכים אליהם בכל תרי”ג אברי נפש וגוף המקושרים.

    ועל כל אחד ואחת מאתנו כולנו לדעת, היינו להעמיק דעתו ולתקוע מחשבתו בזה, אשר הוא הוא הנשיא והראש, ממנו ועל ידו הם כל ההשפעות בגשמיות וברוחניות, ועל ידי ההתקשרות אליו (וכבר הורה במכתביו איך ובמה מתקשרים) קשורים, ומיוחדים בשרש ושרש השרש עד למעלה מעלה כו’.

    מנחם שניאורסאהן

    ג’ תמוז, ה’שי”ת,

    ברוקלין, נ.י.

    1.
    ראה תניא פ”ב.

    2.
    באריכות: תורה אור פ’ מקץ ד”ה ת”ר מצות נ”ח. סהמ”צ להצ”צ מצות נ”ח פ”ג. ד”ה למען דעת, תרס”ט [סה”מ תרס”ט ע’ לט ואילך].

    3.
    ראה בתו”א שם ספ”ז דבמשיח יש ב’ הבחי’, דרועים ונסיכים. – ובש”ס (סוכה נב, ב) נחשב בנסיכים, י”ל מפני שזהו העיקר בו.

    in reply to: False Claim about Jewish History #2218426
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Anyone is welcome to let everyone know what they think the real reason is and why there’s so much antisemitism among Muslims hate more then Christians.

    I’m not sure that this is accurate.

    הלכה היא בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב

    The Muslim countries persecuted their Jews, the Christian countries persecuted their Jews (think inquisition, crusades, czarist Russia, holocaust, and much more).

    Interestingly, the Rambam has FIERY words about the Muslims after escaping the Almohads:

    ידוע לכם שהקב”ה הפילנו במהמרות עונותינו בתוך אומה זו שהיא אומת ישמעאל שרעתם חזקה עלינו והם מתחכמים להרע ולמאוס אותנו כמו שגזר עלינו יתברך ואויבינו פלילים ושלא תעמוד על ישראל אומה יותר אויבת ממנה ולא אומה שהרעה בתכלית הרעה לדלדל אותנו ולהקטין אותנו ולמאוס אותנו כמוהם . . ואנחנו בעודנו סובלים שעבודה וכזביהם ושקרותם למעלה מיכולתנו שאין ביכולת האדם כח לסבול…

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218400
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    in Tanya perek Beis it explains that all neshamos are one body and receive everything from Hashem through the “head” (Tzaddikim/ Rebbes) Neshamos.

    For all those who get nervous from chassidus seforim, here is an incredible Chasam Sofer (שו”ת או”ח סי’ קסו):

    He explains that according to the Maharal, one shouldn’t ask malachim to bring his tefillos to Hashem (doing so is “קטנות אמונה חלילה”), since this is only necessary for a human king, but Hashem accepts all of our tefillos directly no matter how low we are.

    But, the Chasam Sofer continues, a tzaddik is different. All Yidden are one body with one soul. When one Jew is in pain, it affects everyone.
    A poshute Yid is compared to the foot, while the tzaddik is the head. It only makes sense that when the foot (i.e. a Yid) is in pain, he asks the “head” (tzaddik) to daven for him, since it’s more appropriate for the head to enter the King’s chamber than the foot.

    דרך להעמיד מליץ בין מלך להדיוט כשאין ההדיוט חשוב וספון לפני המלך או אינו יכול להטעים דבריו כראוי ויען ישראל לפנים ממלאכי השרת ואינם צריכים מליץ לפני אוהב’ ית”ש והוא מקבל בסבר פנים יפות אפי’ בלשון עלגים וגמגו’ אם כן המליץ הלז אינו אלא קטנות אמונה חלילה אך כל ישראל שותפים וגוף א’ ונפש א’ וכשא’ מצטער גם חבירו מרגיש ועמו מצער ועד”ז המתפלל על חברו צריך שיחלה עצמו עליו פי’ שיראה כאלו גם הוא חולה וכיון ששניהם בצער טוב יותר שיכנס הראש משיכנס הרגל ע”ד משל הת”ח הוא הראש והמצטער שהוא עתה שרוי בדין הוא בבחינת רגל וקצת נזוף טוב להכניס הראש כיון ששניהם בעלי דברים ולא כמליץ בעד אחר

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218380
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    Menachem Shmei who want[s] me to study the sugya which “proves” that the Rebbe is…

    Qwerty,

    You saying that I’m trying to prove to you that the Rebbe is … is like if I were to say that you’re trying to convince us to watch TV.

    in reply to: Modern Art #2218269
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    This thread has me completely lost.

    I’m having a hard time following the relevance of the different posts.

    I feel like I’m looking at a piece of modern art!

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218268
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    why was west coast chabad leader shlomo cunin not worried about publicizing his belief that “the rebbe runs the world,”

    This is definitely a mainstream Chabad statement, I won’t argue with you on that one.

    I don’t think he meant it in the way that you’re taking it.
    Honestly, I’ve seen people rail about this for years in the CR, while the statement doesn’t seem so problematic to me (as opposed to the “Who Elokeinu” line, or if he would have said that he “creates the world” or the like).

    Rabbi Cunin obviously isn’t saying chas v’shalom that the world isn’t in Hashem’s hands.
    He literally says 30 seconds earlier “דער אויבערשטער וועט העלפן that we will have gevaldike nissim…”

    With his “runs the world” statement he seems to be saying that being that they are the Rebbe’s shluchim, doing his work, the Rebbe takes a level of achrayus over them, and hopefully the world will see that the tzaddik protected them (unfortunately, we weren’t zoche to nissim).

    There is an idea of tzaddikim having a level of control and responsibility for what happens in the world (given to them by Hashem).
    This is the idea of צדיק יסוד עולם – that his zechus protects the world and keeps it going.

    There is a vort in Midrash Talpiyos, brought in many chassidus sforim (Kedushas Levi, etc.) on the Gemara כל העולם ניזון בשביל חנינא בני:
    מכאן יראה מעלת הצדיק לפני הקב”ה, ושמסר העולם ברשותו ושיעבד לו לעשות כל רצונו כו’. והטעם שכיון שהעולם נברא בשביל הצדיק וכולם נבראו לצוותו כמאחז”ל, לכן מסר הקב”ה כל העולם בידו ושיעבדו תחתיו לקיים כל מה שיגזור…
    It goes on to say that if only everyone in the world knew this, that the world is in the hands of tzaddikim, they would give the tzaddikim tremendous honor.

    I think that is his point. The hope that the people of the world will recognize that they’re under the reshus of the tzaddik.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218095
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    As I’ve clearly articulated, I will not get involved in any discussion about a dead Jew being god.

    I don’t think you understood my post.
    My point was showing you that there are statements from many other widely accepted Torah sources that may seem radical or ch”v AZ at first glance without proper background.
    Closing your ears and saying “I can’t listen to this gadol because something he said sounded like AZ to me” is very קליינקעפלדיק.

    Whatever.

    P.S. Since some people here are indeed a bit קליינקעפלדיק, and especially naïve about Lubavitch – I feel the need to point out the obvious:
    It seems to me that Yechi’s post is sarcasm.
    Just putting it out there to set the record straight.

    in reply to: Question of an ignorant, closed-minded Lubavitcher #2218094
    Menachem Shmei
    Participant

    And I remember an article that appeared in Beis Moshiach many years ago

    I assume that you were not a avid reader of Beis Moshiach. Probably, the way that you know about the idiotic article is because David Berger made a big deal about it (he mentions it at least three separate times in his book).

    “Beis Moshiach” was established as an anti-establishment magazine in the 90s by some people who felt that Kfar Chabad magazine (the official chabad magazine for decades) wasn’t radical enough for them.

    Nowadays, Beis Moshiach has become a bit more mainstream (while still very meshichist), and they would never print such an article today.

    The very fact that David Berger had to bring all of his “proofs” from various marginalized and anti-establishment material (such as Beis Moshiach, as well as from “Sichat Hageula” which was created to compete with the mainstream “Sichat Hashavua” etc.) – most of which wouldn’t dream of printing those statements today – shows how much this is accepted in Chabad…

    Interestingly enough, after David Berger mentions this article several times in his book, he points out (in the appendix) that the article’s author later retracted what he said, and in his later works he “vigorously denies that G-d can be a human being.”

    I know someone who says… “Baruch the Rebbe”

    I can’t deny that you know someone like this, but I do find it ironic that as a Lubavitcher who meets thousands of other Lubavitchers from many different groups (including some very radical “meshichists”) I’ve never met someone like this.

    Maybe the Lubavitchers who believe this are afraid to share their views with other Lubavitchers for the fear of being ostracized or something, which again shows how much this is accepted in Chabad…

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 571 total)