Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“OK I can see where you base your assumption non political as I have heavily emphasised the miracles and ruach hakodesh aspect to show that the Rebbe was not a regular person/ Rav (or tzadik as per non lubavitch perlance). But I was writing that assuming we shared a certain common knowledge or ground which I now see is lacking. So I’ll back up.”
Ok, I’m game let’s hear
“The Rebbe from his childhood on, was not typical…”
1) How do you know
2) How was he less typical then say the Gaon of Vilna
3) Even if he really was super duper not typical why is that relevant? Shabbsai Tzvi wasn’t typical either. In fact not only his knowledge of nigla was impressive but even more so his knowledge of nistar. The way he prayed was said to be especially impressive.“By the time he arrived in America in 1940, and the Frierdiker Rebbe sent chassidim to greet him at the port here was where he was holding, by the Frierdiker Rebbes description: “My son in law knows the entire shas with Tosfos, Rosh and Ran as well as all printed chassidishe seforim.”
This would be a accolade equally applicable to many of the Gedolim of pre war Europe until (and including) our current day.
“The Rebbes tremendous knowledge of Torah is evident by his Farbrengens, where he would sit for hours on end, quoting from kol HaTorah Jul by heart with no notes, a fact that greatly impressed Rabbi JB Soloveitchik zatzal.”
Same as above
“The chassidim got to know the Rebbe and see how he was careful with every detail in halacha as would of course be expected from such a tremendous gaon.”
Same as above
“Not just chassidim, people from all walks who met the Rebbe beforehand knew he was a very special young man and a tremendous gaon.”
Same as above
That all went without saying. Within lubavitch, it is impressive to be a tremendous gaon, but we’re not overly impressed if it’s something the average person could do, with the time and investment put into it. We have plenty of very learned people within lubavitch, Geonim (by today’s standard for sure) etc, not like the Rebbe of course, that’s highly unusual”
Still waiting for evidence of the highly unusual part
“We have tens of people like this within lubavitch. But we are not overly impressed with them, although we respect them greatly, because we know they are still regular people like me and you, just much farther along avoda wise”
I don’t agree. I think that If someone is a Talmid Chochom and “farther along avoda wise” that is the very reason to be impressed. The greater they are in Torah and the “farther they are in Avodah” the more impressive they are.
“And this is the respect I see paid by other chassidim and litvaks to their own Roshei Yeshivos Rabbanim Rebbe’s etc for the most part.”
In other words all the Gedolim are in the same category as the tens of Talmidei Chachamim in Lubavich who “we respect but are not overly impressed with”. Got it
“How do you know if someone is not normal?”
I don’t know if we can drill it down precisely. Those darn shrinks keep changing the definition. The DSM-5 standard has drawn some heavy criticism. But if we avoid the grey areas and stay within commonly accepted usage of the concept we should be ok. Let’s see how it goes 🙂
“Has reached a spiritual height that is out of your league but precisely because of that can help you in ways the “regular” Rabbanim etc can’t? When you see evidence that…they can sense and see things normal people can’t. They can read thoughts and see straight into ones soul. That’s what u mean by that proof.meaning its proof that the Rebbe is beyond our league.”
No, even if all of the above would be 100% verifiably true this would prove nothing at all. This is very important. In fact Rav Yaacov Hillel wrote “Faith and Folly” precisely to combat this misconception (among others). He wrote it at the behest of just about all the gedolim Sefardi, Litvish, Chassidish (see haskamos to his sefer).
“If I would tell you “Anochi omed bein Hashem uveineichem” and “I will provide all your Gashmius needs if you listen to My commands,” you would think I’m a narcissistic lunatic or apikorus. However knowing who Moshe Rabbeinu was, no one of course describes him that way. In fact, he wasn’t even boasting about himself, as the Torah testifies that he was the humblest of all time..with Moshe, it was simply Shechina midaberes mitoch grono shel Moshe, and the I and Me were in fact referring to Hashem and not Moshe as an individual.”
Right, we “know who Moshe Rabbeinu was” in this regard because the entire nation stood on Har Sinai and heard Hashem speak to Moshe Rabbeinu. That was a direct national experience, quite possibly the strongest category of evidence there is.
“Get my point?”
Unfortunately, I do.
“Basically, when your talking of someone acknowledged by many many Torah leaders, Rabbanim etc. as a Nassi Byisrael or similar terms”
No such thing. We have addressed that claim in 2 previous threads, no reason to rehash it here.
CS, I want to reiterate that nothing in my post is meant as an attack on you personally. I continue to have the utmost respect for you and appreciate your sincere effort in clarifying your position.
It comes down to this:
Once a person has chosen to believe that a certain person is a Tzadik who has no Yetzer HaRah and any of his statements are a direct expression of Divine Will no further discussion (on any matter pertaining to the Tzadik or his teachings) is possible. The strength of such a belief is precisely in the fact that no positive evidence is presented for it and therefore there is nothing to refute. Instead the focus is on wonderous and miraculous stories about the Tzadik. Combine with a personal investment of time and resources and strong social proof and you have the makings of very strong faith which becomes self reinforcing. Make no mistake about it, this formula works.
“if the community generally doesn’t do something, but it is permitted al pi halacha, that won’t stop me from doing it privately.”
You seem to be under the impression that an individual is not halachically bound by community custom and can privately disregard it if he / she sees fit. This is generally false. It is true in the the following scenarios:
1) When a custom varies from community to community AND the individual is a visitor who is privately acting in accordance with the custom of their home community (or a talmid keeping the practice of his rebbe).
2) When a custom is a boorish error
Neither of the above apply to our case since there are no communities where women had a custom to wear tzitzis and no Rabbonim who instructed that they ought to adopt such a practice. In fact the opposite is true, Rabbonim have objected to them doing so.
Also, I am aware that the Rema holds that if a woman puts on tzitzis she would make a bracha. This is in line with The Rema’s psak (and Ashkenazik custom) that women make a bracha on time bound mitzvot as opposed to the Shulchan Aruch’s psak that they do not. This has no bearing on the fact that women did not in practice wear tzitzis, a practice which the Rema considered a show of arrogance. You should also be aware that the Levush holds (based on Targum Yerushami) that a woman who wears tzitsis transgresses the Torah prohibition of wearing male garments.
“I am pretty much done with this topic, so if you rebut anything here, I will let you have the last word.”
Ok, will do
“There are plenty of circumstances under which women wearing tsitsis is permitted. I am not talking about Women of the Wall.”
What would those circumstances be exactly??
“I doubt R Moshe used the exact verbiage you presented. He may have been referring to Women of the Wall types who put on a rebellious show.”
Rebellion means – the act or process of resisting authority, control, or convention. Wearing tzitzis by women certainly runs contrary to past and present convention and halachic authority. Are you aware of of any top tier poskim who sanctioned this practice? Any community where this practice was the accepted custom?
“He didn’t know of all the women in the world who wear tsitsis in halachically acceptable ways with hearts consumed with a isas hashem.”
All the heartfelt sincerity in the world wouldn’t make this practice acceptable
“My mission here is not to appear smart or to argue. I just would like people to err on the side of kaf z’chus”
Judging lkaf zchus means acknowledging that we are not privy to another person’s subjective experiences and therefore not committing the error of attributing negative motive and / or intent to their actions. So in our case that would mean assuming that a woman who is wearing tzitzis is most likely a sincere albeit misguided individual (as opposed to a willful rebel). It certainly does not include turning and unacceptable practice into an acceptable one.
“Who can read these girls, and ladies’ minds, for it is their kavonos that are the deteminant.”
Nope. Doing the wrong thing with pure intentions is still wrong. Just like if someone would want to introduce organ music on Shabbos in Shuls even with the purest of intentions it would be wrong.
But when night becomes day and bassar chazir becomes kosher then all bets are off, עין לא ראה אלוקים זולתך
@ It Is Time For Truth
“For one who however promotes them and and attempts to influence in public (e.g a parade)
there never Can be categorized as such”Interesting. What does this have to do with whether one is considered a tinok sh’nishba or not?
I think that it’s obvious that:
gun control laws that would ban small arms would not keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals because:
1) It is the tool of their trade
2) Laws don’t deter criminals, that IS why they are criminalsSuch ban(s) would do a GREAT job of keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens thereby increasing the criminals advantage.
On the other hand, obviously some form of gun control is necessary (can’t have the criminally insane walking into the corner 7/11 and buying an AK-47 with a slurpee).
As usual the devil is in the details
1 and Joseph are obviously not aware that the Hazon Ish has already weighed in on this matter and disagreed with them. Or maybe they disagree with the Hazon Ish. So which one is it guys?
What do you expect at a time when chiropractors, applied kinesiologists, energy healers, ect.., are viewed by large segments of the tzibur as legitimate members of the medical community.
Here is the recipe:1) Good use of the tools of influence (marketing / PR)
2) A prevailing “anti-establishment” bias (overall, not specific to our community)Mix the above and serve
Joseph,
Would you ask a strong able bodied person how content he would be if he found himself sickly and weak for the foreseeable future? How about a sighted person, how content he would be if he found himself losing his sight? Sure, people born that way become accustomed to their lot (as do most people as we age) but a sudden loss of one’s abilities is traumatic.
The money a person is blessed with is their strength how one uses it and how it affects ones midos is a nisayon. Like the Masilas Yesharim says, everything in this world is a nisayon, weath on one hand and poverty on the other. So you can also turn the question on it’s head and ask how content you would be if you found yourself tomorrow in the top 1%.
Also, it has been my observation that wealth does not seem to be a prerequisite for preoccupation with money and social status.
@ square root of 2
“An underlying difficulty I have is that if the mesillas yesharim is correct, then why is the world so prone to bad and not good? If the entire point is to get sechar, why is it that “noach lo leadam shelo nivra”–why did Hashem not make it that it would be easier to get gan eden than gehenom?”
This is an excellent question. So excellent in fact that the RAMCHAL made it the primary subject of a whole sefer which he wrote called Daat Tvunos.
“Why is it that those who get saved from gehenom are one in many, and those that make it to gan eden are the minority”
As someone already pointed out above getting saved from gehenom is one thing making it to Olam Haba is another.
@ anonymous jew
“our alphabet uses Aramaic letters”
False. There is no evidence that Ksav Ashuri was used by gentiles in Aram (or anywhere else). The Gemara gives a different reason for the name. So this statement is not supported by archeological or Talmudic evidence.
“They were adopted during Galus Bavel.”
What you mean to say is adopted by Ezrah at the end of Galus Bavel
There is a 3 way disagreement among the Tannaim regarding Ksav Ashuri. The above statement may be true according to R’ Yossi, however
1) The Geonim who appear to understand R’ Yossi that way write that the Halacha is not like him
2) The Ritva and Ridbaz write that even R Yossi agrees that Ksav Ashuri goes back to the time of Matan TorahCentral to the whole discussion is a Yerushalmi that states the the Ayin in the Luchos was supported miraculously. The Bavli says it was the Samach and the Ritva disregards this Yerushalmi. The Ridbaz distinguished between the 1st and 2nd Luchos. The Yaevitz learns that even the Yerushalmi is using the familiar Ksav as a mashal to explain the nes and isn’t meant historically.
Prior to that, we used Paleo-Hebrew, which is shaped totally different.
This is TBI (true but irrelevant). We used Yiddish in Europe, and all the seforim where written in Lashon Kadosh
“The Samaritans, who copied every we did, still write their ( tref ) sifrai torah in Paleo-hebrew which leads me to believe we did too before the first churban.”
It might be that during the 1st Beis HaMikdash writing Sifrai Torah in Ksav Ivri (Paleo Hebrew) was permitted. This has no bearing on the antiquity of Ksav Ashuri.
“Paleo-hebrew was still in use 2000 years ago as it appears on coins minted by Bar Cochba…”
Once again, TBI
The Masilat Yesharim is saying that the very purpose for which man was created is pleasure and the place for experiencing pleasure in the most perfect way is in olam haba. This is not just “baby steps”, according to RAMCHAL it is the very tachlis of the whole project. Please do not try to read Chabbad Chassidus into RAMCHAL.
Another thing to consider.
Even relationships with people our feelings for them are built on what they do for us and what we do for them. Our sensory experience of people (how they look, sound, smell) is secondary to this.
I saw above the Rabbi Kaplan’s book(s) on meditation were recommended. He has 3 books on the subject. If you do decide to pursue his books you would be well advised to FIRST read “Faith and Folly” by Rabbi Yaacov Hillel. Rabbi Yaacov Hillel’s book (originally in Hebrew) was written at the behest of Gedolai Yisroel (Chassidic, Litvish, and Sefardi) and bears their approbations.
See Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb’s wonderful audio shiur on this very topic. It’s called “Speaking About G-D” and is in english. It’s available free on simpletoremember.com
(If the direct link is disallowed I’m writing out the website name: simpletoremember dot com)
Once on the site click on Audio/Video Shiurim (top of page), then click on Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (right of page).
“The negative side must be directed to the kelipos”
Yes, clearly this is accessible to all.
@ Avi K
“See Pitchei Teshuva YD 116:10 that there is an opinion that someone who does not accept an observant Jew’s word that his food is kosher is a heretic as he opposes Chazal, who said that a single witness is believed regarding prohibitions. As for his kashrut not being up to “your standard”, what about one’s standard in ben adam l’chaveiro, avoiding mechzi k’yuheira, etc.”What exactly is it about upholding your community’s or family’s custom in Kashrus would make you heretical, machzi k’yuhara, and lacking love of another Jew?
@ Avram in MD
“Hold your heretic hurling horses there. DovidBT and knaidlach were very clearly talking about non-observant Jews”And if they where talking about Observant Jews would you agree with Ai K’s statement?
I never learned Yiddish. Recently I discovered the HaRav Chaim Kanievsky has a Daf shiur on the Hebrew Kol HaLashon site, unfortunately I could not understand it. I Had the same problem understanding HaRav Malkiel Kotler at the internet assifa a few years ago.
And another thing. A yerushalmi avreich told me years ago while learning the Mishna Brura that while the Chofetz Chaim wrote in Hebrew he thought in Yiddish and someone who is not fluent in that language will miss the nuances of his intent.
Not sure why “chassidish” is equated with “move to the right” It’s certainly a great (profitable) perception for the haimish food businesses but it is false. That is unless ones idea of “to the right” is limited to wearing a strimel and bekisheh.
@ IITFT
“Kiruv is for Tinokos She’nishba…”This is the second time you said this in this post. Just stop. This is just plain wrong. Have a look at the work being done today by kiruv professionals (and addiction recovery professionals such as Amudim) . A huge amount of work is being done (and more needs to be done) reaching out to people who come from frum backgrounds. You, who are zealously protesting the perversion of the Torah, what do you think you are doing? Do you have any Halachic basis for your assertion? I know that you do not.
That said, I do want to be clear that nothing in this post should be construed as support for an Orthodox Rabbi taking a position in a LGBT temple. Especially given the current cultural climate, I don’t know how anyone can possibly support such a position. A quick google search brought me to (Rabbi) Mike Moskowitz’s website which says:
“Rabbi Moskowitz explored academic Talmud at Yale and at Jewish Theological Seminary, where he is currently completing a Doctorate in Hebrew Literature”
I am unaware of any Orthodox Rabbi who is affiliated with JTS
@ DY
“I think performing a civil ceremony falls into category 3”
How? When a person is working on Sh’vis they are doing a prohibition. What prohibition is occuring during the preparation and execution of civil legal documents?
@ DY
“It’s certainly no better than wishing success to someone plowing during Sh’viis.”
I’m not so sure
1) The Mishna’ot in the 5th Perek of Shv’is permit selling / lending farming implements to people who are choshud al Sh’viis provided that there is some other possible use for the tool. Those farming implements are obviously used for farming most of the time, still Chazal where lenient mpnai darchai Shalom. Only those tools which have no uses other then farming are prohibited to sell / lend. There are benefits to being civilly married even if the couple is celibate.
2) Even those farming implements that where permitted to sell / lend mpnai darchai shalom did enable working the land. Given the current societal standards (lack of standards) it’s doubtful that a civil marriage enables anything.
3) Wishing someone success at the time that they are actively engaged in a prohibited behavior is another matter altogether.
Your posts are generally very thought out, I assume you considered the above and disagree. I would be interested to know why.
Even by the Torah prohibition of לפני עיור (and certainly by מסייע) there is considerable discussion in the contemporary halachic works when dealing with not yet religious person if failing to provide a service will cause animosity and the issur is one which they are not aware of.
Don’t you guys think CTL would have asked his Rav a Shaila about something like this?
@ NCB
““1) Negative stereotypes about the groups”
You mean like saying Chassidim spend too much on weddings and don’t give tzedakah?Yep. That’s a great example. Couldn’t agree with you more.
“3) When assimilation is only regarded as such when it cuts to the left”
What does this even mean? Religious left or political left?”Both actually. Assimilation means adapting non-jewish ideas / culture. Somehow assimilation to the right is given a pass.
“I don’t even know that CTL denies that his views might mesh well with parts of the MO”
He denied it loudly and clearly.
“he admitted that he poskened like Rabbi JB Soloveitchik, so how could he not?”
Um, as I pointed out above HaRav Meiselman considers himself a talmid or RJBS. I don’t know anyone (in their right mind) who considers HaRav Meiselman MO.
@ Midwest2
“the whole business of labeling other Jews with denigrating labels – MO, Chassidish, Litvish – or any label at all, is revolting”
For the most part the above labels are not denigrating. People tend to self identify with certain kahilot. What is revolting is
1) Negative stereotypes about the groups
2) Historical revisionism
3) When assimilation is only regarded as such when it cuts to the left
4) When a 9TH GENERATION frum Yid self identifies as a classic litvak and is being told by people who don’t know him personally that he is MO. And then not a single shred of evidence is provided to substantiate their statements save for some obscure references to “other posts”.@ Joseph
“NP, it is you (not I) who is repeating yourself. I’ve already refuted all your repetitive points.”Ok, if you say so.
You do realize that there are many MANY yidden who are talmidim of Ponovich, Brisk, and Mir who are currently very successful businessmen and professionals. They learn, work, and offer (substantial) support for their Yeshivos as well as their local community institutions. Not to mention the many small frum businesses and tradesmen in their communities.
@ It’s Time For Truth
The Classic Litvak has/had a disinterest for money, as well an aversion for ostentatious goods.I’m sure we can all agree that the raison d’etre of a Yid is coming closer to Hashem through Torah and Mitzvos. What does that have to do with a disinterest in money? We do pray for parnassa 3 times a day. Ostentatious goods is relative to your peer group.
@ Joseph
“NP, I explained above the answer to your questions.”
Why are you repeating yourself? Your “explanation” was not overlooked or misunderstood. It was rejected.
“The application of the term Classic Litvak, as defined here, is a historical revisionism.”
No it isn’t (see CTL’s post on page 1). You are the one doing the revising.
True Classic Litvaks are Rav Moshe Shternbuch, the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chofetz Chaim…”
The above statement in TBU (True But Useless). Yes they are classic Litvaks and there where / are others as well (see my post on page 1).
”
@ It is Time for Truth
“The Classic Litvak has/had a disinterest for money, as well an aversion for ostentatious goods”
Having money is not the same as having an interest in money. One does not take an oath of poverty in our religion. Growing up / living in poverty is a nisayon it is not a prerequisite. I know some low income people who are very interested in money. They are always talking about “the waste” when wealthier people have nice cars, clothing, houses, weddings, etc. If they had the resources they would most certainly conduct themselves like the prototypical nouveau riche. They just don’t have the opportunity. One who is blessed with wealth has their nisyonos, some do better then others. This has nothing to do with being a “classic litvak”. Have you taken a ride through the nicer parts of Lakewood lately?
@ Is it time for truth
I’m not following. First you respond that Rabbi Moshe Meiselman and Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb are “1000% not” MO them you say “if they are anything they’re either anti MO or very Far right wing MO”
Is that contradiction or just legal speak?
Also,
I wasn’t setting up a strawman or putting phrases in peoples mouths. Just trying to figure out why CTL was labeled MO when he identified himself as a classic litvak. Based on his posts
1) Hw has an advanced secular education (law)
2) He has a profession (attorney)
3) He is financially successful
4) He is politically active
5) He likes nice cars (Jaguar) and quality furniture (based on a previous post)So, let’s turn this into a multiple choice question. Based on the above why would someone be compelled to label him MO?
take your time…
The answer is #1.
No one thinks having money posuls you from classic litvishkeit. Political activism doesn’t either (think Agudah in America and Degel is EY). So cross off 3&4.
I know that #5 is a tempting contender but it’s the wrong answer. Here is why. To give that answer you would have to compare the vehicle and furniture choices of successful politically active attorneys in his locale amd determine that the possession of such items is not the norm.
Surely having a job (#2) doesn’t disqualify CTL from being a classic litvak.
He doesn’t claim to be a famous Rosh Yeshiva who make large weddings for his grandkids so that can’t be the problem.
That leaves #1, having a secular education. So that’s what I addressed.
So let me see if I follow. Anyone with a secular education is MO. Is that the criteria?
There was a historic conversation between the Or Semaich and the Chofetz Chaim where the CC traveled to speak to the OS regarding the government edict that Yeshivas would be forced to include Russian in their curriculum. The OS responded “Nu, what’s so terrible if bachurim learn to speak russian?” The meeting ended at an impasse. Was the Or Semaich MO?
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman and Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb both have PHDs. Are they MO?
@ Time Time For Truth
“Name one classic Litvak who had positive views of the Upheavals and ‘liberation’ of the ’60s”Why? Who expressed a positive view of the upheavals and liberation of the ’60s? Surely you don’t think that stating the HISTORICAL FACTS that: 1) there was widespread discrimination, 2) the Civil Right Act helped = a positive view of 60s era upheavals and liberation.
“an unfortunate of families like yours is after striving and treading water for long they fall into an inertia”
This is certainly not the impression I get from reading CTLs posts. What gives you the impression that they are treading water?
@ NCB
“Non-Political: It’s not circular logic It’s years of being on the CR, and talking to people outside and observing how consistantly petty the MO is when talking about those more frum than them. It’s to the point of being boringly predictable.I certainly can’t claim the coveted credential of years being on the coffee room. I can say that having likewise gone outside and even occasionally talked to people my experience differs from yours.
In this very post CT Lawyer wrote that he “may be a classic Litvak” only to be told that his world view would give classic Litvaks indigestion. Where does that rate on the pettiness scale?
Also, I wasn’t really trying to say that the logic was circular. There was no logic of any sort, It was just a blanket attack on a whole segment of Klal Yisroel. And given what some people seem to regard as MO (per attack on CT Lawyer above) it may be a pretty large segment.
@NCB
” This thread is making the entire Litvishe velt look like a petty, jealous joke”Why are you assuming that the attacks are coming from people associated with the Litvishe velt and not disgruntled chassidim?
@ Joseph
“It is generally the modern crowd that comes up with threads and pathetic arguments like this; not the Litvaks (whose Torah world is very close to and even integrated with the Chasidim”I get it
1. ONLY the modern crowd EVER makes pathetic arguments
2. litvaks are close to and integrated with chassidus, they are NOT “the modern crowd” and are therefore incapable of making pathetic arguments
3. this is a pathetic argument so it must be made by the modern crowdThe above is truly the holy grail of logic and reasoning
Nebach
@ SCS
“as the Re’ma states that you need to be over 40 and full of Shas and Halacha. Look it up.”You do know that The ARI and the RAMCHAL where both nifter before the age of 40 right?
Also, isn’t the over 40 criteria from the SHACH?
Also, why is the Gorel HaGRA being given the same criteria as the starting age for learning Kabala?
I will just point out that given the descriptions we have of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s wealth and lifestyle you would say the same about him. Forget grandchildren, his stable hand was richer then Shivur Malka (the king of Bavel in the time of Rav and Shmuel).
A few months back I went to a fundraising carnival for a well known and respected organization. It was a family event and attended by all sectors of the frum community. The music was basically 90s house music. I actually played James Brown is Dead to few people to make the point clear (hearing is believing). This is not elevating non jewish music. Sorry. The music and the way it moves you is the same. Not similar. Not an adaptation. The same.
@ RBS Gimmel
“If Big Pharma is in cahoots with China, how are they allowing Chinese medicine?”
Huh?? Big Pharma and China are NOT allowing traditional Chineses medicine. As I explained, they are united in their opposition to the the righteous chiropractors, applied kinesiologists, homeopaths, and traditional chinese medicine practitioners in the hope of weakening the West.
Really the root of the problem goes back to antiquity when the enemies of all that is good led a conceptual revolution and succeeded in spreading the falsehood that we need empirical evidence for medical intervention to be deemed reliable.
As I already pointed out in the comments on the article re: Rich Roberts.
Obviously all the pro vaxx docs are on the take from big pharma. But that’s just the icing on the cake. It’s really much worse then that. You see, big Pharma is really in cahoots with Russia, China, and North Korea to spread autism in the West.
The whole medical establishment is one big sham. They’re just in it for the money! Thank goodness for the righteous chiropractors, applied kinesiologists, homeopaths, and traditional chinese medicine practitioners out there. They are holding up the fort and fighting the good fight to keep us well. And of course אהרן אהרן חביב the holy malpractice lawyers. These paradigms of chesed are never EVER motivated by profit.
@ Gadolhadorah
perhaps we should consider imposing a sunset provision on all minhagim so they terminate every 100 years unless renewed by the gadolim of the current generation based on whether it is still “relevant”.
Sunset provision doesn’t help.
Exhibit A – The ban on 2 wives@ Toi
“That’s ridiculous. Just because chabad has some sort of self-soothing fairytale doesn’t mean it’s credible.”
The fact that you felt a need to respond to my overt badchanus as if it was meant as a credible argument means that next it will be hijacked and actually used by someone as such.
@ 5ish
“This is one of the things which is a machlokes between The Nefesh Hachaim and the Baal Hatanya. (It is entirely possible that this machlokes has earlier roots but I am not in the know about that, and since we are speaking about Chabad chassidim and their beliefs I feel it is relevant to mention that there is a major machlokes about how tzimtzum works and The Baal Hataya holds one way while the Nefesh Hachaim holds the other way”
That’s fine. They certainly do disagree. I think SL or DY already pointed this out. His position on this matter is crystal clear to anyone who cares to read it.
But let’s not be hasty. Let’s not jump to the conclusion that citing his words as a support was a deliberate misrepresentation. Let’s not assume that it was an error in interpretation. Let’s not attribute it to a failure to even bother reading what he wrote in context.
There is an alternative explination
Perhaps Rav Chaim repented his position. Really he agrees with the Ba’al HaTanya and and was mramez it hiddenly in his sefer, you just have to know where to look. This way he will rectify the error of his Rebbe, the GRA, who refused to meet with the Baal HaTanya. Some might even say that the Gaon himself instructed his talmid to do this. This supposition, while not 100% verified is eminently reasonable since everyone knows that the GRA repented his hisnagdus and was seeking a way to be mitakein the situation. Of course Rav Chaim didn’t write any of this openly so that his sefer would gain acceptance in the Litvish world. He knew b’ruach haKodesh that the truth would eventually come out. And loe and behold, Adif Chocham M’Navi! Here on YWN we learn the truth.
The above dovetails nicely with the messorah from YDS (mentioned in the mashichistim explained thread) regarding the reason the GRA jumped out of the window to avoid meeting the Baal HaTanya. Of course the rest of Beis Brisk also know this messorah they where just hiding it until the right time.
Freilichen Purim!!
@ Eli Y
“The reason I posed this question to the forum is to demonstrate that those on earth can affect the deceased. It is reasonable then to conclude the deceased can affect those on earth and hence, can affect where a person turns a page to a particular igros.”
This is not reasonable. It is actually 5 steps removed from being reasonable, because:
1) You are saying that if A can influence B then it follows that B can influence A. This is a false premise. For example you can mold clay, clay cannot mold you.
2) Even If we where to concede that the deceased can influence matters in this world we would still have to determine that such influence extends to determining the page to which a person turns a page in a book.
3) Even if we where to concede that such influence does extend to determining the page to which a person turns a page in a book we would still have to determine what is an effective median for affecting such an influence.
4) Even if we concede that a particular median is effective we would have to determine that it is permissible.
5) Even if we concede that it is permissible we would still have to determine that it is reliable (see Derech Hashem section 3 chapter 2).
You also wrote:
“Your explanation apparently leaves Hashem entirely out of the path between living an deceased. By adding Hashem into the “model”, Kaddish affects the deceased through Hashem. The Kaddish moves Hashem to ease the cleansing of the soul of the deceased. Unless someone wants to argue that this is a “one-way street” , the deceased can affect the living through Hashem. Hence, a holy soul (eg., Metatron like?) can influence Hashem to act in the world.
How did the answer given leave Hashem “out of the equation”?
What do you mean by “moving Hashem” and “Influencing” Hashem?
Metatron is a malach, why do you refer to a malach as a soul?
“This is a reasonable mechanism that can explain the selection of the appropriate igros as well as other actions and “miracles” we observe.”
The mere fact that a proposed mechanism “can” explain something does not constitute positive evidence of its existence. The conjuncture that a mechanism exists without any positive evidence is not reasonable.
@ Kovno
“please dont start qouting nefesh hachaim because there are numerous things mentioned in this chat that he is specifically worried about .”
+1
To quote the Nefish HaChaim in support of “a Rebbe is atzmuso umchuso areingishtelt bguf” is an obscene distortion.
1) In the perek being quoted the Nefish HaChaim compares Yiddin / Tzadikim to the Beis HaMikdash. The dwelling place for Hashems presence. Nobody says that the Beis Hamikdash is “atzmuso u mahuto”.
2) The Nefish HaChaim is very clear that we do not even speak of “atzmuso u mahuto” when speaking about Hashem. All that has ever been taught is regarding how Hashem relates to us and the Midos that he created to relate to us. The Nefish HaChaim teaches that this is true even regarding the Shem HaMiyuchad.
3) The Nefish HaChaim states in no uncertain terms that we are forbidden to relate to the world as everything being Elakus (pantheism). To do so would leave no room for the Torah and Mitvos which are premised on our relating to the world as we are designed to experience and understand it.
@ CS
To support the proposition that the Rebbe was a Tzadik Gamur who was completely batul to the Will of Hashem you wrote:
“The Rebbe never exhibited any signs of struggle with the bad. What did he cry about? That the shechina is still in gadlus, that Jewish children don’t know Alef beis. What made him happy? Activities furthering Torah and mitzvos.
Besides there’s a whole mystical side of a Rebbe that can be sensed but I can’t put it into words as I am kind of clueless in that area. But people that met the Rebbe will share of that.”
Are you proposing the above as sufficient positive evidence to substantiate your proposition? Or is it merely sufficient for one who is already a Chabbad Chassid (such as yourself), whereis a non Chabbad Chassid (such as me) should accept the proposition based on a leap of faith?
@ CS
“For me: I know, as all Chabad Chassidim know, that the Rebbe lived his entire life as a Tzaddik Gamur of Tanya”
“However, The Rebbe lived his entire life desiring nothing but what Hashem wanted. Before he went to cheder he was already picturing how the Geula would look. He never took one action, word and we can assume thought against Hashem.”
How do you know this? Better yet, how can anyone know such a thing? You would need knowledge of all the details of someone else’s life including intent.
“)I’m really not interested in how many people were for it not for it etc. because the Rebbe is known as a tzaddik gamur and never did anything against Hashem, so this must also be truth.”
This is incorrect on religious grounds, rational grounds, and practical grounds
1) Religious grounds. We are bound to follow the consensus of the Hachmai HaDor. You DO have to care how many people are for it or not for it. If a dayah is nidcheh you cannot follow it. And no, you do not need a vote for that to happen as per my 2 examples above. There was no “official vote” regarding incandescent light bulbs or the authenticity of the Zohar. Still, taking a contrary position on those issues is not acceptable.
2) Rational grounds. When evaluating evidence to determine whether to accept or reject a proposition on a given subject It is not rational for a layperson to maintain a position which is contrary to a consensus of subject matter experts.
3) Practical grounds. According to your position, there would be no practical way for any community who came to erroneously believe that a certain person was / is a tzadik gamur to be shown that they are in error. We all know that such things do occur, communities large and small do come to such false beliefs.
@ Eli Y
“I can tell you that our great defender in this thread is far too arrogant to speak for most members or about Chabad philosophy”
This type of ad hominem attack is completely uncalled for. In this case it is also unfounded. CS has, to the best of her abilities, taken a significant amount of her time to provide comprehensive answers to just about every person who raised a question (even those posed with hostility). In every instance where she has been insulted she has taken the high road, refusing to lower the standards of respectful dialogue. Arrogant?? How so? Please quote a post which you think displays arrogance on her part.
@ CS
“OK but there are also plenty of times where a yachid reveals a chiddush which is a valid path in Avodas Hashem. Shivim panim laTorah”
Which Gedolim (past or present) are on record endorsing that a Rebbe is mahuto v atzmuto mamish areingishtelt b’guf ? Can you cite a credible example of even one?
From your posts it is clear to me that you are a sincere person. You know very well that the objection to this chiddush is not only from one Gadol. I’m very surprised you would claim such a thing.
“Also it seems to me, although I could be wrong, that there is a halachic “due process,” like by the gemara they hashed out their proofs for their opinions, and then voted on the final halacha.”
There are many examples post chazal where there is closure in halacha and dayos. For example:
1) Turning on a incandescent light bulb is chillul Shabbos
2) The Zohar HaKadosh is authentic@ CS
“It is an oxymoron to say the Rebbe is a Torah giant but his position here is kefira, because that would make the Rebbe and chassidim who follow him the opposite of ovdei Hashem, and you can’t then say that you respect the Rebbe as a Gaon etc.”
This is just plain wrong. For example:
In matters of Dayos
There is a dayah in Chazal “Ain Moshiach L’Yisroel.” There are 2 ways this opinion is dealt with. 1) The Ran explains that it does not actually mean what it appears to be saying. 2) That it does mean what it appears to be saying and is the opinion of a Yachid which is rejected. Now, if someone today would like to understand this chazal kphuto and adapt this belief for themselves they would be kofrim in one of the yud gimmel ikkrim.In matters of Halach
If someone today would follow the opinion that you can bmchalel Shabbos for Makshirai Milla such a person would be considered a mchallel Shabbos and we would not drink their wine.In both of the above cases the proponent of the subsequently rejected opinion wa a Tzadik and a Gaon.