Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@ SH
“I’m not sure what practice you’re referring to, I possibly missed a few posts, but I can tell that connecting to a Tzadik is a way of connecting to Hashem. As Rashi says:
ולדבקה בו. אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמָר כֵּן? וַהֲלֹא אֵשׁ אוֹכְלָה הוּא? אֶלָּא הִדָּבֵק בְּתַלְמִידִים וּבַחֲכָמִים וּמַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ נִדְבַּקְתָּ בּוֹ”
This is a perfect example actually. The word “davek” means to cling / attach to. So for example some things that are included would be
-Becoming a talmid of a Talmud Chacham and serving him
-Supporting the learning of a Talmud Chacham
-Marrying off your daughter to a Talmud Chacham
-Doing business with a Talmud Chacham
-Partaking of a sudeh with a Talmud ChachamThe above are all ways Chazal tell us to be m’kayem being “davuk” to a Talmud Chacham. No one is questioning those practices.
@ 5ish
“I know a man who thinks he can connect to God through making a series of motions with his arms and a pair of inanimate objects. Surely this seems like Avoda Zara…”
The example of Tephilin (and all other Mitzvot) are not relevant here. (Frankly I’m surprised you didn’t use the example of Kruvim.) All the Mitzvot connect us to Hashem. He commanded them. Are you implying that the practices mentioned in this thread are on somehow on par with Mitzvot from the Torah?
“If the issue is purely hashkafa, and you don’t know who the Rebbe was, wouldn’t you trust R Moshe Feinstein who was the posek hador for halacha”
The fact that HaRav Moshe Z”L (and other Gedolim) held a high opinion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L does not = an endorsement of his specific position, especially the ones mentioned in this thread. This is true even when the position is built on the words of Chazal. What you need is examples where HaRav Moshe (or other Gedolim) are on record supporting the specific position under discussion.
Merely citing the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L as a source in these cases is not enough. Why Not? The problem is NOT that he is not a legitimate Torah source. No, the problem is that when a legitimate Torah source takes a novel position and:
1) all Gedolim (for who we have evidence that they are are familiar with the position) are opposed
2) no Gedolim (for who we have evidence that they are familiar with the position) are in favor
such a position is rejected.I have raised this point twice before in this thread and you have ignored it. Why? This is not a controversial point. In fact it is blatantly evident both from halachic sources as well as simple logic.
Your response would be greatly appreciated.
@ CS
“the Rebbe was accepted by many gedolim as a tzadik gamur. A revelation of Hashem in this world.”
Which Gadol described the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L in this way??
CS and SH
R’ Eliezer the Tana held that you can be mchalel Shabbos not only for the Mitzva of Milla but for maksherai Milla as well. His whole town followed his psak and where even saved from a terrible decree for doing so. Can I bring his opinion as evidence in a halachic discussion on the subject? No. Why? Because while EVERYONE held that (1) He was a great Tana and (2) his town was certainly obligated to follow his psak his opinion on this matter was rejected by the rest of the sages of his and subsequent generations. So…
1. In light of the above when answering questions regarding matters where the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z”L took a position that has not been accepted by others it doesn’t make sense to use him as the source for your answer. The refusal to accept such an answer does not = rejecting the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a Gadol B’Yisroel and does not = refusing to accept all legitimate Torah sources.
@ “Alter Rebbe was given this special neshama and tasked with taking pnimius HaTorah and bringing it into intellect”
The RAMCHAL did a masterful job of this already.
Joseph,
Would you please explain how we go from Rabbi Millers proof for the existence of G-D that you quoted in the OP to the proper conception of G-D that you quoted a couple of posts back?
@ beee
“i think that there are ways to prove G-d in this world but there are people that will rather take clear proofs that there is a G-d running the world and explain it according to nature. So yes, everything really douse come down to having emuna!!”I think you meant to say: there are people that will rather take clear proofs that there is not a G-d running the world and explain it according to nature
If that is what you meant to say it’s incompetent. There are no such proofs, not even fuzzy ones and certainly not clear ones. Not even the most ardent avowed atheist / materialist has proposed PROOFS for non existence.
@ Zahavas Dad
“You cannot prove the existance of God , thats why there is EMUNAH”
This depends entirely on your standards of proof. If you apply the Cartesian standard then you can’t prove your own existence either. If you apply the Empirical standard you can’t prove the existence of anything witch is non – physical. If you use the same standard of proof that suffices for everything else for which we demand evidence the above proposition is false.
@ Zahavas Dad
“Why is it OK to question Chabad on messanism , but not OK to question Satmar on Anti-Zionism?”
Surely you do know it is a matter of historical record that anti-zionism was / is a mainstream position among the Gedolim. The issue of contention is a matter of degree and tactics. (Before all the tzionim on here start listing names of Gedolim who where not anti-zionist or neutral on the issue notice I said mainstream to all.) Chabbad mashichistism (even mashichistism-lite) certainly was / is not mainstream. Lo matzinu lai chaver outside of Chabbad and even within Chabbad it is a matter of dispute (see posts by Sechel HaYashar on the relevant thread(s).
@ GAON
“The issue in concern is when the title of Foodie is given on the account of one being obsessed with food”No one defines foodie this way so to give a person obsessed with food such a title would be misusing the title.
As an aside, if you read the referenced wikipedia article you notice that even using the term foodie to define the concept as it IS used in the definition is a point of contention. Why? Because the term carries a certain negative connotation which is not congruent (doesn’t shtim) with the concept in the definition.
The above quote from Rabbi Miller is an example of a version of the fine tuning argument.
Even if you would accept the fine tuning argument at best its utility is against the position of randomness. What’s the next step? Most world religions would accept this argument as would the classic philosophers yet their conception of G-D is certainly false.
When (most people) ask for proof of the existence of G-D what they really mean is proof of The G-D who gave US laws, runs (present tense) OUR world, hears OUR prayers.
It is Yitzias Mitzraim and the Revelation at Sinai that is the only rational evidence of revelation. And it is through revelation that we know everything else. Post revelation a study of our unique history as the chosen recipients of the Torah is also relevant evidence.
@ DovidBT
“An atheist could argue that everything in the above post can be explained by science”
1) What someone “can argue” is not relevant. Ever. A “could argue” without positive evidence is a very weak position and not worthy of a response.
2) Explaining the mechanism by which natural events occur is not an argument against the existence of G-D. It is a straw man argument built on the false premise that believers have no positive evidence for the existence of G-D and use Him to explain what is (was) to them otherwise inexplicable phenomena.
It is also worth pointing out that essentially Emuna is the natural experience we are endowed with by our Creator. Rational argumentation is a tool we use against the the olam hagashmi, the yetzer ha-ra, the culture of the umos haolam, and our own sins which obstruct / corrupt this experience. See Kuzari shar aleph. Also see HaRav Aaron Feldmans excellent article in the latest issue of Dialogue.
Here is the Wikipedia definition of foodie word for word:
“A foodie is a person who has an ardent or refined interest in food and alcoholic beverages. A foodie seeks new food experiences as a hobby rather than simply eating out of convenience or hunger. The terms “gastronome”, “gourmand” and “epicure” define the same thing, i.e. a person who enjoys food for pleasure.”
Nowhere in the above definition is there any mention of:
1. eating for pleasure alone (as in eating only for pleasure)
2. making food your only (or even primary) interest in life
3. eating in an impulsive or glutinous / ravenous mannerIt is the above behaviors that are problematic by the sources cited by GAON and others
The Rambam quoted above by GAON teaches us that when we are engaged in activities that bring us physical please we should not be doing the activities ONLY for the pleasure.
Making food your primary interest in life substitutes our true purpose for materialism.
Eating in an impulsive or glutinous / ravenous manner would actually be counterproductive to deriving maximum enjoyment from your food.
@ Jakob
“but don’t fool yourselves. ask yourself are you looking forward to the weekly family restaurant date & each week count the days down towards it or is it a pleasure & mitzva to make your family happy?”
If I look forward to the dessert at my friends chassuna, for which I drove 3 hours so that I can be meshtatef in his simcha, surely you aren’t saying that my intent for attending his simcha was the dessert!
I’m sure you are also not saying that we are not meant to davka avoid deriving pleasure from from the very things we are created to experience pleasure from.
@ Jakob
“an erlicher yid eats for one reason only, he eats so that he/she can have strength to serve Hashem.
There are many ways one can eat Lshem Shamayim that don’t involve fooling yourself.
1) Eat food that is healthy and avoid impulsively eating foods in quantities that compromise your health and be mikayem the Mitza of guarding your health.
2) Eat mindfully, actually appreciating the pleasure and nutrition that the food is bringing you. Express that appreciation to the One who provided the food by making the brachos with kavanah. You can also be mkayem the Mitzva of Ahavta L’Raecha Kmocha by intending that your bracha should increase the sheffa of bracha to all of Klal Yisroel (see Nefish HaChaim regarding meaning of the word baruch).
3) Take your wife out to lunch or dinner. Take your kids (one at a time) out for ice cream. Making time for those close to us and shared PLEASURABLE experiences should be common and are an important ingredient in Shalom Bayis and effective Chinuch.
4) Appriciating that for every food that Hashem assured there is a comparable food which is permissible. This is a Chazal.
5) Put aside the best foods lkavod Shabbos, Vkarata Lshabbos Oneg.
Consider the machlokis tana’im on the matter of why a Nazir brings a korbon for being choteh al ha-nefish. Is it because he withheld permissible pleasure from himself and it is sufficient what the Torah forbade? Is it because he is bringing himself from a higher level of kedusha to a lower level by ending his term of prishus? Is it both?
Also, consider the Yerushalmi that a person will have to answer for what he had an opportunity to derive pleasure from and doesn’t.
Obviously, making pleasure seeking ones goal in life is contrary to Yidishkeit. Intent matters.But it cuts both ways. You can use the Yerushalmi to become a baal taiva and you can use prishus to become a baal gaiva.
Also, maintaining awareness of our purpose for being in this world and working on our midos are not matters that are lefnai meshuras hadin left to chassidim and baalai musser. They are incumbent on every single yid.
“The absence of evidence not being evidence of absence (without other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance) is self-evidently true logical axiom”
I wasn’t weighing in on this point. Wolf already addressed it.
@benignuman
“No faith or belief in the world has lasting power without evidence. We may also have evidence against their claims, the evidence may be fabricated, or we may dismiss their claims because prior assumptions, but the claims themselves will have evidence to support them.”Really? Then you know something about christanity that the catholic church doesn’t. The hold that to believe the ikrai emmuna of their theology requires a leap of faith and is not evidence based. There staying power hasn’t suffered much due to the lack of evidence.
So does it follow that I can reasonably assert that everything is made out of invisible microscopic unicorns that are so small, light, and move so fast that they cannot be measured? Oh, wait…
What evidence do I have for this you ask? Who needs evidence. Absence of evidence after all is not evidence of absence. But I had a great vision in which the chief unicorn revealed to me the meaning of life. One you just take a leap of faith and believe that my vision is true everything else will make perfect sense. You don’t even have to take my word for it. Come stay for a month at the unicorn temple, eat some mushrooms, meditate, and you will experience for yourself a higher level of existence…
The absence of evidence is the genesis of every false faith in the world.
If we say about any issue that times have changed and the Torah therefore means something different, than there is absolutely nothing absolute in the Torah. Why can we not say that Kashrus, Shabbos or any other mitzvah is irrelevant today (or means something totally different than what Judaism traditionally explains it to mean,) since times have changed? The only true response to that is that the Torah transcends time and was written to all generations.
You do understand the difference betweeen keeping kosher which involves the fulfillment of actual Mitzvos and disciplining children which is a means to an end…
I know a couple that when they first got married took an example from a very chashuv family that using petch as a form of discpline was the excepted norm. Now, these very special people are the epitome of Torah and Chessed. I don’t think I ever saw the father raise his voice or so much as lose his calm. There approach was right for them. To make a long story short The newly married couple should never have adopted this approach. They do not have the same midos. As it has already been pointed out above, hitting another yid when a constructive chinuch purpose is not being served is a Torah prohibition. It’s an act of violence. A person who has not successfully overcome the mida of anger and is not able to remain totally calm in a stressful situations should not potch.
But to say that “it’s NEVER ok to hit a child” and to consider petch as categorically abusive is just adopting current Western ideologies. Nebach.
Rashi sichos taught me to appreciate the depth of Rashi
This is a very important point. It is critical to learn Rashi on Chumash with a super commentary that brings out the depth of Rashi.
The Mizrachi, Maharal, and Livush are classics and their seforim are widely available. I wouldn’t try learning them all at the same time though. The Maharal is especially excellent but one has to get used to his unique writing style.
@ Joseph
“That’s exactly what was said in the very first post the Rambam was cited on this thread. So the context was here right from the beginning”
Sigh…
I knew this was coming.
There are 2 contexts that are at issue here:
1) The context in which the Halacha was cited which leads to an erroneous conclusion regarding how the Torah views women.
2) The context of how to properly understand this specific Halacha in light of all the other relevant Maamrai Chazal dealing with the issue at hand.Nobody misunderstood the specific Halacha itself and context has nothing to do with it.
Also,
Yes, it is extremely important to fight against acculturation to Western values. At the same time we have to be ever mindful to not allow our position to become determined by our adversaries. We have to be ever vigilant lest in our righteous war against Western values we adopt anti secularist positions that are rooted in non Jewish philosophy / theology. This is an insidious form of acculturation and an easy trap to fall into.
It should be clear at this point that given the context in which you cited the Halacha it came across as making the point that the life of women is worth less then that of men and that women are inferior. I could give you lots of other absalutely true statements made by Chazal and Rishonim that when read out of context would point to the same conclusion. But we all (I hope) agree that doing that would be a perversion of the Torah because such a conclusion is DEAD WRONG. So….
Why not just acknowledge that while the Halacha you stated is true given the context in which you stated it created an impression which is clearly false.
“I don’t understand this- you are saying that Leah was not a tzadekes because she was a BT?
How was she different from her sister Rochel who grew up in the same home as she did?“There is the “Tzadik Gamur” and the “Baal Teshuva” This does not end with Rachel and Leah it is a theme that continues through the unique Avodah of the Bnai Rachel and Bnai Leah (Yosef and Yehuda) down to Shaul and Dovid and beyond (ultimately to Mashiach Ben Yossef and Machiach Ben Dovid. I recently read a nice work elaborating on this subject.
@ chabbadshlucha
“but this kind of way of reading halacha as seeing women the way the Arabs do, and twisting halacha to defend it is really inexcusable.“
I’m with Chabbadshlucha on this one (though I definitely didn’t need to learn Chassidus to get there) 😀
It is astounding that Gedolhadorah, Sam2 , and Binyanadead think that they can simply shlug up the Mishnah Brura and Chatam Sofer based on their own interpretation of the Gemora and Shulchan Aruch.
1. The Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch are discussing the fact that women have an obligation to fulfill the obligation of lighting menorah because they where included in the nes. What does that have to do with the fulfillment of the households unit of mhadrim min hamihadrin l’daat haRambam?
2. The Mishna Brura was reporting the normative custom he was not being mchadish it. The M”B (and the Chatam Sofer) where giving an explanation for the widespread practice of women not lighting. Widespread practice when upheld by the Gedolim Sets Halachic precedent. The chidush is to have women and girls light. If you follow accepted Poskim who held they have enough of a Halachic basis to break with the normative custom (Rabbi Solovaichik quoted above) fine but don’t try to revise reality.“Unless you’re talking about “power walking” at a very high intensity. And even that doesn’t exercise all of your muscle groups.”
There are actually 4 types of “high intensity” walking
-Power walking (around 4 mph)
-Speed walking (is an actual Olympic event and can get up to 9 mph for long distances.
-HIIT (High intensity interval training) where you change up walking, jogging, and sprints
-Farmers walks, where you walk for short durations while carrying heavy weightsBut I was just talking about using moderate intensity walking as a form of active recovery on non lifting days to achieve and maintain adequate levels of cardio fitness that will not ruin your strength gains like high intensity cardio will.
What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote. The SAID (specific adaptation to imposed demand) principal bears out your point. Yes, the cardiovascular adaptation to long duration cardio is specific to that demand. And the adaptation to high intensity cardio is specific to that demand. You cannot dance at all weddings at the same time as the adaptations are not compatable beyond very basic fitness levels. For most people a well designed strength training program combined with walking on non lifting days for active recovery yields the most useful adaptations
-increased strength base
-increased bone density
-adequate cardiovascular adaptations for non long duration athletes
-adequate mobility and balance for non dancers / gymnastsExercise tapes, live aerobics style classes, training on cardio equipment, etc are largly a waste of time. Yes, if you are totally unfit you will see improvement but you could get the same from a consistent walking program. Long term the above cardio based programs will make you weaker and hungrier. Most people use them as a misguided way of purging calories.
Sorry this Is a bit late but this subject is close to my heart.
For under $700.00 (one time cost) you can get a Oly barbell, iron plates, and a squat rack. Get a competent Strength coach to teach you how to perform the basic barbell lifts safely and put together a simple program built around progressing the basic lifts.
Walk on your non lifting days
No gym required. In fact the above is more effective for your health then most anything else you can do in a gym. Not to mention most efficient from a time management point of you.
Why o why does this have to be so complicated.
1. Evidence based medicine requires…
wait for it…EVIDENCE!
2. There are currently 2 biasis in evidence based medicine
A. The scientism bias (segula based methods disregarded)
B. The profit bias (methods that cannot be monitized disregarded)
3. There will always be people willing to believe in things for which there is no evidence. They are not “retards”. In fact, in one of Rabbi Kelleman’s excellent shiurim he points out that all the members of the heavens gate cult where educated, well adjusted people with no history of mental illness.So you have 2 choices:
1) you can go with evidence based medicine warts and all.
2) you can believe in leprechauns@ gadolhadorah
This poster has constantly fawned on degrees and advanced degrees…
It’s funny but my wife who runs a babysitting service out of our home
– makes more money then many of her friends with degrees
– provides a part time parnassa for her 2 assistants
– has control of the environment she is in on a day to day basis
– has more social interactions throughout the day then she did at her (very boring) office job
– we get an awesome deduction on the majority of the home expenses which is being used by my wife’s business.@chamistabra
To Avi K:
So I guess Rambam and all of the other Rishonim who embraced Philosophy were MOThis really just demonstrates how little of the Rambam’s philosophy you have studied.
This. 100%
I tried pointing this out above but it’s way more fun to discuss if RSC ever listened to secular music or if Rav Ovadia did.
Let’s ignore the facts if they contradict ones dillisions. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
I heard once Rabbi Gottlieb say bshem the Hazon Ish
“Some people have 613 Mitzvot and some people have 613 challenges…”@ AviK
Did you really use the GR”A as an example to make your point?! Please see the introductory to Chai Adam written by the Gaons son in law. Also see what his sons wrote in their intro to Shulchan Aruch.
As for the Rambam. You are aware that he was supported by his brother for years while he sat and learned Torah FULL TIME. This. Ended when his brother perished on a business trip and the Rambam lost this means of support. See the Rambams letter to Rabbenu Yonitan M’Lunil that secular studies where never regarded by him as more then handmaidens to the Torah.
This is an open and shut case…
@ Joseph
“Now if he brings proofs against Satmar Rov/Debrecener Rov/Rav Vozner’s Psaks AND those proofs are deemed adequate by a majority of contemparary Poskim, then there might be something to talk about.”
You are 100% correct. At that point (don’t hold your breath) their opinion would be nidcheh and we would consider someone who is machmir a chossid shotteh and a hedyot. Until them it remains a machlokis.
@ iacsrmma
“For those who are makpid on CY, your rants that CS is equivalent to CA are not accepted by those who eat/drink CS.”I am makpid to use only CY.
“There being other poskim who hold differently absolutely does not permit members of those kehilos to shop and use Psaks opposite of their own Psak.”
I never said that it does. They should most certainly follow the Psak of their Rav.
@ Joseph
“If one is a member of a community or congregation that holds that Cholov Stam is Cholov Akum mamish, then eating CS is absolutely no different than eating CA, and carries the same negative spiritual consequences”
Sorry. Halacha does not exist in a bubble. Even if a particular Posek is machmir for himself and his congregation. Even if he thinks HaRav Moshe’s Psak is an error. The issue remains categorically a dispute among the Poskim (about a din d’rebonon by the way). He can disagree but he cannot pretend Rav Moshe’s psak doesn’t exist.
Now if he brings proofs against Rav Moshe’s Psak AND those proofs are deemed adequate by a majority of contemparary Poskim, AND it becomes the prevalent custom, then there might be something to talk about.
Until such time that Rav Moshe’s Psak becomes nidche (don’t hold your breath) nobody has the right to say that someone who is eating chalav Stam dairy products is eating trief mamash.
End of the sentence got cut off. Should read:
Relying on the psak of the Posek HaDor can hardly be construed as going against the Will of Hashem
And yes I am aware that the issur of consuming non kosher is unique (its mitamtem halev, causes our very selves to become defiled, etc.
@ Joseph
Eating Cholov Akum definitely causes negative spiritual consequences. And many hold that which is called Cholov Stam is Cholov Akum mamish.
Going against the will of Hashem causes negative consequences. Not just spiritual, ultimately in the olam hagashmi as well. Relying on the psak of the Posek HaDor can hardly be construed as going against th
You do know that there is Halachic basis for assuring most dairy products in America today (including the chalav Yisroel ones. This is why we have Poskim.
@ Slominer
This has been “getting worked out” for the past almost 25 years since the Lubavitcher Rebbe zichrona tzaddik l’vrocha’s petira. I don’t think giving it more time will much change the disputed dynamics.These things take time, 25 years is but a drop in the bucket. Eventually there will be closure on this issue. It’s not up to us how much time to give it.
Notice that DY said “you thought I was questioning his integrity.
Is this the offending post where DY questioned The Lubavitcher Rebbes integrity?
MoshiachChat, I honestly didn’t read what you quoted. What are you trying to convince me, that he called himself a navi, moshiach, and infallible?
Let’s say you convince me that he called himself all of the above. My conclusion would be the rational one – that he was a megalomaniac.
You’re trying to convince us that the Rebbe was a cult leader, yet you want us to accept your beliefs as normative Judaism. It’s not very reasonable to think that we will.
Seems that he was opposing the same erroneous interpretations of the Lubavitcher Rebbes words as you yourself do. He was making an effort (I don’t know why) to show MC the rational conclusion people would arrive at if they took his interpretations seriously.
@SH
If you can question the Rebbes integrity, I can question Rav Shachs as well. If you won’t question his integrity, but will only give criticism, I’ll do the same.
I was under the impression that Gedolim weren’t infallible, and questioning their integrity was not off limits.There is a Halacha that prohibits you from questioning the integrity / motives of a Tamud Chacham. How does the fact that someone else does it make it permissible?
Also, why do you keep equating not being infallible to a lack of integrity. This is an overt error in logic and you just repeated it twice.
opposition to Yidden learning Torah solely because of who the initiator was brings into question the motives of his machlokes, whether it was a machlokes Lsheim Shomayim or not.
The Halacha is that when one is judging the actions of a Talmud Chochom one is obligated to judge his motives favorably. HaRav Shach was a Gadol by any standard we have. You are therefore obligated to judge his motives favorably. The fact that he was not infallible is besides the point. You are welcome to quote Gedolim who disagreed with his position but you do not get to question his integrity.
There are 2 paths here.
Path One. The Talmudai Chochamin among Chabbad will interpret the teachings of Lubavitcher Rebbe in a way that is in line with normative Judaism. They will do this even when it means saying an interpretation which is forced. They will also guide their talmidim to a more integrative approach with the rest of Klal Yisroel. They will do this because they are true Talmudai Chochamim, are amailim B’Torah, and we know that in the end the light of the Torah will bring them to good.
Path 2 is self evident to anyone who has been following this thread.
While this is getting worked out there is going to be good, sincere people who will be honestly confused.
@RSo
Glad you o see your back. I want to apologize again for taking such a condescending tone in my response to your earlier post.@Slominer
You haven’t addressed my question to you, above, regarding the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Hutner.Please see my response to SH
@ SH
And Rav Vosner, who was the Gadol HaDor at least in the Chassidishe velt
HaRav Vosner was regarded as a Gadol in the whole of Klal Yisroel. Are you aware of any Litvish Rav or Rosh HaYesiva who did not consider HaRav Vosner a Gadol?
@SH
My point in bringing Rav Vosner was to show that when people say “all the Gedolim” that is absolutely false.This is a textbook case of a straw man argument. Who, in the context of our discussion said “all the Gedolim”?
Re: what you wrote:
You named several names. I demonstrated that one was mislead, and two we have proof to the contrary.You demonstrated nothing of the sort. It is pure conjuncture on your part to say that HaRav Aaron Feldman was mislead. There is nothing in his letter indicating how many or how few elohistim there are in Chabbad. Also, as already mentioned, his name was not on my list as he did not come out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe in that letter. I have no Idea What his opinion is regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Proof to the contrary? Hardly. At best you can call me out on that I did not bring evidence for their positions. In the case of the Satmar Rebbe his opinion is regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe is expressed in writing in Divrai Yoel on Parahas Tzav. If you want to disregard what I said regarding HaRav Hutners position because I did not bring written proof for his position that would is OK with me. But know this. It is not called proof:
1. When a Gadol can be shown to hold the Lubavitcher Rebbe in high regard at some early point in their life when there is evidence that they later changed their opinion.
2. To claim that if the Gadol did not hold of the Lubavitcher Rebbe we would know about it in Chabbad. This supposition is absurd. If a Rav makes his opinion know to his talmidim yet chooses not to publicize his views or launch an all out war against Chabbad it would not be known to Chabbad. This in no way impeaches the reliability of his students testimony regarding what they heard from their Rebbe.