RSo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 47 posts - 451 through 497 (of 497 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Spiritual Significance of Jerusalem and embassy announcement #1424562
    RSo
    Participant

    jdff since when do we look at the date in “Biblical Israel”? If someone dies late in the afternoon of the first day of Chanukah in the States, when it is already the second night of Chanukah in Israel does his yahrtzeit fall on the fisrt or second day of Chanukah?

    in reply to: Spiritual Significance of Jerusalem and embassy announcement #1424518
    RSo
    Participant

    Here we go again. Chabadshlucha preaching to us lubavitch propoganda.

    Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel on 18 Kislev, not on 19 Kislev as she wrote.

    And there is absolutely no recognizable significance at all in his age at the time of his innauguration (not his election) because secular months have absolutely no real meaning even in the non-Jewish world. They are just an arbitrary way of dividing up the year with no basis in fact or history.

    in reply to: Spiritual Significance of Jerusalem and embassy announcement #1424520
    RSo
    Participant

    Litvishechosid, I believe the lubavitcher rebbe coined the expression “Chazoko that propoganda doesn’t come back empty-handed” that is, it is always effective to some degree.

    That is at least one lesson that hsi chassidim learnt from him.

    in reply to: Spiritual Significance of Jerusalem and embassy announcement #1423855
    RSo
    Participant

    Oh no! We just recently finished with Chabadshlucha and her “proofs” that the lubavitcher rebbe was moshiach and now we have chochom telling us how the rebbe saved Arik Sharon’s life and knew all about the UN’s anti semitism before even they did…

    Could chochom possible be Chabadshlucha’s husband?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416618
    RSo
    Participant

    “The Rebbe isn’t a navi or a pickle *just keeps saying so and gives no sources*”

    I think you have convinced Moshiachat that the rebbe was both a navi and a pickle.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416616
    RSo
    Participant

    I’ve been thinking about this again and I’d like to retract what I wrote earlier.

    Daas Yochid you are wrong. If the Lubavitcher rebbe would have said he was a pickle he would most certainly have been a pickle. (I know there’s a sicha somewhere about him being a carrot but I’m not sure about a pickle.)

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416599
    RSo
    Participant

    Could someone please explain to me how the moderation or censorship works.

    I posted yesterday an explanation of the way I understand the concept of emunoh and it has disappeared even though it was not nasty in any way, (or at least I can’t find it) but much of the attacking and personal stuff gets through.

    Just curious.

    This?

    Reply To: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha


    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416602
    RSo
    Participant

    There should be awards for posts that are funny while at the same time make sense and are relavant.

    Daas Yochid your pickle post gets my vote.

    And I really like Little Froggie’s word “brainsack”!

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416592
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: “@Phil,
    (What a name for a nice Jewish boy)”

    What a pity that Sechel Hayashar is your name because I had a great shidduch for you but her father’s name is also Sechel Hayashar and there’s the problem with tzavoas Rebbi Yehudoh HaChossid.

    Oh. I didn’t realize. Sechel Hayashar is just your username not your real name. Well maybe that’s the case with Phil too…

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416582
    RSo
    Participant

    Phil quoting:

    “Chat,
    Your childish cutting-and-pasting of sources that supposedly confirm your warped views help me understand Harav Shach’s zt”l fierce opposition to the Rebbe’s Rambam campaign. He foresaw that Chabad would very simplistically learn Mishne Torah, which needs to be studied in great depth, then deliberately corrupt and misuse it to confirm their cultish dogmas.
    Truly, chacham adif minavi!”

    Aha! So even though you think Rav Shach was a chacham you admit that the Lubavitcher rebbe was a navi!

    Gotcha!

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1416585
    RSo
    Participant

    In Moshiachat’s defense I don’t agree with the criticism that he’s making things up. He’s quoting the lubavitcher rebbe.

    And what that means is that there are now a lot more people than before this thread whose opinion of the lubavitcher rebbe have been lowered, to say the least.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1415753
    RSo
    Participant

    Moshiachat again: “There were plenty of nonlubavitchers who said the Rebbe couldn’t be moshiach because nobody today is worthy of it and it will be someone from the dead.”

    There are many non-lubavitcher who said that yoshke is moshiach!

    Can you name me ehrliche Yidden who said that nobody [alive] is worthy of it and it will be someone from the dead? I have never heard anything more ridiculous.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1415749
    RSo
    Participant

    Moshiachat: “The first pshat of Rashi is min hameisim idk why ur saying it’s not. ”

    We’ve been through all this before and once again it is being ignored by those who don’t seem to care about CHazal or Rishonim. Rashi explains that the Gemoro means that if Moshiach WAS [note past tense] someone who has already died then it WAS [again past tense] Doniel.

    That Rashi does not allow room to say that Moshiach was any dead person other than Doniel. To use it to say, “The GEmoro says it could have been a dead person so I’m saying it was the lubavitcher rebbe” is IMHO close to apikorsus because it is מגלה פנים שלא כהלכה.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1415719
    RSo
    Participant

    CS wrote: “… Moshes neshama is always present on earth in the body of the ispashtusa dMoshe bechol Dara. And since the main life of a tzadik is his Ruchnius accomplishments, Moshe Lo mes, because his neshama is always alive in the body of the Nossi hador,and that’s how hu goel rishon hu goel acharon because his neshama will end up with the Nossi hador who will be moshiach”

    So according to that why say that the lubavitcher rebbe didn’t die? if you believe in the above you could just as easily say that he is the nossi hador of the dor hashvii and his nexhomoh is alive in the body of someone else altogether, either directly related to Lubavitch or not, and that person is the mOshiach until either he brings aobut the geuloh or he too dies in which case the neshomoh that he had moves to someone else.

    Why insist that the Lubavitcher rebbe didn’t die physically?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1414937
    RSo
    Participant

    Daasyochid asked if we noticed the לשון רבים in the quote from Tanya.

    I noticed it too, but you beat me to it 🙂

    It’s very important because it means that the Baal Hatanya did NOT write that there is a nossi hador and that it seems he believes that there isn’t one!

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1414936
    RSo
    Participant

    slominer wrote: “RSo: For what rational reason do you believe that Avraham Avinu existed, if your answer cannot be based on quoting the Torah as your source?”

    Two points, one specific to this thread and one more general.

    1. I don’t know why this thread was started originally but it certainly turned into CS and a few others trying to explain to non-lubavitchers why they should believe or at least accept the possibility that the lubavitcher rebbe is moshiach. Quoting the rebbe himself as proof doesn’t do that.

    2. Our proof of the truth of everything it says in the Torah is based on emunoh. Earlier on CS said that emunoh was emotional and someone (forgive me for not remembering who and for being too lazy to go search) argued that it was much deeper than that i.e. a form of knowledge. I didn’t get involved in that discussion but I agreed with the latter post. Emunoh is something that our neshomos are ingrained with as they are chelkei Eloka mimaal. And you therefore can’t use emunoh for anything else than ikorei ho’emunoh. So I am maamin/believe-know that Avrohom Ovinu existed. I can’t be maamin/believe-know that someone is Moshiach unless he clearly fits in with halochoh.

    I’m not sure I was clear in conveying what I mean but I hope so.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1414851
    RSo
    Participant

    Non Political thanks for your (patronizing) attempt at answering my question. I listened (read) it carefully as you requested… and I reject it as irrelevant.

    No one asked CS to justify why she believes whatever it is she believes. She believes it because she believes her rebbe expected her to believe that. What she was asked was to give a rational explanation of why she believes it, and that can’t be based on quoting the source saying the source is correct.

    After you have listened (read) the above carefully I hope you’ll see the difference between someone challenging her to a debate and someone asking for a rational explanation.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1414397
    RSo
    Participant

    Once again CS replies in a manner so typical of lubavitch. She lists “all” the different types of arguments that have been levelled against her but she conveniently ommits the one argument that has been levelled by many of us to which there is no answer:

    How is it logical to expect anyone to accept any hashkafo she cites when it is based only on the statements made about himself of the person who we are questioning/doubting/rejecting?

    Could you please answer that. I believe we ALL want to know the answer.

    And I’m still waiting to find out who wrote Sefer Hazikaron that you quoted a few days ago.

    Finally someone mentioned above that “nossi hador” is mentioned in Tanya. I just did a BarIlan search for the word nossi and it didn’t come up at all. Where is it in Tanya? I’ll be happy to be told the source.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1413560
    RSo
    Participant

    I’ve said it before but I still can’t get over the line that “the rebbe loved every Jew” and that it is self-evident.

    How do we know he loved every Jew? Because he initiated all those mitzvah campaings and he had mitzvah tanks etc?

    I’m not saying he didn’t love every Jew, but I fail to see how someone having his followers promoting his movement is a sign of love or even of concern for others.

    Now before you jump all over me and call me all the standard names like Misnaged and Sonei Lubavitch, I am not attacking Lubavitch or their rebbe here. I am merely pointing out that having CHABAD (uppercase because it is a brand name) houses advertising the greatness of their movement all over the world, and having mitzvah tanks with pictures of the rebbe on them, could also be taken as self-promotion.

    Yes, yes. I know that they do great things in their Chabad houses, and I’ve already written that I visit them and use them, but I still want to know how you can be SURE that he loved EVERY Jew.

    Remember: reply logically, don’t attack.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1413483
    RSo
    Participant

    Here is something else that has bothered me since I first heard it many years ago and it or its relative has been used often in this thread.

    “The Gemora says that a dead person can be Moshiach. So what’s wrong with saying that the rebbe can be Moshiach?”

    The Gemora does NOT say that a dead person can be Moshiach. The gemora (Sanhedrin 98b) says that “if he [Moshiach} is from the dead, it is Doniel”. Rashi gives two possible explanations:
    1. If Moshiach was someone who has died, it was Doniel (note the past tense “was”).
    2. if you want to find someone among those who have already died who Moshiach will resemble, it is Doniel, i.e. Moshiach is someone ALIVE who will be similar to the way Doniel was in his lifetime.

    For anyone to say that that Gemoro allows us to say that ploni is Moshiach even though he died is the equivalent of saying tht the gemaro says there are 39 Ovos Melochos so I am justified in saying there are another few. If it was a dead person it was Doniel – not the Lubaitcher rebbe!

    The relative to that statement is “the Gemoro says Yaacov Ovinu lo meis, so I can say the rebbe didn’t die either.”

    Same objection as the first.

    I hope all the close-minded Litvishe out thre can understand this difficult piece of logic 🙂

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1413459
    RSo
    Participant

    CS you wrote: “I have experienced the Rebbe’s greatness myself on many levels.”

    I find this very significant.

    If I recall correctly you worte that you were born a few months before the lubavitcher rebbe did/did-not (strike out whichever is inapplicable) pass away. So you clearly never saw him, spoke to him face to face etc..

    How then can you say that you have experienced his “greatness myself on many levels”? Don’t you believe tht Hashem is running the world? Maybe, just maybe, it was Hashem you experienced and not the rebbe at all.

    If c”v someone beseeched oisoi ho’ish to heal him, ahd the person was then healed, we would all laugh at the idea it was o-h who healed him and we would all agree that it was Hashem who did so.

    So please tell us how you know it was the rebbe you experienced.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1413457
    RSo
    Participant

    CS wrote: “I guess i see that even though the sources haven’t been addressed and the logic had not been accepted, it is too much for the litvishe world as a whole to take in one foot, which is why I decline to further discuss perhaps even more sensitive subjects.”

    I am not, have never been, and (hopefully) neve will be part of the Litvishe world yet I still reject virtually everything you have written because the basis of everything you have written has been “inside Luvavitch” sources.

    The lubavitcher rebbe invented the conept of dor shevii. He invented the idea that it starts with the first Lubavitcher rebbe. He (or perhaps his predessor, but I don’t think so) invented the idea of nossi hador. He invented the idea that the (imaginary) nossi hador is the moshiach of the dor. And the conclusion of all this is that he must be moshiach.

    Yes, accepting any of the above logically as fact is way beyond my intellectually capabilities.

    I have one request: if you can find anyone who does have the intellectual capabilities of accepting the logic of the above, please send them to me. I have a bridge in Brooklyn they may be interested in buying.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1413456
    RSo
    Participant

    “sefer Hazikaron relates…”

    What is the sefer about and who is it’s author?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411426
    RSo
    Participant

    Where are the quotes from Reb Mordechai Eliyahu and the Baba Sali taken from?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411425
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: ““My challenge, I suppose it could be called, was to find me someone who was told to keep his mesorah when it would not be so obvious that he was choshuv and/or from the outside, for example, to keep winding tefillin the other way, to keep wearing non-lubavitch tallis/tzitzis.”
    I explained in a previous post the difference between Minhag and Halachic Shita. The two examples you bring are in the latter category. ”

    The way one winds one’s tefillin is most definitely not a matter of Halacha. Neither is lubvitcher tzitzis with the way they do chulyos or the types of stripes they have on their talleisim. Pure minhog. IN fact in Rav Shulchon Oruch it does not say which way to wind the tefillin or that one should have chulyos.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411408
    RSo
    Participant

    Sorry, my concluding question in my last post about Sechel Hayashar’s desciption of Rabb Oberlander should have been: What do others who have no particular agenda, either pro or anti lubavitch, think?

    Once again, the question has nothing to do with Rabbi Oberlander. It has only to do with the description given by Sechel Hayasher.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411405
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: ”
    @rso,
    “but your kidding that the fact he is a “respected dayan and posek in Hungary” carries any weight at all. How many shomrei Shabbos are there in Hungary today?”
    Wow. I’m flabbergasted! It’s truly amazing the nitpicking that you (and others) will do to find some problem with what a Lubavitcher said. Absolutely insane. Hungary – the place he lives. Respected – by the many frum families there, and globally. (There was an article about him in the Ami not so long ago).”

    I don’t think it’s called nitpicking. I think it’s pure calling you out on the facts. If I live in some derfel in Nebraska and I am the Rabbi and Dayan there of the three Yidden who live in the area and who are unfortunately all non-SHomer Shabbos, I might be a respected person and a Rabbi and a Dayan but to refer to me as “respected dayan and posek in Nebraska” would be fooling people.

    Rabbi Oberlander IS a respected person in Hungary. He IS the Rabbi there. He may indeed be a Dayan. But as the respect accorded him is not as a Rov who paskens or as a Dayan who adjudicates Dinei Torah he is NOT “a respected Rabbi and Dayan in Hungary”.

    I stand by what I wrote. What do others think?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411391
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: “It’s also well known that the Rebbe wasn’t able to speak after his stroke in 1992.”

    I clearly remember secretary Rabbi Groner saying that the lubavitcher rebbe said AFTER THE STROKE that everything will be resolved berov shiro vezimro.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411362
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: I know exactly which family you mean, and they are indeed a verry choshuver family, but it only goes to prove my point. They came from outside, although not to far away, and they were told to keep their levush because it makes it obvious to anyone who sees them that this choshuve family were attracted to Lubavitch from the outside.

    My challenge, I suppose it could be called, was to find me someone who was told to keep his mesorah when it would not be so obvious that he was choshuv and/or from the outside, for example, to keep winding tefillin the other way, to keep wearing non-lubavitch tallis/tzitzis. Do you know anyone who was told to keep their mesorah where it wouldnt result in people being impressed with their being attracted to lubavitch?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411380
    RSo
    Participant

    770chabad wrote: “Before the holocaust ALL girls lit shabbos candles…”

    If I call the above utter garbage will it be moderated out?

    It is 100% not true. My father sisters in Hungary did NOT light Shabbos Candles even though they were from a chareidi family with plenty of money, my mother before the war in Germany did NOT candles, and my aunts from Poland did NOT either. I have asked them all.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411364
    RSo
    Participant

    Sorry, I had to catch up a lot after Shabbos and I can’t remember exactly who it was (possibly CS or Sechel Hayashar) who said that it was obvious (probably not the exact words used) that the geonus of the lubavitcher rebbe was unmatched?

    Are you for real?

    I have spoken to many talmidei chachomim of all types, Chassidish, Litvish and Sefardish, and I am yet to hear someone who things that the lubavitcher rebbe was a great geon. Many of them liked some of the verter and pshatim that he said, but that was the limit of their appreciation of his learning.

    And the point so many of them brought up to prove that he was most ceratinly not such a great gaon was his lomdus for not sleeping in a sukkah. Did he really say that?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411369
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar wrote in reply to what I wrote: “If you think so badly of them and their motives, why would you use them when it’s convenient? I would never go to a conservative temple under any circumstances.”

    Why are lubavitchers always so much on the defensive. Did I compare them to conseratives? No. I just said that the majority of shlichim do their jobs because for them it’s parnosso (and I wrote there that there’s nothing wrong wit that).

    Anyways, would I go into a conservative temple if I needed, say, kosher food? No, of course not. And I presume neither would you. BUt would I buy kosher food from a conservative Jew if I needed it? Yes. And I presume so would you.

    I reiterate: I’m not c”v comparing lubavitchers to conservatives, but since you seemed to I am answering letaimeich.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411371
    RSo
    Participant

    (Still catching up!) Sechel Hayashar wrote: “R Boruch Oberlander (a shliach and respected dayan and posek in Hungary)…”

    You’re kidding, right? I don’t mean anything bad about Rabbi Oberlander – I met him once and he seemed a truly special person – but your kidding that the fact he is a “respected dayan and posek in Hungary” carries any weight at all. How many shomrei Shabbos are there in Hungary today?

    Or did you perhaps mean that he was a respected dayan and posek there before the WW2?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411372
    RSo
    Participant

    “What is wrong if the lubavitcher rebbe’s opinion was that all girls should light shabbos candles?”

    Nothings wrong. What’s wrong is that he won’t accept that other Gedolim are of a different opinion and don’t want their daughters to light cangles.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411354
    RSo
    Participant

    I feel sorry for CS and all the other who have been defending lubavitch. NOt because I have anything against them defending what they believe in but because they also seem to really believe that we will be convinced by their arguments.

    In a nutshell, I think the following is true of all the non-lubavitchers who have posted here regardless of their high esteem or otherwise of the lubavitcher rebbe. In no particular order:

    1. There is no such thing as dor shvii except in lubavitch circles, and it’s source is the last lubavitcher rebbe or close to that time.
    2. There is no such thing as nossi hador except in lubavitch circles, and its source is the … (as above).
    3. We do not have neviim and the last lubavitcher rebbe was NOT a navi. the only source that he was is… (as above).
    4. The last lubavicher rebbe was NOT the greatest talmid chochom of the generation or of any other generation, and the only source … (as above).
    5. The fact that many rabbonim complimented/liked the last lubavitcher rebbe was because they saw that he had mailos, but not because they believed he was the godol hador. The only source for thinking otherwise … (as above).
    6. (Something which hasn’t been brought up before as far as I recall) The only source that the last lubavitcher rebbe “loved each and every Jew” is … (as above). If he really loved them all why did he fight so bitterly with Satmar and Rav Shach? Why did he almost never allow Lubavitch to join into other communal functions e.g. Agudath Israel, Daf Yomi, except on his terms?

    NOne of the above is intended to detract from the lubavitcher rebbe. There are those who hold him in high esteem and those who don’t – thats their individual understanding’s business – but it most definitely demonstrates that all the arguments put forward quoting his statements as proof are just a total waste of time.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1411357
    RSo
    Participant

    BurnTFACE I certainly would like to hear your take on all of the above as someone who has been there and left.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410851
    RSo
    Participant

    That’s it for me until after Shabbos. Gotta go to work… after all… I don’t own a Chabad house 🙂

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410850
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: “When I tell you the rebbe’s opinin about changing minhogim…”

    No conspiracy involved. Lets only talk about people who have come to lubavitch from other chariedi communities and have been committed Lubavitchers for a number of years. How many do you know who have not changed to the Lubavitcher nusach hatefilloh? How many wear regular Ashkenazi type talleisim like their fathers did? How many wind tefillin differently, as their fathers did.

    Of couse I’m not talking about baalei teshuvah who have to start fresh and can choose whatever they like.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410846
    RSo
    Participant

    Put down the gun – I don’t mind that the well-meaning writer believes what she believes because the lubavitcher rebbe said so. What I mind is that she thinks that her arguments are convincing or in any way meaningful to someone who does not see the lubavitcher rebbe as a primary source for all of the Jewish world. In other words, I’m not trying to convince her, I’m trying to show her how her arguments are not at all convincing on any sort of rational level.

    And as far as your point about someone deciding to become a lubavitcher and changing his minhogim: it doesn’t bother me at all. But Chabadshlucah wrote that the rebbe often told people not to change their mesoira and I asked for a case where this did not involve a public relations coup, as was the case with the son of an Israeli rebbe. Perhaps there are many cases like that, but I know many Sefardi lubavitchers and not one puts on tefillin in the Sefardi manner and not one eats rice on Pesach.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410836
    RSo
    Participant

    Chabadshlucha wrote: “Re olam habo: there’s a story of a chossid who entered into yechidus…
    (conclusion of story) But, the chossid continues, I would never exchange my gehennom for their gan Eden.”

    (I wonder whether I will ever get used to this story and fail to get angry at the implication…)

    I know chassidim of all types and I have cousins who belong to Satmar, Vizhnitz, Belz and yes, Lubavitch. Some of the Lubavitchers have Chabad houses, some are in business and some are teachers in non-lubaitch schools. I know all of these people very well and as I see it, and believe me I look at these things carefully without hype, the same percentage of each group do things with mesirus nefesh, and the same percentage in each group don’t. I’m not blaming or looking down at anyone but those are the facts on the ground.

    In my line of work I travel often and i have made use of Chabad houses on four continents: North America, South America, Europe and Asia. I have found fantastic lubavitchers in all places, but mesirus nefesh?! Lav davka! That’s another piece of hype put out by Lubavitch.

    The standard line is “these people go out and do the rebbe’s bidding with nothing and all they care about is helping other yidden. What mesirus nefesh!”

    Sorry but in 9.5 out of 10 shlichim get their jobs because they need parnossoh (nothing wrong with that) or because they can be “special” in their area among yidden who don’t know the difference between a Rabbi who knows halochoh and one who doesn’t. That’s often – not always, of course – why the existing Chabad houses and schools are often shortstaffed and looking for more help, while there is never a shortage of people willing to open a Chabad house in a community where there may be only relatively few yidden, and who only have to travel a short distance to find a different Chabad house.

    I am not making any of this up. Every Chabad person knows the facts. It is true of where I live (out of town) and in many of the communities I have visited.

    It seems (sorry for boring you with such a long post) that Chabad has tried to copyrite the concept of mesirus nefesh and defined it as SHOWING how much you care about other yidden. Some of my Satmarer relatives are moser nefesh to learn and daven (aside from the amazing things they do with bikru cholim as mentioned) and my Vizhnitz/Belz cousins are often yelled at by their wives (some of the wives are actually my cousins!) for not spending more time at home helping, or just plain being loving husbands. And the reason they don’t is not because they don’t get on with their wives, its because their first and foremost desire is to serve Hashem. Plain and simple. That is at least as much mesirus nefesh as someone driving around with a Chanukiyah on his car roof in a non-religious neighborhood.

    But once again, if we can quote one of the doros 1-7 saying how “we” are moser nefesh that’s all we need to look donw at everyone else.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410818
    RSo
    Participant

    Sechel Hayashar: “…the many Lubavitchers who came from other kraizen who were instructed by the Rebbe not to change their minhagim?”

    SOmeone pointed out to me some years ago that this was only true when the person in question stood out and it therefore looked good for lubavitch when people saw that so-and-so is a lubavitcher even though he appears not to be. One outstanding case in point is the son of a prominent Israeli rebbe who abandoned his claim to the dynasty and became a lubavitcher. The rebbe allegedly told him to keep his white socks, shetreimel, peyiss etc and now whoever sees him is told something like, “Look! He is the son of the ploni rebbe and he became a lubavitcher!” I was in 770 some time ago and exactly that was pointed out to me.

    Can you give me an example of someone who doesn’t dress obviously different to a lubavitcher and, for example, who still puts on tefillin the way he used to before beoming lubavitch e.g. winding like Ashkenaz or like Eidut Hamizrach?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410812
    RSo
    Participant

    I think we are facing the following problem (it has been voiced a number of times in the thread but I don’t believe it has been pointed out on its own, so thats what I’m trying to do here clearly):

    Chabadshlucha seems an honest well meaning woman who is convinced of her view and who is trying to make us understand it and perhaps even agree with her, and I commend her for her honesty and metchlichkeit. What she quite likely doesn’t realize is that it is all based on one thing – the rebbe made up the concept of dor shivii because he decided to start from the Baal Hatanya, and that makes him dor shveii. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to start from the Be”sht, if you were indeed forced for some reason to cound seven generations? I assume every non lubavitcher would answer yes.

    So we now have two points – 1. dor hashevii is significant 2. he is dor hashevii – all based on his own say-so. (I know it’s been pointed out as circular, but as I wrote I just wanted to make it clear as a standalone point.)

    Everything else Chabadshluca has written to back the above up, or to show how it works is from the lubavitch rebber himself or from Chabad sources “interpreted” to fit in.

    So please, if it is at all possible, give us some outside Torah sources – pure and unadulterated – that would get us “cynics” to believe.

    (Btw I found the story about Reb Boruch Ber and it fits in with all the other stuff. Told by a lubavitcher on a lubavitcher website. And regardless I can’t believe that Reb Boruch Ber would ever say to anyone at all that he guarantees that he will “be the leader of the Lithuanian yeshiva world.” Reb Boruch Ber himself wasn’t the leader of the Lithuanian yeshivah world as at the time there was basically no such thing. How could he guarantee that any individual would become one?)

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1410457
    RSo
    Participant

    I wrote about R Baruch Ber crying that the lubavitch rebbe wouldn’t become his talmid: “No, I didn’t know that, and I wonder whether anybody else outside of lubavitch does. In fact, I wonder whether R Baruch Ber himself knew of it.”
    Chabadshlucha replied: “I would be happy to bring proof but the cynicism here dissuades me…”

    OK. I admit. I’m a cynic. But the question is still a good question. Everything you’ve posted that some of us find objectionable has as its source only Lubavitch, no outside source. And as we are disputing the properness of these thoughts bringing proof from the rebbe or Chabad statements is not a valid reply.

    I’ll give you another example that I have heard elsewhere: the lubavitch rebbe had smicho from the Rogatchover Gaon. And they also corresponded. (Has anyone else out there heard that? I’ve both heard it and seen it written.)

    I have asked and there is no source for the semicho story – I believe not even from the rebbe himself.

    And as to the alleged correspondence: I have been shown a letter written by the rebbe addressed to the Rogatchover Gaon but I hve never been shown a letter in reply. If I wrote to President Trump would that latter prove that “we” had corresponded.

    Please allow me to point out that I believe that you are upright and honest, and that you seek the truth, but you have believed everything you were taught in and out of school by the lubavitch system and you have no external sources that back any of it up.

    Even your source about nossi hador = moshiach/Moshe Rabbeinu hador is from the sichos. The only external reference is to Rashi who says that Moshe was Yisroel and Yisroel was Moshe, and the nossi is everything. No referentce to the leader of the generation being nossi.

    And anyway, the idea that there is a nossi nowadays is itself a lubavitch invention.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1409593
    RSo
    Participant

    Chabadshlucha wrote: “Do you know R Baruch Ber cried when the Rebbe gently refused his offer to become his top talmid and the next leading gadol in the Litvishe world?”

    No, I didn’t know that, and I wonder whether anybody else outside of lubavitch does. In fact, I wonder whether R Baruch Ber himself knew of it.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1409573
    RSo
    Participant

    I was once shown in one of the classic chassidishe seforim that our job is to want to be true ovdei Hashem and NOT just to constantly ask for moshiach. I’ll try to find the source but as it definitely wasn’t in “Chassidus”, i.e. Lubavitch sources, its probably not worth anything anyway.

    And is anyone going to refer me to the source of nossi hador = moshiach/Moshe Rabbeinu hador… or is there perhaps no such non-Lubavitch source?

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1409535
    RSo
    Participant

    big deal, maybe that’s why he had the stroke first. Hashem wanted him to pass away so He made it impossible for him to hold the handkerchief.

    in reply to: Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha #1409522
    RSo
    Participant

    Sorry but I still can’t find where it says Nasi hador hu hamoshiach shebedor or anything like it. Can someone please give me an EXACT source?

    Also from what I’ve read so far the Lubavitch rebbes are the Moshe Rabbeinus of the dor because that’s what they said. Did I miss something here?

    And another thing: the Tikkunei Zohar (112a) says that the ispashtuso of Moshe is in each generation “in each tzaddik and chochom who learn Torah up to [the number] 600,000”. So why does ChabadShlucha say there is only one person in each generation?

Viewing 47 posts - 451 through 497 (of 497 total)