Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@arso i dont know who you call a gadol. reb chaim zimmerman was a gaon olam. maybe cuz he wasnt a politician he didint get so much attention
sechel, you quoted a list of anecdotes about R Chaim Zimmerman’s interaction with the LR. I never met or saw the man, but I have heard a little about him. Wouldn’t I be correct in saying that he was not considered a recognized gadol by virtually all of the chareidi world?
it was just one example of one gadol,
who was a gadol recognized by everyone? no one never existed. every gadol had others call them names, even very sharp ones. the satmer rebbe was against reb moshe feinstein others too. brisk was against rav shach together with most chassidim – agudas yisroel.
the whole idea of a gadol who was not a posek (i think) started by rav shachas well as many other gedolim (for some reason in the books printed about those gedolim it dosent mention it but) in seforim menachem mashiv nafshi, chad bedorah, shemen sason machavarecha, there are hand written letters, pictures, testimony etc. ( in igros moshe there is a letter to the rebbe, he also backed the rebbe about the lag beomer parades after rav shach and the steipler came out against chabad. and he also supported the rebbes mivtzoim, all these you can find in sefer menachem maishiv nafshi)
we already discussed ramban elsewhere. learn perek hachelek, hilchos melochim then the ramban and come back , anyway like i said the abarbenal, rashi, rambam (in igeres techiyas hamasim) clearly say moshiach can be from the dead. btw the rambam in igeres tamon says nevuah will return before the year 5000, i forgot exactly the year.
its not kefirah to say like one opinion,
about rav chaim zimmerman (nephew of Rabbi Baruch Ber Lebowitz)בהזדמנויות רבות היה נכנס ל-770 לשוחח עם הרבי בלימוד, כשכל שיחה כזו הייתה מתנהלת בגאונות עצומה ומראי מקומות “עפו” במהירות בחלל האויר. איש מן הצד, למדן ככל שיהיה, לא היה יכול לעמוד על מהלך הדברים, כאשר ר’ חיים היה מציין מראי מקום אחד, והרבי מיד מחזיר לו במראה מקום נגדי, וכן הלאה – תוך שהם עוברים בין כל מסכתות הש”ס ומפרשיהם. משיחות אלו יצא ר’ חיים נרעש[2].
מסופר כי פעם הגיע לרבי ואמר לו, כי הגיע למסקנה שאת כל סדר קדשים אפשר לסכם בשלושה נקודות עיקריות. הרבי הגיב שניתן אפילו בנקודה אחת… ר’ חיים יצא מכליו[3].
כאשר יצא לאור ספרו “אגן הסהר”, הכניס לרבי את ספר הביכורים מהדפוס. הרבי קיבל את הספר, עבר עליו תוך כחצי שעה והוציא תשובה בה הקשה על חלקים עיקריים מהספר[4]. ר’ חיים התפעל מאוד הן לנוכח המהירות בה עבר הרבי על הספר, והן מול השגותיו של הרבי אותן לא הצליח ליישב. הוא עדיין עמד על מסקנותיו[3]. לאחר זמן, הגיע לדון עם הרבי בנדון, ולאחר שקלא וטריא בנדון – שכללה, כמובן, מראי מקומות שנזרקו שוב ושוב במהירות – נעצר, חשב לרגע ואמר כי אין לו כרגע תשובה, אך הוא עדיין נחרץ שהצדק איתו[2].
לאחר אותו דיון, ניגש אליו הרב יואל כהן (שצפה בהשתאות בשיחה, מבלי להבין את פשר הדברים), ושאלו מהו המיוחד בדרך לימודו של הרבי. ר’ חיים סירב להשיב, בטענה שבין כך לא יבין… אך לבסוף הסביר, כי בדרך כלל גם הגאונים הגדולים – בשעת לימוד סוגיא מונחים בה בעומק, מבלי להיות שקועים כל כך בסוגיות אחרות. כך אפשר למצוא אצל גדולי המפרשים, שלעיתים חוזרים בהם או משנים מעט את המסקנות שהגיעו אליהם בסוגיות אחרות. לעומת זאת הרבי, כל חלקי התורה פתוחים לפניו באותו רגע, וכל הסוגיות מתאימות ועולות בקנה אחד[3].
באותה הזדמנות אמר הגאון לר’ יואל: “עיינתי 12 שעות בלקוטי שיחות כרך ד’ (שיצא לאור באותה תקופה) ולא מצאתי משהו אחד שאינו מתאים עם ירושלמי או בבלי”[2]…
עוד מסופר, כי בהזדמנות התקשר למזכיר הרב חודקוב והעיר אותו בשעה ארבע בבוקר. להפתעתו של המזכיר, הסביר ר’ חיים שהוא קיבל כעת מכתב מהרבי בנושא תורני, ולאחר שעבר עליו הוא מוכרח לומר: “הליובאוויטשער רבי הינו גאון עולם!”.
בספריית אגו”ח שמור אחד הספרים ששלח לרבי, ועליו ההקדשה: “לגאון ישראל חד בדרא ממש, מהר”ר מנחם מענדיל שניאורסון שליט”א האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש. בברכה והוקרה. אהרן חיים הלוי צימרמן”.
the above mentioned sefer with the hakdasha is printed and available in the sefer חד בדרא.
you can say its forged or he didnt mean it, you can also say that anything any gadol said or wrote he didn’t mean. so i guess whoever is the one who really decides what the gadol meant and didnt mean is the real gadol.
in my world, a gadol dosent lie, do chanifa, (those groups are not able to be mikabel pnai shchinah)oh now i understand cs is a women thats how this thread got into gemarah.
well actually i have to say she learns gemarah much better than you guys. (and she has a heter to be on this site even writng dvarim bitalim unlike men who have a isur ro talk and write dvarim bitalim – see shulchan aruch masa umatan and hilchos t”t)
@arso When faced with the Ramban who wrote that we reject yoshke because he died, – the ramban never wrote that. as discussed elsewhere. yoshke was killed for convincing yidden to serve a”z. he was a rahsa, there was never a thought that he is moshiach, the ramban is reffering to a differnt point and was talking to christians, go learn the sugya.
could be rashi dosent hold moshiach can be from the dead – according to the way some learn but the aberbenel learns he can, and (i think) learns rashi that way too. see sefer shmoi shel moshiach, its a website too.
you cant call someone is wrong for following one pshat over an other. just like i dont call the chassidim wrong and a mumar for following r”t shkia and tzais and they dont call us mumarim to be michalel shabbos@yankel berel im not arguing who was a bigger gadal and said bigger chidushim in niglah. i was just saying that in my opinion and many others including many (not all) other gedolim – the rebbe was the greatest talmid chacham since after the war. i go by what it says in tanya perek 2 what a rosh bnai yisroel is – a neshama diatzilus, his mission is to strengthen the emunah of yidden as it says in zohar brought in tanya perek 42, maamer viateh titzave 5741 at length.
btw i beleive based on the way the rebbe was midaek in the frierdiker rebbe’s maamarim and they way he was batul to him, that he considered him a even greater talmid chacham even though there is very little printer from him on niglah.
@yankel berel I learnt some of your rebbi’s hidushim , You get an understanding of his approach. thats bologna. there are many diffrent volumes on many different types of torah. its like learning kol ram of reb moshe and saying you get his approach on niglah. or deroshos chasam sofer and saying you get his approach on niglah or learning tanya and saying you get his approach on niglah. i.e. likutai sichos 1-4 is chassidus said very simple made for people outside chabad. 5- 14 are mostlr deep rashi sichos. then another 200 seforim. maamarim i guess you consider drush, and you made up some idea that ain meshivin al hadrush. the alter rebbe – who you agree is a great gadol in niglah – became a chasid of the magid to learn chassidus. after he printed the shulchan aruch in his 20’s he devoted most of his whole life to learn, teach, and spread chassidus“They wrote on areas where there is clear responsibility , areas where you cannot say hidushim which merely SOUND nice .
In those areas you can be confronted with clear proofs against you , which you will have to answer to , which will hold you to account .
This is the stuff real Gdolei Yisrael are made of”amazing idea, i would say the oppisite. the rebbe’s way of learning was to answer many questions (some times 5 some times 15) with a deeper explanation of the sugya, that prooves the truth to the answer whereas when you have one question and one answer you can always ask another question. the rebbes derech was also to explain the lishitasahu of taanayim, amoraim, rishonim, and show how thru shas they follow that way of looking at the sugyos. (see Otsar Likkutei Sichos – Leshitasayhu)
seems like you really learned alot of sichos of the rebbe?
@seforim of the rebbe: yesterday you thought the rebbe wrote only 1 sefer, after just being told the rebbe has 223, somehow you managed to read all them and decide its mostly drush?! genius!
there is alot of drush, the rebbe has over 1000 explanations on rambam (collected in rambam pardes hamelech) many on halacha – collected in shulchan menachem – i think 8 volumes. many on shas – collected in chidushim al hashas, chidushim ubiurim rabosainu nisienu on diferent mesechtos. and much more, do your reseach.
and what are you trying to say by Ein Meshivin Al HaDrush?
yankel berel: btw i learned the entire shulchan aruch harav, and many parts of other seforim you mentioned, how much of the rebbe’s seforim did you learn? ok youre point? so after the ketzos, there is no more gedolim youre trying to say?
@ arso so he said most of it (by farbrengens spoke for 4-12 hours without any seforim or notes, not getting up to use the bathroom btw (most on recording, many on video) and chassidim wrote it up, whats the difference?
(i’m sorry for what i wrote, it was too harsh, the source is a old nigun of chassidim not chabad, today b”h things changed with the spread of chassidus and musar)This was not even postable. If someone taught you that, than shame on you both.
seforim of the rebbe:
: Torat Menachem transcripts of talks in Hebrew, 1950–1975. (80 volumes)
: Torat Menachem Hitvaduyot – transcripts of talks in Hebrew, 1982–1992 (63 volumes)
: Reshimot – Schneerson’s personal journal discovered after his death. Includes notes for his public talks before 1950, letters to Jewish scholars, notes on the Tanya, and thoughts on a wide range of Jewish subjects penned between 1928 and 1950 (10 volumes)
: Likkutei Sichot – Schneerson’s discourses on the weekly Torah portions, Jewish Holidays, and other issues (40 volumes) – these are not included in torat menachem
: Igrot Kodesh – Schneerson’s Hebrew and Yiddish letters (33 volumes)
Haggadah Im Likkutei Ta’amim U’minhagim – The Haggadah with a commentary written by Schneerson
total 223 seforim. non of the above are adaptions, they are either he wrote himself – reshimos, igrot kodesh, heggadah, or others wrote down what he said by farbrengens – toras menachem, likutai sichos he said and after others wrote it up, he edited. same with maamarim melukat – 6 volumes – but its included in toras menachem
there are more seforim but they are adaptions i.e. Heichal Menachem – Shaarei – talks arranged by topic and holiday (34 volumes)
or sichos kodesh is the same as toras menachem just in yiddish (50 vol)im not saying whoever gave more shiurim is a bigger gadol but 1) whatever other gedolim did, the rebbe did (in many areas much more) like 1000s of hours of teaching torah by farbrengens – 223 volumes!!.
kiruv everyone knows no one can compare to the rebbe.
today many many jews outside chabad learn the rebbes torah either directly or thrue rabbi yy jacobson, rabbi shais taub and many more. no other gadol’s techings are studied by som many jews (that lived after the war, obviously going back hundreds of yrs, there is gemarah rishonim, and gedolai achronim, sh”uarso “And I have a question. If the Lubavicher rebbe was atzmus melubash beguf, and thus all-powerful, why wasn’t he able to avoid having a stroke, and avoid dying?”
great question so instead of the possibility of whoever told you that chabad said this misquoted something, you ask chabad why…?
see igeres hakodesh (in tanya) chapter 25. also likutai amarim perek 2In reply to sechel’s question as to who can be considered a gadol if the Lubavicher rebbe isn’t, coffee addict replied: Rav Shach.
rav shach was a gadol i agree he gave many shiurim and has around 10-15 seforim printed of his torah on talmud bavli and specificly the yeshiva mesechtos. the rebbe has about 200 sefrim on bavli yerushalmi, kabalah zohar and everything else so thats my point, if the rebbe isint than who is
btw how many people can tell you a torah of rav shach?@ yankel berel so you heard from your close relative something that makes no sence (i dont want to repeat such apikorsos)edited–ironic but motzei shem rah
this rabbi wrote up his personal encounter.
you can choose which one to believe.Rabbah declared: “I, for example, am a beinoni.” Said Abbaye to him, “Master, you make it impossible for any creature to live….”
Abbaye argued thus: “If you are a beinoni, then all those on a lower level than you fall into the category of the wicked, concerning whom our Sages say:9 ‘The wicked, even while alive, are considered dead.’ By calling yourself a beinoni, you thus make it impossible for anyone to live.”if the rebbe wasn’t a gadal, who was?
Why Our Sanctuaries Remain Pure
The conclusion of the tractate of Chagigah and the entire Order of Mo’ed (Festivals) records a difference of opinion between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages as to why the Golden Altar and the Copper Altar of the Sanctuary1 were not susceptible to ritual impurity.
Rabbi Eliezer explains that the altars are considered as earth.2 Just as earth cannot contract ritual impurity, so too, these altars. Our Sages, by contrast, state that the reason is that the gold or copper coverings were merely an overlay. As such, they were subordinate to (and considered an extension of) the altars’ inner material, which was not susceptible to ritual impurity.3
The Torah, which was given by an infinite G‑d, is itself infinite. Its lessons are equally relevant at all times and in all places. It has the same strength now, in the darkness of exile, as when it was given to Moshe on Mount Sinai.
One hallmark of the Torah’s infinity is that every concept in it has endless interpretations. In general, these are divided into four categories: pshat the simple meaning, remez an extended meaning or allusion, derush a homily, and sod the underlying mystic concept.4
An allusion derived from the teaching mentioned above provides us with lessons relevant to our daily lives, for in his own place, every person serves as a “sanctuary in microcosm” in which the Divine Presence rests.
There were several sacred articles in the Sanctuary and the Beis HaMikdash. Similarly, within our individual “sanctuaries” there are “sacred articles”: our intellect, our feelings, and the like. In these matters, there is the possibility for “ritual impurity;” selfish intent, secular influence, or an unholy thought may creep in. There is even the possibility of sin, doing the opposite of G‑d’s will, and acting in conflict with the directives of the Torah and its mitzvos.
Continuing the analogy, sin makes a person’s “sacred articles” his thoughts or feelings impure. It thus becomes necessary to devise a means whereby that “sacred article” can be returned to G‑d’s sanctuary. For G‑d’s sanctuary every Jewish man, woman, and child must be pure.
With regard to material matters, and similarly with regard to spiritual potential, mankind is divided into the rich and the poor. Gold serves as an analogy for the rich,5 while the poor are associated with copper.6
The core of every Jew’s Jewishness, the pintele Yid, remains intact, regardless of the inner or outer dimensions of his personality. And this aspect of his being has one desire: to fulfill G‑d’s will. As my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, would say:7 “No Jew desires to nor can he sever his bond with G‑d.”
Accordingly, every Jew can be considered an altar for G‑d. For what is an altar? A place where one slaughters one’s yetzer hora and brings a sacrifice for G‑d.
This concept is relevant to all Jews: both the rich (who can be compared to the Golden Altar), and the poor (who are likened to the Copper Altar). The true desire of every one is to slaughter the yetzer hora and fulfill G‑d’s will.
As mentioned, the altars are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The two rationales given can also be interpreted in the context of our Divine service. The first rationale holds that the altars are considered like the earth. This refers to the quality of humility, as we say in our prayers:8 “May my soul be as dust to all.” Just as everyone treads on the earth, so too a humble person has no self-concern, and no desire other than to fulfill G‑d’s will as expressed in the Torah and its mitzvos.
This is the rationale taught by Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenus. Rabbi Eliezer was referred to as “Rabbi Eliezer the Great,” and was considered “equivalent to all the other Sages of Israel.”9 Nevertheless, he remained so humble that he “never mentioned a teaching that [he] had not heard from [his] teachers.”10
This approach enabled him to see the inner dimension of every Jew’s character, appreciating the level of which it is said:11 “Israel, the Torah, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one,” i.e., a Jew’s entire life consists of the observance of Torah and mitzvos. Rabbi Eliezer taught his students that intellect and bittul (self-transcendence) are not opposites, and indeed complement each other, as reflected in his own Divine service: “never mention[ing] a teaching that [he] had not heard from [his] teachers.”
The Sages offer a second rationale, for they feel that Rabbi Eliezer’s approach is too difficult for the general public. They instead thought about a Jew’s external dimension. For it may happen that a person will stumble within his path of Divine service. This is particularly true with regard to a Jew who can be compared to a Golden Altar. Since he is involved with matters concerning gold, he may be distracted, and for a brief time may ignore the fulfillment of G‑d’s will. Similarly, a Jew who can be compared to a Copper Altar may be confronted by financial straits that cause him to violate G‑d’s will. Nevertheless, our Sages maintain that these occasional transgressions cause neither the rich Jew nor the poor Jew to become impure.
The reasoning is that both the gold and the copper are superficial coverings. The inner dimension of every Jew remains immune to impurity. Moreover, this inner dimension is so powerful that the external dimension becomes subordinate to it. In other words: every person will ultimately turn to G‑d in teshuvah and appreciate the Truth. He will grasp that a Jew’s life is solely G‑dliness, and that this G‑dliness can be tapped only through the study of the Torah, and observance of the mitzvos.
Moreover, such conduct is the medium which enables us to receive the blessings which G‑d promises, as it is written:12 “And if you walk in My statutes and observe My commandments… the land will provide its yield, and the trees of the field will give their fruit.”
In contrast, the Altars are associated with the middle vector (see also Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 51a and 60a), and the middle vector “ascends to the inner dimensions of Kesser. ”
This also relates to the Ark, located in the Holy of Holies, which contained the Tablets of the Ten Commandments. The ark was entombed because it is not possible that gentiles would attain power over it.
Nevertheless, a reason must be given why the altars cannot contract impurity. For although they are represented by the middle vector, they are represented by attributes which are limited in nature.
The reason given by Rabbi Eliezer is that they are considered like earth, i.e., they reflect the utter selflessness that characterizes the quality of Kesser (Hosafos l’Torah Or, the beginning of Megillas Esther). There is indeed an explicit verse which identifies the external altar with earth, as it is written: “You shall make an altar of earth for Me.” This is stated explicitly only with regard to the external altar, the level of Malchus, because “the end is rooted at the beginning, and the beginning at the end (Sefer Yetzirah 1:7).” Therefore, in the destruction of the vessels of the World of Tohu, “the earth (alone) became nullified.”
With regard to the altars themselves, the inner altar is identified with Tiferes d’Zaer Anpin, and is thus considered “rich” when compared to the external altar identified with Malchus, of which it is said (Zohar I, 33b): “It has nothing of its own.”
The reason that the altars did not require tevilah (טבילה), which is identified [Siddur Im Dach, p. 159d] with bittul (הביטול), is because they themselves are expressions of bittul. Two reasons are given for this: they are considered like earth, and their surface is subordinate to their inner substance.
Rabbi Eliezer refers to the essence of G‑d, as reflected by the association (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:7) of his name with the verse (Shmos 18:4): אלה-י אבי בעזרי “The G‑d of my father provided assistance for me.” He is called “the Great,” and it is said (Megillah 31a): “In the place of His greatness, there you find His humility.” While looking at the external dimensions of existence, he was able to perceive the inner dimension. Thus the fact that the external substance of the altar was subservient to its inner substance was not significant for him, so he gave another rationale. For according to his conception, the external substance was always batel, for “There is nothing, [but Him] (Devarim 4:39, see the explanation in Tanya, Shaar HaYichud, ch. 6).”
The Sages differ, and the halachah follows their opinion, for “[Torah law] is not in the heavens (cf. Devarim 30:12),” but rather is determined according to the principles which prevail within the spiritual cosmos (Seder HaHishtalshelus). On this level, the external surface of the altar could be susceptible to ritual impurity, except that since it is batel to its inner substance, it is not. This is not the place for further elaboration concerning this matter.
“And if you walk in My statutes and observe My commandments… the land will provide its yield, and the trees of the field will give their fruit.”
https://www.chabad .org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/70531/jewish/Likkutei-Sichot-Tetzaveh.htm
1 The connection of this concept to the weekly portion is reflected in the fact that the conclusion of Parshas Tetzaveh speaks about the Golden Altar, while the conclusion of the previous Torah reading, Parshas Terumah, speaks about the Copper Altar. The sichah to follow is adapted from a letter from the Rebbe to a Society [for the Study] of Mishnayos whose members had concluded their study of the Order of Mo’ed. [The final mishnah of that Order deals with these subjects.] In the letter, the Rebbe emphasizes the spiritual contrasts between these two altars.
2 It is written (Shmos 20:21): “You shall make an altar of earth for Me.” On this basis, Rabbi Eliezer establishes a comparison between the altar and earth. And on the basis of another verse (Bamidbar 3:31), an equivalence is established between both altars (Chagigah 27a).
3 For the inner substance of the altars was wood, and an oversized wooden vessel is not susceptible to ritual impurity (Rashi, Chagigah, ibid.).
4 See Shaar HaGilgulim, preface 17.
5 See Bava Basra 25b, which cites Iyov 37:22 “Gold will be brought from the north,” and which says that a person who wants to become rich should face north (the direction of the Golden Table) when he prays.
6 See the interpretation of the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 4:1).
7 Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe Rayatz, Vol. IV, p. 547; HaYom Yom entry 21 Sivan, 25 Tammuz.
8 The passage E-lohai Netzor, recited at the conclusion of the Shemoneh Esreh, Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p. 61.
9 Avos 2:9.
10 Sukkah 27b, 28a.
11 See Zohar, Vol. III, p. 73a.
12 Vayikra 26:3-4.
To briefly explain the above on a deeper level: As stated in the Tzemach Tzedek’s, Sefer HaMitzvos, Mitzvas Binyan HaMikdash, ch. 2, there were four sacred articles of fundamental importance in the Beis HaMikdash : the Menorah, the Golden Table, and the two Altars. These articles correspond to the attributes Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferes, and Malchus. The Menorah and the Golden Table, corresponding to Chesed and Gevurah, were susceptible to ritual impurity, as stated in the first clause of the mishnah.@yankel moshe and damoshe: i posted the storah on this thread if you can read hebrew. yes rav shach sent a talmid who had a question in kabala to the rebbe. the letter and the name of the talmid is there.
you know r’ shach was againsts shaving, he said buchurim and kolel yungerleit should be learning at least 2 blatt a week instead of hacking in lomdus. many things, why do people focus of one argument?finally another topic, good point differnent opinions if women can learn gemarah. so too there are differnt opinions if moshiach can be from the dead. and differnt opinions if you can shave your beard and if you need to sleep in the suckah if its too big of a shlep to bring your bed there. and if one can be yotze shalosh seudos with fruits or you need to wash. or if you can eat before davening. all have diffeerent opinions, for some reason some call others kofrim if they hold like the other opinion?!
תגלית מרעישה: בז’ תמוז תשמ”ב כתב כ”ק מרן האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש זי”ע מכתב ארוך ומקיף ב’פרי עץ חיים’ והגרסאות השונות, המפתיע שהמכתב של הרבי מליובאוויטש נכתב להרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר מלייקוואוד תלמיד ישיבת פוניבז’ ותלמיד מובהק להגרא”מ שך – הרב צוקר הוא נכדו של הגאון האדיר החסיד הרב מרדכי רוטנברג זצ”ל הי”ד שהיה רבה של אנטוורפן למעלה משלושים שנה עד פרוץ השואה וערך את הספר על סבו שנקרא ‘יד מרדכי’.
מדוע פנה הרב צוקר תלמיד פוניבז’ לרבי מליובאוויטש? מדובר היה בשאלה סבוכה בעץ חיים שעלה לו מתוך ספרו של סבו יד מרדכי. מאחורי המכתב כך מתברר טמון תגלית מרעישה ומדהימה כאחת שהשבוע קבלנו את הסיפור המלא לאחר תחקיר מקיף מאלו שהיו בסוד העניינים בספר יד מרדכי.
ובכן הסיפור שהיה לפני 38 שנים, הרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר ערך את ספרו של סבו הרב רוטנברג זצ”ל. בשעת העריכה התגלה בתשובה המודפסת בסימן נ”ב בספר יד מרדכי, קושיא גדולה אודות דברים שהביא הרב רוטנברג מר’ חיים ויטאל אודות עניין הנסירה מהאריז”ל.
העורך כתלמיד ישיבת פוניבז’ החליט לעלות את השאלה בפני ראש ישיבת פוניבז’ הגרא”מ שך. הרב שך אמר לרב צוקר: “וואס פרעגט איר ביי מיר, איך טו ניט אין די זאכן, דאס פרעגט מען ביי ליובאוויטש ער” [=מה אתה שואל אותי בדברים הללו שאין לי הבנה בזה? מי שיכול לענות לך על זה הוא האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש, תפנה אליו]
הרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר לא התמהמה ולמרות השיוך הליטאי החליט לכתוב מכתב לכ”ק מרן הגה”ק האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש והעלה את הקושיה מתוך הספר. להפתעת הרב צוקר הוא קיבל מכתב עמוק עם היקף מדהים על כל העניין מכל הזויות האמורות. דבר חסר תקדים שהאדמו”ר מליובאוויטש בשנים אלו יתייחס בפרוטרוט לשאלה מסוג זה. במכתב כותב להם האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש שמדובר בטעות סופר וממליץ להם להוסיף בדברים העץ חיים את תיבת עילאין שנשמט. בהמשך מאריך האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש לדון בגוף העניין של העץ חיים בביאור עמוק בקבלה.
ואכן בעקבות התשובה הנדירה של הרבי מליובאוויטש העירו העורכים בספר יד מרדכי לפי הגהת הדפוס שהאדמו”ר מליובאוויטש ציין להם במכתב.
ואכן הספר יד מרדכי יצא לאור בשנת תשמ”ג חודשים ספורים לאחר קבלת מכתבו של האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש לעורך הספר הרב מרדכי יצחק צוקר, ובעמוד קי”ט כתבו עורכי הספר “כפי הנראה יש כאן טעות המעתיק והגהנו לפי מה שנדפס בכמה דפוסי העץ חיים וכן נראה גם מהמשך התשובה”
אנו מפרסמים לראשונה בפרסום ראשון את המכתב שקבלו עורכי הספר יד מרדכי מהאדמו”ר מליובאוויטש וכן צילום של הספר יד מרדכי עם העמוד בו שונתה הגירסא לאור המכתב של מרן האדמו”ר מליובאוויטש
from https://archive. jdn.co .il/breakingnews/1416853/@arso i forgot to mention, how many sichos did you learn? how many maamarim? of the rebbe
@arso “sechel, I have never made any claim that could even be interpreted to mean such a thing. I claim to know nothing more than any gadol, just I don’t believe that your rebbe was a gadol.” exactly my point, you know better than everyone! (yes every other gadol considered the rebbe either THE GADOL or a gadal (even r shach according to an article written by the yeshiva world (i think) interviewing his son and a story of r shah’s talmid asked him a question in kabala, and he sent him to the rebbe, its interesting how some of his “followers” only know of him of being against chabad nothing else, they dont care about torah, middos tovos etc. im sure he’s “very proud” of you/them. and even if this is not true, he’s one vs everyone)
the focus of chassidim on davening is to internalize achdus hashem, to look at the world the way chassidus looks at it, the main focus is not the bakashos. thats the difference between a chassidishe davening and litvish. see at length.i think arso and da moshe should become a rebbe. they seem to claim to know more than the baal shem tov, and every other gadol
the arizal writes the main avoda now adays is davening . we see what happens to people who learn and dont daven properly.
i think instead of finding issues with chassidus, you guys should start learning it. i guarantee you the gra would rather you learn tanya then spend time on yw coffee room, especially writing ridiculous comments.
the baal shem tov being a talmid chacham is almost like the people who say the rebbe wasn’t and dont bother opening any of his 200+ seforim or listening to any of his thousends of hours of sichos speaking for hours straight with no notes etc.
(i say almost cuz there are not many seforim and recordings of the baal shem tov, but even open keser shem tov, its beyond any sefer printed the last 50 yrs.)no reason to answer all the stupid ideas of comparing chassidus to Christianity. over and over again.
“The last Lubavicher rebbe totally changed the direction of Lubavich and led his enthralled followers on a path to ruchnius self-destruction.” anyone who says such a statement never learned tanya! learn thru tanya then tell me which part the rebbe changed.btw about the statement that “today all chabad does is talk about how great the rebbe is”
i was wondering, some people told me they dont want to learn tanya from a lubavitcher or go to a farbrengen because all chabad does is talk about how great the rebbe is,
i always wondered who they hung around, because at the farbrengens i went to the talk is about avodas hashem, (needless to say a shiur tanya is pshat in tanya)
now i realize these guys didn’t go to any farbrengens, they are just quoting this rav!
where did he get it from? i would imagine he read a column of stories of the rebbe in some magazine, and figured thats all we do, like if i go to lakewoods dmv and only see litvaks getting there driving license, ill think thats all they do the whole day!why are you still discussing the same attacks on chabad again and again?
btw whats the problom to say the rebbe is hashem in a body? meaning litterly? (for argument sake)
how do you understand this weeks chumash ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר?
dont just say its not literal, explain it to me! and explain to me what you think about when you think of hashem?
you know even though the rambam says that someone who says that hashem has a body is a min, (and those who say ani maamin say according to the rambam) the raaved argues!
anyway its not enough to say it, the rambam says you need to know about hashem see the first perek of rambam, i dont think you shoulld be doing anything else before you have the first perek of rambam in your mind (especially not making fun of other jews, especially tzadikim (which by the way someone who disgraces a talmid chacham is a apikores)to point out todays Hayom Yom:
One of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings:
“When you see chamor, a donkey”1 – when you carefully examine your chomer (“materiality”), your body, you will see…
…”your enemy” – meaning, that your chomer hates your Divine soul that longs for G‑dliness and the spiritual, and furthermore, you will see that it is…
…”lying under its burden” placed upon it – (the body) by G‑d, namely, that it should become refined through Torah and mitzvot; but the body is lazy to fulfill them. It may then occur to you that…
…”you will refrain from helping it” – to enable it to fulfill its mission, and instead you will follow the path of mortification2 of the flesh to break down the body’s crass materiality. However, not in this approach will the light of Torah reside. Rather…
…”you must aid it” – purify the body, refine it, but do not break it by mortification.the Taz writes (Even HaEzer 25:1) that one who eats well and sleeps adequately to have energy to serve Hashem earns the same merit as one who fasts. He thus explains the passuk (Tehilim 127:2) “It is futile for you who arise early, who sit late, who eat the bread of toil, so will the Lord give to one who banishes sleep from himself” – both learners who deprive themselves of sleep in order to learn and those who sleep adequately before learning earn the same merit, because what one can do in an hour after sleeping well, a sleep-deprived learner does in two. “It is futile for you who arise early” – the efforts you make to wake up early in the morning and sit up late in the Beis Midrash at night, are for naught, because: “…So will the Lord give to one who banishes sleep from himself.” The portion of Torah of one who sleeps properly and one who deprives himself of sleep will be equal. : “Everything depends on the intention“
yesterday i saw a kovetz put out by a son of r’ Yitzchok Sorotzkin – a llitvak called הגיע זמן גאולתכם
so after 30 yrs, the litvaks are catching on, soon they will say the rebbe is moshiach!
(similar to kiruv and the way to be michanech with love, and accepting every jew, and learning muser, and emphasizing davening (and much more things) which at first was not accepted by them (big attacks on chassidim yrs ago) and over time became accepted, encouraged till everyone cant imagine otherwise.@damoshe: to explain a bit more about the nigun:
questions are a lack of understanding.
its explained in kabala and chassidus that questions come from klipa that covers over on kidusha. so when a person rises to a higher level, he understands the sugay better and the questions disapper. this can either be by learning deeper or be revealing a deeper level in the neshama.
in Raaya Mehemna, it says that “a kashya – query…emanates from the side of evil.” this is explained in tanya igeres 26 and more at length in hemshech 5666 page 120-122 in the new print
to point out for those who want to see for themselves, look at any maamer of any of the chabad rabbaim. almost all them start with questions on the parsha or holiday, then explain an idea in chassidus, then answer the questions automaticlly. this is more clear in a continuation of maamarim like 5666 (60 maamarim) which is one lenthy idea in chassidus slip up into 60 shabbosim and y”t. and each week the rebbe rashab added questions on the parsha, then continued the idea where he left off, then answered the questions. Because thru a maamer which reveals yechida shebinefesh and yechida of torah – all the questions are answered.what about a thread titled a world without hashem revealed. there are so many jews not 100% observant. so many non jews lihavdil not keeping the 7 mitzvos bnai noach. dont you think it would be better if hashem did not conceal himself?
the yidden in the midbar after 40 days that moshe went up to hashem and didnt come down, made a egel to replace him and hashem. so this thread sounds the same.answer to all your questions on chabad: sing a nigun from the rebbe!
In the early years of his leadership, the founder of Chabad Chassidism, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, would expound his teachings in the form of short homiletic sayings. It was only in later years (particularly after his liberation from imprisonment in Petersburg in 1798) that he began delivering the lengthy, intellectually profound discourses which characterize the “Chabad” system of Chassidic thought.
One of these early short discourses was based on the Talmudic passage, “All bearers of collars go out with a collar and are drawn by a collar” (Shabbat 51b). The Talmud is discussing the laws of Shabbat, on which it is forbidden for a Jew to allow his animal to carry anything out from a private domain to a public domain; however, it is permitted to allow one’s animal to go out with its collar around its neck, and even to draw it along by means of its collar. But the Hebrew word the Talmud uses for “collar,” shir, also means “song.” Thus Rabbi Schneur Zalman interpreted the Talmud’s words to say that, “The masters of song — the souls and the angels — go out in song and are drawn by song. Their ‘going out’ in yearning for G‑d, and their drawing back into their own existence in order to fulfill the purpose of their creation, are by means of song and melody.”
This was in the early years of the Chassidic movement, when the opposition to Chassidism by many mainstream rabbis and scholars was still quite strong. This latest teaching by Rabbi Schneur Zalman, which quickly spread among his followers throughout White Russia and Lithuania, elicited a strong reaction from his opponents, who complained that the Chassidim have, yet again, employed homiletic wordplay and outright distortion of the holy Torah to support innovations to Jewish tradition. The Talmud, said they, is talking about collars worn by animals, not about the singing of souls and angels! No genuine Torah scholar could endorse, much less propagate, such an “interpretation.”
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s words caused a particular uproar in the city of Shklov. Shklov was a town full of Torah scholars and a bastion of opposition to Chassidism. There were Chassidim in Shklov, but they were a small and much persecuted minority, and this latest controversy inflamed the ardor of their detractors. While the Chassidim of Shklov did not doubt the truth of their Rebbe’s words, they were hard-pressed to defend them in the face of the outrage and ridicule this latest saying had evoked.
A while later, Rabbi Schneur Zalman passed through Shklov on one of his journeys. Among those who visited the Rebbe at his lodgings were many of the town’s greatest scholars, who presented to him the questions and difficulties they had accumulated in the course of their studies. For even the Rebbe’s most vehement opponents acknowledged his genius and greatness in Torah. The Rebbe listened attentively to all the questions put to him but did not reply to any of them. However, when the scholars of Shklov invited him to lecture in the central study hall, the Rebbe accepted the invitation.
When Rabbi Schneur Zalman ascended the podium at the central study hall of Shklov, the large room was filled to overflowing. Virtually all the town’s scholars were there. Some had come to hear the Rebbe speak, but most were there for what was to follow the lecture, when the town’s scholars would have the opportunity to present their questions to the visiting lecturer. All had heard of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s strange behavior earlier that day, when all the questions put to him were met with silence. Many hoped to humiliate the Chassidic leader by publicly demonstrating his inability to answer their questions. In the background, of course, loomed the recent controversy over the Rebbe’s unconventional interpretation of the Talmudic passage about animals’ collars on Shabbat.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman began to speak. “All those of shir,” he quoted, “go out with shir and are drawn by shir.” “The masters of song,” explained the Rebbe, “the souls and the angels, all go out in song and are drawn by song. Their yearning for G‑d, and their drawing back to fulfill the purpose of their creation, are by means of song and melody.” And then the Rebbe began to sing.
The room fell utterly silent. All were caught in the thrall of the melody, a melody of yearning and resolve, of ascent and retreat. As the Rebbe sang, every man in the room felt himself transported from the crowded hall to the innermost recesses of his own mind, where a man is alone with the confusion of his thoughts, alone with his questions and doubts. Only the confusion was gradually being dispelled, the doubts resolved. By the time the Rebbe finished singing, all the questions in the room had been answered.
Among those present in the Shklov study hall that day was one of the town’s foremost prodigies, Rabbi Yosef Kolbo. Many years later, Rabbi Yosef related his experience to the Chassid, Reb Avraham Sheines. “I came to the study hall that day with four extremely difficult questions — questions I had put forth to the leading scholars of Vilna and Slutzk, to no avail. When the Rebbe began to sing, the knots in my mind began to unravel, the concepts began to crystallize and fall into place. One by one, my questions fell away. When the Rebbe finished singing, everything was clear. I felt like a newly-born child beholding the world for the very first time.
“That was also the day I became a Chassid,” concluded Rabbi Yosef.
i realized how dumb this conversation is.
the following ideas i have a different understanding of then you.
rebbe, chassidus, moshiach, alive, tzadik, (in one words its all yechida – go learn what that means)
so whats the point of discussing anything related to these ideas.
my understanding of all these things are based on what i learned in niglah and chassidus. i dont write anything without a source.
just to point out chassidus is unlimited. there are over 300 seforim of sifrai chabad. there are seforim of other chassidus too. (b”h Hashem gave me a good head, and i learned alot)arso and qwerty: you did not explain how moshiach can come. you basiclly explain its impossible for moshiach to come cuz he needsa to be a king appointed by a navi and sanhedrin. and force every jew to keep torah by himself with no help.
so unlike you. i and alot of others actually learned the rambam in depth and many other sources about the coming of moshiach. the rebbe has over 500 pages printed explaining the last 2 peraking of hilchos melachim. so go learn and dont say moshiach cant come.
no person has the right to say that he’s Moshiach and if he does he should be put in a mental institution: like the amoraim in sanhedrin, the gra and is written by his talkid in sefer קול התור. i think anyone who says they are a rosh yeshiva should be put in a mental insitution. or anyone who says he’s a rov, a doctor, anything!@qwerty. you did not answer the question. moshiach can not “compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God” without help from others. so who who help him? you wont, cuz you will say he belongs in the mental home. so please explain how moshiach will come. according to me, its in the rebbe the rebbe started with sending shluchim, and it is continuing (thats how the rebbe can still be moshiach after his pasing because his work continues its not over, the rambam writes if he does not succeed).
so what is chassidus? chassidus came to wake up the deepest part of the neshama called yechida. one of the main aspects how that happens is thru being connected to the rebbe which is a higher neshama – neshama diatzilus. by chabad in addition the focus was and is on learning chassidus in chuchma bina and daas, to bring it bipnimius.
so can you have chassidus without a rebbe alive? the alter rebbe in tanya igeres hadodesh 27 writes to the talmidim of R. Mendele of Vitebsk after his passing how the tzadik continues to give hashpaa to his talmidim after his passing and even more than in his lifetime, since hes not anymore limited in his body.
he also explains there that a tzadik – tanyas definition – this holy neshama his life when hes alive is not life of flesh. (so if you ask me if the rebbe is still alive (assuming commen defintion of life) i would say “he was NEVER alive!)@qwerty613 you didnt answer my question
”I have 1 simple question for Lubavitch Chassidim. If Moshiach comes today but he isn’t the Rebbe, would you accept him?
i have a counter question: if someone comes and says he’s moshiach, how will you know to believe him or not?
(i mentioned that the rebbe started doing (and continues to do thru his shluchim) what the rambam says about moshiach will do, and you still dont think the rebbe was moshiach when he was alive, so give me someone who you will accept as moshiach?
a melech has to be appionted by sanhedrin and a navi! learn milchos melachim.
so explain to me the rambam please and how according to you moshiach will come.
great rabbonim paskened that the rebbe is moshiach and a navithe rambam and mesilas yishorim both say that serving hashem to get gan eden and not go to gehenom is for ktanim and women. btw the mesilas yeshorims makor that that is the perpose of creation is a eitz chayim for all those against kabalah. dirah bitachtonim is niglah – medrash.
i dont understand why people are arguing about the rebbe being a tzadik. if you think not chas visholem. 1) you automaticly accuse all other gedolim (reb moshe feinstein, r’ shlome zalman aurbach, r’ shmuel vosner etc (a quick google search will show you all the letters how they referred to the rebbe)
the only ones against the rebbe were those against chassidus and the baal shem tov. read history, same complaints as those times (yes atzmus umehus in a guf, etc. same old stuff (its just the words of a zohan and yerushalmi) and the alter rebbe explains it in tanya igeres hakodesh 22see igeres hakodesh vol 1 letter 85, about someone who dies without teshuva how he can be zoche to olam haba.
a regular person who is a tzadik then goes off the derech – see kidushin end of the first perek 40b, someone who regrets his prior avodas hashem
ר”ש בן יוחי אומר אפילו צדיק גמור כל ימיו ומרד באחרונה איבד את הראשונות שנאמר צדקת הצדיק לא תצילנו ביום פשעו ואפילו רשע גמור כל ימיו ועשה תשובה באחרונה אין מזכירים לו שוב רשעו שנאמר ורשעת הרשע לא יכשל בה ביום שובו מרשעו וניהוי כמחצה עונות ומחצה זכיות אמר ריש לקיש בתוהא על הראשונות”I have 1 simple question for Lubavitch Chassidim. If Moshiach comes today but he isn’t the Rebbe, would you accept him?
i have a counter question: if someone comes and says he’s moshiach, how will you know to believe him or not?
so this is a translation of the rambam perek 11 of hilchos melachim: If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.
if you dont think the rebbe is moshiach? well who else is compelling all of isreal to walk in the way of the torah? anyone?
so how will you know when moshiach actually comes????
i dont even understand why you care about moshiach, what will be then? if you want penimius hatorah, learn it now! you want shibud malchiyus? for what?
(i beleive moshiach is here, the giluy of penimius hatorah – chassidus, yes i still want moshiach bigashmius, main reason is shlaimus torah and mitzvos)As regards them, there will be no difference between the era of exile and the days of Mashiach, except for [the Jewish people’s release from] servitude to the nations.
For they will not have tasted of the Tree of Life and will require the Mishnayot [which set out the laws] of prohibition and permission, impurity and purity.”
Here ends the quotation from Raaya Mehemna.the “purpose” of a rebbe is (as explained in tanya) he has a higher neshama and from him comes chayus – both spiritual and physical to his chassidim and even not his chassidim including even those that fight against him. this is only the rebbe’s relation to his chassidim, in essence the rebbe is much higher.
now as explained in tanya this hashpaah of the tzadik is even greater after he is nistalek, so whether you beleive the rebbe is alive or not ch”v, we have a rebbe, and thats where our chayus comes from.
i assume the intended question was that since some see things in chabad and breslev that they think is crazy, they should appoint a rebbe to straighten them out.
1) the reason they do these things (most) is because they are following their rebbe’s directive, so obviouly if there would be a nother rebbe he would follow the rebbe and not the opinion of some ywn coffee room person (or even a litvishe gadol). 2) and the ones that dont follow their rebbe, well if there was a live one why would they follow either, everyone beleives Hashem is chai vikayom, and many (r”l as of now) dont keep all mitzvos, halachos etc. 3) in lubavitch (dont know about breslev) the rebbe clearly said there wont be another rebbe, the rebbe gave instructions how to act when having a question after 3 tamuz, so should lubavith GO AGAINST their rebbe and apoint a nother one?! they would be misnagdim! not chassidim. 4) we cant give someone this neshama that a rebbe is, only hashem can 5) if youre question is someone to lead, we have rabbonim, roshai yeshivos, mashpiiim just like everyone else.@avira. so you got me! nice attack. you cound’nt find anything better to attack me on? its a machlokes in gemarah sanhedrin 105. the rambam paskins they have. you’re right. now you finally convinced me to become a litvak,
Correcting someone isn’t an ‘attack’, but your unacceptable comments about litvaks is. Ahavas chinam.
all i said was that from learning chassidus i learned the value of being a jew, not just casue i get schar in olem haba which a goy – chasidai umos haolem – also get (according to some). if i was dealing with a goy who wanted to convert, i would do like the shulchan aruch says.
every jew no matter what will have a chelek in olem habah – techiyas hamasim, because he is a chelek aloka mimal mamash, which is eternal.
non jews who are chasidai umos haolem can get a limited schar.@avaira i dont understand your point. anyway, tanya says that clear that chasidai umos heolam nefesh HABAHAMIS comes from klipas nogah just like yidden, but jews have a nefesh HAELOKIS – peice of G-d that non jews dont have.
as far as kavanas habria like i wrote. yidden ARE the perpose. non jews can do their part but they were created FOR the perpose of yidden and torah.the gemara says that everything a child has comes from either his father or mosher – end of sukah. see also tanya last page of chapter 2, that explains that the livush of the child depends on the holyness of the parents when the child was conceived, but the level of neshama not necessarily. see also raoshis chochma shaar hakdush.
see also sh”u that a child from parents who did not keep taharas hamishpacha can have a pgam in his middos, also the gemara says that if when the child was conceived the parents did not have shalom bayis, destracted by other people, drunk that can effect the middos of a child.
very important who the parents are, but children can always do teshuvah or the opposite. chitas and osios hatorah has a great effect of the neshama even if there is issues with the yichus.reb moshe’s isur to make eruvin is based on opinions not brought down in shulchan aruch- that was his deredch hapsak, so just like he can argue with shulchan aruch and nosai keilim, so too other rabbonim can argue with reb moshe and just follow there way of psak based on the sh”u.
according to r”t, only his tefillin are kosher, only is zman is the halacha, etcthe gemara says that hating a rasha is regarding your freind and you were mikayem rebuking him and he did not do teshuvah. the chafetz chaim writes that today – in his time already – there is no one who properly knows how to rebuke, and therefore there is no concept of hating a rasha. dont have time to quote the source. chassidus mevueres tanya brings it in perek 32.
the chazon ish also held that jews born to non frum parents, even if later were exposed to frum jews but remained non observant, is a tinok shenishba. and arvus aplys to all jews see sanhedrin 43 and ain yitzchok@kuvult
a jew is essentially diferent than a guy. the world was created bishvil yisroel, everything else besides jews were created for this perpose – yisroel and torah. a jew himself IS the purpose of creation. a jew is a piece of g-d.
after what i know in chassidus, i dont want to talk about myself in such a way, but a guy who would know what i have been privliged to learn, (its not really possible for a guy to understand achdus hashem and many other idea’s in chassidus the way a yid can but if it be possible) would defiantly become a jew.so for anyone interested in my 2 cents: (im not taking sides)
1) from what i remember reb moshe’s psak about manhatten in igros moshe vol 1is based on an opinion not quoted on shulchan aruch, so many rabbonim only go with the opinions brought in sh”u, (just like the michaber, rama, and nosai kelim disregarded those opinions)
2) do you use timers on shabbos? reb moshe held its asur.
there is a sefer printed on the eruv in flatbush with haskomes from leading rabonim
there are dif. between flatbush and manhatten
according to r”t, rashi tefillin are not kosher (in fact according to rashi, rashi tefilling are not kosher do to his difrent spelling of words, we follow the rambam (and others)
k much more, got to go@qwerty ok i made a mistake. the arizal talks about kabala. this is why we learn chassidus which includes (but not only) kabala – explains many concepts to even lower level neshamos – simple people.
besides its a clear rambam that the way to love and fear hashem is by thinking and contemplating about him. (just like you wont like anything (even in this world) before knowing what it is, basic concept no need to explain) this is not jumping to higher levels, the rambam hilchos tshuvah perek 10: הלכה ה
כל העוסק בתורה כדי לקבל שכר או כדי שלא תגיע עליו פורענות הרי זה עוסק שלא לשמה וכל העוסק בה לא ליראה ולא לקבל שכר אלא מפני אהבת אדון כל הארץ שצוה בה הרי זה עוסק בה לשמה ואמרו חכמים לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ואפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה לפיכך כשמלמדין את הקטנים ואת הנשים וכלל עמי הארץ אין מלמדין אותן אלא לעבוד מיראה וכדי לקבל שכר עד שתרבה דעתן ויתחכמו חכמה יתירה מגלים להם רז זה מעט מעט ומרגילין אותן לענין זה בנחת עד שישיגוהו וידעוהו ויעבדוהו מאהבה.הלכה ו
דבר ידוע וברור שאין אהבת הקב”ה נקשרת בלבו של אדם עד שישגה בה תמיד כראוי ויעזוב כל מה שבעולם חוץ ממנה כמו שצוה ואמר בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך אינו אוהב הקדוש ברוך הוא אלא בדעת שידעהו ועל פי הדעה תהיה האהבה אם מעט מעט ואם הרבה הרבה לפיכך צריך האדם ליחד עצמו להבין ולהשכיל בחכמות ותבונות המודיעים לו את קונו כפי כח שיש באדם להבין ולהשיג כמו שבארנו בהלכות יסודי התורה:
another clear halacha in sh”u hilchos tefillah siman 98:
המתפלל צריך שיכוין בלבו פי’ המלות שמוציא בשפתיו ויחשוב כאלו שכינה כנגדו ויסיר כל המחשבות הטורדות אותו עד שתשאר מחשבתו וכוונתו זכה בתפלתו ויחשוב כאלו היה מדבר לפני מלך בשר ודם היה מסדר דבריו ומכוין בהם יפה לבל יכשל ק”ו לפני ממ”ה הקב”ה שהוא חוקר כל המחשבות
וכך היו עושים חסידים ואנשי מעשה שהיו מתבודדים ומכוונין בתפלתם עד שהיו מגיעים להתפשטות הגשמיות ולהתגברות כח השכלי עד שהיו מגיעים קרוב למעלת הנבואה ואם תבא לו מחשבה אחרת בתוך התפלה ישתוק עד שיתבטל המחשב’
ויחשוב קודם התפלה מרוממות האל יתעלה ובשפלו’ האדם ויסיר כל תענוגי האדם מלבו
chabad and many other Chassidim (maybe non chassidim too – but in order to think about the greatness of hashem you need to first learn about it (one can see some greatness of hashem in the creation but that leads to a limited love and fear of hashem, chassidus and kabala teaches much more about the graeatness of hashem) are very careful in this halacha in shulchan aruch. and therefore learns chassidus – רוממות האל – and causes not to desire pleasures of this world, (and can even bring a person to the level of nevuah see rambam hilchos yesodai hatorah, (btw about nevuah today, the rambam clearly writes in igeres timan תחזור הנבואה לישראל בשנת ארבעה אלפים תתקע”ו ליצירה ואין ספק שחזרת הנבואה היא הקדמת משיח) for an hour or 2 before davening.
i was never tought hashems 42 letter name and i dont know anyone who was.chas vishalom chabad was not influenced by zionism at all.
a few parts הקדמת ר’ חיים ויטאל על שער ההקדמות
וכן בהפך בהיותו עוסק בחכמת המשנה והתלמוד בבלי ולא יתן חלק גם אל סודות התורה וסתריה, כי הרי זה דומה לגוף היושב בחושך בלתי נשמת אדם נר ה’ המאירה בתוכה, באופן שהגוף יבש בלתי שואף ממקור חיים, אשר זהו ענין אומרו במ”א ההוא הנ”ל, וז”ל, דאילין אינון דעבדי לאורייתא יבשה ולא בעאן לאשתדלא בחכמת הקבלה וכו’.באופן כי הת”ח העוסקים בתורה לשמה ולא לשמו לעשות לו שם, צריך שיעסוק בתחילה בחכמת המקרא והמשנה והתלמוד כפי מה שיוכל שכלו לסבול, ואח”כ יעסוק לדעת את קונו בחכמת האמת, וכמו שציוה דוד המלך ע”ה את שלמה בנו ‘דע את אלהי אביך ועבדהו’. ואם האיש הזה יהיה כבד וקשה בענין העיון בתלמוד, מוטב לו שיניח את ידו ממנו אחר שבחן מזלו בחכמה זאת ויעסוק בחכמת האמת, וזהו שאמרו כל ת”ח שאינו רואה סימן יפה בתלמוד בחמשה שנים שוב אינו רואה.
הנה נתבאר במ”א הזה כי עון אדם הראשון בעץ הדעת טוב ורע, הוא שלא בחר להתעסק בעץ החיים שהיא חכמת הקבלה, וזהו עצמו עון הערב רב האומרים למשה ‘דבר אתה עמנו ונשמעה’ בעץ הדעת טוב ורע, ‘ואל ידבר עמנו אלהים פן נמות’ בסתרי תורה, כסברת הטועים קצת בני תורה אשר בזמנינו זה המוציאים שם רע על חכמת האמת חיי עולם…
וזה סוד מה שאמרנו לעיל כי הקורא במשנה ובתלמוד נקרא עבד המשמש את רבו על מנת לקבל פרס, מה שאין כן בחכמת האמת, כי הוא מתקן כביכול, ונותן עוז וכוח למעלה וזהו נקרא עוסק בתורה לשמה בלי ספק
(i wrote kabala or chassidus, to love and fear hashem, you need to think about him not just halachos)
rambam hilchos yesodai hatorahperek 3
האל הנכבד והנורא הזה–מצוה לאוהבו וליראה ממנו, שנאמר: “ואהבת את ה’ אלוהיך” (דברים ו ה; דברים יא א), ונאמר: “את ה’ אלוהיך תירא” (דברים ו יג; דברים י כ). והיאך היא הדרך לאהבתו ויראתו? בשעה שיתבונן האדם במעשיו וברואיו הנפלאים הגדולים, ויראה מהם חכמתו שאין לה ערך ולא קץ, מיד הוא אוהב ומשבח ומפאר ומתאווה תאווה גדולה לידע השם הגדול, כמו שאמר דוד: “צמאה נפשי לאלוהים לאל חי” (תהלים מב ג).
and he goes on to talk about maase brashin and maase merkava perek 4
הלכה יב
בזמן שאדם מתבונן בדברים האלו ומכיר כל הברואים ממלאך וגלגל ואדם כיוצא בו ויראה חכמתו של הקב”ה בכל היצורים וכל הברואים מוסיף אהבה למקום ותצמא נפשו ויכמה בשרו לאהוב המקום ברוך הוא ויירא ויפחד משפלותו ודלותו וקלותו כשיעריך עצמו לאחד מהגופות הקדושים הגדולים וכ”ש לאחת מהצורות הטהורות הנפרדות מן הגולמים שלא נתחברו בגולם כלל וימצא עצמו שהוא ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה ריק וחסר.
when i was i child, no one told me to learn kabala, tanya baal peh thats all (extra curriculum – at home). we started learning chassidus and 12 very basic conceps of chassidus, which as know to anyone who learns chassidus, sometimes chassidus brings kabala to explain a point, and it explains ideas in kabala in a way that an average person can understand. and in derech mitzvosecha mitzvas tefillah there is a whole introduction, about how to understand the kabalistic way of talking about hashem, so no one makes a mistake)
@mdd ridiculous comment, basicly youre saying just do mitzvos for gen eden gehenom. take hashem out of the picture, cuz you may understand him wrong, that dosent make you a believer either, just because you never think of him lest you imagine him in some kind of form.