ujm

Bump

Yserbius: That’s a very Chasidish answer.

A+

Ely: Your are saying that is the Riyatz’s interpretation of the Rebbe?

Menachem Shmei: I’m following up here, since you linked to this thread for what I inquired.

Firstly, I believe “Gedolim pictures” more or less became a thing outside of the Chasidish velt first. The Chasidish Rebbes were mostly originally opposed to being photographed. And the Yeshivish velt started getting into it much earlier. As you mentioned, even the Lubavitcher Rebbe was initially not in favor of it. Although, the opposition was much stronger by others such as Satmar, etc.

If the argument in favor is that “thinking of a tzaddik’s image as an important method to yiras shamayim”, then that should support, as well, erecting life-like sizes statues of Tzadikim, using their real-like image. Imaging walking to Shul, and right outside in the Shul yard is a life sized statue in the image of the local Tzadik.

In any event, I’m not so much questioning having pictures of Tzadikim. Today that is found across all sectors, Chasidish, Yeshivish and Sefardish. What I am trying to understand, and you seem knowledgeable, is why in Lubavitch (almost exclusively) we find these huge life sized images of the Rebbe at every general venue, like wedding halls, on cars and trucks, and on many other facilities, buildings and structures. The size, places, frequencies and ubiquitousness seems rather unique.

Also, it’s only the last Rebbe. Why not any of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbes and/or other Tzadikim? In other Yiddish places with pictures you’ll generally find those of multiple Tzadikim.

“Sorry for all the typos in my last comment.”

CTL: I was just about to suggest you give some more training and instructions to your paralegal. I was sure they were her typos, as your personally drafted legal documents are always a pleasure to read. But since you owned up to your errors, may I suggest that you perhaps need more rest and should delegate your CR comments be proof-read by your legal assistant prior to submission?

Menachem: Respectfully, I don’t understand why a picture of the Rebbe is a thing. I’m referring to in general, like in weddings halls and other general events, where it is very common to find this huge picture of the Rebbe. I know some Rebbes (i.e. Satmar, etc.) were completely opposed to anyone taking their picture, let alone hanging their picture up. But I’m not talking about that. I know many frum people keep pictures of Rabbonim in their homes. But it is rather unusual anywhere outside of Lubavitch to hang a picture in all general facilities, events and areas. Let alone such a huge photograph.

Pictures didn’t much exist for the thousands of years before George Eastman started Kodak. Since when did it become a mitzvah or even a thing that seemingly is carried out with such religious fervor?

Shopping613: What were the recent horrible ads?

Does laziness already have a DSM diagnosis?

If not, give the APA some more time.

In general, I wouldn’t give too much credence to any RCA statement.

Why does this bother you? Is there a reason it should spend less time on it?

Sinas Chinam isn’t the only reason. The Gemorah in Shabbos 62b says that a reason for the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash was women used excessive cosmetics, and that a women should only care about her appearance for the purposes of not being repulsive to her husband.

The same way a Jew can be a Reform or a Conservative Jew.

In fact, proportionally a Democrat Jew is more likely to be Reform/Conservative, whereas a Republican Jew is proportionally more likely to be Orthodox.

Avira, in regards to your comment about intermarriage, is there a difference between intermarriage (which in reality is invalid as there’s no recognition of a so-called “marriage” of a Yid to a goy) versus someone who stam is mezana with a shiksa?

2 mice, 3 cockroachs and 1 bat.

Day trading.

YO: When referring to “Orthodox”, it is simply referencing the Jews who never broke off to form a new movement. In other words, “Orthodox” is simply referring to what used to simply be called “Judaism”. (This point is also true regarding the term “Chareidi”.)

In fact, the very term “Orthodox” was coined and invented by the Maskilim (intended in a mocking manner, based on Orthodox Christianity) to refer to those who didn’t join the breakaway Reform movement.

“For sure.”

YO: Wait! A wise man (guy?) said earlier in this thread (look above) “Who decides? Isn’t it yehirus to say that one knows who is a Gadol?”

So how can you say that you know that he’s a Godol?

N0m: I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. But Rav Aharon, the Satmar Rav and Rav Moshe are THE reason Yiddishkeit is what it is today in America. All three were multifaceted across the Torah world, of course, but Rav Aharon made the Torah and Yeshiva world what it is today, the Satmar Rebbe made the Chasidus world what it is today (and ensured any Jew, of any affiliation, would be proud to walk in the streets and offices of America unabashedly and noticably from a mile away dressed as a Jew, something that was sorely lacking in America) and Rav Moshe made Psak Halacha what it is today.

They were THE three Gedolei Yisroel of that caliber in the postwar world of chutz la’aretz. They are responsible for ensuring the prewar Torah world of Europe continued in postwar America.

YO: How do you know that Rav Ovadia is a Godol?

Rav Bick ZTL, Rav Henkin ZTL and others all disagreed with Rav Moshe on many occasion, and they were entitled. But unless you are qualified to agree with one psak over another, and in the base sense of a prevailing halachic behavior in your family or community, you should follow whoever is the bigger posek (or poskim), and that often would mean Rav Moshe. However, that having been said, there is no such Halachic status as “Posek Hador”. Rav Moshe ZTL was great beyond great, but there is no reason to consider his psakim more authoratative than let’s say Rav Aharon Kotler or the Chazon Ish. There would be no reason, let’s say, to follow Rav Moshe’s shiurim for the Pesach seder than those of the Chazon Ish. In fact, Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim, such as Rav Hutner, Rav Eli Meyer Bloch of Telz, the Debreciner Rav, the Chelkas Yaakov and others, sided with the Satmar Rebbe over Rav Moshe regarding the obligatory size of a mechitzah in a shul, and/or the permissibility of artificial insemination, which were the two big disagreements that those Gedoim had in halachah. It was indeed Rav Hutner who approached the Satmar Rav asking him to write a refutation to Rav Moshe’s psak about the Mechitzos. You will not find the phrse “posek hador” anywhere in any meaningful way. The Tzitz Eliezer uses it all over the place in his titles, and, I believe, either the Teshuvos Maharshal writes it among the titles to the Ramah, or the Teshuvos Ramah about the Maharshal. But in any case, the title connotes no halachic status.

Unfortunately, many of those who use Rav Moshe’s psakim do so only when he is maikel. He permitted Cholov Yisroel (only b’shas hadchak – though they don’t pay attention to that part of the psak); he lowered the height of the Mechitzos — psakim such as these made life much easier for the Modern Orthodox, and even the out-of-town Orthodox communities. They believe they need Rav Moshe’s psakim to facilitate their mission as Modern Orthodox rabbis, or to be able to cater to the not-so-frum and do Kiruv. That is not a bad thing. A psak is a psak. However, when the same Rav Moshe prohibits Shabbos clocks (in most cases), or prohibits going to college, or paskens unequivocally that boys are prohibited m’doraisa to be “just friends” with girls, the same rabbonim with “Rav Moshe’s mechotzos” and cholov stam suddenly rely on “other poskim” (though in the case of boys being friends with girls, there are no poskim of anywhere near that stature who disagree with Rav Moshe). Part of it is due, too, to the fact that, at least in America, the other two personalities who were considered Gedolei Hador of that caliber were Rav Aharon Kotler and the Satmar Rav ZTL. Because of Rav Aharon’s stance on college and secularism in general, and the Satmar Rav’s stance on Zionism, there was no way in the world that those two Torah giants were going to be considered authoratative in what constituted the Orthodox community in America in those days. Instead, Rav Aharon was largley ignored, as it was predicted the followers of his hashkofo would become “mere tourist attractions” (thats a quote from Rav Y.B. Soloveichik in his “Five Addresses” about who he refers to as “seperatist Orthodox”. Rav Aharon was the leader of that Hashkafa), and the Satmar Rav was passed off as extreme by these people. In other words, it was “safe” for people to accept Rav Moshe and ONLY Rav Moshe because once you accept someone’s psakim in hilchos shabbos and kashrus, for example, you are forced to at least think about considering the fact that their stance against college or Zionism comes with as least as much authority. Of course, Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT”L deserved all the honor and respect that he received. He was a Gaon among Geonim and a Tzadik among Tzadikim, and one of the great Halachic authorities of our times. Thats not the issue. The issue is the fact that people pick and choose which Gaon-among-Geonim to follow when and because it is comfortable for them to do so.

The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber (and the Rema) as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah lmoshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thign applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.

N0m: I understand that you have close family that identifies as Conservative Jews, but Mr. Zechariah Frankel was a clear and unambiguous heretic even in his time as noted by the Rabbonim during his lifetime, just like the entire Conservative movement that models themselves on Frankel’s ideas are as well.

N0m: the MO *are*’ the left-wing of the Orthodox.

Before Rav Moshe came to America, there was very little Orthodoxy in America other than MO. A sizable traditional Orthodox community in America, aside from MO, only occurred in the postwar period with the influx of European Jewry to American shores in the post-Holocaust period. The trickle started coming in the leadup to WWII as well as during the war period. But the large numbers came postwar.

Ilex: The Conservative movement in the United States was founded by the faculty of the JTS. As you are defining JTS as originally Orthodox, it follows that the Conservative movement broke off of the Modern Orthodox movement.

The RCA passed a resolution in 1948 permitting microphones to be used in Shabbos. It was only in 1952 that they reversed themselves.

N0m: Additionally, the Conservatives are pretty close to officially supporting intermarriage. Even though their so-called “Rabbinical Assembly” hasn’t yet declared they’re changing their religious law to say it’s okay (which they’ve already done with numerous other religious laws, including some of which I mentioned in the other comment), the Conservative “rabbis” already often officiate over their Congregants intermarriages.

Whereas the Reform movement probably has somewhere between close to 50% to an actual majority of their adherents who are halachicly goyim (intermarriages, fake conversions, patrilineal descent and over a century of decendants of all the preceding), by the Conservatives the percentage of their members who are not Jewish is between 25% to 33%.