yankel berel

the following is an excerpt from tunasifish

…. [the leader of the habadi’s] got very upset at people in 1960 when they wanted him to take on the leadership and he made reb avrohom hayor pick up thousands of pamphlets saying the rebbes moshiach in e”y …

meaning the leader of habad made his hasid retract claims that the leader is mashiach [claim by tunafish]

why then did the very same leader encourage and publicly validate his own mashiach claim ???

did he consider himself mashiach or not ???

if he did , why did he order the retraction of the pamphlets in the 1960’s ?

if he did not , why all the crazy [pseudo xtian] public mashiach frenzy in the 1980’s and the 1990’s ??

what is tunafish’s REAL opinion ?
.
.
.
.

Oh .

in the other thread katan agreed that

pikuach nefesh overpowers [even his understanding of] the oaths

but now he is reverting to his old position

and he quotes a maharal

but without any address

we cannot check it

would he be so kind to give an address
.

.
thanks
.
.

There were two entities who had a problem with the jewish mass return to EY

the vatican and lehavdil satmar

both built their worldview on the fact that most yidden are exiled from EY

and both have a problem

vatican solved it by refusing official relations with israel for half a century

but caved in since

satmar lehavdil is still holding out

because it is apparently holding that most jews do factually not reside in EY

.
.

@katan .

Thanks for this clarification.

This is very important.

here katan broke ranks with somejew.

if we are to take katan at face value [no reason not to]

katan agrees here that pikuach nefesh supersedes any understanding of the three oaths

so [even if] organizing an army to defend the yoshvei EY would contravene the oaths , nevertheless bimkom pikuach nefesh , this is mandated

katan argues that the IDF is not a good fit, because its involvement with the three hamurot.

meaning avoda zara giluy arayot and shfihut damim.

—

the Q is now . the mere fact that the IDF is osek in those three , is that enough to stop a frum jew’s involvement in the IDF

or do we need to consider the candidate, the frum jew’s own participation in the three hamurot ?
.

meaning : if the frum jew himself will not participate in the three hamurot , but other people within that army are,

is that ground to prohibit the frum jew’s participation in the IDF to save lives ?
.
.

@qwerty

Re examination of passionately held beliefs should not be cause for a breakdown

It should be a cause for the heady feeling of freedom and maturity

a feeling of not being enslaved by previous opinions

a feeling of openness and willingness to always learn more , know more , and

grow
—

sechel , like the long disappeared menachem , is most probably digesting the new information and re considering his identity

otherwise why would they be so quiet for so long
.
.

Nu .

a to the point answer ?

when is it coming ?
.
.

Sounds like a joke

katan claims

“Please stop already with the nonsense that it is “non-halachic” just because it’s mentioned in an aggadita gemara”

—

We never said its non halachik because it’s in an agadeta gemara .

We – repeating Avnei Nezer here – argue its non halachik , because it’s omitted by

MISHNE TORA LEHARAMBAM

TUR LERABANU YAKOV BAL HTURIM

SHULCHAN ARUCH LEMARAN HABET YOSEF

HAMAPA LEHARAMA

MISHNEH BRURAH LEBAAL HAHAFETS HAYIM

all of them , unanimous and undisputed pillars of halacha .

How much ink has been spilt over the centuries to explain omissions in our pillars of halacha ?

This is not a coincidence , nor happenstance.

This is halacha .

—
Message to mr somejew , mr katan and mr ujm

Running away doesn’t help

A major posek , AVNEI NEZER maintains its not lehalacha

based on [amongst other proofs]

the blatant omission of the oaths from all major pillars of halacha

ignoring this , and burying your heads in the sands does not make it go away

.
.
.

@sechel

according to the gmara

a] j was busy with kishuf , which might explain the so-called wonders he allegedly performed

and that

b] j was meisit umediach et yisrael

a term which normally is used for causing and promoting avoda zara
.
.

gmara does not state which avoda zara

the only avoda zara from those times we know about , is the belief and worship of j himself

so , besides j’s kishuf

and j’s promotion of self worship

according to the gmara

he would not be worthy of any punishment

possibly because he was a shomer torah in all other aspects

as is documented , if we are to believe this pupil of j , called mathew
.
.

so-
was j shomer torah ?

yes.

.
.

@katan

@somejew

The Q I posed to you , and

you ignored it , was

whether organized self defense to save millions from mass murder

is mandated , or

prohibited ?
.
.

you have not answered this very simple question ….

Am still waiting for a TO THE POINT answer ….
.
.
.

@katan

lol.

oaths undisputed halacha …

avnei nezer disputes it.

not mentioned not in yad hachazaka mishneh torah

not in tur

not in sh aruch

not in mishneh brura

pashtut in all mentioned sfarim that they are NOT lehalacha

from siman 329

thats undisputed ????

you should change your english dictionary ….

.

Why does somejew think that

a non attributed alleged and agadic maharal has the power to impose conditions on

an unbroken chain of undisputed pillars of halacha stretching back to clear gmara
.

.
in what other subject in our vast torah

in what other accepted tshuvot sefer

has he seen a similar flippant approach ?

.

al achat kama vekama when the subject at hand is min hachamurot she bachamurot

the issue of mass pikuach nefesh !?!
.

we are waiting …

for an honest answer ….
.
.

Nu Mr somejew

we are waiting for your answer

which option is preferred lefi halacha ?
.
.

Somejew is – again – not answering

.

in a case when the only two options are

eight million jews massacred [chvsh]

or

IDF fighting

.

which one is preferable al halacha ?

and what are your clear proofs for your answer ?
.
.

.
.

the true secret behind katan’s delusional haskafa is the following

he claims no jew will be harmed even when IDF stops fighting

which is totally delusional

and obviously so

.
.
the secret behind it is simple – katan has no skin in the game

katan holds , and he will not deny this , like his compatriot somejew,

that when faced with a choice of sure death on one hand , and fighting and surviving on the other ,

one is OBLIGATED to die , together with his kids ,together with all his grandchildren ,

together with his neighbors , together with all residents of his street

together with all mitpallelim in his shul , together with all inhabitants in his city

together with all residents in the holy land , young and old

from sucklings to ctizens in old age homes

.
.
so think about this

what difference does it make whether there is or is not a viable plan to look after yoshvei EY ?

they do all ‘get on the plane’ or not

can you safely evacuate 8 million people and their possessions or not

it all is totally irrelevant anyway…

fighting as defense is out of the question anyway …
.
.
.
no wonder katan and somejew could come up with the most ridiculous ideas possible

it is clear that neither katan nor somejew have no responsibility whatsoever for the well being of yoshvei EY

they ‘ll readily admit that , they will say : the Z caused the mess so they should clean it up.

meaning – we have no responsibility for the well being of yoshvei EY

it is preferable that they die , over active self defense
.
.
.
it is important to keep this in mind , when engaging with them about possible ‘alternative solutions’ for safety of yoshvei EY ….
.
.

.

sechel says j said not to keep mitsvos

mathew said j said to keep mitsvos

gmara sechel brings is not unanimously accepted as referring the founder of the xtian religion

.
but I hear sechels safek proof
.
.

lol

sechels writing on monday does not have to jibe with sechels witing on tuesday

habads pronouncements in 1980 do not have to jibe with habads pronouncements in 1990 either

sechel is a good and worthy talmid

he seems to have absorbed their approach properly
.
.
.

@somejew

please think .

on one hand there is clear halachik imperative to organize self defence begalut

stretching an unbroken link from gemara, to rambam ,to tur , to shulhan aruch ,to mishne brura

all , undisputed pillars of halacha for many centuries

without any holkim whatsoever

without any other preconditions whatsoever

if it is pikuach nefesh it should be done.

period.

.
.

on the other hand you quote a maharal

without an exact address

where he is not talking lehalacha

allegedly saying huge hidushim

that one is OBLIGATED to suffer certain death , him and his family and the whole of his community

this is not mentioned anywhere lehalacha in any halacha lema’aseh sefer

this is not mentioned in hazal when they enumerate the three things one is obligated to offer one’s life for

not mentioned in rambam’s yad

not in tur

not in shulhan aruch

not in mishna brura
.
.

do you realize the weakness of your position ????
.
.
.

@sechel

sechel claims he doesnt care what j said in his testament

but sechel knows and i quote :

“j said you dont need to keep mitzvos anymore
he served avoda zara
kishuf
much more
basically was a mumar” ….. [sechels own words , copy and paste from this thread , July 7, 2025 12:00 pm]

—
how does sechel know ?

is there another testament from j ? besides the one sechel doesn’t care about ?

or maybe j left two testaments ? one for the world and another bepnimiyut ? only for his hasidim ?

or maybe j came to sechel in a dream ?

.
.
a real mystery ….
.
.
.

@somejew

you are beating around the bush.

my writing is as clear as can be.

gemara , rambam , tur , sh’a , mishne brura , all point to mandated organized Jewish self defense in galut when needed for pikuach nefesh

this is clear

its lehalacha

its lema’aseh

.

you , however , are clearly on record multiple times in these pages, that even if the choice is between sure death on one hand and organized jewish self defense in galut on the other

lehalacha one is OBLIGATED to die, and let ones own family die , and let any other jew die [chvsh]

this is so simple and so clear

I elaborated on this countless times already.

.
.
.

what exactly in this post is inaccurate ???

what exactly in this post is incoherent ???
.
.
.
.

following [copied and pasted] is somejews psak level one :

In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do , is ….. physically fight the enemy.

….. One cannot fight the non-Jews with violence because of pekiach nefesh, and that is both explicitly stated by Maharal but also blatantly obvious in context of the shevios that are fundamentally about dealing with the dangers of gulis (galus).

ad kan divrei somejew.

in other words , even if you do not have other ways of saving yourself ,and the only way of saving yourself and your family is by [defensive] violence, even if said violence would actually save your and your families’ life, you are OBLIGATED to die ,and let your family die, according to halacha , no holek, halacha lema’aseh !

===
then somejew was confronted

with a clear psak in sh’a , tur , rambam , based on clear gemara

mandating self defense even bimkom hillul shabat.

===

so we get to somejew’s psak level two [copy and paste]

“If there is an imminent threat to the life of a jew, one is allowed to stop the murderer, even in galus.
That is also allowed on shabbos, because of p/n.”

now somejew is already matir to use defensive violence to save oneself from death.

but he still prohibits [on the pain of death] to organize an ‘army’ to stop the murderer .

===

somejew theorizes that a group of three individuals might be considered an ‘army’ already.

but he clearly ignores that in sh’ aruch the issue is about a multitude coming to attack and that the defense is consisting of a multitude too.

besides that, shulhan aruch is talking about other yishuvim which are nocheh lehikavesh if the first yishuv would fall .

so we are clearly talking here about resistance to kibush , which means organizing an army to resist a kibush

and shulhan aruch kayadu’a only talks about issues of relevance in galut.

add one plus one and you get two

SH’A was matir in galut to organise oneselves in self defense to save lives.

when you look in gemara eiruvin 45A it says very clearly that r nachman ,residing within galut bavel , says that neherda’e is a border town and one should employ community wide organised self defense of neherda’e , to shield all Jewish communities in Bavel from being conquered by their enemies , in order to save lives.

in short – organised jewish self defense at work within galut because of pikuach nefesh , halacha lemaaseh .

this is brought in mishneh brurah , shulhan aruch, tur and rambam , no holek whatsoever.

its mutar , no , sorry, not mutar ,

mandatory.

—
a talmid of hafets hayim quoted a haskafic etsa tova from hafets hayim spoken to his audience in poland where organised self defence would not have the desired effect so H’H discouraged them from going down the path of self defense.

that is not a halachic ruling , nor is it applicable outside those specific circumstances.

—

maskana –
pikuach nefesh clearly overrides any existing halachik shavu’ot prohibitions [if they exist at all – cf avnei nezer sof YD that they never even existed]
.
.
.
it is time that somejew and katan should relearn those relevant sugyot without any preconceived notions

before they resume their self appointed role as spokesman of the whole haredi community.

.
.

somejew to yb:

I don’t have a problem with this shulchan aruch, rather you claimed it is a problem. I don’t understand the problem you claim to see, nor do you, apparently.
–

Beyond that, this was not even a conversation about the shalosh shevuas, it was a conversation about the chofetz chaim’s sefer lekutei torah that bothered you.

===

@somejew

you turn the conversation on its head.

i was the one who asked on your assertion that one is not allowed fight even in the face of pikuach nefesh.

i introduced the mehaber maran habeit yosef

you were the one who introduced this quote from hafets hayims talmid.

read your own posts again.

@qwerty

I have no knowledge about rayats’s second daughter’s alleged infertility

but I seem to remember about r’ levi , the false mashiachs father, when meeting rayats prior to his sons shiduch with rayats’ daughter , angling for his sons ‘rebisteva’

but rayats would not be drawn and refused any hithayvut for his second son in law’ future in any so called admorut
.
.

somejew to yb :

was r akiva so badly mistaken ?

or is rather katan badly mistaken ?

The answer has been well discussed in rishonim and achronim that, yes, R’ Akiva was “so badly mistaken” in what he did, leading to the greatest slaughter of Jews in our history, perhaps greater than the recent Holocaust. AND, this was as per R’ Akiva’s belief that moshiach had already arrived allowing him to breach the three oaths!

==

its clear from rambam that r akiva’s only mistake was that he thought that bar kochba was mashiach

that was only clarified once bar kochba died.

clear and obvious in rambam .

up and until bar kochba’s death , as long as bar kochba was alive he was a fitting candidate for mashiach.

.
.

q for mr somejew here

how could the live bar kochba be a candidate for mashiach ?

did he not transgress that major and cardinal principle of judaism that man is not allowed to cause the ge’oula in any way ?

how could a so called heretic , kofer , or whatever name you want to stick on him , be mashiach ?

.
.
.

@sechel

rashab was more accepted outside of habad compared to rayats

@sechel

it has been rumored that rayats okayed it because he knew his daughter

she had a reputation of being open minded and more modern

whereas his eldest daughter was more chassidsh and frum ,

.
.

that explains how a chasidic rebbi took a university graduate as a son in law.

.