Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Silly katan cannot stop his rambling about things WOULD have been .
He should open his eyes to the things AS THEY ARE.
Imagine a dr who treats his patients according how they would or should have presented …
Time to wake up to reality, mr katan !
Reality is there is no formula now which will safekeep your own brothers and sisters.
Besides if you are willing to sacrifice them on the altar of your ideology …..
Which sounds eerily similar to your constant accusations against your own opponents – those despicable zionists ….
Maybe you will find yourself in good company after all ….
Don’t they say ‘opposites attract’ ?
.
.IT IS RAV ASHER WEISS – not asher weiss.
.
Thank you.
.I read the article in YVN about tahanun in ponovezh on yom ha’atsma’ut.
This is incorrect . I heard it my self from an ed re’eya.
Even when the P Rov was alive and prayed in the yeshiva , they did say tahanun.
.
Clear.
.
.I heard the following from old time ponevezh talmidim:
Ponevezher rav attempted to omit tahanun in the early days of the State . And was overruled by the rest of the hanhala who davka said tahanun. Whereafter the continuous practise in ponevezh is to say tahanun.
—R ahron soloveitchik was not in ponovezh , and was a totally different type of person than the typical ponovezhers.
..
.
This is an excellent example where habad nowadays went astray.
Here they are kidnapped by their own indoctrination.
And simply CANNOT escape. They are brainwashed and stopped thinking.
All because of this circular argument method of indoctrination.
.Our rebbi cannot be wrong.
Why ? Because our rebbi said so.
That is irrefutable proof that our rebbi cannot be wrong .
.Welcome to habad logic …..
.
.
Am happy to hear any klal israel wide accepted source that the late habad rebbi was infallible ..
.
.Can you explain how habads approach to their rebbi’s infallibility fits with thousands of years practice of talmidim shehigi’u lehora’a arguing with their rebbeim in halacha , who very obviously say that their rebbi was mistaken – and therefore fallible ?
Will be waiting for an honest answer for this one …
.
.Even if the late habad rebbi’s words were directed to his f in law .
His words have a clear indication to himself too – or not ?
Q to you – did the late and last rebi of habad know that this would be taken as a hora’a relating to himself too ? or did he not realize it will be taken by his audience , as pertaining to himself ?
Honestly – what do you think ?
.I did not know that using someone else’s non response could remake it somehow into a response …
.
.
There are multiple issues raised in my post – totally ignored by menachem .Is it that which you are using ???
.Katan is using realities from one to two hundred years ago to experiment with the lives and well being of countless yiddishe families in the twentyf irst century. .
There is no country in the world who is interested in sovereignty over EY , willing to sacrifice their own youth to keep aliens safe and secure in the face of the most barbaric and violent monsters on the face of this planet.
This is as clear as day, to anyone not blinded from seeing the sun.
Unlike katan and ujm whose extreme and inflexible brainwash are blinding them from seeing what’s obvious and right in front of their own noses.
.
.SR could not have written such a thing.
You have not answered what happened to the thousands of innocent Bosnian boys under UN protection .
You have not said what happened to thousands of innocent Yazidi’s under arab sovereignty.
You have not said why you think that the lot of the Jews in EY would be any better than that of the yazidi’s in Iraq ?
Or of that of the Druze in Syria ?
No matter who is to blame for historical events . This is totally irrelevant here. Ask any yazidi .
There are plenty more than the yazidi’s to ask these questions in the ME. You can start with them.
It is time for you to open your eyes to the realities of life. And what is likely to happen chvsh.
.@yaakov yosef
I loved your post.
.Wrong.
The laws of honoring talmidei chachamim are by… you guessed it – HKBH !
Given to Moshe in Sinai.
No talmid haham made anything up. All laws are exactly lefi hamesorah . Exactly as the RBSH’O told Moshe.
As opposed to the infallibility baloney, which goes frontally against Milenia of Jewish law and practice.
Open any halacha sefer , any gemara . Its clear as day . Talmididim argue with their rebeim in halaha.
If they are higi’a lehora’a. After serious and meticulous research . With respect.
But they do argue. And say that their rebbi was MISTAKEN !!!!
Which is totally missing in habad.
The only person in habad who kept to this mesora, the rosh yeshiva in torah vada’at in brooklyn, was murdered in his own home.
No wonder that no one in habad has the courage to copy him.
Its not their fault , its the fault of the people behind this terror.
Which was instigated milema’ala . Vefdai bazeh .
.
.@Damoshe
Thats untrue.
Ponevezher rav attempted to omit tahanun in the early days of the State . And was overruled by the rest of the hanhala who davka said tahanun. Whereafter the continuous practise in ponevezh is to say tahanun.I cannot believe that satmar rav said to go the UN to be shomer umatsil millions of your sisters and brothers from the barbarities of the two legged monsters walking certain areas of the ME.
Which UN member nation will donate their own boys to be butchered in defense of some Jews in some faraway land ?
Can you name that nation ?
Can you also answer – honestly of course – what that nation will say when ten of their youth will have died ?
When fifty of their youth will have died ?
When five hundred of their youth will have died ?
—Can you [honestly of course] tell me what happened to thousands of innocent civilian Bosnian boys under UN protection in the 1990’s ?
What exactly did the UN do ?
—
Can you [honestly of course] tell me what happened to the innocent Jewish boys under British Mandate Protection, in Hebron and all over the Holy Land , in the 1930’s ?
Thats how much you can rely on the UN ….
—
You yourself would not trust even one hundred dollars of your own private savings to said protection ….And you seriously propose to blindly deposit countless entire families to their sense of rahmanut and yashrut ????
.
.Excellent .
These are stories. Told by …. the last rebbe of the habad hasidim .
About the necessity of believing in your rebbi …. more than moshe rabenu ….. .The necessity of Believing in the infallibility of the last rebbi of habad. Propagated by ….. the last rebbi of habad .
The very one and the same …..
.To summarise :
the belief in habad in the infallibilty of their leader is sourced in , and , propagated by , their very same leader ….. .There is no source for it in hazal . Not in the Nevi’im. Not in the 5 Books of Moses. Not in the tanna’im. Not in the gemara.
Not in the Rishonim . Not in the Poskim.
Not in Tanya.Only in the stories their late leader himself was telling his hasidim ….
On the other hand we , in the Religion of Judaism , have a Milenia old mesorah of talmidim arguing with their rebe’im .
All across the ages .
Which means talmidim saying – as mentioned before – that their rebbi was mistaken ….Which means — no such thing as infallibility.
—This is an excellent example where habad nowadays went astray.
Here they are kidnapped by their own indoctrination.
And simply CANNOT escape. They are brainwashed and stopped thinking.
All because of this catch 22 indoctrination.
.Our rebbi cannot be wrong.
Why ? Because our rebbi said so.
That is irrefutable proof that our rebbi cannot be wrong .
.Welcome to habad logic …..
.Hashem Imcha Gibor Hachayil
Those are the words of Rav Aaron Feldman Shlita Rosh Yeshivat Baltimore to R Dovid Berger re his sefer about habad’s faulty Messianics.
.
.Impossible.
Menachem is ignoring the rhetoric ….
A pretender for Mashiach who happens to die before finishing his job, is that the end of his pretenses to the title , or not ?
Why did official habad change their mind on this topic , according to circumstantial need ?
Those who ignore this so called ‘rhetoric’ , does it stem from bias toward their own movement ?
Do they have valid answers and are just ‘busy’ or ‘offended’ ?
Or is this for lack of anything better, just the most convenient way of dealing with this problem ?
No answer means –
busy
could not be botheredbut chvsh not any lack of good answers ….
That’s impossible …..
.
.Recap
There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the obligation/right of a talmid she’higi’a le’hora’a to argue on his rebbi in halacha.There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the supposed similarity between the lechathila miderabanan of hanuka lights which could depend on other factors and the non
negotiable issur min hatorah to sleep outside of the suka.There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the twists and turns re the ikarei emuna of bi’at hamashiach , a] whether mashiach can die before finishing his job or not.
b] whether the late rebbi of the habad hasidim wanted to crown
himself/accept the crown his hasidim bestowed on him [after been
prodded by their rebbi to do so] , or not .There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the incompatibility of their contemporary mashiach theology with RAMBAM hilhot melachim and RAMBAN in sefer havikuach.There is no answer from the habad side [yet] re –
the existence of a subgroup within habad of so called ‘elokistim’ who claim that their late rebbi and elokim are one chvshMenachem
Can/ should a talmid argue on his rebbi when he is higi’a lehora’a ? Yes ? No ?
Sources ?
Menachem
Even if you would be right regarding the first stage of the takana. You agree that one is yotseh bediavad inside and outside, right ?
So the mitsva is valid anyhow.The whole Q is on the lechathila of the mitsva. Where is it “better” to light.
Which is the better way to fulfill the mitsva derabannan , which will be acceptable either way.That has no connection at all to suka where the Q is transgressing a non negotiable issur min hatorah.
Its not going against the words of the SA which is the issue. Its going against the understanding of the torah as encapsulated by mishna gemara rishonim and poskim.
You have to understand that I am not following anyone else with my criticism about this, and most of the people who criticize your rebbi’s svara here also arrive at the same conclusion on their own .
This is a sure indication of the tremendous weakness of this svara.
You could say – we do not understand it and our leader is not any less of a great man even if he makes a mistake. Or you could double down, which makes habads reputation much worse.
Haval that you , plural, are choosing the second route.
I was not biased against habad in any way before encountering those issues, if there is a bias it is only a result of your cult like approach in defending the indefensible.
This is the first time that I write and argue about sukka. Which only serves as a good indication .
It is the mashiach issue , with its sharp twists and uturns on ikarei emuna which are the real issue for our generation and which are threatening an unfixable schism in Judaism legitimizing xtianities blandishments.
It is time for all involved to let go of their bias towards habad, examine the evidence in front of them and voice their opinion without fear or favor.
Look at a long hakdama of yabia omer vol 1 where he brings countless proofs that one is permitted , no , obligated to argue on one’s rebeim when he is higi’a le’hora’a.
This is pashut.
Arguing , means saying that the other side was MISTAKEN ….
.
.Shas Rishonim Acharonim and Poskim are full of disciples who do [respectfully] argue with their rebbeim. AND THEREFORE ARE SAYING THAT THEIR OWN REBBI MADE A MISTAKE !!! Wow. There , I said it …..
Only when they are higi’a le’hora’a. Only after they considered it from angles, in a serious manner.
Again – this is bread and butter stuff . Even Rav Aronson agrees to that . Any Rav or Rosh yeshiva does.
Someone lo higi’a lehora’a should follow his rebbi. We [or better said I] are not talking about that.I am addressing the hahmei habad shehigi’u lehora’a . Not those closed minds who can mindlessly rattle of pirkei tanya and do the same with the ikarei dinim of YD and then emerge as ‘musmachim’.
I am talking about those ‘mochim p’tuchim’ who can see the difference between a real svara and and a plastic svara. And who can come up with well reasoned hidushim of their own.
They can, and al pi torah should , [respectfully of course] state their own view. Like it was done in all locales of torah since time immemorial.
—–Have not seen any rebuttal to the above. Still waiting …..
Bottom line
have not heard nor seen any answer to this yet.
Why do hahmei habad who were higi’u le’hora’a regard the last leader and rebbi of the habad hasidim as infallible ?
Is there any clear source for this ?
Or is this just a feeling ?
Or are they concerned that they would be considered as ‘traitors’ or ‘guilty of treason’ [like the late author of ashkavte devei rebbi] if they would give a voice to the possibility of him being fallible ?
Even Menachem who valiantly tries to defend all other habad issues , has kept on walking very far around this issue.
.
.RE no 4 of my previous post.
hadarne bi. I wrote that casual was referring to sukka. Not sure about that now. Possible he wasn’t in the way I understood him.
Menachem gives us the impression that eshel avraham holds that leniencies could be extended to others.
Menachem writes the following :
In fact, there are poskim who clearly write that these leniencies can be extended to others. For example, the Eshel Avraham writes that bochurim may sleep outside the sukkah, since they can rely on the fact that “רובא דעלמא” most people are exempt due to their wives.
Sof tsitut.
Satam menachem velo piresh.
—–I looked in eshel avraham [OC 639].
He says the following – starting from the rama upon which he comments:
Rama asked why in his areas the minhag was not to sleep in the suka, which seems against the issur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka ?
Whereupon rama first brings an answer in the name of mordechai that in cold places the person is mitsta’er from the cold , so it is not ke’ein taduru to sleep in suka. Which takes away the isur min hatora to sleep outside.Rama himself appears reluctant to take this approach, and offers his own.
that married people normally sleep in the same room and since the suka is not private enough for that, there is a problem of ke’en taduru. Which in turn is matir the isur min hatorah on sleeping out of the suka.Comes eshel avraham and says that at first glance rama’s approach would exclude unmarrieds and those marrieds who are in a different city to their spouse for whatever reason. Which would mean that those people would be subject to the issur min hatora to sleep outside of the sukka.
Whereafter he says that it is possible that the criteria of ke’en taduru is not something which is decided on an individual basis , rather on a communal basis, where the individuals are nigrar after the community when establishing what the ke’en taduru is.
Or on a household basis , where the other members of the household are nigrar after rosh of the household whose spouse is present and therefore his taduru would be out of the suka, so too his dependants’ and guests’ derech of taduru would also be out of the suka , and therefore also their issur to sleep outside would disappear.
He considers those options only as a safek [1] , which would not be sufficient on itself to be meikil in an issur min hatorah.
Nevertheless , since we could also use the mordechai’s approach at least as another safek [2] .
It seems that E’A understood rama’s hesitancy to use mordecha’s approach because of rama’s decision to classify mordechai’s approach as a halachik safek [2] [which, again , on itself ,would be insufficient for rama to be matir an issur min hatora].But once we accepted mordechai as a halahik safek [2] the way is open to use E’A’s safek [1] as a combination and make it into a sfek sfeika which is powerful enough to be matir an issur min hatorah me’ikar hadin.
However there still is a makom for pious individuals who would refrain of making use of a sfek sfeika to be meikil in an issur min hatorah and therefore continue to refrain from sleeping outside of the suka.
Ad kan divrei Eshel Avraham, be’erech.
—How menachem insists on somehow comparing this approach of E’A to [the unmodified issur min hatorah of] sleeping out of the sukka with the modified hiyuv miderabanan of hanukah stays an enigma to all concerned.
As said mechaber is talking on lechatchila level , not on the bedi’avad level.
On bedei’avad level both [lighting in or out] are fine.The preference of mechaber on outside lighting is only on lechathila.
Not on bedi’avad..
.
.Torah logic is just that – logic according to torah klalim.
1] In order to understand the correct definition of the mitsvot , svarot etc one has to employ logic.
the Q of bracha levatala is a fool proof indicator to the essence and definition of a takana.
Was there a change in the bracha levatala status of indoor lighting yes or no?
Which translates into – was there a change in the baseline definition of the takana , yes or no ?Hazal write – originally takana is only outdoors
Then they write – sakana indoors too .
If – at the original stage , outdoors is a bracha levatala even bemakom sakana , and subsequently not anymore, that signifies a change in the takana ,i.e. modification.I am talking ONLY regarding the base line takana . Not what is better or praiseworthy or mitsva min hamuvchar.
What I wrote is simple torah logic. Nothing more.
Any young yeshiva bachur is expected to come up with such logic on his own.
This is basic reasoning for any iyun limud.2] We are going back to a previous conversation of ours which you [conveniently] ignored.
Probably you weren’t in the mood. I must have insulted you then.
Or you were plain busy.
For sure it wasn’t because of any lack of a ready answer , has veshalom.Shas Rishonim Acharonim and Poskim are full of disciples who do [respectfully] argue with their rebbeim. AND THEREFORE ARE SAYING THAT THEIR OWN REBBI MADE A MISTAKE !!! Wow. There , I said it …..
Only when they are higi’a le’hora’a. Only after they considered it from angles, in a serious manner.
Again – this is bread and butter stuff . Even Rav Aronson agrees to that . Any Rav or Rosh yesiva does.
Someone lo higi’a lehora’a should follow his rebbi. We [or better said I] are not talking about that.I am addressing the hahmei habad shehigi’u lehora’a . Not those closed minds who can mindlessly rattle of pirkei tanya and do the same with the ikarei dinim of YD and then emerge as ‘musmachim’.
I am talking about those ‘mochim p’tuchim’ who can see the difference between a real svara and and a plastic svara. And who can come up with well reasoned hidushim of their own.
They can, and al pi torah should , [respectfully of course] state their own view. Like it was done in all locales of torah since time immemorial.
—-3] Fear of thieves and all those other reasons ranging from the practical to the esoteric, are talking about the best course of action. Not about the baseline halacha.
This is simple to any aspiring [but solid] beginner .
Pre any modification in the mitsva, one could not light indoors EVEN WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ALL THOSE REASONS PILED UP ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. For the simple reason that the base line essence of the mitsva was only outdoors . Which invalidates indoors lighting even bemkom pikuach nefesh.
Only after modification , when the baseline mitsva definition allows for and validates indoor lighting, only then can there be a discussion of the best course of action. Including thieves kedusha etc.
I wrote this very clearly in the beginning but it seems you were ‘too busy’ to give my words your proper attention.
——–
4] “Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..”
Casual was referring to suka , not to hanuka. My reaction was also.
Read it again.
.
.
.Lets remember –
According to Menachem –the xtians only thought of using habad mashiach meshugaas for their own nefarious purposes, AFTER they read R Dovid Bergers book ….
They could not think of it on their own ….
.
.
And –
According to Menachem it is not possible to disagree with habad meshugaas without a pre existing bias.
According to him it is unthinkable that said meshugaas should CREATE a bias ……
.
.
And-
According to Menachem –
Reflecting on those two above mentioned observations of the very same Menachem , those observations are NOT A PRODUCT OF menachems bias ….Menachem would have made the same exact observations even if menachem would be non habad …..
Come on … who are we fooling ?
.
.@ Menachem
Am still waiting .
In your opinion-
Was the mitsva of hanuka modified ? Yes or No ?
.
.menachem to yb:
…. I’ll likely be suspected of only thinking this way because I’m biased as a Lubavitcher, but I would similarly suspect that those who strongly oppose this minhag are doing so specifically because it’s Chabad ….
—-
Menachem’s bias is clear and obvious . Zil karei bei Rav ….Whereas:
My so called bias [to humor menachem] against habad is A RESULT of habads meshugaas. It was not pre existing at all.I did and still like habad hasidim .
I get on with them.
I count many of them as personal friends.If Menachem counts himself as a modeh al ha’emet, he can prove it, by agreeing with this point of mine …..
..
Let this be clear to menachem :
I am not ‘attacking’ habad for sleeping out of the suka.
Rather
I am proving that your rebbi is not infallible.He CAN make mistakes.
This is one of them.
Mass Mashiach Meshugaas is another one of them.
Your rebbi’s supposed infallibility is responsible for otherwise straight and lucid minds being contorted beyond recognition.
That should be protested at all available opportunities.
.
.CASUAL ONLOOKER:
…. Making cheshbonos about what which svaros make less sense or more sense is illogical, they all don’t make sense ….
——-
Lol.
Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..—-
Is there any commentary to this possible at all ?????????????????????????????????
.
.
.Yours truly argues that hanuka lighting is a modified takana.
So does Rav Aronson.
So does O’N.
So do all poskim.Besides menachem [and his infallible rebbi ?]
He still argues that hanuka is a non modified takana.
How does he explain relevant gemarot ? no problem whatsoever.It is astonishing to see the power of self delusion at work.
Otherwise lucid and logical minds twist themselves in to the most illogical of svarot and arguments.Why ?
Only because of irrational and baseless insistence on some fabricated infallibility.
Hafleh Vafeleh.
.
.
I myself heard from a child of one of the habad old timers in Russia that their father went to great length to davka sleep in the sukka.
There is no minhag in Russian habad to davka sleep out of the sukka.
One big baloney.
.Short recap of what we had until now.
Menachem agreed that O’N holds – as do all poskim- that lighting inside nowadays is NOT bracha levatala.
According to the original takana at the time of hazal before the sakana, lighting inside would be a bracha levatala.
PLAIN TORAH LOGIC dictates therefore that the mitsva derabanan was modified.As opposed to sleeping outside of the suka which is min hatora and therefore not modifiable.
Clear fom the mishna gemara rishonim that IN CASES OF NO MARRIAGE AND NO COLD AND NO OTHER PHYSICAL MITSTA”ER the minhag and the hiyuv was to sleep in sukah.For 3300 years . All across the globe.
Therefore the [….] torah advocating for sleeping outside the suka even when here is no physical mitsta’er to defend a non existent minhag , is nothing more than a [….] torah.
This [….] torah is not traceable to any of the habad rebeim.
Not the Rayats. Not the Rashab. Not his brother Raza. Not their father Maharash. Not Tsemach Tsedeq. Not R Dov Ber [mitteler rebbe]. Not Baal Hatanya.
Not his talmid R aaron Strashelle. Not the other rebbes from habad Niazin. Not the rebbes from habad Kapust. Not the rebbes from habad Liadi.
None of them .Only the one and only infallible rebbi who took all of us onto a NEVER ENDING mashiach merry go round .
With no option of getting of the ride.
Many of our Hasidim would like to get of the ride.They can’t , They are stuck.
After all their rebbi is infallible, nebach victims of menachem and his friends.They [Menachem & co] cannot point to a single source for his supposed infallibility. But this is nevertheless an axiomatic and eternal fixture within their habad belief.
So- all the unfortunates who got on to the merry go round are doomed to stay on it . For eternity.
Unless and until menachems friends/mentors will agree that a great man could also still sometimes make a mistake.Then and only then , will all the mentally imprisoned [and by now dizzy] merry go rounders , be free to get off whenever they fancy.
.
.
.Menachem has not answered whether according to Oz Nidberu lighting inside is a bracha levatala .
A bracha levatala, is a clear indication that one is not yotseh the mitsva.
A bracha not levatala, is a clear indication that one is yotseh the mitsva.
O’N agrees, like all other poskim, that it is not levatalah and that one is yotseh even inside.
Not like the original takanah, which specified only outside.So, employing simple and basic logic, O’N agrees that the takanah was MODIFIED, like Rav Ahronson [brought to us by daas yochid] clearly writes .
Like the consensus of the Poskim.
Opposed by Menachem , whose otherwise healthy sense of logic is nebach taken captive by his preconditioned blind acceptance of anything which passes his infallible rebbi’s lips.
We should bestow upon him the top prize for mental acrobatics. Under duress.
.@ujm
How do you feel about the fact that Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik (as testified by Rabbi Hershel Schachter and others in addition to photographs) was close to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and held very highly of him?
—-
The following is not that similar , but still is a valid question …How do you feel about the fact that many rabbanim chashuvim [and a clear majority of klal yisrael] (as testified by multiple reputable historians) were close to Melech Hamashiach Sh’Tz, and held very highly of him?
.
.@somejew
Had the opportunity to look again into the shitah of avnei nezer , which we discussed.
It is in YD taf nun dalet [not nun vav] from se’if mem bet to mem vav [If not mistaken about the exact se’if – could be one or two se’ifim off]He says very clearly that not the guf and not the neshamah are halachically obligated by the shavu’ot.
The shavuot only serve as an indication. An indication of the neshama’s connection to its Source and the gufs connection to its neshama.
And if that connection is severed , then there is a punishment of ‘ani matir et besarchem’.
But going against the shavu’ot is not a REASON FOR the lack of connection. It is A SIGN OF lack of connection.Ad kan divrei Avnei Nezer .
NOT LIKE SATMAR RAV !!!
.
…. the non modifiable mitsva of Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, PROVIDED THERE ARE NO COLD OR MARRIAGE ISSUES, and suddenly In the 50’s someone claimed otherwise ….
===
Please Menachem , bold letters means –
do not ignore !
pay extra attention to !===
Repeat:
The minhag was, that whenever there were no cold/marriage issues, to sleep in the sukkah !For uninterrupted 3300 years , from Sinai onwards.
Quite an old minhag, I would say. Supported by the hiyuv min hatorah to do so.
In the form of the non-modifiable mitsva of sukka.===
Menachem loves changing my position. That makes it that much easier for him to argue ….
Maybe he should change his own position, before he changes other peoples’ ….===
I never complained about so called infallible rebbes. In plural.
I complained about the supposed infallibility of one particular rebbi of Menachem. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary , that is.
====Btw. Even a cursory reading of Rav Ahronsons’s writing which Daas Yochid so kindly provided, will bring out his reasoning where posits the same line as I mentioned . That the takana of lighting was modified.
===
I am still waiting for Menachem’s response about Oz Nidberu’s shitah re the bracha of indoors lighting ? Is it levatalah ?
MENACHEM TO YB :
You are now saying that Chanukah is different than Sukkah, because with Chanukah it was always accepted to light indoors, so in recent generations, even though the sakana stopped, it’s not an issue to davka light indoors.
But with Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, and suddenly in the 1950s the Rebbe began allowing people to do otherwise.But, we know that that’s not true (as brought in Shulchan Aruch, and many more places), so your entire idea falls apart.
=====NO . I am not saying that at all.
You are misrepresenting me.[Should I complain that you are insulting me …. ]
I am saying the following ;
Chanukah is different than Sukkah, because with Chanukah the takanah was modified to enable lighting indoors, so in recent generations, even though the sakana stopped, it’s not an issue to light indoors. Because of a formal modification, by hazal themselves.
But with the non modifiable mitsva of Sukkah, all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards have slept in the Sukkah the entire Sukkos, PROVIDED THERE ARE NO COLD OR MARRIAGE ISSUES, and suddenly In the 50’s someone claimed otherwise, basing himself on a most illogical pretsel svara.
You are welcome to argue, but please argue on my real position .
Not on my position you [mis]represent.
.
.Menachem – there are no insults.
There is an argument , however and we cannot hide behind victimhood to win an argument.
==Does Oz Nidberu say that lighting inside nowadays is a bracha levatala ??
==
What I wrote, is the CONSENSUS of the poskim .
Hanukah ‘s mitsva of lighting was modified. By Hazal themselves.
Before this modification, lighting inside was a bracha levatala. After the modification it is not levatala anymore.The only mahloket haposkim is the following : After the modification is there a PREFERENCE to light outside or is there no preference anymore.
Whereas sukka there was NO MODIFICATION, for the simple reason that the torah itself states that the dinim min hatorah are INELIGIBLE FOR MODIFICATION.
.
AAQ ;
Every day, someone would drive Rabbi Auerbach from his home in the Sha’arei Chesed area of Yerushalayim to his yeshiva in the suburban neighborhood of Bayit Vegan. The rabbi would occasionally ask the driver to make a detour for a few moments outside Har Herzl, the burial site of Israel’s fallen soldiers, which was on the way to the yeshiva. There he would pray, reciting Tehillim (Psalms) for important matters concerning the Jewish people.
What motivated this venerated sage to choose Har Herzl for his prayers? I think the answer lies in the following story which is so revealing of his and the Torah’s outlook on your question.
A student once approached Rav Shlomo Zalman and asked for a short timeout from his studies so he could travel to the north of Israel, where many holy, righteous Jews of old are buried, to pray at the graves of these tzaddikim (righteous people). Rav Shlomo Zalman looked perplexed but didn’t immediately answer. Sensing hesitation from his rabbi, the student elaborated, explaining he had some important personal issues to think through and he felt praying at the graves of the righteous would help him to receive the insights and guidance he was seeking. Rabbi Auerbach replied that he fully understood what the student wanted to do and why he wanted to do it, but could not understand why he would travel for hours to a faraway place to pray at the graves of a few tzaddikim when there were thousands of tzaddikim buried on Har Herzl (the graves of all the fallen Israeli soldiers), just 5 minutes from the yeshiva!
===KNOWING R SHL Z AUERBACH – THIS IS VERY HARD TO BELIEVE
Most Poskim point to these very words , ‘besha’at hasakana manicho al shulhano vedayo’, and explain that this was a MODIFICATION.
Takana originally was to put it outside. Outside only.
And if you could not and were an oness , then you are patur legamrei.Then hahamim reconvened , because of the sakana , and modified the mitsvah that one can also put it on shulhano and be yotseh that way.
After this MODIFICATION, one can be yotseh inside also even for other reasons.Is it better to light outside after the modification ? That is a separate argument. Maybe the inyan of mezuza takes precedence. Other inyanim, etc…
However – No posek will say that someone who lights inside nowadays is making a braha levatala.
As opposed to before this modification by hahmei gemara in their berayta, lighting inside would be a braha levatala.
=========I am not sure why menachem insists on comparing sukka and hanukah, when their halachik difference is so clear ?
.Mendel Roth, a 33-year-old divorcee, decided to enlist in the new “Hashmonaim” Brigade’s combat track,
BIG NEWS !
HE EVEN WROTE A SONG !
HE IS EVEN THE SON OF SOME REBBE !
WOW!
————Mendel Roth should first show he can live together with his wife and family before he becomes Klal Yisrael’s mentor.
He should bend his ego a bit and learn from ziknei hador , meleim bechochma ,meleim ba torah , meleim ba yir’ah
who counsel all yeshiva bachurim NOT to go to the army chv’sh.It is sick to hear such people [like MR] being elevated , for no reason, into some sort of pseudo stardom status to encourage other youngsters to follow in his crooked ways.
.Rav Chaim Shmulevits RY Mir writes that killed idf soldiers in the war, have the status of someone who sacrificed himself for the whole community and that ein kol berya yachol la’amod bemechitsatam ba olam haba.
Now do we have hakarat hatov to that individual who sacrificed himself for the community. Think so …
So Rav Chaim S , who R Chaim Ozer the gadol hador stood for him when RCS was in his twenties, explaining that he has to stand up when the vilna library walks in, says this .
Somejew claims that this is kfira. RCS obviously says its not.
Who will we take on their word ?
RCS or somejew ?
Somejew claims satmar rebbi and the torah support him. All the others who argue, are per force
a] not gdolim or
b] never said it .Got some news for somejew – Satmar rav also never meant this literally. He deep down also agreed that we should have hakarat hatov.
Satmar rav could not / did not want to, tolerate hakarat hatov to soldiers , because he feared the simple hamon am would not be able to differentiate between hakarat hatov and blind following of the terrible Z movement. [not being sarcastic here]
So thats why SR said LEMIGDAR MILSEH – no hakarat hatov .
But me’ikar hadin there is makom for hakrat htov to those indivuduals who put their life on the line for the klal.
But since Somejew accepts every word his rebbi uttered as literal, he cannot succeed to see past his own nose.
Feel bad for him.
.MENACHEM TO YB :
If it was the Rebbe who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – would you agree with it or attack it and anyone who follows it?
—-If it was your “infallible rebbi” who made this diyuk in the Mishna Shabbos and started the minhag of davka lighting indoors – you ask , what would we say ?
——
I understand that your question is, supposing that all rishonim poskim rabanim from gemara and onwards were makpid to light only outside and all of them say that manicho al shulhano is NOT A MODIFICATION IN THE WHOLE MITSVA.I.e. that the mitsva stays the same – only outside.
And now, after undisputed documented 16 centuries of klal israel wide acceptance of that pshat in the gemara , comes the “infallible rebbi” and argues on this 16 century klal yisrael wide acceptance ? And says inside is also acceptable ?
What would we say to him, you are asking ?
Guessing , the same as the gedolim said to moshe mendlesohn in his time …..
..