Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@yaakov yosef
FYI.
r yishak meir levin was a full minister in israels first government after the elections of 1949.
.That wasn’t really the point as mentioned .
Just for the record .
His death was a sudden and DIRECT RESULT of the redifot.
The person doing it would probably be classified as a rotseach begrama.
But , again , that was and is not the point here.
.
.You are missing the point.
We are not taking part in a blame game – habad are bad because they murdered the RY.
Thats not the point at all.
The point is that sof kol sof the RY paid with his life for the mere fact that he respectfully proclaimed in front of everyone that in his learned opinion the rebbi of the habad hasidim is fallible and can make a mistake.
Which serves as an example and clear message for anyone else possibly entertaining similar thoughts.
Which explains very well why no one in habad itself , ever since, dared to voice any support to the possibility their leader making a mistake.
As was and still is practised in all other ‘normal’ communities , all around the globe.
Even when the evidence and plain logic overwhelmingly point to the other direction.
.
.
—-
I simply cannot understand why no one engages with the substance of the argument …All they do , is , commenting as if the substance is not there at all, or is something else altogether ….
.
.Katan and ujm cannot stop their rambling about things WOULD have been .
They should open their 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’ ??
.
..
.HaKatan 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.
.
.Is it true that rabbi Rivkin’s ashkavte devei rebbi is not considered ‘acceptable reading material’ in habad mosdot ?
Y or N ?
.Nu, did your friends [who you are benefitting and end up working for] the Lefties , the Reform and Conservative win ?
.
.First Menachem might be ‘too busy’ to answer.
Or ‘not in the mood’.
Then he seems to be a serial victim, nebach.
He might be ‘offended’.
Or the victim of ‘blood libels’.
He has all the specific answers at the ready – to all the specific questions.
Thats beyond doubt.
That goes without saying.
Just one problem . For some mysterious reason he is not sharing them with us.
That mysterious reason has nothing to do with the ‘palatability’ of his ‘secret’ , but ready and available answers ….
.
.@square
It’s not me who doesn’t like it.
Its gdolei yisrael who don’t like it.
They don’t like it.
They don’t like to the writers.
And the copiers.
So the complaints are at the right address.
.Menachem ignored the main thrust of my post.
I clearly wrote there that we should not use this story to throw mud.
—
A repost of my post
We should not use this story to throw mud.
We should however learn from this about the possibility within habad of someone implying that the leader of habad could be mistaken .
This RY implied it and ended up paying with his life.
The RY obviously held the rebbi from habad in high esteem .
Otherwise he would not be his hasid and attend all those public events with his rebbi.
Nevertheless , as a talmid haham who was higi’a lehora’a , in his opinion at least , said politician was not deserving to be put in herem .
He was not disrespectful.
He just held that his rebbi happened to be mistaken in this one instance , which is perfectly acceptable according to Jewish halacha and tradition.
So he abstained from the herem.
.
.
.
.Could you answer the following please –
Is it true that rabbi Rivkin’s ashkavte devei rebbi is not considered ‘acceptable reading material’ in habad mosdot ? Y or N ?
Is it true that rabbi rivkin was niftar after falling from the stairs in his own home as a result of the redifot he suffered because he declined to join your maham shilo in putting this politician in herem ? Y or N ?
After you answer – honestly of course – should we talk about blood libels …..
.
.Btw. — you totally ignored the substance of my post …….
.
.Think its time for square root to stop his propaganda that haredi youth should enlist, going AGAINST the clear directives of gdolei yisrael.
yaakov yosef is correct.
As far as I have heard from sources both from within and outside of habad the story is as follows:
The late rebbi of the habad hasidim was at the time waging a ferocious campaign for the change of Israeli Law .
Advocating for the insertion of the words giyur kahalacha in the text.
Pertaining to the type of conversion recognized by the israeli government , ensuring israeli gov rejection of Reform conversions made in the US.
The rebbi of habad decided to put a certain politician who was a member of the then government , into herem.
As a result of this p’s inaction in following the habad rebbi’s directives to either fix the law or resign.
One of the roshei yeshiva of torah vadaat , besides being an immense talmid haham , was an old hasid , still a mekurav from the rashab’s times.
He was appointed as RY by r shrage faivel Mendlowits in tora vada’at.
He was the author of ashkavte devei rebbi – a historical and scholarly sefer recounting the illness and the histalkut of the rashab and the beginning of the rayats’s leadership of the habad , who had a very privileged position in the rashabs household at the time and therefore a unique view of what was going on.
This RY also authored other sfarim , printing his hidushim on shas.
The rebbi of habad insisted that this talmid haham should join him in pronouncing the herem on this politician .
Apparently the rosh yeshiva did not think that the herem was justifiable al pi torah , so he did not join in this herem.
Whereafter the habad rebbi made some public remarks against the rosh yeshiva, whereafter the redifot against this rosh yashiva started ,
Those redifot had as a direct result that the RY died in his home.
After the RY’s petira, the rebbi of habad publicly disavowed any responsibility for the RY’s demise .
Ad Kan the story.
—
We should not use this story to throw mud.
We should however learn from this about the possibility within habad of someone implying that the leader of habad could be mistaken .
This RY implied it and ended up paying with his life.
The RY obviously held the rebbi from habad in high esteem .
Otherwise he would not be his hasid and attend all those public events with his rebbi.
Nevertheless , as a talmid haham who was higi’a lehora’a , in his opinion at least , said politician was not deserving to be put in herem .
He was not disrespectful.
He just held that his rebbi happened to be mistaken in this one instance , which is perfectly acceptable according to Jewish halacha and tradition.
So he abstained from the herem.
.
.Bottom line – it seems that there is no objective source that the late habad leader was infallible.
We pressed the habadi’s again and again and there is nothing objective and logical forthcoming.
We Never despair and there still might be something logical and objective there.
But until further notice we all should assume that the late habad rebbi’s supposed infallibility is nothing more than a supposition.
A baseless supposition , that is.
Not only baseless but contradictory to Milenia of Jewish thought and practice as recorded in countless cases all over the tora spanning from the gemara to todays poskim.
.
.
.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.