Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@yammo
Thanks for your lucid reasoning.@ujm
Please share the names of any Gedolim, if any, who disagreed with the SR on the general issue of Zionism, aside from the issue of how or whether to interact with the State or vote in elections. And very specifically tell us which position he (or they) disagreed with.
[ujm]
=============1] Emrey Emet in osef mihtavim clearly disagrees with SR about zionism.
He writes that zhuyot in EY which tsionim extracted from the British and the League of Nations should not be protested or resisted , “ki yavo hatov mikol makom”
2] Karyane de’igrata – Steipler vol 1 – believing that the state is athalta degeula is NOT kfira. It is a mistake – but not kfira.
There are many many more.
.
@somejew
No problem.Zionism is – support for a homeland for Jews in order to better their lot.
There is a very similar letter in igrot hazon ish re appointing and accepting rabanut in the pre war vaad haklali of the tziyonim in erets yisrael.
Remember Chason Ish himself was an ardent supporter of withdrawing from the Tzioni vaad Haklali as soon as the British Mandate gave the option to do so.
But when confronted with the choice of having real talmidei hahamim appointed as rabanim within vaad haklali he supported membership within the vaad with all his might.
Read his eloquent defense/explanation for his shitah . Beautiful.
Seems that our case of EH is very similar.
.
Chazon Ish himself likened some kanna’im to the heroism of a soldier in the second world war , not abandoning his post , defending the positions of the first world war.Heroism , yes. Self sacrifice , yes.
But usefulness ??? Thats already another matter.
As long as they do not bother the soldiers manning their positions in the current war, we can afford to keep quiet ….
.This is not a deep question, like Menachem claimed at one point in this conversation.
This is a very simple question.
If there is a source, would you please spell it out ?
[yb to menachem]
—–Why do I say this is a theoretical philosophical question?
Because: Do you believe that Ravina and Rav Ashi were infallible? If you answer that you don’t, does that mean that in some instances you claim the the Gemara is wrong and mistaken, ch”v?
This is my point. The question of infalliblity is not necessarily tied to the question of obeying one’s rebbe.
P.S. I’m not trying to say that we listen to the Rebbe because he is an amora or something, don’t use that as a strawman. I am using the example of Gemara to show why the question of infalliblity is philosophical and unrelated to practical action.
[menachem to yb]
==================================================Your argument here is not to the point at all.
There is a huge practical difference whether your rebbi is infallible or not , as detailed at great length in previous posts.Remember , we are not talking here about an Amora where all of klal yisrael collectively and individually accepted that it’s impossible to argue on.
We are talking here about someone in our generation who is subject, like all other talmidei hahamim , to review of his peers based on torah logic and hazal.
Those other talmidei hahamim are OBLIGATED to speak up if and when they see something which is according to their view against the torah. Provided that they are higi’a le hora’a, as mentioned from rav moshe in his hakdama.Not his hidush , by the way. This has been pashut to all hahmei yisrael ledorotehem. Just that he articulated this davar pashut.
Obligated to speak up , means per force, that they are saying that your rebbi made a mistake . Even if and when they themselves happen to be a habad hasid.
Like the courageous stand the rosh yeshiva of torah vada’t, a habad hasid , but also a Jew, and hence still subject to Shulhan Aruch, took.
It ended up him costing his life , however.This is not merely “theoretical” as you are attempting to dismiss it. This is extremely practical .
Now let’s analyze this rosh yeshiva’s stance for a moment. Let’s try to see this from his viewpoint for a minute.
He definitely was a hasid and a talmid of your rebbi. Otherwise he would not be considered a habadi. I was told by habad insiders that he was one of the hashuvei habad. In the pictures of those times he is apparently seen seated quite close to your rebbi. He definitely held himself that he a lot to learn from your rebbi. Otherwise he would not come to all these farbrengens.
And nevertheless when he saw that your rebbi made a mistake he refused to be swept up with the tide .
So the question is – why can habad talmidei hahamim nowadays , not adopt a similar stance ?
We are continuing to learn from our rebbi, in all aspects.
We are still habad hasidim.But since subsequent events coupled with cold torah logic have proven our rebbi wrong in this one issue, we will respectfully say , like the age old tradition in klal yisrael,the following –
sorry but here , in our humble opinion, notwithstanding your greatness everywhere else, you made a mistake.
Not deep. Not theoretical.
Very simple.So, the question comes back . Is there a source , anywhere .
From torah logic or hazal that your rebbi is infallible ????If yes , could you or any other habad supporter , provide it ?
the CLAIM of Vayoel Moshe is that the author PROVES that Zionism is NESSESARILY kefira!
The long sefer labors tirelessly to prove the opposite from every angle possible, and the author spells out his every step as well as the practical halachik ramifications of the Torah teachings he lists. He says in his intro that the long maamarim are meant to be psak halacha, halacha l’massah vis a vis Zionism when it was published in the 1950s. The author followed up in doubling-down in his 1968 sefer explaining why the status has not changed and no one should be confused from the 6-day war.
IS ZIONISM IN ITSELF NECESSARILY KFIRA ?
That is the question.
[somejew]
———————————–
I have gone through most of vayoel Moshe and I have not seen any clear proof that zionism is inherently kfira.
He writes at great length and sometimes the main message can get lost like the proverbial tree in the forest.You seem such an enthusiastic proponent of the ‘zionism is necessarily kfira’ approach , that it should be easy for you to formulate in a few short sentences why this is necessarily so .
We are ready and waiting to hear your pearls.
@hakatan
You can engage in silly misrepresentations [or falsifications] of the position of the rest of the gedolim.
But it is indisputable that Zionism is not idolatry and heresy perse, and (therefore) of course not perse against the Torah, despite the nonsense cranked out by zealous emotion driven kana’im who are unable to distinguish between cold torah logic based on hard halahik facts on one side and divrei mussar ve’hit’orerut on the other.Just drop the idolatry argument already, and stop with the abysmally stupid meme that everyone holds of the “Zionism is heresy” fallacy , when the reality is that everyone holds that Zionism , while responsible for much mischief and evil , is inherently not idolatry and heresy.
Even Satmar , while talking the talk of the ‘Zionism is heresy’ fallacy , is not fully walking the walk of this fallacy.
Even they only use it as a divrei mussar vahit’orerut tool.You are silly for pretending otherwise.
.serious question [from somejew to aaq]
who are the “rabunim” you would want at such a meeting that are pushing Jews to vote, chalila, in WZO?
————-
Hrav SHMUEL KAMINETSKY shlita
Hrav AVRAHAM GURWITS shlita
Hrav SHMUEL FORST shlitaand impossible untill thiyat hametim
Hrav CHAIM KANIEVSKY zatsal
——————-
methinks that those people should be good enough “rabunim” even for someone on your level ..
I am still hopeful for an eventual response from someone on the habad side for the following.
is there a source for the habad rebbi’s infallibility from hazal or torah logic, or not ?
Is it possible that he was mistaken , yes or no ?
This is not a deep question, like Menachem claimed at one point in this conversation.
This is a very simple question.
If there is a source, would you please spell it out ?
@coffee addict
Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .
At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?
[yb to menachem]When he blatantly rejects Torah, as Shabtai Tzevi, r”l.
[menachem to yb]
=====================Interesting .
Shabtai tzevi’s first ‘blatant rejection of the torah’ menachem’s words …. was not in 1666, when he officially became a Muslim.
It started a few decades before that, when he repeatedly was “hoge et hashem be’otiyototav” he pronounced HKBH’s Name , against halacha.and followed by bizuy talmidei hahamim , hillul shabbat , eating helev, hakravat kodshim betum’a and huts lebeit hamikdash , false prophesies ,etc.
Replete with special brahot of matir isurim and special kabbalistic pilpulim to ‘explain’ them.NEVERTHELESS , ALL THESE “BLATANT REJECTIONS” DID NOT STOP MOST OF KLAL YISRAEL FROM BLINDLY FOLLOWING HIM.
Why not ?
Because of “Menachem-type-of-reasoning.”
Kol hameharher …..
Lo tasur …..Coupled with forceful suppression of internal dissent.
Anyone who dissented or merely was suspected of dissent ,was made to pay a very heavy price….If that sounds familiar , the reason might be that …
it really is familiar ….
.@ujm
The Gedolei Yisroel explicitly agreed with the Satmar Rebbe regarding the Zionist issue and the State, overall. The *only* exception was some disagreed how to deal with the State post facto, after it existed. But, in principle, they all agreed with him.
————–
WRONG
You are guilty of blatant misinformation.
.Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.
[yb to menachem]
—-
Maybe it depends what level one is on. For example, a rishon can’t say that the Gemara made a mistake, etc
[menachem to yb]
———————————————————————————————–You bring up an important point here.
Depends what level you are on.
Someone who is higi’a le’hora’a , can/should /has a hiyuv to argue. Someone who is lo hig’ia cannot.On top of that – there is a klal yisrael wide acceptance not to argue on hahamim of a different era.
What constitutes a different era and what not , and this whole acceptance in itself, is some of the pla’im of the bri’a , where hahmei yisrael collectively , but still each one separately, arrive at the same conclusion , [as if] directed from above .
Thats why tannaim are not argued on by amora’im . Amoraim not by rishonim and aharonim do not argue on rishonim.
But within those eras , arguments are not only tolerated, they are to be ENCOURAGED.
R Moshe writes in his igrot moshe , that there is an OBLIGATION for someone higi’a lehora’a to state his opinion fearlessly, even if someone bigger is arguing .R Shlome Zalman writes in a k’tav haskama/hasmacha to his own talmid the following- has veshalom that you should be hesitant to argue on my psak !
In any case where your own limud ‘s conclusions are not like mine , YOU ARE OBLIGATED to state this berabim .Thats the fulfillment of lo taguru mipnei ish.
—–
In the case of habad this has been FORCEFULLY SUPPRESSED .
Remember the case of the mehaber of Ashkavte debei rebbi , a noted talmid haham and marbits torah in yeshivat torah vadaat, and aclose talmid of the Rashab, who definitely was higi’a lehora’a , who disagreed with the rebbi of the habad hasidim re whether al pi hahalach a certain mizrachi public figure was meant to be put in herem .He was murdered in his own home as a result of this disagreement.
Inadvertently maybe , by some of the brainwashed people . Or brainless people . Whatever you want to call them.
Brainwashed that dissent is not to be tolerated .
—
In habad – you will notice – no talmid haham is afforded any title. Its THE REBBE , and moshe feinstain and yoel kahen, ashkenazi etc.Again the same pattern . no dissent.
—-
Mistaken belief in Infallibility of their rebbe is either the result of this brainwash , or the intention of this brainwash.OR BOTH.
—-Take away this belief in his infallibility [which incidentally has no base in yahadut].
And the whole mashiach house of cards collapses.
—
A habad hasid should be able to learn from him , all the things which will inspire him, elevate him.Just that subsequent events and simple logic have proven the rebbi of the habadi’s MISTAKEN in this one issue. In the mashiach issue.
—–Thats why getting through on this issue whether their rebbi was or was not infallible is SO IMPORTANT.
—
I suspect that menachems and the other habad apologists clear reluctance to face this issue head on , is for the same reason.Because this underpins THEIR WHOLE MASHIACH THEOLOGY.
Nafal hayesod , nafal habinyan.
We can only rebut something that was logically stated with proof and cold logic.
Zionism being necessarily kfira has NEVER been proven , not from logic neither from hazal.
So, what should we rebut exactly ?
The issue is not whether some / all / the majority of the founders and promotors were kofrim .
Thats irrelevant.IS ZIONISM IN ITSELF NECESSARILY KFIRA ?
That is the question.
Answer is very clear – no.
It is you who has not supplied any proof nor logic.
The matter seems to be settled, then . At least till further notice …. .
.@ujm
the overwhelming majority of rabbanim of klal yisrael rejected satmar shitah .It not square who ‘shlugged him up’.
It is klal yisrael with most of its rabbanim.
.@somejew
Have not had time for avnei nezer yet.But re the other comments. It is as clear as day that the overwhelming majority of rabbanim disagreed and still disagree with satmar rav in vayoel moshe.
There are reasons they did not publish a sefer against, one of them possibly as rav shach is reputed to have said- it is always good to listen to criticism from the right as in between ten things they say , they might be right on one of them. And if we start arguing back, the battle lines will have been drawn and that one precious thing will be lost to us.
There were other reasons too.
Beside the above, in kayane de igrata and in ba’yot hazman there are clear differences of opinion with satmar rav, backed up by precedence and torah logic.
So there is no inference to made by the fact there are ‘no sfarim’ against satmar , that satmar remains halacha lemaase.
In fact the exact opposite is true . Not only did the majority not accept satmar shitah, even satmar itself did not accept satmar shitah all the way.
Think about the following:
1] There is a huge difference between reform or jews for j, on one side and zionism on the other.
No one [besides fringe coockoo’s] will passel a get or kidushin with fully frum believers in zionism as edim. Whereas even fully observant reform and jews for j’s gittin vakidushin will be nifsal even with serious ,generations long repercussions of mamzerut.2] I remember rav aharon from satmar speaking to his hasidim after the pigu’a in the yeshiva lits’irim in merkaz harav when murderers killed boys in the yeshiva.
I remember how he said that even when we have rightful hilukei dei’ot with merkaz harav , nevertheless we should be mitsta’er betsa’aram etc.
Could you have ever imagined him saying this about jews for j lehavdil ???
For sure not.
So all the rhetoric about the kfira of zionism is nothing more than …. rhetoric .
I am talking about the consensus of Orthodox Judaism here.This not to be taken literally and halacha lema’aseh-
this is rhetoric , designed to pull people away from zionism..
Anyone looking for emet will see the truth in what I have written.You keep bringing up Shmuel Hanovi. I haven’t seen anywhere that Dovid was meant to doubt every instruction he got from Shmuel because based on the earlier incident he proved that he isn’t “infallible.”
—–
I never advocated for doubting every instruction. Neither did I advance some ‘deep’ philosophy re infallibility.Infallibility is not ‘deep’. It is extremely simple.
Can he make a mistake or can’t he make a mistake.
In a sentence of eleven words its done . Short and simple. If you want , Even shorter – Can he or can’t he ?
Thats where I request some ‘sunlight’ .
Kol hameharher and lo tasur are not guarantees of infallibility.
If a person would argue with his rebbi like the BAAL HATURIM did with his father ,the gadol hador, the ROSH , can we accuse him of being meharher achar rabo ?
Can we accuse him of transgressing ‘lo tasur’ ?What was BAAL HATURIM’s message , in other words , to his father .[Respectfully of course.]
Sorry , but here you made a MISTAKE.
This was common practice by all Tanna’im ,Amora’im, Rishonim and Poskim through the ages.So for a hasid of habad , and for sure a non hasid of habad , to say to their rebbi , SORRY BUT HERE YOU MADE A MISTAKE, is perfectly legitimate.
Question is and remains – is there any source or any proof , showing that this is illegitimate ? Yes or no ?
If yes – could you say where this is ?
Its not ‘tsadiq of tanya’ . Its not kol hameharher . Its not lo tasur .
So what is it ?
As simple a request as possible .
.
@ujm
Were jews in time of TYT abandoning Shabbbat ?
Were they eating forbidden foods ?Do you have sources ?
.Were the yehudim in the time of tosefot yom tov atheists ?
Were they intermarrying with non jews ?
Were they doing ‘worse things’ ?Do you have a source for that ? Or do you simply suppose that they did ?
.@somejew
Have not forgotten re the exact quote of avnei nezer.
And your other comments.
Simply did not have the time.@menachem
I did not merit to your pearls of wisdom on the following.You said that habad trusts their rebbi not to make mistakes because of ‘kol hameharher … ‘
How could Shmuel hanavi be mistaken about yishays sons ?
Is that not a contradiction to your understanding of ‘kol hameharher ‘ ?
If not , Why not ?
.Kol hameharher achar rabo ,,,, does that mean that every talmid is obligated to believe that his rabo muvhak is INFALLIBLE ?
It seems that menachem is saying that , or not ?
Menachem should let the sunlight shine on his actual opinions …
Is menachem bedavka obscuring his opinion ?
Or does it just ‘happen’ ?.
Let’s say I would be a naive hasid/talmid/follower of Shabtai Tzvi, impressed by his devotion and holiness [plus any other title I could dream up] .
I would be convinced like Menachem stated before , of “kol hameharher achar rabo ke’ilu meharher achar hashechina”
I would be convinced or even better , I would FEEL , [like Menachem stated before], a blind trust in my rebbi who goes by the name of melech hamashiach shabtai tzvi.
Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .
At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?
Or do I still persist in my blind trust ?
After all doesnt it say Kol hameharher … ?@somejew
I’ll bln find you the exact quote in Avnei Nezer. It is very clear.Re your claim that Zionism is against ikarei emuna. Logic does not necessitate this at all.
One can fervently believe in schar va’ onesh and also advocate for a Jewish state. Not a contradiction at all.
Ditto for believing and awaiting mashiach. Why is a state , necessarily- a mashiach sheker ? It is nothing more than a way of achieving a temporary outcome until mashiach will come and redeem the yidden build the bet hamikdash and eradicate the yetser hara and shib’ud malhuyot. Put an end to wars on the whole planet.
No realistic person can deceive themselves that there is no shibud malhuyot in the present . Even after the medina [and in many instances – because of the medina] there is plenty of it r’l.One can support the medina without going against any of major tora problems you mention.
One can adhere to the torah viewpoint re mechalalei shabbat and kofrim who to a certain degree [!] are al pi torah not part of klal israel. E.g. their yayin is nesech etc. And still give them a right to vote , not worse than a nochri who lives and votes in the state.Re hithabrut larsha’im , there is plenty of materiel in ba’ayot hazman by r grozovsky and karyane de’igrata by the steipler where the parameters are clearly delineated.
So this is nothing more than a great deal of illogical and baseless hype and exaggeration, with the noble intention of stopping of innocent victims losing their yahadut by following those irreligious and anti religious people.Hakatan reminds me of a blind and deaf broken record.
.Your point is definitely valid.
In your case fault clearly lies with the talmid.But sometimes the questions asked are valid . And fault lies with the rebbi.
Like in 1666.
.Menachem craft fully sidestepped each and everyone of the Questions asked.
WHY ?
[yb to menachem]Either you’re bad at asking questions or I’m bad at answering them.
[menachem to yb]
—————Nu , is menachem sidestepping or not ?
@some jew
You seem to exclude one the most greats of klal yisrael .Avnei Nezer end of yoreh de’ah who befeirush states [learn it a few times – otherwise you might miss it] that 3 shavu’ot are not binding halach lemaaseh nowadays.
I cannot see any reason why anyone , and befrat someone whose mesorah is from poskim from Poland should not rely on his shitah.
.Menachem craft fully sidestepped each and everyone of the Questions asked.
WHY ?
.Yankel, maybe start a thread asking why so many litvishers obey “daas torah” unquestionably, and also attack others who dare to question the reasoning of any decision of “daas torah.”
[menachem to yb]———–
I cannot see any litvish ‘daat torah rav or rosh yeshiva’ pull off such a stunt.
There is not one litvish rav , named. Who could for decades publicly insist that he is not mashiach .And then suddenly make a uturn and THEN ALL HIS TALMIDIM JOINING HIM IN HIS PUBLIC UTURN.
This never happened in the ‘daat torah’ history.
And will never happen either.All his talmidim will abandon him at the uturn .
It is simply dishonest to compare the principle of ‘daat torah’ to the INFALLIBILITY seen in neo habad for the last 8o years.Btw. The source of daat torah might be found in sefer hahinuch on the misvah of lo tasur [which is said about the bet din hagadol in the bet hamikdash]
Which does not refer at all to the rebbi of habad .
.1] “Standing out in does not necessarily guarantee that impostors or fakers are weeded out.
We do not have to go far back in history for an example.Shabtai Tzvi was definitely “standing out in holiness and devotion to hashem”.
Otherwise he would not have been able to convince a whole array of first class rabbanim plus the majority of klal yisrael of his bonafides.And yet notwithstanding all of the above, turned out to be a fraud.
2] Which , in turn, brings another unanswered question [yet] . Let’s say I would be a naive hasid/talmid/follower of Shabtai Tzvi, impressed by his devotion and holiness [plus any other title I could dream up] .
I would be convinced like Menachem stated before , of “kol hameharher achar rabo ke’ilu meharher achar hashechina”
I would be convinced or even better , I would FEEL , [like Menachem stated before], a blind trust in my rebbi who goes by the name of melech hamashiach shabtai tzvi.
Now, suddenly this rebbi of mine in whom I trust blindly, suddenly becomes a Muslim , but he explains everything al pi kabala .
At what point do I say, my previous trust was misplaced ?
Or do I still persist in my blind trust ?
After all doesnt it say Kol hameharher … ?
..
There is a clear video of R’ A. Gurewicz to vote for EH.
There is a clear video of R’ A. Gurewicz to vote for EH.
Matter clarified.Again .
This is classical sidestepping.
Read my posts .
Read Menachems.
Menachem barely even addressed the specific Q’s raised in my posts.?
Isn’t all of klal yisrael talmidim of Shmuel hanavi and does the klal of kol hameharher achar rabo not apply to all of us, versus Shmuel Hanavi ?
So how could Shmu’el himself be MISTAKEN about yishays children ?
Was Shmuel INFALLIBLE ?
How should we . [I count myself as a hasid of shmuel hanavi – hope all other readers do too.]
How do we ,all of us , “hasidei shmuel hanavi” ,understand our rebbi’s mistake in knowing yishays sons ?
Dont we “feel” the kol hameharher feeling ?
Is there something wrong with our feelings here ?
Would suggest that davka those people who pride themselves in their ‘moach shalit al halev’ approach , should subjugate their feelings to the emet ? Or not ?
Historians are not the ones we should consult.
Its torah scholars who we should consult.
Is “kol hameharher achar rabo” being misused here ?
Misused to project infallibility.The question should maybe be rephrased.
Or even better, an additional question should be asked.Not only should we ask why the habad hasidim believe that that their rebbi is infallible.
The question should be – for us . The rest of klal yisrael , who are not his talmidim – hasidim.
Was he infallible ??This entire premise is wrong. Chassidim trust the Rebbe simply because that’s how a devoted talmid relates to רבו המובהק.
Chassidim follow their rebbe with אמונת חכמים, they feel that כל המהרהר אחרי רבו כמהרהר אחרי השכינה, and they apply to their rebbe לא תסור ימין ושמאל.
———————————
1] How could the Baal HaTurim argue with his rabo muvhak, his own father , the leader of the entire generation , the ROSH ?
Numerous times ?2] They ‘feel” that kol hame’harher ….. . Question was not about feelings. Feelings is not knowledge. How do they know – was the question.
3] Kol hameharher achar rabo ,,,, does not mean that every talmid is obligated to believe that his rabo muvhak is INFALLIBLE .
However that’s what Menachem is saying, in other words.4] rabo muvhak is someone who is rov toratoh mimenu. I know many habad hasidim who the majority of their torah knowledge does not come from their rebbi.
%] Lo tasur is said about the bet din hagadol which was s
5] Using Menachems logic then , all talmidim of many litvish [and satmar to a certain degree] should blindly accept that the rebbi from habad was an apikores, a mashiach sheker , a tsioni and a megis libo behora’a ? Otherwise, they are included in kol hamehaher ?
@menachem .
I learnt those prakim in tanya and I did not see any ‘other ways’ there.
That was a while ago.Hope that this is not a copout. Hope that there are clear sources there for so called ‘other ways’ .
Tanya says that to decide whether someone is a tsadiq it depends on his temptations .
Menachem claims that there are ‘other’ ways to see whether he is a tsadiq .
Why does Tanya not mention those ‘other ways ?Is it because tanya holds that there are no ‘other ways’ ?
.Some Hungarian Rabbanim in their zealousness to preserve yahadut , threw logic and fact based judgement out of the window. They thought that following this greatest of the greatest of Hungarian Jewry , the Hatam Sofer , necessitates to jettison fact based thinking ,rationality and proportionality.
And truth be said , it could very well be a matana from heaven , as our generation after the war, was so diminished in so many ways, that’s exactly what that generation needed. Otherwise they would all drown in the zionist tsunami which flooded every Jewish community.
But now when the zionist ideals are long hollowed out already, it is time to return to the shvil hazahav of logic and facts. Coupled with yir’at shamayim and based on torah.
So taking those rabanim literally will have a not so different result to taking ,lehavdil elef havdalot, every word of this big and fat basar vadam DJT literally ….
.@Menachem
The navi [!] Shmuel was mistaken about Yishay’s sons – ha’adam yir’eh le’einayim , then why can we not be mistaken about someone who lives with us ?
.
The criteria to be a tsadiq is not ‘what people say’ about someone.
At least according to tanya , it depends on temptation to sin.there is no mention in tanya [or anywhere else] that ‘what people say ‘ is a criteria for tsadiq according to tanya.
Please correct me here if I am wrong.So bottom line – what is the source for the habad hasidim’s apparent core belief that their last [and late] rebbi was INFALLIBLE ?
.
Daas Yochid is very right here . There is a HUGE nafka mina .
.Why did official habad change course- after decades of denying that they are secretly aiming to crown their rebbi as mashiach – why did they make a uturn and actually crowned him as mashiach ?
And why was there no explanation about their uturn ?Is there no explanation ? Or is there one , just that we are not meritorious enough to hear it ……
Rav Shmuel Auerbach, not a zionist by all accounts , refused the attempt to take out rav kuk’s haskama in me’orei ha’eish by r shlome zalman.
Look at the new edition published just a few years ago.
Rav kuks haskama is first.Because rav’kuks powerful political influence of some 100 years ago ?
.They base themselves on David hamelech who killed his yetser through fasts. So it is, in his case at least , due to his actions.
But the question remains – what does this have to do with INFALLIBILTY ?Note that Menachem agreed that there is no source for INFALLIBILITY .
And – if the navi [!] Shmuel could be mistaken about Yishay’s sons – ha’adam yir’eh le’einayim , then why can we not be mistaken about someone who lives with us ?
.Menachem agreed that there is no source that even a tsadiq of tanya is infallible. For sure a beinoni.
He also agreed that it is impossible to know for 100 % whether someone is a tsadiq or a beinoni. He could refrain from all averot and still be a beinoni.
Even if he feels his yetser only once in his lifetime, he would still not be a tsadiq.
—-
So the question is – do the habad hasidim consider their rebbi as INFALLIBLE ?If yes- what are they basing themselves on ?
.@menachem
Thanks for your answer.Rav Shmuel Auerbach, not a zionist by all accounts , refused the attempt to take out rav kuk’s haskama in me’orei ha’eish by r shlome zalman.
Look at the new edition published just a few years ago.
Rav kuks haskama is first.Also because rav’kuks powerful political influence of some 100 years ago ?
Come on.
Le’olam yehei adam modeh al ha’emet …
.Is a Tsadiq of Tanya INFALLIBLE ?
Infallible as in a human mistake- not an avera – a mistake ?
Is there any clear source for this ?Anyway , how do we define a tsadiq of tanya – as opposed to a beinoni of tanya , as both are totally clean of any averot – according to tanya ?
How can we know whether his yetser is dead [as a tsadiq] or his yetser is merely kept in check [as in beinoni] ?
Maybe this is impossible for us to know ?Is there any clear source for this either ?
.Seems that there are no answers in the near future. So lets summarize at least those questions which were left without answers.
Have one here.
Why did official habad change course- after decades of denying that they are secretly aiming to crown their rebbi as mashiach – why did they make a uturn and actually crowned him as mashiach ?
And why was there no explanation about their uturn ?