Sunday, July 22, 2007

Sources

For those interested in knowing; here's the Sichoh where the Rebbe speaks of not sleeping in the Sukkah. Use any intellectual honesty you can muster to try and understand. The objective ones amongst you will surely see it.









81 comments:

Anonymous said...

My issue was nevere about the minhag, I saw the explanation, and I am ok with it. I have a problem with the Rebbe's vicious, ad hominum attacks. That's a problem you are not objective enough to discuss, probably because its indefensible.

Elye said...

The point of the Sicha is simple. For the most part WE don't sleep in a Sukkah because it's usually physically uncomfortable. That's it. The question the Rebbe asks is, how is it that the (Friediker) REBBE, who was so medakdek b'mitzvos so as not to even have a drink outside of the sukkah, still did not sleep in the sukkah? Thismakes up the bulk of the Sicha.

The reason we make use this 'excuse' of physical uncomfort - which Lubavitchers always ignore (example: 4000 of the across the globe) - is in the same vein of R'Acha "mehader a'trei ve'chad".

In addition - and only in addition - to this, does the Rebbe explain how the Chassid may HIMSELF experience psychological uncomfort trying to fall asleep in the Sukkah.

But never forget the first point in the Sicha: Hamitztaer - BEGASHMIYUS - is always patur from sleeping in the Sukkah.

ve'es vahev besufah.

guravitzer said...

If this is an excuse, then every heter is an 'excuse'.

Once again, you have a problem with air, because there is no ad hominem attack here. Do you know what ad hominem means? Do you know what vicious means as well?

Anonymous said...

Idiot, I meant the post below.

jj said...

so that would make YOU the idiot for commenting here on a previous post, right?

elye said...

Can you give at least ONE example of a 'vicious ad hominem attack' such as you have made against the Rebbe?

Read the exchange with R' Kahana one more time. Was there even ONE name or Yeshiva mentioned in that exchange? The Rebbe specifically did not mention names. Anyone who has heard/read the Rebbe's sichos knows that the Rebbe never mentioned names.

Now contrast that with a certain somebody who called Lubavitchers ovdei avodah zarah and their wine yayin nesech...

Anonymous said...

On this topic see the brilliant article of harav Chaim Rapaport shlita in Hiechel Habesht vol ?

Anonymous said...

Now contrast that with a certain somebody who called Lubavitchers ovdei avodah zarah and their wine yayin nesech...

I dod not see any difference between the above sentence and the explosion of anger on the part of the Rebbe concerning a certain gadol hador.

On the contrary, I think the Rebbe is overly brazen.

jj said...

nobody cares what you think.

arbiter said...

Anonymous- There is a specific command- yesterday's Rambam in fact- that a Talmid Chochom must be Nokem V'Noter K'Nachash against anyone who is Mivazeh him publicly. It's an insult to the entire Torah for someone to insult a Talmid Chochom.

Let's think for a minute... If the Rebbe is constantly being insulted, critisized and stepped on by those folks in Bnei Brak, doesn't that make it his duty and obligation to be Nokem V'Noter???

Yes, I recognize that the question is ambivalent, because we have to establish who the true Talmidei Chochomim are here to know who is verily attacking who. I don't expect you to appreciate this, but what the Rebbe was trying to not-so-subtly suggest, is that anyone who uses their status to spread hatred amongst Jews, cannot possibly be the one that represents Torah. The Torah, whose ways are Darkei Shalom, does not allow for such hatred. The promulgators of such rancor cannot truly stand and call themselves Talmidei Chachomim. That is what the Rebbe is condemning, and rightfully so.

Anonymous said...

But maybe THEY were being nokem HIM?!?!

This is circular.

And to JJ, who never has anything meaningful to add, get lost.

arbiter said...

Anonymous, read the last paragraph again!

Anonymous said...

But those against him say HE is not a ben Torah. As I wrote, the logic is circular.

arbiter said...

Um, that's what I wrote in the last paragraph... which is why one needs a little objectivism to determine who started the mud fight.

Anonymous said...

I don't know, I am not inclined to believe that the Rebbe was attacked. He had a problem with taking responsibility for the messianic overtones even back then. Maybe he should have been more solicitous about taking care of it, unless, of course, he thought they were right.

arbiter said...

Chassidim would cherish every single word of the Rebbe. If the Rebbe would have gotten up in 1991 and publicly said that he's not Moshiach, and then printed it in Sefer Hasichos, there wouldn't be a single Chossid alive that would continue to believe it. It would be impossible for anyone to twist such plain words and say that he meant it in any other way. He could have easily taken "responsibility" is he so desired. He had the Chassidim in a tight fist.

But that's irrelevant and that has little to do with the filth, hatred and attacks being spewed from the Rosh Yeshiva on the hill. Your either misinformed or perverting history if you don't remember the attacks.

Anonymous said...

Chassidim would cherish every single word of the Rebbe. If the Rebbe would have gotten up in 1991 and publicly said that he's not Moshiach, and then printed it in Sefer Hasichos, there wouldn't be a single Chossid alive that would continue to believe it. It would be impossible for anyone to twist such plain words and say that he meant it in any other way. He could have easily taken "responsibility" is he so desired. He had the Chassidim in a tight fist.

He didn't. And this is the problem the Gedolim on the Hill had with him. It was not just one, it was many, and you know that, too. I would posit that this and several other things the Rebbe refused to resove with the Jewish community at large put him in a situation where he would get spurned. I don't think the language was bad if they really believed what they said--I certainly don't. I am just objective enough to understand their perspective. Maybe that's why I don't have so much hate. Honestly, I think the Rebbe's comments below are just as bad.

The bottom line, its over. Chassidim still believe their Rebbe is god or is still their savior. Which is also relatively unique since the death of a certain someone in the 1600s. I am not here to insult, only to express my feelings about an issue that won't seem to die. Too many chassidim are hurt, too many non-Lubavitch chassidim are confused as to how they should treat their bretheren when the other side is so fixed about an issue they cannot accept.

Its sad this was not resolved. Would you not agree with me on this point?

guravitzer said...

arbiter, perhaps the Rebbe himself did not know if he was Moshiach or not?

As far as Nokem VeNoter being circular, that is the true definition of this entire argument - circular. There is nothing inherently wrong in the conversation, it just depends which side of the fence you are on.

arbiter said...

What do you mean it's over?? How could you say something like this if there's no hate?

"Chassidim still believe their Rebbe is god or is still their savior."

You're perpetuating the hate that they begun and you deign to say that it's over???

Use some common sense. The Gedolim on the Hill made up the babble that Lubavitch worships their Rebbe and that stigma has stuck for the past twenty years. You're mocking yourself when you come here hypocritically trying to make peace and turning this into some sympathy plea:

"too many non-Lubavitch chassidim are confused as to how they should treat their bretheren"

Anonymous said...

So you want to tell me I did not see what I saw with my own eyes? That everyone else just saw illusions? Do you think everyone outside of Lubavitch would just buy into hype and cluelessly follow rumors if they saw behaviour which ran dramatically to counter it?

Please don't insult the intelligence of all other Jews with this kind of apologetic talk. Its unappealing and deeply dishonest. The deification and messianic fervor surrounding the Rebbe is true. Its not babble. Its fact.

The whole talking down tone is really disgusting and reaks of disingenuity. I don't appreciate it.

We can talk like civilized individuals, but don't lie about metzios.

Thank you.

arbiter said...

I don't know when or how you saw the deification of the Rebbe. It doesn't exist and you have to get over that. The fact that you continually attribute something which never happened to Lubavitch is quite telling of your own disengenuity or your illusions.

I don't think people saw anything, I think they read too many Misnagdishe blogs on the internet that continually post the rantings of that megalomaniac on the hill. I doubt too many of the supposed witnesses to this "Avodah Zarah" have actually encountered it in real life. That's because it doesn't exist.

And how do I know that it doesn't exist? Suffice it to say that I've never seen it in, and I have been around the block in Lubavitch.

{Please refrain from linking me to Sokolovsky, the guy is looked at as an idiot by everyone in Lubavitch}

Anonymous said...

. . .Ah, but there are many Sokolvskys. They put tefillin on Jews and make them scream Yechi.

And I myself saw someone bowing to a picture of the Rebbe.

Wherever you go, especially in Israel, you see pictures of the Rebbe, and a sign stating, the Moshiach arrived.

Maybe you are the one who is under illusions. May you are being disingenuous. It is impossible to say the problem does not exist. And under the circumstances, you have some nerve, to put it mildly, to call someone you never met--someone who you will never reach in anything spiritual--a meglomaniac. That is a disgusting act that could only have been picked up by reading hate rags and other non-Torah based publications circulating in certain areas.

arbiter said...

Excuse me but in Lubavitch we were taught the difference between Moshiach and G-d...

Sorry, I take that back, we never learned to associate Moshiach with G-d. It's kinda self-evident. It is your Gedolim who somehow lumped the two together just so they could tag all Mishichistim as being Epikorsim. Please quit demonstrating your ignorance and "blind following" of this Am Ha'aratzus of their's.

And your bowing narrative is so questionable that even if there was any truth to it, it's impaled your your repetition of it. Should we do some Drishos V'Chakiros?

And now, my "disgusting act" came from reading the man's own words and seeing his Peiros and Perei Peiros.

And please, you couldn't possibly know me and who I am. Don't decide who is or could be on higher spiritual levels.

Anonymous said...

>>Excuse me but in Lubavitch we were taught the difference between Moshiach and G-d...

I wrote that there are many Sokolovskys. He writes that he was taught ny his rabbeim EXACTLY the way he writes. I have no reason not to believe him, absent your sole representation that "Lubavitch thinks he's an idiot." I don't appreciate your evasive tactics.

>>Sorry, I take that back, we never learned to associate Moshiach with G-d. It's kinda self-evident. It is your Gedolim who somehow lumped the two together just so they could tag all Mishichistim as being Epikorsim.

Ibid.

You coninuously ascribe evil motives to people you do not know and who are much greater than you. I don't understand how you feel when you express disgust toward the peiros of a certain system luanching into similarly evil and ignorant tirades against your Rebbe. Your acts (notice I never insult you as a person) are unconscionable.

>>Please quit demonstrating your ignorance and "blind following" of this Am Ha'aratzus of their's.

Again with the personal insults. I am writing what I read from Ariel. I am stating about what I and others have seen with our own eyes. Resorting to personal insults will never wipe the truth away. What do you really have to gain from this? Some vindication for your blind belief that I am wrong, DESPITE the facts? That's really odd.

>>And your bowing narrative is so questionable that even if there was any truth to it, it's impaled your your repetition of it. Should we do some Drishos V'Chakiros?

Next step. Insulting my integrity and honesty. That's very, very low. And it also smacks of desparation. You sound like you have something to hide. Moreover, there is nothing objectively "so questionable" about what I witnessed with my own eyes. Your representation is so laden with desparation, its actually palpable.

Its a fact that people still move away for the Rebbe nowadays, as though he is walking through the crowd. You cannot just launch into personal attacks against people you don't know, insult their leaders (who are at least as great as yours), malign their honesty, and state that there is absolutely nothing questionable going on. That is, at best, questionable.

>>And now, my "disgusting act" came from reading the man's own words and seeing his Peiros and Perei Peiros.

Note how I and others have not debased themselves by following YOUR example when they see similar words from your Rebbe against their leaders. Interesting, then, how you have to be different from others. But, hey, you have your passion. From whence do they come?

I would NEVER ascribe incorrigibly low motives to your Rebbe. I would never insult the great Roshei Yeshiva who teach in your yeshivos (Rav Yosef Eisenbach, for example--I read two of his seforim so far). But I can still have some questions about what I have seen. And all you can do to avoid those same obvious problems is go so low as to call me a liar. This is where your faith has brought you? You refer to someone from a chassidisher home (myself) as a misnagid, imply I am liar, insult undisputed gedolei hador in a very low, menuveldike way, pretty much do whatever you can do to avoid facts.

>>And please, you couldn't possibly know me and who I am. Don't decide who is or could be on higher spiritual levels.

You are greater than a Gadol b'Torah (not my estimation--the Brisker Rav's and R' Isser Zalman's estimation and its printed on different volumes of the Avi Ezri. Not to mention, the belief of my Rebbe, too. So, unlike some overly enthusiastic chassidim who have been caught for exaggerating (and I got this way when I was young, too), I am at least attempting to base what I write on demonstrative, clear evidence). . . That's what you are writing?

I am not writing this to ridicule you, obviously, chas v'sholom! I am just trying to ascertain that your position is that you are greater than a certain gadol b'Torah who was acknowledged as a gadol b'Torah by giants probably several generations older than you.

If you really feel this way, with all due respect, I must have your number. It would be a crying shame for you to not be michazek myself and the rest of the klal.

arbiter said...

Please stop writing your tirades and focus on the points:

1. You evasively didn't answer my question about there being a tremendous difference between someone being G-d and being Moshiach. Something which doesn't exactly make sense in the context of "Chabad being the closest religion to Judaism" and that our meat is Neveila and our wine Yayin Nesech.

You're only answer is thats Mishichism is "questionable."

2. Your basis on Soklokovsky is small minded at best. There's plenty of other endorsed sites that talk about Chabad's beliefs on the internet {Chabad.org, 770live, Sichos in English, etc.}, but you seem to know of only one that has no license. Do yourself a favor and argue with a movement based on the movement itself and not on some fringe loony.

3. I have no greater example for using debasing language than the Rosh Yeshiva himself:

"the madman who sits in New York and drives the whole world crazy"

*Sorry to have pulled this quote off of Wikipedia, but I'm not familiar with all the "Torah" sources where he berated Lubavitch. Maybe if you point me out, I can sort through them for more choice expressions.

4. It's strange how you can read personal insult from my challenging the you as the proponent of an opinion/faction. You haven't taken an objective stance, you are presenting this as your own beliefs.

Likewise with myself, my strong ties and position are obviously as a result of my affiliation. This argument between two people, is in essence an argument between two factions, represented in this case by two unlicensed spokesman.

When I called following this Am Ha'aratzus ignorant, I meant "you" as a casual representation of the entire faction {as substantiated by your, "anonymous,'" writings}.

5. When I said your narrative was questionable, I didn't call you a liar.

In Halacha do we say that Eid Echod is a liar? No, but it nevertheless has no validity.

I meant that it's questionable as far as its usage as evidence and support, especially when told as a vague unsubstantiated narrative witnessed by a single individual. We don't know the exact details of the story, we don't know who the guy that bowed was and then we have your proven bias as a probable reason to dismiss such evidence. There's no reason to believe that if the event was true that it wasn't just an isolated incident, particularly when we Lubavitchers haven't witnessed such events.

Also, you've gotta admit, it's pretty antediluvian and Eastern to sit there bowing down to idols. If you would have said that you saw them dancing 'Boreinu'... I'd have an easier time buying that it COULD have happened.

arbiter said...

And for the record, I didn't suggest that I was better than Rav Shach. I was playing on your argument that:

"you have some nerve, to put it mildly, to call someone you never met--""

I was duly informing you that neither of the two of us have ever met. Even if I was great, you wouldn't either know of my spiritual greatness, which need not necessarily be publicized by a bunch of Haskomas.

But it's great how that's all you {you as in you} picked out of our argument.

arbiter said...

I'm also interested in figuring out how I personally insulted you and spoke unlike a "civilized individual," yet you gratuitously tell me that I've debased myself, that I'm under illusions, and that you limit my spiritual capabilities and potential.

elye said...

You have no reason to disbelieve Ariel Sokolovsky? And what reason do you have to believe him?

I don't know of anyone who likes to stand alone. People will always defend themselves with the claim that "everyone I know holds this way".

Just to prove my point: Is there anyone other than AS that you can point to who espouses his 'shit'a?
Or would you just prefer to assume that there are many like him, because it's easier and self-congratulatory?

Anonymous said...

>>Please stop writing your tirades and focus on the points:

Unbelievable!!! You have clearly to do some self-introspection on this account!!!

>>1. You evasively didn't answer my question about there being a tremendous difference between someone being G-d and being Moshiach. Something which doesn't exactly make sense in the context of "Chabad being the closest religion to Judaism" and that our meat is Neveila and our wine Yayin Nesech.

I'm evasive? Once again, you show that you have a little work to do on the honesty meter. Please recall that you wrote, " It is your Gedolim who somehow lumped the two together just so they could tag all Mishichistim as being Epikorsim. Please quit demonstrating your ignorance and "blind following" of this Am Ha'aratzus of their's." Where, pray tell do you indicate in this "tirade" that you are asking a "question?" Answer: nowhere. It is objectively impossible to infer that this statement is being asked a question. Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt--which, as usual, is far more than you would have the courtesy to give to me--that you were asking a question, how could you even have the nerve to sugest I, of all people, am being evasive. What about my ACTUAL questions which you have never addressed. I urge you to try to play fairly and honestly if you engage with others about your beliefs, otherwise, just let it go. You are not demonstrating good faith.

As far as your "question" is concerned, first, for the Ariel's out there, and there are many, your question is irrelevant, as the Rebbe is God in their view. There is also the question of whether it is acceptable to wait for one particular man to return as the Moshiach in Jewish thought. Can Dovid HaMelech be Moshiach, its possible. Is it beyond the pale to make posters of HIM as the Messiah and say that he's here? No. Is it normal to pretend that he is still alive and clear the way for him. No. Its certainly was never done by Jews before the Rebbe passed away. Its not about believing someone to be Moshiach, its about insisting that one particular dead person must be the moshiach as a central aspect of one's entire movement that appears to be different from the way Jews have behaved for millenia. There really is not anything objectively factual that you can interject with respect to this point.

I understand that you may, as you have in the past, find it difficult to remain on point and not engage in slander of gedolei hador. I ask that you try to maintain your respect, as I have done toward you.

>>You're only answer is thats Mishichism is "questionable."

I wrote, to be very kind and charitable, "at best." Please do not take my kindness--in light of your strong, personal attacks--the wrong way. Their behavior is unprecedented. Klal Yisroel eventually accepted a leader even after Moshe Rabbeinu passed on. This strange behavior--how ever well meaning it is, if that is the case--is beyond the pale.

I have NEVER heard about the yayin nesech issue. The Avodah Zorah issue may be a shaila for those rishonim and acahronim who view shituv as part and parcel of the issur Avodah Zorah. If the Rebbe is to be regarded as an emanation of Avodah Zarah--literally--its probably Avodah Zarah according to those Rishonim and Acaharonim. If the idea of him being an emanation of God Himself is figurative and based on deep kabbalistic concept which cannot be understood by anyone outside of Lubavitch (Rabbi Shochet would acknowledge that I am better versed in etz Chaim than he is), then its (1) obviously being read literally by a significant amount of loonies in your fold (that's a fact) and they MUST be stopped, and (2) what makes him different from every other Jew. Certainly he is not different than other kedoshim in this regard. Seriously, this is another point that just does not make sense to other, objective thinking Jews. Why the exclusivitiy? It seems very ethnocentric.

>>Your basis on Soklokovsky is small minded at best. There's plenty of other endorsed sites that talk about Chabad's beliefs on the internet {Chabad.org, 770live, Sichos in English, etc.}, but you seem to know of only one that has no license. Do yourself a favor and argue with a movement based on the movement itself and not on some fringe loony.

So you are familiar with the qualification, "at best," after all. I have every right to be skeptical about how far PR has played a role in the way they write about the Rebbe. The fact is that the notion of the Rebbe being the Moshiach--even after his death--is pretty much an accepted notion in Lubavitch. Whether they regard him as the specific Moshiach nowadays or state Yechi may not be something that will disclose as Ariel. I have spoken--twice, actually--with Immanual Schochet and, to be frank, (and others on this blog and other blogs have noticed this in the past) found him to be way too evasive and sometimes downright duplicitious in his answers. It was at this point where I started becoming just a bit skeptical about what I was being told. After all, he is a gigantic talmid chochom. And he made it pretty clear to me and other open minded individuals (contrary to your mean accusation, I am open minded enough to talk to individuals like Rav Shochet to get a better picture. Would you do the same in Ponovez? Do I even have to ASK this question?), that he was hiding a whole layer, or layers, of truth.

I don't know why you call Ariel a fringe loony when so many believe in his ideas, and this was something he was taught, and did not develop on his own, apparently before the Rebbe's petirah. (You believe he passed on, RIGHT?!).

>>"the madman who sits in New York and drives the whole world crazy"

Nice. Wikipedia. What a great source. The source for Wikipedia is a Lubavitch source, right? So you are quoting from hate rags distributed by your movement to establish that Rav Shach actually stated this. Please do not expect me, or anyone else, to accept this as fact. Rav Shach, Rav Ahron Kotler, Rav Yakov Kamenetzky, and Rav Hutner, and the Satmar Rebbe (among others) had some deep suspicions about the Rebbe, or at least his movement. I was always taught to write about him with respect, as I do, because he was a great tzadik and talmid chochom. Unfortunately, you were taught that one need only respect his Rebbe, and write "meglomaniac" along with other choicty epithets (not you, specifically, in this regard) about those who disagreed with him, because, well, they are evil for having suspicions about the Rebbe. And for being vocal about it when the Rebbe did not do anything about correcting the Sokolovskys (and the Butmans, perhaps) of his time.

>>It's strange how you can read personal insult from my challenging the you as the proponent of an opinion/faction. You haven't taken an objective stance, you are presenting this as your own beliefs.

Please note the following two quotes:

"Please quit demonstrating your ignorance and "blind following" of this Am Ha'aratzus of their's."

That is, YOUR ignorance and "blind following." Notwithstanding your apologetic, "When I called following this Am Ha'aratzus ignorant, I meant "you" as a casual representation of the entire faction {as substantiated by your, "anonymous,'" writings}", it seems awfully self serving and convenient in light of you wrote. You could have taken responsibility for not writing clearly, at the least, or for having your passions get the better of you (again, I am quite able to maintain dispassionate about this subject--i.e., I do not insult you), but you write that, instead. That's a lost opportunity, I think, for redemption. But its your life, your choice.

Similarly, you implicated my intergrity when you wrote:

"And your bowing narrative is so questionable that even if there was any truth to it, it's impaled your your repetition of it. Should we do some Drishos V'Chakiros?"

When you write, In Halacha do we say that Eid Echod is a liar? No, but it nevertheless has no validity.

Actually, there is a tzad in the Rishonim (see Tosfas Rosh in Gitting Daf tes or Yud) that we do not believe an eid achid because he is more likely to lie.

>>I meant that it's questionable as far as its usage as evidence and support, especially when told as a vague unsubstantiated narrative witnessed by a single individual.

But this is not a lone circumstance. Second, it is well known throughout the world that many Lubavitchers move aside for a man who dies a long time ago. Is it so different, factually speaking, from bowing to a picture of him? Why? How?

>>We don't know the exact details of the story, we don't know who the guy that bowed was and then we have your proven bias as a probable reason to dismiss such evidence.

I have no bias here whatsoever, unless, you agree with a famous stating that certain views have a strong bias toward the truth. I am reporting facts. You are attempting to impute bias to someone who has no bias. That is pretty much your central argument, and that is why you launched into your personal attacks, not only against me, but against Gedolei haDor. But you would, at least, understand why I would be skeptcial about certain Lubavitch leaders and spokespeople have demonstrated to me and others (look it up on the web) because of their demonstrated bias. And my attendant justification for listening to a Lubavitcher off the street for his views, too.

>>There's no reason to believe that if the event was true that it wasn't just an isolated incident, particularly when we Lubavitchers haven't witnessed such events.

So, when you walk into Lubavitch headquarters, there is no major loop of the Rebbe? No one moves aside from him? No on in Lubavitch has not witnessed anything remotely close to envisioning the Rebbe as something much bigger than life, on a level that outdoes the most ardent Charedi's admiration for his Rebbe or Rosh Yeshiva? Please, you know better than to argue that. Once again, you demonstrate that you are hiding something.

>>Also, you've gotta admit, it's pretty antediluvian and Eastern to sit there bowing down to idols. If you would have said that you saw them dancing 'Boreinu'... I'd have an easier time buying that it COULD have happened.

But its perfectly normal for hundreds to move aside and pretend his not around? Where there is a loop about the Rebbe in Lubavitch? That's progressive? That's western? This brings us back to your so-called question, is there something apikorsush about believing the Rebbe is Moshiach? Is there not a difference? I guess the answer is in the facts: look where the expression of such a belief has brought so many Jews, practicing arguably antedeluvian and Eastern homage toward a deceased great.

arbiter said...

Again, fundamental flaws in the argument:

1. Buddy, who again did you say was making this personal?

2. What's wrong with being "outside of the pale" in Halacha? What's wrong with novelty? Suspicions aside, is it Ikrei Ha'Emunah that one CANNOT belief in a single individual to be Moshiach?

At that, what is wrong {Halachikckly} with "glorifying" a dead person and moving to the side. How is the Avodah Zarah?

arbiter said...

There's no other way to say it: Sokolovsky does not represent Chabad beliefs. The sole basis to assume his beliefs to be true is his own testimony that this is standard and that this is what was taught to him. The sad thing is that people by into his capers and actually look at him as a typical Chabadnik. It's necessary for him to get such approval for himself so that he can be convinced his beliefs are actually true. In reality, there are enough Mishichist Rabbonim that have spoken against his beliefs of the Rebbe being God and creator {R"L}

Chabad does have a lot of public relations web sites which tend to play down the Mishichist elements that exists within Chabad. On the other hand, there are more than enough web sites that are not afraid to broadcast even some of the most occult Mishichist practices and beliefs. Chabad has become so big and open, that there is really nothing hidden and nothing to hide. The Mishichist faction is opten played down by the more "anti" sides, but it certainly exists.

There really is no reason not to believe the things expressed by the official Chabad sites on the internet and to reject Sokolovsky as having anything to do with mainstream thought and opinion.

----

I do have a personal problem with your calling my integrity in to question on this, thinking that I have something that I want or need to hide. On the other hand, when I questioned the probity of your story, you turned it into my fight against you. The double-standard is outrageous, particularly when the truth to my assertions are well-known by everyone in Lubavitch and your story {which I'm still waiting to hear} was witnessed by just a single {maybe a few} individuals.

Anonymous said...

>>1. Buddy, who again did you say was making this personal?

Evasive, again. I wrote that you were making personal insults, remember? I brought two examples of that, too. Surely you remember THAT.

>>What's wrong with being "outside of the pale" in Halacha? What's wrong with novelty? Suspicions aside, is it Ikrei Ha'Emunah that one CANNOT belief in a single individual to be Moshiach?

You are asking if there anything wrong with acting in way unnacceptable, in contrast, and heretofore unprecedented manner with regard to normative halacha and normative Jewish practices? You are asking what wrong with being mechadesh new halacha? New dinim? You are actually asking what's wrong with practcing outside of Jewish belief? And then you ask how Lubavitch could be called the closest thing to Judaism? (not that I ever heard that being said before you stated the same. I read the Wikipedia article on Rav Shach, too, but, funny enough, the source for that quote? Lubavitch!). THEN you make the ikrei emunah argument? Are you aware of the ikrei emunah? Did you go through the Rambam's piruch on Perek Chelek? Are you aware of what the Rambam write about Toras Moshe Rabbeinu?

Please read your post and my post again.

>>At that, what is wrong {halachikckly} with "glorifying" a dead person and moving to the side. How is the Avodah Zarah?
Seriously? Let's break this down:

>>At that, what is wrong {Halachikckly} with "glorifying" a dead person and moving to the side. How is the Avodah Zarah?

Interesting technique. You went from suggesting its antedeluvian and Eastern to bow to a picutre of a deceased man to asking what's wrong with stepping aside for someone a decease man, stop by the table to shake his hand (even though he is dead), exhbit large, life like loops of a man long gone to "glorify the dead", on a halachic level? This is really, really not convincing.

I think you are going about this the wrong way if you trying to be halachic and rational about this. To be perfectly frank, you are reinforcing the well known belief that there are many Sokolvskys out there.

Anonymous said...

. . . But what I saw is also done EVERY day when men step aside for a Rebbe who is dead for 14 years. You never got to explain a plausible distinction, as there isn't any.

Anonymous said...

1. SO, you are a meshichist.

2. You think there is a dramatic distinction between a meshichist and someone like Sokolovsky.

3. Do you believe the Rebbe passed away? Do you believe he is sill here? If that is the case, why is he different from, I don't know, Rashi or the Rambam? Are they on this Earth, too? How about my grandfather?

4. What do you achieve by believing that the Rebbe is the Moshiach? Why can it not be Dovid HaMelech? What if it were Rav Shach? The Satmar Rebbe? What would you do, then?

5. Would you marry into the family of someone who does not beleive the Rebbe is Moshiach?

6. Do you consider it a matter of faith to believe in the Rebbe as Moshiach? If not, does that individual go to purgatory?

7. If someone is a good Jew, in that he does all the mitzvos with all his heart, but does not believe the Rebbe is moshiach, is he a bad Jew?

8. Who is buried in the Rebbe's tomb?

9. Why wasn't the Baal HaTanya the Moshiach. I love him, love the Shulchan Aruch Harav. Does it not make sense for holy Alter Rebbe or the Tzemach Tzeddek to be the Moshiach?

10. Unlike other tzadikim, like R' Akiva, who advocated that someone is Moshiach, the Rebbe is the first religious Jew--aside from Shabbetai Tzvi and Frank--to assert they, themselves, are the Messiah. Do you think that's odd?

11. Do you think its possible for the Rebbe to have made a mistake about being the Moshiach?

12. Where does it stated that the Rebbe MUST be Moshiach?

13. Did the fact that he died indicate that he may not have been the right one, as Moshiach has not arrived?

arbiter said...

"You are asking what wrong with being mechadesh new halacha? New dinim?"

What new Halacha and Dinim?

----

I'm by no means a Mishichist in the conventional usage of the term. I go to the Ohel and I light a candle on 3 Tammuz. Please stop making assumptions about me, things that I definitely didn't say. You sound like the good 'ol Frumteens Moderator???

However, not only do I think there is a demarcation between conventional Mishichists and Sokolovsky, I don't even think that Sokolovsky is a corollary of Mishichists. I think he is either a troubled individual, or an extremist with an incapability of understanding subtle points in Chassidus.

Regarding the Shvil, Loi Ba'asi to explain and defend things that I don't agree with or do. However, I don't see how stepping a side as an act of symbolic {ok, maybe real :) } honoring of the Rebbe has ANYTHING to do with Avodah Zarah. Yes, it's weird, strange, occult maybe even delirious... But Avodah Zarah it's not.

Bowing is a form of worship. I mentioned that it's antediluvian to bring out the point that it's not a form of worship that I practically picture any Mishichis who wanted to venerate the Rebbe as a god doing.

P.S. Do you have any idea who Avrum Ehrlich is??? How is he a Lubavitch source. But do tell me which Seforim has the Rosh Yeshiva's writings about Lubavitch. I'm highly interested in seeing it, to see the pacifist in him.

Anonymous said...

What new Halacha and Dinim?

You asked what wrong with acting out of the pale of halacha, I am trying to ascertain what you mean by that. I am asking if this is what you mean.


>>Regarding the Shvil, Loi Ba'asi to explain and defend things that I don't agree with or do. However, I don't see how stepping a side as an act of symbolic {ok, maybe real :) } honoring of the Rebbe has ANYTHING to do with Avodah Zarah. Yes, it's weird, strange, occult maybe even delirious... But Avodah Zarah it's not.

Note I did not say is Avodah Zarah, but I don't see any substantive difference between stepping aside for a dead man you believe to actually be walking down the aisle to bowing down in front of a picture.

The Avodah Zarah argument was made in in connection with the possibility of shituf, which for many, like Sokolovsky is very real.

The Moshiach argument does not stand even the most casual analysis. The Rambam in Hilchos Melachim 11:3,4,5 and on is VERY clear. The Rebbe was not a Jewish KING from the house of David, he did not fight wars against amalek (which is how the Rebbe defined wars for Hashem in Likutei Sichos, vol. 16 pages 304-305). Its not possible to look at him as a Moshiach vadai because he did not fulfill any of the tnoaim in the Rambam, nor can he be regarded as b'chezkas because of the points I made above and because, if you read the Rambam, it is quite clear that he cannot die in the middle and continue afterwars. And if he dies, the Rambam writes, he is not Moshiach.

Read Iggeres Teiman, Kefah, page 52
about the fact the Moshiach has to first be revealed as Moshiach when he is in Eretz Yisroel. This never happened.

Every single Rishon on this subject writes that Moshiach cannot die and come back. I will be glad to give you sources should you not believe me. If you are arguing that you, or mishichists, know Torah better than Rishonim, and that they are wrong, I see some very little difference between those individuals and Ariel. VERY little.

Anonymous said...

He does not write about Lubavitch, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, I would regard most of the stories stated by Lubavitch as apocryphal.

He was famous for decrying the messianism and deification of the Rebbe. You clearly would not have a probelm for his doing that with respect to the latter, and I doubt you would, if you really learned the issues (even according the Rebbe himself!) that he was Moshiach. He never came close to the requirements.

If you think there is something wrong with decrying an issue that many in am yisroel were confused about until he came along because of their respect to YOUR rebbe (even though you have NO respect toward him--and thats not just you, but most lubavitchers, if not all), and explained that this is wrong, and its not acceptable. He did this even though he did NOT involve himselves in communal affairs at the time, at the risk of personal harm--not to mention how much the Rebbe and his followers deeply hated him afterward.

If you think that's wrong, that is your problem. My question is, why did the Rebbe NOT do anything about it. Its not like we are talking about someone who did NOT know the Rambam, the Rebbe was an adom gadol. I wonder what he stood to lose. Was he merely under the misconception that this was about misnagdim, even though Rav Shach NEVER did this to a single other Rebbe, EVER? I don't know. But Ariels are using this as excuses. Many believe a dead man is still alive. Even more mistakenly believe that the Rebbe is moshiach vadai despite the Rambam on this subject (asking the STUPID question if it defies emunah, when, in fact, it actually defies the metzios defined by halacha! So, if you don't believe in halacha, yes, you defy the ikrei emunah!). I don't understand the ways of an adam gadol. Maybe he did not see the extent to which this would affect his people once he is gone. But it hurt him. It hurt Lubavitch. And because Lubavitch hates those who cannot respect their non-halachic view, it hurts all of klal yisroel.

arbiter said...

BTW... This is being written before Hershel allows the new replies to come on...

"You sound like the good 'ol Frumteens Moderator???"

It should be !!! and not ???

...Typo

In case I don't see you, good Shabbos.

arbiter said...

"I don't see any substantive difference between stepping aside for a dead man you believe to actually be walking down the aisle to bowing down in front of a picture."

Because walking down an aisle isn't a form of worship!!

"the possibility of shituf, which for many, like Sokolovsky is very real. "

Your suggestion "many" is still apocryphal.

"I will be glad to give you sources should you not believe me."

Yes please.

"In fact, I would regard most of the stories stated by Lubavitch as apocryphal."

You're using your notorious double-standard of veracity again.

But then, it's not really relevant is it, when you're arguing with incontestable history. Anyone and everyone that was around back then knows it, and you're the only one coming along saying that this man didn't have choice expressions for the Rebbe and called him a heretic. Sorry, the "Yeshiva world" doesn't flood the internet the way Lubavitch does, so it's not easy for me to access specific "Torah sources" that might demonstrate this, but again, it's not something that I've heard anyone contest until you came along.

The man didn't just decry an issue which he alone recognized as problematic, the man viciously attacked the Rebbe and Shitas Chabad in his talks and in his newspaper {and not only on matters pertaining to Moshiach}. I haven't read his books, but a casual Google search on the internet will bring up non-Chabad discussion forums from prior to 3 Tammuz will also evidence that such was printed in his books.

"(even though you have NO respect toward him--and thats not just you, but most lubavitchers, if not all)"

This is not referring to me personally right? This hasn't become what YOU defined as a personal fight, or has it? You don't know me and you don't know most Lubavitchers

"If you think there is something wrong with decrying an issue that many in am yisroel were confused about until he came along because of their respect to YOUR rebbe (even though you have NO respect toward him--and thats not just you, but most lubavitchers, if not all), and explained that this is wrong, and its not acceptable. He did this even though he did NOT involve himselves in communal affairs at the time, at the risk of personal harm--not to mention how much the Rebbe and his followers deeply hated him afterward."

Firstly, you've distorted history once again. He was involved in communal affairs right in the heat of the Moshiach campaign. In fact, according to the Yated obituary {http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5762/chayesara/CS62aravshachbio.htm}, 1989 was the year that he founded Degel Hatorah and that throughout all the years he acted as the "Torah community's navigator." He also had time throughout the 80's to start Yated Ne'eman and She'aris Yisroel.

Further, it's hard to say that he was acting as he did because of people's respect for the Rebbe, unless you mean to destroy their respect for the Rebbe: "He utilized every opportunity to warn of the danger in being swept up by the Messianic fervor and by the leader who stood at its head."

It also makes me question how you can be "faithful to pure Torah outlook" and still retain your respect for the Rebbe, which would necessarily include a "closeness with counterfeit messianism"

arbiter said...

"asking the STUPID question if it defies emunah, when, in fact, it actually defies the metzios defined by halacha! So, if you don't believe in halacha, yes, you defy the ikrei emunah!"

I don't think many Poskim- including Rav Elyashiv- would agree with this.

{Oh, and just another case where you've launched an attack [unequivocally] at me personally}

arbiter said...

Try Googling Sokolovsky:

"We of Chabad-Lubavitch of Oregon were shocked to read about the beliefs of Ariel Sokolovsky in the Haaretz Newspaper. His beliefs are heretical and anathema to Torah.

Ariel Sokolovsky has no position in the Chabad Lubavitch movement. He is not a rabbi certified by our movement. He cannot possibly be described as a Chabad activist. He acts in numerous ways in complete contradiction of the Shulchan Aruch - The Code of Jewish Law.

His blasphemous blog is his own private initiative, just as the concubine blog that advocates ideas inimical to Torah and Jewish Tradition. His blog is not part of the Chabad web system. The statement by Haaretz that it is a Chabad website is false.

We strongly protest any assertion that he has any connection to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.

Rabbi Moshe Wilhelm
Regional Director
Chabad-Lubavitch of Oregon"

Anonymous said...

I don't think many Poskim- including Rav Elyashiv- would agree with this.

I am talking about the Rambam. See the halachos in Hilchos Malachim that I alluded to above. It is not possible to view the Rebbe as the Messiah according to him, certainly not according to the Rebbe's interpretation of it.

Calling a question stupid does not mean the one who asked it is stupid.

I repeat that I never heard Rav Shach call Lubavitch the spawn of Satan (joke), or refer to yayin touched by a Lubavitcher as yayin nesech.

I do understand that the Rebbe was unique in that he was the only Rebbe about whom so many great Roshei Yeshiva (I don't understand why Lubavitchers harp only on Rav Shach) had so many questions about on his PERSON (as opposed to shitos). While there are different minhagim in klal yisreol, and as much as the klal respects those minhagim even when they clash, this is the only Rebbe about whom so many greats had questions about on a personal level.

I do not insult him because I do not know the issues well enought. More, I did not know the Rebbe--with exception to his learning some of his sichos. I am obliged to give a tzadik the benefit of the doubt, as well--and I believe you owe the same to Rav Shach.

The latter obviously did have problems with him, as did so many. And he was apparently outspoken about it. Just as he was with other issues including RYBS, maskilim, etc. That does not mean he was not l'shem shomayim or, that according at least to his tradition, he was incorrect.

I am capable of juggling the pure Torah views of my leaders while maintaining respect toward yiddin and its leader because my leaders felt that one should, even though they expressed their views extremely strongly so that one should not make mistakenly believe that your Rebbe is Moshiach.

I still do not understand why your Rebbe did not try to talk to him or take the critiscm of so many other great Torah leaders.

I read with interest Rabbi Wilhelm's article. Like Sokolovsky, I wonder why it took three years to write this. Furthermore, Sokolovsky is representative of many.

By apocyphal stories about the Rebbe, I include such "facts" as that he studied in Sorbonne, was a better student than RYBS (even though the Rebbe was not a student there), and that R' Boruch Ber would cry about missing the opportunity to teach him (he was in Berlin at the time this story took place), not to mention his helping Oppenheimer in the Manhattan Project. The list just goes on. There are not any examples on the yeshiva side where so many things are just made things up like this. Rav Shach's hasmada is apparent on the pages of his works, not to mention R' Ahron's. Rav Hutner's originality is apparent in his works, too. I read a book entitled To know and to care, or something like that, about the Rebbe. The stories were written with such generalizations, it lead me to wonder. The Rebbe is heralded as the greatest torah scholar of that generation (really? Says who? ), those who do not engage in chassidus always end up off the derech, etc. Its just questionable.

arbiter said...

"I don't think many Poskim- including Rav Elyashiv- would agree with this."

There was a recent case in Bes Din in Yerushalayim where he was no consulted regarding this very matter {Moshiach}. To spare my identity, I can't go into further detail.

"t is not possible to view the Rebbe as the Messiah according to him, certainly not according to the Rebbe's interpretation of it."

Have you been through the entire Likkutei Sichos that you can make this generalization?

Logic tells me that this assertion is incorrect, and a little later {maybe not today}, I can show you why Likkutei Sichos wouldn't agree either.

Logic says it's incorrect because the Rebbe constantly said that Moshiach should come now. He didn't say tomorrow or soon {She'hu L'achar Zman}, he wanted Moshiach to come today, this instant. Considering there is no Jewish state with a Jewish king and there are no physical wars of Amalek, it's very hard if not impossible to conceptualize how the Rebbe embraced such an opinion that Moshiach will come instantaneously. Obviously the Rebbe held that Moshiach can come in a way of peace and that the Milchoma can be a spiritual Milchoma, conquering the world with Yiddishkeit.

I would also pose the same logical question to you, and I'm asking this with all due respect, out of sincere interest: How can you anticipate Moshiach's arrival without what you've made so fundamental; a Jewish KING? It's no secret that the Yeshiva world doesn't believe in the existence of a Jewish state preceding Geulah, so if you take the word king literally, how can Moshiach ever come?

"Furthermore, Sokolovsky is representative of many."

You keep saying many without providing any factual evidence. I can only think of one other such person in America and he's running his own show, definitely not a Sokolovsky follower. Even Sokolovsky has said that this other guy is a bit extreme :).

"By apocyphal stories about the Rebbe, I include such "facts" as..."

Firstly, none of these facts are Halacha Moshe Misinai. So what if someone said the Rebbe learned in Sorbonne and he didn't, do you think most Lubavitchers know the difference between that and some technical college in Paris? If it's not true, can you really hold it against them?

Secondly, I don't know how this came up when we were discussing the Maran.

"was a better student than RYBS (even though the Rebbe was not a student there)"

I don't think this story has anything to do with Sorbonne {or that there was any such story like that Bichlal}. It happened in the University of Berlin. I'm not even sure RYBS studied in Sorbonne at all.

"There are not any examples on the yeshiva side where so many things are just made things up like this."

Um, yeh, right. No one has ever made up stories or exaggerated Gedolim's Tzidkus, Hasmada, Anava or Mesirus Nefesh. Every story attributed to some Gadol is factual and unadulterated by their loyal constituents.

I don't buy that and I doubt you do either.

arbiter said...

Please, the Oilam is still waiting to hear your shocking eye-witness story about the Lubavitcher that bowed down to a picture of the Rebbe.

arbiter said...

My words "was no consulted" above..

Should read "was no DOUBT consulted."

Anonymous said...

There you go, again--calling me a liar. Your personal insults reak of desparation. I will answer when I can, to those who seem to asking sincere questions or who want to know. Those who are using vicious personal insults will not get answers.

arbiter said...

Where did I call you a liar? Stop being so batty...

{"Batty" should not be confused with a vicious personal insult, it is merely a reflection on the responses that you have given in this forum}

arbiter said...

Furthermore, you're entire post is one big Stirah:

If in fact I have used "vicious personal insults" and called you a "liar" to which you say such a questioner "will not get answers," how come you say that you "will answer when I can."

Is it really me who "reaks of desperation"???

Anonymous said...

I meant I thought another individual who posted. Seeing as it is you, now, and that you are on attack mode, without the slightest interest in engaging others intelligently and politely, I probably am better off not wasting my time.

>>Please, the Oilam is still waiting to hear your shocking eye-witness story about the Lubavitcher that bowed down to a picture of the Rebbe.

. . .this is where you called me a liar, again.

Milhouse said...

Mr Anonymous, you still haven't justified your repeated claim that the quotes on Wikipedia come from a Lubav source (not to mention "hate rags distributed by your movement"). ''Horotze leshaker yarchik eiduso''; in this case anyone can instantly look it up and see that you are misrepresenting the truth. Unless you think Avrum Erlich is a Lubav.

As for Soko, if you think he represents the views of any significant segment of Lubavs, you should be able to document that in some way. Perhaps by giving the names of ten or twenty people who share the views he claims to hold. I am telling you that that would be an impossible task, because there aren't twenty people in the world who share these views. The number of "boreinuniks" in the world is statistically equal to zero. They simply do not exist, and if your only proof that they do exist is Soko's own claims then you ought to have the decency and honesty to withdraw the claim. It is a libel against all Lubavs to claim that such a faction exists among them, when it clearly does not, and one who perpetrates such a libel has no ne'emonus.

arbiter said...

Avrum Ehrlich learned in many places, not just Lubavitch. According to his own bio {http://www.avrumehrlich.net/briefprofile.htm he learned in Gush, Yeshivat Nir, Hartman Institute for Advanced Talmudics and then supposedly recieved Semicha in Kfar Chabad and begun his studies in Dayanus at Rumpler Beit Midrash (associated with Satmar Chasidism).

I've was once sitting at a Farbrengen somewhere when he walked in. The guy struck me as a real oddball at the time. The next week I saw his face in the paper. Apparently he teaches Yiddishkeit to Chinese girls somewhere in the Far East.

If his CV is accurate, he's a real academic genius. However, I would dismiss this guy as more of a quack than a Lubavitcher.

Rabbi Ariel Sokolovsky said...

B"H
To clarify my beliefs for "arbiter" and others
Whenever Moshiach or a tzadik is called

"G-d" (as mentioned in the Tanach,and dicussed in Talmud ,Midrashim, Tanya , other Sifrei Chassidus, Rebbe's Sichos etc.)
it is meant as a metaphor . It doesn't mean that world was created by someone standing in the midle of tohu ve bou in a silk kapotah.
It doesn't mean that when neviim saw Hashem they saw him in the Rebbe's image.
I challenge anyone to find a quote where I wrote the opposite.

Anonymous said...

>>Mr Anonymous, you still haven't justified your repeated claim that the quotes on Wikipedia come from a Lubav source (not to mention "hate rags distributed by your movement"). ''Horotze leshaker yarchik eiduso''; in this case anyone can instantly look it up and see that you are misrepresenting the truth. Unless you think Avrum Erlich is a Lubav.

I thank Arbiter for stating:

>>and then supposedly recieved Semicha in Kfar Chabad

>>I've was once sitting at a Farbrengen somewhere when he walked in.

These are two justifications for my firm belief that Mr. Ehrlich is Lubavitch. And why I believe he is biased. Even if here a "quack," as some seem to always state when they deal with someone who looks like a "real oddball," that makes his trustworthiness with respect to what Rav Shach said even lower.

I am not sure you know what libel means. I also do not appreciate your apologetics with respect to Sokolovsky and his ilk. Arbiter noted a similar phenomenon with respect to non-meshichists and the way they downgrade the ubiquoutous presencse of meshichisten throughout the Lubavitch camp. It is not amusing, and damages your credibility, serverely.

Once again, I appreciate Arbiter's honesty.

Anonymous said...

>>Um, yeh, right. No one has ever made up stories or exaggerated Gedolim's Tzidkus, Hasmada, Anava or Mesirus Nefesh. Every story attributed to some Gadol is factual and unadulterated by their loyal constituents.

They are one thousand percent true. Besides, you missed my point: no one MAKES THINGS UP OUT OF A HAT like Lubavitchers routinely do until they get caught. I read an article on the net which maintained the Rebbe was a greater student in the University of Berlin than RYBS. The Rebbe was not a student and never took tests in the U of B.

Anonymous said...

Now that we have the esteemed Rabbi Solovsky on this thread, lets ask him straight out: How many people do you know believe what you believe about the Rebbe?

arbiter said...

Excuse me, I didn't give any credence or belief to Friedman's research. I think it's biased, incomplete, unsubstantiated, inaccurate and trivial at worst. Besides, there is plenty of testimony against his research.

"The Rebbe and the Rav" video:
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=527033

"The Rebbe in Berlin" video:
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=529492

I wouldn't go defending an article I've never seen, so please try to bring the link to that article where they said the Rebbe was a better student than RYBS.

"These are two justifications for my firm belief that Mr. Ehrlich is Lubavitch. And why I believe he is biased."

He's definitely associated with Lubavitch. You can't write a book called 'The Messiah of Brooklyn' without a bit of personal experience. Considering he's from Sydney, Lubavitch might have just been his first exposure to Yiddishkeit, but he certainly doesn't identify as a Lubavitcher today in practice or affiliation. There's no doubt he's hung around Lubavitch. However, considering the choice of topic and scope, it cannot be said that his intent is to further the Lubavitch cause nor pervert someone's supporting statements just to vilify the Rebbe.

I think it's really futile arguing about his credence though, why not just get a copy of his treasured magnum opus and see for ourselves where he got the Maran quote?

Also, I believe the Wikipedia by virtue of the fact that it's too nice and neutral and doesn't really get down into the controversy that this man was delved in. I find it to be overly favorable and sympathetic towards his side, thus leading me to believe that that quote wasn't contested and in all likelihood, true.

arbiter said...

"Now that we have the esteemed Rabbi Solovsky on this thread, lets ask him straight out: How many people do you know believe what you believe about the Rebbe?"

Why not instead of asking him ask the rest of Lubavitch? Or to make it easier, Sokolovsky, why don't you provide us with some NAMES of your co-believers so that we can call them and verify their sympathies for you cause?

Anonymous said...

>>Also, I believe the Wikipedia by virtue of the fact that it's too nice and neutral and doesn't really get down into the controversy that this man was delved in. I find it to be overly favorable and sympathetic towards his side, thus leading me to believe that that quote wasn't contested and in all likelihood, true.

Overly sympathetic? The fact that the article was originally devoted to the "controversy" about the Rebbe is amazing Wow, you ARE jaded.

Anonymous said...

. . .And your sources as far asRav Shach is concerned is probably jaded, too

arbiter said...

"devoted"???

The article was about him and his positions. It had his life story, rabbinical career, political life and his family bio. There was a single section in the entire article about the "opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe."

Also, it wasn't such a small matter of contention that he had with the Rebbe, it was an essential part of his life work. Even Rav Elya Svei recongized this importance in the Maran's Avodah that he didn't fail to skip the fact while giving his Hesped at BMG {http://www.famousrabbis.com/shach.htm}.

And then here are translations of excerpts from Rav Shach's letters (printed in Mechtavim v'Ma'amorim volume 3, pages 100-102).

"He [the Rebbe Menachem Mendel] speaks in lofty terms about the secrets of Torah as though he understands even what is revealed, and his followers have reached the lowest level, to speak things that are forbidden to say or even to hear; to designate the building they've built for their leader with the name "Third Temple". And they've shamelessly done things that our fathers would never have even imagined.
"For this, I see it as my responsibility to warn (for the many people who can't properly distinguish between right and wrong) how we should separate from them and their multitudes, and HaShem should send us quickly Moshiach Tzidkainu, and not test us with false messiahs"
"I have heard that in the yeshiva there are many who have been distracted by the study of books of the chassidus of Chabad. This isn't according to the tradition of our teachers and it is better to learn Sha'arei Teshuva l'Rebbainu Yona, Mesilas Yesharim, Nefesh Hachaim and similar mussar seforim. For more than this there is no need and [on the contrary] it can cause more harm than good. But especially the sichos of Chabad, that today contain things that are forbidden to hear (including) many words of kefira therefore it is necessary to warn about this - but to do it intelligently."

arbiter said...

You know what, you're right. The more that I think about it, the more sure I am that Lubavitch was the man's sole motivation and communal affair.

In fact, I'm sure that his entire motivation behind personally creating Degel Hatorah and Yated Ne'eman was because he was so embittered by no one else's concern over the "Lubavitch problem" and their acceptance of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a Tzaddik and Gadol. Also, it's a well known fact that She'aris Yisroel was set up because the Maran Passulled Landau's Hechsher. To me it seems like his entire Hisaskus Tziburis was just to attack Lubavitch. Even as this guy was suffering and in a weakened state of health, he has such "Mesirus Nefesh" to do everything in his means to try to destroy Lubavitch.

Is it any wonder why he's despised? The man had such a vile contempt towards Lubavitch that he was willing to kill himself over it!

arbiter said...

"Wow, you ARE jaded."

Is there any way not to receive this as an insult?

Anonymous said...

In fact, I'm sure that his entire motivation behind personally creating Degel Hatorah and Yated Ne'eman was because he was so embittered by no one else's concern over the "Lubavitch problem" and their acceptance of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a Tzaddik and Gadol. Also, it's a well known fact that She'aris Yisroel was set up because the Maran Passulled Landau's Hechsher. To me it seems like his entire Hisaskus Tziburis was just to attack Lubavitch. Even as this guy was suffering and in a weakened state of health, he has such "Mesirus Nefesh" to do everything in his means to try to destroy Lubavitch.

Is it any wonder why he's despised? The man had such a vile contempt towards Lubavitch that he was willing to kill himself over it!

vile? What, that he rightfully states what he writes about the so-called third temple of the Lubavitchers? GUY? You are doing to Rav Shach the very wrong you accuse of him of doing to your Rebbe. Again.

Does that mean I should despise YOU?!

He clearly felt this was a matter of immense concern. You may not know better to at least understand his perspective. But how could you talk this way? You know exactly how you would react if I or anyone else would talk like this about the Rebbe. How could you have such a double standard?

Anonymous said...

The article was about him and his positions. It had his life story, rabbinical career, political life and his family bio. There was a single section in the entire article about the "opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe."

There was an emormously apologetic tone filled with Lubavitch "answers" to Rav Shach's problems with Lubavitch, originally. It was inappropriate and thankfully edited. Imagine spending so much time writing about Rav Shach's problems with Lubavitch on a Lubavitch article. That is all I am saying.

I would add that I see very little "vile" hatred toward the Rebbe, and there is nothing wrong with protesting the ignorance and stupidity of those who think the Rebbe is Moshiach vadai even though he died--which goes not only against the Rambam but also the Rebbe's writings.

arbiter said...

"What, that he rightfully states what he writes about the so-called third temple of the Lubavitchers?"

Huh, did he mean "Beis Hamikdosh Sheb'Bavel?" The Rebbe said that, not "Lubavitchers."

"You know exactly how you would react if I or anyone else would talk like this about the Rebbe. How could you have such a double standard?"

Because HE spoke this way about the Rebbe.

"Imagine spending so much time writing..."

I think that's more honest than his apologist followers today who try to cover up his actions. Let's not kid ourselves, his sole motivation at the end of his life was to destroy Lubavitch. That's the reason why he founded three of his flagship organizations, Shearis Yisroel, Degel Hatorah and the Yated Ne'eman. It would be a crying shame to bury his life's work.

Anonymous said...

>>Because HE spoke this way about the Rebbe.

Got it. So that's your justification for your double standard: he started it (according to you), wahhhh.

In that case, I heard from HaGaon HaRav Yonah Lazar, shlit"a of Passaic that the Rebbe insulted the Chazon Ish b'farhesya. Does that mean I can now insult him?

(Of course not, you cannot insult another Jew. Especially now that he's dead. But you would maintain that I can according to your childish logic. Admit that you are wrong, its such a shame to see you reduce yourself to such childish behavior).


>>I think that's more honest than his apologist followers today who try to cover up his actions. Let's not kid ourselves, his sole motivation at the end of his life was to destroy Lubavitch. That's the reason why he founded three of his flagship organizations, Shearis Yisroel, Degel Hatorah and the Yated Ne'eman. It would be a crying shame to bury his life's work.

You are so full of hate. His life work was Torah. He went out against those who went against it. He felt Lubavitch went against the Torah. End of Story. He did the same thing to kibbutzniks and chilonim when neccessary, too. Its just amazing what hatred did to you.

arbiter said...

"Got it. So that's your justification for your double standard: he started it (according to you), wahhhh."

I didn't say he started it first. I have no idea who started it first {although, as I'm sure you could imagine, I think I know the answer}.

"His life work was Torah."

Got it. He felt that his obligation to Torah was to destroy Lubavitch. Which is why he founded those Torah organizations and killed himself over it. It's noteworthy of him because frankly, no one else who cared about Torah really cared much about the Lubavitch problem.

"Especially now that he's dead."

I'm 100% with you on this, let's not drudge up a dead man's mistakes.

{Don't blame me for this one, let's not forget how the whole thing started with people calling the Rebbe myopic, inciter of Sinas Chinam, rife with anger, on a rambling tirade, Baal Machlokes, reframer of a simple issue, incorrect because of old age, manipulated, gives irrelevant answers... as well as people claiming that no one in the world hated the Rebbe and Lubavitch}

Anonymous said...

>>Got it. He felt that his obligation to Torah was to destroy Lubavitch.

That is not what I wrote. Please read it again carefully. Thank you.


>>It's noteworthy of him because frankly, no one else who cared about Torah really cared much about the Lubavitch problem.

I wrote that this is not the case, including such leaders like Rav Hutner and R' Ahron Kotler, z"l.

>>I'm 100% with you on this, let's not drudge up a dead man's mistakes.

I did not drudge up your dead Rebbe's mistakes. Have the courtesy to do the same.

>>calling the Rebbe myopic, inciter of Sinas Chinam, rife with anger, on a rambling tirade, Baal Machlokes, reframer of a simple issue, incorrect because of old age, manipulated, gives irrelevant answers...

This is all true. And I did not drudge it up because I would not drudge up the mistakes of a dead man. Got it? Good. Certainly you are full of sinas chinam (you justify it, but that does not change its character), are reframing issues (where do I even begin), and inciting hatred against great men.

>>as well as people claiming that no one in the world hated the Rebbe and Lubavitc

Never even saw this.

One more thing: believing in moshiach--like every Jew MUST do--does not mean that you have to believe someone IS moshiach. Moreover, if one did not fight against amalek (according to the Rebbe!), he cannot be moshiach vadai. The idea of 77 BEING the beis hamikdosh b'mkomo is probably one of the dumbest ideas expressed in the Jewish world in the 20th century. Lamentably, its still going on today. And it ought to stop. If you know better, you should try to fix it up around you.

arbiter said...

"That is not what I wrote. Please read it again carefully. Thank you."

No, it's not what you wrote. It's a conjecture that I made based on what you wrote and a documented "Torah source" that I found on the internet.

"I wrote that this is not the case, including such leaders like Rav Hutner and R' Ahron Kotler, z"l."

Granted. But I'm talking more along the lines of Agudas Yisroel.

"you...are reframing issues (where do I even begin)."

Huh? Wasn't that the point of this whole thing? Everyone thinks the other guy is reframing issues.

"The idea of 77 BEING the beis hamikdosh b'mkomo is probably one of the dumbest ideas expressed in the Jewish world in the 20th century."

Saying such a thing is a bona fide insult to the REBBE. This was the Rebbe's Sicha, not a creation of Chassidim in any way, shape or form. You have explicitly tried* to disgrace the Rebbe, something which you have thus far denied being guilty of.

*"Tried" because no Lubavitcher gives a hoot and because no one has said anything serious to counter the Sicha {it was A"P Nigleh} that I should think it's a silly concept. The cynics just laugh.

Anonymous said...

>>Saying such a thing is a bona fide insult to the REBBE. This was the Rebbe's Sicha, not a creation of Chassidim in any way, shape or form. You have explicitly tried* to disgrace the Rebbe, something which you have thus far denied being guilty of.

I would have to read the sicha, but in my mind, such a statment is so far removed by reality and halacha that I, as someone who respects the Rebbe, would never believe a talmid chochom of such proportions would have established that.

There is one beis hamikdash. There is one place where it belongs. The building of the beis hamikdash--obviously--did not happen. If you say that the Rebbe wrote this YOU are insulting him, and are paying enormous homage to Rav Shach's apparent presicent wisdom.

It is not POSSIBLE to suggest such a thing a"p nigleh.

>>Granted. But I'm talking more along the lines of Agudas Yisroel.

Both are members of the Agudah. I should add R' Yaakov Kamenetzky--another prominent member of the Agudah. This is not about destroying Lubavitch. If the Rebbe actually established that his abode is the beis hamikdash, they would have the affirmative obligation to hit much stronger than they did. And if you show me a sicha that established the same, I would also come out very strongly against it. I am positive Yonah Lazar, shlit"a would, too.

Anonymous said...

>>something which you have thus far denied being guilty of.

I never insulted the Rebbe. I would have to see the sicha. If I were to read that he actually wrote such a innanely stupid comment like that, I would have to criticize his enormous error so that the people know--with explanations, obviously, as this issue is obviuous.

arbiter said...

"There is one beis hamikdash. There is one place where it belongs. The building of the beis hamikdash--obviously--did not happen. If you say that the Rebbe wrote this YOU are insulting him, and are paying enormous homage to Rav Shach's apparent presicent wisdom.

It is not POSSIBLE to suggest such a thing a"p nigleh....

If the Rebbe actually established that his abode is the beis hamikdash,"

Ah, so you're not SO familiar with the Rebbe's works? Did you ever believe that there might be other things written in Likkutei Sichos than the two or three pages that you are familiar with in #16?

As a matter of fact, you are prematurely criticizing Lubavitchers for a belief that you can't even categorize. You're criticizing a Sicha which you have never read. Memeilah Rav Shach MIGHT have actually glanced it over before shouting about it, but you have no idea what was said and you've already pretentiously called it stupid and erroneous.

{For the record, neither the Rebbe nor the Chassidim have ever alleged that 770 is the Beis Hamikdosh Hashlishi. That wasn't the point of the Sicha nor was it the terminology used- he called 770 a "Mikdash Me'at." And anyone educated on the "controversies of Lubavitch" should know that that wasn't even the point of contention in the Sicha.}

arbiter said...

Some historical context for the unknowing and I've ascertained this:

Shach might have been a member of Agudas Yisroel, but when he became so convinced that they weren't going to back him against Lubavitch, that's when he broke away and founded Degel Hatorah. He may not have been outright against other Chassidiyus, but he felt himself forced to act because of their refusal to back him and to discontinue their support of Lubavitch, that he founded Degal Hatorah to represent the "Litvishe" point of view. And, because Hamodia was running advertisements and articles for Chabad {which it continues to do to this day}, he needed to start his own competing newspaper to run his opposition against Lubavitch.

arbiter said...

For clarity's sake, please tell me who this R' Yonah Lazar from Passaic is. What is his position?

And who is Dr. Jonathan Lazar DDS from Passaic? Same person/related?

Anonymous said...

My house is a mikdash me'at too.

In another flagrant attempt to misrepresent my views, you have lied about what I wrote. I always qualified my comments with IF or stated that I would have first have to read the sicha as I cannot believe the Rebbe WOULD have written such a thing.

Thankfully, my prescient wisdom is vindicated.

Your dishonesty and hatred it going too far.

Anonymous said...

The idea that it is the third bais hamikdash IS stupid and erroneous.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe Rav Shach shouted anything. I do not see his words as being nearly as tempermental as the Rebbe's.

guravitzer said...

Then you have not heard him speak. And as discussed ad absurdum here, it makes no difference. There is no issue in Middos in any way with speaking with passion, especially when it comes to an issue of Torah.

Anonymous said...

So, Rav Shach did nothing wrong. And all the disgusting things k'mat all of Lubavitch said about him is unjustified.

Anonymous said...

can you put the files in one so i can download it at once

Anonymous said...

Is there a way you can put up the sicha so you can download the files at once?