Sunday, September 14, 2008

"Mussar" Bombshell!


(Rabbonim today have nothing on RHP's robe!)

What some of us knew was very, very common these days among any darshan and mashgiach seems to have been going a long time, according to the article in Mishpacha this week. According to Yehuda Leib Frank, son of the famed Rav of Yerushalayim, who was sent from Eretz Yisroel to learn in Da Mir and lived ah tir tzu ah tir to Rav Yeruchem Levovitz, zt"l, famed mashgiach of Mir, Tanya, the magnum opus of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad Chassidic movement, was the primary source for RYL's discourses at the Yeshivah. It should be of no surprise to any of you, but I believe it'll be denied by the family, all ardent misnagdim to chassidus. After all, if THE mashgiach used Tanya as his primary source then why not go to the source itself, rather than a watered down version of the source meant to conceal it and make it look like some original? We know how Rav Dessler's family denies his documented connection to Chassidus and Chassidim, even after a large stack of letters was found recently further attesting to that fact.

Which leads me to wonder as follows: If so, if a simple bochur in Yeshivah at the time knew that the mashgiach's was heavy into Tanya why then did Reb Chatzkel, Reb Yeruchem's replacement in Mir and later Rav Dessler's replacement in Ponovezh, why was he so against Rav Dessler's neo-Chassidic shmuessen and writings? Everybody knows that Reb Chatzkel, himself from a chassidic home, was very upset at what Rav Dessler was teaching, claiming that it's not "unzer derech." But if everybody knew that basing whole shmuessen on Tanya WAS unzer derech why go and revise history at the expense of Rav Dessler?

96 comments:

gavriel said...

As usual you make statements that have very little basis in truth.
For example:'We know how Rav Dessler's family denies his documented connection to Chassidus and Chassidim, even after a large stack of letters was found recently further attesting to that fact. '

'WE KNOW' Speak for yourself.I don't think anybody denies that Rav Dessler incorporated chasidic thought in his sefer.

So typical of your bombastic nonsense.You talk a lot about 'we know', but following the blog I know that you are quite an ignoramus, whether in basic Torah learning or chasidic thought.

Anonymous said...

"We Know" means the the tzeig wants to perpetuate the lubavith propaganda to fellow blogers , if you disagree open your own blog or learn Musser it is ellull

Hirshel Tzig said...

Gavriel

incorporated? is that what they say? you just proved my point. But go ahead and knock me, that'll REALLY change reality.

anonymous 8:33
we know means that we see many letters and writings in his own handwriting. Not something you would understand.

Anonymous said...

Hershel- See letter in Reb Shea Geldzaher's Emunas Yehoshua about his shver- R Dessler's- connection to Chassidus, Chaba'd etc.

Hirshel Tzig said...

I know all about the letter, I'm speaking about his son and grandson, not son-in-law.

We're getting sort of off the point here, how about some of you geniuses talk about Reb Yeruchem and his Tanya?

schneur said...

I am a bit confused about what you are driving at.
Firstly who denies the validity of the Tanya Kadisha?
Secondly as to going to the source -why don't Chabad chassdiim go to the source of the Tanya (as it is noted on its Shaar blatt and Oral Chabad messorah) the Sifre Maharal of Prague and the Shaloh hakodesh.And you can say the same there too why not go to the source too and why not go to the sources of modern Kabbalah study ie the Zohar and the Kisve HoAri ? Why not study those seforim instead of the Tanya.
Thirdy in essence you are critical of the Zaddik Reb Yeruchem , because if you what you are saying is correct, why didn"t he instiute the straight study of tanya in Da Mir or in other yeshivas he was connected with (Radin, Kelm)
Well perhaps each generation has its own requirements and needs and perhaps R. Levovitz thought that Tanya was not appropriate for the Mirer generation.
I also think its a tad simplistic to imply that seforim like Mesillas yeshorim, Chovev Halevavos and the teachings of Reb Yisroel of Salant played no role in the Mussar of Reb Yeruchem .And from what I have read about him HIS VERY BEING was his most powerful tool.
Finally if we were to live in a true world where Emes not political affilaition counted, many Chabad people would admit to the lack of relavance the Tanya has to todays young man and women even in Chabad. From what i have seen of them most would do much better studying the works of Rabbiner Samson R. Hirsch , Ramchal and rabbi Areye kaplan.
When a bachur reaches a certain madreiga he can commence study of the tanya. Correct me if I am wrong this was the policy in the first 4 generations of Chabad and until generation 7 it still was more restrictive than today.

Anonymous said...

The whole this with Reb Yeruchem learning Tanya is unsubstantiated. The words of some third-rate journalist in a third-rate magazine do not mean its true.

I learned Tanya. I learned Reb Yeruchem's Daas Torah. Don't see any connection.

snag said...

Mishpacha magazine -

"Since Yehudah Leib's quarters were separated from Rav Yerucham's only with a wooden board, Yehudah Leib was able to listen to the mashgiach preparing his shmeussem, discovering that one of the essential sources he used was Tanya, the founding text of Chassidus."

Hirshel Tzig - "Tanya, the magnum opus of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad Chassidic movement, was the primary source for RYL's discourses at the Yeshivah."

Notice Hirshel's subtle change. While R. Frank allegedly learned that Tanya was "one of the essential sources" RYL used, Hirshel, with his great keyach hachiddush, goes ahead and makes it into "the primary source for RYL's discourses at the Yeshivah."

"if THE mashgiach used Tanya as his primary source then why not go to the source itself, rather than a watered down version of the source meant to conceal it and make it look like some original?"

1) Why do you repeat that Tanya was his primary source when that is not what the magazine says ?

2) Not everyone is on the madreiga of a manhig like R. Yeruchem, to handle an sefer like Tanya that is not according to Litvishe mesayreh, and be milakeit the acceptable parts from the other parts.

"if a simple bochur in Yeshivah at the time knew that the mashgiach's was heavy into Tanya why then did Reb Chatzkel, Reb Yeruchem's replacement in Mir and later Rav Dessler's replacement in Ponovezh, why was he so against Rav Dessler's neo-Chassidic shmuessen and writings?"

1) Who says that every bochur knew ? That bochur knew because he lived at R. Yeruchem's house, not every bochur lived there obviously.

Sometimes a godol learns things outside the standard curriculum for reasons such as 'da ma shetashiv' or otherwise, but that doesn't mean that the hamon am is allowed or supposed to do the same.

2) Nireh li sheyeish lomar that Reb Chatzkel was against R. Dessler because he used Tanya too much and/or parts that Reb Chatzkel held were 'not acceptable for snags. Sometimes a limited amount or some parts of something are acceptable, but not more.

P.S. Re "Tanya, the founding text of Chassidus.", in the Mishpacha article - I think that is not correct. While Tanya is an important early Chassidic text, to call it the founding text of Chassidus is, nireh li, not correct. The Besht didn't write it, it came only some years after the founding of Chassidus. Perhaps they meant to write "Tanya, the founding text of Lubavitcher Chassidus." ? That would seem more correct, though still perhaps lacking, as the expression 'founding text' to me means that the movement was founded based on/from it, not that the movement was founded and it was written only later.

Hirshel Tzig said...

the cahnge from essential to primary was unintentional. although I did have the page in front of me I didn't pay that much attention to the words. I stand corrected, but the point stands as well.

when I said founding text of Chassidus I meant Chabad Chassidus.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to note that in the book about Reb Chatzkel ZT"L there are numerous stories of the tremendous Siyatta Dishmaya that directed Reb Chatzkel in making what turned out to be life / death decisions ( which were sometimes quite unpopular among the bochrim) which lead to the survival of those in Mir Shanghai during WW2. I have no doubt that these stories are all 100% true as Reb Chatzkel was a true Zaddik.

What I do find interesting is that many of these stories border on idolization. If one were to take any of these stories and replace the Lubavitcher Rebbe for Reb Chatzkel - that would certainly be the charge. Or were one to say a Chassidish Rebbe of any lineage had his forebear come to him in a dream and tell him how to proceed in such a situation it would be quickly discounted at best, or the target of denunciations as not being the way to make decisions in matters of Pikuach Nefesh.

Anonymous said...

i have spent the last couple of hours doing through pieces in both the works of reb yerucham(daas Chochmoh umussar and daas torah)
i challenge even the most fervent chabazker to demonstrate 5 cases where the tanya has served as a source!!

Anonymous said...

Hirshel Tzig said...
the cahnge from essential to primary was unintentional. although I did have the page in front of me I didn't pay that much attention to the words. I stand corrected, but the point stands as well.

when I said founding text of Chassidus I meant Chabad Chassidus

thats because you only recogniza chabad as being chasidus...

Hirshel Tzig said...

says you.

Anonymous said...

"Tanya, the magnum opus of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad Chassidic movement, was the primary source for RYL's discourses at the Yeshivah."

LOL!!! That is the funniest joke I have heard in years! Its always good to get a good laugh.
But if you really wanna know the truth.... his shmuezen are based on likutei maharan and bnei yissoschar! (with a pinch of Zohar)

My goodness Tzig are you really that dumb?!

Hirshel Tzig said...

anonymous 3:38

read the post, dimwit, this is from Rav Hirsh Pesach Frank's son, a devout Litvak.

Anonymous said...

hes very reliable, thats why he's doing WHAT exactly for a living?

Anonymous said...

"Tanya, the magnum opus of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad Chassidic movement, was the primary source for RYL's discourses at the Yeshivah."

Tzieg, this is why people will always call chabad a cult. You are willing to believe anything that falls in line with what they feed you, even if it is clear as day for everyone to see, dilusional. Everyone can open the sefer up and see for themselfs that what you are claiming is a pure joke. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that Harry Potter is based on Marcus Lehman. Only someone who WANTS to believe that will, everyone else can see the obvious. Tzig did you ever open Reb Yerucham's shmuzen? Go thru a couple of them. See what a fool you are making of yourself. Then pull this post fast, before more people realise how your brain works (or doesnt work).

Hirshel Tzig said...

I invite all of you Litvak zealots to write letters to Mishpacha and Yeruchem Landesman and tell THEM what kind of fools they are.

Hirshel Tzig said...

he must be an old man now, what is he doing for a living, do tell!

Chnyock said...

everybody knows that mishpacha magazine is run by a bunch of jerks. remember the interviews with the "leading rabbonim" who they allowed to be shechted the next week in the letters to the editor on a fist name basis, due to reader outrgae? anything to sell the rag, its just a fancy yated...

Chnyock said...

WHAT HAS HE DONE WITH HIS LIFE? WHAT ARE HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

Anonymous said...

AGAV
TELZ IS LEIBIDIK AGAIN...

Anonymous said...

If i had to guess it would be the influence of R Shach who was very close to R chatzkel who made sure of the zero tolerence 4 tanya

anon2 said...

You left out Telz as well. The Tlezer Rav, R. Yehudah Leib (Father of REMB), who innovated Sheurei Da'as, also used the Tanya in his she'urei da'as, and referred to it eplicitly as "Tanya Kadisha" - some 50 years before Chabad used that term (as far as I know, since I never saw it referred to as such by the Rebbe or others until the 60s or 70s.

Anonymous said...

Tzig said:
"I invite all of you Litvak zealots to write letters to Mishpacha and Yeruchem Landesman and tell THEM what kind of fools they are."

Does this answer you posting this silly post?
Do you realise how IRRATIONAL it is to actualy say and BELIEVE (which you imply you do) that Reb Yerucham's shmuzen are based primarily on Tanya? You obviously dont realise how foolish it sounds. Do you realise that many of us can, and have studied his shmuzen enough to realize that the shmuezin SPEAK FOR THEMSELvES as proof to anyone that reads them that what your statement is redicules. I challenge you, or anyone else that believes this (I dont think there is anyone else) to give ONE EXAMPLE from the shmuezen to proove your point? Forget that silly example of Harry Potter (4:00:00 PM), imagine saying that Shlita's sichos are based on Shav Shmaitsa, does that sound rational? So why do you keep insisting on saying this nonsense? Is it because you just cant admit what we all know, that you made a mistake?

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:08:00 PM, Where in shiurei Da'as? I would like to look this up?

Anonymous said...

No arichusor hispaylus necessary. This is regular standard misnagdishe hypocrisy.

Off Topic: I'm still waiting for a restaurant or a hotel to advertise: "Litvishe shechita..."!

Yom Tov Sheyni

Menashe said...

Why.does.this.matter??

Why are we ALWAYS looking for the haskama of non-chabad rabbonim? If you're confident in your hashkafa than this nonsense doesn't matter. If you're confident in your hashkafa than attacks on others are unnecessary. Let the beauty of chassidus chabad shine on its own - it's quite capable!

Twistelton-Twistelton said...

HT,

While I am not a big expert in Tanya, I did go to a shiur from Rav Moshe Wolfson in Tanya for around a year. And I have spent much more time with Rav Yeruchames shmuzen. Anyone who can make such a claim is either insane or lying. I could believe that Rav Yerucham himself was influenced by Tanya (although I have no reason to say that one way or the other) but the shmuzen have no hint of a connection.

fotheringay-phipps said...

The whole story sounds strange to begin with. What exactly did the guy hear through the walls that enabled him to figure this out? Did he hear R' Yerucham talking to himself, saying "I will now look at the Tanya ..."? Or did he hear R' Yerucham learning Tanya, and recognize it as Tanya based on his own familiarity with the work? Neither seems likely.

Anonymous said...

רמון מצא תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק

Shmuel said...

I have to back up both Twisty and Fotheringay.
The case sounds weak.
Also quite amazing to use a magazine as proof of an issue of substance.
Last but not least, I wonder if the Tzig even bothered to open up R'Yeruchems sefer to see if it appeared likely that Tanya was the basis of his work.More likely that the Tzig dashed to the keyboard with this 'breaking' news.

Dave said...

Tzig Baachi,
Tell me if I got your point,please.K?
Are you trying to say that Sefer Tanya is the 'mother of all knowledge' that the biggest thinkers in the Misnagdic world all stole the ideas without attribution?
That though Telz in the Alteh Heim had a shiur in Tanya, it never caught on??
What exactly is the conspiracy theory you are trying so badly to tell us about in this post and the rest of your blog??

You know, you probably should've opted for Shlichus,if anybody would've taken you, cuz you are really bored and feel so empty that you have the constant need to try and tell us how 'amazing' and 'wonderful' Lubavitch is and 'despicable' and 'loathsome' the Snag is.
That is the problem with people that join new groups and don't have a healthy sense of belonging, they have to try and get others to join to convince themselves that their move was right.
I can't blame you.Had I joined Lubavitch as a young rotzer for whatever reason and than realized how problematic the 'new' place was I'b really want to kick myself.

Fred said...

Indeed a bit more mochin, research etc. But of course does it matter that the rest of Mussar comes from Ben Franklin and the Ramchal who was put into multiple cherems in his lifetime...only to be rehabilitated by RYS?

Anonymous said...

dave,5:49:00 PM.... Gut gezugt!

Anonymous said...

DAve
Explain why did Eliach dedicate almost 1 volume of the Hagoan on all kind of titles that Rabonim wrote on the on the Gra? Is he insecure ?can he bocome a shaliach ? Kach he darkoi Shel Oilam, that you write the perception of outsiders of a person. Especially when that person was arrested twice by that group.

Anonymous said...

Rav Geldzheler wrote what he wrote on his FIL Rav Dessler, to diminish the revisionism of the Ohio Dessler family, on the connection of his FIL to Reb Itche Masmid and his davening in a Chabad Shul in Homiel, since it was the only place in town that was immune from all the isms that was inflicted on the Russian Jewry

Anonymous said...

While we are on the topic, there is a "cute" letter from Shlit"a to R Dessler in igros kodesh, in the years before he was rebbe. I think it's year 5704, i'm not sure, look in the maftaich under tzimtzum. Shlita continues the myth that the nefesh hachaim argues with his rebbe about tzimtzum.

Anonymous said...

anon 12;33
Shoita, Rosho Vegas ruach
Is the Leshem good enough for you on shitas hagra? he argues the same from a different view point

Anonymous said...

Putz, the Leshem doesn't say R Chaim argues with his Rebbe, and I looked up the letter, very cute, the genius of the rebbe shines off the page.

Leiby said...

Anonymous 10:04pm,
'Rav Geldzheler wrote what he wrote on his FIL Rav Dessler, to diminish the revisionism of the Ohio Dessler family, on the connection of his FIL to Reb Itche Masmid and his davening in a Chabad Shul in Homiel, since it was the only place in town that was immune from all the isms that was inflicted on the Russian Jewry'

A)How do you know who is more 'trustworthy', if according to you there is some kind of argument in the family about this?Eh? Happens to be that Rabbi Geldzehler is chasidic so you would expect him to be biased.
B)Basically you are accusing Rabbi Desslers only son (as far as I know at least)of being a liar.Wonderful.Way to go.(since these would be the only two 'parties' involved, the son and son-in-law.Just so happens to be that Rabbi Geldzehler got to know Rabbi Dessler very late in the game, especially that Rav Dessler lived in different countries than his married daughter.
For the record I don't think there is any disagreement in the family, it's a figment of some Lubavitchers spoiling for a fight.
Fooyah!

Anonymous said...

Anybody know where this alleged "Leshem" is, or is it one of those things every "knows" and doesn't exist?

Anonymous said...

The Desslers don't deny, they only omit that part. Look in the letters that Rav Dessler writes on his SIL, He doesn't write that on his son.
Did you see the letter in Hiechel Habesht that Rav Dessler wrote to Rav Hertz that he wants to create a yeshiva to learn Chabad Chasidus and Nigleh as the Lita

Anonymous said...

Everyone thats in the business of knowing this discussion knows the Leshem and if you are a layman learn a little Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and don"t be so arrogant

Anonymous said...

The only arrogant ones here are the Chabadniks, who think R Chaim had the chutzpa to argue with his rebbe because he saw the "light" of chabad.

1) The Leshem never suggested R Chaim argued and disagreed with his Rebbe, the Leshem only said some mekubalim of his day, long after R Chaim, misunderstood the Gra, and doesn't refer to R Chaim by name. And more so, the Leshem himself is meramez that he's not arguing with R Chaim, but agreeing rather with him.

2) Other than this secret Leshem about R Chaim that doesn't exist, the other talmidie and talmidie talmidie of the Gaon disagree with the Leshem's understanding of shitas hagaon, and there isn't even makom to make the mistake that R Chaim and the Gaon argue.

Only chabad has the chutzpa to say R Chaim deliberately argued with his Rebbe.

The layman over is you who learned a bit of the "Real" Shulchan Aruch (not the Reb Yosef Karo version), and decided based on some childish journal article, that the machlokes boils down to a very simplistic understanding of tzimtzum kepeshto, then goes ahead and completely misunderstands the Nefesh Hachaim.

Your ameratzishkeit sounds like the fools on the avrechim email list when they discussed tzimtzum, but as long as you can keep on saying "leshem".

Anonymous said...

Find me proof of Lituanian gedolim that discussed that subject of Tzimtzum differing then the Gra.
So far the only one that differs is Reb Chaim Valoizhner and that is printed not in the Geniza of Cherson and it wasn't invented by Lubavicher Rebbe, And in the lita they are proud to disagree on torah subjects with the Gra as the Chaye Adam and the Mishkenos Yakov writes on Chodosh that in the Lita didn't hold the issur of Chodosh

Anonymous said...

"and that is printed not in the Geniza of Cherson"

Sorry I didn't get the joke and/or have no clue what you are refering to.

"Find me proof of Lituanian gedolim that discussed that subject of Tzimtzum differing then the Gra."

If you would read, you'd understand what I wrote, NOBODY argued with the Gra. There was machlokes as to what the Gaon's shita was, R YI Chaver, and R N Hertz av beis din of Yafo, disagree with the Leshem's understanding of the Gra (actually the leshem disagrees with them). A lot depends on whether or the likut on tzimtzum is actually from the gaon, Leshem says he's almost sure it isn't. R YI Chaver attributes it to the Gaon.

As for R Chaim the leshem did not say he argues with the gaon, all the leshem said was "people" misunderstand the gaon. Shitchium who don't understand R Chaim, "decided" that what he wrote cannot agree with tzimtzum kipshuto. (If the gaon actually held that)

As to your moronic statement about the Chai Adam, R Chaim Volozhin specifically did not give him a haskama on his first sefer precisely because he argued with the gaon. And althogh there were many in Lita who argued with the Gaon, his talmidim never agrued with him. And NOBODY agrued with the Gaon in nistar.

And to say R Chaim had a "third" Shita in tzimtzum, unlike the Gaon and unlike the Chasidim, is idiotic.

Ed said...

To imply he argues with hes teacher is Chutzpah? And to say that what a Talmid Chochom says is idiotic is not?Learn some more please... Now According to you, either the Alter Rebbe is wrong about the Gra or the RCV, either way its a mistake not an argument.The Rebbe chooses to hold that RCV argues with the Gra... Look at the Igres of the Alter Rebbe and See Nefesh Hachaim Sharr Gimmel Perek Gimmel begining,get back to me when you are able to quote.

Burshtein said...

I 'like' when we have a bunch of ignoramasus arguing about 'Tzimzum kipshtoi' or 'lo kipshutoi'
As if the Chbskers or the others have the foggiest notion what it really means.
I don't
At least I'm not kidding myself.
The Chbskers.......
Well, they are always fopping themselves so we''ll let this one get away..

Anonymous said...

Reminds me about when the Rebbe screamed that that he cannot understand why Moshiach had not yey come or about The Frierdiger Rebbe.
As if everything else we understand.
The second we would know everything we would be God.I guess that why some Chbskers think the Rebbe was God

Anonymous said...

Burshtien
What makes you so definite that since you are not a brain surgeon then no doctor in NYU is also a brain surgeon. You are ignorant and wear it as badge of honor, but their are certain people smarter then you and they know.

Anonymous said...

"To imply he argues with hes teacher is Chutzpah?"

To imply he argues on his rebbe muvak, who we know didn't argue with his Rebbe with the slightest, halacha (as is evident about what he wrote about the chai adam) about ikrie emumah mamash, and to say he did that because he learned sifrei chabad is nothing less than chutzpa and arrogance. However I'm not shocked, it is typical of the Chabad "my way is the only way"

"And to say that what a Talmid Chochom says is idiotic is not?"

1) He was a very big man-diamar about toras chabad, when it comes to RCV, he's not a man-diamar at all.

2) I'll reserve judgment about him being a talmid chacham when they publish his chidushim on shas. As chabad themselves has always said you'll see how big he is/was when you'll see his torah on nigleh. I'm waiting.

For those that want to read the letter
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15875&pgnum=52

"Learn some more please... Now According to you, either the Alter Rebbe is wrong about the Gra or the RCV, either way its a mistake not an argument."

I'm sorry, no according to me (and all others) the leshem and RYIC and other talmide hagaon, argue as to what the Gaon held, and they both cite RCV as agreeing with them, though the leshem biderech remez only, so that's up for dispute. Now with all due respect, I'm sure they all knew a lot more than the AR as to what the gaon held, 1) because they had a mesora, 2) as the AR himself says he only is talking about mi pi hashmua. Now if the AR and the Leshem happen to agree as to what the Gaon's shita is, wonderful. The AR never saw the NH

"The Rebbe chooses to hold that RCV argues with the Gra...""

As long as everyone else says they don't argue... chidushim are always welcome, especially when is based on an assumption that he picked up the derech haamiti

"Look at the Igres of the Alter Rebbe and See Nefesh Hachaim Sharr Gimmel Perek Gimmel begining,get back to me when you are able to quote."

Don't be so full of yourself, I've learned NH more times than you can count, and I will not be metameh it in this makon metunef. As to the Igros, it's well known, he says the goan says "מלא כל הארץ כבודו היינו השגחה". Sorry this is not the place to teach you what the NH purposely left unsaid. And don't start now with your ameratzishe quotes, ein od milvado mamash...
"To imply he argues with hes teacher is Chutzpah?"

To imply he argues on his rebbe muvak, who we know didn't argue with his Rebbe with the slightest, halacha (as is evident about what he wrote about the chai adam) about ikrie emumah mamash, and to say he did that because he learned sifrei chabad is nothing less than chutzpa and arrogance. However I'm not shocked, it is typical of the Chabad "my way is the only way"

"And to say that what a Talmid Chochom says is idiotic is not?"

1) He was a very big man-diamar about toras chabad, when it comes to RCV, he's not a man-diamar at all.

2) I'll reserve judgment about him being a talmid chacham when they publish his chidushim on shas. As chabad themselves has always said you'll see how big he is/was when you'll see his torah on nigleh. I'm waiting.

For those that want to read the letter
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15875&pgnum=52

"Learn some more please... Now According to you, either the Alter Rebbe is wrong about the Gra or the RCV, either way its a mistake not an argument."

I'm sorry, no according to me (and all others) the leshem and RYIC and other talmide hagaon, argue as to what the Gaon held, and they both cite RCV as agreeing with them, though the leshem biderech remez only, so that's up for dispute. Now with all due respect, I'm sure they all knew a lot more than the AR as to what the gaon held, 1) because they had a mesora, 2) as the AR himself says he only is talking about mi pi hashmua. Now if the AR and the Leshem happen to agree as to what the Gaon's shita is, wonderful. The AR never saw the NH

"The Rebbe chooses to hold that RCV argues with the Gra...""

As long as everyone else says they don't argue... chidushim are always welcome, especially when is based on an assumption that he picked up the derech haamiti

"Look at the Igres of the Alter Rebbe and See Nefesh Hachaim Sharr Gimmel Perek Gimmel begining,get back to me when you are able to quote."

Don't be so full of yourself, I've learned NH more times than you can count, and I will not be metameh it in this makon metunef. As to the Igros, it's well known, he says the goan says "מלא כל הארץ כבודו היינו השגחה". Sorry this is not the place to teach you what the NH purposely left unsaid. And don't start now with your ameratzishe quotes, ein od milvado mamash...

chnyock said...

when you finnish learning carefully hilchos talmud torah inshulchan aruch harav, learn shaar daled in nefesh hachaim.

which one do you REALY follow?

probably neither.

snag8 said...

anon 12;33
Shoita, Rosho Vegas ruach
Is the Leshem good enough for you on shitas hagra? he argues the same from a different view point

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:18:00 AM
-------------------------------
More Chabad lies, who would think they'd be so haughty to lie so outright. You are the Shoita Rasha Vegas, or maybe just an old stupid na'ar.

Ed said...

You’re cantankerous and a liar? You’re getting worse and idiotic by the moment.
“Who we know didn't argue with his Rebbe with the slightest, Halacha “
You unequivocally claim without proving that he never argued, which is extreme and really not rational for in order for him to agree with him on every Halacha either he was a liar, robot or idiot and we know he was neither of those, no two minds think exactly alike. If you need proof for this then there is something seriously wrong with your cerebral capabilities. Besides all this we have through history seen many great rabbonim that argued with their teachers and fathers, on the contrary”Lo zozin mesham ad shnase ohaivim zhe lazeh”.
“about ikrie emumah mamash”
Now you say something even dumber, Proof please? Ramak didn’t even know about Tzimzum! Neither did any Kabbaolist before the Arizal, Including Gdolei Hamkuballin the Ramban (or the Rambam) as stated in the Hakdomah to Eitz Chaim.
“He learned sifrei chabad is nothing less than chutzpa and arrogance”
So you’re saying that the Alter Rebbe was so minute and unscholarly? Not possible for one mind to read he’s view and think that maybe he has a point? Common now! And just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t true (Fallacy number 7 appealing to ignorance – just because there isn’t proof doesn’t make it untrue)
“ 1) He was a very big man-diamar about toras chabad, when it comes to RCV, he's not a man-diamar at all.”
But you are? Hypocrite too….Besides ill take a Rebbe who studied he’s entire life and taught kabblah and Chasidus for over 30 year and was a son of a Master Kabbalist ,way faster the some anonymous person on a blog …that just rationale, not trying to offend you…just please use your head a bit more.

“ I'll reserve judgment about him being a talmid chacham when they publish his chidushim on shas. As chabad themselves has always said you'll see how big he is/was when you'll see his torah on nigleh. I'm waiting” you
You keep digging yourself a serious ditch here my boy…..You know for sure there isn’t any? How about on the Rambam? Like your main man in BB? Besides again there were many great gedolim that never wrote a sefer. And one more point we really don’t need your judgment, moreover you claim he was “a very big man-diamar about toras chabad” that’s not a Talmid Chochom? Isn’t that a Contradiction?
“I'm sure they all knew a lot more than the AR as to what the gaon held, 1) because they had a mesora, 2) as the AR himself says he only is talking about mi pi hashmua.”
I can cite you many Rabbonim that agree, and clear proof from the Gra’s own sefer, that he held precisely what the AR says he held (I’m looking in Toras Shlomo as we speak trying to find he whole vort on it) if you want will go into this war…but and this is a big but, until you can prove your going to be calm honest and not say idiotic things I am happy to have a scholarly discussion with you. It will improve me and improve you. BIG BUT

Anonymous said...

There is a famous Teshuva by reb Eloizer Moshe of Minsk(from the hagoas horam) that people that are saying that you can not be differ from the Gra are acting as the chassidim that were ostracised by us.
Did you look up the Mishkenois Yakov about Chodosh? are you just here regargle about your same nonsense
Btw, please share with us the non haskama story of Reb Chaim Valoishener for the Chaya Adam.

Anonymous said...

He's from Pinsk.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know that there is a beautiful Haskoma of Reb Chaim Valozhiner on the Chochmas Odam of the Chaya Adam. Its possible that you have some Babei Masseh from Kamanetzky or Eliach (the misnagdim can win today the competetion of Sipurie Massies with chasidim) but this is as a fact as the fact that the Nefesh Hachaim is differing with his Rebbe on the subject of Tzimtzum as the Leshem quotes him by name in Sefer Hadahe you have no idea what you are talking about.

I forgot the exact source but the CI writes that Reb Chaim Valoizhiner doesnt agree many times with his rebbe.

Anonymous said...

don't be such an oiber chochum, go back to the mikva, and come back with something more than "in sefer hadahe", as matter of fact if you look up exactly what he says, he does agrue with the nefesh hachaim, he simply mentions him by name as a maraeh makom to understand the inyan he's talking about properly, learn some basic reading comprehension. and while your still indulging yourself in your brilliance, read the letters from the leshem to rav naftali hertz, where he writes he does not learn the nefesh hachaim like "that", the way he goes out against in sefer hadahe. this is a fact, nobody before the rebbe ever suggested shaar gimel is kineged the gra.

still waiting for someone to post mareh mekomos from the gra himself, for shitas hagra.

Anonymous said...

Who is Toras Shloma?

Anonymous said...

Anyone who can compare the Rebbes sefer on hilchos beis habechira, to the avi ezri, is insane.

Ed said...

Menachem Mendel Kasher (1895-1983) was a Polish-born rabbi. A prolific author, his major work on the Hebrew Bible and midrashic literature, Torah Shelemah....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Kasher

Too many anonymous people...put a pseudo name at least..

The Rebbe said thousand's of Rashi and Rambam chidushim....Just because the Rebbe didn't have the time to be arrogant and make it into a book does not prove anything.They are all printed and can be downloaded now and studied.That's all any True Talmud Chochom ever cared about. (for the record "Torah hi vlilmod ani tzorich" means that you don't have to accept everything the Rebbe said. But you must be respectful and not call things chutzpah when the context is completely wrong,and pure stupidity)

Anonymous said...

The tzimtzum disscussion was disscussed at length in the first volumes of Hichel Habesht I dont have them in front of me, so go out and get it, but in the meantime have you seen the haskama on the chochmas adam from reb Chaim Valozhener? You were so adament about it that he never gave it, plus this nonsense that in the Lita everyone was fully in lockstep with the Gra on every move in life, this is a fiction of the degel movement partyline.
It is allready Selichos its about time you should go the Rebbes ohel and Mekabel Nezifa for your immature language that you used.

Anonymous said...

"“about ikrie emumah mamash”
Now you say something even dumber, Proof please? Ramak didn’t even know about Tzimzum! Neither did any Kabbaolist before the Arizal, Including Gdolei Hamkuballin the Ramban (or the Rambam) as stated in the Hakdomah to Eitz Chaim."

The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos. It's not ikrie emunah to know about tzimtzuim, it is ikrie emuah what you do know about tzitzum, and know it wrong, the goan held that to be apikoroso. About the rishonim not knowing about tzimtzum, r chaim vital says no such thing, what he does say is they didn't discuss certain things that the ari discusses like partzufim, and anyone who learn tzitzum kipeshuto had no problem finding it in the rishonim (at least bikalalius), tzimtzum is only a chidush of the ari if it's leran shelo kipshotu.

"“He learned sifrei chabad is nothing less than chutzpa and arrogance”
So you’re saying that the Alter Rebbe was so minute and unscholarly? Not possible for one mind to read he’s view and think that maybe he has a point? Common now! And just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t true (Fallacy number 7 appealing to ignorance – just because there isn’t proof doesn’t make it untrue)"

Thank you for taking me out of contexts, I wrote "
To imply he argues on his rebbe muvak, ... about ikrie emumah mamash, and to say he did that because he learned sifrei chabad is nothing less than chutzpa and arrogance."

I have no idea if he learned sifri chabad, if I had to guess I'm sure he look at it, NH has many parallels to tanya, I'm sure it's not just a coincidence, however to say that's why he argued on his rebbe, is arrogance. A person as big as R Chaim, who the gaon himself said about, that he too (something the goan said about himself, the ramchal, and was mesupek about r chaim vital!, until he found proof that r chaim vital did) can understand all the nimshal in kisvi ari, did not need the AR to tell him how to understand kisvi ari. I'd like you to find me any of the seven rebbes that argue with each other, or the magid and besht.

Here is a link to etz chaim, please quote what you are referring to. http://www.hebrew.grimoar.cz/vital/ec_chajim.htm

Anonymous said...

Hechel Habesht and for that matter R Kasher, are not authorities on anything, let alone the Vilna Gaon. It's like saying the Yated is an authority on daas tayreh.

Anonymous said...

HOW COULD THE BAAL HATANYA KNOW WHAT THE GRA HELD IF HE NEVER SPOKE TO HIM AND THE GRAS SEFORIM DIDN'T GET PRINTED UNTIL AFTER THE GRA DEATH?

Anonymous said...

der ferd redt un redt, doesnt answer, just babbles blah blah

Ed said...

“The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”

How could you lie like this, with all honesty?

The AR says “shgogas” made a grave mistake, and calls them “chahomim”. Leshem brings down the Mova Shoarim and the Yosher Lev who also authored Mishnas Chasidim that holds Tzimzum Kipshuto, the Tzemach Tzedek says that everything the MC brings down is from the Arizal. The LR has a whole discussion with he’s brother in law which is recorded, the Rebbe says the AR’s only problem with this opinion was that they gave a reason “how can the kings head be in a heap of garbage” (which again see the Gra uses similar analogy in a letter, if he didn’t hold this why bring down the same method of reasoning that the MC brings?)So after all this I'm sure like you say the LR was man diamor on Lubavitch chassidus that no one says it’s Apikorses at least not Chabad.

“R’ chaim vital says no such thing, what he does say is they didn't discuss certain things that the ari discusses like partzufim, and anyone who learn tzitzum kipeshuto had no problem finding it in the rishonim (at least bikalalius), tzimtzum is only a chidush of the ari if it's leran shelo kipshotu”

Again we see how ignorant you are about anything mystical. I cannot believe I am having a discussion with such a certified ignoramus (I say certified, thanks to WWW we can show this instantaneously)

http://chabadlibrary.org/books
דף הבית > ספרי כ"ק אדמו"ר מוהרש"ב נ"ע > המשך תער"ב > חלק ראשון > בס"ד. ש"פ מסעי, תער"ג > שלא

אמנם חכ' דתורה היא חכ' דא"ק, משל הקדמוני, א"ק לבוש לא"ס, דהנה א"ק הוא בחי' ממוצע, והלא הוא אדם דברי', הענין הוא דהתהוות העולמות הוא ע"י הצמצום, וזהו שגילה האריז"ל, דמקובלים הקודמים חשבו הכל בבחי' עו"ע, ולכן הרמ"ק אחר שמרחיק בחי' הכתר מערך הא"ס כ' שעצם הכתר הוא בחי' משתווה המאציל והנאצל, ובאמת לא יתכן ענין ההשתוות כלל והיינו ע"י הצמצום (ובענין הכתר הרמ"ק סובר שהוא מציאות מתהווה, ולהאריז"ל עתיק הוא בחי' א"ס בהעתקה). וא"כ מה"ע האמצעי דא"ק. הענין הוא להיות דההתהוות בפועל הוא ע"י הגילוי ע"כ צ"ל תחלת ההתהוות בבחי' כללות וזהו בחי' א"ק, ונמצא דאין זה לגבי אוא"ס שמובדל מהעולמות כ"א לגבי הגילוי. וז"ע מוצאיהם למסעיהם, מקור נשמות בפנימיות א"ק, ומסעיהם הוא העלי' ותחלה צ"ל
מוצאיהם למסעיהם


ידוע<19> שהרמ"ק לא ידע מענין הצמצום. ולדעת המקובלים שלא ידעו מענין הצמצום, הנה בשעה שדיברו בענין הספירות, בהכרח לומר – לדעתם – שהאורות הם פשוטים, דכיון שהאורות הם בדביקות במקורם, ואין ענין של צמצום באמצע, הרי לא יתכן שיהי' בהאורות איזה ענין של ציור, ועכצ"ל שהאורות הם פשוטים, וציור הספירות הוא רק מצד הכלים

דף הבית > ספרי כ"ק אדמו"ר > תורת מנחם > – יג – שנת תשט"ו – חלק ראשון > בס"ד. שיחת ש"פ בשלח, י"ג שבט, ה'תשט"ו. > 258

“I'd like you to find me any of the seven rebbes that argue with each other, or the magid and besht”

First, you again use the fallacy of ignorance, just because I don’t have proof that it has happened, does not mean it isn’t true. Second, if the Rosh and Tur can argue who were not only Rishonim but also father and son, I am convinced there will always be arguments amongst the great,even to the extent of “sofo lehskayem”. If you really want I can read through reams of information and find many place where the Rebbe held differently than previous Rebbe’s, I just don’t think it proves a point, we all can see that your opinion is based on fallacies and misinformation.

Ed said...

On to the proof:

ה) ע' 188. שחלקו תלמידיו על הגר"א בתורת הנסתר - דוגמא היותר מפתיעה בזה, היא המחלוקת בענין יסודי ביותר, הוא ענין הצמצום. רבנו הזקן אוחז בשיטת המפרשים את הצמצום דלא כפשוטו, ודוחה בהחלט את הדעה המנגדת (שער היחוד והאמונה ספ"ז). הגר"א פירש הצמצום כפשוטו (לקוטים בסוף פירושו לספרא דצניעותא). וכנראה שרפו משום זה את ס' צוואת הריב"ש בווילנא (בית רבי פי"ב. וראה מכתב רבנו הזקן הנדפס שם). והגר"ח מוואלאזין פירש הצמצום דלא כפשוטו (נפש החיים ש"ג פ"ז). ולא הזכיר שזהו כדעת ה"כת" ולא כדעת רבו.

דף הבית > ספרי כ"ק אדמו"ר > אגרות קודש > כרך ג > תקנא

Anonymous said...

הגר"א פירש הצמצום כפשוטו (לקוטים בסוף פירושו לספרא דצניעותא)

Did the LR read the ליקוט before he wrote this statement? If anything it says there that tzimtzum is שלא כפשוטו which is exactly why the Leshem Shvo V'Achlama claims the גר"א did not author that ליקוט.

והגר"ח מוואלאזין פירש הצמצום דלא כפשוטו (נפש החיים ש"ג פ"ז).

He says no such thing.

Anonymous said...

"“The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”

How could you lie like this, with all honesty?"

Letter from AR #34 look it up.

You wrote "
Now you say something even dumber, Proof please? Ramak didn’t even know about Tzimzum! Neither did any Kabbaolist before the Arizal, Including Gdolei Hamkuballin the Ramban (or the Rambam) as stated in the Hakdomah to Eitz Chaim.""

I wrote R Chaim vital says no such thing. You bring "proof" from the Rebbe. 1)Where is it in hakdama to eitz chamio as you wrote? 2) I wrote that those who held tzimtzum kipshuto based it on the understanding of the rishonim, it's only the ones who held it's not kipshuto that say the rishonim didn't know of tzimtzum.

Instead of quoting that the gra says so without having any clue what the gra actually said, look it up first and quote the gra's own words, not someone's opinion about the gra. You can do the same for RCV while your at it, regurgitating old who know what, from who knows where counts as zero.

Anonymous said...

someone says there is a letter from the past rebbe saying rav chaim of volozhin argues with hagra and has a compromise option in tzimtzum not like hagra or bal hatanya this gets disputed to say the rebbe has no clue what hes talking about so how do you prove it with more toirah from the rebbe thats called a non-proof you need external verification for what the rebbe said

Anonymous said...

חוט המשולש ס' ט' וי"ט.

Anonymous said...

“The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”

How could you lie like this, with all honesty?

Igros kodesh from the AR pg. 88.

Anonymous said...

Saying the גר"ח would've argued with the גר"א in קבלה is like saying the בעל התניא argued with the בעל שם טוב in חסידות.

Ed said...

"He says no such thing."
"
כי ביאור מלת צמצום כאן אינו לשון סילוק והעתק ממקום למקום להתכנס ולהתחבר עצמו אל עצמו כביכול להמציא מקום פנוי ח"ו" נפה"ח ש"ג פ"ז "וכן אתה הראת לדעת כי ה' הוא האלקים אין עוד מלבדו והוא ממש כמשמעו שאין עוד מלבדו יתב' כלל בשום בחי' ונקודה פרטית שבכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים והבריות כולם רק עצמותו אחדותו הפשוט ית"ש לבד" נפה"ח ש"ג פ"ג

Anonymous said...

I'll save you the hard work

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ggb05PRudDw/SNcdl9kmTII/AAAAAAAAAAU/cwDZjv8z1rk/s1600-h/ar.jpg

Ed said...

I really can’t do this with you anymore, I really can’t. I give you quotes and you give me ambiguous statements with no facts, I give you logic you give me gibberish.
Where does anyone say that someone before the Arizal knew about Tzimzumem? When the Ramak himself says “yoser aiyn aroch”? When it is knows that the Arizal was almost banned because of what he held? This is known history. Give me one Mekubal who says otherwise, one quote please.

“Letter from AR #34 look it up”
Again I showed you what the LR hold’s and even according to you is a man diamar of Chabad and know’s the AR better then you and you keep spitting crap back in my face common! GIVE ME A QUOTE. I quoted you Tanya Sharr hayichud Vemunah Perek Zayin where he says it’s a “mistake”, you say look it up… I show you that this is a opinion of MC he was a apikoras?

“I wrote R Chaim vital says no such thing. You bring "proof" from the Rebbe”
First of all if you knew anything you would know it’s from the Rebbe Rashab, now you have a problem with him too? Prove him wrong. Go ahead, you have a right, but for me it’s good enough! Think otherwise bring a Mekubel who says otherwise, KOL HAKOVOD
“Instead of quoting that the gra says so without having any clue what the gra actually said”
Can’t seem to find the sefer, if you have it I can give you my email address, since of course you know exactly what is said. Besides all this the Leshem(I don’t seem to have the same print as Wikipedia my print is” Chelek Habiurim Dershei iygulim Vyosher Hakdomoh Lanaf Beis Ois Hey)does not say it’s a wrong opinion he says he thinks it’s from one of he’s Talmidim(all this in brackets by the way) Now I ask you this, I thought no one argued with he’s teacher? So according to you it was the Gra himself. Either way my boy you’re in a bind.

Anonymous said...

"which again see the Gra uses similar analogy in a letter"

What letter?

Ed said...

"וידוע לנו בבירור גמור שהגאון
החסיד נ"י אינו מאמין בקבלת האר"י ז"ל בכללה, ושהיא כולה מפי
אליהו ז"ל, רק מעט מזעיר מפי אליהו ז"ל והשאר מחכמתו הגדולה,
ואין חיוב להאמין בה כו', וגם הכתבים נשתבשו מאד וכו'".
(אגרות קודש ח"א עמ' פט)

Again we see the AR didn't just hear the Gra's opinion, he says we know for sure. The fact the LR choose the AR for he's source is good enough for me, and should be good enough for you, instead of some snag trying to cover up,when in fact the LR defends this opinion and shows how other Gedolei Yisroel held this way to.

Anonymous said...

ידוע<19> שהרמ"ק לא ידע מענין הצמצום.

Fallacy number 7 appealing to ignorance – just because there isn’t proof doesn’t make it untrue

Anonymous said...

"which again see the Gra uses similar analogy in a letter"

Does anyone know where this letter from the gaon is printed?

Anonymous said...

Letter from the AR

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ggb05PRudDw/SNcdl9kmTII/AAAAAAAAAAU/cwDZjv8z1rk/s1600-h/ar.jpg

Ed said...

Thank you Anon for printing up the letter, as one can plainly see (for those that have some basic reading comp skills) that the Gra held that the AR’s opinion was Apikorasas, that god is found even in the garbage.
Snags really can’t learn and read, almost sad.
And for the Anon moron: it’s not an argument of silence when the Ramak’s whole Shitah is completely different. He holds “yoser ayn Aroch” learn what the R’ Rashab said. Besides this there are times when it’s a valid argument, when nowhere does it mention in thousands of book’s the concept of “Tzimzum” and when we know that it was a chidush of the Arizal, as stated by all Mekubalim. True we cannot say for certain that previous mekubalim didn’t know anything, but one thing we do know it’s not “Ikrei emumah mamash”, when the one of our greatest scholars the Ramam arguably didn’t even learn Kabblah.

Anonymous said...

Ed at Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:11:00 PM

“The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”

How could you lie like this, with all honesty?

The AR says “shgogas” made a grave mistake, and calls them “chahomim”. Leshem brings down the Mova Shoarim and the Yosher Lev who also authored Mishnas Chasidim that holds Tzimzum Kipshuto, the Tzemach Tzedek says that everything the MC brings down is from the Arizal. The LR has a whole discussion with he’s brother in law which is recorded, the Rebbe says the AR’s only problem with this opinion was that they gave a reason “how can the kings head be in a heap of garbage” (which again see the Gra uses similar analogy in a letter, if he didn’t hold this why bring down the same method of reasoning that the MC brings?)So after all this I'm sure like you say the LR was man diamor on Lubavitch chassidus that no one says it’s Apikorses at least not Chabad.

Ed at Monday, September 22, 2008 2:26:00 AM
Thank you Anon for printing up the letter, as one can plainly see (for those that have some basic reading comp skills) that the Gra held that the AR’s opinion was Apikorasas, that god is found even in the garbage.
Snags really can’t learn and read, almost sad.

Anonymous said...

"which again see the Gra uses similar analogy in a letter"

Ed, where is this imaginary letter from the Gra? Or are you once again trying to prove the AR knew the Gra's shita, not with a proof from the Gra's seforim but rather because the AR says so himself? Your going in a circle, try not to bite your tail.

Anonymous said...

plus this nonsense that in the Lita everyone was fully in lockstep with the Gra on every move in life, this is a fiction of the degel movement partyline.

%1000 TRUE

THE ONLY PLACE WHERE PEOPLE NEVER ARGUED WITH THEIR MANHIG WAS WITH #7 AT 770

WHO IS THE TRUE CHAMOR BLI DAAS?

Anonymous said...

"moreover you claim he was “a very big man-diamar about toras chabad” that’s not a Talmid Chochom? Isn’t that a Contradiction?"

It's not a contradiction if you learn chasidus from zikney chabad, so you know it. If it's all you spent your time on so you know it. But known chabad tayreh doesn't make one a Talmid Chochom, you need shas u'poiskim for that. This is not chas v'shalom to say that every chabad kid that starts learn tayna at age 7 has any clue what they are talking about at age 57.

Ed said...

Okay lets recap for all the morons on this board.
Anon :“Who we know didn't argue with his Rebbe with the slightest, Halacha “
Ed: “which is extreme and really not rational”
You claimed he never argued. I said that’s a stupid comment and idiotic because in torah one has to follow how he learns it, and there are 70 faces to torah, coupled with the fact that no two minds think alike that it’s irrational.

Plus and this comment didn’t seem to get posted, the Leshem clearly writes (I don’t seem to have the same print, but it’s in beurim Anaf agulim vyosher anaf vov ois hey) that the statement was not the Gra’s but one of he’s Talmidim now either way your wrong, and a major talmid has access to he’s books and edit them? Against the Gra opinion? No one said a peep? Just seems quite odd if all he’s Talmidim held like him and saw this in a book and didn’t say what’s going on here?

“about ikrie emumah mamash”
I gave a quote from the R’ Rashab, which was a world renowned Godol that says he didn’t know, and showed you how many gedolim didn’t even learn Kabalah, besides the Mekubalim Harishonim had a completely different understanding.

Anon :“The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”

Ed: How could you lie like this, with all honesty?

”apikorsas , and as you see my comments I reflect that no one in Lubavitch hold’s Tzimzum Kipshuto to be Apikoras, WRONG yes, apikoprsas no. then you tell me the AR himself says so, I say no way. In the end we see clearly that no one in Lubavitch thinks Tzimzum Kipshuto is Apikorsas, quite in fact the LR defends it to he’s BIL and the “MC” held this, so the fact that the Gra held this is no surprise. On the contrary the Gra held that Tzimzum LO kipshuto was Apikorsas and that’s why they burnt the Tanya. The AR knew this see proof.

Now on to the proof:
The AR went to Vilna wanted to debate the Gra, heard they burnt he’s books, has a quote from a sefer and probably in Vilna and Shklov what the Gra held, and he doe not say he heard (as you falsely claim again) anywhere in the letter. And now you say The AR doesn’t know? Does that Makes sense? He went to the town and researched heard from reliable source. Now he’s a liar? Still haven’t proved otherwise until then the AR is gold. Besides all this the fact that the Rebbe chose the AR for he’s source and build he’s chidish on this is of no surprise and simply not chutzpah and arrogance as you claim
Now the Nefesh Hachayim clearly write Tzimzum Lo Kipshuto the Anon that says otherwise is a joke., if you want ill start quotes but in Sharr Gimmel Perek Gimmel Beginning, he says Atzmus is everywhere. Tzimzim Lo Kipshuto.

Ed said...

The end of all this is simple. We have the AR who was there at the time, knew the facts well, and says that the Gra held Tzimzum LO Kipshuto to be an Apikorsas, and again nowhere in Chabad do we hold ANY ONE opinion to be Apikorsas. Now either we believe the Gra, AR and NH disagree, or we hold like you that the AR got it wrong or NH got it wrong. To say that because he was a Talmid he wouldn’t disagree and because the Gra held it to be Apikorsas, then how does he hold that opinion? You claim it must be that the Gra held this Lo Kipshuto, so then the AR was a liar? So if he was a liar who says the Gra held Tzimzum LO to be Apikorsas and the NH must agree? You use circular reasoning.
The LR statement makes much sense that they NH and the Gra disagreed. You have the right to hold otherwise but from the evidence of he’s sefer (if it was authored by him or not, we don’t know) and according to the AR the statement is completely true and logical. Going back to say this is “chutzpah” and “arrogance” is again wrong and disrespectful.

Anonymous said...

Shneur
Getting back to your arguments
I smell that not only the sirtuk or the chabad talith irritates you. bBy now even the tanya bothers you too I assume the hundreds of alte chasidim of Boston Vehaglilus were also learning the 19 letters of RSR Hirsch since tanya didnt talk to them, If the yekkes of Wash Weights would know what you know, they wouldn"t decry the death of thr Hirsch legacy as Becherhoffer and other yekkes were complaining on the 60th yartzieit of Hirsch

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry for not responding sooner.

For all the Morons still on board, and biroshom Ed,

First let’s correct all of ed’s dumb mistakes, and then set the record straight.

ED: “Plus and this comment didn’t seem to get posted, the Leshem clearly writes (I don’t seem to have the same print, but it’s in beurim Anaf agulim vyosher anaf vov ois hey)

I don’t seem to have the same print? It was only printed once (and the subsequent 3 or 4 printings were photo offset) So my guess is you don’t have the sefer, or are truly as clueless as you seem.

ED: that the statement was not the Gra’s but one of he’s Talmidim now either way your wrong, and a major talmid has access to he’s books and edit them? Against the Gra opinion? No one said a peep? Just seems quite odd if all he’s Talmidim held like him and saw this in a book and didn’t say what’s going on here?”

Some background, this likut is not part of the gaon’s prisuh on sifra ditzniusa, but rather a biur on the first perakim of Mishnas Chasidim. It is in the ksav yad together with likutim of the gaon on mostly nach, the gaon stoped writing at age 40, before he had any talmidim, many of the gra’s “kesovim” were written by his talmid, example the gra’s pirush on mishli, the gra’s perish on shir hashirim, the pirush on megilas ester, the gra’s perushim on the mishnayos. The leshem and other assumed it got “mixed in” to the kesovim of the gra, it does not exist in it’s original form, only a hataka in someone else’s handwriting, soit’s unknown who wrote the original. That is why the beis din had to “authenticate” the anything printed from the Gra that it actually was from the gra. This likut was NOT printed in the first edition of the sifra ditzniusa the one RCV give a “haskama” on and SEEMINGLY was involved in, there were about 10 additional likutim printed in the second printing, and likut banyan sod hatzimtzum was one of them. The first place this was printed was in magen vetzina by RYIC and he’s meyaches it to the Gra, RYIC was a talmid of RMM of shklov one of the talmidie hagra in kabala. It is unique among kisvie hagra to be the only pirush on anything other than tanach and chazal, which has led many to question it’s yichus to the gra. Nobody messed with the gra kesovim, the question is, was it written by a talmid bishem hagra that didn’t fully understand the “shiur”, was it what a talmid wrote of his own, and the copyist accidently copied it along with things from/bishem hagra, or is it from the gra’s own mouth and properly understood. It was first printed after all the talmidim that saw the gaon were gone, in year 5615, and then in year 5642, and leshem was moche.

ED: “about ikrie emumah mamash”
I gave a quote from the R’ Rashab, which was a world renowned Godol that says he didn’t know, and showed you how many gedolim didn’t even learn Kabalah, besides the Mekubalim Harishonim had a completely different understanding.

Once again, what I wrote didn’t enter your thick head, so I’ll try to spell it out again. It’s not ikrie emunah to know about tzimtzum, to believe in tzimtzum. However if you know about tzimtzum, think about tzimtzim, and know it wrong, the gra (according to the AR) held that to be apikoros. So in effect LR is saying RCV held a view that was apikoros in the eyes of his Rebbe. Now about the rishonim not knowing, many more mekubalim held BASED on what R Chaim Vital writes in hakdama to eitz chaim, that the rishonim knew about all the “torah” in kisvi ari, but didn’t talk about them because it was to “high” the rishonim didn’t talk about anything limaleh miatzilus, and didn’t talk about many thing in atzilus that are connected to limaleh miatzilus, al achas kama vikama, tzimtzum. The rishonim are all mashma there is no makom to discuss “atzmuso” in any form, (no that’s not the peshat in the ramabam hu hamada hu hayodia…) leading the who believe, tzimtzum shelo kipshuto, and therefore do discuss atzmuso, to say it’s a chidush of the Ari, and the rishonim didn’t know it.

ED: On the contrary the Gra held that Tzimzum LO kipshuto was Apikorsas and that’s why they burnt the Tanya. The AR knew this see proof.

Which is exactly what I wrote the first time “The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”, you either can’t read, or are trying to “correct the record” of you saying the he didn’t hold the AR’s shita to be apikoros, by twisting what I wrote.

ED: … has a quote from a sefer and probably in Vilna and Shklov what the Gra held, and he doe not say he heard (as you falsely claim again) anywhere in the letter.

No seforim from the gaon were printed in the gaon lifetime, and this letter was, so I’d like to know which sefer he saw. Obviously you didn’t see the letter and are sadly imaging things, so I quote the AR’s letter “asher lifi hanishma bimidinaseynu mitalmidav asher zo he tefisas hagaon hachasid…” It doesn’t say who alleged talmid is. It says he went after hearing this is the gaons shita, to present their point of view to the gra in vilna and shklov, and were turn away. The only source is this one talmid that was somewhere “bimidinasenu”.

ED: And now you say The AR doesn’t know? Does that Makes sense? He went to the town and researched heard from reliable source. Now he’s a liar?

Chas vishalom. The AR doesn’t know say what the source was, who knows who this talmid was, and how accurate his information was.

The AR references a letter bishaim hagaon, that he doesn’t quote because it was “kevodo”, this letter was shown to be a ziyuf, (probably by anash), so don’t treat quotes that the AR heard as gold. Anyone who reads that letter, will clearly see that the AR was very misinformed about the gaon. I’m sure the were many rumors about the Gra in his own lifetime, that were absurd. Speaking to people is hardly a measure of accuracy.

ED: but from the evidence of he’s sefer (if it was authored by him or not, we don’t know) and according to the AR the statement

Again, the Gra’s sefer, according to the leshem, RYIC, and to anyone who reads it, (except for the LR) is mashma tzimtzum shelo kipshuto.
I’m still waiting for the Leshem that says RCV argues with the Gra.

This corrects the record on some of ed’s distortions, Bli neder I’ll continue later, I’m out of time.

Ed said...

Hey anon, please assign a pseudo name so I can refer to you.

“So my guess is you don’t have the sefer, or are truly as clueless as you seem.”

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=818933&da=y

I uploaded the print and document I have, downloaded from http://www.hebrewbooks.org/5987.


“many of the gra’s “kesovim” were written by his talmid”

“as it written by a talmid bishem hagra that didn’t fully understand the “shiur”, was it what a talmid wrote of his own, and the copyist accidently copied it along with things from/bishem hagra, or is it from the gra’s own mouth and properly understood”

You again concede that either it was he’s Talmid or it was he’s. That is my point it is possible for it to be he’s opinion, is it not? Now is it possible the Talmid misunderstood? Yes. Is it possible the Talmid disagreed with he’s teacher and got mixed in to he’s “kesovim”? Yes but you dispute this possibility YOU CALIM THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE, and then you go ahead and say “was it what a talmid wrote of his own, and the copyist accidently copied it along with things from/bishem hagra” that it is possible, can you make up your mind already? Again there are many possibilities and I concede to you this, but that is precisely my point that the Rebbe may have gotten it right, and that means it isn’t chutzpah and arrogance.

“the gra (according to the AR) held that to be apikoros”

Again you dance at two places; we have two options, only two:
A) What the AR heard was true, and he understood and researched it well(which I will assume since he claims is what the Gra should have done)
B) What he heard were a bunch of hooligans that misquoted the Gra.

You claim option B and therefore the AR heard lies and misinformation therefore the Gra never held this (Tzimzum LO) to be Apikorsas and therefore the N”H can disagree (as I stated earlier that a Talmid can disagree, which you have not disproved)

Now you CAN choose option A) that what the AR heard was true and therefore the N”H disagrees with the Gra, either way you have not solved this discrepancy and choose to avoid it.
(there is a third option that what the AR heard was lies and N”H and the Gra hold Tzimzim LO, but again it’s a argument which we don’t have proof, the Gra can hold either way, we just DON’T KNOW)

“leading the who believe, tzimtzum shelo kipshuto, and therefore do discuss atzmuso, to say it’s a chidush of the Ari, and the rishonim didn’t know it”

I can honestly say I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. All I know is the R’ Rashab knew more then you and was a great Talmud Chochom says that they did not know, that they held a completely different ideology. You can blow words all you want you still haven’t proved me anything quoted me one Mekubel who holds like your whole Chuidish that was not even give to Moshe.

“Which is exactly what I wrote the first time “The AR himself writes, the gaon held their shita to be apikorsos”, you either can’t read, or are trying to “correct the record” of you saying the he didn’t hold the AR’s shita to be apikoros, by twisting what I wrote.”

I misunderstood you. As you can see from my previous statement’s it was an honest mistake. I thought you were saying that the AR held Tzimzum Kipshuto to be Apikorsas. But again I disproved what you said, see above options.

“No seforim from the gaon were printed in the gaon lifetime, and this letter was, so I’d like to know which sefer he saw”

As you say there could have been written kesovim and drafts of books well before they went to print. And again the AR said he received a letter. Then he went to Shklov and debated them and they “hung on to a great tree”(referring to the Gra) so Talmidim in the Gra lifetime quoted him, and you concede the AR isn’t a liar, so now I ask you the AR was debating true Talmidim of the Gra, did they all misquote him? Are they Liars? Please clarify all this to me.

Now again the AR said he knows for a fact that the Gra did not agree that every Arizal was from Eliyahu plus that if he would debate him he would twist the words, did you read that part of the letter?

“, who knows who this talmid was”

The AR said the Talmid was reliable and he says clearly who the talmid is. It really seems you did not read this letter. Read above HE WENT TO SHKLOV AND HAD A DEBATE WITH TALMEDEI HAGRA (no slouches I’m sure)

“will clearly see that the AR was very misinformed about the gaon”

From my perspective the AR was pretty dam sure what the Gra held. Read the whole letter. I will scan it ASAP.

“I’m still waiting for the Leshem that says RCV argues with the Gra.”

I never said this, never implied that I said the Leshem says this must be someone else. Again all I said is that from the LR perspective it seems he has a major point especially when Tzimzim Kepshuto is held from by many gedolim the MC and R Yonosen Eiybshitz coupled with the AR strong letter and the N”H ,from HE’S perspective it seems they argue, you have a right to disagree ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE SOME RESPECT(keep saying point’s over again, due to you being dishonest and not being “meshev leenyin”)

Ed said...

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=819119&da=y


http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=819118&da=y


http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=819117&da=y

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=819116&da=y

Warning: all these lings will download the AR letter's

Anonymous said...

ED
I respect you stamina to go on and on with this arrogant ignoramus,

Ed said...

Anon truth is all I have done is keep the door of chance wide open and show how it’s very possible there was a disagreement. I think it makes much more sense than saying extreme statements like "never" "always" and so on. Foolish people say definite decelerations, smart people leave the door to possibility open, state hypothesis's and demand that it be disproven before it being called foolish and arrogant. Seems to me it has not been disproven, hence it cannot be called foolish and arrogant just because some snag doesn’t like the way it sounds.