Sunday, February 22, 2009

A Response to RYGB


Reality Check responds to Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer's shiur.

(I tried to break it up to make it easier on the eyes, while retaining the classic Circus Tent layout. I hope the words are easily understood, and I hope that RYGB will see it soon and respond in kind. - HT)

"I listened carefully to RYGB’s talk. He started off “on topic,” but way before half way went off topic (mostly because of all the questions) and his talk turned into a sociological discussion of Chassidus in general, all different kinds of branches thereof – nothing at all to do with Chabad, and nothing of real content in fact. As he asked for specific criticisms, I will oblige with some off the top:

1. He started quoting from some unidentifiable “letter,” which even if he had the actual name of the author it would still be irrelevant as it expresses personal opinions of that individual in a correspondence with another individual. The only point he cited from there is that (a) when studying Torah one “intellectualizes” G-d thus losing the “direct, emotive” connection” (I suppose what Chassidus refers to as dveikus), and (b) when studying the Rebbe’s teachings this obstacle is overcome, but (c) Chabad restricts this to their own Rebbes, the only way to overcome it is by learning Torah from one of the Chabad Rebbes. As for (a), there is truth in that. It is a “problem” noted already by the Baal Shem Tov about the tension between Torah-study (intellectual exercise where one must concentrate on subject-matter) vs. pursuit of dveikus (see Tzavoas HoRivOsh 29). Yet BST also states that one must continue studying, for without Torah study there cannot be dveikus, and the way to overcome the problem is by interrupting your learning every so often and thinking about Hashem - the Noysen HaTorah. He forgets, however, that Nefesh Hachayim IV:7 says something very similar, so that this is not unique to Chassidus, and “misnagdim” have the same problem.

As for (b) – at face-value that is ridiculous. The implication appears to be that one should only study the Rebbe’s Torah. Does that exist anywhere? In Chabad they study Gemoro, rishonim and acharonim, and poskim, no less than anywhere else. The Rebbe’s Torah is no more than their version of study of mussar etc., thus learned only at certain times (e.g., early seder and last seder of the day), though as the Rebbe has many pilpulim and hadronim etc. relating strictly to nigleh – these are often inserted into the analysis of nigleh subjects, ---- but NEVER, ever replacing any other kind of Torah-study. In that context it does indeed ensure never to forget that when we do talmud torah it is Toras Hashem. As for (c) this is no more than in mussar-yeshivos, learning the derech and teachings of their mussar-mashgichim (in the Mir R. Yerucham, in Kelm the Alter fun Kelm, in Novardok R. Yossef Yoizel etc.). To mix different derochim only confuses, and leaves one kere’ach mikan u'mikan. Moreover, the Lubavicher Rebbe’s Torah quotes so many other other chassidic and non-chassidic sources that the average student is exposed to these as well (albeit in context). Moreover, as their study of chassidus extends to all their Rabbeyim, and especially the extensive writings of the Temach Tzedek, the latter quotes extensively other Chassidic works, so that they are familiar with them as well (though obviously not widely and only from these quotes).



From Boisbriand Blog

2. RYGB claims that chassidus emphasizes the emotional vs intellectual yedi’as Hashem. This is true of many branches of chassidus, but certainly not of Chabad. In fact, this became a major argument between the Rav (founder of chabad) and some of his colleagues. Already the Maggid of Mezritch (successor of BST) emphasized the need of intellectual yedi’as Hashem, and this became prominent in the teachings of his disciple the Rav, aka as the Alter Rebbe. Even a cursory glance at Tanya (and esp. part 2 thereof) provides clear evidence of this. You claim that unlike the “emunoh pshutoh” of the Chassidim the misnagdim were open to chakirah. Both parts of this statement are untrue. Where do you have sources for misnagdim delving into chakirah? Have you forgotten what the Gro says in his notes on Shulchan Aruch regarding the Rambam’s philosophy (chas vesholom) leading him astray? And obviously you are not aware of the Tzemach Tzedek’s “Sefer HaChakiroh” where he profoundly analyzes statements of many sifrei chakiroh (from R. Saadia to Ikkorim etc.), aside of the frequent references in Chabad writings to Moreh Nevuchim.

Re your claim that aside of Vizhnitzer chassidim don’t even use Chovos Halevovos; that is incredible nonsense and ignorance. The classic sifrei chassidus are full of citations from there (from Toldos to Sfas Emes and Shem Mishmuel etc.).

3. First YGB makes general statements re chassidim (besides chabad) not into kiruv, and only much later this is qualified by mentioning Belz and Braslav. 4. Re: mechiyas Amalek – you say this is meant spiritually. Nowadays yes, as we have no knowledge to identify Amalek. But it is meant physically, and will be apply as such when Moshiach comes. 5. You mention that ALL Lubavitcher boys wear their shirts out as a notion of bitul. Nonsense. Some do so out of laziness, others in order to assure that their talis koton retain its she’ur of amoh al amoh (while when tucked in it is crumpled up to less than the she’ur; many get around this by wearing a gartel over their talis koton to keep it in place). In fact, there are many Lubavitch Yeshivos (certainly that demand that the boys keep their shirts tucked in and give a knas for violations). 6. When in finally returned temporarily to your topic, you expressed your problem with the concept of bitul hayesh, especially vis a vis the Rebbe. First of all, vis a vis the Rebbe; this is simply the halachic requirement re bitul to one’s Rebbe, (moreh raboch kemoreh Shomayim etc.). Find out about the total bitul that Reb Boruch Ber had to Reb Chayim, and some stories about this border (in common perception) on the absurd! The true talmid (chossid) regards his Rebbe as Shechinoh medaberes mitoich groinoi [cf. Yerushalmi Berochos 2:1, Yevomos 96b etc. re R. Elozor and R. Yochanan etc.], to accept the Rebbe’s view as objective while one’s own view is most likely distorted by pniyois.

The same chassidus that had this great veneration of their rebbes also demands vayigbah liboi bedarkei Hashem, and demands that one must recognize and act on one’s own qualities and talents no less than on one’s defects. (unlike in many mussar schools!) It also demands that one is not to rely on the Rebbe (tzadik) [as in tzadik be’emunosoi yichye – al tikrei yichye elo yechayeh] but achieve and “shteig” (to use a Litvishe expression) on one’s own efforts (taking tzadik... yichyeh literally). This is not only in chabad, but goes back to the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid in their explicit teachings."

- Reality Check.

156 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shkoach For addressing the Issue.

Crawling Axe said...

What a ridiculous shiur. “I wanted to find out why I am not Chabad.” There is a very clear and obvious reason for that.

Relying on some letter written by some chossid to his cousin. Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

I have never commented before. I am a very anti-Chabad Misnagid. However, this guy is totally wrong on almost every statement he made. He seemed to be looking for bitul from the crowd as they seem to be eating up some of his more irrational comments. To me he seemed to be guessing more than anything. Gerrers care about people outsider their camp? Tell R' Porush about that one. Vishnitz in E'Y is the best? He literally has no idea about any of this (I won't even go into his understanding of the Gra etc.) and is just guessing. How do you say B'rabim that the Belzer Rebbe is not a Talmid Chochom? I would have no idea whether that is true or not, but if i am a Rov speaking in public that is unacceptable. I could go on and on. Tziggale, here is one issue we ALL agree on. This guy could be who the Minchos Eluzer was talking about!

Friendly anonymous said...

Please stop the bashing. The man is an eideler guy, who never sought out the "kovod" on your blog.

See Erchin 16:1, k"v this post that didn't even start out being positive.

anonymous 2 said...

RYGB is indeed a fine fellow on top of being a pretty solid ben Torah. He is quite bright and loves to dabble in just about everything (including chassides, in which he is very heavy into R. Tzodek), and to the best of my knowledge he has no agendas whatsoever -like anti-chabad etc. (His wife, who is/was in chinuch, is another matter from what I hear of their days in Chicago...)

RYGB's problem is that often he is very superficial. Being overly self-confident he relies very much on his muskal rishon and can be quite stubborn before he concedes errors. IIRC, quite a few years ago he wrote an article dealing with chabad in which he also relied on an outside source, an essay by the late R. Avrohom Elya Kaplan of Telz/Berlin, relying on RAEK's greatness in Torah to think him to be a "specialist" on chassides/chabad as well - when in fact that essay was worse than superficial and full of errors (aside of non-familiarity with the wider range of basic chabad-writings).

Thus there as well as in his current presentation etc. RYGB has the tendency of jumping to unwarranted conclusions, over-generalizing, using second(and third)-hand information, and total lack of researching his materials in original sources.

There is absolutely no reason to bash him. As said, he is a good and well-meaning fellow, and the only thing left is to draw his attention to his grievous errors and ask him to start with proper research befoe speaking or writing on such (and all) issues.

Fred said...

In the world today if you are putting a shiur online private or public..latter being the case..one has to understand that attacks must be defended however poorly....

a few jabs

http://dixieyid.blogspot.com/2009/02/going-to-war-with-your-food-not-eating.html

Fred said...

"(a) when studying Torah one “intellectualizes” G-d thus losing the “direct, emotive” connection” (I suppose what Chassidus refers to as dveikus), and (b) when studying the Rebbe’s teachings this obstacle is overcome, but (c) Chabad restricts this to their own Rebbes, the only way to overcome it is by learning Torah from one of the Chabad Rebbes.:

say 30% of Chabad is Modern Chabad..they do not learn Chassidus regularly or anything deeply

say 5% of Chabad are real learners who learn everything on everything.. Mondshine wanna-bees

say 20% of Chabad also learn Breslov or a mix with something else..

say a bunch follow Jakey and his shiurim which are already chiddushim blending in others..

see where I am going...what he zogt on anything applies to few...

like anyone who gets up at Shalosh Seudos while someone is delivering a mamar of the Rebbe and does not sit at absolute bittul...none of the criticism applied

YGB said...

It is my pleasure to respond to the post.

Most of the objections from the various commenters here refer to socio/historic statements that I made in the shiur. I stand by them, but they are not germane. If you have a different socio-historic perspective, that is your prerogative, and does not concern me.

L'gufo shel inyan. The letter was given to me by Rabbi Eli Turen. It was written by Rabbi Wilhelm to Rabbi Wechter (I'm not sure I recall the name correctly - the Satmer Chassid who had his beard have shaven off and was beaten up for his interest in Chabad). Rabbi Turen is certainly a kenner in Chabad, whether you like his Meshichiyus or not.

Some specific points:

1. The NhC's time out is of a different nature than that of the Besht's. To claim it is the same is intellectually dishonest.

2. As to whether Chabad *learns" other Chassidus, and as to where it prefers to find its Nigleh, suffice it to say that I stand by what I said.

3. If you are in doubt as to my awareness of the classic divisions, including Chabad vs. Chagas, please see:
http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/forks.htm

4. RBB's submissiveness to RCS is caricatured in the Yeshiva World. V'dai l'chachima b'remiza.

5. You really think I made up the thing about the shirts?! :-)

I have yet to see any substantive critique that has validity.

KT,
YGB

Crawling Axe said...

In our generation, there are only two authorities on what Chabad “is” or “isn’t”.

Gevurah said...

2. What you state is wrong for anyone who learns Chabad chassidus as opposed to reads or listens.

"Rabbi Turen is certainly a kenner in Chabad"
Vas is a "kenner" ? He is NOBODY out of his daled amos in Meshichistville which is why you focus on him as a source to force the conclusions you want.
He is not either Oberlander or Jacobson, he is not Grunwald or Altein or Olidort or Yoel or anyone on the tema of chozrim. He is not even Manis nor is he Weisberf, Gerlitzsky Seligson or Metzger...
HE IS NOT ONE of the mainstream translaters or transmuters of Chabad Chassidus today at all...
Marginalization leads to your comments being marginal.

Even your buddy Gil had sources for his comments...

Anonymous said...

Gevura and I suspect Fred,
Since we know each other back from Hashkafa.com, can you please try and make yourself understood?Reread your comments before you post.I happen to be able to understand some of what your write, most people will think you are drunk.

Chabadfriend

reality check said...

YGB
1. I don’t know what’s in that letter thus cannot judge its content. Nor do I know who Rabbi Wilhelm is, and frankly I can’t think of anyone with that name who is an authority on chabad-chassidus, rendering that source simply irrelevant. I commented only on the point you mentoned. Ditto re Rabi Turen: for you to recognize him as a “kenner in chabad” implies that you must first be one yourself to make that judgment, which leads us into a circular argument.

2. You write: “The NhC's time out is of a different nature than that of the Besht's. To claim it is the same is intellectually dishonest.”
Did you read what I wrote? “He forgets, however, that Nefesh Hachyim IV:7 says something very similar.” If you consult your dictionary you will discover that “similar” does not mean “the same”. I will cite the two passages, and then you (and others) can judge whether there is a degree of similarity:
צוה"ר סי' כט: וכשלומד צריך לנוח מעט בכל שעה כדי לדבק עצמו בו ית' – ואעפ"כ צריך ללמוד. אעפ"י שבעת הלימוד א"א לדבק עצמו בו ית', מ"מ צריך ללמוד שהתורה מצחצחת נשמתו.... ואם לא ילמוד יבוטל דביקותו... רק מ"מ צריך ליישב עצמו בכל שעה ורגע בדביקות הבורא כנ"ל. [ע"כ]

ועיין שם היטב בנו"א המובא שם בשולי הגליון! והשוה כן בלקו"י סי' נא: ובעת הלימוד צריך לחשוב מחשבת הלימוד ומכח זה בא להיות דבוק כראוי, וצריך בכל פעם לעסוק בתורה שהיא עץ חיים וגו'... ושם סי' נט: כשלומד צריך ליישב א"ע לפני מי הוא לומד שלפעמים מתרחק עצמו בלמודו מהבורא ית', לכן צריך ליישב עצמו בכל עת ובכל שעה.

נפש החיים ש"ד פ"ז: לזאת ראוי להאדם להכין עצמו כל עת קודם שיתחיל ללמוד להתחשב מעט עם קונן ית"ש בטהרת הלב ביראת ה', ולטהר מעונותיו בהרהורי תשובה, כדי שיוכל להתקשר ולהתדבק בעת עסקו בתוה"ק בדבורו ורצונו ית"ש.... וכן באמצע הלימוד הרשות נצונה להאדם להפסיק זמן מועט טרם יכבה מלבו יראתו ית"ש שקיבל עליו קודם התחלת הלימוד להתבונן מחדש עוד מעט ביראת ה' כמשרז"ל עוד.....

In this context I would also refer you to your uncle I’s enlightening notes and references on his edition of TH, and in particular his citation of the Arizal’s writings (fully recognized, of course, by the NH as authoritative) referred to in the variant version.

3. “As to whether Chabad *learns" other Chassidus, and as to where it prefers to find its Nigleh, suffice it to say that I stand by what I said.”
Does the average chabadnik learn other Chassidic texts? The answer is indeed no. And that for the same reason that the average adherent to a specific mussar-shita does not learn the other mussar-seforim. In Nevardak they concentrated on RYY’s teachings, in Telz on the she’urei da’as etc. (never mind the various Litvishe yeshives where they did not study mussar at all and even spoke very negative about it). OTOH, the average chabadnik has at least some superficial knowledge of other Chassidic texts in so far that they are often cited in chabad-writings. Then, of course, the non-average ones have great familiarity with the original texts (your uncle being just one of them as clearly evident from his notes on his editions of TH, Keser Shem Tov Hasholem and Or Torah Hasholem).

As for “its Nigleh” – insinuating that it is only from Likutei Sichos – even you should know better. That’s like saying that a Brisker learns Rambam only from Chidushei R. Chaim and Hagriz, or that in other yeshives they learn only the she’urim of R. Shimon or R. Elchonon. Sheer nonsense. Show me one chabad yeshiveh where the essence is not on rishonim and acharonim, and only thereafter they will bring in any relevant discussions of the topic by the Rebbe. Check with your uncle E, the rosh yeshivah in California, or with your uncles (D and G) in Toronto who are recognized poskim there, or your cousin CS the rosh yeshivah in Detroit, or your cousin AW the rosh yeshivah in Toronto etc. (Yes, in chabad we all know about your family; so you can’t be too bad ….)

4. As for what they say in the litvishe yeshives re RBB, that tells us a lot about those yeshives, and nothing about RBB’s bitul to his rebbe. Frankly I would be deeply ashamed to make that comment.

That is all you really commented, so I close by citing you: “I stand by everything I said.”

anonymous 2 said...

I have yet to see any substantive critique that has validity.
YGB

WADR, that does not surprise me. When you concentrate on seeing and hearing yourself it is hard to see or hear the other.... (See my earlier comment)

refoel said...

Reality,
Since you were the one that brought up the "circular argument" claim (quite a common argument in Lubavitch, actually) how do you explain YOUR logic here:"Check with your uncle E, the rosh yeshivah in California, or with your uncles (D and G) in Toronto who are recognized poskim there, or your cousin CS the rosh yeshivah in Detroit, or your cousin AW the rosh yeshivah in Toronto etc." After all Bechoffer knows his uncles a bit better than you,don't you think?He is on good terms with family as witnessed in his quoting and talking with them,for anybody a bit familar with Bechoffers postings on Avodah and other places,if Bechoffers claims what he said,it would probably be based on impressions he got from his uncles,right?.

Your last point about R'BB, was equally circular:You claimed that in Litvishe circles there was also "bittul hayesh" witnessed by R'BB bittul bordering on the absurd to R'Chaim, to which Bechoffer answered that, yes,takkeh,that bittul is seen as an anomaly in Olom Hayeshivas.What are you trying to prove by telling him that "tells us a lot about those yeshivos".That is exactly his point!(which you don't like)
Btw, what's the judgemental note in your last sentence "Frankly I would be deeply ashamed to make that comment."?Why should he be ashamed if he is just reporting what he feels that he has seen and why bichlal should he be ashamed if he feels that the proper way is not a total bittul hayesh?

I haven't taken any stand, just pointed out the lapses in your logic.Unfortunately,based on your post I might have to agree with Bechoffer that the studying of non-Rebbe-nigleh,is quite weak in Chabad.

gavriel said...

"What a ridiculous shiur. “I wanted to find out why I am not Chabad.” There is a very clear and obvious reason for that.

Relying on some letter written by some chossid to his cousin. Unbelievable."

Crawling Axe,
For me,Chabads belief in a "Second Coming" and the mind boggling belief that The Rebbe is "shlit'a lo'olom voed'" was more than enough.People who can claim or live in the same community with people who claim that a deceased person is "shlit'a" are not my cup of tea (or my blunt of weed)

Crawling Axe said...

Somehow I feel that my telling you that a human being should not think in terms of knee-jerk responses will not help. In a sense, it’s funny how this issue acts as natural selector weeding out people thinking in a chitzoiniusdike manner.

Anonymous said...

"Crawling Axe,
For me,Chabads belief in a "Second Coming" and the mind boggling belief that The Rebbe is "shlit'a lo'olom voed'" was more than enough.People who can claim or live in the same community with people who claim that a deceased person is "shlit'a" are not my cup of tea (or my blunt of weed)."
Apparently you don't have any thing new or original to add to this discussion so we go back to the old and tired bash Lubavitch refrain.Is this the best you can do?

berl, crown heights said...

RYGB did seem superficial when it came to the Q&A "anthropological" part of the lecture. But the few statements about Chabad did sound interesting (and not at all antagonistic, btw). The perspective on learning only chassidus chabad was very nice as well. I have never heard this take before, but had it been presented by a respected mashpia, the reaction would not be unfavorable, I would imagine.

Also, nowhere did I hear any accusation that Chabad doesn't study nigle. The topic was intellectualizing one's relationship with G-d.

reality check said...

Refoel

Your post is most fascinating. Not only did you not understand a word of what I said, but you obviously work with a unique set of logic of your own which is differs altogether from normative reasoning (besides not knowing what a circular argument is).

1.Yes, no doubt, YBG knows his relatives much better than I do. But (a) I know what goes on in chabad yeshives, (b) I have heard she’urim from his uncle in California and his uncles in Toronto – so I know what they based these she’urim on and how they developed them (in some of them, in fact, not a single reference to the Rebbe, and (c) no doubt that YBG will verify that his uncles know nigleh no less than roshei yeshives in Litvishe yeshives, and also knows their style. My suggestion to him to “check” with them was (as no doubt he fully understands) sarcastic or sardonic as he clearly would and should know from that alone that his insinuation was blatantly false and misleading. And if he should want to argue that his uncles are an exception in the zechut of their litvishe antecedents and yichus, he can also check right around the corner from himself with the chabad rabbi of Monsey R. Leshes.

2. Re RBB, I never said, ch”v that his bitul to RC was absurd, but that “in common perception” it borders on the absurd, which clearly negates what it was in reality! Even I would not have assumed that the yeshivah world falls into that category of “common perception,” but now YGB confirms that I held that world in too high regard and, if he is right, it is “common” and “prost”. To make a caricature of the yiras shomayim and kovod hatorah of an extraordinary godol and rosh yeshivah, whose insights and she’urim are of the basic diet of true bnei Torah, and mipiv onu chayim ad hayom hazeh, is beyond contempt. I am not impressed by your “argument” that YBG is entitled to feel that RBB’s attitude was not the correct one. This is a halachic issue of kovod rabbo, for which there is a whole section in Yoreh De’oh! Do you mean to say that YBG’s personal opinion outweighs that of RBB???

Your last sentence tells me everything about you, and nothing about your unique “logical” conclusion which, to be extremely polite, is just plain stupid.

Berel
I agree with your basic take of YGB's talk. As for your last sentence, the implication of his point from that "letter" re the teachings of a rebbe, insinuated that chassidim study only the "pure" and "connecting" Torah of the "yechida klolis" (the rebbe), to the exclusion of the "separating" general study of Torah. And that, of course, is blatantly false. If YGB did not mean that, aderaba, let him say so.
That is exactly why I referred him to his chabad relatives.

anonymous 2 said...

Gavriel
"People who can claim or live in the same community with people who claim that a deceased person is "shlit'a" are not my cup of tea (or my blunt of weed)"

Typical comment from an empty head and a loose cannon mouth. Guess what: the "people who claim..." may be stupid etc. But living in the same community with people who thrive on machloket, sinat chinam, divisiveness etc. etc. are not just "not my cup of tea (or my blunt of weed" - but exposing oneself to a dangerously diseased environment of which it is ruled that sakanta chamira me'issura.

Any time better to have excesive ahavat Yisrael to the point of true ahavat chinam, than the slightest degree of violating all the exlicit issurim (and even sfeik sfeika of issur) of sinat Yisrael. That's why I say even to you, in timely fashion of the kapitel recited on rosh chodesh, yitamu chata'im velo chotim.

Crawling Axe said...

Apparently you don't have any thing new or original to add to this discussion so we go back to the old and tired bash Lubavitch refrain.Is this the best you can do?

It’s all been said before. “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

I mean, how difficult is it to pick up the Rebbe’s ma’amor and spend a few hours reading, as opposed to digging out some moronic letters? In the Soviet Union, there was a famous line: “I have not read Pasternak, but I very much oppose him.” It seems that some members of the frum world behave just like your typical herd.

Anonymous said...

I have yet to see any substantive critique that has validity.
YGB

Could you please explain why you say that there is no substantive critique? It appears to me and others that there is plenty. Just to say what you do and then ignore it, at the very least appears as a convenient cop-out, avoiding the issues and moving on. That is certainly what you would call - "intellectually dishonest"

Anonymous said...

Typical comment from an empty head and a loose cannon mouth. Guess >>what: the "people who claim..." may be stupid etc. But living in the same community with people who thrive on machloket, sinat chinam, divisiveness etc. etc. are not just "not my cup of tea (or my blunt of weed" - but exposing oneself to a dangerously diseased environment of which it is ruled that sakanta chamira me'issura.

And when a Chabadnik claims that Rav Shach was worse than Hitler and no Chabadnik responds, when the Rebbe unilaterally insults the Chazon Ish and no one says anything--one must stay away from such a divisive lot and purge him or herself from the deiseased environment which foments such hatred.

anonymous 2 said...

"a Chabadnik claims that Rav Shach was worse than Hitler and no Chabadnik responds,"

I have never heard or seen such nonsense. Anyone sayin such things is an asinine idiot and vicious rosho, no less than those hurling their vicious attacks against the Rebbe and/or the chabad community.

"when the Rebbe unilaterally insults the Chazon Ish"

Likewise, I have never heard or seen such a thing, and state categorically that this is a vicious lie - the perpetrators of which are halachically in cherem. I challenge you to provide a source, and make a neder al daas hakohol (so no way to weedle out)to pay $10,000 to a charity of your choice if you can demonstrate your despicable lie.

Anonymous said...

>>I have never heard or seen such nonsense. Anyone sayin such things is an asinine idiot and vicious rosho, no less than those hurling their vicious attacks against the Rebbe and/or the chabad community.

Arthur not only made this evil comment (and I admit that he is an asinine idiot) and also said that Rav Shach is buring in hell, and called him, among other things, a tzror layehudim and ohve yishmoelim.

No one, save one brave soul who was verbally beatn to a pulp, took the time to chastise Arthur for his evil remark. Arthur to this day has not apologized and recanted. On the contrary, the kind hearted, very menthlich individual who chastises him was slandered as a Christian even though he was explaining the severe consequences Chazal state will happen to someone who writes in such an obscene and brazen way.

>>Likewise, I have never heard or seen such a thing, and state categorically that this is a vicious lie - the perpetrators of which are halachically in cherem.

For this reason, I believe, both Foyleh Kahn and the Rebbe are halachically in cherem. The CI got along with everybody. Yet, the Rebbe took a Gemara and redefined a meaning to pnimius hatorah. The consequences of this change not only maligned a dead gadol hador, but breached peace between Chabad and the klal in the 50s!

>>I challenge you to provide a source, and make a neder al daas hakohol (so no way to weedle out)to pay $10,000 to a charity of your choice if you can demonstrate your despicable lie.

See http://chabadlibrary.org/books/admur/tm/16/13/158.htp

I have a charity in mind.

anonymous 2 said...

a) I don't know who is Arthur and never heard of him. For all I know it is one of your (or smeone else's) pen-names to besmirch Chabad.

b) Your link does not work. It connects to the Chabad-library but nothing specific, in fact saying "item not known".

To give you an excuse to do teshuvah and save your soul from your self-damning words, and provide you with an opportunity to apologize here (besides on the kever of the Rebbe as halachah requires), I will translate for you what the Rebbe said about R' Folye Kahn's unguarded comment. I am even raising my neder to any amount you want, and wonder whether you are prepared to make an equal neder (even for a smaller amount) if you are disproven as I will demonstrate be"H.

anonymous 2 said...

Literal translation of the sichah (Purim 5716):

At a Chassidic farbrengen in the Holy Land on Yud Shvat, when “the heart of the king was merry with wine”, one of those attending (RRK) expressed himself with regards to a certain person that he envies the youngest student of Tomchei Temimim for meriting to study chassidus. That is, since that person is in the “world of truth” he sees the advantage of learning chassidus, and therefore envies the youngest student of Tomchei Temimim.

As a result of that expression, the Israeli post gained large sums from stamps - letters arrive one after the other with complaints: how is it possible to say such a thing? That person was a giant among giants, a possek and Torah-scholar whose whole life was spent in the tent of Torah – thus how could one possibly say that he envies the smallest among the small learning Tanya?

The response is that it is an explicit Gemara in tractate Bobo Bassro [75a]: The Gemara states that in the time to come “the Holy One blessed is He, will make seven canopies for every single tzadik… and each one will be ‘burned’ by the canopy of the other.”

A prefatory comment: The expression “’burned’ by the canopy of the other” implies that he will not be able to enter the other’s canopy, for if they would bring him in there he would not be burnt. Offhand this raises the question: if they will not bring him in [there], why would he persist and get burned? Thus per force we must say that when he was in “this world” he did not know of the preciousness of this matter, but as he comes to olam haba and notes its preciousness – it is worth it to him to be burned, for [to him then it is] important to try and force himself for maybe meriting to benefit from the other’s canopy.

This means: In order to merit the reward of the “canopy” in the time to come – of this our sages said “Happy is he who comes here with his learning in hand”, that is, who learned these subjects (pnimiyus haTorah) when he was in this physical world.

But if someone did not study these subjects when he was in this physical world, and this was not because it was beyond his control and lacking the ability to study them, but because of an intentional decision, that he did not approve of that kind of study – then in the time to come, in the “world of truth”, where teshuvah is ineffective (for as known teshuvah is effective only in this world in which is to be found the very essence of the En Sof, blessed is He) – he, therefore, will be ‘burned by the canopy of the other’:

To let him enter is impossible, because he was opposed to it. On the other hand, it is not surprising that the soul will force itself to enter that canopy, where pnmiyus haTorah is studied – for in the “world of truth one sees its inherent truth and the ‘sweet pleasantness of yedidus’ that is enabled by it.

Thus it follows, that this is the “canopy of the other”, while he stands – not aside, but wishes to enter within, but cannot be allowed to enter within, and therefore is “burned” etc., because he opposed that study when he was below.

However, since in the final end “none is rejected by Him” – there is a way out: The principle of “is burned by the canopy etc.” relates only to the level of Gan Eden etc., but thereafter will be the era of the resurrection of the dead. As then will be fulfilled the promise of “all shall know Me,” and they will know where truth lies – all will then ask of Moshiach to teach them pnimiyus haTorah, and thereby will be able to have a share in that as well.

[If you don’t grasp the Rebbe’s point, review the Maharsho on the Gemara cited, as well as Mesilas Yeshorim ch. 4. Judging from your writing you probably will have problems with that, so have a learned person explain it to you.]

anon said...

"For this reason, I believe, both Foyleh Kahn and the Rebbe are halachically in cherem."

Afar lepumach!

" The CI got along with everybody. Yet, the Rebbe took a Gemara and redefined a meaning to pnimius hatorah. The consequences of this change not only maligned a dead gadol hador, but breached peace between Chabad and the klal in the 50s!"

Typical revisionism of historical facts. Follows the philosphy of "make the lie so incredible big that everyone will believe it" (and you know where that comes from). Neither the first part nor the second part are true, as known to anyone familiar with the history of those days, and no need (nor desire) to go into the details mishum kvodam shel Yisrael.

Anonymous said...

Anon2,

With all due respect, writing, "If you don’t grasp the Rebbe’s point, review the Maharsho on the Gemara cited, as well as Mesilas Yeshorim ch. 4. Judging from your writing you probably will have problems with that, so have a learned person explain it to you" is a gratuitous insult. If all you can do is insult, you should not be censuring others for making disparaging comments.

>>To let him enter is impossible, because he was opposed to it.

He was opposed to is? Where did the CI ever write that he is opposed to Chassidus?

This was complete and utter motzi shem rah.

>>On the other hand, it is not surprising that the soul will force itself to enter that canopy, where pnmiyus haTorah is studied – for in the “world of truth one sees its inherent truth and the ‘sweet pleasantness of yedidus’ that is enabled by it.

This is assuming that pnimius hatorah is only Tanya. No one is suggesting the CI did not subscribe to the notion that one must be familiar with pnimius hatorah as the term is generally understood. But the Rebbe supported Rabbi Kahan's obnoxious statements on the grounds that pnimius hatorah has a new, specialized definition: Tanya only. To besmirch someone of the CI's caliber based on a new fangled meaning of pnimius hatorah is wrong.

>>thus it follows, that this is the “canopy of the other”, while he stands – not aside, but wishes to enter within, but cannot be allowed to enter within, and therefore is “burned” etc., because he opposed that study when he was below.

Again, he was never opposed to Tanya or chassidus in general. This is classic motzi shem rah on a mes. You may not mind motzi shem rah when it is committed by your Rebbe, but that's all it was.

Are you ready to pay up?

Second, yourr offensive remark that I am making up a name to bash Chabad is too insulting to dignify with a response.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

anonymous

It seems like you've never read up on the CI. Every Cheder yingel knows he was vehemently opposed to Chassidus. In all forms.

Anonymous said...

>>Afar lepumach!

Right back at you. I am only applying Anonomous2's standards to this fact pattern. I cannot help the results.

Anonymous said...

>>It seems like you've never read up on the CI. Every Cheder yingel knows he was vehemently opposed to Chassidus. In all forms.

Not only did I read up on him, I am familiar with some of his works. It is absolute and utter motzi shem rah to suggest he was "opposed" to Tanya. There is nothing in writing which can corroborate such a statement.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

ok, then. Go ask Dov Eliach what the CI's position on Tanya was.

Anonymous said...

>>and provide you with an opportunity to apologize here

Why didn't anyone from Chabad on this blog write the same thing when Arthur repeatedly wrote what he did about Rav Shach?

Anonymous said...

>>ok, then. Go ask Dov Eliach what the CI's position on Tanya was.

Why don't you? You cannot find anything in the CI's writings to support such a bold assertion.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

convince yourself, my friend.

I'm sure it makes life much simpler for you.

Anonymous said...

>>convince yourself, my friend.

>>I'm sure it makes life much simpler for you

I don't think you appreciate how obtuse you are being in this dialogue. You have no support for this evil lie, and, yet, you are suggesting that I am being dishonest?

The Rebbe's bold declaration without any substantive evidence, which actually flies in the face of the CI's relationships with several prominent chassidish personalities, was flat out wrong. You are the one who is convincing himself otherwise.

Shtefanish said...

Tzig,
You allowed Arthurs comments through,right?
Anon2,
Arthur is a very real Lubab, who posts here quite regularly.Unbelievable enough he is a senior citizen and was very close to Bais Horav, being one of the few kids to dray zech in the F.Rebbes house!
But actually, Arthurs sentiments about Harav Shach are not unusual; at all,I have personally seen on the web sites COL and Shturem many similar vile statements.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

what relationships? going to a tish in Vizhnitz? welcoming them to his home? so what? what does that prove?

You need to do your homework, my friend.

Anonymous said...

>>You need to do your homework, my friend.

It seems, based on your ignorant assertions, that you do.

BTW, one who is opposed to chassidim would not go to a tish. You are not even thinking here.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

I suggest you speak to his talmidim before you base your statements on a book or two that you read.

וד"ל

Anonymous said...

I learned by his talmidim, you nitwit. Besides, one who is opposed to chassidim would never visit a tish.

You have no argument. The CI was not opposed to chassidus in general nor Tanya in particular.

Anonymous said...

>>I suggest you speak to his talmidim before you base your statements on a book or two that you read.

If only the Rebbe actually read a book or two of the CI! He would never have made such a statement if he were better informed.

Anonymous said...

>>I suggest you speak to his talmidim before you base your statements on a book or two that you read.

If only the Rebbe actually read a book or two of the CI! He would never have made such a statement if he were better informed.

pusik said...

"I suggest you speak to his talmidim before you base your statements on a book or two that you read."

I "know" you "practice what you preach" (not!).How many talmidim have you spoken to???
And stop censoring the comments.You can't handle the heat?Go back to C.Heights!

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

which talmidim, if I may ask?

Anonymous said...

I will give you a name, but on the sole condition that you provide me a few examples of the CI's opposition to Tanya in particular (as the Rebbe suggests that the CI was opposed to Tanya).

Meier said...

Let's face it, most Lubavitchers believe the final Rabbi of Lubavitch is the Messiah. The other few will tell you how in his time he was the most likely candidate, yada, yada, yada. Well, maybe he was and likely he was not. The bottom line is he is not, so they need to get over it! It is one thing to consider a Rabbi a Gadol, a tzaddik, etc...but what they do is akin to avodah zara. Enough with the pictures everywhere, and enough with the children named Menachem Mendel and Chaya Mushka. It is bizarre, and the Lubavitch movement has lost its' credibility.

yoni said...

"In our generation, there are only two authorities on what Chabad “is” or “isn’t”."

Crawling Axe, you posted the above.May I ask who those two authorities are?

anon said...

Recognize this choice piece from CI?

אם אמנם מצות כיבוד של חכמים ויראתם הם מן המצוות המעשיות, כמו מצות קימה, לפתוח ראשון, לא ישב במקומו, לא יסתור דבריו, הם יסוד בנפש, ראש וראשון בחובות הלבבות, כי הלא הכבוד הוא רגש הגדול מאחיו, ועל פיו משקל כל ערכי החיים. הכבוד בתלמיד חכם, משמש להכנעה לחכמת התורה, לקבל מלכותה, קבלה רצויה, קבלה ענוגה ונעימה, כי מטבע המכבד ליהנות מאהבת המכובד בעת שלבו רוחש הכבוד, ועינו היפה ימריצהו להתאבק בעפר רגלי חכמים, ואין טורחו בזה כטורח של עמלה ויגיעה, רק כמוצא חפץ לבו וכמשיג משאת נפשו, ואותן התנועות המעשיות המגשמים את מצוות המעשיי של הכבוד הן הנה עדיות עד כמה לבו מלא אמונה בתורה, ועד כמה ינהר להתרפק עליה ולהשתעשע בסגולותיה.

וברנש דליבו ריק מרגש זה, ואין נפשו חרד לכבוד תלמיד חכם, ליבו ריק מהכנעה לתורה, ליבו ריק מקבלת עול מלכותה עליו, ואם סיבת חולי זה הוא ממיעוט הרגש כללי כי נולד בטבע קר וברגש גס, ומחנכיו פשעו בו מלהחכימו ולהשכילו, אין הקולר תלוי בצוארו, ואמנם הוא חסר בנפשו ביסוד התורה ואהבתה, וחלקו רע תחת השמש.

ואמנם אם הוא בעל כשרון בהשכל ודעת, ולבו מלא רגש כביר כח, אך נפתול נפתל בדרך חינוכו, ובאות נפשו משתדל לעקור מלבו רגש הכבוד לחכמים כאשר מוצא בזה סתירה לכבוד עצמו, וברב גאותו הנחיל במחשבתו את כל הכבוד לנפשו, בהיותו בעל בטחון, בהיותו מזכה הרבים, בהיותו ברור המדות, והלא זה כל האדם, וזה חובתו בעולמו, ומה יתרון לבעל החכמה בהויות דאביי ורבא, הנה זה חוטא בכפלים, ומוכה בכפלים. והגר"ח זצ"ל בס' נה"ח בש"ד האריך במשפטו ודן אותו כמבזה תלמידי חכמים, וכמגלה פנים בתורה, וז"ל וגם כמה מאותן אשר קרבת אלק' יחפצון המה בחרו לעצמם לקבוע כל עיקר לימודם בספרי יראה ומוסר כל הימים כו' ועדן לא ראו מאורות מימיהם ולא נגה עליהם אור התורה, ד' יסלח להם כי כונתם לשמים אבל לא זו הדרך ישכון בה אור התורה, [פוק חזי מאן גברא רבה דקמסהיד עלה הגר"ח זצ"ל תלמידו המובהק של הגר"א זצ"ל ורבא דרבי' של הגרי"ס זצ"ל, ואינו חושב ספרי היראה והמוסר בלי היותו חכם בהלכה בגפ"ת לאור התורה, ומי לנו אוהב היראה והמוסר יותר ממרן הגר"ח ז"ל, וברב אהבתו אליה ברור מללו דמבלעדי היותו חכם מובהק בהלכה אין אור תורה עליו בעסקו בספרי יראה ומוסר, וכמו שהאריך בש"ד ובח' פרקים לפני ש"ד], ושם בפ"ב גם תוכל לגרום לאדם התנשאות בלב מאשר הוא עובד אותו ית' בטהרת הלב, שיקל בעיניו ח"ו אם יראה מי ומי שאין עניני עבודתו לו ית' במחשבה טהורה כו' וכ"ש כשיראה איש עוסק בתורת ד' ויתבונן עליו שהוא שלא לשמה [ר"ל לשם כבוד או אהבת הלימוד וכיו"ב כמו שהאריך הגר"ח ז"ל שם לבאר] יתבזה בעיניו מאד ח"ו, והוא עוון פלילי הרחמן יצילנו, ושם בפ"ג ומי שימלא לבו לבזות ולהשפיל ח"ו את העוסק בתורה ומצוות אף שלא לשמה לא ינקה רע ועתיד ליתן את הדין ח"ו, ולא עוד אלא שנמנה בדברי חז"ל בין אותן שאין להם חלק לעוה"ב לגמרי ח"ו וגיהנם כלה והם אינם כלים והם האפיקורסים, וכן במשנה ר"פ חלק מנו את האפיקורס בכלל אותן שאין להם חלק לעוה"ב, ואמרינן בגמ' שם רב ור"ח דאמרי תרוייהו זה המבזה ת"ח כו' וגם מגלה פנים בתורה נמי מקרי כו'. הנה דבריו מבוארים שת"ח שעוסק בתורה שלא לשמה לא נגרע בזה ח"ו חשיבותו, והאומר עליו מאי אהנו לי רבנן בכלל מבזה ת"ח ובכלל אפיקורס, וכ"ש בת"ח העוסק בתורה לשמה. ובעל המוסר שמתנשא בלבו נגד ת"ח ומשפיל אותו בלבו, וכש"כ כשמשפיל אותו בפני אחרים, שהוא בכלל מבזה ת"ח, שדינו כאפיקורס ונכרת חלקו מארץ החיים, ומגלה פנים בתורה. שעל פי התורה, להעמיד ברום המעלה במחשבה ובמעשה את הת"ח שזהו כבוד התורה וכבודו ית'. ואין ת"ח אלא החכם בהלכה בגפ"ת וכמו שהאריך הגר"ח ז"ל בקבלתו מהגר"א ומדור דור עד משה רבנו ע"ה.

ומה נורא הוא המראה כי אנשים עטופים בטליתות של ת"ח ומקושטים באיצטלאות דרבנן ומרצים למוסר וחסידות כל היום, והן הנה מכת מבזי ת"ח ומגלי פנים בתורה, ואם אמנם שוגגים הם וכונתם רצויה, אבל מה רב הוא ההפסד ומה גדול ההרס בבית המדרש. והנה לפעמים תולים עצמן על איזה סיפור המסופר על רבם אשר משמש אצלם לתמוך בטעותם ולהתמיד בדרכם המשובשת, והסיפור המתעה מרגלא בפומם ומתענגים בו ליהנות מביזוי ת"ח כאילו בפירוש ביזה גם רבם את ת"ח כולם וכי לדעת רבם המה לא ראו אור מימיהם וכאשר כתב כן במכתב לחכם תלמודי.

והנה יש יתרון לביזוי הנתמך על קבלה, כי אמנם כאשר יבזה על דעת עצמו אפשר לו לפעמים גם ליצר טוב ללחוש לו באזנו איזה מחאה, ואם לא לעצרהו ולשום מחסום לפיו, לא יבצר ממנו איזו רעדה בליבו ובכל אופן אין שמחתו שלמה וענגו נפגם, לא כן בהסתמכו על קבלתו מרבו הוא מספר בבחינת כל עצמותיו תאמרנה, ולבו רחב ספוק וגיל, חיכו ממתקים וכולו מחמדים לבזות החכמים בעולם הלומדים, ואז הוא מכוון בו לפלוני ופלוני ומשנן את לשונו להטעים דבריו לפני השומעים, וכרוצה להשכילם כי יש בדבריו גם רמז לפלוני או לפלוני והעיקר שידעו שמדרך הת"ח היא (אי אפשר להזכירו מפני איסור גידוף ר"ל) ואל יטעו עוד בשוא נתעה, להיכנע בפני תלמידי חכמים או להעריצם בלב, כי כבר אמר רבינו ז"ל כי לא ראו אור. והנה כבר אמרו חגיגה כ"ב ב' ואם אתה אומר לו טמא, כלום משגיח עליך ולא עוד אלא שאם אתה אומר לו טמא אומר לך שלי טהור ושלך טמא.

ולו חכמו השכילו כמה מן החטא והאשמה בסיפורים כאלה כי יוסיפו לדבר סרה על רבם כאילו ח"ו גם הוא כמותם בעוון המר הזה, וכאילו לא ראה לדברי הגר"ח בנפה"ח או ח"ו הי' חולק על ישיבתו של רבא דרביה ועוד ועוד, ועוד הוסיפו עולה להנות מהעברה ולדבר ברהב בשמחת לב להעליב מלאכי עליון ולשום לאל חכמי ישראל וקדושיו, עוד מלאם לבם לדרוש כזאת ברבים [אוי] (עוד) לאזניים שכך שומעות.

וכמה מן הטפשות ללמוד הלכה מפי מעשה פרטית, וכי אין אנו יודעין כי יתכן שאיש אשר עסקו לימוד התורה ויהיה גם שקדן ולפעמים מופלג בשקדנות ובכל זאת הוא ראוי לתוכחה ואף יתכן להוכיחו בעוז ולהגיד כי עדין לא ראה אור, ואמנם פעולת שקידה מופלגת איננה מבטיחה את בעליה שם תלמיד חכם כי יתכן כי למודו באופן שטחי ולא זו דרכה של תורה באמת כי עיקר סגולת התורה לעמלים בה בעיון עמוק, ולא לעמלים במעשה זמרת הגמרא, ולפעמים סיבת הדבר בחסרון רב שלא למד לפני חכמים ולפעמים חלקו רע שלא חונן בכישרון מספיק, ולפעמים מפני קלקול המדות בקלקול מרובה ולפעמים חסר לו יראת שמים וכיו"ב. והנה כשבאין ללמוד הלכה חמורה כזו רבה האחריות, שכל גופי תורה תלויים בה, הלא קלות ראש אסור בזה בהחלט, ואמנם בהיות לבם חומד למשפט המעוקל הלזה לא יתנו לב לדעת עד כמה אין מכתב רבם מספיק לחרוץ ממנו משפטם, בהיות מהותו של זה שהמכתב כתוב אליו עלומה מהם, ובזדון לבם יגדילו את ערך זה האיש שהוכיחו רבם, ויתארוהו חכם וגדול הדור, מופלג בצדקות ובחסידות ולומד תורה לשמה וכל זה בשביל [חפצם הם] לגמור עליו את ההלל שלא ראה אור מימיו. ובשביל זה, אולי בשביל שאינו יודע לבזות ת"ח, או בשביל זה עצמו שהוא חכם, או בשביל שהוא שקדן, או בשביל שאינו מרבה בשיחות בהגיונות בדויות, ואם יקלו בגדלות האיש המוכח מרבם הלא לא יוכלו להוציא את המסקנות הדרושות להם, לזאת יתחילו בשבח שבשבחים ולסיים בגנות כאוות נפשם הזדונית.

כאלה וכאלה מנת חלקם של בני אדם שעזבו חכמת ההלכה מקור מים חיים ויתנו לה כתף סוררת, והשמר נא בני אל ינעם לך חברתם, ואל תתאו למטעמיהם, הדבק נא בהויות דאביי ורבא ומינה לא תזוע הפוך בה והפוך בה דכולי בה. (ההדגשה בכתב יד קדשו)

Crawling Axe said...

This is assuming that pnimius hatorah is only Tanya.

The essence of Torah is Hashem. Revelation of the Essence of Hashem in Torah is Chassidus Chabad, founded on Tanya. Furthermore, revelation of Chassidus Chabad and its spreading throughout the world will lead to revelation of Essence of Hashem in the world — since Chassidus Chabad teaches how it is that Ein od milvado and how to reveal it. This is what makes Chassidus Chabad pnimiyus haToireh. More generally, the definition has not changed, just become more accentuated.

The Rebbe justified this view in the famous ma’amor. Do you have a specific problem with it? Can you propose a shitta which is “another” pnimiyus haTorah and justify this proposition?

Crawling Axe said...

May I ask who those two authorities are?

One is the Rebbe.

Crawling Axe said...

Let's face it, most Lubavitchers believe the final Rabbi of Lubavitch is the Messiah.

And therefore what?

Anonymous 2 said...

I note that"Anonymous said" suddenly is quiet after seeing a direct quote from the CI. And if you need more info, look at Eliach's notorious tract "Hagro" what he says there of the CI and his view of chassidus (and don't forget that Eliach is of chug CI) as is Shlomo Lorentz with his "famous" comments. Enough said.

As for his comment that I "gratuitously insulted him" etc - first of all his response to my translation just proved what I said. Secondly - "gratuitously"? After he was mecharef umegadef and mena'etz es kedosh Yisroel etc. Rachmono litzlon, he calls that "gratuitous"? I was simply obeying gezeras hakosuv "anei khesil ke'ivaltoi etc." (Mishlei 26:5) as ruled in the Gemara Shabbos 30b.

As for Arthur- as I said I don't know who he is or what he said, or if he said anything at all, and moroever if it is true - again as I said, he may very well be a "fifth column"ist. Whatever the case may be, that would never ever be an excuse for your nivul peh etc.

Anonymous said...

>>I note that"Anonymous said" suddenly is quiet after seeing a direct quote from the CI.

I just saw it now. As usual, you demonstrate poor reasoning.

The direct quote from the CI does not demonstrate he was against the Tanya, which is what the Rebbe explicitly stated. For this reason, he committed motzi shem rah on a mes, and I was compelled to bring it up.

>>As for his comment that I "gratuitously insulted him" etc - first of all his response to my translation just proved what I said.

What did you said and what was my response? You wrote,"If you don’t grasp the Rebbe’s point, review the Maharsho on the Gemara cited, as well as Mesilas Yeshorim ch. 4. Judging from your writing you probably will have problems with that, so have a learned person explain it to you." This was a gratuitous insult. If you don't get this, you really don't belong in any public forum.

>>Secondly - "gratuitously"? After he was mecharef umegadef and mena'etz es kedosh Yisroel etc.
Rachmono litzlon, he calls that "gratuitous"? I was simply obeying gezeras hakosuv "anei khesil ke'ivaltoi etc." (Mishlei 26:5) as ruled in the Gemara Shabbos 30b.

No, that is what I was doing. The Rebbe unilaterally slandered a kedosh yisroel. You will never find any language by the CI which indicates opposition to the Tanya. You may find strong language condemning people who do are not learned, and spend great time "learning" mussar (once he mentions chassidus, but CHABAD, as suggested by so many on this thread would agree that you need niglah too, so this is clearly not a comment about Chabad) and are mizalzel talmidei chachomim (a pretty accurate of Foyleh), but he's right. I am sure the rebbe would even agree. But there is no excuse for Foyleh's nivul peh and the Rebbe's enthusiastic support of the same.

So, where is the money? (Or, are you so obtuse that you think you actually made a point with the completely irrelevant quote from the CI?).

Anonymous said...

>>The Rebbe justified this view in the famous ma’amor. Do you have a specific problem with it? Can you propose a shitta which is “another” pnimiyus haTorah and justify this proposition?

He did not justify anything. He allowed for motzi shem rah based on a perversion of the global meaning of pnimius hatorah--toras nistar. The CI was familiar with it. Tanya is not the only repository of toras nistar. Case closed.

It would be the equivalent of my argument that the Rebbe is profoundly jealous of me because only the seforim which I learn is pnimius hatorah, and since he was against it, and not lives in the olam haemes, he knows the truth.

I cannot think of a more hateful statement on a human being. This was a sad day for judaism.

kahan said...

Foleh Kahan had mesiras nefesh for Torah and Yiddishkeit in the Soviet Union and sat in prison for it.

He wasn't drinking OJ on BB.

yoni said...

"May I ask who those two authorities are?"

One is the Rebbe.

Crawling Axe,
You are keeping me in suspense, who is the other?
Respectfully now, you said this:"In our generation, there are only two authorities on what Chabad “is” or “isn’t”."Is not the Rebbe not part of this generation?And how would one get his opinion on such a subject today?

Crawling Axe said...

Are you finished with the Rebbe that you’re asking for the second authority?

In what sense is the Rebbe not part of our generation? He lived in our times, spoke about modern issues and problems, his sichos are directed to us. For instance, FR is not our generation. In his times, there were different issues. Different priorities and agendas. (Obviously, this is not a statement about learning his Chassidus.)

How would you ask the Rebbe? What do you mean? Of course you would see what he said or wrote on the subject. For example, if you want to know his opinion on what Chabad Chassidus is, you read Inyana Toras HaChassidus. You want his opinion on gimmel tammuz, you read what he said about FR’s passing. And so on.

For example, had RYGB read Inyana Toras HaChassidus, he wouldn’t say that it’s difficult to pull out of anyone what exactly Chassidus Chabad is. It’s so clear that. And the whole narishkeit with CI and pnimiyus haTorah would also be avoided.

Crawling Axe said...

He did not justify anything.

How do you know?

Crawling Axe said...

It would be the equivalent of my argument that the Rebbe is profoundly jealous of me because only the seforim which I learn is pnimius hatorah, and since he was against it, and not lives in the olam haemes, he knows the truth.

I cannot think of a more hateful statement on a human being. This was a sad day for judaism.


I know of a more hateful statement. “Somebody who judges another’s opinion without bothering to investigate the precise argument behind it is a moron.”

How’s that?

You seem to be stuck on the idea that pnimiyus haTorah is nistar. I already explained that in the global sense, Chassidus is nistar. Revealed.

On the other hand, Chassidus is pnimiyus haTorah as the Rebbe explains. I repeat — do you have specific arguments against his explanation?

But specifically, who cares? Call it “etzem haTorah”. Call it X.

“Tanya is foundation of X. X is the innermost aspect of Torah that reveals Hashem in Torah. Anybody who doesn’t learn X doesn’t learn the most essential aspect of Torah. Once this person goes to oilam haEmes, he sees this and is jealous of someone who does learn it.” Here, we circumvented the problem of calling Chassidus pnimiyus haTorah (which it is).

It seems that your main problem is that what the Rebbe said is not politically correct. I.e., it hurt somebody’s feelings. Well, truth is not sentimental.

Crawling Axe said...

Also, this emotional, knee-jerk thinking is seen throughout. The Rebbe must have said that Tanya is pnimiyus haTorah because the Rebbe’s zeide wrote Tanya (or because the Rebbe learned Tanya). Had the Rebbe’s zeide written Mishna Brura, he would say that MB is pnimiyus haTorah.

This thinking is so ridiculous. Especially since the Rebbe explains why exactly Chassidus Chabad is pnimiyus haTorah and in what way.

The same thing with Mashiach issue.

Crawling Axe said...

Lastly, it seems you don’t realize that Chabad Chassidus is not just a bunch of vertlach on a parsha or a collection of mussar. Have you sat down and learned it? For example, to start with something simple, how is Mittler Rebbe’s SHY not pnimiyus HaTorah?

gevezener ponovezher said...

after reading meyers pathetic comment i am reprinting a previous post. note as usaul no answe was forthcoming.
i am looking at all the comments of the usual bitter sad people who have little happiness in life and have to restore to all the usual ibergekaikete taines of avoida zorah etc. it reminds me on the taines which the karoim have in their books prooving that the rabonim ( all of us who believe in teire shebeal pe )are kofrim because it says in tshba"p that kol hameharher achar raboi keilu meharher achar shchine or moire rabcho kemoire shomaim etc etc. so we are in good company and they ( these numerous anonymouses, aylimisher and all the other snags ) are also in a appopriate company of karoim. its also very interesting that just like with karoim one cannot argue because we are talking from a different premise - we believe in toshbea"p and they dont - similarly there is no common premise of toyre with these snags on this blog. i have tried a number of times answering their amaratsishe taynes( which never had any mekoyres or learning )about moshiach min hameisim, role of nessiim etc with some sources ( you can look back into archives ) but suddenly there was silence followed a few days later when they hoped my mekoires will be forgotten by the same amaratsishe empty allegations. keep up the good work! you are the best promoters of lubavitch and the best underminers of the farbissene misnagdim!

Arthur said...

Tzig
Youve probably lost much sleep over the fact that I have not done much posting lately.
Actually I have but more of that later.
It tseems that i've become the "poster boy" for the Chabad haters on this forum.Of course before my alleged statemens it was all sholom veshalva vis a vis the Rebbe and Lubavitch.The "legend" has grown and seems to be snowballing.Now I stand accused having said that (I think it was Michoel) was a Christion. Well as is the case with all the bashers, they twist words to fit there agenda.I said that his perception of Gehennm is that of the fire and brimstone of evangenical preacher.As time goes on they will accuse me of saying that Rav Shach was another version of Oso Haish.
As for not doing teshuva.I don't have to make an apology lifnai kol am voeida or prove that I've done teshuva.That's beetween me and HKBH and or Rav Shach.
Afer "much thought" I've decided not to post using the name "Arthur" but hide under the all encompassing "anonymous".The fact is I've been doing this for quite a while rather then recieving all the "kloles" that have been hurled at me.
I hope that this will not cause you any futher excuses for the haters to "heap there scorn" on you or your blog.

Anonymous said...

RE;CI/Chasidim
Eliach in his book quotes the nephew reb Chaim Kanievski, that his uncle the CI was a misnaged but he was hiding it. So far there is no denial on this comment from Chatzar Hakodesh Kanievsky.

RE; Chovas Halevovas,in Nefesh Hachaim there is a statement to refrain from learning mussar built on Sechel only, with no connection to mekoros in torah.In the last Hiechel Habesht there is a article regarding the view of all chasidim on these kind of mussar seforom that are based on sechel only.

Guys like Becherhoffer should stick to the Hirschean way of tought what he claims he knows well, he has to new souls to the well since its about to run dry.

berl, crown heights said...

I am sooooo tired of these inane "the Rebbe insulted the Chazon Ish" complaints!

Let's for argument's sake agree that CI was a great halachic authority. Let's even agree that the Rebbe did denigrate CI's learning (at least where "pnimius haTeiroh" is concerned). So what? All the seforim a full of chachmei Yisroel denigrating each other, and this is not reserved for bnei deirom nor for specific ideas. Anyone ever read what Marshal, for example, said about, well, everybody?

The really disturbing people in this whole story were all the humorless obsessive-compulsive nauseating morons who where complaining about Folya's gleich vertl in the first place...

Anonymous said...

>>Foleh Kahan had mesiras nefesh for Torah and Yiddishkeit in the Soviet Union and sat in prison for it.

My grandparents were in Aushwitz and other camps for years. They lost their entire family. Even after the way, they were in jail for years because of their refusal to moser other Jews. Despite their mesiras nefesh, they did not think of themselves in such a gaavadike manner that they would insult gedolei hador. FK was not a talmid chochom; but he insulted great men. And the rebbe supported it.

Anonymous 2 said...

So far I still gave 'Anonymous said.." the benefit of doubt that he has some smidgens of sanity, but now I must confess that I was wrong and apologize to everyone for engaging in a discussion with him. All that is left is to suggest to him to go to a proper Beis Din of poskim, and present to them the Rebbe's sichah (with or without the statements of the CI re chassidus) and ask the Beis Din to pasken whether his pernicious and virulent calumny is true or false.

And as I know already what the Beis Din will rule, it is so obvious, I suggest that someone provide him with directions to the Rebbe's Ohel to go there with a minyan to apologize there and beg for mechilah - especially in context of heve zohir begachalosson shelo tikoveh etc. I know that there is another ruling that for his offense "ein loi refuoh lemakossoi" (see Shabbos 119b), but the Rebbe, with his infinite ahavas Yisroel that extended to every Jew without exception will probably find a way to extricate even "Anonymous said.." from his tzoioh rotachas.

I will no longer engage in any further exchanges with him, as this would violate the Gemara's ruling that "da mah shetoshiv le'apikoros" - (not that he is an apikoros in the sense of denying Torah, for in that context he is not an apikoros but simply an am ho'orets, but in the sense of Chazal's definition re one who is mevazeh chachmei haTorah) - that this applies davka to a goy and not a Jew, as the Gemara explains "depokar tfei" (his stupidity will only cause him to become worse yet), and as "Anonymous said..." indeed has proven so all.

Out of rachmonus for this lost soul I hope and pray that Hashem may have mercy on his wretched soul, and maybe, just maybe, some day he (and his compatriots) will be moved by a hirhur teshuvah.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

Arthur

that's fine with me. I understand your predicament.

anon said...

Anonymous concedes that the CI did not approve of chassidus, but did not mention Tanya specifically, thus any conjoining him with disapproving of learning Tanya is illegitimate.

WOW, what an ingenious form of reasoning. That's like saying "Yes, I dislike Jews, but never said that I dislike Avrohom ben Mosheh or Yaakov ben Dovid." All we can answer him is to wish him a refuah shelemah, nebbach!

Anonymous said...

>>All that is left is to suggest to him to go to a proper Beis Din of poskim, and present to them the Rebbe's sichah (with or without the statements of the CI re chassidus) and ask the Beis Din to pasken whether his pernicious and virulent calumny is true or false.

Again with the gratuitous insults and lack of substance. You have not proven that the CI was AGAINST the Tanya. So my point stands. The fact that you engage in vicious ad hominum attacks only enforces the widely held notion that the rebbe's lasting legacy is the his hate for non chassidim.


>>I will no longer engage in any further exchanges with him, as this would violate the Gemara's ruling that "da mah shetoshiv le'apikoros" - (not that he is an apikoros in the sense of denying Torah, for in that context he is not an apikoros but simply an am ho'orets, but in the sense of Chazal's definition re one who is mevazeh chachmei haTorah) -

I cannot even honor this comment with a response. This is simply juevenile.

>>Anonymous concedes that the CI did not approve of chassidus, but did not mention Tanya specifically, thus any conjoining him with disapproving of learning Tanya is illegitimate.

>>WOW, what an ingenious form of reasoning. That's like saying "Yes, I dislike Jews, but never said that I dislike Avrohom ben Mosheh or Yaakov ben Dovid." All we can answer him is to wish him a refuah shelemah, nebbach!

You clearly cannot read. I wrote that the CI's comment does not demonstrate opposition to chassidim, only opposition to those who dont learn Torah save mussar (which is what he wrote throughout the entire pasted section, save one instance where he added sifrei chassidus) and nothing else and are mivazeh talmidei chachomim--which is the exact problem I have with FK. Suffice it to say, the CI never wrote anything against those who learn Tanya along with everything else. Again, I don't see how that should be an issie on a thread like this, where everyone is implying that Chabad agrees with this notion.

The Rebbe may have disagreed with the CI's concern about the unlearned and uninitiated (think anon2 and Arthur) bashing misnagdim for no reason. But writing that he was opposed to Tanya was unmitiaged slander.

Arthur Substitute said...

NEWS-FLASH - BREAKING NEWS

It has just been discovered beyond any doubt that the Vilna Gaon zt"l never objected to the learning of the sefarim written by the Toldos or the Maggid of Mesritsh. In none of the great Gaon's extensive writings is there to be found a single reference to any of these sefarim. Thus it is a terrible and grievous error on the part of all those who claimed that he did object to this and clearly motzi shem ra etc. R"l for anyone who would suggest such nonsense.

YGB said...

>
> Thanks so much for replying. The points that struck me most in not being answered at all, or at least not answered properly for others to understand (as seen also by some of my friends with whom I discussed it) , are in "reality check"'s original posting and response, are the following:
First, I found an old Avodah post in which I summarized the letter that I cite (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n090.shtml#09):

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:08:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Lubavitch

As some of you know, I come, on my mother's side, from one of the most
prestigious Lubavitch families. My great uncle was R' Chodakov - the
Rebbe's right hand; one uncle is the head of Chabad in Toronto, another
the Rosh Yeshiva of Ohr Elchonon-Chabad in LA, a third, a famous
Lubavitcher author - all members of the Schochet family, my mother's
brothers.

Indeed, I am fond of saying that I am the most meyuchas Lubavitcher and
Telzer in Chicago, as my grandfather, who became a Lubavitcher, was born
and raised in Telshe, Lithuania, was a talmid muvhak of Telshe (was
chosen, in fact to represent Telshe and the Lithuanian Agudah at the
second Knessia Gedola), and one of the select group to edit the Shiurei
Da'as.

So, for many years I was more than usually interested in clarifying why I
am not a Lubavitcher, prefering the Telzer legacy to the Lubavitch one. At
this juncture in history, the unfortunate developments in Lubavitch render
such soul searching unnecessary, but when I first came to Chicago - now
almost a decade ago - this issue still occupied me.

I had the good fortune, at the time, to have a Lubavitcher chevrusa here
in Yeshivas Brisk - now one of the leaders of the Meshichist faction - who
supplied me with a letter written by a certain Rabbi Wilhelm - that was an
eye-opener.

The letter is quite long, but it deals with a paradox that every Chossid -
of any stripe - must grapple with:

The greatest connection to Hashem one can experience is that generated by
one's Emuna Peshuta: The raw, emotional, elemental dveykus in Hashem that
emantaes from "dos pintele Yid" - the "chelek Eloka me'ma'al mamash" -
that is truly the heart of every Jew.

Yet, on the other hand, there is a mitzva of Talmud Torah - to utilize
one's intellect and hone one's mind in rational study of Chochmas Hashem.

But - the more one studies, the more complex, rational and intellectual,
one's yedi'as Hashem will become. This intellectual relationship with
Hashem impedes and sullies one's emotional intimacy with Hashem grounded
in Emuna Peshuta. Ahava and yir'ah are elemental forces - and the
intellect is not a medium for such forces - if anything, it diminishes
them.

But - Hashem gave 613 mitzvos that all must be performed, because the 248
eivarim and 365 giddim each have a mitzva that gives them, respectively,
essential spirritual life force. The mitzva that gives that chiyus to the
Mo'ach is TT. So, learn we must - but learning ruins the Emuna Peshuta.
How does one reconcile the paradox?

(Misnagdim do not place the same value, neither on Emuna Peshuta nor on
Dveykus. They therefore have little trouble with the paradox. But, for a
Chossid, this is a big problem.)

In Lubavitch, the resolution is as follows: Just as each neshama has five
parts: nefesh, ru'ach, neshomo, chaya, yechida; Am Yisroel has five types
of souls. The yechida is the part of the neshama that, in unison with the
rest of the nation, unites in oneness the neshama with Hashem (yachad).
But that, itself, is through the yechida kelallis of the generation (a
concept we discussed abortively in one of the early forerunners of our
little group) - the Nasi of Chabad in the dor.

Torah generated by the Yechida Kellalis/Nasi Ha'Dor has a unique quality:
Whether it is in nigla or nistar, it has an inherent quality of yechidus
to it - it possesses the segula to enhance the intellect of the person who
studies it without degrading his Emuna Peshuta - indeed, it enhances the
Emuna Peshuta and dveykus of the individual who studies it.

There are several ramifications of this resolution to the paradox,
including the following:

1. Lubavitchers will avoid the works of other branches of Chassidus or
Kabbalistic Schools. Even if they describe similar ideas to those of
Chabad - they are not from a Yechida, and are subject to the problem of
the paradox.

2. A non-Orthodox Jew has a ma'alah over a Talmid Chochom in that whatever
Emunah - conscious or subconscious - the non-Orthodox Jew has, it is Emuna
Peshuta. That of a Talmid Chochom is already complex and intellectual. The
Talmid chochom must, in essence, be deprogrammed before becoming a true
Chossid.

3. The Nasi, as the yechida kellalis, must be infallible, as the hashpa'ah
to and the dveykus of the Dor to Hashem is through him, so the /nasi is in
contact, constantly, with the Ratzon Hashem.

4. A mivtza (that is not a typo - in contradistinction to mitzva) such as
women lighting candles, learning Rambam, Moshaich, etc. is as important as
a mitzva, since the yechida kelallis of the generation has obviously seen
that this is the way in which additional dveykus will be achieved.

(Remember this is the old "new" Lubavitch theology. By this I mean, this
is not the Lubavitch of the Rogatchover, R' Zevin, R' Rivkin, R' Telushkin
or my grandfather - but Lubavitch theology of my generation - the 70's or
so. That Lubavitch was something else, that would have been far more
appealing to me. It, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists.

(But there is an even newer "new" Lubavitch theology - more pernicious and
dangerous - that of R' Butman, R' Volpe and many Meshichistin - the one
that encourages, even now, mivtzo'im - and indeed, shemiras ha'mitzvos
themselves - for the outlandish goal of giving the Rebbe - yet today! -
nachas ru'ach, and, of course, restoring him "l'matah b'guf, v'eineinu
ro'os." This is the cultish arm of Lubavitch that most worries R' Herschel
Maryles - and me. But you cannot understand where they are coming from
unless you understand the evolution of this theology.)

5. Since each Nosi is the direct hemshech of his predecessor, he is the
complete replacement - and greater than - his predecessor. This is because
he has all the gilu'im that his predecessor has - plus his. Thus, each
Nosi is the greatest human being that has ever lived.

6. Moshiach is the yechida kelallis of the entire Beri'ah me'reishis
ha'doros ve'ad acharisam. Thus, it is natural to assume that if there is a
Moshiach in every generation, it is the yechida kelallis of that
generation.

YGB

>
>
> 1.The implication appears to be that one should only study the Rebbe’s Torah. Does that exist anywhere? In Chabad they study Gemoro, rishonim and acharonim, and poskim, no less than anywhere else.
That implication would indeed be absurd. Of course Lubavitch learns what everyone else learns. The difference it that in Chabad, one sometimes receives the impression that a person who says a chiddush is happier that he was mechavein to the Rebbe than that he was mechavein to, say, R' Akiva Eiger. There also seems to be a tendency to tie things into the nigleh of the Rebbes to a greater extent than one would expect. Rabbi Wilhelm's letter provides a theological basis for this phenomenon. If he is incorrect, so be it.
>
> 2.As for (c) this is no more than in mussar-yeshivos, learning the derech and teachings of their mussar-mashgichim (in the Mir R. Yerucham, in Kelm the Alter fun Kelm, in Novardok R. Yossef Yoizel etc.). To mix different derochim only confuses, and leaves one kere’ach mikan u'mikan.
This is not correct. "Mussarniks" study the seforim of all Mussarniks, limited only by the extent to which any work appeals to one's soul.
>
> 3.RYGB claims that chassidus emphasizes the emotional vs intellectual yedi’as Hashem. This is true of many branches of chassidus, but certainly not of Chabad. In fact, this became a major argument between the Rav (founder of chabad) and some of his colleagues. Already the Maggid of Mezritch (successor of BST) emphasized the need of intellectual yedi’as Hashem, and this became prominent in the teachings of his disciple the Rav, aka as the Alter Rebbe.
I certainly agree with this assessment and noted it, at length, in my :"Forks" essay. I apologize if it did not come across in the shiur.
>
> 4.The same chassidus that had this great veneration of their rebbes also demands vayigbah liboi bedarkei Hashem, and demands that one must recognize and act on one’s own qualities and talents no less than on one’s defects.
I'm not to what issue in the shiur this relates. Perhaps I had in mind the experience of my cousin RGS (IIRC, RAW as well) who had to go to far flung shores to continue learning in Kollel past the allocated one to two years. You may find understandable that the impression that left was that Shelichus is emphasized even at the possible expense of the development of great Talmidei Chachamim. Moreover, a certain regimentation may be perceived in the phenomenon that Chassidim will always give the Rebbe's mahalach in matters such as the Age of the Universe to the explicit or implicit rejection of other models.
>
> 5. I will cite the two passages, and then you (and others) can judge whether there is a degree of similarity:….
The Nefesh HaChaim gives reshus to interrupt - but such interruptions are certainly not core to his definition of Lishma. The Besht mandates such interruptions, and they are core to his definition of Lishma.
>
> 6.In Nevardak they concentrated on RYY’s teachings, in Telz on the she’urei da’as etc. (never mind the various Litvishe yeshives where they did not study mussar at all and even spoke very negative about it). OTOH, the average chabadnik has at least some superficial knowledge of other Chassidic texts in so far that they are often cited in chabad-writings. Then, of course, the non-average ones have great familiarity with the original texts (your uncle being just one of them as clearly evident from his notes on his editions of TH, Keser Shem Tov Hasholem and Or Torah Hasholem).
See above, response to #2. Moreover, the average thinking Misnaged nowadays has had significant experience - either direct, or through the MME, Or Gedalyahu, PY, etc. - with Chassidus, including Tanya, R' Tzadok, Sefas Emes, Chovas HaTalmidim, etc. etc.
>
> 7.As for “its Nigleh” – insinuating that it is only from Likutei Sichos – even you should know better. That’s like saying that a Brisker learns Rambam only from Chidushei R. Chaim and Hagriz, or that in other yeshives they learn only the she’urim of R. Shimon or R. Elchonon.
See above, response to #1.
>
> 8.To make a caricature of the yiras shomayim and kovod hatorah of an extraordinary godol and rosh yeshivah, whose insights and she’urim are of the basic diet of true bnei Torah, and mipiv onu chayim ad hayom hazeh, is beyond contempt…This is a halachic issue of kovod rabbo, for which there is a whole section in Yoreh De’oh
>
>
To make caricature of a hanhaga is not mutually exclusive with chibba yeseira. As in any society - Chabad as well, I am sure - there is a genre of "in the know" humor, which is not meant in spite but in the spirit of the "geschmak" of the system's idiosyncrasies and the unique aspects of its luminaries.
>
> I/we really look forward to hearing from you, and thank you in advance! Chodesh tov!
>

Hope this helps!

KT,
YGB

(Will post on Tzig, bl"n)

anon said...

Allow me to supplement the post of the citation from the CI. That passage was part of his sefer Emunah Ubitachon, ch. 3, but was never published by instructions of the CI in his manuscript to withhold it! [In the printed versions one can see there an omission, jumping from no. 27 to no. 30.] His family Greineman (who published EuB), have the original MS, and while they would allow others to see it – they never allowed anyone to copy from it – especially the censored parts. Somehow others knew about the censored part and it went around by word and writing, so S. Greineman finally did publish it along with other unpublished materials in a sefer called “Hitorerut – Likut Amarim” (BB 1989). Interestingly enough, in a new edition of Igrot CI, vol. 3 (publ. 1990) they did include new materials from Hitorerut, but NOT that censored part.

Insiders of “chug CI” know of another censored part in EuB, ch. 6, where the publishers wrote euphemistically that the sequel “is missing”, and the same insiders claim that this too is in possession of the Greinemans and is a more explicit critique of Chassidism

All of the above is by now public knowledge, but I knew about it – with further details – before, from my relatives and friends who are of the “chug CI”.

Incidentally, suffice to say that Eliach in his “Hagra”, vol. 3 p. 956, states explicitly that the CI’s comments (as well as the source in Nefesh Hachayim to which they refer) speak specifically about chassidus. No one by the furthest stretch of imagination can suspect Eliach of even a grain of sympathy to chassidus: his book was written specifically to attack chassidus, and therefore sharply condemned by the Novominsker Rebbe (in a published article!) and other gedolei Yisrael, as well as burned publicly with the chametz in Kiryat Tzans.

Anonymous said...

>>It has just been discovered beyond any doubt that the Vilna Gaon zt"l never objected to the learning of the sefarim written by the Toldos or the Maggid of Mesritsh. In none of the great Gaon's extensive writings is there to be found a single reference to any of these sefarim. Thus it is a terrible and grievous error on the part of all those who claimed that he did object to this and clearly motzi shem ra etc. R"l for anyone who would suggest such nonsense.

The ridiculous comparison you are making here makes no sense. The CI never made a cherem on chassidim, he visited their tishin, and had relationships with many of them. But this hater, this provocative sonei hashem who suggested Rav Shach is worse than Hitler and that he is burning in hell, and who also suggested that Chazal were a bunch of Christians, he is suggesting some kind of connection. You are so full of hate that you simply cannot think rationally. Get help.

Anonymous said...

>>Let's for argument's sake agree that CI was a great halachic authority.

Let's for argument sake agree that the Rebbe in fact existed.

>>Let's even agree that the Rebbe did denigrate CI's learning (at least where "pnimius haTeiroh" is concerned).

He did.


>>So what?

Then there is nothing wrong with writing bad things about your rebbe. It goes both ways: The rebbe unilaterally attacked a giant of an earlier generation by stating motzi shem rah about him in public. That is all.

>>All the seforim a full of chachmei Yisroel denigrating each other

I don't know which seforim you learn, but you will have a hard time finding seforim where one unilaterally insults another in a non-halachic manner (i.e., when some unlettered shvantz in his drunken stupor maliciously denigrates a sage of earlier generations, its not quite in the spirit of halachic debate).
and this is not reserved for bnei deirom nor for specific ideas. Anyone ever read what Marshal, for example, said about, well, everybody?

Anonymous said...

>>You seem to be stuck on the idea that pnimiyus haTorah is nistar. I already explained that in the global sense, Chassidus is nistar. Revealed.

In your highly subjective, unsupported opinion.

The Gaon used the Term. So did the Ohr HaChaim. Both, obviously, did not mean Tanya. EDITED

refoel said...

Reality Check,
In an earlier post, you ran amock attacking me as stupid etc.Whatever.

Let me explain quickly what I meant when I told you that RYB know his uncles and still claims whatever he claims:That is called a "leshitoso".I did not take a stand but simply stated that since RYB knew them better than you and has stood by his guns your logic will not change him.
You also went ahead and told him to check R'Lesches out if he thinks his uncles are unque because of their backround.The only problem with your facts/logic is that R'Lesches himself is a product of Kol Torah a Litvishe style yeshiva, where he studied under R'Shlomo Zalman Auerbach amongst others in his formative years, in addition he is not from a Lubavitch backround.

berl, crown heights said...

"Let's for argument's sake agree that CI was a great halachic authority."
Let's for argument sake agree that the Rebbe in fact existed."


I was trying to be nice. Well.. The truth is, CI is highly overrated. All his crazy "shiurim" were one giant confused mistake, all because of one small mistake in Noda Bihuda...

The fact is, Reb Folya Kahan was being extraordinarily nice and, instead of saying that this man was a farbisener misnaged and is beyond redemption, simply said that "he is now jealous of a small child that learns chasidus"! How much ahavas chinom is contained in these words!!! And, instead of appreciation, he gets is grief!

Does it ever pay to be nice to a misnaged... I guess you have do it lishmo!

Anonymous said...

The fact is, Reb Folya Kahan was being extraordinarily nice and, instead of saying that this man was a farbisener misnaged and is beyond redemption, simply said that "he is now jealous of a small child that learns chasidus"! How much ahavas chinom is contained in these words!!! And, instead of appreciation, he gets is grief!

Then I hope you appreciate my ahavas chinam in the spirit it was intented. . .

Anonymous said...

>>I was trying to be nice. Well.. The truth is, CI is highly overrated. All his crazy "shiurim" were one giant confused mistake, all because of one small mistake in Noda Bihuda...

Clearly you are an ignoramous; all I had you pegged for before was an ignoramous.

edited

reality check said...

Thank you RYGB for responding, I really appreciate it. With you it is not a viku’ach where each side insists on didan notzach, but an open and intelligent discussion. While we may have chosen different paths, there is much more agreement between us than disagreement (and most important – it is certainly not personalized).

After your response, my basic criticism of the lecture linked is essentially its superficiality, lack of precision and/or explanation – barely touching many subjects and thereby allowing (seemingly suggesting or even inducing) misunderstanding and distortion – which led to many critical comments and unwarranted attacks. [Friendly advice: you were often distracted in your lecture by the interrupting questions which sidetracked you and did not allow you to develop your thoughts, and may be responsible for that “superficiality”. Change your modus operandi to first finish either everything or separate parts, and then allow questions. This will prevent a lot of confusion.] Your response has clarified very much of what you really meant and wanted to say.

In this context I do not wish to belabor all the points we made, and certainly not to nitpick just to have the “last word”. That would not serve any purpose. Perhaps some day we shall meet and can discuss that in greater detail. Here I would like to comment on just 3 points you made, for further elucidation:

A. ”> 2.As for (c) this is no more than in mussar-yeshivos, learning the derech and teachings of their mussar-mashgichim (in the Mir R. Yerucham, in Kelm the Alter fun Kelm, in Novardok R. Yossef Yoizel etc.). To mix different derochim only confuses, and leaves one kere’ach mikan u'mikan.<
This is not correct. "Mussarniks" study the seforim of all Mussarniks, limited only by the extent to which any work appeals to one's soul.”

I disagree with you on two counts: 1. personal experience in a mussar-yeshivah, and 2. discussions with mussarniks raised with a specific shitah. Frankly I would say that such retsriction is perfectly OK for the reasons stated in my post (and see Eruvin 13a). I agree with you that many mussarniks (qua INDIVIDUALS!) would study the other seforim, but this was never in the curriculum of their mashgichim. R’ Eliyahu Dessler is a notable exception, but then you surely know that he was not the norm mussarnik and indeed not much liked by other mussar-mashgichim (to the point that his successor in Ponevezh complained that it took him 20 years to uproot what RED implanted there…. especially RED’s wide use of chabad and Kotzk). By the same token, however, as I already noted, the more knowledgeable chabadniks also study other chassidic works – and some even sifrei mussar – and are very knowledgeable in them (and you probably know that your uncle RIS is at least one of them). I could add here as well, that the previous LubR advised a chossid who had no access to chabad seforim to study Sfas Emes because there is a lot of overlapping there with chabad (note the reason – implying the idea of a hashkafic mehalech which does not contradict chabad).

Chassidim of other dynasties (excluding Ger) do indeed peruse all kinds of chassidic texts, unlike chabad. But (a)that is essentially to discover a “gut vort” and/or inspiring insight; and more important (b) their dynasties generally do not have a unique derech/mehalech that might be confused by another one (and where they do – they will indeed exclude (!) study of other seforim, e.g. Zoiditchov, Lechovitch and other followers of the derech of R. Avrohom Kalisker such as Slonim etc.). Do you know of any “outsiders” (except for “researchers” or people like your uncle who have/like to dabble in everything) who learn the sifrei Isbitz which has its altogether unique derech?

As for (a), this is actually done no less by chabadniks (especially those in the rabbinate who have to deliver sermons) and even ‘misnagdim’: who doesn’t like the sharp insights of Pshis’che and Kotzk, a Sfas Emes or Shem Mishmuel (which also have the advantage of being relatively short and succinct [unlike the classic Chassidic texts of earlier times which really tax your time and brains, never mind their heavily technical terminology] and their truly “delicious” quotations of the Chidushei Horim and the Avnei Nezer), or the more recently very popular sifrei R. Tzodek?

B. “The Nefesh HaChaim gives reshus to interrupt - but such interruptions are certainly not core to his definition of Lishma. The Besht mandates such interruptions, and they are core to his definition of Lishma.”

Indeed, the NH does use the term reshus in context of interrupting the learning - which of itself, however, in context of his over-all view of the intrinsic importance and effect of talmud Torah per se, is quite a concession. Moreover, note the introductory wording re prior to learning: לזאת ראוי להאדם להכין עצמו כל עת קודם שיתחיל ללמוד להתחשב etc. That is far more than reshus. That is exactly what I meant when I said that there is a similarity (not identity!) in emphasizing the need to realize, and not to forget, the aspect of dveikus to Hashem.

C. “Moreover, the average thinking Misnaged nowadays has had significant experience - either direct, or through the MME, Or Gedalyahu, PY, etc. - with Chassidus, including Tanya, R' Tzadok, Sefas Emes, Chovas HaTalmidim, etc. etc.”

Yes indeed, but surely you would have to agree that this is limited to what you can call ethical or inspirational insights, the “mussar-stuff” in chassidic works (like mentioned before - “a gut vort”, penetrating homilies etc.), yet still no idea of the basic shitah or mehalech, the very “meat and potatoes” of chassidus.

Kol tuv and את והב בסופה

anon said...

"Then there is nothing wrong with writing bad things about your rebbe. It goes both ways:"

Most interesting and inspiring logic and morality! Actually it is not novel - all the criminal gangs have it: you kill one of ours, we will kill one (or two) of yours... Or you stole something of mine, that entitles me to steal something of yours.

I wonder where you found this important chidush, which obviously you apply lehalochoh ulema'aseh as a psak din. I like it very much and want to use it as well. Thus please tell me where I can find the source in Shulchan Aruch, or any other sefer?

From my familiarity with the seforim of the Chazon Ish or Avi Ezri, I know it is definitely not there (in fact I can point you there to contrary statements). But a talmid chochom and yerei shomayim like you surely woulnd't pasken that way without a source. So please help me out and reveal it to me.

YGB said...

Reality check wrote:
[Friendly advice: you were often distracted in your lecture by the interrupting questions which sidetracked you and did not allow you to develop your thoughts, and may be responsible for that “superficiality”. Change your modus operandi to first finish either everything or separate parts, and then allow questions. This will prevent a lot of confusion.]

I have also received this critique from several quarters and am mekabbel it. Particularly in the case of shiurim and lectures that are recorded and disseminated. חכמים הזהרו בלשונכם!

Reality check concluded:
Kol tuv and את והב בסופה

אמן!

Anonymous said...

>>So please help me out and reveal it to me.

I learned it from the Rebbe. See his video with Rav Kahana.

seen it all said...

My 2 cents:
after doing some research, the Wilhelm letter YGB refers to can be used as a good source for Chabad philosophy. The letter was written over 25 yrs ago, and it accurately reflects chassidus and shitas Chabad. From my recollection of it, I think he misquoted it in several places and did not fully explain some of the issues discussed there, esp. regarding yechida klalis. I hope to find my copy soon and I will post a link to it BE"H.

OlyJew said...

I don't understand the uproar about the comments regarding the Chazon Ish being jelous of child who learns Tanya. I would think that any Talmid Chocham or any Jew for that matter would and should be jealous of another Yid who learned a sefer that they did not (especially such a fundamenatl sefer like Tanya).That seems to me to be the whole point of the Gemara that has been discussed. In Gan Eden Talmidei Chachomin are jealous of the Torah that other TC have learned in their lifetime, and that they did not have the opportunity to learn. I personally am very jealous of people who have learned seforim that I have yet to learn. There is no need to create a controversy where none exists. Perhaps the reason for the uproar is that there are people who really think that the Tanya is not worth learning. If that is the case then there really is no one to talk to.

Anonymous said...

Berl Crown Heights
Your argument "Let's for argument's sake agree that CI was a great halachic authority. Let's even agree that the Rebbe did denigrate CI's learning (at least where "pnimius haTeiroh" is concerned). So what? All the seforim a full of chachmei Yisroel denigrating each other, and this is not reserved for bnei deirom nor for specific ideas. Anyone ever read what Marshal, for example, said about, well, everybody?" is to the point, he has the biggest zilzul for Reb Chaim Brisker, I saw now in a sefer on Hilchos Talmud Torah quoting the CI that yeshivas with that Derech Halimud are not mekyam Mitzvas Limud Hatorah,In the uncencored Emuna Ubitochan he his mezalzal big time in the Anshei Musar> The Rebbe as a chasidisher Rebbe expressed himself beutifully on a matter of penimus hatorah.

Anonymous said...

"The CI never made a cherem on chassidim, he visited their tishin, and had relationships with many of them. But this hater, this provocative sonei hashem who suggested Rav Shach is worse than Hitler and that he is burning in hell, and who also suggested that Chazal were a bunch of Christians, he is suggesting some kind of connection."
And so the snowball gets bigger.Arthur must be some sort of "novi".Here comes this nutcase and adds to the conspiracy of the "legend", just as Athur predicted a few posts back.Soon he will be accused of being the perpetrator behind 9/11.

anon said...

Anonymous said...
>>So please help me out and reveal it to me.
I learned it from the Rebbe. See his video with Rav Kahana.

Sorry, not good enough, for obviously you don't mean it. After all halachah that all of us know is that you are not supposed to learn from a person of whom you have the opinions you expressed.Besides that video doesn't sow anything of what you suggest, but in fact the very opposite. So please Moreinu Verabeinu Posek Hador, help us out with a reliable source so that we too can use your hetter.

berl, crown heights said...

I vote for banning all anons. Someone who can't be bothered to take a nickname so that others are able to follow the conversation is inconsiderate in the extreme.

Anonymous said...

The CI never visited a chasidic tish, the must he did was, that he went to a viznitzer Chanukas habayis, its a big diffrence,After all reb Chaim Mier employed some of his biggest talmidim as Reb Gedalye that reb C M Hager regreted for sure, his damage is felt in visnitz even today.

yechiel said...

Lovely loshon horah fest!
On the head of one Goat.
Host breiteh pletzes, Tzig.
Why do you delight in allowing and pushing subjects that''ll cause denigration of gedoley yisroel from all kreizen?
Must be something in the water.

Simchy said...

In my opinion, Anonomous was brilliant:

1. Everyone here was suggesting that Chabad is not exclusive--that it not only respects but encourages learning nigleh. Yet he showed that one of the greatest talmidei chachoimim of the 20th century was maligned for not learning Tanya which was labeled exclusivley as pnimius Hatorah. This shows the veracity of Rabbi Bechhoffer's view: Brillian.

2. The issue of the CI's "opposition" to Chassidus and Tanya is fabricated. He was closed to every Rebbe in Eretz Yisroel. The Rebbe was not closed to "litvaks" on the other hand. And, for example, unlike any mussarnik, the Rebbe publicly insulted him. The mussarniks could have done the same thing on the pretense that the CI was against those who only learn mussar and do not learn, but they did not. The Rebbe did. You may say that is because the rebbe held this to be true. But, then, Anonomous can voice his opinions which he believes to be true.

3. If anyone'e comments should not be posted, it should be Arthur. He is a hateful, ignorant and dishonest man; the quientessential troll. Tzig, get rid of him.

I happen to love intelligent debate, and I think Anonomous is a bit over the heads of most people here. After the insults, if you piece together his arguments, you see the joke is on you. At least be honest enough to see it.

Yonah said...

>>Besides that video doesn't sow anything of what you suggest, but in fact the very opposite.

Its worse. I would never talk the way the Rebbe did about another Jew.

>>The Rebbe as a chasidisher Rebbe expressed himself beutifully on a matter of penimus hatorah.

This is shamefully disinegnuous. The Rebbe insulted a man who did not disagree with him: according to every lubavitcher, the rebbe agreed that one has to learn nigleh--and the CI was against only those who only learned mussar or chassidus without nighleh. The rebbe still insulted the CI for no reason.

>>I would think that any Talmid Chocham or any Jew for that matter would and should be jealous of another Yid who learned a sefer that they did not (especially such a fundamenatl sefer like Tanya).

Would you admit, then, that the Rebbe is jealous of me? I can guarantee that I learned seforim he never touched because they were published after his lifetime.

schneur zalman said...

>>Everyone here was suggesting that Chabad is not exclusive--that it not only respects but encourages learning nigleh. Yet he showed that one of the greatest talmidei chachoimim of the 20th century was maligned for not learning Tanya which was labeled exclusivley as pnimius Hatorah. This shows the veracity of Rabbi Bechhoffer's view: Brillian.

I did not see that, either. That is good. That is very, very good.

The Rebbe DID hold that tanya is superior to everyone else. RYGB was on the ball. But that is the Rebbe's opinion. And the Rebbe's opinion is Emes. So why should we care?

Anonmous 2, Arthur, and Arthur posing as Anonomous are a bunch of dishonest turkeys. They make us look bad, but they are not who we are.

Crawling Axe said...

Haven’t read the whole discussion, but the very last comments shows that a point has been missed. Also shows that the whole discussion is pointless.

simchy said...

>>Haven’t read the whole discussion, but the very last comments shows that a point has been missed.

The point has not been missed; your aplogetics, however, were not credible.

OlyJew said...

>>I would think that any Talmid Chocham or any Jew for that matter would and should be jealous of another Yid who learned a sefer that they did not (especially such a fundamenatl sefer like Tanya).

>Would you admit, then, that the Rebbe is jealous of me? I can guarantee that I learned seforim he never touched because they were published after his lifetime.

I would have no problem admitting that the Rebbe is jealous of learning a sefer that you have learned and that he had not. There is NOTHING insulting about saying that one TC is jealous of another TC because of a sefer that they did not learn. That is the point of the Gemara. Anyone who has any appreciation for Torah should easily understand such jealousy. If you would actually learn the Tanya (not just skim it) you would understand this particular jealousy. Here is agood place to start: http://www.chassidus.com/audio/tayj/

Anonymous said...

I think the last comment shows how right RYGB was and how Anonomous was clearly over everyone's head. And calling him names will never change that fact.

Arthur said...

"3. If anyone'e comments should not be posted, it should be Arthur. He is a hateful, ignorant and dishonest man; the quientessential troll. Tzig, get rid of him."
"Anonmous 2, Arthur, and Arthur posing as Anonomous are a bunch of dishonest turkeys. They make us look bad, but they are not who we are."
I really don't know what I have to do with the this discussion about the CI.I did not make any comments related to this discussion under my name, under any ones name,or under the anonymous signature.I did say I would not be posting under my name any further due to reasons I mentioned above.I don't mind taking the heat for things I said but the fact is I haven't added anything positive or negative to this chain of posts.I don't intend to get involved in any vikuchim with my detractors so stop krichen of glaiche vent.Every body and his brother signs of as "anonymous" on this blog.

Anonymous said...

>>If you would actually learn the Tanya (not just skim it) you would understand this particular jealousy. Here is agood place to start:

So the Rebbe is profoundly jealous of me. . .

(waiting for Arhur to throw two shoes at me).

Yaakov L. said...

I think the last comment shows how right RYGB was and how Anonomous was clearly over everyone's head

All those who posted this (probably one and the same person we all got to know and now demonstartes split personality with different names...), OBVIOUSLY did not read RYGB's response to reality check where he basically concedes all points and the argument is reduced to minor details. But then why bother with facts, especially if these same people are dyslexic and have problems with reading comprehension, besides being intellectually challenged - specially when it comes to deductive reasoning. Lets wish them a refuah sheleimah and get on with real life. All the issues re RYGB have already been resolved and fnished.

Friendly Anonymous said...

people already commented "ad me'ah v'echad pe'omim". Time to shut this down.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

friend

מי שיש לו מנה רוצה מאתיים

Friendly anonymous said...

On the other hand, think of it as the stock market: your gan eiden is already "down" 101 comments (at least according to those commentators who are keeping score for hkb"h,)so cut your losses.

Anonymous said...

Now that we have hopefully finished discussing whether the CI dissed Chasidus or whether the Rebbe dissed the CI another problem arises.
Was it acceptable for Rav Ahron Kotler to say that "sheker ain lo raglayim" about the frierdiker Rebbe in reference to the fact that the RAYATZ lost the use of both his legs? I've heard many a lakewooder refer to this episode proudly so the question of whether he said it is a moot one.The problem is vi kumt is far ah Godol beYisroel to make such a statement about a Tzadik who had such mesiras nefesh for klal Yisroel and was imprisoned for it?This imprisonment affected his health ad ptiras nafsho and was a major cause of his being crippled.

Anonymous said...

Becherhofer recycles the same anti chabad rhetoric, even his packaging is the same, so whats the chidush? just for the record Zevin, Telushkin etc.. are not the chassidisher role model for anything thats pertaining chassidus. Just as I would say that Reb Aron Kotler a Salabodker talmud is the role model for Mussar he was a big Talmud Chochom that was created in that school but had nothing with Mussar. For mussar you go Reb Shloma Wolbe or even Rav Vachtfogel. For chassidus you listen to reb Shloma Chaim Reb Nissan, in todays genaration You have reb Zalmen Gofin, reb Itche Uffen reb Mendel Vechter reb Chaim Sholum Deutsch reb Yoel etc.. Becherhoffer you have no idea who these people are, plase bug off and go back to the anti charadie Maryle's messires on The great Rubashkin Family, and its fight on Shechita Mehudar by being rather on the side of Peta Yemach Shemom

lippa said...

Anon:831pm
You so don't know what you are talking about! BECHHOFER (thats his real name)is a guy who studies chassidus every day besides being a talmic chochom, he knows probably much more about Chabad than you do.Besides for a being a bright fellow who studies Chabad chassidus he is also a nephew of onew of the better known families of talmidei chachomom in Lubavitch today,the Schochats, originally from Toronto
(

Anonymous said...

Reb Becherhoffer
Since you are considered the authority on Hirschean philosohy I would like to ask you the following, In the non dilluted Hirsch world (without Rav Scwabs twisting the facts it should be appropiate for the yeshivesher world) there is a mitzva to do secular studies ki hu chochmaschem ubinaschem.. even on the cheshbon of limud hatorah. So whats your problem with a Lubavitcher bochur learning chassidus in the hours that a Yekke sits on books that are 90% on the verge of kefirah? by the way the standard of torah in the yekisher community is very weak, Chabad of today (Not the great Zevin Genaration)has produced more talmidie chachomin then since the inception of Hirschisim, please stop bearing the torchbearer of limud hatorah in our genaration.

Yaakov L said...

Let it be said once and for all that RYBG is NOT, and never was, anti-Chabad, and never expressed himself against Chabad. He may not agree with Chabad - and that is his right even as chabadniks have a right to disagree with others.

All you can possibly say about him is that he has very superficial views about most chabad-inyonim as he is dependent on purely secondary and later sources and relies on them. In other words he is certainly not what he would call a "kenner" of Chabad. The worst part of his lecture is the title "Insights into chabad" - which clearly is misleading as all he offered is some assumed notions and his opinions.

Moroever, he never really developed any of his points, kind of left them hanging in mid-air, at least partly because of the annoying interruptions by the questions which, as has been pointed out, sidetracked him and had him jumping back and forth on unrelated matters.

But let's not confuse that with misnagdus. He does not have that in him.

Most important is the last part of his lecture where he states openly that he cannot accept the notion of "bitul" in chabad, especially as it relates to the rebbe, and wants to keep his "independence". That is really the very crux of his position, and as said he is entitled to that view (held by so many others). Finished. Case closed. Game is over!

I hope that Tzig will not allow this thread to be sidetracked again by the recent commenter who wants to raise sleeping dogs by starting off on a crusade against RAK - just for the sake of restarting a new controversy. We saw here already enough nivul peh, chiruf vegiduf R"l by the sheigetz posting "anonymous" who brought up the non-related CI issue, but didn't have the guts to identify himself lest he be shamed by his ignorance and blatant stupidity, and just wanted to be mecharcher riv - for which he will burn in gehenom. A rachmonus on him, let him wallow in his tzoioh rotachas, and time to close this thread.

Berl is quite right: from now on Tzig shoul delete all and any "anonymous" unless they give at least some pen-name.

Anonymous said...

Lippa
This nephew thing is nonsense,like reb Mendel Futterfas is related to the Kamenetsky.

Anonymous said...

is a pen name Yakov L,Moshe Peretz or Lippa less anon. then anon. ?

lippa said...

"Lippa
This nephew thing is nonsense,like reb Mendel Futterfas is related to the Kamenetsky."

Let me clarify what I meant by "related":Bechhofer has a close relationship with his family , whom he quotes quite often on ,for example the Avodah,website.He knows Chabd intimately.His mothers father,Schochat became a Lubavitcher as did most his many kids.
I'm not a Lubavitcher, just posting some facts.

YGB said...

Sundry notes:

1. The letter I cite was addressed to R' Mendel Vechter.

2. If you do not associate Rav Zevin with Chassidus, you have not opened "LaTorah V'la'Mo'adim."

3. You will find more of my shiurim that deal with Chabad at http://sumseq.com/.

4. TIDE, Hirschianism and Yekkeshkeit are avar battel, if not dead. I would love to revivify them, but since they have no functioning educational system one cannot bring ra'ayos as to the current capacity of TIDE to produce Torah greats.

Mot said...

Can all comments that have nothing to do with your post about R' YG Bechhofer be removed? It's annoying, having dozens of unrelated comments here.

Mot said...

1) YGB: Why do you say that TIDE etc. are no more - don't MO schools seek to teach Torah im derech eretz or mada, as they call it?

2) As for R' Turen - I agree with you, he's a 'kenner.' The only reason people froth at the mouth and plotz at that description is because they object to R' Turen's actually accepting what the Rebbe said at face value. There is no need to have a resume, to be a so-called "somebody" to know (ken) what the Rebbe said. The Rebbe delivered his sichos to the public and Lubavitch is not, l'havdil, the priesthood where certain 'lofty' personages have the privilege of 'interpreting' the teachings for the masses.

Problem in Lubavitch is that some super-knowledgeable people think they know better than the Rebbe and feel compelled to cover up for the Rebbe, to distort what the Rebbe said, all for the sake of their imaginary idea of what 'kavod Lubavitch' consists of. People like Turen make them gnash their teeth because he doesn't go along with their machinations. Very sad to see someone defame a Chasid as a 'nobody'. "Past nisht" for a group that promotes Ahavas Yisrael, yet this is typical of the farbissene 'antis."

3)Have you learned the Rebbe's sichos of 5751-5752 for yourself? When you say that there is a "newer, pernicious, dangerous" theology, you associate it with certain individuals and disconnect it from the Rebbe, yet you can see for yourself, it you learn those sichos, that the Rebbe himself is the source of this theology. Those who are uncomfortable with this truth, including many Lubavitchers, try to associate it with "crazies" but a serious look into the sichos will prove that it comes directly from the Rebbe.

4) Why do you write that a 'mivtza' is as important as a mitzva when lighting candles etc. are mitzvos?

5) When you speak about old Lubavitch theology (of your grandfather's day) and new Lubavitch theology, what are you actually saying - are you saying that the Rebbe is not a hemshech of the Chabad Nesius but a departure from it?

6) You say, "That Lubavitch was something else, that would have been far more appealing to me. It, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists." Are you saying that you like the old-time learning and avoda of the Rebbe Rashab's time? Would you have liked the Lubavitch of the Rebbe Rayatz which mostly entailed dying for teaching Torah?

7) You speak about the outlandish goal of giving the Rebbe nachas even now - A) Did you think that doing mitzvos and getting other people to do mitzvos to give the Rebbe nachas, before 3 Tamuz, was a good goal?

B) Have you read what the Rebbe said about his father-in-law, after his passing, the lishonos he used on him about his being alive etc. Do you also castigate the Rebbe for this or just his Chassidim?

8) Do you fault the Rebbe for turning the Chabad movement into what you might call a cult?

9) You said in your shiur that Lubavitchers consider the Rebbe to fit Rambam's criterion of building the Beis Ha'Mikdash and you gave a reason. Both the assertion (that he built it) and your reason, are incorrect.

Mot said...

p.s. I thought "oh no" when I saw (on Torahanytime) that you had spoken about Chabad, but was pleasantly surprised, a few minutes into your shiur, to hear that your grandfather became a Lubavitcher and your mother's side is Lubavitch, and also that you know R' Turen.

I think you got a lot of points right and overall, you give a positive feeling for Chassidus and Chassidim, (though maybe your actual audience, the Ohr Somayach guys, should be the ones to say what impression they get - are they turned on or off to Chassidus by what you say?)

I get a kick out of listening to shiurim from someone like yourself, who is learned and eclectic in your learning and has been exposed to various forms of religious Judaism (Shalavim in the early years with a Rebbi who was a talmid of R' I.Z. Meltzer/Lubavitch/Mir/R' Tzadok).

yudah said...

Mot,
Did you not follow the discussion here at all? Whywere you surprised that R'YGBH had a Lubavitch connection,it's been mentioned here many times.His mother is a Schochat, while his father is from non Lubavitch German stock

Mot said...

Yudah - I was referring to my experience off the blog. I came across his shiur and that was my reaction two weeks ago. I saw the post and discussion here about the shiur two days ago.

Zalman Shimon said...

So, for many years I was more than usually interested in clarifying "why I
am not a Lubavitcher, prefering the Telzer legacy to the Lubavitch one. At
this juncture in history, the unfortunate developments in Lubavitch render
such soul searching unnecessary, but when I first came to Chicago - now
almost a decade ago - this issue still occupied me."

I guess this "little" point in R'YGBH post to Avodah 11 years ago was missed by the likes of Reality Check and and the other Lubavitch sympathisers!!
I'm referring to where he states that today (11 years ago, how much more so today!)"At
this juncture in history, the unfortunate developments in Lubavitch render
such soul searching unnecessary"
What he means is that with Lubavitch doing all "those" things they are doing today, no soul searching is needed to why a sane individual does not join!
I agree fully with this statement.

Mot said...

It wasn't missed by me and that's why I asked him whether his real beef is with the Rebbe who's "at fault" for encouraging the singing of Yechi to him, for over a year, in front of the media, for encouraging Melave Malkas for Kabbolas Pnei Moshiach=the Rebbe, for delivering the "Beis Rabeinu sh'b'Bavel sicha" in which he says 770 is Beis Moshiach etc.

yudah said...

Mot,
I actually think the Rebbe should not have let things get out of hand, we see today what happens when irresponsible people interpret the Rebbe.

Mot said...

Yudah - so you think the Rebbe was irresponsible ..

You certainly can't fault his Chassidim for publicizing that which he said to publicize (i.e. the Besuras Ha'Geula)! After all, that's what a Chasid is, someone who is batul to his Rebbe and doesn't second-guess him.

As for 'interpretation', if you read the kuntres Beis Rabeinu sh'b'Bavel for yourself, you will see that nothing the Chassidim say is 'interpretation.' The Rebbe was direct and explicit about being Moshiach.

What gets on my nerves is when Lubavitchers try to deny this, as though somehow they are protecting the Rebbe and Chabad by doing so. They lack the guts to say: the Rebbe said this!

If they don't approve of the Rebbe's public statements and actions, nobody says they are forced to remain Lubavitchers. We need intellectual honesty, in and out of Lubavitch. The Rebbe said what he said. Take it, or leave it. Don't deny it. Don't distort it.

YGB - On what occasions did you see the Rebbe (if you did)?

Mot said...

As for "transmitters" of Chabad Chasidus today, an earlier poster listed his favorite antis or try-to-stay-pareve fellows as he tried to denigrate Turen. He neglected to mention: mashpia B. Lipsker, Yankel Chazan, Charitonov, Yossi Paltiel, Levi Garelik, Kalmanson of Cincinnati, H. Greenberg, Noam Wagner, Fitshe Offen, rosh yeshiva of the biggest Chabad yeshiva (other than OT):YY Wilschansky, mashpia Chaim Ashkenazi, Yossi Ginsburg of the BT yeshiva in Ramat Aviv, rosh yeshiva S.Z. Gafni, mashpia L.Y. Ginsberg of Kfar Chabad etc. Turen is a "kenner" in very good company.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

Mot

I appreciate what you're trying to do for your side, but this is not the place.

Your "lineup" is comical.

Mot said...

Why was it 'the place' earlier in these comments for someone to list a bunch of names and to do so for the express purpose of denigrating a Chasid? In fact, some of the names he mentioned were pathetic. Their beliefs about Chabad and the Rebbe are in direct contradiction to what the Rebbe himself said, despite their bekius.

I presented a list of some rabbis/mashpiim/roshei yeshivos who repeat what the Rebbe said. Sorry to hear that these teachers of Chabad Chasidus don't meet your approval. Can we leave "sides" out of this?

Can we focus exclusively on what the Rebbe said, on what mashpiim etc. have said that is based on the teachings of Chabad Chassidus, and on what YBG thinks about Chabad and what the Rebbe said?

Can we avoid getting into what sundry individuals (even you, me and kenners and unkenners) think or believe that is not based on the teachings of Chabad, specifically the Rebbe's teachings?

yudah said...

Mot,
I agree that on the face of it the Meshichists are right in their interpretation.However, when faced with interpretations that can lead us to very scary depths, it is better to try and understand these things with in normative parameters.Sometimes one can also say they "don't know"
Yet,I still think that had these things been said with clarity, these problems could have been avoided.
Btw,I understand that you are a Meshichist.Am I right?

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

Turen was mentioned only because Bechhofer mentioned him as a source. The Moshiach was largely omitted from the discussion. You took this to a whole new direction which I would rather avoid.

yossi said...

"You took this to a whole new direction which I would rather avoid."
Why?

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

WHY? very simple. people not gebentshed with much brains come along......

Mot said...

I took it in a new direction? I simply responded to those who posted previously, including YGB.

Yudah - Who or what I am is of zero relevance here.

yossi said...

Tzig,
People not "gebentshed" with brains are people to!
I'm just an average "yukel" , but I think it's high time that the "elephant in the room" be addressed.
Frum society is being forced to address many issues and we see how physically dangerous it is when such issues are buried.
The same is true about this "elephant"
I don't want to sound cynical, but I honestly think that the reason you don't want to discuss the issue is that you don't know and the real problem I believe you and others have is that the folks,mashpi'im rabbonim etc who are supposed to know,don't!
Don't think that by not dealing with this it''ll go away.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

Yes, they are people, and I respect their right to live and prosper, but that doesn't mean that I need to discuss issues that I don't think they have the capacities to dissect.

I never claimed that I understood the Rebbe's words then, or how to relate to them now, unlike some other geniuses that think they know it all.

yossi said...

"I never claimed that I understood the Rebbe's words then, or how to relate to them now, unlike some other geniuses that think they know it all."

Mir halten shoyn oif a veg!
I did not say you said you knew,I suspected(and you confirmed it )that you don't know.Well, what does one do when they don't know.....they ask and discuss,no?

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

I asked and discussed a while back. Not always did I find answers to my liking, but that's life. The thing is that you can find a "mashpia" that thinks like you no matter how extreme, so what does that help?

yossi said...

I meant a public discussion, like you have had here.

Addressing your question about having an extreme mashpia.I guess if someone is not seeking the truth they''ll seek out a mashpia who thinks like they do.But let's analyze this mashpia thingy a sec: The poster Mot brought a whole list before, you,in my opinion, correctly assesed the list.So I think that when it comes to questions that are huge, one does not go an ask anybody.This is way beyong that.

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

Thanks, Yossi.

That's why I like to stick to the "big guns."

yossi said...

Hirshel,
Sorry to belabor the point, but the "big guns" are very,very quiet.
The one "big gun" who has addressed the issue in a rational way, was Rabbi Heller.
I want to be honest and tell you that mostly because of how this point has been addressed, which allowed a bunch of unstable and/or ignorant people to grab a big following I have moved on from active Lubavitch.Quietly, with out big fights and a splash.

Mot said...

Stable and/or ignorant people? Why does this blog allow individuals, anonymous no less ("yossi"), to condemn rabbonim, mashpiim, and roshei yeshiva?

Would you mind showing the Rebbe the comments to this blog? You know, like the shluchim who would send the Rebbe a duch about every detail, would submit every invitation, flyer etc. If your blog's goal is to provide "a counter-opinion to the Chabad bashing," seems counter-productive to allow anti-Chabad bashing here.

Or perhaps you want to amend your goal so that it reads that the purpose of your blog is to support the Chabad you like while condoning the bashing of those people and aspects of Chabad that you don't like.

Benjy said...

Mot
You take yourself to seriously.Chill out ,pal!

Anonymous said...

Mot

Saying that Rabbi Turin understands the Rebbes Kavana better then Reb Yoel, Reb Liebel Shapiro and Reb Liebel Altien that they were the backbone of toras horav is ludicrous and arrogance that I didnt for along time, By the CH rabonim story the rebbe wrote a tzetel that he gives for Reb Yoel full authority on his inyonim.

YGB said...

Mot wrote:
> Mot has left a new comment on the post "A Response to RYGB":

>
> 1) YGB: Why do you say that TIDE etc. are no more - don't MO schools seek to teach Torah im derech eretz or mada, as they call it?
>

No. The evidence is that there is no yeshiva in which RSRH s studied today on a consistent, or even intermittent, basis.

> 3)Have you learned the Rebbe's sichos of 5751-5752 for yourself? When you say that there is a "newer, pernicious, dangerous" theology, you associate it with certain individuals and disconnect it from the Rebbe, yet you can see for yourself, it you learn those sichos, that the Rebbe himself is the source of this theology. Those who are uncomfortable with this truth, including many Lubavitchers, try to associate it with "crazies" but a serious look into the sichos will prove that it comes directly from the Rebbe.

I believe the Rebbe b'sof yamav did believe and agree that he was Moshiach. Since I am not a card-carrying Chasid, I believe he made an honest mistake and it should not be held against his other gadlus. The newer, pernicious theology is the making of Moshiach the ikkar of Avodas Hashem and Avodas HaChassidus, which lead to something close to deification in certain circles.
>
> 4) Why do you write that a 'mivtza' is as important as a mitzva when lighting candles etc. are mitzvos?
>

The mivtza is the campaign to get others to do the specific mitzvos.

> 5) When you speak about old Lubavitch theology (of your grandfather's day) and new Lubavitch theology, what are you actually saying - are you saying that the Rebbe is not a hemshech of the Chabad Nesius but a departure from it?
>

Not quite. In the early days of the Rebbe the Hiskashrus was personal. I once, at a farbrengen in Chicago, asked my Uncle I the following: "I understand why you are a Chosid of the Rebbe, because you had a personal connection and direct hashpo'oh from the Rebbe, but why should everyone else be a Chosid." (I know there are answers, but I wanted to hear what he had to say.) He told some lovely stories from '50's, but never answered the question. I think that something changed in Chabad, and the definition of the Nesius, with the inevitable change of the movement from small to massive. V'yesh l'ha'arich, v'ein kan makom.
> 6) You say, "That Lubavitch was something else, that would have been far more appealing to me. It, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists." Are you saying that you like the old-time learning and avoda of the Rebbe Rashab's time? Would you have liked the Lubavitch of the Rebbe Rayatz which mostly entailed dying for teaching Torah?

See above.

> 7) You speak about the outlandish goal of giving the Rebbe nachas even now - A) Did you think that doing mitzvos and getting other people to do mitzvos to give the Rebbe nachas, before 3 Tamuz, was a good goal?
>
No.
> B) Have you read what the Rebbe said about his father-in-law, after his passing, the lishonos he used on him about his being alive etc. Do you also castigate the Rebbe for this or just his Chassidim?
>

Yes. It's a shverrer parshah. Can I take a pass on this one for now, please?

> 8) Do you fault the Rebbe for turning the Chabad movement into what you might call a cult?
>

Not necessarily. I have heard from my Chabad contacts the ta'anah that all the Chassidim in the early days here in America were the Poilisher Lubavitchers, and they turned the Rebbe into a Chagas Rebbe (I think the lashon was "a getchke"), while the real Lubavitchers were all stuck behind the Iron Curtain.
> 9) You said in your shiur that Lubavitchers consider the Rebbe to fit Rambam's criterion of building the Beis Ha'Mikdash and you gave a reason. Both the assertion (that he built it) and your reason, are incorrect.
>
>
> Posted by Mot to CIRCUS TENT - צירק געצעלט at Sunday, March 01, 2009 1:16:00 PM

I would appreciate being corrected. Thanks.

KT,
YGB

Anonymous said...

Mot
From your list I see how little your havana betoras horav is,there is 1 person in your list that is bichlal a somebody, is Reb Sholem Charitonev, obviously when he doesnt cater to the oholie torah boys he changes his skin completley, the others in your list are good for the new populist movement of the other side of the mechitza or for chabad.org etc..or for the lunatics of Tzefas. Garelik a mashpia are u nuts,

YGB said...

>YGB - On what occasions did you see the Rebbe (if you did)?<

When I was 11, my family had a yechidus before we attempted to make aliyah (ultimately unsuccessfully). The Rebbe spoke to me in Hebrew.

In high school I went with my Uncle Elisha to a couple of farbrengens. Once, during kos shel brocho, the Rebbe stared at me for an unusually long time - as my uncle duly noted to me.

Anonymous said...

Mot
Did the Besuras Hageula ever printed the Hagoas from the last sicha that the rebbe edited "that there is no inyan to be mefarsem Zehotai Shel Moshiach" (printed in Hiskashrus 100). Definitly not, they will only print the stuff when the Rebbe wasnt able to communicate and these lowlifes took advantage from a sick person. I dont see a reason why any sane person should argue with a person that is associated with Zimroni Tzig that is totaly off the cliff.The geheinim isnt enough for him for what he pulls the Rebbe thru the mud on a weekly basis. He is merachek more Jews from Chassidus then R' Shach,

Mot said...

The Rebbe said he says what he means and means what he says. The masses do not need a "priest" to interpret the Rebbe's intentions for them. Anybody can open the sichos and learn them. Not only can they, the are urged to do so, as the Rebbe repeatedly urged the learning of inyanei Moshiach and Geula in all sources and emphasized the learning of inyanei Moshiach and Geula in the Likutei Sichos of Nasi Doreinu, his own teachings.

As R' Berel Bell, member of the Beis Din in Montreal, once suggested we do with those who hold differently - sit down and open the sichos together. See what the Rebbe said. All the arguments and nonsense will fall away if the sichos are approached with the premise that the Rebbe meant what he said. Problems arise when Lubavitchers, even very knowledgeable ones, balk at accepting what the Rebbe himself said.

"Yogaata u'matzasa taamin" - if you truly want to know what the Rebbe said, you will know by learning the sichos. Likewise for finding a mashpia - the mashpia should demonstrate that "ein lanu ela divrei ben Amram." If you sense that the mashpia's message is tainted by fear of what people will think, you will know he's not the mashpia for you (unless you would like a mashpia who bows to people's opinions and what he thinks they want to hear).

Come on, bring on the intellectual honesty. Say it like YGB does, that you don't have the bittul to accept the Rebbe's message and hearing it makes you squirm. Take the responsibility like a man instead of shifting the blame to those Chasidim you love to hate. Go on, I dare you ;)

Anonymous said...

YGB
I have a hunch who your contact is, he writes his nonsense on the Tzig blogg from time to time on the greatness of Chabad of yesteryear,
But lets go thru the argument of the getchke, was Benche Shemtov , Avraham Pariz or Michoel Devorkin more Peilish then for instance the polish rav Mentlik,Kramer weinberg etc.. ? you have no idea of the facts, so please start learning chassidus for a few years and then be Hoga deious, You would never be so disgracefull school of law. By reading a Law for Dummies and claiming to have more knowledge then Judge Scalia

Anti-MotNonsense said...

AS you opened the can of “moshiach-worms” – lets get some facts straight about your alleged "chassidim- mashpi'im lehora" who you dream that they stick to what the Rebbe said: a)The Rebbe not only never identified himself as moshiach but explicitly explained how he could not possibly say such. b) The rebbe categorically rejects the possibility that Moshiach would come from the dead because it violates the Rambam’s rulings – as the Rebbe repeated (in writing) in at least 3 places.

Following some nuggets about all that from the recent “heated” debate on http://www.seforim.traditiononline.org., taken from the various responses there. Take note and stop distorting the Rebbe’s words.
__________
A. . The LR spoke of his FIL to be the moshiach hador, as he referred to him as the nassi hador (even of the 7th generation), thus even AFTER his death. However, ‘Not true’ in the conventional sense of moshiach, as he frequently qualified it (verbally and in writing) by saying “vehu yigaleinu veyolichenu likrat mashiach tzidkeinu!” Clear distinction between specific mashiach hador and the universal mashiach. In other words, applying the Midrashic comment that Mosheh Rabeinu will be the final redeemer of his generation, the dor hamidbar (and that is why he – like them - was buried outside the land).

B. 3.”No, the Rebbe implicitly assumed that moshiach had to be a person from the current generation.”

Not just implicitly but explicitly. In fact according to other explicit statements of the LR, he states that Rambam rejects the Tamudic-Midrashic opinion of Rav that mashiach (i.e. the universal redeemer) may be from the resurrected dead – and, of course, the LR also regarded the Rambam’s rulings in these matters to be the final word.

C. the LR said the EXACT OPPOSITE! At various occasions he cited the well-known responsum of the Chatam Sofer that Moshiach himself does not know who he is until the actual moment of redemption when he gets his “marching orders,” analogous to Mosheh Rabeinu and King Shaul. In other words, that speculation re who is moshiach is a sheer waste of time. Moreover, in the heat of the messianic speculations which led to internal and intra-movemental controversies in 1992, very shortly before his first stroke, the Rebbe issued a hand-written note (facsimiles of which have appeared in innumerable forums and sources):
The text of the rebbe’s note:
אין כל חיוב כלל לחפש מיהו משיח וכו' אבל מ"ע מהת[ורה]: אהבת כאו"א מישראל, ושלילת המחלוקת וכו' בתכלית – ופשיטא שלא לעשות במזיד הפכו.
This was written by the rebbe a few days before his stroke. An additional comment there is that the rebbe instructed his secretary, Rabbi Binyanim Klein, to preserve that note for “future reference”: שמרהו אצלך – זה ישמש לך בעתיד

D. ”c) The issue of the Rebbe being Moshiach and that of his continued life are basically unrelated and there is not a single authentic Lubavitcher who thinks that there are theological problems with Moshiach returning from the dead.”

Surely the LR was an “authentic Lubavitcher” yet he himself has “theological problems” with it as it contradicts the rulings of Rambam which the LR accepted as binding in this context; see Likutei Sichot vol. 35, p. 206, fn. 6; Igrot Kodesh vol. 27, #10167; Sefer Hasichot 5751, p. 496!

E. when his secretary Rabbi Groner once said to the Rebbe that he should reveal himself as moshiach already, the rebbe answered him “how could I? That is counter to the psak of the Chatam Sofer that moshiach himself does not know who he is until being told from Heaven!” This was recounted by Rabbi Groner at a public farbrengen in 770, 11 Nissan 5752, in the rebbe’s lifetime and in the presence of over 1000 people. Incidentally, the rebbe referred to this Chatam Sofer several times in his talks. (b) There is video-tape of one “dollar-distribution” when a reporter from CNN asked the rebbe directly “are you the messiah?”, and the rebbe responded with an unequivocal “NO!” (c) There is another video from “dollar-distribution” where a chossid handed the rebbe a letter addressed to “admor melech hamoshiach shlita”; the rebbe saw this “address” on the envelop and answered him “when moshiach will come I will pass it on to him!” You need more?
__________

And for everyone's benefit let’s better not go into what it says in Sefer Hasichos 5752 because כבוד אלקים הסתר דבר וד"ל

berl, crown heights said...

I really feel bad for you people - you have still not learned that there is nothing to be gained from arguing with "Mots" למיניהם . "Mot" will just keep repeating the talking points he has been fed by his "mashpiim".

Save your energy for more productive endeavors.

Anonymous said...

Mot
If the rebbe means what he says as your mashpiim are saying, then please answer me on the Rebbes latest Hagoas there is no inyan to be mefarsem Zehotai shel moshiach, since that Hagoas of the Rebbe there was no change in the Rebbes Daas, you peple are selective, and you will buy only what serve your false purposes.

Anonymous said...

Mot,
Dont white wash the questions that are hurled against you, are these on your list that you count, the prime of the Chabad mashpim ?

What does Rabbi Bell say? Is Yankel Chazan the prefered mashpia over Reb Yoel?

Does Rabbi Bell still fast on Tisha Beav? the big Mashpia Zimroni Tzig of Besuras Hagehula stopped allready? what exactly did Zimroni see in the Sichos of 5752 that Rabbi Bell can"t see?

Anonymous said...

Mot,
Did the rebbe ever changed his mind on what he said for Wolpe by the shabos fabrengen? Or again, you people are using the invalid state of a Nossi Hador for your sick convoluted shitos? Ask Rabbi Bell?

Anonymous said...

YGB - do you have an email address that I can use to contact you to continue this discussion?

YGB said...

ygbechhofer@gmail.com