HT should have bothered explaining that this one page from a complete siddur, an original manuscript handwritten by a son of the toldos yaakov yosef. this has not been disputed by anyone.
This is the incontrovertible truth. Its an open and shut case. This is a manuscript of the son of the Toldos and it clinches the case.
It is amazing that there are those in the Chasidic world who would cling to a belief that has been 'proven' wrong, just because they had a tradition for the yortziet being on the 2nd day.
I just wish the same could be said about Chabad's clinging to the Cherson'e fraud.
the good doctor should stay out of chasidus and start attending his patients, we chasidum believe in our kabalos h'avous and yes in our 'real rebbes' lately some dr/professor declared that the harav hakodosh resha'b z"l was a menivol c"v.. (his Tonge shall rot for that alone) “kol hayotze min hatuma tuma.”
Anon "we chasidum believe in our kabalos h'avous and yes in our 'real rebbes" is the Truth a concept of chasidus? or only in Koritz, Kotzk and shineve?
Yosef 718 how far should the truth be applied? that the Zohar is not from Rahbi? Since all professionals as Gershom Shalom and all professors in Hebrew University believe so?
good point and some of these "truth knower's will tell you that 'torah lo min hashumayim' either, the rule is their truth whatever it is, is the only lies!
I don't want to turn this into a debate about the Zohar and I am not a choker or a believer in historical science as be all and end all. So, about the Zohar, one need not go further then the Emden or the שו"ת תשובה מאהבה nobody will attack them when they have "limited" doubts on the veracity of the Zohar being completely authored Solely by Rashbi.
The problem with Cherson or the belief of the Yartziet of the Besht, is that it has nothing to do with religious belief of any kind. To extend 'religious' belief to matters of simple stories or traditions of stories told by previous Chasidim or Rebbes, is a kind of fanaticism to which I don't subscribe.
The issue is, should a chasidic story or tradition of a story be elevated to an עיקר אמונה type of thing, as if it were תורה מין השמים: My answer is NO!
For what its worth, I heard in the name of Rav Shloimeh Twerski of Denver, ztz"l, that he was mekabel that the Baal Shem Hakafosh was takkeh nifter on the first day of Shavuos but they didn't bury him until second day (because of shailos in hilchos yom tov. second day is more meikil and they found goyim to help). As time went on, some remembered when he was nifter and some remembered when he was buried.
14 comments:
He "knows" cuz he was there...
א בפירשע רי֘ף
The Rebbe's father also said that it was the first day iirc.
this whole document is bluff it can go to the chersana geniza
and who cares what he has to say put his yarmulka back in his pocket
HT should have bothered explaining that this one page from a complete siddur, an original manuscript handwritten by a son of the toldos yaakov yosef. this has not been disputed by anyone.
This is the incontrovertible truth. Its an open and shut case. This is a manuscript of the son of the Toldos and it clinches the case.
It is amazing that there are those in the Chasidic world who would cling to a belief that has been 'proven' wrong, just because they had a tradition for the yortziet being on the 2nd day.
I just wish the same could be said about Chabad's clinging to the Cherson'e fraud.
Yosef 718
the good doctor should stay out of chasidus and start attending his patients, we chasidum believe in our kabalos h'avous and yes in our 'real rebbes' lately some dr/professor declared that the harav hakodosh resha'b z"l was a menivol c"v.. (his Tonge shall rot for that alone) “kol hayotze min hatuma tuma.”
Anon
"we chasidum believe in our kabalos h'avous and yes in our 'real rebbes"
is the Truth a concept of chasidus? or only in Koritz, Kotzk and shineve?
Yosef 718
how far should the truth be applied?
that the Zohar is not from Rahbi? Since all professionals as Gershom Shalom and all professors in Hebrew University believe so?
"is the Truth a concept of chasidus?"
Yes it is, but not your truth.
"how far should the truth be applied?"
good point and some of these "truth knower's will tell you that 'torah lo min hashumayim' either, the rule is their truth whatever it is, is the only lies!
I don't want to turn this into a debate about the Zohar and I am not a choker or a believer in historical science as be all and end all. So, about the Zohar, one need not go further then the Emden or the שו"ת תשובה מאהבה nobody will attack them when they have "limited" doubts on the veracity of the Zohar being completely authored Solely by Rashbi.
The problem with Cherson or the belief of the Yartziet of the Besht, is that it has nothing to do with religious belief of any kind. To extend 'religious' belief to matters of simple stories or traditions of stories told by previous Chasidim or Rebbes, is a kind of fanaticism to which I don't subscribe.
The issue is, should a chasidic story or tradition of a story be elevated to an עיקר אמונה type of thing, as if it were תורה מין השמים: My answer is NO!
Yosef 718
The important fact is that the Besht was alive and he lives in his Torah, although I can not explain chassidus in words.
For what its worth, I heard in the name of Rav Shloimeh Twerski of Denver, ztz"l, that he was mekabel that the Baal Shem Hakafosh was takkeh nifter on the first day of Shavuos but they didn't bury him until second day (because of shailos in hilchos yom tov. second day is more meikil and they found goyim to help). As time went on, some remembered when he was nifter and some remembered when he was buried.
Post a Comment