Chabakuk Elisha writes: 10 Sivan 5750 – During distribution of dollars for Tzedoka. (found in Toras Menachem 5750 Vol 4, P. 325) – Note: This is a quick free translation, I don't claim that It's perfect – please look it up on your own.
VIDEO LINK
HRH"G R' Zvi Kahana: I'd like to ask the Rebbe about the issue that troubles the Bnei Torah in the Yeshiva world regarding the practice in Lubavitch that one doesn't have to, or is forbidden to, sleep in the Sukka. How should I respond?
Rebbe: You shouldn't respond at all, because this question is asked by those who only seek to reignite machlokes and sinas chinam, therefore it is best to keep away from them – and certainly not to get involved in responding, explaining, or halachic pilpulim, as if this is even a legitimate shayloh, rather, this is nothing other than a nisayon to create machlokes and sinas chinam. The hanhoga in Lubavitch – which is, by the way, also the hanhoga in Belz – regarding sleeping in the Sukka was well known and mefursam for over a hundred years! Back in the days of the Mitteler Rebbe, who was himself quite a lamdan, this was the practice, and this was what he saw in his father's home by the Alter Rebbe, the Baal HaTanya & Shulchan Aruch. There is no chutzpa greater than this klape the Alter Rebbe: to come along now, after a hundred years, and come up with shaylos about this practice! And this chutzpa is combined with dishonesty: as if this is some new innovation in our generation – when this is known to have been the practice for generations!
A Gadol b'Yisroel in past generations was once asked regarding the statement in the Gemara (Rosh Hashana (22: ), "Kol milsa davida lagluyei lo mishakrei bo inshei (that people don't lie about things that are done publically)" – how can the Gemara say this when we clearly see people that lie even about things that are easily verified? And he responded: The Gemara explicitly says "inshei," i.e. those that lie about such things aren't even in the category of "inshei." And in this case, they lie, not merely about something that was done publicly, but about something that was well-known and common knowledge! I ask you, why associate with such a mechutzaf?! Chazal warn us, "hamisabek im menuval misnavel gam kein."
R' Kahana: My intention was merely to be meorer the need to explain this for the Bnei Torah .
Rebbe: "Bnei Torah" need to act like talmidim of Moshe Rabbeinu, the first mikabel, as it says in Pirkei Avos "Moshe kibel Torah misinai, umesoroh, etc, vehemidu talmidim harbei." It is important to know if one is a student of Moshe or not; it needs to be contemplated if this behavior is in accordance with Moshe Rabbeinu's: Moshe sought to create achdus in Klal Yisroel – as we find, when they left Mitzrayim and stood at Har Sinai all twelve shvatim were "K'ish echad b'lev echad." This is the hanhogoh of Moshe Rabbeinu, and this is the hanhogoh of talmidei Moshe Rabbeinu – as we see that the general hanhogoh of all Gedolei haTorah, from all circles, was to bring peace and achdus. R' Chaim Volozhiner, a talmid of the GR"A, wasn't a chossid, but he wasn't a misnaged either – in general, religious Jews weren't "misnagdim," but there are some mechutzafim that act as shluchim of the Samech-Mem – and it is known how R' Chaim worked closely with the Mitteler Rebbe, both in matters of halacha as well as joining together in matters of askanus, etc.
Similarly, his son R' Yitzchok stood together with the Tzemach Tzeddek, both in matters of halacha and askanus, which is well known and verifiable (even non-Jewish sources can attest to this, so you can't suspect Chassidim of making it up) – such as their mission to Petersburg to nullify the gezeira forcing Jewish children to study in secular schools. And in later years, keyodua umefursam, the kesher and the closeness between R' Chaim Ozer and R' Lifshitz of Kovno with the Rebbe Rashab and his son the [Previous] Rebbe, and how they worked shoulder to shoulder to defend and strengthen Yiddishkeit in Russia, and how they signed together on many kol korehs, etc. So, after a hundred years of peaceful relationships among gedolei Yisroel from all circles, one Jew stands up, calling himself a "Ben Torah," signs his name "harav," and claims to be carrying on the path of Gedolei Yisroel that devoted themselves to hatzolas Bnei Yisroel, and what does he do? He ignites machlokes and sinas chinam b'Yisroel!
Such a Jew is not considered a "Ben Torah," because even if he studies Torah, it is apparently not lishma, resulting in his being moreh hepech hahalacha – as the Gemara tells us about one who learns Torah shelo lishma – igniting sinas chinam b'Yisroel! Furthermore, not only is the psak hepech halacha, but their entire metzius becomes hepech halacha: they become soldiers of the Samech-Mem, hepech halacha. Regarding milchemes Midyan it is written that they stood "keneged klal Yisroel, which is tantamount to opposing HKB"H." It is explained in seforim that the word "Midyan comes from "Madun uMeriva (fighting)," and those who cause fights among Klal Yisroel are messengers of the Samech-Mem, the same one who caused the Ma'aseh Midyan – except that with Midyan the method was through the Midyonite women and now he found a better approach: to involve people called "Bnei Torah" to create machlokes and sinas chinam b'Yisroel. They think that this is something new, but in truth this has already existed – in Midyan. And I say this publicly, and I'm not bothered that it will get out, since this isn't my chidush – this can be found in seforim.
It is written regarding anyone that makes machlokes and sinas chinam in klal Yisroel – whomever he may be – that even if he acted properly for many years – for 119 years – the Navi Yechezkel states regarding tzidkas hatzaddik: "even one who was a complete tzaddik all his days, but in the end he acts be'ofen hofchi" – and especially in our case, where the individuals creating the machlokes have always sought machlokes, only that in the past they were more cautious and careful with their words that it shouldn't come out clearly – but I don't want to continue with what is written in Yechezkel since I am in the business of brochos. They deal with the opposite of brochos, go investigate and decide for yourself what they deserve for their actions. As I said before, I wonder why you associate with them altogether.
R' Kahana: Nevertheless, they are Bnei Torah…
Rebbe: They aren't "Bnei Torah." They are mechutzafim who oppose Toras Moshe in that they seek only machlokes and sinas chinam after a hundred years of peace! Regarding chutzpa such as this the Gemora states "at the time preceding Moshiach, chutzpa will abound." Stam chutzpa always existed, but when we see chutzpa like this it is a siman that we are B'ikvasa De'moshicha, when chutzpa abounds among those who fulfill the will of the Samech-Mem: to bring sinas chinam – the reason for galus – and through that to delay, chas veshalom, the geula ho'amitis vehashleima al yedei Moshiach tzidekeinu! All the "kitzin" have passed, and the fact is that Moshiach has still not come – and the guilty party is those that incite machlokes and sinas chinam b'Yisroel! There is no greater obstacle to geula than this!
R' Kahana: Perhaps it would be appropriate that the Rebbe write something about this for the "Bnei Torah," so that they should understand the issue… that it's not something new, that it's an old practice and throughout the years it was accepted with peace and achdus among Gedolim of all types…
Rebbe: They know this already, and it has already been printed in seforim. It is unnecessary to explain things that they know themselves – and you can find proof in megilas Shang-Chai: there they knew to maintain a kesher with Lubavitch, and they had no problem coming to Lubavitch for help, and Lubavitch did everything possible to assist them. Some were brought to Israel and others to America, and there was real achdus and shalom – so much so that it began to erase the sinas chinam that had existed and that had brought galus about. And, of course, al pi halacha, if the cause for golus has been removed, Moshiach would have to come and bring Geulah.
So that's when the Samech-Mem stepped in – and he found Jews with long beards, that learn in Yeshiva, and he shook up what is found in the chalal hasmali (which need not be explained) and caused them "lehoros hepech halacha, " bringing machlokes and sinas chinam. We find that when Moshe took the Bnei Yisroel out of Mitzrayim, Pesel Micha was taken along as well – which was the cause for quite a bit of trouble later on – nevertheless, we cant criticize Moshe Rabbeinu for allowing it to come along – so I'm not surprised that "Pesel Micha" came along from Shang-Chai… Once again, the wonder is why you associate with them. And I wonder about your idea here: that a descendant of the Tzemach Tzeddek, who was named after him, should publicize and be meorer the kesher between his zeide and R' Yizchok MiVelozhin! Is it necessary for me to do this?! Do they not already know this?! They hide from those facts and pretend not to know merely to make machlokes and sinas chinam.
R' Kahana: Not everyone knows…
Rebbe: (smiles) If your intention is to be melamed zchus, it's nice.
R' Kahana: I myself was not aware.
Rebbe: What didn't you know? You weren't aware of the relationship between R' Chaim Ozer and the [Previous] Rebbe and the Rebbe Rashab?!
R' Kahana: R' Chaim Ozer I did know, Baruch Hashem, and I certainly knew of their relationship.
Rebbe: R' Chaim Ozer was a great lamdan, and chief Rabbi of Vilna. He worked with the [Previous] Rebbe and Rebbe Rashab. Nobody needs to go now and seek permission for their hanhogos from a "chatzaf" keneged Toras Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, from such chutzpa we must protest – if we remain silent the chutzpa only grows! I don't want to attack anyone, chas veshalom, but I ask you: In Israel there are many Irgunim shel Rabbonim, how can it be that the mecharcirei-riv do whatever they want and not one opens their mouth to say a word? We say in Shmoneh Esreh, "Es Tzemach Dovid avdecha meheira tatzmiach," but if we only recognize that if we would eliminate machlokes and sinas chinam, Moshiach would already have come!
Chaval on our time discussing this matter… let's talk about chinuch in Eretz Yisroel. In Israel there are thousands of Jewish children that don't know the first letter of "Anochi Hashem Elokecha," and from year to year, more and more children – literally tens of thousands bli guzma (haklevai that it should be a guzma) of children don't get this education. What has been done in these forty years to save the chinuch for these tens of thousands of children? People come with criticism about Sukkah, but they won't even put their finger in cold water to help these Jewish children and bring them to be able to learn Torah! This doesn't bother them at all?! But they have no interest in these matters, because their goal is machlokes and sinas chinam – maaseh Midyan.
Midyan was busy with Avoda Zara begilui, but now people are embarrassed of Avoda Zara begilui. They serve Avoda Zara with the egel hazahav: They pay off Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva to write what ever they demand (they themselves aren't talmidei chachomim, their "lomdus" is buying off Rabbonim, etc) and now, now there is an argument over 16 million dollars – no exaggeration – that was earmarked for Yeshivos, and subsequently it came out that a fight ensued for control of the money and it was decided to temporarily keep the money in the USA. Then there was a debate about what bank to put it in, until they found a bank that paid a higher rate and deposited it in someone's name – and he became in control of the funds. And who benefited from the money? Not the Yeshivos; not even their own Yeshivos!
R' Kahana: I'd like to apologize to the Rebbe for taking the time.
Rebbe: May we hear besuros tovos, and surely you will excuse the harshness of my words; it's just that this has gone too far…
R' Kahana: I know; I know what's going on there. I have come from there and that's why I wanted to smooth out the matter.
Rebbe: In this matter nothing can be accomplished coming from here – from the side that is nogeah bedavar. It's better to find someone from the talmidim of R' Chaim Ozer, that follows his path, to write and protest against this – and to publicize R' Chaim Ozer's letters reflecting his relationship with the Rabbeim, etc, and maybe that will help…
R' Kahana: I knew R' Chaim Ozer, and I am aware of the relationship.
Rebbe: Nu!...
R' Kahana: I would like to ask the Rebbe for a brochoh for deah tzelula
Rebbe: (smiling) Yeah, that's just what you need…that it get out that you asked me for a brochoh… B'chol ofen, may Hashem help, that you should merit to discuss the coming of Moshiach, and not about the hindrances to his arrival and the chutzpa that prevails from day to day.
R' Kahana: I need a brochoh that Hashem should grant me deah tzelula.
Rebbe: Certainly your daas is clear enough to explain to them what they need to hear, especially since they already know this deep down.
R' Kahana: I mean deah tzelula in Limud haTorah, "Vehaer eineinu b'Sorasecha."
Rebbe: We all suffer great pain from the rampant chutzpa of ikvosoh demeshicha, and you want to learn Torah with tzilul hadaas and menuchas hanefesh?! This is what Yirmiyahu answered Baruch ben Neriah ( Ch. 45) when he asked why he wasn't worthy to receive prophecy: "Koh amar Hashem – What I have built I will tear down, and what I have planted I will uproot, I am uprooting all the land, and you seek great things for yourself?!"
(R' Kahana then introduced his wife as the daughter of the 'Einayim Lemishpat,' (Rav Arieli) and she said: "I'd like to ask the Rebbe for a brochoh for my son and my grandson, that they should follow in the path of Torah" – to which the Rebbe responded: "May they have "einayim lemishpat," and by that I mean mishpat amiti.")
Rebbe: May you have besuros tovos in an oifen of keflayim le'toshiah – and, as I said, I hope you weren't offended (and the Rebbe gave them 2 dollars).
Why are you posting this now? Is is because we just lained about Midyan last Shabbos? Was it bnogeah to the Karliner thread?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with individual groups following their own rabbonim, so the idea here dosen't bother me bichlal. But since you brought it up, why is the Lubavitcher "hanhoga" not to sleep in Sukka (which is a befeirushe chiyuv in gemara, shulchan aruch, etc)
ReplyDeleteMazal Tov Hirshel. I suppose your all unpacked now and your getting down to some REAL business for the summer. Or is that Chelek of Toras Menachem the first sefer that came out of the boxes. Oh well....
ReplyDeleteIn any event, good post, that tape should get more publicity, the Rebbe is quite explicit as to the true identity of the Koirach Fun Unzerer Dor.
You care to enlighten us about the Megilas Shang Chai and the story of the disappearing $16M??
'twas not me, but Chabakuk Elisha who took the time to translate, although he now may have second thoughts about it....
ReplyDeleteWere it not for him I'd have very little time for the blog right now. I thank him from the bottom of my heart.
Just great. Throw CE under the bus....
ReplyDeleteYes, I wrote the translation for ya from Toras Menachem - but I also recomended AGAINST publication, remember?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Rebbe imply there that Rav Shach = Pesel Micha????
ReplyDeleteZalmen L,
ReplyDeleteFrom a Halachic perspective, I remember attending a shiur (I think from Rav Shtraser from Nitra in Boro Park but I could be mixed up about that) where I think he said that it’s really machlokes Rishonim (bekitzur): the premis for those that don't require sleeping in the Sukka being it wouldn’t be "Teishvu Ki'En Toduru" (we would never sleep under such conditions normally).
Based on this, I would have to say that according to the Lubavitcher Rebbe this blog is Mayseh Midyan, and therefore the Tzig is a shliach of the Samech (you fill in the rest). And especially in light of the HM post I would have to say that HT is a Divider, not a Uniter
ReplyDeletechas v' sholom that the Rebbe would have meant Rav Shach. I would add that the rebbe sounds really, really pissed off at somebody. his genrealizations kind of belie the message he is trying to make. in addition, he is looking at the matter very myopically. I am sure he was familiar with the Aruch HaShulchan and others on this topic. I doubt there is any justification for his incredibly mean comments.
ReplyDeleteSome messiah he would have been !
btw, forget about anything else, Rav Shach actually knew R' Chaim Ozer. The Rebbe did not. . .
ReplyDeleteI've heard this tayno against Lubavitch from people who themselves don't sleep in a Sukkah.
ReplyDeleteThis reflects badly on their sincerity and motives in raising this tayno.
Thank you, CE for the translation....please increase in this endeavor as (while you point out- not always 100% accurate with every word) this is a valuable resource to all.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you want to post something like this? If you ask me, it seems pretty embarrassing for Lubavitch. If the Rebbe would have simply answered the question convincingly, don’t you think that would have accomplished far more? How did this answer help anyone? Don’t you think that a good answer would have been more useful? Sad.
ReplyDeleteLakewood, the Rebbe said that the answer is printed and therefore he doesn't need to review it
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't necessary for him to answer the question, because in general, it's not really an answer that the questioners are looking for. They don't want a construct, they want mischief.
There's another case of some Litvishe Bocher'l that waited in line for dollars to challenge the Rebbe why the Alter Rebbe Paskens one way in Shulchan Oruch and another way in the Siddur.
The Rebbe replies impatiently, "Ehh??"
The Bocher once again asks his question.
The Rebbe replies angrily, "The Alter Rebbe was able to learn better than you or I and Mistameh he knew what he was talking about." He then sends the stunned Bochur out.
The Rebbe always answered everyone according to where they were coming from. He had patience for anyone that questioned him sincerely, but people that came only for trouble got treated accordingly. He didn't stoop to peoples hatred and stupidity and he told such people how it is.
There's yet another video where a J for J comes in and gives the Rebbe pamphlets about Yoshka. While the Rebbe treated this individual respectfully,he told him very sternly that he needs help and chucked the literature on the floor"so that another Jew shouldn't get it." The Rebbe was quite capable of arguing this guy's "proofs" but he was astute enough to see where this person was coming from. He answered him what he had to hear.
why do you say that the Rebbe did not know R' Chaim Ozer?
ReplyDeleteWhat Yeshiva is R Zvi Kahana from? Is he still alive?
ReplyDeletehttp://afoyhy.com/index.html
ReplyDeleteWhat's Samach Mem?
ReplyDeleteWhat is unconvincing about the fact that the Volozhiners had no problem with this issue?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the Rebbe's comments also apply to this blog and its incitement of sinas chinam? What was the point of posting it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lakewood that this answer comes across as ridiculous and dodging the question regardless of the Rebbe's supernatural 'mischief detecting' powers.
>>The Rebbe always answered everyone according to where they were coming from. He had patience for anyone that questioned him sincerely, but people that came only for trouble got treated accordingly. He didn't stoop to peoples hatred and stupidity and he told such people how it is.
ReplyDeleteThis whole post shows the Rebbe did not have much patience. I doubt he correctly divined the Litvishe Bochur's intentions when he asked a question. Either way, one has to stay away from kaas, the Rebbe's answer was rife with anger and generalizations which seems more harmful than constructive.
The Rebbe did not know R' Chaim Ozer. Certainly, he did not have the kesher Maran had with him. So if he is cursing out Maran--and I do not envy him if he did--in this thread, he should not be talking about people he knows nothing about.
Plenty of people still wonder why Chassidim don't sleep in a sukkah. And most of those people sleep in sukkas--or at least try very hard to do the same. Stop imputing evil to every honest, isncere question people ask. Sometimes the questions are from well meaning people. And you--as the Rebbe did in this case--just turn off the people who are trying to better understand their chassidish bretheren by replying with violence and anger.
If there is a good answer, give it. But don't have the nerve to call people--possibly bigger lamdonim than the Rebbe himself--bad or not bnei Torah simply because they are asking a question. He is not a prophet. He is not God. He does not know what is deep within a person's heart. And as a talmid chochom, he had an obligation to be dan l'kaf zechus. Especially as he was referring to talmidei chachomim and tzadikim.
I am sure he knows better now what the intentions of those bnei torah are. I am sure he would retract his rash comments if he could.
Note impressive. Seems to me that someone asked the Rebbe a legitimate question, and instead of answering it, the Rebbe went of on a rambling tirade, accusing all those who ask the question of not being sincere. Although maybe by getting the dollars is not the best time and place.
ReplyDeleteI really don’t get what is wrong with what the Bochur asked the Rebbe. Nobody is/was denying the greatness of the Alter Rebbe. He just wanted to know why the Alter Rebbe’s hanhgos in the Siddur EXPLICITLY contradict the Shulcan Aruch HRav. What is wrong with that question?
BTW, what is the explanation for that in CHABAD?
My personal impression was that the Rebbe was speaking to the general audience as much as to Rabbi Kahana. Notice all the bochrim hanging off the doors and the Rebbe referring to this exchange as "speaking in public".
ReplyDeleteThis is why I have always found the comparison between yechidus and dollars so inappropriate (unless you cound RYL"G jiggling the door handle :-))
For all those who have forgotton:
ReplyDeleteIt was 1990. The attack from Bnei Brak was in full force, and this issue - a non-issue for a hundred years - was made into some kind of rallying call to boost membership in a full-fledged attempt to restart and reawaken the split between chassidim and the old fashioned misnagdim. This wasnt an innocent quesetion as some are trying to say it is here.
Everyone knew this at the time, and the Rebbe knew this - every ben chomesh lemikra knew it.
R' Kahana actually did mean well; I this that he really intened that it might be possible by answering this one (trivial) question perhaps the problem could be solved, but the Rebbe's point was that it would't work. The question and the answer weren't the point - tehy never were - and that if it was an answer that anyone was looking for, the issue is discussed in a number of sforim at length.
The Rebbe wasn't annoyed at R' Kahana, rather, the Rebbe was terribly dismayed and upset at the matzav where it was:
1. Hepech hashalom and docheh Geula.
2. Offensive to chassidim, derech hachassidim, and tzadikei hachasidim - things that were so over-the-top that it was quite intolerable.
I don't think there is honest fellow that dosnet understand this: How would repeating an answer solve this when the question isn't the issue in the first place? We all know that once we debate an issue there are many sides and thats not really going to convince anyone that dosent want to be convinced - the bottom line answer is simple:
We, like all ehrliche Yidden, follow the Rabbonim and gedolim that came before us.
So in truth, the entire question is foolish and moot, except on an academic level (which is not what those who ask the question were interested in)...
Here's what I take away from all this:
ReplyDeleteRule #1: Chassidim must always be right.
Rule #2: Litvaks should, at best, be seen and not heard.
Rule #3: If a Litvishe Gadol argues on a Chassidishe Gagol, he is making machlokes - but not vice-versa.
Rule #4: If it seems that Chassidim make a bidieved into a lechatchila, see Rule #1.
Did I get it right?
>>The attack from Bnei Brak was in full force, and this issue - a non-issue for a hundred years - was made into some kind of rallying call to boost membership in a full-fledged attempt to restart and reawaken the split between chassidim and the old fashioned misnagdim. This wasnt an innocent quesetion as some are trying to say it is here.
ReplyDeleteThis is a strawman argument. No one is reviving an age old chassidim - misnagdim debate, not now, not in 1990. The problem the Bnei Yeshiva had with some of the Chassidim of the Rebbe--and perhaps with the Rebbe himself for not thwarting that problem--is entirely different in nature, and legitamite, indeed. The problem I have with the Rebbe's rage and refusal to answer a question of gedolei achronim by launching into the issue of spurring machlokes--something which I do not believe he was innocent of, as a matter of fact--was a bad decision. It did not answer the question, it showed him to be very angry (which a talmid chochom is NOT allowed to be), and gave the impression that he is attempting to reframe an otherwise simple issue. All he really had to do was address the Messianic fervor and deification fervor of his community. Instead, he insulted a Gadol hador, and a vast portion of klal yisroel which followes him.
That is a baal machlokes. And how, pray tell, can his words--spoken from such anger--be l'shem shomayim?
I am dismayed once again.
Harav Yonah Lazar and Twinselton:
ReplyDeleteWith all do respect, your replies are very short sighted. This has nothing to do with the Rebbe's prophetic abilities {don't you know what 'astute' means?}, it's something that is apparent in the person's approach. It wasn't as though these were isolated questions that needed answers, these were questions which the Misnagdim at the time were generally throwing at Lubavitch or, in the case of the Bochur, apparent that he had come to Shlug the Rebbe up on the Alter Rebbe.
Also, someone pointed this out to me, if you notice in the video, the Rebbe says that he's saying this B'Rabbim and point directly at the camera. In this case it wasn't an individual answer, he meant this to everyone with this attitude.
As a matter of further short-sightedness, you're looking at this individual clip and judging the Rebbe to be impatient and rife with anger. Apparently you have no idea who the Rebbe was. We're talking about a man in his 90's that stood all day greeting lots of people and answering lots of questions. Many people came by who didn't share the Rebbe's outlook on things and they were answered patiently and appropriately. There were many Litvishe Rabbonim who came by and were treated with absolute gentility and they too were answered appropriately. The Rebbe was not an angry man, quite the opposite actually. But, if there's one thing that the Rebbe fought vehemently against, it was the Misnagdim who sought to destroy Lubavitch. He didn't have a lot of patience for that type of stupidity.
The majority of your response is premised on an incorrect belief; that this is about chassidim and those who are concerned about certain problems in chassidus (aka misnagdim). This is not the case here. The Rebbe either was incorrect or manipulated this matter into a whole different issue. There are many posking presaging 1990 who have this issue--not because they are misnagdim, but because they don't understand a view that runs counter to gemara and shulchan aruch. This has nothing to do with shalom, R' Chaim Ozer (who the Rebbe did not know, certiainly not the way Maran knew him!), or the long history between chassidim and non-chassidim. The Satmar Rebbe did not launch into such an attack when asked about his minhagim, neither did the Vizhnitzer or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as astute as the Rebbe was, in this case, perhaps because of old age or simply being tired of the pressure exherted on him to resolve the internal mess that is so much more obvious and exposed within Lubavitch today, the Rebbe responded with a level of wrath which was inappropriate according to halacha and common sense.
I am not saying anything against him as a lamdan or, obviously, the holy shulchan aruch harav, who I revere, I would love responses. The ones our rabbonim have devised--see R' Moshe Shternbuch's article on this issue, for example--are probably not close to what the Rebbe could have explained as he was a chussid, a Rebbe, and someone who understood chassidish minhagim and hanhagos deeply.
Its a shame he did not think more carefully in this case.
PS stop being a martyr.
Being a misnaged does not mean that he is intent on destroying Lubavitch. You know nothing about what this word means. You should not insult the great tzadikim who were misnagdim if you know nothing about. Stop buying into all the dogma you are taught in Yeshiva.
ReplyDeleteTo the latest anonymous poster (11:56) - can't you people chose some kind of name???:
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a 12 year old kid. First of all, if you were around and paying attention you would know that you are simply wrong, and second of all, what do you think misnaged means, genious? It means OPPOSER, as in people who's primary focus is their opposition to chassidim.
I assume you are trying to be mechalek Litvaks from Misnagdim (as, if you read the origional post above you will notice that the Rebbe makes this chiluk as well), and in that case you have again missed the point.
RYL and others - can you please at least try to answer KaHalachah - what is logically wrong with the Rebbe's reply? The Volozhiners were not bothered by this. The Chofetz Chaim was not bothered by this. Why should it bother him or you?
ReplyDeleteI heard the tape and Rav Kahana did a lot more talking then is transcribed and he didn't sound like the wimp as he seems from the transcripts.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't think that the Lubavitcher Rebbe's answers were impressive or relevant, the Sukkah issue is really a non issue. The Rama rules that our custom is not to sleep in a sukka and Lubavitch is giving a hassidic reason for it. Litvaks are not used to that train of thought.
ailimisher
ReplyDeleteit's not a question of being a "wimp," he came to hear what the Rebbe had to say, not argue with him.
Ailmesher- Between you and me, and with all do respect to Rav Kahana, he really did look wimpy and shocked in the video. I read the article and watched the video and the video confirmed it for me.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the transcript and the video is that the transcript takes a few liberties in presenting the dialogue without Rabbi Kahana's many short interjections.
"Kol Talmid Chochom She'aino Nokem V'Noiter Aino Talmid Chochom"
ReplyDeleteAilimisher,
ReplyDeleteThe transcript (aka hanocho) is for reading instead of listening, therefore they are written to flow better and read easier. There is no material change in the sefer from the tape - and I didn't get the impression that R' Kahana was a wimp anyway.
And your point: "the Sukkah issue is really a non issue" - is exactly the entire point of the Rebbe's response! You are saying the same thing, except it dosent bother you that Klal Yisroel is torn apart by this "non-issue" and it did bother the Rebbe...
NEMO Wrote “It wasn't as though these were isolated questions that needed answers, these were questions which the Misnagdim at the time were generally throwing at Lubavitch or, in the case of the Bochur, apparent that he had come to Shlug the Rebbe up on the Alter Rebbe.”
ReplyDeleteI think it is a perfectly normal question to ask why the Alter Rebbe in practice differed from the Sulcha Aruch he wrote, both more and less stringent. The Chofets Chaim also did so, as the Mishna Berura was for Klal Yisroel, while he followed his own family minhagim, something which is not possible or probable here, as the FOLLOWER of the Alter Rebbe follow his minhagim, not his SA, unlike the CC. In addition, some of what is written in the Siddur is obviously not meant as his minhag etc, given the fierceness with which it was written.
BTW, to imply that there is a lack of respect in the Litvish world to the Alter Rebbe is absurd. When my father learns, it is from the few seforim on the table. Would that Chabad world had the same respect for Litvish Gedolim
>>First of all, if you were around and paying attention you would know that you are simply wrong, and second of all, what do you think misnaged means, genious? It means OPPOSER, as in people who's primary focus is their opposition to chassidim.
ReplyDeleteWow, so many insults; so little content. The term, misnaged, was coined by chassidim either as a promotional tool or because they wanted to convey precisely what you think; that they are just against chassidim for the sake of opposing them. One who knows anything about history and the issues involved knows that your comment flows from a level of ignorance which matches (or perhaps surpasses) your unbridled nastiness. You don't seem to get the point. If you knew the gemra and halacha, you would not think this is so simple an issue. While I am prepared to hear your position, you are completely in opposition to mine. Aside from the fact that this shows you to be hypocritical (as this is what you claim misnagdim are), it also makes dialogue impossible. All I ask is for an explanation. If you cannot give it, just say it. Don't insult people when you know nothing about Jewish history, and are too inundated with sinas chinam and sinas Hashem v'Toraso to treat a fellow Jew with respect when he reaches out with sincerity and attempts to understand where another Jew is coming from. Especially in these days, one can only wonder what on Earth is wrong with you. I cannot possibly fathom your problem.
The world does not hate Lubavitch, just as the world does not hate Litvaks. There are concerns that people have had about certain groups within your camp. That does not flow from the very substantve issues all Jews throughout the world had with Chassidim when it started out. YOu are not a martyr. You are not suffering for your beliefs. You are not being attacked. You are being asked a simple question.
It is a very discomforting thought to realize that your education teaches, aside from Lubvitch being superior to all other groups, that you are subject to prosecution for being a lubavicher. That is silliness to the extreme. Grow up.
>>The Volozhiners were not bothered by this. The Chofetz Chaim was not bothered by this. Why should it bother him or you?
ReplyDeleteThis is what the Rebbe claimed. You have a source for this? Aside from the fact that it was extremely cold, I do not see any other explanation as to why the gedolei hador did not protest against this practice. Halacha itself sets out dispensations for not sleeping in a sukka. But no one can really deny the obligation. Of all people, the Rebbe knew the Rambam's position on this subject. I cannot understand why he so angry about the reasonable question he was asked. Again, I understand the context, and appreciate that he was aggravated by the positions of certain gedolei hador against some of his practices (not against Chassidim--as not a single other Chassidus endured this problem); but such anger does not befit the great man I know the Rebbe was. This seems to be more of a busha to him, and I would think you should remove this shame to his exalted name and otherworldly reputation.
>>Would that Chabad world had the same respect for Litvish Gedolim
ReplyDeleteHalivei!!! Their hatred toward others is palpable!
I went through the entire shulchan aruch harav several times. Everyone learnes it; its a classic. This is not about being OPPOSED to Lubavitch. Seriously, for all his wisdom, one sees the limits to the Rebbe's vision on the account of his being a mere mortal. I guess we are all susceptible to mistakes.
NEMO Wrote “It wasn't as though these were isolated questions that needed answers, these were questions which the Misnagdim at the time were generally throwing at Lubavitch or, in the case of the Bochur, apparent that he had come to Shlug the Rebbe up on the Alter Rebbe.”
ReplyDeleteI think it is a perfectly normal question to ask why the Alter Rebbe in practice differed from the Sulcha Aruch he wrote, both more and less stringent. The Chofets Chaim also did so, as the Mishna Berura was for Klal Yisroel, while he followed his own family minhagim, something which is not possible or probable here, as the FOLLOWER of the Alter Rebbe follow his minhagim, not his SA, unlike the CC. In addition, some of what is written in the Siddur is obviously not meant as his minhag etc, given the fierceness with which it was written.
guravitzer said...
RYL and others - can you please at least try to answer KaHalachah - what is logically wrong with the Rebbe's reply? The Volozhiners were not bothered by this. The Chofetz Chaim was not bothered by this. Why should it bother him or you?
Firstly, do you think they were even AWARE of it. It wasn’t like to day, were communication is all over. Secondly, assuming they were aware of it and disproved, dose that mean that everything else done by that person is treif. You live in a black and white world. Do no Litvisher Gedolim have a connection to Rebbes who daven late, something certainly NOT approved of. Stupid point. Unless your point is that they could still be considered Gedolim even though they don’t sleep in the Sukkah. Which wasn’t what R. Kahan asked.
“Seriously, for all his wisdom, one sees the limits to the Rebbe's vision on the account of his being a mere mortal. I guess we are all susceptible to mistakes.”
ReplyDeleteYou APIKORIS!!! A Mortal !!!!
Guravitzer:
ReplyDeletePlease respond to this.
Look if you are an ish emmes you would know that the claim that Volozhin was not 'bothered' by this is very difficult to understand:Why, you ask?Simply because apparently EVEN IN LUBAVITCH it was not known as a HAKPODO not to sleep in the sukka by the REBBEIM.This is quite clear from the quote from the Previous Rebbe telling the chasidim about not sleeping in the sukka because of 'makifin debinnah',apparently these chasidim were unaware of it.Also in Moondshines sefer Otsor Minhogei Chabad he brings down that chasidim in the town of Lubavitch were unaware of this hanhogo of NOT sleeping bedavka by the Rebbeim.If even Lubavitch did not know, how do you expect Volozhin of a hundred years earlier to know??
Please understand this:Hundreds of years ago and indeed maybe in the time of the Rishoinim there was laxity about sleeping in the sukka ALL the commentaries on Shulchan Oruch tried to come up with a reason, so the general custom of THE hamoin om was probably not to sleep in the sukka , so Lubavitcher Rebbeim would not have been much different and would not have raised any eyebrows.
Look this is besides the interesantkait of this not being mentioned and actually contrary to the psak in Shulchan Oruch Horav.
This has been written respectfully,I think, so if you could Guravitzer, please respond
Guravitzer
ReplyDeleteIs there any tradition in CHABAD to explain the diffrences between the Siddur and SA Harav? Is the siddur from later years, when he changed his mind?
Twistleton
ReplyDeleteThe Alter Rebbe wrote the Siddur later in life and Paskened according to Kabboloh
This insane discussion is going down the same path as the earlier one about the Satmarer in Lakewood and questioning, kibeyochol, the lomdus of the Lubavitch Rebbe.
ReplyDeleteBoth Rabbi Kanaha and the silly bochur were totally out of line and deserved the responses they got. That was not an issue of anger but of facing reality. Both issues asked have been dealt with extensively and in print! Had these men been interested in an answer, they would and could have researched and found it. It is like the missionaries who continuously keep throwing at us their questions about the Bible, when all these questions have already been asked and answered for hundreds of years and are printed in readily available books. Thus if the question is sincere, you examine and research and find out. You ask only if you really can’t find an answer. Here, too, applies the halachah of not answering a “stam makshan” or critic for “pokar tfei”!
You have to be more than dense and really stupid, never mind egomaniacal insensitive, to bother the Rebbe at a time like that and under those conditions, when literally thousands of people are standing and waiting in line for hours to receive the Rebbe’s blessing and dollar. In yechidus the rebbe would have dealt with them differently, but there and then applied the rulings of the Gemara on “answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
Neither the Rebbe, nor any chossid, need justify a sacred minhag of Lubavitch practiced by erudite and universally recognized authorities in halachah and kabbalah. Even as a Litvak would rightly regard it a chutzpah to be challenged to explain and justify how the Vilna Gaon followed his own customs and changed versions in the Sidus that run counter to the normative rulings in Shulchan Aruch (as evident from Ma’aseh Rav and the Gra’s Siddur), and in which he was not followed by anyone else in Lithuania except for the small circle of his close disciples.
The Rebbe’s response was simply to go straight to the root of where these questions came from and were REALLY all about.
As for Moron of Bnei Brak knowing Reb Chaim Ozer “better”, this is blatantly false and can only be said by someone not familiar with either of them. All of Moron’s positions and statements (especially those found in the collection of his letters), never mind his self-admitted incompetence in matters of halachah (see his haskomoh on Sefer Tevilas Keilim), are diametrically opposed to the wholoe derech of RCO. No doubt but had RCO been alive, Moron would have condemned his piskei halachah and hashkafic views, no less than he did with so many other gedolei Yisrael.
I’ll try one last time… I dunno why though…
ReplyDeleteMisnagdim is a term that means one thing, and it was a term that was not invented by Chassidim. It was used by those that opposed Chassidim and it meant that they oppose Chassidim, as in “we are the opposition.” It doesn’t mean anything less or anything more; and the folks that began this how-can-you-not-sleep-in-the-sukka campaign were very clearly on the war path to defame Lubavitch sought nothing other than that. It wasn’t sukkos that they were worried about. They were simply misnagdim – I knew many such people, and it doesn’t make them monsters, it just makes them misnagdim.
As for hanhagos in Chabad and in general, things were different in the old days and many people did many different things. It wasn’t until recently that Chabad started to make a big deal about following the specific minhagim (many examples for this, but my favorite is where the Rebbe Rashab said about slichos on a taanis tzibur, “di hanhoga in lubavitch iz nit ken rayeh, veil in Lubavich yeder einer tut vos er vil”). Nevertheless, it was a known issue, and the Mitteler Rebbe spoke about it almost two hundred years ago.
There are reasons for this lehalacha (toshvu kein toduro) as well as al pi sod (makifim dbina), and it is well-know that the Rebbe didn’t lay down to sleep at all during Sukkos). This is, and was, well-known, but as we’ve discussed, the people all worked up about this didn’t care about that.
The Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch has many psakim that Lubavitch doesn’t follow. The Nusach in Shulchan Aruch HaRav is Ashkenaz – different from his own Sidder – and his psakim are different in his Siddur as well as his psakim in the Luach. The Shulchan Aruch was written earlier in his life, and he changed his positions on things – He also expressed his regrets for having given the Magan Avrohom more weight in halacha at the time, and he clearly changed that opinion – moreover, he never published the Shulchan Aruch, nor was it a finished product. In general, we follow the klal that halacha kibasroi, and any later works are given greater standing than his Shulchan Aruch. I don’t think there is any big chidush there. Like all Jews, we follow the mesora as it came down through the generations, and so to in this case – I don’t see where Lubavitch is considered hateful or anything remotely like that in this case whatsoever.
(BTW, JJ, the Rebbe disagrees with you about that theory)
meir, to you personally in brief: In the Shulchan Aruch the Alter Rebbe paskened according to the Poskim. In real life, he paskened according to the mekubalim. This is described in various places, and explains your confusion. Everything else is conjecture.
ReplyDeleteI think that we are confusing disagreeing with a shitah and a derech and considering it apikorsus or against shulchan aruch entirely. There seems to be an assumption here that if someone behaves other than me, it must be borderline kefira.
Chasidim and Misnagdim disagreed over many things. In the first 2 generations or more, they believed each other to be minim and apikorsim - Misnagdim for not having Yiras Shomayim, Chasidim for not following Shulchan Aruch. In the eyes of Lubavitch, that ended in the time of the Tzemach Tzedek, where as we put it Chasidim discovered that Misnagdim are yere shomayim as well, and Misnagdim discovered that Chasidim follow Shulchan Aruch. They ceased to consider each other a threat, or kofrim, and focused on the Maskilim and the various governments oppressing them. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY AGREED WITH EACH OTHER IN MATTER OF HALACHAH OR HASHKAFAH. But the fact that they would work together means they considered each other to be ehrliche Yidden, with reasonable heterim for their behaviors. There was no peace with the Maskilim or the Tzionim for these leaders, as they were truly kofrim.
Thus: The Volozhiners still disagreed with the Rebbeim on all the issued that exist between Chassidim and the other parties. However, they ceased to be opponents. If they felt that not sleeping in the sukkah, or any other issue that the Mirrer RY could have brought up, were reason to lump Lubavitch with the Maskilim, or even to not consider them Frume leaders, they would have said so. Jewish debate was vociferous then - have you read the manifestos about Tzionus?
Nowadays, this is one of the questions used an excuse to be opponents once more. The Rebbe was not asking for all Misnagdim to become Chasidim and agree with all of our Minhogim. The Rebbe wondered why the opposition was revived, which had died out previously, and pointed out one of the weapons used. If the Volozhiners had wanted to be opponents, that could have pulled this out of their arsenal as well.
I fail to see how the Rebbe's anger is an issue. We are told that if need be, a Talmid Chochom should use anger to make his point felt. Not that he should feel anger, but he should express it. Here there is an additional issue - the Rebbe is not even angry with him, the Rebbe is angry with those who put this innocent gentle Lamdan up to posing this question. I have heard Shach's anger on tape. I had no issue with the anger itself. Az S'tut vei, shreit men.
Haora b'alma: The Rebbe wrote that while the theory that the A"R later paskened al-pi-kabolah is a nice one, it dosent fit, and we are forced to say that he simply changed his positions later in life for his own personal reasons (and we don't always know what they were).
ReplyDelete>>This insane discussion is going down the same path as the earlier one about the Satmarer in Lakewood and questioning, kibeyochol, the lomdus of the Lubavitch Rebbe.
ReplyDeleteKibeyochol? Seriously?
>>It is like the missionaries who continuously keep throwing at us their questions about the Bible, when all these questions have already been asked and answered for hundreds of years and are printed in readily available books. Thus if the question is sincere, you examine and research and find out. You ask only if you really can’t find an answer. Here, too, applies the halachah of not answering a “stam makshan” or critic for “pokar tfei”!
Missionaries don't know what they are talking about. The men asking these questions know everything there is to know about this issue, if not more than the Rebbe himself. The two are inapposite. The fact you equate the two shows you are a sonei yisroel.
>>The Rebbe’s response was simply to go straight to the root of where these questions came from and were REALLY all about.
And he was wrong. Maran did not dispute with a single chassidish leader of note, aside from the Rebbe. There is a reason for this.
>>As for Moron of Bnei Brak knowing Reb Chaim Ozer “better”, this is blatantly false and can only be said by someone not familiar with either of them.
You clearly don't know Jewish history, or are too full of hatred and anger to regard the truth. Did the Rebbe ever even visit R' Chaim Ozer? Rav Shach and him were very close, on a personal level.
>>never mind his self-admitted incompetence in matters of halachah (see his haskomoh on Sefer Tevilas Keilim),
Watch your language. Don't confuse humility with fact. At the least, he was the Rebbe's equal in learning.
>>No doubt but had RCO been alive, Moron would have condemned his piskei halachah and hashkafic views, no less than he did with so many other gedolei Yisrael.
Once again, you demonstrate complete ignorance in the hashkafos and writings of Maran. Either educate yourself about the subject, or don't write about him. Blind, ignorant hatred can and will never get you anywhere. Especially if you care for olam haba. . .
>>Misnagdim is a term that means one thing, and it was a term that was not invented by Chassidim. It was used by those that opposed Chassidim and it meant that they oppose Chassidim, as in “we are the opposition.” It doesn’t mean anything less or anything more; and the folks that began this how-can-you-not-sleep-in-the-sukka campaign were very clearly on the war path to defame Lubavitch sought nothing other than that. It wasn’t sukkos that they were worried about. They were simply misnagdim – I knew many such people, and it doesn’t make them monsters, it just makes them misnagdim.
Way off. Their hashkafos are different hashkafos than those proffered in the olam of Chassidus. They were against it just like ohavei hasham are sonei rah (in THEIR Opinion!), but it was not a movement just to destroy, chas v'sholom. More significantly, it was not directed against Lubavitch, but against all over 200 years ago. The fact you would like to contrive this ongoing fight against Lubavitch even though no one disputes with any other chassidus whatsoever proves this is not about chassidus--unless, of course, you are so presumptuous to assume that only Lubavitch is the real chassidus.
FOR GET THE SUKA STUFF
ReplyDeleteWHATS THE STORY WITH THE SIXTEEN MILLION?
“I really don’t get what is wrong with what the Bochur asked the Rebbe. Nobody is/was denying the greatness of the Alter Rebbe. He just wanted to know why the Alter Rebbe’s hanhgos in the Siddur EXPLICITLY contradict the Shulcan Aruch HRav. What is wrong with that question?”
ReplyDeleteIs everyone missing the point where the Rebbe said that the answer is printer IN THEIR BOOKS, besides open a Chaim Noah to find out about the contradictions between the SA and the siddur . You did hear of Chaim Noah right? Any self respecting “bnei torah” head of these books that the point the Rebbe made, that this issue is not new and has been dealt with by earlier generations. If you are a bnei torah do some research as the above post states, but that fact that you ask before going to the shelf shows that you’re not searching for answers.
“if there is a good answer, give it”
Again the Rebbe gives the reason for not giving it.
“it showed him to be very angry (which a talmid chochom is NOT allowed to be”
Rabbi Hanassi showed anger, some research would do you well.
No one not allowed To be angry internally and he was not,evident by smiling at times during the whole “tirade”.
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=191
It states everything there.
Chabadsker said...
Haora b'alma: The Rebbe wrote that while the theory that the A"R later paskened al-pi-kabolah is a nice one, it dosent fit, and we are forced to say that he simply changed his positions later in life for his own personal reasons (and we don't always know what they were).
T
he Rebbe got it from the Hakdomoh of R Chaim Noah to his Piskei Hasidur And Quotes Divrei Nichemya.
But in the Siddur on certain occasions he did focus more on the Ari.
“Did the Rebbe ever even visit R' Chaim Ozer? ”
He was sent by the Previous Rebbe to sign some papers and discussed many matters. (Which I heard Boruch Ber was also present at the time)
some Conservative/Orthodox Rabbi asked me why I use a mirror in davening while no one in the olf town felt it neccessary to do so?
ReplyDeleteI told him because that's what the Alter Rebbe did. and he continued to mock the position of the AR.
I told him, for you my answer is...
when you can tell me you never look at the mirror in general and especially when you're standing naked in front of a miror ( in your bathroom) come back and we can talk.
sometimes.. a person is asking just to be mecharcher riv. no logical answer will truly satisfy him because he already made up his mind and bederch zeh the Rebbe addressed this fellow,
Would Moron tollerate the Kullos of the Achiezer in Gieros,Gellatin etc.. definitley not,also he would put him Michutz Lemachne since he wasn't consistent with the evil hashkofes of Bnie Berak
ReplyDeleteI heard from a Rosh Yeshiva zt'l nephew of Reb Chaim Oizer that the Lubavicher Rebbe is the only chasidic rebbe that had a problem with Shulchan Oruch that he felt the need to respond, the other ones never even felt the need.
"meir, to you personally in brief: In the Shulchan Aruch the Alter Rebbe paskened according to the Poskim. In real life, he paskened according to the mekubalim. This is described in various places, and explains your confusion. Everything else is conjecture."
ReplyDeleteImpossible. Some of the contradictions (such as when is nightfall) have ZERO conecction to kabbola.
The Rebbe knew R C O very well. RCO fled to Yekatrinislav in the 1st World War.
ReplyDeleteBTW, see The Early Years Vol II about the Rebbe and R CO, and (particularly) R BB. I wonder, was Moron learning there at that time?
ReplyDeleteR BB told the Rebbe that if he would stay and learn by him, he would be the Rashkbh"g of the next generation.
>>Would Moron tollerate the Kullos of the Achiezer in Gieros,Gellatin etc.. definitley not,also he would put him Michutz Lemachne since he wasn't consistent with the evil hashkofes of Bnie Berak
ReplyDeleteThis is ignorant. Rav Shach was very close to R' Chaim Ozer, and his respect toward him was awe inspiring. Please take your poisen somewhere else, ok?
>>BTW, see The Early Years Vol II about the Rebbe and R CO, and (particularly) R BB. I wonder, was Moron learning there at that time?
R BB told the Rebbe that if he would stay and learn by him, he would be the Rashkbh"g of the next generation.
With all due respect, and we discussed this earlier, I can swollow the pride chassidim have for their Rebbe and their more than occassional tendancy to exaggerate in their zeal to celebrate his greatness. But I would strongly advise that you take that story with many doses of salt . I highly doubt R' Baruch Ber even met the Rebbe.
I can’t understand that when the detractors of Chabad or the Chabad Rebbe crawl out of their holes to spew their venom, they invariably refer to, cite and quote Rabbi Shach as the foundation for their position.
ReplyDeletePlease leave the man alone! He is now dead and buried for some years and finds himself in the “world of truth”. In that world of true reality, of seeing things for what they truly are as opposed to the illusions of this world’s falsehood, he regrets to the very core of his soul every single word and letter he uttered by mouth or in writing that have caused so much strife and hatred among Jews and torn the Jewish people apart as in the worst times afore. He curses the day that these things were printed and distributed to remain an eternal thorn and blemish.
People reading, listening to, and quoting his unfortunate lapses in shemirat haloshon, and the tragic consequences they caused, and especially when using them to perpetuate those views, is literally to torment and torture his soul, causing him the worst kind of embarrassment in the “World of Truth” – aside of the cherem of “al tizkor avonot rishonim” – when he now so desperately seeks to find some kind of peace.
So for those who claim to respect him, as well as for those who dislike him, if you have any sense of decency in you, if you truly care about loving your fellow-Jew like yourself (a mitzvah which relates even to the worst), his soul is literally begging you to please leave that parshah alone. Fight your battles on your own, with your own arguments, and don’t keep dragging him into the mud.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteI know where it's from, but the Rebbe didn't agree with the theory. I'd have to look for the letter where the Rebbe says it, but he writes that the theory dosen't realy fit.
Chabasker....
ReplyDeleteDo yourself the favor, go and read it and get back to me...
The Rebbe would not argue with R Chaim Noah, after he’s father in law said that he likes the way R Chaim Noah learns the AR SA.
And the point that he disagrees with it, is exactly what R Chaim Noah disagrees with, it’s precisely what
Twistelton-Twistelton said...
That there are many places you can’t say that he went according to the Mekubalim and must say he aged and attained wisdom and therefore changed he’s mind.
But in those cases where the SA and Mekubalim argue in the Siddur he went towards the Ari.
Ed
It is interesting to note that the Rebbe had already publicly responded to the sucah issue many years ago and was printed in Likutei Sichos. The topic was thoroughly analyzed and explained. Therefore - years later - when the topic is rehashed - the Rebbe is correct to not discuss the issue at hand - but answer the core issue.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Rebbe's intimated acquaintance with RCO and others - it has been recorded whom he met, corresponded... So if you accept great - and if not - who cares.
The core issue is why the resurgence of unwanted and unnecessary baseless hatred.
Twist, the ARSA and the Siddur are mishna rishona and mishna acharona, and we follow the latter. Nothing to do with Kaballah. Well, not always.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Rebbe's intimated acquaintance with RCO and others - it has been recorded whom he met, corresponded... So if you accept great - and if not - who cares.
ReplyDeleteWhere and by whom? This would not be the first time where stories have been confirmed as untrue. . .
to annon. on the Rebbe's acquaitance please check some of the following:
ReplyDelete1- Index of Igros Kodesh - for listing of people the Rebbe corresponded too
2- JEM video series of interviews
3- Yemei Melech (biography)
these are a few. like I said if you accept - great; and if not - who cares.
Have a great day!
Reme Melech? I am supposed to read a bio with that kind of title? Who cares? What kind of arrogance do you exhibit? What is the matter with you people?
ReplyDelete>>So for those who claim to respect him, as well as for those who dislike him, if you have any sense of decency in you, if you truly care about loving your fellow-Jew like yourself (a mitzvah which relates even to the worst), his soul is literally begging you to please leave that parshah alone. Fight your battles on your own, with your own arguments, and don’t keep dragging him into the mud.
ReplyDeleteYou profess to know what is going on in shomayim? Is that it? For all you know the Rebbe is suffering for not complying with Rav Shach and other gedolei hador and leading a whole group of meshichisten to live the way they do? Do you think yourself some kind of prophet? Seriously, what is the matter with you?
anon 11:36
ReplyDeleteso I guess a biography entitled "Rav HaDomeh LeMaloch" or "Rabbon Shel Kol Bnei HaGolah" is OK, right? those I'm supposed to believe?
Yes. It does not call either one a king; subjective comments about being DOMEH to a malach or a rabbi of all israel is not the same as the king of Israel. Please don't pretend that there is no difference. And you don't seem to be getting the main points of my argument--that the who cares remarks is beyond the pale--likely because there is no excuse for it. In that regard, I appreciate that you agree with me.
ReplyDeleteHere's a very interesting letter of the Rebbe that clearly spells out what the Lubavitch policy is regarding sleeping in a Sukkah. It also explains why we don't use decorations. Here's the full text of the letter (long before the famous Sicha found in Vol. 29 p. 211 ff. where the Rebbe discusses the subject at length - You can find probably find it online at www.otzar770.com):
ReplyDelete7 Cheshvan, 5715 [1954]
Sholom uBrocho,
Rabbi... conveyed to me your question as to why it is not the custom of Chabad Chasidim to decorate the Succah, as well as to sleep in the Succah.
This question calls for a lengthier explanation than this letter would permit. However, I trust the following points may suffice:
Re: Decorations:
Generally, a Mitzvah must be observed on its Divine authority (with Kabolos Ohl) and not on rational grounds, i.e. for any reason or explanation which we may find in it. An exception, to some extent, is the case where the significance of the Mitzvah is indicated in the Torah, and our Sages have connected its fulfillment with it. At any rate, only a qualified person can interpret it more fully.
We have a rule that a Mitzvah should be performed to the best of one's ability, and as the Rambam explains (at the end of Hilechoth Issurei HaMizbeach). This applies especially to the object of the Mitzvah itself, e.g., a Talis should be the best one can afford, an offering should be the most generous, etc.
Unlike the Sechach [branches covering the top of the Succah] and walls of the Succah, decorations are not an essential part of the Succah, but an external adornment which adds to the enjoyment of the person sitting inside the Succah; they are, as the name clearly indicates, supplementary objects which decorate and beautify the external appearance of the Succah.
The attitude of Chabad Chassidim in this connection, as taught by generations of Chabad leaders and teachers, is that the Succah is to imbue us with certain essential lessons, which are explained in Chassidic literature and Talmudic literature in general. It is expected of Chabad Chassidim that they should be impressed by the essential character of the Succah without recourse to "artificial" make-up; that the frail covering of the Succah and its bare walls, not adorned by external ornaments, rugs or hangings, should more forcibly and directly impress upon the Jew the lessons it is meant to convey.
Re: Sleeping in the Succah
In order to safeguard and inspire a greater feeling toward the Succah, sleeping in it is not practiced by us. The basis for this is two-fold: First, we have a rule that Hamitztaer putter min HaSuccah (suffering exempts one from dwelling in the Succah). Secondly, during sleep a person is not in control of himself, and, furthermore, the very act of undressing and dressing, etc. inevitably creates a common-place attitude towards the place which serves as a bedroom. Such a depreciation of attitude toward the Succah (by sleeping in it, as explained above), from what his attitude should properly be towards the Mitzvoth of G-d whereby He has sanctified all Jews, would be deeply felt by the Chabad Chassid by virtue of his Chassidic teachings and upbringing, and would cause him profound spiritual suffering. The combination of these two considerations, therefore, led to the custom not to sleep in the Succah.
However, if a Jew feels absolutely certain that his sleeping in the Succah will not in the slightest affect his attitude toward the sanctity of the Succah, and is consequently free from any mental pain that might be caused thereby, he is duty-bound to sleep in it, in accordance with the fullest meaning of Taishvu K'ain taduru, to make his Succah his dwelling place to the utmost.
I hope the above will provide an adequate answer to your question, but should you desire further clarification, do not hesitate to write to me.
With blessing,
(Reprinted from L'chaim # 688 (http://www.lchaimweekly.org/lchaim/5762/688.htm#caption5))
Thank you, googler,
ReplyDeleteThe first justification was the one I expected, the second, a little different, but I respect it and appreciate it.
No insults, just facts. That's what the Rebbe was supposed to be about. This post about him shows another side, and paints him as paranoid or evasive. I do not believe its sheds good light on him. But that is Herschel's decision, obviously. Not mine.
For all the Groiseh Misnagdim here, we're all still a little unsure what the Rebbe did here that went against Halacha. Please clarify and substantiate your allegations.
ReplyDeleteDid you watch the video? Did you not see how the Rebbe came to the conclusion that this man had been set up? Would you walk up to a man that you had never met before, about to ask him for a brocha, and ask him an insulting question about an esoteric isse?
ReplyDeletethe Rebbe's own words re AR changing psakim, from igros kodesh volume 3 page 140,
ReplyDeleteואף שאדה"ז בשו"ע שלו פסק כדעת המג"א החולק על המ"צ, הרי בכ"מ חזר בו ממש"כ בשו"ע, וכמו שנראה בסידורו, ובנדו"ד מוכח כן ממנהג בית רבי.
וראה בשו"ת דברי נחמי' חאו"ח רסכ"א שכתב על אדה"ז שידוע "שבשו"ע נדחק הרבה שלא לדחות כל דברי האחרונים ז"ל (בפרט המ"א) משא"כ בסוף ימיו שהוסיף חכמה העמיד ע"ד לחלוק עליהם אפילו להקל בכל מה של"נ לי' (וכידוע שבפי' שמעו ממנו ז"ל שחזר בו במה שנתן נאמנות להמ"א יותר מדאי) בפרט בדבר שהמציאו מד"ע כו'". ועייג"כ שו"ת צ"צ חאו"ח סי"ח ס"ד עד"ז.
ועפמ"ש בשער הכולל בתחילתו, דבאין הלכה פסוקה, הנה אף שהכריע בשו"ע בנטי' להפוסקים, הכריע בסידורו, שזהו משנה אחרונה שלו, בנטי' להמקובלים - גם בנדו"ד אפ"ל כן ועפ"מ שהביא בשד"ח טעם ע"פ רוחניות הענינים להקדים היה"ר לאכילה, ובפרט, שכנ"ל, גם לדעת המג"א, רק לכתחילה צריך להקדים האכילה (ול' אדה"ז בשו"ע תקפ"ג ס"ג צע"ק), וכדאי טעם הנ"ל לעשות הלכתחילה כדיעבד.
arbiter, guravitzer said it all. The Rebbe acted inappropriately, made callous, inappropriate personal insults on gedolei hador. YOU WANT MORE?!?!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous- I read and saw exactly what the Rebbe said to him. I didn't ask what it is that the Rebbe did. I said that no one has given a legitimate reason that there is anything wrong with it.
ReplyDelete"Inappropriately" is a particularly vague term without qualification. HOW did the Rebbe act inappropriately? What was wrong with what he said? Was it true or not true? Was what he suspected behind the motivation of question correct or not? What was callous about the response if it was a legitimate and reasoned response?
And let's try to avoid the circular logic of saying that he was talking about a "Gadol Hador."
There is nothing circular about writing that he was talking about a Gadol Hador.
ReplyDeleteThe Rebbe assigned severely malicious motives to a simple question, insulted those who disagree with him as not being bnei Torah based on this faulty premises in a very long tirade, avoided a simple question which Googler provided (thank you!), and finally confused an age old misnagdim-chasidim debate with this one--when, in actuality, the gedolei hador who voiced their concerns about some of his practices did not bother one sigle other Rebbe in the entire Diaspora. His remarks were factually incorrect if not downright dishonest. Anger got the better of him. And when one gets angry, even the chochm of osmeone as awesome as the Rebbe can be lost. That's what happened here, apparently, as there is little truth, mentchlichkeit, or sense in what the Rebbe was asserting if one reviews the facts in the most casual way.
Its posts like these which insult the grandeur of the Rebbe's majesty. I see no point to it.
There is a clear Mishna that Akitzoson akitzas nochosh. There is a clear Halochoh that when being mochiach the tzibbur one must use passion. No one has a problem with a Mussar Shmues in a Yeshivah. The Rebbe never insulted him in the entire conversation, the Rebbe gave him the brocha he wanted. I see that Sinah is truly mekalkeles es Hashurah. These posts are becoming repetitive, aside from the insult of putting words in my mouth.
ReplyDeletePassion is one thing, calling gedolei hador not bnei Torah and worse is not excusable, and has NEVER been done in a mussar schmooze. YOur hatred is getting the better of you. Think logic and reason.
ReplyDeletePlease explain the following: Who exactly are Gedolei HaDor? Where are they called not bnei torah? What worse thing are they called? Where have I expressed hatred?
ReplyDeleteInquiring minds want to know.
I thought I was dealing with quasi-intelligent people here.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Rebbe says - and R' Kahana for that matter - Bnei Teyreh he means the Yeshivah Bochurim and Kolel Yungeleit, not the Gedolim. They are not BT if they carry on Machlokes. Since when is a RY called a Ben Torah?!
More than one saw that this was in reference to a certain Rosh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak . . .
ReplyDeleteBnei Hanevi'im= Navi in training, those that haven't yet reached the ability of Nevu'ah but act in it's ways...
ReplyDeletePresumably then Bnei Torah would mean the folks that are learning to be "Gedolim"....
I asked this very question to one of our local Chabad rabbis many years ago, and his answer was something to the effect that "there is so much spiritual energy in the Sukkah that we would not be able to sleep!".
ReplyDeleteMy kids and I sleep in the Sukkah quite happily B"H every night of the Chag, but I certainly respect other people's minhagim.
and moshe meir, that would be the appropriate way to go, in both directions. It's one thing to argue hashkafos, argueing minhogim is plain silly, as has been proven over the last few centuries. Most minhogim (even if misguided - which not many are!) are done for reasons of Yiras Shomayim, and should be judged lekaf zechus as such.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't mind a couple of Jews having a laugh over those silly Lubavitchers not sleeping in the Sukkah over their coffee break at 12:00 pm in Kollel. I mind when it carries over into relationships between Jewish groups, when it becomes dogma.
Guravitzer: agreed 100% and that should really be the Tachlis of this long thread. We need achdus and ahavah, Yidden!
ReplyDelete