Mottel from Letters of Thought spent Shabbos Parshas Chukas Balak in New Hempstead (Greater Monsey, New York) with his wife at the Tzig house. Here's his short report.
I've known Hirshel Tzig for nearly four years, yet never seen him face to face . . . I first found the Circus Tent when some of my pictures from Kaunas, Lithuania (Kovno - קאוונא - HT) ended up on MentalBlog (ע"ה) . . . then used as a graphic by Der Tzig. He's been a valued blogging companion ever since. Though Hirshel and I have tried to meet up - by the Ohel, in 770 or by Chassidsher Farbrengen'ish - we were never able to work things out. So, the years and comments went by, and in my mind Hirshel remained a be-horned goat or a bearded face from a Vishniac painting. Then, last week, my wife and I were offered a ride to Monsey. (Mottel asked if he could come, I checked with the wife and we both agreed it would be a great idea!) Sending the Tzig an email, we worked out the details of our meeting for a shabbos together in his home. (In the end the poor guy, had to catch the bus in Williamsburg since the ride didn't materialize. - HT) Bottle of Laphroaig in hand, (That stuff could kill you -- HT) we waited along Route 306 for our dear host to reveal himself. (He means come pick them up. I took three kids with me and we drove down to Rte. 306 and Viola Rd.- HT) I was somewhat taken aback when we ultimately met. True his stature was different then I had imagined, perhaps his hair a bit whiter, but in truth it was his normalcy that surprised me. I feel very strongly that Bloggers are normal people - perhaps a little too passionate or opinionated - overall we tend to mesh very well with the general population. Yet while I didn't expect Tzig to have horns like a real goat I did almost expect him to be very much the firebrand and maverick that we know him as.
Instead I found a chassidisher youngerman, with zisse chassidisher kinderlach, and overall a very fine and 'normal' life. (Mottel is so holy he didn't even notice that I have a wife too! - HT) After speaking to him, I could tell that he was in the 'know' about all the interesting tidbits, trivia politics and history that make up the discussions here . . . but at most he seemed like the kind of guy who would comment on the Circus Tent and then get into a chassidishe dvarim b'teilim session about it in the mikva or by the kiddush after davening. (Me being the anav, I made sure to hide my vast knowledge in Nigleh and Chassidus from Mottel... - HT) He did not seem like the Anti-Tzemach himself. We spoke briefly about blogging - I gave him a few pointers (such as using scribefire to write up posts, and what Twitter could be used for) - and he showed me some of the vile junk he must filter out of the comments, but over all we spent the Yom Tov of 12-13 Tammuz singing geshmaker niggunim and speaking over divrei yemei chassidus.
Hirshel - stay strong in all things, and may we give the Rebbe nachas in what we do - and farbreng again in the near future.
78 comments:
I honestly don't mean to offend. I come across this sentiment all the time. It is as if people write and talk that "giving the Rebbe nachas in what we do" is the 614th mitzvah and that it's yehorag v'al ya'avor and all else is secondary.
At what stage does someone perform Torah and Mitzvos and also Chassidishe Peulos such that these are discussed as Rotzon Hashem as opposed to giving nachas for a Rebbe [it need not be chabad]. I accept that the person feels it's also Rotzon Hashem, but it's the word "also" in that context which sits uncomfortably with me.
Where is there an Aseh or even a hint that our central task in life is to give נחת to a מנהיג [who is in גן עדן?] Let's even accept that he was the משה of our generation. Even משה went to עולם האמת. We say משה אמת ותורתו אמת but we don't ever seem to talk about doing things to give "נחת to משה רבינו’. Is this mode of talk part of our mimetic tradition? Has it ever been?
Is it not that the reason that Chassidishe Hanhogos are performed as a means to an ultimate end and the ultimate end is being mekusher to Elokus through doing Rotzon Hashem. The penultimate, or one of the ofanei hakodesh might be to travel along this path to Elokus through the derech laid out by one's Rebbe/Rov/Rosh Yeshivah etc
Why then, do we talk as if the penultimate is the ulimate, whilst the ultimate is a side script in the style of והמבין יבין את קשר הדברים ?
I don't mean this disrespectfully, I just don't understand why we get caught up in the second tier. Ultimately, Hashem Echod Ushmo Echod and our role in life if והלכת בדרכיו
Laphroaig will NOT kill you. It is the best Islay single malt scotch out there...
" and may we give the Rebbe nachas in what we do"
Yep, there we have it again folks. These guys cant cover it over no matter how hard they try. They cant help it. The only way they can can get it out of the brain is wiping out the hard drive.
Sick.
Did you take photos of Tzig and his family? Are you going to post it?
Of note, I forgot to mention the geshmake niggunim by the Shabbos tish . . . R' Meir Shlomo Yanovsky's voloch b'frat.
-Isaac: My comment about giving the Rebbe nachas was not some whacky reference to doing mitzvos for some ulterior motive - but rather a direct comment about what goes on here on the Circus Tent . . . We shouldn't be gorem any agmas nefesh, r"l, to the Rebbe - but rather bring a kavod to Lubavitch and the Rebbe i.e. bring nachas.
-Shmuel: Agreed. We'll have to educate Hirshel
-Anon: Moron
-Snag JR: My offer stands to learn the inyan in torah of your choice in person. Until then your snide attacks show only that you are a spineless coward.
"and may we give the Rebbe nachas in we do"
"Yep, there we have it again folks. These guys cant cover it over no matter how hard they try. They cant help it. The only way they can can get it out of the brain is wiping out the hard drive.
Sick."
I'd just like to point out the difference in Isaac Balbin's approach to "and may we give the Rebbe nachas in what we do", which to a person not familiar with Chabad Chassidisher expressions,is an excellent question. Iaaac is asking in the spirit of the Chochom during the Seder.He's really seeking an answer.He is truly puzzled which again is quite understandable for a non Lubavitcher.
On the other hand anonymous, who seems to be a "great lover" of Chabad, personifies the statement of the Rosho I would think.His statement reeks with animosity and hatred with no intent of looking for or expecting for an answer.So what else is new.
As to Iassac's question I will defer to others who are more qualified then myself to answer it.
Laphroaig is an after dinner scotch. If you still know about it after the meal and ask for it, then you are probably a snag in the first place.
It's a bit like port. On a yom chol, it's best with a nice cigar in front of the open fire. On shabbos? es past nisht noochen herring nor noochen choolent
Arthur,
Isaac Balbin is not what you claim in this quote: "I'd just like to point out the difference in Isaac Balbin's approach to "and may we give the Rebbe nachas in what we do", which to a person not familiar with Chabad Chassidisher expressions,is an excellent question. Iaaac is asking in the spirit of the Chochom during the Seder.He's really seeking an answer.He is truly puzzled which again is quite understandable for a non Lubavitcher."
Balbin is very familiar with Lubavitch because he attended Lubavitch schools in Melbourne from young childhood through high school.I believe he also attends the main Lubavitcher shul, Yeshiva Centre (?) till this day(?)
(I don't know Balbin, but have seen his various comments on different sites to know this much.He also published an article about his frienship with the late Holzberg couple Hy'd from Mumbai.He also named his son after the late Rebbe)
He respectfully asks , but really means that even he,Balbin , basically an apologist for Chabad cannot stomach this "nachas to the Rebbe" nonsense.
I have butted heads with him before because of his Lubavitch biases and apologetics, so dear Arthur, don't pat yourself on the back and claim that people who are not "haters" want to "understand"!
The reality is that Balbin is saying in a nice way what all non Lubavitchers think:This type of idolizing the Rebbe is crazy!
"-Snag JR: My offer stands to learn the inyan in torah of your choice in person. Until then your snide attacks show only that you are a spineless coward."
Give me one reason why I should want to learn with you?
"I have butted heads with him before because of his Lubavitch biases and apologetics, so dear Arthur, don't pat yourself on the back and claim that people who are not "haters" want to "understand"!
The reality is that Balbin is saying in a nice way what all non Lubavitchers think:This type of idolizing the Rebbe is crazy!"
So what your saying is that Balbin is some sort of closet or not closet Lubavitcher but on the other hand questions Chabadsker terminology from an outsiders point of view but really being a Chabadsker does so in a gentlemanly way? So what does that make him according to your convoluted logic? A half breed?
I have relatives from my immediate family in Australia who tell me otherwise.That he definitely is not a Lubavitcher but is not of the mindless "basher" school of thought that we come across so often on the internet and on this blog.
I am definitely not "patting myself on the back" as you put it. Just pointing out that he has a justifiable question from an outsiders point of view and he poses that question like a mentch rather then the "ahah we got ya" vilifying type of approach used by the other poster.
anon3
Are you going to explain to us what that means?
Arthur,
What I said was that Balbin is not an ousider! He is not a "closet" Lubavitcher either.To his credit he signs his name to what he says.
The point I tried to make, that was lost on you apparently was that EVEN,Balbin, an alumnus of Lubavitch thinks that "nechas to the Rebbe" is nuts! I'm not arguing that he did not say it in a nice way.He did.And you also didn't realize that he was not actually "asking".He was saying, nicely that this "nachas" is loco.
"Terminology":When did this garbage become Lubavitch "terminology"?It'a an invention that also spawned the guys denying the Rebbes passing. (sorry Mottel for being so "megushem"....)
Snag jr
You asked "anon3
Are you going to explain to us what that means?"
The answer was given by Mottel in his above post
"My comment about giving the Rebbe nachas was not some whacky reference to doing mitzvos for some ulterior motive - but rather a direct comment about what goes on here on the Circus Tent . . . We shouldn't be gorem any agmas nefesh, r"l, to the Rebbe - but rather bring a kavod to Lubavitch and the Rebbe i.e. bring nachas."
"So what your saying is that Balbin is some sort of closet or not closet Lubavitcher but on the other hand questions Chabadsker terminology from an outsiders point of view but really being a Chabadsker does so in a gentlemanly way? So what does that make him according to your convoluted logic? A half breed?"
I think that Isaac Balbin is an intellectual who's heart loves Chabad and who's brain forces him to see some of their bizarre stuff for what it is:Crazy in his book, dangerous in mine.
So if you ask me how I see him:As I said before: An apologist.I see him as being way to nice (or weak..)to forcefully tell you what his brain really thinks about the "New Lubavitch"
That is my opinion, without knowing the man personally or ever being in what the rebbe used to call "kadur ho'oretz hatachton"
I'm sure you can ask him and he''ll be happy to share with you his feelings about Chabad and tell you stories about growing up and attending Yeshiva College and his relationship with R'Groner,shliach in Melbourne
Arthur (the twisted) so crookedly stated regarding saying "lets bring nachas to the Rebbe": "His statement (anon's) reeks with animosity and hatred with no intent of looking for or expecting for an answer."
ARTHUR.
Since any answer given will come from a crooked source, the answer will also be crooked. Why would anyone want to hear a crooked aswer?
And even if you crookedly claim with your crooked logic, that you are not crooked, any crooked expalantion given to this crooked statemant will by defintion inherently be very crooked, no matter how hard you try and make it seem not crooked with you crooked logic.
Is this straight logic to hard for your crooked mind to grasp?
Its OK we understand.
BTW, why not just change your name to pretzel?
Re:Giving nachas to the rebbe.
As I see it, as long as Lubavitchers are not davening to the rebbe, we are still ahead.Some of them are mixed up about who they are davening to.
Crazy?No!
When the rebbe was debilitated after the stroke and was brought out for tefillos and other occasions on a special balcony built for him, many Lubavitchers turned away from facing mizrach and davened facing the Rebbe, who was on the side!
Ask any pre-Gimmel Tammuz Lubavitcher.In fact this spawned a whole "halachik" discussion, where Wolpe "starred"
Snag JR: If I need to give you a reason to learn torah with another Jew ach un vei auf dine Yiddishkiet.
"Since any answer given will come from a crooked source, the answer will also be crooked. Why would anyone want to hear a crooked aswer?
And even if you crookedly claim with your crooked logic, that you are not crooked, any crooked expalantion given to this crooked statemant will by defintion inherently be very crooked, no matter how hard you try and make it seem not crooked with you crooked logic.
Is this straight logic to hard for your crooked mind to grasp?
Its OK we understand."
BTW, why not just change your name to pretzel?"
Oh well another individual who forgot to take his Prozac today.And who are you,Napoleon?LOL
M
iz felt mir nisht kein chavrusas.
What are you offering to the table?
"If I need to give you a reason to learn torah with another Jew ach un vei auf dine Yiddishkiet."
Mottaleh,tatteleh,
You are getting bombastic now:So someone who won't learn bechavrusa with you is terrible?
You've made enough trouble with your useless and controversial statement about giving "nachas to the rebbe".
Try *thinking* before you blabber!
Few of you or none of you remember the Rebbe as I do, he had one of the overpowering personalities, When you were with him you literally thought of yourself as nothing, nothing was worth anything any more, the only thought thta remained in your head was, how am I going to get closer to him, what can I do to make him like me more, it brought out many good things in many people. When you were with him, it's all you ever wanted. Butel umevutel mamash.
But like every kishron, it could be used for good, it could be used for bad.
"Few of you or none of you remember the Rebbe as I do"
And you know that, how....?
In order to bring sholom veshalvo to the world (at least this part of it) maybe we ought to let Balbin tell us who or what he is?
As to his question or assertion,I would assume that two posters gave us their take on it.I'm sure there are other possible replies.
-Partich: Don't be patronizing. What is more, you show your ignorance by assuming to understand a conversation spread out over other blogs and comment fields - and by ignoring my clear explanation of my own words. Try *thinking* before you grace us with your logorrhea.
what I find very disconcerting is that Mottel took the time to write up his account of a Shabbos with the Tzig and all you guys can pick on is one line from the last that has nothing to do with Shabbos?! are you all that shallow?!
M
Must call a truce. Headquarters sent message aborting mission. Adios amigo
My pleasure and very fitting for the three weeks.
Send my regards to HQ
don't know who you mean
Mottel,
Please tell about the chandelier and the china cabinet.
What about it?
"all you guys can pick on is one line from the last that has nothing to do with Shabbos?! are you all that shallow?!"
Gosh, Good point! How could we??!
Mottel Was there a kiddush in shul??
Oh, did you have potatoe kugel or lukshen? Was there lukshin in the chicken soup? Oh yum! Yummee!
Was the AC good at Tzig's home? Did you have your own private John?
Fluffy towels?
Please tell us all these very important NON-SHALLOW things. We are waiting anxiously to know!!
Yankle got the point!
:-)
Issac,
Are you bichlal Ok with hiskashrus to a tzadik when he is alive? Whats your view of the chassidic belief that the tzadik is Maleh the tefilah of the chosid? this was a universal chasidic belief.
Hirshel
I assume that this Yankle is the same nut case that wrote that "profound" and "insightful" piece of "descriptive literature" about me a couple of posts back.I'm a bit puzzled as to why you allow that sort of insanity to be posted ,yet some of my comparritivly tame posts were deleted? In any case it's good to see you posting once again after a long hiatus but why does it take this character Yankle to get you to post?Now you really hurt me.
anon3
go back and look for your posts, I think you'll find them all. They may have gotten lost in the shuffle, especially if I moderate from my handheld device. But they're all there.
Shimon,
We didn't name one of our sons after the Lubavitcher Rebbe; we named him after the Rav, Rav Y.D. Halevi Soloveitchik. It's okay, the rest of his class is named after the Lubavitcher Rebbe, quite literally. It was that year ...
I am not an עם הארץ when it comes to עניני חבד as far as פוק חזי is concerned. I have locked horns with Rav Nissin Mandel and Rav Mendel Gluckowsky and Rav Hershel Greenberg and others on matters that I have difficulty with (and still do). I'm not sure how that qualifies me as an apologist. They certainly wouldn't have called me that! That's Shimon's terminology.
Having said all that, Shimon is correct, that despite the fact that I have been exposed and continue to be exposed to חבד on a regular basis, I don't understand the issue of doing things in order to give נחת to a Rebbe; Chabad or otherwise.
Let's put it this way. חס ושלום someone finds themselves an אבל and during that time the person dedicates a special פעולה or עבודה or מצווה for the purpose of לעלוי נשמת a נפטר
As far as I know there is such an idea in י’ב חודש
I am not acquainted with people who, for the rest of their lives, however, dedicate each מצווה that they undertake as being to bring נחת to the departed.
One (of many) thing(s) I don't know is תורת הקבלה or תורת החסידות but I'd imagine that the issue of raising נשמות to higher levels is something that is a study in its own right. Whatever that might be, I am unaware of a mimetic tradition of doing things to bring נחת in the way I mentioned in my original comment. New mimetic practices can be dangerous.
I am trying to understand. If that brands me an apologist according to Shimon, nu, ce la vie. I've been called a lot worse :-)
As to whether it's the שאלה of the חכם ... I think it might perhaps be the תם ... so if someone can explain, it would make both Shimon and I happy.
Hirshel
Forgot to mention it to you but Yanki(not Yankle of literary fame) suggested that I start my own blog site, but what would I name it? "King Arthur and the Round Table","Camelot" maybe "Arthur and Guinevere"? That last one I figured would cause some problems with sholom bayis.Nah I said.Who needs the headaches when I can always (I hope)post here.
I really think that this has become way to overcomplicated.
Chassidim are like children.
We want our tatty to have nachas.
Both before and after gimmel tammuz.
Also I think it is safe to say (meaning according to Toras HaChassidus) that if The Rebbe has nachas from us then we are probably doing what we are supposed to be doing and therefore we will have a better hiskashrus.
All Chassidim want to have a better hiskashrus therefore they should want The Rebbe to have nachas from them.
Issac
is your problem with the Nachas Ruach only for th dead?
Balbin's problem is with nachas ruach being the ikkar. He's saying that people don't think enough about the ribbono shel olam. I have to agree.
Nu, I guess it takes the MO ignoramus to ask: you have a dvar torah from shabbos?
Modeh,
Its a little strange that Hashem put together the emuna in Moshe with the emunah in Hashem,Chasidim took that mitzva to the full extent, and they davened on the account that the tzadik will place the tefillos at the right Olam. The Chasam Sofer(offical a non Chosid) writes that being close to a tzadik help for your tefilos.In Judaisim there is no full democracy there is some hierarchy in the system.
Tzig
You said that the post about the younger Tzig will come shortly. If I remember correctly, you said something about not disappointing your readers....
Isaac,
Firstly, I see no difference in using this expression today vs. before 3 Tammuz. If it was OK then, it is OK now. If it isn't OK now, it wasn't OK then. Having said that, it is important to note that there are various ways of using this expression (and they differ in the level of their appropriateness, imho):
1. When discussing matters of shlichus. In such a case, it is very fitting so say something along these lines of, "I hope this brings the Rebbe nachas" (the topic being the fulfillment of the rotzein of the meshaleach, after all).
2. When discussing the RESULT of one's basic hanhogo – in hope that it brings honor upon the name of ones Rav, and not, ch"v the opposite... I have no quarrel with this usage either.
3. When discussing the MOTIVATION behind one's basic hanhogo. This one – I agree – is a bit problematic. It's really no different than a son who doesn't really feel motivated to be good of his own volition (the very opposite of chabad!"), but does things only in order to make his father happy. Not a very desirable situation, to say the least... (Though still better than the alternative).
Thanks for everyone's responses.
Perhaps this will explain my unease: recently I sat behind a fellow visiting from LA. He had been a lubavitcher for 25+ years and was well known in those parts. Just prior to Shmoneh Esreh a little picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe was raised and propped up slightly to his left. He then proceeded to daven. I ended up facing this and it shook me. My davening, which leaves a lot to be be desired at the best of times, was disturbed, being preoccupied with the scene in front of me.
Not being a shrinking violet, I asked him what the heck he was doing, and didn't he realise it was against shulchan aruch let alone common mimetic tradition. He ignored me.
I approached the Moroh D'Asroh and he tried to diffuse the situation and make light of it with the refrain that there are all sorts of Meshugoim out there. The MD was clever enough not to actually express his view, however.
It's not so much those who do this sort of thing that bothers me. One will hear about the FFB vs the try hards and the Tfasim vs the Normalim. It is the Shtika KeHodaah ie quiet acquiescence that "all is okay" and just about anything goes that shakes me to my core.
Is this a new brand of antinomiansim that Rabbi Lamm wrote about in regards Chassidim vs Misnagdism in his PhD thesis comparing the Tanya and Nefesh Hachayim?
Thus, when someone does things and talks about bringing Nachas to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I accept Berl's Tosfos and Rishonim on the pirush hamilim, but looking at the young and impressionable of today, who never met this great giant of our generation, I worry and worry greatly. Will the tofel become the ikkar?
The real challenge is to redefine hiskashrus to the mortal of today in such a way that keeps their mimetic tradition firmly in the lap of the rest of us. One need not worry too much about the virulent ones who will never be happy. Perhaps one needs to be concerned about those who Shimon terms "apologists" like me.
Should we be worried? I think there is much to worry about. Our eldest son is in his early 20's and our youngest is 13-14. The difference in hanhogo and emphasis amongst the wider group is palpable. The latter seem to need to cling to vestiges and sloganeering. They talk about "going to the Rebbe". Who ever talked in this way? You can talk about going to Kivrei Tzadikim or visit the Kever etc They talk about Gimel Tamuz as if that date is disconnected from death and a Yohr Tzeit. It isn't. It is a sad day, when a Manhig Yisroel was called to his maker for reasons none of us understand.
It's not for me to lecture on this topic. I'm not qualified. We daven to Hashem. We do things for Hashem.
Hashem Sefosai Tiftach ...
It's about means being confused with the end.
Do we want Moshiach or do we want Geuloh.
For me, the latter is the ikkar! It is the state of Geulah that is paramount?
Giving nachas to "The Rebbe" is strictly a Lubavitch thing. The rest of us say "Lasois nachas ruach laBoirei Yisborach Shmoi".
P.S. The Spinka rebbe sends his warmest regards to Tzig.
What is this I hear about a Shaliach being beaten in his Shul in ?
To Berl:
The third option you present sounds an awful lot like Kabbala Ol to me.
While it is true that Kabbalas Ol by itself is not the ultimate point but that a person should WANT to fulfill what is required of him... there is nothing NOT admirable about a person doing what is right even when he himself doesn't want to.
The Rebbe speaks about Kabbalas Ol having a maaleh over other motivations in that it can be bli g'vul while other motivations are mugbal as they are dependant on Sechel or Middos or Ahava or Yira.
If I misunderstood the intent of your statement I apologize.
Issac
By chasidim after the first year all the Yortziets were considered a yom simcha as Hilulu (meaning a wedding),it started already by Rashbi, as discussed in length by the Chasam sofer in the famous teshuva against the Lag Beomer Celebrations
Feivel
His point was to be mkiabel the Aybeshter's oyl
Isaac
The third option is by far the best one. If you would understand the whole concept of hiskashrus, you would have an appreciation for the chap with the photo of the Rebbe when he davens
I think you will like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-OYUY3-qYI&feature=channel_page
Kalman,
I understand Hiskashrus, in as much as the need to feel proximate and inspired or influenced and guided. I don't understand such concepts when they seemingly transcend a halocho, however. This is a basic tenet of יהדות is it not?
If one simply re-reads all the Ani Ma'amins, it surely is at least anathema to consider davening with a picture perched in front of you, slightly to your, left or right. The so called מקושר couldn't even understand that there might be a problem. This, I found most perplexing.
As a balabos, I agree with you Isaac. However, a YU education does not ingrain the mesiras nefesh necessary for a life of shlichus.
For the sake of future of the Jewish nation, for which shluchim are indispensable, I am willing to reinterpret the classical sources in a very forced manner in order to allow such conduct.
Snag Jr,
nullifying yourself to the will of your Rebbe/Rav/Rosh Yeshiva is Kabbalas Ol Malchus Shamayim.
Isaac Balbin said...
Let's put it this way. חס ושלום someone finds themselves an אבל and during that time the person dedicates a special פעולה or עבודה or מצווה for the purpose of לעלוי נשמת a נפטר
As far as I know there is such an idea in י’ב חודש
I am not acquainted with people who, for the rest of their lives, however, dedicate each מצווה that they undertake as being to bring נחת to the departed.
---
Actually there is a teshuva in Betzel Hachochma (by the former rav of melbourne's charedi Adass Yisroel kehilla and one of the great post-war poskim Rav Betzalel Stern ZTL) where he writes that one may/should dedicate torah and mitzvos to niftorim (IIRC parents) for ever.
FBM
The point should be that the will of your Rebbe's a means to get you closer to the Aibeshter.
Anon:
Maybe I mistakenly assumed that that was obvious?
No, I get you're saying, but my point's that that if you're using a picture of the Rebbe to Daven,obviously, you're missing the main point.
The whole picture business is a Maaseh Noshim u'ketanim, קטנים בדעת, and I say that as a very proud Lubavitcher.
Oh I wasn't addressing the whole picture of the Rebbe thing.
Yeah that is really really really shaaaaaaaaady. Though there are sources for looking at things for inspiration while davening. The reason a Shul is supposed to have windows is so that if you lose Kevanah you can look at the sky for inspiration. Now that at the surface seems suspicious also as Hashem isnt any more up in the sky than he is anywhere else. I guess for some reason certain things are inspiring. However I do agree that the use of a picture during Davening at least looks very suspicios and at most could r"l must worse. I myself used to have a picture of The Rebbe pasted onto the inside cover of my Siddur to look at before davening but I took it out when I realised that other people might mistake my intentions.
FBM
Is the Rebbe allowed to daven in front of a mirrer?
"The whole picture business is a Maaseh Noshim u'ketanim, קטנים בדעת, and I say that as a very proud Lubavitcher."
Of course. That is why you downplay it.
"FBM
Is the Rebbe allowed to daven in front of a mirrer?"
Is a mirrer allowed to daven by The Rebbe?
Anon,
I don't disagree. I'm just saying people need to think more about hakadosh barchu. If you think there's something wrong with that, then there's a problem right there.
Isaac,
davening in front of a picture is neither more nor less assur than davening in front of a mirror. Either one is proscribed by the mechaber in plain Hebrew and les mahn d'palig. This is true even if the "mekushar" has a svara why he isn't actually davening to the object of the picture.
BTW, finally we're talking tachlis!
Hirshel
I see Mottel is a REALLY good friend. He bought you a $50 dollar of booze!
I buy an eight dollar bottle of Joyvin when I go to friends...
Balbin,
Thank you for your clarification.
If you could, in the future, please keep the English terms more apt for laymen like myself.
Your story with the fellow davening with the picture of the Rebbe brings out the problem of this excessive "hishkashrus" and other way over board rhetoric.What happens is that people, especially people who joined up with Lubavitch later on take it very literally.
There was a youtube clip for example during the Mumbai attack, of Rabbi Shlomo Cunin saying that "we'll show them who runs the world, the Rebbe that's who!".This type of statement is ,from a non Meshichist btw, is.....You know I don't even know what to call such rhetoric.Very,very troubling?At least.
Btw, since you raised the question about where in the Torah does it say this new "Mitzva" of "nachas far'n rebbe'n".I'd like to know where the mitzvah of "hiskashrus" is brought out?.Sure there is a mitzvahs aseh to be misdabek in talmidei chachomim:, but all that is said about a LIVING teacher, no?It's the idea of "aseh lecho rov".Someone who you learn from .Instead of trying to appoint a new rebbe,Lubavitchers get bogged down in this "hiskashrus" as a way of not accepting the reality of the Rebbes passing.
Why do you assume that Hiskashrus must be a Mitzvah for it to be important?
"Your story with the fellow davening with the picture of the Rebbe brings out the problem of this excessive "hishkashrus" and other way over board rhetoric.What happens is that people, especially people who joined up with Lubavitch later on take it very literally."
... Hiskashrus is literal.
Feivel
I am sure you mean well, but in your zeal to defend those who share commanalites with yourself, you tend to overlook obvious logical discrepencies.
You fail to have a cognizant awareness of the notion that there are many persons whose exposure to Lubavitch is limited to Tzig's wonderful blog.
Many of us, are of the opinion, that the prevaling maladies tha infect many of the Lubavitchers- i e, the ones that are performed publically and are exposed to the public- are reflective of the whole group and affects the whole spectrum; albeit to different degrees.
When an innocent and altruisitic person defends the maniacal practices of davening with the image and others, you allow for the seeds of suspicion to germent in our already diseased MiSNAGdishe minds.
Cut it out
you velts nahr and shoyteh
"When an innocent and altruisitic person defends the maniacal practices of davening with the image and others, you allow for the seeds of suspicion to germent in our already diseased MiSNAGdishe minds."
I did not defend him at any point...
"When an innocent and altruisitic person defends the maniacal practices of davening with the image and others, you allow for the seeds of suspicion to germent in our already diseased MiSNAGdishe minds.
Cut it out
you velts nahr and shoyteh"
Being that FBM is a "an innocent and altruisitic person" do you really think that there's a need to refer to this innocent kid as a " velts nahr and shoyteh"? You made your point without having to resort to charectar assasination.
Since when is snag jr. calling people names a character assassination? If someone worth listening to did so, then it might be.
"You made your point without having to resort to charectar assasination."
he still didn't get it
Oh this is all ridiculous.
Can someone please at least sling mud that is shayich?
Modeh
Show some respect for your fellow yid, will ya
Feivel: I meant it for your toyeles. Speak to your mashpiyah about it. He will agree
I can't speak about what didn't happen. I think if you reread what I wrote you will see that I am not defending anything.
Ich beit mechila, now you.
as a shliach from a long line of lubavitcher chasidim (amongst other choshuve lineage) I never understood this line that I recently see more often 'to give the Rebbe Nachas'
it didnt bother me as much as it bother's isaac balbin since I know the ones who say it and realize it cannot be meant as it is heard.
thanks berel for explaining it, yes when we do shlichus we think also of being gorem nachas to the meshaleach in addition to the primary motvie of being gorem nachas צום אויבערשטען
but in other contexts? I see no reason to defend it because it is an unusual exspression that has spread virally and probably meant as berel explained it.
since I know who motel is I am sure that is all he meant.
Ah Geborener but I know not who you are - please give a hint or send me an email . . .
Post a Comment