Otherwise why would he post a thing like this?!
But the truth is I can relate. After some 7.5 years of grinding out this stuff on a near-daily basis you sometimes get desperate. Speaking about Chabad, especially when juxtaposed with words like "heresy," gets people to read and talk about you. So he really meant no harm.
Chakira tells him as much:
"What an offputting title to a post. I realize you end up in the right place. But the idea that you or the people you quote are remotely qualified to render judgments on two of the greatest contributors to Jewish theology in modern times is so laughable and farfetched as to border on the offensive. Even someone whose spent years reading Kabbalistic texts and understands the implications of the Kabbalistic terms at play might be flummoxed and confused by this debate. It really relies to a great extent on arcane of how you read Lurianic and Zoharic texts which are not explicit on this point. Also on how you parse a few disputes in 13th cent. Kabbalah which are not at all clear. I really don’t think more than half a dozen or so people in the world are qualified to weigh in on this question from either traditional or academic perspectives. Certainly not to render definitive judgments. This is like headlining a post “Was Descartes Wrong?” or “Socrates, what a moron!” without really understanding the entire oeuvre and reading copious amounts of secondary material. It's provocative to juxtapose a picture of the Alter Rebbe with some trash talk. What it isn’t is productive."
Nitpicking. Titles of that sort are common-fare in the media and blogosphere. The actual post wasn't really offensive at all, and reb chakira's remarks are reflective of someone who either doesn't get, or doesn't consider valid, what it is that bloggers (and the guys in the back of shul) do almost all day, virtually every day...meh.
ReplyDeleteI think that Reb Gil's rating are in the tank, so he needs some sensation, Its easy to beat up a other Jew, who is not MO.
ReplyDeleteBut 1 think is strange that Reb Gil is very quiet on the YU molesting scandal, or maybe he saw that the Forverts is doing a good hatchet job, and he is left with noting to add
The obvious answer to Gil is that there is better support in ChaZaL for Moshiach coming from the dead than there is for drinking Cholov Akum or believing that the universe is older than 5773 years. It does beg the question just who are really the heretics, assuming Gil is really interested in conducting such Chakira or Hirhurim.
ReplyDeleteon the subject of Moshiach, Reb Gil is following his Rebbe Doctor Berger, who decided that he can make someone into a apikoras because he is not following normative Judaism. Its their assumption that chulov akum and Shomer Negia is Normative Yiddishkiet
ReplyDeletecr,
ReplyDeletethanks. your post made me smile. ;)
I think the post as on the whole wasnt realy bad. nor was it particularly interesting. the title is a bit misguiding and geared for attracting readers.
what better way to make friends than to revive old worn out issues.
want to make a difference in the world? pick up the garbage on your front lawn. - fix whats wrong in your own camp.
http://moshemoshel72.blogspot.com/2013/01/rebels-in-holy-land.html?m=1
ReplyDelete"The obvious answer to Gil is that there is better support in ChaZaL for Moshiach coming from the dead than there is for drinking Cholov Akum"
ReplyDeleteC.R,
Can you back up your claims with any real non new testament references?
About cholov akum:Can you quote anybody who said cholov akum is muttar?
What you are slyly referring to is is what is known today as "cholov stam".The person who was meikel was none other than R'Moshe Feinstein, probably the most widely accepted posek in America, ever.His rulings don't need to be backed up.It is of note that Jews relied on R'Moshes ruling regarding life and death issues, fertility treatments, and now CR, wants us not to rely on him be'issur derabanan???It's your prerogative not to follow the
ruling, just don't say it's not .sourced.
Please do not bring up what R'Moshe said that a "baal nefesh" should be machmir:A fellow from Crown Heights or Boro Park, going to daven at after zman tefilah at 12, while on all the chazerai programs, through felsherai is not a "baal nefesh"
NB, TODAY THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH MILK BECAUSE VETERINARIAN PROCEDURES MAY RENDER THE COWS "TREIFA" MAKING THE MILK OSSUR MEDEORAYSA.ASK UR LOCAL RUV
shauly
ReplyDelete"".The person who was meikel was none other than R'Moshe Feinstein, probably the most widely accepted posek in America, ever.His rulings don't need to be backed up.It is of note that Jews relied on R'Moshes ruling regarding life and death issues,"
I dont know if you are still wearing you pampers or you are at the stage of Pull Ups. But there was a ruv in the USA that was called Tzelemer Ruv, a name that was revered by all shomrie torah in the USA from every spectrum in Yiddishkiet, from MO to Satmar. All for his Mesiras Nefesh for real non compromised kashrus, and his geoinois in the field of Yoreh Dieh, Mikvohas Shechitah etc... He was personaly out on the field and he claims that Chulov Akum is chazer trief.... dont Hak a Chienik with the Derabunans.
also for the record, there are a lot of pesokim that Klal yisroel does not hold as Reb Moshe, as his big chumra on Eiruvin
Shauly
ReplyDelete"Can you back up your claims with any real non new testament references?"
is chazal new testament by you?
Even the machmirim on Left Displaced Abomasum do not hold that chalav stam is an issur deoraysa, as I believe it is assumed by all that a majority of milk cows do not undergo the procedure, therefore making it a taaroves of min bemino lach belach which requires rov mideoraysa and shishim miderabbanan. There is rov but no shishim, which would make the milk assur miderabbanan.
ReplyDeleteHaving read chakira's material on the internet and based on the contents of the comment I would agree with him. He knows a lot and is not to be messed with. OTOH Gil Student is a central blogger in the entire Orthodox space, and deserves a kinder remark, but then again Student is no preemie and no stranger to polemical debate. He'll live. ej
ReplyDeleteChalmers,
ReplyDeleteare you quoting some teshuva????
Shauly
ReplyDelete"Please do not bring up what R'Moshe said that a "baal nefesh" should be machmir"
on a item that rov poskim were against Reb Moshe, how can you say that it is only for a baal nefesh should be machmir. Its like saying that only a baal nefesh should be machmir on a shietel, but other ones can go begilu saar, since the Orech Hasulchan who was the biggest possek in Lita and Russia, held that there is some kula available.
"CR, wants us not to rely on him be'issur derabanan???"
ReplyDeleteIf you actually read the teshuvos in Igros Moshe (there are several) you will see that RMF never refers to "Chalav Stam" or any other such classification (although the title is "Chalav Shel Companies"). Instead, he goes through a lengthy derivation to show that milk produced with the strict supervision of the FDA, USDA and other government agencies is free of the concerns normally applied to Chalav Akum and, therefore, can be considered Chalav Yisrael. Yes, he does use that phrase! He then damns himself with faint praise with the Ba'al Nefesh remark, showing that he really does not approve of anyone actually holding by this reasoning. As teshuvos go these are really works of art. And I have yet to hear anyone using his heter today who echos RMF's real reasonings; they all talk about "normal milk brands", I.E. Chalav Akum!
Oh, and you studiously ignore the far more serious problem of those Rabbis who teach that a universe billions-and-billions of years old presents no heretical challenges to the Torah narrative of six days of creation 5773 years ago. Doctor Berger is among those who teach this. You will pardon me if I find his assertions of heresy to be worthy of scorn and mockery more than anything else.
Coincidentally, in the מילואים to this week's parsha, R Mendel Kasher defends the Baal Hatanya from the GRA based on a Midrash from the incident of the bush.
ReplyDeleteBaby sitter,
ReplyDeleteYou take the prize for the silliest, most uncouth poster.It's a shame that Lubavitchers need an uneducated ksil like you to "defend" them.
Can anybody here, explain what this moron is trying to say?
" He was personaly out on the field and he claims that Chulov Akum is chazer trief.... dont Hak a Chienik with the Derabunans."
So, the Tzeilemer Ruv, held cholov akum is ossur medoraysa?? Chazer milk is routinely mixed into cows milk in America??
People keep running to R' Moshe. Chalav Stam is mutter according to the Chazon Ish no less. Look it up, and then throw away the revisionists who were embarrassed that the Chazon Ish just spoke Halacha as he saw it. (I won't mention the Pri Chadash either). Get over it people. You are entitled to your views on that matter but it has no place in this issue whatsoever. It keeps coming up for some reason, as it it's this badge of honour testifying to frumkeit. It isn't. Watch what comes out of your mouths as much as what comes in.
ReplyDeleteOh, and in case you are wondering, I drink Chalav Yisroel, so now that makes me kosher?
Oh, and on the substance of your post criticising Gil, do me a favour and spend some more time wondering why these neurone-less mostly Israeli Meshichisten who are so deluded that they still come to 770 for Kos Shel Bracha bowing to an empty chair, haven't been removed from Chabad and committed to a mental asylum. Heresy it's not (most don't know enough to get to that Madrega) but extreme embarrassing idiocy it is, and it's not abating and it's the biggest chillul to the name of the last Rebbe. It's an embarrassment. In Melbourne we still have two to three deranged individuals who stand on a street corner and jump up and down like a refreshed 2 dollar watch. They can barely read Ivre, and their "minyan" is made up of pictures of Rebbeim. They got up and had Chassidus Shiurim at 6am every morning for years. Now look at them. These guys are not waning. They seem to be like weeds. You can't get rid of them. How about addressing this gross perversion of Yahadus?
ReplyDeleteAbout the CI allegedly being matir chalav stam. see here http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=910&st=&pgnum=55
ReplyDeleteCR,
ReplyDeleteYou are twisting the teshuvos.R'Moshes son, R'Dovid is quoted here as saying:"Rav Dovid Feinstein:
•1. There is no issur of cholov stam mei’ikkar dedina.
•2. Compare to chodosh as a model.
•3. If it is just as easy to get cholov Yisroel, get cholov Yisroel.
•4. The money factor is to be judged on a case by case basis.
•5. Using cholov Yisroel when convenient only is not a stirah.
•6. Using cholov Yisroel for milk but not ice cream is not a stirah.
•7. Cholov Yisroel is not the same as pas palter l’inyan Aseres Yemei Teshuvah. (Pas palter is a vadai issur in theory. Cholov stam is mutar mei’ikkar dedina.)
{The above teshuvos were transcribed by Harav Yitzchok Dovid Frankel of Cedarhurst, NY, in Kuntres Yad Dodi.}"
In actuality, R'Moshes psak is widely followed, for example, both the OU and the OK (YES the Lubavitch OK) give a hechsher for cholov stam.Now , obviously though the OK is a Lubavitcher hechsher, the don't consider cholv stam as treif, because if they did,don't you think the would NOT give a hechsher on treif?.
Shauly
ReplyDeleteas the chochem hador look for his teshuva and see for your self, and dont be cynic on words of a godol hadoir
As a disclaimer I am no Lubavicher and not hired by Lubavich inc. I am a tipesh on my own, who has the honor that Shauly should not ignore me, its one of my lucky days
Pitputim
ReplyDelete"(I won't mention the Pri Chadash either)."
did the ashkenazic poskim accept the heter of the Pri Chodosh? why did reb moshe have to write a new teshuva with new chidushim?
There is no allegation. It is FACT. Rav Vosner who is still alive confirmed it. Forget all the revisionists.
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't matir chalav stam, he was matir chalav hacompanies.
Pitputim
ReplyDelete"Oh, and on the substance of your post criticising Gil, do me a favour and spend some more time wondering why these neurone-less mostly Israeli Meshichisten who are so deluded that they still come to 770 for Kos Shel Bracha bowing to an empty chair, haven't been removed from Chabad and committed to a mental asylum. "
Fighting with them would make things worse, it will create violence and a international Chilul Hashem
CR
ReplyDelete"obviously though the OK is a Lubavitcher hechsher, the don't consider cholv stam as treif, because if they did,don't you think the would NOT give a hechsher on treif?."
Lubavich has no halachic decree on Cholov akum, not the Rav, Not the Tzemach Tzedek, wrote particular on this matter, it is just a chasidic spirutal issue, that it causes weakens you Emuna .And a Chasidishe Yid that learns Shaar Hayichud Vemuna of the Rav should have mesiras nefesh on Cholev Akum
Anon
ReplyDelete"Gil Student is a central blogger in the entire Orthodox space, and deserves a kinder remark, "
WHY?????
Pitputim
ReplyDelete". You can't get rid of them"
you dont get rid of nobody, you just suffer
"did the ashkenazic poskim accept the heter of the Pri Chodosh? why did reb moshe have to write a new teshuva with new chidushim?"
ReplyDeleteAS I pointed out you are a first class moron.
Look up the teshuva and you"ll see why R'Moshe needs his psak, according to the shittos who argue with the Pri Chodosh
"Lubavich has no halachic decree on Cholov akum, not the Rav, Not the Tzemach Tzedek, wrote particular on this matter, it is just a chasidic spirutal issue, that it causes weakens you Emuna .And a Chasidishe Yid that learns Shaar Hayichud Vemuna of the Rav should have mesiras nefesh on Cholev Akum"
ReplyDeleteSo what does the poster CR want from a non Lubavitcher, who has never heard from his rabbonim, who paskened that cholov stam is mutter, that it causes emunak problems
Survivor. Let's start small.
ReplyDeleteMy old friend in Chabad of Atlanta won't allow someone into Shule if they wear a Yechi Yarmulke.
How's that for a new Takono to start off with.
Herd them into their own Shules. Let them break off. They won't survive. They are cuckoo!
1) Gil's title of the post is misleading.
ReplyDelete2) His take on the different shitos re Divine immanence & transcendence is both puerile & misleading - both from academic & Toyredike perspectives. It is disturbing that someone who has devoted over a decade to Chabadica & religious teachings can come across so uninformed, if not misinformed.
At least he should have pointed out that even before the A.R. there were many a (Lurianic) kabbalist who held similar views as the A.R.
At least Gil does not make the erroneous claim that the A.R. was a pantheist, & instead calls him a panentheist (see L. Jacobs' intro to "Tract on Ecstasy" translation of the MItteler Rebbe's Kuntres Hahispa'alus). However, to claim that this is "heresy" makes it appear that the A.R. was just another Spinoza.
[Years ago, at a shiur Tanya in the beginning Sh'aar haYichud v'Hoemunah in Boro Park in Simpson's Shul, after Reb Yoel explained the shiteh of the A.R., a heimishe farklerte yid asked him, "If so, what is the difference between the A.R. & Spinoza? - To which Reb Yoel answered: "Shpinoze hot farklenert Got az er iz nor in dem velt (mimaley kol almin), ober der Alter Rebbe hot "fargresert" Got, az eloykus iz (oychet) ma'aleh ma'aleh in soyvev kol almin, un nisht nitfes in oylem..."]
-- ZIY
Rav Henkin on cholev okum http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22080&st=&pgnum=74&hilite=
ReplyDeleteUhoh,
ReplyDeleteEven Rav Henkin made R'Moshes "mistake"
C.R, you tell them
R' Moshe AND R' Henkin both make clear that CY is the normative halacha and that it is "chamor". Meanwhile, "CS" is "yesh lismoch", "yesh matirin", etc. However, most people using CS believe that that CY is some incredible "chumra of the month", often deriding it in some very unflattering terms. You tell me who made the "mistake". It is not the ones you want me to have said. Sorry for not fitting your caricature.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the whole CS/CY discussion misses the point. The entire CS chiddush steps outside an issur derabbanan that is explicit in ChaZal, Tur and S"A. The validity of doing so does not obliterate those prior rulings. So, those who are not strict on CY are, ultimately, not following ChaZal. They may have good reasons for not doing so (and I will not contest them) but they are still doing so. Nobody has yet found a way of obliterating the record of a prior generation's rulings.