The Fight Over the Cornerstone
Yisroel Markov
the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Eliyahu Rooff
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:4193e20e....@News.individual.net...
> An account (with pictures) of a fight over a commemorative plaque at
> the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>
> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
>
summation, please?
Eliyahu
Shlomo Chaim
> the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>
> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
And it happened on Shabbos to boot!
(Just kidding.)
What would The Rebbi say about something like that???
Mr Knownotall
<ey.m...@iname.com> wrote:
> An account (with pictures) of a fight over a commemorative plaque at
> the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>
> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
I'm afraid i can't read Hebrew, so i don't know what the brawl was all
about.
Could you please explain?
--
Mr. Knownotall
"He who asks is a fool for five minutes,
but he who does not ask remains a fool forever."
(from alt.humor.jewish)
Yisroel Markov
Sorry. Back in 5748 (1998), the Rebbe laid the symbolic cornerstone at
770, when funding was lined up to expand the shul. The expansion that
was carried out was limited to a red granite entryway. The stone the
Rebbe had laid is near the entrance, and has a commemorative plaque
surrounding it.
A few weeks ago someone paid to have another plaque made, virtually
identical to the original one ("This cornerstone was placed by the
Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L" - although the ZT"L was quickly effaced by
guess who), but replacing ZT"L with "King Moshiach SHLITA." The old
plaque was pulled off and the new one installed after midnight by a
group of young men, mostly moshikhists from Tzfat (Safed). Needless to
say, this unauthorized alteration upset the two biggest machers of
Crown Heights, RR' Yehuda Krinsky and Avraham Shem-Tov, who rushed to
the scene (although they usually avoid each other). By 4 AM that
morning a crowd has gathered where the moshikhists faced off with the
rest of the crowd. There was a scuffle and police was called in. The
police assisted in the removal of the unathorized plaque and arrested
several moshikhist youth for disturbing the peace.
Note that this is the site's version plus some of my interpretation.
Perhaps R, if he's around, can clarify whatever I unadvertently
distorted. Most likely, something will pop up on www.beismoshiach.org
in the next few weeks to give the moshikhists' version of events.
Z
<ey.m...@iname.com> writes
What happened there then?
--
Z
Remove all Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Henry Goodman
"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:4194f4f0....@News.individual.net...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:58:02 +0000 (UTC), "Eliyahu Rooff"
> <lro...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >
> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
> >news:4193e20e....@News.individual.net...
> >> An account (with pictures) of a fight over a commemorative plaque
at
> >> the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
> >>
> >> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
> >>
> >For those who don't read Hebrew that well, could you provide a
> >summation, please?
>
> Sorry. Back in 5748 (1998), the Rebbe laid the symbolic cornerstone
at
> 770, when funding was lined up to expand the shul. The expansion
that
> was carried out was limited to a red granite entryway. The stone the
> Rebbe had laid is near the entrance, and has a commemorative plaque
> surrounding it.
>
I assume you mean 5748 (1988)
The Rebbe z"l was in no position to lay anything in 1998!
Shavua Tov
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Paul
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:cn5mrh$98s$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
I believe that is exactly what the fight is all about.
Yisroel Markov
<henry....@virgin.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>news:4194f4f0....@News.individual.net...
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 01:58:02 +0000 (UTC), "Eliyahu Rooff"
>> <lro...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>> >
>> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4193e20e....@News.individual.net...
>> >> An account (with pictures) of a fight over a commemorative plaque
>at
>> >> the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>> >>
>> >> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
>> >>
>> >For those who don't read Hebrew that well, could you provide a
>> >summation, please?
>>
>> Sorry. Back in 5748 (1998), the Rebbe laid the symbolic cornerstone
>at
>> 770, when funding was lined up to expand the shul. The expansion
>that
>> was carried out was limited to a red granite entryway. The stone the
>> Rebbe had laid is near the entrance, and has a commemorative plaque
>> surrounding it.
>>
>
>I assume you mean 5748 (1988)
>The Rebbe z"l was in no position to lay anything in 1998!
Yes, a typo. (Now, was this a typo or a freudian slip of a secret
moshikhist :-)
I should mention that before the new plaque was removed, somebody took
the pains to efface the words "King Moshiach SHLITA" from it. The
moshikhists aren't the only ones who get overly excited about such
things.
Jonathan J. Baker
>An account (with pictures) of a fight over a commemorative plaque at
>the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
Just the latest installment in the running fight.
It's not good enough any more for the Meshichist crazies to chip out
the honorifics from the plaque, now they have to replace it with their
own plaque.
--
Jonathan Baker | It's not "Mr. Cheshvan", it's "marech-shwan"
jjb...@panix.com | (YRCh-ShMN) w/ Akkad-Heb letter shifts: Month 8.
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
Lisa
>
> I should mention that before the new plaque was removed, somebody took
> the pains to efface the words "King Moshiach SHLITA" from it. The
> moshikhists aren't the only ones who get overly excited about such
> things.
How do you see that as "overly excited"? Putting Shlita after the
name of a dead person is grotesque. And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
This... is an ex-Rebbe.
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> said:
>>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>
>>> the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>>>
>>> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
>>>
>>For those who don't read Hebrew that well, could you provide a
>>summation, please?
>
> Sorry. Back in 5748 (1998), the Rebbe laid the symbolic cornerstone at
> 770, when funding was lined up to expand the shul. The expansion that
> was carried out was limited to a red granite entryway. The stone the
> Rebbe had laid is near the entrance, and has a commemorative plaque
> surrounding it.
>
> A few weeks ago someone paid to have another plaque made, virtually
> identical to the original one ("This cornerstone was placed by the
> Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L" - although the ZT"L was quickly effaced by
> guess who), but replacing ZT"L with "King Moshiach SHLITA." The old
> plaque was pulled off and the new one installed after midnight by a
> group of young men, mostly moshikhists from Tzfat (Safed). Needless to
> say, this unauthorized alteration upset the two biggest machers of
> Crown Heights, RR' Yehuda Krinsky and Avraham Shem-Tov, who rushed to
> the scene (although they usually avoid each other).
Hmmm, this description is _not_ in the original.
> By 4 AM that
> morning a crowd has gathered where the moshikhists faced off with the
> rest of the crowd. There was a scuffle and police was called in. The
> police assisted in the removal of the unathorized plaque and arrested
> several moshikhist youth for disturbing the peace.
>
> Note that this is the site's version plus some of my interpretation.
"Interpretation" based on what?
> Perhaps R, if he's around, can clarify whatever I unadvertently
> distorted. Most likely, something will pop up on www.beismoshiach.org
> in the next few weeks to give the moshikhists' version of events.
This site clearly rejects the "meshichistim". I wonder if it's an
"official" Chabad site.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> said:
>>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>> <lro...@hotmail.com> said:
>>> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>> >> An account (with pictures) of a fight over a commemorative plaque
>>> >> at the main Lubavitch shul (770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY)
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.col.org.il/show_news.asp?7935
>>> >>
>>> >For those who don't read Hebrew that well, could you provide a
>>> >summation, please?
>>>
>>> Sorry. Back in 5748 (1998), the Rebbe laid the symbolic cornerstone
snip
>>I assume you mean 5748 (1988)
>>The Rebbe z"l was in no position to lay anything in 1998!
>
> Yes, a typo. (Now, was this a typo or a freudian slip of a secret
> moshikhist :-)
Well, you got the Hebrew date right.
> I should mention that before the new plaque was removed, somebody took
> the pains to efface the words "King Moshiach SHLITA" from it. The
> moshikhists aren't the only ones who get overly excited about such
> things.
I didn't notice that. I just saw that the "ZTZ"L" (May his memory be
blessed) was erased.
Yisroel Markov
said:
>ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote in message news:<4198e470...@News.individual.net>...
>>
>> I should mention that before the new plaque was removed, somebody took
>> the pains to efface the words "King Moshiach SHLITA" from it. The
>> moshikhists aren't the only ones who get overly excited about such
>> things.
>
>How do you see that as "overly excited"? Putting Shlita after the
>name of a dead person is grotesque.
Grotesque, maybe. But worth a fight? I don't think so. One side puts
up a plaque, the other effaces "offending words." Then the other side
puts up a plaque, and the first side does the same. Pathetic, really.
In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people. No one of
regulars chants it at the end of prayers. The other is a large Yekhi
sign that got relegated from the front of the shul to the side a
couple of years ago. Last year I decided to conduct an experiment, and
removed the sign. This caused a few people so much obvious distress
that I put it back up. I concluded that, IMHO, fighting over such
symbols is simply not worth it.
>And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
>man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
>If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
>This... is an ex-Rebbe.
I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
Susan Cohen
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:26:29 +0000 (UTC), li...@starways.net (Lisa)
> said:
>
>>And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
>>man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
>>If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
>>This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>
> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
Which means that no one should try to set them straight....??
Susan
Lisa
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:26:29 +0000 (UTC), li...@starways.net (Lisa)
> said:
>
> >ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote in message news:<4198e470...@News.individual.net>...
> >>
> >> I should mention that before the new plaque was removed, somebody took
> >> the pains to efface the words "King Moshiach SHLITA" from it. The
> >> moshikhists aren't the only ones who get overly excited about such
> >> things.
> >
> >How do you see that as "overly excited"? Putting Shlita after the
> >name of a dead person is grotesque.
>
> Grotesque, maybe. But worth a fight? I don't think so. One side puts
> up a plaque, the other effaces "offending words." Then the other side
> puts up a plaque, and the first side does the same. Pathetic, really.
Yisroel, I won't compare equating the sides here to the way the media
treats Israel and the Arabs, but only because it's a matter of degree.
The principle is the same. The sides here are *not* equal.
The "one side" that put up the plaque vandalized the building in order
to put the plaque up. No destruction of the plaque could be
considered on the same level as that. Furthermore, Chabad is a Jewish
group. For these vandals to write what they did is every bit as
disgusting as if a group of Reform vandals were to deface the building
by putting up a plaque saying that the Torah is an invention of
people. It's offensive, and destroying the offense is not on the same
level as committing the offense in the first place.
> In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
> occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
"the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
> No one of
> regulars chants it at the end of prayers. The other is a large Yekhi
> sign that got relegated from the front of the shul to the side a
> couple of years ago.
Oh. Gosh. It's on the side. That makes it all better. The man is
*dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach. These
people are shotim.
> Last year I decided to conduct an experiment, and
> removed the sign. This caused a few people so much obvious distress
> that I put it back up. I concluded that, IMHO, fighting over such
> symbols is simply not worth it.
Hold that thought, Yisroel. Hanukkah is coming up. I have a feeling
that Chazal felt very different about the worth of fighting over such
symbols.
> >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
> >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
> >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>
> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
Lisa
Don Levey
I'm assuming that if a group of Orthodox vandals put up a sign
on (say) Hebrew Union College (Reform seminary) saying that the
Torah is the literal word of Gd, that would be equally a defacement
in your view.
> > In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
> > occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
>
> I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
> "the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
> allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
> children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
> Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
> shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
>
....Or in any other shul, for that matter.
>
> > >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
> > >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
> > >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
> > >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
> >
> > I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>
> So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
> Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
>
You're not actually equating R & C Jews with evangelical Christians,
are you?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
Lisa
Yes. Granted, the statement would be correct, but vandalism is wrong.
> > > In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
> > > occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
> >
> > I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
> > "the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
> > allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
> > children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
> > Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
> > shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
> >
> ....Or in any other shul, for that matter.
Well, at least they do believe in God and that God gave us the Torah.
That at least puts them a step up from the various movements.
> > > >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
> > > >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
> > > >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
> > > >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
> > >
> > > I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
> >
> > So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
> > Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
> >
> You're not actually equating R & C Jews with evangelical Christians,
> are you?
<blink> Pathetic. Just... pathetic.
Lisa
Marmarali100
>From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
>Date: 11/18/2004 1:55 AM
> The man is
>*dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach. These
>people are shotim.
As are those who imagine that God has numerous aspects, some male and some
female. But in many "frum shuls" this is done every time a "leshem yihud
quudsha ..." is recited.
As are those who imagine that one should pray to the "corpulent deity"
Diqarnosa (=Dea Cornosa) for parnassa. But in many "frum shuls" this is done
every Rosh Hashana.
Want to ban every shote? You will cut out a significant percentage of the
population.
Ma hu rahum vehanun, af atta rahum vehanun; ma hu erekh appayim, af atta erekh
appayim.
It is not a crime to be stupid. Hersy hunting is also neo-Christian.
Neo-medieval Christian.
The last thing we need is an Inquisition.
Ronnie
Don Levey
Fair enough - I wanted to confirm that your statement is about the
vandalism as the offense.
> > > > In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
> > > > occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
> > >
> > > I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
> > > "the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
> > > allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
> > > children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
> > > Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
> > > shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
> > >
> > ....Or in any other shul, for that matter.
>
> Well, at least they do believe in God and that God gave us the Torah.
> That at least puts them a step up from the various movements.
>
I think we use a different ladder.
> > > > >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
> > > > >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
> > > > >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
> > > > >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
> > > >
> > > > I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
> > >
> > > So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
> > > Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
> > >
> > You're not actually equating R & C Jews with evangelical Christians,
> > are you?
>
> <blink> Pathetic. Just... pathetic.
>
Yes, it would be - which is why I wanted to ask, and give you the
benefit of the doubt. May I assume, then, that you are *not* making
such a comparison?
Yisroel Markov
In my experience it is useless to try. Sooner or later you run against
"it is so because the Rebbe said it is so," and that's the end of the
discussion. Doubting or challenging the words of the Rebbe endangers
not only moshikhist beliefs, but one's status as a hasid in the first
place. People who are committed enough to the late Rebbe to be
unwilling to let him go are definitely not interested in losing that
as well.
Yisroel Markov
said:
The issue is complicated by the dispute over who should be in charge
of the building. 770 is definitely attended predominantly by
moshikhists, while the Agu"KH - the nominal owner of the building - is
run by the authors of the ZT"L plaque. IMHO the idea that the vast
majority of the Crown Heights residents who attend 770 should be the
ones who run it, and determine what sorts of plaques are put up, is at
least defensible.
I believe I understand what you mean by "offensive," but that's in the
eyes of the beholder, to a large extent. To you and R' David Berger it
is offensive; to me and many others it's no more than a sad mistake.
Certainly ZT"L was offensive enough to attendees of 770 that it got
effaced very quickly.
>> In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
>> occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
>
>I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
>"the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
>allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
>children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
>Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
>shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
This is a practical question. There's this young guy who comes in from
time to time, and sometimes he chants "Yekhi" at the end of prayers,
three times, like in 770. It happens infrequently enough. One time an
older man came up during the first chant and said: "Stop." After the
second chant he said, loudly: "Shut up!" Others started drifting
closer, but the yungerman was undeterred and completed his mantra.
"You're desecrating the memory of my rebbe!" the older man said
indignantly, and at that the young one launched into one of his
prepared diatribes about how the Rebbe himself wanted this, etc.
Now what more should we have done? Started a fight? Told him not to
come to shul? He's been thrown out of several shuls already.
On another occasion with this same guy, I started echoing his chants
with the old Soviet ditty: "Lenin was alive, Lenin is alive, Lenin
will live forever!" Afterwards the gabbai came to me and said:
"Please, Yisroel, one pig in the shul is enough. Let's ignore rather
than emulate him."
>> No one of
>> regulars chants it at the end of prayers. The other is a large Yekhi
>> sign that got relegated from the front of the shul to the side a
>> couple of years ago.
>
>Oh. Gosh. It's on the side. That makes it all better. The man is
>*dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach. These
>people are shotim.
I agree, but why is this a crime? I'm with Ronnie on this one.
>> Last year I decided to conduct an experiment, and
>> removed the sign. This caused a few people so much obvious distress
>> that I put it back up. I concluded that, IMHO, fighting over such
>> symbols is simply not worth it.
>
>Hold that thought, Yisroel. Hanukkah is coming up. I have a feeling
>that Chazal felt very different about the worth of fighting over such
>symbols.
Yes. Provided we agree on the relative importance of such symbols. A
Yekhi sign isn't exactly an idol in the azara.
>> >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
>> >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
>> >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
>> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>>
>> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>
>So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
>Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't win, or
those where winning is worse than not fighting.
Lisa
> >Subject: Re: The Fight Over the Cornerstone
> >From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
> >Date: 11/18/2004 1:55 AM
>
> > The man is
> >*dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach. These
> >people are shotim.
>
> As are those who imagine that God has numerous aspects, some male and some
> female. But in many "frum shuls" this is done every time a "leshem yihud
> quudsha ..." is recited.
No one considers that those "aspects" are separate entities. Further,
all of those "aspects" are deemed to be creations of Hashem, so what's
your beef?
> As are those who imagine that one should pray to the "corpulent deity"
> Diqarnosa (=Dea Cornosa) for parnassa. But in many "frum shuls" this is done
> every Rosh Hashana.
Never heard of it, but I'll take your word for it
> Want to ban every shote? You will cut out a significant percentage of the
> population.
None of the things you mentioned have led to avoda zara mamash.
"Atzmus haKadosh Baruch Hu bGuf"?! The meshichistim are a direct feed
into the elokistim.
> Ma hu rahum vehanun, af atta rahum vehanun; ma hu erekh appayim, af atta erekh
> appayim.
>
> It is not a crime to be stupid. Hersy hunting is also neo-Christian.
> Neo-medieval Christian.
>
> The last thing we need is an Inquisition.
No one is talking about an inquisition. Buf if someone came into a
frum shul on Shabbat wearing a Walkman, I have no doubts that they'd
be asked to take it off or leave. The leniency extended to the
meshichistim is bizarre.
Lisa
Susan Cohen
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:23:21 +0000 (UTC), "Susan Cohen"
> <fla...@verizon.net> said:
>
>>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>news:419a423f....@News.individual.net...
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:26:29 +0000 (UTC), li...@starways.net (Lisa)
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
>>>>man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
>>>>If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
>>>>This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>>>
>>> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>>
>>Which means that no one should try to set them straight....??
>
> In my experience it is useless to try.
I actually mis-spoke (or mis-typed?).
What I meant to say was that "People should then pander to these beliefs
instead of just stating the truth?"
Yes, you state below that it will do no good in helping them see the truth -
but I can;t see *any* good it does to pat them on the head & say "Okay,
we'll just go along with it."
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.04111...@posting.google.com...
>
> No one is talking about an inquisition. Buf if someone came into a
> frum shul on Shabbat wearing a Walkman, I have no doubts that they'd
> be asked to take it off or leave. The leniency extended to the
> meshichistim is bizarre.
Nicely encapsulated.
Susan
>
> Lisa
Marmarali100
> No one is talking about an inquisition. Buf if someone came into a
>> frum shul on Shabbat wearing a Walkman, I have no doubts that they'd
>> be asked to take it off or leave. The leniency extended to the
>> meshichistim is bizarre.
>
>Nicely encapsulated.
>
>Susan
Nicely encapsulated rhetoric.
The point begs the question yet again. I have yet to see how the meshichistim
are violating a law.
I assume wearing a walkman violates a law according to the OP, thus there is no
analogy without first DEMONSTRATING the law the messianic is violating. Such a
demonstrattion does not include merely stating a conclusion as has been done
repeatedly.
Simply cite the law, as any halakhist would know how to do. Then apply it to
the facts.
Ronnie
Henry Goodman
news:<20041118004414...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> > >Subject: Re: The Fight Over the Cornerstone
> > >From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
> > >Date: 11/18/2004 1:55 AM
> >
> >
>
> No one is talking about an inquisition. Buf if someone came into a
> frum shul on Shabbat wearing a Walkman, I have no doubts that they'd
> be asked to take it off or leave. The leniency extended to the
> meshichistim is bizarre.
>
Only a frum shul? I would have expected this to happen in an R shul
too.
The R shul in Golders Green has a notice asking woshippers not to
smoke or use mobile phones on the premises on Shabbat. A walkman would
not doubt be regarded as the same or worse than a mobile.
Lord Baeron
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>The R shul in Golders Green has a notice asking woshippers not to
>smoke or use mobile phones on the premises on Shabbat.
They permit smoking on other days?
--
Lord Baeron
Henry Goodman
"Lord Baeron" <LordB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bcirp056vgp9e59q9...@4ax.com...
No idea; I have only been there twice, both on Shabbat for
Barmitzvahs. In many O shuls some men sneak out into the courtyard for
a smoke on YomTov during maftir.
Shabbat shalom
Lisa
Spoken like a true libertarian. Oh, wait. Actually, that's the
direct opposite, isn't it.
> I believe I understand what you mean by "offensive," but that's in the
> eyes of the beholder, to a large extent. To you and R' David Berger it
> is offensive; to me and many others it's no more than a sad mistake.
> Certainly ZT"L was offensive enough to attendees of 770 that it got
> effaced very quickly.
The moshichist error has led directly to the elokist error. And
that's avoda zara mamash. And I don't *care* if crazy people were
offended by ztz'l. The man is dead. That isn't subject to debate.
It's a fact. If I have an opinion that the moon is made of green
cheese and the earth is flat, it doesn't make that a valid opinion.
It just makes me a fruitcake.
> >> In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
> >> occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
> >
> >I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
> >"the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
> >allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
> >children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
> >Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
> >shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
>
> This is a practical question. There's this young guy who comes in from
> time to time, and sometimes he chants "Yekhi" at the end of prayers,
> three times, like in 770. It happens infrequently enough. One time an
> older man came up during the first chant and said: "Stop." After the
> second chant he said, loudly: "Shut up!" Others started drifting
> closer, but the yungerman was undeterred and completed his mantra.
> "You're desecrating the memory of my rebbe!" the older man said
> indignantly, and at that the young one launched into one of his
> prepared diatribes about how the Rebbe himself wanted this, etc.
>
> Now what more should we have done? Started a fight?
Told him to leave. Told him that he's distorting the words of the
Rebbe and/or that if he wants to utter such naarischkeit, a shul is
certainly not the place for it. And that the Rebbe was niftar more
than 10 years ago and that he should get over it already.
> Told him not to come to shul?
Yes.
> He's been thrown out of several shuls already.
It's nice to hear that some shuls have standards. It's a shame that
yours seems not to. If the man was standing there saying in the name
of the f, s, and hg, you'd have him out in a heartbeat. If he was
standing there with a boombox and playing it, you'd do the same.
> On another occasion with this same guy, I started echoing his chants
> with the old Soviet ditty: "Lenin was alive, Lenin is alive, Lenin
> will live forever!" Afterwards the gabbai came to me and said:
> "Please, Yisroel, one pig in the shul is enough. Let's ignore rather
> than emulate him."
Then the gabbai is wrong.
> >> No one of
> >> regulars chants it at the end of prayers. The other is a large Yekhi
> >> sign that got relegated from the front of the shul to the side a
> >> couple of years ago.
> >
> >Oh. Gosh. It's on the side. That makes it all better. The man is
> >*dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach. These
> >people are shotim.
>
> I agree, but why is this a crime? I'm with Ronnie on this one.
Because even non-moshikhists within Chabad are starting to make
excuses for crapola like "atzmus ha-kadosh baruch hu b'guf", but it's
getting common among the moshichists. And *that* is avoda zara.
Which makes the moshichist theology avak d'avoda zara.
> >> Last year I decided to conduct an experiment, and
> >> removed the sign. This caused a few people so much obvious distress
> >> that I put it back up. I concluded that, IMHO, fighting over such
> >> symbols is simply not worth it.
> >
> >Hold that thought, Yisroel. Hanukkah is coming up. I have a feeling
> >that Chazal felt very different about the worth of fighting over such
> >symbols.
>
> Yes. Provided we agree on the relative importance of such symbols. A
> Yekhi sign isn't exactly an idol in the azara.
Do tell.
> >> >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
> >> >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
> >> >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
> >> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
> >>
> >> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
> >
> >So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
> >Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
>
> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't win, or
> those where winning is worse than not fighting.
Winning a fight against avoda zara could be worse than not fighting?
Other shuls have kicked these wackos out. It's shuls that don't kick
them out that keep them going. And "scandal" is far too weak a word
for it. It's a massive hillul Hashem. Do you have any idea what a
field day the Alter Christians are having with this?
Lisa
Yisroel Markov
said:
Please clarify.
>> I believe I understand what you mean by "offensive," but that's in the
>> eyes of the beholder, to a large extent. To you and R' David Berger it
>> is offensive; to me and many others it's no more than a sad mistake.
>> Certainly ZT"L was offensive enough to attendees of 770 that it got
>> effaced very quickly.
>
>The moshichist error has led directly to the elokist error.
Which has claimed all of ten or so people worldwide. Not enough data
to establish a connection.
This has been tried before. It's useless.
>> Told him not to come to shul?
>
>Yes.
In the collective judgment of our shul members, his offense doesn't
warrant locking a Jew out of a shul.
>> He's been thrown out of several shuls already.
>
>It's nice to hear that some shuls have standards. It's a shame that
>yours seems not to. If the man was standing there saying in the name
>of the f, s, and hg, you'd have him out in a heartbeat. If he was
>standing there with a boombox and playing it, you'd do the same.
I'm not so sure. A couple of years ago, right after Friday night Minha
this somewhat crazy woman came in off the street, announced that she
was Jewish, here to educate us, and started playing the piano. After
she ignored a few polite requests to stop, the gabbai restrained the
only guy who wanted to go and physically stop her. So she finished her
piece and left. Why argue with shotim?
In our collective judgment, the degree of repugnance and disruption
that the moshikhists sometimes cause simply does not rise to the level
of a guy with a boombox or someone invoking other gods.
>> On another occasion with this same guy, I started echoing his chants
>> with the old Soviet ditty: "Lenin was alive, Lenin is alive, Lenin
>> will live forever!" Afterwards the gabbai came to me and said:
>> "Please, Yisroel, one pig in the shul is enough. Let's ignore rather
>> than emulate him."
>
>Then the gabbai is wrong.
Debatable.
>> >> No one of
>> >> regulars chants it at the end of prayers. The other is a large Yekhi
>> >> sign that got relegated from the front of the shul to the side a
>> >> couple of years ago.
>> >
>> >Oh. Gosh. It's on the side. That makes it all better. The man is
>> >*dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach. These
>> >people are shotim.
>>
>> I agree, but why is this a crime? I'm with Ronnie on this one.
>
>Because even non-moshikhists within Chabad are starting to make
>excuses for crapola like "atzmus ha-kadosh baruch hu b'guf", but it's
>getting common among the moshichists. And *that* is avoda zara.
>Which makes the moshichist theology avak d'avoda zara.
Now this is a bigger problem. Describing the Rebbe as "atzmus ongetun
in a guf" is not "getting common among the moshichists" - it already
*is* universal among them. The reason being that the Rebbe himself
wrote it a couple of times. If you take the tack that this is avoda
zara, then what you have to do is much more than say that they are
"distorting the words of the Rebbe." You have to convince them that
the Rebbe was mamash wrong. Good luck doing that. They come at you
waving the famous quote from the Zohar: "Who is the face of the
Master? Rashbi" etc. (Speaking of which, go to
http://groups.msn.com/SHMAIS and scroll down until the big photograph
of balloons floating in the sky. You expect me to take these wackos
seriously?)
>> >> Last year I decided to conduct an experiment, and
>> >> removed the sign. This caused a few people so much obvious distress
>> >> that I put it back up. I concluded that, IMHO, fighting over such
>> >> symbols is simply not worth it.
>> >
>> >Hold that thought, Yisroel. Hanukkah is coming up. I have a feeling
>> >that Chazal felt very different about the worth of fighting over such
>> >symbols.
>>
>> Yes. Provided we agree on the relative importance of such symbols. A
>> Yekhi sign isn't exactly an idol in the azara.
>
>Do tell.
Meaning?
>> >> >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
>> >> >man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
>> >> >If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
>> >> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>> >>
>> >> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>> >
>> >So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
>> >Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
>>
>> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't win, or
>> those where winning is worse than not fighting.
>
>Winning a fight against avoda zara could be worse than not fighting?
Where is the avoda zara? IMHO either only the elokists are the problem
- and they are few - or the entire Habad is the problem.
>Other shuls have kicked these wackos out. It's shuls that don't kick
>them out that keep them going.
They have too many of their own shuls.
>And "scandal" is far too weak a word
>for it. It's a massive hillul Hashem. Do you have any idea what a
>field day the Alter Christians are having with this?
I do. And others have a field day with quotes from the Gemara.
Yisroel Markov
<fla...@verizon.net> said:
>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>news:419ce2c2...@News.individual.net...
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:23:21 +0000 (UTC), "Susan Cohen"
>> <fla...@verizon.net> said:
>>
>>>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>>news:419a423f....@News.individual.net...
>>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:26:29 +0000 (UTC), li...@starways.net (Lisa)
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>>And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
>>>>>man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
>>>>>If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
>>>>>This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>>>>
>>>> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>>>
>>>Which means that no one should try to set them straight....??
>>
>> In my experience it is useless to try.
>
>I actually mis-spoke (or mis-typed?).
>What I meant to say was that "People should then pander to these beliefs
>instead of just stating the truth?"
>Yes, you state below that it will do no good in helping them see the truth -
>but I can;t see *any* good it does to pat them on the head & say "Okay,
>we'll just go along with it."
Nobody panders or "pats them on the head." They get dirty looks, or
are pointedly ignored. "Stating the truth" simply provokes another
round of "the Rebbe said..." Not every fight is worth picking.
[snip]
Susan Cohen
"Marmarali100" <marmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041118234117...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Oh please!
Are you seriously trying to say that insisting that a dead man is Moshiach,
a man who didn't fulfill any of the requirements of Moshiach, but insisting
that you are also following Judaism, isn't even *somehow* against Jewish
law?
Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who actually
aren't....
Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
Susan
>
> Ronnie
>
>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> li...@starways.net (Lisa) said:
>>ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote
>>> li...@starways.net (Lisa) said:
>>> >ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote
snip
>>The "one side" that put up the plaque vandalized the building in order
>>to put the plaque up. No destruction of the plaque could be
>>considered on the same level as that. Furthermore, Chabad is a Jewish
>>group. For these vandals to write what they did is every bit as
>>disgusting as if a group of Reform vandals were to deface the building
>>by putting up a plaque saying that the Torah is an invention of
>>people. It's offensive, and destroying the offense is not on the same
>>level as committing the offense in the first place.
>
> The issue is complicated by the dispute over who should be in charge
> of the building. 770 is definitely attended predominantly by
> moshikhists, while the Agu"KH - the nominal owner of the building - is
> run by the authors of the ZT"L plaque. IMHO the idea that the vast
> majority of the Crown Heights residents who attend 770 should be the
> ones who run it, and determine what sorts of plaques are put up, is at
> least defensible.
"predominantly"? "vast majority"? Oy Yisroel you spoiled my day.
> I believe I understand what you mean by "offensive," but that's in the
> eyes of the beholder, to a large extent. To you and R' David Berger it
> is offensive; to me and many others it's no more than a sad mistake.
> Certainly ZT"L was offensive enough to attendees of 770 that it got
> effaced very quickly.
>
>>> In our shul here, there are only two signs of moshikhism. One is the
>>> occasional singing of Yekhi during Lecha Dodi by 3-4 people.
>>
>>I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
>>"the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
>>allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
>>children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
>>Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
>>shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
>
> This is a practical question. There's this young guy who comes in from
> time to time, and sometimes he chants "Yekhi" at the end of prayers,
> three times, like in 770. It happens infrequently enough. One time an
> older man came up during the first chant and said: "Stop." After the
> second chant he said, loudly: "Shut up!" Others started drifting
> closer, but the yungerman was undeterred and completed his mantra.
> "You're desecrating the memory of my rebbe!" the older man said
> indignantly, and at that the young one launched into one of his
> prepared diatribes about how the Rebbe himself wanted this, etc.
>
> Now what more should we have done? Started a fight? Told him not to
> come to shul? He's been thrown out of several shuls already.
For this reason? Are you talking about Chabad shuls? If so it would
seem there _is_ hope.
> On another occasion with this same guy, I started echoing his chants
> with the old Soviet ditty: "Lenin was alive, Lenin is alive, Lenin
> will live forever!" Afterwards the gabbai came to me and said:
> "Please, Yisroel, one pig in the shul is enough. Let's ignore rather
> than emulate him."
>
>>> No one of regulars chants it at the end of prayers. The other is
>>> a large Yekhi sign that got relegated from the front of the shul
>>> to the side a couple of years ago.
>>
>>Oh. Gosh. It's on the side. That makes it all better. The man
>>is *dead*, Yisroel. He's not a melekh and he's not mashiach.
>>These people are shotim.
>
> I agree, but why is this a crime? I'm with Ronnie on this one.
Ronnie? What did he say? He's the one who calls all of us kofrim so
suddenly he's _defending_ Yechi??!!
>>> Last year I decided to conduct an experiment, and removed the
>>> sign. This caused a few people so much obvious distress that I
>>> put it back up. I concluded that, IMHO, fighting over such
>>> symbols is simply not worth it.
>>
>>Hold that thought, Yisroel. Hanukkah is coming up. I have a
>>feeling that Chazal felt very different about the worth of
>>fighting over such symbols.
>
> Yes. Provided we agree on the relative importance of such symbols.
> A Yekhi sign isn't exactly an idol in the azara.
>
>>> >And "King Moshiach"? Again, the >man is dead. Dead, dead,
>>> >dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. If they hadn't
>>> >nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
What are you talking about?
>>> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>>>
>>> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>>
>>So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
>>Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
>
> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't
> win, or those where winning is worse than not fighting.
I understand your first clause, but not the second one.
Micha Berger
: The point begs the question yet again. I have yet to see how the meshichistim
: are violating a law.
I posted twice already.
To repeat:
Prayer to a middleman. Worship for the purpose of the rebbe and his
return, not G-d. Bibliomancy.
According to many, they curtail the 12th ikkar (awaiting the messiah)
to limits that go beyond halakhah. For that matter, overly exploring
the how and when of mashiach (lachashov es haqeitz) is prohibited. But
actually, the messianism itself is not the big problem.
Try the articles at <http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/articles.html>.
They debate could be whether L messianists are heretics, not whether or
not they are acting within the law.
-mi
Micha Berger
:>The moshichist error has led directly to the elokist error.
: Which has claimed all of ten or so people worldwide. Not enough data
: to establish a connection.
The number of people who misunderstand "Atzmus ungetun in guf" (the
[Divine] Self clothed in a body) in heretical ways, even by the Ba'al
haTanya's definition of heresy, FAR exceeds 10.
However, that is not a product of L messianism. It's a product of teaching
Tanya (where the idea originates) to people who don't yet have a grounding
in the basics.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Until he extends the circle of his compassion
mi...@aishdas.org to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Schweitzer
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/21/2004 2:58 PM Malay Peninsula Standard Time
>Ronnie? What did he say? He's the one who calls all of us kofrim so
>suddenly he's _defending_ Yechi??!!
And you seem to have learned critical analysis and characterisation skills at
the PLO's UN office.
Not "defending Yehi". Stating that tje LAW governs, not heresy hunting.
This is a good exmaple. I do not think in terms of "kofrim" -- that is a
neo-Christian way of thinking and I am Jewish. I relaize the Satmar have songs
about "medinas hakofrim" so perhaps to you this is a valid Jewish category.
Just as I reject the whole kofrim thing, I reject ostracizing anyone contrary
to LAW, which is almost always prohibited except in cases of AZ.
Thanks for the diyun lekhaf zekhuth, though Always a pleasure.
Ronnie
Micha Berger
: Ronnie? What did he say? He's the one who calls all of us kofrim so
: suddenly he's _defending_ Yechi??!!
Actually, it makes sense. Ronnie had to develop a strong sense of the
distinction between "wrong" and "heretical". After all, according to
him, the vast majority of people who call themselves observant Jews --
all of Ashkenaz and the majority of Sepharad (who follow the Mishnah
Berurah and Ben Ish Hai) -- are wrong.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Harry Weiss
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 05:23:21 +0000 (UTC), "Susan Cohen"
> <fla...@verizon.net> said:
> >"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
> >news:419a423f....@News.individual.net...
> >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:26:29 +0000 (UTC), li...@starways.net (Lisa)
> >> said:
> >>
> >>>And "King Moshiach"? Again, the
> >>>man is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Bereft of life, he rests in peace.
> >>>If they hadn't nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up daisies.
> >>>This... is an ex-Rebbe.
> >>
> >> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
> >
> >Which means that no one should try to set them straight....??
> In my experience it is useless to try. Sooner or later you run against
> "it is so because the Rebbe said it is so," and that's the end of the
> discussion. Doubting or challenging the words of the Rebbe endangers
> not only moshikhist beliefs, but one's status as a hasid in the first
> place. People who are committed enough to the late Rebbe to be
> unwilling to let him go are definitely not interested in losing that
> as well.
I remember having a disucssion with a moshichist whose grandfather was my
Rosh Hayeshiva many years ago. I mentioned that his zeide was turning
over in his grave because of his nonesense.l
He then spend a half hour trying to convince me that the L Rebbe said he
was moshiach. I said he convicned me. He said at least I knew know that
the Rebbe was moshiach. I said, No,. Before I though the Rebbe was a
tzadik and some of his followers were shotim or reshaim and he convinced
me that Schneerson was either a Shoteh or a Rosho. He then left me alone.
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
> www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:58:47 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : Ronnie? What did he say? He's the one who calls all of us kofrim so
> : suddenly he's _defending_ Yechi??!!
>
> Actually, it makes sense. Ronnie had to develop a strong sense of the
> distinction between "wrong" and "heretical". After all, according to
> him, the vast majority of people who call themselves observant Jews --
> all of Ashkenaz and the majority of Sepharad (who follow the Mishnah
> Berurah and Ben Ish Hai) -- are wrong.
And Rav Yosef Karo, the Mechaber of the Shulchan Aruch.
It reminds me of the joke about the guy who's driving in the wrong
direction of traffic on a major highway and who hears on the news
that there's a crazy guy driving in the incoming lane. He says,
"One ? THERE ARE HUNDREDS !!! :-)
Josh
Z
writes
>In article <30c00fF...@uni-berlin.de>, Micha Berger
><mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:58:47 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> : Ronnie? What did he say? He's the one who calls all of us kofrim so
>> : suddenly he's _defending_ Yechi??!!
>>
>> Actually, it makes sense. Ronnie had to develop a strong sense of the
>> distinction between "wrong" and "heretical". After all, according to
>> him, the vast majority of people who call themselves observant Jews --
>> all of Ashkenaz and the majority of Sepharad (who follow the Mishnah
>> Berurah and Ben Ish Hai) -- are wrong.
>
>
>And Rav Yosef Karo, the Mechaber of the Shulchan Aruch.
>
>It reminds me of the joke about the guy who's driving in the wrong
>direction of traffic on a major highway and who hears on the news
>that there's a crazy guy driving in the incoming lane. He says,
>"One ? THERE ARE HUNDREDS !!! :-)
>
>Josh
>
>
>>
>> -mi
>>
>> --
>> Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
>> mi...@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
>> http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
>> Fax: (270) 514-1507
--
Z
Remove all Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Robert
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote :
> The number of people who misunderstand "Atzmus ungetun in guf" (the
> [Divine] Self clothed in a body) in heretical ways, even by the Ba'al
> haTanya's definition of heresy, FAR exceeds 10.
It probably far exceeds thousands of people.
In any case, isn't it a valid, mainstream mitnaged Orthodox position that
any form of "Atzmus ungetun in guf" is heretical?
Robert
Marmarali100
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:58:47 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>: Ronnie? What did he say? He's the one who calls all of us kofrim so
>: suddenly he's _defending_ Yechi??!!
>Actually, it makes sense. Ronnie had to develop a strong sense of the
>distinction between "wrong" and "heretical".
This is typical misplaced yeshivish thinking.
I do not HAVE these silly mental categories. You sound like you mean "there is
an inyan in "wrong" and an inyan in "heresy"" and then you propose a "chakira"
to distinguish between them on my behalf.
I follow the law. My mental categories are LEGAL (we call this "Ley Mental" as
it happens).
If someone misquotes/misunderstands the law, I point that out. If someone
asserts bibliomancy is permitted I point out that that is mistaken, as it is
khishuf -- IN ANY FORM. If someone asserts belief in a false messaih is
heretical, I point out that that is also mistaken, as that is not what a MIN is
all about.
>After all, according to
>him, the vast majority of people who call themselves observant Jews --
>all of Ashkenaz and the majority of Sepharad (who follow the Mishnah
>Berurah and Ben Ish Hai) -- are wrong.
Again, my Eastern mind is frustrated with your categories. When Jews follow
the LAW I have no problem. We all agree one cannot write on Shabbath. We all
agree one cannot plow on Shabbath. Yes?
I say that the pilpul which allows an erubh in reshuth harabbim is mistaken and
not the law of the Gemara. I say that tefillim on dokhsostos is not the law
of the Gemara. I say that lighting the hanukiya after sunset + 35 minutes is
not the law of the Gemara.
So it depends on which LAW we are talking about, not WHO the person's community
is.
YOU think in terms of "communities", so you want to talk about the Lubavitch as
a whole. I find that silly, and wholly non-contextual. If a man *prays* to
the Rebbe as a GOD or says eli atta, or bows, of course that is AZ. If he
merely sings "Yehi" that is NOT AZ. No law can be adduced to make that AZ.
Finally, I *am* Sepharadi, and hardly anyone cares about the Ben Ish Hai.
Hardly anyone outside of real black hats have even heard of him. And no those
who know about him do not follow him! They follow perhaps the mystical mood
and the emphasis on "kavvwanaoth".
So where exactly do you get these pseudo-facts of yours?
How many Sepharadim ride a bicycle on Shabbath with no erubh in reliance on Ben
Ish Hai? None.
We could go on. The fact is few read Rabh Pe'alim. The books of BIH that are
read are different ones.
Ronnie
Marmarali100
>From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org
>: The point begs the question yet again. I have yet to see how the
>meshichistim
>: are violating a law.
>I posted twice already.
But never answered even once.
>Prayer to a middleman.
Do they say "eli atta" as I asked before? Do they violate the LAW about AZ?
Do not many pray at the graves of Tzadikkim TO THE TZADDIK?
>Worship for the purpose of the rebbe and his
>return, not G-d.
That is NOT forbidden anywhere. If you say it is, SHOW ME THE MONEY!
>Bibliomancy.
Just as forbidden for L as for the VIlna Gaon. But nihush != MINUTH.
>According to many, they curtail the 12th ikkar (awaiting the messiah)
>to limits that go beyond halakhah.
NO LAW at all about that. Cite chapter and verse.
>For that matter, overly exploring
>the how and when of mashiach (>lachashov es haqeitz) is prohibited.
Depends on the context. But not minut.
>Try the articles at <http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/articles.html>.
>They debate could be whether L messianists are heretics, not whether or
>not they are acting within the law.
>
If the authors had any idea about the law, I just might. But it appears form
your paraphases they simply do not as I understand the term.
Ronnie
Marmarali100
>From: "Susan Cohen"
>h please!
>Are you seriously trying to say that insisting that a dead man is Moshiach,
>a man who didn't fulfill any of the requirements of Moshiach, but insisting
>that you are also following Judaism,
>isn't even *somehow* against Jewish
>law?
Precisely what I am asserting.
>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who actually
>aren't....
Nonsequitur.
You know better? SHOW ME THE LAW.
>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
Intermarriage itself is prohibited. Who cares about "belief"? Judaism does
not.
I am talking about Judaism, not Christian values and assumptions applied to
Judaism, but Judaism. You know, the Tora.
Ronnie
Micha Berger
: In any case, isn't it a valid, mainstream mitnaged Orthodox position that
I'm sure there is such a position. However, L was accepted by nearly all
of the rest of O; IOW, that ideas in the Tanya as understood correctly,
is considered by nearly all of O as within the fold.
-mi
--
Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - anyonyous Dr, while a Nazi prisoner
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/22/2004 2:54 AM Malay Peninsula Standard Time
>It reminds me of the joke about the guy who's driving in the wrong
>direction of traffic on a major highway and who hears on the news
>that there's a crazy guy driving in the incoming lane. He says,
>"One ? THERE ARE HUNDREDS !!! :-)
>
One could say th esame joke about the Sabbatean epoch. Everyone, and I mean
everyone, except for a handful of rabbis went along with the program.
Should they have "gone along with the flow"? Woudl we still be Jewish if they
did?
I wonder.
Ronnie
Micha Berger
: Do they say "eli atta" as I asked before? Do they violate the LAW about AZ?
Yes, they violate the 5th principal, by praying to an intermediary.
Apus/Mercury is also AZ.
: Do not many pray at the graves of Tzadikkim TO THE TZADDIK?
And don't their leaders repeatedly tell them that's not the point of
going to a tzqadiq's grave? That others make a mistake doesn't make it
right. And once institutionalized, doesn't justify a movement.
It's the difference between having keruvim on the ark, and praying to
them. (And actually Kirub was a deity in the ancient middle east...)
:>Bibliomancy.
: Just as forbidden for L as for the VIlna Gaon. But nihush != MINUTH.
You're "but" is irrelevent, as we're not talking anymore about whether
or not they're apiqursim, but whether or not they violate halakhah.
And as already answered, bibliomancy as a means of talking to the dead
is ov veyid'oni. Bibliomancy as a means of determining the will of G-d
is not.
:>According to many, they curtail the 12th ikkar (awaiting the messiah)
:>to limits that go beyond halakhah.
: NO LAW at all about that. Cite chapter and verse.
Now the ikkarei emunah aren't mandatory?
:>Try the articles at <http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/articles.html>.
:>They debate could be whether L messianists are heretics, not whether or
:>not they are acting within the law.
: If the authors had any idea about the law, I just might. But it appears form
: your paraphases they simply do not as I understand the term.
For most of the audience, this simply reads as an expression of incredible
ga'avah (hautiness). "The authors" include rashei yeshivah. I think R'
Aharon Soloveitchik, R' Aharon Feldman, R' Zev Leff, and R' Yosef Avraham
haLevi Heller can not be dismissed so summarily. At least, not if you
want your argument to carry any weight with your audience.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Micha Berger
: One could say th esame joke about the Sabbatean epoch. Everyone, and I mean
: everyone, except for a handful of rabbis went along with the program.
I think you overestimate how many were taken in. This is true in some
communities, but the Sabbateans did not have that strong of an impact
on others.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and
http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham
Micha Berger
:>Actually, it makes sense. Ronnie had to develop a strong sense of the
:>distinction between "wrong" and "heretical".
: This is typical misplaced yeshivish thinking.
: I do not HAVE these silly mental categories. You sound like you mean "there is
: an inyan in "wrong" and an inyan in "heresy"" and then you propose a "chakira"
: to distinguish between them on my behalf.
: I follow the law. My mental categories are LEGAL (we call this "Ley Mental" as
: it happens).
Ummm. Do you realize you just (1) ridiculed the use of categories then
(2) asserted that you use categories?
The difference between "wrong" and "heretical" are LEGAL categories, your
tirade is irrelevent.
A second reason why it's irrelevent is that this division into categories
is a feature of Brisker lomdus, which you attribute to me without knowing
my backbround. My Rebbe taught me the Telzer method. If you wish to air your
own foolishness, you would need to ridicule my search for
first principles implied in halakhah, not categories.
Third, lomdus is necessary for survival in a changing world. There is no way
to extapolate from Talmudic case law to new situations without building up
theories of why cases fall out on one side of the line or the other. That's
all lomdus is, searching for implied general principles.
: YOU think in terms of "communities", so you want to talk about the Lubavitch as
: a whole. I find that silly, and wholly non-contextual. If a man *prays* to
: the Rebbe as a GOD or says eli atta, or bows, of course that is AZ. If he
: merely sings "Yehi" that is NOT AZ....
If he prays to the rebbe as a middleman, he violated AZ as well.
Two, if he insists that his synagogue have a picture of the rebbe on
the mizrach wall...
: Finally, I *am* Sepharadi, and hardly anyone cares about the Ben Ish Hai.
: Hardly anyone outside of real black hats have even heard of him...
Do you not know what's going on in other Sepharadi communities, or are
you simply lying? This is out disjoint from reality, I have no idea how
to address it.
Besides, the Ben Ish Hai was one of only two examples that I gave you...
Is Maran Bet Yosef also not a mainstay of Sepharadi pesaq?
Yisroel Markov
If it is even "somehow" against Jewish law, it should be possible to
cite to the actual law. Micha did; what he cited is actually
substantive (and properly debatable as to correctness, identification,
and application).
>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who actually
>aren't....
>
>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
I guess you're talking about Christian spouses of Jews? (Here it was
actually easy to guess, as opposed to some other posts of yours where
you make an apparently irrelevant statement and make guessing a lot
harder.) If so, those people violate a few more Jewish laws (including
those directly related to the question of minut) than your average
moshikhist.
Yisroel Markov
>ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
>> li...@starways.net (Lisa) said:
[snip]
>>>I think that David Berger used the correct term when he referred to
>>>"the scandal of Orthodox indifference". That those 3-4 people are
>>>allowed to do so is terrible. And it teaches people, particularly
>>>children and beginners, that it's actually okay. It's not.
>>>Neo-Christian second coming nuts should not be countenanced in a frum
>>>shul. You might as well let them go up and daven Modim Modim.
>>
>> This is a practical question. There's this young guy who comes in from
>> time to time, and sometimes he chants "Yekhi" at the end of prayers,
>> three times, like in 770. It happens infrequently enough. One time an
>> older man came up during the first chant and said: "Stop." After the
>> second chant he said, loudly: "Shut up!" Others started drifting
>> closer, but the yungerman was undeterred and completed his mantra.
>> "You're desecrating the memory of my rebbe!" the older man said
>> indignantly, and at that the young one launched into one of his
>> prepared diatribes about how the Rebbe himself wanted this, etc.
>>
>> Now what more should we have done? Started a fight? Told him not to
>> come to shul? He's been thrown out of several shuls already.
>
>For this reason? Are you talking about Chabad shuls? If so it would
>seem there _is_ hope.
Habad shuls, too. But I wouldn't get too hopeful. When moshikhists
claim that the biggest disagreement in Habad is not over whether the
late Rebbe is Mashiakh, but over how and whether to publicize it,
AFAIK they're right. One of the rabbis here, an alter hasid, who was
very vocal about banning "Yekhi," exemplified this when he said: "We
all know the Rebbe is Mashiakh, but he himself didn't want to
publicize it!" That was five-six years ago.
[snip]
>>>> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>>>>
>>>> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>>>
>>>So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
>>>Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
>>
>> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't
>> win, or those where winning is worse than not fighting.
>
>I understand your first clause, but not the second one.
Say you get the lonely meshuga to shut up. As a result, he doesn't
attend any shul at all. Or you shut up a lonely meshuga and several
non-meshuga moshikhists, and as a result they go and start their own
shul, where they can practice whatever they want however they want,
like in 770. IMHO that'd be a Pyrrhic victory.
Robert
> : In any case, isn't it a valid, mainstream mitnaged Orthodox position
> that
> : any form of "Atzmus ungetun in guf" is heretical?
Micha replied:
> I'm sure there is such a position. However, L was accepted by nearly all
> of the rest of O; IOW, that ideas in the Tanya as understood correctly,
> is considered by nearly all of O as within the fold.
Could we elaborate on this idea: "as understood correctly". I understand
that this statement in the Tanya is based on a statement in the Zohar. As
far as I know, many statements in the Zohar are esoteric, and have always
been open to a wide degree of interpretation. Within classical and Orthodox
Judaism I am sure that there are many interpretations of this statement
which are not heretical. Thus, most Orthodox Jews wouldn't be worried when
they see this quoted in the Tanya (an exclusively Lubavitch work.)
However, as the idea is described in the Tanya, wasn't the classical
Lubavitch view of "Atzmus ungetun in guf" different from how all other
Chassidim, and all other Mitnagdim (non-Chasidic Jews) viewed it? And I am
speaking of pre-1994, before the messianic bent of Lubavitch became
recognized as a serious problem and before the late Lubaitcher Rebbe was
publicly spoken of in this way. For those religious Jews who recognized this
difference I believe that they viewed the Lubavitch intepretation as
mistaken (at best), and heretical (at worst,) even before 1994. Can anyone
comment on this?
Since 1994 any idea of "Atzmus ungetun in guf" has been criticised as
dangerous, mistaken and possibily heretical, by a number of Orthodox rabbis,
correct? Rabbi David Berger seems to feel this way, and he mentions others
who do.
Shalom,
Robert
Susan Cohen
Yes, I know he did.
And I figured if he could ignore Micha, he could ignore anything.
>
>>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who actually
>>aren't....
>>
>>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
>
> I guess you're talking about Christian spouses of Jews? (Here it was
> actually easy to guess, as opposed to some other posts of yours where
> you make an apparently irrelevant statement and make guessing a lot
> harder.)
Just because you don't like what I have to say is no cause to pretend it's
vague.
If so, those people violate a few more Jewish laws (including
> those directly related to the question of minut) than your average
> moshikhist.
If you say so - that wasn't the point of what I was saying.
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:
>>ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
>>> li...@starways.net (Lisa) said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> come to shul? He's been thrown out of several shuls already.
>>
>>For this reason? Are you talking about Chabad shuls? If so it would
>>seem there _is_ hope.
>
> Habad shuls, too. But I wouldn't get too hopeful. When moshikhists
> claim that the biggest disagreement in Habad is not over whether the
> late Rebbe is Mashiakh, but over how and whether to publicize it,
> AFAIK they're right. One of the rabbis here, an alter hasid, who was
> very vocal about banning "Yekhi," exemplified this when he said: "We
> all know the Rebbe is Mashiakh, but he himself didn't want to
> publicize it!" That was five-six years ago.
Ouch.
> [snip]
>
>>>>> >This... is an ex-Rebbe.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, but they don't believe that. And they're quite sincere.
>>>>
>>>>So are evangelical Christians. So were the Hellenists. So are the
>>>>Reform and Conservative Jews on this newsgroup. So what?
>>>
>>> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't
>>> win, or those where winning is worse than not fighting.
>>
>>I understand your first clause, but not the second one.
>
> Say you get the lonely meshuga to shut up. As a result, he doesn't
> attend any shul at all. Or you shut up a lonely meshuga and several
> non-meshuga moshikhists, and as a result they go and start their own
> shul, where they can practice whatever they want however they want,
> like in 770. IMHO that'd be a Pyrrhic victory.
Pyrrhic shmyrrhic, as long as you won! :-)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
>> If it is even "somehow" against Jewish law, it should be possible
>> to cite to the actual law. Micha did; what he cited is actually
>> substantive (and properly debatable as to correctness,
>> identification, and application).
>
> Yes, I know he did.
> And I figured if he could ignore Micha, he could ignore anything.
>>
>>>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who
>>>actually aren't....
>>>
>>>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
>>
>> I guess you're talking about Christian spouses of Jews? (Here it
>> was actually easy to guess, as opposed to some other posts of
>> yours where you make an apparently irrelevant statement and make
>> guessing a lot harder.)
>
> Just because you don't like what I have to say is no cause to
> pretend it's vague.
I don't think he's pretending. It might be clear as day to you, but
if you don't spell it out, it may not be clear to anyone else.
>> If so, those people violate a few more Jewish laws (including
>> those directly related to the question of minut) than your
>> average moshikhist.
>
> If you say so - that wasn't the point of what I was saying.
See? Even when he _thinks_ he understood your point, he was wrong.
So maybe spell out what you mean.
marmarali
> Yes, they violate the 5th principal, by praying to an intermediary.
> Apus/Mercury is also AZ.
Again, the "principles" are not law.
> : Do not many pray at the graves of Tzadikkim TO THE TZADDIK?
>
> And don't their leaders repeatedly tell them that's not the point of
> going to a tzqadiq's grave? That others make a mistake doesn't make it
> right. And once institutionalized, doesn't justify a movement.
But you want to ostracize SOME who do this and NOT OSTRACIZE others
who also do it. That is bias, not law.
> It's the difference between having keruvim on the ark, and praying to
> them. (And actually Kirub was a deity in the ancient middle east...)
>
> :>Bibliomancy.
>
> : Just as forbidden for L as for the VIlna Gaon. But nihush != MINUTH.
>
> You're "but" is irrelevent, as we're not talking anymore about whether
> or not they're apiqursim, but whether or not they violate halakhah.
No, whether any violations rise to the level of AZ, and whether they
should be ostracized. My argument is was and will be, if you reject
them you MUST REJECT
Vilna Gaon as well, which you refuse to do. Again, you have a BIAS.
I also stated that believing a false messiah is NOT a violation of
law, and you have so far failed to demonstrate otherwise.
> And as already answered, bibliomancy as a means of talking to the dead
> is ov veyid'oni.
I remain unconvinced. Proof? How od you KNOW the *motive*? Motive is
mot part of the prohibition of ob.
> Bibliomancy as a means of determining the will of G-d
> is not.
>
> :>According to many, they curtail the 12th ikkar (awaiting the messiah)
> :>to limits that go beyond halakhah.
>
> : NO LAW at all about that. Cite chapter and verse.
>
> Now the ikkarei emunah aren't mandatory?
Hell no they are not, now for the fifth time. Find them in any CODE?
Find any CASE where they were a basis of a prosecution? No.
> :>Try the articles at <http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/articles.html>.
> :>They debate could be whether L messianists are heretics, not whether or
> :>not they are acting within the law.
>
> : If the authors had any idea about the law, I just might. But it appears form
> : your paraphases they simply do not as I understand the term.
>
> For most of the audience, this simply reads as an expression of incredible
> ga'avah (hautiness).
So?
> "The authors" include rashei yeshivah. I think R'
> Aharon Soloveitchik, R' Aharon Feldman, R' Zev Leff, and R' Yosef Avraham
> haLevi Heller can not be dismissed so summarily. At least, not if you
> want your argument to carry any weight with your audience.
Nonsense. And you damn well know it. Putting on a show for your
client counsel?
>
> -mi
-do and -re
"gimme a C a bouncy C"
Micha Berger
:> Yes, they violate the 5th principal, by praying to an intermediary.
:> Apus/Mercury is also AZ.
> Again, the "principles" are not law.
Actually, he uses this particular one to define apiqursus in Hilchos
Teshuvah. And, as I wrote, believing in a courier-god who sends messages
to the higher ones is also AZ. I'm sure you're agree that avodah zara
is law.
...
:> And don't their leaders repeatedly tell them that's not the point of
:> going to a tzqadiq's grave? That others make a mistake doesn't make it
:> right. And once institutionalized, doesn't justify a movement.
: But you want to ostracize SOME who do this and NOT OSTRACIZE others
: who also do it. That is bias, not law.
Yes, people who make this error unintentionally dip into apiqursus.
Why should I react to them the way I react to intentional promotion
of apiqursus by an entire community of messianists?
I want to ostracize a movement that defines itself by promoting a
critical error in Jewish belief. I can be more forgiving toward
people who err personally.
:> It's the difference between having keruvim on the ark, and praying to
:> them. (And actually Kirub was a deity in the ancient middle east...)
:>:> Bibliomancy.
:>: Just as forbidden for L as for the VIlna Gaon. But nihush != MINUTH.
:> You're "but" is irrelevent, as we're not talking anymore about whether
:> or not they're apiqursim, but whether or not they violate halakhah.
: No, whether any violations rise to the level of AZ, and whether they
: should be ostracized. My argument is was and will be, if you reject
: them you MUST REJECT
: Vilna Gaon as well, which you refuse to do. Again, you have a BIAS.
You don't address the point. What they're doing and what is done in
the name of the Gra (and I have no source that the Gra himself actually
did the goral named for him) are critically different.
Second, above you say that the Rambam's definition of heresy is irrelevent,
you want to see a law. (Despite the fact that it was in response to a claim
that is also in his code.) And if that weren't enough, in an earlier post
you wrote:
: The point begs the question yet again. I have yet to see how the
: meshichistim are violating a law.
I named claims of theirs that are heretical, those that are illegal,
and one that that the Rabbam considers both. You're dancing around the
issue by changing requirements.
:> And as already answered, bibliomancy as a means of talking to the dead
:> is ov veyid'oni.
: I remain unconvinced. Proof? How od you KNOW the *motive*? Motive is
: mot part of the prohibition of ob.
But the second they say they're "asking the Rebbe" you both know the
motive and one can't claim "devarim shebeleiv einam devarim -- things
that are not in the heart are not things [in the sense of halachic
import".
:> :>Try the articles at <http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/articles.html>.
:> :>They debate could be whether L messianists are heretics, not whether or
:> :>not they are acting within the law.
:> : If the authors had any idea about the law, I just might. But it appears form
:> : your paraphases they simply do not as I understand the term.
:> For most of the audience, this simply reads as an expression of incredible
:> ga'avah (hautiness).
: So?
So... you really can't convince people if your givens don't match
ours. You're wasting our time and yours.
I take effort to find an answer using M alone, as I know nothing else
will convince you. But to me, it's a game I play, not how halakhah is
determined. Even if you could show that they aren't heretics according
to the Rambam -- something you can't do as they turned the L Rebbe into
Mercury -- how much do you think you can influence myself or the other
readers if it's heresy according to halakhah as we understand it? And
for that matter, halakhah as L Rebbe himself did?
Lisa
If that's the case, then Chabad is the danger. Because the late Rebbe
is no more mashiach than Bar Kochva was. And then maybe it *is* good
for the moshikhists to publicize their views. There's a better chance
of the whole frum world coming to realize the danger that Chabad
poses, and not dismissing it as some kind of fringe lunacy within
Chabad.
> [snip]
>
> >> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't
> >> win, or those where winning is worse than not fighting.
> >
> >I understand your first clause, but not the second one.
>
> Say you get the lonely meshuga to shut up. As a result, he doesn't
> attend any shul at all. Or you shut up a lonely meshuga and several
> non-meshuga moshikhists, and as a result they go and start their own
> shul, where they can practice whatever they want however they want,
> like in 770. IMHO that'd be a Pyrrhic victory.
There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
Lisa
Harry Weiss
> There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
Why? I have many Xian friends that are totally non meshugaa even though
they believe the mamzer was moshiach and more. Most L Moshichists are as
wrong as the xians are, but are not meshugga.
> Lisa
Ron Aaron
> There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
That's a pretty wide-sweeping statement without fact.
They may be mistaken, but that does not make them "meshug`a", any more than
most O believing in "sefirot" makes them "meshug`a". Mistaken, not crazy.
Shlomo Argamon
Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
Speaking of "mistaken" :-), it's "meshuga`" - the `ayin ends the word;
the female version would be "meshuga`at", and the generic plural (most
appropriate in this context) is "meshuga`im".
But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
(as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
"crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
-Shlomo-
PS: I certainly believe in sefiroth - I count them every year starting
the 16th of Aviv -- don't you? :-)
Harry Weiss
> Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:24:00 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> >
> > > There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
> >
> > That's a pretty wide-sweeping statement without fact.
> >
> > They may be mistaken, but that does not make them "meshug`a", any more than
> > most O believing in "sefirot" makes them "meshug`a". Mistaken, not crazy.
> Speaking of "mistaken" :-), it's "meshuga`" - the `ayin ends the word;
> the female version would be "meshuga`at", and the generic plural (most
> appropriate in this context) is "meshuga`im".
> But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
> (as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
> "crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
The kever never are meshugaim, but the mainstream moshichist, believe that the guy
will be resurrected and assume the role of moshiach.
What bothers me more, and this is in the more mainstream Lubby groups, that they
write of invitaitons, and in our Chabad House on the Yahrzeit board, that the guy
should come back and finsihes with "vehu Yigalenu".
Most of us say Baruch Ata Hasem Ga'al Yisroel, Is that statement replacing G-d with
schneerson.
> -Shlomo-
> PS: I certainly believe in sefiroth - I count them every year starting
> the 16th of Aviv -- don't you? :-)
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Ron Aaron
<arg...@NOargamonSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
>
> the female version would be "meshuga`at", and the generic plural (most
> appropriate in this context) is "meshuga`im".
but, alas! I am yet human.
> But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
> (as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
> "crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
What is the usual standard? Are they able to discern right from wrong? Do
they think they can fly by flapping their arms?
As for believing he never died -- there's a large group of Elvis fanatics who
likewise believe the object of their love never passed this vale of tears.
What can I say?
> PS: I certainly believe in sefiroth - I count them every year starting
> the 16th of Aviv -- don't you? :-)
I believe in sefaroth, both cardinal and ordinal.
Shlomo Argamon
Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:53:27 +0000 (UTC), Shlomo Argamon
> <arg...@NOargamonSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
> > (as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
> > "crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
>
> What is the usual standard? Are they able to discern right from wrong? Do
> they think they can fly by flapping their arms?
Blatantly irrational beliefs that fly in the face of all evidence
count, no? In any case, we're not talking about a medical or legally
defined term here...
> As for believing he never died -- there's a large group of Elvis fanatics who
> likewise believe the object of their love never passed this vale of tears.
> What can I say?
That they are likewise crazy (maybe just slightly, but still...)
-Shlomo-
Yisroel Markov
said:
I agree. Disclosure is good. If nothing else, it may force those who
want to remain ideologically Habadniks but don't buy moshikhism to
more precisely define themselves. I have several such friends, and
they're wrestling with the problem - because the moshikhists' claim
that you *must* be one of them if you want to call yourself a Habadnik
is, indeed, persuasive. (Even then, there are several flavors of
moshikhism, from those who expect the Rebbe to be resurrected to
become Mashiakh - these honestly acknowledge that they don't
understand the current situation - to those who insist that everything
the Rebbe has predicted has already happened, and we must only "open
our eyes" to see Mashiakh and geula. Although, strangely enough, I
haven't heard them claim that the Beit ha-Mikdash has been rebuilt
already.)
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> So you pick your battles and don't fight those that you can't
>> >> win, or those where winning is worse than not fighting.
>> >
>> >I understand your first clause, but not the second one.
>>
>> Say you get the lonely meshuga to shut up. As a result, he doesn't
>> attend any shul at all. Or you shut up a lonely meshuga and several
>> non-meshuga moshikhists, and as a result they go and start their own
>> shul, where they can practice whatever they want however they want,
>> like in 770. IMHO that'd be a Pyrrhic victory.
>
>There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
I disagree. There are many, even on the fringe, who remain quite lucid
and sane. It's the acceptance of a false premise on pure faith that
produces, in a very logical manner, their conclusions. I converse with
one such person on LJ from time to time. It's eerie to watch a
learned, obviously intelligent person state, in perfect seriousness
and sincerity, that the funeral held for his friend's grandmother
recently was an illusion, and that she didn't actually die, since no
one is supposed to die in messianic times. But it follows logically
from his one false premise.
Yisroel Markov
>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> writes:
>> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> said:
>>>>"Marmarali100" <marmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>From: "Susan Cohen" fla...@verizon.net
>
>snip
>
>>> If it is even "somehow" against Jewish law, it should be possible
>>> to cite to the actual law. Micha did; what he cited is actually
>>> substantive (and properly debatable as to correctness,
>>> identification, and application).
>>
>> Yes, I know he did.
>> And I figured if he could ignore Micha, he could ignore anything.
Except he isn't ignoring Micha. Ronnie is quite engaged on this.
>>>>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who
>>>>actually aren't....
>>>>
>>>>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> I guess you're talking about Christian spouses of Jews? (Here it
>>> was actually easy to guess, as opposed to some other posts of
>>> yours where you make an apparently irrelevant statement and make
>>> guessing a lot harder.)
>>
>> Just because you don't like what I have to say is no cause to
>> pretend it's vague.
>
>I don't think he's pretending. It might be clear as day to you, but
>if you don't spell it out, it may not be clear to anyone else.
Right. I often don't like what, e.g. Andy and Eliyahu are saying, but
they both are usually clear as to what they mean.
>>> If so, those people violate a few more Jewish laws (including
>>> those directly related to the question of minut) than your
>>> average moshikhist.
>>
>> If you say so - that wasn't the point of what I was saying.
>
>See? Even when he _thinks_ he understood your point, he was wrong.
>So maybe spell out what you mean.
I'm glad to see confirmation that my problem with Susan's posts is
obvious.
Ron Aaron
<arg...@NOargamonSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> Blatantly irrational beliefs that fly in the face of all evidence
> count, no? In any case, we're not talking about a medical or legally
> defined term here...
Sorry, I don't think you can make a statement of shiga`on based upon one or
even several crazy beliefs. Lots of people have beliefs which are clearly
wrong (horoscopes, anyone?) but we don't say they are actually "crazy" because
the believe one or two or even a dozen such things.
Yisroel Markov
<arg...@NOargamonSPAM.com> said:
>Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:24:00 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>>
>> > There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
>>
>> That's a pretty wide-sweeping statement without fact.
>>
>> They may be mistaken, but that does not make them "meshug`a", any more than
>> most O believing in "sefirot" makes them "meshug`a". Mistaken, not crazy.
>
>Speaking of "mistaken" :-), it's "meshuga`" - the `ayin ends the word;
>the female version would be "meshuga`at", and the generic plural (most
>appropriate in this context) is "meshuga`im".
>
>But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
>(as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
>"crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
Hard to say. As I've mentioned, what they believe is logical once you
accept the flawed premise (which is that everything the Rebbe said and
wrote is God's honest truth). After that, it's only a matter of how
far you want to take it, and to what extent you want to rely on your
interpretation of the Rebbe's words. The latter is made easier by the
Rebbe's own statement that he always meant what he said, in a simple
sense.
Which means that in order to combat this you need to attack the notion
of the Rebbe's infallibility, and that cuts close to the foundations
of Orthodoxy. Mainstream O never did come out and say that the hasidic
notions of their rebbes' infallibility are incorrect, did it?
Yisroel Markov
<ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> said:
Besides, the moshikhists bring an array of sources to back up denial
of reality. E.g., the midrash about the Satan showing the Jews Moshe's
coffin on the 40th day of Sinai. Or the numerous statements to the
effect that Tora defines reality, rather than vice versa.
Marc Andrews
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cnvh9j$mi5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>
> > There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
>
> Why? I have many Xian friends that are totally non meshugaa even though
> they believe the mamzer was moshiach and more. Most L Moshichists are as
> wrong as the xians are, but are not meshugga.
If "most" L Moshichists are as wrong as the xians, that means some of them
are not. How are we to understand that comment? Either he is the Moshiach or
not, and if he is not, that makes *all* the Moshichists wrong, doesn't it?
Phillip
(UTC):
>> There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
>
> Why? I have many Xian friends that are totally non meshugaa even though
> they believe the mamzer was moshiach and more. Most L Moshichists are as
> wrong as the xians are, but are not meshugga.
1) What you say! I wasn't aware he really existed and sources say he was a
mamzer. Both interesting.
2) Minhag avouseihem beyodeihem - they didn't make the moshiach story up
in this generation, but were raised in this belief, so they might just be
used to this thinking without necessarily being meshugge. Among reborn
Christians there certainly are both very stupid and meshuggene people.
KT,
Lipman
Harry Weiss
They may all be wrong, but most are not Meshugga, some are Meshugga.
Harry Weiss
> Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> schrieb am Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:31:33 +0000
> (UTC):
> >> There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
> >
> > Why? I have many Xian friends that are totally non meshugaa even though
> > they believe the mamzer was moshiach and more. Most L Moshichists are as
> > wrong as the xians are, but are not meshugga.
> 1) What you say! I wasn't aware he really existed and sources say he was a
> mamzer. Both interesting.
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. If a man is away and while he is away his wife
gets pregnant, you can believe the poppycock of immmaculate conception or the child
is a mamzer.
> 2) Minhag avouseihem beyodeihem - they didn't make the moshiach story up
> in this generation, but were raised in this belief, so they might just be
> used to this thinking without necessarily being meshugge. Among reborn
> Christians there certainly are both very stupid and meshuggene people.
That would justify them not being pure ovdei avoda Zarah (per tosofos in the
beginning of Mes. Avodah Zarah), but that makes the other ovdei avodah zarah, not
meshugaim.
> KT,
> Lipman
Micha Berger
: Most of us say Baruch Ata Hasem Ga'al Yisroel, Is that statement replacing G-d with
: schneerson.
No. Not any more than the Shabbos zemirah "Tzur Mishelo", which reads
"ben David yavo veyig'aleinu" (the son of David will come and redeem us).
But what do you want from a table song that then makes it problematic
as to whether or not you need to 'bentsh' after it? <g>
-mi
--
Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore
Micha Berger
:> PS: I certainly believe in sefiroth - I count them every year starting
:> the 16th of Aviv -- don't you? :-)
: I believe in sefaroth, both cardinal and ordinal.
So you believe the author of Seifer haYetzirah was a Pythagorian? He
speaks of creation flowing through the 10 sefiros and 22 letters. It's
pretty mystical no matter how you slice it. Implied is that (1) words
contain the essence of the thing they describe; (2) the 10 sefiros do
as well.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Lisa
<yawn> Look, Ronnie. You have a little sect that's probably within
the scope of Orthodox/Torah Judaism. The way in which you accept the
authority of the rabbis only up to a point definitely makes you better
than those who wouldn't accept them at all, such as the Karaites, but
you're still somewhere on the spectrum between them and us.
You choose to understand the idea of the sefirot in a way that makes
them unacceptable. Cool. It's like I say to atheists: "The god you
disbelieve in, I don't believe in either." Bottom line, the sefirot
are mainstream. Rambamism is not. Neither of them, however, comes
close to the lunatic notion of Mashiach showing up, failing to do the
things he's supposed to do, dying, and then someday having a Second
Coming. Nor to the whacked out idea of a human being as the essence
of Hashem wrapped in a physical body.
Lisa
Lisa
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:53:27 +0000 (UTC), Shlomo Argamon
> <arg...@NOargamonSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
> >
> > Speaking of "mistaken" :-), it's "meshuga`" - the `ayin ends the word;
> > the female version would be "meshuga`at", and the generic plural (most
> > appropriate in this context) is "meshuga`im".
> Ah, yes, you are write^H^H^H^H^Hright. I cringe when I see my own mistakes
> but, alas! I am yet human.
>
> > But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
> > (as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
> > "crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
>
> What is the usual standard? Are they able to discern right from wrong? Do
> they think they can fly by flapping their arms?
>
> As for believing he never died -- there's a large group of Elvis fanatics who
> likewise believe the object of their love never passed this vale of tears.
> What can I say?
To the extent that any of them actually believes that (and I don't
believe any of them actually do), they're nuts. Certifiable.
Lisa
Lisa
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:53:27 +0000 (UTC), Shlomo Argamon
> <arg...@NOargamonSPAM.com> said:
>
> >Ron Aaron <ronaaron@mike_row_soft.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:24:00 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
> >>
> >> That's a pretty wide-sweeping statement without fact.
> >>
> >> They may be mistaken, but that does not make them "meshug`a", any more than
> >> most O believing in "sefirot" makes them "meshug`a". Mistaken, not crazy.
> >
> >Speaking of "mistaken" :-), it's "meshuga`" - the `ayin ends the word;
> >the female version would be "meshuga`at", and the generic plural (most
> >appropriate in this context) is "meshuga`im".
> >
> >But I would ask Ron - at what point does blatant disregard for reality
> >(as shown by those who believe he is still actually alive) become
> >"crazy", rather than "mistaken"?
>
> Hard to say. As I've mentioned, what they believe is logical once you
> accept the flawed premise (which is that everything the Rebbe said and
> wrote is God's honest truth). After that, it's only a matter of how
> far you want to take it, and to what extent you want to rely on your
> interpretation of the Rebbe's words. The latter is made easier by the
> Rebbe's own statement that he always meant what he said, in a simple
> sense.
>
> Which means that in order to combat this you need to attack the notion
> of the Rebbe's infallibility, and that cuts close to the foundations
> of Orthodoxy.
<blink> In what universe? We don't even consider any individual
Tannaim to have been infallible. We don't even consider the Sanhedrin
at the peak of its chokhma and gedula to have been infallible. What
kind of naarischkeit is calling the words of any human being
infallible? Hell, even I make mistakes from time to time.
> Mainstream O never did come out and say that the hasidic
> notions of their rebbes' infallibility are incorrect, did it?
In fact, to the extent that it matters, we certainly do say that's
incorrect. But it's generally a harmless error. Chabad, on the other
hand, is starting to show us that we should never have considered it
harmless. They are a huge organization, and they proselytize. It's
not kiruv anymore when they try and get Jews to believe in a dead man
as an infallible messiah awaiting his second coming.
Lisa
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
From: bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Subject: Re: The Fight Over the Cornerstone
Message-ID: <2004Nov23.221529@hujicc>
Date: 23 Nov 2004 22:15:29 GMT
References: <4193e20e....@News.individual.net> <cn5mrh$98s$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> <4198e470...@News.individual.net> <cc62d1fa.04111...@posting.google.com> <419a423f....@News.individual.net> <cc62d1fa.04111...@posting.google.com> <419ce318...@News.individual.net> <2004Nov2...@mm.huji.ac.il> <41a22172...@News.individual.net> <cc62d1fa.04112...@posting.google.com> <cnvh9j$mi5$1...@reader1.panix.com> <cnvijm$fpb$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> <co03t3$t2q$1...@reader1.panix.com>
Followup-To: 2q$1...@reader1.panix.com>
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Lines: 32
In article <co03t3$t2q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> writes:
> Marc Andrews <nom...@me.pls> wrote:
>
>> "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:cnvh9j$mi5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> > Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
>> >
>> > Why? I have many Xian friends that are totally non meshugaa even though
>> > they believe the mamzer was moshiach and more. Most L Moshichists are as
>> > wrong as the xians are, but are not meshugga.
>
>> If "most" L Moshichists are as wrong as the xians, that means some of them
>> are not. How are we to understand that comment? Either he is the Moshiach or
>> not, and if he is not, that makes *all* the Moshichists wrong, doesn't it?
>
>
> They may all be wrong, but most are not Meshugga, some are Meshugga.
This reminds me of the woman who runs to the Rebbe crying: "My husband
is meshuga ! He dances with SHIKSAS and eats pork !". The rebbe says,
"He's not meshuga. You'll know he meshuga when he dances with pigs and
cannabilizes women".
Josh
Lisa
As R' Meir said, you can eat the fruit and throw away the rind. Not
everything in Chabad hassidut is necessarily passuled by the recent
craziness.
> >There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
>
> I disagree. There are many, even on the fringe, who remain quite lucid
> and sane.
In other areas, perhaps. Believing the moshichist heresy, however,
makes one either a fool or a knave.
> It's the acceptance of a false premise on pure faith that
> produces, in a very logical manner, their conclusions.
And Socrates is a fish. So what?
> I converse with
> one such person on LJ from time to time. It's eerie to watch a
> learned, obviously intelligent person state, in perfect seriousness
> and sincerity, that the funeral held for his friend's grandmother
> recently was an illusion, and that she didn't actually die, since no
> one is supposed to die in messianic times.
Really. Does he wear a seatbelt? Does he eat? Does he do anything
at all to prevent himself from dying? If so, his faith is weak. Or
perhaps he has some vestigal sanity.
And... wtf? No one is supposed to die in messianic times? This just
gets freakier and freakier.
* Olam Haba
* Yemot HaMashiach
* Techiyat HaMeitim
None of these are necessarily the same. Mashiach can be here for any
amount of time before resurrecting the dead. It's not as if it's one
of the things that he has to do to prove he's Mashiach. Of course,
the late Rebbe hasn't done a single one of the things that he's
required to do in order to even be considered b'chezkat Mashiach. And
now that he's dead and buried, he's never going to.
> But it follows logically from his one false premise.
Read Rambam on Dor Enosh. One false premise is all it takes.
Lisa
Lisa
Heh. Methinks 'twas a bit o' hedging.
Lisa
Andy Katz
<hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
>Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. If a man is away and while he is away his wife
>gets pregnant, you can believe the poppycock of immmaculate conception or the child
>is a mamzer.
With all due respect this is an example of why we ought to be cautious
in our commentaries on other religions (just as others ought to use
caution when commenting on ours). Immaculate conception has nothing to
do with the virgin birth. Immaculate conception refers to Mary's
birth, not Jesus's--*that* was virgin birth. Immaculate conception
means Mary wasn't tainted by the Original Sin (which is one Christian
concept I certainly agree with, save I don't limit it to just Mary;).
Hence my skepticism towards some of the amateur Islamic theologians on
this ng;-)
And calling me a crypto-Presbyterian or latent-Lutheran won't help
here .... I thought immaculate conception and the virgin birth were
synonymous myself until the distinction was explained to me ... by a
real life Christian.
Andy Katz
Susan Cohen
> who
> likewise believe the object of their love never passed this vale of tears.
> What can I say?
Yes, I agree with you that people who think that the late Rebbe never died
are just as crazy as those who believe Elvis never died.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.04112...@posting.google.com...
I thought he was admitting that *some* *were* mehuggah.
After all, in any group, it's a safe bet.
Susan
>
> Lisa
Susan Cohen
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:57:22 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:
>
>>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> writes:
>>> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> said:
>>>>>"Marmarali100" <marmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>From: "Susan Cohen" fla...@verizon.net
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>> If it is even "somehow" against Jewish law, it should be possible
>>>> to cite to the actual law. Micha did; what he cited is actually
>>>> substantive (and properly debatable as to correctness,
>>>> identification, and application).
>>>
>>> Yes, I know he did.
>>> And I figured if he could ignore Micha, he could ignore anything.
>
> Except he isn't ignoring Micha. Ronnie is quite engaged on this.
Engaged and actually paying atention to wha tis being said are 2 different
thing.
You prove this yourself.
>
>>>>>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who
>>>>>actually aren't....
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> I guess you're talking about Christian spouses of Jews? (Here it
>>>> was actually easy to guess, as opposed to some other posts of
>>>> yours where you make an apparently irrelevant statement and make
>>>> guessing a lot harder.)
>>>
>>> Just because you don't like what I have to say is no cause to
>>> pretend it's vague.
>>
>>I don't think he's pretending. It might be clear as day to you, but
>>if you don't spell it out, it may not be clear to anyone else.
>
> Right. I often don't like what, e.g. Andy and Eliyahu are saying, but
> they both are usually clear as to what they mean.
>
>>>> If so, those people violate a few more Jewish laws (including
>>>> those directly related to the question of minut) than your
>>>> average moshikhist.
>>>
>>> If you say so - that wasn't the point of what I was saying.
>>
>>See? Even when he _thinks_ he understood your point, he was wrong.
I didn't think he was wrong, just not addressing what I was addressing.
>>So maybe spell out what you mean.
If beiving that a dead man who didn't fulfill the duties of Moshiach can
still be Moshiach is Judaism, then a lot of Jews are actually married to
people practicing Judaism who they think are just Xians.
>
> I'm glad to see confirmation that my problem with Susan's posts is
> obvious.
I'm glad to see confirmation that you do have a problem.
Susan
Micha Berger
:> I'm sure there is such a position. However, L was accepted by nearly all
:> of the rest of O; IOW, that ideas in the Tanya as understood correctly,
:> is considered by nearly all of O as within the fold.
: Could we elaborate on this idea: "as understood correctly"....
No.
I just stated:
> The number of people who misunderstand "Atzmus ungetun in guf" (the
> [Divine] Self clothed in a body) in heretical ways, even by the Ba'al
> haTanya's definition of heresy, FAR exceeds 10.
> However, that is not a product of L messianism. It's a product of teaching
> Tanya (where the idea originates) to people who don't yet have a grounding
> in the basics.
Why then do you think I'd try discussing it on a usenet group, even
if I took pains to keep it off Google?
-mi
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/22/2004 12:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
>I think you overestimate how many were taken in.
I thnk you know nothing at all about the Sephardic communities in the Ottoman
Empire.
Ronnie
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> but, alas! I am yet human.
Why the "alas"? The alternative is worse!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> li...@starways.net (Lisa) said:
>>ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) wrote in message news:<41a22172...@News.individual.net>...
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:58:47 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:
>>> >ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
>>> >> li...@starways.net (Lisa) said:
[snip]
>>If that's the case, then Chabad is the danger. Because the late Rebbe
>>is no more mashiach than Bar Kochva was. And then maybe it *is* good
>>for the moshikhists to publicize their views. There's a better chance
>>of the whole frum world coming to realize the danger that Chabad
>>poses, and not dismissing it as some kind of fringe lunacy within
>>Chabad.
>
> I agree. Disclosure is good. If nothing else, it may force those who
> want to remain ideologically Habadniks but don't buy moshikhism to
> more precisely define themselves. I have several such friends, and
> they're wrestling with the problem - because the moshikhists' claim
> that you *must* be one of them if you want to call yourself a Habadnik
> is, indeed, persuasive. (Even then, there are several flavors of
> moshikhism, from those who expect the Rebbe to be resurrected to
> become Mashiakh - these honestly acknowledge that they don't
> understand the current situation - to those who insist that everything
> the Rebbe has predicted has already happened, and we must only "open
> our eyes" to see Mashiakh and geula. Although, strangely enough, I
> haven't heard them claim that the Beit ha-Mikdash has been rebuilt
> already.)
Thank G-d for small miracles.
[snip]
>>There are no non-meshuga moshichists. That's an oxymoron.
>
> I disagree. There are many, even on the fringe, who remain quite lucid
> and sane. It's the acceptance of a false premise on pure faith that
> produces, in a very logical manner, their conclusions. I converse with
> one such person on LJ from time to time. It's eerie to watch a
> learned, obviously intelligent person state, in perfect seriousness
> and sincerity, that the funeral held for his friend's grandmother
> recently was an illusion, and that she didn't actually die, since no
> one is supposed to die in messianic times. But it follows logically
> from his one false premise.
Yes it _is_ sad. But it's based on a _second_ false premise. Where
did he get the idea that "no one is supposed to die in messianic
times"?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:
>>>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> said:
>>>>>>"Marmarali100" <marmar...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>From: "Susan Cohen" fla...@verizon.net
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>>> If it is even "somehow" against Jewish law, it should be possible
>>>>> to cite to the actual law. Micha did; what he cited is actually
>>>>> substantive (and properly debatable as to correctness,
>>>>> identification, and application).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know he did.
>>>> And I figured if he could ignore Micha, he could ignore anything.
>>
>> Except he isn't ignoring Micha. Ronnie is quite engaged on this.
>
> different thing.
> You prove this yourself.
LOL! One of the better put-down lines I've seen in a while. As I
said, I love it when you two go at each ther. It makes this NG a bit
more "lively". :-)
>>>>>>Because if you are, there are a lot of "intermarried" people who
>>>>>>actually aren't....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey - that solves a lot of problems, now, doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you're talking about Christian spouses of Jews? (Here it
>>>>> was actually easy to guess, as opposed to some other posts of
>>>>> yours where you make an apparently irrelevant statement and make
>>>>> guessing a lot harder.)
>>>>
>>>> Just because you don't like what I have to say is no cause to
>>>> pretend it's vague.
>>>
>>>I don't think he's pretending. It might be clear as day to you, but
>>>if you don't spell it out, it may not be clear to anyone else.
>>
>> Right. I often don't like what, e.g. Andy and Eliyahu are saying, but
>> they both are usually clear as to what they mean.
>>
>>>>> If so, those people violate a few more Jewish laws (including
>>>>> those directly related to the question of minut) than your
>>>>> average moshikhist.
>>>>
>>>> If you say so - that wasn't the point of what I was saying.
>>>
>>>See? Even when he _thinks_ he understood your point, he was wrong.
>
> I didn't think he was wrong, just not addressing what I was addressing.
>
>>>So maybe spell out what you mean.
>
> If beiving that a dead man who didn't fulfill the duties of Moshiach
> can still be Moshiach is Judaism, then a lot of Jews are actually
> married to people practicing Judaism who they think are just Xians.
OK, I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarrifying.
>> I'm glad to see confirmation that my problem with Susan's posts is
>> obvious.
>
> I'm glad to see confirmation that you do have a problem.
Sorry Susan, this line isn't as good as the first one.
Lord Baeron
It's a *very* common mistake. Is there anything analogous in Judaism
- a notion that mankind is basically flawed, or somesuch?
--
Lord Baeron
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/23/2004 8:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>If beiving that a dead man who didn't fulfill the duties of Moshiach can
>still be Moshiach is Judaism,
It is.
>then a lot of Jews are actually married to
>people practicing Judaism who they think are just Xians.
Why? Are they all married to moshichisten? Moshichisten in general do not
pray to a man as a divnity.
Those that do are a different story. But Micha asserts with no details or
facts that the two categories are identical. I do not see the emperor's new
clothes and I do not see this intellectual leap either.
The gentile spouses ARE NOT JEWISH regardless of their beliefs as to who is
Messiah!!
Do these spouses eat taref? Hames on Pesah? Do they recite shenayim miqra
we-ehad targum? The meshichisten do.
You abstract one issue in isolation and then ignore the CONTEXT!
Ronnie
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/23/2004 1:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
>hich means that in order to combat this you need to attack the notion
>of the Rebbe's infallibility, and that cuts close to the foundations
>of Orthodoxy. Mainstream O never did come out and say that the hasidic
>notions of their rebbes' infallibility are incorrect, did it?
>
>Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov
And Mainstream O invented "da'as Tora" which in effect is treated similarly -
as infallible, curiously this occurred around the same time as Chassidus'
infalibility of the Rebbe.
Neither are "originally Jewish." Neither belief is forbidden, certainly
neither is minuth or AZ. So who shall we ostracize? Everybody?
Ronnie
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/23/2004 5:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
>He
>speaks of creation flowing through the 10 sefiros and 22 letters.
No, it speaks of creation being articulable -- unlike ma'ase merkabha -- in a
human language that includes mathematics or some means of quantitative
description.
>t's
>pretty mystical no matter how you slice it. Implied is that (1) words
>contain the essence of the thing they describe; (2) the 10 sefiros do
>as well.
Not at all implied. That is the mental paradigm shift promoted by the Bahir,
which does say exactly what you said, and is the basis of Kabbalistic thinking.
Yesira said nothing of the kind.
Ronnie
Marmarali100
>Date: 11/23/2004 5:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
><yawn> Look, Ronnie.
Drink some more coffee. He's Ron. I'm Ronnie.
>You have a little sect that's probably within
>the scope of Orthodox/Torah Judaism.
I have a living intellectual tradition dating back to Babylonia ish mippi ish.
You do not, as I see it. You start with Rashi/Rabbenu Gershom post Crusades.
>The way in which you accept the
>authority of the rabbis only up to a point definitely makes you better
>than those who wouldn't accept them at all, such as the Karaites, but
>you're still somewhere on the spectrum between them and us.
No, you misunderstand horayoth. No Sephardic community I know of ever accepted
the authority of Rabbis as you say it. Thus, they sought consensus BY
CONTRACT.
How could they? If a "Rabbi" could not more without permission of the Resh
Galuta why is that requirement now gone?
>Bottom line, the sefirot
>are mainstream.
Only amongts anti-Maimonideans. As I have said before, you are ignorant of
this history and act as if it is not there. It is.
>Rambamism is not.
Oh? Maran says differenty. Is he not mainstream either? What is mainstream?
Whatever you see in the mirror?
>Neither of them, however, comes
>close to the lunatic notion of Mashiach showing up, failing to do the
>things he's supposed to do, dying, and then someday having a Second
>Coming.
Which, in and of itself, is not prohibited AT ALL.
I do nto need you or your Mainstream Orthodoxy to be Jewish. I knwo how to
chant Iyyobh and Mishlei, which I learned in my living tradition which eschews
"Rabbinic Authority" of yehidim, and denies the reality of sefiroth. I learned
how to recite msihnayoth. I know the difference bwteen tane and qatane.
I know what the Talmud says in horayoth, and I do not make things up just to
cover my non-Talmudic assertions about what is said there.
Keep your mainstream O.
Ronnie
Don Levey
> ey.m...@iname.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
> > Although, strangely enough, I
> > haven't heard them claim that the Beit ha-Mikdash has been rebuilt
> > already.)
>
> Thank G-d for small miracles.
>
Personally, I'd rather thank Gd for the larger one.
Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet, so I'll need to content myself.
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
Micha Berger
:>I think you overestimate how many were taken in.
: I thnk you know nothing at all about the Sephardic communities in the Ottoman
: Empire.
Let me just repeat the rest of my post, you obviously hadn't read it:
> This is true in some
> communities, but the Sabbateans did not have that strong of an impact
> on others.
The part before the comma seems to have escaped your notice.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach
Micha Berger
: And Mainstream O invented "da'as Tora" which in effect is treated similarly -
: as infallible, curiously this occurred around the same time as Chassidus'
: infalibility of the Rebbe.
Chassidus was invented in the 20th century?
BTW, not all of mainstream O is yeshivish.
-mi
Micha Berger
: Why? Are they all married to moshichisten? Moshichisten in general do not
: pray to a man as a divnity.
So we're just ignoring the whole issur of praying to a middleman, not just
when I post it.
-mi