Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Jerusalem - PM Lays Down Conditions For Peace in Foreign Policy Address [video]

Published on: June 14, 2009 02:02 PM
Change text size Text Size  

Jerusalem - “I support the idea of regional peace that is being led by Obama,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday in his long-anticipated foreign policy address at Bar-Ilan University.

“Peace has always been our objective,” Netanyahu began. “Our prophets always envisioned peace; we bless each other with Shalom; our prayers end in peace.”

The prime minister said that he was willing to meet any Arab leader anywhere.

“I turn to Arab leaders: Let’s make peace, I am ready,” Netahyahu said. “I am willing to go to Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut - to meet anytime and anywhere.”

Netanyahu also warned of the threat emanating from Iran, saying, “The biggest threat to Israel, and the middle east and all of humanity is the meeting between radical Islamism and nuclear weaponry.”

Netanyahu called on the Palestinians to “begin peace talks immediately, and without preconditions.”

Citing the “heavy toll” the ongoing conflict has taken, mentioning the death of his brother, Yonatan, and saying, “I don’t want war. Nobody in Israel wants war.”

Advertisement:

“If the advantages of peace are so clear, we must ask - why is peace still far? What is perpetuating the conflict for over 60 years? We must reach the root of the struggle,” Netanyahu continued.

“Let me use the most simple words - the root of the struggle is the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The initial Arab refusal was to a Jewish state in any location, before Israeli presence in the West Bank,” the prime minister said.

“The closer we get to an agreement with the Palestinians, the further it is rejected,” he continued. “We tried a withdraw with an agreement, without one, a partial withdraw and offered a near-complete withdraw. We uprooted Jewish settlers from their homes, and received a barrage of missiles in return.”

“Sadly, even the Palestinian moderates won’t say the most simple statement - Israel is the Jewish national state, and will remain such.

“To achieve peace, courage and honesty are necessary from both sides. The Palestinians must say - ‘enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, and want to live by their side.’

“A public Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is a precondition for regional peace,” Netanyahu said.

“In the heart of Israel there lives a large group of Palestinians,” the prime minister continued, noting his will to see a Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel.

“For peace,” he said, “we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces.

“We ask that the US commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. And Israel can’t agree to that.”

“I told Obama that if we agree on essence, the semantics won’t matter,” Netanyahu added.

“If we receive a commitment to Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and a demilitarized Palestinian state, we can reach a final agreement.”

Netanyahu continued to stress that Jerusalem would remain a united Jewish state.

“There is no intention in the meanwhile to create new settlements or expand existent towns, while not preventing the natural needs of settlers, who are not enemies,” he said of the settlements.

“Palestinians must decree between the way of peace and that of Hamas. Israel won’t negotiate with a group that calls for Israel’s destruction. Hamas won’t even let the Red Cross visit our captive soldier Gilad Schalit,” Netanyahu added.



More of today's headlines

Washington - As President Obama hailed new legislation to regulate tobacco, his spokesman ducked a question on whether Obama still sneaks a cigarette now and then. "I... Brooklyn, NY - For uncommonly large Orthodox Jewish families, they are a lifeline: vouchers from the city for after-school care, redeemable at a yeshiva of their...

 

Total143

Read Comments (143)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:26 PM Litvak Says:

The sooner we Yidden realize that Eretz Yisroel was given to us by Hakadosh Baruch Hu and NOT by the UN, and NOT as reperations for WWII, then it will be easier for us to convince the world that we are there to stay.

2

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:12 PM Milhouse Says:

"There is no intention in the meanwhile to create new settlements or expand existent towns, while not preventing the natural needs of settlers, who are not enemies," he said.

And with that he betrayed everything else he said. If he meant the rest of it, then he wouldn't have said this. He can speak all he likes of the spirit of zionism, but what kind of zionism is it that declares areas of EY judenrein?

3

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:34 PM Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

4

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:19 PM Anonymous Says:

God help us !!!!!!!!!!

5

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:14 PM Anonymous Says:

Liked the speech, he said two state solution if demilitarized and israel is recognized...basically, its not happening, and we will retain yerushalayim:)

6

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:37 PM Anonymous Says:

I was waiting for him to say Gd gave it to us

7

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:02 PM Anonymous Says:

When is he going to learn? How many more times will he have to run for office in order to get it right? Will it be in this lifetime, or will he have to come down again?

8

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:58 PM Michali Says:

I agree with #5. Netanyahu has a very difficult political job to be able to pull this off, between the Americans, Israelis and Arabs. And everyone needs to save face. so Bibi made the best offer that he could. He is not going to say get lost this our land from HBH , so this is the best he could have done. Now we will see what the lying Arabs and Obamaites will say. This is probably a well calculated stall tactic par excellance that the Israelis always do.

9

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:11 PM . Says:

Reply to #6  
Anonymous Says:

I was waiting for him to say Gd gave it to us

He did. You should have heard the speech in Hebrew.

10

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:10 PM . Says:

Reply to #2  
Milhouse Says:

"There is no intention in the meanwhile to create new settlements or expand existent towns, while not preventing the natural needs of settlers, who are not enemies," he said.

And with that he betrayed everything else he said. If he meant the rest of it, then he wouldn't have said this. He can speak all he likes of the spirit of zionism, but what kind of zionism is it that declares areas of EY judenrein?

As long as the arabs will not negotiate, who cares what he said!! It will remain status quo until the Jews get more land (by a war) or a liberal PM gives up more land for 'peace'.

Your prior comments on what you call 'zionism' betray you. Who cares what you think? When you live in Eretz Yisroel like we do, and join Tzahal and put your life on the line like other DATI people do, then we might be interested on your opinion. Until then - keep your stupidity to yourself.

11

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:46 PM Anonymous Says:

for everyone who wants a united yerushalayim that means you are going to accept and grant citizenship to the 250,000+ east jerusalem arabs as citizens who hate us and want to kill us. also bear in mind that they have one of the highest growth rates in the world and double every 20 years or so.;

12

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:44 PM lita Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

all he said is that he doesn't want to just start new settelments "abi". what's so wrong with that? he said he won't restrict natrual growth!

13

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:44 PM Drishas Shalom U'Brucha Says:

Always remember one thing:
HKBH Yivarech es Amo B'Shalom !!!

HKBH commanded Aharon HaKohen :
Yivarech es Am Yisrael B'Shalom !!!

Shalom, Shalom, Shalom !!!
Amen !!!

14

 Jun 14, 2009 at 01:42 PM deepthinker Says:

Fine words, noble thoughts, but he's dealing with snakes. Nothing will help!

15

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:23 PM kivi Says:

I once thought that natanyahu was good only for speeches and that he was an excellent speaker now I see that even that he is no good at.

16

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:18 PM GOOD JOB Says:

very good speech
IF ONLY HE WOULD DO WHAT HE SAYS WILL BE GOOD!

17

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:18 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

what's the problem? this is a brilliant political maneuver. he says what everyone wants to hear- two state solution- but adds a caveat- demilitarization- which will never happen. no, netanyahu will not bring peace- that will only happen when mashiach comes. but if he plays his cards right, he can stall the plans of the obama administration.

18

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:36 PM glatekup Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

That is rediculous. I am not saying that this is the answer, but it should be well understood that if this can bring to a peace and there will be no more bloodshed, one is required by halachah to give away land.

19

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:53 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

The situation has changed many times since the time the Rebbe a"h spoke. Who knows what he would say now.

20

 Jun 14, 2009 at 02:31 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #10  
. Says:

As long as the arabs will not negotiate, who cares what he said!! It will remain status quo until the Jews get more land (by a war) or a liberal PM gives up more land for 'peace'.

Your prior comments on what you call 'zionism' betray you. Who cares what you think? When you live in Eretz Yisroel like we do, and join Tzahal and put your life on the line like other DATI people do, then we might be interested on your opinion. Until then - keep your stupidity to yourself.

You just don't appreciate Mr. Milhouse's extreme Zionistic fervor.

He is ready at a moment's notice to fight until the last dead Israeli. No price or sacrafice on the part of the Israelis is too high a price for Mr. Milhouse to pay for his strongly held beliefs.

21

 Jun 14, 2009 at 03:39 PM Anonymous Says:

Long live bibi

22

 Jun 14, 2009 at 03:59 PM Rippin Pinchas Says:

"The prime minister said that he was willing to meet any Arab leader anywhere."

Yes, I do recall his warm handshake with Arafat.

"Sadly, even the Palestinian moderates won't say the most simple statement - Israel is the Jewish national state, and will remain such. "

What is a "Palestinian moderate" and where does he live? I guess if Obama wants Bibi to say that then Bibi will.

"The Palestinians must say - 'enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel's right to exist, and want to live by their side."

The Palestinians thrive off of conflict. They cannot say enough. You are delusional, Mr PM (actually, Mr. pawn in the hands of the Americans).

"We ask that the US commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. And Israel can't agree to that."

You already have one. What is sooner or later? Have you ever heard of the Gaza Strip? Not only did Israel agree, Israel did all the dirty work in creating it.

What is this talk about demalitirization? Rabins government, followed by yours, gave them the guns. Now the Americans supply them with guns.

Bibi, when you become the leader of an independent country, let me know.

23

 Jun 14, 2009 at 03:22 PM NJ Shmuel Says:

What a great delivery. Bibi gave Barry exactly what he wanted to hear. Yes Oh great Barry, we want a two state solution also. It's just that we want to be secure. Barry, I'm sure that you understand that. So when your Muslim brothers are ready to deal with us as equal partners, we will all have peace.

24

 Jun 14, 2009 at 05:22 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #18  
glatekup Says:

That is rediculous. I am not saying that this is the answer, but it should be well understood that if this can bring to a peace and there will be no more bloodshed, one is required by halachah to give away land.

On the contrary, the halacha is explicit that any land that will make the country easier for the enemy to conquer must be defended, even on Shabbos. No declaration of good will and peaceful intentions can be taken into account; we must proceed under the assumption that the enemy WILL attack, and the only valid consideration is whether this piece of land will help them. If it will, then we must go to war to stop it from falling into enemy hands, even if he declares that he has no hostile intentions.

25

 Jun 14, 2009 at 05:21 PM Litvak Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

I don't understand what you said. All prime ministers before him have ended their reign. So what??

Why don't you educate us on what the Rebbe said. Not all of us have his sichos at out fingertips like you have. All we have is a copy of Torat Moshe and the mephorshim.

26

 Jun 14, 2009 at 05:18 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #19  
Anonymous Says:

The situation has changed many times since the time the Rebbe a"h spoke. Who knows what he would say now.

It has only changed for the worse, not the better. Everything he warned about has come to pass. All the bloodshed of the past 20 years could have been avoided if Israel hadn't conceded the principle that there is a "Palestinian" nation with rights, that must be negotiated with.

27

 Jun 14, 2009 at 05:16 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #13  
Drishas Shalom U'Brucha Says:

Always remember one thing:
HKBH Yivarech es Amo B'Shalom !!!

HKBH commanded Aharon HaKohen :
Yivarech es Am Yisrael B'Shalom !!!

Shalom, Shalom, Shalom !!!
Amen !!!

Eis milchama ve'es sholom. When dealing with an enemy that still has designs against the Jews, peace is not an option. WW2 could have been over in 1944, but the allies decided to fight until the enemy surrendered unconditionally, because they knew that a negotiated peace wouldn't be wroth anything. The Arabs are a lot less civilised than the Germans and Japanese were.

28

 Jun 14, 2009 at 05:13 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #12  
lita Says:

all he said is that he doesn't want to just start new settelments "abi". what's so wrong with that? he said he won't restrict natrual growth!

What's wrong is that he has no right to prevent Jews from living where they want to. The minute he forcibly makes parts of EY judenrein, what legitimacy does his whole position have? "Natural growth" shouldn't even be a question! But what about new people who want to move out there? Why is he telling them they can't, and using force on them if they do anyway?

29

 Jun 14, 2009 at 05:10 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #11  
Anonymous Says:

for everyone who wants a united yerushalayim that means you are going to accept and grant citizenship to the 250,000+ east jerusalem arabs as citizens who hate us and want to kill us. also bear in mind that they have one of the highest growth rates in the world and double every 20 years or so.;

1. The East J'm Arabs are already entitled to citizenship; most of them have refused it.
2. There's no reason in the world to give the rest of the Arabs in the territories citizenship.
3. Their growth rate isn't anything like that, because they have a high emigration rate.

30

 Jun 14, 2009 at 06:32 PM Anonymous Says:

i am shocked by this speech.he started out talking how israel needs to protect itself from enemies and then say the dreaded 2 state policy will go ahead.what a let down from bibi - and there i was thinking he would be "different".Israel has no hope now

31

 Jun 14, 2009 at 06:14 PM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #28  
Milhouse Says:

What's wrong is that he has no right to prevent Jews from living where they want to. The minute he forcibly makes parts of EY judenrein, what legitimacy does his whole position have? "Natural growth" shouldn't even be a question! But what about new people who want to move out there? Why is he telling them they can't, and using force on them if they do anyway?

Rav Shach z"l was against moving to any areas that would be dangerous or would cause the nations to be angry with Israel. Areas that are needed for security need to be kept.

Any movement into areas conquered in 1967 that are not needed for security reasons would be against his and most of the Gedolei Torah's daas torah.

32

 Jun 14, 2009 at 07:30 PM Dag Says:

Reply to #27  
Milhouse Says:

Eis milchama ve'es sholom. When dealing with an enemy that still has designs against the Jews, peace is not an option. WW2 could have been over in 1944, but the allies decided to fight until the enemy surrendered unconditionally, because they knew that a negotiated peace wouldn't be wroth anything. The Arabs are a lot less civilised than the Germans and Japanese were.

WW2 could have been over in 1944? Source please!

33

 Jun 14, 2009 at 07:15 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #31  
tzoorba Says:

Rav Shach z"l was against moving to any areas that would be dangerous or would cause the nations to be angry with Israel. Areas that are needed for security need to be kept.

Any movement into areas conquered in 1967 that are not needed for security reasons would be against his and most of the Gedolei Torah's daas torah.

The Arabs do not recognize Israel's existence . So living in what part what part of Israel won't make the Arabs angry with Israel? We didn't have the West Bank before 1967 and the Arabs were still angry. Israel needs to show the nations its strength and not weakness and stop declaring land that it rightfully and miraculously won in a war as "territories " and the Jews who rightfully live there as "settlers. If land won in 1967 is returned, the Arabs will just feel that they can pressure Israel to give away more land, as we now see.

34

 Jun 14, 2009 at 07:15 PM ZR Says:

"Rav Shach z"l was against moving to any areas that would be dangerous or would cause the nations to be angry with Israel. Areas that are needed for security need to be kept."

I am confused.

"areas needed for seurity" are overwhelmingly the SAME areas as those 1) that are relatively dangerous and 2) "cause the nations to be angry with Israel".

Please clarify what you call "most of the Gedolei Torah's daas torah."

35

 Jun 14, 2009 at 07:14 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately his end will come if he continues down this way.
See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Sichos for more details....

look at all the other leaders.

36

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:20 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #35  
Anonymous Says:

look at all the other leaders.

Exactly.

Not one of the Israeli Prime ministers since the Oslo disaster and negotiations with the Arabs has ever finished his allotted term with honour.

37

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:15 PM esther Says:

Reply to #18  
glatekup Says:

That is rediculous. I am not saying that this is the answer, but it should be well understood that if this can bring to a peace and there will be no more bloodshed, one is required by halachah to give away land.

1)it's totally assur to give away any of EY. 2)after everything our brothers and sisters in EY have been put through since oslo,how can you possibly think there would be peace by giving away more land.i want peace as much as you but giving land only brings more yiddishe death and suffering RL.

38

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:47 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #31  
tzoorba Says:

Rav Shach z"l was against moving to any areas that would be dangerous or would cause the nations to be angry with Israel. Areas that are needed for security need to be kept.

Any movement into areas conquered in 1967 that are not needed for security reasons would be against his and most of the Gedolei Torah's daas torah.

Except Kiryat Sefer, eh? Somehow that is kosher. And the Golan Heights are not needed for security???? What area, exactly, will NOT make the land easier for them to conquer (שלא תהא הארץ נוחה להיכבש)? His opinion was contrary to Torah, and therefore irrelevant.

39

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:48 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #32  
Dag Says:

WW2 could have been over in 1944? Source please!

Any history of the war. Both Germany and Japan were ready to negotiate peace; the allies refused,

40

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:58 PM Advocate Says:

I'm an advocate for Milhouse. He is one of the most levelheaded bloggers. Keep it up Milhouse for keeping facts as facts and assumptions as assumptions.

Just one question - what does Milhouse mean?

41

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:56 PM NB Says:



The Charedi world generally did not accept the idea that Israel is Reshit Tzemichat Geuliteinu. When did that change?
Why are charedim suddenly talking about "every inch of land..."?

The bottom line is...moshiach has not yet come..and we must be a part of family of nations and we cannot just hold on to land..even though we know that it is rightfully ours..
No matter how you spin it.. There is an occupation going on.
There are millions of people that we are governing..that have no equal rights.
So while all of you might keep your heads in the sand..eventually you'll choke on the sand.
Every Israeli leader..has somehow come to the same realization...

Do you need Kahane himself to come back from the grave and give back Jerusalem for you to finally realize that it just isnt the right time yet...
Moshiach has not yet come..and we have a tough reality to contend with...

42

 Jun 14, 2009 at 08:55 PM michali Says:

Reply to #31  
tzoorba Says:

Rav Shach z"l was against moving to any areas that would be dangerous or would cause the nations to be angry with Israel. Areas that are needed for security need to be kept.

Any movement into areas conquered in 1967 that are not needed for security reasons would be against his and most of the Gedolei Torah's daas torah.

The Rebbe, z'tl, was against anyone taking away land for piece. He was one of strongest opponents of the camp david accords, and the oslo accords that would put Israel in danger, r'l. It was back in the 80s when he went against the religious parties (Degel hatorah headed by Rav Schach, and Agudah) who voted for Peres when he ran for prime minister The religious parties at that time voted for Peres because Peres promised them money for yeshivos even though they knew a vote for Peres would mean the Golan would be sacrificed for a so-called peace.

43

 Jun 14, 2009 at 09:25 PM Anonymous Says:

I ain't no Lubab, but when all is said and one, only their leader will go down in history as having been right on how to deal with the Arabs and world in general. And perhaps Kahane as well.

44

 Jun 14, 2009 at 09:23 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #42  
michali Says:

The Rebbe, z'tl, was against anyone taking away land for piece. He was one of strongest opponents of the camp david accords, and the oslo accords that would put Israel in danger, r'l. It was back in the 80s when he went against the religious parties (Degel hatorah headed by Rav Schach, and Agudah) who voted for Peres when he ran for prime minister The religious parties at that time voted for Peres because Peres promised them money for yeshivos even though they knew a vote for Peres would mean the Golan would be sacrificed for a so-called peace.

But the Rebbe was niftar many years ago and the situation has changed a hundred times since he died. Neither you nor anyone else can say what he would have said about today's situation if he were alive today.

45

 Jun 14, 2009 at 09:19 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #37  
esther Says:

1)it's totally assur to give away any of EY. 2)after everything our brothers and sisters in EY have been put through since oslo,how can you possibly think there would be peace by giving away more land.i want peace as much as you but giving land only brings more yiddishe death and suffering RL.

Do you live in Eretz Yisroel?

46

 Jun 14, 2009 at 09:15 PM Dag Says:

Reply to #42  
michali Says:

The Rebbe, z'tl, was against anyone taking away land for piece. He was one of strongest opponents of the camp david accords, and the oslo accords that would put Israel in danger, r'l. It was back in the 80s when he went against the religious parties (Degel hatorah headed by Rav Schach, and Agudah) who voted for Peres when he ran for prime minister The religious parties at that time voted for Peres because Peres promised them money for yeshivos even though they knew a vote for Peres would mean the Golan would be sacrificed for a so-called peace.

Uh...Israel still controls the Golan.

Here is the NY Times describing the 1990 events to which you refer: "In 1990, Rabbi Schach thwarted an attempt by Shimon Peres, the Labor Party leader, to withdraw from the government of the rightist Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and replace it with a narrow coalition with strictly Orthodox parties. Accusing the Labor Party of abandoning its Jewish heritage, Rabbi Schach withheld the support of the Degel Hatorah Party, whose participation was crucial for the formation of a governing coalition headed by Mr. Peres." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/world/rabbi-eliezer-schach-103-leader-of-orthodox-in-israel.html

47

 Jun 14, 2009 at 11:59 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #41  
NB Says:



The Charedi world generally did not accept the idea that Israel is Reshit Tzemichat Geuliteinu. When did that change?
Why are charedim suddenly talking about "every inch of land..."?

The bottom line is...moshiach has not yet come..and we must be a part of family of nations and we cannot just hold on to land..even though we know that it is rightfully ours..
No matter how you spin it.. There is an occupation going on.
There are millions of people that we are governing..that have no equal rights.
So while all of you might keep your heads in the sand..eventually you'll choke on the sand.
Every Israeli leader..has somehow come to the same realization...

Do you need Kahane himself to come back from the grave and give back Jerusalem for you to finally realize that it just isnt the right time yet...
Moshiach has not yet come..and we have a tough reality to contend with...

What has "reshit tzmichat geulatenu" got to do with this? Why are you dragging that in? Of course Moshiach hasn't come yet; what has he got to do with the fact that EY does not belong to the government, which has no right to give it away? Or with the open halacha that we must go to war even on Shabbos to protect ANY area from which a Jewish-populated country could be invaded? That halacha wasn't said for Moshiach's time, and it wasn't even said for EY! The country in question was the Nehardea area of Bavel, which had a large Jewish population; if any hostile army tried to occupy a border town from which it would be easier to invade, even if the army claimed that it had no designs on the country or its Jews, the halacha is that we must go to war to repel them, even on Shabbos. Not for EY, but for Iraq! Kol shekein when it is EY.


NB wrote: "...we must be a part of family of nations"

Chas vesholom! It was Rabin who said "lo od am levadad yishkon"! The Torah says we are not part of the family of nations, and must never be so. "Hein om levodod yishkon, uvagoyim lo yischashov." If the "millions of people" who live in EY want equal rights, let them go somewhere else; the faster the better. There is no reason to give them citizenship and voting rights; it's bad enough that so many goyim already have it.

48

 Jun 14, 2009 at 11:49 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #46  
Dag Says:

Uh...Israel still controls the Golan.

Here is the NY Times describing the 1990 events to which you refer: "In 1990, Rabbi Schach thwarted an attempt by Shimon Peres, the Labor Party leader, to withdraw from the government of the rightist Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and replace it with a narrow coalition with strictly Orthodox parties. Accusing the Labor Party of abandoning its Jewish heritage, Rabbi Schach withheld the support of the Degel Hatorah Party, whose participation was crucial for the formation of a governing coalition headed by Mr. Peres." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/world/rabbi-eliezer-schach-103-leader-of-orthodox-in-israel.html

Israel still controls the Golan, because the Lubavitcher Rebbe stopped Peres's "stinking manoeuvre". And yes, it was the LR who stopped it, despite what some idiot at the NYT wrote. Shach would be quite prepared to give it away; he was the one who said that "we lived for 2000 years without the Golan, and we can live another 2000 years without it", as if 2000 more years without Moshiach was something to regard with equanimity. That comes as close as makes no difference to not believing in bias hamoshiach at all.

49

 Jun 14, 2009 at 11:43 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #44  
Anonymous Says:

But the Rebbe was niftar many years ago and the situation has changed a hundred times since he died. Neither you nor anyone else can say what he would have said about today's situation if he were alive today.

We certainly can. The changes over the past 17 years have only made it clearer how right he was; nothing has changed that would affect his position.

50

 Jun 15, 2009 at 12:30 AM ZR Says:

Reply to #46  
Dag Says:

Uh...Israel still controls the Golan.

Here is the NY Times describing the 1990 events to which you refer: "In 1990, Rabbi Schach thwarted an attempt by Shimon Peres, the Labor Party leader, to withdraw from the government of the rightist Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and replace it with a narrow coalition with strictly Orthodox parties. Accusing the Labor Party of abandoning its Jewish heritage, Rabbi Schach withheld the support of the Degel Hatorah Party, whose participation was crucial for the formation of a governing coalition headed by Mr. Peres." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/world/rabbi-eliezer-schach-103-leader-of-orthodox-in-israel.html

Context.

Read the next few paragraphs in that article.

Why did Peres even think he had a coalition with Chareidi parties? The reason R Shach ultimately rejected the coalition is NOT because he rejected the suicidal idea of "land for peace".

51

 Jun 14, 2009 at 11:03 PM michali Says:

Reply to #46  
Dag Says:

Uh...Israel still controls the Golan.

Here is the NY Times describing the 1990 events to which you refer: "In 1990, Rabbi Schach thwarted an attempt by Shimon Peres, the Labor Party leader, to withdraw from the government of the rightist Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and replace it with a narrow coalition with strictly Orthodox parties. Accusing the Labor Party of abandoning its Jewish heritage, Rabbi Schach withheld the support of the Degel Hatorah Party, whose participation was crucial for the formation of a governing coalition headed by Mr. Peres." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/world/rabbi-eliezer-schach-103-leader-of-orthodox-in-israel.html

I stand corrected.

52

 Jun 14, 2009 at 10:29 PM michali Says:

Reply to #44  
Anonymous Says:

But the Rebbe was niftar many years ago and the situation has changed a hundred times since he died. Neither you nor anyone else can say what he would have said about today's situation if he were alive today.

You are wrong. Like King Solomon said: "There's nothing new under the sun". Nothing has changed since he died. There are still liberal jews who would do anything to placate the US and give up the land.

53

 Jun 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #43  
Anonymous Says:

I ain't no Lubab, but when all is said and one, only their leader will go down in history as having been right on how to deal with the Arabs and world in general. And perhaps Kahane as well.

Don't be so sure.

The writing of this chapter of history hasn't even begun, forget about being completed.

The isn't over until the fat lady sings and this isn't even the intermission yet.

54

 Jun 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #42  
michali Says:

The Rebbe, z'tl, was against anyone taking away land for piece. He was one of strongest opponents of the camp david accords, and the oslo accords that would put Israel in danger, r'l. It was back in the 80s when he went against the religious parties (Degel hatorah headed by Rav Schach, and Agudah) who voted for Peres when he ran for prime minister The religious parties at that time voted for Peres because Peres promised them money for yeshivos even though they knew a vote for Peres would mean the Golan would be sacrificed for a so-called peace.

Rav Shach z"l was in disagreement with the Rebbe about many things and he was a much greater Talmid Chochom in nigla. (The rebbe wouldn't paskin for himself but relied on Lubavitcher poskim).

From Rav Shach's point of view, support of Torah was more important at that time especially since he felt it was right to sacrifice the Golan for a sustainable peace.

55

 Jun 15, 2009 at 06:55 AM End of Days Says:

The stage is set.

56

 Jun 15, 2009 at 06:33 AM Charles Hall Says:

Reply to #39  
Milhouse Says:

Any history of the war. Both Germany and Japan were ready to negotiate peace; the allies refused,

This is one of the worst pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted to any blog anywhere. Germany became willing to negotiate on May 1, 1945, the day after the suicide of [may his name be blotted out]. And in Japan it took the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to bring them to their senses.

57

 Jun 15, 2009 at 06:35 AM Charles Hall Says:

Reply to #48  
Milhouse Says:

Israel still controls the Golan, because the Lubavitcher Rebbe stopped Peres's "stinking manoeuvre". And yes, it was the LR who stopped it, despite what some idiot at the NYT wrote. Shach would be quite prepared to give it away; he was the one who said that "we lived for 2000 years without the Golan, and we can live another 2000 years without it", as if 2000 more years without Moshiach was something to regard with equanimity. That comes as close as makes no difference to not believing in bias hamoshiach at all.

The NYT article is correct in its facts. And I would not ever say that Rav Shach didn't believe in bias hamoshiach.

58

 Jun 15, 2009 at 06:25 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #54  
tzoorba Says:

Rav Shach z"l was in disagreement with the Rebbe about many things and he was a much greater Talmid Chochom in nigla. (The rebbe wouldn't paskin for himself but relied on Lubavitcher poskim).

From Rav Shach's point of view, support of Torah was more important at that time especially since he felt it was right to sacrifice the Golan for a sustainable peace.

Rav Shach was greater in niglah?! Where did u get that from? Don't bring stupidity in this coversation.

59

 Jun 15, 2009 at 03:49 AM moish Says:

Reply to #38  
Milhouse Says:

Except Kiryat Sefer, eh? Somehow that is kosher. And the Golan Heights are not needed for security???? What area, exactly, will NOT make the land easier for them to conquer (שלא תהא הארץ נוחה להיכבש)? His opinion was contrary to Torah, and therefore irrelevant.

No his opinion is contrary to your opinion, therefore YOUR opinion is irrelevant. This time you have overstepped the boundaries of chutzpah, say what you like, but speak respectfully of gedoiley yisroel, hamesaper achar mitoso shel talmidei chachomim noifel begehinom. Make up your mind are you chareidi or tziyoni, sometimes you are supporting the chareidi view and sometimes the tziyoni. What Rav Shach Zt'l said is very clear and simple, one may not go and live in a place of danger, kiryat sefer is not a place of danger it is very close to the green line, on the other hand a land that the army has control and by giving over control this would endanger the yidden, they may not give up control. And the golan man dochar shmei.
About the actual speech, it is exactly what someone in his position should've said, he inside him is a rightist and doesn't trust the pals ki hu zeh unlike peres for example who is fadimyoned with his peace vision, but not everything you believe you have to say in public, it is called being diplomatic and not saying to the world everything your true intentions, the pals have long mastered this art and that's why their pr is so good. Well done bibi.

60

 Jun 15, 2009 at 02:23 AM esther Says:

Reply to #44  
Anonymous Says:

But the Rebbe was niftar many years ago and the situation has changed a hundred times since he died. Neither you nor anyone else can say what he would have said about today's situation if he were alive today.

isn't it painfully obvious that the danger the rebbe foresaw all those years ago is now a terrible reality.now one doesn't need ruach hakodesh,only common sense to see what a disaster " land for piece" has been.

61

 Jun 15, 2009 at 02:38 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #54  
tzoorba Says:

Rav Shach z"l was in disagreement with the Rebbe about many things and he was a much greater Talmid Chochom in nigla. (The rebbe wouldn't paskin for himself but relied on Lubavitcher poskim).

From Rav Shach's point of view, support of Torah was more important at that time especially since he felt it was right to sacrifice the Golan for a sustainable peace.

He was not a bigger TC, in nigla or anything else. When he came to try out for a job at Tomchei Tmimim in Lod, a bochur (RYF of OT) made mincemeat out of him. That's why he had this hate for Lubavitch. The LR wouldn't pasken shaylos because he wasn't the moro de'asro. That's the same reason why the GRO didn't pasken and the Tzemach Tzedek didn't pasken, even though they each knew halacha better than their respective "local orthodox rabbis". But when the LR asked a shayla, believe you me, it was framed in a way that let the rov know how he wanted it paskened... (The Tzemach Tzedek would do the same, but unfortunately the rov in Lubavitch then was not too bright, and didn't always pick up the hints. Still, he was the rov, and had the siyata dishmaya that comes with the position.)

62

 Jun 15, 2009 at 07:09 AM Dag Says:

Reply to #48  
Milhouse Says:

Israel still controls the Golan, because the Lubavitcher Rebbe stopped Peres's "stinking manoeuvre". And yes, it was the LR who stopped it, despite what some idiot at the NYT wrote. Shach would be quite prepared to give it away; he was the one who said that "we lived for 2000 years without the Golan, and we can live another 2000 years without it", as if 2000 more years without Moshiach was something to regard with equanimity. That comes as close as makes no difference to not believing in bias hamoshiach at all.

"Shach?" Your chutzpah knows no bounds..aside from the fact that you are wrong

63

 Jun 15, 2009 at 07:49 AM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #61  
Milhouse Says:

He was not a bigger TC, in nigla or anything else. When he came to try out for a job at Tomchei Tmimim in Lod, a bochur (RYF of OT) made mincemeat out of him. That's why he had this hate for Lubavitch. The LR wouldn't pasken shaylos because he wasn't the moro de'asro. That's the same reason why the GRO didn't pasken and the Tzemach Tzedek didn't pasken, even though they each knew halacha better than their respective "local orthodox rabbis". But when the LR asked a shayla, believe you me, it was framed in a way that let the rov know how he wanted it paskened... (The Tzemach Tzedek would do the same, but unfortunately the rov in Lubavitch then was not too bright, and didn't always pick up the hints. Still, he was the rov, and had the siyata dishmaya that comes with the position.)

Milhouse, you've finally come out of your shell and now we know where all your warped opinions derive from.

This disgraceful fairy tale of a bochur at Tomchei Tmimim is simply motzei shem ra of the worst sort and shows the tremendous am hoaratzus of those who would challenge Rav Shach. When you can't challenge someone based on his arguments, you make up some disparaging tale to put him down.

Rav Shach doesn't need me to defend him but anyone with a rayach torah knows that the whole world learns Avi Ezri on any part of shas. Name a sefer of LR in nigla that anyone uses outside of Lubavitch. Name a sefer of LR that anyone has heard of outside of Lubavitch.

Why wasn't the LR the moroh d'asro? I'm sure all of his chassidim thought he was. Who was more of a moroh d'asro of Lubavitch than the Rebbe?

64

 Jun 15, 2009 at 08:46 AM Charles Hall Says:

Reply to #48  
Milhouse Says:

Israel still controls the Golan, because the Lubavitcher Rebbe stopped Peres's "stinking manoeuvre". And yes, it was the LR who stopped it, despite what some idiot at the NYT wrote. Shach would be quite prepared to give it away; he was the one who said that "we lived for 2000 years without the Golan, and we can live another 2000 years without it", as if 2000 more years without Moshiach was something to regard with equanimity. That comes as close as makes no difference to not believing in bias hamoshiach at all.

Plenty of rabbis disagreed with Rav Shach z'tz'l regarding Land for Peace. But plenty of other rabbis including Rov Soloveitchik z'tz'l agreed with him. Is there anyone alive today who can stand in their shoes? How can we permit such vitriol directed at such greats of Torah?

65

 Jun 15, 2009 at 09:18 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #36  
ZR Says:

Exactly.

Not one of the Israeli Prime ministers since the Oslo disaster and negotiations with the Arabs has ever finished his allotted term with honour.

And Begin, a great man who made a great mistake, lived out his last years in the throes of severe mental illness, as a depressed recluse. He was the first to give up land and the one who started it all by falling for Sadat's ruse to get the oil fields.

66

 Jun 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM michali Says:

Reply to #63  
tzoorba Says:

Milhouse, you've finally come out of your shell and now we know where all your warped opinions derive from.

This disgraceful fairy tale of a bochur at Tomchei Tmimim is simply motzei shem ra of the worst sort and shows the tremendous am hoaratzus of those who would challenge Rav Shach. When you can't challenge someone based on his arguments, you make up some disparaging tale to put him down.

Rav Shach doesn't need me to defend him but anyone with a rayach torah knows that the whole world learns Avi Ezri on any part of shas. Name a sefer of LR in nigla that anyone uses outside of Lubavitch. Name a sefer of LR that anyone has heard of outside of Lubavitch.

Why wasn't the LR the moroh d'asro? I'm sure all of his chassidim thought he was. Who was more of a moroh d'asro of Lubavitch than the Rebbe?

"This disgraceful fairy tale of a bochur at Tomchei Tmimim is simply motzei shem ra of the worst sort and shows the tremendous am hoaratzus of those who would challenge Rav Shach. When you can't challenge someone based on his arguments, you make up some disparaging tale to put him down."

I heard this story from a friend of mine who knew of the bochur at Tomchei Tmimim.

67

 Jun 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #66  
michali Says:

"This disgraceful fairy tale of a bochur at Tomchei Tmimim is simply motzei shem ra of the worst sort and shows the tremendous am hoaratzus of those who would challenge Rav Shach. When you can't challenge someone based on his arguments, you make up some disparaging tale to put him down."

I heard this story from a friend of mine who knew of the bochur at Tomchei Tmimim.

So he also believed in the fairy tale. So what?

This urban legend is probably running rampant through Lubavitch.

68

 Jun 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM Anonymous Says:

How can people here say lashon hara about Rav Shach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe? Even though they did not share the same opinion about Eretz Yisrael (and both based their views on Torah), it is not a reason to publicly speak against these two gedolim. The people who posted these should post apoligize online and at the graves. The Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed because of sinas chinom and whether or not land is given away, attitudes like this will not bring the geula, which is the only true peace we want and need.

69

 Jun 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM moish Says:

Reply to #66  
michali Says:

"This disgraceful fairy tale of a bochur at Tomchei Tmimim is simply motzei shem ra of the worst sort and shows the tremendous am hoaratzus of those who would challenge Rav Shach. When you can't challenge someone based on his arguments, you make up some disparaging tale to put him down."

I heard this story from a friend of mine who knew of the bochur at Tomchei Tmimim.

Wow that's great proof! Shtusim mit lokshen! I can't believe that there is even a discussion about what a great talmid chochom Rav Shach zt'l was, it is beyond ridiculous, but i suppose since when were lubis who believe their dead rebbe is alive and moshiach not ridiculous

70

 Jun 15, 2009 at 05:51 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #63  
tzoorba Says:

Milhouse, you've finally come out of your shell and now we know where all your warped opinions derive from.

This disgraceful fairy tale of a bochur at Tomchei Tmimim is simply motzei shem ra of the worst sort and shows the tremendous am hoaratzus of those who would challenge Rav Shach. When you can't challenge someone based on his arguments, you make up some disparaging tale to put him down.

Rav Shach doesn't need me to defend him but anyone with a rayach torah knows that the whole world learns Avi Ezri on any part of shas. Name a sefer of LR in nigla that anyone uses outside of Lubavitch. Name a sefer of LR that anyone has heard of outside of Lubavitch.

Why wasn't the LR the moroh d'asro? I'm sure all of his chassidim thought he was. Who was more of a moroh d'asro of Lubavitch than the Rebbe?

It's not a fairy tale. There are witnesses. As for Avi Ezri, R Sholom Volpe made ash and porech out of it.

The LR wasn't the rov of Crown Heights, because that wasn't his job. For the same reason the GRO wasn't the rov of Vilna, and the Chofetz Chaim wasn't the rov of Radin. Someone else had that job.

71

 Jun 15, 2009 at 07:06 PM esther Says:

Reply to #70  
Milhouse Says:

It's not a fairy tale. There are witnesses. As for Avi Ezri, R Sholom Volpe made ash and porech out of it.

The LR wasn't the rov of Crown Heights, because that wasn't his job. For the same reason the GRO wasn't the rov of Vilna, and the Chofetz Chaim wasn't the rov of Radin. Someone else had that job.

millhouse, when you insult a person who many consider to be THE gadol hador ,you accomplish the opposite of trying to explain the rebbe's shita.is this about your ego because it's certainly not the derech of the lubavitcher rebbe

72

 Jun 15, 2009 at 09:17 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #71  
esther Says:

millhouse, when you insult a person who many consider to be THE gadol hador ,you accomplish the opposite of trying to explain the rebbe's shita.is this about your ego because it's certainly not the derech of the lubavitcher rebbe

Don't waste your breath.

73

 Jun 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM Anonymous Says:

The LR speaks for himself. R pinchus hirshprung ZTL knew that the Rebbe was a gaon, and attended the fabrengens, even though he was litvish...can't say he did the same for the other side, who just spewed machloikes

74

 Jun 15, 2009 at 09:30 PM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #70  
Milhouse Says:

It's not a fairy tale. There are witnesses. As for Avi Ezri, R Sholom Volpe made ash and porech out of it.

The LR wasn't the rov of Crown Heights, because that wasn't his job. For the same reason the GRO wasn't the rov of Vilna, and the Chofetz Chaim wasn't the rov of Radin. Someone else had that job.

For those open minded people here, the Brisker Rov z"l gave an unusually glowing haskoma to Rav Shach that he never gave to anyone else.

I know that this may not count for you since he was not a Lubavitcher.

75

 Jun 15, 2009 at 09:26 PM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #70  
Milhouse Says:

It's not a fairy tale. There are witnesses. As for Avi Ezri, R Sholom Volpe made ash and porech out of it.

The LR wasn't the rov of Crown Heights, because that wasn't his job. For the same reason the GRO wasn't the rov of Vilna, and the Chofetz Chaim wasn't the rov of Radin. Someone else had that job.

Your witnesses are probably posul l'aidus if they are sane.

Who is R' Sholom Volpe? Why haven't I heard of him? Are you suggesting a conspiracy by all Litvishe gedolim to hide this? Hmm, interesting conspiracy theory here.

Does he have any seforim to check out his hasagos?

76

 Jun 16, 2009 at 12:55 AM moish Says:

Now milhouse has been exposed, he is a lubavitcher with a blinding irrational hatred of Maran Harav Shach zt'l the only leader brave enough to stand up against somebody whose followers made him a false messiah and claimed that he is elohus on this world r"l. there is no use trying to debate with him on this point. Chazor becho, before it's too late, Hashem is mekane for the kovod of talmidei chachomi, take 10 people and go ask mechila by his kever, quick. [wolpe made ash and parcohes of avi ezri, what a joke! Apparently he believes the l.rebbe is moshiach which goes to show how sane and how close to judaism he is]

77

 Jun 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #75  
tzoorba Says:

Your witnesses are probably posul l'aidus if they are sane.

Who is R' Sholom Volpe? Why haven't I heard of him? Are you suggesting a conspiracy by all Litvishe gedolim to hide this? Hmm, interesting conspiracy theory here.

Does he have any seforim to check out his hasagos?

The witnesses include the bochur in question, who is now a rosh yeshivah.

R Volpe's sefer is called "Yedaber Sholom".

78

 Jun 16, 2009 at 06:32 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #76  
moish Says:

Now milhouse has been exposed, he is a lubavitcher with a blinding irrational hatred of Maran Harav Shach zt'l the only leader brave enough to stand up against somebody whose followers made him a false messiah and claimed that he is elohus on this world r"l. there is no use trying to debate with him on this point. Chazor becho, before it's too late, Hashem is mekane for the kovod of talmidei chachomi, take 10 people and go ask mechila by his kever, quick. [wolpe made ash and parcohes of avi ezri, what a joke! Apparently he believes the l.rebbe is moshiach which goes to show how sane and how close to judaism he is]

I don't need to be a Lubavitcher to know the difference between gold and iron pyrites. The LR was a world go'on, as everyone who had anything to do with him acknowledged; the RY at Ponevich, not so much. The story of the trial shiur he gave, and the drubbing he received, is absolutely true; had he got that job as a magid shiur maybe his attitude would have been different, but he wasn't good enough.

As for Volpe, one doesn't have to agree with him on everything to realise that he is a genuine talmid chochom, greater than you or me; if you're worried about kevod talmidei chachomim, you don't need to wait until he's in a kever to apologise to him. It's a lot easier to do it in person.

79

 Jun 16, 2009 at 07:24 AM moish Says:

Reply to #78  
Milhouse Says:

I don't need to be a Lubavitcher to know the difference between gold and iron pyrites. The LR was a world go'on, as everyone who had anything to do with him acknowledged; the RY at Ponevich, not so much. The story of the trial shiur he gave, and the drubbing he received, is absolutely true; had he got that job as a magid shiur maybe his attitude would have been different, but he wasn't good enough.

As for Volpe, one doesn't have to agree with him on everything to realise that he is a genuine talmid chochom, greater than you or me; if you're worried about kevod talmidei chachomim, you don't need to wait until he's in a kever to apologise to him. It's a lot easier to do it in person.

the l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul. And Rav Shach zt'l wasn't good enough for some lubavitch yeshiva noones ever head of where they probably learn tanya and likutei sichos half the day and have farbrengens the other half, but he was good enough for the most esteemed yeshiva of the world where most of the greatest talmidei chachomim of the generation learnt, thats a good one! I would advise you to stop talking on this subject, for the more you talk the more a fool you sound.

80

 Jun 16, 2009 at 02:17 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #79  
moish Says:

the l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul. And Rav Shach zt'l wasn't good enough for some lubavitch yeshiva noones ever head of where they probably learn tanya and likutei sichos half the day and have farbrengens the other half, but he was good enough for the most esteemed yeshiva of the world where most of the greatest talmidei chachomim of the generation learnt, thats a good one! I would advise you to stop talking on this subject, for the more you talk the more a fool you sound.

You think nobody has heard of Tomchei Tmimim?! What planet are you living on? And for your information, at that time Ponevich wasn't nearly the big deal it became later; when R Kahaneman offered R Yisroel Grossman a position, he turned it down.

81

 Jun 16, 2009 at 06:01 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #79  
moish Says:

the l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul. And Rav Shach zt'l wasn't good enough for some lubavitch yeshiva noones ever head of where they probably learn tanya and likutei sichos half the day and have farbrengens the other half, but he was good enough for the most esteemed yeshiva of the world where most of the greatest talmidei chachomim of the generation learnt, thats a good one! I would advise you to stop talking on this subject, for the more you talk the more a fool you sound.



Not being a student of Rav Shach a"h nor much of a believer in the current litvish charaidi system in Eretz Yisroel in its current form, I hope you will nonetheless forgive my pointing out the following: You may be further lowering the esteem of Rav Shach a"h by defending him from the lunatics who spread that stupid story.

The same can be said of bothering to prove the story false.

Anyone with the slightest bit of saichel laughs at the story. Its main function is to serve as an alarm for the rest of us to heed, as it identifies the lunatics the rest of us need to avoid and ignore.

The good news is that when yokols and nobodies from Crown Heights to Monsey and beyond feel they can speak about Rav Shach a"h this way the end cannot be far off.

82

 Jun 16, 2009 at 07:28 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #79  
moish Says:

the l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul. And Rav Shach zt'l wasn't good enough for some lubavitch yeshiva noones ever head of where they probably learn tanya and likutei sichos half the day and have farbrengens the other half, but he was good enough for the most esteemed yeshiva of the world where most of the greatest talmidei chachomim of the generation learnt, thats a good one! I would advise you to stop talking on this subject, for the more you talk the more a fool you sound.

The hanhoga in Lubavitch – which is, by the way, also the hanhoga in Belz – regarding sleeping in the Sukka was well known and mefursam for over a hundred years! Back in the days of the Mitteler Rebbe, who was himself quite a lamdan, this was the practice, and this was what he saw in his father's home by the Alter Rebbe, the Baal HaTanya & Shulchan Aruch. There is no chutzpa greater than this klape to the Alter Rebbe: to come along now, after a hundred years, and come up with shaylos about this practice! And this chutzpa is combined with dishonesty: as if this is some new innovation in our generation – when this is known to have been the practice for generations!

83

 Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #82  
ZR Says:

The hanhoga in Lubavitch – which is, by the way, also the hanhoga in Belz – regarding sleeping in the Sukka was well known and mefursam for over a hundred years! Back in the days of the Mitteler Rebbe, who was himself quite a lamdan, this was the practice, and this was what he saw in his father's home by the Alter Rebbe, the Baal HaTanya & Shulchan Aruch. There is no chutzpa greater than this klape to the Alter Rebbe: to come along now, after a hundred years, and come up with shaylos about this practice! And this chutzpa is combined with dishonesty: as if this is some new innovation in our generation – when this is known to have been the practice for generations!

What is the explanation of this practice which seems to go against the obligation from the Torah to sleep in the Succah unless one is suffering because of cold or some other cause.

Is it based on the Ramo's explanation of the need for privacy in the Succah?

84

 Jun 17, 2009 at 04:01 AM ZR Says:

Reply to #83  
tzoorba Says:

What is the explanation of this practice which seems to go against the obligation from the Torah to sleep in the Succah unless one is suffering because of cold or some other cause.

Is it based on the Ramo's explanation of the need for privacy in the Succah?

In answer to your question, here is a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe on this subject:

7 Cheshvan, 5715 [1954]

Sholom uBrocho [Peace and Blessing]:

Rabbi... conveyed to me your question as to why it is not the custom of Chabad Chasidim to decorate the Succah, as well as to sleep in the Succah.

This question calls for a lengthier explanation than this letter would permit. However, I trust the following points may suffice:

1. Re Decorations:

a. Generally, a Mitzvah must be observed on its Divine authority (with Kabolos Ohl) and not on rational grounds, i.e. for any reason or explanation which we may find in it. An exception, to some extent, is the case where the significance of the Mitzvah is indicated in the Torah, and our Sages have connected its fulfillment with it. At any rate, only a qualified person can interpret it more fully.

b. We have a rule that a Mitzvah should be performed to the best of one's ability, and as the Rambam explains (at the end of Hilechoth Issurei HaMizbeach). This applies especially to the object of the Mitzvah itself, e.g., a Talis should be the best one can afford, an offering should be the most generous, etc.

c. Unlike the Sechach [branches covering the top of the Succah] and walls of the Succah, decorations are not an essential part of the Succah, but an external adornment which adds to the enjoyment of the person sitting inside the Succah; they are, as the name clearly indicates, supplementary objects which decorate and beautify the external appearance of the Succah.

d. The attitude of Chabad Chassidim in this connection, as taught by generations of Chabad leaders and teachers, is that the Succah is to imbue us with certain essential lessons, which are explained in Chassidic literature and Talmudic literature in general. It is expected of Chabad Chassidim that they should be impressed by the essential character of the Succah without recourse to "artificial" make-up; that the frail covering of the Succah and its bare walls, not adorned by external ornaments, rugs or hangings, should more forcibly and directly impress upon the Jew the lessons it is meant to convey.

2. Re Sleeping in the Succah

e. In order to safeguard and inspire a greater feeling toward the Succah, sleeping in it is not practiced by us. The basis for this is two-fold: First, we have a rule that Hamitztaer putter min HaSuccah (suffering exempts one from dwelling in the Succah). Secondly, during sleep a person is not in control of himself, and, furthermore, the very act of undressing and dressing, etc. inevitably creates a common-place attitude towards the place which serves as a bedroom. Such a depreciation of attitude toward the Succah (by sleeping in it, as explained above), from what his attitude should properly be towards the Mitzvoth of G-d whereby He has sanctified all Jews, would be deeply felt by the Chabad Chassid by virtue of his Chassidic teachings and upbringing, and would cause him profound spiritual suffering. The combination of these two considerations, therefore, led to the custom not to sleep in the Succah.

However, if a Jew feels absolutely certain that his sleeping in the Succah will not in the slightest affect his attitude toward the sanctity of the Succah, and is consequently free from any mental pain that might be caused thereby, he is duty-bound to sleep in it, in accordance with the fullest meaning of Taishvu K'ain taduru, to make his Succah his dwelling place to the utmost.

I hope the above will provide an adequate answer to your question, but should you desire further clarification, do not hesitate to write to me.

With blessing,

85

 Jun 17, 2009 at 12:41 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #81  
Anonymous Says:



Not being a student of Rav Shach a"h nor much of a believer in the current litvish charaidi system in Eretz Yisroel in its current form, I hope you will nonetheless forgive my pointing out the following: You may be further lowering the esteem of Rav Shach a"h by defending him from the lunatics who spread that stupid story.

The same can be said of bothering to prove the story false.

Anyone with the slightest bit of saichel laughs at the story. Its main function is to serve as an alarm for the rest of us to heed, as it identifies the lunatics the rest of us need to avoid and ignore.

The good news is that when yokols and nobodies from Crown Heights to Monsey and beyond feel they can speak about Rav Shach a"h this way the end cannot be far off.

The story is as true as yesterday's newspaper. Nobody with any seichel laughs at it, because there's nothing at all implausible about it. It happened, in front of witnesses, and nothing will make it go away.

86

 Jun 17, 2009 at 07:45 AM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #84  
ZR Says:

In answer to your question, here is a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe on this subject:

7 Cheshvan, 5715 [1954]

Sholom uBrocho [Peace and Blessing]:

Rabbi... conveyed to me your question as to why it is not the custom of Chabad Chasidim to decorate the Succah, as well as to sleep in the Succah.

This question calls for a lengthier explanation than this letter would permit. However, I trust the following points may suffice:

1. Re Decorations:

a. Generally, a Mitzvah must be observed on its Divine authority (with Kabolos Ohl) and not on rational grounds, i.e. for any reason or explanation which we may find in it. An exception, to some extent, is the case where the significance of the Mitzvah is indicated in the Torah, and our Sages have connected its fulfillment with it. At any rate, only a qualified person can interpret it more fully.

b. We have a rule that a Mitzvah should be performed to the best of one's ability, and as the Rambam explains (at the end of Hilechoth Issurei HaMizbeach). This applies especially to the object of the Mitzvah itself, e.g., a Talis should be the best one can afford, an offering should be the most generous, etc.

c. Unlike the Sechach [branches covering the top of the Succah] and walls of the Succah, decorations are not an essential part of the Succah, but an external adornment which adds to the enjoyment of the person sitting inside the Succah; they are, as the name clearly indicates, supplementary objects which decorate and beautify the external appearance of the Succah.

d. The attitude of Chabad Chassidim in this connection, as taught by generations of Chabad leaders and teachers, is that the Succah is to imbue us with certain essential lessons, which are explained in Chassidic literature and Talmudic literature in general. It is expected of Chabad Chassidim that they should be impressed by the essential character of the Succah without recourse to "artificial" make-up; that the frail covering of the Succah and its bare walls, not adorned by external ornaments, rugs or hangings, should more forcibly and directly impress upon the Jew the lessons it is meant to convey.

2. Re Sleeping in the Succah

e. In order to safeguard and inspire a greater feeling toward the Succah, sleeping in it is not practiced by us. The basis for this is two-fold: First, we have a rule that Hamitztaer putter min HaSuccah (suffering exempts one from dwelling in the Succah). Secondly, during sleep a person is not in control of himself, and, furthermore, the very act of undressing and dressing, etc. inevitably creates a common-place attitude towards the place which serves as a bedroom. Such a depreciation of attitude toward the Succah (by sleeping in it, as explained above), from what his attitude should properly be towards the Mitzvoth of G-d whereby He has sanctified all Jews, would be deeply felt by the Chabad Chassid by virtue of his Chassidic teachings and upbringing, and would cause him profound spiritual suffering. The combination of these two considerations, therefore, led to the custom not to sleep in the Succah.

However, if a Jew feels absolutely certain that his sleeping in the Succah will not in the slightest affect his attitude toward the sanctity of the Succah, and is consequently free from any mental pain that might be caused thereby, he is duty-bound to sleep in it, in accordance with the fullest meaning of Taishvu K'ain taduru, to make his Succah his dwelling place to the utmost.

I hope the above will provide an adequate answer to your question, but should you desire further clarification, do not hesitate to write to me.

With blessing,

The Shulchan Oruch Harav paskens that one should sleep in the Succah and provides the opinion of the Rama that if one can't have a private succah, he is excused but one should try to have a private succah.

87

 Jun 17, 2009 at 07:35 AM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #84  
ZR Says:

In answer to your question, here is a letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe on this subject:

7 Cheshvan, 5715 [1954]

Sholom uBrocho [Peace and Blessing]:

Rabbi... conveyed to me your question as to why it is not the custom of Chabad Chasidim to decorate the Succah, as well as to sleep in the Succah.

This question calls for a lengthier explanation than this letter would permit. However, I trust the following points may suffice:

1. Re Decorations:

a. Generally, a Mitzvah must be observed on its Divine authority (with Kabolos Ohl) and not on rational grounds, i.e. for any reason or explanation which we may find in it. An exception, to some extent, is the case where the significance of the Mitzvah is indicated in the Torah, and our Sages have connected its fulfillment with it. At any rate, only a qualified person can interpret it more fully.

b. We have a rule that a Mitzvah should be performed to the best of one's ability, and as the Rambam explains (at the end of Hilechoth Issurei HaMizbeach). This applies especially to the object of the Mitzvah itself, e.g., a Talis should be the best one can afford, an offering should be the most generous, etc.

c. Unlike the Sechach [branches covering the top of the Succah] and walls of the Succah, decorations are not an essential part of the Succah, but an external adornment which adds to the enjoyment of the person sitting inside the Succah; they are, as the name clearly indicates, supplementary objects which decorate and beautify the external appearance of the Succah.

d. The attitude of Chabad Chassidim in this connection, as taught by generations of Chabad leaders and teachers, is that the Succah is to imbue us with certain essential lessons, which are explained in Chassidic literature and Talmudic literature in general. It is expected of Chabad Chassidim that they should be impressed by the essential character of the Succah without recourse to "artificial" make-up; that the frail covering of the Succah and its bare walls, not adorned by external ornaments, rugs or hangings, should more forcibly and directly impress upon the Jew the lessons it is meant to convey.

2. Re Sleeping in the Succah

e. In order to safeguard and inspire a greater feeling toward the Succah, sleeping in it is not practiced by us. The basis for this is two-fold: First, we have a rule that Hamitztaer putter min HaSuccah (suffering exempts one from dwelling in the Succah). Secondly, during sleep a person is not in control of himself, and, furthermore, the very act of undressing and dressing, etc. inevitably creates a common-place attitude towards the place which serves as a bedroom. Such a depreciation of attitude toward the Succah (by sleeping in it, as explained above), from what his attitude should properly be towards the Mitzvoth of G-d whereby He has sanctified all Jews, would be deeply felt by the Chabad Chassid by virtue of his Chassidic teachings and upbringing, and would cause him profound spiritual suffering. The combination of these two considerations, therefore, led to the custom not to sleep in the Succah.

However, if a Jew feels absolutely certain that his sleeping in the Succah will not in the slightest affect his attitude toward the sanctity of the Succah, and is consequently free from any mental pain that might be caused thereby, he is duty-bound to sleep in it, in accordance with the fullest meaning of Taishvu K'ain taduru, to make his Succah his dwelling place to the utmost.

I hope the above will provide an adequate answer to your question, but should you desire further clarification, do not hesitate to write to me.

With blessing,

The LR said

"inevitably creates a common-place attitude towards the place which serves as a bedroom. Such a depreciation of attitude toward the Succah (by sleeping in it, as explained above), from what his attitude should properly be towards the Mitzvoth of G-d whereby He has sanctified all Jews, would be deeply felt by the Chabad Chassid by virtue of his Chassidic teachings and upbringing, and would cause him profound spiritual suffering."

The Chassidic teachings shouldn't lead a person to feelings that are against the open mitzva d'oraisa of Succah. A person is not only supposed to sleep there, he is expected to live there in privacy with his wife.

The Succah is a holy home and not a bais haknesses. Wouldn't some adjustment of the Chassidus to fit with this Torah ideal which desires a person to elevate their every day living in the most basic sense to a high level apply here? Feeling spiritual pain for what the Torah requires means that the person must improve themselves even more.

Did the Baal Hatanya pasken this way in shulchan oruch harav?

88

 Jun 17, 2009 at 04:51 PM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #83  
tzoorba Says:

What is the explanation of this practice which seems to go against the obligation from the Torah to sleep in the Succah unless one is suffering because of cold or some other cause.

Is it based on the Ramo's explanation of the need for privacy in the Succah?

If you were honestly looking for an answer you would find it. But you're not.

89

 Jun 17, 2009 at 05:55 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #85  
Milhouse Says:

The story is as true as yesterday's newspaper. Nobody with any seichel laughs at it, because there's nothing at all implausible about it. It happened, in front of witnesses, and nothing will make it go away.

As true as yesterday's newspaper?

You must be refering to Haaretz or the NY Post.

90

 Jun 17, 2009 at 05:27 PM moish Says:

Reply to #85  
Milhouse Says:

The story is as true as yesterday's newspaper. Nobody with any seichel laughs at it, because there's nothing at all implausible about it. It happened, in front of witnesses, and nothing will make it go away.

I see you belive everything written in the newspaper. And nobody with seichel laughs at it because it's not worth laughing about, it doesn't even pass for a joke. And the so called "witnesses" from your imagination say yechi adoneinu melech hamoshiach every day on a dead man which renders them insane and posul le'edus.

91

 Jun 17, 2009 at 04:27 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #85  
Milhouse Says:

The story is as true as yesterday's newspaper. Nobody with any seichel laughs at it, because there's nothing at all implausible about it. It happened, in front of witnesses, and nothing will make it go away.

Then it should be no problem for you to provide the names of the bochur and of the witnesses you claim saw it, and since the (Bubba) Maisa is so well known you should also be able to tell us how we may contact them for verification.

So please, to use a somewhat unseemly term, put up or shut up.

(And please don't bother us with some twisted-like-a-pretzel story about why their names can't be put up on the internet even though all of lubavitch knows who their identities.)

92

 Jun 17, 2009 at 07:24 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #87  
tzoorba Says:

The LR said

"inevitably creates a common-place attitude towards the place which serves as a bedroom. Such a depreciation of attitude toward the Succah (by sleeping in it, as explained above), from what his attitude should properly be towards the Mitzvoth of G-d whereby He has sanctified all Jews, would be deeply felt by the Chabad Chassid by virtue of his Chassidic teachings and upbringing, and would cause him profound spiritual suffering."

The Chassidic teachings shouldn't lead a person to feelings that are against the open mitzva d'oraisa of Succah. A person is not only supposed to sleep there, he is expected to live there in privacy with his wife.

The Succah is a holy home and not a bais haknesses. Wouldn't some adjustment of the Chassidus to fit with this Torah ideal which desires a person to elevate their every day living in the most basic sense to a high level apply here? Feeling spiritual pain for what the Torah requires means that the person must improve themselves even more.

Did the Baal Hatanya pasken this way in shulchan oruch harav?

I realised you were probably not after an explanation, rather, you question the validity of minhogei Yisroel which are known to be the custom for generations. I provided the letter to those who are objectively seeking an explanation in the Lubaitcher Rebbe's own words. Apparently you are more interested in questioning the validity of the derech of generations of Yiddin Yirei Shomayim who are known to be Moser Nefesh Mamash for Yidishkeit in Communist Russia etc. Does Chabad question the validity of Sfardishe minhogim, litvishe minhogim, Belzer minhogim? Of Course not. But for some reason its fair game to question Chabad minhogim, minhogim that have existed for the last several centuries.

Furthermore, evidence these types of questions are not innocent, and didn’t bother Litvishe Gedolim in previous generations, Chabad and many Litvish Gedolim have worked together in peace for the last hundred years. R' Chaim Volozhiner, a talmid of the GR"A, wasn't a chossid, but he wasn't a misnaged either, worked closely with the Mitteler Rebbe, both in matters of halacha and askanus, etc.

Similarly, his son R' Yitzchok stood together with the Tzemach Tzeddek, both in matters of halacha and askanus, which is well known and verifiable (even non-Jewish sources can attest to this). And in later years, keyodua umefursam, the kesher and the closeness between R' Chaim Ozer and R' Lifshitz of Kovno with the Rebbe Rashab and his son the Previous Rebbe, and how they worked shoulder to shoulder to defend and strengthen Yiddishkeit in Russia, and how they signed together on many kol korehs, etc.

So, after a hundred years of peaceful relationships among gedolei Yisroel from all circles, people have decided it’s time to reignite Machlokes and Sinas Chainam which is M’akev the Geula.

93

 Jun 17, 2009 at 10:01 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #92  
ZR Says:

I realised you were probably not after an explanation, rather, you question the validity of minhogei Yisroel which are known to be the custom for generations. I provided the letter to those who are objectively seeking an explanation in the Lubaitcher Rebbe's own words. Apparently you are more interested in questioning the validity of the derech of generations of Yiddin Yirei Shomayim who are known to be Moser Nefesh Mamash for Yidishkeit in Communist Russia etc. Does Chabad question the validity of Sfardishe minhogim, litvishe minhogim, Belzer minhogim? Of Course not. But for some reason its fair game to question Chabad minhogim, minhogim that have existed for the last several centuries.

Furthermore, evidence these types of questions are not innocent, and didn’t bother Litvishe Gedolim in previous generations, Chabad and many Litvish Gedolim have worked together in peace for the last hundred years. R' Chaim Volozhiner, a talmid of the GR"A, wasn't a chossid, but he wasn't a misnaged either, worked closely with the Mitteler Rebbe, both in matters of halacha and askanus, etc.

Similarly, his son R' Yitzchok stood together with the Tzemach Tzeddek, both in matters of halacha and askanus, which is well known and verifiable (even non-Jewish sources can attest to this). And in later years, keyodua umefursam, the kesher and the closeness between R' Chaim Ozer and R' Lifshitz of Kovno with the Rebbe Rashab and his son the Previous Rebbe, and how they worked shoulder to shoulder to defend and strengthen Yiddishkeit in Russia, and how they signed together on many kol korehs, etc.

So, after a hundred years of peaceful relationships among gedolei Yisroel from all circles, people have decided it’s time to reignite Machlokes and Sinas Chainam which is M’akev the Geula.

Take off your blinders. Lubavitchers do this as much as if not more than everyone else.

I davened for several years in a shul in a growing kehilla in which the local shaliach, who could not get a minyan of his own going regularly tried to stir up some well-meaning ahmeratzim against the Rabbi by telling them that the minhogim of the shul were wrong (the shul had only been around under the leadership of one talmid chochom after another for almost a hundred years).

He even had the chutzpah to start chanting 'yechi' at the end of every davening, in a shul that hadn't changed a minhog in generations.

So please, put away the victim routine unless you want to start answering for every over-active and under-baked shaliach who tried to turn the local day school into a mini-770.

94

 Jun 17, 2009 at 11:09 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #93  
Anonymous Says:

Take off your blinders. Lubavitchers do this as much as if not more than everyone else.

I davened for several years in a shul in a growing kehilla in which the local shaliach, who could not get a minyan of his own going regularly tried to stir up some well-meaning ahmeratzim against the Rabbi by telling them that the minhogim of the shul were wrong (the shul had only been around under the leadership of one talmid chochom after another for almost a hundred years).

He even had the chutzpah to start chanting 'yechi' at the end of every davening, in a shul that hadn't changed a minhog in generations.

So please, put away the victim routine unless you want to start answering for every over-active and under-baked shaliach who tried to turn the local day school into a mini-770.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1. The Succa argument is a dishonest argument against the legitimacy of a Chabad minhag going back generations.

2. Most normal shluchim don't change the minhag in a shull (except if it is explicly agaist Shulchan Oruch such as the lack of a kosher mechitza.)

3. I, and most Shluchim, agree with you that Yechi, post 3 Tammuz, is a disgrace.

95

 Jun 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM tzoorba Says:

I was asking a kashya in the lomdus of the explanation as Litvaks do. The minhag is an established practice of a significant part of clal Yisroel.

Chassidim and non Chassidim also differ about eating in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres. There is a kashya related to yesuvi yasvinan ubruchi lo mevarchinan.

Each olam keeps their own minhagim and there are a number of hanhagos that are difficult on both sides. The heter of chodosh bechuts laaretz is based on a difficult sfek sfaika (which the Brisker Rov explains).

In terms of current machlokes, I don't want to extend it any further other than to say that the meshichist and elokist approach has driven a wedge between Lubavitch and the Yeshivishe world. If anything, these new movements are merachek Moshiach.

Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace.

The LR was a Gaon Olam as is evidenced by his sichos and his Rashi shiurim among others. He was praised and honored by Rabbi Avigdor Miller z"l among others.

We all have to work towards unity and seeking the truth despite our differences.


96

 Jun 18, 2009 at 01:54 AM ZR Says:

Reply to #95  
tzoorba Says:

I was asking a kashya in the lomdus of the explanation as Litvaks do. The minhag is an established practice of a significant part of clal Yisroel.

Chassidim and non Chassidim also differ about eating in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres. There is a kashya related to yesuvi yasvinan ubruchi lo mevarchinan.

Each olam keeps their own minhagim and there are a number of hanhagos that are difficult on both sides. The heter of chodosh bechuts laaretz is based on a difficult sfek sfaika (which the Brisker Rov explains).

In terms of current machlokes, I don't want to extend it any further other than to say that the meshichist and elokist approach has driven a wedge between Lubavitch and the Yeshivishe world. If anything, these new movements are merachek Moshiach.

Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace.

The LR was a Gaon Olam as is evidenced by his sichos and his Rashi shiurim among others. He was praised and honored by Rabbi Avigdor Miller z"l among others.

We all have to work towards unity and seeking the truth despite our differences.


I must also correct another grossly mistaken assumption. While there certainly is a meshechist movement, (who in my opinion are going against the explicit instructions of the Rebbe, are sullying the name of Chabad, but at the same time do have sources in Torah on which they base their extreme beleif),

But there certainly is NO SUCH MOVEMENT AS "ELOKIST." If there is such individuels it is maxium one or two deranged individuals. And all Lubavitchers INCLUDING Meshichist would rightly denounce such beliefs as Avodah Zorah.

But its terribly wrong to spread these false allegations that such a group exits.

97

 Jun 18, 2009 at 12:19 AM ZR Says:

Reply to #95  
tzoorba Says:

I was asking a kashya in the lomdus of the explanation as Litvaks do. The minhag is an established practice of a significant part of clal Yisroel.

Chassidim and non Chassidim also differ about eating in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres. There is a kashya related to yesuvi yasvinan ubruchi lo mevarchinan.

Each olam keeps their own minhagim and there are a number of hanhagos that are difficult on both sides. The heter of chodosh bechuts laaretz is based on a difficult sfek sfaika (which the Brisker Rov explains).

In terms of current machlokes, I don't want to extend it any further other than to say that the meshichist and elokist approach has driven a wedge between Lubavitch and the Yeshivishe world. If anything, these new movements are merachek Moshiach.

Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace.

The LR was a Gaon Olam as is evidenced by his sichos and his Rashi shiurim among others. He was praised and honored by Rabbi Avigdor Miller z"l among others.

We all have to work towards unity and seeking the truth despite our differences.


"Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace."

I agree that we have to work towards unity and peace.

Before the Meshichist issue of the 90's, way back in the 60's and 70's many in the Litvish world were already being fed hatred against Lubavitch. The prime reason for this, despite over 100 years of peaceful relations between Gedoilei Yisroel of all circles, was primarily the doing of "Godol Hador" Rav Shach. It can't be denied how he publicly went to war against someone who many hundreds of thousands consider the Tzadik Hador, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. His condemnations were over matters like the Teffilin campaign, Kiruv, Lag B'omer parades, Shabbos Candle lighting campaigns. In general whatever the Lubavithcer Rebbe did to strengthen Yiddishkeit, he was against.

I don't confer upon someone who instigated machlokes and sinas Chinam, after 100 years of peaceful relations between all circles of Gedolei Yisroel, the title "Godol Hador". The goal of a leader of the generation is to spread unity and peace and bring all Yidden to Yiddishekeit. "Ohev sholom v'rodef sholom ohev es habrios umekarvan latorah." I'm sorry, he doesn't fit into that category.

Besides, for those in the know, there are many Litvishe Gedolim who didn't think very highly of his conduct vis-a-vis the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

98

 Jun 18, 2009 at 08:02 AM moish Says:

Reply to #97  
ZR Says:

"Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace."

I agree that we have to work towards unity and peace.

Before the Meshichist issue of the 90's, way back in the 60's and 70's many in the Litvish world were already being fed hatred against Lubavitch. The prime reason for this, despite over 100 years of peaceful relations between Gedoilei Yisroel of all circles, was primarily the doing of "Godol Hador" Rav Shach. It can't be denied how he publicly went to war against someone who many hundreds of thousands consider the Tzadik Hador, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. His condemnations were over matters like the Teffilin campaign, Kiruv, Lag B'omer parades, Shabbos Candle lighting campaigns. In general whatever the Lubavithcer Rebbe did to strengthen Yiddishkeit, he was against.

I don't confer upon someone who instigated machlokes and sinas Chinam, after 100 years of peaceful relations between all circles of Gedolei Yisroel, the title "Godol Hador". The goal of a leader of the generation is to spread unity and peace and bring all Yidden to Yiddishekeit. "Ohev sholom v'rodef sholom ohev es habrios umekarvan latorah." I'm sorry, he doesn't fit into that category.

Besides, for those in the know, there are many Litvishe Gedolim who didn't think very highly of his conduct vis-a-vis the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

Moshe rabbeinu was the godol hador, Ahron hakohen was the second, MR only the men mourned him, AHK all of the yidden, the godol hador has to fight for the cause of the Torah even if that will make him many enemies, and a different godol to bring peace [we could say RSZ Aurbach fulfilled that role and he specifically did not make any political affiliation].

99

 Jun 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #97  
ZR Says:

"Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace."

I agree that we have to work towards unity and peace.

Before the Meshichist issue of the 90's, way back in the 60's and 70's many in the Litvish world were already being fed hatred against Lubavitch. The prime reason for this, despite over 100 years of peaceful relations between Gedoilei Yisroel of all circles, was primarily the doing of "Godol Hador" Rav Shach. It can't be denied how he publicly went to war against someone who many hundreds of thousands consider the Tzadik Hador, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. His condemnations were over matters like the Teffilin campaign, Kiruv, Lag B'omer parades, Shabbos Candle lighting campaigns. In general whatever the Lubavithcer Rebbe did to strengthen Yiddishkeit, he was against.

I don't confer upon someone who instigated machlokes and sinas Chinam, after 100 years of peaceful relations between all circles of Gedolei Yisroel, the title "Godol Hador". The goal of a leader of the generation is to spread unity and peace and bring all Yidden to Yiddishekeit. "Ohev sholom v'rodef sholom ohev es habrios umekarvan latorah." I'm sorry, he doesn't fit into that category.

Besides, for those in the know, there are many Litvishe Gedolim who didn't think very highly of his conduct vis-a-vis the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

First we have unnamed witnesses to an unnamed bochur shamed Rav Shach a"h by tearing his learning apart in public and now we have unname "Litvishe Gedolim" who didn't think highly of his conduct.

Take my advice, don't become a trial lawyer.

100

 Jun 18, 2009 at 11:11 AM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #97  
ZR Says:

"Demeaning a Gadol Hador like Rav Shach z"l doesn't lead to peace."

I agree that we have to work towards unity and peace.

Before the Meshichist issue of the 90's, way back in the 60's and 70's many in the Litvish world were already being fed hatred against Lubavitch. The prime reason for this, despite over 100 years of peaceful relations between Gedoilei Yisroel of all circles, was primarily the doing of "Godol Hador" Rav Shach. It can't be denied how he publicly went to war against someone who many hundreds of thousands consider the Tzadik Hador, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. His condemnations were over matters like the Teffilin campaign, Kiruv, Lag B'omer parades, Shabbos Candle lighting campaigns. In general whatever the Lubavithcer Rebbe did to strengthen Yiddishkeit, he was against.

I don't confer upon someone who instigated machlokes and sinas Chinam, after 100 years of peaceful relations between all circles of Gedolei Yisroel, the title "Godol Hador". The goal of a leader of the generation is to spread unity and peace and bring all Yidden to Yiddishekeit. "Ohev sholom v'rodef sholom ohev es habrios umekarvan latorah." I'm sorry, he doesn't fit into that category.

Besides, for those in the know, there are many Litvishe Gedolim who didn't think very highly of his conduct vis-a-vis the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

Lubavitch has plenty of work to do in the way of achdus.

I have a relative who works in kiruv and he tells me that Lubavitch never cooperates with any of the other kiruv efforts of any other group.

He works in the South where the problem is not apikorsus but belief in Yoshke. He says that he is very often confronted by potential baalei teshuva and asked what is the difference between the LR and Yoshke?

The public chanuka candle lighting causes friction with the non Jews in many situations. Sometimes the law has come out that they can't have their decorations but the Menorah is allowed. This causes needless hatred against the Jews. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews are against Lubavitch in this issue.

Whenever Lubavitch represents Jews such as in meetings with government officials, they always represent Lubavitch points of view as the only Jewish point of view.

Lubavitch is mekarev a lot of Jews but a non baal teshuva Lubavitcher will almost never make a shidduch with a Lubavitcher baal teshuva.

Many of the mitzva campaigns are carried out in a manner that is not a kiddush Hashem. Although you have discounted the meshichist aspect of Lubavitch, all too many of these campaigns with the yellow banners and the new Messiah approach are taking place. If the leadership of Lubavitch were truly against this, they would stop it.

Probably by Litvishe gedolim you mean Rabbi Hirschsprung z"l who is your favorite Litvishe Rabbi. I have never heard of any Litvishe rov who disagreed with Rav Shach openly on these issues.

101

 Jun 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #100  
tzoorba Says:

Lubavitch has plenty of work to do in the way of achdus.

I have a relative who works in kiruv and he tells me that Lubavitch never cooperates with any of the other kiruv efforts of any other group.

He works in the South where the problem is not apikorsus but belief in Yoshke. He says that he is very often confronted by potential baalei teshuva and asked what is the difference between the LR and Yoshke?

The public chanuka candle lighting causes friction with the non Jews in many situations. Sometimes the law has come out that they can't have their decorations but the Menorah is allowed. This causes needless hatred against the Jews. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews are against Lubavitch in this issue.

Whenever Lubavitch represents Jews such as in meetings with government officials, they always represent Lubavitch points of view as the only Jewish point of view.

Lubavitch is mekarev a lot of Jews but a non baal teshuva Lubavitcher will almost never make a shidduch with a Lubavitcher baal teshuva.

Many of the mitzva campaigns are carried out in a manner that is not a kiddush Hashem. Although you have discounted the meshichist aspect of Lubavitch, all too many of these campaigns with the yellow banners and the new Messiah approach are taking place. If the leadership of Lubavitch were truly against this, they would stop it.

Probably by Litvishe gedolim you mean Rabbi Hirschsprung z"l who is your favorite Litvishe Rabbi. I have never heard of any Litvishe rov who disagreed with Rav Shach openly on these issues.

So he'll claim they all disagreed in private, as if no Litvish roshai yeshiva were ever involved in an arguement that became public.

102

 Jun 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM moish Says:

Reply to #94  
ZR Says:

You're mixing apples and oranges.

1. The Succa argument is a dishonest argument against the legitimacy of a Chabad minhag going back generations.

2. Most normal shluchim don't change the minhag in a shull (except if it is explicly agaist Shulchan Oruch such as the lack of a kosher mechitza.)

3. I, and most Shluchim, agree with you that Yechi, post 3 Tammuz, is a disgrace.

And yechi pre 3 tammuz is not a disgrace? Proclaiming of our own accord that someone is moshiach is no different than what followers of meshichei sheker did at other periods during our long golus.

103

 Jun 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #102  
moish Says:

And yechi pre 3 tammuz is not a disgrace? Proclaiming of our own accord that someone is moshiach is no different than what followers of meshichei sheker did at other periods during our long golus.

Forgive my ignorance.

What does 'pre 3 tammuz' mean?

104

 Jun 18, 2009 at 01:42 PM moish Says:

Reply to #103  
Anonymous Says:

Forgive my ignorance.

What does 'pre 3 tammuz' mean?

3 tamuz is the day the lub.rebbe died.

105

 Jun 18, 2009 at 02:36 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #104  
moish Says:

3 tamuz is the day the lub.rebbe died.

Then why write "pre 3 tammuz" and not "before the rebbe a"h passed away" or "prior to the rebbe's death" or "prior to the rebbe's petirah"???

Is every person reading VIN supposed to know the date of every rebbe's yahrtzeit by heart??

106

 Jun 18, 2009 at 03:32 PM moish Says:

Reply to #105  
Anonymous Says:

Then why write "pre 3 tammuz" and not "before the rebbe a"h passed away" or "prior to the rebbe's death" or "prior to the rebbe's petirah"???

Is every person reading VIN supposed to know the date of every rebbe's yahrtzeit by heart??

Bec. I was responding to #94 who wrote "post 3 tammuz"

107

 Jun 18, 2009 at 06:06 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #106  
moish Says:

Bec. I was responding to #94 who wrote "post 3 tammuz"

I actually meant to ask him, not you, why he used that phrase. You just repeated it.

108

 Jun 18, 2009 at 05:29 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #102  
moish Says:

And yechi pre 3 tammuz is not a disgrace? Proclaiming of our own accord that someone is moshiach is no different than what followers of meshichei sheker did at other periods during our long golus.

You are clearly not knowledgeable in the basics of Rambam Hilchos Melochim. Suffice it to say Rabbi Akiva's endorsement of Bar Kochba was NOT Ch"v a "disgrace". Bar Kochvo was NOT a "meshiach sheker". Untill his death he was a kosher legitimate candidate. And Rabbi Akiva didn’t make a “mistake” Ch”v.

Maybe learn some halachos of Moshiach before exposing your ignorance.

109

 Jun 18, 2009 at 07:43 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #100  
tzoorba Says:

Lubavitch has plenty of work to do in the way of achdus.

I have a relative who works in kiruv and he tells me that Lubavitch never cooperates with any of the other kiruv efforts of any other group.

He works in the South where the problem is not apikorsus but belief in Yoshke. He says that he is very often confronted by potential baalei teshuva and asked what is the difference between the LR and Yoshke?

The public chanuka candle lighting causes friction with the non Jews in many situations. Sometimes the law has come out that they can't have their decorations but the Menorah is allowed. This causes needless hatred against the Jews. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews are against Lubavitch in this issue.

Whenever Lubavitch represents Jews such as in meetings with government officials, they always represent Lubavitch points of view as the only Jewish point of view.

Lubavitch is mekarev a lot of Jews but a non baal teshuva Lubavitcher will almost never make a shidduch with a Lubavitcher baal teshuva.

Many of the mitzva campaigns are carried out in a manner that is not a kiddush Hashem. Although you have discounted the meshichist aspect of Lubavitch, all too many of these campaigns with the yellow banners and the new Messiah approach are taking place. If the leadership of Lubavitch were truly against this, they would stop it.

Probably by Litvishe gedolim you mean Rabbi Hirschsprung z"l who is your favorite Litvishe Rabbi. I have never heard of any Litvishe rov who disagreed with Rav Shach openly on these issues.

We truly have gone extremely off topic. This conversation has gone from discussing the logic of “land for peace” to an ad hominem attack on the very legitimacy of Chabad and the Rebbe. There are so many accusations here I don't know where to start. Candidly, I feel like in the same situation as when trying to defend Israel from the Anti-Israel (undercover anti-Semitic) BBC , and other Left-wing dominated media, “reporting” on Israel while conveniently ignoring the horrendous human rights atrocities in the Arab world. Does Chabad delegitimize an entire derech of Yiddin Ovdei Yirei Shmoyim? Do you know how many Yidden are outraged and pushed away from Torah by the actions of Chareidim in Israel who many secular view as parasites? Does that mean that we should disown or delegitimize an entire derech of Torah for their shortcomings?

TO get back to the original topic, anyone who reads what the Rebbe warned what will happen as a result of Israel negotiating with the Arabs, can see that everything the Rebbe predicted has, letzareinu, come to pass.

Here's a question that most people don’t know the answer to: How many Arab suicide bombings were there before Oslo?

The answer? ZERO.

Yes, that’s right, ZERO. Moreover in the 7 years of Oslo (1993 -2000) more civilians died than the 45 years since 1948. IOW the 7 years of Oslo caused MORE civilian suffering than the 45 years without Oslo.

How after the 2005 Gaza Disengagement fiasco can anyone think that the Pals want peace and giving them land makes them satisfied and more peaceful, when reality, to our great sorrow, has proven otherwise?

Even Reb Ovadya Yosef, who was originally pro-Oslo, now sees that a Palestinian state is a great danger to the lives of 6 million yidden, kein yirbu.

And don’t get me started on the “peace” with Egypt. The reason we haven’t had a war with Egypt since ’73 is the same reason we haven’t had a war with Syria since ‘73.

110

 Jun 18, 2009 at 09:07 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #109  
ZR Says:

We truly have gone extremely off topic. This conversation has gone from discussing the logic of “land for peace” to an ad hominem attack on the very legitimacy of Chabad and the Rebbe. There are so many accusations here I don't know where to start. Candidly, I feel like in the same situation as when trying to defend Israel from the Anti-Israel (undercover anti-Semitic) BBC , and other Left-wing dominated media, “reporting” on Israel while conveniently ignoring the horrendous human rights atrocities in the Arab world. Does Chabad delegitimize an entire derech of Yiddin Ovdei Yirei Shmoyim? Do you know how many Yidden are outraged and pushed away from Torah by the actions of Chareidim in Israel who many secular view as parasites? Does that mean that we should disown or delegitimize an entire derech of Torah for their shortcomings?

TO get back to the original topic, anyone who reads what the Rebbe warned what will happen as a result of Israel negotiating with the Arabs, can see that everything the Rebbe predicted has, letzareinu, come to pass.

Here's a question that most people don’t know the answer to: How many Arab suicide bombings were there before Oslo?

The answer? ZERO.

Yes, that’s right, ZERO. Moreover in the 7 years of Oslo (1993 -2000) more civilians died than the 45 years since 1948. IOW the 7 years of Oslo caused MORE civilian suffering than the 45 years without Oslo.

How after the 2005 Gaza Disengagement fiasco can anyone think that the Pals want peace and giving them land makes them satisfied and more peaceful, when reality, to our great sorrow, has proven otherwise?

Even Reb Ovadya Yosef, who was originally pro-Oslo, now sees that a Palestinian state is a great danger to the lives of 6 million yidden, kein yirbu.

And don’t get me started on the “peace” with Egypt. The reason we haven’t had a war with Egypt since ’73 is the same reason we haven’t had a war with Syria since ‘73.

Looking back at the comments, there have been far more nasty and stupid things written about Rav Shach a"h than about Rav Schneerson a"h so I don't see how you can complian about this having turned into an attack on chabad itself.

It is way past-time to put this machlokes to rest already. Both Rav Shach and Rav Schneerson are gone and the students of both have got to move on.

In fairness to chabad, I never understood why every mention of chabad has to turn into an us vs. them conversation.

There must be a hundred other chassidish group out there and each one of them least one rebbe, with the exception of course of chabad and breslov, and the late Lubavitcher Rebbeh, a"h, should be treated with no less respect we all accord all the other scores of Rebbehs, both those still living and, lhbdlch"m, those like the Lubavitcher Rebbeh who are not, r"l.

111

 Jun 18, 2009 at 08:55 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #109  
ZR Says:

We truly have gone extremely off topic. This conversation has gone from discussing the logic of “land for peace” to an ad hominem attack on the very legitimacy of Chabad and the Rebbe. There are so many accusations here I don't know where to start. Candidly, I feel like in the same situation as when trying to defend Israel from the Anti-Israel (undercover anti-Semitic) BBC , and other Left-wing dominated media, “reporting” on Israel while conveniently ignoring the horrendous human rights atrocities in the Arab world. Does Chabad delegitimize an entire derech of Yiddin Ovdei Yirei Shmoyim? Do you know how many Yidden are outraged and pushed away from Torah by the actions of Chareidim in Israel who many secular view as parasites? Does that mean that we should disown or delegitimize an entire derech of Torah for their shortcomings?

TO get back to the original topic, anyone who reads what the Rebbe warned what will happen as a result of Israel negotiating with the Arabs, can see that everything the Rebbe predicted has, letzareinu, come to pass.

Here's a question that most people don’t know the answer to: How many Arab suicide bombings were there before Oslo?

The answer? ZERO.

Yes, that’s right, ZERO. Moreover in the 7 years of Oslo (1993 -2000) more civilians died than the 45 years since 1948. IOW the 7 years of Oslo caused MORE civilian suffering than the 45 years without Oslo.

How after the 2005 Gaza Disengagement fiasco can anyone think that the Pals want peace and giving them land makes them satisfied and more peaceful, when reality, to our great sorrow, has proven otherwise?

Even Reb Ovadya Yosef, who was originally pro-Oslo, now sees that a Palestinian state is a great danger to the lives of 6 million yidden, kein yirbu.

And don’t get me started on the “peace” with Egypt. The reason we haven’t had a war with Egypt since ’73 is the same reason we haven’t had a war with Syria since ‘73.

Wrong on one point: The reason we haven't had a war with Syria since 1973 is because Syria will not go to war without Egypt and we haven't had a war with Egypt because Egypt was paid and continues to be paid very handsomely by the US gov't to make and keep the deal that gave them the oil fields in exchange for their version of 'peace'.

112

 Jun 18, 2009 at 08:29 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #109  
ZR Says:

We truly have gone extremely off topic. This conversation has gone from discussing the logic of “land for peace” to an ad hominem attack on the very legitimacy of Chabad and the Rebbe. There are so many accusations here I don't know where to start. Candidly, I feel like in the same situation as when trying to defend Israel from the Anti-Israel (undercover anti-Semitic) BBC , and other Left-wing dominated media, “reporting” on Israel while conveniently ignoring the horrendous human rights atrocities in the Arab world. Does Chabad delegitimize an entire derech of Yiddin Ovdei Yirei Shmoyim? Do you know how many Yidden are outraged and pushed away from Torah by the actions of Chareidim in Israel who many secular view as parasites? Does that mean that we should disown or delegitimize an entire derech of Torah for their shortcomings?

TO get back to the original topic, anyone who reads what the Rebbe warned what will happen as a result of Israel negotiating with the Arabs, can see that everything the Rebbe predicted has, letzareinu, come to pass.

Here's a question that most people don’t know the answer to: How many Arab suicide bombings were there before Oslo?

The answer? ZERO.

Yes, that’s right, ZERO. Moreover in the 7 years of Oslo (1993 -2000) more civilians died than the 45 years since 1948. IOW the 7 years of Oslo caused MORE civilian suffering than the 45 years without Oslo.

How after the 2005 Gaza Disengagement fiasco can anyone think that the Pals want peace and giving them land makes them satisfied and more peaceful, when reality, to our great sorrow, has proven otherwise?

Even Reb Ovadya Yosef, who was originally pro-Oslo, now sees that a Palestinian state is a great danger to the lives of 6 million yidden, kein yirbu.

And don’t get me started on the “peace” with Egypt. The reason we haven’t had a war with Egypt since ’73 is the same reason we haven’t had a war with Syria since ‘73.

To clarify what I said further, the Rebbe warned that the very fact Israel puts its land on the negotiating table causes danger to Jewish life because it emboldens the Arabs.

And to our pain, that is exactly what happened. Oslo ushered in the bloodiest period for civilians in Israel's history.

And anyone who had a brain in their head could see that Arafat had no intention whatsoever to conclude a lasting peace deal.

And the same goes for two-faced Abbas whose his PhD thesis was on Holocaust denial.

113

 Jun 18, 2009 at 10:04 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #111  
Anonymous Says:

Wrong on one point: The reason we haven't had a war with Syria since 1973 is because Syria will not go to war without Egypt and we haven't had a war with Egypt because Egypt was paid and continues to be paid very handsomely by the US gov't to make and keep the deal that gave them the oil fields in exchange for their version of 'peace'.

Egypt’s version of "peace" is more like the 1949 amnesty accords. It boils down to a cessation of military action for the time being. But the press and the media continue in their vicious anti-Israel incitement.

114

 Jun 18, 2009 at 09:28 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #109  
ZR Says:

We truly have gone extremely off topic. This conversation has gone from discussing the logic of “land for peace” to an ad hominem attack on the very legitimacy of Chabad and the Rebbe. There are so many accusations here I don't know where to start. Candidly, I feel like in the same situation as when trying to defend Israel from the Anti-Israel (undercover anti-Semitic) BBC , and other Left-wing dominated media, “reporting” on Israel while conveniently ignoring the horrendous human rights atrocities in the Arab world. Does Chabad delegitimize an entire derech of Yiddin Ovdei Yirei Shmoyim? Do you know how many Yidden are outraged and pushed away from Torah by the actions of Chareidim in Israel who many secular view as parasites? Does that mean that we should disown or delegitimize an entire derech of Torah for their shortcomings?

TO get back to the original topic, anyone who reads what the Rebbe warned what will happen as a result of Israel negotiating with the Arabs, can see that everything the Rebbe predicted has, letzareinu, come to pass.

Here's a question that most people don’t know the answer to: How many Arab suicide bombings were there before Oslo?

The answer? ZERO.

Yes, that’s right, ZERO. Moreover in the 7 years of Oslo (1993 -2000) more civilians died than the 45 years since 1948. IOW the 7 years of Oslo caused MORE civilian suffering than the 45 years without Oslo.

How after the 2005 Gaza Disengagement fiasco can anyone think that the Pals want peace and giving them land makes them satisfied and more peaceful, when reality, to our great sorrow, has proven otherwise?

Even Reb Ovadya Yosef, who was originally pro-Oslo, now sees that a Palestinian state is a great danger to the lives of 6 million yidden, kein yirbu.

And don’t get me started on the “peace” with Egypt. The reason we haven’t had a war with Egypt since ’73 is the same reason we haven’t had a war with Syria since ‘73.

To clarify what I said further, the Rebbe warned that the very fact Israel puts its land on the negotiating table causes danger to Jewish life because it emboldens the Arabs.

And to our pain, that is exactly what happened. Oslo ushered in the bloodiest period in Israel's history.

And anyone who had a brain in their head could see that Arafat had no intention whatsoever to conclude a lasting peace deal.

And the same goes for two-faced Abbas whose his PhD thesis was on Holocaust denial.

115

 Jun 18, 2009 at 09:27 PM Zr Says:

Reply to #110  
Anonymous Says:

Looking back at the comments, there have been far more nasty and stupid things written about Rav Shach a"h than about Rav Schneerson a"h so I don't see how you can complian about this having turned into an attack on chabad itself.

It is way past-time to put this machlokes to rest already. Both Rav Shach and Rav Schneerson are gone and the students of both have got to move on.

In fairness to chabad, I never understood why every mention of chabad has to turn into an us vs. them conversation.

There must be a hundred other chassidish group out there and each one of them least one rebbe, with the exception of course of chabad and breslov, and the late Lubavitcher Rebbeh, a"h, should be treated with no less respect we all accord all the other scores of Rebbehs, both those still living and, lhbdlch"m, those like the Lubavitcher Rebbeh who are not, r"l.

Just read post 100 and count how many problems tzoora has with Chabad, and tell me that is not attacking Chabad and the Rebbe.

As you say, why every time someone mentions Chabad, the conversation degenerates into attacks on Chabad. The succah argument is a prime example. Moish #79 the "l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul." --- That’s totally dishonest. This is the Chabad and Belz custom for since the times of the Mitiler Rebbe . And it’s NOT a chidush of the Rebbe. As I have written above extensively.

116

 Jun 18, 2009 at 09:32 PM ZR Says:

Reply to #111  
Anonymous Says:

Wrong on one point: The reason we haven't had a war with Syria since 1973 is because Syria will not go to war without Egypt and we haven't had a war with Egypt because Egypt was paid and continues to be paid very handsomely by the US gov't to make and keep the deal that gave them the oil fields in exchange for their version of 'peace'.

But do you agree on all the rest regarding Oslo?

117

 Jun 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #115  
Zr Says:

Just read post 100 and count how many problems tzoora has with Chabad, and tell me that is not attacking Chabad and the Rebbe.

As you say, why every time someone mentions Chabad, the conversation degenerates into attacks on Chabad. The succah argument is a prime example. Moish #79 the "l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul." --- That’s totally dishonest. This is the Chabad and Belz custom for since the times of the Mitiler Rebbe . And it’s NOT a chidush of the Rebbe. As I have written above extensively.

tzoorba's attack on the rebbe a"h was in reaction to some pretty disgusting things Milhouse wrote about rav shach a"h.

Please take this as it is meant, which is as friendly criticism (I am related to one of the most meyuchas chabad families, including one of the rebbe's very first shalichim.)

A fair number of Lubavitchers are totally clueless as to how offensive they act towards frum people. Ain kan hamakom leharich but if you are interested enough to know why so many frum people are so turned off to chabad to include your email address in a response I will be glad to correspond with you privatly, with the understanding that the content on the exchange remain private.

118

 Jun 19, 2009 at 02:03 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #91  
Anonymous Says:

Then it should be no problem for you to provide the names of the bochur and of the witnesses you claim saw it, and since the (Bubba) Maisa is so well known you should also be able to tell us how we may contact them for verification.

So please, to use a somewhat unseemly term, put up or shut up.

(And please don't bother us with some twisted-like-a-pretzel story about why their names can't be put up on the internet even though all of lubavitch knows who their identities.)

Why don't you give us your name first, you anonymous coward? Anyone who posts anonymously has no business demanding anything of anybody.

BTW, I did identify the bochur earlier; you're just too stupid to have noticed.

119

 Jun 19, 2009 at 02:01 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #102  
moish Says:

And yechi pre 3 tammuz is not a disgrace? Proclaiming of our own accord that someone is moshiach is no different than what followers of meshichei sheker did at other periods during our long golus.

That's right, pre 3 tammuz it was certainly not a disgrace. This term "meshichei sheker" is a disgrace. It has no basis in any kosher Jewish source; it's a term made up by maskilim to cast doubt on the entire concept of Moshiach. There have been many people throughout the generations who have been thought to be Moshiach and turned out not to be. Anyone who thinks there was therefore something wrong with those people, and that it was wrong to believe in them, should be strongly suspected of apikorsus; such a person almost certainly don't believe Moshiach will EVER come. And yes, that includes people who were completely unaware that Moshiach is supposed to be a human being, and poked fun at the idea as if it were some bizarre notion; if someone thinks Moshiach is some kind of supernatural phenomenon, and not a bosor vodom, then that person is an apikores. (I think you know exactly whom I'm talking about, veda"l.)

120

 Jun 19, 2009 at 01:54 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #117  
Anonymous Says:

tzoorba's attack on the rebbe a"h was in reaction to some pretty disgusting things Milhouse wrote about rav shach a"h.

Please take this as it is meant, which is as friendly criticism (I am related to one of the most meyuchas chabad families, including one of the rebbe's very first shalichim.)

A fair number of Lubavitchers are totally clueless as to how offensive they act towards frum people. Ain kan hamakom leharich but if you are interested enough to know why so many frum people are so turned off to chabad to include your email address in a response I will be glad to correspond with you privatly, with the understanding that the content on the exchange remain private.

Wrong. Tzoorba was the one who claimed, all the way back in comment #54, and not in response to anything I wrote, that his "godol" was "a much greater Talmid Chochom in nigla" than the LR, and therefore that his position that getting money for yeshivos was worth supporting the giving away of vital land such as the Golan Heights was the correct "daas torah". I merely corrected this ludicrous statement. I wrote nothing "disgusting"; merely the exact truth.

121

 Jun 19, 2009 at 01:42 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #111  
Anonymous Says:

Wrong on one point: The reason we haven't had a war with Syria since 1973 is because Syria will not go to war without Egypt and we haven't had a war with Egypt because Egypt was paid and continues to be paid very handsomely by the US gov't to make and keep the deal that gave them the oil fields in exchange for their version of 'peace'.

Garbage. There hasn't been a war with Syria because they're not ready, and because they're waiting to see how much can be got by negotiations and surrender. They figure why attack now, when every year Israel gets weaker and more willing to give away land; wait until Israel has given as much as it's ever going to give, spend a few years arming up, and then attack. And exactly the same consideration applies to Egypt.

Sadat said from the very beginning that he regarded Egypt's mutual-defense treaties with the other Arab countries as ranking higher than his new treaty with Egypt, and if there was a war with the other Arab countries he would join in. And since then the Egyptian army has been training with one enemy in mind: Israel. They don't even pretend that they're training for war with Libya or Sudan; when they train, the enemy is openly declared to be Israel.

Israel has got nothing from the Camp David treaty. No trade, no Egyptian tourists, not a border that doesn't need to be defended. Had it refused to sign the treaty, and kept the Sinai, it would be much better off today. There would still not have been a war, and it would have all the resources of the Sinai. And without the American aid it would not have been under pressure to make all the dangerous concessions that it has done. But most of all, that treaty was where Israel for the first time recognised that there was such a thing as a "Palestinian people" with rights of its own, which would eventually have to be dealt with. And it's that recognition that has been behind ALL of Israel's problems since then.

122

 Jun 19, 2009 at 05:58 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #116  
ZR Says:

But do you agree on all the rest regarding Oslo?

The concept of trading land for peace is in my opinion a security matter. If it works, do it. (Essentialy following the shitah of Rav Shach a"h and Rav Soloveitchik a"h, amongst many others. (I cite the two of them because they represent the two extremes of the (Litvish) yeshiva world and the vast majority of the center agreed with this shitah.)

Obviously, when Arafat ym"s was allowed to smile and make nice in the Rose Garden and incite violence back home the whole thing became a farce.

Until Obama, no US president (or Israeli PM, for that matter) has linked future statehood to the end of incitement and the teaching of anti-semitism in 'palestinian' schools. Time will tell if he means it.

If he can pull it off and come up with a plan that leaves the parts of EY under Jewish control more secure, kol hakavod. (I highly doubt it.)

I know of no one who believes that IF land for peace would work there is a mitzvah to keep more land if it means passing up greater security and the loss of even one more yiddisher soldier or civilian.

123

 Jun 19, 2009 at 01:54 AM moish Says:

Reply to #113  
ZR Says:

Egypt’s version of "peace" is more like the 1949 amnesty accords. It boils down to a cessation of military action for the time being. But the press and the media continue in their vicious anti-Israel incitement.

The incitment against israel is not going to stop until Moshiach, the cessation of military action was a great achievement, imagine how many more wars wouldve been fought had israel not given up sinai which is anyway not part of EY. But i agree with you about the pals and the oslo accords, they are essentialy different to egypt as they will not rest even for the time being until all jews are wiped off the land of ey and there is no way any even cold peace agreement could be made with them.

124

 Jun 19, 2009 at 01:46 AM moish Says:

Reply to #115  
Zr Says:

Just read post 100 and count how many problems tzoora has with Chabad, and tell me that is not attacking Chabad and the Rebbe.

As you say, why every time someone mentions Chabad, the conversation degenerates into attacks on Chabad. The succah argument is a prime example. Moish #79 the "l.r. was such a world class goan he managed to be mevatel mitzvas sukkah with his pilpul." --- That’s totally dishonest. This is the Chabad and Belz custom for since the times of the Mitiler Rebbe . And it’s NOT a chidush of the Rebbe. As I have written above extensively.

It is not my derech to speak on gedolim and i would not have mentioned anything about the LR had milhouse not compared them in a derogatory way. But just to explain myself, 1. In russia and galicia it was freezing. 2. I did not mean to put down any minhag, rather the svoro used to justify it which is basically oker the mitzva, its one thing to say we have a minhag which seemingly goes against the torah and we don't understand it but we keep it bec. it is our minhag, and it is another thing to come up with a svoro which is basically oker the mitzva. But i really don't want to get into a discussion about this, as you have pointed out it is really off the point.

125

 Jun 19, 2009 at 01:32 AM moish Says:

Reply to #108  
ZR Says:

You are clearly not knowledgeable in the basics of Rambam Hilchos Melochim. Suffice it to say Rabbi Akiva's endorsement of Bar Kochba was NOT Ch"v a "disgrace". Bar Kochvo was NOT a "meshiach sheker". Untill his death he was a kosher legitimate candidate. And Rabbi Akiva didn’t make a “mistake” Ch”v.

Maybe learn some halachos of Moshiach before exposing your ignorance.

I am actually basing myself on the rambam who says somebody who is a king and fights wars and makes all klal yisroel keep the torah is bchezkas moshiach, BK fitted this description, the LR did not.

126

 Jun 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM ZR Says:

Reply to #117  
Anonymous Says:

tzoorba's attack on the rebbe a"h was in reaction to some pretty disgusting things Milhouse wrote about rav shach a"h.

Please take this as it is meant, which is as friendly criticism (I am related to one of the most meyuchas chabad families, including one of the rebbe's very first shalichim.)

A fair number of Lubavitchers are totally clueless as to how offensive they act towards frum people. Ain kan hamakom leharich but if you are interested enough to know why so many frum people are so turned off to chabad to include your email address in a response I will be glad to correspond with you privatly, with the understanding that the content on the exchange remain private.

You seem to be unaware that what Milhouse wrote against Shach is nothing to what Shach said agaisnt the Rebbe. Its so bad its not repeatable.

Maybe its better you're not aware.

The main issue is the very relevent discussion of Oslo and how not to repeat it.

127

 Jun 19, 2009 at 07:52 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #126  
ZR Says:

You seem to be unaware that what Milhouse wrote against Shach is nothing to what Shach said agaisnt the Rebbe. Its so bad its not repeatable.

Maybe its better you're not aware.

The main issue is the very relevent discussion of Oslo and how not to repeat it.

The main issue at this point is that whatever Rav Shach a"h might have said about Rav Schneerson a"h does not excuse in the least the disrespect you have shown Rav Shach a"h. Had Rav Schneerson a"h chosen to reply to Rav Shach a"h that would be a different matter.

You and I are nobodys, ants, brocolli bugs, compared to either of them.

Frankly, until your most recent comment I was happy to see that some Lubavitchers and some Litvisher could discuss matters respectfully. Thanks for smashing that hope for me this morning.

The 'my gadol is greater than your gadol' remarks coming from pashut yiddin are childish but r"l it has been going on almost everywhere forever.

The chutzpehdik remarks about any manhig of such large segments of klal yisroel are disgusting to say the least.

And for Gd's sake, please don't answer with claims of who started it. As I tell my children the issue is not who started it. The issue is who is smart enough to end it by letting go.

Some yeshivos did this to Rav Soloveitchik a"h, others mocked Rav Hutner a"h, and even in Chabad there were those who sank to new levels in the internal disputes with Rabbi Gurrary (I'm sure I spelled that incorrectly but I'm sure you'll know who I meant), and many other chassidim have done the same, and I am sure there are other examples in the yeshiva world too that I could use as examples if time allowed.

GENIK SHOIN! Anyone who claims to the least bit interested in seeing the end of this stinking galus needs to learn when to keep our mouths shut.

128

 Jun 19, 2009 at 08:37 AM tzoorba Says:

Saying someone is not as great as Rav Moshe, for example, is actually a big compliment. If you can compare someone to him, that means he is in his league.

Similarly, in my opinion (I know that it's not Lubavitch's opinion) saying someone is not as great as Rav Shach is actually a significant compliment from a Yeshivish point of view.

129

 Jun 19, 2009 at 09:40 AM moish Says:

Reply to #120  
Milhouse Says:

Wrong. Tzoorba was the one who claimed, all the way back in comment #54, and not in response to anything I wrote, that his "godol" was "a much greater Talmid Chochom in nigla" than the LR, and therefore that his position that getting money for yeshivos was worth supporting the giving away of vital land such as the Golan Heights was the correct "daas torah". I merely corrected this ludicrous statement. I wrote nothing "disgusting"; merely the exact truth.

Don't lie, unless it wasn't you who wrote #38. And why is the golan so vital, its not even part of EY, if syria would be an immediate threat, which i believe it is not at the present moment, and giving it to syria would make them make a truce with israel which i believe it word, then this would be an absolute chiyuv to save jewish lives, this is even if it would be EY, kol sheken that its not.
I see that on any other subject on VIN you can have a rational approach, but when it comes to any view of lubavitch your mind is closed and you speak irrationally. And don't bother answering back as that will just prove my point.

130

 Jun 19, 2009 at 09:21 AM moish Says:

Reply to #126  
ZR Says:

You seem to be unaware that what Milhouse wrote against Shach is nothing to what Shach said agaisnt the Rebbe. Its so bad its not repeatable.

Maybe its better you're not aware.

The main issue is the very relevent discussion of Oslo and how not to repeat it.

How would you like it if i said schneerson? How come its only lubavitchers that cannot speak with manners about anyone who dares oppose their controversial views? How immature. And then you wonder where all the animosity against chabad comes from.

131

 Jun 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM moish Says:

Reply to #119  
Milhouse Says:

That's right, pre 3 tammuz it was certainly not a disgrace. This term "meshichei sheker" is a disgrace. It has no basis in any kosher Jewish source; it's a term made up by maskilim to cast doubt on the entire concept of Moshiach. There have been many people throughout the generations who have been thought to be Moshiach and turned out not to be. Anyone who thinks there was therefore something wrong with those people, and that it was wrong to believe in them, should be strongly suspected of apikorsus; such a person almost certainly don't believe Moshiach will EVER come. And yes, that includes people who were completely unaware that Moshiach is supposed to be a human being, and poked fun at the idea as if it were some bizarre notion; if someone thinks Moshiach is some kind of supernatural phenomenon, and not a bosor vodom, then that person is an apikores. (I think you know exactly whom I'm talking about, veda"l.)

What on earth are you on about? So shabbetai zvi was only a moshiach sheker acc. to the maskilim? The definition of a moshiach sheker is someone who knows he's not moshiach and pretends he's moshiach, and we can start with yoshke. If someone fits in to the description of the rambam that he is a king and fights wars and makes all klal yisroel keep the torah then he is bchezkas moshiach. And it seems you are more knowledgeable of the different apikorsishe shitos outside the torah world, as i have never heard of anyone from the torah world who thinks moshiach is not a bosor vedom. And i have no idea who you are talking about, but if its some imaginary story of chabad i'd rather not hear it.

132

 Jun 21, 2009 at 07:30 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #124  
moish Says:

It is not my derech to speak on gedolim and i would not have mentioned anything about the LR had milhouse not compared them in a derogatory way. But just to explain myself, 1. In russia and galicia it was freezing. 2. I did not mean to put down any minhag, rather the svoro used to justify it which is basically oker the mitzva, its one thing to say we have a minhag which seemingly goes against the torah and we don't understand it but we keep it bec. it is our minhag, and it is another thing to come up with a svoro which is basically oker the mitzva. But i really don't want to get into a discussion about this, as you have pointed out it is really off the point.

And you think the Baal Hatanya or the Mitteler Rebbe would have been mevatel a mitzvah just because it was freezing?! If they held it was required they would have slept there even if it was snowing, just as they ate there in such conditions. The Mitteler Rebbe said why he didn't sleep in the sukkah, and it had nothing to do with the cold. So coming with taynos to the LR as if he had invented something is pure dishonesty and chutzpah, and deserves the harshest response.

133

 Jun 21, 2009 at 07:25 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #123  
moish Says:

The incitment against israel is not going to stop until Moshiach, the cessation of military action was a great achievement, imagine how many more wars wouldve been fought had israel not given up sinai which is anyway not part of EY. But i agree with you about the pals and the oslo accords, they are essentialy different to egypt as they will not rest even for the time being until all jews are wiped off the land of ey and there is no way any even cold peace agreement could be made with them.

If Israel had not given away the Sinai, war would have been LESS likely, not more likely. And there would have been no tunnels into Gaza, and no war there.

134

 Jun 21, 2009 at 07:23 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #131  
moish Says:

What on earth are you on about? So shabbetai zvi was only a moshiach sheker acc. to the maskilim? The definition of a moshiach sheker is someone who knows he's not moshiach and pretends he's moshiach, and we can start with yoshke. If someone fits in to the description of the rambam that he is a king and fights wars and makes all klal yisroel keep the torah then he is bchezkas moshiach. And it seems you are more knowledgeable of the different apikorsishe shitos outside the torah world, as i have never heard of anyone from the torah world who thinks moshiach is not a bosor vedom. And i have no idea who you are talking about, but if its some imaginary story of chabad i'd rather not hear it.

It was your hero who thought that. He accused the LR of speaking "as if" Moshiach was a bosor vodom. And denying it won't change the facts.

The term "meshiach sheker" is made up by the maskilim, and has nothing to do with why SZ is y"sh. If all SZ had done was proclaim himself Moshiach, he would have done nothing wrong, and we would not revile his memory. To claim that the problem with SZ was his messianic aspirations is to condone his true crimes as irrelevant or unimportant. If SZ had been an observant Jew we would still remember him with respect, and speak of him as someone who could well have been Moshiach if only the generation had merited it. As for Jesus, he never claimed to be Moshiach, and if he had that would not have been a problem. Even today, if someone wants to believe Jesus is Moshiach there's no issur, and it's no more wrong than believing in homeopathy or UFOs or any other mishugas.

135

 Jun 21, 2009 at 07:16 AM Milhouse Says:

Reply to #129  
moish Says:

Don't lie, unless it wasn't you who wrote #38. And why is the golan so vital, its not even part of EY, if syria would be an immediate threat, which i believe it is not at the present moment, and giving it to syria would make them make a truce with israel which i believe it word, then this would be an absolute chiyuv to save jewish lives, this is even if it would be EY, kol sheken that its not.
I see that on any other subject on VIN you can have a rational approach, but when it comes to any view of lubavitch your mind is closed and you speak irrationally. And don't bother answering back as that will just prove my point.

I did write #38. What's your objection to it? I wrote nothing personal about your hero; I merely pointed out that his opinion was self-contradictory and contrary to the Torah.

If you don't know why the Golan is absolutely vital to Israel's security, then you have no right to comment on the entire subject. Anyone who would give away the Golan would literally be a mosser in every sense of the term, and any attempt to allow the Syrians back into the Golan must be stopped by any means necessary. And it has nothing to do with whether the Golan counts as EY, or Ever Hayarden, or Suria; the same would apply to similar territory in Bavel or anywhere else.

136

 Jun 21, 2009 at 08:58 AM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #132  
Milhouse Says:

And you think the Baal Hatanya or the Mitteler Rebbe would have been mevatel a mitzvah just because it was freezing?! If they held it was required they would have slept there even if it was snowing, just as they ate there in such conditions. The Mitteler Rebbe said why he didn't sleep in the sukkah, and it had nothing to do with the cold. So coming with taynos to the LR as if he had invented something is pure dishonesty and chutzpah, and deserves the harshest response.

According to the Lubavitch approach to sleeping in the Succa, it's like ben sorer umoreh, it's not for real and will never be. If the LR didn't sleep there, who can claim to be a big enough Chassid to sleep there.

You have written "Anyone who would give away the Golan would literally be a mosser in every sense of the term" about Rav Shach z"l's opinion. This statement is not a simple halachic argument against his opinion but an inflammatory declaration.

My question about the LR's reason for the heter for not sleeping in the Succah was a direct halachic question. Those who worship the LR couldn't bear any question on what he said. The LR is not better than Rabbi Akiva or the Gra whose opinion we can ask questions about.

137

 Jun 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM ZR Says:

Reply to #136  
tzoorba Says:

According to the Lubavitch approach to sleeping in the Succa, it's like ben sorer umoreh, it's not for real and will never be. If the LR didn't sleep there, who can claim to be a big enough Chassid to sleep there.

You have written "Anyone who would give away the Golan would literally be a mosser in every sense of the term" about Rav Shach z"l's opinion. This statement is not a simple halachic argument against his opinion but an inflammatory declaration.

My question about the LR's reason for the heter for not sleeping in the Succah was a direct halachic question. Those who worship the LR couldn't bear any question on what he said. The LR is not better than Rabbi Akiva or the Gra whose opinion we can ask questions about.

So why don't you ask Moshe Rabeinu why he included ben sorer umorer, seeing it can never happen? You're question is not on the Rebbe. You're question is on the Mitteler Rebbe and all the Litvishe Gedolim who lived peacefully with Chabad for over 100 years and didn't find it necessary to question the legitimacy of Chabad's - or Belz's - minhogim.

No, we don't question Rabbi Akivah in such a way as to imply he made a "mistake" Ch"v. Rabbi Akivah, Rashi, Rambam and the Rebbe never made a "mistake" in Halacha or pshat Ch"v. Sometimes we don't pasken halacha lemaiseh like some of them. But Ch"v to say any of our Chazal made a "mistake". Every utterance in Torah they ever said is Emes V'yatziv.

138

 Jun 21, 2009 at 01:41 PM tzoorba Says:

Reply to #137  
ZR Says:

So why don't you ask Moshe Rabeinu why he included ben sorer umorer, seeing it can never happen? You're question is not on the Rebbe. You're question is on the Mitteler Rebbe and all the Litvishe Gedolim who lived peacefully with Chabad for over 100 years and didn't find it necessary to question the legitimacy of Chabad's - or Belz's - minhogim.

No, we don't question Rabbi Akivah in such a way as to imply he made a "mistake" Ch"v. Rabbi Akivah, Rashi, Rambam and the Rebbe never made a "mistake" in Halacha or pshat Ch"v. Sometimes we don't pasken halacha lemaiseh like some of them. But Ch"v to say any of our Chazal made a "mistake". Every utterance in Torah they ever said is Emes V'yatziv.

It would be improper to ask Moshe Rabeinu about ben sorer because he didn't include it, Hashem Yisborach did.

The non Chassidishe world has had the kashye about chassidim not eating in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres because the psak of the Gemara is clearly yisuvei yasvinan bruchi lo mevarchinan. We hold that the Chassidim are wrong in this. Does this pasel them? No.

We question a new movement of Chassidus which comes along and says that a mitzva d'oraysa is botul for a new reason related to Chassidus. We remain with a kashye but the Chassidus of Lubavitch and Belz is not upgefreigt because of this. It just means that we don't agree with their pshat.

The Litvisher gedolim that cooperated with Lubavitch in the past did not agree with every hanhaga and psak halacha of Lubavitch and I am sure there are many things on the Litvish side that Lubavitch didn't agree with. This doesn't mean we can't cooperate.

However, when it comes to issues of ikrei emuna such as the Moshiach issue and how to relate to a Rebbe that has entered the Olam Haemes (who some say hasn't passed away) things become more complicated.

139

 Jun 21, 2009 at 04:10 PM moish Says:

Reply to #134  
Milhouse Says:

It was your hero who thought that. He accused the LR of speaking "as if" Moshiach was a bosor vodom. And denying it won't change the facts.

The term "meshiach sheker" is made up by the maskilim, and has nothing to do with why SZ is y"sh. If all SZ had done was proclaim himself Moshiach, he would have done nothing wrong, and we would not revile his memory. To claim that the problem with SZ was his messianic aspirations is to condone his true crimes as irrelevant or unimportant. If SZ had been an observant Jew we would still remember him with respect, and speak of him as someone who could well have been Moshiach if only the generation had merited it. As for Jesus, he never claimed to be Moshiach, and if he had that would not have been a problem. Even today, if someone wants to believe Jesus is Moshiach there's no issur, and it's no more wrong than believing in homeopathy or UFOs or any other mishugas.

Oh, and i had a hunch it was another one of chabads imaginary stories, guess i was right.

140

 Jun 21, 2009 at 05:18 PM moish Says:

Reply to #133  
Milhouse Says:

If Israel had not given away the Sinai, war would have been LESS likely, not more likely. And there would have been no tunnels into Gaza, and no war there.

well, no one can know what would've happened, one can only look at history, when israel held sinai egypt waged a war within six years, since they gave it back there hasn't been a war for 30 years.

141

 Jun 21, 2009 at 05:17 PM moish Says:

Reply to #132  
Milhouse Says:

And you think the Baal Hatanya or the Mitteler Rebbe would have been mevatel a mitzvah just because it was freezing?! If they held it was required they would have slept there even if it was snowing, just as they ate there in such conditions. The Mitteler Rebbe said why he didn't sleep in the sukkah, and it had nothing to do with the cold. So coming with taynos to the LR as if he had invented something is pure dishonesty and chutzpah, and deserves the harshest response.

"would have been mevatel a mitzvah just because it was freezing" its not a mitzva if its freezing, teshvu ke'en teduru. "just as they ate there in such conditions" i hope they didn't, bec. the remo says someone who stays when its raining is called a hedyot, "said why he didn't sleep in the sukkah" i don't know what he said, but it wasn't the same svoro as the LR said and only on that i was commenting, "as if he had invented something" nowhere did i claim he invented the minhag only the svoro to be "meyashev" it. "chutzpah" gee, look who's talking about chutzpah!

142

 Jun 22, 2009 at 06:39 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #141  
moish Says:

"would have been mevatel a mitzvah just because it was freezing" its not a mitzva if its freezing, teshvu ke'en teduru. "just as they ate there in such conditions" i hope they didn't, bec. the remo says someone who stays when its raining is called a hedyot, "said why he didn't sleep in the sukkah" i don't know what he said, but it wasn't the same svoro as the LR said and only on that i was commenting, "as if he had invented something" nowhere did i claim he invented the minhag only the svoro to be "meyashev" it. "chutzpah" gee, look who's talking about chutzpah!

Quoting the rem"o doesn"t mean anything. On of these characters just wrote that arguing with the LR a"h is like arguing with Rashi, who he considers to be like arguing with
Rambam which he considers to be like arguing with Rabi Akiva.

Give it up, guys.

Chassidim are from Mars, Litvakim are from Venus.

These guys are from a galaxy of their own.

143

 Jun 22, 2009 at 06:30 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #137  
ZR Says:

So why don't you ask Moshe Rabeinu why he included ben sorer umorer, seeing it can never happen? You're question is not on the Rebbe. You're question is on the Mitteler Rebbe and all the Litvishe Gedolim who lived peacefully with Chabad for over 100 years and didn't find it necessary to question the legitimacy of Chabad's - or Belz's - minhogim.

No, we don't question Rabbi Akivah in such a way as to imply he made a "mistake" Ch"v. Rabbi Akivah, Rashi, Rambam and the Rebbe never made a "mistake" in Halacha or pshat Ch"v. Sometimes we don't pasken halacha lemaiseh like some of them. But Ch"v to say any of our Chazal made a "mistake". Every utterance in Torah they ever said is Emes V'yatziv.

Uh, did someone just lump together Rabbe Akiva, Rashi, Rambam and the LR into on group and assert that the shitos of each one must be treated to the same level of reverence in debate? That one may not say that any of the first three and the LR a"h never made a mistake?

144

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:
Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!