mentalblog.com comments:
Ariel, do something useful once. Find us a link. Thanks.
Is low and behold a Freudian slip?
I believe you can hear live on: http://www.770live.com/En770/770...live.asp?
lang=1
And you scroll to the bottom of that page to the Sicho "Authority of the Local Beis Din".
Dispel said "I believe you can hear live .." Oh-oh, LIVE! מינות נזרקה בו
וכבר אמרו רז"ל
שום לך לך, אמרין, נזירא, סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב.
וכן אמרו:
שאני מינות דמשכא, דאתי למימשך בתרייהו.
dispel, :+:
dispel,
efshar vert ois nozir, shert op di vilder hor un geit take arain in dem kerem. :)
why don't you have a link to the matisyahu interview on cnn??????
Ongetzoigen=Tense,nervous
When the Rebbe asked for the Sicha afterwards to be magia it they told him that they lost it because they thought they understood what the kavana was and they didnt want to let the Rebbe be magia it.
In the end it was printed in Toras Menachem Mem Ches at the end under Hosafos.
Sam, are you the same Sam, that posted on IDF snipers? Because if not, one of will have to get a new name.
770 bochur, no Freudian slip, I just use the original colorful language. But I fixed it now, we need tohen, not distractions. Thanks!
"IDF" Sam will change his nickname.
Sorry for taking up the nickname of the well-versed Sam.
Reb dispel,
Now that we heard the sicha again – thank you – would you please be kind enough to elaborate upon the following:
1. What specifically did the Rebbe say that evening that went beyond the simple “after my demise, turn with all your questions to 3 chassidishe rabonim that live in closest proximity to you”? (The Rebbe himself – in that very sicha – said that the whole thing was really obvious and he was only saying it to “remove all doubt”.)
2. What specific proper implementation of the directive contained in the sicha do you advocate that would have the desired effect gorali upon Project Lubavitch?
"In the end it was printed in Toras Menachem Mem Ches at the end under Hosafos".
Can you kindly tell which page it is printed?
Reb Berl,
>> What specifically did the Rebbe say that evening that went beyond the simple “after my demise, turn with all your questions to 3 chassidishe rabonim that live in closest proximity to you”? >(The Rebbe himself – in that very sicha – said that the whole thing was really obvious and he was only saying it to “remove all doubt”.)>2. What specific proper implementation of the directive contained in the sicha do you advocate that would have the desired effect gorali upon Project Lubavitch?
dispel, I do not get it. are you directing my own questions at me?
Reb Berl,
wrote:
"1. What specifically did the Rebbe say that evening that went beyond the simple “after my demise, turn with all your questions to 3 chassidishe rabonim that live in closest proximity to you”?
Dispels says: The problem is that the REbbe did NOT address the question to whom to turn over "all your questions"; that was not the issue at that point (though the Rebbe also said this, wrote about this in previous and follwoing occasions); the question was and is "CHESHBONOY SHEL OLOM", which loosely means "who will take over" and lead after 3 Tammuz.
This is poshut and obvious coupled with the fact that the Rebbe started outlining in that Sicho the story of the ZZ, whichpresumably refers to when he was asked (and in this sicho the Rebbe mentions Umoss Hooloym = non Jews) what about "cheshbonoy shel olom". The question then and the discussion then' did not revolve (only) to whom the chassidim will "turn over all of their questions"; the qustion revolved around the idea: who will LEAD the chassidim after there is something similar to 3 Tammuz or 13 Nisson.
This is also obvious given the words of the Rebbe in this sicho, that it relates to "Moshe Kibel Torah UMESSOROH LEYEHOSHUA", that Moshe not only told yidden that should "turn over all their questions to Yehoshua" after 7 adar, but he gave over Torah Leadership of explaining and giving over Torah to Yehoshua, and as the Rebbe said in certain things it began in the lifetime of Moshe and obviously after 7 Adar Yehoshua was the power that gave Torah and led the people.
Reb Berl continues:
"(The Rebbe himself – in that very sicha – said that the whole thing was really obvious and he was only saying it to “remove all doubt”.)"
Dispel says:
Of course it was "obvious" for those who wish to understand and accept that there is such a thing of "cheshbonoy shel olom" in the *litteral* sense of the word and in the context of the Story with the ZZ; but when talking to people who for decades have taught that there can be no inyon whatsoever besides the Rebbe , therefore it is *not* so obvious and after 11 years people want to bury their head in the sand and "turn iver" the meaning of a sicho which refers to giving over power as to "turning over all your questions".
Do you mean to say: that the rEbbe had to repeat six or eight times -i beleive- that you "should turn all your questions to rabbonim". The REbbe had to repeat six or times, because he talks about "messoroh" and this is soemthing that is non exitstent in a remote possiblity for people who have heard from mentors for decades that...veeyn lehaarich bdovor hametzaer beim hecholim lehaalimoh...ubim lav....
Reb berl continues:
"2. What specific proper implementation of the directive contained in the sicha do you advocate that would have the desired effect gorali upon Project Lubavitch?"
Dispel says:
1- The fact, that if the rotzon of the Rebbe would have been fulfilled so the brochoss would have were to
pass through.
2_ Bepashtus and in reality:
We would have an authority or a body of Ruchnisdike Authority (or "ties") that would have the power (not only "receiving" the "questions turned over to them", but mainly) to *lead* (pney levonoh) the chassidim by demanding of them and having the power, they would implment it.
In practice, being that this power would consist of a power that is fluent and lives by "Rov of Shulchan Oruch Benigleh", he (or them) would certainly keep the people up to the standard required by Shulchon Oruch of Nigleh DeTorah. and therefore by power of leading they would accomplish a level of tzniuss in dress (where we are now zocheh to "chidushim" in pritzus every summer vdal vekal), they would urge Limud HaTorah and there would be more limud Hatorah vedal vekal, VehaHalocho, more awareness of halachik issues and problems and implementation of them, as they would also be more attuned to mitzvos k'pshutoy ukepashtussom, as they would remember that mitzvos (are not (only) to give the REbbe nachas ruach, but) are REtzonoh Yisborech so they would remember more the "Nossen Hamitzvos"' they would mention the name of the aybershter more often etc.
and being leaders with the power of Pnimiyoos HaTorah they would be to demand accomplish plain darkey hayirass shomayim and Dakey Hachassidus, so people would daven nicer, they would be less machlokess (as machlokess is probably not one of the "darkey hachassidim); they would be more midoys toyvoss, more eyhrilichkeyt; more emess and not living with lies constantly, and certainly more ahavas yisroel also towards other yidden, and not a situation where denigrating other yidden is a mitzvoh rabboh and the more the better and the llist goes on...and obviously it would keep the ideology in sync with ruach yisroel sovo and not have false and fake ideologies in the midst...and maybe Moshaich would have been here already and we would not need to have this silly discussion...
but since we have "achass": Rebbe = Moshiach" or the version that "Hiskashrus = negates any power and "metziuss" and specially not to be ovayr on chashash given a little respect to "Rabbonim hanifrodim", we have a different set of priorities...vehamfursosmin eyn tzrichim rayo...but we live in an enviroment where "mfurssom" is hidden away and non existent and what is non existent is "chay vekayom" ubemylohh the tzotzooss...
Vees vohev bessufoh provided that it comes with the combination of "emess", then we have "emess vesholom ehovyu".
Dispel, "all questions" in my comment is lav davka. I did mean the mesora of some real authority, and I agree with you on that point. I should have said "all questions that are now my job to answer (i.e. with real spiritual authority)"
Where I part company with you is in the amount of authority over klal-chassidim that you imply these people were intended to have. The very fact, that the Rebbe instructed these to be local rabbinic bodies strips these bodies of such over-reaching authority and does place them closer to "answer all serious questions that may arise" than "new 3-headed Rebbe" you seem to derive from the sicha.
If the Rebbe had called for a single rabbinic body with authority over all future decisions - that would be more like what you imply.
As an aside, I asserted before on this blog that one of the reasons we know the Rebbe negated the possibility of a deir hashmini Rebbe is this very sicha. Do you disagree with that assertion?
Dispel, ober gerecht bist do - me hert nit kein remez un nit afilu remez sheberemz af di shita fun "chassidim zainen haint der Rebbe" un nit af di shita az di younger bochurimlach zolen machlit zain der derech boh neileich.
Can you kindly tell which page it is printed?
Dispel | 08.11.05 - 8:33 am | #
Toras Menachem Mem Ches Chelek Daled page 397.
Tzemach,
I could not agree with you more. For some odd reason the sicha was not "nisparsem" like it should have been. All these years I was always wondering why some are creating new arenas to recieve guidance from the Rebbe, when this sicha is the Rebbe's clear spiritual will to his chassidim.
Thanks for bringing up the issue!
Reb Berel,
I'm not sure: In the begining (after 3 tammuz) i thought that the REbbe is referring for them to decide "cheshbonoy shel olom" question: they would give advice what they think is the proper apporach: maybe they would pasken that there should be a new and a dor hashmini...
Then for most of the time i thought like you: that the 3 Rabbonim should be mini rebbelach...
But listening again; i'm not sure, and maybe the Rebbe does mean that they should decide the question of "cheshbonoy shel olom" how should the approach be..and they decide whether there is room for dor hashmini ...
But even if you are right (and maybe you are) in the meaning of the words of the REbbe wrt to this point; i'm not sure that this *negates* the possibility of dor hashmini (in the rebbe's words) :
bemilim acheross : in inyon we can have 3 ways to understand these words: 1) he is supporting dor hashmin, 2) he is negating dor hashmini, 3) he is not mentioning this possibility: not endorsing not negating. For if the "yehoshua"lech would so decide maybe this is der pssak from a nigleh and pnimiyoos hatorah.
Sam,
Thank you for the mareh mokom.
Please listen to the sicho and tell me if they printed what the Rebbe said in that Sicho.
their editing this sicho as if the whole thing was a "seguloh" for arichus yomim and a plea for arichus yomim. (yes, there was mention of these things in the sicho; but that was not the thurst. The thrust was the solution for the problem created by "nachshov cheshbonoy shel olom". Not stressing that giving over power "אין זה שייך לענין של הסתלקות", which is their whole thrust and ommiting strong words: For instance they do NOT mention that this is "an inyon of hiskashruss"...and unfortunately the whole sicho was beikor for a mtatzav of 3 tammuz; but that there is an inyon of seguloh learichus yomim.
and the horooh is clear: that wrt to "cheshbonoy shel olom" the Rebbe gives over to chassidish rabbonim, and not only as they write in 403 (which is the strongest they get) "בכל ענין וענין יש להתנהג עפ הוראת הבדץ של רבני ליובאוויטש...", but that they are the yehoshua in the "cheshbonoy shel olom" schme.
They certainly did not write the words of the Rebbe and hid and concealed the thrust of the sicho especially when talking about "gib men iber" and things like that.
either they do not print at all; but do not falsify what has been said.
bottom line: in "cheshbon dikdusho" which has a place in kdusho, and aderaboh as mentioned in that sicho chayim is sholel "eyn cheshbon!" and "cheshbon" is moyssif.
It is clear that he is not talking about issues that require "Asseh lecho rav' as he mentions in the sicho clearly. He is talking about "Shaylos" in the issue of "cheshbonoy shel olom" which rlates to who sets policy bepoel mamosh.
Yasher koiach. This is the only sensible post I have seen on this blog. Yes, many have forgotten that the Rebbe ZYA gave us instructions as to what to do in our present situation. Instead, far too many of us fight about shtussim.
How much did you pay for the subcription to this blog to have opionions about posts?
Edited By Siteowner
1. Please explain the expression "cheshbonoy shel olom". Why do you interpret this to be a reference to the passing?
2. What was the full ZZ story and how it relates to the issue at hand?
P.S. Would Rebbe's direction mean that now Berl Lazar is the Rebbe of Russia?
Correct me if I am wrong. Ose Leho Rav was a sustained campaign preceding this Sicho. I remember that this followed the trend when the Rebbe tried to decentralized things. But how do you jump to conclusion that this is about 3 Tammuz and not about elaborating on the same previously mentioned point.
Berl, what specific loshen in this Sicho you interpret as "no dor shmini"?
cheshbono shel olam – time after 120
The expression “bou venachshov cheshbono shel olam” comes from Bava Basra 78b (it is a drash on Bamidbar 21:27 “…bou Cheshbon…”, - come take stock of your life, make an “accounting” of your life)
Aseh lecho Rav & this sicho
Aseh lecho Rav and other similar directives did immediately precede this sicho. But none of those referred explicitly to the “after 120” era. Dispel makes a case that not only did this sicho explicitly state the implied content of the preceding directives, but it went further – it vested the Rabbonei Chabad with real spiritual authority to decide all the matters pertaining to Lubavitch “after 120”. I argue that this is taking it a bit too far – especially in light of the fact that the Rebbe specifically referred to local Rabbonim and not one single rabbinic body for all of Lubavitch.
The Deir hashmini Rebbe question & this sicho
h a k d o m o : everything we write about this topic is, by definition, an interpretation of the Rebbe’s words, since no black & white statement has been made. However, some interpretations are more direct, others more far fetched. How does one decide, however, which is true? I made this argument before, but perhaps not very well. I will try one more time. There are two things:
a. various statements made by the Rebbe over the years
b. reality in regards to a possible compelling “candidate”.
Here starts the vicious cycle of “a” feeding into “b” and compounding each other’s effect upon the outcome. Had it not been for those various statements the Rebbe made throughout the years, people would be forced to do “what was always done” – find a new Rebbe (even one not so compelling a “candidate”). On the other hand, had there been a very compelling candidate, people might be forced to re-evaluate their understanding of the Rebbe’s statements. But the reality of “b” supports the more direct and obvious interpretations of the Rebbe’s statements.
t o i c h e n : Having said all this, let me go back to our sicho. The Rebbe is talking about how important decisions in Lubavitch will be made “after 120”. If there is to be a new Rebbe - why bother? Just say nothing and let historic precedent take its course. This is the most simple, immediate and obvious subtext of the directive as it pertains to the possibility of a deir hashmini Rebbe.
Berel Lazar & this sicho
The criteria the Rebbe outlined are: chassidishe Rov, posek benigle al pi chassidus. A tall order. Does Berel Lazar fit the bill - you decide.
how many "posekim benigle al pi chassidus: today? 20 is my guess.
I am sure there is a room to interpret that "Moshe Kibel Torah Umesorroh Leyehoshua" is a transition to a single person.
you have got to be kidding - the Rebbe repeated again and again "3 rabbonim" & "in every local (or to get the closest 3 together)"!
Tzemach,
R. Berl explained it better than i could:
"cheshbonoy shel olom" an expression for the "accounting of the world". The Rebbe makes clear refence in that sicho: that many years prior to his histalkus the Zz spoke about this matter (this is printed in Toras Menachem too). The REbbe also said that after that the ZZ had arichus yomim veshonmi and hafotzas hamayonoys etc. (clearly indiciating that he is talking about the histalkus of the ZZ and about the directives in an unfortunate event as 3 of Tammuz and also mentioned (as alsoprinted in Toras Menachem) about this being a "seguloh" for long life (something akin to buying a plot? being said a seguloh for arichus yomim - this last part is NOT in the sicho).
R. Berl did not explain the story of the ZZ. and i'm afriad i'm not sure the exact story of the ZZ in this particular Sicho. I am not sure if this is connected to the following story: and i should be corrected by others if i am making an error: that this this was in reference to the time when the ZZ went to fight the decrees of Czar (tnuat haskala?) he fought forcefully. At a time someone asked about what should happen to his chassidim if he sacrifices his physical life for his fight? and he said there are the children. The idea was (i think and i hope someone corrects me if i am wrong (something common)) that at time the Rebbe was very aware of the possible predicament that Cv this may happen and provisions have to be made for the continuation in such an event.
In this Sicho itself: The REbbe clearly states that what he is talking about now, is NOT the issue of "asseh lecho rov" (or "Verapoh yerapeh" -to seek counself of doctors in medical issues) etc.; it is specifically connected to a time of "cheshbonoy shel olom" after 3 tammuz.
berl, yes the Rebbe spoke about 3 Rabonim or one if three are not available. But the point is that the logic was based on Moshe transferring the power of Torah to Yehoshua as an "archetypal" prototype. Therefore one can go from on to three and from three to one.
Dispel, thank you for your outstanding contribution :+:
"t o i c h e n : Having said all this, let me go back to our sicho. The Rebbe is talking about how important decisions in Lubavitch will be made “after 120”. If there is to be a new Rebbe - why bother? Just say nothing and let historic precedent take its course".
bimchilas kvodcho; this is not a rayo (proof) at all (and leand is a rayo listor): "mah doch" when he says something poshut and clear cut masses and mentors manage to drey and twist to the opposite meaning of it like the "Bossor vodom" example) how much more so here: had he said nothing at all, they certainly would have said that there is nothing to say because it is poshut that there is nothing to do, espcially that we have the statements that the mentors have misinterepted out of context for sure, they would have used this as a corroboration that the reason the REbbe said nothing is because it is poshut that there is no "dor hashmin" aas the Rebbe said "dor hashvii is the last dor..." etc etc etc.
But on the contrary der "punk farkert": precisely because the Rebbe wanted to "dispel" the fantasies that all those statements meant the way the mentors take it to mean, that if 3 Tammuz occurs there is no need of "cheshbonoy shel olom"; so the REbbe wanted to make sure this mistake is not made and therefore he focused on this "nekudoh": There is "cheshbonoy shel olom" and that INCLUDES the "cheshbon dikdusoh" to have a leader that leads the people (that is the "cheshbon" in Kdushoh as seen by Moshe and Yehoshua etc.) , there was the need and urge to repeat five and six times that there is "cheshbonoy shel olom" and let the Rabbonim decide how to go about in this issue of "cheshbonoy shel olom" how to implement it in practice according to Shulchan Oruch of Nigleh alpi chassidus.
Btw: despite my (occasional) disagreement with you: it is a pleasure to read your thoughts.
Dispel
Tzemach,
You are wwelcome.
and thank you for trying this hard job of seeking the truth.
BUt one favor (as much as you can) and i know it is hard: Try that this should keep the respect and kovod of the Rebbe as much as possible. (for that matter, it would be helpful that this should be the goal with other people and leaders).
what is "respect and kovod of the Rebbe"? Let me ask you if the Rebbe has any responsibility for his Chasidim? Does the Rebbe like Dovid Hemelech had his dark moments?
better yet, point to a disrespectful post.
Dispel - thank you for the compliment.
TA & Dispel, forget the hair-splitting for a moment. How did the people understand this sicho in 1988? They took away the following: "The Rebbe said that after 120 - c"v! - the rabbonim should make all the important decisions..." No one said: “The Rebbe said we should have the rabbonim choose a new Rebbe.”
I am also curious – what do you both think regarding my thoughts of the compounding effect of the Rebbe’s statements and the absence of a very compelling “candidate”?
Dispel, I do not think TA has exhibited disrespect toward the Rebbe. Commentators have.
What if the Rebbe spoke to himself? His wife just died. Ehrlich pointed out in his book that the Rebbe could only be himself with his wife and when he lost his last confidant he became disoriented and turned messianic. What if the Rebbe spoke about himself? Now that he is alone without a person who gave him guidance and balance he will seek a rabbinical council.
"He is going to seek Rabbinic advice" after he dies? OK then.
this sounds stupid. You can see that Marlow came to the Rebbe after the Sicho and the Rebbe kind of toyed with him.
"TA & Dispel, forget the hair-splitting for a moment. How did the people understand this sicho in 1988? They took away the following: "The Rebbe said that after 120 - c"v! - the rabbonim should make all the important decisions..." No one said: “The Rebbe said we should have the rabbonim choose a new Rebbe.”
אין הכי נמי, but so what? Then is then and now is now. Don't the said Rabonim have to take into account the מצב על אתר?
Maybe the Rebbe felt that after his 1/2 died his life was over.
d e c l a r a t i o n : I have said all I am going to say on the topic of this sicho and on the topic of a deir hashmini Rebbe. this subject is closed for me from now on.
"How did the people understand this sicho in 1988? They took away the following: "The Rebbe said that after 120 - c"v! - the rabbonim should make all the important decisions..." No one said: “The Rebbe said we should have the rabbonim choose a new Rebbe.”"
That is my taanoh: They took it the way they were told for decades by mentors!
I beg to disagree also with the facts: the people did NOT want to discus the issue period. and whoever ever thought to discuss it the slightest terms...
and furthermore: the little that was conveyed was by the controlling PR that obviously this is an extension of "asseh lecho rav". (Kal Vechomer: from elements that fought the mere idea of erecting rabbonim after RZS Dworkin passed away and said that in Lubavitch there is no election for Rabbonim and maybe also there is no need for a general rov, kal vechomer when discussing this issue).
And remember: this was not printed at the time, and even after it is printed now, see the way it is printed, clearly slanted to a point that is almost as if where the REbbe is only doing a "Seguloh" and the idea of "messoroh liheoshua" is not conveyed in the printed words to mean that it is vested in the rabbonim
"I am also curious – what do you both think regarding my thoughts of the compounding effect of the Rebbe’s statements and the absence of a very compelling “candidate”?"
I am only compelled by the "metziuss" (and what this could mean insofar as Hashgocho hoeyonoh" "eynoy mevakesh eloh lefi kochon"), for the statements of the Rebbe do not convey (leand haklushoh) the negation of a "dor hashmini"' for: in addition that many of the statements themselves have "shovroy betzidoy" by the Rebbe's explanation and allusion of those statements; by definiton many statements are "machriach" and force one to say that the "reality" *al pi torah* "cheshbon dikdushah" negates that interpretation and therefore they themselves urge to explain the meaning of those particular statements in a different light.
Berl, the point is that even if the Rebbe said this Sicho or not he didn't make any attempt to groom as successor. The more interesting question is what was the Rebbe thinking. I mean he wakes up one day and says that going forward ask shaalos. And then Rav Marlow comes to him after the Sicho and treats him as a child. How did he see the future of Jewish people in his own mind? Sheviyi or Shemini, etc?
And this is might be your response, Dispel. People would like to see Rabbonim as a replacemnt but the reality and katnus prevents them from doing so.
Let me rewind this for you again. The Rebbe says that the power is to be vested in Rabbonim. Then and perfect candidate approaches him after the Sicho and the Rebbe treats him as a joke.
That is an entirely different topic - one I have no clue about. Only future developments can shed some light on that mystery. But what practical difference does it make whether the Rebbe, in effect, said "there will not be a new Rebbe" or "there shall not be a new Rebbe"? No difference at all. People who do not understand that a certain long and important tekufo of Jewish history has ended are the ones that need courage to face reality. Does that dispel any fantasies?
P.S. I am fussy on the Marlow episode - refresh my memory please.
Are you talking about the exchange at the end of this very tape?
yes
" People who do not understand that a certain long and important tekufo of Jewish history has ended are the ones that need courage to face reality. Does that dispel any fantasies?"
This statement may be one that i understand:
Until now we have been and are trying to discuss the Rebbe's Sicho and also the need for people who lead others in terms of "Cheshbonoy shel olom" in the new "tekufoh", and i'll come back to that because that is our discussion.
But before let me agre with you on this: i think that just like we have had a time when there wa s"chassimas hamisshnah" "chassimas zman hatannoim", "chassimas hagmoroh", people were able to say to themselves and to future generations: that is it. The previous tekufoh is "doyross horishonim" it's over. The same here:
The tekuoh of 7 Rebbes "as we know it" is over. Let's face this reality and dispel fanstasies to the contrary.
But on the same token and just as important (and to a certain extent more important): we live in the tekufoh we live in; we have an obligation to ourselves and others to live the highest form possible according to our tekufoh. So the answer is *not* by saying: Mishnah is over and that is it and go to sleep and glorify the past without any implementation of that glory in *our* terms; but the answer is: mishna is over and now let's build upon that Hatalmud.
To claim: "have the courage to face reality" that a tekufoh ended in a way that dispels any hope for what is needed in todays reality, is also a fantasy and a more dangerous one (leand) that has to be dispelled in the strongest way possible.
The ALter Rebbe came to tell us: that everyone can be and should be a "Benoni" and af al pi that "mee hoo zeh veeyzeh hoo" that can say and as it is known "vehalevay benoni" mikol mokom (as the Rebbe points out in maamorim) since the Alter Rebbe wrote it for us it must be that shmetz menhoo has to felt that is shayech to everyone (at the same time that "halevayy benoni" and no one redt zich eyn that he is R. Zalmen Zezmer' mikol mokom the AR exptects from yankel todross in 2005 what he wrote in tanya in 5557).
ok i'm rambling, but:
you cannot have the fantasy that we will keep in a museum 250 years of chassidus (and only live by the nostaliga -and there will come a time -CV- that there will be no one from those who "lived" those precious years...without having any semblance of how their vigour and energy and life and message means for them today, by saying that the one of the elements that was once upon of time an essence in chassidus (some kind of spiritual leadership) is non existent in the slightest of forms in a way that the "chaasimoh" is a close and not a harbinger for a new era that has koychos similar to has been although "bizer anpin" is a fantasy that has to dispelled bechol hakochos.
and...?
Marlow said - "we bless you with a long life and you should lead us - veatoh tetzaveh..."
The Rebbe similed and said "we[you?] should be a neir lamoir - but there should be no "kosis" - no crushing difficutlies"
and...? we conclude from this - what?
Dispel, I have no major disagreement with your last comment.
berl, without asking you to repeat yourself, inasmuch as it seems noone anticipates a shmini, what is it about the present situation (organizationally, formally, judicially) that you feel deviates from the vision of the Sicho? since you are not calling for a board "of 3" to fully assume the nesiot residing in the leadership of the "period of seven"--and, assuming that Chabad is not without formal bodies to adjudicate administrative and halachic questions, it is not clear to me whether you believe that the current status quo is acceptable or whether you calling for a specific change.
paul,
I agree with Dispel that the directive of that sicho is not properly carried out by us - we do not vest our Rabbonim with real spiritual authority to decide matters of hashkofo and policy - and we have to, according to this sicho.
Where I part company with Dispel is when he suggests that one could somehow arrive at a notion of a new Rebbe from that sicho or that there could be a central rabbinic body governing all of Lubavitch.
that a certain long and important tekufo of Jewish history has ended
Berl, please clarify.
Berl, regarding Marlow. Rebbe was a wordy man. On occasion like this Sicho for example took 40 minutes to explain what could be said in 10 minutes or less. All the flowery adjectives and slogans, the works. And then Marlow comes to the Rebbe and the Rebbe’s demeanor is rushed. As if another shmo came to ask for a dollar. Just wait; this is the person in whom the Rebbe vested G-d powers. Should he at least establish sustained eye contact with Rav Marlow? Should his body langue be that of respect, instead the verbal exchanged was rushed and regular. I can also hear Marlow asking Vos meint “veatoh tetzaveh” and the Rebbe not really answering the question but providing the cute answer you mentioned, Berl. Further if this is such a monumental direction why the Rebbe was careless in making sure that it is authentically translated and transcribed. As we can see that it was not properly understood or disseminated in Lubavitch. This is a spiritual will of sorts and it is completely under the radar. This is your Kotzker mystery about the Lubavitcher. If the Chasidim are the children as was really felt in the days of Rebbetzin petira, why not show a minimal care so that the direction you give to your wayward children are understood or remembered?
TA, berl--as an "example": the institutions of Chabad now actively oppose disengagement, based on what are perceived to be clear instructions from the Rebbe; my question, which individuals actually made and articulated this policy decision, and how would this process have been different were the sicho as understood by berl implemented?
TA,
Marlow
Just listen again to Rabbi Marlow - he is not asking anything:
The Rebbe just finished talking about what should be done "after 120".
What does Rabbi Marlow do - he walks up to the Rebbe and, in effect, says: "Never mind the after 120, we bless you with a long life and you should lead us yourself - as is a real meaning of veato tetzaveh."
I leave the conclusion making to others.
The written word, its understanding & implementation
You write that the Rebbe needed to make sure the sicho "is authentically translated and transcribed". I assume you say this believing this would ensure the proper understanding & implementation of the directives contained in the sicho.
u n d e r s t a n d i n g : We have a tape (a legally valid method used by people leaving their last will & testament all the time). There was not in 1988 and there is not now any difficulty in understanding the statement on the tape - unless you are on a "fishing expedition". Experience has shown that "fishing expedition" are indeed even more possible with the written word - and how!
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n : We have a printed Shulchan Oruch Does that mean we are automatically implementing what's written there? There is no magic "print the yeitzer horah away" remedy.
paul, such decisions would be made by the rabbonim - not sheluschim - askonim. The Rebbe wanted a pure chassidishe daas Teiroh - not daas sheluchim. He could have said that evening: “shluchim, being that they are vested with the koach hameshaleach should be consulted in all matters after 120. They should create a rubber-stamp beis din to give their decisions an appearance of daas Teiroh” He did not exactly say that did he? Yet this is what we have today.
770 bochur,
Regarding my statement on the end of the tekufo: The expression "asheri einei roosu eileh" is now in full force.
berl, I would think that institutional reforms are very difficult to make in these circumstances
Berl, the Rebb knew how to drill things into people conscience. When he decided that teddy bears on baby pillows are not kosher, there was a world wide campaign. And her we have a will to his children/Chasidim and all it is a casual obscure talk out of the living room.
TA: my impression is that the Rebbe did not act capriciously or out of the depths of despair, etc. or oversight. Would it be wrong to think that the means and forums of the transmittal of his legacy--the choices as to emphases--were carefully considered? I would even suggest that there appears to have been a strategy of "withholding", in the manner of a father who steps back from his children as they learn to walk to motivate them--the child who has relied upon his parent's close embrace may experience this as absence. Just a thought.
TA, i better stay out of this conversation, let me just say that you are right on this one. the Rebbe was a man of words. even when there were no world wide campaigns, he used to repeat important topics over and over and over again until they became a solid part of chabad philosophy/custom/mentality. i do realize that something like this is quite different from lets say moshiach campaign, but still we see that the Rebbe knew how to get his message accross. to me this sicho is another example of his policy (?) of sending conflicting messages that the Rebbe used so often.
You memory does not serve you well if you remember this talk as “obscure”. It was anything but – it was a seminal event. It was an event that was not discussed much until 3 Tammuz – but it was well remembered by all after 3 Tammuz. The difficulty here is not in remembering or understanding – the difficulty is in following. The Rebbe gave only one talk about the teddy bears also. It just a little earier to be "frum" about teddy bears on diapers than about accepting other people's spiritual authority over oneself.
P.S. No sane person dwells excessively on his last will & testament. You make provisions, leave them in writing or on tape and move on with the business of life.
btw, one the topics that the Rebbe familiarized us with is the importance of clear and concise expression in situations of פועל ממש and הלכה. this sicho is far from clear and concise instruction. again, the Rebbe could have elaborated some afterwards, give details, cite historic precedents etc.
also, i was not in 770 at the time. but i remember clearly how young bochurim sheluchim (my only exposure to chabad at the time) interpreted this sicho. the interpretation was that the Rebbe is further withdrawing from the day-to-day leadership and the rabbonim directive was to be taken literaly and applied in poractice already in 1988. this was also connected to the absence of spoken maamorim.
good luck fishing, folks.
"Berl, the Rebbe knew how to drill things into people conscience. When he decided that teddy bears on baby pillows are not kosher, there was a world wide campaign. And her we have a will to his children/Chasidim and all it is a casual obscure talk out of the living room".
I think i agree with all Berl writes on your point; just add:
This was the most *public* will possible (he knew that the chassidim would not write up his testament; no chossid would write about these matters, the Rebbes wrote will (Rashab etc., he did NOT give it to one secreatries or confidants or any person (whom there would be mistrust by anyone if the REbbe actually said this or wrote this or that) he talked *publically* from his home and knew that everyone would ultimately hear about it and be able to get the actual talk.
What was done though, is that the message of these directives were distorted by many and most importantly was pushed dunder the carpet by many, including mentors who for decades preached the opposite of the ideas contained in this sicho, and continued and continue with countering any form of power and authority, claiming that this is counter to "hiskashrus" and the new generation (when we alaready get serious boys interesting in ruchniyoos, they too) get inculcated with the notion that any search for authority is "avodah zarah" and countering bittul to the Rebbe and other buzzwords that are part of the dictionary disseminated by mentors for decades...and all this at the expense of the ruchnissdike well being ("cheshbon dikdushoh" which negates "eyn chashbon" and that brings "chatim' and life as said in the sicho) of the new generation...
Dispel, this video does not stand alone. It was imperative for the Rebbe to underline the point, becasue there are other videos here:
http://www.mentalblog.com/2005/
0...isturbance.html
"Dispel, this video does not stand alone. It was imperative for the Rebbe to underline the point, becasue there are other videos here":
The other videos do not show the REbbe saying anything about a time post 3 Tammuz; on the contrary that video "speaks" so that a 3 of Tammuz should not take place, keposhut. The only video where the *Rebbe* talsks and gives *instructions* saying that there has to be *giving over* of power from moshe to Yehoshua, and speaks *clearly* about a time *post 3 Tammuz* is *this* sicho exclusively.
One more general point:
The REbbe began the outline of this sicho with the story of the TT and the lesson to be taken from it, that the asnwer to the question of "cheshbonoy shel olom" in our situation is, through chassidishe lubavitcher rabbonim (whatever the exact meaning of this).
It is remarkable and interesting (especially in light of R. Berl position -and leand this sicho negates that position especially in light of the follwoing):
In the past the Rebbe has raised this issue by passing and also in connection with the story of TT:
(i beleive i heard it twice (by tape): once i think 5720 and another 5726):
When the TT was asked, if he is waging the battle so fiercely against the haskala, he may be putting his life in danger so what will happen to the chassidim ("cheshbonoy shel olom"):
I beleive the Rebbe would say, that the TT responded with two answers ("an entfer mit an iboess eymoh"):
1- "s'eez doch doh dee kinder" (there are the children - they will take over),
2- a second answer: "achduss bei chassidim vet zey firen beez moshiachhen" ("unity amongst chassidm will lead them till moshiach").
The Rebbe continued (then 5720 and 26): that in our case there are no kinder, so we have to to resort to the second one: unity of chassidim will lead till moshiach.
When we had the discussion initially and R. Berl said that felt that the Rebbe negated the possibility of a new Rebbe and i leand haklushoho did not feel so, i thought to myself that this statement is the best proof for R. Berl: The REbbe clearly says there is no kinder to become rebbe's and there is no other candidate and the only resort is: "unity of chassidim till moshiach".
But after thinking twice about the sicho of 5748 (in addition to what has been said already), i thought to myself: The REbbe is bringing *this same story* of the TT (if i'm correct that it is the same story) and saying that the lesson of that story is (not that "the unity of chassidim will hold them beez moshaich" as he once said, but "mahaduroh basroh") that there is a plan for cheshbonoy shel olom and "bes din tzedek of 3 chassidishe rabbonim" etc.!
Dispel Fantasies, could you please provide a "for dummies" edition of the above and summarize your conclusions. Thanks.
Tzemach,
I'll try (hope to succeed):
The background to the Sicho 5748 was the story of ZZ: He was asked about the "future" ("cheshbonoy s"o"). The ZZ said, there are two options: 1) the children (will become Rebbe's), 2) Unity of Chassidim will lead them until the coming of Moshiach.
The Rebbe repeated this a few times(two that i know of) in the past.
But here, Motzey Terumoh 5748 he alludes to this story (meaning the question the Rebbe ZZ was asked about the "Future") and did not mention the option of "unity of chassidim" will lead them etc. but gave the unequivocal directives of "chassidishe Rabbonim"!
I thought that this directive as presented in 5748 *negates* the one alluded earlier that the "unity of chassidim" was sufficient; here he felt that we need some kind of leadership.
I further though (maybe i'm wrong): that prior to 5748, the way the REbbe alluded to such a scenario in the past, the REbbe was *not* envisioning a new Rebbe (possibility) like R. Berl's position, but after the adamant unequivocal position of the Rebbe in 5748 (the last edition) that too may have changed (but certainly: the Rebbe now envisions some type of spiritual leadership: that not only is *reactive* but *proactive* and set forth the agenda and a set of demands of their...).
Dispel Fantasies,
1. On the face of it comparing the situation to ZZ is theoretical leap. The ZZ had several of his offspring each capable of being a Rebbe with 5 actually taking up the job. In that context if one examines ZZ words closely (and I not privileged now) than perhaps one can say that the unity message is a forwarrning by the ZZ who was able to foresee the future split.
2. Could you please explain the logic behind your last paragraph?
Dispel Fantasies,
"1. On the face of it comparing the situation to ZZ is theoretical leap. The ZZ had several of his offspring each capable of being a Rebbe with 5 actually taking up the job".
This point was mentioned by the Rebbe in the earlier times that in our case we do not have the option of "dee kinder" (only the option of "unity").
"In that context if one examines ZZ words closely (and I not privileged now) than perhaps one can say that the unity message is a forwarrning by the ZZ who was able to foresee the future split".
Interesting.
"2. Could you please explain the logic behind your last paragraph?"
In the earlier occasion the Rebbe felt that the recipe of "unity" is sufficient, hence he did not see the need for a physical leader or body of leaders.
In the latter and most recent occasion: he did *not* mention "unity" as the solution as earlier on; (he probably felt it insufficient) hence he saw that there is a need for a certain level for physical leader(s).
TA--it is understood that the authority of the Rebbe must be hereditary?
Commenting by HaloScan
