mentalblog.com comments:
Don't you think it is better to be pro (anything) than anti (something)? Besides, why do you find it an insult to judiasm if individuals have a different faith than you. Love the ortohdox, welcome the conservative, and teach the reform...why leave the meshichistim out of the groups?
Dispel Fantasies, this is absurd to say that "they" created the cult. Surely it was created by the Rebbe himself. I was there you don't have to tell me.
Rubish it was in no way created by the rebbe, it was created by so called mashpiem or roshe yeshivos that had no positions in the chabad mainstearm yeshivos / shuls, so they had to make up their own distorted, KRUM view of what the rebbe stood for, so that they can open up their own places.
And as to "Welcome the conservative", since when is it the rebbes shitah to welcome the conservative???
One thing elsisheva you are right, its never good to be called the anti, they should be known as the Mesianists and the others in chabad should be called simply chabad or lubavitchers,
Here we go again, every single rosh, etc was in full view of the Rebbe or even installed by the Rebbe. The atmosphere of cult of personality was certainly created by the Rebbe. This I don't need anybody’s word for, I saw it myself.
the rebbe didn't start this, it WAS started by those who had primarily come from a volatile environment, and felt that chabad had to become more jumpy and crazier; some people think that the more crazy a person is, the more he is closer to G-D. but yud-tes kislev should teach us that moach shalit al halev isn't just some high level of avodah, but the basic requirement of a chossid
and the Rebbe didn't bet the farm?
http://www.mentalblog.com/2005/0...e-bet-
farm.html
iv'e read your article - very nice. but there's a problem, i don't understand why this comes from the rebbe. one who has studied the sichos of the rebbe will clearly see that the rebbe had clearly demanded avodah pnimis - even more than his predecessors, in fact, one of the main chiddushim of the rebbe was that one doesn't have to be seperated from the world in order to have a connection to g-dliness. he explains this in chassidus, and in common sense, because, why was the world created if we don't have anything to do with it?
but you do mention an interesting point about moshiach, the rebbe did go very "crazy" about moshiach, he did want people to say "we want moshiach now" etc. but this isn't something that we can blame the rebbe for. see - these people were always waiting for the opportunity to pounce upon a solid period of time when the rebbe would sing a tune to their liking - and they got it. was it the first time? no, every time that the rebbe came out with something, there was always a big shturem and koch about it. when the mivtzoim came out, there were people who would simply shut their books and put tefilin on people. of course, i can just speculate and say what people have told me, as i wasn't around at that time.
i'm sure that had there been a little bit more time, the rebbe would have protested against all of this. it is known that the rebbe said a very harsh message about the M's who started singing chayolei adoneinu. Most people tend to quote the first part of the paragraph "this is something that distances people from the teachings of chassidus... this is a war against all the rabbeim", but the second part is the punchline "you want to sing a niggun? there are many niggunim to sing, you say you want to learn chassidus let chassidus teach you" and in that sentence the rebbe clearly reminds them of the true derech of chassidus. you don't have to take my word for it
http://otzar770.com/library/disp...er=B&
nBookId=22
we clearly see that the rebbe didn't want this type of activity happening in lubavitch.
as for the other things you mention, modernity, crown heights, chassidishkeit... the rebbe wasn't the first. the rebbe maharash was rather modern and lived a rather lavish lifestyle, and some of chassidim had complained about it. of course, you would never hear about it, because nobody has anything to gain from this.
another important point. there isn't a single mindset in lubavitch, the same people that are throwing rocks at the IDF in gaza are the same people who vandalized the misnagdim and the satmar... there isn't that much indoctrination among lubavitch (besides tzfas) about shleimus ha'aretz, especially in israel - quite the opposite, whoever went to protest got kicked out (or heavily fined) from the yeshivos.
i know i didn't answer all of your questions, but my main point is, that if one studies the rebbe's writings (rather than his personal lifestyle) then people would get a better view of his chassidim. for those chassidim who only look at the rebbe, but not at his writings, are either angels or bluffers fooling themselves. but most people aren't like that - by most, though, i mean 65%. but that's the way it's always been
I was in 770 during that sicho, it was Shabbos Breshis I think and I remember how the Rebbe screamed and how everyone was in shock. Rebbe said "Unkegan Teiras Baal Shem Tov". But alas that spirit went away quickly.
Is the Maariv article online ? Link please ?
Mashpia,
On the Otzar770 page you linked the Rebbe makes it very clear that one is certainly not allowed to follow any "chidushim" regarding avodah and that chassidim must always follow the ways of the Rebbeim. There is an interesting loshon that the Rebbe uses; "Leich baderech shesalalu lanu raboseinu nesieinu" - Go on the path that our Rebbeim - our Nesiyim - have paved for us!"
This is my own am-ha'artzusdike perush but here goes:
He uses the word "paved" here as opposed to "traveled, mapped, cut, etc." Paving suggests that the derech is well established, marked, smoothed and refined by the Rebbeim for our use. That clearly limits chassidim to only following those practices that the Rebbe has specifically endorsed with an unambiguous directive. Absent such, especially when the "directives" are nebulous responses to individuals in yechidus, one should steer clear of a particular inyan, hanhagah, etc.
i don't know if it would be smart to make diyukim in dovid feldman's adaptation. the rebbe spoke in yiddish. however tzemach says he was there, so maybe he can shed some light on the issue.
CR, i don't understand you, in the beginning you speak against chiddushim, and then you make a whole lomdus. :rolleyes:
I don't remember the exact language but CRs discourse is pointless drivel.
Dear Tzemach,
I know i won't convince you. But please, allow to hear another perspective: Let me try with an example. The Rebbe's talks are like a piece of gemoroh without the Rashi next to it. One can read these talks and offer an interpretation that is contrary to those who created the "cult".
If one learns those sichos in their own idiom one will see that the "peirush" and interpretation given by those who created the "Cult" is not really what the Rebbe meant.
The existence of the "Cult" as we have it now is a result of layers and layers of self invented interpretations that created the cult.
In our issue it is simply put: The Rebbe's main focus (as said by others) was and is to bring Moshiach now. The allusions to the Rebbe's talks as if the Rebbe meant to focus the issue on himselfis definitely "their" invention.
Dispel Fantasies--but the Rebbe's "main focus" on Moshiach now, plus his (intermittent?) allusions/hints as to the special/messianic status of his predecessor, of the times (and memash, himself), plus his decision that a living sucessor was not appropriate "paved the way" for Messianic claims made now on his behalf.
Dispel Fantasies; Your statement seems reasonable. But you don't answer the central question. How is it possible for a leader of a movement that always played for long-term benefit and used ambiguity sparingly send out a a series of messages that were so mixed that the consumers of the messages still can't reach consensus on what they mean.
Paul: "allusions/hints as to the special messianic status of his predecessor,...":
and at the same time "shovroy betzidoy" it came (either at the time or another time) that it does NOT carry the Halachik status of the annointed one. Many a times: in the early leadership (like in 5710/16) the Rebbe would OFTEN say that the Previous Rebbe would lead us "TOWARDS MOSHIACH" (antkegen Moshiach) and so in 5745! he alluded to the fact that his predecessor not being the Moshiach (and then the chassidim would continue to go to thier REbbes!).
"..of the times": a very important point: He always stressed that it was of the time! meaning at the time when he was alive he was the most likely expected "candidate".
"...and "memash (himself)": I'm glad you mention it now: People often overlook. The M are fond of mentioning this. Ironically: The Kuntress Beys Rabbeyno Shebebovel which is the place where the rEbbe EXPLAINS the meaning of that statement "Moshiach Shebdor" (and therefore one cannot use this statement or concept contrary to the way in which REbbe defined it himself the meaning of that statement):
That it refers to an old tradition (and brings sources for it) where in every generation there was "finger pointing" at a person WHO IS ALIVE and they expected that this individual would be Moshiach. There is NO mention in that sicho of an allusion that the same is true for pointing fingers at a person who is no longer among the living in the very literal physical sense.
The Rebbe himself said at one other occasion: about that the chassdim of the Rebbe's (TT etc) would beleive clearly that their REbbe would materialize to be the Moshiach and that hope was somewhat shattered after their histalkus.
"...his decision that a living successor was not appropriate....":
And yet he clearly envisioned and spoke at length focusing on what to do on the occasion of a # tammuz, as has been discussed here at length in the past, when the Rebbe gave clear directive for the unfortuante 3 Tammuz where there must a leadership of some sort comprised of Chassidishe Rabbonim and in that sicho he spoke in the terms of "cheshobonoy shel olom" which refers to the time after 3 tammuz.
While we can speculate for reasons why he did not appoint a "living successors" and debate till no end about what one might have done in his place; it does not deny the fact that the Rebbe acknowledged and announced in a public sicho about a possible time of 3 Tammuz before the coming of Moshiach.
sO: "paved the way for the messianic claims now made in his behalf": I must disagree with you. I live *here* in this culture and can assure you, that without the "pirush rashi" of the mashpiim and the indocrination of these generals (coupled with the backing of "soldiers" ie. who sometimes used physical power or at least more than verbal intimidation etc. to ensure that this is the ideology) the beliefs would not exist at all in the shape that they exist today.
Pmh: "always played for long term benefit...":
Maybe he felt: that for the "long term benefit" of educating and raising the klal's awareness of the importance of bringing the geuloh, that moshiach is the ultiamte awaited yearn of every Jew, that the modern innovations of the world do not swallow up the soul of the yid and that on the contrary the yid swallows the external appeal of the mundane and transform it to G-dliness for the use of the humankind raising above himself and getting close to the almighty, all of this a result of his message, maybe in the "long term benefit" overweighed the vulnerability for his closer followers misintterpretations of his words and message.
"mixed messages": I beg to differ, there are no "mized messages" whatsoever: They (the M) were able to confuse the oylom into thinking that there are mixed messages. As said before, it's like a piece of gemoroh that needs meticulous study. I challenge you to open those wources and STUDTY THEM and you turn to me pointing how they assert the claims of the M.
"and used ambiguity sparingly": I beg to differ. In this context and many like them he used them very often. Take a Maamor and study the concepts. Many of them have ambigous staments that requires lots of learning and of raising one's self in order to meet the message.
"the consumers of the message": Who are the consumers? Those that are not used to LEARN his message? WE cannot blame the author for the failure of this consumer to understand that he needs to exert himself to understand it.
If it means the followers? If it refers to those who are dishonest with themselves and others and because their personal feelings and the teachings inculcated to them by older generals who misinterpreted his message i would also not blame the author for the dishonesty and treachery of these individuals.
Dispel, how was it that the older generals, the mashpiim, and the vast majority of Chabad (except you and me, of course) got it so wrong?
Dispel; I am not playing a blame game. A message depends on the sender and receiver. If, as you say, many receivers have confused the message then it is reasonable to attribute that state to ambiguity.
Boruch DA,
"kol DEALIM govar"!
Pmh: a message when analyzed shows that it rejects the misinterpretation and distortion of the receivers. It is clear that the author who left it in a state that rejects the distortion did not expect the corruption of those who corrupted the message.
the M's have given people a false view on everything.
I'll give you an example: i'm sure that in any person's life, he has said profanities, offensive remarks, and sometimes, downright stupid things (or it would seem rather stupid to the one hearing them). - youv'e probably said a lot of those stuff, so have i. Many of us don't have our comments and remarks recorded on paper, but yet, whenever an idiot wants to offend the person, all he has to do is bring to public attention, a few stupid or controversial remarks about the person, and viola - the person is then portrayed as evil and selfish.
Much of this usually happens in election campaigns, how many times have we seen people bash their opponents about one time drug conviction, or some stupid tax hike? how many times have we seen people publicize several public details about people, which would put them in a very bad light (for example, when green ran against bloomberg, there was an ad going around about bloomberg's comments when his girlfriend was preagnant "Kill It").
This can definitely be applied to the rebbe, when the rebbe had spoken weekly (and sometimes daily) for 42 years, every single talk being recorded and documented, heck, you can present the rebbe as anything you want; a communist, a dictator, a king, a stock broker, a politician. it's just natural that the M's decided to capitalize on the rebbe's last talks, and combine them with previous talks - and viola - the rebbe reveals himself as moshiach.
But the rebbe had never intended for this to happen, although he did forsee this, (as i noted in my previous post, about the sicha...) but imagine what would have happened, had the rebbe not spoken about moshiach, we would have all been depressed, lifeless, and without meaning. when the rebbe spoke about moshiach, he spoke about something to look forward to, something good which would result from learning chassidus, and the rebbe's sichos. but not another cryptical and abstract message about kabbolas hamalchus and zehusoi shel moshiach. the rebbe clearly didn't want that.
and besides, the people who the rebbe left in charge (Krinsky...) aren't M's, but rather sensible and active people who think before they do.
when the rebbe spoke about moshiach, he spoke about something to look forward to, something good which would result from learning chassidus, and the rebbe's sichos. but not another cryptical and abstract message about kabbolas hamalchus and zehusoi shel moshiach. the rebbe clearly didn't want that.
Question: When was the last time you read 5751/5752 sichos in a systematic fashion?
(Please do not read more into the question than what I have written. It is simply a question).
"a message when analyzed shows that it rejects the misinterpretation and distortion of the receivers. It is clear that the author who left it in a state that rejects the distortion did not expect the corruption of those who corrupted the message"
Dispel Fantasies--I am taking in your remarks and those of Mashpia; let me rephrase my thought--the "Moshiach Now" campaign, as a "campaign"--as a call for petitions, for organized publicity, for "breaking through" to a state where Moshiach was actualized and revealed, seemed to have "raised the stakes" from a perspective outside the community--to have sharpened spiritual tension and dynamism by implying if not stating not only the concrete and tangible need for redemption through Moshiach but the expectation that that need would be fulfilled imminently. This campaign, the posters, the billboards, the petitions, the advertisements, did not seem to proceed without the approval of the Rebbe.
The transition from this heightened awareness personalized around the Tzaddik ha doar to leadership of Chassidishe Rabbonim to fulfill the needs of "cheshobonoy shel olom" was likely to be difficult if not strengthened through prior and unambiguous institutional arrangements.
yes, i know. the nun-beis sichos are very hard; the rebbe does speak several times about kabolas hamalchus and preparing the world for moshiach. but what had the rebbe spokena bout in his last sicha? it was but simple and practical matters: about ahavas yisroel, about achdus, about many more things. furthermore. what was the last maamer that the rebbe disributed? it was ata tetzavah, which although it speaks about moshiach, doesn't mention any of the topics of kabolas hamalchus... rather about bringing the geula.
It has not been a long time (weeks) since iv'e last learned a nun-beis sicha, but i don't see why that should make a difference. as i said before, if you look at those sichos in the light of the rebbe's other sichos, in the light of chassidus in general, you will find a much deeper and meaningful message. very deep and complex matters in chassidus were discussed in those sichos. but of course, the M's, who never understood chassidus, because they never took anything seriously (i'm not going to elaborate on this, unless tzemach starts with this) would not understand the nun-beis sichos; they wouldn't care to know the real meaning.
The rebbe does hint himself as moshiach, the rebbe does speak of the hisgalus, the end of galus... but people are taking it in the wrong light.
moshiach does bring spiritual tension, and who knows - maybe it was an eis ratzon then (and even now) for moshiach to come. i surely hope that you believe in moshiach, i.e. his coming, and the redemption; and the only thing you object to is the way it is recived by the public - i'm totally with you. but i do remember the years when the rebbe spoke about moshiach: on one hand, people were in shock, because the rebbe really did go "crazy" about moshiach, but on the other hand, people tried to understand the message, see what the rebbe demanded, why the rebbe was saying this - and what did the rebbe expect from his chassidim.
The rebbe did want posters, and did want people to publicize moshiach, i.e. the concept and matter of moshiach, and i don't see anything wrong and controversial about that. - especially if you learn the maamorim of meluket vov, you will see very clearly, the reason for the rebbe's koch and shturem in moshiach, which i don't think had anything to do with cheshbonoy shel oylam, or anything else having to do with gimmel tammuz. that truly came as a shock to everyone. and besides, you don't think that the rebbe would think about the "last day", every day, for a duration of 14 years. the rebbe had already signed the will four years before his stroke, and by looking at who the rebbe transfered administrative leadership to (and the rebbe not changing it later on), is clearly evident that the rebbe never wanted, and never condoned the actions of the M's. but i guess the rebbe found it more important to speak about moshiach, and take the risk, than just stay quiet. after all, why should the rebbe be limited in about what to speak, because of a few wackos?
Mashpia:You are one of the most honest Lubavitchers in a sea of (mostly)well meaning but very brainwashed individuals.Alas you are still an apologist.You blame the 'generals', the 'foot soldiers' but the Chief of Staff is left unscathed.My dear friend, those 'officers' and 'generals' were appointed by the Chief of Staff, the ambiguity could have easily been remedied by clear and UNAMBIGUOUS TALK.
You are trying to eat your cake and keep it whole
Mashpia--thank you for your response--personally I can't for myself say that it is a "wrong" response--any more than I think the question itself is inappropriate--but then one would still have to consider how to respond to a current of "followship" or agitation or even intimidation that by a number of accounts has grown to be more than a few isolated "nutters".
"Dispel Fantasies--I am taking in your remarks and those of Mashpia; let me rephrase my thought--the "Moshiach Now" campaign, as a "campaign"--as a call for petitions, for organized publicity, for "breaking through" to a state where Moshiach was actualized and revealed"
you mean that it WOULD become actualized or you mean WAS?
(I beleive that meant the) former i agree with; the latter was clerly rejected numerous times.
Iow: The REbbe wanted to raise it to a level where we would "make it happen".
... seemed to have "raised the stakes" from a perspective outside the community--to have sharpened spiritual tension and dynamism by implying if not stating not only the concrete and tangible need for redemption through Moshiach but the expectation that that need would be fulfilled imminently".
I beleive you are correct there was an expectation that we would materialize the redemption immediately.
"This campaign, the posters, the billboards, the petitions, the advertisements, did not seem to proceed without the approval of the Rebbe":
I believe alomost everything was approved; the "petitions" i'm unsure that it was approved.
However, and here is the big however: There are NUMEROUS RECOMMENDATIONS TO "COOL IT" throughout all the year 51-2 (i can go through them another time) and actually he REJECTED many of the statements and approaches, primarlity the one that calls for the "identifying the identity of the moshaich"!
"The transition from this heightened awareness personalized around the Tzaddik ha doar to leadership of Chassidishe Rabbonim to fulfill the needs of "cheshobonoy shel olom" was likely to be difficult if not strengthened through prior and unambiguous institutional arrangements".
I staunchly believe that were the generals not have given their "interpretations" to the talks, the true menaing of these talks would have brought fruition in all aspects: 1) the spreading of the beleif in moshiach, 2) the yearning for his coming, 3) the actualization of a life that is consonant with messianic times, 4) in combination with tthe transition to theperiod of "cheshbonoy shel olom" 5) andperhaps with the combination of all of the above primarily following the driectiveso f "living in moshiachdike ways" ie: increasing in practice of torah learning avening and acts of kindness which was the crux of the talks of those years! perhaps we would have moshiach REALLY HERE!
Let me emphasize what is often overlooked: The talks of 51-2 were MOSTLY a call for a heightened level awarenss and counciousness in serving Hashem and torah avoda and gnilus chassadim (aka: Moshiach's tzeyten) and this was COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED AS BEING THE PRIMARY CALL (they do a favour to make it look good (they used to; today they do not even do this) when they put an ad in the nyt tto accept the kingship of the Rebbe MHM they put a call for an increase in acts of goodness and kindnes; the reason they do this is so that it has some appeal but they completely ignore this as part of the "campaign").
GS
Dispel Fantasies--more to think about ...
Commenting by HaloScan
