mentalblog.com comments:
Nobody has doubts whether Shach was right. Either you believe his rants mindlessly, without testing the veracity of his suggestions, or you've done research, in which case all his opinions fall flat on their face.
So there's no room for doubt. Just blind faith in the 'Gedolim' or none at all.
Timmy do you know how to read hebrew?
Timmy the fact that 77o is run by escapees from the asylum and that there is at least 1 guy out there that thinks the Rebbe is G-D R"L demonstrates that RAV SCHACH ZT"L was absolutely correct.
Correct... That Jewish laymen shouldnt learn Rambam "because we dont always pasken like him"?
Correct... That the Golan should be returned to Syria "because we can go another 2000 years without it"?
Correct... That the Oslo peace accords ought to be supported since the PA can be trusted to back it's agreements, and we don't want anymore Jews to die?
Please specify where he was absolutely correct. Then we can establish where there's room to have doubts about him or any other 'Gadol'.
The thing is, you and your ilk would follow any of his outlandish views with just as much the same blind faith as the "Escapees" do with their leaders.
The fact that there is one idiot doesn't really prove a theory my friend. I'm sure there is at least one idiot who views Shach in a similar light. Great people are always idolised to some degree.
Correct...... That we should have another Holocaust, the Schach just another dude who needed to be heard. People who bring people down to lift them up are empty!
I don't understand the spirtual-temporal-spatial "thereness" that is believed to be inhabited by the personhood thought to be located behind that silver cup on the table.
Who is there? And where is he? And why?
The same folks who don't realize how right Rav Shach was about Lubavitch are a repeat of history.During Shabtai Zvis' 'revelation' his more fanatical followers kept up with everything he did.When he started saying certain things were permissable because of the 'new' age many left, but many stayed.When he converted to Islam,many still said it was another step in the revelation.When he died they still did not give in.His 'succesors' such as the Frannkisten, kept on causing havoc in the Jewish world and were the cause of a massive fight shortly before the Ba'al Shem Tovs time.
In fact the Donmeh, a cult of his followers, still exists in Turkey to this day! They are thankfully not Jewish anymore.
The above is an historical map for what Lubavich or segments therof may become.It ain't looking pretty.If people don't own up to the truth that Rav Shach was right, we are headed in that direction.Please note:Though Rav Shach was undeniably right it does not mean that the Rebbe did not mean well or was not a righteous person, he simply made a mistake.Even Rav Shach said tehillim on his behalf when the Rebbe was stricken, as told by Shlomo Lorentz in his book .'I'm against his 'shittah' not against the man.'
YOu and your fellow "Ketanim" obviously don't believ he was undeniably right,(In the words of Hamodia: Shechina Medaberes Metoch Grono) or else you would all join "Peace Now" to have the Golan returned, Or the Neturei Karta to have the state dismantled.
Reality check: THe fact that Mi YEhudi was'nt ammended IS affecting the Frum community, contrary to Schack's prediction.
Both Schach and the lunatic who claims the Rebbe ito be G-d both misconstrue the rebbe's words. Unfurtunately for Lubavitchers, the Rebbe's talks can be misconstrued to ideas that are foreign to his true intentions.
Unfurtunately for you, Schach talks, period.
Our history stretches back 5000 years. Just as easily as you refer to Shabbatai Tzvi, (most Snags' favorite,) or early christendom in order
to predict Lubavitch's doom, I can refer to the later rejection of the Besht and CHassidism as historical references for a "map".
Or else i could use the the classic Korach versus Moshe scenario preferred by the Besht to explain schach's hatred for "only the Rebbe's ideas, not the Rebbe himself." (of course the latter implies heresy , so i'll refrain.)
Timmy
I'm getting worried about you.Why is it so difficult to be honest?You yourself admit that the Rebbes words can be 'misconstrued' .Now think a moment,please...:What was the Rebbe thinking when he made statements that can be easily misconstrued?Actually some of the statements are so clear that to say that the Rebbe did not mean he was the Messiah is to really misconstrue what he said.So the Rebbe made a mistake in the way he posed what he said....Ok, but now it's getting out of control.The analogy to Shabtai Zvis time is not mine, it's any person with some historical perspective.
Btw the way you don't 'scare' me with your long laundry list of things you think Rav Shach was wrong about A)because if he was wrong about one thing it does not making him wrong about another, especially where everyone basically agreed with him but few had the courage to come out about it,AND,B)I think he was right about the rest, for example,WE TRIED YOUR WAY of war, and today with 20 thousand dead, and countless more injured, we have to try peace,I will remind you that we have a peace treaty with Egypt for close to thirty years agreed upon by none other than Begin, a real right wing hawk!!C)I don't think laymen should emphasize parroting Rambam, they are better off
LEARNING daf hayomi!(as an aside, why the pettiness of calling him 'Shach'? you won't even grant him a simple reb?)
You asked for it.
“What was the Rebbe thinking when he made statements that can be easily misconstrued?”
Let he who wishes to err, err. –Talmud
The Chozrim & Mashpi’im are getting paid for a reason.
“Actually some of the statements are so clear that to say that the Rebbe did not mean he was the Messiah is to really misconstrue what he said.”
So now you know so much ‘bout Chabad, = Chassidus and the Rebbe’s mannerisms that you feel comfortable deciding what defines misconstrued? Get a life.
“The analogy to Shabtai Zvis time is not mine, it's any person with some historical perspective.”
I can say the very same with my analogies, but you seem to be in conference with all the people who have “historical perspective.”
”Btw the way you don't 'scare' me with your long laundry list of things you think Rav Shach was wrong about”
So maybe clarify one or two of them… you have the audacity to claim understanding of the Rebbe’s gestalt, how about the Shach man?
“everyone basically agreed with him but few had the courage to come out about it”
As with your “historical map” above, this clarity must reside exclusively with the “Ketanim” crowd.
“WE TRIED YOUR WAY of war”
When? Are you raving?
“and today with 20 thousand dead, and countless more injured, we have to try peace,”
The most powerful Arab weapon used to be a Molotov cocktail, now it’s a suicide belt or Kassam, thanks to the government’s attempts at peace, backed by Gedolim, of course.
EVERYTHING the right predicted has happened. The disengagement was viewed as weakness; Hamas claimed credit; Hamas joined the government. And when the Dems have the house in ’08, Israel will again be forced to negotiate with whatever Palestinian government is in power.
“I will remind you that we have a peace treaty with Egypt for close to thirty years”
Egypt calls it a “truce”. Note the difference?
Parenthetically, we would have the same relationship with them, in addition to Sinai’s oil, without the signed piece of paper.
“I don't think laymen should emphasize parroting Rambam, they are better off
LEARNING daf hayomi!”
Actually, using Shach’s own logic, they shouldn’t learn that either, lest they fall prey to paskening erroneously from the Gemara! (In reality, this is no problem, since it’s only recited anyway.)
“as an aside, why the pettiness of calling him 'Shach'?”
Your’e right. I’ll use the name the Rebbe deemed most appropriate: That man from bnei brak. (Who, incidentally, davens in posuleh Tefillin and calls the Lag Baomer parade (where little boys and girls recite Shema Yisrael together) “Bittul Teireh”)
I am not in the habit of knocking every flawed point I see, but this was just too juicy.
Timmy
Now that you knocked the 'snag 'senseless' with your knife-edge sharp logic you can boast about it at your alcohol laden 'farby'.
Unfortunately the reality is different as usual.In your haste to bad mouth the 'man from Bnei Brak' you did not realize how weak your position regarding Eretz Yisroel is
A)Before we even begin:The Rebbe was safe and sound in Brooklyn, while Rav Shach lived where the action really took place! (small difference,eh?)B)Rav Shachs position was very close to the position of most Israeli generals and army men, the people who had actually risked their lives countless times and were speaking from REAL experience not wannabe army games.C)Most of the Jewish population in Israel agrees to a land for peace deal.
"Before we even begin"
I thought i knocked you senseless? Your senses seem to still be sound, so you can come over for a L'chaim. L'chaim is said over Mashkeh, not alcohol, because there's a quote from the "Rav" that LeAsid Lavei Y'Hei Kulei Mashkeh.
A: So the Lubavitcher Rebbe based his opinion on the fact that he was out of harm's way, while his fellow Jews were not? Intresting... What do they smoke in Lakewood?
B: Please name even one military leader that agrees to handing over the Golan. Name even one politician that WAS a military leader who would agree.
Giving away land is a SECURITY concern. Everyone agrees but for That nieve MF Bnei Brak.
C: They believe in it IDEALLY, where there is a Tzad HaSheinee, something which does'nt exist while dealing with Arabs.
Nobody agrees to giving the enemy more room to maneuver and a closer target.
Even if the left still does, A: would you allow your brother to engage in a life-threatning activity because he is'nt aware of the danger? B: Would you allow your brother to take his own life?
On top of everything mentioned above, what is the possibility that money for the "Yesiveis" played a role in TMFBB's decision making?
Ah Gut Shabbos
Where is the ahavas Yisroel?
A Gutten Shabbos to all.
By the way, it's 6:00 P.M. where I am.
Yikes, the animosity!
All I can say is thank God I live in Australia: far from all this crazy meshuga'at!! From my perspective, I think you're both right: the Rebbe zt"l was a truly great and charismatic leader - but many of his disciples have strayed so far from the path that they should be on as to be a stain on his memory. As for RAV Shach (the epithet that you are giving him, whether or not the Rebbe once condoned it, is disgusting and disgraceful): what he lacked in charisma he more than made up for in lomdus.
Who cares whether or not you think that Rav Shach made unwise political decisions?? The Rebbe advocated holding onto the Sinai desert after the 6 day war: what do you think might have happened had Israel done that? I wouldn't side with either camp: you have too much hatred for each other.
Following up from Chaiale: what's with the time on this thing? It's 7:05pm here :-P
Timmy,
I can't resist being a devils advocate. I am not interested with your petty debate with the disciples of Rav Shach. Yes he probably had some very naive political views about Israel. This by the way raises a lot of issues about Emunas Chachomim. As a chossid who believes that a Tzaddik has some sense of "ruach Hakodesh" & should be listened to even in political & wordly matters. Obviously Rav Shach whose leadership of a large segment of frumer Yidden & "Benei Tora", would certainly qualify as someone whose views are to be treated as D'aas Torah (I hate that word) by his disciples. Yet you & I know that he was way off the mark on many of these things. This is because we have a healthy disdain for all other G'dolim (or Ketanim) other than the Rebbe Z'tzl & therefore are able to look critically at their statements & views. Yet we are expected to treat the Rebbes views with this same sense of uncritical Emunas Chachomim. My point is simply that if a personality like Rav Schach (& as far as I am concerned many of the current G'dolim is Eretz Yisroel) are wrong, then how do you understand the conceot of Emunas Chachomim.
Anyway, that is just an aside, I would like to just make 2 points.
As aniboker points out. If we would still be in control of the Sinai, we would have had a hostile neighbour with the largest army in the region (other than Israel) & a potential serious military threat to Israel. Israel would have had to divert significant military resources to defending its southern border & with the rise in Palestinian terrorism, a hostile Egypt is one thing we don't need.
We may not have an ideal "peace treaty" with Egypt, but certainly the "truce" as you call it, has permanently removed Egypt as an existential military threat to Israel. (Unless of course the Moslem Brotherhood take control, but I wouldn't worry, Mubarak isn't going to let that happen. Even if they do, I am not so sure that Egypt would want to risk its economic benefits gained by making peace with Israel by going to war.)
Secondly, just to be the devils advocate, you ask to name one military leader you believes in returning the Golan.
I may be getting old and my memory may be wrong, but I don't think so. Ayalon, the previous Chief of Staff who resigned, most likely because he opposed the disengagement from Gaza, was quoted as having said that the Golan was not critical to Israel's defense & an arrangement with Syria regarding the Golan was possible in the context of a peace teraty with Syria.
Don't ask me to quote the source, because I am old & can't remember. But I enjoy a challenge & if you wish I can endeavour to find the article that quotes him saying this.
Jyk
I'm curious, are you a Lubavitcher?
Whatever the case you sound openminded.I't's good to see that some folks realize that the very rightwing position vis a vis peace and land is very very gray,the guys who have/had the easy solutions are usually sitting on a bench in Brooklyn and telling people to be strong and not give up an inch.Very easy,very small minded.
Aniboker, was it his lomdus that brought him to conclude that Lubavitchers "completely uproot the mitzvah of Sukkah" since they don't sleep in it?
(The Rabbeinu Asher and R' Moshe Isserlis write that a person's dwelling is defined by where he eats, not sleeps.)
"The Rebbe advocated holding onto the Sinai desert after the 6 day war: what do you think might have happened had Israel done that?"
I already wrote above that they would have the same relationshim with Egypt as they do now, in addiotion to the israeli-developed oil wells of sinai (and the good graces of the US that come with possesing oil.)
"I wouldn't side with either camp: you have too much hatred for each other."
Yup, you see we both learned in the same Torah that "one who embarrasses a Talmid Chacham has no share in the world-to-come."
The zealotry stems from there.
It's sad, Emunas Chachomim has devolved into choosing somebody to follow between the many Gedolim that bicker like ancient gods.
We bwelieve in one Rebbe who's view ultimately reigns supreme to any other. He is our Enei HaEidah. The Moshe who's trustworthiness is equal to our Emunah in Hashem. VayaAminu BaShem Uv'Moshe Avdei.
This is how Following the Rabbis has come down to us. Frankly, it's more rational then the plethora of leaders offered by the Velt.
For more personal direction there's the Rav/Protege relationship offered in Avos and endorsed-by-Personal-Request by Our Rebbe.
I'll look onto Ayalon. Meantime it is clear that the Rebbe felt that security should be decided by none other than the military leaders on the ground.
Reality Check, I feel bad that i didn't let you in on this at your very first post: You are way out of your league.
Any point you might raise is seen literally as a Goy explaining how the Tanach ought to be interpreted.
Sorry 'bout demolishing your deep rooted beliefs without first letting you know that.
Before i attempt your very good points, i'd like to first say that the devil's got enough advocates already!
I stand 'bout how i feel on the Egypt issue.
"but certainly the "truce" as you call it, has permanently removed Egypt as an existential military threat to Israel."
By calling it a truce i deliberately negate it as being considered "permanent".
Islam allows for nothing more then a temporary ceasefire with the enemy.
And muslim leaders ain't gonna get any more moderate.
"I am not so sure that Egypt would want to risk its economic benefits gained by making peace with Israel by going to war"
It's truce with israel has also gained it military benefits.
They now have weapons from the US.
Thankfully, they don't/can't maintain them as well as Israel does theirs, but that's little consolation.
RE: Ayalon
Are you referring to former Labor MK Ami Yaalon?
Let me requalify the requirements: if the former security leader has turned to politics, his opinion on security does'nt count anymore.
Timmy,
No, I am referring to the former Chief of Staff who at this point has not entered politics. I believe he is currently teaching in the USA & was quoted as saying that Israel (& the US) has military options regarding Iran & its nuclear capabilities.
He was strongly sanctioned by the Israeli Government for expressing these views publicly.
Reality check - I suppose I am a Lubavitcher having spent a number of years learning in 770 & yes I suppose I am a little openminded particlarly on issues regarding Eretz Yisroel.
However, despite my discomfort with some of the views held by the Rebbe I am afraid that anyone who is intellectually honest (& this is why I mentioned the issue of Emunas Chachomim & maintaining a critical independent view) has to recognise that he had a better grasp on Israeli politics, both in terms of diplomacy & military matters than any of the G'dolim within the "Yeshiva World" is Israel. The only religious leaders unfortunately in Israel who I have respect for not having idealogical hard line views are those within the moderate group of rE
I seem to have pressed the wrong key.
To continue..
are those within the moderate group of religious zionist Roshei Yeshivas e.g Rav Aaron Lichtenstein (the Rav's son-in-law) & those of similar orientation. They are "settlers" which qualify them to talk on these issues & still express pragmatic views on issues relating to religion vs the state & especially on land for peace.
Timmy, regarding your comments concerning Egypt. Mubarak is a thoroughly secular Arab. I don't believe he thinks in terms of temporary truces as the more religious fundamentalist like Hamas do. Secondly, you missed my second point, even the Moslem Brotherhood which is associated with Hamas are unlikley to risk plunging Egypt into a war & sacrificing all the economic benefits it has gained from the West.
We need to recognise that Israels problems going forward are not existential threats from its neighbours. Israels army is the strongest in the region & no normal leader would risk going to war with Israel. Its problems are with ongoing terrorism from the Palestinian terror groups which certainly threaten Jewish lives, but even they don't threaten the existence of the State. We need to stop talking in Apocalyptic terms & place the threats in perspective. This is why I found much of the language of those opposed to the disengagement (& the Meshichisten were & are the worst crazies) distasteful even if they may have had a valid point. I think it is this language which alienated them from the Israeli mainstream.
Our real existential threat at the moment is Iran, as their leader is a madman & with nuclear capabilities is a real threat to Israel's survival.
I have to run now jyk, but sounds like we can have some serious discussions on the points you raised.
Timmy,why not lower the rhetoric so you could also join a mature discussion?
jyk,
The more i read on former IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Yaalon, the less likely it seems for your quote on him to be remotely accurate.
What was the context?
Intelligence is the ability to see diametrically opposing sides as equally true. (Speaking of 770, Reb Yoel is the pinnacle example for this ability.) The only thing that should incline you one way or the other is what you want, your will. I could argue Reality check's point of view better than he himself can, but i've chosen my Leader, and there's no gray here.
The peace deal with Egypt has'nt been completely closed. This is because Israel has'nt resolved the conflict with the palistinians.This was a major tenant of the peace accords.
It certainly is very mature and liberal for you to take our problems apart and "put them into perspective", but the muslims don't see it that way. The palistinians are the scapegoat to destroy the abomination on muslim soil that won't be destroyed any other way ONLY because of lack of means.
This is why they will always be at the forefront of any deal with a muslim nation.
Enter Iran, nearing the ability to realise the muslim dream, what do you think would their pretext for accomplishing what the 'crazies' are all screaming against?
If not Mubarak then the next one. My point is only what Sadat told his people "We're only putting the guns down for the next generation to finish the job."
"As aniboker points out. If we would still be in control of the Sinai, we would have had a hostile neighbour with the largest army in the region (other than Israel) & a potential serious military threat to Israel. Israel would have had to divert significant military resources to defending its southern border & with the rise in Palestinian terrorism, a hostile Egypt is one thing we don't need."
study terrorism my friend. it would do you some good.
if you understood the nature of terrorism you would understand that had israel stayed in sinai there would probably not be palestinian terrorism today.
to tzemach atlas:
im disgusted how u can allow these ppl to accord honour to some1 who the rebbe in public shouted at???? im disgusted.... btw r u lubavitch even?
"As aniboker points out. If we would still be in control of the Sinai, we would have had a hostile neighbour with the largest army in the region (other than Israel) & a potential serious military threat to Israel. Israel would have had to divert significant military resources to defending its southern border & with the rise in Palestinian terrorism, a hostile Egypt is one thing we don't need."
Israel still needs to defend the southern border. Only now it is further east and north, closer to the heart of the country without a large buffer zone.
Commenting by HaloScan
