What is it about growing up in Minnesota that turns regular people like myself into raving lunatics (liberals)? Why couldn't I have been a typical Crown Heightser, imbibing Sean Hannity like mother's milk and espousing Rush Limbaugh as if he was the second coming of the guy we crucified 2000 years ago? Instead I'm stuck with that most midwestern of diseases, a conscience. I'm sure to engender outrage when I posit that these strange feelings of mine are directly responsible for my defending this dude. You'll surely say, "But how?" Consciences are for starving children in Africa, not for certified nuts proselytizing the bad word. How can I possibly say that I sympathize, or even (horror of horrors) empathize with this crazy man who is undoubtedly driving away thousands from the Judaism we all know and love?
Well, facts are facts (and certain people will love me for this), but Jewish reality is not the seamless tapestry we'd often it to be. In fact, it's more of a Jackson Pollock drip-fest, with all sorts of shtuff competing for attention, and only some or other breaking through to meet our consciousnesses, and the rest fading away, as demonstrated somewhere here, there, and everywhere. Judaism is filled with plenty of crazy shtuff, and there's absolutely no reason to dent it. It's funny how certain disagreements got canonized, like those in the Talmud and other assorted holy books. Those disagreements are holy holy holy (אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים, right?). Other ones though? Not so much. It's ok to say that Hashem or Hezekiah is Moshiach, but not anyone else?
---
All right, quick commercial break: Is it just me, or do umpires really love throwing replacement baseballs to pitchers?
---
And we're back! Where was I? Oh, right. So some crazy nut case crack head person says some incredibly dumb things, I defend him a bit, and some people (enable your Blogger profile, people!) go ballistic.
---
(Another commercial break) You know, I was thinking today that if Lubavitchers would only keep their mouths shut then Lubavitch would have a much easier time marketing itself. Which of course is a paradox, because the only way to market one's self is by opening one's mouth.
---
And once again, we're back! It's like when an inning starts and then they announce that a reliever is coming in-right back to Dodge and McDonald's! Anyway, right, yeah, Lubavitch. We in the middle occupy precarious ground, with the crazed hordes screaming for our heads on the left side (our Flatbush et all friends [though I must admit that their Kosher Subway serves up excellent fare]) and on the right (those messianists with their yellow flags and other exciting paraphernalia). What generally happens is that we lash out at both sides, cursing in one breath the snags who plague us and in the other the tzvatim who do much the same. But really, why are we so convinced that we're right and they're wrong? Of course, we're always right. Or more to the point, "I" am always right. But are we? Or is this just the case of the victor deciding history? There is of course no victor yet, which leaves us in the curious position of writing our own story. Actually, this is what everyone is doing all the time. It's only when we move beyond the past that we can see what's actually going on, or else think we see what's going on.
My point? Just because you disagree with someone, even radically disagree, doesn't mean that they're wrong. After all, maybe they have sound theology? Or even worse, maybe their theology is close enough to yours that you feel threatened by them? After all, the old joke that "Lubavitch is the closest religion to Judaism" isn't necessarily a patent untruth.
Is there right and wrong? We like to think so. In fact, as we like to say, "We know so". Problem is, everyone out there is also saying that they've got the truth. Now I of all people hate to get into convoluted arguments over absolute truth and whether David Ortiz cheated or not, but there it is. In conclusion, I think it's safe to say, "Stop the hating!"
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
All it takes is love
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
190 comments:
Dear Mr. R.S.
You haven't joined the "why can't we all get along" crowd have you? Say it isn't so.
Concerned Citizen, Leo d T.
Yay compassionate real shilach! one more step closer to realizing that if there isnt any room for anyone else's crazy then there isnt really room for yours either.
LdT: Oh, I don't mind if everyone kills everyone else, just so long as they don't bring any moral justification for it.
Sebastion: Brilliant. Actually.
Are you calling me crazy?
More to the point, maybe he is right, that is not the issue. To say something in your own name, and have philosophy around it is perfectly fine, but to say that someone else is Moahsiach, someone whom many others fallow as a spiritual leader, and to do everything against said persons teachings is not only wrong but unfair to that person, and to that persons followers.
TRKS (The real kofer sympathizer): Kfira can be tolerated to a certain point with the practitioners still being considered practicing Jews. At the point where mitzvos get abrogated and people go out of their way to make sure the avoda zara is l'chol ha'daios there is no more room.
Halacha is halacha and can not be broken, I don't think anyone is arguing that but people nonetheless have a right to believe what they wish.
no one really knows. people fumble along, and talk and talk, and come up with brilliant theories, and solutions. everyone just makes more problems. and no one really knows much of anything.
maybe if everyone just shut up for a bit, if we had like a mass moment of silence, we'd actually get somewhere.
probably not, but its worth a try.
Nu, nu.
I mean, blah-blah.
Or something.
Common sense is not common, so there is no solution. Live with it.
Qtap: Who called you crazy?
Modeh: Who is tolerating here?
Qtap: Halacha is halacha and can't be broken? Did you read the links on this post?
Altie: huh?
CA: Solution to what?
you're advocating "theological relativism," which sounds nice and lovely, but it ain't the brand of Judaism with which we've been brought up.
trs- u sure ask a lot of questions. its not very becoming of you.
e- so what. it works
but is it right? Understand that if you say it's right, you're contradicting the Rebbe. There are lots of workable philosophies which the Rebbe didn't hold of.
you'd probably say I'm mocking you, but I'm really just point out your own scruples and beliefs.
no i dont think u are mocking me.
"Live and let live"
how does that contradict what the rebbe said?
the rebbe (and this wasn't his innovation. I'm just referring to the rebbe instead of to "judaism" b/c everyone has a different opinion as to what "judaism" is) would say that you should let him live, simply because you have no other choice, but not because his opinion has any intrinsic value.
i.e. he is wrong but theres nothing you can do abt it?
but thats what it is when you say live and let live. not necessarily do u think you are right and he is right. most of the time you will swear that you are right, and he has no idea what he is talking abt. but for the sake of peace and love you will keep your mouth shut and let him think what he wants.
so whats wrong with that?
that's cool. and that may be what you had in mind, but it's not what TRS advocated in this post.
e: Oh, who says I believe anything that I've written here? Or maybe I do, but I don't?
trs- i think u confuse even yourself. good job
it's a small kuntz to simultaneously advocate love and stir controversy when you don't believe your own words.
Altie: Not at all. I know what I believe. No one else does though.
e: I'll take that as a compliment.
Qtap #1-I like you point. Well said.
Oh, and I think TRS just wanted lots of comments... Good choice of controversy!
C: (1) Oh please, people have been doing things that the Rebbe hated in his name for fifty years.
C: (2) What? Such low motives you attribute to me? Shocking!
TRS: You did. What is it about growing up in Minnesota that turns regular people like myself into raving lunatics
As for the links, no I did not, I should have, I'll do that now.
C: Thanks.
1-And I have a problem with all of them.
2-Yup!
Whoever said you were regular people? After all, you think you're Joshua, no?
What does regular have to do with anything?
C: 1. You miss my point.
I never said I was Joshua, I said I can relate to him.
C: Sorry, that was for Qtap, not you.
Qtap: Besides, you're a Vikings fan...
Actually, I don't like sports, but were I to go for a football team it would be the Saints, followed by the Packers.
Really? My apologies. Go Qtap!
*takes a bow*
The question remains, what gives you the right to call us all crazy, whether we are or not? Just because you feel that Minnesota is the cause of your insanity does not mean some of us don't proudly call it home.
A. I actually love MN. I don't know why.
B. Everyone is crazy.
A. Does anyone know why?
B. Some more than others.
a. you will forever be a hicktown boy at heart.
b. agreed
Hicktown?! Woah, that's a bit harsh, don't you think?
Qtap: 1. Sure.
2. That's debatable.
Altie: This coming from a Crown Heightser who hates Crown Heights...
I'm from The big city we like to call New York. I'm supposed to be harsh.
Big sharks eat little fish. Thats how it goes.
you use it when u need it.
TRS: Everything's debatable, isn't that the point of this post?
Altie: At least we have air.
at least we have buildings. oh, and people too.
And if you had a few less then maybe people could find each other.
im assuming you dont mean the 'find each other and fall in love and live happily ever after' find each other.
what do u think phone book are for?
if people want to be found, then they will. and if not, then they wont.
simple.
And social niceties? They get lost too, what with those masses of people. Just saying.
MN=good place to bring up kids-just look at the vast majority of kids raised here.
NY=bad place to raise kids-just look at the vast majority of kids raised there.
social niceties? u mean like, 'omg omg omg, i havent seen you in a million years, how are you?? omg, you look so good!! what are you doing with your life now? (insert girly screach)
i think we can all do without those.
no, its ok to be anti social. works better that way.
u dont bother me, i wont bother you, and we will all live in peace and harmony.
until u try to hurt me. then i will hurt u back. only fair.
trs- u fool yourself. bringing up kids is 100% entirely up to the parent.
there are great kids who live in ny. and crappy kids who grew up in a hicktown.
the place u live effects how you turn out, but is not limited to it.
also, big cities make u tough. its a good thing.
No, not at all, things like that can undoubtedly be left to rot like a coon on the side of the road.
I'm talking things like please and thank you. Acknowledgment that there are other people walking on the pavement, an apology when you bump into someone, simple things like that.
each to his own.
there are polite people in ny. its just hard to find them.
in connection to what trs said- it depends how your parents brought u up.
You know, I was thinking today that if Lubavitchers would only keep their mouths shut then Lubavitch would have a much easier time marketing itself. Which of course is a paradox, because the only way to market one's self is by opening one's mouth.
Big lav davka. If Lubavitchers would either learn proper marketing skills or if they would properly learn their own beliefs, they could responsibly open their mouthes without fear of reprisal.
but they go around with the attitude that we are the best, and ultimately the only right path. so why would they need to know what they are talking about, as long a they have that core belief?
then they are shocked to discover that the whole world does not think exactly like them, and many ppl disagree with chassidus. gasp.
So "if they would properly learn their own beliefs ..."
its not gonna happen. so is the way the world works.
f you think u are right, do u feel the need to have answers? no. most of the time you will feel that ppl should be satisfied just knowing that you are right.
a teacher who doesnt really know the answer to a question usually just answers 'because' or something stupid. unless they are a good teacher.
Don't blame the world for Lubavitch's self-imposed inadequacies.
TRS: you know that the whole feasting on the 17th of Tammuz because Moshiach is here is from a sicha of the Rebbe where he says exactly as such? Maybe the sheep hasn't strayed so far from the shepherd ...
BTW, Altie, "live and let live" is not a very Lubavitch concept. The entire idea of shlichus is about not letting things remain status quo.
C: a fundamentalist after my own heart.
The fasts are from the neviim and not from Torah. Wouldn't you say that the abrogation of something enacted by the neviim cannot constitute kefirah? It's not even a mitzva d'rabbanan. Is someone who refuses to hear megillah considered a kofer?
Wow, e's approval! My life has meaning :)
I don't care what your scruples are. I just have one meta-scruple. Whatever scruples you have, stick to them!
Don't say that you're a Lubavitcher, and at the same time say that you respect others' beliefs.
I hope my mother never reads this - it'll just confirm everything she's been saying...
E- vu shtait in Tanya?
There is a big difference between respecting people and respecting their beliefs.
This isn't specifically chabad. All hard-core Orthodox Jews (ought to) believe this.
Nemo, do I really need to convince you that if you really believe Orthodoxy, then everyone else is WRONG?
In theory, we ought to respect all people and respect none of their beliefs. In practice, the disrespect for their beliefs often seeps into personal disrespect (sorry, le7's mom)
e- do u even have any scruples?
E- I'm talking intra-Orthodox Judaism. I'm saying that because you're Lubavitch, Satmar isn't -- to borrow TRS' term - a patent untruth.
satmar is true only as far as it overlaps with us. Nothing which disagrees with us has any truth at all.
On what level does it disagree with us? Although in the real world we see that this usually aspirational only, we do believe elu v'elu divrei Elokim chayim. Even the Hakdoma of Tanya only seems to imply that it is intended for chassidim or at the most, those who choose to utilize it to find a path to G-dliness. At the same time, it recognizes that there are different paths which can be derived from many sources ...*
hmmm. I guess I've been exaggerating.
I go water the garden and I miss a whole fight...
I think the idea is like this:
There are different paths for different people, but somehow ours is better. A Belzer might be fine going to the Belzer Rebbe, and a Bobover is fine going to Bobover Rebbe. But we think that the Rebbe isn't only good for us. The whole Seder Hishtalshelus needs the Rebbe.
And the same thing applies to teaching and beliefs. Rabbi Nacham's teachings are good for some people, but chabad chassidus is good for everybody.
Better ≠ other view is wrong.
e: And of course, don't forget that many of these groups believe that they have the ultimate truth too.
Nemo: Exactly. I don't think I've ever met a Jew who didn't think that his way was the ultimate. Not necessarily what he practiced, obviously, but what he believed was the right way.
i dunno. it's not so simple. Satmar is "also" good, but the relish with which people diss their chassidus, not to mention the snags... It seems like it's more than just "we're better." It's more like "we're better, and they such too, although they're not necessarily evil."
I was once discussing with a bochur if it's "worth it" if a shliach makes somebody frum, but he has no connection to the Rebbe. At the end, the bochur agreed that the shliach had accomplished something, but it was a novel thought to him. His first thought was that if someone has no connection to the Rebbe, all his torah and mitzvos are worthless.
I think it can be summed up in the line, "Everyone's a Lubavitcher, they just don't know it yet." And the same could be said for Breslov, and Yekkes, and each Snag with his derech halimud. Everyone thinks they have it going on, and everyone else, while what they're doing will get them into some low level of paradise, isn't worth too much.
So when FR said that whoever learns nigleh without nistar is delaying the coming of Mashiach, what did he mean? I don’t mean what did he mean literally, I mean what was he saying: “we’re better” or “we’re better, and they’re not quite as evil”? Or, perhaps, “you are just barely surviving as a Jew [so nu, at least you’re not dead], while we are really living”.
TRS, really? I think amongst many people there is the whole “we are good, and they are good in their own way; I just like my way more” attitude.
Plus, the difference between Lubavitcher and other is that we can explain it logically, while with others it’s all emotions.
Lots of typos. Sorry. Long day.
CA: You just totally proved my point!
trs: right. it goes even further. the Christians think they're right; the Muslims think they're right; the atheists think they're right; and CA thinks he's right.
Nu, who is it then?
I don’t think. I know.
You don't think Benedict knows he's right?
Knowledge is based on empirical facts and logical analysis thereof. Let him bring forth the facts and the analysis.
Benedict also thinks he knows.
CA: And you're convinced that no one could possibly convince you that your version of Luavitch is wrong?
e: So he does, so he does.
Not at all. Right now someone might knock on the door, wait for me turn around and open it, come in, and prove to me that _____ [insert here any belief or knowledge I have] is wrong. But until someone does that, what’s the point of relying on that possibility?
Also, I am not against so-called parallel truths. I have seen parallel truths in many areas, from Neuroscience to physics to math to, lehavdil, Yiddishkeit. I just have not seen a truth in Judaism parallel to derech Chabad. If someone has it, please, let him come forward and bring facts and arguments.
e, at some point it makes sense to stop. When you cross the street and see a car coming, you don’t think you think there is a car, you think you know. And if somebody tells you there is no car, then hell, screw him.
right, but benedict would say that Catholicism is as clear to him as the car speeding down the street. To a third party, your certainty seems identical.
And that attitude, of the last post, is the attitude of action. I.e., I see someone in a burning house, I run in and rescue him. In practice. In reality, I can think I am hallucinating, it’s not a house but a boat, it’s not burning but floating, and it’s not a person but a cactus. In theory, I am willing to contemplate this. But in practice, I am not going to do this. I am going to take in all the facts that I have, analyze them the best I can, and live my life accordingly.
And if someone disagrees with my facts or analysis, let him come forward and disprove me — or go back to his mental... ahem... self-gratification exercises. He needs to come forward even if he wants me to respect his point of view as a parallel truth.
If he says it’s clear, let him bring forth facts and arguments. And we shall talk (I mean, I won’t; I’ve better things to do; plus, after a few years of doing it, it’s got old).
To someone from the outside, Judaism and Catholicism may look similar. That’s the same as saying that Pythagorean theorem and a child’s doodles look similar. So they do, so what? Pythagorean theorem is based on demonstrable logic; child’s doodles are not.
True. Whenever people bug me about me views and say "How can you be certain? Are you smarter than ploni ben ploni?" I always respond "Ein l'dayan ela mah she'einav ro'os." As far as I can tell, I'm right.
Saying “sky is blue” and “as far as I can tell, sky is blue” is saying the same thing.
Someone who believes that Earth is flat believes in it based on his facts or opinions or emotions or whatever. And I believe Earth is curved based on mine. I don’t find anything wrong in believe that Lubavitch is the best way to go for a Jew, and everybody else, while doing the minimum job, is missing the point in major areas, just like I don’t find anything wrong in saying that someone who believes that Earth is flat is objectively¹ wrong.
_______
¹ As far as I can tell.
Remind me the next time I see you that I need to smack some sense into you.
If you have sfeikos about where you are then why are you where you are. There's no question mark there because it's a rhetorical question for you, the answer to which I'm not interested in.
the difference between "the sky is blue" and "as far as I can tell, the sky is blue" is that the latter leaves open the possibility that you're wrong.
i didn't quite get your point in your second comment.
How do you get footnotes in a comment?
When I say “sky is blue”, I also leave possibility of a mistake. Even in everyday experience. Maybe a bunch of people have been mass hallucinations for millenia.
I just add a super-scripted number¹.
_______
¹ Then do a bunch of underscores, another super-scripted number and the footnote.
how do you do superscript?
i keep reading the title, and i keep thinking, no, thats not all it takes. cuz if it all had to do with love, then we would never get there, cuz no one is ever gonna love everyone.
I love everyone. And if you are going to waste this much time contemplating your own theological correctness instead of just beliving and practicing the damn thing, then i think there are better forms of self-gratification for you.
Oops. Typos.
Oops. Typos.
J: You're boring.
No mental circle jerks are boring.
:p
Typical.
Love is not enough. It never is.
You're right. Love+chocolate chop mint ice cream.
Right on! Oh and cheese danishes.
That's my favorite flavor as well!
toffuti wild berry, or better pecan. yum.
Short way: Alt + 0178.
Long way: create your own keyboard layout — like I did (with proper typographical symbols).
I miss so much with a fickle computer.
That wasn’t a recipe for creating tofuti — just in case…
Sara: Yes you do.
CA: Just in case what?
CA: Logical proofs? Chassidus? It is a well established fact agreed on by everyone from Shach to Yoilish to the Rebbe and everyone in between that Chassidus makes most sense when you're drunk.
I think I'd have to disagree with you there. Having learned in yeshiva these last 8 years, I think I can honestly say that chassidus makes as much, or more, sense as nigleh.
j: you gotta know what you stand for. if it's all about peace and love, then maybe you should check out jewish renewal. It's also more fun to argue about stuff than to just love e/one.
CA: thanks for the info. Don't see myself implementing that one anytime soon.
TRS+Modeh: To say that chassidus makes sense only to the intoxicated is a bit of an overstatement. But it does require a lot of mental squinting to make it all fit together. Someimes these ma'amorim contradict each other, and you kind of need to ignore little bits of them to make them fit together. Unlike nigleh, where you can focus on the discrepancies and figure out a new p'shat to make them fit together smoothly.
j: you gotta know what you stand for. if it's all about peace and love, then maybe you should check out jewish renewal. It's also more fun to argue about stuff than to just love e/one.
CA: thanks for the info. Don't see myself implementing that one anytime soon.
TRS+Modeh: To say that chassidus makes sense only to the intoxicated is a bit of an overstatement. But it does require a lot of mental squinting to make it all fit together. Someimes these ma'amorim contradict each other, and you kind of need to ignore little bits of them to make them fit together. Unlike nigleh, where you can focus on the discrepancies and figure out a new p'shat to make them fit together smoothly.
re: J: Exactly. Half the time I only say things to get a fun reaction.
re: CA: whyever not?
re: other shtuff: Well, you could do that with Chassidus too...
Chassidus definitely makes more sense than nigleh. In fact, in many instances, Chassidus is the sense of nigleh.
But overall, just because something makes more sense when drunk doesn’t mean anything. This is not only true of Chassidus, but also of, say, physics. What actually happens is when you’re drunk you have less of the sensation that you’re so stupid that you don’t get what it says.
Nigleh makes sense all the time. Chassidus only makes sense when your mental faculties are not at their best. What does that say about chassidus?
Repeating something which is not true again does not make it true.
But I guess, you’re right. Until someone actually studies chassidus to the point of understanding, 1) he does not realize that nigleh has logical holes which can only be filled from ruchniusdik perspective, 2) he obviously does not understand Chassidus (which for the people who have not achieved proper level of bittul in their relationship with Torah — again, through Chassidus — means that Chassidus “does not make sense”).
Yeah, it’s a vicious circle.
Modeh: Have you actually ever learned chassidus?
And here I was — being too polite to ask this question. Thanks, TRS, I can always count on you.
politeness doesn't exist in the blogosphere, dumbass.
Or in Lubavitch.
e=Lubavitch?
Not anymore, apparently. Why?
You seemed to imply it.
e- but language does.
Politeness exists in language? What's that supposed to mean?
don't curse. its not ladylike.
I was not talking about e at all. I was actually talking about you (i.e., there is no politeness in either blogosphere or in Lubavitch — both of which are your niches of existence), albeit half-seriously.
CA: nigleh is ruchniyus.
TRS:Half of tanya, three or 4 sichos and half of kuntres eitz hachayim. The concept of bittul as explained there requires more than mashke to understand.
Altie: I'm male. $%&%$#%#&%(^&$%^#&^#$%$%^*%^$^%$%^#&$*%&^(T&^%$*$&*(%#%&
Modeh: Go learn a little more before besmirching...
modeh- that was directed at e, for saying 'dumbass'. its a joke, i know he's not female. just as I know u are male. but cursing isn't ladylike in general, and it isn't manly either. its just plain vulgar. so whats with all the
W%W&*(%#(%&(%*)^*$^#$)%(%#)%^
plus, i agree with trs that whatever you learnt in no way qualifies you as an expert on chassidus. go learn some more if u want to argue.
That’s why girls should not learn Gemara. Perfect example.
MBM — of course nigleh is not ruchnius. Not in its metzius. It’s all cows, oxen and lost talleisim. I.e., gashmius. Of course, in its essence it’s ruchnius, but that’s why you need Chassidus — to reveal the essence of nigleh, to reveal the essence of a Jewish soul, to reveal the essence of the world.
It’s like saying that gasoline is fire. In its essence — yes. But it takes a spark of fire to reveal the inner essence of gasoline. For the world, Yiddishkeit and a Jew, that spark is Chassidus Chabad. Which is, incidentally, the connection of Chassidus Chabad with geulah (and, by extension, the connection of the source of Chassidus Chabad — the Rebbe — with the persona whose role is to bring geulah).
On the other note, yeah, I’ve met a lot of people who “own a volume of Tanya” and consider themselves to be boki enough on Chassidus to make fun of it or make decisions whether it makes sense or not.
Altie, cursing is very manly. It may not be gentlemanly, but that’s another story.
Altie, I'm not going to insult you now, because I just was mean to you on mottel's blog.
can't be too rough on the ladies.
Do you mean there is no such thing as being too rough on the ladies (i.e., the sky is the limit) or that one should not be too rough on the ladies?
the latter.
CA: What does girls learning Gamara have to do with anything?
MBM’s deficiency in learning Chassidus leading him to misunderstand it and make fun of it is a perfect example of the concept that girls should not learn Gemara, since (learning Gemara being a mitzva not required for them) they will not devote enough time to it — only a passing acquaintance — and, because of the nature of Gemara, this will increase the likelihood of them misunderstanding it and making fun of it (or just finding a lot of ideas strange and ridiculous).
It’s true for anything, not just Gemara or Chassidus. E.g., passing acquaintance with Einsteins Theory of Relativity (either Special or General) can lead one to a sense of incredulity about the said theory (something that happened to me in the seventh grade). But, while with chochmas chitzoinius it’s not such a big problem: a) in modern society people generally speaking have more bittul to the authority of scientists (to be fair, mainly because their findings result in tangible advancements in level of living — i.e., what the scientists say may sound ridiculous, but look at the toilet paper I can now use because of their crazy theories) and b) because making fun of Gemara is more dangerous and terrible than making fun of, lehavdil, physics.
No?
ca- right u are. my mistake. sadly, being 'manly' has been made into more than it is.
ugh u guys are horrible. if i was a femminist, i might be more upset than i am.
and e- i know u insulted me. what is this, only one insult per day? i should be so lucky.
bring it on- im not scared of u.
qtap- good point. girls CAN learn gemara. suck it up.
There is no doubt they can. There is a doubt they should. And also as an organized phenomenon (not on a case-by-case basis and in a more focused environment).
It has nothing to do with (dis-) respect of women. It’s the same idea as whether a kohen is allowed to get drunk.
CA: Same thing with the big bang theory or theory of evolution. Shalom Charitonow once mocked the theory of evolution at his shabbat table, which was kind of funny, because he had not clue what he was talking about.
e, I personally believe in Theory of Evolution, and I agree that a lot of Lubavitchers, including shluchim in big cities who have Chabad Houses with more than three stories, should know more chochmas chitzoinius — or at least not reveal the fact that they don’t and be very proud of it and then say things like “DNA is the same for each cell? What? That makes no sense” doing Chillul Chabad in front of a large group of people.
And enough with the ridiculous “you can teach it, as long as you teach that it’s only a theory” tantra.
mantra
i thought he was saying tantrum.
Umm, yeah, mantra. A typo (the letters are next to each other on the keyboard).
really? which keyboard u using?
Good point Altie.
I have long fingers. Like Rachmaninoff.
well ok then. i'm sure u do.
CA:
1- That crack about owning a tanya has nothing to do with it. I own a shas too. I do not consider myself boki. I know what I learned and what I learned from tanya I can do without.
2- If you think that you cannot find ruchniyus in torah without chasidus chabad you have to look harder.
3-Re women and gemara, after a particularly nasty shmues from a (snag) menahel I went home and taught my mother a blatt just to be yotze.
Altie: I know, I just couldn't resist.
That crack about owning a tanya has nothing to do with it. I own a shas too. I do not consider myself boki. I know what I learned and what I learned from tanya I can do without.
Nu. Imagine someone says “I know what I learned in Shas, and I know I can do without it”. Except with Tanya it’s even greater. Anybody who says he can do without Ch-s 4 and 5 of L"A or, say, Ch-s 36 and 37, doesn’t really know (according to all Rebbeim Chabad from Alter Rebbe until the Rebbe) what Yiddishkeit is all about. Or knows but doesn’t get it.
Unless he means that this stuff can be found elsewhere (which seemingly would be the case, since A"R himself states he just “compiled” wisdom from different sources), but if someone can show me an organized shitta which explains the same stuff that Ch-s 36 and 37 explain, I would be grateful.
If you think that you cannot find ruchniyus in torah without chasidus chabad you have to look harder.
What do you mean when you say “ruchnius”? Spirituality? Inspiration? What does that mean exactly? To some people Pushk... I mean, Shakespear is ruchnius. To some people Pirkey Avos is ruchnius.
To me, ruchnius : G-d = electric field : charge. In ruchnius, one must see G-d Himself, whatever that means, on multiple levels. Just like in an editorial, you can see the author himself, while in a work of fiction, the author is hidden. Now, if you show me an organized, accessible¹ school of thought in Judaism outside of Chabad Chassidus that is a school of theology (study of G-d), as opposed to jurisprudence or philosophy, I would be interested.
Re women and gemara, after a particularly nasty shmues from a (snag) menahel I went home and taught my mother a blatt just to be yotze.
Yasher koach.
________
¹ It has to be on the same level as when I have a particular halachic question. I.e., organized and accessible.
I'm sorry Modeh, but that's ridiculous. It's like saying, "Who needs math? I can kind of add, and do a little subtraction-what more is there?"
Also, there's a reason the Tanya is called the "Written Torah of Chassidus." Just like the Five books of Moses are incomprehensible without commentary, so too is Tanya inaccessible without sufficient background knowledge or a solid mashpia.
My professor of Calculus once said: “How can you do grocery shopping without knowing quadratic formula?”
One could say it’s all about standards. For a Russian, the political and economic systems in Russia are democracy and capitalism. For a European, they are theocracy and G-d-knows-what, but the European himself thinks that he’s got democracy and capitalism covered. An American looks at European system and says that no way is that capitalism. But, of course, what exists in America for sure is capitalism. Then a libertarian takes a look...
My point is: one could say that it’s all about standards of ruchnius. But even then I would disagree. In my opinion (and not only mine), if you’re learning Torah without Chassidus Chabad, you’re not getting unacceptably less Eibeshter, you’re getting zero Eibeshter. You may be getting even ruchnius, but not G-d Himself.
And if you live your life according to Torah with no access to limud of chassidus, you’re living your life for some goal — but not for Hashem.
Now, how’s that for snobbishness?
The RR says himself that even pnimius haTorah will not get you atzmus umahus. You'll get at best yedias hametzius. Of course that's a tremendous madreiga and it totally changes your perspective and you live life differently vchu'. But nobody could know the Aibishter and live. Even Moshe Rabbeinu.
I’ve heard that he said “yadativ v’hayisiv”.
But anyway — maybe the Rebbe disagrees with RR.
And also, the point is not that we are getting Atzmus. But that we know connection of every level of Torah and every aspect of the world with Atzmus and allow that knowledge to change who we are and allow ourselves to be bringing Mashiach better.
Unless he means that this stuff can be found elsewhere (which seemingly would be the case, since A"R himself states he just “compiled” wisdom from different sources)
Now you're beginning to get it.
but if someone can show me an organized shitta which explains the same stuff that Ch-s 36 and 37 explain, I would be grateful.
Theren lies the rub. Organized it ain't but it's there in its purest form.
To me, ruchnius : G-d = electric field : charge. In ruchnius, one must see G-d Himself, whatever that means, on multiple levels.
That's a pretty good working definition. 'spirituality' is a worship of self. Ruchniyus is a worship of God.
TRS:No it ain't.
CA again: You can go grocery shopping with 6th grade algebra. (OK, i had it in 6th. In Russia you had it in 2nd and most americans in 8th) But that isn't the point. If you say that it comes down to standards of ruchniyus than arguably mine is higher because I demand it from the source. Of course you can also argue that you're better because I'm an idiotic purist and you are interested in just knowing. There are different drachim.
So, if you need to pasken halacha, do you go all the way to Shas?
Besides, as the Rebbe explains in the ma’amor on this topic, Chassidus is not Kabbalah for dummies. It’s pnimiyus haTorah. I.e., it has something which none of the four levels of Torah have. Namely, Hashem Himself in a revealed form.
It is quite obviously not 'kabbalah for dummies' because if it were it couldn't produce Lubavitchers. As for "which none of hte four levels of Torah have" he would say so being that it's his derech.
What's with the Rebbe-bashing? Go learn some chassidus. In fact, why don't you stop by the future TRS marital bliss home for some cookies and chassidus?
TRS will provide the chassidus and I'll provide the cookies. Once someone buys that kitchenaid off our registry boy oh boy will you get cookies.
peanut butter cookies?
What rebbe bashing? I do not engage in rebbe-bashing at all with the occasional exception of Yoilish.
I would be happy to stop by and learn some chassidus, especially if it means free cookies. As I said it can't be outright kneged torah if it produces Lubavitchers, all I said is that it isn't my derech.
chocolate chip?
where r u registered?
BedBathandBeyond.com
As for "which none of hte four levels of Torah have" he would say so being that it's his derech.
Chicken and the egg.
Modeh: We can't wait to have you.
Altie: Preferably peanut butter or oatmeal raisin.
le7: More specifically, http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?order_num=-1&wrn=-1220333493
CA: omelette?
trs- personally, chocolate chip, soft and gooey.
but i made cookies on the demand of my friends, and they were peanut butter oatmeal, cuz we were out of chocolate chips and i was too lazy to go buy.
needless to say, they were loved by all, and finished quickly.
CA:Treife omelet?
Altie: I agree, gooey chocolate chip.
Modeh: :) k. I'll provide the cookies, and we can have a party. Everyones invited.
Modeh: Why do they have to be treife? Ever heard of salami and eggs?
This thread is making me hungry.
Are there no leftovers from the lchaim?
I'm sure somewhere, but not here. I'm told the cakes were nice though, so where ever they are, I do hope they are being enjoyed.
One would hope.
Post a Comment