Talk:Chabad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Besht

I added a comment about the Besht having studied from Achiya Hashiloni, since it is an important link in the chain of the oral transmission of the Inner secrets of the Torah.

I also added a few words about the last Rebbe not having a successor and the reasons for it.

I also added a section about Habad niggunim, which are, in my opinion, a major part of what Habad is ande stands for. I took the liberty of linking from it to my site. I hope it's not against any rules here. Nahum

Nothing wrong with that, Nahum. Did you create those midi files? If so (and presumably the tunes themselves are in the public domain?), you could upload one or two of them and serve them from wikipedia. More multimedia is always cool. DanKeshet

Thanks. I did create these Midi files. However, they are too man y to upload here... Nahum

Messianism edit

I edited the section on "Messianism" to make it less offensive and more accurate. As the daughter of one of the "Messianists" who is a shliach, and knowing many more shluchim who believe that the Rebbe is still Moshiach, it is inaccurate to say that "they are rarely given outreach jobs" or are a "fringe group." It's a differing opinion, not a separate religion. Dina

Hi Dina, would you care to get yourself a mormal "User" name on Wikipedia, it would help a lot. Thank you. IZAK 09:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Defender

Previous discussion archived in archive 1

Comment: an anonymous user inserts long tirades against the present form of the article, attempting to suppress evidence of opposition to Lubavitch beliefs and methods. JFW | T@lk

I honestly do not know how this page works- I merely found this encyclopedia through an internet search. If you wish to 'archive' it in a way that people can still read it, then I'd assume that to be fine- the main point is that I am not going to go check the article and change it every other day, and then have it changed back because the words arent in sync with other peoples ideas... If someone thinks that they can speak for *everyone*, then thats their business. All I can do is say what I know or think, or have heard or seen. (And because of this, I would not endeavor to write an entry under 'Sikhism' or 'Islam' etc...)

In short: I do not agree that this article describes Chabad accurately, yet all that it seems I can do is comment in this section- which I am trying to do. Hopefully someone might either be able to change the article to reflect reality a little more accurately, or at least a visitor will be able to read the comments and gain a better understanding.

I see that someone added shach to the article (truly wonderful :-/) This man disliked the Rebbe and Chabad from day one. This is just another example of someone trying to destroy Chabad by using 'new methods for old hatreds' (Though in truth the ones who are doing it today are truly unaware of what Chabad is, or what they themselves stand for- they are merely conveying the feeling that they got from their leaders, who in turn got it from theirs... etc. all the way back to the original Misnagdim. This is my point- the root is not 'its like xtianity (Lhavdil, Chas Vshalom)' or 'its not Orthodoxy' or even 'its not in the spirit of Halacha', but rather its a concoction of many bits of things that when put together create a very foreign picture to many Jews, (though when taken in context, paint a different picture completely) -and all this stems from the original argument between Misnagdim and Chassidim (and many Chassidic groups today dont even realize what they stand for... Though on the flip side, most 'Misnagdim' today are living with concepts that were reintroduced by the Baal Shem Tov, and they dont realize it either...)

In short (#2): Firstly, in Chabad there seem to be in fact two general opinions, but they are not on the core of the issue but on approach alone (as mr. berger himself seems to point out.) Secondly, if quoting those who are against the Moshiach in Chabad (which IS Chabad), then quote a Rabbinical source, and then quote a counter-Rabbinic source. This, I would assume, is the most fair way. In fact the *only* fair way would be like this, because using berger or shach is using either someone completely irrelevant to the core of the issue (ie. not qualified to speak- like using a Buddhists' comments in your decision on how to decide on Halacha...) or [in the case of shach] it is taking an old dislike and using it in a new way- something that is not at all honest (and I mean that strongly- to use shach or Satmar etc. in an article against Chabad and Moshiach, is to twist truth and honesty completely, because they were against Chabad for entirely different reasons and if the current situation helps 'the cause', then for it to be used is only as a means to an end and not at all in the spirit of a 'qeust for a balanced view')

Note: I cannot give an ounce of respect to berger or shach or anyone who has tried to cause harm to the Jewish people or who tried to put down the Rebbe. If this is biased, then please take this note into consideration, because I am not going to be 'neutral' on this. (For example shach has said things about 'Kibbutznikim' in ways that truly hurt the Jewish people at the time- things that took *much* work to be rectified and are still part of the cause of friction among Jews today, Lo Aleinu) And as a side point, if Korach and all the others (-and there were many throughout those years-) did not like Moshe and felt him to be not needed or worse, did that take away from his status? From who he truly was? What certain individuals claim or feel does not take away from the reality. But again, I am not intending to push anyone into Lubavitch, but rather to clarify false notions and hopefully if someone truly wishes to understand, they will go study the Rebbe's words themselves and learn about Moshiach from Torah sources and not from mouths of other people. And most importantly, that the studying should help to hasten the actual coming of Moshiach, immediately! (Even those who would claim to follow shach or berger (or those two themselves!) still say in all their prayers literally hundreds of requests and Tefilos for Moshiach- it is an essential part of Judaism! (relating to the dictionary definition quoted above- *all* Jews are Messianists in that sense))

PS- Here's an article that just appeared on Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1096959301353&p=1006953079865 (It is related to understanding who and what the Rebbe is)

Ah, you're back. I'm archiving most of your previous work, as you're not protesting this move in your post (did you read what I said?)

The someone who inserted Rabbi E.M. Schach's coverage was me, and - in contrast to you - I am truly trying to document the truth, instead of your dreamy visions. Both Schach and Berger were/are opposed to Chabad - why should this not be mentioned?

Again, if you want to improve the article, do it yourself! JFW | T@lk 11:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I'm trying to supress? If that were the case I'd be changing your article every day, which I am not, and dont intend to do. I believe that IF this is a site which tries to report the truth, then they should do just that. And being that I am in Chabad, I can tell you that this is not truly accurate.

• Please, could you get a proper Wikipedia User name by registering, its free and makes communication easier somewhat instead of just debating a complete (Chabad) cyber-ghost. Thanks IZAK 09:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont want to argue or fight here (or anywhere) but I was genuinely surprised when I read the article and its slanted position (or inacurate position) If you must insert shach (because there are those who respect him) then insert it in a more true way: 'one of the long time opponents of Chabad has been shach.' And while you're at it, insert all the others as well- I dont know them offhand, but there are/have been many. My point is not to bring him as a genuine argument to the Chabad belief on Moshiach, as though he were just another great Rav who happened to stumble into the belief of Chabad on Moshiach and lashed out against it... And again with regards to berger- when I am writing at length, I am merely trying to bring out a point that I dont believe has been brought out clearly: if someone has something to say against Chabad, they should be at least qualified in Halacha before they speak, and should definitely be truly familiar with Chabad itself... (Though, in truth, if one has something against Chabad, then they should go out and try and be *better* than them and help Jews in even *better* ways etc. not just sit around comparing them to another religion, Chas Vshalom)

Also, placing the concept of a man-G-d (Chas Vshalom) together with Moshiach coming from those who have passed on, is not proper- they are very very different and to group them together could mislead one to think them as being the same. It is misleading to say 'they believe in concept y and some even in concept x' when concept y is 100% according to Halacha and concept x is not. (Though as I mentioned before, I am in Chabad and I have yet to see ONE such person. I have heard from those outside of Chabad about it, and I have also heard of the sources... etc., but the sources quoted are taken out of context. But again, in practice I have not once met or heard of a single one who holds this (though I have heard of someone who holds similar, but he is not considered Chabad- no one in Chabad would consider him Chabad))

Here's a quote from a letter by R' Soloveichik (not written by him, but read by him several times, and then signed by him. I heard this from someone who was in the room at the time)

"Before the passing of the Rebbe, I included myself among those who believed that the Rebbe was worthy of being Moshiach. I strongly believe that had we- particularly the Orthodox community- been united, we would have merited to see the complete Redemption. Insofar as the belief held by many in Lubavitch- based in part on similar statements made by the Rebbe himself concerning his predecessor, the Previous Rebbe- including prominent Rabonim and Roshei Yeshiva, that the Rebbe can still be Moshiach, in light of the Gemara in Sanhedrin, the Zohar, Abarbanel, Kitvei HaArizal, Sdei Chemed and other sources, it cannot be dismissed as a belief that is outside the pale of Orthodoxy. Any cynical attempt at utilizing a legitimate disagreement of interpretation concerning this matter in order to besmirch and to damage the Lubavitch movement- that was, and continues to be, at the forefront of those who are battling the missionaries, assimilation and indifference- can only contribute to the regrettable discord that already plagues the Jewish community, and particularly the Torah community.

The Torah community should galvanize all of its energies to unite in the true spirit of Ahavas Yisroel, and battle the true enemies of Israel. I repudiate and call for an end to al efforts to discredit Lubavitch or any other legitimate movement within Torah Judaism.

Ahron Soloveichik"

PS- 'dreamy visions' is a relative term: to an Apache Indian (just an example- I dont know their beliefs,) the average Westerner's world view is a 'dreamy vision'. The point of an encyclopedia, as far as I can tell, is to help people *develop* their 'vision', and the way it tries to do this is to bring together many other concepts and 'visions' that one may have not been able to access otherwise, and through this one can gain insight in ways that were not easily attainable from other sources. IF this is the goal here, then *no* belief or 'vision' could or should be labeled inferior to another, being that this is a subjective choice which can only be made by the reader. Therefore, no matter how far fetched the concept may sound to a certain individuals ears, it does not give him the right to label it when reporting on it. All he can try to do is give it his best at genuinely describing what it is that *they* believe (the subject that he is reporting on.) If there is an opposition which is *credible*, then it may be useful to include that as well. And of course if there is an opposition to the opposition, then that should rightfully be included as well etc.

Oh dear... You are formidably failing to suppress anything. In fact, I'd rather you change the article according to your wishes, and see how it fares. I'm actually quite interested in your viewpoints, given the fact that Chabad rarely speaks out on these matters. May I recommend that you leave this talk page alone (you are only getting my bored responses) and make the article a showcase of balanced reporting on Chabad-Lubavitch?

Please do not construe my responses to mean that I take an anti-Chabad position. In fact, I would warmly applaud a factual coverage of the scope of Chabad on this page, having had many good past experiences with Chabad.

The dreamy visions I was referring to was the aspect of Chabad/Rebbe etc. that is open to opinion. You may hold that the Rebbe was the Moshe Rabbeinu of his generation, while (as I stated) this would be disputed by many and is therefore opinion. You are certainly allowed to express opinion, but on Wikipedia (or any encylopedia) this requires disclaimers: "Many, including Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik, hold that the Rebbe could still be Moshiach, while some authorities [...] as well as the historian Berger [...] maintain that this is deviation from Jewish theology". Do you find this a tall order? Or could you live with such a solution? JFW | T@lk 15:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rav A. Soloveitchik held no such thing. Jayjg 16:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify something: the Rebbe wants first and foremost that Jews should be united with Ahavas Yisroel and in the path of G-ds Torah. This supercedes anything and everything. However, being that the climax and purpose of Creation and the Torah is the ultimate era of Moshiach, this is of enqually vital importance (this era is the expression of true unity of the Jewish people; revelation of G-ds love for the Jewish people; true peace on earth; and the expression of the true Torah at its endless depths.) Therefore, if someone is trying to go in the way of the Torah, then the concept of Moshiach should be more than just a concept to him, but his reality and yearning etc. at every moment.

I have seen an article about how R' Soloveichik refuted claims that he believes in a Moshiach that can come about in this way, however I have heard from one of the ones who was present himself that a group of Rabbonim- some Chabad and some not- presented him with this letter that they wanted him to sign, being that there were major attacks on Chabad at the time, and being that he was not in the state (health-wise) to write a letter himself, he read it over several times and then said 'Ich Geit Dos Chasmenen'- 'I will sign it'. The letter does not say that he himself holds this, but that one cannot and may not throw baseless claims at Chabad, when this concept is one that has a Halachic and Torah basis.

Another point is this: if someone is truly following the Rebbe, then that which the Rebbe has asked for and demanded about helping fellow Jews in all ways possible (and help educate non-Jews about their way according to Torah, the Seven Laws) supercedes any and all arguments that may arise. So if someone disagrees with a Lubavitchers belief in the identity of Moshiach, and any talk in this area will 'turn the person off', then I would assume that the Rebbe himself would not want this topic to be brought up. However, the concept of Moshiach and how it should be a central focus- *the* central focus- of Judaism and a Jew's state of mind, this is not compromisable, because without this, one is can not be true to the spirit of the Torah and Judaism. In addition, study of these topics and a personal demand by Hashem for Moshiach, actually help to hasten the coming of Moshiach.

Even though I have tried already twice to edit the article to reflect the reality a little better, I will try again IYH as you have requested (though its not of supreme importance, but it bothered me when I saw the article written this way, and I felt that I must comment) I'd like to ask something though: if someone placed a link to 'the protocols of the elders of zion' under the entry for 'Jewish', would that be tolerated? Of course if it were placed with a historical background, it may be included, but as a 'reference' for those wishing to gain insight on Jews... I dont believe such a thing makes sense- after all, the article is about Jews and not about those who hate them... Likewise in this case, to place Berger as a sole reference for someone to look into for information, is, in my opinion, misleading and not befitting in a quest for an objective view (though the most objective that one can be is according to what they see or know, which is only their own view... so I would assume that an 'objective' view here would be one that truly reflects Chabad and not a try at being 'truly objective' by placing the issues at hand in a 'neutral' way- because there is no neutral way, not in this topic, and not in any topic. Thats why they are called topics, because they are fragmented realities that the reader must decide on how to assemble. Why not place a link to a comprehensive refutation of Islam under that topic? I dont think that would make sense, because as far as I can tell the goal of an encyclopedia is to describe individual things as they are, and not 'paint the picture for you'.

It says that in the era of Moshiach no one will have to teach anyone else, because all will know G-d as the water covers the sea. Hopefully this project will help in this (through spreading knowledge) and help to hasten the imminent revelation of Moshiach, with the complete Geula, may it be now!

• Hi again whoever you are, I am asking of you again to register at the top of the page with Wikipedia as a normal "User" instead of just having to deal with a barrage of comments and no real "User page" to know how to get back to you. IZAK 09:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rambam says that the reason for xtianity and islam is in order to spread awareness of G-d and the concept of Moshiach etc., even though the details that they have are not correct, the general ideas have now been spread to all the world. He ends off that with the coming of Moshiach they will have already been conscious of the concept of G-d and Moshiach, and thus be able to accept the true Moshiach and teachings about the true G-d. May it be now!

I have nothing more to say to you. JFW | T@lk 11:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's no point talking to people who won't listen. I recommend frequent archiving of Talk: material. Jayjg 23:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will try and adapt the article IYH if I can think of an acurate description that I think would not be erased. Until then, I think that the purpose of the discussion forum is for someone to see the issues that people have brought up relating to the article...

PS- What am I not listening to? As far as I understand it, I was asked to change the article myself, and I cannot do this right now (though I have done it twice before, but it has been changed back) Therefore, as I mentioned, if I can think of a way to write it more acurately that will not be deleted, I will B'N do that.

All the best.

Please obtain a Wikipedia User ID

It would greatly help the discussions here, and even help the pro-Chabad writers, if they would simply register at the top of the page as regular Wikipedia contributors, with their own nicks of course. It would facilitate communications and make life easier as we edit our way through life on this Wikipedia project. Thank you and yasher koach. IZAK 09:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is Lubavitch

You need to remove the part that states that some Lubavitcher believe that the Rebbe is an incarnation of G-d, because these people aren't Lubavitchers or Orthodox at all. Just like somone that says that he is Jewish, and then says that he believies in Jes-- isn't representing Judaism, no matter what he says. Whenever there was an individual that said that the Rebbe was an incarnation of G-d, he was excomunicated. There are not any Lubavitch publications that state that he was an incarnation of G-d, just like if a Jew starts a publication which he calls Jewish and starts saying that he believes in Mohammed or Buddah, he isn't considered to be a viewpoint of Judaism. Determining who is Lubavitch, so that he can represent the viewpoint of Lubavitch, would need to be somone that is basing his beliefs on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbes, and those people that say that the Rebbe is an incarnation of G-d, don't take that from the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbes, rather it is from themselves or other NON-JEWISH sources!--Truthaboutchabad 23:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They are Lubavitch born, Lubavitch raised, pray in the same synagogues as Lubavitch, etc. Most importantlly, they consider themselves Lubavitch. You can't drum them out of Lubavitch because their ideas don't agree with yours. Jayjg 03:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that there are some people in Lubavitch that say that the Rebbe is an incarnation of G-d is untrue, and I challenge you to show me such people that said that and were not excommunicated!--Truthaboutchabad 12:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article says that the said it, not that any are currently saying it. They certainly said it, didn't they? If you have any evidence that they have since been formally excommunicated, that would be good to add as well. Jayjg 16:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The most I have ever heard of is one or two crazy people that have said that, (I have also heard of thousands of Jews that believe in Jes--), I have also heard that those one or two people have been excomunicated. If it was a large movement of people instead of one or two, you would be right, but there isn't!--Truthaboutchabad 22:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I have heard" doesn't really count as a source. Berger documented some of those who did so, and even got their works espousing this view published in Chabad publications. Calling them "crazy" or "not really Lubavitch" now doesn't change what happened then. Jayjg 22:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Berger doesn't quote sources, he just says that ANONYMOUS people told him that!!!! But I know for sure not thru anonymous sources that thousnads of Jews, believe in Jes--, does that mean that on the Judaism page there should be a section for Jews for Jes--??????--Truthaboutchabad 23:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He specifically mentions names and publications. That's not anonymous. And the publication caused a controversy. It happened, it's reported here. Jayjg 23:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All misquotes and lies, done for self promotion. See responses written in numerous books and articles.--Truthaboutchabad 23:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you feel they were "misquotes and lies, done for self promotion". Jayjg 23:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This that it is said that the Rebbe is an incarnation of G-d may come from a popular misunderstanding of the Sichas of the Rebbe (like Lekutei Sichos vol. 2 page 511, however, it is unfair to make an accusation without hearing an explanation, since this page is describing Chabad Lubavitch, therefore the Chabad Lubavitch viewpoint should be on the same page. This term refers to the G-dly soul, which is found in everyone, (and by a Tzaddik who does whatever G-d wants, his soul [which is part of G-d]is revealed in the body.) (See Tanya chapter 2, and a sefer called "Al HaTzadikim, writteb by R' Avraham Pavzener and published by Kfar Chabad.) The Rebbe is singled out, just like every other Tzaddik and person that dedicates his life to serving G-d, in which case, he doesn't have anything covering over his soul, (The soul in itself is pure and part of G-d, when we do something against G-d the sould is concealed and gets covered over, [see Tanya]) because he only does what G-d wants, therefore his soul is revealed, as opposed to you and me that we have done things wrong in our lives, therefore our souls aren't in a revealed states as by the Rebbe or anyother Tzaddik. If the Chabad Lubavitch explanation is too hard for one to understand, this is because complicated concepts can't be written in one paragraph, if somone feels that because they don't understand the concept and don't have the time to properly understand it they will remove the explanation, then they should also remove the opposition section as well.--Truthaboutchabad 02:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chabad's position should be presented, but it needs to presented as exactly that, Chabad's position, not "the truth". Also, it has to be sourced from somewhere, it can't just be your personal beliefs about the Chabad position. Jayjg 02:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It has been sourced See Tanya chapter 2, and a sefer called "Al HaTzadikim, writteb by R' Avraham Pavzener and published by Kfar Chabad--Truthaboutchabad 23:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, now it needs to be presented as the position of these books, not "the Truth". Jayjg 18:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It had been however it seems that whomever removed it, didn't bother to look.--Truthaboutchabad 21:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added the explanation with the preface of that this is from a chassidic prespective and I have included the above mentioned sources.--Truthaboutchabad 04:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have dealt with it stylistically. You have finally corrected "writteb", a major step in this argument. JFW | T@lk 08:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Note: To place the belief in an incarnation of G-d together with the belief in a resurrected Messiah, is like mixing apples and Toonies (Canadian dollar x2). The fact that Moshiach can come from those who are not physically alive (to our eyes) at the moment is very clearly a possibility from MANY sources in Torah, whereas the notion of an incarnation of G-d (Ch'V) is completly out there and probably being used by those who dislike Chabad after hearing OF it once or twice (I try to be Lubavitch and a Chassid of the Rebbe, and have yet to bump into a single soul who would say such a thing as Berger seems to speak of.)

However there are Chassidic concepts such as Merkavah (that a person can be so connected and dedicated to G-d that he is considered like a 'wagon' to G-d- ie. he is literally a body for G-d's thoughts and desires.) and various other concepts which can all be taken out of context, but should be understood correctly by learning the entire issue at hand...

As a side note, the reason Judaism does not accept J-- as the Messiah is very much NOT simply because he died. The problem with him is that he not only did not fit any of the requirements (ie. bring peace to the Jews, get all Jews to come close to G-d through His Mitzvos, etc. etc.) but he actually accomplished the exact opposite of the basic requirements. In addition, he was killed, and this is a sign of one not being the Moshiach (killed and 'passed away' are two different categories- 'killed' rules out the possibility for 'Messiaship' whereas 'passed away' is not mentioned as anything.)

Happy Chanukah to all! May the lights of Chanukah help light up our own worlds, and the world at large, and may this lead to the ultimate light of Moshiach, immediately!

Heavens, the shaliach is back. JFW | T@lk 10:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)