Guest Post:LazerA's comment to "Chabad - Never prayed toward picture of Rebbe?":
...sigh...
Ok, Reb Jacob. Let's take a step back.
Beneath all the rancor, it appears that you have two substantive criticisms of what I have said. I will attempt to summarize and respond to each:
1) You cited a group of Lubavitcher roshei yeshiva who had "banned" meshichism within their yeshivos. I said I was pleased to hear this and asked if they had made any public statements to that effect. You took very strong exception to this, saying that it is not their responsibility to make public proclamations. Your point is well taken. Not every rosh yeshiva sees himself in the role of a manhig who has a responsibility to the general community. While, obviously, some must take on this role, others see their primary responsibility to be teaching their talmidim. This is a valid position.
Being that this is so, may I ask if you could give us any details on exactly what their ban of meshichism within their yeshivos entails? Are the talmidim actually taught that believing the LLR is moshiach is wrong?
2) You had stated, "The meshichistim are likely not kofrim at all, simply misguided idiots, for the most part, and it will die out on it's own." To which I had responded, "Any clear eyed observer can see that this is not true. Just read the essay I cited above!"
You took strong exception to this, saying that we see no evidence that major poskim have declared the meshichisten as kofrim. Again, your point is valid. My response was unclear. When I said that your statement was not true, I was not referring to the first half of your sentence, "The meshichistim are likely not kofrim at all", but to the last, that the meshichist movement "will die out on it's own." I apologize for the lack of precision.
I do not recall ever saying that the meshichisten are kofrim. In fact, I am inclined to believe that, by and large, they are not. In my opinion, people throw around the terms "kofer" and apikorus" far too liberally.
That being said, the meshichisten are clearly not a minor phenomenom that will go away on its own. They are a growing group that is making rapid inroads in the mainstream Chabad community. In fact, by now, it is quite possible that the meshichisten actually are the mainstream.
Their beliefs may not yet come to kefira, but their beliefs are nevertheless fundamentally wrong and dangerous. Beliefs need not be kefira to be harmful.
I also believe that it is clear that many major poskim agree with this assessment. A widely discussed article in Mishpacha magazine quoted three such poskim (R' Miller, R' Heineman, and R' Belsky) on the issue of the meshichistim. (See here)
R' Miller said that the belief that the LLR is moshiach is "definitely assur" and that he would not accept such a person as a rav or shochet. He believes that the movement will die out. (I don't share his confidence.) He also says that it is important for the meshichisten to know of the "vehement" oppostion to these beliefs by other chareidim.
Rav Heineman said that the belief that the LLR is moshiach is "a distortion" and "not the truth." His recommended strategy to the meshichist campaign is to ignore it.
Rav Belsky says that he disgrees, presumably with the mild approach endorsed by Rav Heineman, though this is not clear. He clearly sees the meshichist problem to be rooted in the relationship that Lubavitchers had with their late rebbe. He says that the entire approach "has no place in Yiddishkeit."
So, are my statements really so far out? Given their public statements, I don't believe that any of these poskim would disagree with the substance of my remarks. (Rav Heineman would probably prefer that I didn't make them.)
I hope this has cleared up some of your confusion.
As for the bulk of your comment, it is truly impressive when someone can insert so many insults into one comment. (BTW, you should look up the word 'vindictive', you are not using it correctly.)
I can honestly say that I do not hate Lubavitch, not even the open meshichisten. I am, however, gravely worried about what will happen to them. As I have said previously, I honestly believe we are on the verge of losing a significant part of the Torah community.
R. Miller said "Perhaps" he would not accept them as a Rov but their shechitah is not prohibited. Even one who worships avodah zoro beshogeg is not posul for shechita and they are shogeg.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, LazerA does not know how to read. Why waste time with someone like you who distorts everything.
Now that you have recovered from your illness the people will have less misinformation to cope with.
shmuel said...
ReplyDeleteR. Miller said "Perhaps" he would not accept them as a Rov but their shechitah is not prohibited. Even one who worships avodah zoro beshogeg is not posul for shechita and they are shogeg.
As usual, LazerA does not know how to read.
Ok, let's see the quote in full.
Rav Miller said:
I would not say the Mashichistim are pasul, but rather they're very mistaken in an important point of Yiddishkeit. Perhaps, I won't accept such a person as a Rav (you can't be a Rav if you're deluded) or to work as a shochet, but I won't say their shechitah is prohibited. Even avodah zarah b'shogeig does not pasul a shochet. It's enough they know that other chareidim vehemently oppose these beliefs (and the non-observant think they're crazy). It will eventually die out and b'ezras Hashem those mistaken will do teshuvah.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the word "perhaps", but your point is valid. It is possible that R' Miller is unsure whether he would accept a meshichist as a Rav or shochet. His statement does seem to indicate that he is strongly inclined to not accepting them.
Also, I think you may be misunderstanding R' Miller's point when he says, "Even avodah zarah b'shogeig does not pasul a shochet." He is simply saying that the threshold to pasul a shochet for his beliefs is very high. He is not saying that the meshichisten are b'shogeg. (Nor is he saying that their beliefs are avodah zara.) That decision could only be made on a case by case basis. Some may well be b'shogeg, others may not.
I do not blame Lazer A for his analysis of R. Miller's comment on shogeg. He has to fill in. The whole statement of R. Miller is strange.
ReplyDeleteI spoke to someone who claims the following after talking to R. Miller. You can take or leave what I say. I believe it to be true. The analysis came from a talmid chochom.
R. Miller believes that the geroh and nefesh hachayim were correct in that some of the teachings of the Tanya found in the shaar yichud veemunah are a heresy. The apikursus has been passed along for over 200 years and the chasidim are like the ztedukim shegogoh-tinok she nishbu. Hence, even that minus would not disqualify their shechita being shogeg.
His reasoning is that believing the Rebbie to be the Messiah is not even avodah zoroh.
Frankly, his analogy as explained makes no sense. As Lazer A said that is not shogeg. Most of the people are innovators. I would call them mistaken - not shogeg. They are not brain washed. They are mezid.
I do not think that this blog should use some one who thinks that chasidus (The Tanya is universal and represents the thinking of the chasidim) is minus. Rabbis Heineman and Belsky are old misnagdim and I would not get excited.
Of course, the belief the Rebbie is the Messaih is bad, but, until it is a heresy, one can do nothing but say "we disagree".
Chayim said...
ReplyDeleteRabbis Heineman and Belsky are old misnagdim and I would not get excited.
Well, the issue that was raised was whether any prominent poskim endorse the position I was taking.
The commentor who raised the issue somewhat distorted my position, implying that I was claiming the meshichistin are kofrim. I have never claimed this, for the simple reason that applying the halachic status of kofer to a person is not a simple thing to do, for many reasons.
I do however, maintain that the belief that the late Lubavitcher rebbe is moshiach is fundamentally wrong.
I then cited the statements of R' Miller, R' Heineman, and R' Belsky to demonstrate that my opinion is clearly in sync with at least three major poskim. All three clearly consider the meshichist belief to be utterly wrong. They differ only in their assessment of the severity of the problem and on how to deal with it.
In my opinion, you are too ready to discount these almost universally recognized poskim as "misnagdim". It would mean more if you could provide some major non-"misnagid" posek who disagrees with their assessment.
Of course, the belief the Rebbie is the Messaih is bad, but, until it is a heresy, one can do nothing but say "we disagree".
Even if it is heresy, there is little we can do other than say "we disagree."
I sense that there is some feeling that if a belief is not heretical, it is therefore acceptable. I strongly disagree. A false belief, even if not heretical, can still be very harmful.
In all likelihood, the early Christians were not, initially, kofrim. Similarly, the ordinary Jews who believed in Shabsai Tzvi were probably never kofrim. Even those followers who did sink to kefira generally did not start out that way.
False beliefs which are not supported by the Torah can be very dangerous. This is especially true when these false ideas become core aspects of one's emunah.
I never implied that a false belief is acceptable. What I am saying is that even known misnagdim to chasidus in general advise no more than a "machoooh".
ReplyDeleteYour comaprison to Shabsai tzvi is in error and requires no repsonse. in fact, you do not know history. In a recent post you talked about how the old chasidim treated the geroh with respect. This is wrong. They were abusive to one another. In fcat, it all started with a chasidic Rebbie giving a speech in Shklov against the geroh in 1770. And, in fact, a few chasidim were murdered by zeolots. So, let us be careful. History repeats itself. to quote the first Lubaitcher Rebbie "All amchalokes is leshem shomayim". That is the old excuse.
My problem is people like Berger and you taking the law into your own hands and going further than the the rabonim pasken. None of you have the stature. You know better. Berger called the actions of the rabbis scandelous which in itself is prohibited.
He has been agitating and can not muster up any support. Is it not time to listen to the rabbis whose task it is to lead.
So, if you want keep making noise. But, that is all it will be until the Lubavitcher on there own give it up.
I don't have time to respond in detail, but briefly:
ReplyDeletechayim said...
Your comaprison to Shabsai tzvi is in error and requires no repsonse.
What did I compare to Shabsai Tzvi?
in fact, you do not know history. In a recent post you talked about how the old chasidim treated the geroh with respect. This is wrong. They were abusive to one another. In fcat, it all started with a chasidic Rebbie giving a speech in Shklov against the geroh in 1770.
That some chassidim spoke inappropriately about the Vilna Gaon and others is not surprising. I was speaking of the chassidic leaders. (I see, in looking back, that I was unclear on this.)
As for the incident in Shklov, it was not a "Rebbe" but a young student of R' Avraham of Kalisk. The Mezrithcer Maggid was very upset about the incident and strongly rebuked R' Avraham for allowing this to happen. See "The Great Maggid" by Jacob Immanuel Schochet, pp.183-184.
My problem is people like Berger and you taking the law into your own hands and going further than the the rabonim pasken.
I will not speak for Dr. Berger, but I am curious where you have found my statements to be going further than the rabbonim? Also, how can discussing an issue be called "talking the law into your own hands"?
Is it not time to listen to the rabbis whose task it is to lead.
Dr. Berger's complaint is that these rabbonim are not generally saying anything in the first place.
So, if you want keep making noise. But, that is all it will be until the Lubavitcher on there own give it up.
Yes, that is pretty much the only option we have. Keep talking and making noise until the Lubavitcher community decides to take a firm stand.