Shalom

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

He did not study with "them", and Rabbi Qafah is not the leader of this nonexistent "group", he was the leader of the Dor Daim.  These people do not accept only what Rambam wrote simply because it is from Rambam.  They are dedicated to preserving Teimani Maimonidean tradition from influence of later innovations like mysticism.  It is not mistaken to adhere to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah just as it is not mistaken to adhere to the Shulchan Aruch.  People who do this don't deserve to be stigmatized.  Scholars have more liberties than the average Jew.  If Rabbi Bar Hayim can produce something better than the Mishneh Torah, let him try.  I have yet to hear of any code he has produced that is better for the general populace than the Mishneh Torah.

There may be some misunderstanding here.  Rav bar hayim's issue is not with an average Jew who uses mishne torah as a guide for practical halacha!  Rav bar hayim's issue is with "maimonidean scholars" (ie rabbis, who are rambamists) that religiously follow rambam on everything no matter how forced the position.  There are rabbis like this, they do exist. 

Rav bar hayim himself says he in the vast majority of cases sides with Rambam in halacha!  And I highly doubt he would discourage any student or average Jew from using that guide if they needed a halacha!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I believe Rambam was one who believed in Spontaneous Generation...

Talmudic sages accepted the veracity of spontaneous generation.  It was commonly believed/accepted premise in those days... untilscience advanced and realized its not correct.  Chazal in many cases followed the science of their day as we would expect scholars today to do for example with regards to saving a life- many rabbis are not medical experts but will trust the premises of modern medicine about certain life threatening situations.

[muman613]

He is saying he wants to attack Rav Bar-Haim to get back at him apparently for being offended by something he said, but doesn't know what to say yett soo...

I will not read what this Rabbi writes because my opinion of him is not very high. Virtually everything you have ever brought here to JTF written by this Rabbi contains attacks on other streams of Judaism. This leads me to the conclusion that this Rabbi has a shtick, one where he believes he knows the 'TRUE JUDAISM' and everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about. His approach is too caustic to me and I find it hard to believe much which he writes due to his constant attack on other beliefs in Judaism.

I will wait till a Rabbi I respect addresses these issues.... I originally didn't want to say this because it is a form of Lashon Hora... But I have said it, and it is how I feel, and I recommend that Jews who do outreach to other Jews not really spend much time listening to this Rabbi.


But you are entitled to listen to any Rabbi you like... I just don't think this guy is going to go too far with his diatribes against other streams of Jewish belief.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I originally didn't want to say this because it is a form of Lashon Hora... But I have said it, and it is how I feel, and I recommend that Jews who do outreach to other Jews not really spend much time listening to this Rabbi.

 You said it before. You did attack him before without any logical explanation. If their was a point he made thasat you didn't agree with, fine. Prove it wrong (at least try), but to say he is this or that and one shouldn't listen to him is just like the leftists did to Rav Kahane. Defemation with no explanation because not being able to deal with the issues.

[muman613]

You said it before. You did attack him before without any logical explanation. If their was a point he made thasat you didn't agree with, fine. Prove it wrong (at least try), but to say he is this or that and one shouldn't listen to him is just like the leftists did to Rav Kahane. Defemation with no explanation because not being able to deal with the issues.

I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews.

Also I would not compare this Rabbi to Rabbi Kahane.

PS: I find no problem currently in Jewish practice which would require re-thinking the 'leaning' or 'reclining' on Pesach. It is done for the reason which we are taught, to act as royalty. As long as we do it with this kevannah and fufil the minimum amount to consume, we have achieved the mitzvah. Why does this Rabbi always have to pick out things like the size of a Kazayit {which Rabbis have always discussed around Pesach time} and make it into an attack on other Rabbis? His entire approach is inappropriate in my opinion...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It is not wrong for someone to follow always Shulchan Aruch or Mishneh Torah.  I think Mishneh Torah is a better choice, but that's what both of these books were written for--so your average person will have a code to go by if they have a question on Jewish law and are not able to go through the Talmud to find their answer.  I'm not making claims that scholars must do this, only the average person.  Scholars must study all the sources.

Then on this we're in agreement.  I can tell you a number of times I asked a shaila or general question to Rav Bar Hayim, and he pulled out a Mishne Torah and quoted me a line from Rambam in answer to my question.  He has studied that issue in depth in a way I have not and felt the Rambam is on point with his learning out the halacha from the sugia, so he simply quoted him to me.

Scholars I agree must have flexibility and not be "pidgeon holed" so they have to learn all the sources.

The other thing you brought up about who Rav bar hayim learned with, well one thing is for certain that oftentimes the students of a great rav are not on the level of that Rav (Rav Qafeh for example who can compare with him?).  That said, I do think it is the case that Rav Qafeh as a policy paskened only according to Rambam unless I am mistaken, but for sure some of his students may be more vigilant in that approach than he actually was.  And hence Rabbi Bar Hayim was a student of Rav Qafeh alongside others who were also.   I remember one time Rav Bar Hayim told me anecdotally that he once told one of them (either one of these other students or to Rav Qafeh directly, I forget the exact story), that he feels on some issues it would be a better approach to side with someone else over Rambam if his position is really forced in light of other things and that this is a weakness in that approach on a few issues.  I forget the exact reply but no one bit his head off, and they basically asserted they stick to Rambam anyway.  Wish I remembered that story more clearly.

[muman613]

Also I have never seen a stream of Judaism which just listens to one Rabbi for all its decisions. Chabad is the most open in that it accepts and teaches Rambam and it also teaches other great poskim. The entire Talmud is full of great sages who do not agree about halachic issues, and the Torah clearly explains how the decision will be found according to the majority decision.

[muman613]

http://www.halachabrura.org/parsha-e.htm

Nitzavim

Deciding Halacha by Prophecy or Bat Kol
(based on Birur Halacha, Bava Metzia 59b)

When there was a dispute between R' Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), and a Bat Kol from heaven declared that the Halacha is always as R' Eliezer says, R' Yehoshua brought the pasuk in our parsha "It is not in heaven", to show that a Bat Kol is not to be relied upon.

On the other hand, in Yevamot (14a) the gemara states that the rule that Halacha is like Bet Hillel against Bet Shammai is based on a Bat Kol.

Tosafot give two explanations to reconcile the sources: A) In the case of R' Eliezer it was clear that the Halacha was like the Sages since they were the majority, and a Bat Kol cannot overcome a clear Halachic rule; whereas in the case of Bet Hillel, it wasn't clear if Halacha is like Bet Hillel since they were the majority, or like Bet Shammai since they were more sagacious, and a Bat Kol is decisive where the halacha is unclear. B) In the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol came out only to honor him, after he requested "Let heaven prove me right", and not as a true decision, and therefore it is not to be reckoned with.

R' Nissim Gaon explained that in the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol was disregarded since it was worded generally: "Halacha is always like R' Eliezer", which could be construed to mean that Halacha is always like him except here. This can explain why the Bat Kol in the case of Bet Hillel is decisive: because it had exact wording.

The Rambam brings the pasuk "It is not in heaven", to show that a prophet cannot add or omit a mitzvah, nor interpret a mitzvah in a manner not delivered by Moshe Rabbenu. Ma'ase Rekach explains that the Rambam agrees with the first opinion in Tosafot, that where Halacha is unsettled, a Bat Kol or prophecy can be used to settle the halacha, since this does not contradict anything in the Torah. But Pri Chadash holds that in the Rambam's view, in no case can prophecy decide Halacha, and the reason for the rule that halacha is like Bet Hillel isn't because of the Bat Kol, rather because they were the majority, and the Bat Kol came only to honor them.

[muman613]

Here is the story from Talmud concerning how Halacha must be decided by majority opinion...

http://www.torahtots.com/parsha/devarim/nitzav3.htm

DOWN TO EARTH

The Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) explains, "it is not in heaven" as follows:

After the Torah was given, it was no longer "in heaven." Hashem does not make Torah decisions in Heaven. Halachic (Torah law) decisions must be decided by human authorities following the guidelines given to Moshe at Har (Mt.) Sinai. It is Hashem's will that the Sages apply the laws of the Torah to the best of their human understanding. Decisions must reflect the opinion of the majority of a Bait Din (Jewish court), who are the final authority in all cases of Torah law.

The Talmud (ibid) brings this story to prove its point.

The Sages were debating whether or not a certain type of oven could become tamay (impure). The majority of the Sages ruled that it could. Rabbi Eliezer ben (son of) Horkenos held that it could not.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, perhaps the most outstanding Sage of the generation, cited many proofs in favor of his position, but the Sages, who were the majority, would not accept these proofs.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This carob tree will demonstrate that the Halachah (Torah law) follows my opinion."

A miracle occurred whereby the carob tree uprooted itself and replanted itself 100 cubits away. (some say, four hundred amot).

The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a carob tree.* "
[*Since Rabbi Eliezer was a very righteous man, the tree might have been uprooted at his command. This does not prove, though, that his ruling was correct.]

Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This stream of water will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion." The stream of water began to flow backwards against the current.

The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a stream."

Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The walls of the Bait Hamidrash (House of Study) will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion."

The walls of the Bait Hamidrash began to tremble and fall, and the Sages feared that any moment they would collapse.

Rabbi Yehoshua called out to the walls: "Why are you interfering in a Halachic debate among Sages?"

Immediately, out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, the walls did not collapse, but out of deference to Rabbi Eliezer, they did not return to their original upright position either. They remained slanted.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The heavens will attest that the Halachah follows my opinion."

A bat kol (heavenly divine voice) proclaimed: "Why do you contest Rabbi Eliezer? The halachah always follows Rabbi Eliezer's teachings."

Rabbi Yehoshua rose and declared:

"It is written: 'It is not in heaven." ' (Devarim ibid).

What is meant by; 'It is not in the heaven'? Rebbi Yirmiah said: It means that we don't listen to a bat kol in matters of Halachah, for the Torah was already given to man at Har Sinai.

Rabbi Yehoshua continued:

"We don't listen to the bat kol because You (Hashem) already wrote in the Torah at Har Sinai (Shmot, Exodus 23:2) 'According to the majority (the matter) shall be decided.'*
[*R' Yehoshua understood this to mean that Hashem would never interfere with the judicial process through which the law is decided. Accordingly he interpreted the Heavenly echo to be merely a test of whether the Sages would hold their ground. And the next story proved him correct.]

Later, one of the Sages, Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu Hanavi (Elijah the prophet). He asked him: "What did Hashem say during this argument?"

Eliyahu replied to him: "He was laughing and saying (with satisfaction), 'My sons won me in the discussion.' "*

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I will not read what this Rabbi writes because my opinion of him is not very high. Virtually everything you have ever brought here to JTF written by this Rabbi contains attacks on other streams of Judaism.

Other streams of Judaism?  You know that reform and conservative call themselves "streams of judaism" right?

Anyway, I really don't think I brought anything from Rav Bar Hayim to this site that does anything other than upholding the Judaism of our forefathers and upholding chazal.   These types of general and vague statements from you perplex me because on the many things I've posted here before I've never seen you lodge a complaint with substantial argument that Rav Bar Hayim is attacking streams through his Torah learning.  (For example how about the keziath shiur where I wrote up almost word for word the entire shiur - is your complaint w rav bar hayim or w the talmud... or w Rav Yisrael Salanter or ... etc)?

You then say he is too caustic, well I would argue we need an approach that is caustic against the ghetto mentality.  His is the type of mindset that will raise Jews up above the jackboots of bibi's kapos.  The "shas and utj" style galut judaism is what will send us further into the ground, Imo.

To say you don't respect him is a very serious personal charge - why would you do that?  Can't you just leave it at the fact you don't like his views?  And why become personally offended?

We have been through this chabad thing already but I'm sorry to say you are stiill living in denial if you really think there are no or very few mesichistim out there.  Unfortunately there are many.  Still non mesichist chabad does good work and rav bar hayim readily praises some of what they do, so why do you act like he vilifies chabad?   ...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You said it before. You did attack him before without any logical explanation. If their was a point he made thasat you didn't agree with, fine. Prove it wrong (at least try), but to say he is this or that and one shouldn't listen to him is just like the leftists did to Rav Kahane. Defemation with no explanation because not being able to deal with the issues.

This.  100 times this.   

You formulated it in a way I was failing at, but I'm thinking exactly along these lines.  Hazak ubaruch

[muman613]

KWRBT,

I was not addressing you in that message. Tag has posted things which I found myself in disagreement.

I now remember you telling me you study with Rabbi Bar Chayim. I apologize if I have offended you, this is not my intention.

When I say other streams of Judaism I am talking about Chassidus and Sephardic traditions which the Rabbi has said some things which I find offensive.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Also I have never seen a stream of Judaism which just listens to one Rabbi for all its decisions. Chabad is the most open

 You can check almost every Chassidic group for starters. And Chabad is the best example of this (the Messianism of Chabad and clinging to their "Rebbe").

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://www.halachabrura.org/parsha-e.htm

Nitzavim

Deciding Halacha by Prophecy or Bat Kol
(based on Birur Halacha, Bava Metzia 59b)

When there was a dispute between R' Eliezer and the Sages (Bava Metzia 59b), and a Bat Kol from heaven declared that the Halacha is always as R' Eliezer says, R' Yehoshua brought the pasuk in our parsha "It is not in heaven", to show that a Bat Kol is not to be relied upon.

On the other hand, in Yevamot (14a) the gemara states that the rule that Halacha is like Bet Hillel against Bet Shammai is based on a Bat Kol.

Tosafot give two explanations to reconcile the sources: A) In the case of R' Eliezer it was clear that the Halacha was like the Sages since they were the majority, and a Bat Kol cannot overcome a clear Halachic rule; whereas in the case of Bet Hillel, it wasn't clear if Halacha is like Bet Hillel since they were the majority, or like Bet Shammai since they were more sagacious, and a Bat Kol is decisive where the halacha is unclear. B) In the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol came out only to honor him, after he requested "Let heaven prove me right", and not as a true decision, and therefore it is not to be reckoned with.

R' Nissim Gaon explained that in the case of R' Eliezer the Bat Kol was disregarded since it was worded generally: "Halacha is always like R' Eliezer", which could be construed to mean that Halacha is always like him except here. This can explain why the Bat Kol in the case of Bet Hillel is decisive: because it had exact wording.

The Rambam brings the pasuk "It is not in heaven", to show that a prophet cannot add or omit a mitzvah, nor interpret a mitzvah in a manner not delivered by Moshe Rabbenu. Ma'ase Rekach explains that the Rambam agrees with the first opinion in Tosafot, that where Halacha is unsettled, a Bat Kol or prophecy can be used to settle the halacha, since this does not contradict anything in the Torah. But Pri Chadash holds that in the Rambam's view, in no case can prophecy decide Halacha, and the reason for the rule that halacha is like Bet Hillel isn't because of the Bat Kol, rather because they were the majority, and the Bat Kol came only to honor them.

Yes, by majority is how the talmud decides many matters (and some not according to majority!)  Its a general rule and as with all general rules there are some exceptions.

But a posek today who has a talmud and generations of halachic/legal precedent before him on matters that are not entirely clearly decided by talmud or associated sources - for such a posek in such a case there is a methodology for arriving at a psak din.  It does not involve an opinion poll or a vote tally.

[muman613]

.
.
.

To say you don't respect him is a very serious personal charge - why would you do that?  Can't you just leave it at the fact you don't like his views?  And why become personally offended?

We have been through this chabad thing already but I'm sorry to say you are stiill living in denial if you really think there are no or very few mesichistim out there.  Unfortunately there are many.  Still non mesichist chabad does good work and rav bar hayim readily praises some of what they do, so why do you act like he vilifies chabad?   ...

Again I apologize because I am sure he is a very knowledgeable Rabbi... But I find his method very upsetting. Maybe it motivates you.... But he said things about Breslov Chassidut and other things about those who believe in Kabbalistic teachings which I find hard to swallow.

Maybe some day I will hear your Rabbi and understand what he is saying. But I don't agree that Chabad and CHassidus makes Jews who are not Zionists. I know many who attend Chabad Shabbatons and Yom Tovim who are very Zionistic. I even discussed Rabbi Kahane with my Chabad Rabbi personally the other day and he said he admires Rabbi Kahane. I also asked about Mesichist Chabdniks and my Rabbi said it is a small amount of CHabad shluchim who ruin it for the majority because mainstream Chabad does not teach this.

[muman613]

You can check almost every Chassidic group for starters. And Chabad is the best example of this (the Messianism of Chabad and clinging to their "Rebbe").

This is completely false..

I know that Chabad studies Rambam, there is a daily Rambam class which Chabad offers. Over Shavuot all night we studied Rambams Sefer HaMitzvot.

Chabad also teaches other Rabbis including Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.. If you would like me to list all the Rabbis which Chabad includes in their discussions I could probrobly find a list of them.

This is the kind of slander I am talking about. I know six Chabad Rabbis and not a single one of them believes Rebbe was Moshiach, and they sure don't teach this.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

"I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews. "

  - A scholar is supposed to show his findings and his points. If him saying that a Kzait is what it is- "Like an olive size" and not 30 grams offends you for him simply stating the obvious, then the problem is not him but its you yourself and your logic. What is he supposed to say? Is he suppoed to withhold halahic information because of fear of offending others?
 And I don't see him saying things to insult other Jews. Their are things he brought up because they need to be brought up because of the dangers such beliefs pose including Chabad Messianism. This objection of yours would be like you telling a Rabbi during (after) the time of Jesus not to prove the teachings of Jesus and the disciples wrong since it might offend some. Maybe truthful but the language is just too- truthful.

[muman613]

Tag,

Also I am not trying to defame this Rabbi. I know Jews of all kinds and it does no good for the Jewish people to create divisions. Virtually everything I have seen written by Rav BarChayim posted here has included derogatory statements about those who don't follow his beliefs. This is not necessary to make the point he is trying to make. If he had the right approach, according to my understanding, he could present his findings in a way without having to say others are wrong, the reader should be able to see the truth in what he wrote. To have to prove it to the point of saying that others are wrong is the approach which I don't agree with.


 

[muman613]

"I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews. "

  - A scholar is supposed to show his findings and his points. If him saying that a Kzait is what it is- "Like an olive size" and not 30 grams offends you for him simply stating the obvious, then the problem is not him but its you yourself and your logic. What is he supposed to say? Is he suppoed to withhold halahic information because of fear of offending others?
 And I don't see him saying things to insult other Jews. Their are things he brought up because they need to be brought up because of the dangers such beliefs pose including Chabad Messianism. This objection of yours would be like you telling a Rabbi during (after) the time of Jesus not to prove the teachings of Jesus and the disciples wrong since it might offend some. Maybe truthful but the language is just too- truthful.

I know Chabad and they don't believe that the Rebbe was Moshiach. This is pure slander of a great organization. I will defend Chabad because I know the truth {from observation}. I reject any strain of Jewish belief which believes that Moshiach has come when it is clear that he has not.

I know six Chabad Rabbis locally and NOT ONE believes in Rebbe as Moshiach. And all those who I ask about it say it is a fringe group which believes this.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

To have to prove it to the point of saying that others are wrong is the approach which I don't agree with.

 Dude you youself said and are saying that he is wrong for saying that others are wrong. Soo your dong what you accuse him of doing and you not liking him for it. 

[muman613]

"I said what the issue to me was... He is always speaking derogatorily of other streams of Judaism, either Chassidus, or now Rambamist.... Even if he were 100% right in what he said I would reject his findings based on his approach, trying to prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

There is a way a good Rabbi can present his findings without saying things to insult other Jews. "

  - A scholar is supposed to show his findings and his points. If him saying that a Kzait is what it is- "Like an olive size" and not 30 grams offends you for him simply stating the obvious, then the problem is not him but its you yourself and your logic. What is he supposed to say? Is he suppoed to withhold halahic information because of fear of offending others?
 And I don't see him saying things to insult other Jews. Their are things he brought up because they need to be brought up because of the dangers such beliefs pose including Chabad Messianism. This objection of yours would be like you telling a Rabbi during (after) the time of Jesus not to prove the teachings of Jesus and the disciples wrong since it might offend some. Maybe truthful but the language is just too- truthful.

I have said what I had to say on this topic.

I am sorry if I said I don't respect his opinion. I am sure that his opinion is valid and I should consider it... I will see if his approach ever changes to a manner which I can accept.

[muman613]

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/02/08/the-power-of-chabad/

The Power of Chabad
By Yaakov Menken, on February 8th, 2008

I have a son approaching Bar Mitzvah age, which means he will be needing Tefillin shortly. My mother mentioned that her grandfather’s old Tefillin were in a package in a basement. I had never known of them before, but as you can imagine was excited to learn that they existed. Well… when I opened the bag my wife and I were dismayed. The batim, the boxes, were green. Mold green. We thought that after years in a wet basement, all was lost.

When I opened them, however, I got a surprise in the opposite direction. Not only were the parshiyos (the written parchments) in decent condition, but the writing was truly beautiful. I showed them to an expert sofer, who restored them. They are perhaps 150 years old, and the writing, he said, was only used by a pretty elite group. The batim were constructed from multiple pieces of leather, which we wouldn’t use today with such fine parchments. But what we found inside them were hidden gems. “He spent his money on the writing,” said the sofer. And who knows… what spiritual impact might have been felt from that level of sacrifice for the sake of a Mitzvah, four generations later?

The parshiyos are written in the Ksav, the font, attributed to the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch.

When I read the responses to my earlier post, “A Hopeful Sign for Chabad?“, I was extremely pleased to see the fiery denunciation of the ‘Meshichist’ wing from commenters who identify with Lubavitch. I think a tad more forbearance is appropriate towards those other commenters who previously encountered opinions similar to Eli Soble’s from far more prominent figures within the movement. The fact that the JPost found no one better known than Soble to voice this tripe is a hopeful sign, but we cannot pretend that it has always been so.

The marginalization of the Meshichist viewpoint must be repeated until it is no longer espoused not merely in public, not merely in private conversation, but in the hearts of all ma’aminim, those faithful to Torah. Because, at the same time, Lubavitch has a long and distinguished Chassidic line, and thousands upon thousands of people willing to be moser nefesh, to give up their very lives, on behalf of all Jews and, indeed, all humanity.

Two newspaper articles, both published today, are good examples, and Rabbi Adlerstein deserves the credit for pointing them out. One is in the New York Times, the other the Concord Monitor, and both represent a Kiddush HaShem. Both of the gentlemen featured are Ba’alei Teshuva who found their way home via Lubavitch. Both have careers in the secular community. Both are unafraid to be who they are, beards, black hats, and all, in very foreign environments. And both have bridged the divide with great success.

Chabad shluchim are creating these types of success stories every day. There’s much to learn from them, and much that could be accomplished with more unity.

Frankly, there’s a divide to be bridged within the Orthodox world. Yes, the Yechi-niks are far too numerous, and far too visible. Yes, in Lubavitch there is a school of thought that other frum Jews have to be brought into Chabad. There are those who give their time, energy and money only to Lubavitch, who quote only Lubavitcher Rebbes, etc., etc., etc. The relationship has been rocky, and to a large extent that must be attributed to Lubavitchers rather than those who have criticized them. There is far too much of this to be dismissed as “the enmity of centuries of Misnahgdim.” There are serious issues here, and you certainly don’t see this sort of criticism leveled against Bobov, Stolin, Satmar, Ger, or any other Chassidic group. My aforementioned son is named after my wife’s grandfather, who was a Belzer Chossid, descended from the Noam Elimelech via the Dinover Rebbe. We all have our own parochial hang-ups, but you don’t find any similar level of friction between Belzers and Litvaks.

I would put it this way: there is mold on the outside. The public displays of the Meshichistin and these other issues stain the image of Lubavitch. The gems are less visible, less obvious, hidden inside. Having heard only positive things about Rabbis such as Dovid Eliezrie (and those positive things, quite frequently) one can only say keyn yirbu — may Rabbis such as he increase both in number and in influence.



Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2008/02/08/the-power-of-chabad/#ixzz1wzDrWhTZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Again I apologize because I am sure he is a very knowledgeable Rabbi... But I find his method very upsetting. Maybe it motivates you.... But he said things about Breslov Chassidut and other things about those who believe in Kabbalistic teachings which I find hard to swallow.

Maybe some day I will hear your Rabbi and understand what he is saying. But I don't agree that Chabad and CHassidus makes Jews who are not Zionists. I know many who attend Chabad Shabbatons and Yom Tovim who are very Zionistic. I even discussed Rabbi Kahane with my Chabad Rabbi personally the other day and he said he admires Rabbi Kahane. I also asked about Mesichist Chabdniks and my Rabbi said it is a small amount of CHabad shluchim who ruin it for the majority because mainstream Chabad does not teach this.

In a shiur, Rabbi Bar Hayim had many positive things to say about Rav Nachman of Breslav, and especially about the practice of "hitbodedut," and personalizing prayer which they stressed.  He is also not hesitant to point out that there are some delirious people out there who call themselves followers of Rav Nachman.  But everyone is aware of this!  Does he need to pretend it doesn't exist?   
And some who do crazy things in the name of this (like the very strange rosh hashana uman thing).     I mean, does that take anything away from Rav Nachman?   No, not in my mind.   It seems like you think it somehow is an attack on Breslav chassidus.   We should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and just as you find positive things in Breslav teachings which you embrace, rightfully, so too we can recognize some unwanted things (like for instance an unusual modern day custom with no real source) and be ok with setting that aside.    In both cases we are making the decision not in spite or anger with anyone else and not with insults or personal affront.   Just trying to analyze the issues and go for what is right.

[muman613]

In a shiur, Rabbi Bar Hayim had many positive things to say about Rav Nachman of Breslav, and especially about the practice of "hitbodedut," and personalizing prayer which they stressed.  He is also not hesitant to point out that there are some delirious people out there who call themselves followers of Rav Nachman.  But everyone is aware of this!  Does he need to pretend it doesn't exist?   
And some who do crazy things in the name of this (like the very strange rosh hashana uman thing).     I mean, does that take anything away from Rav Nachman?   No, not in my mind.   It seems like you think it somehow is an attack on Breslav chassidus.   We should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and just as you find positive things in Breslav teachings which you embrace, rightfully, so too we can recognize some unwanted things (like for instance an unusual modern day custom with no real source) and be ok with setting that aside.    In both cases we are making the decision not in spite or anger with anyone else and not with insults or personal affront.   Just trying to analyze the issues and go for what is right.

I understand what you are saying.

But personally I like Rabbi Lazer Brodys approach which attempts to see the good in all Jews, and trying to bring them back to more mitzvah observance. I realize that Rabbi Bar Chayim has a different approach.

I agree that we all should be seeking the truth according to Jewish sources and I hope that we all know the truth so that we can teach others...

[edu]

Halacha often relies on how people perceive the object rather than objective reality.
We will therefore freely drink a cup of water, even though if the microscopic organisms that were in the water, were larger and visible to the naked eye, the water would be forbidden.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach provides other examples of this rule. See chapter 4 of Halichot Shlomo, halacha 5 on Moadim for details.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held that since to the naked eye, lice do not appear to be reproduced by the same means as larger insects, they legally have a different status allowing them to be killed on the Sabbath, even if objectively under a microscope or by other tests, you can prove, that lice are the natural offspring of a previous generation of lice.
What I stated above was in reponse to Tag-MechirTzedek's comment previously:
 

Also another example is killing lice on Shabbath. The opinion of R' Elizer is that killing lice is like killing a camel. The Hachamim disagree, BASED on the science and knowledge of their day that lice spontaniously generate. Therefore the Rav says that killing lice os forbidden on Shabbath (in agreement with R' Elizer + our knowledge over the other Hachamim) while some (for example R' Ovadia Yosef, and others) permit it today- their reasoning- just like yours, that is was made by the Hachamim and brought down in the Talmudh therefore it is allowed, although one can make a Humra and not do it him/her self. BUT this contradicts the Mesehet Horayot which specifically deals with situations where the Sanhedrin made a mistake and one knowledgeable NOT following it and if he did he is liable to bring a korban. (Its a whole discussion both Bavli and Yerushalmi)