Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

Go Back   Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk > Lubavitch > Chassidus

Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Unread 07-18-2007, 08:36 AM   #51
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eighth King View Post
Did you see p. 287b-c, paragraph beginning "ולהבין בתוספת ביאור בשורש הדברים הנ"ל"?
No, I don't remember seing it, but thanks a lot for this source. I'll try to go back to the Chabad house tonight and take another look...maybe we're looking at a different version of the siddur...are these words you're quoting the AR's own words?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 08:52 AM   #52
Vayaaminu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
Well, seems klipos also need transportation...

T613 I love your sense of humor!
__________________
...vayaaminu baHashem u'v'Moishe avdoi.

....and (the Jewish people) believed in Hashem and in His servant Moishe.
Vayaaminu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 10:28 AM   #53
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Oy vey, sense of humour?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 02:57 PM   #54
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
It would seem possible to me, imho, that according to the chabad method of chassidut which refers to 3 impure husks and then the fourth intermediary husk - nogah - so seemingly according to this shi'ta the three impure husks would correspond to the three other faces, lion, ox and eagle, whereas the face of the man on the front of the merkava - chariot is corresponding to kelipat nogah. The man who sits upon the thone corresponds to the divine soul in the individual, or to the nation of Israel in the collective scheme of creation, as is explained partially in the first maamar of Derech Mitzvothecha of the Tzemech Tzedeck z'l.
IMHO indeed. I won't repeat what I said already....YN can link my other comments back here again.....
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 05:58 PM   #55
JewishHiphop
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,180
B"H

YN and Gevurah it was just a suggested idea. If you have any evidence from any of your learning that would suggest that this idea is wrong, please present your evidence to the contrary.
JewishHiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 06:27 PM   #56
jjbennoach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 186
I Will Write It In Their Hearts - Volume 1 No. 95

Lots of references for this question in this letter from the Rebbe:

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books...rebbe-1/53.htm

...The concept has, however, already been explained in Chassidus in the following manner: The Kitzur Tanya, authored by the Tzemach Tzedek (printed at the conclusion of Derech Mitzvosecha), ch. 6, states: " '[They are from] the three impure kelipos and contain no good at all.' (The intent is that in their essence, [there is no good]. Nevertheless, through the mode of exile, is [enclothed within] them Divine life-energy, a spark from the ten Sefiros of Asiyah in whose core are the Sefiros of Yetzirah, in whose core are...)"

The concept is explained in greater detail in the maamar entitled Padeh BiSholom, 5675, which states:

[With regard to] the Tanya's statements that the three impure kelipos do not possess any good at all, the intent is not that they do not possess a spark [of G-dliness] at all. For without a spark of good, it is impossible for any entity to exist. (Although their existence comes from an encompassing light; nevertheless, we are forced to say they possess some type of spark.)...

...See also Tanya, ch. 24, and Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 25. Note also Kuntres U'Mayon, maamar 4, which explains the statements in Tanya, ch. 24, quoting the phrase "Even though they do not see," and adds, "i.e., it is without their sensing it."

[3] See also the maamar entitled Re'eh Rei'ach B'ni in Torah Or, which explains that [the entities stemming from the three impure kelipos] receive life-energy [from the realm of holiness] in an external manner - i.e., in a manner which they do not feel - and in an internalized manner - that [the G-dly energy] is swallowed up, as it were. [The meaning of "swallowing up" in this case is described] in the maamar entitled Pasach Eliyahu, 5702...
jjbennoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 07:22 PM   #57
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Hear Gevurah and YN? Anyone could propose any wacky theory they want, but to DISMISS it, you need evidence! A new דרך הלימוד.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 10:23 PM   #58
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eighth King View Post
Did you see p. 287b-c, paragraph beginning "ולהבין בתוספת ביאור בשורש הדברים הנ"ל"?
I learned it and I don't see where it says that the nefashos of the chassidei umos haolam come from KN. Although, the AR definitely says some nice things about them.

The AR begins by saying that the lowest world is the world of the 70 sarim and they are the 10 crowns of nogah. In this world, creatures know and comprehend their Creator but they do not have a feeling of bittul of yeish.

The next higher world is the world of melachim. The melachim can have bittul because they can comprehend the absence and bittul of yeish before the Ain; they have closeness to G-d with an inner awareness of the essence of G-dliness. Chassidei umos haolam can have a small illumination from the world of melachim of asiyah until there are some chassidei umos haolam who can experience bittul and hispailus from their perceptions of G-dliness.

The highest world is that of neshamos. Neshamos are above hispailus and bittul because they are in the category of the essence of G-dliness and not just from the category of the divine power that spreads out.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 10:38 PM   #59
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Part 1

Here is the first part...pg. 287b
Attached Images
File Type: bmp Shaar Chag HaMatzos(1).bmp (576.1 KB, 178 views)
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-18-2007, 10:40 PM   #60
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Part 2

Next page...pg. 287c
Attached Images
File Type: bmp Shaar Chag HaMatzos(2).bmp.bmp (850.6 KB, 180 views)
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 11:25 AM   #61
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Chassidei Umos Haolam in the Alter Rebbi's time...

In the 1700's there was no B'nei Noach movement as exists today.

It's amazing to me, that in Shaar Chag HaMatzos the AR is concerned with chassidei umos haolam and that he says they existed in his time.

How could these chassidei umos haolam that lived in the AR's time have met the Rambam's halachic criteria for chassidei umos olam, when probably no Jew was teaching it?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 01:14 PM   #62
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Hear Gevurah and YN? Anyone could propose any wacky theory they want, but to DISMISS it, you need evidence! A new דרך הלימוד.
and I always thought the root of the word kabbalah was kibayl.... received from someone

Oh Mah haya Lanu nu nu nu nu!
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 01:17 PM   #63
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
and Mr. F u did have another agenda.
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 01:31 PM   #64
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gevurah View Post
and Mr. F u did have another agenda.
Which was?.....(by the way, folks, he's not right about this...)
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 01:42 PM   #65
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
At the Chabad House last night, someone was kind enough to scan these pages and email them to me.

Why is my search for truth, my investigations into this inyan, making you defensive, Gevurah? What's really bothering you?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 01:48 PM   #66
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein View Post
In the 1700's there was no B'nei Noach movement as exists today.

It's amazing to me, that in Shaar Chag HaMatzos the AR is concerned with chassidei umos haolam and that he says they existed in his time.

How could these chassidei umos haolam that lived in the AR's time have met the Rambam's halachic criteria for chassidei umos olam, when probably no Jew was teaching it?
I'll try to answer myself: Probably, the AR held that a gentile doesn't need to fulfill 100% of the Rambam's opinion in order to be a chassid umos haolam, as there are probably other opinions on what makes someone a chassid umos haolam.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 02:08 PM   #67
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
I would be overjoyed if we found writings of the AR or the Rebbe (or any other of the Rebbeim) where they said that the CUH"O come from KN. This was one of the main things I came here to find out. YN and JHH did a tremendous chessed by giving me all their time and energy. It touched me very much and I really am very grateful to them.

What bothers me now very much, is what will a teacher of Noahides, such as noahidelaws, tell his/her students if they ask about this inyan? He can't show them anything that any of the Rebbeim wrote which says they come from KN, which means that every tzedaka va'chessed they do is l'garmeihem. This is a very very big deal!
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 05:03 PM   #68
JewishHiphop
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein View Post
In the 1700's there was no B'nei Noach movement as exists today.

It's amazing to me, that in Shaar Chag HaMatzos the AR is concerned with chassidei umos haolam and that he says they existed in his time.

How could these chassidei umos haolam that lived in the AR's time have met the Rambam's halachic criteria for chassidei umos olam, when probably no Jew was teaching it?
I liked your suggested answer, but here is another one as well. When we study the laws of the Beit HaMikdash during the time of the exile, it is considered to be like a preparation for the actual building in the near future. Perhaps the same could be said of the study of the Chassidei Umot HaOlam by the Rebbeim of Chabad and other Rabbis of the generations.
JewishHiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 05:09 PM   #69
JewishHiphop
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein View Post
I would be overjoyed if we found writings of the AR or the Rebbe (or any other of the Rebbeim) where they said that the CUH"O come from KN. This was one of the main things I came here to find out. YN and JHH did a tremendous chessed by giving me all their time and energy. It touched me very much and I really am very grateful to them.

What bothers me now very much, is what will a teacher of Noahides, such as noahidelaws, tell his/her students if they ask about this inyan? He can't show them anything that any of the Rebbeim wrote which says they come from KN, which means that every tzedaka va'chessed they do is l'garmeihem. This is a very very big deal!
In anycase, it is in the Lessons in Tanya in the name of one of the famous early Chabad chassidim.
JewishHiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 05:50 PM   #70
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by JewishHiphop View Post
I liked your suggested answer, but here is another one as well. When we study the laws of the Beit HaMikdash during the time of the exile, it is considered to be like a preparation for the actual building in the near future. Perhaps the same could be said of the study of the Chassidei Umot HaOlam by the Rebbeim of Chabad and other Rabbis of the generations.
Thanks for this unique, informative and exciting chiddush.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 06:12 PM   #71
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
I did not follow this thread in detail, besides taking note of some of the more intriguing chiddushim that arose, but 2 more short letters that have relevance is IK v 9 p 53 where he references a Zohar, and v 15 p 182 where he references R' Hillel and notes that what he writes is "based (מיוסד)" on the Siddur, like R' Hillel himself references the siddur.
There is also a reference to the maamorim of the Mitteler Rebbe Dvorim v 4 p 1027, where he refers to טוב שבנוגה in reference to חסידי אוה"ע.
What all this means or adds to the above - if anything - I leave to the experts.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 06:20 PM   #72
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gevurah View Post
and I always thought the root of the word kabbalah was kibayl.... received from someone

Oh Mah haya Lanu nu nu nu nu!
ותן חלקנו בתורתיך
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 07:04 PM   #73
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
I did not follow this thread in detail, besides taking note of some of the more intriguing chiddushim that arose, but 2 more short letters that have relevance is IK v 9 p 53 where he references a Zohar, and v 15 p 182 where he references R' Hillel and notes that what he writes is "based (מיוסד)" on the Siddur, like R' Hillel himself references the siddur.
There is also a reference to the maamorim of the Mitteler Rebbe Dvorim v 4 p 1027, where he refers to טוב שבנוגה in reference to חסידי אוה"ע.
What all this means or adds to the above - if anything - I leave to the experts.
Thank you thank you thank you!

You see, my persistence paid off!

These two letters have lifted my spirits tremendously!

These letters will be a big help to a lot of people!

: vodka:
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-19-2007, 08:32 PM   #74
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
It seems clear to me from reading Shaar Chag HaMatzos that the AR knew there were CUH"O in his time. Does anybody know why he considered them to be CUH"O if we assume that no rabbi ever taught them the 7 Laws? There have always been gerim throughout Jewish history, but B'nei Noach who learn from orthodox rabbis is a new thing in the past several hundred years, no?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-20-2007, 07:15 AM   #75
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
go see Likutei Torah Airzal Devarim

you are missing the point but not as much as Hoppy.

T613 maybe your whole tachlis is to straighten him out....
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Umos Ha'olam and the Mazolos vis a vis Tefilla and Bitachon noahidelaws Chassidus 12 08-19-2007 04:05 PM
Bechira of Umos Ha'olam noahidelaws Chassidus 21 09-28-2004 09:21 PM
Tanya, Perek 2 roza Lubavitch Derech 1 10-20-2003 09:24 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com