Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 03-10-2005, 10:46 AM   #1
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
Positive Mitzvos VS Negative Mitzvos, which are higher?

In this week's Likkutei Torah (Pikudei) the AR says: Mitzvos Lo Saseh are connected to "Yud Key" of Shem Havaya, and are higher than mitzvos aseh, which are connected to "Vov Key". The proof to this is that mitzvos aseh " - it is easy to do teshuva, in contrast to mitzvos lo saseh on which it is more difficult to do teshuvah. He is metzayen there to a maamar in drushei yom kippur, which seems to say the same thing.

The question is: In Iggeres Hatshuvah Perek 1 he seems to say the opposite, that the reason it's easier to do teshuva on mitzvos aseh is because even after the teshuva the light is still lacking, and therefore one should not learn from this that lo saseh are higher than aseh [and in the m"m on tanya he brings from Liku"t balak that says the same thing]. The difficulty is not so much about the contradiction regarding which is higher (about which one could assumedly answer it depends for what - ), the question is that the very same reasoning that he says in Tanya could not be used as a proof, seems to be used in Liku"t as a proof? I'm sure this must be addressed somewhere, does anyone know where (or have your own answer)?

BTW - if advertisements are permitted here - I would like to remind you all that we're practically starting likutei torah again this week (except for beshalach), and I would urge everyone to take this opportunity to start/strengthen/renew a seder in learning every week the liku"t (chassidisher parsha) of the week (all or at least part). Chapt Arein! Besides fulfilling the Rebbe's hora'ah, you'll be greatly enriching your life.

[especially since after reading the thread on siyum hashas I'm sure we all made hachlotos to not learn daf yomi, and now we have all this extra time on our hands . . . ]
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-11-2005, 05:28 AM   #2
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
I don't know if this answers your question, but in the mugah maamor of Chukas-Balak lamed-vav, ois ches, the Rebbe states the principle of that which is higher falls lower.

"From this it is understood that there is a maalah in the birurim the come through Negative mitzvos over the birurim of Positive mitzvos." Because the nitzutzos in permitted items, inyanei heter from klipas nogah, didn't fall as far. But in Negative mitzvos, which involve things which are forbidden, bound by the chitzonim, "this proves that the source of these nitzutzos is higher." As a result, Negative mitzvos from the beginning (before one reaches the stage of converting zdonos to zochiyos) when one is simply "pushing them away", "nimshach ohr naaleh yosair"--a higher divine light is brought down than is brought from Positive mitzvos.

Then the Rebbe references the LT you mention, with the shaychus to YK and VK. Positive mitzvos are shayach to VK (revealed level), and Negative mitztvos are shayach to YK (concealed level). (In parenthesis the Rebbe notes that YK is a shem kadosh b'pnei atzmo.) The difference is "b'ein aroch" and is the difference between ohr pnimi and ohr makif. Postive mitzvos are mamshich ohr pnimi, whereas Negative mitzvos are mamshich ohr makif. The Rebbe continues there about the inyan of tshuva, zdonos l'zochiyos.

Later on, in ois Yud Daled the Rebbe explains why we make a brocha only on Positive mitzvos, which is because they are the inyan of gilui and a brocha is about "hamshacha v'gilui."
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-11-2005, 08:51 AM   #3
Leayis
Senior Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,970
as yankel nosson refferenced to nosato lireiecha 5736. it talks about the difference between mitzvos aseh, lo saaseh and nisyonos. its one of the geshmakste maamorim i ever learned. its a long maamer. (its actually a few maamorim put together in one) it was mugah in mem vov and is printed in melukat 1. a must learn. it talks about this inyan there.
Leayis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-13-2005, 07:43 PM   #4
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
I looked it up (I've learned it before) but I don't see an answer to the question I asked there (notwithstanding the fact that it is a very geshmake maamor).
And Yankel: In the future for muga maamorim please give the sefer hamaamorim melukot that's it's in (they're usually more accessible), also including the dibur hamaschil in this case would have helped me remember which maamor you're reffering to, and saved me having to look for an uncommon sefer.

On the subject of the likkutei torah: On amud gimmel he gives examples of different hamshachos of or ein sof into the sefiros through mitzvos eivorim dimalka. He says there: through mitzvas dinim one is mamshich or ein sof in gevurah, and also through "koveish es yitzro" which is gevurah etc.

The question is: the examples are supposed to be of mitzvos aseh, "koveish es yitzro" seems to be fulfilment of lo saseh?
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-29-2005, 02:19 PM   #5
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Also see the Hakdomo to Shaar HaEmunah of the Mittler Rebbe (see the paragraph beginning on page 6 until page 10).
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-31-2005, 03:12 PM   #6
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
Eigth, before I read 4 pages, could you tell me if it will answer the specific question (contradiction)?
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 03:49 AM   #7
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
In this week's Likkutei Torah (Pikudei) the AR says: Mitzvos Lo Saseh are connected to "Yud Key" of Shem Havaya, and are higher than mitzvos aseh, which are connected to "Vov Key". The proof to this is that mitzvos aseh " - it is easy to do teshuva, in contrast to mitzvos lo saseh on which it is more difficult to do teshuvah. He is metzayen there to a maamar in drushei yom kippur, which seems to say the same thing.

The question is: In Iggeres Hatshuvah Perek 1 he seems to say the opposite, that the reason it's easier to do teshuva on mitzvos aseh is because even after the teshuva the light is still lacking, and therefore one should not learn from this that lo saseh are higher than aseh [and in the m"m on tanya he brings from Liku"t balak that says the same thing]. The difficulty is not so much about the contradiction regarding which is higher (about which one could assumedly answer it depends for what - ), the question is that the very same reasoning that he says in Tanya could not be used as a proof, seems to be used in Liku"t as a proof? I'm sure this must be addressed somewhere, does anyone know where (or have your own answer)?
It seems to me that the reason you are having a misunderstanding is because you are reading the Tanya wrong. You write: "and therefore one should not learn from this that lo saseh are higher than aseh". However, these are not the actual words of the Alter Rebbe. What he actually says is, " . In other words, what the Alter Rebbe is coming to explain (and it seems to me that this is the entire reason for the parenthesis there) is that although Mitzvos Lo Ta'ase are indeed higher than mitzvos Lo Taaseh as is evidenced by the fact "that mitzvos aseh " - it is easy to do teshuva, in contrast to mitzvos lo saseh on which it is more difficult to do teshuvah", nevertheless, you cannot be doiresh from here a kula that Mitzvas Lo Taaseh should be doche a Mitzvas Aseh in regards to Halachah B'Poel Mamosh. This is because the M"A are actually mamshich ohr (which is tachlis), but the ML"T are only makif and shomer v'chu. He does not say, however, that you cant be doiresh that ML"T are higher than M"A. Aderaba, this is exactly what he is answering, that Lecha'oira ML"T should be doiche a M"A rather than vice versa. " "
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 04:05 AM   #8
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
On the subject of the likkutei torah: On amud gimmel he gives examples of different hamshachos of or ein sof into the sefiros through mitzvos eivorim dimalka. He says there: through mitzvas dinim one is mamshich or ein sof in gevurah, and also through "koveish es yitzro" which is gevurah etc.

The question is: the examples are supposed to be of mitzvos aseh, "koveish es yitzro" seems to be fulfilment of lo saseh?
Who says koveish es yitzro is a ML"T? Heres an example of koivesh es yitzro: Someone who is lazy by nature and likes to sleep in, or has a yeitzer horo to not daven shacharis or put on tfillin etc, he is misgaber on his yeitzer and gets up right away, goes to shul, puts on tfillin and davens shacharis was misgaber and koivesh his yeitzer with gevurah. Thus, koivesh es yitzro doesn't mean to just not do ML"T, but can actually be a peulah to force oneself to go against his nature and yeitzer in the fulfillment of a M"A etc.

Last edited by The Eighth King; 04-01-2005 at 05:12 AM.
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 11:44 AM   #9
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eigth King
It seems to me that the reason you are having a misunderstanding is because you are reading the Tanya wrong. You write: "and therefore one should not learn from this that lo saseh are higher than aseh". However, these are not the actual words of the Alter Rebbe. What he actually says is, " . In other words, what the Alter Rebbe is coming to explain (and it seems to me that this is the entire reason for the parenthesis there) is that although Mitzvos Lo Ta'ase are indeed higher than mitzvos Lo Taaseh as is evidenced by the fact "that mitzvos aseh " - it is easy to do teshuva, in contrast to mitzvos lo saseh on which it is more difficult to do teshuvah", nevertheless, you cannot be doiresh from here a kula that Mitzvas Lo Taaseh should be doche a Mitzvas Aseh in regards to Halachah B'Poel Mamosh. This is because the M"A are actually mamshich ohr (which is tachlis), but the ML"T are only makif and shomer v'chu. He does not say, however, that you cant be doiresh that ML"T are higher than M"A. Aderaba, this is exactly what he is answering, that Lecha'oira ML"T should be doiche a M"A rather than vice versa. " "
The contradiction is not (only) about which is higher, it is about what can be a proof. If I understand the tanya correctly, it can be pharaphrased as follows: The reason that it's easier to do teshuvah for an aseh than for a lo saseh, is because in actual fact one is not doing teshuvah for the aseh. The teshuvah relates to the "gavrah" - the rebelliousness expressed in the person not obeying Hashem, but as for as the hamshacha that was lacking by not doing the mitzvah, - this teshuvah does not correct " . Whereas by an aveirah it is more difficult to do teshuvah, because the teshuvah is not limited to the rebelliousness of the gavrah, but it corrects and removes the blemish itself.

If so, it follows that the fact of it being easier to do teshuvah on an aseh, has no connection with an aseh being "lower" than a lo saseh, rather it is because of the incompleteness of the teshuvah by an aseh. So while the Ar writes not to learn out a as you point out, the reasoning seems to be because there's no proof in essence from this halacha about which is higher (and in fact an aseh could be higher). So how in liku"t does he bring this very proof?

BTW, this Shabbos is your parsha, isn't it?
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 11:46 AM   #10
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Eigth King
Who says koveish es yitzro is a ML"T? Heres an example of koivesh es yitzro: Someone who is lazy by nature and likes to sleep in, or has a yeitzer horo to not daven shacharis or put on tfillin etc, he is misgaber on his yeitzer and gets up right away, goes to shul, puts on tfillin and davens shacharis was misgaber and koivesh his yeitzer with gevurah. Thus, koivesh es yitzro doesn't mean to just not do ML"T, but can actually be a peulah to force oneself to go against his nature and yeitzer in the fulfillment of a M"A etc.
Good answer (IMHO) although not the usual connotation of Koveish.

Do we actually have to do that?
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 02:07 PM   #11
dishmaster
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 70
Well, if someone wants to be a chassidshe bachur then yes, he will have to do all that. The solution to it is aseh tov- just focus on the good and all the difficulties will dissapear, if one realizes that emes havayah l'olam and that is really real, then that person will have an easier time to be kovesh es yitzroh.
dishmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 02:30 PM   #12
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
Good answer (IMHO) although not the usual connotation of Koveish.

Do we actually have to do that?
Thats quite an interesting question when read in light of the general topic of this thread. Lets put it this way, if you don't do it, then even if you do tshuvah, " .
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 02:31 PM   #13
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by dishmaster
Well, if someone wants to be a chassidshe bachur then yes, he will have to do all that.....

If you daven shachris and you put on teffilin you are a "chashidishe bachur" ?
__________________
"The Lion's roar"
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 02:33 PM   #14
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
These days...
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 03:02 PM   #15
iskafya
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by LION
If you daven shachris and you put on teffilin you are a "chashidishe bachur" ?
Only if it is 2:00 in the PM.....
iskafya is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 03:03 PM   #16
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by LION
If you daven shachris and you put on teffilin you are a "chashidishe bachur" ?
In truth one can anwer that with a "yes". (It all depends how you put on tefillin and how you daven shachris. )
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 03:05 PM   #17
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
BTW, this Shabbos is your parsha, isn't it?
One of them. =)
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 03:05 PM   #18
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by iskafya
Only if it is 2:00 in the PM.....
I conceed...
__________________
"The Lion's roar"
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 05:22 PM   #19
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
chevreh laitzim! (I guess it's my fault this time )

dish: welcome, it's good to have some more "emes havaya l'olam" here !

Eigth: in case you missed post 9, I'm still waiting for an answer - or better clarification of your original answer - for the first question.

Good Shabbos!
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-01-2005, 06:50 PM   #20
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
I indeed saw post nine, and will try to further explain and answer it when I have more time. (The leitzanus posts don't require many brain cells or much time on a busy friday! )

A good Shabbos to you as well.
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-02-2005, 10:58 PM   #21
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Your reasoning:

Quote:
If I understand the tanya correctly, it can be pharaphrased as follows: The reason that it's easier to do teshuvah for an aseh than for a lo saseh, is because in actual fact one is not doing teshuvah for the aseh. The teshuvah relates to the "gavrah" - the rebelliousness expressed in the person not obeying Hashem, but as for as the hamshacha that was lacking by not doing the mitzvah, - this teshuvah does not correct " . Whereas by an aveirah it is more difficult to do teshuvah, because the teshuvah is not limited to the rebelliousness of the gavrah, but it corrects and removes the blemish itself.
What he is saying is that the Maalah of the M"A in maaseh (to the point that it is doiche is L"T) is because there is a Hamshochos Ohr V'Shefa etc. And because the tshuvah is not metaken this he'eder ha'ohr, therefore, it follows that the fact that it is easier to do teshuvah on an Aseh does not mean that, LHalocho, a LT is doche a MA. For, the hamshochos haohr will still be lacking for the bitul of the MA, whereas this is not the case with the pgam of the MLT. Therefore, you can't learn from here to be Meikel on a M"A in the face of a ML"T, when it comes to Tshuvah U'Maasim Tovim B'Poel.

Quote:
If so, it follows that the fact of it being easier to do teshuvah on an aseh, has no connection with an aseh being "lower" than a lo saseh, rather it is because of the incompleteness of the teshuvah by an aseh.
Its not easier because of the incompleteness of the tshuvah. Rather, its easier because G-d forgives you for it immediately. He could give you a real hard time if he wanted to for being a Moired B'Malchus. (As a matter of fact, a king is not allowed to be moichel for moired b'malchus.) Therefore, the reason it is easier is because G-d forgives you more easily than a ML"T (and this is because of the fact that M"A is lower than ML"T). When one transgresses a ML"T he is also a mored b'malchus, but even more than that, he actually made a p'gam. It's not just that he did not positively fulfill the ratzon hamelech, but he actually went against the rotzon hamelech etc. Thus, transgressing a ML"T actually appears to be much worse than transgressing a M"A. We would therefore think that when it comes to Maaseh B'Poel a L"T would be doche an Aseh. This however is not the case, because tachlis is davka for hamshochos ha'ohr. Therefore, even though L"T are higher than M"A, nonetheless, when it comes to maaseh hamitzvos b'poel you cannot learn from here that an ML"T would be doche the M"A, because the M"A has a maaleh over ML"T when it comes to action and tachlis. (Thats why someone who was shev v'al taaseh is only AS IF he did a M"A, but b'poel mamosh he wasn't mamshich anything at all). This is the point of that parenthesis. He is only saying that you cant use this as proof to learn a on M"A next to ML"T. However, there is no reason at all that you cannot indeed use this to learn that, B'shoiresh, ML"T are higher than M"A, and that this is why G-d forgives you more easily for the M'Ridah of a M"A over a M'ridah of a L"T.

Quote:
So while the Ar writes not to learn out a as you point out, the reasoning seems to be because there's no proof in essence from this halacha about which is higher (and in fact an aseh could be higher). So how in liku"t does he bring this very proof?
The reasoning is not because there's no proof in essence from this halacha about which is higher (and in fact an aseh could be higher). On the contrary, the reasoning is that there is proof that when it comes to Maaseh BPoel Mamosh the Aseh is indeed higher than the LT, and is therefore doche a LT, even though you would think the opposite. That is, you would think that because it is easier to do Tshuvah for a MA over a LT, therefore, a LT is higher and is doche a MA. However, the AR shows that this is not the case when it comes to Maase. For, since it is davka the MA which is mamshich ohr (which is tachlis, as explained in the Likutei Torah and elsewhere), and since once you transgress the Aseh that ohr is " , therefore, even though bshoiresh the MLT is higher, when it comes to Maaseh the MA is higher and is doche the LT, because of this inyan of tshuvah.

Therefore, you cannot use this braisah to prove or be doiresh a kulah on a MA in the face of a LT, and on the contrary, this reasoning supports the Aseh. However, as explained above, there is no reason at all why this cannot be used to prove that B'Shoiresh one is higher than other (which is what he is talking about in the Likkutei Torah). However, because all of this is talking about only the Halocho of the Maase HaMitzvos and Tshuvah BPoel, this does not at all contradict what it says in Likkutei Torah. That is, over there he is using this braisah to show how BShoiresh MLT are higher than MA. The proof from this is that G-d will forgive you much more easily for being oiver a MA than for being oiver a MLT. (And also, it seems to me from the loshon there that he is not using this as a proof per-say, but say rather a statement of fact that because of the fact that LT is higher than MA, it is for this reason that G-d forgives you more easily on MA than MLT. (For example, you could ask the simple question that just as G-d forgives immediately for the Meridah on the MA, but is not metaken the Ohr, so too by the MLT He should forgive for the meridah immediately, but not be metaken the PGam. However, because the MLT are higher than the MA, this is not the case, and it is Toleh until Yom Kippur etc.)

Thus, my answer to you is that : That is, when it comes to Maase B'Poel you cant use this Braisah as proof to be meikel on an Aseh in the face of a L"T (as stated in the Tanya). However, when it comes to learning B'Shoiresh which is higher you can indeed use it as proof (as stated in the Likuttei Torah), and there is no stirah in this .
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-03-2005, 02:02 PM   #22
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
I'm still trying to understand the answer (any possibility of simplifying it for )?

In the meantime: In this past week's likkutei Torah (Shmini), the AR explains how shor habar are the tzaddikim who perform mitzvos in action. The examples of mitzvos in action are "pesach eating matzos, sukkah the sukah and lulav, and shvuos through " - which I assume should be deciphered as mattan torah. Can anyone explain the example of Shvuos?! And a related question: throughout the maamar, the example of maaseh is simcha. Although the halacha is that simcha can only be through meat and wine (as the AR repeats about 5 times throughout the maamar), it would seem like an unusual example to pick for mitzvos in action, when most mitzvos are completely in action in a literal sense (I think the 2 questions are related)?

Also: the advantage that the AR says that there is by shor habar is that that's the ratzon haelyon. What's wrong with that answer, that caused the "biur" to be based on the question 'what's the advantage of shor habar' (also - in the Rebbe's maamar on the inyan in 5747, he describes the malah of shor because of dirah betachtonim IIUC, not ratzon haelyon)?

BTW: If anyone can explain me the pshat (simple pirush hamilos) of the parantheses in the shulei hagilyon on ha'arah 22 on the first sicha on shmini in chelek 17, I would be grateful.
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2005, 01:18 PM   #23
wannabe
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 544
OK Eigth: I read your whole post, and there's not really anything I understand except that .

Please explain short and clear (regardless of how you interpet the words of the tanya): what proof is there that MLS are higher than MA? It can't be because it's harder to do teshuvah on MA, because if it were possible to do teshuvah on a MA, then maybe that would be harder. The only reason why teshuva on MA is easier could be because by MA it's not possible to do a proper teshuva, the teshuva is only on the merida bemalchus, whereas by MLS it's harder to do teshuva (maybe, not because they have a higher shoresh, but) because the teshuva is (not only on the merida, but also) on the pegam. What is incorrect about this reasoning, that enables the AR in LT to bring this very proof that MLS are higher? If you don't mind me troubling you again . .
wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2005, 03:18 AM   #24
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
The only reason why teshuva on MA is easier could be because by MA it's not possible to do a proper teshuva
Firstly, I don't know why you say that your reasoning is the "only reason", and then in the same breath say that it is a possible ("could be") reason. Secondly, it seems to me that it is equally possible to say that the reason it is easier to do teshuva on MA is because they are lower beshoiresh then MLS (as stated in the LT), and that the Tanya is coming to explain how even though they are lower beshoiresh they are still not doiche a MLS when it comes to actual fulfillment (because of the fact that the is still lacking etc). When looked at in this way there is no stira because they are talking about two different aspects.

Last edited by The Eighth King; 05-24-2005 at 06:10 AM.
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2005, 03:30 AM   #25
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
What is incorrect about this reasoning, that enables the AR in LT to bring this very proof that MLS are higher?
It seems to me that in your reasoning you make an unnecessary assumption into the kivun of the Alter Rebbe in the parenthesis of the Tanya.
The Eighth King 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
Chabad's position on Mivtzah Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach ChachChach Noahide - Bnei Noach 120 03-13-2007 09:37 PM
Mitzvos of Moshiach? Yankel Nosson Moshiach 3 07-27-2004 09:24 PM
Mitzvos of a Tzaddik Yankel Nosson Yiddishkeit 26 12-04-2003 08:37 AM
Maamar: ANI LEDODI VEDODI LI 5732 Rabbi_D Elul 13 09-08-2003 12:10 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com