Can anyone answer- sicha from 5710

[AkivaYitzhak]

Can anyone explain the meaning of the words at the end of page 162 and beginning of the next page?

[Torah613]

בשם המושאל. (Yes, I know that many will disagree. Nu nu).

[chossidnistar]

Can anyone explain the meaning of the words at the end of page 162 and beginning of the next page?
it means that you should keep learning

[noahidelaws]

What exactly is your question? The Rebbe knows exactly what's going on with his mekushorim, and that's quite understandable, for the head knows what's going on with the body. See here (http://tzaddikim.blogspot.com/search/label/Neshama%20Kelalis).

[AkivaYitzhak]

My question is on the words "baal habayis al hacol" and "yachol hacol", not on the other words so much.

[chossidnistar]

did you get this answer in igros?

[AkivaYitzhak]

did you get this answer in igros?
No I didn't.

[noahidelaws]

Perhaps the info. here (http://tzaddikim.blogspot.com/2008/09/rebbeim-preparation-for-moshiach.html) will explain further.

[AkivaYitzhak]

Perhaps the info. here (http://tzaddikim.blogspot.com/2008/09/rebbeim-preparation-for-moshiach.html) will explain further. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this at work nor at home. Can you please post it here?

[noahidelaws]

Okay, no problem:
The Rebbeim prepare us for Moshiach

An excerpt from a sicha of the Rebbe:

(The Rebbe discusses a Ma’amar of the Previous Rebbe and raises an apparent difficulty in the order that the five levels of the Neshama are listed. The Rebbe continues: )

In reality, it is not possible to ask about the [Previous] Rebbe any questions concerning the order of “above to below” or “below to above”: It is known that the purpose of the Rebbeim [of Chabad] is to serve as a preparation for the coming of Moshiach, when “The glory of G–d will be revealed, and all flesh will see together [that the mouth of G–d has spoken].”[2] This means that G–dliness will be visible—“they will see”—with the physical eye. The preparation for this is that a physical body, that is visible to eyes of flesh, responds to everyone face to face, since the response of a Rebbe is a fulfillment of “The spirit of G–d spoke in me, and His word was on my tongue.”[2] He would speak mostly in Yiddish, and sometimes mix in a word from English or Russian, and the like. And as far as the concept of nimna ha’nimna’os [see below] is concerned, no questions are possible at all.

Thus, it is also not possible to ask any question concerning the order (of the items listed in the Ma’amar), because he transcends the limitations of above and below.


Sefer HaMa’amarim Basi LeGani, Vol. 1, p. 281, from a sicha of Shemini 5710 (edited).
Explanation:

1. The term nimna ha’nimna’os means literally “the one for whom impossibilities are impossible.” This is a term used in Jewish philosophy to describe Hashem’s ability to reconcile opposites and perform an act that is logically, conceptually impossible. Whether Hashem possesses this quality is point of debate amongst the Jewish philosophers; the Rashba holds that He does, and Chassidus follows that opinion.[3]

The Rebbe says here that since G–dliness is revealed in the Previous Rebbe, he also possesses the divine power of nimna ha’nimna’os. Thus, in essence one cannot ask a question on his actions, because the G–dliness that infuses them means that they need not conform to the rules of logic.

2. It should be noted that in that sicha the Rebbe does in fact go on to answer his question concerning the unusual order of the levels of the Neshama that were described (see there).

3. This is one of many sources where the Rebbe describes the level of a Rebbe as being inherently beyond our comprehension.

Here the Rebbe says a wondrous thing: The reason that the Rebbeim were sent into this world was to reveal G–dliness in preparation for the revelation of G–dliness in the age of Moshiach.

A similar idea is found in the famous letter[4] in which the Baal Shem Tov describes how his soul ascended to the chamber of Moshiach, and the Baal Shem Tov asked Moshiach, “When will the master come?” “When the wellsprings of your teachings are disseminated outward,” Moshiach responded.

As is well-known, the Rebbeim of Chabad explain that this means that we prepare the world for the coming of Moshiach by revealing and widely disseminating the teachings of Chassidus. Since only a Rebbe can reveal Chassidus, and the main revelation of Chassidus as a preparation for the coming of Moshiach is performed by the Rebbeim of Chabad,[5] it follows that it is the Rebbeim of Chabad who perform the main preparation of the world for the coming of Moshiach.

However, here the Rebbe is teaching a different, albeit complementary idea: The very presence of the Rebbeim in the world, and even their interaction with people in a setting that did not involve teaching sublime concepts—“(the Rebbe) responds to everyone face to face ... he would speak mostly in Yiddish, and sometimes mix in a word from English or Russian, and the like”—reveals “the spirit of G–d” to the world in a way that prepares it for the revelation of “the glory of G–d” via Moshiach. This implies that the degree of the intensity of the revelation of G–dliness via the Rebbeim of Chabad is so great that it is able to make us fit for the ultimate revelation of G–dliness after the redemption arrives.

Moreover, so intense is this revelation that it is associated with the divine quality of nimna ha’nimna’os, which as is known, is a quality associated with the very Essence of Hashem—Atzmuso Umehuso yisboreich—as is implied in the responsum of the Rashba and discussed in many places in the Ma’amorim of the Rebbe (e.g., here).

Hashem’s Essence is the level that will be revealed when Moshiach comes, for then the world’s purpose will be fulfilled—that it become a dwelling place for Hashem’s very Essence.[6] Thus, the revelation of G–dliness via the Rebbeim, who reveal this level to the extent possible before Moshiach comes, prepares us for the revelation of this level by Moshiach himself after he brings the Redemption.

[1] Yeshaya 40:5.
[2] II Shmuel 23:2.
[3] See Shut HaRashba 1:418, explained in the Tzemach Tzedek’s Sefer HaChakirah 34b.
[4] Kesser Shem Tov #1.
[5] Toras Sholom, p. 122 ff.
[6] See Ohr HaTorah Shir Hashirim, Vol. 2, p. 679 ff. Sefer HaMa’amarim 5662, p. 335. Sefer HaMa’amarim 5678, p. 193.

[AkivaYitzhak]

Okay, no problem:
Thank you. YN had also shown this to me once.
I have absolutely no problem with this. What I hear from this is that the mind of the FR was above the limitations of nature - even the "nature" of the kabbalistic laws of the soul.
I don't see how one can use this to say that the FR is literally "yachol hacol" and literally the "baal habayis al hacol". Literally, "yachol hacol" means omnipotent. And literally, "baal habayis al hacol" is equivalent to saying "master of the universe".

From this sicha, I see that the FR's mind reflected an aspect of nimna ha'nimnaos, meaning that his mind transcended normal human thought. So I don't see how you can go from this to the other attributes (yachol hacol and baal habayis al hacol).

[noahidelaws]

No, nimna hanimno'os means the ability to do anything, even logical impossibilities. It fits very nicely with the ida of kol yochol. The key is that it's not the Tzaddik's own power, but Hashem acting through the Tzaddik due to the Tzaddik's tremendous bittul.

[AkivaYitzhak]

No, nimna hanimno'os means the ability to do anything, even logical impossibilities. It fits very nicely with the ida of kol yochol. The key is that it's not the Tzaddik's own power, but Hashem acting through the Tzaddik due to the Tzaddik's tremendous bittul.
There can be more than one omnipotent being in existence? We all know that Hashem is omnipotent. There can be another omnipotent being?
(My definition of omnipotent is "having the ability to do anything".)

[Yankel Nosson]

There can be more than one omnipotent being in existence? We all know that Hashem is omnipotent. There can be another omnipotent being?
(My definition of omnipotent is "having the ability to do anything".)
The tzaddik is not a separate being. This is what you don't yet chap.
Your neshoma is not "separate" from Hashem, except that it is garbed in layers of concealment. When you remove those layers--as a tzaddik--it is revealed that "Yisroel v'Kudsha B'rich Hu Kula Chad".

[AkivaYitzhak]

The tzaddik is not a separate being. This is what you don't yet chap.
Your neshoma is not "separate" from Hashem, except that it is garbed in layers of concealment. When you remove those layers--as a tzaddik--it is revealed that "Yisroel v'Kudsha B'rich Hu Kula Chad".
A tzaddik can become Hashem if he removes the layers of concealment?

[noahidelaws]

There can be more than one omnipotent being in existence? We all know that Hashem is omnipotent. There can be another omnipotent being?
(My definition of omnipotent is "having the ability to do anything".)
But no one spoke of separateness, or as the Rebbe actually having that quality, rather, due to the Rebbe's tremendous bittul, Hashem reveals this quality through the Rebbe. May I add that on many occasions the Rebbe spoke about the ability of every single Jew to serve Hasham in a manner of nimna hanimno'os, due to his neshomo, which is one with Hashem. The difference between anoshim k'erkeinu and the Rebbe is that his neshomo is totally revealed, while ours is not.
A tzaddik can become Hashem if he removes the layers of concealment?
A Tzaddik enables Hashem to act through him. See above.

[Gevurah]

You are not grasping the concept partly because your using the wrong dictionary:ct-freak: You simply have not learned enough Chassidus.
:ct-verysa

[AkivaYitzhak]

But no one spoke of separateness, or as the Rebbe actually having that quality, rather, due to the Rebbe's tremendous bittul, Hashem reveals this quality through the Rebbe.
But the Rebbe *did* speak of the FR actually having that quality, as he said in this sicha "he [the FR] is the baal habayis al hacol, and he [the FR] can do anything, etc..."

[noahidelaws]

Well, now you know what he meant!

[AkivaYitzhak]

Well, now you know what he meant!

I can hear it now. But how can this be said about a person after histalkus? What are the sources for saying these words on a tzaddik/nasi post-histalkus?

[mosheh5769]

There are two kinds of questions: 1) those that we ask because we really want to know and are prepared to accept the answers, 2) those we ask without really asking them because we are not prepared to set aside our preconceaved ideas, which means that every time the answer will not be in line with our own preconceptions, we will be reluctant to accept it.

Sometimes you give me the impression of being in this second category (without any criticism). You get an answer to a question, and you oppose the answer you get by a "but ...", "how is this possible?", "how the Rebbe could say such a thing?", etc.

As has been mentioned, you should study more Chasidus, and using the Internet to do so is not the right method. Find yourself a Chabad Rov. Believe me, it will be easier.

[noahidelaws]

how can this be said about a person after histalkus? What are the sources for saying these words on a tzaddik/nasi post-histalkus?

The answer to that is really easy. This quote, and many other similar ones, the Rebbe said these things concerning the Previous Rebbe after the Previous Rebbe's histalkus. See here (http://a-farbrengen.blogspot.com/2009/01/rebbe-rules-about-himself.html).

[AkivaYitzhak]

The answer to that is really easy. This quote, and many other similar ones, the Rebbe said these things concerning the Previous Rebbe after the Previous Rebbe's histalkus. See here (http://a-farbrengen.blogspot.com/2009/01/rebbe-rules-about-himself.html).
This website is blocked at work. And I don't have access at home. Can you please post some of them?
I would also like to see sources in non-Chabad chassidic seforim.

[noahidelaws]

It's not so directly related to the topic of the thread. The idea is that since we see that the Rebbe said it about the FR after the FR's histalkus, we have a precedent to say the same thing concerning the Rebbe after his histalkus.

[Torah613]

... the only diffference being, that one the Rebbe said, so we know be be true (however one understands it), and the other we say...

[chossidnistar]

yes. but nowadays is like evryone knows what the REBBE WOULD say

[Torah613]

Nu nu.

[noahidelaws]

... the only diffference being, that one the Rebbe said, so we know be be true (however one understands it), and the other we say...

WADR, I think it's absurd to say that when we follow the Rebbe's obvious cue to learn from what he said concerning the Frierdiker Rebbe this is something that we are saying of our own (if I understand correctly that that is what you mean to suggest). The Rebbe said a whole Torah on the inyan of posak al atzmo, which the Rebbe repeated many times on many occasions. To refuse to draw the obvious conclusions that the Rebbe is hinting at is silly. Chassidim aren't stupid.

[Torah613]

I actually never understood the "posak al atzmo" idea - when it can and cannot be used. But whatever - like I said many times (and we have argued about in the past) - anything we say about the Rebbe, is nothing more and nothing else than our theories. We cannot know anything, not can we prove anything. VAKML.

[noahidelaws]

Well, it's the Rebbe's idea, not ours; the Rebbe taught it to us and thus certainly wants us to use it ourselves. If someone has special reason to think that it might not apply, he can consult with a mashpia as per the Rebbe's hora'os to clarify the matter. But that does change the applicability of a teaching that the Rebbe taught us on many occasions, as explained in the link cited in post #22 above.

[Torah613]

We have had this argument before. Ayin shom.

[AkivaYitzhak]

It's not so directly related to the topic of the thread. The idea is that since we see that the Rebbe said it about the FR after the FR's histalkus, we have a precedent to say the same thing concerning the Rebbe after his histalkus.
What were the Rebbe's words based on (where in the gemara or in kabbalah or in chassidus do we find these things said about a tzaddik who was niftar?)

[AkivaYitzhak]

Just to summarize my question:

The Rebbe said in this sicha about his father-in-law that "hu baal habayis al hacol, v'yachol hacol..."

I was shown here how to understand this about a living tzaddik (pre-histalkus).

I would like to see sources in other sifrei kodesh which the Rebbe's words are based on. The closest I could find is Tanya section 4 perek 27 which is based on the Zohar. But the Rebbe seems to be going much farther than what the Alter Rebbe wrote.

[Intrigued]

Just to summarize my question:

The Rebbe said in this sicha about his father-in-law that "hu baal habayis al hacol, v'yachol hacol..."

I was shown here how to understand this about a living tzaddik (pre-histalkus).

I would like to see sources in other sifrei kodesh which the Rebbe's words are based on. The closest I could find is Tanya section 4 perek 27 which is based on the Zohar. But the Rebbe seems to be going much farther than what the Alter Rebbe wrote.
You can believe what is written in the Zohar but not what the Rebbe said? What is wrong with you??!

[mosheh5769]

You can believe what is written in the Zohar but not what the Rebbe said? What is wrong with you??!
He is not ready to accept the Rebbe's teachings because it contradicts what he has been taught since now. So he doesn't have real question, he just wants to argue about what the Rebbe teaches. This is what's wrong with him.

[AkivaYitzhak]

You can believe what is written in the Zohar but not what the Rebbe said? What is wrong with you??!

I have no idea what is written in the Zohar. From what I've been told, the Zohar is the source for the AR's letter #27. The Rebbe's words seem to me to be going even farther than the AR's letter #27.

I don't not believe what the Rebbe said. It's just that it's a very radical concept for me, and it would help me to accept it if I saw some other sources for the idea.

[AkivaYitzhak]

He is not ready to accept the Rebbe's teachings because it contradicts what he has been taught since now. So he doesn't have real question, he just wants to argue about what the Rebbe teaches. This is what's wrong with him.

I am not replying to your post other than to say that it is untrue.

[Torah613]

You can believe what is written in the Zohar but not what the Rebbe said? What is wrong with you??!There is nothing at all wrong with trying to find sources for something the Rebbe said, veaderabo, not to look for sources is the wrong approach.

[Intrigued]

There is nothing at all wrong with trying to find sources for something the Rebbe said, veaderabo, not to look for sources is the wrong approach.
Emunah drawing seichel in its wake is derech Chabad.

Straight-jacketing emunah in the bounds of seichel is the opposite, r"l.

1419
Punky refuses to believe any concept introduced by the Rebbe, the Nosi of the generation until he completely understands it and can "textually" prove it eight ways to Sunday!

Pinny eagerly welcomes a new teaching of the Rebbe, the Nosi of our generation, and after integrating it into his mindset he is drawn to give the Rebbe nachas by researching the sources for it in our Holy Torah.

[AkivaYitzhak]

Emunah drawing seichel in its wake is derech Chabad.
This is true vis-a-vis everything the Rebbe said for someone who is already a chassid of the Rebbe.

But not for one who is not yet a chossid of the Rebbe, or not yet a believer in Torah mi-Sinai, or not even necessarily for an already frum Jew coming from a different derech.

Would you say this to a Jew who knows nothing yet about Yiddishkeit who walks into a Lubavitch yeshiva and starts asking questions? Would you dismiss his questions and say "if you want to be here you must first believe everything in Tanach, the Talmud and in the Rebbe's writings, otherwise, you don't belong here" ?

[Yankel Nosson]

Punky and Pinny: very clever :laugh: :vodka:

This is true vis-a-vis everything the Rebbe said for someone who is already a chassid of the Rebbe.

But not for one who is not yet a chossid of the Rebbe, or not yet a believer in Torah mi-Sinai, or not even necessarily for an already frum Jew coming from a different derech.

Would you say this to a Jew who knows nothing yet about Yiddishkeit who walks into a Lubavitch yeshiva and starts asking questions? Would you dismiss his questions and say "if you want to be here you must first believe everything in Tanach, the Talmud and in the Rebbe's writings, otherwise, you don't belong here" ?
AY, you didn't just walk in here:

You have been posting for almost 4 years.
You are a "Gold Member" of ChabadTalk.

Yet despite that you have made the effort to look up the Rebbe's sichos (to your credit) and see them "inside", you have barely progressed. You have been told countless times by countless different posters that you need to sit and learn Chassidus. When will you do this? When you begin to learn Chassidus (as opposed to your ridiculous notion of trying to "prove" the words of the Rebbe), you will find how everything fits together more beautifully than you could imagine.

But, the reason why you don't has been stated previously and I have no wish to repeat it.

I wish you well.

[Meshulam]

I told AY that I thought he was not here in order to learn, but rather in order to argue, way back in March of 2006. Has anything changed since then?

[Yankel Nosson]

I told AY that I thought he was not here in order to learn, but rather in order to argue, way back in March of 2006. Has anything changed since then?

Now, in defense of AY (having exchanged abundant correspondence with him on these inyonim outside of ChabadTalk), I am quite confident that he is not looking to argue. He truly wants to understand. This is not the problem (he is not a "snag" or a baal machloikes, etc.).

Accurate is Moshe5769's comment that "He is not ready to accept the Rebbe's teachings because it contradicts what he has been taught since now." AY is scared. If he would trust the Rebbe, he wouldn't be so scared. If he would learn Chassidus, he wouldn't be so scared. But he doesn't take the medicine so he remains ill. But I do not agree that he is in the category of those who are happy to be ill and claim they are healthy.

AY is sincere, but desparately afraid of breaking out of the relatively familiar boundaries of what he already knows. Nebach. Probably he became religious through a Discovery seminar, where they "proved" to him that Hashem gave the Torah at Har Sinai. His whole Yiddishkeit is "well grasped" by his seichel enoshi (r"l), and he is probably afraid that he will frei out, ch'v, or follow the path of Acher, r"l, if he "gazes too high".

But he should know that this is the year 5770, gematria Paratzta--breaking boundaries.

I truly wish him well. :disapp:

[Meshulam]

I am happy to hear it, YN. Obviously, nobody is required to believe what the Rebbe says, merely because he says it (though it should probably be a given that a Lubavitcher listens to the Rebbe... but that's another conversation).

I just see too many folks come here in order to be disagreeable. I think anyone who learns Chassidus with an open mind should be able to surpass their limitations. I hope AY takes your advice.

[AkivaYitzhak]

No hard feelings.

I have to leave work now, which means no access to CT for a couple days.

[Gevurah]

Its all about being batul. You can even be Punky and be a chassid if you are batul. The smartest guy in the room as long as you can reach Nimna Nimnaos and be batul simultaneously.

AY is unable to be batul.... maybe we should check out the shoresh of his neshomo....

[noahidelaws]

I agree with you, gevurah, that it's about bittul, but at the same time I venture to suggest that we could all use a bit more of that...

[Gevurah]

:ct-freak::eek:
You agree with me. You would never tell me that to my face.
Especially bilti mugeh. Poetic License aside. Pnimiyus Pinny Pnimiyus Punky.

[Gevurah]

Other's words

Machon Ohr Aaron & Betsy Spijer

Thoughts to Ponder



Nathan Lopes Cardozo



Oh, That I May Believe!



(Tentative thoughts on Jewish commitment)



Once, a young man approached a Jew in the street and told him that his synagogue needed a tenth man to make up a minyan for mincha, the afternoon prayer. The man responded, “I am an apikores (heretic)!” To this the young man answered, “Since when does an apikores not have to pray mincha?” (1)



****

Once, when Rabbi Noach ( of Lekhovitz) was in his room, he heard one of his disciples beginning to recite Maimonides’ Principles of Faith in the House of Study next door. The student stopped immediately after the words “I believe with perfect faith,” and whispered to himself, “I don’t understand!” And then once more: “I don’t understand!” “What is it that you do not understand?” Rabbi Noach asked him. “I don’t understand what it is all about,” said the man. “I say ‘I believe’. If I really do believe, then how can I possibly sin? But if I really don’t believe, why am I telling lies?” “You do not understand,” said the Rabbi “The words ‘I believe with perfect faith’ are a prayer meaning “Oh, that I may believe!” The Hassid was then suffused with a glow within. “That is right,” he cried. “That is right. Oh, that I may believe, Lord of the world, oh, that I may believe!” (2)



****



We are living in one of the most difficult times in Jewish history. Since the days of emancipation, Judaism has come under constant attack from within, and many have left the fold. This has had a devastating effect on the future of the Jewish people. It is clear that there is a desperate need to turn the tide and bring Judaism back to our young people. This call comes not only from religious circles but even from some of the most secular Jews who realize that without proper Jewish education there is no hope for a Jewish future, neither in Israel nor in the diaspora.



Many have argued that belief in God and observance of rituals should no longer be central to Jewish Education but should be replaced with cultural events and the study of Jewish history. These would serve as a means to encouraging Jewish identity and pride as well as cultivating a sense of belonging. This, they say, should go hand in hand with regular visits to Israel and an intensification of the Zionist enterprise.



Advocates of this proposal feel that belief in God is no longer relevant in an age in which science has replaced religion, and Jewish observance no longer speaks to the majority of our young people. Therefore, these two factors do not serve as enough of an incentive to remain Jewish.



But this theory is questionable. To argue that belief in God is outdated is a gross misreading of the truth and what people need. When vital values become obsolete, and many are overwhelmed with every kind of pleasure and comfort, man feels increasingly like a stranger in his own skin. The overall picture is: since he has nearly everything, he is nearly nothing. Much of man’s life is surrounded with existential emptiness, and he has little to live for. It becomes clearer and clearer that personal meaning is hollow unless it relates to what is transpersonal; man, more and more, is looking for meaning that transcends the smaller objectives. A loyalty that is ultimate. The question eventually becomes: Is there anything to die for? This is the only reason why man wants and is able to live and endure life. And it is this need that has become most urgent in modern times. Only when we will offer our young people a way to experience an ultimate calling will their souls be recaptured.



In fact, all the false gods and ideologies are crumbling. Man is hungry for the voice of God because only that can make him feel that there is indeed something to die for. The problem is that this voice has been stifled, and there is an urgent need to recapture its echo.



What has caused great harm is that in nearly all religious circles God is taken for granted and never contemplated. People fail to understand the difference between creed and faith. Maimonides did a great disservice to the Jewish tradition by introducing articles of faith, although he may have seen a need for it in his time. (3) Judaism and belief in God have become dogmatized and sterile. But Jewish faith is not a dogma. It is neither an easy or secure achievement, nor an attitude acquired immediately or once and for all. It takes an instant to trust an idol but ages to attach to God. It requires effort, stirring, and preparation. It means growing in prayer, in selfless deeds, and in the realization of the mystery of all existence. Faith means striving for faith. It is never an arrival. It is a constant journey and can only burst forth at single moments. In no way can it be commanded.



Faith is not born from logical deduction. It is born from doubt, which is its natural breeding ground. To believe that all doubts must be resolved before we attain faith is a mistaken notion. Avraham, Moshe, the many prophets, and Iyov all lived with implacable perplexities many of which were never solved.



To have faith is to live with unresolved doubts, prepared to rise above ourselves and our wisdom. Looking into the Jewish tradition with its many debates, one gets a clear understanding that those who deny themselves the comfort of certainty are much more authentic than those who are sure. The famous Chassidic sage Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk was once told about a great rabbi who claimed that during the seven days of Succoth his eyes would see Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaacov, Yoseph, Moshe, Aaron and David enter his Sukkah. The Kotzker Rebbe responded: “I do not see the heavenly guests; I only have faith that they are present, and to have faith is greater than to see.”



Faith means that we worship God before we affirm His existence. We praise before we are certain; we respond before we question. (4) The great art is to live a life of religious devotion before we are sure about what we believe. Man can die for something even while he is unsure of its true existence, because his inner faith tells him it is right to do so. This honest admission of doubt is not only the very reason why it is possible to be religious in modern times, but it is the actual stimulus to do so.



Young people look for a life of commitment without having to be certain or buy into dogmas. They want to take an existential risk, to be able to say: I am prepared to risk my life for something ultimate in which I believe.



To argue that Judaism would be better served by cultural events, social gatherings in Hillel houses, or even trips to Israel is to badly misread the existential situation of the Jewish people today. In the long run, these activities will simply add to the problem if they are not accompanied by a strong spiritual component. Only an ultimate value can shape a fully committed soul. The question is not whether God exists, or whether the observance of rituals is divine. The question is: Do we realize that Jewish identity and Judaism is doomed to fail without God and observances? Our first concern must be to bring God back into the lives of young people, to teach them that the ultimate call is to re-engage with Judaism, and to encourage them to take the risk and become religiously inclined even if they cannot be sure. Studying the beauty of Jewish ritual, with its rich colors, deep wisdom and healthy outlook on life, is enough of a compelling reason to commit oneself to its lifestyle whether or not one is convinced of its origin. What needs to be understood is that life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises, and we can be absolutely certain only of things we do not fully understand.



To believe is not to prove, not to explain, but to accede to a vision. It is for that reason that even an apikores should pray mincha.



Oh, that I may believe!





(1) Heard from Professor Menachem Kellner.

(2) See Martin Buber, Tales of the Hasssidim, NY, 1948, vol. 2, p.158.

(3) There are many reasons to believe that Maimonides wrote these articles for the common man to give him some anchorage. It is also possible that he never believed in them in a dogmatic way. Others opine that he abandoned them later in his life. See: Marc B Shapiro: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Maimonides Thirteen Principles Reappraised, The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004, Introduction.

(4) See the famous hymn “Ein K’elo-henu” in the Jewish morning service.

[Yankel Nosson]

Maimonides did a great disservice to the Jewish tradition by introducing articles of faith
What on earth are you posting, Gevurah?! :alien:

[existwhere?]

Gevurah- and R' Yosef Elbo?

[Gevurah]

Nu nU nU NU nu

coming toward AY from the other direction with Modern Cheeri O s ;)
Moreover, we Chabadniks great followers of the Great Eagle the Rambam do not daily recite them nor do we zog Yigdal so do not get overheated YN over my lack of editing my pasting. My children have the glue and scissors right now.

Normally we spell him Albo.... and besides which his stance on Nimna Nimnaos is not ours.

Ay- what do u think of their logic?

[Yankel Nosson]

I think you should delete it before he reads it. He is easily confused.

[Gevurah]

Builds character.