Sunday, December 9, 2018

Down With Chanukah by Rabbi Meir Kahane

Rabbi Meir Kahane Writings (5732-33) (1971-73)

If I were a Reform rabbi; if I were a leader of the Establishment whose money and prestige have succeeded in capturing for him the leadership and voice of American Jewry; if I were one of the members of the Israeli Government's ruling group; if I were an
enlightened sophisticated, modern Jewish intellectual, I would climb the barricades and join in battle against the most dangerous of all Jewish holidays Chanukah.

It is a measure of the total ignorance of the world Jewish
community that there is no holiday that is more universally celebrated
than the "Feast of Lights", and it is an equal measure of the
intellectual dishonesty and of Jewish leadership that it plays along
with the lie.  For if ever there was a holiday that stands for
everything that the mass of world Jewry and their leadership has
rejected ­ it is this one.  If one would find an event that is truly
rooted in everything that Jews of our times and their leaders have
rejected and, indeed, attacked ­ it is this one.  If there is any
holiday that is more "unJewish" in the sense of our modern beliefs and
practices ­ I do not know of it.

The Chanukah that has erupted unto the world Jewish scene
in all its childishness, asininity, shallowness, ignorance and fraud ­
is not the Chanukah of reality.  The Chanukah that came into vogue
because of Jewish parents ­ in their vapidness ­ needed something to
counteract Christmas; that exploded in a show of
"we-can-have-lights-just-as-our-goyish-neighbors" and in an effort to
reward our spoiled children with eight gifts instead of the poor
Christian one; the Chanukah that the Temple, under its captive rabbi,
turned into a school pageant so that the beaming parents might think
that the Religious School is really successful instead of the tragic
joke and waste that it really is; the Chanukah that speaks of Jewish
Patrick Henrys giving-me-liberty-or death and the pictures of
Maccabees as great liberal saviors who fought so that the kibbutzim
might continue to be free to preach their Marx and eat their ham, that
the split-level dwellers of suburbia might be allowed to violate their
Sabbath in perfect freedom and the Reform and Conservative Temples
continue the fight for civil rights for Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Jane
Fonda, is not remotely connected with reality.

        This is NOT the Chanukah of our ancestors, of the
generations of Jews of Eastern Europe and Yemen and Morocco and the
crusades and Spain and Babylon.  It is surely not the Chanukah for
which the Maccabees themselves died.  Truly, could those whom we honor
so munificently, return and see what Chanukah has become, they might
very well begin a second Maccabean revolt.  For the life that we Jews
lead today was the very cause, the REAL reason for the revolt of the
Jews "in those days in our times."

        What happened in that era more than 2000 years ago?  What
led a handful of Jews to rise up in violence against the enemy?  And
precisely who WAS the enemy?  What were they fighting FOR and who were
they fighting AGAINST?

        For years, the people of Judea had been the vassals of
Greece.  True independence as a state had been unknown for all those
decades and, yet, the Jews did not rise up in revolt.  It was only
when the Greek policy shifted from mere political control to one that
attempted to suppress the Jewish religion that the revolt erupted in
all its bloodiness.  It was not mere liberty that led to the Maccabean
uprising that we so passionately applaud.  What we are really cheering
is a brave group of Jews who fought and plunged Judea into a bloodbath
for the right to observe the Sabbath, to follow the laws of kashruth,
to obey the laws of the Torah.  IN A WORD EVERYTHING ABOUT CHANUKAH
THAT WE COMMEMORATE AND TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO COMMEMORATE ARE THINGS
WE CONSIDER TO BE OUTMODED, MEDIEVAL AND CHILDISH!

        At best, then, those who fought and died for Chanukah were
naïve and obscurantist.  Had we lived in those days we would certainly
not have done what they did for everyone knows that the laws of the
Torah are not really Divine but only the products of evolution and men
(do not the Reform, Reconstructionist and large parts of the
Conservative movements write this daily?)  Surely we would not have
fought for that which we violate every day of our lives!  No, at best
Chanukah emerges as a needless holiday if not a foolish one.  Poor
Hannah and her seven children; poor Mattathias and Judah; poor well
meaning chaps all but hopelessly backward and utterly unnecessary
sacrifices.

        But there is more.  Not only is Chanukah really a foolish
and unnecessary holiday, it is also one that is dangerously fanatical
and illiberal. The first act of rebellion, the first enemy who fell at
the hands of the brave Jewish heroes whom our delightful children
portray so cleverly in their Sunday and religious school pageants, was
NOT a Greek.  He was a Jew.

        When the enemy sent its troops into the town of Modin to
set up an idol and demand its worship, it was a Jew who decided to
exercise his freedom of pagan worship and who approached the altar to
worship Zeus (after all, what business was it of anyone what this
fellow worshipped?)  And it was this Jew, this apostate, this
religious traitor who was struck down by the brave, glorious,
courageous (are these not the words all our Sunday schools use to
describe him?) Mattathias, as he shouted: "Whoever is for G-d, follow
me!"

        What have we here?  What kind of religious intolerance and
bigotry?  What kind of a man is this for the anti-religious of
Hashomer Hatzair, the graceful temples of suburbia, the sophisticated
intellectuals, the liberal open-minded Jews and all the drones who
have wearied us unto death with the concept of Judaism as a
humanistic, open-minded, undogmatic, liberal, universalistic (if not
Marxist) religion, to honor?  What kind of nationalism is this for
David-Ben-Gurion (he who rejects the Galut and speaks of the proud,
free Jew of ancient Judea and Israel)?

        And to crush us even more (we who know that Judaism is a
faith of peace which deplores violence), what kind of Jews were these
who reacted to oppression with FORCE?  Surely we who so properly have
deplored Jewish violence as fascistic, immoral and (above all!)
UN-JEWISH, stand in horror as we contemplate Jews who declined to
picket the Syrian Greeks to death and who rejected quiet diplomacy for
the sword, spear and arrow (had there been bombs in those days, who
can tell what they might have done?) and "descended to the level of
evil," thus rejecting the ethical and moral concepts of Judaism.

        Is this the kind of a holiday we wish to propagate?  Are
these the kinds of men we want our moral and humanistic children to
honor?  Is this the kind of Judaism that we wish to observe and pass
on to our children?

        Where shall we find the man of courage the one voice, in
the wilderness to cry out against Chanukah and the Judaism that it
represents-the Judaism of our grandparents and ancestors?  Where shall
we find the man of honesty and integrity to attack the Judaism of
Medievalism and outdated foolishness; the Judaism of bigotry that
strikes down Jews who refuse to observe the law; the Judaism of
violence that calls for Jewish force and might against the enemy?
When shall we find the courage to proudly eat our Chinese food and
violate our Sabbaths and reject all the separateness, nationalism and
religious maximalism that Chanukah so ignobly represents?  …Down with
Chanukah!  It is a regressive holiday that merely symbolizes the
Judaism that always was; the Judaism that was handed down to us from
Sinai; the Judaism that made our ancestors ready to give their lives
for the L-rd; the Judaism that young people instinctively know is true
and great and real.  Such Judaism is dangerous for us and our leaders.

We must do all in our power to bury it.

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Truth about Pittsburgh


Rabbi Moshe Weinberger from Monsey.
Spoken like a true chosid. Must listen.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Does G-d Cry?



Rabbi Manis Friedman.

https://11213.org/2018/04/03/wow-boro-park-teens-hear-chabad-chassidus/

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Baruch HaTov VeHaMetiv!! Shalom Mordechai goes out from prison!!!

Mazel Tov!!! Shalom Mordechai Rubashkin goes out from prison!!
Now  for the geula Shlema!!




Wednesday, October 4, 2017

New story of Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg. --- Have a great Yom Tov!!!

2017-10-02, 10:43:59 AM: Ariella: I received this message in Hebrew and had to share it with others. Sometimes we just don't know how influential we are...
A story sent by Chani Dunin, sister of Rivki Holtzberg,
 I'll tell you something I've just heard from my husband:

Our Mendi studied in a yeshiva in Netanya, which was located in Hadera, and the structure there is one of the worst you've ever seen, that includes children making traps to catch mice and rats. This resulted in the municipality closing the Yeshiva due to faulty kitchen, etc., and the entire building had already been issued a demolition order.
Then the yeshiva moved to Netanya into the building of another Hassidic group. There, too, there were not good conditions.
From the start, we heard that his Yeshiva was moving to a new building and there was a casting / skeleton, etc.
A few years went by
But no money.
Rabbi Orenstein, Rosh Yeshiva, saved every penny for the new building, and in the middle of last year they entered the new building, even though it was not finished.

In recent days, Rabbi Orenstein has approached three professionals who gave him quotes for the construction of an institutional kitchen. Of course he had chosen the cheapest offer of all.

A person comes full of tattoos and for three days worked non-stop.
When he finished, he said to Rabbi Orenstein: I see that there are many unfinished things in the structure. Ornstein said to him: Yes, when we have money we will get to that, too.
The builder says: What do you care? Let me do this. You saw that I was significantly cheaper than the others.
Good. Rabbi Orenstein gave in.
He worked for a few more days.
Afterwards he presents to Rabbi Orenstein an invoice with NIS 200,000.
Rabbi Orenstein asks:
How many payments can I spread it out?

The young man looks at Rabbi Orenstein for a few minutes in silence, then takes the pen and writes on the invoice:
 *paid*

Rabbi Orenstein does not understand ???
what? Why?
The guy says to him: This is my old debt to Chabad.

And so he says:

As you see me many years ago I lived in India. I was dealing with drugs. I was a successful trader. And I took. One day they caught me. I was condemned to be in prison for very, very long years.
One night I sat in despair in the cell, suddenly the jailer opens the cell and whispers to me you have 2 minutes to get out.
I asked him: What? Why?
Pointed at a man at the end of the corridor and said get out!
I come out and saw a young rabbi whom I do not know, gave me a plane ticket, and told me to get in the taxi. Your flight will soon be flying to Israel and you will not come back here.
I told him: How much to pay you?
He said to me: You do not owe me anything, when the day comes you will return to the Chabad.
Then I knew it was Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg.
And now I am repaying the debt.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Proving the Existence of the Creator from Intelligent Design

In response to a letter from a group of students asking for proofs of the existence of the Creator, the Rebbe replied with a long letter,1 giving 3 different proofs. Historically, the first two proofs are well known and have been given in the past. But, the third is an innovation from the Rebbe.

Read further by clicking below;

Proving the Existence of the Creator from Intelligent Design

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Telling It Like It Wasn’t Former Times reporter looks back on coverage of the event, and what went wrong.

Telling It Like It Wasn’t
Former Times reporter looks back on coverage of the event, and what went wrong.
08/08/11
Special To The Jewish Week
Twenty years ago next week, on the night of Aug. 19, 1991 — the night that Gavin Cato and Yankel Rosenbaum were killed — my editor called me at home to tell me that riots had broken out on the streets of Crown Heights. “We’re covered for tonight but I want you to start your day there tomorrow,” he said.
Over the next three days, working 12 hours shifts and only going home to sleep, I saw and heard many terrible things. I saw police cars set on fire, stores being looted and people bloodied by Billy clubs, rocks and bottles. One woman told me that she barricaded herself into her apartment and put the mattresses on the windows so her children would not be hurt by flying glass.
Over those three days I also saw journalism go terribly wrong. The city’s newspapers, so dedicated to telling both sides of the story in the name of objectivity and balance, often missed what was really going on. Journalists initially framed the story as a “racial” conflict and failed to see the anti-Semitism inherent in the riots. As the 20th anniversary of the riots approaches, I find myself re-examining my own role in the coverage and trying to extract some lessons for myself and my profession.
At the time, I was a religion writer at The New York Times and was well connected in the Lubavitch community, the predominant Jewish group in Crown Heights. I was one of probably a dozen Times reporters and photographers on the streets over the course of the riots. We were a diverse group, representing many religions and racial backgrounds.
My job was to file memos to the main “rewrite” reporters back in the Times office in Manhattan about what I saw and heard. We had no laptops or cellphones in those days so the other reporters and I went to payphones and dictated our memos to a waiting band of stenographers in the home office. The photographers handed their film off to couriers on motorcycles who took the film to the Times.
Yet, when I picked up the paper, the article I read was not the story I had reported. I saw headlines that described the riots in terms solely of race. “Two Deaths Ignite Racial Clash in Tense Brooklyn Neighborhood,” the Times headline said. And, worse, I read an opening paragraph, what journalists call a “lead,” that was simply untrue:
“Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday.”
In all my reporting during the riots I never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks. But the Times was dedicated to this version of events: blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions. To show Jewish culpability in the riots, the paper even ran a picture — laughable even at the time — of a chasidic man brandishing an open umbrella before a police officer in riot gear. The caption read: “A police officer scuffling with a Hasidic man yesterday on President Street.”
I was outraged but I held my tongue. I was a loyal Times employee and deferred to my editors. I figured that other reporters on the streets were witnessing parts of the story I was not seeing.
But then I reached my breaking point. On Aug. 21, as I stood in a group of chasidic men in front of the Lubavitch headquarters, a group of demonstrators were coming down Eastern Parkway. “Heil Hitler,” they chanted. “Death to the Jews.”
Police in riot gear stood nearby but did nothing.
Suddenly rocks and bottles started to fly toward us and a chasidic man just a few feet away from me was hit in the throat and fell to the ground. Some ran to help the injured man but most of us ran for cover. I ran for a payphone and, my hands shaking with rage, dialed my editor. I spoke in a way that I never had before or since when talking to a boss.
“You don’t know what’s happening here!” I yelled. “I am on the streets getting attacked. Someone next to me just got hit. I am writing memos and what comes out in the paper? ‘Hasidim and blacks clashed’? That’s not what is happening here. Jews are being attacked! You’ve got this story all wrong. All wrong.”
I didn’t blame the “rewrite” reporter. I blamed the editors. It was clear that they had settled on a “frame” for the story. The way they saw it, there were two narratives here: the white narrative and the black narrative. And both had equal weight.
After my outburst things got a little better. The next day’s report began like this: “Black youths hurling rocks and bottles scuffled with the police in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn last night, even as Mayor David N. Dinkins tried to personally calm the racially troubled neighborhood after two nights of violence.”
But the Times still had trouble changing its frame. Perhaps most troubling was an article written in the midst of the rioting under this headline: “Amid Distrust in Brooklyn: Boy and Scholar Fall Victim.” The article compared the life of Gavin Cato, the 7-year-old boy killed in the car accident that spurred the riots, and the life of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, who was stabbed to death later that night. It recycled every newspaper cliché and was an insult to the memory of both victims, but, again, it fit the frame.
“They did not know each other,” the article said. “They had no reason to know… They died unaware….” In the eyes of the Times, the deaths were morally equivalent and had equal weight.
The Times editorial page followed suit. “The violence following an auto accident in Crown Heights reminds all New Yorkers that the city’s race relations remains dangerously strained,” the editorial said. It concluded by praising Mayor Dinkins, giving him credit “for a hard night’s work” and doing “the job that New Yorkers elected him to do.”
The one who first broke the frame and spoke the truth was the fearless poet of the New York newspaper business in those days, Jimmy Breslin, then a columnist for Newsday. He was one of numerous reporters, photographers and television journalists who were beaten or otherwise injured during the riots. In Breslin’s case, he was dragged from a taxi by a group of rampaging young men, pummeled and stripped of his clothes. That night, he vowed to tell the truth of his humiliation, although he anticipated the resistance. “And someone up in the higher echelons of journalism, some moron starts talking about balanced coverage,” he said.
The other person who spoke the truth was the brilliant former executive editor of the Times, A.M. Rosenthal, who by 1991 had become a columnist for the paper. Rosenthal was one of the first journalists at the Times to call the riots what they were. “Pogrom in Brooklyn,” was the headline of his column on Sept. 3, 1991, just two weeks after the riots ended.
“The press,” Rosenthal wrote, “treats it all as some kind of cultural clash between a poverty-ridden people fed up with life and a powerful, prosperous and unfortunately peculiar bunch of stuck-up neighbors — very sad of course, but certainly understandable. No — it is an anti-Semitic pogrom and the words should not be left unsaid.”
It pains me to recall that not many people at the Times took Rosenthal seriously at the time. He had gone from being the editor of a great “liberal” newspaper to being a “conservative” columnist who seemed to return to the same issues over and over again: the security of Israel, anti-Semitism, the persecution of Christians in China and the war on drugs.
But Rosenthal was right about Crown Heights. In 1993, two years after the Crown Heights riots, an exhaustive state investigation sharply criticized Mayor Dinkins for not understanding the severity of the crisis. It also faulted his police commissioner, Lee Brown, for mismanaging the police during the riots.
The critical state report was widely covered in the press. “For the Mayor,” the Times headline said, “A Harsh Light.”
But another report, this one on how the press covered Crown Heights, got little publicity. It was written in 1999 by Carol B. Conaway, then an assistant professor at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., and published in an academic journal called Polity. Her article is called “Crown Heights: Politics and Press Coverage of the Race War That Wasn’t.”
“Journalists and their audience alike rely on ‘frames’ when writing about and understanding newsworthy events because they provide cues for understanding others’ experiences,” Conaway wrote. But, she added, sometimes the frames are wrong.
She continued: “The New York Post, a tabloid, shifted away from the race frame to focus on black anti-Semitism within a few days of the initial rampages, while the New York Times persisted with the racial frame for at least two years.
“Yet,” she added, “one cannot understand the events [that unfolded in Crown Heights] without getting beyond the binaries of black versus white encouraged by the use of the race frame, and understanding the more complex dynamics of the conflict.”
As someone who saw the conflict unfold I can attest to this first-hand. I am telling my story in print for the first time because it is important that we journalists examine our mistakes and learn from them. Fitting stories into frames — whether about blacks and Jews, liberals or conservatives, Arabs and Israelis, Catholics and Protestants or Muslims and Jews — is wrong and even dangerous. Life is more complicated than that. And so is journalism.

Read more at http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/telling-it-it-wasnt#f8LIbXZlWju4Vflk.99

Monday, July 4, 2016

Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel.. Well let's hit them first this time. (seen on drudge-report).

President Hassan Rouhani said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”

Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.

“By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.

read on..

Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel By ARIEL BEN SOLOMON Sun, 03 Jul 2016, 04:47 AM

the funny thing about it is that the Iranian regime is telling us exactly what they would like to do and what they are capable of doing, (Hashem will protect us) and we are not taking them seriously.

It's really a wonder how the world powers have lost their minds and are helping evil men to try to destroy the world.

Time to believe what they are saying and destroy the evil from the world.

Friday, July 1, 2016

ISIS, Obama and the Spies Our Greatest Crisis Is Not ISIS, But Our Denial of It By: Rabbi YY Jacobson

When faced with a gruesome enemy, there are two approaches: Retreat in fear, or go on the offensive.
But what if the enemy will pursue you wherever you are, so that retreat is ineffective? The only option then, it would seem, would be to take on your enemy and crush it; you’ve got no choice.
However, what if that goes against your entire way of thinking? If it runs contrary to everything you told yourself about the world around you? Then there is only one option left—and it is the most dangerous of all: deny the reality of the enemy; make believe he does not exist.
Two centuries ago, the French tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte was master of Europe. In Spain, an embattled English army under the Duke of Wellington was resisting his advance. One day a young lieutenant came into the British general's tent clutching a map in his trembling hands:
"Look, General the enemy is almost upon us!"
"Young man," the general replied coolly, "Get larger maps, the enemy won't seem so close."
This sums up the current mind set of many of our leaders.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Rabbi Heller's speech - eruvin, and eruv in Crown Heights?

Transcript (unedited) of Rabbi Heller's speech

BH

Part 1: Using an Eruv anywhere

1. To explain a concept which needs an explanation for yidin, for chassidishe yidin, יראים ושלמים which want to understand the proper thing. Not only to do the right thing, but to understand this right thing.
If we would understand it, then we may also be able to explain it to other yidin also.

2. Many yungerlait ask: they are going away to this or that place for Shabbos, over there exists an eruv, may he carry there? Or may he not carry? Does lubavitch hold of an eruv or does not use an eruv? And if I may not, may my wife or kids carry within it? May I ask a goy to use it for me?

3. An eruv was made by the chazal. Someone who does not hold of an eruv is an apikores. There is no such a thing, that one does not hold of an eruv. Rather one says: that he does not hold of this or that specific eruv.

4.Only very few people know how to make an eruv properly in a city. One has to be a very very big expert. It is harder than making a heart surgery. To make a heart surgery, one needs to be a special expert, a regular doctor cannot make it.
There singular individuals in this generation that know how to make an eruv in a city. Singular people. Yechidim. (eruvin is one of the hardest mesechtes). One has to be a very very big expert to make an eruv.

5.One has to know who made the eruv
“men hot gemacht” “IT WAS MADE”
The first thing I answer to a yungerman who is traveling to a place:
First you have to know if there is even an Eruv. Before you ask if you may carry, you have to know who made it: a name and an address.
This is not enough (If one made an Eruv ten years ago): who is MAshgiach today, every shabbos on the eruv?
An eruv breaks: one builds a road, a goy can break it, or the eruv rips on its own. There has to be the same type of expert who is responsible and achro’I on the eruv every week.
So we need to know two things: who built the eruv, and who is the responsible for the eruv.

6.The same thing is in regards to a mikvo.
In order to build a mikvo, one has to be able to be a בעל הוראה.
And it is not enough, that this or that person built the mikvo ten years ago, one has to know who is responsible for the mikvo today.

7.Someone told me a story:
He went to a mikvo in a city in Italy, and saw that there was no rainwater. So he asks the rabbis of the city: what is going on here?
So the rabbi answers: what do you mean the great rabbi, reb avrohom sofer (the one who printed the Mei’iri) built this mikvo.
Very nice, then there was rainwater, today there is no rainwater, the rainwater was let out.

One has to know who is mashgiach on the mikvo as of today.

8.Afterwards one has to ask the person who is a בר סמכא who made the eruv, and is responsible for the eruv: tell me, what type of eruv did you make? Did you make an eruv which is kosher lemehadrin min hamehadrin, without any questions?
Did you make an eruv which is only good in extraneous cases (sha’as hadechak)? Is this eruv, kosher be’sha;as hadechak, bhefsad meruba l’tzorech orchim For erev Shabbos ?
One type of eruv was made here?

9.In Toronto there is an eruv. It was made by a godol betorah a yid by the name of shlomo miller.
I (,yself asked R. Sholomo Miller about an eruv he made and he told me it is one of the most best (sheinste) Eruvin in America, but Bnei Tora hshouldn’t use it. Bnei Torah means those who are Mehadare B’mitzvos.
He made the eruv, and by him it is poshut, that a mehader should not use the eruv.

10.After one knows who made it, and who is responsible, and that it is an eruv that is kosher for mehadrin according to all shitois and specifically according to the alter rebbe, then in such a case one may carry.
There is also a personal chumra that some individual chasidim have not to use an eruv if it was made with strings (it depends how it is made: there are those that are made with metal. However if it was made with strings), they were חושש that maybe the ruv might rip on Shabbos.

even if it was mehadrim min hamehadrim, because if it is made with strings it may have broken etc.
But this is just a chumra of individuals.
(This wouldn’t apply in a bungalow where you can always see the whole time if it broke or not, however in a big city.).
This was a personal chumro for those that were choishesh.

Part 2: The Eruv in Crown Heights


1.They say that an eruv was made here (in crown heights).
To explain the idea, I want to be makpid:

One time someone had a kid and didn’t make a pidyon haben. When he was asked why he didn’t make a pidyon haben he answered that there are 3 reasons why he didn’t. 1) My wife is a bas levi. 2) There was a miscarriage before and 3) the baby is a girl.

It’s understood that the first two factors are moot when the third factor is present.

2. So too about the Eruv here in Crown Heights. There are 3 problems with it.

1) No one knows who made it.
People speak, yungelait made it, people made it….

If someone (mister …) came from new jersey, and opened up a butcher shop and we had no idea who the schochtim, mashgiach, rav hamachshir, menakrim, bodkim etc. are no one would think of eating from the meat.

So too the Eruv in crown heights, not one person knows who actually made the Eruv and who is responsible for its building
.

2) Even if we would know who built the eruv, however There is no one taking responsibility for the continued kashrus of the Eruv after it was built. It could be that by the next shabbos it was broken, by bochurim, by…, by weather etc. maybe they built something there, maybe a big truck had to go through, and they took down the eruv?

This is the second reason:
The third reason is:

3) You can’t make an Eruv in crown Heights. You can’t period.
It is a Reshus harabim de’oiraiso.

Eastern Parkway and Empire Blvd is mufulash and open.
Over here, one cannot make an eruv.

3. It is not like Borugh Park. Over there big Rabbonim made the eruv, and there is a makhlokes if you can make an Eruv or not. Big Rabonim say you could make an Eruv there and other . there was always a machlokes.
One knows who are the rabbonim for every side. We knows names of big rabbonim who made, and we know of those who argue with it.

However, there is not one reliable Rov who says that is possible to make an Eruv in Crown Heights. There is not one rov, who has עפעס וואס א שייכות to הוראה who says that it is even possible in metzius to make an eruv here.

4. Therefore there is bichlal no eruv here.

One should explain to the people, that there is no eruv.

The Eruv is not posul, there is no eruv. The same way A Mikve without rain water is not a posule Mikve, it is not a Mikve in the first place. It may be a beautiful mikvo, a boir with a shower, and all good things, but it is missing rain water. It is not posul, rather it is not even a mikvo. The eruv is not posul, rather it is “gornishit mit gornisht”. this has to be explained to people.

5. And even if one will teach himself how to make an eruv: he will take lessons, learn how to make an eruv and his parnosso is: that he is travelling all over America making eruvin: it does not work.

A heart surgeon can’t just start and learn about making a surgery on the heart. he has to first be a general doctor, and he first has to learn about all the limbs and how the body works, and only then when he knows it well, can he become a specialist in this field.
An am ho’oretz gomur who taught hiself how to make an eruv or mikvo? It can’t be, it can’t be such a thing.
A mikvo has to be made by a בעל הוראה, not by a choshuve askan who taught himself how to make a mikvo. We have to give him kovoid, because he is a choshuve askan, and all such things.

However if he is not a בעל הוראה and he does not learn גמ' מיט תוס' מיט מלחמות און בעל המאור , and this is not his inyan, which he learns his whole life, then he has no שייכות to making a mikvo. And one cant ask him sha’alois, or rely on his to be responsible for a mikvo.

6. Even if he was in Yeshiva the best bochur, but hasn’t learned anything in 30 years, he cannot be relied upon. Having learned once upon a time is not enough.

With regards to the defense policy in Eretz Yisroel the Rebbe said that you have to ask those in the army. The Rebbe was answered that the politicians were once in the Army. The Rebbe said that those politicians are not currently in the army, but are in politics and therefore mix politics into to everything so you can’t rely on their opinion about defense.
If he is someone who learnt once upon a time, but today he sits and involves himself only in building eruvin, is gornisht and is not שייך to this.

7. Even if one would say he learns. But here we are talking about a case: where a guy without a name made it, and a guy without a name is responsible for it, and everybody admits that one can’t make an eruv here.

Not one reliable person (Bar Samcha) has said that you are able to make an eruv in Crown Heights.

Even if there would be a machlookes, and one reliable person who said it is possible and another reliable person who said you may not, it would still be a sofek dorisa of chilul Shabbos.

In actuality there isn’t even one reliable person who said it is doable. (ed. Note :And this was repeated).
But even if there was, and another disagreed (it was half and half and not a רוב and מיעוט), even in such a case it is a sofeik de;oiraiso.
So how can one carry? How can one carry?
This is aside from the fact, that this is going against the alter rebbe, and this is going against the rebbe. All this together.
This is a very very dangerous thing.

8.I think, that if one explains this to people who … I think that good amount will accept this.
It depends how this is explained.


Part 3: Our obligation in the current situation:

1. If one goes in the street and sees someone carrying one Shabbos, and one does not say anything, is he giving them his hoskoma. one must say something. One must not let it go, that is called giving it a haskomo.
It should be bdarchei noam uvdarchei sholom, but you must say something. One has to make it clear to the עולם.

2. Someone who was educated here, someone grew up here and was educated here …

If someone who grew up somewhere else and yesterday he came here from the ,ערי חושך, and doesn’t know anything about rabonim etc. he is a poshite person and hears there is an eruv here and carries, he is considered a Mechale Shabbos Bshogeg.

However, If someone who grew up in our Mosdos, he knows everything, he knows what all the Rabonim say and still uses the Eruv, he is considered a Mechale Shabbos Bmeizid.

( He probably carried before there was an Eruv also when no one was looking).
He is a mechalel Shabbos be’meizid.
I do not want to say, but it is a רחמנות גדול

Of course there is a mitzvo of ahavas yisroel, and one has to be bring him closer and be mekarev him, but it is a רחמנות גדול א גרויסע רחמות מיט אלע גדרים.
We have to to explain to the oilam what this all is:

The Eruv is non-existent (gor nit mit gor nit).

3. When a bochur gets married, he has to make sure there are no questions on the ed kidushin, if he is called a mechalel Shabbos or he is not called a mechalel shabbos.

When someone goes to eat in a restaurant or from another’s house he has to make sure the bread is considered pas yisroel, and the wine isn’t considered yayin nesach.

He has to make sure to be mevarer this, so there is no shaalo, it should not be that the guy is cholilo a meizid.

4. I hope there aren’t such people, one has to be very much carefull in such things. This is a very serious matter. Cholilo if one plays with the Shabbos!

There are enough other things that have been played with, but now are we going to play with the Shabbos?

This is a great danger if one plays with the Shabbos.

To play with the Alter Rebbe and the Rebbe in his daled amos is a gread pachad, a great pachad.
We have to see that one person makes it clear to the other, and explain this to the people bdarchei noam vdarchei sholom.

Hashem should help that there should be Sholom Al Yisroel.

*** (from someone elses account as posted in a comment on collive.com.)