Chassidim & Misnagdim

Loading the player ...
by Ken Spiro   

Posted in:

By m marinovsky on April 7, 2014 -- 11:25pm

as an historian giving a lecture on a Controversial topic must not take sides or state personal opinions, fore it is then not history but rather an opinionated attack against a sect of Religious Judiasim. mocking the names of their groups, although factual it is leaning towards a specific side. which is 100% not needed fore their names were not at all one of the claims which the misnagdim had. saying that you personally think belief in a rebbe is a problem, is not history. leaving out information is also misleading. to ignore the baal shem tov or many of his disciples greatness in torah is moraly wrong and misleading and does not do just to these great rabbis. although you state 9:38 your on not anti you sound however very skeptic in the matter. to say that dvekus is not an intellectual act is not correct. the Tanya states that only through thought and contemplation can one come to it. you spend 6 minutes on what is chassidut and double that time on side of the opposition. as your statement in 12:58 check rambam sefer yad zmanim laws of mayzah and chametz chptr 7 law 2. if a rebbe is not part of Judiasim what was moses thr prophets and so on, and they believed in g-d and moses his servant” exodus 14:31.the man who spoke 14:12 was trying to calm the extremeness down and he was responded by a rude unwilling to explain the matter answer in regards to graves. even though you state twice you are not attacking you do give the impression which is wrong. 
please teach history and due not take a side. same applies to every controversial topic even reform which outspokenly wrong according to all orthodox authorities.

Contribute: Add your Summary, Outline or Thoughts on this Lecture


Email: (required, but not published)

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: