Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Clarification to mod and DaMoshe › Reply To: Clarification to mod and DaMoshe
@CS
This is an interesting point that it never came up in history. I know there was speculation about the third Lubavitcher Rebbe as well (same name also), but I’d like to look into this point more to see if it’s accurate. I don’t think Moshiach candidacy is necessarily unique to lubavitch Chassidus- I could be wrong- I don’t remember other names outright.
The premise I’ve always heard is that if the Rambam put the criteria for the Moshiach candidate in a Halacha sefer, then it’s meant for us to act on it.
[CS]
———————-
1] if the rambam put the criteria for the M candidate , then it’s meant for us to act on it [your words]
This is a typical example of habad inverting the plain meaning to suit their propaganda.
Let’s summarize the arguments so far –
Normative Yahadut : we are not meant look for candidates for M . If someone pops up and announces himself as M , we will investigate .
Habad : We are meant to look for candidates . The most suitable candidate [in our imperfect human eyes] is the one we should promote .
Normative Yahadut : Proof that we are not meant to look for candidates , nor are we meant to promote candidates – For the last 2 thousand years we have not looked around , nor have we promoted candidates for M .
Not The Ge’onim . Not the Rishonim . Not the Poskim . Not the Acharonim . Not those who pray Nusah edot Hamizrah . Not those praying Ashkenaz . Not those who pray Nusach Ari . Not those who pray Nusach Sfard.
Habad : Rambam speaks about simanim of M , i.e. the person claiming to be M , when and at what level is he considered as M , when he presents himself .
THAT IS PROOF THAT WE ARE MEANT TO LOOK FOR CANDIDATES FOR M AND PROMOTE HIM …..
Now I am asking very simply – is that PROOF ????????
Do you know the definition of the word PROOF ????????
We keep on going in circles again and again and ….
We should STOP and hash it out .
Yes or No .
Is that proof ?
Please , CS . [or any other apologists]
IS THAT PROOF OR NOT ?