Clarification to mod and DaMoshe

Thanks for the mods for allowing this discussion to continue!

Aside from all the other stuff that I strongly disagree with, there is something very important that many Lubavichers have been claiming, and that CS inadvertently (after all, she’s a woman who doesn’t learn gemoro, and therefore probably doesn’t realize the terrible misinterpretation of the gemoro and Rashi) cited.

When faced with the Ramban who wrote that we reject yoshke because he died, CS replied: “please answer how the Ramban could contradict the gemara (think it’s sanhedrin 98) which says that Moshiach can come from the dead or the living, and Rashi brings two examples of individuals thus suited from both”

The gemoro says, “If Mashiach is from those alive, it is Rabbeinu Hakadosh (aka Rebbi), and if it is from those who are dead, it is Doniel.”
Rashi gives two explanations:
1. It is either Rebbi, who is alive, or it was Doniel, who is dead.
Yes, according to that pshat Mashiach can be someone who is not alive BUT only Doniel. That version does NOT give you the right to say that anyone else who has died – including, of course, the Lubavicher rebbe – can be Mashiach.
2. If you want an example of someone alive TO WHOM MASHIACH CAN BE COMPARED, that person is Rebbi. If you want an example of someone dead TO WHOM MASHIACH CAN BE COMPARED, that person is Doniel. According to this pshat, there is no reference of Mashiach being someone who had died.
The above is the simple, non-convoluted, explanation – it’s almost an exact translation – of what Rashi is saying. If you don’t trust me, ask your husband, and if he is honest he will tell you that I am right about that.
Now we don’t know how the Ramban learnt the gemoro, but based on his statement that we reject yoshke because he is dead, it would certainly seem that he understood it the second way rather than the first. He may also have had an entirely different interpretation of the gemoro. After all, he was a Rishon and was not bound by Rashi’s interpretations. Finally, he may not have held that that statement is an accepted view.
The Ramban’s statement, therefore, is not at all contradicted by the gemoro.

I would really appreciate it if you could confirm your agreement of what I wrote above, as what you wrote originally has veered from the path of the gemoro and Rashi.

I’m BT and as a kid you guys all looked the same to me!

Now that I’m older I have to ask myself why don’t we have moshiach? Is it bec this group doesn’t daven like the other group and HKBH says we should all daven like them? Or bec this group learns differently from that group and HKBH wants us to learn like the other group?

Do both groups believe in one borei haolam? Yes. Do both keep Shabbos? Yes. Kosher? Yes. Etc.

Why don’t we have moshiach? Sinas chinam. And 80-90 percent of yidden have no connection to yiddishkeit. I see occasionally people fight about this stuff that almost looks like Israel on October 6. People arguing and arguing when our father wants us to love each other. Personally, whenever I see Chabad they seem to love all Jews everywhere all the time regardless of their observance or how they observe. They seem to be the embodiment of Ahavas chinam.

It’s not like one group is saying you can eat non kosher or not keep Shabbos. You are talking about two groups that agree on 99 percent of everything and some people in one group think their rebbe was or is moshiach. How does that affect your avodas H-Shem? Is this argument really what your father who is in heaven and who holds back king moshiach wants? Or does he want us to perfect our avodah and love Jews?

Just a quick and small thought from an ignorant yid who loves H-Shem and longs to make mitzvos.

I only bothered to correct the most jarring part of that post; as the mods wrote, it’s just too much falsity to even begin to unpack

btw about the statement that “today all chabad does is talk about how great the rebbe is”
i was wondering, some people told me they dont want to learn tanya from a lubavitcher or go to a farbrengen because all chabad does is talk about how great the rebbe is,
i always wondered who they hung around, because at the farbrengens i went to the talk is about avodas hashem, (needless to say a shiur tanya is pshat in tanya)
now i realize these guys didn’t go to any farbrengens, they are just quoting this rav!
where did he get it from? i would imagine he read a column of stories of the rebbe in some magazine, and figured thats all we do, like if i go to lakewoods dmv and only see litvaks getting there driving license, ill think thats all they do the whole day!

Sechel, i believe this is the first time a Lubavitcher on here has admitted to hisgashmus haboreh r”l. Thank you for being honest.

The “problem” with saying that a person is god is that it is against the 13 ikarei emunah, pesukim, and chazal. The targum always translates pesukim figuratively when they use terms that connote physicality.

Case in point, in the pasuk you quoted, the targum says they saw the “yakara d’shem” twice, the honor of Hashem and the honor of underneath His throne. It’s a way of saying that they perceived the shechina.

Ilike most heretical beliefs, it’s also shtusim. Hashem is infinite and One, and if something is quantified in any way, such as having parts, physical or otherwise, it’s no longer infinite nor is it oneness.

This is the problem with the trinity in Christian theology.

As for the raavad, it’s not as if the raavad held of hagshama; he said that people might be misled by agados chazal and pesukim, so such a person, who makes a mistake in learning, the raavad holds is Innocent. The rambam, who all the other rishonim and achronim pasken like(as per the majority of halacha in general) holds that a “nebach an apikores is oich an apikores,” an unfortunate apikores is also an apikores – it’s just too bad. He should have consulted the gedolei yisroel.

So too here; the fact that one rabbi says something which was met with accusations of heresy from the rest of the Torah world that had heard it(many were unaware) should tell you something.

CS” “The litvaks are the ignorant ones- they’re trying to tell us what Chassidus is, or how wrong it is, when they’ve never studied it.”

Not quite. They’re trying to tell you that your hashkofos have nothing to do with real Chassidus, Chabad or otherwise. I know lots of chassidim of other types, as well as Litvaks, who are well-versed in Likutei Torah and other Chabad seforim, and who shake their heads when it comes to where Lubavich has been going since WWII. The last Lubavicher rebbe totally changed the direction of Lubavich and led his enthralled followers on a path to ruchnius self-destruction. Since his death you just keep on marching proudly towards the precipice.

So, CS, does this mean that you won’t attempt to refute/answer any of the points that we have brought up and have not yet recived replies to?

CS, I certainly would like to continue the discussion. I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this in the past, but there are two reasons I post so storngly (people who know me would be very surprised if they knew that I was the one posting) in regards to Lubavich, despite me being virtually 100% sure that you will never agree that your rebbe was wrong about anything, and that you will unfortunately continue to believe that he is Mashiach.

1. I think it is very important for non-Lubavichers who may be reading this thread to see that the claims you make are really baseless, when looked at from true Torah sources.
2. Perhaps I will be able to get you and some of your compatriots to realize that at least some of your quotes are misinterpretations and misleading, and then you will at least desist from using them here or anywhere else in the future.

And another thing. Had you and others claimed that as far as you can tell the Lubavicher rebbe was fit to be Mashiach based on his tzidkus and Torah, while admitting that he didn’t at the time of his death actually attain the criteria cited by the Rambam, I would certainly argue with you, but nowhere near as vehemently. I personally believe my Rebbe is perfectly suited to be Mashiach based on his tzidkus, leadership etc. But I wouldn’t claim that he was a king, or that he has compelled all of Jewry to keep Torah etc.

In truth, it makes not an ounce of difference to me if he is Mashiach or not. Who cares? He is my Rebbe and I try (and often fail 🙁 ) to live up to his guidelines. There may be others who are more suited to be Mashiach due to their lineage and military skills. Note, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere do we find that Bar Koziba was thought to be the tzaddik hador. Certainly R Akiva was, yet he declared BK to be Mashiach!

Furthermore, what about Rebbes who were Kohanim (e.g. the Tifferes Shlomo) and Levi’im (e.g. the Chozeh of Lublin)? Their chassidim could not possibly have thought that their Rebbes were Mashiach, yet they certainlly correctly considered them tzaddikei hador.

Deciding who will be Mashiach is so irrelevant to people who put in real effort in their avodas Hashem, that Lubavich’s campaigns in this area just reinforce my long-held view that it is merely a crutch to support a side that has veered from the Torah path that has been accepted for millenia.

no reason to answer all the stupid ideas of comparing chassidus to Christianity. over and over again.
“The last Lubavicher rebbe totally changed the direction of Lubavich and led his enthralled followers on a path to ruchnius self-destruction.” anyone who says such a statement never learned tanya! learn thru tanya then tell me which part the rebbe changed.

I’m going to stop reading this thread bec I’m worried it is going to start entering sinas chinam and logon hora territory.

With that said –

Moshiach has not yet come. Why not? Our avodas H-Shem is insufficient. Probably mostly bec sinas chinam. Who cares who Moshiach is? That’s irrelevant. There’s not a single person here who the answer to that question is meaningful.

So…

Perfect your avodas H-Shem! Don’t worry about the other persons! He davens different from you? Not your business. He wears a shtreimel? Not your business. Your business? Serve G-d!

As it is said – most people spend a lot of time worrying about their own gashmius and their neighbors Ruchnius. That’s backwards. Worry more about your own ruchnius and have more concern about your neighbors gashmius.

Telling other frum yidden that they have the same beliefs as goyim is not bringing Moshiach.

DaMoshe,

You know the history of the Baal Shem Tov?

@CS
Regarding the flip flop yb loves to post about Gimmel Tammuz and moshiach min hachaim etc. I’d like to point out that Chabad’s opponents equally flip flopped. Before Gimmel Tammuz, they assured us that we must be wrong, because not the Rebbe nor any other Torah leader was great enough to be considered a candidate for Moshiach and he therefore must come from the meisim.
[CS]
—————————————————————————————-
Sheker VeChazav .
Lahadam .
Total Fantasy.

DaMoshe:

You’re being extremely disrespectful towards the giant of the world. There’s an expression used in gemarah, I should be using here, I’ll spear you.

I already wrote there was nothing “NEW” about his movement. Read what I wrote, it’s written in plain easy English. He put YiddishKite into Torah, Avodah, Yiras Shomaim. He put a dagash into Davening with feeling, doing Mitzvos with intent and understanding. Nothing he did is not found in Gemarah, Medrash etc. HE INVENTED NOTHING.

True, the early opposers were wary of a new movement, ever since the advent of Shabsi Tzvi. They were greatly worried, however they were greatly mistaken. Time would tell – boy were they mistaken. As they say – without litvaks there would be no Torah (very untrue for today’s situation – Torah grows by leaps and bounds in Chassidishe courts in all areas התמדה, עמקות, לומדות, בקיאות, כמות, איכות), without Chassidim there would be no Yid.

You don’t have to believe about the Baal Shem Tov meeting up with Achiya, don’t ever חס ושלום attribute a “new torah” or ” a new Judaism” to him.

And while where at it may little me add, he did in fact have a mesorah, he was the last in line from the Baalei Shem, most of German descend

I shudder to think what you wrote, that caring Mod had to edit your post.

@ Arso
Btw. That wasn’t the only major flip flop in habad theology .
Think you asked in one the old threads about it :

For years – no, for decades . For decades there was a major Mahloket .
There were those , mainly Yeshivish , led by Rav Shach and other Litvish Yeshivish Rashei Yeshivot who accused Habad of crowning their manhig as mashiach . This was going on for decades . From the sixties onwards . Until the late Eighties .
This was one of the main bones of contention in those times .
I know , not because I heard about it . I LIVED through those times .
I remember them , vividly .
it was the Hasidi Olam [non Habad ] who came to the rescue , in favor of habad. They battled the Yeshivishers . The Litvish Balabatish people were also on the hasidi side . They did not understand what the yeshivish people saw in habad .

Btw – This was one of the main arguments in the 88 election cycle where Aguda and Degel split . Aguda and the hasidim vehemently defended habad against the false [at the time] accusations that habad is aiming to crown their rebbi as mashiach .
Hotsa’at shem ra ! An avla against habad , ehrlich people ! how can you accuse them of these irresponsible shtuyot voiced by some irresponsible hotheads . This is against their rebbi’s shitah . Against the hozer rashi R kahn . Those Yeshivishers are stam haters [sounds familiar? ] . Sin’at Hinam .
They are the source of the galut . Etc. Etc.

Another 3 years later – in 1991 .
Suddenly the rebbi accepts his messiahship from his hasidim and R Kahn falls in line . All habad rabbanim sign kabalat malhut …..
WHAT HAPPENED ?

for Decades the habad critics were derided [Heard those accusations already in the sixties] .
And were PROVEN RIGHT in the most spectacular u turn in Jewish history .
That itself was already an excellent lesson in who has a hazaka , and who lost his hazaka ……
Heard some rumblings then from the klal hasidi side . How they defended for years the indefensible .

But from the habad side ? Only bliss .
Was the bliss a RESULT of the ignorance ? Hard to believe.

They themselves were screaming themselves hoarse that it [this Messiah aspiration] is all one big libel and a sheker .
Ela Mai the bliss was ‘made up ignorance’ they simply decided to ignore it .

Which in turn created real ignorance .
For the later generation.
Am sure CS won’t even know what I am talking about , all the while this was a clear reality I [and my generation] lived through .

Mind boggling …

Regarding what Keith wrote that “who cares who moshiach is, as long as they keep the Torah knocking them is sinas chinam”

No one said we “Hate chabad” that if a Lubavitcher was drowning we would push him down and not save him, not even that we wouldn’t say “Hi” to them (or throw them out of a party (a la kamtza) what (mostly) everyone is saying is that chabad is fabulous except for the “rebbe is moshiach yechi” stuff which everyone else views as very dangerous and would like to save them from it

I wouldn’t be surprised is in the times of the tzedukkim and early notzrim they did the same

CS, please reply about the explanation of the gemoro and Rashi I gave above. If you’re going to be intellectually honest you can’t just ignore it.

Btw is there anyone out there who thinks (and can show me how) I got it wrong?

To summarize

CS does not know about the pre 94 non habad world , and therefore has no explanation about one of the major u turns in the Jewish world .

CS does not know about the u turns official habad performed during the last 7 decades.

CS does not adequately explain what their side is going to do with an explicit , centuries old, unchallenged Ramban , which clearly and unambiguously deals , head on , with the issue at hand . [as opposed to the other sources which could be explained in various ways]

CS is ignoring their own side ‘s clear and public declarations SUPPORTING their detractors present position .

CS is still looking with ‘innocent wonder’ at their detractors’ inability to see the yashrut and correctness of their position .

And we are left with equal wonder at the IMMENSE POWER of negi’ut .

Kol Hanega’im Adam Ro’eh Huts MiNig’ei Atsmo .

Their position is riddled with u turns , inconsistencies and contradictions against centuries old , well established thought .

They represent a small minority within Judaism .

AND THEY STILL LOOK AT US AS IF WE ARE THE MESHUGA”IM HERE …..

Mind boggling .

Kol Hanega’im Adam Ro’eh Hut MiNig’ei Atsmo …..

@Arso
Am talking about the OFFICIAL LINE here . Not about what people said .
The official line from the Hasidi hugim .

The official line from Habad was clearly that this mashiach crowning was AGAINST their rebbi’s wishes .
They cannot control everyone in such a big hasidut .

That the ‘haters’ were looking for problems and magnifying some small tiny dirt which had come in from the outside .
It was [supposedly] a result of the rapid influx of baalei thshuva who did not have the proper habad ‘mesorah’ ….
That they were the ‘victims’ of their own success ….

The TRUTH however was , that this was , as it seems , a ‘carefully orchestrated decades long campaign “milema’ala'” ….
.
A spectacular u turn …. Or maybe the Great Deception is a more accurate description ?

Froggie (and others):
Chassidus as originally intended by the Besht was problematic. Yes, he did introduce new ideas into Judaism. He claimed that learning Torah was not of utmost importance, and instead shifted the focus to tefillah, along with happiness. His followers did things such as turn cartwheels while davening, spoke in tongues, and other strange actions. There are other teachings which were concerning, and I won’t get into all of them. They can be summed up by his asserting the primacy of Kabbalah over traditional thought, even when it came to Halachah. Kabbalah is not supposed to be learned while young, and definitely not before one has a solid foundation in the traditional sources of Tanach, Mishnayos, and Gemara.
Chassidus ended up becoming accepted because a few generations later, the leaders walked back on some of the ideas, and accepted the traditional views, merging some chassidic thoughts into them. Most of the things that were problematic were abandoned (although not all).
So Chassidus as the Besht envisioned it is long gone. Yet as I said, some problematic parts do remain.
But let’s be clear about this: The Besht did NOT have a mesorah for his teachings. He didn’t learn about the supremacy of tefillah over learning Torah from his father (he was orphaned at the age of 5) or his Rebbe.
There are no seforim on learning from the Besht. Only quotes from his students, and mostly on matters of Chassidus. So there is absolutely zero proof that he was knowledgeable in Shas. In fact, the people who supported him had hoped he’d become a Rabbi, but he frequently skipped cheder to walk in the woods, and they gave up on him. When he finished cheder (at the age of 12), they gave him a job walking escorting the small children to cheder in the morning, and davening with them.
My personal belief is that the stories of the Besht were inflated by those who came after, such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Yaakov Yosef of Polonye, and others.

Since chassidus today was tempered by the traditional Jewish population, and they abandoned most of the teachings, chassidus became more accepted. But if the many of the practices were problematic, why do we think that those which remained are ok? If the source had problems, wouldn’t it be better to cut off all those teachings?