November 29, 2017 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #1415490
“Id really love to know if SH was taught this sicha,and if yes, how he reconciles it with having no problem saying ztzal etc”
Firstly, I don’t use the loshon of Zatza”l, being that in Lubavitch we use Zy”a (Zchuso Yogein Oleinu) or Nishmoso Eden.
Secondly, the Rebbe would often use the loshon “Moshe Rabbeinu Olov HaSholom” and would use Zy”a for the Frierdiker Rebbe.November 29, 2017 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1415497
“Why does Lubavitch make such a big deal from winning the machlokes with the Rebbe’s nephew and getting the seforim back in the library, that they’ve turned that day every year into an official Yom Tov? Isn’t it embarrassing to every year revive memories of an internal dispute?”
In few words, because it wasn’t really about the books. It was a question on whether there is a Rebbe today. This was akitrug from shomayim expressed here on earth just like yud tes Kislev.
The reason why the family member was claiming the sefarim was because he held that lubavitch had ended with the frierdiker Rebbe and there was no more Chabad.
So when we overcame that taane it was a big deal and still is today
“Also, why does it seem that Lubavitch has had disputes with an unusually large number of other frum kehilos, both Chasidic and non-Chasidic (Satmar, Brisk?, Chaim Berlin, Ponovitch)?”
Because we have a unique path to everyone else.
“On a lighter note, how can you tell the difference between a Lubavitcher’s hat and a Yeshivisher’s hat?”
I’ll leave that to the men. Probably because we have the brim down, and they put it upNovember 29, 2017 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1415500
“Rav YB Soleveitchik had received in his family, being a descendant of the Gra. ”
The Rav wasn’t a descendant of the Gra, he was a descendant of Rav Chaim Volozhiner, a Talmid of the Gra.
(I’m surprised no one here called me out on that:) )November 29, 2017 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1415502
@ sh true but that was because they had passed on the roles of Nossi hador so their guf had passed on…I really don’t get how you would reconcile it. Something to think about maybe ;)?November 29, 2017 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1415504
I wouldn’t, because Halacha as brought in Rambam clearly doesn’t hold like that Deah.
You are putting the wagon before the horse. We know to accept the Rambams psakim because (following initial controversy) The Rambam was recognized as one of Klal Yisroels greatesty sages by all competent Halachic authorities throughout the generations. See Rambams intro to Mishna Torah that this is the same principal that makes the Shas itself binding.November 29, 2017 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #1415505
You’re falling into the trap of treating a random passing thought by Rav Shneerson ZT”L as Torah D’Orayso C”V. It’s not. What he said in a sicha cannot be applied to anything other than the exact situation of what was being discussed at the time.November 29, 2017 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #1415553
The Rebbe also said Shlita as is found in a few places in Torahs Menachem(Toras Menachem 5710 p. 27, footnote 24,Toras Menachem 5711 p. 52, Toras Menachem 5711 p. 327) and also on video with Rav Mordechai Eliyahu.November 29, 2017 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #1415539
It wasn’t a typo as much as an auto correct. But yeah, double Loshon of yashar koyach.
Phil, what other moshiachs? There is only one moshiach. It’s not because he had attempted that they applied these things to him. It was different factors which came together. That it’s time for the geulah and moshiach is here based on the Rebbes nevuahs and the Rebbes accepting the chezkas psak that the time had come for this chezaka to continue until vadai. As Rav Volpe put it “However, in addition to this, it’s also been established a clear testimony and prophecy of the nasi hador and navi hador that he already announced “reached the time of their redemption”. As if to say, that in addition to this that there is the metzius and hisgalus of moshiach that he’s working in the end time of golus. Indeed, This moshiach, that was already established as a navi, dozens of prophecies and revealed ruach Hakodosh throughout the years, stands and announces that now is the time of the geulah. In a way that to all the people of the generation there is no doubt. That certaintly he will not be left only in the metzius of chezkas moshiach, but that soon he will be moshiach vadai. For we already stand mamash on the edge of the complete geulah. ‘Behold behold this one comes— and he already came’!” Essentially it can be summed up by how the chosom Sofer says in his book of Halacha’s. That in every generation there is someone who could be moshiach and if the generation would merit then he would receive the ruach of moshiach he would be revealed and sent by hashem to redeem the Jews. The Rebbe quotes this and says we merited this chosom Sofer(which is also in the sdei chemed And elsewhere). So if u don’t hold by the Rebbe, or don’t believe him, I get that. But if u hold such a thing, then this person is already going to be moshiach. So when a navi says he’s moshiach hador and that this dor merited it becomes known that this guy is gonna be moshiach. Rav Heller of crown heights paskened that rambams Halacha’s are when there is no other sign, but if moshiach makes a nevuah and says he’s moshiach(perhaps by quoting the chosom Sofer, saying it’s dor hashvi, that this is last generation of exile and first of redemption, and that moshiach name is menachem mendel) so then the Rambam becomes irrelevant mitzad identification. As a good nevuah is never retracted and we now know because he’s established as a navi.
Slightly different way to look at it is that the essence of the Rambams Halacha’s depend on if this is any other generation. If it’s a normal generation u could say that someone who dies won’t be moshiach because everything is al pi nature and according to nature people don’t get up. But if it’s the last generation so then the leader of that generation has to come back and be moshiach because it’s the last generation. We could interpret it that way without the nevuah because this was the opinion of our Rebbe, but all the more so with the nevuah. Not forcing u to believe anything, but seemingly these things would make it totally fine.November 29, 2017 4:07 pm at 4:07 pm #1415558
Just a friendly reminder to keep posts a bit shorter.
ThanksNovember 29, 2017 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #1415556
“you see / hear a recording of this yourself? Did you at least hear first hand testimony from someone who did?”
Watch the video I linked to. I personally Harav Leibel Schapiro retell this multiple times, and he heard it straight from the mouth of Rav Soleveitchik.November 29, 2017 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm #1415561
It wasn’t a “random passing thought.” First of all, it was divrei Torah. Secondly, by tzaddikim, nothing is random. Everything a tzaddik does is in accordance with Hashem’s RatzonNovember 29, 2017 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #1415562November 29, 2017 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #1415566
According to the Gemara in Sanhedrin why don’t we say that DANIEL is Moshiach today You see from the Gemara you can be from a totally different generation?November 29, 2017 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #1415565
Rav solovetchik could also be a descendant from the gra but he is for sure a descendant of Rav Chaim volozhiner which where he was sourcing it from.THIS IS NOT THE MESORAH not in brisk not Telshe not in baranavitch ,not ponovezh not in slabodka not in mir NOT ANYWHERE.The gra was against chasidim and the alter rebbe understood if the gadol hador wasn’t happy it meant something big so he went to discuss it with him but they didn’t meet .The talmidim who knew the gra didn’t pass it down to us such a maaseh it’s not accepted sorry.November 29, 2017 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #1415575
So the video.
1. Notice that a portion of the testimony (re: who the other Rabbi was) is contradicted by the speaker himself.
2. What he is trying to infer / imply by the use of the title HaGaon HaChasid is laughable to anybody with even a smidgon of familiarity with the Torah of the GR”A and his Talmidim.
3. Even if we where to suspend all reason and accept this as testimony and polite that every word attributed to the GR”A was actually spoken by him it would actually prove the opposite of what you are trying imply.
4. The Baal HaTanya attests himself (in letter quoted in Baal HaTanya u Bonaire Doro) that The GR”A considered his (The Baal HaTanyas concept of Tzimtum A”Z
5. The published works and derech of the GR”As talmidim do not demonstrate the acceptance of Chassidus in general and Chabbad Chassidus in particular. Quite the contrary.November 29, 2017 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #1415574
“what other moshiachs?”
In every generation there has been someone who would have been Moshiach if we were worthy. If Moshiach can’t die, where is King Chizkiyahu, who was designated for his generation? Also, where does it specifically say that Hashem took an oath that Moshiach can’t die?
You should be able to answer these very simple questions simply, without very lengthy circular logic and hyperbole.November 29, 2017 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #1415573
IT Could be problematic lahalacha to hear and say such a story about the gra it’s a bizayon hatorah Careful Don’t have double standardsNovember 29, 2017 4:45 pm at 4:45 pm #1415572
“Essentially it can be summed up by how the chosom Sofer says in his book of Halacha’s. ”
You make yourself sound like an am haaretz by calling a sefer “Book of Halachas”. The Chasam Sofer didn’t write a book of Halachas. You mean Shu”t Chasam Sofer.
Apparently Rav Chaim Volozhiner, one of the Gra’s prime Talmidim did pass this mesora down. You have very breite pleitzes to argue with Rav Soleveitchik.November 29, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1415585
Did you see the list Ysrbius123 provided? There are more names but you did only ask for three.November 29, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1415586
Is the story only known from Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt’l of YU or do the Brisker Rabbonim also know this story?November 29, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1415590
“אמר רב נחמן אי מן חייא הוא כגון אנא שנאמר (ירמיהו ל, כא) והיה אדירו ממנו ומושלו מקרבו יצא אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות”
(Basis for the possibility of Moshiach min Hameisim)
Rashi (both pshatim) and the Rambam (discussed earlier) don’t learn that way. Which rishon/rishonim would this be based on?November 29, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1415592
I see it coming… their obsession with the “texts”, Rambam… their way of twisting… Jews for Mashachists… third testament…
As I wrote on the other thread.. it’s getting SO PARALLEL..
What a certain Godol decades ago said that it’s the closest to Judaism, no longer holds true…
Bet you, in a couple of years they’re gonna say we killed him!November 29, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1415599
The gemara in Sanhedrin. Did I learn it wrong? Did I misunderstand Rashi? There talmidim stated that the name of moshiach was the same as their rebbe (or close enough to the name in the passuk). Also, dbei rav yannai quoted a passuk that the name of moshiach is yannai. Could they have meant he was moshiach? Isnt there a gemara somewhere that rav yannai was from descendents of Eli hakohen? As a kohen he couldn’t be moshiach.November 29, 2017 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1415602
Im sorry but it’s not called my “own pleitzes” and “arguing with Rav solovetchik” Chas vshalom it’s called seichel ,seichel hayashar,the bais harav wasn’t only Rav solovetchik noone else said this story not family members not talmidim it’s a good kashe to ask Rav solovetchik and certain details of the story just make it more shverrNovember 29, 2017 6:34 pm at 6:34 pm #1415632
The first pshat of Rashi is min hameisim idk why ur saying it’s not. The Rambam may learn it that way altho maybe not. I don’t see a clear case for u on that. In any event this doesn’t take into account “Zachu”November 29, 2017 6:34 pm at 6:34 pm #1415633
There were plenty of nonlubavitchers who said the Rebbe couldn’t be moshiach because nobody today is worthy of it and it will be someone from the dead. The opinion was “anybody but the Rebbe”. Many people were shocked because they understood what would happen a certain way, but it’s a test for a reason.November 29, 2017 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1415608
The answer is that u are confusing two different concepts. Moshiach of the generation and THE moshiach are two different things. Not every moshiach of the generation lives forever. THE moshiach will live forever tho and based on everything there are those that say it applies to the Rebbe.
Glad to see ur still going with the insults. I have to agree with u that hating me and calling me an am haaretz is going to bring moshiach. That was definitely clear from the sichos. U say we are representing chabad and I should essentially be a doogma chaiya, but u just get to insult people whenever u want right?
I plead ignorance as I wasn’t sure what the nature of the the source was (book, responsa, essays) Point being he wrote something to do with choshin mishpat which lists what will happen with moshiach. But thanks for pointing it out so nicely.November 29, 2017 7:04 pm at 7:04 pm #1415634
Considering Reb Nocham of Chernobyl, the opinion quoted by the sdei chemed, and the Shtefaneshter Rebbe said someone could come back from the dead(this is far after the Rambam) I would strongly disagree that WE decided to change the Rambam. These sources clearly show that it was thought possible even after the Rambam. I’ve already pointed out that the way many of u read the Rambam seems redundant. The Rebbe told us that the Rambam is btachlus hadiuk. The fact that Rambam could have just written “if he’s unsuccessful” and u would know dead or killed, raises a question why he decided to redundantly point them out for a few more sentences. Alternatively he could have just said dead and u would know killed was included because he already mentioned bar kochba. Also just say “all the kings of Israel that died” why say “all the kosher and complete kings of Israel that died” what does rambam wish to bring out with that. I’ve heard a few different pshats and they all seem pretty reasonable. I’m not trying to necessarily prove it IS pshat but there are a few options out there.November 29, 2017 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #1415635
All the questions below represent distortions of nuances. For example, we don’t say bowing down to AZ is almost the same as bowing down to Hashem, which is the holiest thing, so bowing to AZ is second holiest.
Rather AZ is the worst thing possible.
Similarly, we don’t say that bringing a new neshama down to the world is the holiest thing so any way of doing it should be fine. Rather a relationship between a man and woman can be the ultimate of klipa or the ultimate of kedusha.
The reason is because anything with a lofty potential can fall much lower.
So the questions below remind me of the quotes that anti Semites quote out of context from the gemara to prove that the Jews are the vilest people in the world.
Especially in matters of kedusha nuance matters so much, as a misstep the wrong way can result in AZ CVS.
So really you need context for all these questions, and then you can understand.
“Did the Rebbe say the following…?
* A Rebbe is G-d in a body”
The way you mean it, obviously not. However the Rebbe did quote the Zohar which states that looking at the face of the Master (Rashbi) was like looking at the face of Hashem.
I again suggest learning the maamar byom ashtei asar to gain more understanding of tzaddikim s role in the world.
“Lubavitchers (and only Lubavitchers) don’t have to sleep in a Sukkah”
In short, lubavitchers follow their Rebbeim. Since the Rebbeim were uncomfortable to sleep in the Sukka because of the lofty giluim revealed within, so we are also uncomfortable to sleep there because we are aware of this from our Rebbeim. For more understanding, see the original sicha for the whole halachic analysis. I don’t know which chelek in likutei sichos it’s in offhand, but I’m sure one of the bochurim could fill you in.
“* The Alter Rebbe was on a higher level of Pnimuyus HaTorah than Rav Yochanan ben Zakai”
Never heard this
* The Bais Hamikdash will not be built in Eretz Yisroel but in 770 and then transported to Eretz Yisroel, since 770 is “the place of Moshiach”
Yeah but again you need to learn the source for context. See kuntres beis Rabbeinu shebibavel 5752November 29, 2017 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #1415639
“Gaon, this is how other Achronim learn it with the Brisker Rov’s girsa.”
IS IGNORANCE AN EXCUSE FOR APIKORSUS:
I don’t really see where it contradicts the above Rav Chaim. Even if we say that it’s conditional the Rambam does say וְלֹא יְמַהֵר אָדָם לְהָרְגָן
The Rambam should have said וְלֹא יהרגו ” ‘Yemaher’ looks like that in essence he is already in a state of ‘Moridin’ only, he is a complete ‘Onus’ thus we wait and not “rush” . In any case, once he is exposed to any form of Judaism – ignorance is by no means any excuse, which is our case.
Rav Chaim Brisker says this chidush to explain the Rambam’s shitah in Hilchos Teshuva regarding Hashem’s incorporeality – anyone believing G-d is any sort of a physical form is a MIN , he answers the Ravad’s known hasagah : “that many fine and better Jews perceived G-d as a physical form due to Pesukim etc”… this is how its quoted by Rav Elchonan Wasserman in Kovetz Ha’aros in the name of Rav Chaim, that:
“Nebach An Apikorus Iz Oich An Apikorus”.
He is deriving it from the above Rambam in Pirush haMishnayos as he completes the 13 Ikrim he states:
וכאשר יאמין האדם אלה היסודות כלם, ונתבררה אמונתו בהם – הוא נכנס בכלל ישראל
Its seems like without that he is not part – נכנס בכלל ישראל
In fact, The Abarbenal in Rosh Amunah has the very same explanation on the Rambam vs the Raavad. The Ra’avad upholds that if the belief is due to misreading the Pesukim and Chazal, then he is not considered an apikoras, whereas the Rambam holds that no matter what the excuse – you cannot be part of Judaism if you think G-D is anything sort of corporeal. He explains that there are two types of ‘minim’ one unintentionally which Hashem awaits for his Tshuvah and one is like Acher/Elisha, intentional, that his teshuva was not accepted, but in essence they are both the same:
See the below link at the beginning of the page.
Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL paskens like the above (regarding “edim’ and answers the Rambam of “Tinuk Sh’nishbu”, I will quote (Aven Ha’ezer Vol 1:82 Anaf 11) :
וז״ל: אגרות משה
, ואמינא עוד יותר, דאף בניהם שכתב הרמב״ם שם [פ״ג מהלכות ממרים] בהלכה ג׳, אבל בני התועים האלה ובני בניהם שהדיחו אותם אבותם, ונולד ובין הקראים, וגדלו אותם על דעתם, הרי הוא כתינוק שנשבה ביניהם וגדלוהו ואינו זריז לאחוז בדרכי המצוות שה״ה כאנוס עיי״ש, שחזינן שאין להם דין מורידין ולא מעלין, מ״מ לענין פסול לעדות, גם הם פסולין. דנהי דלא גרע מעכו”ם, אבל לא עדיף מעכו”ם לענין עדות, דעכ״פ אינו בכלל ישראל לעדות, דאנוס אינו כמאן דעבד, ולכן כמו שעכו”ם פסול לעדות, כ״כ פסולין בני הכופרים.
ואף שלענין לא מעלין מסתבר דעדיף מעכו”ם, מטעם שאיתא ברמב׳׳ם שם, שצריך להחזירן בתשובה, ולמשכן בדברי שלום עד שיחזרו לאיתן התורה. מה שליכא זה בעכו”ם, מ״מ לענין עדות, כל זמן שלא חזרו בתשובה והם בטעותם, לא עדיפי מעכו”ם, מאחר דחזינן דכפירה מחשיבה ליצא מכלל ישראל, משום שאינו מחזיק בדת ישראל
, לכן כל זמן שטועה אינו בכלל ישראל, רק שלענין מעלין עדיף, משום דעל עכו״ם איננו מחוייבין להחזירו למוטב, ועליהם אנו מחוייבין להחזירן למוטב, ולכן אף אם נדמה אותם כנשבו בין העכו״ם מחמת הכפירה שנתפשטה בעולם, רחמנא ליצלן, ונגררו אחריהם, מ׳׳מ פסולין דלא עדיפי מעכו”םNovember 29, 2017 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #1415644
Regarding Rav Aharon Feldman, I read a letter written by him to Gil Student, where it seems that the Rav was mislead about what common Chabad beliefs are. He discusses the so called “Elokistim” as if they’re a phenomena, while in reality, there aren’t enough of them to constitute a Zimmun…
In another letter, to Professor Berger (whom he addresses “Professor Berger”), he continues largely in the same vein, speaking about these people who daven to the Rebbe chv”sh. I don’t know by who or why the Rav was mislead, but these accusations are patently false. There’s no movement of people who daven to the Rebbe or similar. There have been individuals, escapees from mental institutions, such as the one responsible for the murder of Rav Bistritzky A”h from Tzfas, who threatened to kill Rav Ovadia Yosef z”l. That’s the extent of it. In addition, he doesn’t “come out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe”, he comes out against the same practices as I do, and official Lubavitch institutions do.
Regarding Rav Belsky, I am not aware of him “coming out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe”, please enlighten me.November 29, 2017 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1415646
I’m not up to that rashi….I’m still before that. Dbei rav yannai, rav shila etc….how could they entertain their re be, a descendent of Eli hakohen was moshiach. Rashi doesn’t seem to explain that they thought their re be was moshiach either. Just the name. The significance? Well, I’m still trying to work out the maharasha, chidushei agados of the maharal and other classic meforshim of aggadata, none explain they thought their rebbe is or was moshiach. When I get past that line I’ll work on the next one. One thing I’ll try to work out is how daniel may have been bechezkas moshiach in his generation he wasn’t even the nasi or navi hador. Mordechai (hasach aka daniel), chaggai, zecharia and malachi were alive. But, I’m getting ahead of myself…I’m still working a few lines before.November 29, 2017 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1415647
In my quest to find a place where Rav Belsky “came out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe” (still haven’t found it, and I don’t think I will) I came across the following quote from the posek Harav Heinemann:
“I’m not among those who believe that the Rebbe was Mashiach. But you don’t have to be Mashiach to be a gadol b’Yisrael. ”
– Mishpacha Magazine, May 2008.November 29, 2017 7:43 pm at 7:43 pm #1415659
A pushatayid your going strong there,I’m still waiting from the chabadskes why isn’t daniel moshiach, Rav thought he was ?Also Daniel was from a totally different generation from Rav ,So let Yehuda or Dovid hamelech or Rav shach ?November 29, 2017 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #1415662
“THE moshiach will live forever tho and based on everything there are those that say it applies to the Rebbe”
So you’re actually saying that in three-thousand years, the only Moshiach of a generation who lived forever is the Rebbe, who you agreed was buried on 3 Tamuz 5754?
You STILL have not answered where does it specifically say that Hashem took an oath that Moshiach can’t die!November 29, 2017 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #1415665
It’s mashma from the Gemara when it says “what’s his name? The school of [blank] said it said it was [blank] that” that they were saying their leader was moshiach. Also Rashi says כמו ינאי כל אחד היה דורש אחר שמו
Every one of the leaders would makes proofs for their own names also. That’s pshat of the Gemara and Rashi there, and the Rebbe brings it in a footnote and said we chassidim follow this custom. The Rebbe said in the footnote, being a devoted chosid, that we specifically say “Yosef is his name” based on the Previous Rebbes first name.November 29, 2017 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #1415672November 29, 2017 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1415669
This is a link to Harav Aaron Feldman’s letter to Gil Student. Anybody who wishes (and understands Lashon HaKodesh) can read it and see if you think SH accurately portrayed Harav Feldman’s position.November 29, 2017 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1415678
Harav Belsky Ztl as quoted in Mishpacha
Present-day Chabad has become a personal cult centered on the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe. Everything they do from beginning to end, revolves around this. They constantly project his image, talk about him and how great he was, how smart he was, how he was a better strategist than all the generals, that he was Mashiach. etc. This is the way people talk about a cult figure. There’s no room in Yiddeshkeit for a personality cult in which an individual is deified and glorified. Whether he was great or wasn’t great is immaterial. There have been many great people in Judaism. The personality cult of glorifying an individual person, giving him unique titles, elevating the shape other building he was active in. etc., hasNovember 29, 2017 9:25 pm at 9:25 pm #1415682
When it’s been pointed out that various gedolim and rabbonim are on the record as opposing the modern theological positions of Lubavitch, many of the Lubavitchers here (and elsewhere) use the comeback that “well, the early Chasidim were opposed and the Rambam was opposed early on, and this is the same type of opposition to Lubavitch’s current doings.”
But the gedolim and rabbonim also opposed the early Reform movement and the haskala. So who is to say the current rabbinic opposition to the views currently espoused by Lubavitch is comparable to the opposition against the early Chasidim and Rambam. Perhaps it is more comparable to the opposition to the Reform and haskala.November 29, 2017 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #1415690
NP: I found that letter. In a nutshell, I think he is saying that an elokist (why does he spell it with a kuf – isn’t it chol?) is an apikores (but we need not be choshesh about a stam Lubavicher chossid that he is one), a meshichist is not an apikores, but the process arrived at to be a meshichist is so flawed that a meshichist’s judgement cannot be trusted in halachah.November 29, 2017 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #1415695
He discusses the so called “Elokistim” as if they’re a phenomena, while in reality, there aren’t enough of them to constitute a Zimmun…
Didn’t you say there are yeshivos both in Queens and Cincinnati which have those beliefs?November 29, 2017 11:16 pm at 11:16 pm #1415707
Gedolim who opposed the Lubavitcher Rebbe (in no particular order)
The Satmar Rebbe
Rav Aaron Kotler
Now it’s also true that there where Gedolim who held (and hold) the Lubavitcher Rebbe in high esteem.November 29, 2017 11:17 pm at 11:17 pm #1415719
CS wrote: “… Moshes neshama is always present on earth in the body of the ispashtusa dMoshe bechol Dara. And since the main life of a tzadik is his Ruchnius accomplishments, Moshe Lo mes, because his neshama is always alive in the body of the Nossi hador,and that’s how hu goel rishon hu goel acharon because his neshama will end up with the Nossi hador who will be moshiach”
So according to that why say that the lubavitcher rebbe didn’t die? if you believe in the above you could just as easily say that he is the nossi hador of the dor hashvii and his nexhomoh is alive in the body of someone else altogether, either directly related to Lubavitch or not, and that person is the mOshiach until either he brings aobut the geuloh or he too dies in which case the neshomoh that he had moves to someone else.
Why insist that the Lubavitcher rebbe didn’t die physically?November 29, 2017 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #1415728
“Didn’t you say there are yeshivos both in Queens and Cincinnati which have those beliefs?”
Extreme Meshichist beliefs yes, Elokist beliefs – chas vesholom.
Nowhere in that quote does Rav Belsky “come out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe”, and to say that he did is to misrepresent his words. I disagree with his assertion that Chabad isn’t what it used to be etc, but that is irrelevant here.November 29, 2017 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm #1415731
many of the Lubavitchers here (and elsewhere) use the comeback that “well, the early Chasidim were opposed and the Rambam was opposed early on, and this is the same type of opposition to Lubavitch’s current doings
It’s actually not logical to make the comparison at all In all those cases there where also Gedolim on the other side who supported the other POSITION. I put emphasis on the word position because while there where (and are) certainly Gedolim who held it the Lubavitcher Rebbe I’m not aware of any Gedolim who supported his more controversial psokim and teachings. And certainly there aren’t any Gedolim who supported (or support) the idea that the Rebbe was Moshiach, was bchezkas Moshiach, or that it is acceptable to say such a thing. If I’m wrong about this please cite an example and I will be happy to stand corrected.November 29, 2017 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm #1415733
“but the process arrived at to be a meshichist is so flawed that a meshichist’s judgement cannot be trusted in halachah.”
A good summary of the letter, and he says explicitly that their Shchita is kosher, unlike David Berger would like us all to believe.November 29, 2017 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #1415742
“but I’m sure one of the bochurim could fill you in.”
Likkutei Sichos Chelek 29, page 211.
Also see the Frierdiker Rebbes words on this, and how the Mitteler Rebbe was opposed to sleeping in the sukkah, in Sefer HaSichos 5636 – 5710, page 295.
See the old Belzer Minhag of not sleeping in the sukka, (not practiced anymore) in Nittei Gavriel Hilchos Rosh Hashonah Perek 16, Haara 16, quoting the Bulgraya Rav.November 29, 2017 11:27 pm at 11:27 pm #1415746
“I’m not aware of any Gedolim who supported his more controversial psokim and teachings.”
Can you please tell us what these controversial psokim are?
And who argued with them?November 29, 2017 11:27 pm at 11:27 pm #1415744
At the end of the post you were replying to, yid123 wrote, “in addition they also claim the rebbe is literally hashem in a human guf!”
- The topic ‘Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha’ is closed to new replies.