RCA Statement Regarding Chabad Messianism

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee RCA Statement Regarding Chabad Messianism

Viewing 47 posts - 101 through 147 (of 147 total)
  • Author
  • #2201389

    so now i remember “The Rosh Yeshiva of The Hildesheimer Seminar”, i heard about it recently after reading the book “turning judaism outward” he mentions the story that the rebbe needed to get a rabbinical degree from there to get into berlin, so the rebbe told him he can test him on any sefer in his library, r hildesheimer gave the rebbe a sefer he himself wrote recently to study, and the rebbe came back a few days later to get tested.
    i focus more on the rebbe’s maamarim and sichos then on the story’s. in fact it says in the above book, that the rebbe only mentioned once publicly by a farbrengen anything about the university. i have nothing against rav hirsh, chas vishalom. my derech is chassidus chabad, (b”h i enjoy this derech, i dont think there is anything else i need,) and there are hundreds of sifrai chassidus chabad to keep me busy for many yrs to come.
    “If the shoe fits….” thats my point that someone decided that moshiach cant come from the dead even though its a clear gemara, abarbenel, sdai chemed etc. or other things and storys about what some chabad chassidim do that are just bologna, once you beleive the bologna, that justifies all the lashon hara etc.


    Aaq, what’s that from?


    @sechel83 All this is confirming to me is that you have an extremely narrow view of Yiddishkeit to the point where you didn’t even hear of three of the greatest gedolim of the 19th and 20th century, one of which even had a connection with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. So when people are criticizing you for your views, please stop saying “Just learn Chassidus” and instead maybe go speak with a Litvishe Rosh Yeshiva or Chassidishe Rebbe to understand how the rest of the frum world sees things.


    Sechel, those attempts at “sources” from the abarbanel and sdei chemed have been thoroughly debunked on the forums here. They say so no such thing.

    As for “who decided that moshiach can’t be from the dead” – it’s an open rambam. And don’t tell me he means only if he’s killed, because he writes”if he was not successful to this point, or was killed,” meaning he needs to finish the job in one shot, not do part of it, and then die and return

    Re, gemara in chelek; rashi brings two pshatim there. One allows for him potentially to be from the dead, but the sdei chemed -the very source they bring – understands this metaphorically.

    Either the rambam holds like the 2nd pshat in rashi, or he paskens not like that opinion at all. None of the nosei keilim mention anything about the gemara in chelek.

    The abarbanel, in yeshuos meshicho, simply writes that you shouldn’t be surprised if moshiach js from “those who are revived from the techiya” meaning techias hamaysim happens before bias hamoshiach, and that moshiach himself might be from those who come back. That’s how he understood hachelek.

    I am grateful to a messianic chabadsker who alerted me to thos abarbanel, as it further disproved the ideas he espoused.

    It also needs to be stressed that tue sefer is all about contrasting yiddishkeit with xtian ideologies and debates, from the ramban etc… if he were agreeing to second coming ideology, that moshiach can reveal himself, die, and come back, which is a cornerstone of Xtian ideology, he definitely would have said so! And it would have caused quite a tumult.

    Plus the fact that in 2,000 years of seforim, the messianics can only find 2 mentions of even the concept of moshiach from the maysim, shows how beyond the pale the idea is..if it were simply a gemara mefureshes, wouldn’t the rishonim and achronim bring it across the board? They don’t.


    Sechel, I’m litvishe. My main two rebbeim were litvishe. Does that mean that I’ve never heard of the satmar rov? Wouldn’t it be strange if i didn’t? Wouldn’t you say that I’m living in isolation from klal yisroel if i hadn’t heard of him at all?

    Menachem Shmei

    Problem #4886 with Lubavitch:
    There is a Lubavitcher who doesn’t know who Reb Shamshon Refael Hirsch is.

    Another reason to put them in cherem.


    Menachem, it’s a siman, not a sibah. The siman tells us that Lubavitchers have isolated themselves from klal yisroel, with significant numbers of people not knowing things that literally every other community is aware of.


    avaira: “Plus the fact that in 2,000 years of seforim, the messianics can only find 2 mentions of even the concept of moshiach from the maysim, shows how beyond the pale the idea is.”
    how many times can you find in seforim that moshiach needs to be alive before moshiach comes? and that someone who says moshiach can come from the dead is an apikores?
    the rambam? how can the rambam say
    אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח יבטל דבר ממנהגו של עולם או יהיה שם חידוש במעשה בראשית אלא עולם כמנהגו נוהג ….. אמרו חכמים אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכיות בלבד.
    what about techiyas hamasim? its not a chidush in masai birashis?
    so in chabad we learn about moshiach in depth and it comes out that in hilchos milachim basiclly the rambam is explaining the geder of moshiach al pi halacha, in a matzav of lo zachu, but in a motzav of zachu, it can be different.
    if you dont like this answer, so you have another one? show how much you know about this sugya!
    dont just take lines of a sugya you never spent time learning!
    i only said “just learn chassidus” about people having attacks on chassidus, i wouldn’t attack a line in a medicine book lihavdil, cuz i never learned medicine and have no clue the terms and how it works. . anyone with a brain understands what i mean. stupid argument.
    im very proud the less i know about other gedolim, i have one rebbe that’s enough, i try to follow his teachings, what i do realize on this forum is that alot of litvaks dont have a clear derech – they take one thing from this gadol, another thing from another gadol etc. i.e. r’ shach was against the way most litvaks spent weeks on a blatt gemara (מכתבים ומאמרים) reb moshe was also. many more examples.


    @sechel83 Actually, you don’t have a rebbe. You have books that you like to learn from that are all based on a single person’s teachings. That’s a very different thing.

    Frankly I find you characterizing Litvaks as “not having a clear derech” as offensive. And I don’t even have a Litvish drop of blood in me. What, because a Brisker studies other derachim outside of Rav Chaim that makes him off the derech? Would a Vizhnitzer who paskens based on Iggros Moshe be a fool?


    Also, the answer of “zachu and lo zachu” doesn’t answer the “lasha,” because if you consider techias hamaysim a shinui to the point that it’s a stirah to the rambams teva hanhaga…that would mean, chas veshalom, that if we’re “not zocheh” there won’t be a techias hamaysim??? Then there’s just another kefirah we can add on the pile of chabad ideology, because techias hamaysim is one lf the 13 ikkarim, and will happen no matter if klal yisroel is zocheh or not.


    So….you have a kasha about techias hamaysim being a shinui.

    It’s not a kasha. It happens once. The rambam is talking about “yemos hamoshiach,” that in the messianic era, he holds that teva will remain. A one time change does not constitute a different world order.

    …and “who says he has to be living,” has got to be the most twisted argument on this thread. A dead messiah is a chidush; it’s a given that moshiach will be a redeemer, and thus alive; to say that he can start, die, and come back to finish, is the novel idea which requires a proof. Of which, there isn’t any.

    I love how when faced with an explanation of the sources chabad messianics give, you just pivot to “what about this rambam” – it’s like how christian missionaries bombard you with “proofs,” even as you pick one off after another… they’re going they’ll stump you o one, but in reality they’re all nonsense.

    Yeshivos have a mesorah. You’re not aware of that mesorah by your own admission; the way American yeshivos learn is largely from rav aharon. The very slow mahalach was popularized by rav leib mahlin. It works, so they do it, even though many gedolim were opposed. In eretz yisroel it’s different.


    Dear Sechel,

    If you are happy pursuing Torah and Mitzvos where you are, there is no reason to educate yourself about what other Jews think and do differently. And there are many pitfalls in doing so.

    I don’t know why you think it is worthwhile to debate who moshiach can be, on this forum. It will not help your ambition of being a good yid.


    There is nothing wrong with not knowing who are the greatest Torah Giants.

    This is proven by the many (Possibly even the Majority of them.) that receive so little public recognition.


    The way American Yeshivos learn is from Rav Aharon? Really!?

    The very slow pace today is from a lack of hasmadah. This is not what Reb Leib had in mind. Also, the proliferation of maggidei shiur that know so little compared to the previous generations.

    “It works.”

    Of course it works. Even if it all fails, we would still call it working.

    But this is not the ideal. Though the Yeshivos can still be smug now, that may not be true in the next generation.


    Dear Avira,

    Your confusing JTS with something else. There weren’t official halachic decisions in JTS. JTS only got involved in these controversies when they gave certification for women rabbis and cantors.


    Dear Avira,

    Rav Weinberg quotes him as a legitimate source in his essays on the formation of the Mishna. On par with Krochmal, Hoffman, and Halevi.


    Rav Hirsch demanded a clarification and asked for a cherem if Frankel wouldn’t comply. Rav Hirsch wasn’t so worried about his personal ideas. But what his students would feel their obligation to the future of klal yisroel. It’s a great insight and shows the clarity of Rav Hirsch’s vision. It could be used to contemplate the utility of any branch of Ortodoxy.

    Just because Frankel could not see the future, it doesn’t mean he was less Orthodox. His theories of the Mishna stand and fall on their own merits.


    Rav Hirsch disproved frankels theories about psakim from tannaim being due to personal feelings and biases, which was what darkei hamishnah was all about. Where did rabbi weinberg quote frankel or the other maskilim you mentioned?


    Avira, re: letter, my source is a footnote in a sefer that I am not 100% sure is unbiased. This is a full footnote, not abridged. So, if you need to check out further, you would need to find the letter in an archive. But N0 seems to be pointing to more accessible writings.


    avira, according to your answer, why cant moshiach be one of the people which will have techiyas hamasim? also why dosent the rambam mention it at all there? basicly seems like you never learned the sugya, anything you guys call “hashkafa” you just make up bologna, dont bother learning agada, medrash, etc.
    ya again because you didn’t understand what i was trying to bring out, you call the whole chabad kofrim?!
    “moshiach coming from the dead is a chidush” why? answer simply: you said there are 2 mekoros that mention it, how many say it cant be? what about techiyas hamasim? according to you its not even a chidush in maseh braishis!



    you can learn about it in לקוטי שיחות פרשת בחוקתי.


    learn about it in
    לקוטי שיחות חלק כז פרשת בחוקתי


    Sechel…first you brought “sources,” in sdei chemed and abarbanel, which i answered.

    Then you had no answer, so you pivoted to another “source,” a kasha…so to speak, on a rambam.

    Then i “answered” it, as it were….then you go back to the 2 fake sources as proof that it’s not a chidush.

    And around and around we go.

    Techias hamaysim is a given, chazal say one who denies it is min hatorah is a kofer… and something the rambam writes extensively about. It’s not a chidush in that sense. And it’s no more of a neis than krias yam suf, which did not change the world forever; it was a one time thing. That’s why techiyas hameisim is not at all a stirah to olam kminhago noheg; the rambam is coming laafukei many midrashim about bread growing on trees, objects saying” today is shabbos” to a would-be violator, and other such examples of a new world order. The rambam holds that those medrashim are not literal. He holds that the world will be the same physically, but why does that mean that individual miracles won’t happen? Of course they could!

    Remember, the rambam holds that techias hamaysim is a one-off for tzadikim to be able to see moshiach, something they hoped for all of their lives. Olam haba is not here, according to the rambam, it’s in shomayim. The ramban argues and holds that techias hamaysim is forever, in this world; people will live forever in this world, which will become olam haba. The ramban argues with the rambam on olam kminhago noheg too, and the achronim by and large follow the ramban, especially in light of the zohar and the mekubalim.

    Could be that the Lubavitcher rebbe gor confused about the two opinions and asked a kasha on the rambam based on the assumption that techias hamaysim is forever, like the rambans shitah, because that indeed is a shinui. But those are two separate opinions.

    In all of the seforim which discuss moshiach, there is no mention of him being from the dead, except for the abarbanel, who holds rhat techias hamaysim can happen first, and whoever moshiach is could very well be from those resurrected, but he does not say that it will be someone held of as moshiach who failed to accomplish his mission.

    Again, the rambam disqualifies any candidate who does not fulfill his mission. So yes, it’s alecha lehavi raya, it is upon you to prove otherwise.

    This is like someone saying that the avos wore shtreimels. Then someone asks, what’s your proof? The person answers… Do you have proof that they didn’t? Aha! You have no proof, so I’m right!


    @sechel83 Because a dead person coming back to life is not derech ha’tevah. There is a machlokes if t’chiyas ha’meisim happens before or after Moshiach. There’s no source that it’s a pre-requisite since Moshiach could have been a person who died. When we don’t have a precedent nor source for something not derech ha’tevah happening, we say it cannot happen.


    @sechel83 Does all of Chabad believe that Rav Schneerson ZT”L can come back and be Moshiach or not? Because most Chabadskers would adamantly deny that Meshichists even exists and laugh at the idea that a dead person can be Moshiach. But here you seem to be saying that all of Chabad believes this?

    This is not me, nor is it @AviraDeArah, nor anyone else on this thread. Numerous Rabbonim and Talmidei Chachamim that are universally respected in the frum world (except amongst some of Chabad) have repeatedly said that the RAMBAM is clear that Moshiach cannot be from the dead and that anyone who argues is guilty of kefira. This isn’t a fringe idea, this is a very prevalent idea in the non-Chabad frum world. The only question is what percentage of Chabad actively believes that a dead tzaddik may wake up and bring the geulah.


    again my point: the gemara says moshiach can be from the dead (according to one pirush in rashi)
    also the abarbenel, sdai chemed, zohar. find me one sourse that says moshiach can not be from the dead!
    (the point i was saying from rambam is that you cant bring a proof because he dosent mention techiyas hamasim there either, so will you say the rambam dosent hold of it?! (btw in hilchos teshuvah the raavad mentioned this) so obviously you didin’t learn this sugya at all.)
    so lets say the rambam holds moshiach can not be from the dead, so its a machlokes with the abarbenel, sdai chamed, zohar and rashi.
    who mentions that believing moshiach from the dead is kefira? and if you say that, youre also saying that the above opinions are kofrim c”v! simple.


    yserbius please tell me about this machlokes when techiyas hamasim will be.
    ראה יומא ה,ב, based on that gemara some explain that tzadikim will have techiyas hamasim right when moshiach comes, but even without that: everyone agrees that there will be techiyas hamasim, can someone explain to me what is the sevara that moshiach cant be from the masim?
    even according to the zohar (which probobly only chabad heard of) that techiyas hamasim will be later, explain to me the simple reason for it. if you cant explain it to me, then learn לקוטי שיחות חלק כז בחוקתי.


    @sechel83 Did you really just say that “probably only Chabad ever heard of the Zohar”? I’m sorry, you’ve had some “out there” takes on this thread, but that one probably clinches it. So before we continue, let’s enumerate:

    • Litvaks don’t just learn Litvishe Torah, so they don’t have a derech. Chabad is better since they only learn Chabad Torah and ignore everything else
    • No idea who Rav Shamshon Refoel Hirsch ZT”L and Rav Ezriel Hildesheimer ZT”L were
    • Likutei Sichos is as important to learn as Gemara
    • Lubavitchers don’t need a living leader since every possible halacha or hashkafa question can be answered from reading Chabad seforim
    • All of Lubavitch believe that the last Rebbe ZT”L can be Moshiach
    • Only Chabad knows what the Zohar is

    I would like you to address at least some of these before continuing.

    Regarding Techiyas HaMeisim, I don’t know all the details, but numerous Rebbeim of mine quoted numerous Gedolei HaDor in stating that the idea that Moshiach is a dead man who will rise again is not a Jewish concept and possibly apikorsus. This isn’t some hot take, it’s the prevailing opinion of the frum world.


    Around and around we go…

    And now only chabad has heard of zohars. Guess rhe Gaon’s massive meforshim on it are just….non existent.


    sorry for your “misunderstanding” (i hope). i meant the zohar that says that techiyas hamasim, will be later, did you ever hear of this zohar honestly? can you bring me this zohar or another makor about when techiyas hamasim will be? i was just bringing out how some people on this forum dont know anything in this sugya, very clear.
    the complaints are getting stupider and stupider. in chabad we have a clear derech on every aspect of life printed in sifrai chassidus, obviously we also have rabbonim, roshai yeshivos, mashpiim to answer questions. i wish we would have a living rebbe, but we cant sprinkel watar on someone to make him what a rebbe is – a neshima that is בבחינת ראש – tanya.
    ok so litvaks also have a derech, im happy to hear.


    I think by “this thread is getting stupid,” you mean that you don’t have an answer to the taanos posted here.

    There are different opinions among baalei machshava and mekubalim about when techias hamaysim happens; some hold it can – but not necessarily will – happen before, as the abarbanel writes, but most hold it happens after, including the rambam, who says that the entire point of techias hamaysim is that the maysim get to see moshiach. The ramban also agrees that it is after, but argues about what will actually happen; the ramban holds that the body which returns(for all tzadikim) will be very spiritual, like adam kodem hachait, and will live forever. The rambam holds it will live and die like a regular human.

    If we don’t know the sugya, please explain it, because all I’ve seen so far is likutei sichos, which I’m not interested to read, snd misquotes from chabad seforim, and a zohar which can be understood many ways, as evidenced by the machlokes among mekubalim.


    baalai machshava and mikubalim? bring maarai mikomos! rambam? where?
    zohar is זהר ח”א קלט, א. וראה גם כן שם קלד, א.
    you want me to instead of just bringing one sicha in likutai sichos, to write all the 107 marai mikomos?
    i dont see any valid questions on me, anything with a source?


    Ramban, shaar hagemul, writes that techias hamaysim will be at the end of the tekufah of yemos hamoshiach, and will be olam haba on this world.

    The Rambam in igeres techias hamaysim writes that it isn’t clear when it will happen, could be before moshiach comes or after.

    Hasagos Raavad on hilchos teshuva 8:2,3

    Maharal gevuros Hashem, hakdama, writes that techias hamaysim is the beginning of olam haba for those two kept the Torah,

    Ramcham in maamar ikarim, “hagemul”


    ok avira so you brought another source that techiyas hamasim can be before moshiach comes. so what is the issue of moshiach from the dead?

    Edited again


    Another thread about Moshiach from the dead. Please see Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach. It shows Moshiach from the dead was a common belief among Chazal and specifically shows Rambam did not rule out Moshiach from the dead l’halacha. It’s a sefer in English and a free download. I bought mine in Judaica Plaza in Lakewood.


    “Problem #4886 with Lubavitch:
    There is a Lubavitcher who doesn’t know who Reb Shamshon Refael Hirsch is.”

    You joke, but I actually believe these things are more of an issue than the philosophical stuff that gets people worked up here. Chabad claims to be all accepting and interacts with everyone, yet within the frum tzibbur, Chabad is super isolationist. And, no, it’s not “everyone else’s” fault.

    yankel berel

    #any kugel left.
    Habad ITSELF denied the possibility of Mashiach from the dead – not the so called mitnagdim . .
    For many years [when it was convenient] Their Rabbanim Maspiim , their newspaper loudly proclaimed this .
    Now it seems convenient to hold of Mashiach from the dead.
    For many more years then not , they OUTRIGHT DENIED that Habad holds their leader as Mashiach . Those who quoted that habad designated their leader as mashiach were GUILTY OF SIN’AT CHINAM , and MOTSI SHEM RA and did so only out of hate and jealousy. They are guilty of being full of YESHUT and GA’AVA , and therefore try to blacken habads face .


    Since we can’t post urls here. Google rabbi Yitzchok schochet response to RCA resolution that was published in Jewish chronicle.

    Basically he says the Rebbe never started the messianic mission. The messianic mission as told by pasukim chazal and Rambam is building the bais hamikdosh and kibutz galios etc. A campaign to publicize Moshiach’s coming and getting ready for Moshiach is by no stretch of the imagination considered starting a messianic mission unless one is a crack pot professor and riding a tide of infighting and open hostility towards Chabad etc


    “Google rabbi Yitzchok schochet response to RCA resolution that was published in Jewish chronicle.”

    The first thing I see after googling Yitzchok Shochet is that he used to be a principal at Ohelei Torah, the main Chabad school in Crown Heights.

    You can’t bring Chabad rabbis to defend Chabad views. How are you not getting this? If we raised problems with Catholicism (lehavdil), it would be silly to say “well, the Pope doesn’t seem to have any problems with it.”

    Menachem Shmei

    >>>You can’t bring Chabad rabbis to defend Chabad views.

    This is as ludicrous as saying that you, as a litvisher, can’t defend litvisher views! (mind boggling isn’t it?)

    Furthermore, surprising as it may be, you are currently engaging in discussion with a Lubavitcher who is defending Lubavitch views!

    According to your logic, we shouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

    We should change the rules of the coffeeroom:
    Lubavitchers may only defend Litvishers, and Litvishers may only defend Lubavitchers.
    Liberals may only defend conservatives (you can’t bring liberals to defend liberals) and conservatives may only defend liberals.
    Gadolhadorah may only defend ujm, ujm may only defend Gadolhadorah.
    (Not such a bad idea actually. Would be quite interesting)

    P.S. I have no idea what Rabbi Schochet wrote, and honestly, it is as significant to me as the RCA Statement itself (completely insignificant).
    I’m just amused by Neville’s line of reasoning.



    So, bringing Avi Weiss as a proof that the Open Orthodoxy and totally legit and truly Orthodox would be reasonable? It would be “ludicrous” to suggest otherwise, according to you.

    Menachem Shmei


    This would be reasonable:
    If someone asks, “How can Open Orthodoxy claim that the avos never existed (ח”ו וח”ו)? This is pure kefirah!”
    And then an “Open Orthodox” Jew responds: “There is a great article answering this. Google: Avi Weiss Avos Kefira response” (I just fabricated this discussion)

    You might say that you’re not interested in checking it up. But it would be ludicrous to say “you can’t bring OO “rabbis” to defend OO views, so I don’t care what the article says”.

    The OO Jew’s response to this would be: The very fact that you’re afraid to see how OO explains their opinion shows that you’re not so sure.
    קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו…


    Menachem, what Neville is saying is that a rabbis name attached to something isn’t a defense thereof if the rabbi is a member of the movement in question. He’s saying that we shouldn’t just accept it as having rabbinic approval if the rabbi himself is from that sect.

    He’s also going against the idea of the Lubavitcher rebbe being right because he said he’s right. Something some Lubavitchers have an issue with

    Menachem Shmei


    I guess we each understood anypotato differently.

    You seem to have understood him to say, “the Rebbe is Moshiach, look, even Rabbi Schochet agrees”.
    In that case, I agree. It doesn’t make any sense to say that.

    However, I highly doubt this was anypotato’s intention.
    He could have mentioned hundreds of Chabad rabbanim who hold this. Neither do I think that he was trying to conceal the fact that the Schochet family is Chabad (a well-known fact)

    He was probably saying that if you think that the RCA Statement makes sense, see this rebuttal.

    Again, I haven’t seen the rebuttal, but I guess anypotato wants you to see it.


    In general, I wouldn’t give too much credence to any RCA statement.


    Joseph, I give the RCA more credence than any statement coming from you.


    “You seem to have understood him to say, “the Rebbe is Moshiach, look, even Rabbi Schochet agrees”.
    In that case, I agree. It doesn’t make any sense to say that.”

    Yes, this is exactly what I thought he meant, but I think you’re correct. Sorry about that. I thought he was bringing him as a proof, not just telling people to look up an existing rebuttal from Chabad.

    “In general, I wouldn’t give too much credence to any RCA statement.”

    Honestly, agreed. It’s a bit two-faced of us to ally with Chabad when it’s a chareidi vs. MO discussion, then ally with the RCA when it’s a Litvish vs. Chabad discussion. We should just be steadfast in our opposition to everyone everywhere all the time.

Viewing 47 posts - 101 through 147 (of 147 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.