ARSo

Thanks sechel for bringing the thread back to its original (and IMHO much more interesting 🙂 ) topic.

You wrote: “if the rebbe wasn’t a gadal, who was?”

Um, now that’s a hard one. How about the Vizhniter Rebbe, the Belzer Rebbe, Rav Moshe Sternbuch, Rav Meir Bergman, the Amshinover Rebbe etc etc etc (no particular order in the above)?

And I have a question. If the Lubavicher rebbe was atzmus melubash beguf, and thus all-powerful, why wasn’t he able to avoid having a stroke, and avoid dying?

AlwaysAsk, I disagree. If there are 2-3 talmidei chachomim who recognize someone as a t”ch, but many others consider him close to an apikorus, someone who misleads, or a meshuggene, the 2-3 are not enough. Especially when the detractors are recognized gedolei olam.

CS: “you brought sources on the Rashi- (the Rashi itself merely lists the two kgons- shades of/ examples, and you’re deciding to read it like the interpretation that it means it can only be these two. Which I don’t have to do that. And even so, taking it further – it would seem even according to that- that that only applies to that very generation. So yes, there’s the Ramban, and yes there’s the explicit Gemara, The sdei chemed, abarbanel etc etc. And the Rebbe about his father in law which didn’t seem to be any issue before Gimmel Tammuz because I probably would have heard of it.”

Sorry, but you’re rambling here. I didn’t ‘decide to read it’ in any way. I translated the Rashi according to pshat, something I have been trying to do with every Rashi that I learn in Shas. You most definitely do have to translate it that way. As I wrote, ask a male who learns gemoro properly to be honest about the Rashi.

You yourself wrote last week that Rashi is not halacha lemaaseh. That is, you backtracked on your claim that we have to follow the Rashi who allows you to claim that a dead LR is Mashiach. Now are you backtracking on that backtrack? Please don’t tell us men, even if we are not the greatest talmidei chachomim, how to learn plain simple pshat in Rashi.

And what ‘explicit Gemara’. The one where the only Rishon I can find on it says that if it’s someone who has died it MUST BE Daniel?

You do realize after all this time that anything the LR said about the identity of Mashiach doesn’t have weight with all non-Lubavichers on this thread. So why do you keep quoting it TO US as some sort of proof.

Finally, even in the times of the Rayatz most of Klal Yisrael were against his Mashiach statements, such as Le’alter Lig’ula. So when the LR claimed that his shver was Mashiach it was just added to the discard pile.

sechel: “how many sichos did you learn? how many maamarim? of the rebbe”

I learnt a few when I was younger, but once I saw where he was leading the oilem, I stopped, and I refuse to even look into one.

Avira: “Did it occur to anyone that perhaps the hostages were released because their relatives davened to Hashem, and that He is a shomeah tefilah? Why make it into a Lubavitch centered thing?”

No way! It was clearly the Lubavicher rebbe!

And don’t believe what you read. In the latest edition of Mishpacha it says that Rabi David Abuchatzira had a 50 minute private meeting with the Argentinian president, and very soon afterwards the hostages were freed. Don’t they realize that it was all due to the LR?

CS: “May I also add that the first (unprecedented) wave of hostages were released shortly after members of many hostages families flew from Israel (!) to NY and went to the Ohel.”

Aren’t you the one who said in the earlier thread that having a temporary ceasefire in order to have hostages released was a really stupid idea?

CS: “aside from the Gemara, there’s the abarbanel and Sdei Chemed who refer to moshiach min hameisim positivelys well. Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase. And then you’re arguing how to interpret the Rashi- 2 steps removed.”

I really can’t believe you wrote that, and you don’t honestly see how you pick and choose what suits you!

Does your memory go far enough back to rememer YOU citing the Rashi as proof that Mashiach can be anyone who has died? And now you say, “Rashi is only one mefaresh on the Gemara and not Halacha lmaase”! Shomu Shomayim! You are the paradigm of backtracking as long as you can claim that the LR is Mashiach.

In fact, why not ignore all the Mefarshim? Just say straight out that you don’t care what it says anywhere because the LR is Mashiach, and that anyone who says different is not halacha lemaaseh!

Btw, how are the Abarbanel and the Sdei Chemed more halacha lemaaseh?

I am absolutely astounded at the dishonesty that is being displayed here!

CS: “obviously- clearly alive physically would be the most straightforward, ie be option a. Nobody was looking for an option b, pre Gimmel Tammuz, although the Rebbe alluded to it.”

Once again, you are evading the issue. As yankel berel pointed out, and as I remember clearly, pre-Gimmel Tammuz the official Lubavich line was NOT that the best option is that Mashiach is alive, but that IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE WHO IS ALIVE AT THAT TIME. The standard line was, “Look around. Who is there alive today who is more worthy of being Mashiach than the rebbe. Therefore it must be the rebbe!”

There was no, “If it’s someone who is alive…”

Btw in reply to your question as to who I heard it from that the LR only wanted women to learn gemoro directly related to the halachos in which women are obligated, I won’t tell you his name, because I don’t want the innocent (namely me) to suffer. But I can assure you it was someone high up who heard it directly from one of the LR’s secretaries.

And to back up my stance that women should not be learning gemoro ;-), here is what CS wrote:
“it still says dugmaso- which is the same idea- an example. In that generation, the example of Moshiach min hachaim was Rebbi and min hameisim- Daniel. I don’t understand why you understand that Rebbi was only that generation but not subsequently, yet you don’t apply the same logic to Daniel.”

You are mixing up the two leshonos.
Lashon 1. If Mashiach is someone who is currently (i.e. at the time the statement was made) alive, then it IS Rebbi. No one else.
If Mashiach is someone who has already died, then it IS Daniel. No one else. Rashi does NOT mention dugmaso in this lashon. And it is in this lashon that Rashi says that the word “kegon” is lav davka. That is, it does not mean “like”. Rather it means “is”, i.e. it IS either Rebbi or Doniel. According to this explanation, the statement was not dealing at all with someone who was not yet born at that time, and that is another possibility, which, it would seem, we are left with if it is not actually Daniel or Rebbi themselves.
(Avirah, I agree kegon does not mean exactly ‘like’ or ‘for example’. I was a rebbi for a number of years and I also used to teach that it really means ‘of the type’, as in kegavna. In fact, often it is not an example at all and it is the only acceptable case. Nonetheless, Rashi here is clearly telling us that it is not to be taken as an example.)

Lashon 2: Mashiach will be someone great. How great? Well, if you want to see what type of person Mashiach will be, I can show you DUGMASO – someone like him – from those who are alive today, and that is Rebbi, or from those who have died, and that is Daniel. According to this lashon, there is no mention of the actual Mashiach being someone who has died. This lashon cannot, therefore, be brought as a proof that Mashiach can come from the dead. Again, Daniel, who, by the way, has died, had the characteristics that Mashiach will have, whoever he will be.

Is there any male out there who can show me how I have misinterpreted Rashi, and how Rashi does allow for someone else who has died to be considered Mashiach. Note: I am not asking for a discussion regarding whether Mashiach can come from the dead Rather I am asking for someone to show me that Lubavichers are justified IN QUOTING THIS GEMORO AND RASHI to prove that Mashiach can be someone who has died. (I’m sorry for seeming to be so repetitive, but I am trying to get a fact into some heads that are bolted shut to simple pshat.)

CS, I will be melamed zchus and say that you, a woman, can’t be blamed for misinterpreting a simple gemoro and Rashi, but it is hard to be melamed zchus on men who know how to learn gemoro and misinterpret the Rashi to suit their agendas.

One final point. I wouldn’t be fazed even if there were a multitude of Rishonim who wrote that Mashiach can come from the dead. It would still not bring me any closer to accepting that the Lubavicher rebbe is/was Mashiach for the many reasons that I have written in the past. The above discussion is just about Sanhedrin 98b.

CS: “So the Argentinian guys name is Chivra- or something similar, and he belongs to Beis Rebbi, as he is an avid student of The Rebbe 😀 (in fact his first trip abroad after winning the elections was to the ohel)”

So now Mashiach is an Argentinian goy. OK. I can handle that. It’s certainly easier to believe than all the other stuff coming out of Lubavich.

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?

yb I’m clearly of the same generation, and I too lived through that major upheaval. However, I disagree about Lubavichers not claiming their rebbe was Mashiach, as I heard that when I was a kid many years before 88. The only difference was that then it was much more low-key, and you had to have people who thought that you were on their side who would tell you that. Post 91 it become public.

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.

CS, I have to voice my respect for the mod who allowed your post even though it was as “misinformed and condescending” as the mod said it was. I would also add another adjective: garbage. (I know. That’s really a noun but here I’m using it as descriptive, in fact a metaphor. At any rate…)

First, as I have written in the past, I am not Litvish. I am a card-carrying chossid of a well-known Rebbe shlita.

Second, you keep demonstrating how brianwashed you are by writing what you have been told that Litvaks think. I am not a Litvak, but even I say they are not that stupid!

According to you, Litvaks just worry about Lubavich hashkofo, while ‘we’ Lubavichers “grow up as Hashem being very real in our lives as a result of the tangible things we see and Laem [sic] through the Rebbe… etc etc”

Does the brainwashing never end? Of course sometimes Lubavichers will best Litvaks in nigleh, but in my experience – and I reiterate for the countless time that I have many more years of association with all types of Lubavichers than you do –that is not usually the case. It’s just that so often when Lubavichers are bested by others – in anything whether in lomdus, hashkofo, even inyanei de’alma – the resort to one of two options: either changing the topic (And having said that, I note that you have not addressed at all my straightforward, almost literal, explanation of the gemoro, and instead you have gone back to ‘explaining’ to us am haratzim where the problem with the Litvaks lies.) or claiming that the other person simply does not understand the depth of your statement.

Which leads me to another point. I have come across a lot of deep theories in many fields, and I could probably tell you many of the theories of string theory, and quantum mechanics. They wouldn’t be wrong… but I wouldn’t understand what I was saying!

Knowing facts does not make you a deep thinker. It can, however, make you think that you’re a deep thinker. And that is one of the major problems with Lubavich. You (not you personally, rather, a generic Lubavicher) don’t have an inkling into what, for example, tzimtzum really means, but you can spend hours talking about it and quoting stuff that you have convinced yourself that you understand. This not only means that you are shallow, it results in you remaining shallow, because you have no reason to really absorb true knowledge since you know it all already.

Those of us here who realize that we don’t know the true meaning of these lofty concepts, and we don’t understand the depth of a real Rebbe and his tzidkus, are far more likely to achieve something with our lives in terms of yiras Shomayim and the like than people who think that they know all the answers. In simple terms, swallowing a foreign dictionary does not make you an expert in that language.

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.

CS: “So we don’t need a new Rebbe to tell us what is needed today- we know exactly what to do”

Does that include breaking the wall of 770? It seems some know that that is exactly what to do, while others know that that is exactly NOT what to do.

CS: “Qwerty,
The Rebbe didn’t make up the term Nassi, it’s found in rashi, and other sefarim. The other Rebbeim used it too , as far as I know. In any case it’sa description of a position. No more arrogant than you going by the title of your profession.”

I believe that I can take the credit for saying that the term Nassi, as applied by Lubavich, was made up by Lubavich – quite possibly the LR we are dealing with. Not Qwerty. I have written about it at some length on earlier threads.

Of course it’s found in Rashi and other sefarim. I’ll let you in on a little secret: it’s also in Chumash and the gemoro. But it has not applied to anyone for a millennium and a half. That is until Lubavich, in their great humility, decided to use it for themselves.

Sorry, CS, but the word “obfuscating” (yes, it has become one of my favorites) comes to mind when I read your replies (“2 answers…”) to my problem with your view on both the LR and his father-in-law being one and the same, and both, therefore, Mashiach.

Simply, it doesn’t make sense. If the LR was himself Mashiach why refer to his father-in-law as Mashiach? And why “get answers” from his father-in-law’s grave? Wasn’t he good enough to be Mashiach on his own, or has Mashiach in your mind become a Siamese-twin concept? (Please don’t tell me that since the Rambam doesn’t say anything against it, that might indeed be the case ☹.)

“In lubavitch, a Rebbe is not an inspirational yid.”

Your naivete is showing once again! I have never heard a chossid of any Rebbe referring to his Rebbe as simply being an ‘inspirational Yid’. When will you learn that all the garbage taught to you in your Chassidic hashkafa classes – call them what you will – was designed to have you believe (wrongly, of course) that Lubavich is on an unbelievably higher level than Menagdim, Pailisher chassidim etc? It is all a crutch for you to lean on when you come face to face with people whose hashkofos are really Torah-true, and to prevent you realising that yours are false, misleading and dangerous.

Quite a number of years ago a rov of a Chassidishe kehilla told me that his Rebbe (I know which Rebbe, and the only reason I am not saying it is because it may very well lead Lubavichers who hear the story to badmouth him. Rest assured he was an acknowledged worldwide as a huge talmid chochom and baal mesiras nefesh, and he had chassidim on a number of continents.) once voiced his disapproval when he heard his chassidim singing a Lubavicher niggun at a tish. He said, “They should not be singing a niggun of a group who consider only themselves as having the true path.”

“but there are references to it being the dor hashvii”

What are the sources of those references?

And while I’m on a quest for sources, can you please provide a source for your claim that when the Ramban said we rejected yoshke because yoshke had died, he did not really mean it, and he only said it because that was all he could say?

CS: “Wow alot here”

Ditto!

Your quote from Rashi in Daniel says that Mashiach will be “covered” from us for 45 years. If you are relying on this, why do you keep hoping/saying “Mashiach Now!” And if you are not relying on the 45 year time period, then don’t quote us the Rashi. You can’t have it both ways!

And the Toras Moshe you quoted says six months. So here the problem is the opposite. Either you believe it’s only six months, so obviously your rebbe isn’t the Mashiach he is referring to, or you don’t believe in the six month time period. So don’t quote that Toras Moshe. Again, you can’t have it both ways!

Anyway, as someone pointed out, “covered” or “disappearing” is not the same as dying.

“Firstly this was a major prediction that no one else made and came with a lot of achrayus.”

Right, and I still remember it being that no one will be killed, not that there will not be missiles. A major prediction with lots of achrayus… and in the end, incorrect.

“Secondly, in the sicha, The Rebbe referenced the Alter Rebbe as saying that Chassidim should only ask for spiritual guidance, because guidance for physical matters belongs to neviim as Shaul asked the Navi Shmuel about his lost donkeys… yet we see that all Rebbeim, including the Alter Rebbe, did dispense advice about physical matters, which indicates they were neviim.”

Is that really your proof?! Wow! How weak. Because guidance in physical matters should belong only to nevi’im – is there a source for the Baal Hatanya saying that, or are we just to take the Lubavicher rebbe’s word for it? – therefore someone who gives physical guidance must be a novi!

Guess what? I have just realised that I, and most of my friends, and my bank manager, and the person next to me in shul, are all nevi’im, as we have all given physical advice.

Furthermore, according to what you wrote, not only Lubavicher rebbes are nevi’im, as other rebbes – even those few past or present who Lubavich believes in – have given physical advice. So, according to the weird logic above, they are also nevi’im. What is special, then, about Lubavich?

“at least in one instance, someone asked his Rebbe for not a bracha, but a havtacha, to which his Rebbe said that if he wants a havtacha, there’s only one place in the world- Lubavitch…”

A story about a rebbe without a name is almost as strong a proof as the “proofs” the Lubavicher rebbe said about himself!

“There are countless stories where The Rebbe told people not to have life saving surgeries, and similar situations, which turned out fine.”

I am sitting here shaking my head at how naïve you are. Let me enlighten you. There are countless stories about other tzaddikim – some of them, perish the thought, even Litvish – who have advised against apparent life-saving surgeries and were proven right! Yes, it’s true and documented. You can find them online if you search.

yankel berel, I really liked your post about the Ramban’s reason for rejecting yoshke as Mashiach except for one minor point.

I think you should have used the term “died” rather than “passed away” in reference to that false Mashiach.

CS: “Now I don’t think there’s any Torah sources for someone who started the job, and didn’t finish/ was killed or otherwise thwarted, to continue to consider them Moshiach.”

For the trillionth time, the LR did not start the job, any more than any other person who tries to bring Yidden closer to Torah and mitzvos. In fact, there are problems that he caused that those others did not cause, and that makes him a less-likely candidate.

And for the record, as I see it a melamed in a cheder of FRUM kids from FRUM families, as well as anyone else involved in chinuch, is doing just as an important job as Lubavichers or others who work in kiruv (you prefer the word hafotzo because it makes you seem on a higher level – but that’s another thing I won’t go into now). Especially today with the street and its influences being what they are, keeping someone frum and aiding him in retaining his ingrained Yir’as Shomayim is not small feat and is, IMHO, more important that bringing people who are further away from Torah closer to it. After all, what is worse, a person born not-frum who unfortunately never becomes frum, c”v, or a frum kid who goes off the derech R”L?

So much stuff to comment on. I hope I do it justice and don’t miss anything out.

CS, both yankel berel and myself REMEMBER the Lubavicher rebbe saying that not one Yid will be harmed/killed, and he was wrong. By your own admission, you were not born at the time, so you may heard a laundered version of his “prophesy”. (I prefer to refer to it as a prediction, which, as yankel berel writes, would not result in anyone being c”v chayav misa. Just one person, as knowledgeble as he may have been, being wrong.)

And I’ll have to commend ‘my voice’ for saying what I have been thinking for a while, and have been reticent to write due to the woke world we unfortunately live in:
“one thing I can say is that my belief in chazals wisdom in exhorting women not to learn (except for applicable HALACHA) has exponentially increased”

DaMoshe: “Arso, about the Gulf War, you made a mistake. R’ Chaim didn’t say nothing would happen in Israel. He said it specifically about Bnei Brak, not the entire Israel.”

If so, I stand corrected on that. Thanks.

CS: “Secondly, you have homework now: (I’ve saved mine from the other day): 1. Proof that The Rebbe said not one Jew will die”

Being a little older than you, I remember it! I don’t know whether I can find a proof, as it’s likely that if it ever was online it has since been deleted, but I hope to search for it. Nonetheless, as I wrote, I remember it clearly.

“2. Proof for your claim that indeed two Jews died directly from the rockets”

Google “how many people died in Israel during the 1991 gulf war” and look through the numerous sites, including at least one official Israeli site.
And if you expect me to prove those sites as correct and truthful, I can’t because I didn’t work in the chevra kadisha.

I just did a search for your no. 1. and what I did find is that the Lubavicher rebbe said before the Gulf War that Israel is the safest place in the world. I don’t think it was for all those people who died due to war-related incidents. Do you?

CS: “The Rebbe told everyone who asked there’s nothing to fear and you should not leave EY, and indeed the war turned out the way the Rebbe said.”

That is not true for two reasons that even I know of.

1. R Chaim Kanievsky also said nothing will happen, and he had a note on his door “I did not seal a room”. There were also others who predicted that no great damage will be done.

2. The Lubavicher rebbe clearly said that NOT ONE YID will be killed (maybe he said harmed, but let’s leave it at killed) and one Yid was R”L killed due to a scud missile attack. Actually, I just looked it up and I discovered that the official Israeli tally is TWO people killed by missiles and another at least 11 others through various side issues, such as gas masks being incorrectly worn, heart attacks and incorrect use of atropine (which was to be used in cases of poison gas). So not only was it not nevuah, it was not even correct. Unless you want to say that when he said that not one Yid will be killed, he mean that there will be more than one 🙂

If you look in the last perek of Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah in the Rambam – the favorite sefer used by Lubavich to “prove” that their rebbe is Mashiach – you will find the following:
אומרים לו אם נביא אתה אמור דברים העתידים להיות והוא אומר ואנו מחכים לראות היבואו דבריו אם לא יבואו, ואפילו נפל דבר קטן בידוע שהוא נביא שקר, ואם באו דבריו כולן יהיה בעינינו נאמן

So even if “a small matter” – I personally do not consider Yidden being killed R”L a small matter – he is a false novi!

Furthermore, in the next halacha the Rambam writes:
אומרים לו אם נביא אתה אמור דברים העתידים להיות והוא אומר ואנו מחכים לראות היבואו דבריו אם לא יבואו, ואפילו נפל דבר קטן בידוע שהוא נביא שקר, ואם באו דבריו כולן יהיה בעינינו נאמן

So even had his prediction re the Gulf War been correct (which, I reiterate, it wasn’t) that is not enough to consider him a navi.