Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ADA, we know that the structure of Davening is Praise, Requests & then Thanks.
So my question is, if a powerful Melech basar vadam made a Gezaira against the Yidden chv”Sh, and the Yidden chose a Yiras Shomayim to go for an audience with the King to petition him to annul the Gezaira…
Is it ok for him to praise the King, then express his bakasha, and then express thanks for what good he may have done, or is doing by ranting the audience, or with Siata Dishmaya will do by annulling the Gezaira..???
ADA,
1. The M”B doesn’t say it’s ossur, it says “al yosim”. That is not informing you that it’s ossur; it is an instruction.
See Sotah 34b where Kalaiv says, and I quote: “Avosai, bikshu alai rachamim” at Kivrai haAvos.
2. See comment above where I linked to the Sefer Hishtatchus of Lubavitchers which clearly shows that they direct everything to Hashem. So you’re not talking about Lubavitchers. Nice try.
Most importantly, please stop being Motzei laaz on Yidden, whether it’s barren women pleading to Rachel to help them have a child, or Breslov’s sharing their latest idea with Reb Nachman.
Go read Rambam’s Ikkar Six. You are misrepresenting it.
Also, with your conjuring of new Halachos, how do you reconcile MRA”H bowing to Yisro (See Rashi there, beginning of Parshas Yisro).
n0m, cultural prishus?
I’m not sure I follow.
But I gather from what you’re referring to in general is simply chevra used to bountiful Ahavas Yisrael bileaiv vanefesh lfnim mishuras hadin, in contrast to bountiful conservative Ahavas Yisrael bilaiv venefesh, if I can put them like that.
Certainly these nuances have a profound effect.
Note: it’s important not to over broaden Chabad, since the overwhelming majority are firmly rooted in Torah, Toras Chayim and hanhagas haYahadus kipshuto, no compromises.And to differentiate between Breslov and Chabad, one is among a chevra, and the latter flows from the Manhigus of the/a Gadol baTorah (who was ibergegeben bifrat panim bifanim yad leyad to any and every “common Yid” who presented, and sent an army of kind gentle souls for those who would’ve but didnt know of the opportunity).
ADA, by pray, do you mean what B”Y were doing to MRA”H the whole time in the midbar without once specifying “that you convene with Hashem for us”? Or because it was with chutzpa it doesn’t count but if someone did the same thing like a mentch it would become kefira?
And since when is it ok to beseech a Tzaddik to appeal to Hashem on one’s behalf after he passed, as is clear, but while he’s alive it’s a problem?
And based on what Torah do you or purported so-called Chachamim decide that if the person does the same thing, but in a concise manner ” Tzaddik I need…” and isn’t fully mefaresh up to and including “can you appeal to Hashem for me” that they suddenly become a kofer???
And at what turn of phrase do you find the nerve to imply that someone with little Emunah sichlis and overwhelming Emunah peshuta goes up to a Tzaddik and says “Rebbi I need… please help me” that suddenly you Dun them as a kofer because by this Maamin no cheshbon was made one way or another, and is essentially doing the same as the previous?
And to add further mr/mrs Emunah peshuta when asked by you if he/she was davening to the Tzaddik or asking him to petition for them, looks at you dumbfounded without a clue as to what in the over gargantuated cynicistic sichlis you are talking about, given your multiple choice self-defeating cheshbonos there were beyond the pshitus of such a Yid, as evidenced in the stupifying tone when responding with more sichlis than ever before mustered: “I davened to him to Daven to Hashem for me”, without even being sure of what they said themselves, but rather patching together a response somewhere between their initial hargasha and some disenfranchised sichlisictic brain teaser you wove!
Do we now relegate them to kofer based on the words of their lips, regardless? And how about when we check after being poisoned by your runaway sichlicism for a month, and they finally get the self-defeating question as evidenced by their reintegrating that after careful thought, yes they davened to him to Daven to Hashem for them, what have you settled there?
And was this individual tahor in the first place by your standards, but now a kofer by the same?Or now do you want to try to pseudo-intellectually finely define what daven means without someone trying to corner you with yes or no answers?
And how on earth when you find out that Lubavitchers explicitly daven at the Kever to Hashem specifically (did you even study the Sefer in the link?) even when being mevakesh from a Tzaddik is firmly permissible, do you get so disturbed by the notion that you immediately try cornering validation of some possible concise communicator or Emunah pshuta emanator to use to validate your supposed Chachamim and write off all Chabad who by firm custom even at the Kever of their Rebbe daven only to Hashem?
And have you already forgotten what I had previously quoted:
Rabbe Yehuda haChassid c. 1200 in Sefer Chasidim #450 says:
“Uchishemivakshim meihem heim Mispalelim al hachayim”.And again, just so it’s clear, did B”Y in the midbar say “please we any more than just mon” or did they say “sir M”R it has to come to us a need for mon regarding which we beckon your corporeal unreliable lowly humanness to consult with G-d the maker of both you and us to provide this for us, while notating to Him that he should fulfil our request and have us also not have us cast away as a heretic by our fellow lowly human think they know it all brothers and their lowly human babysitters who grossly mislead them, since in this message of His lowly human servant I have employed all the necessary verbiage to establish that ce again today also I am no heretic, that it should be known to the lowly ears of all who hear me that I not be left without a His wonderful lowly corporeal human nation, how cherished they lowly human and corporeal are, as they are to Him, to me too, his also lowly human and corporeal, and to finish most importantly with, that you who carry this prayer for me are lowly human and corporeal too!!!
There, saved from ADA and his runaway ignorant kanaus, apparenttaught to him by someone in his world heralded as a Chacham.
Hashem Yishmor!
n0m, they are actually very much, as you put it, “controlled” in that regard.
Kolaiv davened by Kivrai haAvos “Avosai bikshu alai rachamim”
When visiting the Kever of their Rebbe Lubavitchers follow a specific proscribed customs (that they have for generations).
Among them, as relates to your comment, they include:Beforehand they all {give extra Tzedaka for, and} write a “Pidyon Nefesh”, which follows the Nusach of “ana leorer rachamim rabim baavur so&so ben/bas so&so” followed by their Bakashos..
(The huge lobby on the way into the bh”k has seating, pens & paper to use for this..)At the Kever, they all Daven from the ‘Sefer Maaneh Lashon’, during which there is a specific place/context:
יהי רצון מלפניך .. בזכות הצדיקים .. הנקברים פה .. יהיו עלי מיליצי יושר .. אמן סלה
where they read their P”N, before continuing to Daven in the Seder haTefilos.
See here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15693&pgnum=14
(At the Ohel/Kever there are shelves full of the M”L in Hebrew/Aramaic & English, and on top of the Kever there are the many P”N’s which were torn up and left once read).For those who have limited time (or who are not particular with every one of the additional customs involved) at a minimum they have a P”N in the Nusach etc, and they daven from the M”L as much as possible (certainly at least to where the P”N is read), often continuing the M”L, after having left, until they’ve finished.
So far them, the Nusach of the M”L in conjunction with that of the P”N ensconce the context of their Tefilos very clearly.
GH haposel bachaveiro.
But you’re not beyond repair either.I can’t believe you would say such a thing.
Ys:
See here for beseeching the living:
https://www.sefaria. org/Bava_Batra.116a.15?lang=biSee here for beseeching the dead:
https://www. sefaria. org/Taanit.16a.7?lang=biSee here for davening to Tzaddikim:
https://www.sefaria. org/Sotah.34b.7?lang=biFor sure see here {15-17}:
https://www.sefaria .org/Jeremiah.31.15?lang=biAlso see here for communicating with the dead:
https://www.sefaria .org/Berakhot.18b.14?lang=bi
And see here:
https://www.sefaria .org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Yoreh_De’ah.179.14?lang=bi_____
Absolutely see here:
https://www.rashbi .org/holysites-kever-rachelAnd see here for extended reading:
https://www.chabad .org/library/article_cdo/aid/562222/jewish/Is-it-okay-to-ask-a-deceased-tzaddik-to-pray-on-my-behalf.htmSee here for wishing for the dead a good feeling (תנ):
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=41862&st=%d7%a7%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%94%d7%9d&_rnd=0.27563267177930784_____
It is astounding that one would assume that Torah Yiddin, Talmidai Chachamim who have our treasured Yiddishe sensitivities would do anything but look to Torasainu HaKedosha guidance on what is Pious conduct in this regard.
So far we’re batting 100!
With regard to a related subject: “Tzaddik yesod olam”, & “Tzaddika deispatar ishtakach bechulo olmin yatir maibichayohe”!
Please remember to share with me the secret proprietary Litvish tietch for “YvOvKBH”ChH”.
Avira
You are telling people that being called Mashiach during one’s life precludes the person from being Mashiach min hamasim!
You are telling people that Rav & Rashi do not say that Mashiach can come min hamaisim!
You are apparently about to tell people that Kudisha Berich Hu is not Atzmus!
You have no idea what you said!
Mdd: “Yisrael .. vKB”H chad HU!!!”
You have no idea what you said!
Ys, you are purporting that every “non-Chabad Rov” is ignorant of a befairush Gemara in Sanhedrin (98b), with Rashi there distinctly explaining the possibility.
I simply don’t accept what you said for it being motzi Shem ra on all of Daas Torah.
Furthermore, the Abarbanel, Yeshuos Meshicho and Sidai Chemed explicitly cite that Sugya as a source allowing for Mashiach coming min hamasim.
So I simply do not accept that Daas Torah forgot a klur Sugya or would contradict the highly regarded Chachamim who explained it so plainly as to be unmistakenly applicable to Mashiach, whoever he is.
Also note that the Rebbe concluded his first Maamar with “vehu yigalainu” in reference to his father-in-law, the Previous Rebbe, already after his petira.
And to go so far as to claim “Emuna problems” and ch”vSh disregard a fellow Yid as a result is to be mechadesh Torah shelo keHalacha for which one loses their Chelek in Olam Haba. So that’s an ironic boomerang in that anyone who does so has earned by their code the very same treatment they relegated to another. Talk about “haposel bachaveiro bemumo posel”.
And make no mistake: it is not even a “fringe opinion”, but rather a bluntly clear Gemara saying in the simplest terms that Mashiach might come min hamasim, and the Rashi there clarifies it further by taking it further into the clear meaning of the Gemara, indicating that it is definitely saying possibly so!
_____Sanhedrin Daf Tzadik Yes Amud Bais:
אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
Rav says, if [Mashiach] is from the living he would be like Rabbainu HaKadosh, and if [Mashiach] is from the dead he would be like Daniel Ish Chamudos.Note: without making even the slightest of adjustments to the implication of Rav’s statement, what he is quoted as saying is obvious. That Mashiach can come from the living or the dead. It is to avoid this obvious meaning that slight adjustments would be introduced. Rashi however makes adjustments in both directions and expands it to introduce two additional implications, one of which is presented as his preferred expansion, and even further solidifies the statement as allowing for Mashiach min hamasim.
Rashi says:
אם משיח מאותן שחיים עכשיו ודאי היינו רבינו הקדוש דסובל תחלואים וחסיד גמור הוה כדאמרינן בבבא מציעא (דף פה.)
ואם היה מאותן שמתו כבר היה דניאל איש חמודות שנדון ביסורין ב אריות וחסיד גמור היה והאי כגון לאו דווקא
ל”א כגון רבינו הקדוש כלומר אם יש דוגמתו בחיים היינו רבינו הקדוש ואם דוגמא הוא למתים היינו כגון דניאל איש חמודות…if [Mashiach] was from those who have died already he was Daniel Ish Chamudos who was judged with affliction in the lion’s den and he was fully pious. And in this meaning, “he would be like” is not necessarily applied (i.e. either like, or literally)…
Rashi then goes on to offer another expansion, that Mashiach is being compared to a living or dead personality.
Note that the plain meaning of Rav’s statement lands squarely in between the primary and secondary expansions of Rashi, and persists as the original statement.
And again, the later Chachamim simply cite Rav’s statement at its face value, as indicating simply that Mashiach can fcome from the dead and be someone [else, who is] like Daniel Ish Chamudos.But it cannot be stressed enough that Rav’s statement, without adjustments, actually says “if he is from the dead … he is like …”, and Rashi draws this out to the point of demonstrating that, yes, “if Mashiach is from the dead…”.
It’s in no way a hard Gemara. And with Rashi there are three take aways, Rav’s plain statement as is, Rashi’s first introduction further reinforcing the plain implication of the Gemara, and a *secondary* explanation that keeps the living Mashiach prominent. (Arguably because Mashiach will come from both the living and maybe also the dead. I.e. He will live and be known, and die, and then return for more.)
In conclusion I would argue that during the life of Mashiach, the characteristics of R”HK are seen in him, and after his death the characteristics of Daniel Ish Chamudos are seen in him.
E.g. if the Rebbe, when he was living he was mostly seen holding Rabbinic court; now he is more and more being seen in a different light from other aspects, such as every President inaugurating his birthday, or just recently every sitting US Governor getting together in one room to celebrate his birthday one year. ..just an example of how he can be seen in his life one way and differently now. Also as his Shluchim continually proliferate and grow in leadership/prominence and wisdom it affects the perspective of him. Bringing this into limited examples doesn’t do the point justice. Certainly now each person themself can maybe perceive in different ways how now we might see that back then he was unflinching in a proverbial lion’s den, whether spiritually facing some group issuing a cherem, or physically in danger of political assasination like so many lehavdil other radical social and political leaders were met with…
…and this is only a sample..
Another approach is that his personification in Techiya would be in a similar likeness to Daniel Ish Chamudos.Replace the Rebbe with it being about someone’s righteous father and look at how heartless, cynical and bitter it shows you to be.
Looks lve RDS: Rebbe derangement syndrome.Note: All know that M”R was the humblest of all as well as the only one reaching the highest level of Nevus. But if you mean “the wisest” do know that whoever he may be, Mashiach is certainly wiser than even Sh”HM. But again, at this point I’m not expecting you to know these things.
I’ll give you credit for that last one though; since it takes some knowledge to understand it, and at this point we don’t have high expectations of you in this regard.
Yisroel veOraisa veKudisha Brich Hu chad Hu intimates that Yiddin and Torah are part and parcel with the Atzmus of the Aibishter. And the Nasi Hador (whoever he may be) is the collective manifestation thereof; being an individual representation of the whole Am, and one who embodies the ratzon penimi of a Yid which is rooted in Atzmus.
ALSO, this explains “veamaich kulam Tzaddikim” connected to “Tzaddik Hashem bechol derachav”, and “zedonos nasseh lo kezochiyos” when the shoresh/ratzon penimi of the Yid, Atzmus, is revealed.
This is also elucidated in the highest level of the Neshama, Yechida, where the yetzer hara doesn’t reach, but rather it is kulo Tov.
Again, you might not be privy to this, but know that that’s a chisaron in you, not them.
I’m sharing the above as a courtesy and responsibility, not for additional ignorance and cynicism from you. Note: the latter is more egregious and the root of arrogant challenges rooted in ignorance. You can accept the above or delve into it on your own; but certainly spare me the “I know better” about things you only first learning from me. No, you don’t know everything. And being comfortably familiar with e.g. YvOvKBH… but not what is related above is no justification for arrogant cynicism. And if you’re jaded for never having been taught such pearls, now you know the value of a Chassidishe Chinuch as opposed to one rooted in Mussar.
And now might be the time to let you know that I grew up in a cherishable Litvishe Mosad Chinuch (which one will be withheld so my ayin tov can proliferate more…); so rest assured I am not speaking from ignorance or opposition. It’s simply the nature of the two Derachim being Mussar is rooted in Yira and Chassidus is rooted in Ahava, and so their levels are inherent, in that Avoda maiAhava is the higher approach. Note: there is also Yira shebiYira, YshbA, AshbY & AshbA, so certainly no exceptions were made for each level. Also, it may be that throughout the course of our exchange my Litvishe background is more pronounced at times. I certainly would admit that it too can serve well, however we would surely both agree that this would have been more beneficial if I more consistently embodied my Chassidishe inspiration & [ever increasing] development.
Should you be interested in answering this question…:
Were you saying that if someone is called a Mashiach during their lifetime (like some Amoraim were), that one could argue that this disqualifies them from being able to be the Mashiach from Techiya?
Note: feel free to defer.
Footnote on the previous comment: I did not intend to imply that those teachings are exclusive to Chassidus; by no means; but rather simply that some teachings are reserved or veiled in some circles, while commonplace or even core study in another.
Avira, a personality cult??? Like Rebbe Akiva deciding to be a nosai kailim for Bar Kochba???
Better their dedication than your cynicism!!!
On that note, don’t be like servant who serves his master for a reward. (Your cynicism would dissipate by following this.)Hevai misabek baafar raglaihem.
Hevai shose batzama es divraihem.
…what you would call “a personality cult”!!!But for someone who isn’t accustomed to showing Kavod to Talmidai Chachamim before their very eyes, your handicap is no surprise.
Amir, you can ask the Gemara the same question. Why Daniel and not M”R or D”HM. Note that Mashiach is from shaivet Yehuda and M”R Rabbainu is from shaivet Laivi.
The answer might be that if one accepts what Rambam says Mashiach will do, along with him also coming min hamasim, he will lead a Teshuva initiative at the end of galus for example. And based on the language of Rambam it is in a natural manner, as he says “he will ‘compel’ all of Binai Yisrael to go [in the ways of Torah]”. So one may purport that it is not happening at the time of his Techiya. But even the Teshuva thing doesn’t confirm him definitely the Mashiach, it is simply a condition to assume that someone is.
So if one is presuming a Mashiach min hamasim..
Short of completing the tasks that constitute the actual culmination of his coming (building the B”HM and bringing all Yiddin to E”Y) all the preliminary identifiers (learns Torah and performs Mitzvos like D”HM, promotes Teshuva..) one would argue are his original initiative in life, and as implied happen at the end of galus. Yet being these tasks do not confirm him 100% yet, he would still be the essence of “min hamasim” if he does the two last tasks after his Techiya.So saying the Rebbe will be the one min hamasim follows the spirit of the Gemara pointing to Daniel as a min hamasim example… by identifying relevant characteristics in his life related specifically to Mashiach (in his case Rambam’s characterization), and not simply applying one’s self as the measurer of the piety of the various righteous, which seems preposterous. But rather again, based on qualifiable factors of the person’s life directly related to the initiative of Mashiach.
Footnote: based on the teaching that “even the smallest among you can revive the dead”, it may be that identifying the actual Mashiach based on the fulfilment of prerequisites (during his life), as Rambam brings, empowers his soul, and actually contributes to his Techiya, bringing about the building of the B”HM etc. Another level of “bringing Mashiach”.
Avira, so you’re saying that if someone is called a Mashiach during their lifetime (like some Amoraim were), THAT disqualifies them from being able to be the Mashiach from Techiya?
Avira,
You started out insisting that you know for sure that Mashiach can’t be min hamasim. When I showed you that you don’t know what you’re talking about you then immediately started instead insisting that if the person dies they can’t be Mashiach.Avira, the Radbaz says the first Techiya is specifically before Binyan HaMikdash. So there’s that. It sounds to me like you’re saying that as long as he doesn’t do what the Rambam lists in the first half, then he can still be Mashiach by his Techiya, but not if he is involved in any of those things. So he can do some, but FOR SURE NOT ALL of the following: study Torah and perform Mitzvos like his father D”HM, encourage Yiddin to do Teshuva, reinforce the observance of Torah, and fight battles relating to Hashem. Someone who doesn’t do these things can be Mashiach at Techiya, but not someone who does??? Notice all those things are either doing better, or getting others to do better. That you would twist a Rambam to mean that such things are not done by Mashiach in his original life is a clear shaala on your koach hapilpul. Also, Mitzvos are betailos after Techiya according to everyone, so the first chezkas Mashiach part is for sure talking about before Techiya.
Next: Rambam uses the lashon “killed” specifically three times. About Bar Kochba, also as a general reference to it as a disqualification, and about Yoshka. He never once says died. Yet according to Abarbenel he can die. And please don’t tell me as long as he doesn’t for example make Baal Teshuvaso then he can die, but as soon as he does those spiritual or literal lo saamod al dam raiecha stuff then if he does he’s excluded, but not if he does less Avodas Hashem. Because that’s what your logic means.
Not good. And again Rambam says explicitly if he was killed, because this person, in their initial life also will win through his Avoda, not lose.I’ll just address these two points because I don’t want to confuse you with too much.
Interested to hear back on how he shouldn’t have such a high level of Avodas Hashem and pertaining to the Klal too. Because pretty much that is all Rambam lists to be bechezkas…! And also how you don’t accept that Rambam might be deliniating if he is killed specifically, because Rambam says specifically veyinatzaiach. So he’s holding being killed is not a nitzachon. Oh right, also how after Techiya he is mekayem Mitzvos like Dovid HaMelech, but is not chayav in Mitzvos.
I’m surprised you come up with such stiros.
…he can’t be nogaia in certain inyanai haklal the first time around, and when Rambam chooses to refer to the cause of death three times, he also means causes that are not like the three times he said it.Right and or doesn’t mean or. He’s talking already about Yoshka who is “like all Good and Perfect Malchus Bais Dovid that died”. Notice Rambam does say died there, but not about disqualifying, not B”K, not others, and not Yoshka.
Ok, I know it’s still the same two points. I hope you can keep up with only two points at a time, and that the summation and footnote doesn’t confuse you on the way.
Ok Good.
Shalom uVracha…
A small dose of chizuk:
The Posek Hador, Reb Moshe Feinstein, was distinctly not a “misnagid”, instead he happily knew the Chabad Rebbe personally,
and he never said any mussar about the Rebbe, instead he held him in the highest regard, and he exchanged only good and positive perceptions with him and about him.
See here:
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st&pgnum=14&hilite
Also, in the previous comment I listed supposed “misnagdim”, many of whom are actually not. E.g. at BMG, I know for a fact HaRav Fourcheimer and HaRav Vochtfogel specifically were distinctly not. This just serves to highlight that I listed misleading information. And among those I listed there are ardent strengtheners of Chabad.Ok. BiTov!
n0m, I began by *simply* stating that the OU 1996 claim that there was no Torah basis for a Techiya Mashiach was incorrect.
I was met with wicked vitriol against not myself, but the Chabad Rebbe. So I took it all to task.
Thanks for supporting better exchanges. 👍🏻Avira:
Chabad is “otherising” Klal Yisroel???!
In-case you haven’t noticed it is distinctly the opposite. People, even before their Rebbe passed conjured up reasons to cast them aside. And as time went on, as long as they had a new reason and no longer felt the need to hold on to their previous ones, they eventually withdrew from claiming their earlier reasons had any validity. Nevermind that everything objected to had a clear source.
But I digress.When Lubavitchers find out that there are Gedolim who don’t side with them???
There was not one who didn’t know this. They have a term for them: “misnagdim”. And whether it’s Reb Shach, Rabbi Berger, The Satmar Rebbe, all of Telshe and BMG (at that time) Brisk, Mir faculty, every Lubavitcher knew they were “misnagdim” without even having to ask. Your supposition is pure preposterousness. As is the first one I cited herein. As here is a list that rejected Chabad, not the other way around. Chabad has always been open to their fellow Jews, and “misnagdim” saw that too as a weakness, just like they initially opposed kiruv because they said one shouldn’t interact with chotim, even if they are tinokim shenishba.Why is Chabad in such a way with their Rebbe when there’s no basis for such a manner???
I venture it’s fairly obvious, but I guess not for everyone.
We are taught not only hevai shoseh batzama es divreihem, but also hevai dovak baafar raglaihem. Certainly one can’t say they that they fulfil these directives of Pirkai Avos too much. Or would you?!The Abarbenel doesn’t say that he will be identified as Mashiach or begin the initiative before his passing…???
So! Clearly he will live first; so no matter what he does then, his Rising will be a “second coming”. Certainly one would imagine he would do no less than those very first qualifications that Rambam cites, and no less, if only out of Avodas Hashem, as every one of them is part and parcel with being a Gadol Hador by any estimation, if so inclined. Also no one said the Chabad Rebbe would return by himself. I’m not sure how you even come up with stuff yourself and then use it as an indictment as though you got it from others. 100% certainty no Chabad ever said that. And if one ever does, we already know that there are different waves of Techiya. So if someone says such a thing, even had they no basis, it is not heretical, and there would be no basis to argue against them, nevermind citing those who say that some Techiya will happen before Binyan HaMikdash and you insisting that “they didn’t say that too would happen in waves”, as if that’s a chiluk. Besides there are other sources that distinctly say there will be more than the two waves brought down there. But I digress again, and severely, because no one said such a thing!!!
Again, I see you digressing from sensibility the further you journey away from “melamed zechus”. Which reminds me, the sinas chinom which brought about the churban was because they were “melamed chova”. They weren’t veltishe haters, they were doing it in Torah. The problem was they would finagle a chova while zechus was pshat waiting for them. But they side-stepped it, in favor going “lifnim mishuras hadin” as the Gemara says. Except they were doing that on the side of chova against their fellow Yid.
You can do better.The ikar is to be melamed zechus in Torah, like I am.
Do recall that I didn’t once insist any of this on my own account. I have simply been melamed zechus for Good Fine Yidden who half an apparently Torah acceptable view, as I’ve shown.But remember, that until the Rebbe’s passing these same people were ostracized for calling him Mashiach by all the “misnagdim”, nevermind referring to him as “Melech” Ha…! Not only have they all decided now that the issue is it’s after the petira, but now that it’s not an essential point of contention, now having another one, they suddenly wouldn’t object to Rambam and Bar Kochba and Rebbe Akiva as a concrete source that it is perfectly acceptable according to Torah. As Rebbe Akiva held B”K was Mashiach with no qualms raised by anyone, and even Rambam being Moreh Horaah based on the occurrence. And Rambam himself refers to B”K as a King, indicating that Mashiach or not, in his Halacha there, B”K is a King.
Teaching of note: I personally saw a Michtav from the Lubavitcher Rebbe where he said there is no such thing as a “misnagid”, but rather (I don’t remember exactly what the following reference was, but something along the lines of..) only someone for whom it hasn’t yet been explained the background to what they object to. Don’t take the wording the wrong way. I remember the essential points being that there is no such a person, and anyone who seems like that, they can be enjoined together with their fellow Jews, despite initial perceived differences.
This simply highlights the official position of Chabad, that they do not reject or disregard ANY Jews, even those who seem to do so to them.
This is the main limud from all this, I think for us all.
Especially nowadays in our international world where we don’t have the same insulatory nature of our shtetls between us, that it is inherent that this will be the outcome. It’s just a question of who will be on the front end of the Achdus wave.LeChaim!!!
n0m, just demonstrating that those Jews who have various views have a firm basis in Torah, and they should not be portrayed as foolish or chv”Sh heretical.
On the contrary, “kol haposel bachaveiro”, those who accuse them are guilty of foolishness for speaking like they know, when they are obviously ignorant, and guilty of heresy for being mechadesh Torah shelo keHalacha.
And as I pointed out previously, I have not promoted the views I defended on the subject. I am simply revealing the Truth, that they remain upstanding Benai Torah who are holding views that are 100% supported by Mesorah.
Maybe Avira should take “hevai dun es kol ha’adam lekaf zechus” seriously, and instead of twisting sources incorrectly to support indictment of fellow Yiddin, he should obviously first seek to be melamed zechus, and even try to weave sources to find approval, though unnecessary as the sources are poshut.
Avira, STOP BEING A CHOSID SHOTEH/SONEH!!!
IT’S A POSHUT MAAMAR CHAZAL THAT YOU TRAMPLE!!!
GO BE MELAMED ZECHUS!!!STOP THE MERCILESS RISHUS!!!!!
Refuah Shelaima!!!Avira…
Looks like a mevazeh Talmidei Chachamim (The Rebbe etc), and mechadesh Torah shelo keHalacha needs help I see:Mitzad Sukkoh:
It is the singular Mitzvah where a pitur for tzar is brought down..
Note: Tzar is not [limited to] rain, rain is a geder brought designating how broad tzar is, specifically in it being a minute materialistic inconvenience, one that a person may often experience regularly, on their way etc, or working their field etc, by which a kv”ch can serve to include any greater tzar than such minute materialistic irking.
A person who experiences greater irksomeness (i.e. tzar) from rain from another activity they are permitted to refrain, without it constituting being oker the Mitzvah of Sukkah.
That Chabad eats in the Sukkah no matter the downpour and with an even greater Simchas Mitzvah if so demonstrates where you went wrong.
A Chasid, and is more irked by spiritual a spiritual issue regarding sleeping in the Sukkah than you are by the material issue of rain, has just as much Halachic allowance to sleep inside as you have to EAT inside. Even more so, sleeping is more bigeder “shev ve’al ta’aseh”, that you might have to worry that you’re so wholesome that rain wouldn’t cause you tzar, and it ends up you are eating inside without reason to! 🙂
Either way, you make a moot point.
It is not being oker a Halacha, it is following a befeirush Halacha regarding tzar that based on your previous comment you don’t understand. As clearly clarified regarding kv”ch etc, and you were mevazeh Talmidei Chachamim based on your erroneous elementary understanding and materialistic focus. (Rain is painless. Tzar is not from the raindrops, but rather it is in reference to your reaction to them.
Enough time wasted on one fraud of yours.Rambam says clearly in Perek 12 there that there will be nevuah (possibly before, and accompanying, and) as part of the identity of Moshiach. (He’ll be meyaches Yisroel etc.) He simply says in Perek 11 that this is not a condition or recognizing someone as Moshiach. Note: Also in Hilchos Yeshiva he rules against the opinion of “Ein being olam hazeh..” and cites the opposing position as Halacha. Also the Kesef Mishna states there in Hilchos Melachim that it is apparently not the maskana but a limud for the Halacha he’s supporting there with it. Also in Pirusho on Mishnah Sanhedrin Perek 10 he explicitly states that the Geulah need not and may not follow the position of “ein bein..”. It would follow that ein bein serves two needs, one that Moshiach’s nevuah and mofsim (“kiyemei tzeischa mei’eretz Mitzrayim arenu niflaos”, just like when leaving Mitzrayim, when leaving golus with Moshiach I will show you wonders..) are “on his time or at his discretion, if at all at the outset”, and two that Tzedaka must not cease (as brought in Shabbos 151 relating to the opposing opinion to “ein bein..”.
Hmm, what else did you say..
Oh right, thought a moot point considering the coming sources.. you make up that the reason Rambam listed “im lo hitzliach ad ko oh neherag” doesn’t mean “or..” but rather he was already talking about Yoshke??? and listed multiple reasons that applied to him, ..some other kind of “or”, so it follows the rest of the very same sentence follows the raisha, that he is like all Shleimim and Kosher Davidic Kings??? I think you’re the one inventing interpretations. After all Rambam says he was killed al pi B”D, so obviously not about him. Anyway, on the contrary Rambam is saying you can call someone Moshiach (like was done for ‘King Bar Kochba’ as Rambam calls him, which says a lot, also regarding how he earned the Title King by Rambam’s standard without annointing or Sanhedrin [also Rambam says “ki yaamod Melech”, no Sanhedrin involved until later..], and notwithstanding Rabbi Akiva calling him Moshiach outright even though according to Rambam that would still be bechezkas, but I guess thats enough, if he even did all the chezkas stuff.. important note!!) but only one who finishes the task is the genuine article, and if he is killed, he is not him, after all Rambam says he will fight Milchemes Hashem AND WIN, so that would explain the issue there. See sources that follow below.. You also cite this “and win” as an argument against Milchemes Hashem being an ideological war as opposed to a combat war, yet “and be victorious” would apply no less were the war ideological. Furthermore in Perek 12 Rambam himself says that Eliyahu HaNavi will [may very well] come before Moshiach’s revelation in order to make peace in the world, so it follows that Milchemes Hashem may very well be proactive debates with our now friendly neighbors, and winning them over ideologically.You insensibly suggest that “he will compel Israel to follow Torah” cannot apply to The Rebbe because of some half-witted assessment you made up… Umm.. Haha talk about sheker nochalu… Before the Rebbe there was NO kiruv movement!!! It was literally an initiative started by him. Not that no one ever found their way, but introducing to Avodas Hashem that we mikarev our “wayward” brother, rather than write him off.. all the Rebbe. Aish and the rest of the kiruv mushroomings that followed are all following his example. This alone is also “ulichazek bidka” which applies to spurring Tzaddikim etc to improve their cheshbonos, this being a great example that permeated all communities of shtarkers who considered Klal Yisroel only fellow Lomdei Torah etc.. but most varacious was your total ignoring of THOUSANDS of Kehilos established around the world where there was no makom Torah and biTahara but Yidden all over, and now EVERYWHERE there are Yidden who have joined Kehilos Kedoshos, and jokes aside, where Torah kipshuto, not Moshiach “politics” per se, is the main dish. Furthermore, while there is still much to do in Eretz Yisroel, The Rebbe and by extension Chabad are for so many “chiloñi” the only “religious people” they would consider hearing mussar from, or rather positive encouragement, which is also an advent of The Rebbe and Chabad into the Frum world by proxy, setting an example of chinuch al derech Chassidus Chabad/Ahava which is higher than Avoda meyira/mussar. But let’s skips that to avoid your ignorant quip which finally came up since barely coming up with one at the Sukkah segment. Let’s just stick with starting kiruv work, and 1000s of new Kehilos for unaffiliated Yiddin worldwide, oh and also bringing Rambam M”T to prominence. Or maybe you don’t know that not very long ago it wasn’t even considered by most a “fringe Sefer” for whoever looks in it.. if even it was known that Teimanim pasken by it.. And of course bringing Moshiach Torah in general and the very idea of us living in Ikvisa diMishicha and/or the Jewish culture to that level of Moshiach prominence, beyond Chachmei Yisroel whose Moshiach “culture” outside of Shmone Esrei and Uva Letziyon was pretty much from the Ani Maamins and memories of Shabsai Tzvi etc making any real world anything a discomfort, maybe also justifiably so from their perspective, notwithstanding Rambam and B”K and Rabbi Akiva who approve such initiatives etc (when Torah and safety is strengthened). But this is only if you remember or know what it was like before The Rebbe’s influence, transforming a post churban echo of Achake Lo, even after the est of Israel (wtvr?), to the age of excitement for what’s coming “now” soon (esp after the shoah Hashem Yishmor.
So yeah you get all the above in return to your numerous umm let’s just say effortful comments. Umm good job, for the parts that weren’t a bizoyon of your R”Y and parents.
Now to really the only thing I was initially introducing vis a vis OU in ’96 saying this stuff isn’t in Torah ..SMH.., here goes:Abarbenel:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19605&st=&pgnum=64
Last four lines before Haderech habeis!!!
Notice he not only say exactly what I indicated, but he cites Sanhedrin 98b as the source, supporting that as a basis too, as mentioned previously.Sidei Chemed:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14146&hilite=f55ab3ea-a118-4369-9af3-c6f1aa804d1e&st=%d7%9e%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%97&pgnum=190
See the right column, the line beginning with parentheses.
Both above it where he discusses Moshiach shebador, and below where he says min hameisim and how it is a higher/better coming of Moshiach.Radbaz:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=1952&st=%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA&_rnd=0.8418562216808565
See Shaila 1069 where he is clear about Techiya for Tzaddikim (Moshiach?) before Binyan HaMikdash.I would have just cited these sources if you didn’t turn this simple referencing of several sources for a basic Jewish concept that you and others call heretical and then proceed to bash any number of Torah hanhagos etc since giving false license with a baseless pisul of the most extreme kind, all out of ignorance and failure to double check one’s self before wholesale branding myriads of Kehilos Kedoshim lehavsil kofrim.
Note: I did not even posit that I thought The Rebbe to be Moshiach. But had I, it seems I would be in good company with Rebbe Akiva vechol Chachmei doro, who Rambam even cites as a valid example to learn from.
Either way, feel free to pick at fringe points that you think are weak, but are valid, while remembering that you did that already, and so far there were three sources that explicitly demonstrate my central points unimpeachable. Add B”K being cited as a King by Rambam, and I think we might even have the original “vote” hypothesis sorted, given he had no Sanhedrin or annointment, just followers and an initiative (the initiative being in relation to Moshiach not Malchus per se, so he may not even have needed that..).
I know this was long winded.
If you have any rebuttal (for your sake I would again advise thoughtful questions, ..was trying to help you there..) please keep them to one comment, and umm consider whether your sources will support the rebuttal I am sure to introduce.Yasher Koach on ummm being osek baTorah, and trying out some chidushim on me.
Hatzlacha Rabba next time around.
Avira, I did not say a Prime Minister is betur Melech. Just because he is voted in doesn’t make the position one of Malchus. The Israeli President is more like a Melech than the PM, but I didn’t say he is either. How you attribute what was not said is baffling.
And no, annoininting is not required but under certain circumstances, which if don’t apply, no annointing is necessary Again, not sure how you get your ideas.The Abarbenel on Derech Eretz Zuta most certainly allows for Moshiach from Techiyas Hamaisim. How you claim something doesn’t exist while citing the wrong source at this point doesn’t surprise me.
“Supposed” Sidei Chemed??! Clearly you didn’t even do a Google search before employing such idiotic phrasing. I’ll let you have sechar halicha to discover you can find it easily yourself, with even an English search.
It doesn’t surprise me that the Rambam went over your head, so I’ll help with this:
Rambam rules: “if he does not accomplish this much OR is killed know that he is not the one that…”
For the discerning individual: “if he does not accomplish this.much OR is killed..” is saying ‘our Moshiach will accomplish every last one of these things, and won’t be someone who was killed (but if he does, he may still), so don’t conclude it is definitely him without seeing all these things’.
. If the first statement doe ve anything to do with someone dying, as is obvious by what immediately follows “or if he was killed”, which demonstrates that this was not already included in the first statement.
2. This one might need some effort on your part.. “or” means what follows wasn’t already included. Basic logic! So the first clause DEFINITELY didn’t exclude someone who passed (only to then say or *someone who passed in some specific particular manner*!!!
So like Rambam says in the previous Halacha, he must build the Bais HaMikdash and gather all the Jews, so even building the B”H is not the definitive (so if he passes, he may return and gather, and should he do so then he will be definitively known to be the one the Torah promised).Also see the previous Halacha there where Rambam gives a different list for who can qualify to be considered Moshiach. And he follows with the full objective which confirms an assumed individual. And he adds (that quoted above) that the Moshiach Torah promised is not someone who qualifies and is considered Moshiach, but someone who also follows through with the rest of the mission.
Lastly, you are missing PSHAT again. Rashi says “kegoin” Daniel, meaning not Daniel necessarily, but a similar individual; meaning he did not make any reference to when the person might live. The insinuation that Rashi indicates someone in that time is totally made up, especially since Rashi is saying it hundreds of years later. Furthermore, like I pointed out, Rambam says specifically what qualifies someone to be considered Moshiach even before the B”HM is built, go see Hilchos Melachim ch 11. Clearly you can learn more before you assume to correct.
The main question relating to there is: does “fighting Hashem’s battles” mean actual physical war, or ‘Hashem’s battles’ means spiritual battles. For earlier there Rambam refers to Milchemes Rishus and Milchemes Mitzvah, so this is seemingly something else. Fighting for Emunah, an ideological war…
Either way, your comment from beginning to end shows you should consider what another is saying *from their perspective* before you rush with a reply. So take this again from the top, and see what I see, before you try to imply that *I am not the one understanding*.
If you can see my view and you want to point out something, try asking a thoughtful question.And again, the Sidei Chemed and the Abarbenel
DEFINITELY say Moshiach can come via T”HM. And Rambam DEFINITELY only excludes one who was killed.See also Or HaChaim, Parshas Balak, on Bamidbar 24:17, “A star shall shoot forth from Yaakov”: “If Binei Ysrael are found worthy, Mashiach will be revealed from heaven.”
Hatzlacha Rabba!
To the commenter who cited OU in 1996 that there was never a shita in Torah that Moshiach can come from Techiyas Hameisim:
1. Rashi Sanhedrin 98b (apparently allows for it)
2. Rambam (only disqualifies someone who was killed)
2. Abarbenel Sefer Yeshuos Meshicho (definitely promotes it)
3. Sefer Sidei Chemed (indicates it is preferable)About voting for a King/Moshiach:
It is a Mitzvah Aseh for each person ‘Som tosim alecha Melech’, arguably indicating that “voting” is a valid method to appoint a King in that it constitutes each person’s fulfilment of the Mitzvah.
OP: I think the terms you may be looking for are Ahuv and Ahuva, as in “my beloved”.
Besuros Tovos…