Forum Replies Created
I have thought about this quite a bit over the last day and the problem as I see it is that the Lubavicher rebbe puts together 2 and 2 and come up with results that he wants to. (My use of the present tense is not meant to signify that I believe he is alive 🙂 )
There is no Hakhel nowadays, and the year is not any more special that any other year, but we now have thousands of lubavichers BELIEVING that it is different (and perhaps more holy – I’m not sure about that), and that there is an inyan in making gatherings all year long.
Even when Hakhel did take place it was a once-off affair and did not last any longer than it took for the king to read sefer Devarim. (Perhaps there were other additional tefillos that I don’t know about. Please excuse my ignorance.) The year itself carried no more significance.
Ask a lubavicher and he will surely tell you that the year is special, even nowadays.
(I realise that I’m on my soapbox now, but why waste the opportunity…) It’s the same as lubavichers not sleeping in the sukkah. It doesn’t concern me that they don’t – why should it be my business? But what does concern me is that many lubavichers don’t even know that it says in Shulchan Aruch Harav that you have to, and that they consider those of us who do sleep there ignorant!
Another example is not eating Shalosh Seudos. I was told by a prominent lubavicher some years ago that to eat Shalosh Seudos is a “kulo al pi chassidus”.
In a nutshell, do whatever you want, but for Heaven’s sake stop claiming that your aberrations are the best way. They are not.
Thank you GadolHadofi and SyagLChochma for explaining my point so clearly. Just to reiterate, the problem that I see, and I have seen many times in the past, is that Lubavichers tend – and from my experience it is intentional – to push the view that what their rebbe said has to be accepted by all as correct and the obviously proper way to lead one’s life. Most of the chareidi world do not accept that.
Mo’adim lesimcha and a gut kvittel
Why are lubavichers always trying to push their own agenda as if it’s standard and accepted?
There is no such thing, and there never has been, as “Shnas Hakhel” in reference to anything other than the fact that it is an easy way to refer to the year following Shmittah, due, of course, to Hakhel taking place then on Sukkos.
A quick search of the latest version of the Responsa database shows that the expression Shnas Hakhel appears in the entire database only four times, with the earliest being from the Chida. And even that is only in reference to the event itself taking place that year.
There is also no reference to the importance of a gathering on Sukkos.
If the Lubavicher rebbe wanted to have his chassidim do something in memory of Hakhel, that’s fine with me, but it’s just another case of lubavich inventing something that the entire world is expected to agree with.
“So nobody complain if lubavitchers call their Rebbe the nasi hador. That’s our title.”
As I have written in the past in response to our erstwhile poster chabadshluchah there is a difference. The concept of gadol hador is well-known and has always been well-accepted. The concept of nasi has not been in existence for many many centuries, and has no meaning. It was adopted by lubavich – possibly because no one else uses it – to indicate that their rebbe is the undisputed and unparalelled leader of the generation. Something that many of us totally disagree with.
Also, what do you mean by “when he is not alive physically”. Why can’t you just say “not alive”? That always means physically by Yidden.
keraveltheint, once again thanks for the source. Tanya does indeed say it the way you put it!
Btw I note that at the end of that letter the Baal Hatanya writes that after his petira Moshe Rabbeinu’s neshama went into the 600,000 neshamos of Klaly Yisroel in each generation, something which in another much much much longer thread I argued was what was meant by “ispashtusa deMoshe bechol doro”, That is, the Zohar does not seem to be saying that in each generation there is only one person with the neshomoh of Moshe Rabbeinu, as has been claimed elsewhere.
keraveltheint, thanks for the source in Zohar.
What it seems to be saying to me – and no, I don’t claim to be even a lower-level mekubal – is that when he’s alive a tzaddik is in this world, Olam Ha’asiyah, while after his passing and leaving this world (that’s what the Zohar seems to be saying “d’ispater mehai alma”) he is found in all of the [upper] three worlds.
Is that the way you understand it too?
keraveltheint to me: “If you would kindly take the time to read the posts above, you would see that the statement “tzadikim run the world” does not mean what you’re saying it means. “Tzadikim running the world” simply means that through their influence of the Jewish people they, in turn, influence how Hashem chooses to relate to the world and which hashpaos Hashem chooses to give the world. ”
True, no lubavicher here actually said it about his rebbe, but you did quote the following from the Toldos Aharon Rebbe, and you were using it to support the belief in the lubavicher rebbe:
“The Rebbe Shlit”a explained, That he would hear often from him (HaRebbe of Dzhikov), that for tzadikim the strength is given from Shomayim to run the world how they desire it to be run, they hold the world in their hands…”
That certainly seems to me to mean that if the tzaddik wants Mashiach to come there is nothing to stop him.
Another thing I’d like clarified: can the concept that a dead tzadik is more “powerful” than a live tzadik be found in sources other than lubavich?
One point that no one seems to have brought up is that if tzaddikim, and in particular the lubavicher rebbe, runs the world, why is it that mashiach has not come?
The fact is that a while before he had his first stroke he said that he had done everything in his power to bring mashiach, and that now it was up to the chassidim. If he “ran the world” then literally EVERYTHING would have been in his power and mashiach would have been here. But I believe that unfortunately he isn’t, even according to all lubavichers.
Also I notice that hml has not replied to my asking for a source that says that “it is incumbent of (sic) every generation to search for Moshiach of their time. Ze hu.”
It’s not as important as my first point above, but it is important to me to know whether we are once again dealing with a lubavicher who can’t admit that he is wrong.
Grey matter asked an important question, but the answer, I believe, is quite simple.
We are instructed to have emunas chachomim, and that means to believe in those who seem to be chachomim/tzaddikim until we know otherwise. Yes, sometimes we make mistakes, and sometimes (rarely) someone who was a chochom/tzaddik can go off, but until we KNOW that we have to deal with the chazokoh that he hasn’t. If that wasn’t the case we would have total anarchy with everybody doing “hayoshor b’einov”.
hml: “But it is incumbent of every generation to search for Moshiach of their time. Ze hu.”
Ze hu, says who?
Where does it say it is incumbent of (sic) every generation to search for Moshiach of their time? I don’t believe it says it anywhere other than in recent lubavich sources, but I’m willing to be proven mistaken if I am.May 21, 2019 12:22 am at 12:22 am in reply to: When did Chabad become a Kiruv oriented Chassidus? #1729892
I’ve been keeping out of this until now when I couldn’t resist.
Here’s what Chossid wrote:
“Chabad is not a kiruv organization, nor did it ever call it’s a kiruv organization, (the name came from litvaks) it’s a “reviling Hashem” organization”
I think I agree wholeheartedly!
Anyusername: “Btw isnt someone that twists the words of chazal an “am haaretz”? Meaning he doesnt know how to learn which is why he’s twisting them?”
No, I don’t think so. Someone who misinterprets the words of Chazal because he doesn’t understand them we might call an am haaretz. But someone who twists the words of Chazal to come up with a result they want for their own personal reasons is closer to an apikorus.
Anyusernamd: “Now not to proof it from the wording in the abarbanel because in that we have our own opinions, but I think from the artscroll which looks pretty clear. Would be better (Which is also why I brought the artscroll to begin with. As I mentioned the first time.)”
Quoting a footnote in an Artscroll to “prove” what the Abarbanel means is very weak, and makes me think that you didn’t see the Abarbanel inside. Had you seen it inside you would never have written that he said what you said he did.
Note, you quoted Rashi as a proof where he clearly is not, as you seem to have accepted (although not chas Veshalom admitted) and you quoted a Maharsho as proof where he clearly is not, and you have never addressed that.
You also told us that your rebbe is ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech because he is ben achar ben from the Metzudos who was ben achar ben from Dovid. Neither of those claims have been validated at all.
So overall, you can’t really expect me to take your claims too seriously.
Anyusername to me: “Quote “I haven’t called anyone an am haaretz yet,”
You are correct,
as far as I know you never used the term “am haaretz” but you have used a few terms which have the same or very similar definition as an am haaretz”
I admit that I don’t remember everything that I have written, but I don’t think I have. I have used the term apikorsus which is far worse, but totally unrelated, to am haaretz. And I still believe that people who twist divrei Chazal and Rishonim are close to apikorsim, if not there already, because out of their own desires they are willing to discard Chazal and Rishonim.
Don’t get me wrong. No one here is claiming to be perfect. But there’s a big difference between saying “I do aveiros R”L” and “Chazal/Rishonim agree with me” when there is absolutely no question that they don’t. The former is someone who (hopefully only occasionally) gives in to his yeter horo. The latter is megaleh ponim batorah shelo kehalocho.
And now for one of your better and most amusing lines: “Now that we finished this topic…”
! ! ! !
Anyusername: “He very clearly disagrees with rashi
Rashi says only doniel
Abarbanel says even this other person”
NO! Rashi says that the Gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b can only be talking about Doniel himself (according to the opinion there that moshiach may be someone who died). Rashi DOES NOT say that there are no other maamorei Chazal that say someone else who died is moshiach.
The Abarbanel is explaining the Yerushalmi in Brochos.
They are not disagreeing because they are not discussing the same maamorei Chazal.
But… there is no Rashi anywhere in Shas that says that maybe someone else who has died could be moshiach, and that you can pick whoever you want. And you have not showed me where the Abarbanel says that moshiach can be anyone who has died other than that child mentioned in Yerushalmi. As I’ve said, perhaps the Abarbanel does say it, but no one yet has shown me where. And perhaps Rashi himself held, based on other maamorei Chazal, that moshiach could be someone who has died, but no one has shown me where he says it.
But I like the way you have abandoned your “proof” from Rashi and act as if you never quoted that Rashi as a source. Nice lubavich footwork!
And you haven’t mentioned your “proof” from the Maharsho there either…
BBO: “Rso, your holding the abarbanel the same way a mishichist holds a rambam”
yehoshuaahron: “Rav Solovechik … learned the first Sichos and mamor of The Rebbe when he took on the Nesius where the Rebbe Zt’l says explicitly The Fridiker Rebbe will take us out of galus (after his histalkus) and speaks of the Zohar quoted about Atzmus.”
Source please. Btw a non-lubavich source would do nicely.
“Tell where exactly to find this 1979 “Atzmus Sicha” to check what it actually says please”
It’s on page 8 of this thread, and it says much worse than you seem to think.
yehohuaahron, citing a list of family names that are descended from Dovid Hamelech means nothing. First, because in many cases it is an unproven claim. Second, because many people with those family names are descended through females. Take the lubavicher rebbe, for example. He is ben achar ben from the Tzemach Tzedek whose father was an Altshuler. Yet his family name was Shneerson. So family names don’t prove a lot.
You will also find, unfortunately, that there are goyim with those family names as well, as they are descended patrilineally from those families. I have a friend who was in business in the States with a goy whose family name was… Shneerson. Rachmono litzlon!
Anyusername in reference to LMT (and giving me a compliment in the course of the discussion): “The difference i see between you and @rso is, that @rso at least argues with the concept at hand, if its relevant or not, you on the other hand give me the impression of stam an am haaretz that argues on random things that have nothing to do with the argument but rather just to ignite a fire”
Nope. Not true at all. All his arguments are logical and learned, despite me not agreeing with his view on not needing a rebbe. I haven’t called anyone an am haaretz yet, but you have told me more than once that I can’t read a gemoro and now you have called LMT an am haaretz. I think that after seeing all your misquotes and miscitations the shoe is really on the other foot.
In fact, I don’t even believe that you yourself saw the Sdei Chemed or the Abarbanel before you quoted them.
Anyusername: “so hears how you can look at it
according to rashi no
according to abbarbanel yes”
You can look at it any way you want, but there’s absolutely no reason to say that Abarbanel disagrees with Rashi from what the Abarbanel writes, and we have a klal that we avoid saying there is a machlokes where possible.
Furthermore, and more to the point, you wrote that according to Rashi it is OK to say your rebbe, who has died according to most authorities, is moshiach. I said that it is not what Rashi is saying. Now you say that the Abarbanel – whom you say holds moshiach can be from the dead – is arguing with Rashi. So you are backtracking and changing your mind about Rashi.
That is fine, as I believe everyone on this thread will agree that I have proven that Rashi’s commentary to Sanhedrin 98b does not allow one to say that anyone who is dead can be moshiach other than Doniel. But you have still avoided writing that you were wrong about Rashi.
I don’t need the ego boost of you saying you were wrong. Aderaba, I am enjoying the fact that, as is the case with nearly 100% of lubavichers on this and other threads, the cardinal rule in lubavich is “Never admit you were wrong”! It makes for fun reading.
LMT: “The Lubavitcher Rebbe spent ten years in Berlin and Sarbonne”
The Sorbonne is a prestigious university in Paris, and until it was proven the the lubavicher rebbe did not attend it, it was a standard lubavich claim that he attended there. Research has shown that he attended a polytechnic in Paris and not the Sorbonne.
And that is why, BBO, I wondered whether he had indeed attended Schrodinger’s lectures. Much of their “history” is made up.
It makes no difference to me whether he attended Schrodinger’s lectures or didn’t, or whether he enjoyed them or didn’t. I am just extremely reticent to believe any of their claims.
sam: “Nobody will be won over to the other side anyway, so why waste your time with Divrei Havala?”
That’s a good question, but there is an equally good answer.
There are a lot of people who “believe” that the lubavicher rebbe is moshiach because they have been force-fed and brainwashed to believe it by all the crazy claims made by lubavichers. It may be too late for them, but putting forward the ludicrousness, falseness and danger of this view may prevent others falling into the spiritual pit.
Anyusername: “In your words you can say the abarbanel is arguing with rashi”
You’ve gotten it wrong again. The Abarbanel is quoting a Yerushalmi whose veracity, he points out, is seen as problematic by a number of meforshim. So he explains how that Yerushalmi need not be problematic.
One of the points he mentions is that according to the Yerushalmi this “moshiach” would have to return from the dead. So he writes that that is not a problem as in Sanhedrin there is also a way of learning (as Rashi says) that moshiach is Doniel who has died.
Nowhere that I saw even hint that one can say that a different dead person is moshiach – not according to the Bavli or according to the Yerushalmi.
One major point: even were there to be a clear source saying that one can choose someone who is dead and believe that he is moshiach, that wouldn’t stop us saying that your rebbe CAN’T be moshiach. There were too many problems with him, not the least of which is the atzmus sicha. We said this when he was alive and ALL of lubavich were claiming that moshiach HAD TO be someone alive.
Anyusername, I saw that part in the Abarbanel and it’s also not relevant to your point.
The Yerushalmi has a story told by an Arab about a child being born on the day of the Churban and then disappearing. The story says that he is moshiach.
The Abarbanel is saying that don’t ask a kasha how can the GEMORO says he is moshiach if he died as in Sanhedrin 98b there is also an opinion that moshiach is DONIEL who has died. So both gemoros allow it in line with their respective views. The Yerushalmi can accept that it was that child, and the Bavli can accept that it was Doniel.
None of the above, however, gives you the right to add a third person to the list.
Btw at least now I understand the mistake you are making, but look it up dispassionately and you will see that what I am writing is the correct pshat.
BBO: “the lubavitcher attended his lectures in university and later remarked that he especially enjoyed his lectures”
Where did he attend his lectures? Did he write or talk about it publicly?
Anyusername: “you asked a few questions which i feel i answered to the best of my ability”
Yep. To the best of your ability!
Anyusername: “again, you’re not proving to me that what im saying is against pshat you’re just basing it on the fact that im learning it different than you, which is fine – we both have an opinion. but to say that it is against pshat is wrong to say”
NO! NO! NO! I am saying that if you say that the gemoro in Sanhedrin, and the Rashi there, allows you to say that any person OTHER THAN DONIEL who has died is moshiach, you don’t know how to translate. We’re not talking about a machlokes. We are talking about you not listening to what Rashi is saying, either intentionally or because you don’t know how to translate.
I’ll do it for you here (sorry to all those who can translate Rashi on their own for the length of this post), and if you still have trouble getting it maybe you can get someone to help you:
אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש
[Quote from the Gemoro:] If he is from the living, like Rabbeinu Hakadosh
אם משיח מאותן שחיים עכשיו
[Rashi’s explanation:] If moshiach is of those that are currently alive
ודאי היינו רבינו הקדוש
he is certainly Rabbeinu Hakadosh
דסובל תחלואים וחסיד גמור הוה כדאמרינן בבבא מציעא (פה א)
who suffers illnesses, and he was a complete chossid, as we say in Bovo Metzia 85a.
ואם היה מאותן שמתו כבר
And if he was from those who have already died
היה דניאל איש חמודות
it was Doniel Ish Chamudos
שנדון ביסורין בגוב אריות וחסיד גמור היה
who was judged with tribulations in the lions’ den, and he was a complete chossid.
והאי כגון לאו דווקא
[Rashi now clarifies how, according to this explanation, the Gemoro uses the term “כגון”, which means “like”, when the Gemoro is in fact referring to two specific people and not anyone “like” them:] This “כגון” is not being used in a precise manner.
Another explanation [of the Gemoro]
כגון רבינו הקדוש
“Like Rabbeinu Hakadosh”
כלומר אם יש דוגמתו בחיים היינו רבינו הקדוש
Meaning to say, if there is a similarity to moshiach among the living [i.e. if there is someone alive (when the statement was made) to whom moshiach can be compared] it is Rabbeinu Hakadosh.
ואם דוגמא הוא למתים היינו כגון דניאל איש חמודות
And if moshiach is to be compared to someone dead, then he is like Doniel Ish Chamudos.
Now you have two choices:
1. Show me where and how I have mistranslated, or failing that
2. Show me how saying anyone who has died other than Doniel can be moshiach fits in with that Rashi, as you said it does.
Anyusername: “i think any normal person assumes moshiach is the greatest person and not some beggar on the street”
And the above is your reply to my pointing out that in the times of the Ari z”l there was also the Beis Yosef and other gedolei Yisrael of incredible stature?!
Anyusername: “how were they able to say to say the arizal was moshiach did he fit the rambams critiria?
did the teacher of the rama fit the critiria?
did all the other people that were thought to be moshiach fit the full critiria?”
I would assume that the answer to all three is yes. Had they not been thought to have fit the criteria their talmidim would not have thought they were moshiach (I haven’t heard that the Rema’s rebbe was assumed to be moshiach, but that could be just plain ignorance on my part.)
As I’ve written before, the groups that you have mentioned weren’t baseball fans who decided that their team was the best simply because that was the one they rooted for. Comparing your ridiculous proofs that your rebbe was/is moshiach to the unknown reasons behind the assumption of the Ari z”l’s talmidim is denigrating to them.
Anyhow, how could they have thought that their rebbe was moshiach when Beis Moshiach = 770 in gematria, and their rebbes in all likelihood didn’t live in a house numbered 770?
Something I just recently thought of.
If, according to the lubavicher claim, a talmid/chossid is meant to believe that his rebbe is moshiach, what did the chassidim of the Chozeh of Lublin do? He was a Levi.
And what did the Radomsker chassidim do, as their rebbes were Kohanim?
There must be many other examples.
Anyusername: “This is where this line comes in: for those that want answers there are answers, for those that dont want they will never find no matter what you say.”
We takkeh don’t want answers. We want you to give up your crazy heretical ideas and see the truth.
You could use your statement just as well if you were a xian trying to convince us to convert c”v.
Anyusername: “25 yrs ago because we didnt have to go down that path, meaning no one said it definitely cant be from the dead”
Were you born and old enough to remember what was being said by lubavichers before 3 Tammuz? I was and I remember the standard line was that each generation has to have someone fit to be Moshiach, and in our generation the only living person that fits that bill is the rebbe. So the accepted premise was that moshiach defintitely has to be alive.
I can believe I missed this:
SHY asked “Where does a person develop such a deeply rooted animosity toward a Tzaddik, and an entire Tzibbur of Yereim U’shleimim??”
The topic of discussion is WHETHER the “entire Tzibbur” with their views can be considered “Yereim U’shleimim”, so your criticism doesn’t really apply.
Anyusername: “What I take from this is that they assumed that moshiach is the greatest person in that generation and they said Who is greater then the a arizal – if they felt there was someone greater then the arizal they would have said that it was that person”
That is a very big jump from the quote. The Sdei Chemed says that in every generation there is someone muchshar – fit – to be the Moshiach, and you somehow think that that gives the right to any person/group to choose whoever they think is the greatest of that generation. But he Sdei Chemed doesn’t even say that his talmidim held he was the greatest of the generation. Don’t forget we are talking of the generation of the Beis Yosef and other gedolei Yisroel of such great stature.
According to the Rambam, a person can theoretically be the greatest of his generation, but if he is not ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech (and btw in Peirush Hamishnayos the Rambam says that has to be ben achar ben from Shlomo Hamelech too) he is not muchshar/fit to be Moshiach.
I have already pointed out that there is absolutely no proof of any sort that your rebbe was ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech (via Shlomo) (that was another case where you “proved” he was by telling us he was descended from the Metzudas Dovid, despite there being no source that the MD was descended from Dovid Hamelech!) so you have no right to believe that he is muchshar/fit to be Moshiach.
If your rebbe was still alive (as the Sdei Chemed which you brought to the table says, a person who has died cannot be Moshiach) I would not have that great a problem with you saying that your rebbe is the greatest person of his generation, and as far as his tzidkus is concerned, he is fit to be Moshiach. I would totally disagree with every part of the statement, and I would think you are deluded, but I would not say that you are saying something against the Torah. But when you say you your rebbe is a candidate for Moshiach based on your perception of him without even knowing whether he fits the Rambam’s criteria, I do have a great problem, because it means that you will fit into the Torah whatever conclusion you want. And that isn’t very different to the Reform movement.
And, to top it off, he has died!
Anyusername: ““Begining of Footnote 42: If the Messiah is currently alive, he is certainly Rebbi. If the Messiah is someone who has a ready died, he is Daniel. (Abarbanel explains that it is possible for the Messiah to be among the resurrected (Yeshuos Meshicho lyun 2 ch. 1).)”
the abarbanel says nothing about being doniel rather about being from the dead”
Once again you have either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood what YOU have quoted. The gemoro says (quoting your post above) “If the Messiah is someone who has a ready died, he is Daniel”. Note, only Doniel, no one else who has died. Then quoting Artscroll (so I was right in concluding that you haven’t seen the Abarbanel inside!) you have “Abarbanel explains that it is possible for the Messiah to be among the resurrected”. Abarbanel may simply be ANSWERING how the Gemoro can say that Doniel will be Moshiach as Doniel has already died, so he EXPLAINS that although Doniel has died he can still be Moshiach once resurrected.
From the above there is absolutely no indication that the Abarbanel allows the possibility of someone else who has died to be Moshiach.
Now I haven’t read the entire sefer or even the entire chapter, but I’ve clearly read the more of the original than you have, and I haven’t found where the Abarbanel even hints that someone other than Doniel who has died may be Moshiach. Maybe he says it – I don’t know. But you say with certainty that he says it and I would like to see it inside in the original. So please find where it is clear cut and quote the original.
“The point is that there are opinions that say moshiach can come from the dead.”
I’m still waiting for an actual quote of some of those opinions. I’m not saying they aren’t out there, I just want to see it in the original Loshon Kodesh.
Anyusername to me: “The one who is warping things here in mefoshim is you. we both clearly saw sdei chemed/abarbanel and you, that can’t take a loss are twisting it in such a way that even I couldn’t do
Even if I tried”
I saw that the Sdei Chemed did NOT say that you’re supposed to claim that your rebbe is Moshiach, yet you wrote that that’s what he said. Quote please, and prove me wrong.
I saw that the Abarbanel did NOT say that the talmidim claimed their rebbes were Moshiach. What did you see? You claim he writes that Moshiach can come from the dead. Maybe he does. I didn’t deny it because I haven’t learnt the entire sefer. I don’t believe you’ve learnt it at all because you quoted an Artscroll as a source. Quote please to prove yourself right.
I said, many times, that Sanhedrin 98b and Rashi and the Maharsho there, which you cited, gives you no right to claim that anyone who has died can be Moshiach other than Doniel. You rant and rave and tell me I can’t learn gemoro. Fine. Show me where it says it. NOTE: from the Gemoro, Rashi and/or the Maharsho there, which is what you quoted. Don’t bring me other sources. Although I will be grateful if you can qote a source that any other dead person can be Moshiach.
Anyusername: “What I was trying to say just flew way over your head”
So what, pray tell, did you actually mean?
Anyusername: “(The term supposed was used in the same way I assumed u use the term apikorses – just trying to bring out your point in a very strong way)”
I just realized what you were saying with that, and I don’t believe a word you’re saying! The entire time you were trying to prove that it is accepted and expected practice to think that one’s rebbe is Moshiach, and now you say disingenuously that when you said a talmid “is supposed to” you meant something else.
Does anyone out there believe him?
Anyusernamr: “Btw do you know the history of the rambam – yes he was called a kofer, ppl burned his seforim, and made up alot of things about him………..”
And do you remember the story of yoshke/S”T/Mendelsohn/Geiger etc? If someone being called a kofer is a proof that he is not, we should all have xmas trees!
Just because B”H Klal Yisroel decided that the Rambam was not a kofer does not mean that no one should be called a kofer.
SHY: “A common theme on some of these threads is, “Why can’t I directly ask Hashem for my needs, and of what use is a Rebbe, who needs a go between, I have a straight line with Hashem”
The different variations of those Taanos have been around since the dawn of Chassidus, some more elequently expressed, many less so. This is what the Rebbe is answering.”
If that would be true then there would be no need to have a sicha explaining atzmus in a guf and a rebbe not being a memutza. A simple answer that “a tzaddik’s prayers on your behalf are more likely to be accepted” would suffice, and their would never have been any room for anyone to make a mistake with the atzmus in a guf concept. A mistake that can, and occasionally does, veer into kefira (Who remembers the “Who Elokeinu? The rebbe, that’s who!”) would never have been justifiable by anyone.
SHY: “Please tell me which Rosh Yeshiva or Godol “owns you”. Where is the production line that produces Sonei Yisrael as yourself? Or perhaps you are a “special edition”…
Where does a person develop such a deeply rooted animosity toward a Tzaddik, and an entire Tzibbur of Yereim U’shleimim??”
Come on. This has been rehashed so many times over both threads. Whenever someone accuses a lubavicher of disortion, falsifying or the like they are accused on being a sonei chabad or a sonei Yisroel.
Answer the questions satisfactorily and you will be listened to. The method of labeling others as sonim just makes them (us?) feel totally justified in believing that you have no answers.
Chossid: “Mods nice for checking to zatzal.
Can you also change next time someone says the Rebbe is “dead” to the Rebbe “past away”?.
Out of respect please.”
Major difference. One is untrue. The other is true just not an expression that you’re happy with.
Anyusername: “Btw why did each one have to find a makor in Torah finding that thier rebbes name fits with moshiach ??
Why did they care if it was their rebbe?”
Where does anyone say that they cared that it was their rebbe?!
This is like the tenth instance when you want a source to say something so you decide that it does, and then you prove something from it! NOWHERE does it say that they were referring to their rebbe himself. The Abarbanel clearly says that they were referring to attributes.
And I am sick of researching YOUR resources for you and then being told that you didn’t mean that. Instead of quoting me an Artscroll source, YOU post the exact wording of the Abarbanel and tell us what you are proving from it.
Just for the record, you will not find any post of mine saying that Moshiach can’t be from someone who has died. You WILL find me saying that if you are just going to base yourself on Sanhedrin 98b then you it is warped and (at least close to) apikorsus to say that since the Gemoro says it’s Doniel I can say its the lubavicher rebbe.
You will also find me saying that there is absolutely no chance – and you may also possibly find me saying that there never was any chance – that the lubavicher rebbe is/was Moshiach. I reiterate that in light of the sicha that was posted where your rebbe says that “based on a hergesh” you can daven to a human.
But I have to give it to you. You are a true lubavicher (oxymoron?) because when a claim you made is shot down in flames you just ignore it and say you claimed something else.
You specifically claimed that the Sdei Chemed says that a talmid is SUPPOSED to think his rebbe is Moshiach. I looked it up and said that he DOES NOT say that. You have conveniently ignored that.
So there’s one thing I have to agree with TomimTihyeh: I have your number!
(Just sent this through but not sure it went, so resending. My apologies if applicable.)
Anyusername: “i brought the sdei chemed is to show how when a tzadik is alive hes student are supposed to believe that he is moshich (quote part of it – כתבו ג״כ תלמידי האר״י ז״ל שבימיו הי׳ האר״י ז״ל) – something which i tried saying before which you couldn’t agree with”
Everybody on this thread please read the quote above of Anyusername before going futher, because I have had more than enough of this distortion, warping, and סילוף of divrei Torah and I would like to eradicate it once and for all.
The section in question starts on volume 5 page 2984 and goes for almost page. NOWHERE, NOWHERE, NOWHERE (yes, I am shouting) does it say that “STUDENTS ARE SUPPOSED” to believe that their rebbes are Moshiach!
And to assume that the talmidei Ari z”l said that he was the Moshiach of his time because he was their rebbe is outright chutzpah! Do you really believe that Reb Chaim Vital and his colleagues zecher tzaddikim livrocho were so petty that they “rooted” for their rebbe because they happened to be his talmidim. If they claimed he was the moshiach of his day it was because they knew that he had ALL the necessary qualifications. Not fictional descent from Dovid Hamelech, not inane statements like “He was the nossi”, not ridiculous gematriyos like Beis Moshiach = 770.
You are turning the talmidei Ari z”l into a group of baseball fans R”L!
And as to the Abarbanel which you miscite (I made that word up because I think it will get a lot of usage when it comes to arguing with lubavichers): after explaining that the Mishnah davka says that שמו של משיח was created on erev Shabbos, and not Moshiach himself, as it is referring to various characteristics of Moshiach, he then cites the Gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b where the talmidim cited the names of Moshiach as similar to that of their rebbes:
ואין ספק שכל אחד מהחכמים האלה היה דורש טוב לעצמו ומיחס שם המשיח כשמו כי דבי ר’ שילא קראוהו שילה בשם רבם…
Once again, HE DOES NOT WRITE that students should believe their rebbes are Moshiach, and he does not even say that those students did believe as much. (And again, if those talmidim would have believed as much it would NOT have been based on lubavich-like manufactured fictitious characteristics.)
So I suggest that you either put up or shut up. Either show me sources that say what you claim they say, or slink off into the sunset.
Enough of the apikorsishe warping of holy sources in order to justify your ludicrous beliefs.
(Btw I am now ready for you to tell me once again that I don’t know how to open a safer (sic) or understand a piece of gemoro. That seems to be your only defence.)
Could someone please post me a source for the atzmus sicha?
Anyusername, I finally got hold of a שדי חמד and found the source you are citing. What does this have to do with your manner of “explaining” (read: distorting) the Gemoro and saying that in Sanhedrin 98b it says that a dead person OTHER THAN DONIEL can be Moshiach.
Furthermore, allow me to quote the Sdei Chemed in that very section:
וצריך להיות בכל דור הא’ הראוי אם יזכו הוא יהי’ השליח ע”י אלי’ ואם לא יזכו יהי’ כשאר הצדיקים בלא הפרש ובמת ר”ל אחד צ”ל אחר בדור במקומו שיהי’ ראוי ע”ד דאמרו בקידושין ע”ב וזרח השמש ובא השמש כו’ יעו”ש
Note: the Sdei Chemed says explicitly that if the person of a generation who was suitable to be Moshiach DIES (he does not say “killed” as many lubavichers try to claim based on the lashon of the Rambam) then someone else in the generation takes his place.
So if you believe that the lubavicher rebbe died, then according to the Sdei Chemed (the edition I’m using is published by none other than the lubavicher publishing house which at the time was under the direction of the then future, now late, lubavicher rebbe, who even signs his name at the end of the introduction) you have to believe that someone else alive is the suitable candidate. And if you believe he is still alive… you are at best a looney and at worst an apikorus.
Anyusername to me: “I guess your smarter then the chasam sofer, sdei chemed”
No. But it makes me smart enough not to rely on anything you don’t directly copy and paste because of the way you have warped pshat in Rashi and the Maharsho. As I wrote you: present what they say and I’ll probably look at it. Citing names in the past has just shown you to be a falsifier.
Syag replying to Anyusername: “So aside from the host giving hakaras hatov for all that he benefitted, im confused why you thought this was a good thing to bring up as support from the velt.”
What’s the confusion? Clearly Anyusername is the type of lubavicher who can hear someone say it’s hot outside and cite it as a proof that it’s cold.
Chossid addressing Neville and myself: “Have you learned the sicha yet?”
No, and I have no intention of it. In fact, it doesn’t make a difference to me what he says. The fact remains that ON PRINCIPLE no lubavichers sleep in the sukkah, and that is against Chazal and halocho. I don’t care what type of spin your rebbe put on it.
The crazy heter about being mitzta’er because, unlike the rebbe, one can fall asleep, is ridiculous and was dealt with at length in the “Geula” thread. Please read all 40+ pages and stop reiterating the old garbage.
Anyusername: “@rso did you look in all the merforshim I quoted? Or did you not got that far in learning?”
No. I saw the full texts of Rashi and the Maharsho which you quoted and saw that it had been distorted to mean what it definitely does not. Why should I spend my time looking for sources that you claim to support you when you were so wrong the first time. If you post the actual statements they made I will in all likelihood read them, but I’m not going to search for stuff that you quite probably misrepresent.
Let me clarify. To say that there are sources that say moshiach can come from the dead is not something I can dispute because I don’t claim to know all sources. But to quote Rashi and the Maharsho, which you did, and to use THEM to say that it is valid to say that a dead man other than Doniel may be moshiach, which you did, is at best dumb and at worse apikorsus.
“(On a side note by saying that only denial can be moshiach if it is someone from the dead means either you never opened a gemora before or your an apikorus)”
I understand that “denial” is a typo and should be “Doniel”, but the rest is garbage. Read and translate Rashi and present it here for all to see how you are falsifying.
Anyusername: “Before we continue we need to answer these questions”
And I say before you continue defending the warped views of the majority of today’s lubavich you have to explain the general theory of relativity in terms that a ben chomeish lemikra could understand.
What a ludicrous excuse for not facing up to the truth! You stand accused of distorting Torah so either you defend yourself or admit the truth (the latter being almost impossible for someone who has been brainwashed by modern lubavich). You don’t lay down ridiculous conditions… that is unless you think the rest of us are too stupid to realize that you can’t answer us.