Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Chossid, no, I have never learned the sichah dealing with not sleeping in the sukkah, but I have had it explained to me numerous times by lubavichers, and they all came up with the same explanation – the same one that has been given here – that being able to fall asleep is considered mitztaer and exempts you from sleeping. As I have said over and over, and so many others on this forum have said the same thing, that is a ridiculous sevoro with no source or precedent other than your rebbe. So since we dispute the entire sevoro, we do not accept that it makes sense merely because your rebbe said it does.
You wrote in regards to Mashiach (I don’t understand why you mentioned the Ari z”l as he has nothing to do with it): “I think the same should be with you, especially before putting down someone or a community, and calling the names etc. you should learn the subject really well before hand. It’s basics of ahavas Yisrael, ahavas hatorah, ahavas Hashem.
Btw I could be wrong, maybe you did learn these subjects really well, but it surely doesn’t seem like it”I have learnt repeatedly the Rambam that so many lubavichers quote as “proof” that your rebbe was/is Mashiach, and I have listened to it being intentionally mistranslated and misexplained many, many, many times. You go on the attack with me here but you still don’t give an iota of explanation as to how the Rambam’s criteria point anywhere near the lubavicher rebbe. I don’t mind you attacking me. In fact when you attack me and you avoid addressing the issues, as you have done in this post of yours, it just proves to me that you don’t have what to answer. But you’re not alone. No lubavicher does. It’s all boich sevoros built on air and baseless claims made by your rebbe.
And if you meant have I learned the sichos of the rebbe on the matter, then the answer is no. I haven’t and I don’t intend to, because whatever I have learnt or read in his name is a distortion or plain childish. (Surely you remember my reference earlier to the invented phrase of Beis Mashiach having the gematria of 770.) I’m not about to learn sichos said by someone with a self-serving agenda. (Sorry, but that’s the way I see it, and I’m not alone in this forum.)You continued: “And also you keep on saying that no one outside of Lubavitche agrees with such and such.
First of all many do”Now that is clearly a winning statement. Since I don’t know what you are referring to as “such and such” I can’t argue that your statement “many do” is incorrect. You win hands down!
But just in case let me name a number of points that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE in the chareidi world outside lubavich agrees with:
1. Your rebbe is Mashiach.
2. Your rebbe has the criteria cited in the Rambam that are required by Mashiach.
3. Because the gemoro that says “if he [Mashiach] is from the dead then it is Doniel” – which Rashi explains in two ways:, either, if Mashiach was someone who has already died then it was Doniel, or if Mashiach is to be compared to someone who has died the person to compare him to is Doniel – we can now claim that it is the lubavicher rebbe.
4. Being able to sleep in the sukkah can be consider mitztaer that exempts you from the sleeping in the sukkah.
5. There is a concept of Beis Mashiach (I’m not saying he won’t have a house, but the term is a very recent invention of your rebbe) and that its gematria is meaningful.
6. And (of course, you wouldn’t expect me to omit this one) the story with the sundial is true even though it makes no sense whatsoever.
Note: Aside from no. 6, I have heard every single one of the above being claimed repeatedly by too many lubavicher chassidim for anyone to tell me that these claims are not believed by more than a handful of people.“second it doesn’t make a difference if they agree or not. Every community, every kries has their rabbonim and rebbis that they follow, and no one has a problem with it”
Have you been paying attention? How many times have I stated and repeated that I have nothing against different minhogim and hashkofos? What irks me and many others is the claim that lubavich minhogim and hashkofos are at the pinnacle of the Torah world, when so many of the justifications given for them are meaningless and at times outright lies.
chosid: “But you never know I might change my mind soon.”
Hoping you do!
It seems to me that CS is just giving up because she realizes that we don’t accept her answers because they are more or less without a real Torah basis.
Her prerogative, of course.
What happened to the replies and explanations that CS promised us?
DY quoting my reply to username: “If it were a mitzvah to sleep during Sukkos, then you could say that sleeping outside the sukkah to enhance the mitzvah of sleeping is similar to clapping on Shabbos to enhance the Shabbos. But the mitzvah is sleeping IN the sukkah, and sleeping OUT of the sukkah can’t enhance that.”
DY in response to that: “The mitzvah of eating in the sukkah is the same mitzvah as sleeping in the sukkah. תשבו. So your tayna isn’t a good one.”
From your wording you seem to be disagreeing with my “tayna”, yet in the end it doesn’t seem so. Were you perhaps a little unclear in replying to a quote, or did I just get it wrong?
username: “And for the record, I did answer the sundial story previously.”
You indeed addressed it, but you didn’t say anything that made the story make any sense.
username, you tried to resolve the issue I brought up from Sefer Chassidim by quoting the Chofetz Chaim and others.
Thanks for finally addressing the issue, but you missed the point. Sefer Chassidim is not talking about people PREDICTING that Mashiach is close based on various signs. He is talking about someone who PROPHESIES about Mashiach – he was a Rishon and he chose his words carefully – and, unlike the Chofetz Chaim, the lubavicher rebbe referred to it as prophesy.
So the quote you have from Chernobyl is also not relevant because it is not dealing with prophesy.
But again, thanks for finally addressing the issue. Seriously.
Btw, I knew of that quote of Chernobyl and Slonim, and I even mentioned it to a lubavicher many years ago in an attempt to explain your rebbe’s statements about Mashiach, but the person I was explaining it to rejected it out of hand: “The Rebbe said he is coming NOW, and that means he is!”
username: “But the Baal Shem Tov did spend time teaching Torah, and many of his Talmidim wrote Sifrei Chassidus (like Tzavaas Harivash, Keser Shem Tov, Toldos Yaakov Yosef, Ohr Torah from the Maggid). You think they wrote it to put on the bookshelf and never look at again?
But either way, even if it’s not an Ikkar of Chassidus, there’s definitely an Inyan to learn Pnimiyus Hatorah”My argument was not whether chassidus and nistar was taught by the Rebbes of other streams. It was that turning it into an ikkar of limud – e.g. the way lubavicher yeshivos have, I believe, a third of the weekday seder assigned to learning chassius, and two-thirds on Shabbos – was a relatively recent Lubavich innovation. Again, it doesn’t bother me that that’s what they do in lubavich. My complaint is that the setting aside of hours each day to learn chassidus has become retroactively the shitah of the BSh”T and therefore only lubavich are following his derech.
Please don’t tell me that that is not the case, because I have been on the receiving end of that “criticism” too many times to be mistaken.
I find it interesting that you write that the Baal Hatanya tried to convince the chevraya that his derech was the correct one but they would not be convinced. I have never heard that before, but even if it is true, surely you would agree that they didn’t disagree out of laziness, jealousy, spite or any other stupid reason. If they disagreed it is because they disagreed on principles based on their shittos hakdoshos, so our view is clearly no less holy than that of the Baal Hatanya.
username: ” the Mitteler Rebbe (and since you asked me why I am lenient here, I, personally, think that this quote was said by the Mitteler Rebbe) ”
Is the source from the writings of the Mitteler Rebbe, or is the earliest source the Rayatz quoting the Mitteler Rebbe? I believe it is the latter (although I may be wrong) and to me it makes a big difference.
username: “I think I’ve pointed this out before, but if I haven’t, I’ll say it now. If a person can sleep soundly in a Sukkah, he absolutely has a Chiyuv to sleep in a Sukkah. And I’m almost positive that the Rebbe said the same in that Sicha.”
I honestly think you are wrong. And I have never heard of any lubavicher who sleeps in a sukkah, or who has even tried to to see if he will fall asleep.
Which leads me to ask why, according to you, lubavichers don’t go to bed in the sukkah and see if they can fall asleep. I assure you that someone who doesn’t have insomnia will fall asleep eventually.“Another similar Sevarah is the clapping on Shabbos. How can you use Simchas Shabbos as a source to permit an Issur Derabanan on Shabbos? And you can ask rso’s question on him too, by the way.”
That is not at all similar. (Disclosure: I don’t really know the extent of the issur of clapping on Shabbos, and I don’t know the heter for doing so by chassidim. So I’ll just take username’s explanation as is and deal with it as if it’s correct.) There is an issur to clap on Shabbos, and for some reason that was “ignored” to enhance the mitzvah of Shabbos. There is an issur to go to sleep outside the sukkah on Sukkos. Ignoring that issur does not enhance the mitzvah of sukkah, If anything it enhances one’s sleep outside the sukkah, which is an issur.
If it were a mitzvah to sleep during Sukkos, then you could say that sleeping outside the sukkah to enhance the mitzvah of sleeping is similar to clapping on Shabbos to enhance the Shabbos. But the mitzvah is sleeping IN the sukkah, and sleeping OUT of the sukkah can’t enhance that.
username, interesting posts, but I believe you’re missing our point.
No one that I recall on this forum is upset with the way you do things differently, What disturbs us, at least the way I understand it, is that lubavich has taken the “high road” even though in fact they are certainly lower in many areas. They have the best chassidim. They have the most yiras Shamayim. They have the only true way of chassidus. And, of course, they have Mashiach.
All of us think that none of the above is true. Most of your chassidim – and please don’t tell me that most don’t believe the rebbe is Mashiach – are looneys. The levels of yiras Shamayim in lubavich are R”L terrible (tznius is one obvious example that has been mentioned, but I can give more if necessary). There is absolutely no indication that the Bsh”t wanted limud chassidus (and of course chassidus chabad is for some reason the best) as the yesod of his “movement”. And there is NOTHING in the Rambam or anywhere else (except possibly in your own sources) that justify thinking the rebbe was/is Mashiach.
All this – aside from the concept of limud chassidus being the yesod of Toras Bsh”t – has been rehashed over and over again, and all you do is go around in circles and avoid addressing the issues. The exception being CS who comes up with direct “answers” that are usually unacceptable to anyone who has a bit of a background in learning.
Yet you defend a totally unwarranted and unjustifiable chauvinistic attitude.
I have gone on record saying how lubavich is fantastic when it comes to looking after the needs of frum and not-frum Yidden all over the world, but it’s when you start straying into hashkofo, and the statements and implications made by your rebbe, that you often veer very close to apikorsus.
Btw I note that you still have not addressed the Sefer Chassidim, as has no other lubavicher except for CS. Could you at least say something along the lines of, “I don’t know what to answer,” and leave it at that, rather that to hope it will just go away on its own. It won’t go away, just like the faulty sundial didn’t go away.
username, I’m glad the gemara calls, and I wish I heeded its call more often than I do.
“Have you found a source that:
1. Emotional Tzaar isn’t Tzaar. and
2. Tzaar has to be that strong that he will not be able to do the act.”Sorry, but YOU have to find a source that tzaar that a person CAN fulfill the mitzva of sukkah is reason to exempt you from that very mitzva. It’s radical (which is my way of saying ridiculous in a nice fashion) and no one else in the world except for lubavich has ever even thought of it for thousands of years.
I had hoped that after Shabbos I would be able to enjoy being challenged by chossid’s questions, but nothing so far. Why?
Chossid: “I responded to many “questions”, (more like your personal conclusions).”
Some were, and not of those have been dispelled.
” At least the ones that were purely moitzi Shem rah etc.”
It’s not motzi shem ra just because you disagree with them.
“It’s your choice to take them or not.”
As others have already pointed out, your answers were not anything that would, or even could, be accepted by any chareidi non-lubavicher, and that bringing proof from things your rebbe said is not sufficient when trying to prove him correct and justifiable.
Just two examples: Despite all that has been said, no non-lubavicher will accept the “lomdus” behind the reason why it is a higher madreiga not to sleep in a sukkah. Similarly, no non-lubavicher will accept that any of the Rambam’s “requirements” to be Mashiach apply to the lubavicher rebbe. (I know you may not have said that they do, but CS certainly has, and there are literally thousands of lubavichers who are not on this forum who claim as much.)“For some reason it seems that when some posters here realize that their tayinos on Lubavitche are not really true (for example reason to do mitzvos), they just brush them away and say that there better problems to discuss. For some reason I see that purely out of sinas Yisrael.”
You will find that I have never brushed anything out of the way, and I believe I have argued every point fairly. Please show me where I have not, and I’ll either admit my fault or explain myself better.
Btw can I ask some questions? (Questions not conclusions)”
Certainly! Ask away.
Btw, and this is not a prerequisite before you ask as I don’t have a monopoly on asking, but there are still some outstanding questions that we have asked that haven’t been addressed.
Only one poster, CS, has addressed the Sefer Chassidim that says that if someone prophesies about Mashiach it will be to his great shame, and her response that it was taken out of context was patently ridiculous to anyone who has ever opened a Sefer Chassidim. Do you have anything to say to clarify your position on that?
Also, as far as I remember, no one has explained why the Ari z”l, who of course knew all about the Or Hamakif, could sleep in the sukkah yet the lubavicher rebbes could not. And if the reason is that the Ari z”l was on a higher madreiga, then why not assume that he was Mashiach, if, that is, Mashiach can be someone who was already niftar?But don’t let any of that interfere with you asking me your questions. I am quite intrigued, and I look forward to them.
Looks like the thread has petered out without any satisfactory answers to nearly all the questions we non-lubavichers asked.
Have we just tired you out or are you really out of answers?
username, contrary to what you have been fed in lubavich possibly since birth, the classic mussar seforim, and therefore the shmuesn in Litvishe yeshivos, don’t focus on reward and punishment. They tend to focus on how a person is to fix his shortcomings and to improve in his avodas Hashem.
I have never understood why the lubavicher rebbe wrote – I saw the letter, or sicha, but I don’t remember where – how a major difference between mussar and (chabad) chassidus is that mussar is depressing and chassidus is uplifting. Chovos Halvovos (written by a Rishon), for example, is not depressing at all, and it certainly uplifts you by telling you how to improve.
Neville: “So, wait, are you arguing that Chabad is bad because they do mitzvos only for schar, or that they’re bad because they don’t believe in schar? I truly do not see how it can be both.”
I don’t know who you’re addressing here, but because after the above you quote me I am assuming it’s me. So in reply, I never said anything about chabad doing mitzvos for schar.
“You’re speaking of people who are neither doing things for hashem’s ratzon nor for schar, but rather just out of habit or a sense of cultural duty? Other than your friend, do you really find that problem to be more prevalent in Chabad?”
No, I don’t find it more prevalent in chabad. But what I do find prevalent, and hypocritical, in chabad is that they claim that they do things for a higher purpose than sechar. My friend was pointing out in his sharp way that they are not higher than those who do it for sechar. They are lower.
SH: “In fact, we often “laugh” at those who we percieve to be doing Mitzvos in order to get Schar”
I once heard a lubavicher denigrating those who don’t do aveiros because of the fear of punishement, and saying that in lubavich that is not why we don’t do aveiros. (I have actually heard it far more than once, but in this case there was a good rejoinder, as I am about to write). A serious lubavicher talmid chochom whom I respect (yes, there are a few!) was present, and he commented, “That’s because in lubavich we don’t believe in Gan Eden or Gehennom.”
Think about it. So often people claim that it is wrong to consider schar ve’onesh, but that is not because we are on a higher madreiga. It’s because we are on a much lower madreiga and don’t have much yiras Shomayim of even the lowest type.
DY: “We do Mitzvos because we are commanded to do so
That’s not what they’re saying.”He’s right. They are still saying that we should do mitzvos because that will bring Mashiach and since that is what Hashem wants we are “helping Him out”. We are saying that we should do mitzvos ONLY because He told us to.
The difference sounds fine but it is actually major.
username, great recap!
Did I misunderstand, or did TomimTihyeh actually defend our understanding of the Rambam that a dead person can’t be Mashiach?
SHY (and chossid said the same in a more attacking tone): ““because he himself said that he is “Shevi’i kodesh Lashem”…”
Sam, as you are well versed in the Rebbes Sichos, please tell me, where and when did the Rebbe say those words?”OK, he didn’t say those words, but what I think sam was referring to was saying that he is dor shvi’i.
username: “Where does Tosfos say that? I don’t see it there.”
Sorry. Typo. Shabbos 55b d”h Maavirom.
I disagree about your take on the Yerushalmi. Being a shofet means judging, and the possuk, according to the Yerushalmi, says that he was a shofet for 40 years, which the Yerushalmi interprets as meaning only that the Plishtim were scared of him for 20 after his death. This is corroborated by the Korban Ho’edah who explains that it was just that they thought he was alive. So he wasn’t really a shofet then even according to the Yerushalmi.
CS: ” Just curious why is shtar eirusin more indicative of a male than shliach kiddushin?”
Not more indicative, just more of a regular case. I can’t recall the Gemoro discussing someone sending a shliach to be mekadesh with a shtar eirusin, while sending a shliach to be mekadesh a woman with money is often mentioned. However, there is really no difference between the two.” The shimshon point though I think still stands.”
It doesn’t because, as I wrote, the passuk doesn’t say 40 years.In a later post you ask: ” was gonna post the yerushalmi and one other source (it was cut off in the picture but I can ask for it) but you beat me to it username. not sure why you write dismissively it was a typo?”
Because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of typos in Yerushalmi. Here, however, Tosfos (Shabbos 52b) writes that the Yerushalmi had a different nusach in the possuk! Others disagree and say that it is a typo.
Nonetheless, even if we take it that the Yerushalmi had a different nusach, the Yerushalmi itself concludes that the possuk means that the Plishtim were scared of Shimshon for 20 years after his death. So even the Yerushalmi does not say the he was a shofet after his death.Interestingly, the Korbon Ho’edah – perhaps THE primary meforash on the Yerushalmi – explains that they were scared for those extra 20 years because they thought he may still be alive. Reminds me of something, but I can’t put my finger on it…
CS: “the remaining issue is how did the Rebbe fit bchezkas moshiach to begin with, I’ll address that. Like I said i want to work backwards.”
You have already addressed it by misquoting and misusing the Rambam, as I have shown you point by point in an earlier post, but you didn’t address that.
CS: “If it really was a problem and distracted from Hashem, then MY generation would have mostly forgotten Hashem cvs or Chabad would have broken down and joined other groups as many predicted”
Funny you should say that because many of us do indeed believe that you have at least partially strayed in the same way other groups have. It’s just that you have retained independence and still call yourselves Chabad.
CS: “Rso wrote that shlucho shel adam kmoso is cancelled when the meshaleach dies.
Question: A) What’s the source for that? B) Is it referring to future shlichus or even past ones that the person physically appointed? Ie if someone sends a shliach with a shtar eirusin for his daughter, and he meshaleiach dies before the shliach reaches the chosson, is it automatically cancelled?”A) The gemoro and halocho.
B) (I don’t know why you picked a shtar eirusin and not stam sent a shliach kiddushin. Methinks you are getting “support” from a male, which is fine with me.) Yes, It is automatically cancelled!Sechel: “That’s wonderful, but that isn’t Koveah Halacha. Ma Zaroy BaChayim Af Hu doesn’t mean that the Rebbe is considered physically alive in the sense that if we weren’t continuing his legacy, he couldn’t be Moshiach, but now that we are, he can. Halacha simply doesn’t work that way.”
There’s a point that you have missed. The gemoro says, as you quoted, ma zaroy bachayim… But that is referring to physical descendents. Unfortunately, the late lubavicher rebbe did not have any physical descendents, so it can’t apply to him.
Yes, I know. You, or CS or someone else, will claim that his chassidim are descendants. But that’s a distortion of the gemoro, which some of you have distorted more than enough already.
CS: ” I’m saying that just as Shimshon is considered shofet 40 years in Torah, even though he only physically led them for 20, because his influence continued after his passing, so too here”
It does NOT say that he was shofet for 40 years. Rather it says twice that he was shofet 20 years. The Radak discusses this and he is the one who cites a midrash which says that the second time it says it to indicate that the Plishtim were scared of him for twenty years after his petirah.
No one that I have found claims that he was considered a shofet after he was niftar.
SHY: “In the interest of intellectual honesty…”
Thank you for that! I remember clearly – and I think I may have posted it earlier – lubavichers saying before gimmel Tammuz that the rebbe must be mashiach because he is the greatest living tzaddik. “Look around and tell me who is greater,” was the standard argument.
I don’t think it took them 24 hours to say that Mashiach can come from the dead.From the fact that no one has responded to my quote of Sefer Chassidim – no one, that is, aside from CS whose sole response was that it was taken out of context (which it wasn’t!) – can I assume that the lubavichers on this forum realize that it is problematic for them and that they don’t know how to respond?
username: “That would be true if Hashem (in a Midrash) had never told us the whole דירה בתחתונים thing. But obviously Hashem wanted us to know what Mitzvos accomplish, or He wouldn’t have told us.”
Maybe part of His test is to let us know why he gave us the mitzvos but for us to do them without taking His reason into account.
I would still like a source, especially a lubavicher source of a few generations ago, that says we should do mitzvos for His reason.And regarding that (too) long piece of Tanya you quoted: assuming you got the “in short” right (sorry, but the quote is too long for me to go through online) I believe it’s exactly the same point the Chidusheir Horim was making, just in different words.
coffeeaddict: “But we do מצות for Hashem not for שכר”
I hope what you mean is that we SHOULD do mitzvos…
Halevai we did mitzvos even not lesheim Shomayim…
My friend showed me the source that I mentioned. It’s from the Chidushei Horim and it’s in regards to the Meraglim.
He explains that they wanted to stay in the Midbor was because their Avodas Hashem would be better there, but the Chidushei Horim explains that it is not their business to make a cheshbon like that.
מאחר שהקב”ה ציוה לבוא שמה יהי’ איך שיהי’ אף לירש גיהנם
“Since HKB”H commanded them to go there, regardless of the outcome [they have to fulfill his command] even if the result is going to Gehinnom.”Username quoted Tanya at length, and in a later post he wrote “So sure, we do Mitzvos because that’s what Hashem wants, but at the same time, Hashem wants a דירה בתחתונים, which means that Hashem wants Moshiach. All we’re saying is that these three “wants” are connected.”
The point that I was making, and which I said I believe is the hashkofa of all non-lubavichers (and, I guess, all lubavichers before they became “obsessed” with Mashiach) is that the entire concept of DIrah Batachtonim is what Hashem wants – נתאווה לו יתברך – but it is NOT why we perform mitzvos. The ONLY reason we perform mitzvos is because Hashem commanded them. His reason for doing so is not our reason for performing them.
To use a very simple moshol hedyot, a mother tells her son to eat breakfast. Her reason for doing so is so that he will have the necessary strength to function properly at school. But as far as the Torah is concerned his ONLY reason for eating breakfast is to be mekayem kibbud eim and do what his mother says.
If he starts making cheshbonos that the reason his mother told him to eat is to give him strength, he is very likely to decide that he has enough strength, or that he will eat later, and the like, and he may not be mekayem kibbud eim.Here is part of Shu”t Chasam Sofer Y”D 356:
אך א”א לי בשום אופן להאמין שיהי’ גאולתינו א’ מעיקרי הדת ושאם יפול היסוד תפול החומה חלילה ושנאמר אלו הי’ ח”ו חטאנו גורמים שיגרש אותנו גירוש עולם וכדס”ל לר”ע בעשרת השבטים שהם נדחים לעולם המפני זה רשאים הם לפרוק עול מלכות השמים או לשנות קוצו של יו”ד אפי’ מדברי רבנן חלילה אנחנו לא נעבוד ה’ לאכול פרי הארץ ולשבוע מטוב’ לעשות רצונך אלקי חפצתי ועכ”פ ועל כל אופן עבדי ד’ אנחנו יעשה עמנו כרצונו וחפצו ואין זה עיקר ולא יסוד לבנות עליו שום בנין אך כיון שעיקר יסוד הכל להאמין בתורה ובנביאים ושם נאמר גאולתינו האחרונה בפ’ נצבים ובפ’ האזינו כמ”ש רמב”ן שם והרבה מזה בדברי נביאים אם כן מי שמפקפק על הגאולה הלז הרי כופר בעיקר האמנת התורה והנביאים.In a nutshell, the Chasam Sofer is saying that belief in Mashiach is no more a basic tenet of being a Yid than belief in anything else it says in the Torah, and he refuses to accept it as an ikkar emunah. He writes that even if our aveiros caused Hashem to c”v say that we will forever be lost and never redeemed it will not exempt us from keeping Torah and mitzvos.
Btw this is not the source that I referred to earlier that I still have to ask my friend about.
laskern: ” it is not our job to bring Moshiach but it is our job not to curtail, hold back, his coming by our actions and behavior”
I disagree. Our job is to do what Hashem tells us to do, and not to be concerned what the results of our behavior will be. The fact is that our behavior does indeed affect the coming or delaying of Mashiach, but it is not “our job” to take that into account.
A friend showed me a few years ago from a well-known early Rebbe something along the line that if the result of doing what Hashem wants is that we will go to Gehinnom then we should do it regardless. I hope to see that friend today and ask him for the source.
I recently posted the following in the middle of a longish reply to Chosid: “Please note, I am asking for sources that say that the REASON we perform mitzvos is to bring Mashiach”
I perhaps was not clear enough in what I wrote. What I should have written to be clearer is: Please note, I am asking for sources that say that OUR INTENTION in performing mitzvos should be to bring Mashiach.
Chossid, to profound101, not to me: “What’s does it mean doing Hashems rotzion? What are we accomplishing in this world by doing mitzvos?
And what is the תכלית בריאת העולם?
Why is rotzion and Moshiach a stirah?”Here’s what I would answer if you had asked me (and maybe profound101) will agree.
Doing Hashem’s ratzon means doing what he tells us to do, and to do it properly lesheim Shomayim means to do it because He said so regardless of His reasons for telling us to do so.
By doing mitzvos lesheim Shomayim we accomplish that we have done what he told us to do on the highest level. What we accomplish “in this world” and the תכלית of בריאת העולם is really none of our business, except on an intellectual sense. On a practical sense, however, it should be ignored as we are here only to do what Hashem says and ONLY BECAUSE He says so.
So “rotzoin” and “Mashiach” are indeed a stira if you mix the latter into your reason for doing the former. It’s fine to realize that when we do things lesheim Shomayim Mashiach is closer, but it’s not find to perform mitzvos for that reason.
I believe this is basic hashkofa of everybody outside Lubavich, and I even wonder if it was not basic Lubavich hashkofa before lubavich got “obsessed” with Mashiach. Could you bring me lubavich sources from, say, a hundred years ago that say otherwise? Please note, I am asking for sources that say that the REASON we perform mitzvos is to bring Mashiach, not that our performance brings Mashiach and that that is a great thing.
CS: “All you people saying don’t do mitzvos to bring moshiach – the era of moshiach is the time period when we’ll be able to serve Hashem fully (as in 613 mitzvos vs. under 300, all shvatim vs. 2.5, in eretz Yisrael with the Halachos of it with the beis Hamikdash etc.). So anyone who cares about doing mitzvos to fulfill ratzon Hashem should want to bring the era of moshiach asap so we can do exactly that. That’s actually what the era of moshiach even is!”
And it’s still not relevant. We are meant to do the mitzvos ONLY because they are what Hashem commanded. Not even, so to speak,to “help Hashem out” in any way, even by revealing Him clearer to the world.
It seems that lubavichers don’t realize that this is one point where you are against the entire world. I’m sure you can handle that, but you have to realize that this is not just a case where we have differing views on life. Your view is something we believe is wrong and dangerous.
CS: “Well we have the halacha that shlucho shel adam kmoso”
And once the meshaleach dies the shliach is no longer considered kemoso. That’s the halacha in regards to all matters of shlichus.
CS, you’re like old wine getting “better” with age. The longer and more you post the stranger the ideas you come up with.
“Any shliach you ask will tell you that they are only able to do what they do by the koach of the Rebbe”
And this therefore has a halachic basis?! If I claim that my koach of putting on tefilling comes because of something I once saw in a Bugs Bunny cartoon that means that it is a fact and counts in some way halachically?!
CS: “Now the Rebbe fulfilled the conditions for being bchezkas Moshiach”
You’re kidding me, right?” which are to be
1) a king”
He was not a king. I know that lubavichers say “man malki rabbonon” but that is not halocho and is not quoted by the Rambam, so it doesn’t count as kingship.” from Beis Dovid”
There is ZERO proof that he is (ben achar ben) from Beis Dovid, unless you count the fact that since he is Mashiach he must be from Beis Dovid as a proof. (Btw there is also ZERO proof that he is descended even not ben achar ben from Beis Dovid. Please don’t tell me that the Baal Hatanya was descended from the Maharal etc etc because there is no proof from that either. It is a claim that was made much later. It’s possible that I am wrong about this, but you’ll have to show me othewise.)“2)Well versed in Torah and oisek bmitzvos like Dovid his ancestor”
This is not relevant to any argument, but that is not what the Rambam says. He doesn’t say “well-versed” he says “hogeh baTorah” which basically means “learns Torah”. So theoretically Mashiach could be someone who is not a great talmid chochom, as long as he learns. But, as I said, that is irrelevant to our discussion.“3) He coerces the Jewish people to go in Torah’s ways and strengthen (ie fix) its breaches”
How many Yidden did he COERCE to go in Torah’s ways? He encouraged but did NOT coerce. Btw I compliment you on your honesty in translation here because most other lubavichers who use the Rambam as a “proof” mistranslate the word ויכוף so that it doesn’t cause them problems.“4) He fights the wars of Hashem”
He did not. Simple translation is waging war, as we see that in the next sentence the Rambam says that if he is successful and he “is victorious’ over all the nations around him…CS: “The fact this is halacha shows us that we should be looking out to identify such a person and that it is normal and a good thing to do so, ”
The fact that there is a halacha in the Rambam stating who can be Mashiach “shows us that we should be out to identify such is a person”?! Maybe I’m not the biggest talmid chochom around but I fail to see how you come to that conclusion.
CS: “It seems you missed the point. Or I wasn’t clear.”
Neither. I got the very clear point. Rabbi Heller was clever in asking them to do something that will directly help US Yidden, and he didn’t venture into the 7 mitzvos area at all. Well done!
CS: “Is the process clear?”
It is no more clearer than it was at the start of your lengthy posts. Again, it’s pure doublespeak.
If the buttons have already been polished then there is NOTHING left to do unless the rules have been changed, and Hashem doesn’t change the rules just so that your rebbe will not appear to be mistaken.
CS replying to me: ““Interesting how no one has commented on the piece from Sefer Chassidim I posted.” The context isn’t clear. That’s why I haven’t commented”
The context isn’t clear?! Why not? Sefer Chassidim says that if you hear someone saying nevuah about Mashiach in the end he and his followers will be shamed for doing the wrong thing.
That is what he says in short and there is no other context.
Sorry, CS, but it’s doublespeak. If the buttons were already polished then that’s the end of the game. Hashem doesn’t change the rules; He just changes the situation as it fits the rules.
There are no “phases” of a plan that has been finished. א-ל אמונה ואין עול. He doesn’t cheat c”v.
coffeeaddict, sorry but I don’t know what you are referring to when you are being lubavich’s advocate.
I don’t know how I missed this one, but B”H a friend pointed out my lapse to me.
On page 28 username wrote: “People who really grasped the holiness of a Sukkah – and these were Tzaddikim who’s sleep was a different sleep (for example, Shivchei Ari says how the Arizal would learn deep Sisrei Torah while he slept), so for them there was no problem sleeping in a Sukkah, so they had the Chiyuv DeOraisa to sleep in a Sukkah.”
Does this mean you’re implying that the Ari was on a higher madreiga than the Lubavicher rebbe? Fine with me, but if so I have one more question. If Mashiach can be from someone who was already niftar, shouldn’t it then be the Ari?