mentalblog.com comments:
You mean Lot's wife.
Yes his wife, I always confuse fear of being frozen with being frozen.
The status quo among shluchim is not the Meshichist one.
Temach is he a smart man in your opinion?
Lot's daughter also acted as his wife, so Tzemach is not mistaken
The recurring theme that haunts all postings is that change has been thrust upon us. This change has been disorienting and has made it hard for people to use sechel. Denial is the easiest path for short term gain (spiritual comfort) but at the cost of long term pain (non-adaprtive paralysis, high attrition rates...). Leadership would be the usual solution the campaign for the NLR makes sense. Perhaps, in addition to the obvious candidacy requirements of piety and scholarship we must emphasise courage.
"The only reason I come up with is fear."
I do not buy this analysis. The only "fear" that can play here is fear of being disconnected from the Rebbe. No honest chossid of the Rebbe will deny his personal hergesh that the Rebbe yiggoleinu [if such a hergesh is lacking, a chossid will admit az em felt].
Also, when you call Hirshel a meshichist - what do you mean? (My question is serious - I do not know were he is at). Does he believe this to be meikrei hoemunoh? Does he preach to other Jews that it is their responsibility to accept such a belief? Does he sport yellow flags and lapel buttons? Does he say "yechi" as part of the davenen? In short, has he introduced or participated in any new hangogeis asher lei yedoum aveiseinu?
And I do not like to say this, but please note that the sheluchim that have found themselves outside of misgeres rasmis will invariably find a home in the misgeres hammeshichi. That would make a heck of a lot more sense as a motivator. Don't you think?
Your last comment, berl, does make a lot of sense of course. However this particular situation is more interesting because the 'rasmi' guy that Hirshel doesn't get along with (or that doesn't get along with Hirshel) is himself a meshichist...
I saw Hirshel davening in the Rebbe's room - a no no for most standard meSHI'ITES.
Berl, I don’t need to go into deep analysis of what Hirchel believes in. I only need the following. He runs his own heider. This is not a Meshichist heider nor it is an anti heider. It is his own Scholl. He is a director, a melamed, janitor and all the rest. His kids who go to this heider say Yechi. What else do we need as a proof? This must be the way he selected to guide his own kids. In this context the question arises, is that what he proposes for other Jews. Because the purist that he is I doubt he would preach to others what he doesn’t preach to himself, or perhaps he would?
Tzemach, why the inappropriate ad hominems?
TA, in that case, you need to at least define the term. One man's meshichist is another man's "anti".
To some people, one is a vile meshichist unless one actively fights any manifestation of a belief that the Rebbe might still be moshiach. Others will consider a rabid "anti" anyone who does not say a yechi between birkas haggofen ushesias yain during the Shabbos kiddush. And then there is everything in between. So unless you define the boundaries of the term as you see them, the word has no meaning at all.
To a guy with a messed up nick:
You are correct about the sheliach 'rasmi' in Toronto from whom Hirshel broke away. But he is not so meshichist as to be mechutz lemachane (he is, after all, 'rasmi'). My guess - his meshichism is "nothing personal, it’s strictly business". ;)
His own kids taught by him personally say "Long Live...." What other boundaries are required?
TA, forget Hirshel for a moment. What are the boundaries of the term in your usage? Where is the 'yellow line'?
Simple, is the Rebbe alive or not is the "yellow" line. Saying Yechi...
If the 'Rebbe alive' (in the same sense as the Rebbe publicly referred to his shver for over 40 years) is the 'yellow line', then 99.999% of Lubavitchers are meshichisten, starting with the Rebbe himself. So the whole term is redundant.
Here is the 'yellow line' to me: Taking that which was presented in an esoteric venue and coached in esoteric terms (starting with atzmus melubosh beguf) out of its esoteric context. You can apply this kelal across the board, "yechi" included. Not all "yechis" are equal.
Why overcomplicate things? The Rebbe said that DemShver will come up in the Techiyas "Hameisim". So if one holds that the Rebbe is dead but he will come alive as Moshiach or whatever he is not meshichist. On the other hand if one holds that the Rebbe is alive then he is a meshichist.
I am laughing so hard, I can't write! You have just excluded 75% of meshichisten from qualifying as such! LOL
Am I missing the translation of Yechi kepshuto?
Also a correction: The Rebbe never said that the "shver will get up in techiyas hameisim before moshiach". What the Rebbe said was "to those that have a problem with my statement (that the shver yiggoleinu), I say that there is a deyoh that there will be techiyas hameisim shel tzaddikim before moshiach". In other words, "if you can't relate to the idea that chayei hatzadik are not chaim besoriim but chaim ruchaniim, then to you I say - (leshitoscho) techiyas hameisim, but alibo di emes - ma zarei bechaim, af hu bechaim..."
"Yechi" can range from the very esoteric "hoisofas chaim to moshiach" (whatever it may mean, but maybe not unlike dovid melech ysrael chai vekayom") to the very "yellow" and very literal "Gimmel Tamuz never happened at all and the Rebbe is walking around beguf gashmi dafka and is "misgalle" himself to the worthy/lucky yechidim".
Didn’t the Rebbe always say "hokitzy sheichnei ofer" and dem Shver is upfront? I always understood it that dem Shver will come up from the earth like the rest?
Yes, Tzemach, so did everyone else, Berl's revisionism not withstanding.
Even SB Wolpe has a pre 3 Tamuz explanation of it. Now everything has changed.
Berl writes:
" What the Rebbe said was "to those that have a problem with my statement (that the shver yiggoleinu)":
Where is the Rebbe say that he is addressing the "yigoleynu" statement?
You continue:
"In other words, "if you can't relate to the idea that chayei hatzadik are not chaim besoriim but chaim ruchaniim, then to you I say - (leshitoscho) techiyas hameisim, but alibo di emes - ma zarei bechaim, af hu bechaim..."
במחילת כבודך: This is *not* the Rebbe's words in the Rebbe's answer but mere interpretation and in fact this answer and many others are literal and self defined.
In addition: "vehoo yigoleyno" itself is meant (not as the literal explanation, but) as the *Rebbe himself* referred to it in the Maamar: that it refers to idea that chassidim will be lead by their Rebbe to greet Moshiach as Moshe Rabbeyno will lead his flock of the Midbor to the redemption.
And yes: Moshe's life certainly was not "chayim bessarim" and yet it does not lead one to belief that he will be the goel tzedek.
While there has an influx of pseudointerpretations in the terms of Chazal and then in the Rebbe's sichos, one should learn the sources (Chazal and Sichos especially those that are explained by the Rebbe (and not by people who have given new/false meanings to terms that ewre once understood to their true meanings) and see for themselves how things were takne out of their literal and most importantly: their *true* meaning.
ואם תקשה היאך יכול להיות שיהפכו מאמת לשקרת הרי כבר נאמר "והאמת נעדרה" ועוד והוא העיקר עיין היום יום של יום המחרת.
TA, I do not recall right now if the "hokitzu veranenu sheichenei ofor" was invoked in reference to the Previous Rebbe outside of the previously discussed context.
But let’s leave the techyas hameisim issue aside for the moment (for even I did not argue against it in a general sense, I was only correcting your specific quote). Surely you would agree that "getting up from the earth" (as in “literal techyas hameisim”) does not in any way negate the esoteric idea of a tzaddik being 'alive' after his petirroh? Nor can anyone negate the fact that the Rebbe referred to his shver as nesi deireinu throughout all the years (yes, I know it was interpreted by many as a reference to himself, but that is not what he actually said; and, in light of the later events, the more literal understanding is certainly not without merit). Nor can we forget that the Rebbe stated all the time az der shver lebt (even to the point that one couldn’t even mention the word ”yerusho” in reference to him).
Anyways - nachzeir leyinoneinu horishein. Much as you do not like it, you will have to come up with a definition of a meshichist that makes sense. You do not like my "esoteric-literal context" divide. Fine. Give me something better. Or just say "all Lubavitchers are meshichisten (except 'Boruch der ayzel')". Only then - what separates Hirshel from the rest?
P.S. Just as a bit of background music here: the reference to the Rebbe as nesi deireinu is a major "anti" term, you do know that don’t you?
"Where is the Rebbe say that he is addressing the "yigoleynu" statement?"
You have got to be kidding. Read that sicho again.
"Moshe's life certainly was not "chayim bessarim" and yet it does not lead one to belief that he will be the goel tzedek. "
Right. Meishe hu goeil rishein vehu goeil acharein.
"...this answer and many others are literal and self defined"
and then immediately:
"vehoo yigoleyno" itself is meant (not as the literal explanation, but) as the *Rebbe himself..."
What are you smoking pal? Moreover, did you even understand the subject of the conversation? In case you did not – it was to define the ‘yellow line’ that separates meshichisten from other Lubavitchers. Have any intelligent thoughts on that subject?
Berl, let’s not mix apples with oranges. Alter Rebbe already established in Tanya in regards to Menachem Mendel Vitebsker and others that Tzadikim are more alive after they die, etc. He meant this not only figuratively, in esoteric terms as you say, but also literally. But he did not mean that Menachem Mendel Vitebsker was alive. Same with the Rebbe and his Shver.
Now I am not fazed by the term Nosi Doreinu. It means just that “A big shot of our generation” and one certainly retains this tile after his death when the generation is around.
TA, I agree 100%. In light of this, define a "meshichist".
Meshichist is the one who holds that the Rebbe never died, I consider a declaration of Yechi as a testimony to this belief.
Hirshel is not a "meshichist". His Yechi is not a testemony to such belief.
Berl, your interpretation of Yechi is news to me. If you say that Yechi means he is alive in our hearts or even in the Menachem Mendel Vitebsker sense than it is a new way of looking at Yechi. Can someone vouch for this meaning?
There is more than one 'spiritual' or 'esoteric' meaning to Yechi. The one you just mentioned is certainly one such meaning. The one I mentioned earlier ("heisofas chaim to moshiach) is another. But very few people actually negate the literal histalkus of Gimmel Tammuz. They have certainly crossed the 'yellow line'.
Yet, let’s not get carried away. Even though Yechi could have all of the "traditional" interpretations, this Chabadsker Yechi is a chidush not found in the entire history of the Jewish people, and despite the fancy shmency meanings it also has a translation!
DELETED incoherent
Edited By Siteowner
DELETED moronic
Edited By Siteowner
TA, the subject was not advisability of saying Yechi. The subject was the meaning that is ascribed to Yechi by those that do say it and whether that meaning makes them cross the 'yellow line'. Now, whether saying Yechi is something the Rebbe would support is another discussion for another time. But Hirshel is not a meshichist according to your definition.
I would think you would have read the signs on the walls in 770. one can make the argument from the following sicha (which is the main source in print for yechi) that yechi is connected to asking for the dead to come back to life!
hisvadiyos 2 nisan 5748 parshas Tzav 0s 5. see otzar770.com for the whole sicha
"In simple words: Once we have the completness of chayim (68) years of leadership (his service and impact)of the leader of the generation there has to be a fundamental addition in the concept of life (also)through the action of the people who proclaim "yechi hamelech", the content of this proclamation is that the time for "those who lie in the dust will rise and sing" c"k m"och admo"r my father in law my master and teacher, the prince of the generation and until the awakening and singing of David King Messiah
joseph, have you got an English-language version of this?
no I just translated it... and it was 68 years of the freidiker rebbe becoming rebbe, but it showed up as a smiley face)
but I would love to hear a philosophy that does not reject the rebbe's teachings but somehow gives permission to believe that the rebbe is not the moshiach of the generation while still being the rebbe of the generatiion. I understand that Tali Lowenthal at the NYU Conference presented a paper along those lines but I have yet to see it. Even the "antis" seem pretty much trapped by "on the essence of chasidus" and other works. The only way one can have an anti who says the rebbe will not be Moshiach is only if he supports making another Rebbe..which is very very fringe
"if he supports making another Rebbe..which is very very fringe"
I guess we come a full circle with TNLR! LOL
This is what I don't understand why can't there be a another Rebbe and RAMASH if he so desires can still come up as Moshiach, this is not a contradiction, no? Wanst this precisely RAMASH - RAYATZ model?
joseph,
Why do you need to understand how exactly the Rebbe will be moshiach more than you need to undertand how exactly Meishe rabbeinu will be moshiach? When he comes - we'll see how both are true. And why sans this understanding do you need to feel he is no longer moshiach? And why then do you feel compelled to still consider him the current Rebbe?
No Berl, it's the other way around. Just like Moishe Rabeinu, Dovid Hamelech, the FR etc, will be Moshich, so will the Rebbe. Moishe goel rishon etc, never stopped other candidates, nor the appointment of successors.
"Where is the Rebbe say that he is addressing the "yigoleynu" statement?"
You:
You have got to be kidding. Read that sicho again".
No i'm not kidding; i want you to show me the refrence where the REbbe says he is addressing: the statement *"vehoo yigoleynoo" (that the Rayatz is Moshiach).
"Moshe's life certainly was not "chayim bessarim" and yet it does not lead one to belief that he will be the goel tzedek. "
You:
Right. Meishe hu goeil rishein vehu goeil acharein".
And right, Meyshe is not the GOel Tzedek! Look it up in the Rambam! and of course there is still a meaning for "goyel achron" but certainly *not* Melech Hamoshiach!
I am sorry I was not clear.I do not know how the rebbe will be Moshiach but it is clear from the teachings of the rebbe that the rebbe will be Moshiach . with Moshe rabeinu I know it will be through gilgul/part of soul as the rebbe writes about dovid as well. All I meant to say was it is clear from the rebbe's words that the yechida of the generation is the Lubavitcher rebbe of the generation and the Moshiach will be the Yechidah of the generation. and that a rebbe/yechidah of the generation still has that role even after passing until there is a successor. In short as much as some people would like a world where lubavitchers believed the rebbe was NOT moshiach and could not be Moshiach, it is not possible. The only options are non teneble for lubavitchers 1)creating a new post lubavitch philosophy 2) the rebbe is no longer rebbe. There is no one out there that feels they can be the lubavitcher rebbe and there is no one ready to follow anyone aside for the rebbe.
"There is no one out there that feels they can be the lubavitcher rebbe and there is no one ready to follow anyone aside for the rebbe."
you are dead wrong about this Joseph.
"...this answer and many others are literal and self defined"
and then immediately:
"vehoo yigoleyno" itself is meant (not as the literal explanation, but) as the *Rebbe himself..."
You:
What are you smoking pal?
Not the pot that you and your friends have given the masses for decades (and with an amount of shlechkeytz).
You:
" Moreover, did you even understand the subject of the conversation? In case you did not – it was to define the ‘yellow line’ that separates meshichisten from other Lubavitchers".
While i should mechiloh usslichoh vekaporoh for interjecting this holy discussion; nevertheless it is appropriate to argue with premises and statements that you state as "Facts" are not not so at all.
These premises are laid down in a way that mislead one to the truthfulness and meaning of slogans being used to give them legitimacy and to stifle any rejection thereof.
Like for instance: your astonisment as to the definition of "Vehoo yigoleynoo" in the i explained as being explained by the *REbbe* *himself*. But with your "what are you smoking pal" statement you come sounding off as if you are the owner of the truth when in fact this kind of statement is ignorance of the facts and an arrogant expression that attempts to stifle the opinion different than yours.
Look up the heoro in the Maamar in the statement of "Vehoo yigoleynoo" and look that the Medrash Rabboh the Rebbe is alluding to and then talk.
With regards to the presenty discussion: the line is when: a) people state things that are contrary to Chazal, b) have no basis in yiddihse tradition, c) are contrary to the Rebbe's directives or interpretations on these matters, d) create customs that have no basis in the practices asked by the Rebbe. e) especially when they counter tradition of Jews for thousands of years, f) especially when it is done with a tremendous arrogance, g) al achas kamoh vekamoh: when they harm other yidden with verbal and physical violence, h) which is the opposite of what bringing moshiach is all about, i) especially worse is: when they use the Rebbe's words (which mean something totally different) as a *tool* to harm other yidden, which is bedugmoh of putting the "melech's hhead..." as explained in Tanya 24.
Yankle, it feels like you are trying to shut down the conversation. This is not what is desired here. Talk, do not postulate.
Joseph,
You:
"I would think you would have read the signs on the walls in 770. one can make the argument from the following sicha (which is the main source in print for yechi) that yechi is connected to asking for the dead to come back to life!"
There are numorous things that one could learn from Sichos. The main thing though is context:
For instance: there are numerous times that the Rebbe talks in terms of "horooh" of clear directives and then we have many times where the Rebbe talks an inyon in Torah explaining an abstract notion but for whatever reason he does not intend that this should be put in practice in the form discussed.
Our issue is a case in point: You quote a sicho of 2 Nisson: I was around in that time. If the Rebbe wished that from that sicho on, there should be a practical declaration with the version of Yechi hamelech then (those that knew that when the REbbe wanted something in practice he asked clearly that they should implement it) the Rebbe should have asked right after that sicho: that someone should be motzi the public with saying "yechi hamelech".
Better yet: Since the Rebbe wanted to bring out "hossofo in chayus" of the FR, so the Rebbe himself should have declared "yechi hamelech" if he meant that there should be the practical implementation of the declaration of this slogan to increase the chayos of the FR.
But nothing of the sort happened: The Rebbe finished the sicho and
went back to the room (upstairs in his house).
Furthermore: you see the continuation of the sicho (which you ommited to bring:
That the issue discussed in that sicho is the reason why we are "marish" (make a huge effort) and demand that we should call out "AD MOSSAY..." because by screaming "ad mossay" we yearn for the redemptionfor the time when all dead and espcially Tzadikim that departed and until Dovid would return, and by demanding this we have the content of coronation of Moshiach, for by urging his coming we make the coming of Moshiach happen.
So: when the Rebbe actually put his Sicho in mode of action he explained that we request to recite in practice is the call of "ad mosay" and that has the content of "coronation of Moshiach".
True: in "inyon" the REbbe explained that there is an issue of "mossif chayos" in the Nossi which is the content of the declaration of "yechi Hamelech" (discussed in Tanach) where this call increases life to the king, similarly we should do things that add "life to the nossi". However the Rebbe did *not* say that we should actually make this "declaration" for the FR at that present time and neither at a later time.
Many reasons could be offered for this. One of which is that the content of this declaration is not consonant with the reality and plain literal meaning of this declaration.
But nowhere in this sichoh does the REbbe say: that the FR is Moshiach and we are asking that he reveal himself as moshiach by this declaration. Read again the sicho.
yankel,
You may call the following 'arrogance' if you want, but it will not change the fact that you still refuse to write in a coherent way. As I said before - I can't understand more than half of your drivel. Please pick a language in which you are able to express yourself, or have someone edit your musings. As to the parts I understood (I think) - I did not present any "facts" or "truths" but rather observations on how most Lubavitchers that say "Yechi" understand it. I think that was clear to everyone here.
As to your insistence on the peshat of that sicho, why don't you post the original text that proves your point.
yankel,
I had not seen your last comment when I posted mine.The clarity of your writing has not improved, but I want to state that I was referring to the 1950 "vehu yigoleinu" sichoh, not the 2 Nissan 1988 sichoh that Joseph had brought up.
Boruch der ayzel wrote: "No Berl, it's the other way around. Just like Moishe Rabeinu, Dovid Hamelech, the FR etc, will be Moshich, so will the Rebbe. Moishe goel rishon etc, never stopped other candidates, nor the appointment of successors."
Boruch, and I contradicted this how exactly?
TA; A word limit may stop the people who cut-n-paste long monologues.
I agree with Berl that the people who say "yechi" bring a variety of strange justifications. The tzad hashove seems to be denial.
just couldn't help it
"devote"
you meant "Devout"
Will anyone explain once and for all how you can have a dead 'nosi hador'?
And why does the 'nosi hador' have to be a Lubavitcher Rebbe?
Berl,
I am sorry. i'm not a native american and i'll try my best to be as clear as possible.
I know that you were referring to 5710. And that statement of "vehoo yigoleyno" is referred to by the Rebbe to a Medrash RAbboh which refers to Moshe Rabbeyno who was nistalek at the midbor to take the dor hamidbor to the geuloh ("vehoo yigoleyno") and not that Moshe is the Melech Hamoshiach.
Joseph,
just to show how things are taken out their context and their meaning.
Your philosophy, which you base them on teachings like you understanding of 2 Nissan 5748 does not allow to even contemplate another leader for it is contrary to "yechi hamemelch" etc.
Think for a second the context of in which one of the "yechi's" in our history was said:
During the coronation of Shlomoh (son of Dovid) in *dovid's LIFETIME*! (something akin aronim and zalonim today). Can you imagine: Dovid is still alive and here they are talking about who is going to be the next king and they conclude their meeting by "yechi adoni dovid ...leolom". This is total anathema to the meshichist thinking.
But for Tanach it was not apikorsus. How much more so, after 3 Tammuz: despite the "dovid chay vekayom" ("peulossoy veavodossoy" as said in the sicho 2 nisson) it is not heresy to think about a living leader in the interim.
yankel,
I read Rabbi Berel Levine's kuntreisim too and I, too, am aware of this peshat but:
1. This peshat of the sichoh is a doichek godeil (regardless of peshat in the midrosh). Why? Because the Rebbe was answering a taanas rabbim: "Haittochein ich zog aza zach? Moshiach darf doch kummen far techiyas hammeisim!". And if the answer was (as you say) that by "vehu yiggoleinu" the Rebbe did not mean to say that the FR was going to actually be moshiach - why not just say so? As in "I meant to say az er vet unz firren ankegn moshiach'n"? Why leave room for being understood differently (in fact, in the completely opposite way)?
2. An even bigger problem with this peshat is that most people that read that sicho and look up the midrosh do not understand sichoh your way. Ask around. And the core issue in any communication is not 'what is meant' by the author, but rather 'what is understood' by the audience.
As to the main subject of the discussion: Do you actually contest my assertion that rubbo-derubbo of those that say "yechi" DO NOT deny the literal histalkus on 3 Tammuz? (And this is all I really said here).
Regarding "revisionism". There is not doubt at all that prior to 3 Tammuz all references of such kind to the FR Rebbe ("alive", "nesi deireu", "moshiach") were understood by most as references to the Rebbe himself or at the very least 'mostly to himself'. I do not deny this in any way. What I am saying, however, is that in light of 3 Tammuz, people looked at all these statements again and many took a more literal approach to them. I am not saying that is 'richtig', but this is the fact. And their approach makes no less sense that the approach you take. ad kan.
it is not heresy to think about a living leader in the interim.
No it is not. But there isn't one today. And it is a natural response to such a calamity to invent ideological reasons as a pius. As people always say "azei iz bashert". Ober vos art dir? Es is doch sai vi nito keine vos ken memale-mokeim zain! Un eib az es vet kummen einer - vet men shein gefinen vi tzu handelen di ideologishe 'problemen'.
Berl,
1- Because the tayne is: how can he come antkegn moshiach if there was not yet techiyas hamesim. The answer is: tzadikim Techiyas hamessim come before.
This is the *poshut* poshut pshat without any dochek.
Aderabbo if the tayno was how can he be moshiach, then the taynoh was intertwined with the belief that moshiach min hachayim (that was common beleief for two thousand years) and the Rebbe would not downplay it simply by saying that the taynoh was there was no techiyoh yet.
2- most people: after we see here and elesewhere how real messora ad meaning things are taken are of context it does not prove anything how the olom "perceived", when shochor al lovon it says something else.
(furthermore: the olom did not stress the "Vehoo yugoeynoh" but the Shvii is going to be mashich lematoh. veakm"l).
Berl,
Agreed that in poel it does not appear anything near the horizon. But a conjecture of a certain kind Rebbe or a collective leadership or what have you is anathema in "principle" by right and left and it is a result of the crooked ideologies and inventions and repeating slogans out of context and turning them in 10 hadibros.
yankel,
if/when such a leadership emerges, all those 'aseres haddibreis' you speak of will fall away ki lei hoyu.
re the sichoh: it sure takes a lot of palpelen zich to explain such a poshut-poshut-peshat. :)
we need to see the actual text for people to judge for themselves what the poshut-peshat is.
yankel,
As to "shochor al gabbei lovon", how do you think most people translate the "shochor al gabbei lovon" words "vehu yiggoleinu"? Is it not "and he shall redeem us"? How many people are going to translate these words as "he is going to walk us to greet the redeemer"? How many people that "had a problem" with that statement were actually all bent out of shape about the astonishing idea that the FR "will walk us to greet moshiach"? No! People were freaked that the Rebbe referred to FR as the "redeemer" (moshiach) after histalkus! And the Rebbe said, in effect, – relax, it does not contradict the moshiach min hachaim idea... (Because there is a mokeir for techiyas hammesim before moshiach - the only point brought from the midrosh)
So how about some intellectual honesty here? Or do all statements by the Rebbe have to fit into your world-view, even if you have to drag them there 'kicking and screaming'? Can't you at least leave something in a tzorich iyun?
This discussion is so moronic.
When will Lubavitch just give it up and realize that the Rebbe is dead like every other man and woman before him?
Berl,
"shochor al gabey lovon" are related to the intent of the writer of an idea (not to the way people choose tomisread it). The Rebbe himself explains the meaning line of "vehoo yigoelyno" by sending us to Medrash Rabba whose only meaning betachlis hapshitus is the analogy to Moshe Rabbeynu bringing *his* flock to Eretz Yisroel (dor hamidbar) where they would meet the other jews being ingathered by moshiach. To state that that medrash means that Meishe is MOshiach is ludicrous. There are other statements saying "moshe goel achron" (they would be much more appropriate if that was the REbbe's intent); this medrash means clearly how moshe brings *his* dor hamidbar keposhut mamesh.
The same with regards to the intent of the answer after maamar 5711: what we have in front of us is the REbbe's response how we could have a Tzadik revived before the advent of Moshiach. You put more words in this response (where they are not found at all) that it was meant to explain how moshiach could from those who revived and still be "min hachayim".
If that would be the case: a more simple approach would have sufficed and a more direct one: bring the statement of "ee min mchin messayooh" which obviously means that he would have "techiyas hamessim" before he redeems the people and would be "min hachayim" (if this was the question and if the answer was the one you interpreted) which would be a much more direct answer?!? (and btw as an aside : Note that the REbbe *never* ever has recorded in his writing the statement "ee min messayoh")
All of this is posuht betachlis hapshitus.
Furthermore: You talk about how people translated and interpreted the "vehoo yigoleynoh": I must tell you that i was around this area for a long period of time. THe people did not put any thought and focus on "vehoo yigoelynooh" by the FR. Remember: just open up the Kfar Chabad from the 5740's and you'll see aritcles by many including Rabbi VOlpo how it is impossible for the geuloh to be by any other htan the Rebbe for it has to be someone who is alive now etc. etc. No one ever mentioned "Vehoo yigoleynooh".
It was only after 3 Tammuz where the spinning machines were overworking with new pseudointerpretations day after day and "vehoo yigoleynooh" book was printed. I do not give any credence to the perception of these people then and certainly i do not give them now.
But all this besides the point: It is poshut from readings of torah she baal peh and then the readings of the Rebbe's sichos that the REbbe neveer gave the title of "goel tzedek" to the Fr after 10 Shvat.
Especially: when the Rebbe stated numerous times that the only authority in issues such as this (meaning that are cosified as Halacha) is the Rembam. The REbbe interpreted the Rambam to reject the notion that Moshiach is going to be min hamessim. See Likutey Sichos Vol. 35 Vayigash.
For ten years when I lived in CH I was told over and over again that one of the main reasons the Rebbe was Moshiach was because he was the only LIVING person who fit the bill. Then as soon as he was nistalik, the yellowistin made a 360 degree turn and said the had to be Moshiach because he was dead. And they never missed a beat! Total intellectual dishonesty!
Intellectual dishonesty that leads nowhere. If death is no disqualification for the candidacy to the position of Moshiach, then why is Dovid HaMelech himself not the front runner?
Tzemach wrote:
"This is what I don't understand why can't there be a another Rebbe and RAMASH if he so desires can still come up as Moshiach, this is not a contradiction, no? Wanst this precisely RAMASH - RAYATZ model?"
Because to find a new Rebbe now means to disregard everything the Rebbe stood for throughout his nesius, starting with the very first ma'amar.
The Reeb always kept on telling us: this is it, we are the dor hashevi'i, our Generation is the last generation of galus AND the first of geulah,it's all over.
To look for a new Rebbe now means to take all that and trash it. As Joseph pointed out that's very very fringe.
on another note:
do you really think that somebody you describe as "A devote ideologue and a passionate chosid....Even a perennial candidate for The Next Lubavitcher Rebbe" is basing his hashkafas solely on fear and cowardice?
We need to come to the realization that the Rebbe saw an historical opportunity to bring Moshiach and that we blew it.
'We blew it'
Maybe the Rebbe did, ever think of it in that way?This false messianic movement in another in a chain of movementS who started disregarding prevailing halacha, check out more on Shabtai Tzvi and see the similarities. Read up also what happened upon Shabtai Tzvis conversion to Islam and the way some of the fanatical followers 'spun' it.
'We" was referring to Klal Yisroel and that means you are just as responsible for this as the rest of us.
"Everybody must get stoned" Bob Dylan.
Yankel,
1. Many of the issues you preach about were already mentioned by me in this very thread (like the fact that the meshichisten made a turn-about after 3 Tammuz in their reading of many statements by the Rebbe).
2. The vehu yiggoleinu sicha was not the main point of the discussion and in regards to the midrosh you have twisted my words. Nowhere do I say that Meishe was called moshiach there. I said instead that the midrosh was brought ONLY as a mokeir for techias hameisim shel tzaddikim before moshiach. I do not buy your pshat and am not going to argue over it either - let all see the original text and judge for themselves.
3. More importantly, I am amazed that people here absolutely can't follow a simple conversation. Let me remind you:
the topic was NOT meshichism or yechi in a pro or con sense.
the topic was: "do most of those that say yechi recognize / acknowledge the literal histalkus on 3 Tammuz?"
My assertion is that they do and as such are not meshichisten in TA’s usage of the term. vesu lei
All the theological issues I brought up were clearly meant ONLY as illustrations of the beliefs behind the "yechi", they were clearly not meant as either support or attack of meshichism nor were they necessarily representative of my own views on the subject.
Have you anything to say on the topic?
The varying views and opinions that go under the categories meshichist and anti are as diverse as the democratic opinion on the war in Iraq or legalizing abortion. Almost all of the different views are held by people in each camp. You have a detroitnik who goes into the Ohel keping all the minhagim of yechidus and acting as if he is actually standing in front of the Rebbe as he speaks or writes to him. You also have out of town yellow pin wearing people who say yechi as a tfilla for tchiyas hameisim. this being the case the question is on what basis does one characterize oneself. I think there are a number of factors to consider including nature, nurture, one's social circle and occupation.
BErl,
You:
"... I said instead that the midrosh was brought ONLY as a mokeir for techias hameisim shel tzaddikim before moshiach. I do not buy your pshat and am not going to argue over it either - let all see the original text and judge for themselves...".
Me:
Here is the text:
במדבר רבה (וילנא) פרשה יט
יג אמר לו הקב"ה למשה באיזה פנים אתה מבקש ליכנס לארץ משל לרועה שיצא לרעות צאנו של מלך ונשבית הצאן ביקש הרועה ליכנס לפלטרין של מלך אמר לו המלך אם את נכנס עכשיו מה יאמרו הבריות שאתה השבית הצאן אף כאן אמר לו הקב"ה למשה שבחך הוא שהוצאת ששים רבוא וקברתם במדבר ואת מכניס דור אחר עכשיו יאמרו אין לדור המדבר חלק לעולם הבא אלא תהא בצדן ותבא עמהן שנאמר (דברים לג) ויתא ראשי עם צדקת ה' עשה לכך כתיב לא תביא את הקהל הזה אלא שיצא עמך.
You suggest the Rebbe brings this as a mokeir that a tzadik can have techiyas hamessim before the coming of Moshiach.
Bmchilas kvodcho there is no way in which one can see this message in this medrash:
1) The *Rebbe* would *always* bring a mokeir from the gemoro yumoh 5b "moshe veaharon imohem" which suggests clearly that moshe would be here before the times of techiyas hamessim (in the begining of the rebuilding of the beys hamikdash),
2) There is not *one* pointer in *this medrash about moshe having techiyas hamessim before the coming of moshiach. You and everyone can see that it says that he stays in the midbor and does not enter eretz yisroel so that he brings thme to eretz yisroel later when their turn to come to eretz yisroel,
3) which actually is a slight contradiction to your point: for the medrash says "tovoy imohem" you should come *with* them. It means when they will have their techiyas hamessim which would probably be at the same time when all other yidden (the non special tzadikim) would have their techiyas hamessim: after the complete geuloh!
4) The only point that is pertienet to *the* maamor bossi legani 5711 is: that just like moshe will bring his flock at their techiyas hamessim, so too will our Rebbe lead us to meet our brethern in erets yisroel, ie. help us greet the geuloh and moshiach!
10 shevat 5711
וכמ"ש במשיח ונשא מאד יותר מאדם הראשון ואפילו כמו שהי' קודם החטא .וכ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר אשר את חלינו הוא נשא ומכאובינו סבלם, והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעונותינו, הרי כשם שראה בצרתנו, הנה במהרה בימינו ובעגלא דידן יגאל צאן מרעיתו מגלות הרוחני וגלות הגשמי גם יחדיו, ויעמידנו בקרן אורה. אבל כל זה הוא עדיין רק גילוים, ועוד יותר - שיקשר ויאחד אותנו במהות ועצמות א"ס ב"ה. וזהו פנימיות הכוונה של ירידת והשתלשלות העולמות וענין החטא ותיקונו וענין סילוקן של צדיקים שעי"ז יהי 'אסתלק יקרא דקב"ה. וכשיוציאנו מהגלות ביד רמה ולכל בנ"י יהי' אור במושבותם יהי' אז ישיר משה ובנ"י גו' הוי' ימלוך לעולם ועד ,וכמו שהוא בנוסח התפלה וגם בלשון תרגום הוי' מלכותי' קאים לעלם ולעלמי עלמיא. ומסיימים והי' הוי' למלך וגו' הוי' אחד ושמו אחד ,שלא יהי' חילוק בין הוי' ושמו ,שכ"ז נעשה ע"י סילוקן של צדיקים, שקשה יותר גם מחורבן בהמ"ק. וכיון אז מ'איז שוין די אלע ענינים דורכגעגאנגען, הנה עכשיו אין הדבר תלוי אלא בנו - דור השביעי. ונזכה זעהן זיך מיט'ן רבי'ן דא למטה אין א גוף ולמטה מעשרה טפחים, והוא יגאלנו
13 shevat 5711
שאלו אצלי על זה שאני אומר שבקרוב יקויים היעוד" הקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר" והוא - כ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר - בתוכם, והוא - הרבי - יוציאנו מהגלות - הרי הסדר הוא ( כפי שמובא גם בתורת החסידות ( שתחילה תהי' ביאת המשיח וימות המשיח, ורק לאחרי משך זמן יחיו המתים?
והמענה על זה:
אף שבכללות הסדר הוא : ביאת המשיח, בנין בית המקדש, קיבוץ גלויות ותחיית המתים, מ"מ, תחיית המתים של יחידים היתה ותהי' גם לפנ"ז. וכידוע כמה סיפורים בש"ס ומדרשים ומצדיקים שהחיו מתים, וכמארז"ל "זוטי דאית בכו מחי' מתים"
yankel,
As is evident from these quotes, some details (especially my claim that the Rebbe’s connected the FR with techiyas hammeisim in a “leshittoscho” sort a way) in my previous comments were not correct. Sorry – I was writing from memory and it was only a side point in the conversation… But that’s no excuse – one has to check one’s sources... Having said that, let people read the two quotes (or the whole thing on chabadlibrary.org) and see whether the reference to FR is as moshiach or not (and if it is, it still would not be a stiroh to moshiach min hachaim. Sorry - no time now to explain).
BTW, I could not find any mention of the midrosh (though Rabbi Berel Levine claims in his kunteres that it is in the footnotes of the maamor).
And would you please state your opinion on the main point I made (see earlier comment in bold).
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4031536/
#152653
to be clear: that comment of mine was incorrect.
and yankel,
I hope you no longer have this quastion:
Where did the Rebbe say that he was addressing the "yigoleynu" statement?
I have been missing all the fun!
1)the 2 nisan sicha CAN be understood without expanding ones mind beyond their comfort zone(retroactivly, after the histalkus) refering to the rebbe getting back to life..of course he states in that sicha therefore you should say ad mosi..my point was that it is fair and logical for a chasid to say that yechi means to me that I am adding chayus and speeding up the geulah and techyas hameisim. I am not saying that the sicha says everyone should say yechi
2)the real push for yechi came by the rebbe moving his head to it, many many times and although it was the one song everyone sang the rebbe could have said no and not nodded..this was taking place at a time when both sides were giving the rebbe life and death questions to answer by a nod..including staying in hurricanes etc. both sides then claimed they believed in the nod..if they now say the nodding was meaningless they are the most vile creatures giving life and death answers to people based on nothing..
3)of course one can claim that when the rebbe was nodding to it we did it even though it went against many things we thought we knew about the rebbe's opinions on yechi and since now he is not nodding in a way that we can see we are not going to sing it. even when the rebbe was nodding to it the question could have been ok in front of the rebbe nodding in 770 but how about in other places and it is not clear. these are all legit issues but not connected to the belief that chabad chasidus is the last stage in the chain of revelation of the inner dimensions of the torah and the teacher of these teachings is the Moshiach of the generation. That the teacher of the yechidah of torah (chasidus chabad)is the yechidah of the generation (Moshiach.)
4)I would like to take issue with what tzemach claims is the fear factor. It is not fear of change.. it is the knowledge of what a rebbe is. one who believes what the rebbe says a rebbe is, is trapped by the high standards. Someone may claim that all those descriptions are myth making but by doing so you are denying the fundamental link in the chain. you cannot attack the rebbes words and then try to be his succesor. for the legitamcy in a dynasty comes and flows from the predecesor. One who knows the best of the best lubavitcher chassidim knows that there will have to be techiyas hameisim before there is another rebbe. If there was someone around that even came close to being a REBBE- among other things SOMEONE WHO SEES YOUR SOUL AND KNOWS YOUR MISSION.. I am sure many people would redefine the 7th generation limitation in a heartbeat. To redefine what a rebbe is and downgrade expectations will take longer than it will take to bring democracy to the arabs lehavdil.. and not be a big help anyway for most people..anything less than a Rebbe that measures up.. Lubavitchers do not feel they need and they laugh at this conversation.
5) what happened is the rebbe-The conductor tied (or revealed the tie of)the whole chasidus chabad train including the rabbeim to the engine called Moshiach linked up the entire mystical dimension of judaism behind from rashbi-to the arizal..which also dragged along the rest of Judaism. The conductor told us taht we are at the end of the journey and we are approaching our destination and will be all good! He then pushed the throttle down and locked it in place and we can't find him. He did not put anyone in charge before he left. The conductor does not answer! We cannot change tracks or trains for they are all linked together there is only one stop Redemption and there is only one track. We were all givin jobs to do on the train and some are being good boys and doing there jobs and taking care of the cars and other passengers some are stuffing themselves in the dining hall and others are getting drunk in the bar drowning their fears and sorrows. There are those who continue to pray that the conductor come back and believe that he is watching somehow and aware of what is going on, others are claiming he is still here and he talks at 1:30 by a farbrengen and if you are quiet and believe you can hear. Still others are saying let us make a new conductor take anyone with a nice beard and peircing blue eyes and put a conductors uniform and then he will be a conductor and be able to save us........
Ok so we are in trouble...but if we are right the entire world is in worse trouble for they don't even know the conductor left and they have jobs that they should be doing..so are we going to swallow our fears help them do their part and prepare them for the end of the ride that has been fortold...:) ok i got carried away..but thanks for the fish:)
Berl,
Wrt to Maamor and meaning of it:
They are not referring to the FR as "Melech Hamoshiach" or "Goel Tzedek". In fact: the references are: 1) analogy of the state of the Fr to Moshiach with regards to "ess cholyenoo hoo nossoh", 2) "yyigal *tzon marissoy* from the spiritual and physical golus, 3) histalkus of tzadikim in general are a tikkun and preparation for a higher revelation therefore 4) let's hope to be zoche to see the REbbe beguf gashmi "vehoo higoleyno" 5) there at the footnote he points to (sefer chassidim and) Medrash RAbboh chukas 19/13:
All of these do *not* speak *at all* of the FR as the *melech hamoshiach*.
It is bibchinas: we talk of "isspashtusseh demoshe" like moshe; but not moshe himself. Or like "meshicheynooh" as opposed to melech hamoshiach. And so too, the inyonim of the FR bibchinoh of inyon of moshiach containing yissurim and tikkunim for his flock and he will remdeem his flock etc.
This is clear by the reference to the Medrash Rabboh where it is clear there: that moshe is not going to have the role of melech hamoshiach, but rather it speaks there of him, in the capacity of ensuring and bringing *his* flock of the dor hamidbor to erets yisroel and in the *same* vein the Fr is to his chassidim and thereby effectuating bringing his chassidim owards the redemption by moshiach (similar to moshe's bringing his flock to moshiach redemption, to erets yisroel). And it is clear as said before that that particular medrash does not shed any light and is not a pointer to "moshiach min hamessim = and turning "min hachayim".
The same wrt to the maanoh of 13 shvat (and i state that i was not correct in that i said earlier that the rebbe did not address the statement of "veyigoleynu" for partically it did mention the statement of "veyotzienu meguloss". but the meaning of the question is):
the words of the Rebbe are clear: that the question did not come to answer "moshiach min hachayim" (as said: if this were to be the question, he could have answered directly that there is an opinion that it is min hamessim or he should have explained clearly how this is "min hachayim"). The question was clearly:
How is it explained what was said: that the FR a) is going to revived before the seder of techiyas hamessim (when usually techiyas hamessim happens later) and here the REbbe said: "hokitzu" at the redemtpion before the regular techiyas, b) which *includes* also that he is going to be there in the role "yotzienoo min hagoluss" (meaning: taking *his* tzoyn martissoh to redemmption as the footnonte of Medrash Rabboh) when in fact techiyas hamessim happens lmuch later?
For this the REbbe answered: that there is techiyyas hamessim of yechidim which can happen earlier.
The Rebbe does *not* address the identity of moshiach (whether it can be min hanessim or not or moshiach is going to be from the revived ones etc.), this was neither the question neither in the answer.
For the Rebbe did not claim in the Maamor that the FR is the identification of Melech Hamoshiach! therefore this was not a good question and did not warrant an answer.
It is clear that this is consistent with numerous statements by the Rebbe that the FR would take us "antkegen moshiach". It is consistent with his statement in 5745 that after moshiach we would still go our Rebbe.
It is consistent with the fact: that there could not have been a declaration with certainty about the idenity of moshiach being someone who was nistalek: since as the Rebbe pointed out inKuntress Beys Rabbeyn Shebebovel there is someone *alive* who is rouy to be moshaich at any time! And it is consistent with what the REbbe wrote in LS Vol 35 that according to the Rambam moshiach has to be min hachayim and even dovid Hamelech himself is ruled our from the Moshiach! and it is consistent with the Rebbe's views that the Rambam is *the* authority in issues of redepmtion.
And it is also consistent with the fact that the REbbe *never&* in the printed letters mentioned the "ee min messayo" etc etc.
Berl,
Wrt to your bold question:
I'm afriad i differ with you:
while i would say that "bichlolus" the majority of Meshichisten identify themselves to a certain degree with a state of histalkus, the trend in my eyes is that it goes to other direction:
1) i would venture to say: that a *large* percentage maybe between 25% and 30% does *not* acknowledge a literal 3 Tammuz (especially amongst the large amounts of students of Tzfas: present and their alumni).
2) a trend: that comes out for instance, with kuntressim explainging to the boys how "histalkus" is an illusion. And things that were never given any possibility in svoro is already accepted a sa legitimate theory.
For instance: while in 5754 when one said: "There was no 3 tammuz kipshutoy he was looked with utmost ridicule; today he he can be perceived by a alarge group of people "he is in a level that he beleive it with an "emess" and we cannot deride it...".
I remember right a year after 3 tammuz: when a leading meshichist was explaining to a group of people how the REbbe can still be moshiach. He wasn't satisified with the "min hamessim" possibility; he was rooting and supporting himself on "yaakov loy meys" and he is not a "looney" i n other matter (in fact; i believe that he is from the few people that i would recognize a talmid chochom in other areas of torah), but here he was/is hung up in saying that "Yaakov loy mess kipshutoy mamosh" and therefore he could be moshiach etc.
Joseph,
2 and 3) whatever he meant by the nodding athat time (and certainly it is inconceivable to say that one should be able to interpret it with certainty in a way that contradicts what the Rebbe stated clearly' like the rule in torah "eyn lomdim mefurosh min hassosum"), it certainly cannot be used to give guidance after 3 of Tammuz. While before # of Tammuz there might have been a legitimate medium to plead with Hashem that 3 of Tammuz should not happen, but since the worse happened, this declaration loses it's meaning in the literal sense that it was said for years and years.
Yankel: re: "i would venture to say: that a *large* percentage maybe between 25% and 30% does *not* acknowledge a literal 3 Tammuz". What was the Lubavitch party line on the question of the Rebbe's successor during the lifetime of the Rebbe? I clearly recall many chassidim answering this by saying, "we don't want to talk about such a possibility". Are you saying that this widespread preconditioned denial can only claim 25-30% success rate amongst mechichishtim?
"the majority of Meshichisten identify themselves to a certain degree with a state of histalkus"
yankel,
OK - we are not that far apart (though I contend that it's a vast majority and it's 'literal histalkus', not just 'to certain degree'); and more later on the vehu yiggoleinu, iy'h.
PMH,
I would not saty that the denial and worse than that is a result of non wanting to think prior to that about such a possibility. That was mostly either: 1) as a refusal of a child to discuss openly the father's decease, b) and the beleif of a chossid that his rebbe would lead him to geulah.
Right after 3 Tammuz actually most were in shock; not in denial: the denial was a result of the spin machine campaign to oficially deny issues or any connection to what really happened.
Berl,
Sorry to digrees. And i apologize for interjecting your discussion.
But (in addition that in any discussion, people digress to challengue things that are factually incorect and especially that it has some bearing on the discussion), i beg your mechiloh:
There seems to be a position by many people who write or think like you: that
a) Rebbe is Moshiach is not problematic at all to outside people (therefore: ploni or almoni would be comfortable with them).
b) that inside this is part of the chassidus and someone who does share this feeling "felt him altz a chossid".
And then you move on "keilooh" these premises are accepted and you go to the next debvatet (whether the "Yechi" is rela or illusional etc?).
Therefore i think it is of extreme importance to challengue these two premises:
1) REbbe = Moshiach is itself problematic to say the least..
2) That this is ikrey hachasisdus is also problematic.
There are problems with all aproaches because the sources contradict each other. We cannot say the sources are wrong. We are forced to explain them. We have to be honest about that.
Those tzefasnicks who say there was no histalkus are trying to reconcile this by ignoring reality and redefining the meaning of words to the point where logic no longer matters and words are meaningless (shlita for the man who cannot pass on)but they are able to embrace the sources and say they are all true. the same thing applys to the antis..they are going to retranslate and rewrite what the rebbe said and they may still be marranos hiding their true beliefs but they will claim to the outside world that this is not what the rebbe meant. This is the conundrum we face. To reject the words is impossible, to mangle the meaning so it is a farce is also untenable for most..so what should we do stay with a question?? Lubavitchers don't like that we always knew everything as Ari Goldman of NY times fame says when he walks into 770 and wants to ask a bochur a question..the bochur knows the answer and begins to answer before he hears the question ...
The sources imply
1)that we need a person living now to be the moshiach.
2) The nassi of the generation is the Moshiach of the generation
3)Over the last generations The lubavitcher rebbes are the leaders of the generation
4)Nassi is still the leader even after passing
5)this 7th generation is the last of exile first of redemption..
here is the famous sicha to shluchim..."Moshiach" refers to the Nassi of the generation....
Why is the Nassi equivalent to Moshiach? First of all the simple meaning of the term Moshiach is "anointed one," which personifies the Nassi, who was chosen and anointed to be the Nassi and Shepherd of Israel.
I should not complain if you were to translate Moshiach as the "redeemer -- our righteous Moshiach," because in truth the Nassi of the generation is the redeemer of the generation.
The role of every generational Nassi and Shepherd of the Jewish People is to be the "Moshe Rabbeinu" of that generation. As the Zohar teaches,
An emanation from Moshe is present in every generation. So much so, that every genuine Torah scholar is also called a Moshe.
Inasmuch as Moshe was the first redeemer and will also be the ultimate redeemer, it follows that the Moshe of every generation, the Nassi or leader, is also the Moshiach, the redeemer of that generation.
Consequently, when the Nassi appoints his envoys and they stand in his stead and carry out their mission with commitment, devotion and meticulous care, using their ten soul-powers, then the "Shaliach" (348) plus his ten powers becomes "Moshiach." In him the sender -- Moshiach -- is revealed and then the ultimate revelation of Moshiach will actually come.
Those who argue that they are incapable of grasping the profundity of this concept and are still grappling with the principle that the Nassi is Moshiach -- no matter -- let them simply carry out the directives of the Nassi.....
שאלת רב
בחודש תשרי האחרון זכינו לקבל דולר בצרוף לעקח מהרבי מה"מ שליט"א. ורצינו לדעת האם ואיך אפשר לנקות את הדולר והשקית מחמץ לקראת פסח. כידוע שלפי אדה"ז מוכרים גם כלים מחומצים, וא"כ גם אם זה יהי' נקי לגמרי יש בעי', מה גם שמאוד קשה לנקות את הדולר מהלעקאח.
נשמח לקבל תשובה מנומקת עם מקורות (ולא השערות והרגשים).
שאלת רב:purim was a week ago.Get a life!
Yankel,
OK, I found the footnote. It references the word zehen at the very end of the maamor (from zehen zich mit'n Rebb'n) and it says the following: "see end of sefer Chassidim (brought in giliyon hasha"s to Kesubeis 103:a), Bamidbor Rabbo 19:13"
1. The footnote does not reference the words yiggoleinu which it should have if Rabbi Levine was correct (and the midrosh was brought as an illustration of that kind of geulo), but rather the word zehen which means it is only brought in to explain that concept.
2. I did not see what it says in Sefer Chassidim. Do you have that text?
3. I said earlier that Rabbi Levine's peshat was a deichek, but now I feel it is completely mufroch to say that the entire penim that has a very clear mashmous (complete with all the messianic references from Na"CH) that the Rebbe meant moshiach kifeshutei, should be understood differently only because of a footnote. If this was the peshat, such a vital point HAD to be part of the penim.
4. Rabbi Levine mattert zich with this approach strictly because (and he says so himself) the Rebbe’s shitto was clearly moshiach min hachaim. And if you say that vehu yiggoleinu is moshiach - hot men a stiro. To this I can only offer the following possibilities:
a. blaibt men mit a shailo (and it's OK)
b. yechidim that are zeiche lisechio before it's proper time (before the messianic process commences) are begeder 'chaim' leinyon zech (and min hammesim would then mean a specific individual that descends from heaven as moshiach)
c. nossi / melech that still has a connection to the living (through them considering him their melech and fulfilling his decrees) is begeder 'chaim' leinyon zech.
My point here is (listen carefully now) that you have to read the text honestly without any pre-conceived ideas. If there is a stiro, you can try to resolve it, but you do not have to. What you should not do is twist the text to fit your notions.
Let me also address your assertion that the ideas I presented here (and again, I may or may not subscribe to them myself) were necessary in making my main point regarding the acceptance of literal histalkus by the majority of the "yechi" crowd - I do not see any connection.
Berl, see LS 35, Vayigash 3, footnote 6.
Berl,
You:
"OK, I found the footnote. It references the word zehen at the very end of the maamor (from zehen zich mit'n Rebb'n) and it says the following: "see end of sefer Chassidim (brought in giliyon hasha"s to Kesubeis 103:a), Bamidbor Rabbo 19:13"
1. The footnote does not reference the words yiggoleinu which it should have if Rabbi Levine was correct"
Me:
Not at all. Because it is a footnote that pertains to the *entire* phrase: from "venizkeh zehn zich until vehoo yigoelynooh": where the the first reference probably relates to the possibility of seeing the Rebbe even during the present time, like Rebbe Yehudah Hanossi coming to make kiddush to his family "b'guf gashmi lematoh meassoroh tefochim" (which means that this footnote is not to *one* word; but to the entire statement).
You:
"(and the midrosh was brought as an illustration of that kind of geulo), but rather the word zehen which means it is only brought in to explain that concept".
Please listen (without "preconceived notions"): The MEdrash raboh has *no* meaning *whatsoever* to the part of "men zol zich zehn b'guf gashmi"; so it simply *cannot* mean any other thing other than explain "Vehoo yigoelynu" (the *end* of *this* statment)! meaning: that what was said in this maamor "vehoo yigolenoo" (and likewise "veyotzieno megolus...") relates to the idea of this medrash rabboh.
Again: there is no *other* meaning to this footnote in this place of the maamor other than the aforementioned.. (not even a "dochek"" one)
You:
"2. I did not see what it says in Sefer Chassidim. Do you have that text?"
I beleive it is about Reeb Yehudah Hanossi coming to make kidush to his family.
You:
"3. I said earlier that Rabbi Levine's peshat was a deichek, but now I feel it is completely mufroch to say that the entire penim that has a very clear mashmous (complete with all the messianic references from Na"CH) that the Rebbe meant moshiach kifeshutei..."
Me:
This is where you read it with preconveied notions (the ideas invested by people for decades etc. blind one to teitch pashtus hadvorim the way they appear in the maamar to have other meaning that "pashtussom" or to infer "pashtus" to cryptic statments "dvorim stumim"):
Bmchlias kvodcho: you find that messianic refernces from nach must mean that he refers to the FR as "melech Hamoshiach" or "goel Tzedek". This is a result of preconceived notions, of not being able to appreciate terms like this about gedoyley yisroel calling them meshichey hashem, and not being able to discern and distinguish ideas' like for instance: not discerning "isspashtussoh demoshe" and calling someone for instance "moshe rabbeyno" himself.
Look in the maamor with all sincerity and tell me where the penim says that the FR is the Goel Tzedek?
Let's also call your attention that you ommitted in your copy a line before you copied thepossuk of "moshiach meshichmoh vomaaloh". A line before the Rebbe said how our avoda will bring about the state of the world to be in a higher state than before the chet, and for that he brought a *similarity*: the same will be about moshiach himself, that he will be higher than odom horishon. The Rebbe did not invoke here a reference to the idenity of moshiach.
In the next sentence: the REbbe invoked the messianic reference that Moshiach would suffer for all makind, similarly the FR who saw our tzoros will redeem us and place us in keren oyroh (and similar to other tzadikim who suffered and baal yissurim -see Sanhedrin 98b rashi). Here again: The REbbe does not state that he is the Melech Hamoshiach of Klal yisroel and redeem them to bring to geuloh hashlemyoh. It is a *bechinoh* of moshiach, that is goel his people.
Then he states: that he connects us with atzmoos. The issue of histalkus of tzadikim that is for the sake of
an aliyoh: of "isstalke yekoroh dekudsgho brich hooh...", "and when he will take us out of the golus and will be oz yoshir ...Havayeh yimloch...no difference between hooh ushmoy" all this is accomplished by "hisltalkus" of a tzadik.
Then he finishes: that since we went through all of this , it only depends upon us "dor hashvii" "veniskeh zehn zich mit dem rebbe..vehoo ygolenooh":
So the maamar has statements which has "messianic" ideas, and the strongest of the statements if "vehoo yotzinoh migolus" "vehoo yigoelnoo", and on that he writes a footnote "medrosh rabboh bamidbor rabo".
Nowhere does he say that the FR is Melech Hamoshiach or Goel Tzedek. and otoh he sends you to a medrash to tell you meaning of what he said..and you tell me of "preconceived ideas"?
Bekitzur: 1) The *penim* is as lacking of the beef of the meaning of "melech hamoshiach" 2)and that the footnote is the only light here that sheds an explanation to what was meant in the penim.
You:
"4. Rabbi Levine mattert zich with this approach strictly"
I'm not a spokesperson for Rabbi Levine; i barely speak for myself. But i can tell you, that the way you interpret it: does not make sense, not only mitzad the REbbe's position all along about moshiach min hachayim, but because it lacks any internal consistency:
For you to state that the Rebbe meant the FR is Moshiach kipshutoy with certainty:
1) you negate the *possibility* (not only the *hechereh*) of a living moshiach. This seems to be completely without any consistency with the maamor itself insinuating that dor hashvii and their leader (the living one) will bring the shechinoh lematoh and bemeyloh etc.
2) There is no precedent of *declaring* someone min hamessim to be moshiach with a certainty. If this is what would be done it would be done with an explanation and a reference for this position. None of this was present here in this mamor (the way you explain it).
3) and any existent mokor makes no mention of declaring ("min hamessim") *one's Rebbe* to a *certain* candidate more than any other. In fact: Daniel was a remote person than let's say: Rashbi or Rabban gamliel Hazoken or Hillel Hazoken etc.!
4) and as you said: the inconsistency with the *REbbe's* other *explanatory* and definitive writings!, that
"because (and he says so himself) the Rebbe’s shitto was clearly moshiach min hachaim. And if you say that vehu yiggoleinu is moshiach - hot men a stiro".
YOu write:
"To this I can only offer the following possibilities:
a. blaibt men mit a shailo (and it's OK)"
Me:
I have no shayloh: for a "mefurosh"' ie. something that has a *definition* and *explanation* cannot be considered "nistar" (contradicted) from a "ssossum" (something obscure that is self explanatory at best) as it is known to all that learn parts of torah where it seems something contradicts something else.
You:
"b. yechidim that are zeiche lisechio before it's proper time (before the messianic process commences) are begeder 'chaim' leinyon zech"
Me:
Source? This i stam gezogt. And why do you think that Doniel is not from the yechidim that will be zocheh for this "techiyoh"? and is not "begeder chayim loeinyon zeh"?!? atmehoh!
And why would you decide that doniel would "(and min hammesim would then mean a specific individual that descends from heaven as moshiach)"?
there is no reason that he should not be zeyche for the techiyoh and he also fits the bill of "mecholeynoo hoo nosse..."
You:
"c. nossi / melech that still has a connection to the living (through them considering him their melech and fulfilling his decrees) is begeder 'chaim' leinyon zech".
Source in halochoh or dugmoh "leinyon zeh". In fact: Rav ccould of picked up someone who was a little before Rebbe like REb YOchanon Ben Zakkay who also had a connection to the living and source of torah she baal peh and is not a candidate for "inyon zeh". (you will be mechalek: Rebbe Yehudah Hanossi was real nossi etc. But sof sof: maybe mitzad the greatness of hafotzas torah she baal peh and yavneh vechachomeho maybe makes him a candidate for "min hachayim". Likewise: talmidey Reb Yanay, chezkiyoh etc.: they were not "nessim/melochim": why did not they consider someone from the recent passing who had a stronger connection to the living than their living Rebbes and yet they were not a candidate "leinyon zeh".
Therefore: it seems poshuter to accept the position of "mefurosh" that wrt to the literal definition of melech hamoshiach we follow the directive of Rambam etc and the other "obscure" and cryptic statements that are not as clearly defined remained simply that: they have a meaning on a ruchnisdike level etc. and of course they have their meaning; but they cannot override the literal clear defintion laid down by Torah She Baal Peh and the Rebbe (like LS 35 Vayigash).
Therefore: "If there is a stiro, you can try to resolve it, but you do not have to": exactly try your own medicine: learn the issues and learn the parameters: what is pshat, what is halocho, what is sod, what statements belong to inyonim sstumim, inyonim stumim are not a contradiction to dvorim mefuroshim etc. (especially: when there is clear direction in the cryptic texts that reconcile with the mefuroshim one's -lime the reference to bamidbor rabboh) and so on...things that we learn in kloley halimud in yeshivos...
Joseph,
"The sources imply...
2) The nassi of the generation is the Moshiach of the generation.."
Me:
Look up the sources: it means that when he *ALIVE* he was presumed to be Moshiach, it does *not* say this after their *histalkus*.
"4)Nassi is still the leader even after passing"
But not presumed moshiach after their passing. See the SIcho Beys Rabbeynu Shebebovel.
there's a concept "ninme hanimno-ohs" which has occassionally sparkled (i.e. inside kodesh hakodoshim), but to be standard exposure when we get to utopia (can't say when moshiach comes, 'cause that's another ball of yarn now).
It basically means full physicality with full spirituality coexisting without the dilution of either term or reality. An illustrative example given is for an elephant to be threaded through the eye of a needle, with both in their real form.
The Rebbe postured for such an eventuality, pushed the envelope and the bar past the usual comfort zone allowed within the 70 faces of torah-true judaism. He seemed to be in this for the real test of the mettle. Moshiach is real. In flesh. life as a human without interruption. forever.
3tammuz forced people to semantics with the ultimate term of nimne hanimno-us. Yup, an elephant just went through a needle's eye. They just called a louse an elephant.
My point for the above lengthy exchange is - what does one do with the words alive and life? If the Webster's dictionary and modern medicine have the final say, the Rebbe-Lubavitch-Torah-God structure implodes. But since when do we know-it-alls resort to those klipas noga entities? We who are founded on omniscient anchors decide.
Definition of "true" life is determined by he who we must say is alive. Nice circular logic.
I can't see the point of a logical argument about life and death and truth if one includes perspective that translates the terms differently.
yankel,
Because it is a footnote that pertains to the *entire* phrase: from "venizkeh zehn zich until vehoo yigoelynooh"
Nonsense. While this is a phrase today (because it is quoted all the time), it was not a phrase when the Rebbe said it 5711! If the Rebbe chose to insert a footnote at the word zehen then that is all it explains.
The Medrash Raboh has *no* meaning *whatsoever* to the part of "men zol zich zehn b'guf gashmi”
Huge nonsense. Both mekeireis (The Sefer Chassidim & the Midrosh Rabbo) talk about departed tzaddikim being actively involved with the living az m’ken zei zehen.
For you to state that the Rebbe meant the FR is Moshiach kipshutoy with certainty...
What preposterous nonsense! Where in the world did I say such a thing? In the very beginning of this thread I said to TA that we are talking here in a very 'esoteric' (same a sosum for the linguistically challenged) sense. It is very clear from the text that the Rebbe is making a wish for FR to take us out of gouls. Which bepashtus means a wish for FR to be moshiach. But where in the world did I say that the meaning of a bechino of moshiach is mufroch here? I would go further - I contend that for many people that say "yechi", the meaning is esoteric and no vaddous beyond what the Rebbe said about the FR is intended (maybe in an eifen fun keil hamekaddeish, als daas chachomim huh mekaddeish...)
Boruch der ayzel, Yankel et al
ON FOOTNOTES TO HISTORY:
Your entire approach - of claming on the one hand that the entire Lubavitcher teufo meshichis is bad and contrary to Teiroh, while on the other hand absolving the person that single-handedly initiated it (the Rebbe) of any responsibility for it because he protected himself in 'the small print' of a few footnotes - is beneath contempt... A misnagdisher yittush kodmechem!
berl, you get one more mentalblog.com award for the 100th comment!
Berl,
You:
Me:"Because it is a footnote that pertains to the *entire* phrase: from "venizkeh zehn zich until vehoo yigoelynooh"
"Nonsense. While this is a phrase today (because it is quoted all the time), it was not a phrase when the Rebbe said it 5711! If the Rebbe chose to insert a footnote at the word zehen then that is all it explains".
Shtussim vehevolim: look up the Maamor as it was printed, it was said in a long sentence "ונזכה זען זיך מיטן רבין דא ולמטה מעשרה , והוא יגאלינו" with a coma between "tefohim" and "Vehoo".
IN addition: you forget that you make no sense whatsoever: what great "chidush" do we have from this medrash about "zehn" mitn REbben. i'll repeat it, read it, there is no point in making beleive it is not there: The teichen of this medrash is: that moshe stays behind at the desert so that brings his flock to erets yisroel! plain and simple.
And: Do you need a special medrash: that when there wil be techiyas hamessim and the yidden would all be in erets yisroel that we will "Zehn" zich with der rebben?!? This is poshut what techiyas hamessim is all about!
You:
Me:"The Medrash Raboh has *no* meaning *whatsoever* to the part of "men zol zich zehn b'guf gashmi”
You:
"Huge nonsense. Both mekeireis (The Sefer Chassidim & the Midrosh Rabbo) talk about departed tzaddikim being actively involved with the living az m’ken zei zehen".
REb Yid, when did you learn a piece of gemoroh or a mishneh or a dvar halocho beiyun last?
The medrash Rabboh: is not telling us that meshe is "involved" with the living so tha t"m'ken zei zen"; it say that moshe stays behind at the desert so that he comes with them to erets yisroel. For "zehn zich" there is no need for any special medrash or for moshe to stay behind: moshe and the tzadikim will be at the whole geuloh and we come there we will "zehn zich"!
You:
Me: "For you to state that the Rebbe meant the FR is Moshiach kipshutoy with certainty..."
You:
"What preposterous nonsense! Where in the world did I say such a thing? In the very beginning of this thread I said to TA that we are talking here in a very 'esoteric' (same a sosum for the linguistically challenged) sense".
Yes indeed You said it with regards to explaining to TA about the "esoteric" meaning of "Yechi". But with regards to the belief of REbbe = Moshiach i did not hear from you that there are esoteric sense.
and in fact, in this i can attest that 99% of meshichisten do not consider your following explanation of "wish" to be what a "chossid" has to feel (as you mentioned earlier) ; they say that one has to beelif with a certainty that the Rebbe = Moshiach kipshutoy mamosh.
In any event: Of course i agree it's esoteric and sossum; but it is far beyond sossum than to use this maamor and it's tocheneven for your following point:
You:
"It is very clear from the text that the Rebbe is making a wish for FR to take us out of gouls. Which bepashtus means a wish for FR to be moshiach".
If there would not be the pseudopirushim for decades, you would perhaps enetertain that maybe the statement wasn't even reflecting a wish. Maybe you would know that these things "maybe" are not in our realm and maybe not in "any one's" realm;
maybe you would entertain that you accept "michloloh" the inyonim said, in a way that they are not a dovor chodush legomri (at least from the mekoros we have) if they are not clearly so spelled out. Maybe it is consistent with other sichos of der Rebbe, that "we will go with our Rebbe" and the "Bechinoh of moshiach" "Shebedor" (which is *not* necessarily goel tzedek if he is not alive) will have a peuloh to his flock "firen zey antkegen der geuloh"?
YOu:
"But where in the world did I say that the meaning of a bechino of moshiach is mufroch here?"
Me:
because this is the content of the entire discussion. If you would acknowledge this possibility why would you say that the maamor or/and the maanoh is a "proof" for the claim of 99% meshichisten that the Rebbe is moshiach.
YOu:
"I would go further - I contend that for many people that say "yechi", the meaning is esoteric and no vaddous"
So why the fights against all others? why the brainwashing? why the terror? if their counterparts also beleive in some level of "Esoteric" moshiach? And please, i live around here for years. I personally saw those who *physically* suffered from the terrorists. (and no i tell you offhand i will not reveal any of the identities. But i can tell you, what i *saw* and experienced is: verbal and emotinal abuse by the thugs and yes i know that they were brainwashed: that a chossid *must* beleive that REbbe *is* for *sure* moshiach and whoever disagrees with this is not a *chossid* and abuse against him/her is legitimate.
This would not be so, if there is a discussion about the "esoteric" meaning of this or that term.
Berl,
You:
"ON FOOTNOTES TO HISTORY:
Your entire approach - of claming on the one hand that the entire Lubavitcher teufo meshichis is bad and contrary to Teiroh, while on the other hand absolving the person that single-handedly initiated it (the Rebbe) of any responsibility for it because he protected himself in 'the small print' of a few footnotes - is beneath contempt... A misnagdisher yittush kodmechem!"
You had to finish with a krumer remark that has a stamp of shlechtzkeyt of the police brigade of the the past decades and use hevel arguments with a schtech glaych vertel "krooked" like a kkrumen layter:
THe Rebbe is absolved of any responsibility, *not* because he *hid* in a footnote; but because he NEVER SAID WHAT YOU (COLLECTIVELY) SAID HE SAID: He never sid that he is moshiach hagoel tzedek. He said that he wishes to bring the schechinoh lematoh to connect them with atzmoos which is the "yetzioh migolus" that we yearn for; but the terror brigade the puste kelim (from all sides) hoben mamshich geven yenikas hachitzonim and with the masquerade of pseudochassidim took the tools of de shelchte "snags" and invented a new religion: where the whole yearn for geuloh means: that we sit in front of screen (or any other medium) and we will "run it in" : that the "der Rebbe iz Moshiach and alle sonim zolen platzen".
Ess ish zon tzeit tzo vissen as "Yitosh kodmossoch" in bringing sinas yisroel.. andif you want or yearn to "zen zich mit dem rebben" look at the earlier oysisyoss of that bossi llegani maamor and see that Nessiey Yisroel Chabad hmashocho of elokuss ...the Rebbe pinpointed "ahavas yisroel" of each of the Rebbeim and may maybe after doing some of this vet men zoche zyn zdeyn zich mit den rebbe doh lematoh meassoroh tefochim.
I am new to your discourse.
There are only a couple of personages in our Torah mesorah who are described as 'going up' to Shomayim without the aid of the Moloch HaMaves. Eliyahu even has two 'wrappings', one a body for earth that remains in the clouds for when he descends, and the other for when he ascends. About Yakov Avinu, it only says 'lo met', even though he was embalmed by the Mitzriyim.
Where is there any reference to either 'state' applying to The Rebbe? Was there not a Hevre Kadisha applying their holy skills? I have said Yechi because my friends were saying it, but had no intellectual understanding of its intent. I would like to believe that we have finally arrived at this juncture (seeing Moshiach). I do believe we are living in those days, but have not quite yet arrived.
I know The Rebbe is/was simply remarkable, and cannot deny that I was mesmerized by his aura. But because I am both enthusiastic and cautious, I am still a creation of Hashem that is living in this world of Asiyah, despite how much I read/learn about the redemption coming. I see, feel and think about many, many scenarios.
But, as I see the bottom line, we still need to be attached to HaKodesh Boruchu - and that means davening, Hisbodedus, Halacha et al. When the time is RIGHT we will all greet Moshiach, but until then we still need to do alot of work on our own neshomas.
Why all the arguing? Clarifying? How is this preparing your neshomas?
Would The Rebbe be pleased with all of your hair-splitting debates?
I pose the above in earnest, with respect for each of your perspectives.
Yankel,
You need to take a brake from gemoro leiyuno and concentrate on peshat for a while, for you have certainly lost any ability to see the forest through the trees (and this is actually a limmud zechus, because I do not want to accuse you of willfully twisting my words despite my repeated protests).
Your claim:
"If you would acknowledge this possibility why would you say that the maamor or/and the maanoh is a "proof" for the claim of 99% meshichisten that the Rebbe is moshiach?"
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I do disagree with your peshat in the maamar, but I never said nor intended to say anything about any simplistic "proof" about any "vaddous" about any "moshiach". Here is what I actually said when I started this discussion:
"… The only "fear" that can play here is fear of being disconnected from the Rebbe. No honest chossid of the Rebbe will deny his personal hergesh that the Rebbe yiggoleinu [if such a hergesh is lacking, a chossid will admit az em felt].
Also, when you call Hirshel a meshichist - what do you mean? (My question is serious - I do not know were he is at). Does he believe this to be meikrei hoemunoh? Does he preach to other Jews that it is their responsibility to accept such a belief? Does he sport yellow flags and lapel buttons? Does he say "yechi" as part of the davenen? In short, has he introduced or participated in any new hangogeis asher lei yedoum aveiseinu?"
And here is what I actually said about "99% of meshichisten":
"If the 'Rebbe alive' (in the same sense as the Rebbe publicly referred to his shver for over 40 years) is the 'yellow line', then 99.999% of Lubavitchers are meshichisten, starting with the Rebbe himself. So the whole term is redundant.
Here is the 'yellow line' to me: Taking that which was presented in an esoteric venue and couched in esoteric terms (starting with atzmus melubosh beguf) out of its esoteric context. You can apply this kelal across the board, "yechi" included. Not all "yechis" are equal."
I'm not interested to rehash back and forth, but i'll state one point (and if needs repeating it i'll bl"n repeat non stop):
regardless of what you say, said, will say, what i said, say will say about what you said etc.:
whatever you will make pilpuley ... about the "esoteric" meanings of "yechi" etc. Let one thing be clear and not mudded (by sheker or sfas sheker etc etc): Current past 99% of Meshichisten beleive that the REbbe = IS Moshiach. If they experience "sfeikos" it's called by them: "sfeikos in emunoh".
Furthermore: a great number of Anti's: beleive that the REbbe = IS Moshiach. Others see nothing wrong in beleive that the REbbe IS Moshiach. To the contrary: that is the highest level of beleif which they have not yet reached etc.
Whatever pilpul and nuts and bolts: the meshichisten clearly made and make this the priority of the whole chassidus. They might be flexible about many things but on this "nekudoh" forget it.
Then you might have: some of them that "klapey chutz" they will form and create all different philosophies that what is really happening is that they mean it in esoteric terms. Do not be fooled: they mean in literal terms. They will fight tooth and nail anyone who dares stifle their opinion.
Reading some of the comments here reminds me of what had happened at a levaya some time here in US. A Rosh Yeshivah had died and another was being maspid keminhag litteh. So he says: A Vadde un a vaddeh he died missas neshikim like the tzadik does, but we know that the neshama come to him with vayiphach nishmas chaim, neshama shenaphachta bi, nu und takkeh what then is the difference between neshikeh und nephicheh ...?
1) All the Rebbe's were [are?] one neshama (the picture/photo was only the current guff) -- so vehu yigalenu is meaningless to tell us which guff.
2) Where is the neshama [Rebbe / Moshe Rabbenu] now? Anyone have an idea?
3) Why are lub's so "hung-up" about the pictures when his picture only represents 1/7th of the known neshama residence?
4) Anyone who believes the Rebbe will rise before the general techiyah [99.9999% lub's] but that Mashiach will be someone else [a mekubal from Afufah?] is fooling a big fool - his-self
5) The Rebbe was medayek on mareh mekomos [even in other peoples seforim he told them to add]. So where is the mareh makom that there will be a techiyeh before the techiyeh?
Yankel,
The basis of any debate is an assumption that the other party, at the very least, means what they say. Since you accused me of misrepresenting my 'true views', all further conversation with you is moot. Good-bye now.
" The Rebbe was medayek on mareh mekomos [even in other peoples seforim he told them to add]. So where is the mareh makom that there will be a techiyeh before the techiyeh?"
all the points made are all "half-or completely baked".
But just to point out the previous one:
You have a text stating openly that there were will be such a thing. and that there was techiyas yechidim. this is *yodua* becamoh sipurey etc.
13 shevat 5711
שאלו אצלי על זה שאני אומר שבקרוב יקויים היעוד" הקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר
"
והמענה על זה
אף שבכללות הסדר הוא : ביאת המשיח, בנין בית המקדש, קיבוץ גלויות ותחיית המתים, מ"מ, תחיית המתים של יחידים היתה ותהי' גם לפנ"ז. וכידוע כמה סיפורים בש"ס ומדרשים ומצדיקים שהחיו מתים, וכמארז"ל "זוטי דאית בכו מחי' מתים"":
and the writer comes back with a comeback: where is the moror?! What are you trying to point? That there REbbe "keyodua ikamoh sipurim..." that there could be techiya before techiya and the REbbe did not bring a citation that there will be so: *proves what*?? That what he did not say is what he meant?!?!? and what he said is not what he meant?!?!?! and what was *sholel* (EXCLUDED) was not meant to exclude?!?!?!?
For your information:
Durng many many times: the REbbe would bring the gemoroh in yumoh 5b "moshe veaharaon imohem" before the complete geuloh.
"4) Anyone who believes the Rebbe will rise before the general techiyah [99.9999% lub's] but that Mashiach will be someone else [a mekubal from Afufah?] is fooling a big fool - his-self".
Here is another "halfbaked" emotional slogan devoid of logical consistency:
what The fellow here is really saying (that not only he does not know to point a finger at someone from the "living" now of being moshiach, but) that it is impossible for anyone to be moshiach from those who are living, because when the REbbe comes back before moshiach so the mekubol in afula cannot top ...
REwind the time clock 15 years: someone (of the great mashpiim ) rebuked the one from bney brak: who says "how cna we say someone in our genenration to be moshiach" -which was meant to say: that there is not anyone in ourgenerationwhom we know that has the madrega to be M (similar to the statement of the writer here, that the "Mekubol from afula?") and th e MAshpia rebuked him saying that this is obcioulsy kfira and apikorsus to say that there is not any of the living that today trhat fits the bill.
Had the mashpia known the piece of torah that our writer presented he could have farentfered the one from BB: that obviously there is not anyone in our generation (from his outlook) that has the madrega of M and obvioulsy since there will be TH no one could take predence over them.
The writer's statement is as half-baked as this one.
Listen: There IS a tradition that there is someone who lives know (*before* TH) that Hashem is ready to emmpower him if HE so wills. whenther he is a mukubol from afuloh or a beggar in 770 or in meah sheorim i don't know. But this IS Jewish tradition.
Commenting by HaloScan
