mentalblog.com comments:
a very interesting interview ... with important implications for Judaism as a whole ...
so, why don't our gedoley hador have such public discussions more often for our edification?
This was no discussion. They were interviewed individually.
I would doubt there's any dialogue between the both of them, as R. Shochet has charges against Berger that are very serious acadamically.
Very well done interview, totally impartial.
My take :R'Shochet has his head stuck in the mud if he believes what he says about the Meshichisten being a tiny minority and petering away, if he knows the truth, that anybody associated with Lubavitch knows, i.e Meshichisten have at least fifty percent of the youth if not more,770 is ruled by the meshichisten, the biggest Lubavitch yeshiva in the world,400+ boys,Tzfas, is totally,totally messianic etc. etc.If R' Immanuel knows all this and still claims what he claims he is not being truthful.
I also found perverse the claim that R'Berger was engaging in ad hominem attacks on Lubavitch in the book, when R'Shochet constantly, attacks Berger personally, going so far to imply that Berger wrote the book because of 'personal' problems! Berger in the interview raises no personal attacks against Shochet, makes you ponder, eh.
Last but not least, can anybody verify if Yitzchok Shochet rabbi of Mill Hill synagogue in London is Immanuels son? Yitzchok is a meshichist,I heard a tape of his lecture that verified that.He is either a son or nephew.I will add that R'Immanuel has other nephews who are major pushers of the Meshichist ideology,other posters will be able to verify that too,so it seems to be that R'Immanuel is a major apologist.I couldn't get over another point btw, where, after being forced to the wall to agree that Tzfas is Meshichist territory, was not able to agree that one should be worried if such people teach the kids in cheder.Apologist with capital A!
Yitzchok is Immanuel's son.
What was the lecture topic? Who was it to? How long ago?
Yitzchok is known to opine "against the grain".
Timmy, I don't like your contribution. You have one more post till you are banned.
Heard his tape on 'radio moshiach and geulah' the crackpot radio station in Crown Heights.
Would like further verification from others
Found interview very fair. As for R. Shochet's accusations re Dr. Berger, it seems to me that he is justified. Dr. Berger does go out of his way to besmirch Lubavitch at every opportunity, or creates these oportunities himself, especially when there are positive news-reports. Just witness his recent attacks in Jewish Week and Jerusalem Post. His anonymous anecdotes of alleged misdeeds, especially the fabricated incendiary incident mentioned in the article, without seeking to verify facts, is surely dishonest and betrays personal bias.
As for R. Shochet's family, he does indeed have fervent Meshichists in his closet (the Wagner-brothers are his nephews), but as far as I know his son in England is not - and recently wrote there in the "London Jewish News" very sharply against them (using his father's vocabulary) which has put him on the Meshichist black-list.
Meshichist black-list published somewhere?
This is an extensive tragedy. Why must everyone stick to their opinions like barnacles to a rock and see no farther?
The wagners are meshichistys??
I dont think so.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that a true meshichist are the yellow waving every few minutes yechi saying thro away anything that has ZY"A on it crazys. which as rabbi schochat put it, nearly all of lubavitch are NOT.
Thw Wagbers are Most Definetly ardent messianists r"l.
Berger decided without any source that anyone who believes that the Rebbe MAY BE moshiachj is a heretic.
He claims that R A Feldman from Baltimore agrres with him - but the opposite is true! In his letter to Gil Student Feldman clearly states the Believing that the Rebbe may be Moshiach is Not Heresy but mere Stupidity, exatcly like E Shochet says.
Was it the dark humor? sarcasm? slamming the other contributers?
Was it the questions?
The writing of berger's was done before the Tzfatim's claim of power and prominence - or notoriety.
Notice that berger over here (As well as in an article printed recently elsewhere, the name of it escapes my memory) loves to use the "Christian" word - almost as if he's more concerned with the origin of the belief than the problem of it. I think Berger shouldn't use the Chrisitian argument anymore if he intends to get his point across to rational thikners. If he wants to spread propoganda, then there is nothing better than comparing two enemies, such as tzfatim already becoming synonymous with muhjadeen.
Wagners... let's see - there's noam - big nutjob, akiva's affiliation is unknown, but has been noted as a closet mishechist (not in the tzfati sense). I don't know about the others
Nachman,
R. Feldman goes further: "Furthermore, in my opinion it is clear that even though the meshichistim are not considered “non-believers,” nevertheless, they are presumably (“b’chezkas”) people who lack Torah understanding and it is impossible to rely on their conclusions in Torah matters - even issues that do not relate to Moshiach."
He seems to advocate the same goal as Berger.
Just to connect the two: Berger insists on a witch-hunt in which every single chabad rabbi swear that the Lubavitcher Rebbe cannot be the messiah, or else lose his position.
the wagners are black sheep in the schochet family. three out five of the lubavitcher ones are definitely meshichist, much to their extended familys chagrin. there may be more.
my understanding is that the uncles werent that excited getting the younger ones into lubavitch lest they too fall into the trap.....
wait,,, do the wagners say yechi? after teffilot?
do they wear yellow pins and wave yellow flags? do they not say ZY"A or ZT"L? do they only learn the sichos of 51 and 52? if not then they are not todays mesiansitems.
who are the Wagners?
Schneur,
I have been reading through all of your postings and am amazed at the depth of your knowledlge. I am still unclear regarding what happened to Sonia Horenstein. Her younger sister, Shayne, married Rabbi MM Horenstein, but did Sonia Horenstein every marry? Also, you made reference to a nephew being raised by Menachem Mendel Horenstein. Who is this person?
Thanking you in advance for your assistance.
Chaia Leah Horensten
Noam heads a Yeshiva in South Africa.
Another one heads a Yeshiva in Toronto.
Spill the beans,
I spent some time with Yitzchok Shochet a few years back, he's an extremely succeful rabbi of a United Synagouge in Mill Hill, London. He seemed hardly the messianic type.
Tzemach,
It's good to see my posts are still published.
Timmy, you are right about that. Feldman even gave Berger a Haskama for the Habrew version of his book.
But, in reality, the fact remains that Berger in his argument with Schchet uses this nonsense about believing in the possibilty of messiah from the dead being HERESY.
BTW, Feldman shows in his letter that he does not know how to READ the Rahsi in Sanhedrin.
[I think the Messianists ARE Christians - not because the belive in a POSSIBILTY of a messiah from the dead, but because of the Certainty of that belief if their system and it's centrality. But Berger dosent even know that. His sources are very weak].
People seem not to be able to comprehend or they deliberately distort. Berger's central point is not merely whether moshiach could be from the dead; the question is whether there is room for a person presumed to be moshiach to die before finishing the job and then reappeaer as moshiach. No source in in yidishkeyt supports it; on the contrary rambam would seem to reject this notion.
Further: there is no point in burying one's head in the sand. The meshichisten are a majority in lubavitch: whether they wear the pin and the flag (where there are a big percentage of them) or whether they have in their cardinal principles of belief the central belief that the rebbe is moshiach (which includes by the way the most choshuver mashpiim who gave intelletual standing for the messianists 13 years ago and they are still the closet meshichisten when discussing these issues in inner circles: announce and declare unambigously that nothing has changed with regard to the cardinal article of beleif that the rebbe is moshiach).
instead of fighting berger make some real steps to change this. Mocking berger will not make the issue go away. Only head on collision with the ideas to educate a new generation free of these false ideoligies can do the trick. Anything short of that will only perpetuate the problem and intensify it.
noam is a mishechist just short of pinning the yellow flag.
akiva is in detroit known to be against mishechist'im
If close family members of R'Immanuel Shochet are indeed meshichisten, he is no longer impartial, so it figures that he sees no problem with them being mechanchim or mashpi'im or his nephews would be out of a job.
For the life of I can't understand how Berger is being turned into an irrational person, why don't you guys just read the book or the interview and see who makes ad hominem attacks.(in the interview at least, Shochet is attacking Berger personally all the time)Lubavitch unfortunately are the ones who must answer why they still have a significant group that thinks or says the Rebbe who passed on almost 12 years ago is still alive.THINK ABOUT this slowly,,,,,a group that harbors crackpots that say that a person who died 12 years ago is still alive is angry that they are mocked,wow! A small segment says the Rebbe is G-d, the rest of the messianics are pretty close, they 'only' believe the Rebbe is omniscient, all knowing and omnipotent.So who needs to the answering?I think Shochet is part of the problem not the solution at least until he gets his head out of his partisan toilet
"If close family members of R'Immanuel Shochet are indeed meshichisten, he is no longer impartial, so it figures that he sees no problem with them being mechanchim or mashpi'im or his nephews would be out of a job."
reality check
please see my above post. i happen to be somewhat familiar with the schochet family.
frankly, you sound like another idiot with an agenda.
oops again
my post is addressed to spill the beans
my apologies to reality check
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I read this interview very carefully and feel compelled to disagree with some comments above. Rabbi Schochet is far from an apologist, nor does he resort to ad hominem attacks. He clearly gives valid reasons for his critique of Dr. Berger. Dr. Berger never really responds to the criticisms except by continuously stating that it is already explained in his book. Leaving aside the issue of self-promotion, he wants the reader to think that his book is some authoritative text, when in fact that book is the question! While acknowledging that Rabbi Schochet is no less anti-messianist than he, he says that Rabbi Schochet is part of the problem. Rather interesting, no? Obviously he means that Rabbi Schochet defends certain premises (which Prof. Berger deems heretical or counter to Jewish teachings) to be legitimate and valid, and thereby invalidates Dr. Berger’s major premises. At no point, however, does he even attempt to disprove that defense except by his personal – and unsubstantiated argument – that it runs counter to what he sees to be the historical, normative approach.
The issue of anonymous anecdotes, theatrics, and especially the scare-tactics of using hear-say “evidence” of alleged incidents, without verification and actually challenged to be fictitious, is most unbecoming, especially to a reputable academic like Dr. Berger. He would not use such, and to the best of my knowledge never did, in his other writings. I was also very troubled by his introducing in the book a number of other issues, not directly or indirectly related to the main-theme of the Messiah-issue. That smacks of dishonesty, trying to delegitimize Chabad for other reasons, and therefore, with the notorious technique of “association”, fortify his basic attack on messianism. The other issues are valid subjects for debate and discussion, but are irrelevant to the basic theme of the book and Dr. Berger’s views on the Messiah.
Thus I have no choice but to agree with Dr. Schohet that Dr. Berger is working with a personal agenda
Joseph
Shochet says in the interview that Berger went on this crusade 'maybe' because of personal problems.When questioned about Berger writing that he,Berger had a postive approach towards Lubavitch till they started on their destructive path, Shochets answers 'It sounds like 'some of my best friends are jews' 'a blatant attempt to disguise a personal agenda'.Joseph, that is called an ad hominem attack,he is attacking the person, not the idea.Berger in the interview continues to focus on the ideas not the people nowhere in the interview does he attack Shochet personally
I find it absurd that Shochet calls Bergers book a 'personal agenda' so lets analyze Shochet himself.He is a leading Lubavitch figure, Bergers book portrays Lubavitch as having descended into some very questionable beliefs and practices, is Shochet,as a Lubavitcher,one of the few with the eloquence to combat a well written book without an 'agenda'?Of course he must 'defend' the faith!.Shochet has an additional agenda,some of his sisters kids, the Wagners,are Meshichisten, they grew up non Lubavitch,Uncle Immanuel was one of the guys who did the Lubavitch 'inreach' on them, he has to now claim that even the Meshichists are not terrible to save grace and face.So much for his 'objectivity'.Remember that Berger has no ideological bone to pick with Lubavitch.He is a Yeshiva University grad and his rabbi Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveichik had cordial, if distant relations with Lubavitch.
Akiva? Detroit? get your facts straight.
The mishechist which Berger is talking about is one who believes that the Rebbe can/will be the Messiah, which almost certainly includes akiva (and about 95% of lubavitch, save the shochets and a few others, who are notoriously known as koferim).
Nachman, I don't know if that can be asserted about the average Lubavitcher (Mishechist) - perhaps only the tzfatim; most people, however, subscribe to the more elokist belief which was previoulsy discussed - but Berger doesn't know that.
It seems that he is more concerned with discrediting every lubavitcher with a weak claim, then discrediting a vast percentage with a stronger one.
p.s. i am also in that 5%
spill the beans
youre not reading my posts and you really do not know immanuel.
i would suggest you familiarize yourself with a subject BEFORE formulating opinions on it.
Radomsker, why be part of a group where 95% have views you consider wrong, at best?
Spill-the-beans:
You are spilling your own beans, not someone else's. Your comments connecting Rabbi Shochet's remarks with protecting members of his family are so off the deep end that they are beyond criticism. Talk about ad hominem!
As for his reaction to Dr. Berger's claim of having been a friend of Chabad, I don't see that as ad hominem at all. Of course Dr. Berger had to say that as an introduction lest he exposes himself right away as one of the professional Chabad-bashers. Thus he starts with a disclaimer which is soon disproven by the sequel.
This is getting ridiculous, going around in circles, trying to put new spins on things, and chewing the cud. Let’s summarize once and for all the different positions:
a)The Rebbe was “Mashiach vadai” (the real Mashiach) before 3 Tamuz and remains as such (notion of starting redemptive process, interrupted by death, and then “second coming”).
b) The Rebbe will definitely be Mashiach vadai when the time comes (“first coming”, but claiming it will be the Rebbe for sure).
c) Rebbe may or may not have had “chezkat Mashiach” (presumptive or potential Mashiach) before 3 Tamuz, but even if he had it ceased with his passing, and now it is impossible for Rebbe to be Mashiach at any future date, under all and any circumstances even when resurrected (thus neither “first” nor “second” coming).
d) Regardless whether Rebbe had or did not have chezkat mashiach before 3 Tamuz, the Rebbe may be among those resurrected before the redemption and could then be chosen by G-d to be the redeemer (“first coming”).
Hard-core meshichisten claim (a).
Soft-core meshichisten (and perhaps majority of Lubavitch) claim (b).
Dr. Berger claims (c), without qualification.
Rabbi Schochet claims (d), with qualification that this is merely a theoretical possibility consistent with halachah and Jewish tradition.
The problem with Dr. Berger’s position is that he restricts G-d’s ability to choose option (d). He has not shown in any way or manner that it is impossible or that it would contradict anything in Jewish tradition – when that is precisely what is alluded in the Talmud stating that Mashiach may be of the dead.
The problem with Dr. Schochet’s position is that, albeit legitimate, it is certainly not the traditional or conventional (“normative”) view of Mashiach in Jewish thought and history.
Dr.Berger and Dr. Schochet both agree with the obvious that the Rebbe definitely was not, nor is at present, mashiach vadai (as this flies directly against all Halachic rules and definitions). Both reject unambiguously the notion of a “second coming.” Their basic difference, then, is merely whether or not the Rebbe could still be “appointed” as Mashiach in context of the Jewish tradition of a resurrection of tzadikim prior to the beginning of the Messianic redemptive process.
[Of course there are other differences as well between them, with regards to statistics, and with regards to how to deal with hard-core and/or soft-core Meshichisten. I have left out the position of the lunatic fringe of the “elokistim”, at most a few handful and rejected as an idolatrous abomination not only by both Dr. Berger and Dr. Schochet but even by most of the hard-core meshichisten, thus do not warrant any mention any more than other anti-nomian heretics.]
Beyond the above, anything else is grandstanding posturing by people with personal agendas and vendettas. So let’s stick to the issues.
avrum-x,
You're 100% correct in the way you were mechaleik this issue. But experience shows that the vast majority of people likely to converse on this topic here will be unable (or unwilling) to comprehend your very simple presentation. Your "let's stick to the issues" call will not be heeded.
Commenting by HaloScan
