mentalblog.com comments:
Well, if you call it a primer, then there is also a שילוב of "b" and "d" (or a less literal take on "b"), as was explained by me at length at an earlier date. It is also my contention that most Lubavitchers actually belong in that camp, even if they pay lip service to a pure "b"-nik belief.
If the only difference between B and D is the claim that the Rebbe is Mashiaich vadai, what qualifications is required for D (Schochet)?
I posted before I saw your comment, Berl. I fail to see a big difference between B and D. It is all in the reaml of "feeling" withing the tradition.
b) וודאי וכפשוטו
d) אולי, אבל כפשוטו
b-d) וודאי, אבל אולי לא כפשוטו
What is kepshuto?
כפשוטו :
The way one would refer to a specific person (with a specific name and a specific body) that he is going to be Melech HaMoshiach.
לא כפשוטו :
The way hazal refer to Moshe Rabeinu and Dovid Hammelech, etc (that we understand to be 'an aspect' of Moshiach or something similarly fuzzy).
Therefore, וודאי, אבל אולי לא כפשוטו means that :
"The Rebbe will definitely 'be Moshiach', but we don't know how that will be manifested in the physical reality. Maybe it will be literal, maybe not."
Avrum -x,
You seem to define "second coming" in terms of halachik definition of "moshiach vaday" or "cheskas moshiach". There is no qualification whatsoever for your definition.
a) If there is validity to the claim of Dr. Berger that anything that appears to have no source in yiddishkeyt and otoh is found in foreign sources of other religions and where they have proven no to be the true pattern of our redemtion should be abhorred and repelled by Jews and Judaism, then certainly your definition is out of place and "second coming" may be estranged from our midst even if the potential candidate didn't reach the level of halachik moshiach.
(and we do find in our tradition that we abhorred and disavowed ourselves from patterns that existed in false religions etc. even when were in the past part of our tradition (mattzevoh at mizbeach etc.)
b) Even if you do not accept the legitimacy of this point of view: You are still far off in disqualifying (c) and at the same time qaulifying (b) and (d) as legitimate.
You claim that Dr. Berger makes his claim (c) without qualification, making it appear that (b) or (d) merits "qualification" and "legitimate" (actually you write clearly that t (d) is legitimate though not "conventional").
There is no such qualification whatsover and is contrary to any where in our tradition. Coupled with placing their position as a cardinal element in the beleif system, it is even worse as it introduces new elements of "faith" that has no qualified source anywhere in tradition and history.
The truth however may be that Dr. Berger is closer to tradition and more qualified than (b) and (d):
Rambam's position that once cheskas moshiach does not succeed he is *certainly* not moshiach, would seem to incorporate in itself, (c) and disqualify (d), for his position would seem to read that if someone who actually reached the level of "presumed moshiach" in halacha is completely disqualified in case he does not reach the ultimate redemption, then it would incorporate in himself by "kal vechomer" someone who was assumed and announced to be moshiach (and hasn;t reached the level of "cheskas moshiach) and did not reach the ultimate, then for sure his is disqualified.
Rambam's ruling would seem to read: that there can not be a situation where someone was perceived to be certainly the moshiach and he does not finish the job. If he does not he is disqualified.
Certainly in the words of the Rambam : in case he reached "cheskas moshiach" and did not conclude the job is CERTAINLY disqualified by rambam (contrary to your writings).
and obviously (b) has no merit whatsoever and is totally unfounded where we do not find anywhere in the tradition to pinpoint at a possible deceased person to *certainly* be the moshiach someone who is of the recent past , and it would appear that at most there was an allusion to someone who perhaps had Biblical credentials to fit the job (Daniel). Iow: we do not have anywhere giving us some pointers that we can pinpoint a deceased leader to *be* *the* certain moshiach (even at the future).
So your statement "..Dr. Berger claims (c), without qualification..." is without qualification.
Likewise: your position "...
The problem with Dr. Berger’s position is that he restricts G-d’s ability to choose option (d)..." is erroneous. It is analogous to saying that by excluding females or someone who is not from the Davidic family is "restricting G-d's ability to choose option...". both staements are ridiculous since Torah has set the *choice* of G-d that moshiach be from those who are from davidic family, male gender and someone who was not presumed moshiach and left the world without succeeeding and finishing the job.
Likewise, your statement about Dr. Berger "... 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..." you are being completely disingenous, for Dr. Berger is at pains (in his book and this is the source for his position in this article) to persent his central position from the *rambam* that he rules out a candidate who was presumed moshiach and not finished the job to be unambigously diaqualified from being moshiach. In fact the proponents of (d) do not deal with this, as the proponenets of (b) fail to show any source for their position to be valid in a manner that legitimizes their announcing with certainty that the Rebbe is for sure going to be moshiach.
While the title of "heresy" may not be warranted only for small amount of people; the "legitimacy" of their (b) and (d) position is unfounded and contrary to torah especially when they state it with a certainty and therefore should rightly be completely challenged.
Tzemach,
If i understood correctly Avrum-x (d) does not require any qualification as they are not making a *definite* claim (as (b)) but merely the conjecture of such a possiiblity.
Berl's position (if i'm not mistaking) is a different one: that the meaning of the claim is similar to the claim that Moshe wil be goel achron.
I think though that Avrum was not talking about that, and imho i beleive that most Lubavitchers express the claim to be "kpshutoy" -the difference between (b) and (d) is whether it is: certain that the Rebbe will be the moshiach or merely the conjecture that there is such a possibility. Rabbi Shochoet, if i;m not mistaking, is only defending (d).
tzorichiyun,
True, most Lubavitchers do not articulate the position I described (and I mentioned that as well). But conduct the following test. Challenge a Lubavitcher you know to say that לא כפשוטו position is מופרך. If they do not say it is מופרך , then by definition they agree with 'b-d' position (since they allow it as a valid possibility).
Berl,
i humbly disagree with your position. True most do not articulate what their position at any given moment. But in my experience (and i have had MANY), when tried your test, they said it's "mufroch". They say "with what are you a chossid?" and many other rancorous emotional charged statements that is reflective of their position being "kpshutoy mamosh" and anything short of that is completely off the "nekudoh" etc.
This coincides with avrum-x definition that "soft core" identify with (b) "kpshutoy"..
Furthermore: R. Shochet who identifies with (d) (the way i described), if faced in an "inner setting" (an insider farbrengen (similar to Ta's recent experience)) and a serious discussion will ensue, will be challenged with severity, for they do not accept "(tzitzum) eynoy kpshutoy" and a whole series of epithets may be thworn at him for "doubting" or even saying "not kpshutoy".
my vote is that d) is kapshuto as is b)--b)-d) is really d) as an actualization of b) taken as a "potential" state: "v'dai aval ad lo"
As I watch this discussion from the shadows, I think Berl has the psychology of this nailed, as usual. But there is a slightly different way of stating the same thing. Most Lubavitch hold b or d, is the same as saying most Lubavitchers do not understand what they believe, or, more accurately, the implications of what their society is guiding them (and expecting them) to believe.
IOW- Lo k'pshuto means that he is Moshaich, but not in the way that the term is always used. L'mah haDavar Domeh? "I will pay you $100, but lo k'pshuto." What have I just promised? Anything? What is definitely outside what I have just promised? Anything?
Oy gevalt! Back to pilpulim. Berel was right in the other thread: the analysis was clear and simple, but will not stop further arguments about it. Before answering Tzorichiyun, let me add that I would be the first to admit that each of the 4 positions may have subtle variations – perhaps to no end. The point is that for all practical purposes these are the only 4 (general) categories. Now to tzorichiyun:
(A) I don’t understand your first point at all. Idea of “second coming” is illegitimate, absurd, and contradicts halachah (Rambam). As for beliefs or “hashkafah” having to have a source in Torah/Yiddishkeit, the idea of Moshiach coming from the dead has this (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Midrash). So what is the problem?
As for category (b) being “legitimate” (in sense of not violating any halachic premises, or in sense of not being heretical), this is something conceded by rabbinic opponents of Chabad in general and of messianism in particular. No one has ever yet come up with any source to argue its alleged heresy. The only valid criticism is that it is absurd and totally unverifiable. It is a position based exclusively on personal feelings (as Tzemach already said, and as has been elaborated in detail in earlier writings by Rabbi Schochet). It is a purely subjective personal belief that cannot be proven or supported by any source, and is contingent on (1) the personal belief that the Rebbe was the exclusive nassi hador, and (2)that the Rebbe retains that status even after 3 Tamuz. While (1) is “bearable” (albeit obviously strictly a subjective belief), no. (2) is highly problematic as it is without precedent or parallel anywhere and may even contradict the very notion of “nassi hador” (which assumes that this must be someone living in every generation). Premise (2), therefore, is totally absurd even if it is not heretical and does not violate any halachic principles.
(B) As for Rambam: Rambam’s position is clearly that even with chezkas Moshiach death cancels everything out. That person is now empirically disqualified, effective immediatey and RETRO-ACTIVELY! However, this does not, and cannot, mean that a new situation may arise, i.e., that this selfsame person may be resurrected (prior to redemptive process), REGAIN cheskas Moshiach, and eventually be Mashiach vadai. Forgive the crude analogy, but with such resurrection it’s a new “ball-game”!
(C) Re your comments about Berger’s fallacy, you are off base: Hashem set down the qualifications of Moshiach as part of the Torah. Just as the Torah cannot change (which would imply a change in Hashem, when “ani Hashem lo shonissi” and see Balak 23:19 etc.) so Hashem “can not” (kaveyochol) change the qualifications etc.
The selection of Moshiach was/is done by Hashem exclusively, and could be anyone He chose: whether a person presently alive in the normative way, or a person yet to be resurrected prior to redemptive process. In the latter case (as mentioned above), it is like starting from scratch. This would then allow for the possibility that it may indeed be the Rebbe (emphasis on MAY, though obviously it may just as well be someone else). That is all that Rabbi Schochet claims according to my understanding.
Logically I have to agree with Rabbi Schochet, and there is no theological/halachic basis for Dr. Berger to categorically reject that possibility without violating the halachic premises on which it is founded.
Yes gevalt is right. pilpuley hevel about dvorim pshutim!
You:
"(A) I don’t understand your first point at all. Idea of “second coming” is illegitimate, absurd, and contradicts halachah (Rambam)".
Me:
So far so good. Now the question is: what is "second coming"?
And the further question is what about things that do not have a source in yiddishkeyt and people make their own articles of faith without any corroboration from the sources: what status do these "beleifs" have? What status do the promulgators of these false beleif have?
The former is: Anti-Halacha and Judaism ;the latter while possibly not being heretical does not have LEGITIMACY, as it is unfounded and one cannot make up his own torah and create an article of faith as he so wishes and therefore it does not have "legitimacy".
You:
" As for beliefs or “hashkafah” having to have a source in Torah/Yiddishkeit, the idea of Moshiach coming from the dead has this (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Midrash). So what is the problem?"
Me:
Wait a minute: For a Lubavitcher this may not be as simple as you make it. The Rebbe atrongly held that even if there are medrashim over certain matters pertaining to moshiach the Rambam has the final say on it. The Rebbe said that holding opinions contrary to the rambam (on hilchos moshiach) is very severe (in one place he writes that the belief of "aschaklta dguloh" which has MUCH MORE sources than the current meshichist meshugas, is the only reason he sees for several korbonos taken place in EY, victims who were saved at the holocaust etc.!). So for a Lubavitcher this becomes much less "liberal" so to speak.
You:
"As for category (b) being “legitimate” (in sense of not violating any halachic premises, or in sense of not being heretical), this is something conceded by rabbinic opponents of Chabad in general and of messianism in particular".
Me:
Not at all! This is the ridiculous position attempted to be taken by R. Shochet and his school of thought. but as in many such cases, they create their own utopia to reflect reality whan in it is not true:
"legitimacy" and lack thereoff is not contingent upon it being "nonheretical" or "heretical"; it is contingent on whether or not it is "legitimate" and sound and is a logical position.
Someone who adopts a position that is untenable does not have a "legitimate" position.
Yes, he may perhaps not be "heretical", as for instance, an "mahooretz" who says that he "beleives" erroneously that "modeh bemitktzas" does not have to swear is not heretical (for he rached that position through his "am horatzoos" that the torah does not require the MB to swear) but his position is nonetheless, untenable and not "legitimate" in any way or shape in Torah.
What the vast majority of non lubavitchers say to lubavitchers: you may not be "technically" heretical but your position has no "legitimacy" and leg to stand on.
Therefore: when you preach your position on issues of faith and you promulgate a unfounded illegitimate position to your people and to the the masses it cannot be brsuhed under the carpet. IT must be fought and decalred that the position has no legitimacy.
Further: People who promulgate these positions lose completely their credibility in being able to teach the right way of torah as they are simply not qualified for this job as they pronounce openly positions that are completely unfounded.
So: While if a lunatic will proclaim that the earth is square he will be dismissed as a harmless lunatic; if this person attempts to teach people or influence them in any form, he will be immediately disqualified as "illegitimate" teacher and mentor whose positions do not carry any weight.
Kal vechomer: if this person is teaching "faith" with credentials of "rabbi" it is no longer a harmless lunatic.
You:
"and is contingent on (1) the personal belief that the Rebbe was the exclusive nassi hador, and (2)that the Rebbe retains that status even after 3 Tamuz. While (1) is “bearable” (albeit obviously strictly a subjective belief), no. (2) is highly problematic as it is without precedent or parallel anywhere and may even contradict the very notion of “nassi hador” (which assumes that this must be someone living in every generation). Premise (2), therefore, is totally absurd...":
Me:
Excatly! Moreover, people overlook something simple (they drey dvorim hapshutim) even if "nossi hador" has a meaning in it's own terms bizman after 3 of tammuz; it does not have any bearing on "Moshiach shebedor": For not only it does not have any parallel anywhere; it is somewhat rejected in the very source so commonly brought down: Sanhedrin 98b when discussing possible candidates from the living mentions someone from the present generation obviously; when disucussing a possibility of rthe deceased person (which itself is highly questionable whether or not it refers to the *identity* of moshiach) it refers you back to a figure in the prophetic times.
Likewise: The Rebbe who is the source for the elaboration of "moshiach shbedor" is the "nossi hador": when explaining the term and it's source (in kuntress beys rabbeyno shebebovel) clearly points out to the LIVING moshiach shebedor and talks about the legitimacy of assuming or estimating that he (the living one) wiil be the moshiach, but the Rebbe does not mention one word about this possibility at the person (who was/is Nossi Hador) and passsed away (although many times he refers to the Rayatz as the Nossi Hador).
In short: there is NO parallel: in Jewish sources, Jewish History, writings of the Rebbe to IDENTIFY WITH A CERTAINTY a deceased person to be the moshiach. THe position is completely illegitimate for it has no sources to say the least.
You:
"...even if it is not heretical and does not violate any halachic principles...".
Me: This is the crux of the problem with your and R. Shochet's position. It allows "legitimacy" for "absurd" and unforunded positions to be left unchallenged and gives "legitimacy" to the proponents and mentors of this position to have any standing in their role as mentors. whereas the vast majority of non lubavitchers attempt to to tell their l friends (those who are their freinds) that this is WRONG. Megaleh ponim beTorah sheloy kehalocho is wrong. Teaching it is dangerous. Living with a lie is equally wrong and dangerous.
you:
"(B) As for Rambam: Rambam’s position is clearly that even with chezkas Moshiach death cancels everything out. That person is now empirically disqualified, effective immediatey and RETRO-ACTIVELY! However, this does not, and cannot, mean that a new situation may arise, i.e., that this selfsame person may be resurrected (prior to redemptive process), REGAIN cheskas Moshiach, and eventually be Mashiach vadai. Forgive the crude analogy, but with such resurrection it’s a new “ball-game”!"
Me: Forgive my response: It's ridiculous and shtuss gomur.
It is unbeliveable how much twisiting a mind can do to "stick" with his narishe beleifs: Take the Rambam's loshon
רמב"ם הלכות מלכים פרק יא הלכה ד
אם לא הצליח עד כה או נהרג בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה .
He says "beyodua sheyynoy" IT IS KNOWN that he isn't. So it maens that no "new situation" can arise; otherise it is not called "beyodua sheynoh". This is so poshut.
You:
"(C) Re your comments about Berger’s fallacy, you are off base: Hashem set down the qualifications of Moshiach as part of the Torah. Just as the Torah cannot change (which would imply a change in Hashem, when “ani Hashem lo shonissi” and see Balak 23:19 etc.) so Hashem “can not” (kaveyochol) change the qualifications etc.
The selection of Moshiach was/is done by Hashem exclusively, and could be anyone He chose:..."
Me:
So far so good. But if he "chose" ALREADY to "rule out" some candidates, so those who are ruled out are ruled out. So, it is ridiculous to say "if He chooses that Yehudis will be Moshiach" it will be, He had already disquliafied her!
You:
"whether a person presently alive in the normative way, or a person yet to be resurrected prior to redemptive process. In the latter case (as mentioned above), it is like starting from scratch".
Me:
not true by someone who was "cheskas moshiach" (and perhaps someone "presumed to be moshiach with a certainty and declared in public as such) and was disqualified; he cannot start from "scrtach" for "BEYODUA SHEYNOH ZEH...".
You:
"Logically I have to agree with Rabbi Schochet, and there is no theological/halachic basis for Dr. Berger to categorically reject that possibility without violating the halachic premises on which it is founded".
Me: that is exactly what the Rambam forcefully rejects: "beyodua sheynoy". Contravening that Rambam (by clearly ideitfying an individual whom the Rambam rejected) is in itself "violating the halachik premises on which it was founded". That is why Berger's position is the logical position.
Avrum, the indefensible position of Berger that u just menationed makes one question his motives.
Schochet's denial of the reality within Lubavitch is also suspect, but it's at least the argument is about facts, and can be resolved with proper statistics. Berger, sticks to his irrational position without a good answer.
Just a few comments on this discussion.
I'm a chabadnik in Baltimore, and the main congregation there is anti-messianist.
I remember about a month or so after Gimmel Tammuz when we held a farbrengen at which Rabbi Kaplan (the Shaliach for the state of Maryland) described his point of view. "We don't know."
Although we all sang "Yechi" before Gimmel Tammuz, now, "We don't know."
Although we all believed that the Rebbe ZT"L was the presumptive Moshiach, now "We don't know."
What will happen? "We don't know."
Etc.
Then, he made the telling point in this, when he said that "anyone who says 'he knows' is lying." That set the tone in Maryland. All of those people who claim to know and especially those who claim to know what the Rebbe "really" wanted or intended in the face of the Rebbe's telling them the opposite, are fooling themselves and are not following the directives of the Rebbe. Shortly before Gimmel Tammuz, the Rebbe said that he had done all he could, and now it was up to us. Up to us to do more mitzvos, more gemillus chassodim, and more learning.
As shocking to me as Gimmel Tammuz was (and believe me, I was shocked that the Rebbe was taken away from us), my first reaction was "We had a chance for the revelation of Moshiach and the final redemption, and we blew it! I've got to look at my actions and see where I am lacking." -- a cheshbon hanefesh.
Remember the terminology generally used... "May we merit to see the redemption." Well, it looks like we didn't merit it, and we better get back to working hard to merit it in the future.
But, rather than that the messianists are *still* in denial (at least the "a" and "c" ones).
This doesn't mean that we've thrown out the messianists in our shul. But, they are not allowed to be overt. No "Yechi" in public, etc. The most that is allowed now is the ridiculous "Yechi" yarmulkas. As one grows up, one stops wearing yarmulkas with words or decorations on them... at least, that is what I was taught.
And, (I think because of this) our congregation is growing so fast that we're having to build a new building because on Shabbos, there isn't room to walk in the shul during davening. We have a yeshiva (about a dozen bochurim), and a weekend kollel for balabatim.
Izzy same is true B"H in california
beis betzalele
rebeljew,
Thanks for 'getting' the fact that I was talking about the psychology of the phenomenon. And yes, you are correct about it all not passing the 'what-the-hell-does-it-really-mean' test. But we, Jews say many things that are difficult to reconcile kifeshutom; yet, we still say those things and even hold them dear. At the end, we only really care that one set of words zol shtimen with another set of words. If in the process both geshtimte set of words lose much of their meaning, we have historically been willing to make peace with it. ;)
So in some way, a guy that says "kivon denofak mippumei derav kahana..., it's vaddai emes" (and let's please not re-hash im nofak benidon didan) is more authentically Jewish in his psychological make-up than the more rational adherents of the above-mentioned shittoh ‘d’. Ai, it all seems not to make much sense? Nishkoshe, he will either find a deichek shebbedeichek and force some semblance of sense onto it. Or not even try and just say tishbi ittareitz kushieis veabayies... How deliciously Jewish!
[For those that do not agree with me, pray tell me, how do the most 'literalist' of the meshichisten define the word deir? Perhaps a "never-ending historic continuum"?]
There is an old anecdote from the Alter Rebbe's time, when the question was raised if Moshiach will be a chassid or a misnaged. The answer: of course he will be a misnaged. Chassidim will accept Moshiach regardless of who he is; the misnagdim...
The above anecdote would shed much light on the true meaning behind the words being mumbled daily by thousands, without the slightest clue as to the meaning behind them.
The Rambam (הלכות מלכים 11:4) makes clear at what point may we regard someone as Moshiach with near-absolute certainty:
"And if there will arise a king of the Davidic dynasty, who studies Torah assidiously as did his father David, and will force (emphasis added) all of Israel to follow in its' statutes and to strengthen its' upkeep, and will fight the wars of G-d (for definition of "fight" and "war", consult a dictionary, CNN, or any movie), he may be presumed (in the Halakhic sense) to be Moshiach". The requisites for absolute certainty as to Moshiach's identity, ingathering all the exiles of Israel, building the Temple, etc, are detailed in the same Halacha. To date, neither the former nor the latter list of achievements has been accomplished kepshuto by any human.
In light of the above, anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty who is Moshiach, at any point in time before or after 5/12/94, is probably a heretic, at least he is clearly at odds with established Jewish law. Only after it is acknowledged that such absolute knowledge does not exist, can it be discussed who may be Moshiach, who it seems most likely to be, etc etc etc. The contentions of various talmidim in the Talmud that their teachers are Moshiach were made only in this spirit; that is why these contentions did not lead to Satmar-style civil war. Any opinions, however strong, as to the Rebbe being Moshiach can by definition only be speculation as to what will be if Moshiach comes at this moment. It seems evident that any hints that the Rebbe may have dropped, such as the ones that Berger makes reference to, certainly fall into this category.
Unfortunately, these clear lines were blurred, across the board, from well before 1994. I do not know of any instance of the Rebbe condoning this loss of clarity.
Zelig Levin used to say:
Ein od melevado
Ober do a tish?
Nu, hostu a kashya.
And somebody knowing before gimmel tammuz 1994 is ok, 770 bochur?
Don't repeat, the yingel yayels mistaken crap.
can you read, idiot? "anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty who is Moshiach, at any point in time before or after 5/12/94."
If you recall the Rebbe used to say that he was in need of 10 akshonim who really want Mashiach. This was also major theme of Estulin’s farbrengen. I can say categorically that with all soft and hard core a, b, ds, there are definitely more than 10 of those, why bother bringing this up Mr. Estulin?
770,
I stand corrected.You do however realize that almost everybody in Chabad, icluding the Yoels and the biggest antis where in agreement that the Rebbe was moshiach, right?
I think it tells you what a bunch of 'pets' even the so called antis are
What I said was - and remains - the theory. In fact, most of the things we assert in real life, whether about the weather to stocks to moral issues, often fall short of stances and positions that deserve our absolute conviction; most of the time, that conviction is nevertheless there. This is the case regarding the attitude to the Rebbe's being Moshiach, from 1950 and on. Privately, every chassid "understood" that this is it (in my opinion, this is a commendable trait): this is the Moshiach we've been waiting for. And this feeling only got stronger over the years. By 91-92, it took a strong soul to remember the distinction between hergesh and absolute, halakhic, reality.
While R. Yoel will be the first - indeed was the first - to state that his pre-3-tammuz attitude was incorrect, for anyone around in Lubavitch during the lameds, mems, and 91-2, one can be excused for having been/being "sure" - a little too sure - that Moshiach was here, and that any other approach was heresy. Essentially, nothing has changed since then (aside from a dor chadash of brainless hordes assaulting the very fabric of Lubavitch, indeed Jewish, hashkafa/culture. But that is a different matter).
Gut Shabbos
Tzemach; Sorry, your restatement on the Berger position is not correct.
It is more reasonable to say that all of the meshichist views attempt to limit Hashem's ability to select a replacement chezkas moshiach. You won't have to guess long at who they have selected.
The Berger view just says that Hashem will be free to chose who he wants.
I don't think you should be surprised that the meshichism mispresent their hiskashrus as piety. In fact it is rejection of Hashem and Torah.
First let me congratulate avram-x. It is the first time I have seen some attempt to logically analyse the different views within Lubavitch of the "Rebbe is Moshiach" issue.
All the contributers have engaged in a wonderful exercise of pilpul, analyzing different hybrid possibilities & the various nuances of each view.
For me the matter is simple. The most intellectualy honest comments came from Rabbi Kaplan of Maryland. (interestingly one of the 2nd group of Shluchim the Rebbe personally chose to send to the Yeshiva Gedolah here in Melbourne, & his response is consistent with the type of person that I remember him being).
After all is send & done, every attempt to explain the Rebbes statements & actions regarding the imminent arrival of Moshiach & the belief that he was Chezkas Moshiach etc.. even before Gimmel Tammuz & certainly the idealogical problems that Gimmel Tammuz created for Chabad are all highly speculative & at times border on "pipulei shel hevel".
It may be intellectualy challenging to attempt at arriving at a view that takes everything into consideration i.e the Rebbes statements, the unprecedented situation in Chabad of not having a live Rebbe as its Nosi etc etc.. However, sometimes we simply need to say "I don't know" or " I don't understand the whole issue", or as Berl briefly referred to "tishbi yitaretz kushiyos veabayos".
Everyone focuses on the the 2nd last Perek in Hilchos Melachim of the Rambam where he defines the criteria of Chezkas Moshiach as opposed to Moshiach Vadaiy. Perhaps this was understandable when the Rebbe was alive. But now it may be worth reading the last Perek where the Rambam refers to the various Pesukim in Tenach & Midrashim regarding the exact sequence of events & how everything will unfold & simply says that "divrei stumim heim" & the details about how Moshiach will come & what exactly will transpire we do not know with clarity.
Even more important is that "Veloy dikdukeihem ikar hadas" (this is particularly important given the importance that the "Meshichisten" place on their view as being a cardinal belief, one of the 13 Principles of Faith not only for a Lubavitcher but the whole world needs to be enlightned to this truth).
The Rambam continues that there is no point on devoting too much time on trying to work this all out because it doesn't bring one to Yirah or Ahava etc.. I am sure every contributor can read the Perek themselves.
In a nutshell, for a Chabad Chossid (& this is only an issue for a Chabad chossid) who wishes to reconcile what he has been brought up to believe in regarding the Rebbes role & the various sichos that he understood in a certain way before Gimmel Tammuz & the reality of Gimmel Tammuz, the only response is a healthy degree of "Agnosticism" i.e I (we) don't know or understand what was & is going on.
I think it is safe to assert that the Rebbe certainly believed that the Geulah was within the reach of this generation (though what a generation means already is unclear as he oftened referred to his Shver as the Nossi of this generation - & he lived over 40 years before Gimmel Tammuz). Also he wanted his Chassidim to work towards actualizing this belief & that this remains a goal of Lubavitch even today. But who, when, how etc.. we will simply have to wait & see. Trying to reconcile everything is simply a waste of intellectual energy (though I agree it can be fun & on a more serious note, for some people very important, as it challenges the fundamental belief systems they held before Gimmel Tammuz). Nonetheless, Mashpiim should be educating this post-Gimmel Tammuz generation, to live with doubt or at least not having an answer to every question. Its certainly not the first question that I can't explain, I have a long list of questions that I haven't found satisfying answers, but we can live with doubt & continue on.
On a final note, I remember that as a young bochur just starting to learn in the Yeshivah Gedoloh here after I completely High School, I was known as someone who couldn't stop asking questions. I was reknown as a real "pain in the ...." The Mashpia, Reb Zalmen Serybryanski, who also taught me Chassidus, probably got somewhat irritated at all the questions I used to ask when learning a Maamar & more importantly saw that when I had a question I couldn't go on learning the Maamar unless I had a satisfying answer. So, typically as a real pedagogue that he was & someone who understood his talmidim very well (I am not sure such Mashpiim exist today) decided for a period of time not to answer any of my questions. This was to be a lesson in teaching me that "Meshtarbed nisht fuun a Kasha" & just because I don't understand one detail doen't mean I can't continue on and learn the rest of the Maamar. I don't know if it helped & it was a very frustrating period for me, but I think it served as a very good foundation as I continued to learn in Yeshiva & live my life post Yeshiva (though now my business & family pressures don't leave me time to even think about asking questions).
jyk; Your analysis is too gentle. We do know well enough what's going on. All the evidence points to an utter collapse of pre-Gimmel Tamuz euphoria we don't want to consider the evidence. In a nutshell, tzorichiyun's synopsis is the most reasonable basis for recovery.
Although tzorichiyun's long comment (as well as the other long comments) are yet to be m'uyin by me, i will say this:
the ABCD classification is lacking substance: Although A and B have been represented as a firm belief system - (whether the rebbe will be the (uninterrupted) moshiach), and C also not being far behind, excluding the rebbe's candidacy altogether; all those three representing some kind of stance on the issue, d however merely represents some mere or simple apathy and indifference which is essentially compatible with a b and c. C cannot go with A,B or D, and needless to say, A cannot go with B,C or D.
But it is hard for me to believe that shochet and some other lubavitcher would subscribe to A,B and C - while D is too soft-core, since it is merely a shortcut of the Cniks to profess their A'ism or B'ism. but what about those who are truly undecided, or what about those who don't really think about it, must they also be shifted to D'ism by default?
Tzemach,
You said "I can say categorically that with all soft and hard core a, b, ds, there are definitely more than 10 of those[askanim who want Moshiach], why bother bringing this up Mr. Estulin?" I disagree. what these people want and are stussing abuot is not what Moshiach is about. We lack 10 who want moshaich although we have plenty who want what they call moshiach.
AP, akshonim not askonim and no there 10 of each, G-d and the Rebbe have no excuses.
jyk,down under, a sad comment...
Berl,
A gutte voch,
I know you asked not to "Rehsash"...but i cannot miss the opportunity to point out that imho, this is part of the problem:
You:
"So in some way, a guy that says "kivon denofak mippumei derav kahana..., it's vaddai emes" (and let's please not re-hash im nofak benidon didan) is more authentically Jewish in his psychological make-up than the more rational adherents of the above-mentioned shittoh ‘d’".
This is the problem that people were inculcated from early on that "nofak mipi rav kahanoh"; when in fact "rav kahanah said FARKERT" (the opposite).
Moreover: the biggest problem was and is that many think they are entitled to interpret "dvorim hastumim" (obscure concepts) hepech dvorim hamfuroshim (contrary to the clear and explained concepts), hepech dvorim pshutim of Chazal and Sichos Rabbeyno (contrary to concepts of our Sags and the Sichos of our Rebbe).
And i may be more blunt: the problem starts partially with the vast ignorance of (knowing) TOrah She Baal Peh, of many parts of the revealed Torah, and further thinking that what "hergesh" they have been fed is enough to define what "Nofak mipi Rav Kahana" when they have no clue how to see and understand what Rav Kahana said, since they were thought that it is entirely unnecessary to know them, and actually (many of them are taught that) the more you "know" them is a "heelem" to the truth, so "ignorance is bliss" and who cares if it fits with the Rambam, if "Rav Kahana said" when they do not have a clue that "rav kahana" may have said the opposite.
It is a Kal VeChomer from a pssak of the Alter Rebbe based on Gemoros and Rashi's explanation and Tshuvos HoRosh: That those who pasken from "mishne are Mevaley Olom", they destroy the world. The Alter Rebbe quotes that is of the utmost necessity to know the taamim biktzrooh of the Halochos in order not to erroneously "pasken" (rule a hlachik querry) from the halochos as they are recorded, to contemporary cases.
Kal Vechomer ben kal vochomer: when there is no "shimush" (limud hagmoroh the way described by Rashi) -where there is no shimush klal, let alone "kol tzorkom"-; the result is : "mevaley olom".
and see the Halocho Chapter 2 TT Kuntress Achron 1 where the AR writes that "Rav kahano" certainly acknowledged that there is necessity to know basic "gemoroh" with the initial learning...
have read the kadima interviews with both rabbi dr berger and rabbi dr schochet.
a- rabbi dr berger, comes across, as a more honest rabbi, and a more honest dr.
b- rabbi dr schochet accuses r' berger of being unscientific in his work, and slanderous. however, reading him, one faces a demonstration on how to expound unscientifically, and how to be slanderous.
c- r' schochet's command of elementary arithmetics and most elementary statistics, is totally inadequate. it would be laughable were it not a weak cover for deliberate lies.
see: well, tzfat, is an aberration, denying messianism control of 770, and refering to messianism as a :"These, however, are a very very very very minute, fringe element of
the fringes of the fringes."
this is not a misassessment of the situation, this is the lie of the salesman who will do anything to keep the business going.
the messianists in israel can fill/and have filled giant amphitheatres in celebrating the death, the birthday, the advent and the greeting of the avoda zore, complete with yellow flags and were it necessary for them, probably a golden calf too.
thank u r' tzemach.
actually, i just visited your blog
and enjoyed it tremendously. ysher koyech!
i wish i had r' j.i schochets email contact, to send him this link ,on the things going on in ny, that i took from your blog:
http://news.chabad.fm/144/7560.html
hopefully he can get an idea on what seems not so evident from the shul he runs in toronto, ironically called among other names, "anshei new york".
DELETED inappropriate language and questionable content
Edited By Siteowner
Inadvertently I omitted from my original post (dividing the differing positions) the following:
The division into those 4 categories really originates with Rabbi Immanuel Schochat in an extended e-mail exchange I had with him. So all credit is really due to him. I failed to add that he put (d) as the last position, when offhand it should be the third, and (c) should be the last. He explained that (a), (b) and (c) go together because all these make categorical statements (definitely yes being Moshiach, or definitely not being Moshiach), while his view,(d), is purely "agnostic": somehow allowing for the possibility, but denying that one can make any definite statements about it. In his view, the identity of Moshiach is in principle "unknown and unknowable" until it actually happens (citing a number of sources to that effect), and that the whole issue of trying to identify Moshiach is useless, altogether irrelevant, meaningless and worthless speculation, an exercise in futility.
His main quarrel with Dr. Berger is in rejecting the latter's categorical denial of the possibility (aside of his objections to Dr. Berger's general approach and methodology).
oy this is so sad. to see people fighting over whether the rebbe is or isnt moshiach. i am a lubavitcher and i do believe that the rebbe is moshiach, but thats something i believe because every chassid has to believe his rebbe is moshiach. they did the same thing by the alter rebbe all the way down to the current rebbe. i dont believe in just saying out loud that the rebbe is moshiach because it offends people that dont believe in it and it could lead someone to go away from the ways of chassidus and how lubavitch works. thats wrong and i dont think the rebbe would want that. but what the rebbe would want is that every person should do his part so that moshiach could come right now. believe me the rebbe couldnt care less if u said that the rebbe was moshiach or not, thats not what the rebbe lived for. the rebbe lived for us, all of us, every jew and even non jews. the rebbe lived for the sake of making this world into a dwelling place for g-d. the rebbe never cared if he got credit for anything, he never even wanted credit for all the amazing and wonderful miracles that the rebbe did. the rebbe cried while saying a sicha on chaf ches nissan about how mission is complete and that now its up too us to do the rest. obviously by arguing whether the rebbe is moshiach or not is not really working to bring moshiach closer, so i guess its time to just give it up and do our part. thats all and everybody should live to do there part in helping this world become a better place.!!!
B"H
"lubavitcher"
I understand your sentiments, but :
1)There were many people upset about this before Gimel Tamuz too yet we see the Rebbe clearly states it should be publicized. While everything should be taken in context and one probably shouldn't continue bugging a person if some issue offends him or her, but how can one fulfill what the Rebbe says in Sicha Parshas Mishpotim 5752 that since Moshiach has been revealed the only thing left is for the people to accept his kingship and for the connection between the people and the king to be apparent to everyone.
2)There are many people who relate to the Rebbe being Moshiach continueing to perform miracles and give answers thru Igrot ( http://www.igrot.com ) people who have emunah pshutah, but are much harder to reach thru learning Chassidus. May be you don't like such people may be you can't relate to them but they exist millions of them Jews and non-Jews and you'd be pleasantly surprised if you try reaching out to them. I bet it will infuse you with greater emunah in the Rebbes words seeing them being fulfilled as a result of your avoidah...
Have bitochon, try it.
"... because every chassid has to believe his rebbe is moshiach. they did the same thing by the alter rebbe all the way down to the current rebbe...",
no chossid beleived his rebbe was moshiach after that Rebbe was nistalek!
Tzorich, Of course you are right!
"Rabbi" Sokolovsky would have gotten Sekilah for Avodah Zarah had he lived in the olden days.
Today he can get away with the insanity defence and move fast to a mental hospital.
"The identity of Moshiach is in principle 'unknown and unknowable'... and that the whole issue of trying to identify Moshiach is useless, altogether irrelevant..."
The Rambam wrote this long ago and it is reinforced by sechel yashar daily. But some people had to see Chabad tear itself apart before they could BELIEVE it.
B"H
1) thank u r' tzemach.
actually, i just visited your blog
and enjoyed it tremendously. ysher koyech!
i wish i had r' j.i schochets email contact, to send him this link ,on the things going on in ny, that i took from your blog:
http://news.chabad.fm/144/7560.html
hopefully he can get an idea on what seems not so evident from the shul he runs in toronto, ironically called among other names, "anshei new york".
der kugelager | 05.07.06 - 12:21 pm | #
Rabbi Shochet's email adress is ISCHOCHET "@" aol.com (remove quotation marks and spaces) if i remember correctly.
2) Nachman not everything is as simple as you want it to be. I wouldn't get skilah anymore than the authors of the Torah sources I'm quoting in support of my arguements which you didn't read and thus probably misunderstand in the 1st place.
No one is going to get skilah over shooting their mouth off. A sanhedrin is not the spanish inquisition. Stupidity is not a capital crime. But it is laughable.
1) lubavitcher:
I'm slightly confused about this line:
"the rebbe lived for us, all of us, every jew and even non jews"
Can you please clarify what you meant by this?
Who says that techias hameisim occurs before Moshiach arrives and announces himself? (the idea of option "d")
Dr. Berger himself is a better candidate for Moshiach since he is 1. alive, and
2. has not campaigned for it.
So what's next breakthrough in outsourcing? Perhaps, "the rebbe died for us, all of us..."?
I am against capital punishment for any crime but murder, but Ariel is a classical Idol Worshiper. Missionaries also have their sources in scripture - it does not make them non idol worshipers.
Berger himself needs a better cause - perhaps point out to him that some people in Bnei Brak are also practicing semi-Christianity.
Legitimate question. Here is excerpt from one of R. Shochet's e-mails to me that will answer it:
"There are at least 3 types. The “national” techiyas hameissim that is usually spoken of happens in the second stage of yemos homoshiach (with varying views about the time-interval etc.). Then there is a techiyas hameissim concurrent with the coming of Moshiach, as the Gemoro (Yuma 5b) says “Mosheh veAharon imohem” – to offer instructions on proper procedures. (It should be noted, though, that in Yerushalmi - Ma’aser Sheni 5:2 – there is an opinion that the Beis Hamikdosh will be built before “malchus beis Dovid”, thus before Moshiach!) Then there is a particular techiyas hameissim for tzadikim who sincerely mourned the churban and fervently prayed and looked forward to its correction: mido keneged mido they will merit to see the fulfillment of their “dream” by witnessing the full extent of the ge’uloh. Thus they will be resurrected before the coming of Moshiach so that they may witness the whole redemptive process – the darkness immediately before the redemption and the extra-ordinary development of the redemptive process. In other words, they will not simply appear (even early on in yemos hamoshiach) in the utopian state of the ge’uloh, but personally witness “nikmas Yisroel” and “nechomas Yisroel”. They will be resurrected and live a normative life like all those alive at the time, and together with their (then) contemporaries experience the coming of Moshiach and the subsequent events. The sources for that are Shut Radvaz 3:644, and the same author’s Migdal Dovid p. 83a, citing Ramban, Rashbo and Ritvo as his sources. Cf. also Zohar II:54b. Ritvo on Rosh Hashonoh 16b refers to “kemo shemefurosh beMidroshim”, and he may possibly have in mind Tono devei Eliyohu ch. 3 and 5."
My preceding post relates to "?" who asked
"Who says that techias hameisim occurs before Moshiach arrives and announces himself? (the idea of option "d")"
Avrum, sorry, but this issue is so irrelevant to the real discussion. It's almost like arguing about the language that those revived bones woill speak.
If Avrum-x started the discussion, how can his further comment on it be irrelevant?
Anyway, because of Lubavitch's frequent and blatant misuse and selective use of sources, I'm not ready to accept at face value the assertions Avrum-x took from R' Schochet's email.
I'd be happier with a non-Lubavitch analysis of these sources and others that might be relevant.
avrum-x: I would be interested in whether you believe that these sources have any relevance to considering the case of a presumed candidate for Messiah to die without fulfilling the role of Messiah within his lifetime and be resurrected and be Messiah: these sources appear to treat those resurrected in the time of a Messiah who is "first time born": Mosiach himself is not the direct subject of the topic of resurrection.
Paul: these sources appear to treat those resurrected in the time of a Messiah who is "first time born":
These sources deal with the fact that a number of tzadikim will be resurrected prior to the redemptive process, living a normative life. They do not state just how much time before the redemption. The point is simply that there might be a possibility that one of these may be the Moshiach chosen by Hashem. That he wold have lived once before is not a problem, just as the Mashiach shebechol dor vedor may also be a reincarnation.
Note carefully that no one is saying that this is the way it will be! It merely allows for one (albeit perhaps far-fetched) possibility, leading to the next - major -point: just as no one can say that this will be the case, likewise no one can categorically deny that this will/may happen. That's all. The scenario offered by these sources leaves the door open, and thus also the conclusion that any categorical statements re "who it is, and who it is not" (beyond the obvious halachic exclusions) is an exercise in futility (as are the categorical statements about other details - such as the order of the process etc., as stated by Rambam).
Paul,
Exactly! none of these sources deal with the resurrected being Moshiach and certainly *not* about whether or not there is a possibility that the "presumed" moshiach who was disqualified could become moshiach.
They have no bearing whatsoever on the CLEAR AND UNCHALLENGED halocho by the Rambam that someone who was presumed moshiach and passed away before completing the redemtion is unequivocally not the moshiach "eynoy zeh...". (Even if they would, according to the Rebbe: medrashim and statements in Oral law are not to be taken into account when the Rambam rules against these statements in issues of geuloh (since the Rambam is the only Possek on these issues. How much more so when they do not speak about this issue: The ruling of the Rambam that a person who was presumed moshiach and did not finished redemption is disqualified of being moshiach unequivocally).
Likewise this has nothing to do with the statements of the rambam that one should not exercize his time in "Who is not" moshiach, for the Rambam himself set aside in chapter 11 time and place to exclude certain people from the title, so he felt that this is an important issue to deal with etc.
In addition to the above: The Rebbe writes clearly in LS Vol. 35 page 206 heoro 6 that according to the Rambam Dovid Hamelech cannot be the moshiach himself, since the rambam writes that moshiach has to start his activities before the actual redemtpion and certainly before the resurrection ***EVEN THE RESURRECTION OF TZADIKIM***who will resurrect atht etime of redemption. So the scenarios offered here would not work according to the ruling of the rambam according to the interpretation of the Rebbe. (This of course, without taking in consideration theother halocho of the rambam that someone presumed moshiach and did not succeed to bring the redemption is known not to be the moshiach).
tzorichyun: my thought is that is that reliance upon "might be" gaps in topics that, at least to an am haaretz such as myself, are, at best, tangential is highlighted when a Messianist then uses the authority of Mosiach-Rebbe to oppose actions that place Israel in peril (the opposition per se may not be at all controversial to many and the clear view of the Rebbe on the particulars).
Which brings us back to d)'s relationship to b) at a time when the commuity of Jews in Israel (the largest community in the world) remains in peril.
The Messianist will reply that reliance upon the rullings of the identified Mosiach and faith in his role as Mosiach will precisely *bring about* salvation: well, "might be".
Tzorichiyun: the Rebbe used this scenario for the FR.
" Tzorichiyun: the Rebbe used this scenario for the FR".
Can you show me where the Rebbe declared the FR "melech hamoshiach"?
tzorichiyun: Just had a chance to look at some earlier posts, including yours. Obviously you are quite set in your ways and thinking. No problem, you are entitled to that. Chazal already said hat "ein de'oteihem shavot", people's minds and opinions differ one from the other. Hence you can have fierce disagreements even among the greatest sages, which somehow cannot be resolved except by people picking one or the other because somehow their choice makes more sense to their own mind. In halachic matters (practical implications) we are compelled to determine a conclusion one way or another. In matters of de'ot (views, perspectives, theoretical issues) there is no halachah, i.e., compulsion to decide one way or another, as ruled by Rambam in numerous places.
Our debate re interpretation of Rambam falls into that category of de'ot - as it has NO practical bearing on do's or don'ts. All you can do is to put tzorich-iyun into the post instead of just as a signature. There is no point in debating this further when one takes an immovable position and categorically rejects, a priori, any opposing views. Thus let's just agree to disagree and wait for Eliyahu who will come liyemot hamoshiach and resolve all issues. For that matter, Rambam is enough tzadik in my eyes to expect his "return" very early on, and then we can ask him himself, veshalom al Yisrael! All the best!
Talk about incoherent, did you read the supposed excerpt from JI's email?
As a side note: i have seen Rabbi Schochet reveal himself as the reightous messiah on many occasions - i believe it is also on tape. Yechi Hamelech Immanuel!
avrum-x,
tzorichiyun was just as much fun to talk to when he was still known as yankel. Just follow the link, scroll up and see all his posts for yourself.
yankel is rodomsker, mashpia, etc, is he tzorichiyun too? I know he is crazy about posting under different names but I don't think he is as smart as tzorichiyun.
no, he is not radomsker, but tzorichiyn veyankel kulei had! read his comments in the link I posted and see for yourself.
" In matters of de'ot (views, perspectives, theoretical issues) there is no halachah, i.e., compulsion to decide one way or another, as ruled by Rambam in numerous places".
And I thought that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would always stressed that everything that the Rambam codifes in Yad Hachazakah is *Halacha* (always remember how Lubavitchers would deride those who would say the early prokim of Hilchos Yessodey Hatorah (pure "deos") are not halacha). And I thought that the Rebbe would emphasize how the negation of Asschalta deguloh was of utmost importance and view of AD'G (pure "deos") was extremely dangerous
and brought korbonoys. And of course the Rebbe would always say that matters in Hilchos Melochim are matters of *halacha* (not merely deos).
" veshalom al Yisrael! All the best!"
Omein Vegam Atem!
I apologize for not reading all the comments, but let me just make 1 point.
That Rabbi Shochet's opinion (the way I see it at least) IS NOT that the rebbe can be Moshiach regardless of whether the Rebbe was bechezkat Moshiach or not.
rabbi Schochet maintains in articles printed after Berger's book came out, that the rebbe was never bechezkat moshiach.
Yiaroel--can you give one citation from schochet that the Rebbe was never bechezkat mosiach? It solves difficulties but the published denial doesn't seem immediately plausible.
Paul, I am not sure whether I can find it for you online but I have read it in articles of his.
the general context is that the RCA came out with a resolution (1998, I believe) that there is no place in judaism for the messiah to begin his process only to experience death and then carry on his process.
rabbi Schochet says that 'incidentally he has no issue and agrees with the Rca resolution for indeed there is no place in judaism for such a thing'.
Can you show me where the Rebbe declared the FR "melech hamoshiach"?
tzorichiyun | 05.10.06 - 9:19 pm
The assertion that he may be Moshiach, which is all that is being discussed here, is well known. It is in Likutei Sichos p. 517:
מען האט בי מיר געפרעגט: וואס זאג איך אז עס וועט זיין בקרוב והקיצו ורננו שוכני עפר והוא בתוכם, און דער רבי וועט אונז ארויספירן פון גלות - דער סדר איז דאך: ביאת המשיח וימות המשיח און ערשט אין א צייט ארום וועט זיין תחית המתים. אזוי ווערט דאך געבראכט אין חסידות אויך.
דער ענטפער אויף דעם: כאטש בכלל איז דער סדר: ביאת המשיח, בנין בית המקדש קיבוץ גלויות, תחית המתים, אבער תחית המתים פון יחידים איז געווען, און וועט זיין פריער אויך. וכידוע כמה סיפורים בש"ס ומדרשים ומצדיקים שהחיו מתים וכמאמר רז"ל זוטי דאית בכו מחיה מתים.
First: thanks for pointing out nowhere is there an *assertion* that the Rebbe is Moshiach after he was nistalek.
In addition: there is no declaration about the FR being "melech hamoshiach". This is not the discussion. If this would be the discussion there may have been other issues raised and they were not addressed.
What is discussed is the about the statement that the Rebbe will redeem "us" ie. meaning the chassidim out of our golus. this is consistent with numerous statements that the FR would take us towards moshiach. This is consistent with the mareh mokom the Rebbe wrote in the maamor sending to a Medrash Rabboh saying that Moshe Rabbeyno stayed in the midbbor so that he will bring the dor hamidbor towards to Erets yisroel and obviously Moshe is not melech hamoshiach (despite "goel rishon goel achron" it does not mean that he is moshiach keposhut).
and of course it consistent with the Rebbe's heoro in LS 35 Vayigash where he categorically rejects the notion that Dovid Hamelech can personally be melech hamoshaich according to the Rambam.
wat yo go Tzorich Iyun.
(comment on your name, r u aware that it's the same gematriya as gimel Tammuz)
i wasn't aware. Thanks. everything is "behashgocho protiss" whether one knows it or not...hatzlocho...
Commenting by HaloScan
