For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


LUBAVITCH-----yechi? 2

sarchie Posted - 29 November 2000 14:05

How is believing that the Rebbe is moshiach against torah??

ps. I'm really sorry for being rude. I didn’t mean to be disrespectful in any way. I'm just trying to understand this whole thing

MODERATOR Posted - 29 November 2000 15:00

That is a different topic. The one currently being discussed is believing the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not dead.

focus Posted - 06 December 2000 16:07


The Rambam says that NOBODY knows who Moshiach will be, EVEN MOSHIACH HIMSELF will not know, until the second that he will become Moshiach!!!
So you can be sure that if anyone says about anyone else or someone about himself that he is Moshiach, you can be sure that they do not know what they are talking about.

MODERATOR Posted - 06 December 2000 16:10

Worse. The Yismach Moshe writes in his commentary on Tehillim that if you point out a specific person as being Moshiach you are violating the oath that G-d made the Jews swear in Gemora kesuvos 111a not to "push" the Geulah in before its time [rather, we must wait for the proper time], the punishment for which, says the Gemora is that Hashem will allow the Jews to be hunted down and killed as if they were animals in the field!

Maidel123 Posted - 06 December 2000 17:30

No one believes that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is alive and with us in the physical sense.

He is alive in a sense that we are not completely able to grasp, because as human beings we can grasp only physical concepts completely. Please don't make out Lubavitch to be what you are making us out to be. Our beliefs are more complex than you are making them out to be.

MODERATOR Posted - 06 December 2000 18:14

This was discussed above. See QueenMalka's posts, and my answer.

If they don't know what it means when they say the Rebbe is alive, how do they know it is true?

Why don't they ask those who made it up - namely, the Chassidim - where they got the idea from if they have no idea what it means?

If they don't know what it means that he is alive, then how do they know he is a "shlita" as opposed to a "zatzal" or an "olov hasholom" like everyone else in history, including Moshe Rabbeinu and King Dovid who chazal say are still alive?

How do they know that 3 Tamuz is not a "petirah' like it is by everyone lese in history?

The problem is that if it would say that the Rebbe is alive in Chazal or some sefer, we can say "I have no idea what the author means but I believe it must mean something since I have faith in chazal". But if we make up our own belief, we cannot say "I have no idea what I mean, but I believe it must mean something because..."

Who are you having faith in here? Who is the authority that decided the Rebbe is alive that you are blindly following even though you admit you have no idea what it means?

The whole thing is foolish. Please don't try to make sense out of it, you'll only give yourself a headache.

Btw, there are those who claim to explain what it means that the Rebbe is alive, more or less. See my post of 24 November 2000 17:23 above, for quotes.

rachel2001 Posted - 15 December 2000 16:02

I don’t say yechi because my family doesn’t, but I think it is Rebbe is a likely candidate moshiach. he was a great Tzadik, and comparing him to shabtai tzvi is really disrespectful.

You really shouldn’t curse out Lubavitch like that when you never studied chasidus or tanya at length. whatever the case is, I believe moshiach (whoever he is)will come soon because life is really hard and it give a lot of ppl something to live for.

MODERATOR Posted - 15 December 2000 16:08

Nobody here compared anyone to Shabse Tzvi.

Nobody here cursed out Lubavitch.

And I have studied Chasidus and Tanya at length, thank you. There is nothing in either to support the outrageous ideas described above. And incidentally, the Yismach Moshe, the one who wrote that celebrating a specific person as Moshiach is a terrible sin, WAS a Chosid, a Rebbe, and a Talmid of the Chozeh of Lublin.

Maidel123 Posted - 18 December 2000 18:37

I don't understand why the opinion of the Yismach Moshe, or anyone else for that matter, is necessarily more reliable than that of the Lubavitchers who believe that the Rebbe is Mashiach.

Who is the one who decides whose opinions are kosher and whose aren't?

- 18 December 2000 18:59

Well, first of all because the opinion of these Chassidim isn't based on any reasoning but merely what they WANT to be true. An opinion without any basis or reasoning is by definition a desire, not an opinion. So they can say "I WISH the Rebbe is Moshiach", but to say "My opinion is the Rebbe is Moshiach" is not really compelling.

But you may not understand how Jews decide things. We do not make up our own beliefs about our religion - we have authorities who decide and rule on Halachic and Haskafic issues with as much ruthless objectivity and as much authority - more! - as experts in any scientific field.

The Yismach Moshe was a great Chasidic leader, a Posek of world renown, a Baal Ruach haKodesh, a Rebbe, a miracle worker, and a Tzadik beyond our wildest imaginings. He was a student of the great Chozeh of Lublin, and as great an authority in his times in all areas of Torah as one can imagine.

That is who we are dealing with here. Of course, there can be disputes even with the greatest authorities, but you will have to do better than "the Lubavitcher Chasidim who believe the Rebbe is Moshiach" to find an equal and opposite authority.

Opinions are "kosher" according to the qualifications of the person issuing the opinion.

rachel2001 Posted - 22 December 2000 16:23

Btw moderator, could you please tell me the exact page in which the yismach writes this. Not that I don’t believe you, your a lot smarter than me, but its sounds strange to me that the Yismach Moshe would say that something great ppl have been doing for yrs is against the torah. I just want to read exactly what he said myself. thanx

Maidel123 Posted - 22 December 2000 16:23

I do indeed understand how Jews decide things. And I also know that you don't have to agree with everyone's opinions. You should take all the opinions into account and then decide which one best fits what you believe to be what the Abishter wants from you.

So this is the opinion that I am choosing to integrate into my life. I'm not trying to convince you that the Rebbe is Moshiach. I'm just asking you not to close your mind and show such sinas chinam towards people who differ from you in their opinions.

Posted - 22 December 2000 16:24

How can you say such things in public? I mean about lubavitchers who think the Rebbe is alive are like shabbtai tzvi? and how beis mashiach is so bad?

I don’t really know whether I believe this whole thing about mashiach and the Rebbe either but its awful to call someone else’s beliefs trash in public. I mean its Lashon hara. there are a lot of really smart rabbis that do believe it, I’m sure they know what they are talking about and aren’t just making up some fantasy.

I don’t think the Rebbe HAS to be mashiach but he definitely could be, the Rambam has different qualities that mashiach has and the Rebbe does have all thes4e qualities. I mean the Rebbe changed the world. hundreds of people became frum because of him. how can you call his followers heretics?

MODERATOR Posted - 22 December 2000 16:56


You are wrong about "You should take all the opinions into account and then decide which one best fits what you believe to be what the Abishter wants from you". Because you have not answered the question. the question is: How do you decide what the Aybeshter wants from you? You have determined that based on what you "believe". Not good enough. Belief is nothing when Torah evidence contradicts it. Until you can support your "belief" with Torah evidence you have no right to believe it.

By this logic, you are justifying every deviant sect in history, because they also "believed" that this is what the Aybishter wants.

You are correct, though, that you are not able to do any differently. The Maharitz Chiyus writes that even the Conservatives are not fully responsible for their beliefs since they have no way of determining that the teachings their "rabbis" are telling them are wrong.

You, too, cannot make that determination. You are "potur", but your rabbis are "chayav." They should know better.

But you are responsible as well, to an extent. You have the ability to know better than to accuse someone of "sinas chinam" when he has shown neither sinah, nor chinam. I have explained to you based on Torah sources why your belief is against the Torah. Even if I would be wrong, I have the obligation to believe it, since nobody has yet found a way to show me any different possibilities from a Torah perspective.

You are not supposed to choose your Torah position based on what you like or believe. Just the opposite: You are supposed to change your opinions based on what you see the Torah believes. If you cannot do that - and I don't blame you, for you are not a rabbi - that's fine, but to look at someone else who can, and concludes that you are dead wrong, as guilty of sinas chinam, is wrong.

Those who oppose the Moshiach business do not do so because of Sinas Chinam. I explained why they do. It is based on Torah. Until the Meshichists can find answers to the evidence against them, and some remnant of serious Torah justification that their beliefs are not against the Torah (don't hold your breath) you have zero right to strip others of their obligation to condemn it, even if you cannot see it.

MODERATOR Posted - 22 December 2000 17:08


Nobody said anyone was like Shabsi Tzvi.

It's not Loshon Horah to say that the "Rebbe shlita" people are against the Torah. It IS Loshon Horah to say about someone that he believes in this stuff, but to say the stuff is against the Torah is no more Loshon Horah than to say any anti-Torah belief is an anti-Torah belief.

As far as the "many rabbis", you are wrong. You go to Yeshiva and you learn about Korach, Yeravam ben Nevat, the Meraglim, and many others who were off the derech, yet were bigger rabbis than those who believe the Rebbe is alive.

And we also learn, when these things come up, that the fact that these deviants were learned rabbis IS NOT A CONTRADICTION TO THE FACT THAT THEY WENT OFF THE DERECH. That's the way the Yetzer Horah works.

Lubavitch believes this, too. They teach it in all elementary schools all over the world. Including Crown Heights.

History will look at the meshichistin and the shlita people the same way as we looked at all the deviant, off-the-derech orthodox sects throughout history. How would you answer a kid if he wants to defend Korach by saying "he was a learned rabbi, he could not have been so wrong!". The answer is he was. And even learned rabbis can go off the derech.

If these people would have a Torah leg to stand on, it would be one thing. But they don't. That makes them wrong. And we must look at them the same way we look at all the other learned rabbis who throughout the generations went off the derech.

The Rebbe does NOT fulfill the Messianic qualities listed by the Rambam, and all the good he did is very wonderful, but that has nothing to do with being Moshiach. And it has certainly nothing to do with being alive.

Never in history has anyone had their own Chassidim dance and sing at their funeral. Or scream "Get up! " as the coffin was being lowered into the ground. Such obscene behavior shows how off the deep end these people have gone.

These "learned rabbis" once told us when the Rebbe was sick that he will certainly recover. For sure, they said, and they had 100 "proofs" from the Torah.

They were wrong then, and their "proofs" that the Rebbe is alive are equally valid as those that they had that said the Rebbe will walk out of the hospital back into 770.

MODERATOR Posted - 22 December 2000 17:51

The Yismach Moshe is in his commentary on Tehillim, "Tefilah L'Moshe", 127:2 ("Shav lachem mashkimei kum" - "It is useless to you who rise early"). Quote:

"Chazal say that G-d made the Jews swear three oaths, one of which was not to "pressure the time [of Moshiach's coming]" . . . it means not grasp on to fantasies (hevel) before moshiach comes, saying "This person exclusively will be [Moshiach and] redeem us and build the Bais HaMikdash. Believe in him!'.

"It is clear to me, that the evil doers (reshaim) that are involved in [these] fantasies are the ones who have caused the Golus to be so long ...

"Why are they doing this? Even though there are some fools who say they are doing a Mitzvah with their fantasies (or: their lies) in order to awaken the hearts of Jews who currently do not think about the Geulah, they really lie! ...For reality is just the opposite [of what the fools think]. This[that the Jews do not think about the Geulah] is what brings the Geulah! As Chazal say, "Moshiach will only come while the Jews are NOT thinking about him" ("ain ben Dovid bah ela behesach hadaas")...

"This is what the posuk means. Those who rise early for the Geulah . . . with fabrications and fantasies before its real time. And by doing so, they lengthen the Golus".

End quote.

It is also not true that "people have been doing this for years". Please see my next post.

rachel2001 Posted - 25 December 2000 21:26

I sent this a while ago but it was never posted. I wondered why lubavitchers would believe some thing against the torah so I did some research...

The Chofetz Chaim on Siddur no. 168 states that it is not sufficient that we ask for Moshiach, but we must demand it as a right which we are entitled to.

Just like a worker who is entitled to his wages after completing his day of work.

Other sources for the obligation to cry and beg for the Geulah with firmness and intense passion we find in Avkas Roichel 9 from Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of Shulchan Aruch), Radak on Yshayah 62;6, Ramban on Yeshayah52 etc......

The idea of Jews pointing to a leader, which they have come to appreciate as being the Godol Hador, that he is Moshiach is so prevalent in classic Jewish sources that it is strange that there would be a frum Jew alive who would label such an act as being anti Halacha.

Here are only a few of the references:

Gemora Sanhedrin 98b: "What is Moshiach's name? at the yeshiva of Rabbi Shilo they said that his name was Shilo. at Rabbi Yanai's yeshiva they believed that it was Yinon......". rashi explains that each student believed that it was his Rebbe.

See also Sanhedrin there were Rabbi Chyia suggests that it is his teacher, Reb Yehuda Hanosi and then he adds that if Moshiach is going to be someone WHO IS DECEASED then it would be Doniel.

Rabbi Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin in Pri Tzadik (Devarim 19) reiterates that every student felt that it was his Rebbe who is the Moshiach

The great Sdei Chemed writes in his book (Maarechet 1; 70) that it is evident from here that Moshiach could from the deceased as well (the Abarbanel in his book Yeshuot Meshicho also brings this proof as well as others. he clearly did not see the belief in a Moshiach who will rise from the dead as a Christian concept, Chas V’sholom!). He also cites from the students of the Arizal that they openly claimed that the Arizal was the Moshiach.

Rabbi Pinchos of Koritz in Imrei Pinchos states that the Rambam believed that he himself was Moshiach.

The OR Hachaim Hakadosh in Parshas Re'eh writes that he himself is moshiach.

The Maharal of Prag in his book Nesivos Olam v.2 p.83 quotes a letter from his student where he refers to the Maharal, his Rebbe, as the Moshiach Tzidkeinu, Melech Yehudah.....etc.

The Sefer Safra Rabba De'Yisroel (chasam Sofer's life) it mentions that the Chasam Sofer pointed to his student Reb Moshe Kanisha, that he is the Moshiach of that generation.

The introduction of Baal Shem Tov Al Hatorah cites Reb Nochum of Chernobyl as insisting, even after the Baal Shem Tov's passing that he was and still is Moshiach.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe ZTL himself on many occasions insisted that his father in law, the previous Rebbe is Moshiach.

The list goes on and on......

To claim that such a belief is anti Jewish is clearly unJewish itself.

I want to add that the practice of identifying Moshiach is not in itself an obligation. however, it is a natural consequence of anyone taking the belief in the coming of Moshiach, not as an abstract concept but, rather as a reality which one anxiously awaits.

It's like someone who hasn't seen their younger brother or sister in 30 years and now gets word that that sibling is coming for a visit. it is inevitable that that person would not try to imagine what his brother looks like.

Likewise, when someone understands the great and wonderful meaning of what Moshiach is and what he will usher in for the entire world and one really believes that it is going to happen any day now, it is very natural that such a person would want to put a face to Moshiach. This is why all these great people engaged in this kind of belief.

In brief, it is a symptom of the genuineness of ones belief in the reality of Moshiach.

Maidel123 Posted - 26 December 2000 16:13

This discussion seems to be futile because of the basic principle that we're disagreeing on. Recently in school, we learned a very disturbing meforash on Chumash, and our teacher responded by saying that if we didn't like the way it sounded, or if it doesn't sit well with us, we can regard other opinions as the truth, and not worry about this troublesome issue.

And the Meshichists are not just pulling ideas out of the air. They are based on sources in Judaism, and are viable.

Check out some Chabad websites. Ask questions. There are answers.

After much discussion with various people, I have come to the conclusion that many people are just anti-Chabad for whatever reasons they are. It is very frustrating, and at this point, no one can expect Moshiach to be here anytime soon with the sinas chinam that is going on.

And anyone can try to deny it, but others have agreed with me that I have been the victim of much sinas chinam because I am Lubavitch and because of some of my beliefs as a Lubavitcher. It is extremely upsetting, because as the Rebbe said "higia z'man geulaschem". Unfortunately, we cannot expect to greet Moshiach until we stop attacking each other and justifying such attacks in the name of Torah. Oy, how far we have fallen.

- 26 December 2000 17:49


You remind me of the guy who gets a traffic ticket and goes into court telling the judge that the police officer is an anti-Semite, and goes on and on about all the prejudices he has been subject to because he is a Jew.

"That's all very nice," says the judge. "But DID YOU pass the red light, or not?"

You see, Maidel, I do not doubt that there is sinas chinam in the world - against Lubavitch like against anyone else. But you're not sticking to the issue. I've been to the websites, and I've read the Seforim. I've asked all the questions. There are no justifications for what is happening in certain circles of Lubavitch that any Torah scholar would take seriously. As a teenage high school girl I can understand why you perhaps cannot differentiate between real and concocted Torah, but you do have a responsibility to at least say "I don't know" rather than accuse others of sinas chinam because you cannot answer their questions.

And your teacher in school was wrong. I don't know what the issue was that was disturbing anyone, but if what she presented was the opinion of a Torah authority - you say it was a meforash on Chumash, I am assuming it was one of the classics - then it makes no sense for you to say he's wrong because it doesn't sit well with you.

If let's say someone would say "it doesn't sit well with me that the Lubavitcher Rebbe said higiyah zman geulaschem - your time of redemption has arrived - so therefore I decided he's wrong!", what would you say?

Or if someone said, "You know, this whole Kiruv rechokim thing disturbs me. Therefore I say it's wrong". Would that make sense to you?

If one of the Moeforshim - we'll take the Ohr HaCHaim as a random example - says something that to you is disturbing, don't you think that whatever disturbed you he was already aware of and if it didn't disturb him he had a reason why not?

The Teshuvos Divrei Chaim (The Sanzer Rav ZT"L -- considered one of the greatest, or the greatest - depends who you ask - Chassidishe Rebbe and Torah giant of his time) YD 105 writes about a certain teacher in a school who said that the commentary of the Ohr HaCham HaKodosh was not written with Ruach HaKodesh, that if he really said such a thing, he is an Apikores!

Think, Maidel. When a doctor tells someone that r"l they have cancer, and they say "Well I don't like that, so I will say it's not true", does that make sense? Or even if there is a disagreement and one doctor says it's cancer and the other says it's not, do you think it makes sense for someone to say "I like the 'not' diagnosis better, so I will go with that"?

Unless you're a doctor, or you've seriously researched the issue at hand, you gotta be crazy to ignore what an expert says, even if you don't like it. Same thing here.

You cannot just decide which Meforshim are right or wrong without either solid proof and authority to do so. It's silly.

If that's what your teacher was saying she was wrong. Just because she can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. Why don't you post the issue here and we'll see if it's really problematic? I have found nothing in Judaism that is disturbing at all, IF you know the answers.

Maidel123 Posted - 26 December 2000 19:14


It's nice to see that when things don't "taste right" to people, some of them actually do the research. That's a very special trait that many people don't have; and I thank you for it.

May your sincerity and desire for the truth lead you in the right direction towards Hashem. Thank you so very much.

MODERATOR Posted - 26 December 2000 21:41


You should have done a bit more research.

I am fully aware of each of your “sources.” And I am aware that they are not merely the results of your research, but are regularly being passed off in Meshichist circles as “sources” for what they are doing.

They are not sources. They are misinterpretations, twisted and wrenched out of context so as to imply that they say something they do not, no more serious – even if a bit more complex – than the missionaries’ “proofs” from the Torah. With a little background knowledge and a little clarification, these “proofs” go bye bye. First some background knowledge:

You misquoted the Gemora in Sanhedrin and the Rashi. Nobody said that Moshiach is anybody in particular. They said "Moshiach is LIKE so-and-so", or “Moshiach’s NAME is the same as the name of so-and-so”. There is a big difference. To say Moshiach's name is like so-and-so's name has nothing to do with identifying who Moshiach is, but rather how we understand Moshiach's attributes, whoever Moshiach may be. Chazal say “Moshiach’s name”, was created before the world. (In Hebrew - and English - “name” can refer to a person’s reputation, what he is known for, as opposed to just his label, as in “Shem Tov”, or in English: “a good name”). As the Maharal explains:

“The “name” of Moshiach here means the unique qualities of Moshiach, which are referred to as his “Shem”, because a person’s name describes his unique qualities. Therefore, although Moshiach himself was not created before the world, his “name”, meaning, his unique qualities, were decided by Hashem before creation . . . (Gevuros Hashem 70).

Now we can understand your misquoted Gemora in Sanhedrin. Here's a quote from the Maharal:

“The qualities of Moshiach include all qualities, for although each Tzadik has his own unique quality … the King Moshiach will have them all. And this is what Chazal were telling us ... in the Gemora… ’What is Moshiach’s name? The school of R. Shiloh said, ‘His name is Shiloh’”. Now, you should be very bothered by this – how can R. Shiloh say that Moshiach’s name is his own?? ... But the answer is that this is only telling us about the QUALITIES of Moshiach which includes all qualities. Therefore, everyone perceives his qualities according to their own insight … and so Moshiach is different than all other Tzadikim who only have one specific name.” (Maharal, Netzach Yisroel 41). He echoes this explanation in his Chidushei Agados in Sanhedrin.

There are many other similar explanations in the Meforshim, but I used the Maharal specifically because you cited the Maharal as one of the personalities who supposedly believe in identifying any random Godol Hador as Moshiach. Here you see the opposite of what you said. The Maharal says that your interpretation of the Gemora “SHOULD DISTURB YOU VERY MUCH” (“Yesh lechah l’tmuah meod”), yet what the Maharal says makes no sense and should DISTURB YOU VERY MUCH, you accept as clear and simple. The Maharal says that your understanding of Moshiach should disturb you. And it should.

We find also in the Zohar (Bereishis 135): “King Dovid is living, for even in the days of Moshiach, he will be the king, for we learned about Moshiach, ‘If he is from among the living, his name will be Dovid; and if he is from the souls of the dead, his name will be Dovid”. Here too there is a clear distinction between Moshiach’s “name” and Moshiach himself.

Also, when we call someone “Moshiach”, that does not necessarily mean the King Moshiach, the redeemer. Every generation has a Moshiach, which may be a potential redeemer, but they are not the King Moshiach himself. They may have some connection in their Neshomos to Moshiach (see below), but nobody, nobody ever said that the presence of any of the “Moshiachs” down the generations means the redeemer Moshiach. Nobody ever equated any of the personalities you mentioned with an imminent redemption. Nobody ever “Halachicly ruled” that the Ohr HaChaim Hakodosh or any of the other illustrious personalities you mention is “b’chezkas moshiach”, “assumed to be the redeemer”, the way they did the Lubavitcher Rebbe. We are talking 2 different meanings of Moshiach. To quote from Meshichist literature:

"Nowadays ... as the Rebbe has informed us that 'Your time of geulah has arrived!', and there has already been a revealing of the existence of the redeemer in the Nasi haDor, so we may say that during a time such as this the request and the demand ("teviah") for the Kingdom Bais Dovid ... is no longer ethereal or intangible, but rather, in addition to the request of Hashem that he should send us Moshiach, we show publicly that we are prepared to willingly accept the Kingdom of the Nasi HaDor, the Moshiach of the generation, AS THE KING MOSHIACH". - “HaTekufa VeHageulah b'mishnaso shel harebi milubavtich" (published by Agudas Chasidei Chabad in Israel, and comes with a haskama from 20 Lubavitch rabbis, page 94).

In other words, today is different than previous generations. Today, not only is the Rebbe the “Moshiach of the generation” (who told them that I have no idea), but he is, in addition, the King Moshiach, the redeemer. Nobody has ever said this before, except of course, in such cases as Bar Kochba and Shabse Tzvi, etc.

Every prophet across the board is called “Moshiach” (Ibn Ezra Yeshaya 61:1), yet that does not refer to the King Moshiach, the redeemer.

Every king is called “Moshiach”, and every authority figure is also referred to as “Moshiach” (Abarbanel, Yeshaya 45:1), yet none of this means the King Moshiach, the redeemer.

Even when referring to the redemption. The term “Moshiach” does not necessarily refer to the person himself, but a soul-connection to Moshiach.

Moshe Rabbeinu, Chazal say, is Moshiach. Yet Moshe is from the tribe of Levi and Moshiach has to be from Yehuda! The Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 49:11) answers: Moshe’s soul includes components of all 12 tribes, and that after Moshiach comes we will find the “roots of kingship” in Moshe.

The Zohar, too, in numerous places, indicates that Moshiach and Moshe are two different people:

“Moshe Rabbeinu, Shlomo HaMelech and Moshiach ... can judge the world without witnesses” (Zohar Yisro 175).

So when we say someone is “Moshiach” it can mean numerous things. And we only refer to people as Moshiach when there is a reason. There is no proof anywhere to the silly idea that everyone can just take their Rebbe and decide he is the King Moshiach, the redeemer. That hasn’t happened, ever. On the contrary, such behavior is what the Yismach Moshe cites as being a terrible sin, and ensures that, as long as they do it, Moshiach will not come.

And anyway, even if you were right, what does any of this have to do with the Lubavitcher Rebbe? The Ohr HaChaim said he was Moshiach, not the Rebbe. So because a great Baal Ruach HaKodesh said someone is Moshiach that means anyone can say anyone is Moshiach? What's up with that? Is it OK for my students to say that I am Moshiach because I am their Rebbe?

All you see from these places is that great Tzadikim and Baalei Ruach HaKodesh can peer into a person's Neshoma and can recognize a "Moshiach". What in the world does this have to do with the subject at hand? Which Ohr HaChaim, which Rav Pinchas Koritzer, which Baal Shem Tov, decided that the Rebbe was Moshiach?

And there is another thing you need to know about titles, such as was written to the Maharal by his student. Please see my next post.

MODERATOR Posted - 26 December 2000 22:17

Regarding the titles that a student of the Maharal wrote to his Rebbi, which include “Melech Yehuda” and “Moshiach Tzidkeinu”, don’t get over excited about them. We already saw that (a) The Maharal says clearly that it is unacceptable that people should refer to their Rebbe as Moshiach, and (b) the term Moshiach means many things, not necessarily the King Moshiach.

But besides that, when people write titles they often play on words, such as the term “Melech Yehuda” in that letter, which clearly does not mean “King of Yehuda” (as opposed to “Melech Yisroel”?) – the literal meaning of the phrase – but rather “The King, Yehuda”, which was the Maharal’s name. It’s a play on words. It doesn’t literally mean the Ruler of the Jews. And since we saw that the word Moshiach is used to refer to any authority figure, this title shows nothing. If you want to see how much flexibility we use when writing play-on-word titles to Gedolim, check this out:

In the introduction to the Teshuvos R. Boruch Angel, the publisher refers to the author as “Rabeinu HaGadol V’Hakadosh Boruch Hu”!!!!

The Chacham Ovadiah Yosef (Yechaveh Daas III:73) quotes poskim who defend this, based on the Gemora in Megillah (18a) R. Elozor says Where do we see that Hashem called Yaakov Avinu “G-D” (“kail”)? As it says . . . “

Did you get that? Yaakov Avinu is called G-d!

Rabbeinu Bachya (Ki Sisa 33:7) explains:

“V’haya kol mevakshei Hashem … we see that Moshe Rabbeinu is referred to by Hashem’s name, like we see also by Yaakov Avinu that Hashem referred to him as “kail”. Also Shem the son of Noach is called by Hashem’s name . . . so too we find that the King Moshiach is called by Hashem’s name. . . The reason in all these cases is that someone who is attached to something is called by the name of the thing that he is attached to, as the messenger is called by the name of he whose messenger he is”.

He brings other places as well, that Gedolim throughout the generations were referred to with names that normally describe Hashem. Rav Shimon bar Yochai, too, was described as “Ha’Adon Hashem” (Zohar Bo 38a). This is all not meant literally, of course, but rather, it means someone connected to Hashem, or someone doing Hashem’s work (the messenger).

So titles are often not meant literally, and just as when we write in a title "Hashem" on a Godol we do not mean he is literally G-d, we do not have to mean when we write that someone is "Moshiach Tzaidkeinu" that he is anything except attached to Moshiach, or doing Moshiach's work.

rachel2001 Posted - 26 December 2000 22:26

I would like to make it clear that the Lubavitcher Chasidim did NOT dance at the Rebbe’s funeral and scream at him to "get up!" as he was being lowered into the ground. my whole family was there and that simply did not happen.

I doubt the moderator was there or he wouldn’t have believed such a rumor. I remember wearing torn shirts and everybody crying around me. The fact that the moderator would believe such an obnoxious rumor shows that he has some bias against Lubavitch.

Moderator- why cant you just accept that most lubavitchers do not believe that the Rebbe himself is alive, but his Neshama will always live on, like everybody else's in history. Don’t judge us because 10 out 10,000 lubavitchers are extremists and make a lot of noise about it.

- 26 December 2000 23:08

Not all of them. Not even most, not even a large minority. But some did.

The dancing took place right outside 770 at the beginning of the funeral. Not nearly everyone, but there were those who did. The screaming "Get up! get up!" took place as they were lowering the casket into the ground - again, just some people - and the person screaming the loudest is a well know Meshichist who, not long prior to the funeral, announced in a public forum in Brooklyn that the Rebbe would never die, don't worry.

When someone in the audience asked him well what are you going to do if he never recovers, he reiterated and said that's not a consideration since it can't happen.

Maidel123 Posted - 27 December 2000 16:37

Why should I "take responsibility" and say that I don't know when I do know that this is right? Who is anyone here to tell me my hiskashrus with the Rebbe is not real? That he doesn't answer me and intercede to the Abishter on my behalf, and that he doesn't help guide me? Who are you to tell me that?

In any case, I guess we just have to disagree, since you're telling me my teacher is wrong. We discussed an Ibn Ezra that states that everything is mazal and thus there's no reason for jealousy. Many people in the class were disturbed by this opinion (which clearly is not the opinion of everyone), and the teacher said that if we don't want to accept it, we don't have to. You're not going to be able to convince me that my teacher is wrong, because she's not. It's just that simple.

If someone disagrees with the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, or helping Jews that are not religious to become religious, well I would try to show him where he's mistaken. But I would not act with the animosity that I am being dealt now. I am a thinking individual and make conscious decisions about my beliefs.
The cancer mashal doesn't fit either. There are not shivim panim l'cancer. There are shivim panim l'torah.

I'm not sure if I should continue putting my energies into this discussion since it is causing me great distress, and it is only being marbitz sinas chinam, not marbitz torah.

Please do not continue to try to discredit my hiskashrus with the Rebbe. It is very real, and it is wrong for anyone to try to take that away from me. I am not trying to convince anyone that he/she is wrong...I just want you to please allow me to believe as I do.

- 27 December 2000 18:00

First of all, your teacher didn't understand the Ibn Ezra. He doesn't say everything's Mazal. His idea is that since everything that happens in the world is the will of G-d, and - add to that whatever G-d does is for the best - then if someone else has something and you don't, that is G-d's will that he should have whatever and not you. And nobody is ever jealous of something that they cannot attain. (He gives the moshol that the peasant is not jealous when the princess gets married). If you look at things this way, says the ibn Ezra, you will no more be jealous of what someone else has than if you were a peasant and saw someone marrying the princess.

Now what's disturbing about that? And there's nothing here that anybody disagrees with, sorry to tell you.

The most your teacher could have said is that if the ibn Ezra doesn't convince you not to be jealous - not because he's wrong but because you cannot follow it - then go try another idea. That's fine. But to say he's wrong because you don't like it, is against the Torah, and pretty illogical, since whatever bothered you about this he was surely aware of and it didn't bother him. It would be sound advice to figure out why.

Incidentally, there is a similar idea in the Sefer HaChinuch (lo sikom) where he says since G-d makes everything happen there is no reason to want revenge against someone, since whatever the guy did to you was decreed by Hashem.

Ayin Ponim LaTorah does NOT mean that any of the ponim are wrong. It means they are all correct. So you have no right to say because there are Ayin Ponim LaTorah that the ibn Ezra is wrong.

As far as your "hiskshrus" with the Rebbe, the issues here are (1) if he is alive and (2) if he is moshiach

You talk as if these are your own personal issues, as if the Rebbe were your boyfriend or something. These are Torah issues, not your personal ones. The definition of life and death, and the determination of Moshiach are Torah issues for all of Klall Yisroel.

Maidel, when someone says the Rebbe is Moshiach, it means MY Moshiach too. There's only one Melech HaMoshiach redeemer. The Meshichists are declaring the Lubavitcher Rebbe as MY KING as well. Everyone has a right to say no it is not so.

Who am I? What qualifications does a Jew need to try to teach Torah to those who don't know it or correct those who falsify it? You tell me.

Just as you admit that you would try to convince someone who says Kiruv Rechokim is wrong, that he is mistaken, I am trying to convince you that you are mistaken.

The Meshichists are off the derech. They have violated the Torah and committed a terrible sin, as per the Yismach Moshe cited above. The punishment, the Gemora (Kesivos 112a) says, for that particular sin is that Jews are killed by the Goyim. And, as the Yismach Moshe points out, that Moshiach will not come until it stops.

I don't want Jews to die. And I do want Moshiach to come. Sorry if that's called sinas chinam to you.

And I do want Jews to believe in the Torah, and not to believe in anti-Torah hashkofos. Sorry if that's called sinas chinam to you.

Nobody is forcing you to believe anything. But you have no right, and, Boruch Hashem, no ability, to prevent others from saying the truth.

And you have no right to believe things that are against the Torah.

You have seen clearly that the Meshichists misquote, misrepresent, and distort the Torah. Anyone can access this website and try to defend them. Many have. Everyone who tried got posted (unless it was a repeat of someone else's post). All the well known "proofs" of the Meshichstin have been shown to be distortions, and their beliefs have been shown to be false. Can anyone defend them? I don't think so.

They should abandon their false beliefs, and do Teshuva, like we want all Jews to do.

rachel2001 Posted - 27 December 2000 21:05

Ok then, I guess we all agree that lubavitchers who believe the Rebbe is alive physically are a very small minority. still you should not mention them when trying to make a point about Lubavitch.

I would never judge a whole community because of one persons screwed up belief. I'm sure your community has their share of weirdoes too. psychologically, after someone lose someone close to him, he may go through a period of denial. he tries to convince himself (and every one else) that it never happened. so, I guess their view crazy and illogical, but you cant say their belief is exactly against the torah. it really shouldn’t bother you that much.

Posted - 27 December 2000 21:06

Actually, ppl do call the Rebbe the moshiach of the generation, and since the Rebbe himself told us that "this is the last generation of golus and the first generation of moshiach", ppl can conclude that the Rebbe is the final moshiach.

Furthermore, if great tzadikim with ruach hakodesh pointed out a specific person as being moshiach, surely it must not be against the torah. having nevuah or ruach hakodesh, whatever, doesn’t authorize somebody to violate the torah.

Obviously there are different opinions on this issue, and you are just gonna quote opinions in favor of your view. I have no idea who moshiach is, but I firmly believe that my fellow lubavitchers are not committing a grave sin by claiming that the rebbe ZTL is moshiach. of course I can keep on finding commentaries and rabbis that back MY view, but since even the different commentators (with ruach hakodesh)disagree on this issue, this conversation can go on forever.

- 27 December 2000 21:23


I said those who danced and screamed were a small minority, not those who believe the Rebbe isn't dead. The "not dead" people are many more. And the others, the crazies as you call them, still have official positions within Lubavitch, such as - why not? He publicizes this himself - Shmuel Buttman. The man needs to be officially condemned and have his soap boxes - radio shows, newspaper articles - taken away.

But that the Rebbe is alive is much more rampant. Again, in the sefer "HaTekufah V'Hageulah B'Mishnaso Shel Harebi Milubavtich", that comes with the Haskomos of Lubavitcher Roshei Yeshiva, Rabbonim and, as they call them in Chabad, "mashpiim" (i.e. what is otherwise know as a mashgiach), it brings how Moshiach will be "hidden" in the sky before he arrives, not dead at all, and that how Moshiach does not die because he is not affected by time. Also they explain the Yechi chant to mean simply that. I quoted the exact words above.

As far as the Moshiach of the generation, you seem not to have read my last post. To say that someone is "Moshiach" does not necessarily violate the prohibition. It depends what you mean by that. You could mean anything from "authority figure" to "leader of the generation" to "king" and "Moshiach of the generation" and many more. None of this is a problem.

But to say that someone is the King Moshiach, the redeemer, that is prohibited. And nobody in history ever did that before, except by Shabse Tzvi, Bar Kochba, and other disastrous episodes. There is therefore zero comparison or proof in the past references of someone as Moshiach.

My point with the Ruach HaKodesh was that even when someone referred to another as the moshiach of a generation, it was done by means of Ruach HaKodesh, not because some Chassidim decided it was so. Since no such means - and no other reasonable means - was used to determine that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the "Moshiach of the generation", it is therefore another baseless concoction.

And to use that wishful thinking as the basis for declaring him the King Moshiach final redeemer is a terrible sin.

And no, you cannot find any commentators that agree with your view. None. Zero. And neither you nor anyone else can. All such "commentators" have already been collected in various Meshichist writings. Most of them are posted above. The rest of them are no more legitimate than those.

No comments: