The Five Most Likeliest Candidates to be Moshiach

Also, it’s not even that the lubavitcher rebbe failed to accomplish all of the rambams criteria; he didn’t fulfill a single one. He did not “coercd all of yisroel to torah” – not even close, not even close to being close. There are 13 million jews in the world, of which, only about 15% are Orthodox. In the rebbes time, fewer than that were.

During his time as rebbe, for every intermarriage he may have prevented with his kiruv workers, countless others happened.

Most jews had nothing to do with lubavitch and his reach was hyped up in orthodox circles, particularly in chabad, where they’d have you think that every jew in the world knew the rebbe and became frum because of him. They made a huge deal out of him, for instance, appearing briefly on a television show once…as if “the whole world” saw him…in reality, 99% or more just saw him snd went on to watch whatever came next. Ask goyim if they “remember” him being on tv and they’ll look at you like you’re from Mars. TV is on 24/7 and it’s forgotten as soon as it’s over.

But to chabad, this is some monumental achievement.

I was on TV once when i was a kid. I was 10, and i made a demonstration in front of an ice cream truck that frequented my playground, because they sold fake cigarettes. I and a few friends protested, and for some reason a local TV station put me on for like 5 minutes. I felt like a million bucks, but do you think anyone in the world remembers that? I barely remember it myself!

If anything, numbers of Orthodox jews trended up after he passed away. I’m not in any way saying that the two are linked, but my point is that he did not bring all, most, or even 1/4 of jews back to yiddishkeit.

He didn’t bring Jews back to Eretz yisroel, he didn’t fight with the neighboring countries, he didn’t build the beis hamikdash, he didn’t fix up shmiras hamitzvos any more than, say, the tzelemer rov or rav moshe… Nothing

Actually, there was one criteria that he may have fulfilled. The rambam says that if a messianic candidate is megaleh ponim batorah, or says that a certain Mitzvah is not applicable, he definitely is not moshiach.

And… The lubavitcher rebbe said that in our time there’s basically no Mitzvah to sleep in a sukkah.

Now you’ll say, no, he didn’t say there’s no Mitzvah, just if you’re mitztayer because you’re not mitztayer that you don’t feel a kabbalistic concept in the sukkah, then you’re patur.

And on that, the rambam says that a false moshiach can “take a Mitzvah out of its simple meaning”

The simple meaning is, if you’re cold, you’re patur. He comes and says that “spiritual” pain about not being in pain is enough.

He’s a false Messiah, and this was known early on. When he first became rebbe, the brisker rov said “dehr meshugah meint as ehr is moshiach”

Usually messianic lubavitchers are more polite, because they don’t want to say the nasty parts out loud, but your post can serve as an example of the superiority complex and belittlement of the rest of klal yisroel, who does not accept the messiahood of a deceased rebbe.

Let’s go through this step by step;

Re, Sanhedrin:

Rashi brings two pshatim in what min hameisim means. First he says that it will be someone like daniel who suffered, then he brings a lashon acher, a different pshat, that the gemara is just saying a comparison for who moshiach will be – is he compared to a living person like rebbe, or is he compared to a person who passed away like daniel.

—
Avira, I did not say a Prime Minister is betur Melech. Just because he is voted in doesn’t make the position one of Malchus. The Israeli President is more like a Melech than the PM, but I didn’t say he is either. How you attribute what was not said is baffling.
–
You said that kings are voted on; that’s baseless and not the way kings in tanach or beis chashmonai were made. And kings into bais chashmonai were all annointed; the ramban says that the latter kings were in the wrong for taking meluchah, because of “lo yasir”, too, so a voted on king who is not from beis dovid would likewise be a violation.
—
The Abarbenel on Derech Eretz Zuta most certainly allows for Moshiach from Techiyas Hamaisim.

—
First you said it’s in yeshuos meshicho, a sefer I’m familiar with; it’s not there. Then, you point to derech eretz zuta, of which i am not familiar, and i will look into it, but i highly doubt it exists there either.
—

“Supposed” Sidei Chemed??! Clearly you didn’t even do a Google search before employing such idiotic phrasing. I’ll let you have sechar halicha to discover you can find it easily yourself, with even an English search.
—

I’m just going to ignore the ad hominem; it only makes you less convincing, so why should i care? Saying “google it” is a pretty obnoxious thing to tell someone.

I looked it up in the sefer…i can see why you wanted me to google it though, because messianic websites quote it and completely butcher it, almost as much as the word salad you made of a clear rambam, but more on that later.

As I expected, he says nothing of the sort. He is interpreting the gemara as a moshol; min hameisim means someone came as if on clouds from shomayim, in a grand display and everyone will accept him, if we are zocheh. From the living means ani rochev al chamur, a lowly-appearing person who will not be accepted by all, not stam a living person. If he were saying that min hachaim means stam living people, as chabad messianics would say, he wouldn’t have to add anything; ani rochev al hachamur is a non-ideal state of bias hamoshiach.

Normative techias hameisim happens from the kever; people are resurrected, they don’t come down from shomayim.

What he’s saying is, of course, a refutation of dead candidacy, not a proof.
—-

Re, rambam:

ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו. כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה. ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה. וילחם מלחמות ה’. הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח. אם עשה והצליח [ וניצח כל האומות שסביביו ] ובנה מקדש במקומו. וקבץ נדחי ישראל הרי זה משיח בודאי. [ ואם לא הצליח עד כה או נהרג. בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה. והרי הוא ככל מלכי בית דוד השלמים הכשרים שמתו. ולא העמידו הקדוש ברוך הוא אלא לנסות בו רבים

youre mistranslating “oh shenegereg” as “or he is someone who is killed” – that’s an error. The translation is “if he was not successful to that point (ad koh), or if he was killed, know that he is not the one the Torah promised, but rather was as all other proper etc kings of yisroel.

And Hashem has only sent him to test yisroel.

This is directly followed by an example of such a person, who died and is therefore only meant to test yisroel.

אף ישוע הנוצרי שדימה שיהיה משיח ונהרג בבית דין. כבר נתנבא בו דניאל.

And you wonder why people compare chabad with yushke? A Christian could just as easily have made the same nonsensical “diyukim” in the first sentence of the rambam, and then “bliebed shver” on the seconr sentence….no, the second sentence clarifies, as if it needed to be clarified, what was said in the first.

But chabad sees a “second coming” ….in the rambams demonstration that another religion claimed so, and was wrong.

Wow.

Not that the way you’re understanding “or” has any legitimatacy….it means either this happened or that happened, either one..

Usually when people insist something is “basic logic” it’s just an appeal to make their shaky statements sound better. That, together with repeatedly saying that things are “over my head” only makes your arguments, such as they are, appear all the more baseless.

—

Lastly, you are missing PSHAT again. Rashi says “kegoin” Daniel, meaning not Daniel necessarily, but a similar individual; meaning he did not make any reference to when the person might live. The insinuation that Rashi indicates someone in that time is totally made up

—

I never said rashi says that. I said that if he’s similar to daniel, he must be on the level of such people, of which, no one today is.

Unless the lubavitcher rebbe was greater than literally everyone in the past 1000 years.

If he was, you’d think his supposedly profound learning acumen would have impressed everyone in the Torah community.

Why is it, then, that so many Torah leaders thought he wasn’t so big in learning?

—-

The main question relating to there is: does “fighting Hashem’s battles” mean actual physical war, or ‘Hashem’s battles’ means spiritual battles.
—
The rambam in the next sentence, when recapping what moshiach does, says that Moshiach will fight the nations all aroundand beat them. How is that remotely ideological? He is talking about people like bar kochva, who fought physical wars. It’s just an invention that lubavitch decided a few years ago and is not mentioned at all in the meforshei harambam. It’s just another aspect of “ain bein…shibud malchios bilvad,” it’s an integral part of geulah that we be no longer under the rule of goyim.

“Kol makom….teshuvaso betzidah”

Maybe building the beis hamikdash is metaphorical too? Oh, wait….they say that, that 770 is the beis hamikdash. Right, i forgot how far this rabbit hole goes.

Also regarding bar kochva, the rambam says first that he was killed in his sins, but then changes to “once he was killed, they all knew he was not moshiach” omitting the reason why he was killed.

Oncd he’s dead, he loses his candidacy. Either he doesn’t pasken like the maan deamar in Sanhedrin, or he holds like rashi’s davar acher.

—-
If you can see my view and you want to point out something, try asking a thoughtful question.
—

I love how you have no problem disparaging me yet you ask for me to ask you, the superior-minded and better educated, questions in a respectful way…. sorry, but this is the internet, and respect is earned, and not given to people who announce that they are better. I realize that in chabad, they tell you that everyone else doesn’t know anything, and that only they do, but all it does is make neo-chabad a laughing stock of the yeshiva world. It definitely made me laugh, so thanks for adding to my simchas adar!

Forgot to address one other thing; rashi living hundreds of years after the gemara is irrelevant. He’s not writing his own sefer on what will happen when moshiach comes. He’s explaining the gemara, which was written when it was written.

Dear Always,

It’s not one bit democratic. It’s a Platonic Aristocracy.

Someone who is capable of answering shailos may do so even if nobody listens to him. Like, חליצה על ידי שליח. This nistar is a quick thinker who knows certain complex sugyos in his sleep. Certain conflicting topics are ran by him by some very big name poskim.

I also neglected to mention that i don’t know why the words of 2 achronim, even if true, would establish enough precedent to overlook the baalei machshava throughout the doros who completely ignore this possibility. Those include the maharal, ramchal, rambans maamar al hegeulah, the kisvei ari, rav yonasan eybeshutz, chasam sofer, gr”a, nefesh hachaim… And ironically, sifrei chasidus, including the baal hatanya and chabad rebbes.

Imagine combing through hundreds and thousands of seforim just to find a glimmer, however faint, of a possibility that a deceased rebbe – and not just any, , but specifically the last lubavitcher rebbe – can be moshiach, ignoring the fact that seforim that deal with geulah never make mention of it…

But that’s one issue. Another is that no one actually has advocated it, not the sdei chemed, and I’m 99% sure the abarbanel too.

And the other issue is that there’s not a shred of evidence that even when alive the lubavitcher rebbe had any shot of being moshiach.

Avira > don’t know why the words of 2 achronim, even if true, would establish enough precedent to overlook the baalei machshava throughout the doros

In the sprit of Purim, I would like to insist that this is not a foreign idea to you.

n0 > Platonic Aristocracy.

Oh, I see where I made you upset. Platonic roshei yeshivot running the velt. It may be a great ideal, but I don’t think this reflects the practice. R Avigdor Miller testifies how great Talmidei Chahcamim were in Slobodka before WW1 – and how totally unmoved most of the people were.

I do agree that there is an element of aristocracy with Talmidei Chachamim maintaining their learning despite what happens aroud, but they are not existing in vacuum. I may be pushing beyond what I learned from my Teacher, who only related this to responsa, not to overall limud, so I am not like Rabbi Eliezer who taught only what he learned from his teachers …

Avira…
Looks like a mevazeh Talmidei Chachamim (The Rebbe etc), and mechadesh Torah shelo keHalacha needs help I see:

Mitzad Sukkoh:
It is the singular Mitzvah where a pitur for tzar is brought down..
Note: Tzar is not [limited to] rain, rain is a geder brought designating how broad tzar is, specifically in it being a minute materialistic inconvenience, one that a person may often experience regularly, on their way etc, or working their field etc, by which a kv”ch can serve to include any greater tzar than such minute materialistic irking.
A person who experiences greater irksomeness (i.e. tzar) from rain from another activity they are permitted to refrain, without it constituting being oker the Mitzvah of Sukkah.
That Chabad eats in the Sukkah no matter the downpour and with an even greater Simchas Mitzvah if so demonstrates where you went wrong.
A Chasid, and is more irked by spiritual a spiritual issue regarding sleeping in the Sukkah than you are by the material issue of rain, has just as much Halachic allowance to sleep inside as you have to EAT inside. Even more so, sleeping is more bigeder “shev ve’al ta’aseh”, that you might have to worry that you’re so wholesome that rain wouldn’t cause you tzar, and it ends up you are eating inside without reason to! 🙂
Either way, you make a moot point.
It is not being oker a Halacha, it is following a befeirush Halacha regarding tzar that based on your previous comment you don’t understand. As clearly clarified regarding kv”ch etc, and you were mevazeh Talmidei Chachamim based on your erroneous elementary understanding and materialistic focus. (Rain is painless. Tzar is not from the raindrops, but rather it is in reference to your reaction to them.
Enough time wasted on one fraud of yours.

Rambam says clearly in Perek 12 there that there will be nevuah (possibly before, and accompanying, and) as part of the identity of Moshiach. (He’ll be meyaches Yisroel etc.) He simply says in Perek 11 that this is not a condition or recognizing someone as Moshiach. Note: Also in Hilchos Yeshiva he rules against the opinion of “Ein being olam hazeh..” and cites the opposing position as Halacha. Also the Kesef Mishna states there in Hilchos Melachim that it is apparently not the maskana but a limud for the Halacha he’s supporting there with it. Also in Pirusho on Mishnah Sanhedrin Perek 10 he explicitly states that the Geulah need not and may not follow the position of “ein bein..”. It would follow that ein bein serves two needs, one that Moshiach’s nevuah and mofsim (“kiyemei tzeischa mei’eretz Mitzrayim arenu niflaos”, just like when leaving Mitzrayim, when leaving golus with Moshiach I will show you wonders..) are “on his time or at his discretion, if at all at the outset”, and two that Tzedaka must not cease (as brought in Shabbos 151 relating to the opposing opinion to “ein bein..”.

Hmm, what else did you say..
Oh right, thought a moot point considering the coming sources.. you make up that the reason Rambam listed “im lo hitzliach ad ko oh neherag” doesn’t mean “or..” but rather he was already talking about Yoshke??? and listed multiple reasons that applied to him, ..some other kind of “or”, so it follows the rest of the very same sentence follows the raisha, that he is like all Shleimim and Kosher Davidic Kings??? I think you’re the one inventing interpretations. After all Rambam says he was killed al pi B”D, so obviously not about him. Anyway, on the contrary Rambam is saying you can call someone Moshiach (like was done for ‘King Bar Kochba’ as Rambam calls him, which says a lot, also regarding how he earned the Title King by Rambam’s standard without annointing or Sanhedrin [also Rambam says “ki yaamod Melech”, no Sanhedrin involved until later..], and notwithstanding Rabbi Akiva calling him Moshiach outright even though according to Rambam that would still be bechezkas, but I guess thats enough, if he even did all the chezkas stuff.. important note!!) but only one who finishes the task is the genuine article, and if he is killed, he is not him, after all Rambam says he will fight Milchemes Hashem AND WIN, so that would explain the issue there. See sources that follow below.. You also cite this “and win” as an argument against Milchemes Hashem being an ideological war as opposed to a combat war, yet “and be victorious” would apply no less were the war ideological. Furthermore in Perek 12 Rambam himself says that Eliyahu HaNavi will [may very well] come before Moshiach’s revelation in order to make peace in the world, so it follows that Milchemes Hashem may very well be proactive debates with our now friendly neighbors, and winning them over ideologically.

You insensibly suggest that “he will compel Israel to follow Torah” cannot apply to The Rebbe because of some half-witted assessment you made up… Umm.. Haha talk about sheker nochalu… Before the Rebbe there was NO kiruv movement!!! It was literally an initiative started by him. Not that no one ever found their way, but introducing to Avodas Hashem that we mikarev our “wayward” brother, rather than write him off.. all the Rebbe. Aish and the rest of the kiruv mushroomings that followed are all following his example. This alone is also “ulichazek bidka” which applies to spurring Tzaddikim etc to improve their cheshbonos, this being a great example that permeated all communities of shtarkers who considered Klal Yisroel only fellow Lomdei Torah etc.. but most varacious was your total ignoring of THOUSANDS of Kehilos established around the world where there was no makom Torah and biTahara but Yidden all over, and now EVERYWHERE there are Yidden who have joined Kehilos Kedoshos, and jokes aside, where Torah kipshuto, not Moshiach “politics” per se, is the main dish. Furthermore, while there is still much to do in Eretz Yisroel, The Rebbe and by extension Chabad are for so many “chiloñi” the only “religious people” they would consider hearing mussar from, or rather positive encouragement, which is also an advent of The Rebbe and Chabad into the Frum world by proxy, setting an example of chinuch al derech Chassidus Chabad/Ahava which is higher than Avoda meyira/mussar. But let’s skips that to avoid your ignorant quip which finally came up since barely coming up with one at the Sukkah segment. Let’s just stick with starting kiruv work, and 1000s of new Kehilos for unaffiliated Yiddin worldwide, oh and also bringing Rambam M”T to prominence. Or maybe you don’t know that not very long ago it wasn’t even considered by most a “fringe Sefer” for whoever looks in it.. if even it was known that Teimanim pasken by it.. And of course bringing Moshiach Torah in general and the very idea of us living in Ikvisa diMishicha and/or the Jewish culture to that level of Moshiach prominence, beyond Chachmei Yisroel whose Moshiach “culture” outside of Shmone Esrei and Uva Letziyon was pretty much from the Ani Maamins and memories of Shabsai Tzvi etc making any real world anything a discomfort, maybe also justifiably so from their perspective, notwithstanding Rambam and B”K and Rabbi Akiva who approve such initiatives etc (when Torah and safety is strengthened). But this is only if you remember or know what it was like before The Rebbe’s influence, transforming a post churban echo of Achake Lo, even after the est of Israel (wtvr?), to the age of excitement for what’s coming “now” soon (esp after the shoah Hashem Yishmor.

So yeah you get all the above in return to your numerous umm let’s just say effortful comments. Umm good job, for the parts that weren’t a bizoyon of your R”Y and parents.
Now to really the only thing I was initially introducing vis a vis OU in ’96 saying this stuff isn’t in Torah ..SMH.., here goes:

Abarbenel:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19605&st=&pgnum=64
Last four lines before Haderech habeis!!!
Notice he not only say exactly what I indicated, but he cites Sanhedrin 98b as the source, supporting that as a basis too, as mentioned previously.

Sidei Chemed:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14146&hilite=f55ab3ea-a118-4369-9af3-c6f1aa804d1e&st=%d7%9e%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%97&pgnum=190
See the right column, the line beginning with parentheses.
Both above it where he discusses Moshiach shebador, and below where he says min hameisim and how it is a higher/better coming of Moshiach.

Radbaz:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=1952&st=%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA&_rnd=0.8418562216808565
See Shaila 1069 where he is clear about Techiya for Tzaddikim (Moshiach?) before Binyan HaMikdash.

I would have just cited these sources if you didn’t turn this simple referencing of several sources for a basic Jewish concept that you and others call heretical and then proceed to bash any number of Torah hanhagos etc since giving false license with a baseless pisul of the most extreme kind, all out of ignorance and failure to double check one’s self before wholesale branding myriads of Kehilos Kedoshim lehavsil kofrim.

Note: I did not even posit that I thought The Rebbe to be Moshiach. But had I, it seems I would be in good company with Rebbe Akiva vechol Chachmei doro, who Rambam even cites as a valid example to learn from.

Either way, feel free to pick at fringe points that you think are weak, but are valid, while remembering that you did that already, and so far there were three sources that explicitly demonstrate my central points unimpeachable. Add B”K being cited as a King by Rambam, and I think we might even have the original “vote” hypothesis sorted, given he had no Sanhedrin or annointment, just followers and an initiative (the initiative being in relation to Moshiach not Malchus per se, so he may not even have needed that..).

I know this was long winded.
If you have any rebuttal (for your sake I would again advise thoughtful questions, ..was trying to help you there..) please keep them to one comment, and umm consider whether your sources will support the rebuttal I am sure to introduce.

Yasher Koach on ummm being osek baTorah, and trying out some chidushim on me.

Hatzlacha Rabba next time around.

Platonic Aristocracy.

I never got upset about your post. The way you sum up Jewish Leadership, especially in regards to the implications of standard practice, is completely untrue. Maybe it’s just that you have a bad way with words. But it’s not at all democratic.

I didn’t mean that Roshei Yeshivos run the velt. They do not even think they are Rebbes. I’m trying to tell you that halachic issues are passed around to those that are competent on the issue, without regard for their popularity. If many Jews decide to follow the opinion of one who doesn’t know anything about the discussion, it does not make his opinion anymore valid than an online comment.

Now I’m left wondering who is more irked by the enigma of The Heinteger Zatzal, Avira or Ben?

You both could just move on and worry about him/Him a bit less.

n0 > But it’s not at all democratic.

Let me try to clarify – it is not a direct democracy, Athens style, where every balabos votes for the gadol hador or moschiach. It is indirect multi-level democracy – balabos hires the local Rav and decides what questions to ask, local rav decides which questions to forward further and to whom, and so on. Your anonymous posek (are you writing about yourself, maybe?) fits here too.

Specifically, if no balabos ever asks a shaila about honest wages or para aduma, then these questions will not propagate into responsa at some higher level.

Dear Always,

What you are talking about is only a sliver of the national or international leadership. Many (maybe even most) of the big halachic controversies came from an individual with an agenda that kept on pushing until he got acceptance among a large amount of the poskim.

PS Didn’t Rav Soloveitchik write about this? Something like that halacha is not a democratic process, and therefore it has completely different safeguards that get corrupted by a preference for outside influence.

Nome – i think if your entire judaism hinged on such things you too would be insecure enough to lash out at anyone, even an anonymous name online, who questions it.

Ever see a lubavitcher who first finds out that many gedolim didn’t hold of the rebbe? It gives them a crisis of faith and many go off the derech because of it.

On the flipside, the adulation goes so far that i heard from kne6 lubavitcher that they’re still frum because if the rebbe held of yiddishkeit, it must be the right religion.

Ujm, it was an essay; I don’t have enough free time to redo it. But as one example, i admitted that i was unaware of that line in the abarbanel, but it didn’t say what our very-eager-to-defend-second coming ideology friend said it did. All he said is that Moshiach might come from those who are revived during techias hameisim, which he holds can happen first, before bias hamoshiach. He makes no mention of a second coming, and he definitely would if he held of it, because half of the sefer is a rebuttal to christian ideology, of which second coming ideas are a center piece. And that’s how he understands Sanhedrin, as “from the meisim” means those who will rise during techias hameisim, not that Moshiach alone will come from the dead.

Nom, fair point about the internet not being an accurate representation of any community, but my encounters with chabad are mostly in person. And almost all of them are extremely friendly and non confrontational about their various beliefs; our friend here is the exception.

But he’s just saying the quiet part out loud; the culture is one of “otherising” the rest of klal yisroel and believing that they are the sole possessors of truth.

n0, thanks for the questions. My original claim was fairly limited to what is written in responsa. The fact that there are less questions about some subject does not change the halakha, it just reduces amount of new material on the subject and makes that area of halakha less popular and less relevant to the changing times. If you are forced to decide whether it is ok to hide your income from IRS using medieval sources only, it will be a difficult and error-prone process.

but to your larger, interesting, point. I found an interesting paper
THE DEMOCRATIC EVOLUTION OF HALAKHAH:
A Political Science Perspective by David Raab from Touro College
here are some quotes – but read the original, it has a lot of thoughts and sources,
you asked about R Soloveichik
.. dispute over whether there is a positive commandment to appoint a king. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik said in the name of his father that even if there is such a commandment, the commandment is dependent on the vox populi. The people must make its voice heard, as was the case in the time of Samuel, and only when a demand emanates from the people does the commandment apply
…
The individual—particularly if not affiliated with a particular
community, but even if so—may designate any decisor of his choosing.
He is required to select a rabbi with whom he can “meaningfully
identify” with a “principled and consistent attachment,” someone who
speaks to one’s own inner sanctum, to serve as an ongoing decisor.73 One
is not permitted to hopscotch from one decisor to the next to find the
most preferred specific ruling.74 Nor is one permitted to ignore one’s
decisor’s ruling, once asked for and received. However, the binding to a
decisor need not be permanent: a person may switch decisors The elasticity in selecting one’s rabbi is at the core of halakhic
democracy. For, those endowed with halakhic rule-crafting authority—
the rabbis—are selected or appointed, directly or indirectly, by the
people. While control over halakhic decision-making is vested in the
rabbis, they may be replaced relatively freely if desired.
over the
course of his lifetime if he no longer wishes to adhere to the philosophy
or rulings of his current one.75 Similarly, an individual may seek the
guidance of a different “specialist” decisor in areas where he feels that
his chosen decisor has less proficiency than needed in the matter at
hand.
As R. Judah Patriarch (Rebbi) was dying, he instructed his son, R. Gamliel, to appoint
Hami b. R. Haninah as head of the yeshiva. The Talmud asks, “And why
did Rebbi himself not appoint him?” R. Drosa responds: because the
people of Sepphoris protested. JT Ta’anit 4:2 20b.
The rishon Rivash (R. Yitzhak b. Sheshet, 1326-1408, Spain) ruled that a person may not request authority over a community from the king without the concurrence of the community
aharon Rema agrees, and both add that whoever does so “causes pain
to the public and will end up having to answer for it.”91 The Sephardic
aharon R. Eliyahu Mizrahi (d. 1525, Turkey) writes that the authority
given “to each Court in each generation…is due only to the fact that the
great court of each generation, all the people of that generation rely on
[that court’s] opinions.”
First-century tanna R. Eleazar b. Tzaddok ruled that any gezeirah
enacted by a court but not accepted by the majority of the people is no
gezeirah.JT Avodah Zarah 2:8, 16a (2:9, 41d); JT Shabbat 1:4 10b.
R. Meir decreed that kuthim (now often referred to as the Samaritans) were considered
complete idolaters and were thus to be shunned, but the people did not
accept his ruling.BT Hullin 6a.
Klei Hemdah (R. Meir Dan Plotzky, 1866-1928, Poland),
Ha’azinu, pp. 336-338 regarding the conflict between obedience to rabbinic law versus
the people’s ability to flout specific rulings.

n0m, I began by *simply* stating that the OU 1996 claim that there was no Torah basis for a Techiya Mashiach was incorrect.
I was met with wicked vitriol against not myself, but the Chabad Rebbe. So I took it all to task.
Thanks for supporting better exchanges. 👍🏻

Avira:
Chabad is “otherising” Klal Yisroel???!
In-case you haven’t noticed it is distinctly the opposite. People, even before their Rebbe passed conjured up reasons to cast them aside. And as time went on, as long as they had a new reason and no longer felt the need to hold on to their previous ones, they eventually withdrew from claiming their earlier reasons had any validity. Nevermind that everything objected to had a clear source.
But I digress.

When Lubavitchers find out that there are Gedolim who don’t side with them???
There was not one who didn’t know this. They have a term for them: “misnagdim”. And whether it’s Reb Shach, Rabbi Berger, The Satmar Rebbe, all of Telshe and BMG (at that time) Brisk, Mir faculty, every Lubavitcher knew they were “misnagdim” without even having to ask. Your supposition is pure preposterousness. As is the first one I cited herein. As here is a list that rejected Chabad, not the other way around. Chabad has always been open to their fellow Jews, and “misnagdim” saw that too as a weakness, just like they initially opposed kiruv because they said one shouldn’t interact with chotim, even if they are tinokim shenishba.

Why is Chabad in such a way with their Rebbe when there’s no basis for such a manner???
I venture it’s fairly obvious, but I guess not for everyone.
We are taught not only hevai shoseh batzama es divreihem, but also hevai dovak baafar raglaihem. Certainly one can’t say they that they fulfil these directives of Pirkai Avos too much. Or would you?!

The Abarbenel doesn’t say that he will be identified as Mashiach or begin the initiative before his passing…???
So! Clearly he will live first; so no matter what he does then, his Rising will be a “second coming”. Certainly one would imagine he would do no less than those very first qualifications that Rambam cites, and no less, if only out of Avodas Hashem, as every one of them is part and parcel with being a Gadol Hador by any estimation, if so inclined. Also no one said the Chabad Rebbe would return by himself. I’m not sure how you even come up with stuff yourself and then use it as an indictment as though you got it from others. 100% certainty no Chabad ever said that. And if one ever does, we already know that there are different waves of Techiya. So if someone says such a thing, even had they no basis, it is not heretical, and there would be no basis to argue against them, nevermind citing those who say that some Techiya will happen before Binyan HaMikdash and you insisting that “they didn’t say that too would happen in waves”, as if that’s a chiluk. Besides there are other sources that distinctly say there will be more than the two waves brought down there. But I digress again, and severely, because no one said such a thing!!!
Again, I see you digressing from sensibility the further you journey away from “melamed zechus”. Which reminds me, the sinas chinom which brought about the churban was because they were “melamed chova”. They weren’t veltishe haters, they were doing it in Torah. The problem was they would finagle a chova while zechus was pshat waiting for them. But they side-stepped it, in favor going “lifnim mishuras hadin” as the Gemara says. Except they were doing that on the side of chova against their fellow Yid.
You can do better.

The ikar is to be melamed zechus in Torah, like I am.
Do recall that I didn’t once insist any of this on my own account. I have simply been melamed zechus for Good Fine Yidden who half an apparently Torah acceptable view, as I’ve shown.

But remember, that until the Rebbe’s passing these same people were ostracized for calling him Mashiach by all the “misnagdim”, nevermind referring to him as “Melech” Ha…! Not only have they all decided now that the issue is it’s after the petira, but now that it’s not an essential point of contention, now having another one, they suddenly wouldn’t object to Rambam and Bar Kochba and Rebbe Akiva as a concrete source that it is perfectly acceptable according to Torah. As Rebbe Akiva held B”K was Mashiach with no qualms raised by anyone, and even Rambam being Moreh Horaah based on the occurrence. And Rambam himself refers to B”K as a King, indicating that Mashiach or not, in his Halacha there, B”K is a King.

Teaching of note: I personally saw a Michtav from the Lubavitcher Rebbe where he said there is no such thing as a “misnagid”, but rather (I don’t remember exactly what the following reference was, but something along the lines of..) only someone for whom it hasn’t yet been explained the background to what they object to. Don’t take the wording the wrong way. I remember the essential points being that there is no such a person, and anyone who seems like that, they can be enjoined together with their fellow Jews, despite initial perceived differences.
This simply highlights the official position of Chabad, that they do not reject or disregard ANY Jews, even those who seem to do so to them.
This is the main limud from all this, I think for us all.
Especially nowadays in our international world where we don’t have the same insulatory nature of our shtetls between us, that it is inherent that this will be the outcome. It’s just a question of who will be on the front end of the Achdus wave.

LeChaim!!!

I don’t understand why it is being repeated over and over that I’m judging people either lekaf chov or zchus; I’m discussing the ideas and claims that a group is making. There’s no Mitzvah to “judge” ideas one way or the other – were just supposed to look for the emes.

Re, abarbanel: he says that it’s possible that Moshiach will be from those resurrected. He, again, makes absolutely no mention of his being a messianic candidate while alive, and definitely would have done so if he thought that’s possible, because half of the sefer is his responses to christian ideology, which he shows a very clear understanding of. You’re throwing in tons of exterior words about him being identified as moshiach, while as we established, such a candidate is eliminated when they die. If the abarbanel meant to say something that was against the plain meaning of the rambam, he would have done so.

Bar kochva was disqualified: the whole point of the rambam there is to say that no miracles need to be done and that once he dies, he is no longer a candidate, that everyone at the time agreed that bar kochva was not moshiach. According to you, the fact that bar kochva died should not be disqualifying, but the rambam clearly says it was.

You still haven’t explained why 2 achronim, even if they said what you think they do(which they don’t) would overturn the pashtus of a rambam and eclipse the enormity of the fact that none of the baalei hashkofa who discuss moshiach talk about him not finishing his job or coming from the dead at all. It’s not normative hashkofa, and it’s Christian. It’s also a sign of a stubborn insecurity when the entire yiddishkeit rests on one man being the Messiah… There’s another religion which teaches that, and it’s not judaism

Let’s say i thought that rav efraim wachsman was moshiach. Would i care if someone else disagreed? Why should i? But to a lubavitcher, if someone says that they don’t believe that their rebbe was moshiach, he might as well be denying bias hamoshiach altogether.

Re, the lubavitcher rebbe saying that effectively everyone would be a chossid (a chabad chossid only?) If only they “understood” – that’s a warped version of what the Rashab said to an atheist, that he doesn’t believe in the same god that he denies; meaning that if the atheist had the right understanding of Hashem, he’d believe.

Sorry, but tons of gedolim knew just what chasidus is and didn’t hold of it. I personally love chasidishe seforim, including chabad, but i am well aware that people that we, and lubavitcher rebbe, had no understanding of, were against it, including the noda beyehudah and the Gaon.

As for vitriol; take a look in the mirror.

I love it when chabad says that a few gedolim who wrote letters to the lubavitcher rebbe and referred to him with titles means anything – talk to people who knew rav moshe. I did; many of my rebbeim were talmidim of his, and none had a favorable view of the lubavitcher rebbe.

It’s not as if rav moshe wrote that the lubavitcher is reliable, or sent someone to him. He didn’t.

I asked rav belsky once about why rav moshe used titles when writing to him. (Rav belsky used to say very harsh things against the lubavitcher rebbe, and there’s no point in mentioning them here. He also was extremely close to rav moshe.)

He said that rav moshe did everything he could to have his psakim accepted in klal yisroel, because he knew that it was necessary. He grew payos so that heimishe yidden would not repel him, and was warm with lubavitch and others for the same reason. He wasn’t a particular misnaged to chasidus in general, nor was he chasidish.

As for rav noson vachtfogel and….rav forcheimer? Different doros…not fit to be lumped together, but it any case, i have no idea if they were misnaged to chasidus in general, but they aren’t known to have said anything in contradiction to rav aharon and subsequent roshei yeshiva in Lakewood who openly consider lubavitch to be chutz lemachaneh.

But it’s not a chidush if someone is not a misnaged. Most gedolim after the kotzker rebbe were no longer opposed, once some of the more controversial practices were stopped and it became clear that chasidim in general, and especially polisher chasidim, were keeping normative Judaism.

There were and are a minority of gedolei yisroel who are still outwardly or quietly misnagdishe, but the problem is that in lubavitch, “misnaged” doesn’t mean someone who is against chasidus, it means someone who is against neo-chabad chasidus….and in that regard, it’s the vast majority. And many who initially were pro-chabaf, including rav avigdor miller and rav pam, changed their views when the issues came to light.

Ben Toiro, if the Lubavitchers were just “doviek be’avar ragleihim” of their Rebbes it would not be a problem. The problem is that by them, the Rebbe partially replaces Ha’SHem, R”l. If a Lubaticher does something he should not, they tell him:” you are starting up with the Rebbe…” or “you are asid le’iten es ha’din in front of the Rebbe…”
edited

Avira, the Radbaz says the first Techiya is specifically before Binyan HaMikdash. So there’s that. It sounds to me like you’re saying that as long as he doesn’t do what the Rambam lists in the first half, then he can still be Mashiach by his Techiya, but not if he is involved in any of those things. So he can do some, but FOR SURE NOT ALL of the following: study Torah and perform Mitzvos like his father D”HM, encourage Yiddin to do Teshuva, reinforce the observance of Torah, and fight battles relating to Hashem. Someone who doesn’t do these things can be Mashiach at Techiya, but not someone who does??? Notice all those things are either doing better, or getting others to do better. That you would twist a Rambam to mean that such things are not done by Mashiach in his original life is a clear shaala on your koach hapilpul. Also, Mitzvos are betailos after Techiya according to everyone, so the first chezkas Mashiach part is for sure talking about before Techiya.

Next: Rambam uses the lashon “killed” specifically three times. About Bar Kochba, also as a general reference to it as a disqualification, and about Yoshka. He never once says died. Yet according to Abarbenel he can die. And please don’t tell me as long as he doesn’t for example make Baal Teshuvaso then he can die, but as soon as he does those spiritual or literal lo saamod al dam raiecha stuff then if he does he’s excluded, but not if he does less Avodas Hashem. Because that’s what your logic means.
Not good. And again Rambam says explicitly if he was killed, because this person, in their initial life also will win through his Avoda, not lose.

I’ll just address these two points because I don’t want to confuse you with too much.

Interested to hear back on how he shouldn’t have such a high level of Avodas Hashem and pertaining to the Klal too. Because pretty much that is all Rambam lists to be bechezkas…! And also how you don’t accept that Rambam might be deliniating if he is killed specifically, because Rambam says specifically veyinatzaiach. So he’s holding being killed is not a nitzachon. Oh right, also how after Techiya he is mekayem Mitzvos like Dovid HaMelech, but is not chayav in Mitzvos.

I’m surprised you come up with such stiros.
…he can’t be nogaia in certain inyanai haklal the first time around, and when Rambam chooses to refer to the cause of death three times, he also means causes that are not like the three times he said it.

Right and or doesn’t mean or. He’s talking already about Yoshka who is “like all Good and Perfect Malchus Bais Dovid that died”. Notice Rambam does say died there, but not about disqualifying, not B”K, not others, and not Yoshka.

Ok, I know it’s still the same two points. I hope you can keep up with only two points at a time, and that the summation and footnote doesn’t confuse you on the way.

Ok Good.

Dear Ben,

Why is this all the same topic? [The Rebbe’s supporters, what is an upstanding ben torah, and long dead messiahs.]

Re, nitzachon:

First you say that the wars are spiritual, and now you’re agreeing that they’re physical when it suits your “diyuk” that a messianic candidate is killed during the wars…

But it’s not a diyuk, because even if all the wars are finished, if he didn’t bring all of yisroel to teshuva and build the beis hamikdash, but was killed/died, he is also disqualified, because “if he was not successful to this point” meaning all of the above, or if he was killed, again, before doing all of the above, then he is not the one the torah promised etc…

Interesting pilpul, I wish I could find time & energy to go through that.
In my humble opinion, if you need pages and pages to show how your rebbe differs from a world-famous faker, you already lost your readers and doing disservice to your rebbe.