Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

Go Back   Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk > Torah and Judaism > Moshiach

Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 17 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Unread 02-22-2006, 02:22 PM   #1
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Question Dovid HaMelech,Rashbi,Arizal,Besht,Rebbe Nachman,the Rebbe.

When Dovid HaMelech died, or when Rabi Shimon bar Yochai, the Arizal, the Besht or Rebbe Nachman passed away, did any one continue believing that they might be resurrected in their own bodies as Moshiach ben Dovid who would then complete the redemption? Or was there any other tzaddik besides these 5 who was still considered to be a messianic candidate after they passed away?
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-16-2006, 10:29 PM   #2
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Question

When the Abarbanel writes in "Yeshuot Meshicho": "Do not be troubled that the King Moshiach will rise in resurrection because this was already doubted (ki cavar nistapku al zeh) in Sanhedrin 98b and Rav (Assi) said, 'If from the living like Rabbeinu HaKadosh and if from the dead like Daniel 'the most desirable of men'", did the Abarbanel mean that Rav (Assi) wasn't sure where Moshiach would come from- would he come from the living or rather from the resurrected dead? Or did the Abarbanel mean that Rav Assi doubted that Moshiach will come from the resurrected dead and rather believed it was more likely he would come from the living? If it's the former, doesn't this mean that the Abarbanel believed there is an equal chance for Moshiach to come from either the living or the dead? If it's the latter, then doesn't this mean that the Abarbanel believed that there was some chance however small that Moshiach will come from the resurrected dead. However, I recall a post by T613 a couple days ago where he wrote that "it is a fiction" to think that the Abarbanel believed in either of these possibilities.

Can anybody tell me what the Abarbanel meant by the word "nistapku" in the above excerpt? Why not use the word "debated" or "considered"? Why "doubted"?

Last edited by AkivaYitzhak; 03-16-2006 at 11:43 PM.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-16-2006, 10:54 PM   #3
chossidnistar
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
Akiva : in Chabad, a tiny minority believe that Moschiach in min Hameisim
chossidnistar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-16-2006, 11:29 PM   #4
magdiel
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AkivaYitzhak
When Dovid HaMelech died, or when Rabi Shimon bar Yochai, the Arizal, the Besht or Rebbe Nachman passed away, did any one continue believing that they might be resurrected in their own bodies as Moshiach ben Dovid who would then complete the redemption? Or was there any other tzaddik besides these 5 who was still considered to be a messianic candidate after they passed away?
Akiva, The prime differance, with all respect to you, which you continue to ignore, is that the Rebbe said Higia Zman Geulascham as a Nevua, and in my opinion, acknowledged that he is the one who is the one in this generation and said as a nevua that hinei zeh bo. This did not happen in the other cases you mentioned. Obviously, you don't have to agree, but to those who do, this is the vital distinction. If one does not believe ch v in the Rebbe's words, then there is no distinction. It all boils down to Emunas Tzadikkim.
magdiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-16-2006, 11:39 PM   #5
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by magdiel
Akiva, The prime differance, with all respect to you, which you continue to ignore, is that the Rebbe said Higia Zman Geulascham as a Nevua, and in my opinion, acknowledged that he is the one who is the one in this generation and said as a nevua that hinei zeh bo. This did not happen in the other cases you mentioned. Obviously, you don't have to agree, but to those who do, this is the vital distinction. If one does not believe ch v in the Rebbe's words, then there is no distinction. It all boils down to Emunas Tzadikkim.
Magdiel, I wanted to forget about my first post in this thread because I realized myself that there is a difference. Even though I don't believe everything that you believe, I do realize there is a difference between the present era and that of the earlier tzaddikim that I listed above. I would rather begin this thread from my second post.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 12:21 AM   #6
magdiel
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AkivaYitzhak
When the Abarbanel writes in "Yeshuot Meshicho": "Do not be troubled that the King Moshiach will rise in resurrection because this was already doubted (ki cavar nistapku al zeh) in Sanhedrin 98b and Rav (Assi) said, 'If from the living like Rabbeinu HaKadosh and if from the dead like Daniel 'the most desirable of men'", did the Abarbanel mean that Rav (Assi) wasn't sure where Moshiach would come from- would he come from the living or rather from the resurrected dead? Or did the Abarbanel mean that Rav Assi doubted that Moshiach will come from the resurrected dead and rather believed it was more likely he would come from the living? If it's the former, doesn't this mean that the Abarbanel believed there is an equal chance for Moshiach to come from either the living or the dead? If it's the latter, then doesn't this mean that the Abarbanel believed that there was some chance however small that Moshiach will come from the resurrected dead. However, I recall a post by T613 a couple days ago where he wrote that "it is a fiction" to think that the Abarbanel believed in either of these possibilities.

Can anybody tell me what the Abarbanel meant by the word "nistapku" in the above excerpt? Why not use the word "debated" or "considered"? Why "doubted"?
IMHO, he understands the general thrust of the entire Gamara up to that point as assuming that Moshiach will be from the Chayim.Why he uses davka that loshen , I dont know, but thats why he is the Abarbanel, and not me, However, I don't think the word "nostapku" in any sense refers to R. Assi but to the Abarbanel's understanding of the Gemara. It is very possible that he had a Masarah or was familiar with other Meforshim which characterized the Gemara in this fashion.
magdiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 12:40 AM   #7
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by magdiel
IMHO, he understands the general thrust of the entire Gamara up to that point as assuming that Moshiach will be from the Chayim.Why he uses davka that loshen , I dont know, but thats why he is the Abarbanel, and not me, However, I don't think the word "nostapku" in any sense refers to R. Assi but to the Abarbanel's understanding of the Gemara. It is very possible that he had a Masarah or was familiar with other Meforshim which characterized the Gemara in this fashion.
No comprende.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 01:21 PM   #8
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Question for Torah613

Torah613,

A few days ago, you said that "it is a fiction" that the Abarbanel believed that Moshiach may come from the resurrected dead. I am very curious to know why you say this. Because it seems that the Abarbanel does believe it is possible.

R. Berger writes in his English book on page 46 that according to the Abarbanel it is possible: "But, he [Abarbanel] adds, if we indeed take the midrash [that speaks of the Messiah's birth on the day of the destruction of the Temple] literally, which he does not, he would prefer to understand it in the light of the view, based on Sanhedrin 98b, that the Messiah could have died in his youth and will return at the end of days. Abarbanel clearly excludes the option that the Messiah's redemptive career will begin before his death, and he goes on to explain how he understands the midrash in non-literal fashion. Thus, like the Sdei Hemed [R. Berger later corrects himself and says that it is actually the Sdei's Hemed's correspondent R. Lipkin], Abarbanel does understand the gemara to present the option of a resurrected Messiah, but because he rejects the literal meaning of this midrash altogether, we have no basis for saying that he regarded this scenario as a practical possibility."

If R. Berger is correct about the Abarbanel and the Sdei Hemed's correspondent, then it is at least remotely possible that Moshiach will come from the ressurected dead as long as he did not begin his redemptive career before he died. This would seem to allow us to say, that if the Rebbe did not begin the tasks of Moshiach before 3 Tammuz, then it is at least remotely possible that when he is resurrected he will then begin to do the actual tasks of Messiah- becoming an actual melech, compelling every Jew to keep the Torah, defeating our enemies in war, building the Beis HaMikdash, gathering the exiles, bringing world peace.

T613, please share your knowledge with us. Why do you believe the above scenario is not possible?
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 01:38 PM   #9
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
As you yourself quote, the Abarbenel prafaces this interpertation of the Midrash he is discussing by saying that it is the interpertation of some, but he does not hold of that explanation. So what would be the basis of saying he holds of that idea?
in the words of Abarbenel:
"הדרך הראשון הוא על דרך פשטיי בלתי מספיק ובלתי נכון אצלי, אבל הוא כפי דרך האשכנזים בהבנת האגדות ופרושיהם"
[Agav, I don't understand with the problem of learning the word "נסתפקו" (which he writes at the end of this peirush) kepshuto - that he (this particular opinion) had a doubt about it].

Last edited by Torah613; 03-17-2006 at 01:53 PM.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 03:38 PM   #10
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
As you yourself quote, the Abarbenel prafaces this interpertation of the Midrash he is discussing by saying that it is the interpertation of some, but he does not hold of that explanation. So what would be the basis of saying he holds of that idea?
in the words of Abarbenel:
"הדרך הראשון הוא על דרך פשטיי בלתי מספיק ובלתי נכון אצלי, אבל הוא כפי דרך האשכנזים בהבנת האגדות ופרושיהם"
I'm still confused. When he writes that he doesn't like the first explanation of the midrash about Moshiach being born on the day of the churban, it could simply be because he doesn't like literal explanations of this midrash but prefers more metaphorical explanations. This could be what he doesn't like--explaining this midrash in a literal way. But regarding the gemara(Sanhedrin 98b) on its own (independent of using it to explain this midrash) it could be possible that he holds that it is at lest a real possibility for Moshiach to come this way. After all, even though he says that he doesn't like literal explanations of the midrash he is discussing, he doesn't say one can't take the gemara literally. The midrash is one thing and the gemara is another thing. The proof is that he says to the Ashkenazim, "it's not my way to interpret this midrash literally, but if you want to, gezunta heit, and you can even interpret the gemara to mean that Moshiach might come from the resurrected dead because Rav (Assi) himself wasn't sure that Moshiach couldn't come from the dead."

Quote:
[Agav, I don't understand with the problem of learning the word "נסתפקו" (which he writes at the end of this peirush) kepshuto - that he (this particular opinion) had a doubt about it].
Ok. I understand.

Last edited by AkivaYitzhak; 03-17-2006 at 03:44 PM.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 03:43 PM   #11
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
"it could simply be", it could also be not... Therefore to put the Abarbenel as the "poster boy" of those who hold Moshiach can come from the dead, is misleading.
The fact that there are those who learn midrash literally, and therefore come to certain conclusions, doesn't mean he subscribes to their conclusions.

Last edited by Torah613; 03-17-2006 at 03:45 PM.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 03:49 PM   #12
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
"it could simply be", it could also be not... Therefore to put the Abarbenel as the "poster boy" of those who hold Moshiach can come from the dead, is misleading.
The fact that there are those who learn midrash literally, and therefore come to certain conclusions, doesn't mean he subscribes to their conclusions.
Even R. Berger sees it this way- "it could simply be". Please read my explanation again as I added some things to it. I tend to agree with R. Berger on this one. Do you still feel that he can't be used as the poster boy?
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 04:07 PM   #13
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Correct.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 04:52 PM   #14
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
Correct.
I want to be able to see your perspective. But when he writes, "Do not be troubled that Melech HaMoshiach will rise in resurrection because this was already doubted(i.e no conclusion was reached) in Sanhedrin 98b", doesn't this clinch it that he believed that there is more than a 0% chance that Moshiach could come from the dead? If it doesn't clinch it for you, can you try to explain it to me.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 05:24 PM   #15
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Without that source (or - possible source), that interpertation would not begin.
He is not offering his opinion, rather the opinion of those that understand the Midrash that way.
How does this prove what he holds as a point in halocho (insofar as halocho applies to this issue), or as what the normative belief in Moshiach is meant to be?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-17-2006, 05:37 PM   #16
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
Without that source (or - possible source), that interpertation would not begin.
Please be patient with me. I really don't understand what you mean by this. Can you try to explain again?

Quote:
He is not offering his opinion, rather the opinion of those that understand the Midrash that way.
How does this prove what he holds as a point in halocho (insofar as halocho applies to this issue), or as what the normative belief in Moshiach is meant to be?
Yes, he's offering the opinion of those that understand the Midrash that way. But the Midrash and the gemara in Sanhedrin are two different things. Regarding the literal explanation of the Midrash, he says that he thinks it's incorrect. But regarding Sanhedrin 98b, he says: "Do not be troubled that Melech HaMoshiach will rise in resurrection because this was already doubted(i.e no conclusion was reached) in Sanhedrin 98b". So, he makes one comment on his first explanation of the Midrash and then offers a possible interpretation of the gemara. It's true that he doesn't say this explanation of the gemara is the most likely explanation or if it's likely that Moshiach will come from the meisim, but he does say that there is a non-zero percent chance that Moshiach could come this way. I really would like to understand your perspective. But so far, I have two sources which understand the Abarbanel this way: 1). R. Berger understands the Abarbanel this way and 2). The Artscroll Tractate Sanhedrin volume 3 page 98b(4), note 42a: "Abarbanel explains that it is possible for the Messiah to be among the resurrected (Yeshuos Meshicho Iyun 2 ch. 1).

Torah613, do you have any sources to support your understanding of the Abarbanel?

I understand that all of what I'm saying still wouldn't prove what he holds the normative belief on Moshiach is.

Last edited by AkivaYitzhak; 03-18-2006 at 07:33 PM.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-18-2006, 08:29 PM   #17
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Question Question for Frumkite

Frumkite,

You once wrote that it seems just as wrong to you to say with 100% certainty that the Rebbe definitely will not be Moshiach as it does to say that he definitely is/will be Moshiach. I understand why you believe the latter- that it's not right to say with 100% certainty that he is/will be. But, what do you base the former on- that it's just as wrong to say with 100% certainty that he definitely won't be? On what do you base leaving the possibility open? Doesn't LS 35, pg. 206, note 6, close the door to this possibility for you?
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-18-2006, 08:40 PM   #18
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by AkivaYitzhak
Please be patient with me. I really don't understand what you mean by this. Can you try to explain again?
That without the Gemoro in Senhadrin, that can be understood in way supporting the possibility of Moshiach from the dead, the explanation of the Midrash - that is based on such an assumption - would not begin.
Quote:

Yes, he's offering the opinion of those that understand the Midrash that way. But the Midrash and the gemara in Sanhedrin are two different things. Regarding the literal explanation of the Midrash, he says that he thinks it's incorrect. But regarding Sanhedrin 98b, he says: "Do not be troubled that Melech HaMoshiach will rise in resurrection because this was already doubted(i.e no conclusion was reached) in Sanhedrin 98b". So, he makes one comment on his first explanation of the Midrash and then offers a possible interpretation of the gemara.
A "possible" explanation", in order to make the explanation of the Midrash possible.
How the A himself explains the gemoro can be different - in Rashi alone there are 2 explanations. It is also possible that we (meaning the A) don't hold of this opinion (like other opinions in that sugya that we dont hold by) etc. etc.
Quote:
It's true that he doesn't say this explanation of the gemara is the most likely explanation or if it's likely that Moshiach will come from the meisim, but he does say that there is a non-zero percent chance that Moshiach could come this way. I really would like to understand your perspective. But so far, I have two sources which understand the Abarbanel this way: 1). R. Berger understands the Abarbanel this way and 2). The Artscroll Tractate Sanhedrin volume 3 page 98b(4), note 42a: "Abarbanel explains that it is possible for the Messiah to be among the resurrected (Yeshuos Meshicho Iyun 2 ch. 1).

Torah613, do you have any sources to support your understanding of the Abarbanel?

I understand that all of what I'm saying still wouldn't prove what he holds the normative belief on Moshiach is.
Forgive me for saying this, and this is not something I care to debate, but whatever one holds of R' D' Berger and/or Artscroll, I would hardly consider them a "source" for anything. A source is a Rishon, an Achron, or a Godol beyisroel. Therefore, I do not feel in the least threatened if Artscroll and/or R'D' Berger understand an Abarbenel different than I do...
But your last statement is correct, regardless of what the A held, it has nothing to do with us, whose standard of belief is not based on A.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-18-2006, 10:39 PM   #19
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
Forgive me for saying this, and this is not something I care to debate, but whatever one holds of R' D' Berger and/or Artscroll, I would hardly consider them a "source" for anything. A source is a Rishon, an Achron, or a Godol beyisroel. Therefore, I do not feel in the least threatened if Artscroll and/or R'D' Berger understand an Abarbenel different than I do...
I shouldn't have used the word source. I agree with your definition of the word source. I just meant I can quote two other "people" who are not total shmegegies. I was wondering if you know of some other non-shmegegies who say what you say? And, I now understand your perspective. Thank you! Now I am also not so sure that A can be the poster boy for this idea.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-18-2006, 11:52 PM   #20
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Well, I obviously feel I am not a shmegegie...
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-19-2006, 12:14 AM   #21
magdiel
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
Well, I obviously feel I am not a shmegegie...
LOL!!
magdiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-19-2006, 12:30 AM   #22
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
Well, I obviously feel I am not a shmegegie...
I don't think you are a shmegegie at all. Poomf fekert. Why do you think I addressed my question to you and to nobody else. I just meant if there was somebody else you know besides yourself (and you are a non-shmegegie to say the least) who sees this A the way you do.
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-19-2006, 02:04 AM   #23
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
yes, learned people (or: other shmegegies) of like mind I have discussed this with.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-19-2006, 02:13 AM   #24
Hiskashrus
Diamond Member
 
Hiskashrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,450
"Poomf fekert"

Punkt Farkert is the correct way.
__________________
Hiskashrus: available at a sforim shank near you
Hiskashrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-19-2006, 07:03 AM   #25
AkivaYitzhak
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613
yes, learned people (or: other shmegegies) of like mind I have discussed this with.
T613's colleagues are not your average shmegegie. So, you have convinced me that Abarbanel can't be our poster boy since we really can't know for certain what he personally held. So, the only possible poster boy we have left is R. Lipkin from that letter in Sdei Hemed, no?
AkivaYitzhak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Russian Jews like Rashbi in the cave Yankel Nosson The World of Lubavitch 12 05-12-2009 03:34 PM
Moshiach: Dovid Hamelech and Moshe Rabbeinu?? Yankel Nosson Moshiach 11 08-05-2008 04:00 AM
Moshiach: ben Yosef, ben Dovid, and Dovid Yankel Nosson Chassidus 7 09-04-2007 03:08 PM
lesson about Dovid hamelech spijker Chinuch 1 12-15-2005 08:56 PM
The Rebbe decendent of Reb Nachman Breslever? untervegens Controversy 8 12-01-2003 02:33 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com