Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Unread 05-20-2002, 02:28 PM   #1
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
SNIP

[...] If we're throwing "opinions" around - why not bring how the REBBE explains the sources of Dovid, Moshe etc. - LS v35 p206?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-20-2002, 03:28 PM   #2
masbir
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
If we're throwing "opinions" around - why not bring how the REBBE explains the sources of Dovid, Moshe etc. - LS v35 p206?
What do you mean with that exactly, that the Rebbe says that that opinion in Yerushalmi from the dead is only according the opinion that Techyas hmeisim will be before Moshiach? Explain for the ignorant as me, who dont get it.
masbir is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-23-2002, 07:09 PM   #3
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Rabbi_d
Quote:
Re the Sdei Chemed: About 99% of the "os" there consists of the quoted letter from Rabbi Aryeh Lipkin. And the Sdei Chemed offers not the slightest hint of anything in the remaining 1% that can possibly be construed as a refutation. Hence, I have serious reservations about the motives and scholarship (and existence ?) of the "others" who supposedly dismiss the import of thr S'C in this cavalier manner.
Please enlighten me:
Granted that there is no proof that the SC brought this letter IN ORDER to refute it - a view I never subscribed to - what does this SC prove beyond the fact that there are some who held this view and that it isn't apikursos.
It dosn't make it a correct view - there are many views which we regard as wrong w/o being apikursos.
The point to be debated - by us as Lub's - is the Halacha and Rebbe's views on this matter, and I think the discussion has to center around Rambam and the LS v35 mentioned above.

Last edited by Torah613; 05-23-2002 at 07:18 PM.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-06-2002, 10:39 AM   #4
bocaj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 245
Re techiyas hameissim before Moshiach appears - this IS part of Halachic process of bi'as Moshiach, as explained by Ritva, Radvaz, Aruch laner etc. based on kol hamis'abel al Yerusholoyim zoche vero'eh benechemosso: all those who sincerely mourned the churban and longed for redmption will merit to see the coming and workings of Moshiach (not just AFTER the fact, the nechomoh is to see the whole process developing). Thus all these tzadikim will arise and witness it all from beginninbg to end. Moshiach himself may be just picked from among those. Normative and traditional view? NO! Possibility? YES! What will be? NO ONE KNOWS UNTIL IT WILL HAPPEN.
bocaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-06-2002, 11:05 AM   #5
rebayzl
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,354
Where is that Ritva and Radbaz?
rebayzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-06-2002, 03:12 PM   #6
bocaj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 245
Ritvo on Ta'anis 30b and Rosh Hashono 16b; Radvaz, Teshuvos III:644, and in his Migdal Dovid p.83a. See also Rabbi Shochat's book on Moshiach, note 15 for more sources. In fact, Rabbi Shochat once showed me that this is stated already in Tono Devei Eliyohu, but I don't remember now which chapters he pointed out to me (all I remember is that it is in the early chapters).
bocaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-06-2002, 03:19 PM   #7
rebayzl
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,354
The Rebbe did not bring any of these sources when he answered the famous question about "Hu Yig'aleinu". Why?
rebayzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-06-2002, 06:28 PM   #8
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Sorry bocaj, but the Rebbe writes that moshiach CANNOT be one of those tzadikim. See LS v35 p206. This has already been discussed AT LENGTH on this thread. Where have you been ??
bocaj responded to this questioon in the thread "Who is the Messiah?" post 28:

Quote:
As for Rebbe's he'oro - bedochek ketzas it can be reconciled with this view: new cnditions may arise of resurrected tzadik falling into required category before appointment. Again, normative? NO. Possible? Yes, even if somewhat far-fatched but still not impossible. But obviously, mere "possibility" (for Kol yachol) is not something to build on, thus syog lachochmoh shesikoh and chakei lo - whoever and whatever will be. Anything else is shtuss at best.

Last edited by rebyoel; 06-06-2002 at 10:42 PM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 01:03 AM   #9
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally posted by bocaj # 108, 110
Re techiyas hameissim before Moshiach appears - this IS part of Halachic process of bi'as Moshiach, as explained by Ritva, Radvaz, Aruch laner etc. based on kol hamis'abel al Yerusholoyim zoche vero'eh benechemosso: all those who sincerely mourned the churban and longed for redmption will merit to see the coming and workings of Moshiach (not just AFTER the fact, the nechomoh is to see the whole process developing). Thus all these tzadikim will arise and witness it all from beginninbg to end. Moshiach himself may be just picked from among those. Normative and traditional view? NO! Possibility? YES! What will be? NO ONE KNOWS UNTIL IT WILL HAPPEN.

Ritvo on Ta'anis 30b and Rosh Hashono 16b; Radvaz, Teshuvos III:644, and in his Migdal Dovid p.83a. See also Rabbi Shochat's book on Moshiach, note 15 for more sources. In fact, Rabbi Shochat once showed me that this is stated already in Tono Devei Eliyohu, but I don't remember now which chapters he pointed out to me (all I remember is that it is in the early chapters).
These are nice mareh mekmos - but to what? The Ritvo in Taanis [I'm using MRK edition] d"h kol says that one who eats 9th Av "ayn leatzmosov tchiya betchiyas hameisim" which will be bebinyan beis hamikdash for those who died in golus and waited for yeshoah (salvation) etc but they may still have tchiya on yom hadin "shehoo achar yemos hamoshiach".

The Ritvo in RH that there are those that were zoche to TH beguf venefesh in Gan Eden (!) etc., and there is TH "Beyemos hamoshiach letzadikei yisroel shemesu begolus" etc. - what exactly do these prove in regards to our discussion?

The Radvaz (in shu"t - I don't have a Migdal Dovid) does bring (in the name of Ritvo) 2 techiyos, the first "smucho lebias moshiach veyizkoo lechol yemos hamoshiach" etc. - but who says this means BEFORE?

In the book of Rabbi Schochet quoted (I think I have the 3rd edition) - note 15 - he writes "Resurrection of the dead is another of the 13 principles of faith ... It will occur after the redemption, the very last event of the messianic era ... Even so, there are various stages in the process of resurrection itself, with some individuals rising before all others. Moses and Ahron .. will be present in the early period, when the Beis Hamikdash will be re-established ..." ayin shom.

- Nothing about T"H BEFORE the beginning of the process, or the process begining with them, or even them rising at the very begining; also no mention of this in the Aruch Lener - quoted in Sdei Chemed Klalim mem:218 (from senhedrin 90, 92:a) ayin shom!

Maybe you can "ask" him about the Tono Devei Eliyohu - what is there exactly (I don't have it - so please quote)?

Lehoir: in the book p. 38 he writes that any time is a potential time for Moshiach, however, it doesn't mean that at the right time he will suddenly emerge from heaven to appear on earth "on the contrary, Moshiach is already on earth, a human being of great saintly status appearing and existing in every generation", ayin shom.

[Agav: looking through that book - I didn't find anything about "min misayo" or the Rashi - even though in his rebuttal to Berger I think he does allude to it ...I would hate to think the same phenomena as concerning Volpoe, since "chazaka al chover" etc...].

Bchol ofen, from LS v 35 he clearly refers to tzaddikim hakomim miyad [apparently a reference to Radvaz] after (beginning of) geulah, so even IF there is such a mokor, but apparently that isn't the Rebbe's understanding - like RebYid pointed out. [The answer he alludes to dosen't fit withthe haoro ("al korchoch tzorich lomar"!), and other problems, veten lechochom etc.].

[Lehoir gam from the "reshima" about TH in Igros v 2 p 71, 75 vduk (the radvaz is brought there note 18*). - I didn't see the Rebbe mention "Moshe vAharon imohem" - probably included with "zaddikim"].

Last edited by Torah613; 06-07-2002 at 01:08 AM.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 09:34 AM   #10
rebayzl
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,354
Thanks, Torah613, for doing the legwork. I had a suspision that these Mar'ei Mekomos are bogus.

Last edited by rebayzl; 06-07-2002 at 12:24 PM.
rebayzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 11:41 AM   #11
bocaj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 245
Torah613: Please read your own quotations. Ritvo in Taanis states clearly they will be there for binyan beis hamikdosh which according to Rambam is very first activity of Moshiach. If this may stil be somewhat ambiguous, the Radvaz explains, as you quoted - smucho lebias haMoshiach (implying BEFORE, and as he adds) veyizku LECHOL yemois hamoshiach beguf venefesh (thus clearly before Moshiach). How much is somuch? I don't know, it could be immediately before or some time before. So these sources stand as they are.
As for Rabbi Shochat's book etc., you will have to ask him directly the whys and what-fors re the points you make. In the note I cited he does refer to TH before Moshiach, giving a number of references. As for Tana devei Eliyohu, I did some research in meantime and found it: Eliyohu Rabbo ch. 3 (HKBH mechaye meisim bein liyemois ben Dovid bein leoilom habo) and ch. 5 (tchiyas hameisim leHKBH liyemois ben Dovid kedei liten s'char leoihavov uleyereiov (mamesh like Ritvo/Radvaz) vechein TH leHKBH leoilom habo kedei litein din vechoshboin etc. So where is your (or rebayzl's) problem?
bocaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 12:26 PM   #12
rebayzl
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,354
So the only MM you have left with is the Radbaz, who says "Semucha", and I think it's more logical to say that it means after and not before. Simply, because it's part of the process.
rebayzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 01:32 PM   #13
bocaj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 245
Very strange, rebayzl. Radvaz says clearly KOL yemois hamoshiach, thus TH before. This follows also from the reason given there - to witness the whole process from beginning to end as the mido keneged mido for mourning etc., for the whole joy of nechomoh is not coming to ready-made utopia but to see and experience nikmas Moshiach and pe'ulois Moshiach. Radvaz bases himself on Ritvo, thus Ritvo stands as well. The original source may very well be the Eliyohu Rabbo which states LIYEMOIS ben Dovid and not "biyemois ben Dovid" - thus clearly again before. The whole concept of these sources is definitely much more logical for BEFORE, otherwise they would be missing out on at least a part. Giluy Moshiach is part of the process as well. Let's avoid mental acrobatics, especially if they don't fit with the texts.
bocaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 02:36 PM   #14
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally posted by bocaj
Very strange, rebayzl. Radvaz says clearly KOL yemois hamoshiach, thus TH before. This follows also from the reason given there - to witness the whole process from beginning to end as the mido keneged mido for mourning etc., for the whole joy of nechomoh is not coming to ready-made utopia but to see and experience nikmas Moshiach and pe'ulois Moshiach. Radvaz bases himself on Ritvo, thus Ritvo stands as well. The original source may very well be the Eliyohu Rabbo which states LIYEMOIS ben Dovid and not "biyemois ben Dovid" - thus clearly again before. The whole concept of these sources is definitely much more logical for BEFORE, otherwise they would be missing out on at least a part. Giluy Moshiach is part of the process as well. Let's avoid mental acrobatics, especially if they don't fit with the texts.
Even stranger that in my print of Radvaz the "quote" that you write dosen't say there: The question was why won't tzaddikim see tovoson shel yisroel if their tchiya will be by elef hashvii, on this he answers that there will be a tchiyo "smucho lebias moshiach veyizkoo lechol yemos hamoshiach beguf venefesh veyiroo tovoson shel yiroel ubebinyon habayis veyismechoo chalaf avodosom". AYIN SHOM.

As to what you wrote before "Ritvo in Taanis states clearly they will be there for binyan beis hamikdosh which according to Rambam is very first activity of Moshiach. - you "forgot" "yokuf kol yisroel .. veyilchom milchemes Hashem ... venotzach kol umos shesvivov"...

In any case, nehman olay divrei Rabeinu ZYA that "tzaddikim hakomim miyad" [which is based on the Radvas etc.] is later - rather than a "veyesh leyashev bedochak" (like you wrote in another thread - why not post it here?) based on a diyuk kal in loshon haradvaz!

As you aptly put it: "Let's avoid mental acrobatics, especially if they don't fit with the texts".

You write: In the note I cited he does refer to TH before Moshiach, giving a number of references.
Lets see what he brings: "Ikkarim IV:35" - as far as I can tell he writes about TH "bizman Moshiach" - which means ... what? Then he brings the aforementioned Radvaz, Ikrei Hadat YD 36:36 who brings the same Radvaz, and the Sdei ChemedI mentioned before.

Nu?

Aderabe - all of you out there (Rebayzl?) look it up yourself!
The TDE I don't have now to see inside (in context). As to asking Rabbi S., nu nu, why don't you ask - as you quoted him...

Kol Tuv.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-07-2002, 03:51 PM   #15
bocaj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 245
Even stranger that in my print of Radvaz the "quote" that you write dosen't say there: The question was why won't tzaddikim see tovoson shel yisroel if their tchiya will be by elef hashvii, on this he answers that there will be a tchiyo "smucho lebias moshiach veyizkoo lechol yemos hamoshiach beguf venefesh veyiroo tovoson shel yiroel ubebinyon habayis veyismechoo chalaf avodosom". AYIN SHOM.

SO? WHAT IS YOUR POINT? THAT PROVES EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!

As to what you wrote before "Ritvo in Taanis states clearly they will be there for binyan beis hamikdosh which according to Rambam is very first activity of Moshiach. - you "forgot" "yokuf kol yisroel .. veyilchom milchemes Hashem ... venotzach kol umos shesvivov"...

YOU ARE NOW MIXING UP CHEZKAS MOSHIACH AND MOSHIACH VADAI. MOSHIACH DOES NOT HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS FIRST. THESE APPLY WHEN WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH PROCESS OF CHEZKAS MOSHIACH, THEN TO MOVE INTO SECOND ERA OF MOSHIACH VADAI. MOSHIACH MAY COME "PISOM YOVO HO'ODON" ETC. WITH READY BEIS HAMIKDOSH ETC.

You write: In the note I cited he does refer to TH before Moshiach, giving a number of references.
Lets see what he brings: "Ikkarim IV:35" - as far as I can tell he writes about TH "bizman Moshiach" - which means ... what? Then he brings the aforementioned Radvaz, Ikrei Hadat YD 36:36 who brings the same Radvaz, and the Sdei ChemedI mentioned before.
Nu?
Aderabe - all of you out there (Rebayzl?) look it up yourself!

IN MY FIRST POST I SIMPLY REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE OF THE SOURCES. IN THE LATER POST I SIMPLY REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED THAT HE DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT TH BEFORE MOSHIACH. SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

The TDE I don't have now to see inside (in context).
As to asking Rabbi S., nu nu, why don't you ask - as you quoted him...
Kol Tuv.

YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE AND DID NOT WRITE, THUS IT IS UP TO YOU TO ASK HIM RE THAT - NOT ME!KOL TUV TO YOU TOO!
bocaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-08-2002, 07:02 AM   #16
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Sorry bocaj, but the Rebbe writes that moshiach CANNOT be one of those tzadikim. See LS v35 p206. This has already been discussed AT LENGTH on this thread. Where have you been ??
Rebyoel:
Quote:
Ha'areh Lachar zman: Shuv Ra'isi that bocaj responded to this question in the thread "Who is the Messiah?" post 28. ayin shom.
I assume you mean :
Quote:
As for Rebbe's he'oro - bedochek ketzas it can be reconciled with this view: new conditions may arise of resurrected tzadik falling into required category before appointment Again, normative? NO. Possible? Yes, even if somewhat far-fetched but still not impossible
RebYoel, does this makes ANY sense to you?? If the resurrected tzadik can be moshiach, so what's wrong with Dovid Hamech?

At least "bocaj" admits that it's "bedochek, not normative and far-fetched". Do you really want to build a whole theology on something like this. Bring up kids to believe that this is the plain meaning of the mekores? I have YET to meet a bochur, and more than 2 or 3 Lubavitcher adults, who have THEMSELVES actually taken the time to look into the so-called mekores for Moshiach min hameisim.

Last edited by RebYid; 06-08-2002 at 10:33 PM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2002, 12:21 AM   #17
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally posted by bocaj post # 222
Even stranger that in my print of Radvaz the "quote" that you write dosen't say there: The question was why won't tzaddikim see tovoson shel yisroel if their tchiya will be by elef hashvii, on this he answers that there will be a tchiyo "smucho lebias moshiach veyizkoo lechol yemos hamoshiach beguf venefesh veyiroo tovoson shel yiroel ubebinyon habayis veyismechoo chalaf avodosom". AYIN SHOM.

SO? WHAT IS YOUR POINT? THAT PROVES EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!
I meant the connection to kol hamisabel. As to whether it proves "exactly" what you said - ??

Quote:
As to what you wrote before "Ritvo in Taanis states clearly they will be there for binyan beis hamikdosh which according to Rambam is very first activity of Moshiach. - you "forgot" "yokuf kol yisroel .. veyilchom milchemes Hashem ... venotzach kol umos shesvivov"...

YOU ARE NOW MIXING UP CHEZKAS MOSHIACH AND MOSHIACH VADAI. MOSHIACH DOES NOT HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS FIRST. THESE APPLY WHEN WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH PROCESS OF CHEZKAS MOSHIACH, THEN TO MOVE INTO SECOND ERA OF MOSHIACH VADAI. MOSHIACH MAY COME "PISOM YOVO HO'ODON" ETC. WITH READY BEIS HAMIKDOSH ETC.
In other words, the Radvaz (and others) - which according to you say (almost?) clearly that he will be there for the WHOLE geulah, is talking davka about "pisom"?

Also, is it correct that you concede that there is no place in the Rambam's scenario for what you write? Than why try to myashiv the haoro ("bedochak") - just say we're talking about "pisom" and finished? But that still begs the question - why does the Rebbe have a question in the first place (and learn all those sources based on gilgul etc.) - he should have answered R' Bocaj's answer?

In addition - can this be considered "halachik" - which was your ORIGINAL statement ["Re techiyas hameissim before Moshiach appears - this IS part of Halachic process of bi'as Moshiach, as explained by Ritva, Radvaz, Aruch laner etc"]?

IOW - we have 2 issues here: when will be tzaddikim hakomim miyad, and can Moshiach be from among them.

Your orignal statement was (implied?) that your chiddush is not the komim miyad since that is part of "Halachik process" (even Rambam's senario) - your chiddush is that Moshiach can be from among them. Now your saying that komim miyad - at the very beggining is only when "pisom", ubezeh gufah - we have your chiddush that Moshiach is from them - which would fit with the Rashi. So we're basicaly left with the Rashi...

You will surely have to agree that in the Rambam's scenario it definitely has no place, the question can only be outside of the Rambam's mehalech.

Quote:
You write: In the note I cited he does refer to TH before Moshiach, giving a number of references.
Lets see what he brings: "Ikkarim IV:35" - as far as I can tell he writes about TH "bizman Moshiach" - which means ... what? Then he brings the aforementioned Radvaz, Ikrei Hadat YD 36:36 who brings the same Radvaz, and the Sdei ChemedI mentioned before.
Nu?
Aderabe - all of you out there (Rebayzl?) look it up yourself!

IN MY FIRST POST I SIMPLY REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE OF THE SOURCES. IN THE LATER POST I SIMPLY REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED THAT HE DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT TH BEFORE MOSHIACH. SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
My point was that YOU referred us to the book (in 110) for more sources, when I quoted the book where he says clearly AFTER the redemption, you wrote "In the note I cited he does refer to TH before Moshiach, giving a number of references", when I wrote that the sources there are same we mentioned before, and no new ones (and none mention clearly before), you complain you never said it. AL KOL PONIM, in the book you brought he didn't understand the sources that way, as we see from what I quoted.

Sorry for the arichus...

Last edited by Torah613; 06-09-2002 at 12:34 AM.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2002, 05:26 PM   #18
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
RebYoel, does this makes ANY sense to you?? If the resurrected tzadik can be moshiach, so what's wrong with Dovid Hamech?

At least "bocaj" admits that it's "bedochek, not normative and far-fetched". Do you really want to build a whole theology on something like this. Bring up kids to believe that this is the plain meaning of the mekores? I have YET to meet a bochur, and more than 2 or 3 Lubavitcher adults, who have THEMSELVES actually taken the time to look into the so-called mekores for Moshiach min hameisim.
Torah613, why is it such a dochek? the Rebbe did to peulos before bias hamoshiach, and the rebbe even stressed in many Sichos in 51-52 that these are peulos of moshiach as a hachanah etc. and the peulos after techiyas hameisim could come b'hemshech. but this doesn't apply to dovid hamelech kemuvan.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2002, 11:22 PM   #19
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel


Torah613, why is it such a dochek? the Rebbe did to peulos before bias hamoshiach, and the rebbe even stressed in many Sichos in 51-52 that these are peulos of moshiach as a hachanah etc. and the peulos after techiyas hameisim could come b'hemshech. but this doesn't apply to dovid hamelech kemuvan.
I have no idea what you're saying.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2002, 12:04 AM   #20
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by Torah613


I have no idea what you're saying.
He is saying that the Rebbe should not be excluded in the haore in LS 35, because only those who have not done peulos (right )before bias moshiach, ie DH"M are excluded. MSA"K the Rebbe who lived (right) before bias moshiach.

I think he is missunderstanding the haore, but that's what I think he is asking.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2002, 06:34 AM   #21
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel


The Rebbe's loshon is that "techilas peulas melech hamoshiach tihye kodem hageulah". In this respect there is a hevdel atzum between the Rebbe and Dovid Hamelech. Especially in light of the Sichos of the Rebbe, that there are things happening NOW in the world that are part the peulos of moshiach.

SNIP

Quote:
I think he is missunderstanding the haore, but that's what I think he is asking.
RebYid,

Could you explain where I went wrong? Let's be mevarer umelaben...

rebyoel, I'm sure Torah613 will enlighten us...but here are a few comments:

According to your pshat in the haore, that it does not TOTALLY exclude someone who died, just someone who died along time ago, why can't DH"M come back with a techiya like he speaks about in LS2 (re the FR), then START to do the peulos of moshiach? According to you, this would then not be a stira to the Rambam. YET, the Rebbe says that it can't happen. So it seems that the problem he has is the etsem techiya before bias moshiach bringing back the departed tsadik, and him then being moshiach. (L'shitoscha, what's wrong with DH"M anyway, he DID peulos KODEM hegeula, lochem milchemes , yochuf, etc, after all DH'M is the paradigm of Mochiach?!)

BTW, I believe that you are misunderstanding the word "kodem" in the haore. IMHO, it means kodem as apposed to le'achar, not kodem as in a few months or a few years before. (Anyway, according to you, what is the shiur, a month, a year, ten years etc??)

The gemora in Sanhedrin, min mesayo, speaks about someone who lived long before (Doniel). So this gemora can't be the mokor for moshiach min hameisim (as he explains in the haore). So what then is the mokor ??

Last edited by RebYid; 06-10-2002 at 08:21 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2002, 09:55 AM   #22
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Bekitzur for now:
I read the haoro as one "tayno" (sentence)"techilas peulas melech hamoshiach tihye kodem hageulah, ubevadai kodem tchiyas hameisim" - IOW bederch kol shkain, if before geulah, for sure before TH (even of yechidim), memeila can' be Dovid. Therefore I don't see rebyoel's (- you sure your not real? -) tayno.
I would also take STRONG exception about your hagdoroh of the geder of the Rebbe's peulohs, chezkas Moshiach etc. - but that's another issue.
I would also say (even leshitosoch) that this falls under the Rambam's "lo hitzliach ad koy", VAKML.
Gotto go! :sad:
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2002, 10:34 PM   #23
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel



RebYid,

Could you explain where I went wrong? Let's be mevarer umelaben...

Well rebyoel, are we going to be mevarer and melaben, or do you think it's a waste of time??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-26-2002, 09:27 PM   #24
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Re Moshiach being a living Tzadik:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	moshiach.jpg
Views:	443
Size:	109.1 KB
ID:	44  
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-26-2002, 10:20 PM   #25
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
BS"D Hey that is awesome stuff, thanks for posting it. But the question asked wasn't whether Moshiach will come from the living or not, so that conversation does not add anything to the Rambam.
noahidelaws 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
Igros Kodesh: Have a Story to Share? Lubamessimaniac Stories about the Rabbeim and Chassidim 181 12-29-2006 12:56 PM
Yechi HaMelech. The true meaning kolelboy Controversy 23 09-14-2005 03:44 AM
Bitul, Panentheism and Antinomianism jjbaker The World of Lubavitch 82 07-06-2005 11:50 PM
LeChayim & the use of alcohol Tzemach Farbrengen 75 02-18-2005 12:24 AM
Not to Mention Moshiach at All - Good or Bad? Vayaaminu Controversy 140 01-29-2004 10:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.


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