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 06-26-2002, 10:25 PM   #26
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Uh?? Read it again. That is EXACLY what he is saying. Assume that Moshiach is not min ha'chai, then try and understand what he says. Get what I mean ??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-26-2002, 10:57 PM   #27
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
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:
But the Rebbe did say that there was a Haschalah of "peulas melech hamoshiach ba'olam" (halashon b'erech). And kulei almah modi that the Rebbe STARTED these peulos!
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-26-2002, 11:25 PM   #28
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Well rebyoel, are we going to be mevarer and melaben, or do you think it's a waste of time??
Sorry, I didn't see your post until today. Will reply when I have time, meanwhile here's a question for you:

Quote:
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?!)
1. Lishitaschem, what is the Rebbe's makor to say that this scenario cannot happen?

2. The purpose of Moshiach's peulas are lichoreh not stam for credentials i.e. the gavrah, but mitzad the cheftzah - peulaso ba'olam. So since David's peulos (his yakuf etc.) do not affect the physical world today* there was a churban after etc. they would not be considered "peulas *** ba'oam". Vekol zeh b'hashkafah rishonah. (this also answers your question about how much time, lichorech as long as your peulas have direct lasting affect - it would still count. vegam zeh behashkafah rishonah)

See also Kovetz GM v2 p14-19.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-26-2002, 11:41 PM   #29
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
The mokor would be the reason he gives in the haoro - peulos are before geulah, kol shkain before TH.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-27-2002, 12:24 AM   #30
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Why is it a kol shekein? The TH of Yechidim will happen before, not after?

The way I understand it is that there are 2 TH's of Yechidim, one as part of the Geulah (Moshe v'aharon Imanu) and another mentioned in LS v2. The first is a peulah of Moshiach, so it will happen after, and so there is a kol shekein. But about the TH that is stam a miracle without a kesher to Moshiach that will be BEFORE ('kodem') - how can you say Kol Shekein?
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-27-2002, 12:46 AM   #31
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
So why can't DH"M be in THAT TH??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-27-2002, 01:06 AM   #32
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
That is the question I asked you. What is the Rebbe's makor/sevarah that it can't happen?
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-27-2002, 01:19 AM   #33
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Gam tzorich biur - but unrelated, later in the Ha'areh the Rebbe himself makes reference to that TH (mentions it as a dei'ah), and teiches that it means bivchinas hislabshus, v'tzorich biur: according to this dei'ah what is the kol shekein?

V'od tzorich biur (also unrelated): According to the Rebbe's ha'areh, what's the lashon "if from the living .. if from the dead" if the living gufeh is dovid b'atzmo?!
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-27-2002, 11:44 PM   #34
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
V'od tzorich biur (also unrelated): According to the Rebbe's ha'areh, what's the lashon "if from the living .. if from the dead" if the living gufeh is dovid b'atzmo?!
RebYid, b'etzem it's not unrelated: If you learn that min meisayah is kipshuto, and that the Rebbe is not coming to be sholel this option, the question is answered. vekal.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-02-2002, 06:12 AM   #35
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
I'm not really sure I understand what you mean. The Rebbe's p'shat in min masayo is le'didon, that we go like the Rambam, so the halocho is not like that dei'ah.

I don't think that means that the original ma'an de'omar held like us. He was speaking ki'pshutoi. The Rebbe is just teiching it so it will ALSO shtim al pi halocha, (ie the Rambam)
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 05:22 PM   #36
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
I'm not really sure I understand what you mean. The Rebbe's p'shat in min masayo is le'didon, that we go like the Rambam, so the halocho is not like that dei'ah.

I don't think that means that the original ma'an de'omar held like us. He was speaking ki'pshutoi. The Rebbe is just teiching it so it will ALSO shtim al pi halocha, (ie the Rambam)
Let me ask you a "hypothetical" question: When ledidan we do not accept a certain prat of a meimreh in gemarah, does it mean that the rest of the statement is also not accepted l'halachah?
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 05:27 PM   #37
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally asked by rebyoel
What is the Rebbe's makor/sevarah that it can't happen?
Lochen nireh li, that the Rebbe takeh wasn't sholel this scenario, and the Rebbe has other reasons (known (according to RYK) or unknown) why pshat in "v'dovid avdi melech aleihem l'olam" can't refer to Dovid himself, but the Rebbe does not address this issue in the current Ha'areh.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 05:28 PM   #38
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
What's the memreh and whats the prat? Taich ois, I'm very slow!
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 05:45 PM   #39
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
The meimreh is min meisayah, the prat is "kgon daniel".
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 06:17 PM   #40
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel


Let me ask you a "hypothetical" question: When ledidan we do not accept a certain prat of a meimreh in gemarah, does it mean that the rest of the statement is also not accepted l'halachah?
From the context of the ha'ore , I would say YES. That's why he brings in the whole idea of TH before or after ge'ulah, and then ibbur.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 07:05 PM   #41
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel

...the Rebbe has other reasons ... why pshat in "v'dovid avdi melech aleihem l'olam" can't refer to Dovid himself, but the Rebbe does not address this issue in the current Ha'areh.
Uh? I don't get it! That's what the WHOLE ha'ore is about, no ??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 10:40 PM   #42
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
Uh? I don't get it! That's what the WHOLE ha'ore is about, no ??
Okay, let's have a short summary of where we're holding:

The ha'areh says that pshat in vdovid avdi melech aleihem le'olam 'lichoreh' can't be Dovid himself because the RMBM says that Moshiach will do peulos before the Geulah and "pshitah" before TH.

We were mochiach from the Loshon "pshitah" that the Rebbe is refering to TH which is after the Geulah, but not referring to the TH which is before the Geulah.

So you asked if so, there exists a possibility that DH will be Moshiach, if he gets in the first TH with a separate miracle.

The way you deal with the question is that for some mysterious reason this option is also rejected because of the same sevarah (?), and this is a rayeh that the Rebbe holds that the RMBM ruled out min meisayah.

The way I deal with the question is that the Rebbe is not discussing this possibility (that DH will get up in a miraculous TH before the Geulah) in this Ha'arah, not because the actual scenario is impossible according to the RMBM but perhaps because of other considerations. In this Ha'arah the Rebbe is ignoring the issue, and nothing could be proven from here, at least until you have a solid sevarah why it is impossible and fit it in to the Rebbe's words here. Until then IMHO you can't build a shitah based on such a diyuk.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-04-2002, 10:57 PM   #43
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
OK now I understand you better. I told you I was slow

I think the onus is on YOU to show a mokor (le'halocha) that a TH BEFORE the geula can take place, and that person becoming moshiach. (IOW, from the ha'ore, you would assume that in ALL CASES, DH"M, can't be moshiach, since he is not mechalek. It's YOUR diyuk that there exists another option) I never had the question re DH"M coming back in a separate TH, I asked it to you, based on YOUR shita that the Rebbe is NOT shoilel this in the ha'ore. Leshitosie, he is shoilel EVEN such a TH.

Last edited by RebYid; 07-04-2002 at 11:51 PM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2002, 03:23 AM   #44
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
OK now I understand you better. I told you I was slow
I think the onus is on YOU to show a mokor (le'halocha) that a TH BEFORE the geula can take place, and that person becoming moshiach. (IOW, from the ha'ore, you would assume that in ALL CASES, DH"M, can't be moshiach, since he is not mechalek. It's YOUR diyuk that there exists another option) I never had the question re DH"M coming back in a separate TH, I asked it to you, based on YOUR shita that the Rebbe is NOT shoilel this in the ha'ore. Leshitosie, he is shoilel EVEN such a TH.
Tumachti yeseidosai on pashtus halashon of LS v2 p. 517-518, pashtus halashon of Vehu Yiga'aleinu. However you're gonna learn in pshat in this you're gonna have a hard time explaining how the Rebbe used leshonos time and time again which could be understood as something which "heipech halachah pesukah of the RMBM". So even if you learn pshat in those Sichos that's it's onlyl to lead the Chassidim out of Galus etc., you should admit that at least the other possibility (moshiach kipshuto) has an urt in Halachah. But this is a separate discussion. And maybe the Rebbe used ambiguous leshonos because it could take be either way!

Also, you still haven't answered HOW - lishitaschah - is the Rebbe sholel this Sevarah. The sevarah that "When ledidan we do not accept a certain prat of a meimreh in gemarah . . the rest of the statement is also not accepted l'halachah" (which you confirmed) is tzorich iyun gadol IMHO.

Quote:
(IOW, from the ha'ore, you would assume that in ALL CASES, DH"M, can't be moshiach, since he is not mechalek.
Alibah d'emes it's true (because* it's gonna be someone else ). But lav davkeh because of the Sevara mentioned in the Haareh.

Quote:
I think the onus is on YOU to show a mokor (le'halocha) that a TH BEFORE the geula can take place, and that person becoming moshiach.
Please explain: If I were to say that according to Halachah it will for sure be like this then I need to find a makor, but if I'm saying that it's a possibility why do I need a makor in Halachah that says so? Especially that this is Hilchisah Limeshichah. Only a limited amount of these Halachos are discussed in RMBM and everything else cannot and does not have a makor in Halachah. Suppose I were to say that the 3rd Beis Hamikdosh will have the Eitz Hachaim planted inside it based on the Midrash, Zohar etc. are you also gonna ask me for a makor in Halachah that this is possible? In areas where there is no Halachah gamrinon shapir mei'agadah, do you disagree?

_____
* b'derech tzachus. see above post 37.

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-05-2002 at 03:43 AM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2002, 03:39 AM   #45
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
re: post #24.

there is no question that while their Rebbes were alive, Chassidim believed that Moshiach will come from the living. Why import a Tzaddik mim meisayah if we have one right here? The question is how do Chassidim react after the Histalkus. Obviously Halachah can't change, but the view that is mekubal as "likely" could. for example take the Sichah from LS v2 (even according to your understanding): until 10 Shevat I assume the Rebbe himself believed that the FR vet unz arois firen fun galus b'chaim chayuso. After 10 Shevat it changed.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2002, 05:00 AM   #46
rebayzl
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,354
Hochiach Sofo al tchilato

Since the meaning of "vahu Yig'aleinu" is unclear, and in this sicha the Rebbe clearly says that Dovid Hamelech cannot be moshiach b/c he is not alive, we know now the Hu Yig'aleinu does NOT mean as Moshiach.
rebayzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2002, 06:10 AM   #47
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Re: Hochiach Sofo al tchilato

Quote:
Originally posted by rebayzl
Since the meaning of "vahu Yig'aleinu" is unclear, and in this sicha the Rebbe clearly says that Dovid Hamelech cannot be moshiach b/c he is not alive, we know now the Hu Yig'aleinu does NOT mean as Moshiach.
but al kol ponim mufrach b'einai to say that the poshute pshat in vehu yigaleinu is neged a halachah pesukah in RMBM, and the Rebbe hut dus nit bavurent until a ha'areh in Chelek lamed hei about an unrelated subject.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2002, 08:17 AM   #48
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Re: Re: Hochiach Sofo al tchilato

Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel


but al kol ponim mufrach b'einai to say that the poshute pshat in vehu yigaleinu is neged a halachah pesukah in RMBM, and the Rebbe hut dus nit bavurent until a ha'areh in Chelek lamed hei about an unrelated subject.
Whats wrong with the pshat in the haoro ofen ort (in the maamar)?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-05-2002, 06:38 PM   #49
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Re: Re: Re: Hochiach Sofo al tchilato

Quote:
Originally posted by Torah613
Whats wrong with the pshat in the haoro ofen ort (in the maamar)?
then why doesn't the Rebbe answer poshut (in LSv2) that it's the same way moshe will take the dor hamidbar out galus, why does the Rebbe refer to other places in shas where we find Techiyas Hameisim?

but even this is pshat hut an urt, it's hard to say that the poshute pshat is neged halachah according to the rebbe, and that the Rebbe was somech that you'll check the ha'areh.

v'kanal I think the Rebbe used ambiguous leshonos because it could takeh be either way, and neither is a problem halachically. tzad hashoveh shebahem, that the Rebbe will be our Moshiach.

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-05-2002 at 06:46 PM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-06-2002, 10:58 PM   #50
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hochiach Sofo al tchilato

[quote]Originally posted by rebyoel
Quote:
why doesn't the Rebbe answer poshut (in LSv2) that it's the same way moshe will take the dor hamidbar out galus, why does the Rebbe refer to other places in shas where we find Techiyas Hameisim?
Because that was the shaalo - how does it fit with the seder, the same kashyo will be on the Midrash.
(There are shverikeiten in that sicho, but this isn't one of them).
Quote:
but even this is pshat hut an urt, it's hard to say that the poshute pshat is neged halachah according to the rebbe, and that the Rebbe was somech that you'll check the ha'areh.?
I know R' Yoel (the real one! ) uses this argument, but I don't think it's valid, since the Rebbe many times relies on the MM so we'll know right pshat.

Last edited by Torah613; 07-06-2002 at 11:03 PM.
Torah613 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 06:06 AM.


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