Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 05-19-2011, 11:38 PM   #1
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
"yemos haMoshiach" vs. "the beginning of the redemption"

In this sicha (Hisvaaduyos 5749, Vol. 3, p. 197), the Rebbe says:
Quote:
... It is known that the days of Moshiach contain many sub-periods, beginning from the time in which A king from the House of David will arise, continuing on to the phase in which he is presumed to be Moshiach, until he reaches the state of Moshiach for certain.
Why is the Rebbe okay with referring by the term "yemos haMoshiach" to the period in which A king from the House of David will arise, who then goes on to reach the status of he is presumed to be Moshiach, if when it comes to Zionism, the Rebbe is vehemently opposed to calling the recent mass return to Eretz Yisrael the "beginning of the Redemption" (G-d forbid). The Rebbe based his position mainly on that very Rambam, which defines that only once Moshiach has gathered the exiles and rebuilt the Beis HaMikdash can he be considered the Moshiach. So if saying yemos haMoshiach is not a problem, why is saying "the beginning of the redemption" a problem? They seem to mean roughly the same thing.
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-20-2011, 12:01 AM   #2
chossidnistar
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
it looks that
yemos hamoshiach is included in the beginnig of the geulah,but
beginning of the geulah is not included in all periods of Yemos Hamoshiach
chossidnistar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-20-2011, 11:35 AM   #3
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
Thanks. My question is: what is the big difference; it sounds virtually the same.
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-21-2011, 03:27 PM   #4
danzinger
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 293
Once the BM has been rebuilt, retroactively, we will know that the king who built it is indeed, mashiach vadai as far as all the previous stages are concerned.
Concerning the establishment of the SoI, the Rebbe was obviously certain that this could never be considered as the atchalta degeula. As Rashi explains (Megillah 17b - the only place in the gemara that I found where this phrase is mentioned, unlike the phrase yemot hamashiach) that even though it is not actually the end of the galut, it is the end of the tzarot of the galut - something that has not actually happened completely as a result of the establishment of the state, as is clear to all.
Perhaps we could say that atchalta degeula is the first stage of yemot hamashiach ( ).
Also, in the context of that gemara in Megillah, atchalta follows teshuva (according to the order of tefillat 18).
__________________
!,
danzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-21-2011, 10:01 PM   #5
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by danzinger View Post
Once the BM has been rebuilt, retroactively, we will know that the king who built it is indeed, mashiach vadai as far as all the previous stages are concerned.
Only after .
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-22-2011, 01:17 AM   #6
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
Quote:
Perhaps we could say that atchalta degeula is the first stage of yemot hamashiach
Sorry, but we can't say so, because in the sicha quoted above, the Rebbe says clearly that A king from the House of David will arise is already the first stage in yemos haMoshiach.
Quote:
Only after .
Is it conceptually possible that the Beis HaMikdash will be rebuilt without it being followed by .
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-22-2011, 08:34 AM   #7
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Conceptually? Why not?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-22-2011, 10:18 AM   #8
danzinger
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
Only after .
Indeed, I was mistaken, you are correct.
__________________
!,
danzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-22-2011, 11:00 PM   #9
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
Conceptually? Why not?
I'd have thought that only the true Moshiach would have the power to succeed at rebuilding the Beis HaMikdosh, so therefore by the same power he would also gather the goliyos. Put differently, binyan Beis HaMikdosh is already the start of the Geulah hoamitis vehashleimah. The Geulah hoamitis vehashleimah by definition doesn't start and then stop.
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-22-2011, 11:05 PM   #10
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
It stops if it was not real to begin with.
Also, then why the need to get to the end of the list to establish Moshiach vadai?
But - on second thought - there may be implications in some of the sichos not like my assumption, in which case I obviously retract. I am not enough in the inyan these days.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-23-2011, 01:33 PM   #11
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
Light Yemos Hamoshiach

Quote:
Originally Posted by noahidelaws View Post
In this sicha (Hisvaaduyos 5749, Vol. 3, p. 197), the Rebbe says:


Why is the Rebbe okay with referring by the term "yemos haMoshiach" to the period in which A king from the House of David will arise, who then goes on to reach the status of he is presumed to be Moshiach, if when it comes to Zionism, the Rebbe is vehemently opposed to calling the recent mass return to Eretz Yisrael the "beginning of the Redemption" (G-d forbid). The Rebbe based his position mainly on that very Rambam, which defines that only once Moshiach has gathered the exiles and rebuilt the Beis HaMikdash can he be considered the Moshiach. So if saying yemos haMoshiach is not a problem, why is saying "the beginning of the redemption" a problem? They seem to mean roughly the same thing.
Hasghacha Protis: I just yesterday put out this kuntres on the subject, I think it will clarify some of the inyonim.
Click image for larger version

Name:	LagB'Omer8_BW.png
Views:	157
Size:	26.5 KB
ID:	1491
Take a look: Kuntres_08_LagBOmer_ForPrinting.pdf

(viewable online: http://moshiachindepth.wordpress.com)
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2011, 08:45 AM   #12
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
Quote:
It stops if it was not real to begin with.
But when it says boneh hamikdash bimkomo, it means the emes'eh beis hamikdash hashlishi al pi Halacha. I.e., it's real. So it would seem that that would have to be followed by the next step, kibutz goliyos.

YN: Kol hakavod!!!
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2011, 01:48 PM   #13
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Yes, but we only know that at the end retroactively.
Also, who says that a "BHMK bimkomo" cannot be built without Moshiach? Is there any basis for that al derech hahalocho? (I am well aware of the Midrashim of 3 BHMK).
[I am asking, not stating an opinion].
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2011, 05:00 PM   #14
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
Quote:
Also, who says that a "BHMK bimkomo" cannot be built without Moshiach? Is there any basis for that al derech hahalocho?
I seem to recall that the Rebbe teiches "boneh hamikdash bimkomo" to mean that davka Moshiach will know the correct location and dimensions of the Beis Hamikdash, which would seem to imply that only Moshiach can do it (but I don't have the reference off-hand).
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-24-2011, 05:23 PM   #15
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
True - see LS v 8 p 362. But how do we know he is telling the truth and really Moshiach? He may be just claiming to know the right place. I think the final halachik birur will be retractively when we have . [My diyuk above was not on the "bimkomo"].
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-26-2011, 05:12 PM   #16
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
Yemos Hamoshiach Lav Davke the Geulah

Quote:
Originally Posted by noahidelaws View Post
In this sicha (Hisvaaduyos 5749, Vol. 3, p. 197), the Rebbe says:

Why is the Rebbe okay with referring by the term "yemos haMoshiach" to the period in which A king from the House of David will arise, who then goes on to reach the status of he is presumed to be Moshiach, if when it comes to Zionism, the Rebbe is vehemently opposed to calling the recent mass return to Eretz Yisrael the "beginning of the Redemption" (G-d forbid). The Rebbe based his position mainly on that very Rambam, which defines that only once Moshiach has gathered the exiles and rebuilt the Beis HaMikdash can he be considered the Moshiach. So if saying yemos haMoshiach is not a problem, why is saying "the beginning of the redemption" a problem? They seem to mean roughly the same thing.
Yemos Hamoshiach is not the same thing as Geulah! This is a common misperception, even in Lubavitch.

In the sicha you quoted, the Rebbe says Yemos Hamoshiach begins with the very first criteria in the Rabmam (King from the house of Dovid, etc.) This includes compelling Yidden to keep Torah, which is a phenomenon of golus, of course! As the Rebbe says: What the Rambam writes is about the end of golus which are the events before the Geulah. (IK 18:527)

As to why the Rebbe didn't mention the inyan of being in Yemos Hamoshiach until 5752, I wrote in the kuntres:

We could ask: if the Rebbe wants us to know that the forty years following Yud Shevat 5710 were actually the first tekufa of Yemos Hamoshiach , why was this not spoken of prior to this time? Why is it only alluded to after the tekufa is ending? Perhaps part of the answer is connected with the Rebbes unwavering assertion that the Coming of Moshiach and the Geulah is miraculouswith clouds of Heaven. In this view, the first tekufa of Yemos Hamoshiach is not considered at all part of the coming of Moshiach and the Geulah, for it is only the end of golus. Furthermore, since in the early years of the Rebbes nesius there was a need to undermine the mistaken notion that it was the beginning of the Geulah, it would have only been a point of confusion if the Rebbe would also be saying that we were in Yemos Hamoshiach.
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-27-2011, 02:44 PM   #17
chassidus
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahidelaws View Post
In this sicha (Hisvaaduyos 5749, Vol. 3, p. 197), the Rebbe says:


Why is the Rebbe okay with referring by the term "yemos haMoshiach" to the period in which A king from the House of David will arise, who then goes on to reach the status of he is presumed to be Moshiach, if when it comes to Zionism, the Rebbe is vehemently opposed to calling the recent mass return to Eretz Yisrael the "beginning of the Redemption" (G-d forbid). The Rebbe based his position mainly on that very Rambam, which defines that only once Moshiach has gathered the exiles and rebuilt the Beis HaMikdash can he be considered the Moshiach. So if saying yemos haMoshiach is not a problem, why is saying "the beginning of the redemption" a problem? They seem to mean roughly the same thing.
If you look at the sichos and letters, the Rebbe stresses that Mashiach must do everything based on Torah "Hogah Batorah" and the Zionist movement was the opposite of this and the opposite of a geulah.

The physical signs of Geulah are nothing without the spiritual first.
__________________
"The Baal Shem Tov revealed a new dimension of Torah based on Ahavas Yisrael."
chassidus 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
"Yitzchak" or "Yitzachak" (shvah or patach)? mendyt Lubavitch Minhagim 16 12-21-2010 01:27 PM
Chasidus-- "ANI"-- "Sovev" or "Memalay"? ailiyooyee Chassidus 5 04-22-2008 12:08 AM
The Niggunim: "Harabi Shlita" and "Chayolei" gezetzt The World of Lubavitch 93 02-12-2006 12:09 AM
Who will "deserve" redemption? Jude Moshiach 48 12-29-2005 09:22 AM
Chabad in Sydney celebrates "redemption"!!! kolelboy The World of Lubavitch 0 11-05-2004 01:33 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.


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