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 07-07-2002, 01:29 AM   #51
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
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.
RYK says that pshat is definitely kipshuto, i'm saying that teinach that your pshat is correct (see sichas pinchas mem hei ba'aruchah), but this argument should enough to prove al kol ponim that the shitchiyus'dike pshat (lishtuschah) is not heipech hahalachah.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 01:33 AM   #52
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
another ha'areh lishitaschah: the reason why "mi meisayah" is never mentioned in the sichos etc. is lav davke because it is mushlal b'etzem, but because as i wrote in post #45 - it is heipech the chassishe hergesh that the rebbe will lead us out of galus - as moshiach - b'chaim chayuso. (v'ulai: al derech like the rebbe didn't mention milchemes gog umagog.)
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 05:44 AM   #53
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Rebyoel, to summarize, according to you there are 3 kinds of TH:

1) Klal Yisroel, after the geula
2) Tzadikim hakomim mi'yad, at the time of the geula
3) TH BEFORE the geula, not connected with ta'ha'lich ha'geulo.

In L"S 35, he is shoilel moshiach from the TH of #1 and even #2
In L"S 2, he speaks about the FR coming back in TH #3 and being moshiach.
_______________________________________________

Now the problem with this p'shat, the way I see it, is:

a) In LS 6, page 294, WRT the FR, he writes ve'hokitsu ve'ranenu shochnei ofor, VE'HU BE"SOICHOM. ( And this expression was used MANY times) Now this is not the TH of #3, ve'horaya, in the ha'ore (there) he brings the zoihar and the gemora (moshe ve'ahron etc), clearly referring to TH #2. (see Kovetz Moshiach U'geula, V3. page 33 onwards) Yet, you claim he holds TH#3 for the FR??

b) Even in LS 2, it's not AT ALL clear that he is MECHADESH a new geder of TH (#3), as there he again mentions the words ve'hokitsu ve'ranenu shochnei ofor, VE'HU BE"SOICHOM (TH#2). The zoihar in ha'ore 11 is in the same sugya as that speaking about the TH#2 (see Kovetz Moshiach U'geula, V4. page 32 onwards)

c) In general, this that you write <<[you] 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 ">>: UNTIL 3 Tamuz, this was NEVER understood, BY ANYONE, to mean that the FR would ACTUALLY come back with TH#3 and be moshiach be'poel. As you yourself wrote in post #45 "Chassidim believed that Moshiach will come from the living. Why import a Tzaddik mim meisayah if we have one right here?" so what is the possible misunderstanding??

Furthermore, need we look further than the "nevuah" sicha or the "Atzmus melubosh be'goof" sicha to find an example where BE"POEL MAMISH many people have understood things he'pech ha'haloha? But surely THAT (alone) does not prove that their pashat is correct because it was POSSIBLE (ve'horaya, that IS how they understood it) to have such an understanding ?

d) What does this TH, unconnected with the geula really mean? A Tzadik comes back miraculously with TH, then does pe'ulois of Moshiach, and becomes Moshiach, and we say that his TH was just STAM, and had nothing to do with him being Moshiach ??

Last edited by RebYid; 07-07-2002 at 06:00 PM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 07:13 PM   #54
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
a) In LS 6, page 294, WRT the FR, he writes ve'hokitsu ve'ranenu shochnei ofor, VE'HU BE"SOICHOM. ( And this expression was used MANY times) Now this is not the TH of #3, ve'horaya, in the ha'ore (there) he brings the zoihar and the gemora (moshe ve'ahron etc), clearly referring to TH #2. (see Kovetz Moshiach U'geula, V3. page 33 onwards) Yet, you claim he holds TH#3 for the FR??
Firstly, I think everyone is modeh that there are plenty of Sichos that have such a mashma'us, i.e. that the FR will LEAD us out of Galus, but not Melech Hamoshiach mamosh. The question is whether it is legitimate to believe (or have a hergesh) that benidon didan the Rebbe will be Moshiach kipshuto, and whether the Rebbe ever - as an exception - mentioned such a possibility.

IOW, there are "tivuchim machers" that hold that all Sichos could be reconciled with each other, and that the Rebbe only had one mehalech per subject/sugya. But ha'emes yoreh darko, that the Rebbe sometimes had different mehalchim on the same subject. Case in point: How to be meyashev bi'as eliyahu with the Emunah that Moshiach can come today. So the question is whether the Rebbe ever had a "mehalech" that the FR will be Moshiach kipshuto. Finding such a mehalech doesn't mean that we'll be noket that the FR will be Melech Hamoshiach - since there were so many other Sichos (even the M's don't believe that the FR will be ***...) but it proves that it is a ligitimate possibility.

Quote:
b) Even in LS 2, it's not AT ALL clear that he is MECHADESH a new geder of TH (#3), as there he again mentions the words ve'hokitsu ve'ranenu shochnei ofor, VE'HU BE"SOICHOM (TH#2). The zoihar in ha'ore 11 is in the same sugya as that speaking about the TH#2 (see Kovetz Moshiach U'geula, V4. page 32 onwards)
But OTH it give a dugmah of "zutar d'is bachu mechayeh meisim". Bn'ogeiah the lashon "Hakitzu veranenu" that you said above is "clearly referring to TH #2", hinei the pasuk bpashtus is referring to TH #1 of Klal Yisroel, so in Vol. 6 it is being borrowed to refer to TH #2, bec. the Rebbe is making one blanket statement to include all the levels of TH. So maybe the lashon could also include TH #3?

Quote:
c) In general, this that you write <<[you] 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 ">>: UNTIL 3 Tamuz, this was NEVER understood, BY ANYONE, to mean that the FR would ACTUALLY come back with TH#3 and be moshiach be'poel. As you yourself wrote in post #45 "Chassidim believed that Moshiach will come from the living. Why import a Tzaddik mim meisayah if we have one right here?" so what is the possible misunderstanding??

Furthermore, need we look further than the "nevuah" sicha or the "Atzmus melubosh be'goof" sicha to find an example where BE"POEL MAMISH many people have understood things he'pech ha'haloha? But surely THAT (alone) does not prove that their pashat is correct because it was POSSIBLE (ve'horaya, that IS how they understood it) to have such an understanding ?


I'm aware of this weakness in my argument, but here we're dealing with a pshat that does have yesodos in Shas, the only problem that it doesn't fit with the Rebbe's way of learning RMBM (leshitaschah), unlike "Atzmus Umehus" or "Nevuah" where if you just have average Yedi'ah in Halachah you'll understand that it is not to be taken literally, unless you're "rotzeh lit'os" (=agenda) But again, I concede that is not a strong argument.

Quote:
d) What does this TH, unconnected with the geula really mean? A Tzadik comes back miraculously with TH, then does pe'ulois of Moshiach, and becomes Moshiach, and we say that his TH was just STAM, and had nothing to do with him being Moshiach ??
It means simply, that a human being who was revived from the dead can be(come) Moshiach. The fact he underwent TH does not make him "posul".

From LS v35 we can only conclude the following: According to the Rebbe's shitah, it is hard to be metzayer that Moshiach can be "min meisayah", unless he has TH before the Geulah.

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-07-2002 at 07:32 PM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 07:22 PM   #55
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
od b'inyan hana"l

ulai yesh makom lomar, that in LS 35 the Rebbe doesn't use this scenario because there is no source in Chazal that there WILL INDEED be such a TH (#3) - although nothing Chazal say negate such a possibility, and farkert until the psak of the RMBM they held that there is even a WIDER range of possibilities, kana"l. The only makor is the Rebbe himself in v2 - which itself was only mentioned once. So while it is still in the realm of possibility, "Licho'reh" that is not the pshat in the "melech aleihem le'olam". IOW, this ha'arah is only being misyaches to possibilities mentioned in early sources.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 07:39 PM   #56
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Re: od b'inyan hana"l

Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel
until the psak of the RMBM they held that there is even a WIDER range of possibilities, kana"l. The only makor is the Rebbe himself in v2 - which itself was only mentioned once.
So what taka IS the Rebbe's mokor for this TH #3. Is it usual to find that he should make such a chidush and then NOT give a moker for it?

Surely it's easier to say that in LS 2 either he is not talking ki'peshutoi (as was universally understood till some came up with a NEW p'shat) or indeed talking about TH #2 ??

Le'shitoscho, why in LS 35 does he allow us to make the mistake of assumimng DH'M cannot be moshiach (which is what he says there) when there is a possibility that he can be ??

Is it also not possible that (if you are right in your p'shat in LS 2) that he changed his mind by LS 35 ?

Last edited by RebYid; 07-08-2002 at 03:16 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 07:55 PM   #57
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
You can ask a better question: What is the makor that the FR will be THE Moshiach? IOW, even if there would be a Makor for this TH, what would be the the makor to apply it davke to the FR and not a previous Tzaddik? (leshitasi) Whatever the answer to this question, the knowledge of this preceded the Chiddush that there will be such a TH. And that makes this senario likely.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 07:57 PM   #58
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel
You can ask a better question: What is the makor that the FR will be THE Moshiach?
If that statement is not meant to be taken literally (eg Ibur) then do we really need a moker?
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 08:18 PM   #59
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
If that statement is not meant to be taken literally (eg Ibur) then do we really need a moker?
I emphasized leshitasi... and I don't mean makor in the conventional sense.

And if it is bivchinas ibur (I assume you mean Vol. 2), why do we need TH altogether?!

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-07-2002 at 08:26 PM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 08:25 PM   #60
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
Le'shitoscho, why in LS 35 does he allow us to make the mistake of assumimng DH'M cannot be moshiach (which is what he says there) when there is a possibility that he can be?
See post # 37.

Quote:
Is it not possible that (if you are right in your p'shat in LS 2) that he changed his mind by LS 35?
But then we'd come back to the original question, what would be the makor that it is impossible? With post #55 I attempted to answer that.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 08:35 PM   #61
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel

And if it is bivchinas ibur (I assume you mean Vol. 2), why do we need TH altogether?!
Just like there is a de'ai in Sanhedrin regarding TH, then in LS 35 he "taiches" it according to ibbur, so too WE can "taich" LS 2 the same way.

BTW, do you think we are getting anywhere with all this?

Last edited by RebYid; 07-08-2002 at 03:32 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 08:52 PM   #62
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Just like there is a de'ai in Sanhedrin regarding TH, then in LS 35 he "taiches" it according to ibbur, so to WE can "taich" LS 2 the same way.
I understood that the Rebbe argues on the Yefei Anaf. No?

Quote:
BTW, do you think we are getting anywhere with all this?
I think we have reached the realm of the unknown.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 08:58 PM   #63
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
v'od (al derech hatzachus ak"p): Since according to RMBM the standard min meisayah procedure won't work, iz oib der eibershter vil areinkvetchen a tzaddik min meisayah to be Moshiach, he will do it through such a Techiyas Hameisim, kdei it should be mas'im gam led'as harambam.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 09:04 PM   #64
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel
I understood that the Rebbe argues on the Yefei Anaf. No?
That's actually NOT how I understood it. I thought that he uses the Yefei Anaf to show that that de'ei is not le'halocha (ve'horaya, it relies on the fact that TH comes BEFORE Moshiach) and THEN he taiches oies the de'ei (le'didon), sheloi ki'pshutoi, bivchinas ibbur.

Am I wrong ??

Last edited by RebYid; 07-08-2002 at 03:08 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 09:17 PM   #65
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Re LS 2, I am still not sure how this is a moker. Something ha'kol modim, was never meant Ki'pshotoi, how can that be a rayo ???
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 09:20 PM   #66
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel
I think we have reached the realm of the unknown.
Or one of us has an "agenda" and won't see reason?
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 09:28 PM   #67
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
That's actually NOT how I understood it. I thought that he uses the Yefei Anaf to show that that de'ei is not le'halocha (ve'horaya, it relies on the fact that TH comes BEFORE Moshiach)
I understood that the entire paragraph "aval..." is a question, "vyesh lomar" is the answer. Part of the question is that it says in the piyut "dovid b'atzmo", and the Yfei Anaf and Radak (?) learn it literally, and the Rebbe firs ois that the Kavana in the piyut and the Yerushalmi is only to Nishmas Dovid.

And as you pointed out in post 35, the Rebbe wants to taich up these sources in accordance with shitas haRMBM (i.e. the way the RMBM understood them (?)) so the Rebbe gives a pirush which is different then the pshat of the Pnei Moshe (in Yerushalmi) and YA and RDK on the piyut who were just giving the simple pshat. But to say that Techiyas Hameisim and Ibur are heinu hach is a chidush gadol and I don't see it in the words, and I don't either see what would gained by saying that.

torah613, how do you learn?

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-07-2002 at 09:56 PM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-07-2002, 10:08 PM   #68
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
But if the MM"H de'ei is NOT toloi on the seder of TH connected with the ge'ula, (meaning NOT like the Y"A) then why does it NOT shtim with the Rambam, and what's the whole problem in the first place?

(IOW, IF the TH of Moshiach in Yerushalmi etc has nothing to do with the TH ha'klolie (or the Tzadikim ha'komim mi'yad associated with it), not like the Y"A, then DH"M (or anyone else) could come back and be moshiach without being soiser the seder of the Rambam. But we see that the Rebbe learns DH"M can't do this BECAUSE of the Rambam, meaning that he taka learns the pishush LIKE the Y"A)

Maybe this is the crux of our whole machlokes.

Anyway lets say your p'shat (in the ha'ora) was wrong, and mine was right. Would that change anything??

Last edited by RebYid; 07-08-2002 at 03:36 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-08-2002, 11:06 PM   #69
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel


I understood that the entire paragraph "aval..." is a question, "vyesh lomar" is the answer. Part of the question is that it says in the piyut "dovid b'atzmo", and the Yfei Anaf and Radak (?) learn it literally, and the Rebbe firs ois that the Kavana in the piyut and the Yerushalmi is only to Nishmas Dovid.

And as you pointed out in post 35, the Rebbe wants to taich up these sources in accordance with shitas haRMBM (i.e. the way the RMBM understood them (?)) so the Rebbe gives a pirush which is different then the pshat of the Pnei Moshe (in Yerushalmi) and YA and RDK on the piyut who were just giving the simple pshat. But to say that Techiyas Hameisim and Ibur are heinu hach is a chidush gadol and I don't see it in the words, and I don't either see what would gained by saying that.

torah613, how do you learn?
To tell the truth, I got confused about who is saying what - must be all these "Rebs" - so I don't know what point you want me to comment on.
If my havana in LS v35 in bringing the Radak and YA, I understand it as part of the question, i.e. he brings the way they explain the Yerushalmi etc., but the rebbe already was sholel their pshat in the beginning of the haoro according to the Rambam.
Who am I agreeing with?
Anyway, how does this change anything - I didn't get the point of this, maybe you want to summarize?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-08-2002, 11:08 PM   #70
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Anyway - for anyone interested - I understand LS v 2 to refer (probably) to TH#2.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 12:29 AM   #71
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by Torah613

If my havana in LS v35 in bringing the Radak and YA, I understand it as part of the question, i.e. he brings the way they explain the Yerushalmi etc., but the rebbe already was sholel their pshat in the beginning of the haoro according to the Rambam.
Shoilel their p'shat, or shoilel (le'halocha) the de'ei on which they are saying p'shat (because he assepts their p'shat as a hasbore of the de'ei) and therefore, lehalocha , he learns a different p'shat ??

BTW, who do you want to change their name, me or rebyoel ??

Last edited by RebYid; 07-09-2002 at 01:28 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 12:34 AM   #72
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by Torah613
Anyway - for anyone interested - I understand LS v 2 to refer (probably) to TH#2.
Dus veis ich

BTW - Is that because of external proofs, i.e. kdei it should be b'hes'em with the other sichos, or mitzad a proof in the Sichah itself?

Also do you understand the Rebbe's choice of proofs in v2? or do you think that it's a "tzorich iyun katan"?

And how would you summarize your understanding:

a) A person who has risen from the dead and does what it takes to be B'chezkas Moshiach, is posul to be Moshiach, even though he has done everything the RMBM has outlined, and there is not one opinion in Shas that he can't be Moshiach. Reason not yet determined - but al korchoch that this is the Rebbe's shitah otherwise why can't DH be Moshiach?

b) Such a person would be Moshiach IF it would happen, but there is no evidence that such a miracle will take place.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 12:41 AM   #73
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
I would probably go for (b), for what it's worth.

You going to answer post #68 ?
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 01:42 AM   #74
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
But if the MM"H de'ei is NOT toloi on the seder of TH connected with the ge'ula, (meaning NOT like the Y"A) then why does it NOT shtim with the Rambam, and what's the whole problem in the first place?
I don't understand your question. The only part of the YA that is relevent to us is his conclusion that it will be DH himself. When I said that the Rebbe argues on the YA, I meant that he argues on his conclusion that it means kipshuto.

Quote:
(IOW, IF the TH of Moshiach in Yerushalmi etc has nothing to do with the TH ha'klolie (or the Tzadikim ha'komim mi'yad associated with it), not like the Y"A, then DH"M (or anyone else) could come back and be moshiach without being soiser the seder of the Rambam.
Min meisayah means from the dead, it does not specify where when and how. YA learns (kanire'h - I don't have seforim with me now) for some reason that this is possible according to the opinion that TH (hakloli?) will take place before bias hamoshiach. Such a pshat is not masi'm with the RMBM who hold that it (TH hakloli) will happen in the 2nd Tekufah. Even if bias hamoshiach and TH (of yechidim) will be simultaneous it's not enough because Moshiach must do peulos before. (These are the only two options the Rebbe refers to, kanal ba'aruchah), therefore the Rebbe learns not like the YA that it means literally, but the sources are referring to ibur.

Quote:
Anyway lets say your p'shat (in the ha'ora) was wrong, and mine was right. Would that change anything??
I still don't understand your pshat.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 02:09 AM   #75
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Be'kitsur, my point is that, loolei the p'shat of the Y'A, we don't have to learn the min meisayo as ibur. Let it be the possibility of stam a TH (like #3) and it's no stira to the Rambam at all. (Which is what YOU hold lepoel anyway).

And that’s why I understand that since he accepts the P"SHAT of the Y'A, he rejects the de'ei le'haloch and then re-interprets it.

Am I making any sense ??

Last edited by RebYid; 07-09-2002 at 02:12 AM.
RebYid 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 05:22 AM.


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