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 07-09-2002, 02:22 AM   #76
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
You're saying that the Rebbe starts off with the Hanacha of the YA that there is a shaychus, but EVEN if that's pshat how does this lead you to the question in post #58/61 ?

Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
I would probably go for (b), for what it's worth.
okay, so we're not so far apart so I assume that the reason you won't learn that v2 is referring to a new geder in TH is because what sevarah/makor would the Rebbe have to be mechadesh such a shlav in TH, but not because it's a problem halachically. is that correct?

if this is in fact the way you understand, here's two comments:

1) la'aniyus da'iti, bi'as eliyahu (as mentioned earlier) yochiach, where the Rebbe is mechadesh (--because of a certain question--) a new geder that Eliyahu comes every single day, even though:

a. there are numerous other answers in other Sichos
so what is the sevara/makor to be mechadesh such a shlav?

b. this geder is not mentioned in early sources

2) the sources mentioned by bocaj are at least ambiguous and may serve as partial makor for a new geder (lishitasi) in v2. but i hesitate to say this bec. these sources are not mentioned there, and i'm not baki in the derech halimud of inclusions/exclusions in the Rebbe's ha'aros especially in the first chalokim... vak"m.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 05:52 PM   #77
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
In posts #58, 61 all I meant was that even le'shitoscho, the Rebbe's words are NOT meant to be taken literally, so if that's the case, same could apply to the TH mentioned there.

But le'shitosie, I think it's pretty clear that he is talking about TH #2, (kenal be'arucho) so in a way, I can take LS 2 more literally than you.

Re bias Eliyahu. I don't understand the comparison. You first have to PROVE that in LS 2 he is ACTUALLY mechadesh a new geder, but LA"D, you have not done it, and even if you can, you still have the problem that YOU YOURSELF don't take the "new geder" literally. (ve'horayo, you never believed that the FR would be Moshiach through TH #3)

Re bocaj's sources. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they all refer to TH #2, which he is shoilel in LS 35 from being Moshiach.

In the end though, you seem to admit that your p'shat in LS 2 is a rather flimsy, so why stick to it in the first place?

Last edited by RebYid; 07-09-2002 at 06:11 PM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 06:23 PM   #78
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Re the new geder in TH.

You still haven't answered the following: If the Rebbe does indeed hold by such a geder, why does he not learn that min meisayo is refering to THAT SAME geder and then DH"M can be moshiach inspite of the Rambam. (Which is what comes out according to your p'shat anyway)
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 06:28 PM   #79
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
In posts #58, 61 all I meant was that even le'shitoscho, the Rebbe's words are NOT meant to be taken literally, so if that's the case, same could apply to the TH mentioned there.
Where did I say that? According to me, the Rebbe has 2 mehalchim. It is only that the Rebbe repeated the 2nd ofen much more often than the first, OTOH, the fact that the Rebbe mentioned it once is enough to show that it is a possibility - ledidan.

Quote:
Re bias Eliyahu. I don't understand the comparison. You first have to PROVE that in LS 2 he is ACTUALLY mechadesh a new geder, but LA"D, you have not done it, and even if you can, you still have the problem that YOU YOURSELF don't take the "new geder" literally. (ve'horayo, you never believed that the FR would be Moshiach through TH #3)
From the proofs the Rebbe brought it is mashmah like it's a new geder, I do take it literally vkan"al - not b'derech mashal umelitzah. it's just that the Rebbe repeated other ofanim much more often.

Quote:
Or one of us has an "agenda" and won't see reason?
I think we both have an agenda - we wouldn't spend so much time arguing about an ordinary ha'arah...
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 06:39 PM   #80
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
Re the new geder in TH.

You still haven't answered the following: If the Rebbe does indeed hold by such a geder, why does he not learn that min meisayo is refering to THAT SAME geder and then DH"M can be moshiach inspite of the Rambam. (Which is what comes out according to your p'shat anyway)
Didn't I answer that in #55?
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 06:48 PM   #81
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
In #55 you wrote : >>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)<<

But if the geder does in fact exist, then maybe that's the p'shat in min meisayo? IOW, why is he forced NOT to learn this geder in meisayo and come up with ibur, when it can be taken more literally ??

So what's your agenda ??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 06:53 PM   #82
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Re LS 2 taken literally.

So before (or after) 3 Tamuz, you believed that the FR was going to come back and be moshiach ?? (But you already wrote before: "Chassidim believed that Moshiach will come from the living. Why import a Tzaddik mim meisayah if we have one right here"
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 07:17 PM   #83
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
So what's your agenda ??
I have objection to people who build "the Rebbe's shitah" based on sevaros al derech hapilpul in ha'aros of the Rebbe (especially where it doesn't use terms such as "barur", "poshut", "vadai" etc.) In olam hasevaros each question has an answer and each answer has a pircheh.

For example, here's another question: The RMBM only speaks about lo zachu, so maybe it means literally and refers to zachu? So are you gonna deduce from here that the "Rebbe's shitah" is that even if Zachu Moshiach will need to do peulos before he comes - kechol hadvarim shenmru bhilchos melachim - and it can't be "breg'eh kmeimrah . . k'heref ayin"?!

Quote:
So before (or after) 3 Tamuz, you believed that the FR was going to come back and be moshiach ?? (But you already wrote before: "Chassidim believed that Moshiach will come from the living. Why import a Tzaddik mim meisayah if we have one right here"
No, as I wrote in that same paragraph "It is only that the Rebbe repeated the 2nd ofen much more often than the first", IOW, usually the Rebbe spoke of the FR leading Chassidim out of Galus, so that's what I thought would happen.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 07:26 PM   #84
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyid
re bocaj's sources: I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they all refer to TH #2, which he is shoilel in LS 35 from being Moshiach.
Agav: How do you think those sources will be fulfilled if Moshiach comes in the aforementioned ofen mentioned countless times by the Rebbe (which btw do you have a makor for that??) If everything happens in an instant, the only way they can witness binyan beis hamikdosh is if they get up before...
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-09-2002, 07:58 PM   #85
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel


... The RMBM only speaks about lo zachu, so maybe it means literally and refers to zachu? ...
Is it that clear to you? If Moshiach is "yochuf kol Yisroel" (meaning all (or at least most?) yidden will be frum) isn't that zochu ?


Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel

IOW, usually the Rebbe spoke of the FR leading Chassidim out of Galus, so that's what I thought would happen.
But surely the question is: the one time that he SEEMS to spaek about the FR with TH #3, what did he MEAN? I put it to you that you did not believe that he meant ki'pshutoi, so there goes your moker ??

Last edited by RebYid; 07-09-2002 at 10:16 PM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:30 AM   #86
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Is it that clear to you? If Moshiach is "yochuf kol Yisroel" (meaning all (or at least most?) yidden will be frum) isn't that zochu ?
Many of the things that RMBM mentions don't apply to Zachu as explained in numberous Sichos, and kanireh the whole stage of Chezkas Moshiach will not exist. When the Rebbe spoke of Geulah in an eyeblink were were going to bypass the stage of "yokuf". In the famous sichah of Shtei Tekufos, the Rebbe says that the hechrech that there will be 2 tekufos is that during the first tekufah everyone will do tshuvah etc. and with that itself they will merit the 2nd Tekufah. But this is if LO zachu. If Zachu (which the Rebbe mentioned as possible notwithstanding our present matzav etc.) the RMBM's rules don't apply.

Quote:
But surely the question is: the one time that he SEEMS to spaek about the FR with TH #3, what did he MEAN? I put it to you that you did not believe that he meant ki'pshutoi, so there goes your moker ??
According to me, in this sicha the Rebbe MEANS kipshuto, and in other sichos the Rebbe means what he says in those Sichos. 2 mehalchim. IOW, even now I understand v2 literally, it is just that this approach is LESS COMMON than the 2nd approach.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:32 AM   #87
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
BTW - I think that what I wrote in post #55 answers this question (-why the possibility of Zachu is not mentioned in v35-) as well. vedok.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:34 AM   #88
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
So he MEANT that the FR was going to have TH and be Moshiach INSTEAD of the living nosi ??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:43 AM   #89
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel
BTW - I think that what I wrote in post #55 answers this question (-why the possibility of Zachu is not mentioned in v35-) as well. vedok.
So it does have an ort in Chazal -- not like you said in #55 ?

Furthermore, if min meisayo or not is toloi on zochu/lo zochu, why does he not say that in LS 35, and since, leshitosco, "Dovid avdi etc", is only talking lo zochu (an that's why he brings the Rambam as a problem, who is also talking lo zochu) the Yerushalmi is no problem, and we don't need ibur ??

BTW, did you ever see a yichidus with R' Chaim Gutnick where this zochu and the Rambam came up ?? Maybe I should post it ?

Last edited by RebYid; 07-10-2002 at 01:49 AM.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:51 AM   #90
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Yes. Remember that this Sicha is from 13 Shevat 5711.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:55 AM   #91
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
And therefore......?
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 01:58 AM   #92
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
So it does have an ort in Chazal -- not like you said in #55 ?

Furthermore, if min meisayo or not is toloi on zochu/lo zochu, why does he not say that in LS 35, and since, leshitosco, "Dovid avdi etc", is only talking lo zochu (an that's why he brings the Rambam as a problem, who is also talking lo zochu) the Yerushalmi is no problem, and we don't need ibur ??
Let me explain myself: This whole bi'ur that the RMBM is only speaking about lo zachu, but if zachu we don't need all these preparations etc. is first mentioned BY THE REBBE. So the same way the Rebbe doesn't mention TH #3 (leshitasi) because it's not mentioned in earlier sources, here too, zachu/lo zachu is not mentioned because it's also a chiddush of the Rebbe, and in this ha'arah the Rebbe is not being misyaches to his own Chiddushim. Farshteist?

[I was not kovei'ah that "min meisayo or not is toloi on zochu/lo zochu", but that according to the Rebbe Hilchos Melachim refers to Lo Zachu davka, and hence the Rebbe's proof from the RMBM only applies to lo zachu, so the question is according to you!]

Quote:
BTW, did you ever see a yichidus with R' Chaim Gutnick where this zochu and the Rambam came up ?? Maybe I should post it ?
Of course. Post it gezunterheit but in the "Chezkas Moshiach" thread, I was thinking about this Yechidus when I wrote "If Zachu (which the Rebbe mentioned as possible notwithstanding our present matzav etc.)"

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-10-2002 at 02:01 AM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 02:02 AM   #93
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel
This whole bi'ur that the RMBM is only speaking about lo zachu, but if zachu we don't need all these preparations etc. is first mentioned BY THE REBBE.
Source ??
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 02:08 AM   #94
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
And therefore......?
It's not mufrach by me that the Rebbe meant it literally. Maybe that gufeh is the reason why in later years, the Rebbe started speaking in other ofen. But I prefer not to be mefalpel in this subject because I'm not a 'maven' as to what the Rebbe's yachas was to the FR, different tkufos in the Rebbe's nesi'us, why the Rebbe always spoke of the FR as Nesi Doreinu, etc. etc. I know that dozens of pshetlach have been given, but who guarantees their accuracy? (i.e. when there is a nafka minah)
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 02:14 AM   #95
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
Source ??
There are plenty of sources in the Rebbe's sichos, that's the whole gang - I can post exact references when I have time. But I don't think there are earlier sources (though kemuvan the ra'yes are from earlier sources)
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 02:16 AM   #96
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
IIRC, he tells RC"G that the Rambam is talking about zochu !!
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 02:23 AM   #97
rebyoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally posted by RebYid
IIRC, he tells RC"G that the Rambam is talking about zochu !!
I guess i'll have to refresh my memory. All I remember is that the Rebbe was maarich that yakuf kol yisroel means everyone, and that men vet nit tzuluzen "kulo chayav". But regardless of what it says there, the yesod of many sichos (for example the Sicha about who will build the Beis Hamikdosh; 2 Tekufos/Osos Umofsim), and the yesod of many endings of Sichos is that we are not limited by the RMBM's options.

Last edited by rebyoel; 07-10-2002 at 02:28 AM.
rebyoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 02:28 AM   #98
RebYid
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,141
Actually he says maybe Ruboi Ke'Kuloi is also good enough.
RebYid is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 12:21 PM   #99
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Is this yechidus printed anywhere?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-10-2002, 11:40 PM   #100
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Sorry I didn't answer till now - every time I turn around there are another 20 posts!
To answer your questions in short - I'm not "in the inyon" now.
Quote:
Originally posted by rebyoel post #72


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?
I don't see that sicho as speaking about Moshiach, just TH of tzaddikim - TH#2.
[I'm going leshitosee concening the meaning of vehu yigoleinu].

Quote:
Also do you understand the Rebbe's choice of proofs in v2? or do you think that it's a "tzorich iyun katan"?
He maybe should have brought "moshe aharon imohem".

Quote:
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.
If it happens - we'll worry
Seriously, obviously b) would be correct (la'achar hamaaseh - what would one say to him "you have a psul haguf" like a cohen who has a mum? ), but lichora there is (almost) no sources for such a scenario, uchanal, therefore conjecture now is at best - useless.
Do I have to duck?!

Last edited by Torah613; 07-10-2002 at 11:43 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 05:40 AM.


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