Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 11-08-2003, 11:39 PM   #1
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Whom does chasidus paskin like pertaining to Moshiach

(I posted about this in a different thread but I decided to (also)post it were it belongs)

This that the Rambam holds that Moshiach will have sons and die and they will take him over is going according to his (opinion) that the tachlis haschar is not the days of moshiach, souls in bodies but rather how (he holds) it will be after that, a "world with only nishamois (souls)" .

But many argue with that including R' Sadaye Goan, Ravaad, Ramban, Avoidas Hakoidesh and many others, and they hold that the tachlis will be souls in bodies.

The A. R. says in L T (parsh's tzav). that Kabbalah does not paskin like the Rambam in this, but rather we paskin like the Ramban, that the tachlis is souls in bodies .

The Rebbe in I K vol. 2, page 65 (or Tshvois ubeiurim page47) says explictly that according to this people (tzadikim) will live forever [see also the haoras that are there] .
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-09-2003, 12:18 AM   #2
rebayzl
Senior Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,354
Dosnet the Rebbe say that there are 2 eras in the time of Moshiach?
rebayzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-09-2003, 12:28 AM   #3
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by rebayzl
Dosnet the Rebbe say that there are 2 eras in the time of Moshiach?
That is about the machloikes binoige [arguement about] if there will be a shinui [a diffrence] in minhoge shel oilom [the nature of the world] when Moshiach comes.

[In that argument too we paskin like the Ravad which means that even in the first era there will be a change in the way the world works.]
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-09-2003, 07:04 AM   #4
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Re: Whom does chasidus paskin like pertaining to Moshiach

Quote:
Originally posted by LION
(I posted about this in a different thread but I decided to (also)post it were it belongs)
This that the Rambam holds that Moshiach will have sons and die and they will take him over is going according to his (opinion) that the tachlis haschar is not the days of moshiach, souls in bodies but rather how (he holds) it will be after that, a "world with only nishamois (souls)" .
But many argue with that including R' Sadaye Goan, Ravaad, Ramban, Avoidas Hakoidesh and many others, and they hold that the tachlis will be souls in bodies.
The A. R. says in L T (parsh's tzav). that Kabbalah does not paskin like the Rambam in this, but rather we paskin like the Ramban, that the tachlis is souls in bodies .

The Rebbe in I K vol. 2, page 65 (or Tshvois ubeiurim page47) says explictly that according to this people (tzadikim) will live forever [see also the haoras that are there] .
I seriously doubt the word 'poskin' was used in LT. In fact this a problem with your hashkafoh in approach to the issue. For example the views of the Rambam about angels appears in a number of places, but we hold that he is incorrect. We do not say that we poskin differently. Hashkofas, and inyanim of emunah are not issues of 'halacha' that are decided by sevorah etc etc. Sometimes it is simply an issue of tradition. (Like our views of hasgacha protis that we have from the Baal Shem Tov as opposed to that of the Rambam, which is accepted in many circles.)
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-09-2003, 07:05 AM   #5
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by LION


That is about the machloikes binoige [arguement about] if there will be a shinui [a diffrence] in minhoge shel oilom [the nature of the world] when Moshiach comes.

[In that argument too we paskin like the Ravad which means that even in the first era there will be a change in the way the world works.]
Woudl you mind giving a detailed explanation of what you believe the view of the L Rebbe ZT"L was with regards to these issues: 2 periods, nature of ressurection and when it is?
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-09-2003, 08:55 AM   #6
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Lion - why are you assuming that tchiyas hameisim will occur right at the beggining (or right after) bias Moshiach (I am aware of the possibility, but you are writing this as fact).
IOW, tachlis haschar is neshomos begufim - but when will that occur? (I think this is what rebayzl meant to ask).
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-09-2003, 10:03 AM   #7
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
"And soon we will merit to see the resurrection of Moshe, Aharon, and the Previous Rebbe. Together with them -- in the first phase of Redemption -- will arise those who sanctified G-d's Name in public" (Tenth Of Adar I, 5752)

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books...lish/51/42.htm

(couldn't find it on Otzar770)
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 01:24 AM   #8
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by Torah613
Lion - why are you assuming that tchiyas hameisim will occur right at the beggining (or right after) bias Moshiach (I am aware of the possibility, but you are writing this as fact).
IOW, tachlis haschar is neshomos begufim - but when will that occur? (I think this is what rebayzl meant to ask).
It says in Zohar (chelek aleph page 139 side 1) that Tchiyas hamaysim will be 40 years after kibutz goliois.
[there are some that are mifarish (i dont rember who) the zohar to mean 40 days but bepashtus it means 40 year's].
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 01:34 AM   #9
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by RebMoshe


Woudl you mind giving a detailed explanation of what you believe the view of the L Rebbe ZT"L was with regards to these issues: 2 periods, nature of ressurection and when it is?
I dont have time nor patince to write therfore I will just give the m"m [places] and if anyone wants they could learn\post it themselves.

2 periods, L S vol. 27 page 191

nature of ressurection and when it is, I K vol. 2 page 65,(or tsuvous ubiurim page 47)
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 01:39 AM   #10
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by Yankel Nosson
"And soon we will merit to see the resurrection of Moshe, Aharon, and the Previous Rebbe. Together with them -- in the first phase of Redemption -- will arise those who sanctified G-d's Name in public" (Tenth Of Adar I, 5752)

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books...lish/51/42.htm

(couldn't find it on Otzar770)
That is not talking about "The resurrection" techiyas hamaysim but rather one of individuals.
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 10:18 AM   #11
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by LION

2 periods, L S vol. 27 page 191

I looked in Otzar and saw the sicha, but it doesn't seem to say anything about 2 periods that on page 191. (Sicha Bechikosei) It seems to be discussing the two shitos as to whether or not there is a change in the order of the world in yamos hamoshiach.

Quote:
Originally posted by LION


nature of ressurection and when it is, I K vol. 2 page 65,(or tsuvous ubiurim page 47)
Thank you. That was a wonderful letter. I would point out that his discussion about the guf and nashmah in the techiya agrees with what I have said. The guf associates with those parts of the nashamah it was mesakin in it's lifetime. Whicjh ios what I said, with regards to Abarbanel, that the guf ressurected is associated with the nashamah it had when it was alive. (The L Rebbe ZT'L goes a bit mor into this and discusses the inyan from the tikunim of parts of the nashamah, which I did not want to get into. There is a wonderful Or HaChaim in parshas v'yechi. On the words "v'yikrivei yomei Yakov l'mos." If you look at that it will surely add to the understanding of what He writes.)

Last edited by RebMoshe; 11-11-2003 at 10:24 AM.
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 10:39 AM   #12
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
"A lengthy treatise concerning the concept of Resurrection, discussing many issues in detail"

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books...rebbe-2/48.htm
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 02:16 PM   #13
shoyn
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,121
rebmoishe keep reading..... see P 198
shoyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 02:56 PM   #14
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by shoyn
rebmoishe keep reading..... see P 198
OK. We haev had these dicussions here already.
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 03:23 PM   #15
shoyn
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,121
i am merely replying to your post

<I looked in Otzar and saw the sicha, but it doesn't seem to say anything about 2 periods that on page 191. (Sicha Bechikosei)>
shoyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-11-2003, 03:55 PM   #16
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by shoyn
i am merely replying to your post

<I looked in Otzar and saw the sicha, but it doesn't seem to say anything about 2 periods that on page 191. (Sicha Bechikosei)>
I am sorry you misunderstood what I meant. I thank you for pointing out to me the location.
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-12-2003, 12:20 AM   #17
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by RebMoshe


Thank you. That was a wonderful letter. I would point out that his discussion about the guf and nashmah in the techiya agrees with what I have said. The guf associates with those parts of the nashamah it was mesakin in it's lifetime. Whicjh ios what I said, with regards to Abarbanel, that the guf ressurected is associated with the nashamah it had when it was alive. (The L Rebbe ZT'L goes a bit mor into this and discusses the inyan from the tikunim of parts of the nashamah, which I did not want to get into. There is a wonderful Or HaChaim in parshas v'yechi. On the words "v'yikrivei yomei Yakov l'mos." If you look at that it will surely add to the understanding of what He writes.)
I dont think we should realy get into it over here , and besides we went through it already over there ,therefore I am posting just one answer\post over here about it , and anything you want to comment on about it (that we havent gone through already )please post it there [in"what do they realy think"](if you want , you can post here that you posted there )


I would point out that I have never said anything to the contrary.

What I said was that (1] he [the Abarbanel] is not talking about "the" techyas hamaisim but rather about one spesific case that will take place before Moshiach comes.)

2]being that ibur is a form of gilgul he will have both being that both have to do with him.[and as i said i did not use the term gilgul there because i wanted to use the term he uses(now if you will ask me why he uses that term I will answer you that is because over there he going like both ways it could be i.e. from the alive or dead ,therefore he said gilgul that goes with both).
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-12-2003, 02:41 PM   #18
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by LION


I would point out that I have never said anything to the contrary.
It certainly appears that you don't agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by LION


What I said was that (1] he [the Abarbanel] is not talking about "the" techyas hamaisim but rather about one spesific case that will take place before Moshiach comes.)
If one takes the view that it is the techiyas hamaisim, then it is obviously about a single case. He mentions only that one, which cannot be used to either prove or disprove anything else at that time.

Quote:
Originally posted by LION


2]being that ibur is a form of gilgul he will have both being that both have to do with him.[and as i said i did not use the term gilgul there because i wanted to use the term he uses(now if you will ask me why he uses that term I will answer you that is because over there he going like both ways it could be i.e. from the alive or dead ,therefore he said gilgul that goes with both).
Now you seem to be throwing out a whole new line of reasoning. However, that is not a help,as the issues I raised remain. The purpose of gilgal or ibbur isn't relevant to a ressurected body. I think the L Rebbe's letter makes the issue quite clear.
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-13-2003, 01:04 AM   #19
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by RebMoshe


Now you seem to be throwing out a whole new line of reasoning. However, that is not a help,as the issues I raised remain. The purpose of gilgal or ibbur isn't relevant to a ressurected body. I think the L Rebbe's letter makes the issue quite clear.
first of all as i said the letter is talking about "the" tchiye.

second of all if you will go through that other thread you will see that i said this (meaning what i posted) there more then once [the only new thing i said was a reason way the Abarbanel "chose" the word gilgul over "ibur" or anything like it].

p.s. I know i said i was posting only one post here but since you posted....
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-13-2003, 09:27 AM   #20
Vayaaminu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 237
do yourselves a favor and stick to the original thread.
__________________
...vayaaminu baHashem u'v'Moishe avdoi.

....and (the Jewish people) believed in Hashem and in His servant Moishe.
Vayaaminu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-13-2003, 09:55 AM   #21
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by LION


first of all as i said the letter is talking about "the" tchiye.

second of all if you will go through that other thread you will see that i said this (meaning what i posted) there more then once [the only new thing i said was a reason way the Abarbanel "chose" the word gilgul over "ibur" or anything like it].

1. You are inventing a difference that does nto exist. True there are views that there are two period sof techiya, but there are NONE that the techiyah in one is not the same idea of techiya as the other. It is just a difference of Tzaddikim and if they are in a seperate one or not.

2. And as I said they difference is more academic then substantial. It still doesn't change the problems that a ressurected body ONLY is associated with the soul (or parts of the soul it has mesakin to be more correct as the L Rebbe ZT'L points out) that it had when it was alive.
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-14-2003, 12:56 AM   #22
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
I will take [partialy] Vayaaminu's advice, posting in "other" thread...
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-29-2003, 06:35 PM   #23
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by RebMoshe


I seriously doubt the word 'poskin' was used in LT. In fact this a problem with your hashkafoh in approach to the issue. For example the views of the Rambam about angels appears in a number of places, but we hold that he is incorrect. We do not say that we poskin differently. Hashkofas, and inyanim of emunah are not issues of 'halacha' that are decided by sevorah etc etc. Sometimes it is simply an issue of tradition. (Like our views of hasgacha protis that we have from the Baal Shem Tov as opposed to that of the Rambam, which is accepted in many circles.)
For your information the Rebbe says\uses explicitly the loshoin Psak Din see Sefer Hasichois 5752 v 1 page 35 [Muge] (i.e. the Rebbe says "like the Psak Din of Toras hachassidus"[that the ikur haschar is by the 'tchiye' like the Ramban] and the Rebbe is mityaon to this L T) .

[BTW I wonder who got what wrong ]
LION is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-29-2003, 07:05 PM   #24
RebMoshe
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally posted by LION


For your information the Rebbe says\uses explicitly the loshoin Psak Din see Sefer Hasichois 5752 v 1 page 35 [Muge] (i.e. the Rebbe says "like the Psak Din of Toras hachassidus"[that the ikur haschar is by the 'tchiye' like the Ramban] and the Rebbe is mityaon to this L T) .

[BTW I wonder who got what wrong ]
You actually confirmed my point. LT doesn't use the term 'posak'.
RebMoshe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-29-2003, 07:21 PM   #25
LION
Diamond Member
 
LION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally posted by RebMoshe


You actually confirmed my point. LT doesn't use the term 'posak'.
NO I actually disputed your point ,your point was that the term Psak Din does not apply here and by useing that term it shows on a problem with my approach to Hashkofas.

[let me just say one thing ,when I said how it Paskins in L T I did not have a LT in front of me therefore i was unable to quote the exact words BUT if you are implying that the LT was right in not useing that term and the Rebbe was CH"V .....in useing that term ,and The Rebbe's "approach" to Hashkofa is CH"V ....THEN.. ]
LION 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com