This is the only video I could really put up but it pretty much shows what goes on- a happy time of dancing and chilling, mostly. This was just a random video and like most frummies Lubavitchers do not like being put on tape- I do enjoy the one guy at the end who screams “Jewish satire”. The Yechi song has been stuck in my head for several days now by the way, and I gotta say I like it, am I heretic for continually singing it or liking it? Crown Heights Info has an interesting article about the Yechi vs non-Yechi factions who run the show.
It’s not heresey it’s just stupid. If I say the moon is made of cheese I would rightfully be considered an idiot. heresy: to deny the truth of Torah (ie. denying Shulchan Aruch).
All poskim of any repute have said as much. Including very litvish ones. They’re kosher for minyan, shechita, yayin, etc. Just don’t buy into their propoganda.
It’s not heresy, and it is not stupid. It is a valid shitta in yiddishkeit and in Chassidus, although someone may disagree with it. To read more, see this blog (read bottom–up): http://mishichistblogger.blogspot.com/
Whether Mishichists are doing a good thing practically by screaming things that average yidden do not have good education to understand (and which turn them off from Chabad, from the Rebbe and from the idea of Mashiach, which the Rebbe worked very hard to introduce into the complacent minds of the majority of frum and fry yidden) is a separate issue.
>If I say the moon is made of cheese I would rightfully be considered an idiot.
What if I said that moon is made of gas, because Rambam says so?
You should see all the amazing pix of Simchas Beis Hashoeva in Crown Heights, it’s on http://www.CrownHeights.CH
I’m not going to get into a discussion here about about whether moshiach can halachically come min hameisim. I personally have extreme difficulty in believing this to be possible from a halachic standpoint. BUT I just want to point out that it is no stira on the Rebbe’s words to say the Rebbe is not halachically moshiach ben dovid. Just as the Rebbe says in the famous footnote about Dovid hamelech, he is nishmas moshiach but his guf is not melech hamoshiach al pi halacha.
In other words there could be a ruchniusdik reality which is broader than the halachic reality.
Hesh:
Cool film, unfortunately it’s the same song over and over, did they play any other songs are was it an all night yechi thing?
Crawling Axe,
Moshiach can NOT come from the dead, read Rambam Hilchos melachim if you consider yourself Lubavitch. Maybe that’s part of the reason behind the Rebbe wanting everyone to learn Rambam, so they can help the people “blinded” by the yechi craze to see the truth!
Hey phil maybe I’ll do a post to find out after all if believing the rebbe is mochiash is against halacha or not because I don’t think it is.
Bla bla bla …
And here’s the one in Shiloh, yep the real Shiloh, BibleLand.
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/2008/10/dancing-in-shiloh.html
Strange, I just posted a comment which didn’t post, so I’ll try again.
Here’s the Simchat beit hashoeva in Shiloh. (Biblical Shiloh, of course)
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/2008/10/dancing-in-shiloh.html
phil, i just want to point out in gemura sandherain 78b that i think it says that moshiach, can come from the dead. and i think we all can agree that the the rebbe was the best candidate for our generation. and im not a meshicist btw.
Anonymous you may have just opened a can of worms. Many people would argue with you on that. People could bring all sorts of proofs that Rav Moshe, Chofetz Chaim- what about the previous Satmar Rebbe or who knows. There are all sorts of big gedolim and some of them are still alive.
>Moshiach can NOT come from the dead, read Rambam Hilchos melachim if you consider yourself Lubavitch.
Dude, I just provided you with a link in my first post of a blogger who two years did a detailed analysis of the issue: does Rambam really say that Mashiach cannot come from the dead? In his opinion — no; what Rambam says is that Mashiach cannot be a dead person of past generations. He also analyzes the famous view of Gil Student that says that Rambam says so.
In my opinion, his analysis is intelligent and according to principles of Torah. Even if you personally disagree with him (for which you need to provide arguments), you still cannot say it is not a valid shitta in yiddishkeit — just the one you don’t agree with.
im not saying i agreed with the gemura. I was just stating that this was something that was out there.
Hesh,
Doing a post on whether to yechi or not to yechi won’t solve any halachic issues, better leave that one for the rabbis.
CRAWLING AXE + ANON:
Assuming that you both believe that the Rebbe died, we can discuss Rambam. If you think he’s still alive as many of the yechi people do, there is nothing to discuss, maybe a phone number to a good shrink…
For once and for all, let’s get the rambam straight. I’m quoting directly from Mishneh Torah with English translation by Rabbi Touger:
Perek 11, halacha 3:
“Rabbi Akiva and all the sages considered Bar Kochva maschiach until he was killed because of sins. Once he was killed they realized he was not maschiach”
Perek 11, halacha 4:
” If a king (is a rebbe a king in it’s true sense of the word?) will arise from thre house of David, contemplates Torah like David, compels ALL of Israel to walk in the way of the Torah, rectify breaches and fight the war of God, we can consier him maschiach.
If he suceeds in all of the above, builds the Beis Hamikdash IN IT’S PLACE (not 770) and gathers the dispersed of Israel (not to Crown Heights) he is definitely Maschiach.
If he did not succeed or was killed, he is SURELY not the maschiach, rather he should be considered as all the kings from Davidic dynasty. God caused him to arise to test the many”. <<>>
Any Lubavitcher that learns Rambam has surely read this, I know that many find a way to twist the Rambam to fit their needs, others simply disagree with Rambam based on a Sicha they twist to suit their needs. Yes the Rambam is not necessarily the “final authority”, but don’t twist or misinterpret what he wrote.
Why are yechi and some other Lubavithers so closed minded? Moshe Rabeinu was from Egypt (not Russia or Brooklyn). King David was from Israel (not Russia or Brooklyn).
Is it maybe possible that maschiach might be a satmar, sephardi or God forbid a “snag”? What if he were to come from one of the above, would Lubavitch reject him or his Shechita?
Do yechi people think that the more you sing a stupid song, the more likely it is to happen? Why has yechi been added to various parts davening, when we dont even say yigdal or Akdomus because we’re not sure of the author?
Anyone can think or say what they want, but to then ram completely idiotic views down everyone’s throat is exactly why there is all this friction, most of it caused by these few “freaks”. Do non yechi people sing anti meshichists song during davening or bentching? Maybe we should…
Phil,
I don’t understand, why you are writing all this here. I know all these arguments. There is an argument that explains that all of what Rambam writes does not apply to the Rebbe. I gave you a link with the argument, which addresses the above arguments as well. If you have problems with the arguments in there, go and argue there.
The main question is — what does this mean: “If he did not succeed or was killed, he is SURELY not the maschiach”? Why does Rambam phrase this in such a weird way? What does “he did not succeed” mean? Succeed when? If Bob pushes and pushes for Congress to abolish income tax and then dies one year before Congress actually abolishes it, has he succeeded in his efforts to abolish income tax? What if this happens 100 years after Bob’s life, when Joe, insipired by Bob’s writings makes Congress abolish income tax? I would say that in the first case, Bob succeeded, albeit posthumously, and in the second case he did not succeed, because the income tax was not abolished due to his direct efforts.
But that’s just my opinion: we need to examine Torah to understand what’s going on. In order to do this, we need to realize that just like anything written in Judaism, Rambam’s writings are not hanging in a vacuum — they have context in the form of Jewish tradition and the rest of Judaism, before him and during his lifetime.
Whenever Rambam writes that something is NOT something else, he is refuting an existing shitta (existing in his times). Which shitta is he refuting here? If you think it’s X-ity, you’re wrong, for the reasons also explained in the mentioned blog. So, which shitta in Judaism is Rambam refuting? Once you answer this question, you can ask: is what Mishichist Lubavitchers saying equivalent to this shitta or not? If not, Rambam’s refutation of that shitta has nothing to do with Mishichism.
The blogger mentioned by me before makes an argument that the only shitta in Judaism that Rambam could have been addressing is the shitta of R’ Hillel, “who said: There is no Moshiach for Israel, for they have already consumed it in the days of Chizkiyah”. This indeed is the shitta Rambam is addressing — so, we need to understand what R’ Hillel meant, why was Rambam against it, and what this means regarding the Rebbe.
For more details, see http://mishichistblogger.blogspot.com/
Regarding the Rebbe being alive or not, it depends what is meant by that. If somebody believes that the Rebbe never biologically died, that the burial was staged, and that the Rebbe is hiding somewhere (perhaps, along with Yakov Avinu), then this person is indeed crazy or stupid.
If a person believes that as any tzaddik, the Rebbe doesn’t die in spiritual sense (hence us calling tzaddikim’s departure “histalkus”, elevation); that change in material state of his body does not change his relationship with his chassidim, then this idea is not new to modern generation, to Chabad or to Chassidus in general.
Finally, saying that the Rebbe is alive and is Mashiach could mean that he will be resurrected in the times of tchias ha’meisim to be Mashiach (there is an opinion that certain tzaddikim will be resurrected before the rest), and that he can be said to be Mashiach as long as his actions cause geula.
I am not saying I personally believe in any of the above (nor am I saying that I disbelieve any of it), indeed, what I personally believe is irrelevant; what I am saying is that this is a non-heretical and not stupid opinion, which does not contradict either Rambam (see the referenced blog), nor Jewish tradition, nor common sense. This is only regarding the opinion regarding the Rebbe’s status. I am not so favorable towards the actual behavior of some of Mishichistim.
>Why are yechi and some other Lubavithers so closed minded? Moshe Rabeinu was from Egypt (not Russia or Brooklyn). King David was from Israel (not Russia or Brooklyn).
Is it maybe possible that maschiach might be a satmar, sephardi or God forbid a “snag”? What if he were to come from one of the above, would Lubavitch reject him or his Shechita?
I am not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking, why Lubavitchers believe that davka their Rebbe is Mashiach? This stems from understanding of the role of Chabad Chassidus in general Judaism, and in bringing the Mashiach. The reason why Chassidus in general and Chabad Chassidus in particular were introduced was to bring Mashiach. Chabad Chassidus is the recipe for bringing about the geula; therefore, the person who is responsible for spreading of Chabad Chassidus in the current generation can be said to be potential Mashiach, if he indeed succeeds in bringing about the geula through his efforts (and the time frame of this may or may not end with his death; one could say that can be said not to succeed when his influence on the contemporary generation is no longer direct, as is the case with most tzaddikim of the past generations).
I don’t think, however, that anybody who has not learned Chabad Chassidus can fully appreciate what I just wrote, so to you it probably looks like some sort of propaganda. Which is why I am against Mishichist publicly screaming about their opinion — most people who have not been exposed to Chabad Chassidus don’t really understand the theoretical basis behind Chassidic view of geula (and, therefore, the person causing geula to happen). Most people focus on the external aspects of geula: gathering of Jews in EY, rebuilding of BM, end to famine, diseases, wars, and so on.
To learn about the pnimiyus of geula, listen to this: http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/611152/jewish/A-Vision-of-the-Future.htm
>If he did not succeed or was killed, he is SURELY not the maschiach, rather he should be considered as all the kings from Davidic dynasty. God caused him to arise to test the many.
By the way, that’s not what Rambam says. He says, “He is surely not the one about whom the Torah promised”. I am mentioning this, because this weird wording also needs to be explained.
AF:
I was quoting directly from the translated Rambam. No mention of Chabad Chassiduss being the recipe for Geulah there. Based on that reasoning, it would have been impossible for Mashiach to arrive before the Alter Rebbe, which I simply can’t accept.
To think that only Chabad Chassidus can bring Mashiach seems pretty closed minded and very arrogant to me. Are we going to have to turn all jews into lubavitchers before they “see the truth”?
I understand some people saying that the rebbe was mashiach before gimmel tammuz, but now it seems pretty absurd to me, even more so to scream, yell and get into fist fights about something which nobody will ever know for sure until it happens.
770, CH, SBH and the movement in general have all been “hijacked” by yechis, am I the only one who sees this?
>I was quoting directly from the translated Rambam. No mention of Chabad Chassiduss being the recipe for Geulah there. Based on that reasoning, it would have been impossible for Mashiach to arrive before the Alter Rebbe, which I simply can’t accept.
It’s like saying that Mashiach could not have arrived before Bar Kochba, according to Rabbi Akiva. That’s ridiculous. In each time, there is a particular avoida of Mashiach to bring about geula. In times of Bar Kochba, it was gashmiyustike defeat of Romans. In our times, it’s ruchniyustike change in our behavior, such that “Ein od milvado” is b’gilui (which is what Chabad Chassidus teaches).
What is mentioned in Rambam are simanim of Mashiach’s coming. Just like we don’t believe that simanim of kashrus (split hooves, scales, etc.) are all there is to kashrus, we don’t believe that the actual physical changed that Rambam talks about are all there is to geula. Or maybe you believe that gashmiustike things in halacha is all there is? Perhaps you should learn some Kabbala. Or, better yet… drum-beat… Chabad Chassidus! At least listen to the audio, whose link I provided.
>To think that only Chabad Chassidus can bring Mashiach seems pretty closed minded and very arrogant to me.
I didn’t say “only”. I said that Chabad Chassidus is a recipe to bring about Mashiach. If you have a different recipe, or if you believe another group has a recipe, then gezunter heit — believe that their leader is a potential Mashiach, if his recipe works.
Saying that believing that Chabad Chassidus is a reciple is arrogant is like saying that only the idea that only Mishna is a compilation of all the Oral Torah is arrogant. Well, do you have another one?
>I understand some people saying that the rebbe was mashiach before gimmel tammuz
Why do you understand that? Isn’t it arrogant to say that? By the way, when people said that before gimmel tamuz, followers of a certain misnaged from Bnei Brak (or perhaps he himself) came out and said that no person in current generation is worthy to become Mashiach. What exactly did they mean? That Mashiach won’t come? Or that Mashiach will have to be from the past generations? Why weren’t they troubled by Rambam?
>Are we going to have to turn all jews into lubavitchers before they “see the truth”?
No need to turn lubavitchers. Just live your life such that “Ein od milvado” is be’gilui. If you can accomplish that through some other means besides those described in Chabad Chassidus, gezunter heit. If you use ideas of Chabad Chassidus how to live you life like that, but choose to keep minhogim of different groups, gezunter heit (Alter Rebbe said that he dreamed about something like this happening). Do all have to live their lives in such a way? No, just the critical amount of them.
Finally, who is being close-minded? I described to you arguments about Rambam regarding who cannot be Mashiach, and you just sweep them under the rug. I am not trying to “convert” you or make you believe them (I didn’t even say I believe they are correct); I am just trying to show that they may be a valid alternative opinion, to which you are free not to subscribe.
Is saying that an alternative view of Halacha is wrong (and calling its proponents heretics or stupid), because you personally disagree with it not arrogant?
>770, CH, SBH and the movement in general have all been “hijacked” by yechis, am I the only one who sees this?
Hijacked from what? The Rebbe wrote and said in 1950 the same things about his father-in-law (the Previous Rebbe of Chabad) as is being said about him right now. Except he said it in a closed-doors environment, during farbrengens, to people he knew would understand this correctly and not misinterpret it. He didn’t run around with a yellow flag in front of wide-eyed crowd of people who know have no background in Chabad Chassidus or Kabbala and think in terms of quick knee-jerk answers.
Imagine it says in a forest-fire manual somewhere: “The one who leads to the car being broken to pieces is the Car Destroyer. How will we know that someone is the Car Destroyer? If we see a the car broken in pieces. If there is someone trying to destroy a car, we can believe him to be a potential Car Destroyer. If in the process of destroying a car, he is killed or does not succeed, he for sure is not the Car Destroyer.”
Now, let’s imagine that Bob starts pushing the car towards a cliff. The car rolls and gathers a significant momentum. Then, about 10 yards from the cliff, Bob has a heart-attack and immediately dies. The car, however, has gathered enough momentum and reaches the cliff, rolling over it. Question: does Bob qualify for the role of a Car Destroyer? He wasn’t killed, but can’t we say that “he didn’t succeed” in pushing the car over, since he died before the car flew over the cliff? I think we can safely say that Bob did succeed in destroying the car, since the momentum gathered by his actions directly lead to car’s destruction. The fact that he didn’t live to see it doesn’t matter.
A situation in which we could say that he genuinely did not succeed is if the momentum was not enough, the car stopped to a halt, and it took somebody else to push the car over (even though Bob did most of the job). In that case, whoever finished Bob’s job is the real Car Destroyer.
Now, whether this is a valid way to think about Mashiach must be examined according to the context of Rambam’s ruling in MT, as explained above.
>Based on that reasoning, it would have been impossible for Mashiach to arrive before the Alter Rebbe, which I simply can’t accept.
You’re also ignoring the fact that particular aspects of Torah were revealed (or written) in the particular times, due to their necessity. What do we mean when we say that Mishna is the Oral Law; does this mean there was no Oral Law before Mishna? Obviously not; Oral Law was written down in the form of Mishna when it became necessary — and after that point, the only way to study Oral Laws was through the study of Mishna (and texts based on it).
To read more about the connection of davka Chabad Chassidus with the coming of Mashiach, read On the Essence of Chassidus (an essay written by the Rebbe himself).
All very interesting, but there is one point that you are missing, which seems to be the main point: The Rambam clearly says that if he dies (physically) before succeeding he is surely not Mashiach. That one line does it for me.
As far as Tzadikkim dying, they never die in some spiritual sense, and are “alive” through their teachings / legacy. Rambam surely knew that anyone that had the potential of being Mashiach would surely never die in that sense. Yet he clearly states what he does, obviously referring to a physical sense.
Though one can argue that hooves and scales are not all there is to kosher, they are a crucial part of it. The lack of hooves and scales deem an animal or fish to be non kosher, despite all the other laws that are in the mishna, etc. If one shechted a pig, salted it, and cooked it in a kosher pot, he still wouldn’t be allowed to eat it. Similarily (according to Rambam), a potential mashiach that doesn’t fulfill all the criteria listed is surely not mashiach if he dies before.
Again, I realize Rambam is not the final authority. Yet he gives clearer, explicit guidelines than most other writings. He specifically tells us not to delve into trying to figure out who is mashiach and when he is coming too much, further on in hilchot melachim.
Obviously, when simple people can blatantly tell you they know for surewho mashiach is today, any rational person is very likely to take their answer with a grain of salt at best.
>The Rambam clearly says that if he dies (physically) before succeeding he is surely not Mashiach.
No he doesn’t. He says: “if he did not succeed to this extent, or he was killed, it is known that he is not the one about whom the Torah promised”. Now, for any student of Gemara, such a strange and specific wording must immediately ring a bell.
>Though one can argue that hooves and scales are not all there is to kosher, they are a crucial part of it. The lack of hooves and scales deem an animal or fish to be non kosher, despite all the other laws that are in the mishna, etc.
I am not saying that we can declare anyone to be active Mashiach before the simanim of geulah happen. I am saying that Rambam doesn’t have to mention all ruchniyusdike aspects of Geula in a work of Halacha, just like he doesn’t mention all the yichudim that happen in Atzilus from wearing tzitzis while discussing the laws of tzitzis.
So, it’s not a problem that some Lubavitchers understand Mashiach to be someone who brings about the state of revealed oneness of Hashem and the physical world by explaining to other people in his teachings how to practically bring about this state. This definition of geula is just a ruchniyusdike aspect of geula, which will result in all the gashmiyusdike simanim of geula, such as rebuilding of BM, returning to EY, end of wars, famine and disease, etc. (What’s the alternative — believing that Mashiach is a rabbi, an architect, a statesman, a biologist, a farmer, a diplomat and a warrior at the same time, and that’s all there is to being a Mashiach and bringing about geulah?)
Also, when people declare that the Rebbe is Mashiach, again, what do they mean? Do they mean that he is a king in halachic sense, so that if you disobey his words, you’re liable to death punishment? I don’t think anybody (intelligent) believes that.
>Again, I realize Rambam is not the final authority.
I think Rambam is the final authority on these issues. The Rebbe says as much too.
>Obviously, when simple people can blatantly tell you they know for surewho mashiach is today, any rational person is very likely to take their answer with a grain of salt at best.
You have to differentiate between a halachic and philosophical opinion and behavior of some people. Of course, we cannot know who “for sure” is Mashiach, but we can hope that Mashiach comes in our generation, through the efforts of the Rebbe, his teachings (and those of his predecessors which he encouraged to study and follow, and which he amplified), efforts of his followers, their students, etc. Or you can hope the same thing about any other leader in yiddishkeit, nothing wrong with that.
.
The sooner he comes the sooner we’ll know, He’ll finally put an end to all this mess. Hopefully he’ll use a Tehillas Hashem siddur, I prefer them to Birnbaum and Artscroll.
The whole reason for a nusach arizal is that we don’t know our proper shvatim. When moshiach comes nobody will have a need for this any longer. Nobody will daven ashkenaz, sefard, ari, mizrach, whatever. People will daven according to the pratim of their shevet.