Usually messianic lubavitchers are more polite, because they don’t want to say the nasty parts out loud, but your post can serve as an example of the superiority complex and belittlement of the rest of klal yisroel, who does not accept the messiahood of a deceased rebbe.
Let’s go through this step by step;
Re, Sanhedrin:
Rashi brings two pshatim in what min hameisim means. First he says that it will be someone like daniel who suffered, then he brings a lashon acher, a different pshat, that the gemara is just saying a comparison for who moshiach will be – is he compared to a living person like rebbe, or is he compared to a person who passed away like daniel.
—
Avira, I did not say a Prime Minister is betur Melech. Just because he is voted in doesn’t make the position one of Malchus. The Israeli President is more like a Melech than the PM, but I didn’t say he is either. How you attribute what was not said is baffling.
–
You said that kings are voted on; that’s baseless and not the way kings in tanach or beis chashmonai were made. And kings into bais chashmonai were all annointed; the ramban says that the latter kings were in the wrong for taking meluchah, because of “lo yasir”, too, so a voted on king who is not from beis dovid would likewise be a violation.
—
The Abarbenel on Derech Eretz Zuta most certainly allows for Moshiach from Techiyas Hamaisim.
—
First you said it’s in yeshuos meshicho, a sefer I’m familiar with; it’s not there. Then, you point to derech eretz zuta, of which i am not familiar, and i will look into it, but i highly doubt it exists there either.
—
“Supposed” Sidei Chemed??! Clearly you didn’t even do a Google search before employing such idiotic phrasing. I’ll let you have sechar halicha to discover you can find it easily yourself, with even an English search.
—
I’m just going to ignore the ad hominem; it only makes you less convincing, so why should i care? Saying “google it” is a pretty obnoxious thing to tell someone.
I looked it up in the sefer…i can see why you wanted me to google it though, because messianic websites quote it and completely butcher it, almost as much as the word salad you made of a clear rambam, but more on that later.
As I expected, he says nothing of the sort. He is interpreting the gemara as a moshol; min hameisim means someone came as if on clouds from shomayim, in a grand display and everyone will accept him, if we are zocheh. From the living means ani rochev al chamur, a lowly-appearing person who will not be accepted by all, not stam a living person. If he were saying that min hachaim means stam living people, as chabad messianics would say, he wouldn’t have to add anything; ani rochev al hachamur is a non-ideal state of bias hamoshiach.
Normative techias hameisim happens from the kever; people are resurrected, they don’t come down from shomayim.
What he’s saying is, of course, a refutation of dead candidacy, not a proof.
—-
Re, rambam:
ואם יעמוד מלך מבית דוד הוגה בתורה ועוסק במצות כדוד אביו. כפי תורה שבכתב ושבעל פה. ויכוף כל ישראל לילך בה ולחזק בדקה. וילחם מלחמות ה’. הרי זה בחזקת שהוא משיח. אם עשה והצליח [ וניצח כל האומות שסביביו ] ובנה מקדש במקומו. וקבץ נדחי ישראל הרי זה משיח בודאי. [ ואם לא הצליח עד כה או נהרג. בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה. והרי הוא ככל מלכי בית דוד השלמים הכשרים שמתו. ולא העמידו הקדוש ברוך הוא אלא לנסות בו רבים
youre mistranslating “oh shenegereg” as “or he is someone who is killed” – that’s an error. The translation is “if he was not successful to that point (ad koh), or if he was killed, know that he is not the one the Torah promised, but rather was as all other proper etc kings of yisroel.
And Hashem has only sent him to test yisroel.
This is directly followed by an example of such a person, who died and is therefore only meant to test yisroel.
אף ישוע הנוצרי שדימה שיהיה משיח ונהרג בבית דין. כבר נתנבא בו דניאל.
And you wonder why people compare chabad with yushke? A Christian could just as easily have made the same nonsensical “diyukim” in the first sentence of the rambam, and then “bliebed shver” on the seconr sentence….no, the second sentence clarifies, as if it needed to be clarified, what was said in the first.
But chabad sees a “second coming” ….in the rambams demonstration that another religion claimed so, and was wrong.
Wow.
Not that the way you’re understanding “or” has any legitimatacy….it means either this happened or that happened, either one..
Usually when people insist something is “basic logic” it’s just an appeal to make their shaky statements sound better. That, together with repeatedly saying that things are “over my head” only makes your arguments, such as they are, appear all the more baseless.
—
Lastly, you are missing PSHAT again. Rashi says “kegoin” Daniel, meaning not Daniel necessarily, but a similar individual; meaning he did not make any reference to when the person might live. The insinuation that Rashi indicates someone in that time is totally made up
—
I never said rashi says that. I said that if he’s similar to daniel, he must be on the level of such people, of which, no one today is.
Unless the lubavitcher rebbe was greater than literally everyone in the past 1000 years.
If he was, you’d think his supposedly profound learning acumen would have impressed everyone in the Torah community.
Why is it, then, that so many Torah leaders thought he wasn’t so big in learning?
—-
The main question relating to there is: does “fighting Hashem’s battles” mean actual physical war, or ‘Hashem’s battles’ means spiritual battles.
—
The rambam in the next sentence, when recapping what moshiach does, says that Moshiach will fight the nations all aroundand beat them. How is that remotely ideological? He is talking about people like bar kochva, who fought physical wars. It’s just an invention that lubavitch decided a few years ago and is not mentioned at all in the meforshei harambam. It’s just another aspect of “ain bein…shibud malchios bilvad,” it’s an integral part of geulah that we be no longer under the rule of goyim.
“Kol makom….teshuvaso betzidah”
Maybe building the beis hamikdash is metaphorical too? Oh, wait….they say that, that 770 is the beis hamikdash. Right, i forgot how far this rabbit hole goes.
Also regarding bar kochva, the rambam says first that he was killed in his sins, but then changes to “once he was killed, they all knew he was not moshiach” omitting the reason why he was killed.
Oncd he’s dead, he loses his candidacy. Either he doesn’t pasken like the maan deamar in Sanhedrin, or he holds like rashi’s davar acher.
—-
If you can see my view and you want to point out something, try asking a thoughtful question.
—
I love how you have no problem disparaging me yet you ask for me to ask you, the superior-minded and better educated, questions in a respectful way…. sorry, but this is the internet, and respect is earned, and not given to people who announce that they are better. I realize that in chabad, they tell you that everyone else doesn’t know anything, and that only they do, but all it does is make neo-chabad a laughing stock of the yeshiva world. It definitely made me laugh, so thanks for adding to my simchas adar!