Joining Chabad

Anyusername: “In your words you can say the abarbanel is arguing with rashi”

You’ve gotten it wrong again. The Abarbanel is quoting a Yerushalmi whose veracity, he points out, is seen as problematic by a number of meforshim. So he explains how that Yerushalmi need not be problematic.

One of the points he mentions is that according to the Yerushalmi this “moshiach” would have to return from the dead. So he writes that that is not a problem as in Sanhedrin there is also a way of learning (as Rashi says) that moshiach is Doniel who has died.

Nowhere that I saw even hint that one can say that a different dead person is moshiach – not according to the Bavli or according to the Yerushalmi.

One major point: even were there to be a clear source saying that one can choose someone who is dead and believe that he is moshiach, that wouldn’t stop us saying that your rebbe CAN’T be moshiach. There were too many problems with him, not the least of which is the atzmus sicha. We said this when he was alive and ALL of lubavich were claiming that moshiach HAD TO be someone alive.

LMT: “The Lubavitcher Rebbe spent ten years in Berlin and Sarbonne”

The Sorbonne is a prestigious university in Paris, and until it was proven the the lubavicher rebbe did not attend it, it was a standard lubavich claim that he attended there. Research has shown that he attended a polytechnic in Paris and not the Sorbonne.

And that is why, BBO, I wondered whether he had indeed attended Schrodinger’s lectures. Much of their “history” is made up.

It makes no difference to me whether he attended Schrodinger’s lectures or didn’t, or whether he enjoyed them or didn’t. I am just extremely reticent to believe any of their claims.

RSo
were arguing on a specific topic here whether moshiach can be from the dead other then doniel.
you said no i said yes.

so hears how you can look at it
according to rashi no
according to abbarbanel yes

who said rashi and abbarbanel have to agree?
who said that rashi learnt the same thing in the yerushalmi it could be he argues with the abbarbanel, and learns the story a different way (there are a few ways to learn that story).
you seem pretty adamant to say that rashi and abarbanel agree.

the abarbanel is trying to explain a story that no on was able to explain, and he learnt it from this gemoro that it could make sense – that from the fact that the gemoro says doniel can be moshiach, he says so to we can use that same logic for our story (remember this goes against rashi that says only doniel)

@lmt
In general i stopped answering you because i find most of what you write is plain stupidity and you’re just here to ignite some fires (I’m not saying you don’t have questions, but they way you write is just wrong, and dont deserve an answer even if you wanted one – which you dont)

But i feel that for this i should reply.

All of the sudden you see there is such a concept so all you could say is we dont hold of him?
there was an argument for quite a while on a number of threads that had this question and finally you get an answer so you switch tactics/subjects?

The difference i see between you and @rso is, that @rso at least argues with the concept at hand, if its relevant or not, you on the other hand give me the impression of stam an am haaretz that argues on random things that have nothing to do with the argument but rather just to ignite a fire.

I know you or someone else will say something “smart” similar to the things you said before but that’s ok most people that never learned say the same thing during such an argument.

Same thing regarding “haters” that you guys dont like us calling you.
during an argument you can say certain things but if your arguing on one thing and someone brings in a total different subject together with mocking at the same time, THATS called a “hater”!

It’s very bothersome how some people here are saying such words against The Rebbe Zt’l. if anyone would bother learning any of these Sichos instead of just quoting it upside-down then there would be no debate. Rav Solovechik had great Kavod for the Rebbe till gimmel Tammuz and learned the first Sichos and mamor of The Rebbe when he took on the Nesius where the Rebbe Zt’l says explicitly The Fridiker Rebbe will take us out of galus (after his histalkus) and speaks of the Zohar quoted about Atzmus. Tell where exactly to find this 1979 “Atzmus Sicha” to check what it actually says please. In general every Jew has a חלק אלקה. As far as I know all the Rebbe said about an Admur is that since such a person’s neshama is b’giluy as it is ” above” therefore “Man PNEI Adon Havaye da Rashbi” but in truth the same could be said of every single Jew as the Rebbe said various times.

@ anyusernameopen

You wrote:

Step 1 – “I’m not saying you don’t have questions”

,Step 2 – “but they way you write is just wrong, and dont deserve an answer even if you wanted one

Step 3 – “which you dont”

I have a question. Doesn’t step 3 contradict step 1?

Anyusername in reference to LMT (and giving me a compliment in the course of the discussion): “The difference i see between you and @rso is, that @rso at least argues with the concept at hand, if its relevant or not, you on the other hand give me the impression of stam an am haaretz that argues on random things that have nothing to do with the argument but rather just to ignite a fire”

Nope. Not true at all. All his arguments are logical and learned, despite me not agreeing with his view on not needing a rebbe. I haven’t called anyone an am haaretz yet, but you have told me more than once that I can’t read a gemoro and now you have called LMT an am haaretz. I think that after seeing all your misquotes and miscitations the shoe is really on the other foot.

In fact, I don’t even believe that you yourself saw the Sdei Chemed or the Abarbanel before you quoted them.

yehoshuaahron: “Rav Solovechik … learned the first Sichos and mamor of The Rebbe when he took on the Nesius where the Rebbe Zt’l says explicitly The Fridiker Rebbe will take us out of galus (after his histalkus) and speaks of the Zohar quoted about Atzmus.”

Source please. Btw a non-lubavich source would do nicely.

“Tell where exactly to find this 1979 “Atzmus Sicha” to check what it actually says please”

It’s on page 8 of this thread, and it says much worse than you seem to think.

yehoshuaahron: “Rav Solovechik … learned the first Sichos and mamor of The Rebbe when he took on the Nesius where the Rebbe Zt’l says explicitly The Fridiker Rebbe will take us out of galus (after his histalkus) and speaks of the Zohar quoted about Atzmus.”

So wait a second. If the Rebbe said his father-in-law is moshiach, how can the whole of Lubavitch contradict him and say the Rebbe himself is moshiach?!

Lubavichers are so “far-kishuft” with Moshiach, that they have EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to the name, that they will INSIST that their manhig, their Rebbe IS IT! V’ein loch reshus leharher achreha. “zei hoben a zuk in kop!”

BBO: “Rso, your holding the abarbanel the same way a mishichist holds a rambam”

Please explain.

@rso
He very clearly disagrees with rashi

Rashi says only doniel
Abarbanel says even this other person

V’ein loch reshus leharher achreha.

I think I mentioned quite a few times that this is incorrect

@rso
1. I forgot to mention (where you saw my compliment) that i dont either agree with some of the not nice terms you use either (just saying, even though you’ll probably say its a matter of opinion).

2. How’s life 🙂
I hope your not getting any white hairs over this (I’m not).
If everyone calms down a bit, life would be even better.

Sorry for calling @lmt an am haaretz
(social media doesnt prove anything so I would have to take it back unless I meet him and its takeh true)

Now that we finished this topic…
#random
Can hashem make something too heavy for himself to pick up?

Anyusername to me: “Quote “I haven’t called anyone an am haaretz yet,”
You are correct,
as far as I know you never used the term “am haaretz” but you have used a few terms which have the same or very similar definition as an am haaretz”

I admit that I don’t remember everything that I have written, but I don’t think I have. I have used the term apikorsus which is far worse, but totally unrelated, to am haaretz. And I still believe that people who twist divrei Chazal and Rishonim are close to apikorsim, if not there already, because out of their own desires they are willing to discard Chazal and Rishonim.

Don’t get me wrong. No one here is claiming to be perfect. But there’s a big difference between saying “I do aveiros R”L” and “Chazal/Rishonim agree with me” when there is absolutely no question that they don’t. The former is someone who (hopefully only occasionally) gives in to his yeter horo. The latter is megaleh ponim batorah shelo kehalocho.

And now for one of your better and most amusing lines: “Now that we finished this topic…”
! ! ! !

Anyusernamd: “Now not to proof it from the wording in the abarbanel because in that we have our own opinions, but I think from the artscroll which looks pretty clear. Would be better (Which is also why I brought the artscroll to begin with. As I mentioned the first time.)”

Quoting a footnote in an Artscroll to “prove” what the Abarbanel means is very weak, and makes me think that you didn’t see the Abarbanel inside. Had you seen it inside you would never have written that he said what you said he did.

Note, you quoted Rashi as a proof where he clearly is not, as you seem to have accepted (although not chas Veshalom admitted) and you quoted a Maharsho as proof where he clearly is not, and you have never addressed that.

You also told us that your rebbe is ben achar ben from Dovid Hamelech because he is ben achar ben from the Metzudos who was ben achar ben from Dovid. Neither of those claims have been validated at all.

So overall, you can’t really expect me to take your claims too seriously.

Neville: “those who believe the Rebbe dies and is still moshiach are making a mistake but aren’t apikorsim, unlike the ones who say he’s alive.”

Source for this distinction? Why would it be worse to believe he’s alive and hiding somewhere?
Crazy? Yes. But, I don’t see why it’s halachically worse.

Nevile, The source for that is both Rav Menashe Klein zt”l and yblc”t Rav Aharon Feldman shlita. As mentioned, many do take the atzmus thing literally, where the Rebbe is c”v “G-d in human form”. Many don’t Baruch Hashem, though how they deal with the Rebbe saying “it’s not a problem asking to Rebbe instead of Hashem because he’s the essence of G-d in a human body” is beyond me.

Almost all Lubavitchers believe the Rebbe is moshiach. If you believe he died, then you believe he’s moshiach but an ordinary human being. If you call him alive, you are ascribing to him deity-like powers to evade death beyond mere mortals. Both of those sources can be found by googling.

I read what you wrote, and disagree. Yeshivish people are too busy learning to understand the source of the Chabad meshugas. They can see the toitzaois but not the ikkar shoiresh poireh roish velaana because why should they spend hours understanding Chabad when they can spend the same time horoven on a ketzois?

Lerntmin: Quote from you on a different subject:

“The #1 rule of debating is to understand your opponent’s viewpoint so you can refute it.”

Mmm hmm. Chabad being the exception?

I’m starting to get the impression that the yeshiva Reshivish Rockstar is rocking is in morristown.

And here is where I defend the atzmus sicha (unlike the sukkah sicha, which remains incomprehensible to me.)

The world is in a state of Geula- and don’t misunderstand us!

Again, the facts on the ground show what was meant or how it’s interpreted. As per the gedoilim, anyone who says yechi is clearly an apikoires which indicates that the atzmus sicha is understood peshuto kemashmao that you can daven to the Rebbe like it says kind of explicitly there. But I admire your leiv tov.