- This topic has 216 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Is there something wrong with the term “Nesi Doro”? Who do you expect a chabadnik to referr with such a title, if not the Lubavitcher Rebbe of that time, the Belzer Rebbe? The Kovo Rav? Why are you up in arms over their use of the term?
The Chofetz Chaim had a suit ready to put on to greet Moshiach, they have banners hung ready to greet him. What are YOU actively doing to greet Moshiach who you undeniablely believe can come before I press “send post”.
The term nassi was used to refer to the baal shem tov, the magid, and the alter rebbe. I believe it was because the alter rebbe was referred to as nassi that the later rebbes got the title also. It has nothing to do with moshiach.
Apashuteyid, do you think it is kind of questionable for a leader of one group to take on the title of the leader of the whole generation?
apushetayid, you missed the point. they are welcome to refer to their leaders by any superlatives they choose. they are NOT welcome to cross the line into avoda zara. It was part of a larger explanation of the sicha.
So let’s boil this thread down to three lines to avoid further confusion:
Every L’chaim newsletter published by chabad says “Lubavitcher Rebbe Shlit”a” on top. According to Rav Aharon Feldman, this is apikorsus. Done.
Why is it apikorsus to say he’s alive? Not everything that is stupid has to be called apikorsus.
Why do the yechiniks think the most recent rebbe is Moshiach? Why don’t they think the Baal HaTanya is Moshiach? Or that the second Luvavitcher Rebbe is Moshiach? Or the Frierdika Rebbe is. Why davka the most recent?
Which of the 13 Ikkarim does appending shlita after a dead person violate?
All the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s had a successor when they passed away, except the last one. Why was he the first rebbe that did not have a successor?
apushatayid: Which of the 13 Ikkarim does appending shlita after a dead person violate?
Which ones does turning a human being into a god NOT violate?
“do you think it is kind of questionable for a leader of one group to take on the title of the leader of the whole generation?”
You think he gave himself these titles?
Jothar, you are using a WIDE brush to paint an entire group of people of whom a small minority MIGHT ascribe the belief you mentioned. I can’t tell you what to think. But I believe you are wrong, very wrong despite all your “kushyos” on the movement as a whole.
Jothar, that is a red herring argument. I asked you, which of the ikkarim are violated by appending shlita to the name of a dead person. Please do not avoid the question by asking another question. If you choose not to answer, that’s fine. You also neglected to explain what is wrong with a group referring to their Rebbe as the nasi hador.
“Why was he the first rebbe that did not have a successor?”
This is a question you should address to someone in a leadership position in Chabad.
With respect to leadership, is Chabad any worse off than many other chassidussis (best I can do for the plural of chassidus)that have splintered, despite apparent successors being named? Would you prefer Chabad of 770 Eastern Parkway and Chabad of Utica Avenue?
Are the chasidim properly called Lubavitcher chasidim or Chabad chasidim? Why two names?
Is the last rebbe considered greater than all the previous Lubavitcher Rebbes, that the last rebbe is considered Moshiach (by some) but the all the previous Lubavitcher Rebbes are not considered to be Moshiach?
Dr. Seuss: to address both your questions: in answer to your first question, the rebbe zya had no successors as he had no kids. It is also said that the chassidim didn’t feel there really was someone who was fit enough to take over the legacy.
In response to your second question: the proper name of the chassidim is lubavitcher chassidim as when it left europe (russia really) that is the city it left from. As to why there is a title chasidei chabad is because it is a chassidus based on intellect rather than emotion (chasidei chagas). Chabad = chochma, bina daas (the first letters of each in hebrew). Chagas /chagat= chessed, gevura, tiferes.
Stuck: no. What I think the view resulted from is that he had no successors unlike the frierdikker rebbe zya (who some actually did think was going to be moshiach) who did.
Thanks yossi. Just to understand, what does having or not having a successor have to with being or not being Moshiach?
Also, are you saying he was only pegged as Moshiach (which already was being said during his lifetime) after it was obvious he wouldn’t have children? A previous poster on this thread said he was in the Lubavitch Yeshiva 50 years ago and they were already calling him Moshiach back then.
having a successor or not has to do with being stuck with the title. not 100% sure as to why they were thinking he was moshiach from that far back. i would have to re-look up my sources.
The messianism flows naturally. Nasi Doreinu + no successor = Moshiach.
The Frierdike Rebbe had messianism on a much smaller scale, but it still existed, because he had no sons, and there were those who felt he had no successor.
RMMS became rebbe on 10 Shevat 1951. At the time he was almost 49 and had no children. It was pretty much a given from day one that there would be no successor.
Apushetayid:
Jothar, that is a red herring argument. I asked you, which of the ikkarim are violated by appending shlita to the name of a dead person. Please do not avoid the question by asking another question. If you choose not to answer, that’s fine. You also neglected to explain what is wrong with a group referring to their Rebbe as the nasi hador.
As I’ve mentioned, the mara deshmaatsa is Rav Aharon Feldman Shlit”a who’s on the Moetzes. Feel free to ask him all your questions. However, I’m not sure what your question on the shita is. “Dead” is not Shlit”a, Shlit”a is not “dead”. If you call someone shlit”a, it’s because you think he’s alive and does not go the way of all men. This is pashut aleph beis- I’m not sure what the question is. Nobody says Moshe Rabbeinu Shlit”a. Nobody says Tzemach Tzedek Shlit”a either.
As I’ve said, I have no sissue with the superlatives they put on their own leadership. I just used it to help clarify the sicha.
I’m also excluding the Rav Shach ZT”L and Rav Aharon Kotler ZT”L who said that it’s apikorsus long before the Rebbe was niftar. I mention Rav Aharon Feldman’s shita because it’s more moderate and more palatable for the denizens of the CR. Unfortunately, thanks to the lechaim newsletter, we see apikorsus is widespread in the movement.
So in sum, as per Rav Aharon Feldman Shlit”a, saying “Rebbe Shlit”a” is apikorsus. Lechaim newsletter says Rebbe Shlit”a; ergo it’s apikorsus and many Lubavitchers are apikorsim. Don’t kill the messenger.
That is also why Didan Notzach was such a big deal back in the 80s. There was a court case, in which they were debating if Barry Gourarie was a successor or not. When the psak came out from the secular court that BG was not a successor, that vindicated the entire philosophy of no successor.
Hence, “Didan Notzach!” It wasn’t just the library. It was the entire messianic philosophy. The court paskened that he was moshiach! Official Chabad publications said “Shechina medaberes mitoch grono shel NY State Circuit court judge.”
“Is the last rebbe considered greater than all the previous Lubavitcher Rebbes, that the last rebbe is considered Moshiach (by some) but the all the previous Lubavitcher Rebbes are not considered to be Moshiach? “
In every generation there is someone worthy of being moshiach. I don’t see anything wrong with postulating that perhaps your rebbi is this special person. I assume that the Lubovichers considered all of their Rebbeim worthy of being moshiach in their generations and I have no problem with that. I don’t even have a problem with the last one being called moshiach while he was alive. But just as the previous Rebbe’s ceased being referred to as moshiach after their petira, so too they should have said that once the last Rebbe died, whether or not he was worthy to be moshiach in his lifetime, he is now definitely no longer moshiach. The fact that they continue calling him moshiach shows that they feel he is greater than his predecessors.
Mod 42: I would like to disagree with you on your point. Those people who believe he is moshiach are not mekabel that he passed away. As such, if he has not passed away yet then he could still be moshiach without him being held in greater esteem than his predecessors.
yossi- i cant understand. you expect everyone to accept what you are saying that roiv lubobs are normal,nonyechiniks. what the world sees isnt so. in order to fix the worldwide “misconception” on lubavitch (for the record ive seen enough evidence live that i dont believe you) it would take a concious movement by a large number of people. yet you claim that the rebbe wouldnt agree to it. so what youre saying is- the rebbe wouldnt have agreed to fight a movement that he would vehemently oppose. im sure mra”h also didnt like fighting; neither did shevet levi, but by the eigel they still cried mee laShem elay. and killed there own family members. theres no excuse. until i see lubavitchers making a movement stating that the rebbe isnt moshicah and you cant daven to him ill remain unmoved in my position that ALL lubavitchers are affected by this madness. i also the video of cunin saying quite clearly that he runs the world. and he corrected himself when he messe up a couple times on other words; but not on that sentence. and why do the regular lubobs allow the yechinkis to hold powerful and influential positions in their mosdos and organizations? if its kfira and a”z YOU should get on a soapbox and haruange away. no siree, a bunch of crazies it is.
yossi- after he passed away, a number of publications from lubavitch that held ha had died published articles sourcing that dead eople can be moshiach.
If I am an idiot and refuse to acknowledge that someone is dead, it does not make me an apikores. I am 100% certain Rav Ahron Feldman did NOT say what you claim he did simply because it makes no sense. I have no shaychus to him, and don’t know anyone who does either, so have no way to ask him. So, again, if you choose to believe that idiocy = apikorus, go right ahead. If you maintain Rav Feldman said so, believe it. I do not have to believe the equation or that Rav Feldman said it, and I do not.
yossi: why do they think Reb Menachem Mendel zt’l didn’t pass away if they believe the Baal HaTanya and the Frierdika did pass away?
Jothar, you are wrong. On the contrary, R’ Aharon Feldman’s position is that to say the Rebbe is alive is not apikorsus, even though he believes it to be a lie and a foolishness, as long as one is not asserting his divinity.
This is his letter: http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/feldman.pdf
(Mods, please let it through – it is just this letter)
Dr. Seuss and Stuck.
While your questions seem good in nature there is a very simple answer. The Baal Shem Tov had said before his death that Lubavitch was only going to have 6 leaders, at the end of the last Moshiach would come. Granted it was left wide open which is also why the Rebbe never had any children, as they felt from the decree in Shamayim was correct the could never discuss or point towars a new leader. I am not Lubavitch but I have spent time with them and have many open discussions with them. I dont attack them for there beliefs nor should we, as a Jew in order to bring Moshiach, Rav Frand said it best We must have Achtus as nation for a good din that will ultimatley bring us Moshiach.
apushatayid, The letter is available at identifyingchabad.org, along with gil student’s website. Whether or not you understand it, the psak remains- the newsletter shows much of chabad is michutz lamachaneh. To get back into the machaneh, just remove the word shlit”a and stop saying yechi. The ball is in Chabad’s court.
The letter makes a chiluk between saying the rebbe is dead and moshiach and alive.
i say the same. have chabad come out that a.hes dead. and b. not alive, and c.not moshiach.
then there will be sholom.
did anyone explain yet why hiskashrus isnt kfira?
Now that I read the letter (using the link provided above), I know for certain that the opinion of R’ Ahron Feldman Shlita is that appending Shlita after the name of someone no longer alive is not apikorsus. The letter is clear on that point. Why do you insist otherwise?
Thank you apushatayid, exactly my point.
You are all misreading the letter. Read the first part where he defines “meshichistim”. Meshichistim= dead rebbe. Notice that he explains in his meshichistim section how once someone dies they’re not moshiach. Elokistim = living Rebbe. Shlita goes with yechi, a declaration of kefira. Notice how he says meshichists are crazy for believing the messiah will come back from the dead. Living people don’t come back from the dead. Not sure who yechiniks say is buried in the Rebbe’s ohel. Even his hanacha to the dead moshiach folks says if they’re not apikorsim, it’s assur to be mechazeik them
Years ago Rabbi Krinsky put up a plaque referring to the Rebbe ZT”L. It got torn down.
to those who think the issue is whehter the rebbe is dead or not or if hes moshiach, thats not really the bigger issue. go google “hiskashrus” to understand what were really dealing with.
Read it again. He says the yechi-niks are wrong and one must be mocheh but they are not apikorsim.
Jothar, Gemora says Moshe Rabbeinu and Ya’akov Avinu never died.
Just for your information. There is a Zohar in Parshas Bo, Os 126, I believe, that says on the pasuk Shalosh peamim bashana yeraeh kol zechurcha es pnai haadon hashem, as follows: Man pnei haadon hashem, da Rebbe Shimon ben Yochai…uvai l’ischazi kamei.
The pasuk says 3 times a year we are supposed to see the face of the Master, Hashem. The Zohar asks, who is the face of the Master, Hashem? This is Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochai and one must appear before him. Sounds very unusual to me, and not worse than something any Lubavitcher would say.
Eliyahu Hanavi also never died.
And before you say it is a mashal or something, look in Rashi.
yes mdd, those are amoro’im. please keep the difference in status in mind.
Pashute Yid, it is precisely the misunderstanding of Kabbola statements like this, that led some Lubavitchers, Shabsi Tzvi talmidim, and talmidie oso Ish off the derech. This is wherein the problem lies!
mdd, Rabbi Feldman clearly says they are believing a dead man will come back, and quotes the gemara with daniel.
The meforshim in chumash clarify what it means that yaakov avinu lo meis. If he was really alive he wouldn’t have survived the embalming and burial for long.
Years ago a chabadnik told me “yaakov avinu lo meis” and used it to convince em that the funeral we all saw was a farce. Nope. Shor shachut lefanecha.
Why don’t we dig up the rebbe and find out if he is dead or not? Let’s settle this once and for all.
Rashi in Taanis says it appeared like they were embalming him and burying him but it was all an illusion. No shor shachut argument.
“When the psak came out from the secular court”
This statement sounds very strange. Verdict has a better ring to it 🙂
“Pashute Yid, it is precisely the misunderstanding of Kabbola statements like this,”
What kabballistic statement am I misunderstanding?
Jothar, re-read the letter. It is clear that it is stupid to believe that the Rebbe is the greatest Gadol among the dead, but it is not apikorsus. The Gemora is clear that Daniel (whose is dead) could be Moshiach.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.