Mesichists Explained by ChabadShlucha

Seichel Hayashar – specifically to you I would say that your cutting remarks make more sense now that you have revealed your age. Without that info I certainly pictured you to be at least a decade older ( I mean that as a compliment). Although it does appear at some points that you are telling people to be quiet so as not to reveal Chabad secrets to us simpletons, at other times you seem genuinely frustrated at what is being said in the name of lubavitch. and considering the beliefs you have expressed, I can’t say I blame you. Which brings me to the question of – why is it that there does not appear to be a single lubavitcher on here that agrees with your hashkofos?

@Syag,
“Which brings me to the question of – why is it that there does not appear to be a single lubavitcher on here that agrees with your hashkofos?”
Not many Lubavitchers frequent the Coffee Room, and among those who do, unfortunately it seems to be that the people who post are the ones trying to convince you of the legitimacy of their opinion, and ones like me.

“and ones like me.”
*And not ones like me.

@slominer,
“It may be foolish to believe so after his passing, but definitely isn’t assur in any way, shape or form.” ”
It may be – as in, even if you do believe it’s foolish, (and you’re free to do so) that doesn’t make it assur.

@Syag,
“The nasty sly comments, digs and cutting remarks that are being fired, but with a big smile, against misnagdim (as you’ve declared me) ”
Was it me who called you a misnaged?

There was one topic I wasn’t goint to bring up but something that CS wrote really bothered me. Even then I wasn’t going to pursue it until someone mentioned the lack of tznius in Crown Heights.

Here is what she wrote in reply to one of the cynics: I find it disturbing that one of the examples you brought as mesiras nefesh is not being a loving husband because Hashem comes first?! I believe Hashem gave the mitzvah if oina. Care to explain?

Is there any other frum group in the world where a woman would write that, to a man no less?

Lack of tznius was one of the minor (at the time I believed it was minor, and I was very wrong there too!) things that began to irk me after Gimmel Tammuz, and it has gotten so much worse. Not just clohting -wise but the mixing of men nd women. Anybody chats with anybody for no necessary reason, and for some reason Kingston Avenue (I have been back many times and I still visit a few times a year) the chats between young men and non-relative young women on the street always take longer than those between men and men or between women and women.

And please, don’t tell me tznius is fine there because everyone who keeps up with the news knows that it is not.

@chabadshlucha:
Seriously curious, Is there a reason someone like the Chazon Ish isn’t also nasi hador? He created a frum community and hareadi movement in Israel. Is it simply he didn’t say so? Would there be a way to verify? And if not, does Chabad believe in an infinite number of moshiach or nisiam ha door? Let me Kno when if this was answered in other posts. Thanks for the discussion and holding up to the daggers

@MochiachChat I happen to do it on occasion as I’ve never seen someone freak out about it before.

I assure you every Torah yid doesn’t and wouldn’t accept it. Do yourself a favour and stop. Since at least the times of Mishna no-one has referred to gedolim vtzadikim without their title.

And as the Rambam says (פ”ו מהי’ ת”ת הי”ג) this was the final cause of churban yerushalaim – the polar opposite of what ostensibly is your lief goal.

Reb Yoel after gimmel tammuz:

“הענין ד”משיח שבדור” שהי’ בהנשיא שבדורות הקודמים הוא – שהוא ראוי להיות משיח, אבל לא הי’ שום הכרח שיהי’ כך בפועל, ותלוי באם הדור יזכה. משא”כ בהנשיא דדור השביעי – הרי בודאי שיהי’ כך בפועל. כי ]נוסף לזה שדורנו זה הוא הדור האחרון דהגלות והדור הראשון דהגאולה[ מכיון שהמשיח שבדור הוא הנשיא של הדור – הרי מובן בפשטות, דזה מה שבדורות הקודמים היתה האפשרות שה”משיח שבדור” ישאר רק “משיח” ברוחניות )יחידה הכללית( ולא יהי’ הגואל בפועל הוא ע”י שבדור שלאחריו יהי’ נשיא אחר. ומכיון שבנידון דידן לא שייך דבר כזה – דפשיטא שרבינו נשיאינו )הנשיא דדור השביעי( הוא הנשיא בהוה וגם בעתיד
וכדלקמן סי”ג( – הרי במילא ברור שהוא יהי’ גם הגואל )משיח (בפועל

“I noted earlier that chassidus Chabad has a history that dates back many generations of deifying their leaders.”

TLIK,

You’re absolutely correct. The sefer “Ashkavta D’Rebbe”, written by Rabbi Moshe Dovber Rivkin about the passing of the Rebbe Rashab, zt”l in 1920, records that Lubavitcher Kohanim deliberately came into forbidden contact with the niftar. They did so because they interpreted the phrase “Yakov Avinu Lo Meis” literally and then applied it to their Rebbe.

The followers of no other movement, whether Chassidim or Misnagdim, Ashkenazim or Sefardim, have ever acted in this shocking manner. So unfortunately, this kind of nutty deification is nothing new to them.

Bottom line, Chabad can loudly make whatever twisted arguments they’d like about the Rebbe being the Messiah. The rest of the Jewish world will NEVER accept it.

truncated

המלך המשיח עתיד לעמוד ולהחזיר מלכות דוד ליושנה לממשלה הראשונה ובונה המקדש ומקבץ נדחי ישראל וחוזרין כל המשפטים בימיו כשהיו מקודם מקריבין קרבנות ועושין שמטין ויובלות ככל מצותה האמורה בתורה וכל מי שאינו מאמין בו או מי שאינו מחכה לביאתו לא בשאר נביאים בלבד הוא כופר אלא בתורה

This is the first part from Melochim Perek Yud Aleph.

@SechelHayashar
You wrote: “If you’d be intellectually honest with yourself, you’d realize the fallacy of your argument. Go open a Gemara, and look how a classic stira between the gemaras statement and a possuk is resolved. Many times, it’ll be “the Tanna is speaking about this, and the possuk means this”. I’m not making chiddushim here, this is basic Jewish literacy.”

The Gemara is basing such statements on a received mesorah, a Torah Sh’Bal Peh. Moreover, there is a principal of ein mikroh yotzei midei peshuto. To claim that a posuk is actually referring to a subset of tzadikim when its simple meaning is otherwise, would, at the very least, require evidence of some kind. Finally, the Gemara itself lists only 4 people that lived without any aveiros. But according to the interpretation discussed above, wouldn’t there have to be at least one in every generation?

@benignuman,
“Finally, the Gemara itself lists only 4 people that lived without any aveiros. But according to the interpretation discussed above, wouldn’t there have to be at least one in every generation?”
That has been answered already, but if you want to study it further, look in Maamarim Melukat Aleph, Veavraham zakein.

“Yaakov avinu lo mes IS literal.”

Its not. (unless you dont know what literal means or what mes means)

teh passuk says ” וַיִּקְבְּר֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְעָרַ֖ת שְׂדֵ֣ה הַמַּכְפֵּלָ֑ה” Either he had died before that or afterwards, either way though Yaakov Avinu literally died.
Now figuratively, that is another story, certainly in a manner of speaking (ie figuratively) he still lives, as chazal say “Yaakov avinu lo mes

“I can understand people who don’t hold by what the Rebbe said, but I have yet to see a rational argument for why lubavitchers can’t believe it for themselves based on their own rebbes statements and other sources.”

Could not have said it better

@phil

Thanks for proving mine by leaving out the whole “the Rebbe brings mefarshim that prove it” part

Pure hatred and intellectual dishonesty

@the little I know

I did not site a “Hergesh” for kohanim going to kevarim. In any event, I do agree with u that from what I’ve seen, it appears Uri Kaploun was mistaken here. Altho, I’m unsure as I’ve heard different things. I’m willing to accept that it’s not ok. The tzitz Eliezer says in is halachic work that Yaakov avinu lo mes is real al pi halacha because Torah defines the reality. I’m unsure what he says about what this means for tumah. In any event, what does something some chassidim did over a hundred years ago relevant to the discussion here?

@Seichel HaYashar

Thanks for the sources on Tumeh. Interesting

@ everyone who is asking me further questions. I think unfortunately you have proved sechels point quite well, that you are just not open to really learning and listening. You haven’t responded to the sources me and Moshiach chat brought, just say we’re foolish and mental patients… So I really don’t see a reason to go on when no one has given a real counterpoint to the logic of a) the Rebbe is our Rebbe/tzaddik see hilchos tt chap 5. 2) the Rebbe clearly hinted that he’s Moshiach. 3) so we believe our Rebbe.

@burntface I really commiserate with your pain, can’t feel the depths but can just imagine. I honestly don’t know what I would have done if I had been there at the time. The chassidim tried to the very end to avoid gimmel tammuz, (along with the Rebbe, I believe) and that must have been such a confusing message to the youth of the time.

No one is gonna convince me that I cannot trust my own Rebbe. Ain Eid naase dayan because of the koach hariya,, and I have experienced the Rebbe’s greatness myself on many levels.

I am personally ambivalent over whether the Rebbe must be Moshiach as I definitely see place for both interpretations, but I don’t yet see anyone else who could for the category so until then, it’s the Rebbe because he is the most recent Nossi Hador (to answer that question.)

And why not the Chazon Ish? Because he didn’t take personal responsibility for every Jew, just got his chareidi community. As that’s fine. He was a top leader in Klal Yisrael. Just not Nossi Hador.

I think unfortunately you have proved sechels point quite well, that you are just not open to really learning and listening.

how insulting and naïve. really! you have the chutzpah to call a room full of people not open to listening because they wouldn’t use your own sources to prove the validity of those same sources. You have gotten much respect and response from too many people for you to start degrading us with the title of closed minded. Perhaps we are just not hearing anything in your lectures that speaks truth or Torah true. Is it okay for us to open our minds to your lectures and come out understanding that we don’t believe it to be correct? How open minded are you really if you think that our disagreement can only be from not listening?

Your statement reminds me of the crook and his accomplice who were caught by the police. The police said to the first crook, “do you have an alibi?” and the crook responds, “I’m innocent sir”, and he points to the accomplice and said, “just ask him, he’ll tell you”,

Before you jump, I am NOT (NOT NOT) comparing your derecho to crooks, I am trying to illustrate that asking the source to give his own reference report is not valid.

@Syag,
“how insulting and naïve. really! you have the chutzpah to call a room full of people not open to listening”

Lower your tone, don’t be so hard on her, it’s only the Coffee Room:)

@Syag Lchochma

I don’t believe chabadshlucha is denying that there are some who are open to having a discussion, but there are too many loads of nasty comments here. For me, it’s been nearly nothing but. Being curious about a source is of course fine and we will give one, but we assume the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself is a source which we can appeal to. You are, again, not obligated to hold to our sources necessarily, but eilu v eilu divrei Elokim chaim. And much of this discussion seems like everything is divrei Elokim chaim except for what chabad says.

@Neville,
“We have clearly demonstrated that Chabad’s policy is to overtly try to get people to change their minhagim;”
That would be correct if it’s one’s Minhag not to put on Tefilin, or to eat chazir r”l, or to marry a shiktza, but we have no interest in changing your Minhagim. I don’t know why I’m even responding, your mind seems quite resolved about this based on one reply to a non religious person on Chabad.org which had no Minhag. (Unless not being frum is a Minhag).

MC – I am not arguing with you but I will disagree strongly. In my own opinion, I don’t see you having gotten loads of nasty comments. I see you have used some pretty strong and POSSIBLY “in your face” language which rebounded with strong responses. I have also seen some isolated, wounded posters who I disregard because they are separate from the conversants, and lastly, I – in my own opinion – noticed you calling out every disagreement to the Rebbe’s words as hateful and insulting when I don’t know that they were either intended that way, or even were that at all. But it would certainly contribute to you feeling surrounded by it.

To chabad shlucha and sechel and others. I don’t know how you made it this long. These chabad threads were unfair when the mods edited shlucha for “chashash apikorsus” (doubtful). They allowed a comment in calling the Rebbe some kofer from Russia.

We also allowed a comment calling the Rebbe Nasi Hador. The facts are up for discussing, apikorsus is not.
Syag lchachma
What you are saying is an explanation on a source can’t be it’s own source. The Rebbe said it can the the reason the rebbe is correct. Chabad isn’t really saying that (even if they are using those words). EG. If you ask where the ramabm got a halacha, you can give the lamdus of where it came from, but I can ask why he is the lone opinion, and the only reaponse is his own svara. Thus he has a source that no one agrees with, and his way of understanding is his own source. Similar to lubavaitch understanding the rambam and different understandings of the Zohar ect. That’s true of pretty much all machlokes. The Rebbe may be wrong, but Chabads way of thinking is really not illogical if his argument is sound, wich chabad for whatever reason thinks is.