Problem with Melech HaMashiach from the Dead

Yankel berel, interesting all you posts are on this subject only

@aviradearah: let me tell you a little maaseh about the Chazon Ish ztl. Reb Shrage wilman was a Rebbi in Camden New Jersey in the 50s. This Reb Shrage’s wife was a niece of The Chazon Ish. Her father was Reb Shmuel Greineman, brother in law of the Chazon Ish.
Reb Shrage related that we was moving to America from Eretz Yisrael in 1953, not long before the Chazon ish’s passing. The Chazon ish told him that after he passes away he should be Bekesher with the Lubavitcher Rebbe ztl because “he will be the new Gadol Hador”.

Does not sound like your maaseh at all.

And i do footwork, thats exactly why im telling you that u are not correct. There are more people ok with it than u may think.

avram,

I think a movement who believes their teachings came from moshiach(story with the baal shem tov) and need to be spread in order for him to come naturally are gonna think one who doesnt learn them is not getting all the spirituality one needs. Idk what else u expect there. I dont know many chabadniks (myself included) who would say they are spiritually superior to Rav Chaim. I think they would say they have an emes which rav chaim isnt tapping into and a kesher to the nasi which rav chaim doesnt have and that if rav chaim tapped into it he would be even greater. ur terms are two black and white i think. The Rebbe however says there are no more real misnagdim anymore. He suggested another word to use for day to day interactions. Historically when a group of misnagdim were against u and ur approach for over a hundred years it tends to be a symbol. Mitzrayim also became a symbol. Everyone talks about leaving their own mitzrayim as chassidim talking about leaving their inner misnaged. This is the case even if misnagdim stop being misnagdim (which the rebbe actually said) and even if mitzrayim becomes a land of democracy and freedom and values.

When a delegation of rebbes, i think ger, and others, met the chofetz Chaim, they came out and said they had never seen a pereon reach his madregos withoit toras chasidus.

This is because all paths of Torah lead to the same place. They lead us to Hashem, as an adam hashalem. A person can be an adam hashalem as a chosid,a litvak, a sefardi, a temani, a hungarian or a yekkie. All roads lead to Hashem.

Rav Akiva eiger says this about the “machol latzadikim” that Hashem will make leasid lavo. All of them will point to Hashem and say “this is the Hashem that we hoped to” each tzadik will recognize that their path led them straight to Him, just as all ends of a circle are equidistant from each other, with no tzadik being oser to Hashem than the other, as long as they followed their mahalach to its fullest.

I have the utmost respect for an emesdige chabad chosid, those who reject god-in-a-body and dead messiahs, and live according to the mesorah of the rashab, rayatz, etc….fhere are plenty such people in Yerushalayim. One of my rebbeim also broke off from Lubavitch when the last rebbe became the leader.

1. Whether I can answer this issue or not does not have any affect on the question of whether Moshiach can come from the dead.

2. Regardless of ur question we find nonetheless that there were big chasidic personalities who said it would be their rebbe after their passing. So practically, whether u understand or not people greater than you or I did choose their rebbe over the people u cited.

3. There are many different ways to conceive of what yeridos hadoros means. If previous generations are greater then that automatically means the oldest should win. The maharsha then wouldn’t compare to rashi and rashi to Chizkiya and Chizkiya to Shlomo hamelech. So u really refuted 99 percent of ur list, the only option ur allowed to say is Shlomo or king David if u count him. And yet the Gemara should have said shlomo instead of daniel. Why did it say daniel? As mentioned earlier a few people say it is because of his desire for Moshiach. If we go by that criteria the Lubavitcher rebbe is surely a contender. Ultimately though I just don’t agree that every person is lower. It’s likely a klal. Many sources for very lofty nechamas or neshama chadashas etc sprinkled in history
4. One reason which easily gets around ur argument, rav breitowitz told a friend of mine as much, that if the rebbe was chosen before he passed away as many in lubavitch want to claim then the field is no longer open to who is the better candidate as the rebbe was already approved for the job. Speaking of candidates is only relevant before a choice is made. Likewise if the rebbe is chezkas moshiach he has a chazaka that he started the process someone who u think is in the middle of the process obviously isn’t a candidate amongst many of who will start the process. If the rebbe wasn’t chosen or didn’t start it would an interesting convo. But if he is in the middle of the mission or designated for the mission all talk of candidates becomes irrelevant. One need not agree with the fact that he was actually chosen to appreciate that this if it were true would address this issue in theory.

R.I.P. coffee room

@rso. Reb Sholom Wolpo wrote a book called Yechi Hamelech explaining how the Rebbe is/was bechezkas Moshiach. That Sefer got the haskamos of Reb Moshe and Rav Ovadia among others.

Yechi hamelech dealt with moshiach in general, and did not say that the Lubavitcher rebbe was bechezkas moshiach. Rav Moshe also gave haskamos to almost anything; there was a reason for that, but it’s not for now.

“Reb Sholom Wolpo wrote a book called Yechi Hamelech explaining how the Rebbe is/was bechezkas Moshiach. That Sefer got the haskamos of Reb Moshe and Rav Ovadia among others.”

Do your research. The haskamos were given only on a Halocho sefer written by Wolpo about Mashiach. They did not give haskomos on the sefer saying that the Lubavicher rebbe was/is bechezkas Mashiach. That came out a number of years after Reb Moshe was niftar!

Chabadpedia has the entire story.

“מה שמו דבי רבי שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר (בראשית מט, י) עד כי יבא שילה דבי רבי ינאי אמרי ינון שמו שנאמר (תהלים עב, יז) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו דבי רבי חנינה אמר חנינה שמו שנאמר (ירמיהו טז, יג) אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה.
Sanhedrin 98b.
This Gemara is saying that students would believe that they’re Rebbi was Moshiach.”

And now you can all see why I can’t stand all the Lubavich propaganda as it’s based on misinformation and misinterpretation. I have two questions:
1. Were their Rebbes alive or not at the time?
2. More importantly, who says that that is what they meant? Rashi DOES NOT explain it that way. He writes כל אחד היה דורש אחר שמו. Why doesn’t he simply say that they said their Rebbe was Mashiach? Could it possibly be that that’s not what they were doing, and it’s just you and your cohorts wanting to interpret it that way?

And for argument’s sake, let’s say that you are right, and they were alluding to their belief that their Rebbe was Mashiach. Clearly if that is the case they must have understood that their Rebbe had all the criteria necessary for being Mashiach. But the Lubavicher rebbe, and Wolpo in his footsteps, relied solely on the Rambam’s criteria, OF WHICH THE LUBAVICHER REBBE HAD NONE!

Maybe I should offer a cash prize to anyone who can prove that the Lubavicher rebbe had ANY of the Rambam’s criteria 🙂 One important rule, though: saying something like, “He said it himself in a sicha,” does not count as proof.

For all I know no one reads my posts, but in case some do, and they’re wondering why I am so vehemently against Lubavich, I’ll explain myself.

I’m all in favor of Chabad Houses offering meals and services to tourists and the like, but the Lubavich hashkofah in all other areas is IMHO very dangerous.

They disparage all other frum streams, especially “snags”, and they blatantly misinterpret Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim to suit their views. I don’t care if they don’t eat Seudah Shlishis and they don’t sleep in the sukkah. Lots of streams have their own “strange” minhogim. But when they say that they are doing it better than anyone else despite the fact that in Shulchan Aruch it says otherwise, they pose a danger to Torah society.

There are other major issues with them, but a public forum is not necessarily the proper venue to discuss those issues והמבין יבין.

Ortho, the ruzhiner returning as moshiach is in line with the abarbanel, that moshiach can come from those who rise up by techias hamaysim. So the two things can happen at the same time; that’s really not a chidush, and i don’t care that Dr Berger supposedly admitted that this was in line with chabad messianic ideology.

Rizhiner chasidim did not say that the rebbe was moshiach, began his mission, and will return to complete it. That is a foreign concept. They’re also careful to say that it will happen the same day, because this does not contradict the rambam and ramban.

But I’m assuming you’re factual in your quoting; you’ve already misquoted rav Moshe as giving a haskama to a sefer claiming that the Lubavitcher rebbe was moshiach, and then you admitted that the sefer was just chidushim on the rambam, and that the author wrote those words in another book. So you’ve already weakened your source credibility.

I say this mainly to messianic posters here because time and again, i look up things only to find that they’re totally missing or wrenched out of context(see the thread about tzedaka supposedly being bigger than learning from an impassionef messianic) i just don’t have the time and resources to debunk every single claim made, but “just as there’s nothing in these, there’s nothing in those”

So please quote where rizhiner/sadigerer chasidim say this. I don’t buy it. The rizhiner was the bechinah of Rebbe Yehuda Hanasi, as known; his avodah was Torah ugdulah bemakom echad…he used to wear golden shoes with no bottoms, so as not to benefit. He raised his pinky when he was about to be niftar, just as rabbeinu hakodosh, and swore that he never benefitted from this world with even his small finger.

If any gadol was moshiach oriented, it was him; he showed malchus. Much more than the Lubavitcher rebbe did, much, much more.

“More importantly, who says that that is what they meant? Rashi DOES NOT explain it that way. He writes כל אחד היה דורש אחר שמו. Why doesn’t he simply say that they said their Rebbe was Mashiach?”

1. there are various people over the past few hundred years who interpret that gemara as referring to who moshiach is. It shows a lack of knowledge to say that there is no such thing as that interpretation outside lubavitch.
2. a reverse question: if rashi just wanted to teach what the names of moshiach are why didnt the gemara and rashi just say these are the names of moshiach? Why does the gemara say each house said a specific name, and why does rashi add that each rebbe darshined his own name like that of moshiach? Why would he connect his name with moshiachs name? Why didnt he just teach what moshiachs name was independent of his own? Dont you find that strange that he said moshiachs name was basically the same as his? Why connect it to his own name? Dont just cut off the question at an artifical point and say well he darshened but he just did it to darshen.
ultimately, Pashut pshat is because he was teaching he could be moshiach and they accepted. I dont need to prove whats straightforward, whats pashut is pashut, and one should go with how things sound unless one has reason not to.
2b. a proof to what im saying that these are not separate things can be shown from rabbi akiva and bar kochba. It says rabbi akiva darshened on bar kochba the verse “a star(cochav) will shoot forth from yaakov”. Here we see rabbi akiva darshoned on him as a RESULT of his thinking bar cochba was moshiach. So ones immediate response to darshening pesukim about moshiachs name after a rebbe aside from having obvious implications, already have a clear outright source that darshening means to believe the guy is moshiach. I didnt connect the two. Shas did. Now you want me to disconnect them for no reason and say we are making disinformation?

Avira

“Rizhiner chasidim did not say that the rebbe was moshiach, began his mission, and will return to complete it. That is a foreign concept. They’re also careful to say that it will happen the same day, because this does not contradict the rambam and ramban.“

1. Great to hear u don’t think moshiach min hameisim contradicts rambam or ramban. That’s more than others would admit in this thread. That’s the problem here tho, is in order to make the last argument that the rebbe started some mission I have to defend 50 other steps which nobody is in agreement on, some saying ok and some saying not.

2. There ARE Lubavitchers who do argue like the quote about the Ruzhiner. So then u seemingly shouldn’t have a problem with those messianics. This is also the problem, there are many different factions and approaches to this issue, some that are just like the approach u said didn’t contradict rambam and some which u say do. So already we need to slow down and address the different groups. If u met a messianic who argued like the way I explained the Ruzhiner would u have a problem with it since it doesn’t contradict rambam or ramban in your words?

3. I don’t think starting a mission and continuing after death contradicts the Rambam. Rambam says killed which is obviously a stira to kar kar Kol bnei sheis(in other words, he didn’t destroy them but they destroyed him) and he says “not succeed until this degree” which means he actively failed or his actions ceased all together. But that doesn’t really address if someone was not defeated by his enemies in war/killed (in contradiction to the pasuk of kar kar Kol bnei sheis), and who is continuing his actions through soldiers, shluchim etc (whatever the scenario is) for then he didn’t not succeed, as he is still in the middle of his actions Al pi Torah as shliach kmoiso. The Christian says he did some stuff left and then will do the rest. Christians do not see them selves as shluchim of Moshiach who are doing the redemptive actions on his behalf. They are waiting for him to come do them himself and try to be moral believers in the meantime.

people kept on coming up with more and more things to attack chassidim with, first it was we want moshiach now, then how can chabad say their rebbe is moshiach (before 3 tamuz) , then after 3 tamuz it was how can moshiach be from the dead. just another accuse.
it seems some litvaks dont are scared of moshiach ?? dont know!!

@sechel83 You are being intentionally misleading when you say “Chassidim”. In this thread, no one is attacking Chassidim, rather certain practices and beliefs that are exclusive to Chabad. You’re trying to hide behind the Misnaged / Chassid machlokes. (there’s a different thread where a user is attacking Chassidishkeit in general, especially the Ba’al Shem. Maybe you have the two confused?)

But yes, you are correct. Before the tzaddik Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson ZT”L went to the Oilom Ha’Emes, people criticized Chabad for making a huge fuss and telling the world that he was Moshiach (which he explicitly denied and told people to stop, and I’m sure there’s a teretz as to how to interpret that particular response). After he was no longer able to move or respond, and certainly after he was niftar, the frum view of Chabad messianism went from “silly tipshim” to “dangerously close to heresy”.

Square root,

I already addressed this argument. Repeating the point I responded to doesn’t address my counterpoint on that point.

Yserbius,

Glad to see someone here thought the rebbe was a tzadik. I’m afraid ur alone in this thread as a nonlubav on that point.

>>>a leader of [hi]s generation … has to be accepted by virtually all of klal yisroel”

Something to think about:

Was Moshe the Jewish leader because every Yid cared about and respected him, or because he cared for every Yid?

Continuing with my arguments to OrthodoxRabbi:

The Rambam is not open to interpretation when that interpretation clearly misrepresents what he says. Among the Rambam’s criteria for Chezkas Mashiach are:

1. A king of the House of David will arise – the Lubavicher rebbe was not a king. We don’t currently have a king, so no one can be considered bechezkas Mashiach until we do. The statement מאן מלכי רבנן – which Lubavichers have cited to overcome this problem – is an Aggadic statement and does not count in Halocho. Can one of the Rabbonon nowadays decide to break down your fence and lead his retinue through your property? No, of course not. A real king can.
Furthermore, as mentioned, we have no proof that the Lubavicher rebbe was a descendant from the House of David, other that his and his father-in-law’s claim. And that obviously has no weight in a non-Woke world.

2. Delves in Torah and is occupied with Mitzvos as was David – that’s something we can’t know, so we’ll have to wait for a higher authority to rule on that when the time comes.

3. He will force all of Israel to go in it’s [the Torah’s] path – he may indeed have wanted that, and encouraged it, but he didn’t (couldn’t!) force people. The argument, which I have heard numerous times in Lubavich circles, that since nowadays we can’t force, encouraging is the equivalent, does not hold water. In fact, even in the Rambam’s time there was no possibility of a Jewish king forcing all Yidden to keep Torah and Mitzvos.

4. He will wage the was of Hashem – waging war is something kings of yore (and dictators of today) did. The Lubavicher rebbe didn’t wage any wars.

So how can anyone claim that the Lubavicher rebbe is bechezkas Mashiach on the basis of the Rambam. And please don’t quote me other Rishonim or Achronim because official Lubavich policy was, as I have written in the past, that the Rambam is the final word in determining these things as Mishneh Torah is a sefer Halocho.

To make my view absolutely clear: I would not be attacking Lubavich regarding their claim as to their rebbe’s candidacy for Mashiach SO vehemently if they were to say, “Our rebbe is the greatest tzaddik of the generation, and he is the most worthy to be Mashiach.” I would definitely disagree with the claim, and argue with it. But I wouldn’t be as incensed as I have been for the past nearly-thirty years due to the distorting of the Rambam. That together with the claim – and I have heard/read it many times! – if the gemoro can say Daniel is Mashiach even though he is not alive, we can say the rebbe is Mashiach even though he is no longer alive. That’s like saying if the gemoro can say you’re allowed to cook on Yom Tov, we can say you’re allowed to drive a car on Yom Tov.

And if, by any chance, you have read this far, and you are wondering when my blood pressure started rising over the issue of Mashiach, it was around Gimmel Tammuz 1994.

As I have written, I have had a close association with Lubavichers over decades, and I clearly remember many occasions pre Gimmel Tammuz when dyed-in-the-wool Lubavichers would be attampting to convince non-Lubavichers (both frum and frei) that the Lubavicher rebbe is Mashiach with the following argument:
“There has to be someone alive in each generation who is worthy of being Mashiach. Look around and tell me who is more worthy nowadays than the rebbe. There isn’t anyone else who comes close, so he is obviously this generation’s candidate.”

Of course, I disagreed with that, but what really got me worked up (I still am, in case you haven’t noticed) is that IMMEDIATELY post Gimmel Tammuz the argument changed:
“Mashiach does not have to be someone who is alive. The rebbe is Mashiach!”
or:
“As long as there are people who are alive when the rebbe was alive, it is still the same generation, and the rebbe is still the most likely (only likely?) candidate of our generation.” Note: even nowadays there are people still alive שיחיו who were born before the war, so, for example, R Chaim Ozer, or countless other gedolei Yisroel, would be considered part of our generation, and any one of them could be a suitable candidate for Mashiach.

avira,

“Re, the rambam “if he has not succeeded to this point…”, Dying would be an example of failing.”

Says who? Killed I understand because its in direct opposition to Kar Kar kol bnei sheis. But why died? Now your reasoning might go something like this: Since Moshiach has to accomplish a certain amount of things and if someone dies they are unable to complete them, then death is obviously included. Right? Thats what you would want to say. But lets add two pieces to that. What if you believe in resurrection? So that anyone is capable of coming back around to complete it? Now that alone isnt enough because that still means there was a hefsek and the actions staggered off for a time. But what if i add that while he is dead there is a way for is actions to keep going? In that case the hefsek doesnt occur, and he himself can and ultimately will return with the resurrections of the righteous at the latest. Now it turns out we as jews do believe there are resurrections and we do believe him shliach kmoso and other thins similar to this. So, again, if we limit ourselves to just the issues raised and we focus on how what i said answers those specific issues then we have an answer. It may be a chiddush, sure. I dont think thats the most immediate scenario that comes to mind, but these concepts do exist in torah and they technically work with the rambams phrasing and address the things which we had a problem with at the beginning of this thought experiment.

” For instance, the Lubavitcher rebbe tried bringing jews back to Torah, one of the requirements in the rambam. Not only did he fail to do so….”

If by fail to do so you mean he didnt make them all religious, i think that is a misreading of the rambam, it says after chezkas moshiach “if he does this and succeeds” meaning at the time of chezkas he has not made everybody frum yet. As is written in the sefer pirkei geulah with haskamas from leading rabbanim the idea that moshiach will force all israel is “That he will be involved in tikun klal yisroel”. Eventually when he does this and succeeds everyone will be frum.

“… under his leadership, intermarriage only increased. Frum people became more populous because of having children; the BT movement barely made up for the OTD population.”

Let’s be reasonable here. The rambam is talking about a natural person who comes up with a plan, puts it in place and watches as it affects people over time. If you want to say there is something magical about the messianic era that regardless of whether someone has heard of the lubavitcher rebbe or not they should just suddenly become religious and dump their nonjewish spouse, u arent talking about the rambam anymore. Rambam says this is a result of actions taken by moshiach. If many of these intermarried people and their families havent even heard of chabad, or have had very little if no direct dealings with chabad, how can u say he failed? They havent even been subjected to the program! You might say “But the fact that they havent been is a siman that he is failing” to which case i would say absolutely not. The number of shluchim is only increasing and awareness of true yiddishkeit and the rebbe is only increasing in number(like opening more places on college campus’s and communities etc). There is something weird about saying he isnt succeeding because for every frum jew he makes two jews who never heard of chabad intermarried. The fact is that his actual actions have a wide range of success when interacted with and more and more places are opening and interacting. Furthermore why is intermarriage the the bench mark? If 20 thousand intermarried babies are born then they arent jewish and dont count towards the total number of jews. If the halachically jewish population is increasing, as it is, then frum jews and jews at large are still growing overall. But furthermore, how do you know which way the intermarriage was? maybe the mother was jewish in which case the kids are still jewish, and how do u know they didnt intermarry before they found chabad? And that after they found chabad they didnt get more involved with their judaism? Even if a jewish woman intermarried, she and her kids could be doing way more mitzvos through chabad programming than she did before she got intermarried. Furthermore how many of these nonreligious people while still not shabbos observant, are now doing one or two more mitzvos than they did before due to chabad? How many nonreligious jews did tefillin or lit shabbos candles even one time because of chabad who otherwise would have done nothing jewish? The reality of the health of the jewish people is a complicated read and exactly what u judge as ur measure is going to change whether someone is successful or not. But if we take it at its simplest: doing more mitzvos than u otherwise would have done due to chabad influence, thats very obviously yes and increasing.

“The real BT movement, which were seeing now especially in eretz yisroel, is among sefardim and Israelis, and chabad is not the major player in that regard.”

The entire idea of systematic large scale BT efforts was started and expanded by the past two lubavitcher rebbes. The first ever baal teshuva yeshiva in existence was a lubavitch yeshiva in the early 60’s. Before then nobody dared. Even breslov efforts were not until the early 70’s. The entire idea of baal teshuva movements owes its idea to the Rebbe. I think its perfectly consistent for Moshiach to inspire communities to fix themselves and target people in their daled amos who they understand well and can appeal to. One doesnt need to be chabad to be frum. But make no mistake the entire mindset of baal teshuva programing is entirely lifted from the rebbes invention. that includes Aish and all the rest. Chabad still leads in hunting down random jews on the street and making them do mitzvos though. that is uniquely chabad. Or do u think gil locks thought of putting tefillin by people at the kosel on his own?

“He also will fight wars, physical wars, as evidenced by juxtaposing moshiach with bar kochva, because BK was fighting physical wars.”

Please see Reb Moshe’s Teshuva which explains that weapons are not required for moshiach as many kings have fought wars without any weapons and certainly moshiach doesnt need to. Once again things arent as obvious as u think they are. These involve deeper reading.

“Fighting spiritual wars was also a failure, because the world only became more secular under the time the Lubavitcher rebbe was a leader, not less. One anti religious country fell, but others grew, including China, which became more of an international player at the time.”

1. That country that fell was a lot more relevant for jews than china by far. That is a crown and meaningful event for jews after centuries of persecution in that country. No contest. But, 2, again nobody says in lubavitch spiritual wars means any spiritual war. They were specific wars pertaining to jewish people.

“Re, techias hamaysim and moshiach being among them – that’s what the abarbanel says, that moshiach can be from those who rise at the time of techias hamaysim, and the rishonim were unsure if TH will happen before or after bias hamoshiach.”

Not sure what ur point is there. The novelty of the ruzhiner source is that even if we all agree when techiyas hameisim is(40 years later) it can be moved due to spiritual factors like length of exile or merit. This isnt something the abarbanel addressed.

“also not heard any messianic Lubavitchers say that he will come back by techias hamaysim at the same time”
One causes the other. Because they hold differently about what causes it, they see less of a chiuv to announce or spread their view than someone who holds the rebbe is chezas or a navi etc. You will only know this if you ask around in lubavitch with people who are baki in the differences or search well into the published kovetzim.

“If what you quote from the rizhiner is true, it’s also one opinion that is not mainstream. One of my rebbeim is a sadigerer chosid; he would quote the rizhiner all of the time, but never said anything of the sort. And he wouldn’t have shied away from it – i was a shtikel ben bayis by him for about 5 years.”
Here we go its always something else: There are no sources. And even if there are there are no mainstream sources. The complaints never end. At the end of the day he said it, and those who want to argue similarly have precedent. That type of messianist is not asking u to agree that it will be the rebbe. A chiddush by literal definition is not mainstream. It wasnt mainstream when it was said about the ruzhiner by admission actually (hesech hadas bchol haolam), yet he felt entitled to say it. If a lubavitcher wants to argue similarly then he should have as much right as the shtefaneshter rebbe. And if so then you should be warming up to quite a few messianist lubavichers on this front.

The rebbe was zera dovid as again we have his familial records like anyone. Anyone who claims to be from dovid is going to have familial records of some standard kind. The ruzhiner was also zera dovid. As was Rambam. All of these people have records which we have access to. its not just self claims, but again i think claims said by gedolei yisroel should be taken seriously.

Furthermore, the rambam says that moshiach will fight our enemies “misaviv,” surrounding eretz yisroel. Eretz yisroel was not conquered by Torah jews, and it is continuously surrounded by non-defeated arab countries.

Chabad decided that THE enemy was the Soviet union, thus drawing a target around an arrow once it was shot. They also have zero evidence that the Lubavitcher rebbe brought down the Soviet union. It actually happened quite naturally; it had a failed economic model and the US put tremendous pressure on it. Claiming to have brought it down single handedly requires faith in the Lubavitcher rebbes words, which essentially means to believe him because he’s right.

All of klall yisroel were davening for the fall of the Soviet union. And so it fell, without open nissim.

And what happened to the millions of jews who were in russia after the war? Almost all of them were lost. Not very messianic, is it? Shouldn’t moshiach bring those jews back  Edited

Incredible how much ignorance still exists. Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach was published 2 years ago with haskamos from Litvishe Rebonim. It proves Chazal hold Moshiach can come from the dead for as long as one is considered FIT to be Moshiach even. Yoshke was never considered FIT to be Moshiach even while alive. The book is a free download. I read it. BH it’s a real eye opener.

Avira,

I pashut don’t have time for all of these and they are only getting longer and longer. I’ll have to keep things brief.

1. Ruzhiner quote from a Sefer called kerem beis yisroel. It’s also published in sadigura publications searchable on otzar. The book itself is hard to find but I have a picture of it if needed in email.

2. Is moshiach judged for the matzav of the world or his own actions influence? If the former then he gets just as much credit for the fall of communism as he does whatever intermarriage rates ur describing. If his direct actions then he shouldn’t get blame or credit for either. Be consistent. In the vast majority of cases secular peoples Judaism is better served when involved with lubavitch.

3. I think ur choosing random metrics to judge Moshiachs success and I just don’t agree with the value system ur producing. if an intermarried guy became part of a regular minyan when before he wasn’t ur gonna say that’s a failure, even tho he is now doing more net mitzvos? I don’t see how intermarriage ruins the other things the guy could be doing to increase his Judaism. More so a woman who is still having Jewish kids.

4. Ur tefillin arguments are old enough already. R hutner was chavrusas with the rebbe. He said many great things about him. See the rebbes back and forth with rav hutner over tefillin here https://anash. org/exploring-the-correspondence-between-rav-hutner-and-the-rebbe/

5. I’ll disagree with ur understanding of Russian Jewry. In general I think ur severely underestimating the rebbes role in a variety of affairs, his genius and respect amongst various torah personalities. When someone says the rebbe is maybe a gadol kinda, I already know their understanding of the rebbe is severely off base. But that’s just my opinion ur likely to say the opposite in response. Nu Nu. Anyways the main point is there are sources for moshiaxh coming from the dead. This specific way of his coming is not the threads purpose and it’s much too long to rebut at length here back and forth. Let’s acknowledge one thing at a time. That the Ruzhiner could come back as moshiach is already a chiddush to ur mind and likely other readers. Let’s sit with that for a few weeks before piling on.

Lubavitchers make lots of claims about how gedolim viewed their rebbe; if you want to know what rav hutner held of him, talk to a chaim berlin person. Some of my rebbeim were talmidim of his; you will not like what you hear, not one bit of it

By any objective standard, intermarriage is a clear indication of assimilation. No one’s even close to being close to being a jew if they agreed to marry out; even traditional jews used to say kadish for their intermarried children. It’s the leaving of yiddishkeit in its entirety. And going to a chabad house and saying some Hebrew words while learning kabalistic concepts while violating every aveirah in the world is not “being close to Judaism,” and how many even do that? There are 10 million secular jews in the world. Chabad houses usually barely have a minyan, if at all. They account for like 3% of secular jews; most do to reform/conservative temples, if they go at all, twice a year at most. And if they happen to go to an Orthodox shul, the experience doesn’t change them. And again, to do a Mitzvah requires the awareness and belief that something is commanded. Most Secular jews, which 50% deny Hashem according to a pew research study, do not believe in the Torah; their actions are completely meaningless halachikally.

When i said Russian jewry was lost, they are. Whatever chabad did there, millions upon millions of jews are forever lost to our people, having died without once saying shema in their lifetime and their parents’ lifetimes, victims of a spiritual Holocaust, never redeemed by the one they call a messiah.