- This topic has 146 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Statement Regarding Chabad Messianism
from the Rabbinical Council of America
dated: 1996 June 1“In light of disturbing developments which have recently arisen in the Jewish community, the Rabbinical Council of America in convention assembled declares that there is not and has never been a place in Judaism for the belief that Mashiach Ben David will begin his Messianic Mission only to experience death, burial, and resurrection before completing it.”
Well I guess that settles it until Channanya Weissman marries a Lubavitch girl.
i dont know what your point is, but its like someone else’s statement that the idea of we want moshiach now is wrong (or worse).
its a shame that jews always find arguments to pick, and to come out against others.
time for those rca members to retract (if they didn’t yet), and to get their knowledge straight,בקיץ תשנ”ו כתב נשיא “הסתדרות הרבנים” בארה”ב מכתב מחוצף, ובו טען כי אמונתם של חסידי חב”ד שהרבי הוא מלך המשיח, מיוסדת רח”ל על מקורות זרים. המכתב עורר סערה בקרב יהדות ארה”ב, ורבים דרשו לדעת האם אכן עומדים רבני “הסתדרות הרבנים” מאחורי הדברים האלה. כאשר שמע על כך הרב סולובייצ’יק (שהיה מנהיגה הרוחני של הסתדרות זו), פרסם מכתב חריף, “גילוי דעת”, בז’ תמוז תשנ”ו בכל העיתונים היהודיים בארצות הברית ובו מבהיר בצורה שאינה משתמעת לשני פנים, כי האמונה שהרבי הוא מלך המשיח מבוססת על מקורות איתנים בגמרא ובספרי הפוסקים, כמו גם בספרי הקבלה ובדברי הרבי עצמו:
“להלן מענה לשאלות הרבות אודות עמדתי בהנוגע לליובאוויטש ואמונתם המשיחית.
לפני ג’ תמוז כללתי את עצמי בין אלה שהאמינו כי הרבי היה ראוי להיות המשיח. אני מאמין באופן מוחלט, כי לו היינו – במיוחד הקהילה האורטודוקסית – מאוחדים, היינו זוכים לגאולה השלמה.
בהנוגע לאמונה של רבים מאנשי ליובאוויטש (כולל רבנים מובהקים וראשי ישיבות) – אמונה המיוסדת בחלקה על התבטאויות דומות של הרבי בעצמו על מורישו הרבי הקודם – שהרבי עדיין יכול להיות המשיח, וזאת לאור הגמרא בסנהדרין, הזהר, אברבנאל, כתבי האריז”ל, שדי חמד ושאר מקורות, אי אפשר לבטלה כאמונה שהיא חוץ לזרם האורטודוקסי. כל ניסיון ציני להשתמש בחילוקי דיעות לגיטימיים בכל הנוגע לפירושים בעניין זה, להכפיש ולהזיק את תנועת ליובאוויטש, שהייתה וממשיכה להיות בחזית הקדמית של אלו הלוחמים במיסיונרים, בהתבוללות, ובאדישות של יהודים ליהדותם, – כל ניסיון כזה יכול רק לתרום לפילוג המצער שממנו סובל כבר המחנה היהודי בכלל והתורני בפרט. על המחנה התורני לגייס את כל כוחותיו, להתאחד ברוח האמיתית של אהבת ישראל, ולהילחם באויב האמיתי של עם ישראל. אני מוחה, וקורא להפסק מוחלט של כל תעמולה או פגיעה בשם הטוב של ליובאוויטש, או כל תנועה לגיטימית אחרת בתוך יהדות התורה”.
Leave it to Square Root to dig up something irrelevant from the past in order stir up controversy. Perhaps you would like to tell us what R’ Chanaya Weissman had to say about this when it first cam out 27 years ago?
Has the RCA yet issued a statement regarding the heretical activities of their long-standing RCA member Avi Weiss?
Dear Ujm,
They dealt with very him well. Without resorting to a two line statement. He is no longer part of the RCA.
Ujm, they probably think that they don’t want to distance OO and make them go conservative.
Problem is that they’re already there, and they’re even worse than conservatism until the early 2000s, because they accept toevos.
So why doesn’t this bother the RCA enough to expel them?
Same reason messianic and god/body avodah zara doesn’t bother “mainstream” chabad enough to expel those people.
edited
Dear N0m:
The RCA was very happy to keep Mr. Weiss as a rabbinical member of their fraternity for as long as he liked. Indeed, Weiss remained a RCA member long long after he publicly became an apostate. In fact, the *only* reason Avi isn’t currently an RCA member is because he chose to not pay the RCA annual membership renewal. Until a short time ago he was still a RCA rabbi and the RCA continued to keep him on their rabbinical rosters indefinitely, or as long as Weiss wanted to remain a RCA member. The RCA itself not only never expelled him, they never even objected to his constant and repeated trampling of the Torah HaKedosha.
In fact, some of the OO leadership are *still* rabbinical members of the RCA today. Mr. Weiss’ synagogue in the Bronx is *still* an official OU Shul, despite Weiss bringing Christian pastors into his synagogue and himself conducting inter-denominational services (both with Christian and with Reform.) And Yeshiva University, where Avi was previously employed on their rabbinical staff, too, has not yet renounced Mr. Weiss.
Hey, sechel83, Rabbi Soloveitchik was niftar in 1993, and could not have written the letter you’re referring to
@sechel83 That is the most milquetoast non-answer response to a pretty harsh accusation I’ve ever seen. If anything, that letter confirms the original RCA statement. Let me summarize the letter:
“The Stadrus Rabbonim of America falsely accused us of believing the Rebbe to be Moshiach! Really, we believe that he has the capability to be Moshiach and will being us the Geulah which is a totally different thing! We should really be fighting the true enemy and not each other.”
Dear Ujm,
The RCA was not happy to keep him. The issue was that he wasn’t the only member who they wished they didn’t have to deal with. Just expelling him would have been declared as implicit approval of everyone else. It is pretty clear where the RCA draws the line on orthodoxy, and they have made enough statements on the issues without singling out names. You are reading into this what you want to be true. It is not the stance of the RCA.
I’m not in denial of the monetary and political influence the more extreme factions holds over the larger organizations. But that is universal. And it takes strong leadership to overcome it. It is not at all a yardstick to measure the personal views of it’s members.
Personally, I prefer the RCA’s approach. Agudah was no more than press release. It didn’t serve any purpose than white washing themselves. The Yated and Cross Currents did nothing constructive either. Stroking your own ego is not the same thing as taking a stand for the Torah.
“,,, there is not and has never been a place in Judaism for the belief that Mashiach Ben David will begin his Messianic Mission only to experience death, burial, and resurrection before completing it.”
Been dere done dat
Again, the letter quoted by https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/users/sechel83 is not authentic. Rabbi Soloveitchik was niftar in 1993.
מדבר שקר תרחקDear Avira,
Wayward Jews do not get expelled from Judaism.
Nom – what do you make of cherem? We expel such a person from our community. He doesn’t count for a Minyan. You can’t walk in his 4 Amos. He’s persona non grata.
N0m:
1. What basis do you have to claim that the RCA “was not happy to keep him” (despite actually keeping him)?
2. Which other members “they wished they didn’t have to deal with” and why? Why didn’t they expel those members?
3. “Agudah was no more than press release.” Agudah couldn’t expel Mr. Weiss from the RCA. What more do you think the Gedolei Yisroel on the Moetzes could have done than register a מְחָאָה?
4. “The Yated and Cross Currents did nothing constructive either.” What do you think they should have done?
Is this the most pressing issue facing the Jewish people in 2023?
reb aharon solovaichik – who wrote the letter (you can search it on google to see a copy) passed away in 2001
Provaxx, the R. Soloveichik who signed the letter was R. Aharon, who was still very much alive in 1996. You’re thinking of R. Yoshe Ber.
To Sechel83,
As provaxx has clearly stated, Rabbi Soloveitchik died in 1993, and could not have written the letter you’re referring to. Also… Posting this alleged reponsa from Rabbi Soloveitchik in modern day Hebrew here does not make it more credible. All you are doing is trying to bolster/reinforce a false argument that a dead man can be Moshiach.
Taken from Wikipedia on “The Rebbe, the Messiah and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference” (a book by David Berger)
In June 1996, The Jewish Press published a paid advertisement that included a letter with Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik’s signature. The letter included the assertion that R’ Soloveitchik believed R’ Schneerson to have been worthy of being Messiah, that the Chabad position that R’ Schneerson was the Messiah could not be dismissed as heretical, and cited a number of sources to demonstrate that he could be the Messiah. The letter also attacked Chabad’s critics, and praised Chabad’s works.[6]
Many messianists believe that R’ Soloveichik defended their position and bring him as a source to back up their arguments. Yet the letter caused confusion as this was a reversal of R’ Soloveichik’s previous position on the matter. In 1994, R’ Soloveichik had told The Forward that R’ Schneerson “can’t be the Messiah – he is not living – a Messiah has to be living. A living Messiah, not a dead Messiah.” He had also expressed shock at the idea that anyone could suggest that the Messiah could be from among the dead noting that “that could be possible in the Christian faith, but not Judaism” adding that this was “repugnant to everything Judaism represents.”[7]
Berger provides a letter from Soloveitchik to a friend in 2000, that resolves the contradiction between his two positions. R’ Soloveichik writes:
To my great dismay. . . publications affiliated with the Lubavitch movement have persisted in stating that I validate their belief that a Jewish Messiah may be resurrected from the dead. I completely reject and vigorously deny any such claim. As I have already stated publicly. . . such a belief is repugnant to Judaism and is the antithesis of the truth. My intent in signing the original letter . . . was merely to express my opinion that we should not label subscribers to these beliefs as heretics. Any statements in that letter which imply an endorsement of their view were not shown to me at the time I signed and I once again repudiate any such ridiculous claim.
[8] HaRebbi Melech HaMoshiach, David Berger, Urim Publications, 2005. p.75, note 7. (The book is an expanded edition and translation into Hebrew of: The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference)edited to add titles
To Yabia Omer,
Think of world jewry, 15,000,000 people now, as a ship. Call it the HMS Israel if you like. Now the ship should be be commanded by the best and brightest people yes. These real leaders need to be up on the bridge of the ship to audit the conditons, and then to counsel, warn and admonish so that the ship continues in the direction G-d wants it to go. An alive and breathing officer team working dynamically 24/7/365, with shifts for rest, maintenace and play of course, is required on the bridge at all times. (Think of the bridge like a Situation Room). If the crew, who are tasked with protecting the passengers/taxpayers/ticket holders and providing them with a safe voyage, do not heed the advice of the most qualified Captain and his First Mate, then the ship will founder in the doldrums at best or hit an iceberg at worst with the result of a great loss of life.
The Moral of The Story: If the fair dinkum Moshiach is currently being silenced, censored, ostracised, sidelined or undermined then the ship is imperilled because the crew is trusting the advice of the wrong captain. Thus the identity and counsel of the “Mountain of the House of the L-rd”/the highest wisdom of the current day should he recognised and heeded.
שָׁלוֹם
Adam Neira, Paris, France.
Founder World Peace 2050
Founded April 2000 in Melbourne, Australia.@Adam_Neira What are you trying to say? That you know who Moshiach is and he is being silenced?
Dear Yabia,
OPen Orthodoxy was a pressing issue in 2015. Pre Trump and Cancel Culture the frum world still had a pulse about religious matters. It’s part of why the coffeeroom deteriorated.Dear Ujm,
1) Huh? See what they did, and look how it played out.
2) The gun control stuff. See #1. I’m sorry that you drooled for nothing.
3) Agudah could have ignored it because it wasn’t on their doorstep. The press release does nothing to prevent it from coming to our doorstep. At least the OU made it clear that it can’t be accepted.
If the Agudah feels that they are gaurenteed to best Rabbi Weiss in a debate, they should have publicly done so. All the small time rabbi arguments do not hold up over time. By now YCT and OO are much stronger because of those public debates. If Agudah determined that there is no clear strategy to best them in open debate, than they should of have a meeting of their greatest minds to determine why exactly we are not Conservative Jews and were OO stands. And then professionally disseminated their results. תשועה ברוב יועץ
4) The media’s role is to support the masses were they are comfortable. All the anti OO media achieved, is that frum people who are committed to Torah display open hostility to OO. They did not make more comfortable in our yiddishkiet. And they definitely didn’t explain what we should think about these issues and the sources for them. This is a recipe for more of our descendants ending up on the other side of the battle lines, CH”V.
Dear Avira,
Cherem is a measure for one that is within the community.
What do you make of the din of putting a nidui on oneself?
That was weird
what was that about a signed letter that was forged (i.e. had parts that were not shown to the signer)?!
If true, this is beyond the Pale, and these people should be put in cherem and sent from the Pale to Siberia. Where is the Czar when we need him?!N0m: if you were around 100 years ago, when the Conservative movement was starting to, slowly but surely, break off from the MO movement, would you have been saying then about the Conservative movement what you are saying now how we should deal with the OO movement?
Chabad – all its mashpiim and rabbanim [!] – considered it an article of faith , one of the ikarei emuna , no less [!] that their rebbi cannot die .
Because there [supposedly] is a nevua , no less[!] that their rebbi is mashiach. Add to that the poshute ikar emuna that moshiach has to be alive kepshuto , as simple as one plus one equals two, their rebbi cannot [!] die , and that , due to the simple calculation above , is part of the ikarei emuna [!].
We all know what ultimately happened ….
So now the ikarei emuna changed . From the above ikarei Emuna according to Chabad pre 3 tamuz, we are evolving . we are receiving new ikarei emuna [!] . the new ikarei emuna according to post 3 tamuz chabad : you can have mashiach who is dead , and returns in a 2nd coming [!] and the nevua that their rebbi mashiach is still current , whereas a minority view in post 3 tamuz chabad holds : no, the nevua that their rebbi is mashiach is a mistake[!] but we still hold on to the previous shitah that mashiach has to be alive kepshuto.
If that is not a clear-cut mockery of ikarei emuna , what is ?
Bottom line – chabad are good for putting tfillin and helping people in trouble – but definitely not to represent klal yisrael .Cherem removes the person from the community until he repents; svi weiss and his heretical ill should be ostracized by MO in the same way until they do teshuva.
Correction:
Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik died on October 4th 2001, but the purported responsa Sechel83’s refers to is still fraudulent, no matter the exact chronology of it’s publication.
שבת שלום לכל הקוראים הטובים של עולם הישיבות.
To Yserbius123, to answer your two questions:
(1) Yes. (I have known since 2002).
(2) Sort of…
Adam, that responsum was published in the Jewish Press and other major newspapers, over R. Aharon’s signature. If as you claim it was fraudulent, where’s the letter from him saying so? You’re telling me that he would have passed over such a thing in silence?
You’ve known since 2002? Really? You know that Aleph Shin is a novel, not real life, right?
Joseph’s newest made-up point – that Conservative Judaism is a breakaway from MO. Sorry Joe, completely false. Conservative is actually an offshoot of Reform, from people who thought that Reform went too far. Hence the name “Conservative” – in their view, they were the more religious ones, keeping more observance than the Reform they came from.
Modern Orthodoxy was never an official movement that was founded by anyone. It was something that came organically, and the label only came in response to Chareidi Judaism.Dear Avira,
How does that answer putting oneself in nidui?
And the individual is still obligated inn mitzvos the same as everyone else.
It’s clearly less of an expulsion than a mumar.
Back to my statement, Wayward Jews do not get expelled from Judaism.
Dear Yankel,
“…. but definitely not to represent klal yisroel.”
Chabad doesn’t represent klal yisroel. Nobody does. Where does such a concept even come from? I would expect such a statement from an atheist.
Dear Ujm,
A hundred years ago, exactly when and where? It was done to some effect in Europe. Not often enough. In America it had no chance. Almost nobody cared. We are heading back toward All American Apathy.
@adam-neira So who do you believe is Moshiach?
RULES OF THE YWN COFFEEROOM (updated):
There shall be (at least) two threads about Lubavitch-Moshiach running at at every given moment.
If a day passes without this discussion, the CR will automatically be shut down forever.
Thanks for understanding.
Dear Da,
How is Conservative an offshoot of Reform? It starts off in mainstream Orthodoxy.
DaMoshe, in the United States the Conservative movement was an offshoot of the MO movement. As earlier mentioned, many of the same rabbis that founded the Orthodox Union (OU) also founded the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary.
So-called Chareidim never existed as a term until the MO made their seperatist movement within Orthodoxy. After the MO came into existence, the traditional Orthodox who never left or changed got their moniker of Chareidim, a term coined by outsiders. Chareidim are simply what was originally called Orthodox, just like the Orthodox are simply what was called Judaism before the breakaway Reform movement came about. The name Orthodox was also imposed on us by the non-Orthodox.
Square and Moshe: Explain the fact that the OU and the JTS share the same founding fathers.
I also vote that historically C- came from R-. That does not deny that there is some gray zone between MO and C.
A better question is – where did R come from? Usual response is to blame Haskala, Napoleon, etc. But why we do not see anyone from Bnei Brak becoming Reform currently? Because, over time, we developed counter-measures and defenses. We did not have those defenses when R started.
We had Rabbis denouncing them, we had R Hirsh trying to defend remnants of his community, but probably not enough. R Salanter thought that nothing could be done. At some point, he went to Western Europe, abandoning Lita, saying that it is possible to affect people who are at the bottom but not the ones who are still on the way from the top to the bottom. I am still not sure that there was no better way – modern yeshivas, not just one volozhin, chabad houses, etc. So, you can say that 18-19th century O- Jews caused, in part, Reform.
Conservative was a mixture of many elements. Observant maskilim, like saul lieberman, total kofrim, like Mordechai Kaplan, and a lot in-between, but the common denominator was a break from mesorah and an embrace of modernity, a need to revamp yiddishkeit to save it in America… Which is basically what most of MO wanted to do as well.
This is why rav aharon says that the two are not very different.
The only differences were how far they would go, how much they would sacrifice to “save” whatever Judaism was left in their world. MO sacrificed kedushah, letting its people swim and dance mixed and barely teaching tznius, and conservative allowed people to drive on Shabbos.
But conservative was worse than MO, because while MO only gave tacit approval for their sins, conservative openly declared that driving on Shabbos was allowed, and many, many other issurim.
Failing to give mussar may make one culpable, but it’s not the same level of heresy as publicly announcing that sins are allowed.
That’s aside from the issue of many in the conservative world stating disbelief in torah she baal peh, or chumash… But MO had a tolerance threshold for heretical beliefs as well.
Ujm, the Jewish Theological Seminary itself wasn’t originally Conservative; it became so under the leadership of Solomon Schechter.
Ilex: Explain the fact that the OU and the JTS share the same founding fathers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.