RCA Statement Regarding Chabad Messianism

so now i remember “The Rosh Yeshiva of The Hildesheimer Seminar”, i heard about it recently after reading the book “turning judaism outward” he mentions the story that the rebbe needed to get a rabbinical degree from there to get into berlin, so the rebbe told him he can test him on any sefer in his library, r hildesheimer gave the rebbe a sefer he himself wrote recently to study, and the rebbe came back a few days later to get tested.
i focus more on the rebbe’s maamarim and sichos then on the story’s. in fact it says in the above book, that the rebbe only mentioned once publicly by a farbrengen anything about the university. i have nothing against rav hirsh, chas vishalom. my derech is chassidus chabad, (b”h i enjoy this derech, i dont think there is anything else i need,) and there are hundreds of sifrai chassidus chabad to keep me busy for many yrs to come.
“If the shoe fits….” thats my point that someone decided that moshiach cant come from the dead even though its a clear gemara, abarbenel, sdai chemed etc. or other things and storys about what some chabad chassidim do that are just bologna, once you beleive the bologna, that justifies all the lashon hara etc.

@sechel83 All this is confirming to me is that you have an extremely narrow view of Yiddishkeit to the point where you didn’t even hear of three of the greatest gedolim of the 19th and 20th century, one of which even had a connection with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. So when people are criticizing you for your views, please stop saying “Just learn Chassidus” and instead maybe go speak with a Litvishe Rosh Yeshiva or Chassidishe Rebbe to understand how the rest of the frum world sees things.

Sechel, I’m litvishe. My main two rebbeim were litvishe. Does that mean that I’ve never heard of the satmar rov? Wouldn’t it be strange if i didn’t? Wouldn’t you say that I’m living in isolation from klal yisroel if i hadn’t heard of him at all?

Menachem, it’s a siman, not a sibah. The siman tells us that Lubavitchers have isolated themselves from klal yisroel, with significant numbers of people not knowing things that literally every other community is aware of.

@sechel83 Actually, you don’t have a rebbe. You have books that you like to learn from that are all based on a single person’s teachings. That’s a very different thing.

Frankly I find you characterizing Litvaks as “not having a clear derech” as offensive. And I don’t even have a Litvish drop of blood in me. What, because a Brisker studies other derachim outside of Rav Chaim that makes him off the derech? Would a Vizhnitzer who paskens based on Iggros Moshe be a fool?

So….you have a kasha about techias hamaysim being a shinui.

It’s not a kasha. It happens once. The rambam is talking about “yemos hamoshiach,” that in the messianic era, he holds that teva will remain. A one time change does not constitute a different world order.

…and “who says he has to be living,” has got to be the most twisted argument on this thread. A dead messiah is a chidush; it’s a given that moshiach will be a redeemer, and thus alive; to say that he can start, die, and come back to finish, is the novel idea which requires a proof. Of which, there isn’t any.

I love how when faced with an explanation of the sources chabad messianics give, you just pivot to “what about this rambam” – it’s like how christian missionaries bombard you with “proofs,” even as you pick one off after another… they’re going they’ll stump you o one, but in reality they’re all nonsense.

Yeshivos have a mesorah. You’re not aware of that mesorah by your own admission; the way American yeshivos learn is largely from rav aharon. The very slow mahalach was popularized by rav leib mahlin. It works, so they do it, even though many gedolim were opposed. In eretz yisroel it’s different.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing who are the greatest Torah Giants.

This is proven by the many (Possibly even the Majority of them.) that receive so little public recognition.

Dear Avira,

Your confusing JTS with something else. There weren’t official halachic decisions in JTS. JTS only got involved in these controversies when they gave certification for women rabbis and cantors.

Rav Hirsch demanded a clarification and asked for a cherem if Frankel wouldn’t comply. Rav Hirsch wasn’t so worried about his personal ideas. But what his students would feel their obligation to the future of klal yisroel. It’s a great insight and shows the clarity of Rav Hirsch’s vision. It could be used to contemplate the utility of any branch of Ortodoxy.

Just because Frankel could not see the future, it doesn’t mean he was less Orthodox. His theories of the Mishna stand and fall on their own merits.

Avira, re: letter, my source is a footnote in a sefer that I am not 100% sure is unbiased. This is a full footnote, not abridged. So, if you need to check out further, you would need to find the letter in an archive. But N0 seems to be pointing to more accessible writings.

you can learn about it in לקוטי שיחות פרשת בחוקתי.

Sechel…first you brought “sources,” in sdei chemed and abarbanel, which i answered.

Then you had no answer, so you pivoted to another “source,” a kasha…so to speak, on a rambam.

Then i “answered” it, as it were….then you go back to the 2 fake sources as proof that it’s not a chidush.

And around and around we go.

Techias hamaysim is a given, chazal say one who denies it is min hatorah is a kofer… and something the rambam writes extensively about. It’s not a chidush in that sense. And it’s no more of a neis than krias yam suf, which did not change the world forever; it was a one time thing. That’s why techiyas hameisim is not at all a stirah to olam kminhago noheg; the rambam is coming laafukei many midrashim about bread growing on trees, objects saying” today is shabbos” to a would-be violator, and other such examples of a new world order. The rambam holds that those medrashim are not literal. He holds that the world will be the same physically, but why does that mean that individual miracles won’t happen? Of course they could!

Remember, the rambam holds that techias hamaysim is a one-off for tzadikim to be able to see moshiach, something they hoped for all of their lives. Olam haba is not here, according to the rambam, it’s in shomayim. The ramban argues and holds that techias hamaysim is forever, in this world; people will live forever in this world, which will become olam haba. The ramban argues with the rambam on olam kminhago noheg too, and the achronim by and large follow the ramban, especially in light of the zohar and the mekubalim.

Could be that the Lubavitcher rebbe gor confused about the two opinions and asked a kasha on the rambam based on the assumption that techias hamaysim is forever, like the rambans shitah, because that indeed is a shinui. But those are two separate opinions.

In all of the seforim which discuss moshiach, there is no mention of him being from the dead, except for the abarbanel, who holds rhat techias hamaysim can happen first, and whoever moshiach is could very well be from those resurrected, but he does not say that it will be someone held of as moshiach who failed to accomplish his mission.

Again, the rambam disqualifies any candidate who does not fulfill his mission. So yes, it’s alecha lehavi raya, it is upon you to prove otherwise.

This is like someone saying that the avos wore shtreimels. Then someone asks, what’s your proof? The person answers… Do you have proof that they didn’t? Aha! You have no proof, so I’m right!

@sechel83 Does all of Chabad believe that Rav Schneerson ZT”L can come back and be Moshiach or not? Because most Chabadskers would adamantly deny that Meshichists even exists and laugh at the idea that a dead person can be Moshiach. But here you seem to be saying that all of Chabad believes this?

This is not me, nor is it @AviraDeArah, nor anyone else on this thread. Numerous Rabbonim and Talmidei Chachamim that are universally respected in the frum world (except amongst some of Chabad) have repeatedly said that the RAMBAM is clear that Moshiach cannot be from the dead and that anyone who argues is guilty of kefira. This isn’t a fringe idea, this is a very prevalent idea in the non-Chabad frum world. The only question is what percentage of Chabad actively believes that a dead tzaddik may wake up and bring the geulah.

yserbius please tell me about this machlokes when techiyas hamasim will be.
ראה יומא ה,ב, based on that gemara some explain that tzadikim will have techiyas hamasim right when moshiach comes, but even without that: everyone agrees that there will be techiyas hamasim, can someone explain to me what is the sevara that moshiach cant be from the masim?
even according to the zohar (which probobly only chabad heard of) that techiyas hamasim will be later, explain to me the simple reason for it. if you cant explain it to me, then learn לקוטי שיחות חלק כז בחוקתי.

Around and around we go…

And now only chabad has heard of zohars. Guess rhe Gaon’s massive meforshim on it are just….non existent.

I think by “this thread is getting stupid,” you mean that you don’t have an answer to the taanos posted here.

There are different opinions among baalei machshava and mekubalim about when techias hamaysim happens; some hold it can – but not necessarily will – happen before, as the abarbanel writes, but most hold it happens after, including the rambam, who says that the entire point of techias hamaysim is that the maysim get to see moshiach. The ramban also agrees that it is after, but argues about what will actually happen; the ramban holds that the body which returns(for all tzadikim) will be very spiritual, like adam kodem hachait, and will live forever. The rambam holds it will live and die like a regular human.

If we don’t know the sugya, please explain it, because all I’ve seen so far is likutei sichos, which I’m not interested to read, snd misquotes from chabad seforim, and a zohar which can be understood many ways, as evidenced by the machlokes among mekubalim.

Ramban, shaar hagemul, writes that techias hamaysim will be at the end of the tekufah of yemos hamoshiach, and will be olam haba on this world.

The Rambam in igeres techias hamaysim writes that it isn’t clear when it will happen, could be before moshiach comes or after.

Hasagos Raavad on hilchos teshuva 8:2,3

Maharal gevuros Hashem, hakdama, writes that techias hamaysim is the beginning of olam haba for those two kept the Torah,

Ramcham in maamar ikarim, “hagemul”

Another thread about Moshiach from the dead. Please see Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach. It shows Moshiach from the dead was a common belief among Chazal and specifically shows Rambam did not rule out Moshiach from the dead l’halacha. It’s a sefer in English and a free download. I bought mine in Judaica Plaza in Lakewood.

#any kugel left.
Habad ITSELF denied the possibility of Mashiach from the dead – not the so called mitnagdim . .
For many years [when it was convenient] Their Rabbanim Maspiim , their newspaper loudly proclaimed this .
.
Now it seems convenient to hold of Mashiach from the dead.
.
For many more years then not , they OUTRIGHT DENIED that Habad holds their leader as Mashiach . Those who quoted that habad designated their leader as mashiach were GUILTY OF SIN’AT CHINAM , and MOTSI SHEM RA and did so only out of hate and jealousy. They are guilty of being full of YESHUT and GA’AVA , and therefore try to blacken habads face .
.
PLEASE – WHERE IS BASIC HONESTY ?

“Google rabbi Yitzchok schochet response to RCA resolution that was published in Jewish chronicle.”

The first thing I see after googling Yitzchok Shochet is that he used to be a principal at Ohelei Torah, the main Chabad school in Crown Heights.

You can’t bring Chabad rabbis to defend Chabad views. How are you not getting this? If we raised problems with Catholicism (lehavdil), it would be silly to say “well, the Pope doesn’t seem to have any problems with it.”

Menach:

So, bringing Avi Weiss as a proof that the Open Orthodoxy and totally legit and truly Orthodox would be reasonable? It would be “ludicrous” to suggest otherwise, according to you.

Menachem, what Neville is saying is that a rabbis name attached to something isn’t a defense thereof if the rabbi is a member of the movement in question. He’s saying that we shouldn’t just accept it as having rabbinic approval if the rabbi himself is from that sect.

He’s also going against the idea of the Lubavitcher rebbe being right because he said he’s right. Something some Lubavitchers have an issue with

In general, I wouldn’t give too much credence to any RCA statement.

“You seem to have understood him to say, “the Rebbe is Moshiach, look, even Rabbi Schochet agrees”.
In that case, I agree. It doesn’t make any sense to say that.”

Yes, this is exactly what I thought he meant, but I think you’re correct. Sorry about that. I thought he was bringing him as a proof, not just telling people to look up an existing rebuttal from Chabad.

“In general, I wouldn’t give too much credence to any RCA statement.”

Honestly, agreed. It’s a bit two-faced of us to ally with Chabad when it’s a chareidi vs. MO discussion, then ally with the RCA when it’s a Litvish vs. Chabad discussion. We should just be steadfast in our opposition to everyone everywhere all the time.