Should we try to encourage Mashichists and Elokists to return to the fold?

@TS Baum:
Perhaps we can address the fundamental question here.
There are Jews who are sharing views that are at the least very mistaken and problematic (meshichisters) and at worst actual apikorsus and minus (elohists).
And these same Jews are very publicly claiming to represent Judaism to the outside world, and they are often accepted as being legitimate.

So there’s a major question here: what should we do?

it doesn’t help to say they are a minority, or they are not following “true” Chabad teachings.

Practically, if you are at Ben Gurion airport (or the Kotel, or Central Bus station, or many other locations) and ask where you can put on tefillin, you will be told to find the “Chabad rabbis”.
This is despite the fact that many of the people manning the stations are (at least) meshichisters, based on their kippas and paraphernalia they share.

Likewise, many Chabad houses around Israel are run by meshichisters, and public farbrengens are run by even the Tzfas elohists, all in the name of Chabad.
“Dvar Malchus” and other pamphlets are spread in all the shuls and in all locations, and they almost all contain meshichist ideas and slogans.

So practically, when this ideology has become the prominent face of Chabad- at least in Israel- there is a need to figure out how to stop this massive Chillul Hashem.

It sounds like you are saying that non-meshichist Chabad don’t want to publicly reclaim the title of “Chabad” and are willing to let them represent Chabad, out of fear of machlokes.

I’m not sure if that’s really the proper attitude, but I understand why a chabadsker would be afraid of division within the Chassidus (even though they are not following the Chassidus anyway).

But for the rest of us, we don’t want secular Jews learning that belief in the rebbe as Moshiach is a fundamental Jewish teaching.
Why shouldn’t we take a stand?
Whether we should try and rebuke them privately, or protest them publicly, we should let people know that they don’t represent Judaism!

That doesn’t mean we are okay with mishichists.

And one thing I want to set straight (which shouldn’t take 5+ pages to set straight) is that it is not fair to term all Lubavitchers as “kofrim” and R”L “baalei avodah zara” and other things.

You can’t say “Lubavitchers believe their rebbe is Moshiach”, it’s just like saying “frum people are violent, extremists who fight with the police and throw stones at cars on Shabbos”. Because that’s not all frum or “chareidim”. They are called “extremists” for a reason.

We have something called Ohel Chabad-lubavitch. It is the resting place of the Previous Rebbe, along with The Rebbe ZY”A. Tens of thousands of people flock there on Gimmel Tammuz.
And you claim that you would think all lubavitchers are mishichistim??? Who takes care of the ohel?? Misnagdim??

But I don’t even make dollars, I’m not paid for doing this.

Dear Syag,

You should know not to make assumptions about thousands of people just because you know dozens.

nom – that rule doesn’t apply in this type of case.
If I fly a certain airline and am met with a set of experiences, it is fair to say that I cannot extrapolate that all airlines will share this outcome. If I go to a chabad house and there is tons of food and hundreds of people I can’t assume all chabad houses are the same.
But if you talk to many lubavitchers, read publications and see videos where the same philosophies or beliefs systems are stated, I may not be able to generalize that all lubavitchers love PR or all lubavitchers are into media but there would be no basis to wake up in the morning and say that, although they have all spread the same message, perhaps there is a whole group spreading a different message somewhere but keeping it so quiet that the message goes no where. And the absence of any push back from them would normally mean agreement but perhaps out of nowhere I should just poof, come up with an idea that perhaps really nobody agrees with this very loud, very public, very consistently unified group, they just don’t want to say anything against it. They hope the idea just falls into your brain on its own that maybe even tho you hear the same song over and over it may not be the real song.

You can’t apply that to this type of situation.

Dear Syag,

Maybe real Chabad does not care too much about what we think of them. They have their teachings and a comprehensive global mission to go along with it. Our perception of Chabad is not a factor to them. The same way Chabad’s perception of the yeshiva world is not a factor to the yeshiva.

Well that’s a little silly. If they didn’t care what we thought, they wouldn’t spend 100’s of pages accusing us of sinas chinam.

No lubavitcher who has a life is on this thread for your information and could not care about your hack a cheiniks, say what you want about them acusing you and of sinas chinom and rav shach and this and that and kofer and mashiach and goof gashmi but you should be carefull that what you make up shouldent be too extreme. You have my permision to countinue the hack acheinik charade bevakasha. tzeischem lesholom. Yeh im a bored bochur, bored like the rest of you (clearly) 🙂

Dear Tuna,

This thread is about tzaddikim bmisasam kruyim chaim, not reshaim bchayahem kruim maysim.

I didn’t understand how @ts Baum et al answered the question.
The question was that the meshichisters and elohists have gains acceptance (at least in Israel and some othe countries)as being representative of Chabad in the public eye; they run the chabad houses, tefillin stands etc (for the most part). They also run the schools and thus are educating thousands of children to believe that the rebbe is still alive- with a physical body (I’ve confirmed this is taught at some schools for sure)- and that he is the one to whom they pray to.
What should we do about this.

If I understood ts Baum’ s answer, it was just that they don’t tilt represent authentic chabad philosophy, and they don’t have a right to claim to actually represent chabad.

But that doesn’t address the fact that they are actually recognized by the general public as being legitimate

Ts Baum (and others) objected to calling all chabadskers apikorsim etc since there are lots of Chabad who don’t agree with the meshichisters.

But it was pointed out- if the public face of Chabad is dominated by meshichisters, and the “regular” chabad don’t publicly distance themselves or reject that philosophy (and don’t even publicize that others disagree)- then why should we assume that some Chabad disagree, and how are we supposed to know that?

I’m not clear on how these questions were answered.

Look at chabad things which to my knowlege isn’t mishichist:
1. Merkos L’inyonei chinuch
2. Chabad.org
3. Collive.com
4. Anash.org
5. CrownHeights.info
6. Chayenu
7. Kehos Publication Society
8. Tzivos Hashem
9. Friendship circle
10. Gan Yisrael
11. Ohr Avner
12. Ohel Chabad-Lubavitch
13. Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch
14. The Shluchim Office
15. TheYeshiva.net
16. Stumptherabbi.org (there are different rabbis on it, with different opinions, but following the majority)
17. The Meaningful Life Center
18. Most lubavitcher yeshivos
19. Jewish Educational Media
20. Jewish Learning Network
21. Colel Chabad
22. The Rebbe’s Library
23. Jewish Learning Institute
24. Machne Yisrael
25. Aguch (Agudas Chasidei Chabad)
26. Hachayol Magazine
And more, but I think this is enough to prove my point.

Now, for the mishichistim:
1. Beis Moshiach Magazine
2. Chabad.net
3. Psakdin.net
4. chabadinfo.com
5. Dvar Malchus
None more come to mind, i’m sure there are a few more.

But at the end of the day, even including ones I forgot, the majority of chabad multimedia & organizations are not meshichistim.

Ts, most of the orgs and sites you mention are a mixture of meshichist and non-meshichist. Aguch has tons of rabbis and shluchim who are meshichist. Kehos and merkos are basically the same org, run by rabbi krinsky, who has said at times that he’s not meshichist, but this has been disputed.

News sites run by chabad individuals hardly count for a “source”, and who knows what the beliefs are of the people who run collice, lr crownheigts.info? They’re just news outlets.

Gan yisroel is just the name of many, many chadorim – kinda like saying “bais yaakov”. It’s a meaningless umbrella term.

Shluchim – as mentioned, there are many messianic and even elohist shluchim.

Colel chabad writes on their pushka that they are “under the auspices of the lubavitcher rebbe” i know this because i donate to them quite often, they come and pick up my pushka every year or ao. they are giving tzedaka to aniyim in eretz yisroel and are very trustworthy, moreso than a lot of mailers i get. I give credit where kts due. I have no idea what the beliefs are of the people involved, only that they are reputable in terms of distributing tzedaka.

If you’re going by websites, there are hundreds if not thousands of meshichist websites made by individual “rabbis” and whatnot. Your list is just a couple of them and is very misleading.

What about 770? It was taken over by the tzfas group. You left that out.

Dear Ts,

Also, Chabad Yeshivos publish pamphlets of Chiddushei Torah that are only regular Torah. Not even chassidus. That is very telling. I’ve hung around a few such yeshivos. They learn more halachah than Tanya. And they know gemara very well. There is no mishachist in the curriculum. Obviously, the future of Chabad is non mishachist.

Dear Syag,

‘Nah’ was a response to me. I’m not clear what you think was untrue.

Dear Avira,

Your asking for a crash course on all the Chabad politics. The fact that there is a struggle to get a hold of the microphone, points to the vocal minority. Not to what is the prevailing opinion.

They don’t have to make any declarations to not believe in a mishugas. You just don’t have to believe.

But for your information, look at this statement:
A 1996 statement from Agudas Chasidei Chabad said:

With regard to some recent statements and declarations by individuals and groups concerning the matter of Moshiach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of sainted memory, let it be known that the views expressed in these notices are in no way a reflection of the movement’s position. While we do not intend to preclude expressions of individual opinion, they are, in fact, misleading and a grave offense to the dignity and expressed desires of the Rebbe. The statement reads that “The Rebbe clearly inspired a heightened consciousness of Moshiach, one of Judaism’s principles of faith, and towards this end, encouraged the study of the traditional sources concerning belief in Moshiach, the Redemption and its imminent fulfillment, as well as an increase in activities of goodness and kindness. This should be perpetuated by all, as we strive for a more perfect world and the fulfillment of the Rebbe’s vision.

It continues:

Unfortunately, the Rebbe’s words are now being distorted and quoted out of context by a numbered few. This reckless behavior, even if well intentioned, is antithetical in the extreme to all that Lubavitch represents as defined by the Rebbe. The Rebbe explicitly and emphatically advocated a thoughtful, respectful and responsible approach in this and related matters, and resolutely opposed such distorted pronouncements time after time, both publicly and privately.[88]

A statement from Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch said:

A 1996 statement from Agudas Chasidei Chabad said:

With regard to some recent statements and declarations by individuals and groups concerning the matter of Moshiach and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of sainted memory, let it be known that the views expressed in these notices are in no way a reflection of the movement’s position. While we do not intend to preclude expressions of individual opinion, they are, in fact, misleading and a grave offense to the dignity and expressed desires of the Rebbe. The statement reads that “The Rebbe clearly inspired a heightened consciousness of Moshiach, one of Judaism’s principles of faith, and towards this end, encouraged the study of the traditional sources concerning belief in Moshiach, the Redemption and its imminent fulfillment, as well as an increase in activities of goodness and kindness. This should be perpetuated by all, as we strive for a more perfect world and the fulfillment of the Rebbe’s vision.

It continues:

Unfortunately, the Rebbe’s words are now being distorted and quoted out of context by a numbered few. This reckless behavior, even if well intentioned, is antithetical in the extreme to all that Lubavitch represents as defined by the Rebbe. The Rebbe explicitly and emphatically advocated a thoughtful, respectful and responsible approach in this and related matters, and resolutely opposed such distorted pronouncements time after time, both publicly and privately.[88]

A statement from Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch said:

Belief in the coming of Moshiach and awaiting his imminent arrival is a basic tenet of the Jewish faith. It is clear, however, that conjecture as to the possible identity of Moshiach is not part of the basic tenet of Judaism. The preoccupation with identifying the Rebbe (zatza”l) as Moshiach is clearly contrary to the Rebbe’s wishes. Together with the whole of Klal Yisrael we pray for the fulfillment of our collective yearning for Moshiach, in the spirit of the timeless Jewish declaration: “I await his (Moshiach’s) coming each and every day”. – wikipedia, translated from kol koreh chabad.

The preoccupation with identifying the Rebbe (zatza”l) as Moshiach is clearly contrary to the Rebbe’s wishes.

let it be known that the views expressed in these notices are in no way a reflection of the movement’s position. While we do not intend to preclude expressions of individual opinion,

This is diplomacy. Not a disavowal and a clear statement that the rebbe is NOT moshiach. It goes on about how it’s conjecture, how it’s not important, how the rebbe didn’t want it (which isn’t the point – the point is that it’s FALSE.. they’re still obsessing over what the lubavitcher rebbe wanted as opposed to what Hashem wants).

This statement reads like a “wink wink”. Like when one parent says no to a kid to show solidarity with the other parent, but the kid knows he’s getting what he wants from the first one.

If someone claimed that rav shach (whose name was menachem too!) Was moshiach, there wouldn’t be any tolerance of their individual opinions. It would be said that he was not moshiach, full stop, end of story.

They had to say something because the more exteme, open messianics would give chabad a bad name and hurt their kiruv, which “the rebbe wanted”, so his desires for kiruv are more importmant to them than whatever else he may have desired…the difference is in priority, not in ideology.

By Rav Shach, you wouldn’t think twice about him being Moshiach.
It’s very different by the Rebbe.
I think you understand why. If you don’t I’ll show you in short.

One of the things necessary to be Moshiach is that this individual is passionate & his whole life is based around bringing the geulah.
Rav Shach’s whole life did not revolve around bringing the geulah.
The Rebbe’s whole life did revolve around bringing the geulah.

But, that doesn’t make it stamped in ink. That doesn’t MAKE him Moshiach. But it would make you think twice.

“The preoccupation with identifying the Rebbe (zatza”l) as Moshiach is clearly contrary to the Rebbe’s wishes.”

Can you provide proof?

Based on the way his followers have referred to him for several decades now, it seems to me hard to believe.

Syag, read it carefully. They’re not disavowing and repudiating the opinions. “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” wouldn’t be said if the issue were any other psak.

When the gedolim assered the new york board of rabbis, they didn’t write on the kol koreh “but we do respect everyone’s right to an opinion.” That’s just not how rabbonim speak when forbidding things or making clarion calls – this was not clarion. It was purposefully vague, using some strong language but stopping short of just saying. The. Words. Rebbe. Is. Not. Moshaich. It’s not very hard to do.

Ts, uht azoi! You’re finally admitting that there’s some validity, in your mind, to the notion that the lubavitcher rebbe was moshiach.

Personally i think rav shach spread Torah more qualitatively than the lubavitcher rebbe. He preserved pre war torah. He increased the amount of torah learning to levels unseen since bayis sheni. Learning torah brings the geulah
The lubavitcher rebbe spread some torah to frei people, the overwhelming majority of whom stayed frei or weren’t reached by shluchim. Putting leather boxes on clueless people with the halachik status of goyim or captured babies does little to bring the geulah, I’m sorry.

I do thank you for finally recognizing that messianic ideology is present even in the non-meshichist or supposed anti-meshichist group.

Many tzadikim were pure hearted, kind, and dedicated their lives to klal yisroel. The chofetz chaim, for instance. If someone told rav elchonon that the chofetz chaim was moshiach (ok, bad example, he’s a kohen) he would say “no”, because he was no longer alive. Not maybe, not possibly; no. Flat out, simple no.

This is the case for every influential tzadik who was just as compassionate and kind as the lubavitcher rebbe and moreso.

Dear Avira,

Please find out more about Rav Shach before you try to talk for the yeshivishe velt.

And this may be a major shock to you……. Chabad never did things the way most of the Chareidim do today. Their way of psak and inclusiveness, cannot he investigated in light of how we in our communities would do it. Your criticism is based on that not everybody does things according to your familiarity. On one thread you even had the Teimanim as not reliable enough for us. So I guess the bar for all Jews is to start MO and then become yeshivish.

Dear Avram,

“Also, jewish history shows that we do indeed have macholokes based on thought systems rather than observance.”

This could be read many different ways. Does ‘machlokes’ mean that one group was accusing the other of being out of bounds? Because than I can’t think of any that were not about observance. For comparison, please name one such dispute that was only about thought systems.

Dear Avram,

You ask about why Chabad does not give Torah sources. First of all, it’s pretty much laid in Tanya and other classics. If you think they are learning it wrong, than more sources won’t help. Second, look at this thread. Who is coming to this argument to learn up Chabad? Third, asking Chabad for a response of what some of Chabad thinks, is beyond sources. You have to sit people down, and ask them very specific questions.

And do get to the superiority claim, the people that have issues with Chabad, even the gedolim, just don’t speak in the same terms as Chabad. So it makes specific questions impossible. And then Chabad says, “you just don’t understand. We know better.”

It’s not a bias as much as a language barrier.

Chabad uses the “you don’t understand” with satmar, and other chasidim who very much do understand their language, including litvaks like me with a background in chasidus.

There’s no mention in the tanya of a rebbe being the essence of god (atzmus elokus is a term in chasidus for Hashem himself, all over) wrapped in a body, that he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and fit to be prayed to.

If there is kindly show us.

What they’ll use as “sources” are the lubavitcher rebbe’s own writings.

It’s like debating with a Christian who tries to prove himself right hsing the new testament.