The Five Most Likeliest Candidates to be Moshiach

Ben Toiro, have you seen my post?

I have one observation.
If moshiach can be from the dead I would defenitley choose Moshe Rabbeinu or Ezrah or one of the many tannoim over the Rebbe. Even his predecessors the Baal Hatanya or Tzemach Tzedek would come in first. Not to mention the Vilna Gaon.
Why the Rebbe???
This question always mistified me

American, it’s because first there’s a personality cult. The lubavitcher rebbe made himself into a messianic figure, as the brisker rov said upon his ascension to the position.

Lubavitchers literally believe that their last rebbe was greater than every tzadik in the last 2000 years, and have no bushah in saying so.

Avira, a personality cult??? Like Rebbe Akiva deciding to be a nosai kailim for Bar Kochba???

Better their dedication than your cynicism!!!
On that note, don’t be like servant who serves his master for a reward. (Your cynicism would dissipate by following this.)

Hevai misabek baafar raglaihem.
Hevai shose batzama es divraihem.
…what you would call “a personality cult”!!!

But for someone who isn’t accustomed to showing Kavod to Talmidai Chachamim before their very eyes, your handicap is no surprise.

Footnote on the previous comment: I did not intend to imply that those teachings are exclusive to Chassidus; by no means; but rather simply that some teachings are reserved or veiled in some circles, while commonplace or even core study in another.

Dear Avira,

No one? How would you know what his supporters were saying? We weren’t there. And they all (mostly) died along with him. So we don’t know how they would have reacted to his death. There are better analogies to today. I would love to see how you would twist yourself to answer for all the Accepted Rabbonim that went along with messianic movements. But more than that, I would love to know why your so troubled by it. Let Chabad be Chabad. You don’t care anyway.

@benToiroh There is a simple solution to this argument that everyone is ignoring. Ask any non-Chabad Rov if they believe if the late Rav MM Schneerson ZT”L can be Moshiach. They will overwhelmingly answer in the negative. Press the issue and ask if it is within the boundaries of emunah to believe so. They will mostly answer that yes, it is a problem emunah wise if one believes that.

What this means, is that we can split Torah fearing Jews of Klal Yisroel up into two camps: Those that have no problem accepted that a dead man can be (or is) Moshiach, and those that say absolutely not. At this point, it isn’t even an “Elu v’Elu Divrei Chaim” question, since the side that rejects the messianism believes the other side to be following a non-Torah path.

So we are left with a choice. You can follow the Torah as it’s been interpreted and accepted by all of our Rabbonim since forever. Or you can follow a small subset of Rabbonim that have broken away from the klal and are no longer accepted as being part of it.

It’s really immaterial where you came from; I’m responding to what you’re saying – you could be a chat GPT bot for all i know or care.

“It is avodah zara to say that Hashem has any body, or that any body reaches him. This is 13 ikkarim. A rebbe or any other tzadik is not god. He doesn’t have god in him, as Hashem cannot be contained, divided, be here and not there, etc..”

I agree with “a rebbe or any other tzadik is not god”. I can’t be sure that this a unanimous opinion. But as long as it is not associated with any form of actual worship, it is most definitely not avodah zara.

Nom, a person believing in a god with a body, or believing in baal, is avodah zara regardless of if the person serves the deity.

But here, they DO serve the deity. You’ll see lubavitchers say that they do mitzvos to please the rebbe. At a shluchim conference, an oved avodah zara prayed that the gathering be pleasing to the rebbe, and may he bless our efforts… Effectively a vehi noam. Shlomo cunin, chabad head of the West Coast, said after the Mumbai tragedy that the world will see that it’s the rebbe who runs the world.

It’s there, and it runs deep. It went from personality cult to full on idolatry.

Ben, on a different topic: did you ever wonder why most azahoros of TaNaCh and Chazal are on dererch ha’yirah?

Ys, you are purporting that every “non-Chabad Rov” is ignorant of a befairush Gemara in Sanhedrin (98b), with Rashi there distinctly explaining the possibility.

I simply don’t accept what you said for it being motzi Shem ra on all of Daas Torah.

Furthermore, the Abarbanel, Yeshuos Meshicho and Sidai Chemed explicitly cite that Sugya as a source allowing for Mashiach coming min hamasim.

So I simply do not accept that Daas Torah forgot a klur Sugya or would contradict the highly regarded Chachamim who explained it so plainly as to be unmistakenly applicable to Mashiach, whoever he is.

Also note that the Rebbe concluded his first Maamar with “vehu yigalainu” in reference to his father-in-law, the Previous Rebbe, already after his petira.

And to go so far as to claim “Emuna problems” and ch”vSh disregard a fellow Yid as a result is to be mechadesh Torah shelo keHalacha for which one loses their Chelek in Olam Haba. So that’s an ironic boomerang in that anyone who does so has earned by their code the very same treatment they relegated to another. Talk about “haposel bachaveiro bemumo posel”.

And make no mistake: it is not even a “fringe opinion”, but rather a bluntly clear Gemara saying in the simplest terms that Mashiach might come min hamasim, and the Rashi there clarifies it further by taking it further into the clear meaning of the Gemara, indicating that it is definitely saying possibly so!
_____

Sanhedrin Daf Tzadik Yes Amud Bais:
אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
Rav says, if [Mashiach] is from the living he would be like Rabbainu HaKadosh, and if [Mashiach] is from the dead he would be like Daniel Ish Chamudos.

Note: without making even the slightest of adjustments to the implication of Rav’s statement, what he is quoted as saying is obvious. That Mashiach can come from the living or the dead. It is to avoid this obvious meaning that slight adjustments would be introduced. Rashi however makes adjustments in both directions and expands it to introduce two additional implications, one of which is presented as his preferred expansion, and even further solidifies the statement as allowing for Mashiach min hamasim.

Rashi says:
אם משיח מאותן שחיים עכשיו ודאי היינו רבינו הקדוש דסובל תחלואים וחסיד גמור הוה כדאמרינן בבבא מציעא (דף פה.)
ואם היה מאותן שמתו כבר היה דניאל איש חמודות שנדון ביסורין ב אריות וחסיד גמור היה והאי כגון לאו דווקא
ל”א כגון רבינו הקדוש כלומר אם יש דוגמתו בחיים היינו רבינו הקדוש ואם דוגמא הוא למתים היינו כגון דניאל איש חמודות

…if [Mashiach] was from those who have died already he was Daniel Ish Chamudos who was judged with affliction in the lion’s den and he was fully pious. And in this meaning, “he would be like” is not necessarily applied (i.e. either like, or literally)…

Rashi then goes on to offer another expansion, that Mashiach is being compared to a living or dead personality.
Note that the plain meaning of Rav’s statement lands squarely in between the primary and secondary expansions of Rashi, and persists as the original statement.
And again, the later Chachamim simply cite Rav’s statement at its face value, as indicating simply that Mashiach can fcome from the dead and be someone [else, who is] like Daniel Ish Chamudos.

But it cannot be stressed enough that Rav’s statement, without adjustments, actually says “if he is from the dead … he is like …”, and Rashi draws this out to the point of demonstrating that, yes, “if Mashiach is from the dead…”.

It’s in no way a hard Gemara. And with Rashi there are three take aways, Rav’s plain statement as is, Rashi’s first introduction further reinforcing the plain implication of the Gemara, and a *secondary* explanation that keeps the living Mashiach prominent. (Arguably because Mashiach will come from both the living and maybe also the dead. I.e. He will live and be known, and die, and then return for more.)

In conclusion I would argue that during the life of Mashiach, the characteristics of R”HK are seen in him, and after his death the characteristics of Daniel Ish Chamudos are seen in him.
E.g. if the Rebbe, when he was living he was mostly seen holding Rabbinic court; now he is more and more being seen in a different light from other aspects, such as every President inaugurating his birthday, or just recently every sitting US Governor getting together in one room to celebrate his birthday one year. ..just an example of how he can be seen in his life one way and differently now. Also as his Shluchim continually proliferate and grow in leadership/prominence and wisdom it affects the perspective of him. Bringing this into limited examples doesn’t do the point justice. Certainly now each person themself can maybe perceive in different ways how now we might see that back then he was unflinching in a proverbial lion’s den, whether spiritually facing some group issuing a cherem, or physically in danger of political assasination like so many lehavdil other radical social and political leaders were met with…
…and this is only a sample..
Another approach is that his personification in Techiya would be in a similar likeness to Daniel Ish Chamudos.

Now my question is if chabad is effectively Christianity with black hats why hasn’t there been someone like Paul (I think he’s the one that made Shabbos on Sunday) that veers it off from yiddishkeit

Coffee, you’re going out on a limb to say that paul really did that; it’s not as if it’s in chazal… it’s a theory from a prominent frum historian and talmid chacham, but i wouldn’t take it as a given.

But leshitascha, i think chabad is not irredeemable, pardon the pun. They still keep halacha and believe in torah she baal peh, which makes them able to be saved…could be in a few decades people will wake up, and the tzfas-nik chabadskers will, indeed, be a different religion, like shabsai tzvi followers post-conversion to islam.

@benTorioh You didn’t address a single thing I’ve said! I’m not talking about whether Moshiach will be from the Mechayeh Meisim or before. I’m talking about worshipping dead people. And I stand by that. There is no non-Chabad frum Rov who will say that people in Shomayim watch what’s going on in the world, listen to teffilos directed towards them, and respond to those bakoshois.

You’re the one being motzei shem ra. The criticism of Chabad for these actions and beliefs is extremely well known and as universal as possible. You’re saying that all these chashuva chashuva Gaonim don’t understand a pashuteh Gemara!?

Ben, you do not know what you are talking about! You can not just pull out a quote from a Kabbolah seifer and take it ke’pshuto!! Any half am ha’orez knows that. What do you think I and Avira and a multitude of others do not know these statements?

Ben T, you won’t convince people with obscure references. You have higher chance if people see how you behave and learn according to your Rebbe’s teaching. Then, all Yiddishe mamas in the street will be pointing to their children – do you want to be an Erliche Yid and a Talmid Chacham like that chosid? Then, everyone will eventually become a follower of your Rebbe and you can vote for a Moschiach of your choice. Hatzlaha. Start with helping the old lady cross the street and open a sefer.

Dear Yserbius,

“There is no non-Chabad frum Rav”

Meron and the Zohar for starters.

Unfortunately, your in the minority here.

Dear Coffee,

Because they have their own communal network. That is used by all segments of Jews. Except for those that have their own dead leaders.

See here for wishing for the dead a good feeling (תנ):
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=41862&st=%d7%a7%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%94%d7%9d&_rnd=0.27563267177930784

_____

It is astounding that one would assume that Torah Yiddin, Talmidai Chachamim who have our treasured Yiddishe sensitivities would do anything but look to Torasainu HaKedosha guidance on what is Pious conduct in this regard.

So far we’re batting 100!

With regard to a related subject: “Tzaddik yesod olam”, & “Tzaddika deispatar ishtakach bechulo olmin yatir maibichayohe”!

Please remember to share with me the secret proprietary Litvish tietch for “YvOvKBH”ChH”.

besides the zohar, chazal are replete with stories of tzadikim davening on behalf of klal yisroel…by the churban beis hamikdash, the avos, moshe, etc…davened, and only rochel was answered. many such stories, and this is part of why some hold you can ask a tzadik by his kever to daven for you, but nowhere does it say that the tzadik himself answers and fulfills your requests…that would be a violation of the 13 ikkarim, as the rambam says you can only daven to Hashem.

and yes, a tzadik can accomplish more in shomayim…through his davening…oy, why do i have to explain this?

As it happens to be, that zohar is not pashut, because there are seforim which say that as tzadikim grow higher and higher in shomayim, they lose the ability to daven for people, because they see how what we consider to be suffering is ultimately for the best.

but I suppose some tzadikim, such as the avos, etc…, are on an even higher level, where they can see how it’s good but still feel the pain of regular people….this is just my own theory; i have no idea what goes on in shomayim.

and I’ll humor our friend a little more – what do you intend to take out from the sefer you linked to? it’s about moving meisim, the pain they might feel, which circumstances you can move them, when it might be pleasing to the meis, etc…

what does that have to do with their ability to help you directly or have absolute insight of what goes on in the world all the time?

absolutely nothing, of course. But it’s an interesting teshuvah regardless, so thanks for sharing!

Isn’t it a Gemara in brachos that neshamos don’t care about what goes on down here?

And additionally what is this about davening that a neshoma helps, davening is to Hashem in the merit of the neshoma

Does it seem weird to our friend that every single gemara he quoted talks about the tzadikim davening on our behalf? Not a single place in chazal, rishonim or achronim say you can daven to a tzadik so that HE could help you, rather that he should daven for you to Hashem, the only one to whom prayer is suitable.

And even still, many rishonim held the halacha is not like that, and that you cannot speak to tzadikim at all; in this regard, there are different minhagim, each valid.

This controversy extended to the inclusion of machnisei rachamim, which was a huge machlokes, because while all we’re doing is asking the malaachim to bring our tefilos to Hashem and to daven for us, it’s still a big issue.

But no one says that you can pray to anything besides Hashem. It’s all over the rambam; it’s avodah zara and against his 13 ikkarim… Take a look at the siddur, it’s ikkar number 4… Only Hashem is fit to daven to.

This means that people who actually pray to tzadikim have forfeited their place in klal yisroel.

Ben, it is a statement from the Zohar! These are very deep, not- simple yinyonim. For the third time — you can’t just pull out a Kabbolah statement, read it literally and draw conclusions. That is why Chazal (second perek of Chagigah) held that sisrei Torah are to be told only to few select individuals.