ARSo

CS, I certainly would like to continue the discussion. I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this in the past, but there are two reasons I post so storngly (people who know me would be very surprised if they knew that I was the one posting) in regards to Lubavich, despite me being virtually 100% sure that you will never agree that your rebbe was wrong about anything, and that you will unfortunately continue to believe that he is Mashiach.

1. I think it is very important for non-Lubavichers who may be reading this thread to see that the claims you make are really baseless, when looked at from true Torah sources.
2. Perhaps I will be able to get you and some of your compatriots to realize that at least some of your quotes are misinterpretations and misleading, and then you will at least desist from using them here or anywhere else in the future.

And another thing. Had you and others claimed that as far as you can tell the Lubavicher rebbe was fit to be Mashiach based on his tzidkus and Torah, while admitting that he didn’t at the time of his death actually attain the criteria cited by the Rambam, I would certainly argue with you, but nowhere near as vehemently. I personally believe my Rebbe is perfectly suited to be Mashiach based on his tzidkus, leadership etc. But I wouldn’t claim that he was a king, or that he has compelled all of Jewry to keep Torah etc.

In truth, it makes not an ounce of difference to me if he is Mashiach or not. Who cares? He is my Rebbe and I try (and often fail 🙁 ) to live up to his guidelines. There may be others who are more suited to be Mashiach due to their lineage and military skills. Note, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere do we find that Bar Koziba was thought to be the tzaddik hador. Certainly R Akiva was, yet he declared BK to be Mashiach!

Furthermore, what about Rebbes who were Kohanim (e.g. the Tifferes Shlomo) and Levi’im (e.g. the Chozeh of Lublin)? Their chassidim could not possibly have thought that their Rebbes were Mashiach, yet they certainlly correctly considered them tzaddikei hador.

Deciding who will be Mashiach is so irrelevant to people who put in real effort in their avodas Hashem, that Lubavich’s campaigns in this area just reinforce my long-held view that it is merely a crutch to support a side that has veered from the Torah path that has been accepted for millenia.

CS, I have to voice my respect for the mod who allowed your post even though it was as “misinformed and condescending” as the mod said it was. I would also add another adjective: garbage. (I know. That’s really a noun but here I’m using it as descriptive, in fact a metaphor. At any rate…)

First, as I have written in the past, I am not Litvish. I am a card-carrying chossid of a well-known Rebbe shlita.

Second, you keep demonstrating how brianwashed you are by writing what you have been told that Litvaks think. I am not a Litvak, but even I say they are not that stupid!

According to you, Litvaks just worry about Lubavich hashkofo, while ‘we’ Lubavichers “grow up as Hashem being very real in our lives as a result of the tangible things we see and Laem [sic] through the Rebbe… etc etc”

Does the brainwashing never end? Of course sometimes Lubavichers will best Litvaks in nigleh, but in my experience – and I reiterate for the countless time that I have many more years of association with all types of Lubavichers than you do –that is not usually the case. It’s just that so often when Lubavichers are bested by others – in anything whether in lomdus, hashkofo, even inyanei de’alma – the resort to one of two options: either changing the topic (And having said that, I note that you have not addressed at all my straightforward, almost literal, explanation of the gemoro, and instead you have gone back to ‘explaining’ to us am haratzim where the problem with the Litvaks lies.) or claiming that the other person simply does not understand the depth of your statement.

Which leads me to another point. I have come across a lot of deep theories in many fields, and I could probably tell you many of the theories of string theory, and quantum mechanics. They wouldn’t be wrong… but I wouldn’t understand what I was saying!

Knowing facts does not make you a deep thinker. It can, however, make you think that you’re a deep thinker. And that is one of the major problems with Lubavich. You (not you personally, rather, a generic Lubavicher) don’t have an inkling into what, for example, tzimtzum really means, but you can spend hours talking about it and quoting stuff that you have convinced yourself that you understand. This not only means that you are shallow, it results in you remaining shallow, because you have no reason to really absorb true knowledge since you know it all already.

Those of us here who realize that we don’t know the true meaning of these lofty concepts, and we don’t understand the depth of a real Rebbe and his tzidkus, are far more likely to achieve something with our lives in terms of yiras Shomayim and the like than people who think that they know all the answers. In simple terms, swallowing a foreign dictionary does not make you an expert in that language.

Thanks for the mods for allowing this discussion to continue!

Aside from all the other stuff that I strongly disagree with, there is something very important that many Lubavichers have been claiming, and that CS inadvertently (after all, she’s a woman who doesn’t learn gemoro, and therefore probably doesn’t realize the terrible misinterpretation of the gemoro and Rashi) cited.

When faced with the Ramban who wrote that we reject yoshke because he died, CS replied: “please answer how the Ramban could contradict the gemara (think it’s sanhedrin 98) which says that Moshiach can come from the dead or the living, and Rashi brings two examples of individuals thus suited from both”

The gemoro says, “If Mashiach is from those alive, it is Rabbeinu Hakadosh (aka Rebbi), and if it is from those who are dead, it is Doniel.”
Rashi gives two explanations:
1. It is either Rebbi, who is alive, or it was Doniel, who is dead.
Yes, according to that pshat Mashiach can be someone who is not alive BUT only Doniel. That version does NOT give you the right to say that anyone else who has died – including, of course, the Lubavicher rebbe – can be Mashiach.
2. If you want an example of someone alive TO WHOM MASHIACH CAN BE COMPARED, that person is Rebbi. If you want an example of someone dead TO WHOM MASHIACH CAN BE COMPARED, that person is Doniel. According to this pshat, there is no reference of Mashiach being someone who had died.
The above is the simple, non-convoluted, explanation – it’s almost an exact translation – of what Rashi is saying. If you don’t trust me, ask your husband, and if he is honest he will tell you that I am right about that.
Now we don’t know how the Ramban learnt the gemoro, but based on his statement that we reject yoshke because he is dead, it would certainly seem that he understood it the second way rather than the first. He may also have had an entirely different interpretation of the gemoro. After all, he was a Rishon and was not bound by Rashi’s interpretations. Finally, he may not have held that that statement is an accepted view.
The Ramban’s statement, therefore, is not at all contradicted by the gemoro.

I would really appreciate it if you could confirm your agreement of what I wrote above, as what you wrote originally has veered from the path of the gemoro and Rashi.

CS: “So we don’t need a new Rebbe to tell us what is needed today- we know exactly what to do”

Does that include breaking the wall of 770? It seems some know that that is exactly what to do, while others know that that is exactly NOT what to do.

CS: “Qwerty,
The Rebbe didn’t make up the term Nassi, it’s found in rashi, and other sefarim. The other Rebbeim used it too , as far as I know. In any case it’sa description of a position. No more arrogant than you going by the title of your profession.”

I believe that I can take the credit for saying that the term Nassi, as applied by Lubavich, was made up by Lubavich – quite possibly the LR we are dealing with. Not Qwerty. I have written about it at some length on earlier threads.

Of course it’s found in Rashi and other sefarim. I’ll let you in on a little secret: it’s also in Chumash and the gemoro. But it has not applied to anyone for a millennium and a half. That is until Lubavich, in their great humility, decided to use it for themselves.

Sorry, CS, but the word “obfuscating” (yes, it has become one of my favorites) comes to mind when I read your replies (“2 answers…”) to my problem with your view on both the LR and his father-in-law being one and the same, and both, therefore, Mashiach.

Simply, it doesn’t make sense. If the LR was himself Mashiach why refer to his father-in-law as Mashiach? And why “get answers” from his father-in-law’s grave? Wasn’t he good enough to be Mashiach on his own, or has Mashiach in your mind become a Siamese-twin concept? (Please don’t tell me that since the Rambam doesn’t say anything against it, that might indeed be the case ☹.)

“In lubavitch, a Rebbe is not an inspirational yid.”

Your naivete is showing once again! I have never heard a chossid of any Rebbe referring to his Rebbe as simply being an ‘inspirational Yid’. When will you learn that all the garbage taught to you in your Chassidic hashkafa classes – call them what you will – was designed to have you believe (wrongly, of course) that Lubavich is on an unbelievably higher level than Menagdim, Pailisher chassidim etc? It is all a crutch for you to lean on when you come face to face with people whose hashkofos are really Torah-true, and to prevent you realising that yours are false, misleading and dangerous.

Quite a number of years ago a rov of a Chassidishe kehilla told me that his Rebbe (I know which Rebbe, and the only reason I am not saying it is because it may very well lead Lubavichers who hear the story to badmouth him. Rest assured he was an acknowledged worldwide as a huge talmid chochom and baal mesiras nefesh, and he had chassidim on a number of continents.) once voiced his disapproval when he heard his chassidim singing a Lubavicher niggun at a tish. He said, “They should not be singing a niggun of a group who consider only themselves as having the true path.”

“but there are references to it being the dor hashvii”

What are the sources of those references?

And while I’m on a quest for sources, can you please provide a source for your claim that when the Ramban said we rejected yoshke because yoshke had died, he did not really mean it, and he only said it because that was all he could say?

CS: “Wow alot here”

Ditto!

Your quote from Rashi in Daniel says that Mashiach will be “covered” from us for 45 years. If you are relying on this, why do you keep hoping/saying “Mashiach Now!” And if you are not relying on the 45 year time period, then don’t quote us the Rashi. You can’t have it both ways!

And the Toras Moshe you quoted says six months. So here the problem is the opposite. Either you believe it’s only six months, so obviously your rebbe isn’t the Mashiach he is referring to, or you don’t believe in the six month time period. So don’t quote that Toras Moshe. Again, you can’t have it both ways!

Anyway, as someone pointed out, “covered” or “disappearing” is not the same as dying.

“Firstly this was a major prediction that no one else made and came with a lot of achrayus.”

Right, and I still remember it being that no one will be killed, not that there will not be missiles. A major prediction with lots of achrayus… and in the end, incorrect.

“Secondly, in the sicha, The Rebbe referenced the Alter Rebbe as saying that Chassidim should only ask for spiritual guidance, because guidance for physical matters belongs to neviim as Shaul asked the Navi Shmuel about his lost donkeys… yet we see that all Rebbeim, including the Alter Rebbe, did dispense advice about physical matters, which indicates they were neviim.”

Is that really your proof?! Wow! How weak. Because guidance in physical matters should belong only to nevi’im – is there a source for the Baal Hatanya saying that, or are we just to take the Lubavicher rebbe’s word for it? – therefore someone who gives physical guidance must be a novi!

Guess what? I have just realised that I, and most of my friends, and my bank manager, and the person next to me in shul, are all nevi’im, as we have all given physical advice.

Furthermore, according to what you wrote, not only Lubavicher rebbes are nevi’im, as other rebbes – even those few past or present who Lubavich believes in – have given physical advice. So, according to the weird logic above, they are also nevi’im. What is special, then, about Lubavich?

“at least in one instance, someone asked his Rebbe for not a bracha, but a havtacha, to which his Rebbe said that if he wants a havtacha, there’s only one place in the world- Lubavitch…”

A story about a rebbe without a name is almost as strong a proof as the “proofs” the Lubavicher rebbe said about himself!

“There are countless stories where The Rebbe told people not to have life saving surgeries, and similar situations, which turned out fine.”

I am sitting here shaking my head at how naïve you are. Let me enlighten you. There are countless stories about other tzaddikim – some of them, perish the thought, even Litvish – who have advised against apparent life-saving surgeries and were proven right! Yes, it’s true and documented. You can find them online if you search.

yankel berel, I really liked your post about the Ramban’s reason for rejecting yoshke as Mashiach except for one minor point.

I think you should have used the term “died” rather than “passed away” in reference to that false Mashiach.

CS: “Now I don’t think there’s any Torah sources for someone who started the job, and didn’t finish/ was killed or otherwise thwarted, to continue to consider them Moshiach.”

For the trillionth time, the LR did not start the job, any more than any other person who tries to bring Yidden closer to Torah and mitzvos. In fact, there are problems that he caused that those others did not cause, and that makes him a less-likely candidate.

And for the record, as I see it a melamed in a cheder of FRUM kids from FRUM families, as well as anyone else involved in chinuch, is doing just as an important job as Lubavichers or others who work in kiruv (you prefer the word hafotzo because it makes you seem on a higher level – but that’s another thing I won’t go into now). Especially today with the street and its influences being what they are, keeping someone frum and aiding him in retaining his ingrained Yir’as Shomayim is not small feat and is, IMHO, more important that bringing people who are further away from Torah closer to it. After all, what is worse, a person born not-frum who unfortunately never becomes frum, c”v, or a frum kid who goes off the derech R”L?

So much stuff to comment on. I hope I do it justice and don’t miss anything out.

CS, both yankel berel and myself REMEMBER the Lubavicher rebbe saying that not one Yid will be harmed/killed, and he was wrong. By your own admission, you were not born at the time, so you may heard a laundered version of his “prophesy”. (I prefer to refer to it as a prediction, which, as yankel berel writes, would not result in anyone being c”v chayav misa. Just one person, as knowledgeble as he may have been, being wrong.)

And I’ll have to commend ‘my voice’ for saying what I have been thinking for a while, and have been reticent to write due to the woke world we unfortunately live in:
“one thing I can say is that my belief in chazals wisdom in exhorting women not to learn (except for applicable HALACHA) has exponentially increased”

DaMoshe: “Arso, about the Gulf War, you made a mistake. R’ Chaim didn’t say nothing would happen in Israel. He said it specifically about Bnei Brak, not the entire Israel.”

If so, I stand corrected on that. Thanks.

CS: “Secondly, you have homework now: (I’ve saved mine from the other day): 1. Proof that The Rebbe said not one Jew will die”

Being a little older than you, I remember it! I don’t know whether I can find a proof, as it’s likely that if it ever was online it has since been deleted, but I hope to search for it. Nonetheless, as I wrote, I remember it clearly.

“2. Proof for your claim that indeed two Jews died directly from the rockets”

Google “how many people died in Israel during the 1991 gulf war” and look through the numerous sites, including at least one official Israeli site.
And if you expect me to prove those sites as correct and truthful, I can’t because I didn’t work in the chevra kadisha.

I just did a search for your no. 1. and what I did find is that the Lubavicher rebbe said before the Gulf War that Israel is the safest place in the world. I don’t think it was for all those people who died due to war-related incidents. Do you?

CS: “The Rebbe told everyone who asked there’s nothing to fear and you should not leave EY, and indeed the war turned out the way the Rebbe said.”

That is not true for two reasons that even I know of.

1. R Chaim Kanievsky also said nothing will happen, and he had a note on his door “I did not seal a room”. There were also others who predicted that no great damage will be done.

2. The Lubavicher rebbe clearly said that NOT ONE YID will be killed (maybe he said harmed, but let’s leave it at killed) and one Yid was R”L killed due to a scud missile attack. Actually, I just looked it up and I discovered that the official Israeli tally is TWO people killed by missiles and another at least 11 others through various side issues, such as gas masks being incorrectly worn, heart attacks and incorrect use of atropine (which was to be used in cases of poison gas). So not only was it not nevuah, it was not even correct. Unless you want to say that when he said that not one Yid will be killed, he mean that there will be more than one 🙂

If you look in the last perek of Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah in the Rambam – the favorite sefer used by Lubavich to “prove” that their rebbe is Mashiach – you will find the following:
אומרים לו אם נביא אתה אמור דברים העתידים להיות והוא אומר ואנו מחכים לראות היבואו דבריו אם לא יבואו, ואפילו נפל דבר קטן בידוע שהוא נביא שקר, ואם באו דבריו כולן יהיה בעינינו נאמן

So even if “a small matter” – I personally do not consider Yidden being killed R”L a small matter – he is a false novi!

Furthermore, in the next halacha the Rambam writes:
אומרים לו אם נביא אתה אמור דברים העתידים להיות והוא אומר ואנו מחכים לראות היבואו דבריו אם לא יבואו, ואפילו נפל דבר קטן בידוע שהוא נביא שקר, ואם באו דבריו כולן יהיה בעינינו נאמן

So even had his prediction re the Gulf War been correct (which, I reiterate, it wasn’t) that is not enough to consider him a navi.

CS: “I saw something interested last night regarding how matrilineal lives are ok”

Ok for what? For being a king? I don’t think so. And if yes, then chances are that every Yid who is not a Ger is descended from David Hamelech and fit to be king/Mashiach.

CS: “Same with Moshiach- there’s the one big Moshiach, and the spark of Moshiach in every yid”

(Non-Lubavich) source please?

CS, neither you nor anyone else has responded to the following “problem” that I have mentioned at least twice:

“…the explicit Rambam that says that whoever claims that Mashiach will not descend from Shlomo Hamelech is a kofer Bashem c”v, and the yichus of the Maharal (once again, there is no proof that the L rebbe was ben achar ben to him) was through the Nesi’im in E”Y who were descended, the gemoro tells us, from Shefatya, Shlomo Hamelech’s brother.”

Another thing. You wrote: “Also the Zohar says there’s an extension of Moshe in every generation.”

Many seforim quote the Zohar as saying that there is an ispahstusa deMoshe in each generation “בכל נפשא ונפשא”, i.e. in every Yid in every generation. Sure I believe that in tzaddikim the ispashtusa is either stronger or “closer to the surface”, but we all have it in us, not just one person in each generation.

CS: “there’s 3 stages: 1) למיודעיו 2. לוחם מלחמות ד׳ 3. גילויו לכל”

Valid sources (by that I mean not something said by the Lubavicher rebbe) please.

“We definitely see the Rebbe as king in many ways”

Correct. YOU see it in many ways, but the Rambam does not. Nor does the entire Torah-world, at least, not those who are under stong Lubavich influence.

I’ll ask you again, why did not one Lubavicher chassid EVER recite the berocho made when seeing a king when they saw their rebbe? Clearly, not even Lubavichers held that he was king according to halacha. If you can’t give a valid answer to that, you are simply contradicting yourself, or at worst lying, when you say he was a king.

As to R Akiva and Bar Koziba, I don’t know how it worked but if the Rambam lists criteria, and he then says that R Akiva consider Bar Koziba a king, then he must have fit those criteria. Something which your rebbe most certainly did not.

“Bar kochba definitely wasn’t annointed- there was no Sanhedrin then.”

Ah, but there was. According to many sources the Sanhedrin ceased to exist in the year 4185 (425 CE) which is loooong after R Akiva was martyred.

“your Sanhedrin criterion isn’t mentioned at all here in Rambam”

But all the quotes you cite from Rashi in Doniel, from Rabbeinu Bachya and others are, right? Can you really not see that you just pick and choose what to count and what not to count.

I also note that you have not addressed the explicit Rambam that says that whoever claims that Mashiach will not descend from Shlomo Hamelech is a kofer Bashem c”v, and the yichus of the Maharal (once again, there is no proof that the L rebbe was ben achar ben to him) was through the Nesi’im in E”Y who were descended, the gemoro tells us, from Shefatya, Shlomo Hamelech’s brother.

“it [that Beis Mashiach has a gematria of 770] only became significant to me when the Rebbe referenced it”

Fair enough, because you believe every thing that he said regardless of how meaningless it is. But for you to expect us to take something as childish as that seriously, indicates that you are so brainwashed that you can’t even believe that others have a totally different way of thinking than you.

“On the contrary Chabad means we engage with the mind.”

Did you perhaps leave prefix “dis” of one of the words in the above?

CS: “Here’s it says in Hayom Yom introduction (and Beis HaRav
is well known)
…

The Rebbe is Ben achar Ben to the Maharal, who was known as having descended from Malchus Beis Dovid.”

You really don’t get it, do you? I, and at least a few others on this thread, don’t accept anything the Lubavicher rebbe says that could lead to a claim that he himself is Mashiach or a descendent of David Hamelech, because we believe he is just pushing an agenda.

So PLEASE, if you want to bring proofs about anything at all, use only other non-Lubavich sources, and especially nothing from the last Lubavicher rebbe!

Re the Maharal’s alleged yichus to David Hamelech (I say alleged because there seems to be a disagreement about this. Not that it makes any difference to us because the Maharal was as great as he was regardless of his yichus.), it is through Rashi WHO HAD NO SONS. So it is most definitely NOT ben achar ben to David Hamelech.

Furthermore, the Tzemach Tzedek, who was the Lubavicher rebbe’s paternal ancestor, was not ben achar ben of the Baal Hatanya, and his paternal line is unknown (other than the claim that he was a descendant of the Metzudos). So how on earth do you know that the Lubavicher rebbe was ben achar ben from the Maharal? Oh, I know. He said so himself.

CS: “1) no one said that bracha, and see what I said about bar kochba”

You claim that the Lubavicher rebbe fits the Rambam’s criteria, one of which is Mashiach will be a king. So why didn’t anyone – not even the greatest of chassidim – recite the beracha one recites when seeing a king? The obvious, and only, answer is that they didn’t consider him a king, and for a very simple reason… he wasn’t.

Btw I believe that the expression מאן מלכי רבנן does not appear anywhere in Chazal. It is a paraphrasing of something said by an Amora in Gittin 62a, and according to that all Rabbonon are included. Nonetheless we do not find anyone, including the Amora who made the statement, reciting the beracha because even he did not mean that they had the actual status of kings. Proof being that Chazal say that a Rav can be mochel on has kavod but a king cannot. So clearly it is allegorical (that may be the wrong word, but you probably know what I mean).

CS: “the example the Rambam gives as a candidate to be Moshiach was Ben koziba. He wasn’t a king anointed etc, but rather people gathered around him and overtired his instructions”

He may or may not have been anointed, I don’t know, but R Akiva certainly considered him a king because he called him MELECH Hamashiach.
And as far “overtired” is concerned, I think that adjective may apply to a number of people who read this thread 🙂

CS: “2) that’s not in the Rambam s criteria of defining bchezkas Moshiach”

What are you referring to?

CS: “3) did you look up all the sources?”

I looked up ALL the sources you gave from Chazal. I did not look up any sources from the Lubavicher rebbe because I already know that he was the leader of the arrows first system of showing he is Mashiach.
I have said it before, but “Beis Mashiach has the gematria of 770” is so childish that it’s cringeworthy.
Did you know – this is something I heard 50 years ago – that Chamor Bli Daas not only has the initials Chabad but that it too has the gematria of 770? If you want to prove things from childish gematriyos then be my guest.

CS: “1) Rambam must be understandable and applicable as We are to use his halachic criteria for defining candidates for Moshiach. Regarding Melech- if he’s just starting off the process in golus and we’re not even sure he’sa candidate- he wouldn’t be a king anointed by Sanhedrin. The deals pretty done by then. The meaning is Rabbanim who are called kings- מאן מלכי רבנן. The emphasis on king is that he has a commanding kinglike presence/ leadership.”

Sorry, but that is just another instance of drawing the target after the arrow has hit. מאן מלכי רבנן is not Halachic as it’s Aggada, and we don’t interpret Halacha by taken an Aggadic statement and applying it to Halacha. (Do you follow the Satmar shita that it is ossur to have a state, based on the three shevuos mentioned in Kesubos, and on which the Satmar shita is based? I assume you don’t because no one in Lubavich, including your rebbe, did.)

And as I asked before, did any rational Lubavicher (I assume there are and were) make the berocho “shecholak mikvoco lirai’ov” when they saw the Lubavicher rebbe before Gimmel Tammuz. If not, why not? Doesn’t it say מאן מלכי רבנן?

“2) if someone has traceable yichus, they fulfill the criteria. If you are waiting for Sanhedrin, you make this criterion irrelevant and obsolete.”

Surely you mean if someone CLAIMS HE HAS traceable yichus. There was a weirdo on the internet a few short years ago who claimed that he was the son of the Lubavicher rebbe. Would you believe that “traceable yichus”?
And yes, I am waiting for the Sanhedrin because Rashi (Eiruvin 43b) says that Mashiach will come first to the Beis Din Hagadol in Yerushalayim. So unless he is referring to the Rabbanut Harashit (I somehow doubt it) there has to be an active Sanhedrin before Mashiach comes. Interpreting it otherwise is just target after arrows.

“3) enjoy the sources. Regarding yachuf- here’s sources for future reference”

I have to admit I was waiting for those references. Yachuf bidvarim does not mean “encourage”, it means using words to “compel” someone. As in the first example you brought, where Rav Pappa said that if he enters the place in question, it is equivalent to compelling the person there to sign over assets. The Lubavicher rebbe encouraged but did not even use his personality to compel.

“So I choose to be a maamin.”

That’s the whole problem. You choose because you want to, not because you are forced to believe by the sources.

CS: “So everyone can be happy now. For everyone (outside Lubavitch) it will be obvious when Moshiach is here, so you don’t have to keep fighting- you can just wait til stage 3.”

How can Lubavich be happy when you claim that the first stage – revelation to his chassidim – has already occurred yet Eliyahu has not come? Or do you claim that he has already come? I think either I or you are missing something here.

Btw I am still waiting for a source that “compel” can mean “encourage” in the words of Chazal.

I’m also waiting for a source that everyone has an individual Mashiach, although as far as I recall it wasn’t you who claimed that.

sechel83: “the following ideas i have a different understanding of then you.
rebbe, chassidus, moshiach, alive, tzadik, (in one words its all yechida – go learn what that means)”

As DaMoshe pointed out, the beliefs held by you and most (if not all) Lubavichers are targets that are painted after the arrows have been shot. In other words – in case the good head Hashem gave you isn’t quite as good as you think 🙂 – all these things, when attributed to your rebbe, are attributed because you want a certain outcome and you work backwards. Those of us who do not have the same agenda would not attribute them.

sechel83: “you did not explain how moshiach can come. you basiclly explain its impossible for moshiach to come cuz he needsa to be a king appointed by a navi and sanhedrin…”

I never said anything of the sort. I said that I don’t know how it will happen according to the Rambam, and that that is no reason to misinterpret the Rambam, as you and others have.

Unlike you, it seems, I am able to say I don’t know.

One thing I do know, and of that I’m 100% sure: the Lubavicher rebbe is not, was not, and will not be Mashiach. I have many reasons for saying this which I have writtten in other threads, but one reason that is good enough for now is that he does not have any of the criteria cited by the Rambam.

sechel83 quoted the Rambam: “If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.”

We have been through all this before on other threads, but just to refresh (and not to let sechel83 get away with it):
1. The Lubavicher rebbe was not a king. Did any Lubavicher make the berocho “shecholak mikvodo liraiov” when seeing him?
2. There is no proof that the Lubavicher rebbe is from the House of David. Sure, he claimed he was, and I think his father-in-law also claimed the same, but I don’t believe that counts. Furthermore, he is not ben achar ben, as the lineage goes through Rashi who had no sons. The standard rule for yichus is patrilenal descent. If not, then it’s likely that millions of Yidden are from the House of David.
3. The Lubavicher rebbe did not COMPEL even one single Yid to walk in the ways of the Torah. He certainly encouraged, but he did not compel, and the Rambam chose his words carefully.
4. The Rambam’s reference to wars of G-d refer to literal wars, just as Dovid Hamelech and other kings fought. This cannot be taken to mean encouraging people to keep Torah and mitzvos.

Elsewhere sechel83 wrote: “a melech has to be appionted by sanhedrin and a navi! learn milchos melachim.
so explain to me the rambam please and how according to you moshiach will come.”

I certainly can’t explain how Mashiach will come according to the Rambam’s definition, and I don’t know who can. But that does not mean that we can disregard the Rambam and pretend the Lubavicher rebbe was a king etc. Don’t forget, this is the Rambam that 1000s of Lubavichers have been quoting as proof since before 3 Tammuz. Just say you don’t understand how it will come to pass. Don’t try to misinterpret it.

qwerty: “The question that started this thread implies that a Chassidus is viable if it has a Rebbe…. if you had a Rebbe, like the Sfas Emes(my favorite) who made Torah study the sine qua non of life, I think the movement could go on quite well without a Rebbe.”

It seems that you don’t realize that “a chassidus” is not the same as “a movement”. While a chassidus is ALSO ‘a movement’ it is far more than that, as the former requires a rebbe while the latter does not.