Anyusernameopen?

whats a 4th degree burn? If I may ask

@rso

Now not to proof it from the wording in the abarbanel because in that we have our own opinions, but I think from the artscroll which looks pretty clear. Would be better (Which is also why I brought the artscroll to begin with. As I mentioned the first time.)

Artscroll quote on this gemora in sanhedrin regarding doniel being moshiach “(Abarbanel explains that it is possible for the Messiah to be among the resurrected (Yeshuos Meshicho lyun 2 ch. 1)”

(I think – that they brought the abarbanel to explain this gemora in sanhedrin which most ppl wont understand because everyone knows that moshiach will come from those that are alive. so they brought the abarbanel to tell you that, there are opinions that say no, moshiach can come from those ahat have passed away.

Btw isnt someone that twists the words of chazal an “am haaretz”? Meaning he doesnt know how to learn which is why he’s twisting them?

I think thats enough for one stomachache 🙂

*not that we should be calling ppl am haaratzim in general

Quote “I haven’t called anyone an am haaretz yet,”

You are correct,
as far as I know you never used the term “am haaretz” but you have used a few terms which have the same or very similar definition as an am haaretz

@np
Step 1 I’m not saying you don’t have questions”

,Step 2 – “but they way you write is just wrong, and dont deserve an answer even if you wanted one

Step 3 – “which you dont”

I have a question. Doesn’t step 3 contradict step 1?”

Read it again…
“Which you don’t” is going on the fact that he doesn’t want an answer. And not step 3

RSo
were arguing on a specific topic here whether moshiach can be from the dead other then doniel.
you said no i said yes.

so hears how you can look at it
according to rashi no
according to abbarbanel yes

who said rashi and abbarbanel have to agree?
who said that rashi learnt the same thing in the yerushalmi it could be he argues with the abbarbanel, and learns the story a different way (there are a few ways to learn that story).
you seem pretty adamant to say that rashi and abarbanel agree.

the abarbanel is trying to explain a story that no on was able to explain, and he learnt it from this gemoro that it could make sense – that from the fact that the gemoro says doniel can be moshiach, he says so to we can use that same logic for our story (remember this goes against rashi that says only doniel)

QUOTE “I would assume that the answer to all three is yes”
I agree, i think the same way and i feel that the rebbe also does.
Remember WE cant argue on the arizal and beis yosef as we dont know them nor can we argue on anyone else but its a matter of opinion.
AS I SAID MANY TIME THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN ARGUE ON THIS IS A MATTER OF OPINION

you say i cant prove it to YOU, im not looking to prove it to you. you had questions which i tried answering, if you dont understand it ask somone else.

now regarding the abbarbanel you can look in the makor i told you (where he brings an explanation regarding the story of the “aravi” (the story of moshiach’s birth) and at the end he says:
ואל יקשה עליך שיהי’ מלך המשיח מן המתים כי כבר נסתפקו על זה בפ’ החלק ואמר רב אסי אם מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש אם מן מתייא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
i will explain a bit but you wont take anything i say anyway so go look it up yourself.
throughout the entire explanation he is trying to explain the story. and in middle he says that moshiach will pass away and then get up with techiyas hameisim (nothing to do with doniel yet) then he bring the proof for what he says and brings the gemoro in sanhedrin.

so no, he is not trying to explain this gemoro in sanhedrin, he is trying to explain something else and bring this gemoro in sanhedrin as proof that moshiach can come from the dead.

were not gonna get into if the Rebbe fit the catogory or not because thats a matter of opinion which you disagree with so no point in going there.
but let me ask you like this
how were they able to say to say the arizal was moshiach did he fit the rambams critiria?
did the teacher of the rama fit the critiria?
did all the other people that were thought to be moshiach fit the full critiria?

Quote “That is a very big jump from the quote. The Sdei Chemed says that in every generation there is someone muchshar – fit – to be the Moshiach, and you somehow think that that gives the right to any person/group to choose whoever they think is the greatest of that generation. But the Sdei Chemed doesn’t even say that his talmidim held he was the greatest of the generation. Don’t forget we are talking of the generation of the Beis Yosef and other gedolei Yisroel of such great stature.”

i think any normal person assumes moshiach is the greatest person and not some beggar on the street (although it is possible).
And you still never explained why they said their teacher is moshiach and please explain the line i quoted.

again, you’re not proving to me that what im saying is against pshat you’re just basing it on the fact that im learning it different than you, which is fine – we both have an opinion. but to say that it is against pshat is wrong to say.

we have different opinions on a lot of things. but to say everyone disagrees with me i think your wrong.

“I would almost buy these justifications for deification”
We’re talking about moshiach now
Like RSO you argue on things that are not being discussed

Atzmus was brought in for a bit but has since moved to another thread

What?

1st one i wasnt so clear when i brought the abarbanel but i explained it in the next one

2 ME “if moshiach is from the dead it doeasnt necessarily mean only doniel – look in abarbanel thst i quoted”
RSO “And as to the Abarbanel which you miscite (I made that word up because I think it will get a lot of usage when it comes to arguing with lubavichers): after explaining that the Mishnah davka says that שמו של משיח was created on erev Shabbos, and not Moshiach himself, as it is referring to various characteristics of Moshiach, he then cites the Gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b where the talmidim cited the names of Moshiach as similar to that of their rebbes:
ואין ספק שכל אחד מהחכמים האלה היה דורש טוב לעצמו ומיחס שם המשיח כשמו כי דבי ר’ שילא קראוהו שילה בשם רבם…

Once again, HE DOES NOT WRITE that students should believe their rebbes are Moshiach, and he does not even say that those students did believe as much. (And again, if those talmidim would have believed as much it would NOT have been based on lubavich-like manufactured fictitious characteristics.)”

3. ME “But you only had a problem with the part that it can be from the dead which is why I quoted the abarbanel only for that reason”
RSO “I saw that the Abarbanel did NOT say that the talmidim claimed their rebbes were Moshiach.

remind me again what were arguing on?

1. “Just for the record, you will not find any post of mine saying that Moshiach can’t be from someone who has died”
It’s funny how until I brought the abarbanel you said if it’s from the dead its only doniel now that I brought the abarbanel your saying that its not from sanhedrin.
But B”H we both agree that moshiach can be from the dead and not necessarily only doniel.

2. You are 100 % correct regarding the sdei chemed. Nowhere does he say its a mitzvah to believe that your rebbe is moshiach BUT he does say that in each generation there is someone that is muchsher to be moshiach and each set of talmidim said that if moshiach is the greatest person in that generation’s who is greater then our teacher which is why they said that their teacher is moshiach

וכן הוא בכל דור ודור צ”ל אחד מוכשר שמא יזכו (ועפי”ז כתבו ג”כ תלמידי הארי”זל שבימיו הי׳האריז”ל
This is after a long hemshech

(The term supposed was used in the same way I assumed u use the term apikorses – just trying to bring out your point in a very strong way)

I love how there are 3 threads on the same topic.

@rebbitzin I would like to publicly thank you for starting a new thread (I’m a bit jealous cuz I was thinking of doing it too but I couldnt think of a good topic)

@mods any idea for a good 4th one (a good name)

(Jealosy in kedusha is good)

@lmt
I feel I mentioned your question very clearly but I’ll say it again:
If something is Torah it must be said straight out, as is even if it sounds weird, toras emes is emes – truth is not worried about questions –

Because Moshe gave a very vague description about when he is coming back the yidden got confused and made an eigel….

I know it sounds very weird and very extreme but its the same thing.

“Maybe some of the mods are Lubavitch”

I doubt it, othwrwise some posts would be taken down
And certain treads would not be started 🙂

*I cant stop him from voicing his opinion

@lmt
Not sure if this answer your question but here goes

For now ill go accourding to your second way you assumed the sicha which means the concept is correct but some ppl misunderstood it and daven Directly to the rebbe

There is a concept I’m sure you heard of – I forgot the words offhand but its something to do with hashem gave way to the goyim to say things against him by writing certain things in Torah

There were the tzidukim baitosim and others that learnt Torah and totally learnt it wrong. Are you gonna say that hashem shouldt have given the Torah?? I hope u get what I’m trying to say

The rebbe said a sicha – some ppl may have learnt it wrong but if its part of Torah it has to be said as is. no point of hiding it… Even if ppl learnt it wrong and took it totally out of context it’s still Torah

(you might disagree with some parts but its backed up with mekoros (not as halacha as the rebbe says himself but rather as hergesh – but its backed up with makoros) and unless you know all the mekoros and all the merforshim on them you cant say its kfira)

I know u’ll say “but our gedolim said its kfira” and it’s a mitzvah lfarsem or something similar to that. but that’s a lame excuse. as you say get better tactic. bring all mokoros where you see that its totally against pshat in this – not just “the ramchal or NH says” even if there is one safer that holds of it means that its not kfira even if majority dont agree with that sefer.

Dont either answer abt hergesh that’s not either a question as I just wrote.

@rso the one warping things here is you
( Btw why did each one have to find a makor in Torah finding that thier rebbes name fits with moshiach ??
Why did they care if it was their rebbe?

I’m a bit confused if your bring that proof against me from the abarbanel when I said that the proof is from the sdei chemed and the proof of moshiach coming from the dead is from the abarbanel

quote from @ncb “all ur saying is ur scared to open a safer and look
How are you even arguing if you never opened a safer?”
The argument is how the shittah fits into the Jewish tradition, not the Chabad tradition. Using seforim from the Rebbe is totally circular logic”

i hope you didnt think i was talking about sukka – i was talking to @rso

but if you knew i was talking to @rso and still say what you say the ill say this
i never knew the rebbe wrote the sdei chemed chasam sofer abarbanel and others i quoted

@rso
all ur saying is ur scared to open a safer and look
How are you even arguing if you never opened a safer?

As far as the radio show how about listen to it instead of hearing other ppls opinion or are you scared to do that too?.

Just shows how ppl argue just say boich sevoros just for the sake of arguing (I know ull say im choshud for making things up – thats fine if you say that. but dont tell me I’m wrong or crazy without looking at what I brought)
Say I’m making things up!

Just for the inyan
שדי חמד פאת השדה מערכת האל”ף כללים אות ע
Abarbanel – yeshuos meshicho iyun 2 ch. 1 – from artscroll

Quote
“Anyusername: “@rso did you look in all the merforshim I quoted? Or did you not got that far in learning?”
No. I saw the full texts of Rashi and the Maharsho which you quoted and saw that it had been distorted to mean what it definitely does not. ”

I guess your smarter then the chasam sofer, sdei chemed and others and I need to have more respect for you
Sorry for not giving you that respect

(Listen to the shiur from the famous radio host dovid Lichtenstein called “revisiting our relationship with lubavitch” it might be a good idea to hear what other litvaks, and gedolim he brings down say.)
Over and out

(When the Goyim came into the Beis Hamikdosh and saw the Keruvim, they dragged them outside and showed everybody “what the Jews really worship”. Yirmiyah Hanavie didn’t bother answering them, because the answer is not as simple as the question. Instead he cried)

(Once R. Zalman Moshe sat near R. Moshe Gurary by a farbrengen and demanded of him, “You are a ‘scholar.’ Tell me, what is the ‘atmzus’ that we hear about so much in chassidus?”
R. Moshe tried to evade the question, “What can one possibly say about atzmus?”
But R. Zalman Moshe was unrelenting, and said, you must tell us, what is atzmus?”
Finally, R. Moshe opened his mouth and tried to explain something. But, at that moment, R. Zalman Moshe immediately turned to him again and gave a playful slap. He then said, the mere fact that it is possible to say something – that’s already not atzmus)

When I said atzmus I obviously don’t mean you will understand Atzmus for that is something that no person can understand

But what I do mean is that there are certain things that if you look at it with a regular eye doesn’t seem to make sense

for example:
1. based on the way Hashem created this world we are limited and Hashem is unlimited so how can limited affect the unlimited wouldnt that make us unlimited (obviously on hashems end that is not a question because hashem is unlimited, the question is on our end how do we see it (this part I don’t feel is the correct way to ask the question but I hope u get what I’m trying to say))

2. About Moshe it says חציו ומעלה אלוקים חציו ומטה איש

3. How can Moshe say ונתתי מטר ארצכם בעתו”

4. how can the Zohar say. “מאן פני האדון הוי’, דא רשב”י How can one say such a thing about a human

Before we continue we need to answer these questions – there has to be an answer (there are others but we will start with this)

great question about atzmus
from what i understand your whole problem is on the atzmus part – meaning if the atzmus part makes sense everything else in your questions pretty much makes sense and just needs to be fined tuned.

(as it looks like the moshiach part you can handle especially based on sanhedrin 98B based on poshut pshat and the meforshim there E.G. chasam sofer, pri tzadik, sdei chemed, beis shmuel in shulchan aruch regarding “ksivas get” and others)

there are a few options either we can try explaining it to you or you can ask a lubavitcher you respect (YY Jacobson was mentioned)

Quote “It would be much better if they hadn’t had a kosher wedding & wouldn’t have been married according to halacha. Then they wouldn’t need a get later”

???