Menachem Shmei

Yankel,

@menachem That’s strange – you have an opinion about everything under the sun , and on mashiach min hameitim , not ?

If you scroll through my posts, you’ll see that I rarely voice my opinion on Chabad matters here.

I am not naive enough to believe that I can convince people to become Lubavitch on an adversarial online forum.

What I do try to do is defend clear cut Torah ideas that are being challenged by עמי הארץ.

For example:

1. I never tried proving or convincing anyone that the Rebbe is a novi.
I did argue that Torah does not negate the concept of nevuah nowadays.

2. I never tried to explain what it means עצמות ומהות ווי ער האט זיך אריינגעשטעלט אין א גוף, nor did I try to prove that this applies to the Rebbe.
This is a complex topic that could take long shiurim with much background to understand (I referenced to a shiur of Rabbi YY).
I did argue that it’s ridiculous to passel a gadol for saying something that is hard to understand, while there are so many tzaddikim throughout the generations who made similar statements.

3. I never said anything about the Rebbe being alive.
When someone posted, in her ignorance, that no meforash understands יעקב לא מת literally, I argued that this is clearly the opinion of Rashi (as understood by Maharsha and Artscroll), Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef.

4. I never said anything about the Rebbe being Moshiach.
I did argue that the fundamental issue with Yoshke is something other than משיח מן המתים.

Unfortunately, some posters here seem to have been blinded by their hate, to the point of being incapable of having a normal Torah dialog.

Happy new year,

I found a bunch of sources discussing marriage during תחיית המתים:

Google search:
ימות המשיח בהלכה חלק א׳ – סימן סו׃ קידושין אחר תחיית המתים

Should take you to the siman from Rabbi Avrohom Gerlitzky’s ימות המשיח בהלכה.

Philosopher,

You are a laughable ignoramus. You have no idea how to learn a meforash, yet you have the audacity to attack those who can. You refuse to accept words directly out of Ein Yaakov because it is on a site that has Lubavitch seforim!

I had my suspicions on who runs the site “Hebrew Books”. Sure enough, when you google “Hebrew Books” you see a major part of their library are Chabad texts.

Well, hate to break it to you: Otzar Hachochma also has Chabad seforim. Over 10,000 of them.
Any seforim store you go to probably has Chabad seforim.

Now, feel free to throw out the entire Torah because it can all be traced back to some sort of association with Chabad.

After all, that’s what you have been doing this entire thread: Attacking classic Torah ideas just because they were quoted by a Lubavitcher.

You and Qwerty have reached levels of hate and insanity that haven’t been reached before in the CR.

Any normal person would take the time to fact check something to know if it’s true before attacking it out of ignorance.

Going back the menachem shmei’s link, it is titled “Ein Ya’akov – Part B-3 (RA-Kidoshin) ” how can it be titled iyin yaacov on “kidoshin” when the copy of the page shows the gemorah “taanis daf h”?

🤣🤣
There are several mesechtos in one volume of Ein Yaakov.

if anyone has another, non-Chabad, link to the rif’s and ayin yaacovs commentary on “yaacov lo meis” please link it

From the YWNCR rules: “Links are generally not approved. Exceptions are: Links to articles and other features (e.g. Coffee Room topics and posts) on YWN, and links to pages of a sefer on hebrewbooks.org.”

The CR must be run by Chabad, run away quick!!!

I cannot believe that these two sites that bring the entire talmud and rif’s entire commentary and the safaara which bring the entire eyin yaacov would leave out what they say on yaacov lo meis.

Obviously you couldn’t find it on those sites, because neither of those sites carry the Rif on Ein Yaakov, nor Iyun Yaakov or Etz Yosef. They didn’t “leave out” any lines.

Neither could I find on safaria in iyin yaacov anything on yaacov lo meis

Again, there is no Iyun Yaakov on Sefaria.
I love how you trust the Reform-run Sefaria, but you are suspicious of the Hebrewbooks pdf of the Vilna edition of Ein Yaakov, because Hebrewbooks has Chabad seforim on it.

Yankel,

You clearly haven’t understood my point.

I stated that I am not getting into the משיח מן המתים debate, I haven’t voiced ANY opinion on the matter.

I did voice an opinion on the statement of a Christian antisemite that the fundamental issue that Jews have with Christianity is משיח מן המתים.

I maintained that the fundamental issue is the religion itself, which is the only explanation for why the chachamim rejected Yoshkeh while he was still alive, and even killed him.

In response, you wrote:
“How can you ignore Ramban and Rambam ?
The reason we know that j is not mashiach is because he did not effect the nevuot about yemot hamashiach IN HIS LIFETIME !
He doesn’t say because he was a meisit umadiah , [which he very well may have been]”

In fact, the opposite is true (according to the Rambam, who I was discussing. Ramban is another discussion):

According to the Rambam, the problem we know about Yoshke is specifically that he started a horrible religion that was completely against the Torah.

That’s why he was killed in beis din, as the Rambam writes there. He goes on to describe why it’s ridiculous to say that Yoshke is moshiach, but he doesn’t say that it’s because of his death. His death was not a reason for beis din to kill him, obviously.

I know what the Rambam writes about the killing of Ben Koziba, and that is a different discussion, unrelated to Christianity, which I will not go into.

P.S. Here is the Rambam, for the third time:
Hilchos Melachim ch. 11:
אַף יֵשׁוּעַ הַנּוֹצְרִי שֶׁדִּימָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מָשִׁיחַ, וְנֶהֱרָג בְּבֵית דִּין, כְּבָר נִתְנַבֵּא בּוֹ דָּנִיֵּאל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “וּבְנֵי פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ יִנַּשְּׂאוּ לְהַעֲמִיד חָזוֹן וְנִכְשָׁלוּ” (דניאל יא, יד). וְכִי יֵשׁ מִכְשׁוֹל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, שֶׁכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים דִּבְּרוּ שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹשִׁיעָם, וּמְקַבֵּץ נִדְחֵיהֶם וּמְחַזֵּק מִצְוָתָן, וְזֶה גָּרַם לְאַבֵּד יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחֶרֶב, וּלְפַזֵּר שְׁאֵרִיתָם וּלְהַשְׁפִּילָם, וּלְהַחֲלִיף הַתּוֹרָה, וּלְהַטְעוֹת רוֹב הָעוֹלָם לַעֲבֹד אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה’.
“Jesus of Nazareth who imagined himself to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: “The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”

Philosopher,

I cannot dissuade Menachem Shmei who is now arguing with a b’ferisha pasuk that says clearly that Yaacov died.

I am not arguing with that posuk. Rashi/Rif/Etz-Yosef/Iyun-Yaakov SEEM to be arguing with that posuk, and Ramban (whom I quoted) ASKS this question, and ANSWERS why it’s not a contradiction.

Of course, you IGNORE my answer to your question.
You clearly prioritize hate over classic limmud haTorah.

First he argued that Yaacov wasn’t buried

In which post? Date, time, post number?

If you can’t find it, will you admit that you’re a LIAR? You LIE to slander fellow Jews? Just as you LIED about the Rif?

(P.S. If all of these are mistakes instead of lies, I apologize for accusing you of lying, as I expect you to apologize for mistakenly misquoting me and misquoting Rif)

Hey mods, did all my posts to Chabad Media from around 10:30am go through?

ויחי קאפיטל נ פסוק ט”ו: וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃
It’s a mefureshe pasuk in the Torah that Yaakov Avinu meis. You cannot argue on a pasuk in the Torah. The Gemara is an agadata.

A) Agadata doesn’t mean it is false, it means we must look in the meforshim to understand what it means.

B) Many meforshim explain יעקב לא מת spiritually, others explain it physically.

C) When you have a seeming question on a Gemara or Rishon, you don’t need to disregard the vort. You can just ask. Maybe you’ll get an answer, maybe not.
Rashi/Rif/Etz Yosef/Iyun Yaakov[/Artscroll] definitely knew of this posuk, yet said what they said.

D) Your exellent question stands even if you learn יעקב לא מת spiritually: The fact is that Gemara calls Yaakov לא מת, and Rashi on Chumash (and Tosfos in Gemara) proves it from the fact that the posuk doesn’t use the word מיתה regarding Yaakov, so how can it say מת אביהם!?

E) Ramban (who doesn’t necessarily interpret the Gemara physically) is bothered by the same question as you!
He answers:
ויגוע ויאסף. ומיתה לא נאמרה בו, ואמרו רבותינו יעקב אבינו לא מת, לשון רש”י. ולדעת רבותינו, הרי יעקב הזכיר מיתה בעצמו הנה אנכי מת והיה אלקים עמכם. ואולי לא ידע הוא בנפשו, או שלא רצה לתת כבוד לשמו. וכן ויראו אחי יוסף כי מת אביהם, כי להם מת הוא, או שלא ידעו הם בזה כלל.
“AND HE EXPIRED, AND WAS GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE. But the word “death” is not mentioned in his case. Our Rabbis therefore said, “Jacob, our father, did not die.” This is the language of Rashi.
Now according to this opinion of our Rabbis, the difficulty arises: Jacob applied the term “death” to himself, as it is written, “Behold, I die, but G-d shall be with you!” Now perhaps he did not know it himself, or it may be that he did not wish to pay honor to himself.
Similarly, with respect to the verse, “And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead,” we must say that to them he was dead, or it may be that they did not at all know of this.”

In other words, the brothers “saw that there father died” because that is indeed what THEY SAW!

As Rashi write on Gemara, they buried him because TO THEM he seemed dead. But really, he was alive.

This also fits with Rashi’s pirush in Chumash on כי מת אביהם, that they FELT their father’s death because of how Yosef was treating them.
This has nothing to do with if Yaakov is truly alive, rather with the perception of the brothers.

Philosopher, in general, maybe try asking instead of attacking.

Arso and menachem shmei quote the ayin yaacov on the rif on yaacov lo meis but I can’t find that anywhere either

The Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef are all in the link that I posted. Sorry, I couldn’t find a clearer edition on Hebrewbooks. Check out any Win Yaakov with the classic meforshim.

Amazing how you attack first and ask later.

ChaGPT: A good term for this might be blatherskite—someone who talks at length without making much sense but with a smooth and convincing manner. Another term could be sophist, which refers to a person who uses clever but misleading arguments, making it seem like their words hold deep wisdom. You might also describe this person as being verbose or circumlocutory, implying that they use many words without delivering much substance.

I enjoy healthy debate but both sides must play by the rules. These are the rules, AFAIC, complete honesty and respecting the opposing viewpoint as well as the opponent are required.

Qwerty, thanks, I laughed so hard when I read this! 😄

They would consider anyone who believes Yaakov Avinu to be physically alive to be a nut job.

This doesn’t offend me, because I don’t have any personal belief on the matter. But Rashi does.
Just because your rabbis like the Rambam better, that’s not an excuse to speak this way about Rashi, Rif, etc.

this is the din of a heretic regardless of them also having the din of a “tinok sh’nishba”. Such a person does not have a portion in the next world

Source that all this applies to a תינוק שנשבה?

Yankel,

When you study habad literature , you will see that after each and everyone of their rebeim’s expired name there is a navgam… It seems to me that no habad faction – even those who ostensibly agree that he died – would use this about their deceased leader .

Every sefer of the Rebbe is printed with a shaar blatt that says
“כ”ק אדמו”ר מנחם מענדל שניאורסאהן זצוקללה”ה נבג”מ זי”ע”.
Go into kehos (the official Lubavitch publisher, established by the Rebbe) and look through any of the Rebbe’s seforim.

(This is with the exception of a small fraction of seforim printed by fringe individuals who are constantly in court with kehos for violating copyright. Those say שליט”א)

[Mods, not sure if this post went through the first time]

Yankel,

They do however state very clearly that WE KNOW that j is out because of the inadmissibility of a second coming

They, including Rambam? Where?
I quoted the Rambam to demonstrate my point, I would expect you to quote the Rambam to demonstrate yours.

Whether yakov avinu is considered dead or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT here.

It’s relevant because Philosopher brought it up to say that it’s crazy to say that Rashi learns יעקב לא מת physically.

There is no problem having a debate in how to understand a Gemara and meforshim.
I didn’t expect it to get so heated, with people considering Artscroll’s interpretation deranged kefira, or claiming that a Rif that I posted doesn’t exist.

Be careful what you write in public domain. Your grandchildren will be learning from LLMs that were trained on your posts.

Not just your grandchildren!

When Ishai Ribo had the concert in Madison Square, someone told me that there was kol isha at the concert. I decided to search it up, and googled “Did Ishai Ribo concert have kol isha.”
Google was just rolling out the AI overview feature, and it responded that yes, there was indeed mixed sitting and kol isha.
When I checked the source, it was a from a comment on the YWN article! 😄

(I get that Google AI overview may be different than a regular LLM like chatGPT. Just thought this was funny)

Also, the nicknames Alter/Mittlele rebbes have a hint of upcoming finality, not sure what exactly happened

They got these titles during the leadership of the next rebbe. During their lifetime they were called “the Rebbe.”

ma nafka mina of the debate of whether a particular Rebbe will be a Moschiach? If my local Rav is destined to be a moschiach – will other Rabonim oblige to follow his psak now? Lo b’shmayim hi…

Not sure if I would base my derech on Dennis Prager, but this has indeed been my mehalech here. I don’t think I ever voiced my opinion in the Coffeeroom on the Who is Moshiach debate.

The Gemara says ,”Lama Li Kra, Sevara He?” Judaism is a rational religion.

Lol, thanks for proving my point.

למה לי קרא means that you only need a posuk to prove something illogical, i.e., NOT everything in Yiddishkeit is rational!
למה לי קרא is saying, why do we need Torah for things that could be understood without Torah!

The discussion in the Gemara Taanis is the FLIPSIDE of למה לי קרא סברא הוא: Rav Yitzchak acknowledged that according to סברא it would be ridiculous to say that Yaakov is alive, but he responds מקרא אני דורש – it may not be logical, but that’s what the Torah says!

He only needs to bring a posuk because it’s not logical! If this was rational, Rav Nachman could have responded to the hekesh למה לי קרא סבתא הוא!

In answer to those who have been yelling on the top of their lungs that only a deranged Lubavitcher would be crazy enough to understand Rashi in Taanis 5b that Yaakov Lo Mes was literal:

In addition to the meforshim that I brought earlier who explain what I said at length, here is the footnote in artscroll 5b (fn 18):

“Since this verse proves that Jacob is still alive, we must conclude that Jacob only appeared to be dead to those who embalmed him (Rashi). Other commentators explain Jacob’s immortality not as a prolongation of physical life but as a form of continued spiritual existence (see Maharsha).”

Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Rashi is understood to mean that Yaakov is physically alive in his kever, he only seemed dead. Maharsha and others argue.

Was Artscroll hijacked by crazy Lubavitchers? Maybe. But I would think that then they would mention the Rebbe’s teachings every now and then.

@menachem-shmei There is no such רשב״א, there is no such רא”ש

How are you so sure? Did you check up the sources in the link I posted?

My earlier post was written quickly, without checking anything up.
Now I looked into this a little.

The Rashba writes clearly that לא תסור applies to chachomim of all times:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19563&st=&pgnum=171&hilite=
(שכב)

There is no specific source for תשובות הרא”ש, so it was hard to find, but maybe it was referring to here:
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1961&st=&pgnum=64
(סי’ ח-ט)
[Happens to be FIERY teshuvos!]

and there is no ראשון by the name of ספר זכרונות.

Correct, I shouldn’t have written “many Rishonim”. That was my mistake (not from the sicha I was quoting).
Sefer Zichronos is by R’ Shmuel Abuhav (1600s). Here’s what it says:
https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=32266#p=5&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=

How could Rashi believe that Yaacov EXPIRED (ויגוע), how could he believe that he was BURIED and EULOGIZED and still be PHYSICALLY alive?

What does expired mean? I brought meforshim that explain. You ignored them, of course.

Neither Rashi, nor any of the meforshim claim that Yaacov Avinu is still walking on this planet earth to this day in his physical body.

Correct. They say he is alive in his kever. As I brought from meforshim.

I can’t grasp why you find this so complicated.

One of us just doesn’t know how to learn a piece of Gemara with meforshim (as you eloquently described earlier in your post) and I suspect it isn’t me.

Also, still waiting for your response to my rebuttal of your accusation that only Chabad “dares to say” that Rashi in Chumash doesn’t always side with Rashi on Shas.

The Rebbe spoke about this and brought many sources on the matter in Likkutei Sichos vol. 5 pg. 127 fn. 25-26.

See footnotes 25-26 here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14928&st=&pgnum=139&hilite=

Some points mentioned there (I didn’t get to look up all the sources yet, so I’ll just quote as they’re written there):

1. Many Rishonim (רשב”א, רא”ש, ספר החינוך, ספר זכרונות) hold that the mitzvah of לא תסור applies in all generations, not just the Beis Din Hagadol.
ספר יראים argues.

2. Many meforshei Rashi explain Rashi like the sifre – “only if it SEEMS.” However, from the fact that Rashi omits these words it seems like he doesn’t want to be mefaresh that way.

3. Indeed, the Gur Aryeh understands Rashi literally, ימין ושמאל כמשמעו, דאף אם הם טועים בדין – “literally left or right, even if they ERR in judgment.”

See the above link for more sources and discussion on the matter.

If anyone wants to look up the Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef that I referenced to in my previous post about יעקב לא מת, you can see them here:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47607&st=&pgnum=130&hilite=

He says that Rashi says Yaacov was buried (actually Rashi points to the word in the posuk saying that Yaacov expired but that it does not say he died, so he agrees that Yaacov expired) but at the same time Shmei says that Rashi says on the Gemorah that Yaacov is PHYSICALLY alive…never mind that that gemorah AND Rashi clearly state what being alive means and it is not that Yaacov is physically alive…to say that Rashi is saying on one hand that Yaacov was buried and on the other that he’s physically alive?! Rashi is not saying ” יעקב לא מת literally”. Does Rashi say the word “literally”? No, Menachem shmaya is saying that Rashi is saying the word “literally”.

A) I never said that Rashi was arguing on himself (in THIS case). All I said is that Rashi explains himself more in Taanis 5b than in Vayechi.

B) What do you prove from Rashi in Chumash writing ויגוע (“expired”)? If ויגוע means died, then what’s the difference between ויגוע and וימת?

The Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef all understand it literally, Yaakov didn’t die, his soul is still in his body.

They explain that the word ויגוע (“expired”) means “a deep sleep/faint” (ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף” “לא נסתלק רק גוע כמי שנתעלף”) which others mistook as death, which is why they enbalmed and buried him, which wasn’t an issue because he wasn’t moving anyway (“מה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה”).

Another reason why they did all these things is so as not to degrade other tzaddikim who do die. (-עיון יעקב)

Coffee addict, you are so right that only a Lubavitche would argue that Rashi says one thing on the posuk and a different thing on the Gemarah as if Rashi is contradicting himself.
What dishonesty. I cannot take that….He tries to make it seem as if Rashi is arguing with himself and saying a different pshat on the Gemorah than the posuk!

If so, then meforshei haShas and meforshei Rashi must all be Lubavitchers, since we find examples of Rashi on Chumash arguing with Rashi on Shas ALL OVER THE PLACE, and this is acknowledged by all the meforshim!

Some examples:

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 65b:
גמרא בעל אוב אחד המעלה בזכורו כו’. ורש”י בחומש פירש דורש אל המתים זהו מעלה בזכור כו’ ע”ש ודבריו ע”פ הברייתא בספרי ושלא כברייתא זו דבשמעתין דכן דרכו של רש”י לפרש הפסוקים על פי היותר פשוטו של מקרא…
Rashi on Gemara explains אוב different than his explanation in Chumash.
This is the derech of Rashi, to explain the pesukim according to the simplest meaning (פשוטו של מקרא).

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 66a:
גמרא מה ת”ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום כו’. ורש”י בחומש בפרשת משפטים כתב ומקלל אביו ואמו למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר איש איש אשר יקלל גו’ אין לי אלא איש שקלל אשה מניין ת”ל ומקלל אביו גו’ סתם בין איש ובין אשה כו’ ע”ש והוא ע”פ המכילתא וכמה שכתבו שדרכו לדרוש בפירושו הדרשה יותר פשוטה במקרא…
Rashi in Chumash explains איש איש differently than the Gemara, because his derech is to explain the simplest pshat.

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 72a:
גמרא ת”ר אין לו דמים כו’ … וזה הוא דרכו של רש”י בחומש להביא דרשה היותר פשוטה…
Rashi’s derech in Chumash is to bring the simplest pshat.

Maharsha, Kiddushin 44b:
דרכו של רש”י ז”ל לפרש במקום זה כך ובמקום אחר שינה פירושו
Rashi’s derech is to explain one way in one place, and changes his pirush elsewhere.

Rashash, Shabbos 83a:
הגרע”א ז”ל בגליון הש”ס העלה פירוש רש”י בצריך עיון גדול ואנכי לא ידעתי מה העיון הגדול דשם פירש כשיטת רבינו תם, ואם משום שסותר את עצמו, זאת תמצא בפירוש רש”י ז”ל הרבה
“I don’t understand R’ Akiva Eiger’s question on Rashi. If it’s that Rashi contradicts himself, this is very common in Rashi’s pirush.”

Mizrachi, Bereishis 36:5:
“Torah mentions that Korach was the grandson of Eisav in two ways.
Rashi here says that it’s the SAME Korach who was a mamzer.
Rashi in Sotah says that there were TWO Korachs.
This is because here Rashi is explaining according to Bereishis Rabba, while there Rashi is explaining according to the story there in Gemara, which differs from the Midrash Rabba.”

Philosopher, Coffee, will you admit that you didn’t know the classic style of Rashi’s pirush, and that it was wrong to attack Lubavitch (in this case)?

Qwerty,

I refrained from answering your question because I’m not interested in going down the rabbit hole of discussing Christian theology, nor do I wish to engage in the Who is Moshiach debate (something I haven’t shared my views on, for reasons explained in a previous post).

I would rather discuss a Gemara, a Rambam, a Rashi, a Maharsha, a Gra, a Likkutei Sichos, etc.

However, since you pressured me so much, I will give you a brief and honest response:

Candace Owens…asked America’s Rabbi why Lubavitchers reject Christianity because of its belief in a second coming

If Jews reject Christianity because of the second coming, why did beis din kill Yoshke In the first place?

That is my answer (it’s a rhetorical question).

P.S. Rambam Hilchos Melachim ch. 11:
אַף יֵשׁוּעַ הַנּוֹצְרִי שֶׁדִּימָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מָשִׁיחַ, וְנֶהֱרָג בְּבֵית דִּין, כְּבָר נִתְנַבֵּא בּוֹ דָּנִיֵּאל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “וּבְנֵי פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ יִנַּשְּׂאוּ לְהַעֲמִיד חָזוֹן וְנִכְשָׁלוּ” (דניאל יא, יד). וְכִי יֵשׁ מִכְשׁוֹל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, שֶׁכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים דִּבְּרוּ שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹשִׁיעָם, וּמְקַבֵּץ נִדְחֵיהֶם וּמְחַזֵּק מִצְוָתָן, וְזֶה גָּרַם לְאַבֵּד יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחֶרֶב, וּלְפַזֵּר שְׁאֵרִיתָם וּלְהַשְׁפִּילָם, וּלְהַחֲלִיף הַתּוֹרָה, וּלְהַטְעוֹת רוֹב הָעוֹלָם לַעֲבֹד אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה’.
“Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: “The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”

P.P.S. Responding that “according to some opinions beis din didn’t kill Yoshke” doesn’t refute my point.

Menachem: Would you agree that both sides of the debate, including those that say the wife goes to her second husband, would agree it is best for the wife to remarry after becoming an almana (regardless if she became an almana young or old)?

I have no idea, but that does make sense.
That’s probably why the poskim were trying to find a hetter to go back to the first husband after תחה”מ, so that she should feel better about getting remarried.

AAQ,

Well said.