Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
never praise the actions of rashayim, nothing good comes out of their avairas
How dare you!?
Moshe gave hakaras hatov to inanimate objects, yet you are incapable of thanking a Jews who put themselves into danger to protect you!?
A) How do you know that they don’t keep mitzvos? Do YOU do no aveiros? Maybe they are more frum than you?
B) Even if ch”v they are not שומר תורה ומצוות, we can safely assume that the reason for this is that they didn’t have a proper Torah upbringing, they are like Jewish children who were captured by non-Jews, for whom we should be feeling great mercy and compassion.
Do we know how much Hashem values their mitzvos?
Rambam writes that we have no idea how much Hashem values a mitzvah. It’s possible for a mitzvah to seem insignificant to us, yet be extremely valuable to Hashem.
Maybe Hashem values the one act of this uneducated Jew to protect other Jews more than all the mitzvos that you may have done in a manner of מצוות אנשים מלומדה?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
but is that to the exclusion of hakaras hatov to those people who planned and executed the operation?
Chazal say:
חמרא למריה טיבותא לשקייה
Wine belongs to the owner, yet one thanks the one puring it.Every situation of hakoras hatov to people involves this, because in truth, everything comes from Hashem.
I am wondering: What was gained?
1. Many horrible Jew killers were maimed or killed.
2. Hezbollah will be more scared of escalating into a bigger war, because they have no idea what will be inflicted on them next.
3. Hamas will be more scared of escalating into a bigger war, because they have no idea what will be inflicted on them next.
4. Iran will be more scared of escalating into a bigger war, because they have no idea what will be inflicted on them next.
5. Less men join the aforementioned forces because they have no idea what will be inflicted on them next, thus limiting their manpower, thus limiting their fighting power.
Etc. etc.
Qwerty,
You scored a direct hit with your two questions. Great job .ARSo the Shmei puppet can’t answer either question so he says, We don’t die from a question..”
A) I answered the questions.
B) Open any sefer with divrei Torah on the parsha, you’ll find many questions in Torah. It’s not a reason to disregard a well-known pshat.
When we add my two questions is why do Maharsha and Ohr Hachaim not accept Rashi’s statement literally
Maharsha is arguing on Rashi (this may shock you, but meforshim argue all the time), and you have yet to show me the Ohr Hachaim, who clearly holds that Yaakov is physically alive (according to his pirush in Vayechi).
As for Shmei’s bubba maasehs, pay no attention to them..I caught the lying Kofer in my previous post where he falsely represents a statement of Rav Yochanan.
No, you read the WRONG Rav Yochanan (there were three, I was referring to the TWO that you “didnt see”… 😏) and ASKED me about it (not “caught” me) and I answered beautifully.
If you have a challenge to my answer, please present it. If not, admit that you made a “mistake”. (You will not.)
Shmei speculates that “perhaps” we can say the same about Yaakov, to wit since he seemed dead we can say he was dead sort of. So now we need Shmei to invent his own Torah
Qwerty, welcome to the world of limmud haTorah.
One Jew formulates a beautiful question on a Rashi; another Jew formulates a beautiful answer to defend Rashi (based on another Rashi – כפתור ופרח!!!).
Just another day in the beis midrash.
You clearly can’t provide any challenge to my beautiful answers.
Philosopher, I once wrote this in response to one of your “challenges” from the “Rif”:
“I read and reread the Rif in the Ein Yaakov and I still can’t find what you’re referring to that יעקב לא מת was only until Eretz Yisroel (I do remember a different meforash saying that, not the Rif).
Would you be so kind as to quote the words that you’re referring to (as I requested once already)?”Well, I found the meforash who says this, it’s the Chochmas Menoach, but not the Rif, as I said.
Meanwhile, it’s Philosopher and Qwerty who are misquoting meforshim (Philosopher: the Rif. Qwerty: Ohr Hachaim) while they claim (baselessly) that I am doing it.
Qwerty,
Harav Baruch Gigi has an excellent Dvar Torah on the subject. He quotes the Ohr Hachaim who explained that Yaakov Lo Meis means that his mission continued because he left over 12 sons who were all Tzaddikim.
I would love to know where this Ohr Hachaim is, because Ohr Hachaim in Vayechi is clear that Yaakov literally didn’t die.
Ohr Hachaim makes this clear several times in his pirushim to the pesukim in Vayechi there.
See here, ד”ה ויכל, ד”ה וישק, ד”ה ויחנטו: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14020&st=&pgnum=656
Philosopher, Ohr Hachaim is on Sefaria as well, so you can check there.
Qwerty:This time Shmei got caught with his pants down As I’ve said on many occasions ———— is a lying Kofer [ר”ל, עפ”ל] because he rejected the Gemara in Cheilek. Again, Rava said that the events at the final redemption will mirror what happened at Yetzias Mitzrayim, meaning that only a small percentage will be redeemed. Since ———- rejected this Gemara, all Chabad has to excuse his Kefirah. This is what Shmei came up with. He quoted Rav Yochanan saying, “It’s not satisfactory to Hashem that you said this about them is according to Resh Lakish most of the Jewish people will be doomed to Gehinnom. rather even if one learned only one law he has a share in Olam Habo. Very nice. Here’s the problem..That quote has nothing to do with Rava’s statement which comes 30 lines later on the Amud. Another failed attempt by Shmei to cover up for the Kofer in the box.
Qwerty, a small tip: When asking a question, express a little less anger and hate in your tone; that way, you’ll look like less of a fool when it is answered.
You are correct that Rav Yochanan didn’t make his statement directly to Rava, but you are wrong because Rav Yochanan made his statement THREE times on the page, and you only noticed the ONE time that wasn’t relevant (“you see what you want to see”)!
The other two times, Resh Lakish stated that a portion of Jews wouldn’t be redeemed (though nowhere near the amount that Rava holds), and Rav Yochanan ARGUED, and said that Hashem isn’t happy with this.
In my post that you are quoting, I wrote all of this in short because I already explained it at length in an earlier post. I though you would remember.
The point is: Even Resh Lakish argues with Rava, and Rav Yochanan certainly does. The same is regarding Rav and Rav Kahana on the page.
And even Rava is explained by meforshim NOT to mean that Jews will miss out from Redemption.
If you don’t understand any of this because it’s to complicated for you, fine. But drop all of the attacks on anything that you can’t grasp.
P.S. Here is an excerpt of my earlier post where I explained the sugya at length (full post is September 5, 9:54am):
The posuk says that at the time of redemption, “two thirds will be wiped out and one third will remain.”
Thirds of what?
Resh Lakish says that only one third of the Jews (Arpachshad ben Sheim’s descendants) will survive, all others will die.
R’ Yochanan says, “Hashem is not happy with you saying such a thing” – that so many Jews (or non-Jews, depends on which meforash) will die! Instead, one third of Sheim’s descendants will survive. i.e., ALL the Jews and many non-Jews will survive.Even according Resh Lakish (who said something that “Hashem is not happy with”), at least a third of Jews will survive, which disagrees with Rava’s opinion that only 2/600,000 will survive. Certainly R’ Yochanan, who says that all Jews will survive, argues with Rava.
Next section on the amud of Gemara:
Resh Lakish says, Hashem will only redeem the tzaddikim; one Jew from every city and two from every household.
R’ Yochanan says, “Hashem is not happy with you saying such a thing” – that most of the Jews won’t be redeemed! Rather, he explains, the merit of one tzaddik will cause his entire city to be redeemed, and in the merit of two, their entire household.
[Rav and Rav Kahana had the same machlokes, with Rav admonishing R’ Kahana.]Finally, after all of this, comes the statement of Rava that only 2/600,000 will survive.
…Even the statement of Rava needn’t be understood literally (that most Jews will not be redeemed). Meforshim explain that the majority of Jews who won’t be present at the Geula refers to the many PREVIOUS generations of Jews from before the Geula. These people will rise for techiyas hameisim and greatly outnumber the group of Jews who were part of the generation that was present at the actual time of Geula. [See footnotes in Artscroll, referencing Maharal and Yaavetz.]
Qwerty,
Maharsha explains Yaakov Lo Meis to mean that his soul is immortal.
Right, and he writes that he is arguing with Rashi’s pshat, as I have written in at least 8 posts.
Coffee,
I would like to ask you a question (according to Rashi et al in the plain and pashut sense)
We say תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב the word מורשה (according what I heard at least) is that it means inheritance (and because we say קהילת יעקב it’s understood from יעקב) how can an alive person give over an inheritance, inheritance is only done after death?Additionally
Doesn’t it say Hashem doesn’t affix His name to a person while he’s alive? (Hashem said to Moshe “אלקי אביך” and the midrash says that’s how Moshe knew he passed away) yet Hashem says אלקי יעקבExcellent questions on Rashi and the other meforshim!
I suggest you look into it, find some nice answers, and maybe use this as a Dvar Torah or pilpul that you can deliver for parshas Vayechi.It is obviously unnecessary to point out that even if we have unanswered questions on a true talmid chacham (like Rashi et al), that doesn’t ch”v invalidate their pshat.
However, I’ll give some thoughts that may answer your questions:
THOUGHTS TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION:
1. The idea of מורשה is mainly emphasizing the WAY that Yidden received Torah: Just as a yerusha is passed automatically to all the children, even a little baby, so to Torah belongs to every Jew just because he/she is Jewish (as the Rambam writes: כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי מֻנָּח וְעוֹמֵד וּמוּכָן לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (“תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ משֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב”. כָּל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יָבוֹא וְיִטּל.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that we are getting Torah from a dead person. On the contrary, we are inheriting Torah FROM HASHEM.
2. קהלת יעקב does not necessarily imply an inheritance from Yaakov, for the Jewish people are called בני ישראל\כלל ישראל\בני יעקב\קהלת יעקב all the time, not necessarily referring to something that they have received from Yaakov himself.
Actually, the Ramban writes that מורשה קהלת יעקב means that Yaakov himself RECEIVES the inheritance as well:
וְדָרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (מדרש תהלים א), שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר מוֹרָשָׁה בֵּית יַעֲקֹב אוֹ זֶרַע יַעֲקֹב וְאָמַר קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב, לְרַמֵּז שֶׁיִּקָּהֲלוּ רַבִּים עֲלֵיהֶם וְתִהְיֶה הַתּוֹרָה לְעוֹלָם מוֹרָשָׁה לְיַעֲקֹב וּלְכָל הַנִּקְהָלִים עָלָיו, הֵם הַגֵּרִים הַנִּלְוִים עַל ה’ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וְנִסְפְּחוּ עַל בֵּית יַעֲקֹב, וְנִקְרְאוּ כֻּלָּם קְהִלָּתוֹ.
“Torah will always be an inheritance FOR YAAKOV and all those who gather around him.”3. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 91b) states that the inheritance of Torah was since ששת ימי בראשית, way before the birth – and certainly death – of Yaakov:
תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב מורשה היא לכל ישראל מששת ימי בראשית.These are just some points I thought of right away.
תן לחכם ויחכם עוד.—
A THOUGHT TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION:
Hashem said אלקי יצחק during Yitzchak’s lifetime. Rashi asks (בראשית כח, יג), how can this be, לֹּא מָצִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא שֶׁיִּחֵד הַקָּבָּ”ה שְׁמוֹ עַל הַצַּדִּיקִים בְּחַיֵּיהֶם לִכְתֹּב אֱלֹהֵי פְּלוֹנִי?
Rashi answers: כָּאן יִחֵד שְׁמוֹ עַל יִצְחָק, לְפִי שֶׁכָּהוּ עֵינָיו וְכָלוּא בַבַּיִת, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְמֵת וְיֵצֶר הָרָע פָּסַק מִמֶּנּוּ, תַּנְחוּמָא – Yitzchak was different because his eyes became dimmed and he was confined to the house, he was like dead and the yetzer harah already left him.
Maybe, the same can be said about Yaakov: Since he is in a state SIMILAR to death (as Rashi writes: נדמה להם שהוא מת – he seemed dead to them), it is okay to say אלקי יעקב.
Again, this is just a thought.
תן לחכם ויחכם עוד.Coffee,
I would like to ask you a question (according to Rashi et al in the plain and pashut sense)
We say תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב the word מורשה (according what I heard at least) is that it means inheritance (and because we say קהילת יעקב it’s understood from יעקב) how can an alive person give over an inheritance, inheritance is only done after death?Additionally
Doesn’t it say Hashem doesn’t affix His name to a person while he’s alive? (Hashem said to Moshe “אלקי אביך” and the midrash says that’s how Moshe knew he passed away) yet Hashem says אלקי יעקבExcellent questions on Rashi and the other meforshim!
I suggest you look into it, find some nice answers, and maybe use this as a Dvar Torah or pilpul that you can deliver for parshas Vayechi.It is obviously unnecessary to point out that even if we have unanswered questions on a true talmid chacham (like Rashi et al), that doesn’t ch”v invalidate their pshat.
However, I’ll give some thoughts that may answer your questions:
THOUGHTS TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION:
1. The idea of מורשה is mainly emphasizing the WAY that Yidden received Torah: Just as a yerusha is passed automatically to all the children, even a little baby, so to Torah belongs to every Jew just because he/she is Jewish (as the Rambam writes: כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי מֻנָּח וְעוֹמֵד וּמוּכָן לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (“תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ משֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב”. כָּל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יָבוֹא וְיִטּל.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that we are getting Torah from a dead person. On the contrary, we are inheriting Torah FROM HASHEM.
2. קהלת יעקב does not necessarily imply an inheritance from Yaakov, for the Jewish people are called בני ישראל\כלל ישראל\בני יעקב\קהלת יעקב all the time, not necessarily referring to something that they have received from Yaakov himself.
Actually, the Ramban writes that מורשה קהלת יעקב means that Yaakov himself RECEIVES the inheritance as well:
וְדָרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (מדרש תהלים א), שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר מוֹרָשָׁה בֵּית יַעֲקֹב אוֹ זֶרַע יַעֲקֹב וְאָמַר קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב, לְרַמֵּז שֶׁיִּקָּהֲלוּ רַבִּים עֲלֵיהֶם וְתִהְיֶה הַתּוֹרָה לְעוֹלָם מוֹרָשָׁה לְיַעֲקֹב וּלְכָל הַנִּקְהָלִים עָלָיו, הֵם הַגֵּרִים הַנִּלְוִים עַל ה’ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וְנִסְפְּחוּ עַל בֵּית יַעֲקֹב, וְנִקְרְאוּ כֻּלָּם קְהִלָּתוֹ.
“Torah will always be an inheritance FOR YAAKOV and all those who gather around him.”3. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 91b) states that the inheritance of Torah was since ששת ימי בראשית, way before the birth – and certainly death – of Yaakov:
תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב מורשה היא לכל ישראל מששת ימי בראשית.These are just some points I thought of right away.
תן לחכם ויחכם עוד.—
A THOUGHT TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION:
Hashem said אלקי יצחק during Yitzchak’s lifetime. Rashi asks (בראשית כח, יג), how can this be, לֹּא מָצִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא שֶׁיִּחֵד הַקָּבָּ”ה שְׁמוֹ עַל הַצַּדִּיקִים בְּחַיֵּיהֶם לִכְתֹּב אֱלֹהֵי פְּלוֹנִי?
Rashi answers: כָּאן יִחֵד שְׁמוֹ עַל יִצְחָק, לְפִי שֶׁכָּהוּ עֵינָיו וְכָלוּא בַבַּיִת, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְמֵת וְיֵצֶר הָרָע פָּסַק מִמֶּנּוּ, תַּנְחוּמָא – Yitzchak was different because his eyes became dimmed and he was confined to the house, he was like dead and the yetzer harah already left him.
Maybe, the same can be said about Yaakov: Since he is in a state SIMILAR to death (as Rashi writes: נדמה להם שהוא מת – he seemed dead to them), it is okay to say אלקי יעקב.
Again, this is just a thought.
תן לחכם ויחכם עוד.Donald trump is a fighter not a quitter
This only makes him strongerThis is true. It’s called middas haNetzach, the desire to win despite all odds. Obstacles only strengthen the fighting spirit.
Donald Trump has one value: Donald Trump. He is so wrapped up in himself
I think this is also true.
That doesn’t necessarily mean he would be bad at leading the country. He seemed good the first time around.
You mocked my recent post calling for honesty in the thread and implied that I’m a liar. Please provide an example of a lie I’ve told. Give post number date and time.
Oh, Qwerty. You’re a funny man sometimes.
Here’s what you wrote: “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.”
I responded to that: “Qwerty, thanks, I laughed so hard when I read this! 😄”
Because I DID laugh! And I think anyone else who follows your posts would laugh along.
Now I am obligated to provide EVIDENCE for my laughter!? What a clown!
Lostspark,
Call me a child
I will:
You are being a child.Taking revenge on someone saying horrible things about your Rebbe by attacking their gadol is childish.
[Though I can’t say I wasn’t tempted to try that a few times to test the mods. I feel like there is a new mod is some sort of free speech absolutist, or just very lazy (which may explain 3 days with no posts earlier this week).]
Qwerty,
I challenge you to name a non Chabad Rabbi who takes that Chazal literally
Rashi, according to Artscroll (is Artscroll Chabad?). Rif. Iyun Yaakov. Etz Yosef.
Menachem Shmad (sic) accepts that Yakov Avinu is alive because it fits his agenda
I have no opinion on the matter. Why should I mix in to a machlokes of rishonim about the living state of Yaakov Avinu? אלו ואלו דברים אלקים חיים. I never took a side, and anyway, who am I to take a side between such great giants?
Qwerty,
So we have these 3 stooges who all reject plain Pshat
Who are the stooges exactly?
Are you (ch”v) referring to Rav Yochanan, Resh Lakish, Rav and Rav Kahana, all of whom differ from the view of Rava that you keep quoting (as I taught clearly and at length in my post from September 5, 9:54am)?
Or are you referring to the Maharal and Yaavetz who say that even Rava shouldn’t be taken literally?
Or are you referring to the (((Lubaaaaavitchers))), because you hate them, even when they side with all the aforementioned Torah sources?
And then YOU claim to be on the side of Torah? Preposterous!
Philosopher,
You asked a beautiful question from a posuk, but instead of searching for an answer, you made your own assumptions that led you to misinterpret meforshim.
Your question has already been asked and answered by the Ramban, as I have posted earlier and will post again:
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!”
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 Yaakov’s children.Qwerty,
The Gemara in Cheilek 111a says that events at the final redemption will mirror what occurred at Yetzias Mitzrayim. This is anathema for Chabad because the Rebbe rejected this Gemara.
I already proved that you ignored most of that page in Gemara which argues with that opinion.
Rav Yochanan said that Hashem is not happy from such words.
How dare you, a tiny ant who admits to not knowing how to learn, attack a gadol b’Yisroel for saying something that YOU didn’t understand in your ignorance, and I already clarified it to you!?let’s play out the following. A fellow arrives in the Bes Medrash some two thousand years ago. He doesn’t know very much and he asks a lot of seemingly childish questions.
Qwerty, I completely agree with you that it would be wrong to throw this person out. One should listen patiently and answer his questions.
What if, however, someone barges into the Bais Midrash and starts arguing that the meforshim don’t know what they’re talking about ch”v, and that a certain Gemara seems to contradict a certain posuk, and the rishonim are nutjobs ch”v.
Would it be wrong to call him an ignoramus?
This is the difference between a humble ignoramus who wants to learn, and an arrogant ignoramus who thinks they are always correct in their attacks against talmidei chachamim, despite not knowing how to learn Torah.
At the end of Shmiras HaLashon (Hilchos Rechilus 9:15), the Chofetz Chaim writes that the prohibitions against Lashon Hara and Rechilus do not apply to reshaim and kofrim and that it is, in fact, a mitzvah to mock such persons
UJM,
I would be very careful to research when and with whom these halachos apply.
Eliyahu Hanovi and Yeshayohu Hanovi were punished for speaking disparagingly about Jewish IDOL WORSHIPERS (the real kind) – because “אין הקב”ה רוצה במי שאומר דילטורייא על ישראל”.
(שהש”ר פ”א, ו (א). רש”י ישעי’ ו, ו. ועוד)The Rambam writes that if such great tzaddikim were punished, how much more so a קל מקלי העולם who dares to condemn so many Yidden as פושעים ורשעים וגויים ופסולי עדות וכופרים בה’ אלהי ישראל.
(אגרת השמד פ”ב)I would err on the side of speaking positively about Jews.
All Jews who are keeping torah and mitzvahs must love each other. There us no obligation to love open sinners.
Are you sure?
What about the Gemara: ברור לו מתה יפה – because of ואהבת לרעך כמך for someone who is חייב מיתת בית דין, i.e. ignored עדים והתראה!!!
Are you aware that there is much discussion on the matter?
Why are you so eager to ignore the entire שקלל וטריא and rule out loving sinners, especially in our generation when most sinners are אונסים who must be brought close with love (as the Rambam writes regarding תינוקות שנשבו, see also Chazon Ish יו”ד ח”ב טז)?
Philosopher,
What is relevant is whether it was the Tzedoikim, the Early Christians who were Jews, or the Christians and Messianic “Jews” today, the Keruim, Shabsi Tzvi and his followers, and all kinds of groups in history who tried/try to prove from Torah sources that their beliefs are true
Actually, they used pesukim to prove that תורה שבעל פה is false ch”v, exactly as YOU have done!
I, in the other hand, am defending the holy meforshim of תורה שבעל פה.
Lostspark, it’s childish to concentrate on the messenger.
Concentrate on the message.Yankel,
I completely agree.
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.
Qwerty,
When Shmei is reduced to name-calling his end is near
When Philosopher is reduced to invalidating the Vilna Ein Yaakov because its PDF is on a website that also has Chabad seforim, what does that signal?
Philosopher,
Don’t link it, just point to it if it’s not allowed on the yeshiva world. Safaria has the iyin yaacov and as I’ve said before, I wasn’t able to find it there.
Check out any Ein Yaakov with meforshim. Unfortunately, I haven’t found one online.
Have someone borrow one from any Beis Midrash.I’m not taking a source that partners with Chabad as valid.
I’m not sure what this rings of more: hate or stupidity.
Hebrewbooks is simply a database with pdfs of seforim.
It is shocking to see you freely quoting text from the Reform Sefaria, yet you are wary of pdfs on Hebrewbooks because of how much you hate Chabad.a befereshe posuk in Vayechi that the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died.
For the third time: Ramban explains why the pshat that I quoted from Rashi/Rif/Iyun Yaakov/Etz Yosef does NOT contradict the posuk.
I QUOTED the Ramban earlier. What is your response to that?Why do you keep repeating the same questions that I clearly answered already?
I spent time explaining the issues with your question from the posuk of כי מת אביהם, yet you completely ignore it and keep repeating like a broken record.Misinintrepret CLEAR words from the Chumash, gemarah and other meforshim
Misinterpreting Chumash/Gemara means explaining it differently than the meforshim.
I, however, quoted the meforshim. What could be the issue with that?If you claim that I understood Rashi in a crazy way, are you prepared to say the same about Artscroll which I quoted before?
If yes, what was THEIR agenda for “twisting” Rashi’s pshat?P.S. Again, here is Artscroll Taanis 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).”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 המתיםShould take you to the siman from Rabbi Avrohom Gerlitzky’s ימות המשיח בהלכה.
Happy new year,
But your whole question is based on the wrong assumption that there will be marriage at that time.
What’s your source for this?
Based on the teshuvos that I quoted, there will be marriage during תחיית המתים, and I have never seen otherwise.
Re your proof from the Gemara (Avoda Zora 5a) about the עגל: The Gemara concludes there that they would have children, but since they would live forever, the children would have no importance, because they would always be compared to the greatness of their parents’ generation.
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.Philosopher,
In case you’re wondering where I clearly answered your “question” that Rashi/Rif etc. seem to argue with a posuk:
See my post from September 12, 2:31pm #2314383
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.”Qwerty
About a year ago this was one of the questions [to Rabbi Avigdor Miller], “Why do Lubavichers think they’re better than other Jews? He answered, “Every Jewish group should think that they’re the best. That they learn the most etc.” Clearly, the person who asked the question was attuned to the Chabad attitude that they are the “Master Race of Judaism”
And clearly, Rabbi Miller, who answered the question, was attuned to the fact that followers of every derech should feel that their derech is the best, or else they should switch to a different derech, as I have written in the past.
And clearly, Qwerty is more satisfied with the question than the answer, because the question gives him another opportunity to express his hate for a holy Jewish sect.
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)
To recap:
The Lubavitche believe that:…What is this a recap of? All the angry thoughts floating around your mind?
Actually, a proper recap of this thread would be:
Lubavitchers (and any other unbiased Jew who knows how to learn Torah) believe that:
Hashem performs miracles.
Rashi/Rif etc. aren’t nutjobs, ch”v.
If a posuk seems to contradict a Gemara, the Gemara shouldn’t be disregarded.
The chachamim opposed Yoshke and his new religion even during his lifetime (and executed him for it -Rambam).
Being part of a different derech than someone else doesn’t mean you’re obligated to attack any Torah that they quote.
It isn’t necessary to misinterpret one meforash in order to make him fit with an opposing one.
A challenge posed to Jews by a Christian antisemite is quite insignificant.
Artscroll Shas wasn’t written by Lubavitchers.
It’s okay to research something and look into the reasons and sources before attacking it as being false.
A Torah debate should mostly be about discussing ideas, not throwing derogatory statements and nicknames at the opponent.
Concluding every bombastic, soon to be refuted statement with a “Checkmate” is a lousy strategy.There are probably some more.
Hey mods, did all my posts to Chabad Media from around 10:30am go through?
Yaacov opening his eyes is in Sotah 13a. If you read Sotah 13a and you read there the meforshim on how it says Yosef was zoche to bury Yaacov and talking a lot about the topic, you see that Yaacov was actually buried.
No one is disputing that Yaakov was buried. It’s literally in the question posed to R’ Yitzchak, and it doesn’t bother him, because he’s still supported by מקרא אני דורש.
Yes, it says Yaacov opened his eyes and laughed when Eisov’s eyes fell out, and it’s something we can’t understand without the meforshim, but in no way does it prove that Yaacov was buried physically alive
Tosfos in Taanis uses that Gemara as another proof that Yaakov is alive (יעקב אבינו לא מת . . כדמפרש בסוטה גבי מעשה דחושים).
Some meforshim (those who DISAGREE with Rashi/Rif etc.) argue that Tosfos was only commenting on the הוא אמינא of the Gemara.
But if you learn Tosfos based on Rashi/Rif’s pshat, Yaakov opening his eyes is definitely a proof that he was physically alive.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.
Philosopher: “At first I was impressed that you were able to refer to so many meforshim on this Rashi and Gemorah. But then when you mentioned that you don’t see the part of the rif that I mentioned I realized that it’s copy and paste from some “Chabad Torah”.”
Also Philosopher: “What I have said about the Rif’s commentary on Yaacov lo mes I take back. I have written what I saw in other articles but I cannot find the actual sources.”
Regarding this, Chazal said:
כל הפוסל במומו פוסלOr, as we say in English: “It takes one to know one (or think you know one).”
I am impressed though that you admitted the truth.
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.
RAMBAM is in hilch melachim . When a candidate for mashiach dies in war and did not bring about the promises of the nevi’im we know that he is not mashiach.
Yankel, how disingenuous!
I clearly said that I’m not getting into the משיח מן המתים debate.
I was responding to a question of why would someone who believes that משיח מן המתים is possible reject Christianity.
My point was that Christianity has much more fundamental issues than משיח מן המתים.
I even proved this from the Rambam.
You claimed that according to the Rambam. The problem with Christianity is not מסית ומדיח, rather only that Yoshke was killed.
I said this is ridiculous, because according to the Rambam Yoshke was killed BY BEIS DIN! Was he killed for claiming to be Moshiach AFTER death!?!?
You responded with an irrelevant Rambam about בן כוזיבא which has nothing to do with why we reject Christianity according to the Rambam.I am aware of the Ramban, and there is much to discuss about that, which I’m not getting into. This is why I asked you for your source in the Rambam, and you proved that you don’t have one.
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.
So, if there is a statement that is not contradicted, then Google probably uses shtika kmodeh heuristic
Unfortunately, I doubt they are so sophisticated.
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 whole discussion mixes Torah with Ruchniyus.
They are mutually exclusive and NOT compatible…
We, Yisrael, follow the Torah. Not Ruchniyus.
The Tedokim were right about this one.Huh? What’s any of this supposed to mean?
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?
The links don’t mention one word about לא תסור.
Rashba:
אל החכמים שומעין בכל זמן שהרי כתוב ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ואפילו אומרין על הימין שהוא שמאלYankel,
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)
“He’s a consummate liar and phony like his worthless ———“
(עפ”ל!!!)I’m still surprised that the moderators keep letting trash like this through.
[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.Philosopher,
At first I was impressed that you were able to refer to so many meforshim on this Rashi and Gemorah. But then when you mentioned that you don’t see the part of the rif that I mentioned I realized that it’s copy and paste from some “Chabad Torah”
This is not true:
A) I spent lots of time researching and poring over the mefarshim to understand what they say.
I didn’t see the Rif brought anywhere other than the original Ein Yaakov which I linked above.
B) קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו – refute my points instead assuming where I got my information from.
OK, so whoever wants can look in the sefer eyin yaacov on everything that the Rif wrote on taanus 5 2 and yaacov lo meis.
I read and reread the Rif in the Ein Yaakov and I still can’t find what you’re referring to that יעקב לא מת was only until Eretz Yisroel (I do remember a different meforash saying that, not the Rif).
Would you be so kind as to quote the words that you’re referring to (as I requested once already)?Here’s the link to the meforshim again: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47607&st=&pgnum=130&hilite=
And again, here is Artscroll Taanis 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).”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)
I think there’s a point Qwerty has been making recently that I can help clarify:
“Yes, the Torah (Tanach, Gemara, Midrash, etc.) is filled with references to the supernatural, but it’s our job to discern the truth within. Generally speaking, we’re expected to eschew the fantastic in favor of the mundane. Hameivin yavin.”
“We follow Rambam, who rejects any violation of natural law, even Bilaam’s talking donkey. The Gemara says, ‘Lama Li Kra, Sevara He?’ Judaism is a rational religion. This is the point that philosopher and yankel berel are making, and obviously, they’re right.”Qwerty keeps saying that Judaism is rational, and that we should try to rationalize the supernatural rather than interpret Torah as depicting changes in nature. He argues that this is the Rambam’s view, and thus the derech we must follow.
I want to clarify the issue here:
It’s important to remember that there are different opinions in Torah. If you’re quoting the Rambam, keep in mind that many Rishonim strongly disagreed with him.
Which one is right? אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים.
Even if you pasken/lean toward a particular opinion, that doesn’t give you the right to misinterpret the opposing opinion to match the one you like.For example:
Regarding the future Geulah, there’s a major machlokes between the Rambam and Raavad. The Rambam says the Geulah will be entirely natural, while the Raavad argues it will be miraculous.
If you lean toward the Rambam’s approach (based on the hadracha of your rabbeim) that’s fine.
But if you were to say that also the Raavad holds the Geulah will be natural just because that’s how the Rambam understands it—that’s absurd!The same applies in our discussion:
Can the Gemara about יעקב לא מת be understood spiritually? Absolutely!
As I’ve written many times, many (or perhaps most) of the meforshim (beginning with the Maharsha and Rashba) interpret it this way.
But does Rashi understand it spiritually? No! Rashi explains that Yaakov seemed dead to those burying him, but in reality, he was alive. (Even the Maharsha reads Rashi this way, which is why he ARGUES with him. See Artscroll!) This is also how the Rif, Etz Yosef, and Iyun Yaakov understand it, as they clearly wrote.You may prefer a more rational interpretation, such as the Maharsha’s, because of your derech, but don’t misinterpret Rashi and say that the literal interpretation is completely invalid!
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.