Orthodoxrabbi1995

Avira,

I responded at length at this but for some reason the editors didn’t allow it to go through so I’ll respond bkitzur

Your responses have been deleted because of language you used that is unacceptable from any yids mouth. I waver between deleting all future ones or just temporarily.

FYI

1. I never claimed everyone connected to Ruzhiner chassidus beleived it, but if they don’t know what he said then they don’t know. The fact is he said it and it’s recorded. I’m really not interested in playing these games of questioning my sources when I have said a few times now that I will literally email it to u and if not where u can go looking for it. U have not taken me up on my offer and thats ur problem

2. What did I attempt to prove with shabtai? Rather simple. Someone claimed nobody even in false messianic cults have argued for Moshiach from the dead until 1994. This is a horrid lie(apparently those are allowed on here, just not my long rebuttals) and I cited false messianic movements which did. The question is why did he make this claim? As far as I am concerned it was in order to insult lubavitch further by saying we are saying something so novel that no other movement has ever made it. It’s in my interest then to say that this isn’t the case. Kmuvan vgam pashut. I’m allowed to correct an inaccurate statement for the sole point of correcting inaccuracy in any event. Simple enough critique to follow

3. Nowhere did I say zev Leff was a gadol. My whole point is in criticizing your continued shifting of goal posts. First it wasn’t Jewish, then it was only a das yachid then it was just pirushim then it was just am haratzim that beleived in it, and now it’s well u can quote tzaddikim and talmidei chachamim who believed in this like shefanishter rebbe or people who allow it or say it isn’t heresy and apologize for the fake news(like zev Leff) BUT THEY ARENT GADOLIM. And who is a gadol? Whoever u want to pick and say is a gadol. It’s not logical ur continuously creating new hoops to jump through. I’ve brought and quoted sources on every front and u only move the goal posts further and further without acknowledging I sourced the other 5 goalposts u asked of me. It has sources, it’s defended by many talmidei chachamim, as far as I’m concerned that’s good enough to be respected part of Jewish conversion. But no if I can’t quote a “gadol” then the rest disappears. Please

Neville,

That’s a twist of my words. I expected better from someone who claims to be of superior Torah learning to advance such a clear misapplication of my words. That someone was claimed to be moshiach after they died was said by legitimate and illegitimate movements. This is again, the illogical argument of guilt of similarity. Christians also believe moshe gave the 10 commandments shall we throw those out to? The problem is u are not demonstrating but presupposing that this similarity of min hameisim is somehow the only time u can’t have something in common with another religion and is problematic. So far I’m the only one to quote actual Torah sources. And when no response can be given I just get skepticism and dismissive hand waving and a question of my motives. All of these are not proper responses

Avira,

Ur again being disingenuous as to the flow of this conversation. Nowhere did I list any of the people u mentioned as gedolim. I already repeated the claim I was addressing which, again, included less than respectable people hence the reference to shabtai tzvi. I didn’t even claim dovid alroys followers were gedolim. I only used it as an example of people who are legitimate Jewish people that produced these claims. U have now, seeing that I have things to say about movements and even talmidei chachamim who do not dismiss this idea, taken refuge in ur favorite word gedolim defining who is a gadol per ur desire and thereby somehow attempting to win this argument because no gadol ever said it themselves on somebody. Cool. Ur losing ground and making excuses

Avira,

“The other poster was referring to legitimate movements, yeshivos, chasidusen, communities…no gedolim are on record accepting this idea.”

“False messiahs” and “messianic cults” arent exactly the phrasing i would use for “Legitimate movements”. Now we are switching it from movements to gedolim. As ive already mentioned in the previous thread there were people who did continue to believe in their rebbe after their passing, very great talmidei chachamim and tzadikim(the shtefaneshter rebbe was a known baal mofes). But naturally what i expect for u to do(which is al derech what berger does) is to make broad declarations that moshiach from the dead isnt a thing in judaism, and when given sources pull the line back to well its a das yachid, and then to well to well they are just pirushim, to well no legitimate jews ever claimed it in real life to no LEARNED jews ever claimed it in real life, to then well no gedolim. And who is a gadol? Well whoever u define gadol as. Shkoyach. its disingenuous argument and a gaps argument. Much like people who argue well g-d must exist because science cant account for X, they find a way to account for x and u pull the line back to something else. it’s a losing and weak position.

Rso,

I know u want this to somehow be a point, but for the life of me i dont see how it is one without beginning the question

Rso,

There is a difference between interpreting a halacha nonliterally and pulling from various sources to demonstrate that ur first impressions of the words are incorrect. For instance it would be wrong to say a king is nonliteral and it means a king of a game of tag or an analogy for a guy who is wealthy. It would however be correct to ask what is meant by the term king as its used and bring a variety of proofs for why the term king isnt comparable to what you might think a king is and show how things even you dont expect to be kingly are considered kings etc.

Ben acher ben is an entirely different question and there are those who say moshiach need not be ben acher ben or even zera shlomo. Famously someone (a lubavitcher?) argued with rav chaim about ben acher ben. The back and forth letters can be found online and rav chaim defended that he need not be!

“the Maharal’s yichus to Dovid Hamelech (according to what I have heard from Lubavichers – they are my only source in this) is through Rashi, who did not have any sons”, the maharals students themselves called the maharal moshiach and the maharal published this.

As for sources type sifrei in hebrew and the R”T kovod kedoshas, then type in yachuf and u will find links quoting the rebbes sichos

Rso,

“ The question is itself the answer”. The point here wasn’t that there isn’t an answer as I said before. The point was that u can’t always take a Halacha at face value, sometimes iyun shows u the thing has a different meaning than you thought. It says bar kochba was king for 3 years what did that look like? He didn’t do all the laws of kings. He wasn’t a reish galusa either. So what’s the definition we are working with? If you don’t know the definition then this leads us to number 2:

2. “ The Lubavicher, on the other hand, does not, and did not, fit ANY of the criteria.” If you don’t know what king means here in rambam then how do u know he doesn’t fit it? As I’ve already said numerous times. We know and can trace the rebbes lineage to the alter rebbe. The rebbe rashab already said all the chabad rebbes were from zera dovid. We know the alter rebbe traces to the maharal and we know the maharal goes to dovid. You can keep denying this but we have the family history supporting this. I have documentation tracing me to vilna in the 1700’s and u think someone with the background the rebbe had wouldn’t have more support for his lineage?? Ur response is just to pretend nobody has any documentation of anybody? If so then nobody can ever be moshiach because they can never prove it.

3. “ They want him to be Mashiach so they will distort and (mis)interpret any and all facts and statements of Rishonim and Chazal to allow for this premise.” Besuros tovos! I can make you feel better then. Lubavitch is not interpreting the Rambam in a way to make their rebbe moshiach in terms of the criteria. The yachuf does not start with physical force but Noam and shalom is something the LUBAVITCHER REBBE SAID. That Moshiach needs shluchim is something the LUBAVITCHER REBBE SAID, that shluchim telling people they need to keep mitzvos and this would bring about yachuf in its simplest since is something again the REBBE SAID. That many milchamos of Moshiach are now being fought with peacefully is again something the REBBE said. This has very little to do with our chiddushim. The only chiddush we need to make is on its continuation(as obviously he is not here to give an account of continuation). The rebbe was the one who explained what the criteria are and how they work. So this whole story u have concocted just isn’t the case. We say what we say because our gadol said it. It’s easy to take a bias about a group and make up baloney and try to psychoanalyze and explain away why we are saying the thing we are saying so that u need not deal with them more seriously but the fact is u are UNDERemphasizing how much we rely on and use what the rebbe said for the cases we make. As David Berger said in his 2014 tablet article there are statements from the Lubavitcher rebbe which a skeptic wouldn’t dream would exist that do. Obviously if u want to understand a movement u need to understand the their rebbe first. Delve into what he said and did and then study the groups response to those things. Not the other way around and not without looking at what he said and his arguments for what he said.

@Always_ask_questions,

“Does Rambam or Abarbanel suggest that people spend their lives wagering on who is the preferred Moschiach candidate and base their lives on that?”

There is an idea of looking around in your generation for someone fit to be moshiach. Various seforim bring that this was a custom throughout the ages(especially chassidic ones). The sefer sdei chemed brings this custom. Likewise infinite books exist of people doing this. There are two added points tho. 1. There is something further where aside for being worthy of it should the time come, u also have done a certain amount of things which give u a chazaka that u are moshiach, at that point its likely important to spend time discussing this because that likely entails obligations to the one with the chazaka in terms of belief or action. 3. There are lubavitch specific hashkafas based on the rebbes words which are playing a role here. I think the convo will be more constructive if we separate issues and get agreement on if its allowable as an orthodox person for u to believe in moshiach min hameisim of any variety and be considered not being stupid. I sent a couple sources earlier along these lines but people have been more interested in talking about the rebbe.

Rso,

“Avira wrote that there was a great decline in the acceptance of Torah and Mitzvos during the L rebbe’s lifetime. It seems to me that some may have understood that to mean that the L rebbe was the cause, but that is not – at least not the way I understand it – what Avira is saying.”

I should maybe also clarify what im saying, because i didnt mean to imply that avira was saying this. What i wanted to do was point out for the room two things which were being mixed together. 1. The direct results of his actions 2. Things in the world irrespective of what he has done. There is a navka mina i think between the two. If you judge moshiach by number 1, then it doesnt matter what numbers are going up at the moment if he has not yet reached those people. We can only judge him for whether his affects have worked on the people he has reached. By and large i consider it obvious that those whom have been subjected to repeated lubavitch efforts have born fruit in the way of increased torah observance or complete baalei teshuva. if however you take number two as ur starting point then the rebbe must also be blamed for the actions of jews who have had little to no dealings with chabad since the REALITY has changed even if he has yet to reach them. At the present moment I’m not convinced we should be going for the second. However, Avira was talking as though we should. But i thought it would be helpful to point out that there is a difference between the two and they make all the difference.

“If I am indeed wrong – and I may be – why does the Rambam write בתחילה”

I agree with you. Zera dovid is different as its passed down. But Bar Kochba wasnt a full flegged king as king david was either(sefer torah by his side always etc etc and all the halachos mentioned in hilchos melachim). Nor was he a reish galusa which rambam says takes the place of a melech in our days(but again itself isnt a full fledged king). My point wasnt to say there are no answers to these questions but only to explain that not everything is necessarily as it seems from just reading the literal words. Id argue this applies to much of what is written there. Another example is if we take “force all the jews” if we take it as it sounds he is mamash forcing them from the outset to do torah. But what happens with cities, states, and countries worth of tinokim shenishbu? The rambam himself writes that it is proper to speak with them peacefully and draw them to torah with love. So whats moshiach meant to do? Unless you say AT FIRST he does with love and then he forces if needed, or convincing someone to do it with love even if they dont exactly want to is considered “force” either way something has to give. Add to this a further quesiton that the ways of torah are noam and shalom, we even give the goyim around our nations a chance at peace before we slaughter them, and here we force jews whether they just found out they are jewish or not? These arent questions that come from not reading rambam, they come from reading more rambam and more gemaras and more mefarshim. This is a standard way of learning. People make chiddushim and bring up questions on rishonim all the time. The one time we cant is rambam on this sugya? The amount of chiddushim on if the beis hamikdash will come from shamayim or not for example is well known. This isnt a reasonable claim imo.

“There is no repetition at all in the Rambam”
I said this to a poster who said that “if he does this and succeeds and defeats the enemies that surround him” only goes on wars and does not include his actions on jews. Your response is to agree with me that some of these words are a reference to his actions on jews. The difference between you and I though is that i think these are in order and not summaries. so “if he does this and succeeds” means at chezkas he has not made everyone frum but he has intention to and is taking steps in that direction. Where he sees a problem he attempts to fix it. The reason why its phrased that way is because u can separate fighting and winning. There is no great way of separating the act of compelling/forcing with having been compelled/forced. In fact u only ever say someone is “forcing me” if he is at the same time succeeding in forcing you in actuality. But as i already pointed out from pirkei geulah the intention is as i said that he is involved. Likewise rav keduri z”l says:
אנו כבר נמצאים בתקופה הראשונה של משיח בן דוד. בתקופה זו עסוק המשיח בקירוב רחוקים אל עולם התורה. הרב הסביר כי “התהוותה התאחדות של שני המשיחים” (משיח בן יוסף ומשיח בן דוד) ושניהם הינם שתי דרגות בהתגלות המנהיג המשיחי

“שני שלבים בולטים וברורים בהתגלותו: הראשון, הוא מתחיל בפעולות המבססות וקובעות את מעמדו כ”בחזקת משיח”

“One other obvious point that hasn’t yet been stated explicitly. As far as I know, and I’m not a total ignoramus in these matters, the Lubavicher rebbe didn’t force EVEN ONE PERSON or tell anyone to FORCE someone to keep Torah and Mitzvos. So how is he bechezkas Mashiach?”

This gets into the issue of our day with tinukim shenishbu and darkei noam which i mentioned before. It seems rather obvious to me that sending 11 thousand emissaries across the world searching for jews and getting them to do mitzvos even when they prefer not to and are trying to get out of it falls well within the range of forcing. Sometimes they come to u and ask u for it instead, but if all jews WANTED to become frum that, in ur mind would constitute a failure of forcing jews? No guys he made everyone frum without forcing them, cant be moshiach(?)! That cant be pshat. As the rebbe says the ways of torah are peaceful and at first one must approach tinokim shenishbu with love. If you find ur efforts arent working then you increase the intensity. Moshiach likewise with waging wars and being hogeh btorah doesnt have time to go door to door and spend the proper time forcing people to do anything. He obviously has shulchim and shulchim of shluchim. Its recorded that the rebbe once told a rav from australia R Chaim Gutnick, that if shluchim would tell jews they need to do mitzvos, this would already bring about force in the simplest since.

“I think it’s quite sad that someone as lucid and intelligent as you, has been so influenced by Lubavich propaganda that you don’t see the obvious inconsistencies in the claims that you (I assume) have been told over and over and have therefore taken on board.”

I appreciate the compliment as far as it goes. But to correct you, just because two people have arrived at the same destination does not mean one followed the other. I have many disagreements with fellow lubavitchers on a variety of issues. But I have a Rebbe, and he has teachings. Im convinced he is brilliant and has a profound system of torah thought many nodes connected to each other in various ways. We see quotes and pshatim and decide whats more likely to say or less, a gaon sees how if one says like rashi on this or this pasuk this is a result of a deeper narrative about torah in that section of topics which fits well with that statement from rashi and this narrative on that section of torah fits well with a meta narrative about all the sections, but if you go like ramban on that verse then it doesnt work for that narrative or metanarrative etc. And yet all we see is “eh idk i think that word sounds more like this”. Its funny actually. If only we knew the binyan being built by taking that one line that way we would have less issue if it isnt exactly what i thought it meant or that it could have various meanings(obviously there are limits). Two things here are relevant but it would help to compare this argument to other things that have been said by holy people 1. The uri vtumim says that when a sefer is written with ruach hakodesh the authors intent isnt the only relevant factor. 2. The baal shem tov says all the sefarim until a certain part of the achronim era were written with ruach hakodesh and shiva panim btorah applies to them. In that case there are at least 70 ways to interpret rambam. 3. The kutzker rebbe said that when rambam wrote the whole idea of demons is nonsense this is because he believed in demons but didnt want them to harm anyone so he paskined against their existence. Now if I SAID that u would call me a fool, but a holy person wrote that. Point being there is quiet a lot of wiggle room for all kinds of strange nonintuitive pshatim. I dont think what im saying is nearly as nonintutive as the kutzker. There are other things people say about rambam paskining certain ways because he saw things later with ruach hakodesh etc. Again, im not even going there, but people do.

Coffee,

Logically there is a distinction between kings doing something and that making u enough to be a king. Maybe it’s a necessary condition for a king to print his own currency(it’s not anywhere in any halachic Sefer I bet) but that doesn’t mean it’s a sufficient condition to make one a king. If I print my own currency am I a king? Ur only reinforcing the question, why was he able to do kingly things if he didn’t fit the Rambam’s definition of a king? U can make up a new definition of a king but it isn’t the halachic one and it’s not what Rambam says in his book. Ur again redefining and in doing so admitting that there are different definitions of kings. So which ones are up for grabs and which ones aren’t? Which ones did the Rambam mean by his word? Ur not answering any of this

Avira,

I pashut don’t have time for all of these and they are only getting longer and longer. I’ll have to keep things brief.

1. Ruzhiner quote from a Sefer called kerem beis yisroel. It’s also published in sadigura publications searchable on otzar. The book itself is hard to find but I have a picture of it if needed in email.

2. Is moshiach judged for the matzav of the world or his own actions influence? If the former then he gets just as much credit for the fall of communism as he does whatever intermarriage rates ur describing. If his direct actions then he shouldn’t get blame or credit for either. Be consistent. In the vast majority of cases secular peoples Judaism is better served when involved with lubavitch.

3. I think ur choosing random metrics to judge Moshiachs success and I just don’t agree with the value system ur producing. if an intermarried guy became part of a regular minyan when before he wasn’t ur gonna say that’s a failure, even tho he is now doing more net mitzvos? I don’t see how intermarriage ruins the other things the guy could be doing to increase his Judaism. More so a woman who is still having Jewish kids.

4. Ur tefillin arguments are old enough already. R hutner was chavrusas with the rebbe. He said many great things about him. See the rebbes back and forth with rav hutner over tefillin here https://anash. org/exploring-the-correspondence-between-rav-hutner-and-the-rebbe/

5. I’ll disagree with ur understanding of Russian Jewry. In general I think ur severely underestimating the rebbes role in a variety of affairs, his genius and respect amongst various torah personalities. When someone says the rebbe is maybe a gadol kinda, I already know their understanding of the rebbe is severely off base. But that’s just my opinion ur likely to say the opposite in response. Nu Nu. Anyways the main point is there are sources for moshiaxh coming from the dead. This specific way of his coming is not the threads purpose and it’s much too long to rebut at length here back and forth. Let’s acknowledge one thing at a time. That the Ruzhiner could come back as moshiach is already a chiddush to ur mind and likely other readers. Let’s sit with that for a few weeks before piling on.

RSO,
Your king argument is misplaced. This is a much deeper sugya than u realize i think. Its again a product of reading words and not looking into the sugya the words are based on. The definiton or criteria of what a king is and in this context has much ink. much like all jewish things

Avira
“you’ve already misquoted rav Moshe as giving a haskama to a sefer claiming that the Lubavitcher rebbe was moshiach, ” where did i say that? I think u are mixing me up with the other poster

בשנת ת”ר היה נגמר בדעת העולם שאבי יהיה משיח. ואחר הסתלקותו היה היסח הדעת בכל העולם. אבל האמת היא. כפי מה ששמעתי מא”מ זצ”ל קודם הסתלקותו ב’ דברים. כי קודם הסתלקותו הניח צוואה לכל אחד ואחד בפני עצמו. וזהו הב’ דברים ששמעתי א’ מפני מה אין הולכים על קברי הצדיקים כמו בחייהם. והב’, מה שאמחז”ל מביאת הגאולה עד תחה”מ מ’ שנה, אומר אני אימתי היה כך אם היה ביאת הגואל מקודם ב’ או ג’ מאות שנה היה צריך להיות מ’ שנה מביאת הגואל עד תחה”מ, אבל עכשיו אומר אני שיהיה ביאת הגואל עם תחה”מ ביום אחד ולפי הב’ דברים ששמעתי מא”מ זצ”ל, או”א שאבי בעצמו יקום ויהיה משיח. סליק

Shtefaneshter rebbe

RSO, to be fair to the previous lubavitch poster he may be making an argument made recently in a sefer about moshiach (which is admitted by the author to be a chiddush) regarding that gemara that there are reasons to say they continued after the death of the teacher. its making the rounds in lubavitch right now. I personally dont buy that chiddush but its based on a svara which was not explained in the previous post.
I dont think its fair to say everything is based on misinformation. Sometimes people make bad arguments, or refer to things in short hand or make arguments which are presented as fact but are just one of many opinions. Many nonlubavitchers do similar things and have done so in this thread. Some people just dont make good arguments. Some have different opinions from each other. It wouldnt be right if i said all nonlubavitch opinion is wrong because i heard a few people make bad arguments. What are afew examples of blatant misinterpretations of chazal?

Also if a gadol byisroel says something it has a level of credence. If the chazan ish said a pshat in rambam that i thought was wrong and someone told me he said it i actually WOULD consider that evidence and i wouldnt dismiss him out of hand. He knows what he is doing after all. But again nobody here is saying cause the rebbe said it in a sicha therefore its correct, i said to look into the sichas so that 1. you dont think this all came from chassidim but from their leader 2. you see if the svaras make sense to you, but you cant dismiss something as nonsense before hearing the case for it. Sometimes things arent as they appear at first, and it takes someone who knows the sugya to raise a good question and then bring a chiddush that resolves it. Plenty of instances in torah like this.

Rso,

Source: See Sefer Meiras Einayim 23:1 regarding the baal shem tov that there was none like him and he will be moshaich as well as Sefer Kerem Beis Yisroel in the name of the Shtefanisht Rebbe regarding his father the ruzhiner that we have merited techiyas hameisim will be the same day as moshiachs coming so his father will return as moshiach. These words were stamped as divrei kadosh by sadigura chassidim and still appear in their kovetzim from time to time. David Berger likewise acknowledged this in an email response to this source. to quote him “In the last two hundred years or so, with the relative decline of Christian threat, we find a handful of comments, primarly among chassidim, that entertain this possibility..” he likewise says “There is some reference to the possible return of King David”. There you have it from the horses mouth:There are sources for this. He just 1. doesnt think this is the majority opinion and 2. thinks that lubavitch adds parts which make it unacceptable. But one needs to separate various points being made at the same time. From here its clear even david berger acknowledges people have defended this.

2. I am not basing my choice on who was the greatest in the generation. I was arguing AGAINST someone else who wished to say that since there is yeridos hadoros the rebbe wouldnt be chosen since he is a yerida from previous dor. So i said by that logic you can only say the first option is the min hameisim option because anybody else isnt as great by that criteria. Obviously i disagree with that and it doesnt mesh with the gemara. I agree that that isnt how one should judge this

3. a few rabbanim here and there have suggested that in the past century. Id have to dig them up again. Will let you know. Point is, u could speculate whatever u want to be hashems cheshbon i doubt we know everything that goes into that decision. nistaros l’hashem

4. RoshYeshiva you are thinking of the sefer yechi hamelech hamoshiach, the second work. Yechi hamelech is just on rambam. but yes there is a sefer with haskamas which explains this.

5. Rso, you are missing the point to chezkas and being chosen. Whether its true or not this is whats often claimed(tho not always). So if this is what the main claim is then the attempted disproof that there are better candidates is a misplaced objection. Object that it isnt true ok, but one cant object there are better candidates if the whole argument is that this is no longer a matter of candidacy. That isnt a good retort to the belief. One has to bring arguments against what a person believes not what they dont believe.

Rso, be reasonable, this is not the proper format for producing various proofs of an entire case about how the rebbe fits rambam. Even if i could demonstrate that these things are mashama from the rebbes interpretations of rambam, u would just say the rebbe is wrong and you think pshat is instead like this because ur hergish says otherwise. Thats the whole problem, people give all kinds of interpretations of rambam, if u dont like the rebbes u will retreat into someone elses which better fits the way u think. seichel plays these games. The better place to start is is it possible to read rambam that way, are there sources for that way of learning rambam, can it be backed up in general and is it consistent? This is a more modest starting place. That there is A READING of MANY which would make the rebbe chezkas moshiach, The amount of reading and thinking it takes to go through sources with an emes and open mindset to the information and spend time thinking back and forth is more time than we have available here and i honestly dont believe anyone claiming to do it in a few hours between posts is being truthful with themselves that they are truly considering the points that would be made. Each criteria in rambam is its own world with various back and forth points and mekoros and svaras.

avram,

I think a movement who believes their teachings came from moshiach(story with the baal shem tov) and need to be spread in order for him to come naturally are gonna think one who doesnt learn them is not getting all the spirituality one needs. Idk what else u expect there. I dont know many chabadniks (myself included) who would say they are spiritually superior to Rav Chaim. I think they would say they have an emes which rav chaim isnt tapping into and a kesher to the nasi which rav chaim doesnt have and that if rav chaim tapped into it he would be even greater. ur terms are two black and white i think. The Rebbe however says there are no more real misnagdim anymore. He suggested another word to use for day to day interactions. Historically when a group of misnagdim were against u and ur approach for over a hundred years it tends to be a symbol. Mitzrayim also became a symbol. Everyone talks about leaving their own mitzrayim as chassidim talking about leaving their inner misnaged. This is the case even if misnagdim stop being misnagdim (which the rebbe actually said) and even if mitzrayim becomes a land of democracy and freedom and values.

And i do footwork, thats exactly why im telling you that u are not correct. There are more people ok with it than u may think.

Avira,

He didn’t say they aren’t pasul he said it’s not a pesul AT ALL and throughout the ages we have had people who believe in this. He said this with passion and in defense. Ur twisted additional words are only ruining what was being said. “Not a pesul” meaning not a kofer but wrong and shtus? Doesn’t say that anywhere u just added that in in order to avoid what he said. The tone and logic of his whole thing was that they are our brothers and there is nothjng wrong. Ur also ignoring where Hershel shachter himself said about the rebbe being moshiach zal zein ken yehi ratzon whoever moshiach is we would like him to come. Again indicating it isn’t a problem. Look, I quote people and then oooohhhh but they aren’t rav shach or some other insert gadol here so they don’t count right? Shifting goal posts yet again. Those who do comment on it being a shtus are referring to saying who it is with certainty many of them will happily say moshiach could come from the dead in general. U need to pick a point and stick to it

This is our mesorah? Where is that written? U wanna quote me a ramban I’ll quote u an abarbanel. U wanna quote me some rov today I’ll quote u a different rav. These things have always been an argument it’s frankly a rewriting of history to think Jews have all been in agreement on all these details.

The Gemaras MAJORITY interpretation actually from achronim and rishonim is some sort of min hameisim at some time even if not now. Idk what mefarshim u are reading. The Gemara isn’t a stira to rambam at all for anyone who knows how to read which unfortunately isn’t many people. The Gemara is saying if someone resurrects at the keitz to become moshiach and do his mission who will it be. The Rambam is saying if someone died during his mission at the keitz it shows he isn’t on any real mission at all. Those are entirely different points. Not to mention rambam already says questions in the Gemara which are not directly Halacha lmaaseh about which the chochom disagree etc he does not paskin on.

RSo,

This isnt quite accurate. If you want to actually understand a movement you need to listen to what they claim. David Berger who is considered to be an expert himself acknowledges that this belief was in major part fueled by things the rebbe said. The claim is the rebbe taught it, not that we just want him to be. As for criteria, look you again are watching from far away so u do not know all the various strains of thought in lubavitch, but there are messianists who dont think he is doing any of the criteria. Some hold he will return to fulfill them. Yes there are a great many who hold he matched until the status of chezkas moshiach. The problem with “proving” this is that like anything people have different pshatim and arguments for their pshatim. Much of what lubavitchers say is taken from the rebbes sichas themselves. Perhaps you should check those out before you comment further. I dont know where ur getting the idea that we dont know the rebbe was from king david. He himself testified that his father is from zera dovid in an edited sicha. We have the rebbes family background recorded. He is related to the alter rebbe, who is related to the maharal who is related to dovid hamelech. None of this is disputed by anyone in entire lubavitch.

1. That something is a christian idea doesnt mean it cant be a jewish idea. Afterall both christians and jews believe the jews were redeemed from egypt, that adam and chava ate from the tree, that there is reward and punishment, in a moshiach etc. Are we to say that we must throw out half of our beliefs because someone else also believes them? “Shared ideals” are allowed to occur.

2. It isnt even the case that moshiach coming from the dead is a christian concept. Yoshke was killed, resurrected 3 days later and then ascended to heaven in his body. Meanwhile, if you believe the rebbe is moshiach you either 1. believe when he resurrects in order to reveal himself or 2. is alive in this world in his kever or some hidden way. Meanwhile the christian is waiting for his descent from heaven. The resurrection for them has nothing to do with his “coming”. In fact, you should really have a question on the zohar and arizals account of moshiach that he will ascend to shamayim and come back down after a time. That is way more christian than moshiach coming from the dead. It is a curious point that in zero of the debates does a christian argue that the gemara about daniel being able to come from the dead as moshiach is a proof for the christian worldview. They always quote that moshiach was born during the chorban beis hamikdash and was taken to gan eden. The reason for this is obvious: Saying moshiach MIGHT(as the gemara says he might be from the living) be able to RESURRECT and redeem us has nothing to do with christian belief that moshiach HAS to DESCEND body and soul from heaven to redeem us.

3. It is very popular to believe that klal yisroel has had a simple universal concept of moshiach but that isnt the case. There have been all kinds of beliefs about moshiach which only get more interesting with the spread of kabbalah. Some say moshiach will resurrect, others say he will come from heaven in a body or as an angel, others say he is alive but looks dead, others say he will be enclothed in a fake body etc etc etc. Baruch Hashem jewish beliefs have much variety. Perhaps for a rationalist like rambam people being concealed in hidden worlds or resurrecting wasnt seen as anything to seriously consider, but kabbalah is now the name of the game and one must recognize these types of things are rather normal belief. Whether its the idea that Yaakov avinu had a second spiritual body which he was able to enclothe himself in after death whenever he wanted as Rabbeinu Bachya says, or whether Yitzchak died as a korban olah but magically appeared to be alive even though he was no longer in this world as the Chiddushei harim says, the jewishness of these mind boggling ideas predates contemporary jewish messianic movements.

4. Why not dovid hamelech? Well if you are a messianist who says the rebbe is chezkas moshiach that means he has a chazaka that he has started the process, why, if you think someone is in the middle of the process would the conversation be open to someone who isnt in the middle of the process? Thats a misplaced response. But if you say you are a messianist who just believes his rebbe will be the one who is chosen over dovid hamelech even though it is technically halachically possible it could be dovid hamelech or someone else, they have on whom to rely. Other tzaddikim of the past continued to believe their rebbe would be moshiach(like the ruzhiner or the baal shem tov) after their passing over other people. If someone thinks that the rebbe is more fitting since he kuched in moshiach he is entitled to have those preferences. There are in fact people who say that this was the reason daniel is considered in the bavli as he prayed for the beis hamikdash and as a reward he should be moshiach who builds the third. A lubavitcher may want to argue amonst these lines.
5. At the end of the day many talmidei chachamim allow for the possibility of moshiach coming from the dead, and many dont. Its a machlokes like any other machlokes like shaving, cholov yisroel or what have you. But as R Dovid Cohen said a few years back on dovid lichtensteins show “its not a pesul at all” “throughout the ages there have been people with this kind of hashkafa”. Enough said