yankel berel

@philosopher
As continuation of my previous post, RAMBAM equally mandates a TEST for any wannabe mashiach. A test which he can either fail or pass.
If the ‘Lo Met Business’ guarantees a pass, then the test is worthless.
Per force, that RAMBAM and RAMBAN need a positive and tangible result , in the here and now.

Otherwise, the mashiach claim is PROVEN to be a FALSE CLAIM.
.
So, we can safely state : the late habad leader/rebbi is a FALSE MASHIACH.
.

@philosopher
Menachem Shmei will not answer on the Ramban’s and Rambam’s psak on a moshiach sheker not fullfilling the prophecies during their lifetimes and how it applies to their moshiach sheker because he’s afraid to tell you that he believes that his rebbe is still physically alive. He knows when he will “sound like a legitimate talmud chachum” and when he will come off looking stupid…

This is a crucial part why Lubavitche NEED their rebbe to have been buried alive because if he is still physically alive his “nevuah” can still come true.
====================
It may be as you say that this their motivation [whole or in part]
but it is not going to help them , for the simple reason :
When RAMBAN and RAMBAM say that there is an objective test for a wannabe mashiach to assume the mantle, they mean what they say.

Wannabe’s have to TESTED .
They have to PASS .
Passing means ACTUALLY building the B’H and gathering all Jews.
Not hiding behind some worthless ‘not dying claim’.

This claim is worthless because this can be employed by any wannabe, from j to sh’ts to ….
It is clear that RAMBAN , using j’s failure as proof to disqualify him , considered realization of nevu’ot hanevi’im as a necessity PRIOR to any disappearance/ hiding/whatever/dying.
Lack of tangible results , result in automatic eternal disqualification.
So the ‘Lo Met Business’ has , when considered carefully , no ‘fringe benefits’ whatsoever.

@Arso
You wroteDaniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting the ge’ula process and then, dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failure

My argument with the above is that you write that the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person being Mashiach ONLY IF that person started the process and died leaving it unfinished. Therefore, Daniel who died without having started the process of geulah could be resurrected and be Mashiach.

But you don’t cite a source for that!

It seems to me that you came to the conclusion that there is this difference because the Ramban and the Rambam reject a dead person’s candidacy, while the gemoro in Sanhedrin, according to one explanation of Rashi (Are we allowed to quote Rashi nowadays in this thread, or have certain fanatics ruled him persona non grata c”v?) allows the possibility that Daniel is Mashiach. But that gemoro is not something that is brought lehalocho by the Ramban or the Rambam, and we don’t even know how they interpreted that gemoro. Don’t forget that even Rashi has an alternative explanation which does not allow Daniel himself to be Mashiach.

Therefore, the simple pshat in the Ramban and the Rambam is that someone who has died cannot be Mashiach, regardless of what he achieved in his lifetime. This would then, apparently, include Daniel.
=================================================
You are right .
just due to the klal of afushei plugta lo mafshinan, I Wasn’t happy to force RAMBAN and RAMBAM against this apparently valid pshat in sanhedrin, which forces the obvious hiluk I made regarding the difference between someone who started and someone who did not….

Hello
Is there a problem with my post ?

@menachem

To make it clear – I do not care about j .

He is NOT THE ISSUE here. the issue here is the late leader of habad.

We are only using the candidacy of j to discuss the candidacy of habads leader.

If RAMBAN says that j is proven as mashiach sheker because of his failure to realise nevu’ot hanevi’im, the same applies to all other wannabe’s who fail to realise nevu’ot hanevi’m .

RAMBAM specifically addresses the wannabe’s . And how we should evaluate them . They have to pass a simple test.
Did they build the B’h , or not.
If they did not, they are out. They are not mashiach.

So, according to both, RAMBAN and RAMBAM, your leader is not mashiach.
Period.

[Thats besides other potential problems, not discussed here.]

@menachem
To recap
your changing of topics and [deliberately] ignoring the points the other side is making, serves as an indictment of your position.
I would have thought that if you would have a on the point rebuttal, you would not keep it a secret , right?
Seems like we can use the klal of shtika ke hoda’a ….

THE LATE LEADER OF HABAD IS A MASHIACH SHEKER.!!

Or in qwerty ‘s parlance, a certain word starting with C…
.

@ menachem
You claimed that according to the Rambam. The problem with Christianity is not מסית ומדיח, rather only that Yoshke was killed.
==========
Wrong .
Never claimed that.

I will reiterate what I said –

RAMBAN is in Sefer havikuach . We know j is not mashiach because the promises of our nevi’im did not materialize during his lifetime.
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.

Both do not say that’s xtianities’ ONLY problem . Pashut to any straight-thinking person that there are more problems.
They say clearly, however, that someone who dies without finishing the business , is proven not to be mashiach.

Hence the logical and simple conclusion , not refuted by anyone on this thread:

THE LATE LEADER OF HABAD IS A MASHIACH SHEKER.

That is simple clear logic at work. Nothing more,

@arso
@shmei

RAMBAN is in Sefer havikuach . We know j is not mashiach because the promises of our nevi’im did not materialize during his lifetime.
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.

For the umpteenth time, the gmara in sanhedrin is not a contradiction to this AT ALL.
Daniel did not start the ge’ula process, nor did he or his disciples [at his instigation] declare himself as mashiach. Therefore, he could still be considered as a potential candidate. [if there will be a private thiyat hameitim].

Daniel never started. Therefore, he never failed. And therefore, he could still [at least according to one pshat in sanhedrin] be a candidate for mashiach.
But, As RAMBAN and RAMBAM point out, starting and then, dying & leaving unfinished business, equals failure.

Failure equals sheker.
Thats how we know now that j is a mashiach sheker.
Thats how we know that bar kohba is a mashiach sheker.
Thats how we know now that shabtai tzvi is a mashiach sheker.
Thats how we know now that the last leader of habad is a mashiach sheker.

Are these people equal to each other in other respects ? No, not at all.

But they are all -equally- meshichei sheker.

Yaakov avinu’s alive/dead status is totally irrelevant to this.
Neither is habad’s last leaders alive/dead status.

And neither are other valid disqualifications relevant here.
For example the j personality and his actions, or shabtai tzvi’s conversion to islam, or other possible problems with the personality of habads leader.
The point RAMBAM and RAMBAN are discussing is : unfinished business.

Which is as clear as day disqualifying the late habad leader from being mashiach.
So clear is this , that [for the umpteenth time, again] habad itself [pre 94] considered this so axiomatic, that they were prepared to go so far, to the extent of building a new castles-in-the-sky theology , on this basis, proclaiming to all and sundry that their leader simply cannot die [!].

So, to our question : is the late leader of habad a mashiach sheker ?
The answer can only be:

a resounding ‘yes’.

All of klal yisrael, besides the majority of habad hasidim, know this answer.
They feel it in their bones.

When you study habad literature , you will see that after each and everyone of their rebeim’s expired name there is a navgam , an acronym for Nishmato Bginzei Meromim, translated to english ‘his soul is in the treasured heavens’

It seems to me that no habad faction – even those who ostensibly agree that he died – would use this about their deceased leader .

The most they would write , is ‘zhuto yagen aleinu’

Why is their recent leader any different to their previous rebei’m , who did deserve ‘navgam’ and their present one who somehow does not ?

And who decided to differentiate ?
.

Hi

@Arso
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]

I suggest we stick with our gdolei harishonim here , just like in any other area in the torah.

Discussion should be closed after they said their piece.

Heard from my rebbi – if you want to argue with the ramban , you might not be an apikorus, but a fool you most certainly are…..
.

I am reading this thread and I am left scratching my head again and again .
Why is everyone ignoring a CLEAR RAMBAN who unambiguously states that j cannot be mashiach because the inadmissibility of a second coming ?
The language of the Rambam is nearly as clear , in hilch melahim . Why are people so happy to book a place on this merry go round and stay seated on this silly thing for such a long time ?
Time to get off , and look around …
I don’t know of any area of the torah, where we afford to ignore the combined voices of Rambam and Ramban and start speculating about the status of yakov avinu.

THERE IS NO SECOND COMING IN JUDAISM . Period.

For the Gmara in sanhedrin , I can promise you that The two Rabeinu Moshe’s knew that gmara BETTER THAN ALL POSTERS COMBINED .
And yours truly suggested a pshat before on these pages .

It seems to me that indeed ignorance is bliss but still , the ostrich should also get sick of the taste of sand after a while .
.

The answer to candace owens’ question is –
that …. she is right!
The question was if the reason you reject j is because of the inadmissibility of a second coming , then why is the habad leader afforded that possibility ?

The logical habad answer is that j is not rejected because of the inadmissibility of a second coming.
Simple.

He is rejected because of other reasons.

The only problem is that this goes straight against a clear Ramban , who states that j cannot be mashiach because of -exactly that- , the inadmissibility of a second coming.

Besides that, it also goes against an authority far greater than Ramban , [tongue in cheek] namely ….. habad itself with all its rabbanim and mashpi’im , pre 1994 ….

As far as I am concerned , the matter is closed, here and now.
—————————————————————————–
But I know that the innocent reader might question , what’s with the [one] pshat in the gmara in sanhedrin etc ? indicating that mashiach can come min hameitim ?

The answer is pashut . Those who learn the gmara that way are chvsh NOT cholek on one of the greatest we possessed [apologies here to habad pre 94 .. ]

They are talking about those meitim who DID NOT START THE PROCESS OF GE’ULA.
To announce to klal yisrael that you are mashiach and have come to redeem them , and then abdicate and die and so called finish the job , that’s impossible.

That’s what j did and thats what habad did.
Both equally inadmissible, on the grounds of the ramban , the inadmissibility of a second coming.

If HKBH will choose [according to this pshat in sanhedrin] a leader from the dead WHO HAS NOT STARTED THE GE’ULA PROCESS IN ANY WAY , and revive him and START AND FINISH the ge’ula in ONE LIFETIME, then that is also a possibility. [at least according to that pshat]

.
So , in short , ‘j’ is out and so is habad .

Dear reader, think about this, as this is la’d the only emes’dig way to reconcile that pshat in sanhedrin with ramban.
.

Re the LITERAL interpretation og atsmut betoch haguf
I MYSELF saw the habad poster on a truck clearly proclaiming on the street to all passerby , under a picture of their a’z , Prophet Rebbi Leader King God Advisor Tsaddiq, Rabbi.
Clear mention of them calling him god in a literal sense ….
no answer given , nor has any been attempted ………

@lostspark
Its RAV Shach , not Shach.
Please read the haskama of the Rav miBrisk.
[btw read all other haskamoth of rav mibrisk and compare the language]

Clear as day – if R Shach would have approved of the late leader of habad , this very same R shach with all his exact same characteristics would have merited at least “harav hagaon’ by the habadi’s .

So much for emet ….
And shows the worth of habad issued titles ….

.

@shmei
Very important to remember
Philosopher is not attacking Habad PEOPLE .
He is questioning habad PRETSEL THEOLOGY.

Antisemites attack the JEWISH PEOPLE.
Huge difference.
.

@lostspark
A] your empty accusation/slander against berger is as verifiable as the empty accusation/slander of your leader against rav shachs tfillin.
As verifiable and as worthless.

Beit shammai argued severely against beit hillel and it was never considered sin’at hinam.

@potato

potato should stop injecting the false argument of sin’at hinam.
Arguments about mashiach min hameitim is totally legitimate and have NOTHING to do with sin’at hinam.
Misusing the idea of sin’at hinam is a lame attempt at influencing a debate to be had on its own merits.

@always

Firstly ,This has nothing to do with smiha . R chaim kanievsky did not have smiha and certainly [over]qualified as a talmid haham al pi hahalaha.
Secondly , the principle of Muflag behohma bedoro is found in shulhan aruch hilch kvod rabo in YD .
Not my invention.
RCV is not gadol meraban shmo .
like the all the other rabanim stretching back to the time of the gmara [cant think of any exception right now] who were not and are appropriately named as r or rav or by any other nickname eg the berdichever or by their sefer , the ktsos, or the goan .
Main point is whether its solely by their name or not.
This is not a matter of ‘sensitivity’ rather a matter of halacha.
in any case thanks for your consideration.

Sin’at hinam is being used as a get out of jail card. Whenever you are confronted with something you do not have a common sense answer, you scream sin’at hinam …
and voila , all is clear.

@sehel
Don’t tell me what your leader said or did not say at the time .
I was following every utterance of his at the time he made them . They were quoted in kfar habad magazine at the time and were disseminated all over the jewish world like only habad knows how to.

I myself remember how he said that EY is the safest place on the globe and that no one will be hurt there.
And I also remember this being used as proof [by habad propaganda] for his so called [literal!] nevua status.

Literal Nevua which we lost since Hagai Zharya and Malahi , and which [supposedly] returned now.
Here all habadi’s agree that his supposed Navi status is meant literally , right ?

That’s how it was stated in the sicha [if not mistaken shoftim 5751] and that’s how it was taken by the hundreds of habad “yes men” [masquerading as neutral rabbis issuing an innocent psak] and subsequently by all stripes of habad hasidim .
Stated literally and taken literally.

The sicha about God clothed in human form was also similar- both stated and taken literally.
In habad – everything the leader says is taken literally . Otherwise you are not a Chossid.

And their leader knows that very well. Thats how he can say the most outrageous things , claim to the outside world that its was meant non literal, while he can rest assured that his hasidim will get the message, good and proper.

Bezot tibachenu , proof is, how did his hasidim take it ?
That is THE question. Not whether rebbi from ropshits or r bachyai or whoever else said something similar or not.
That’s totally irrelevant.

What is relevant, is how was the message taken and therefore —– what was the intended message from that master communicator , their leader. Who clearly knew in advance how it would be taken. And still issued that message. Fully intended the outcome of that message.

The literal outcome of the navi message . and the literal outcome of the ‘clothed in human form’ message.

….if …. actually cared about Jewish lives, then …. could go to the UN (yes, that UN) and tell them that they want out, and that the UN should figure out a way to keep all the Jews safe there while ending the Zionist nightmare (for Jews). But even if that UN option were no longer true – and nobody can prove that ….
{hakatan]
———————–
1] If the UN option was no longer true . If ….
What’s the question at all .
Can the UN be trusted to protect the people it was sent to protect ?
It was sent to Bosnia to protect the local Muslim population from the Bosnian Serbs.
How many THOUSANDS of innocent civilians were directly murdered within a small distance of those very UN soldiers sent to protect them ?

The thousands of trained soldiers from the UN stationed in South Lebanon cannot implement their own resolution 1701, out of fear of Hizbullah.

The Yazidi’s also were supported by the UN in the face of IS attacks on them .
Result ? Ask the yazidi’s how many survived , and ask those who did survive , in what state they survived….

2] The UN should figure out a way ….
Besides brazen appeasement to those barbarians , I have not [neither has anyone else] seen a way to deal them.
The UN could not even protect ITS OWN PEOPLE stationed in those lands of the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan from the bloodthirsty savages.
And you still suggest to willingly entrust millions of yehudim to their “protection” ????

Where is your ahrayut for the safekeep of yehudim ?

@echad
No one is listening to Berger because of WHO he is.
If there is someone listening to him , it is because of WHAT HE SAYS.

So, it is totally pointless to either denigrate or elevate his personality.
It is worthwhile however, to concentrate on the substance of his message, if you want to have some impact.

Engage with his message, consider the reality , the evidence.
Inform yourself.
Let go of any preconceived notions.
Examine the facts with a fresh and open mind.
Weigh it carefully.

And you will come to the inevitable conclusion : Habad nowadays, while consisting of wonderful people, is not normative Judaism.
Thats not sin’at hinam , nor is it hateful.

It’s simple reality.
.

@ujm

Stop living in the past.

We live in the present with the obligation to provide for the future where the wellbeing of our brothers are at stake.
Clear as day, that the collapse of the medina signifies mass shefihut damim h-Shem yismerenu.
We cannot work for that to happen beshum panim.
We have to support the medina now , as this is now the only viable way to be shomer on the lives and property of ahenu bnei yisrael.