Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 082

Tuesday, January 1 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:44:47 -0500
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Moshiach


A listmember sent me this reference to the Rebbe's Sichos wherein he says 
that Moshiach cannot come from the dead.

Likutei Sichos vol. 35 p. 206 n. 6

<http://www.otzar770.com/library/display_page.asp?nPageNumber=206&cPartLetter=B&nBookId=2>

Evidently, we must say that King David cannot himself be the King Moshiach 
who will be "a leader for them forever" because the initial work of the King 
Moshiach will be BEFORE (emphasis in original) the redemption, as explained 
in the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 11:4) and certainly before the resurrection 
(including the righteous who arise immediately, as Chazal say (Yoma 5b) 
"Moshe and Aharon with us (sic)")

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:41:33 -0500
From: "Howard Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Moshiach


:: The entire idea of a Dead Moshiach coming back contradicts the Kabblistic
:: notion that each generation has a Moshiach-in-waiting.

: Where is this Kabbalah cited from?

Anyway, focusing upon Moshiach as a PERSON instead of a concept seems
dangerous to me. Therefore the svara for changing the Nusach from
"umeivi Go'el" to "umeivi Ge'ulah" would make sense to me if I were not
so old-fahsioned about Traditional Nusach! --smile--

: Where is this concept cited from? You have mentioned it several times but 
: just as the aforementioned topic is required by you to have a source so must 
: this "Moshiach-less" geulah have a source in our Mesorah.

And how does this source resolve the Rambam's placing of the redemption 
primarily and at the culmination (:))of the Yad in Hilchos MELACHIM


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 17:50:16 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Moshiach


On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:39:13PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Anyway, focusing upon Moshiach as a PERSON instead of a concept seems
: dangerous to me. Therefore the svara for changing the Nusach from
: "umeivi Go'el" to "umeivi Ge'ulah" would make sense to me if I were not
: so old-fahsioned about Traditional Nusach! --smile--

Smile aside, leshitascha, it is not only somehing you can't change,
it's a raayah that you're wrong. Didn't you say that all the rabbanim
and kehillos that use a tefillah speak for its authoritativeness?

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:08:02PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> Limiting it to one individual
:> exclusively, and saying that Gd is restricted to the appointment of one
:> individual, THAT is shtus.

: That IS shtus but that is not all that is Shtus.

I am reminded of RYBS's shitah that it's assur to be stupid. (Recorded
in Nefesh haRav as samech-tes-vav-pei-yud-dalet.) For
the context, see my earlier post in v6n44
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n044.shtml#05>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:35:32 EST
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: halakhah methodology


In a message dated 12/27/01 4:24:03pm EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
>                                           .... The story enjoys a wide
> circulation in Lakewood, and some interpret it as RAK's license for
> original thought; he took an idea from Rambam and went elsewhere than
> Rambam with it. The parallel with the midrash is striking!

> OTOH, when doing such developments, we must not claim that that is Rambam,
> rather it is my/your/his REinterpretation of Rambam. This is an important
> sindenote to the methodology of halakhah thread: just because a rishon
> thought something is in Shas does not mean it really is there. It means
> that that rishon thinks so, and if there is ground for disagreement, the
> psak will not be anymore binding than that rishon's propensity to bind.

Yasher koach!

This was my big problem with Brisker Torah!
It was fine for R. Chayyim Brikser to say that his Torah on the Rambam, but 
IMHO it was ovestepping the line to say thois is DAVKA what the Rambam meant 
espeically in the face of the Kessef Mishan and others who gave other 
teirutzim.  I felt that while the Brisker Chiddushim were gevaldig Torah they 
had no right to presume that their pshat was muchrach but that is how they 
felt - that it HAD to be mucrach!

In defense of the Brisker method all I will say is: they require that you get 
your ducks lined up to make it as muchrash as possible, but I still don't buy 
that it HAs to be that way. 

As far as RAK and this Rambam I think a lot of Torah is said that way wherein 
a piece of Torah is taken from a poseik and a piece is disregarded. I call 
this palginan dibbura but unfortunately some of our colleagues think I 
literally am applying this to Eidim instead of metaphorically as kind of 
eclectic way of learning.  Ari, I think you helped me make this point much 
better. 

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 12/27/01 1:03:12pm EST, Arie Folger afolger@ymail.yu.edu
writes:
> One gets the impression, from listening to the tape, that RYBS wasn't
> even talking about a general approach to tav lemeitav, as much as an
> attack to Rackman's proposal. If I am right in my impressions, then his
> opposition to Rackman is much more subtle, though real nonetheless. Also,
> it would place RYBS as a "fluidalist" WRT certain gemarot, WRT the thread
> on halakhik methodology.
> <snip>

But if you follow the precednet model it is easier to attack Rackman. The
facts are thet AFAIK it is totally w/o precdent to readically re-interpret
Tav lemeisav. IMHO RYBS was FORCED into this dochak because he himself
goes against traditoin and looks at the Gmara for the model of Shvarim
etc. So since he allows for revisoin he has to come up with some other
bluwark against a radical revision

OTOH if you hold from precdent and that all post-Talmudic hanhaggah has
weight in Haalachah lemasse- as opposed to pure lamdus - then we can
smugly sit back and say "look here Rabbi Rackman! what you say is nice
in theory, but we are not about to radically alter Halachah for theories
w/o Massorah."


While this appproach is more bound to Masorah re: psak, it is more liberal
re: lamdus, IOW anything reasonable Svara is OK to propose, but not to
implement. Implemntation - if possible - would require a wide consensus

Furthermore with this apporach you can advocate a pshat that flies in the
face of the Shulchan Aruch but you do not wind up abrogating it lema'aseh

IMHO this is what the Sriedai Eish proposed in theory, but he virtually
always backed down when it came to over-riding precdent

[Email #3. -mi]

In a message dated 12/27/01 1:03:15pm EST, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> > Mishna and TB are in a sense "first among equals" - more like a Prime
> > Minister than a President - or is that Precedent?

> This is not uniform among rishonim. You might want to check out klalei
> HaRambam in the Yad Malachi.

You might be surprised to note that the Rambam sometimes takes the yerushalmi 
over the Bavlir

...

> I get very nervous when people divorce lamdus from psak. Are you
> postulating a Ran-like distinction between theoretical ideal Torah (=
> lomdus) and applied contaminated Torah (=psak)? Admittedly the Drashoth
> HaRan is an admirable source; nonetheless the entire notion seems
> pernicious to me (I'll try to formulate why sometime soon).

Absolutely!  Divorcing lamdus from psak is my avocation! I don't need the 
Ran, I have my own rebbe - R .Yerucham Gorelick - as a source. I also have 
several professors in Revel who said the same, the Sridei Eish legabei 
shchita and the ARuch Hashulchan legabie the Bracha al nkiyyus yadayim 
(Orcahc Chayyim siman 4) who favored the mashmaus of the Rashba but refused 
to override the Rosh and Tur lema'aseh. I'm not sure if he held because the 
Rashba was implicit while Rosh/Tur were implicit or because of who the 
Rosh/Tur were. 

[Email #4. -mi]

I don't have the time nor energy to post this completely now.

Here are a really good set of mar'eh mkomos for a most seredinpitous 
discovery. I have been learning Orach Chayyim 46 and I came accross a dispute 
re: the Bracha hanosein layaef koach (taken from the haftara of my B-M - lech 
lecha) which is fundamental to understanding the shitos of Gmara only vs. 
Post-Talmudic minhag.

See: 
SA 46:6 and the Rema
Taz 46:7
Gra 46:12,13,14  
SA of the Ba'al Hatanya 46:6
Aruch Hashulchan 46:7

This is re: the entire idea of post-Bavli Brachos. There was an intersting
thread on this years ago on Mail Jewish in which R. {and now Dr.}
Shomoh Pick and I both picked up on the Ashkenazic trend to allow for
post-Talmudic Brachos.

The Taz pretty much sums up my essential Hashkafa of EARLY - as opposed
to later - Ashekenazic minhag. It is most enlightening to see a theory
gathered from an eclectic set of sources articulated so clearly in a
singe classic text such as the Taz. Other approaches seem to imply that
other poskim were a bit hesitant to go there.

---------------------------------------------------

Note 1 that the Arizal recommends saying this bracha al pi Kabbalah -
so Sephardim do say it af al pi it is NOT Talmudic. But I avoided this
Kabbalistic aspect - if you want see the Kaf Hachayyim on this one.

Note 2 I must revise my entire hashkafa re: the Mehabeir. I had assumed
his background in Tzfat made him a bona fide Kabbalist. Rabbi Adderet
tonight in Englewood told us beferiush that while the BY was familiar
with the Tzfat Chevra and some texts, he did NOT live al pi Kabbalah
but rather al pi Halacha as derived from Gmara and Poskim etc.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:00:31 -0500 (EST)
From: afolger@ymail.yu.edu
Subject:
Re: halakhah methodology


Quoting RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
> afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
>> One gets the impression, from listening to the tape, that RYBS wasn't
>> even talking about a general approach to tav lemeitav, as much as an
>> attack to Rackman's proposal. If I am right in my impressions, then his
>> opposition to Rackman is much more subtle, though real nonetheless.
>> Also, it would place RYBS as a "fluidalist" WRT certain gemarot, WRT the
>> thread on halakhik methodology.
<snip>
> But if you follow the precednet model it is easier to attack Rackman. The 
> facts are thet AFAIK it is totally w/o precdent to readically
> re-interpret Tav lemeisav.  IMHO RYBS was FORCED into this dochak because he 
> himself goes against traditoin and looks at the Gmara for the model of Shvarim 
<snip>

HOLD IT! I wasn't defending Rackman, I was just saying that the Rav's
interpretation on Rackman MAY (and it's this "may" that I asked the
'hevrah to evaluate) have to be interpreted in context, and may be
nothing else than an attack, rather than a pshat.

Now, if we will say so, we will have to figure out why the Rav's
statement was good enough against Rackman, while it is not pshat, and
why pshat would not have been enough to gather sufficient support against
Rackman. IMO, the Rav oversimplified the issue in order to have a clear
and unequivocal battle call. If you start saying "he has a point but it
is misapplied" it will be much harder to rouse an army and you will lose
the battle.

As far as Rackman's proposal, I think it is wrong not because of tav
lemeitav; tav lemeitav was just a vehicle for his message. Rackman's
idea is wrong because it flies in the face of the idea of Marriage. If
marriage is so easy to dissolve it has lost its meaning (I have heard
this idea from rav Mayer Twersky a couple of years ago, and I believe
he quoted rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman).

Furthermore, and this is telling for the thread on methodology
of halakhah, a posek cannot be if he has no reverence for his
predecessors. The job of a posek cannot be properly fulfilled if he does
not have a certain level of objectivity, of distance between the object
of debate and himself, because otherwise it may excessively influence
his psak. Such objectivity must include the notion that his predecessors
are indispensable links in the Massorah, and their positions must be
respected and dealt with. a radical change smacks of such possible gaavah
that only the most respected poskim could contemplate such innovations.

Also, the function of that massorah is in part to preclude radical
changes (may be except for eis laasot, etc., although even then we may
argue about whether the posek argues a change of psak or a change of
circumstances to which earlier psak does not apply), and is achieved by
such reverence. Indeed, a mevazeh et lomdehah is unfit for psak. Methinks
that the requirement to rever TCs is greater for somebody who has greater
potential for damage, such as a posek.

Finally, it has been customary throughout the ages for even the most
major poskim not to go alone when dealing with issues that have wide
ramifications. Consensus in these matters is extremely important and
indeed teshuvot about agunot are replete with references to interposkim
communication. Rackman's proposal falls foul of this too, as he considered
the RCA vote sufficient for implementation (I love the RCA, but it does
not have anymore an exclusivity on gedolim as the Agudah's moetzet or
any other rabbinic organization. IMO some members of every major gedolim
club should be consulted for such radical innovations. Remember that
we are talking about a potential influx of mamzerim), and recently even
decided to set up his "beit din" on his own.

Thus, Rackman's proposal falls short in terms of
   * the notion of kedushah/kidushin
   * lack of respect for predecessors - thinks he nkows better than all
     before him
   * wrong methodology (I didn't mention this, but his approach smacks of a 
     mixture of PC and psychology, where the halakhah simply has to bend
     in order to fully adjust to societal norms. Conservative tendencies,
     anybody?)
   * wrong procedure - lack of consensus seeking

DISCLAIMER: I never read any first hand material from Rackman. I only
read articles about him or his beit din, as well as original material
that he (mis)uses, the said shiur from RYBS (preRCA convention 1974)
and sundry other materials.

Git Shabbes,

Arie Folger


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:38:33 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
Re: Mi chocHom veyishmor eileh...


>>>One of the alter bachurim in YU got engaged over the summer and was
then in a car accident, escaping harm.>>>

When R' Yisroel Reisman ("RYR") was a bachur, he traveled to Detroit for
a friend's chasunah. He flew to Detroit with R' Pam and, in the course
of their conversation, RYR asked R' Pam whether one bentches gomel after
taking a plane trip. R' Pam told RYR that one does not bentch gomel.

This left RYR in a bind (and RYR regretted broaching the subject with R'
Pam), because he (RYR) had always followed R' Moshe's shita (that one
*does* bentch gomel after a plane trip). When RYR returned from Detroit,
he would be bentching gomel in Torah V'das, in front of R' Pam, who had
just told RYR that one should *not* bentch gomel!

It all turned out OK, however, because RYR ended up driving back from
Detroit with some friends, and they were in a car accident and RYR was
able to bentch gomel according to R' Moshe and R' Pam. (And I assume
that RYR had both the plane trip and the car accident in mind when he
bentched gomel.)

(Incidentally, RSZA also held that one should bentch gomel after a
plane trip - even if one does not travel over any body of water. I have
a friend who used to fly a helicopter (daily) for the local traffic
"eye-in-the-sky" reporter, and IIRC, he was told different things by
different people.)

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh
aryehstein@yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:09:56 -0500
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Moshiach


I am sure that Dr. Schochet has no desire to continue this discussion.  
However, I cannot refrain from commenting on some responses to my post.

>1. the comments re limiting Gd are altogether incomprehensible. WE limit 
>G-d? GD said that He will reward etc., so that is HIS commitment, not our
>limitation. And insofar that maggid devarav leYaakov etc., He is "bound" to 
>keep His word (like the shve'vu'ot by G-d).

That is precisely my point. Dr. Schochet originally said that it is
impossible to limit G-d by saying that a dead man cannot be Moshiach.
I am saying that if G-d told us this through the revealed words of
Tanach or the inspired words of Chazal then He is limiting Himself.
Dr. Schochet's objection to saying that a dead man cannot be Moshiach is
similar to objecting to saying that a Levy can be Moshiach. G-d limited
Himself in who he can appoint as Moshiach and we must live with those
limitations, even if they disqualify a Rebbe we hold dearly.

>2. In view of Ari and Or Hachayim they were not just the Mashiach hador. If 
>their generations had been worthy they would have been Mashiach in person. 
>This does not exclude being Mashiach later on, personally or by
>ibbur haneshamot.

The texts referred to say nothing about having two chances of being
Moshiach. Dr. Schochet objected that many dead people were called
Moshiachs or potential Moshiachs. My response was that they were the
potential Moshiachs for their generation - a fairly standard concept.
Seemingly arbitrarily, Dr. Schochet added that they can ALSO be Moshiach
later on after their deaths.

>3. Indeed, to reject the possibility of the Rebbe becoming (!!) Mashiach 
>vadai is just as arbitrary as to affirm it. Again, who knows Gd's intent???

We were talking about rejecting the statement that the Rebbe IS NOW
vadai Moshiach and Dr. Schochet objected to the arbitrary rejection of it.

>4. The resurrection of the tzadikim is definitely prior to Mashiach as 
>explained in the sources

Too bad no one told the Rambam who wrote in his Ma'amar Al Techiyas
HaMeisim ch. 6 that he is not sure if it will be prior to, during, or
after the Moshiach. But I'll accept this for the moment, as it does
not have anything to do with my arguments.

>5. The way I read the Rambam it means that we may feel assured of the one 
>with chezkat Mashiach that it is happening now, a process has been set into 
>motion. Thus when you see that he died and the Messianic prophecies have 
>not been fulfilled, then you KNOW that this wasn't the redemptive process 
>and chakeh lo. That does not exclude the possibility of a renewed chezkat 
>Mashiach when the actual time will come, i.e., that Gd may choose one of 
>the resurrected tzadikim.

The Rambam writes (Hilchos Melachim 11:5) "Ve'im lo hitzli'ach ad koh
o neherag, beyadua she'eino zeh shehivtichah alav Torah" - "If he does
not succeed until then or is killed then it is known that he is not the
one whom the Torah promised."

That seems pretty clear to me that since the Rebbe did not succeed in
bringing in Yemos HaMoshiach then "it is known that he is not the one
whom the Torah promised." How much clearer can it be that the Rebbe is
not and cannot be Moshiach? The Rambam did not say, "This was not his
time so wait for him to be resurrected."

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:30:11 -0500
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
Subject:
Re: Question on names


Leon Manel wrote on Areivim: <<< Someone asked, Why do many MO even
big talmedei chachamim use their english names even when it is not
necessitated by the circumstances. Many talmedei chachamim use their
english names even in the Beis midrash and yeshiva shul setting. What
happened to lo shina es shmam. >>>

I'll ask the question a little differently. Not from "lo shina es
shmam", but from the text of the Krias Shem at the Bris: "v'yikaray
sh'mo b'Yisrael Ploni ben Ploni" -- "Among Israel, his name will be
called Ploni ben Ploni".

 From this, it seems there is no problem using non-Jewish names among the
non-Jews. In fact, it sounds to me like this text was adopted specifically
to allow non-Jewish names, for it is only among the Jews that this name
will be used.

According to this idea, if a person does have a Jewish name that he uses
to get an aliyah, I do not understand why it would not be used elsewhere
in shul, or in the Beis Medrash.

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:07:14 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Shelo shinu shemom..


From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>>>...We keep mitzvos which identify us as a people. In Mitzrayim, they
did not keep mitzvos. The only thing that kept them together were the
few things they did not change.<<<

I saw this in print last week (a new sefer of letters and shmuessen of
the SR z'l called 'Igros Maharit'

During a discussion/dispute with someone on various aspects of Yiddishkeit
in Hungary, he was asked 'hayitochen Hungarian frummer yidden all have
'official' goyish names on their passports etc - unlike Polish and other
Jews who didn't do so?'

(AFAIK in Hungary the government had a list of officially acceptable
names from which one had to select for their child.)

The SR z'l answered, that if anyone asks him, he advises that on official
documents one should put a non-Jewish name, as every name has a kedusha
on it and one should not 'place' this kedusha amongst non-Jews.

And WRT 'shelo shinu sh'mom" - he explains as per RGS - that in Mitzrayim
they had nothing - no Torah, no Mitzvos - and that was the ONLY z'chus
that helped them. Ma sh'ein ken, us, who have Torah and Mitzvos -
just by having a Jewish name (and not keeping the mitzvos) would be of
little benefit...

However, let me add, LAD, this was his view legabei names on official
documentation. I doubt the SR would have been so approving of rabbonim
using their goyish names when fulfilling rabbinical duties.

             sba@iprimus.com.au


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:26:07 -0800
From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu>
Subject:
hefsed merubba


Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>I agree that Ideally psak is neutral towards chumra and kullah. I am
reading the Bio of R. Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz. There is a footnote
there that troubles me a lot.. It says a doctor has rachmanus on rich
people more than on poor because they help him make a better living -
while - a Rav takes more time to pasken the she;eilah of a poor man's
chicken implying it is no big deal to treif up a rich man's chicken
becuase after all he can afford it! and the poor man cannot!>

Gil answered
<At least for Ashkenazim who follow the Rema, hefsed merubah plays a
big part in paskening Yoreh Deah she'eilos. Evidently, RSFM was of the
opinion that hefsed merubah depends on the wealth of the sho'el.>

Hefsed Merubba in the Rema is a question of whether we use an unusual
kulah because of the hefsed. IMHO it has nothing to do with the time
spent on the question. The Mishna says that one should spend as much time
on the question of the perutah for the poor as on the million for the
rich. I don't know of a source of the other way that one should spend
more time on questions from the poor than from the rich.

Also, I don't think that hesfed merubba is just a question of money.
I once heard from RYBS that he doesn't consider questions about the amount
of water to use when washing hands. He said even in his own youth he saw
the maids shlep water in buckets from the river. However, today that
we have faucets in the house he said that one should use as much water
as needed for all chumrot. Of course this implies that if one is out
camping or someone without easy access to water than one needs to delve
in the relevant questions.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 12/28/2001


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 20:57:21 EST
From: ISCHOCHET@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Moshiach


In reply to Gil Student:
> >> >However, I cannot refrain from commenting on some responses to my post.
>> >That is precisely my point. Dr. Schochet originally said that it is
>> >impossible to limit G-d by saying that a dead man cannot be Moshiach.

> Because there are sources affirming that possibility! Thus you cannot 
> arbitrarily say, "too bad what the sources say, G-d can't do it!"

> >> >I am saying that if G-d told us this through the revealed words of
>> >Tanach or the inspired words of Chazal then He is limiting Himself.

> He is not "limiting" Himself in the plain sense of the word, but in the 
> sense of choosing to do it one way as opposed to another (YIVCHAR lanu 
> etc.). He may just as well decide to choose another way (as, e.g., the 
> anthropomorphic vayinachem Hashem; or as in Hilchot Yessodei Hatorah 10:4). 
> Let's not forget that any such ascriptions are anthropomorphic veleit 
> machashavah tefissa Bei klal.

> >> >Dr. Schochet's objection to saying that a dead man cannot be Moshiach is
>> >similar to objecting to saying that a Levy can be Moshiach. G-d limited
>> >Himself in who he can appoint as Moshiach and we must live with those
>> >limitations, even if they disqualify a Rebbe we hold dearly.

> The point is that He did not say that a dead man cannot be Mashiach!

> >> >>2. In view of Ari and Or Hachayim they were not just the Mashiach 
>> hador. 
>> >>If their generations had been worthy they would have been Mashiach in 
>> >>person. This does not exclude being Mashiach later on, personally or by
>> >>ibbur haneshamot.

>> >The texts referred to say nothing about having two chances of being
>> >Moshiach. Dr. Schochet objected that many dead people were called
>> >Moshiachs or potential Moshiachs. My response was that they were the
>> >potential Moshiachs for their generation - a fairly standard concept.
>> >Seemingly arbitrarily, Dr. Schochet added that they can ALSO be Moshiach
>> >later on after their deaths.

> You should have read ALL I said: in persona ,or by ibbur haneshamot which 
> is the Ari's point. Acc. to Midrash, Mosheh could and would have been the 
> ultimate Mashiach if not for certain impediments ("if he had entered Eretz 
> Yisrael the ge'ulah shelemah would have occured, with Bet Hamikdash etc.") 
> It did not happen, yet Midrash still says go'el rishon vego'el acharon! 
> That is why Arizal has to explain how Mosheh Halevi can still be Mashiach.
> In terms of Arizal/Or Hachayim's explanation re ibbur haneshamot, which 
> takes in both Mosheh and David, it takes in also all the other candidates 
> (candidates by G-d's choice, not our perception of candidate), or in 
> Chassidic terminology, the neshamot kelaliyot of the nesi'ei hadorot. To be 
> sure there will be only one body, but a compound of neshamot justifying the 
> appelation of Mashiach to all of them (as in Mosheh go'el rishon vego'el 
> acharon).

>> >We were talking about rejecting the statement that the Rebbe IS NOW
>> >vadai Moshiach and Dr. Schochet objected to the arbitrary rejection of 
>> it.

> Dead wrong! The Rebbe is now definitely NOT Mashiach vadai, nor has he ever 
> been. That is a concept that comes into picture only with the actual 
> redemption, and only then will anyone know. Before then it is absurd to 
> make such a statement, and even to claim that it will be - is at best 
> arbitrary. All I say is that Rebbe may possibly become Mashiach vadai, and 
> I oppose the cardinal rejection of that possibility for the same reason 
> that I oppose the cardinal affirmation that he will be.

>> >>4. The resurrection of the tzadikim is definitely prior to Mashiach as 
>> >>explained in the sources

>> >Too bad no one told the Rambam who wrote in his Ma'amar Al Techiyas
>> >HaMeisim ch. 6 that he is not sure if it will be prior to, during, or
>> >after the Moshiach. But I'll accept this for the moment, as it does
>> >not have anything to do with my arguments.

> As I have said earlier is that we are talking about two altogether 
> different things: a unique individual TH, which has nothing to do with the 
> Torah-principle of TH - which is the one discussed by Rambam even as the TH 
> of various individuals throughout history has nothing to do with the 
> principle of TH - (though I must qualify that in a sense the earlier TH of 
> tzadikim is generically part of the general one, though completely distinct 
> from it). Rambam does not discuss these side-issues which are not relevant 
> to the essence-points (just as he does not discuss Mashiach ben Yossef 
> etc.)

>> >>5. The way I read the Rambam it means that we may feel assured of the 
>> one 
>> >>with chezkat Mashiach that it is happening now, a process has been set 
>> >>into motion. Thus when you see that he died and the Messianic prophecies 

>> >>have not been fulfilled, then you KNOW that this wasn't the redemptive 
>> >>process and chakeh lo. That does not exclude the possibility of a 
>> renewed 
>> >>chezkat Mashiach when the actual time will come, i.e., that Gd may 
>> choose 
>> >>one of the resurrected tzadikim.

>> >The Rambam writes (Hilchos Melachim 11:5) "Ve'im lo hitzli'ach ad koh
>> >o neherag, beyadua she'eino zeh shehivtichah alav Torah" - "If he does
>> >not succeed until then or is killed then it is known that he is not the
>> >one whom the Torah promised.">That seems pretty clear to me that since 
>> the Rebbe did not succeed in>bringing in Yemos HaMoshiach then "it is 
>> known that he is not the one>whom the Torah promised."
> Exactly. And that is why I reject the meshichist position of claiming to 
> know.Quite clearly at that point there is no ge'ulah thus no Mashiach.

> How much clearer can it be that the Rebbe is 
> >> not and cannot be Moshiach?
> There is a big jump between IS NOT and CANNOT BE. I do not understand how 
> you bridge it.

> The Rambam did not say, "This was not his>time so wait for him to be 
> >> resurrected."
> And quite rightly so, as a)you have no way of knowing whether your chezkat 
> Mashiach will be the one, as there have been others in same category; b)is 
> absurd  to focus on any individual, again because you don't know, and also 
> it is irrelevant who it will be. Thus why "wait for him to come back"? That 
> would be absurd, plus claiming that you know what Gd has in mind. G-d may 
> decide to appoint someone else to be Mashiach a second or whatever after 
> your chezkat Mashiach has died. Why should we have to wait for his 
> resurrection etc. (see Malachi 3:1, and cf. Sanhedrin 98a delo i'akeiv. 


Go to top.


********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >