Comments on: Messianic matters

By: moshiach men

moshiach men — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:07:46 +0000

http://www.honk4joy.com/blog/?p=969, http://www.honk4joy.com/blog/?p=915, http://www.honk4joy.com/blog/?p=989, http://www.honk4joy.com/blog/?p=1047

By: Chaim

Chaim — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:32:15 +0000

gedalia – Most Jewish commentators do not accept the “era” definition including Rambam and other halachic specialists. Rambam and other comentators aslo have no problem trying to outline in detail what Moshiach, Techiyat Hametim, Olam hab etc are.

Yet moshiach is not the goal itself but rather one very vital and essential step towards the final goal. Moshiach actually come at the beginning of the process of geulah and is not the final step. Even after he – being a political and spiritual leader – comes there will be many more years of the process itself eg then the Jews will return and the temple rebuilt etc and only much later the resurrection of the dead.

Everyone knows it is our current actions and mitzvot that will bring Moshiach and that final step towards our destiny as Jews in Israel, Hence Chabad’s insistance of deed over faith and that every single mitzvah (eg one person putting on tefillin only once) are so vital.

By: gedalia

gedalia — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:26:22 +0000

Lets get some perpective on what Moshicah is. It is a Jewish concept that defines the end of galut.

Moshiach may be a person, a great leader (but not human form of divine manifestation). However Moshiach could also be a generation, an era, an epoch, or similar.

Jewish people have a mission. bviat hamashiach is part of our objective, but how do we acheive it with such a poor understanding on what the end objective is? We should focus on our task, as a means to an end, and not try and limit our potential by reducing the concept of Moshiach to that which we understand by comparison to the one used by other religions.

By: Shoshanna Silcove

Shoshanna Silcove — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:35:24 +0000

Henry HerzoG wrote: Sorry guys, but Chabad have this idea that they are the world authority on anything and everything Jewish. Granted they have done some good work in bringing lost Jews back to the fold, but many are chauvanistic in their attitudes. Also, they are a tad too political. They should stick with religion and leave politics to the politicians.

And Adaas and Beis HaTalmud are not a tad too chauvenistic???? Or the Agudah crowd? And I guess neither are Satmar??? Come one Henry, Chabad are the least chauvanistic and most open-minded,the least political and the most tolerant and accepting of our fellows than all of the rest of the frum groups put together. Who else has such a big tent? Which other group of frum Yidden allow for as a diverse group as Chabad does? Which group in ortho circles is as diverse in minhagim, diverse in cultural backgrounds, and as diverse in beliefs as Chabad? The rest are almost as conformist as zombies, step out of the ‘politically correct’ line or doctrine and expect either a slap into place or get ousted. Not so in ChabaD!

By: Chaim

Chaim — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:56:48 +0000

Sorry – meant Stuart – no offense.
Also a second opinion brought in Rashi is a inferior opinion to the first but also does imply a problem exists with the first. They are both however acceptable opinions with problems.

By: Chaim

Chaim — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:51:50 +0000

Sturat:

I agree with you that there ARE alternative explanations. This does not negate other possible explanations which are NOT new.

Note: you wrote Rav said Rabbeinu HaKadosh and a good deceased example of whom Moshiach will be like is Daniel - the mioshichist proof the Rebbe CAN still be moshiach.

Arguing here is not productive.. I am not a mishichist and not trying to convince anyone of anything except tolerance to alternative opinions.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:33:31 +0000

Chaim - (as described in an article at http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/moshiach_chap5.pdf ) – an alternate explanation of that passage in Sanhedrin – which is brought as a second opinion by Rashi, as well as by the Maharsha and Abarbanel - is that it does not contain any attempts at all to determine the identity of either the actual or potential Moshiach. Rather, the rabbis were DESCRIBING Moshiach. The students of R’ Shila said that Moshiach would be peaceful (from shalom), like their mentor. The students of R’ Chanina said that he will be merciful (from chanun), like their teacher. Rav Nachman said that Moshiach will be like him, descended from King David and politically powerful. And Rav said that a good living example of Moshiach was Rabbeinu HaKadosh and a good deceased example of whom Moshiach will be like is Daniel.

By: Chaim

Chaim — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:29:49 +0000

Stuart - you are right. The individual is not important to those outside of Chabad and it will be obvious to all who moshiach is when he finally comes. The source for finding reason to believe one's own Rebbe is moshiach (and NOT confined only to Chabad) is in the Talmud itself. The things most of Chabad believe have authentic sources in Torah. With all due respect people should do research and learn before just dismissing foreign concepts out of ignorance rather than scholarship. Sanhedrin 98b: It discusses the name of Mashiach, with different authorities suggesting Shiloh, Yinon, Chaninah and Menachem (cf. Yeshu’ot Meshicho, Iyun Hasheni, ch. 3, that the term Mashiach is an acronym of these four names): each school picked the name of its own master (Rashi). The implication is clear: each school regarded its own master as the most likely potential Mashiach of that generation by virtue of his saintliness and perfection; see R. Tzadok Hakohen, Peri Tzadik, Devarim:13. In later generations, too, we find the same attitude among the disciples of R. Isaac Luria, the Baal Shem Tov, the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim David Azulay, and many other extraordinary personalities, as stated explicitly in their writings.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:51:57 +0000

I think that a major problem with the method of Chabad’s albeit successful promotion of the awareness of “mashiach” is that it has reduced it to a matter of slogans, and a to focus on who the mashiach is, or may be, or may not be, or may be in certain circumstances – rather than than the concept of the messianic era per se and all that that might entail. Using a metaphor from another religion, we’re playing the man rather than the ball.
It seems to me totally ridiculous and irrelevant for someone to ask or express an opinion on whether they would accept a certain individual as The Mashiach. Surely when the messianic era comes about, it will be quite evident who the Anointed Monarch is – and even then it will be the fact that he or she is that Annointed Monarch and the new world order that they have brought about that will be important rather than who they are.

By: David Werdiger

David Werdiger — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:14:03 +0000

Perhaps my example is more of a thought experiment.
I absolutely don’t think conditions would be attached.