Volume 14 Number 57
                       Produced: Fri Jul 29 12:59:50 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Abe Perlman]
Lubavich / Moshiach
         [David Kaufmann ]
Lubavitch & Moshiach
         [Abe Perlman]
Moshiach and Techias HaMeisim
         [David Steinberg]
         [brigitte saffran]


From: Abe Perlman <abeperl@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 16:13:26 EDT
Subject: Kedusha

My brother asked me a good question today.  I thought maybe someone on
Mail-Jewish would have an answer.

In most shuls  when the Chazan says Kedusha he says Kodosh, Kodosh, Kodosh at
the same time as the Tzibbur.  ( As well as Boruch K'Vod and Yimloch)  Why?

   1)  Rav Moshe Feinstein says that the Chazan should say it after the

   2)  There is a simple reason why the Chazan should say it aloud after the
Tzibbur.  There is a Halocho that if someone of the Tzibbur is still davening
Shemone Esrei and the Chazan arrives at Kedusha, the individual should stop
his davening and listen to the Chazan saying Kedusha and concentrate on the
words without saying them.  He can't possibly do that unless he can hear them
which is a bit difficult when you have a whole congregation who are lifting
their hearts (and voices) to their Father in Heaven.

   Any replies would be greatly appreciated.

Good Shabbos,

Mordechai Perlman


From: David Kaufmann  <david@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 01:49:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Lubavich / Moshiach

>From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
>In response to my queries re the ideaology/theology of seeing the Rebbe
>as Moshiach even after his death, several postings were helpful in
>clarifying some issues. Some questions still remain for me. I present
>them in context of the postings.
>   3. One other posting (I lost the author's name) repeats the assertion
>      which has been prevalent lately that the Rebbe's statement that
>      "Moshiach is on the way" was more than a prediction -- it was a
>      N'vuah (prophecy).  What is the basis for such a (daring)
>      statement?

See _Sefer HaSichos_, 5751, the sicha [talk] beginning p. 780, on
parshas Shoftim. There is a lengthy discussion of the concept and
transmission of N'vuah (prophecy), including the reason why the
statement "Moshiach is on the way" is to be seen as a n'vuah. One
major source for the examination of the concept is the Rambam's
explanation/psak concerning prophecy in the Mishneh Torah.

>   4. David Kaufman (7/10/94) comments on my query as to why the idea
>      that Moshiach will die before arising was not circulated until the
>      Rebbe died, by explaining (as I read him) that this is not a
>      required part of the script, but only an option. Does this then
>      imply that the absolutism in Lubavich's stance before the Rebbe's
>      death (exeplified by the recordings of the phone call-in messages
>      by Rabbi Y. Kahan which held up the idea that the Rebbe might die
>      as being absurd and inconceivable) was incorrect? If so, then
>      one gets the impression that the ideology being offered at this
>      time by Lubavich is ipso-facto (reactive) only.

I am not sure I fully understand the question, nor am I familiar with
the phone call-in messages referred to. Nor is it clear, to me at
least, why the impression - true or not - of a "reactive ideology" is
significant. I would think that the important issue is the halachic
framework/Torah-truth value of the ideology, not speculations as to
its origin. (BTW, I dislike the word ideology here, because I think it
implies something that the Moshiach Campaign isn't (unless a mitzvah -
appointing a king - or a principle of faith is an ideology). I'm sure
Dr. Juni didn't intend any negative connotations, but I want to make
sure we all have the right, um, "impression.")


From: Abe Perlman <abeperl@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 0:43:20 EDT
Subject: Lubavitch & Moshiach

I started to read the postings about the Rebbe and about Moshiach and
about T'chiyas Hameisim from July 5.  I thought that the issue was over
until yesterday when I saw new postings.  Therefore, I decided to
present my difficulties with this matter.

   I am relying on certain premises. 

   1) One cannot bring proof of the Rebbe's validity as Moshiach from
the discourses of the Rebbe himself.  This is because the Rebbe cannot
say (and it appears that the Rebbe is presently being spoken for) that
he is Moshiach with the proof that he said so.

   2) Members of the Lubavitch movement claimed that the Rebbe is
Moshiach by virtue of statements found in the Rambam.  Therefore, they
must continue to do so on that basis.  If the ideology is found to be in
flux with the words of the Rambam no statement of any Rebbe (unless
directly dealing with and explaining those words of the Rambam) or
Kabbalah will suffice.  The Rambam is the last word.

   3) The Rambam is given to precise terminology.  The accomplished
student of the Rambam will have no less.

   4) The Rambam is consistent and therefore no statement is exclusive
of another.  They are in harmony with each other.

   5) The Rebbe is not infallible as no one is except for Hashem and the
Rebbe's fallibility does not present any difficulty for us.

   On the basis of these five premises I find it extremely difficult to
understand the prevailing ideology.

   One cannot be biased in favour of only one sefer of the Rambam such
as Yad Hachazaka but one must also consider his other works. (e.g.
Peirush Hamishnayos L'Horambam, Iggeres Teimon.)

   Let us see what the Rambam says in Yad Hachazaka.

   In Hilchos Melachim Perek 11, Halocho 4 the Rambam states, "If a king
from the House of David ('YAAMOD') will stand up ... and force all of
Yisroel to go (in the way of Torah and to be strengthened by it, he is
'B'chezkas Moshiach'.
 If he builds the Beis Hamikdash in its place and gathers the dispersed
of Israel, he is 'Vadai Moshiach'."

   Now, the Rebbe has certainly not fulfilled the requirements to be
'Vadai Moshiach' so the discussion only centers around the claim that he
is 'B'chezkas Moshiach'.

   The Rambam says in Hilchos Melachim, Perek 1, Halocho 3, "A king
('AYN MAAMIDIN') is not stood up in the beginning except by the mouth of
the court of 70 judges and a prophet.  Like Yehoshua who was appointed
by Moshe our Teacher and his court and like Shaul and Dovid whom Shmuel
Haramosi and his court appointed."

   We see from these statements that Dovid who was not the first king
and nevertheless required a court of 70 judges and a prophet despite the
fact that he was a prophet himself.  I do not remember hearing about the
Sanhedrin convening together with the declaration of a Jewish prophet to
declare the Rebbe a king in Israel.

   One will ask then how can Moshiach come today, we don't have neither
a prophet nor a court of 70 judges (Sanhedrin)?

   There are two possible answers to this.  One, the Rambam himself
states ibid. Perek 12, Halocho 2 that man cannot know how these events
will occur until they in fact occur.  The other possibility and a
simpler one is that the reading of the Ani Maamin is incorrectly
translated.  Instead of the popular Lubavitch translation "And even
though he tarry, nevertheless I yearn for him that he shall come every
day", one should instead believe that "even though he tarry,
nevertheless I yearn for him every day that he should come."  In that
translation we are not committing him to come every day, especially
since there are some days of the week, the gemoro says, whem he
definitely will not come.  This translation is supported by the fact
that the Ani MAAmin was not formulated by the Rambam himself but was a
summary of the Rambam's words in his Introduction to the 10th Perek of
Mishnayos Sanhedrin.  And a poor summary it was as the Rambam says
there, " And the twelfth foundation is the days of the Moshiach and one
should believe and convince himself of the truth that he will come and
not to say that he is late.  If he tarries, yearn for him and do not set
a time for him and do not explain the Pesukim in order to bring forth
from them the time of his coming."  This would imply as Rav Pinchas
Hirschprung of Montreal told me that it is not part of Jewish belief
that every generation has the possibilty of having Moshiach come in its
 Maybe and hopefully, but not part of the Jewish belief.

   The Rambam says ibid. Perek 1, Halocho 7 and 12 that a king must be
annointed and that the son of a king is annointed only in the case when
his throne is contested.  Well, the Rebbe's father was not a king and if
you count Dovid Hamelech or one of his descendants as his father, his
throne was hotly contested and deserved his being annointed.

   Although the Rebbe did much to cause many many Jews to be
strengthened by the Torah, it is undisputed that at no time did he force
all of Yisroel to follow the Torah.

   The Rambam says explicitly ibid Perek 11, Halocho 3 that "Rabi Akiva
and his whole generation thought Bar Kochba was the Moshiach until he
was killed because of sins.  Since he was killed it became known that he
was not."

   We see here that if someone who is legitimately thought to have been
Moshiach and dies, loses the title.  According to the Rambam there is no
possibility of waiting for his revival from the dead to reinstate him as

   Paranthetically, I would like to know precisely where one could find
the statement in the Zohar that Moshiach will arise from the dead to
re-assume his role.  Such Zohars cannot be quoted offhand, neither can
any other source.  It is the duty of all, including David Kaufman, to
live up to that.

   Despite the Rambam's insistence in Yad Hachazaka that one cannot know
how the events will occur, he himself does tell us some precise events
which will occur in Iggeres Teiman.  This was a letter written to the
Jews of Yemen to strengthen them in their beliefs in the wake of to a
great entent the proliferation of many false Messiahs.

   The Rambam writes there, "at first Moshiach will be seen first in
Eretz Yisroel ".  The Rebbe was proclaimed as Moshiach first in America.
He was never in Eretz Yisroel.

   From all that I have seen the belief that the Rebbe was Moshiach even
before his departure from the physical realm and surely after leaves
much to be desired and our belief in Moshiach should be one of
conviction, not desperation.

   If the Rebbe made certain statements which led people to believe that
he said someting definitive about the certain imminent arrival of
Moshiach and now he is proven wrong, it is no loss of trust or honour
for the Rebbe.  After all, the Ramban himself made predictions to the
year of the coming of Moshiach and even of Techiyas Hameisim and he was
wrong.  We think no less of him for it.

   I have written all this in the belief that it will bring greater
honour to the memory of the Rebbe as all of his good deeds need not be
marred by strange tales after his petira.  We need to set the record
straight and continue the belief that our forefathers had for
generations unsullied


From: David Steinberg <dave@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 08:04:55 +0100
Subject: Moshiach and Techias HaMeisim

I have great concerns arising out of the messages emanating from
Lubavitch about the possibility/probability that the Rebbe Zt'l will
return form the dead as Moshiach.

To most jews, even those that are not frum, the notion of the Messiah
arising from the dead is a decidedly alien one.  And it has remained
alien despite 1900 years +/- of Christian proselytizing.

I am not competent to evaluate whether the notion that Moshiach will die
then return is authetic (an accepted) Yahadus.  I don't have to be; we
have gedollim for that.  But I do know that knowledge of the notion was
not widespread.  It seems to me that a grave disservice was done in
disseminating the idea.

There are reasons why, since Shabtai Tzvi, certain types of messianism
has been discouraged.  Await Moshiach - certainly.  Do mitzvahs to bring
Moshiach closer - definitely.  I do not doubt that the Rebbe could have
become Moshiach.  But for the Hamon Am (the bulk of the nation), that
should have ended with the passing of the Rebbe.

The frenzy of this past year does not strike me as positive.
Dissemenating notions of resurrection to people who are not equipped to
evaluate those ideas in a Torah framework is frightening.  Sod
(Mysteries of the Torah) should not be taught to those not ready for it.

I we lose one additional soul to Christianity because of this
dissemination, if Christian dogma about resurrection becomes less alien,
then Oi Lanu Oi Lanu (woe is us).

David Steinberg


From: <richa@...> (brigitte saffran)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 13:56:36 -0400
Subject: Moshiah

For a while this has been bothering me while reading the postings. I was
hoping that someone else would bring it up, and since no one has,
perhaps I am the one who is confusing the sources. Regarding the
statements that the Rebbe zt"l would "rise from the dead" to assume the
role of Melech Hamashiah isn't that problematic? I don't have any
sefarim by the computer, but isn't it brought in Hilchot Melachim, that
a king must come from natural sources, and not rise out of any
super-natural events?  How can someone claim that the next King of Am
Yisrael will be revived from the dead in light of this?!


End of Volume 14 Issue 57