Messianism among Lubavitch

[gutlib]

That’s because you think it’s a question, no idea why you do, doesn’t sound like it to me at all.

Anyone else think so? (This is a question as indicated by a question mark)

I get it, you're the בר פלוגתא of the Tanya

[aygart]

I get it, you're the בר פלוגתא of the Tanya

[Dan]

Does the Tanya say a tzaddik Gamur is infallible?

Do other groups claim their leader is a tzaddik gamur?

Do Lubavitchers maintain that every Lubavitcher Rebbe was a tzaddik gamur?

@Freddie is a Tanya expert, not me. Maybe he can chime in.

I don't think the word infallible is used, but it's clearly the intention that for a T"G, sinning would be impossible.

It's clear that it's talking about a once in a generation tzadik, which is what all chasidim beleive their Rebbe represents, the leader of their generation.

So yes, Lubavitcher chasidim always felt their Rebbe was the leader/T"G/Nosi/Mashiach of that generation.

[imayid2]

I get it, you're the בר פלוגתא of the Tanya

Well I’m tickled pink that you think so, quite the honor. Just not sure how you got there because he doesn’t say a tzaddik gamur is infallible AFAIK

[aygart]

which is what all chasidim beleive their Rebbe represents, the leader of their generation.

So yes, Lubavitcher chasidim always felt their Rebbe was the leader/T"G/Nosi/Mashiach of that generation.

My understanding is that this entire concept is limited to Lubavitch (and ironically to Bnei Brak in recent years)

[imayid2]

@Freddie is a Tanya expert, not me. Maybe he can chime in.

I don't think the word infallible is used, but it's clearly the intention that for a T"G, sinning would be impossible.

It's clear that it's talking about a once in a generation tzadik, which is what all chasidim beleive their Rebbe represents, the leader of their generation.

So yes, Lubavitcher chasidim always felt the Rebbe was the leader/Nosi/Mashiach of that generation.

I don’t think others say that about their leaders, thus differentiating Lubavitch in how they view their Rebbes from others.

Litvishers certainly have no place saying this about their leaders, I’ll let other chassidim speak for themselves.

[gutlib]

Well I’m tickled pink that you think so, quite the honor. Just not sure how you got there because he doesn’t say a tzaddik gamur is infallible AFAIK

the way you wrote it was that you agree that the Baal Htanya says that, but you want to see if someone else agrees with his point.

Personally I don’t believe in this at all
אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא

I’d be curious to see a source על דרך זה in a non Lubavitch sefer. Find it hard to believe that others believe that way about their leaders.

I suppose you’ll say that they believe it even if they don’t say it.

[ExGingi]

Ridiculous to say this about Lubavitch as they work very hard in fulfilling the Rebbes directives.

I guess you're on to something...


There might be better clips, but here is one.

And another one

[Definitions2]

I'm locking this, if someone doesn't want it locked PM me, but I'm pretty sure most would like it locked again from the feedback I am getting. Nothing new is being discussed.

ETA: https://shmoishelmoshiach.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/kuntres_shmoi_shel_moshiach_english.pdf

https://collive.com/halachic-book-proves-moshiach-can-be-from-the-dead/

I quickly skimmed through that sefer. I have to go over the rashi explanation that he says is incorrect. That was my original way of understanding it.

I also had a question if the whole purpose of the statement of Rav was to teach that moshiach can come from the dead. Then why not just say that. Why give examples at all?

Also when he brings down the ramabam that says that Hashem can do techies hameisim at a any time and uses that as a raya that the rambam himself held that moshiach can be from the dead. That sounded very doychuk to me. But again I'd have to go it over.

[imayid2]

the way you wrote it was that you agree that the Baal Htanya says that, but you want to see if someone else agrees with his point.

This is in your own head.

I knew that the Tanya doesn’t say this and it was his interpretation.

[imayid2]

Where is @TheAsh

Didn’t this open for him?

[Definitions2]

For immortalizing the mortal in an unprecedented way to Judaism.

No I don’t, no one really does, but why not ask from כסא של אליהו which is a real Jewish idea.

Ok nu nu. They want something tangible. Anything wrong with that?

You can ask from there if you want.

[Dan]

I don’t think others say that about their leaders, thus differentiating Lubavitch in how they view their Rebbes from others.

Litvishers certainly have no place saying this about their leaders, I’ll let other chassidim speak for themselves.

Nobody would consider "belz" as a meshichist chasidis. I heard once from the Belze Rebbe, by a yahrteit tish of the prebious rebber R' Aron TZ"L:
"we all believe that the uncle (R' Aron) was meshiach, and if he wasn't, he had the ability to be".
I learned from that, that actually every chasid should think on his Rebbe, that he is Meshiach, or at least have the ability of being Mashiach.

You are again missing the point. Every chosid has the right to believe his rebbe is tzadik hador.

But to think he's manhig hador? yes

That's how all talmidei baal shem choose their rebbe, based on what they thought he has the strength and koiach to be manhig hador, and that's how it went m'dor dor...

Manhig hador = mashiach

I am just wondering how much of the debaters here have finished a single chasidish sefer that they find so funny that someone should believe that the tzadik hador is mashiach...

It's pretty simple, mashiach is going to be the manhig hador. Everybody has their own right to guess who the manhig hador is. And if Chabad decided that it's rebbe, what the hell do you care?

Some quotes from other non-chabad related sforim, that the manhig hador is mashiach.
There is 100's out there, I just have no time to collect them right now.

:אהל שלמה ח"ב עמוד י"ח
בני הרב הצדיק הקדוש רבי אברהם זצ"ל מטשעכעוו הסמוך ללובלין שאלו את היהודי הקדוש זצ"ל בעודנו תלמיד אצל האדמו"ר הרבי מלובלין זצ"ל מה זה הדבר הלא אבינו יושב ולומד כל היום כולו כי הוא היה איש קדוש מאוד גאון מופלג וסיגף עצמו בתעניתים ובעל מופת וממש לא תמוש התורה מפיו ורודף צדקה וחסד ומדוע לא ינהרו אליו אלפים ורבבות כאשר ירוצו אל הרבי מלובלין זי"ע והשיב היהודי הקדוש זי"ע "כי כל צדיק וצדיק צריך להיות לו ניצוץ ממשיח ואם לאו אינו יכול להיות מנהיג הדור

:תפארת שלמה - חנוכה ד"ה זכר עשה
מטעם זה גלי נמצרים נכבד ישועה על פני תהום הלל כי עיקר חיות... ואחר כך יצמיח להם ישועה על ידי צדיק הדור.

שבט מיהודה להרה"ג רבי יהודא גרינוולד - אבד"ק סאטמאר:
תאר במלים מזעזעים את עבודתו בקח ו הרבה ומסירת נפשו למען הכלל ישראל וכותב על ידו נקבעו יושבי ביהמד"ר יומם ולילה לא יחשו נפלה עט"ר צבי תפארתינו מו"ר משיח ה' הק' דבעלז ד'ל כ"ז שהיה הצדיק הדור...,

:לקוטי מוהר"ן ב ו ט ד קי"ח אבל בודאי
"כי אמנם שגם זה אמת כי כל צדיק הדור יש בו בחינת משה משיח"

So Pshischa - Breslov - radomsk - belz and others have the right to believe that the manhig hador is mashiach, but chabad doesn't?

You can say you don't believe is chasiddus at all, and including that what their sforim say, buy why have you put your hands on chabad just because of the few extreme ones?
1. people like you have said this when the Baal shem tov appeared, and we all know the hemshech... And yes, chabad with this movement hasn't gone away from chassidus at all, as I mentioned already.
2. All those in history tried to implant this on others. I don't think chabad has that intention.

[Dan]

This is in your own head.

I knew that the Tanya doesn’t say this and it was his interpretation.

Go learn Tanya and let us know.

[imayid2]

Ok nu nu. They want something tangible. Anything wrong with that?

Um, yes.

That’s what they wanted by the eigal too.

NOT saying it’s remotely the same, just proving that wanting something tangible can be catastrophic.

[imayid2]

This is all about משיח. That doesn’t equal infallibility. And manhig hador doesn’t mean tzaddik gamur of the Tanya.

[gutlib]

Go learn Tanya and let us know.

he doesn't need to learn the whole thing, he can just learn any place that concludes what the Sefer is all about and he will see this thing of Tzadik Gomer.

[Dan]

This is all about משיח. That doesn’t equal infallibility. And manhig hador doesn’t mean tzaddik gamur of the Tanya.

A tzaddik gamur of the Tanya doesn't sin. For that matter, neither does a TS"G or a beinoni of the Tanya, but sinning isn't shayich for a T"G.

You have a problem with the Baal Hatanya? Nunu. I'd say the first step is to actually learn Tanya.

[imayid2]

You can ask from there if you want.

That’s an idea firmly rooted in traditional Jewish sources. We understood it’s an esoteric concept, no one adjusts the mike for him.

There are other places to point to, ushpizim, the Gemara in ksubos about Rebbe. But in never turned into the level that goes on in 770. Question is what’s heresy and what’s plain lunacy, I don’t know the line.

[imayid2]

A tzaddik gamur of the Tanya doesn't sin. For that matter, neither does a TS"G or a beinoni of the Tanya, but sinning isn't shayich for a T"G.

You have a problem with the Baal Hatanya? Nunu. I'd say the first step is to actually learn Tanya.

Doesn’t sin means it’s impossible for him to sin?

No בחירה?

Making a mistake about something isn’t a sin.