I couldn't think of a name for this post, so I named it so. I also can already see the morons crawling out of the woodwork on this, but on Berl's advice I'll "comment-mine" it.
Here's what Milhouse said in regards to Chof Aleph Adar:
I'm more concerned with the constant references to Shabse Tzvi. There is a phenomenon I've observed for a long time - the creation of a mythical SZ to replace the actual historical one. In the myth, SZ is classed primarily not as a rosho who deliberately transgressed issurim de'oraisa, lehach'is and not lete'ovon; not as someone who made a shita of plumbing the depths of tum'ah and dragged thousands of Jews with him; not as a meshumad and mechalel shem shomayim borabim; but as a "false messiah". Yes, SZ did claim to be the Moshiach, and yes, that claim was false. He also ate chicken, and yet we don't classify him primarily as a "chicken eater". He was a Romaniote, which is at least somewhat interesting and unusual, but we don't classify him primarily as that.
The reason for classifying him primarily as a "false messiah" is not innocent - it was a deliberate (and unfortunately successful) attempt to infiltrate into the Jewish consciousness the idea that there is something wrong with "false messiahs", that to make a claim of messiahhood and to fail is a stain on ones character, or even some sort of averah. And therefore since every person who has so far made such claims has failed at bringing them into fruition, they are all to be reviled and compared to SZ Yimach Shemo. I'm not sure exactly who started this insidious propaganda; I greatly suspect that it was the maskilim in the 19th century. Their object would have been to cool people off the entire idea of Moshiach, and to intimidate anyone who showed signs of perhaps being the One from exploring his potential, for fear of becoming "another SZ", chas vesholom. Who knows whether there was perhaps someone who could really have brought the geulah, had he tried, but was discouraged from the attempt by this meme. Maybe we could have been spared the suffering of the 1940s!
The truth is, as the Rambam rules explicitly, that there is no shame in being a "false messiah". Harei hu kechol malchei beis dovid hakesherim. There have been many "false messiahs" in our history, from Moshe Rabbenu and Chizkiyahu Hamelech through Bar Kochva, David Alroy, and Shukar Kuchail. All of them, as far as I know, were tzadikim who tried to bring the final geulah, and failed. I have no problem listing the Rebbe among this elite. [That doesn't sound right for some reason - HT] Better to have tried and failed then never to have tried. SZ Y"Sh does not belong on this list, because he was a rosho and therefore never a possible candidate. Even if he had somehow succeeded in overthrowing the Sultan and establishing a Jewish government in EY, he would no more have been the Moshiach than was David Ben Gurion. (Had Ben Gurion done teshuvah, however....)
66 comments:
Millhouses's post has one inaccuracy, the fact that the fear of another Shabtai Tzvi was immediate, and one of the legitimate concerns of frume yidden on hearing of a new "Kat". Their fears were used to drive the wedge between many lamdanim and the early chasidim.
The revival of this fear will probably be attributed to either Kotler or Shach, whichever one first mentions it, in their revival of the older wedge between chasidim and misnagdim which had almost disappeared.
I have not seen the concept of Moshiach being done away with in writing of maskilim based on Shabtai Zvi, rather based on patriotism and nationalism. They were rarely that subtle - they prefered to use falsehood over truth in undermining Emunas Chachomim.
Millhouse
You post is well written(as usual)but in my opinion a bit faulty on the history part.
False messiahs have always caused massive turmoil in their wake, at least real 'false messiahs', by that I mean people capable of having a real following, not unstable people with very few followers.
Shabtai Zvis claim to fame was his status as moshiach-therefore-he can change the Torah.His status as rosho only became clear as he became a moshiach and started going crazy (apparently, he suffered mental maladies)and started with the 'boruch matir asurim'
In the wake of his failure the Jewish world was torn with infighting that carried on with the followers of his talmid,Jacob Frank,and later with the terrible machloikes between R'Yaakov Emdin and R'Yonoson Eybeshitz.So the picture is very unclear to me.
Btw, Shatai Tzvi still has a following in Turkey called the Donmeh and even some guy on Sevenfatcows who has a group out on the West Coast.
Berl, I think you are stooping low, by accusing a kehilla of being immoral.How would you know?The dropouts in Williamsburg leave and are not frum,unfortunately Crown Heights is full of kids who have fried out and continue to influence the locals.
milhouse - 100% correct.
imho your comment deserves to be made into post.
(taken from Chof Aleph Adar)
hmmm:
The fear of another Shabtai Tzvi or Yaakov Frank was indeed one of the main reasons for the initial opposition to Chassidus. But you are missing the point of that opposition. The first misnagdim (the ones who meant lesheim shomayim) were not at all concerned that, like SZ and YF, chassidus would produce another "false messiah". They were concerned that, like SZ and YF, the "kat" would lead people away from shmiras hamitzvos. Hence the bizarre-sounding accusation about the Alter Rebbe's behaviour on Tisho B'ov. The alleged behaviour was typical of SZ and YF, and therefore the GRO found the accusation plausible, and took it as confirmation of his suspicions.
That kind of hisnagdus eventually came to an end when, after several generations of chassidus, it became clear that far from being meikil on halocho, the chassidim were even more careful than others, medaykim bekaloh kevachamuroh. This observation utterly refuted the fears of "another kat", and put them to rest for all time. This refutation still stands; not even the bitterest misnaged today would think of claiming that chassidim are lax in mitzvos. Instead, they search with candles for the occasional din where we pasken more leniently than they do, not because we're looking for a kulah (as they regularly do) but for reasons specific to that din.
In order to revive the accusation that chassidim are "another SZ", it was necessary to reinvent SZ, to change his avla from the deliberate performance of aveiros to something that in its day was completely unobjectionable - "messianism". I don't think they came up with this reinvention themselves - I think it was the maskilim who did it, for their own reasons. But the neomisnagdim found it convenient to their cause, and adopted it. Suddenly SZ's crime was his claim to be the Moshiach, which turned out not to be true, and therefore anybody who makes similar claims, or about whom others make similar claims, is "another SZ", rachmono litzlan.
But this whole conception is a Big Lie. Had SZ been a shomer torah umitzvos there would have been nothing wrong with his messianism - indeed, maybe he would have been the Moshiach! But even if he turned out not to be, there would be no problem with that, and he would still be remembered with respect, not with contempt as he is now. And if there were still Donmeh who were erliche yidden but continued to maintain a belief that he was the Moshiach, they would be accepted by everyone as part of klal yisroel, with their strange belief dismissed as a mere eccentricity, of no more importance than some people's belief in ayin hora or daas toe-ruh or homoeopathy. It was only the aveiros that made SZ the villain that he was.
faish: It is true that "false messiahs have always caused massive turmoil in their wake". Bar Kochva certainly did; and yet we do not find a word of condemnation for his having done it. There is a girsa that attributes his ultimate failure to an aveira that he did, and he is condemned for that aveira. But he is never condemned for having declared himself the Moshiach and having attempted to bring about the geulah sheleima.
In fact, the Rambam clearly uses him as an example of a potential Moshiach whom we must follow until and unless he fails. R Akiva was not wrong to follow him, despite how it turned out; and if another BK were to arise the day after the first one failed, no doubt RA would have followed him too. Worrying about the aftermath of a potential Moshiach's failure is not prudence, it borders on rank kefirah, because it speaks of a mind that is at bottom convinced that Moshiach will never come.
"Shabtai Zvis claim to fame was his status as moshiach-therefore-he can change the Torah." This is a bit garbled; it sounds as if you think that the real Moshiach can change the Torah, ch"v, and the only problem with SZ doing so was that he wasn't the real Moshiach. If so, you have it exactly backwards. Whether he was Moshiach or not he had no right to change the Torah, and the fact that he thought he did was the first indication that he wasn't really the Moshiach.
Bottom line: the fear of "another SZ" had nothing to do with the physical disruption that followed his failure, which was orders of magnitude less than what followed BK's failure. It had nothing to do with the disappointment that klal yisroel felt when its hopes of geulah were dashed. Those are simply the risk we must take if we are ever to merit the real geulah.
The condemnation of Sabbateans was entirely about shmiras hamitzvos. R Yaacov Emden accused R Yonoson Eibshutz of actual aveiros, not of harbouring belief in a "false messiah". He accused him of eating gid hanosheh, and of feeding it to his talmidim. He accused him of eating and drinking on Tish'o B'ov, just as the misnagdim accused the Alter Rebbe. This was the complaint against SZ, not the moshiach business.
Hirschel - for a title, how about:
The False "False Messiah" syndrome
or
"False Messianism": an Invented Heresy
Milhouse
don't like either one.
Although the fact that Shabtai Zvi is reffered to as a false messiah may be because the maskilim and misnagdim wish to "cool off" the belief in moshiach , it could be for a much simpler reason.
People are remembered by means of their uniqueness. Thus, the rebbe is remembered as the one who introduced kiruv and r' chaim is remembered as the one who introduced a new derech halimud, although they both wore tefilin.
In the same vein, although Shabtai zvi was not shomer torah umitzvos, neither were hundreds and thousands of others. Therefore, he is remembered for his uniqueness which is a false messiah
Tzig, for a title: "Why not Shlomo Molcho?"
Millhouse, I would like to read some source of Maskilim teitching it this way. Everything I have seen, beginning with the Damascus Libel, was about nationalism.
Well, for one thing we know that they managed to get all learning of Kabboloh and subsequently Chassidus to be verboten because of SZ. Those 2 things certainly make a Haskalic hand here quite feasable. If there are 2 things a Maskil can't stand it's Moshiach and Kabboloh.
Millhouse is busy with acrobatics trying to rewrite things to take away the shame of Lubavitch today being a giant false messianic movement.
Good try, but wrong.
The pilpulim will not erase the facts.
The Rebbe didn't qualify as Moshiach, he was a false Moshiach, he didn't have the conditions necessary to be moshiach.
But Lubavitch kept on pushing it and singing yechi and other things.
Did they do that for the alter Rebbe ? The tzemach tzedek ? Why not, they didn't try to bring Moshiach ? Maybe every Rebbe and godol should claim to be moshiach now and have their followers singing yechi and if they fail, no big deal, they are like malchei beis dovid haksherim.
Maybe say R Yoiel Kahn is moshiach now and start singing yechi for him ?
it"s interesting to wach the similarities between sabsi tzvi and the lubavs of today
(pls dont try to
פארמיש the peOple, that this is chasidim vs. lutvakes,i am a grandson of chasidim from the holy tzadikim begining from magid of meseritch,rimanov,tzanz,and the rest,)
sabsi tzvi innitionaly was a shomer torha so it seemed and started to decieve
klall yisroel by blinding them and froudulently used the holy zohar to his apikorsishe דעות and its a known facts that many tzadikim not knowing that he is a froud and kofer were thinking that he is kosher and that he is mosiach
however thereafter he was נתגלה AND BECAME AN OPEN APIKORES and his diciples frank and חיון WERE EVEN MORE OPEN AND STOPED BEING SHOMER TORHA AND FRANK WAS AN OUTRIGHT
מניול and so that i cant even write on this forum what he and his doughthers were involved with
so this kind of belives that eventualy leads to open apikoresis
may be a slow prosess and when it eventually hapens its bitter ,and to late to fix it and you have to cut off the whole אבר from klall yisroel in order to stop the cancer
like AN אבר המדלדל
THAT HAS TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE REST TO stop the spreading of the cancer
many chasidim wanted that their
rebbe shall be mosiach,however when their rebbe was נפטר they said זי"ע
and waited further for moshiach
there was an exeption 2000 years ago with A MOSIAHCH SHEKER ישי הנוצרי who was A TALMID OF A BIG תנא
when he died his followers claimed that he is alive and is mosiach and god
this was the begining of the relegion that is called today catholics
its אסור to go into a church not bcs they are not שומר תורה ומצות
its rather bcs they believe in עבודה זרה that ישע הנוצרי who is a בשר ודם is god
this will answer to all those lubavs that SAY its o.k. to believe in עבודה זרה of men-god-mosiach as long as you are a shomer torha
and every yid knows that this is
falsh
now comes the most dificult part!
1)if there is a SHULL were the people inside belive in עבודה זרה if a shomer tHore is allowed to enter thet building?
2)the people that believe in this עבודה זרה IS IT ALLOWED TO BE מצרף them toמנין?
3)when these עובדי עבודה tuch wine is it יין נסך?
4)are we allowed to be משדך with these עובדי עבודה זרה?
5)those people in the lubav groups that believe in these falshood
partially, suce AS BELIEVING that the rebbe came
out from his קבר and is alive again like the talmidim of ישע הנוצרי, the catholics WHO say THAT he came out of his קבר and is alive,
do they also have the דין OF עובדי עבודה זרה
yes this is a hot potatoe, and most of the rabbies will be afraid to tuch IT bcs thay will be run over with a car by the lubacs
still lets sEE if there will be one tzdik with מסירת נפש like IN the time of sabsi tzvi there was the tzadik
רבי שושפורט זי"ע THAT CAME OUT WITH מסירת נפש AGAINST THE כת שבתי צבי AND DECLARED THEM AS כופרים באלוקי ישראל.....
Did they do that for the alter Rebbe ? The tzemach tzedek ?
The late Rebbe ZTz"L certainly believed that his Rebbe (the Rebbe R' Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn ZTz"L) was Moshiach, and I have it on very good authority that he believed that his Rebbe (the Rebbe R' Sholom Ber Schneersohn ZTz"L) was Moshiach. I have no reason to think that this chain did not continue indefinitely.
14
well yes, actually, every talmid has to think his rebbe is mashaich - see sanhedrin 98b
and R Nachman said that if of the living, it may be he. (sanhedrin 98b)
Idyot! The Alter Rebbe's yechidus room was called Heichal Moshiach (mentioned on more then one occasion, IIRC easiest to find in a couple lag-baomer Sichos of the Rebbe Rayatz where he talks about his trip one lag baomer to Liozna with the Rebbe Rashab and their conversation).
Indeed this is another example, along the lines of Millhouse's posts on the subject here, of deligimization of Moshiach belief - in the "good old-days" it was expected and obvious to belive in one's Rebbe as moshiach. But through the preversions of whichever guilty parties - maskilim or not - this mainstream yiddishe belief has been undermined.
Zaphod - for the rocket scientists out here you should point out that we aren't talking about the Baal Shem Tov's einikel R' Nachman.
(About whom his talmid muvhak, R' Nosson, said "for me Moshiach has already come.")
millhouse,
thanks for the post and clearing up the air. I learned something new.
to zamir
1)aldo the alter rebbe was one of the giants in his era,the believe that everyones rebbe is mosiach was definitly not mainstream
you leave in yr small room and you figure that everythink you believe is mainstream
in fact the mainstream believe of צםדא chasidim was only the prayer that the rebbe zol firen a kegen mosiach.
2) THE ALTER REBBE may have had a bies musiach while alive however you definitly did not hear from his mouth אחר פטירתו that he is still mosuach unless you dreamed about it
3)all the erliche chasidim that were praying that their rebbe shall be נתגלה as mosiach,stiil when there rebbe was niftar they said זי"ע and prayed that hasem
shall send mosiach bekorev and none of the erliche rebbes or chasidid believeed in this crazy stuff that the rebbe is alive again after the
פטירה and seats in his mosiach office... in 770 and gives לעקעך אין ויין the way you see the sickos in 770 staying in long lines in front of the rebbes desk bcs the rebbe is alive and giving these stupid people lekech and wine
this smells of עבודה זרה ממש ר"ל like the believers in ישי הנוצריֱ!!!!!!!!!!
Shoproner:
איך זעה אינגאנצען נישט די קשר וויזוי אז מ'ווארט פאר לעקאך פון א צדיק וואס איז נסתלק געווארען איז דאס גלייך נצרות
זעהט אויס אז ביי דיר איז דא פייגעלאך אין קאפ, דו ביסט שטארק פארנומען מיט נצרות
פין דיין ווילי לשון דאכט זיך אז די ביזט משפחה פין דעם תינוק שנישבה דוד משה
צר לי עליך אחי אז די ביסט אויך מיטגעכאפט געווארען מיט די בעלי עבודה זרה פין 770
נעעך פארלוירענע נשמות פין כלל ישראל!!!!!!
ושמו מוכיח עליו "דעשער" אז די ביזט אן אייניקעל אבער גאר אן איידעם פין דעשער
אוי נעבעך וויפיל צער דיין זיידע דער שאפראנער רב האט פין דיר אויף יענע וועלט אז די ביזט ניתפס געווארען צי עבודה זרה ר"ל
CAPS LOCK's attempt to justify his comparison to ST is of course laughable. A) The Rebbe never proclaimed himself Moshiach. B) The Rebbe never allowed anyone else to proclaim him Moshiach. C) The Rebbe definitely never told anyone to be over on Das Yisroel, veaderabo. So the comparison is non existent.
You'll have to find another example to use to denigrate others. Perhaps Karl Marx? He did get 7 million Yidden killed.
דעעשער
"איך זעה אינגאנצען נישט די קשר וויזוי אז מ'ווארט פאר לעקאך פון א צדיק וואס איז נסתלק געווארען איז דאס גלייך נצרות"
Nope, it isn't. It's foolish to be sure and no normal person should associate with them. But your statement shows you have no concept whatsoever what the development of נצרות really entailed.
Those followers only became a separate following when they declared that the Torah and Mitzvos were no longer in effect; having been replaced by a "New Covenant". When they abrogated Kashrus, Shabbos, Mo'adim, Tefillos, etc. and declared Rabbinic authority to be null and void (Posheah Yisroel did that all by himself) then they were effectively separated off. That the majority of their adherents were Goyim made matters even more simple IMHO. Same holds for SZ as shown by others here far more eloquent than I.
!!!! שוטה איינער
איך בין די דעעשער רבי אליין, איך זיץ זיך דא ביים ביטעטש אין מיאמי מיט מיין לעפטאפ און איך שרייב ביי !
הירשל ציג
זאג, דו ליידסט אפשר פון א נערוון קרענק? האסט געזעהן ערגעץ אין מיינע ווערטער איז איך בין מסכים מיט די משוגעת'ן וואס גייען פאר אין 770? נאר פון משוגעת ביז ע"ז איז א לאנגע וועג, און ס'איז קיין וועג בכלל, איז ביטע נישט פארדרייען די יוצרות טאטע'לע, אקיי? שכוח
פאר דעשער רבי אליין וואלט זיך געפאסט שענערע לשונות וויא שרייבען "שוטה איינער
פאר דעשער רבי אליין וואלט זיך געפאסט שענערע לשונות וויא שרייבען "שוטה איינער
anonymous
that's what I said. I said that I DON'T see the connection between waiting for cake and Christianty. Meaning there is no connection.
Brush up on your Yiddish, man.
Excellent post by Millhouse! Please correct me if I misunderstood it - In simple terms you are saying:
Everyone would agree that there are serious considerations to be made before accepting claims of Moshiach, however, we must eradicate this fear that leaps into people's throughts at the world "Moshiach." The claim is not different (or should not be different) the the basic use of the word tzaddik...
And we don't reject the use of the word tzaddik because Yoshke may have claimed he was one.
Millhouse: Good post. Misnagdishe opposition to nistar is rooted in "witch hunting" for frankistn and the like. For some reason many in litvishe world are distancing from anything non tirvial and dakusdik, considering it "too dangerous for common man" and therefore an aim for ban. Such coarseness is very unfortunate.
Zezmir:
Your source for the Alter Rebbes room being called 'heichal moshiach' is unreliable.You probably know that.The Alter Rebbe was know as THE ROV, because he was accepted as the biggest rov in his area,I have never before heard that he was thought of as moshiach
One thing's for sure; his source is more reliable than you.
The AR was known as the RAV, not the ROV. That's because it was said on him that RAV TANOH HU U'PALIG. That just like Rav who was an Amoreh but could argue on Tano'im, so too the AR could argue on his predecessors due to his vast knowledge of the law.
I guess we can safely say that just because YOU never heard of it doesn't mean it isn't so.
The Rizhiner had such room. No one denies that. So what? What problem do you have with it?
Millhose is 100% correct, in hilchoth Moshiach only the Rambam has the last say, no other rishonim had any final say on that subject,eventough there is different shitos on Oilam Habo but on Moshiach even the Ravad agrees.You can quote Shasportet or Yavetz till the end of days. it's all horoas that were tailored for that particular situation but its not psak.
sure that rav shoport"s teacing applies today
we see groupings in lubav and even maspiyim such as rabbi itzug springer
believe in the rebbe-mosiach-god believes R"L AND IN A FEW YEARS IT WILL SPREAD TO MOST OF THE LUBAVS
it shall scare everybody to dead that these ישי נוצרי KIND OF
believes will spread to all of lubav and dont say it will not happen bcs history is on our side
from the day of
ישי הנוצרי and שבתי צבי
IN those days some of the biggest rabonin
were ניכשל in those avodhe zorheS
and most of the khilos had to put those kofrim in cherem R"L
LISTEN ALL LUBAVITCHCERS WE HAVE WARNED YOU!!!!!!!!!
anon, what's the matter with your keyboard? or is it your haste that causes the waste?
Rav Shashportet VS. The Rambam, I feel you pain on your suffering from a bigoted anti chabad obsesion, but he is not the sort of posek that can disagree with the
Rambam, Have a good shabos and keep up venting your irrational rantings.
Nichshal in the Avoda Zara? Funny, none of the Rabbonim of the times of ST mention Avoda Zara. The Kehillos did not place widespread bans until after ST's conversion.
Now we have Yoshke here too. I am sure you have no explanation for this connection either.
Listen all CAPS LOCKS, we have warned you as well - arbeit macht frei!
Anonymous: It appears that you know as little about Yoizel as you do about Shabse Tzvi. Or less. I don't want to get into the whole subject of Xianity now, it will take a post at least as long as the ones about ST, but suffice it to say that after he was killed his chasidim, led by his brother Yaacov, believed that he was the Moshiach, and yet Chazal at the time seem to have accepted them.
anonymous:
Once again, there are many medications that can help you. I do not know which ones are covered by Medicaid but I am sure your doctor knows what to prescribe for your condition.
it seems to me that you have knoledge of medications
can you please find out wich medication can help to heal obssesions of sick people that
are obssesed with the tought that he is god?
or the tought that he is mosiach?
will prozac help?
does the medication also heal after dead?
shygetz, he is such a yukel he isn't even covered by Medicaid.
As a non chabadnik that says yoitser on Arba Parshois, I was shocked that the Kalir says in Piyut of Hachdesh, that Moshiach will arrive and then he will be hidden for 7 shemitas and then reappear,their is some other strange stuff their that is definitley differ with the Rambam in sefer Hayad, Rashi in Daniel quotes the Piyut.If someone would base his moshiach beliefs on the Kalir, Is he a apikores ?
It is said that those who don't learn from history will be doomed to repeat it. We see the blotteh that Lubavitch has fallen into, yet Millhouse still wants to defend it.
If you don't want to learn, how will you krich aroys fun di blotteh ????
14, we have still to identify which blotte we are speaking of, how it is blotte, and what historical comparisons can be properly made. Until then, the blotte remains safely on your court.
The premise of the post is incorrect. The problem with SZ's movement wasn't that he was (or became; who knows?) a rosho gomur and a convert. As a matter of fact, that was the solution to the problem -הקב"ה מקדים רפואה למכה ; and by his conversion and open deeds many more were spared from joining the party. The true problem with SZ in particular were, from the very beginning, hair-splitting inyonim in ספרי אר"י ז"ל - most of which is not ever addresses when someone speaks of SZ. That was the root of their heresy, and Ramchal wrote entire seifer debunking solely the Sabbatean giluy ponim - ספר קנאת ה׳ צבאות.
In the what-if world, if SZ did not get in trouble with the Sultan and if SZ did not eat chelev beferhesia and other of his eccentrities, and if SZ and his adherents was armed with the kind of apologetics apparatus that is widely available today to every דורש ומבקש the sapachas of kefirah could have spread way further.
duke, what you write is nonsense, historical nonsense - not even historical revisionism.
I was just gonna compliment Nyirbator on his writing. It was quite good for a Hungarian duke educated in Boro Park.
Hmmm, what about what he said don't you care for?
to Nirbator
Chelev Befresia and nirbartor are mechutanim, as long the women shave the heads.
It"s ironic that the Ramchal was accused by many with SZ syndrome, How come they didn"t know the obvious philosophical theory of the Duke of Meal Mart
Given that I haven't even started delving into history, I am not quite clear why exactly Mr. Hmmm calls it "historical nonsense" and all those other words. Is the fact that Ramchal wrote the book "nonsense", or that Sabbatianism was rooting in [misunderstood] teaching of Ari Z'L ?
R' Hirshel דמיתקריא козёл, זאָלסט דערלעבען ביז הונדערד און אַכציג , you are indeed a בעל רוח קודש that can reveal educations of Internet posters without seeing their transcripts.
All that aside, about the Piyut : number one, Rambam is a daas yochid in rishonim on this matter. He codified what he believed in, but it is not somehow binding uponבעל הגאולה . And R' Eliezer haKalir הוא פינחס הוא אליה, as is widely known .
SZ's public aveiros were not "eccentricities"; they were inherent in his shitah, and essential to it. Of course he started out with strange interpretations of half-understood concepts in sifrei kaboloh - that's how they all start out. But what was wrong with those interpretations was precisely that they led inexorably to his public descent into tum'ah. If they had not done so, then there would have been nothing wrong with them.
One is allowed to darshen Torah however one likes, so long as it leads to an increase in ahavas veyir'as Hashem and not to the opposite, ch"v. The test of an interpretation is in its results. Chasidus was subjected to the same test, and passed outstandingly; had it led, ch"v, to the results that the first misnagdim feared, then it would have been revealed as a false and dangerous doctrine. Because it didn't, and in fact had the opposite result, we can now say with confidence that it is a valid shitah.
Aside from Millhouse's excellent analysis of why your theory is wrong, the historical fact was that ST failed as a world movement when he abandoned Halachah. It was only when his theories were taken to practice that the rebellion gained support. Your thoughts are not even 20/20 hindsight, they are attempts to ignore what actually happened by only telling half the story as if that half were the ikar.
I think you should read my comment again. If you still have problems understanding, I'll try to rewrite it slower.
Oh no, I understand your post perfectly. I will not allow your dishonest rewriting of history (if it can even be called that, truthfully it is "how you would have imagined history to have proceeded") to go unchecked.
You see, there is is this little something called Hashgocha Protis. So we truly believe that the Eibershter would have found another way to stop the spread of ST. So to issue comparisons of Chabad to ST (not that you do, but your reasoning leads to the same - and you are the one who cares about the slippery slopes that reasoning leads to) is irresponsible and incorrect, as the philosophy of Chabad, aside from not containing anything heretical, has not led the 99% of Lubavitchers to do anything heretical.
If you have drawn parallels to Chabad from my post, you did it out of your own cheshboinos. Let me specifically disclaim that - no parallels shall be drawn to Chabad or anything else. If someone is really desperate to feed her paranoia, let her bash some דבר השוה לכל נפש - Breslov or something. Moreover, if you insist on denying simple historical facts 500 years bygone because you insist on drawing your parallels to todays state of affairs, then it's not me who is engaged in rewriting of history.
Which one of these you believe are incorrect :
1. Shabse Zvi was a well learned men who studied under the best until his initial "hisgalus" and was well in the geder of Talmid Chochom, if a young one.
2. SZ was a very pious person in the beginning stages of his lifetime (while severely psychologically disturbed)
2. SZ and his adherents were very well versed in Kabbala - so well that indeed, some writings of Sabbateans made their way onto shelves of some very serious people who would never be caught alive in a company of live Sabbatean.
3. From the very beginning and until the story in Istambul with chelev and whatnot, neither he nor his adherents have commited anything egregious other then the actual claim to messianism.
4. That notwithstanding, from sometime at the beginning he was within "ארור האיש אשר יעשה פסל ומסכה תועבת מעשה ידי חרש ושם בסתר"
5. Many of his followers, even after the downfall, were well learned pious men of some of the best rabbinical families - such as Wolf Eybeschutz yim'sh; to the point were almost everyone was under suspicion, Sabbatean or not, and major birur was sometime necessary to establish some very simple facts.
Notice the difference between this comment and your original one. One is factual, the other hypothesis and hysteria.
Nyírbátor: The fallacy in your analysis is in between 3 and 4. If they had indeed not "commited anything egregious other then the actual claim to messianism", then your point 4 would be absolutely wrong. They would have been entitled to their messianic beliefs, and nobody would have objected, as indeed we see that nobody of any substance did object until it became clear that there was something very wrong and corrupt in the movement.
In hindsight we can see clearly that their shito was rotten from the very beginning, because seifom mei'id al techilosom. Knowing to what depths of tum'oh their shito took them, and knowing that this result was not an accident but the inevitable result of their principles, we can indeed say that from the beginning they had a pesel umaseicho. Similarly, knowing the results that Marxism had in the 20th century, we can read Marx today and notice how all of that blood and misery was inherent in his principles, so that they could not possibly have led to any other outcome. Early readers didn't notice that, and were lured into believing in his crackpot theories, not knowing to what they would lead – vesom basoser. But had Marxism not led to the results it did, that would itself be proof that it need not lead to such results, that such results were not inherent in it, and in that case what would be wrong with it?
You are asserting without proof that SZ's messianism alone was a sin, and one that made the movement a pesel umaseicho from its beginning. In that assertion you are 100% wrong, and are following an invention of misnagdim and/or maskilim (not that there was that much difference between the two).
In a sense, the neomisnagdim and the meshichistn have committed parallel offenses. They have both added a 14th ikkar to Judaism. The meshichistn have added "You must believe that the Rebbe is Moshiach", and the neomisnagdim have added "You must not believe that". Both are equally alien growths, that modify Judaism into a religion I do not recognise.
Hmmm
Always have to get the last word in,eh?
Herr Millhouse,
First of all, I think that any kinds of parallels are not beneficial here, be it Marxism, Chabad, Novordok or Nazism.
Secondly, you have misread my words. I have at no point asserted that the messianism per se is a "sin". I don't think it is in general, or was with SZ and his posse. Nor am I following "misnagdim" and/or "maskilim" and/or anyone else whom you might know.
The "Vesom Basoser" is about much more subtle things. It is well established, by the authors themselves, that learning S"T (and, to an extent, Chassidus and other conceptual studies stemming from S"T) is a double edged sword, where שגגת תלמוד עולה זדון and accepting [willfully] a wrong understanding of things is, to an extent, about the worst sins one can commit in a lifetime. There is your "pesel maseicho" bagrubn.
But pray tell, what open evil deeds (other then purely ideological) have they commited at the rise of their careers, as you and Herr Hmmm keep insisting ?
Who is they - ST? Eating Cheleb, makriv korbonos and eating them, and shmad isn't enough?
Dude, can you read simple English ? Do you know what "rise" means ?
Another nekudah : Herr Millhouse says that `` The (phantom group one) have added "You must believe that the [someone] is Moshiach", and the (phantom group two) have added "You must not believe that". Both are equally alien growths, that modify Judaism into a religion I do not recognise ''
Not to delve into the tactical details here, but why do you drive either belief outside of the realm ? There are more extreme views on this all over, say R' Hilel's statement in Talmud, yet it's not, on the face of it, totally outrageous.
Millhouse
The fallacy in your analysis is that you view yourself as unbiased.I think your general theory is way off based on many of the historical details, but that's not the point.The point is you are 'forced' so to speak to come up with this theory because if you are wrong than Lubavitch is in deep trouble, hence your theory.
Do you, duke?
Ben-Meir
would you say the same thing about Jews being forced to defend the fact that there's a creator to this world? That they don't really believe it, or that it's (Chas Vesholom) not the case?
Duke, we seem to be talking past each other. Yes, SZ's "torah" was flawed from the beginning, even before he began publicly doing blatant aveiros. But the flaw was precisely that it inevitably led to that behaviour. In the beginning, when people flocked to him, they simply didn't realise where this shita led, and when they found out most of them left him. In hindsight we can see how the shita itself was corrupt, and could not have led to any other result, but at the time it wasn't so obvious. But had it not in fact led there, then it would have been a different shita, and there would have been nothing wrong with it.
In the case of chasidus, the original misnagdim suspected that it too had such a flaw, and that soon they would see chasidim abandoning halocho, just as the SZs and YFs had done. When they saw that it did not lead to this result, they concluded that their suspicions had been mistaken, and therefore that chasidus was valid.
Now apply this to the messianics. Will their shito lead them eventually to abandon halocho? If so, then the shito is evil and must be uprooted. But so far they show no signs of such a result, and I can't think of any aspect of their beliefs that might lead them there. Of course we all hope that we won't have 20 or 50 years to observe this "experiment", because Moshiach will come and make the question moot. But suppose ch"v he doesn't come for the next 50 years, and suppose the messianics still exist, and are still shomrei torah umitzvos, kaloh kachamuroh. In my opinion, that would be clear proof that their shito is a kosher one, and any remaining opposition to them would be invalid and revealed as based in sin'oh, just like that of the neomisnagdim for chasidus.
Post a Comment