Moshiach: Setting the Record Straight
Transcribed and notated by Alexander
Zushe Kohn
In reaction to renewed
controversy and interest regarding the Lubavitch-Moshiach issue, a small panel
of prominent Lubavitch scholars and shluchim, utilized the medium of radio to
provide thousands of listeners with a clear picture of the Torah’s position on
Moshiach.
The following is Part 2 of a transcript of the program,
which aired Motzaei Shabbos Parshas VaYechi, on "Talk-line With Zev Brenner –
America’s Leading Jewish Program," WMCA, 570AM in New York, WAXY, 790AM in
Miami. "Talk-line With Zev Brenner" airs every Saturday night, midnight to 2:00
am.
"Talk-line With Zev Brenner" was preceded by another
program in which the same panel of rabbis introduced some of the basic ideas of
the belief that the Rebbe is Moshiach.
(Continued from last week.)
Z. Brenner: The
difference between [the concealment of ] Moses, Moshe Rabbeinu, [and the Rebbe]
is that [Moshe Rabbeinu] was hidden for a while from the scene, and that was the
process that happened over there, but the Rebbe... Moshe Rabbeinu - if you want
to make a complete analysis - may have been hidden, [but] he was still around,
and he was revealed again, unlike the Rebbe... I think the difference is [this]:
If you would have told me that the period when he [Moshiach] goes into seclusion
was when the Rebbe was sick, you could have made, I think, more of a case in
point for that. But when somebody dies, that changes it. Even if you’re going to
argue semantically about Bar Kochva - that he had a certain victory and he was
doing certain criteria that qualified him as Moshiach, maybe even B’chezkas
Moshiach (certainly Rebbi Akiva and others believed that) - once he died,
that changed the whole picture.
What are you going to say [that there’s a difference between]
killed and died? But that’s semantics! He’s not here anymore. He was nistalek
from the scene and is no longer considered Moshiach by the greatest sages of
our generation.
[Transcriber’s note: Sources have been cited to the
effect that after Moshiach’s initial revelation he becomes concealed and then is
revealed again and brings the Redemption. This was also the pattern by Moshe
Rabbeinu. Isn’t their a major difference though, between concealment and death?
Isn’t death a stage beyond concealment? Didn’t Bar Kochva lose his Chezkas
Moshiach status as a result of his death? True, the Rambam says that when Bar
Kochva was killed they knew that he was not Moshiach, but does the word "killed"
really exclude a natural death?]
R. Majeski: First of all, [the difference between
"killed" and "died"] is not a little subject. It’s not just a matter of words -
killed, died. Everyone knows - the whole Torah-world - when they study Rambam,
that every word is very precise. And when the Rambam says that if someone is
B’chezkas Moshiach and then he is killed, it invalidates him - it is very
precise. Only if he was killed [is he invalidated]; not if he passed away.
If you ask me what the reason is, what should be the
difference, I can speculate and say that being that one of Moshiach’s criteria
is that he will be victorious over his enemies, then if he’s killed by his
enemies, it is the opposite [of meeting the criteria]. But if he passes on,
which is an act of Hashem, that could be part of the process [of Moshiach’s
coming].
This is not fabricated; this is in Torah. [Including] this
possibility - that the way that he’s concealed is in a way that appears as if he
passed away. The Arizal writes - I think I mentioned it - these are his words:
Moshiach will be a human being, born to a father and mother, and Hashem will
give him the neshama of Moshiach. He will be appointed as Moshiach, but
not everybody will accept him. Then [he will] go away, as Moshe Rabbeinu went to
the mountain for forty days and forty nights. He’ll be hidden guf v’nefesh,
hidden from us totally, and then he’ll come back and the whole world will accept
him.
To us, this is a description of what we [in Lubavitch] are
talking about, and it’s a Torah description. So how can someone come along and
even suggest that a description which is in Torah is, chas v’shalom, the
opposite of Torah? It’s a contradiction in terms.
[Transcriber’s note: 1. The Rambam is known
to be very precise in his wording. Therefore, ‘killed’ means ‘killed’ and it
doesn’t mean ‘died.’ Why should being killed invalidate someone from Chezkas
Moshiach, and a natural death not? Because Moshiach must defeat his enemies, not
be defeated by them. 2. When describing Moshiach’s temporary concealment, the
Arizal says that it will resemble Moshe Rabbeinu’s concealment. We know that
Moshe Rabbeinu was taken to Shamayim, body and soul, and the Satan made it
appear to Klal Yisroel that Moshe had died.]
Z. Brenner: Let’s go [to some of our callers]. First to
Chaim in Boro Park. Go ahead Chaim. You have a question for Rabbi Majeski?
Chaim: …They did not refute Dr. Berger. Dr. Berger said
that the Rambam says, "a king will arise from the house of David," [but] the
Rebbe was no king... The second point is that even with all these minority
[sources] - Sanhedrin, Abarbanel - go deep down [and you’ll see
that] there is no source to say that the Redeemer will start the Redemption,
die, and then continue the Redemption. [Yet] according to Lubavitchers the Rebbe
started the process of Redemption and then..., and then will come back to
continue. That is Dr. Berger’s central point, and they never answered it. They
have destroyed the legacy of the Rebbe with all their scholarly interpretations
and—
Z. Brenner: Chaim, you raise interesting points and we’re
going to let Rabbi Majeski respond to you. Go ahead Rabbi Majeski.
R. Majeski: [Your question is essentially] It says that a
melech will rise - that’s what the Rambam writes - "a king," and the
Rebbe was not a king. The answer is in the Rambam itself. The Rambam uses the
example of Bar Kochva. Bar Kochva was not a king. [He lived] in a time when we
didn’t have kings in Israel. It was after the Churban Beis HaMikdash. So,
obviously, the term "king" in this context means a leader, like Bar Kochva was;
even though he was called "Ben Koziba HaMelech," it means a leader.
We’ve said a number of times already, that there is no source
in Torah to what Dr. Berger says. This is his own fabricated thing, and there is
no basis for it. He writes himself that there is no source for it. The only
basis that he has is the vikuach of the Ramban. In the vikuach
of the Ramban, if you’ll look there, you’ll see that [Dr. Berger’s
interpretation] is also a distorted interpretation of what the Ramban says.
[This is] besides the fact that it’s known what the Gemara says in
Menachos, and what the Gemara says in Bava Basra - that when
it came to debates with heretics, even with Jewish people who were heretics,
like the Tzedukim [for example], the Rabbis did not give them the real
reasons [for their views]. [The Rabbis] did not tell them things the way they
really were, because they dealt with these kinds of people.
[Transcriber’s note: 1. The Rambam uses the term
"Melech," i.e., "King," when speaking of Bar Kochva, despite the fact that Bar
Kochva did not have the halachic status of king. This is very significant in
light of the fact that the Rambam actually derives the laws for identifying
Moshiach from the Bar Kochva episode.
Moreover, the Rambam cannot possibly be referring to someone
with the halachic status of king, for he already pointed out at the beginning of
that very chapter ("Hilchos Melachim," chapter 11), that Moshiach himself
will be the one to restore the kingship. How can a king arise, who may later
prove to be Moshiach, if the kingship has not yet been restored?
The argument that a king may be appointed by a navi, together
with a 71-member Sanhedrin - there are opinions that the Sanhedrin will be
restored prior to the coming of Moshiach, and according to the Rambam, prophecy
can be attained nowadays, as well - is not relevant to our discussion, because
if a navi would appoint someone as king, that itself would prove that he is
Moshiach, as just mentioned, and their would be no need for the rest of the "B’chezkas
Moshiach" simanim. (Based on the Rebbe’s notes in Likkutei Sichos, volume
8, page 361.)
2. Berger bases his claim that Moshiach cannot be from
those who have passed on, on a statement made by the Ramban in "Vikuach
HaRamban." However, It is a well documented fact that when Torah scholars would
debate representatives of other religions and philosophies, they would often
give them false interpretations, in order to silence them. ]
Z. Brenner: Let me just digress for one moment before we
get to our phone calls: I’m quoting from Beis Moshiach, the weekly
magazine that’s put out by those who believe the Rebbe is Moshiach, and it says,
"Long live the Rebbe King Moshiach forever and ever," on the cover. This is a
weekly publication, glossy, very well produced and done. There’s an article by
Rabbi Simon Jacobson, who I didn’t realize was very vocal in his talking about
the Rebbe as being Moshiach, and he talks about the Tomchei T’mimim,
[i.e., the bachurim of the Lubavitcher yeshivos], and he talks
about the conquering of the world - [that] the avoda of the T’mimim
in the seventh generation is to conquer the world. This is a [transcript of]
a lecture that he gave, and he says that there are two categories that the Rebbe
has. The first stage would be the war against the enemies of Hashem, who mock
[Him], that is, the Maskilim and Reform. Stage two will be the war
against those who fulfill Torah and mitzvos but are in the category of,
"They mock the footsteps of Your anointed one." The T’mimim were going to
be in the vanguard of this war. The question is: [Am] I, as an Orthodox Jew,
complete if I don’t believe the Rebbe is Moshiach?
R. Kalmanson: The answer is very simple: Yes. But let me
make this clear. You said today in the Haftora of today’s portion: Dovid
HaMelech, when he first became king, also had a battle of a good number of
years, where not everybody excepted him. Eventually he became the melech
of Klal Yisroel. Moshiach is going to have the same problem, as well. As
mentioned already earlier in the program, at first there are going to be the few
that are going to latch on to him, and then eventually, im yirtzeh Hashem,
the whole world will pick up on this, as well.
Z. Brenner: Rabbi Majeski, based on what I quoted from
Rabbi Simon Jacobson, about the Tomchei T’mimim, [who are] in the
vanguard of the Rebbe’s directive to conquer the world, do I as an Orthodox Jew
have to be brought to the belief that the Rebbe is Moshiach in order for me to
be fulfilled? Is that the case, Rabbi Majeski? Am I missing something in my
belief if I don’t say the Rebbe [is Moshiach]? If I don’t say, "Yechi
Adoneinu"?
Rabbi Majeski: That’s not what it says there. Let me
explain what the point is: When the Rebbe Rashab, [that is], the previous
Rebbe’s father, the fifth Rebbe of Chabad, spoke about this a hundred years go -
in fact it’s precisely a hundred years ago - he said that at that time [i.e., in
the second fifty-year period] there will be people who will come out in a
negative way, and who will laugh at the talk about Moshiach. [The Rebbe Rashab
said that] even though they’ll give all sorts of Torah reasons why they’re doing
it, the real reason will be because there will be a weakness in their emuna
in Moshiach. In other words, what we’re saying is that if a person has a problem
with the subject of Moshiach, he’ll find this reason, he’ll find that reason.
But what’s underneath it, what’s really behind it, underlying, is a weakness in
the belief in Moshiach. That’s the issue.
For example: The Previous Rebbe, in the 1940’s, during the
war, started to speak about Moshiach. There was tremendous opposition. What was
the opposition then? The opposition then was - by also certain people who
were frum people - they said, "It’s not a Jewish thing to talk so much
about Moshiach. It’s more of a non-Jewish thing." That was their point. There’s
a famous thing that the Previous Rebbe wrote, where he said that the basis of
Judaism is Moshiach. "Why do you want to give this away to the non-Jews," [he
asked]. Will we stop talking about Shabbos because there are Seventh-Day
Adventists? Would we stop talking about other things because goyim do it?
That was then.
In the 1980’s, when the Rebbe began to speak about Moshiach
very strongly - again the same thing: "Jews don’t talk a lot about Moshiach!"
The argument then was not about saying that the Rebbe is Moshiach; just the
subject [of Moshiach in general]. The argument was: "Moshiach comes b’hesech
ha’daas; you’re not supposed to talk about Moshiach."
Then came a time when the Rebbe said to shout "ad masai,"
and by the farbrengens the Rebbe himself would say, "ad masai,"
"We want Moshiach now," "Yidden have to demand Moshiach." [Along] came
the opposition: "No! You’re not supposed to demand Moshiach. It’s a chutzpa
to tell Hashem what to do. Hashem knows what He’s doing, and we’re not
supposed to demand it. And the Rebbe brought all the sources - that you are
supposed to ask, and how it’s in davening, and how it’s so many times in
davening.
In other words, at every stage of the game their was
opposition. This opposition indicates that it’s coming from something else. It’s
coming from the fact that when a person has a weakness in the belief and doesn’t
believe that it’s actually reality, and that it’s happening now, then
automatically all sorts of mental blocks will come up, with one reason or
another why not to accept it.
[Transcriber’s note: In the above-mentioned sicha
of the Rebbe Rashab, he makes it clear that the opposition to Moshiach issues in
general will stem from a weakness in the belief in his coming. The current
opposition to identifying the Rebbe as Moshiach, therefore, is a symptom of a
much larger malady. The past fifty years of opposition have demonstrated this
clearly.] |