Mashiach and Eliyahu Hanavi

↑ goodmorning ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 11:34 am

freidasima wrote:

Did you take that out of context? Because what he means are the articles of belief having to do with the existence, omnipotence, singularity etc. of Hashem.
No one including me doubts that is halocho because it is also the mitzva of "anochi".
No other articles of belief however are halocho.

No, not at all. The proof is actually about Moshiach (though it is meant to apply to all 13 ikrim).

Here is some of what follows:

Quote:

... normative Halakaha demands acceptance of the belief that the redemption will be effected through the agency of a mortal messiah. As is true with regards to other aspects of Jewish law, the Torah is "not in Heaven" (Deut. 30:12), and hence halakhic disputes are resolved in accordance with canons of law which are themselves part of the Oral Law.

I urge you to read the book. It's a fascinating compendium of the work of many Jewish philosophers, all structured around the Rambam's 13 ikrim (which the author holds have been accepted as normative halacha - see e.g. "... popular acceptance of the Thirteen Principles over the ages as the definite creed of Judaism..."). By a YU Rosh Yeshiva no less!

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 11:43 am

deleted because I posted twice by mistake.

Last edited by chocolate fondue on Wed, Jun 26 2013, 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 11:54 am

freidasima wrote:

Yoga to the best of my knowledge there is no such mitzva to believe in geula. The only mitzva of belief, as I keep repeating, is that of belief in Hashem, the one and only, omnipotent, uncorporeal, creator of the universe and giver of the one and only true and unchangeable torah.

Before anyone asks. of COURSE I believe in that, fully and faithfully and hope to be zocheh to continue believing in it for the rest of my life.

As I keep writing, there is really no problem for any orthodox Jew in discussing the first 9, and actually eleven ikarim. There is a question of whether reward and punishment from Hashem will be in olam haze or olam habo, there are different rabbinical opinions about whether it is fundamental to believe that the reward and punishment is anywhere but here. But reward and punishment? From Hashem? Surely.

The problems only begin with the issues of moshiach and techiyas hamesim. I for one think that it is better to ascribe to the original arabic meaning of "I hope with perfect faith" for those two rather than the dogmatic "I believe". Because I truly hope, with perfect faith that there is a moshiach of sorts and I truly hope with perfect faith that there will be a ressurection of the dead at some point in some fashion, not necessarily a corporeal but definitely an eternal soul type. To say however cagegorically "I believe"? That's hard.

I believe categorically in Hashem etc. I hope with perfect faith in the last two. In the part of the orthodox world from which I come, that's just fine orthodox wise.

If you say I hope and not believe then you are kofer in Techis Hamaisim and you have no chelek in Olam Habo as the Mishna states in Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin. Okay. We've established that.

Also, if you believe that the Torah is true, unchanging etc, as in bold above, then you have to believe what it says there regarding the coming of Moshiach: Begining with Nitzavim 30.
As the Rambam PASKENS:
1. In future time, the King Moshiach [1] will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will rebuild the [Beis Ha]Mikdash and gather in the dispersed remnant of Israel. Then, in his days, all the statutes will be reinstituted as in former times. We will offer sacrifices and observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars set forth in the Torah.

Whoever does not believe in him, or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements of] the other prophets, but also [those of] the Torah and of Moshe, our teacher, for the Torah attests to his coming, stating: [Devarim 30:3-5]

questioner ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 12:48 pm

Anything of substance that I would be able to contribute was already said.
However, it is amusing to watch several charedi posters provide countless textual sources and citations for their position, while the MO viewpoint basically boils down to the equivalent of "daas Torah" said something and must be deferred to without explanation.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 2:23 pm

I'll put this in the context of the Three Weeks: the concept of all who mourn over the BHM"K will be zoche to [proportionately] rejoice in its rebuilding. What does it mean to people? Maybe I should start a new thread.

↑ busydev ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 2:27 pm

questioner wrote:

thats not fair to other MO posters.

lets rewrite (its been happening alot lately):

Quote:

However, it is amusing to watch several charedi posters provide countless textual sources and citations for their position, whileone self labeled MO poster's viewpoint basically boils down to the equivalent of "daas Torah" said something and must be deferred to without explanation.

and I totally agree, questioner.

↑ chani8 ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:32 pm

busydev wrote:

questioner wrote:

thats not fair to other MO posters.

lets rewrite (its been happening alot lately):

Quote:

and I totally agree, questioner.

Really? I kept reading her posts as, there are some who believe this way, of which she is not one of them, but for discussion purposes, this is how some hold, and they have what to hold by because it's not spelled out that to hold that way is usser.

↑ yogabird ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:37 pm

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

↑ chani8 ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:47 pm

yogabird wrote:

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

I've not read the book, have you? And just because you don't like how FS is giving it over, why would you assume that prof. kellner's book is not based on something "a bit more substantial"?

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:52 pm

yogabird wrote:

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

I just wonder why it's so hard to hold in what I've thought are more normative ways.

↑ busydev ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:54 pm

chani8 wrote:

busydev wrote:

questioner wrote:

thats not fair to other MO posters.

lets rewrite (its been happening alot lately):

Quote:

and I totally agree, questioner.

ok I did not get that from her posts, but im charedi/yeshivish so its probably my bad reading comprehension. (never mind that I scored post hs in comprehension from lower elementary school on)

sorry. so then make it:

Quote:

However, it is amusing to watch several charedi posters provide countless textual sources and citations for their position, while according to one poster there are some MO who have the viewpoint that it basically boils down to the equivalent of "daas Torah" said something and must be deferred to without explanation.

but by no means is it "the MO viewpoint". which was my actual point in the "rewrite"

↑ yogabird ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:56 pm

chani8 wrote:

yogabird wrote:

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

I've not read the book, have you? And just because you don't like how FS is giving it over, why would you assume that prof. kellner's book is not based on something "a bit more substantial"?

I never said it isn't. You're the one that said that. You said her point of view is that some people have a certain opinion on what yimos hamoshiach will look like and that their opinion is valid because it doesn't say anywhere that it's usser to have that opinion.

Unless I misunderstood you.

↑ yogabird ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 3:58 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

yogabird wrote:

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

I just wonder why it's so hard to hold in what I've thought are more normative ways.

you seem to be holding it in just fine, cuz you haven't revealed much in that post Wink

I'm finding it a little...vague?

More normative ways of doing what?

↑ chani8 ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 4:07 pm

yogabird wrote:

chani8 wrote:

yogabird wrote:

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

I've not read the book, have you? And just because you don't like how FS is giving it over, why would you assume that prof. kellner's book is not based on something "a bit more substantial"?

They think that their opinion is valid because it doesn't say that.

In my opinion, opinions are always valid. I may not agree with everyone's opinion though.

↑ Potato Kugel ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 4:07 pm

Chani8
of course if specific sources used by Prof. Kellner could be given I would be more then happy to learn something new.
However to date I personally have listed over 25 plus major sources covering all streams of Judaisim who all state that it is Halachically forbidden to beleive as FS states.
Other posters have given more.
And in fact other posters have gone further and taken the time and trouble to copy and paste the exact wording of sources.
However I am still waiting for any sources that Kellner uses to justify the view that FS seems to be implying he promotes in his book.
(Considering FS says he is an Orthodox Rabbi as well as Prof. I have my doubts that he is actually promoting a view I have never seen in Chareid sources, Dati Leumi sources, MO sources, or Chassidic sources)
Let me just be a clear.
I do not view MO differently in light of FS's post.
I have pretty strong connections to MO communities and know several of their Rabbis, they all hold the 13 ikkrim to be a given required of any Orthodox Jew.
It is B"H something that unites us together.

Last edited by Potato Kugel on Wed, Jun 26 2013, 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ yogabird ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 4:10 pm

chani8 wrote:

yogabird wrote:

chani8 wrote:

yogabird wrote:

I would think that in order to author a book on a complex topic one would need a basis a bit more substantial than "it doesn't say anywhere that to hold this way is usser."

I've not read the book, have you? And just because you don't like how FS is giving it over, why would you assume that prof. kellner's book is not based on something "a bit more substantial"?

They think that their opinion is valid because it doesn't say that.

In my opinion, opinions are always valid. I may not agree with everyone's opinion though.

No, they think their opinion is valid because they have brought lists and lists of sources from nach, chazal, rishonim and acharonim to back it.

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 4:55 pm

chani8 wrote:

busydev wrote:

questioner wrote:

thats not fair to other MO posters.

lets rewrite (its been happening alot lately):

Quote:

and I totally agree, questioner.

Chani8, this is what FS believes:

freidasima wrote:

There is the concept of the "end of days", acharis hayomim, which appears in the mikra but to say that we know what will happen? Halevai. Too many different opinions of what it means. Will there be a third temple? Halevai but as for the form it will take, when, and all the rest? Who knows. Is there a moshiach in terms of "savior"? I have my doubts, but there is always the possibility of a "moshiach" king or leader who will "save" the people of Israel and bring them to a better end.

I really don't spend my time thinking about the endgame, I'm too involved in trying to make the present matter and make myself and my family better people, better Jews and keep the State of Israel alive. Is that Atchalta DeGeula? I believe it is. What is the final goal of that Geula? I am not sure but it sure means no more "shiabud malchuyot" for us. And in that I agree 1000% with the definition of "ein bein yemos hamoshiach lyomeinu onu elo shiabud malchuyos bilvad!"

freidasima wrote:

Just to clarify. There is no debate over the concept of "Moshiach" being a king to rule over Israel as per the widely excepted "אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכויות בלבד" from Brochos 34b. But be honest, that's NOT what you charedi ladies are talking about. Are you willing to accept the concept of such a king during whose time people sin, are born, die, are punished, people get cancer, rabbis commit fraud, pedophilia and adultery and still are revered by frum communities, where one group of Jews lambasts and mosers another etc.? Because that is what Shmuel is talking about in the gemoro. The only difference of having such a "moshiach" king is in terms of Israel's "international relations". And it doesn't mean the end of wars and devastation, only that Israel will make its own political and military decisions, not that it will make the right one, not that this moshiach is infallable and not that he going to solve the problems of the Jewish people.

But let's be honest, that's NOT the moshiach you ladies mean with your heartfelt cries here on imamother and elsewhere of "we want moshiach now". You aren't thinking about American, turkish or Iranian hegemony. you are thinking kool aid kind of stuff.

And THAT is what I am coming out against here. That kind of moshiach? It doesn't exist in any educated MO person's world. Even more so, to be frum one does NOT have to believe in "moshiach" of any kind. only in the revival of the dead. One who does not believe in Moshiach HAS A PLACE IN OLAM HABO. The same does not hold true in Jewish dicta vis a vis someone who does not believe in techiyas hameisim. But there is absolutely no connection between belief in the two things. Something which you charedi ladies will once again not accept. Because you have not really learned gemoro from the source have you. Only "ladies interpretations." and quotes that they taught you from mussar books in ladies seminaries.

I'm all for being DLKZ, but she's not just debating over here. She's bashing and being condesending to Chareidim for believing in something that she does not believe in. Without bringing any sources to back her up, except for one quote from Gemorah which she says no one refutes. Even though we have brought sources that prove otherwise. From Gemora, from Rambam, from a 'laundry list' of other sources. From Tanach. From the Shaloh.

I could also say; "Go learn the Lubavitcher Rebbe's "Dvar Malchus; Chiddushim U'Biurim B'Hilchos Melochim", where he goes into the Rambam in great detail and proves the integrity in everything the Rambam says and reconciles a lot of debates. Especially his explanations on the different stages of Yemos Hamoshiach, which solves a contradictions.' (I mentioned the Shaloh's opinion on that by the way) It's a lot shorter than Kellner's book. But I'm trying very hard to bring the original sources. (And also to avoid giving people a reason the bash other groups) 'Go read a book' is a cop out. Sorry.

↑ Potato Kugel ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 5:10 pm

Cf
The only issue I have in your otherwise great posts is echoing FS line that this is a Chareidi vs. MO dividing line.
It is not.
It was not.
It will never be.
It is an Orthodox dividing line.
All the sources.
That is all of them, period.
State that belief in Moshiach is a fundemental part of Judaisim. As the Aruch HaShulchan writes "From the foundations of our beliefs".
There is already plenty to divide us.
We don't have to take one of the things that ultimatley unites us and turn it into a political divisive issue.
It is not one, it should not be one, and one lone self proclaimed MO poster on a website does not have the right to attempt to re-define the Judaic belief system without one single source to back her up.
And that is regardless of how many times she attempts to put down other posters to cover up the fact that she does not have a leg to stand on intellectually.
And BTW, Sorry if I seem a drop over heatred but I am "Yeshivish" yet I have relatives that are Lubavitch, that are MO (real MO not self proclaimed MO, that are Satmar, and I have friends (close friends btw) that are Sefardic.
We all get along, we go to each others simchas, we help each other out, we share in the ups and downs of each others lives.
Do we have issues that divide us?
Sure.
We each have our own Mesorah that tells us different things.
But ultimatley we are united in that we all hold by the same Fundamentals of Judaisim.
We may have what divides us, but we have even more that unites us.
So when someone comes and tries to take the very fundemental points that draw us all together that provide a line of understanding that is unique to us as a whole.
Yeah it heats me up.

↑ busydev

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 5:14 pm

Nice post potato kugel.

However FS is the one that keeps pulling the charedi card in this case and people are arguing that...

but I agree (see my rewrites earlier on the page) that it is not a charedi vs MO. or at the very least not all or most MO.

↑ yogabird ↓

Wed, Jun 26 2013, 5:18 pm

I did not see any other MO poster claim that they share these views.