10

Do any rabbis comment on how to relate to members of the subset of Chabad who believe that the Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson zt"l was the Messiah? For example, do non-messianist Orthodox rabbis generally advise that people interact with messianists in some particular way, or do they generally instruct people to interact with messianists in the same way that they interact with any other Jew?

Daniel
  • 24,888
  • 3
  • 48
  • 148
  • 3
    Would the downvoter care to comment? – Double AA Apr 08 '13 at 22:12
  • 4
    "Was"? Or "is"? Two very different questions. (Not the downvoter, BTW) – HodofHod Apr 08 '13 at 23:20
  • 2
    @HodofHod Only different if you assume there will be multiple Messiahs. If only one person will ever have that title, then the questions are identical. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 00:05
  • 3
    @DoubleAA It's supposed to say "Bechezkas Mashiach", and lots of people can have that title. No one believes the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the Mashiach, the question is about "was" or "is" "Bechezkas Mashiach". The opposition is to the belief that someone dead can be "Bechezkas Mashiach", others were opposed because they feel that no one should declare anyone to be Bechezkas Mashiach. – Ariel Apr 09 '13 at 00:58
  • 4
    @Ariel "No one believes the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the Mashiach." That depends on what the meaning of the word is is. – Fred Apr 09 '13 at 04:44
  • 1
    Could you clarify "interact with"? Are you asking whether any rabbis suggest someone not pay a messianist's wages on the day they're due? or whether any suggest someone not count a messianist toward a minyan? or whether any suggest whether/how to argue with a messianist about his messianism? or any and all of the above? – msh210 Apr 09 '13 at 05:31
  • 3
    @Fred Ha! :D But I think Ariel is right. "Is"ers and "was"ers disagree on whether he is/was b'chezkas and whether he will become Moshiach. I don't think anyone actually thinks he fulfills/fulfilled the Rambam's requirements for a vadai. – HodofHod Apr 09 '13 at 05:39
  • @msh210, that's exactly what I'm trying to find out with this question. – Daniel Apr 09 '13 at 05:47
  • @Daniel Being that the meaning of a mishechist is someone that belieives that the Rebbe is still BChezkat Mashiach (as Ariel and HodofHod pointed out) ... I think that before asking how to deal with this 'problem' - you should first bring a source from Chazal / Shulchan Aruch that such a belief is actually a problem – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 11:55
  • 1
    @Danield, I do not think this question presupposes any problem. Many people consider it a problem, which justifies the question; however, if any rabinic authority argues that it is not a problem, that would be a good answer to the question. – Daniel Apr 09 '13 at 13:25
  • 2
    Some of these comments trouble me greatly. – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 14:18
  • Daniel, would you mind weighing in here on whether you mean to seek statements from rabbis suggesting (or stating) whether or not they suppose there is a problem of interacting with Meshichists, or first whether or not there is a problem of being a Meshichist? I have assumed until now that @Danield's answer was valid in that it suggest RA"S would not (necessarily) have opposed interaction. But Double AA believes it invalid. – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 18:30
  • @Danield - But couldn't someone who thinks the Rebbe will (likely) be the moshiach be considered an "anti-meshichist"? My understanding is that an "anti-meshichist" is just someone who believes that the Rebbe didn't want Lubavitchers to make the issue of his messiah-ship a primary and public issue. – Fred Apr 09 '13 at 19:34
  • 1
    @Fred, my understanding is that both mishechist and 'anti-mishechist' believe that the Rebbe is Bchehzkat mashiach. The basic difference between them is that the mishechistim are more vocal about this belief. [but I think this discussion veers away from the initial question] – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 21:04
  • I've read the answers and I've read Rav Feldman's Pesak before. One thing I don't understand what separates the belief of the Rebbi being Mashiah and the belief of Jesus being the Mashiach. If you believe the Rebbi is the Mashiach you essentially believe he is eternal. – Hacham Gabriel Jul 14 '13 at 14:25
  • @ShmuelBrin that's besides the point. – Hacham Gabriel Jul 15 '13 at 02:56

3 Answers3

12

Rabbi Aharon Feldman, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel Rabbinical College, wrote a responsum regarding how to interact with Meshichistim (defined by him as anyone who believes that R Menachem Mendel Schneerson Zichrono Livracha will be resurrected to become the promised Messiah). He writes that they are not considered heretics, and thus their testimony in religious court and their ritual slaughter is valid and they can even count for a Minyan. However, he writes that since their belief is so dangerously wrong, it is forbidden to assist them in publicizing this belief. If one is present when they overtly declare it (such as through the Yechi statement) then one must protest if possible or at least leave the room. Additionally, no one with this belief should be relied upon for religious rulings (psak) as they are certainly lacking in השגה נכונה proper reasoning, and they should not be appointed Rabbis or religious leaders. One should not go to hear them give divrei Torah as their words should be assumed to be in error, and even going to listen can cause others to mistakenly think the wrong beliefs are acceptable.


Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ateret Kohanim responded to the following question:

Q: Is it permissible to Daven in a Chabad Minyan, where they believe that the Rebbe is the Messiah?

A: Yes. A person who errs is still counted as part of a Minyan (And similarly, Ha-Rav Aharon Yehudah Leib Shteiman [sic] answers this question: "Is it possible to Daven with someone who believes in nonsense?!" Be-Zot Yavo Aharon, p. 371).

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
  • hmm lots of Rabbis say that the belief is 'dangerously wrong' and other similar comments, but I have yet to see one source for this from Chazal/Shulchan Aruch. On the contrary - [as R. Soloveichik mentioned in his letter - ] there are many sources which reference the possibility of such a belief namely:the "Gemara in Sanhedrin, the Zohar, Abarbanel, Kisvei Arizal, S’dei Chemed, and other sources"... so where are the halachic sources which reject this?? – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 22:35
  • @Danield That is not the topic of this question. But seriously? You've never seen any? – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 22:38
  • "dangerously" was his word, btw. It's not a full translation, but I tried to maintain key formulations when possible. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 22:45
  • 4
    Well you mentioned Rabbi Berger already. Why don't you try his book to start? (I haven't read it myself, but I trust it is thorough.) You can also see the linked responsum in Shalom's answer, which no doubt you saw referenced already. You can see R Gil Student's book and a responsum by R Menashe Klein and look through footnotes (and the names) here, not to mention all those who reject your Gemara etc. as a source. I trust you are capable enough to use that and Google to find whatever you need. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 23:06
  • @Danield, my question is just about rabbis commenting on the situation, regardless of whether they back up their opinion with sources (although I think it is obvious to assume that any conclusion that they come to is well-informed) – Daniel Apr 09 '13 at 23:42
  • @Daniel Moreover, it is about their comments regarding proper interpersonal conduct, not if the belief itself constitutes heresy or not. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 23:47
  • @DoubleAA, agreed. – Daniel Apr 09 '13 at 23:49
  • 1
    @Danield: you asked for examples. The best I can suggest is the Rebbe's own work, Likutei Sichos vol. 35 p. 206 n. 6, in which he holds that "the initial work of the Melech HaMoshiach will be before the redemption, as explained in the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 11:4) and certainly before the resurrection (including the righteous who arise immediately, as Chazal say (Yoma 5b) 'Moshe and Aharon with us')." – Bruce James Apr 10 '13 at 14:09
  • @BruceJames That footnote was discussed elsewhere on this site in now deleted comments, and some claimed the footnotes in those volumes were not written by the Rebbe himself. No consensus was reached before the thread was nuked. – Double AA Apr 10 '13 at 16:31
  • https://www.ykr.org.il/question/7732 המשיחיסטים יש להתרחק מהם – Double AA Jan 02 '19 at 14:18
11

Rabbi Hershel Welcher was asked this question, and he referenced a quote from one of Rambam's letters about someone who was believed to be the messiah, then died; "some were crazy enough to think he was still the messiah after he died." Rabbi Welcher thus ruled that someone who believes a dead man is the messiah is not idolatrous nor an apostate -- he's just a little crazy. (I would assume that because the craziness is localized to one subject of belief and doesn't affect general behavior, we wouldn't call them a shoteh, halachically insane.)

Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin writes similarly Bnei Banim 4:26: "Someone who is mistaken in the identify of the Moshiach is no different than one who thinks Moshiach must have red hair or weigh a certain amount, for all these are vanity and folly (הבל ושטות) but are not heresy."

I also know a pulpit rabbi who wrote to several notable poskim (whose names I won't mention as they may not have wished these letters to be published) who ruled similarly -- "it's wrong but it doesn't affect their halachic status per se", with different degrees of attitude. (See caveats below).

As far as "how wrong" is such a position, it's debatable, some rabbis would say eh, they're following a minority opinion in the Talmud that was overruled; and besides, some Talmudic figures saw messianic qualities in their own teachers. Some would say it's more wrong than that.

But the bigger question, as I understand it, is "how dangerous" is such an opinion? Many are seriously concerned about a slide from "he's coming back as the messiah" to "he nullified himself to G-d so much that you can bow to a picture of him" or the like. (For instance, if someone today follows Rabbi Eliezer's opinion, that a Mohel can drive on shabbos if necessary to perform a circumcision -- they're very clearly wrong, that debate was settled 1800 years ago. But there's not much theological or sociological danger of morphing into something that's not Judaism!)

How many Lubavitchers believe exactly what, and what the best approach is to help as many as possible stay within the boundaries of our Thirteen Principles and the Rambam's Laws of the Knowledge [of G-d] ... well those are thorny issues that people debate.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • would you mind posting a link to the Rambam's letter which you mentioned. I'd be interested to see that. Thanks. – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 21:44
  • 2
    @Danield: It's from the Rambam's Letter on Astrology. After describing the account of a false messiah, he writes "And even now there are some idiots (chasrei ha'daat) there who say that presently he will come back to life and rise." Read it for yourself: http://www.kotar.co.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=94129274#495.377.5.fitwidth – Aryeh Apr 10 '13 at 14:45
  • @Aryeh, How does Chasrei Hadaas translate to "idiots"? Sounds more "unknowledgable", "uninformed", or "unlearned." – HodofHod Apr 10 '13 at 16:11
  • @HodofHod: idiot, n.: A person without learning; an ignorant, uneducated person (Oxford English Dictionary) – Aryeh Apr 10 '13 at 20:41
  • 1
    @HodofHod This translation uses "dunces". It's all really the same, just a matter of connotation, and I think it's safe to say the Rambam wasn't trying to be politically correct. – Double AA Apr 10 '13 at 21:19
  • @DoubleAA, I'm not sure I agree it's only in connotation (see below). Politically correct, no, but that doesn't mean he was saying they were unintelligent. (I'm not saying they are or aren't, just that the Rambam doesn't say that.) – HodofHod Apr 10 '13 at 23:06
  • @Aryeh, I don't have access to the Oxford, but here's Webster's: _"Definition of IDIOT

    1 usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation 2 : a foolish or stupid person"_ In my experience, this is the more common meaning. Is it not in yours?

    – HodofHod Apr 10 '13 at 23:08
  • @HodofHod: We're arguing on semantics now. The point is Rambam's condemnation of those followers who believed a messiah can return after dying to complete his mission. BTW, this is the same false messiah he scolds in his Letter to Yemen, writing that he understands how the ignorant, suffering people might believe in this man, but scolds how "a scholar who has carefully studied the works of chachamim" could believe in such nonsense: http://www.kotar.co.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=94129274#156.2166.5.fitwidth – Aryeh Apr 11 '13 at 06:24
  • @Aryeh We were always discussing semantics. :) – HodofHod Apr 11 '13 at 15:22
  • @HodofHod: Touché! – Aryeh Apr 11 '13 at 15:53
2

Based on my comment on the question the the questioner's reply:

... however, if any rabinic authority argues that it is not a problem, that would be a good answer to the question.

... then I suppose the following should suffice for an answer:

[A letter by Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik (published in the Jewish Press); bold font is my own for this answer]

"Before the passing of the Rebbe, I included myself among those who believe that the Rebbe was worthy of being Moshiach. And I strongly believe that had we, particularly the Orthodox community, been united, we would have merited to see the complete Redemption. Insofar as the belief held by many in Lubavitch - based in part on similar statements made by the Rebbe himself concerning his predecessor, the Previous Rebbe, including prominent rabbanim and roshei yeshiva - that the Rebbe can still be Moshiach in light of the Gemara in Sanhedrin, the Zohar, Abarbanel, Kisvei Arizal, S’dei Chemed, and other sources, it cannot be dismissed as a belief that is outside the pale of Orthodoxy. Any cynical attempt at utilizing a legitimate disagreement of interpretation concerning this matter in order to besmirch and to damage the Lubavitch movement that was, and continues to be, at the forefront of those who are battling the missionaries, assimilation, and indifference, can only contribute to the regrettable discord that already plagues the Jewish community, and particularly the Torah community."

Note: I am aware that R. Soloveichik himself disagreed with this belief, but nonetheless - his message is still very clear.

Danield
  • 4,393
  • 19
  • 30
  • 2
    This fulfills the requirements for a valid answer, so +1 from me, though I think many would disagree with R' Aharon's assessment (or at least, perhaps, the way it has been construed by some). – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 14:21
  • 3
    Where does he say it's not a problem? What is the message that you claim is so "clear"? – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 14:53
  • 2
    @DoubleAA, my understanding is that "it's not a problem" refers to interacting with such believers, not that the belief itself is not a problem. Although the latter is how some have interpreted his statement, and taken it to extremes, hence my comment above. – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 14:58
  • 1
    @Seth I don't see why you interpret the phrase that way. See its context in the comments above, particularly: "I think that before asking how to deal with this 'problem' - you should first bring a source from Chazal / Shulchan Aruch that such a belief is actually a problem" – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 16:07
  • 3
    @SethJ Also, I don't know why you say the letter can be interpreted in multiple ways. R A Soloveichik clarified his position in a publicly available subsequent letter (available in part on Wikipedia) which labels the belief as repugnant, ridiculous, and the antithesis of truth: To my great dismay. . . publications affiliated with the Lubavitch movement have persisted in stating that I validate their belief that a Jewish Messiah may be resurrected from the dead. I completely reject and vigorously deny any such claim. As I have already stated publicly... – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 16:15
  • 2
    ...such a belief is repugnant to Judaism and is the antithesis of the truth. My intent in signing the original letter . . . was merely to express my opinion that we should not label subscribers to these beliefs as heretics. Any statements in that letter which imply an endorsement of their view were not shown to me at the time I signed and I once again repudiate any such ridiculous claim. ||| Hence I am tempted to downvote not only for misrepresenting RAS as viewing this belief as not problematic, when he clearly thinks it is, but because RAS's true position does not answer the question. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 16:15
  • 2
    @DoubleAA I'm not saying R' Aharon supported the belief that the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Z"L) was or is the messiah. I'm saying that people have gone out of their way to misinterpret his statement that way. – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 17:51
  • @SethJ How unfortunate of them to distort the truth. While I have you, can you elaborate why you think this answers the question? It attempts to answer it by rejecting the premise that their is any problematic belief involved, but fails to do so. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 17:53
  • 5
    This answer is disingenuous on multiple fronts. As DoubleAA noted, this answer abbreviates R. Aharon's thoughts on the issue. More importantly, the quote provided doesn't answer the question. Specifically, R. Aharon criticized those who wish to "besmirch and to damage the Lubavitch movement," not those who are honestly worried if such a movement is heretical. There is a big difference, and R. Aharon, at least from this answer, does not comment on how to relate to messianists. – Aryeh Apr 09 '13 at 17:55
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I think it answers the question by undermining the premise that they are heretics and that therefore interacting with them might be problematic. He rejected the view that they are heretics. If they are not heretics, what could be problematic about interacting with them? – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 17:56
  • @SethJ Supporting stupidity? Maaris Ayin? Slippery slope? (I'm not saying these are or are not the case here, just that heresy might not be the only factor in a Posek's decision regarding how to interact with them.) – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 17:58
  • @DoubleAA, I'm not saying it's the best answer. I'm just saying it's a valid answer. It meets the requirements set out by the asker (who, by the way, never presupposed any problem). – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 18:07
  • 1
    @SethJ I disagree that it meets the requirements. It quotes a Rabbi who thinks the belief is the antithesis of truth. You think that qualifies as "[a] rabinic authority [who] argues that [the belief] is not a problem"?? Perhaps such rabbis exist, but this answer doesn't quote them. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 18:08
  • @DoubleAA, it would stand to reason that we are interpreting "the problem" differently. I assumed he was a)referring to a problem of interaction with such group(s), and b)not presupposing any such problem. You are clearly assuming that the asker is referring to a problem of belief (in the framework of the question). – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 18:26
  • 1
    @SethJ No! The asker (who never said the word problem) is asking about problems of interaction. Danield in a comment said there would be no problems of interaction if there are no problems in the belief. The asker said that could be an answer. So Danield posted an answer claiming he had found "[a] rabinic authority [who] argues that [the belief] is not a problem" thereby showing an opinion who holds there is no problem in interacting with them. I claim that he has not found such a rabbi, so he has no proof regarding problems of interacting. (Note too my earlier coment) – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 18:35
  • 1
    @DoubleAA, the only thing that's going to clear up (for me) whether my vote belongs up or down is whether or not this is a valid answer to the question asked. If Daniel thinks it is, then my vote will remain up. I've asked him to clarify his intent so I can better understand whether this fits. – Seth J Apr 09 '13 at 18:45
  • 2
    -1 I downvoted exactly on the basis of the above comment by @DoubleAA - the letter produced above is a borderline forgery. This letter was written by a Lubavitcher without R' Ahron's knowledge or consent, and use of the letter is disingenuous, even mendacious. All R' Ahron knew was that they were going to sign his name to a letter saying that he held that Lubavitchers with that belief are not heretics. – Fred Apr 09 '13 at 19:16
  • 2
    ... In fact, R' Ahron had previously implied (in 1994) that the very reason he did not consider Lubavitchers heretics was because he thought "the overwhelming majority" of them did not subscribe to the view that "the Rebbe will be resurrected as the Messiah" (which, though you can argue about nuance and semantics, is essentially incorrect and would nowadays be naive). – Fred Apr 09 '13 at 19:25
  • 1
    @SethJ DoubleAA: in my opinion, this seems to be a valid answer to my question. The letter states that Rav Ahron argues that a belief in the Rebbe's being Mashiach does not fall outside of the realm of Orthodoxy. You are correct that it does not automatically follow from that that there are no restrictions on interactions with mishichists; however, that does seem to be the intent (in my opinion). The answer might not be a majority view, but I am asking for any and all rabbis' comments. – Daniel Apr 09 '13 at 20:11
  • @DoubleAA : In my answer I clearly noted (in bold!) that R. Soloveichik himself disagreed with this belief - so I am dismayed at the way that you imply that I somehow misconstrued his words or stance on the matter, but in any case - that was not the subject of the answer which I posted. My point was bring an answer to the original question concerning interactions with mishichists. The context of R. Soloveichik's letter was answer to certain arising hava-aminas to deal with mishechistim differently - which R. Soloveichik strongly disagreed with - which CERTAINLY fits the the question. – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 21:36
  • @Fred do you have a source for your comment that the letter was forged?? The copy of the letter clearly shows R. Soloveichik's signature. – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 21:42
  • @Danield What context? As it is now it just says that the belief is not heresy. Since he thought the belief was very problematic, I fail to see how you can determine in what manner he deemed appropriate for interacting with people who have that problematic belief. Without that determination, I don't see how this is a helpful answer. (Incidentally, if you have other pieces of context or specific inferences to be made in the quote, please include them in your answer.) Your answer seemed to claim that RAS did not view the belief as problematic, when in fact he did. Very much so, in fact. – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 21:46
  • @Danield R' Ahron followed up with a letter saying his signature was appended to a letter that he did not write and did not agree with. See DoubleAA's earlier comments. He did not agree with the notion, stated in the letter, that legitimate sources support a resurrected person being moshiach. – Fred Apr 09 '13 at 21:55
  • @Fred could you kindly post a link to that letter. Strange though: if what you are saying is true - being that the original letter was publicized in the Jewish Press - wouldn't you think that R. Soloveichik himself would have made a formal and public denouncing of the 'forged' letter? – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 22:06
  • @DoubleAA I was referring to the historic context of the letter. [I don't exactly know the all the details here - but I'm pretty sure that] it came at a time when a professor by the name of Burger was trying hard to get organizations to boycott Chabad/mishechistim. According to the wikipedia article which you mentioned - the letter also seems to come a short time after the Rabbinical Council of America approved a resolution which seems to place a mishechist outside orthodox Judaism. – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 22:20
  • 2
    @Danield It's spelled Berger and FYI he has Semicha in addition to his Ph.D. Additionally it is well within the purview of the RCA to argue on R Ahron Soloveichik (if that's what they were trying to do). – Double AA Apr 09 '13 at 22:21
  • @DoubleAA Furthermore it is clear that he opposed actions that "besmirch and damage the Lubavitch movement" - so I guess that would include boycotts etc like those mentioned in ms210's comments on the question – Danield Apr 09 '13 at 22:22
  • 1
    My personal feelings aside, in light of @Daniel's reply to my inquiry my +1 vote stands. – Seth J Apr 10 '13 at 13:12
  • 2
    Rav Solovechik said about the letter: "To my great dismay...publications affiliated with the Lubavitch movement have persisted in stating that I validate their belief that a Jewish Messiah may be resurrected from the dead. I completely reject and vigorously deny any such claim....such a belief is repugnant to Judaism and is the antithesis of the truth. My intent in signing the original letter...was merely to express my opinion that we should not label subscribers to these beliefs as heretics." – Bruce James May 20 '14 at 15:13