Rambam in Perek Yud Aleph and Yud Beis of Hilchos Melochim is the discussion of Melech HaMashiach, Yemos HaMashiach, אל יעלה על דעתך שהמלך המשיח צריך לעשות אותות ומופתים, Umechadesh Devarim Baolam, Umechayei Mesim, וכיוצא בדברים אלו שהטיפשים אומרים. Ein Hadavar Ken. Melech HaMashiach is part of a natural, albeit ideal, utopian vision and mimmayla it's not part of his persona or part of his credentials to be an instrument for ososs umofsim. The Rambam brings a rayah שרבי עקיבא חכם גדול מחכמי משנה היה והיה נושא כלים של בן כוזיבא המלך והוא היה אומר עליו שהוא המלך המשיח ודימה הוא וכל חכמי דורו שהוא המלך המשיח עד שנהרג בעוונות כיוון שנהרג נודע שאינו משיח ולא שאלו ממנו לא אות ולא מופת.

There's a story told that the Chofetz Chaim was once traveling incognito on a train and he didn't wear rabbanisha garb. He dressed like amcha. And rachmana litzlan a missionary was who was trying to meisis and mediach some yeshiva bochurim. And he was talking to them about why they don't believe in Oso Ish.

So they told him because our rabbanim, our rabbis told us not to. Our rabbis told us that he and everything that grew up around him is fraudulent. In Oso Ish's lifetime he was a mashiach sheker. He was posthumously promoted to be an avoda zara.

In his lifetime he was just a mashiach sheker. So they told the missionary that our rabbanim, our rabbis rejected him. So the missionary said "What do your rabbis know? Your rabbis thought Bar Kochba was mashiach. So you see what your rabbis know?" They were a little flustered.

So at that point the Chofetz Chaim, again he didn't pull out his gedoilim card and identify himself but he joined the conversation and he says to the missionary "Well how do you know the rabbanim were right? Maybe the rabbanim were right?" So the missionary says "What are you talking about? Honestly they were wrong, he was killed." So the Chofetz Chaim says "Oh". The traditional Jewish belief as reflected here in this Rambam, as reflected in that story with the Chofetz Chaim is that Mashiach isn't resurrected. Melech HaMashiach doesn't come back from the dead, he's not resurrected. The belief which is disseminated in our day by Lubavitch is a very radical departure from traditional Jewish belief.

It's not what we've believed for millennia. It isn't what we believe. It is the most unpleasant and unwelcome task in talking about divrei Torah is when one has to highlight what's wrong, but there is a chiyuv to do so. Part of bakashas ha-emes is to know and to understand and that we should all share with each other what's emes and what isn't emes.

In terms of hilchos shemiyas ha-lashon, it's a chiyuv, if the Chofetz Chaim writes it's a chiyuv, if a talmid has a rebbe הולך בדרך לא טובה, if a talmid has a rebbe who has a certain midah which is wrong, so if you're in a position to tell the talmid that it'll be a davar nishmoa, so then one is mechuyav to tell the talmid that that midah of your rebbe. The belief in a Messiah who comes back from the dead is not a traditional Jewish concept. What's more, what sort of led to that belief, which is a cultic type obsession with a person is also very, very antithetical to our masorah. Throughout our masorah, baruch Hashem, וגדולי המסורה בכל דור ודור have always been people of towering, staggering stature.

It's always been the case. In the 20th century alone, the world has yet to begin to appreciate who the Rav was. A little bit, a little bit you can be tohe when you read his sifrei machshavah, read the chidoushei Torah as much as possible in the original, so you have an unfiltered exposure. A little bit you begin to see, a little bit you're able to be tohe that meshupa umala gevoha.

You learn Reb Chaim, a little bit, a little bit of the באר יורד עד התהום. But no one, their talmidim didn't have a cultic obsession with their rebbe. They appreciated to varying degrees depending upon their keilim and their capacity to recognize who that person was. They appreciated who it was, they were mitabek ba'afar ragleihem as a person should be if he has a rebbe who is bar-urya.

But the rebbe was for all his greatness, he was a rebbe. He wasn't a cult-like figure. And when the rebbe was niftar and went to olam ha'emes, so you went on in life, you went on in life. Reb Boruch Ber, who couldn't have been a more farbrente chossid of Reb Chaim than Reb Boruch Ber, so when Reb Chaim was niftar, so Reb Boruch Ber famously said, "A person can't live without having a rebbe," so he went to the Chofetz Chaim and said he wants to become a talmid.

I think it's the Chofetz Chaim—the Chofetz Chaim was actually older than Reb Chaim, but was much more marich yamim, so he outlived Reb Chaim by some 15 years or so. And יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו. And after the rebbe dies, you don't open a letter, you don't open a volume of Igros and think that he is communicating with you from the grave. And after your rebbe dies, you don't send faxes to a secretary and think that you're communicating with him.

That's all, I don't know what it is, but it's not Jewish and it's not Torah. And the fact that were this not the case, there would be so much good that they do. Those who believe in this. There are some Lubavitcher who don't believe in this, who are wonderful, erliche, upstanding Jews who don't have these meshugashen, I mean chas veshalom that everyone believes in it, but too many of them do, too many of them do, sufficiently that you can't assume that the person doesn't unless you have indication that he doesn't.

But so again, we're not chas veshalom painting everyone with the same brush. It's certainly not the case that there were yereim ushleimim who don't subscribe to either to the distortion of the belief in Melech HaMoshiach and על אחת כמה וכמה who don't believe in the avodah zarah-dicke neshoma which I said about the Lubavitcher. Talking about those who do. We're not lumping everyone in one group together, chas veshalom.

There's also a big difference between... As as objectionable and as much as one should keep one's distance even from the meshichistin, you can't equate the bilbul of the meshichistin with the bilbul of those who are mamash making him into avoda zara. The fact that there are Chabad houses wherever you go doesn't doesn't compensate for for it if Chabad houses a distortion of traditional Jewish belief in Melech HaMoshiach. The fact that they provide kosher food and the fact that they could provide a minyan doesn't that doesn't whitewash and if if there would be some other clearly unambiguous distortion of Yahadus which again provided all the conveniences be it the physical conveniences of Yahadus such as the kashrus be it the the spiritual structure of a minyan and such but it has to be genuine Yahadus otherwise the whole thing is is k'choizeh v'eino shoveh and and the the convenience and the availability and the universal availability of the resources but one has to know that one has to know that that it's a traditional Jewish place.

It might be, but you can't assume that it is. You can't you can't assume that it is. When it comes to some of these maisim of people coming back even or the previous generations coming back in dreams and communicating even from the dead whatever it is. So like my shver when a person opens the Igros Kodesh expecting some ability for previous generations to be able to communicate to them like even though I guess there's a difference between communicative and and no no one ever made again whatever one's reaction to such maisim are and and obviously there is a range of reactions to such such maisim or standard range of reactions to whether one should refer to them as such maisim or such alleged maisim reflects the the range of reactions but whatever the range of of reaction hayu m'oilam and is is no one ever made it a shita.

Someone thought that they had a chalom in which it happened once it happened amol but but they had a communication no one made it into a shita no one made it into that no one made it into an an effective denial of death and no one made it into a shita of you don't need a new rebbe because he's still the the manhig hador. No one ever was reticent about saying zichrono livracha. Some of them will not say zichrono livracha. He didn't die, he's just pulling the strings from from somewhere else.

That's not Jewish. And and the fact that that you can go into a Chabad house wherever you are in the world and eat kosher food, bring your tiffin from home. You can't avail yourself and I'm not saying chas v'shalom I'm not saying chas v'shalom to starve to death and I'm not chas v'shalom but one can't avail oneself of that just and having a beer doesn't having a beer doesn't doesn't make one frum. One is not frum by virtue of having a by virtue of having a beer.

They say a loshon of of from the Chasam Sofer that that someone the Chasam Sofer thought he had de'os cozvos. Thought he had a beard, payos, the Chasam Sofer thought I think they say a loshon from Chasam Sofer, אונטער די בארד איז ער א מגולח. Under the beard he he really under the beard he's he's shaving with a razor.

אונטער די בארד איז ער א מגולח.

A beard doesn't make one frum. A beard and a black hat doesn't it's it's what's underneath the beard that whatever. Not commenting on halacha l'maaseh on what shave or not shave, it's just to be to be to be drawn. I'm totally with you and that the talk of Moshiach, you didn't say it's a distortion about the belief in Moshiach.

No, I'm not saying meshichistin are toivah. That's what I'm saying, there's a very very major difference between those who say the again for those who... yereim u'sheleimim and chas veshalom, and no one should ever lump everyone together in the same category. It's not true.

But lemaiseh, and ain hakhi nami, there's a very, very clear difference between the Meshichistim and those who say the avodah zarah-dikke type of lashonos. The Meshichistim are not kofreem. What are these avodah zarah-dikke lashonos? What are these avodah zarah-dikke lashonos? You can look in Dr. Berger's book where he's melakeit some of the, and any one of these things is unequivocal avodah zarah-dikke lashonos describing ein sof aveshpohlt in a guf, that's avodah zarah, that's avodah zarah. And kehai gavna, and kehai gavna, and kehai gavna, you have to be kria on such lashonos.

So you could either say that the best and only limud zechus is that the shichlus with the lashon, shichlus is so far that I don't know what they're saying. But for the lashonos, they're unequivocal avodah zarah-dikke lashonos, and the only possible limud zechus is that they don't know what they're saying, and in fact that's true of many, but they don't even know, they don't know what they're saying. They start throwing around kabbalah-dikke lashonos and trust me, they don't understand those lashonos any better than you and I do. And they're worse off because at least we know we don't understand them.

And other people who throw them around think they know, but they don't understand. But ain hakhi nami, 100%, if a person has a bilbul, a person thinks Mashiach is gonna come back from the dead, it doesn't make him a kofer. 100%, a person is not a kofer. It doesn't...

but that it's a major distortion of Yahadus, it is. And ain hakhi nami, it does not, l'fi aniyus da'ati, it does not render the person a kofer with all the implications and repercussions that such a status has. But on the other hand, it is enough that it's not something that a person is supposed to be a part of because it's not, it's not peshat. Lu yehei, lu yehei that a person thought that, had this mistaken belief that Mashiach is gonna be resurrected against the Zohar, against the story with the Puppe, lu yehei.

But it wasn't the pillar of his belief, it wasn't the pillar of his faith. It wasn't, okay, so I don't know that, I'm not sure how much it would affect our dealings and interactions. Again, if that's the case, then you have to figure it out. But over here, this is central to what the whole movement is.

It's not peshat that it's a little, a little, a little self-contained compartmentalized toes, but this is the whole thing, is the Rebbe, the Rebbe, the Rebbe. So it's not peshat a marginal, important error. No, it's at the, at the core of for significant segments of what the movement stands for, what the movement represents. It's not for a lack of ahavas Yisrael, it's not sin'ah to say these things.

It's that we're not supposed to... if someone says two plus two is five, so it's not a question of ahavas Yisrael to keep quiet, and it's not an expression of sin'as chinam to say no, two plus two isn't five, two plus two is four. That's the emes, that's mesorah, and it's not an expression, ahavas Yisrael is irrelevant. It's not that it isn't ahavas Yisrael, it's not that it is ahavas Yisrael.

It isn't, but that's not... Tosafos loved Rashi, when he said his peshat in the Gemara was wrong, they said it was wrong. So this is obviously not eilu v'eilu, that's Rashi and Tosafos is eilu v'eilu. And it's important to know it and it's important to tell others also.

What do we do with sources from Chazal that seem to indicate this phenomenon of the Mashiach being a Chabadnik? One last shiur Rashi in Sanhedrin 98 that says he's Rav, Rav Shila, or Rav Hanina. David is saying that some rabbanim really ended up in a cultist obsession in their lifetime even. What's the differences between that cultist obsession and like sort of rebbe worshiping that happens today and certainly like rebbe worshiping that happened in the Chassidus of the heyday in Europe in the 1800s? The question, albeit loaded, and I'm not sure that I necessarily endorse the lashon of the question, but the question's an important question. Is it true that there's a phenomenon today that it's often the case that talmidim in their innocence and sincerity have a exaggerated sense of who their rebbeim are? Yes, it is true, and we're not supposed to be that way.

We're supposed to have an accurate perception of who our rebbeim are because if I underestimate my rebbe I can't be mekabel as much from him as I potentially could, but if I overestimate my rebbe so then it's כל המוסיף כניטול דמי.

כל המוסיף כניטול דמי is a principle in treifus, but it's a principle in life also. Too much is as bad as too little. If I overestimate my rebbe so then I'll be mekabel what I shouldn't be mekabel from the rebbe.

So that that phenomenon exists is correct and it's one that we should be mindful of, it's one that we should try not to be drawn into, and it requires a delicate balance. Depending upon where in one's travels in Jewish communities one goes, so there are places where rabbanim are overestimated and there are places where rabbanim are underestimated and sort of which of the two should be emphasized depends upon which tzibbur one is talking to, but the phenomenon exists, yeah, it does exist and you're right, it's not a healthy phenomenon, it's a harmful phenomenon. There is a big difference between that and I wouldn't describe that as rebbe worshiping. Those same people who at times do have an exaggerated sense of who the rebbe is, it's not a cultic figure.

If chas veshalom the rebbe is niftar so life goes on and you don't have to, it's not unimaginable that the person is no longer here and you don't have to come up with, you don't have to put kvitalach in the tzion and in the ohel and you don't have to open a book of letters and find answers to your question that way. It doesn't translate into that because to begin with it's a very, very different phenomenon. Not a correct phenomenon but ke-rachok mizrach mimaarav, but a dramatically, dramatically different one. And the same is true that even if it is true that let's say a particular chassid does have an exaggerated sense of who his particular rebbe is, I'm not saying whether it's true or false, but even if it is true, again, it belongs, it's from the same cloth as having an exaggerated sense when a talmid has an exaggerated sense of who his rebbe is, of who his rav is.

And that's why the Chassidim, the Rebbe dies, so then they'll transfer their loyalty to the Rebbe's son, or to the Rebbe's, the Rebbe's m'malei makom, because it isn't a... it isn't centered on that Yachid. And it's not supposed to be. It's centered on the Ribbono Shel Olam, and it's not centered on...

on any Basar V'dam. Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe Rabbeinu died. Okay, so now it's time to listen to Yehoshua. If...

if that transition can be made with Moshe Rabbeinu, it can be made with... it can and should be made with anyone and... and everyone else. Ari mentioned that too many Lubavitchers believe this.

That we don't assume they don't believe it unless we know that they don't. So I'm wondering what's the hagdarah for when we stop being melamed zechus for a stranger on the street? That if they're... if they're associated with some sort of general group that we'd say the majority of them believe a certain thing, then is that the hagdarah that at 51 percent, once 51 percent of the group that the person is associated with believe something, then we assume that they believe that as well? Again, it's not equivalent to say, saying you can't assume they don't believe it is not the same as saying you assume they do believe it. I mean logic 101.

But I thought to say... let's say... say... safek.

I grew up in Boston, so you can't assume that I'm not a Red Sox fan. That doesn't mean you should assume that I am a Red Sox fan. It means you should have a safek whether... you should see, you should look in my closet to see what baseball caps I have.

And there's a safek whether I have a Red Sox cap or... or a Yankees cap. So then what you're doing now then is just that after this there's in a state of safek that they believe or not? It's not that we... there's already a safek.

Unfortunately, the whole movement is safek by us. Unfortunately, unfortunately very sadly, very painfully, very tragically, but the whole movement is... is safek by us. But again, that's the sholom.

We... I'm... aderaba. I'm...

I'm saying you can't assume that someone doesn't believe it. And... and... and you certainly can't assume the worst, of the Avodah Zarah, that they believe he's Hashem.

Because that certainly is... is a minority, and a small amount of a minority, but there's a safek, safek, a minority. But that's min ha-pashut. But unfortunately the Meshichistin are sufficiently numerous that there is already a safek.

And you can't assume that they don't, and you can't assume that they don't believe it. A very distinguished Rav told me that... that a shaliach came to his neighborhood and... and was opening a Chabad house.

So he asked him be-pashut, "What do you believe about? Do you believe the Rebbe is Moshiach? You don't believe the Rebbe is Moshiach?" And he said to him, "Rabbi, that is a belief that's private." You can't assume, you can't assume that they don't. Which doesn't mean, chas ve-shalom, assume that they do. But it does mean, it does mean that you can't assume that they don't. So maybe we'll...

we'll move to the 13th Ikkar, and be-ezrat Hashem afterwards, we'll still have to fill in 6 through 9. The 13th Ikkar is... is Techiyat HaMeitim. So here, what...

we're fortunate to have what we have, the Rambam's own parshanus. In the 12th Ikkar, in terms of responding to the Chatam Sofer's question, so we were sort of left to our own devices to try to understand why it's, again, either foundational or... or not foundational, but at least fundamental. But by Techiyat HaMeitim, so the Rambam tells us meforash.

The Rambam was... the Rambam was... The Rambam's view was distorted and he was maligned as not believing in literal physical Techiyas HaMeisim. And this was bisof yamav, and he wrote a very famous letter in response, which is known as Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim.

So there the Rambam tells us why he classified again the Mishnah in Perek Chelek, right, which is the point of departure for the Rambam's list of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim says that אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר שאין תחיית המתים מן התורה שאין תחיית המתים. The Rambam explains that he says אמנם אשר נכחשו זאת but what we deny is someone who says שלא תשוב הנפש לגוף לעולם ושלא ייתכן היות זה and that it can't be that that to believe in physical resurrection to believe in the reunification of nefesh and guf and resurrection is something which is impossible. Why? Because says the Rambam if you think that's impossible שזאת ההכחשה מביאה להכחשת הנפלאות כולן. If a person denies belief in physical resurrection so then he'll deny belief in all miracles because ein hachi nami Techiyas HaMeisim is a miracle.

Pesach is a miracle. But if if that is basis for thinking that it can't be that there's going to be a Techiyas HaMeisim and and that it must be that anything about Techiyas HaMeisim is a metaphor and is not to be taken literally, so שזאת ההכחשה מביאה להכחשת הנפלאות כולן והכחשת המופת כפירה בעיקר ויציאה מן הדת and to deny the possibility of miracles so that that's mamash kfira. And then the Rambam says ולא זה נחשוב תחיית המתים מפינות התורה. And that's why I listed Techiyas HaMeisim as one of the ikarei hadas.

So basically what the Rambam here is telling us, it's a remarkable parshanus, that in a sense the belief in Techiyas HaMeisim is really belief in miracles. That's really what the thirteenth ikkar is. Belief in miracles. Earlier just to provide context on on this point, so the Rambam had said that where we the pasuk which meforash לפי פשוטו של מקרא refers to the belief in Techiyas HaMeisim are the pesukim in Daniel.

זאת תחיית המתים והיא שוב הנפש לגוף אחר המות כבר זכרה גם כן דניאל זכרון שאי אפשר לפרשו that you can't reinterpret.

והוא אמרו ורבים מישני אדמת עפר יקיצו those who are sleeping in the earth, I mean people who have already died, right, those who are sleeping in the earth ורבים מישני אדמת עפר יקיצו that they will they will wake up אלה לחיי עולם ואלה לחרפות ולדראון עולם ואמר המלאך לו ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך you will arise for your destiny lketz hayamim at the end of days. Subsequently the Rambam says well why isn't it legitimate to interpret these pesukim metaphorically? I mean we do interpret some pesukim metaphorically, right, when you have a pasuk that says yad Hashem or einei Hashem, so we don't say that that pasuk is to be understood literally, we understand it metaphorically. So maybe ורבים מישני אדמת עפר יקיצו or ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימים maybe that should also be understood metaphorically.

So the Rambam says a very very important yesod, Rav Saadia Gaon talks about in a different context talks about this this issue also, but the Rambam says that that you only you only interpret a pasuk metaphorically, you only don't take it at face value if either you have a tradition that way. Right, we have a tradition that והיו לטטפות בין עיניך doesn't mean to put the tefillin over here, and וקשרתם לאות על ידך doesn't mean to put the tefillin on the palm of your hand. So either you have a kabbalah, you have a tradition from Torah she-be'al peh, or It's something that's impossible. Or even if you don't, you don't need to have a tradition if you know, if it's self-evident and understood that the pasuk cannot be understood literally.

All right, just משל למה הדבר דומה, so sometimes we use a phrase, exaggerations or something, hyperbole, when it's clear that obviously what we're that that's what we're doing, right? And that we don't intend it literally. And when you talk about a skyscraper, right? So there's a big, I saw a big skyscraper in Manhattan. So obviously no one no one above age two thinks that the top of the building is scraping the is scraping the sky. So it's so if something is impossible, so then that's not a מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו because it's self-evident that it's not to be taken literally.

So, says the Rambam, there is no tradition that says that the pasuk in Daniel shouldn't be taken literally. The only way it would be self-evident that the pasuk shouldn't be taken literally is if one denies miracles of Ribono Shel Olam, and the Rambam says and that's gufeh why why the pasuk can't and and shouldn't be shouldn't be reinterpreted. But the Rambam didn't have the the girsa which which Rashi has. If you take a look in in Rashi in in Perek Chelek, so so the girsa that Rashi has in the mishna it's ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה.

And even Rashi apparently knew of of our girsa because Rashi says hachi garsinan. hachi garsinan האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה. I think, I think, and double check that in in the Rambam's text you don't have those two words min ha'Torah. You just have האומר אין תחיית המתים.

But Rashi's girsa האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה. What's the difference? Because Rashi says that what the two words min ha'Torah mean, which is again the girsa that he accepts, is שכופר במדרשות שדרשינן בגמרא לקמן מניין לתחיית המתים מן התורה ואפילו יהיה מודה ומאמין שיחיו המתים אלא דלאו מן התורה היא כופר הוא הואיל ועוקר שיש תחיית המתים מן התורה מה לנו ולאמונתו וכי מהיכן הוא יודע שכן הוא הלכך כופר גמור הוא. So so Rashi says, again Rashi's girsa is האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה. No, he thinks that that these drashas aren't true.

az yashir Moshe, all the different remazim that take look in the Gemara, and and I guess bichlalam also the the Rambam's psukim in Daniel, that a person says no, none of these things really allude to techiyat ha'metim, but it's takeh emes, it is emes that there's going to be a techiyat ha'metim. So Rashi says if he sort of makes up that belief on his own and he doesn't accept our source for that belief, then then that's not the belief of of techiyat ha'metim, mah lanu u'le'emunato. The Rambam doesn't have that whole discussion. The Rambam just has the girsa האומר אין תחיית המתים.

Meaning that it includes just not believing in techiyat ha'metim. Meaning it doesn't have to be like being it has to be that the person believes that the Midrashim are true or I don't think all the psukim are only and whatever all the drashas say, let me remember yeah, the Gemara's psukim not only from Chumash but also from from Tanakh as well. Okay, so maybe. So what we'll start with today, so I think in terms of Kiddushin, so we'll start the Chazarah, but maybe remember be'ezrat Hashem to make sure we have time for the remaining four, six through nine, six through ten.

So we'll probably have more than just Thursday, but that would be which days, we'll try to figure that out. But in terms of Kiddushin, so let's do the Chazarah, I think the Kinnus is supposed to be next week, next Monday, and we'll try to remember to finish this unit next week.