11 of the Eleventh Month 5771
Here are two very different rabbis addressing the same, serious problem,
Habba"d Messianism.

Click on the image to reach the video, or you can download the audio (mp3) file for this lecture by
clicking here.
The False Mashiah of Lubavitch-Habad5 of the 8th Month 5771 / 13 October 2010Question:In your lecture
“Rabbinical Paralysis” you mentioned (around the 24th/25th minute) a false
Moshiach from the recent past. To whom do you refer? As far as I know there has been no false
Moshiach since
Shabsai Tzvi.
Answer:1. I was speaking of the leader of the Lubavitch/
Habad movement. There is no doubt whatever that the Lubavitch movement promoted its leader as the
Mashiah. This was not the doing of wayward
Hasidim; it was instigated, orchestrated and encouraged by their
rebbe.
2. Upon assuming leadership of
Habad in 1951, the last
rebbe spoke openly about his deceased father-in-law, the former
rebbe, being the
Mashiah (see the first in a series of talks given on the occasion of his father-in-law’s
yahrzeit, later published as a book entitled
“Bathi L’Ghani Ahothi Kala”). At some point he apparently realized that his father-in-law was not returning from the grave to reappear as
Mashiah; he eventually decided that the
Mashiah was none other than himself.
3. In the early decades of his leadership, this was an esoteric teaching known only to his inner circle. In the late 1970’s, the Lubavitcher
rebbe himself began alluding to the “fact” that the
Mashiah was “living among us” and left none of his listeners in any doubt as to his meaning. This inane campaign became increasingly frenzied and irrational. Rather than faltering at the time of his death in 1994, the insanity continues to spread. At
Habad headquarters in New York the expectation is that their
rebbe will miraculously reappear.
Shaharith is delayed each morning for 5 minutes just in case….at which point the gabai announces that “the
rebbe” is apparently unable to make it today, and
Shaharith begins. I kid you not.
4. This outrageous phenomenon is not as surprising as it may at first seem.
Shabtai Ssvi’s followers were known as
“Zoharisten,” an allusion to the fact that they, like their leader and demigod, were heavily influenced by the
Zohar.
Lubavitch Hasidism is rooted in a literalistic reading of the
Zohar and
Lurianic Qabala, which when uncritically combined with the radical and pernicious notions spawned by the speculative school of
Hasidic thought founded by the
Magid of
Mezritch, could only have led to the present heretical state of affairs.
5. This, I believe, is why the Gr’a z’l (the Vilna Gaon) refused to meet with the original Lubavitcher
rebbe even when the latter came to Vilna to convince him to rescind the
herem (religious ban) the
Gr’a had signed against Lubavitch and similar movements. In his great and profound wisdom the
Gr’a saw that these Jews had crossed the point of no return. The Gr’a was able to be
“HaRo’e eth haNoladh (One who sees that which is yet to come)
” (see Avoth 2:12 or 2:9).
Additional Notes & Comments:1. I cannot engage in a discussion of the history of
Hasidhuth in general at this time – and not because it is not a worthy and legitimate subject. I simply do not have the time.
2. It is an objective and self-evident fact that
Lubavitch-Habad is unique: a) of all
Hasidic sects, only
Lubavitch-Habad proclaimed, during his lifetime, that their
rebbe was the
Mashiah (all objective evidence to the contrary); b) only L-H could possibly have the gall to continue making this outrageous claim many years after his passing; c)
only L-H proclaim “Long live Our Master” etc. 16.5 years after his death, because to them he was not human and cannot be dead (which should remind you of something); d) only L-H would publish their
rebbe's claim that
davening to their
rebbe, dead or alive, is permissible and proper and does not constitute praying to a separate entity because “the
[Lubavitcher] rebbe is simply an extension of
Hashem”. His words, not mine.
3. Regarding
Liqute MoHaRan: just as with any other “ism” within Tora Judaism, you can take it or leave it. It is my view that one should take, and benefit from, some of the teachings therein, because they are extremely insightful and beneficial; and leave, and not be bamboozled by, other teachings which are problematic and pernicious. As for discerning between the two, one needs to find a great
Hakham to steer one in the right direction.
4. Regarding why the
Nodh‟a BiY‟hudha (R. Yehezqel Segal Landau) ordered the public burning of the book entitled
"Toldoth Ya'aqov Yoseph" (the first
Hasidic work to be published) – I do not claim to know for certain. It is true that there are some problematic statements in that work. It is also true that many suspected at that time, and not without reason, that the new movement was, or would evolve into, a repeat performance of the
Shabthai Ssvi debacle and heresy. This was also clearly in the back of the minds of the
Gr‟a and other
Hakhamim who placed
Hasidhim in
herem. In point of fact, this suspicion materialized and manifested itself only in the case of
Lubavitch-Habad, a fact that today is plain for all to see.
*********
Audio
shi'urim on
"The Days Of Mashi'ah" may be downloaded
here. They included coverage of the
Ramba"m's Hilkhoth Melakhim u'Milhamothehem, Chapters 11 - 12.