He's such a Zia!

Well-written and informative.
Thanks for reminding us not to become too comfortable.
May the Time of ultimate Ahavas Yisrael come speedily in our days.

Why do you give publicity to such an undeserving viewpoint?

His name is RABBI Berger.

Much more of a Rabbi than those churned out by the Chabad semicha factories.

He is so blinded by his antipathy to Chabad, and so committed to his philosophies about Chabad that he will never let go of his rantings at Lubavitch.
After Mumbai, just about the entire Jewish world, the frum world, even those that criticized Chabad harshly in the past rose to the occasion and lauded and felt unity with Chabad.
He probably got scared that Chabad gained many sympathizers, even friends.
Unfortunately, in certain cicles, they respect him as a scholar of great intellect.

I cant wait to hear that hes stuck in timbuktu and has the choice of eating treif or going to the closest chabad house...Id like to see that with pictures.
to add to it all..hes fugly!

POOR GUY, HE LOOKS SO SAD AND MISERABLE. HE NEEDS SOME HAPPINESS IN HIS LIFE. AND MAY BE HE SHOULD START KEEPING CHOLOV YISRAEL. BELIEVE ME HELPS THE EMUNAH.

Actually Berger has been an anti-Lubavitch advocate well before Gimmel Tammuz. Naturally, he'll claim to have had no issues with us beforehand, because that gives his position more credence. But it's much more than the Moshiach issue that he's got issues with; it's the whole concept of us having a Rebbe that he takes issue on. It certainly doesn't fit into this “academic's” lexicon. In retrospect, he's B"H done very little harm as most people who've had any contact with shluchim realize that his claims are inaccurate and unsubstantiated. Bottom line, he's anti-Lubavitch and not just anti-Meshichist, but the Tzfati's certainly don't help our cause by giving these people ammunition to bash us.

His ilk and there are so few left after Mumbai is mind-boggling as is that last comment regarding Holztberg Z"L in this article. This man is neither a professor nor anything remotely close to a sane individual. Having a title that begins with Prof.for him is an insult to all true professionals in his midst.
He likely has had a rather tough life and probably needs lots and lots of effection and attention. His issues are baseless and downright stupid at best in this day and age.
Enough said its so self understood!
Fine, there are some weird Chabadniks and more then a handful of nuts in 770 but by and large we are a tough bunch and have a lot to show for it all over the world and in CH if you look around.
This Berger guys obviously only eats out of saranwraps and u'll find him in Bangkok on a bench disheveled not wearing a kippa in public I betcha and reading the latest Agri news with glee.

Shame on you Berger even my Flatbush shul thinks you need major help for same reasons - yes Flatbush!
As in give it up berger already.

Does Berger attack the Shulchan Aruk HaRav? Does he attack Tanya? When people say “Berger attacks Chabad” what exactly are they referring to?

Does anyone think it's a problem that an innocent BT struggling to kindle his pitale yid by going to a Chabad Yeshiva get's roughed up because he questions whether the Rebbe is mashiach? It happened to me and I think it's a huge problem.

When chabadics resort to fanaticism it's no different then the Taliban. The sad fact is that belief that the rebbe is mashiach is the main focus of chabad kiruv at the expense of judaism.

FANTASTIC ARTICLE!!!!

I enjoyed your reporting very much, until the last few lines that is.

It is despicable to have brought Gabi Holtzberg into this debate. It is “commercializing” on a tragedy and although it might bring a great wow effect to the argument it is just wrong.

The first requirement of writing a book accusing people of heresy is to know your subject. Out of all the errors and misstatements in Berger's book (and no, I will not dignify him with the title 'rabbi'), the one that struck me the most was a fairly trivial error, but one that showed how little he knew his subject. He quotes some pamphlet he found for mivtza tefillin, basically a guide to what to say with people who put on tefillin (shma, etc.), and it starts with “hareni mekabel”. Berger immediately assumed that this must be some sort of meshichist statement!, and wrote so in his book with absolute confidence. Now I can see how someone who knows absolutely nothing about Lubavitch could make that guess; but it shows how little he does know about it, and it also shows sloppiness that he didn't bother checking his assumption before including it among his indictments of the meshichistn.

There are many other errors, omissions, misstatements, and plain strange things in the book, but I think this aside best sums him up.

BS“D
http://www.moshiachlisten.c...
”David Berger, an Orthodox non-Lubavitch Jew and a Jewish history professor at Brooklyn College, said he once hoped that Schneerson would be the messiah. But then Schneerson died.

Although Lubavitchers cite scattered Jewish sources that say the messiah can come from the living or the dead, Berger believes the notion of a messiah coming from the dead diverges from Jewish belief.

“In my opinion,” said Berger, author of “The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference,” “the belief that the real messiah will come to the world to announce that his generation is that of the redemption, and then die in an unredeemed world, is a betrayal of the messianic faith of Judaism.” (End of Quote).
----------------------------------
There are many Jewish sources which say Moshiach can come from the 'dead,' even though he has not, as yet, completed the task of Moshiach. He will return to complete it.
If Dr. Berger stated in his history class that: “It is my opinion that the state of Arkansas never existed,” what would be the difference in statements? None!
The man talks too much and says foolish things.
I'm a bigger fool for answering him.

shluchim should get to get together and make a counter attack seminar that would correct all the foolish things this guy said about chabad and educate these people who beleive in this “orthodox indifference”

There is no source that says explicitly “Moshiach can be from the dead”. Only chabad forces words to mean what they want by twisting only the vaguest of hints and sighting it as a jewish source.

Isn't it strange that in all the famous debates against christianity the prime argument is the fact that yeshu is dead?

Why didn't we see hordes of jewish circles throughout the ages declaring their rabbi was the messiah even after he died?

Do you mosshiachists realize that the number one argument of jews for j is “chabad also believes that moshiach can come from the dead”.?

Unfortunately for you, you don't know what you're talking about.

1. The primary argument is that he was a heretic.

2. We do, as recorded in Talmud.

3. Jews don't base our beliefs on what others say or do.

I'm no Meshichist, but at least I don't embarrass myself with my ignorance.

I am in possession of a Chabad Bencher published by Empire Press 2008, which has at the rear a selection of songs in Hebrew and English.

The English song “Time Has Gone By” (pg 32) contains the verse:

“Tatte! Oy Tatte! We plead open up your door
And welcome back your one and only son”

And you wonder why people compare Chabad to a 2000 year od secessionist movement.

Getzel, you think that the “one and only son” in that song is the Rebbe? It's the Jewish People collectively - “Banim Atem LaHashem Elokeichem.” Look at the next line of the song: “Each and every Yid truly deserves to see Hashem....”

If anything, your argument reminds me of the way that Christian missionaries twist Yeshayah ch. 53 - about the trials and tribulations of the “Servant of Hashem” - to refer to their guy. Whereas we know full well that, again, the “Servant” is the Jewish People personified.

Before Gimmel Tamuz it was heresy to say that mashiach can be from the dead. Such a view would be laughed at and rejected outright. Nebech, in our current matzav now after Gimmel tamuz, we embrace what we once would reject.

Getzel

sorry to break it to you but “your one and only son” there is reffering to the “bnai Yisroel” the “ben yochid” of hashem.

I know this song for a long time and I never thought it to mean what you are implying

...ps on that song while on the subject....

the words origionally were “the pain of seperation” then someone decided to change it to “the pain of concealment” to fit more with the fad...

...sorry to the rest of you reading this if I wasted your time

Getzel, what has that got to do with the meshichist debate? Who do you think Hashem's “one and only son” is?

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. People like Berger and this “Getzel” are not Jews at all - they are “not-Christians”. Their entire religion consists of denying whatever the Xians believe. If the Xians say that the “suffering servant” is Moshiach, then chas veshalom that we should acknowledge that they're right: “Hinei yaskil avdi, zeh melech hamoshiach”. If they say that a dead person is Moshiach then we must regard such a claim as heresy. If they talk about Hashem having a son, then we must forget about “beni bechori Yisroel”, and “ki Av echod lekulonu”.

Ashreinu mah tov chelkeinu that we are chassidim and not from this Berger cult. We have positive beliefs, not negative ones, and it doesn't bother us if once in a while goyim get something half-right, if only by chance. And we know that the vikuchim are not a serious source of hashkofah, because they made whatever argument seemed most likely to shut the other side up, regardless of whether it was true.

to n/a
umm, that is why the real mishachists believe that the Rebbe is still alive.

To AH:

Unfortunately you've been misled by the anti-missionary propaganda too. Have you never learned even one of the MANY maamorim on “hinei yaskil avdi”, ALL of which are based on the Yalkut Shimoni which says “zeh Melech Hamoshiach”?

Yes, the Xians make a big tzimmes about this posuk, and in response the main meforshim of Tanach preferred to read it as being about Am Yisroel, but that's an explanation klapei chutz; it's something to tell the goyim. For internal consumption, our nesi'im did not have the slightest problem with quoting the Yalkut Shimoni, to the extent that anyone who knows this posuk primarily from chassidus rather than from Tanach or anti-missionary work will probably never have heard of the “Am Yisroel” explanation, because it's never mentioned in chassidus.

I do not accept many characterizations of the talk and of my writings, but I just want to correct some concrete points of fact.
1. In the private exchange to which the post refers, I indicated disagreement with elements of Marc Shapiro's book. I absolutely did not say that I would not eat his shechitah.
2. I greatly admired Lubavitch before the Rebbe's passing. This admiration did not end even when the messianism became evident to outsiders in the eighties and early nineties (even though I was of course unhappy about it, as were many other Lubavitch admirers). No one can point to a scintilla of evidence that contradicts this, and my book points to definitive evidence that supports it.
3. Millhouse writes: “Out of all the errors and misstatements in Berger's book (and no, I will not dignify him with the title 'rabbi'), the one that struck me the most was a fairly trivial error, but one that showed how little he knew his subject. He quotes some pamphlet he found for mivtza tefillin, basically a guide to what to say with people who put on tefillin (shma, etc.), and it starts with “hareni mekabel”. Berger immediately assumed that this must be some sort of meshichist statement!, and wrote so in his book with absolute confidence.”
This assertion is based on the following text and footnote in my book (p. 128):
Text: I am reliably informed that some non-religious Jews persuaded to don tefillin on the streets of Jerusalem and in the mitzvah tanks of New York are instructed to say yechi before “Hear, O Israel. The Lord is our God the Lord is one.”
Footnote: These reports were confirmed by Levi Yitzchak Ginsberg's article, “Sealed with the Stamp of the Kohen Gadol,” Beis Moshiach 305 (Parshas Mikeitz 5761/29 Dec. 2000): “It is very important that...a Keriyas Shma” sheet with “Yechi Adoneinu” printed on it be used. By this I mean a 'Yechi' that isn't just a headline on a page, but part of the text for the person to recite, after 'hareini mekabel' ['I accept upon myself' (the commandment of donning tefillin)]."
Readers would do well to ask themselves if they believed Millhouse's report despite its inherent implausibility. If so, this is a useful musar haskel about the appropriate skepticism to be exercised in reading comments on websites.
David Berger.

Webby, don't stick the kedoshim's name in such a manipulative way, leave them to rest in peace, why bring up such a sensitive topic and bring up another jerw to even hurt their memory even a tiny bit????
Would you eat meat shechted by a holaucaust survivor who is not shomer shabbos? it is a silly question and has nothing to do with your first logical, intellectual halachically sound question! Don't do the emotions shtick...let Rabbi Berger be the only emotional and un-rational one in this question, don't fight stupidity with the same.

Thank you Rabbi Berger, the absence of a response to your documented assertion is telling.