Chapter three is in a sense the beginning of the book. It is here that the author begins to bring proofs and refute claims.

The author concedes that, yes, in a sense the Rebbe is still alive. But adds that in that same sense anyone who has a soul is still living. What the author means is that if everyone is alive we would not have a word for death. "Death" is intended to distinguish certain people (or any other once-living organisms) from others. The author does not accept that the Rebbe is alive enough that the word "dead" would not apply to him.

He then rephrases his contention saying "[o]r rather, is he alive enough to be Moshiach?" I'm going to help him out here and say that he simply means that once a person (alive or not) is distinguished from others as being dead, then he is not eligible to be Moshiach. The objective of the author then is to prove that the Rebbe, no matter how "alive" he is, still falls under the category of "dead."

The first proof the author brings for this is that doctor declared the Rebbe dead. The author then writes that he spoke with someone who claims to have witnessed the Rebbe being buried. Finally, the author adds that an Ohel, a formal structure in which visitors can pray, was established at the site where the Rebbe is said to be buried and is visited by people from all around the world.

Regarding the unsubstantiated claim that the Rebbe was pronounced dead, even if this were true its significance would remain in question. It is well known that "medically dead" does not share the same definition as the Jewish-legal definition of dead. Moreover, there are many documented cases where a person was declared dead by a doctor only to come "back to life." If this purported declaration has any significance, the author has failed to portray it.

Regarding the burial, the author may have spoken with someone maintaining that he witnessed the Rebbe being buried, these claims are well known. But we have stories in folklore as well as modern day where mock-funerals are staged and many of the observers are under the sincere impression that the individual is dead and buried. This is evidence only that the appearance of a funeral took place.

As to the Ohel, the author is apparently unaware that the Ohel he is referring to was established upon the passing of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe; there is even video footage of the Rebbe himself praying at that Ohel. Furthermore, there are many well visited sepulchers which, despite their popularity, their authenticity remains highly dubious.

Say what you will about the significance of these claims to you. The author himself concedes that this alone is not sufficient, writing "this does not yet answer the question of whether the Rebbe is dead." Even after establishing that for the purpose of our argument if one is "dead" then he is not alive, he still does not suffice with the above stated evidence and feels it necessary to deal with a slew of proofs that he feels, if conclusive, would make these claims irrelevant. On his own admission then, I will proceed to discredit his approach to those proofs.

Before he brings these proofs, the author mentions a talmudic statement referring to the biblical Daniel as dead. This passage also contrasts Daniel, who it considers dead, with "Moshiach from the living." The author uses this as evidence that having a soul, which is eternal, does not keep one from being dead. This information is superfluous as this contention has already been established. He then adds that we can also see from this passage that once someone is dead, as Daniel is, he is no longer in the category of "Moshiach from the living." The author is saying that once someone is as dead as Daniel he can no longer be considered a candidate for Moshiach -- unless one would accept the possibility of a deceased Moshiach. In which case, that deceased candidate is still in a different category than living candidates. If we reach the conclusion that the Rebbe is as dead as Daniel, then one can no longer consider his candidacy for Moshiach to be the same as the candidacy of the living -- it would even differ from his own previous candidacy before his death.

This comment regarding Daniel relies heavily upon the topics that will be raised later in the book. I will make a brief rebuttal which will be better understood only after complete familiarity with the issues yet to be discussed. The author himself does not accept the distinction of a living and a dead Moshiach, and this argument is only in the form of "according to you...." Even then, it is only if one draws the narrow conclusion that these are categories ("from the dead" and "from the living") rather than incidental facts. And even then it would only reflect the conception of a specific passage, but not necessarily a universal truth. In other words, the author's argument is predicated on the assumption that Moshiach may be chosen from the dead, and even then it is no proof that there is any distinction between a living and dead candidate. We now return to the topic of this chapter -- whether the Rebbe is dead at all.

We begin with the proofs that the author feels, apparently in face of the claims of the Rebbe's death and burial, stand to show that the Rebbe is alive. These proofs are divided into four groups, all of which involve tales of other people not dying. 

Elijah & Enoch

The first, is Elijah the Prophet and Enoch, one of the ancestors of Noah in the book of Genesis. The author brings a talmudic passage stating that Elijah is still alive. This statement is accepted by the author as being both historically correct and as attributing enough life for Elijah not to be called dead. If the Rebbe were as alive as Elijah the author would consider the Rebbe alive. The author also cites, and does not dispute, a later commentary writing that Elijah's "physical body was shed and he became purely spiritual," while he makes no conjecture as to what was done with that physical body. The author adds that there is an opinion that Enoch, like Elijah, never experienced death and remains alive. He also brings some medieval sources citing these two as a pair, as examples of people who attained the highest level of purity. The importance of this is apparently to show that this dynamic duo is unique in their attainment of this level.

The author concludes that the Rebbe did not reach this level of perfection. The evidence brought for this is simply that the Rebbe died and is buried in Queens. Once again, I will help him out, he is saying that the original evidence brought for the Rebbe's death is indeed enough to prove that the Rebbe did not have the same experience as Elijah. Elijah, he claims, is not only still alive -- he was never buried.

Let me address each issue. First I will mention his citing references to the two men as a pair, as though no one else has reached this level. This information is useless, as Elijah and Enoch may have been the only two such men known to these authors. Furthermore, these authors make no claim that these are the only two, but simply cite them as examples. Additionally, these authors passed away long before the Rebbe was even born and could not possibly have meant to exclude him. Most significant, is the fact that the first source, the Kuzari, actually writes that "one should want to reach the level of Enoch...or Elijah," indicating that this is attainable for others as well. The second source too, while I do not have the original at hand, just from what the author quotes it does not seem that they are not unique ("[...] We have seen examples of this in this world, Enoch and Elijah"). In truth, these quotes are merely rhetoric which function only to mislead the reader.

Regarding the claim that what we know about the Rebbe's supposed death is enough to demonstrate that he was not transformed like Elijah, I have already shown that while the author might have presented some basis for one to think the Rebbe died, these claims can easily be explained away by anyone contending that the Rebbe remained alive like Elijah. Furthermore, the claim that Elijah was never buried is purely the contention of the author's and remains unsubstantiated. Most astonishing, is the author's own acceptance of the claim that Elijah shed his physical body -- a body that, as far as the reader is concerned, may have been buried. Thus, even if we accepted the author's postulation that the Rebbe's burial is a proven fact, there is no proof being presented that the Rebbe's status differs in any way from Elijah's.

I have just demonstrated the author's failure to prove that the Rebbe is not alive like Elijah. This claim was proven neither by the Rebbe's unsubstantiated death nor his supposed burial -- both of which may have been present by Elijah. I will now proceed to the second of the four categories of proofs that the author wishes to challenge.

King David

The second is king David. The claim that David is alive is based on the recital of the phrase "David, king of Israel, is alive and well," during the sanctification of the moon each month. The author writes that David certainly died, and seems to concede that if David can be alive despite the evidence of his death, so can the Rebbe. The author's objective here is to prove that David is not alive.

The author explains that the origin for this phrase as part of this ceremony comes from a period when the ceremony was prohibited. The Mishnaic authority, Rabbi Judah the Prince, instructed his contemporary, Rabbi Hiyya, to travel to a safe location and perform the sanctification. He added that he should confirm his successful performance with the message "David, king of Israel, is alive and well." The author then brings a number of commentaries on this subject who explain that "David" refers to the dynasty of David's monarchy which is likened to the moon. According to these explanations, the author concludes, there is no implication that David is alive.

Once again the author tells a convincing tale but one that has no bearing on the issue he proposes to address. At no point does he substantiate his claim that this phrase was not a part of this ceremony before the story which he cites. As far as the reader is concerned this phrase may well be saying that David is alive; Rabbi Judah may have simply made use of a phrase which was already part of the ceremony. Even if the phrase was not part of the ceremony, we are given no reason to believe that it was not an already well known expression of historical fact which Rabbi Judah cleverly used as a cover for conveying an important message. The fact that the commentaries associate this with the dynasty of David is merely because of their desire to explain its significance to the sanctification of the moon; it was the dynasty that is compared to the moon, not David himself. This in no way negates the possibility that the phrase itself, not the hidden message, refers to David. If this phrase is evidence that David is alive, which the author fails to disprove, then the Rebbe might also be alive despite the author's certainty of his death.

The Righteous

The author takes a break here from his four proofs regarding certain people said not to have died, and addresses an extra topic. This is "the righteous." The author brings some sources indicating that the corpse of a person considered to be purely righteous does not have the same ritual impurity as a regular human corpse. He then mentions that there is a claim that if the body is not impure then it must not be dead; this non-death is the true reason that it is not impure. To refute this claim, the author cites in passing some authorities who actually hold that such a corpse is impure. He then adds that the explanation given by those who maintain that the body remains pure clearly indicates that the righteous do in fact die. These authorities write that the reason that a regular person dies is a result of the serpent (in Genesis who convinces Eve, who in turn convinces Adam, to eat from the Tree of Knowledge; all death is considered a result of this sin) and such a death results in impurity, or it is because they die by the hand of the angel of death who in turn injects a certain filth into his victims, rendering them impure. According to either explanation the righteous die by a divine kiss and do not receive this impurity. This explanation distinguishes between the two deaths, but both are nevertheless "death."

The truth is however, that anyone who maintained that based on the fact that the corpse is not impure we derive that that person is not dead, can likewise claim that someone who "dies" from a divine kiss does not really "die," -- after all his body does not become impure. The reasoning is no less valid when called a death by divine kiss than it was when we called it death because it appeared that way. I seriously wonder what the author even thought he was gaining by this explanation.

Jacob the Patriarch

The author now moves on to the third category of proof, Jacob the patriarch. In this case, he not only fails to prove that Jacob is dead but blatantly misinterprets a published lecture of the Rebbe's, where the Rebbe clearly quotes Rashi as explaining a talmudic passage to indicate that Jacob actually never died.

In order to explain this topic, I must introduce the talmudic passage in its full context. "R. Nahman and R. Isaac were sitting at a meal. R. Nahman said to R. Isaac 'Let my master say a word'... After the meal he replied 'Thus said R. Johanan: Jacob the patriarch did not die.' The former responded 'Was it for nothing that they eulogized, embalmed and buried him?' [R. Isaac] replied 'I expound from the scripture (Jer. 30:10): But you, have no fear, my servant Jacob -- saith the Lord -- be not dismayed O Israel, I will deliver you from far away; your folk from their land of captivity." R. Isaac concludes "He (Jacob) is drawn by analogy to his descendants; just as his descendants (Israel) are alive, so too he is alive."

Explanation: R. Isaac cites R. Johanan's claim that Jacob never died. R. Nahman states that it seems incongruous with the account of Jacob's burial. R. Isaac replies that he is expounding from a verse relating a prophesy of the final redemption; the prophesy addresses Jacob as well as the nation of Israel. It is a common talmudic strategy to draw analogies between two items given similar status in a biblical verse. In this case Jacob is equated with the nation of Israel, thus R. Isaac concludes that an analogy can be drawn between them: Just as Israel will be alive at the time of the redemption (i.e. those being gathered from exile will be living) so too we can conclude that Jacob (who is drawn by analogy to Israel) will also be living at that time. The logic seems to be that if Jacob will be alive at the time his descendants are redeemed then he certainly never died. It must be noted though that the Talmud here uses uncommon terminology, the standard form for stating such an analogy is to utilize the actual scriptural words being compared. One would have expected: "Just as 'Israel' is alive so too 'Jacob' is alive."

That is what the talmudic passage is saying. Of course, there are many questions that occur to anyone reading this, and there are many answers. One must be aware however of the basic meaning as it is simply expressed, i.e. that Jacob never died and will be alive at the time of the redemption. The idea being supported here is that if Jacob did not die despite the appearance of death and burial, then the Rebbe could also be alive despite his apparent death and burial. The objective of the author is now to prove that Jacob did in fact die, thus removing the possibility of the Rebbe being equated with Jacob as being alive.

The first item the author mentions is a talmudic passage stating that the lives of seven people spanned the history of the world: Methuselah saw Adam, Shem saw Methuselah, Jacob saw Shem, Amram saw Jacob, Ahijah the Shilonite saw Amram, Elijah saw Ahijah and is still alive. This passage surely treats Jacob as though he is no longer living. Moreover, a medieval commentator, Rashbam, explains that this passage is of the opinion that Enoch actually did die. He feels no need to explain any inconsistency regarding Jacob, which seems to indicate that there is no opinion that Jacob did not die. The reader is also invited to examine Appendix A for a collection of additional references to Jacob as being dead. Returning to the passage at hand, the author cites some commentaries that seize upon the unusual terminology, as I pointed out earlier, to explain that this passage has a symbolic meaning (and multiple symbolic meanings are given). According to these commentaries, R. Isaac was not just bringing a scripture to back up his claim but was even resolving it with the apparent burial -- Jacob really died and was treated as such for good reason; the statement that he did not die was not meant literally.

First, the passage about the seven lives spanning all of history may indeed disagree with the passage of Jacob not dying, it would not be the first time there was a disagreement in the Talmud. This answer holds true for the entire Appedix A which does not serve in proving that Jacob did not die. As far as Rashbam goes, he may be one of the commentators who learns this latter passage symbolically, he therefore did not mention an opinion stating that Jacob is still alive as he did not learn that there was one. Finally, it is no secret that some commentaries regard this passage as symbolic, but the author fails to address the opinions that the passage is meant literally as well as the possibility that the Rebbe enjoys the same status. The author will address this soon, but his addressing of the issue at this point proves neither that Jacob nor the Rebbe have died.

Rabbi Judah the Prince

The fourth category of supposed non-death is that of Rabbi Judah the Prince, known simply as Rabbi. The author brings a story from the Talmud that tells how Rabbi, just before his death, commanded his sons to keep his candle lit, to keep his bed made, and to keep his place set at the table. The Talmud explains the reason for this was because Rabbi would return home each Friday evening. The author then cites a thirteenth century book, called Sefer Chasidim, stating that when Rabbi returned on Friday evenings he would perform the precept of sanctifying the Sabbath (said over a cup of wine) for his family. This book explains that while any dead person has the power to appear to the living, only the righteous can appear in regular clothing rather than shrouds. Furthermore, while others are dead and exempt from the precepts, the righteous remain alive and can fulfill precepts on behalf of others (one who does not perform the sanctification can fulfill their obligation by hearing it from others, but it must be performed by someone who shares the obligation).

The author concludes that Rabbi is not uniquely alive, as anyone can appear to the living. And although he is a bit more alive and can help others fulfill their obligation, this is no different then the treatment some commentaries gave to the symbolic statement that Jacob is alive. Here the author is referring to the explanation that Jacob's soul maintained a unique connection with his body even after death, the commentaries that give this explanation compare Jacob with Rabbi as sharing this unique experience. One can therefore assume that just as Jacob's being alive is figurative and his death real, so to Rabbi's being alive is figurative and his death is real.

The author draws a correlation between the statement of the Sefer Chasidim to the commentaries who, while comparing Jacob to Rabbi, regard Jacob as dead. By doing so he attempts to sweep under the carpet the novel contention of the Sefer Chasidim that Rabbi is alive enough to fulfill a ritual obligation on behalf of the living, an indication that he is uniquely alive. This is not a feature mentioned by those who consider Jacob dead, and there is no reason to believe that they agree with it. The author has accepted that Rabbi or any righteous person, like the Rebbe, is alive enough to perform a ritual obligation on behalf of the living, but he has failed to provide a shred of evidence that despite this sign of life he is dead.

At this point the author returns to the issue of Jacob being alive. He cites Rashi who explains the response of R. Isaac ("just as his descendants are alive...") to mean that Jacob actually never died, and when they embalmed and buried him "they were under the illusion that he died but he was in fact alive." In order to explain this, the author cites a published lecture of the Rebbe's, where the Rebbe explains this passage in accordance with Rashi's interpretation. The Rebbe concludes that, although we are instructed to conduct ourselves in accordance nature, the purest, truest sense of reality -- the reality of Torah -- is not limited by the constraints of nature, and it was in this sense that Jacob did not die. However, the Rebbe then proceeds to write that just as it is so by Jacob, so too his descendants are alive, and that although this is stated explicitly by Jacob, it applies to all Jews as it was passed by inheritance from Jacob who "did not die." Clearly then, the author concludes, even according to Rashi this literal non-death is a phenomenon that on some level belongs to all Jews. Just as we all agree that despite this non-death Jews do die, so too Jacob died and is not alive in the most literal sense.

Since the author's entire conclusion rests upon the Rebbe's lecture, I will go straight to that. The author gives no reason why we should accept the Rebbe's interpretation of Rashi; the reader is still free to read Rashi as it appears and to conclude that Jacob is distinguished from other dead Jews in his being alive. But this is completely irrelevant, because in truth the author has severely misinterpreted the lecture. You can go and read the lecture yourself so I will just summarize. First, the Rebbe gives the explanation that R. Isaac is stating that Jacob is alive in the truest sense, and the Rebbe beautifully harmonizes this idea with all the details relating to this passage. Then, after finishing his explanation of the passage, the Rebbe goes into a symbolic homily of his own. Utilizing the terms of the Talmud ("his descendants are alive," which the Rebbe has just explained to refer to the Jews at the time of the redemption), the Rebbe says that "his descendants are alive" -- this time referring to the nation of Israel which still exists today as a living nation. The Rebbe is not making any contention that this is what the Talmud meant by "his descendants are alive," nor is he making a contention that all Jews are in any sense alive.

Clearly then, we can see from this very lecture, which the author has accepted as authoritative, that Rashi is saying it can be derived from the scripture that in truest sense Jacob is alive, and that his death and burial were merely an illusion. The author has not only failed to provide any intelligent proof that Jacob is dead, but has even provided us with a new source, which he seems to accept, reaffirming the position that Jacob is alive.

Conclusion

The author finishes this chapter with the baseless conclusion that the Rebbe is dead. He adds that all that is needed now is to determine whether a dead man can be Moshiach.

As I have shown, the author fails to prove that the Rebbe is dead. Moreover, he fails in his attempts to prove that: the Rebbe has not merited eternal life like Elijah; David is not alive; all righteous people do not remain alive after death; Jacob is not alive; Rabbi is not alive, or that the Rebbe is not as alive as David, Jacob, Rabbi, or any other righteous person. I will now proceed to display that the author fails as well to bring any proof that a dead man cannot be Moshiach.