A book was recently published questioning the validity of the claim that the Rebbe is Moshiach. If you have not read it, I refer you to it now.

As anyone familiar with this issue can tell you, it is quite a sensitive topic, saturated in emotions by all who care about it.

This book is actually the book many people think that Prof. David Berger wrote, namely, its purpose is to lay out the Jewish rejection of a dead messiah in a clear and understandable fashion. Berger's book is more a book about Lubavitch in general, as well as the author's personal journey of discovery of the true nature of the movement. The current book is not about Lubavitch at all, but is simply a dissertation detailing what most Jews feel they already know – that there is no room in Judaism for a resurrected messiah. While there may have been moments in history that aroused the desire to confirm this assumption, nothing has brought this question to the fore more than the current belief held by Lubavitch. This book takes this question to task with the stated goal of putting it to its final rest. The book claims to display in glaring detail the unequivocal reality that Judaism, by its very nature, does not allow for such an option.

One item which is absolutely crucial in sorting through this matter is clarity. Clarity and objectivity; freedom from the burdens of emotional inclinations. What struck me so strongly from this book were not the conclusions, but the fact the reasoning, the rationale, was inherently flawed. And this is the objective of this site: I am not coming to challenge the conclusions of the author nor the alternatives. I merely want to bring to the table my assertion that this book is adding to, rather than detracting from, the inaccuracies and confusion surrounding this debate.

This presentation is an honest effort to stay clear of any of the emotions and to make an objective examination of this topic. Unlike previous authors who have published their works unilaterally, I first took my thoughts to the person I am directing my criticism against. I was absolutely certain that he too would join my cause and wholeheartedly support my effort.

For the past few months I conferred persistently with the author, showing my dissension on every issue and answering all of his defenses. I must give the author credit, I did not find him to be harboring any sense of hostility or enmity to Lubavitch. In fact, I have never met anyone more sincere.

In the end, I feel that I am no less to blame than he is for the shameful reality that we could not reconcile our differences. (Wait, on second thought, I blame him entirely.) Not knowing what else to do, I now set this matter out for the public. What I have given here are only my comments on the book but not the subject as a whole. I encourage those interested to make a careful evaluation of what I have written, and hopefully this will lead to greater understanding – and ultimately unity – on this crucial matter.

I asked the author for a note stating that while he maintains his conclusions he does concede that his proofs were invalid. He wrote:

"The critic is an honest man who tries to objectively arrive at the truth. I believe that his criticisms of my book are the result of much intellectual labor but, in the end, incorrect."

Well, it's not quite what I was looking for, after all, he was never able to show me what I was doing wrong (although he felt that he did just that).

It will be a shame if this debate is relinquished to party-line assertions rather than an honest open discussion. In the end, this site will be here to act as a balance to the flaws of this book. I hope, for myself and also for the author, that this leads us all to a greater consensus.