Three Beliefs

In chapter four the author proposes to tackle the question of whether a dead man can be Moshiach. The stated objective of the author is to prove that the Rebbe, as a dead man, a) cannot be Moshiach, b) is not Moshiach, and c) has not already become Moshiach.  There is no disagreement here, these are the author's objectives.

Dead Moshiach

The author begins by refuting the third claim. He writes that in order to be Moshiach, one must fulfill a set of conditions prescribed by Maimonides, and I quote (from the author's translation): "If a king will arise from the House of David who delves deeply into the study of the Torah and, like David his ancestor, observes its mitzvos as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law; if he will compel all of Israel to walk in [the way of he Torah] and repair the breaches [in its observance] and will fight the wars of G-d -- he is presumed to be Moshiach." The author agrees that all of these conditions can be attributed to the Rebbe, but he argues that on the same note many other people could qualify to be presumed Moshiach as well. He details the following three tasks which he feels must be, not just partially, but completely fulfilled in order to achieve Moshiach status: 1) compelling all of Israel to walk in the way of the Torah, 2) repairing the breaches in observance, and 3) fighting the wars of G-d. The author contends that the Rebbe has not achieved complete success on any of these fronts.

Furthermore, he asserts, Maimonides' wording is very precise and must be treated as such. Thus, "king" must be taken in the utmost literal sense, which he asserts cannot apply to the Rebbe. The author asks in which battle the Rebbe fought in an army to fulfill "fight[ing] the wars of God." Additionally, he brings a lecture of the Rebbe's, where the Rebbe writes that these "wars of God" include the extermination of the biblical Amalekite nation, which the author is certain the Rebbe did not do. 

After establishing the Rebbe's noncompliance with the basic definition of Moshiach, the author moves on to the second claim that the Rebbe might ever be Moshiach. The author states that Maimonides proceeds, in the same section where he details the description of Moshiach, to define a failed Moshiach. After describing the final portrait of Moshiach -- victorious against all surrounding nations, rebuilding the Temple, and reuniting dispersed Jewry -- Maimonides writes (again, from the author's translation): "If he did not succeed in all this or was killed he is definitely not the Moshiach promised in the Torah...and G-d only appointed him in order to test the masses." The author asserts that in order to fulfill the truth of this legal clause we must conclude that there is no possibility that someone could return from the dead to fulfill these tasks. Once the man being discussed dies, it is certain that he is not Moshiach. The author further asserts that the Rebbe did not fulfill all the criteria to meet the conclusive definition of Moshiach, and that if the Rebbe began to fulfill the required tasks then his death proves that he is not Moshiach.

It is at this point that the author makes a peculiar claim which requires clarification. He writes that if the Rebbe has not even begun to fulfill the required tasks then "there is no reason to declare him Moshiach other than pure speculation." The author is saying that the legal clause detailing a failed Moshiach applies only to the individual dealt with in the first clause, the clause that identifies a presumed and then a confirmed Moshiach. The author is apparently uncertain as to exactly who qualifies as being addressed by this clause -- whether he must have fulfilled all the requirements for Moshiach status, started to fulfill them, or be a king who started to fulfill them -- but is sure that whatever approach is taken the Rebbe can be ruled out as Moshiach. By this point, the author has ruled out the Rebbe's participation in fighting in the wars of God because he has not served in any army during any battle, his building the Temple since the Temple Mount remains under Muslim control, and his reuniting dispersed Jewry most of which still resides outside Israel. The author here must be referring to the movement initiated by the Rebbe that brought many Jews back to observance -- an attempt at the first two tasks for Moshiach status as derived by the author -- and at the same time he guards himself against the possibility that someone might succeed in making a convincing case for the Rebbe's participation in any of the other tasks. Thus, the author concludes, if the Rebbe's actions have made him a contender for the Moshiach status of the first clause, then he is clearly disqualified in the second clause. If the Rebbe never became a contender for Moshiach status, then there is no case for considering him Moshiach to begin with.

Although the author has acknowledged the importance of legal rulings for defining Moshiach, he now decides to cite a Midrash, an apocryphal Jewish book well known for its imaginative allegories and homilies, but one which has come to play a greater role in Torah study during the past millennium. The basis the author uses for introducing this Midrash is that, while there is much variation regarding Moshiach throughout the Midrash, there are certain areas of consensus. The author feels that Maimonides has drawn out his final ruling from a deep analysis of the traditional texts regarding these matters. In areas not addressed by Maimonides we must turn to the traditional texts to extract the universal principles.

In this section the author is reacting specifically to the claim that the Rebbe has already become Moshiach. Although the author does not state this explicitly, it is apparent that there are those who cite this particular Midrash to validate this claim. This particular Midrash makes a prediction that a Jewish king will accomplish many of the tasks of Moshiach, but die before completing them. This character, common in Jewish folklore as a precursor to Moshiach, is known as Moshiach ben-Yosef. The Midrash continues to tell how the true Moshiach will appear and, after being rejected as a pretender to the real Moshiach who died, will return from concealment to realize the true destiny of the Jewish nation. Apparently there are those who identify what they see as the Rebbe's death with this concealment, and seek to bring proof from this similarity that the Rebbe is Moshiach. The author now points out that any claim that the Rebbe has already become Moshiach is inconsistent with this Midrash, which has the true Moshiach beginning his mission only after the concealment period. He also points out that while the Midrash states explicitly that the Moshiach ben-Yosef dies, it clearly does not say as much for the real Moshiach, leading the reader to assume that the concealment is not death. Most importantly, says the author, is that this whole process is specifically attributed to a situation of diminished merit; in an ideal situation the arrival of Moshiach is immediate. In the non-ideal scenario there is not only concealment but also the feature of Moshiach ben-Yosef, an occurrence which the supporters of this theory fail to portray in the case of the Rebbe. 

I will first address this last issue of the author's. The author is citing this Midrash as confirmation that Moshiach, even in the worst case scenario, will not die, and that in the case where concealment is warranted, the order of events will be quite unlike the order surrounding the Rebbe. He does not however provide any evidence that the ideas expressed in this Midrash have universal consensus. He has already admitted to grave variation throughout the Midrash, and without providing evidence for consensus nothing can be derived. This Midrash alone does not in any way preclude that Moshiach could arrive in any number of possible scenarios that do not conform to it, and it is certainly not proof that Moshiach will not have experienced death.

Now, as to Maimonides. The author's basis for insisting that Maimonides holds authority on this issue is, as he says, that the Rebbe stated many times that Maimonides' account of Moshiach in his legal rulings is binding according to Jewish law. I have seen the Rebbe write that when it comes to actual conduct only the legal authorities are binding, not the Midrash or even the more serious sections of the Talmud. The truth of this statement stands on its own and does not require the approval of the Rebbe. The author however fails to prove that Maimonides is the final authority on the issues he cites. He also fails to portray these issues as having any bearing on human conduct so that they might have the role of a legal ruling, rather than a subjective prediction of future events.

If the Rebbe does identify Maimonides as the sole authority in this matter, the author fails to prove it. Moreover, even if the Rebbe has made such a contention, the author gives the reader no reason why he should accept the Rebbe's designation of what is or isn't Jewish law. The Rebbe notoriously refused to make any legal rulings, and even if he had there may be authorities that disagree with him. Based on the evidence provided in the book, the reader has no reason to view the ensuing discussion as absolute.

Now that I have established that the author's reliance on Maimonides to draw his conclusions is unfounded, I will show that his proofs from Maimonides themselves are completely void of merit.

The author begins by refuting the claim that the Rebbe has already achieved Moshiach status. He claims that if the required activities can be attributed to the Rebbe, there are many other men who would have Moshiach status as well. However, the author gives no reason why multiple persons would not be able to share Moshiach status at the same time. Neither does he rule out the possibility that a narrow definition for the involvement in these activities might be given that would single out the Rebbe.

The author makes an issue of the word "king" mentioned by Maimonides. He claims that this must be taken in a sense that cannot apply to the Rebbe, but he gives no clear definition of what is in fact meant by this word. Without providing the reader with a proven definition the reader has no reason to believe that the Rebbe is unqualified. In fact, the Rebbe had no less status or power than many kings in European constitutional monarchies; whether or not the title "King" appears in his passport is irrelevant.

The author asks in which battle the Rebbe fought in an army. Not every individual who fights in a war wears a uniform, has a military rank, or engages in physical combat. The author's inability to verify that the Rebbe had these experiences certainly does not prove that the Rebbe did not fight in a war of God or any other war.

While the author fails to provide the reader with a definition for "wars of God" -- making it difficult to prove that the Rebbe did not fight in them -- he does claim that according to the Rebbe such wars include the extermination of the Amalekites. Once again, the author fails to provide a reason why the Rebbe's learning of Maimonides is exclusive in its final interpretation. Additionally, no evidence is presented to support the author's claim that the Rebbe did not exterminate the remains of the ancient Amalekite nation; I am certain that the author cannot produce a single Amalekite national to support his claim. Aside from that, the author has actually blurred the specifications detailed in the law. For Moshiach status, just fighting wars is sufficient; completing all of the wars successfully is only needed to be confirmed as Moshiach. Lastly, the author is apparently unaware that Maimonides, prior to the section regarding Moshiach, writes that ancient nationalities whose identities are not known and who have assimilated with the populations of the world have lost their legal status. This clearly applies to the nation of Amalek today. While the requirement to destroy that nation remains, there is no active incumbency so long as the nationality, in its ancient form, does not exist. The author's failure does not stop here. Returning to the clause at hand, Maimonides clearly states that even someone who is victorious in all wars and rebuilds the Temple can still fail before uniting dispersed Jewry. If these 'wars of God' include the destruction of Amalek then that could already be accomplished by a failed Moshiach and the real Moshiach would be forced to become Moshiach without that requirement. Just as there, one must agree, it is not required where it does not apply, here too when the active incumbency does not apply -- it is not required. The Rebbe, in his lecture, was trying to display a connection between the destruction of Amalek, the tranquillity which accompanies it, and the building of the Temple. For this, the Rebbe points out that Maimonides' generalization of "wars of God" -- all wars of God -- includes the destruction of Amalek and is only then followed by the rebuilding of the Temple. The Rebbe either meant Amalek symbolically, referring to any oppressing nation which stands in the way of this tranquillity, or to the fact that legally, if the incumbency were to present itself (however this might be possible), this particular war would be included. However, the Rebbe is certainly not suggesting that the destruction of the actual ancient nationality in its non-applicable state would stand in the way of the completion of Moshiach's tasks.

The author goes on to claim that once a messianic contender dies without completing his mission, he is disqualified from ever being Moshiach. The author's basis that the Rebbe did not fulfill the mission of Moshiach is that Maimonides' writings must be taken in the most literal sense, however, he fails to bring a source for this imposition. Besides, the definition of "literal" is often subjective, and the author is not offering a proven method for arriving at this literal meaning. For example, Maimonides writes that before being confirmed Moshiach, "he will build the Temple in its place." In one of his lectures, the Rebbe makes a clever wordplay on the Hebrew which can also be read "in his place" -- in the location of the contending Moshiach. By reading the clause this way, the Rebbe makes a reference to his father-in-law's establishment of a central synagogue which he felt can be compared with the Temple. The author makes no case that this reading should be considered any less literal than his own reading -- that it refers to the place of the actual Holy-Temple. Another example is the reuniting of the dispersed Jewry. What Maimonides actually writes is "he will assemble the remote Jews." If we read this in the most literal sense it requires uniting only the remote Jews, while the moderately distant Jews might still remain in their locations. It can just as well be said that the Rebbe's involvement in the emigration of soviet Jewry successfully targeted and assembled the "remote" Jews. The author, without producing any reason to doubt that the Rebbe did not fulfill all the requirements for being confirmed Moshiach, cannot possibly claim that his death deprives him of that title.

The author argues that if the Rebbe never began the mission of the man addressed in Maimonides' first clause then, although he is not disqualified in the second clause by his death, we have no reason to regard him as Moshiach in the first place. It is the author himself who argued that the Rebbe did not even fit the basic definition of the man dealt with in the first clause, by doing so he admits that the Rebbe is not precluded by Maimonides from being Moshiach in the future. It would be more correct to state here that the author has no reason to regard the Rebbe as Moshiach, however, should the reader have a reason to do so then, as far as this citation from Maimonides is concerned, it is not only acceptable but it is reasonable to conclude that the Rebbe is Moshiach.

As I have shown, the author himself concedes that once someone is confirmed as Moshiach he remains so even after death, but fails to prove that the Rebbe did not attain this status. I have also shown that the author concedes that if a man does not begin the activities of Moshiach, then Maimonides does not rule him out as Moshiach upon his death -- he doesn't even address him at all -- and this is in fact the status designated by the author to the Rebbe. Now I will take issue with the very contention that Maimonides excludes anyone, even a messianic contender, upon death.

The first issue, is the author's contention that Maimonides' stating "if he did not succeed in all this" refers to death. The author is convinced that the only way to interpret "not succeeding" is death. His explanation raises the obvious question of why Maimonides did not just write "if he died," after all he was certainly not shy about stating "or was killed" without resorting to euphemisms. Furthermore, Maimonides' addition of the words "or was killed" strongly indicates that "did not succeed" does not refer to death, which would have included any form of death. Finally, the author gives no plausible explanation as to why Maimonides proceeds to liken the failed Moshiach to "the pure and qualified Davidic kings who have died;" according to his definition Maimonides should simply compare him to any dead man, who, by his standard, cannot be Moshiach. While the author is comfortable using this questionable definition, he brings no evidence against alternate approaches. A more careful reading might suggest that Maimonides disqualifies only a contender who is killed but not one who dies. The clause regarding one who does not succeed might refer specifically to someone whose attainment of Moshiach status has been undone. In fact, the author himself will cite later on a Jewish philosopher who writes that if the assumed Moshiach is "broken or is captured then he is not the one and God did not send him." In other words, if a man became the presumed Moshiach but then his activities were reversed to the point that this man loses his Moshiach status, or he was killed even without losing his status, only then would it be certain that he is not Moshiach. But one who merely dies while maintaining his Moshiach status would still maintain this status even after his death. When Maimonides compares this failed messiah to "the pure and qualified Davidic kings who have died," it is only to show that although they have lost their status they have not lost their stature, which holds true even for this man who is still alive. No proof is brought for the reader to exclude this reading -- a reading much more suitable to the text -- which renders one who fails and one who is killed as failed messiahs, but does not pass any judgment on someone who dies naturally.

The second issue to bring up regarding this claim (that "if he did not succeed" refers to death), is the very suggestion that what follows -- "he is definitely not the Moshiach promised in the Torah... and G-d only appointed him in order to test the masses" -- is final. Let me begin by correcting the author's translation. What Maimonides actually writes is "it is known that he is not the one promised in the Torah." This correction is not crucial but I feel that it serves some purpose. Now, the author's evidence that this man cannot return from the dead to complete his mission is that in that were so he could not be declared not to be Moshiach. Even if the reader will accept the author's dubious contention that "not succeeding" refers to death, this can easily be understood to mean that upon death the presumed Moshiach loses his status and is no longer considered to be Moshiach. The entire event where he attained this status and then lost it was "to test the masses." However, this does not rule out the possibility of that person returning and successfully becoming the confirmed Moshiach in the future -- it only applies to his status in the present. The book is clearly absent of any proof against this interpretation, and one is free to conclude that death, even if that is what is meant here, does not preclude even a messianic contender from ultimately becoming Moshiach.

By this point the author has brought Maimonides as proof that the Rebbe cannot be Moshiach. However, the author personally asserts that the Rebbe is not excluded by this law as it does not address him. Even if the Rebbe was a messianic contender, who is then addressed by this law, the author fails to prove that the Rebbe is not already the confirmed Moshiach and is thus immune to the ruling regarding premature death. He has also failed to prove that the Rebbe did not attain Moshiach status or that, despite this, his death prevents him from succeeding as Moshiach in the future, or even that it keeps him from holding that Moshiach status right now.

Definite Future Moshiach

Here the author brings a peculiar proof that would preclude the Rebbe from being Moshiach. He cites an epistle sent by Maimonides to the Jews of Yemen in order to help them deal with the confusion surrounding a Moshiach pretender. 

Maimonides writes that Moshiach will not be known before his arising, i.e. while he is not Moshiach; when he does arise, it will be specifically in Israel. Maimonides wrote this epistle explicitly to disprove someone who claimed to be Moshiach. Thus, the author concludes, the Rebbe who was well known, and is not known to have ever been in Israel, cannot possibly be Moshiach.

In response, this epistle is not a legal ruling and by the author's own guidelines is not suitable evidence. I am sure that the author is aware of many great scholars who have been identified, or identified others, as potentially being Moshiach. In fact, the author himself will soon cite a talmudic passage, which, according to one interpretation of Rashi, identifies Rabbi and the biblical Daniel as respectively being Moshiach, depending on whether he will arise from among the living or from the dead. Although he will eroniously insist that this refers to the status of the potential Moshiach of their respective generations (in order to evade the implications of a dead Moshiach), the author allows that they had the capacity to become Moshiach in their times had we merited it -- despite the fact that they were sufficiently well known. It is certain that within the Jewish philosophy regarding Moshiach the ideas expressed in this epistle are not completely representative of the reality. While I have many different explanations that I can give to explain why Maimonides wrote this, I do not feel the need to go into detail as I am sure that the author himself does not believe that someone famous cannot be Moshiach.

Possible Future Moshiach

Being that the author himself has asserted that the Rebbe is not precluded by Maimonides as being Moshiach, he now sets out to prove that any person, even if he is not a messianic contender, cannot become Moshiach after experiencing death. I will deal with each of these proofs as they arise through the end of this chapter.

To this end, he brings a Midrash which describes the biblical Jacob prophesying to his children about their futures. When he comes to Dan, he prophetically refers to his descendant, the biblical Samson. The Midrash states that when Jacob saw Samson (in his prophecy) he thought that he was Moshiach, once he saw that he died he said "even he will die, 'for your salvation I hoped O Lord'" -- this final quote being the words of Jacob to Dan in Genesis. The author concludes that Samson did not even begin the mission of Moshiach and yet he is written off from that role upon his death. Surely, once someone dies he can no longer be Moshiach.

Once again the author is citing a Midrash as a sign of the universal principals common among all Jewish texts. But just as before, he fails to prove that the information contained here in fact has this consensus. The author of this particular passage may well have had an isolated opinion that once someone dies he will not be Moshiach, but this does not rule out other acceptable positions. Without providing evidence that this information has a universal nature, no conclusions can be drawn from it. But even this is not necessary, the Midrash may simply be saying that Jacob at first thought that Samson would be Moshiach in his own lifetime, and then when he saw he would die, he despaired. This Midrash does not support or even necessarily reflect the author's contention that death precludes a man from returning as Moshiach.

The next proof is brought from Nachmanides' personal record of a debate he held with a Christian apostate. He quotes himself as arguing that as long as Jesus had not fulfilled the prophesies associated with the redemption it is impossible for him to accept Jesus as Moshiach. The author asserts that the defining factor for Nachmanides is death. At which point, if the man in question has not become Moshiach in its fullest sense, he certainly will never become Moshiach in the future.

It is clear from the author's argument that he is taking for granted the assumption that the Rebbe did not already fully become Moshiach. As I have shown earlier, he has failed to prove this assumption. Putting that aside, let us take a more calculated look at the case of Nachmanides. He was faced with the assertion, backed by biblical evidence, that Jesus is certainly Moshiach, and was prompted to validate his rejection of that theory. To this he responded that Jesus had not efficiently achieved that status, and that the evidence being produced was not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that he is the savior predicted by the prophets. Nachmanides did not address the possibility that Jesus might be Moshiach in the future, all he said was that since Jesus did not reach the complete manifestation of Moshiach, he is not -- at this time -- Moshiach. No argument was put forward in this debate that Jesus, or any other dead man, could never ultimately be Moshiach.

The author brings another source, although here he concedes that this source might only be addressing someone who began the messianic mission. This is a philosophical work called Sefer ha-Bris. Here it says that the Jewish creed entails the affirmation that a Jewish man will begin to save the Jews and will finish that salvation in that generation. If however he dies, is broken, or captured then he is not the one and God did not send him. This is another example of the universal Jewish belief that one cannot become Moshiach after death.

In this case, the author of the work is not a universally accepted figure. He may have had personal beliefs that are not shared by all of the traditional Jewish creeds. But aside from this, the segment quoted by the author is not a clear proof that even the author of Sefer ha-Bris would not accept the possibility of someone returning to finish the job. All he says is that if the man dies then he is not Moshiach. This does not preclude the possibility of him being Moshiach on the future. Even the author should have noticed that his source equates death with being captured. Just as by the latter, all he is saying is that when the physical conditions do not appear to allow for this man to complete his mission then we can assume that he is not Moshiach, so too by the former he is only saying that since there is no probability of him finishing the job, his status is persona non messiah. But just as by the latter, if he makes it out of captivity he could still be Moshiach, so too by the former, if he manages to overcome his untimely death then he may yet succeed as Moshiach.

The author then brings another source, a history book called Shevet Yehuda. This book writes that that if a man comes, reunites world Jewry, builds the Temple, and all the nations recognize God, then that man is Moshiach. The book continues that any statement (apparently meaning any statement found in classical Jewish texts) which contradicts this idea, has an interpretation (i.e. to resolve the contradiction). The author now points out that there is a distinct order here which places the man's being Moshiach after the building of the Temple and the inauguration of the messianic era. Before that, he says, we cannot know. The point of this source is apparently to demonstrate that, besides for all of his proofs that the Rebbe is not or cannot be Moshiach, there is no reason to consider him Moshiach in the first place.

The source that the author is citing does not really deal with the possibility of identifying Moshiach before his complete fulfillment of his messianic duties, and certainly does not take a stance against it. In fact, the author himself has already cited Maimonides as identifying Moshiach before that point. This entire citation does not really serve any purpose in this book and can simply be disregarded by the reader.

Now the author brings one last proof that a dead man, any dead man, cannot be Moshiach. This is taken from a lecture of the Rebbe's where the Rebbe writes that since Moshiach has to perform certain tasks before the redemption, and since the earliest point of the resurrection (that of the righteous) is immediately at the time of the redemption, then certainly king David, who is dead, cannot be Moshiach. What the Rebbe is saying clearly applies to any dead person, surely no dead man can be Moshiach.

First let me start by introducing that passage in the context of the lecture. The Rebbe has just cited a talmudic passage. The Talmud writes "R. Judah stated in the name of Rab: God is destined to appoint for the Jews another David (i.e. as king)... R. Papa inquired of Abaye: But is it not written (in the scripture) 'and David my servant will be a leader for them forever'? To this he responded: [They will be] like a Caesar (Moshiach) and a vice-Caesar (David)." On the question of R. Papa, the Rebbe asks that it should be obvious that the "David" in this verse refers to Moshiach just as "another David" did in the statement that R. Papa is questioning. On this, the Rebbe explains in a footnote that it would seem that David could not be Moshiach, for this verse to be referring to him, the reason being that he is dead. There are certain tasks he would have to perform in order to be Moshiach while the resurrection comes only later.

One issue is the author's very conclusion that the Rebbe is maintaining that a dead man cannot be being Moshiach -- there is already an alternate interpretation to this lecture which suggests otherwise. Rabbi Yoel Kahn, a great scholar, and a man who has personal experience drafting the Rebbe's lectures and Chasidic discourses for the Rebbe's editing, has explained this statement to be referring exclusively to the verse. What Rabbi Kahn explained is that after the Rebbe identified this verse with Moshiach in the main text (saying that it obviously refers to Moshiach), he adds in the footnote that once this verse is referring to Moshiach -- a prophesy about Moshiach -- it cannot be referring to David. This is because a prophesy cannot be contingent on a miracle, or in this case, David resurrecting to perform the required tasks of Moshiach. However, explains Rabbi Kahn, this does not preclude David, should a resurrection occur, from actually being Moshiach. With this explanation Rabbi Kahn also explains the Rebbe's peculiar wording. The Rebbe writes "one must say that David himself cannot be Moshiach who will be 'a leader for them forever.'" It is now understood why the Rebbe adds the words "who will be 'a leader for them forever,'" it is because the whole point was to show that once the verse is referring to Moshiach it cannot be referring to David. The Rebbe is not saying anything about the actual eligibility of a dead man to be Moshiach, only that a prophesy could not be made originally with that contingency.

Another issue to take point with, even if the author could validate his interpretation, is the author's reliance on this lecture to begin with. The Rebbe is making a particular argument for the point of this lecture, but there is no indication that this is his standard world view. In fact, the footnote begins with the suggestive tone "Apparently one must say...," clearly indicating that this is not a sure conclusion but a hypothesis that the Rebbe is choosing to accept here. Finally, even if the Rebbe held this to be a foregone conclusion, no reason is provided that the reader should be forced to accept this isolated view.

The author does not prove that the Rebbe is saying in the course of this lecture that a dead man cannot be Moshiach. Neither does he prove that the Rebbe was normally under this persuasion, or that his opinion would be exclusive.

Closing Remarks

In this chapter the author bases upon Maimonides his assertion that once a man begins the tasks of Moshiach, and dies without completing them, he can never be Moshiach. Based upon that same source he asserts that the Rebbe did not begin the tasks of Moshiach, and certainly did not attain Moshiach status or complete the tasks to become confirmed Moshiach. I have shown that the author actually proves none of these claims. 

After this, the author cites a collection of sources -- from the Midrash to a lecture of the Rebbe's -- as proof that any man who has died cannot be Moshiach. These sources have been shown to be insufficient evidence, and the author's conclusions unfounded.

In his closing remarks, the author decides to bring up another issue -- what he calls "the belief that the Rebbe is G-d." The author asserts that referring to the Rebbe as "our Creator" is pure idolatry. The author claims that, though they are few, there are those who take such statements literally. He adds that if one bows to the Rebbe in prayer he has committed a capital transgression.

While it is true that someone bowing to the Rebbe thinking that the Rebbe is God is in grave violation of Jewish law, this is not quite the same as someone bowing to God thinking that God is the Rebbe. Moreover, the very insinuation that someone who does not reject the universal Jewish philosophical principles regarding God could literally equate the Rebbe with God is ludicrous. Finally, the author provides no basis for his claim that reference to the Rebbe as God is idolatry. In fact, there are many similar references, equating man and God, throughout the universally accepted Jewish literature. This final section should be disregarded by the reader as it is merely a distorted illusion created by the author which is neither representative of Judaism nor of any sector.