In chapter five the author brings a collection of sources which seem to indicate that Moshiach can be from the dead. He then proceeds to contextualize these sources in order to demonstrate that they are in fact not evidence that this is an acceptable position. The author cautions the reader to distinguish between the universally accepted sources, which in his opinion do not display this idea, and the later, isolated commentators, who do on occasion interpret these texts in a way that is unacceptable to the author. The universal texts, claims the author, do not allow for the possibility of a resurrected Moshiach, and the later commentators alone are not sufficient to allow for the reader to accept such a position.

First, I contend with the author's summation that the later commentators do not reflect acceptable Jewish philosophy. Here the author is consenting that there are some scholars who allow for a dead man to return as Moshiach, but he is arguing that these scholars have made grave errors and embraced the unacceptable. The truth is that these scholars are not unknown to world Jewry, and yet they have not elicited any type of censure -- until now. The reader should be aware that the author is trying to disprove an idea that is at the very least acceptable. In the end however, the author fails even to make the case that the universal sources themselves do not uphold the idea of a resurrected Moshiach.

What Is His Name

The first source is a talmudic passage from a non-legal section of the Talmud. While the non-legal sections of the Talmud are not sources for Jewish law, many important legal oriented facts can be extracted from them. The author seems to believe that if such a passage would contain a reference to a dead man being Moshiach one could at least derive that this is a real possibility. The passage begins with a number of assertions as to the name of Moshiach, with each assertion reflecting the name of a certain Rabbi and backed by a corresponding biblical verse. This is followed by a related passage where one Rabbi asserts that if Moshiach will be from the living it will be himself, and he brings a scripture to support this. Then the passage states: "Rab said: If [Moshiach] is from the living -- for example Rabbi; if he is from the deceased -- for example [the biblical] Daniel." I have deliberately translated this passage with the ambiguity of the original. 

The author proceeds to bring many commentaries that interpret the first section, about the name of Moshiach, not to be identifying Moshiach personally, but naming certain characteristics of Moshiach which correspond to the name of a certain Rabbi whom they wish to extol. The author would like to apply the treatment of the first passage to the treatment of the second passage, i.e. that no individual is being identified, just certain characteristics associated with that certain individual.

These commentaries are irrelevant, since they do not directly address the passage at hand one cannot draw any conclusions one way or another.

The author then brings Rashi who actually gives this explanation on the second passage, saying that Rab is giving examples of men who manifest the persona of Moshiach but is not explicitly identifying him. However, the author notes, Rashi first gives an alternate interpretation which explains that the words "for example" are not precise, and it is actually Moshiach who is being identified. The author explains that even according to this explanation one cannot conclude that there is any contention that Daniel would actually be Moshiach, rather, Rab is identifying the men with the potential to become Moshiach in their respective periods. This is also indicated in Rashi -- "If he was from those who have already died then he was Daniel" -- where he refers to him being Moshiach in the past tense. Thus, even this explanation does not suggest that a man could actually become Moshiach after his death.

The fact that Rashi refers to Daniel in the past tense is not a proof that he is not saying that he is Moshiach. Perhaps the past tense is used because at the time that this passage was related Daniel was a figure of the past. Additionally, the author is apparently unaware that there is another widely accepted version of this text, and in that version Rashi's wording is in the present tense, "If he is... then he is Daniel." Even the author would have to agree that as a universally accepted text, this allows for a dead Moshiach. Finally, the author is at a great loss to explain why the Talmud would cite Daniel as the "Moshiach of the dead" -- if he was simply the potential Moshiach of his own generation. I would think that this evidence would be enough to direct the author, even with his past tense version of Rashi, to conclude that this passage is speaking about the potential Moshiach from amongst all dead men -- a Moshiach who is yet to come. The author is unfounded in this rejection of what is clearly testament to the concept of a resurrected Moshiach.

David and Moshe

The author cites a non-legal passage from the Palestinian Talmud, and a corresponding passage from the Midrash, stating that if Moshiach will be from the living his name will be David and if he will be from the dead his name will be David. The author does not bring the on-site commentaries explaining this cryptic message. The author also mentions, but does not quote, the Zohar's reference to Moses as Moshiach. He adds that commentaries do not dispute that the Zohar is saying that Moses is an actual candidate for Moshiach.

In order to put this information in context, the author mentions that Maimonides is emphatic in his insistence that Moshiach will be a descendant from Solomon. This was because he felt that Solomon was singled out in a prophesy, and that it is a fundamental principle to affirm the prophesies from God. Although Maimonides does not include this in his legal composition, the author assures the reader that some of the sources he cites from Maimonides were written after his legal composition and they certainly reflect his convictions. One does not have to be told that neither David nor Moses are descendants of Solomon. The author adds that the Rebbe's lecture has already excluded David from being Moshiach, and refers to another lecture (which he does not quote) where it is stated that Moses cannot be Moshiach either. The conclusion being that whatever these passages mean, there is certainly no contention that David or Moses would actually be Moshiach, and therefore, one cannot derive from here that a dead man can be Moshiach.

Regarding the Rebbe's lectures, the Talmud and Midrash are certainly not limited by the interpretation of the Rebbe. While the Rebbe may have certain views on the nature of the universe, there may be other well accepted positions. Moreover, a hypothesis suggested by the Rebbe in the course of a lecture is not any indication that this is his die hard view and one cannot draw any hard conclusions from it.

Regarding the prophesy of Moshiach being from Solomon's progeny, it is well known that Maimonides continued to publish revised versions of his legal composition until his death, and one cannot conclude that a non-legal source has an imposing authority over that work. Also, one must realize that Maimonides drew his conclusions from a collection of dissenting opinions, and this passage may be reflecting a different interpretation of the prophesy than the one accepted by Maimonides; it is not so simple to limit the interpretation of the Talmud based upon a medieval scholar's chosen position. Lastly, even if the passage is not an assertion that David (or in the case of the Zohar, Moses) will actually be Moshiach, there is still good reason to say that it does allow for the premise of a resurrected Moshiach. The author is wrong to conclude that one cannot derive from these examples that there is room for a dead man to become Moshiach.

The Soul Of Moshiach

In order to resolve the inconsistency (between Maimonides and the passages), the author cites a number of sources which attribute the souls of David and Moses to Moshiach. According to these explanations, the author explains the above passages to be saying only that the soul of either Moses or David will be incarnated in the person of Moshiach, but there is no suggestion that the original persons of David or Moses will be Moshiach.

This is a fine interpretation if the author wishes to accept it, but it is in no way proof that these texts do not support or at, least allow for, the idea of a resurrected Moshiach as I have just explained above.

Rashi and Abarbanel

The author once again mentions the Rashi regarding Daniel being the Moshiach from the deceased. He reiterates that Rashi has been misquoted and that he does not allow an interpretation that Daniel might actually be Moshiach. Since I have already responded to this and shown that the author is incorrect in his conclusion, I will proceed to the following issue.

The next is a widely studied fifteenth century author and exegete named Isaac Abarbanel. He makes an attempt to explain an obscure Midrash cited by Christians in favor of the idea that Jesus is Moshiach. It states that Moshiach was born at the time of the Temple's destruction and was taken away by demons until his return as Moshiach. This was apparently viewed as a close enough match to Jesus' situation to warrant discussion. Abarbanel gives several explanations, one of them, which he is not completely satisfied with, is that the Midrash means that Moshiach died and will return when the time is right. He adds that one should not be concerned with the idea of a resurrected Moshiach and cites the passage regarding Daniel being Moshiach. The author makes use of the fact that Abarbanel did not consider this explanation sufficient, and states that nothing can be derived from here. But, as though he is admitting that Abarbanel's explanation is good for something, he proceeds to attack Abarbanel's personal credibility in areas of Jewish philosophy (or, what he prefers I call "theology"). He concludes that in such matters he does not represent authentic tradition, and that one must defer to Maimonides or Nachmanides in cases of dissension.

The author basically admits that the explanation given by Abarbanel, although not his preferred explanation, is indicative of his comfort with the idea of a resurrected Moshiach, as well as his learning the passage about Daniel literally. He fails to prove that Abarbanel is any less reliable than Maimonides or Nachmanides, or even that there is dissension between them. All the author has done was to cite another example of tolerability towards the concept of a resurrected Moshiach.

Sedei Hemed

The author now cites an encyclopedic work of laws and decisions by a nineteenth century rabbi, Hezekiah Medini. In his collection, titled Sedei Hemed, he cites a contemporary scholar who gives a peculiar interpretation of the Daniel passage. He makes a distinction between when the Jews merit Moshiach greatly, when they merit him a little, and when the do not merit him at all. He uses this explanation to explain and harmonize a collection of different passages. In the case where the Jews merit Moshiach greatly, he concludes that Moshiach will be resurrected and come down from the sky. This explanation, he feels, is consistent with the talmudic passages regarding Moshiach coming from the deceased. The author points out however, this is an isolated view with absolutely no precedent. Even according to his conclusion, adds the author, this can only occur when the Jews merit it greatly; the Rebbe can only return as Moshiach if all Jews repent and obey Jewish law.

As has been demonstrated, this idea of a resurrected Moshiach is not isolated at all. We have seen the Daniel passage, and the ratification of its meaning by Rashi and Abarbanel. We have seen passages from the Talmud and Midrash which allow for David to be the Moshiach from the deceased. And we have been told that the Zohar allows for Moses to be Moshiach and that the commentaries do not dispute its literal meaning. Furthermore, Sedei Hemed is a highly respected composition, and is used as a source in legal matters. By merely citing this scholar and his interpretation, the author of the composition has given them complete legitimacy. The author makes a baseless assumption that meriting the redemption greatly can only be achieved through the complete compliance of world Jewry to Jewish law, this is not information that he has gleaned from this scholar. There are well known discussions regarding this matter including explanations that this merit can be achieved by a minority. Even without this, as the author himself points out, this is still an isolated view, it is not the exclusive position on a resurrected Moshiach -- it cannot be used to place limitations on the fashion that the Rebbe might resurrect as Moshiach. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that this was anything more than a scholarly hypothesis put forth to harmonize the various sources, it does not mean that he was necessarily adamant that this scenario of a resurrected Moshiach -- a perfectly acceptable concept -- was the only one that could ultimately be manifested. 

What we do see in this chapter is a series of traditional sources all recognizing the idea of a dead man coming back to life to be Moshiach.

The author now mentions a collection of sources which he says are misquoted as containing the idea of a resurrected Moshiach. In the course of this, the author quotes Yehudah Chayoun -- a rabbi living in Benei Brak, Isreal -- who the author also feels has been misquoted. The author cites a more accurate account of Chayoun's statement and then discusses it. Rabbi Chayoun writes that Rashi's interpretation of the Daniel passage seems inconsistent with Maimonides. To resolve this, he explains that Rashi only meant that the Talmud was identifying the potential Moshiach in the respective generations, not that Rabbi or Daniel would actually be Moshiach. The author makes a point of Rabbi Chayoun's assumption that Rashi, if read too literally, would contradict Maimonides. He writes that this is referring to the epistle where Maimonides mentions that Moshiach will not be known before he is revealed as Moshiach, while Daniel and Rabbi were well known. He adds that there is another contradiction, Daniel is dead and Maimonides did not allow for this. Thus, Rashi meant only that they were identified as being Moshiach in their respective generations, but this is no basis for a resurrected Moshiach.

I would just like to comment here although nothing new has been put forward. The author makes the unjustified assumption that Rabbi Chayoun is referring to Maimonides' epistle (regarding Moshiach not being well known). Chayoun's conclusion is that the men were being identified as having been potentially Moshiach in their respective generations, and this certainly does not take into account the problem of these men having been well known. I have already explained that what it says in that epistle is not a reflection of any known position regarding Moshiach and should not be a topic for discussion here, and I also asserted that even the author does not think that this idea is reflective of the reality. Most significantly, the proposed explanation would do nothing to resolve the contradiction since a pontential Moshiach is just that -- someone who could potentially become Moshiach -- while both these individuals were prominent figures in their times. Rabbi Chayoun surely meant that he understood Maimonides to exclude any person upon death -- which may be his opinion but, as I have shown, no evidence has been brought to require that conclusion.  Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the explanation that is being cast upon Rashi does not even reflect the words of the passage and it is a challenge to maintain it. The reader is still free to read Rashi as it appears, like the Abarbanel and other sources cited, and as it can be intelligently understood, that if Moshiach will be from the dead, Daniel would actually be Moshiach.

In closing, we have seen that there is ample source in Judaism for a Moshiach who comes from the dead. The passages from the Midrash and the Talmud were quite a testament to this, as well as the sufficient supply of primary and later sources further confirming these obvious readings. The evidence proposed by the author to indicate otherwise has been shown to be baseless and illusory.