Rambam and “Moshiach from the dead”

Without going into the discussion of the topic myself and giving my own thoughts on it, I just wanted to post these links, which in my opinion have the best, the clearest and the most detailed argument regarding the issue online (at least from Lubavitch perspective). In them, the author discusses what the famous statement in Rambam means and how it can be and should be (according to the way one has to learn Rambam¹) interpreted.

The first posts make a general overview, but it’s the second post (“Rambam, finally”) where things start going. Also, the main thrust of the argument is in “Rambam III, My Interpretation”.

The author discussed a very simple question: Does Rambam’s statement that “And if he did not succeed to this extent, or he was killed, it is known that he is not the one about whom the Torah promised...” mean that the Rebbe cannot be Moshiach? Again, I think this is to date the best discussion of the question available online.

Please don’t make any assumptions about the contents of the posts before you read them. So, the posts:

Addressing the Sources

The Rambam (finally)
The Rambam (Part II)
The Rambam III (My Interpretation) — If you read nothing else, read this.
The Rambam Part IV (Answer to the Implication Question)

Now, the above links discuss only whether or not Rambam’s statement contradicts the idea that somebody who has passed away can be Moshiach. They do not discuss why it makes sense that specifically a Lubavitcher Rebbe should be Moshiach (I say “a” for a reason — i.e., why it makes sense that specifically the Rebbe of Chabad of a given generation should be Moshiach, not why the specific person who happened to be our Rebbe should be Moshiach; I believe there is a difference between the two assertions).

I would like to address this issue myself at some point. But my thoughts are for the most part a result of these two sources:

1) this audio shiur explaining what Geulah is from Chabad perspective;

2) this well-known ma’amor (English translation can be found in a pdf file here) from the Rebbe that talks about chiddush and uniqueness of Chabad Chassidus in Judaism, its role as the “fifth level” and the essence of Judaism, and its connection to Moshiach. I strongly recommend for anyone interested in understanding “what Chabad is” and “how Lubavitch views itself” to learn at least the English translation. The ma’amor also explains why the notion that Chassidus and Kabbala are the same thing is mistaken and that Chassidus is a whole new dimension of Torah.

It is my honest opinion that without having gone through the above four-five posts and the two links after them, one does not have a full and clear picture of the topic of Moshiach in the context of Chabad Chassidus.

____________________
¹ I don’t mean “has to learn Rambam” in order to agree with the assertion of the poster, in a way of “drawing a target around the arrow”. I mean, the way one has to learn Rambam in general. The author says a very simple thing which is applicable not only to Rambam but to any part of Jewish mesoira: no statement in Rambam can be understood without looking at its context and without understanding how Rambam’s rulings “work”.


E.g., when Rambam says that something is not the case or cannot be or should not be done, especially when he is talking about something very specific, he is not just saying it “in general”, but he is specifically refuting an existing shitta in Judaism or a practice referred to in Jewish tradition. To understand the scope of what Rambam is saying, one needs to identify the shitta or the practice he is referring to first. For example, when Rambam says that words of Torah cannot be said as a way to bring cure, does he mean that we are not allowed to say Tehillim for refuah she’leima? In order to answer the question, one needs to identify in Gemara (Sanhedrin 101a) what existing practice of using words of Torah for healing was Rambam referring to and then see if that applies to saying Tehillim for r"sh as commonly practiced.