The writers do not do justice on this point. The position though is not what the mashiachists misconstrued. the Rebbe never ever insinuated that is the definite mashiach even at the propsect of a 3 tammuz scenario. He carefully coined and phrased the term “mashiach shebador”, ie. if the mqshiach were to come in his *lifetime8 he might have been the most likely candidate or ie. he might have the spark of that yechidah so that if G-d chooses to reveal ultimately the redemption in his lifetime he might have been the anointed one. But this term is not relevant to depict him as the likely candidate after 3 tammuz as he never intended to say that his father in law is the most likely candidate after 10 shvat 5710. In fact. he wrote in LS 35 vayigash that halachikally as ruled by Maimonedes mashiach will not be coming from those who departed from the living in this physical world in a physical body.

Consider my own words in Open Secret, p. 29:

I am not oblivious to the fact that thousands of individuals affiliated with Lubavitch have no knowledge of or interest in the intricacies of the esoteric doctrines strewn about their Rebbe’s sermons, discourses, and epistles. The fact remains, nonetheless, that these doctrines were the bone and breath of his being. There is no conceptual ground to distinguish in Schneerson’s mind between social reality and its imaginal counterpart. On the contrary, given the impact on his way of thinking of the traditional kabbalistic perception of the physical world as a mirror image of the sefirotic pleroma, which, in turn, is a mirror image of the Infinite
that is beyond image, why should one assume that for him mundane matters could be understood without their symbolic double? Why should one entertain the possibility that he would have affirmed a notion of facticity stripped of the sheath of metaphoricization? Under the influence of the modern discipline of anthropology, there has been a tendency on the part of some scholars of religion to distinguish
elite and popular forms of pious devotion. It is surely reasonable to think of the social phenomenon of Ḥabad in these terms, but, from the standpoint of the seventh Rebbe, this is a pointless distinction. What one might consider popular religion—exemplified by the activities of members of his sect—is infused in his mind, his rhetoric, and his actions with mystical significance.”

There are two things I would like to point out–I will do so in two posts.

(1) Kirsch cites me, “Simply put, the image of the personal Messiah may have been utilized theoretically to liberate one from the belief in the personal Messiah.” In fact, the precise language in Open Secret, p. 273, is: “Simply put, the image of the personal Messiah may have been utilized rhetorically to liberate one from the belief in the personal Messiah.”

The difference between “theoretically” and “rhetorically” is not insignificant. This typo obscures a critical part of my argument, namely, the use of the rhetoric of a personal messiah was meant to inculcate the true messianic teaching, which is an illumination of the heart that exceeds the personal sense of self. The root of the messiah corresponds to the aspect of yehidah in virtue of which all distinctions are overcome. It is in this sense that the messiah embodies the ideal of bittul. This is even applied to the divine, that is, the messianic moment is one in which anthropomorphic metaphors of theism are transcended in the recognition that divinity is fully disclosed in nature and thus the gap between the infinite and finite is bridged.

On the Rebbe’s yahrzeit this year, I opened the Reshimos randomly and came upon this passage written in Riga on 29 Iyyar 5692: “When the enlightenment of the brain [haskalat ha-moah] illumines the inwardness of the heart [me'ir bi-penimiyyut ba-lev], this is the coming of the individual messiah [zehu bi'at moshiach ha-perati].”

The passage echoes the standard hasidic distinction between individual redemption (ge’ulah peratit) and collective redemption (ge’ulah kelalit) but the two cannot be completely separated. The latter reflects the application of the former on a cosmic scale.

Other than that, it resembles Heilman with its facts based on opinion:
For example:
1.
“was dead-set against any move to give up land for peace (except for the Sinai desert, which had no covenantal significance).”

The Rebbe – quoting Shulchan Aruch Harav, 329:6 – was against giving away any land (including the Sinai) that would compromise Israel’s defense capabilities (independently of its covenantal significance).

2.
“Schneerson went so far as to advise Moshe Dayan to invade Syria and take Damascus, “based on mystical and Kabbalistic texts” that supported this step.

It had nothing to do with mystical and kabbalistic texts, but rather purely military considerations supported by unbiased military experts internationally.

Heilman and Friedman’s description of the Rebbe reminds me of the “expert” who was invited to give a review of a book and proceeds to speak about the characteristics of the paper it was printed on… Scientific? Yes, but totally beside the point.

You write:

“The absolute centrality of Menachem Mendel Schneerson to Chabad helps to explain the hostility that Heilman and Friedman’s book has aroused among Lubavitchers.”

You are missing an important detail.

People who are upset by the book are not upset because of covered up truths that have been exposed… People are upset by having fiction and suppositions slyly presented as fact as Rabbi Chaim Rapoport ably shows in his critique.

Of course Rambam did not mean a metaphorical army but a real army. But great as he was, the Rebbe could not actually gather an army and liberate all the Jews from their enemies all over the world in a grand military victory.

Gives a lot of context to Chaim Potok’s novels, _My Name is Asher Lev_ and _The Gift of Asher Lev_. Thanks!

-Theo

At the core of the Rebbe’s belief, was the centrality of the thousand year long hope for Moshiach. It was not an abstract concept, but a real yearning. That has been a pillar of Jewish teaching for eternity. Sadly some distorted his teachings.