My point in commenting was *not* to engage in a theological debate, but to express my opinion that the post needlessly fans the flames of Machloket! Those who know me well know that I am rather laissez-faire in my approach to the opinions and lifestyles of others, whether Jewish or not. As a rule, instead of seeking out debate, I prefer to seek out the common denominators around which to unify people — especially within Am Yisrael.

Thus, I personally would be much happier if our people did not engage in any bitter debate, theological or otherwise. But if for some reason people insist on debating theology, I honestly feel that this talkback section of the Times of Israel is not the appropriate venue, and that I am not the appropriate debate-partner. There are people who are much more learned than me and much more familiar with the detailed material.

Still, I would like to point out the following, if I may:
[1] Please note that you yourself quoted the section of the Talmud showing that indeed Mashiach *can* be "of the dead" — and instead you are now arguing a totally separate point: the fine details of whether or not candidate "X" is or is not more worthy than Daniel or King David!
[2] I think that your phrase "it would have been" is an incorrect and very misleading translation of the original Aramaic "Kegon"! It is much more accurate to translate "Kegon Daniel Ish Chamudot" as "for *example*, Daniel …".

In closing, I would like to suggest once again that we as a people overcome our self-destructive urges to promote strife and infighting. For those who take special enjoyment in Chabad-bashing, I can only wish them success in one day overcoming their Yetzer HaRa. For the others, who simply want to hear straightforward answers to legitimate questions, I encourage them to simply ask their local Shaliach! Nobody in Chabad is hiding any "religious heresies"!

Kol Tuv + Besorot Tovot!

[http://daf-yomi.com/dafyomi_Page.aspx?id=3805&vt=1]

Thus, I personally would be much happier if our people did not engage in any bitter debate, theological or otherwise. But if for some reason people insist on debating theology, I honestly feel that this talkback section of the Times of Israel is not the appropriate venue, and that I am not the appropriate debate-partner. There are people who are much more learned than me and much more familiar with the detailed material.

Still, I would like to point out the following, if I may:
[1] Please note that you yourself quoted the section of the Talmud showing that indeed Mashiach *can* be "of the dead" — and instead you are now arguing a totally separate point: the fine details of whether or not candidate "X" is or is not more worthy than Daniel or King David!
[2] I think that your phrase "it would have been" is an incorrect and very misleading translation of the original Aramaic "Kegon"! It is much more accurate to translate "Kegon Daniel Ish Chamudot" as "for *example*, Daniel …".

In closing, I would like to suggest once again that we as a people overcome our self-destructive urges to promote strife and infighting. For those who take special enjoyment in Chabad-bashing, I can only wish them success in one day overcoming their Yetzer HaRa. For the others, who simply want to hear straightforward answers to legitimate questions, I encourage them to simply ask their local Shaliach! Nobody in Chabad is hiding any "religious heresies"!

Kol Tuv + Besorot Tovot!

Not true. How can you say that some Rabbi from the recent past is more worthy to be the Moshiach than Daniel or King David himself?

Talmud Sanhedrin 98b:
"Rab said: if he is of the living, it would be our holy Master;33 if of the dead, it would have been Daniel the most desirable man.34 Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up another David for us,35 as it is written, But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them:36 not 'I raised up', but 'I will raise up' is said. R. Papa said to Abaye: But it is written, And my servant David shall be their prince [nasi] for ever?37 — E.g., an emperor and a viceroy.38"

To callously dismiss as "heresy" the possibility that *any* Jew might be "resurrected to be proclaimed the Messiah" — when in fact this is explicitly suggested in the Talmud — just shows how little research went into preparing this shallow post, and raises serious doubts about the peaceful intentions of the writer. The fact that Christian missionaries are abusing this little-know fact does not make it any less valid from a "Glatt-Kosher" Halachic perspective. And drawing people's attention to this issue in a manner where they will not have a chance to see an honest and comprehensive examination of the complexities is extremely irresponsible!

There is a *tremendous* difference between the views of the "mainstream Meshichistim" and the crazy few that exists at the "fringe of the fringe." Likewise, there is no need for Mr. Orenstein to call for any "truth in advertising," as I am absolutely certain that any Rabbi worthy of his appointment as an official Shaliach of Chabad-Lubavitch — and regardless of the "camp" to which he belongs — will do his best to honestly present the complexities of this issue when asked one-on-one or in a small forum, where the question can be treated with the depth that it justly deserves!