Rabbis Ban Israel Bible Quiz Due To Messianic Jews – Can Chabad Messianists Compete?

So, here's the deal. One of the finalists in this year's Israel Ministry of Education-sponsored International Bible Quiz is a Messianic Jew from Pisgat Zeev.

Some Religious Zionist rabbis, including Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, have called on Jews to boycott the quiz because participation grants legitimacy to Messianic Judaism.

A secular civil rights organization backing the messianic student asks an interesting question…

…as the Jerusalem Post reports:

Calev Myers, founder and chief counsel of the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, an advocacy group that represents members of the Messianic community, said that the rabbis' call to boycott the quiz was a show of weakness.

"If the participation of a Messianic Jewish lady is enough to shake up those rabbis' world, it shows the weakness of that world," said Myers.

"Why should they have a problem with a young woman who knows how to quote from the Bible?

"It is about time that they stop having a monopoly over determining who is a Jew. The beauty of the Jewish world is the diversity. If you can still be considered a Jew even if you believe that the Lubavitch Rebbe [Menachem Mendel Schneerson] is the messiah, the same thing should hold true if you believe Jesus is."

How does Rabbi Aviner respond to the Dead-Rebbe-Messiah question?

Rabbi Dr. David Berger has new edition of his anti-Chabad-messianism book in print. The forward contains a story about Rabbi Aviner's reaction to Chabad messianism.

Rabbi Aviner opposes this dead-rebbe-messiah theology, to be sure, but he still accepts Chabad messianists as normative Jews, fully inside the fold, without question.

At first Rabbi Aviner did this in the way many rabbis do – by omitting information that would force them to be harsher on Chabad than they choose to be. Rabbi Berger called Rabbi Aviner on this and documented (through the Hebrew edition of his book) enough information that should have caused Rabbi Aviner to judge Chabad messianists the way he judges Messianic Jews.

What did Rabbi Aviner do?

According to Rabbi Berger, he punted again, twice:

In an essay following Rabbi Aviner’s receipt of the Hebrew edition of my book, which apparently persuaded him that, by the usual criteria, real avodah zarah [idol worship] exists within the [Chabad] movement, [Rabbi Aviner] went so far as to redefine avodah zarah so as to exempt Chabad hasidim from its strictures: people who observe peaceful relations among one another, as Lubavitch hasidim (allegedly) do, are by definition not worshippers of avodah zarah. It is hard to think of a more striking illustration of a principle that I enunciated in the Hebrew edition: ‘“The foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdom” [the opening phrase of the first section of Maimonides’ code] is that Chabad hasidim are good Jews. One may sacrifice everything, even the Jewish faith itself, on the altar of this principle.’ To my considerable relief, Rabbi Aviner has now apparently retreated from this position (which I would like to think was never more than rhetoric) and resorted to the more standard assertion that the worshippers of avodah zarah are an inconsequential minority.

It is worthwhile noting that Rabbi Aviner is a big supporter of West Bank settlement, as is Chabad, and both Rabbi Aviner and Chabad have worked hand-in-hand to oppose any territorial withdrawal by Israel.

It may be that Rabbi Aviner values Chabad's help with resisting territorial compromise more than he values keeping non-Jewish theological concepts out of Judaism.

Or it may be that, like many other Orthodox Jews, Rabbi Aviner is doing just what Rabbi Berger says he is – arguing from his conclusion. Chabad can never be outside the pale – therefore any law or fact that appears to cast them out must be reinterpreted or explained away.

Rabbis could have made this same choice 2000 years ago. If they had, many of the Jews worshiping in synagogues near you, perhaps even in your own synagogue, would be believers in Jesus.

To my knowledge, Judaism does no posses a tradition that these early rabbis erred in expelling Jewish believers in Jesus. In other words, it would seem that, when faced with similar circumstances, today's rabbis should follow the lead of their predecessors. But they do not.

I don't think this reflects on Chabad's kashrut. I think it is just another in a long line of examples that show that the rabbinic system is broken beyond repair.

And, truth be told, as long a Jew keeps the commandments (or violates them mistakenly), if he believes in Jesus as his messiah, as the "Son of God," as a near-wholly divine figure, he is doing nothing different from what much of Chabad does.

To say one is not kosher because rabbis ruled it unkosher 2000 years ago, and then to say the other is kosher because rabbis today have not ruled it unkosher is disingenuous and begs the question.

The framework was set 2000 years ago. From then through 1994, any Jew accepting the messianiship and/or near-divinity of a deceased "messiah" has been expelled from the Jewish community. This happened repeatedly, especially during the Shabatai Tsvi debacle.

Rabbis from outside Chabad should clearly state why Chabad is exempt from 2000 years of precedent. Not doing so does not in reality kasher Chabad. It may mean that Jews who eat Chabad meat or drink Chabad wine have done so accidentally, so to speak, and are absolved from punishment as a result. But it does not change either the nature of Chabad's theological error or the effect that error has on others – including you, including your children, and including your future grandchildren.

Comments

[yidandahalf]

Messiah as Avatar. Why can't all the loonies make things much easier all the way round. Unite the Yushki and Schneerson Avatars once and for all. Both cultish sects can then be together and have some peace. Of course the former Yushkis must dress Chabad Frum. After this is sorted out they can send emmisaries to Texas, convert some of the Little House on the Prairie women ( waiting and wailing for their children ) and press gang them into the instituion of concubinage. So what would this new religion be called?

[Garnel Ironheart]

The difference between the early Chrisians and the Chabadniks is PR. The former had none, the latter have lots. The original Chrisians were a small sect of observant Jews who mostly disappeared after Paul appropriated their central dogma and created a new religion with it. The equivalent nowadays would be for a new Paul to elevate the Rebbe to official "god" status and create a new religion where believing in him and drinking 8 oz of vodka with dinner every day gets you into Heaven.
I can understand Rav Aviner's reticence. First, you can't announce something like Chabad being beyond the pale unless every major rabbinic authority stands behind you. Otherwise what happens? Will Chabadniks be denied aliyos in Mizrachi shuls but continue to get them in Chareidi ones?
Secondly, you can't disenfranchise tens of thousands of Chabadniks who have spent the last few decades spreading themselves around the world and convincing people that they are the real Jews and that everyone else is wrong. The logistics would be incredible!
For those reasons Rav Aviner is right to try and avoid the subject. Rav Berger is a good man and has latched onto a good cause but the genie he's letting out the bottle might not be one we want loose.

[Jim the Catholic]

>Messiah as Avatar.

The doctrine of the Incarnation is not the same as the Hindu doctrine of Avatar. It's not even close. It like claiming Judaism & Zoroastrianism are the same because of superficial resemblance.

Disbelieve in it if you must but don't misrepresent the concept.

[FriedFalafel]

Get on this Shmarya:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209626992623&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[yidandahalf]

With all due respect, Jim. I do not see much difference. An avatar assumes human form when things go much awry on earth or it's help is needed. For example the Buddhist Goddess of Mercy Kuan Im comes to earth in October of every year. There is only one G-d, but we must allow others to call him by the name(s) they choose.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jim: I am sure you are correct, because you know your theology. However, both eastern and Christian forms of hypostatis are outside OUR theology, so the analogy is not off base from our POV.

Christians can be Christian, gei gezunte heit. But I am against crap like Jews for Jesus (not the original Ebionites, who were actually monothiests, and were drummed out of the church by the Council of Nicea) or a dead man is both the messiah and a physical form of God's presence in the world (Chabad).

Chabad is at its core anti-Zionist, but it will fight to keep Yesha to the last Israeli.

The reason why orthos don't put Chabad in cherem is because unlike Pauline Christianity, the Donmeh, or the Frankists they have not gone antinomian (yet). Although I would argue that hypernomianism (chumrot) are just as against the torah, as in ba'al toseph.

[Yochanan Lavie]

It's a shanda that Jews are so busy practicising Gemeradoxy that they have conceded knowledge of Tanach to Christians and "Hebrew-Christians."

[yidandahalf]

YL, YES!

[howie]

Two comments here:

1) It is correct to say that the doctrine of 'incarnation' and the Hindu doctrine of 'avatar' are not the same. An 'avatar' is one who is fully conscious of and in control of one's divine nature - and this divine nature defines everyone, not just the avatar. This is an extension of the generally Eastern idea that we are all divine and extensions of divine energy - and that it is not the case that G-d is 'out there' and we are 'over here'. This clearly differs from normative Judaism(although perhaps not from kabbalistic/Hasidic thought - "Alles is Gott") but is not, in my opinion, (and the opinion of at least some classical poskim) "Avodah Zarah". It is indeed quite different from "incarnation' of either the Christian or Chabad variety - in which G-d and "us" are radically and ontologically separate - and the "Messiah" is of the G-d substance here. This sounds to me like the classical definition of AZ.

2) The real reason for going easy on Chabad
is touched on in this post but not elaborated - Chabad's support for the right-wing, extremist settlers. This position is pretty much the raison d'etre of religious Zionism these days, and they take their support where they find it, without being too picky about the source. This elevation of militaristic land-grabbing to the highest principle of Judaism is the true crisis of Orthodox Judaism in our time and both explains the whitewashing of Chabad and will, if unchecked, lead to disaster for Israel.

It's a shanda that Jews are so busy practicising Gemeradoxy that they have conceded knowledge of Tanach to Christians and "Hebrew-Christians."

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | May 02, 2008 at 06:33 AM

It's a shanda that (some) Jews are so busypracticing christianity that they fail to understand that there is no knowladge of TaNaCh without the Talmud.

Much of TaNaCh is not self-explanitory. Learning TaNaCh without Talmud is like trying to play Monopoly without the board. And the rulebook.

[Jim the Catholic]

>An avatar assumes human form when things go much awry on earth or it's help is needed.

I reply: Hinduism teaches reality isn't real but an evil illusion created by Mia. An Avatar is a manifestation of a god among mortals. Christianity (& Judaism) teach the world is real & good.

The Incarnation is the doctrine God the Word unites his Divine Nature to a Human Nature (i.e. taken from Mary)without confusing the Natures or Mixing them & they are united in His Divine Person of the second Hypostasis in the Godhead. Jesus (according to Christian belief) has a real human body & soul. The two natures are distict in the Divine Person. Vishnu OTOH has no human nature at all. He only appears human. The heterodox teachings of the Gnostic Dosestics comes close to Hinduism but is Alien to orthodox Christianity.
Also Christian theology sees the Incarnation as a one time even for all Eternity. There will never be another Incarnation. an Avatar can happen a million times in Hindu belief.

>For example the Buddhist Goddess of Mercy Kuan Im comes to earth in October of every year. There is only one G-d, but we must allow others to call him by the name(s) they choose.

I reply: What I said before. It resembles Christianity but OTOH Zoroastrianism teaches there is one God, sodomy is a sin, & a women's monthly flow of blood makes her ritually unclean. That doesn't make Judaism the same as Zoroastrianism. Though they are similar.
My somewhat liberal religous studies Professor from Adelphi (professor Finney I think was his name) said "Silly Christians often say Jesus was an Avatar of God. It's not the same concept however only superfically similar."

[Jim the Catholic]

>However, both eastern and Christian forms of hypostatis are outside OUR theology, so the analogy is not off base from our POV.

I reply: Well I would deny that the Hindus teach the concept of hypostatis.

Cheers Yochanan!

[yidandahalf]

Good thread but to the above: this is akin to some papist bullshit. A mortal and his interpretations as intermediary.

[yidandahalf]

I meant that for the 08:01 post not Jim's.

[Jim the Catholic]

Papist is considered an insult among some Catholics(I forgive you of course yidandahalf and assume you meant no offense) it's like one of mine calling a Jew a Heb.

BTW I prefer Romanist.:-)
LOL!
Cheers guy!:-)

[Jim the Catholic]

No problems guy. Shalom!

Good thread but to the above: this is akin to some papist bullshit. A mortal and his interpretations as intermediary.

Posted by: yidandahalf | May 02, 2008 at 08:33 AM

I meant that for the 08:01 post not Jim's.

Posted by: yidandahalf | May 02, 2008 at 08:35 AM

Papist is considered an insult among some

A) A discussion of reason between adults should be possible without the use of coarse language.

2) If you object to the idea that one cannot understand TaNaCh without the relevent Talmud I assume then that you keep kashrus by simply avoiding non-kosher animals and not cooking a kid in its mothers milk.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I agree with my friend Yid & 1/2 about anonymous 8:01. I am not a fully blown Karaite, and I am interested in what the Gemara has to say. But I think it's more of an oral tradition than an "oral law" directly from God, and people should still try to make sense of things for themselves. What leads people to Christianity is a lack of knowledge of Hebrew and reliance on Christian translations, because all translation is interpretation.

For example, in Tehillim, it says "nashko bar" which the Christians translate as "kiss the Son " (!) lnshk can also mean "homage" and "bar" means son in Aramaic, not Hebrew. It really means pure, as in "bar levev." So the correct translation is "do homage in purity." That's the way it's written in Jewish translations.

BTW, the best anti-missionary, pro-Tanach book Chizuk Emunah, was written by a Karaite. They totally reject the Oral Tradition! It is so good that rabbinic Jews use w/o knowing it was written by a Karaite.

Also, pedagogically speaking, not every student is suited to the intricate logic of the Talmud. Kids are sometimes turned off from limudei kodesh, and even Yiddishkeit, by an over-emphasis on Gemara in day schools. (BTW, girls are just as good at Gemara as boys, in my experience). But everyone should know Tanach.

(Disclosure: I am neither a Karaite nor fully Orthodox, but traditional and sympathetic to both positions).

One cannot claim to believe in TaNaCh but not in the authority of ChaZaL. TaNaCh itself commands us to follow the teaching the words of ChaZaL.

The Torah says "asher yoruchah". It does not say "asher Yai'atzuchah".

[Yochanan Lavie]

Anonymous:

1. Give yourself a name, or a pseudonym. It shows a lack of courage to do neither.

2. Rabbis are self-serving and self-justifying and twist around interpretations to justify their power. The title "rabbi" does not appear in Tanach, but it does appear in the New Testament.

But I won't throw out the baby w/the bathwater, like the Karaites do. At their best, rabbis make Tanach liveable in our contemporary world. At their worst, they are just another special interest group. That is one reason I am traditional, but not Orthodox. Nothing you have said has convinced me to reconsider that.

I am not trying to convince you to be anything.

I am just trying to fihure out what you actually believe.

Do you believe the torah shebichtav is the word of G-d?

[Yochanan Lavie]

One should care more about the well-being of one's fellow man than what he actually believes.

I have been posting here for years, and I have spelled out what I believe ad naseum.

Yes, I do think Tanach is the word of God, but sometimes it's allegorical, and it was revealed by God not written word-for-word by him. I admit I am an apikorus. Deal with it.

Enjoy your apikorsos. I'll enjoy my Shabbos. Hope you do too.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I do keep shabbat, and even go to an Ortho shul. I am believer, but I don't always believe the party line. Gutten Shabbos.

Why do you keep shabbos? If you don't believe in ChaZaL's understanding of Torah why not be mechallel shabbos in every way except 'lo sevaaru aish bchol moshvosaichem and don't go to work because the Torah just 'suggests' (according to you) that you shouldn't work on shabbos. It doesn't say anything about keeping thirty nine melachos in thousands of ways.

May I suggest a new sub-title for this blog? I suggest it be renamed Failed Messiah and Fahrbissiner Yidden.

[yidandahalf]

Ver iz farhbissiner?
Not us. You are merely unaccustomed to intelligent frank discourse. I do incorporate coarse language in my posts and I do not apologize; you are the first to raise an objection. However, I will keep your point in mind as I am not always pleased with my vernacular either and realize I could do better. I keep kosher by being a vegan - a card carrying militant one.
Now that I have completed my 'self critism', may I suggest you establish an id and stick to it? Otherwise you present yourself as a shadowy coward spewing propaganda.
Gut shabbos to everyone.

[Dave]

Yochanan, kol hakavod. I agree with your points.
Actually almost the entire history of the Rabbinic/ Karaite split was a power-trip thing ie. my rabbinical ancestors didn't want the Karaites to have any power, so "they ran them out of town".
I am a rabbinic Jew, traditional but not Orthodox. I do agree with a lot of the Karaite ideas. One of their good points is that if people just accept the Oral Torah as being divine, it's basically a cop-out ie. one is therefore not obliged to re-interpret the Torah in each generation, and so the system is not renewed.
By the way, the Karaites do observe shabbat, but they just don't get into the 39 Melachot the way the Orthodox do. However, they do believe in Torah Mi'Sinai. They do practice kosher slaughter of clean animals. It's true that they do allow eat a turkey sandwich and drinking a glass of milk, but even Rabbi Jose the Galilean said that sort of thing was o.k.
However, the real irony is that our rabbinic ancestors ran them out of town, and they were the only viable traditional dissident movement at the time (the 10th century), and so no dissident movement until the rise of Conservative and Reform.
These latter two groups are not traditional, although they are dissident.
We need a traditional dissident movement in Judaism, to keep Orthodoxy on its toes, without leading to assimilation. Karaite Judaism is ideally placed to fulfill this role. They are very traditional and yet require re-interpretation of Tanach in each generation.
Yochanan is quite right, "Faith Strengthened" written by Isaac of Troki, Lithuania, in the mid-1570's is still the best anti-missionary book going.
It's posted on www.faithstrengthened.org

[maya]

Interesting thread..2 comments:
1) On the subject of the antinomianism of Chabad...it's very clear to me. Antinomianism in Judaism is determined by acknowledgement of Halachah as the ultimate authority on praxis. By "Halachah" one could mean many things, but for Orthodox Judaism it means, ultimately, a Talmud-based code. As Yosef Albo famously pointed out in Sefer HaIkkarim, heresy does not exist in the realm of thinking about G-d, as long as one believes that G-d is One, that the Torah is from Sinai, and that there exists reward and punishment (and therefore free choice). So until Chabad cross the line on halachah to the point where they cannot justify a praxis (as opposed to a thought) by a Talmudic source (even a daat yachid) then they are going to remain in Orthodox Judaism....in some ways, that's even more interesting.
2)Karaite thought may not be as conducive to a dynamic Rabbinic Judaism as some would like it to be...Karaism's demand for constantly engaged interpetation of Mikra, may have actually been responsible for much of early middle-ages Rabbinic Judaism's flight into conservatism which led to the formalisation of the incontrivertible authority of earlier generations

[maya]

...just an afterthought to what I said earlier on Chabad...
this is why the Rabbis of the first and second centuries were keen for the early Church to discard halachah...believing in Jesus of Nazareth as the messiah promised by the prophets was not to enough to be considered antinomian if you were still keeping shabbos and putting on tfilin...but once you start eating cholent on Sunday...well, then it's game over.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Anonymous A-hole wonders why I keep Shabbat. I guess he would rather I didn't. That would make me more consistent, by his twisted logic. There is his way, or the highway. People like me usually flee Judaism altogether, to his self-righteous satisfaction. I am not going anywhere. He should do what I do, and look in the mirror, if he wants a soul to save.

Furthermore, being in a community means making compromises. I live in an area where there is no Karaite community to join, so I abide by the rabbinic rules, even if I intellectually disagree with them at times. (I would also disagree with some Karaite interpretations, too). Being apart from any community, besides being lonely, leads to navel gazing (solipsism).

Maya has some interesting comments. But I think once you say a human being is somehow God, you have crossed the line, no matter how normative your praxis is. The early Christians (Ebionites) were probably like Breslovers- Jews with a dead rebbe. The Pauline Christians, in addition to nullifying halacha, believed in man-godism. I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that once your theology goes south, your praxis will eventually follow.

[Shmarya]

this is why the Rabbis of the first and second centuries were keen for the early Church to discard halachah...believing in Jesus of Nazareth as the messiah promised by the prophets was not to enough to be considered antinomian if you were still keeping shabbos and putting on tfilin...but once you start eating cholent on Sunday...well, then it's game over.

Maya, this is absolutely false.

The rabbis created a separation by instituting the anti-minim blessing which was read aloud in every weekday prayer service.

You confuse Paul's outreach to non-Jews, and the rabbis' attitudes toward that, with the rabbis' attitudes to the early JEWISH church.

Maya has some interesting comments. But I think once you say a human being is somehow God, you have crossed the line, no matter how normative your praxis is. The early Christians (Ebionites) were probably like Breslovers- Jews with a dead rebbe. The Pauline Christians, in addition to nullifying halacha, believed in man-godism.

Absolutely correct, YL.

[chief doofis]

Belief in a dead Messiah, while not conforming to most traditional interpretations of the Messianic advent, does not render someone a heretic. It violates none of the Maimonidean principles (although Maimonides considers the death of a Messianic candidate as sufficient proof that he was not the Messiah)

Obviously, the Messiah hasn't come. This world remains too messed up!! A Messiah would have straightened it out by now.

That part of Chabad (or any other group) that refers to the divinity of the Rebbe, is heretical, and is no different than Christianity (or any other pagan form of worship)

[maya]

Shmarya, I think the words "absolutely false" are a little strong. (I don't think our points are inconsistent. I not confused at all about the issues regarding Paul's activity, and, of course, there are divergent views on when the introduction of the anti-minim brachah actually occured.) I'm sure there are nicer phrases your mother taught you to use when arguing...

[Shmarya]

Well, we know who supposedly wrote the minim bracha and when he lived, and we have a rabbinic tradition about why it was written, and none of this conforms to what you wrote.

[Ben Yisroel]

1. Karaites

With regard to the exegesis of Torah, there has always been a tradition (even pre-mishnah/talmud) for the code of principles used.
When advancing the exegesis into deeper insights, the previous exegesis remains stagnent considering it's basis on the traditional exegesis principles.
Hence, traditional Judaism may indicate continued exegesis, but it must follow the mosaic tradition of exegesis, and accept all previous exegesis based on the same tradition.
While orthodox Judaism doesn't seem to be doing much 'continued' exegesis in regards to practical law, chassidic Judaism is a continued (mystic) exegesis of Torah, accepting all previous mosaic (principled) exegesis.

2. Messianic Jews

Even should messianic Jews not believe in such christian AZ as a mangod;
Messiah MUST ADHERE to traditional mosaic tradition!!!
The Jewish/rabbinic testimony & handling of the jesus situation, demonstrates jesus did not properly adhere to Torah (according to his mosaic contemporaries), and hence, it is forbidden to think he was/is messiah.
There are many other CLEAR disqualifications for jesus to possibly be messiah, the aforementioned merely demonstrates the very contradiction in being 'observant' and calling oneself a 'messianic' Jew!

3. Chabad messianism

Considering the perspective is based on the same mosaic tradition as the opposition, the difference of opinion is just another Torah machlokes (debate)!
Furthermore, the Jewish messiah debate goes as far as addressing whether one should/shouldn't claim that someone is messiah whatsoever, and like typical Jewish debates, they keep going...
All should agree, the Torah abiding messianic following of a Torah scholar is a refreshing preparation for the collective Jewish mind-set to usher in and accept Messiah.

Note: Maimonides states clearly about messiah: 'if he is KILLED it becomes known that he is not...'. It is surely no coincidence that the chosen terminology is 'if he is KILLED' not 'if he dies'!!!
This both, supports chabad messianism, and disproves the claim of 'messianic jews' (should they accept the ruling of Maimonides).

4. Tanach education

Torah outlines the system of Jewish study.
Jews should return to their traditional educational practices, facilitating a COMPLETE knowledge of 'Torah', prior to the study of Mishnah & Talmud, as outlined throughout Jewish tradition.
A comprehensive knowledge of Torah will result at the SAME AGE that students now begin studying Mishna & Talmud.
Such education should be carried out following the traditional method of practice: beginning at a young age, repeatedly reading together in hebrew large portions aloud in Torah tune, with emphasis put on repetition; to ensure its practical success.

And the world will fill with the 'knowledge' of G-d, like waters covers the sea.

Be well.

[Shmarya]

Note: Maimonides states clearly about messiah: 'if he is KILLED it becomes known that he is not...'. It is surely no coincidence that the chosen terminology is 'if he is KILLED' not 'if he dies'!!!

False.

What Maimonides says is as follows: If the Jewish king does not succeed in this [in building the Temple, ingathering the exiles, winning the wars of God, etc.] or is killed, he should be considered as one of the righteous kings of the house of David who died.

[Ben Yisroel]

There is NOTHING false about what was stated above!!!

Rambam likens the KILLED possible Moshiach, to ALL OTHER Davidic kings (who have died)!!!

The demonstrated point remains:
Rambam says 'IF HE IS KILLED' in reference to the possible Moshiach, regardless of comparing him to those 'that have died'!!!

PROPER quote & translation for reference:

ואם לא הצליח עד כה, או נהרג--בידוע שאינו זה שהבטיחה עליו תורה, והרי הוא ככל מלכי בית דוד השלמים הכשרים שמתו.

"And if he does not succeed to this (etc) degree, or if he is KILLED, it becomes known that he is not who is promised about in Torah, and behold he is like all the upright & legitimate kings of Davidic dynasty that have died."

[Shmarya]

Well, either you're illiterate (which seems possible from the way you write) or you don't understand dependent clauses.

The correct translation reads as follows:

"If he does not succeed up to this [point – i.e., building the Temple, ingathering the exiles, fights the wars of God, peace on earth, etc.], or if he is killed [i.e., if he doesn't do all the things the messiah is supposed to do before he passes away from illness or natural causes or before he is killed by man], it is certain he is not the one promised by the Torah and, behold, he is like all of the completely kosher kings of the house of David that died."

That is all one long Hebrew sentence, and each clause is a dependent clause. That means each clause must be read as part of the whole sentence. No dependent clause can be taken alone, out of the context of the entire sentence.

What you are doing is exactly that – crudely ripping a dependent clause from its context and making up an entire theology based on your grammatical error.