Chabad Media Won

To the group

Last night Zev Brenner interviewed an OTD Lubavicher. If he had Rabbis like e Shmei who invent and reinvent their Torah in mid sentence it would explain a lot. People aren’t stupid, they know when they’re being lied to. Shmei still won’t address Candace Owens question which has now also been raised by yankel berel. I see a checkmate in his future.

To the group

The Mishna in Avid teaches, “Don’t make the Torah a crown for yourself nor an exe with which to cut.” This is Shmei to a tee. He hides his Kefirah and insanity behind Chazal.Now he’s stuck because he can’t impress Candace Owens with his Pshatim on Maharsha. A person, any person, is physically dead when he no longer has vital signs. It’s not a Machlokes Rishonim. If it was people wouldn’t go to doctors. Checkmate loser.

I have to agree with yankel berel in all that he said regarding the so-called nevuah of the Gulf War, and it not coming exactly to pass.

I too followed it all at the time, and I clearly remember all the claims that were made, and which didn’t eventuate. If those statements no longer appear in Lubavich publications it’s because they were intentionally edited out.

Qwerty, menachem shmei knows a lot but he knows nothing because he, like others who are intent on proving their worship of their idols is legitimate, misconstrue and lie about what the sources really say. They don’t only lie to others, really they are try to convince themselves that they are not sinning against Hashem with their idolatry. They lie to the extent that they twist themselves into pretzels trying to get the sources to fit their narrative.

qwerty, it’s enough already. I’ve made it pretty clear in the past that I’m no fan of Chabad, but you’ve stopped to levels of hatred that I won’t go near. Stop this now. It should never be personal, but you’ve been extremely insulting to numerous posters. Take a step back, and look at where you’ve gone with it. Then think that maybe it’s time to stop.

You say that Rashi says that Yaacov is physically alive and at the same time you say Rashi says that Yaacov was buried…

You’re so silly. Go back through my posts, this is what I was saying the entire time. ARSo can attest to this as well. This is exactly what Rashi says, and this is how he is classically understood.

The Gemara asks, wasn’t Yaakov embalmed and buried!? R’ Yitzchok answers, yes he was, but Torah says he is still alive.

Rashi says that they only embalmed him and buried him because they thought he was dead, but really he was alive. He didn’t die. This means physically.

How am I trying to play two sides? When did I say that Yaakov wasn’t buried?

I keep saying the exact same thing. Look through my posts, and you will see.

P.S. Here is my first response to you on the subject. You’ll see that I’ve been saying the same thing this entire time:

You wrote: …And yet i heard a Chabad rabbi claim that Rashi said that Yaacov is with us physically; that is a lie.

My response: “I guess it’s not just Qwerty who is arrogant about his ignorance.

Rashi (Taanos 5b) explains יעקב לא מת literally.
והאי דחנטו חנטיא סבורים היו שמת – they embalmed him because they THOUGHT he was dead.
נדמה להם שהוא מת אבל חי היה – it SEEMED to them that he was dead, but he was alive.

Maharsha and others ARGUE on this pirush, and explain that his body did die.

This is the classic understanding of their argument, not unique to Chabad. Check any Artscroll.”

—

And what I wrote to ARSo a while ago:
“This is obviously the meaning. ר’ יוחנן doesn’t argue on the fact that Yaakov was buried in מערת המכפלה etc., rather he says that all of this WAS DONE because he seemed to be dead, but despite all of this he was alive (obviously miraculously).”

Philosopher, will you admit that you misunderstood me, or will you attempt to prove that I did indeed change my mind? (If the latter, I want a date, time, and post number)

To philosopher

Chabad makes a Siyum Rambam every year but they ignore and reject what he said when it doesn’t suit their agenda. This is exactly their Rebbe did.

To DaMoshe

Could you clarify what aspect of my writing you find hateful?

Qwerty,

I refrained from answering your question because I’m not interested in going down the rabbit hole of discussing Christian theology, nor do I wish to engage in the Who is Moshiach debate (something I haven’t shared my views on, for reasons explained in a previous post).

I would rather discuss a Gemara, a Rambam, a Rashi, a Maharsha, a Gra, a Likkutei Sichos, etc.

However, since you pressured me so much, I will give you a brief and honest response:

Candace Owens…asked America’s Rabbi why Lubavitchers reject Christianity because of its belief in a second coming

If Jews reject Christianity because of the second coming, why did beis din kill Yoshke In the first place?

That is my answer (it’s a rhetorical question).

P.S. Rambam Hilchos Melachim ch. 11:
אַף יֵשׁוּעַ הַנּוֹצְרִי שֶׁדִּימָה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מָשִׁיחַ, וְנֶהֱרָג בְּבֵית דִּין, כְּבָר נִתְנַבֵּא בּוֹ דָּנִיֵּאל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “וּבְנֵי פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ יִנַּשְּׂאוּ לְהַעֲמִיד חָזוֹן וְנִכְשָׁלוּ” (דניאל יא, יד). וְכִי יֵשׁ מִכְשׁוֹל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, שֶׁכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים דִּבְּרוּ שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוֹשִׁיעָם, וּמְקַבֵּץ נִדְחֵיהֶם וּמְחַזֵּק מִצְוָתָן, וְזֶה גָּרַם לְאַבֵּד יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחֶרֶב, וּלְפַזֵּר שְׁאֵרִיתָם וּלְהַשְׁפִּילָם, וּלְהַחֲלִיף הַתּוֹרָה, וּלְהַטְעוֹת רוֹב הָעוֹלָם לַעֲבֹד אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה’.
“Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel’s prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: “The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”
Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”

P.P.S. Responding that “according to some opinions beis din didn’t kill Yoshke” doesn’t refute my point.

To the group

Menachem Shmei takes lying to a dimension that I’ve never seen. Yankel Berel and I asked Shmei to answer the question that Candace Owens asked Shmuely Boteach in their debate. Just to repeat. The question was, “Why do you(Rabbi) reject Christianity because of its belief in a “A Second Coming” yet your sect(Chabad-Lubavich) also believes in “A Second Coming?” We’ve asked Shmei to respond and he ignored our request. Today, out of the goodness of his heart, he answers, by rephrasing the question as follows, “Why do Lubavichers reject Christianity?” That was not the question. If Shmei thinks it was then he can add retard to his resume. Shmei likes to refer to me as arrogant and ignorant, and now he’s adding philosopher to the club. I admit to being arrogant when I write(although not in real life) and as for ignorance, I’m the first to say that my Torah knowledge is limited. This said, I am an Ish Emes. I agree that Shmei is bright and an excellent writer, however, among his manifold flaws is that he assumes that those who challenge him are stupid. As I pointed out in a previous post, Lubavichers were trained by their Rebbe. who took the idea from Hitler, to believe that they are the “master race” of Judaism, and so they view their opponents as untermenschen. No one, except Lostspark last week, has ever called me stupid and there’s a reason for that. Shmei is cornered. He’s like the person in chess who has one pawn left while his opponent has all its big guns. His end is coming it’s only a matter of time.

Menachem: If Jews reject Christianity because of the second coming, why did beis din kill Yoshke In the first place?

Sorry, but I don’t understand at all what you are saying here.

He says that Rashi says Yaacov was buried (actually Rashi points to the word in the posuk saying that Yaacov expired but that it does not say he died, so he agrees that Yaacov expired) but at the same time Shmei says that Rashi says on the Gemorah that Yaacov is PHYSICALLY alive…never mind that that gemorah AND Rashi clearly state what being alive means and it is not that Yaacov is physically alive…to say that Rashi is saying on one hand that Yaacov was buried and on the other that he’s physically alive?! Rashi is not saying ” יעקב לא מת literally”. Does Rashi say the word “literally”? No, Menachem shmaya is saying that Rashi is saying the word “literally”.

A) I never said that Rashi was arguing on himself (in THIS case). All I said is that Rashi explains himself more in Taanis 5b than in Vayechi.

B) What do you prove from Rashi in Chumash writing ויגוע (“expired”)? If ויגוע means died, then what’s the difference between ויגוע and וימת?

The Rif, Iyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef all understand it literally, Yaakov didn’t die, his soul is still in his body.

They explain that the word ויגוע (“expired”) means “a deep sleep/faint” (ויגוע כאיש שנתעלף” “לא נסתלק רק גוע כמי שנתעלף”) which others mistook as death, which is why they enbalmed and buried him, which wasn’t an issue because he wasn’t moving anyway (“מה שנקבר ונספד הוא כי נתבטלו כחות התנועה”).

Another reason why they did all these things is so as not to degrade other tzaddikim who do die. (-עיון יעקב)

Coffee addict, you are so right that only a Lubavitche would argue that Rashi says one thing on the posuk and a different thing on the Gemarah as if Rashi is contradicting himself.
What dishonesty. I cannot take that….He tries to make it seem as if Rashi is arguing with himself and saying a different pshat on the Gemorah than the posuk!

If so, then meforshei haShas and meforshei Rashi must all be Lubavitchers, since we find examples of Rashi on Chumash arguing with Rashi on Shas ALL OVER THE PLACE, and this is acknowledged by all the meforshim!

Some examples:

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 65b:
גמרא בעל אוב אחד המעלה בזכורו כו’. ורש”י בחומש פירש דורש אל המתים זהו מעלה בזכור כו’ ע”ש ודבריו ע”פ הברייתא בספרי ושלא כברייתא זו דבשמעתין דכן דרכו של רש”י לפרש הפסוקים על פי היותר פשוטו של מקרא…
Rashi on Gemara explains אוב different than his explanation in Chumash.
This is the derech of Rashi, to explain the pesukim according to the simplest meaning (פשוטו של מקרא).

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 66a:
גמרא מה ת”ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום כו’. ורש”י בחומש בפרשת משפטים כתב ומקלל אביו ואמו למה נאמר לפי שהוא אומר איש איש אשר יקלל גו’ אין לי אלא איש שקלל אשה מניין ת”ל ומקלל אביו גו’ סתם בין איש ובין אשה כו’ ע”ש והוא ע”פ המכילתא וכמה שכתבו שדרכו לדרוש בפירושו הדרשה יותר פשוטה במקרא…
Rashi in Chumash explains איש איש differently than the Gemara, because his derech is to explain the simplest pshat.

Maharsha, Sanhedrin 72a:
גמרא ת”ר אין לו דמים כו’ … וזה הוא דרכו של רש”י בחומש להביא דרשה היותר פשוטה…
Rashi’s derech in Chumash is to bring the simplest pshat.

Maharsha, Kiddushin 44b:
דרכו של רש”י ז”ל לפרש במקום זה כך ובמקום אחר שינה פירושו
Rashi’s derech is to explain one way in one place, and changes his pirush elsewhere.

Rashash, Shabbos 83a:
הגרע”א ז”ל בגליון הש”ס העלה פירוש רש”י בצריך עיון גדול ואנכי לא ידעתי מה העיון הגדול דשם פירש כשיטת רבינו תם, ואם משום שסותר את עצמו, זאת תמצא בפירוש רש”י ז”ל הרבה
“I don’t understand R’ Akiva Eiger’s question on Rashi. If it’s that Rashi contradicts himself, this is very common in Rashi’s pirush.”

Mizrachi, Bereishis 36:5:
“Torah mentions that Korach was the grandson of Eisav in two ways.
Rashi here says that it’s the SAME Korach who was a mamzer.
Rashi in Sotah says that there were TWO Korachs.
This is because here Rashi is explaining according to Bereishis Rabba, while there Rashi is explaining according to the story there in Gemara, which differs from the Midrash Rabba.”

Philosopher, Coffee, will you admit that you didn’t know the classic style of Rashi’s pirush, and that it was wrong to attack Lubavitch (in this case)?

qwerty, please remember that “derachehah darchei noam v’chol nesivosehah shalom”. Just stop already. Don’t make things personal.

ARSo,

It’s so refreshing to have a normal Torah discussion!

Obviously, as you explained so well, if Yaakov is physically alive this is a major miracle and not understood whatsoever in natural ways, which is why R’ Yitzchak needed a posuk to prove his point.

Furthermore, I believe that embalming involved the removal of a number of inner organs, so how can someone be alive in that manner?

Interesting that you mention this. The Etz Yosef that I referenced earlier actually addressed this:
“על כן צוה לחנוט את אביו לא בפנים גופו אלא מלמעלה על גופו – אלשיך סדר ויחי”

Sorry, but I don’t understand at all what you are saying here.

[Obviously my point wasn’t so clear. Sorry Qwerty for my last post to you 😉]

My point is that the problem with Christians is not that they believe in משיח מן המתים. If that’s the issue with them, why would Yoshke be killed by b”d while he was still alive?

I know this is a big sugya, and I’m not interested in diving into the entire Moshiach thing. I’m just showing that this Candace question is not as simple as it sounds.

To ARSo

Thank you for proving the words of Chazal on the power of shochad. Shmei pays you compliments and now you’re siding with him. You made an excellent point in an earlier post that you didn’t understand what Shmei said. The reason you didn’t understand it is because it’s a complete lie. He refuses to address the Owens question because he knows it’s checkmate. But you’re too busy trying to prove I’m arrogant to recognize that he’s a filthy liar. At least we still have philosopher yankel berel, and coffee addict who can’t be fooled. If I left someone out I apologize.

I asked him a simple question, a question that was posed by Candace Owens to Boteach, “How can you insult Christianity because it believed in a “second coming” when you’re part of the Chabad sect which also believes in a second coming?’ Boteach didn’t answer the question, so I presented it to the 3 Chabad Stooges, particularly Shmei. For a few days he ignored the question but today he tried to pull the wool over our eyes by rephrasing the question, which had nothing to do with what Owens asked.

I’ll try to repeat my answer in the clearest way possible:

Candace assumes that the entire problem that Judaism has with Christianity is the second coming, so she asks that if you hold views that may sound similar to second coming, you may as well be Christian.

My point is that the fundamental problem with Christianity is not second coming. I proved this from the fact that the Jewish people opposed Yoshke and his religion while he was still alive, until beis din put him to death!

Are you saying that beis din put him to death because he believed in the second coming? That doesn’t make much sense.

Candace may as well ask “If Judaism and Christianity (lhavdil) both hold that murder is wrong, why do you oppose Christianity?

If you think that belief in a man who passed away as Moshiach doesn’t fit a certain maamar razal or halacha, bring that up (I think there’s a different thread on this topic, and I will not voice an opinion on the matter, as I said earlier).
But asking a question in Judaism based on a vort of Candace Owens doesn’t get you anywhere.

No wonder so many boys/men dont understand Gemorah well. Are they not taught in cheder/yeshiva how to learn and understand texts? They simply don’t bother to understand pshat. You cannot take part of a Chazal or a posuk and claim to understand what the text means from only part of the verse, or even from one verse. Every word means something, the context means something. Otherwise the words “breishis buru Elokim” can mean the beginning of creation created God, c”v, to you. You cannot USE Tanach and Gemorah like Christians use the verses, pointing to a word or even a verse out of context otherwise you will be able to “prove anything you want the Torah to prove” but you won’t understand p’shat. That’s how the Tzedoikim and all apikorsim “learnt” the posukim without understanding the context.

If you want a posuk, or a Chazal or a Rishon, or any text for that matter, to mean what YOU want it to mean, you can disregard part of what the verse says or you can take it of of context, and then claim that it means what you want it to mean…in that case it is certainly “refreshing” for people like Menachem Shmei to have a “Torah discussion” with one who is willing to disregard part of a verse and the context in which the verse is being discussed.

Understanding texts is learning what the author of the text wanted to convey, not what you want to convey. You cannot claim that the author wants to convey something when you disregard part of what the verse says, you cannot contradict what the author says and then claim that it seems the author contradicts himself, you cannot read the text out of context.

Going back to Rashi on the posuk, if Rashi himself says that the posuk says that Yaacov expired but did not die, it means that Rashi does not contradict that Yaacov expired, period. However, it ALSO means that Rashi says Yaacov did not die. In this case, how can he expire, be embalmed and not die? Rashi doesn’t answer that but if Rashi said he expired but he did not die then we can need to gain understanding on what it means “יעקב לא מת”. If Rashi would’ve say his body was still alive despite his expiring and embalming then you can claim that Rashi said he was physically alive. However, Rashi did not say his body stayed alive. לא מת can mean many things as the MEFORSHIM EXPLAIN and none of them say that Yaacov’s stayed alive! If someone on this thread claims “יעקב לא מת literally”! It is not Rashi who wrote the word “literally”! If an individual declares that Rashi meant it literally and that he meant that his physical body is alive it’s his own conclusion disregarding the context in which the words “yaacov lo mes” was written.

Rashi on Gemorah does not argue with the Gemorah that Yaacov was buried and eulogized. What he says is that they thought he died but he didn’t die. How could Rashi believe that Yaacov EXPIRED (ויגוע), how could he believe that he was BURIED and EULOGIZED and still be PHYSICALLY alive? Well, Rashi doesn’t say that Yaacov was physically alive only that he didn’t die. And for that, as I’ve said above, there are numerous meforshim that say what “he didn’t die” means. Neither Rashi, nor any of the meforshim claim that Yaacov Avinu is still walking on this planet earth to this day in his physical body.

You can only claim that Rashi means that Yaacov is physically alive if you believe that your rebbe is buried 6 feet under yet still walking around here somewhere with his physical body. If someone finds the rebbe please let me know, I’d like to meet with him.

Sorry, I meant the Alshich that you quoted, not the Chida.

To the group

Let’s take a step back and try to explain why the Owens question is such an anathema for Shmei. You’ll recall that he ignored the query for three days and yesterday he tried to fool us by inventing a different question. To reiterate, she asked Boteach why Chabad rejects Christianity but believes that the Rebbe will have a second coming. Seemingly Shmei could have answered that the Rebbe’s return isn’t a second coming because he’s still alive like Yaakov.,(obviously Boteach couldn’t say such nonsensical garbage) So why didn’t Shmei say this? Some years ago a Chabad Rabbi explained why there’s a split in CH as to whether or not the Rebbe is still alive. As ARSo said last year, before Gimmel Tammuz all Chabad held that Moshiach can’t come from the dead. After Gimmel Tammuz they had to recalibrate. Some refused to change their view about Moshiach coming from the dead and so they “paskened” that he’s alive. Others understood how ridiculous that sounds and so they accepted that he’s dead and relied on the Gemara which said that Moshiach can come from the dead. The point to understand is that when Chabad says something it’s never based on Torah or logic. They simply make everything up. And then the lying phonies like Shmei hit us with Rishonim and Achronim to make their opinions appear legitimate. It’s all a cover up for their lies, just as their dead Getchke made up his “Torah ” Therefore it’s checkmate, no Tiyufta D’Chabad Tiyufta.

To DaMoshe

Yes, I said those things and I would say much worse if I could. Shmei is not only an idolater but he’s a Chote U’Machte as he’s trying to fool others into believing the Chabad lies. Therefore we are obligated to treat him and others of similar mind as Hashem’s enemies. Case closed.

To the group

I spoke to Rav David Feinstein’s son-in-law. He’s my biggest Mashpia in Torah and I told him that posters are arguing if Yaakov Avinu is still alive. You can imagine what he said. Being a Torah Jew doesn’t require one to replace rationality with voodoo logic. To that point my other Mashpia Rabbi Moshe Plutchok says that we follow Rambam who rejects any violation of natural law even Bilaam ‘s talking donkey. The Gemara says ,”Lama Li Kra, Sevara He?” Judaism is a rational religion. This is the point that philosopher and yankel berel are making and obviously they’re right.

To yankel berel

It’s not enough that vermin like Shmei (that’s right DaMoshe) show contempt for real Jews by lying to us and thinking that we can be fooled but they’re not afraid to lie in Hashem’s face in Elul.The reason they have no fear is because they don’t believe He exists. That’s the power of idolatry.

Hello ?

Menachem shmei, no, none of the meforshim say that Yaacov alive in his kever. A body to be alive needs air, it needs food, it needs water, it needs to do bodily functions.

If there are more people in Chabad who believe what you believe that is absolutely insane. Your belief is like the anceint Egyptians who embalmed and buried their Pharoahs and also buried them with chariots, wax dolls in the shape of women, weapons, etc. because they believed their bodies only partially expired and will soon start living again in the afterlife….shame on you to believe such things.

You are using Torah sources and twisting them to further your a”z ideology just like the Tzedoikim, the Keruim, the Christians, Shabsi Tzvi, and others did to try to “prove” that their ideologies are the truth. At the end of the day Chabad a”z will also lay in the dustbin of history while the truth marches on. But until then, it will pull down with it into shaul tachtis many, many Jewish neshumos H”y.

You cannot argue with posukim in the Torah, period. No mefoiresh does that. The posek says clearly, Yaacov expired, Yaacov was embalmed, Yaacov was buried. End of story. It also says Yaacov did not die and not dying can mean many things. To further your a”z ideology, you claim Yaacov is alive in his kever. That would be a huge tzaar on Yaacov. Would you want your body to be alive in your kever for thousands of years not being able to move? Not even the murdererous Hamas has people in their kever alive for thousands of years. It’s absolutely insane that you would think that Rashi and the meforshim claim that this is happening to Yaacov.

To believe in a”z you need to be slightly insane to believe in the narishkeiten attached to such beliefs.

To yankel berel

When Christians approach a Jew on the street politely asking for a few moments to discuss their theology, he’s trained to demur and hightail it out of there as fast as possible. We don’t engage in discussions with Christians. The same applies to Chabad. They have nothing to offer except distortions of the Torah aimed at obfuscation. ARSo seems to have forgotten that basic principle and so he’s now in the sewer comparing notes with that sewer rat Shmei. I can’t believe that Shmei’s attempt to butter him up worked. The power of Shochad. Rav Reuvein Feinstein(we lived in the same building on the LES years ago) told me the following, “Judaism is pretty simple. Just keep the Mitzvohs as best as you can.” Look at these Lubavichers twisting themselves into pretzels to reinvent our pristine religion just to convince themselves that the Rebbe is god. And ARSo is falling for Shme’s trap. You see that Shmei won’t address the Owens question. When he comes to the next world he’ll be told that her question checkmated him.

Menachem shmei, the Rif and others say the comatose stage was until he was bought Eretz Yisroel and was buried there. As I said before, none of the meforshim claim that Yaacov was buried alive in his kever which is what you are saying.

I dont know if you are lying consciously with your misinterpretations or your a”z beliefs have so corrupted your brain that you are subconsciously automatically interpretating sources to fit your religion’s narrative.

As I said before, neither Rashi nor Chazal (I mistakenly wrote meforshim in my previous post) would want Yaacov to have such a curse as to be buried alive for a few thousand years….no one wants that for their worst enemies…

There is so much to write in regards to some of qwerty’s and philosopher’s weird claims.

1. Just because I happen to be in agreement with Menachem – despite being totally opposed to absolutely every Lubavicher who thinks that their rebbe was the leader of Torah Jewry – regarding the understanding of Rashi in both the gemoro and Chumash, I am now a loke’ach shochad! I suppose I’ll just have to take qwerty’s word on that as he has testified that he is not arrogant and that he is humble. (Is it possible he hasn’t been taking his medication, and that that has been causing him to rant?)

2. As regards to the “expired” and “dying” discussion. What does the word ויגוע mean? If, as philosopher keeps claiming, it means he expired, then that means he died, doesn’t it? Certainly, that is the dictionary definition of expiring! (I looked it up.) So what does it mean elsewhere when it says ויגוע… וימת? He expired and then died?! That’s meaningless. Clearly גויעה is not expiring.

After doing some research I see that the Malbim (Bereishis 25:8) writes:
הגויעה מציין אפיסת כחות הגוף, והמיתה מציין פירוד הנפש מן הגוף – gviah refers to the lack of any physical strength, while misah refers to the departure of the soul from the body.
So according to that, when the gemoro says that Yaakov lo meis – and Rashi clearly says that he is alive forever – it seems to mean it in a physical sense. He was still alive, but without any physical strength. And that, by the way, is how the gemoro in Sotah 13a can say that Yaakov opened his eyes and smiled.

Of course, nowhere do Chazal say that the LR did not die, and I have been clear about than in many of my earlier posts. In fact, I feel stupid having to reiterate my stance here, and I only do so because of the possible future ravings of some.

3. There may be other meforshim who say otherwise, but I have not found any Rishon (if I am wrong please correct me) who says that the gemoro in Sanhedrin 98b allows the possibility of any dead person other than Daniel Ish Chamudos being Mashiach. As I have posted a number of times, according to one pshat in Rashi, if you are looking for a person who has died as the type of person that the live Mashiach will be, then it is Daniel. According to the other pshat, if Mashiach is someone who has died, then it must be Daniel. Based on this gemoro, then, there is no room for anyone else who is not alive to be Mashiach.

4. The gemoro itself – the part that was censored in Sanhedrin 43a – says that yeshu was a maisis umaidiach. What other reason did the Sanhedrin have to execute him?