Now, what if instead we said that the Mashiach should be viewed through the principle of chovat cheftza instead? This would mean that there is something in Mashiach’s personhood or being that should trigger our response to him. However, at least according to the example in Hilchot Melachim, chovat cheftza is not appropriate. On the other hand, the 13 ikarim could be understood through this mechanism. Ideally, it is not just a mental concept about God and his character that is being examined in the 13 ikarim, the true Jew will have these concepts as a part of their inner being. Therefore, even if they might be mentally confused on some intricate theological point, the true test will be when they are confronted by the reality of the Almighty. Does their ultimate metaphysical reality leap towards or away from this meeting? Are they inwardly compatible with the world to come?
This also explains why the 13 ikarim are used as a measuring stick for minimal acceptance in the world to come. If they are in their core meant to be a measurement of the individual’s response to the true, ultimate metaphysical realities beyond each ikar, then they are essentially a judgment of our own metaphysical makeup. They move from just an outward list of ideas that are to be verbally expressed and become a description of the basic internal things that will be examined by the Eternal Judge. Do we truly cleave to the divine in all of these areas?
So, a recap of the differences between my view of the chovat gavra of Hilchot Melachim and the chovat cheftza of the 13 ikarim is as follows. In the first case, there is the possibility that one may have to partially act like someone is Mashiach even when they are not. Certain halachic responses are triggered, certain authority to act physically is granted in a graduated manner, depending on the evidence. Conversely, if the cheftza of Mashiach is truly encountered, it may trigger a response deserving of Mashiach even though he has not yet fulfilled the criteria. At the same time, we are not granted halachic permission to perform certain actions for Yeshua that are reserved for Mashiach. This would be the case, even if someone else (k’v’yachol) was Mashiach but had not yet performed the required criteria. However, this limitation is also appropriate to our view of Yeshua. The actions we are talking about largely involve wars and national actions, all of which we believe are held for his return.
Therefore, though he is not yet the “Mashiach” of Rambam’s Hilchot Melachim, he may still be the Mashiach. If we truly encounter his metaphysical reality, nothing less than the belief in him as Mashiach should be expected. We may not yet be justified in triggering the responses that should be set off by the criteria of Hilchot Melachim, but we could not be said to posses the essence that the 13 ikarim are meant to express if we denied that he is Mashiach. One who has not had this encounter has only the halachic criteria on which to rely, so it would not be very logical for them to accept Yeshua. However, one who does posses the higher criteria of the 12 ikkar, cannot reverse his position based on the less effective measurement of chovat gavra.
I hope that I have presented a possible way of describing how it is halachically permitted (in a very narrow example, obviously) to believe that Yeshua is Mashiach. Actually, if one has received this metaphysical revelation (either directly or through tradition) then it could even be argued that they are not allowed to go back on this viewpoint. Also, the exclusionary power of the 13 ikarim regarding us has been dealt with (at least regarding the 12th ikar). This is an even more essential point at this stage since the discussion regarding belief in Yeshua must take place within Judaism, and we cannot do that, obviously, if it is anathema to hold the discussion in the first place.
