Does Rambam Rule that the Moshiach ben Yosef Concept Does Not Exist?

Question

I'm currently in a discussion with a non-smicha guy who's publicly teaching these claims that the Rambam Absolutely and Halachically rejects the entire concept of the Messiah son of Yosef just because he doesn't mention him at all in Hilchos Melachim. Does this make any sense?

The clear question is: Do the actual Words of Rambam in Hilchos Melachem 11 Rule as Matter of Halachah, that the Moshiach ben Yosef concept Does Not Exist? A simple YES or NO answer with the logic and/or sources backing it would be preferable.

Answer 1

There is no obvious reason to assume Rambam rules that Moshiach Ben Yosef doesn't exist from his lack of mention. The Rambam himself states that one shouldn't over-contemplate the unfolding of the redemption, as we don't know much. In this halachic work, he only records four halachos. The first collects all of the things we must and must not believe about Moshiach Ben David (and there is no mention of M"BY for either), the second is one of the halachot that he will follow, and 3-4 are halachot on how to identify Moshiach Ben David.

The tradition we have about Moshiach Ben Yosef is very mixed and unclear. It appears to be a tradition of Chazal, and is not a certainty. Some hold he will only need to come if we need him (for teshuva). So Rambam doesn't see any halachot regarding him so therefore doesn't mention him in his halachic work.

So no, Rambam doesn't seem to hold that he will NOT come. Just we don't have any halachot regarding him. This Chabad page by R Schochet presumes that Rambam didn't mention him due to these uncertainties, and brings all the various opinions by other Rishonim.

Answer 2

The simple answer is no.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote a letter about this in 5704 which was printed many years later in the first edition of the Kuntress Torato Shel Moshiach.

In that letter, the Rebbe brought many of the citations brought by Rambam from Shas related to different activities that Moshiach is engaged in and how they fall out chronologically. He also demonstrated with related sources that some pertained to Moshiach ben Yosef and some pertained to Moshiach ben David.

The Rebbe then noted that in the Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim, Rambam does not mention explicitly the terms Moshiach ben Yosef or Moshiach ben David, but uses the innovative terms of Presumed to be Moshiach and Moshiach with certainty.

The Rebbe points out that this is in spite of the fact that Rambam was certainly familiar with these traditional distinctions.

At the conclusion of that letter, the Rebbe writes that from this it is concluded that the view of Rambam is that Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben David are speaking of a single individual.

For what it is worth, this conclusion of the Rebbe also seems to be supported by the plain meaning from the Prophet Yechezkel 37:15-28 that is read as the Haftorah to parshat VaYigash.

For more detailed discussion of this subject, see the following: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/59634/7303

Answer 3

As there is no mention of Moshiach ben Yosef in any of Rambam's writings (to the best of my knowledge) I think it is reasonable to conclude that he did not subscribe to that tradition. He mentions the idea of two Meshichim in Melachim 11:1 however he says that one refers to David and the other to his descendant—King Moshiach. In 12:2 he says that it seems that a Navi—not Moshiach—will come to straighten out the Jews prior to Moshiachs arrival. It is axiomatic to Rambam that Moshiach is descended from David (via Shelomo specifically), ostensibly negating a Moshiach from any other Shevet. Additionally, Rambam's schema of what this Navi and Moshiach will do seems to obviate the need for anyone else.

As far as these details go bear in mind Rambam's own words in 12:2:

All these and similar matters cannot be definitely known by man until they occur for these matters are undefined in the prophets' words and even the wise men have no established tradition regarding these matters except their own interpretation of the verses. Therefore, there is a controversy among them regarding these matters. Regardless of the debate concerning these questions, neither the order of the occurrence of these events or their precise detail are among the fundamental principles of the faith. A person should not occupy himself with the Aggadot and homiletics concerning these and similar matters, nor should he consider them as essentials, for study of them will neither bring fear or love of God.