Mashiach and Eliyahu Hanavi

busydev

Fri, Jun 21 2013, 11:53 am

FS, why would you say Judism is a text based religion?

I guess now it is... but it wasnt intended as such. after all for the first couple of thousand years or so there was torah shebichtav and torah she baal pe.... which means that by no means was everything written down. at all.

You know the history. It was only written down into mishna and then gemorah much later. When R Yehuda HaNasi realized that people were not able to be able to remember the baal peh parts they wrote it down. So whose to say they never discussed whatever topic it is before it was written down? maybe it was only written as each piece was no longer being remembered? So when the Xtians started with their Messiah bit, Chazal got around to writing down the discussions that they had so that people would know about it.

Why isnt that plausible?

to OP. Mashiach is going to be the king that will come and lead us back to our land and make it a Torah true country.

My understandings of Eliyahu and Pinchas being the same person was not that they were the same person but rather they had the same neshama.

and all the other points about Mashiach and what he will do and what will happen in those days... they are also perhaps talking about a deeper level and we should not try and decide what it actually means, but rather try to be the best that we can and follow the Torah to the best of our abilities and hope that we will be zoche to seeing the coming of Mashiach and living in a world where Hashem is recognized as ONE.

freidasima

Sat, Jun 22 2013, 4:21 pm

Busy Judaism was always a text based religion, written text, oral text and the oral text was always an extrapolation of the written text. In other words everything halochic in the oral text (which as you correctly state was later written down) had a basis in the existing written text and was an extrapolation thereof.

The "messianic concept" that we are discussing has absolutely no basis in the existing written text. It only appears in the now written down oral text as a response to the Xtian concept, that is stated mefeirush in the Gemoro, every single thing written down there about anything messianic is written in order to contradict Xtian thought on that matter which of course predated the mishnaic discussion and the chachmei hamishna do not hide it.

In addition - we all keep rabbinic judaism. So in practice it doesn't make a difference if we are talking about something which is halocho, if it exists before or if it exists only since the time of rabbinic Judaism. In both cases to be a good Jew today one has to keep it.

but we aren't talking halocho. There are no halochos vis a vis the messianic concept. Therefore there is nothing one has to "keep". Or even accept, in order to be a good Jew.

Hashkofo, versus halocho.
To be a good Jew one has to Believe in G-d, that he is one, singular and gave us the torah and to keep the legalities. You want to believe in additional concepts as a credo? Fine, but being a good Jew isn't predicated on accepting those concepts.

So why are people here so up in arms when it is mentioned that it is interesting that the messianic concept does not appear in any written Judaic texts (tanach) and only appears in the later mishnaic and talmudic discussions of countering the Xtian messianic concept?

It's not halocho.

poelmamosh

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 12:43 am

ora_43 wrote:

AFAIK, chazal say the idea was introduced at the time of the neviim. Like, once it was determined that there would be subjection/exile, it was also determined that there would someday be a leader who would end the exile.

Why would that have been explicit in the Torah, which came several hundred years earlier?

The Torah most certainly does speak of Moshiach (in this week's parsha, too - see the 2nd bolded area)

Rambam, Hilchos Melachim: ch 11-12 wrote:

The Melech HaMoshiach ("anointed king") is destined to arise and restore the kingdom of David to its glory of old, to its original sovereignty. He will build the Holy Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. In his times, all the laws of the Torah will be reinstated as before; the sacrifices will be offered, the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee year instituted as outlined in the Torah.

Whoever does not believe in him or does not anticipate his coming, denies not only the other prophets but also the Torah and Moses. For the Torah testifies about him: "G-d shall return your captivity... He will return and gather you from all the nations amongst whom the L-rd your G-d has scattered you... If your outcasts shall be at the ends of the heavens, from there will the L-rd your G-d gather you, from there He will take you... G-d will bring you to the Land...'' (Deuteronomy 30:3-5). These explicit words of the Torah encapsulate all that has been said (concerning Moshiach) by the prophets.

Also in the story of Balaam is it spoken of, and there it is prophesied on the two "anointed ones": the first Moshiach, which is David, who saved Israel from its enemies; and the last Moshiach, who shall be of his descendents, who will save Israel in the end [of the Exile]. There he says: "I see him, but not now"--this is David; "I behold him, but he is not near"--this is the King Moshiach; "There shall shoot forth a star out of Jacob"--this is David; "And a scepter shall rise out of Israel"--this is the King Moshiach; "And shall smite the corners of Moab"--this is David, as it is written (II Samuel 8:2) "And he smote Moab, and he measured them with a line"; "And rule over all the children of Seth"--this is the King Moshiach, as it is written (Zachariah 9:10), "And his dominion shall be from sea to sea"...

As for the books of the prophets, one need not cite references [to Moshiach], for all the books are full of this...

If there arises a king from the house of David, who studies the Torah and fulfills its precepts... who will prevail upon all of Israel to follow it and repair its breaches, and will wage the battle of G-d -- he is presumed to be Moshiach. If he did so and was successful, and he built the Holy Temple on its site and gathered the dispersed of Israel - he is certainly Moshiach. He will correct the entire world to serve G-d together, as is written (Zephaniah 3:9): "For then I shall turn to the nations a pure tongue, that all shall call upon the name of G-d to serve Him as one"...

The sages and the prophets did not crave the era of Moshiach in order to rule over the world... or to eat, drink and rejoice; but only so that they be free for Torah and its wisdom and be rid of any oppressor and disrupter...

And at that time there will be no hunger or war, no jealousy or rivalry. For the good will be plentiful, and all delicacies available as dust. The entire occupation of the world will be only to know G-d... Israel will be of great wisdom; they will perceive the esoteric truths and comprehend their Creator's wisdom as is the capacity of man. As it is written (Isaiah 11:9): For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of G-d, as the waters cover the sea...''

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 1:01 am

Thank you for the quote, Poel Mamosh!

FS, I'm starting another thread on Halacha vs hashkafa.

As to the difference between Eliyahu Hanavi and mashiach, the Rambam (I think) says the Eliyahu's job is to ascertain lineages. In other words, make sure everyone knows which shevet they are from.

The Maharal, in Netzach Yisrael, chapter 53, explains that just as the geula from galus Mitzrayim required two leaders, Moshe and Aharon, so will the final geula require two leaders. What was Aharon's job? To make peace among the Jewish people. His mission was to create a cohesive unit that could be considered one nation. Only then Moshe Rabbeinu was able to lead in the capacity of a king. The same will take place, IY"H very soon, when mashiach comes. First, Eliyahu Hanavi will come to unite the Jewish people (and we certainly need that!), and then mashiach will be able to rule over the Jewish people.

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 1:16 am

Also, unrelated to Eliyahu Hanavi, but see Ramchal, Maamar Haikkarim. Here's a quote in Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's translation (The Way of G-d, p. 393):

Quote:

...it is necessary that the Chosen People achieve perfection with all its required conditions, and that creation as a whole thus be perfected... It has been promised that this will take place no matter what happens. The instrument for this will be a descendant of David, whom G-d will choose especially for this purpose, assuring his success. This individual will be the Mashiach.

Through the Mashiach, at the proper time, a great degree of rectification will be attained by Israel, and subsequently by all creation. Good will be increased in every form, and evil will be eliminated completely... As a result, prosperity and tranquility will increase, while injury and destruction will cease to exist. This is what [G-d promised] through His prophet, when He said, "They will not do evil nor cause harm on all of My holy mountain" (Isaiah 2:9).

ora_43

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 1:18 am

freidasima wrote:

re: the bolded - huh?? I thought that oral tradition was non-textual by definition...

I think it's over simplifying to say that everything halachic in oral Torah has a basis in the written text. It may be hinted at in the written text, but there are plenty of things in oral Torah that aren't at all explicit in the text.

In any case, as you yourself pointed out, this isn't a question of halacha, but of hashkafa.

poelmamaosh -

I am familiar with those pasukim, but I don't think they're really explicit.

I also don't think you could call that a prophecy about mashiach as perceived today, ie, as a leader who would bring a full end to the galut - since at the time it was not fully decided that there would even be a galut (yes, I realize there are pasukim that some say point to the demolition of the batei mikdash and the exile, but there's a principle in Judaism that a negative prophecy does not have to come true and can be prevented with teshuva). I'm not saying it's not about the same leader either way, but without the exile I think the idea of that leader would be very different.

freidasima

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 10:29 am

I have absolutely no idea. There is the concept of the "end of days", acharis hayomim, which appears in the mikra but to say that we know what will happen? Halevai. Too many different opinions of what it means. Will there be a third temple? Halevai but as for the form it will take, when, and all the rest? Who knows. Is there a moshiach in terms of "savior"? I have my doubts, but there is always the possibility of a "moshiach" king or leader who will "save" the people of Israel and bring them to a better end.

I really don't spend my time thinking about the endgame, I'm too involved in trying to make the present matter and make myself and my family better people, better Jews and keep the State of Israel alive. Is that Atchalta DeGeula? I believe it is. What is the final goal of that Geula? I am not sure but it sure means no more "shiabud malchuyot" for us. And in that I agree 1000% with the definition of "ein bein yemos hamoshiach lyomeinu onu elo shiabud malchuyos bilvad!"

PinkFridge

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 10:44 am

freidasima wrote:

The truth is, me too, as far as not thinking too much about it. I've always been taught that we focus on the here and now, we don't think about the afterlife as the better place vs. the miseries of this world (like medieval non-Jewish theology) but that this world has infinite possibility and beauty. And yet, belief in some ultimate something, even without all the details, seems to be an essential part of our weltanschaaung. Sometimes I say Aleinu and get quite pumped about a future where Hashem's glory is obvious, there's no more chillul Hashem, world peace and all that.

goodmorning

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 1:02 pm

freidasima wrote:

but we aren't talking halocho. There are no halochos vis a vis the messianic concept. Therefore there is nothing one has to "keep". Or even accept, in order to be a good Jew.

Hashkofo, versus halocho.
To be a good Jew one has to Believe in G-d, that he is one, singular and gave us the torah and to keep the legalities. You want to believe in additional concepts as a credo? Fine, but being a good Jew isn't predicated on accepting those concepts.

So why are people here so up in arms when it is mentioned that it is interesting that the messianic concept does not appear in any written Judaic texts (tanach) and only appears in the later mishnaic and talmudic discussions of countering the Xtian messianic concept?

It's not halocho.

Source?

Because here's what the Rambam has to say about the belief in Moshiach (from his introduction to his commentary of Perek Cheilek):

Quote:

The Twelfth Fundamental Principle refers to the Messianic Era. We are to believe as fact that the messiah will come and not consider him late. If he delays, wait for him (Hab. 2:3); set no time limit for his coming ... One must believe that Messiah will have more station and honor than all the kings who ever lived, as all the prophets from Moses to Malachi prophesied: Whoever doubts this or minimizes it denies the passage begins, “You are standing”(Deut.29:9). A corollary of this principle is the assertion that the king of Israel must come only from the house of David and seed of Solomon. Anyone
who rejects this family denies God and the words of His prophets ...

When a man believes in all these fundamental principles, and his faith is thus clarified, he is then part of that “Israel” whom we are to love, pity and treat as God commanded, with love and fellowship. Even if a Jew should commit every possible sin, out of lust or mastery by his lower nature, he will be punished for his sins but will still have a share in the world to come. He is one of the “sinners in Israel.” But if a man gives up any one of these fundamental principles, he has removed himself from the Jewish community. He is an atheist, a heretic, an unbeliever who “cuts among the plantings.” We are commanded to hate him and to destroy him. Of Him it is said: “Shall I not hate those who hate You, O Lord?” (Ps. 139:21).

And because you will assure me that we "don't pasken like the Rambam," here are the words of R' Yosef Albo, whose philosophy diverged widely from the Rambam (book 4, chapter 42):

Quote:

Every adherent of the Law of Moses is obliged to believe in the coming of the Messiah, as we explained above. The Torah expressly commands us to believe in the words of the prophet: "Unto him ye shall hearken." But the prophets announced the coming of the Messiah; hence it is clear that any one who does not believe in the coming of the Messiah denies the words of the prophets and transgresses a mandatory precept."

freidasima

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 2:03 pm

Once again, we don't pasken by the Rambam NOR by R. Yosef Albo. We pasken by the SA and its commentators as interpreted by our rabbis.

Can you send us to a source in the SA which states that it is an aveiro not to believe in the coming of the moshiach in the sense that the rambam speaks?

There have been lots of studies written in the past few decades that collect all the sources which show that it is possible to be a good, practicing and believing Jew without accepting any of the 13 ikkarim of the rambam EXCEPT those having to do with the belief in the singularity, omnipotence and existence of Hashem, the fact that he gave us the one and only torah and that he was and is the creator of heaven and earth (I.e. the universe). I suggest that you look at the SOURCES and RABBONIM cited by Menachem Kellner in "Must a Jew believe anything" (expanded edition 2006).

I can fully sympathize with you that after being taught your whole life that the belief in Moshiach is a fundamental belief of Judaism and that someone who doesn't accept it fully is an apikores, but the fact is that in spite of what you were taught, in practice Orthodox Judaism doesn't work that way. It may be (today) a minority Orthodox approach not to accept that Ikkar of the Rambam, but it exists, and most important, it is TOTALLY halochically acceptable, even if socially and culturally considered unusual by some, particularly the more right wing and charedi factions of orthodoxy.

poelmamosh

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 7:35 pm

ora_43 wrote:

freidasima wrote:

It's one of the Rambam's sources that makes Moshiach's coming an imperative belief, so I guess he thought it pretty explicit. Actually, in contrast to this (in the previous perek, I think) the Rambam states that the neviim that speak about Moshiach's coming are somewhat ambiguous and contradictory, so ir is unclear how and if they will all actually materialize on a physical level. There is a decided lack of the miraculous and otherworldly in these two chapters (Chap 13 begins, "There is no difference between nowadays and the time of Moshiach aside for the subservience of the nations [to Israel]"). So Bilam's nevuah, in this context, is pretty straightforward.

fromthedepths

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 8:17 pm

freidasima wrote:

Not quite SA, but certainly a halachic work: To Live Among Friends, by Rabbi Dovid Castle, vol. 2, pp.604-615.

Context: there is a mitzvah to hate a sinner (he brings various sources and discusses them). Question: who is considered a sinner? Long discussion. As part of the discussion, he brings the Rambam's view that it is a mitzvah to hate those who do not believe in the thirteen principles of faith [which include belief in mashiach coming]. Long discussion. He brings views that oppose the Rambam, such as the Sefer Haikkarim, which lists only three principles: 1) G-d exists; 2) G-d rewards good deeds and punishes bad deeds; 3) the Torah is from Heaven. In other words, other views don't include belief in mashiach.

My point? Belief in the coming of mashiach is not a purely abstract hashkafic concept. It has practical halachic ramifications.

Potato Kugel

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 9:08 pm

I would have posted earlier however some things need more detail so I asked my DH for a list of sources regarding Moshiach coming throughout the ages.
Here's what he calls a "partial list"
1) The Ramban in Drosho for Rosh Hashona.
2) Ran in Droshos HaRan Drush Zayin.
3) Targum Yonason BEreshis Mem Tes
4) Rashi YEshaya PErek Yud Aleph Pusuk Yud Gimmel
5) Ikrim Siman Pey Daled Perek Mem Tes
6) Eben Ezra Zecharia PErek Tes Pusuk Tes
7) Redak Perek Daled Pusuk Beis
8) Rikanti, BEreishis Perek Gimmel Pusuk Yud Be
9) Rebbeinu Bachaya Bereshis Perek Beis Pusuk Gimmel
10) Abarbenel Devarim Perek Lamid Zayin
Comsidering FS is assertions I also asked for a list of places it is brought down in a "halachic context" again here's a partial list.
1) Shut Ksav Sofer Choshen Mishpat Teshuvos Nosafos Simen Daled.
2) Sefer HaManhig Dinei Tefila Amud Kuf Zayin.
3) Sefer Kol Bo Simen Kuf Chuf.
4) Avudraham Nefilas Apayim Divrei Hamschil Lamnazach.
5) Chidushei Hagriz Simen Pey Daled
6) Shut Igros Moshe Even Haezer Chelek Aleph Siman Pey Beis.
7) Aruch HaShulchan Siman Aleph Ois Yud Gimmel where he states it is one of our Foundational principles.
If one bothers going through the timeline they'll see that this list contains most of greatest Jewish Thinkers and Poskim off all time and most of the leaders of their respective generations throught the ages.
To state that it is perfectly acceptable to beleive what FS stated and remain an Orthodox Torah observent Jew and even worse to imply that the concept of Moshiach is christian is utter nonsense.
And I know FS will give some long -winded post with some general throw away go read this or that study by this or that guy.
Here are Fifteen specific sources of the Greatest Jewish Rabbonim who ever lived. They all say FS is 100% wrong.
And look this is a partial list, My DH said virtually everyone talks about it and he could give me another 100 sources but there's no real point since any self-respecting Jewish Scholar wont try arguing with any concept brought down univerally by the first 5 names on his list forget about the next 10 or any others.
So, Hey, I tried.

goodmorning

Sun, Jun 23 2013, 9:30 pm

freidasima wrote:

The SA does not discuss theology. I am unaware of any discussion in the SA about the mitzvah of believing in Hashem, Who is One, Who gave us the Torah. Yet even you agree that we pasken lihalacha that we must believe in those credos.

Moreover, that does not take theology out of the halachic realm. The SA mentions many halachos that have to do with heretics. Clearly, there must be some beliefs that, if not accepted, make someone a heretic. The fact that the SA does not delineate them does not mean that R' Yosef Karo did not conceive of them. (And if you look at his commentary Kesef Mishneh, on the Rambam in hilchos melachim about Moshiach, you will see that he does in fact concur with everything that the Rambam says there, including the importance of the belief in Moshiach.)

Quote:

There have been lots of studies written in the past few decades that collect all the sources which show that it is possible to be a good, practicing and believing Jew without accepting any of the 13 ikkarim of the rambam EXCEPT those having to do with the belief in the singularity, omnipotence and existence of Hashem, the fact that he gave us the one and only torah and that he was and is the creator of heaven and earth (I.e. the universe). I suggest that you look at the SOURCES and RABBONIM cited by Menachem Kellner in "Must a Jew believe anything" (expanded edition 2006).

Can you cite those sources for the benefit of those of us who don't have that book?

(Interestingly, in his book review, David Berger quotes the following paragraph of "Must a Jew Believe":

Quote:

...there are limits to what one can affirm or deny and still remain within the Jewish community. Denying the unity of God, for example, or that the Torah is of divine origin in some significant sense, or affirming that the Messiah has already come, are claims which place one outside the historical community of Israel. This is not to say that such persons are technically heretics—nor is it to say that they are not; that is not the issue here—but it is to say that they have placed themselves beyond the broadest limits of historical Jewish communal consensus

which seems to me to say there are no halachic sources brought in that book that allow for the disbelief in Moshiach (or to believe that he has already arrived). But he may write otherwise later on in the book.)

(Also interestingly, in his study, "Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: the Last Word in Jewish Theology?", Marc Shapiro writes, "to my knowledge, [the belief in Moshiach] is not disputed by any later Jewish thinkers who are also able to reinterpret any questionable texts." So I'm curious to see the sources that M. Kellner cites.)

Quote:

I can fully sympathize with you that after being taught your whole life that the belief in Moshiach is a fundamental belief of Judaism and that someone who doesn't accept it fully is an apikores, but the fact is that in spite of what you were taught, in practice Orthodox Judaism doesn't work that way. It may be (today) a minority Orthodox approach not to accept that Ikkar of the Rambam, but it exists, and most important, it is TOTALLY halochically acceptable, even if socially and culturally considered unusual by some, particularly the more right wing and charedi factions of orthodoxy.

I am interested in hearing more about this view.