Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 25

Thu, 03 Mar 2016

• 1. Moshiach Ben Yosef (Isaac Balbin)
• 2. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Isaac Balbin)
• 5. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: What Do French Jews Do On Shabbath? (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: What Do French Jews Do On Shabbath? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Isaac Balbin)
• 10. Solar oven (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Moshiach Ben Yosef (Micha Berger)

Has anyone seen a cogent case for why the Rambam seemingly ignored the gemora in Succa and failed to mention the concept in Hilchos Melachim?


_________________________________
Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
of instincts. Rabbi Yisrael Salanter

The information contained within this email should be considered as
confidential and / or privileged and is intended solely for the addressee
only. If you have received this message in error, you must not copy,
forward, print, or otherwise disseminate any information contained within
this email or attachments. Please contact the sender advising that the
error has occurred and to determine the most appropriate method of
disposal. Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160303/615b59b4/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/02/2016 05:25 PM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> Has anyone seen a cogent case for why the Rambam seemingly ignored
> the gemora in Succa and failed to mention the concept in Hilchos
> Melachim?


I think it's because Bar Kochva was not preceded by a Moshiach ben Yosef.

The Rambam's whole model is based on his view that R Akiva was right to
support Bar Kochva, and that despite how it turned out the halacha remains
like R Akiva.  Supposing that the day after BK's defeat another claimant
were to arise, with exactly the same qualifications, the Rambam holds
that we would have been obligated to get back into the trenches and follow
him.   But if a Mosiach ben Yosef were a necessary criterion then how could
R Akiva have followed BK in the first place?  Therefore it must not be
necessary.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

To give a slight variant on Zev's answer....

The gemara in Sukkah (52a) desvribes a machloqes between R' Dosa and
the Chakhamim. One says that Zekharia refers to mourning the slaying of
Moshiach ben Yoseif, the other, the yeitzer hara.

We could describe it as the Rambam saying that R' Aqiva's support of
Bar Kokhva despite a lack of Moshiach ben Yosef shows that it was the
Chakhamim who held it will be the yh"r's funeral. And therefore the
Bavli is only describing a shitas yachid (R Dosa), rejected by the rabbim.

(BTW, R' Dosa was on of Hyrkanus's sons. His life must have overlapped
R' Aqiva's. I wonder if he was alive during BK.)

I know 52b mentions him again. And, while R' Aqiva clearly didn't
demans a MBY, the chakhamim are only arguing against a pasuq referring
to his death. They could still believe in MBY in general.

Still, the Rambam can "hold like" R' Aqiva. ("Hold like" in quotes,
since the question isn't necessarily halachic.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:28 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 05:25 PM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>> Has anyone seen a cogent case for why the Rambam seemingly ignored
>> the gemora in Succa and failed to mention the concept in Hilchos
>> Melachim?

> I think it's because Bar Kochva was not preceded by a Moshiach ben Yosef.

And you therefore think that the Mesora that the Rambam had on Moshiach
was solely derived from Bar Kochba? That was one incident recorded.
What if Bar Kochba actually performed both tasks? That is, he had been a
successful Moshiach Ben Yosef but failed as a Moshiach Ben David because
he didn't have Ruach HaKodesh (based on the Zohar's criteria, which the
Rambam doesn't mention either because he never saw the Zohar or didn't
agree with that)

> The Rambam's whole model is based on his view that R Akiva was right to
> support Bar Kochva, and that despite how it turned out the halacha remains
> like R Akiva.

It's curious that R' Akiva wasn't considered the possible Moshiach,
and only the warrior Bar Kochba was. I know R' Akiva was from Gerim,
but does Moshiach have to be Ben Achar Ben from David HaMelech?

>  Supposing that the day after BK's defeat another claimant
> were to arise, with exactly the same qualifications, the Rambam holds
> that we would have been obligated to get back into the trenches and follow
> him.  

Where do you see that he would be OBLIGATED? Is he tapped on the shoulder
and so advised?

>  But if a Mosiach ben Yosef were a necessary criterion then how could
> R Akiva have followed BK in the first place?  Therefore it must not be
> necessary.

Moshiach Ben Yosef prepares the ground for Moshiach Ben David. Once so
prepared, there is a potential Moshiach Ben David at all times amongst
the living. Rav Kook held that Herzl was Moshiach Ben Yosef, and that
it didn't need to even be a religious person.
I accept that it's a preparatory part of the process, and if my memory
serves me correctly, the Rambam in Iggeres Teiman mentions Moshiach
Ben Yosef?
What perplexes me is that there isn't a word about him in Hilchos
Melochim.

On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:44 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The gemara in Sukkah (52a) desvribes a machloqes between R' Dosa and
> the Chakhamim. One says that Zekharia refers to mourning the slaying of
> Moshiach ben Yoseif, the other, the yeitzer hara.

That in of itself doesn't mean that the Chachomim held there was no
Moshiach Ben Yosef. The Mesora is Moshiach Ben Yosef will die and "add"
years to Ben Dovid.
I don't see how that makes the CONCEPT not exist?

> We could describe it as the Rambam saying that R' Aqiva's support of
> Bar Kokhva despite a lack of Moshiach ben Yosef shows that it was the
> Chakhamim who held it will be the yh"r's funeral. And therefore the
> Bavli is only describing a shitas yachid (R Dosa), rejected by the rabbim.

Since when do we learn the Halocho from one story? It seems to me the
Rambam was giving AN EXAMPLE with Bar Kochba as this was written up.

...
> I know 52b mentions him again. And, while R' Aqiva clearly didn't
> demans a MBY, the chakhamim are only arguing against a pasuq referring
> to his death. They could still believe in MBY in general.

Agree.

> Still, the Rambam can "hold like" R' Aqiva. ("Hold like" in quotes,
> since the question isn't necessarily halachic.)

In Mishnah Torah, the Rambam is the only one who writes Halacha about
Moshiach. As such, his NOT writing about Moshiach Ben Yosef AT ALL,
can't be interpreted that it was an optional thing. Rather, it was not the
Halacha that such a thing exists. The Rambam could have written that there
is such an (optional) possibility and if it materialised this person would
do x, y and z. Leaving him out COMPLETELY seems an odd thing, given that
the Mesora seems to be across many if not most that Moshiach Ben Yosef
definitely would be part of Geula or POSSIBLY part of Geula at worst.

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:49:42PM +1100, Isaac Balbin wrote:
: I don't see how that makes the CONCEPT not exist?

There is very little aggadita in Mishneh Torah. A concept not being in
the Yad means it is not halakahh, not that it doesn't exist.

E.g. if he personally believed there would be a MbY but didn't think
there was any obligation to believe it, nor does his absence weigh
against accepting a possible MbD as king, the concept could very well
not make the Yad.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Arie Folger wrote:
"I'd like to explain my reasoning: amira le'aqum may be permitted,
especially when you do the amira before Shabbat, rather than on Shabbat,
bemmaqom mitsva and bemmakom tzaar. Not being able to get home is
considered to be a great source of tzaar, especially when you need to go to
sleep. A major violation of 'oneg Shabbat. And being stuck in a Parisian
apartment, which is usually smaller than, say, an apartment in Grenoble, is
like sitting Shiva on Shabbat, and of course you miss minyan."

I can understand using this kind of heter for a one time situation where
you are visiting somewhere and have no choice. However, should we rely on
this kind of heter weekly for a long term period? Can/should a person live
in a place where every week he needs to rely on a heter amira leaqum
b'makom mitzva to go to shut and get home?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160303/1326aa12/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/3/2016 6:49 AM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> It's curious that R' Akiva wasn't considered the possible Moshiach, 
> and only the warrior Bar Kochba was. I know R' Akiva was from Gerim, 
> but does Moshiach have to be Ben Achar Ben from David HaMelech? 

First of all, yes, of course Mashiach has to be ben achar ben from David 
HaMelech.  Second of all, contrary to recent propaganda from a certain 
Hassidic sect, Mashiach is a *temporal* (political) leader and not just 
a religious one.

Lisa

On 03/03/2016 08:27 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
>
> I can understand using this kind of heter for a one time situation
> where you are visiting somewhere and have no choice. However, should
> we rely on this kind of heter weekly for a long term period?
> Can/should a person live in a place where every week he needs to rely
> on a heter amira leaqum b'makom mitzva to go to shut and get home?

In Northern Europe it was necessary all winter to rely on the heter
that just as amira lenochri is permitted for someone who is already
bedridden, it's also permitted to prevent one from becoming sick in
the first place.  Every winter shabbos they had nochrim doing melachos
de'oraisa in order to preserve their health.  Should that have meant
they were obligated to move to warmer climates?

Or consider the case of a sea journey where pikuach nefesh will require
one to do forbidden work.  One may not embark on such a journey in the
second half of the week (except, of course, when the journey itself is
pikuach nefesh), but on a Tuesday one may lechatchila board a ship,
knowing that this will mean breaking shabbos when it comes.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 4 Mar 2016, at 12:42 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2016 6:49 AM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>> It's curious that R' Akiva wasn't considered the possible Moshiach,
>> and only the warrior Bar Kochba was. I know R' Akiva was from Gerim,
>> but does Moshiach have to be Ben Achar Ben from David HaMelech?

> First of all, yes, of course Mashiach has to be ben achar ben from
> David HaMelech. Second of all, ... Mashiach is a *temporal* (political)
> leader and not just a religious one.

I have a recollection of a shiur snippet from Rabbi Yosef Bechoffer
which I heard a little of in my car, where he said to the best of
my recollection that with the mixing of our blood today this wasn't
relevant. I may be misquoting him. If anyone has his email address I'd
appreciate his views here

[I Bcc-ed him, just in case RYGB would otherwise have missed this post.
-micha]

http://offgridquest.com/survival/go-sun-solar-cooker-brings-heats-to-
550-

Are there cases where you could use this on Shabbat?  I assume it's not 
bishul d'Orayta, so would there be a lower bar for what would have to 
happen to make it permissible?

Lisa

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 02:56:52PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: But Bar Kochva didn't come back to life. If he does he can start over,
: and if he does as much as he did the last time he will once again be
: bechezkas Moshiach, and if he finishes the job he will be vadai Moshiach.
...
: And of course once someone has done everything he's meant to do, and
: has become vadai Moshiach...

I don't understand the language being used, and since it's common around
Chabad circles, I'll ask.

Whether something is a safeiq or a vadai isn't really a change in the
cheftza, it's a change in my knowledge of it. So, here is the way I
would read the Rambam.

It is claimed that Reb X is mashiach. On day 1, we have no reason to
believe it, and a rov against (most men who think they're from beis
David aren't mashiach), so we don't.

If we are mevareir the question of his being from Beis David, he thinks
about Torah and is busy in mitzvos like David haMelekh according to TSBK
and TSBP, and gets "all" (kol is often rov) of Israel to follow it even
in details and fights Hashem's wars, we have a chazaqah that such a man
is mashiach. So we can presume he is, as a halachic working assumption.
(Melakhim 12:4)

If he succeeds at the above, subdues the surrounding nations, builds
the BHMQ and gathers the exiles, then we know it for sure.

But if he fails or is killed, we know for sure he wasn't. I took the
rambam to mean failed at those things that we based our chazaqah on other
than the warring, and killed being the only way we know that he failed
at his last bettle fighting Hashem's wars. And that losing one battle
(think Yehoshuav and Ai) or even a string of them would not qualify as
a rei'usa in the chazaqa. But I won't stand on that point.

As Lisa noted, there isn't even a chazaqah to assume he is mashiach
until he leads an army and fights literal wars. Nor does the chazaqah
hold while the majority of Jews are not observant. But that too wasn't
my intended thesis.

I just wanted to note that the Rambam talks about "bechezqas shehu
mashiach", "harei zeh mashiach bevadai". No one is ever labeled "bechezqas
mashiach" or "vasai mashiach", there is a chazaqah or a vada'us that he
has the label. When the chazaqah is broken, we know he never was mashiach,
and while halakhah told us to act as though he was (in the absense of
better knowledge), now we know he always was "just" another Jew.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 03/03/2016 01:48 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> In that case do you hold halocho psuko that Moshiach can't be dead?

Naturally a dead person can't fight wars, build a beis hamikdosh, or
do any of the other things Moshiach has to do. Once Bar Kochva died he
lost his chezkas Moshiach.

Of course nothing says Moshiach can't have *been* dead. If a dead
person comes to life, he's just as eligible to be Moshiach as anyone
else with his qualifications. Having died isn't a disqualification.
But Bar Kochva didn't come back to life. If he does he can start over,
and if he does as much as he did the last time he will once again be
bechezkas Moshiach, and if he finishes the job he will be vadai Moshiach.
There's no halachic bar to it. But there's no reason to expect any of
that to happen.

And of course once someone has done everything he's meant to do, and
has become vadai Moshiach, then he can die. We pretty much *expect*
that Moshiach will eventually die and his son will inherit his place.
Unless techiyas hameisim comes first, but we have no guarantee of when
that will happen. It could be immediate, it could be 40 years, or it
could be 400 years.


On 03/03/2016 04:08 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> I'm afraid you are now going way out of the plain Rambam. He never
> understood that Gemora about Daniel in the contorted way you are
> proposing. He was simply giving examples of great people who could
> have been Moshiach

What on earth are you talking about?  What gemora, when gemora?  His
only model is Bar Kochva, because that is the only case where we have
a psak din.

You seem to be confusing the Rambam with an inspirational work or a
story book. The Rabmab has *no interest* in telling us what will happen.
We will know the future when it becomes the past.  His only interest is
in paskening what we must do when it's possible that Moshiach is coming.
So he gives the bare minimum requirements for Moshiach; if someone does
such and such you are obligated to rally around him, and if he doesn't
do those things then you are not.  Anything he does beyond the minimum
is very nice, but since it isn't necessary it has no place in a psak din.


On 03/03/2016 06:35 PM, Isaac Balbin wrote:
> You forget the Gemora about if he's from the living which you
> incorrectly take literally.
> The Rambam clearly holds that you don't have two attempts at the job

I have no idea what you're talking about.  I haven't mentioned any
gemora. We're discussing the Rambam and halacha, not agadeta.  The Rambam
does not pasken that a person who has been dead can't be Moshiach.  He'd
have no basis in halacha for such a psak.  Once someone is alive they're
alive, with the same status as any living person.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 03/03/2016 07:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
  [long post snipped]

I agree 100%.  That is exactly what I meant.  But dying *after* it has
been established bevadai that the person is Moshaich doesn't create a
reiusa, because we *expect* Moshiach to die.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:42:31PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: First of all, yes, of course Mashiach has to be ben achar ben from
: David HaMelech.

In Divrei haYamim I 22:9-10, HQBH promises "... ki Shelomoh yihyeh shemo
... vehakhinosi kissei malkhuso el Yisrael ad olam."

It looks like the mashiach will not only come from David, but through
Shelomo in particular.

And according to the Zohar (3:173b), he will descend from Chefzibah.
Cheftzibah was married to Natan ben David and then was meyavemes to
Shelomo. (As explained by R Reuvein Margolios.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)