Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 122

Wed, 18 Oct 2017

• 1. eitz hachaim (hankman)
• 2. Vayehi erev (hankman)
• 3. Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres (Micha Berger)
• 5. Torah precheit? (hankman)
• 6. Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: ?Timtum Ha-Lev? Redux (Michael Poppers)
• 8. Re: eitz hachaim (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres (Alexander Seinfeld)
• 10. Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi (Micha Berger)
• 11. Interesting Insight on Noach (Richard Wolberg)

Hi,

What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make
any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would
(could) he make use of the eitz hachaim?   Kodem hacheit he was not a bar
misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from
accessing it! So when would  it ever be useful to Adam?

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171015/21d9fa37/attachment-0001.html>

Hi,
If you	look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi
erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the
vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on
its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted
completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this?

Kol tuv 
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171015/ccb2cc2d/attachment-0001.html>

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal
:> Bar Kokhva?
: 
: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the
: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall.   The Rambam clearly does
: not agree with that whole version of the story...

The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early.

:                                                  In his version BK
: was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not
: for his own sins but for those of others.

My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq
anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach
despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from
beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol
Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can
be presumed to be mashiach.

Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have
been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah.

As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK
out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his
being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already.

And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi.

: He doesn't draw a line at all.  He carefully doesn't say that
: Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*,

12:1:
    Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago
    shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig.

This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that
leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is
how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc...
They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of
their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his
line of olam keminhago noheig".

: >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would
: >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach.

: How so?   He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but
: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu.

"Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the
Rambam says.

: Again, how so?  The requirement is that he forces all Israel to
: follow it and to reinforce its breaches.  Not that he educates them,
: or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan
: Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it...

Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har
haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's
posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival
through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there
is no record of.)

Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's
chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim
followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro"
-- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv.

The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as
telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually
used to refer to a qal vachomer.

BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar
Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b
Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh
ve'adayin ben David lo ba."

: >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming
: >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming
: >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is
: >indeed his source.
: 
: He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform
: miracles.   How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's
: qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ...

R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being
the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being
one. 

And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement
about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from
the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva
reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation
we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion.

: Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva
: didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was
: expecting them to happen any day now? ...

Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle
before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles.

12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago
holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although
it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in
minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles
from the entire mission.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ...

What's the ZlYM of Shabbos?

: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the
: whole 40 years in the midbar...

Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2
and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel.
When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day
atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those
for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual
construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned.

The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between
Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the
timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit
haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the
holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned
sukkos of ananei hakavod.

: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving
: the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim
: that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural
: world.

My own mental image of the structure of the year:

The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the
theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres).  And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh
haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres --
the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for
qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas
Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake
of seeing the beris to fruition.

So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which
is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season
is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us
for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is
about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context.
(And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos
hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres,
a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year.

That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's
experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more
significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem"
does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the
difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making
the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest
of the world.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

Hi,

I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of
the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would
recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the
mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least
as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid
the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind)
would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow
but for reward in olom haba.

The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in
Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are
all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their  issurei
melocho  . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc.
There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no
krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda  and all its inuiyim
as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the
6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam
succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that
Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas
Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent
as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt.

Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the
existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in
doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the
mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today
shibaneh beis hamikdash?

As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc.

There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not
quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were
there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would
have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam
and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a
sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but
mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim
kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his
mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that
while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not
to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider
above.

There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was
created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need
hatafas dam bris).

Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha.

Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. 

With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible.

No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc

Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week.

Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world
(Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so
they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm
of Purim torah or not?).

I could go on  for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas!

So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever
constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE
mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot?

Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea!

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171015/d8b86bf7/attachment-0001.html>

On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

> : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the
> : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall.   The Rambam clearly does
> : not agree with that whole version of the story...
> 
> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early.

The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* 
imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*.  This is not consistent 
with the Y'mi.



> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK
> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his
> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already.

Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? 
How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that 
Moshiach needn't do any?   The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in 
him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed 
in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements 
for the stage he was at.


> : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would
> : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach.
> 
> : How so?   He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but
> : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu.
> 
> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the
> Rambam says.

Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who 
disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when 
they think they can get away with it.  Our current government forces us 
to live without drugs, and yet many people don't.


> 
> : Again, how so?  The requirement is that he forces all Israel to
> : follow it and to reinforce its breaches.  Not that he educates them,
> : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan
> : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it...
> 
> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har
> haBayis.

The Sanhedrin was already organized.   There's no requirement that they 
return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually 
have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, 
which is the stage he was at.


> In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's
> posqim

He certainly did, according to the Rambam.


> to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival
> through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there
> is no record of.)

Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep 
mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so.



> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's
> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim
> followed BK.

What else could it be?  He goes directly from saying that miracles are 
not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements.  Therefore 
he must have done those things.


> But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro"
> -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv.

What's weak about it?  They must have had a reason for this imagination. 
  What else but the chazaka?  And if they thought he hadn't yet reached 
that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it?


> 
> The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as
> telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually
> used to refer to a qal vachomer.

You're misreading it.  It's not "din", it's *dein*.  Dein hu malka 
meshicha, this is the Annointed King.


> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar
> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b
> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh
> ve'adayin ben David lo ba."

He was the lone exception, or nearly so.   Because *he* held that the 
miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning.  The 
Rambam paskens against him.


> : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming
> : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming
> : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is
> : >indeed his source.
> :
> : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform
> : miracles.   How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's
> : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ...
> 
> R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being
> the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being
> one.

This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or 
he doesn't.   If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring 
miracles prove that they're truly not required?  If he was wrong about 
other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one?  No, the 
fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view 
totally, and holds it is the halacha.

In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature.  A 
miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water 
continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its 
nature is different but because it's ignoring nature.  That, he says, 
may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. 
Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't 
know.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote:
> Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah
in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be
nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days
(9 in chu"l) straight? <
Tangents to the tangent:
(a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen
quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on
Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel
mitzva*, e.g. see here
<http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/8939/The-Glatt-Life>:

Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of
?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk
that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word
ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach
sameiach?

The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a
succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any
physical items. We only need to be sameiach.

This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the
succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from
dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we
can take along with us.

(b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach"
(P'Emor).
(c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is
that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous
and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just
"b'chagecha").

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171015/3fe2705c/attachment-0001.html>

On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote:
> What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't
> make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when
> would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim?   Kodem hacheit he was
> not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was
> prevented from accessing it! So when would  it ever be useful to Adam?

I don't understand the question.  He was prevented from accessing it
*because* of the cheit.  Had he not sinned, you say he would have had
no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make
him live forever.  Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar
mitah.  Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a
bar mitah.  Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for
him to eat.  It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he
could no longer be permitted to live forever.  That what eating that
did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing.

Lisa

It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh
Hashana?

Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical
reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not
Har Sinai)?
>
>>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special
>>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other
>>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations
>>who
>>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us
>>and
>>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for
>>being at home in Eretz Yisrael.
>>
>>Akiva Miller
>>
>>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was
>>NOT
>>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will
>>respond
>>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated
>>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic
>>and
>>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

:>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the
:>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall.   The Rambam clearly does
:>: not agree with that whole version of the story...

:> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early.

: The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation*
: imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*.  This is not
: consistent with the Y'mi.

I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the
Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol
chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas.
E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were
still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death.

:> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK
:> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his
:> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already.

: Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do
: miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles,
: prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ...

To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack
of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a
particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if
not miracles altogether.

If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva
and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking
at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's
shitah.

And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of
things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate.
Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets.

:>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would
:>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach.

:>: How so?   He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but
:>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu.

:> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the
:> Rambam says.

: Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who
: disobey are punished...

You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include
trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually
get the majority observing, is it kefiyah?

And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up
a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture
the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per
the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and
its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have
them aligned.

...
:> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har
:> haBayis.

: The Sanhedrin was already organized.   There's no requirement that
: they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does
: eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and
: fighting the war, which is the stage he was at.

Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a
BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei
Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains!

"Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah,
a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a
status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David,
only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the
Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq
bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding
at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he
is mashiach.

Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after
chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change.

: Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to
: keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so.

That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not,
it implies actual follow-through.

BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a
minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe
-- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP).

:> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's
:> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim
:> followed BK.

: What else could it be?  He goes directly from saying that miracles
: are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements.
: Therefore he must have done those things.

Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed
moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't
claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far
as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah
they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied
its lack.

Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate
our acting upon.

: What's weak about it?  They must have had a reason for this
: imagination.  What else but the chazaka?  And if they thought he
: hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't
: required to reach it?

Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they
are ruled out.

"What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a
chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other
notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah
in a lot of halachic topics?

: You're misreading it.  It's not "din", it's *dein*.  Dein hu malka
: meshicha, this is the Annointed King.

"Hadein hu"?

Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression
I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah.

:> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar
:> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b
:> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh
:> ve'adayin ben David lo ba."

: He was the lone exception, or nearly so.   Because *he* held that
: the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the
: beginning.  The Rambam paskens against him.

That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which
says it's Rabbanan.

...
: This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's
: criteria or he doesn't...

Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges.

He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as
proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a
likely moshiach.

He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous,
maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream
altogether.

Very consistent picture, IMHO.

: In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature.  A
: miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature...

It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary
one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only
talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of
things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar"
means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with
the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person
(along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today
as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing
account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3.

From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished,
though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual.
Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah.
Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous
were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time.

rw

Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. 
And one cannot exist without the other.
Eric Burdon

> 
> ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will
> die from their rejection.?   
> Anonymous



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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)