וְאִם יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ מִבֵּית דָּוִד הוֹגֶה בַּתּוֹרָה וְעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוֹת כְּדָוִד אָבִיו. כְּפִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְשֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְיָכֹף כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ וּלְחַזֵּק בִּדְקָהּ. וְיִלָּחֵם מִלְחֲמוֹת ה'. הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא מָשִׁיחַ. (אִם עָשָׂה וְהִצְלִיחַ וּבָנָה מִקְדָּשׁ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְקִבֵּץ נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מָשִׁיחַ בְּוַדַּאי. וִיתַקֵּן אֶת הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ לַעֲבֹד אֶת ה' בְּיַחַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי אָז אֶהְפֹּךְ אֶל עַמִּים שָׂפָה בְרוּרָה לִקְרֹא כֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם ה' וּלְעָבְדוֹ שְׁכֶם אֶחָד):
Now, if a king should arise from the House of David who is versed in Torah and engages in Commandments, as did David his forefather, in accordance with both the Written and the Oral Torahs, and he enjoins all of Israel to follow in its ways and encourages them to repair its breaches, and he fights the Wars of G-d128I.e. he defends Israel., then he may be presumed to be the Messiah. If he succeeds in his efforts and defeats the enemies around and builds the Sanctuary in its proper place and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Messiah.
I humbly and respectfully submit that you hae misunderstood the Rambam and its methdology, and drawn conclusions from the Aruch hashulchan HaAtid that are unwarranted based on the text you provide.
ReplyDeleteit is actually more complex than on first or 2nd reading, so I will try to present how I see it.
a) In the first section, Rambam uses the future tense for several traits or requirements:
Yaamod melech m'Beit David (future tense)
V'Yicof (future tense)
V'Yilachem (future tense)
b) Then the second condition is past tense - אִם עָשָׂה וְהִצְלִיחַ וּבָנָה מִקְדָּשׁ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְקִבֵּץ נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מָשִׁיחַ בְּוַדַּאי
If he did [those in (a)] and succeeded (past tense)
and built the Mikdash in its place (past tense)
and kibetz nidchei ... (past tense)
than he is vadai Moshiach.
a) and b) are 2 separate halachic conditions, fulfillment of which imply 2 different halachic statuses. These are Tenaim.
The first Tenai - or set of tenaim is that a King from the line of David will stand (be annointed), compel all Israel to walk in the Torah, and correct the breaches, and fight military wars. Chabad also would equate these wars to the mitzvah campaigns , which would be susbsumed under the first clause, i.e. to make people observant of Torah. It is also a blatant denial of the Torah and halacha, when the entire book we are in is called Melachim uMilchamot!
The 2nd Tenai or set of tenaim is that a) is fulfilled and then the Temple is rebuilt and the diaspora is ingathered. What does it mean that a) is fulfilled if it is already a Tenai in a) that these ar fulfilled? It means that it is possible, and also written in Yerushalmi and in some Neviim, that another pathway is that there will be a Temple without Teshuva/observance and there will be kibbutz galuyot before teshuva. In other words, if B is fulfilled, without A, then we do not have Moshiach!
The way you argue it is faulty from a number of perspectives.
1) you rely on another web forum, an cite a random guy who asked a Chabad rabbi. So if you asked a J for J rabbi, then that woudl also be Ok?
2) The whole interpretation you bring of the first part - a) is circular logic and obsolete. Essentially, youa r saying there are no tenaim for a) (chizkat moshiach) he doesn't need to fulfil any conditions, they will be sorted when Moshiach comes.
3) Just like steinsaltz, you are trading halachic judaism - one where ther are conditions of satisfaction for a halacha to be fulfilled - for junk Judaism, etch a sketch halacha, where you make it up as you go along, and ignore any departure from the normative statements of the Rambam.
4) You bring in knee jerk ideological comments rather than analysis. Rabbi Goren was closer to fulfilling at least parts of a) than the rebbe. The rebbe was not a military leader, had no part in any of the wars that liberated Eretz Yisrael. Rav Goren both as Military and State chief rabbi fulfilled "partly" these conditions, i.e. fighting wars, and compelling certain numbers of people to keep halacha - eg kosher kitchens, and other halachic observance in the army and state. However, just like everyoen else, he did not fulfill the requirements of the job. Nobody has yet done it.
ד
וְאִם
יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ מִבֵּית דָּוִד הוֹגֶה בַּתּוֹרָה וְעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוֹת
כְּדָוִד אָבִיו. כְּפִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְשֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְיָכֹף
כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ וּלְחַזֵּק בִּדְקָהּ. וְיִלָּחֵם
מִלְחֲמוֹת ה'. הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא מָשִׁיחַ. (אִם עָשָׂה
וְהִצְלִיחַ וּבָנָה מִקְדָּשׁ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְקִבֵּץ נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
הֲרֵי זֶה מָשִׁיחַ בְּוַדַּאי. וִיתַקֵּן אֶת הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ לַעֲבֹד
אֶת ה' בְּיַחַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי אָז אֶהְפֹּךְ אֶל עַמִּים שָׂפָה
בְרוּרָה לִקְרֹא כֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם ה' וּלְעָבְדוֹ שְׁכֶם אֶחָד):
You are totally misreading the Rambam.
ReplyDeletei am not defending the Lubavitch view that has been rejected by major poskim. But your insistence that Chezkas Moshiach must make everyone frum is simply wrong. That is required only for definite Moshiach. Presumptive Moshiach merely has to try
then anyone and everyone can be Chezkat Moshiach
ReplyDeletelook at this verse
וְיָכֹף כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ וּלְחַזֵּק בִּדְקָהּ
why does he say "all israel"? why not just a few people?
your reading is he has to try to make everyone religious? Why not just succeed in making a few hundred religious? It is much more difficult to to get peopel religious than to try getting them religious.
If major poskim rejected the Lubavitch claims, they seemed to have a "high bar". The way you read it, sets a very low bar, or no bar at all. Do you think major poskim agree with your version of this matter?
ReplyDeleteIf not the entire population, well rov - the majority, eg the majority in Israel or america. We are at around 15-20% orthodox (full range) in Israel, and maybe 10% in America. That isn't even rov. If it was increased to 60%, 70%, 80% kind of figures, then we would have a candidate.