I think this is a very thought provoking article in Azure
http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=390
H The author loses me in the last part as I am no Israeli literature maven. The last few paragraphs especially the one about the Temple is interesting.
It reminds me of Professor Leibowitz comment: Moshiach that arrived is no longer Moshiach!
Maybe that is what Rabbi (see comments) Hillel meant when he said Ein Mashiach LeYisrael.
I wonder what you think about it?
"not as a husband, whose wife’s body is familiar territory."
ReplyDeleteDon't think I would agree with that. The Talmud brings many cases of men having intercorse with the wrong women because they knew no better that it wasn't their wife.
I should note I have never been married yet so I could be entirely wrong on this subject.
ReplyDelete"Maybe that is what Rav Hilel meant when he said Ein Mashiach LeYisrael."
The Messiah will be a gentile?! Just kidding, my grammar isn't that bad. I need to learn the gemora again. Who was it that orignally suggested Hezekiah should of been the Messiah? Was it anonymous?
Also why Rav Hilel? Why not Rabbi Hillel or Hillel the Elder?
Also why Rav Hilel? Why not Rabbi Hillel or Hillel the Elder?
ReplyDeleteIt is not hilel the elder but rav Hilel who was at the time of the amoraim.
Re your other questions I dont remamber offhand who said that about Hizkyahu.
I must go over the gemora again. I am certain I remembered it saying Hillel haZecken.
ReplyDeleteתלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף צט עמוד א
ReplyDeleteרבי אומר: שלשה דורות, שנאמר +תהלים ע"ב+ ייראוך עם שמש ולפני ירח דור דורים. רבי הילל אומר: אין להם משיח לישראל, שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה
as he is after Rebbi he is not the old Hilel.
Since our Hillel was an Amora of Eretz Yisrael, would not his title be Rabbi rather than Rav?
ReplyDeleteIt is not clear if it was Rabban Hillel II. or rabbi Hillel son of Rabban Gamaliel III.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel%2C_son_of_Gamaliel_III
Shimon, You are right it should be Rabbi Hillel. Rav Hyman in his Toldot tanaim Ve'amoraim places him as the son of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rebi making him the brother of r. Yehudah Nesiah the First. Hyman follows Halevi who has 3 RYNs.
ReplyDelete3 Rabbi Yehudi HaNasi s???
ReplyDeleteno 3 R. Yehudah Nessiah's. only one R.Yehudah hanassi.
ReplyDeleteRebbi's grandson (son of Rabban Gamaliel III.) Yehuda II. was called both HaNassi or Nessiah and his grandson (son of Gamaliel IV.) is Rabbi Yehuda (III.) Nesiah.
ReplyDeleteBTW I dont think RaMBaM would be happy with Professor Leibowitz. What happened to 13 ikarim? I would say Rabbi Hillel really meant that Chizkiyahu Melech Yehuda was Moshiach, Leibowitz just doesnt find the whole concept of moshiach intelectual enough.
ReplyDeleteShimon, Leibowitz is a Neo -Maimonidean. Prof Nuriel wrote a paper showing where he went off Rambam's approach. I do not think Moshiach is so clear. I will treat Rambam's Mashiach one day. It is much more nuanced than you think. Leibowitz does not deny that Mashiach is an ikkar but the emphasis is not on his arrival but rather on the waiting and as a goal.
ReplyDeleteIs RaMBaM much more nuanced than I think because I find Leibowitz shallow? ;-) Looking forward to hear your definition of "Neo -Maimonidean."
ReplyDeleteIt is really quite simple. The logic of Eretz Yisroel functions much like that of the mother. We can never once we are grown(5-6) return to the mother or possess her as we have dreamt in infancy. If we obey the father and the Father we can find and possess another woman and enjoy a trace of the mother through Shabus, deveikus with the shechina and the like.
ReplyDeleteMoses himself , once he hit the stone and did not rely on divine providence couldn't enter Eretz yisrael. And the Israelites who did enter had little but war and trouble until the churban. They never fully owned it....at best God let them use it in between shmitos and yoveils. Ki lee kol haaretz.
Zionism never learnt this lesson....they only know kochi votzem yadi and to top it off the Azure people don't even want to share with their neighbors.
The author is being obscurantist. Why did Tristan and Isolde die rather than consumate? Why did the troubadors yearn but never attain? Spin!spin!spin!