דף יז, א פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר צמח שמו.
ר' יודן בריה דר' אייבו אמר מנחם שמו.
אמר חנינה בריה דר' אבהו ולא פליגי חושבניה דהדין כחושבניה דהדין
הוא צמח הוא מנחם.
ודא מסייעא להו דמר ר' יודן בריה דר' אייבו
עובדא הוה בחד יהודאי דהוה קאים רדי
דף יז, ב פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא
געת תורתיה קומוי
עבר חד ערביי ושמע קלה
א"ל בר יודאי בר יודאי שרי תורך ושרי קנקנך דהא חריב בית מקדשא
געת זמן תניינות
א"ל בר יודאי בר יודאי קטור תוריך וקטור קנקניך דהא יליד מלכא משיחא
א"ל מה שמיה
מנחם
א"ל ומה שמיה דאבוי
א"ל חזקיה
א"ל מן הן הוא
א"ל מן בירת מלכא דבית לחם יהודה
אזל זבין תורוי וזבין קנקנוי ואיתעביד זבין לבדין למיינוקא
והוה עייל קרייה ונפקא קרייה עד דעל לההוא קרתא
והויין כל נשייא זבנן ואימה דמנחם לא זבנה
שמע קלן דנשייא אמרין אימיה דמנחם אימיה דמנחם איתיי זובנין לברך
אמרה בעייא אנא מיחנקוניה סנאיהון דישראל דביומא דאיתיליד איחרוב בית מוקדשא
א"ל רחיציא אנן דברגליה חריב וברגליה מתבניי
א"ל לית לי פריטין
א"ל והוא מה איכפת ליה איתיי זובנין ליה אין לית קומך יומא דין בתר יומין אנא אתי ונסיב
בתר יומין עאל לההיא קרתא
אמר לה מהו מיינוקא עביד
א"ל מן שעתא דחמיתני אתון רוחין ועלעולי וחטפיניה מן ידיי.
א"ר בון מה לנו ללמוד מן הערבי הזה
ולא מקרא מלא הוא (ישעיהו י) והלבנון באדיר יפול
מה כתיב בתריה (ישעיהו יא) ויצא חוטר מגזע ישי.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said Tzemach is his name.
Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Aibo said Menachem is his name.
Chanina the sone of Rabbi Abahu said - and they do not argue:
The gematria of this name is the same as the gematria of that name.
Tzemach = Menachem.
And the following supports this that Rabbi Yudan son of Rabbi Aibo said:
There was an incident with a Jew who was ploughing
His cow moo'd before him.
An Arab passed by and heard her voice.
He said to him: Jew, Jew, unbind your cow and and unbind your plow for the Temple has been destroyed.
{J: At this point it seems the Jew followed his instructions.}
It moo'd a second time.
He said to him: Jew, Jew, hook up your cow(s) hook up your plow(s) for the king messiah has been born.
He {the Jew} asked him: What is his name?
"Menachem."
He {the Jew} said to him: And what is the name of his father?
He {the Arab} said to him: Chizkiyah
He {the Jew} said to him: From where is he?
He {the Arab} said to him: From the capital of the king, Bet Lechem Yehuda {Bethlehem}
He {the Jew} went and sold his cows {bulls} and sold his plows and made himself into a seller of swaddling clothes for infants.
And he would enter a city and leave a city until he got to that city {Bethlehem}
And all the women would buy, and the mother of Menachem did not buy.
He heard the voices of the women saying "Menachem's Mother, Menachem's Mother, come and buy for your son."
She says [sic] "I desire to strangle that the enemies of Israel, for on the day that he was born the Temple was destroyed!"
{J: note - the enemies of Israel is the phrase used to describe something bad happening to Israel or some specific person you do not wish evil to befall - this phrase is used to deflect or not ask to actually bring about the evil.}
He {the Jew} said to her: I trust that at his feet it was destroyed and at his feet it will be rebuilt.
She said to him: I have no prutin {money}
He said to her: what does it matter to me. Come and buy from me - if you have nothing before you on this day, after days I will come and take {collect}.
After days {some time} he entered that city.
He said to her: what is doing with the infant?
She said to him: Since the time I saw you, wind and whirlwind came and snatched him from my hands.
Rabbi Bon said: Why should we learn this {that on the day the Temple was destroyed mashiach was born} from this Arab?
Is it not a full {explicit} pasuk?
Yeshayahu 10:34: (last pasuk of perek 10)
לד וְנִקַּף סִבְכֵי הַיַּעַר, בַּבַּרְזֶל; וְהַלְּבָנוֹן, בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל. {ס 34 And He shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one. {S}
What is written after it? Yeshayahu 11:1: (first pasuk of next perek)
א וְיָצָא חֹטֶר, מִגֵּזַע יִשָׁי; וְנֵצֶר, מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו יִפְרֶה. 1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots.
By way of explanation, Levanon is taken most often in midrash to be a reference to the Temple, and a shoot coming out of the stock of Jesse, the father of King David, is a reference to the king mashiach.
Note also that this midrash does not refer to Jesus. The reason the midrash speaks of mashiach born in Bethlehem is that there was a tradition of the mashiach being born there (just as King David was from there). It is because this tradition exists that the Christian Bible has Jesus born there, because of the census, even though he is really from Nazereth. In general there seems a conscious effort in reality or in later writings to try to fulfill conditions of being the messiah. But just because the infant is born in Bethlehem does not mean this refers to Jesus.
In fact, the other details show it is not. The child's father is Chizkiyah, not Joseph. He is born on the day the second Temple is destroyed, and not while the Temple is still standing. His name is Menachem, not Jesus. He is carried off by wind and whirlwind while still an infant, and is not seem since - rather that growing up, beginning a messianic campaign, and being crucified. It is fairly clear the midrash is referring to someone else.
Does this midrash imply that mashiach can come from the dead? (This is relevant to my previous post.) Well, I would say that the plain intent of the midrash is that the child did not die, but rather was born the day the Temple was destroyed, and carried off by wind and whirlwind to a safe location, and in the meantime has grown up and is waiting to come and redeem the Jews. Not that he had died. So while some want to point to this aggada as proof that it is normative to expect a mashiach to die and come back, this does not seem to be the simplest reading of the text.
Even if you take the difficult position that it does refer to someone who has died, it would be someone who died in infancy, before starting any messianic career. I stress this because a while back, shortly after Dr. David Berger published his book on the The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, an article in the Commentator addressed the issue without actually citing the aggada. At issue was the Rambam's statement that if the person thought to be the mashiach was killed {or died - one can have arguments about whether the Rambam meant only killed} he was certainly not the mashiach. Contrasted with statements which suggest that in certain instances one can say the mashiach could come from the dead. Someone (I think even David Berger) had said that the difference could be that the mashiach could come from the dead if he did not begin his messianic career before his death. But if he began his messianic career, Hashem would not play games with the Jewish people, having him start, and then dying, and yet he would return later to finish. The article suggested that this was nonsense and if the Rambam and the sources are talking about different cases, then it makes sense that it would be the one who started the messianic career who would be the one who could be expected to resume it, while if one did not even start a messianic career, of course he would not come back from the dead to start it! This is of course dumb because it treats the idea of mashiach from the dead as a disembodied and extrapolated idea, and divorces it from the actual source text. If this story is to be taken as referring to a mashiach who has died and will come back, then it clearly refers to one who did not begin his messianic career. After all, we are talking about an infant here. (The other source talks about King David, who did not really begin a messianic career either.)
Note also that this is aggada, and a strange one at that. The story refers to a mashiach who was carried off in infancy, not one who has died, but even if it said the latter, it is very difficult to utilize this to establish a belief as normative, especially when contradicted by standard Jewish belief throughout the centuries and even midrashim like the one previously cited about Yaakov Avinu knowing that Shimshon was not the mashiach once he saw that Shimshon died and was buried. (See next post.) Also, the text itself is somewhat dismissive of the story - we have a rejection of the idea that we should learn that mashiach was born on the day of the Temple's destruction from an Arab (who heard it from a cow)! Instead they prefer the Scriptural derivation. Perhaps other elements of the story (being carried off by whirlwind) were regarded as fanciful even by Chazal.
Shabbat Shalom.
Note also that this midrash does not refer to Jesus. The reason the midrash speaks of mashiach born in Bethlehem is that there was a tradition of the mashiach being born there (just as King David was from there). It is because this tradition exists that the Christian Bible has Jesus born there, because of the census, even though he is really from Nazereth. In general there seems a conscious effort in reality or in later writings to try to fulfill conditions of being the messiah. But just because the infant is born in Bethlehem does not mean this refers to Jesus.
In fact, the other details show it is not. The child's father is Chizkiyah, not Joseph. He is born on the day the second Temple is destroyed, and not while the Temple is still standing. His name is Menachem, not Jesus. He is carried off by wind and whirlwind while still an infant, and is not seem since - rather that growing up, beginning a messianic campaign, and being crucified. It is fairly clear the midrash is referring to someone else.
Does this midrash imply that mashiach can come from the dead? (This is relevant to my previous post.) Well, I would say that the plain intent of the midrash is that the child did not die, but rather was born the day the Temple was destroyed, and carried off by wind and whirlwind to a safe location, and in the meantime has grown up and is waiting to come and redeem the Jews. Not that he had died. So while some want to point to this aggada as proof that it is normative to expect a mashiach to die and come back, this does not seem to be the simplest reading of the text.
Even if you take the difficult position that it does refer to someone who has died, it would be someone who died in infancy, before starting any messianic career. I stress this because a while back, shortly after Dr. David Berger published his book on the The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, an article in the Commentator addressed the issue without actually citing the aggada. At issue was the Rambam's statement that if the person thought to be the mashiach was killed {or died - one can have arguments about whether the Rambam meant only killed} he was certainly not the mashiach. Contrasted with statements which suggest that in certain instances one can say the mashiach could come from the dead. Someone (I think even David Berger) had said that the difference could be that the mashiach could come from the dead if he did not begin his messianic career before his death. But if he began his messianic career, Hashem would not play games with the Jewish people, having him start, and then dying, and yet he would return later to finish. The article suggested that this was nonsense and if the Rambam and the sources are talking about different cases, then it makes sense that it would be the one who started the messianic career who would be the one who could be expected to resume it, while if one did not even start a messianic career, of course he would not come back from the dead to start it! This is of course dumb because it treats the idea of mashiach from the dead as a disembodied and extrapolated idea, and divorces it from the actual source text. If this story is to be taken as referring to a mashiach who has died and will come back, then it clearly refers to one who did not begin his messianic career. After all, we are talking about an infant here. (The other source talks about King David, who did not really begin a messianic career either.)
Note also that this is aggada, and a strange one at that. The story refers to a mashiach who was carried off in infancy, not one who has died, but even if it said the latter, it is very difficult to utilize this to establish a belief as normative, especially when contradicted by standard Jewish belief throughout the centuries and even midrashim like the one previously cited about Yaakov Avinu knowing that Shimshon was not the mashiach once he saw that Shimshon died and was buried. (See next post.) Also, the text itself is somewhat dismissive of the story - we have a rejection of the idea that we should learn that mashiach was born on the day of the Temple's destruction from an Arab (who heard it from a cow)! Instead they prefer the Scriptural derivation. Perhaps other elements of the story (being carried off by whirlwind) were regarded as fanciful even by Chazal.
Shabbat Shalom.
2 comments:
david and daniel started messianic careers
please choose a pseudonym.
and of course anything is kvetchable. but i disagree. they certainly were Jewish leaders.
kol tuv,
josh
Post a Comment