bavli sanhedrin 98b:
מה שמו
דבי רבי שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר
(בראשית מט) עד כי יבא שילה
דבי רבי ינאי אמרי ינון שמו שנאמר
(תהילים עב) יהי שמו לעולם לפני שמש ינון שמו
דבי רבי חנינה אמר חנינה שמו שנאמר
(ירמיהו טז) אשר לא אתן לכם חנינה
ויש אומרים מנחם בן חזקיה שמו שנאמר
(איכה א) כי רחק ממני מנחם משיב נפשי
ורבנן אמרי חיוורא דבי רבי שמו שנאמר
(ישעיהו נג) אכן חליינו הוא נשא ומכאובינו סבלם ואנחנו חשבנוהו נגוע מוכה אלהים ומעונה
אמר רב נחמן אי מן חייא הוא כגון אנא שנאמר
(ירמיהו ל) והיה אדירו ממנו ומושלו מקרבו יצא
אמר רב אי מן חייא הוא כגון רבינו הקדוש
אי מן מתיא הוא כגון דניאל איש חמודות
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עתיד הקדוש ברוך הוא להעמיד להם דוד אחר שנאמר
(ירמיהו ל) ועבדו את ה' אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם אשר אקים להם
הקים לא נאמר אלא אקים
א"ל רב פפא לאביי והכתיב
(יחזקאל לז) ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם
כגון קיסר ופלגי קיסר
What is his [the Messiah's] name?
The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written (Bereishit 49:10)
{taken as "until Shiloh come." Thus the scepter of kingship does not leave the tribe of Yehudah until the end, until Shiloh comes. Thus Shiloh, the last king of Yehuda, is mashiach. Note also that each school says that the master of the school bears the name of Mashiach.}
The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, (Tehillim 72:17)
{and the Hebrew is Yinnon Shemo, Yinnon is his name.}
17 May his name endure for ever; may his name be continued as long as the sun; {N}
may men also bless themselves by him; may all nations call him happy.
The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written (Yirmiyahu 16:13-15):
Where I will not give you Haninah. Thus as long as Hashem does not give us Chanina, we are cast into a strange land. Until the redemption. Thus Chanina = mashiach.}
Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, (Eicha 1:9)
The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' {Chivra debet Rabbi} as it is written, {Yeshaya 53:4}
R. Nahman said: if he [the Messiah] is of those living [to day], it might be one like myself, as it is written,(Yirmiyahu 30:21)
Rab said: if he is of the living, it would be {kegon} our holy Master; {Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi}
if of the dead, it would have been {kegon} Daniel the most desirable man.
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up another David for us, as it is written, (Yirmiyahu 30:9)
not 'I raised up', but 'I will raise up' is said.
R. Papa said to Abaye: But it is written, (Yechezkel 37:25)
And my servant David shall be their prince [nasi] for ever?
E.g., an emperor and a viceroy.
Note that just as in yerushalmi brachot, we have a discussion of the name of mashiach, a reference to Menachem ben Chizkiya (of mooing cow fame), a pattern of "if from the living, X; if from the dead, Y," and a discussion of a living and a dead mashiach named David. The form of the sugyas seems to have a shared tradition.
*Rashi gives two explanations of this gemara which I will address in a later post. The word kegon means "like," and thus might not actually refer to Daniel and Rebbe specifically. However, assuming we take this sugya at its simplest, and that it refers to Daniel and Rebbe, it seems that mashiach can come from the dead. However, note that the person suggested is Daniel, a famous Biblical personality from the Davidic dynasty who wielded political power. Such is the candidate for the mashiach from the dead, if you were to agree that mashiach can indeed come from the dead. Also, Daniel did not mount a failed attempt to be a mashiach while he was still alive.
Note also that Rav does not say: if from the dead, like Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. That is in part because when he spoke Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still alive. But further, there is a qualitative difference between a Daniel and a Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One is Biblical, one is a contemporary great Rabbi. There is a difference, and he notes the difference by saying that if from the dead, it will be Daniel of someone of that caliber, but if from those of the living, then the greatest, the leader of the generation.
This should inform attitudes towards, say, the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a potential mashiach. While he was alive, one could argue that he was a great Rabbinical leader, and we might apply the first part of the statement - if from the living, like Rebbe. But, if from the dead, it would not be a late acharon. It would be Daniel, or someone on Daniel's level - king David, or Solomon, or Zerubavel. This seems to be the simple message in the gemara.
A further, speculative note: Rav seems to contradict himself. First he says that the mashiach, if from the living, is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and if from the dead, Daniel. Then he says that the mashiach from (it seems) the living will be named David, matching a bit the opinion of the Rabanan in the yerushalmi. Neither Daniel nor Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are named David.
The answer, it would seem, is that one is Rav and the other is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. So is one inaccurate? I would say not. Rather, the first statement, by Rav, is clearly said while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still alive - after all, he says, "if of the living, like Rabbenu {=Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi}." Rav was a first generation Amora, and lived while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a last generation Tanna, was alive, and he must have said his statement at that point.
Meanwhile, the second statement is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. Rav Yehuda was a student of Rav and Shmuel, and was not contemporary to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If Rav Yehuda is citing Rav, he must have heard it from Rav, which means that Rav said this latter statement after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's death.
Thus we see that Rav refrained from saying that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could be mashiach after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, instead teaching the opinion of a mashiach from the living named David. He did not say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had the same chances of being mashiach even after death.
Further, I would note that the interpretation of Rav's second statement as understood by Rav Pappa in his objection to Abaye, and nthat of the stama degemara (and the two may be linked - especially statements by Rav Pappa, as this is a phenomenon we see elsewhere) is not necessarily the real meaning of the statement. The focus on "will raise up" as opposed to "raised up" seems to be a derasha explaining the pasuk about a king named David as referring to the future, as opposed to the past, and thus a messianic king rather than referring to the historic reign of King David. This may then refer either to a new messianic king named David, or to the historical King David, who is raised up once again in the future as mashiach. (Indeed, in a pinch, we might understand Rav Pappa's question as asking how the historic king David ever lost power and would need to be raised to power, if another pasuk promised continuous reign.) It is the answer of the stama degemara, about the Caesar and half-Caesar=viceroy that definitively understands Rav as speaking about a new, living mashiach, with Rav Pappa's pasuk referring to the historical, dead King David.
*Rashi gives two explanations of this gemara which I will address in a later post. The word kegon means "like," and thus might not actually refer to Daniel and Rebbe specifically. However, assuming we take this sugya at its simplest, and that it refers to Daniel and Rebbe, it seems that mashiach can come from the dead. However, note that the person suggested is Daniel, a famous Biblical personality from the Davidic dynasty who wielded political power. Such is the candidate for the mashiach from the dead, if you were to agree that mashiach can indeed come from the dead. Also, Daniel did not mount a failed attempt to be a mashiach while he was still alive.
Note also that Rav does not say: if from the dead, like Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. That is in part because when he spoke Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still alive. But further, there is a qualitative difference between a Daniel and a Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One is Biblical, one is a contemporary great Rabbi. There is a difference, and he notes the difference by saying that if from the dead, it will be Daniel of someone of that caliber, but if from those of the living, then the greatest, the leader of the generation.
This should inform attitudes towards, say, the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a potential mashiach. While he was alive, one could argue that he was a great Rabbinical leader, and we might apply the first part of the statement - if from the living, like Rebbe. But, if from the dead, it would not be a late acharon. It would be Daniel, or someone on Daniel's level - king David, or Solomon, or Zerubavel. This seems to be the simple message in the gemara.
A further, speculative note: Rav seems to contradict himself. First he says that the mashiach, if from the living, is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and if from the dead, Daniel. Then he says that the mashiach from (it seems) the living will be named David, matching a bit the opinion of the Rabanan in the yerushalmi. Neither Daniel nor Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi are named David.
The answer, it would seem, is that one is Rav and the other is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. So is one inaccurate? I would say not. Rather, the first statement, by Rav, is clearly said while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still alive - after all, he says, "if of the living, like Rabbenu {=Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi}." Rav was a first generation Amora, and lived while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a last generation Tanna, was alive, and he must have said his statement at that point.
Meanwhile, the second statement is Rav Yehuda citing Rav. Rav Yehuda was a student of Rav and Shmuel, and was not contemporary to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If Rav Yehuda is citing Rav, he must have heard it from Rav, which means that Rav said this latter statement after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's death.
Thus we see that Rav refrained from saying that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could be mashiach after Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, instead teaching the opinion of a mashiach from the living named David. He did not say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had the same chances of being mashiach even after death.
Further, I would note that the interpretation of Rav's second statement as understood by Rav Pappa in his objection to Abaye, and nthat of the stama degemara (and the two may be linked - especially statements by Rav Pappa, as this is a phenomenon we see elsewhere) is not necessarily the real meaning of the statement. The focus on "will raise up" as opposed to "raised up" seems to be a derasha explaining the pasuk about a king named David as referring to the future, as opposed to the past, and thus a messianic king rather than referring to the historic reign of King David. This may then refer either to a new messianic king named David, or to the historical King David, who is raised up once again in the future as mashiach. (Indeed, in a pinch, we might understand Rav Pappa's question as asking how the historic king David ever lost power and would need to be raised to power, if another pasuk promised continuous reign.) It is the answer of the stama degemara, about the Caesar and half-Caesar=viceroy that definitively understands Rav as speaking about a new, living mashiach, with Rav Pappa's pasuk referring to the historical, dead King David.
No comments:
Post a Comment