tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post645062344512601023..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Did the Gra predict 2012, or 1840?!joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-7625961053156593742011-10-09T16:41:40.466-04:002011-10-09T16:41:40.466-04:00Hi Josh,
Thank you for the references - I will r...Hi Josh, <br /><br />Thank you for the references - I will research them. <br />Kol tuv,<br />MosheAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-89264280140536343272011-10-06T09:39:12.795-04:002011-10-06T09:39:12.795-04:00another reference:
http://books.google.com/books?i...another reference:<br />http://books.google.com/books?id=zhdp9btWGWQC&lpg=PA194&dq=aftermath%201840%20mashiach&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=falsejoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-15392276534587784992011-10-06T09:35:06.414-04:002011-10-06T09:35:06.414-04:00on pg 256 in the same book (though i can't see...on pg 256 in the same book (though i can't see the text upon which the footnote is based), missionaries discuss 36 candidates for conversion in Jerusalem. these might just be candidates.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88270480302257129672011-10-06T09:31:45.889-04:002011-10-06T09:31:45.889-04:00Here is one such reference: to two rabbis, Eliezer...Here is one such reference: to two rabbis, Eliezer Luria and Binyamin Goldberg, as well as three rank and file members of the community, being baptized in 1843. Luria became a missionary.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=2dFh-fYvjokC&pg=PA46&dq=conversion+1840+mashiach+israel&hl=en&ei=Y6uNTsevJITr0gHY9-xX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=convert&f=falsejoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52665673930105004452011-10-06T09:20:57.848-04:002011-10-06T09:20:57.848-04:00I'll see what I can find, bli neder, but this ...I'll see what I can find, bli neder, but this is what a quick google seach yielded:<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=KkNCAAAAcAAJ&dq=conversion%201840%20mashiach&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />Not the same, of course...joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8962273857784077632011-10-06T08:59:27.565-04:002011-10-06T08:59:27.565-04:00Hi Josh,
Are there any online articles, or other ...Hi Josh, <br />Are there any online articles, or other in print materials which discusses the conversion of some of the students of the Gra as a result of mashiach not coming in the year 1840? Thanks!<br />mosheAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52588320498062171902011-10-06T07:15:24.563-04:002011-10-06T07:15:24.563-04:00First, I trust the Gra's explicit comment on a...First, I trust the Gra's explicit comment on a specific Zohar much more than a statement by the Gra's student in a separate place.<br /><br />Second, I can **also** agree that the gemara in Sanhedrin 38b refers to hours meaning portions of millennia. That gemara reads:<br /><i>R. Johanan3 b. Hanina said: The day consisted of twelve hours. In the first hour, his [Adam's] dust was gathered; in the second, it was kneaded into a shapeless mass. In the third, his limbs were shaped;4 in the fourth, a soul was infused into him; in the fifth, he arose and stood on his feet; in the sixth, he gave [the animals] their names; in the seventh, Eve became his mate; in the eighth, they ascended to bed as two and descended as four;5 in the ninth, he was commanded not to eat of the tree, in the tenth, he sinned; in the eleventh, he was tried, and in the twelfth he was expelled [from Eden] and departed, for it is written, Man abideth6 not in honour.7</i><br /><br />That is very different from saying that the Zohar (not the gemara in Sanhedrin) in a specific place or two, Vaeschanan and Vayikra, is referring to 24 hour days (not 12), and that the span is to thousands of years of exile, rather than to millennia.<br /><br />It is like pointing out in one place that Rashi says 'ain na ela leshon bakasha', and then rejecting Rashi's (almost)explicit words in Bereishit 12:11 that the 'na' there means 'now' rather than 'please'.<br /><br />I have no problem saying that the Gra, in the <b>general case</b>, maintains a connection between hours and millennia.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-54340125951117535722011-10-06T02:05:52.934-04:002011-10-06T02:05:52.934-04:00Josh, please consider the following. You said tha...Josh, please consider the following. You said that you trust the interpretations of the GR"A's students, I hope this includes Rav Chaver.<br /><br />In chapter five of Sifra ditzniuta, the GR"A discusses the parallel between the six days and the six thousand years. He says it all goes according to the days and the hours. Rav Chaver says the meaning is the hours listed in Sanhedrin (in Afikei Yam). In Pitchei Shearim he explains the process in great detail, quoting the GR"A's commentary to Sifra diTzniuta. The kabbalistic idea of the birth of the 2 moshiachs occurs after the Nesira, which can be easily taken to mean at least the 7th hour, beginning in 5751.<br /><br />Rav Chaver passed away after 5600.גילויhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600628881119650305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-31376529935415084852011-10-05T14:36:29.580-04:002011-10-05T14:36:29.580-04:00"But it is not exact. The 5600 in the Zohar i..."But it is not exact. The 5600 in the Zohar is <b>likely</b> 5601."<br /><br />But the Zohar Vayera is the only source for 5600, then why did the talmidei haGra assume 1840 and not 1841? (It is possible that they erred in the matter you mention, or that the Gra erred.)<br /><br />Anyway, if it means 5601, so does the Zohar in VaEschanan and Vayikra. 1841 - 1770.833 = 70.166, which is the year of the Churban.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-48715320711595776342011-10-05T14:17:59.695-04:002011-10-05T14:17:59.695-04:00In terms of my analysis, here is the story -- I do...In terms of my analysis, here is the story -- I don't really WANT to analyze and perform all sorts of calculations. Calculations are extremely messy and subjective. Yes, subjective. (For instance, I consider this post of yours to be quite <a href="http://keitzmeguleh.blogspot.com/2008/03/happy-is-he-who-waits.html" rel="nofollow">subjective</a>. Who says nothing happened in 850 CE? What <a href="http://www.jewishhistory.org/end-of-the-geonic-era/" rel="nofollow">about</a>: "However, starting around 850 CE the decline of the Babylonian Jewish community set in and was accompanied by – if not caused by – a period of terrible divisiveness, as we discussed previously." Or the rise of discriminatory laws against Jews by Caliph Matawakkil? And who says that the particular calculation in the Zohar has to have been a *correct* one, where they are arguing with one another?) <br /><br />And confusing, in which one can pass forth all sorts of nonsense. And where one makes a leap based on one text which forces a reinterpretation of another text.<br /><br />Why should we assume that the Gra on that Tikkunei Zohar, or in the Gra on Sifra de-Tzniusa, MUST be reconciled with what he says in Zohar VaEschanan and Zohar Vayikra? Even within the Zohar itself there are multiple divergent calculations of the Ketz -- I have heard that there are NINE times in all.<br /><br /><i>"The Zohar on kol hayom dava basically says that we ignore..."</i><br />I looked at that Zohar, to be precise, in the section above 'kol hayom dava', and I see that that is the plain reading of Rabbi Yehuda, that we start from the millennium, ignoring the preceding partial millennium. Though Rabbi Yossi argues. If we are discarding the partial millennium anyway, then why should it matter if we start counting from the Churban or 20 years previous?<br /><br />All I can see are messy calculations and suppositions. I looked at that linked Gra, but don't see what you see (or I think you see). It could well be because I have not delved deeply enough. But I have not seen anything solid.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67145503498512000772011-10-05T13:41:13.194-04:002011-10-05T13:41:13.194-04:00I appreciate your atttempt to get at this straight...I appreciate your atttempt to get at this straight and without bias. Definitely finding multiple sources in a text that seem to point at the same meaning backs it up. This is why I have written much of what I have written on my blog.<br /><br />But it is not exact. The 5600 in the Zohar is likely 5601. The Tikkunei Zohar I reference talks about 1272 from Churban. This implies a Churban date of 3828, which is without shnat tohu. This would imply that this count is not in use in the Zohar, though I do not have numerous sources to point you to in order to back this assertion up.גילויhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600628881119650305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4913032782309576452011-10-05T13:31:59.743-04:002011-10-05T13:31:59.743-04:00I'll try to make heads or tails out of it.
Bu...I'll try to make heads or tails out of it.<br /><br />But let me put it this way. There certainly is ONE prediction of 5600, from Zohar Vayera.<br /><br />Now, from what seems like the most straightforward interpretation of both the Zohar and the Gra's commentary on the Zohar, we also arrive at precisely 5600. Yes, people can, and have, kvetched, almost every single possible date, but I did not do any kvetching here. Really. What are the odds that it would work out precisely to the same date?<br /><br />Attempted analysis of your points in a separate comment.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-24817253674538500872011-10-05T12:48:11.447-04:002011-10-05T12:48:11.447-04:00Hi Josh. I thought I replied before, so if this i...Hi Josh. I thought I replied before, so if this is a repeat, please dispose of one. <br /><br />http://www.hebrew.grimoar.cz/zohar/tikune_zohar.htm 4b starting w מיד דאסתלקו<br /><br /><br />http://keitzmeguleh.blogspot.com/2008/03/text-of-gra-on-tikkunei-zohar.html<br /><br />http://www.hebrew.grimoar.cz/zohar/zohar_vilno_1.htm<br /><br />Search for כל היום דוה<br /><br />The issue of hours of the sixth day can be found in the fifth chapter of the Sifra ditzniuta in the GR"A's commentary, culminating in how he says to find out the keitz. Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Chaver confirms in his commentary on Shas that the the intent is to the gemara in Sanhedrin 38b.<br /><br />The Tikkunei Zohar that I mention above explains how the 1290 in Daniel goes from Churban Bayit Sheini, lich'ora, to the beginning of the 6th millennium. That would require et hussar hatamid to be 3829 - 18, so it is really Churban plus 1272. The GR"A and Matok miDvash confirm that calculation. The Zohar on kol hayom dava basically says that we ignore the end of the 4th millennium, we have one full "day" without the Mikdash, and then the "dawn" is at the beginning of the sixth.גילויhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600628881119650305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34310168414346159252011-10-05T07:19:54.992-04:002011-10-05T07:19:54.992-04:00Israel Rising:
This has nothing to do with 's...Israel Rising:<br /><br />This has nothing to do with 'stages'. This has to do with the meaning of a **specific Zohar** or two, as interpreted by the Gra. This might well have been the last stage, or an early stage.<br /><br />Gilui:<br /><br />I am not going to go questing. Please tell me, or summarize, what they say. (Yes, the Gra elsewhere, as described in Kol HaTor, makes calculations based on the millennium and not based on the years from the destruction. Yaak mentioned that precise point to me back in June, in private communication. That does not mean that he must be internally consistent, such that EVERY kabbalistic, Zoharic source must be read in that way. Rather, look at the words of the Zohar and see what they best support, and look at the words of the Gra, and see what their clear implication is! This does not introduce an <b>'inconsistency'</b>. In general, where the Zohar supports it, make calculations based on the millennium. In specific places, where the Zohar does NOT support it, but supports a churban-based calculation, make calculations based on that.)joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-16966851563876248642011-10-05T04:42:14.428-04:002011-10-05T04:42:14.428-04:00Josh, chatima tova.
Please keep in mind the GR&qu...Josh, chatima tova.<br /><br />Please keep in mind the GR"A's overall shita with internal consistency. See Zohar Vayera where it speaks of כל היום דוה, and also the intro to the Tikkunei Zohar page 4 with the GR"A in regards to the 1290 years of Daniel. Though I haven't studied in depth, I believe the expectations for 5600 were only from the statement in Zohar Vayera regarding 600 years in the sixth millennium.גילויhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600628881119650305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-281755646222313972011-10-05T04:09:11.888-04:002011-10-05T04:09:11.888-04:00One more thing. When I say 1840 was on of the Kei...One more thing. When I say 1840 was on of the Keitzes it mean in the eyes of the Gr"A and Rav Kook and of ourse others that it si an end to a shlav as Rav Mishkelov explains. He calls them footsteps of Moshiach Ben Yosef.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822162683765760896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-82360671544670256702011-10-05T04:07:44.744-04:002011-10-05T04:07:44.744-04:00Josh,
You are correct that 1840 was predicted as ...Josh,<br /><br />You are correct that 1840 was predicted as one of the keitzes of the GR"A. This is a staged Geulah and he says so himself in many places. His student Rav Mishkelov was in Eretz Yisrael and writes in the famous book Kol HaTor how the cosmic clock works. Rav speaks about this or at least eludes to this in many places. We know this is process and the cosmic clock of the Gra and from the Ramban in Bereishit fits very closely to the unfolding process. I think your hang up is pointing to specific dates where as those dates are only seen many years later as significant. I suggest to read Kol HaTor carefully and you'll see it is more complex and robust as a working theory than you think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822162683765760896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-50086715242539755852011-10-04T21:20:38.328-04:002011-10-04T21:20:38.328-04:00i think one could have made a similar claim for an...i think one could have made a similar claim for any date in the past four years, so i don't buy it.<br /><br />but we'll see what happens.<br /><br />(amaratzim is the Yiddishized plural of Hebrew am ha'aretz.)joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81328546824103983652011-10-04T21:14:01.684-04:002011-10-04T21:14:01.684-04:00I'm skipping over all the technical stuff, and...I'm skipping over all the technical stuff, and just saying that on Rosh Chodesh Av 5771 EVERYTHING CHANGED.<br /><br />And in case you hadn't noticed, it's getting a lot worse now.... financial crisis 2.0, share market, Occupy Wall St..... it's intensifying.... and so is the escalation against Israel [all the nations against Israel = Gog and Magog]<br /><br />So I reckon we're on track for 2012... <br /><br />And btw what does amaratzim mean?Devorahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00793434651294780439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-61274058618194200742011-10-04T19:16:14.816-04:002011-10-04T19:16:14.816-04:00Ultimately, though, I find the Gra's reading (...Ultimately, though, I find the Gra's reading (as per my reading, and that of the talmidei Hagra) of the Zohar the most convincing. I think he was right. (And you think he was right, in predicting 1840 as one of the keitzes.)<br /><br />Any text, and particularly ketz-texts, will give rise to many, many interpretations. And it seems to me more difficult to say that X's interpretation of Zohar and Y's interpretation of the same passage of Zohar both stand as legitimate ketzim. This is not the same as interpreting various pesukim in Nach. Rashbi only intended one thing.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58867807477672037732011-10-04T18:45:17.661-04:002011-10-04T18:45:17.661-04:00The Mikdash Melech is speaking about this Zohar in...The Mikdash Melech is speaking about this Zohar in particular. I have not seen the sources that Rav Fish quotes (the Yosher Levav and Darchei Noam) inside that he claims also refer to this Zohar in particular.<br /><br />The Hatam Sofer is referring to dividing millenia in general.yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34980789998861455512011-10-04T18:38:12.074-04:002011-10-04T18:38:12.074-04:00Wow, a lot of stuff to slog through...
I'm su...Wow, a lot of stuff to slog through...<br /><br />I'm sure (and was sure -- I think we we discussed this back in June) that there are OTHER kabbalists who may have interpreted the Zohar in this way. But they are not the Gra. The Gra has more name recognition, and might well have been a much 'better' kabbalist than many of these others. (Though I'd have to consider what each of these others said, in context. Are they talking about dividing millennia in general, or about this Zohar in particular?)<br /><br />Also, it makes me question the bona fides of kabbalistic 'experts' who read this into the Gra. I mean, I am an am ha'aretz when it comes to kabbalah, though I am pretty handy when it comes to correctly interpreting sources, especially in light of historical evidence. So what am I to make of proclaimed kabbalistic experts who attribute this to the Gra?<br /><br />It reminds me of the stomach-ache vs. fever metaphor of Rabbi Yaakov Hillel, about testing a kabbalist. I won't name names in this comment about who, specifically, appear to be amaratzim, but it seems that they are leading the people in this recent nonsense. the lunatics are running the asylum.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2802818152307642992011-10-04T18:17:33.836-04:002011-10-04T18:17:33.836-04:00Regardless of what the Gra said, the idea of addin...Regardless of what the Gra said, the idea of adding a day plus the day until minha gedola starting from the year 5000 based on this Zohar is not new.<br /><br />I mentioned this idea <a href="http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-minha-gedola-and-tzel.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2010/09/minha-gedola-and-tzel-part-4.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and quoted the Mikdash Melech <a href="http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=3947&st=&pgnum=142&hilite=" rel="nofollow">who says this</a>, but uses 12-hour days instead of 24-hour days. See <a href="http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2010/10/minha-gedola-part-5-hatam-sofers.html" rel="nofollow">the Hatam Sofer's question on the Ramban</a> as to why a 24-hour day is preferred.<br /><br />See also <a href="http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-for-5772-based-geula-part-7.html" rel="nofollow">Rav Fish Part 7</a> in the paragraph that begins "(See the book...".yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.com