The Messiah part 6

Despite RAMBAM's apparent opposition to the Temple Service expressed in his main philosophical work, and his opposition to visiting graves expressed both in his philosophical and legal works, he nevertheless wrote in glowing terms of his visit to the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs during his visit to the Land of Israel. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to reconcile these things. But I believe I do understand to a degree. Back in 1978, I attended a lecture by a noted Modern Orthodox scholar entitled "Judaism and the Occult". He started off with witches, but quickly got to his thesis that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is a heretic, in that he visits his father in law's grave at least twice a month. (He also declared Rabbi Akiva a heretic, in that he believed in luck). My wife began crying loudly. I tore my jacket (done upon hearing heresy), and we both exited the hall. A Conservative Rabbi who was present ran out to us to see if we were OK. He found us both crying and hyperventilating. He said "What do you think this "scholar" says when he visits his loved one's graves? Certainly not this lecture!". He was, of course, right. There is a difference between life and "on paper". When RAMBAM visited the holiest and second holiest places in the world, speculation went out the window. His heart took over. Similarly, when King Ahashueus told Esther that he would grant anything "up until half the Kingdom", the rabbis comment ""except that which will destroy my Kingdom; the rebuilding of the Temple". Deep down, every Jew knows, and every enemy of the Jewish people senses, that the Temple would be a fundamental game changer. Perhaps this would explain why RAMBAM, who considered the Temple to be merely a concession to primitive religious norms, nevertheless places the rebuilding of the Temple at the center of the tasks of the Messiah. I have discussed in several of my posts the controversies concerning the permissibly of entering the Temple Mount at this time. In my series "The Dispute of 1538", I showed how the attempted reintroduction of the original ordination was meant as a prelude to the ultimate Redemption. So it is today. Those attempting to reconstitute the Sanhedrin and pray on the Temple Mount, are actually trying first and foremost to hasten the Mashiach. The Foundation Stone of the Temple, the one believed to be located in the Dome of the Rock, is, according to Jewish tradition, the first seminal point of Creation, as well as the place of the Akeida (the binding of Isaac). It represents creation, self sacrifice, and a covenantal connection to G-d. According to both Talmud and Kabbalah, energy lines extend from that rock to all areas of the world. It is the very center of existence! Perhaps for this reason, Jews see the Mashiach as so central, although there is so little  about him in Torah. Like the foundation stone, he represents past, present, future; this world and Eternity, all bound up together.But are these attempts productive, or are they like the maapilim; those Israelites who attempted to enter the land immediately, right after G-d decreed that forty years of wandering must first take place? Are these things in our hands, or are they an unfolding process, which we must witness and experience, but is beyond our abilities to intervene or even understand? To be continued.

The Messiah part 5

Views of the Messianic Era vary greatly, both between rabbis of the Talmud and later authorities. While the view of RAMBAM as to the identity of the Mashiach are fairly widely accepted, what he will accomplish is hotly disputed. Not all agree that the rebuilding of the Temple is the task of Mashiach. The view of the Jerusalem Talmud is that the Temple should be rebuilt whenever that is feasible. Independence from the Nations should be accomplished whenever possible. Ingathering of the Exiles is merely waiting for people to pick up and come back. The Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, foresees a miraculous Redemption. Some see that as meaning a changed, rectified, purified world. Others see that as peace and freedom. One view is that "There is no difference between this world and the Messianic Era except in the matter of subjugation to the Nations". But even this awaits Divine Intervention.
"The Gemara in Ketubot (111a) derives from the triple mention of the pasuk, "I have bound you in oath, O daughters of Jerusalem" (Shir Hashirim), that Hashem bound Am Yisrael and the nations of the world with three oaths. The first oath is, "shelo yaalu bachoma," that the Jews should not forcibly and en masse, "break through the wall," and enter Eretz Yisrael. The second is that the Jews should not rebel against the nations. The third is that the nations of the world should not oppress Yisrael too much over the course of the exile. According to R. Zera, there are three additional oaths which relate to the ultimate redemption. The Gemara concludes with the threat that if Israel violates these oaths, their flesh will be made free like wild animals in the field, i.e., Hashem would bring upon them great suffering and physical destruction."
So, according to that, even if we are capable of bringing about our own redemption, we are forbidden to do so. This quote is the basis of those who claim that Zionism brought about the Holocaust. However, this statement is Aggadah. When did this assembly occur? Who was there? Who heard the Divine Voice making us take these oaths? Not one of the legal codifiers bring this as a halachah until the late nineteenth century. Much has been written by way of argument why these oaths might no longer be binding. But, the fact remains, that no one took this literally until fairly recently. It has been understood as a sharp emphasis, consistent with the Babylonian Talmud, that the Redemption must come from G-d.
I have written in a previous series that the early Zionist movement was opposed by nearly all rabbis (the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote that Zionism is worse than Christianity!). It was secular. it was anti-religious.It was an attempt to redefine the meaning of being Jewish. It was the nineteenth century push for every ethnic group to have its very own country. It was the Nationalism of the Europeans which ultimately brought about World War I, placed in a Jewish ethnic perspective. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) largely changed that view in many circles by positing that Zionism, although secular, socialist and anti-Torah, was, in fact, the Atchalta d'Geulah; the beginning of Redemption. He believed that these young men and women were responding to a subconscious religious impulse. RAMBAM had written that most of what was in Scripture about the Messianic Era was parable, nothing of "the way of the world" would change, and the only difference would be independence and security.(MIshneh Torah, Shoftim, Kings and War, chapter 12) Although Rav Kook didn't live to see independence, it was surely on the horizon. He wrote that soon after independence, the people will turn to Torah. He also wrote that if this did not occur, there would be a revolution. The latter statement has been expunged from the second edition of his writings. He quoted a Talmudic aggadah that several rabbis had been travelling through the night, upon seeing the break of dawn, one said "this is how the redemption of Israel will be, little by little, until the Sun rises". So, the new State, was the first glimmer of Redemption. The religious segment of Jews in Israel are quite divided between these two poles. On Israel Independence Day, some celebrate as a religious festival, complete with special holiday prayers, (including "as I have merited now to see the beginning of the Redemption, so may I merit to see its completion") while others fast and recite pleas for forgiveness from G-d. Secular Israelis are largely hostile to both approaches. On the one hand, they resent their fought for independence being put into a theological context, and, on the the other hand, see the approach of it being a sin as a sign of ingratitude for those who fought, as well as seeing Jewish history in terms of G-d and religious concepts of right and wrong. There are also many religious who see the State as theologically irrelevant, but nevertheless a positive development which must be supported. Although these divergent ideas are fairly modern, they represent  approaches going back nearly 2,000 years. In my next post, I shall deal specifically with the place of the Temple and the Temple Mount in this dispute.

The Messiah part 4

Before we go any further, a word about the term "Mashiach". It simply means "anointed", which can also be interpreted as "appointed". Kings and High Priests were usually  anointed with the holy oil described in Exodus 30. In the time of the Second Temple,  balsam oil was substituted, as the original anointing oil had been lost..  The kings are often referred to as "Mashiach Hashem" (the L-rd's anointed). Even the non-Jewish king, Cyrus the Great of Persia, is called "My Mashiach" (Isaiah 45:1), as he was appointed by G-d to have the Temple rebuilt. The future deliverer is sometimes referred to as Mashiach, but rarely so in Scripture. We  usually find him simply called "My Servant".
Now, why would Rabbi Akiva have been fooled to believe that Bar Kochba was the Mashiach? RAMBAM explains beautifully. No one is to believed to be the Mashiach until he accomplishes several tasks. He must restore Israel to its land, rebuild the Temple, free us from oppression, and usher in world peace. Then, and only then, is he to be recognized as the Mashiach, We find nothing in either the Written or Oral Torahs about accepting him on Faith. However, RAMBAM posits that there is a preliminary stage. This is called "Hezkat Mashiach" (assumed to be Mashiach, until proven otherwise). That will be a king of the House of David, occupied with Torah like his father David, who fights the Wars of HaShem. But what is meant by "king"? Literally a king? A great military leader? Perhaps a great spiritual leader? And what is meant by "wars"? Literally? Or perhaps the great struggles against false ideologies, evil and corruption? Although most rabbis accept the idea of a "Mashiach ben Yosef" who will do the fighting, die in battle, and be immediately succeeded by Mashiach ben David, RAMBAM rejects that idea. He sees it as two stages in the career of the same person; Mashiach ben David. If we see someone occupied with these battles, we may assume that he WILL BE the Mashiach. If, however, he goes away from G-d, or, simply dies without having accomplished the main tasks of the Mashiach, we consign him to the dung heaps of Jewish history. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva, seeing this valiant warrior, who kept the Romans on the run for several years, believed he was "Hezkat Mashiach" until Bar Kochba finally died. What all agree upon from this discussion is that no one can be regarded as Mashiach until he accomplishes his mission. We search in vain for any hint in Scripture to the contrary. Other than G-d, no one and nothing is to be accepted on Faith. On the contrary, Deuteronomy 13 warns against "prophets" or "Miracle Workers" who seek to take us away from G-d and His commandments. The Torah says "why is he able to prophecy and do miracles? G-d is testing you".
What will be the nature of the Messianic Kingdom from a Torah perspective? Why do some believe that the founding of the State of Israel is the beginning of that era? Why do some believe the opposite, while many fall in the middle? That will be my next post.