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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment