Mashiach and Eliyahu Hanavi

↑ yogabird ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 5:20 am

chocolate fondue wrote:

freidasima wrote:

Yoga I know Hebrew etymology pretty well but I don't follow your deconstruction of the world mitzva. Maybe because it is in transliteration. What is the word in Ivrit that means connection that is the root of the word mitzva? Tzadik, Vav, hey. Tzaveh. Command. Not connect. Connect is Kuf Shin Resh root. Kesher. Tzaveh is one way. Kesher is two ways. That's the root difference and etymology of the roots.

"מצווה היא מלשון צוותא, חיבור. על-ידי המצווה מתחבר יהודי, לבורא העולם, וזוכה למדרגה גבוהה מגן עדן."
על פי ספר הזוהר

Doesn't work in the Hebrew? I guess you know Lashon Kodesh better than Rabbi Shimon Ber Yochai. No problem.

There you go! Thanks!

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 5:28 am

freidasima wrote:

No one claims that the legal system doesn't have a context. All legal systems do. However the minute you go into context you realize that you are opening yourself up to the bogeyman I keep citing that you fear. Social Construct. Because the minute you say that a legal system is connected to its context it is connected to its social construct. And thus, when a new and contrary social construct to the previous takes over the world in which one lives, that legal system, if it is created to a social construct...well that, that is an opening for the demand to change/alter what is in that legal system. And then how much does one change? and if it no longer has any bearing on the social construct in which one lives because one took the context into account when keeping the legal system...well if one claims that one can't change the fundamentals of that legal system (or any of it, as many charedi groups do...) well that will cause tremendous dichotomy for the people keeping that legal system and ultimately cause many to just chuck up the whole thing.

As many in the charedi world are doing all over the world, just quietly so that the charedim try and ignore it.

That's the difference. A dati leumi or MO who has a problem with the system, picks and chooses and doesnt keep everything (or keep correctly one would say).
A charedi who has a problem with the system? They chuck the whole thing away and usually become nothing because the concept of becoming MO/Dl is anathema to them.
And then they are lost for good.

that's the problem with not viewing Judaism as a legal system but starting to look for the significance of broader context.

So you're basically saying that because you are DL or MO you only keep the halachot in order to serve Hashem, but you don't have to actually believe anything beyond the fact that we have to serve Hashem with complete Kabolas Ol. You only have to follow what Chazal say about to Halacha, but you don't have to believe how Chazal interpret and explain the Tanach or explain about the purpose of the why Hashem actually created the world. (Even though it is impossible to understand Tanach without meforshim. Even though the explanations on the Tanach is part of the Oral Torah. They were just passed down orally instead of being written down.)

But if you are Chareidi then you might drop all the mitzvot if ...? I didn't get what Social Construct has to do with belief in the fundamentals of Jewish belief. (Maybe some people do drop everything when faced with some challenge to their beliefs. Many many don't. I'm sure no one is is DL or MO ever goes completely off the derech.)

Yeah, well. We don't have much to discuss then.

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 5:37 am

Just for the record, you are 1000% wrong about the concept of Moshiach. Belief in Moshiach does not come from Xianity, nor is it a responce to Xianity. Belief in the coming of Moshiach and the final Redemption is an intrinsic part of Judaism and has a practical affect on halacha, for example in Orei Miklat. Yeah, I know its not relevant now. But Hashem included some halachos of Orei Miklat that will only become relevant when Moshiach comes. Because Moshiach coming is part of Hashem's original plan. Sof Maaseh Bemachshavah Techila.

Can you be a 'good Jew' without believing in the coming of Moshiach? Well, one of the first questions you are asked when you come to the Beis Din Shel Maaleh is 'tzipisa l'yeshua - did you long for the redemption?'. (Talmud Shabbos 31a) So obviously Hashem considers longing for the redemption pretty important. Oh, wait, do you believe in reward and punishment? Do you believe that Hashem judges a neshama after he leaves this world? Or not, because it isn't halachah in the Shulchan Aruch?

So you really do mitzvot just because Our King tells us to? Not for His rewards, not for His punishments, not to become closer to Him, not to please Him, not to make this world a dwelling place for Him. Wow. That's impressive.

What do you have in mind when you say all the references to Moshiach in your tefillot? To the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash? To Techiyas Hameisim? Look through Shemonah Esrei. Look through musaf of Rosh Chodesh. Look through Birchas Hamazon. Look through Tehillim.

Anyway, I've made my point. I didn't think I'd convince you; old habits die hard Wink

So I'm bowing out of the conversation. Have an easy fast and may we merit to celebrate Tisha B'Av in the Beis Hamikdash Hashlishi!

Last edited by chocolate fondue on Tue, Jun 25 2013, 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 5:50 am

5*Mom wrote:

chani8 wrote:

Just curious, is there ever a mention of moshiach in chumash? I really don't recall there being anything.

When is the first time in our liturature that we learn of the concept of moshiach?

There are references in the chumash. They are elucidated through the mefarshim. Just as there are mitzvos and halachos written cryptically in the Torah that can only be properly understood through the mefarshim and the mesorah (Oral Torah), so too are there concepts in Jewish thought, such as Mashiach, that are alluded to cryptically in the Torah and can be understood (probably not fully, though; here I agree with FS) through the mefarshim and the mesorah.

Just to start you off, Chani8: Yaacov Avinu wanted to reveal to his sons the 'what will befall you in the end of days'. (Bereishis 49:1) Rashi explains he wished to reveal the end to them, but the Shechina left him so he began to say other things. The Gur Aryeh clarifies that the end refers to the ultimate conclusion of all the exiles of the Jewish people.

As I mentioned before: The second posuk of Bereishis says, “The spirit of G-d hovered above the waters,” on which the Midrash comments, “This is the spirit of Melech HaMoshiach.” (Bereishis Rabba 2, 4)

As Poel MAmosh pointed out, Bilaam's prophecies refer to Moshiach:

Quote:

Also in the story of Bilaam is it spoken of, and there it is prophesied on the two "anointed ones": the first Moshiach, which is David, who saved Israel from its enemies; and the last Moshiach, who shall be of his descendents, who will save Israel in the end [of the Exile]. There he says: "I see him, but not now"--this is David; "I behold him, but he is not near"--this is the King Moshiach; "There shall shoot forth a star out of Jacob"--this is David; "And a scepter shall rise out of Israel"--this is the King Moshiach; "And shall smite the corners of Moab"--this is David, as it is written (II Samuel 8:2) "And he smote Moab, and he measured them with a line"; "And rule over all the children of Seth"--this is the King Moshiach, as it is written (Zachariah 9:10), "And his dominion shall be from sea to sea"...

Of course, the Torah isn't going to say the Moshiach must come from Dovid Hamelech because Dovid HaMelech hadn't been born yet. But Yaacov refers to Yehudah's kingship and prophecies that Dovid and Moshiach will come from him. See Breishis 49:8-10 with Rashi.

I'm sure that there are many more references. This is just what I have at the top of my head right now.

↑ freidasima ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 6:08 am

This appears to have become a closed discussion among charedi posters who are basically patting each other on the back vis a vis who had drunken deepest of koolaid and who can insult non charedi groups more. No wonder the other MOs dropped out long ago.

First you give an explanation which is only Zohar (and rather "popular zohar" or "zohar for the masses" - do you REALLY think that you understand ZOHAR??!!!!).
Then you claim that is the definitive interpretation and anyone who uses the understanding of the term the way 99.99% frum Jews do is missing the real point.

Just to clarify. There is no debate over the concept of "Moshiach" being a king to rule over Israel as per the widely excepted "אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכויות בלבד" from Brochos 34b. But be honest, that's NOT what you charedi ladies are talking about. Are you willing to accept the concept of such a king during whose time people sin, are born, die, are punished, people get cancer, rabbis commit fraud, pedophilia and adultery and still are revered by frum communities, where one group of Jews lambasts and mosers another etc.? Because that is what Shmuel is talking about in the gemoro. The only difference of having such a "moshiach" king is in terms of Israel's "international relations". And it doesn't mean the end of wars and devastation, only that Israel will make its own political and military decisions, not that it will make the right one, not that this moshiach is infallable and not that he going to solve the problems of the Jewish people.

But let's be honest, that's NOT the moshiach you ladies mean with your heartfelt cries here on imamother and elsewhere of "we want moshiach now". You aren't thinking about American, turkish or Iranian hegemony. you are thinking kool aid kind of stuff.

And THAT is what I am coming out against here. That kind of moshiach? It doesn't exist in any educated MO person's world. Even more so, to be frum one does NOT have to believe in "moshiach" of any kind. only in the revival of the dead. One who does not believe in Moshiach HAS A PLACE IN OLAM HABO. The same does not hold true in Jewish dicta vis a vis someone who does not believe in techiyas hameisim. But there is absolutely no connection between belief in the two things. Something which you charedi ladies will once again not accept. Because you have not really learned gemoro from the source have you. Only "ladies interpretations." and quotes that they taught you from mussar books in ladies seminaries.

Ladies go fill yourselves up with Shas and Poskim before you go and argue with someone who has learned all this stuff "from inside" for decades.
"

↑ jerusalem-girl ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 6:56 am

FreidaSima, the only one who keeps bringing up the Chareidi/MO angle on this discussion is you.

I've just read through all pages, and although I'm still too busy to comment on the issue, I must applaud all the women who've brought relevant sources and ideas to the discussion. There was no MO bashing. At all.

I can't say the same about your attitude to chareidim. And if women are joking about koolaid, it's because of your very condescending attitude towards any and all opinion that you can construe or misconstrue as chareidi.
More on Moshaich later, iy"h.

↑ yogabird ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 7:10 am

Just a quick question, FS: Where does techiyas hameisim fit into the "ain lecho bein olam hazeh limos hamoshiach elah shibud malchuyos"?

Lemme guess: Rabbi Kellner takes the liberty of amending that statement to "ain lecho bein olam hazeh limos hamoshiach elah shibud malchuyos vetichiyas hameisim."

He also states definitively that this is THE bottom line on any discussion regarding moshiach, and anyone else who lived before him and will ever live after him who expresses any other opinion in relation to moshiach is totally drunk on koolaid.

↑ chocolate fondue ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 7:46 am

freidasima wrote:

First you give an explanation which is only Zohar (and rather "popular zohar" or "zohar for the masses" - do you REALLY think that you understand ZOHAR??!!!!).
Then you claim that is the definitive interpretation and anyone who uses the understanding of the term the way 99.99% frum Jews do is missing the real point."

No, I haven't learnt Zohar, I have learnt Chassidus. Chassidus explains this concept further. I was just bringing the quote from the original. Yes, obviously the word Mitzvah has a literal meaning. It's a command. But a deeper look at the word teaches us that performing that command connects us to the Commander.

The point is that everything in Judaism has a deeper meaning. 'Yesh shivim panim laTorah'. pshat remez drush sod. etc.

I don't understand how you can dismiss everything except the driest most literal translations and the basic halochos.

You still haven't answered a lot of my questions.

↑ yogabird ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 7:51 am

chocolate fondue wrote:

freidasima wrote:

No, I haven't learnt Zohar, I have learnt Chassidus. Chassidus explains this concept further. I was just bringing the quote from the original. Yes, obviously the word Mitzvah has a literal meaning. It's a command. But performing that command connects us to the Commander. The point is that everything in Judaism has a deeper meaning. 'yesh shiviim panim latorah'. pshat remez drush sod. etc.

You still haven't answered a lot of my questions.

Just to add to the above, which part of the Zohar quoted was difficult to understand?

Yes, there are some really complex passages in the zohar where one needs to be extremely learned and familiar with esoteric parlance to understand, but there are some very simple passages as well, and even halachic opinions are brought in the Zohar that are quoted elsewhere in halachic works (and no, I'm not talking about kabbalistic concepts that some groups apply to halachic practices, I'm talking straight halacha).

So why should I not think I understand this?

↑ yogabird ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 7:58 am

And if you want people to hear you better, how about this:

As opposed to "the only thing we have to believe about moshiach is that shibud malchuyos will end. everything else is koolaid."

Try this: "there are so many various and often contradictory statements in the works of chazal regarding the era of Moshiach that even the most erudite scholars have a difficult time forming a coherent picture of what that time will look like. But there is one thing we know for sure will happen, because this is the only statement brought down as a halachic opinion, and that is that there will be no more shibud malchuyos."

Personally, I'd have no problem accepting the latter whatsoever.

↑ 5*Mom ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 8:18 am

yogabird wrote:

Yes, exactly!

FS, really, can't we have a discussion without the gratuitous vitriol? It doesn't help you get your point across, it doesn't make you look very good either, and it's unpleasant to be in the room. If you feel that others aren't understanding you, try explaining yourself more clearly (which Yogabird just did for you). But please do stop the ranting.

↑ fromthedepths ↓

Tue, Jun 25 2013, 8:20 am

Isramom8 wrote:

I do believe this debate can be reconciled. When we talk about there no longer being "shibud malchiyos", although that literally means "foreign rule", it's a deep concept. We will be free of the rule of the influences of foreign nations and their mentalities on our choices. Therefore, no distracting hanky panky that now leads us astray and away from focusing completely and thorougly on avodas Hashem.

That. See Brachos 17a: "our will is to do your will, but the leaven in the dough and shibud malchiyos get in the way".

How's that for Gemara inside, BTW?