[Avodah] The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:26:37PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> Similarly he makes no mention of Moshaich ben Yosef, from which I learn
> that there is no need to believe that there will be such a person.

Actually, one might be able to argue the reverse. Not that I am, just
that it could be seen either way.

Mashiach ben Yosef is discussed on Sanhedrin 98b. So if the Rambam
doesn't include it on his list of rabbinic speculations that may or
may not be born out le'asid lavo, does that mean the Rambam considered it:
    - so far out he didn't need to list it,
    - so mesoretic it's not speculation, or
    - the list simply isn't an attempt to be complete?

IOW, one can argue "yes", "no", or "maybe" from the omission, and
therefore one can not conclude anything from it.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 12:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> The return of Eliyahu haNavi isn't mentioned in the iqarim nor in the
>> Moreh. And in fact, in the discussion of mashiach in Hil' Melakhim
>> (12:2), the Rambam explicitly lists it as among the details that "yeish
>> min hachamim she'omerim" but we won't know what will really happen until
>> after it does.
>
> Not true.  The coming of "Eliyahu" is one of the details he says we *do*
> know...

He doesn't say that either. He says "veyeish min hakhamim she'omerim
sheqodem bi'as hamelekh hamashiach, yavo Eliyahu". You can argue he
only means the "qodem" is speculative, or I can argue it's the entire
"yaho". But he doesn't actually positively assert Eliyahu as part of the
story.

...
>> The other mentions of Eliyahu's *return* in the Yad are in dinei manunus,
>> to say that the person must let the money/item remain unused "ad sheyavo
>> Eliyahu". (Hitting the Bar Ilan Responsa web site...)
>
> He doesn't say "return", he says "come"....

Good point. But doesn't impact my masqanah; I took the return to be
the return of nevu'ah. Whether a navi comes or nevu'ah returns, one
is talking about the same thing.

> Bottom line: the Rambam certainly holds that a navi, whom Malachi calls
> "Eliyahu", will come, and will resolve questions of metzius such as who
> is the true owner of disputed property.  (For that purpose nevu'ah is
> valid evidence that a beis din must accept and follow.)  But he is not
> sure whether this will be *the* Eliyahu, and exactly when he will come.

I'm arguing that that navi who Malakhi calls Eliyahu is being identified
with the king when the Rambam says it's the king who won't point out the
mamzeirim from mishpachos shenitme`u.

What you wrote doesn't contradict what I wrote.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
micha at aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov