[Avodah] Moshiach Ben Yosef

[Isaac Balbin via Avodah]

On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:28 AM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 05:25 PM, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
>> Has anyone seen a cogent case for why the Rambam seemingly ignored
>> the gemora in Succa and failed to mention the concept in Hilchos
>> Melachim?

> I think it's because Bar Kochva was not preceded by a Moshiach ben Yosef.

And you therefore think that the Mesora that the Rambam had on Moshiach
was solely derived from Bar Kochba? That was one incident recorded.
What if Bar Kochba actually performed both tasks? That is, he had been a
successful Moshiach Ben Yosef but failed as a Moshiach Ben David because
he didn't have Ruach HaKodesh (based on the Zohar's criteria, which the
Rambam doesn't mention either because he never saw the Zohar or didn't
agree with that)

> The Rambam's whole model is based on his view that R Akiva was right to
> support Bar Kochva, and that despite how it turned out the halacha remains
> like R Akiva.

It's curious that R' Akiva wasn't considered the possible Moshiach,
and only the warrior Bar Kochba was. I know R' Akiva was from Gerim,
but does Moshiach have to be Ben Achar Ben from David HaMelech?

>  Supposing that the day after BK's defeat another claimant
> were to arise, with exactly the same qualifications, the Rambam holds
> that we would have been obligated to get back into the trenches and follow
> him.  

Where do you see that he would be OBLIGATED? Is he tapped on the shoulder
and so advised?

>  But if a Mosiach ben Yosef were a necessary criterion then how could
> R Akiva have followed BK in the first place?  Therefore it must not be
> necessary.

Moshiach Ben Yosef prepares the ground for Moshiach Ben David. Once so
prepared, there is a potential Moshiach Ben David at all times amongst
the living. Rav Kook held that Herzl was Moshiach Ben Yosef, and that
it didn't need to even be a religious person.
I accept that it's a preparatory part of the process, and if my memory
serves me correctly, the Rambam in Iggeres Teiman mentions Moshiach
Ben Yosef?
What perplexes me is that there isn't a word about him in Hilchos
Melochim.

On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:44 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> The gemara in Sukkah (52a) desvribes a machloqes between R' Dosa and
> the Chakhamim. One says that Zekharia refers to mourning the slaying of
> Moshiach ben Yoseif, the other, the yeitzer hara.

That in of itself doesn't mean that the Chachomim held there was no
Moshiach Ben Yosef. The Mesora is Moshiach Ben Yosef will die and "add"
years to Ben Dovid.
I don't see how that makes the CONCEPT not exist?

> We could describe it as the Rambam saying that R' Aqiva's support of
> Bar Kokhva despite a lack of Moshiach ben Yosef shows that it was the
> Chakhamim who held it will be the yh"r's funeral. And therefore the
> Bavli is only describing a shitas yachid (R Dosa), rejected by the rabbim.

Since when do we learn the Halocho from one story? It seems to me the
Rambam was giving AN EXAMPLE with Bar Kochba as this was written up.

...
> I know 52b mentions him again. And, while R' Aqiva clearly didn't
> demans a MBY, the chakhamim are only arguing against a pasuq referring
> to his death. They could still believe in MBY in general.

Agree.

> Still, the Rambam can "hold like" R' Aqiva. ("Hold like" in quotes,
> since the question isn't necessarily halachic.)

In Mishnah Torah, the Rambam is the only one who writes Halacha about
Moshiach. As such, his NOT writing about Moshiach Ben Yosef AT ALL,
can't be interpreted that it was an optional thing. Rather, it was not the
Halacha that such a thing exists. The Rambam could have written that there
is such an (optional) possibility and if it materialised this person would
do x, y and z. Leaving him out COMPLETELY seems an odd thing, given that
the Mesora seems to be across many if not most that Moshiach Ben Yosef
definitely would be part of Geula or POSSIBLY part of Geula at worst.