[Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi

Zev Sero zev at sero.name
Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 PDT 2017


On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

> : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the
> : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall.   The Rambam clearly does
> : not agree with that whole version of the story...
> 
> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early.

The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* 
imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*.  This is not consistent 
with the Y'mi.



> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK
> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his
> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already.

Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? 
How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that 
Moshiach needn't do any?   The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in 
him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed 
in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements 
for the stage he was at.


> : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would
> : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach.
> 
> : How so?   He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but
> : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu.
> 
> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the
> Rambam says.

Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who 
disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when 
they think they can get away with it.  Our current government forces us 
to live without drugs, and yet many people don't.


> 
> : Again, how so?  The requirement is that he forces all Israel to
> : follow it and to reinforce its breaches.  Not that he educates them,
> : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan
> : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it...
> 
> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har
> haBayis.

The Sanhedrin was already organized.   There's no requirement that they 
return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually 
have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, 
which is the stage he was at.


> In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's
> posqim

He certainly did, according to the Rambam.


> to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival
> through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there
> is no record of.)

Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep 
mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so.



> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's
> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim
> followed BK.

What else could it be?  He goes directly from saying that miracles are 
not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements.  Therefore 
he must have done those things.


> But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro"
> -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv.

What's weak about it?  They must have had a reason for this imagination. 
  What else but the chazaka?  And if they thought he hadn't yet reached 
that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it?


> 
> The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as
> telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually
> used to refer to a qal vachomer.

You're misreading it.  It's not "din", it's *dein*.  Dein hu malka 
meshicha, this is the Annointed King.


> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar
> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b
> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh
> ve'adayin ben David lo ba."

He was the lone exception, or nearly so.   Because *he* held that the 
miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning.  The 
Rambam paskens against him.


> : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming
> : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming
> : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is
> : >indeed his source.
> :
> : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform
> : miracles.   How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's
> : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ...
> 
> R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being
> the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being
> one.

This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or 
he doesn't.   If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring 
miracles prove that they're truly not required?  If he was wrong about 
other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one?  No, the 
fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view 
totally, and holds it is the halacha.

In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature.  A 
miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water 
continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its 
nature is different but because it's ignoring nature.  That, he says, 
may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. 
Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't 
know.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
zev at sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all


More information about the Avodah mailing list