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

Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org
Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 PDT 2017


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal
:> Bar Kokhva?
: 
: 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.

:                                                  In his version BK
: was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not
: for his own sins but for those of others.

My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq
anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach
despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from
beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol
Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can
be presumed to be mashiach.

Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have
been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah.

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.

And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi.

: He doesn't draw a line at all.  He carefully doesn't say that
: Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*,

12:1:
    Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago
    shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig.

This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that
leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is
how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc...
They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of
their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his
line of olam keminhago noheig".

: >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.

: 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. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's
posqim 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, 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. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro"
-- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv.

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.

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."

: >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. 

And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement
about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from
the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva
reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation
we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion.

: Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva
: didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was
: expecting them to happen any day now? ...

Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle
before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles.

12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago
holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although
it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in
minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles
from the entire mission.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha at aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507



More information about the Avodah mailing list