Sequential Dilemmas

Through the next passages there are three big questions or dilemmas that are rightfully brought to the fore:

One question is, why do we want the messianic coming, or why do we look forward to it, if so many horrible things precede it? Quite the dilemma.

Another query is the nature of the Messiah himself, a topic we have raised before, and is dealt with in Perek Chelek. Is he a minimalistic natural more of a Son of David? Or is he more of the apocalyptic Son of Man supernatural type?

Another big dilemma, which will also be an ongoing conflict of perspective in modern times, is, again, a humanist view versus a fantastic supernatural one, as to the nature of the messianic coming and the messianic kingdom. Will the world change? Will it just be an improved situation? 

BT Sanhedrin 97:B Signs of Catastrophe

Finally we have some critical thoughts reflecting on messianic hope. There is tension built into these ideas: positive anticipation but the presumption that what they will see and experience is catastrophic, terrible, horrific…

§ Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma’s students asked him: When will the son of David come? He said: I am hesitant to answer you, lest you request from me a sign. They said to him: We are not asking you for a sign.

Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: You will see when this existing gate (of Rome) falls and will be rebuilt, and will fall a second time and will be rebuilt, and will fall a third time. And they will not manage to rebuild it until the son of David comes. 

The students said to him: Our rabbi, give us a sign. He said to them: But didn’t you say to me that you are not asking me for a sign? They said to him: And nevertheless, provide us with a sign. He said to them: If it is as I say, the water of the Cave of Pamyas will be transformed into blood. The Gemara relates: And it was transformed into blood.

At the time of his death, Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to his students: Place my coffin deep in the ground, as there is no palm tree that is in Babylonia to which a horse of the Persians will not be tethered when the Persians and Medes go to conquer other lands. And there is no coffin buried in Eretz Yisrael from which a Median horse will not eat straw. (During wars, all the coffins will be removed from the ground and used as animal troughs, and he does not want his coffin to be used for that purpose.)

Rav says: The son of David will not come until the evil Roman kingdom will disperse throughout Eretz Yisrael for nine months, as it is stated: “Therefore will He give them up, until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel” (Micah 5:2). 

§ Ulla says: Let the Messiah come, but after my death, so that I will not see him, as I fear the suffering. Likewise, Rabba says: Let the Messiah come, but after my death, so that I will not see him.

Rav Yosef says: Let the Messiah come, and I will be privileged to sit in the shadow of his donkey’s excrement. (He would undergo all the pain and disgrace associated with his arrival.)

Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that you are so concerned? If we say it is due to the pains preceding and accompanying the coming of the Messiah, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar’s students asked Rabbi Elazar: What shall a person do to be spared from the pains preceding the coming of the Messiah? Rabbi Elazar said to them: They shall engage in Torah study and acts of kindness. Abaye continued: And as far as the Master is concerned, isn’t there the Torah and aren’t there the acts of kindness that you performed?

The naive pupils have this naive hope and are wanting to know when it will be and what are the signs. The wise older teachers give answers that evade the direct question and rather challenge their naivety. Some teachers say they did not wish to be there when the Messiah comes. One says he would suffer just to be there. 

In the end, a conservative answer is given, which is somewhat conclusive. It basically asserts that pupils should study Torah and do good deeds, which is a throwback to the classic old Mishnaic wisdom verse, not to deal with matters above you, but what is here and now, wholesome things, pious things, in humility.

BT Sanhedrin 98:B Essential Naming

This sequence seems to be taking all sorts of names and ideas associated with the Messiah, and thus we learn that these are messianic names, and we learn a bit as to why or what is the meaning of using each name for the Messiah: Hezekiah; Shiloh; Yinnon; Hanina; Menachem; Hivra (leper); David…

§ Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The Jewish people are destined to eat from the bounty of, i.e., enjoy, the years of the Messiah. Rav Yosef says: Isn’t this obvious? And rather, who else will eat from them? Will Ḥillak and Billak, two shiftless characters, eat from them? 

The Gemara explains that Rav Giddel’s statement serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Hillel, who says: There is no Messiah coming for the Jewish people, as they already ate from him, as all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were already fulfilled during the days of Hezekiah.

Rav says: The world was created only for the sake of David, by virtue of his merit. And Shmuel says: It was by virtue of the merit of Moses. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It was by virtue of the merit of the Messiah.

Apropos the Messiah, the Gemara asks: What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheila says: Shiloh is his name, as it is stated: “Until when Shiloh shall come” (Genesis 49:10). The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is stated: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun; and may men bless themselves by him” (Psalms 72:17). The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is stated: “For I will show you no favor [ḥanina]” (Jeremiah 16:13). And some say that Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me” (Lamentations 1:16). 

And the Rabbis say: The leper (“hivra”) of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4).

Rav Naḥman says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as me, who already has dominion over the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And their prince shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from their midst” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that the redeemer is already in power. Rav says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as our saintly Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, renowned for sanctity, piety, and Torah knowledge. If the Messiah is among the dead he is a person such as Daniel, the beloved man.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to establish another David for the Jewish people as the Messiah, as it is stated: “And they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will establish for them” (Jeremiah 30:9).

It is not stated: I established, but “I will establish,” indicating that the name of the future king will be David. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t it written: “And my servant David shall be their prince forever” (Ezekiel 37:25), indicating that King David himself will rule over the Jewish people? Abaye said: They will rule in tandem like an emperor and a viceroy (the Messiah will be king and David will be second-in-command).

The first paragraph leads to the view of Hillel, a school of thought that the Messiah has already come, he was King Hezekiah, the son of David. All the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled. In other words, what are you waiting or looking forward to? Eat, do well, live, and pray. Seek power and peace. 

Now we are discussing the essence of the Messiah. The world was created for David. No, but for Moses. No, but for Messiah, by his virtue. There is a principle, an idea, that by virtue of some figures God has done something. Or God does something, out of love for that person. (And who is greater, who is THE biblical hero - David, Moses, or Messiah?)

And who is he? What is his name? We find different names given, which hint at different features of the Messiah’s essence. This is interesting, as we see a variety of ideas.

Perhaps more interesting, is that the different views, by names, are an obvious play on words, the messianic name is a twist or a tweak of the name of the rabbi or the institution. It is as if to say that different proponents of messianic ideas do so in accord to their own self and ego and essence. 

Then we find a partial answer to the question in a previous post - where did the mysterious association of the Messiah with lepers and leprosy come from, in Rome? Jesus had some association with lepers, he approached them and healed them. But it is quite a leap from that to this. 

Here is a lead - the Messiah is coined hivra, which literally means white or pale, which means a leper, and he is named leper מצורע (metzora') because of Isaiah 53, the famous prophecy of the Suffering Servant, which is a famously Christian messianic prophecy.

Here it is recognized as a messianic prophecy, not related to Jesus, though it is hard to remove the thought that somehow this was picked up by Jewish tradition originally from Christianity, or it was already existent and Christianity became famous for using it for Jesus as the Messiah. 

Then the text ponders - is the Messiah alive at this time actually, or is he of the past already? That is a serious question regarding the Messiah. But generally the messianic thinking is all futuristic, all about the coming of a redeemer...

And then it ponders - in one verse the "future new David" will be established, versus another verse, where the "original David himself" will rule forever...

On a textual interpretive level, this is a serious little contradiction! The solution is that there will be both of them, ruling together, one like a deputy.

BT Sanhedrin 99:A Worlds Apart

This is the last text I selected to present briefly. It feels to me a good place to summarize these textual interpretations of messianic ideas. It shows us a great argument, expressed to this day among both religious scholars and messianists.

§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In prophecies with regard to redemption and the end of days, all the prophets prophesied only about the messianic era, but with regard to the World-to-Come the reward is not quantifiable, as it states: “No eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him” (Isaiah 64:3). 

The Gemara notes: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: The difference between this world and the messianic era is only with regard to servitude to foreign kingdoms alone. 

The two conflicting views are this: one views all of scripture as very messianic and prophetic and futuristic. The opposite view tells us more about the original view - there is no difference between this world and the world to come.

In other words, the original view posits that the nature of the worlds itself will be revolutionized, it will be a new or renewed world. 

Versus, a more conservative view, in modern times we might call this humanistic or minimalistic, that the messianic era is simply peace, independence, religious freedom, and prosperity.

Therefore, one needs to expect nothing more, nor strive for anything less. Seek only that realistic messianic kingdom come.