Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 191 Date: 09-22-96 06:53
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
KW>DC>Now, Kenny, name the Rabbis and where we can get in touch with
KW>DC>them to confirm you claim. I'm quite sure that if I can't, Moshe
KW>DC>will be able to confirm "some rabbis".
KW> You go to their writings, goofball. Start with
KW> "Messiah: A Rabbinic And Scriptural Viewpoint"
KW> by Burt Yelin. Congregation Roeh Israel.
KW> 8556 E. Warren Ave. Denver, Colorado. Phone
KW> After this you can consult a work entitled
KW> "The Search For Messiah" by Mark Eastman
KW> and Chuck Smith. Published by The Word
KW> for Today. Box 8000, Costa Mesa, Calif.
Ken, it might be instructive to post some of their things here. Ihave
dealt with these fakers for years. Most, like Freidland, who is a
major source for them, are outright distorters of what Rabbinical
works say. I am going to post here seomething I posted to the
internet a little while ago dealing with this subject and some of the
falsely used sources.
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
-!- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 192 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 1/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
NEWS alt.messianic 96090104.MSA
RABBINICAL QUOTES ON ISAIAH 52-53 #1 - 00000000.MSG
220 72576 <50d0qh$55q@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> article
Path: ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman )
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: RABBINICAL QUOTES ON ISAIAH 52-53 #1
Date: 1 Sep 1996 21:56:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 445
Message-ID: <50d0qh$55q@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ron-ny9-11.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Sep 01 4:56:33 PM CDT 1996
>From: lee Burrows
I would strongly suggest that those of you who are reading these
posts I am making save them for later references. They do not
exist in writing anywhere else. (They are, of course, copywrited, but
they should be saved and studied.) This is the fullest answer to the
lie that the Rabbis teach that the simple meaning of Isaiah 53 is
anything other then Israel.
>In article <4uqhan$oq6@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>, mshulman@ix.netcom.com
>writes
>>The fact is that there are no commentaries
>>that see the simple meaning of Isaiah 53 as refering to the Messiah.
>>NONE.
>In light of that statement, you may wish to consider the following
>referrences:
Lee, I have learned all the references, and those that exist in
Hebrew/Aramaic I have seen the originals (something that NO
missionary I have ever spoken to has.) It will take me a few posts to
deal with all the information. I will make some general comments
here, and then proceed to add two important papers I have. One on the
Midrashic interpretation, the other on the idea of Mashiach ben
Yosef, which appears a number of times in these commentaries, but
which confuses many Christians.
The first point of interest is that the sources are almost
exclusively taken from a work called 'The 53rd chapter of Isaiah
according to Jewish Interpreters'. There are two points to made about
this. 1. It is 'Jewish' interpreters, not 'Rabbinic' interpreters.
The reason being that a number of those (and especially the ones most
quoted by Christians) are either not-Rabbinical Jews, or are totally
unknown to the Rabbinic world. (I will note them as they occur). 2.
There are many BOGUS and ERRONEOUS passages. One of his sources is a
work from Father Raymond Martini, who FORGED Midrashic comments and
distorted others. (This is even mentioned in the Intro to this work,
and is without doubt.) Usually the problematic ones are not brought
up by more knowledgeable Christians. However in this post a few have
appeared.
Now for the first point. A discussion of Midrashim and the nature of
Rabbinic interpretations:
***********************************************************************
**
MIDRASH
It is well known to those familiar with Rabbinic writings that,
in general, the Midrashim were written in an allegorical style that
was NEVER meant to be taken literally. However, many want to take
every word in it's most literal meaning even when it is obvious that
it was not meant that way. And then they have the chutzpah to come
and accuse US of ignoring what the Rabbis say. This seems to be one
of those cases of using unequal weights and measures. Should we do
such things to their books, they call us all kinds of names, but when
they distort our Holy Rabbis' words that is all right.
The Rambam (Maimonides) discussed Midrashim a number of times and
especially their allegorical style. In his commentary on the Mishnah
in the introduction to the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin, he discusses
three classes of people and how they look at the Aggados (Midrashic
teachings in the Talmud). The first are those who only think that
there is the simple meaning, and that there is no meaning ascribed to
these passages more than that. These people do this because of their
lack of wisdom which makes it impossible for them to come to the
deeper meanings of the texts. The second are like the first in that
they do not understand the deeper meaning, but they do have the
capabilities to come to the true meanings. However both of these
groups are filled with mistakes and foolishness. The third group are
those who understand that the words of the sages are very deep and
not what they seem to be. These are the truly wise men who are
knowledgeable in the words of the sages. According to the Rambam,
these are the ones who truly understand the words of our sages.
It is important to understand the different levels of
Rabbinic/Midrashic interpretations and why they exist. These four
classes apply not just to Midrashim, but to all Jewish commentaries.
1. The simple meaning or Pshat. This is what the verse says and
what G-d meant for us to understand by that verse. This could be a
statement about historical facts, or the details of a legal matter.
No matter what other interpretation is given to a verse this pshat is
the 'real' meaning. The Rabbis have themselves said, 'Ayn Mikra
Yotzei MeYadai Peshuto' ('a verse is not removed from it's simple
meaning'). That is to say: although there is truth and great value
in those teachings that are not the simple meaning of the verse, we
cannot claim that the verse means something other than the simple
meaning. An example of pshat is in the Sifra (Emor 8.1.1) "'G-d said
to Moshe, "speak to the priests the children (sons) of Aaron, and
tell them they should not become unclean for any person"'. The sons
of Aaron should not become unclean. The daughters of Aaron should
become unclean for the dead." The verse is understood in it's
simplest meaning as differentiating between the male descendants of
Aaron and the female.
2. Remez is the next level and refers to hints of other ideas
that we know already either from other verses, or from other clear
traditions (or even from scientific investigation). A type of remez
that is common in both halacha and in Midrash is the 'asmachta'
(literally support). This is where some law, moral point, or
historical idea, is known to us by a tradition, and the verse is used
to give a Biblical support or hint to this idea. In the Midrash
Bereishis Rabbah (60.6) we see that Eliezer gave to Rivka "two hand
bracelets for the two stones, of ten golden shekels for the ten
commandments". This Midrash is telling us that this marriage that is
being arranged is not some normal everyday marriage, but that this
pair would be those who would merit to bring into the world that
people which would accept the Torah.
3. Drash is the next and refers to moral or ethical teachings
that can be inferred from a verse. As the name would indicate,
Midrash is from the word drash. Most of the Midrashim are of this
form. Jews have always understood that the stories in the Torah are
not just statements regarding the past affairs of our ancestors, but
also they had many lessons for us. The drash brought out many of
these. For example, in Bamidbar Rabbah (36.4) "Rabbi Brachia said
'heaven and earth were not created except in the merit of Israel as
it says, "In the beginning (be'reishis) G-d created (Gen. 1.1)". The
word 'first' (reishis) only means Israel as it says, "Israel is holy
to G-d, his first (reishis) fruits. (Jer. 2.2)" The point of this
Midrash is that since the world was created for the Torah and the
people who keep it (Israel), the whole creation can be said as having
been for those who follow the Torah (i.e. Israel)
>>> Continued to next message
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
-!- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 193 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 2/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Continued from previous message
4. Sod is the last and deals with sublime mysteries that are
found hidden in the verses. These Midrashim deal with subjects such
as: the creation, the souls of men, and mystical matters relating to
the mitzvahs. An example of this is in the Sefer HaBahir (#27): "His
students asked him, 'What is dalit?' (Fourth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet) He said to them, 'What is this like? It is like ten kings
that were in one place all of them rich. And one of them is rich,
but not like the other ones. Even though he is very rich, related to
the other kings he is called poor.'" There is a hidden point being
made that is not obvious.
Not all the Midrashic works are the same, nor do they all follow
the same style or methods. The Midrashic works can be divided into
two classes. The halachic and the non-halachic Midrash.
An halachic Midrash tells use the halachic implications, or the
laws that come from that verse. It may be based on a tradition and
not what the simple reading would seem to mean (an eye for an eye is
an example where we learn from the verse that it applies to monetary
payment.) It should be remembered that Judaism historically never
subscribed to the concept of Sola Scriptura, or explaining scripture
by scripture only as some call it, but was always imbued with
tradition. Every group that tried to understand the Tenach without a
tradition developed their own oral laws and traditions that they
claimed were part of the text. (This is not the place to delve into
this subject, I state it as a fact that is historically provable, and
not something that originated after the destruction of the Temple, or
in the 1st century CE). The Mechilta is an example of an halachic
Midrash as it covers various laws including the laws of Passover.
A NHM (non-halachic Midrash) will at times deal with the verse
according to it's literal meaning but usually it sees a verse as a
'symbolic parable'. What do I mean by this? First they view the
verse symbolically, as the simple meaning is secondary and is
sublimated to the purpose that the Midrash is trying to teach.
(Those familiar with the works of Philo a first century Jew in
Alexandria would be familiar with this method of interpretation.)
Secondly, a parable, because just as a parable has a purpose, the
Midrash has one. Just as a parable is not extendable beyond its
limited purpose, so the Midrash is not. (The most famous in this
line are the comparisons of G-d to the soul. In the points of
comparison they are comparable beyond that they are not.) In essence
there is no validity of using a NHM to show the simple meaning of a
verse. The Midrash Rabbah is a non-halachic Midrash as most of it's
material is not halachic in nature, and is not meant to explain the
literal meaning (in general).
Some of the more common sources of Midrashic teachings are:
Talmudic Aggadahs (non-halachic), Midrash Rabbah (non-halachic),
Mechilta (halachic), Sifri and Sifra (halachic), Zohar
(non-halachic), Piskta De Rav Kahana (non-halachic) and Piskta
Rabbosei (non-halachic), Yalkut Shimoni (non-halachic). (It is
interesting to note that the texts quoted most by the missionaries
are almost exclusively from those Midrashim and commentaries that DO
NOT deal in the simple meaning of texts!)
Let me state this clearly: EVERY MIDRASHIC INTERPRETATION IS
TRUE, even if it is not the simple meaning of the verse, and even if
that verse is not really a support for it. With this said, we must
ask how can one objectively tell if the verse is being explained in a
manner other then the pshat. This is in fact simple. There are a
few things to check.
1. Is this Midrash explaining the verse in question or just using
it as a support? i.e. is it of the form: It says X, this means Y.
The verse is quoted and then it is explained. Many times the Rabbis
will give a non-peshat meaning to a verse. They will introduce it by
saying, 'X is the case as it says Y', and upon looking at Y it is
clear that the simple meaning is not intended but that it is just an
asmachta. The verse is used to support an idea, and not the idea
being the explanation of the verse.
2. Are all the verses used in this passage or teaching of the
Midrash understandable as the simple meaning of the verses? For
example if there are 5 verses in the Midrash and it is clear that 3
cannot be understood as the simple meaning, it is certain that none
of the verses are intended to be used in their simple meaning in THIS
MIDRASH.
3. As I have previously stated there is a principle mentioned in
the Talmud - Ayn Mikrah Yotzei Meydai Peshuto - a verse cannot be
understood other than it's simple meaning. If a Midrashic teaching is
not the pshat of the verse (which can usually be seen when reading
the verses in context) than that is not the pshat of the verse.
4. When it comes to the Zohar and other Kabbalistic works, the
verses are almost always taken in non-literal meaning. Even those
sections that deal with halacha, are rarely, if ever, following the
simple meaning of the verse.
One might ask why should the Rabbis spend time finding other
verses that support ideas even when they admit that they are not
teaching the simple meaning of a verse? There is, of course, the
pedagogical advantage. Many of these teachings are easier to
remember then simple explanations of verses. But also there is the
traditional understanding of two verses in Psalms. Psalm 62:12 says,
"G-d has spoken once and two things have I heard." Psalm 119:18 says,
"Open my eyes that I may see the wonders of your Torah." From these
two verses the ancient commentators understood that there are
alternate interpretations that are true, and that can be expounded
from the verses even though they are not the simple meaning.
The Rambam said on the Midrashim in his introduction to the
Mishnah, "It is not worthy for one to consider them (the Midrashim)
of lower value and little purpose. But they have in them great wisdom
because they are full of wondrous riddles and precious treasures. All
of the drashos if you look into them with your understanding you will
discern in them from the true good of which there is nothing greater
than them. And they will reveal to you from the G-dly principles and
truthful things which the wise men have hidden in them and not
desired to openly reveal...".
All of these principles and concepts will become clear from the
analysis of a few Midrashim. The first is from Leviticus Rabbah 13.5
the very end. The interpretation is based on Lev. 11:4-7, dealing
with the four types of animals forbidden to be eaten: camel, hare,
badger, pig. To understand I must explain a few things. First the
Torah says that the camel, hare, and badger may not be eaten because
they chew their cud (Heb. maalah gerah) but they don't have split
hoofs. The pig however has split hoofs, but does not chew its cud.
Now the word gerah is similar to the word in Hebrew gerirah meaning
to follow after. There is a play on words here to being out an
important teaching.
This is the Midrashic interpretation: "The camel, this is
Babylon. 'because it chews it's cud' means that another kingdom will
follow it. The hare, this is Greece, 'because it chews its cud'
because another kingdom will follow it. The badger this is Media,
'because it chews it's cud', because another kingdom will follow it.
The pig this is Edom, 'because it doesn't chew it's cud', because
there will be no other kingdom after it. Why is it called Chazor
(pig)? Because it will return (chazor) the crown to it's master, as
it says, 'And the saviors will go up on Mount Zion, and they shall
judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom will be to G-d.' (Obadiah
1:21).
Now let us examine this Midrash and see what it is teaching us.
First we should ask: is the point it is making true? And then
second: is it telling us what the simple meaning of the verse REALLY
is? 1. A look at the prophet Obadiah shows that according to that
prophet (and the Talmud mentions it in many places), the kingdom of
Edom is to be the last, and after it falls the rulership will return
to G-d, and his people the Jews. So we see that they have spoken
truthfully and in agreement to what is said in the Tenach. The
kingdoms of Babylon, Greece, Media and Edom ruled over the Jews, the
first three gave over to other kingdoms, but not the third. So it is
in fact TRUE.
>>> Continued to next message
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
-!- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 194 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 3/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Continued from previous message
Is the Midrash saying what the simple meaning or even the
intention of the verse is. NO! The simple meaning is only that
certain things have been forbidden to eat because of certain
physiological reasons. These verses are neither prophecy, nor
descriptions of what will happen at a later time. If someone would
come to YOU and say, the Rabbis hold that these verses are Messianic.
What would you answer? OF COURSE NOT! That is absurd. The same could
be said about a number of other Midrashim like Berachos 57b where a
verse in Isaiah 53 is used to prove medical information. It is very
important to have this in mind whenever the topic of Midrash comes
up. WHILE A TEACHING MAY BE TRUE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE VERSE
BEING USED TO TEACH IT FOLLOWS THAT MEANING.
In Sota 14a Isaiah 53 is interpreted as referring to Moses. The
ancient Jewish view and that which appears continually in the words
of the commentators (as we have pointed out) is that the Servant is
Israel who is called Servant throughout Isaiah. Clearly Isaiah when
he was prophesying was talking of someone in the future and not Moses
who had been in the past, so the question is what lesson are the
Rabbis trying to teach by relating Moses to this chapter, and why
specifically to this chapter. We all know that Moses was the
greatest of the prophets and was know as the 'servant of G-d'. Sota
is showing us that many of the great qualities that Moses had, are
likewise there in the Servant Israel. So, for example, where the
servant of Isaiah prays for sinners, so Moses prayed for those who
were guilty of the sin of the golden calf, and effected their
atonement. By so doing the Midrash allows us to look at the greatness
of Moses, and his work. This commentary of Sota appears in the famous
commentator R. Moshe Alsheich, who is incorrectly used by
missionaries as we shall see soon, and in the Zohar a number of
times. In a similar vein R. Saadiah explained it to mean the
prophet Jeremiah, and one of the explanations of Don Yitzchok
Abarbanel is that it refers to Josiah.
Let's look at Psalms 22. This Psalm is basically about David and
his tribulations. David had many difficulties including a revolt led
by his own son. Anyone reading the Psalms is struck by David's
expression of his emotions about these difficulties and his
unwavering faith that G-d would always stand by him. However the
Midrash finds a hint to Esther in the words of this Psalm. To
understand what the relationship is that the Rabbis are pointing out
we must look at the Psalm itself. In this Psalm David has three
themes: 1. That he was surrounded by enemies. This appears in verse
8, 13 and 14 (for example). 2. His depression in feeling abandoned
(verses 2, 3) 3. His strong faith and calls to praise G-d. (verse
5-6, 24-). The Rabbis of the Midrash see reflected here the same
emotions that Esther felt when faced with the destruction of her
people. 1. Even though she was Queen she felt surrounded by those
who would kill her. 2. Her fear and depression as she stands in the
hall waiting to see if the king will extend his staff and accept her
(and not kill her). By associating this to Esther (who could have
even been saying this Psalm and meaning herself) they are showing
that the Psalms have a universal aspect that applies to many people
in many situations. One of these being Esther.
From the last two Midrashim we see two principles of the
Midrashic method. The first is that many times verses that deal with
categories of people, are used to apply to individuals. It's pretty
much like the concept of set inclusion. Something is a member of the
set, then it has all the properties that the set has. In the case of
Sotah, we see that Isaiah 53 is applied to Moses. Since the Jewish
understanding is that Isaiah is about Israel (and specifically the
righteous of Israel), any individual of exceptional personality could
be compared to some of the verses there with valid results. This is
the reason for the interpretation in Sotah for Moses, by Saadiah Goan
for Jeremiah, and by Abarbanel for Josiah. That there are obvious
reasons as to why they do not apply literally does not take away from
the insight that they do in some way relate to parts of it.
The second is that when we see similarities between the life
situation of a Biblical character and another person, the verses that
this character used, or that refer to this person, can be applied to
the other person who is in the same situation. We see this clearly
with Esther, who was in a similar position as David in that Psalm. By
the same logic the Messiah is many times compared to David (this in
fact has a Biblical sources in Jer. 30:9; Ez. 34:23-24; 37:24). We
see many times that verses are applied to other people because of the
similarities of their situation.
A final point is that many times the same Midrash will appear in
a number of different places with slightly different wordings. When
this occurs it is important to look at all the different versions, or
find the most complete and reliable one, as that will aid in
understanding what the purpose of the Midrash really is. At times in
the Talmud, teachings will not appear in one place, but they will be
split up and appear in multiple places. The first part appearing on
one page and the other on another page. Usually there is no practical
difference, but at times it is helpful to know this to understand
some point that is being made.
To summarize the main points: 1. A Midrash, while relating
something which is true, is not a literal interpretation and is not
meant to be. 2. A Midrash doesn't usually explain a whole passage,
but various verses in a passage (and sometimes only one verse). 3.
There are methods to Midrashim other then the literal.
***********************************************************************
**
This idea of the difference between a Midrashic and simple
interpretation must be ALWAYS remembered.
Next to a discussion of the idea of Moshiach ben Yosef and how it
fits in with Jewish eschatology:
***********************************************************************
**
Let me summarize what appears in the Rabbinic writings with, regards
to the time of the Moshiach coming, and then give the sources (for
those who know enough Hebrew to look them up). There will be a
period of about seven years of terrible famines and other troubles.
The land of Israel will at that time be under Non-Jewish control, and
a leader of the tribe of Ephraim (the Zohar Chadash says specifically
a descendant of Yeravoam Ben Navat), will arise to lead militarily
against these nations who control Jerusalem. He will be successful,
but after his initial victory he will die in battle. This will cause
a great mourning and many will lose faith. At that time (still within
the seven years) the Moshiach Ben David will be revealed, he shall
finish the battle. After which, he will resurrect all the dead,
starting with the Moshiach Ben Yosef. Both of them will go up to
Mount Zion to fulfill the prophesy in Ovadiah verse 21: "And the
saviors (plural - both Messiahs) shall go up onto Mount Tzion and
judge Mount Esav, and the kingdom will be for Hashem." From this we
see clearly that the time when the Moshiach ben Yosef comes ends with
a period of peace. There is the fulfillment of ALL the major
prophesies like an end to war and a world at peace with the Jewish
people in a restored Jerusalem with the third Temple. The Rabbinic
sources are: Pesikta Zetrusa (parshas Balak); Midrashim on Mashiach
from the Otzar HaMidrashim (OH) pages 390-395; Sefer Zerubabal OH
page 160; Rabbenu Saadiah Goan in Emunah Vedaos book 8 from chapter
5; Responsa from Rabbenu Hai Goan OH page 387. There are other
references in the Talmud and the Zohar, but in these places that I
cited they bring together all the points in one place.
=======================================================================
===
The following points are agreed to in all the Midrashim that deal
with the Mashiach ben Yosef and the Mashiach ben Dovid. 1. They are
two different people from two different tribal families. 2. They live
at the same time. 3. Mashiach ben Yosef never takes the throne nor
is he entitled to. 3. Mashiach ben Yosef is a warrior (Mashiach ben
Dovid would also appear to be but I am not sure if this is 100%) 4.
Mashiach ben Yosef will be killed in BATTLE and will be the first to
be raised from the dead by Mashiach ben Dovid. 5. The period of time
from when Mashiach ben Yosef first comes into prominence until he is
resurrected after the Mashiach ben Dovid comes to his throne is very
short, the longest period is under two years. 6. The basic
chronology of events is that there is a seven year period. It starts
with continually problems, it starts to improve and then in the sixth
>>> Continued to next message
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
-!- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 195 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 4/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Continued from previous message
year it gets worse again. In the seventh year there are great wars in
which the Mashiach ben Yosef is first successful and then he is
killed in that later part of the year. Many Jewish people will become
depressed and fall away. At the end of the seven years Mashiach ben
Dovid comes and finishes the job and there comes the resurrection of
the dead. In additions to the sources previously mentioned I can
bring the following partial sources: Sukkah 52a, Sanhedrin 97a,
Midrash Shir HaShirim 2.14, Derech Eretz Zuta 10, There are a few
more also.
***********************************************************************
**
Here is the truth:
>TARGUM OF JONATHAN ON ISAIAH 52:13 (1)
>"Behold, my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and
>increase, and be exceedingly strong."
>TARGUM OF JONATHAN ON ISAIAH 53:11-12 (2)
>"He [Messiah] shall save them from the servitude of the nations, they
>shall see the punishment of their enemies and be seated with the spoil
>of
>their kings. By his wisdom he shall vindicate the meritorious, in
order
>to bring many to subservient to the Torah, and he shall seek
forgiveness
>for their sins. Then I will apportion unto him the spoil of great
>nations, and he shall divide the spoil the wealth of mighty cities,
>because he was ready to suffer martyrdom that the rebellious might
>subjugate to the Torah. And he shall seek pardon for the sins of many,
>and for his sake the rebellious shall be forgiven."
----------------------------------------------------------
The Targum
Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.
-- Targum ("Targum Jonathan") to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such
as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the
Messianic Exegesis of the Targum." Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,
1974, p. 63).
-- Driver and Neubauer 53rd chapter of Isaiah according to the
Jewish commentators vol 1: p. 5
This is probably one of the commentators most often quoted to
'prove' that the present day Rabbis are blind and do not know what
their own commentators say.
The first question to be asked is 'Does the Targum say that ALL
of Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah?' The answer: NO. The Targum on
this passage is Messianic, as would be expected since this passage
(as I have shown) deals with events in the Messianic age. However the
Targum does NOT say that it refers totally to the Messiah, nor does
it say that the 'suffering servant' is the Messiah. In fact the
Christian missionary, Dr. Louis Goldberg in his pamphlet 'A Jewish
Christian response' (page 4) admits that 'all the verses which relate
to exaltation were applied to a (sic) personal Messiah, while the
remainder of the passage relating to suffering was applied to the
nation'. (Dr. Goldberg is here trying to superimpose his Christian
view of the messiah unto the words of the Targum by claiming they
deal with a 'personal' messiah. This is wrong. The Targum viewed the
messianic character as a national messiah.) In verse 52:13 the Targum
says it refers to the prosperity of the messiah, and in the next
verse he refers top Israel in their exile looking forward to his
coming while they suffered.
It is instructive to look at each verse and the subject of that
verse in the Targum to see just how deceptive this claim is:
52:13 - The Messiah and his prosperity.
52:14 - Israel suffering while they waited for the Messiah to
come.
52:15 - The Messiah and his relationship to the nations
53:1 - Intro to next verse
53:2 - The exaltation of the righteous of Israel
53:3,4 - The suffering of Israel and the Messiah's success.
53:5 - The Messiah builds the Temple for Israel
53:6 - The suffering of Israel
53:7-9 - The successful actions of the Messiah
53:10 - The people Israel purified through suffering and they
will be prosperous
53:11,12 - The Messiah 's actions in the end
of days.
From this we have two conclusions: 1. The Targum does NOT view
Isaiah 53 as about the Messiah, but as Messianic. 2. The Targum does
not see the Messiah as the 'suffering servant'. 3. The Targum by
relating different verses to different ideas and people is NOT
interpreting this passage literally, but allegorically. An
examination of the wording of the Targum would make it even clearer
that the simple meaning is NOT what he is explaining.
While the Targum sees many events of the final end-times hinted at
in these verses, we cannot claim that he says the simple meaning is
that it refers to the Messiah, as some would claim. His Midrashic
explanation is not literal. This must, therefore, be rejected as a
proof that the Rabbis interpret verses in any manner or form.
----------------------------------------------------------
>BABYLONIAN TALMUD FOLIO 98B
>
>"The Messiah-what is his name?... The Rabbis say, `The leprous one`,
>those of the house of Rabbi say, `The sick one,` as it is said,
`*Surely
>he hath borne our sicknesses*` etc.." (3)
----------------------------------------------------------
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b
The Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written,
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did
esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].
-- Soncino Talmud edition.
-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 7 (This has a different version from
Father Martini who changed the wording.)
The translation here is defective, but still useful. The first
question we must ask is 'from the context is this meant literally?'
IS the Talmud saying that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, or is the
Talmud telling us something about the Messiah, and using a verse out
of context as a proof? Let's examine the passage.
This quote appears at the end of a passage in the Talmud where
various schools brought proofs that the name of the Messiah and the
name of their Rabbi was actually the same. This is done by making
puns on various verses and applying them to the name of the Messiah.
(The Messiah is called Menachem, Chananiah etc). These verses are NOT
used in their literal context. None of them were Messianic
prophecies! We must conclude that likewise here the verse is not used
to show us that it is a reference to the Messiah.
It is really strange that anyone would bring a literal
interpretation of this passage as a proof to any doctrine. You would
be hard pressed to find another source in either Jewish or Christian
writings where one of the qualifications of the Messiah was that he
had to be a leper, as the Talmud is saying here. (I have yet to find
it). This passage cannot be a proof that the Rabbis hold that Isaiah
53 literally means the Messiah.
----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Continued to next message
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 196 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 5/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Continued from previous message
>MIDRASH RUTH RABBAH
>"Another explanation [of ruth 2:14]: He is speaking of King Messiah:
>`Come hither,` draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,` that
is,
>the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,` this
>refers to the chastisement, as it is said, `*But he was wounded for
our
>transgressions, bruised for our iniquities*`" (4)
----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Rabbah 5:6
The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the
Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD
refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR
refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because
of our transgressions. (Isa. LIII, 5).
-- Soncino Midrash Rabbah(vol. 8, p. 64).
-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 36.
Looking at this verse one sees immediately that it is not being
used literally. The Midrash is commenting on the verse Ruth 2:14
which states "And Boaz said to her (Ruth) at the mealtime, come here
and eat of the bread and dip it in vinegar..." I doubt there is
anyone who considers the literal interpretation of the verse as a
reference to the Messiah, or any of the other persons that the
Midrash refers it to.
This Midrash does NOT deal ONLY with the Messiah but it relates
that verse to many of the descendants of King David and to their
private sufferings. 1. King David, 2. King Solomon, 3. Chezikiah,
4. Menashah, 5. The King Messiah 6. Boaz. The verses used there are
not literal in nature. The Midrash is only relating that the lives of
the great men of the line of Boaz would be similar in that they will
have periods of suffering.
It is interesting to note that in the Midrash Rabbah (Numbers
13.2) the Midrash explains the verse for Israel and their sufferings!
"'I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey' (Song of Songs 5:1).
Because Israel poured out their soul to die in the exile as it says,
'Because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he
was counted; and he bore the sins of many; and interceded for the
transgressors.' (Is. 53:12) and bruised themselves with the Torah
which is sweeter then honey, the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the
world to come give them to drink of the wine that is preserved in its
grapes since the six days of creation, and let them bath in rivers of
milk."
There is no opinion in the Midrash of a King Messiah that suffers
and dies. The Christian concept of a King Messiah dying is
unsupportable in the Midrash, and this Midrash does not prove that
the is a Rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 referring to the
Messiah.
----------------------------------------------------------
>YALQUT ii71 (Note: These are really two separate sources. MYS)
>"Who art thou, O great mountain? (Zechariah 4:7) This refers to King
>Messiah. And why does he call him `the great mountain?` Because he
>greater than than the patriarchs, as it is said, `*My servant shall be
>high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly*`; he will be higher than
>Abraham, who says, `I raise high my hands to the LORD` (Genesis
14:22);
>lifted up above Moses, to whom it is said, `Lift it up thy bosom`
>(Numbers 11:12); loftier than the ministering angels, of whom it is
>written, `Their wheels were lofty and terrible` (Ezekiel 1:1). And out
>of whom does he come forth? Out of David (Psalm 2:6). According to
>another view this means, `I have woven him,` cf. Judges 16:14: i.e. I
>have drawn him out of the chastisements. Rabbi Huna, on the authority
of
>Rabbi Aha, says, `*The chastisements are divided into three parts: one
>for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for
King
>Messiah; and this is what is written, `He was wounded for our
>transgressions`* etc." (5)
----------------------------------------------------------
Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.)
Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the
King Messiah. And why does he call him "the great mountain?" Because
he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, "My servant shall
be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly" -- he will be higher
than Abraham, . . . lifted up above Moses, . . . loftier than the
ministering angels.
-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 9. The same passage is found in Midrash
Tanchuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T. Townsend
(Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 166.
This Yalkut is taken from the Midrash Tanchuma (Toldos 14) which
states as follows: "'Who are you, great mountain, before Zerabavel
you will become a plain' This is the Messiah the son of David. Why is
he called the 'great mountain' because he is greater then the
Patriarchs, as it says 'Behold my servant will prosper, he will be
raised up and carried and be very high.' (Is. 52:13) Raised up more
then Abraham, carried higher then Isaac, higher then Jacob. Raised up
more then Abraham as it says 'I have raised my hand' (Gen. 14:22).
Carried above Moses as it says 'That you should say to me "Carry them
in your bosom" (Num. 11:12). Higher then the ministering angels as it
says, 'And their rims (Heb. gabosam similar to the word govah - high)
were full of eyes'..."
I think an unbiased look at this Midrash shows that none of the
verses are used literally. In fact some of them are more like puns on
words then literal interpretations. It is not possible to claim that
this Midrash is giving a literal understanding of any verse used in
it.
It is interesting to note that the Midrash does not even follow
the meaning of the verse in Zechariah. There the 'high mountain' is
made flat because it symbolizes the opponents of Zerabavel, but the
Midrash sees it as the protagonist. (It should be noted that this
Midrash is quite popular as it is the basis for a number of other
Midrashic commentaries.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Yalkut ii. 620 (13th or 14th c.), in regard to Psalm 2:6
I.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. . . .The
chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the
fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah;
and this is that which is written, "He was wounded for our
transgressions," etc.
-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 10.
This translation does not agree with our text of the Yalkut nor
of the source of the Yalkut the Midrash on Psalms, both of which do
NOT have the verse from Isaiah 53. Let me bring the translations of
these Midrashim:
Yalkut on Psalms 2 (p881 #621) "Rav Huna said in the name of Rav
Idi, 'Suffering is divided into three portions, one for the King
Messiah.'"
The above text is obviously defective as the other two parts are
missing, however the source for it does exist in the Midrash Psalms
in TWO places. I will bring from both of them. There are two versions
of the Midrash Psalms, the standard one, and one put out by Buber
based on another text. Where the text differs the one by Buber will
be between '[' ']'.
Midrash Psalms on Psalms 2: "Rav Yudin [Rav Huna] said,
'Suffering is divided into three portions. One was taken by the
Patriarchs of the world and the generations, one was for the
generation of forced conversions, and another for the generation of
the Messiah.'"
Midrash Psalms on Psalms 15: "Rebbi [Rebbi Levi] said in the
name of Rav Idi, 'Suffering is divided into three portions. One was
taken by the Patriarchs of the world and the generations, one was for
the generation of forced conversions, and another for the generation
of the Messiah. What did they do in the generation of forced
conversions? They brought balls of iron and made them white hot and
put them under their tongues until their souls departed, again they
would take slivers of wood and place it under their fingernails and
from this they would die sanctifying the Name of G-d.'"
>>> Continued to next message
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 197 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 6/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Continued from previous message
The Yalkut also has on Psalms 15 a text similar to this one, but
again defective. In none of these cases is Isaiah 53 used at all.
----------------------------------------------------------
>THANHUMA (6)
>"Rabbi Nachman says, `The word `man` in the passage, every man a head
of
>the house of his fathers (Num. 1:4), refers to the Messiah the son of
>David, as it is written, `Behold the man whose name is `Zemah` (the
>branch), where Yonathan interprets, `Behold Messiah (Zech. 6:12) and
so
>it is said, `*a man of pains' and known to sickness.*` "
----------------------------------------------------------
This is one of those invented Midrashim by Father Martini which only
appears in his work: Pugio Fidei (as the note to this selection says
in Driver et al.
----------------------------------------------------------
>P'SIQTHA (ACCORDING TO HULSUIS) (7) (Note: This translation is from
an unknown source. It does not agree with our texts. MYS)
>"The Holy One brought forth the soul of the Messiah, and said to him,
>`Art thou willing to be created and to redeem my sons after 6000
>years?` he replied, `I am.` God replied, `If so, thou must take upon
>thyself chastisements in order to wipe away their iniquity, as it is
>written, `*Surely our sickness he hath carried.*` The Messiah
answered,
>`I will take them upon me gladly.`"
>PESIQTA RABBATI (22) (Note: this is another translation that appears
to be the same as the above source. MYS)
>"[When he created the Messiah] the Holy One, blessed be he, began to
>tell him the conditions [of his future mission], and said to him:
'Those
>who are hidden with you [your generation], their sins will in the
future
>force you into an iron yoke, and they will render you like unto this
>calf whose eyes have grown dim, and they will choke your spirit with
the
>yoke, and because of their sins YOUR TONGUE WILL CLEAVE TO THE ROOF OF
>YOUR MOUTH. (23) Do you accept this?' He said before Him: 'Master of
the
>Worlds! With gladness in my soul and joy in my heart I accept it, so
>that not a single one of Israel shall perish; and not only those who
>would be alive should be saved in many days, but even the dead who
have
>died from the days of Adam the first man until now... This is what I
>want, this is what I accept!'"
>PESIQTA RABBATI (CH.36) (Note: This is a different excerpt of the
same source as the previous citation MYS)
>"The fathers of the world [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] will in the
future
>rise up in the month of Nisan and will speak to him; 'Ephraim, our
true
>Messiah' Even though we are your fathers, you are greater than we, for
>you suffered because of the sins of our children, and cruel punishment
>have come upon you the like of which have not come upon the early and
>later generations, and you were put into contempt by the nations of
the
>world because of Israel, and you sat in darkness and *your eyes saw no
>light, and your skin cleft to your bones, and your body dried up like
a
>potsherd* (24) All this because of the sins of the children. Do you
want
>that our children enjoy the happiness that the Holy One, blessed be
He,
>allotted to Israel, or perhaps because of the great sufferings that
have
>come upon you on their account, and because they imprisoned you in the
>jail house, your mind is not reconciled with them?"
----------------------------------------------------------
All three of these texts appear to be excerpted from the same chapter
of the Pesikta, just different places in that chapter. The Pesikta is
in 100% agreement with Rabbinic sources, and the sufferer is the
Moshiach ben Yosef. In fact, in the full text, his usage of the term
in the week when ben Dovid comes indicats that he also holds from
this one week (7 year) period. The Talmud in Sanhedrin 97a discusses
this 7 year period, and the Pesikta brings it in Pesikta 15 (page 75a
in my addition). There we read clearly "The Rabbis say, that in the
week that ben Dovid comes, the first year... the sixth year will be
shouting and the seventh year will be wars, and when the seventh year
goes out the son of David will come. I'm sorry to tell you that the
Pesikta does not in any way disagree with the basic facts that I
outlined above.
Here is the explaination. Since we know that he is in agreement that
the son of David will not appear until after the seven years and that
he does not disagree with any of the other Midrashim on this. I will
explain in general what this Midrash is saying. The first part deals
with the Mashiach ben Yosef who is accepting upon himself with an
oath the suffering that he will endure during the end times. The the
Midrash explains when this is to take place, so it starts "In the
week that the son of David comes." It relates the sufferings that the
Mashiach ben Yosef endures during this week, which we have seen is in
total agreement with everything that I have brought previously. After
that Rabbi Levi mentions something related to the verse in Isaiah
(which is the subject of this Pesikta). Following that Rabbi Yitschok
describes what the last year (the seventh) will look like. Finally
after descirbing the end of the seventh year the Midrash starts "Our
Rabbis taught" where they describe the appearence of Mashiach ben
Dovid. There is absolutely no support from this Midrash. It follows a
clear chronological order. The Mashiach ben Yosef comes in the seven
year period and suffers, then the Mashiach ben Dovid comes.
----------------------------------------------------------
>MYSTERIES OF RABBI SHIM'ON BEN YOHAI
>(COMPILED IN THE 11TH CENTURY) (9)
>
>"And Armilaus will join the battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim,
in
>the east gate... and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and
>Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to
>them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone,
>saying, Thou speakest falsely; already the Messiah is slain, and there
>is none other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will
despise
>him, as it is written, `DESPISED AND FORLORN OF MEN`. but he will turn
>and hide himself from them, according to the words, `LIKE ONE HIDING
HIS
>FACE FROM US.`" (10)
----------------------------------------------------------
The text says specifically the Moshiach ben Yosef suffers.
----------------------------------------------------------
>SEPHER HA-GILGALIM (19)
>"You must know the soul of celestial splendour no created being in the
>world has ever yet been worthy to obtain: the King Messiah, however,
>will
>receive it: it is accordingly said of him, 'HE SHALL BE HIGH AND
>EXALTED,' etc., or as our Rabbis say, ' He shall be higher than
Abraham,
>exceedingly above Adam!'"
----------------------------------------------------------
This text is based on the Tanchuma. (See my comment on the Yalkut in
the previous post.
----------------------------------------------------------
>MIDRASH KONEN BHM 2:29-30 (25)
>"The fifth house [in the heavenly paradise] is built of onyx and
jasper
>stones, and silver and gold, and good pure gold. And around it are
>rivers of balsam, and before it door flows the river Gihon. And [it
has]
>a canopy of all trees of incense and good scent. And in it beds of
gold
>and silver, and embroidered garments. And there sit Messiah Ben David
>>> Continued to next message
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)
Ä Area: Religious Debate ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Msg#: 198 Date: 09-22-96 06:54
From: Moshe Shulman Read: Yes Replied: No
To: Ken Wiens And All Mark:
Subj: Make up your rules 7/7
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
>>> Continued from previous message
>and Elijah and Messiah Ben Ephraim. And there is a canopy of incense
>trees as in the Sanctuary which Moses made in the desert. All the
>vessels and pillars are of silver, its covering is gold, its seat is
>purple. And in it is Messiah Ben David who loves Jerusalem. Elijah of
>blessed memory takes hold of his head, places it in his lap and holds
>it, and says to him: 'Endure the sufferings and sentence of your
master
>who makes you suffer because of Israel.' And thus it is written: `HE
WAS
>WOUNDED BECAUSE OF OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, HE WAS CRUSHED BECAUSE OF OUR
>INIQUITES' (Isaiah 53:5) until the time when the end comes."
----------------------------------------------------------
The text says specifically the Moshiach ben Yosef suffers.
----------------------------------------------------------
>MACHZOR FOR ROSH HASHANAH AND YOM KIPPUR (26)
>"Our righteous anointed [Messiah] departed from us: horror hath seized
>us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our
>iniquities, and our transgression. He beareth our sins on his
shoulders
>that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his
>wound, at the time the Eternal will creat him as a new creature."
----------------------------------------------------------
The musaf (additional) service for the Day of Atonement, Philips
machzor (20th c.):
Our righteous anointed is departed from us: horror hath seized us,
and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our
iniquities, and our transgression, and is wounded because of our
transgression. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find
pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the
time that the Eternal will create him (the Messiah) as a new
creature. O bring him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up
from Seir, to assemble us the second time on Mount Lebanon, by the
hand of Yinnon.
-- Philips, A. Th. Machzor Leyom Kippur / Prayer Book for the Day of
Atonement with English Translation; Revised and Enlarged Edition (New
York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1931), p. 239. The passage can
also be found in, e.g., the 1937 edition. Also, Driver and Neubauer,
p. 399.
[Note: this particular passage is included because it alludes to
verses in Isaiah 53 even though it does not claim to quote from
them. Being poetic it would be difficult to claim support from it for
any doctrine.]
In order to understand this I need to give a little historical
background. The author of this payyut (religious poem) is Rabbi
Eluzer HaKalir. He was a Kabbalist, and some believe he was the son
of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. This above passage is only a small part
of the payyut which is called 'Az MeLifnei Beraishis' (Then before
the world was created). It is made up of four parts and is made to be
said in the middle of the Kedusha for the Musuf prayer of Yom Kippur.
This payyut is based on the teaching in the Midrash Tanchuma
(parshas Nasa 11, page 506 in the standard Hebrew edition). There it
says, " 'Teach us, our Rabbi, how many things were created before the
creation of the world?' 'Thus taught our rabbis, "Seven things were
created before the world was created. They are: (1) the throne of
glory (2) the Torah (3) the Temple (4) the Patriarchs (Abraham Isaac
and Jacob) (5) The people Israel (6) the name of the Messiah (7)
repentance." '" Each part of the payyut mentions some of these
things. The first part: The Torah and the Throne of Glory. The
second: The Patriarchs and Israel. The third: Messiah and the Temple.
The fourth: repentance.
I would like to point out a few things that are interesting and
important in this Midrash and also in the payyut that come up in
discussions about the beliefs of the rabbis. These relate directly to
our understanding of what the meaning of this payyut is.
1. These 7 things were considered necessary for the world to be
able to exist, and achieve the purpose for which the world was
created.
2. Notice that only the NAME of the Messiah is preexistent not the
Messiah himself (However with regards to the patriarchs they are
considered preexistent.)
3. The proof of this preexistent name is based on the rabbinic
interpretation of Psalms 72:17 which literally says: "His name should
last forever, may his name last as long as the sun", which they
interpret as meaning "His name shall forever endure, before the sun
(was made) Yanin was his name." As I have mentioned the Rabbis many
times took verses out of context to teach spiritual lessons, this is
an example of that. This in fact appears in the passage from the
piyyut.
4. Each part of the payyut relates to part of the kedusha prayer.
The first part that talks of how G-d's glory fills the world relates
to the Torah and the Throne of Glory which are examples of that of
G-d's presence. The second which deals with the proclaiming of G-d's
oneness relates to the Patriarchs and Israel who sanctify G-d's name
and proclaim his oneness. The third which talks of how we shall be
taken from exile mentions the Temple and the Messiah. The final
portion proclaiming G-d's kingship is associated with repentance
which is to accept G-d as king and follow his commands.
5. Repentance appears alone in the last section of the payyut. If
you read that section you see that repentance is the most important
of the seven things.
6. Significantly, the third and fourth parts talk about sin, with
the difference that the third discusses sin in relation to the exile
and the temple, while the fourth discusses it with regards to
individual repentance. They are taken as separate issues.
With these points in mind let's consider one important principle
that is taught in the Tenach, but is often missed. It is one that in
Judaism has an important place in both theology and in our prayers.
That is 'sin'. But not just simply sin, but the idea of communal sin.
The concept of "we and our fathers have sinned'. The concept of
communal sin is that the community as a whole is responsible and
punishable for the sins of members of the community. It is important
to know what the Tenach teaches with regards to this idea, if
anything.
One principle is clear in the Tenach and that is: if a person
sins he will be punished unless he repents of his sins. If we look at
passages like Ezekiel 3:18-21 and 33:11-19 we see that the wicked die
from their sins. It is clear that this death is the cutting off of
the soul, the spiritual death of Numbers 15:30-31. There is also a
clear promise of punishments in THIS world for sins. This is found in
many places in the Torah like Deut. 28:15-68. From this we see that
sin has TWO aspects. A spiritual punishment in the future, and a
* OLX 2.1 TD * mshulman@ix.netcom.com
! Origin: RIME NetHub ž MoonDog BBS žBklyn,NY (1:278/230)