• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why should one believe that something the TaNaKh predicts would actually literally occur?

Rakovsky

Active Member
As far as I can tell, in Maimonides' reading, Isaiah is saying: Messiah won't die via "ratsats" before putting justice in the earth and distant places await hearing his teaching. Now why mention dying at all in the verse? The verse seems to be saying that chronologically, Messiah will come, he sets justice in the earth, islands await his teaching, before he dies.

Now, why does it say the islands "await" his teaching before he dies, and not "the islands hear his teaching" before he dies? Certainly, spreading his teaching to the ends of the earth is a goal of Messiah, and if the islands await, then in justice their expectation should be fulfilled. It seems that therefore at some point the islands do hear Messiah's teaching, but it's not mentioned that they do in this verse about Messiah's life before dying because Messiah would die while they are still awaiting his teaching.

In the passage, Maimonides appears to be talking about Messiah ben David dying, as he writes:
But the Messiah will die, and his son and son's son will reign in his stead. God has clearly declared his death in the words, לא יכהה ולא ירוץ עד ישים בארץ משפט (Isaiah 42:4). His kingdom will endure a very long time... From the general nature of this principle of faith we gather that there will be no king of Israel but from David and the descendants of Solomon exclusively. Every one who disputes the authority of this family denies God and the words of his prophets.

Further, Maimonides does not seem to make Messiah's death a conditional. He nowhere mentions the "two Messiahs" theory, and he says "the Messiah will die" and "God has clearly declared his death", not "the Messiah could die", or "a Messiah will die".

M. Morgan writes about this in Rethinking the Messianic Idea in Judaism: "By way of emphasizing messianic naturalism, and by way of countering Christian messianism, Maimonides stresses here that the Messiah will die and will be succeeded by his son and further descendants."

That being the case, my first question here would be:
What does it mean that the Messiah's death would be by yaruts / ratsats?
If Messiah's death is crushing, breaking, oppressing, bruising, etc., does that imply it is different than a peaceful, painless death?

Besides the translations we've already discussed, I can note that of the Russian Lubavitcher Chassidus website. It is like a Russian counterpart to the English "Chabad" website. Its Tanakh translation of Isaiah 42:4 says:
Не ослабеет он и не сломится, пока не установит на земле правосудие, и учения его острова ждать будут.
He won't weaken and won't be broken, so long as he doesn't establish justice on earth, and the islands await his teachings.
Танах с параллельным текстом на русском и иврите

And this raises a second question: Why do Isaiah or Maimonides believe that Messiah would undergo death by ratsats?

My third question is:
Has Maimonides given further Messianic explanations about Isaiah 42:1-4?
It could help us better understand his thinking.

I found Targum Jonathan on 42:1 interpreting this as about Messiah like Maimonides says:
Verse 1: Behold My servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in whom My soul delighteth;
Targum: Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring, my chosen in whom one delights:

Here is a different translation of the Targum:
See my servant the Messiah whom I bring near,
my chosen one in whom my Word [Memra] takes delight;
I will place my Holy Spirit upon him
and he will reveal my Torah to the nations.
(SOURCE: Messianic Exegesis)

My fourth question is:
Are there other Jewish traditions saying that Messiah ben David would die?
I understand that this can simply be a normal conclusion from the belief that Messiah is a normal mortal human, but I still wanted to see if there was more writing on this like Maimonides gave.

Rabbi Nachman wrote:
People think that there will be no more death after the messiah comes. This is not so. Even the messiah will die. (Chayei Moharan II, p. 13, #35).


Uri Yosef writes on the Messiah Truth forum:
In the Hebrew Bible, there are passages that tell us the Messiah will leave an inheritance to his sons [e.g., Ezekiel 46:16-17]. The implication is that he will pass on, but of old age and after he completed executing the messianic agenda that is laid out in the Hebrew Bible.
...

=========================================
25. And they shall dwell on the land that I have given to My servant, to Jacob, wherein your forefathers lived; and they shall dwell upon it, they and their children and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.
...

16. So says the Lord God: If the prince give a gift to any of his sons, it is his inheritance and remains in his sons' possession; it is their property by inheritance
========================================


I personally prefer to accept the opinion of Metzudat David [Rabbi David ben Zimra (1462-1572)] and Avot d'Rabbi Nathan [the earliest commentary on Pirkei Avot, by (the school of) the Tanna Rabbi Nathan], who say this is a reference to the eternity of the Davidic throne (sort of a repetition of 2 Samuel 7:16), and not a literal reference to an eternally living Messiah named David.

does the Old Testament say that the Messiah will die? in Ask The Rabbi Forum
The underlined phrase is an interesting, astute observation by Uri Yosef. I agree that passing on an inheritance implies he died.
I don't think that passing on inheritance implies the cause of death, however.

Ervin Patai, who received his doctorate from Hebrew University, where he also taught, wrote about Messiah's death:
When the death of the Messiah became an established tenet in Talmudic times, this was felt to be irreconcilable with the belief in the Messiah as Redeemer who would usher in the blissful millennium of the Messianic Age. The dilemma was solved by splitting the person of the Messiah in two: one of them, called Messiah ben Joseph, was to raise the armies of Israel against their enemies, and, after many victories and miracles, would fall victim Gog and Magog. The other, Messiah ben David, will come after him (in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two), and will lead Israel to the ultimate victory, the triumph, and the Messianic era of bliss.

Patai, Raphael, The Messiah Texts, Avon Books, 1979
I think the underlined parts are suggesting that Messiah ben Joseph who dies and Messiah ben David who resurrects him are the same person.

In Pesach: A Kid, a Kid. And All of Jewish History, one writer claims that the scholar lijah ben Solomon Zalman, or "Vilna Goan", had a teaching where an "ox gets slaughtered by a butcher. The butcher is killed by the Angel of Death, And finally the Angel of Death is ended by God." He writes that Vilna Goan's theory includes Messiah's death

the Butcher. The Mashiach. ... the word is actually schecter. He’s not some dime a dozen animal slaughterer. A schecter knows and is proficient in the mitzvahs of killing an animal in a painless and holy way, making it kosher. The metaphor is appropriate as Jewish understanding of the messiah is a military leader. ...

But even the Mashiach will die at the hands of the Angel of Death. And the Jews will once again be plunged into a period of darkness. But finally in the end, Hadosh Baruchu, our God will end the Angel of Death and with it all of death.
Pesach: A Kid, a Kid. And All of Jewish History. – By Ben

Aaron Minsky writes in his book Beyond Faith: Exploring Judaism and comparing it to other religions:
There are many references to moshiach in the Prophets and the Writings in the Bible. I will cite just one, which is very well known.... ".... unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting place shall be glorious." (Isaiah 11:1-10) The final verse seems to indicate that the moshiach will die, but this conforms to the Jewish concept that he will be human and die like everyone else.
 

Call

New Member
. . .

For example, Isaiah 42 says:

ד לֹא יִכְהֶה וְלֹא יָרוּץ, עַד-יָשִׂים בָּאָרֶץ מִשְׁפָּט; וּלְתוֹרָתוֹ, אִיִּים יְיַחֵלוּ. {פ}.​

The 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation puts it as:

He shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the right in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his teaching.

The verb here for "crushed" is ratsats, . . .
Yarutz, above, does not mean "crushed;" it means "run." "Lo yarutz" means "he will not run." This is plain Hebrew, as can be seen by consulting a Jastrow, by noting the first verse of Yedid Nefesh, or from several locations in the Tanach of which Rakovsky is aware.

My question, aimed mainly at Jews, is on what authority, if any, would one add a tsadhe to the root before translating, or come up with a translation that is at odds with what is apparently the plain meaning of the Tanach. I am aware that not all of the apparent mistranslation is modern. However, the question stands.

?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The problems or manifold:
First, the JPS chooses "crushed" for yarutz (assuming it comes from the same root as ratzatz) but chooses "bruised" for ratzatz in the verse before.
FWIW, Blenkinsopp offers ...

42.3
A broken reed he will not crush,
a dimply smoldering wick he will not extinguish;
he will truly establish a just order for the nations;​
42.4
he will not grow faint or be discouraged
until he has set up a just order on the earth;
the islands wait for his law​

- source
 

Rakovsky

Active Member
Call is bringing up a quite interesting issue in his message #42, above.
On one hand, it seems from what Call is saying that strictly as a matter of grammar, Lo Yarutz means "he will not run". Such a reading would mean that the prophetic Messiah will not run to tell his message until he set his justice in the earth and the islands await his command. That is because in Tanakh, running is the action of couriers (ratz) and prophets, both of whom run (ratz) to tell their message.

On the other hand,
what Call's proposal would entail is that all recorded Jewish interpretations of this word (and for that matter the usual Christian ones, which were picked up from the Jewish reading) have been mistaken and the original, correct meaning was lost and became extinct, despite the fact that in all that time the interpreters and translations had far more than enough good knowledge of Hebrew to correctly recognize this term.

Let's start with why and how we might think the verse uses Yarutz as "run":

Jeremiah 51:31 uses Yarutz to mean run:
רָ֤ץ לִקְרַאת־רָץ֙ יָר֔וּץ וּמַגִּ֖יד לִקְרַ֣את מַגִּ֑יד לְהַגִּיד֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ בָּבֶ֔ל כִּֽי־נִלְכְּדָ֥ה עִירֹ֖ו מִקָּצֶֽה׃

JPT Translation: One courier runs to meet another courier, and one herald to meet another herald
I don't understand the grammar there, which says "Runner(sas) to meet (liqrat) runs (ras) another runner (yarutz)". But anyway, it shows that "runner" and "run" are terms for messengers.

There are five other places in Tanakh where Yarutz means run. (Hebrew Concordance: yā·rūṣ -- 6 Occurrences)

The fact that running often suggests running to give a message shows up in 2 Samuel 18 (JPT):
And Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok said, "Let me now run (arutsah) and bring news to the king that the Lord has avenged him from the hand of his enemies."
וַאֲחִימַעַץ בֶּן צָדוֹק אָמַר אָרוּצָה נָּא וַאֲבַשְּׂרָה אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי שְׁפָטוֹ יְהֹוָה מִיַּד אֹיְבָיו:

The idea that normally prophets are supposed to "run" to give their message of prophecy because the Lord sends them is reflected in Jeremiah 23 (JPT) where the Lord complains about some false prophets running even though He didn't send them:
I did not send the prophets yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.
כאלֹא שָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת הַנְּבִאִים וְהֵם רָצוּ לֹא דִבַּרְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם וְהֵם נִבָּאוּ:

So what this suggests is that Messiah has a message for the world, even the islands far away would be waiting for it, and that "He won't grow dim or run (to give the message) until he set justice in the earth and the islands await his teaching". (Isaiah 42:4)

However, such a usage of the word yarutz would be at odds with all the remaining recorded Jewish (or for that matter Christian) interpretations going back to ancient times, like being "weary" or "discouraged". Someone tired, weary, or discouraged is not inclined to 'run', but rather trudge along. "Weary" and "discouraged" must instead come from "ratsats", interpreting crushing, brokenness, etc. in the sense that someone who is spiritually crushed/broken/etc. becomes weary, discouraged.

My follow up question would be is there any way that yarutz could grammatically be a form of ratsats (eg. "be broken", crushed, shattered, etc.)?

Some forms of Ratsats do end in "-rutz", like:

Ezekiel 29:7 (JPT)
When they took hold of you with the hand, you splintered (tarutz) and pierced the whole of their shoulders, and when they leaned upon you, you broke, and you made all their loins stand upright.
זבְּתָפְשָׂם בְּךָ בַכַּף (כתיב בַכַּפך) תֵּרוֹץ וּבָקַעְתָּ לָהֶם כָּל כָּתֵף וּבְהִשָּׁעֲנָם עָלֶיךָ תִּשָּׁבֵר וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ לָהֶם כָּל מָתְנָיִם:

See also:


Ecclesiastes 12:6 (JPT)
Before the silver cord snaps, and the golden fountain is shattered (watarutz), and the pitcher breaks at the fountain, and the wheel falls shattered into the pit.
ועַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵרָתֵק (כתיב יֵרָחֵק) חֶבֶל הַכֶּסֶף וְתָרֻץ גֻּלַּת הַזָּהָב וְתִשָּׁבֶר כַּד עַל הַמַּבּוּעַ וְנָרֹץ הַגַּלְגַּל אֶל הַבּוֹר:
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
My follow up question would be is there any way that yarutz could grammatically be a form of ratsats (eg. "be broken", crushed, shattered, etc.)?

Some forms of Ratsats do end in "-rutz", like:

Ezekiel 29:7 (JPT)
When they took hold of you with the hand, you splintered (tarutz) and pierced the whole of their shoulders, and when they leaned upon you, you broke, and you made all their loins stand upright.
זבְּתָפְשָׂם בְּךָ בַכַּף (כתיב בַכַּפך) תֵּרוֹץ וּבָקַעְתָּ לָהֶם כָּל כָּתֵף וּבְהִשָּׁעֲנָם עָלֶיךָ תִּשָּׁבֵר וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ לָהֶם כָּל מָתְנָיִם:


The Hebrew word in bold is teirotz, not tarutz.
 

Call

New Member
My only claim is that "lo yarutz" means "he will not run." Although there are attractive features of Rakovsky's interpretation, it is NOT the only reasonable one, and probably not even the first and most obvious one, which to me would be that he will not run FROM his mission until, etc. See Jonah.

The main strength of my claim is the simple and obvious Hebrew. The weakness (if it is) is that so many even older commenters seem to regard it differently.
 

Rakovsky

Active Member
My only claim is that "lo yarutz" means "he will not run." Although there are attractive features of Rakovsky's interpretation, it is NOT the only reasonable one, and probably not even the first and most obvious one, which to me would be that he will not run FROM his mission until, etc. See Jonah.
Jonah fled from his mission before accomplishing it, but ultimately accepted and accomplished it.

If Messiah's goal includes spreading his message to the world, and in the Tanakh's mindset prophets and couriers AKA "runners" spreading a message is commonly referred to as "running", then Messiah's "running", especially in the context of the islands waiting for his teaching, would seem most obviously to me to be referring to "running" to spread his teaching.

Although I said that such a reading of the passage as "running" (eg. in the sense of carrying and delivering a message) would go against all the known Jewish and Christian traditions, I did find Matthew 12 making a kind of midrash on Isaiah's verses 3 to 4, paraphrasing them as:
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench,

till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
I'm not sure if "sending" judgment has anything to do with the fact that after the judgment was made, 'prophets'/'apostles'(a word that mean literally 'couriers') would naturally run/carry Messiah's teaching.

To say that the redeeming Messiah will not betray and flee from his mission until he establishes justice and the islands are waiting his teaching would not seem to match the normal perception of Messiah in Judaism. I don't know offhand where the term "running" connotes fleeing when the term is not used in a clear context, like the phrase "running 'from' something". So I am not sure why you would find running=fleeing to be a more obvious meaning.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Given the following from Wikipedia:

While it is widely accepted that the book of Isaiah is rooted in a historic prophet called Isaiah, who lived in the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE, it is also widely accepted that this prophet did not write the entire book of Isaiah.[7][23]The observations which have led to this are as follows:
  • Historical situation → Chapters 40–55 presuppose that Jerusalem has already been destroyed (they are not framed as prophecy) and the Babylonian exile is already in effect – they speak from a present in which the Exile is about to end. Chapters 56–66 assume an even later situation, in which the people are already returned to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple is already under way.[24]
  • Anonymity → Isaiah's name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.[25]
  • Style → There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40; numerous key words and phrases found in one section are not found in the other.[26]
These observations led scholars to the conclusion that the book can be conveniently divided into three sections, labeled Proto-Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah.[27] Early modern-period scholars treated Isaiah as independent collections of sayings by three individual prophets, brought together at a much later period, about 70 BCE, to form the present book.[4] The second half of the 20th century saw a marked change in approach, and scholars have begun to detect a deliberate arrangement of materials to give the book an overarching theological message.[28]

The composition history of Isaiah reflects a major difference in the way authorship was regarded in ancient Israel and in modern societies; the ancients did not regard it as inappropriate to supplement an existing work while remaining anonymous.[29] While the authors are anonymous, it is plausible that all of them were priests, and the book may thus reflect Priestly concerns, in opposition to the increasingly successful reform movement of the Deuteronomists.[30]

How does the question of authorship impact discussions of the message and authenticity of the text? Put differently, to what extent does the claim of messianic prophesy presume Isaiah as author?
 

Rakovsky

Active Member
This thread is in the wrong forum.

My basic goal here is to see why Judaism's prophecies must come to pass. They are appealing prophecies to me.
I gave an example in the OP about the prophecy in Isaiah 42, since Messiah's death is something Judaism and Christianity both conceive of, and have focused on Jewish resources. I value and seek the input of Jewish writers here especially, because Tanakh is a Jewish sacred writing.
 
Last edited:

Rakovsky

Active Member
I asked people on the Ancient Hebrew forum, which includes native Hebrew speakers, and they say that Yarutz is a form of both Ratsats (crush, break, oppress, etc.) and Rutz (run). They also think that Ratsats is best because it forms a parallel with the preceding verse (3) where ratsats is used.


look at the verse before
Verse 3 קָנֶה רָצוּץ לֹא יִשְׁבּוֹר, וּפִשְׁתָּה כֵהָה לֹא יְכַבֶּנָּה
Verse 4 לֹא יִכְהֶה וְלֹא יָרוּץ

רצוץ-ירוץ
כהה-יכהה
same verbs
...
if it is רצצ it should be ירצ Yarots
Hebrew has more than one semantic רוצ root
1. Run
2. Like רצצ

because Hebrew has Nomadic roots
roots with Weak letters tend to switch between themselves
and keep the meaning

the best and famous example for this is the rots
נוד
נדד
means - to wander

so here we have ירוץ from רוץ and we know also that the root רצצ has the same meaning

The Curious Case of "Yarutz" in Isaiah 42:4 | Ancient Hebrew Forum
They also wrote:
in the rabbinical writings, and specifically, the talmud, we have a passage that discusses the appropriate course of conduct for a native when encountering an alien on the road or highway.

the relevant text reads:

ואל (and not) // ישוח (he shall bend/bow down) // לפניו (to face of him / before him)
שמא (lest) // ירוץ (he shall crush) // את (sentence object marker) // גולגלתו (skull/head of him)

and you can read the hebrew/aramaic text here;

mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4702.htm

The Curious Case of "Yarutz" in Isaiah 42:4 | Ancient Hebrew Forum
 
Top