1. 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!

Mashiach according to Rabbi Hillel

Discussion in 'Orthodox Judaism DIR' started by Harel13, Sep 30, 2022.

  1. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    A curious statement is brought in Sanhedrin 99a:

    "ר' הילל אומר אין להם משיח לישראל שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה"​

    "R' Hillel says: Yisrael do not have a Mashiach any longer because they already ate him in the days of Chizkiyah."​

    The statement is very famous and has brought upon some discussions as to how R' Hillel could dare to say something like that, for example here.

    I've found myself pondering this view over the last couple of days, mostly because I came upon an interesting suggestion by Yehudah Even Shmuel. Apparently (I only saw this in a second-hand source, haven't yet checked the original) he had suggested that when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said, on his deathbed, to prepare a chair for Chizkiyah, King of Yehudah, he was referring to the then-Reish Galuta, Chizkiyah ben Shechanyah. I haven't completely formulated an opinion on this suggestion yet, but that got me thinking:

    A couple of months ago I had started to consider the possibility that the Chizkiyah R' Hillel was referring to was not Chizkiyahu the famous Tanachic king, but actually, perhaps, Chizkiyah the Galilean, head of anti-Roman rebels who had been put to death by Herod. The reason I had considered this because there's a suggestion that Menachem ben Chizkiyah, the aggadic name of the Mashiach, is connected in some way to Menachem, a descendant of Chizkiyah who led a faction of zealots during the Great Revolt (here's a thread I made on it). This would make R' Hillel's statement more aggadic in fashion and probably not intended to be taken literally, in historical terms.

    But now I have a different idea: What if R' Hillel's statement was referring to the Reish Galuta Chizkiyah ben Shechanyah? Consider this: R' Hillel isn't saying that Chizkiyah himself was the Mashiach. He's just saying that he lived during his time and was destroyed somehow. So this does not match with the famous idea the King Chizkiyah was supposed to have been the Mashiach. On the other hand, we don't know the exact years that Chizkiyah the Reish Galuta held his position. But he might have lived circa the end of Rabban Yochanan's life, which puts us at the end of the 1st century CE. What if Chizkiyah lived long enough to see Bar Kochva? Yes, it's a bit of a bold suggestion, that the Mashiach R' Hillel was referring to was none other than Bar Kochva.

    The key point that I think this idea would work is R' Hillel's reasoning for the fall of the Mashiach: "שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה" - "because they already ate him in the days of Chizkiyah" - this is fairly similar in conceptual terms to the explanation for the fall of Bar Kochva given by the Rambam, who evidently had sources we don't have about that period of time (we don't know, for example, how he knew that Rabbi Akiva was the נושא כלים of Bar Kochva): "וְדִמָּה הוּא וְכָל חַכְמֵי דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁהוּא הַמֶּלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ. עַד שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בַּעֲוֹנוֹת" - "and he and all of the sages of his generation thought that he was the King Mashiach. Until he was killed by sins" Not by his sins, but by sins in general. Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Zini had suggested in an essay on Bar Kochva that Rambam is pointing out that Bar Kochva had been killed because of the sins of Klal Yisrael, i.e., that the term "בעוונות" as used by the Rambam typically refers to "our sins" (see Rambam's commentary here for example)

    This, I believe, serves to explain the odd term used by R' Hillel, that he was "eaten in the time of Chizkiyah". In Hebrew it works better, because it is more obvious that the "they" who ate him are Yisrael. In short, שכבר אכלוהו (ישראל) בימי חזקיה = עד שנהרג בעוונות (ישראל).

    Of course, we still have the question of why R' Hillel would choose to refer to that era with Chizkiyah's name. I still don't have a clear answer to that, although yesterday I chanced upon an interesting tradition brought in Seder Olam Zuta 9 which states that Chizkiyah was buried in the estate of the kohen Yehoshua ben Nisraf in Givat Arbel. This is interesting to me because Yeshua Nisraf Arbel was the piyutistic title of the priestly division (mishmar) Yeshua. Perhaps this tradition about Chizkiyah hints somehow to a connection to Bar Kochva. Chizkiyah was not at all the only famous person living outside of the land to be buried in the land, but perhaps there's a hint of something more. A sign of strong Zionism? Or perhaps he died in connection to the Bar Kochva Revolt itself? Who knows.

    Thoughts, comments, ideas, further sources - of course welcome.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    So, it turns out that in Midrashei Geulah pp. 47-49, Even Shmuel does suggest that the Chizkiyah referred to by R' Hillel was Chizkiyah I, the same person who fathered Menachem the supposed Mashiach. He has a fascinating idea on how to tie all of the sources and even brings some that I didn't think about, which is the connection of Mashiach and the geulah to the area of Arbel (for example, one version of the story of Menachem ben Chizkiyah), as well as this well-known one:

    "דֵּלֹמָא רִבִּי חִייָא רַבָּא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא הַוּוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּהֲדָא בִקְעַת אַרְבֶּל בִּקְרִיצְתָּא וְרָאוּ אַייֶלֶת הַשַׁחַר שֶׁבָּקַע אוֹרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָא רַבָּא לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא בִּירְבִּי כַּךְ הִיא גְאֻלָּתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְּחִילָּה קִמְאָה קִמְאָה כָּל־מָה שֶׁהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת הִיא רָבָה וְהוֹלֶכֶת." (Yerushalmi Brachot 1:1 and elsewhere)
    However, Even Shmuel does not suggest that the Mashiach referred to is Bar Kochva, but Menachem ben Chizkiyah himself. He suggests that Chizkiyah took part in the Great Revolt and was given the Judean fortresses בירת ערבתא and בירת מלכתא (the birthplaces of Menachem according to different versions of the story), and there his son was born. This son was thought to be the potential Mashiach. Eventually Chizkiyah went back to Babylon, but at some point returned to the Galilee and used his Persian-given foreign immunity to protect the Galilean Jews. That's how we find Messianic ideas tied to the Galilee in those days, and in particular, the area of Arbel.

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,556
    Ratings:
    +5,431
    Religion:
    Jewish
    There is much in what you write (fascinating stuff, btw) but I am still stuck on the choice of achluhu. The sefaria translation adds in "from" and makes it "ate from him" though that doesn't clarify how meforshim see that as meaning that prophecies were already fulfilled.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    So I'm still playing around with this idea. Here are a few more points to add to the mix.
    First:
    I half-forgot that R' Hillel's statement is brought twice in Sanhedrin. Here's the first quote, which shed a teeny bit more light on the wording:
    "אמר רב גידל אמר רב עתידין ישראל דאכלי שני משיח אמר רב יוסף פשיטא ואלא מאן אכיל להו חילק ובילק אכלי להו לאפוקי מדרבי הילל דאמר אין משיח לישראל שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה"

    "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." (Sanhedrin 98b)

    This quotes is also useful in narrowing done the identity of R' Hillel (there were quite a number). We can see that not only he was before Rav Yosef's time, but he was also before Rav Giddel's time. That brings us to the late Tannaic-early Amoraic period.

    Second:
    It's possible that R' Hillel was half-basing his statement on the Mashaich-type verses about Chizkiyahu in Yesha'ayhu. So Rav Yosef's interpretation of his statement wasn't so far off the mark (per my understanding). But R' Hillel wasn't talking about the Tanachic Chizkiyahu. He was referring to the later Chizkiyah. He took the verses referring to one and turned them into a kind of drasha on the other.

    Right now I need more solid sources on this Chizkiyah the Resh Galuta, and there's likely not much more than what I've found so far. It'll probably end up being this half-developed idea based on a lot of conjecture.
     
  5. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    So, I kept digging and today I finally got some promising leads!

    The main lead right now is a likely 7th century apocalyptic Jewish text called Sefer Zerubavel. Through researching the book, I came across two academic books that discuss apocalyptic and messianic trends surrounding this book and other works. The key idea right now is that there are several sources that tie Zerubavel to the Mashiach. One example is Sefer Zerubavel, but there are others. Some sources seem to deem him to be the Mashiach, but a lot consider him to be some kind of companion of the Mashiach, sometimes instead of Eliyahu and sometimes alongside Eliyahu. This is important because traditionally, the descendants of the Resh Galuta are considered to be descendants of Zerubavel. In that sense, Chizkiyah may be representing the archetype of Zerubavel his ancestor. This would serve to explain why Rabbi Hillel referred to the Mashiach as living in his time but does not identify him with Chizkiyah himself (as one would expect the case to be from the classic and modern interpretations of the quote, where the Mashiach is identified with King Chizkiyah).

    I have not looked into enough sources yet, so I don't know what ancient and modern commentators say on the relationship between Mashiach and Zerubavel, but right now I think Zerubavel represents the Jews of the diaspora and their role in the Geulah.

    A secondary lead is a whole slew of sources and studies regarding messianic trends in the Galilee. Apparently it's far from just being Jesus. This ties into the Yehoshua ben Nisraf tradition. Though these traditions are very theological in nature, the direction of this lead spills into historical speculation - can we accept Even-Shmuel's view that Chizkiyah Ben Shechaniah settled in the Galilee after the destruction of the Temple? If there's a strong way to connect Chizkiyah to the Galilee, that might be a way to explain his importance in the quote: He both represents the diaspora and a strong connection to the Galilee, two connections that Bar Kochva very likely didn't have. In that sense, Bar Kochva is the legit Mashiach but Chizkiyah has the connections. A parallel that comes to mind is David and Yehonatan. Had Yehonatan not died, he was planning on ushering in the kingdom of his friend David. David was considered less legitimate because he wasn't related to Shaul.

    One major question remains: Why doesn't Rabbi Hillel name the Mashiach? I have some half-answers that I'm not too crazy about at the moment.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    I've decided to include my theory in a big project I'll have to hand in by the end of the year. The subject of the project is "Jewish messianic despair during the 3rd and 4th centuries CE". After the subject was approved by my professor, it occurred to me that if my idea is correct, then perhaps not only did no one properly understand Rabbi Hillel, but nobody understood Rav Yosef's disputation either!

    After some more thinking, it suddenly hit me: Rav Yosef's answer is structurally similar to what Rabbi Akiva told the sages when they saw a fox come out of the holy of holies in Makkot 23b. In both cases, Rabbi Akiva and Rav Yosef refer to both Temples and to individuals from the different periods: Rabbi Akiva refers to Uriah Hakohen from Bayit Rishon and to Zechariah from Bayit Sheni, while Rav Yosef refers to Chizkiyah (purportedly King Chizkiyah) from Bayit Rishon and Zechariah from Bayit Sheni.

    What's interesting, however, is that Rabbi Akiva uses a verse referring to the destruction of Bayit Rishon (ציון שדה תחרש etc) with regards to the destruction that he and the other sages saw: That of Bayit Sheni. This is of course a common Jewish interpretation of prophetic texts, but perhaps this means that Rav Yosef was also only talking about some time after the destruction of Bayit Sheni! In other words, Rav Yosef knew perfectly well that Rabbi Hillel was not talking about Chizkiyah King of Yehudah, but about someone from the early Tannaitic, post-Churban period. However, he disagreed with this despairing opinion, much like Rabbi Akiva refused to accept his friends' and colleagues' despair.

    To the end of trying to find a basis for this idea, I've started looking for sources that connect Rav Yosef and Rabbi Akiva. The first that came to mind instantly was Gittin 56b, where the story of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai appears. There it says that Rav Yosef and some say Rabbi Akiva rebuked RYb"Z with a verse from Yeshayahu. This has always seemed strange to me: How could you mix up a second generation Tanna with a third generation Amorah? At first I thought that the confusion was based on the name of Rabbi Akiva's father, Yosef. But that still seems like a weak explanation. So it's possible that the ואיתימא in the gemara is not referring to a split tradition, but to a suggestion that both Rav Yosef and Rabbi Akiva said this - they were like-minded.

    My focus now - besides working on strengthening the Rabbi Hillel-Bar Kochva theory - is to see if there are enough aggadic sources that connect Rav Yosef and Rabbi Akiva, whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., Rav Yosef may say an idea similar to something Rabbi Akiva said, but wiethout saying it in his name).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    I saw an interesting idea today in Alter Valner's book אומה במאבקיה where he discussed Jewish sources that allude to the Gallus Revolt of the mid-4th century CE - he opined that the story about the birth of the Mashiach in Yerushalmi Brachot 2:4 and Eichah Rabbah 1:51 reflects amoraic views regarding the troubled times of circa the Gallus Revolt - both sages mentioned there - Rabbi Yudan beRabbi Aibo and Rabbi Bun - lived, apparently, in the 4th century. I'm still not sure what nafka mina this has on understanding Rabbi Yudan's bringing of the story (in context, the story was brought to prove that Menachem = Tzemach), but according to Valner, Rabbi Bun was trying to give the Jews of his time hope by telling them that the Lebanon - Rome, apparently, according to Valner (if I understood correctly. Traditionally this has been understood as simply proving that the Mashiach will be born on the day of the churban) - would fall by a great one, who will be the Mashiach. I. e., they should not yet give up hope that such a champion will rise. This understanding in itself is useful for my project.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    It occurred to me earlier today that we see here some kind of connection between the Resh Galuta and a kohen whose name matches that of one of the mishmarot - Yehoshua ben Nisraf of Givat Arbel = Yeshua Nisraf-Arbel. And circa the Bar Kochva revolt we find two sages whose names also matched that of a particular mishmar: Rabbi Chutzpit the Metorgeman and Rabbi Yeshvav the Sofer = Yeshva'v Chutzpit-Shuchin. I have long wondered about the possible connection between the mishmar and these two sages.
    Rabbi Chutzpit was certainly tied to the Nasi; he worked for Rabban Gamliel. Perhaps Rabbi Yeshvav was a scribe of Nasi? And both were thought to have been part of the Ten Martyrs. So it appears that there's some kind of connection here between the mishmarot and the two big Jewish leaders at the time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    I'm spit balling here a bit. Based on that essay I linked in the Jewish group about Eliyahu in shul mosaics and the apparent popularization of his character among Jews from circa the 4th century and onwards, per the author of that essay, I'm wondering if I can use that idea for my project on messianic despair. The direction I'm considering at the moment is related to the story of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi meeting the Mashiach. The story ends with RYbL partially disappointed at the fact that the Mashiach said he was ready to come at any time but couldn't without permission from Hashem. On the other hand, we find multiple stories about sages meeting Eliyahu, and in a very nonchalant manner. In other words, Eliyahu is very imminent, while the Mashiach - not so much. Thus, we might be seeing a process in which the figure of Eliyahu asserts itself in the Jewish mind as being the go-to guy, so to speak, of the Jews, while the Mashiach is kind of a...no-show? This might connect also with the awareness that the nesiim weren't patrilineally descendants of David (they were only so matrilineally), while the Resh Galuta was...flawed in a number of aspects.
    At the same time, this might have strengthened the view that the Mashiach is more of a spiritual figure, compared to the very physical, militaristic attempted Meshichim of the past, in particular Bar Kochva. Again, I'm just throwing around ideas.
     
  10. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    Something further to consider on this topic is that the Mashiach in Sefer Zerubavel and later works isn't stated to being specifically a descendant of the Kings of Yehudah. He's not a first cousin of Zerubavel or a descendant of his or something. The only hint we have to this possibility is that his mom is named Cheftzi-bah which was the name of Yeshayahu's daughter, who married Chizkiyahu and was the mother of Menasheh. On the other hand, Cheftzi-bah is stated to being the wife of one Natan. It's possible that this refers to Natan ben David and Bat Sheva. That would also serve to explain his name Menachem ben Amiel, because in Chronicles, Bat Sheva is called Bat Shua and her father Eliam is called Amiel.

    As a side note, perhaps this is also some kind of anti-Lukian polemic?

    This might reflect a despaired view of the most famous Houses of David at the time, the Nesiim and the Rashei Golah, each just not qualifying enough, for whatever reason.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    I found in the Genizah website what appears to be a selichah or kinah (I found something similar that is sourced to Rasag's siddur) mentioning a "יום ארבל" - day of Arbel. The context was negative events that happened to Yisrael, from things like the sin of the spies to the concubine at Givah (and the subsequent civil war). Yom Arbel instantly reminded me of the term "Yom Yizra'el" that appears in Hoshea. In the vicinity of that verse, there's also a reference to Hoshea's son Ami (originally called Lo-Ami), which already on Shabbat I had considered to have been a potential basis for naimg the Mashiach Menachem ben Amiel in Sefer Zerubavel. And in chapter 10 in Hoshea, there's a reference to a person named Shalman destroying a place called Beit Arbel. As it turns out, no one knows what this event refers to. But then the destruction continues on to Beit El and at dawn the King of Yisrael will fall. It looks like I was correct on the Hoshea connection with this Genizah source, because the same chapter in Hoshea has the term "מימי הגבעה" which originates in Hoshea 10:9.

    This was exciting, because thematically it all sounded like the reverse of the various drashic sources we have about Arbel. Here are the verses:

    "וְקָאם שָׁאוֹן בְּעַמֶּךָ וְכׇל מִבְצָרֶיךָ יוּשַּׁד כְּשֹׁד שַׁלְמַן בֵּית אַרְבֵאל בְּיוֹם מִלְחָמָה אֵם עַל בָּנִים רֻטָּשָׁה. כָּכָה עָשָׂה לָכֶם בֵּית אֵל מִפְּנֵי רָעַת רָעַתְכֶם בַּשַּׁחַר נִדְמֹה נִדְמָה מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל."

    a. Shalman destroys Beit Arbel.
    b. Shalman continues and destroys Beit El.
    c. At dawn the King of Yisrael will fall.

    In reverse:
    a. Resh Galuta buys land in Arbel, apparently planning to rebuild it.
    b. The plan is to eventually rebuild Beit El, AKA, the Mikdash.
    c. In the Valley of Arbel, at dawn the geulah will come (as stated by Rabbi Chiyah), and the new king will be anointed.

    So this may be a good basic direction for now. It still needs some refining, but this theory serves to explain what interest the Resh Galuta had in Arbel, other than forging contacts with mishmar Yeshua which lived there. Perhaps Yeshua came there because of this idea from Hoshea, perhaps the R"G forged contacts with Yeshua because of this idea, who knows. Hard to tell. But it looks like this isn't some random theme with messianic ideas appearing in the Galilee. Well, we're still wondering about Shalman and Beit Arbel in the time of Hoshea, but in retrospective - it looks like it might have been a symbolically ideal place to kickstart the geulah, in lieu of Yerushalayim (it being basically unavailable).

    Interestingly, near the end of the kinah/selichah, it refers Emperor Trajan and Achiyah and Shemayah, two brothers said to have been killed on "Trajan's Day" (יום טוריינוס) (Taanit 18b), which brings us near to the time I'm trying to focus on, the Bar Kochva Revolt. This merits more looking into. Unfortunately I still haven't found a source that discusses this kinah/selichah.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    A couple of days ago I also thought again about narrowing down Rabbi Hillel's time. It turns out that his view is brought in a braita. He's the fourth and last in a series of opinions about when the the Mashiach will come. Before him come Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi. That means either one of two options:
    a. The braita is chronological and Rabbi Hillel was from the generation after Rebbi (Rabbi Chiyah, the sons of Rebbi, Bar Kaparah, etc).
    b. The braita is split into two parts: Sages that think that the Mashiach will come comparatively soon and one sage that thinks he won't come at all. Then it would be much more difficult to date Rabbi Hillel because he could be from any generation.
     
  13. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    So I'm about halfway through writing the actual project and as I was skimming the Leiden Yerushalmi MS. I noticed usage of the verse "ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא" (=that is a land that eats its people) (Bamidbar 13:32) and it suddenly hit me that this would serve to explain Rabbi Hillel's usage of the term "they already ate him" - i.e., they killed him, much like the meaning of that term in Tanach is that the land killed its people! Well, I already thought that that was the meaning of the term, but now I have a textual-etymological basis for this. :cool:
     
  14. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    To get back to your question, my guess is that the commentators and the translation based their understanding of Rabbi Hillel's statement on Rav Yosef's refutation, which involved quoting Rav Gidel in the name of Rav. There, Rav seems to use a similar term "דאכלי שני משיח" to refer to receiving the messianic reward.

    On that note, yesterday I came across a Hebrew edition of one of Avner of Burgos's epistles (he was an apostate to Christianity in the Middle Ages who debated a number of rabbis in written exchanges). There, he brings a very interesting variant of what Rav said. In his version, it reads: דאכלי שני משיחי, which, from what I gathered, he understood to mean "that they ate the two Mashichim" (!!). That blew me away, because I had always read the word שני as being related to "שנה", year, not "שניים", two.
     
    #14 Harel13, Dec 18, 2022
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  15. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,556
    Ratings:
    +5,431
    Religion:
    Jewish
    not teeth?
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    Definitely not. שניים and not שיניים.
     
  17. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,556
    Ratings:
    +5,431
    Religion:
    Jewish
    My Hebrew grammar and spelling are rusty at best, and I'm sure that the laws of orthography are often bent -- in the Haggadah, "blunt his teeth" is הַקְהֵה אֶת שִׁנָּיו so couldn't the line "דאכלי שני משיחי" mean "that the teeth of the mashiach ate"? That would make the mashiach the subject, not object.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    I thought you had meant it as a joke, but as we're talking about words without vowels points - you make a legitimate point. So there are at least three potential interpretations of the word שני - years, two or teeth. Very interesting! I'll have to ponder it some more to see if each interpretation can hold water per the context of what Rav is saying.
     
  19. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    7,556
    Ratings:
    +5,431
    Religion:
    Jewish
    well, to be honest, my first thought was to joke but the more I looked at it, the more I wondered not "is this right" but "why would this be any more wrong than others?"
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  20. Harel13

    Harel13 Am Yisrael Chai
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages:
    9,132
    Ratings:
    +12,880
    Religion:
    Orthodox Judaism
    Earlier today I came across a different explanation for the "eating", in an essay by Morton Smith published in the 70s. The suggestion was that this term, bewildering as the statement as a whole may be, intended to parody the eucharist, the symbolic eating of Jesus. Well.......:D

    Smith isn't the only scholar who has suggested a Christian connection in Rabbi Hillel's words. At least one person has suggested that this statement was an anti-Christian polemic, intended to mean that Jesus can't be the Mashiach because he already came centuries earlier. This argument is so weak that at best, it would be something like לתשובת המינים. Some strawman argument to get the Min to clear off. And then the students come and demand a clarification from the rabbi, that they want a real answer. Because Minim are usually shown to be dumb in Chazalic works.
     
Loading...