• 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

rosends

Well-Known Member
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:
I was looking at the meforshim on this posuk because it seems to me that the phrase might not be the literal "land eats its people" and there seems to be some idea that it could be more like "the land reduces or wears down" the people. Could it be that something people did "wore down the years [until] the moshiach"?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I was looking at the meforshim on this posuk because it seems to me that the phrase might not be the literal "land eats its people" and there seems to be some idea that it could be more like "the land reduces or wears down" the people. Could it be that something people did "wore down the years [until] the moshiach"?
I was thinking last night that "שאכלוהו בימי חזקיה" may be a parallel to how Rambam describes Bar Kochva's death: "עד נהרג בעוונות" (until he was killed by the sins), with the phrase "בעוונות" (the sins) not a reference to the sins of Bar Kochva but to the sins of Am Yisrael. This understanding I read a couple of years ago in an essay on Bar Kochva by Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Zeini. It makes sense, the term being used consistently in that manner by the Rambam and other people in the Middle Ages. So in other words, I see the term שאכלוהו בימי חזקיה as meaning that they brought about the death of the Mashiach, not necessarily directly killing him. I don't think the verse, not even in p'shat, meant that the land literally swallowed up the people. It's just an expression. In my opinion, it means that it brought upon the death. How that might have occurred exactly is anyone's guess (although mefarshim and Chazal say that Hashem killed the people).
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I was thinking last night that "שאכלוהו בימי חזקיה" may be a parallel to how Rambam describes Bar Kochva's death: "עד נהרג בעוונות" (until he was killed by the sins), with the phrase "בעוונות" (the sins) not a reference to the sins of Bar Kochva but to the sins of Am Yisrael. This understanding I read a couple of years ago in an essay on Bar Kochva by Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Zeini. It makes sense, the term being used consistently in that manner by the Rambam and other people in the Middle Ages. So in other words, I see the term שאכלוהו בימי חזקיה as meaning that they brought about the death of the Mashiach, not necessarily directly killing him. I don't think the verse, not even in p'shat, meant that the land literally swallowed up the people. It's just an expression. In my opinion, it means that it brought upon the death. How that might have occurred exactly is anyone's guess (although mefarshim and Chazal say that Hashem killed the people).
I actually enjoy thinking of it like the Paneach Raza has
ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא, פי' מכח רוב הרים וגבעות משתבריח העם מטורח עלי' וירידה כדאיתא בעירובין עיר שיש בה מעלות ומורדות אנשיה מזקינים בחצי ימיהם:
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I actually enjoy thinking of it like the Paneach Raza has
ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא, פי' מכח רוב הרים וגבעות משתבריח העם מטורח עלי' וירידה כדאיתא בעירובין עיר שיש בה מעלות ומורדות אנשיה מזקינים בחצי ימיהם:
Ha, that's funny. :)
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Just sharing some of the more unusual sources that I've found that make mention of Rabbi Hillel's quote: A letter by a Nathan Joseph printed in The Republican, 1822 (!), a discussion on Mashiach in Emmanuel Levinas's book Difficult Liberty, a book from the late 19th century by a rabbi who hated Reform Judaism and somehow saw the light in Christianity..? (I don't know exactly what went on, I only skimmed part of the book).
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I basically stopped my research on this, as well as writing my paper, when Rabbi Drukman died. But it's still hanging around in the back of my head, and I will bli neder get back to full research as soon as I finish the newest draft of my Levitical essay.

It suddenly occurred to me right now that Shimshon, who appeared on mosaics in at least two Galilean shuls (that we know of), is a kind of precursor of David: He was not afraid to stand up to the Plishtim, and David, too, never balked in the face of the Plishtim (or any other enemy group). In fact, even David's tribe, Yehudah, quaked in the face of the Plishtim during Shimshon's time. But they earned a kind of redeeming arc in the time of David, who stood up to Goliath.

So it seems to me that the Shimshon mosaics, as well as the recently discovered Barak and Devorah mosaic in Chuqoq symbolize not Galilean-centric messianic concepts as was suggested a few years ago, but strength in the face of non-Jewish enemies (the Romans). I wonder if I can figure out how to insert this idea into my essay.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I basically stopped my research on this, as well as writing my paper, when Rabbi Drukman died. But it's still hanging around in the back of my head, and I will bli neder get back to full research as soon as I finish the newest draft of my Levitical essay.

It suddenly occurred to me right now that Shimshon, who appeared on mosaics in at least two Galilean shuls (that we know of), is a kind of precursor of David: He was not afraid to stand up to the Plishtim, and David, too, never balked in the face of the Plishtim (or any other enemy group). In fact, even David's tribe, Yehudah, quaked in the face of the Plishtim during Shimshon's time. But they earned a kind of redeeming arc in the time of David, who stood up to Goliath.

So it seems to me that the Shimshon mosaics, as well as the recently discovered Barak and Devorah mosaic in Chuqoq symbolize not Galilean-centric messianic concepts as was suggested a few years ago, but strength in the face of non-Jewish enemies (the Romans). I wonder if I can figure out how to insert this idea into my essay.
Didn't they both kill animals?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
So, true to my bli neder, I opened up my paper for the first time in over a month and got back to work. Once again, I'm stumped over understanding Rav Yosef's answer.

Outline of the problem:
It is very very difficult to think that Rabbi Hillel actually thought that the Mashiach came in the time of King Chizkiyahu, given that this view can easily be contradicted by simply pulling out any Mashiach-related verse from Tanachic books after Chizkiyahu's death.
That is exactly what Rav Yosef did - he brought the verse from Zechariah 9:9.
Therefore, it seems more likely that Rabbi Hillel was talking about a completely different time period.

Now, given that Rav Yosef would have also known that if Rabbi Hillel was referring to King Chizkiyahu, his view could be easily refuted with any post-Chizkiyahu-Mashiach-based verse, it is very likely that there's more to his refutation than simply proving that Mashiach will come after the time of Chizkiyahu with a later verse.
In other words, what Rav Yosef is saying is a midrash, and is therefore code for something. The question is: What?
What is Rav Yosef talking about? What is he suggesting opposite Rabbi Hillel's position?

The key to understanding a midrash is based on understanding what meaning the darshan attached to the verses(s) he was eisegeting.

In this case, there's only one verse:
"גִּילִי מְאֹד בַּת צִיּוֹן הָרִיעִי בַּת יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם הִנֵּה מַלְכֵּךְ יָבוֹא לָךְ צַדִּיק וְנוֹשָׁע הוּא עָנִי וְרֹכֵב עַל חֲמוֹר וְעַל עַיִר בֶּן אֲתֹנוֹת"

As stated, on pshat level all Rav Yosef did with this verse is prove that the Mashiach is a historically later figure than Chizkiyahu.

So what did he mean on a drash level?
Generally, a drasha is based on a particular understanding of a verse, oftentimes very different from a logical, rational pshat understanding. Unfortunately, that means that unless one is familiar and "at home" with the rationale of Chazal when met with various verses, it is extremely difficult to draw conclusions on how they would have understood a particular verse.

Often, a drasha may be based on pointing out a word that might be problematic. In this case, something that I considered was the usage of "מאד" (me'od). Why does Tzion need to "greatly" rejoice? Note that Yerushalayim does not need to shout out "greatly". Meaning that the two parts of the double phrase don't perfectly mirror each other. Is Rav Yosef saying that Bar Kochva's meshichiut was not fulfilled because there was not a state of "great" rejoicing? Because some people denied his Mashiachistic character? I really don't know.

Another option I considered was based on a drasha in Shemot Rabbah 30:24 which brings the same verse and points out the word נושע (no'sha) and notes that even if Am Yisrael will not have enough merits, they will be redeemed by Hashem (no'sha being a passive verb; instead of the Mashiach receiving an active verb such as ומושיע (U'Moshia)). Such an interpretation would actually serve to strengthen those that understood Rabbi Hillel's view as meaning that in the future Hashem will rule over us and not a flesh-and-blood king.
That's fine, but why then did Rav Yosef disagree with Rabbi Hillel not once, but twice?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Often, a drasha may be based on pointing out a word that might be problematic. In this case, something that I considered was the usage of "מאד" (me'od). Why does Tzion need to "greatly" rejoice? Note that Yerushalayim does not need to shout out "greatly". Meaning that the two parts of the double phrase don't perfectly mirror each other. Is Rav Yosef saying that Bar Kochva's meshichiut was not fulfilled because there was not a state of "great" rejoicing? Because some people denied his Mashiachistic character? I really don't know.
After posting, it occurred to me that something very similar can be seen in the selichot non-verse (which I have done extensive research on) "זכר ה' חבת ירושלים אהבת ציון אל תשכח לנצח". Once again, not a complete mirror: The affection of Yerushalayim is remembered while the love of Tzion is to not be forgotten forever.

So, might the key be in the relationship between Tzion and Yerushalayim? Let's see if there are other similar verses.

Edit: I did not find any other verses that clearly favor Tzion over Yerushalayim. However, the phrase "גילי מאד" appears once more in Tanach: Tehillim 21:2:
"ה' בְּעׇזְּךָ יִשְׂמַח מֶלֶךְ וּבִישׁוּעָתְךָ מַה [יָּגֶל] (יגיל) מְאֹד"
 
Last edited:

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Edit: I did not find any other verses that clearly favor Tzion over Yerushalayim. However, the phrase "גילי מאד" appears once more in Tanach: Tehillim 21:2:
"ה' בְּעׇזְּךָ יִשְׂמַח מֶלֶךְ וּבִישׁוּעָתְךָ מַה [יָּגֶל] (יגיל) מְאֹד"
I went to sleep after making the last post, but it was not lost on me that according to Tehillim, Hashem is (merely) happy with the strength of Yisrael (but) rejoices greatly at Yisrael's redemption.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Last week I emailed the course's professor with the following questions:

It makes little sense that Rabbi Hillel would have actually thought that Chizkiyahu was the Mashiach given that we don't need Rav Yosef (with all due respect, of course) to bring any Meshichi verse from after Chizkiyahu's time to disprove Rabbi Hillel. Given that, why did Rabbi Hillel present things in such a confusing way?

Likewise, given that Rabbi Hillel is presented as a sage and not an am ha'aretz, it seems very likely that Rav Yosef also knew that Rabbi Hillel knew that his view could be disproven at ease. Why, then, did Rav Yosef still think that he was talking about Chizkiyahu, or, at least, why did he present his reply to Rabbi Hillel as though he was talking about Chizkiyahu?

And a side-question: Why did Rav Yosef choose of all verses Zechariah 9:9?​

After some back and forth to clarify the issue, he offered up:

If we accept Rabbi Aharon Heiman's view that Rabbi Hillel was the brother of Rabbi Yehudah Nessiah, that means: a. He was a grandson of Rebbi. b. He might have even studied under Rebbi, and certainly in his Beit Midrash (i. e., from his closest students). In Rebbi's days we find the appearance of a belief in a passive meshichiyut. During the time of the Maccabean Revolt and the Great Revolt, we find sources that mention expectations of huge miracles such as in the time of Chizkiyahu (who is referred to by name in 1 Maccabees and Josephus). These, as we know, did not occur. The house of Rebbi formed close bonds with the Roman emperor and brought about almost utopian days of peace in Eretz Yisrael. Thus, people came to accept the possibility of a passive Mashiach.
Therefore, Rabbi Hillel was stating that active meshichiyut died at the time of Chizkiyahu, who, if you think about it, was the last king to enjoy a huge nes galuy.
This suggestion fits in well with what Rashi said as an explanation of Rabbi Hillel's view: It's not that there won't be geulah, it's that the geulah will come from Hashem; He'll be the only ruler.
Rav Yosef did not understand the reality of the time in Eretz Yisrael, being from a bit of a later generation and from Babylon, and therefore understood Rabbi Hillel as a pshat reference to Chizkiyahu.
As to why Rav Yosef chose that verse - unknown, but of course, if he had chosen any other verse, you would have asked the same question...​

To this I replied:

Okay, that actually might work with the verse that Rav Yosef said - Rav Yosef was saying that there would still be a mashiach, except he wouldn't be an active one, as is stated in Zechariah 9:9, "צדיק ונושע" as opposed to "צדיק ומושיע".

But we still have the problem of Rabbi Hillel's wording: What word exactly did he have in mind when he said "ואכלוהו" (they ate him/it)? - it seems that he's not referring to the idea (רעיון?) of the mashiach but to the mashiach himself, because previously he said "אין להם משיח לישראל". The usage of the word in itself is strange.
Moreover, stating that Rav Yosef actually thought that Rabbi Hillel pshat was referring to Chizkiyahu as being the last Mashiach, without any nuance of active/passive mashiach, doesn't solve the logical assumption that it is difficult to think that Rav Yosef thought that Rabbi Hillel forgot or wasn't aware of any meshichi verses from after Chizkiyahu's time.
So, while this suggestion fits better with Rav Yosef's chosen example from Zechariah 9:9, it doesn't fit with Rabbi Hillel's wording or the problem of assuming he was not aware of a quarter of Tanach (pretty much all prophets from Menashe's time and onwards - Yirmiyahu, Yechezkel, half of trei asar).

Aaaarggh, this is driving me crazy. Nothing fits perfectly!

To the Bar Kochva suggestion: why isn't he referred to specifically? And we don't really have academically reliable sources for Chizkiyah the R"G's existence, and why did Rav Yosef choose Zech. 9:9?

To the passive meshichiut suggestion: Why did Rav Yosef think that Rabbi Hillel was not aware of verses from after Chizkiyahu's time and why did Rabbi Hillel phrase his statement as though the person who died was the Mashiach himself and not some kind of idea/concept, and why does he present this as though that person was not Chizkiyahu?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I was at my yeshiva for Shabbat. The yeshiva's library has a number of sections that have interested me in particular in recent years - the "scholarly works" section, the Tanach section and the journals section. Whenever I stop by the yeshiva, I spend a few hours going through the same books and/or journals in these sections, because you never know what pearl might catch your eye this time.

So I found some potential leads:

1. In a book collecting Tanach essays by Rav Yaakov Medan, he brought in one of the essays the mishna in Pesachim 4:9 that criticized Chizkiyahu:

"The Sages taught: King Hezekiah performed six actions. With regard to three of them, the Sages of his generation conceded to him; and with regard to three of them, the Sages did not concede to him. Due to King Hezekiah’s father’s wickedness, he dragged the bones of his father Ahaz on a bier of ropes and did not afford him the respect due to a king, and the Sages conceded to him. He ground the copper snake that Moses fashioned in the desert because Israel worshipped it, and the Sages conceded to him. He suppressed the Book of Cures, and they conceded to him. And with regard to three actions, the Sages did not concede to him. He cut off the doors of the Sanctuary and sent them to the King of Assyria, and they did not concede to him because he thereby demeaned the Temple. He sealed the waters of the upper Gihon stream, diverting its water into the city by means of a tunnel, and they did not concede to him. He intercalated the year, delaying the advent of the month of Nisan during Nisan, and they did not concede to him."​

He pointed out that the part "He sealed the waters of the upper Gihon stream, diverting its water into the city by means of a tunnel, and they did not concede to him" is very likely based on the following verses from Yeshayahu (22:11-12):

"and you constructed a basin between the two walls for the water of the old pool.
But you gave no thought to Him who planned it,
You took no note of Him who designed it long before.
My Lord GOD of Hosts summoned on that day
To weeping and lamenting,
To tonsuring and girding with sackcloth."
For me this was mind-blowing: Perhaps many such traditions about Tanach brought by the sages are simply pshat readings of Tanach!
Then it occurred to me: Wait, Why doesn't Rabbi Hillel bring any verses as evidence of his view? I realized that maybe Rabbi Hillel did have a particular verse or verses in mind, but for some reason this was not quoted in the gemara.
So, one direction is to go through books that record the time of Chizkiyahu - Yeshahayhu, Micha, Melachim, Divrei Hayamim - and see if there's a verse that may be strongly connected to what Rabbi Hillel said.

2. Another book I found was one I had read in the past: Shki'in by Rabbi Shaul Lieberman. In the book, he analyzed Karaite and Christian sources and separated from them original ("Rabbinic") Jewish materials they quoted. I'm rereading now to see if he says anything regarding Rabbi Hillel. But he also has a very useful index of Jewish sources in Raymond Martini's Pugio Fidei, which is considered a very important anti-Jewish polemic because Martini spared no expense (well, he was state-church-funded...) to have dozens if not hundreds of Jewish sources translated into Latin. And yes, he does quote at least once Rabbi Hillel. Martini identified him with Hillel, the brother of Rabbi Yehudah Nesi'ah.
What's interesting is that he brings a version that reads "בימי חזקיהו" with a Vav:

upload_2023-2-12_12-33-42.png


There are only two textual witnesses on the Genizah website that spell it this way - Vatican 171 and Florence 9-8, and Vat. 171 only spells it like that on 99a, not 98b.

Now, the above image is from an early printed edition, so I don't know whether the printer merely copied from the manuscript before him, or cross-referenced a Shas. And if a Shas - was it printed or a manuscript? It might be worth checking out the various Pugio MSS. to see how they brought that quote.

3. The above printed version of Pugio brought a book that's from after Martini's time, Rabbi Avraham Zaccuto's Sefer Yochasin, evidently to explain who were all of the sages mentioned by Martini. As it turns out, Rabbi Zaccuto thought that Rabbi Hillel was an amorah from the time of Rav Yosef.

upload_2023-2-12_12-51-12.png

Originally I thought that the full name was Rav Yosef bar Ha'madori, but it seems there's simply a missing period there. Otherwise we'd be faced with the mysterious question of: How did Rabbi Zaccuto know that Bar Ha'madori's full name was Rav Yosef bar Ha'madori (this is not stated anywhere in Shas) as well as how did he know that Rabbi Hillel was from his time/slash did he have a textual witness that read something like אמר רב יוסף בר המדורי שרא ליה מריה לר' הלל? But no, just a missing period...
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Something interesting: Rabbi Lieberman argued in Shki'in that the commentary on Perek Chelek, which includes San. 98b-99a was not written by Rashi! This means that whatever the commentary says about Rabbi Hillel was not necessarily Rashi's view!
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
upload_2023-2-20_20-0-39.png


Interesting.....
(from Introduction III to Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, ed. 1960)
Per this understanding, Rav Yosef also didn't think there would be a mortal Mashiach. There would be a mortal Davidic king, though.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
View attachment 71893

Interesting.....
(from Introduction III to Seder Eliyahu Rabbah, ed. 1960)
Per this understanding, Rav Yosef also didn't think there would be a mortal Mashiach. There would be a mortal Davidic king, though.
I don't think this really clinches in terms of other statements by Rav Yosef. He did believe in a Mashiach כפשוטו. But it's a direction to think about.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Unfortunately, without hard evidence for my Bar Kochva theory, I'm currently leaning to summarizing the suggestion and displaying it along other explanations and leaving this section of the paper open-ended. It's not key for the main topic, but...oh, it's frustrating nonetheless.

I'm now going over every single source on Otzar Hachochmah that mentions this quote. I found something interesting in the 17th-18th cen. work מדרש האתמרי by Rabbi Eliyahu Hakohen. He discusses Rabbi Hillel's position, particularly in light of Rabbi Yosef's Albo's position that this disproves Rambam's position that belief in Mashiach is one of the principles of faith. What's a little shocking is that he repeatedly refers to Rabbi Hillel's 'opponent' not as Rav Yosef or even R' Yosef...but as Rabbi Yosi! (רבי יוסי)! His gemara apparently read: אמר רבי יוסי שרא ליה מאריה לרבי הלל. The variant רבי הלל (without a yod) appears elsewhere, but this might be the first time I'm seeing מאריה instead of מריה, and it's certainly the first time I'm seeing רבי יוסי instead of רב יוסף. This is key because it would suggest that Rabbi Hillel was circa stam Rabbi Yosi's time, who is the 2nd-2rd gen. tanna Rabbi Yosi ben Chalafta!

What does this change? Potentially, more evidence for a Bar Kochva connection. It also strengthens my view that Rabbi Hillel was a tanna, although this would make him a tanna from the 2nd-3rd gen., instead of one of the last generations. But as always, nothing's perfect. Rabbi Eliyahu Hakohen does not explain the אמר רב גידל אמר רב section. How would Rabbi Yosi have discussed Rav's position if he died a couple of generations before Rav?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, without hard evidence for my Bar Kochva theory, I'm currently leaning to summarizing the suggestion and displaying it along other explanations and leaving this section of the paper open-ended. It's not key for the main topic, but...oh, it's frustrating nonetheless.

I'm now going over every single source on Otzar Hachochmah that mentions this quote. I found something interesting in the 17th-18th cen. work מדרש האתמרי by Rabbi Eliyahu Hakohen. He discusses Rabbi Hillel's position, particularly in light of Rabbi Yosef's Albo's position that this disproves Rambam's position that belief in Mashiach is one of the principles of faith. What's a little shocking is that he repeatedly refers to Rabbi Hillel's 'opponent' not as Rav Yosef or even R' Yosef...but as Rabbi Yosi! (רבי יוסי)! His gemara apparently read: אמר רבי יוסי שרא ליה מאריה לרבי הלל. The variant רבי הלל (without a yod) appears elsewhere, but this might be the first time I'm seeing מאריה instead of מריה, and it's certainly the first time I'm seeing רבי יוסי instead of רב יוסף. This is key because it would suggest that Rabbi Hillel was circa stam Rabbi Yosi's time, who is the 2nd-2rd gen. tanna Rabbi Yosi ben Chalafta!

What does this change? Potentially, more evidence for a Bar Kochva connection. It also strengthens my view that Rabbi Hillel was a tanna, although this would make him a tanna from the 2nd-3rd gen., instead of one of the last generations. But as always, nothing's perfect. Rabbi Eliyahu Hakohen does not explain the אמר רב גידל אמר רב section. How would Rabbi Yosi have discussed Rav's position if he died a couple of generations before Rav?
could it be ר יוס׳ (Yos') mistranscribed?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
could it be ר יוס׳ (Yos') mistranscribed?
I didn't think about that, but could be. I tried searching the NLI website now for a manuscript of the book, just to verify this spelling, but they, at least, don't have it. Granted, it's a so-so time for manuscripts, because it's a couple of centuries after the invention of the printing press. But they do have some other MSS by Rabbi Hakohen. Maybe someone, somewhere, knows something about an MS of the book.
What did first come to mind was that it's easy to mix Yosef and Yosi. The names are of course interchangeable in Shas.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Some more interesting ideas:
R' Yehudah Leib Yafo in Shlomim Le'riv Tzion (שלומים לריב ציון) suggested that אין להם משיח לישראל refers to the Ten Tribes, who were given the oppurtunity to come serve Hashem in the Mikdash in the time of Chizkiyahu, after their last king, Hoshea ben Elah, was exiled. Chizkiyahu then took apart the blockades (פרדסיאות) that blocked the Israelites from making aliyah to the Mikdash. However, few came to Yerushalayim - and now they could no longer blame their kings for their wrongful way of worshipping Hashem - and lost their opportunity for Mashiach.
This suggestion could work with my own suggested understanding of the meaning of אכלוהו, and also connects with Rabbi Akiva's view that the Ten Tribes won't return during the geulah.

R' Shlomo Toldedano in Dibur U'machshava on Sefer Ha'ikarim explains that Rabbi Hillel did not think there's evidence for Mashiach from Tanach itself, basing himself on the Meshichi verses from Yeshayahu. For this reason Rav Yosef brought a verse from Zechariah, because there's no explicit proof that Yeshayahu was talking about ach'rit hayamim. This is essentially what the Baal Ikarim says, but R' Toledano explained it in a simpler manner.

R' Moshe Kahn in Chotam Kohen on Makkot connects Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Hillel. I still didn't really understand how the connection is made:
upload_2023-2-21_21-37-53.png

R' Rachamim Maman
, חירגא דיומ"א:

upload_2023-2-21_21-41-0.png

R' Maman's suggests what part of the verse in Zechariah should be emphasized: גילי מאד בת ציון. The me'od shows that there will be a significant difference between pre-Mashiach times and Mashiach times.

R' Shmuel ben Amram in Yalkut Sheva brings that as an acronym, משי"ח represents each of the 4 views brought in the braita where R' Hillel's position is brought last - מ = Yemot Hamashiach will last 40 years; ש = short for 70, Yemot Hamashiach will last 70 years; י = short for ירח דור דורים (Rebbi's position) and ח = short for Chizkiyah.

R' Natan Netah Olevsky in Meir Einei Yisrael suggests that the Mashiach that was eaten was the Mashiach for Yisrael (Chizkiyah) but in the future, there will be a Mashiach for the whole world.

From Netzach Yisrael, Machon Yerushalayim Edition:
upload_2023-2-21_22-14-14.png
 
Top