|

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Is Medinat Yisrael Reishit Tzemichat Geulateinu? - Part I

In a recent comment thread on Hirhurim, some of the commenters brought up HaRav Hershel Schachter Shlit"a's position that Medinat Yisrael should be considered Reishit Tzemichat Geulateinu (RTG).

The analysis which HaRav Schachter uses in this regard, brought in his Sefer B'Ikvei HaTzon (Simman 32), is brilliant.

The structure of his view is, roughly, as follows:

I. Geulah = the building of the Beis HaMikdash, as evidenced by the Ramban in his preface to Sefer Shemos.
Atchalta DeGeulah - a fulfillment of the Mitzvos which must precede the building of the Beis HaMikdash, namely, to appoint a king and destroy the seed of Amalek.

HaRav Schachter is of the opinion that a Jewish sovereign State is a fulfillment of the Mitzvah to appoint a king. Hence, the Jewish State is a fulfillment of RTG or Atchalta DeGeulah.

[ Destruction of Amalek - destruction of the enemies of the Jews who seek their annihilation as a nation. And since we are still at war with nations who seek to annihilate us, there is as of yet no obligation to build the Beis HaMikdash. ]

II. However, continues Rav Schachter, this is only truly RTG if this State indeed an inexorable, irreversible step toward the building of the Beis HaMikdash. What is the guarantee that we will not have to relinquish the entire State to foreign sovereignty, and only later will we reconquer the Land and build the Beis HaMikdash?

His answer is, since we are promised that there will be no third Churban, which means, in HaRav Schachter's view, not even a loss of Jewish sovereignty, we can rest assured that the Medinah is irreversible.

However, I have to admit that I feel uncomfortable accepting his approach lock, stock and barrel, for two reasons:

a) There are major luminaries who denied terming the Medinah as such. Not just the Satmar Rebbe, but also the Chazon Ish (as quoted in Pe'er HaDor vol. 4, that "this is not the beginning of the Geulah but rather the end of the Galus" - meaning it has no Geulah component), the Steipler Gaon (who writes, as brought in Karyana D'Iggarta, that "this is not the Geulah nor the beginning of the Geulah, but rather a transition from Galus to a more bitter Galus, the Galus of the 'Yevsektzia'"), HaRav Shach, and others.

b) I feel it is imprudent to mortgage, and potentially endanger, the Emunah of throngs of Jews on a particular interpretation of the sources, which may or may not be true.

So, KeTalmid HaDan Bifnei Rabbo, (and I doubt I am worthy of even being called that), let us attempt to see if there is room for alternative analysis of the sources HaRav Schachter brings to bear. I will focus on Part II of his analysis.

(Be'Ikvei HaTzon, pg. 214) :

"It would seem (as follows): the words of the Ramban in Sefer HaGeulah are well known, that the two Tochachos in Parshas Bechukosai and Parshas Ki Savo parallel the two destructions, and that there will not be a third. And, B'Peshuto, it would seem that he means to say that not only will there not be another Churban Beis HaMikdash, but that there will not even be another Churban of the Medinah. And this is clearly set forth in the Ramban in his commentary on the Torah to Parshas Bechukosai (Bamidbar 26:16), where he shows that the Tochacha in Parshas Ki Savo is talking about the destruction of the Second Bayis, "in that there is no mention of the Beis HaMikdash and 'the pleasant odor' (of the Korbanos being consumed) as is mentioned here (in Parshas Bechukosai), since there was no fire coming down amd consuming the Korbanos in the second Beis HaMikdash, as they testified in Massechet Yoma..." . We see that the Ramban comments that in second Tochacha there is no mention of the Churban HaBayis at all, [since even when it was built, it was not so much in its glory, and there were no sacrifices to provide a pleasant odor], rather only the destruction of the Medinah is mentioned there, and so we find, based on this, that the promise of the Torah and the Neviim was, that there will only be two destructions of the Medinah, and the Medinah will not be destroyed again, Chalilah".

Let us quote the Ramban on the Torah there:
שכן היה בבית שני, כמו שאמרו שבית ראשון מפני מה חרב, מפני עבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים, בית שני שאנו בקיאים בהם שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב, מפני שנאת חנם שהיתה ביניהם ולא הזכיר שם המקדש וריח ניחוח כאשר הזכיר כאן, שלא היתה האש יורדת ואוכלת הקרבנות בבית שני

The Ramban is bothered by the fact that the Gemara explicitly mentions that the second Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of Sin'as Chinam, yet the Torah makes no mention of that in Parshas Ki Savo? The Ramban answers that it is not mentioned because the Beis HaMikdash was not in its full glory.
This can be interpreted in one of two ways:
a) As Rav Schachter Shlit"a does, that the destruction of the (less-than-full-glory) Beis HaMikdash is not a critical component of Churban.
b) The destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash is a critical component of Churban, but is not emphasized in the Tochacha of Ki Tavo due to its deficient glory.

According to this second reading, we have no proof that Churban is anything less than the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, as is the simple Pshat in the Gemara in Yoma 9 - "Bayis Sheini Al Mah Charav", not "Memshala Sheniyah..."

Additionally, even if we accept the reading of HaRav Schachter, it may be that "Churban" is a flexible term, which means a reversal of the maximum potential achieved. Meaning, that in the context of Bayis Sheni, which was deficient, or, perhaps, for the sake of this discussion, as if there was no Mikdash at all, a loss of sovereignty would be considered "Churban". But in the context of the Geulah Asidah, which clearly includes building of the third Beis HaMikdash in full glory, anything less than the full Geulah of the Beis HaMikdash is not immune to reversal, as it is not considered Churban in the context of the final, full-blown, Geulah.

Next paragraph in Be'Ikvei HaTzon:
"And even though Bar Kochva established a Jewish government in the Land and even minted coins [which is impossible to do - Al Pi Din - unless there is a Halachic status of a government, with practical ramifications regarding redemption of Maaser Sheni, and also regarding the laws of interest], and in the end his government was negated, there is no contradiction from this to the promise of the Neviim [that there will be no third Churban in the Medinah], since history has already ruled on Bar Kochva that his government did not really have the status of a "Memshala", rather he tried to stage a "rebellion" against the Romans, and he failed in his rebellion. As opposed to the government of Medinat Yisrael in our times, (which) is certainly a "Memshala" which is recognized by the UN, and it has the status of all the other governments in the world. And this is how all the Gedolim of our times held, that one can redeem Maaser Sheni in Eretz Yisrael with the coins of the Medinah, and this matter is simple and clear as the sun in midday."

A number of questions:
1) Were the coins of Bar Kochva used for redemption of Maaser Sheni? We find nothing which says that in the period of Bar Kochva they were limited exclusively to the Roman minted coins. [UPDATE: See comment section regarding Bava Kamma 97b] Did R' Akiva support Bar Kochva as a potential Moshiach, yet decline to use his coins for fear of his rebellion failing? Bar Kochva, as far as I know, did achieve sovereignty for a short while. [UPDATE: See Sanhedrin 97b, where the two-and-a-half year Malchus (that is the term used there) of Bar Koziva is placed on par with the highest level of complete and total independence of that of the Chashmonaim (70 of the 103 years of the Chashmonaim) and Herod (52 of his 103 years). In light of this it seems very difficult to assert that it should not count as a Malchus]

But this is conjecture alone. There is a much more fundamental point:
2) The Ramban in his commentary to that Passuk discusses the first Galus and Geulah as well. It is clear as day that he refers to the return of Ezra and the exile of Bavel as Geulah. According to Rav Schachter, prima facie, this must mean one of two things:

a) Whatever autonomy the Jews had at the time counts as sovereignty for Geulah. [UPDATE: See Rashi to Sanhedrin 97b s.v. Od Achas, where Rashi refers to the time of Ezra as one of "limited glory"]
Hence, according to Rav Schachter, any reversal of this status would be termed Churban.

b) The building of the Beis HaMikdash. If this is the case, then it would seem that the reversal of that, namely, the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, is considered Churban. Not lack of sovereignty, for this is not what was achieved by Ezra in the first place!

We are familiar with the words of the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchos Chanukah, that the Greeks ruled over the Jews, and issued harsh decrees, and then, under the Chashmonaim, sovereignty returned to Jewish hands.

If we accept interpretation a) of Ezra's Geula - autonomy - then this was surely eradicated at the time of the Greeks, and should be termed Churban. Sovereignty then came back under the Chashmonaim, and was lost again when the Romans took over. According to Rav Schachter, this should be termed Churban Shelishi, which is against all the promises of the Neviim.

We must therefore, it seems, accept interpretation b) of Ezra's Geula, namely, the building of the Beis HaMikdash, and its destruction, Churban. This lends much weight to the alternate reading of the Ramban I suggested in the previous segment - that the destruction of Mikdash Ezra is what is termed Churban, and the promise of the Neviim is only that there will be no third Churban Beis HaMikdash.

40 Comments:

Blogger Jak Black said...

Excellent analysis. With all due respect to RHS: if there was doubt as to the position of the Ramban, we would have to be very careful about pronouncing that the State is a fulfilment of Reish Tzemichat Geluyoteinu. But in fact, Bari is correct when he says that the peshat of the Ramban is: "b) The destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash is a critical component of Churban, but is not emphasized in the Tochacha of Ki Tavo due to its deficient glory."

Again, with all due respect, I also flatly deny this: "As opposed to the government of Medinat Yisrael in our times, (which) is certainly a "Memshala" which is recognized by the UN, and it has the status of all the other governments in the world."
Just the opposite in fact. Israel is the only country in the world that must continually try to prove its legitimacy, a fact which MANY nations deny. Yes, there are reasons for this phenomenon. But them's the facts.

10:59 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Bar Kochva, as far as I know, did achieve sovereignty for a short while.

True, but the exile was not totaly complete by this point. There is a reason why the gemara in Gittin lists the fall of beitar along with the rest of the tragedies of churban bayit sheini, it is because it saw the revolt as that which finalized the galut. If this is the case, then the bar kochva revolt is subsumed with bayit sheni and the nevuas are not affected.

If we accept interpretation a) of Ezra's Geula - autonomy - then this was surely eradicated at the time of the Greeks, and should be termed Churban.

This is true, in many midrashim the rule of yavan is considered its own fourth galus and often called galus yavan. The maharal discusses this in depth. There is also no question that chanuka is a mini-geula. The real question is why is there a mini-galut and a mini-geula within the period of bayit sheini. An interesting shaila but it does not really knock RHS's pshat.

Plus, there is an explicit midrash that links the return of the Jewish people to their land with the final geula (tanchuma, shoftim 9):

"'והשלישית יותר בה' (זכריה יג:ח) שאין מתישבין בארצם אלא בגאולה שלישית. גאולה ראשונה – זה גאולת מצרים. גאולה שניה – זו גאולת עזרה. השלישית אין לה הפסק."

Also see the Radak and Metzudas David on Hoshea 6:2 who seem to link the final geula with the return to the land.

So there is precedent for linking the beginning of the final geula with the return to the land even absent the building of the beit haMikdash. Remember also that Ezra himself was not zoche to see the 2nd bayit built yet the second geula is called by his name, namely because his call to return home was the beginning of that geula.

11:49 PM  
Blogger Jak Black said...

Chardal said: True, but the exile was not totaly complete by this point.

Good point.

However the rest of your post, linking a return from Exile to geula is not relevant. How do you know that we won't be thrown out once more, and then subsequently return? Yes, the return is the geula. But which return?

3:48 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

True, but the exile was not totaly complete by this point. There is a reason why the gemara in Gittin lists the fall of beitar along with the rest of the tragedies of churban bayit sheini, it is because it saw the revolt as that which finalized the galut. If this is the case, then the bar kochva revolt is subsumed with bayit sheni and the nevuas are not affected.

a) Does the Gemara say openly that this is part of Churban Bayis Sheini?
b) This does not help HaRav Schachter, who does not consider this approach.
c) How long after the Churban does a revolt have to take place in order for it to be considered a new sovereignty bid? If someone had revolted not 50 years (!) after the Churban, but 300 years - would that have also just been subsumed in Churban HaBayis? This may be why HaRav Schachter does not accept your approach.

This is true, in many midrashim the rule of yavan is considered its own fourth galus and often called galus yavan. The maharal discusses this in depth. There is also no question that chanuka is a mini-geula. The real question is why is there a mini-galut and a mini-geula within the period of bayit sheini. An interesting shaila but it does not really knock RHS's pshat.

Using terms like "mini-Galus" and "mini-Geulah" render the whole term meaningless. If Ezra's autonomy was Geulah, then its eradication was Churban. Period.

About returning to the Land:
a) That is not at all necessarily congruent with the sovereignty issues, so the establishment of the Medinah cannot be termed RTG from that perspective
b) Yishuv BaAretz might mean "Rov" or "Kol" Yoshvehah Alehah. R' Samson Rafael Hirsch writes that even a very large Aliyah is no guarantee of getting kicked off the land.

7:38 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

a) Does the Gemara say openly that this is part of Churban Bayis Sheini?

No, but it does treat together with the other churban stories in Gittin.

c) How long after the Churban does a revolt have to take place in order for it to be considered a new sovereignty bid?

I think the main issue was that they were not yet realy exiled from the land (the same teirutz works for galut yavan). Only after beitar did the major mass deportations begin (yes, there were other deportations before, but beitar seems to have been a sort of final blow for the Jewish community there and it was all downhill from there)

If Ezra's autonomy was Geulah, then its eradication was Churban. Period.

There are only two possible aspects of Ezra's time that could possibly qualify as geula. the return to the land or the autonomy. The Beis Hamikdash was simply not build in his lifetime and therefore it would not make sense to consider it the reason chazal call the second geula geulat Ezra.

About returning to the Land:
a) That is not at all necessarily congruent with the sovereignty issues, so the establishment of the Medinah cannot be termed RTG from that perspective


Ein Hachi Nami. This is why many RZ rabbis mark the atchalta deGeula with the aliya of talmidei haGra or with the aliya of chovevei Tzion. The state is just an important step in that process.

b) Yishuv BaAretz might mean "Rov" or "Kol" Yoshvehah Alehah. R' Samson Rafael Hirsch writes that even a very large Aliyah is no guarantee of getting kicked off the land.

That is hard to accept since Ezra's aliya consisted of only 42,000 Jews and yet that was considered a "return." Further, if b"H, the majority of Jews live in Israel in 20 or 30 years, does that mean you will consider it the atchalta deGeula?? I am sure you have a teirutz ready :)

7:59 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Jak Black said: How do you know that we won't be thrown out once more.

That is why I quoted the Tanchuma which said that the Jews will not settle in their land until the final redemption and that the final redemption has no hefsek.

8:01 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Without getting into a detailed response, even according to you, the entire emphasis is on settlement, not sovereignty. HaRav Schachter's calling the Medinah Atchalta DeGeulah, then, has no basis, as there is no proof at all that this sovereignty is irreversible. This addresses all of your points except this:

No, but it does treat together with the other churban stories in Gittin.

*shrug*

8:11 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Without getting into a detailed response, even according to you, the entire emphasis is on settlement, not sovereignty. HaRav Schachter's calling the Medinah Atchalta DeGeulah, then, has no basis, as there is no proof at all that this sovereignty is irreversible. This addresses all of your points except this:


I tend to agree, I don't call the establishment of the state the atchalta deGeula, I think it is more appropriate to say the atchalta was the awakening of the Jews to return home in great numbers.

That is not to say I do not see great merit in what RHS says and I think you can be metzretz your kashyas by saying that churban according to Rav Shachter is Exile from Land AND loss of sovereignty while geula is settlement in the land AND gain of sovereignty. Thus the Bar Kochba revolt would be before the churban sheini (they were not yet out of the land). It would also be a teirutz for galut and geulat yavan (they were still in the land during the entire episode) and can still be metzretz geulat Ezra as being about autonomy AND return to the land (it is also nice since Ezra was not zoche to see the bayit)

8:46 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Thus the Bar Kochba revolt would be before the churban sheini (they were not yet out of the land).

That's cute, but the Ramban says in his commentary to Bechukosai that the deportation we're talking about is by Titus.

And, there were always Jews in EY. What do you need - 100? 1000? 1000000?

And, clearly, the simple Pshat of the Churbanos is Churban HaMikdash.

The fact that Ezra didn't see the BHM"K doesn't mean much. We call the Mikdash, Mikdash David, since he laid the groundwork.

Regarding settlement, I hope to deal with that in part II.

(I'll just reemphasize that if I even raise a reasonable doubt that it is not RTG, it is wrong to include in a Tefillah, and very wrong to present as fact. There is, I think, at the very least, serious doubt as to the viability of Rav Schachter's analysis).

9:39 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

And, there were always Jews in EY. What do you need - 100? 1000? 1000000?

Good question. My guess would be that you need enough to have the potential for malchus.

And, clearly, the simple Pshat of the Churbanos is Churban HaMikdash.

Ok, if you accept the fact that the simple pshat in galus is being outside the land, I will accept your simple pshat in churban. deal?

Seriously, I am not being mechadesh anything here when I say that the revolt is part of a historical chain that can be called in totality: churban. The gemara at the end of sotah says:
ומימי פולמוס האחרון גזרו שלא תצא כלה באפריון בתוך העיר
Also, it was only AFTER the fall of beitar when yerushalaim was completely destroyed and plowed under, something we commemorate in the fasts of the churban. Maybe it would be easier for you to understand this in light of the model of the geula/churban that is kimaa,kimaa. You seem to want hard categories which is important in halacha. In hashkafa, however, it is often shades of gray which are more appropriate.

I'll just reemphasize that if I even raise a reasonable doubt that it is not RTG

a) reasonable is very subjective
b) I thought we were talking about atchalta deGeula, not RTG.
c) I am not sure I am convinced of your assertion in the first place.

9:59 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

What do you know, it is an explicit Rambam (Hilchot Taanit 5:3):

ותשעה באב, חמישה דברים אירעו בו--נגזר על ישראל במדבר שלא ייכנסו לארץ; וחרב הבית בראשונה, ובשנייה; ונלכדה עיר גדולה ובית תור היה שמה והיו בה אלפים ורבבות מישראל, והיה להם מלך גדול ודימו כל ישראל וגדולי החכמים שהוא המלך המשיח, ונפל ביד גויים ונהרגו כולם, והייתה צרה גדולה כמו חורבן המקדש; ובו ביום המוכן לפורענות, חרש טורנוסרופוס הרשע ממלכי אדום את ההיכל ואת סביביו, לקיים "ציון שדה תיחרש"

10:10 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

Reasonable - jury of your peers. :)

The Rambam means nothing at all. The Holocaust was also a big Tzarah like Churban HaMikdash.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

You seem to want hard categories which is important in halacha.

Rav Schachter's WHOLE ENTIRE POINT is lending HALACHIC SIGNIFICANCE to the Medinah.

Sheesh!

10:26 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Rav Schachter's WHOLE ENTIRE POINT is lending HALACHIC SIGNIFICANCE to the Medinah.

Sheesh!


I know! And I brought you to a whole tangent as tends to happen in blog threads.

Sheesh!

10:33 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

The Rambam means nothing at all.

It might not be absolute proof but it is not "nothing" either.

The bar kochba revolt is almost always treated as part of the period of the churban. Do you deny this?

10:34 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Reasonable - jury of your peers. :)

So it is just a matter of finding the right peers?

Just as I suspected :)

10:35 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

The bar kochba revolt is almost always treated as part of the period of the churban. Do you deny this?

For the purpose of this discussion, yes. :)

10:51 AM  
Blogger chardal said...

Were the coins of Bar Kochva used for redemption of Maaser Sheni?

Apperantly not.

See BK 97b
Yerushalmi Maaser Sheini 1
Tosefta Maaser Sheini 1:5

3:05 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

The Mahartzach on BK 97b says explicitly that the reason the coins of bar Kochva are not suitable for redeaming Maaser Sheini is because they are coins minted by a rebellion and not by an established government.

3:27 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Thank you for the Mareh Mekomos.

However, it is not clear whether the coins were not used during the rebellion, or only after the rebellion collapsed were they disqualified. (This second way is how the ArtScroll Gemara explains it).

3:38 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Actually, it's more likely that the ArtScrollers are right, since the Tosefta (quoted by the Gemara there) is giving these coins as an example of "Ma'os Sh'Ainan Yotz'os" - not used in commerce.

Unless they actually were never even used. Maybe.

The Mahartzach is not as Mefurash as you say.

3:47 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Actually, it's more likely that the ArtScrollers are right, since the Tosefta (quoted by the Gemara there) is giving these coins as an example of "Ma'os Sh'Ainan Yotz'os" - not used in commerce.


Possibly, but the fact that the bavli lists it together in a list with the coins of old kings AND puts bar Kochva in a different category than "old kings," probably means that the bavli might have a different take on it than the tosefta.

Unless they actually were never even used. Maybe.

This is pretty likely since a) archiologists have not found SO many such coins. Most think that they served more of a purpose of propoganda than actual currency. b) bar Kochva never conquered Yerushalaim so it is unlikely that any of his coins were ever used to buy kodesh food there. Plus another criteria seems to be the recognition of the currency by foreign governments, something bar Kochva NEVER had while the current state does exchange the Shekel on the global market.

The Mahartzach is not as Mefurash as you say.

I thought it was pretty clear. What is your pshat?

4:04 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

R' Chatzkel Abramsky in Chazon Yechezkel on the Tosefta also says that Bar Kochba's coins were only disqualified after his rebellion failed.

Regarding BK not conquering Yerushalayim, that's a flaw in that whole Pshat of Rashi in the Gemara there. See Hagahos Yaavetz.

Plus another criteria seems to be the recognition of the currency by foreign governments, something bar Kochva NEVER had while the current state does exchange the Shekel on the global market.

Where's this criterion? If a Malchus is at war and their currency is not traded - you can't use it? Lo Mistaber.

The Mahartzach is just quoting the Yerushalmi. Read it carefully.

Either way on this thing - it's certainly not Muchrach.

And even if it were - to begin with it's the weakest point in my whole post, and immaterial to the fundamental problem with Rav Schachter's analysis.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy Cow. That's amazing. Shkoiach.

I personally subscribe to the "Aguda View" -- we just dunno if it's RTG. Rav Kook zt"l and the rest are sure of it, however we don't know. So we try to turn it into as much of a kidush HaShem as possible (the actual definition of Kiddush Hashem, not the "wearing a black hat in a secular college campus or learning as much as possible for the rest of one's life is a chillul hashem"

11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...type definition.

2:36 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for the compliments on the shtikl.

I agree with you on the not knowing, though I tend to lean more in the direction that it is not. Would I be shocked either way? I don't think so.

I often wonder how whichever side of this debate turns out to be wrong will react when the truth is known. :)

1:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be shocked either way and I think most Yeshivish Jews also wouldn't be shocked either way (this might be bias on my part, but [b]I think[/b] that some of the more left-wing Jews perceive the Yeshivish world as far more decidedly "not RTG" than we actually are). We do probably lean to the "not-RTG-side-but-it-still-might-be-(plese-G-d)" but if it does turn out to be RTG (please G-d), then it still turns out that we're right.

1:15 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Regarding BK not conquering Yerushalayim, that's a flaw in that whole Pshat of Rashi in the Gemara there. See Hagahos Yaavetz.

It's more than even that and the yerushalmi coins are even more of a raaya against Rav Avramsky's pshat. It is almost for sure the the coins discussed in the tosephta and in BK 97b are the ones minted by the Jewish rebbelion of 67-70 CE. This would explain why they are listed together with the coins of Bar Kochva, they are both coins of rebbelion and do not represent an established malchut.

3:53 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Baseless. They are both discontinued coins, that's all.

4:45 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

Baseless. They are both discontinued coins, that's all.

If that is all they are then they would be the coins of malachim rishonim, a different category.

5:58 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

It's Lichorah just examples - Kozviyos, Yerushalmiyos, and earlier kings. Otherwise, why have Kozvios and Yerushalmiyos as separate categories?

7:18 PM  
Blogger chardal said...

It's Lichorah just examples - Kozviyos, Yerushalmiyos, and earlier kings

The earlier kings have a different din! and even according to the shita that they do not, that one example would suffice. AND the yerushalmi explicitly calls them the coins of REBBELION which is in opposition to them being kingly ones.

7:41 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

The earlier kings have a different din!

huh?

and even according to the shita that they do not, that one example would suffice.

ditto.

AND the yerushalmi explicitly calls them the coins of REBBELION which is in opposition to them being kingly ones.

Says you. It just means a coin from the rebellion, which failed and was subsequently disqualified.

It's not that important anyway. Take the last word here.

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Steve Brizel said...

Would your understanding of R Abramsky ZTL's shita be that the coinage during the reigns of the Zealots and Bar Kochba were legitimate coinage of the realm that could be used for Pidyon Maaser Sheni? One could argue that they became ineffective solely because of the defeat of the Zealots and Bar Kochba.

I have re-read your understanding of the Ramban. WADR, RHS correctly points out that we are told that there will be only two Churbanos and that because Bayis Sheni lacked much of the splendor of Bayis Sheni, the Churban Bayis Sheni was essentially a footnote to the Galus from EY.

7:14 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

I said, that I, [at least without relating to what I point out at the end of this piece (wherein there is a problem in explaining what the Geulah of Ezra was according to this)] accept that as a POSSIBLE reading of the Ramban, though I think that mine is at least equally as plausible. Plus, as I point out, Churban may very well be a flexible term.

7:39 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

Re Rav Abramsky - he says that only after the end of Bar Kochba's reign were these coins disqualified, clearly implying that during his reign they were used.

And as I point out, the Gemara refers to Bar Kochva's reign as one of the epitome of Malchus. I find it supremely difficult to assert that it should not count at all.

Also, regarding the Ramban, it is very important in this discussion not to blur the lines between settlement and sovereignty. See Part III.

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Steve Brizel said...

If as R Abramsky implies that such coins were disqualified, it is no great logical leap to conclude that the coins that were minted and printed were the "matbeah hamedinah" and capable of redeeming Maaser Sheni, etc. Given the ultimate fall out between Bar Kochba and R Akiva, one wonders which Tanna or Amora viewed that time period as the epitome of Malchus, unless the statement was made by a Tanna who remembered the early Bar Kochba and his embrace by R Akiva as stated in Hilcos Melachim.

While we are discussing Shitas HaRamban, IMO, you should have touched upon his views as expressed in the HaSagos to the Sefer Hamitzvos and at the end of Parshas Acharei Mos and Masei -the latter of which Ramban understands that settlement leads to and is akin to a condition precedent for sovereignty.

8:28 PM  
Blogger Bari said...

If as R Abramsky implies that such coins were disqualified, it is no great logical leap to conclude that the coins that were minted and printed were the "matbeah hamedinah" and capable of redeeming Maaser Sheni, etc.

Which would mean that is indeed had the status of a soveriegn State, which was subsequently destroyed, which, in RHS' view, is against the promises of all the Neviim. So I'm either a Kofer or I have to look for alternative avenues of interpretation of the Ramban.


While we are discussing Shitas HaRamban, IMO, you should have touched upon his views as expressed in the HaSagos to the Sefer Hamitzvos and at the end of Parshas Acharei Mos and Masei -the latter of which Ramban understands that settlement leads to and is akin to a condition precedent for sovereignty.

I tried to stick to what RHS is talking about - sovereignty. Settlement, in the context of the Geulah, is much more nebulous, as even RHS mentions, and as I indicate in second half of Part III

8:35 PM  
Anonymous Steve Brizel said...

One other point-I think that I mentioned elsewhere that RHS has stated on numerous occasions that the overwhelming majority of the kings during Bayis Rishon were Ovdei AZ and that even the secular Zionists were nowhere as bad. IIRC, you maintain that being a min is worse. WADR, based upon the changes in Jewish life caused by the haskalah, etc,whereby the majority of the Jewish world is not observant in any way, both the Binyan Tzion and the CI declined to apply the din of moridin vain maalim with respect to the average non religious Jew in EY or ChuL today. Why are you so confident that a halacha of a min can be applied to such a Jew today?

7:49 AM  
Blogger Bari said...

I did not get into that element of the RZ debate, "who is worse - Achav or Ben-Gurion" on this post. It's irrelevant to this discussion of RTG, and we'll never really know for sure anyhow.

What I did say in a different post on this blog is that for a frum Jew to be Modeh to heresy is worse than being Modeh to AZ, and is certainly Yehareg V'Al Yaavor. That has little to do with how we treat such a person nowadays.

9:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Site Hit Counters
SonyStyle.com Coupon