Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This does not sound like a theological argument against a Moshiach’s candidacy after death (hard to make one knowing the amount of sources that support such an idea), more like a concern of the ramifications of such a Torah idea. I suppose we can add onto that the concerns of a false prophet only making negative prophecies and therefore never being able to be disproved (at least in the view of Rambam), or the fact that Moshiachs can take many years to complete their mission. It is also a bit interesting that you would think that this particular idea would help False Moshiachs as false Moshiachs are quite common throughout Jewish History without using this particular method (probably because as long as you are not dead you can still be a running Moshiach who is finishing his mission, and once you are dead the gig is temporarily up).
You also seem to be confusing someone attempting to be Moshiach, with the actual arrival of Moshiach. The latter would require the fulfillment of certain big action items (see Rambam end of Hilchos Melachim). Saying I will do those action items after I return from the dead will not help his actualized Moshiach status. But, his lack of completing those actions while he is still alive does not hurt his potential Moshiach status, so not much to be gained by such a claim.
Furthermore, not everybody can Moshiach. There are a lot of prerequisites. It is not like the dead Moshiach idea was the only barrier to becoming Moshiach (again, I am still very confused as to how it was a barrier at all.)
Also, what if it was not a true idea and the false Moshiach convinced everyone it was a true idea, then what? Like is this a policy suggestion? Is this meant to be a statement related to the true and falsehood of Torah? Very confusing.
All in all, it must have been before your first coffee when you decided to write this. Not exactly a paradigm of coherent thought.The Rambam never states that there can be no Machlokis if something is a Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai, or not. What he states is that there cannot be a Machlokis on something that is a Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai (or Divrei Kabbala). Here, we are discussing a law that is not subject of disagreement, only its source is. What this tells us, is that clearly in the time of Reish Lakosh and Reb Yochanon the source of the Halacha was not known. (This is not a problem as it was an unargued upon law either because it was a unique Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai, or because it was already part of an established law of Chinuch Banim, therefore the source of the law is not integral. In either case, the Rambam holds there can be no arguments on it.) Reish Lakosh held this unaccounted and in his opinion unsourced law must have been a Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai. Reb Yochonan held that this law is sourced as a general extension from Chinuch Banim. As a side, the overall point of the Rambam was more to explain the different parts of Torah Sh’Bal Peh. What he was explaining was that the categories of HL”M and D”K are both categories of law that was not given to the Chachamim to extrapolate subjectively using Svara or 13 Middos. It was not necessarily a historic rule that there never was a disagreement about something that was originally a HL”M or D”K. But, in any case, this Gemara in Nazir is not a contradiction.