Q&A: Messiah Matters
Messiah Matters
Question
“Occupied with the Written Torah and the Oral Torah like David his father”—but King David was occupied with matters of war, running the kingdom, bureaucracy, disputes within the family, etc.
I saw someone explain that the intention is that he is a religious person, with some grounding in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, and that this is enough; it does not necessarily mean specifically a giant and tremendously expert scholar in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.
A reasonable interpretation?
Answer
I have no idea. Why is this important or interesting? And how would I know? In my estimation, even Maimonides could not have known this.
Discussion on Answer
If it is correct that “occupied with Torah like David his father” is a definition meaning that he is religious, believes in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, and not necessarily some towering supreme Torah authority,
then that condition is indispensable.
And specifically “he compels all Israel to walk in the ways of the Torah,” and “the laws return as before,” etc.—that is only if possible, not indispensable.
For example, if the people are mostly secular, coercion is irrelevant and has no benefit or meaning.
So then the rule that at least he himself is religious is indispensable.
(Because if he compels Israel, then he is already included among the Jewish people who are being compelled, so what does it add to say that he himself is Torah-observant? Clearly there must be a situation where he does not compel Israel, for the reason that most of them are secular, and in any case the fact that he is religious is a condition that, as far as I can see, is required in every situation.)
And also, “builds the Temple in its place in Jerusalem” is not indispensable either. The proof is Bar Kokhba and Maimonides’ view that he was an example, and all the sages of his generation, and from there is proof that miracles are not needed. It was only once he died that it became known…
That implies there was no other indispensable deficiency, because he met the minimum.
And he did not build the Temple in its place in Jerusalem.
That is proof that it is not indispensable.
So what is?
He restored kingship to Israel, fought the wars of Israel and won, and was religious.
All these conditions were fulfilled one-to-one in Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister.
So not only did Maimonides have a potential candidate,
but so do we…
He fully meets the minimal criterion,
and perhaps a bit more than the minimum.
Say from now on:
it is not that they already “consumed him” in the days of Hezekiah,
but rather that they already consumed him in the days of Naftali Bennett.
Not laws, not indispensable, and not interesting either.
Maimonides at least had one possible candidate, the Exilarch. We do not even have that.