Q&A: Since when is that messianic?
Since when is that messianic?
Question
Since when does an extreme opinion become illegitimate because it is messianic?
What is the definition?
Let me spell out my question:
After all, quite a few views and approaches were, in their time, extreme, and apparently relied to no small extent on expecting miracles from Heaven in order for them to succeed, and yet they are considered legitimate. For example, Ben-Gurion admitted that he relied on miracles, and he is quoted as saying that anyone who does not believe in miracles in the Land of Israel is not realistic. And on that basis he established the state and the nation on the 5th of Iyar despite the enormous danger.
Likewise Levi Eshkol, regarding the Six-Day War, is quoted as saying: it’s not that we hope for miracles, we count on them.
You can also disagree with many of the views and actions of those leaders, but they certainly are not accused of being messianic.
So why is it that when I express views that admittedly rely on miracles, people tell me that this is messianic—like the messianists of the First Temple period who said to Jeremiah, “The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord,” or like those messianic biryonim of the Second Temple period who did not listen to Rabbi Yohanan and claimed, quite rightly, that there is an explicit verse in Lamentations from the prophet Jeremiah: “Your iniquity, daughter Zion, has come to an end; He will not again exile you.” Therefore they did not act according to reason, but did foolish things and expected miracles from Heaven, and in practice they brought disaster.
They are called “messianic” as a term of reproach.
And they warn me that the Haredi views too are messianic and will bring about the destruction of a Third Temple.
Since when is an approach that is not so connected to reality without miracles called, pejoratively, “messianic,” and considered illegitimate?
Does the Rabbi have a messianism-meter?
Answer
I didn’t understand the context of the question. “Messianic” is a pejorative label when it is used improperly. Therefore there is no objective or general definition of it. It depends on the context. See Column 585, and my daughter’s paper on messianism here on the site: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2594%25D7%2599-%25D7%25AA%25D7%25A0%25D7%2595%25D7%25A2%25D7%2594-%25D7%259E%25D7%25A9%25D7%2599%25D7%2597%25D7%2599%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2599%25D7%2599%25D7%25A9%25D7%2595%25D7%259D-%25D7%259C%25D7%259E%25D7%25A7%25D7%25A8%25D7%2594-%25D7%25A9%25D7%259C-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A6%25D7%2599%25D7%2595%25D7%259F/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjarN7E9uSDAxUMTqQEHW94BHoQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KSdb1TTMQWrPYmZlW-8ex
I call Smotrich and his associates messianic because, for them, the consideration of Greater Land of Israel as part of the process toward complete redemption overrides everything else.
Suppose there were a process leading to genuine peace with the Palestinians. It is clear to me that Smotrich would oppose it, even if the accepted assumption were that it would lead to real security. Since for Smotrich the central consideration is the Greater Land of Israel, in its name he is prepared to distort his views on security and economics, while telling stories that if the whole Land of Israel is in Israel’s hands, that will certainly lead us to happiness and tranquility.
I don’t think he is evil and wants to endanger all of us, but simply that he is captive to this outlook.
And the thing is that Smotrich gives the impression of being a serious guy who studies the material in depth—but again, we all know what he would answer to any question on the issue of territory before it is even asked.