Sanhedrin 60: throwing stones at Markulis

In today's daf (Sanhedrin 60), in the Mishnah, we see kissing and hugging as a form of idol worship, and throwing stones at Mercury as a form of idol worship.

There is a famous Ibn Ezra on Daniel (link) that speaks of Muslim practice. He writes, in part:

"ויש לתמוה מחכמי צדוקים שפירשו זה לעתיד, ואמרו: כי המקדש היא מיכ"א שיחוגו עליה הישמעאלים והסירו התמיד, החמש תפילות ונתנו השיקוץ עכו"ם ואלו התועים, איך יתכן שיקרא מקדש רק ירושלים לבדה, וככה שמה בלשון ישמעאל בית ואיך הוא מיכ"א קדש, והלא פקחו אלה העורים את עיניהם וראו כי יש במיכ"א שיקוץ עד היום והלא מרקוליס שאליו יחוגו כל ישמעאל ממזרח וממערב לזרוק אבנים שם, ואלה המפרשים חללו המקדש.
...
ועוד: אם היה אלה עכו"ם אין תשובה ממרקוליס, כי זה ידעוהו אבותיו ולא סרו אנשי מיכ"א למשמעתו, עד שנשבע להם שלא יסיר עבודת מרקוליס, ואין צורך להאריך."

"One is surprised by Sadducee sages who interpreted this as referring to the future. They said that the sanctuary is Mecca, around which the Ishmaelites circle. and they put aside the daily sacrifice the five prayers (the Salat). and they set up the abomination, idolatry. And they are the mistaken. As is it may be that miqdash/sanctuary refers to Jerusalem alone. Thus it is that in the Ishmaelite language its name is “house”(al-ka’aba). And how is it that Mecca is sacred? Didn’t those blind ones open their eyes and see that in Mecca there is an abomination to this day? Is it not Mercury, around which all Ishmaelites, from east and west, circle to throw stones? And these interpreters have desecrated the sanctuary.
...
And further, if it was a pagan god, the answer is not Mercury, because his fathers knew him and the men of Mecca did not turn to obedience to him till he swore to them that he would not put aside the service to Mercury. And there is no need to expand."

Ibn Ezra is referring to the stoning of the devil (link):
"The Stoning of the Devil (Arabic: رمي الجمرات‎‎ ramī al-jamarāt, lit. "stoning of the jamarāt [place of pebbles]")[1][2][3] is part of the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. During the ritual, Muslim pilgrims throw pebbles at three walls (formerly pillars), called jamarāt, in the city of Mina just east of Mecca. It is one of a series of ritual acts that must be performed in the Hajj. It is a symbolic reenactment of Abraham's hajj, where he stoned three pillars representing the temptation to disobey God and preserve Ishmael."

One could also add the kissing worship of the black stone, (link):
"Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba as a part of the tawaf ritual during the hajj and many try to stop and kiss the Black Stone, emulating the kiss that Islamic tradition records that it received from Muhammad."

Sanhedrin 11: Where does Rav Pappa's statement end?

At the bottom of Sanhedrin 11a going on to the top of Sanhedrin 11b:

אמר רב פפא ^זרצו חדש רצו שלשים יום
 תא חזי מאי איכא בין תקיפאי קדמאי לעינוותני בתראי

This is typically understood, within the flow of the gemara, as two separate statements. That is, first Rav Pappa resolves a seeming contradiction within Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as to whether they wait a month (29 days) or thirty days, and he says that it is up to them. Then, the setama degamara transitions to a new topic, contrasting the behavior of the earlier, purportedly arrogant Rabban Gamliel (who yet said that he and his colleagues saw fit to declare) and the later, purportedly humble Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (who said he saw fit by himself to declare). And the answer of the setama degemara is that דילמא בתר דעברוהו, perhaps it was after they had removed him (Rabban Gamliel) from office.

I would suggest that we read both of the above quoted statement as a single continuous statement from Rav Pappa. Rather than תקיפאי meaning powerful / arrogant, let it refer to the tekufa, the solar-based season. After all, one of the reasons for declaring an extra month is על התקופה. And קדמאי refers to relative earliness between the solar and lunar calendar. Further, rather than עינוותני meaning humble, let it refer to lunar time (an onah), and have בתראי refer to relative lateness.

That is, Rav Pappa is saying that we already have computed calendars and know how much it would be appropriate to correct to get them in sync, so use that number of days.

This does not seem to work with what follows. What would be the question from that brayta regarding Rabban Gamliel? (The question, we should note, is not made explicit.)  The answer certainly seems to speak to Rabban Gamliel's stature, of lack thereof, where it says

דילמא בתר דעברוהו

However, note the root עבר in the word דעברוהו. Sure, it means that he was removed from office. But isn't it odd that the topic under discussion here is עיבור השנה? Perhaps we can (poorly, as I am grasping here) reframe the question as why he used various seasonal signs rather than the calculation, or why he phrased something some way in his message. And the answer is that perhaps this was after he or they had already intercalated the year.

*NOW* you will see

At the very end of parashat Shemot was this pasuk and Rashi:

And the Lord said to Moses, "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh, for with a mighty hand he will send them out, and with a mighty hand he will drive them out of his land."		א. וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל משֶׁה עַתָּה תִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפַרְעֹה כִּי בְיָד חֲזָקָה יְשַׁלְּחֵם וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה יְגָרְשֵׁם מֵאַרְצוֹ:
Now you will see, etc.: You have questioned My ways [of running the world, which is] unlike Abraham, to whom I said, “For in Isaac will be called your seed” (Gen. 21:12), and afterwards I said to him, “Bring him up there for a burnt offering” (Gen. 22:2), yet he did not question Me. Therefore, now you will see. What is done to Pharaoh you will see, but not what is done to the kings of the seven nations when I bring them [the children of Israel] into the land [of Israel]. — [from Sanh. 111a]		עתה תראה וגו': הרהרת על מדותי, לא כאברהם שאמרתי לו (בראשית כא יב) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, ואחר כך אמרתי לו (שם כב ב) העלהו לעולה, ולא הרהר אחרי, לפיכך עתה תראה. העשוי לפרעה תראה, ולא העשוי למלכי שבעה אומות, כשאביאם לארץ:

The emphasis is thus put on the word עַתָּה, NOW. The midrash, as found in Sanhedrin 111a, relates to the context of לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה לָמָּה זֶּה שְׁלַחְתָּנִי, which was a negative thing to act, as well as to the following context in the beginning of Vaera, interpreting what Hashem's response of וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי וּשְׁמִי ה לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם. Thus:

And for this Moses was punished,²³  as it is said, For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people,' neither hast thou delivered thy people at all.²⁴  Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Alas for those who are gone and no more to be found! For how many times did I reveal Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name of El Shaddai,²⁵  and they did not question my character,²⁶  nor say to Me, What is Thy name? I said to Abraham, Arise, walk through the land in the length of it, and in the breadth of it,' for I will give it unto thee:²⁷  yet when he sought a place to bury Sarah, he did not find one, but had to purchase it for four hundred silver shekels; and still he did not question My character. I said to Isaac, Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee:²⁸  yet his servants sought water to drink, and did not find it without its being disputed, as it is said, And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac's herdmen saying, The water is our's;²⁹  still he did not question My character. I said to Jacob, The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed:³⁰  yet he sought a place to pitch his tent and did not find one until he purchased it for an hundred kesitah;³¹  nevertheless he did not question My character; nor did they say to me, What is Thy name?³²  And now thou sayest to Me, Neither hast thou delivered thy people at all. [Therefore] Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh:³³  thou shalt behold the war against Pharaoh, but not the war against the thirty one kings.'³⁴

Thus, take עַתָּה as now as opposed to later. He will be involved in the first step but not the later step. Which is perhaps surprising because didn't he lose out the change of entering Israel when he struck the rock? There are answers.

But I think that there is more to this reinterpretation than just the word עַתָּה. Where do we get the war against the 31 kings? Let us examine the pasuk again:

And the Lord said to Moses, "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh, for with a mighty hand he will send them out, and with a mighty hand he will drive them out of his land."

א. וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל משֶׁה עַתָּה תִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפַרְעֹה כִּי בְיָד חֲזָקָה יְשַׁלְּחֵם וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה יְגָרְשֵׁם מֵאַרְצוֹ:

Instead of taking the actor in the second half of the pasuk to be Pharaoh, take the actor to be Hashem, who often acts with a יָד חֲזָקָה. Thus, עַתָּה תִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפַרְעֹה, only now will you see what I do, to Pharaoh. כִּי בְיָד חֲזָקָה יְשַׁלְּחֵם, for with a mighty hand will He send them out [of Egypt], וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה יְגָרְשֵׁם מֵאַרְצוֹ, and with a mighty hand will He drive them [the 31 kings] out of His land [Israel].

Of course, Rashi renders the rest of the pasuk in a different manner.

Why did the Sages change חֲמוֹר to chamud, in the Septuagint?

Summary: My thoughts, that it is of course a scribal error, and the braysa which says otherwise is making a nice derasha based on existing facts. The Chasam Sofer has a detailed explanation, based on whether Moshe Rabbenu was entitled to a share in the spoils, and if not, at least a donkey to help carry the bones of Yosef.


Post: Also see this post, this post, and this post.

Consider Shemot 16:15:

טו  וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה, מְאֹד, וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-יְהוָה, אַל-תֵּפֶן אֶל-מִנְחָתָם; לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם, נָשָׂאתִי, וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם.

15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: 'Respect not Thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.'

In the Septuagint {=Targum Hashivim}, instead of Moshe indignantly saying that he has not taken anyone's chamor, they have:
15 καὶ ἐβαρυθύμησε Μωυσῆς σφόδρα καὶ εἶπε πρὸς Κύριον· μὴ πρόσχῃς εἰς τὴν θυσίαν αὐτῶν· οὐκ ἐπιθύμημα οὐδενὸς αὐτῶν εἴληφα, οὐδὲ ἐκάκωσα οὐδένα αὐτῶν.
15 And Moses was exceeding indignant, and said to the Lord, Do thou take no heed to their sacrifice: I have not taken away the desire of any one of them, neither have I hurt any one of them.

and the Samaritans have an identical error, swapping the daled for a resh, with the Samaritan text on the left side.


This is a clear error, and we have confirmation when Shmuel echoes Moshe, in I Shmuel 12:3:

ג  הִנְנִי עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ, אֶת-שׁוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת-מִי עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת-מִי רַצּוֹתִי, וּמִיַּד-מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר, וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי בּוֹ; וְאָשִׁיב, לָכֶם.

3 Here I am; witness against me before the LORD, and before His anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? or whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I taken a ransom to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.'

Note shor set opposite chamor.

While this seems to be a mere textual error, Megillah 9a-b sets it up as a deliberate change:

ותניא א"ר יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה ומשום מעשה דתלמי המלך דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו (בראשית א, כז) אלהים ברא בראשית (בראשית א, א) אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות (בראשית א, כו) ויכל ביום הששי וישבות ביום השביעי (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראו ולא כתבו בראם (בראשית יא, ז) הבה ארדה ואבלה שם שפתם (בראשית יח, יב) ותצחק שרה בקרוביה (בראשית מט, ו) כי באפם הרגו שור וברצונם עקרו אבוס (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על נושא בני אדם (שמות יב, מ)ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים ובשאר ארצות ארבע מאות שנה (שמות כד, ה) וישלח את זאטוטי בני ישראל (שמות כד, יא) ואל זאטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו  (במדבר טז, טו) לא חמד אחד מהם נשאתי (דברים ד, יט) אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אתם להאיר לכל העמים (דברים יז, ג) וילך ויעבוד אלהים אחרים אשר לא צויתי לעובדם וכתבו לו את צעירת הרגלים ולא כתבו לו (ויקרא יא, ו) את הארנבת מפני שאשתו של תלמי ארנבת שמה שלא יאמר שחקו בי היהודים והטילו שם אשתי בתורה:

Or, in English:

"And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.14 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, 15 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed  them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate16  for me the Torah of Moses your master.17 God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him, God created in the beginning,18 I shall make man in image and likeness,19 And he finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day,20 Male and female he created him21 [but they did not write ‘created them’],22 Come let me descend and confound their tongues,23 And Sarah laughed among her relatives;24 For in their anger they slew an ox and in their wrath they digged up a stall;25 And Moses took his wife and his children, and made them ride on a carrier of men; 26 And the abode of the children of Israel which they stayed in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years, 27 And he sent the elect of the children of Israel; 28 And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his hand;29 I have taken not one valuable of theirs;1 Which the Lord thy God distributed to give light to all the peoples;2 And he went and served other gods which I commanded should not be served.3 They also wrote for him ‘the beast with small legs’ and they did not write ‘the hare’,4 because the name of Ptolemy's wife was hare,5 lest he should say, The Jews have jibed at me and put the name of my wife in the Torah."

If I recall correctly, very few of the changes listed here do we find in the Septuagint, but this is one of them. Despite this testimony, I am not convinced that this was not a mere scribal error, with the braysa speaking on a homiletic level. After all, it seems unlikely that the deliberate change, when translating into Greek, would also reflect a single change in letter, between ר and ד, which look extremely alike, and which the Samaritans indeed in their corrupted Hebrew text.

The Chasam Sofer writes about this topic as follows:

Chasam Sofer

"I have not taken away the ass of any one of them -- they changed it for Talmay the king into חמד (Megillah 9b). There is to say that חמור is not to be understood in its simple sense, but rather as Chazal said (in Pesachim? Bechorot 5b)

Moreover, they [the asses] helped the Israelites when they departed from Egypt, for there was not an Israelite who did not possess ninety Libyan asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt.

And Moshe Rabbenu turned away to fulfill the oath to Yosef, and did not take anything. And so he rightfully could have requested from them the carrying of a single donkey, at least, for behold the oath was upon them, for 'he had certainly imposed the oath upon the Bnei Yisrael' {Shemot 13:19} upon all of them. And Chazal said (Sotah 9b) in our Mishnah at the end of the first perek, that upon the Gadol it was fitting to engage with Yosef. 

{Thus:
  WHOM HAVE WE GREATER THAN JOSEPH SINCE NONE OTHER THAN MOSES OCCUPIED HIMSELF WITH HIS BURIAL? MOSES EARNED MERIT THROUGH THE BONES OF JOSEPH AND THERE WAS NONE IN ISRAEL GREATER THAN HE, AS IT IS SAID, AND MOSES TOOK THE BONES OF JOSEPH WITH HIM.¹⁶  WHOM HAVE WE GREATER THAN MOSES SINCE NONE OTHER THAN THE OMNIPRESENT OCCUPIED HIMSELF [WITH HIS BURIAL], AS IT IS SAID, AND HE BURIED HIM IN THE VALLEY?¹⁷  NOT ONLY CONCERNING MOSES DID THEY SAY THIS, BUT CONCERNING ALL THE RIGHTEOUS, AS IT IS SAID, AND THY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL GO BEFORE THEE, THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL BE THY REARWARD.¹⁸

}

Upon this he said {in the continuation of the pasuk}  וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם, 'neither have I hurt one of them'. Meaning, was there any of them who wished to engage, and I wronged him, saying 'you are not fit, and only I am fit'? And this was not so, but rather he was like a meis mitzvah, where there were none engaged with him, and I engaged with him. If so, by all rights, I should have borrowed from you a single donkey, and I did not take this from you. This, it appears to me, is the explanation of the verse.


However, it is known that the residents of Alexandria, of Egypt, complained about Israel before Alexander the Macedonian, and requested that Israel return to them the spoils of Egypt. And they {=the Israelites} answered that they owe them the wages of 600,000 for 400 years, see there, in perek Chelek {in Sanhedrin 91a}. 


{Thus:
On another occasion the Egyptians came in a lawsuit against the Jews before Alexander of Macedon. They pleaded thus: 'Is it not written, And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they lent them [gold and precious stones, etc.]²⁰  Then return us the gold and silver which ye took!' Thereupon Gebiha b. Pesisa said to the Sages, 'Give me permission to go and plead against them before Alexander of Macedon: should they defeat me, then say, "Ye have merely defeated an ignorant man amongst us;" whilst if I defeat them then say, "The Law of Moses has defeated you."' So they gave him permission, and he went and pleaded against them. 'Whence do ye adduce your proof?' asked he, 'From the Torah,' they replied. 'Then I too,' said he, 'will bring you proof only from the Torah, for it is written, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.²¹  Pay us for the toil of six hundred thousand men whom ye enslaved for four hundred thirty years.' Then King Alexander said to them, 'Answer him!' 'Give us three days' time,' they begged. So he gave them a respite; they sought but found no answer. Straightway they fled, leaving behind their sown fields and planted vineyards. And that year was a Sabbatical year.²²
}


It comes out, according to this, that the aforementioned is not so, for behold, Moshe was not in the work of Mitzrayim, such that not a peruta of the spoils was due to him. And since he could not rightly ask for silver and gold vessels, he went and engaged in the bones of Yosef. And so it was like a case of this one benefits and this one does not lose out.


However, it is known that this answer was only to push off the Egyptians with straw. For the spoils were not the wages of the work. And furthermore, they did not work for 400 years {but rather only were in Egypt for 210}. And if was only the spoils of war, such that it was for Moshe to take a portion at the head. (Like a king he takes a portion at the head of the spoils and conquered items.) And well did he say לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם. And yet, before Talmay king of Egypt, they were not able to reveal this secret, for then he would say, 'if it was not the wages of work, then I require it of you that you return to me those spoils, for behold he was the king of Egypt. Therefore, they changed it for him into 'not a single חמד did I take from them'. (One needs to say, as above, that a single chamor from them means that he did not take from those chamorim which they took out of Egypt laden with spoils.)"


I never had understood the claim in the gemara in Sanhedrin that it was wages for work. Rather, that it was a counterclaim, and that if the Egyptians would open up with this complaint, the Jews could respond and be owed much more money. Nevertheless, this is a very nice construction and interplay between sugyos.

Rav Mordechai Gifter on past and present kanoim

R' Mordechai Gifter
(Image can be found at TorahArt.Com)

Rav Mordechai Gifter writes the following in Pirkei Torah, about the diligent nature of past and present congregations of Korach. The Torah, in the first pasuk of Korach, introduces the instigators:

א  וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.

1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;

Yet while Korach, Dasan and Aviram appear in the subsequent narrative, On ben Peles disappears. A midrash explains why and Rav Gifter extrapolates based on their words.

Thus, he writes:

"See their words, za'l, in the midrash. And so too in Sanhedrin 110a regarding to wife of On ben Pelet who saved him. For they say there:

Rab said: On, the son of Peleth, was saved by his wife. Said she to him, 'What matters it to thee? Whether the one [Moses] remains master or the other [Korah] becomes master, thou art but a disciple.' He replied, 'But what can I do? I have taken part in their counsel, and they have sworn me [to be] with them.' She said, 'I know that they are all a holy community, as it is written, seeing all the congregation are holy, everyone of them.²⁷  [So,]' she proceeded, 'Sit here, and I will save thee.' She gave him wine to drink, intoxicated him and laid him down within [the tent]. Then she sat down at the entrance thereto and loosened her hair {וסתרתה למזיה}. Whoever came [to summon him] saw her and retreated.¹

Thus, when they saw a woman without hair covering they turned immediately back. Such were the congregation of Korach, the fellows of On ben Peles. And see Rashi on Sanhedrin 109b, d"h, 'that they all were a holy congregation'.

{Namely, upon the the gemara above, where On ben Peles' wife said:

She said, 'I know that they are all a holy community, as it is written, seeing all the congregation are holy, everyone of them.

Rashi writes:

דכולה כנישתא קדישין - כולם צנועים וקדושים ולא יכנסו אלי אם אני פרועה.

"All of them are modest and holy, and will not enter to me if I am loosened {of hair}."
}

And this is experienced in every generation, that of those who are diligent and precise in mitzvos, the fire of controversy moves them against their own will and against the will of their Creator. For those who rise up / instigate against the talmid chacham of the generation are not of the inferior nor of the paltry of the nation. And all the details which are stated regarding the controversy of Korach and his congregation serve as a model for [such controversies for] all generations [such that we should examine this and take heed]."

Update: Much thanks to those who expressed confusion at the way it was worded before. I think it reads better now.

It makes sense to me that the spirit that moves one to such stringencies, for example, in tznius, is associated with stirring one up to engage in controversies. I don't know that I approve so much of the initial zehirus and dikduk bemitzvos (!), as it stands in many instances as a manifestation of an underlying character flaw. (Which is not what Rav Gifter is saying, precisely...)

Why is Moshe's death after the war against Midian?

Summary: Last year, I presented one reason from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. Here is another one, having to do with the laws of ritual purity.

Post: The pasuk in Matos, with the instruction to take revenge on the Midianites, is:

ב  נְקֹם, נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֵת, הַמִּדְיָנִים; אַחַר, תֵּאָסֵף אֶל-עַמֶּיךָ.

2 'Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.'

And there are various midrashim about this juxtaposition. For instance, that Moshe immediately acted, without delay, even though this meant his demise. But other diyukim are made into just why this juxtaposition is made. Here is another one by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. In Midrash Yehonasan, he writes:

That is, he refers us to Sanhedrin daf 39a:

A certain Min said to R. Abbahu: Your God is a priest, since it is written, That they take for me Terumah [wave offering].³⁹  Now, when He had buried Moses,⁴⁰  wherein did He bathe [after contact with the corpse]?⁴¹  Should you reply, 'In water: is it not written, Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?⁴²  — 'He bathed in fire,' he answered, 'for it is written, Behold the Lord will come in fire.'⁴³  'Is then purification by fire effective?' 'On the contrary,' he replied, 'bathing [for purposes of purification] should essentially be in fire, for it is written, And all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water.'⁴⁴ 

This is a nice back-and-forth, with perhaps a hidden encoded meaning. And this may require an understanding of Christian theology. I don't possess such knowledge, but I can Google. Thus, for instance:

The best place to start any discussion of this ritual is Erdsman's Le Baptême de Feu. Here Origen is cited as having consistently confirmed the baptism of fire as a purification ritual:

At the Jordan river, John awaited those who came for baptism. Some he rejected, saying, "generation of vipers," and so on.3 But those who confessed their faults and sins he received. In the same way, the Lord Jesus Christ will stand in the river of fire near the "flaming sword." If anyone desires to pass over to paradise after departing this life, and needs cleansing, Christ will baptize him in this river and send him across to the place he longs for. But whoever does not have the sign of earlier baptisms, him Christ will not baptize in the fiery bath. For, it is fitting that one should be baptized first in “water and the Spirit.” Then, when he comes to the fiery river, he can show that he preserved the bathing in water and the Spirit. Then he will deserve to receive in addition the baptism in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen

Thus, in this gemara, the Min, which means early Christian, believed in the necessity of baptism, purification by water, and was told that actually the purification by fire is the preferable one. Perhaps; perhaps not. Perhaps it has to do with the limitations on the Infinite, such that the Min was arguing that it could not have been Hashem Himself who buried Moshe. See here for an example of a Christian who believes that Christ buried Moses, rather than Hashem. Similarly, the prooftext that Hashem is a kohen also could be a reference to Hashem restricting Himself, so as to dwell amongst the bnei Yisrael {vayikchu li terumah veshachanti besocham}.

(If I wanted to reject the Min's words, I would point out that Hashem is Himself compared to fire. Thus, on the pasuk in Devarim,

Devarim 10:20

And (1) you will fear the Lord, your God; (2) Him you shall worship/serve; and (3) to Him you will cleave; and (4) by His Name you shall swear.

Ketubot 111b asks,

…Is it possible to cleave to the Divine Presence? Isn’t it written, (Devarim 4:24) “Because the Lord, your God, is a Consuming Fire, He is a Zealous God”?  But rather anyone who marries off is daughter to a Tora scholar, who engages in business arrangements with Tora scholars, who benefits Tora scholars from his possessions, the text considers him as if he has cloven to the Holy One, Blessed Be He…

And we know fire is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Thus, Berachot 22a:

"It has been taught, Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra used to say: The words of the Torah are not susceptible to Tumah [commonly translated 'impurity']. It happened that a disciple standing before Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra spoke hesitatingly [evidently he was tameh (one who is in a state of Tumah)- being a ba'al keri, one who has had a seminal emission- thought that he was debarred from uttering words of Torah]. He said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words be clear, for the words of the Torah are not susceptible to Tumah. For it is said: "Is not My word like fire, says the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:29)? As fire is not susceptible to Tumah, so are words of Torah not susceptible to Tumah."

And so Hashem, although being a kohen, would not be susceptible to tumah.)

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, for his purposes, takes this gemara literally. And since the pasuk about purification of vessels by fire is stated about the vessels captured in Midian, until that law was given, Hashem was not about to bury Moshe, and so Moshe was not ready to die.

Do mashiach blogs prevent the geulah?

I doubt it.

I actually had a post ready, suggesting this very idea, but in jest. I was planning on pointing to the gemara in Sanhedrin 98a which reads:

אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיתבקש דג לחולה ולא ימצא

"Rabbi Chanina said: The son of David will not come until [the word of Rabbi Yekusiel] Fish is sought, for one who is sick [in anticipation of mashiach's arrival], and it is not found."

(See posts describing Rabbi Fish's prediction for next year in these posts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8 and Part 9.)

That is, only once Rabbi Fish stops predicting that this year, or the next year, or the year after that, will be the year mashiach finally arrives.

Geulah Perspectives refers in a blog post explaining why he is closing his blog, to a gemara which reads (on the previous amud):

ד"א עד שיתייאשו מן הגאולה שנאמר ואפס עצור ועזוב כביכול אין סומך ועוזר לישראל כי הא דר' זירא כי הוה משכח רבנן דמעסקי ביה אמר להו במטותא בעינא מנייכו לא תרחקוה דתנינא ג' באין בהיסח הדעת אלו הן משיח מציאה ועקרב 

Or, in English:

Yet another interpretation: until the redemption is despaired of, for it is written, there is none shut up or left, as — were it possible [to say so] — Israel had neither Supporter nor Helper. Even as R. Zera, who, whenever he chanced upon scholars engaged thereon [I.e., in calculating the time of the Messiah's coming], would say to them: I beg of you, do not postpone it, for it has been taught: Three come unawares:³⁰  Messiah, a found article and a scorpion.³¹

He gives it a deep kabbalistic explanation, about Keser and Daas, but it may simply be as the gemara explains it -- that only once no one is expecting mashiach, and everyone despairs of his arrival, will mashiach finally arrive. (BTW, see the discussion over at Yeranen Yaakov as to whether this is so. And see Shirat Devorah as well)

If we take it as the gemara understands it, that it will only come when people despair of mashiach coming, then perhaps the Geulah blogs are actually hastening his coming. After all, they make a prediction, and mashiach does not come. They make a prediction, and mashiach does not come. They make a prediction, and mashiach does not come. They make a prediction, and mashiach does not come. They make a prediction, and mashiach does not come. And so on and so forth. Eventually, people will give up and think mashiach is not coming at all. As the gemara in Sanhedrin says (according to some interpretations):

What is meant by 'but at the end it shall speak [we-yafeah] and not lie?' — R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blasted be¹⁸  the bones of those who calculate the end.¹⁹  For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come. 

By increasing despair, the Geulah blogs may bring mashiach!

But maybe one could connect it with yet another gemara in Sanhedrin, in close proximity:

Ze'iri said in R. Hanina's name: The son of David will not come until there are no conceited men in Israel, as it is written, For then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride:¹⁷  which is followed by, I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall take refuge in the name of the Lord.¹⁸

I would suggest that many who predict the ketz imagine an importance of their own role in the happenings. Thus, to choose a random example, they believe that by dreaming of and then building a kever for Devorah HaNeviah, they are going to be the ones to bring mashiach. Or that they have the insight, where everyone erred before, in figuring out the true meaning of the Zohar, or the Gra, that year X is the ketz.

Believing that one has such a cosmic impact, either to bring mashiach, or in this instance, to prevent the coming of mashiach, it perhaps also a mark of false conceit and pride.

Hashem has a plan. And mashiach will come when he comes. Hopefully soon. What one can do is live in the present, doing mitzvos and learning Torah, as we are supposed to, and let Hashem take care of the rest. Worrying that the end is near, or being distracted by this ketz or that ketz, prevents one from living in the present.

Did Korach's sons go to Gehinnom, or did they become prophets?

Summary: Mizrachi shows a contradiction within Rashis. The Taz attempts to solve it. And I offer suggestions throughout, that Rashi didn't say it, or that Rashi means that their songs ascended, not that they physically ascended.

Post: The Torah tells us that the sons of Korach did not die. The point, without a genealogical list, would seem to be to indicate that the lineage continued on, in contrast to, for instance, Er and Onan, or perhaps Datan and Aviram. The pasuk, Rashi, and my translation:

11. Korah's sons, however, did not die.		יא. וּבְנֵי קֹרַח לֹא מֵתוּ:
And the sons of Korach did not die: They were in the counsel at first, and at the time of the dispute they thought of teshuva in their hearts. Therefore, they were placed in a high place in Hell and stayed there.		ובני קרח לא מתו: הם היו בעצה תחלה, ובשעת המחלוקת הרהרו תשובה בלבם, לפיכך נתבצר להם מקום גבוה בגיהנם וישבו שם:

Thus, they didn't die, but that does not mean that they continued on their existence among the living. Meanwhile, Datan and Aviram, etc., were all drawn into the pit, meaning they were drawn into Gehinnom proper.

Mekorei Rashi informs us that Rashi draws this midrash from Sanhedrin 110a, Megillah 14a, Bemidbar Rabba, Midrash Aggadah, and Yalkut Shimoni 773. From the gemara in Sanhedrin:

Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.⁴⁵  A Tanna taught: It has been said on the authority of Moses our Master: A place was set apart for them in the Gehenna, where they sat and sang praises [to God].

The Taz writes about this in Divrei David. He cites Rashi and the gemara in Sanhedrin. Then,

"and the Re'em {=Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi} brings a Midrash Rabba that the sons of Korach came up to the surface of the land, and they entered the land of Israel and were prophets. And a proof to this is from Shmuel, 'and his sons were singers', and so does Rashi write in Tehillim (42), and the Re'em goes on at length about this. And it is possible to say that they were in Hell for some length of time, and afterwards they ascended on the face of the Earth."

I suppose that since Rashi gives two different explanations in two different places, one would expect that there should be some way to harmonize them. This would not necessarily be the case if they were just two stand-alone midrashim.

Here is what Mizrachi says. First, he cites Rashi. Then,

"Bamidbar Rabba and perek Chelek {in Sanhedrin} they said:
'And the sons of Korach did not die.' They did not live and they were not judged. A Tanna taught in the name of the Sages: A place was set apart in Hell, and they stood on their feet and sang praises.


Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: I was proceeding on my travels, when an Arab said to me, 'Come, and I will shew thee where the men of Korah were swallowed up.' I went and saw two cracks whence issued smoke. Thereupon he took a piece of clipped wool, soaked it in water, attached it to the point of his spear, and passed it over there, and it was singed. Said I to him, 'Listen to what you are about to hear.' And I heard them saying thus: 'Moses and his Torah are true, but they [Korah's company] are liars.' 


The Arabian then said to me, 'Every thirty days Gehenna causes them to turn back [here] like meat in a pot, and they say thus: "Moses and his Torah are true, but they are liars."'¹


And Rashi {on that gemara} explains:
נתבצר - מלשון (ישעיהו כז) עיר בצורה התקין להון הקב"ה מקום גבוה שלא העמיקו כל כך בגיהנם ולא מתו:

'Hashem established for them a high place which was not so deep in Hell, and they did not die. Rather, every 30 days they return to Hell and are judged, for so do we say later on.'


This implies that he holds that this incident with the Arabian who showed Rabba Bar Bar Chana those who were swallowed up of Korach, who would say "Moshe and his Torah is true, and they are liars' refers to the sons of Korach. I would have thought that that incident with the Arabian, was speaking of those swallowed up of Korach {in general}, but not of the sons of Korach, for the sons of Korach ascended immediately on the surface of the earth; and that which states that they did not live, but they were not judged, argues on the Tanna saying it in the name of the Sages, that a place was established for them in Hell and they dwelled there; and from there they ascended to the surface of the earth, and entered Eretz Yisrael, and they were prophets and singers like Shmuel and his sons, who were descendants of Korach. And this is what is written משפחת הקרחי, and it is not difficult at all, except according to the opinion that ובני קרח לא מתו means that they did not live but were not judged. But according to the commentary of Rashi, all of it is difficult."

It pays to spend a moment or two on what Rashi says and does not say. I have heard questions raised as to whether Rashi on perek Chelek is really from Rashi. But, as Rabbi Slifkin writes in a footnote in an article in Hakirah, regarding Rashi's Stance on Corporealism:

Incidentally, Yonah Frankel in Darko shel Rashi bePerusho leTalmud (Jerusalem, 1975) pp. 304-335 proves that the printed  commentary to Perek Chelek attributed to Rashi was indeed substantially composed by Rashi, and therefore can be cited as indications of his beliefs. 

Separate from this, the text that Mizrachi cites from Rashi is not found in our Rashi text in Chumash. You might have noticed above, Rashi (from Wikisource; also in our printed gemaras) only makes the first statement, not the all-important second statement which confounds Mizrachi, that these are the same as the speakers below. So perhaps we can solve this via girsology, at least on behalf of Rashi.

(But I don't see how the Taz's answer would fix anything for Mizrachi, since Rabba Bar Bar Chana saw them, meaning the Bnei Korach, there, much much later. I also did not see the Midrash Rabba which Taz claims the Mizrachi refers to. Rather, it seems that Midrash Rabba on Korach simply echoes the gemara in perek Chelek, and this is what a straightforward reading gives us.)

On the other hand, the Taz noted the prooftext to Rashi's beliefs from his commentary on sefer Tehillim, perek 42, which begins:

א  לַמְנַצֵּחַ, מַשְׂכִּיל לִבְנֵי-קֹרַח.

1 For the Leader; Maschil of the sons of Korah.

Rashi on that pasuk writes:

"Of the sons of Korach: They are Asir, Elkana, and Evyasaf {meaning, the actual sons of Korach}, who were initially in the counsel of their father, and at the time of the dispute they separated. And when all around them was swallowed up, and the earth opened up its mouth, their place was left within the mouth of the earth, as it states 'but the sons of Korach did not die.' And there they sand praise, and there they established the mizmorim {such as this one in Tehillim}, and they ascended from there, and ruach hakodesh manifested upon them, and they prophesied upon the exiles and on the destruction of the Temple, and on the kingdom of the house of David."

I suppose since these mizmorim cover these topics, these would have to be said with prophecy.

I have two more suggestions which might help resolve any difficulties. First, Rashi on Chumash and Tehillim often lets us know Rashi's understanding of the pasuk. But, Rashi on gemara lets us know Rashi's understanding of the gemara, not necessarily Rashi's own position.

Second, I am not sure that ועלו משם refers to the sons of Korach ascending from there. Perhaps we could read it as that the mizmorim ascended from there. The idea is that they are stuck there -- and so are present for Rami Bar Bar Chana to hear them -- and yet, they also composed the chapters of Tehillim down there. But these mizmorim ascended upwards, such that people heard them and wrote them down.

If I am right, above, that this is just Rashi saying this, and he is not citing a Midrash Rabba, then my harmonization might work out quite well. On the other hand, one can read R' Eliyahu Mizrachi as referring to a Midrash Rabba. I don't know where this Midrash is, or if he is rather getting it from an interpretation of Rashi's words. I am pretty sure the midrash does not exist. See here for what does. But if it does exist, then we would need to reevaluate.

The *final* ketz of Rashbi, in 2012!

Yeranen Yaakov brings us great news, from Rabbi Yekusiel Fish, that the final ketz of the Rashbi is 5772! Either way, this is good news. If if comes to be, then we have mashiach. And if not, people won't be able to drei with Zohar apocalyptic dates anymore.

Bli neder, I'll take a look at the substance of the Zohar proof later. But first I just want to note that according to Shadal, all the Zohar's times have already passed:

And what will you say in the matter of the fixed times {for redemption} which are stated in sefer haZohar? Behold, our Sages z"l said {see Sanhedrin 97b, where it is bones rather than souls} that Blasted be the souls of those who calculate the end {of days}. And the author of the Zohar is not concerned {nizhar} on setting nine ends, different one from the other, and all of them have already passed.

The other think that gives me some slight pause that this calculation of 5772 is accurate is this post on Yeranen Yaakov that mashiach will come in 5771 (as well as this one and this one detailing Rabbi David Katz's interpretations for the same); this one and this one for 5770; this one and this one and this one and this one for 5769; this one for 5768; this one for 5767; possibly this for 5766; and the blog does not go much further back than this. All of these are rather convincing, to why should I believe this year is the one? Maybe all those other posts were correct, and mashiach arrived; just we did not notice it. (Yes, I am being a bit snarky here.)

Here is where yaak and I might differ. He writes in this post:

The point of the article, I believe, is to spread awareness of the obligation to believe in Mashiah's coming any and every day.  As the Rambam writes, whoever doesn't expect his coming, not only denies the validity of the prophets, but even that of the Torah and Moshe Rabbeinu. 

I don't know that I would translate מחכה as "expect". I would render it more as hope, await. That is, one should always be hoping that this will be the day. (To be fair, yaak may simply mean 'expectantly wait'.) The idea is that although he tarries, we still believe that he is coming and are looking forward to it. The difference would be whether one must confirm in his mind, each and every day, that this is the day, such that he expects that this is the day to the exclusion of any other. The text of the Rambam:

ב  וכל מי שאינו מאמין בו, או מי שאינו מחכה לביאתו--לא בשאר נביאים בלבד הוא כופר, אלא בתורה ובמשה רבנו:  שהרי תורה העידה עליו, שנאמר "ושב ה' אלוהיך את שבותך, וריחמך; ושב, וקיבצך מכל העמים . . . אם יהיה נידחך, בקצה השמיים--משם, יקבצך ה' אלוהיך, ומשם, ייקחך.  והביאך ה' אלוהיך . . ." (דברים ל,ג-ה).  ואלו הדברים המפורשים בתורה, הם כוללים כל הדברים שנאמרו על ידי כל הנביאים.

Note also that 'every day' is not part of this Rambam; rather, it is part of the popularized version of his 13 ikkarei emunah, which is not as precise and was not authored by the Rambam.

I don't see the bechol yom sheyavo explicitly in the Perush Hamishnoyot (upon which this popularized version is based) either. Here is a summary / citation of what he says there:

העיקרון השנים עשר - האמונה בימות המשיח, "להאמין... שיבוא, ואין לומר שנתאחר אִם יִתְמַהְמָהּ חַכֵּה לוֹ" (חבקוק ב 3). ולפיכך אין לקבוע לו זמן, ולא לחשב את הקץ, ולהאמין בו ולהתפלל לבואו "בהתאם למה שנאמר בו על ידי כל נביא, ממשה ועד מלאכי". וימות המשיח הוא הזמן "שבו תחזור המלכות לישראל, ויחזרו לארץ ישראל", ומקום מלכותו של אותו המלך - ציון, ואתו יכרתו העמים "ברית שלום" - אבל: "לא ישתנה במציאות שום דבר מכפי שהוא עתה, זולתי שתהא המלכות לישראל". עם זאת, בימי המשיח "תוקל על בני אדם פרנסתם מאוד", ועם ישראל ישתחרר "משעבוד מלכות הרשעה העוצרת בעדנו מלעשות הטוב" וכן "ייפסקו הקרבות והמלחמות" (על פי ישעיהו יא 9) וגם יאריכו חיי בני האדם "בהיעדר הדאגות והצרות". לפי רמב"ם, הכמיהה לימי המשיח אינה נובעת מן הרצון "שירבו התבואות והנכסים" ושאר תענוגות החיים כפי שחושבים "מבולבלי הדעות" - אלא מן השאיפה למצב שבו יהיה " מקבוץ הצדיקים וההתנהגות הטובה והחכמה ויושר המלך וגודל חכמתו והתקרבותו לפני בוראו... וקיום כל תורת משה בלי דאגות ולא פחד" (על פי תהלים ב 7). 

Note the part I marked in light red. 'Therefore, as a consequence of awaiting for him every day, one should NOT set a specific time for him to come, and one should not calculate the end.' I don't, meanwhile, see mention of every day expecting him. Except perhaps this is just it. Don't set a specific time, because he can come any day!

Here, in a beautiful manuscript, is what the Rambam says in his Perush Hamishnayos:

What I underlined in red is: ומי שהסתפק בו או נתמעט אצלו מעלתו. Such a person is כפר בתורה. That is, doubt in his arrival, parallel to Mishneh Torah's וכל מי שאינו מאמין בו. And not thinking that Mashiach would be a great thing when it comes, parallel to Mishneh Torah's או מי שאינו מחכה לביאתו. Thus, this is anticipation, rather than expectation.

In fact, the Rambam did mention a ketz, in his letter to Yemen. But this was because they had a false mashiach on their hands, and he was trying to tell them that the ketz had not yet arrived, such that this was not yet the time for mashiach. This would work against expecting him to come any and every day.

So there is what to disagree with this formulation, especially if one will base it on the Rambam, and especially to argue that Rambam maintains that lack of such expectation "not only denies the validity of the prophets, but even that of the Torah and Moshe Rabbeinu." (But again, I should stress, I think it entirely probable that I am reading too much into his words.)

I wonder, also, BTW, about the binding of בכל יום. Yes, mashiach could come every day. But is the expectation / anticipation to be בכל יום, or to אחכה לו, that every day one should be invigorated and eagerly expecting his arrival? I can see it both ways, and find support both ways.

Rashi, and permission to predict the ketz

Summary: I offer up a different way of interpreting that famous gemara in Sanhedrin, that there is in fact NO prohibition of predicting the ketz.

Post: In Sanhedrin 97b, we read:

What is meant by 'but at the end it shall speak [we-yafeah] and not lie?' {Chabakuk 2} — R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blasted be18  the bones of those who calculate the end.19  For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come. But [even so], wait for him, as it is written, Though he tarry, wait for him. 

One could say that this is a rather unambiguous prohibition on predicting the end-time, because Rabbi Yonatan even interprets the pasuk as cursing someone who does this. And it speaks of negative repercussions that are likely to occur when someone mispredicts the predetermined time.

Yet, among several other Rishonim, Rashi in Daniel calculates a ketz. And indeed, in that gemara itself, we see discussions of the end time by Tannaim and Amoraim! How can this be? Would R' Shmuel bar Nachmani, and R' Yonasan, be cursing them?!

I think the answer is straightforward, in how Rashi interprets this gemara. But I am not so sure that it is obvious how Rashi interprets this gemara. And so, I will present my understanding of Rashi here.

The gemara reads:

מאי ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן תיפח עצמן. של מחשבי קיצין שהיו אומרים כיון שהגיע את הקץ ולא בא שוב אינו בא אלא חכה לו שנאמר אם יתמהמה חכה לו

I would suggest that Rashi understands the gemara as follows. The pasuk in Chabakuk reads:

ג  כִּי עוֹד חָזוֹן לַמּוֹעֵד, וְיָפֵחַ לַקֵּץ וְלֹא יְכַזֵּב; אִם-יִתְמַהְמָהּ, חַכֵּה-לוֹ--כִּי-בֹא יָבֹא, לֹא יְאַחֵר.

3 For the vision is yet for the appointed time, and it declareth of the end, and doth not lie; though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not delay.'

and it obviously has its peshat meaning. But let us parse the gemara, according to Rashi.

ויפח לקץ - תיפח נפשו של מחשב הקץ שלא היה לו לכזב ולומר כיון שהגיע וכו':

He has nafsho rather than atzman. The point, perhaps, is that the mechashev haketz should rather allow his nefesh to be blasted, to admit that he was wrong in his calculations and that he accidentally misled everyone. For he should not lie, וְלֹא יְכַזֵּב, and say that he was right all along, and that he predicted the ketz correctly, but that its lack of arrival means that it is never coming. Rather, as the pasuk continues, אִם-יִתְמַהְמָהּ, חַכֵּה-לוֹ. Wait for it, though it tarries. It will eventually come.

As Rashi says:

יחכה ה' - הוא עצמו מחכה ומתאוה שיבא משיח:

He himself, this mistaken predictor, should eagerly await the arrival of mashiach.

Thus, it is not a curse, chas veShalom, on those who predict the ketz. Nor is it a prohibition. Rather, it is an instruction on how they are to conduct themselves.

And such is necessary. You put yourself out there. You gain followers. And then the day arrives and mashiach does not. What a blow to the ego! Do you protect yourself and your reputation, at the expense of the messianic hopes of your followers? Or do you admit that you miscalculated?

Consider the response of Harold Camping, when the end-times did not arrive as he had calculated:



Clearly, this is a reaction of someone who believes. He does not strike me as someone who was stringing people along, for financial gain. He was shocked that this didn't occur, and he needed to mull it over to figure out what was happening.

A bit later, he determined that he had indeed miscalculated, just as he had done in predicting a rapture for 1994. Thus:

In a rambling discourse to reporters outside his Family Radio International office, Camping, an 89-year-old retired civil engineer, indicated he had misread the signs in predicting that the faithful would be lifted up to Heaven Saturday, leaving sinners to suffer through five months of disasters until the Earth was consumed in a fireball on the End of Days.

God did “bring judgment on the world,” on Saturday, he said, but there will not be any terrible buildup to the end. When it comes, it will happen quickly, he said.

“We have to be looking at all of this a little bit more spiritual, but it won’t be spiritual on Oct. 21,” he said. “Because the Bible clearly teaches that then the world is going to be destroyed altogether.”

I've also heard that he claimed that he did not miscalculate. There was something significant that occurred on May 21st, namely a 'spiritual' ending. But the physical ending would be October 21st. From what I read immediately above, this is a claim that spiritual judgement was indeed pronounced On High on May 21, though we did not sense it. So it is the beginning of the end.




So he is not admitting error. Although it seems possible that this October 21 date he had in mind from before, as the time of ultimate destruction -- just that the rapture component would be earlier.

We will see what happens when the world does not end on October 21, 2011. I would imagine that reporters are going to be following up on this story.

Anyway, back to Rashi. As I write in another post, on whether Rashi predicted mashiach in 2011 -- he did not -- Rashi wrote:

עד עידן ועידנין ופלג עידן - קץ סתום הוא זה כאשר נאמר לדנייאל סתום הדברים וחתום ודרשוהו הראשונים איש לפי דעתו וכלו הקצים ויש לנו לפותרו עוד כאשר ראיתי כתוב בשם רב סעדיה...

until a time, two times, and half a time: This is an obscure end, as was said to Daniel (12:4): “And you, Daniel, close up the words and seal,” and the early commentators expounded on it, each one according to his view, and the ends have passed. We can still interpret it as I saw written in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon...

That is, Rashi understands that this is each commenter expounding according to his view, but these ends have passed, so obviously, they were wrong. And we can acknowledge that and move on, with another prediction / calculation.

This in contrast to how some others claim, that when a Tanna, or Amora, or Gaon, or Rishon, or Acharon calculates a ketz and it does not come to be, it really was right. Just on some spiritual plane. Or this was a potential, more than any other time, that did not come to pass. Or that it was one step in the process. All sorts of excuses / interpretations can be proffered. Yet I don't think that this was deemed a plausible answer in the gemara, as Rashi interprets it. It either was the end time but the end time has been cancelled, or else it was not and it was a miscalculation.