Parshas Bechukosai*
1. In the concluding chapter of the Laws of Kings1, the Rambam says: "אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח יבטל דבר ממנהגו של עולם, או יהי' שם חידוש במעשה בראשית, אלא עולם כמנהגו נוהג" ("Let it not enter one's heart2 that in the days of Moshiach anything of the world's natural order will be nullified, or that there will be any innovation in the work of creation; rather, the world will continue according to its custom3. And that which is said in Isaiah4, 'The wolf shall dwell with the lamb'... is a parable and a riddle... meaning that Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked of the nations5, who are likened to a wolf and a leopard, as it says6, 'A wolf...' — and they will all return to the true religion, and they will not rob and not destroy, but will eat what is permitted... as it says7, 'And the lion...' And so too, all similar matters concerning Moshiach are parables. And in the days of King Moshiach it will become known to all what each parable was, and what matter they alluded to").
And afterwards the Rambam continues8: "אמרו חכמים אין בין כו'" ("The Sages said9: There is no difference between, etc."), as will be explained below in section 8.
Among the contradictions to the above view of the Rambam10 — that in the days of Moshiach "nothing of the world's natural order... will be nullified... rather, the world will continue according to its custom" — one seemingly finds the statement in Toras Kohanim11 in our parsha, on the verse12 "ועץ השדה יתן פריו" ("And the tree of the field shall give its fruit"): "ומנין שאף אילני סרק עתידים להיות עושים פירות, ת"ל ועץ השדה יתן פריו" ("And from where do we know that even non-fruit-bearing trees are destined to produce fruit? The Torah says, 'And the tree of the field shall give its fruit'"). And similarly, at the end of Maseches Kesubos it states: "Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: In the future, all the non-fruit-bearing trees in Eretz Yisrael will bear fruit, as it says13, 'כי עץ נשא פריו תאנה וגפן נתנו חילם' ('For the tree has borne its fruit, the fig and the vine have given their strength')" — and this is, after all, a matter of nullifying the world's natural order14.
2. Seemingly, one could answer* that according to the Rambam, the above statements of Chazal are also a "parable and riddle," for example15:
"A fruit tree" refers (as Chazal say16) to Torah scholars, and "non-fruit-bearing trees" refers to the unlearned; and in the Time to Come, the non-fruit-bearing trees too — the unlearned — will give forth fruit, that is, they will become Torah scholars17 (or some other similar explanation18).
However, one cannot learn this way, because [in addition to the fact that in general it is difficult to say19 of the words of Tannaim and Amoraim (as opposed to the words of the prophets) that they are merely a parable, it is all the more difficult in our case, because]
the above statement in Toras Kohanim comes in the sequence of several blessings whose content is specifically physical blessings, including the blessing of the verse19 "ונתנה הארץ יבולה ועץ השדה יתן פריו" ("And the land shall give its produce, and the tree of the field shall give its fruit") — "Not as it does now, but as it did in the days of Adam the first man... it is sown and produces fruit on the same day... it is planted and produces fruit on the same day... the tree is edible." This means that the blessing is literal, in actual physicality20.
And similarly in Kesubos, the saying is cited in the sequence21 of several statements22 that must be understood literally, for example23: "Rabbi Chanina would repair its stumbling blocks, etc.," "an accusation against Torah scholars, etc." — so it is reasonable that this statement too ("In the future, all non-fruit-bearing trees, etc.") is meant literally24.
3. Now, on the above words of the Rambam there is the objection of the Raavad25 from the verse (in our parsha)26 "והשבתי חי' רעה מן הארץ" ("And I will remove wild beasts from the land"), which is (not a parable and riddle, but) a matter in its literal sense.
And the Radbaz, on the spot, answers the Raavad's objection: "This is no objection; just as the other verses are a parable, so too this is a parable" (and he continues): "But what is proper to believe in this is that the matters are also literal in Eretz Yisrael, as it is written27, 'They shall not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the land shall be full' — 'the land' meaning the known land. And so too, 'And I will remove wild beasts from the land.' But in other lands, the world will continue according to its custom, and the verses are a parable, for it is written28, 'Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more.' And in Eretz Yisrael29 both the literal meaning and the parable will be fulfilled."
Accordingly, it may seemingly be said that the dispute between the Rambam and the Raavad depends on the difference between the two above statements of Chazal (from Toras Kohanim and from Maseches Kesubos) regarding non-fruit-bearing trees:
In the Gemara it says "the non-fruit-bearing trees in Eretz Yisrael," whereas in Toras Kohanim it says "non-fruit-bearing trees" without qualification, which, by the plain sense of the wording, implies that it speaks not only of the non-fruit-bearing trees of Eretz Yisrael, but of all the non-fruit-bearing trees in the entire world30.
And the difference between them is: according to Toras Kohanim, in the future there will be a change in the world's natural order; but according to the Gemara, in the world in general (outside Eretz Yisrael) there will be no change in the world's natural order, and only in Eretz Yisrael will there be a special conduct.
And the Raavad adopts the view of Toras Kohanim that "non-fruit-bearing trees (without qualification) are destined to produce fruit," from which it is proven, as above, that there will be a nullification of the world's natural order,
[and so it is also regarding his objection from the verse "And I will remove wild beasts from the land," that it is meant literally (for seemingly one could learn that this verse too is meant as a parable (as above), but he rejects this) — since from the exposition of Toras Kohanim on this verse — "Rabbi Yehudah says: He will remove them from the world; Rabbi Shimon says: He will make them cease, so that they do no harm" (and especially since they deviate from the wording of the verse, "from the land," and say "from the world") — it is proven that it is meant literally]:
Whereas the Rambam adopts (according to the Radbaz) the wording of the Gemara, that this speaks only of the non-fruit-bearing trees in Eretz Yisrael; and that is why "it is proper to believe... that the matters are also literal in Eretz Yisrael... but in other lands the world will continue according to its custom."
4. However, the Radbaz's explanation is seemingly not understood, and especially as an explanation of the Rambam's view:
a) Since the Rambam says without qualification that in the days of Moshiach "nothing of the world's natural order" will be nullified — it is understood that Eretz Yisrael is also included in this, for if in Eretz Yisrael there will be these miracles in physical matters, this is (also) a nullification of the world's natural order31.
b) In the time of Ben Koziba, when "he (Rabbi Akiva) and all the Sages of his generation imagined that he was King Moshiach"32 — "imagined" to such an extent that they went to war (with danger to life) at his command (from which the Rambam33 proves that King Moshiach need not perform signs and wonders, and that in his days too the world will continue according to its custom, as will be explained below in section 10) — these miracles did not occur, not even in Eretz Yisrael.
Therefore it is reasonable to say that according to the Rambam, in the future the world will continue according to its custom in Eretz Yisrael as well.
5. In the sefer Avodas HaKodesh34 he explains that "the world will continue according to its custom" means that in the future G‑d will not innovate things outside of nature; all matters in creation will be "according to their nature and root, as they were at the beginning of their existence and creation"35. Therefore there is no contradiction from the above exposition of Toras Kohanim that "the tree is destined to be planted and produce fruit on the same day," and from several similar statements of Chazal — because this will not bring about an innovation that is outside the bounds of nature, since at the beginning of creation the natural order was that "it produces fruit on the same day"36.
Accordingly, it can also be said regarding the two matters in our parsha — "And I will remove wild beasts from the land," and that non-fruit-bearing trees will produce fruit — that according to the Rambam this is not called a nullification of anything of the world's natural order, because such was the situation at the beginning of creation, before the sin of the Tree of Knowledge: at that time all the trees bore fruit, and no animals were harmful37:
Only through the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, when G‑d said, "וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך" ("Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth for you")38, did some of the trees become non-fruit-bearing trees39, and in some of the animals there arose a natural tendency to be harmful.
But since in the days of Moshiach the world will arrive at the state in which it stood before the sin of the Tree of Knowledge40, this is its nature and "the world's natural order at that time"41.
6. This can be connected with yet another (fundamental) difference between the wording of Toras Kohanim and the wording of the Gemara regarding non-fruit-bearing trees: in Toras Kohanim the wording is "non-fruit-bearing trees are destined to produce fruit," whereas in the Gemara the wording is "that they will bear fruit."
"Produce fruit" (as in Toras Kohanim) implies that the non-fruit-bearing trees will give forth fruit in the same manner in which all fruit trees "produce fruit"; whereas according to the Gemara it is in the manner of "they will bear" (yitanu), which does not indicate the normal growth of a tree, but rather that they are "carrying" something that does not essentially pertain to them.
[And this accords with the difference in the verses from which they derive it: Toras Kohanim derives it from the verse (in our parsha) "And the tree of the field shall give its fruit," which indicates a normal giving by the trees of the field; and the Gemara derives it from the repetition and change of wording in the verse "For the tree has borne its fruit, the fig and the vine have given their strength," as Rashi explains: "Since it is written, 'the fig and the vine have given their strength,' the fruit tree has already been mentioned; what then does 'For the tree has borne its fruit' teach? That even non-fruit-bearing trees will bear fruit." That is, the verse emphasizes and a) separates the "tree" (non-fruit-bearing trees) from the fig and the vine ("fruit tree"); b) that with the "fruit tree" it is in the manner of "have given their strength" — a giving, and c) according to their nature and power ("their strength"); and d) with non-fruit-bearing trees it is in the manner of "borne," as if it carries something else, not through normal growth42.]
In light of the above, it can be said that the difference between Toras Kohanim and the Gemara is connected with the dispute found in Bereishis Rabbah43 — whether at the beginning of creation the (present-day) non-fruit-bearing trees had fruit, or not44:
Toras Kohanim follows the view of Rabbi Pinchas (in Bereishis Rabbah), who derives from "a fruit tree producing fruit" (that) "even non-fruit-bearing trees produced fruit." Accordingly, the fact that "non-fruit-bearing trees are destined to produce fruit" is not a change constituting an innovation in the work of creation; rather, the nature of this tree that existed in it at the beginning of creation returns and is renewed.
(And this comes in sequence with the preceding expositions in Toras Kohanim on the verse "And the tree of the field shall give its fruit": "Not as it does now, but as it did in the days of Adam the first man... 'a fruit tree producing fruit after its kind'45 — this teaches that on the very day it is planted, on that very day it produces fruit." And similarly the matter that "the tree is destined to be edible" — that it will be as it was in the days of Adam the first man — as is derived from the verse45 "a fruit tree.")
Whereas the Gemara holds like the view46 that at the beginning of creation the non-fruit-bearing trees did not bear fruit. It follows that their bearing fruit in the future is a change constituting an innovation. And therefore it is in the manner of "they will bear," "has borne its fruit" — not in a normal and natural manner.
7. However, when one examines carefully, one cannot learn this way, because:
a) The above interpretation of Toras Kohanim (that regarding non-fruit-bearing trees the change can (and will) occur in the future because so it was at the beginning of creation) is not smooth:
Regarding the preceding matters of the verse, Toras Kohanim states explicitly that this is "as it did in the days of Adam the first man," and derives it from the wording of the verses about the days of Adam the first man (in the work of creation); whereas regarding non-fruit-bearing trees, Toras Kohanim does not say "as it did in the days of Adam the first man" (or the like), and the fact that non-fruit-bearing trees are destined to produce fruit is derived from the verse in our parsha (which speaks of the Time to Come), "And the tree of the field shall give its fruit."
b) Even if one were to learn that the statement "as it did in the days of Adam the first man" also refers to non-fruit-bearing trees47, and that Toras Kohanim follows the view of Rabbi Pinchas that so it was also at the beginning of creation — it is still not entirely smooth: the view of Rabbi Pinchas is that from the standpoint of creation itself (from the standpoint of G‑d's command) there were supposed to be non-fruit-bearing trees, but the earth deviated from the command and the non-fruit-bearing trees gave forth fruit (and after the sin this change was nullified). It follows that the world's natural order (in itself) is the opposite48 — that there should be non-fruit-bearing trees.
c) And in any case: it is altogether difficult to learn the Rambam's view this way, for from the content and sequence of his words it is evident that he negates not only an innovation in the work of creation — that is, he negates not only something that never existed in the work of creation — but he negates the nullification of "anything of the world's natural order"49 (rather, "the world will continue according to its custom").
And it is obvious that the above matters (changes) are not "the world's natural order":
The meaning of "the world's natural order" is how the world actually conducts itself on a fixed basis — it makes no difference when that fixed conduct was established, whether at the very beginning of creation or later50. Once it was fixed in the nature of non-fruit-bearing trees that they should not give forth fruit, and that wild beasts should be harmful, and the trees and animals have conducted themselves this way for thousands of years without change — this is "the world's natural order." And if a change occurs, and they conduct themselves contrary to this conduct, that is the nullification of something of the world's natural order.
(There is no room whatsoever to say that the nature of the non-fruit-bearing trees did not change, and that even nowadays they are fruit-producing trees, only that through a cause outside of them (G‑d's decree) in actuality51 no fruit grows on them (and similarly regarding animals). Rather, the meaning is that after the sin of the Tree of Knowledge their former nature was nullified52; nowadays they are, by their nature, non-fruit-bearing trees (and — predatory animals).)
8. This will be understood by first adding further explanation of the Rambam's view:
The Rambam's position that in the days of Moshiach the world will continue according to its custom is seemingly because he holds like the view that he cites53, that "אין בין העולם לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכויות בלבד" ("There is no difference between this world and the days of Moshiach except subjugation to the kingdoms alone") — the view of Shmuel in the Gemara54.
Well known are the questions that the Lechem Mishneh55 asks on this: one finds that the Rambam rules as halachah in contradiction to this:
(a) The Gemara states54: "And Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All the prophets prophesied only about the days of Moshiach, but regarding the World to Come, 'No eye has seen it, O G‑d, except You'56. And this differs with Shmuel, for Shmuel said: There is no difference between this world and the days of Moshiach except subjugation to the kingdoms alone, etc."
And the Rambam rules57 like Rabbi Chiya bar Abba (who differs with Shmuel): "The Sages said: All the prophets prophesied only about the days of Moshiach, but the World to Come — 'No eye has seen it, O G‑d, except You.'"
(b) The Mishnah states58: "A man may not go out (on Shabbos) with a sword, nor with a bow, etc., and if he went out, he is liable to a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: They are ornaments for him. And the Sages say: They are nothing but a disgrace, as it says28, 'And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more'" ("and if they were ornaments, they would not be abolished in the future" — Rashi). And in the Gemara there, there are two views: according to one view, Rabbi Eliezer too holds that weapons will be abolished in the days of Moshiach, "and this differs with Shmuel... it supports Rabbi Chiya bar Abba"; and according to a second view, Rabbi Eliezer holds that they will not be abolished in the days of Moshiach — "this is the view of Shmuel, and it differs with Rabbi Chiya bar Abba." But the view of the Sages, according to all opinions, is that weapons will be abolished in the days of Moshiach, and therefore if one went out with a sword, etc., he is liable to a sin-offering.
And the Rambam rules59 like the Sages, who according to all opinions do not hold like Shmuel, as above.
9. The explanation of this: Seemingly, how can the Rambam say that in the days of Moshiach nothing of the world's natural order will be nullified and there will be no innovation in the work of creation — it is, after all, one of the Thirteen Principles60 that there will be the resurrection of the dead61 (which is a nullification of the world's natural order and an innovation in the work of creation)?
This is well understood according to the views62 that the World of the Resurrection is the World to Come (and the ultimate fulfillment of the reward is for souls in bodies) — then the resurrection of the dead is a separate matter, not a "part" of the days of Moshiach:
But according to the view of the Rambam63, that the World to Come means the world of souls (without bodies), and the World of the Resurrection is not the ultimate fulfillment of the reward, but rather the resurrection of the dead will take place in the time and era of the days of Moshiach, before the soul comes to the World to Come — it follows that according to the Rambam there will be an innovation in the work of creation (the resurrection of the dead) in the days of Moshiach. So how can one say that in the days of Moshiach nothing of the world's natural order will be nullified?
One must say that according to the Rambam these are two separate matters, and — in separate times: there is the matter and time in the days of Moshiach that is connected with the coming of Moshiach, and there is a separate, additional matter and time, which will be added after the initial era of the days of Moshiach. There will then come about modes of conduct — things that G‑d will do at that time — including matters that change the world's natural order64. This will be a later "time" within the days of Moshiach itself65.
10. Accordingly, it is understood why at the beginning of chapter 12, when the Rambam writes, "Let it not enter one's heart that in the days of Moshiach anything of the world's natural order will be nullified," he brings no proof or demonstration for this, as he does bring in the preceding chapter66 for the point that Moshiach need not display any sign or wonder
— in his words: "ואל יעלה על דעתך שהמלך המשיח צריך לעשות אותות ומופתים ומחדש דברים בעולם או מחיה מתים וכיוצא בדברים אלו, אין הדבר כן" ("And let it not enter your mind that King Moshiach must perform signs and wonders and bring about new things in the world, or revive the dead, and the like; this is not so67. For Rabbi Akiva was a great sage among the Sages of the Mishnah, and he was the arms-bearer68 of Ben Koziba the king, and he would say of him that he was King Moshiach69; and he and all the Sages of his generation imagined that he was King Moshiach, until he was killed on account of sins*69*; once he was killed, they knew that he was not. And the Sages did not ask him for any sign or wonder") —
Even though in these two chapters the Rambam speaks of two separate matters — in chapter 11 about King Moshiach himself, what he will accomplish and the manner of his coming; and in chapter 12 about the state of the world in the days of Moshiach — nevertheless, in chapter 12 he speaks of the state of the world as it is connected with the coming of Moshiach,
and therefore the proof in chapter 11 regarding King Moshiach holds with equal force for what he says in chapter 12 about the state of the world in the days of Moshiach as it is connected with his coming — and among these, that the world will continue according to its custom —
— for if the definition of "the days of Moshiach" were a nullification of the world's natural order and an innovation in the work of creation, it would follow that this is the essence of Moshiach: that the coming of Moshiach brings with it a nullification of the world's natural order and an innovation in the work of creation. And then one would have to accept that "Moshiach must perform signs and wonders and bring about new things in the world," and consequently this would be the test and examination of his authenticity as Moshiach (since his novelty consists of this, as above);
and since the Rambam proves (from Rabbi Akiva and all the Sages of his generation in relation to Ben Koziba) that Moshiach need not perform any sign or wonder, it is understood and proven from this that the coming of Moshiach does not bring with it a nullification of the world's natural order70.
11. Accordingly, it is understood that what the Rambam elaborates in chapter 12 regarding the state of the world in the days of Moshiach — all of this concerns the matter and time in the days of Moshiach that is connected with King Moshiach and his coming.
That is: first — in chapter 11 — the Rambam explains71 what the essence of King Moshiach is: "King Moshiach will arise and restore the kingship of David to its former state, to the original sovereignty; he will build the Mikdash and gather the dispersed of Israel, and all the laws will return, etc." He will bring about the perfection of the mitzvos and laws of the Torah72.
Afterwards — in chapter 12 — the Rambam speaks of how the state of the world will be in accordance with this, as he concludes73 that the Jewish people "will be free for Torah and its wisdom... And at that time there will be neither famine nor war, etc., and the occupation of the entire world will be only to know G‑d; and therefore Israel will be great sages, etc." — (and the main74) fulfillment of the mitzvos and laws of the Torah is in a world that continues according to its custom.
12. In light of the above, one will also understand the Rambam's approach regarding the various verses and statements of Chazal about the things foretold for the Time to Come:
The foretold things and prophecies that speak about Moshiach himself — what he will do, and what will result in the world through his coming — the Rambam learns are not a matter of nullifying the world's natural order. And therefore he interprets the verse "וגר זאב עם כבש" ("The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc."), which comes in sequence with "And a shoot shall come forth from the stem of Jesse, etc."75, as a "parable and riddle."
[And he explicitly explains what the parable and riddle of this verse is — "that Israel will dwell securely together with the wicked of the nations." And although he continues, "And so too, all similar matters concerning Moshiach are parables," and does not say what the things they represent are — on the contrary, he concludes, "And in the days of King Moshiach it will become known to all what each parable was" — this is because he comes (mainly) to explain that in this verse, which comes in sequence with "And a shoot shall come forth, etc.," the essence of Moshiach is explained: that the Jewish people will not have any disturbances from the nations of the world, and consequently "they will be free for Torah and its wisdom," etc.76]:
Whereas the verses and statements of Chazal that do not speak in sequence with Moshiach and his coming, but about prophecies and foretold things that will occur in the Time to Come — including those mentioned above, "And I will remove wild beasts from the land," and the above statements of Chazal that non-fruit-bearing trees are destined to produce fruit — these the Rambam indeed interprets as not a parable but literal, and this will be in a later era (an era within the days of Moshiach itself)77.
13. According to the above, one will also understand the difference between the statement in Toras Kohanim and the saying in Kesubos:
The Gemara in Kesubos, "In the future, all the non-fruit-bearing trees in Eretz Yisrael will bear fruit" — which indicates that this is not a natural matter but a special matter, and in Eretz Yisrael specifically — speaks of the first era, when — according to this opinion in Kesubos — there will be an innovation (a miracle) in Eretz Yisrael;
whereas in Toras Kohanim, where it says without qualification, "even non-fruit-bearing trees are destined to produce fruit" — that this will be the nature of the trees, and in the whole world — it speaks of the second era in the days of Moshiach, when there will be a change constituting an innovation in the work of creation; consequently, the nature of the non-fruit-bearing tree too will become to give forth fruit.
14. Accordingly, it is understood that there is no contradiction between the Rambam's words that "there is no difference between this world and the days of Moshiach except subjugation to the kingdoms alone," which refers to the first era of the days of Moshiach, and his ruling that "all the prophets prophesied only about the days of Moshiach, etc.," which refers to the later era within the days of Moshiach.
And his ruling that one who goes out with weapons on Shabbos is liable to a sin-offering is also understood: the verse "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares," which speaks of the state of the world in the Time to Come, the Rambam learns literally, and not merely as a parable — and this will be in the later era of the days of Moshiach. And since weapons will be abolished in that era (at least) of the Redemption78, this is proof that weapons are not ornaments.
15. According to the above, another matter is resolved:
In the above Gemara ("All the prophets prophesied only about the days of Moshiach, etc."), it is brought in continuation of this: "And Rabbi Chiya said, etc.: All the prophets prophesied only about baalei teshuvah, but regarding the completely righteous, 'No eye has seen it, O G‑d, except You.' And this differs with Rabbi Abahu, for Rabbi Abahu said: In the place where baalei teshuvah stand79, the completely righteous do not stand80."
And since in the Gemara both sayings of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan are brought one after the other, the implication is that they are connected with one another. That is: according to his view that "all the prophets prophesied only about the days of Moshiach, etc.," one must also say that "all the prophets prophesied only about baalei teshuvah, etc." — not like Rabbi Abahu (and not like Shmuel).
One finds, however, that the Rambam, although he says, "The Sages said: All the prophets prophesied only about the days of Moshiach, etc." (as above, section 8), rules81: "The Sages said: In the place where baalei teshuvah stand, the completely righteous cannot stand."
And according to the above, this is understood. For the position of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the completely righteous are greater than baalei teshuvah follows his view that even at the beginning of the days of Moshiach there will be a nullification of the world's natural order, and that it is about this that "all the prophets prophesied";
but according to the Rambam's view that at the beginning of the days of Moshiach the world continues according to its custom — this does not necessitate that the righteous are greater than baalei teshuvah82.
16. After all the above, however, it is still not explained: since the definition of the days of Moshiach (which follow the coming of Moshiach) is (according to the Rambam) connected with the world continuing according to its custom — why is it necessary that within the days of Moshiach itself there should be another era, in which there will be a nullification of the world's natural order? And (— mainly) what is the wondrous cause that will create and bring about a wondrous innovation — the conduct of the second era?
This will be understood by first noting what the Rambam writes in his Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim83: regarding his having interpreted the foretold things of the Time to Come ("The wolf shall dwell with the lamb" and the like) as a "parable and riddle" — "אין דברנו זה החלטי" ("our words in this are not definitive")84, etc., that they are a parable; and it is possible that they will be fulfilled literally85.
Yet seemingly: according to what was explained above (sections 11–12), one must necessarily learn that the foretold things that speak in connection with Moshiach and his coming are not a nullification of anything of the world's natural order — because the definition of Moshiach is to accomplish within the world as it "continues according to its custom" specifically (as above)?
17. The explanation of this may be said as follows:
It is known what the Gemara86 says regarding the contradiction between the verses: "It is written87, 'וארו עם ענני שמיא כבר אינש אתה' ('And behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man came'), and it is written88, 'עני ורוכב על חמור' ('Poor and riding upon a donkey'). If they are worthy — 'with the clouds of heaven'; if they are not worthy — 'poor and riding upon a donkey'" (and similarly the Gemara89 resolves the contradictions in other similar verses).
From this it is understood regarding other matters of the days of Moshiach, that when the Jewish people are in a state of "they are worthy," all matters will then be in an entirely different manner — a miraculous manner90.
[This is one of the ways of reconciling the dispute regarding the building of the future Beis HaMikdash: in several places91 it states that the Third Beis HaMikdash "is built and perfected, and it will be revealed and come from heaven"92, and in other places it states93 (and so the Rambam rules94) that Moshiach builds the Mikdash:
This depends on the two above-mentioned ways of the Redemption: if "they are worthy," "it will be revealed and come from heaven"; whereas if they are not worthy, the building will be by human hands95 (through Moshiach96).]
And the reason the Rambam rules in Sefer HaYad, a book of halachos, that there will be no nullification of anything of the world's natural order is because the matter of Moshiach, his coming, and the Redemption in general is a halachah — a clear and decided halachah. And so too is the manner of it — that it does not depend on the manner of human conduct (unlike the Redemption in the manner of "with the clouds of heaven" and the like — which depends on the Jewish people being in a state of "they are worthy," which is not clear and decided, because "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven"97, and "free choice is given to every person, etc."98),
and therefore the Rambam describes the Redemption in the manner in which it is a halachah, something that must necessarily be (independent of the state of the Jewish people).
18. More deeply: the Rambam's describing the Redemption in a manner in which there will be no nullification of anything of the world's natural order is (not because the Rambam describes the Redemption as coming in a manner of "they are not worthy," G‑d forbid, but) because the Rambam learns that what Chazal say — that when there is a state of "they are worthy," there will be many elevations with a miraculous conduct, etc. — is an additional matter beyond the essential definition of Moshiach.
That is: from the standpoint of the definition of Moshiach and his coming, the order is that "the world continues according to its custom," because what the coming of Moshiach accomplishes in halachah is that through him there will be the perfection of the fulfillment of the mitzvos and laws of the Torah (which is connected with a world that "continues according to its custom").
But when the Jewish people are in the elevated state of "they are worthy," there will be an additional matter: G‑d will display miracles, etc., in order to show the additional endearment and the superiority of the Jewish people.
[And similarly regarding the above reconciliation concerning the building of the future Beis HaMikdash: the explanation of this is (not that "it will be revealed and come from heaven" contradicts "Moshiach builds the Mikdash," but) that from the standpoint of the definition of halachah, building the Beis HaMikdash is an obligatory mitzvah upon the Jewish people, as it says, "ועשו לי מקדש" ("And they shall make Me a Sanctuary")99. And therefore the Rambam rules that Moshiach — through whom "all the laws100 will return in his days as they were before," and a king is appointed and (afterwards) builds the Beis HaMikdash101 — King Moshiach will carry out the mitzvah of building the Beis HaMikdash;
and the state of "they are worthy" brings about an addition: that into the "Mikdash below" the "Mikdash above" will come and "clothe" itself — "it will come and be revealed from heaven"102.]
19. Accordingly, the necessity of the second era in the days of Moshiach is understood. For after the coming of Moshiach (in whatever manner it may be), since the Jewish people will then have no "oppressor and disrupter"103 who "do not allow them to occupy themselves properly with Torah and mitzvos"104, and on the contrary, they will be "free for Torah and its wisdom"103, to the point that even "the occupation of the entire world" (all the nations) will be "only to know G‑d; and therefore Israel will be great sages, etc.... as the waters cover the sea"105 — which is the perfection of the state of "they are worthy" — this will necessarily bring with it the (second) era (within the days of Moshiach itself), when there will be a nullification of the world's natural order, the miraculous conduct (including the fundamental matter — in the words of the Rambam106 — of the resurrection of the dead).
And therefore: in Sefer HaYad, where the Rambam explains the definition of Moshiach and his coming according to halachah, he explains how the state of the world will be in a (time and) manner of "the world continues according to its custom" (in accordance with the essence and definition of Moshiach);
but in Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim he adds (an explanation of Sefer HaYad) that "our words in this are not definitive" — because when there is a state of "they are worthy" while still in exile, there will actually be — immediately at the beginning of the Redemption — the special conduct from Above, the conduct of nullifying the world's natural order, and "כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות" ("As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders")107.
(From the sichos of the month of Nissan, 5733)
Notes
*) A hadran on the Rambam (and a siyum of Maseches Kesubos).
1) Chapter 12, halachah 1.
2) See the explanation of "and if it should enter one's mind" in the Rambam, beginning of chapter 1 (Hadran on the Rambam (Kehot, Brooklyn, 11 Nissan 5745), section 19).
3) And so it is in the Laws of Teshuvah, end of chapter 9 ("continues according to its custom"), and in the Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin — cited below, note 77.
4) 11:6. — The reason the Rambam raised the difficulty from what is said in Isaiah, and not from what is said in the Torah (in our parsha, 26:6), "And I will remove wild beasts" (as in the Raavad's objection, cited below in the text, section 3), is that this verse can be interpreted as the Ramban does on the verse (and see the Rambam's Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim): that wild beasts will not come into your land, "for when there is plenty and abundant good, and the cities are full of people, beasts will not come into settled areas." Accordingly, it is not a nullification of the world's natural order, and there is no need to strain the verse into being said as a parable. And see below in the text, section 3.
5) A change made by the censor; it should read "nations" or "the nations of the world."
6) Jeremiah 5:6.
7) Isaiah, ibid., 7.
8) Ibid., halachah 2. And so it is in the places cited in note 3.
9) Berachos 34b, and the sources cited there.
10) And see the words of the Rambam himself on this (his Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim, section 6 (cited below, section 15)).
11) Cited in Rashi on the verse.
12) 26:4.
13) Joel 2:22.
14) It should be noted that the distinction between these two kinds of trees, fruit trees and non-fruit-bearing trees, exists also in halachah (and see also below, note 52): regarding a fruit tree it says (Devarim 20:19), "You shall not destroy its trees," "Only the tree that you know is not a fruit tree, that you may destroy and cut down" (ibid., 20). Whereas fruit trees [OCR unclear] (Bava Kamma 91b, end; Rambam, Laws of Kings 6:8–9)*.
*) One cannot ask (based on what is said above in the text): since it is forbidden to cut down fruit trees even in winter, when they do not produce fruit, because in summer they do — why is it permitted to cut down non-fruit-bearing trees nowadays, seeing that (although they are now non-fruit-bearing) they will bear fruit in the future? For the Torah itself made a distinction in this, saying, "The tree that you know is not a fruit tree, that you may destroy, etc." — meaning that the prohibition is to cut down a tree that is (now) in the category of "fruit tree" (and a tree in this category may not be cut down even in winter); but a tree that is not in this category, i.e., a non-fruit-bearing tree, even though in the future it will bear fruit, is not included in the prohibition (and especially according to what is said below in the text, section 4, that their bearing fruit in the future is an innovation in the trees).
*) (On section 2.) It is a great strain to say that the Rambam holds that the statement in Toras Kohanim and the opinion in the Gemara at the end of Kesubos do not accord with Shmuel, who says that there is no difference between this world and the days of Moshiach except subjugation (and the Rambam ruled like him — see below, section 8*). This is also evident from the fact that in the Commentary on the Mishnah (cited below, note 77) he explains the saying of Chazal and the view of the sage that Eretz Yisrael will bring forth loaves, and did not write that it does not accord with Shmuel (as in the view of the Sages in Shabbos 63a).
*) Especially since the author of the statement in Kesubos is Rav.
15) See similarly in Anaf Yosef on Ein Yaakov, Kesubos, ibid. And note also Iyun Yaakov there.
16) See Taanis 7a.
17) See Rambam, end of the Laws of Kings.
18) Based on the saying of Chazal in Sotah (46a, end; and see Bereishis Rabbah [OCR unclear], 6, and elsewhere; and see Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1114ff.), "What are 'fruits'? ... mitzvos" — that even those [OCR unclear] who are only in the category of "full of mitzvos like a pomegranate" (Berachos 57a, and the sources cited there) will, in the Time to Come, perform many mitzvos and good deeds.
19) But see Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah 8:2 (and the Raavad there); and the Commentary on the Mishnah cited in note 77.
19) Our parsha, 26:4.
20) Unlike the saying of Chazal in Shabbos (30b), "In the future, trees will bring forth fruit every day" (without the emphasis "as it did in the days of Adam the first man"), where it is not necessarily literal. And see below, note 77.
21) See Tosafos, Kesubos 112b, s.v. "Asidin": "Because he wishes to conclude with something good, he cited it here." But according to what is known — that even when something is brought in order to conclude on a good note and the like, there is a connection between them — it is reasonable to say that at least they are alike in that all of them are meant literally. And see earlier in the Gemara there, 111b, "for it is speaking of these matters" (the wording of Tosafos there). And see note 24.
22) Ibid., 112a.
23) Ibid., end of 112a ff.
24) And also (in this statement itself) — it brings a proof from the verse "For the tree has borne its fruit, the fig and the vine have given their strength," which speaks literally about the growth of fruit. Unlike earlier in Kesubos there (111b): "There is no non-fruit-bearing tree in Eretz Yisrael that does not bring forth a load of two donkeys," which is derived from the verse (Vayechi 49:11), "And to the choice vine his donkey's foal," which is not "the plain meaning of the verse." And see the continuation of the Gemara there.
25) And so too in the Laws of Teshuvah, chapter 8, ibid.
26) 26:6.
27) Isaiah 11:9.
28) Ibid. 2:4 (and there the wording is "לא ישא").
29) See also the Ramban cited above, note 4; Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim, ibid.
30) Especially since in the verse on which it is based (26:4) it does not say "in your land," "the land," or the like (as is said in the verses there, 5–6). And it is a strain to say that it comes in continuation of the beginning of the verse, "And the land shall give its produce." However, it can be said that all the blessings to the Jewish people — simply, the intent is to the Jewish people in times when things are as they should be, when the Jewish people are in their land. And see the exposition of Toras Kohanim on "And I will give your rains in their season."
31) And perhaps it can be said that the Radbaz's intent is that this will be in Eretz Yisrael not as a nullification of the world's natural order, but only as a miracle in Eretz Yisrael, "for a matter that is done miraculously, limited in time or place, is not a nullification of the world's natural order." — Like the manna, etc., while they were in the desert, which fell for them for forty consecutive years, each day's portion on its day, and nevertheless it was not a nullification of the world's natural order, since this was only at a specific time and place, and in other places and times nature remained in force. And similarly, that Eretz Yisrael is a land of "...a deer" (Jeremiah 3:19; and see Daniel 11:41 (and the Metzudas David there), and the sources noted in the margin of Rosh Hashanah 13a): when it is inhabited it expands, and when it is not inhabited it contracts (Gittin 57a, and elsewhere); and the ten miracles that were performed for our ancestors in the Beis HaMikdash (Avos 5:5 — the chapter of this Shabbos (5745)) — all this is not a nullification of the world's natural order, but a miracle innovated because of something that was innovated. And similarly — "And I will remove wild beasts from the land." And this requires further study regarding the stones of Eretz Yisrael being heavier than the stones outside the Land (Kesubos 112a, end, and Tosafos s.v. "Rav Chanina" there; Aruch, entry "תקל"; Ritva, Kesubos there). — But it is a strain to explain this way, that there will be a fixed and constant conduct in Eretz Yisrael in the days of Moshiach in a miraculous manner (and not — that the world's natural order will be nullified).
*) Accordingly, the question on the Rambam from what is said (Michah 7:15), "As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt I will show him wonders," is resolved.
32) The wording of the Rambam, Laws of Kings 11:3.
33) Ibid.
34) Part 2, chapter 38.
35) The wording of Avodas HaKodesh, ibid.
36) See there at length.
37) Ramban on our parsha, 26:6. And see also [OCR unclear], Derashas Toras Hashem Temimah (Jerusalem 5723), pp. 154–155. [Whereas "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb" (which the Rambam interprets as a parable) — it may be said that the Rambam holds (unlike the Ramban) that it is a nullification of the world's natural order, since even before the sin, when there were no wild beasts in the world, there were animals that preyed for their food (but not to cause harm), and there was no state of "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb." This is not the place to elaborate. And this requires further study.]
38) Bereishis 3:19.
39) See Ramban on the Torah, Bereishis 1:11: "And afterwards it is said that because of the curse 'cursed is the ground' (ibid. 3:17) they became non-fruit-bearing" (and so too in the Ohr HaChaim on the verse). And see Derashas Toras Hashem Temimah, cited above; Korban Aharon on Toras Kohanim, ibid.
40) See Ramban, ibid., and in Derashas Toras Hashem Temimah, cited above.
41) And note (even more so) the Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi'is 4:8: "'For the tree has borne its fruit' — this tells us that it did not bear its fruit in this world; 'the fig and the vine have given their strength' — this tells us that they did not give their strength in this world."
42) See Chiddushei Aggados, Kesubos, ibid.
43) 5:9.
44) In the Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 1:7 (according to the explanation of the Pnei Moshe), according to both opinions there were non-fruit-bearing trees at the beginning of creation that did not bear fruit; but according to one opinion, in bringing forth non-fruit-bearing trees the earth "transgressed the decrees of the Holy One, blessed be He," and according to the other opinion it "rejoiced in His command and added non-fruit-bearing trees" — "which are needed for man's use, for wood and for building." And see Mareh HaPanim on the Jerusalem Talmud, ibid.; the commentaries on Bereishis Rabbah, ibid. And see the sources cited above, note 39.
45) Bereishis 1:11.
46) So it is, simply, according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon — in Bereishis Rabbah, ibid. And according to the Jerusalem Talmud, so it is according to all opinions (as in note 44).
47) That is, what it says before, "Not as it does now, but as it did in the days of Adam the first man," is a general introduction, and afterwards it details the particulars: "From where do we know that the tree is destined to be planted... on the same day... From where do we know that the tree is destined to be edible, etc., and from where do we know that even non-fruit-bearing trees, etc." But see Ramban, Bereishis 1:29 (at the end), that this (that the tree was edible) was not so before the sin. And so it is according to Rashi on Bereishis (ibid., 11), that in this the earth erred: "and not a fruit tree."
48) Although according to the Ramban (Bereishis 1:11) and others it is as above, [OCR unclear], that by nature, at first, even non-fruit-bearing trees produced fruit.
49) Accordingly, the two expressions in the Rambam there are understood. And as for his writing them specifically in this order — it may be said that they are in the order of "this, and needless to say that." And see his wording in chapter 11, beginning of halachah 3, cited below in the text, section 10.
50) For even the general natural order, established in a manner that "they shall not cease," came into being only after the Flood (Noach 8:22).
51) And similarly, when no rain falls.
52) And perhaps this is why it is permitted to graft non-fruit-bearing trees onto one another even though they are not of the same species (Rema, Yoreh De'ah [OCR unclear]; and see there, se'if 3, and the Shach there, subsection 3; and so it is according to the Rambam — see Mareh HaPanim on the Jerusalem Talmud cited in note 44) — for nowadays they have no power or nature at all to produce fruit, and in the future this will be an innovation and a nullification of their present nature.
53) Laws of Kings 12:2; Laws of Teshuvah, end of chapter 9.
54) Berachos 34b.
55) Laws of Teshuvah 8:7.
56) Isaiah 64:3.
57) Laws of Teshuvah, ibid. And similarly in the Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 10 (in his introduction, s.v. "Ve'atah achel"), he cites the statement of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and also the statement "There is no difference between this world, etc."
58) Shabbos 63a.
59) Laws of Shabbos 9:11 (from the Rambam study portion of this week (5745) — in the three-chapters-a-day track).
60) The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ibid., at the end of his introduction.
61) To the point that one who denies this has no share in the World to Come (Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ibid.; Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah 3:6; and in the Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid., s.v. "Ve'atah achel": "And there is no religion and no attachment to the Jewish faith for one who does not believe this").
62) See the Raavad, Laws of Teshuvah 8:2, and the Kesef Mishneh there; Ramban in Shaar HaGemul. And so is the conclusion in the teachings of Chassidus — see Likkutei Torah, Tzav 15c; Shir HaShirim 65, end of column d; Derech Mitzvosecha 14b ("and so is the truth according to Kabbalah"). And see "Teshuvos U'Biurim"* (Kehot, Brooklyn, 5734), section 1, p. 57, note 23, and the sources cited there.
*) Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe, vol. 2, p. 76. — The Publisher.
63) Laws of Teshuvah, ibid.; Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ibid.; Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim (section 6). And see Avodas HaKodesh, part 2, chapter 41, at length.
63*) Accordingly, it is all the more understood why the Rambam details in chapter 11 there (cited below in the text, section 14): "Let it not enter one's mind that King Moshiach must perform signs and wonders and bring about new things in the world, or revive the dead" — for here he included all the things that will indeed be good and beneficial in the days of Moshiach (such as that there will be the resurrection of the dead); but all this is an additional matter that will take place at a later time within the days of Moshiach itself, and this is not the matter of King Moshiach and the days of Moshiach in the first era, as in the text. And note from the Pirkei HaHatzlachah of the Rambam: "And this is a complete proof that the resurrection of the dead depends on Moshiach."
64) And what the Rambam writes in Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim, ibid.: "Rather, He will revive the dead by His will and desire, when He wishes and whom He wishes, either in the days of Moshiach or before it, or, etc." — does not differ with the sayings of Chazal in several places that the resurrection of the dead will be at a specific time; rather, his intent is that G‑d is able to revive the dead (when He wishes) at any time He wishes, as is brought in [OCR unclear] and Shas, etc.
65) The Shelah too (23b) explained that according to Shmuel there will be two eras. But he wrote: "For it is possible that Shmuel's intent is until the end of this sixth millennium, but afterwards Shmuel agrees to all that we have said" — i.e., in the seventh millennium. And he continues: "And it is possible that even in the sixth millennium Shmuel agrees to all that we have said, etc.; however, those born in holiness — death will no longer rule over them... and so too the dead who will be revived at the coming of Moshiach, etc., will then remain alive and enduring" (and this is not in accordance with the Rambam's view). But according to what is explained in the text, one must necessarily say that also according to the Rambam the second era will be in the sixth millennium — the days of Moshiach that are in this period.
*) See also Zohar I, 139a; and see there, 134a.
*) Although it says "and this differs with Shmuel," it may be said that "differs" means "there is a distinction, for each one speaks of a different matter" (Shelah, ibid.).
66) Chapter 11, halachah 3.
67) Therefore the Rambam rejects (based on this halachah) the saying of Chazal that "they tested him, and he could not judge by smell, so they killed him" (Sanhedrin 93b); rather, "he was killed on account of his sins," as below. And see below, note 69*.
68) The source for this — and likewise the source for the permissibility of a great sage (the distinguished master of the entire generation and the leader of the entire generation — Sifri, end of Berachah) being an arms-bearer — is, even more so, the conduct of King David (I Samuel 16:21). And it should be noted that it was a war of rescue for all of Israel and the Holy Land, etc., and it is close to say that there was danger to life in the war itself, to abolish (the decrees and) the killings that would befall many Jews, G‑d forbid.
*) Therefore he was his arms-bearer, and not because "he would say of him that he was King Moshiach." Accordingly, one must say that the continuation of the Rambam's words, "and he would say, etc.," is an additional matter.
69) Not merely in the presumptive status of Moshiach. And see above, end of section 4.
69*) And see also Rambam, Laws of Fasts 5:3: "And all Israel and the greatest of the Sages imagined that he was King Moshiach, and he fell into the hands of the Romans, and they were all killed." In the Raavad's objection in the Laws of Kings: "But Ben Koziba would say, 'I am King Moshiach,' and the Sages sent to test him whether he could judge by smell or not, and since he did not do so, they killed him" (Sanhedrin 93b). And the commentators there (Migdal Oz, Kesef Mishneh, Radbaz (in his second answer), Lechem Mishneh) answered that these are differing aggados: for in Eichah Rabbah (on the verse "The L‑rd has swallowed and has not pitied" — 2:2; and so it is in the Jerusalem Talmud, Taanis 4:5) it is stated — unlike the Gemara — that the nations of the world killed him and not the Sages, and the Rambam ruled like this view. But wherever it is possible we do not multiply disputes, and especially a dispute about a factual reality — who killed Ben Koziba? It may be said that there is no factual dispute: according to all opinions (also according to the Gemara and the Raavad) he was in actuality killed by the nations of the world. And seemingly (also according to the Rambam**) there were among the Sages of the generation those who held that he was not Moshiach, such as Rabbi Yochanan ben Torsa, who said to Rabbi Akiva: "Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and the son of David will still not have come" (Jerusalem Talmud and Eichah Rabbah, ibid.). And they sent to test whether he could judge by smell, and when they saw that he could not judge by smell — and according to their view (unlike the view of Rabbi Akiva, and so ruled the Rambam) this is a sign that he is not King Moshiach — and since he waged wars with the nations because he thought he was King Moshiach even though he could not judge by smell (for he held like Rabbi Akiva), and many Jews fell, etc., he had the status of a pursuer (see Sanhedrin 73a, and the sources cited there), who must be killed. But in actuality the nations of the world killed him. And in the style of the Radbaz's wording there: "And one can explain what we say in Perek Chelek, 'Since they saw that he could not judge by smell, they killed him' — meaning, they withdrew their support from him, and the gentiles came and killed him"***. And the dispute of the Rambam and the Raavad on this is****: according to the Rambam's approach (based on the view of Rabbi Akiva) that Moshiach need not perform signs and wonders, it is obvious that he was not killed because he could not judge by smell, since this wonder too he need not display (at the beginning of his coming); and therefore he wrote, "he was killed on account of his sins." And the Raavad, who rules (based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin and the view of Rabbi ben Torsa) that Moshiach must perform signs and wonders immediately at the beginning of his revelation, holds that he was killed because he could not judge by smell; and although in actuality the nations of the world killed him, they killed a man already condemned to death (by the ruling of a court) (as the Radbaz above). And perhaps even more so — when a court cannot carry out a punishment it has decreed, they carry it out through another (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 2, and the commentaries there) — unlike the Radbaz, who finds a difficulty from a get: "If the gentiles on their own coerced him until he wrote it, since the law requires that he write it, it is an invalid get," even though it is not void (Rambam, Laws of Divorce, end of chapter 2).
**) As for the Rambam's writing (in the Laws of Kings), "he and all the Sages of his generation imagined that he was King Moshiach" — one must say that the Rambam's intent is only that at first all the Sages of his generation "imagined" that he was Moshiach, but afterwards several of them concluded that he was not Moshiach (as stated explicitly in Chazal, as in the note above), but the Rambam did not rule like them. One can also say that the Rambam holds that most of the Sages of Israel, or at least "the greatest of the Sages" (as he says in the Laws of Fasts, ibid.), held like Rabbi Akiva, and therefore he wrote "all." And note that in one of the Rambam's manuscripts the wording is "he and the Sages of his generation imagined," without the word "all" (similar to his wording in the Laws of Fasts, ibid.).
***) And in the responsum [OCR unclear] of Rav Saadiah ibn Danan (printed in the Responsa of the Rambam, Pe'er HaDor, §225, and elsewhere): "And our Sages said in Sanhedrin, chapter 8, that the Sages of Israel killed him because he said that he was Moshiach and he was not of the seed of David." But see the Ramban [OCR unclear] 4:6.
****) See the Kesef Mishneh: "For what they said in Perek Chelek follows Rabbi Chiya, not Shmuel, etc., and our master holds like Shmuel, etc."
*) In the Rome printing: "the gentiles." And see above, note 5.
70) And as for the fact that he nevertheless begins chapter 12 with "Let it not enter one's heart that in the days of Moshiach, etc." — he is precise and writes (not "let it not enter one's mind," as in the Laws of Idolatry, chapter 1, but) "one's heart"*: he does not come to negate the possible thought, in one's mind, that in the days of Moshiach anything of the world's natural order will be nullified. Rather, even though in one's mind — to the extent that one's intellect and understanding grasp the superiority and matter of Moshiach (and consequently of the days of Moshiach) — it does not dominate and rule to the point of nullifying the world's natural order, nevertheless it is possible that, from the standpoint of love of G‑d and the heart's yearning for the elevations of "he shall be wise... he shall be exalted and lifted up and be very high" (Isaiah 52:13; and see Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah 9:2, and below here; Shaar HaEmunah by the Mitteler Rebbe, chapter 56ff.; Biurei HaZohar 22c), it may enter one's heart that something of the world's natural order will be nullified. And this is what he comes to negate. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) It should be noted that in the Yemenite manuscripts here too the wording is "one's mind."
71) Halachah 1.
72) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 18, p. 277ff., and the sources cited there.
73) End of chapter 12, halachos 4–5.
74) Note the two interpretations regarding: "And the princes brought" (Yoma 75a, end; Targum Yonasan, Vayakhel 35:27 (Rabbeinu Bachaye there); Rashi there, from Sifri, Naso 7:3; and elsewhere); wheat that descended in clouds (Menachos 69b; Rashi and Tosafos there). And elsewhere.
75) Isaiah 11:1ff.
76) And note the precise wording of the Rambam: "And so too, all similar matters concerning Moshiach (and not 'in the days of Moshiach') are parables."
77) And as for what the Rambam wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin, in the introduction to Perek Chelek), that the saying of Chazal in Shabbos (30b, end), "In the future Eretz Yisrael will bring forth loaves and fine woolen garments," means "because people say, when a person finds something ready and prepared, 'So-and-so found baked bread and cooked food'... and therefore the sage who said this statement became angry with his student when he did not understand his words and thought they were literal, and he answered him according to his comprehension, and that answer was not the true answer; and the proof that he did not answer him according to its truth is that he brought the proof, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly'" — i.e., he interprets it non-literally, even though, simply, the fact that Rabban Gamliel showed him [an example] implies that his intent was literal — this is because the verse "May there be an abundance of grain in the land" (Psalms 72:16), from which they derived "In the future, etc.," comes in continuation of the verse (ibid., 1), "Of Shlomo: O G‑d, give Your judgments to the king and Your righteousness to the king's son," which refers to King Moshiach. And similarly regarding the other sayings in Shabbos there, before this — even though in all of them he showed him [an example] (which implies that all is literal) — for in all of these verses it speaks in continuation of the coming of King Moshiach and the Redemption through him, and not merely a description of a state that will exist in the world on its own.
78) Unlike the first era of the days of Moshiach: although then too "there will be neither famine nor war" (Rambam, Laws of Kings, end of chapter 12), there is no proof that weapons will be abolished; rather, since "the good will be bestowed in abundance and all delicacies will be as common as dust" (as the Rambam's wording continues there), "there will be no famine or war" in actuality, but not that human nature will change and weapons be abolished. And note "Let the young men arise and play before us" (II Samuel 2:14) — with weapons (a sword), but in a manner of play (to see who is more skilled in using the sword, even to the point of bloodshed), and not war (Metzudas David there, and elsewhere). And see Keilim, beginning of chapter 24.
79) And it may be said that according to Rabbi Abahu, "No eye has seen it, O G‑d, except You" is said about baalei teshuvah.
80) The Rambam's version (Laws of Teshuvah, cited below in the text): "the completely righteous cannot stand." And so it is in Dikdukei Soferim, Berachos there, from a "marginal gloss." And in several places in the teachings of Chassidus: "the completely righteous cannot stand (there)."
81) Laws of Teshuvah 7:4.
82) For the reason the Rambam rules like Rabbi Abahu (and so it is cited simply in several places in the teachings of Chassidus), see Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 361ff.
83) Section 6.
84) So it is in the [OCR unclear] translation. And in the translation of Rabbi Shmuel ibn Tibbon: "Our words in this are not a decree."
85) See there in detail.
86) Sanhedrin 98a.
87) Daniel 7:13.
88) Zechariah 9:9.
89) Sanhedrin, ibid.
90) See Kreisi u'Pleisi (Yoreh De'ah [OCR unclear], end of Beis HaSafek); Otzar Nachum on Ein Yaakov, Sanhedrin, ibid. — that on this also depends whether Eliyahu comes the day before the coming of Moshiach. And see Rambam, Laws of Kings 12:2.
91) Rashi, Sukkah 41a, end; Rosh Hashanah 30a, end. And so it is in Tosafos, Sukkah, ibid.; Shevuos 15b, beginning, s.v. "Ein," which concludes, "And so it is explained in Midrash Tanchuma" (and it may be said that the reference is to Tanchuma, Pekudei 11). And Zohar I, 28a; II, 59a, end; 108a, end; III, 221a. And Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms, remez 841, at the end; 848, at the end. And see Tanchuma (Buber), Bereishis 17 (at the end).
92) The wording of Rashi, Sukkah, ibid.
93) Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:1; Vayikra Rabbah 9:6; Bamidbar Rabbah 13:2. And see also Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 9:1 (Tosefta Pesachim 8:2) — according to the explanation of [OCR unclear], mitzvah 380.
94) Laws of Kings, beginning of chapter 1, and at its end.
95) Accordingly, the difficulty on the above opinion that the Mikdash will be revealed and come from heaven is also resolved. Seemingly: it is related in the Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah, end of chapter 64) that "in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, the wicked kingdom decreed that the Beis HaMikdash should be built; they set up, etc., and they provided those coming up from the exile with silver and gold and all their needs, etc.," in order to build the Beis HaMikdash (and they did not expect that it would be revealed and come from heaven) — so the above opinion is puzzling, since there was a precedent in practice that it would be built by human hands (and see also Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 95). — But in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah the state was one of "they are not worthy" (as is evident from the very fact that they needed the wicked kingdom to issue a decree), and therefore the Beis HaMikdash was to be built by human beings specifically.
96) As in the Rambam's wording there. And this is the view of Rabbi Elazar in Vayikra Rabbah and Bamidbar Rabbah, ibid. — whereas in the other places mentioned above (note 93) it is not said that it will be through Moshiach specifically. And with this the fact that in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah they wanted to build the Beis HaMikdash without Moshiach is resolved — for the idea that Moshiach (specifically) will build the Beis HaMikdash is the novel teaching of a seasoned student — [OCR unclear] — who lived after the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah.
97) Berachos 33b.
98) Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah, beginning of chapter 5.
99) See Rambam, Laws of the Chosen House, at the beginning: "'And they shall make Me a Sanctuary,' etc.; the building that is destined to be built, etc."
100) Rambam, Laws of Kings, beginning of chapter 11.
101) Rambam, Laws of Kings, at the beginning. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 304, and note 49 there.
102) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 18, p. 418ff., and the sources cited there.
103) Rambam, Laws of Kings 12:4.
104) Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah 9:2.
105) Rambam, end of the Laws of Kings. And see below, p. 246ff.
106) Commentary on the Mishnah, in his introduction to Perek Chelek: "It is one of the foundations of Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him." And in the Kafich translation: "one of the foundations of the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu." And see above, note 61, the continuation of his wording.
107) Michah 7:15. And see Zohar I, Hashmatos, §25; Ohr HaTorah of the Tzemach Tzedek (Nach, vol. 1), p. 487, subsection 18.
Key Lesson
According to the Rambam, Moshiach's coming does not in itself overturn nature: its essence is the complete fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos in a world that continues according to its custom. Yet when the Jewish people are in a state of "they are worthy," G‑d adds a miraculous conduct beyond nature, up to the resurrection of the dead, to show the special endearment of the Jewish people.