Yaakov's version
Megilat Esther is different then all other books of Neviim and Ketuvim, Neviim and Ketuvim in general will no longer be significant in the days of Mashiach, Megilat Esther on the other hand is similar to the Torah itself in that it will be relevant even in the days of Mashiach.
Questions:
1. Why won't we need Neviim and Ketuvim anymore?
2. How will Torah still be relevent?
3. How is Megila different then the rest of Nach?
a. What is Megila about?
b. What is the Megila's relationship to the rest of Torah?
c. Why will it be relevant in the future?
an added question we did not ask,
Why mention "Hilchot shel Torah SheBaal Peh" as opposed to limiting the discussion to Torah SheBichtav?
Yael's version
In the times of the Mashiach, our Torah will consist only of the 5 books of Torah, the Oral Law and Megillat Esther. All tzarot harishonot will be forgotten and erased.
key terms - tzarot, tzarot harishonot, zichron
1)Do the events leading up to the saving of the Jews on Purim belong to the category "tzarot harishonot"?
My comment on Yaakov and Yael
Both Yaakov and Yael do a very good job with the first statement of the Rambam. But they treat the Rambam's first statement about the exceptional case of Megillat Esther in isolation- exclusively in the framework of Tanach. Yaakov notes that the issue is relevance, but fails to note the cause of relevance. In reality, Rambam's second statement is explanatory of the first. The Megilla exists eternally precisely because it is like Torah itself that deals with eternal issues, unlike Neviim and Ketuvim that deal with the memory of tzarot rishonot. As such my summary combines this explanation into the first statement.
My summary
Books for memorializing tzarot rishonot will become voided in the days of Moshiach- except for Megillat Esther that like bichtav and baal peh are never voided.
I agree with the questions Yaakov and Yael raise. I also like the terms Yael emphasizes.The questions I add arise from the interpretation I gave of the two statements.
1) What good of remembering tzarot rishonot exists in olam hazeh that is removed by in yemos ha-mashiach?
2) What good other than remembering tzarot rishonot does Megilla share with Torah bichtav and baal peh ?
3) How is the good of bichtav baal peh and megilla instrumental to what we call yemos ha-mashiach?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
From a grammatical side doesn't the Rambam link Tzarot Rishonot with "Yemai Hapurim" and not with the Megillah. The "Vav" seems to split the Halacha into two clauses.
While both will be linked it would seem that it is not explanatory but rather a second distinction (the first between Nach and Megilla the second between Zichon hatzaros and Yemai Hapurim)which emerges from a common cause.
Very nicely said Yaakov. Let me rethink my summary.
Here is an addition to my summary This is a summary and questions for the second half
Similarly The days of purim are different then the "Zichron Tzaros" in that while the Zichron Tzarot will not be relevant in the Days of Mashiach, the days of Purim will still be relevant.
Questions
1. What are the "Zichron Tzaros"
2. Why will they no longer be relevant?
3. Why would you assume that since the "Zichron Tzaros" won't be relevant the days af purim would also not be relevant? Or in othere words what is the relationship between the "Zichron Tzaros" and the days of Purim?
4. Why will the Days of Purim in fact be relevant?
5. What is the similarity between the two clauses? (The first clause being about nach and megilla while the second being about "Zichron Tzaros" and Purim)
6. Why are both clauses necessary?
One more question
what does the rambam mean precisely by nach not "existing", does he mean a halachic redefinition of Torah Shebichtav so that they will no longer "exist" halachicly, or a refocusing of Limud so they practically won't exist, or does he mean something else?
Post a Comment