YOU MIGHT FIND THIS INTERESTING

Friend and fellow-blogger Margavriel wondered if I would place the text below on my blog as a guestpost. I've seen the text before, and in that it speculates rather interestingly about both the papacy and the messaiah, and goes nowhere slowly and by a scenic route, I have no objection to doing so.


MAR GAVRIEL HAVING FUN WITH WIKI AND THE RAMBAM

I've been surfing the Wikipedia, reading about the last Eastern Roman Emperor (Andreas Palaeologus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Palaiologos> ) and the last Western Roman Emperor (Francis II <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_II%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor> , Holy Roman Emperor). What did it even mean to be "Roman Emperor" in 1490 or 1806?

After the fall of the Carolingian Dynasty of the Holy Roman Empire (which legally counted as the successor to the Western Roman Empire, whatever that means, and which was officially titled the "Roman Empire"), the subsequent Holy Roman Emperors did not really control any land, other than the ancestral lands which they happened to have inherited from their family's kingdom. However, the Emperor theoretically had "dominion" over the entire area which had been the Western Roman Empire. So, theoretically, there could be a Holy Roman Emperor who ruled merely over his own house, but had "dominion" over the entire Western Roman Empire. (In fact, after the fall of the Eastern Roman Emperors, he theoretically had "dominion" over the area of the entire ancient Roman Empire.)

What's hilarious is that the final heir to the Eastern Roman Empire, Andreas Palaeologus, was some dude who lost all his money, and sold his title of Roman Emperor to Ferdinand and Isabella. (This kinda makes sense, from a Jewish point of view-- think of גלות אדום.) My roommate, Sam, says that if he were Roman Emperor, he, too, would sell the title, probably on E-Bay. After all, the title of "Roman Emperor" is currently useless, but a pension of five million dollars would be great for him. He thinks that Andreas Palaeologus was a bit of an idiot, because many people in Europe were willing to give him large pensions in exchange for his title, but somehow he ended up dying a pauper, anyway. (Despite the fact that he sold his title, there still seem to be people who claim <http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1996.05/msg00030.html> that they are descended from the Palaeologus family, and therefore the rightful Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire.)

The final heir to the Western Roman Empire was Francis II. By virtue of his authority as Roman Emperor, he appointed himself in 1804 as Emperor of Austria (at the time a geographical term that had little resonance). In 1806, he abdicated his role as Roman Emperor, and officially dissolved the Roman Empire, fearing that Napoleon would conquer him, and take the title of Roman Emperor. However, as the Wikipedia notes, "[b]oth actions were of dubious constitutional legality". Therefore, the Roman Empire, in its incarnation as Holy Roman Empire, may still legally exist, and there may legally be some Roman Emperor who is the rightful holder of the title.

Now, what about the papacy? There are people <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism#Conclavism> who claim that the Bishops of Rome since Vatican II (or even since some earlier point in time) have been Anti-Popes. Who, then, is the true pope? In 1990, David Bawden <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden> , of Kansas, called for a conclave to elect a pope. They sent their request around the world but only received six respondents: Bawden himself, his two parents, his friend Teresa Stanfill-Benns, and two other electors (a certain Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hunt), who had responded to their request. On July 16, 1990, the six gathered in Belvue, Kansas, and elected Bawden, who took the name Pope Michael I. Bawden's election did not involve any previously ordained clergy from the Catholic Church. Many people reject Bawden's claim to be Pope, because his electors consisted mainly of his family and his friend Mrs. Benns, and he had never been ordained as a priest. Nevertheless, Pope Michael I wears the full papal garments, and he has a website <http://www.vaticaninexile.com/> , and now a blog <http://popespeaks.vaticaninexile.com/> .

So, the Moshiach. According to Rambam, the Moshiach will not perform miracles or raise the dead. How does this not contradict Rambam's principle that one must believe in the Ressurrection of the Dead, which he explains in an essay in the introduction to his פירוש המשניות על פרק חלק? Well, Rambam explains in his מאמר תחיית המתים, chapter 6:

וכבר ספקו גם כן אנשים בדברינו בסוף החיבור במקום שאמרנו דבר, זה לשוני: אל יעלה על דעתך שמלך המשיח צריך לעשות אותות ומופתים ומחדש דברים בעולם או יְחַיֶּה מתים וכיוצא בדברים וכו'. והבאנו ראיה על זה במה שבארנוהו. וחשבו קצת חלושי העיון שזאת הכחשה לתחיית המתים, והוא סותר מה שבארנוהו בפירוש המשנה שתחיית המתים פינה מפינות התורה. וזה כולו אין ספק בו ולא סתירה, והוא שאנחנו אמרנו שהמשיח לא יבוקש ממנו שיעשה מופת שיבקע הים או יחיה מת על צד המופת, אחר שיעדו בו הנביאים אשר התאמתה נבואתם, ולא יתחייב מזה המאמר שהשם לא יחיה מתים ברצונו, כשירצה ולמי שירצה, אם בימי המשיח או לפניו או אחרי מותו.

['A number of people have raised doubts about what I said at the end of the Mishneh Torah, namely: Do not think that the Melech HaMashiah needs to perform signs and miracles, and innovate things in the world, or ressurrect the death, or similar things, etc. We brought arguments for this there, where we explained it. Now, a few illogical people have thought that this is a denial of the Ressurrection of the Dead, and that it contradicts what I wrote in Perush Hammishnayoth, that the Ressurrection of the Dead is one of the foundations of the Torah. In fact, there is no contradiction. We said that the Mashiah does not need to perform a miracle, to miraculously split the sea or ressurrect the dead, since [we will recognize him as the Mashiah] based on the fact that [when he comes], the prophecies which were spoken by the prophets will have come true. Now, this does not mean that God Himself will not ressurect the dead when he wants to, and to whomever He wants; this could be before the time of the Mashiah, or during his lifetime, or after his death.']

In other words, the Ressurrection of the Dead has nothing to do with the Moshiach. It could happen well before the Moshiach arrives, or during his lifetime, or after his death. When God ressurrects the dead, he will not ressurect them all, but only the ones whom He wants to ressurrect. (In fact, מיעוט רבים שנים, so the plural word מתים in the phrase תחיית המתים could mean that God will ressurrect only two dead people. And, since the Ressurrection of the Dead can take place long before the coming of the Moshiach, I believe that it already has happened: once to the son of the Zarephathite woman, who was raised by Elijah, and once to the son of the Shunammite women, who was ressurrected by Elisha. Thus, no ressurrection needs to take place in the future.) Furthermore, the Moshiach is going to die, and presumably be succeeded either by his descendants or by other members of the Davidic line.

Now, at some point in the future, the Moshiach Dynasty's actual power over the Land of Israel may shrink, due to incursions from foreign nations. Ultimately, the last Moshiach may control only one street in Rechavya, and only have theoretical "dominion" over the rest of the Land of Israel. And perhaps, if he goes broke, he might lose even the one street in Rechavya, and sell his משיחיוּת on E-Bay, well after the destruction (chas vesholôm) of the Third Temple.

Now, could I sell the משיחיוּת on E-Bay? No. I don't actually have any legal claim to being King of Israel, and therefore, the people in charge of E-Bay would have to take down my offer. And what about the papacy? Well, I am not currently the pope, but if I held an election, I could become pope. Sam said that if we learned the rules of how to hold an election, and we held an election right here in this apartment, he would vote for me, and I would vote for myself. He also suggested that we get three other of my friends to participate, and vote for me. That is five people already. He said that we could probably get a few other people to vote, as well, probably even ten people. If so, I would have far more legal title to the papacy than "some asshole in Kansas, who only got six people to vote for him." I would make myself papal vestments. Then, I could sell my papacy, along with the vestments, on E-Bay.

Ah, worthless fantasies. They waste so much of my time.


MG

=========================================

Indeed. And very well then.

Margavriel is one of three people I always think of as a triumvirate. The other two are Lipman and Steg (dos iz nit der šteg). What these three have in common is diqdouqism and speculative curiosity. But what could I have in common with them?


Margavriel has a food and text thing going on. Other than that, hard to say - I certainly do not visit Mikvaos, and I do not do the daf. Maybe a peculiar sense of humour.

Steg once translated a passage from Bereishis into a language scarcely spoken on these shores (example: "Uzu-tezat ^ilu^amal-a khada lesna, i guvdhabm sudzudm"). I like scattered tongues - remind me to harangue you sometime about Deng and Tamarao, a demotic version of Hokkien, plus Nabaloi Igorot.
In addition to that commonality, Steg has probably read some of my mother's oevre, and is in any case familiar with some of the SciFi writers with whom she associated.

Lipman deciphers Judeo-Dutch, has a wit with Germanic tongues, and smokes a pipe. His tastes in pipe-tobacco correspond fairly well to my own, and I have good reason to believe that he owns a Peterson System Standard. I assume that in addition to odd office equipment, he also appreciates the smell of the fine alloys that once were used in type-writers and drafting tools.