Unpacking the Iggerot: R. Moshe’s Messiah Mentality

Read more about “Unpacking the Iggerot” and see the archive of all past columns.

Messiah Mentality / Iggerot Moshe, O.H., vol. 5, #8

Summarizing the Iggerot

Belief in the coming of the Messiah is regarded as a normative tenet of Jewish theology. The nature of it is discussed in detail in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) and Rambam codifies it as one of his Thirteen Principles of Faith. In 1979, R. Yechiel Michel Feinstein inquired of his uncle, R. Moshe Feinstein, to clarify the precise nature of this foundational imperative.

Given that the responsum is dated to the 11th of Nissan, a few days prior to Pesach, R. Feinstein opens with words of blessing, emphasizing how we should merit to bring all of the holiday offerings. He quotes the verse in Malachi (3:1): “Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall clear the way before me: and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in, behold, he shall come, says the Lord of hosts.”

R. Feinstein proceeds to argue that it is not sufficient to only believe in the possibility that the Messiah might arrive soon, but that one is required to conduct himself with near certainty that the redeemer will in fact arrive imminently:

For all of the predicted times [for Messiah’s arrival], that even the Great Ones of this World (Gedolei Olam) have indicated, have already come to pass. And if so, he may arrive suddenly on any day. For we have no reason to know that this day is better than the ones that preceded it. Therefore, from the standpoint of pure faith, he can arrive at any moment. And the implication here is that there is an obligation to actually anticipate [the Messiah] more than [believing it is “merely”] a possibility.

In addition to the aforementioned scriptural basis, R. Feinstein cites a Talmudic passage to support his assertion:

From [the time] that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that [partaking from the new crop on] the day of waving [the omer, the sixteenth of Nissan], is completely prohibited [and one may partake of the new crop only the next day]. What is the reason [for this]? [It is that] soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and [people] will say: Last year [when there was no Temple], didn’t we eat [of the new crop] as soon as the eastern [horizon] was illuminated, [as the new crop was permitted immediately upon the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nissan]? Now, too, let us eat [the new grain at that time] (Menahot 68b).

R. Feinstein highlights the phrase “soon the Temple will be rebuilt.” Had the Sages only viewed the rebuilding of the Temple as a distant possibility, there would be no sense in imposing a ban on new grains (hadash) on the 16th of Nissan. Rather, they must have understood that the imperative to pine for the Messianic era is not just a homiletical refrain, but bears concrete halakhic consequences. As such, R. Feinstein contends that it is not sufficient to merely believe that the Messiah might be imminent, but that we are mandated to conduct our life with near certainty that it will arrive within the immediate future, on each and every given day.

Connecting the Iggerot

R. Feinstein’s philosophy of anticipating the Messiah can be observed in several of his halakhic rulings. Despite earlier sources (e.g., Bava Metzia 55b) which suggest that one should not introduce additional prayers for God to bring rebuild the Temple and initiate the Messianic era, he again points out that many of the previous Messianic calculations have long passed— all the more reason that any given moment is a viable reality for our redemption. Therefore, increasing prayers to hasten its arrival has evolved into a desideratum (O.H., vol. 5, #24.8).

In the case where someone was accidentally buried in another family’s plot, R. Feinstein reportedly advised them not to exhume the body with haste, as perhaps the Messiah will arrive imminently, thereby rendering such measures unnecessary (Mesoret Moshe, vol. 1, p. 370). In a separate burial-related ruling, R. Feinstein vehemently opposed the erection of a double headstone for a married couple (in which the side of the surviving spouse is left blank until he or she joins their departed love one), arguing that it was

akin to denial, Heaven forefend, of the coming of the Messiah, which we hope every day will come and bring us to the Land of Israel. And even according to those who subscribe to the belief that all human beings die at the end of the Messianic period, after a very long life until the Revival of the Dead, nevertheless, [even according to those who espouse this belief] they will not die here, but rather in the Land of Israel; in the Land of Israel will be their burial.

According to R. Feinstein, for the surviving spouse to go so far as to pre-erect a memorial stone outside of the Land of Israel was essentially “throwing in the towel” and dismissing any real possibility that Redemption would arrive within their lifetime. While such an act does not demonstrate an outright denial of belief in the Messiah, to relegate it to a near theoretical was anathema to him.

Challenges to the Iggerot

One could theoretically subscribe to R. Feinstein’s philosophy of anticipating the imminent coming of the Messiah while still arriving at different halakhic conclusions. For instance, the Sefer Sha’arei Tzedek (p. 266), cited in Petihat ha-Iggerot (p. 458), argues that there could actually be religious value to arranging one’s grave ahead of time, as it would be in the spirit of R. Eliezer’s teaching to “repent one day before your death” (Avot 2:10), which means that “one should repent today lest he die tomorrow” (Shabbat 153a). Indeed, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik himself had a double headstone, which his student R. Hershel Schachter understood to mean that he disagreed with R. Feinstein on this matter (Mi-Peninei HaRav, p. 266). (See also R. Ovadia Yosef’s objection to R. Feinstein’s position in Hazon Ovadia, Aveilut, vol. 1, p. 457.)

R. Yehuda Henkin (Responsa Bnei Banim, vol. 3, #11), after expressing due deference to R. Feinstein, raises several challenges directed against our main responsum. He does not see the passage in Menahot (which he instead cites from Sukka 41a) as an ironclad proof of R. Feinstein’s thesis. He points out that there are numerous instances in which our Sages were concerned for “small possibilities.” Moreover, they sought to create remembrances for the practices of the Temple (zikaron le-mikdash), irrespective of how long or soon the Redemption might arrive. Therefore, it is not obvious that Sages instituting a stricture on new grains necessarily reflects a theological requirement to live “as if” the Temple will be rebuilt at a moment’s notice.

More fundamentally, R. Henkin notes that many of the pillars of our tradition such as Rashi, Rambam, and the Ramban attempted to calculate the arrival of the Messianic era. He posits that if these Rabbinic giants truly subscribed to such calculations, it would not be possible for them to believe that the Messiah would arrive prior to then—at least with the degree of near-certainty that R. Feinstein propounded. (See Essay #3 appended to Benei Banim vol. 3 for his broader elaboration on this topic.)

Topics like these are intriguing because they invite the halakhic scholar, by way of a Talmudic inquiry, to wade into the realm of Jewish philosophy. In Iggerot Moshe (Y.D., vol. 2, #141.3), R. Feinstein writes that “also Rambam would concede that there is some form of a protection provided by the names of angels, and Holy Names, and verses.” Given that Rambam is regarded as the quintessential Jewish rationalist, such a characterization should raise eyebrows. Dr. Marc Shapiro goes so far as to observe:

R. Joseph Kafih’s commentary on the Mishneh Torah cites many examples of sages who misinterpreted Maimonides because they were unaware of his philosophical views. A particularly surprising example of this appears in Feinstein, Igerot Mosheh, ‘Yoreh De’ah’, ii. [p.] 239. Although R. Moses Feinstein was the greatest posek of his time, he seems to have had no knowledge of Maimonidean philosophy. He was therefore able to state that Maimonides believed in the protective power of holy names and the names of angels, as used in amulets. For Maimonides’ rejection of this, see his commentary on Mishnah Sotah 7: 4 and Guide i. 61-2 (The Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 157, fn. 1).

While there has been debate regarding how to make sense of R. Feinstein’s portrayal of Rambam in the aforementioned responsum, Dr. Shapiro’s characterization of R. Feinstein having “no knowledge of Maimonidean philosophy” is overstated. For example, in the aforementioned responsum about the double-headstone he wrote that “even according to those who subscribe to the belief that all human beings die at the end of the Messianic period,” etc., demonstrating his awareness of Rambam’s enigmatic theory of the Revival of the Dead. While he seldom references the Guide of the Perplexed or other works of mediaeval Jewish philosophy, he clearly possessed knowledge of the major trends in Mahashevet Yisrael.

Reflecting on the Iggerot

R. Feinstein once shared a hospital room with a non-Jewish patient. He noticed that although his roommate was scheduled to be discharged at 10:30 A.M., he was already fully packed, sitting on his bed ready to go at 8:00 in the morning. R. Feinstein quipped that we could all learn from such an individual for how we should also eagerly await the coming of the Messiah! When R. Feinstein was asked to bless an elderly rabbi that he may live until 120 years old, he quipped, “Nu, there appear to be people who think that more than that is impossible. They do not internalize that with the Messiah’s arrival there will be only life” (Mesoret Moshe, vol. 2, p. 412).

On Tisha B’Av, R. Feinstein would wear a threadbare garment that was beginning to tear. One could see the grief in his eyes and his longing for the Salvation with all of his soul. At the conclusion of Pesach, four years before his passing, family members noticed that he sat silent and despondent. When asked what was amiss, he responded that another Pesach had passed and yet the Messiah had not arrived (Man Malkhi Rabbanan, p. 34).

About three years prior to his passing, he attended the brit of a great-grandson. Each speaker incorporated a blessing for R. Feinstein that the same way he was here today at this great-grandson’s brit, so too he should merit to witness him under the huppa on his wedding day. R. Feinstein responded “Amen!” with all of his strength, tears streaming down his eyes. Despite his advanced age and waning health, he believed with conviction that such a blessing could come true, with the imminent coming of the Messiah (ibid.).

There is a common refrain used by countless rabbis when concluding a discourse: “And may we all merit to witness the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days, amen!” At the end of a responsum (Y.D., vol. 4, #49) on the nature of one who is deaf and mute, he concludes:

I will conclude with a blessing that none of this should have practical import. For let there not be any deaf-mutes among the Jewish people. And those who are already deaf-mutes should be completely healed with the imminent coming of our righteous Messiah, like we pine for every day. And let this responsum serve only to make the Torah great and glorious.

Had this been uttered by some arbitrary rabbi we would likely assume it to be a perfunctory blessing, one generally appended when the speaker cannot conjure a more clever way to conclude his lecture or written discourse. Yet, R. Feinstein lived with the conviction that the Messiah could truly come at a moment’s notice, and such a blessing rings authentic and true.

A final sample of how R. Feinstein manifested his mentality of anticipating the Messiah can be found in a poignant account at the end of a tribute offered by his son-in-law, R. Dr. Moshe Dovid Tendler:

As already stated, Rav Moshe was the most humble and modest of men. He never expected anyone else to acknowledge his greatness but he never failed to acknowledge it himself.
A few years before his passing, Rav Moshe had to have a pacemaker installed and I was the one who explained to him the reasons for the procedure. During the day, while he was engaged in giving shiurim, writing Teshuvos, or answering questions from all over the world, his blood pressure was perfectly normal. However, a twenty-four hour cardiac monitor revealed that at night, while asleep, his blood pressure became precipitously low. Only while engaged in studying and teaching Torah was it normal.
In the past, he had often balked at going to the doctor for a general checkup, but had always been willing to see a physician when he felt something amiss. This time, however, and quite uncharacteristically, he was reluctant to go forward with the pacemaker. I asked him to explain his hesitancy given that every doctor consulted agreed that the proposed pacemaker was essential. Several more days passed and he still had not agreed to go for the procedure.
I finally confronted him. “Shver, this is not your way. You always make up your mind very quickly. Why is it taking you so long?” Rav Moshe finally answered, “I know how unworthy I am. I know how little Torah I know, but I am also aware that if they are to pick seventy-one people to make up a Sanhedrin, among the seventy-one they will most likely pick me. However, a Baal-mum (someone with a physical blemish) cannot be a member of the Sanhedrin. I am perturbed at the thought of doing something to myself that would make me unfit to join the Sanhedrin when Moshiach comes.” I then reviewed the surgical procedure for him. I showed him some diagrams illustrating exactly what would be done. After listening carefully, he said, “That is not considered a baal-mum. Please make the appointment right away.” We did so.
Sadly, Moshiach did not come, a Sanhedrin was not convened, and Rav Moshe was not chosen to be a member. Hashem willing, Moshiach will be here very soon and we will merit to see the building of the Bais Hamikdash and the establishment of the Sanhedrin. (“Royalty, Humility, and Genius” by R. Dr. Moshe Dovid Tendler; cf. Man Malkhi Rabbanan, p. 34 and Mesoret Moshe, vol. 2, p. 470.)

To some, it may seem odd that R. Feinstein adopted such a fixation with the impending arrival of the Messianic era. I would suggest that this is due, at least in part, to a deeply personal experience from his early days of fatherhood. While his sons Rabbis Dovid z”l and, yibbadel le-hayyim, Reuven Feinstein are well-known, there was a third child, Pesach Chaim, who tragically passed away as an infant back in Russia. In one of the introductions to Rivevot Ephraim (vol. 5, p. 20), R. Ephraim Greenblatt notes that his teacher longed for the Messiah and was adamant he would soon be reunited with his son Pesach. Perhaps it was this traumatic experience that shaped and strengthened his conviction in the imminent arrival of the Messiah, not simply on an abstract intellectual basis, but as a visceral and emotional necessity.

Haval al de-avdin ve-lo mishtakhin. Woe over those who are gone and are no longer found. May we indeed merit the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days.

Endnote: For additional sources related to R. Feinstein’s approach to anticipating the Messiah see Iggerot Moshe (Y.D., vol. 4, #25) about one who took a Nazarite vow “until the day the [Messiah] son of David comes,” and Mesoret Moshe (vol. 1, p. 575) regarding his repudiation of a young man who claimed that he was the Messiah. Another important point made by R. Feinstein, recorded in R. Avraham Shlomo Fishelis in Kol Ram al ha-Torah (vol. 1, p. 177), was that even once the Messiah arrives and “the world is full of knowledge” there will still be a necessity for Torah scholars and yeshivot.

Moshe Kurtz serves as the Assistant Rabbi of Agudath Sholom in Stamford, CT, is the author of Challenging Assumptions, and hosts the Shu”T First, Ask Questions Later.