Pensée juive sur Isaïe 52:7

(Isa. 52:7) “he announces salvation” -- In that chapter, we find the words “the footsteps of the herald, ” which refer to both meshichim. But the verse, “he announces salvation, ” is written in the singular form because it refers to Mashiach ben Yosef. This is so, because whenever salvation during the footsteps of Mashiach appears, it refers to the mission of Joshua bin Nun and the mission of Mashiach ben Yosef. This is explained by the Gaon in his commentary on the verse “I will bear the cup of salvation.”

(Isa. 57 [Isa. : 52:7]) “the feet of the herald” -- The feet of the herald refer to the two meshichim, in Netzach and in Hod, as is said about them: “our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem” (Ps. 122:2). A herald is in the sefira Yesod in the category of the first Mashiach.

It could be said that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir also accept this concept. As I wrote in Tosfos Yom Tov, it is possible to say that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir understand this phrase as teaching two concepts. Nevertheless, there is no imperative to say that; it is possible that these Sages understand the phrase חַטָּאת לַה׳, “a sin-offering for God,” as teaching only one concept – that the offering atones for a sin of which only God is aware. For these sages explicitly say: “The goats brought on Rosh Chodesh atone for impurity of which one is unaware.” What compels us to say that they understand this phrase as teaching two concepts? The only motive to say that these Sages understand the verse in that manner, is so that they will not be disagreeing with Reish Lakish. But who will say that this is the true interpretation? Perhaps in fact Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir do not accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish. If that were the case, why should we accept the interpretation of Reish Lakish? Let us follow the understanding of two Tannaim – Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir – rather than that of one Amora – Reish Lakish. Also, according to the version of the passage in Chulin that attributes this teaching to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, the passage was authored by an Amora. For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi was an Amora, as reflected by the fact that in Tractate Shabbos,⁸⁵Shabbos 75a. It is curious why Tosfos Yom Tov cites this particular teaching. There are several other teachings in Tractate Shabbos (Shabbos 40a, 105b, and 118a), and many others throughout the Talmud (Pesachim 26a, 38b, et al.), where Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was himself an Amora. True, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is mentioned in the Mishnah at the end of Tractate Uktzin.⁸⁶Uktzin 3:12. Nevertheless, as I explained there in Tosfos Yom Tov, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was an Amora and not a Tanna. If so, the teaching of Reish Lakish has no basis.⁸⁷An Amora’s words are not accepted in place of a Tanna’s words.