http://vridar.org/2017/04/20/continuing ... n-messiah/
Neil Godfrey interprets:Our rabbis taught: The Holy One, blessed be he, will say to Messiah ben David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!), “Ask of me anything and I will give it to you,” as it is said, “I will tell of the decree [of the Lord],” etc. “This day I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance” (Ps. 2). But when he will see that Messiah ben Joseph is slain, he will say to him, “Lord of the universe, I ask of you only life.”
This seemed logical, even though the text wasn't very clear about the meaning of "I ask of you only life."Interestingly the Messiah ben David in this passage has not till now made his mark in the end-time drama and his first act on his appearance is to forgo invitations to ask great things for himself and to request, instead, the resurrection of Messiah ben Joseph.
I wanted to look up this and other relevant passages, for my edification, and I was surprised to find how the quote continues:
http://dtorah.com/otzar/shas_soncino.ph ... kah&df=52a
Wow.... uh.... wow.Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!) , 'Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee', as it is said, I will tell of decree etc. this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance.
But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to Him, 'Lord of the Universe, I ask of The only the gift of life'.'
'As to life', He would answer him, 'Your father David has already prophesied this concerning you', as it is said, He asked life of thee, thou gavest it him, [even length of days for ever and ever].
The quote is from Psalm 21:5, which says, "He asked life of You, You gave it to him, Length of days forever and ever."
So the text says that "life" (there is no request for resurrection per se) is something that David "has already prophesied this concerning you" (clearly the Messiah ben David), and this prophecy read, "He asked life of You, You gave it to him, Length of days forever and ever."
So the Messiah ben David asked for "life" and was granted "length of days forever and ever." The request may have been humble or not (perhaps more humble because he asks "only" for life... an adjective that makes just as much sense when asking "only" to live), but the outcome sounds pretty "great" -- for the Messiah ben David. He gets to survive the battle at the end of days and is prophesied, anyway, to live on forever. Sweet deal.
The William Davidson Talmud translation (which expands the text, mind you) makes this translator's interpretation clear.
http://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.51a?lang=bi
Still, I can almost see how one could try to turn this one around. Maybe we know somehow (I know not how) that the life asked for and given to Messiah ben David was indeed the life of Messiah ben Yosef. It does make a certain narrative sense, at least to my modern sensibilities; I was shocked to find out the interpretation did not really look to have been a request for the Messiah ben Yosef's resurrection at all.The Sages taught: To Messiah ben David, who is destined to be revealed swiftly in our time, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Ask of Me anything and I will give you whatever you wish, as it is stated: “I will tell of the decree; the Lord said unto me: You are My son, this day have I begotten you, ask of Me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession” (Psalms 2:7-8). Once the Messiah ben David saw Messiah ben Yosef, who was killed, he says to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I ask of you only life; that I will not suffer the same fate. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to him: Life? Even before you stated this request, your father, David, already prophesied about you with regard to this matter precisely, as it is stated: “He asked life of You, You gave it to him; even length of days for ever and ever” (Psalms 21:5).
So, getting the interpretation right or wrong--well, that's a gentleman's debate. I could have it all wrong right now. It's possible.
Leaving off the most damning part of the quotation, neglecting to note the alternative interpretation, and stating things that are not in the text (like "resurrection") so matter-of-factly is quite another. Has someone else misled? Was it sourced this way from some article?
I usually quite enjoy these blog posts and literature romps and have found them to be pretty fair-handed overall.