top of page

Weekly Hashkafa Shiur #108- Torah Royalty vs. British Royalty

Given 9/19/2022 by Rabbi Mendel Kessin


Introduction and Dedication


Last week, I spoke about the demise of Queen Elizabeth II, what I thought it all meant, and the concept of Great Britain, so I thought it would be an interesting opportunity to continue that kind of thinking, presenting ideas that most people don’t realize about the concept of “royalty” and compare it the Torah’s idea of “royalty.”


I’d like to begin with a dedication, that this lecture should be for the health and success of the families of Regina bas Yosef Reuven and Yeshaya ben Yisrael.


Defining Nationhood


There’s something we can ask; what is a “society” and what is it about a society that forms a country? It’s a group of people that have decided that there’s a great many commonalities among them that unite them enough to want to live together. They want to be involved in similar activities as a group so that group becomes a nation.


We know that every nation needs a government, some type of official legal body that, in many ways, will control what goes on with the nation, especially when nations have to live by the rule of law. If not, then it’s called, in Hebrew, “hefker”—ownerless and that’s very dangerous. When everybody wants to do what they want irrespective of what somebody else feels or holds, then that nation becomes very dangerous. Like it says in “Pirkei Avos,” that ”ilmolei morah malchus chaim v’lauha” if it weren’t for the fear of the kingdom, everybody would “eat” everybody else while still alive; they wouldn’t wait until they were dead. Clearly, without government that adheres to laws, such a society could not survive.


The concept of “malchus”—kingship, kingdom, is a very profound concept. For instance, consider the American government. Every government has to have several functions in order to do its job. Hopefully, the laws will be just and righteous. Its first function is to have some type of institution that makes laws, promulgate laws, which manifest as the legal “behavior” of that nation, their having to adhere to those laws, they need a legislature; that’s the first thing.


The second thing needed interpreters of the laws, to apply the laws in various circumstances. Sometimes, a law may not be understood or its application is not clear. Therefore, you need a judiciary. One law could be interpreted differently in various situations or contexts in order for that society to function fairly.


Besides a legislature and a judiciary, there needs to be the “executive,” that body which is responsible to execute the laws, to ensure that the laws are kept, adhered to.

These three “branches” of government—legislative, judiciary, and executive—are supported by agencies of law enforcement, its emissaries, the police, to ensure the laws are not violated.


What was done in America, which was really brilliant, is that, instead of all these functions being in the hands of one person, the executive, it was an exceptionally wise decision to give these three functions over to three separate branches of government. The Founders were very concerned with tyranny because that is what was experienced from England. As thirteen colonies of the originally republic, they were under the tyrannical control of the King of England.


There are many nations that do not have this structure of the separation of functions in three distinct forms. Instead, the functions are in the hands of a king and this is the concept of “royalty.” You have a king and queen, a small group of people that are assigned to lead a nation in which all three functions are in the hands of this royal group. For instance, a king or queen—if he or she is the authority—will make laws, interpret them, and execute them. It’s in the hands of one person.


Torah Government


Let’s consider the Torah; what is “government” in the Torah? Torah is the mind of G-D and, therefore, it’s perfect. What does He say is the best form of government? The Torah conveys G-D’s Will: I will tell you what kind of government I want. What is the best form of government enabling it to accomplish great things?


The “legislature” in the Torah is what?—G-D. Men do not make laws. G-D, in the form of the Torah, does. The Torah is that branch of government of the Jewish people. G-D is the “legislative branch.” It is true too that there are many laws that have to be made as time goes on in order to support and protect the laws of the Torah. These are rabbinical enactments and preventive measures, called “takonos” and “gzeros” that rabbis make which are part of the legislative abilities taken over with the Sanhedrin which works in coordination with the Torah. They don’t make new laws according to what they want. They are empowered to, for example, to create the enactment of Purim and Hanukkah, but most of the job of the Sanhedrin is to protect the Torah itself, its observance, which are the gzeros—decrees, the preventative measures that they enacted in order that the Torah should be observed, not violated. The Torah is the primary, real, legislature, obviously, and the Sanhedrin is of secondary nature.


The judiciary is also the Sanhedrin, especially the difficult and complex cases; those are decided by the Sanhedrin. They are the judiciary of the Torah. Their primary role is to interpret the Torah itself so they are the authority concerning what the Torah says. That’s also their function.


Who is the executive? Who is the person who is supposed to protect the Torah and make sure it’s observed? –the king. There is a mitzvah in the Torah which says, “shom ta’asim aleicha melech”—set a king over yourselves, so besides the Torah and the Sanhedrin, you have a king. It’s a mitzvas aseh—positive commandment. He will ensure that all the laws of the Torah are observed. This is the government that the Torah says has to be formed. But notice that the one who makes the laws is NOT the king. The real laws are not made by the Sanhedrin except in an auxiliary capacity. The Torah itself “makes” the laws.


The main concept of all of this is that the Torah is Divine. The crux of all this is the laws, but they are Divine. That’s the difference. The laws are promulgated by G-D. You cannot question them. If you understand them, great—they’re the mishpatim. If you can’t understand them, they’re the chukim but, nevertheless, they all have the power, the authority of G-D Himself. This is the whole concept of Har Sinai, where G-D gave all the laws that allow the Jewish people to survive and flourish as a nation.


G-D did give the Sanhedrin to be the judiciary. That’s its main function along with some others but the executive function is the king. The Torah says that it is a mitzvah to appoint a melech and that is what the Jewish people did. The first real melech of klal Yisrael was Moshe Rabbeinu. He was appointed by G-D and, in that role, he was not only a king but also the greatest of all the nevi’im—prophets. He was many things all in one. He was the judiciary, the prophet, and also king.


The first king was Shaul ha’Melech and Shmuel Ha’Navi appointed him. This an important concept, that the Torah says about the laws being Divine. They cannot be man-made. Man does not see the ultimate truth and is limited by his logic and intelligence. Mankind is biased. Everybody wants laws that will satisfy him, laws that proceed in his best interest so, therefore, people can’t make legitimate laws. The Torah says: I will make the laws and you will have a body to interpret them but the one who executes them is the king. The concept of the Torah’s government must be Divine authority. From this emanates the other forms. This is the concept of a “king.”


What’s also important is that the king doesn’t make any laws. He had a small sefer--book Torah that he actually had to wear on his arm because the king does not make laws. The king protects the laws of the Torah and enforces them, seeing to it that the people should observe them. He, himself, had to wear the Torah on his arm and always had to have it because the authority of the king comes from G-D via the Torah itself.


What’s interesting what the nations do. Since a government must have those three functions, must live by laws or else they will destroy themselves because every person is biased for laws to be in his favor, they need a legislature and judiciary and executive agencies and enforcement, which many adopted but it’s interesting that some augmented this structure with kingship.


Augmentation with Royalty


England is a good example; It illustrates the concept of royalty and why there is such a thing as “royalty.” Why should there be a royal class that consists of a king and a queen and a prince and princess, a duke, whatever? Why would a nation want this? Why would they want to submit to this type of authority?


We know what it is in terms of the Torah because the Torah has “royalty” with Shlomo ha’Melech, King Solomon, who was one of the greatest of the kings. But why would a nation want that? Everyone wants someone to enforce the law; that’s true. But that, in itself, is a very important idea. I think it was Henry VIII, a very powerful king, who wanted to divorce one his wives. He was Catholic and the pope wouldn ‘t allow him to. In Catholicism, there’s no such thing as “divorce” as far as I know. So, due to the prohibition, Henry dismissed the pope. He basically said: I don’t need you to tell me what to do. He comes up with an idea, an old idea, that he was the king and so rules by “Divine right.” I am the appointee of G-D and I don’t need a pope. So, Henry VIII assigned himself the role of the pope and that is what formed the “Church of England” which is, I think, in Canterbury. The king was no longer just a person to help the society survive but someone who had a Divine right, as if G-D put them there. This means that they have the authority of G-D Himself. This is what is called “Divine authorship of kingship.” With the Church of England, Henry became, in a sense, a pope dismissing Catholicism’s pope.


Why does that continue? England has had a long succession of kings and queens. I want to point out something important; whenever a person wants to do something bad, he doesn’t want it recognized as completely evil. He wants to justify his actions. Even Hitler—yemach shemo (may his name be cursed)—didn’t see himself as evil. On the contrary, he wrote “Mein Kampf” which portrays the Jewish people as scoundrels, as people who are very dangerous, who destroyed mankind by giving it a conscience. According to this book, the Jews turned mankind into a bunch of wimps. So, his book sought to justify what he wanted to do which was to kill all the Jews. Why seek to justify it? Why not just kill them and that’s it?—because a person does not want to see himself as evil. He will, therefore, find the most far-fetched justification or rationale for the evil he wants to do. “Mein Kampf” was Hitler’s way of justifying his act of genocide. Astounding that he needed to justify it by pointing out all the lies that Catholicism has said of the Jews for thousands of years.


In fact, there was a book written, “Thy Brother’s Blood” by Malcolm Hay, in which the author writes, and proves, that the only reason Hitler was able to get away with what he did was because the Catholic church has vilified the Jewish people terribly, extremely, viciously. They did it in the New Testament. Therefore, Hitler inculcated within Europe a hatred, a sense of Jewish inferiority, in the eyes of Catholics. The Catholic church created this value judgement on the Jew that enabled Hitler to get away with killing them. The Jew was looked upon as grossly inferior, as a people that wanted to take advantage of mankind. Look at the language the New Testament uses to describe the Jewish people which is horrendous, especially as manifest subsequently, with priests who were vicious anti-Semites. The book makes the case that, due to the climate of denigration of the Jews, Hitler was able to get away with his program. Anyway, Catholicism used the Jews as enemies and sons of the devil. To an extent, that was eventually mitigated, but it’s still held by many Catholics.


The Hoax


What the world has decided, which is fascinating, is that one of the best ways of justifying evil—and by “evil” I mean murder, subjugation, the entrapment and enslavement of people—is by their brilliant solution of saying that a king has Divine right, is Divinely chosen to be king. It means that, whatever the king decides, whatever he does, is, supposedly, the Will of G-D. It’s logical. Through the authenticity of his royal title, the king has the right, bestowed upon him by G-D, to operates in G-D’s stead. If that’s the case, that country’s evil which is promulgated, or tacitly agreed to, by the king, means that this is what G-D wants. Therefore, it’s not evil; that nation is doing G-D’s will. Royalty is an incredible pay-off! Because it has the concept of “Divine right,” royalty covers up the sinfulness of a nation’s brutal intentions. These intentions culminated in imperialistic conquest, among other things.


Take a look at what England did, particularly during the reign of Victoria. As I mentioned last week, during her reign, one quarter of the planet’s territory was controlled by the British as their “commonwealth.” As the saying went, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” Britain made it its business to subjugate nations they deemed “primitive.” How do you get that done? You didn’t get it done diplomatically, convincing the country that they would be the beneficiary of assistance—of course not! They did it by declaring it a task undertaken for the “glory of His Majesty.” That’s always quoted. Whenever they would go as an army, it was always the will of His or Her Majesties. The question is: why did they have to do it like that? Why do it with the authority of the king? They wanted the breach, the invasion to have the authority of the king who rules by Divine right. It legitimized, sanctified, whatever they were doing. Not only was it not a sin, it was the will of G-D.


Remarkably, a royal government is a tremendous device that covers up the evil of a nation; it’s very useful. That is one of the reasons, I think, nations have kings. It’s also an ego-driven yearning for status with the pomp and pageantry that goes with kingship. Therefore, the nation feels good about itself. It’s an ego trip. But, as I say, it’s much more profound than that. Since the king or queen rules by Divine right, is authorized by G-D, it derives great benefit and justification. This is why, I believe, many nations, especially England, maintain the whole concept of “royalty.” This has been going on for almost a thousand years, ever since William the Conqueror in 1066.


Take a look at the difference between the Torah’s version and the secular, imperial version of “royalty.” The Torah version gives no authority to a king to legislate laws except in a rabbinical sense. If the king feels the nation needs a war to help them observe the Torah, then he will induce the Sanhedrin to—let’s say—come together and consider it in light of Torah, and pass a law. The king’s position, basically, is executive in function, in which he executes the law. He adheres to Torah law; he doesn’t make any laws. That’s why he must wear the Torah on his arm. He, himself, is a subject of the Torah. This keeps a king straight. Once a king is allowed to make the laws by Divine right, then, automatically, that nation can now do whatever it wants and it can be viewed as righteous.


The concept of royalty is of great benefit to the nation that does evil. I heard that the cost to maintain British royalty was approximately 193 million pounds over the past year. That is almost one fifth of a billion dollars to maintain the queen’s entourage, their goings and trappings of royalty. Obviously, it’s a fortune. Why do they earmark such a phenomenal amount of money to maintain the royal status of a few people? How many people are really part of the royal family—five? Ten? Fifteen?


In a way, it’s bribery. England needs their royalty so they can do whatever they want, can brutalize others. They bribe people to “be royal” and rule by Divine authority and that legitimizes whatever evil they do. It’s sort of like a contract between two parties, the nation and those who pose as rulers by Divine right. The nation now enjoys having a cover-up. By this trick, what they do isn’t evil; it’s righteous. They get to live in unbelievably lavish style. Could you imagine being queen for seventy years, having the honor she received, the attention, the benefits of living with such arrangements! What woman doesn’t dream about being a queen? Such is the reason there are so many “royal-watchers” who live vicariously, who get a thrill imagining the experience of being a royal.


Whenever England went to war—and they’ve been warring all over the place, subjugating nations like what they did to the American colonies—they could feel self-righteous about it. The Royals of England are deceived because they don’t realize that they provide England with the ability to do prodigious amount of evil while regarding it as part of G-D’s plan. Feeling self-righteous while perpetrating evil is a great tragedy. If they got rid of their royalty, maybe they would feel that they can’t perpetrate brutality as a mere prerogative. They would feel that they have to observe the laws of the “bible”—as they call it—and not use “royalty” to legitimize it. The stamp of “royalty” aids and abets a nation in justifying its terrible actions.


You review the events of history of the last thousand years and flesh out all the acts of kings of the nations of Europe and, when you regard it in the context of Jewish history, one has to be absolutely appalled at what these kings and queens did to the Jewish people while feeling, publicizing, that such horror was divinely authorized. What a cover!


See the difference between a “kingdom” according to Judaism in which the king himself must submit to the laws of the Torah and the secular concept which is, in truth, a hoax. In the context of Torah “royalty,” laws are just, righteous, and holy. That we can be sure of. This is the greatest form of government. If a king allows himself to submit to Torah—really submit—that’s the best form of government.


The Flaws of Democracy


Part of the problem with democracy is what Jefferson felt, the tyranny of democracy because the majority of people determine rule by majority but what happens if that majority is evil? That’s called “tyranny of the majority.” The Founding Fathers were terribly afraid of that potentiality. Having a democracy doesn’t mean that a nation will be just and righteous—not at all.


Another problem with democracy is that the populace hasn’t the time or opportunity to be informed about their representatives and their actions. The citizen is too busy struggling to earn a living and raise a family. There was a poll taken showing that about 50-60 percent of Americans didn’t even know that America has three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. Most people are not informed about government and what it can do. Most people are too busy struggling to survive. How can you rely on them to choose the right people? See what’s happening to America! It’s dying. This is not the America we knew, not the country we grew up in. It’s a democracy and people keep voting for the wrong people over and over. We know the names of the people trying to destroy America. The crime rate is beyond appalling. The inflation…the crime wave…that’s the first function of government, to provide safety. The borders are open and the drugs coming in are killing thousands of people and the government does nothing. One could go on and on.

I wanted to bring these ideas, the concept of “royalty,” that it’s a cover-up, and the royals are, in a sense, bribed, and it’s tragic. Queen Elizabeth didn’t realize she was being used. She probably thought: what a great honor to serve! She’s right. She does serve the British people by allowing them a way to camouflage their terrible deeds. I feel sorry for her. She was a victim. And it’s not just Britain. It’s true of many countries and it’s unfortunate. If you are honest, this is how you will see it. It’s all delusional. Many are subject to such delusions that are obscured by the pomp and splendor of royalty.


If you sat down with G-D and asked Him, “What’s Your idea of ‘royalty’?” G-D would say: royalty without Torah, without laws promulgated by Me, is ridiculous; it’s nothing more than a mask for doing evil and feeling okay about it.


Q & A


Participant: Why does Ha’Shem allow those nations that feel that they are authorized by G-D do to whatever they want?


R’Kessin: That question is the same as the question as to why G-D allow people to do evil. That’s the concept of “free will.” G-D created a world, gave laws, and wants people to know those laws and be righteous. That’s their job He will not interfere because He wants them to use their free-will. They don’t have to do what they’re doing. They don’t have to murder, didn’t have to deny Jews entry into the Land that G-D gave them by creating the content of their White Paper in 1939 after Kristallnacht when it became obvious that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews. G-D is not going to deny them that but one should remember one thing: G-D has a plan and there are many ways to get to the fruition of that plan. G-D allows people to commit evil because, in some way, they will, ultimately, allow the plan to succeed in ways we don’t understand.


The classic example is Purim with Haman. G-D wanted the Jews to do teshuva, to repent. They ate at the feast of Achashverosh as part of the plan to allow Haman to grow great and begin to exercise his evil. Haman was a device, a tool, to bring the Jews to teshuva so he was allowed to proceed with this evil. These events were part of the plan. To G-D, all things must bring about the completion of the plan even when it’s done utilizing evil. If a nation needs the cover of royalty to do its evil, then G-D uses that nation’s capabilities to do evil as a kapporah—atonement for the Jews. He doesn’t tell the nation to do evil but He will use their desire to do evil in order to being atonement to Jews if that’s what they need. G-D knows exactly what He has to do. To bring the plan to completion, He allows people, nations, to do evil because they freely choose to do that and they all, eventually, will get punished because they freely chose to do that.


Everything that is done can only succeed if it advances the plan further. If it does not advance the plan further, then it does not succeed; G-D will stop it. There’s a great deal of evil that is blocked because, if it doesn’t advance the plan, G-D conveys: you cannot choose freely; I will interfere with that choice. It has to advance the plan. The problem is that we don’t understand what “advancement of the plan” is. We don’t know, but G-D knows, obviously, and He knows the infinite number of reckonings, what has to be done. Whatever advances the plan of Creation, the tikkun process, the process of rectification, He allows, even if it’s evil. Whatever doesn’t advance the process, He will block. He does this all the time.


Participant: The queen must have had some zchut—merit that she could reign for seventy years.


R’Kessin: Yeah, right. England wanted a queen and G-D allowed her to reign. We don’t know what gilgul—incarnation she was, what type of incarnation she was; we don’t know, but, whatever it was, G-D chose her to be queen. If England wants one; she was it. What’s funny is that she should never have been queen. Her uncle—I think it was Edward VIII---abdicated because he married an American divorceé so, automatically, her father George VI became king of England putting Elizabeth in line to be queen when, ordinarily, she wouldn’t have been. It would have been one of Edward’s kids, whoever they would be. When her uncle abdicated, he gave it over to his brother, George, and Elizabeth was put in line to be the Crown Princess. Why did G-D do that? We don’t know who she really was.


Participant: It’s like Queen Esther who wasn’t supposed to be queen but Ha’Shem made her queen.


R’Kessin: Right, exactly! G-D chooses who will rule a nation. I find it interesting that she ruled for seventy years and the concept of “70” is the concept of “completion.” It’s almost as if, with her death, is the completion of the royalty of Esav. One could look at it that way because “70” is always “hashlama,” of “tashlum”—completion of some sort.


Participant: If mashiach is the next, so-to-speak, next king, who’s going to be showing us the revelation of the shechina—Divine Presence, he’s really a tool to show us the true King.


R’Kessin: Right. Exactly. Same thing.


Participant: He, technically, doesn’t have authority or anything like that. How does his role fit in with your description? That’s my question.


R’Kessin: His role will be the same, basically, as that of Moshe Rabbeinu. It’s a function of Moshe to convey the Will of G-D to the Jewish people which, obviously, he did with the Torah. That was his role, to bring the Torah to the Jewish people as a device to do the tikkun—rectification of Creation.


He had another role too, to bring the Jews to Israel, to where he could not enter for whatever reason. Mashiach is the same thing, his major role being to teach the ohr rishon—First Light to the Jewish people, to raise the status of the Jewish people to an unbelievable state. That’s what his role is. It’s not to promulgate new laws. The role of Mashiach ben David is as executive. He will rule as a king who executes the Will of G-D but it will be a different type of experience. Obviously, the presence of G-D will be known and revealed to everybody.


Participant: Mashiach ben David doesn’t reign for so long, it sounds like.


R’Kessin: The Gemara says that the world will only last for 6,000 years and so will end in 2240. That’s 217 years to go and that’s it and that’s the end of mankind’s ability to rule itself. Then, after that, begins the 7000th year which is the beginning of zikuch—purification, the transformation of the physical into the spiritual. The entirety of reality changes and G-D is revealed in terms of His overwhelming presence, his awesome unity in Oneness. It’s not the same reality.


Participant: So Mashiach ben David still reigns in the 7000th year?


R’Kessin: No, he’s gone. Everything is gone.


Participant: You’ve said that it takes 210 years for tchiat ha’meitim—resurrection of the dead which means it starts in the year 2030…


R’Kessin: Right, which is about seven years from now.


Participant: If Mashiach ben Yosef has all these things to do and if this next year is not a Yovel because…doesn’t Mashiach ben David have to come after Yovel?


R’Kessin: Well, yes. I mean we hope it’s over.


Participant: We do. So, if he comes in the next cycle of seven years, then he only reigns for a very short amount of time.


R’Kessin: Well, yeah, 210 or 213…


Participant: He still reigns while we wake up?


R’Kessin: Yes, while people will be rising from the dead, he will reign for the 210-213 years.


Participant: Oh, he’s reigning? I didn’t know that.


R’Kessin: Let’s assume he comes in the next couple of years and his reign will last up until the year 2240. He will be king in the world for at least 210 years. I believe that by looking at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth, you begin it understand how the world will view this king and, what she was, every Jew will be, of that stature. We don’t realize that because the Jews did the tikkun and, therefore, every Jew that was part of the tikkun and will have the status of a major king. The pomp, glory, and prestige that you witnessed for Queen Elizabeth II will be true for every single Jew because he will have brought to completion the tikkun which is the ultimate purpose of all Creation. G-D is showing us what every Jew will be like for a couple hundred years.


Participant: Mashiach ben David comes and we’re all still alive and then he kills the Satan and then we all have a tchiat ha’meitim? He’s awaiting all to wake up and, as the years go by, he’s reigning over more and more people.


R’Kessin: Yes, right. As people get up, he will be reigning over more and more people.


Participant: I’m curious, does it say that we all just drop to the floor and we just wake up from the floor? Does it say anywhere…?


R’Kessin: What’s supposed to happen is that everybody has to die in order for the body to decay and the zohama—energy that causes entropy and decay to disappear and then they all resurrect. For those alive when the mashiach comes, they will die and they will only be dead for about two hours and then they get up.


Participant: Whoever lives during the time of mashiach are only dead for two hours?


R’Kessin: Yes, that’s it.


Participant: Isn’t that what happened during matan Torah—giving of the Torah?


R’Kessin: Yes, they were not dead very long and then was tchias ha’meisim.


Participant: The zohama left.


R’Kessin: The zohama of the nachash—primordial snakenifsika—ceased to have an active influence over the Jew which is miraculous, spectacular! That will certainly happen in the time of mashiach. It will be a glorious era. It says that everybody will become old; everybody will live for 150 year and it will be an unbelievable time. It’s living in Gan Eden. That’s the last era of this world, a physical Gan Eden. Actually, it’s not even fully physical without zohama.


Participant: When Mashiach ben Yosef comes and everyone knows him, from that point on, people can still die?


R’Kessin: Yes. As long as there is zohama in the body, people will die.


Participant: We’ll still have people being dead until Mashiach ben David appears?


R’Kessin: Right.


Participant: Once he appears you know you’re “in” and you know you’ll only be dead for two hours?


R’Kessin: Once he appears, the concept of “death” is ended. The only way a person dies is because of the Satan, the malach ha’maves—Angel of Death but he is associated with the zohama so you don’t really die because of the malach ha’maves; you die to get rid of the zohama.


Participant: You think this is all really happening, something big, with all these things happening around the world….


R’Kessin: I’ve said that the world is incredibly corrupt and the world gets worse every day, the morality of the world is incredible, in the pits. There is no way it (sexual perversion) can be reversed because it’s become constitutional (Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage) and the world is saturated with physicality, with pleasure-seeking. The world is totally into Olam Ha’Ze—this World. How many people think about Olam Ha’Ba—Future World? How many people think about waking up to become spiritual? What’s on their minds is more money, more pleasure, more power, more kovod—honor. It’s almost as if spirituality is gone. It’s not even a goal of mankind anymore. What we’re really looking at is: speed up the end.


That’s why there’s so much tzuris—troubles because everybody has to be “brought up to speed.” Justice has to be satisfied in order for the mashiach to come. Once he comes, it will be a completely different way of life, absolutely magnificent.


Participant: Rabbi, if everybody, all the Jews, make teshuva—acts of repentence and all the prophecies say that we’re all going to make teshuva, then we’re all going to be righteous, right?


R’Kessin: Right.


Participant: Then do we all merit to be alive for Mashiach be David?


R’Kessin: Yes, all Jews will be alive when he comes—well, Mashiach ben David. That’s tchias ha’meisim and once you get up from the dead, you don’t go back. Nobody dies anymore. It’s over with. That’s the end.


Participant: It’s when you wake up that you’re gonna experience that?


R’Kessin: Right. There are people that can wake up toward the end, and then there are people that can wake up in the beginning so they’re going to live for about 210 years. So, it’ll be incredible. Think about it; if you were a king, what would every day look like to you? It would be glorious, right? Everything you want to do is done, right? Every wish is fulfilled.


That’s what’s going to happen to the Jews. It will be a different type of world where nothing fails and everything succeeds. We cannot imagine that type of world.


Participant: That mini-safer Torah that you said mashiach wears on his arm…


R’Kessin: that a king wears on his arm, right….


Participant: Didn’t Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky have one that was made for him?


R’Kessin: I don’t know. I never heard anything like that. Obviously, he’s not mashiach because he’s gone. Anyway, these have been some of the ideas I wanted to transmit about kingship.


Kommentare


bottom of page