RAMBAM and sovereignty - thread spawned off of an askjudea questions thread.

[q_q_]

According to the Rambam, he does not say we can not have Prophesy in our time as other commentators do.  But I will move on to another proof.  What about the commandment "to not let idolatrers live in the land of Israel", that seems pretty clear cut that we must settle the land of Israel first to enforce this?  Or what about the commandment that "levites shall not share in the spoil of the conquest of the land", this has the prerequisite that the Jews are conquering the Land of Israel.  For them to do this they must first control a portion of the land.  And if you answer that this only is supposed to happen in Massianic times, in Hilchot Melachim the Rambam doesn't write about the Jews going up to Israel from Galut with their appointed King and taking it over, he talks about the Jews already living in Israel appointing a King. 

We clearly have not had prophets since melachi.
prophecy , rambam describes in the guide as Level 3. Dreams and visions.
(perhaps ruach hakodesh is possible, but that does not make one a Navi-prophet. And it is below level 3 ).

RAMBAM does say prophecy ceased..
see "The Guide", 2:36 (google found me 2:45 which was close enough for me to view previous chapters and read the lot)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp123.htm
"
This is a real fact, and the cause is evident; the pre-requisites [of prophecy] have been lost. In the Messianic period--may it soon commence--prophecy will therefore again be in our midst, as has been promised by G-d.
"

Also, Handbook of jewish thought vol 1, p111, 6:86, gives a ton of references that prophecy ceased . It gives the date as 40 years after the building/construction of the 2nd temple. 3408+40=3448 = (seems to me) 312BCE
(note- handbook... was written based on rabbi aryeh kaplan`s manuscripts. He died before it was published. Some of his references are wrong).

However.. I may be wrong earlier..
when I mentioned chapter 1 halacha 3, says a king must be appointed by a prophet. It does. But
I just found
11:3, where the RAMBAM mentions rabbi akiva following *King* Bar Kozibah( bar kochbah).
 
Bar Kochba lived around 132CE.  That is after prophecy ceased. So how could be be a king, if there was no prophet to appoint him.

That does call into question what the RAMBAM means by King. But the fact remains that he milchemet reshut and milchemet mitzva are written of in hilchot melachim, under the assumption that there is a King  And we do not have a King today - at least nobody claims we do!

It may not always be obvious what from hilchot melachim does require a king and what does not..

Your post argued to me as if I take the position that we cannot be there en masse. Maybe, but I was not arguing that.

You argued that the RAMBAM is not talking of us getting a king in galus, and going to israel. And you argued that we have to control land in order to conquer.   I agree with the former. But regarding the latter, we could live there under some other soveregnty, appoint a King, be inspired to fight and conquer. 

There are 2 contentious issues of religious zionism that need to be argued.
- jewish sovereignty per se
- living there en masse

note- some non zionists accept both those things(e.g. a lubavitcher i spoke to).. but they do not accept that this is the beginning of the redemption, and they see zionism as a secular thing.

judeaoncapita has argued that we can be there en masse.. Good arguments. I have to put those arguments to a non zionist..
And he also put a strong argument that the RAMBAN is for conquering the land. Again, Ihave to put that to a non zionist.

so let`s stick to the question of the RAMBAM and sovereignty

I only have hilchot melachim, and a few others and a talmud, in english. So if those examples you gave, about the idolators, and the tithe, are in there, then do givem e the reference.. you should include the reference anyway really.  Then I can look it up and see if it is blatantly involving a King, or not..  It may be worth starting a new thread for it, since I do not want to hijack judeaoncapita`s thread! This thread must still serve its purpose of his questions to him (presumably consecutively !).

The apparent change in definition of King has thrown me a bit. But nevertheless, we do not have a King today- at least nobody thinks we do.

[q_q_]

you conceded that it does require a Prophet to appoint a King. chapter 1 halacha 3.

And then you said

1.  As it is irrelevant if a Prophet must appoint the King as the Rambam doesn't exclude prophesy from before the Massianic era like other commentators do. 
2.  In order for a prophet to appoint a King of Israel, the Jews must settle the land of Israel to begin with ... otherwise what are they appointing a King over, Babel?  And don't answer that the Rambam is only referring to a Messianic King as he never says anywhere in the first Chapter that the King appointed must be the Massiah.

prophecy is a prophecy - a noun.   Prophesy is a verb. To prophesy.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63475&dict=CALD

Regarding your point 1.
The RAMBAM does say prophecy ceased. So you will have to concede that too.
The Guide 2:36
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp123.htm
This is a real fact, and the cause is evident; the pre-requisites [of prophecy] have been lost. In the Messianic period--may it soon commence--prophecy will therefore again be in our midst, as has been promised by God.

Regarding your point 2
I do not have a firm argument against that

Perhaps.. They would have to be settled there . If it is that order.. Appoint a King, before you know moshiach has come.
But note that Rabbi Akiva followed Bar Kochba as moshiach, when I imagine he was not a King, at least not an appointed King.. since Bar Kochba lived after prophecy had ceased.
Of course, Bar Kochba was living in israel..

I have recently discovered that some non zionists think Yishuv Haaretz is not an obligation in every generation.. I was not aware of that.  I will put that argument to a non zionist. I was not aware.
Of course, if the RAMBAM is right that there moshiach and messianic times will not come in a miraculous manner ( i was taught in primary school.. expect eliyahu hanavi to come down from heaven in a firy chariot) then that would be an argument to settle there, else how would moshiach come.. (we know he will come, regardless though.. which is perhaps a theoretical contradiction with the rambam).

[q_q_]

When I said based on ch11 that you quoted, that he must be appointed King.. I take that back.
The RAMBAM does say that a messianic king will arise.

But it is impossible that he is appointed King initially.. Because that would require prophecy to be restored.  Yet RAMBAM says in the beginning, if he fights wars, we can only presume he is moshiach. Only later, do we -know-.  Surely if prophecy was restored, we would -know-. So I don`t think appointing him king would be step 1.

Now, regarding your poitn 2, it is trivial.

2.  In order for a prophet to appoint a King of Israel, the Jews must settle the land of Israel to begin with ... otherwise what are they appointing a King over, Babel?  And don't answer that the Rambam is only referring to a Messianic King as he never says anywhere in the first Chapter that the King appointed must be the Massiah.

First of all, your interpretation does not make sense. As mentioned.

Secondly, there have always been jews living in israel. Moshiach could come in israel, or in america. Nothing stopping him.

Obviously, if/when he is appointed King, he would be appointed King of israel.  Don`t play games

[jdl4ever]

You have answered the question for me.  The Rambam does not believe in relying on Miracles.  In order to appoint a King, the land must be under Jewish sovereignty as it was before the Jews appointed Shaul to be King.  It is impossible to appoint a King if the land is not under Jewish sovereity since the Gentiles occupying the land will see this as a threat and attack us like the Progroms in Israel in the 1920's that occured because the Arabs were upset over the Jews living there ... just imagine what a progrom that would have been if we actually appointed a King!  This is how the Rambam thinks, he doesn't rely on miracles but thinks rationally and learns his lessons from Jewish History and what the Prophets did previously. 

I was also bothered by the R' Akivah thing the Rambam stated and thought that this means that he doesn't require a Prophet, but you showed me that he did say we need a Propeht! So this is a good question,  I can't figure it out.

I still stick to what I said that the Rambam does not say the Massiah has to come for prophesy to return.  It is very clear if you read the Chapter on Prophesy in the Mishnah Torah and the one you posted in the Guide to the Perplexed, that the Massiah is not a prerequisite for prophesy and as proof for this the Massiah isn't even menchaned in the Mishnah Torah Chapter.   What bothers you about the Rambam saying "the interruption of prophecy during the exile ... In the Messianic period--may it soon commence--prophecy will therefore again be in our midst, as has been promised by G-d" if you read carefully is not saying that the Massiah will come first and then prophesy will commense, but it is saying that during the Massianic period in general prophesy will return.  It is impossible to know when the Messianic era is until the Massiah comes or a prophet states so; as we can only know that from hindsight.  We may very well be in the Messianic period now and not even know it if the Massiah is coming in the near future (which is unknown how many years is considered the near future).  As proof for what I stated is that the Torah itself doesn't make the Massiah a prerequisite for Prophesy.  This is stated directly by the last verses in Melachi that Eliah the prophet will come before the Massiah to perpare us for its coming and this is repeated by the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim, where he states that this will occur even before the war of Gog and Maggog.  So we will have no clue that it is the Messianic era until a Prophet who already an established Prophet Who's Prophesies are proven correct prophesises about the Masssiah coming. 

[judeanoncapta]

q_q_, it is also a fact that most of the perushim on the rambam say that you only need a sanhedrin to appoint a king.

And they also bring the Talmudh which says that you only need a sanhedrin, not a prophet.

They are actually unable to understand why the rambam says that you need a prophet.

[q_q_]

No jdl4ever, a difficulty with the RAMBAM does not confirm your position.

And it only partly answers earlier ones.

I can offer a resolution to the difficulty with the RAMBAM.

RAMBAM says King, and he says Messianic King.  In 11:4 , he says Messianic King, then King when referring to Bar Kozibah. Obviously within that halacha, he is still referring to Messianic King. (the whole chapter he refers to a messianic king, and within the halacha he refers to bar kochba as king, so obviously means messianic king)

RAMBAM does say that a King requires a court of 71, and a prophet.  But my resolution, is that a Messianic King, does not.  Bar Kochba clearly was not, yet he faught the wars of G-d, and was thus presumed to be moshiach.

So there are a few points here.

 (Let`s agree with Rabbi Bar Hayyim. Who says something like,   Rabbi Akiva understood the gemara of course, the tradition. So from his actions, we see a living example of applying gemara) 
The non zionist once said to be about Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kochba.
Rabbi Akiva was OK with fighting the enemies around us, only because he thought this guy was moshiach.  And note that he got the guy wrong.
So anybody using that concept outside of  thinking somebody is moshiach, is twisting the sources.
Nobody here has made that argument, but I have heard it made. And it`s a very important point

Onto the points you made, which you still do not seem to have budged on

1.  Proof that the Rambam talks about appointing a regular non Messianic King in our time: The Laws of Monarchy and Wars Chapter 11:8-9 is definite proof.  http://forum.kahane.org/index.php/topic,1892.msg8288.html#msg8288

2.  When the Rambam talks about a King and Milchemet Mitzvah, that is completely different than a Milchemet Rishoot.  The Rambam's remarks in Hilchot Shabbat about Milchemet Rishoot say nothing about a King at all or the Moshiach.  It simply says if the Jews decide to make a Milchemet Rishoot and/or besiege a city for this purpose they can fight on Shabbat but should not start the besieging of the city more less than 2 days before Shabbat.  He says nothing about Moshiach or a King but so he clearly is talking about our time period. 

To point 1.  (your claim that chapter 11 is proof of rambam talking of us having a regular non messianic king in our time)

Chapter 11, and those verses, Infact the whole of chapter 11. Refers only to a Messianic King.
So that is obviously not proof that we should have a King in our time.  Unless you think that in every generation we should presume a certain person is moshiach. 
Even Rabbi Akiva got - that presumption- wrong, and look at the consequences.
Imagine presuming that in every generation. That is absurd.

The fact is that the RAMBAM is only talking about when you have somebody you think is moshiach.

That is nothing like what you claim it proves.
 

To point 2.   Based on hilchot melachim.  And again based on hilchot shabbat. That a milchemet mitzva does not require a King. 

As I said, I can only talk from hilchot melachim. I do not own hilchot shabbat.

I quoted extensively to show that the RAMBAM is clearly writing under the assumption that there is a King waging the war.


Now.
Regarding judeanoncapta`s point
That some disagree with the RAMBAM. on 1:3 , and say we do not need a prophet (and a court of 71 elders) to appoint a King.

Even if we go by them. The fact is that we have not appointed a King.

So these concepts, milchemet reshut, milchemet mitzva.   As described by the RAMBAM in hilchot melachim.  Do not apply to the state of israel today.

I am not disputing that israel should war with its enemy neighbours.   But this is not about a milchemet mitzva or milchemet reshut.

 

[q_q_]

Furthermore, this whole discussion may have been based on a mistake.

Let`s recall  judeanoncapta said that the RAMBAN said that we should conquer the land.

And of course that implies sovereignty (I am not talking about a King. But sovereignty, jewish control over the land).

And the RAMBAM does not include that Mitzva.

And so we were discussing whether the RAMBAM supports it, despite the fact that he omits it. And the argument was that many places in hilchot melachim imply jewish sovereignty in our times.
I think our discussion has shown that is false..  (at least for some of the places you have claimed. Other ones you did not give chapter and verse, such as tithes)

I just spoke to "the non zionist".

He said that the RAMBAN does not say it is a commandment to conquer the land.  He said the RAMBAN says the commandment is Yishuv Haaretz (SETTLING the land).   And the RAMBAM omitted it.

Nothing to do with conquering.

Judeanoncapta says "conquering".

So we would have to look at the hebrew.
I do not have a copy of RAMBAN`s commentary on sefer hamitzvot unfortunately.

 

[jdl4ever]

I think that I have proven here and via PMs that the Rambam allows appointing a non Messianic King in our time period (perhaps with a Prophet) and the Rambam requires Jewish rule over the Land of Israel in our time period as a prerequisite to appointing a King. 

The Rambam's chapter on Melachim is obviously about appointing a King in general, not about a Messianic King.  I don't know how you can see any other view in the Rambam as it is simply never stated that he's talking exclusively about a Messianic King.  Also as I wrote the fact that the Rambam states there that if a righteous King is appointed ... and commands the Jews to fight against their enemies, he is to be considered "B'chezkat Moshiach" ... and if he is defeated then he is no different than any other righteous King of Israel but is not the Massiah.  This is clearly telling us that we can have a regular non Messianic King.  If the Rambam thought that we can only have a Messianic King than he would have wrote "if he is defeated then he is not the Massiah and should be dismissed from being King".  The Rambam never wrote this, but wrote the opposite, that he is considered a righteous King of Israel and not only that, but no different than the righteous Kings of Old.

Also I stated that the terminology and order of words the Rambam uses about the Moshiach implies that first he is supposed to be a regularly appointed non Messianic King and then he has to do all the prerequisites for Moshaich, then only if he wins a war against our enemies is he considered Moshiach.  If the Rambam believed in only appointing a Messianic King then he would have stated that any Jewish leader who meets the requirements and prerequisites he lists and who then wages a war against all our enemies and wins etc.  then he is Moshiach and then we should appoint him King.  The Rambam said the exact opposite order of this, proving that before we know who the Moshaich is we appoint a King. 

Also I stated that just from the Chapter on Melachim, the Rambam requires Jewish rule of Israel in order to appoint a King in Israel since otherwise it would be impossible to appoint a King without relying on miracles and we do not rely on miracles; especially according to the Rambam who was a very practical commentary.

[q_q_]

Well if you think you proved it here.. Or more ridiculously, via PMs, then post them.

I actually restricted what I posted from your PMs, because it makes you look bad!

Infact, the non zionist I speak to told me that it pains him greatly to say this, but religious zionists are alot like christian missionaries..  In your case this is verye true.. 

Previous posts and PMs(there is nothing in your PMs that is not in your posts. Apart from your attitude of "oh, i forgot about that halacha, but don`t get too happy" e.t.c. it just  makes you look like a christian missionary that does not believe what he is citing and is trying to fake his way through

I once heard an israeli missionary quoting the RAMBAM to prove that jesus was the messiah.
She was blatantly quoting something which she did not even believe herself to be a proof. Her or another missionary`s response to the obvious(i.e. to the response that if you accept that, do you also accept what the rambam says here i.e. what the rambam`s intent was when writing. do you believe the rambam or not e.t.c.), was "well, he obviously secret believed jesus was messiah"  or "what he writes suggests that jesus is messiah, but he did not realise it". They ignore everything he wrote to the contrary.

You are almost as bad.

You quote Chapter 11 of the mishneh torah..
Giving your own translation of ch11 is bizarre by the way, since ch11 and ch12 are already available online in a few websites anyway. http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

And it is clearly talking about the Messianic King. Or a King presumed to be the Messeiah.

And you are claiming  it is a "PROOF" that we should appoint a King in our time.

And you said you "FORGOT" about ch1:3 
CHAPTER 1 HALACHA 3 ,   *** is the beginning of the book  ***** !!!!

If you had read it with any care you would have seen it. 

I doubt even that you only saw what you wanted to see  .  I think you saw it anyway. 

And intentionally omitted it.  Because it did not support your argument. So you ignored it. Or hid it from me.

you said you forgot it.  If you did forget it, then you forgot it because you didn`t like it.

It says you need a court of 71 elders AND A PROPHET.

And anyhow, we do not have a King.

And you were claiming that milchemet mitzva and milchemet reshut, based on hilchot melachim, do not require a King. Well, you seemed to forget that argument and go onto something else.  After I showed that the RAMBAM wrote under the assumption that there was a King, you started arguing that we can appoint a King in our times - based on ch11 !!!!

Just like a missionary. One argument does not work, so you try another.

The reason why I have come on you so harshly, is because you deserve it. You should not just claim "oh, from previous posts and PMs" you are right.

I showed you where you are wrong. You can either respond to that, or not. But just referring to some previous posts without quoting from them or even paraphrasing from them. Is just ridiculous.

I could say that too.  It is a cop out. You want to argue, then you either argue back , or not at all.

My apologies for my abrasive style. Logic and reason trumps all. Nothing personal.

[jdl4ever]

Well if you think you proved it here.. Or more ridiculously, via PMs, then post them.

I actually restricted what I posted from your PMs, because it makes you look bad!

Infact, the non zionist I speak to told me that it pains him greatly to say this, but religious zionists are alot like christian missionaries..  In your case this is verye true.. 

Previous posts and PMs(there is nothing in your PMs that is not in your posts. Apart from your attitude of "oh, i forgot about that halacha, but don`t get too happy" e.t.c. it just  makes you look like a christian missionary that does not believe what he is citing and is trying to fake his way through

I once heard an israeli missionary quoting the RAMBAM to prove that jesus was the messiah.
She was blatantly quoting something which she did not even believe herself to be a proof. Her or another missionary`s response to the obvious(i.e. to the response that if you accept that, do you also accept what the rambam says here i.e. what the rambam`s intent was when writing. do you believe the rambam or not e.t.c.), was "well, he obviously secret believed jesus was messiah"  or "what he writes suggests that jesus is messiah, but he did not realise it". They ignore everything he wrote to the contrary.

You are almost as bad.

You quote Chapter 11 of the mishneh torah..
Giving your own translation of ch11 is bizarre by the way, since ch11 and ch12 are already available online in a few websites anyway. http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

And it is clearly talking about the Messianic King. Or a King presumed to be the Messeiah.

And you are claiming  it is a "PROOF" that we should appoint a King in our time.

And you said you "FORGOT" about ch1:3 
CHAPTER 1 HALACHA 3 ,   *** is the beginning of the book  ***** !!!!

If you had read it with any care you would have seen it. 

I doubt even that you only saw what you wanted to see  .  I think you saw it anyway. 

And intentionally omitted it.  Because it did not support your argument. So you ignored it. Or hid it from me.

you said you forgot it.  If you did forget it, then you forgot it because you didn`t like it.

It says you need a court of 71 elders AND A PROPHET.

And anyhow, we do not have a King.

And you were claiming that milchemet mitzva and milchemet reshut, based on hilchot melachim, do not require a King. Well, you seemed to forget that argument and go onto something else.  After I showed that the RAMBAM wrote under the assumption that there was a King, you started arguing that we can appoint a King in our times - based on ch11 !!!!

Just like a missionary. One argument does not work, so you try another.

The reason why I have come on you so harshly, is because you deserve it. You should not just claim "oh, from previous posts and PMs" you are right.

I showed you where you are wrong. You can either respond to that, or not. But just referring to some previous posts without quoting from them or even paraphrasing from them. Is just ridiculous.

I could say that too.  It is a cop out. You want to argue, then you either argue back , or not at all.

My apologies for my abrasive style. Logic and reason trumps all. Nothing personal.

1.  Firstly I consider this post to be clear cut Loshon Hara.  You are making a very long rant calling me evil and almost as bad as a missionary, accusing me of purposely hiding things I really knew about the Rambam and saying that my arguments are not valid since I lie, deceive people and everything I say is a lie since one thing I said was wrong.

2.  Secondly there is absolutely no counter argument to my well argued proofs in this long paragraph you wrote, it is simply a long insult.  When I first started discussing this subject, you read my argument and brought a well presented counter argument and I argued against your counter argument.  Now you have decided on your own that since you are unable to discredit my brilliant proofs from the Rambam, or by jealousy, refusal to admit that you were wrong, or some other reason that you will no longer read my posts or try to disprove them.  Not one sentence you wrote here is a Torah answer to my proofs that I stated above.  I however, have considered and countered your counter arguments; showing many to be impossible to be correct.  And you even answered many of them for me.

3.  I have admitted to you via PM that I was wrong about the Rambam not requiring a prophet to appoint a King.  I actually did forget the Rambam writing that since I thought the opposite from reading another verse when he wrote about Bar Kochba who R' Akiva appointed in the chapter on Malchut.  However, I have made a good argument that this error does not affect the notion that the Rambam allows a King in our time period since Prophesy does not require the arrival of Moshaich to return but simply being in the generation of the Massiah as per the Rambam and as stated directly by the Torah in Malachi where it says Eliyah the Prophet will come before the Massiah to prepare the Jewish people. 

4.  I am a simple Jew who enjoys a good Torah discussion since the Torah is expanded whenever Jews argue Torah and this is what the Torah means in the Prophets when it says "Hashem desired for Israel's righteousness that the Torah be made great and glorious".  In this brief discussion, before you resorted to insults the Torah has been expanded since we both sharpened our understanding of the subject at hand to try to prove ourselves correct and we both have learned new things.   I learned that I forgot what the Rambam said that a Prophet is required for example.  Also we learned that the Rambam has a contradiction when he writes about a King being appointed by a Prophet and the Sanhedrin; while in the same chapter on Kings he talks about R' Akiva appointing Bar Kochba.  You have gave a pretty good possible answer to this question.  Know that I never claimed anywhere to be an expert on the Torah or the Rambam.  Far from it, I am an ignorent fool and only learned a small fraction of the Rambam.  I wanted to partake in this discussion since I knew a little bit about the subject at hand by learning a portion of the Rambam's Hilchot Melachim and a few other chapters of the Rambam.  My only strength is that I am very skilled at derivation and can derive 100 times more than I learned from what I learned previously.  Otherwise I am a novice at learning.  Since there is no longer any point in talking with you since you are simply insulting me and not talking Torah I will end this discussion until I see some Torah posted.  Also I learned the simple written Torah and from the Torah and it doesn't say anything about Moshiach once in the vast majority of commandments relating to Israel and conquering the land that this is indeed the correct meaning of the Torah.  Also I have devoted a lot of time to this discussion as I am currently training in Medicine and I'm in Hospitals all day so I don't appreciate your insults.

6.  I posted a link to my translation of a single page of the Rambam because it had the Hebrew written above the English and had the verses individually numbered.  I consider translations with the Hebrew on the same page to be superior to just English since they are easier to check the translation.  Also I didn't like that your translation source didn't number the verses so I couldn't follow the Hebrew well with that.  But there was no difference between the two translations so I don't see your problem; and I only translated one page a few months ago so what's your accusation that I am misleading people by lying? 

[q_q_]

I was saying that your methodology of going from one argument to another and claiming that verses prove things that they do not prove,  corroborates an observation a non zionist told me about the methods of religious zionists.

The example was ch11.   I did not see you retract your claim that this proves that we should appoint a king in non messianic times?

I will ask you outright.
Do you retract that claim?   

i.e. do you agree that chapter 11 does not prove we should have a king in non messianic times?

Regarding the idea that you proved me wrong in PMs. Or you retracted one of your claims in PM.
I didn`t interpret a comment via PM along the lines of "oh, I forgot about that one.. But don`t get too happy. How about this one", to be a retraction. 
And if you really retracted it, you should have said so in the forum. Because it is a public forum, you do not want to mislead people.

Anyhow, the comparison I made was not personal against you.. The non zionist said it against ALL religious zionists - he said they are all the same.
I was just saying that -your- methodology corroborates or rather, is consistent, with what he said.


I did answer you, but you just responded that you already dealt with it in posts and PM.  By saying PM, you screw everybody else reading the thread.
If there are arguments you mentioned in PM then you should post them here and then not mention PMs.

The fact that you responded the way you did. Saying I Was proven wrong by your previoius posts and PMs, that was when Torah content stopped being mentioned.

I am glad you brought your argument back.

You said here in that last post

However, I have made a good argument that this error does not affect the notion that the Rambam allows a King in our time period since Prophesy does not require the arrival of Moshaich to return but simply being in the generation of the Massiah as per the Rambam and as stated directly by the Torah in Malachi where it says Eliyah the Prophet will come before the Massiah to prepare the Jewish people. 

I think you are right that prophecy will be restored early on, probably even before the messiah is revealed.
The fact about Eliyahu HaNavi proves that. And it is consistent with what I quoted from the RAMBAM`s "Guide". AS you said.

However, this does not prove what you write there.
It does not prove that  " the Rambam allows a King in our time period "

The reason why you are talking about prophecy now, is perhaps that you seem to agree that according to the RAMBAM, we need a prophet to appoint a King. Is that right?

note: I actually think you are wrong, and hurting your argument here. Since I think the RAMBAM when talking of the messianic King - moshiach, chapter 11, does not mention him being appointed.  And if he is it is not relevant,  because he fights the wars of G-d beforehand anyway.

Nevertheless, even if you were right, that the messianic king (that is moshiach or the presumbed moshiach by the way, according to the RAMBAM ch11) had to be appointed by a prophet.   
Then that does not mean we can have a King in our times.

Prophecy has not been restored to us!!!!!

A side point here.  (note- I know you are not chabad). But given that you are implying a suggestion that prophecy has been restored!!!!  Even deep within Chabad, they may say that the Lubavitcher Rebbe could acheive a low level prophecy - similar to ruach hakodesh. Not prophecy though.  Not level 3 (see the guide). Not a Navi(hebrew for prophet).  Even King Solomon was NOT a prophet.. the RAMBAM writes that is why his writings were in Ketuvim Similarly psalms (by King David), is in ketuvim.  They were written with ruach hakodesh..

I know you are not claiming that Prophecy has been restored. So I fail to see how you are saying we can appoint a King in our times..

Anyhow, the idea that according to the RAMBAM, a messianic king has to be appointed first, is wrong.  I don`t know why you are claiming that. It hurts your argument too.


Good luck with the medicine.. I can imagine it is very time consuming.. I can see how you lacked the time to do the translation of peirush hamaccabee.  I suggest making it a Wiki. Maybe the hebrew JTF readers can work together and translate it.