[Avodah] Olam Haba is static

[Michael Makovi]

A tangent from Areivim of the same title. The question was whether a
meit in Olam haBa can raise his own level, or whether he needs the
living to elevate him; I took the following tangent. The current title
doesn't fit my tangent, but I can't think of a better one, so I'll
stick with it.

I was glancing at the Daat Mikra Tehillim the other day, and in Psalm
16 or 33, I think, on one of those lo ha-meitim yehalelu kah types of
pesukim scattered throughout Tehillim, Daat Mikra noted that this
gives many meforshim difficulties - how can this possibly be the case
in Olam haBa??!!

In the introduction to the Soncino Tehillim, it is simply said,
something to the effect that Torah teaches that this life is valuable,
as the only place one can do mitzvot and serve G-d. Therefore,
Tehillim rarely if ever mentions the afterlife (according to the
commentaries to individual Psalms; references to being saved from Sheol and
such, are interpreted as being saved from early death and such).

I'm inclined to agree with Soncino, but Daat Mikra had a very
interesting solution, similar to Soncino's but a step further: ditto
the line about this life being valuable as the only place you can
practically serve G-d, but an addition: surely the dead DO praise G-d,
but in a different, perhaps inferior way: we say that the
natural world praises G-d, but surely the praises from man are
superior to the praises from rocks and trees! Similarly, the dead may
very well praise G-d, but not as competently as the living do, in
their deeds and mitzvot in this world.

(As an aside, my personal favorite explanation of techiat ha-meitim is
that of Rav Berkovits in the end of G-d Man and History, viz.: techiat
ha-meitim is simply the resurrection of all the dead into Olam haZe,
period. The Messianic Era comes, and everyone is resurrected to live
in it for all eternity, plain and simple. If so, Olam haBa would
simply be a temporary layover on the way to techiat ha-meitim; being
death and resurrection, someone has to go *somewhere*, after all, but
this somewhere would have little intrinsic significance.

Rabbi Isidore Epstein in Faith of Judaism takes a Ramban-ish
perspective on techiat ha-meitim:
For the first half of his analysis, he goes on about how important
Judaism sees Olam haZe as, and therefore we have techiat ha-meitim
(i.e. because the physical world is so great and valuable, we aren't
dead forever). This whole section of his analysis I am thrilled with,
up to the point when he (very abruptly IMHO) says that however,
techiat ha-meitim is largely (maybe 50%) spiritual and not
truly/completely in Olam haZe/physical.

I'm not even really sure I understand Rabbi Epstein, because the shift
is truly so abrupt and perplexing. But if I understand him, then it
seems too complex; everything he said until this point leads to the
conclusion that techiat ha-meitim ought to be resurrection into Olam
haZe, Messianic Era, end of discussion. I'm inclined to accept
everything Rabbi Epstein says up to this point, but then tack on Rav
Berkovits's fantastically simple idea that techiat ha-meitim is simply
resurrection into THIS world, plain and simple, and discard the second
half of Rabbi Epstein's analysis, viz. his explanation of why techiat
ha-meitim is half spiritual if logically, according to the foregoing
words of his, it ought to be wholly physical.

My doing this preserves Rabbi Epstein's ta'am for techiat ha-meitim
(viz. physical is great) in the first half, but eliminates the need
for his complex justification/defence in the second half (viz. techiat
ha-meitim is only half physical, despite physical being so great as
himself has just spent several pages explaining). With Rav Berkovits,
I can say "physical is great, and so techiat ha-meitim is wholly
physical", end of discussion; very simple.)

Mikha'el Makovi