[Avodah] Olam Haba is static

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:26:36AM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: 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.

The subject of what is olam haba is a machloqes rishonim, discussed here
in the thread titled "Cave or desert island".

Rambam:
Olam haba is the supernal world, which is the only place where one can
get the greatest join, lehanos miziv hashechinah, without the interference
of a body.
Techiyas hameisim is for the justice of judging man in the same
condition as he acted. There is a 2nd death after techiyas hameisim,
since that's how to get the most sechar.

Ikkarim:
Similar, but techiyas hameisim as an opportunity for working on a higher
plane. One in which all the external challenges are eliminated and only
the internal ones remain. Still, techiyas hameisim is not eternal.

Ramban:
Olam haba is the post-techiyah existence.

Rav Kook:
There is no real machloqes -- techiyas hameisim describes a period
in which the illusion that there are two worlds is removed. Thus, one
returns from the supernal post-death experience to this world without
leaving shamayim behind.

Maybe RIE is thinking along the lines of RAYK. That after techiyas
hameisim, the concept of physical vs spiritual becomes blurry. That's
closer to what you summarized than the Ramban is.

There is also reason to believe that R' Yehudah places 1,000 years
between mashiach and techiyas hameisim, the millenium of Shabbos. More
than 1,000 years -- tosefes Shabbos.


:                                         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.

REB's "fantastically simple" idea involving taking sides in an unresolved
and unresolvable machloqes. Nu, so he prefers the Ramban over the Rambam.
I fail to see the grounds for having a favored position WRT the future.

What we can do is say we need an explanation of "lo hameisim yehallelu
Kah" aliba deRAYK moreso than other shitos. OTOH, the Rambam and Ikkarim
have to take Yeshaiahu's "eretz chadashah" as idiomatic, whereas the
Ramban and R' Kook do not.

Personally, I think the answer to "lo hameisim" lies in the difference
between hallel and other forms of praise. Pesuqei deZimra are said
daily. Saying Hallel daily, however, is beyond the merely assur and
implies kefirah. I don't have a fuller answer, at least not yet.


Back off the tangent to the topic we drifted to on Areivim...

I had a problem with the notion of doing things lezeikher those who died
in the Shoah. Presumably dying al qiddush Hashem means entering shamayim
(to avoid the words "OhB" in the same post as discussing the machloqes
on how to translate them) in a state of kaparah, biqedushah uvetaharah,
and the person's soul is at a level of getting all the ziv hasheniah it
is capable of getting hana'ah from. Certainly more than 11 months later.

At the moment of petirah, their potential is fully realized.

My question was: Therefore, isn't it incredible hubris to think that our
actions will contribute anything they could not? Isn't it like giving
$1 to the Rockefellers.

Answers came along the lines of "Yes, it's still $1 more."

Now I'm adding the notion that there is a maximum. A person is judged
for fulfilling his potential. And that potential includes actions they
inspite that occur after their petirah.

But if dying al qidush Hashem is a short-cut to reaching one's maximum
potential, then there is no 1 billion and 1 dollars.

And why would I assert that? Because "biqrovai aqadeish" (Vayikra 19:3)
means Nadav vaAvihu, not Moshe veAharon. As Rashi quotes Chazal, Nadav
veAvihu were "qerovai" because they were closer to their postential even
than MRAH! (It's that his potential was all the greater.) Qidush Hashem
through misah is for qerovim Lashem.


RSBA wrote:
> See KSA Hil' Yom Hakipurim 133: 21, where he gives reasons for being
> Mazkir Neshomos, including: "...shegam hamesim tzerichin kapara venodrim
> tzedaka baavuram...umo'ila hatzedaka baavur hamesim.." Ayin shom.

> It is known that the Belzer Rebbe R' Aharon zt'l used to light a candle
> on 7 Adar le'ilui nishmas Moshre Rabenu - saying that even MR benefits
> from actions undertaken on behalf of his neshama on this world.

As above, it may well be that MRAH has a higher place in olam haba,
but due to his great potential, it still isn't as high as he could be.

But the KSA only states as fact that which I said I couldn't understand --
the value of saying yizkor for those who died al qiddush Hashem. I wasn't
denying the fact; I was saying it so far defied my attempts to explain.

I also have to kvetch a bit to fit two other concepts.

One I mentioned already -- the implied fungibility of zekhus. My doing
a mitzvah can be accredited to someone else's account. Are we talking
midas hadin or midas hacheshbonos? As I wrote in passing above, I believe
it's crediting the person for living the sort of life that later moved
someone to do a mitzvah.

Which means that it's actually sechar for something(s) done during life.
Doesn't fit the aforementioned notion of 50 years, but then, we never
found a basis for it.

But it also doesn't explain why Qaddish would be timed to end at 11
months. It wouldn't need to imply that the meis was ch"v in gehennom
for more than 11 months, since the sekhar was effectively already by
the ultimate Ro'eh es hanolad when they acted.

And that brings me to my second difficult concept. What 11 months?
Time is part of olam hazeh! Certainly in Einstein's physics, there is
no time without space, matter and energy and the concept of "when" is
meaningless without specifying a frame of reference within that context.
But also according to REED, the Baal haTanya, Kant and Mach and their
philosophies of science as phenomenological rather than something
objectively "out there".

So, according to the baalei mesorah and thinkers I named, there is
problems asserting time outside of olam hazeh. Shamayim is beyond static,
since that would imply time without change. But according to anyone, even
if one doesn't have those problems saying it exists, but defining it and
how it stays "in sync" with time as we understand it is still difficult.

Thus, when RJR asked a couple of hours ago (9:52am EDT):
> What are the mekorot that a meit can elevate himself in olam haba?

I would assert (without sources) that even if there is somehow time in
Shamayim, they can't. But they could still praise G-d. For that matter,
their mere presence in shamayim is to His "credit" (kevayakhol), and
thus praise of Him.

However, things can occur in olam hazeh while he is in shamayim (or
should I say "she", since even a man's neshamah is belashon neqeivah?)
which the person set into motion while alive, and thus figure in
the din.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?