[Avodah] Loving Israel while in Chutz

[Michael Makovi]

> But how do you know "aretz" here is physical?
>
> R' Micha

I'm taking it as p'shat - inheriting the land = just that; physically
living on it. Applied to Olam haBa, it means living on the land
forever, after techiat hameitim.

The Kehati mishna brings this interpretation, that "kol yisrael yesh
lahem chelek l'olam haba"
refers to after techiat hameitim; I believe it is b'shmo Bartenura.

> Because of the machloqes the Rambam and the Ikkarim vs the Ramban as to whether
> techiyas hameisim is temporary, with a return to the ultimate reward in shamayim or
> whether it is the eternal ultimate reward
>
> R' Micha

Yes, Rambam does say that techiat hameitim is only temporary, but this
is a very strange idea IMHO - why would it even occur to Rambam that
we'd be resurrected only to die again? The only explanation I've seen
that makes sense to me, is that Rambam was so convinced by the
Aristotelian(*) concept of the perfection of a bodiless intellect, that
he couldn't bear to imagine that we'd exist for all eternity in Olam
haZe on the physical earth with physical bodies - surely the Torah
could not violate reason and logic in this way! But of course, Rambam
couldn't just deny techiat hameitim, so he okimta-ed(**) it away.

(*) Lest anyone be astounded at my insinuation that Rambam based his
philosophy on Aristotle, Rav Hirsch already came before me in
declaring that Rambam interpreted
Judaism's philosophy according to alien standards. I am simply
applying what Rav Hirsch said, to Rambam's interpretation of techiat
ha-meitim. And according to Rabbi Joseph Elias's perush to 19 Letters,
Rav Hirsch's incredibly harsh criticisms about Rambam
accepting false philosophies from alien sources, were based on similar
statements by the Yaavetz. Also, the Vilna Gaon said the Rambam
rejected magic and astrology only due to Aristotle. So I have on whom
to rely, IMHO.

(**) It was pointed out to me that I am using "okimta" in a
Conservative sense. Granted, the traditional understanding will simply
be that Chazal were teaching the true original intent of the Mishna,
that was hidden simply due to its brevity. However, Rabbi Steinsaltz
in the Essential Talmud says that Chazal would bend the Tannaitic
opinions' lashon to the limit, so as to make
every opinion agree as much as possible. He explicitly says the
attempt by Chazal does NOT attempt at historicity; rather, it was a
speculative method of trying to fit as many pieces of "evidence" (in
the scientific sense) into as few different theories as possible, in a
twist on occam's razor. Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner in the hakdama to
the Dor Revi'i says much of the same - that Chazal would bend the
lashon of the Mishna to its limit in order to make the mishna fit to
their (the Amoraim) logic and opinions. (He says this is exactly like
pilpul, except that the Amoraim are bending the words of the Tannaim
to fit the righteous and straight logic and reasoning of the Amoraim,
just as we might bend the words of the Amoraim to fit a Rishon.
However, Rabbi Glasner says, in objectionable pilpul, we are bending
the words of a Rishon to fit a nobody Acharon whose words we'd never
accept unless he just happened to print them in a book. But just
because he got his book printed, we all run to bend the words of the
rishonim to fit outrageous logic of a nobody Acharon. But the basic
method of pilpul, says Rabbi Glasner, is what the Amoraim did to the
Tannaim.)

Now then...

As far as I know, there is no hint in Chazal, whatsoever, for any idea
except that
techiat hameitim is resurrection to eternal life - Chazal say we'll be
resurrected, and Yishayahu says G-d will wipe away death - what's the
simplest way of taking all this without pilpul?

In fact, I believe that historically, the Hellenistic Jews had great
difficulty with the concept of techiat ha-meitim, because they
couldn't stand the idea that we'd be resurrected and live in the
physical world for eternity (horror of horrors! this would be a
punishment, not a reward!), and so they denied the principle - hence
Chazal's polemics to the contrary, their great stress on techiat
ha-meitim. But whereas the Hellenists denied the principle, Rambam was
obviously too pious and observant (I mean this as an honor/compliment,
NOT sarcasm, C"V) to do such a thing, and yet surely the Torah could not
violate reason and logic with such a distasteful "reward", and so he
okimta-ed techiat hameitim away.

So I believe Rambam and the Hellenists were faced with an identical
problem, but Rambam solved it in a totally different way. Wrong, IMHO,
but B"H not heretical.

This, I believe, is the general method of his Moreh Nevuchim - viz. to
re-explain Torah when it contradicts Aristotle, just as some today
will try to reexplain Torah concepts to fit with modern science.
Aristotle was proven and indisputable, so when Torah contradicts
Aristotle, we'll just have to reexplain Torah, for obviously we've
misunderstood Torah. I propose that Rambam saw a techiat hameitim
followed by eternal life, as something that contradicted "science" and
that had to be re-explained.

Mikha'el Makovi