[Avodah] Loving Israel while in Chutz

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:49:01 -0400
Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 07:38:07PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:38:32 -0400 Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> : ...
> :> But the Rambam himself explains why: Because justice requires the soul
> :> reside again in a body when judged, otherwise the defendent isn't present
> :> as his own trial. The Ikkarim gives a different answer: This life is
> 
> : Where does Rambam say this?
> 
> Igeres Techiyas haMeisim. Drawin on the mashal of the blind man and
> lame man who get together to streal some figs (Sanhedrin 91b). IIUC,

Rambam cites that mashal?

> he understands the yom hadin as whether or not the person has the actual
> ability to resurrect.
> 
> Here's a quote from ch. 4, near the beginning:
> > As I will explain in the current essay: Why should we not interpret these
> > pesuqim allegorically, as we have done with many other Biblical verses,
> > allegorically without their literal meaning? The reason is as follows:
> > The idea of techiyas hameisim, ie, that the neshamah will return to the
> > body after death, is described by Daniel in a way cannot be explained any
> > way but literally: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
> > will rise, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting
> > contempt." Daniel was similarly told by the mal'akh, 'Now go your way to
> > the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days.'

Rambam merely notes, as I mentioned, that these verses are
unambiguously literal.  He says nothing at all about *why* God will
perform the miracle, and specifically, he does *not* say that: "justice
requires the soul reside again in a body when judged, otherwise the
defendent isn't present as his own trial".

> :> But the Rambam didn't "okimta techiyas hameisim away". He made it an
> :> ikkar emunah. A move that wasn't compelled by the sources; it was
> :> within his worldiew that ThM is central to defining Judaism!
> 
> : Rambam in Iggeres Tehias Ha'Mesim says that belief in bodily resuscitation
> : most definitely *is* compelled by sources...
> 
> But making it an ikkar is not.
> 
> :                What is your source for the assertion that "it was within
> : his worldiew that ThM is central to defining Judaism"?
> 
> Because it's the 13th ikkar emunah. Aren't the ikkarim the center of
> his definition of Judaism?

I believe that there is a great deal of discussion of what exactly the
Rambam meant by his formulation of the Ikkarim; see, e.g. Abarbanel,
Rosh Amanah, Chapter Twenty Three.  In any event, Rambam's view on the
significance of Tehias Ha'Mesim in particular is quite problematic,
since in spite of its appearance as Ikkar Thirteen and his vigorous and
indignant defense of his belief in it in Iggeres Tehias Ha'Mesim, his
reference to it in the Yad (Teshuvah 3:6) is so brief and ambiguous that
Gedolei Ha'Rishonim (e.g. Ra'avad ibid. 8:2, although see Kessef Mishneh
there) were apparently able to believe that he rejected it, rendering
problematic the assumption that it is part of "the center of his
definition of Judaism".

> -Micha

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat