[Avodah] Loving Israel while in Chutz

[Yitzhak Grossman]

[The delay is largely due to my taking the time to carefully reread the
Iggeres Tehias Hamesim ('ITH'), to ensure the accuracy of my response.]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:16:16 -0400
Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 09:41:14PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : > 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?
> 
> Yes.

*He* *does* *not*

> : > 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..
> 
> The pasuq does. "Eileh lechayei olam, ve'eileh lachavafos".

I will attempt, one last time, to explain what I find so problematic
about your comments.  In the entire ITH, Rambam says *nothing at all*
of the teleology of Tehias Hamesim, or why it is a critical dogma,
other than the argument that the rejection of its possibility out of a
belief in the inviolability of the natural order is tantamount to a
rejection of miracles in general, a doctrine which is utterly
unacceptable to Judaism.  On the mere grounds of his citation of the
aforementioned verse, you wrote (in your original message in this
sub-thread) that:

> 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.
 
I consider the attribution of this view to Rambam to be groundless and
dubious, and the flat assertion that "the Rambam himself explains
why ...", when he says no such thing, to be unacceptable.

> ...
> : 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...
> 
> The Ra'avad isn't quite objective WRT finding reasons to attack the
> Rambam. BTW, did he have access to IThM?
> 
> Lema'aseh, I can only judge the Rambam by what I see of the Rambam, and
> he writes about techiyas hameisim at length.

He writes about it at length only after the eruption of controversy
over his view.

> -Micha

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