כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם

כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם, וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Proof for Techiyat Hameitim Min Hatorah

Translated from an article on the Daat Emet website:

Even though Scripture does not mention the World to Come or the Resurrection of the Dead, the sages interpreted the verses such that they would strengthen the belief in the Resurrection of the Dead and that this is not an invention of the sages rather grounded in Scripture. They did so to such extent that they said: "And those do not have a portion in the World to Come: Someone who says that the Resurrection of the Dead is not from the Torah" (Sanhedrin 90a).

The sages gave many interpretations in order to conclude that there is a source for the Resurrection of the Dead in the Torah; and this is one of them. In the book of Mishlei (Proverbs) it is written: "The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not satisfied with water; and the fire that saith not: 'Enough.'" (Proverbs 30:16).

One of the sages, Rabbi Tabi, explained as follows: Why did the scripture place sheol (death and burial) adjacent to womb (sexual procreation and birth)? To teach you about the Resurrection of the Dead through an a forteriori argument: if it is true for the womb that the ones that enter do so in silence during the sexual act yet the baby comes out with sounds of cries, how much more so is it true for death and burial which is done amidst the sound of cries, that the dead will come out with sounds of cries. This teaching constitutes a compelling answer to those who claim that the Revival of the Dead is not from the Torah. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 92a).

The quote from the Gemara itself, as translated by www.judentum.org:
R. Tabi said in R. Josia's name: What is meant by, The grave; and the barren womb; and the earth that is not filled by water (Prov. XXX, 16.): now, what connection has the grave with the womb? But it is to teach thee: just as the womb receives and brings forth, so does the grave too receive and bring forth. Now, does this not furnish us with an a fortiori argument? If the womb, which receives in silence, yet brings forth amid great cries [of jubilation]; then the grave, which receives the dead amid cries [of grief], will much more so bring them forth amid great cries [of joy]! This refutes those who maintain that resurrection is not intimated in the Torah.
In my dictionary, refuting means overthrowing someone else's arguments. I guess the fact that it is mentioned in the Gemara makes it true for OJ fundies, regardless of its logic.

7 comments:

  1. My brain hurts from trying to follow the logic.

    It would be a better argument if he left out the ridiculous kal v'chomer, and just said that the pasuk juxtaposed grave and womb to teach us that just as the womb brings forth life, so too will the grave. It still wouldn’t be very convincing, but at least it would make some sort of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought it wasn't allowed to make up your own kal vachomers, so was this one Halacha Lemoshe Misinai? What would this tell us about the person of Moshe? :P

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my journeys, I have had a HUGE problem with the fact that olam haba and techiyat hamaytim are not mentioned. I have asked many rabbis and you get something along the lines of . . . "there are hints to it in the torah", "the oral law discusses it" and "what is the point of life if olam haba does not exist?"

    Of course, the hinting is BS because you can see a hint for anything if you are trying to prove something.

    It's in the oral law . . . and show me again where the torah even mentions the oral law?

    Lastly, i think the argument that our life here is worthless without olam haba is a crock. that is basically saying that you believe the mitzvot have no intrinsic value. If you believe that they help you lead a fuller life, then why is that not a good reason to follow them? why do you need the "prize" of olam haba to give you that goal to strive to achieve?

    ReplyDelete
  4. > Lastly, i think the argument that our life here is worthless without olam haba is a crock.

    It's also irrelevant to the question of whether olam habah exists. That our lives would be pointless doesn't mean it exists, becuase it may be that it in fact doesn't exist and our lives are in fact pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree it is irrelevant, but I have heard that argument many times. I do agree that the idea of olam haba is nice as is the idea of techiyat hamaytim, but that doesn't sway the argument in either direction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For nation to not strike sword against nation anymore, the very nature of the yetzer hara will change aka we will have no more free will, because free will demands an option to do evil.

    So if God was planning on taking away free will anyway during the World to Come to stop all warfare, then it raises an important question.

    If God was planing on taking away free will anyway, then why did he give it to us in the first place? Heck why not just start the world with messianic age, why not just start the messianic age with Adam and Hawwah? What was the point of us having this temporary interim with banishment from heaven, and the messianic age? Makes no sense.

    I asked Jacob Stein this question and all I got was we cannot know how God works. Thing is that same line is used by christians when they are asked to explain the trinity. We are told its all a mystery! But then again isn't religion supposed to give us an answer for those divine mysteries in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  7. JS, IMHO is only trying to scorn the 'infidels', divert his attention from his own problems and frustrations and to attract people to his own website. He seems one unhappy SOAG.

    ReplyDelete