Tefillah 057

56:
In the previous shiur we saw how, in the Middle Ages, Rambam amplified the ancient concepts of Teĥiyyat ha-Metim and Olam ha-Ba to include a concept of the eternity of the righteous soul and life after death (as distinguished from resurrection at 'the end of days'). Many modern scholars (and not so modern ones too) have tried to guess why Rambam saw fit to broach this subject at all in his Mishnah Commentary. It is clear from his treatment that he is attempting to make rabbinic and Aristotelian concepts harmonize: he describes whatever remains of the human psyche after physical death as "discrete intelligences". The best guess is that in his Mishnah Commentary he was not trying to write an in-depth analysis of the position that he is espousing, but rather that he was attempting to "make the Jewish world a safe place for philosophers to live in", by indicating that there was room for maneuver.

57:
One thing is certain: he had every intention of denigrating the accepted conceptualization of resurrection. A couple of pages earlier, in the excursus we discussed in the previous shiur, he had written that there were people that

58:
It is in this same excursus that Rambam expounds his Thirteen Basic Principles – what he considers the essential philosophic bases of Judaism. These principles are better known in two other formats: one prose and the other verse. The prose version starts off each principle with the formula "I believe with perfect faith…": Rambam would have been horrified. The verse (or worse?) form is the hymn known as Yigdal. Obviously Rambam himself is not responsible for either of the two later formats. In any case, the last of his Thirteen Principles is entitled "Resurrection", and his expounding thereof is limited to one pithy phrase: "I have already explained all this!" No doubt this is the reason why he was accused in his own lifetime of entertaining the heretical belief that there would not be a physical resurrection of the dead. He got so much flack that he had to write another work, Ma'amar Teĥiyyat ha-Metim [An Essay on Resurrection] in which he claims that he was misunderstood and grossly calumniated! He states quite categorically that resurrection of the dead is an essential part of Jewish theology and that he who does not accept it is not part of Israel. He then manages to set up such a thick screen of verbiage concerning his own position that more heat is generated than light. However, his conceptualizations are obvious to those who wish to understand them.

59:
Thus it is that Judaism seems to have stated "absolutely categorically" that Teĥiyyat ha-Metim is so important a credal element that it must be hammered home in the second benediction of the Amidah so that no one can claim that they do not accept the idea. However, no one seems to be able to agree with anyone else as what is the precise meaning of that which has been "categorically stated" – except the absolute certainty that different views must, of course, be heretical! Thus, in fact, in Judaism we seem to have found legitimate room for Resurrection, Afterlife, Transmigration of souls and so forth. What can be stated positively is that Rabbinic Judaism teaches that physical death does not entail spiritual extinction as well.

60:
As I have indicated in an earlier shiur, the ancient rite of Eretz-Israel was not so very insistent that the essential purpose of this benediction is to publicise the concept of resurrection. In most of the texts that have come down to us the element of adequate rainfall and resurrection are given more or less equal weight, and sometimes the meaning of the latter is obfuscated by the former. We have mentioned on several occasions that in Eretz-Israel the cantor was expected to amplify and beautify his rendition of the statutory prayers. This was particularly expected in the repetition of the Amidah. One text, for example, give the cantor the following instead of the standard text:

Despite the flowery language it can clearly be perceived that it is more than just hinted that without adequate rain we are 'dead' as it were and when the rains come they 'revive the dead'. Those who wish to see the original Hebrew text of the above version of the benediction will find it here.

61:
In a previous shiur I mentioned a similar composition that I had made. I now present the second benediction of that composition (which follows on directly from the first). In it I, too, have tried to combine and meld the two ideas. Those who wish to read it will find it here. Here is an English translation of my Shiv'ata:

This version of the Gevurot benediction is deliberately ambiguous; it gives expression both to the resurrection of the dead at the end of days and also to renewed life that is brought by the seasonal rains, without which all is dead. The phrase 'restore spirit to dead men' is deliberately ambiguous in the Hebrew: it can also be understood as meaning 'make the wind blow over dead men'.

This concludes our study of the second benediction of the Amidah.

In Tefillah 054 I advanced the rule that no individual may recite any berakhah that is not mentioned in the Gemara or by the poskim.

Ze'ev Orzech points out that this rule

is clearly observed more in the breach than in our ritual since the benediction 'Who gives strength to the weary' …is included in the Morning Blessings. Why then do you argue that "there is no room for the inclusion of Sarah in the conclusion of the benediction [Shield of Abraham]"?

I respond:

Ze'ev has quoted the only 'breach' in the rule that there is. At even that 'breach' is accepted only by the Ashkenazi ritual and is rejected by the others. And even among the Ashkenazim there are many poskim who object to saying this benediction for the reason given. I hardly think that one 'breach' of a rule – a 'breach' which is condemned both from within and without – is a reasonable justification for introducing a second 'breach'. This sounds very much like an argument that runs "since the rule has been broken once let's break it again".