Avot022

7:
This new doctrine or philosophy of Teĥiyyat ha-Metim [the resurrection of the dead at the end of time] was joyously adopted by the Pharisees but emphatically rejected by the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected this teaching because it was not the accepted biblical concept of retribution and had no foundation in the biblical record as it stood at that time. The Pharisees took up the challenge and produced interpretations of the biblical text that today seem to us completely illogical. It is not easy to give examples of these attempts because they all involve reinterpretation of parts of verses taken out of context. Let one example suffice. Deuteronomy 31:16 reads (in a translation whose awkwardness is necessary for our purposes):

Completely ignoring the punctuation and syntax of the biblical text the Pharisees claim that the proof of Teĥiyyat ha-Metim is enshrined in this verse: "You are soon to lie with your fathers and then rise up".

8:
Since the new teaching was challenged the Pharisees dug in their heels and took steps to ensure that the faithful of their own group would never doubt the idea. One way to ensure compliance is to enact legislation (though this is rarely successful in matters of philosophy and faith). When we studied Tractate Sanhedrin 10:1 we learned:

9:
A much more successful way of inculcating a belief or opinion is to make it a part of the daily prayers. (When we studied Tractate Berakhot we noted how one of the blessings of the Amidah was introduced and had the desired effect of excluding the emergent Christian sect from synagogue worship.) In the case of Teĥiyyat ha-Metim too the Men of the Great Assembly – the Sanhedrin – introduced a berakhah into the Amidah whose sole purpose was to emphasize this new teaching. The second berakhah of the Amidah praises God who

And the berakhah ends with this affirmation:

We should note in particular the reference to the verses in Daniel which we quoted in our last shiur: the dead are those who sleep in the dust [Daniel 12:2]. In most modern English translations the insistence on the physical resurrection of the dead at the end of days is obfuscated by attempts to bring the phaseology into line with the philosophy introduced by Rambam concerning life after death (see next paragraph). It is now customary to translate the last phases quoted above as

or some such rendition.

10:
It was not until the Middle Ages that the teaching underwent an acute change. It was Rambam who sought to re-interpret the by now ancient teaching concerning Teĥiyyat ha-Metim (the resurrection of the dead at the end of time for the Great Judgement) into a belief in the Afterlife, the survival of the soul. We studied this in great detail when when we learned Tractate Sanhedrin and there is no room here or need for repetition. In his own lifetime Rambam was severely criticized for this departure from tradition. His response to the criticism of his contemporaries as regards his views concerning Olam ha-Ba [the Afterlife, the World to Come] is to be found in his "Essay on Resurrection" [Ma'amar Teĥiyyat ha-Metim]. The criticism was vociferous and hardly couched in polite academic language! Rambam was excoriated for having introduced a completely new philosophy of the afterlife which was directly contrary to accepted teachings up to that point. This essay has always been very embarrassing for me to read: despite the fighting words, Rambam does in fact try an elegant extrication of the kind we are so familiar with today from politicians when caught out by the communications media in some inconsistency: "My words have been misunderstood", "I have been quoted out of context", and so forth. "How can you possibly say that I think thus when I have explicitly said the opposite?" is a recurring theme – which did not succeed in pulling the wool of obfuscation over the eagle eyes of his critics. Anyone reading Ma'amar Teĥiyyat ha-Metim will be no more certain of Rambam's true views than he was before!

To be continued.

Derek Fieldswrites concerning the "fence around the Torah":

I think that the problem is not that the fence has become too high, but that we have fences around our fences. I have used a similar analogy to the one that you cited about speed limits. It is as if the speed limit is set at 50Kph and a safety conscious person determines that if 50Kph is safe, then 45Kph is safer. Then the followers of this person decide that if their sage restricted himself to 45Kph, then they, who are so much lower than their teacher, should restrict themselves to 40Kph and pretty soon there are a bunch of Jews sitting in the middle of the road going nowhere at all. Having said that, I have the concern that in tearing down the fences to get to the Torah, Liberal Jews have discarded the notion that a fence has any place at all. Too many fences may make what is precious inaccessible; no fences may make it hard to distinguish what is precious and worth protecting.

I respond:

Well said, Derek.