Sanhedrin 137
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
|
כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, "וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר". וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא: הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאַפִּיקוֹרוֹס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בִסְפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר "כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ". אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו:
All Israel have a share in the next world, as it is said: "All your people are just, they shall inherit the earth for ever, the shoot of My planting, the work of My hands for My glorification" [Isaiah 60:21]. The following have no share in the next world: one who says that the resurrection of the dead is not from the Torah; Torah is not from Heaven; the Epikoros. Rabbi Akiva adds someone who reads heretical books and someone who mutters a spell over a wound by saying "All the malady that I set upon Egypt I will not set upon you for I, God, am your Healer" [Exodus 15:26]. Abba Sha'ul adds someone who pronounces the Name according to its letters.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
9:
Of all the great "classical" works in the halakhic repertoire that we might describe as being 'under-rated' or insufficiently studied, we must certainly include the great Commentary on the Mishnah by Rambam. In all probability the only reason that this work did not achieve the renown and 'circulation' of Mishneh Torah is the fact that it was written in Arabic. And it was written in Arabic because Rambam wanted it to be a work for 'Everyman' and not just for scholars. While this major work follows closely the text of the mishnayot, the author does not hesitate to launch into major excursuses – some of very many pages – when a particular topic requires extraordinary attention. One such excursus is the General Introduction; another is the introduction to Tractate Avot, familiarly known as "The Eight Chapters of Rambam"; and a third is the commentary on our present mishnah, with its implications concerning olam ha-ba. Rambam was hardly the kind of scholar who would let such a golden opportunity pass him by without utilizing it, and he launches into a famous discussion on the nature of "life after death". (From here until the end of today's shiur is direct quotation from Rambam):
Just as a blind man cannot appreciate colour, the deaf man sound, the eunuch the pleasure of sexual intercourse – so the physical cannot appreciate non-physical pleasure. Just as a fish cannot comprehend fire because its medium is the very opposite of fire, so we in this physical world cannot know the pleasure of a non-physical world. This is because in a physical world we can only experience physical pleasure. Non-physical pleasure, on the other hand, is constant, and bears no relationship whatsoever to physical pleasure. If we follow the Torah, it would be wrong of us to suppose that angels … do not sense pleasure – metaphysicians and philosophers agree with this! Rather do they have a very great pleasure in that they have a greater understanding of the Creator, which is for them a constant and uninterrupted pleasure. But they have no physical pleasure: since they do not have sense as we do they do not sense as we sense. Similarly we, if we were to become ethereal after death and reach that rank, we would not comprehend physical pleasure and would not desire it.
If you think carefully about both kinds of pleasure you will soon come to realize the baseness of the one and the superiority of the other – even in this world! Most people – perhaps all – will work themselves to death in order to achieve greatness or honour, neither of which are physical pleasures like eating and drinking. Similarly, many people enjoy the feeling of revenge over physical pleasures. There are many who refrain from the greatest of physical delights for fear that people will think less highly of them or in order to achieve respect. If this is our situation in this physical world, how much more are we likely to appreciate spiritual pleasure in the non-physical world which is the Afterlife [olam ha-ba], where we shall comprehend the Creator as non-physical beings. That is a pleasure that cannot be defined or metaphorised. As the psalmist says [31:20], "How great is Thy goodness that Thou hast in store for them that fear Thee, that Thou hast made for them that trust in Thee!" The sages put it this way: "In the afterlife there is no eating, no drinking, no washing, no combing, and no intercourse; the righteous simply sit there with their crowns on their heads enjoying the radiance of the Divine Presence" [Gemara Berakhot 17a]. What they meant by "their crowns on their heads" is a reference to the soul as a discrete intelligence, which philosophers have treated but which would take too long to detain us here. (By the phrase "enjoying the radiance of the Divine Presence" they allude to the pleasure that they have in what they comprehend of the Creator.) The Reward, the ultimate 'objective' is to reach this exalted state, to exist in this spiritual form eternally, like the Creator who is the cause of that existence which enables the soul to comprehend Him. This is the great and incomparable good, which is eternal and has no purpose; how could it be compared to that which perishes? In the Torah [Deuteronomy 22:7] God says "That you may have a long and good life"; the sages give the traditional interpretation: So that you may have good in the world which is absolute good and life in the life that is absolutely long. The ultimate punishment is the extinction of the soul, that it will perish and cease to exist. This is the 'excision' mentioned in the Torah. Excision means the utter extinction of the soul. In the Torah [Numbers 15:31] we read "that soul shall be absolutely cut off", and the rabbis have explained that as meaning "cut off in this world, cut off in the next". Anyone who has sunk into physical pleasure to the exclusion of the truth is cut off from that attainment and remains excised matter.
Rambam concludes his statement on olam ha-ba by reiterating the fact that it is completely severed from all physicality. He quotes the prophets:
The prophet Isaiah has already explained that olam ha-ba cannot be comprehended through the physical senses. "No eye, O God, but Thine has seen what will be done for him that waits for Thee" [Isaiah 64:3]. In explaining this passage the sages said that wherever the prophets deal with this topic they are without exception referring to the Messianic Age; as far as olam ha-ba is concerned, "No eye, O God, but thine has seen it".
To be continued:
DISCUSSION:
The case of the prophet who was eaten by a lion has provoked no little comment. Marc Kivel wrote:
I'd only offer the thought, in re the death by lion of the prophet who did not heed instructions: if a person who has heard once from HaShem and been told to refrain from an act, and then at the word of another person ignores Heavenly instruction, even if the latter says they are a prophet, is this person still fit to serve as a navi? No. Perhaps a lesson for Jeroboam, but more certainly a lesson for would be prophets? And Mark D. Lehrman wrote: It seems to me (from the English translation, that is) that the tale starkly presents the dynamic between two "dueling" prophets, each one bearing a completely different and contradictory message and therefore each implicitly claiming a more direct connection to God. Had the second "prophet" said something like: "But God has spoken to me and asked me to tell you that you are now free to eat and drink again …" one might conclude that he indeed was a messenger intended to "bring the word of God" to the first prophet. However, his message was not directed at the plight of the first prophet at all, but rather touted his own "mission" i.e., "God told me to take you back to my home to eat and drink." As I read it, this response neither directly addresses nor abrogates God's original command to the first prophet. I asked Ed Frankel, who had originally raised the moral issue, for his comments on these suggestions: I have nothing particularly to add to either. I think what you wrote is about as good as one can get. There is one other peculiarity, too, that neither of us dealt with. The second prophet knows where to find the real prophet. How? This would seem to reflect at least as much Divine intervention as the man who pointed Joseph to his brothers. If indeed this is the case, how could the former prophet ignore the message? If anything, it makes the text even more unethical. Ed has not had the opportunity of reading the following message from Yitzchok Zlochower: Ed Frankel raised the question of the justice of a genuine prophet being killed for not fulfilling a small part of his commission upon the urging of another prophet. It would seem that the prophet who lied about having a message from God which contravened the real message given earlier to the other prophet should have been the one to die (Deut. 18:20), rather than the prophet who was misled. The lesson that we should derive from this incident, it seems to me, is the obligation to fulfill a direct personal command from God without reservation. If the prophet from Judea was prepared to risk his life to confront the king of Israel, Jeroboam, with a calamitous prediction about his official cult site, then he should also have heeded the second part of the command with equal valor and determination. He should have realized that God would not contravene a direct, personal order by sending a message indirectly through another prophet – particularly a prophet unknown to him. The severity of the punishment, however, is a reflection of the seriousness of the situation that was the subject of the prophetic mission – as the Ralbag suggested. The establishment of cult sites in the Israel kingdom with priests who were not even Levites, and the abolition of the tithes given to the Levites caused a wholesale migration of this more learned segment of the population to Judea. As a result, ignorance of the torah and absorption of pagan ideas and values grew apace, and lead ultimately to the exile of the inhabitants of Israel. Under the circumstances, the severity of the message given to the prophet and the severity of the punishment meted out to him for not fulfilling it entirely is not surprising. I ask parenthetically why Yitzchok assumes that the second prophet was a false prophet. |