A strange article in the news

Lilienblum suggests that the sermons of the sages were a kind of thinking challenge in the beit midrash, like a creative Bible quiz, or like the tongue-twisters of ad hoc poets. Thus, a question would arise from a rabbi from the Minyan to a Torah verse, and the shōmei kechi began to provide creative references from their knowledge of the Bible. And just as cubs of predators wrestle with each other in a game designed to perfect their hunting skills as they grew older, so, by contrast, the sages of Israel would apologize to each other in order to strengthen their memory and improve their associative abilities.

*to bring (and not;to a prophet)
*to argue (and not;to apologize)

When I read Rambam and Abarbanel on the subject, I got the feeling that they were not really impressed by these proofs, which is why they focused the main part of their argument for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah on Daniel 12 (although I think there are also psalms in which the view of some kind of life after death is reflected quite clearly).

In general, it seems that the former had much less trouble disputing the mythological midrash and did not try to impose their theological methods on them, while today in the public consciousness these things have acquired an almost sacred status of a kind of written Torah. If someone dares to say that this or that midrash is not a sufficiently convincing reason for accepting any worldview, they are immediately labeled as a heretic at best or a Karaite at worst. But there is a thorn in it - this leads to ridicule of the Torah in the eyes of the public, which might otherwise be interested in the question of its truth.

For example, the midrash on which devotees of worship at the tomb of Rashbi on Lag BaOmer like to base themselves: “Rava Melamed said, ‘A dog has interpreted the advice of spies, and he went and prostrated himself on the graves of his ancestors, saying to them, ‘My ancestors begged me for mercy, that I may be delivered from the advice of spies.’”

And as for the actual intellectual question of whether there will be a resurrection of the dead, the answer depends on the question of how much trust we place in the prophecies of Daniel. In my opinion, it can be shown that it is sufficiently ancient (we were before the Hasmoneans at least), and therefore the prophecies that go down to the resolution of details upon details that are spoken in chapter 11 and were fulfilled precisely justify giving trust in the fact that what is said about the future in the continuation of the vision in chapter 12 is also true.

Copenhagen,
Questions of fact are not a matter of faith but of fact (will there be a resurrection of the dead or will there not be one). A question of faith is whether the Lord of the world can resurrect the dead, and I think even the Rabbi admits that he can. We pray to resurrect the dead because we believe that the Creator's mercy will bring about the resurrection of the dead (“reviving the dead with great mercy” – moral reason). To link the question of the resurrection of the dead to the question of Daniel's antiquity sounds strange to me (what does it matter to me if he is early, what does it matter to me if he is late?).

Regarding sermons, one could say that the bigger the question, the more answers there are (unless they convince me that these are different religions).

In the 17th chapter of the 2nd century BC, the resurrection of the dead is explained not only in Daniel 12 (which our friend Copenhagen mentioned) but also in Psalms 111: “You shall add their spirit, and they shall return to their dust; send forth your spirit, and they shall be healed, and you shall renew the face of the earth.” And in Isaiah 27: “Your dead shall live, who have been slain forever; awake and be glad, you who dwell in the dust, for the dew of your tabernacle and the land of the dead will fall.”

The resurrection of the dead has already occurred through Elisha, who raised the Shunammite from the dead, and even concerning Elijah the prophet, who ascended in a storm to heaven, the angel foretold that he would return “before the day of the Lord comes.” The great and terrible One, and He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers.

And the hope is: Death is nothing but a decree that was decreed upon humanity by the sin of the first Adam, and when this sin is corrected, the decree will be revoked and death will be swallowed up forever, and God will wipe away tears from all faces.

This hope was also hinted at in the Torah, specifically in the seemingly pessimistic verse, which speaks of the death of Moses, which will
result in a spiritual decline of the people. Here the Torah hinted at this by means of the standard of "a book required before him and after him and beyond"), according to which the word "and rise" is required before it: "You lie down with your fathers and rise" And also after it: ‘And this people arise…’

At the height of the fall, the opening to hope is already implied, and so they preached on the terrible verse: ‘She has fallen no more, arise, O virgin of Israel’, which they gave to the dush ‘Arise’ also after it: ‘She has fallen no more. Arise, O virgin of Israel’, here too the sermon turns the severe calamity into hope!

With greetings, Sch”Löwinger

On sermons of this type, see the article by Prof.’ Simcha Kugot, “A Required Reading Before and After Him” – A linguistic examination of double reading midrashim, and their relationship to the division of flavors, Sefer Yuval for Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, 2, pp. 697-706)

I haven't gotten to the bottom of your thinking about the distinction between questions about the Creator of the world and questions about what will happen in the future. Both deal with facts about reality. In both, you ask, is reality this way, or is it otherwise?

I agree that moral reason may give a certain a priori weight to the *possibility* of a resurrection of the dead, but it is not sufficient in itself to *prove* that such a fantastic thing will happen. Perhaps there is another kind of afterlife, perhaps the world of souls, perhaps union with Buddha, and perhaps, as the pagans believe, reincarnations, and perhaps all reward and punishment are given in this world even though we have enough information to explain ‘why the way of the wicked prospers’, as Jeremiah asks. To be able to determine the truth in such vague matters, you need revelation. And that is what happened in the book of Daniel.

I have already mentioned what is the issue with the question of Daniel's antiquity or his lateness regarding the intellectual evidence for the resurrection of the dead. Is this really so incomprehensible? I will quote:

“In my opinion, it can be shown that he is sufficiently ancient (were he before the Hasmoneans at least) and therefore the prophecies that go down to the resolution of details upon details that are said in chapter 11 and were fulfilled precisely justify giving credence to the fact that what is said about the future in the continuation of the vision in chapter 12 is also true.”

During Lent, they would go out after the prayer on the city street to pray in the cemetery, and the (Ta’anit 16:1 brings two opinions regarding the reason: “And why do we go out to the cemetery?” Consider R. Levi bar Hama and R. Hanina. One said: “We are as important to you as the dead,” and another said: “So that the dead may seek mercy on us.” What is the reason? Where is the graves of the Gentiles?” [which pertains only to the first reason].

Rava took the second reason (Sotah 34:2: “A dog that has interpreted the advice of spies and has gone and prostrated itself on the graves of its ancestors. He said to them: My ancestors, seek mercy on me so that I may be saved from the advice of spies.”) And the Tosafot (ibid., Abattoir 4:5) explained that there is no mention here of Directly to the dead, but ‘know”by prayer that it is praying – inform them that this is how we pray’.

With regards, Sh”z Levinger

In my response, ‘A scripture is required before and after it – The hope that grows out of calamity’

Paragraph 3, line 2:
… The decree will be revoked, and it will be fulfilled: ‘He will swallow up death forever, and God will wipe away tears from all faces’ (Isaiah 25:8)

17 Bishvat 89

To Copenhagen – Greetings,

I don't understand why you are so angry about the reincarnation of souls? After all, in the resurrection of the dead (which is explicitly mentioned in Psalms 111: ‘Their spirit shall be consumed, and they shall return to their dust; send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be healed’, in Isaiah 22: ‘Awake and be glad, you who dwell in the dust’ and in Daniel 12: ‘The ravens from the dust of the earth shall awake’) the soul actually returns to a new body, since the first body has already been consumed and dispersed. What, then, is the difference between ‘resurrection’ and ’reincarnation’?

A situation similar to reincarnation in an animal is described in Daniel chapter 4, where it is said that Nebuchadnezzar was transformed into an animal for seven years as punishment for his pride?

Even something like partial reincarnation (what I think is called a "spark"), in which the spirit of a person who has departed from the world dwells in a person and influences him, is described in 1 Kings chapter 22 about the spirit that goes out to tempt the false prophets so that they will tempt Ahab to go to war in which he will fall (and according to the Midrash of Chazal, this was the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite). Elisha also asks Elijah

And perhaps Elisha's request to Elijah: "Let your spirit be twice as great upon me" (Mahalachim 2 chapter 2), can be interpreted as a request that Elijah's spirit continue to accompany him "and leave me alone"

An exhaustive review of the various opinions in Jewish sources on the question of reincarnation, in Dr. Doron Danino's article, ‘The Belief in Reincarnation in Judaism’, which is linked to in the Wikipedia entry ‘Reincarnation’. There is also a whole book written by Dr. Danino on the debate on reincarnation in Venice, Amsterdam and Hamburg in the 17th century, and’Let the wise be wiser’.

With best regards, Sh”z Levinger

Levinger,

Your own insertion into the Gemara of the words “to pray in the cemetery” – which do not appear in it. This is certainly an anachronistic reading, since the Gemara gives reason for the matter: the internalization that we are as important as the dead, and some say so that the dead may seek mercy on us.

“Fleigi in it R’ Levi bar Hama and R’ Hanina: One said, Behold, we are as important before you as the dead, and another said so that the dead may seek mercy on us. What is the connection? Here is the connection between them, the graves of the Akkadians.”

The Gemara concludes that according to the first opinion it is possible to go to the graves of Gentiles, and the Rambam and Shulchan Ar ruled similarly for the same reason. In other words, according to your words, it would seem that the Gemara encourages praying at the graves of Gentiles. After all, this is the whole point of its construction.

The problem is not with the belief in reincarnation per se, but rather the very disease that this belief points to as a symptom: various and strange inventions are accepted in the heart and in the womb as the Torah from Sinai without criticism. This was not the way of the Torah given from Sinai.

This is not the place to discuss the question of the logical and metaphysical possibility of reincarnation. The matter would require a discussion of the question of how the identity of the ’I’ is preserved over time, and whether the resurrection of the dead means that a certain causal continuity necessarily exists between the previous body and the renewed one. The problems may indeed undermine even the very metaphysical possibility of reincarnation. But even if not, there are countless different and strange possibilities that one can imagine what could be, and just because it is possible does not in itself constitute any evidence for its truth (except for the possibility of God according to the ontological view). The question is not what is possible but only: what is real.

Nebuchadnezzar did not become an animal but he became mad and debased and behaved like an animal.

The spirit that seduced Naboth was simply part of the heavenly host:

And he said, Hear therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall on the mount of Gilead? And this one said, Weep, and that one said, Weep. And the spirit went forth, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will tempt him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherefore? And he said, I will go forth, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt tempt, and thou shalt be deceived. Go forth, and do so.

The same host of heaven to which the LORD turned at the time of creation in the judgment, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

I wouldn't take a nice creative legend about personal revenge and settling accounts, which also states that there is no question of reincarnation here, but only the creation of an illusion in the minds of false prophets (because we are talking about a false spirit in many prophets and not about a personal incarnation in some body) to base a worldview on.