Presence

Greg- you are on a roll today. Keep em coming!!!

My daughter (4.5 yrs) has recently begun telling me that when Moshiach comes, she will meet my grandmother. I have a hard enough time knowing what I believe about the accuracy of her statement. I would love to know what normative Orthodox Judaism believes and how that belief came to be formed. Are either of the books mentioned in this blog entry useful? Any other suggestions. Where is the original Rambam source to be found. Clearly, the belief in the possibility of an occasional resurrection is supported by Tanach, e.g., Elijah. It is quite a leap from there to inevitable universal resurrection.

IMO, one of the cornerstones of Judaism is that we are judged on actions, not beliefs (for the most part? there is the idol worship thing). In that case, do we *need* to believe anything about resurrection or the afterlife? No. If God decides to resurrect me, then so be it. But how is my belief that this will happen or that this is possible influence anything? Sounds to me like the pie in the sky Christian-heaven type doctrine.

OTOH, not all beliefs are useless because our actions are influenced by our beliefs. For example, it is important to believe that we can atone by prayer, charity, Yom Kippur, etc. If we don't believe this, we might become depressed and stop following the Law altogether; or might convert to Christianity and become antinomians.

At every point in history, there are ideas that permeate society and it seems to everyone that they must be true. Anyone or any religion that denies such an idea can be easily ridiculed. "He does not believe in X". Period. No need to discuss it further.

Today, the accepted truth is that war is evil. That's why US had to make such a big case against Iraq, saying that it was Iraq that truly started the war, etc. The Tanakh simply does not support this position: Saul is criticized for not slaughtering enough Amalekites. Many Jews today go through the nauseating process of finding excuses for Tanakh: it was 3000 years ago, people were primitive, it only applies to Amalek, etc. Yet, where does morality come from? Does morality come from Judaism? (hint: yes), or is morality independent of religion, and Judaism has to justify itself based on this independent morality? (hint: no)

In M's day, such a universally accepted idea was the resurrection of the dead, as both Christians and Muslims believed it. There is no scriptural support for the idea, yet, at the time, everyone thought "it must be true", and so Judaism had to be rigged to accept this "universal truth". Times change, "universal truths" change. Yet, the fundamentals of a true religion should not change with times.

dopey- Where is your daughter getting her ideas? Parents want children to have the same ideas as them. Yet, in our days, most parents have to send their kids to school. In school, rather than *teaching* such subjects as reading, writing, and arithmetic, teachers often *indoctrinate* the children into religious or social doctrines.

I have ordered the book and am interested in reading it also. I will look forward to hearing your thoughts about it.

All - I'm going back to the sources to look some of this stuff up. Stay tuned.

If anyone in Baltimore wants to borrow the Kellner book, let me know. Just don't bend the spine, I'm a bit particular about my books.

Ami:
I am fairly sure my daughter got her ideas about Mashiach from the chabad pre-school she used to attend. Her current school is a bit more text-based - in fact, they got upset about her telling people Vashti had green spots because the kids were not yet ready to encounter the Purim story directly from the Megilla and therefore would not understand what textual issues the Midrash was wrestling with when it fills in gaps.

In any case, I don't expect nor particularly desire that my daughter has the same ideas as I have, so long as she is sufficently equipped to come up with, understand and believe her ideas. The nice thing about kids is that they force you to examine everything you say and do from first principles and they can recognize non-answers and BS; they also can accept "I don't know."

I dont understand your two points:

1. On what basis do you make the claim that the
Ikkarim were based on science? They seem to have
hardly anything to do with science and everything
to do with maintaining a tradition which has a
mandate for observance....

2. I find your comment on resurrection even more
suprising. The Rambam himself wrote "Maamar
Techiyas Hameisim" to address your very point
(and the confusion of his contemporaries).
He is blunt and clear in that work as to his absolute and
unambiguous belief in literal resurrection.
Besides, the Mishnah (and Gemara) in Sanhedrin is no less blunt....

Ami-

Your comments are glaringly ill-informed. The belief in resurrection stems at least as far back as the Talmud and Mishna which declare it openly (last chapter of Sanhedrin). So your assertion that it is some cultural phenomenon of Maimonides age is rather silly.

Dude,

Sorry for the delayed response. My assertion that the Ikkarim are based on science comes from the reading I've done on Maimonides thought. Kellner's work is probably the best place to start.

But in terms of the Ikkarim, notice the context that they are brought up in. Rambam discusses them as an introduction to the topic of Olam HaBah. He is setting down the rules for who does and does not get into the Afterlife. This has nothing to do with maintaining a tradition of belief. I can't elaborate fully here (it would take to long), but Rambam was adamanant that natural science was prerequisite to higher metaphysical sepculation; wihtout it, one could not hope to gain knowledge of the Divine. Since Rambam's understanding of the world to come is basically the Aristotilean concept of the Active Intellect, where the actualized intellect "sits" in contemplation of God, the attainment of this state is predicated on achieving, or actualizing, this knowledge-state while "alive." Hence, the prerequisites for entry into the World to Come must be those that can be arrived at by speculation.

My "big" proof for this, by the way, is creation ex nihilo. While this is a "fundamental" of our religion, Ramabam does not require one to believe it in order to get into the World to Come. A reading of Book II of The Guide is clear that, while Rambam was adamant on what the Jewish position was (that God created the world from nothing), this could not be conclusively proved, and the position of Plato could be held and not have adverse affects on one's religiousity (i.e. - one could still believe in the Torah, miracles, the prophets, etc.).

Regarding Resurrection of the Dead, it had been a while since I went through Ma'amar Techiyas HaMasim, so I read through parts of it again. I stand by what I wrote; the Ma'amar never goes further than requiring a belief in the possibility of resurrection; this is related to the possibility of miracles, and the creation of the world, as well. Nowhere does Rambam state that we must believe that when Moshiach arrives the righteous will be resurrected and will live forever in some sort of eternal paradise on Earth. In fact, when reading the introduction to Perek Chelek, one gets the idea that Rambam holds in low esteem those that entertain such a theory. The fact is that the modern conceptualization of what Techias HaMasim is patently against what Maimonides laid down.