Maimonides' Eschatological Scheme and the

Resurrection Controversy

PHI 5011 Survey of Medieval Jewish Philosophy Dr. Arthur Hyman BRGS Fall 1988

More than once during the last fifteen years or so of his life, Maimonides

f ound himself accused of denying the principle of resurrection. Reports · had

filtered back to Maimonides in Cairo that a Jew in Damascus, and later, Jews in

basing יYemen, and then in Bagdad, had denied belief in physical resurrection

themselves on statements made in his major work,the Mishneh Torah.1 Because

Maimonides had dealt with the subject of eschatology in some detail in his

commentary to Perek Helek, he was frustrated to find that his views were still

suspect. Finally, in 1191, Maimonides composed his Treatise o~ Resurrection as the

final word defending his belief in physical resurrection.

Yet the controversy had not played itself out. By 1193, Maimonides'

Mishneh Torah arrived in Spain via Provence.2 Once again, questions were raised

about Maimonides' views on resurrection. ln this instance, the M ishneh

Torah existed in a vacuum. No Hebrew translation existed of his Commentary on

the Mishnah,3 nor had a copy of his Treatise, in any language, reached the Spanish

or Proven~al communities.4 Why did Maimonides' Mishneh Torah invite such

controversy when his previous works did not? What was his position on

eschatology and why was it so frequently misunderstood?

Although the Talmud discusses eschatology in many places, it is difficult to

1. Treatise on Resurrection, translated by Abraham Halkin in Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides, p. 216-217 2. Bernard Septimus, Hispan.o-Jewish Culture in Transition, p.39. The Mishneh Torah appears to have arrived in France piecemeal and was circulated in installments. See 1. Twersky, Th• B•ginnings of Mishn•h Torah Criticism, p. 168, n. 33. 3. The first Hebrew translation was commissioned by Rashba (1235-1310) and done by Shlomo b. Yoseph ben Yaakov in Saragossa. See Joseph Kafih's introduction to his translation of Maimonides' Commen.tary on the Mishn.ah, p.10. 4. The Treatise did not reach Europe until shortly before Maimonides' death. lt was sent and translated by ibn Tibbon at Maimonides' behest. Septimus, p.52 - 56.

claim that it contains any unified view of the subject. The Talmudic literature

abounds with descriptions of future life inהבאעןלם ) The World to Come (,ימןת

Resurrection ( התמיםתח"תMessianic times), and the miraculous advent of ( המשיח

of the Dead). 5 From the range of descriptions found within the Talmud, it is

evident that the Sages operated with their own individual approaches to this

subject. ln fact, the diversity of opinion is so great that often one doctrine of

eschatology f ound in the Talmud can be the very antithesis of another. Such

disparate views can co-exist because the Bible does not discuss eschatology in any

detail: the sections that do allude to such topics are veiled in obscurity. Some of

the sages understood many of the allusions literally, while others took them

allegorically. The practical result of such a diversity is that it is a Sisyphean task

to assemble anything that might resemble an all-inclusive representation of the

Talmud's view on the subject of eschatology.6

While the details of eschatology may have been open f or discussion, the

was codified in the tenth התמיםתח"תbasic principles were not debated. Belief in

chapter of tractate Sanhedrin (henceforth Helek): "And these are they who have no

share in the world to come - he who says that there is no resurrection ... "7 ln the

course of his commentary on this mishnah, Maimonides proposed a list of thirteen

dogmas which were fundamental to Judaism.8

5. Maimonides understood these eschatological terms in a radically new way. To avoid confusion as to their meanings in any given situation, the Hebrew terminologies will be used and their implicit meanings will be specified when

. necessary . 49 . 6. E. Urbach, The Sages, p

7. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1. The text as it appears in standard editions of the This was not the text of התרנה·מןהמתיםתח"תאין."האומר, Talmud reads

. 133 . Maimonides' edition. Kafih, p 8. lt is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss m Maimonides did so. For a review of the prevalent theories, cf. Arthur Hyman, M aimonides' "Thirteen

. 1 . Principles" and Menachem Kellner, Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought, ch

In this list, Maimonides included two beliefs from the realm of eschatology:

belief in the coming of the Messiah, and belief in the resurrection of the dead.

But before he incorporated these ideas into his list of the Thirteen Priciples,

Maimonides wrote a lengthy essay that dealt with the proper beliefs for a Jew to

hold on a variety of subjects, including a detailed look at the immortality of the

the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. This essay then, is הנא,עולם, soul

the first source we have for Maimonides' views on eschatology.

Before we discuss Maimonides' view, we should examine other prevalent

views, particularly that of R' Saadiah Gaon, which seems to have represented the

popular opinion of that time. For Saadiah, the importance of the immortality of

the soul played a subordinate role to resurrection. After death the soul waits in an

when together ת,M ''רתמ,ים תintermediate state until it can rejoin the body during

they will receive their proper reward in an eternal life.9 According to Saadiah, the

resurrection of the dead will take place at the time of the redemption (i.e. the

. Messiah).10 This resurrection, however, will be limited to the righteous of Israel

Following this period, God will resurrect those who did not merit resurrection

A t this time God will produce a special light הבא.ערלםpreviously and usher in

which, just as the sun gives both illumination and heat, will illumine the

righteous and burn the wicked. This is the reward and punishment that has been

11 Those גיהינם.and the punishment is called עדן,גןpromised. This reward is called

At that הנא.ערלםresurrected during the redemption will live into the period of

time, bodies will no longer need physical nourishment, but, like Moses on Mount

Sinai, will exist by deriving spiritual sustenance from God's presence.

While Saadiah's view was widely accepted there existed many variations on

9. J. Guttmann, Philosophies of Ju.daism, p. 73, as quoted in Septimus, p. 41. 10. Saadiah Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, p. 264-5. 11. Saadiah, p. 340

the theme. More importantly, there existed a tremendous variety in the way the

was ערןגן, key eschatological terms were used. For example, to Saadiah

was the ערןגן, Later, for Nachmanides הבא.עולםsynonymous with the reward in

place that souls went after death.12 When Maimonides dealt with this subject, he

in turn introduced radically new definitions for most of the major eschatological

terms. These differences in definition can and did lead to confusion when taken

out of context.

Before beginning his commentary proper on th'e tenth chapter of

Sanhedrin, Maimonides, taking his cue from the topic of the first mishnah ( those

uses the opportunity to expound upon הנא(עולםwho have forfeited their share in

the true beliefs in Judaism, and in particular upon the correct understanding of

or even "asks הבא,עולםHe compains that no one gives any thought to הבא.עולם

to what these names (the world to come) refer."13Maimonides goal, which he

pursued throughout his career, was to bring about a reorientation of the belief

system of the Jewish community .14 Particularly, Maimonides wanted to eradicate

any trace of belief in the corporeali ty of God, and to direct the Jews towards an

appreciation of worshipping God out of love as opposed to being motivated by the

threat of fear or the promise of reward. Part of his method was to impress upon

the people the idea of the immortality of the soul. Even though it is not

something tha t can be percei ved by the senses, Maimonides wanted all the people

to accept the notion. If they are philosophically astute, they should accept it

through reason, and if not, as a dogma.

is identical to the הבאעולם, He states quite clearly that in his eschatology

. 308 . C. Chavel, editor, p •רמנ"ן,כתבin 12 ,וגומל,שער. Nachmanides 13. lntroduction to Helek, translated by J. Abelson, in D. Bleich's In Perfect

. 23 . F aith, p . 246 . 14. David Hartman, discussion in Crisis and Leadership, p

where the disembodied soul goes after death. In )יthe spiritual world ( הנפש•עולם

there will. be no bodily pleasures, rather, the souls will "reap bliss in יthis world

what they comprehend of the Creator."15 Maimonides stresses that the pleasures

are unimaginable, being that since man lives in a האנעדלםthat await the soul in

is הנאעדלםmaterial world, he can only comprehend physical pleasures, while

purely spiritual. He gives a parable to explain that once the soul has attained this

, Maimonides says יbliss, it will no longer desire the pleasures of this world. lt is

to return to playing ~ like a king, who would not wish, once attaining sovereignty

ball in the streets, although he would have preferred playing ball when he was a

boy. He continues by explaining that the consummate evil that can befall a soul is

which is the cutting off a soul, its perishing and its failure to attain כרת,

immortality. All passages in the Bible that appear to describe these events in

. physical terms should be interpreted allegorically

Maimonides explains that the gilll. of all the physical rewards promised in

the Torah is to enable the Jew to live in peace and prosperity so that he may

fulfill the Torah and achieve perfection of his knowledge and thereby merit life

This prosperi ty is not the ultimate goal but merely the means to the הנא.עדלםin

. f ulf illment of that goal

: Maimonides then gives his definitions of the major terms of eschatology

is an actual spot on earth, abundant with useful and pleasure-giving ערןגן

. vegetation. God will some day reveal this place to mankind

, is merely an expression f or the suffering that will bef all the wicked נ•הנם

. although the nature of this suffering is not made clear in the Talmud

, the resurrection of the dead) is a cardinal doctrine of Judaism ( רתם.•םתח"ת

and one who does not believe in it has no bond with Judaism. However, this is a

15. Helek, p. 30

reward reserved only for the righteous, and eventually even the resurrected will

die.

The messianic age will be a time when the kingdom will return to lsrael

who will return to the Holy Land. The only difference between now and then is

that lsrael will possess the kingdom, in line with the statementהזה,העולםנ•ןא•ן ...

There will be no difference in nature at this ז".ל•מדתrבלבו"'מלכ•ןתשעבדואלאהמש

time. Once the Jews have this freedom, they will able to devote themselves f ully

, n. This •• הכא'העולםto their purpose in life, achieving perfection and attaining

according to Maimonides, is the reason the Jews should look forward to the

coming of the Messiah; not f or the physical rewards, which are secondary, but

16 . because it will be much easier to achieve perfection and immortality

, Although Maimonides spells out his eschatological scheme in some detail

certain things are noteworthy. While the reason for the messianic age fits into

Maimonides' understanding of the superiority of the spiritual, he does not offer

any rationale for the need for resurrection, nor is one readily apparent. The

parable of the king and the ball comes to mind. What, really, is the purpose of

7 Furthermore, unlike Saadiah or other contemporaries, Maimonides does הבאעולם

He asserts that it is fundamental principle of ת.n ••המתים תnot elaborate on

Judaism and leaves it at that. Yet when he discusses the principles of reward and

punishment (eleventh principle) and f aith in the coming of the Messiah (twelfth

principle) he elaborates on these topics, bringing textual proof s and reemphasizing

their importance, even though they were dealt with at length in the body of this

: introduction. For resurrection (the thirteenth principle) he says this

"The thirteenth principle - The resurrection of the dead. We have

16. ibid., p.31-35.

already explained this. "17

Later, in his Treatise on Resurrection, Maimonides will explain his

terseness on the sub ject. But these ob jections did not play a part in the arguments

that surrounded the Mishneh Torah. That composition, although never intended

by Maimonides to be a full representation of his views on all subjects, stood by

itself in the center of the controversy .18

As previously mentioned, by 1193 Maimonides' Mishneh Torah had arrived

in Spain via Provence. In Provence, where the general level of education was high,

the Mishneh Torah proved to be a stimulus towards further enquiry and discussion.

However, in Spain, where ignorance of Talmud study was rife, the Mishneh Torah

served f or many as a basic textbook for Jewish law and belief .19 For the

intellectuals among the Spanish Jews, who had already assimilated the concepts of

the current Aristotelian philosophy from their contacts with the educated Moslem

populace, the Mishneh Torah put the respected authority of Maimonides behind

their already well-developed rationalist leanings. However, f or the less-educated,

philosophically unsophisticated Jews, it was very disturbing. lt provided their first

20 . exposure to rationalistic theology and not everyone liked what they found

The problems centered around the f irst book of the Mishneh Torah ,ספר

ln it, Maimonides provides a rationalist framework for the beliefs of המרע.

, Judaism and its practices. Many people were disturbed by Maimonides' eschatology

Maimonides challenged the הבא.עולםand in particular, his interpretation of

17. ibid. p. 43. 18. At the beginning of Treatise, he points to the introduction to Helek as being the place where he discussed his views on resurrection et al. at length. p. 212-215. 19. Septimus, p. 40. For a general overview of the educational conditions and attitudes aff ecting France, see Ephraim Kanarf ogel's J ewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages. 20. Septimus, p. 41.

which saw it as a historic period ushered in by the ואב,ערלםpopular view of

resurrection of the dead, in which the righteous would receive their ultimate

reward and the wicked their punishment. Like Aristotle, Maimonides held that the

nutritive and sensory faculties of the soul perish after death, and that which

the active in,tellect which has succeeded in ב.פדע'ל,שכלsurvives is the

comprehending concepts and universal truths.21 lt is this acquired intellect that

continues to exist forever.22 Maimonides explained that the reason the Sages

was not because it does not exist at the present time but will הבאעדלםcalled this

come into being some time . in the f uture af ter this worlci perishes. On the

contrary ,הבאערלם co-exists with the present world. The sages called itעדלם

because i t is the world that comes to man subsequent to the life in this world הבא

in which we exist in both body and soul and is the first stage of existence through

. .23 A person's final judgment comes immediately after death ~ which all men pa

)" ...ו Mדכבשעתןןענןתויאוםנ•רת tששרקל•ן("דבשם . Maimonides did not view 24עדלם

as a new world, for he did not believe that the present world would ever cease הבא

24a . -. st uגto e

in the הבאעולםWhile it is true that Maimonides did not conceive of an

traditional manner, it was his use'of this well-understood term in a new way that

that was הבאעדלםconf used people. Had Maimonides substituted another term f or

it is possible הנפש•,עדלםnot fraught with such powerful connotations, such as

, that his views would not have caused as much of a stir as they did. Furthermore

to the advent of the הת•םתח"תalthough most accepted eschatologies linked

Messiah, Maimonides very consciously attempted to unlink these two events. At

. 21. H. Blumberg, ''The Problem of lmmortality" in Studies in Maimonides and St • 39 . Thomas Aquinas, p

M ishneh Torah .22 ,ה"ט 1פ"וות.דרה~•סרר•.הל' Mishneh Torah .23 ,ה"ח 1.פ"ח 1תרשכה.הל' Mishneh Torah .24 ,ה"'נ 1פ"נתושבה~.הלכות

. 344 . 24a.The Guide of the Perple:ud 11,29, p

the very end of his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides, speaking about the coming of

the Messiah, says, "Let it not enter the your mind that the King Messiah must

necessarily perform signs and wonders, display some novelty in the world, or

revi ve the dead, or do something similar. lt is not so .... "2 S Beca use most people

expected the Messiah to revive the dead, many took Maimonides' statement as a

denial of resurrection, while he was merely denying that the Messiah and

resurrection were necessarily part of the same continuum.

Maimonides was stunned by this accussation, as at the beginning of the

eh Torah he had qui te explicitly listed one who denies belief in resurrection מM ish

among the twenty-f our types of people who forfeit their share inהבא.עןלם

6 2 . Maimonides assumed that his work was to taken as a complete corpus

eh Torah was not מConsequently, his very brief treatment of resurrection in Mish

meant to stand on its own. Unfortunately, this was beyond Maimonides' control.

. shook the faith of the simple הבאעולםThis purely spiritual conception of

To them it implied that the road to eternal life is not so much through the

scrupulous observance of the commandments, (although that is a prerequisite) but

through philosophical deliberation. For many who had struggled through their lives

steadfastly enduring all sorts of humiliations and deprivations to remain Jews, the

message they were getting f rom Maimonides (whose reputation had already

achieved mythic proportions) was that all their efforts had been in vain: the

afterlife was closed to all but the philosophically elite.27

However, there were many scholars, such as Rabbi Meir haLevi Abulaf ia of

Toledo (henceforth, Ramah) (c. 1165 - 1244), who, although not philosophically

gs מTranslation from A. Cohen, The Teachi 'נ'מלכים"•·א".הל, h Torah e25מ. Mish . 223 . ides, p מof Maim.o

. 217 -213 . 26. See his comments in the beginning of the Treatise, p . 42 . 27. Septimus, p

more in keeping הבאעולםnaive, maintained a conservative, traditional view of

with the views of R' Saadiah Gaon. As Ramah was to spell out later in his

commentary to Persk Hslek, he believed that bodies and souls had to be reunited

for them to receive a just reward or punishment. Ramah felt that the הבאעולםin

first step in the redemption will be the coming of the Messiah. At this time

there will be a limited resurrection for the righteous of lsrael and for the very

wicked. Not everyone will be resurrected at the same time. Some will rise early in

the messianic period, while others will rise at a later time during that era. These

will then commence. Finally everyone else הבאעולם. people will never again die

will be resurrected and this will usher in the Day of Judgment, and proper reward

and punishment will be dispensed. While everyone will still possess a body, these

bodies will no longer have any physical needs. 28

' As uncomfortable as the rank and file may have been with Maimonides

this was not an unknown view among Spanish הבא,עולםpresentation of

not as a future הבאעולםintellectuals. lbn Gabirol (1021-10707) also understood

world but as the place souls go after death. As he says in his Keter Malchut ,ובתע ...

A t the proper time take me out ( ההעולם".מןt תכיאנ-יכלשרםהבאהעולם"לאתדציאנ•ה

of this world; bring me in peace to the World-to-Come.)29 Although this type of

interpretation was not new, Ramah was alarmed because the Mishneh Torah was

not an esoteric, philosophic work. Its very nature made it available and accessible

to non-philosophers who did not share Maimonides' rationalist sensibilities. Ramah

in the Mishneh הבאערלםfeared that the inclusion of a spiritual interpretation of

Torah placed a stamp of approval on what he felt was the denial of a cardinal

28. Y ad Ramah, as f ound in the appendix to Lea Naomi Goldfeld, M oses . 150 . Ma.imonides' Treatise on Resurrection: An Inquiry lnto /ts Authenticity, p

. p.311, translation by E. Korn in J. D 29 ,הגדמל,שער. Quoted in Nachmanides . 662 . Bleich, With Perf ect Fa.ith, p

principle of faith.30

Ramah could not f ind anyone within his own circle in Spain who shared his

sense of alarm, so he turned for support to Provence.31 While the Jewish leaders

in Spain had been raised on philosophy and did not find Maimonides' formulations

threatening, the rabbis of Provence represented a more traditional approach to

learning, and Ramah hoped they would be more responsive to the perceived threat

from the rationalist orientation of the Mishneh Torah. In 1202, Ramah sent a

letter to Lunel, addressed to R' Jonathan HaKohen.32 Lunel 'was a logical choice,

as i t was the most prestigious school in Provence. lt was known that the rabbis of

Lunel maintained a correspondence with Maimonides, so they were in an ideal

position to ask for a clarification or (if necessary) a retraction.

In the letter, Ramah charged that it seemed Maimonides denied physical

resurrection in the Mishneh Torah. This promise of resurrection was part of God's

covenant with lsrael. "If bodies will not be resurrected, how can the promise of a

redeemed lsrael be fulfilled?"33 He argued that the relationship between God and

lsrael is based on covenant. If the Jews keep to their side of the pact, obeying

God, then God has in turn obligated Himself to bring the Messiah and to resurrect

the f aithful. The major thrust of Ramah's argument was that without the promise

of resurrection, " ... where is the hope for those who at great personal sacrifice

obey His law?"34

Ramah was certainly aware that Maimonides included those who do not

believe in resurrection in his list of those who will not have a share inהבא.עולם

30. Septimus, p. 41. 31. Joseph Sarachek, F aith and Reason, p. 49. 32. Septimus, p. 42. 33. Silver, Maimonidean Criticism, p. 116. 34. ibid.

' Why then all the polemic? The problem is that according to Maimonides

it is הנא,עולםdescription of the superiority of the spiritual nature of

inconcei vable that any soul should wish to abandon those pleasures and return to

is achieved, resurrection seems superfluous in האנעדלםits body. Hence, once

35 . Maimonides' scheme

Ramah did not in any way belittle Maimonides' greatness and stature. He

merely wished to circumvent any possible negative result from the promulgation

of a view that seemed contrary to tradition. Along with the letter, Ramah

e well-reasoned refutations of halachic decisions of מ,ןappended a list of so

Maimonides from the Mishneh Torah including his own handling of the issues

dealt with by Maimonides in his six responsa to the Sages· of Lunel. Septimus

surmises that Ramah feared that the rabbis of Lunel were treating the Mishneh

T orah too reverently. The refutations were to demonstrate that, after all,

Maimonides was still human and capable of error. This was not meant to invalidate

the work as a whole, only to serve as a reminder that "there is no grain without

chaff."36

Ramah, however, sorely misjudged the climate in Lunel. Instead of

garnering support, he found himself severely reprimanded by R' Aaron b.

Meshullam. Why did R' Aaron respond and not the addressee, R' Jonathan?

Jonathan was a student of Rabad who had written the classic critique of the

M ishneh Torah. The six questions the rabbis of Lunel sent to Maimonides had

originally been raised by Rabad. Furthermore, Rabad himself had noted objections

35. Hartman, p. 260. 36. Septimus, p. 43.

3 7 Ramah was, in essence, reaf f irming הנא.עולםto Maimonides' concept of

Rabad's position. Although Jonathan may have supported Maimonides' position

over Rabad's, he_ may have not been inclined to commit himself against his

teacher in print. He could not def end Maimonides without rebutting Rabad, so he

passed the task to R' Aaron.38

ln his response, R' Aaron praised Maimonides and condemned Ramah for his

presumption in criticizing Maimonides. (Ramah was still a relatively young man.)

After replying to Ramah's halachic objections, R' Aaron attempted to answer his

theological ob jections by reconciling Maimonides' view with that of Saadiah. He

claimed that Maimonides actually believed in two separate resurrections. One will

occur during messianic times, and be f ollowed by a second death. Af ter this second

will take place.39 Such an explanation ו.ב.אעולםdeath the bodiless resurrection of

demonstrates at best an imperfect understanding of both Saadiah's position and

Maimonides'.

lt appears that Ramah had miscalculated in looking for a sympathetic

hearing in Provence. What he had failed to take into account was Maimonides'

reputation in Lunel. Maimonides had ceased to be merely the most respected rabbi

of the time, a first among equals who was still fair game for criticism when

necessary. He had become a heroic f igure, the symbolic manif estation of a cultural

ideal, and the strength of this new Maimonidean image was not about to crumble

under under a few halachic refutations. In other words, in no way could R' Aaron

be convinced that Maimonides would deny a fundamental point of belief. To

37 .ח' 'ר"'נהלנות M '"פ.תשונה"הלנותהראנ"ר".הגשות. 43-4 . 38. Septimus, p

. 119 . 39. Silver, p

attempt to persude him otherwise was doomed f rom the outset. 40

What is most fascinating is that throughout the polemic, as the image of

Maimonides takes center-stage his actual views become secondary or often even

irrelevant. Indeed, Maimonides becomes the Protean leader for both sides in the

debate, being made to support either side's ideology. Nowhere is this more evident

then in the reaction to Ramah's missive by Sheshet b. Isaac Benveniste.

Sheshet was titled nasi of Barcelona. He held a high political position and

was acclaimed for his role in communal leadership as a philanthropist, literary

patron, poet, doctor and man of deep piety. Sheshet's letter, addressed to R'

Jonathan of Lunel, is characterized by an unrelenting ad hominem attack on

Ramah. He did not demonstrate the rationalist's common fear of revealing too

much of a non-traditional f ace in his work, but rather delivered a lucid def ense of

rationalist spirituality. Septimus comments, "lf the Lunel scholars did not yet

understand the kind of thinking that had alarmed Ramah, this def ense of

Maimonides must have enlightened them."41

ln the letter, Sheshet supports a purely spiritual understanding of

resurrection. He claims that physical resurrection was in contradiction to the

immutable laws of science. (He is not even sure if God Himself could permanently

deny physical d!:1ש. overturn them.)4 2 He claims that indeed, Maimonides

," H means "coming to life '"תחייהresurrection and is correct in doing so. The word

refers to the eternal life of the soul after the body ותז.נ,יםתח"ת." not "resurrection

44 . dies, 43 and consists of the pleasure of the intellect that cleaves to its Creator

40. Septimus, p. 45. 41. ibid., p. 4.6-7. 42. Silver, p. 130-1. 43. Septimus, p. 47. 44. Silver, p. 131.

Any statement to the contrary found in the Talmud was merely put there f or the

benefit of those too ignorant to appreciate the purely spiritual, to cajole and

coerce them into observance. Sheshet concluded his piece by suggesting that any

opposition to the Mishneh Torah was motivated by petty fear of relinquishing

authority over the community. Until it had been written, rabbis held a monopoly

over the halacha. Now that the halacha was f reed from the intricacies of Talmud

study, anyone possessing a copy of the Mishneh Torah was in a position to decide

the law for himself. While both Sheshet and R' Aaron revered Maimonides, each

admired a different aspect of Maimonides' personality. For Sheshet, Maimonides

represented the archetype rationalist. R' Aaron had little interest in philosophical

45 . issues, and respected Maimonides for his halachic achievements

Ramah made one last effort to rally support to his cause. He wrote to the

Tosaphists in Northern France around the year 1203. The Tosaphists were a good

choice for an ally. Although Ramah had no relationship with them, as he did with

al communi ty, they were nei ther touched by Spanish rationalism nor צthe Proven

was Maimonides much of a halachic influence on them. Ramah was hoping to

counteract the negative reaction he had gotten from Lunel (the Tosaphists did not

command enough respect from the Spanish rationalists for their support to count

for much in that quarter). He sent his letter along with a copy of his

' correspondence with Lunel. He received a response from R' Samson of Sens. R

Samson agreed with Ramah's position, but did not seem to consider the issue to be

particularly earth-shattering. While Maimonides' position may have been

mistaken, the Tosaphists did not perceive it as the theological calamity that

Ramah did. While recent news of Maimonides' death may have partly accounted

for R' Samson's moderate response, another factor was that the Tosaphists were

45. Septimus, p. 47.

halachists, not philosophers, and they treated the problem as a Talmudic exercise.

They did not yet have an appreciation of rationalism. Yet thirty years later they

would crusade vigorously against it and its inherent dangers. 46

By the time their response reached Spain, two events had occured that

brought the debate to a close. The first was the sobering news of Maimonides'

death. Criticism was put aside to pay tribute to the great man. The second

incident was the publication of lbn Tibbon's Hebrew translation of Maimonides'

Treatise on. Resurrection.. According to the introduction to Alharizi's Hebrew

translation of the work, it appears that Maimonides himself sent a copy of the

Treatise to lbn Tibbon with instructions for him to translate it into Hebrew for

dissemination. Septimus conjectures that since the scholars of Lunel had already

established communication with Maimonides, after having received Ramah's

polemic, and perhaps after reading Sheshet's response with some alarm, they sent

an inquiry directly to Maimonides. 47

The questions Ramah raised on Maimonides' understanding of eschatology

were not new. They had been raised in Damascus, in Yemen in 1185, and in 1191

by Jews in Bagdad. Maimonides dismissed the first accusation as being an isolated

incident of extreme ignorance. But as more questions on the same issue reached

him, he felt compelled to respond, particularly in light of the Gaon Samuel ben

Ali of Bagdad's composition on resurrection which was forwarded to Maimonides in

Cairo.

46. Septimus, p. 51. 47. Septimus, p. 52-55.

In his composition, the Gaon gathers together many of the statements

f rom the Talmud on resurrection, and takes issue with Maimonides' views on the

topic. 48 Maimonides responded by composing his Treatise on Resurrection, as a

final and definitive statement on the subject. In it, Maimonides dismisses Samuel's

views as being philosophically unsophisticated. Maimonides then explains that he

than on resurrection הבאעולםspent more space in his works elaborating on

because too many people focus on resurrection as being the ultimate end for

This does not mean הבא~עולםwhich all desire, yet very f ew give any thought to

that resurrection is any less important; it is still a fundamental belief of Judaism.

as the ultimate goal of recompense and האבעולםHowever, the Torah viewed

punishment.49 Maimonides points out that in Helek he stated quite clearly that

one who does not believe in resurrection has no connection to the Torah and to

Judaism. Also, in the Mishneh Torah he listed "he who denies resurrection" in the

He rejects any attempt to interpret הבא.עולםlist of those who have no share in

his words to the contrary.

Maimonides admits that perhaps the basis of some claims that he took

references to resurrection metaphorically may be his interpretation of the vision

of the "dry bones" of . Ezekiel. This however, was not his innovation, but a

reflection of a disagreement of the Sages. S 0 Since th'is issue does not involve

practical matters, it cannot be resolved one way over another.

Af ter complaining that in truth what he is about to say is merely a

repetition of what he has said before, Maimonides declares unconditionally that

means the return of the soul to the body after separation ותמ.יםתחייתthe term

48. The essay has not beeen found and is known through its refutation in the Treatise, p. 237, n. 56. 49. ibid., p. 213 - 14. 50. B. Sanhedrin, 92b.

) death). This is affirmed in the book of Daniel , 12:2 :"םי~~~רןןמ-~~גי f!!:Qןכ~ים "

Many of those that sleep in the dust of "( "~~ה (rןפ\ת ה~~{עו?ם י~נtם\?ע)ר:יאוןלכ."'

the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting

... } t:t ל.ר:~הabhorrence. ") and in the f inal verse, in an admonition to the prophet

But for you, go on to the end; you shall rest and "( לt? "ווע.וכ·ר •ו.סן!ינזסץiנ:ל: Q ין"

rise to your destiny at the end of the days. "). These verses can not be interpreted

, allegorically. He states, " ... the individuals who will return .to their bodies will eat

drink, marry, procreate, and they will die after a long life, lik.e those who will live

". during the messianic age

The reason Maimonides made this point time and again is that rejecting

. the belief in the possibility of resurrection leads to a denial of all miracles

. Rejecting miracles denies God as the Creator: this is a defection from the Torah

He concludes his argument on resurrection by dealing with the criticism

that regardless of his view, he dealt very sketchily with belief in resurrection

while expounding at great length on the immortality of the soul andהבא.עולם

verse that unequivocally asserts .ששMaimonides explains that as long as there is

resurrection, there is no need for any others. Consequently, interpreting other

, verses allegorically does not reduce the validity of the prediction of resurrection

nor will interpreting every verse that alludes to a revival as referring to

resurrection bolster its validity in any sense.5 1 Just because something is only

stated once does not make it less valid .. The fundamental proclamation of God's

. was only said once in the Torah, yet it is the basis of all else ) 'חארה( unity

Therefore, repeating the belief in resurrection many times does not increase its

truth. Finally, Maimonides said that he dealt with resurrection briefly f or two

primary reasons: one, because briefness is a virtue, and two, because elaboration is

51. Treatise., p. 219-22.

only necessary when something can be proven, as in mathematics. Immortality of

the soul can be proven through science (i.e. - philosophy ), but miracles cannot be

. proven. They must be accepted as articles of faith

Because Maimonides proclaimed rather indignantly that he did not say

anything that he has not already said elsewhere, he concludes the Treatise with a

discussion of two problems, so that it may present some educational value. The

first problem is to explain those verses in the Bible that appear to contradict the

possibili ty of resurrection. The second is to explain why the Torah does not

mention resurrection explicitly. To the latter question Maimonides says that the

only way to "prove" resurrection is to accept the words of the prophets who

promised it. The generation that received the Torah was not on a high enough

level to believe such a promise. As the generations progressed, eventually the

Jews had no lingering doubts as . to the veracity of prophecy and miracles. Only

then were they on a high enough plane to accept the idea of a miraculous reward

52 . in the unspecified f uture

Later commentators on Maimonides attempted to lessen the radicalness of

his approach to eschatology. Rabbi Joseph Karo counters the objection of Rabad to

there only exists souls without bodies הנאעדלםMaimonides' statement that in

like the ministering angels. Rabad says that this statement appears to advocate

only involves the souls without their bodies, which is not the ותמ.םיתחייתthat

position of the Rabbis. In his Kesef Mishneh, R' Karo explains that the only

difference between Maimonides' opinion and Rabad's is one of wording. What

a phrase curiously absent in the ( התחייהעדלםis really the וב.אעדלםRabad calls

Mishneh Torah). Once this adjustment is made, R' Karo claims that Rabad and

. Maimonides will be found to be of like minds

52. ibid., p. 230-1.

absent הנא,עדלםIt appears that Rabad shares a mainstream conception of

in Maimonidean thought. Regardless of what it is called, Rabad expects some type

of everlasting world following the resurrection. He does not accept the physical

as allegory, 53 and he understands הנאעדלםdescriptions of the Rabbis of rewards in

the statement (B. Sanhedrin 97b), "the world will stand for six thousand years and

then f or one thousand years lay desolate," in its literal sense. 54 To say that this is

merely a question of semantics seems to be wishful thinking on the part of the

Kese f M ishneh.

· Another attempt to bring the opinion of Maimonides more into line with

the accepted view was made by Nachmanides in his Sha'ar HaG'mul. Maimonides

writes in the Treatise: "1 said tha t the Messiah would not be required to do wonders like

miraculously splitting the Red Sea, or resurrecting the dead. He would not be required to perform miracles, seeing that the early prophets, whose predictions are valid, foretold that he would come. But from this analysis it does not follow that God will not revive the dead by His will and wish when He desires and whomever He desires to resurrect. lt will happen in the lifetime of the MesSiah, or before him, or after he dies."55

Nachmanides claims that Maimonides meant that while the resurrection

may precede the coming of the Messiah, all those resurrected will live to

experience the advent of the Messiah. By living in ideal times, the righteous who

are resurrected will be able to perfect themselves further and thereby elevate their

56 . before dying after a long life in Messianic times הבאועלםstatus in

This reads a nuance into Maimonides which was never stated explicitly in

any of his wri tings. In f act, two comments that Maimonides ~ make imply that

he made a very conscious effort to separate the coming of the Messiah and

M ishneh T orah .53 ,ה"נ.פזrתרשנה~להנדת 1ואר,נ"ר.נשהןת M ishneh T orah .54 ,--הח.םש~

. 222 . 55. Treatise, p . 310 . p 56 .הגמדל'שער

resurrection. The first is the passage quoted above. The other is another quote

: from the Treatise , the individuals who will return to their bodies will eat, drink " .. "

marry, procreate, and they will die af ter a long life, like tbose wbo will liye during the messjanjc age . " 57השמיח"')כידמתונ.מצאיםנחיים ... 58<

While neither of these quotes rules out the possibility that the

resurrected will indeed live during the messianic age, neither confirms it.

In modern times, both Finkel59 and Sarachek claim that. Maimonides

believed that resurrection would precede the inauguration of the messianic age.

Sarachek explains that eventually the Messiah and his entire generation (including

would begin.60 Nowhere does הנאעןלםthe resurrected) would die and then

Maimonides state this, and his reference to the generations following the Messiah

precludes it.61 Furthermore, Saracheck sees Maimonides' quoting the last verse of

Malachi as a velied implication of the connection between the Messiah and

resurrection. If the resurrection of Elijah is necessary as a harbinger of the

Messiah, this means that the resurrection must precede the messianic age.

Although Saracheck implies that this verse is quoted in the Treatise, the quote

actually appears at the end of Hilchot Melachim62 and there is no implication

from the context that any reference is being made to resurrection.

Why were Maimonides' views on eschatology in general and resurrection in

particular subject to misunderstanding and such attempts at reinterpretation? Part

of the answer must lie in the position that Maimonides occupied in Jewish life.

. 220 . 57. Treatise., p ,) 1939 ( 58. Joshua Finkel, M aimonides' Treatise on Resurrection in PAAJR IX

. 16 . Hebrew section, p . 69 . 59. Finkel, p

. 43 . 60. Sarachek, p . 34 . 61. Helek, p

Mishneh Torah .62 ,ה-בפיכ"מלנים".הלנדת

His reputation was such that what he had to say could not easily be dismissed. He

had to be reckoned wi th. Furthermore, as Arthur Hyman points out, although the

purpose of the messianic period f i t in to Maimonides' eschatological scheme, "the

resurrection of the dead is somewhat more difficult to harmonize with his general

views."63 Perhaps the talmudic mind, adept at reconciliations, could not accept

this stalemate, and so attempted to integrate Maimonides' view into his own

system of thought and harmonize it with the prevalent way of thinking.

After Maimonides' became aware of the misunderstanding and controversy

surrounding his feelings on resurrection, why was he still relatively taciturn

regarding the subject? Maimonides' own explanations notwithstanding (and 1 do not

think that they should be so readily dismissed), Hartman views Maimonides'

reluctance to dwell on the details of resurrection as stemming from his general

desire to direct people away from being motivated by self-interest and reward in

their observance of the commandments. 64

So what was Maimonides' view on resurrection7 Silver describes the

principle of resurrection as the bete-noire of religious philosophers, as it violates

the Greek idea of the dualism of body and soul. He claims that "even the most

traditional disciple often had quite esoteric views and whatever their public

prof essions entertained personal resevations. "65 Maimonides accepts resurrection

on traditional authority alone, and regards it as another miracle vouchedsafe in the

Bible. Because it is a miracle, it cannot be defended on rational grounds, but must

be accepted on religious grounds. However, Maimonides does not necessarily

subscribe to the commonly held belief in a continuum linking resurrection with

messianic times. And he certainly does not accept any concept of a physical

63. Hyman, p. 144. 64. Hartman, p. 247. 65. Silver, p. 116.

To deny resurrection's possibility is to deny the possiblity הנא.עולםexistence in

' of creation, revelation and prophecy. Yet Hartman writes that Maimonides

justifications of his belief in resurrection reveals an ambivalence about its

importance. He claims that Maimonides was arguing more against disbelief in

resurrection than he was f or belief in it. 66

Nachmanides concludes his essay by writing that every one of the great

sages of Israel, regardless of their semantics, agrees to the basic understanding of

the nature of the resurrection, the messianic age and the age k.nown asעולם

wi th the exception of Maimonides, who imposes a limit on the period of the האנ

resurrection and claims that everyone returns to the world of the souls. Everyone

else maintains that those who are resurrected will live forever from the the time

67 . which will last f or all eternity הנא·עולםof the resurrection into a physical

ln the final analysis, Nachmanides had to admit that Maimonides' approach

did differ considerably from the traditional one. As difficult as it may be to

accept the idea that a prominent rabbinic figure like Maimonides dissented from

the standard understanding of the eschatological process, that assessment must be

our conclusion. lt was, after all, that refusal to accept anything without first

examing i t under the clear light of rationalism that made Maimonides the revered

f igure he has become.

. 257 . 66. Hartman, p . 311 . p 67 .וג.לומ,שרע

WBLIOGRAPHY Abulafia, Meir. Yad Ramah on Perek Helek, in Goldfeld, Lea Naomi, Moses Maimonides' Treatise on Resurrection: An lnquiry into its Authenticity, Ktav, 1986

Blumberg, Harry. "The Problem of lmmortality in Avicenna, Aquinas and Maimonides.", ln Jacob Dienstag, editor, Studies in Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas, Ktav, 1983.

Cohen, Abraham. The Teachings of Maimonides, Ktav, 1968 (Second Edition).

Finkel, Joshua. Maimonides' Treatise on Resurrection9 PAAJR, IX, 1939.

Halkin, Abraham and Hartman, David. Crisis and Leadership:·Epistles of Maimonides, JPS, 1985.

Hyman, Arthur. "Maimonides's Thirteen Principles", in Alexander Altmann, editor, 1 ewish M edieval and Renaissance Studies, Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1967.

Maimonides, Moses. lntroduction to Helek, J. Abelson, translator, in J. David Bleich, ln Perfect Faith, Ktav, 1983

---, Treatise on Resurrection, Abraham Halkin, translator, in Halkin & Hartman, Crisis and Leadership.

---, Guide of the Perple:x.ed, Shlomo Pines, translator, University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Saadiah Gaon. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Samuel Rosenblatt, translator, Yale University Press, 1948.

Saracek, Joseph. Faith and Reason, 1935, Reprinted by Hermon Press, 1970.

Septimus, Bernard. Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah, Harvard University Press, 1982.

Silver, David Jeremy. M aimonidean Criticism and M aimonidean Controversy 1180-1240, E. J. Brill, 1965.

Urbach, Ephraim. The Sages, Harvard University Press, 1979

קדק"הרבמוסר " nקפאי.מאתעבירתרגוםם" ...ור.מכפירשועםמנשהמימון.כןמהשר' .) 1964תבש"ר.(

קןק"רובמןסרשערדל"ח.ר.כעריכתרמב"ן"כתבונתרןהגמול""'_שערנחןמ.בןמשהר' .) 1963 ( ג'"rllכת