{ "language": "en", "title": "On Resurrection of the Dead", "versionSource": "https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1735673765", "versionTitle": "On Resurrection of the Dead, English translation by Walter Hilliger. Shehakol Inc., 2021", "status": "locked", "license": "CC-BY-NC", "versionNotes": "Digital Version", "purchaseInformationImage": "https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/418ABsSftKL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg", "purchaseInformationURL": "https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1735673765", "actualLanguage": "en", "languageFamilyName": "english", "isBaseText": true, "isSource": false, "direction": "ltr", "heTitle": "על תחיית המתים", "categories": [ "Jewish Thought" ], "text": { "Translator's Introduction": [ "בלע המות לנצח
Death swallowed up forever
(Isaiah 25:8)", "The modern definition of death used by medical practitioners to declare a person dead is a very useful convention for official registers and insurance companies, but its pragmatic consideration shifts the attention away from what makes a definition true. Death as an instrumental description uses the figure of speech called a metalepsis because it does not use its words to define itself but rather borrows mechanical or inert figures from physics, and an impersonal rhetoric disguised as objective for its general definition. According to dictionary.com: Death is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.", "We can derive the following contradiction and errors if we apply some old-school rhetoric:1Verbi gratia: Aristotle's Ars Rhetorica; Cicero's De Inventione, De Partitionibus Oratoria, De Oratore; Rhetorica ad Herennium; Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria; Tractate of Logic and Rhetoric & Tractate of the Logic of Aristotle by Rabbi Moses Raphael d'Aguilar that I transcribed.", "1. “Death” is defined as the deprivation of doing, or the negation of any transitive or intransitive action, being dead is non-doing, or the same as “being nothing” because non-doing denotes a non-being. Since a non-being has no position, nothing positive can be stated of a non-being because there must be an identification between the subject, death, and the intransitive predicate, is, for the subject to exert a positive influence (of position over itself).2Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case of Divine and Natural Truth, Chapter 4, XIII, 2, (Shehakol, 2020).", "Death, non-existent or not being, cannot positively influence something that exists and is real.3Ibid. Ch. 3, Refutation, 68.", "2. “is” conveys a pseudo-phenomenological existence to death. The verb must point to an intransitive position to predicate a positive state of being. A non-being does not have an entity or position. Therefore, death is a false entity and not real in terms of being. This definition is already a category mistake.", "3. “the irreversible” is the denial of the causality of being, which is deemed as necessary (or constant), and eternal. This argument is based on the classic axiom, “something cannot be made out of nothing,” however this does not preclude that a being that already was, or had been done, be prevented from being anew, or being done anew.4Ibid. Ch. 2, I, 1-2. Therefore, the irreversibility of being cannot be determined. This is the logical principle of resurrection that we will see in this book.", "4. “cessation” is simply the temporary inactivity of the agent. Only if something is deprived of action it would be so to say, dead; and the being would not be; however, if a being is temporarily deprived of action,5Ibid. Ch. 3, Refutación, 50. or if its potential was prevented by some circumstances, it would not be dead.", "5. “of all” is a reductive generalization that fails to distinguish intermediate phases of existence, such as a nonzero chance to be alive; distinct entities, and nonlinear phenomena.", "6. “biological functions” or actions are not subsistent entities, nor can they sustain or do a new being, or undo it.6Ibid. Ch. 4, Proposition 10. Actions, or biological functions, are done, or not, by the natural agent.", "7. “that sustain a living organism” in line with the above, this is another illogical metalepsis.7Rabbi Moses Raphael d'Aguilar, Tractate of Logic and Rhetoric, Book 4, Chapter 11. Inversely, the living organism sustains the biological functions, whose effects are produced according to its essence (the soul) and entity. The sentence structure confuses the causality of the efficient or agent, the subject, and the predicate.", "The agent is the living organism, not its functions, nor death because death has no position in sustaining a being and it cannot influence in life any causality with a material appearance.", "The above does not mean that the phenomenon that we call death does not exist, but rather its definition is incorrect. Death, logically, is an invention with a proper definition comprising a category, and a differential. Its category is for everything which dies, or becomes inactive; and its differential is to contrast it with that which is alive. In this sense death is a rhetorical figure of antithesis whose invention is made up of its opposite.8Ibid. Book 4, Chapter 8.", "This way of defining death is by opposites, but death is an opposite of deprivation. The opposites of deprivation are those in which deprivation does not mean the thing but only the absence of its opposite.9Ibid. Book 2, Chapter 10. They are distinct from those opposites or contraries that can be brought together to a certain degree, such as cold and heat in lukewarm. However, between the opposites that are privative there can be no relationship. Between life and death there are not two opposite sides or extremes but only one, which is life.10Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case of Divine and Natural Truth, Chapter 2, I, 1-3; Between the finite and the infinite there is no proportion, Aristotle, Physics VIII, 10, 266a, 24b6. Hence, living is an intransitive verb without transition from life to death.", "But since its definition does not comprise a possible (finite) end, i.e. the end of death, its invention has an improper definition and can only be understood with a description, and not with a definition, unless there is an end of death that is the resurrection of the dead.", "In conclusion, for death to be correctly defined in logical and rational terms, its definition must comprise the resurrection, otherwise death does not have a proper definition because it is not definitive, but rather a general description, and as such it is a dead metaphor.", "Walter Hilliger,", "Guadeloupe, 14.07.2021 / 5 Av 5781" ], "Title Page": [ "MENASSEH BEN ISRAEL", "On the Resurrection of the Dead", "Book 1", "In which the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead is proven against the Sadducees. The causes of the miraculous resurrection are presented. The final judgment and the reformation of the world are addressed.", "Studied from the divine writings, and ancient Sages.", "The truth will flourish from the ground. Psalm 85.", "Amsterdam. Made at home at the expense of the author.", "Year 5396 / 1636 of the creation of the world." ], "Dedicatory Letter of the Latin Edition": [ "Translated by Simon James Tabbush. Dedicatory Letter to the Latin Edition. To the magnificent, most generous, and most learned gentlemen", "LAURENS REAEL, Knight, former Governor-General of the East Indies, councillor and alderman of the State of Amsterdam,1In Dutch, “schepen”, a municipal office. assessor of the [Dutch] East India Company, and director of the Northern Ocean", "and", "ALBERT CONRAD van der BURGH, magistrate, councillor, and alderman of that State, curator of the Schools and lately ambassador to the Grand Duke of Muscovy,", "his lords,", "to be treated with all possible respect,", "Menasseh Ben Israel sends greetings.", "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead has always been so highly valued that anyone denying it was expunged from the number of the Israelites, and it was believed that they had no part in the world to come or the world of souls, even when they were as studious and enthusiast as they could in other matters and observed the Divine commandments to the utmost. This, as it seems to me, was not without good reason. For if anyone diligently applies his mind, it can find that the main doctrines of the law are founded on a belief in the immortality of the soul. For once one believes that there is something divine in man and that his soul is immortal, it will be beyond dispute that there must be a more excellent spirit who governs this universe by his commands and his majesty.", "Anyone who sincerely professes this must necessarily believe the first article of faith, that God exists; also the second, that God is one. For just as a single rational soul in a human being performs many functions for the preservation of the individual and the human race, so also the one God does many things and takes care for the continuation and preservation of the universe.", "Moreover, there also follows from this the truth of the third article, namely that God is incorporeal. For if such a high dignity and excellence is fitting for the soul, which is created by God; how much more must it be fitting for the creator of the whole world?", "Similarly, you may also prove the fourth article, concerning the eternity of God. For if a soul, which has a beginning, has no end, it is surely necessary that the Author and Creator of the soul must be superior in some way. Now that superiority consists in this, that God is no less without a beginning than He is without an end.", "The same reasoning there follows the truth of the fifth article, that only God may be invoked and worshipped. For since God is an entity per se, and not by way of participation, and as He does not depend on any efficient cause, it follows that He alone should be invoked. That is, he alone, at his good will and pleasure, sends good or bad fortune to mankind.", "From the same source, there flows the sixth article,2Treating “forte” as a misprint for “fonte”. “Forte” would mean that it only perhaps follows! “Fonte” is consistent with the metaphor of “promanat”, flows or drips. concerning prophetic revelation, by which God opens his mind to men. For it cannot be the case that God would communicate himself to mere bodies and material substances unless they too have something spiritual and divine. For insofar as man is corporeal, he in no way excels the other animals but is similar to them in all his actions.", "Given that divine communion and favour towards men is in proportion to their merit or lack of it, the revelation made to Moshe must be by far the most excellent and outstanding. For according to the statement of the Holy Scripture, no man was more humble than Moshe. And this is the seventh article.", "Moreover, if the soul is immortal, it also follows that the eighth article of faith must be wholly true, as the law of Moses was not a human work or invention but rather a celestial and divine one. For if the goodness of God is such that He provides dumb animals with everything necessary for the preservation of the individual and the species, how much greater (one may believe) must be his favour to men, in supplying them with everything needed for their completion and perfection. From which it may be gathered that there must be some Divine law, by which, as a standard or rule of life, all human actions may be directed. For since man (as Aristotle testifies) is a political animal, and inclined by nature to preserve the union and connection of human society, there is certainly a need, not only for some kind of natural law, but also for a positive or civil law: for that reason, in every well-ordered commonwealth laws are given to its subjects by which to live. Further, if one considers the matter in-depth, it is not sufficient to have human laws and statutes to keep human beings to their duty, for several reasons. In the first place, even if laws of this kind show what actions are honourable and dishonourable, they do not instruct the understanding about what is true and false concerning God and prophecy; indeed, for the most part, they have no concern with this, except insofar as they may, on the contrary, lead man away from the one true heavenly spirit.", "And I would say this even about the Athenian laws of Solon and Draco. In which connection, so that I do not appear to be insulting that noble and famous republic, it is helpful to cite here the remarks of the Platonist philosopher Maximus of Tyre, supreme in both genius and eloquence, in his dissertation defending Socrates for not presenting an apology to the Athenian people:", "“…he should refute [the accusation] and prove to his adversaries and the judges that he neither corrupted the youth nor introduced novel divinities. See what he would have to do, and how much of a burden he would take on: who could persuade men ignorant of an art respecting things which pertain to the highest art? How could the Athenians understand what constitutes the corruption of youth, and what virtue is? what a God is, and how he is to be honoured? Concerning which thousand judges, who are elected by a vote using beans, have never inquired, nor has Solon written anything concerning them, nor are they contained in the venerable laws of Draco. Rather, these laws address citations, embezzlement, accusations, restitution, and oaths. All matters of this kind are most expertly discussed in the Eliaca, and are similar to boys’ battles and verbal contentions which are often excited by games of dice when they take them from each other in the course of play or complain about some slight.” 3Adapted from Thomas Taylor’s translation of the Greek original.", "From these observations, we can clearly realise how great is the imperfection of human laws, most of all those concerning God. Further proof that human laws are not sufficient to confine a man within the limits of duty is that the habits and affections of the mind mostly follow the state and temperament of the body; for this reason, no one can be so perfect and fortunate as not to be to some extent inclined to bad habits. So even granted the best and most eminent legislator, it will certainly happen that what one recommends to another, endowed with different habits, will be condemned; according to the saying of the comic dramatist “as many people, so many opinions”. 4Terence, Phormio.", "And how come, otherwise, that there is such diversity of laws around the world? How come, also, that even the most excellent and respectable legislators make such horrible mistakes? And in this respect, I would not exempt Plato himself, even though he is known — because of his genius and the greatness of his teaching — as “the divine”. Nor can I see what can deserve to be called a great error if not the one he made in introducing the community of wives. This, as it is repugnant to nature itself, would lead to confusion of families and would also lead to negligence in the bringing up of children. For which reason these facts also prove the imperfection of all human law as much as the perfection of Divine law.", "I turn to the third reason, which we know from the fact that, while human and civil laws can prescribe in general terms what is lawful and honest, it is not the same with what should be done in this or that place or time. And it is for this reason that the far-seeing Aristotle, in his books about moral philosophy, says that the virtues must be exercised according to the circumstances; but without distinguishing what kind these are, as this surpasses the grasp of the human mind. Thus the heathens say that death should be preferred to life if death is more to be praised, but they express no judgment whatsoever about when that should be the case. But in our case, the Divine law has taught us to hold that this is so when it is a matter of God’s honour, glory, and majesty. Thus Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were highly praised for seeking death in opposing the idolatrous nations. Similarly, we see from the divine law what is disgraceful or honourable at this time or at that. At one time marriages between brothers and sisters were lawful, as may be seen from the cases of Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam; but afterwards, that was forbidden by the law of Moses. And there are many other matters of that kind, which men cannot determine by their own laws and statutes.", "We have a fourth reason, which is that human laws cannot maintain an equal and just proportion between crimes and punishments, as in the punishments for thieves, robbers, and forgers. A truly accurate assessment belongs only to God.", "The fifth reason is that civil laws cannot address what is hidden and secret, but only define open and manifest crime; Divine laws also decree a sacrifice for hidden mental vices and acts committed in secret. For it is proper to God not only to take cognisance of men’s outward acts but also to examine the inmost recesses of the mind.", "I will conclude these reasons with this fact, that human laws are not observed with as much eagerness and delight as they should, as the mind will always hesitate and doubt whether one who governs his life by such laws is acting rightly or not. If on the other hand, he lives by divine commands, he will take no little delight in his actions. Accordingly, the saying of David, “The commands of the Lord delight the heart and the mind of man”. 5Rough paraphrase of Ps. 19:8: “The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes”. Thus, to return to our subject, we may gather that, if the soul is immortal, there must be some law laid down by God for men, by which they can attain their perfection. And this was the eighth article of faith.", "On this foundation, there is also a confirmation for the ninth article, that the Divine law is eternal. For as the soul in every age is a single immutable substance, we must also believe that by which the law achieves its fulfilment is one and immutable.", "Finally, the remaining four articles of faith, namely the omniscience of God, reward and punishment for actions, the promise of the Messiah, and the resurrection of the dead, may easily be proved, once the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is admitted. For whereas man by reason of his soul is different from the dumb animals, so too God pays special attention and operates a particular providence about what rewards or punishments to allot to each following his deeds. Then, as we frequently observe that in this world pious and God-loving men are in conditions of the utmost misery while by contrast, bad and wicked men are rich in all good things, it is most fitting for God’s justice that there should be some place or time in which righteous people will be rewarded and the wicked punished. And that is the age of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead.", "It is therefore clear that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is a sufficient base and foundation on which the whole superstructure of the law rests: if that is taken away, all the commandments necessarily also slide into ruin. For who would think about religion, or about obedience to God or the world to come, if he believed that the soul was mortal?", "So, taking account in my mind how momentous and weighty this doctrine is for our present life, I thought it would be of great value if I wrote a few remarks on this topic, by which this doctrine could be confirmed and proved, using both arguments drawn from nature and the authority of Holy Scripture.", "Various considerations persuaded me to offer this work to Your Excellencies. First the dignity of the subject; for unless we were persuaded of the truth of this doctrine, all reverence towards God would collapse, and without this, no commonwealth or government on earth could survive. It is also of great importance to you, whom God has placed in such a high position, and to all who sustain the commonwealth, that this doctrine should be inscribed in the inmost recesses of the mind of everyone.", "A further reason is that, just as learned men highly respect and honour you for your own rare and excellent learning,6This is the most likely meaning, though the Latin literally means “in order that learned men may …”. That is, the author has used a subjunctive where I think he should have used an indicative. so you too will assess not only literary works but also literary men at their proper value. And I consider this all the more admirable, as there are few to be found who are of this frame of mind. Your prudence, and your candour of mind,7Candour '' or sincerity at that time meant an openness to think the best of people. are such that you consider, not by whom things are said, but what is said. For we worship the same God, submit to His commandments, and after the difficulties of this life expect a better life. And everything in the first book is aimed at this, all should understand that we all inwardly agree on such necessary doctrine against the Sadducees, who are a plague both to souls and commonwealths.", "May God the greatest and best bless your labours and studies more and more, both those undertaken privately and those undertaken on behalf of this most flourishing commonwealth.", "Amsterdam", "2/20/1636" ], "Dedicatory Letter of the Judeo Spanish Edition": [], "Prologue": [ "The Prologue to the Judeo-Spanish Edition
To the reader, Good Health! I wish well (warm reader) to grasp your benevolence, and have you on my side in everything; because if renown is presented with trumpets and is born of a handsome and benign ingenuity, who doubts that when one of these conditions is lacking, the author loses his time and illustrious glory?", "And where one thinks to gain, right there maybe one comes to lose. Plato said that he regretted that his works came to light because the learned would understand him but the ignorants would not, therefore he feared reproach from the first ones and contempt from the others. I fear personally the latter more than the first ones because the crowd is always responsible for shipwrecks.", "And not because I say this, do you condemn me as arrogant; because here, instead of gaining the glories of others, the intention is to credit the old ones, whose vestiges you see in my works. The truth is, I don't add anything new, and I will not pretend like others (who become lions among sheep) that the invention came out of my head because I never wanted to steal the due credit from another genius.", "I read 26 books of the ancient sages and many others modern ones. I considered their sentences diligently, I put them together and arranged them with an orderly method, leaving no question untouched, being the first Hebrew who has dealt with this matter of the resurrection with such scholarly experience.", "If any honor is due, you are free to thank me. Otherwise, follow your will, for whoever engages in something of public benefit risks everything, investing even his life and faculties, as it happens to me for employing myself at your service, without seeking glory or profit, which are the two pillars that sponsor literature. The interest of patrons is self-interest, this glory, (also geniuses have their greed), and so they encourage a wide understanding in such a way that they expand it to larger companies.", "I do not really complain, nor do I have to, but I only lament about my studies, as someone said, philosophy goes poor and naked.1Petrarch, Canzoniere (Songbook), 1470. VII, La gola e 'l somno et l'otïose piume: Qual vaghezza di lauro, qual di mirto?/Povera et nuda vai philosophia, / dice la turba al vil guadagno intesa.\" (Such greed for laurel, and for myrtle?/ Philosophy goes poor and naked, says the mob interested in vile profit). The ailment is old, but it would have a remedy, if the eyes of the congregation, and of those who are in charge of this scattered Republic of ours, take their sights to favor their own, seeking with great diligence to increase the exercise of the sacred law, which is always the main thing; although it is natural to rest the laurels, especially those planted with work. But in this sense, each one will easily be able to notice that I speak in particular for the benefit of others, without damage or detriment to anybody.", "It has been my will to give this book in vulgar Romance language; because I want to write for the benefit of my country, and of all those who wish to investigate the truth. And I do not think I deserve reproach for having written like this, since Jeremiah's disciples communicated our things, the mystery of reincarnation, and others various secrets with Plato.2Lit. Transmigration. Simeon the Just did the same with Aristotle, also finding that the most distinguished Hebrews wrote very learned books in the vulgar language, such as Rabbi Moshe of Egypt (Maimonides) in his Guide in the Arabic language; Philo, a learned Hebrew in the Greek language, Lord Yehuda Abarbanel, in Italian, and so many others, each one in his vernacular. Josephus, that great historian, says these words in the preface to his book of antiquities that he composed in Greek:", "Along with this, he had seriously reflected that our greatest Hebrews in past times freely communicated their things with strangers and that some of the Greeks took great desire to know our things. Because it is written that King Ptolemy, second of this name, a man entirely dedicated to letters, and to collecting books, tried with great diligence to translate into Greek our law, and its institutions, and the due way that it commands us. But Elisha, whom none of our high priests equaled, did not want to take away this benefit from the king, and undoubtedly would have rejected it, if it had not been the custom of our elders not to leave out of the reach of anyone what is good and honest. For this reason, it seemed suitable to me to imitate the magnanimity of our high priests, and to assume that today there are many others similar to this king: (I am talking about the desire to know), because even he did not get all the records, but the interpreters gave him only the law, given to him by those who were sent to Alexandria to interpret it.3Paraphrased by Menasseh from Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I, Preface 3; also Against Apion, II, 45; Jewish Antiquities XII, 13-16.", "Up to here are the words of Josephus, by which it is seen that in the likeness of the high priest Elisha, he wanted to write his books in a language that even the Gentiles understood. So in this part, I think he stands well together with the distinguished geniuses that I have named.", "At least, it does not seem to me to be lawful for you, to be ungrateful to the one who wishes your good and who gives you gifts that serve you; and this is enough for excuses.", "As for the division of the work, it was separated into three books. The first tries to prove the resurrection and to answer all the objections that can be raised against it. It contains 16 chapters. The second book, with a pleasant arrangement, deals with the four (Aristotelian) causes of the said resurrection, namely, the efficient, the formal, the material, and the final;4Aristotle (Posterior Analytics, II) says that one can ask four types of questions on anything, if the thing is, what is it, how is it and why. He considered the truth as evident by nature, yet our reason is to it as the eyes of bats to the blazing sunlight (Metaphysics, II, 993b). He retired to the island of Euboea, fearing to be condemned as Socrates for concluding the existence of one God. Many among the Gentiles were unjustly and ignorantly classified as atheists only because they did not approve the plurality of deities, nor idolatry; such as Euhemerus, Socrates, and others. and it contains not only the questions that are proposed among our Sages but also all those that I found written by the wise men of the nations of the world, following the sentence of the ancients, which says, truth is taken from whatever mouth is spoken.5Adapted from the adage of Petrarch (Epistole familiares, 21, 10; 23), \"quicquid ab ullo verum dicitur, a Deo est\" Any truth spoken by whosoever is of God. This dictum is also known from Maimonides, to accept the truth from he who speaks it (Eight Chapters on Ethics, Intro), having himself borrowed from Greek and Latin classical philosophers. This book has 22 chapters. The third book finally deals with the world of the resurrection, with all the questions about this matter, namely, the end and restoration of the world, and the final judgment. This contains 12 chapters and thus closes the number of 50, according to the 50 doors of wisdom. To avoid work, I omitted the Hebrew texts and always put the sentences between two clauses.6This was accomplished by including Hebrew and other original texts, with updated and verified references to match the actual indexation. I finish by asking you, as you find yourself, reader, to be good to yourself because the intention is to please you in everything, and the glory of the Blessed Lord. And without the occasion for you to be displeased, I am happy waiting for your satisfaction, so be it." ], "": [ [ [ "In which the resurrection of the dead is validated with the authority of the books of Moshe.
1.1. The illustrious and distinguished sage, Rabbi Moshe of Egypt (Maimonides) constitutes the belief in the resurrection of the dead as the last of the thirteen articles of faith that every Israelite must have; that is, faith that the dead, whose bodies have dissolved due to the absence of the spirit by merging into their souls, will return a second time to enjoy a bodily life in this world.1This statement appears in Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva 8, where it is inferred from a literal reading of Numbers 15:30-31 that the soul shall be cut off from among his people; and in his commentary on the Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin 10, Chapter Helek.", "And because, there, he excludes from being considered an Israelite whoever denies it as an essential point; for this is how the Hebrews generally understand it, it seemed decent to me to check this, first, by bringing the places from where the ancient sages infer it, with probability, or with a demonstration.2Probability and demonstration” make reference to classical rhetoric applied to the exegesis of biblical descriptions, where probability, translated as possibility, indicates something possible and rather not false, whereas the demonstration indicates its rational logic. Cicero lists fourteen things that serve probability: The nature of the narrators according to their attributes and perfections; the account of the time of the event; the narration of the place; if the cause of the event is known; if the event draws attention; if it is not strange to human opinion; if what is said agrees with the authority of the speaker or of whom is being spoken; with the laws; with good manners; with religion and compassion because according to the goodness of men they are easily given credit; if what is said venerates virtue; if the narrator's memory is good; if the truth contained has already been experienced; the honesty of the narrator's life. Cicero mentions among those things that for the most part come to pass and gives the example of the punishments prepared for the wicked in the resurrection (De Inventione I, XXIX, 49).", "Thereafter, we will add the natural reasons, and finally, we will conclude with experience, both needed for any perfect knowledge; and thus, beginning in this chapter, we will quote the texts of the books of Moses, and then the Holy Scriptures (Tanakh).", "It is, therefore, to be noted that the first place where they infer the resurrection is in Genesis 2, where the Holy Scripture, dealing with the formation of Adam, says:
וייצר יהוה אלהים
And A. God formed (Adam)3Since God's names are sacred, many authorities break the names up or shorten them with acronyms to avoid misuse, possibly based on Hosea 2:19: \"...and they shall never call me by my name\" (See R. David Nieto, On Divine Providence, p. 178). Based on Sephardic tradition, Menasseh Ben Israel sometimes uses “ A. “ instead of the full spelled name. This was commonly done in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by men of genius whose contribution is based on the absorption of tradition, not innovation. This name is the logical outcome of the existing rhetoric at the time and emerged as a hieroglyph or symbol that represents with the superior angle of the letter A the perspective of the Providence of God overseeing from above, e.g. \"A. deserted the land, A. does not oversee\" (Ezekiel 9:9). See Book 2, Chapter 3, Other sources of Invention, 90a, Tractate on Rhetoric (1665) by R. Raphael Aguilar.
(Genesis 2:7)", "it is worth pondering that the word, וייצר (vayser), and He formed, is written with two yodin (יי), while after, when dealing with the formation of the quadrupeds, it is written with only one yod (י):
ויצר יהוה אלהים
And A. God formed (quadrupeds...)
(Genesis 2:19)", "The Sages say, this has a certain emphasis, and thus by making their customary considerations gave various solutions.", "First, they said, it was shown in this, the difference between man and other animals, and by doubling the iod (י) it meant the two forms that are found in human beings, the good and the bad appetite (יצר הטוב ויצר הרע); it means the two appetites (inclinations) of man for good and for evil. The philosophers described the evil inclination (יצר הרע) with the names of the concupiscible appetite, and the irascible appetite.4These sensory appetites in the classical sense are taken from Aristotle's Ethics. Aristotle describes in Nicomachean Ethics, the irascible, as the animalistic emotional reaction motivated by inner passions (Chapter 2); whereas the concupiscible or exterior passion moves human beings toward the delightful or pleasure as an end in itself (Chapter 10). The first category can be utilitarian as a reactive drive toward something considered good for its usefulness. For example, the drive of an animal seeking shelter, the drive for money i.e. the epitome of usefulness, etc. Both categories serve partial and material purposes. There is a third purpose in Aristotle's ethics, which transcends vital immediate necessities in search for honesty and truthfulness as the supreme goodness. Notably, Aristotle applies these three notions to the virtue of friendship (philia), with three species corresponding to human affection (philetón): (1) the useful (chrésimos) of which money is its epitome; (2) the delightful (hedys) that gives pleasure; and (3) the good that is true and honest (agathón). See Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, III, 1156a7-b12. Menasseh Ben Israel adds that the first two sensory or animalistic appetites are known in Judaism as (יצר הרע) the evil inclination (Berakhot 61a:3).", "Second, they said that this could represent that in Adam there were two formations, his own, and that of Eve, who had the rib glued and joined to the back.5q.v. Eruvin 18a:15 ; Ketubot 18a:9.", "Third, which means, the two times of the child's formation in the mother's womb, that is, until the seventh month (fetus), and the ninth month (baby); as philosophers claim for other reasons, which can be omitted here.6Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) on Genesis 2:7, 4.", "Fourth, they want in these two formations, the two parts of which it is composed are contained, namely, the soul, and the body, one spiritual, the other terrestrial.7Rashi on Genesis 2:7, 3.", "Finally, that reason, the fifth and last with which they argue here the meaning of the form that man has in this present world, and the future formation in the resurrection of the dead; and hence the probability of inferring this from the said article and foundation of the law.8Rashi on Genesis 2:7, 1: the letter yod is written twice to intimate that there were two formations, a formation of man for this world, and a formation of man for resurrection.", "Elsewhere, about the curse that God laid upon Adam it finally says,
בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם עד שובך אל־האדמה כי ממנה לקחת כי־עפר אתה ואל־עפר תשוב
with the sweat of your nose you will eat bread until you return to the earth, to which you were taken. For dust you are and dust you will return
(Genesis 3:19)", "Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai infers:
מכאן לתחית המתים מן התורה כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב תלך לא נאמר אלא תשוב
Here we have the resurrection of the dead in the law, which does not say, dust you are and dust you will go, but you will return תשוב.
(Midrash, Bereshit Rabbah 20:10)", "This author proves the effective argument because it seems that Adam, being already dust, was not going to return to the dust that he already was, otherwise, it should not say, dust you are and to dust you will return, but instead dust you will go;
(There is no redundancy: it doesn't say \"and to dust you shall go\" תלך)
אל עפר תשוב
Dust you shall return
(Genesis 3:19)", "There the resurrection of the dead is meant, as saying, dust you are now, and therewith, as the same dust, or state, you will return a second time in the resurrection of the dead; which is excused, without having sinned; because he will not die, or he will carry body and soul like Enoch and Elijah." ], [ "1.2. In the Yalkut Parashat Vayera, about Yosef's dream repeated to his father in the words of Jacob in Genesis 37:
מה החלום הזה אשר חלמת הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה
Are we to come, I and your mother and your brothers, and bow down before you to the ground?”
(Genesis 37:10)
They say from this:
היה יעקב אבינו סבור, שתחית המתים מגעת בימיו, שנאמר: הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך רחל מתה, ואת אומר אני ואמך
Our father, Jacob, imagined that the resurrection of the dead would arrive in his days; as it says: Are we to come, me and your mother? Rachel is dead, and you say, me and your mother?!
(Yalkut, Parashat Vayera)
It seems that Jacob the patriarch doubted whether the dreams were prophetic since he put into question the impossibility concerning the mother Rachel that was already dead.", "And still, we see that the sacred Scripture says below, and his brothers were angry with him, and his father had the matter in mind (Gen 37:11). So the ancients say, how did he doubt, on the one hand, and waited for her?", "We must therefore understand, although Jacob doubted in part about the mother, being already dead, yet he awaited the event; because from there he inferred that the time of the resurrection of the dead (which he had received by tradition) could have arrived, and thus it could be possible that even after being dead, Rachel would rise again, and bow to Yosef, her child. However, he was mistaken about that; because Bilha, Rachel's slave, was referred to as his mother, since she had raised him as a mother, being many times found in the divine letters to give such title to adoptive mothers. So they also infer the said article from this place.", "Rabbi Simai in (Chapter 10) Perek Helek, clearly inferred the resurrection of the dead with an eager demonstration, this time from Exodus 6:3, where the Lord says to Moshe,
וארא אל־אברהם אל־יצחק ואל־יעקב באל שדי ושמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם
וגם הקמתי את־בריתי אתם לתת להם את־ארץ כנען את ארץ מגריהם אשר־גרו בה
And I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, just as the great Shaddai (God); and I didn’t let them know my name (Hashem), and I established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their travels to dwell", "The said author says it does not say, to give, to you; but it says, to them, here the resurrection of the dead is inferred from the Torah:
לתת לכם לא נאמר אלא להם מכאן לתחית המתים מן התור
To give to you was not told; but to them, here the Torah mentions the resurrection of the dead
(Yalkut Shimoni on Parashat Vayera, 176:9)", "This infallibly proves it because the Lord does not tell Moshe, to have sworn and established a covenant with the patriarchs to give the promised land to their children, but rather He would give it to them, as we see in chapter 17, where He says to Abraham:
ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך
and I will give to you, and your seed after you, the land of their pilgrimage
(Genesis 17:8)", "Now being a certain thing that neither Abraham nor another patriarch possessed that land, and being the promise of God infallible, it is found that it still has to be fulfilled: Abraham and the other patriarchs will rise again to enjoy it; from this not only is it proven that souls are immortal, but also and more importantly the resurrection is an essential article of the Torah.", "Rabbi Meir also inferred this elsewhere, in the song of Moshe at the transit of the Red Sea,9Menasseh ben Israel translates the sea to Judeo-Spanish \"Mar Bermejo\", or red roan color, as the Septuagint; in Latin, he translates to Maris Erythraei, or Erythraean Sea, that represented the whole Indian Ocean, between West India and East Africa, before the existence of the term the Arabian Sea. For the author of Sefer Ha-Yobelim (Book of Jubilees, included in the Dead Sea Scrolls) the Erythraean Sea or Red (erythres) Sea was a big and mystical sea that included the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean in the West of India: The East of Cush can be identified within India (Hindu Cush), the West of Cush can be identified with East Africa, and in between, the Red Sea.
S Jub. 8:21; 9:2, 4. Casson, Periplus Maris Erythraei, 94. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea or Periplus of the Red Sea, 1.1.1.; 20.
Exodus 15, which begins:
אז ישיר־משה
Then Moshe will sing
(Exodus 15:1)", "שר לא נאמר אלא ישיר מכאן לתחיית המתים מן התורה
It does not say, sang (שר), but will sing (ישיר); from this, the resurrection of the dead from the Torah is inferred.
(Sanhedrin 91b:14)", "He notes well, because according to the grammatical rule, the past verb is (shar), and the future tense (yashir), so it says, Moshe will sing, when it should say, he sang. That has its charm, and it is that at the time of the resurrection, Moshe will return with his beloved flock to sing the new song a second time, for the miracles of that time will exceed those of the Exodus from Egypt.", "Although this point alone is not enough to prove this faith, however, with the other points, it is a subtle and compelling thought.", "Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, on Leviticus 25 deals with the Jubilee where it says,
יובל ... תהיה לכם
Jubilee will be for you, ושב אל־משפחתו ואל־אחזת אבתיו ישוב
and each one will return to his family, and each one will return to the possession of his parents,
(Leviticus 25:11 ; 25:41)", "Allegorically, by the jubilee, he understands the time of the resurrection, in which each one will return to his lineage, and relatives he will know there. This sense is because if the intention were that in the jubilee only the slaves would be free, it would be more appropriate to say that they would return to their lands, or it could be excused from saying it, as some of them could be citizens; and that is why he says, “from here the resurrection of the dead is inferred.”" ], [ "1.3. Eloquently, and even more effectively, Rabbi Yohanan draws this point from the Torah, from the verse of Numbers 18, where it is said about tithes,
ונתתם ממנו את־תרומת יהוה לאהרן הכהן
Rather give Terumah to Aaron the High Priest
(Deuteronomy 18:28)", "And the said author argues:
וכי אהרן לעולם קיים והלא לא נכנס לארץ ישראל אלא מלמד שעתיד לחיות
Is Aaron meant to live eternally? In fact, he did not enter (in his lifetime) the land of Israel! (where Terumah or the tithes must be given); rather, this teaches that he will live in the future [in the resurrection].
(Sanhedrin 90b:2)", "It seems that otherwise, the said commandment would not take place; because Aaron did not enter the holy land, and tithes were given only in it, and thus the Holy Scripture that always describes precisely, would better say, and you will give of it to the priests or the seed of Aaron; But, as it clearly says, to Aaron, it follows that the time will come when all the Torah will be fulfilled, and they will be given to Aaron himself, and this will be in the resurrection of the dead.", "Rabbi Gamliel being interrogated by the Sadducees, where he learned the article of the resurrection the dead, having responded with some arguments that did not leave them happy, at last, he alleges Deuteronomy 4, where the Lord of the Israelite people says,
ואתם הדבקים ביהוה אלהיכם חיים כלכם היום
and you will unite with A. your God, you standing all alive today
(Deuteronomy 4:4)", "saying, if Moshe meant all who lived there at present, it would be superfluous to tell them what would be obvious; and if he dealt with them in general, many of them would be dead (to possess the land). Therefore it was learned from there the explanation:
מה היום כלכם קיימים אף לעולם הבא כלכם קיימים
Just as in the present they were all alive, so in the future, they would be alive
(Yalkut on Parshat Vayelech, 941:3)", "And this would be possible by being united with God, the cause of said permanence.", "Rabbi Gamliel himself, some say, satisfied the doubt in another way, and it was with the proof of Deuteronomy 11, where it says,
למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם על האדמה אשר נשבע יהוה לאבתיכם לתת להם", "So that your days and those of your children may be multiplied, on the land that A. swore to your parents to give them, etc.
(Deuteronomy 11:21)", "And this by making the consideration,
לתת לכם לא נאמר אלא להם מכאן לתחית המתים מן התורה
To give to you was not told; but to them, here the Torah mentions the resurrection of the dead
(Yalkut on Parshat Vayelech, 941:3)", "That is the same argument of Rabbi Simai, which we have referred to earlier, and the most consistent and effective one.", "Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosef says in the tractate of Sanhedrin, With this following matter, I refuted the books of the Samaritans, as they would say that there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah, with this proving the opposite by the following verse,
הכרת תכרת הנפש ההוא, עונה בה
That soul will be cut off, his guilt will be upon him
(Numbers 15:31)", "Regarding the blasphemer it is said that his soul will be cut off, and his crime will be upon it (his soul), saying it this way:
הכרת תכרת - בעולם הזה, עונה בה - לאימת, לאו לעולם הבא
If so, concerning the phrase “his iniquity shall be upon him,” when? Will it be in the future?
(Sanhedrin 90b:16)", "It means that otherwise, the verse would be superfluous, and so it follows that after condemning the blasphemer's soul in this world, the next punishment is in the other world of resurrection, where the soul's punishment will be (בה) in it, (exclusively in the soul,) that is, it will remain totally separated and disunited from the body for eternity, without re-forming it a second time on the Day of Resurrection. And with this, he contradicted the Samaritans." ], [ "1.4. In Deuteronomy, chapter 6, it is said:
למען תירא את־יהוה אלהיך לשמר את־כל־חקתיו ומצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך אתה ובנך ובן־בנך כל ימי חייך ולמען יארכן ימיך
That you fear A. your God and follow all His laws and commandments which I am commanding you, you and your children and children's children, all the days, of your life that may prolong your days
(Deuteronomy 6:2)", "In which words are understood the present world (all the days); and the resurrection in the future world (of your life that may prolong your days in the resurrection), that they expected as the present time.", "Rava happily proves the resurrection from another place, and it is from Moshe's blessing to Reuben, when he says,
יחי ראובן ואל ימת
Reuben will live and will not die
(Deuteronomy 33:6)", "which is not understood in this life because afterward, he died. But he understands it about the future life, of which Reuben, even a sinner, as already penitent, would enjoy, so when he died, he would not remain dead forever, but he would rise again.", "So he says, the resurrection in the Torah is derived from here:
יחי ראובן - בעולם הזה, ואל ימות - לעולם הבא
Reuben will live, in this world, and will not die, in the world to come
(Sanhedrin 92a:5)", "Finally, lofty and divinely, they prove why the resurrection of the dead is infallible to them, so they say,
מיכן תשובה לאומרין אין תחיית המתים מן התורה
Here is an answer for those who say, that there is no resurrection of the dead in the Torah.
(Sanhedrin 92a:13)", "It is then from chapter 32 where they mention these words,
ראו עתה כי אני אני הוא ואין אלהים עמדי אני אמית ואחיה מחצתי ואני ארפא
See now, that I, I am the one who, without god beside Me, I kill and give life; I wound, and heal, etc.
(Deuteronomy 32:39)", "In this text, they pronounce this sentence,
מה מחיצה ורפואה באחד אף מיתה וחיים באחד, מיכן תשובה לאומרין אין תחיית המתים מן התורה
Just as wounding and healing take place in one [body], so too, death and bringing back to life take place in one [body]. From here there is a response to those who say that there is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah.
(Sanhedrin 91b:13)", "However, so that it does not seem that there is only a question of divine power, which extends to do these two opposite effects, killing and giving life, and that it is not only about the resurrection, it is convenient to know that the song of Moshe (Ha’azinu) is divided in 6 parts where the first part serves as an introduction and contains five verses, namely, from, Listen, O heavens!, until, this gives glory to A. (Deut. 32:1-3). The second deals with the advantages and favors that God did to Israel, contains another nine verses until, And Yeshurun ​​thickened... (Deut. 32:8-15). The third deals with the sins of the people against God, contains four verses, up to, God saw and was vexed... (Deut 32:16-19). The fourth deals with the penalties and punishment from God to punish them for their sins, contains seven verses, until, and destroys the memory of them (Deut. 32:20-26). The fifth part deals with the end of the destruction that God wanted to do to his people and the cause that moved him not to do it, until, hidden with me, (Deut. 32:25-38). The sixth and last, try to console Israel, and the revenge of her enemies, until Moshe came; and thus not only deals with the future redemption of the Israelite people but also with the resurrection. And this is the same as that which we have pointed out with, I kill and give life, etc.", "Josephus, the historian, in the book of The Empire of Reason,10The Empire of Reason, ascribed to Josephus, is also known as the apocryphon, The Fourth Book of Maccabees. It is a philosophical discourse about the superiority of reason over passions; which in combination with compassion encounters no difficulty in this life and in the afterlife. Q.v. Kautzsch, Apokryphen, ii. 152. dealing with the martyrdom of the Maccabees, says that the courageous mother encouraged her children by speaking this text of Moshe, with others bringing to their memory that even if their bodies were torn to pieces by the tyrant, the time would come when they would be remade again, and improve with life.", "It is seen from all of this that there are some places in the Books of Moshe from which we may induce and demonstrate this article of the resurrection of the dead as a possibility.The reason, however, is not addressed and will be stated further, with divine favor." ] ], [ [ "The places in the books of prophets dealing with the resurrection.
2.1. The first place in the books of the prophets, where we find the resurrection of the dead is the first book of Samuel, Chapter 1, in the prayer of the prophet and wise woman Hannah, where it says,
יהוה ממית ומחיה מוריד שאול ויעל
A. kills and revives, brings down to the grave, and raises up
(I Samuel 2:6)", "This is where the resurrection is described because otherwise, it was more appropriate to start the description with the act of mercy, which is to give life, however it says, the same body that He kills, is brought again to life.", "And so that this would not be understood only about the faculty of God to give life, as He also gives death to others,1Isaac Orobio proposes in the 13 propositions in defense of divine and natural truth (Philosophical Case, Chapter 4, Proposition 11) that the supernatural agent or the One that necessarily exists can reduce something (contingent) to nothing if it can create it out of nothing (creatio ex- nihilo) and does not preserve it. it says again, brings down to the grave, and raises up, i.e. in the resurrection.", "And for this consideration, Rabbi Yehoshua says about those people who denied the resurrection of the resurrected by Ezekiel,
שירה זו אמרו, יהוה ממית ומחיה
They said this song, A. kills and revives, etc.
(Sanhedrin 92b:3)", "The Prophet Isaiah clearly expresses this miracle, and thus he says in chapter 26:
יחיו מתיך נבלתי יקומון הקיצו ורננו שכני עפר כי טל אורת טלך וארץ רפאים תפיל
Your dead will revive, my corpse will rise, wake up and sing, inhabitants of the dust, that your dew of lights, your dew, and the earth, shall bring the dead out of the shadows.
(Isaiah 26:19)", "The prophet complained some verses before, that the Israelite people were ruled by other owners, although they had all remembered the divine name; and because many were martyrs for the sanctification of the divine name, he says out of admiration,
מתים בל־יחיו רפאים בל־יקמו, [לכן פקדת ותשמידם ותאבד כל־זכר למו]
The dead shall not revive; the shades of the dead shall not rise
(Isaiah 26:14)", "and in the gathering from captivity, will they not see the salvation of the Lord? To this question is answered (in verse 19), do not think what you say prophet, rather, your dead will revive, these are the dead of your people, who died a natural death, and my corpse will rise up, that is, those who died for the sanctification of my name, and for this, it uses the affix, my corpse. In wake up and sing, inhabitants of the dust, He (effectively) calls the dead “asleep” because they will awaken from the sleep of death, and will sing hymns to the salvation of God. And this is because, your dew, and the earth, shall bring the dead out, which means that for this resurrection, a dew will fall from the sky, which will be instead of the man's sperm, and the disposition of the dust made miraculously like the ovulation of the female, then the earth (like a womb) will mix and make the bodies, just like Adam's body was made, casting out the dead [as living beings].2This interpretation is based on the symbolic figure of Elijah in the Zohar, Parashat Vayakhel (Zohar II, 197a), where the dew that will fall from the sky is a storm of wind among the angels who will impregnate the earth with new incarnations. This metaphor is also cited by R. Yosef Albo, \"we find a mystery in the book of Adam, which says that among the generations of the world there will be one spirit that will go down to the earth and clothe itself in a body by means of a storm (Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Maamar 4:34).", "With these verses, Rabbi Gamliel tried to convince the Sadducees. But they did not admit the said proof because they said, this could be understood, of the dead that Ezekiel raised, from which it seems, not all Sadducees denied the immortality of souls, but only the future resurrection.", "In Tanhuma, where we comment on “my corpse”, the ancients say,
אותם שהיו מתנבלים בשבילי, זה נצלב למה על שמל את בנו, זה נשרף למה על ששמר את השבת, זה נרהג למה על שקרא בתורה
those who were vilified (mistreated) for my sake, one was hanged, because he circumcised his son; another was burned because he kept the Shabbat; another was slaughtered, because he meditated on the Torah.
(Yalkut Shimoni on Nakh, 431:2)", "The ancients derive that word, nebelati (נבלתי), from the word, nabal (נבל), which is \"vile\" and has a very proper meaning, and it is almost the same as we have said. That word refers to those who were reviled, or treated with contempt, or murdered for sanctifying the name of God, as there were many in those ancient times, and still today who were mistreated by the tyrannical inquisition of Spain.", "The third place is from the same prophet Isaiah, who, dealing with this miracle, in chapter 52, says in this way:
מה־נאוו על־ההרים רגלי מבשר משמיע שלום מבשר טוב משמיע ישועה אמר לציון מלך אלהיך. קול צפיך נשאו קול יחדו ירננו כי עין בעין יראו בשוב יהוה ציון
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the herald that announces peace, beatitude, and announces salvation; that says to Zion: your God reigns! Your watchmen raise their voice; together they will sing: Eye with eye, will see A. return to Zion.
(Isaiah 52:7-8)", "The ancient sages want this herald to be understood as the prophet Elijah, who will come before said salvation, to give the news of it, as the prophet Malakhi and Nahum also testify. This he says, announces the peace, that is, the universal peace which will exist at that time, and the salvation of those resurrected. In those days, the speech of the watchmen, or prophets, will raise their voices, and together they will sing the salvation of God - all together raised and resurrected from the earth. From this place Rabbi Hiya infers the resurrection, saying,
יחדו ירננו וגו' ריננו לא נאמר אלא ירננו מכאן לתחיית המתים מן התורה
together they will sing, instead of they sang, it says, they will sing, from here the resurrection of the dead is found in the Torah.
(Sanhedrin 91b:17)", "And even more, he added,
עתידין כל הנביאים כולן להיות אומרים שירה בקול אחד, שנאמר: \"קול צפיך נשאו קול יחדו ירננו\"
all the prophets say that they have to sing in one voice, that thus it is said, your watchmen raise their voices, together they will sing
(Sanhedrin 91b:17)", "From which it is seen that they understood in this description the resurrection of the dead." ], [ "2.2. The following text proves with a demonstration this truth among the prophets - it is from Ezekiel, Chapter 37, where Ezekiel is taken to the valley full of bones, having seen them all resurrected, at last, the Lord, A. God, tells him saying:
ויאמר אלי בן־אדם התחיינה העצמות האלה ואמר אדני יהוה אתה ידעת. ויאמר אלי הנבא על־העצמות האלה ואמרת אליהם העצמות היבשות שמעו דבר־יהוה. כה אמר אדני יהוה לעצמות האלה הנה אני מביא בכם רוח וחייתם. ונתתי עליכם גדים והעלתי עליכם בשר וקרמתי עליכם עור ונתתי בכם רוח וחייתם וידעתם כי־אני יהוה.
And he told me: Son of man, these bones are alive, and I replied to A. God: Only you know!", "And He said, prophesy about these bones, and tell them: Dry bones, hear the word of A.", "Thus has A. God said to these bones: I bring you spirit and life.
And I will put garments on you, I will incarnate you, I will clothe you with skin, I will give you a spirit and you will live, and you will know that I am A.
(Ezekiel 37:3-6)", "This text is expressive and infallible, and without a doubt, it proves the resurrection. And since the Sages of the Talmud discussed this prophecy, whether it was only a parable or truly according to the literal sense (that Ezekiel resurrected those dead); be it one thing or another, there is no doubt that in that act, the vision meant the future resurrection.3In the discussion of tractate Sanhedrin 92b there are three opinions, those which state the story of the resurrection of the dry bones by Ezekiel was a parable; those which say that the dead whom Ezekiel resurrected stood up, sang, and died; and those which say that the dead whom Ezekiel revived went to the land of Israel, married wives and had children. Menasseh Ben Israel states that regardless of the different opinions, the description of the vision confirms the article of the future resurrection, as that is the deeper intention of the text.", "And so in the Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer the ancients say,
היו ישראל יושבין ובוכין היינו מקוים לאור ובא חשך, באותה שעה אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא חי יי שאני מעמיד אתכם בתחית המתים ואקבץ אתכם עם ישראל, שנאמר הנה אני פותח את קברותיכם וכו'
At that time Israel was sitting and weeping, “we would hope for light, and darkness came.” Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He said, \"As I live, I will raise you up from the dead and I will gather you with Israel, as the verse says (Ezek. 37:12), Behold I will open your graves...\"
(Pirkei De Rabbi Eliezer 33:17)", "They undoubtedly understood that the description of this prophecy represented the future resurrection.", "Rabbi David Kimhi and other authors, prove these from Chapter 43 of the said prophet (Ezekiel), and this, where the Lord dealing with the Third Temple (as we will show later) tells him:
ונתתה אל־הכהנים הלוים אשׁר הם מזרע צדוק הקרבים אלי נאם אדני יהוה לשרתני פר בן־בקר לחטאת׃ ולקחת מדמו ונתתה על־ארבע קרנתיו וכו'
And you will give to the priests, to the Levites, those of the descendants of Zadok, those who have come to serve me, said A. God, a calf for cleaning.", "And you will take some of its blood, and you will give it on the four corners, etc.
(Ezekiel 43:19)", "This (sacrifice) undoubtedly has to be fulfilled, and it did not happen in the second Temple; Ezekiel did not go up to Jerusalem, he died in Babylon and was buried there, so God must fulfill this promise with the resurrection in that future century.", "This is what we find of this point in the Prophets, according to the Sages." ] ], [ [ "In which are given the places in the Books of Writings dealing with the resurrection.
3.1. It remains for us to verify this article with the rest of the sacred books, and thus we now come to those of the Writings; first from Psalm 72, the royal prophet, dealing with the Messiah, who without war but with much peace, will dominate from sea to sea, and to him, all kings will bow down, all nations will obey, and in his time there will be all abundance; finally he says:
ויציצו מעיר כעשב הארץ
And they will flourish like herbs on the ground.
(Psalms 72:16)", "Which is certainly understood about the resurrected; from the ground, they will flourish as if they were herbs; this cannot be understood as if they were fruits, because they do not flourish in the city, but in the fields.", "And so it occurs in the Gemara of Sanhedrin, that when Cleopatra asked Rabbi Meir some doubt about the resurrection, she confessed this point saying,1Cleopatra said, I know the dead will revive (Sanhedrin 90b:20). The Egyptian Book of the Dead was exclusively taught to royalty, priests, and scribes. Cleopatra learned this article as Egyptian royalty.", "ידענא דחיי שכבי דכתיב ויציצו מעיר כעשב הארץ
I know that the dead will live, so it is written, “and they will flourish like herbs on the ground.”
(Sanhedrin 90b:20)", "Also the Sages infer this from Psalm 84, where it is said,
אשרי יושבי ביתך עוד יהללוך סלה
Happy are those who dwell in Your house; they will yet praise you. Selah!
(Psalms 84:5)", "Noting that the word yet (עוד), means a praise added to the preceding one. And because, there, it is said, they will yet praise you, they say that the new praise will be in the resurrection.", "היללוך לא נאמר אלא יהללוך מכאן לתחיית המתים מן התורה
They praised you, does not say; but it says, they will yet praise you; hence, the resurrection of the dead from the Torah.
(Sanhedrin 91b:16)", "This resurrection is expressly learned from Psalm 104, where David speaks of this fate,
כלם אליך ישברון לתת אכלם בעתו
תתן להם ילקטון תפתח ידך ישבעון טוב
תסתיר פניך יבהלון תסף רוחם יגועון ואל־עפרם ישובון
תשלח רוחך יבראון ותחדש פני אדמה
All of them wait for you to give them their food in due time, you give it to them, they gather, you open your hand, and they are filled with good; cover up your faces and are disturbed, and their spirits faint; they die, and they return to their dust. You will send their spirits and they will be created, and you will renew the faces of the earth.
(Psalms 104:27-30)", "You see how after the spirit has been gathered by God, and the body turned to dust, God will send the spirit again and will renew the earth, which will be at the resurrection." ], [ "3.2. This article is also learned from Proverbs, from chapter 30, where there is a joke about those things that are insatiable, and never get enough; among them, are mentioned as examples: the grave, and the womb,
שאול ועצר רחם
the grave, a sterile womb
(Proverbs 30:16)", "The Rabbis ask and answer,
מה ענין שאול אצל רחם? אלא לומר לך: מה רחם מכניס ומוציא, אף שאול מכניס ומוציא
What does a grave have to do with a womb? it is rather, to tell you, Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too the grave takes in and gives forth
(Berakhot 15b:21)", "This, with the resurrection of the dead. The similarity is very proper, and although it does not prove everything, it is ingenious.", "In the Book of Daniel, the resurrection is described more explicitly than in any of the other places already mentioned, and this is in chapter 12, where it says,
ורבים מישני אדמת־עפר יקיצו אלה לחיי עולם ואלה לחרפות לדראון עולם
And many of the dust of the earth will awaken; some to eternal life and some to disgrace and everlasting reproach
(Daniel 12:2)", "It is clear from this that the dead are asleep in the dust of the earth, they will awaken from the dream in which they are, in the resurrection, some to be rewarded, others punished. And so Rabina says that this article can be proven from the description above as in the next point.", "Rav Ashi infers it at the end of said chapter and so says,
מהכא ואתה לך ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין
From here (it is inferred), and go you your way until the end be; you shall rest, and arise to your lot at the end of days
(Daniel 12:13; Sanhedrin 92a:5)", "Undoubtedly, the angel promises him two things here:
First, when he reaches the end of all mortals (death), he will rest, and then his soul would enjoy the good reserved only for the righteous in the world of the souls.", "The second is that he would rise at the end of days in the resurrection, for no other purpose than to enjoy the part that is of the most righteous and pious men who deserved it.", "These are all the places from which the ancient Sages infer from the divine letters the resurrection of the dead, with verisimilitude, or with certainty, and they are in total 23. And because increasing them is easy, we will add a description that is equivalent for me.", "Job, cursing the day of his birth, finally shows his pain by saying,
כי־עתה שכבתי ואשקוט ישנתי אז ינוח לי
For now, would I be lying in repose, asleep and at rest
(Job 3:13)", "He calls death, lying in repose, being asleep and at rest, which is certainly not understood about the soul; because she does not sleep, nor do her actions cease in the death of the body, but only then (through death) is she free from matter, in such wakefulness she exercises her own and true actions.", "Then it is necessary that being asleep be understood about the body, whose death he calls sleep, and with good reason; because just as the sleeping person wakes up; so the body after some time will wake up. And this is the resurrection.", "For this same reason, in the death of the righteous, the Holy Scripture uses this word, to sleep, as Jacob said,
ושכבתי עם־אבתי
And I will have slept with my fathers
(Genesis 47:30)
And in some other place,
וישכב דוד עם־אבתיו
And David slept with his fathers
(I Kings 2:10)", "And if there are other descriptions, this not only proves the immortality of souls in the way that we have said, but moreover validates this article of the resurrection of the dead.", "I have not argued that the verse of Job proves this point,
ואני ידעתי גאלי חי ואחרון על־עפר יקום
And I know that my Redeemer lives, and finally, on dust he will rise
(Job 19:25)", "It certainly does not deal with the resurrection because no Hebrew man who understands or explains it in that sense; there, the intention is to say, I know that the Redeemer of my soul, who leads it to happiness, lives and is eternal; and I know that He is the last one that will remain above all the terrestrial ones; and it is the same as Isaiah says, that the Lord is first and last.2Isaiah 44:6.", "It may be explained in another way, but then it will have nothing to do with the resurrection.3Gerardus Vossius corrected the theological point of view that departs from the given interpretation. Likewise, the term last is not understood as the last day, nor does it say, I will rise, according to the Latin version; but \"he will rise\" (יקום) from Iaqum in the third person, according to the Hebraic truth, as pondered in the Theological Questions by Mr. Gerardus I Vossius, lord of incomparable doctrine and humanity.", "For now, the 25 places that we have mentioned are enough." ] ], [ [ "It is shown that the miracle of the resurrection of the dead implies no contradiction, the possibility of this miracle is consistent with reason.
4.1. Since we should not believe and have faith in those things that imply a contradiction, it is convenient to speculate whether the resurrection implies a contradiction or not. For which we will say that not only does it imply no contradiction but it is very consistent with reason. To verify this, the following should be noted. There are two types of impossibilities, some are impossible in themselves, whose nature is constant, and the divine omnipotence cannot change them; others are the impossibles by nature, which give in to the divine omnipotence. An example of the first genre (impossible in themselves) is a single part being equal to the whole; two contraries being verified at the same time and in the same subject; that God creates another like Him; or that yesterday is no longer past, etc., and such things imply a contradiction.1Menasseh Ben Israel notes about the omnipotence of God to work miracles that the first type of impossibles implies a contradiction. He addresses Aristotle's axiom, God cannot do in nature what is impossible in itself, giving the classic example of the impossibility of making yesterday no longer past, which was first formulated in Ethics: Free Will does not affect what has already happened, \"for example, nobody chooses to have looted Troy, because neither does one deliberate on what has happened in the past, but rather on what is still in the future and may or may not happen; something that has already happened cannot be undone, or made not to have happened in the past. Therefore, Agathon is right in saying that this is denied even to God.\" (Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, ii, 4-11, 1139b). This is well explained by Isaac Orobio in my annotated translation of Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case, IV, (Dem. Prop. 4. 8-22, and note 4, p.170): Nature is, in fact, preset via defined laws, and within these very laws, specific times of their nullification (or mutation) are already established. This nullification was introduced by prior axiomatic laws, and so the miracles are “conditions of the parameters” of the laws [of nature]. From this point-of-view, miracles do occur according to nature, as their manifestation is embedded within the laws of nature. Seymour Feldman, The first Jewish Critique Against Spinoza, Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly (1988), IV, p.236. Translated by R. Yosef Zarnighian.", "The impossibles of the other genre, or by nature, are impossible in the sense that it is not possible for the intellect to figure them out or to decipher them.2In three modes of possible and impossible, Aristotle enumerates the \"potency\" which means the source of change or movement in something else; or in the same thing as another; or the source of a thing being moved or changed by something else, or by itself as something else. (Aristotle, Metaphysics, V, 12, 1019b, 24-27; 1-5.) In the first case, it refers to active or passive potency; in the second case, when we call possible what is not impossible; and in the third case, when something is possible if there is a geometric and commensurable proportion. Although God cannot make possible something that is impossible in itself, the divine Omnipotence can mutate or alter the specific or particular nature of something because God can do something according to His active potency (Metaphysics X, 4, 1055a, 38b1). On this, Averroes adds that when a lower body is altered or mutated by a higher body, \"it seems to be natural to this lower body.\" (Averroes, Commentarium Magnum in 3 de Caelo, com 20, in Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois). For Menasseh Ben Israel, the Resurrection does not exceed the omnipotence of God, nor does it imply a contradiction, and although his description does not have a geometric or commensurable proportion, they do have an analogical proportion that exceeds the limits of our intellect, but without rejecting the reason by analogy. As noted by R. Jedaiah Bedersi (Bedrasi) in his Epistle to Shlomo Ben Abraham ibn Aderet (Rashba), all miracles are of this second general category: For example, Moshe remained on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights without eating, or Elijah revived the dead, etc. Although they are impossible by nature, the understanding does not reject them because by believing that God is the efficient cause of the world, one is persuaded easily that, since God is the ruler and author of the world, he can vary it (mutate its natures) according to His will, so he can preserve some from death without eating, and bring others from death to life. According to this, we say that this faith and article of the resurrection of the dead does not imply a contradiction, and its denial would be the same as denying the rod of Moshe that became a serpent, and the other miracles of the Torah;3Among modern philosophers who denied miracles was Spinoza, the philosopher of indifference (towards classical philosophy and rhetoric), and the philosopher of indistinction (towards the traditional classifications of distinctus, differens, diversus). He claimed in his self-referential (without sources) Tractatus Theologico-Politicus that nature cannot mutate in its determinism because it preserves a fixed and immutable course and in consequence miracles would be an absurdity. (Spinoza, TTP, 1670/1862, 123, 128). Also David Hume (Hume, cf. Voltaire 1764/1901, 272) defined a miracle as a violation of deterministic laws of nature. Both, in their indifference and indistinction, conflated the distinctions between attributes and properties, and attributes and actions, and failed to differentiate that we are different from God, and to distinguish that God is totally distinct from us, which is why God is considered a superior entity. Q.v. my translation of Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case, Chapter IV. and according to this, Geviha ben Pesisa replied to a heretic, who said, “Shame on you wicked one, for saying that in the resurrection, the living are dead and the dead will live!” Geviha Ben Pesisa’s reply was:
ווי לכון חייביא דאמריתון מיתי לא חיין דלא הוו הוו דהוו לא כל שכן
Shame on you, the wicked, who says: The dead will not come to life. If those who were not in existence did [come to life], is it not more reasonable for those who were once alive to be able to come to life again?
(Sanhedrin 91a:5)", "A wonderful answer because the resurrection is less refutable than a new creation (creatio ex-nihilo). He who once received a gift, or divine influence, although it is later taken away from him, is more apt to receive it again, than he was before; like the wood that was once burned and received the form of fire - even if it was extinguished, it is more ready to receive the said form (of fire) a second time. And so the one who received the human form, and then lost it by death, is more apt than before to receive it a second time. And this is because there always remains some sign and note on the container of the gift, or divine influence that he once received. And this is why the sages say that the Temples, although they are destroyed, remain with holiness. Similarly, the things that once served holiness should be kept and not thrown away after they age or they will be desecrated. It is the same reason for which we must honor the one who lost his wisdom with old age, or after illness, and we claim for this that the Tablets of the Law, and the cracked pieces of the first Tablets were placed in the same Ark. All of which is because those things, which once received a divine gift, always remain with a sign in them; and the same is understood in the resurrection, because the body that already received the divine spirit once, even if death removes it, is more willing to receive it a second time; even so it seems that such a recipient needs a giver to restore the same influence. Thus, because the fire does not descend downwards by nature, we see by experience that although the smoke rises, it can light (downwards) a candle placed under it, because the fire descends [from the upper candle] and brings the light [to the lower candle]; thus the soul that remained in the body by disposition, which had already once been imbued into it, can easily return to it and give it life. It may be for this reason that the wise (Solomon) compares the soul to the candle:
נר יהוה נשמת אדם
Candle of A. is the soul of man
(Proverbs 20:27)
Geviha Ben Pesisa answered well then, “What was not, is; and what already was will not be?”", "The ancient Sages tried to find the natural reason for the resurrection, thus in the conversation of a certain emperor with Rabban Gamliel, he asked him,4This may have been Vespasian because he flourished in the year 3833 of creation / 72 CE. how do you say that the dead will live if they are dust? Her daughter, who would not have been uneducated, asked her father to let her answer, and then she said,
שני יוצרים יש בעירנו אחד יוצר מן המים ואחד יוצר מן הטיט. איזה מהן משובח א\"ל זה שיוצר מן המים א\"ל מן המים צר מן הטיט לא כל שכן
If there are two people in our city, one created vessels with water and the other created them with mud, which one is worthier? [He answered,] he who created them with water. She replied, If he created them with water, [all] the more so he can create with mud.
(Sanhedrin 91a:1)", "This wise man wanted to say that just as it was more difficult to create the world from nothing than later forming it from something, it was easier to give life to a dead body after it has been alive than to give it life in the same creation or before being anew like Adam.
If those who were not [in existence] did [come to life], is it not more reasonable for those who were once [alive] to be [able to come to life again]?
(Sanhedrin 91a:5)", "She wanted to say that if the one who formed with water was worthier because it was more difficult, then it became clear that it was a greater miracle to create the creature from water in the mother's womb, which is the father's sperm, than to form it already from mud, which is earth mixed with water, in which the body returns and decays, and with this argument she illustrated the miracle of the resurrection.", "In another way, Rabbi Ami responded to an Epicurean, and said in this way,
אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שאמר לעבדיו לכו ובנו לי פלטרין גדולים במקום שאין מים ועפר. הלכו ובנו אותו. לימים נפלו. אמר להם חזרו ובנו אותו במקום שיש עפר ומים אמרו לו אין אנו יכולין. כעס עליהם ואמר להן במקום שאין מים ועפר בניתם עכשיו שיש מים ועפר על אחת כמה וכמה ואם אי אתה מאמין צא לבקעה וראה עכבר שהיום חציו בשר וחציו אדמה למחר השריץ ונעשה כלו בשר שמא תאמר לזמן מרובה עלה להר וראה שהיום אין בו אלא חלזון אחד למחר ירדו גשמים ונתמלא כולו חלזונות
I will give you a comparison, imagine a king of flesh and blood who told his servants to go and build a great palace where there is no water or dust. They went and built it. After a few days, it collapsed. So he told them to go back to build it where there is water and dust, but they replied, we cannot do so. The king got angry with them and said, if they built where there was no water or dust, all the more so now that there is water and dust [it can be built much easier]; And if you don't believe me, go out to the valley and see a mouse that today is half meat and half earth, later the mouse will become all meat. A long time after I went up to the mountain and I saw a worm, then with the rain the day after it was completely filled with worms.
But as this is not conclusive for those who believe in the eternity of the world, therefore he continues saying, and if you do not believe it, go to a valley and there you will see that from the decaying of the earth without the natural principle of the seed of the genitor, life is gestated, and if so, how much can be created; likewise a man, already made ashes, can be made of dust.5The first experiments to prove the spontaneous generation with mice were done in the XVII century and the theory was disproved by Louis Pasteur, who famously wrote: “Un peu de science éloigne de Dieu, mais beaucoup y ramène.” (A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him), Cahiers Dolois, n° 11, Autour de Louis Pasteur, 1995, p. 411. Although there are many advances in the subatomic world, the metaphor of life coming from dust remains a description but not any less true for that reason.", "However, as the other could answer that the generation took place in successive times and that the resurrection would be sudden in the same instant, that is why he illustrates the reason with the other example where the worms with the rain seem to be generated suddenly, in which he also implied that the resurrection would be made through that heavenly rain or dew, which will remain the place of sperm, as we noted earlier in the text of Isaiah." ], [ "4.2. In the house of Rabbi Ishmael this is facilitated with another example, making a comparison,
קל וחומר מכלי זכוכית, מה כלי זכוכית שעמלן ברוח בשר ודם, נשברו יש להן תקנה, בשר ודם שברוחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא, על אחת כמה וכמה
Glass vessels are made with the breath of someone of flesh and blood, and if they break they have a remedy, all the more so for those of flesh and blood that are made with the breath of God [which can be restored to life].
(Sanhedrin 91a:2)", "It means that if glass, being such a useful material, is altered with the breath of man, being made with that breath, if it breaks, it can be melted and remade, so too the human body that was made with the breath of God:
ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
(Genesis 2:7)
After it is dissolved, it is remade again.", "For this same reason, Rabbi Yosef Bar Halpeta convinced another heretic [of the resurrection], according to Bereshit Rabbah 14, who came to visit him after the death of his son:
מעשה באחד בצפורי שמת בנו, אית דאמרי מינאי הוה יתיב גביה, סלק רבי יוסי בר חלפתא למחמי ליה אנפין, חמתיה יתיב ושחיק, אמר ליה למה אתה שחיק, אמר ליה אנן רחיצן במרי שמיא, דאתחמי לאפויי לעלמא דאתי.אמר ליה לא מסתייה לההוא גברא עקתיה אלא דאתית מעקא ליה, אית חספין מתדבקין, לא כך כתיב (תהלים ב, ט): ככלי יוצר תנפצם, אתמהא.אמר ליה כלי חרש ברייתו מן המים והכשרו באור, כלי זכוכית ברייתו מן האור והכשרו באור. זה נשבר ויש לו תקנה, וזה נשבר ואין לו תקנה, אתמהא. אמר ליה על ידי שהוא עשוי בנפיחה. אמר לו ישמעו אזניך מה שפיך אומר, מה אם זה שעשוי בנפיחתו של בשר ודם יש לו תקנה, בנפיחתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא על אחת כמה וכמה.", "There was an incident with an individual in Tzipori whose son had passed away; some say that a particular heretic was sitting with the mourner when Rabbi Yossi Bar Halpeta went to comfort him. He saw him smirking while sitting and asked him: Why are you smirking? He responded: I trust in the Master of the Universe that I’ll see the face of the dead in the world to come.", "He said: Is the mourner’s pain not sufficient that you have to pain him further with that idea? Are there any unbroken earthenware vessels? Is it not written, you have formed them like scattered earthenware vessels?! [Rabbi Yossi] answered:
An earthenware vessel is made with water and finished with fire, whereas a glass vessel is made with fire and formed with fire. If the [glass vessel] breaks it can be repaired [by melting and forming again the pieces], whereas the earthenware vessel cannot be fixed! This is all by virtue of it being created with the breath [that blows and inflates the molten glass into a bubble with a pipe]. Now listen, if a glass vessel can be created by glassblowing it, using the breath of flesh and blood, it can be repaired, all the more so that which is created by the breath of the Holy One Blessed be He.
(Bereshit Rabbah 14:7)", "From all of which it is shown that this principle of the resurrection of the dead does not imply a contradiction; rather, the possibility of the miracle is plausible according to reason. Some philosophers have made some arguments to prove this point of the resurrection against the [claims of the] Gentiles, which will be examined in the second part of this work." ] ], [ [ "Experience shows the possibility of the miracle of the resurrection of the dead.", "5.1 That which experience and the senses approve cannot be denied. And so we believe that the magnetism of the lodestone attracts iron, not because the reason is known, but rather because these are things that can be felt by the senses. The same can be considered of the resurrection: we see that Elijah resurrected the son of the Zarephath woman, Elisha, that of the Shunammite, and Ezekiel raised the dead of that valley, (if the prophecy is understood according to its literal sense, which is the most certain way to understand it). Therefore, what they had experienced cannot be denied, and this consideration is seen in the verse of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3:
מה שהיה כבר הוא ואשר להיות כבר היה
What already was, is; and what is to be already was.
(Ecclesiastes 3:15)", "Rabbi Yehuda said, in Vayikra Rabbah Parasha 27 and in Kohelet Rabati, these words:
מה שהיה כבר הוא, אם יאמר לך אדם שאילו לא חטא אדם הראשון ואכל מאותו העץ היה חי וקים לעולם, אמר לו אתה, כבר היה אליהו שלא חטא הוא חי וקים לעולם.ואשר להיות כבר היה, אם יאמר לך אדם שהקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד להחיות לנו מתים, אמר לו כבר היה על ידי אליהו אלישע ויחזקאל.
What already was, is - if a person tells you, if Adam did not sin and ate from the tree, he would have remained forever and he would be alive, you could tell him, there was already Elijah who did not sin and he lived and remained.And what is to be already was - if a man tells you that the Holy One Blessed will raise the dead, tell him, it occurred already by the hands of Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel.
(Vayikra Rabbah 27:4 and Kohelet Rabbah 3:15)
This wise man wanted to imply that from the things we see in the present, we can judge the past and future things that we do not see. Because there is nothing new under the sun, what was once possible, can be possible again.", "And [as] Rabbi Acha says,
כל מה שהקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד לעשות לעתיד לבוא, הקדים ועשה על ידי הצדיקים בעולם הזה
Everything that the Blessed One is about to do in his future world, was already anticipated and made through the hands of the righteous in this world,
(Bereshit Rabbah 77:1)
because the same miracles will be done for greater admiration. In an allegorical sense, according to the mind of the divine Kabbalists,1The Zohar is the first known kabbalistic source of a midrashic reading of Jonah, as a metaphor for the journey of the human soul through life (Zohar II, 199a-b, Parashat Vayakhel). The Zohar is based on the teachings of the 2nd-century sage from ancient Judea, referred to in the Mishnah as R. Shimon bar Yohai (Rashbi). A thousand years later, a 13th-century text's original Aramaic emerged thanks to R. Moses De Leon, and in the 20th it reemerged again in English thanks to Jewish scholars Maurice Simon, Harry Sperling, and Paul Phillip Levertoff, (Soncino edition); R. Ashlag/R. Philip Berg (Kabbalah Centre edition); R. Daniel Matt (Pritzker edition). The Sephardim of the Renaissance, including Menasseh ben Israel, used the Lublin edition printed in 1623. we can infer this point from the story of Jonah, and this in the following way:
The Holy Scriptures tell that Jonah is sent by the Lord to Nineveh, a great city; but he fled and went to Yafo and, finding a stopped ship there, he embarked on it. When a great storm arose, the men found Jonah asleep. They asked him to get up and pray to God. They wonder what was the cause of this fortune and Jonah's fate is exposed; he declares who he is. Finally, when he is thrown into the sea, a large fish swallows him, and at the end of three days he vomits him on the land, and Jonah escapes. This is so in a mystical sense: by Jonah we mean the soul; in the Hebrew language Jonah means dove (יונה). Jonah, and the soul before coming into the world is pure like the dove.", "But later, God commands him to come to this world, which is that great city, where he must observe His decrees. But there, he forgot the purpose for which he came to this world, and so he flees from the Holy One to pursue the delights, which is meant by the word Tarsis (תרשיש), that is tari-sis, meaning two delights (תרי שיש), the useful and the delightful, departing from the honest.2The source of תרשיש Tarshish/Tharsis heteronym, lit. aquamarine, is a true dilemma in Jonah 1:3, with different pronunciations, Tari-shish/Tari-sis, and distinct meanings, v.g. as a name, in Gen. 10:4; as a stone, in Ex. 28:20; as a place, in Ps. 72:10, etc., located possibly at Tartessos, Guadalquivir in southern Spain, or Tarsus in Cilicia, or possibly Tyre. The main source of reading it with the Arabic pronunciation, i.e. Tarshish and interpreting it as Trei Shish - 2/6 is from Bereshit Rabbah 68:12; other unknown medieval sources possibly allude to the place as the island of two delights or two vices, from the root שש sas- rejoice (Qal. שש - he rejoiced), including Menasseh ben Israel, who alludes to this place: in allegorical sense according to the mind of the divine Kabbalists; and R. Moshe Almosnino, who alludes to this place in the final chapter of his commentary to Aristotle's Ethics to his son Nicomachus: You will find that the intentions do not go outside three notions according to the three species of friendship that we have declared; some work their whole lives to acquire property and try to increase it until they die, which is so according to the friendship for what is useful; others have no other intention than for the delightful, such as eating, drinking and laziness; and they end up spending all their days in bodily pleasures, they are in conformity with the friendship for the delightful; and others who only attend to the true end according to the friendship for the honest and truthful(R. Almosnino, Guide of Life, Third Book, Chapter 13, commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book 8, III, 1156a7-b12). So, he descends to Yafo where he finds a ship. This is the soul that descends to Yafo (יפו), meaning beautiful (Yafe - יפה), but he finds the impediment of the ship, that is the human body, which is tormented in the stormy seas of this world. And so God punishes him for his carelessness. Therefore, the great pilot, that is the understanding [of the mind], finding the soul asleep and forgetting its goodness, awakens it and rebukes it.
This is the conflict between the body and the soul; the body blames the soul for being the cause of its downfall, the body excuses itself by saying it is only an instrument, which is what its luck (mazal) is, but ultimately, the soul has to be blamed for the given reasons, declaring its name, birth, and origin, and the knowledge it has of its Creator, so the body is an instrument (lit. earth) through which the soul works. And the storm and the punishment do not cease, until the sin is punished, Jonah, or the soul is thrown into the sea, which is death, and then drowned in the body of the fish, or the tomb; but he does not stay there forever; he is resurrected after three days. According to the prophet Hosea, Chapter 6.", "ביום השלישי יקמנו ונחיה לפניו
On the third day He will raise us up and we will live before Him.
(Hosea 6:2)", "All of which proves the principle of the resurrection of the dead based on the authority of the scriptures, of reason, and experience." ] ], [ [ "It is shown how the Sadducees denied this article and also the texts on which they based their interpretation for their refutation. ", "6.1. Nevertheless, there was no shortage of evil men willing to deny this article, and the Sadducees were among them, as they denied the immortality of souls, and did not believe in the resurrection.1Rabbi Saul Levi Morteira in his historiography, Eternity of the Law of Moses and the Providence of God, narrates that \"when the people of Israel ruled themselves, the sect of the Sadducees appeared among other sects. They could oppress them with force without anyone being able to stop their growth and enrichment until the loss of the government\" (Chapter 16, p.80). \"The Sadducees contradicted some traditions, but the Blessed God did not exterminate them with his particular Providence, nor with wars, nor with inquisition, but with his spirit. So, despite this, the Xtian Gospels that came out afterwards brought wars and discord with each other and never finished till this day (Chapter 32, p.235).", "The dissension that the Gospels caused against the Sadducees is illustrated in the Book of Acts, where Paul realized that one part of the Sanhedrin (national Jewish court) were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, and he declared: Brethren, I am a Pharisee, son of Pharisees, I am judged because of my faith in the Resurrection of the dead. When he said that there was a dispute between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and the assembly was divided\" (Acts 23:6-7). The High Priest at this time was Ananias of the new Babylonian lineage of Sadducees, which literally means the descendants of Zadok, whose influence grew with the wealthy returnees from Babylonia who rebuilt the Temple. Possibly from their sect stems the reason of distinct patrilineal lineages of Cohanim, Y-DNA haplogroups E3B (M78), J2 (M172), and J1 (M267), (Kaiser et al. 1997; Oefner, 2013). But it is to be noted that the prophets and Books of Writings did not deny it for their reasons, as seen in the text of Isaiah,
יחיו מתיך
Your dead will revive
(Isaiah 26:19)", "And in Ezekiel,
אני פתח את־קברותיכם
I will open your graves
(Ezekiel 37:12)", "and in the two writings of Daniel,
ורבים מישני אדמת־עפר יקיצו
Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake
(Daniel 12:2)
and additionally,
ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמד לגרלך לקץ הימי
And you go on to the end; you shall rest, and arise to your fate at the end of days.
(Daniel 12:13)", "As these are the places from which the resurrection seems to be infallibly proven, they explained them with other interpretations because in Isaiah and in Ezekiel, by the risen dead, they understand the Israelite people already counted as dead and scattered throughout all nations, who will resurrect, and will rise from the bottom of their low status.2The Sadducees, who were upper class, interpreted these verses as the materialistic ascent of the Jewish people after their descent caused by the Roman conquest. As written in Ezekiel, “these are the House of Israel. They say, our hope is gone; we are doomed;” and in the end, “I will open your graves and I will lift you out of your graves my people and bring you to the land of Israel” (Ezekiel 37:11-12). All of which they believe to be a parable meaning the resurgence of Israel, in a glorious state, after suffering in captivity. And likewise, by “those asleep, who will awaken” according to Daniel, they understand the sublime state, which they would enjoy in the time of the Ammonites, freed from being subject to the government of Antiochus; or as the empire that they will have in the time of the Messiah. They said from this:
ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח
And you go, in the end you will rest...
(Daniel 12:13)", "They interpret it by saying that these are the words of Daniel, by which he persuades every intelligent person to stop speculating, seeking the end of days, or the days of the Messiah, until those who will have the chance to live in those days enjoy it:
ותעמד לגרלך לקץ הימין
And arise to your chance at the end of the days
(Daniel 12:13)", "In this way, as I say, they explain these texts, although only the tradition that exists in this was enough to believe this principle of the resurrection." ], [ "6.2. However, it must be firmly understood that this article is stated in the sacred books, and expressly declared in the referred texts, and therefore, first we must explain the Sacred Scripture by believing in what is written in it literally according to the literal meaning, except in what implies a contradiction, e.g. when corporeal members, or a corporeal form, or human affections and passions are applied to God. Otherwise, if everybody was given license to allegorize in their own way, we would have no concept with certainty, and too varied applications, and if such a way of explanation was allowed, we would find thousands of absurdities: By the creation of heaven and earth of Genesis, we could understand the rising of some nation; when Isaiah compares the restoration of Israel to new heavens, by the new stars, we could understand the law, which is compared to the light; by the sun setting before Joshua, we would understand the rise of his empire, as when the destruction of some kingdom is compared to the sun, according to the prophet, the sun set still being day.", "Or by not taking the mother together with her young (Deuteronomy 22:7), we would understand not to kill the old with the young during a war, according to what the prophet says (Hosea 10:14), On the day of the war the mother together with the children was destroyed; and in conformity with this, if we departed from the literal sense, the entire law would perish, as Rabbi Saadia Gaon well pondered.3The prolific and distinguished R. Saadia Gaon (882/892 - 942 C.E.) dealt in many of his works with the Biblical descriptions, first according to the literal sense, unless the literary figures required a non-literal interpretation. Menasseh Ben Israel alludes to Saadia Gaon’s rule of exegesis: \"an intelligent man should always take Scripture according to the literal sense of the words, namely, that which is commonly accepted by native speakers of its language .... But if one sees that the speech with the plain sense of its words falls under one of the four things which I have mentioned (a conflict with common sense; anthropomorphic attributes, \"God's eye\"; \"God's hand\"; a deliberate error at first sight; a modified apparent meaning by a preceding authority, e.g. peri etz hadar = etrog ), then one should know that the speech is not literal but that it rather contains one or more words which are metaphorical…\" (Saadia Gaon, Kitab al-Amanat, Chapter 7). Likewise, Onkelos and Rashi first lean to the literal sense, unless reason would oppose it and deny it.", "If as we have said, the miracle of the resurrection of the dead is not more supernatural than the others, and is according to reason, as we have shown earlier, what reason or what cause is there that can prevent it, or deny it? Is He who made other miracles not powerful enough to do this one? Along with this, even if the text of Isaiah can be explained in parabolic mode, it is impossible to adapt such kind of exposition to the prophecy of Ezekiel, who prophesied many times the gathering of the captives without parables, therefore, to what end would he finally do it now with parables?", "Second, considering this in the following prophecy of the two sticks with writing (Ezekiel 37:16) on one Ephraim, and on the other Yehuda, it is necessary that the preceding prophecy dealt with something else, which is the resurrection (Ezekiel 37:11-14).", "Third, it clearly says, I will bring you up from your graves (Ezekiel 37:12), and thereafter, and I will put my spirit into you and you will live (Ezekiel 37:14), which is certainly always understood as real because if it was false, the comparison would also be false.", "Likewise, no other meaning can be given to the last verse of Daniel because, either by that end, the days are understood as the days of the Messiah, or, the universal end of all humans, which is death; true, after the angel said there to Daniel that he would rest after death in the world of souls, he said that he will rise again to enjoy his fortune (Daniel 12:13). This will necessarily be in the resurrection of the dead. There he received the promise that he would rise again for good and eternal glory. But the cause that moved the Sadducees to such error, as brought in Avot by Rabbi Nathan, was the proverb of the sages which says,
אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס אלא היו כעבדים המשמשים את הרב שלא על מנת לקבל פרס ויהי מורא שמים עליכם
Do not be like servants who attend upon their master only on the condition that they receive a salary. Rather, be like servants who attend upon their master without condition to receive a reward, and let it be for fear of the Creator above you
(Avot De Rabbi Nathan 5:1, Pirkei Avot 1:3)", "The intention of these antagonists in this sentence (according to Rabbi Moshe of Egypt, and Rabbi Yosef Albo, Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Maamar or Book 4, Chapter 29) was that the precepts should be observed for themselves, in themselves, and done with virtue for their own sake, without serving God with the hope of remuneration, and almost as if it was a commodity to barter something priceless; but out of love, serving only to do His will. Or as Isaac Abravanel says (פרס) Peraz, prize, which is understood as the corporal reward, and thus it meant, it should not be to serve God with the intention of receiving such a prize, because the true precept is in the spiritual life, since what happens here with the bodies is nothing more, as they say, than the interests of the principal that is saved for the world of souls.", "Finally, the intention of the ancients was righteous, but Zadoc and Baytos, his disciples, wicked men and friends of the novelties, who wished to be the head of some sect, spoke with each other after they heard such thing and said: True, our teacher does not feel that there is another life, and that is why he says that God should not be served with such an intention for it would certainly be in vain because after death there is no immortal thing.And to cover up that villainous evil, at first they declared that they denied the tradition and interpretation that the wise men gave to the divine scriptures. Later, only Sadoc published the mortality of souls. And because they differed in this point, the two sects were distinguished with the names of Sadducees and Baitocees, or Essenes, whose name according to R. Azariah Adomi (dei Rossi), is composed of Bayt, and Essei (בית ואיסיאי); Bayt and Essei agreed on everything, even if they were numerous, and had to be counted as a single class:
כי מהרכבת בית ואיסיאי נולד שם התואר ״ביתוסים״
Because of the reunification of Bayt and Essei the title of Baitocees (Essenes) was born.
(Me’or Einayim, Imrei Binah, Chapter 3, p. 96 - Vilna 1866)", "But there is no evidence that Essenes denied the spirits because according to such they would deny the law of Moses, which in various places makes mention of angels; and, certainly, they did not deny the Scriptures as recorded in the Talmud. The ancient Sages, who considered the belief of this principle to be fundamental, emphasized this in Perek Helek (Chapter 10),
כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא ... ואלו הן שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה ואין תורה מן השמים ואפיקורוס
All Israelites have a portion in the world to come… And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: Those who maintain that resurrection is not from the Torah, that the Torah is not from Sinai, and Epicureans (Epikoros)
(Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1)", "These sentences of the Sages are founded on a recognized opinion, which is, that no sin can erase the good actions that have once been done, nor are the bad ones discounted for the good ones. But the one who has some faults, purges them, or pays for them first, and then once they have been purged, he can happily enjoy the reward of the good actions, as they write in the Midrash Shocher Tov with the following words,
יש לך אדם שיש לו עשר מצוות ועשר עונות ואומר לא שכרן של מצוות ולא עונשן של עבירות אלא יצאו אלו כנגד אלו. והקדוש ברוך הוא אינו עושה כן אלא בתחלה הוא נוכה ממנו עונותיו ואחר כך נותן לו שכרו של מצוות.
There is a man who has ten good deeds and ten faults and he would say that he does not want the reward of good deeds, nor the punishment of faults; but rather to weigh them against each other. And the Blessed One does not do so, but first deducts his faults from him, and then He gives him the reward for his good actions.
(Midrash Tehillim 62:4)", "Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides) feels the same in Chapter 4 of Pirkei Avot,
כבר בארנו פירוש זה המאמר בפרק י' מסנהדרין וכבר העירו חכמים ע\"ה על חדוש נפלא בתורה יש בו זרוז על מעשה המצות
We have already interpreted this article in Chapter 10 of Sanhedrin, and the sages have already commented on this wonderful insight of the Torah regarding the performance of good deeds.
(Maimonides, Commentary on Pirkei Avot 4:2.1. and to Sanhedrin 10:1)", "They said then based on this axiom, each Israel has a part in the world to come, and this is because of deserving the name of Israel after having done some good deeds that a man gains a portion of the glory in the world of the resurrection, and he says, a portion, be it little, or big, according to the good deeds he did,
ואמר שאי אפשר שלא יהיה לכל אדם עת שיוכל להזיק בו או להועיל ואפילו בדבר מועט
And they said that it is impossible for every man to not have a time when he can lose or be rewarded even with a little thing
(Maimonides, commentary on Pirkei Avot 4:3)", "But from this general rule, they exclude only three, namely the one who denies the Resurrection because it is only right that such a person does not enjoy it. Second, the one who denies the law, claiming that it is not divine, without a certain divine rule and measure by which to measure his actions, cannot be saved by his actions. Third, the Epicurean, who denies the existence of God, His science, or His Providence. These three classes of men, even if they have done some good actions, cannot have a portion in the future world. From here you can see how serious it is to deny the resurrection of the dead." ] ], [ [ "The arguments of the Sadducees and some atheists, for the mortality of the soul and against the resurrection of the dead, are exposed.
For this point of the resurrection to be complete, as truth is clearer in contrast with a lie, it seemed appropriate to me to present in this chapter the reasons against it and bring to light the doubts that can be set aside which Sadducees used to give as proof of their wicked sect. And these they say as follows:
7.1. The soul of man is the spirit of life with which he lives, which is in the blood, and he lives with it and does his actions by it, so there is no other difference between the soul of man and that of an animal; although the soul of man is rational, and that of the animal irrational; in birth, living and dying they are all the same.", "The Torah does not state that the soul of man is immortal,1For the mortality of the soul, Isaac Orobio proposes in the 13 propositions in defense of divine and natural truth (Philosophical Case, Chapter 4, proposition 11), \"that the supernatural agent or Who necessarily exists can reduce something (contingent) to nothing if he could create it from nothing (creatio ex-nihilo), and does not preserve it. Rabbi Moses D'Aguilar illustrates this with the following figure of comparison: \"You fear the sting of death but more you must fear eternal death\" (Treatise on Rhetoric and Logic, Book 4, Chapter 5, 29). and it was impossible that it did not mention it, being such an important issue.", "The promises or blessings for those who observe the precepts are all temporary, and it is not found that they are saved for another life, be it grief or glory. And so Isaac blessed Jacob, his son, with temporal goods; and we can infer that if he had felt that there was another life he would have considered spiritual goods with more attention.2 Rabbi Yosef Albo contested this point of the Sadducees, observing the collective nature of material rewards and punishments as follows: \"When we looked at the material promises mentioned in the Torah one by one, it was found that spiritual promises could not come in their place because the promises mentioned in the Torah were intended for the whole nation\" (Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Maamar 4, 40, 1.), whereas spiritual goods are of individual nature. Maimonides also refers to the individual nature of such rewards, observing that the singular pronoun “to you” is used and not the plural pronoun “to yourselves” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva 8:1) since the Torah refers to spiritual goods. See also my translation of Triumphs of Poverty Introduction, part III.Likewise, the prophets felt that they were mortal souls.
David said about the death of Bathsheba's son,
ועתה מת למה זה אני צם האוכל להשיבו עוד אני הלך אליו והוא לא־ישוב אלי
Now that he is dead, why should I fast so he could return? Otherwise, I will go to him and he will not return to me.
(II Samuel 12:23)
It says, if he could return since he has a being after death.Similarly, in the Psalms, we see that he declares this sentence,
כי אין במות זכרך בשאול מי יודה־לך
For there is no praise of You among the dead; in Sheol, who can acclaim You?
(Psalms 6:6)
מה־בצע בדמי ברדתי אל־שחת היודך עפר היגיד אמתך
“What is to be gained from my death, from my descent into the Pit? Can the dust praise You? Can it declare Your faithfulness?
(Psalms 30:10)
הלמתים תעשה־פלא אם־רפאים יקומו יודוך סלה
Do You work wonders for the dead? Do the shades rise to praise You? Selah.
(Psalms 88:11)
לא המתים יהללו־יה ולא כל־ירדי דומה
The dead cannot praise God, nor any who go down into silence.
(Psalms 115:17)
ויזכר כי־בשר המה רוח הולך ולא ישוב
For He remembered that they were but flesh, a passing spirit that does not return.
(Psalms 78:39)", "Solomon, his son, likewise, follows the same line as he says in Ecclesiastes,
כי מקרה בני־האדם ומקרה הבהמה ומקרה אחד להם כמות זה כן מות זה ורוח אחד לכל ומותר האדם מן־הבהמה אין כי הכל הבל
הכל הולך אל־מקום אחד הכל היה מן־העפר והכל שב אל־העפר
וראיתי כי אין טוב מאשר ישמח האדם במעשיו כי־הוא חלקו כי מי יביאנו לראות במה שיהיה אחריו
What happens to human beings and what happens to beasts is one event; as one dies the other dies, and both have the same spirit; man has no advantage over beast, for everything is temporal. They all go to a place; they all are dust and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man ascends and that of the beast descends into the earth?
(Ecclesiastes 3:19-21)
And elsewhere,
וראיתי כי אין טוב מאשר ישמח האדם במעשיו כי־הוא חלקו כי מי יביאנו לראות במה שיהיה אחריו
And I saw that there is nothing better than a man who rejoices in his works because he is a participant, and who will lead him to see what will happen after him?
(Ecclesiastes 4:22)
כי החיים יודעים שימתו והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה ואין־עוד להם שכר כי נשכח זכרם
For the living know that they will die and the dead know nothing and have no more reward as their memory is forgotten
(Ecclesiastes 9:5)
כל אשר תמצא ידך לעשות בכחך עשה כי אין מעשה וחשבון ודעת וחכמה בשאול אשר אתה הלך שמה
Whatever it is in your hand to do, do it with all your power. For there is no action, no reasoning, no learning, no science in Sheol, where you are going.
(Ecclesiastes 9:10)
From all these citations the mortality of the soul seems to be inferred.", "Job especially tries to deny the Resurrection because he describes:
זכר כי־רוח חיי לא־תשוב עיני לראות טוב
לא־תשורני עין ראי עיניך בי ואינני
כלה ענן וילך כן יורד שאול לא יעלה
לא־ישוב עוד לביתו ולא־יכירנו עוד מקמו
Remember that my days are like wind in which my eyes will never see well again;The eye that sees when your eye is on me will not see me, nor will I.Like a high cloud that descends, so also, the one who goes down to the grave will not ascend. He will no longer return to his house, and they will know him no more in his place.
(Job 7:7-10)
and in Chapter 14,
ואיש שכב ולא־יקום עד־בלתי שמים לא יקיצו ולא־יערו משנתם
Man sleeps and will never rise; the heavens will not awake them, and they will not be aroused from their sleep
(Job 14:12)", "This is in sum the opinion of the atheists and Sadducees, and these are the most effective reasons that they claim." ] ], [ [ "The various opinions about the soul are reviewed, concluding with the truth supported by the ancient sages.
8.1. Before we can prove the immortality of the soul, it is necessary to deal with its essence. For this, we will say the following. Various opinions on this point have taken place among the scholars of the nations, as the celebrated philosopher Mr. Caspar Barleus diligently observed in his clear exposition of De Anima.1Caspar Barlaeus was a Dutch poet, historian, and neo-stoic philosopher who published a commentary about Aristotle’s De Anima in 1635, Oratio de Animae Humanae Admirandis, or, A Discourse on the Human Soul. Crates Thebanus said that there was no soul, but rather, bodies moving all by themselves. Others said that the soul was a very subtle body, scattered in this thick body, where Hipparchus said, the soul was of fire; Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Cynic, and Kircritia said that the soul was of air; and Hesiod and Pronopides, of earth. Others claimed that it was a mixed spirit of fire and air, like Boetius and Epicurus; others of earth and water, like Xenophon. Others, of earth and fire, like Parmenides; others, a subtle spirit spread throughout the body, like the physician Hippocrates. Some claimed that the soul was made of flesh with the usage of the senses, like Asclepiades. Others, that the soul was the temperament of the four elements, like Zenon Citicus. Heraclitus Ponticus said that the soul was light.2Heraclitus Ponticus was a Greek astronomer and philosopher who proposed heliocentrism (where the earth revolves around the sun) and the sidereal day (of 24 hours), over 2300 years ago. He was known for the saying, “dry light is the best and wisest soul” (On the Universe, 75), and “Living and dead are the same, and so are awake and asleep, young and old. The former when shifted are the latter, and again the latter, when shifted, are the former” (On the Universe, 78), and finally “Immortal mortals, mortal immortals, one living the others’ death and dying the others’ life” (On the Universe, 67). Others, that it is a certain divine substance, undivided and omnipresent throughout the body and in any part of it, produced by the incorporeal Author. Of this opinion were the illustrious philosophers Zoroaster, Hermes, Orpheus, Aglophemus, Pythagoras, Eumenes, Ammonius, Plutarch, Porphyry, Timaeus, Locros, and the divine Plato,3See Plato, Phaedrus, pp. 471-472. He used the metaphor of the chariot to describe the soul. This is related to Ezekiel's chariot; q.v. David Nieto, Triumphs of Poverty, Introduction. who said that the soul is an essence, alive by itself and full of intellect. Of this opinion were the ancient Sages, and thus in the treatise of Berachot, they preferred a sentence no less distinguished, with the following words:
מה הקדוש ברוך הוא מלא כל העולם — אף נשמה מלאה את כל הגוף. מה הקדוש ברוך הוא רואה ואינו נראה — אף נשמה רואה ואינה נראית. מה הקדוש ברוך הוא זן את כל העולם כלו — אף נשמה זנה את כל הגוף. מה הקדוש ברוך הוא טהור — אף נשמה טהורה. מה הקדוש ברוך הוא יושב בחדרי חדרים — אף נשמה יושבת בחדרי חדרים.
Just as the Blessed God inflates the whole world, so the soul inflates the whole body; just as the Blessed God sees and is not seen, so the soul sees and is not seen; just as the Blessed God sustains everyone in the world, so the soul maintains the entire body; the Blessed God is pure, and the soul is pure; the Blessed God is within the chamber of chambers, and the soul is within the chamber of chambers.
(Talmud, Berakhot 10a:25)", "The wise reader will notice how many good things the Sages taught us in these five similarities between the soul and the Blessed God.4As the Sages are comparing the soul of man to God Himself, it is important to keep in mind despite the similarities in how we perceive them, God is distinct from man: “By analogy, creatures are similar to God, without God being similar to them” (Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case, Chapter 2, III, 4), that is, souls have various similarities with God, while man is different from God, while God is distinct from man. In the words of Orobio, “Modern philosophers make a clumsy mistake, ineptly confusing what is diverse (diversus), different (differens), and distinct (distinctus). And that is why they infer so mistakenly that, since they cannot differentiate between substances, then there cannot be many really distinct substances. (Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case, Chapter 4, IV, 43). Note that Spinoza, the philosopher of indifferentiation (indistinction and ignorance), was the first to confuse them in his monism. In the first, they teach that the soul is spiritual because the body has a place in which it is contained, but spirits do not have any special definitive place. And so they say in this way that God is in the whole world, so the soul is in the whole body, without being contained in it; and because some said, that the soul is in the ventricle of the brain, like Hippocrates; Epicurus, inside the chest; Diogenes in the heart; Empedocles in the blood, etc., against this claim others say that the soul is in the whole body, according to the opinion of Plato and Aristotle, and despite this, they do not place it in its entirety in any part of the body, nor have I ever found such a thing in the ancients, which is to me a manifest contradiction.", "In the second sentence, they teach that it is not possible to grasp what it is because it is spiritual, as Seneca and Cicero well warned, but it is only known by its effects. So they say, just as the Blessed God sees and is not seen, meaning that He is comprehended with the eyes of understanding, so the soul sees and is not seen, nor is it known what it is.", "In the third they teach, just as God preserves all entities in such a way that with His Providence taken away from them, they would all perish immediately, but in their deprivation, the soul will not be annihilated because its being subsists by essence, but the (contingent) being of the other entities subsists by participation, thus the soul is the cause of the preservation of the body, and in its absence, the body perishes, even if the soul is not annihilated by that absence. The fourth comparison means the pure state of the soul, which cannot become dirty or be stained as does [physical] matter, or the body, which is because it does not have any means of becoming so, and so they say, God is pure and the soul is in a pure state.", "In the fifth statement, in the same way, it is finally stated that, although we know that God is in the whole world, we cannot indicate where he is, and this is because he is invisible to the senses; so too the soul, although we know that it is in the whole body, we cannot feel it with the senses, which is the meaning of, in chambers of chambers, that is to say, deep inside and in secret.", "Of Rabban Gamliel it is said, a man asked him, Where is God? He said, I don't know. The other replied, So you pray every day to ‘someone whom you don't know where he is’? Then, Rabban Gamliel replied, you have asked me about one thing which they say is five hundred years away from our path, which is heaven. And I will ask you one thing that is close to you, where is your soul? And as he replied that he did not know, Rabbi Gamliel replied, if you do not know that, how do you want me to know what is so logical and remote from us.", "From all this, the excellence of the soul is learned. Since it is a spiritual substance, although it is truly impossible to know what its substance (subsistence) is, it seems plausible that it is a light, as we said mentioning the statement of Heraclitus Ponticus, because the wise King Solomon names it also with that name:
אור־צדיקים ישמח ונר רשעים ידעך
Light of the righteous will be gladdened, the candle of the wicked will be extinguished.
(Proverbs 13:9)", "By this light, the soul is infallibly understood; and the ancient Sages say by analogy that its creation was included in the light of the first day of creation. It now remains to review what has been said about the spirituality of the soul, which will be done in the next chapter." ] ], [ [ "The immortality of the soul is supported by some effective arguments.
9.1. For the same reason that man debates whether his soul is immortal or not, it is very clear that it is because such supposition could not enter man’s thought through the senses. And some philosophers postulated (Valesius, or Francisco Vallés, De Sacra Philosophia, Chapter 41; Conimbricenses: De Anima Separata, disputa, 1, Article 4), the image of immortality never entered the horse's imagination, nor would the soul ever come to think that it could survive the body if it were perishable like the body. But finding some effective reasons among the many with which this truth is proved, the first one is that of Aristotle, illustrated by Rabbi Yosef Albo, who says in Book 4, Chapter 41:
עוד יש לי בזה דרך אחרת עיונית יותר עמוקה להכריח ההשארות הנפשיי מכללות התורה, והיא זו:
כבר בארנו כי הכחות המתחלפות לא יבאו אלא מהתחלות מתחלפות, ולזה כאשר ידענו שיש באדם כח בו ישתתף לבעלי חיים וכח בו יובדל מהם, ידענו שהכח אשר בו יובדל מהם יבא מהתחלה אחרת זולת ההתחלה הנותנת החיות בבעלי חיים, כמו הזנגאר שנמצא בו כח שורף וכח מאכל.", "וכן מאשר ראינו שהכח שבו יובדל האדם מהבעלי חיים יש לו פעל מיוחד בפני עצמו בלי שתוף הכחות הגשמיות, וזה בהשגת העצמיות הנפרדות והמושכלות המופשטות מחומר שהוא דבר בלתי נפסד, שפטנו שזה הכח יש לו קיום בפני עצמו בזולת הגוף ולא יפסד בהפסד הגוף.
There is still another philosophical and deeper way of proving the immortality of the soul from the Torah, and it is as follows: We have shown that the various powers (or faculties) result from various principles. Therefore, if we know that man has a faculty that is common to him and that the animal has another faculty in which it is different, we know that the faculty that distinguishes it from the animal comes from a different principle from the one that gives animality to the animal. In the same way, we see that the faculty by which man is distinguished from beasts has a specific and peculiar function that is incorporeal and indestructible, namely, the conception of abstractions of distinct substances and immaterial ideas. Hence, we infer that this faculty can exist by itself without the body and is not destroyed with the destruction of the body.
(Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Maamar 4:41, 2)", "If the soul is a spiritual substance, it is incorruptible. This is the first principle in philosophy, that all decay is born from the body, which alters and arranges the struggle of the first four qualities (dry, hot, cold, and moist). That the soul is a substance is proven because it has a spiritual act that does not depend on the body, namely its wisdom and knowledge of objects.1The Platonists thought that the soul is man, and the body is like a garment, or like a prison. Man consists of matter and form; by matter they mean the body and by form (without matter) the soul. According to the Roman politician and historian, Salluste, all our faculties are of the body and the soul. We use the command of the soul, and the service of the body, where the former is in common with the divine, and the latter is in common with the animals. (Sallustio, Catilinae coniuratione, 86). Therefore it must be spiritual too, for it is true that the act is born of potential, and this is born of the substance (subsistence) like the fruit of the tree, and all of it must be of the same essence, without any spiritual accident.", "It cannot be said that wisdom is not spiritual, this would be absurd because we deal wisely with spiritual things: we think of God, of angels, we judge what is to come, we know the past, and we enjoy universal things, all of which are not linked to the senses. From which it follows, that if the soul does some work that does not communicate with the body, without material form, it is because the soul is in everything and this (material body) depends on it.", "The same can be proven by free will because we cannot deny that man's will is free to want and stop wanting what he craves, and this potential bodily freedom is not found in any corporeal subject but man because the resistance to sensitive appetites in this freedom is not found in any animal. Animals follow the knowledge of fantasy, which is also bodily, whereas man, contrary to the gift of the senses, prefers the taste of what is ethical. This is a clear indication that the human will is spiritual, otherwise, it would not reject the delights of the body when the soul is fond of virtue, except for brutes who do not know or only consider the delightful as good.", "The same immortality is proved by its substance (subsistence) because the soul has no contraries, whereas corruption is only found between (substantial) contraries. Generations are made from one contrary into another,2Here Menasseh, by saying that generations are made from contraries, refers among other contraries to the category of the adverse. The adverse are contraries, or opposites, in general, and are found under the same generic category (e.g. love and hate, heat and cold). The female and male are also adverse under the general category of humane, as they were created together (Gen 1:27). The creation and destruction by opposites also belong to the category of the adverse. Other categories of opposites are those contraries in relation or dependency (e.g. parent and child, teacher and student). There are also opposites of deprivation when defined by the presence and absence of something (e.g. light and dark, life and death). Finally, some opposites are logically contradictory (e.g. a blind man who sees, or an endless definition). The soul in itself has no substantial adverse, as its opposite is by deprivation, separate and distinct from bodily matter. These definitions with their distinctions and differences were studied in classical rhetoric and compiled by Rabbi Aguilar, Book 2, Chapter 10 of his Treatise on Rhetoric. and since heavenly bodies are not made of some matter subject to contrariety, they are not corruptible.", "And, in the same way, the soul receives its existence from what it is in itself, and what it receives has no contrariety, since the reasons for its contrariety in our understanding are not real contraries, but a (conceptual) science of contrariety. Therefore, according to this, the soul cannot be corruptible. This reason is mentioned by Thomas Aquinas in Chapter 25.3Menassseh quotes Chapter 25 in Summa Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas. However, he is probably referring to Chapter 27 that distinguished God from the form of any corporeal body, or to Chapter 28 which mentions God as the source of all perfections enacted as virtues. The Latin edition quotes Augustine, De Civitate Dei (City of God), Book 19, Chapter 1, dealing with virtues; Theodore of Mopsuestia, commentary on Psalm 45, Letter to Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 5.", "Other than this, the understanding has an infinite capacity because the more it knows, the more it can know, and freewill has the same kind (of property) because it always desires more and more goodness, to infinity.4Here Menasseh alludes to what constitutes the essence, or the immortal soul, of man, which are the understanding and the will. Willing or understanding are immanent actions because they “remain in the same agent and do not go out to another subject”; their infinite capacity is intrinsic. On this, Isaac Orobio clarifies that “the attributes that constitute the essence of creatures, abstracted from them through our understanding, are constituents of their essence. Thus, they cannot in any way be distinguished from their essence, since they are their very constitution” (Isaac Orobio, Philosophical Case, Chapter 1, II, 7). From this it follows, if the essential capacity is infinite, its duration must also be infinite. According to the principle of something, so are its properties and its essence. So the soul must necessarily be infinite.", "We can add that by granting the necessary existence of God, it is necessary to grant the existence of Providence, out of which justice is necessarily born, and from which the immortality of souls is inferred. The punishment of lacking the Providence of God does not always end with the body. We see in this life the deprivation of virtue, the flourishing of the wicked, and the suffering of the righteous, which makes a reward necessary in the next life. And some philosophers said this (Augustine, Book 1 of Civitate Dei, Chapter 19; Theodore in Chapter 45 in Gen., and Irenaeus, Book 5, Chapter 5) after seeing in the world, the death of the innocent Abel and the fratricide (Cain) building cities (Gen. 4:17), believing that serving God was vanity. Thus, to restore the credit given to the Providence, Enoch was taken by Divine Providence (see later, 10.3, and Gen. 5:24) to preserve him from death in the presence of everyone, so that they would turn their eyes to past centuries, and dedicate themselves to thinking about the eternity of the future life, where the inequalities of this life are undone.", "In the Book Sefer Hasidim, I have seen new evidence of this truth, which is that many times we dream of different and distinct people, whom we have forgotten for many years or who were forgotten (i.e. dead), however, we never dream of some dead animal, or even a dead pet, which is certainly not without mystery; and the reason is that a beast of brutish nature perishes and ends with death, but not man, who although without (material or sensitive) existence after death, lives on as a soul. To some, this will seem like a far-fetched fantasy, with the reason relying on dreaming. I neither approve of it, nor do I deny it, because my experience does not show otherwise. These reasons seem the most effective, which I wanted to point out only to refute the belief of atheists and Sadducees, who believe that souls are mortal and that they consist of blood. And although Gaius Pliny in the Natural History of animals, Book 7, Chapter 5, denies this immortality, which was nevertheless generally granted by the poets, in whose writings the truth is rather doubtful when they mention hell, or the Elysian fields, where according to the merits or demerits of each person, as they said, the souls were transferred there. We see it in almost all of Seneca's tragedy, in Virgil's Aeneid, and in Ovid's Metamorphosis, as well as in many other poets. Historians also write of the deeds of some distinguished men who proclaim the same immortality, where Sallust said, the nature of riches has a short glory, and in a short time it ends, but virtue is eternal and its name never perishes because it is immortal as the soul:
Divitiarum et formae gloria fluxa atque fragilis est, virtus clara aeternaque habetur
The glory of wealth and beauty is fleeting and fragile, but virtue is held bright and eternal
(Sallustio, Bellum Catilinae 1)", "Valerius Maximus says of the Indians, that women tried to end their life upon the death of their husbands to enjoy the other life together:
respiciantur Indorum feminae, quae, cum more patrio complures eidem nuptae esse soleant, mortuo marito in certamen iudiciumque veniunt quam ex iis maxime dilexerit. victrix gaudio exsultans, deductaque a necessariis laetum praeferentibus vultum, coniugis se flammis superiacit et cum eo tamquam felicissima crematur
For example, the women of the Indians, who by national custom are typically married to the same man. When that man has died they submit to a contest and judgment about who of them he loved the most. The winner, as she celebrates with joy and is led by her friends who have happy faces, casts herself upon the flames of her husband and is cremated with him as if the happiest
(Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings II, 14)", "Cato, likewise, killed himself with the desire to enjoy that immortal life, as did Diogenes. Lucretius lastly wrote these verses:
cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante, in terras,
et quod missumst ex aetheris oris, id rursum caeli rellatum templa receptant.
", "That also which once came from earth to earth returns, and what fell from the borders of ether, that is again brought back, and the regions of heaven again receive it
(Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, II, v. 999-1001)" ], [ "9.2.The astrologers, though pagan, also considered immortality as certain, and Macrobius writes, they understood that there were two gates in the Zodiacs which were the tropics of Capricorn, and of Cancer, by which souls descended from heaven to earth, and after the death of the bodies, they went back up to it; where when descending it was through the tropic of cancer, and that place, they called, the door of men, because through this door the souls came down to inform the human bodies, and the ascent was through the tropic of Capricorn, and thus they called it the divine doors because when entering through them they reached the eternal deity.5This is reminiscent today of the earth's electromagnetism in which case souls would be perhaps electromagnetic hyperphysical entities. The word hyperphysical dates back to the Renaissance. Pythagoras was the first to write in support of immortality, followed by Plato, Arquitius Tarentum, Plotinus, Aristotle in Book 2 of De Anima.", "The ancient sages of Bereshit Rabbah, Parasha 14, wisely observed and said, the soul of man has five names, as indicated clearly in many places of the divine Scriptures that quote these names, give by different attributes:
חמשה שמות נקראו לה: נפש, רוח, נשמה, חיה, יחידה
By five names it is called: nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, yechidah
(Bereshit Rabbah 14:9)", "Nefesh (נפש) refers to the vegetative soul, as it grows; Ruach (רוח) indicates the vital soul with which moves and feels; Neshama (נשמה) alludes to the intellectual, by which man differs from beasts; and so (נשמה) Neshama, is derived from (שמיים) Shamayim or Heaven, because it comes from and emanates from heaven, or because it is of celestial nature. For this reason, we will not find in the divine Scriptures this name applied to designate beasts, but only ascribed to men. Chaya (חיה), alive, is also named because it lives and is immortal. Above all, it is given the name of Yechidah (יחידה), unique and alone, since it is distinct in substance (subsistence) from all the corporeal members since they are all composed of matter and form, but the soul has only a simple form without matter. The ancients also teach that the soul of man is one with several potencies, although the vegetative and sensitive in a more excellent way than those of the plants and animals, and thus they say that the soul has several names which apply to its respective potency, or property as we have shown, from which they inferred their opinion of immortality. Likewise, the modern Sages share this opinion, and Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides), in an epistle written to the wise men of Spain, said (as quoted by Nachmanides):
ומה שהסכימו חכמי יון וחכמי המערב בנפש, שהנפש צורה בלא גולם ולא גוף, אבל טהר וגזרה ומקור הדעת, ואינה צריכה לגוף, לפיכך כשיאבד הגוף לא תאבד היא, אלא עומידת בעצמה וקיימת כמו המלאך, ונהנית וחוזה באוירו שלעולם והוא עולם הבא
The sages of Greece and the sages of the West all agreed that the soul is a form, not a body or a golem, but pure and predetermined and the source of knowledge, and it has no need of the body, therefore, when the body is lost, the soul is not lost but it stands by itself and exists like an angel, who delights and sees the light of the world which is the future world
(Nachmanides, Sha'ar HaGemul 67,
commentary on Maimonides, Epistle to Spain)", "In the tenth proposition of the second book of the Guide it also says, some powers make the body remain, which are not divided in any way, such as the soul, and the understanding:
כי הנבראות כולם שלשה חלקים, השכלים הנפרדים והם ה'מלאכים', והשני - גופות הגלגלים והשלישי - החומר הראשון, רצוני לומר הגופות המשתנות תמיד אשר תחת הגלגל
Then all creatures consist of three portions, the intelligent creatures, which are the angels; their bodies that form, and their physical matter below their form, which is subject to constant change.
(Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, II, 10)", "And somewhere else in Book 1, Chapter 40, regarding the meaning of the term, (רוח) Ruach, he says, the fourth meaning is given to the soul of man that remains after death, according to the verse, “and the spirit returns to the God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7):
והוא גם כן שם הדבר הנשאר מן האדם אחר המות אשר לא ישיגהו ההפסד, והרוח תשוב אל האלהים אשר נתנה
And it also signifies what remains of a man after his death, and which is not subject to destruction, “and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”
(Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, I, 40)", "From all of this it is clearly learned that this is his opinion, and not what others want to attribute to him for lack of understanding, without penetrating his words well, as Lord Isaac Abarbanel says in the expositions he made for some chapters of the Guide:
הד' על נפש האדם הנשאר אחר המות, \"והרוח תשוב אל האלהים אשר נתנה\"
On the soul of man remaining after death - (Ecclesiastes 12: 7) “And the Spirit will return to the God who gave it.”
(Abarbanel on Genesis 1:2)", "whereas many wanted to attribute depraved opinions to a great man (Maimonides), as Narboni did by understanding it differently, and as Rabbi Abraham Salom also wrote in his book Neve Shalom.", "Immortality is finally considered even by pagan barbarians, such as in Guiné’s description they (the pagans) are said to affirm,
alia esse ratione hominu & aliam pecudum
There is a being for humans and another for animals
Of the Egyptians, Diodorus Siculus said,
parentes & majores suos ad aternam habitationem transtatos autumant
the translator affirms that parents and elders go to the eternal abode
Of the Chinese, Ioannes Hugo Linchotanus attests the same, as stated in his History of China:
credunt in altero mundo vitam immortalem esse
They believe that life is immortal in another world
Of the Peruvians (or Incas) said Joseph D'acosta,
hominum animas immortales esse, ac pios vitam aeternam, impios autem aeternam damnationem manere eredunt.
The souls of men are immortal, the life of the pious [is] eternal; however, the eternal damnation of the wicked is to stay, they believe.", "The same goes for the Mexicans (Mayans or Aztecs), which is why they buried all their precious jewels, and likewise, those of the Island of Virginia, as Tomás Ario Nablus testifies that this impression was given everywhere.With all this, I seem to have effectively satisfied the first argument of the Sadducees and atheists." ] ], [ [ "The immortality of the soul is supported by some passages in the Pentateuch.
10.1. Having proven the natural reasons for the immortality of the soul, chanted by Homer, Virgil, Ovid, and other poets, it remains for us to show the authority of the divine books, which we will use to disprove the second proposal of the Sadducees and atheists. The immortality is shown where it is written,
נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
(Genesis 1:26)", "Man is not similar to God with regards to the body, because God lacks a body, but with regards to the soul, which is spiritual, like God. It is an essence that has three spiritual powers, memory, understanding, and will, which are also found in God because otherwise, it would be saying that God is corporeal.", "As noted by Rabbi Moshe of Egypt (Maimonides) in his Guide, Book 1, Chapter 1, (צלם) Tzelem, or image, is understood as the soul, or intellectual form of man:
ויהיה הנרצה באמרו \"נעשה אדם בצלמנו\" - הצורה המינית אשר היא ההשגה השכלית לא התמונה והתואר
And the intention in the phrase, “Let us make man in our image,” is the specific figure of man, which is his intellectual faculty and not the likeness of image or appearance.
(Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, I, 1)", "That the soul of man is spiritual is also proven because it does not depend on the body, nor did it come to light like the souls of beasts, but it came from beyond, drawn from God into the face of man. We see that for beasts it is written:
ויעש אלהים את־חית הארץ
And God made the beast of the earth
(Genesis 1:25)", "When it refers to man it says:
וייצר יהוה אלהים את־האדם עפר מן־האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים
And God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life
(Genesis 2:7)", "And about Enoch the scriptures say in Genesis 5,
ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים ואיננו כי־לקח אתו אלהים
And Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer, for God took him
(Genesis 5:24)", "This phrase uses the same scripture as with Elijah, and as we know that Elijah went from this life to the next, and carried body and soul, so it was with Enoch. Therefore, the soul is immortal.", "After having made it lawful for Noah to slaughter and eat animals, it says in Genesis, Chapter 9,
ואך את־דמכם לנפשתיכם אדרש מיד כל־חיה אדרשנו ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו אדרש את־נפש האדם
שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך כי בצלם אלהים עשה את־האדם
And for your lifeblood, I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in His image did God make man.
(Genesis 9:5-6)", "It means, although I make it lawful to kill animals, do not think that it is the same to kill a man, because firstly, and for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning; whoever is a murderer and sheds blood, I will ask a reckoning for such blood from your souls in the other world; and if I wanted to, I will not miss taking revenge in this way, I will require it (the revenge) of every beast, causing the murderer’s death by a wild animal; and when this is lacking; of every man for that of his fellow man, that is, I will cause the murderer’s death by the hand of another man, or through witnesses by the hand of justice. And, whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed for in His image did God make man. This means that death will take place no matter what, by animals or by the hands of man, and that the murderer will be punished in the next life, for his soul is distinct and makes him different from animals, as his soul is made in God’s image. If God requires a reckoning for the blood of the murdered man, from the soul of the murderer, it implies that the soul is immortal.", "Another explanation says, “and for your lifeblood, I will require a reckoning,” which means that it is forbidden for a man to kill himself (or commit suicide) because this blood will be avenged in the soul. This is only possible after death, which also indicates the immortality of the soul. This seems all in agreement with the text." ], [ "10.2. Jacob, as he is preparing for death, says in Genesis 47,
ושכבתי עם־אבתי
And I will lie down with my fathers
(Genesis 47:30)
where the expression, “I will lie down”, (שכבתי) implies the resurrection, since he who lies down naturally gets up, and by saying “with my fathers”, it includes the immortality of the soul.", "As for the body, the dead are nothing, was the statement of the first of the Brahmins of India (according to Plutarch and Clement) after being interrogated by Alexander the Great with the question, Who were greater, the living or the dead? He replied, The living because the dead are nothing; and thus the sacred scripture says that Abraham returned to his kin, showing that even after death they have a being in terms of the soul, and this cannot be understood of the bodies because as it is said of Moshe,
עלה אל־הר העברים הזה הר־נבו.
Ascend Mount Abarim, Mount Nebo…
ומת בהר אשר אתה עלה שמה והאסף אל־עמיך
And you will die on the mountain that you ascended and be gathered to your people.
(Deuteronomy 32:49-50)
And this was when his fathers were not on Mount Abarim.", "In the first vision of Moshe in Exodus 3, the Lord says to him,
אנכי אלהי אביך אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב
I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob
(Exodus 3:6)", "God is not [referred to as] the God of the dead, who have no being, but of the living who still exist, and so it follows that the patriarchs still lived, and are still living, and this is specifically regarding the soul.
And the Lord says of Israel,
והייתם לי סגלה מכל־העמים
וגוי קדוש
You will be my treasured possession among the peoples and a holy people
(Exodus 19:5,6)", "It is true that this attribute,1Another example, in Leviticus, God says several times: \"Be holy for I am holy\" (11:44, 11:45, 19:2, 20:7, 20:26, 21:8). Kadosh (קדוש) or Holy, is the one that applies to God, according to Isaiah, Chapter 6, where we note,
וקרא זה אל־זה ואמר קדוש
And one would call him and say, Holy
(Isaiah 6:3)", "And being a man of matter that decays, such a title could not fit him, much less could Israel enjoy the degree of prophecies that everyone enjoyed on Mount Sinai unless they had in themselves a divine and spiritual portion ready for that. So, the soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.", "The Lord makes it impossible for Moshe to enjoy his sight by telling him in Exodus 33,
כי לא־יראני האדם וחי
That a man does not see me and live
(Exodus 33:20)
This is as long as he is alive and united to matter, but after death that is possible, so the soul remains after the body is dead." ], [ "10.3. God promises as a reward for sending the mother out of the nest before taking her young,
למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים
For your own good and that your days become everlasting
(Deuteronomy 22:7)
Here the experience of the Sages warns the contrary: It is said that someone was ordered by his father to go to the dovecote to bring him two little doves. He went, sent the mother of the birds, and took the young, and when he descended, he fell from the ladder and died. Where is that good, and that longevity of days?
למען ייטב לך - לעולם שכלו טוב, והארכת ימים - לעולם שכלו ארך
\"That it may be well with yourself\" in the world that is entirely good; \"and that you prolong your days\" in a world that is everlasting
(Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuva 8:1)
This is true for the future of souls. And then, if the reward of actions is in the afterlife, the soul is necessarily immortal.", "Even the Gentiles seem to acknowledge the immortality of the soul, and so Bilan in Numbers 23 said,
תמת נפשי מות ישרים
May my soul die the death of the upright
(Numbers 23:10)", "It is true that when it comes to the death of the body, the righteous have equal standing to the wicked, and even many times, we see the righteous suffer, as we noted in the case of Abel, and Jeremiah, and others. For this reason, what has been said must refer to the soul, for it to experience the happiness that virtuous men enjoy in the afterlife after the body has died; thus the immortality of souls is inferred.", "Regarding the death of close relatives, God says in Deuteronomy 14:
לא תתגדדו ולא־תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת
כי עם קדוש אתה ליהוה אלהיך ובך בחר יהוה להיות לו לעם סגלה מכל העמים אשר על־פני האדמה
You shall not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads because of the dead. For you are a people consecrated to A. your God: A. your God chose you from among all other peoples on earth to be His treasured people.
(Deuteronomy 14:1-2)", "Logic seems to teach the opposite, and it is convenient to know this: As a holy people, the mourning (for one of them) must be felt as for a son of a king, with more sadness than for a particular man. Otherwise, it would be similar to one who says, do not grieve about the ring you lost, despite the precious diamond in it. However, the intention of the verse is this, you must not feel too much grief for our dead, as for a pot of clay, which cannot be repaired after breaking, it is not like that, because being a holy people, chosen by A. our God, is like being pieces of silver and gold, which become new again after disposal. And so after death, the soul does not end, nor does it perish with the body, by being combined and united with the Holy Being (God), and by having some similarity with Him.", "The conclusion is that souls are immortal, especially those of Israel. They should not grieve in excess because they improve in condition (after death), and they certainly exchange this life for a better life, and as the ancients say, there is a future world for all Israelites. ", "God greatly forbids all sorts of sorcery and necromancy among many species of rites that he declares and in the last prohibition of all the text says,
ודרש אל־המתים
and consulting the dead
(Deuteronomy 18:11)
which is to exercise the science of necromancy with which the Gentiles made requests of the dead, as can be seen in Lucanus. Therefore, if such practice is real, and therefore reprehended, it follows that the soul is immortal, because even after the body is dead, the souls may respond.", "At the end of Deuteronomy 32 it says,
שימו לבבכם לכל־הדברים אשר אנכי מעיד בכם היום
כי לא־דבר רק הוא מכם כי־הוא חייכם ובדבר הזה תאריכו ימים על־האדמה
Take to heart all the words with which I have warned you today. For this is not a vain thing for you, for it is your life, and in this thing, it will lengthen your days on earth.
(Deuteronomy 32:46-47)
Here it refers to the spiritual and the corporeal prize: the spiritual one is where it says, it is your life because it also said in another place, you will keep my commandments and my laws that will make a man do it and live with it, and it is certain that such a life is not the bodily one, since those who observe the precepts of the law do not live longer than the Gentiles. Therefore, the divine Onkelos stated,
ויחי בהון לחיי עלמא
And will live with them eternal life
(Onkelos, Leviticus 18:5)", "The other corporal prize is declared next, saying, and in this thing, it will lengthen your days on earth (Deut. 32:47). Therefore, here also, the spiritual reward is promised to the immortal souls. This life is the one that Ezekiel promises the penitents.", "Rabbi Yosef Albo teaches the immortality of the soul regarding the punishment of cutting off the soul. So says the Torah in Leviticus 7,
כי כל־אכל חלב מן־הבהמה ונכרתה הנפש האכלת מעמיה
For whoever eats the fat of animals his soul will be cut off from his kin
(Leviticus 7:25)
And in Exodus 12 it says,
כי כל־אכל מחמצת ונכרתה הנפש ההִוא
For whoever eats that which is leavened, his soul will be cut off
(Exodus 12:19)
The soul’s cutting off must necessarily be understood as referring to the soul itself because neither yeast nor fat is a poison that takes the life out of the body.And to say that it is understood as the death of the children when someone who ate leavened bread is already 80 years old would be unfair, as innocent children will suffer the punishment of the father. And so for this same reason, it follows that being cut off is not understood at middle age because the one who committed such a crime when he was already old would acquit himself of the punishment.Then it is necessary to understand this of the soul. Given the science of contraries, it is concluded that one who does not deserve the cutting off of his soul (karet) will further enjoy the fruit of his work after the body is dead.", "And it should be noted that the cutting off of the soul, according to Rabbi Moshe of Egypt (Maimonides), is that the soul is totally annihilated,2Maimonides' opinion of the soul being annihilated (karet) is found in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva 8:1, citing Numbers 15:31, that the soul should be utterly cut off, and therefrom the Sages allude to the world to come (Sanhedrin 64b). but Rabbi Moshe Gerundense (Nachmanides) and Abarbanel have different opinions. For now, it is not our intention to attempt to demonstrate such subject matter.3The Rambam (Maimonides) compares the punishment of the soul of the wicked to the total annihilation of the soul of animals, whereas the Ramban (Nachmanides) in Sha'ar HaGemul 70 is of the opinion that the punishment is suffering the deprivation of the world to come." ] ], [ [ "Continuing on the subject, [the immortality of the soul] is confirmed by the Prophets.
11.1 Continuing now with the prophets, there are not any fewer verses in their writings from which we can learn this truth. First, the wise Abigail offering excuses to David for her mean and daring husband Nabal, says these words to him,
והיתה נפש אדני צרורה בצרור החיים את יהוה אלהיך ואת נפש איביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע
The life of my lord will be bound in the bundle of the living by A. your God, but the lives of your enemies He will catapult from the hollow of a sling.
(Samuel 25:29)", "He not only implied the immortality of the soul, but also what the reward and punishment of the afterlife are because the man who in his life did everything he could to please his Creator, to do His precepts, to understand and speculate heroic actions, is not deprived of rewards after death, nor is his soul deprived of these as it continues those same speculations. And when the soul arrives at the top and knows the divine things which are separated from matter, if it corresponds to what it imagined during the corporeal life, there is no greater pleasure for it, nor greater happiness. It happens almost in the same way as when a hungry man dreamed that he was eating and he was satisfied; if he wakes up and sees that it is a dream, then he grieves; but if he wakes up, and sees the table in order, with an array of foods, he will indeed enjoy eating them and eat much more than in the dream, enjoying in act what he previously enjoyed only with the imagination. So it is for the soul if what it has achieved and its actions here (in this world) corresponds to what it finds in the other world. It must delight itself greatly, otherwise, it is pained from it with no comparison to any other torment.", "This is because having surrendered to the delight in this life, as the soul follows the appetite of the body against its nature, then even in death it desires those things to which it has become accustomed, and after the descent of the body, there will be no means by which to stimulate it. And if by turning upwards, according to its own nature, the soul wants to unite with the separate forms of matter, if it lacks the principles (of faith), their instruction, and the praxis of divine service, it cannot achieve this end. Thus, remaining with these two contrary desires, but without being able to achieve either, it becomes the greatest pain that can be imagined.", "The wise Abigail implied this very clearly by saying, the life of my lord will be bound in the bundle of the living by A. your God; which refers to the union with God that cannot be dissolved and unlocked; but the lives of your enemies He will catapult from the hollow of a sling, because having those two contrary desires, which go in opposite directions, one down, which is the body, and the other up, which is the subsistence of the soul, separated, and not being able to rest in one or the other, it is as if it were thrown back and forth. This also alludes to the immortality of the soul.", "The history of the Pythoness who summoned the soul of Samuel the prophet attests to the immortality of the soul without the need to elaborate upon it.1Samuel 28:3-25.", "And the prudent woman of Tekoa, praying in support of his son Absalom says in the Second Book of Samuel, Chapter 14 in this way:
כי־מות נמות וכמים הנגרים ארצה אשר לא יאספו ולא־ישא אלהים נפש וחשב מחשבות לבלתי ידח ממנו נדח
We must all die, and like waters poured out on the ground that cannot be gathered up, God will not take away the soul of one who thinks, so that no one remains banished
(II Samuel 14:14)", "She meant that we all naturally die, and as the running waters cannot be gathered up from the ground once poured out, so too it is unlikely for the soul to avoid death; nonetheless, God will not take away the soul, which means that God does not remove the soul completely from His Presence, rather he deals with the soul so that it does not remain banished, roaming in this life or the other, and purifies it so that it returns to its grace. And this is how God deals with the sinners. This was the concern of the woman of Tekoa regarding her son Absalom when she prayed for him to return to His presence.", "Ahithophel's death showed clearly how rooted in the soul is the care for the future. He wanted to hang himself, but before he had the intention of leaving his will, taking care of his household, and then taking care of his life. And he let himself be carried away by the secret force that awakens us to think about the children, funeral, and fame, which are garments of immortality:
ויצו אל־ביתו ויחנק
He set his affairs in order and hanged himself
(II Samuel 17:23)", "Bathsheba, when talking to David, said to him in Kings I,
יחי אדני המלך דוד לעלם
Long live my lord king David forever
(Kings 1:31)
And indeed, she did not want the impossible; but what she asked for is the life of this king in the future world, where life is forever, eternally.", "The transportation of Elijah, in body and soul, is a clear manifestation of immortality (II Kings 2:1-15).
Isaiah explicitly proclaims immortality and says in Chapter 57:
כי לא לעולם אריב ולא לנצח אקצוף כי־רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי
בעון בצעו קצפתי ואכהו הסתר ואקצף וילך שובב בדרך לבו
דרכיו ראיתי וארפאהו ואנחהו ואשלם נחמים לו ולאבליו
For not forever will I quarrel, not always will I rage because the spirit before envelops me, and the souls I made, for their greed, I was angry; I struck them and turned away in my rage. But they stubbornly followed the way of their hearts.I saw their ways and will heal them: I will guide them and provide consolation to them and the mourners among them
(Isaiah 57:16-19)
It means, if I punish man, it is not cruel, nor does the punishment last forever, and this is because the spirit, which envelops and clothes the body, went out before me. I made the souls; they did not come out of the earth like those of beasts, and that is why I have affection for them. For their greed, meaning theft, which is the most ordinary sin, I hurt them without cruelty, just to punish and correct their stubborn appetites, but when they humble themselves and do penance, I empty their burdens and heal them, with the medicine of the soul, which David always asked for; and above all, I will pay consolation for the damage received, to him and to the eyes that mourn for him. Here, God promises that he will console the dead, and those who mourned for him, how then could the dead be consoled, if souls were not immortal?" ], [ "11.2 Later in Chapter 58, Isaiah himself dealing with charity and the merit and reward of the virtue of distributive justice says,
והלך לפניך צדקך כבוד יהוה יאספך
Your distributive justice shall march before you and the honor of A. shall support you (lit. collect you)
(Isaiah 58:8)", "It means that in the face of death, he will carry the virtuous deed of distributive justice before him, through which the honor of God will collect him in his dwelling (the body), and that honor is later understood to be of the soul.3Here Menasseh Ben Israel hints at the statement of Hiyya bar Abba (Bava Batra 10a:2, 16) that the virtue of distributive justice (tzedakah) saves from the judgment in the world to come, based on the verse (Proverbs 11:4), \"wealth is of no avail on that day of wrath, but distributive justice saves from death\" that is, in the world of souls. In Menasseh's words, the honor of the virtue of distributive justice belongs to the soul, and for its sake, God gathers the soul from its dwelling, which is a metaphor for the body.", "In Jeremiah, God says in Chapter 1,
בטרם אצורך [אצרך] בבטן ידעתיך
Before I created you in the womb, I gave you knowledge
(Jeremiah 1:5)
Two important conclusions can be drawn from these words. First, that God is the one who forms the child in the mother's womb, a matter that the sharpest judgments could not determine. And so Duns Scotus in “Quaestiones Subtilissimae\" in Metaphysicen, Book II, Distinction 18, after considering that the first mass collected in the cloisters of nature hardens and forms the arm, the helmet, etc. after being absent earlier for a few days, even when the father is absent, or dead, and even if the mother is asleep or neglects it. He acknowledged this wonder as something impossible to explain.4The Zohar explains that a human body is created from two seeds, with the pattern of the father in the bones and the matrix of the mother in the flesh (Zohar II, 93a:5. Parashat Yitro, Chapter 34). The Talmud presents the same idea with three partners, including the breath of life (spirit) in the soul by God (Niddah 31a:9). Galen in De Foetos format asked himself about this and preferred to remain undecided than determining a wrong conclusion. Avicena in Font. 1 .p. doct. 6., Chapter 24 conceded that God was the author of that act. Similarly, the courageous mother in Maccabees II 7 said: My son, I don't understand how you grew inside of me. It is not I who gives the spirit, nor the soul, nor the life, nor was it I who gave shape to your members (II Maccabees 7:22).", "The second conclusion is that souls are not conceived with their bodies, but earlier, and their author is God Himself, who grants them their immortality. It is certain that the souls do not come into the world to lose this immortality with their bodies because that would not be providential or just.", "In Zechariah Chapter 3, it is told that Joshua was dressed in sordid clothes before the angel, who said,
הסירו הבגדים הצאים ... והלבש אתך מחלצות
Take off the dirty dresses and I will dress him with new ones
(Zechariah 3:3)", "The ancient Sages say that the sordid dresses signify Joshua’s sin of having allowed his children to marry Gentiles, as stated in the Book of Ezra, and that he changed the clothes to leave them. Then the sacred text continues,
ויעד מלאך יהוה ביהושע לאמר
כה־אמר יהוה צבאות אם־בדרכי תלך ואם את־משמרתי תשמר וגם־אתה תדין את־ביתי וגם תשמר את־חצרי ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העמדים האלה
And the angel of A. complained to Joshua as follows: “Thus said A. Tzabaoth: If you walk in my paths and keep my orders, you will also judge my house and guard my courts, and I will permit you to pass among the standing ones.
(Zechariah 3:6-7)", "Here, without a doubt, apart from the popular grants, he promises him to be among the angels who are always steadfast, and remain forever, which is the meaning of the term (העמדים) the standing ones; and from here also the immortality of souls is infallibly concluded.5Rashi's commentary on Zechariah 3:7, (according to the Targum) \"and I will permit you to pass\" refers to the resurrection of the dead. The \"standing ones\" are Seraphim and ministering angels, who (fig.) cannot sit.", "Let's finish with Malakhi, the last of the prophets, who says that God will send Elijah before the day of judgment:
הנה אנכי שלח לכם את אליה הנביא לפני בוא יום יהוה הגדול והנורא
I will send you the prophet Elijah, before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of A.
(Malakhi 3:23)
How could this be if his soul was not immortal?" ] ], [ [ "This matter can be concluded with the Books of Writings.
12.1. Now it remains to verify this in the Books of Writings. David is the first to show the truth of the immortality of souls, saying in Psalm 19:
תורת יהוה תמימה משיבת נפש
The law of A. is perfect, it accomplishes the soul’s return
(Psalms 19:8)", "That is, it makes its return to its root and origin.
Equally in Psalm 25:
מי־זה האיש ירא יהוה יורנו בדרך יבחר
נפשו בטוב תלין וזרעו יירש ארץ
Will the man who fears A. be shown which way to choose?", "His soul will spend the night in goodness and his offspring will inherit the land.
(Psalms 25:12-13)", "Will the man who fears A. be shown the way to choose? means the one whose soul is in goodness, or who will rest overnight in happiness,1The metaphor, will spend the night in happiness, alludes to the existence of the soul after death (the night). The question, will the fearful man of A. be shown the way to choose? (and not pl. ways to choose) refers to the soul of the virtuous, whose free will is nullified in this lifetime and in the world of souls. The nullification of freewill is accomplished by knowledge e.g. if a person must choose in a test between options A or B, and the person does not know the answer, the person will exercise free will with the free choice. But if the person knows in advance that B, and not A, is the right choice and the person chooses B, free choice will have been nullified. Freewill is alluded to with \"His seat on high\" (Psalms 113:5) or \"Sitting in the Heavens\" (123:1). As Radak explains: “And when he says ‘in the heavens’, it is because in the world of souls, they do not hesitate (with free will) and they are stable and immortal because their entities do not come to an end like those of the earth” (Radak on Ps. 2:4). and his seed will inherit the land. If after the body is dead the soul itself perishes, how can he say that this soul will then rest overnight in goodness? If his offspring will inherit the land, according to R. Yosef Albo, this text seems not to have another exposition or a different solution than the soul as that offspring.", "ואם היתה הנפש נעדרת במות הגוף איך יאמר כי תלין נפשו בטוב כשזרעו יירש ארץ, אבל יורה שיש טוב מיוחד שתלין בו הנפש אחר המות, וזו ראיה ברורה שאין עליה גמגום
And if the soul were absent after the death of the body, how can it be said that his soul will pass the night in goodness when its offspring inherits the land? Therefore this indicates that there is special goodness in which the soul will abide after death. This is clear proof beyond all doubt.
(Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Maamar 4:40, 13)
Equally Psalm 31:
בידך אפקיד רוחי
In your hand, I entrust my spirit
(Psalms 31:6)
This is understood in death, when the body gives a tithe to the earth, and the soul or the spirit rises up and is delivered into the hands of God.2This commentary on Psalms 31:6, \"Into Your hand I entrust my spirit; You redeem me...\" uses the word \"tributo\" in the Judeo-Spanish version, alluding to Terumah, which also translates as something lifted up, or removed as a contribution or dedication to God. This is equivalent to the removal of the body that is given to the earth after the sacrifice of death in order to lift up and redeem the soul which is God's property.", "Elsewhere, in Psalm 31, it says likewise:
מה רב־טובך אשר־צפנת ליראיך
How great is the goodness that you reserve for those who fear you
(Psalms 31:20)", "Which is certainly understood as the prize of the world of souls, and thus it uses the word (צפנת) which means a hiding place, insofar as this prize is hidden from the senses and is in the world that is incomprehensible and invisible to the eye.", "And because this reward is rarely achieved, it is convenient to have great predisposition and merits. For this reason, Psalm 27 says elsewhere:
לולא האמנתי לראות בטוב־יהוה בארץ חיים
Had I not my assurance in seeing the goodness of A. in the land of the living ones
(Psalms 27:13)", "which is certainly understood as the glory of God that the virtuous will enjoy in the future world, which is called the land of the living ones; in the same way that the place where souls suffer is called Gehinnom which names a garbage dump next to Jerusalem, where the corpses and filth were thrown. Thus, the rewarding place is called the land of living creatures, which is Gan Eden where Adam lives a long and happy life.", "In Psalm 49, where it deals with the prize and punishment of souls, says,
ואדם ביקר בל־ילין נמשל כבהמות נדמו
And the man who does not sleep with honor is like the beasts that perish
(Psalms 49:13)" ], [ "12.2. By honor is understood the soul, as it is mentioned a few times in the divine scriptures.3Rashi explains the symbol of the soul, honor, as splendor and glory (Rashi on Psalms 49:13). Therefore it says, the one who does not die fulfilled, which would be sleeping with the eternal soul that accomplished its work, such a person is compared to beasts. The Psalmist says,
אך־אלהים יפדה נפשי מיד־שאול כי יקחני סלה
But God will redeem my soul from the hand of Sheol when He takes me away
(Psalms 49:16)", "that when death took him, his soul would be delivered from “Sheol”, meaning hell. And he must not expose himself from the grave, because if souls are immortal, no one escapes from death and burial regarding the body.", "Elsewhere, in Psalm 102, while asking God for life, he asks with this phrase:
אלי אל־תעלני בחצי ימי
God, do not make me rise in the middle of my days
(Psalms 102:25)", "And this is because death raises the soul to its celestial region.", "He demonstrates this truth when, finding himself afflicted by Saul's persecution, he says in Psalm 116:
שובי נפשי למנוחיכי כי־יהוה גמל עליכי
כי חלצת נפשי ממות את־עיני מן־דמעה את־רגלי מדחי
אתהלך לפני יהוה בארצות החיים
Return, my soul to rest, for A. has a reward for you, For the rescue of my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling I will walk before A. in the lands of the living ones.
(Psalms 116:7-9)", "Almost as if he said, because I am so distressed, I want my soul to return to your rest because there it will be free from death, and the body will be free from falling and stumbling. Surely I will go in the presence of God in the land of living ones, which is the other world.", "Solomon also testified to this truth, as he says in Proverbs, Chapter 11,
במות אדם רשע תאבד תקוה
In the death of the wicked, hope is lost
(Proverbs 11:7)", "and Chapter 14:
וחסה במותו צדיק
and the virtuous man finds protection in death
(Proverbs 14:32)", "I do not know which verses can be more explicit than these because it reads clearly that there is hope in the soul of the righteous after the body is dead, as David says in Psalm 92:
צדיק כתמר יפרח
The righteous bloom like a date-palm tree
(Psalms 92:13)", "As if it were said, in the same way that the date-palm does not bear fruit until after 70 years of planting, according to some natives, so after 70 years of this life the righteous man flourishes and achieves his perfection; but the wicked man loses everything with death." ], [ "12.3. Elsewhere, in Chapter 24, persuading the father to teach and punish the son, he says,
אתה בשבט תכנו ונפשו משאול תציל
Beat him with a rod and you will save him from Sheol
(Proverbs 23:14)
and it cannot be understood from the grave, for then no one by any doctrine whatsoever is spared death.", "In Ecclesiastes Chapter 4, this is widely proclaimed. It says in one place,
ושבח אני את־המתים שכבר מתו מן־החיים אשר המה חיים עדנה
וטוב משניהם את אשר־עדן לא היה
I admire those who already died more than those who are still living, and more than either is one who has not yet come into being
(Ecclesiastes 4:2-3)
Here the Sage puts the three states of the soul, the first one that he has before coming to the world, the other when he is already united and together with the body, and the third, after the body has given a tithe to the earth and the soul has risen to its sphere. Of these three, this state of the soul after the death of the body is greater than that of the soul that enjoys the body, but more than those two is the state that the soul has before coming into the world. From this, it is learned, not only that souls are immortal, but that they are created before bodies because no one can admire what does not exist, and its deprivation cannot be greater than its action.", "He says later in Chapter 7:
טוב שם משמן טוב ויום המות מיום הולדו
טוב ללכת אל־בית־אבל מלכת אל־בית משתה
Fame is better than good perfume oil and the day of death is better than the day of birth. It is better to be at a house of mourning than at a house of parties
(Ecclesiastes 7:1-2)
Once the body is dead everything ends, so it would be better to live with delicacies and delights; such is the sentence of the atheists: Eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die. But the wise man understands otherwise.", "In Chapter 11 it says:
שמח בחור בילדותיך ויטיבך לבך בימי בחורותך והלך בדרכי לבך ובמראי עיניך ודע כי על־כל־אלה יביאך האלהים במשפט
O boy, enjoy yourself while you are young and make your heart enjoy in the days of its youth and follow the ways of your heart and the glances of your eyes, but know well that God will call you to account for all such things
(Ecclesiastes 11:9)
Almost as if it had said, you can do whatever you want, you have freedom for everything, but I warn you that there is the day of judgment when everything is paid for, which is after death.", "Thereafter in Chapter 12, dealing with death, it says:
כי־הלך האדם אל־בית עולמו וסבבו בשוק הספדים
For man goes home to his world and the mourners surround him in the street
(Ecclesiastes 12:5)
It is mentioned that the soul leaves for the new world that it is going to enjoy. And if the soul were mortal, indeed, it could not correspond to the movement of going home to his world." ], [ "12.4. Above all, it is illustrated in what it says in the verse below,
וישב העפר על־הארץ כשהיה והרוח תשוב אל־האלהים אשר נתנה
And the dust returns to the soil as it was, and the spirit returns to the God who gave it
(Ecclesiastes 12:7)
No other explanation can be given to the said verse to contradict this truth that we confirm in the text.", "Job also presents this matter, when he says in Chapter 12:
מי לא־ידע בכל־אלה כי יד־יהוה עשתה זאת
אשר בידו נפש כל־חי ורוח כל־בשר־איש
Who does not know in all these things that the hand of A. had done it, He who has in his hand the soul of every living thing and the spirit of every flesh of man?
(Job 12:9-10)", "It is seen that it makes a distinction between the soul among all the irrationals and that of man; if it were of the same condition, it would already be included where it says, the soul of every living thing, from which immortality is also inferred.", "Elihu says also in Chapter 33:
הן־כל־אלה יפעל־אל פעמים שלוש עם־גבר
להשיב נפשו מני־שחת לאור באור החיים
For all this is the work of God three times with a man To return his soul from the pit of Hell to the light of life
(Job 33:29-30)", "The Kabbalists, who believe in reincarnation, say that perhaps the soul is sent back to other bodies up to three times to correct and redo what it had missed in other bodies.4Menasseh uses the word transmigrations of souls to refer to reincarnations. The Zohar uses a symbolic figure of a spinning roulette, carefully rigged to give the reward or punishment to the soul that falls in each reincarnation (Zohar III, 215b). There are four chances to miss the advancement towards virtues, with three levels of difficulty in fortune, associated symbolically with the colors of a rainbow (Zohar III, 216a), otherwise the reincarnations can be repeated up to a thousand times to increase the reward of virtues (Rabbi Chaim Vital, Sha’ar HaGilgulim, Chapter 4, 6). And at the end of these three times, it is either pure and clean or hopelessly condemned, and in this way, they interpret these verses.", "But by these three times, I understand the three judgments or times when God will judge man, namely, in this life, the body; in the other, the soul; and in the resurrection, the soul and body together, as we will show later.It is enough for us to know for now that these three times that Elihu says that God works with man, are so that his soul may be illustrated in the light of life, which is glory.", "In the second book of Chronicles, 16, it is said that King Asaph in his life filled the grave he prepared for himself with various aromatic drugs and fragrant spices. By this, he certainly implied that the time would come when he would communicate with his people free from corruption and stench. And there is no doubt that the custom of the Hebrews to pour various aromatic drugs on the tomb, which was done to kings of the Second Temple era according to Josephus, was a sign of immortality, as were the mausoleums that were made for the prophets and righteous men, and these are still made among us for the wise men.", "With this we conclude, proving not as the atheists and Sadducees think, that the divine letters do not state that souls are immortal, because as we have said, the opposite is established, not in a few places, but many. According to our possibility, we write 43, which together with the 25 that we mentioned earlier about the resurrection, for the same purpose, make 68.", "However, we leave room for others who will add those that we lack; these at least seemed to us to be the most effective, with which we answered the second objection." ] ], [ [ "We give a few reasons about why the Torah does not openly mention rewards and punishments after this life.
13.1. In the third proposition, the Sadducees and some atheists say that there is no mention of those spiritual goods in the promises of the law, but are all temporal promises, and they say that if there were any reward or punishment in the other life, it should be specified explicitly in the law.", "To this we say, although it is true, as we have shown, that it is sufficiently proven by the law of the immortality of souls, and the reward or punishment that souls have according to their merits or demerits, it is an issue to see that in the Ley (as it was well observed by Hugo Grotius, a man of excellent dignity and immense erudition) this is not specially treated with clarity. However, various reasons can be given.", "Rabbi Moshe of Egypt (Maimonides) says in various of his works such as Sefer Ha-Madda in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, in Chapter 9, the true reward of souls is a spiritual one that is enjoyed in the world of souls:
הטובה הצפונה לצדיקים היא חיי העולם הבא והיא החיים שאין מות עמהן
העולם הבא אין בו גוף וגויה אלא נפשות הצדיקים בלבד בלא גוף כמלאכי השרת
The goodness kept for the righteous is the life of the other world and it is the life with which there is no death… The next world has no bodies or material forms, but only the souls of the righteous, disembodied like ruling angels
(Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, 8:1, 2)
But this is not specified in the law because God wants to be served out of love, and not out of interest in such a reward.", "Therefore, He promises material abundance, peace, progeny, and the rise of an empire (in this world) for the watchmen of the law; whereas famine, war, lack of progeny, lowliness and sickness are promised to those who transgress it.", "This is nothing but giving or taking away the means of obtaining the spiritual prize; and this is as if He said: If you did my precepts with joy, and occupied yourself in the study of the law, I will remove all the impediments that can prevent such observation and exercise, namely, diseases, war, famine, and such evils, and thereby easily, with wealth, health, and tastes, unemployed in worldly affairs, you will be led to such perfection.1The terms perfection and quality are interchangeable in the jargon of the Middle Ages and Age of Enlightenment, and they are related to the term qualities. The perfections are not perfect as such, but rather indicate an analogical property of God in earthly life, such as excellence in virtues that emanate from God. Maimonides explains this to his son using the metaphor of a royal palace to describe the various degrees of perfection with closeness to the King. Those who do not reflect on divinity are far from the royal palace. The scholars of logic and mathematics are around the palace; the scholars of physics and natural sciences are in the hall, and after they finish their study, the scholars of natural philosophy are in the court. Those who study metaphysics are inside the palace together with the king. Hence, the highest degree of perfection is the study of virtues and the sacred scriptures (Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, part 3, 51). However, someone who replaces the divine exercises with the profane, whereby wealth is their means of observance, in such cases, the goodness, health, progeny and peace are taken away, resulting in so much misery that the person will not be free, and unable to achieve the intended happiness.2See Deuteronomy 28.", "נמצא פרוש כל אותן הברכות והקללות על דרך זו, כלומר אם עבדתם את ה' בשמחה ושמרתם דרכו משפיע לכם הברכות האלו ומרחיק הקללות מכם עד שתהיו פנויים להתחכם בתורה ולעסק בה כדי שתזכו לחיי העולם הבא וייטב לך לעולם שכלו טוב ותאריך ימים לעולם שכלו ארך ונמצאתם זוכין לשני העולמות, לחיים טובים בעולם הזה המביאים לחיי העולם הבא
Therefore all blessings and curses are apportioned in this way, that is, if you have served God with joy and kept His ways, these will affect you with blessings, and keep the curses away from you, until you are disposed to be intelligent with the Torah and keep busy with it, so you do good in both worlds, having a good life in this world to bring a good life in the next world.
(Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, 9:1)", "The mentioned Rabbi Moshe, in Hilkhot Teshuva, Chapter 8, solves this in another way. All the prophets were able to understand the goods of the Messianic era, however, they spoke vaguely of that happiness, and they said nothing about the glory of souls, and this, in order to not diminish its greatness with imagination or with examples.", "אבל טובת חיי העולם הבא אין לה ערך ודמיון ולא דמוה הנביאים כדי שלא יפחתו אותה בדמיון
But since the good in the life of the next world has no estimate according to imagination, the prophets did not compare it so that they would not diminish it with imagination
(Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, 8:7)", "And this is mentioned by Isaiah in Chapter 44, saying:
עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך יעשה למחכה לו
The eye has not seen God except after waiting for Him
(Isaiah 64:3)
From here the Sages inferred that the prophets prophesied of the Messianic days, but not of the awaited next world (Berakhot 24b:19).", "Another reason can also be given to this, the happiness of the days of the Messiah, as it concerns the body and soul, the prophets could picture in their imagination that which is corporeal in it; but the happiness of the future world is given only to souls, as it has a spiritual benefit that cannot be figured in the corporeal imagination, as most spiritual things cannot be imagined.", "The learned Ibn Ezra says, the spiritual reward is a difficult thing to understand; the law was not given to the wise only, but to a public of all conditions, children, old men, men, women, wise, and ignorant; so it was only appropriate to adapt it for the capacity of all, promising corporeal things so that it would be understood by all, and secretly reserving this happiness for the learned, in various places of the law. Also, the Book of Genesis does not deal clearly with the creation of angels, but uses metaphors, as they are lost from the sight of the corporeal senses. Rabbeinu Bahya understands the same." ], [ "13.2. Rabbi Nissim, Rabbi Yosef Albo, and earlier, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi, resolved this issue differently. They said, God observed the medicine of the souls, just like a practical doctor who uses medicine for bodies which removes the cause of the disease from the sick, regardless of the symptoms because afterward the symptoms depart by themselves, as the effect disappears when the cause is removed.", "According to this, like the ancient descendants of Adam, and the sons of Noah, except for the singular cases of Shem and Eber,3Eber, the grandson of Shem, Noah's son, is remembered as the instructor of Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau. The tradition of Torah study above other duties is derived from the inference that Jacob was not punished for his failure to fulfill the obligation of honoring one's parents during his absence (Megillah 17a:5-6). Hence, the Pharisees, unlike the Sadducees, emphasized the tradition of Torah study, and not only ritual temple service, based on the Schools of Shem and Eber (Bereshit Rabbah 84:8). they were all idolaters who believed in the eternity of the world and affirmed that the nature of something could not be changed, and that there was no Providence. God wanted to direct his people, and he showed them with marvels that he did the opposite, and being the author of the world, having created it ex-nihilo, he had the power to do various things according to his will, with which the providence would easily bring a yield, which would be followed by the spiritual prize.", "Therefore, if the covenant that God made with Israel mentioned that there was another life and that after death they would rise again, the majority would make fun of it all because they denied Providence. Therefore, with great wisdom, the things said are the ones they could feel with all their senses so that they knew how wrong they were in everything; and little by little it arranged the souls’ predisposition so that later the prophets spoke more clearly of the resurrection and the spiritual life.", "Naaman after being cured of his leprosy said,
ידעתי כי אין אלהים בכל־הארץ כי אם־בישראל
Now I know that there is no God without Israel
(II Kings 5:15)
And if they told him that there was a reward in the afterlife, he would indeed have made fun of everything. Therefore, the Lord wanted to prepare the spirits with miracles because whoever saw so many miracles performed by Moshe and the other prophets, which put even the Necromancers themselves in a stupor,4See Exodus 8:14-15. would certainly consider it to be impossible for totally carnal men, and that in itself something spiritual was necessary for the nature of the world to obey him.", "Rabbi Bahya the old says, the reward of the souls, or happiness, is something necessary and natural; and this happiness is not incumbent upon the Divine law because many looked at it and gave it natural reasons; therefore, there is no case for natural promises in the law, but rather other things granted within the natural order of things, which follow the Divine Providence, as it says,
וצויתי את־ברכתי לכם בשנה הששית ועשת את־התבואה לשלש השנים
I will command my blessing for you in the sixth year so that it shall yield a crop sufficient for three years
(Leviticus 25:21)
Idem, one who does not distribute justice with his money becomes poor,
אם לא תתן לו, סופך להיות אחיו של אביון
If you do not give it to him, you will end up being the brother of the poor
(Rashi on Deuteronomy 15:7)
Idem,
לא תהיה משכלה ועקרה בארצך
There will be no miscarriage or barrenness in your land
(Exodus 23:26)
Idem,
ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה
and a hundred will run from five
(Leviticus 26:8)
Also,
ונתתי שלום בארץ
I will give peace in the land
(Leviticus 26:6)", "and the like. And this way of supernatural promises is characteristic and an integral part of the law, as Divine law. Rabbi Moshe Gerundense (Nachmanides) understood this in his commentary of the Parashat of Va’era and Bechukotai." ], [ "13.3. Rabbi Saadia Gaon says it differently: The ancient oracles falsely promised temporal goods, so they were made up under certain constellations for people to think that they attained the influences of the stars. Therefore, to separate them from these idolatries, the blessed Lord told them in Exodus 23, you do not have to worship these vain gods,
לא־תשתחוה לאלהיהם ולא תעבדם
ועבדתם את יהוה אלהיכם
You shall not bow down to their gods or serve them
You shall serve A. your God

(Exodus 23:24, 25)
because He has the power to provide what is desired,
ברך את־לחמך ואת־מימיך והסרתי מחלה מקרבך
He will bless your bread and your waters and will remove sickness from your midst
(Exodus 23:25)
So He promises them those goods to take away such idolatry, but does not leave out the spiritual reward in many other places.", "In his wisdom, Rabbi Moshe Gerundense (Nachmanides) in Parashat Ekev, and more clearly Rabbi Yosef Albo in his Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Book 4, Chapter 40, solved this doubt:
כאשר עייננו ביעודים הגשמיים שנזכרו בתורה אחד לאחד, נמצא שאי אפשר שיבואו במקום ההוא יעודים רוחניים, כי היעודים שנזכרו בתורה נמצאם כולם כוללים לכלל האומה
If we examine the material promises mentioned in the Torah one by one, we shall find that spiritual promises could not have been made in those cases because all the promises in the Torah include the nation as a whole.
(Sefer Ha-Ikkarim 4, 40, 1)", "They say then, the spiritual reward could not be treated at all in that covenant of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, where God indicates the rewards and penalties; this is because those promises were aimed at the people of Israel in general, as it says in Chapter 28:
יולך יהוה אתך ואת־מלכך אשר תקים עליך אל־גוי אשר לא־ידעת אתה
A. will drive you and your king to a nation unknown to you
(Deuteronomy 28:36)
ישא יהוה עליך גוי מרחוק מקצה הארץ
The Lord will bring a nation against you from far
(Deuteronomy 28:43)
And so, all the other things refer to people in general, since the people in general are judged for good or bad, for peace or war, for abundance or famine, etc. Then the merits and demerits of the entire generation are weighed.", "As Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides) writes in Hilkhot Teshuva Chapter 3,
המדינה אם היו זכיות כל יושביה מרבות על עונותיהן הרי זו צדקת. ואם היו עונותיהם מרבין הרי זו רשעה
A province, if the merits of all of its inhabitants exceed their infractions is considered just; if their infractions are greater, it is wicked
(Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, 3:1)", "According to this, if most of the inhabitants were good; the bad, the good and the just, enjoyed the same temporal fortune, the rain being general to all, as are peace and tranquility, and so on with the rest of this quality; likewise, if the majority were bad, the just suffered with the wicked, as we see Jeremiah, Daniel, and others, who suffer in captivity the misery of the majority, which is not about the soul, as Ezekiel says in Chapter 18:
הנפש החטאת היא תמות
The soul who sins shall die
(Ezekiel 18:4)
Each one by himself, according to his deeds, receives the prize, or penalty in the world of souls. Then, this good that refers to each person in particular, could not be declared in those covenants that God confirmed with all Israel in general, although in other places it is referred to as we have said.", "Carnal beings as corporeal beings are more easily inclined to the present than to the future, and they are more inclined to what they reach with the senses than to what the understanding proposes to them. And from here it comes that although many can grasp the goodness of the soul, and believe there is another life, they hardly detach themselves from this life, and those who want to live in this world unhappily to live happily in the other are very rare because they accept what they have in their hands. For this reason, I believe that if God promised spiritual goods, He would not heal much. And so with great wisdom, He offered them what He understood would be most pleasing to them, bread, oil, wine, health, children, and peace, which is what all humans effectively desire. This reason seems plausible to me, and effective in answering any doubt and the third proposition of the Sadducees and atheists.", "They also say, the Patriarchs did not seek another life; and that Isaac only blessed Jacob with temporal goods. In everything, they are manifestly deceiving themselves. As Abraham felt the happiness of the soul well, he despised his life and that of his son Isaac, and all the temporal goods that God had promised him, to merit eternal life. Likewise, Isaac blessed his son Jacob with spiritual goods, and so it was written twice before the material blessing,
ויברכהו
and he blessed him
(Genesis 26:12; 27:27)
And although this is not explained so clearly, they were indeed spiritual blessings, and when the temporal blessings begin, it says,
ויתן־לך
and give you
(Genesis 27:28)
ויתן־לך האלהים מטל השמים
and may God give you the dew of heaven
(Genesis 27:28)
with a conjunctive (ו) Vav as one following the period (marking the time), from which the ancients infer, those spiritual blessings are paused with that (ו) Vav which is the emphasis of that conjunction. For it is clearly seen how careful Jacob was to be buried with his parents, as was Yosef whose bones were taken from Egypt, all of which is a clear indication of immortality, because if everything ends with the body, such care would be ridiculous. With this, I think we have given this issue enough consideration." ] ], [ [ "In which some verses of the Psalmist cited earlier are explained
14.1. Coming to the true explanation of the verses that the atheists and the Sadducees can claim in favor of their evil sect, we will say the following: There is no doubt that David speaks clearly and distinctly in the Psalms about the immortality of the soul, not in one but in many places as we have cited. Therefore, according to this, the verses that seem to contradict it require another explanation. Let us therefore show each one of them by itself so that this point remains clear.", "They first claim the text of Samuel, where David, speaking about the child who had died, says,
ועתה מת למה זה אני צם האוכל להשיבו עוד אני הלך אליו והוא לא־ישוב אלי
Now that he is dead, why should I fast, can I return him again? I will go to him and he will not return to me.
(II Samuel 12:23)", "To this, I answer, not only from this place can the mortality of souls not be inferred, but rather the opposite is inferred, that after death they have a being and existence. The first is proven because David speaks of what is seen in bodily nature, without referring to the miracle of the resurrection, and thus speaking of himself, he says: I will not be able to return it (the soul) here naturally, that is not by natural means, since no one after death returns to the world,
אני הלך אליו והוא לא־ישוב אלי
I will go to him and he will not return to me
(Ibid.)
The second is proven because David gives himself movement after death and gives the son a being and existence, so he says,
אני הלך אליו
I will go to him
(Ibid.)", "Certainly, this would not add up if everything ended with death because neither would David be able to go to him, being dead, nor would he find the son of that woman (Bathsheba) because as we said earlier, the dead have nothing in terms of the body.", "Atheists claim further in their favor, the verse from Psalm 6 where it says,
כי אין במות זכרך בשאול מי יודה־לך
For there is no memory of You in death; in Sheol, who can acclaim You
(Psalms 6:6)", "That verse certainly does not persuade its position on such absurdity. David asks in the preceding verse for the salvation of the soul,
שובה יהוה חלצה נפשי הושיעני למען חסדך
Return A. rescue my soul, deliver me by your mercy
(Psalms 6:5)", "And then he continues, for there is no memory of You in death; where it must be noted that the word Sheol (שאול), without any doubt, sometimes means grave, and at other times, Hell.", "It is the sense then, that there David asks for health in illness, as he says before,
רפאני יהוה כי נבהלו עצמי
Heal me A. for my bones shake with terror
(Psalms 6:2)", "And it is because the righteous man desires to live to praise God and exalt His name because the work of this world is followed by the world of reward. He persuades God by saying, Lord, if I die it is true that I will not forget you, because in the tomb who will praise you given that the body is no more than an insensitive stone. Therefore, give me life so that in body and soul I can praise you and do meritorious works.
He said the same elsewhere in Psalm 118:
לא אמות כי־אחיה ואספר מעשי יה
I will not die, but I will live and tell the works of A.
(Psalms 118:17)
Equally in Psalm 104:
אשירה ליהוה בחיי אזמרה לאלהי בעודי
I will sing to A. as long as I live; I will sing psalms to my God while being
(Psalms 104:33)
Hezekiah after being granted those 15 years of extra life says in his prayer in Isaiah 38:
כי לא שאול תודך מות יהללך לא־ישברו יורדי־בור אל־אמתך.
חי חי הוא יודך כמוני היום
For neither is it the grave who praises you, nor death who glorifies you; those who descend into the pit hope not for your truth, but the living, alive, will praise you as I do today
(Isaiah 38:18-19)" ], [ "14.2. He wanted to say the same thing that we have said, namely the world of doing in which each one can merit (something) is this one; in the other one, there is nothing but satisfaction and reward.
It will not be easy to explain the following verses with this proposition
David says elsewhere:
מה־בצע בדמי ברדתי אל־שחת היודך עפר היגיד אמתך
What is to be gained from my blood in my descent into the grave? Can the dust praise You? Can it declare Your truth?
(Psalms 30:10)
He meant, if I die, what use can be made of my body by descending into the grave, can the dust, which is the body, praise you or will it declare your truth? Give me then, Lord, life, so that this body, which is earth, together with the soul, may glorify your name.", "By that sh-ch-t (שחת), the greatest penalty of all will be understood, as Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides) says, the greatest revenge that God takes from the sinner, which is to disconnect the soul and annihilate it completely, and thus sh-ch-t (שחת) means corruption.", "David says elsewhere, of what benefit is my life if I go down to the grave and go to corruption, annihilating the soul, and leaving only the body, will the dust praise you? Will it declare your truth? The body is indeed meaningless.", "This second explanation seems to fit more with the thread of the Psalm, because shortly before he says,
יהוה העלית מן־שאול נפשי
A. you brought my soul up from the grave
(Psalms 30:4)
It is said in the fourth verse of Psalm 30 and in Psalm 78,
ויזכר כי־בשר המה רוח הולך ולא ישוב
for He remembered that they were but flesh, a going spirit that does not return.
(Psalms 78:39)
To this, we say that there David indicates how God considers human frailty, regarding the flesh, and the other frailty, regarding the spirit, which is the soul. Because once this spirit has left the body, certainly the soul does not naturally reshape or inform it. But because of this, the resurrection of the dead is not denied because it indicates the miracle that God will perform at that time. David only deals with what is seen from experience, which is, one who dies once does not return to the world anymore, and this phrase can be freely used, and we all use it, although granting the resurrection. And as it is said there: a going spirit denotes it as a being of some quality distinct from the body; because the body after death remains immovable like an insensitive stone; but the spirit then goes and makes movement, and it is so as soon as it transmigrates to the place that is prepared for it, of pain or glory.", "If we also consider carefully the word (רוח) Ruach, it does not only mean the soul, but according to Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides) in his Guide, Book I, Chapter 40, it sometimes means the vital spirit,1The Ruach, or the breath of life of the body, is the vital spirit that differs from the intellectual soul of the Neshamah, which is the intellectual connection with the world of souls, or God, who Maimonides calls in terms of the philosophers the Intellect or Mind which concepts have their correspondence with Aristotle (De Anima, Book III, Chapter 5) where the Intellectus (השכל) is divided into intellectus possibilis (השכל בכח) or ens intelligible, and intellectus agens (המושכל) or ens intelligens which in God are one and the same without plurality (Guide for the Perplexed, part 1, 68). The Nefesh, or bodily being, is totally distinguished from the previous differentiations of the soul (Bereshit Rabbah 14:8-9) that Menasseh already indicated in Chapter 9:6.
והוא גם כן שם הרוח החיונית
And is also the name of the vital spirit
(Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed I, 40:3)
and it can also mean will and desire,
והוא גם כן שם הכונה והרצון
And it is also the name of will and desire
(Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, I, 40:6)
and according to this they say, God remembers that man is flesh and that the spirit or desire perishes with the body, it goes and does not return; or that the will of man is of such variable quality that once he desires, the next day he abhors forever. Some also want to say that by that spirit is understood the evil appetite which leaves after death and will not return at the time of the resurrection of the dead; for me, the first view seems more congruent." ], [ "14.3. In response to the place where David says,
הלמתים תעשה־פלא אם־רפאים יקומו יודוך סלה
Do you work miracles for the dead? Do the deceased rise to praise You? Selah
(Psalms 88:11)", "I say that this Psalm (according to Rabbi Kimhi) was composed on behalf of those who suffer the present captivity, and therefore the lament in the preceding verse says,
עיני דאבה מני עני קראתיך יהוה בכל־יום שטחתי אליך כפי
My eye is anxious from affliction; I call to You, Oh A. each day; I stretch out my palms to You.
(Psalms 88:10)", "Almost as if to say, Lord, I am afflicted and tired of calling you, I pray to you every day, and you do not save me, nor do you take me away from this affliction, why? After I am dead in this captivity, will you finally perform the miracle? Or perhaps, will those who are already deceased rise up to praise and thank you? If you do not do it during this lifetime, when will you? Does your mercy count in the grave? That cannot be, because the body there has no action whatsoever, nor will the deceased rise up to praise you, because the day they rise up and praise you they will no longer be deceased, but resurrected and alive! In this way, the resurrection is not denied, but it is granted.", "Or as Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides) says, such verses deal solely with the impossibility of an effect according to the (particular) nature (of rottenness). As Moshe also said in Numbers 20:
שמעו־נא המרים המן־הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים
Listen, rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?
(Numbers 20:10)", "He wanted to say, this is impossible according to (its particular) nature, and since such miracles exceed its limits, the same must be understood in this case. And it is as if it said, perhaps, according to nature, you will perform miracles for the dead or you will remember them! Certainly not, until the time of that miracle arrives.", "Finally, the last one says,
לא המתים יהללו־יה ולא כל־ירדי דומה
ואנחנו נברך יה מעתה ועד־עולם הללו־יה
Neither the dead will praise Yah, nor any who go down to Hell. And we will bless Yah from now and forever, Halleluyah
(Psalms 115:17-18)
It means that the wicked, who in their lifetime can be called dead, do not praise the Lord, nor all those who descend to (דומה) Duma, that is, those who descend into silence, as we have said, then, they no longer have time to act, but time is only wasted in suffering the evils (or endless deprivation of vices and corporeal pleasure); but we will bless Yah2As in the precedent quote of the verse in Psalms 115:18, the original in Judeo-Spanish says, bendeciremos a Iah (יה), transliterated today as Yah. The Latin says, nos benedicemus Domino. from now and forever, not just in our lifetime, moreover in eternity even after death.3Rabbi Moses D'Aguilar illustrates this idea with the following figure of comparison: You fear the sting of death but you should fear more eternal death (Treatise on Rhetoric and Logic, Book 4, Chapter 5, 29).", "Or as we have said before, this also applies to the body, and as a bodily being after death, no one praises God. Only when the soul is united to the body, the works are meritorious, and for this reason, the righteous asked God for more life, to deserve more (merit). Thus the verses have been easily expounded and declared without difficulty." ] ], [ [ "An exposition of the verses found in Ecclesiastes.
15.1. We come to the verses of the wise man (Solomon) in Ecclesiastes. Although we clearly and infallibly inferred the immortality of the soul in the preceding chapters, for greater satisfaction we will declare the verses which in some way seem to indicate the opposite.", "For the explanation of the sacred text to be true, it must agree with the antecedent and previous verses, therefore, we will start from the beginning until the end. So says the first part:
אמרתי אני בלבי על־דברת בני האדם לברם האלהים ולראות שהם־בהמה המה להם
כי מקרה בני־האדם ומקרה הבהמה ומקרה אחד להם כמות זה כן מות זה ורוח אחד לכל ומותר האדם מן־הבהמה אין כי הכל הבל
הכל הולך אל־מקום אחד הכל היה מן־העפר והכל שב אל־העפר
מי יודע רוח בני האדם העלה היא למעלה ורוח הבהמה הירדת היא למטה לארץ
וראיתי כי אין טוב מאשר ישמח האדם במעשיו כי־הוא חלקו כי מי יביאנו לראות במה שיהיה אחריו
ושבתי אני ואראה את־כל־העשקים אשר נעשים תחת השמש והנה דמעת העשקים ואין להם מנחם ומיד עשקיהם כח ואין להם מנחם
ושבח אני את־המתים שכבר מתו מן־החיים אשר המה חיים עדנה
וטוב משניהם את אשר־עדן לא היה אשר לא־ראה את־המעשה הרע אשר נעשה תחת השמש
I said in my heart about the term sons of man, God chose them to see that they are beasts. For the case of the sons of men and the case of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other, and their spirit (ruach) is one to all. And the superiority of man over beasts is naught because everything is vanity. Everything goes to one place, everything went from the dirt and everything went back to the dirt. Who knows if the spirit of men went up and the spirit of the beast went down to the earth? And I saw that there is nothing better than a man rejoicing in his deeds, for that is his share, for who will bring him to see what will be after him?
And I returned and saw all the forces exerted under the sun, and there are the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter, and the force of the hands of their oppressors, and they have no comforter. And I realized that the dead who had already died are more than the living who are still alive. And above them, was the one who did not yet come into being, who did not see the evil deed which was done under the sun.
(Ecclesiastes 3:18-4:3)", "Up to here are the words of the wise, and the citation ends here. To better explain this, it should be noted that in this book it seems that the wise contradicts himself at every step,1There was a great controversy recorded in the Mishnah over whether to include the Book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) in the Biblical Canon (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5) because of the contradictions of rhetorical figures that require a classical interpretation of the received tradition that contradicts the hedonist arguments of Epicureans. Another interpretation along the same lines can be found in the Guide of Life, I, chapters 12 and 13 by R. Almosnino. see the example in Chapter 7, verse 3, where he says,
טוב כעס משחוק
Anger is better than laughter
(Ecclesiastes 7:3)
On the contrary in Chapter 7, verse 9, he says,
כעס בחיק כסילים ינוח
Anger abides in the chest of fools
(Ecclesiastes 7:9)
In Chapter 1,
כי ברב חכמה רב־כעס
In great wisdom there is great anger
(Ecclesiastes 1:18)
And in Chapter 11,
והסר כעס מלבך
And remove anger from your heart
(Ecclesiastes 11:10)
In Chapter 5,
טוב אשר־יפה לאכול־ולשתות
It is good to eat and drink
(Ecclesiastes 5:17)
And in Chapter 7,
טוב ללכת אל־בית־אבל מלכת אל־בית משתה
Better to go to a house of mourning than to a house of feast
(Ecclesiastes 7:2)
In Chapter 8,
ושבחתי אני את־השמחה
And I praise joy
(Ecclesiastes 8:15)
And in Chapter 2,
ולשמחה מה־זה עשה
And happiness, what is it for?
(Ecclesiastes 8:15)
In Chapter 6,
כי מה־יותר לחכם מן־הכסיל
What advantage does the wise have over the fool?
(Ecclesiastes 6:8)
And in Chapter 2,
שיש יתרון לחכמה מן־הסכלות
There is an advantage of wisdom to folly
(Ecclesiastes 2:13)
In Chapter 4,
ושבח אני את־המתים
And I praised the dead
(Ecclesiastes 4:2)
And in Chapter 9,
כי־לכלב חי הוא טוב מן־האריה המת
For the living dog is better than the dead lion
(Ecclesiastes 9:4)
In Chapter 9,
כי אין מעשה וחשבון ודעת וחכמה בשאול
For there is no work or account or knowledge or science in the grave
(Ecclesiastes 9:10)
And in Chapter 11,
ודע כי על־כל־אלה יביאך האלהים במשפט
And know that for all such things God will bring you to judgment
(Ecclesiastes 11:9)
But in Chapter 8,
אשר חטא עשה רע מאת ומאריך לו
the sinner will prolong his days doing bad
(Ecclesiastes 8:12)
Or, in Chapter 7,
ויש רשע מאריך ברעתו
The wicked endures in his evil
(Ecclesiastes 7:15)
ויש רשעים שמגיע אלהם כמעשה הצדיקים
There are wicked men who succeed as the righteous
(Ecclesiastes 8:14)" ], [ "15.2. It is seen how throughout the work one phrase contradicts another, and certainly, since no author with a minimum of wisdom contradicts himself so clearly and expressly, who doubts that this fault cannot be applied to the one whom God made wiser than all men? And although all these sentences can indeed be distinguished and reconciled, as I have done expressly and precisely in the third part of my Conciliator (1662), it is true that whoever will consider that book well, will see how the sage introduces there an Epicurean speaking, or at least proposing their sentence that he later clearly refutes. This is stated in what the atheists claim, because there is no doubt that the text speaks of the wicked and depraved, so the text says, without altering anything:
אמרתי אני בלבי על־דברת בני האדם
I said in my heart about the speaking of the sons of man
(Ecclesiastes 3:18)", "Solomon explains drastically saying, I said in my heart about the reason and opinion of the sons of man, that even if God had chosen men from all terrestrial creatures, I see that they become animals, and imagine themselves as such, since the same happens to men and animals: as one dies, so does the other die, and the spirit is one for all, and there is no advantage of man over the animal because everything is vanity; everything goes to the same place and everything is dust and everything returns to dust. Who is it then that knows the distinction between the spirit of man which certainly rises, and the spirit of the animal that descends to the earth? Therefore, I see that according to what they say, there is no better thing for a man than to rejoice in his works and give himself a good life, this would be his part, for who will bring him to see and think about what will be after him?", "This, then, is the cause that turns in my head and I see the violence that takes place under the sun, I see the tears of the abused without anyone to comfort them, nor do they have strength against their abusers...", "So here in these words, Solomon refers to the depraved judgment of some people who, after being made in the image of God, imagine themselves to be beasts. Likewise, he declares, there are not many who know the distinction between one spirit and another. And to make such an opinion true, there is nothing better than leading a good life, without worrying about what will happen next. And since this is the cause of all the violence and evils that exist in the world, once this is finished, the wise man utters his opinion, and continues,
ושבח אני את־המתים שכבר מתו מן־החיים אשר המה חיים עדנה וטוב משניהם את אשר־עדן לא היה אשר לא־ראה את־המעשה הרע אשר נעשה תחת השמש
And I realized that the dead who had already died are more than the living who are still alive,
And above them, was the one who did not yet come into being, who did not see the evil deed which was done under the sun.
(Ecclesiastes 4:2-3)", "The sentence referred to the Epicureans.2Epicureans refers to those Apikorsim, who among the three Aristotelian categories of goods (the truthful, the useful, and the delightful) lean towards the delight with their hedonist or atheist belief of only one life. But he (Solomon) understands something else: I have more esteem for those who have already died than those who are still living, and I value more than both of them the one who has not yet been. Here he alludes to the three states of the soul (as we noted in Chapter 12), of which he highlights the one that has not yet been, which is the soul that one had before coming into the world. And it cannot be explained otherwise, because it is not possible to estimate that which does not exist, nor is deprivation (non-being) better than being.3See Note 3 of the prologue of the translator.", "Let us now see the second passage; and let us start from the beginning. He says:
זה רע בכל אשר־נעשה תחת השמש כי־מקרה אחד לכל וגם לב בני־האדם מלא־רע והוללות בלבבם בחייהם ואחריו אל־המתים
כי־מי אשר (יבחר) [יחבר] אל כל־החיים יש בטחון כי־לכלב חי הוא טוב מן־האריה המת
כי החיים יודעים שימתו והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה ואין־עוד להם שכר כי נשכח זכרם
גם אהבתם גם־שנאתם גם־קנאתם כבר אבדה וחלק אין־להם עוד לעולם בכל אשר־נעשה תחת השמש
לך אכל בשמחה לחמך ושתה בלב־טוב יינך כי כבר רצה האלהים את־מעשיך
בכל־עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים ושמן על־ראשך אל־יחסר
ראה חיים עם־אשה אשר־אהבת כל־ימי חיי הבלך אשר נתן־לך תחת השמש כל ימי הבלך כי הוא חלקך בחיים ובעמלך אשר־אתה עמל תחת השמש
כל אשר תמצא ידך לעשות בכחך עשה כי אין מעשה וחשבון ודעת וחכמה בשאול אשר אתה הלך שמה
שבתי וראה תחת־השמש כי לא לקלים המרוץ ולא לגבורים המלחמה וגם לא לחכמים לחם וגם לא לנבנים עשר וגם לא לידעים חן כי־עת ופגע יקרה את־כלם
כי גם לא־ידע האדם את־עתו כדגים שנאחזים במצודה רעה וכצפרים האחזות בפח כהם יוקשים בני האדם לעת רעה כשתפול עליהם פתאם
גם־זה ראיתי חכמה תחת השמש וגדולה היא אלי
עיר קטנה ואנשים בה מעט ובא־אליה מלך גדול וסבב אתה ובנה עליה מצודים גדלים
ומצא בה איש מסכן חכם ומלט־הוא את־העיר בחכמתו ואדם לא זכר את־האיש המסכן ההוא
This is the evil in all that is done under the sun: The same case is for everyone. And also the heart of the sons of man is full of evil, and perversity in their hearts, in their lives, and then, when they are dead. Whoever joins the living has the hope that a living dog is better than a dead lion; since the living know that they will die. And the dead do not know anything, they have no more reward, for even the memory was forgotten. Likewise, their love, their hate, their envy has been lost, and forever they take no part in all that happens under the sun. Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine in good heart; for God wanted your deeds. May your clothes always be white, and let your head never lack perfume. Enjoy life with the woman you love all the days of your temporal life which He has given you under the sun - all the days of your time. For that is your share in life, in your craft that you exercise under the sun. Whatever it is in your reach to do, do it with all your power. For there is no action, no reasoning, no learning, no wisdom in the grave, where you are going.", "I reiterated and saw under the sun that the race is not won by the speedy, nor the battle by the strong, nor the bread by the wise, nor wealth by the intelligent, nor grace by the learned; for the hour of the encounter comes to all. And a man does not know his time, as fishes caught in the evil net, and as birds trapped in the snare, so are the sons of man caught at that bad time, when it suddenly falls upon them. This thing I saw too, (as) wisdom under the sun.", "There was a little city with few men in it, and a great king came to it, and he surrounded it and built big castles above it. And there was a poor wise man who saved the city with wisdom but nobody remembers that poor man.
(Ecclesiastes 9:3-15)", "Up to here are the words of the wise man. The explanation is obvious and clear. In the first verse, he laments that he has found great evil in everything under the sun; and some think that the same event happens to everyone, and above all that there is such evil in the hearts of men that emanates not only from the living but even more from the dead, who are defamed. Their sentence is contained in the following three verses, namely, he who joins the living has hope, because the living dog is better than the dead lion, and this is because the living, although they are ignorant, know that they have to die, but the dead, even though they are wise, know nothing, nor do they have more reward and there will be no recollection of their memory, nor of their love, hatred, envy, or any other passion, which takes place in everything that is done under the sun in the world.", "The next four verses contain their depraved customs, and as with this opinion, they gradually allow themselves to be carried away by all vices, so beginning with gluttony, the Epicureans and atheists say, Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine in good heart; do not worry about anything because God has wanted your works. This verse is followed by clothing and caring for the gift of the body, may your clothes always be white, and never lack perfume on your head. Then they allow themselves to go after lust, enjoy life with the woman you love all days of your time; live at your pleasure and joy. Finally, it says, whatever it is in your reach to do, do it with all your power. For there is no action, no reasoning, no learning, no wisdom in the grave, where you are going, and since no one has to ask you to give account for your actions, follow what your appetite will teach you. This is the doctrine of the Epicureans and atheists, and these are the acts to which they are led. This is continued with two other verses containing the reason that they use to prove their nefarious opinion, I reiterated and saw under the sun that the race is not won by the speedy, nor the battle by the strong, nor the bread by the wise, nor wealth by the intelligent, nor grace by the learned. ", "They all live the same event, and the worst of all is that suddenly without knowing their time, meaning the time of their death people are imprisoned like simple birds in the noose and fish in the net and with hooks. Well, how could anyone who sees this be persuaded that there is an account and judgment here? Or that there is something immortal in man? This is the sentence that atheists and Epicureans usually give as proof, as they proposed them." ], [ "15.3. The wise man then declares his true statement, and thus contradicts them: I also saw this, Science under the sun. There was a little city with few men in it, which means that having seen the statement of the Epicureans, he also saw another science, which for me is great and effective. He parabolically compares the human body to a small city. The Greeks call it a microcosm, a small world. In this city he says there are a few men; these undoubtedly are the bodily limbs. The small city is conquered by a great king, who builds his castles to lay siege against it. By this king, the ancient Sages understood the bad appetite (or inclination), as a great empire trying to dominate over reason. But he says that also in this city, there is a poor and wise man (the neshama or soul), who liberates it with his knowledge. And nobody remembers this poor man refers to the irascible, the reason, that has the fortune of a poor man,4See Note 3 of Chapter 1, for the definition of the irascible and concupiscible. In the metaphor of reason as the poor man's fortune, the image of the irascible is used to mean that no one listens to the poor, in the same way, that one cannot hear the irascible or inner passions. However, as something irascible, reason can free the body from materialistic hedonism, which is given the metaphor of the king. who is neither remembered nor heard, but this poor and wise man frees the human body, not only from the evils of this world and its depraved opinions, but even more so from the sorrows of the future.", "Others understand this literally, and say in one of the interpretations, according to the Epicurean, that the wise man has no advantage with his science, and now contradict themselves that perhaps he takes advantage of it greatly because although the city that is surrounded by a great king, is small with few soldiers, perhaps by the advice of that king, he is free.", "In Midrash Rut Ne’elam all this is explained in another way, because there, by the spirit of the animal that descends, is understood the soul of the impious man that descends into hell; and by the dead who do not know anything, is understood those who, living the life of irrational beings, do not notice what they were created for so that they are already counted as dead in their lifetime.", "Whether in one or the other explanation of these verses, the first interpretation fits more with the literal sense than the other good explanations. And the sense is clear.", "Having thus proven the immortality of the soul in many places in Ecclesiastes, who then doubts this? By any chance, can those who deny it be given any subterfuge? Does it not mention clearly, the dead who had already died are more than the living; idem, the day of death is better than the day of birth, idem, God will call you to account for all such things; idem, the spirit returns to the God who gave it; idem,
הלך האדם אל־בית עולמו
Man goes home to his world
(Ecclesiastes 12:5)", "So, he who wants to ignore these verses to immerse himself in the delights of this world, let him also adopt the other (verses) and say that anger is a laudable virtue, that there is nothing more excellent than eating and drinking; or say that the wise have no advantage over the ignorant, and other similar things that are also said there. But in truth no man affirms such things, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish a different interpretation of what sounds literal from what profane men are accustomed to understanding.", "It is necessary to give a different argument to these verses, because there are not many verses left, although the most appropriate ones that are understood without any difficulty are those that were already mentioned." ] ], [ [ "The truthful explanation is given to some verses in Job, and an epitome of the whole book is made.", "16.1. There is no doubt of the existence of Job in the world; and so in Ezekiel, Chapter 14, he is mentioned:
והיו שלשת האנשים האלה בתוכה נח דנאל ואיוב המה בצדקתם ינצלו נפשם נאם אדני יהוה
In case there were Noah, Daniel, and Job [in the city], only they would save their souls by being virtuous, says the Lord A.
(Ezekiel 14:14)", "And these three are mentioned. No other righteous could be named, as each one of them saw remarkable destruction: Job, that of his house; Daniel, his city of Jerusalem; and Noah, the destruction of the world. We also see that the (Biblical) history makes mention of his city, his property, his sons, and the name of his daughters; how he had an inheritance among his brothers, and finally, it tells the duration of his life, all of which induce that it happened. There is also no doubt that he endured the evils with great patience; and if it is to be believed by tradition, even today the Mohammedans contemplate with great devotion the tomb of the said Job in Constantinople.1The tradition of Job, as a native of southeastern Arabia, dates back several thousand years, in Salalah, Oman, once part of Constantinople, and the Ottoman empire.", "The only doubt is whether he wrote that book and if the story was true, and if the dialogues of his companions were true. The Sages say that Moshe wrote his book, along with the portion of Balaam and the portion of Job:
משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב
Moshe wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job
(Bava Batra 14b:12)", "And in truth it seems plausible, as Job lived during the time of Moshe; he was known to everyone as virtuous for his humility, charity, and exemplary life of a wealthy man, and known for the evils and the loss of his goods afterward since he was so rigorously afflicted by Satan, a demon that serves to cheat men, or by a wicked man as it is also said of Jeroboam, who was Satan to Solomon,
ויהי שטן
And there was a Satan (enemy)
(Kings 11:25)
Or,
ויקם יהוה שטן לשלמה
And a satan (enemy) arose against Solomon
(Kings 11:14)", "Moshe took the opportunity to deal with the issue of Divine Providence, and thus applied to each one of those men (who should be the most illustrious and well-known of their time) an opinion and a sentence that could be said in this matter.", "And because someone who is innocent and afflicted often says or thinks what he does not want to, he introduces Job, denying Providence with his pain and attributing all power to the fortune of the stars,2This refers to astrological determinism. This doctrine denies Divine Providence and miracles by considering all events ultimately predetermined by external and impersonal causes. Although some predeterminism can only be conceived from God's perspective, whose will is not subject to any change, it is inconceivable with the divine and natural properties of human beings. For more on this issue, see my translator's prologue in the translation of David Nieto's On Divine Providence or Universal Nature, where I mention Simon and Reuben discussing the question of free will and determinism on Rosh Hashanah; also Isaac Orobio's Philosophical Case, Chapter 3, IV, 3. cursing the day of his conception and birth, because it seemed to him that his evils were caused by the malevolent aspect that the stars influenced at that time, according to Chapter 9:
תם־אני לא־אדע נפשי אמאס חיי אחת היא על־כן אמרתי תם ורשע הוא מכלה
Although I am righteous, I do not know [the existence of] my soul, I hate my life. There is only one [life]; thus I say, it destroys the innocent with the guilty.
(Job 9:21-22)", "Finally, he writes that Job thinks there is no hope, even after death, denying the resurrection of the dead; according to this the ancients say:
התחיל מחרף ומגדף
Job began to blaspheme and curse
(Bava Batra 15b:4)
And there also,
איוב כופר בתחית המתים היה
Job was a heretic who denied the resurrection of the dead
(var. [1]Bava Batra 16a:16)", "In this sentence, as we have said, Moshe applies it to Job, judging that when he is tormented without cause, he can easily utter these words in his pain." ], [ "16.2. Having written this in this way, he introduces his interlocutors, applying to each one different opinions about Job's evils, where Eliphaz speaks first to condemn his sayings, and thus as a reward for having encouraged him and reprimanded him, he is surprised in his greatest misfortune; [2]and continues in Chapter 4:
זכר־נא מי הוא נקי אבד ואיפה ישרים נכחדו
כאשר ראיתי חרשי און וזרעי עמל יקצרהו
מנשמת אלוה יאבדו ומרוח אפו יכלו
Remember now, who is innocent and lost, and where are the righteous extinct, As I saw those who plow, [3]sow and reap wickedness, [4] Are lost from the breath of God and consumed by the breath of his nose.
(Job 4:7-9)", "[5]This is almost saying, you must not explain your evils with astrology because no righteous person is lost. He who sows wickedness reaps the same, and those who are lost are not lost by the forces of the stars, but rather by the breath and anger of the Lord.Refuting that opinion he [6]utters his own and so says below,
הן בעבדיו לא יאמין ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה
אף שכני בתי־חמר אשר־בעפר יסודם ידכאום לפני־עש
Behold, (the Creator) does not believe in his servants and blames his angels, Especially the inhabitants of clay houses, who are themselves made of earth and are crushed like moths.
(Job 4:18-19)", "He meant that evils and punishments come only through sins and that no one could be counted as righteous and at the same time condemn God's justice, as he did, because if God even reproaches the angels, all the more so can he blame man who is made of earth. What deeds can he do that are so meritorious without falling into error when he cannot even realize it.", "This was then the sentence that Moshe applied to Eliphaz. Job does not accept this, and as he feels innocent, he always continues with the same opinion, dealing with the vanity of man in his short days, and the little hope that remains after his death, for which[7] he affirms in Chapter 7:
מה־אנוש כי תגדלנו וכי־תשית אליו לבך
What is man that you make him so great and open your heart for him
(Job 7:17)", "Here he declares his opinion, not understanding Providence concerning natural laws, as Aristotle understood it. Another sentence adduces [8]Moshe on the matter, on behalf of Bildad, and it is that Job's evils were by way of permutation[9], and reward, that is, through these they will allow him a greater reward in the other world for the many goods, and so he says in Chapter 8:
אם־זך וישר אתה כי־עתה יעיר עליך ושלם נות צדקך
והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד
If you are pure and upright, he will awaken the Providence over you and do justice to your house. And at the beginning it will be minimal but it will be a lot in the end.
(Job 8:6-7)", "This was also the opinion of those who understood that a righteous person without sinning could suffer evils, only to increase the reward in the afterlife.", "Job also responds to this and reinforces his opinion by refuting the above, as he says in Chapter 9:
חיי אחת היא על־כן אמרתי תם ורשע הוא מכלה
Life, there is only one; thus I say, it destroys the innocent with the guilty
(Job 9:22)", "Almost saying, the same evils that we see the wicked suffer, those same evils we see the righteous suffer; they are one, how can one distinguish one from the other?", "There is still another sentence left so that everything that can be said on the matter is said; Moshe applies this sentence to Zophar, and it is that God does everything for his own pleasure, and the causes of his actions should not be investigated or inquired about the reason why he does this, and not that other[10]. Therefore, one must not inquire the way of his justice and the decree of his wisdom in his operations, because following from his substance and essence is what he wants to do, and our understanding is too short to reach the secret of his science. And because Job had denied the resurrection of the dead, the aforementioned Zophar begins, saying in Chapter 11,
בדיך מתים יחרישו ותלעג ואין מכלם
ותאמר זך לקחי ובר הייתי בעיניך
ואולם מי־יתן אלוה דבר ויפתח שפתיו עמך
ויגד־לך  תעלמות חכמה כי־כפלים לתושיה ודע כי־ישה לך אלוה מעונך
החקר אלוה תמצא אם עד־תכלית שדי תמצא
Your lies silence even the dead, you mock without being ashamed; In saying, “My doctrine is clear, and I was innocent in your eyes.” May God himself speak to you, and may he open his lips with you, And may He tell you the secrets of wisdom, that wisdom [12]is varied, and know that God forgets you because of your crime, Will you still inquire to find out if you can find enough[13]?
(Job 11:3-7)", "For all of which he concludes that God only works for his own pleasure and that the causes should not be investigated due to the greatness of His wisdom." ], [ "16.3. These are then the opinions that could be obtained about the evils of Job, and any other righteous man, and they are four. The first is the saying of Job denying Providence and the Resurrection applying to all astrology[14]. Eliphaz's second opinion, that everything is governed by Divine Providence, and that it gives evils for evils; and goods for goods. Bildad's third opinion, on permutation; and the fourth opinion of Zophar, of absolute approval. These views were each held later, and Job insists that he was innocent and that he did not deserve those evils until at last, he says the sentence:
וישבתו שלשת האנשים האלה מענות את־איוב כי הוא צדיק בעיניו
These three men ceased replying to Job, for he was righteous in his own eyes
(Job 32:1)", "For this reason, the fifth interlocutor Elihu is introduced, who, closing the matter, became irritated and condemned Job, since he justified [15]his sense of justice to be superior to God’s, and condemned the three companions because they did not find a sufficient answer. By condemning Job, he excuses himself [16]and then continues his sentence to give proof of Divine Providence through prophetic dreams. Thus, in Chapter 33, he says:
בחלום  חזיון לילה בנפל תרדמה על־אנשים בתנומות עלי משכב
אז יגלה אזן אנשים
In dreams, in a vision at night, when drowsiness falls on men, in naps on the bed, then it uncovers men's ears, etc.
(Job 33:15)
Then to the true opinion of Eliphaz, he adds the mystery of the transmigration, and thus he says,
הן־כל־אלה יפעל־אל פעמים שלוש עם־גבר
All these occurrences three times does God with man
(Job 33:15)
whereupon admirably the doubt is resolved by him, showing that Job, and other righteous men, can grieve for the sins committed in another body; or it means the three judgments of man that we mentioned earlier, in which the scales are balanced.3First, פעמים can allude to the body and the soul, with the meaning of these Two, q.v. Gen. 27:36, Num. 20:11; or in the latter the meaning of Occurrences[17], q.v. Lev. 25:8.", "Having done this, he continues to show the secrets of nature, speaking of plants, and animals, the nature of Providence that God has particularly with everything; and how the human intellect falls short in everything, and so much more in knowing and judging the Divine Providence. This last sentence was approved by God, who teaches Job the great mysteries of creation, revealing that horrendous animal, Behemot, the Leviathan fish, and other things that put human understanding in amazement and admiration. For whose sake Job repents after being convinced by such doctrine, as Moshe pretends, and thus he says in Chapter 42:
לשמע־אזן שמעתיך ועתה עיני ראתך
על־כן אמאס ונחמתי על־עפר ואפר
I heard You with my ears, but now I see with my eyes; Therefore I retract and comfort myself with dust and ashes.
(Job 42:5-6)", "For which the Lord, as Job has already repented, becomes angry with his companions, saying, You did not speak about me decently as my servant Job; and this because they were stuck with their own opinions, but Job could change and be led to the true one, as the ancients say,
אין אדם נתפס על צערו
A person is not caught for his grief
(var. Bava Batra 16b:3)
This means that he is not punished when he says something with the affliction he suffers, and as Job himself says in Chapter 6:
לו שקול ישקל כעשי והיתי במאזנים ישאו־יחד
כי־עתה מחול ימים יכבד על־כן דברי לעו
If my burdens were weighed and my distress on the scales they would weigh heavier than the sand of the sea, thus my words go wrong
(Job 6:2-3)", "This is the compendium of the Book of Job, in part, we have taken it from the erudite book, Guide for the Perplexed, Book 3, chapters 22 and 23:
ענין איוב הנפלא הוא מכת מה שאנחנו בו - רצוני לומר שהוא משל לבאר דעות בני אדם בהשגחה...", "The matter of the wonderful book of Job deals with what we are discussing; I would like to say that it is a parable to clarify the opinions that people have about Divine Providence...
(Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, III, 22:1)" ], [ "Thus it is seen how wisely Moshe spoke about Divine Providence. And from what we have said, it is evident that he does not make any difficulty when we believe that in those words Job denied the Resurrection of the Dead because his pain made him say what he did not understand, and in the end, he completely repented. And although in the same way Job expressly denies Providence, this is not why it should be understood that it is so, for the many reasons that are presented in the same book. And so too, not because Job denies the resurrection it means that it is so. This is also a debate between what is true or false. Rabbi Moshe (Maimonides) in his Epistle of the Resurrection (Ma’amar Tehiyyat ha-Metim) resolves this in another way by quoting Job saying,
כלה ענן וילך כן יורד שאול לא יעלה
Like a high cloud that descends so the one who goes below to the grave will not ascend.
(Job 7:9)", "ואיש שכב ולא־יקום עד־בלתי שמים לא יקיצו ולא־יערו משנתם
י שמים לא יקיצו
and man sleeps and will never rise, the heavens will not awake him, and he will not move me from his sleep
(Job 14:12)
there it is necessary to understand those sentences as the order of nature,
ואין מן הטבע שישוב האיש ההוא ויתהוה שנית אחר מותו ... ושהאדם לבדו נדבק בו השפע האלהי, והוא חייב שיהיה בו דבר עומד, לא יאבד ולא יפסד, אמנם גוף האדם יאבד כשאר אישי בעלי חיים כלם
It is not part of (bodily) nature that a person will return and be conscious again after his death ... Man alone is adhered to the divine influx and has to have in him something that remains, and does not perish nor become lost, although the human body will be lost like other living beings.
(Maimonides, Treatise on Resurrection II, 40)", "For naturally, the one who dies does not rise again, nor does he get up, but this does not mean that he denies the resurrection, since all this deals with the future miracle. We can also say that in the same case where Job denies the resurrection, the opposite is inferred. Because no one sets out to prove what even children know, that is, the dead do not rise. However, there he contradicted the received opinion, and says in Chapter 14:
אם־ימות גבר היחיה כל־ימי צבאי איחל עד־בוא חליפתי
If man died and lived again, every day of my time I would wait until the coming of my renewal
(Job 14:14)
— at the said Resurrection.", "Others still explain the verses differently, it does not seem fair to me to spend time looking for other interpretations, what is said is sufficient and effective to have this point sufficiently proven in this first book, and all the doubts that can be proposed against it were exposed.", "We conclude this book with appreciation.4This sentence comes from the Latin version: Concludimus itaque librum hunc primum cum apprecatione. The manuscripts on https://bavli.genizah.org don't have this version, so it may have been a mistake of the author", "יהי שם יהוה מברך מעתה ועד־עולם
Be the name of A. blessed Now and forever
(Psalms 113:2)", "Amen." ] ] ] }, "schema": { "heTitle": "על תחיית המתים", "enTitle": "On Resurrection of the Dead", "key": "On Resurrection of the Dead", "nodes": [ { "heTitle": "הקדמת המתרגם", "enTitle": "Translator's Introduction" }, { "heTitle": "דף השער", "enTitle": "Title Page" }, { "heTitle": "הקדשה למהדורה הלטינית", "enTitle": "Dedicatory Letter of the Latin Edition" }, { "heTitle": "הקדשה למהדורה הספרדית יהודית", "enTitle": "Dedicatory Letter of the Judeo Spanish Edition" }, { "heTitle": "הקדמה", "enTitle": "Prologue" }, { "heTitle": "", "enTitle": "" } ] } }