The Rambam’s position on this issue, however, is very unclear. He believes that the greatest pleasures can be achieved only by disembodied souls. Having a body is a disability that prevents the soul from achieving full closeness to God. Why, then, would a righteous person ever want to be resurrected? If his soul goes directly to olam ha-ba when he dies, then it would have to leave the ultimate bliss of olam ha-ba in order to be resurrected. How could leaving ultimate bliss and regaining the disability of physical existence be considered a desirable reward? This conundrum has puzzled the interpreters of the Rambam from his lifetime until this very day.
There are two general approaches to understanding the position of the Rambam. The Raavad (glosses to Hilkhot Teshuva 8:2) accuses the Rambam of maintaining that there is no such thing as physical resurrection of the dead.[2] Other contemporary thinkers also interpreted the Rambam this way, but unlike the Raavad, they agreed with this position and preached publicly that there would be no physical resurrection, invoking the authority of the Rambam.[3] According to this interpretation, the Rambam never explained the details of techiyat ha-meitim because he did not actually believe in physical resurrection. Rather, whenever techiyat ha-meitim is mentioned in Tanakh or Chazal, it is a metaphor for the continued existence of the soul after one’s physical death. Resurrection means not that the dead will come back to life, but rather that their souls will continue to live eternally in olam ha-ba.
In Iggeret Techiyat Ha-Meitim, the Rambam's essay about the resurrection of the dead, he expresses surprise at the accusation that he does not believe in physical resurrection. How could he not believe in resurrection if he counted it as one of the thirteen principles of faith?! Why, then, does he not explain it thoroughly or give it prominence in his works?
No comments :
Post a Comment
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.