Halakhah for Daniel 12:2

This is the topic of what “the sages of the truth” said here:⁹¹B. Sukkah 46b. The expression “sages of the truth” is an epithet for the Talmudic sages who received the Oral Torah, which is the truth, to explain the Written Torah. Rabbenu Bahya frequently employs this expression in his books (Chavel, p. 508). Come and see how the way of the Holy One Blessed be He is not the way of flesh and blood. For flesh and blood, an empty vessel can contain something, a full one cannot. But it is not so for the Holy One Blessed be He. The full vessel can contain, the empty one cannot, as it is said, “If only they would surely hear.”⁹²Ex 15:26. The explanation of this is that insofar as bodily things have measure and dimension, when they are empty they can filled, but when one fills it, they cannot contain any more since they are already filled to their capacity, and nothing with a capacity can contain something more than its capacity. But among the upper things, full contains, since it has no measured capacity.

Now I shall enlighten and illuminate for you the answer to this question. It is because when a person is taken up from this world to the world of souls, which is right as he dies, this is called k’vod Ha-Shem – “the Glory of theLord,”¹³⁸As is described in Is 58:8, when “Your Vindicator shall march before, and the k’vod Ha-Shem – the Glory (or Presence) of the Lord – shall gather you up.” (Chavel). and from there, the world of souls, the soul is elevated to take delight in tzrur ha-hayyim – “the bundle of life”¹³⁹From the expression in 1 Sam 25:28: “the soul … will be bound up in the bundle of life” (nefesh …tzrurah be-tzror ha-hayyim), which is used in the prayer for the dead El Male’ Rahamim to describe where the souls of the departed go. – which is called “netzah” – “forever” – like it is used in the verse “You will make known to me the path of life. In Your presence is perfect joy, delights are forever [netzah] in Your right hand.”¹⁴⁰Ps 16:11. And if it is fit to stay there forever, it stays there without a break, for this is what our rabbis z”l said,¹⁴¹B. Erubin 54a. “Every place where the words netzah, selah, and va-ed are used [in Scripture] it means without interruption forever.” And when the soul is not fit to stay there, but ought to receive what it deserves in the world of bodies measure for measure, you see it has to return to this world for the resurrection of the dead, to get its due with the body in the world of bodies. And this is why it is written, “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake.”¹⁴²Dan 12:2. It didn’t say “all of those that sleep,” but “many of those” – and they, the ones who are not fit to prolong their days in the “bundle of life” return in the resurrection of the dead and there receive their due, and concentrate on comprehending Him (may He be blessed), and are refined in the elevation of their comprehension and knowledge, until they are fit to return there, and after returning there they are elevated to the invisible world, which is what is written: “He [God] will lead us beyond death.”¹⁴³Ps 48:15.

And you need to understand the statement our rabbis z”l made: “The righteous who in time to come will live again do not return to their ‘dust,’ but rather will keep on lasting, as it is said, ‘And those who remain in Zion, and are left in Jerusalem…shall be called holy.’¹⁴⁴Is 4:3. Just as the Holy lasts forever, so the righteous in time to come will live and last forever, as they explained in a midrash in the Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin.¹⁴⁵B. Sanhedrin 92a: “Raba said: Whence is resurrection derived from the Torah? … Rabina said, [it is derived] from this verse, ‘And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’ (Dan 12:2.) And in another place they taught in a midrash: “The dead whom the Holy One Blessed be He will in time to come bring back to life do not return to ‘their dust,” but rather will last forever, and delight themselves in seven huppot – wedding canopies.¹⁴⁶B. Baba Batra 75a. And this is the explanation of the matter and the secret of the statement, for the decree of Scripture: “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return,”¹⁴⁷Gen 3:19. is only from the perspective of the original sin, but when sin is taken away and “He will destroy death forever,”¹⁴⁸Is 25:8. and the day “will return to its normal state [le-eitano] in the morning,”¹⁴⁹An allusion to the miraculous parting of the Red Sea in Ex. 14:27, playing on the verbal similarity between yom – “day” and yam – “sea.” I.e., Ex 14:27: “the sea [yam] returned to its normal state in the morning.” that is, the strength of the world,¹⁵⁰Because according to Mekhilta Be-Shalah on Ex 14:27, eyn eitano ela’ tokfo, wherever it says eitano, it means “its strength” – tokfo. and no one will be able to lead into sin any work of the hands of the Lord (may He be blessed), for the Accuser will be gone in the blink of an eye – therefore they do not return to the dust forever. For when sin is taken away and cancelled, so the decree is cancelled, and so they do not return to ‘their dust.” But even though they never return to their dust, you shouldn’t understand this to mean that their bodies keep existing as real flesh and blood, with muscles and bones, as we are now. But rather, they will have earned the capacity to take on some sort of transformation, but it won’t ever be returning back to their dust. Thus, it is necessary for anyone with a clear mind to understand, and not to deceive himself with the “king’s food” of his desires and “wine he drank,”¹⁵¹An allusion to Dan 1:5. nor be seduced by the sort of things fools and those stuck in the “slimy depths”¹⁵²Ps 69:2. of their ignorance are seduced by.

It is readily apparent that the question left unresolved in the Babylonian Talmud is neither resolved nor is it the subject of controversy in the Palestinian Talmud. In permitting immediate remarriage, R. Haggi does so only in situations in which status either as a widow or as a divorcée entails capacity to remarry. He is silent with regard to a situation in which an impediment to remarriage may exist by virtue of a possible levirate obligation and hence in which a determination of status as a divorcée rather than as a widow is crucial. R. Jose, of course, forbids remarriage in all instances because of the possibility that the husband may be restored to life. Rambam, Hilkhot Gerushin 9:11, takes note of the problem concerning remarriage in the face of a possible levirate obligation as formulated in the Babylonian Talmud and indicates that the question remains unresolved. In failing to indicate a barrier to remarriage in the absence of a possible levirate obligation, Rambam inferentially rejects the view of R. Jose. In rejecting the opinion of R. Jose, Rambam is consistent with his view that resurrection of the dead will occur only at the culmination of the messianic era.¹²R. Jose’s refusal to permit remarriage because of the possibility that “miracles befell him” and that the husband was restored to life appears to contradict the halakhic principle that notice need not be taken of improbable and unlikely contingencies.
The controversy between R. Jose and R. Ḥaggi can perhaps best be understood in light of the controversy between early rabbinic authorities with regard to the sequence of events which will unfold in the eschatological era. Rambam, in his Ma’amar Teḥiyat ha-Metim, and Ramban, in his Sha‘ar ha-Gemul, maintain that resurrection will take place subsequent to the advent of the Messiah and will usher in the period of the world-to-come. Sa‘adia Ga’on, in the seventh treatise of his Emunot ve-De‘ot, maintains that there will be two periods of resurrection: the righteous will be restored to life in the days of the Messiah; others will be resurrected subsequent to the Day of Judgment, marking the commencement of the period of the world-to-come. This is also the view of R. David ibn Zimra, Teshuvot Radbaz, no. 1,069 (vol. III, no. 644), and appears to be the position of Tosafot, Pesaḥim 114b, s.v. eḥad, as well. Cf., also, the position espoused by R. Abraham ibn Ezra in his commentary on Daniel 12:2.
Categorization of resurrection at the hands of a prophet as improbable, insofar as halakhic determinations contingent thereupon are concerned, appears to be incontestable and hence it may be assumed that even R. Jose assigns no halakhic import to that contingency. However, the advent of the Messiah is not only probable but certain. Accordingly, it appears to this writer that R. Jose espouses a view similar to that of Sa’adia Ga’on in maintaining that resurrection of at least a portion of Israel will occur at the time of the Messiah. Hence, he must consider the possibility that the Messiah may appear within the twelve-month period stipulated by the husband and the further possibility that the husband may be among those privileged to be restored to life during that period. R. Ḥaggi, in disagreeing with R. Jose, may well have adopted a position similar to that of Rambam and Ramban, viz., that resurrection will take place only in conjunction with the ushering in of the period of the world-to-come, a period in which corporeal and sensual activity will not occur. In rejecting R. Jose’s view, Rambam is consistent with the view regarding the time of resurrection expressed in his Ma’amar Teḥiyat ha-Metim.