Halakhah sobre II Reyes 4:34

Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Book 1, chap 42, describes the occurrence of such a phenomenon in support of his contention that the term mavet is a homonym and that in biblical usage this term in certain places means "severe illness" rather than "death." In the narrative concerning Nabal's demise Scripture reports, "…and his heart died within him and he became hard as stone" (I Sam. 25:37), and then goes on to state, "And it came to pass after ten days and the Lord smote Nabal and he died" (I Sam. 25:38). Maimonides cites Andalusian authors who interpret the phrase "and his heart died within him" of the earlier passage as meaning "that his breath was suspended, so that no breathing could be perceived at all, as sometimes an invalid is seized with a fainting fit and attacks of asphyxia, and it cannot be discovered whether he is alive or dead, and in this condition the patient may remain one day or two."¹⁹This exposition of Maimonides’ position follows the interpretation advanced by Abarbanel in the latter’s commentary on the text of the Guide and appears to be the most facile analysis of Maimonides’ comments. Cf., however, Shem Tov, who sees the Andalusians as denying the miraculous resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath (I Kings 17:17) and claims that Maimonides himself accepted the position of the Andalusians. Narboni and Ibn Caspi also ascribe such views to Maimonides. Ibn Caspi attempts to show that Maimonides was herein following the talmudic interpretation of this narrative. According to Ibn Caspi, the talmudic exposition does not consider the described phenomenon to be a case of resurrection. Maimonides was severely (and, according to Abarbanel, erroneously) attacked by others for denying that the son of the woman of Zarephath was resurrected since these authorities view Maimonides’ position as being contradictory to the rabbinic interpretation of the relevant passages. Cf. the letter of R. Judah ibn Alfacha to R. David Kimchi in Koveẓ Teshuvot ha-Rambam (Lichtenberg, Leipzig, 1859), p. 29, and Teshuvot Rivash, no. 45. Cf. also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 338, who interprets Maimonides as accepting the resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath literally but denying Elisha’s resurrection of the son of the Shunamite. (II Kings 4:34–35).