Sunday, November 08, 2009

Does a Non-philosophical Person Gain Rights to the World To Come (Olam Haba)? (Part 3 in a series)

At the end of the first four chapters in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah where Rambam give a concise summary of Physics and Metaphysics from a Jewish theological perspective, he legislates –

ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר.

And I say that one should not promenade in the Pardes only once one has filled his stomach with meat and bread. Meat and bread is a metaphor for knowing the clarification of what is forbidden and permissible and other such matters about the other [in addition to the five discussed here earlier] Mitzvot. Although the sages refer to these matters as a small thing, for the sages said “great matter is the workings of the chariot” and a small matter is the discussion of Abaye and Rava, they still should come first. They settle a persons mind and additionally they are the great good that HKBH bestowed to the inhabitants of this world, for them to inherit Olam Haba. All, adult and child, man and woman [note: woman too], a person with a broad mind or one with a limited one, can know it.

I have discussed this Halacha in the context of the preceding ones here . In the context of the current discussion, I would like to focus in on Rambam’s ontological explanation of “what is forbidden and permissible and other such matters about the other Mitzvot”. From a human perspective, they are “meat and bread” but from an ontological one they are “the great good that HKBH bestowed to the inhabitants of this world, for them to inherit Olam Haba.” The placement of this Halacha is quite interesting too, at the end of the first chapters of MT that deal with Mitzvot that are intellectual rather than practical and presents as an introduction and transition to the practical Mitzvot that follow in the rest of MT. It says that knowing how to do the Mitzvot well [clarification of what is forbidden and permissible] (and I assume doing them), can be accomplished by all [adult and child, man and woman] thus, they all will inherit Olam Haba. Again, we see Rambam clearly telling us that Olam Haba is not dependent on intellectual apprehensions but rather a result of keeping the practical Mitzvot. There is however a caveat, not here but in Hilchot Teshuvah, where Rambam conditions proper actions on correct ideas. In Chapter 3 he discusses the process of divine judgment, Halachot that I find very difficult to understand though I hope to one day, and after a lengthy detailed exposition, he ends as follows: (Translation courtesy of Jonathan Baker. The translation is not ideal but will have to do for my purpose here).

שכל ישראל יש להן חלק לעולם הבא, אף על פי שחטאו--שנאמר "ועמך כולם צדיקים, לעולם יירשו ארץ" (ישעיהו ס,כא); ארץ זו משל--כלומר ארץ החיים, והוא העולם הבא. וכן חסידי אומות העולם, יש להן חלק לעולם הבא.

For every Jew has a share in the World to Come even if he sinned, for it is written, "Your people also shall be righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever". The word `land' here refers to the Land Of Life, namely the World to Come. Similarly, pious gentiles also have a share in the World to Come.

Thus, even those that divine justice found guilty and therefore do not expect longevity in this physical world, do retain a part in Olam Haba as long as they are not one of those enumerated in the next Halacha.

יד [ו] ואלו שאין להן חלק לעולם הבא, אלא נכרתין ואובדין, ונידונין על גודל רשעם וחטאתם, לעולם ולעולמי עולמים: המינים, והאפיקורוסים, והכופרים בתורה, והכופרים בתחיית המתים, והכופרים בביאת הגואל, והמשומדים, ומחטיאי הרבים, והפורשים מדרכי ציבור, והעושה עבירות ביד רמה בפרהסיה כיהויקים, והמוסרים, ומטילי אימה על הציבור שלא לשם שמיים, ושופכי דמים, ובעלי לשון הרע, והמושך עורלתו.

The following types of people have no share in the World to Come, and are cut off, destroyed and excommunicated for ever on account of their very great sins and wickedness. An infidel; a heretic; one who denies the Torah; one who denies that there will be a Resurrection; one who denies that there will be a Redemption; one who converts from Judaism; one who causes a lot of people to sin; one who withdraws from communal ways; one who publicly sins in a defiant way like Yehoyakim did; an informer [against Jews]; one who instills fear in the congregation but not in the Name of God; a murderer; one who relates lashon Harah; and one who pulls back his foreskin [in order to cover his brit Mila].

It would be interesting to analyze in detail the commonality, if there is one, of those listed as forfeiting their Olam Haba. However looking at the list we get a clear sense that they relate to incorrect ideas about either God, society or the Jewish people. The striking thing however is the presentation. Rambam, basing himself mainly on the Mishna in Sanhedrin, does not say that one who believes in x, y and z will attain Olam Haba. The presentation takes a negative stance. One who has incorrect ideas whose actions under regular circumstances would be seen as righteous in the eyes of the divine judgment, is now found wanting. That again confirms that the Mitzvah act itself, as long is it is not based on an incorrect notion, is enough to warrant Olam Haba.

To understand the relationship of doing a Mitzvah with Olam Haba, we must first discuss the different categories of Mitzvot and their goal, how and why ethical and moral Mitzvot are different from general ethics and morality and finally the relationship of Olam Haba and our own physical existence. As you can see, this subject is far from exhausted and I plan to develop these ideas.

10 comments:

  1. Bravo, David, Bravo indeed.

    Allow me to connect our discussion with Hagyan to this post, rather than continue in the previous one. Here is my response to Hagyan.

    Astronaut Greg Chamitoff was looking at his home from above as seen here. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap081230.html. As he noted the life giving character of the clouds he saw outside, Greg started musing about a lecture on Braysheet he had heard on tape from Einstein. The lecture was entitled: "The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe". Astronaut Greg Chamitoff began to muse on the Rashi regarding the first rains upon Earth and wondered if perhaps this Rashi might be making the same point as Einstein. Yes, Rashi was referring to a Divine education to Adam about the very topic Einstein was talking about! But, he wondered, what kind of phenomenon of "lack of rain" was Rashi suggesting as the trigger for human decision making about the friendliness of the universe?

    Greg mused at first that perhaps Rashi was thinking of a desert, perhaps something like Death valley as shown here. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html. Greg realized, however , that a desert is not a good illustration of Rashi's intent. Though of course lacking in water, a desert is not a potential site of a Garden of Eden. No, Rashi intent was a drought condition of a fertile area, not a desert! Specifically, Rashi must have been referring to an area suffering from agricultural drought as explained here.
    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00477/NatDisasterPages/Heidi%2520Draught/drought/drought.jpg&imgrefurl=http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00477/NatDisasterPages/Heidi%2520Draught/drought/droughtclassification.htm.htm&usg=__WuuABCLB5_d6M8EZvqxMzioxfQQ=&h=300&w=450&sz=36&hl=en&start=17&um=1&tbnid=tmjbNQmbzr-reM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddrought%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1


    Yes thought Greg, that would be a beautiful illustration of Divine education. If Adam were to be put into an area suffering from agricultural drought, he would muse on Einsteins great decision. Is the Universe a hostile place in which I will die of thirst? Or will the drought break in time for me to collect mushrooms and and thrive? A friendly universe would act in line with my assumption that there would be rain and mushrooms and eventually a Garden. This would be a universe that tended not only to human physical needs, but more importantly, gave us educationally valuable experiences. Then there was rain.

    1. Is this musing about the friendliness of the Universe a הרגשה about the סיבה הצוריי ?

    2. Would Adam, as Greg conceives him, be ready for the divine education in Gan Eden?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rabbi Sacks,

    (This comment is not an answer to your questions.)

    I do not think it is entirely tangential to this discussion to quote from Gregory Chamitoff's official biography page at NASA [!] ...

    "Recreational interests include scuba diving, backpacking, flying, skiing, aikido, magic [!!] and guitar."

    You can also note on that page that he has completed a "gold plated" scientific education.

    You can't make this stuff up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: my previous comment ...
    I've had two follow-up reactions:

    1. Perhaps I was hasty by not interpreting the English word "magic" as a שם משותף.


    2. But then: What if I had read in Dr. Chamitoff's biography that he derives enjoyment from cultivating his skills in sophistry, as opposed to cultivating his skills in sophistical refutations?

    Thoughts? Anyone know the הלכה on this?

    ReplyDelete
  4. א לא לנו יהוה, לא-לנו: כי-לשמך, תן כבוד--על-חסדך, על-אמיתך.
    ב למה, יאמרו הגויים: איה-נא, אלוהיהם.
    ג ואלוהינו בשמיים-- כול אשר-חפץ עשה.
    ד עצביהם, כסף וזהב; מעשה, ידי אדם.
    ה פה-להם, ולא ידברו; עיניים להם, ולא יראו.
    ו אוזניים להם, ולא ישמעו; אף להם, ולא יריחון.
    ז ידיהם, ולא ימישון--רגליהם, ולא יהלכו; לא-יהגו, בגרונם.
    ח כמוהם, יהיו עושיהם-- כול אשר-בוטח בהם.
    ט ישראל, בטח ביהוה; עזרם ומגינם הוא.
    י בית אהרון, בטחו ביהוה; עזרם ומגינם הוא.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My point being that for one who is ניכר as not Shomer Mitzvot, one should assume the worst unless proven otherwise. The exact opposite of one who is shomer mitzvot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rabbi Sacks,

    Thanks for that clarification.

    As I actually find the terms "מצווה" and "שמירת המצוות" used in speech they are terribly equivocal. In my earlier comments here and here I wanted to learn to which phenomena you applied these terms.

    Such is also my approach to the "containing" discussion about עולם הבא: because, in things, חיי העולם הבא is a consequence, subject to the right conditions, of עשיית המצוות, and עשיית המצוות precedes חיי העולם הבא in life-experience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hagyan

    Building upon the illustration of Mitzvat t'filla from above. Adam, recognized the potential for receiving Educational and Material Good from God, intrinsic to his circumstance of Need.

    I would propose that every Mitzva is an extension of this. A Mitzva is an act which makes Nikkar the potential for receiving Good from God, in the essential human circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think I will now await answers to my questions from Hagyan and David's response to Hagyan.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rabbi Sacks,

    I am still working on assigning meanings to your speech.

    Do you know where I can find the text of Einstein's "lecture"?

    Googling serves up: (1) עע"ז of the "Gaia" type, who love the quotation; and (2) other people who seek the source of the quotation, but can't find out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. P.S. The Rashi under discussion is also much-beloved by the above-mentioned עע"ז.

    ReplyDelete