Who Says God Will Revive the Dead?

Although I have briefly referenced this article in the past, a recent exposure to the Gemara in question inspired me to reprint the whole thing again here.

A great many of Judaism’s central theological questions are largely ignored by the Talmud. You won’t find too much on God’s existence or the nature of His Unity by way of example. For most of these, I believe we’re expected to consult the Written Torah (Tanach) which contains enough useful material to satisfy our needs.

Which makes the Talmud’s treatment of the revival of the dead all the more strange. Not only is revival of the dead the subject of considerable Talmudic attention, but no less than eighteen distinct Biblical verses (quoted amidst the general discussion of Sanhedrin 90b, 91b, 92a, and elsewhere) are offered – one of them used in three different contexts – in response to those who might claim that the “revival of the dead” is not taught by the Torah.

But there’s something more. Some of the verses offered as proofs are rejected as weak and inconclusive. And then some of those are recycled and used again! Here’s an example:

The heretics (מינין) asked Rabban Gamliel: how do we know that God revives the dead? Rabban Gamliel replied: we know if from the Torah, from the prophets and from the writings (but the heretics did not accept his proofs). One can prove it from the Torah, as it is written (Deut. 31:16), “And God said to Moshe: behold you will lie with your fathers (i.e., Moshe will die) and rise up…”

(The heretics) replied, perhaps “rise up” – being ambiguous in its placement – should be read as part of the later part of the verse “…and this people will rise up and stray…” (Sanhedrin 90b)

Look up the verse yourself (ויאמר ד’ אל משה הנך שכב עם אבתיך וקם העם הזה וזנה אחרי אלהי נכר הארץ...). It’s hard to guess how Rabban Gamliel originally read this as a proof text. Nevertheless, despite its acknowledged ambiguity, the Talmud reuses Deut. 31:16 later on the very same page:

Romans asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiya: how do we know that God revives the dead and that He is aware of future (events)? He answered them: both can be learned from this verse, as it is said: “And God said to Moshe: behold you will lie with your fathers and this people will rise up and stray.”

(The heretics) replied, perhaps “rise up” should be read as part of the later part of the verse “…and this people will rise up and stray…” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiya replied: you can at least deduce half; that He knows future (events). (ibid)

And a third time!

It was also said (that) Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: how do we know that God revives the dead and is aware of future (events)? As it says: “behold you will lie with your fathers and rise up…” (ibid)

Perhaps Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiya and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai each drew on this particular proof independently of each other, somehow unconcerned by its weakness. But why should the Talmud – having twice acknowledged the problematic ambiguity – repeat it?

It is noteworthy that the question is consistently not “how do we know that God will revive the dead?” but “where in the written Torah is it stated?” This suggests that the “heretics” whose challenges inspire at least some of the Talmud’s proofs were specifically Sadducees, who claimed to reject only the Oral Torah while respecting the Written. Their position seems to have been that belief in the afterlife was an invention of the Oral Law. It was therefore crucial for the sages to demonstrate solid sources in the Tanach itself.

But still: eighteen?

Perhaps organizing them better will help us understand what’s going on.

The twelve authors of the proofs (three authored nine proofs between them, leaving nine other authors) are pretty much evenly split between the periods of the Tannaim (100BCE-200CE) and Amoraim (200-430CE – I classified the “Cleopatra” whose opinion is also quoted as a tanna more in consideration of her possible historical context than her scholarship). The proofs date from Rabban Gamliel all the way to Rav Ashi – a stretch of more than four hundred years.

We can divide the proofs into three categories: anachronisms, predictions and subtle inferences.

Anachronisms

Six of the proofs are built on Torah verses that describe historical figures engaged in activities that could only occur after their deaths. For instance:

And you will give from it a Teruma of God to Aharon the priest (Numbers 18:28)

The Levites are here instructed to offer to Aharon the priest one tenth out of the tithe they receive from the harvests of regular Jews – not to his descendants, but to Aharon himself. Now, since Aharon died before the Jews entered Israel (and thus before they had farms), this gift could refer to a time when Aharon will be brought back to physical life. Although, having said that, it could also suggest that gifts to Aharon’s descendants are equivalent to his have received them directly - not unlike the legal obligation to pay debts to descendants of deceased creditors.

Three of these six anachronisms refer to individuals (Moshe, Aharon and Joshua), two to our national ancestors (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and one to prophets in general.

Predictions

Of the nine proofs of this category, three refer to individuals and six are general. Here’s an example:

Ravina said (we can learn) from here (Daniel 12:2): “And many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth will awake, these for eternal life and those to shame and disgrace.”

Inferences

The final three proofs are verses that imply the existence of revival of the dead, even if they are not explicit. Here’s one:

For it says (Numbers 15:31): “This soul will surely be cut off (הכרת תכרת), its sin is upon it” …הכרת (refers to) this world and תכרת (refers to) the next.

All of which is just another way of admitting that I can’t see much of a pattern here. Why did the Talmud include all eighteen proofs (and why, beyond those, the repetitions)? Why did later authorities feel the need to add their own proofs despite their surely being aware of those that already existed? Why were some proofs included despite their admitted weaknesses?

I just don’t know. But I might nevertheless be able to suggest something that could make the whole exercise worth our while.

Revival of the dead is an important Torah principle that had come under sustained attack from outside the traditional Jewish community. It’s reasonable to assume that loyal Jews struggled with the problem, seeking to clarify the matter for themselves and their families. The sages responded, each one presenting the kind of argument that he felt would work best for the Jews of his time and place. Knowing that the Jewish people faced a long and troubled future in exile, the Talmud collected all the proofs they had in the hope of satisfying as many subsequent doubts as possible.

But at the same time the rabbis realized that no proof could ever be 100% effective, 100% of the time. To make that clear, and thereby ensure that no intellectually disappointed Jew would ever reject the principle because of one perceived flaw, the Talmud included the four weaker proofs along with their counter-arguments, as if to acknowledge that they were aware that not everyone would be impressed with any one of these approaches. In one case, they even reused a “flawed” proof, saying that (so to speak) “this won’t work for for every audience, but it could someday prove useful for someone.”

But why bother? What value is there in eighteen weak proofs? A thousand times zero is still zero.

Ultimately, it is not Biblical hints that underly our confidence that God will revive the dead (or at least those who deserve it). It’s because our Oral Law unambiguously establishes the principle (see the first mishna to this chapter of Sanhedrin – the very mishna that sparked our discussion). The eighteen proofs – individually or as a unit – might therefore not be critical to the Torah process, but they can help win an argument or bolster the faith of someone who would otherwise struggle. That alone justifies their inclusion.

But their inclusion also communicates a broader message: there is certainly plenty of evidence to support Torah principles like revival of the dead – enough evidence, in fact, to make their belief a very wise choice. Nevertheless absolute, black-and-white proof that will consistently score in front of any audience is a mighty rare breed.

And that, our Gemara seems to be telling us, is a normal part of life.