We will approach this famous topic from the vantage point of
the Rambam via a seemingly unrelated discussion: Why did the
Rambam list the belief in the resurrection of the dead as
one of the Thirteen Articles of Faith? Why is this ikkar
on a par with G-d's existence, prophesy, Torah from
Shomayim, and reward and punishment in order for a Jew to be
considered among the Jewish people?
Fortunately, we don't have to speculate. Although the Rambam
provides virtually no elaboration of this ikkar in his
Commentary on the Mishna where he originally
formulated these ikkarim, nor in the Mishneh Torah,
nor in the Moreh Nevuchim, he actually devoted more
writing on this ikkar than any other.
In his Ma'amar al Techiyas Hameisim, the Rambam put to
rest any suggestion that he did not believe in a physical-
bodily resurrection of the dead. The idea that he did not
believe in that may have arisen because he devoted so little
writing to it and so much writing to the non-corporeality of
the World-to-Come. Apparently, people mistakenly believed
that the Rambam conceived of a spiritual resurrection with
his spiritual World-to-Come. It is in fact difficult to
understand logically why there should be a physical
resurrection for the righteous, if the ultimate reward will
anyway be experienced completely on the spiritual plane.
The Rambam said explicitly that he believed in a physical
resurrection and also explained why a physical resurrection
of the dead is such a core tenet of our belief.
There is probably no greater violation of nature than a
resurrection. Changing water to blood, or sticks to snakes
are mere (Egyptian) parlor tricks in comparison. There is no
natural or even conceptual way to explain why it should
occur. And unless you witness it with your own eyes, or hear
about it from reliable witnesses, it is completely a matter
of faith.
The Rambam then says that the belief in a physical
resurrection serves as the litmus test for belief in all the
miracles of the Torah. If one feels the need to allegorize
the scant verses in Tanach that predict the final
resurrection, we have to be very concerned about his
motives.
Why is he incredulous? If the Novi is a reliable transmitter
of the word of Hashem and he says that there will be a
physical resurrection, why should a person doubt it?
The frightening truth is that there are many people who
think that violations of nature are impossible. Scientific-
minded people who deny any reality that cannot be observed
or measured by the physical senses (or sensors) have a real
philosophical problem with miracles.
This denial is attributed by the Rambam to Aristotle's
heretical belief in eternal and immutable matter. Aristotle
believed that the laws of nature are absolute and cannot be
broken by any power.
This then leads to a denial in Hashem's creation of physical
matter and its natural laws -- yeish mei'ayin -- which
is ultimately a breach in the first and fourth ikkarim
of the Rambam.
In short, to deny the possibility of a physical resurrection
by Hashem, which the Rambam says is a complete and utter
violation of the natural realm, is to deny Hashem's
omnipotence.
History Repeats Itself
It is ironic that once again in our times, the Rambam has
been used by contemporary Jewish authors as a source for
asserting that Hashem does not interfere with the laws of
nature in principle. All miracles described in Tanach,
they say, should be interpreted as somehow conforming to
natural law. (Don't ask me how they manage to do this.)
To ascribe this view to the Rambam they overlook the
Rambam's Letter on the Resurrection and emphasize two places
in his commentary to the maseches Ovos. The first is
in the eighth chapter of the Rambam's long introduction to
that masechta, called the Shemoneh Prokim, where
the Rambam deals with conflicts between man's free-will and
Hashem's foreknowledge.
The second is in maseches Ovos itself in Chapter 5
Mishna 5 which lists ten wondrous creations that were
brought into existence just before the onset of the very
first Shabbos of creation.
In these places the Rambam briefly explains that all future
irregularities in the natural behavior of matter were pre-
programmed into nature at the very beginning. This is taken
by some readers to mean that natural law is absolute and can
have no exceptions. This of course plays well with a secular
audience which feels uncomfortable with the notion of
supernatural miracles.
Rabbeinu Bachya to the Rescue
Rabbeinu Bachya is indispensable here in two ways. First, he
describes in detail the critical hashkafic failure of
people who, out of their deep respect for and fascination
with science, attempt to explain various miracles of the
Torah in natural terms.
He explains in his introduction to parshas Mas'ei in
Bamidbar chap. 33: King Shlomo (Mishlei 4:7)
said: At the beginning of wisdom, acquire Wisdom. Before any
other wisdoms, acquire the wisdom of Torah . . . "It was for
this reason that Sholom Hamelech o"h said here, "At
the beginning of wisdom, acquire Wisdom." For if a person
does not first study the wisdom of the Torah and does not
see the Torah's descriptions of the signs and wonders
[mofsim] and the gigantic well-publicized miracles, it
is likely that he will be drawn after the natural and will
believe in an eternal universe. That is why nature is given
the name it has ["teva"] since it will sink
(yitba) a person in its depths and he will descend to
the nethermost pit if he is not careful with it. It is like
one who comes to dive in the deep parts of the ocean but
knows not how to swim, and drowns.
"So too, a person is likely to be skeptical based on his
familiarity with the wisdom of teva (science)
regarding the signs and wonders that were performed by Moshe
for the Jews. He will only believe in natural events that
can be perceived by the eye. And he will corrupt the path of
emunoh by asserting that the miracles in the
wilderness were natural events and were not miraculous . . .
[And he will say that perhaps they were able to sustain
themselves through natural processes.] . . . Thus in order
to uproot this corrosive view and to instill belief in these
great wonders [mofsim], the Torah comes to mandate
that a person must acquire its wisdom before any other
discipline and it enlightens our eyes and tells us that that
desert was not like other deserts [where people live all the
time] . . . and by nature a man could not live there even
one day and certainly not a great people of men, women and
children . . ."
Second, in his commentary to that mishna in Ovos
5:5 mentioned above, Rabbeinu Bachya gives us the vital
background to understand the Rambam's necessity for
concluding that miracles are pre-programmed into nature at
creation.
He explains that miracles in history can easily make an
impression that needs to be carefully avoided. We should not
attribute the unnatural intervention of Hashem in the
physical world as reflecting a change in Hashem Himself.
Hashem's plan for the world needs no later adjustments to
respond to man's free-willed actions.
"There is nothing new under the sun," says King Shlomo. If a
miracle required a new creation by Hashem, says Rabbeinu
Bachya, it would imply that Hashem's eternal will was
altered chas vesholom by the unfolding of events and
He needed to correct the course with a miraculous
intervention.
Of course, it is obvious that this has nothing to do with
the idea that the laws of nature are absolute. That notion
was already discredited by both the Rambam and Rabbeinu
Bachya themselves above. On the contrary. Hashem in His
infinite wisdom has built in all the numerous
exceptions to physical law from the beginning of time.
Of course all miracles can and will defy natural law; the
only issue is how that defiance is orchestrated. The Rambam
simply says that it was orchestrated in anticipation of
history, and not as an ad hoc response to it.
