Sunday, June 4, 2017

sources mekorot - Why is Techiyas HaMeisim not explicitly mentioned in the Torah?


Since believing that Techiyas HaMeisim is part of the Torah is a fundamental of Judaism (Mishna Sanhedrin Perek HaChelek, although the Rambam Hilchos Teshuva Chapter 3 doesn't emphasize the believing it is part of the Torah per se), why is this not in a clear verse in the Torah? Instead the Talmud in Sanhedrin works very hard to find a usable source at all.



I have heard of the Rambam's answer in Moreh Nevuchim, that the slaves leaving Egypt couldn't relate to the idea properly, but I'm wondering if there is another answer?



Answer



The Rabbeinu Bachya (citation coming) says the more fundamental and important a given idea or mitzvah is, the less the Torah stresses it. Shabbos which in the grand scheme of our history is huge gets barely a mention with a zachor and a shamor and a lo sivaaru and all 39 skilos get nothing. Karbanos which we only had for under nine hundred years, a vast minority of our timeline got a tremendous amount of attention in the Torah. One of his proofs was the fact that one of our ikrei hadaas, techias hameisim got a few rimazim and that was it.


No comments:

Post a Comment

periodic trends - Comparing radii in lithium, beryllium, magnesium, aluminium and sodium ions

Apparently the of last four, $\ce{Mg^2+}$ is closest in radius to $\ce{Li+}$. Is this true, and if so, why would a whole larger shell ($\ce{...