Professional Documents
Culture Documents
One Jew, Two Opinions: Rabbinic Theology through the Lens of Abraham Joshua
Heschel1
A Course on Rabbinic Theology Intended for High School Students, Grades 9-12,
Prepared by Ariel Beery
1
Note: These topic summaries are based upon lecture and reading notes from the class on Rabbinic
Theology taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker at the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Fall of 2005.
About the Course
One Jew, Two Opinions: Rabbinic Theology through the Lens of Abraham Joshua
Heschel, is an adaptation for a High School audience of the argument made by Abraham
Joshua Heschel in his book Torah min-Shamayim, and of the issues discussed in the class
taught about the book by Rabbi and Professor Gordon Tucker at the Jewish Theological
Seminary in the Fall of 2005. The goal of the course is similar to the goal we can assume
Heschel himself set concerning his book: to challenge readers and participants in Jewish
life to reappraise their assumptions pertaining to the foundations of rabbinic Judaism, and
The materials included in this packet draw on the sources cited by Heschel as he
made his arguments concerning competing rabbinic worldviews, and at times the sources
are also drawn from Prof. Tucker’s translation of Heschel, Heavenly Torah (cited later as
HT), since Heschel’s argument is often made best in his own words.
Methodology: The teacher begins the class with a quick review of the topic for the day,
distributes the worksheets (included after every lesson overview), and goes over the
contents very briefly. Students are broken into chevrutot, groups of two being best, and
given ten to fifteen minutes to review the sheets. Each chevruta is assigned responsibility
for presenting one text on the sheet in reference to the questions framing the lesson and in
relation to the other readings on the sheet. Multiple groups may be assigned the same
text. After their group study time is over, the class reconvenes, and groups are asked to
present their readings of the texts. The teacher’s role in the ensuing discussion is to
continually reconnect the discussion to the competing theologies that Heschel identifies,
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 2
and the perspectives they bring to bear, with the help of the introduction to each class and
Order of Syllabus:
Lesson 5: The World to Come – Death and Reunion or Life in the Now
Lesson 11: Law as an End or a Means – Halakha and the Jewish Way
*A Note on Citations: In order to provide students with as much information possible for follow-up after
class, I have attempted to include as much citation information as possible on the sheets. Since there are
space restrictions, however, I was forced to make certain abbreviations which should be simple enough for
students to remember. Thus, BT is Babylonian Talmud, HT refers to Gordon Tucker’s translation of Torah
Min’Shamayim, entitled in English Heavenly Torah, and so on. Translations have been taken from the
Socino edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Jacob Neusner’s translations of Avot and the Psikta d’R’Kahane
and the Mekhilta d’R’Ishmael—with minor modifications as based on my personal understanding of the
passages.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 3
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 4
General Background:
In the second century C.E., a number of factions in the Jewish community of the
Land of Israel wrestled with ways to adapt the Jewish way of life to a world without a
Temple, which had been destroyed by the Roman legions in 70 C.E. One of these groups,
the Pharisees, had grown in strength during the end of the Second Temple period and
developed theological tools to grapple with both the metaphysical and physical
ramifications of the Temple’s loss. Abraham Joshua Heschel, who served as Professor of
Jewish Ethics and Mysticism at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America from 1945
to 1972 and was one of the foremost Jewish figures of the last century, identified two
paradigms of theology amongst the Pharisaic movement, one represented by Rabbi Akiva
ben Joseph and the other by Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha. To these two Heschel gives the
universe, on a human being’s access to God, what the ideal relationship a human being
can have with God is, and what is the bottom-line for Judaism. For Akiva, human beings
were to have a more personal relationship with their Creator. “Love God with all your
Heart and with all your Soul” (Deut 6:5) was Judaism’s bottom line, leading him to
follow the classic teaching of Rabbi Hillel that the “Torah on one foot” is to “Love your
neighbor as you love yourself” in recognition that both your neighbor and yourself are
creations of God. Moreover, God loved Israel so much that God decided to join them on
earth and dwell among them. Thus, God became immanent – that is, entered the world of
human comprehension – and granted Israel God’s own instruction manual and partner in
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 5
creation, the Torah, which is a perfect book with each dot and preposition indicating
Ishmael, on the other hand, taught that God was an infinite being,
incomprehensible to humans. In a word, transcendent. God was to be loved, but that love
different. The Torah was God’s gift to humans, a translation of the eternal truths into
human tongue intended to be understood by the Children of Israel at a specific date and
time, that is upon the Exodus from Egypt as Israel stood at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Thus,
the Torah speaks in human language, and is meant to convey specific rules and
understandings to enable humans to live good lives. At the basis of this system is
Ishmael’s bottom line assumption: all of the commandments were given in order to
prevent Israel from sliding into idol worship. Believing in one God, with no other gods
before God, is, to Ishmael, the key to living a Jewish life. And since all of the
commandments have this one unified purpose, there is no way to teach the Torah on one
It is with these two paradigms as tools that Heschel takes on the major theological
questions of the ages, and shows how traditional Judaism can answers each in more than
one way.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 6
Lesson 1: Finding Meaning in the Text -- Connecting to God Through Exegesis
Questions to guide discussion: Is the Torah divinity itself or the communication of the
divine to humans in human tongue? How does that affect how we read it? What
Background: Exegesis as a mode of connecting with the divine is a Second Temple era
development. The word doresh, at the root of the exegetical style of rabbinic Judaism
known as midrash, originally meant “to beseech” or “to inquire,” as exemplified in the
story of Rebekah: “She went to inquire [l’drosh] of the Lord, and the Lord answered her”
(Gen 25:22). This usage persisted throughout the early history of Israel, and was
especially prevalent during the time of the Prophets. By the return of the Children of
Israel to the Land in the time of Ezra, however, the Voice of God was no longer apparent,
leading to those who would inquire of God’s will to search for hints in the Torah. Ezra
was the first in the Jewish tradition to transfer the luminosity of God into the text: his
Akiva and Ishmael, inheritors of this tradition of access to the divine, had different
styles of confrontation. Akiva taught that there was no superfluous word or letter or dot in
the Torah. If the Torah is a stand-in for God, it is perfect in all of its ways, and ever
message that the plain-reading of the text itself could not contain. For example, a
repetition of a word such as “cut” (l’krot) in the phrase “the man will be cut off…” (in
Hebrew, “krot ikaret ha-Ish”) is read by Akiva as indicating that the person will be cut off
in this world and in the world to come. By seeing the Torah in this light, students of
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 7
Akiva saw the Torah as a timeless entity, independent of the time and place given, each
letter bearing metahistorical significance. The Torah was a divine being, each word an
angelic messenger.
Ishmael, on the other hand, tended to teach that the Torah was written in the language
of the people, to be understood by them as simply read. Ishmael say that sometimes the
doubling of a word is just the doubling of a word—a style of speech that is used to make
the information easier to understand by humans. He did allow for certain types of deeper
reading into the text, but such deeper reading had to correspond to thirteen rules he
developed, and the use of the rules led to a straight-forward and rather logical system of
reading. This worldview, therefore, saw the Torah as a document of laws given to a
society with specifically set conceptual categories that were to be first understood before
the text itself could be mined for meaning. His rules helped those in future times to
understand the way the Torah was intended to be read by those same historically-bound
These different cognitive styles had very real effects. While Ishmael allowed for there
to be Halakhot (religious laws) that were not justified by the text of the Torah, Akiva
insisted that all customs were inherently holy, given by God, and traces of them can be
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 8
Finding Meaning in the Text -- Connecting to God Through Exegesis
Isaac pleaded For Ezra had dedicated himself to study [l’drosh] the Teaching of theBen Bag-Bag
with the Lord on Lord so as to observe it, and to teach laws and rules to Israel. [Ezrasaid: Turn it over
her behalf, 7:10] and over again,
because she was for all is therein;
barren; and the and Look into it;
Lord responded Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin and become grey
to his plea, and upon you this day is not too baffling for and old therein;
his wife Rebekah you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in neither move
conceived. But away from it, for
the children the heavens, that you should say, you have no better
struggled in her “Who among us can go up to the lot than that.
womb, and she heavens and get it for us and impart it [Avot 5:22]
said, “If so, why
do I exist?” She to us, that we may observe it?” Neither
went to inquire is it beyond the sea, that you should
(l’drosh) of the
Lord, and the
say, “Who among us can cross to the When Rabbi Eliezer
Lord answered other side of the sea and get it for us
Ben Hyrcanus, a
teacher of Rabbi
her. (Gen 25:21- and impart it to us, that we may
Akiva, expounded a
22)
observe it?” No, the thing is very close verse in a
nonstandard way,
to you, in your mouth and in your Rabbi Ishamel said to
heart, to observe it. [Deut 30.11-14] him: “Why, you are
saying to Scripture:
‘Be silent until I
expound your
Moses received the Torah on Sinai, and conveyed it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders, meaning!’” And
and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets conveyed it to the Men of the Great Rabbi Eliezer replied,
Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, develop many “Ishmael, you are a
disciples, and make a protective fence for the Torah. [Ethics of the Fathers, 1:1] mountain palm”
(which, because of its
What is the distinction between the language of Torah and human language? Humanaltitude, bears few
beings distinguish between form and content. There are words that add nothing to theand inferior fruits;
similarly, you seem
substance of a thought but are uttered because the conventions and rules of languageunable to bear fruitful
so dictate; their contribution is aesthetic rather than instructive. God’s ways, however,exegesis). [Sifra Tazri’a
are not human ways. With God, form is nonexistent; there is only content. Every68b, HT 54]
letter, every word, whether expanding or limiting a subject, is intended to teach a
lesson. Each idiom instructs and clarifies. There is no form here; all is content, all is
instruction. Just as heaven is loftier than earth, so the language of Torah is loftier than
the language of human beings. And our rational powers are insufficient to grasp the
esoterics of Torah; they cannot be handled with the tongs of logic alone. [Heschel, HT
55-56]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 9
Lesson 2: For God or For Human -- The Purpose of Worship
question influence our relationship with God? What is the purpose of worship?
Background: Akiva and Ishmael’s perspectives on the character of the Torah are part of
their larger theological understanding of God’s relationship to the world. Akiva, who saw
God’s will in every dot and preposition in the Torah, stressed God’s immanence—God’s
actual presence among the people of Israel, in the Torah of Israel. Ishmael, who viewed
God as the giver of law to a particular community of people, saw God as a transcendent
being.
Akiva taught that the immanent God is a present God whose fate is tied to that of the
Children of Israel. Ishamel, on the other hand, taught that the transcendent God is infinite
and above the world, and therefore cannot be bound by the text. Thus, the Torah is the
Whether God is immanent or transcendent directly affects the purpose and method of
worship. Those who believe in God’s immanence are essentialists who believe that rituals
are essential to the functioning of the universe—God, who is present in this world,
requires certain rituals be done. Those who believe in God’s transcendence, on the other
hand, are conventionalists who believe that rituals are conventions that serve human ends
and nothing more; a transcendent God does not need rituals, not will the universe be
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 10
Akiva was an essentialist. He believed, according to Heschel’s paradigm, that the
entire universe was based on Torah and is upheld through the commandments given to
the Israel in the Torah. Since God is love, the highest of all commandments is to love
your neighbor as you love yourself—and all commandments stem from that central value.
Just as pure and true love is timeless, Torah too is timeless and context-less. Rituals,
therefore, are ways we humans can partner with God and aid in the upkeep of the world.
Physical acts, according to Akiva, had explicit metaphysical and even cosmic
significance.
set up to ensure Israel remain moral and stay clear of idolatry. Even the Temple itself was
not inherently holy to Ishmael—it was but a vehicle, a means, to ensure Israel remains
loyal to God and not slip back into the ways of its youth. The rituals, therefore, are no
more than sets of actions serving this purpose of ensuring loyalty—they have no magical
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 11
For God or For Human -- The Purpose of Worship
לשם שמיים
Is God immanent or transcendent? How does this question influence our relationship with
God? What is the purpose of worship?
Behold the heavens and see; Look at the skies high above you. If you sin, what do you do to Him? If your transgressions
are many, how do you affect him? If you are righteous, what do you give Him; what does He receive from your hand?
Your wickedness affects men like yourself; your righteousness, mortals. (Job 35:5-8)
The Lord said to Moses: R. Judah bar R. Simon
Thus shall you say to the With what shall I approach the said in the name of R.
Israelites: You Lord, do homage to God on high? Johanan: From the Divine
yourselves saw that I Power, Moses heard three
spoke to you from the Shall I approach Him with burnt commandments which
very heavens: With Me, offerings, with calves a year old? startled him and took him
therefore, you shall not Would the Lord be pleased with aback. First, when He
make any gods of silver, decreed: “Let them make
nor shall you make for thousands of rams, with myriads
Me the Sanctuary, and I
yourselves any gods of of streams of oil? Shall I give my shall dwell among them”
gold. Make for Me an first-born son for my (Ex 25:8), Moses said
altar of earth and
sacrifice on it your burnt
transgressions, the fruit of my bluntly to the Holy One:
body for my sins? He has told Master of the universes,
offerings and your
“Behold not even heaven
sacrifices of well-being, you, O man, what is good, And and the heaven of the
your sheep and your
oxen; in every place
what the Lord requires of you: heavens can contain
where I cause My name Only to do justice and to love Thee” (I Kings 8:27), and
to be mentioned I will goodness, and to walk modestly yet Thou sayest, “Let
come to you and bless them make Me the
you. (Ex 20:19-21)
with your God; then will your Sanctuary.” Thereupon
name achieve wisdom [Micah 6:6-8] the Holy One reassured
Moses: Moses, it is not as
thou thinkest; though the
Sanctuary is to be only
The Rabbis distinguished between commandments that overarch and encompass all twenty boards wide in the
of Torah and commandments that are specific. This led them to speculate: Can one north and twenty boards
find a general principle that all the mitzvoth serve? Rabbi Eleazar the Moad’ite wide in the south and
suggested one that would support all the mitzvoth: “’…Heed the Lord your God’ eight wide in the west, yet
(Exodus 15:26) – This is a principle that encompasses all of Torah.” Rabbi Eleazar I shall go down to the
was not suggesting a principle from which the contents and justifications of all earth below and shrink
mitzvoth follow by logical deduction. On the contrary, he was telling us not to rely on
My presence into their
reason. Rather, wisdom begins with the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvoth. What
midst, as it is said “And
does God want of you? To attend to His voice, to obey.
there I will meet with
On the other hand, there is a tendency among other Rabbis to view the
mitzvoth and their moorings through a moral and rational lens. For example, Rabban thee’ (Ex 25:22) [Psika
d’Rab Kahana 6]
Johanan ben Zakkai explained logically why the Torah dealt more stringently with the
burglar than with the robber (the burglar must return twice what he stole). Rabban
Johanan’s explanation is both moral and logical: the robber who steals openly
demonstrates brazenness before God and human beings, while the burglar who enters
stealthily demonstrates brazenness before God and fear of human authority. [HT, 73]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 12
Lesson 3: God in Search of Man or Man in Search of God
Questions to guide discussion: Does God need humans in order to exist? Is God
interdependent with humans or independent of us? Where is God? Is God within the
humans have a responsibility to prop-up God through worship and ritual. A transcendent
reading of this same passage has it that if one does not worship God, God will be no
longer be one’s protector—thereby seeing God above ritual and yet affected by it enough
place.” An immanent understanding of God takes this to mean that God can be located in
a specific place: God has an address. A transcendent understanding of God has it that God
is everywhere and nowhere at once: God is the address. God is the ultimate coordinate
system, framing the world and our understanding of it yet not being limited by any aspect
God like Akiva believes that God’s presence physically rests in the Temple, in the
“Holiest of Holies.” Ishmael, on the other hand, says that God is by the alter—by the
called and invoked (“call my name and I will be there”), but is also everywhere else at
once.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 13
The Akivan tradition has it that the Temple on earth was created before the creation of
the universe, along with the Torah, and is a reflection of the heavenly Temple above.
Every action, every pebble in the Temple has cosmic significance, and must be held to the
highest standard of holiness. Ishmael, while also committed to the holiness of the Temple,
sees the Temple holy insofar as it serves as a tool for accessing the transcendent. But the
Temple also poses a danger for the transcendental school—the holier one holds the
Temple, the more likely the Temple will serve as an idol, diverting one’s eyes from the
moral teachings of the tradition. It is possibly for this reason that Rabbi Yochanan Ben
Zakkai, when asked for his wish by the conquering Roman general, opted for Yavneh and
her wise men over the Temple. Akiva, who viewed the Temple as a holy being in its own
right, remarked furiously, “thus it is said that God, turns wise men backwards and makes
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 14
God in Search of Man or Man in Search of God
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 15
Lesson 4: God and Pain – Suffering While Believing
Questions to guide discussion: Does God feel our pain? If so, why does God do nothing
to stop it? Are God’s powers limited? If not, is God really merciful?
Background: The question of why bad things happen to good people is central to any
Ishmael take different positions on the issue of suffering. Common to both traditions is
the assumption that God cares about the affairs of humans. Otherwise, why would God
give Israel the Torah and its commandments? But what happens after that point of contact
transcendence of God.
For Akiva, since God is immanent, God feels Israel’s pain. When Israel suffers, God
suffers along with them. When Israel was in Egypt, the presence of God went down to
Egypt with them. This is to say that God is not solely empathetic—God actually, literally,
feels Israel’s pain. Ishmael, believing in a transcendent God, does not accept this view.
God might hear the cries of the people, and those cries might move God to take mercy
upon Israel and remember the covenant God made with the forefathers, but God as God
The theological problems posed by this dichotomy are acute: either God’s power is
limited according to the Akivian paradigm (is God powerless to end the pain afflicted
against both God and Israel?) or God’s mercy is limited according to the Ishmaelian idea
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 16
asked, does not the judge of the world act justly? [Gen 18:25]). In the context of the time,
with the Temple’s ruins still smoldering in the minds of Israel, the nation and each
individual had to decide whether they would rather view God as omnipotent and yet
merciless or merciful and, somehow, limited. A powerful God is feared but not loved, and
a merciful God is loved but is vulnerable, and this vulnerability reinforces Israel’s
These ideologies are reflected in the stories about the deaths of Akiva and Ishmael.
While Ishmael cried on the way to his execution, Akiva was happy—he was partaking in
God’s suffering, loving God with all of his heart and all of his soul, sacrificing his
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 17
God and Pain – Suffering While Believing
Elijah said to Bar He-He, and others say, to R. Eleazar, What is the meaning of the verse: Behold I have refined thee
but not as silver; I have tried thee in the furnace of affliction (Isa. 48:10)? It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be
He, went through all of the good qualities in order to give [them] to Israel, and He found only poverty [or
affliction]. [BT Hagigah 9b]
R’Huna ben Berekiah said And the Lord continued, “I Had not the verse said it,
in the name of R’ Eleazar the tongue uttering it would
have marked well the plight have deserved
ha-Kappar: Whoever
associates the name of of My people in Egypt and dismemberment. But the
heaven with his suffering have heeded their outcry ancients have set the
will have his sustenance because of their precedent. It is analogous to
doubled, as it says, And the a young prince who
Almighty shall be in thy taskmasters; yes, I know attempted to life a heavy
distress, and thou shalt their pain. And I will go rock. As he lifted it, it fell
have double silver (Job down to rescue them from and crushed him. When the
22:25). R’ Samuel ben king heard that his son had
Nahmani said: His the Egyptians and bring
been crushed, he began to
sustenance shall fly to him them out of that land to a cry “I’ve been crushed!”
like a bird, as it says, And good and spacious land…” The palace guard,
silver shall fly to thee. [BT [Ex 3:7-8] uncomprehendingly, said to
Berakot 63a]
him: “Your son has been
crushed. Why do you say
Among the fundamentals of the faith is the idea that he Holy and Blessedthat you have been
One participates in the sufferings of Israel. Conversely, when Israel “dwellscrushed?” Such was the
in joy, there is joy for God.” This concept of the divine pathos, as expressedreaction of the Holy and
by the prophets of Israel, bestirred hearts to participate in the pain of the HolyBlessed One, as it were:
and Blessed One and shaped the inner character of the prophet as one whoBecause My people is
empathizes with the divine pathos…But along came Rabbi Akiva, who taughtshattered I am shattered; I
that the participation of the Holy and Blessed One in the life of Israel is notam dejected, seized by
merely a mental nod, a measure of compassion born of relationship to God’sdesolation. (Jeremiah 8:21)
people. The pain of compassion amounts to pain only at a distance; it is the[Lamentations Zuta 1:18,
quoted from HT, 117]
pain of the onlooker. But the participation of the Holy and Blessed One is
that of total identification, something that touches God’s very essence, God’s
majestic being. As it were, the afflictions of the nation inflict wounds on God.
[HT, 105-106]
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male [or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free on account of the
eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free on account of the tooth’s sake” (Ex
21:26)…But if his master persecuted him, knocked out his tooth, blinded his eye, or any of the other major limbs that are
visible to the eye, lo, this one has acquired possession of himself through his own suffering. And, lo, this yields an
argument a fortiori: if from the power of a mortal, one acquires possession of himself through his own suffering, all the
more so from the power of Heaven. And so Scripture says, “The Lord has chastened me sore, but he has not given me over
to death” (Ps. 118:18) [Mekhilta D’Rabbi Ishmael, Nezikin 9:14]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 18
Lesson 5: The World to Come – Death and Reunion or Life in the Now
Questions to guide discussion: Is this world no more than a prozdor before the World-
Background: The Torah seems on the surface to have known only this world—not once
does it mention an afterlife directly, although some have been able to read an afterlife into
the larger Biblical text.1 The Akivan paradigm, on the other hand, wholeheartedly
believes in an afterlife, which, being closer to God, is a truer reality than the one we
experience on this earth. Much like the Platonic concept of the “World of Shadows,” the
Akivian view holds that the world is illusory—a reflection of the infinite world in the
heavens. By rejecting the world and seeking to come closer to God through the
and the best way to do so is through accepting the suffering with love. Suffering for
God’s sake bonds the finite with the infinite. It is the ultimate act of identification with
the God who suffers along with Israel. In this vein, it is said that when the Romans
decreed that Torah could no longer be taught in the Land of Israel, Akiva persisted in
teaching.
Ishmael, on the other hand, lives in this world. It is not for nothing, he taught, that
God looked over creation and saw “it was very good” (Gen 1:31). The law was to be
lived by and not died for—life being the ultimate aim of God’s law. Unlike Akiva, who
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 19
saw this world as a prozdor or waiting room for the World-to-Come, Ishmael held that
possibility? If one would overlay the Ishmaelian worldview over the rhetoric of the
World-to-Come, one finds that many of the things hoped for are political goals that can
occur only in worldly reality. The hope for the Messiah, in the context of the turn-of-the-
Common Era, could have been more of the hope for a this-worldly political leader to win
independence from the Romans. The dream of the Lion laying by the Lamb can be
construed to indicate a hope for a day without war, one where Israel isn’t fighting
constantly for its right to exist among the great empires of its day.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 20
The World to Come – Death and Reunion or Life in the Now
Rabbi Jacob says: This world is like an antechamber before the World-to-Come. Get ready in theR’Chiya bar Abba said
antechamber, so that you can go into the great hall. He would say: Better is a single moment spent inin the name of R’
penitence and good deeds in this world that the whole of the World-to-Come. And better is a singleYohannan: All the
moment of inner peace in the World-to-Come than the whole of a lifetime spent in this world. [Avot
4:16-17] prophets prophesized
only about the
“Then the Lord The next day [after the Gold Calf] Moses said to Messianic era, but as for
said, My spirit shall the people, “you have been guilty of a great the World-to-Come, No
not abide in man sin. Yet I will now go up to the Lord; perhaps eye except yours, O
forever for he is I may win forgiveness for your sin.” Moses God, has seen (Isaiah
flesh, but his days went back to the Lord and said, “Alas, this 64:3). And he disagrees
shall be numbered a people is guilty of a great sin in making for with Shmuel, for
themselves a god of gold. Now, if You will Shmuel said: There is
hundred and twenty
no difference between
years (Gen 6:3),” forgive their sin [well and good], but if not, this world and that of
said Rabbi Ishmael, erase me from the record which You have the Messianic era,
“What he meant is written!” But the Lord said to Moses, “He except for Jewish
this: “I shall not put who has sinned against Me, him only will I independence from the
my spirit in them erase from My record. God now, lead the dominion of foreign
when I am engaged people where I told you. See, My angel shall kingdoms, for it says,
in bestowing a go before you. But when I make an For the poor shall not
reward on the accounting, I will bring them to account for cease from the land
righteous.” [Genesis their sins.” Then the Lord sent a plague (Deut 15:11). [BT Berachot
34b]
Rabbah 6:3] upon the people, for what they did with the
calf that Aaron made. [Ex 33:30-35]
All Israel has a share in the World-to-Come, for it s R’Yannai and R’Simeon ben Laqish say, “Gehana in
written, Thy people also shall be all righteous, they point of fact is nothing other than a day which will
shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my burn up the wicked. What is the scriptural evidence?
planting, the work of my hands that I may be For lo, a day comes, it burns as a furnace (Mal
glorified (Isaiah 60:21). And these are they that 3:19). Rabbis say, “In point of fact there is really
have no share in the World-to-Come: he that says such a thing, as it is said, Whose fire is in Zion, and
that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed his furnace in Jerusalem [so Gehanna is in
in the Law, and [he that says] that the Law is not Jerusalem] (Isaiah 31:9). R’Judah b. R’Ilai:
from Heaven, and an Epicurean. R’Akiva says: Also “Gehanna is neither a day nor a real place. But it is
he that reads heretical books, or that utters charms a fire that goes forth from the body of a wicked
over a wound and says, I will put none of the person and consumes him. What is the scriptural
diseases upon thee which I have put upon the evidence for that proposition? You conceive chaff,
Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee (Ex you shall bring forth stubble, your breath is a fire
15:26). Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the that shall devour you (Isaiah 33:11) [Genesis Rabbah 6:3]
Name with its proper letters. [Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 21
Lesson 6: I Want to Be Like God – The Power of Intention
Questions to guide discussion: Why should one follow the commandments? Can one
Background: If human was made in God’s image, can a human become like God?
Neither Akivan or Ishmaelian theology taught that humans can actually attain the level of
Godliness God possesses, but Akiva did teach that one can aspire to be like God by
aspiring to be close to God. This yearning for closeness, the cleaving to God known as
dvikut, is an aspiration for unity with God—a full love of God with all one’s heart and all
one’s soul, so much so that one’s highest aspiration might be to let go of the world and
join the Eternal. This holds that God loves Israel and every individual person therein, and
that individuals can reciprocate God’s love, and, thereby, increase their intimacy with the
eternal. The commandments, according to this view, are the way towards intimacy, but
only the least one can do to maintain some sort of a relationship. For true intimacy, as in
quantitatively different than human love. Thus Ishmael explains the story of Nadav and
Aviahu, who were burnt up when they brought “alien” fire to the alter (Lev 10:1-2), as
one where the two were so intoxicated by the moment that they had tried to reciprocate
God’s love in kind—an impossibility due to the finite nature of their being and the
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 22
This difference in outlook results in a difference in outlook regarding the nature of the
actions one takes during worship. Akiva, who believes in the necessity to strive towards
closeness with the Eternal, concludes that simply submitting to the actions of worship is
not enough: one must focus one’s intentions on the actions, so that each commandment is
fulfilled with all of one’s heart and soul. A person who simply goes through the motions
has not truly fulfilled the commandments, and one whose intentions were elsewhere
during the act of worship is judged to be as if one had not fulfilled the commandment at
all. Ishmael, on the other hand, who does not think that one can realistically ever attain an
performed. Intentions do not matter until they are acted upon—and if the act is fulfilled,
one’s intentions are besides the point. In other words, Akiva believes that one can commit
Taking these views into account, one can begin to understand the debate between the
commandments. Rabbi Tarfon, of Akiva’s generation, taking the side of the Ishmaelian
declared that “the study of Torah is greater.” The Sages, in an attempt to harmonize,
declared that study is indeed greater because study will lead to performance.3
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 23
I Want to Be Like God – The Power of Intention
It is written, And Shechem loved the maiden (Gen 34:3). We only realize the extent of his love when we learn that he gave his
life for her. That is the true meaning of love. Of Shechem we read, And his soul cleaved to Dinah, daughter of Jacob. (Gen
34:3). Now of Israel the verse says, And you who cleave to the Lord your God…” [Tanhuma Bayyishlah 20, from HT 192]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 24
Lesson 7: Seeing the Unseeable – Experiencing Revelation
should be given pens, crayons and blank paper and told to describe God in any way they
Questions for discussion: How can one experience the infinite? Does it matter if
Background: The Torah describes two ways of experiencing the Infinite, through sight
and through sound. At first, in the book of Exodus, the Torah tells us that human beings
can experience the sight of God, albeit in limited fashion: “Then Moses and Aaron,
Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel ascended; and they saw the God of Israel:
under His feet there was a likeness of a pavement of sapphire…they beheld God, and
they ate and they drank” (Ex 24:9-11). In Deuteronomy, however, it seems to state that it
is impossible to see the form of God: “You saw no shape when the Lord your God spoke
to you at Horeb out of the fire” (Deut 4:15). Sound, in this later description of the
revelation, was the principal way of experiencing God—one repeated throughout the ages
Akiva, as one who believed in the immanence of God, searched to see God—and
found God in the text. In one of the more famous passages in the Talmud, Akiva and three
of his collegues entered the Pardes, literally translated as “the orchard,” where one could
get a glimpse of the Eternal; Akiva was the only one of the four not harmed by the
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 25
experience [BT Hagigah 14b]. Ishmael, who saw God as transcending human reality, did
not believe that a human being could behold the Eternal. Sound—that is, the hearing of
the Word—was the limited way we humans can behold the Infinite.
Whether God can be seen or only heard directly affects the way one interacts with the
Torah—Israel’s last remaining reflection of God after the destruction of the Temple. If the
Torah is truly a being infused with God’s immanence, God can be seen through the Torah
—exegesis becomes the act of union with the Eternal. If the Torah is simply the
collection of the instructions given by God to Moses, and heard in part by the people of
and no more.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 26
Seeing the Unseeable – Experiencing Revelation
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 27
Lesson 8: Wisdom from Beyond – The Torah and Creation
Questions to guide discussion: Is the Torah the blueprint for creation or the human story
Akiva, who sees God as immanent, views the Torah as a book that transcends history: the
Torah was literally the book God read as God set upon the process of creation. Akiva
explains the verse in Genesis, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen
1:26), as God consulting with the Torah as a partner. Ishmael, who thinks that God is
transcendent, views the Torah as historically bound: it was simply the communication of
God’s will given to Moses at Sinai—an even set in human time and human space.
Heschel points out that these two views are present in the ways we have to describe the
giving of the Torah. One tradition, Akivan, holds that the Torah is from the heavens:
“Torah min Shamaim.” The other, Ishmaelian, holds that the Torah was given at Sinai:
“Torah miSinai.”
If the Torah was given from Heaven, each and every dot and preposition is holy and
divinely intended. As the blueprint for creation, it includes everything there is to know
about the world—all of those things seen, unseen and yet to be seen. Knowing the world
can be achieved solely through learning the text and understanding its subtext, unpacking
from each element infinite understandings of creation. If the Torah was given at Sinai
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 28
through the medium of a human, the text itself is certainly important—but is not all
inclusive. Moses, as well as other prophets, were given additional insights and teachings
not included in the original text—that is, human beings and the human experience are
integral to understanding the correct way to live life according to God’s will. The first
view holds that humans can know God through the text; the second that humans can
know only that portion of God’s will given at the time, relevant to the time each teaching
is communicated.
Accordingly, whatever view one takes affects the way one views theology as a whole.
If one takes the view of Akiva—that the Torah was in fact given whole and perfect at
Sinai—humans can do no more than seek to understand that which has been given, and
those who came before and were closer to the revelation understood God’s will best. If
one takes the view of Ishmael, theology is an evolutionary process, one which develops
throughout time according to the circumstances of the day. Revelation is ongoing, driven
by those who question the understanding of the previous generations while maintaining a
commitment to the intention of the teachings and steering clear of idolatry in all of its
forms.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 29
Wisdom from Beyond – The Torah and Creation
זאת התורה
Is the Torah the blueprint for creation or the human story of historical experiences?
What are the implications of seeing Torah as a blueprint, or viewing it as a
historically bound document?
R. Banayah said: The world and all the fullness thereof were created only for the sake of Torah: “The Lord for the
sake of wisdom founded the earth” (Prov. 3:19) [Midrash Rabba Gen 1:5]
It was said: When Moses when up on high to receive the tablets of the Commandments, which had been
inscribed and put away since the six days of Creation – as it is said, And the tablets were the work of God,
and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tablets (Ex 32:16): read not graven (harut) but
freedom (herut), for whosoever studies Torah is a free man – at that time the ministering angels conspired
against Moses and exclaimed, “Master of the Universe, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the
son of man, that Thou thinkest of him? Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels, and hast
crowned him with glory and honor. Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands;
Thou hast put all things under his feet; sheep and oxen, all of them, yea, and the beasts of the fields; the foul
of the air, and the fish of the sea, etc. (Ps 8:5-9). They kept murmuring against Moses, saying, “What is this
offspring of a woman who has come up on high?” As it is said, Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led
captivity captive; thou hast taken gifts (Ps 68:19).
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 30
Lesson 9: Human as Partner in Revelation
we invent it? Does God need humans to partner in seeking out wisdom in Torah? Who
can humans improvise based on their understanding of what is right? This question
bothered the Sages when they read into a number of actions taken by Moses in seeming
contradiction to direct commandments given to him by God: separating himself from his
wife, shattering the tablets, and adding an extra day to postpone the revelation (BT
Yevamot 62a and Shabbat 87a). One can add to this list Moses’ commanding the Levites
in God’s name to “put a sword on thigh, go back and forth from gate to gate throughout
the camp and slay brother, neighbor, and kin” (Ex 34: 27) even though no-such command
can be found in the text. But Moses was not punished for any of these actions, leading the
Sages to conclude that God later agreed to Moses’ actions (BT Yevamot 62a and Shabbat
87a).
Akiva could not countenance this understanding: if the Torah is perfect, and
includes within it all that has happened and will happen, Moses must have been explicitly
instructed to take these actions when God spoke to Moses face-to-face. The Ishmaelian
paradigm is more open to the idea that Moses took such action of his own authority.
Moreover, by deciding to take such action independently, Moses showed that God’s will
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 31
can be changed—that events that God might want to occur on a certain day can be
The participation of humans in the process of determining the divine will is taken
to an extreme in the story of Rabbah b. Nahmani, a Babylonian sage (Baba Mezia 86a). In
it, an argument between God and the Divine Assembly over the laws of leprosy leads to
their calling on a human being to settle the ruling—even though God had already
pronounced an opinon. The Assembly sent the Angel of Death to summon Rabbah, and,
as he was dying, “he exclaimed ‘Clean, clean!’ when a Heavenly Voice cried out, ‘Happy
are thou, O Rabbah b. Nahmani, whose body is pure and whose soul had departed in
purity!’ This story can be read either way: Akiva could have read into it the divine nature
of Torah, and the human’s role to discover within that divinity the eternal truth. Ishmael,
on the other hand, could view the importance of human opinion in determining the truth
—an importance even God and the Heavenly Assembly itself recognizes.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 32
Human as Partner in Revelation
תורת ה' ולעשות וללמד בישראל חק ומשפט-כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את
Do humans discover unknown wisdom in Torah, or do we invent it? Does God need
humans to partner in seeking out wisdom in Torah? Who decides the truth about
interpretation?
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 33
Lesson 10: Censored or Uncensored, Edited or Unedited: Prophecy and Man
Questions to guide discussion: Were Prophets vessels for God, or editors who added
their own spin? Is the prophet’s reason a factor in the truth preached, or is all truth
beyond reason?
Background: The Prophets played a critical role in early Israel by communicating the
message of God to the people of Israel, since the people themselves, it seems, as in the
case of Moses, could not bear the direct communication of God (Deut 5:24). But by the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah—that is, after the first exile of Israel to Babylon—prophecy
as an institution had ceased. Thus, with prophets no longer among them, the inheritors of
the Jewish tradition were left with texts and recollections of the words of the prophets,
but no way of knowing for sure how the prophetic experience occurred, and what
elements were involved. Specifically, the division between Akiva and Ishmael revolved
around whether the words of the prophets as recorded—including the words of Israel’s
greatest prophet, Moses—were the words of God or were a mediated version of God—
that is, a somewhat altered declaration; a censored version of God’s words. The question
was posed: were the prophets always uninhibited conveyers of God’s words and will, or
did they interact with God in such a way that the record we have of God’s words is in
Akiva’s school, which believed in the divine nature of the text of the Torah, could
only conclude that the words of the prophets were the exact words put in their mouths by
God. That is, the prophet was no more than a vehicle for God’s expression, a shell filled
by God’s spirit when God wanted to communicate with the human masses who were
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 34
themselves too fragile to hear God’s unadulterated voice. God was not only immanent in
the world for Akiva, God was immanent in the body of the prophet, playing upon her
Ishmael, who taught that the Torah was given at Mount Sinai—a specific time and
place to a specific nation with a specific language—concluded that even Moses, the
greatest of the prophets, could not bear the full presence of the Divine. Even Moses had
to be talked to in a language that could suit his conceptual framework—the infinite power
by the people of Israel. The prophet, therefore, would have to first process these bundles
and then later relay an even more simplified version of God’s word, since the people had
an even lower capacity for processing God’s communications than the prophet has.
Akiva’s vision of the prophet, therefore, is one that makes the prophet no more
than a tool for God’s work; an essential tool for the time, but one that has no agency of its
own. Ishmael’s vision of the prophet is one of a partnership between God and a human—
a joint venture between the infinite and the finite. Akiva’s conception of prophet allows
for the language recorded in the scrolls of the prophets to contain the same quality of
transcendence—that is, of divine quality—that the Torah itself has, even though Akiva
did not teach that the books of the prophets were given to Israel from heaven. Ishmael’s
conception of the prophet, on the other hand, extends the idea that the Torah forms a
relationship between God and humans, one which, due to the infinite/finite mismatch
requires the mediation of a human being of extraordinary qualities to ensure that the
interests of both parties are addressed. The prophet, in other words, is God’s agent vis-à-
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 35
Censored or Uncensored, Edited or Unedited: Prophecy and Man
'כה אמר ה
Were Prophets vessels for God, or editors who added their own spin? Is the prophet’s
reason a factor in the truth preached, or is all truth beyond reason?
Three things Moses did out of his own accord. He reasoned by inference and his judgment coincided with
God’s: He kept away from his wife, and his judgment coincided with God’s. He kept away from the tent of
meeting, and his judgment coincided with God’s. He broke the Tablets of the Commandments, and his
judgment coincided with God’s….So too did Moses the righteous make an inference of his own accord. He
said: “How shall I give these tablets to Israel? I shall be obligating them to major commandments and make
them liable to the penalty of death, for thus is it written in the tables, He that sacrifices unto the gods, save
unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed. (Ex 22:19). Rather, I shall take hold of them and break them,
and bring Israel back to good conduct.” … Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra says: Moses broke the tablets only
because he was so told by the mouth of the Almighty, as it is said, With him do I speak mouth to mouth
(Num 12:8): mouth to mouth I said to him, “break the tables.”…Rabbi Akiva says: Moses broke the tables
only because he was so told by the mouth of the Almighty, as it is said, And I took hold of the two tables…
and I broke them (Deut 9:17). [Avot d’R’Natan Chp 2]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 36
Lesson 11: Law as an End or a Means – Halakha and the Jewish Way
Questions to guide discussion: Are the laws of Halakha the building blocks of creation,
or are they tools towards an end, thereby depending on context? Are Halakhic rulings
timeless or practical means for the time? If everything is context, and all laws were given
in a certain place and time, is Judaism still relevant? Do increased strictures—fence laws
—protect the laws and thereby serve the good of maintaining the Jewish faith, or does
Background: One of the most argued claims against Judaism by Jews and non-Jews
alike is that Judaism is a religion of Law and not spirituality. Halakha was seen as
constricting by early Christians, who opted for faith over ritual, belief in the coming of
commandments. There is some truth to the claim that Judaism is a religion of law: to be a
Jewish Jew in the eyes of rabbinical Judaism—that is, to be a practicing, observant Jew—
But how should a Jew act? With prophecy no longer a part of the Jewish
experience, Judaism turned to the records left behind by the prophets—that is, the records
of the Divine will as recorded in the Torah and the books added later, known as the
Writings and the Prophets. As discussed in previous lessons, these writings were looked
at differently by Akiva and Ishmael: Akiva saw all as sacred and perfect, true reflections
of the divine, where every dot and preposition could justify a legal precept as understood
through a creative reading of the text. Ishmael agreed that legal rulings could be justified
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 37
by the text, but not as often or as deeply as Akiva would like. While Ishmael himself
developed thirteen rules for exegesis, the authoritative systematic method for interpreting
the text, he accepted at times that certain laws were based upon rabbinic decision without
Beyond these two conceptions of the text, however, lays another problem for
rabbinic theology: how far does one go when attempting to protect those commandments
according to tradition—taught that the law had to be protected by a fence, that is, that one
could be justified in adding rules if those rules would protect people from breaking
commandments. The most extreme followers of this mentality set up a high fence around
the commandments, regulating their lives as much as possible in order to ensure that
God’s will be done. But the Sages also taught that, at times, the person who adds to the
amount of commandments may detract in the process; sometimes, making the burden too
heavy might lead to the rejection of the entire yoke. More can at times lead to less.
This led to the idea that one is only required to do the work—to follow the
commandments—specifically assigned to that person, and that anyone who does more is,
literally, an idiot. God, according to this view, does expect humans to fulfill every single
one of the 613 commandments. Rather, humans should do the best they can under the
commandments that exist are for the good of Israel: it provides a person many paths to
fulfill the will of the Divine. This view has it that it is not the quantity of commandments
that matters as much as the quality: that those commandments that are fulfilled are
fulfilled with a full heart and soul, with the intention of doing God’s will.
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 38
Law as an End or a Means – Halakha and the Jewish Way
for ye rob Me, even this Torah. [Ethics of the Fathers, 1:1] (Job 37:2). Now
whole nation – i.e., when the “meditation” refers to
whole nation has [accepted naught but Torah, as
an ordinance, then the curse in the verse, “But
which is the penalty of itsAnd Make a Protective Fence for the Torah: What led tothou shalt meditate
infraction] does apply,Eve’s touching the tree? It was the hedge which Adam puttherein day and
otherwise it does not. night” (Josh. 1:8).
around his words. Hence it has been said: If a man puts an [Bereshit Rabba 49:2]
[BT Avodah Zara 36a-b] (excessive) hedge around his words, he shall not be able to
stand by his words. Hence it has also been said: let no man
add to what he hears. [Avot d’R’Natan Chp 1]
We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand between each tile. R’ Eliezer declared it clean, and the
Sages declared it unclean, and this was the oven of Aknai. Why the oven of Aknai? Said Rab Judah in Samuel’s name, it
means that they surrounded it with arguments as a snake [aknai], and proved it unclean. It has been taught: on that day
R’Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: “If the Law agrees
with me, let this carob tree prove it!” Thereupon the carob tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place—others say, four
hundred cubits. “No proof can be brought from a carob tree,” the others retorted. Again he said to them: “if the Law agrees
with me, let the stream of water prove it!” Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. “No proof can be brought
from a stream of water,” they retorted. Again he urged: “if the Law agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove
it,” whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R’Joshua rebuked them, saying, “when scholars are engaged in halakhic
debate, who are you to interfere?” Hence they did not fall, in honor of R’Joshua, but they did not return to be upright, in
honor of R’Eliezer, and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: “If the Law agrees with me, let it be
proved by Heaven!” Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Who are you to dispute with R’Eliezer, seeing that in all
matters the Law agrees with him!” But R’Joshua arose and exclaimed: “It is not in Heaven!” What did he mean by this?
Said R’Jeremiah: that the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because
Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority one must incline (Ex 23:2) [BT Baba Metzia 59a-
b]
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 39
Prepared for: Rabbinic Theology as taught by Rabbi Gordon Tucker, by Ariel Beery. 40
1
Endnotes:
See L.J. Greenspoon “The Origins of the Idea of the Resurrection of the Dead” in Traditions in Transformation ed. Halpern
and Levenson (247-321)
2
Taken from 194
3
Discourse found in Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 40b. This disagreement is discussed in 205