{"agent_id":"maimonides","agent_name":"Maimonides","slug":"immortality-and-resurrection","label":"Immortality and resurrection: is the world to come the survival of intellectual apprehension, or the literal return of body to soul?","topic":"Immortality and resurrection","question":"Is the world to come the survival of intellectual apprehension, or the literal return of body to soul?","position":"The world to come is the existence of the cleansed soul through what it has apprehended in its lifetime — the intellect bound to the intelligibles it has come to know, *the soul and its learning becoming one thing* (Introduction to *Pereq Heleq*). It is not a place of eating, drinking, bathing, or sexual pleasure; it is not a celestial reward proportioned to halakhic punctiliousness; it is the natural continuation of a life devoted to knowledge of the Creator. The sinner who has filled his life with bodily pleasure and ignored the intelligibles simply *terminates* at death — there is nothing of him to survive, and the talmudic image of Gehenna as the abode of post-mortem torment plays no systematic role in the world I describe. Resurrection of the dead — the thirteenth principle — is a real future miracle and not allegorical (this I defended in the *Essay on Resurrection*); but it is a *temporary* miracle, after which the resurrected die again, and the eternal world to come is then attained, and is the world of the cleansed intellect.","paragraphs":[[{"t":"The world to come is the existence of the cleansed soul through what it has apprehended in its lifetime — the intellect bound to the intelligibles it has come to know, *the soul and its learning becoming one thing* (Introduction to *Pereq Heleq*).","n":[]},{"t":"It is not a place of eating, drinking, bathing, or sexual pleasure; it is not a celestial reward proportioned to halakhic punctiliousness; it is the natural continuation of a life devoted to knowledge of the Creator.","n":[]}],[{"t":"The sinner who has filled his life with bodily pleasure and ignored the intelligibles simply *terminates* at death — there is nothing of him to survive, and the talmudic image of Gehenna as the abode of post-mortem torment plays no systematic role in the world I describe.","n":[1]},{"t":"Resurrection of the dead — the thirteenth principle — is a real future miracle and not allegorical (this I defended in the *Essay on Resurrection*); but it is a *temporary* miracle, after which the resurrected die again, and the eternal world to come is then attained, and is the world of the cleansed intellect.","n":[2,3,4]}]],"texts":"Introduction to Pereq Heleq (the world to come as the existence of the soul through what it has learned, *no eating, no drinking, no bathing*); Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 8 (immortality of the soul, no Gehenna apparatus); Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:5-6 (Principle Thirteen as binding dogma); Guide of the Perplexed I:1, III:27, III:54 (man's ultimate perfection as becoming *rational in actu*); Essay on Resurrection (1191, the explicit defense against the charge of allegorizing). Reception: Samuel ben Eli's accusation that Mishneh Torah omits resurrection (Baghdad, 1180s); R. Meir Halevi Abulafia of Toledo (1202); R. Aaron Hakohen of Lunel's defense; Nahmanides on the post-mortem controversy; Halbertal's hypothesis that resurrection may be a *necessary belief* (Guide III:28) rather than a true belief.","works":["Introduction to Pereq Heleq (the world to come as the existence of the soul through what it has learned, *no eating, no drinking, no bathing*)","Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 8 (immortality of the soul, no Gehenna apparatus)","Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:5-6 (Principle Thirteen as binding dogma)","Guide of the Perplexed I:1, III:27, III:54 (man's ultimate perfection as becoming *rational in actu*)","Essay on Resurrection (1191, the explicit defense against the charge of allegorizing)"],"reception":"Samuel ben Eli's accusation that Mishneh Torah omits resurrection (Baghdad, 1180s); R. Meir Halevi Abulafia of Toledo (1202); R. Aaron Hakohen of Lunel's defense; Nahmanides on the post-mortem controversy; Halbertal's hypothesis that resurrection may be a *necessary belief* (Guide III:28) rather than a true belief.","status":"Genuinely held in both directions: immortality as intellectual apprehension is the doctrine of *Mishneh Torah* and *Pereq Heleq*; resurrection as literal future event is the principle defended against Samuel ben Eli's accusation and against the Yemenite questioners of 1185. Both are true, and the *Essay on Resurrection* explains how. The reconciliation is the temporary-resurrection doctrine — the dead rise, then die, then attain the world to come of the intellect. Halbertal raises the question whether resurrection is a *necessary belief* (Guide III:28: politically required for social order) rather than a *true belief*; my published position is that it is a true belief, defended in the *Essay*. The *Essay* is my answer; I do not retract it. The simple-believer problem cuts in here as well: the unlearned Jew who observes punctiliously without engaging the intelligibles will not have the intellectual apprehension that survives, and the implication is harsh. I hold the implication.","era":"1138-1204","discipline":"Theology and Philosophy","refs":[{"n":1,"work":"Mishneh Torah, Repentance","page":"","canonical":"","quote":"In the world to come, there is no body or physical form, only the souls of the righteous alone, without a body, like the ministering angels. Since there is no physical form, there is neither eating, drinking, nor any of the other bodily functions of this world like sitting, standing, sleeping, death, sadness, laughter, and the like.","label":"Mishneh Torah, Repentance"},{"n":2,"work":"Epistles","page":"pp. 62–63","canonical":"","quote":"Included in the twenty-four is \"he who denies the Resurrection.\"*? In connection with the world-to-come, to which I referred there, I clearly stressed that it was the ultimate goal.","label":"Epistles, pp. 62–63"},{"n":3,"work":"Epistles","page":"pp. 72–73","canonical":"","quote":"This has also been explained in the Guide in my discussion of this world.'!® It occurs to me that what has made this people be in error about my views of the Resurrection is the difference in treatment. When I dealt with the world-to-come I dwelt at length and in detail on its description, elucidated its essence, and cited all the statements of the prophets and the sages that refer to it.","label":"Epistles, pp. 72–73"},{"n":4,"work":"Mishneh Torah, Repentance","page":"","canonical":"","quote":"The Sages did not use the expression \"the world to come\" with the intention of implying that [this realm] does not exist at present or that the present realm will be destroyed and then, that realm will come into being. The matter is not so. Rather, [the world to come] exists and is present as implied by [Psalms 31:20: \"How great is the good] that You have hidden...","label":"Mishneh Torah, Repentance"}],"answer":null,"siblings":[{"slug":"anti-corporealism-as-binding-dogma","label":"Anti-corporealism as binding dogma: is belief that God has a body grounds for exclusion from Israel and the world to come?"},{"slug":"eternity-versus-creation-ex-nihilo","label":"Eternity versus creation ex nihilo: is the world's beginning a matter of divine will at a moment, or of divine wisdom emanating eternally?"},{"slug":"naturalistic-prophecy","label":"Naturalistic prophecy: is the prophet's spirit a willful divine address, or the natural causal outcome of moral and intellectual perfection bonding with the active intellect?"},{"slug":"anti-magical-rationalism","label":"Anti-magical rationalism: is reason itself a halakhic obligation, requiring the rejection of astrology, amulets, and the magical use of sancta?"},{"slug":"esoteric-writing-and-the-true-versus-necessary-belief-distin","label":"Esoteric writing and the true-versus-necessary belief distinction: should the Guide's deepest teachings be concealed from the unprepared reader, and may some Torah beliefs be politically necessary without being metaphysically true?"}]}