Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 19, scan section 54

that the meaning of "perversely taught" means that they per- verted from their own opinions and taught the masses that belief). It is self-evident that the perversion of the Sadducees consisted, according to Rashi, only in denying the inferences drawn to es- tablish the origin of resurrection in the Pentateuch. But from the dispute of the Sadducees with the founder of the Christian religion, or with his disciples, and from the derisive question, "whom of them a widow of seven brothers will marry after resur- rection," which is quoted in the work of Azariah Di Rossi, we can easily see that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection at all. If we will examine carefully the interpretations of the Tal- mudists in desiring to find a hint for resurrection in the Pentateuch, and that they did not infer it from the plain statement (Deutr. xxxii. 39): "/ alone kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal," which, on every occasion they explained to mean "as the healing follows the wound, so also does life follow death " (see Ben Ezra), but resorted to far-fetched interpretations instead, we will clearly see that the Talmudists did not wish to state that resurrection is expressly stated in the Pentateuch, for in such case they would, of necessity, have to admit that this belief was known and cir- culating at the time the Pentateuch was given. They only wanted to find some slight reference to it in the Pentateuch, and were of the opinion that the belief in resurrection was known only to a limited number of select men, but not to the masses, from whom it was kept secret, for fear that they might as well believe in "familiar spirits" and "wizards" ("Ob and Yaduni"), or in "in- quiring of the dead." But only after this belief has been bor- rowed from the neighboring nations and has been adopted by the masses, the Talmudists found it necessary to find some source for it in the Pentateuch in order to strengthen the latter, although not explicitly stated therein. It follows from all this that at the time the Mosaic Law was proclaimed, that belief was not only not obligatory, but on the contrary every effort was made to keep it from the masses, and, 150 APPENDIX B. therefore, no promises were made as to resurrection, but only as to longevity and tranquillity during life-time. When, however, the founder of Christianity made this belief one of its dogmas and minimized the Old Testament, the Tal- mudists made it obligatory to believe that its source is in the Pentateuch. And the Sadducees who rejected this belief at all were considered as disbelievers. But we find nowhere that the Sadducees ever denied the im- mortality of the soul or that they ever denied the belief in retri- bution after death, for according to all opinions the Sadducees were not the disciples of Autigonus of Socho, Zaduck and Bithus, who, according to a statement in Aboth d' Rabbi Nathan, rejected the belief in retribution. The name Sadducees, as we have said in the beginning of this article, had its origin from Zaduck the high priest of David, according to Geiger's opinion. Or, perhaps, Holdheim's opinion is the correct one, viz. : that in the beginning they were surnamed " Zadikim," as Simon the high priest was sumamed the " Zadik. " Neither do we find anywhere that the Sadducees repulsed the statement of the Talmudists, to wit: "In order that thy days may be prolonged " (Deutr. v. i6), that means in the world to come which is prolonged (endless), and as the simple proof, if one say to his son: "go up on the roof and examine the bird's nest, and take the young ones, and send away the mother, in both of which (sending away the mother and honoring the father) longev- ity is the promised compensation in the Pentateuch; and the son in doing so fell and was killed; how can the promise be fulfilled.'' We must, therefore, say that the promised longevity has reference to life after death." Nor is it anywhere found that the Saddu- cees refuted the statement of the Talmudists: " That person shall be cut off " (Numb. xv. 31); that it means, " he should be cut off from this world as well as from the world to come." The assertion of those who consider themselves competent to make it, that there is no basis in the Pentateuch for the immor- tality of the soul, is not correct, for besides the many plain pas- sages indicating that, the same can also be established from the necessity of the marrying the widow of the deceased childless brother, for if the soul is mortal what is the benefit of "raising up the deceased's name?" So, also, greatly err those who, from this very passage, draw a contrary conclusion, i.e., by asserting that because the soul dies togetlier with the body the Pentateuch commanded that decedent's name be raised up if he die childless, for if the soul dies as does the body, why all that trouble of mar- APPENDIX B. 151 rying the widow, or the ceremony of the "Chalitza," and spitting out before the one who refuses to marry the widow of his deceased childless brother, as commanded by the Pentateuch? If the soul derives no benefit therefrom, why all that? There is no honor in all that either for the dead or for the living, and it is very well known that this custom of raising up the name of the deceased on his estates was known and observed in ancient times, and tho family that did not observe this custom incurred disrespect. Thus far as to the Pentateuch, but as regards the prophets or Hygiogropha only a blind man can fail to find in them retribution and immortality of the soul after death. The whole book of Isaiah is full of that, and it says plainly (Isa. Ivi. 4-5): "For thus saith the Lord concerning the eunuchs (those who die childless) I will indeed give unto them, in my house and within my walls, a place and a name better than sons and daughters, an eternal name — they shall not be cut off." And not to mention about the early and the later Hygiogropha (Ps., xvi. 10): "Thou will not abandon my soul to the grave," and also (ibid, xxvii. 13): "Unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the Land of life." And it is also explicitly stated, (ibid. xxv. 13): "His soul shall abide in happiness; and Jiis descendants shall in- herit the land." Now, how can it enter the mind that the Saddu- cees, who, according to Holdheim, are the Karaites, whose only endeavor was to give the whole Scripture, not only the Pentateuch, the illiteral meaning of the words will deviate from the literal meaning, and explain all those passages as referring only to this earthly life? We can also see from the fact that the Sadducees were more strict as to purification than the Pharisees in going as far as saying that profane writings (the book of Homer) make the hands unclean, to such an extent that if they touch Terumah the latter must not be eaten; that they believed in immortality