14 - The Early Rabbis

The previous chapter described the Church Fathers who created Christianity. This chapter describes the group that created contemporary Judaism. The Tannaim were the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from roughly 70 to 200 CE (10 to 220 CE is cited by some). The Rabbis were not priests or academic formulators of doctrine like the Church Fathers, but rather legal specialists, wise religious lawyers and judges. The Jewish legal system depends on panels of judges of varying sizes. The authority of the Rabbis was primarily based on the prestige and respect inherent in their role as judges and interpreters of the law. The name Tanna was given to the teachers who flourished in Palestine in the first two centuries CE. The name Amora was given to the expounders of the Tannaitic teachings. The Amoraim belong both to Palestine and Babylon down to the end of the fifth century CE.

The Tannaim operated under the occupation of the Roman Empire. During this time, the priests of the Temple grew increasingly corrupt and were viewed by the Jewish people as Roman collaborators with the Romans. Throughout much of this tumultuous period, the office of High Priest) was sold to the highest bidder, and the priests themselves extorted as much as they could from the pilgrims who came to sacrifice at the Temple. This conflict between the Jewish priesthood and the people led to the split between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The elitist, Hellenized Sadducees generally controlled the high priesthood, were supported by the Hasmonean royal family and, later, by the Romans. The Pharisees were a more egalitarian and populist sect; they accepted students from every Hebrew tribe, not only the Levites, and they also promulgated laws that supplemented those contained in the Torah. These laws eventually comprised the Mishnah, whose compilation marked the end of the period of the Tannaim.

The Rabbis were legal specialists but were also interested in theology as evidenced by their Scriptural exegesis and the ethical and theological content of their legal writings. Rabbinic literature is mistakenly interpreted as promoting a legalistic theology, but it is its theological, rather than its legal content, that influenced the Jewish religion. As Jews moved away from the increasing hostile context of a Christianized Roman Empire, they mostly settled in more tolerant regions dominated by Persian Zoroastrianism. The rituals and high moral tone of Zoroastrianism influenced Jewish religious literature of this era, the Gemarah, which resembles the Vivevdat and other Zoroastrian legal commentaries.

The legal framework of these writings makes it difficult to isolate Rabbinic views of the afterlife. Modern anthologies of Rabbinic legal literature reflect a liberal Jewish bias that the afterlife was not discussed by, nor very significant for the Rabbis. Jewish rationalism and worldly ethics are held to be superior to Christian mysticism and salvation. Unlike the Christians, however, the Rabbis did not write systematic philosophical discourse, but individually compared legal rulings to discover underlying legal principles. Midrashic and Rabbinic exegesis and lore contain, therefore, a bewildering array of views. Brief and imaginative discussions of the afterlife appear during exegesis without much effort being made to formulate a conceptually uniform perspective. A survey of the anthologies reveals that Jewish views of the afterlife were fitted to the times wherein they were created, speaking to the interests of the people who listened to the Rabbis’ interpretations and homilies. The First Revolt by the Jews against Roman rule resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The Second Revolt against Rome in 135 CE resulted in the complete economic destruction of Judea. These traumatic pacifications led to a spiritual crisis that demanded a theological response.

The immediate crises, for the Rabbis, required them to determine how Judaism should be adapted for survival in the absence of a Temple. Sectarian, apocalyptic Jews living elsewhere could seek guidance through divine revelation, but Jews surviving the destruction of their state looked to the Pharisees for a solution. The Pharisees responded by establishing precedents for Jewish self-government. In the process of doing this, the Pharisees were transformed into a new group, the Rabbinic class. Despite arguments by modern anthologists to the contrary, the Rabbis believed in a world to come, the resurrection of the dead, Messianic deliverance, divine recompense for corporate and individual deeds, and the positive effects of repentance. All these beliefs characterize a covenant relationship between God and Israel. Novel formulations of these doctrines were tailored to fit their political standing and the social position of Jews in the wider world beyond Judea.

The multitude and variety of the needs that the Rabbis worked to address resulted in the creation of an immense body of literature. Some of these writings, like the Mishnah, focus on the law and are often systematic. Most of this corpus, however, such as the commentary on the Mishnah (the Gemarah), is rather loose and discursive. Other documents like the Midrash (verse by verse Bible exegesis) are extremely varied. The product of locales, and of eras that are often difficult to identify, Rabbinical literature resists efforts to investigate and define it as a whole. The author chooses to focus on a few important passages, providing brief descriptions of the variety of literary forms that surround these passages, and to conclude with summaries of Rabbinical liturgal innovations and mystical writings.

An unexpected aspect of Rabbinical literature (so unexpected as to be often overlooked) is its sense of humor. One joke not only refers to resurrection, but also serves as a warning for those who may too zealously celebrate the Feast of Purim. On this holiday it was customary to parody Rabbinical exegesis, a practice which came to be known as “Purim Torah,” which designates a genre of Jewish literature, rabbinic satire at its best. Purim is a holiday of joy and celebration, and heavy drinking is common and even encouraged in some contexts. The Babylonian Talmud in tractate Megillah recounts a tale of two rabbis who took the obligation of Purim intoxication to a dangerous extreme:

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him…

The next year Rabba asks Rabbi Zeira if they will again celebrate Purim together. Zeira declines to do so, stating, “A miracle does not take place on every occasion.” Rabbinical composure in the face of potentially life-threatening circumstances is an example of ironical humor that, when combined with other examples, helps to indirectly and imperfectly identify Jewish views about the afterlife.

The earliest acknowledged book of Rabbinic Judaism is the Mishnah. A compendium of laws written by multiple authors who are collectively termed the Tannaim. It is based on Israelite law of the First Temple period (922 - 586/587 BCE) and the Second Temple period (586/587 BCE - 70 CE). Judah ha-Nasi (circa 135 - 217 CE), known simply as Rabbi, was chief redactor and editor of the Mishnah. He lived from approximately 135 to 217 CE. He was a key leader of the Jewish community in Roman-occupied Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt. The work that he assembled is purged of all angelology, most Messianism, and, with one notable exception, most discussions of life after death. Since the Talmud was based on Judah ha-Nasi’s Mishnah, it is understandable that many contemporary Jews believe that the afterlife is not a component of Judaism. Even as recently as 1975, Ephriam E. Urbach’s vast compendium titled “The Sages: The World and Wisdom of the Rabbi's of the Talmud” contains no subject heading for resurrection or immortality of the soul, although these subjects are briefly mentioned in two chapters that deal mainly with Messianism.

Judah ha-Nasi’s systematic Mishnah stood as the definitive version of Jewish law for the following four centuries, up until the “stam” (meaning “just” or “only” or “nameless”) appeared to organize the Gemarahs, consisting of line-by-line commentaries on the Mishnah. Both Mishnah and Gemarah formed the Talmud, either in its Babylonian or Palestinian form. The Persian writings were regarded as more authoritative since they were created in an environment unconstrained by the intolerant Christianized Roman Empire. In the absence of tight editorial control, as was the case with the Mishnah, the Talmud incorporates a plethora of material that occasionally seems contradictory. The Rabbis drew upon a variety of scriptural and cultural resources to clarify the finer points of their difficult legal interpretations. Direct, abstract discussions about life after death are scarce in the Talmud, but a look into the various topics that lead into unsystematic discussions about life after death will shed light on the views of the Rabbis. A portion of the Mishna is subject of section 43b of the Talmud which describes the proper conduct of an execution, and touches upon the topic of life after death:

MISHNA: When the condemned man is at a distance of about ten cubits from the place of stoning, they say to him: Confess your transgressions, as the way of all who are being executed is to confess. As whoever confesses and regrets his transgressions has a portion in the World-to-Come. For so we find with regard to Achan, that Joshua said to him: “My son, please give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him” (Joshua 7:19). And the next verse states: “And Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed, I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done.” And from where is it derived that Achan’s confession achieved atonement for him? It is derived from here, as it is stated: “And Joshua said: Why have you brought trouble on us? The Lord shall trouble you this day” (Joshua 7:25). Joshua said to Achan as follows: On this day of your judgment, you are troubled, but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come.

The Gemarah comments on this passage:

And if the condemned man does not know how to confess, either from ignorance or out of confusion, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the condemned man knows that he was convicted by the testimony of conspiring witnesses, but in fact he is innocent, he says: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda said to him: If so, every person who is being executed will say that, to clear himself in the eyes of the public. Therefore, if the condemned man does not make such a statement on his own, the court does not suggest it to him as an alternative.

The Mishnah seems to suggest that the confession of a person convicted of a capital offense is enough to assure their entrance into the hereafter. The particulars of this scenario do not precisely conform to the age of Roman political sovereignty, but they do verify a Tannaim belief that arose after the destruction of the Second Temple; personal death is an expiation for sin. The Temple, along with its daily substitutionary, vicarious atoning sacrifices, no longer existed. It can be inferred that if the contrition of a condemned criminal assures salvation, should not the commonplace death of the average Israelite also adequately atone for their sins? Traditions emerged that atonement for the collective sins of Israel could be secured through prayer, confession, and deeds of loving kindness. Since all die, all are martyrs, a multicultural, universalist assertion that continues to be developed in Rabbinical texts.

Life after death is only extensively discussed in the 10th chapter of Mishnah Sanhedrin. Rabbis of different generations discuss both what will happen to individuals after death, but what will befall Israe as a whole at the end of time:

All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot [good deeds]: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, and an epikoros [heretic] , who treats Torah scholars and the Torah that they teach with contempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Also included in the exceptions are one who reads external literature, and one who whispers invocations over a wound and says as an invocation for healing: “Every illness that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). By doing so, he shows contempt for the sanctity of the name of God and therefore has no share in the World-to-Come. Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters.

Despite their Pharisee ancestry, Rabbinical teachings differed from those of their progenitors. Josephus records that the Pharisees believed that only the souls of the good (based on Daniel 12:2) were consigned to another body. The Rabbis, as revealed by Sanhedrin 10, Mishnah 1 were considerably more inclusive:

All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21).

Resurrection was no longer exclusively reserved for members of a sect, or for martyrs, or for the elect of God. Unlike the Jewish and Christian apocrypha and apocalyptic literature, the Rabbinical texts populate a reconstituted Isreal with all who have died. Unlike the aristocratic, philosophical conceptions of the universality of immortality of souls cleansed of material impurities, the Tannaitic innovative conception lies somewhere between physical resurrection and disembodied immortality. The felicitous future disposition of Israel is based on an exegesis of Isaiah 60-66 that excludes references to the evils that may befall those not who may not share in the eternal inheritance of the land. This universalist attitude is difficult to explain and is an early expression of a non-political Zionism which transfers the land of promise to an eternal realm. Perhaps all of Isreal, in the wake of the Roman Wars, had experienced martyrdom. Perhaps it is a case of chauvinism based on the unique prophesies contained in the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps it represents the longing of displaced people to return to their homeland. Whatever the case may be, the Rabbis effectively catholicized what had hitherto been limited to various sectarian movements. Tannaitic discussions imaginatively interpreted Isaiah 60:21:

Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

Despite the inclusiveness of this interpretation, the selectivity of Daniel 12 (resurrected for reward, resurrected for punishment, or resurrected for none of the above) was used by the Rabbis to categorize the afterlife. Belief that resurrection was even possible, based exclusively on the Torah (despite its paucity of information on this topic), was a precondition for those who aspired to be resurrected.  Neither the Torah nor Daniel support this position, but Isaiah 26:19 does:

Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

The Rabbis did not link the afterlife with the resurrection of a fleshly body, but rather explained the process using more ambiguous terms. It is not the body, per se, but rather the land of Israel that will be resurrected. The Rabbis were content with this ambiguous interpretation, but Christianity debated its precise nature for the next four centuries and continues to do so to this day. The Rabbis did not discuss the nature of martyrdom, nor did they encourage it, yet they affirmed that martyrdom was preferable to apostacy. Exceptions were made for relatively minor instances of apostacy, such as violating dietary laws to avoid being killed. Ambiguities about the afterlife and a lack of enthusiasm for martyrdom by the Rabbis are connected. They do not appear to care if the resurrection occurs in a literal, fleshly body or a perfected, spiritual body. The nature of the resurrection is for God, rather than for humanity to define. The focus is on determining God’s ethical will for our lives prior to our demise. Ex-Pharisee Paul stands as an exemplar of the state of Rabbinical thinking in his era. Like Paul, the resurrection of the body for the Rabbis might not mean the fleshly body, the revivification of a corpse, but rather the transformation of the corporeal body into a heavenly and spiritual body like the bodies of angels. Every Israelite qualified for this angelic transformation.

The Mishnah discusses subtle differences between what is right and what is wrong based on interpretations of the Torah, and what punishments are suitable for whatever wrong may have been committed. It contains no major discussion about specific offenses that would preclude the resurrection of an offender but infers a few: denying that the Torah is the revealed word of God, healing through the means of incantation, pronouncing the name of God, denying the existence (like the Epicureans) of divine providence, and, possibly, reading heretical books. Instead, the Mishnah identifies individuals from scripture, Israelites or otherwise, who will not be resurrected and who will not be judged. Sanhedrin 10:2 states:

Three kings and four common people have no share in the Next World. The three kings are Yeravam, Achav and Menashe [Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh]. Rabbi Yehuda says that Menashe does have a share in the Next World, as per II Chronicles 33:13, “He (Menashe) prayed to Him (God) and He was receptive to him. He heard his plea and brought him back to Jerusalem and his kingdom.” The Sages replied that God may have brought Menashe back to his kingdom, but He didn’t restore him to life in the Next World. The four common people without a share in the Next World are Balaam, Doeg, Achitophel and Gechazi.

The Rabbis believed that there were some Israelites who were so evil that they would be denied entry to the world to come. Interestingly, evil King Manasseh, based on an interpretation of Second Chronicles that he prayed for forgiveness and was forgiven, was regarded by some as being worthy of admittance. Sanhedrin 10:3 continues the Mishnah identification of scriptural reprobates:

The generation of the flood has no share in the Next World, nor will they stand in judgment [at the time of the revival of the dead] as per Genesis 6:3, “My spirit will not remain in man forever.” [The word translated “remain” – yadon – has the same root as the word din, meaning judgment, from which it is inferred that this generation will have neither judgment nor spirit.] The generation of the tower of Babel has no share in the Next World, as per Genesis 11:8, “God scattered them from there across the entire face of the earth” – “God scattered them” in this world. “God scattered them from there” in the Next World. The people of Sodom have no share in the Next World, as per Genesis 13:13, “The people of Sodom were evil and grievous sinners against God” – “evil” in this world and “sinners” in the Next World. They will, however, stand in judgment [at the revival of the dead]. Rabbi Nechemiah says that neither the generation of the flood nor the people of Sodom will stand in judgment, as per Psalms 1:5, “Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” “The wicked will not stand in the judgment” refers to the generation of the flood and “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” refers to the people of Sodom. The Sages replied that the people of Sodom will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.

The spies have no share in the Next World, as per Numbers 14:37, “Also those men who brought an evil report of the land died from the plague before God.” They “died” in this world, “from the plague” in the Next World. The generation of the wilderness has no share in the Next World, nor will they stand in judgment, as per Numbers 14:35, “They will be consumed in this wilderness, and there they will die”; this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says that regarding the generation of the wilderness, Psalms 50:5 says, “Gather My pious ones to Me, those who have made a covenant with Me through sacrifice.” The The spies have no share in the Next World, as per Numbers 14:37, “Also those men who brought an evil report of the land died from the plague before God.” They “died” in this world, “from the plague” in the Next World. The generation of the wilderness has no share in the Next World, nor will they stand in judgment, as per Numbers 14:35, “They will be consumed in this wilderness, and there they will die”; this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says that regarding the generation of the wilderness, Psalms 50:5 says, “Gather My pious ones to Me, those who have made a covenant with Me through sacrifice.” The assembly of Korach are not destined to ascend (from the earth, which swallowed them) as per Numbers 16:33, “The earth closed upon them” meaning in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” in the Next World; this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says that regarding Korach’s assembly, First Samuel 2:6 says, “God kills and makes live; He brings down to the grave and brings up” [suggesting that they do, in fact, have a share in the Next World]. The ten “lost” Tribes are not destined to return, as per Deuteronomy 29:27, “cast them into another land, as it is this day.” Just as this day leaves, never to return, the ten Tribes have gone, never to return; this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says that just as a day grows dark and then grows light again, so it is with the ten “lost” Tribes – just as it grew dark for them, it is likewise destined to grow light for them.

The variety of interpretations contained in the passages above center about Hebraic law, rather than straightforward scriptural exegesis. The Mishnah attempts to identify who will and will not be raised, and who will and will not be judged. Although Daniel 12 is the basis for Judaic views about resurrection, it is not referenced since the Rabbis regarded it as being too closely identified with sectarian movements. The categories of the resurrected described by Daniel are therefore reframed in the context of the Book of Isaiah. What is not directly stated yet is implied throughout the discussion is the ability of repentance to overcome any pending divine condemnation, a concept that is absent in Daniel 12. Generalities about the nature of God’s judgement are absent, but must be inferred by students of the Mishnah, and to a lesser extent, the Gemara. Israelite sinners fare better than primeval sinners in the judgement. A tentative consensus that the generation of wilderness wanderers who were denied entry to the promised land are universally condemned is countered by Rabbi Eliezer, who argues that God has mercy even on the stiff-necked and rebellious generation that departed Egypt. Similarly, grace could be extended to the many followers of rebellious Korah. The author notes that is difficult to determine whether that Rabbis were seriously advocating a particular interpretation or merely exploiting a pretext to display their argumentative skills. 

Despite the legal virtuosity of their debate, however, it can be concluded that God desire contrition, and rewards every penitent sinner, however heinous their crimes may be. The Rabbis are challenged to find scriptural passages that will save ancient sinners from destruction. There is no discussion of permanent punishment in a permanent hell, an idea that fails to align with the benevolence of a graceful and loving God. There exists an underlying assumption that ordinary sins are punished in this world, a position that many portions of the Hebrew Bible support. Ultimately, death itself can be assumed to be a sufficient atonement for sin.

The Babylonian Gemarah (third to seventh century CE) continues Rabbinical discussions about the afterlife. It exhibits influences of Zoroastrianism, the native religion of the Persian regions that played host to many of the Jews escaping Roman Christian persecution. Both before and after the Arab conquest of these regions, resurrection increasingly comes to be described as a literal event. Early on, the Gemarah seeks to determine how the issue of resurrection can be derived from the Torah, which the Amoraim defined as being limited to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Since direct Old Testament references to life after death are limited to Daniel and the later prophets, this is an apparently hopeless task. The first verse conscripted from the Pentateuch for this effort is Numbers 18:28:

Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD'S heave offering to Aaron the priest.

Because Aaron was no longer living when this commandment was recorded, the Rabbis viewed it as evidence that Aaron must have been raised from the dead, and, by extension, that we can also be resurrected. The school of Rabbi Ishmael suggested that “to Aaron” could be a symbolic reference to “one like Aaron,” the priestly descendants of the first priest. By raising this point, the school of Rabbi Ishmael questioned a centuries old doctrine professing belief in resurrection, a belief that Josephus had recorded was held by the Pharisees, progenitors of the Tannaim and the Amoraic Rabbis. Despite the radical nature of this inquiry, the questioners were not branded as heretics, writing as they were in the relatively free setting of the Parthian and Sassanian Persian Empires. Even the most sacred assumptions could be subject to the same degree of legal scrutiny as more mundane topics such as marriage and divorce. The search for scriptural proof for the doctrine of resurrection was continual and sustained. It frequently sought support in portions of scripture outside of the first five books, but only to corroborate interpretations drawn from the Mosaic writings.

In the New Testament, Jesus used scripture to support life after death, a practice that the Rabbis took to an extreme. Mark 12:24-27 records Christ’s statement to a gathering of Sadducees:

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

This passage is paralleled in Matthew 22:29-33:

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Like the Rabbis, Jesus compared different passages of scripture to craft his argument. The first is Exodus 3:6:

Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

The second is Deuteronomy 5:26:

For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?

Jesus equated the designation “God of the living” with “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob.” This Rabbinical method of argument later came to be called Hekesh (the application of a stated law to an unstated but analogous case). But although the proof offered by Jesus is presented as incontrovertible, a multitude of similar, and equally plausible proofs formulated by the Rabbis inevitably provoked a counterargument by other Rabbis. The New Testament validates the divine authority of Jesus to further the mission of Christianity. The Rabbis, in contrast, indulged in a daring and protracted process of argumentation (which the author describes as “serious play”} to produce a vast, but unevenly authoritative body of scriptural exegesis; the Talmud.

Both Jewish mystical literature and Midrashic literature prescribing liturgy profess belief in the revivification of the dead, despite a lack of agreement among the Rabbis about the character of this topic. Counterarguments appear to modern readers better suited to deny, rather than to confirm the belief in resurrection, but the Rabbis maintained this belief despite scriptural citations they provided that seemed to oppose it. The author describes this approach as an early example of “deconstructivism.” Literary deconstructionism is a poststructuralist and postmodernist theory that analyzes texts to demonstrate that they have multiple meanings and are open to more than one interpretation. Proof that the Rabbis maintained belief in an afterlife, despite having provided a multitude of conflicting interpretations, is evident in a portion of the Great Prayer, or Ha-tefilah, a liturgical component of every Jewish worship service:

O King, Helper, Savior and Shield, Blessed are You, Lord, the shield of Abraham. You are mighty forever, the Lord who brings the dead to life, mighty to save. O Sustainer of life by Your grace, the One who out of great compassion brings the dead to life, who carries the falling, heals the sick, releases the prisoner and keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust. Who is like You, Master of mighty deeds, and who even resembles You, O King over death and life, the One who causes salvation to spring up? Truly, You are faithful to bring the dead to life; blessed are You, Lord, who brings the dead to life.

In both its Rabbinical form and in an earlier version discovered at Qumran, this prayer is largely a gloss on Psalm 146:5-8:

Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever: Which executeth judgment for the oppressed: which giveth food to the hungry. The LORD looseth the prisoners: The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous.

The preceding verses contain no mention of resurrection, but the augmented Rabbinical Great Prayer is but one example of seemingly countless references to resurrection contained in the Jewish prayerbook. The Birkhot Hashahar (“morning blessings”), a liturgical preparation for morning prayers, commences with a biblical description of the soul but soon augments this with more Hellenistic conception:

The soul which you, my God, have given me is pure. You created it, You formed it, You breathed it into me; You keep body and soul together. One day You will take my soul from me, to restore it to me in life eternal. So long as this soul is within me I acknowledge You, Lord my God, my ancestors’’ God, Master of all creation, sovereign of all souls. Praised are You, Lord who restores the soul to the lifeless body.

Jewish mystics speculated that a soul could be separated from the body and would return to God at death. This proposed separation of body and soul portrays Greek influence, but its ultimate return to a reconstituted body suggests a Jewish (and also Christian) concept of resurrection. This prayer was to be spoken at bedtime and compares the waking of a sleeper to the resurrection of a corpse. The Jewish prayer for the dead, El Male Rahamim (“God full of mercy”) is similar in its allusions to life after death:

O God, full of compassion, Who dwells on high, grant true rest upon the wings of the Shechinah [Divine Presence], in the exalted spheres of the holy and pure, who shine as the resplendence of the firmament, to the soul of [Hebrew name of the deceased and that of his father] who has gone to his supernal world, for charity has been donated in remembrance of his soul; may his place of rest be in Gan Eden. Therefore, may the All-Merciful One shelter him with the cover of His wings forever, and bind his soul in the bond of life. The Lord is his heritage; may he rest in his resting-place in peace; and let us say: Amen.

A portion of the imagery contained in this prayer is drawn from First Samuel 25:29, part of Abigail’s blessing of David that highlights the providence of God that was conscripted by the Rabbis to serve as an ambiguous metaphor. David is gathered into a bundle, while his enemies are cast out like stones from a sling. The ingathering of the exiles was central to Rabbinical views of the afterlife:

Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling.

This allusive example of Jewish liturgy also exhibits influences of Daniel 12. The dead will “shine as the resplendence of the firmament.” Humanity’s original home, the garden of Eden, also serves as its final resting place, just as it had appeared as a feature of heaven in apocalyptic literature. The Rabbis took a dim view of the apocalyptic writers, but canonical Daniel 12 remained significant, the dead shine like the stars of heaven, rest eternally in Eden, yet their fleshly bodies rest peacefully in the grave.

The Mishnah contains a variety of descriptions of the afterlife which reflect the views and aspirations of the individual Rabbis that contributed to it. The dominant Rabbinical conception of life after death is Olam Ha-ba’ (the coming world”) which is usually translated as “the world to come,” which is contrasted with ‘Olam Ha-ze (“this world”). Both terms are used in Avot 4:17:

Rabbi Yaakov would say: This world is comparable to an antechamber before the world to come. Prepare yourself in the antechamber, so that you may enter the banquet hall. He would also say: A single moment of repentance and good deeds in this world is greater than all of the world to come. And a single moment of bliss in the world to come is greater than all of this world.

The paradoxical nature of these statements defies logical analysis, an approach which was continued in Jewish mystical writings. The Rabbis were mainly interested in the proper conduct of the living. Views about the afterlife are expressed in connection with, and in contrast to, life in this world. Third century Palestinian Yohanan bar Nappaha summarized Rabbinical resistance to speculation about the world to come in Sanhedrin 99a:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In their prophecies with regard to redemption and the end of days, all the prophets prophesied only about the messianic era, but with regard to the World-to-Come the reward is not quantifiable, as it states: “No eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him” (Isaiah 64:3).

Third century Babylonian Rabbi Rav Abba provided a description of a perfected world in Berakhot 17a:

Rav was wont to say: The World-to-Come is not like this world.  In the World-to-Come there is no eating, no drinking, no procreation, no business negotiations, no jealousy, no hatred, and no competition. Rather, the righteous sit with their crowns upon their heads, enjoying the splendor of the Divine Presence, as it is stated: “And they beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Exodus 24:11),

This vision is based on an encounter between God, Moses, and the elders of the Children of Israel at Sinai. The Rabbis believed that scholarship transcended common earthy pursuits, which they regarded as an annoying distraction. In an idealized world, nothing would interfere with the contemplation of God by the righteous. The royal court of God which is traditionally portrayed in scripture becomes replaced by a Rabbinic court where both the learned and unlearned will be privileged to continually study the Torah.

The Midrash Eleh Ezkerah is the story of ten rabbis martyred by the Romans which describes their condition in the world to come, a place where the purified souls of the righteous sit upon golden thrones and perpetually study the Torah. This reward is not exclusively reserved for scholarly martyrs. In the afterlife, everyone will have the opportunity to become a Rabbi. This vision of heaven exalts the status of the Rabbis, and inversely anthropomorphizes God into a highly exalted type of Rabbi who joins in the endless debates. Bava Metziah 86a describes an instance  where an earthly Rabbi was summoned to the heavenly realm to settle a dispute between the ascended Rabbis and uber-Rabbi Yahweh (“The Holy One”) about a case of leprosy:

The heavenly debate concerned a case of uncertainty as to which came first, the spot or the hair. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: The individual is pure, but every other member of the heavenly academy says: He is impure. And they said: Who can arbitrate in this dispute? They agreed that Rabba bar Naḥmani should arbitrate, as Rabba bar Naḥmani once said: I am preeminent in the halakhot of leprosy and I am preeminent in the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents.

Rabba bar Naḥmani settles this dispute in a manner that agrees with God’s position, a decision which confirms the ultimate righteousness of God. The Daniel 12 theme of the angelic identity of “those who make others wise: was linked to ascetism by the apocalyptic sectarians, but the Rabbis associated it with their own predilection for study, prayer, and intellectual discourse.

A portion of Ketubot 111b lauds an absence of strife in the world to come due to the abundance of commodities that the living continually strives to obtain:

It is stated: “And from the blood of the grape you drank foaming wine” (Deuteronomy 32:14). The Sages said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. In this world there is suffering involved in picking grapes and in pressing them. By contrast, in the World-to-Come one will bring one grape in a wagon or on a boat and set it down in a corner of his house and supply from it enough to fill about the amount of a large jug [pitus], and with its wood one will kindle a fire under a cooked dish. And every grape you have will produce no less than thirty full jugs of wine, each with the capacity of a se’a.

This passage represents the domestication of sectarian apocalyptic visons of heaven. Pastoral expectations of a better future in a reconstituted land of Israel supplant descriptions of dramatic ascent by temporarily translated desert-dwelling ascetic adepts to the heavenly realms.

A more explicit Rabbinical account of death and an immediate judgment can be found in Tanhuma, Vayikra 8 as translated by Samcha Paull Raphael:

The sages have taught us that we as human beings cannot appreciate the joys of the future age. Therefore, they called it “the coming world” [Olam ha-ba’], not because it does not yet exist, but because it is still in the future. “The world to Come” is the one waiting for man after this world. But there is no basis for the assumption that the world to come will only begin after the destruction of this world. What it does imply is that when the righteous leave this world, they ascend on high, as it is said, “How great is the goodness, O Lord, which you have in store for those who fear you, and which, toward those who take refuge in you, you show in the sight of men [Psalms 31:20].

The Rabbi who wrote this passage failed to adhere to tradition by using the term “Olam ha-ha” (the coming world) instead of the Hebrew word for heaven, a creative reinterpretation that supports his personal view that judgement, and the ascent of the righteous, occurs immediately after death, not after the destruction of this world. Invariably, the Rabbis branded those who do not believe in life after death as heretics. Shemot Rabba 44 describes an exchange on Sanai between God and Moses that the Rabbis enlisted to support their views on the afterlife:

Another matter: “Remember Abraham, [Isaac, and Israel]” – why did he mention three patriarchs? Rabbi Levi said: Moses said: ‘Master of the universe, will the dead live?’ He said to him: ‘Moses, have you become a heretic?’ Moses said to Him: ‘If the dead will not live in the future, it is appropriate that You do to them anything that you wish. However, if the dead will live, what will You say to the patriarchs in the future when they arise and ask You about the promise that You made to them? What will You be able to answer them? Did You not promise them that You would increase their children like the stars of the heavens, and now You seek to eliminate them?’ That is, “remember Abraham, [Isaac, and Israel].”

Moses and God engaged in a Rabbinical dialogue, and it was Moses’s argument that prevailed.

The Targum is a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, just as the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Both were produced due to the decline of Hebrew as the everyday language of diaspora Jews. The Targum contains many additions and commentary which reflect the concerns of the Aramaic-speaking Jewish community that created it. While information about life after death is largely absent from the Hebrew Bible and its Greek translation, the Targum remedies this deficit. For example, in the story of the murder of Abel by Cain, the Targum inserts a short Midrash that discusses resurrection. Another Midrashim is connected the argument between Jacob (representative of Judaism) and Esau (representative of Christianity). A third instance glosses the argument between the land and the sea, a portion of the “Song of the Seam” located in Exodus 15:12: 

And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

The fate of Lot’s wife is central to discussions of the afterlife in the Targum. Commentary on Genesis 19:26 reveals the following:

And because the wife of Lot was of the children of the people of Sedom, she looked behind her, to see what would be the end of her father's house: and, behold, she was made to stand a statue of salt, until the time of the resurrection shall come, when the dead shall arise.

The author notes that it is significant that Lot’s wife will be resurrected, despite her not being an Israelite.

Resurrection is also a feature of Jewish mysticism. This literature features various and mildly conflicting descriptions of the soul. The theophanic secrets of the Divine Glory (kabod) are of central importance, as are the mysteries of the tetragrammaton (“four lettered word”), YHWH, which occurs thousands of times in the Hebrew Bible. Material that informed the apocalyptic Jewish sectarians remained important for the mystics; Daniel 7:13-14, the enthronement of God’s principal angel in Exodus 24, Ezekial 1, and Psalm 110. These themes were continued in the Kabbalah with its complex and speculative sephiroth (Sefirot).

The connection between Psalm 110 and the visions of Daniel is significant both for Christianity and the Zohar, a collection of Jewish mystical writings that includes biblical interpretation, homilies, spiritual fantasy, and commentary. Zohar Bereshith, 1.63a is drawn from an exegesis of Noah’s flood:

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Daniel, Thou shalt go towards the end, and will rest (Daniel 12:13). Daniel asked: “Rest in this world or in the next world?” “Rest in the next world,” was the answer. (cf. “They will rest in their beds” (Isaiah 57:2), “and thou shalt stand up to thy lot at the end of days.” Daniel asked, “Shall I be among the resurrected or not?” God answered, “And thou wilt stand up.” Daniel then said, “I know full well that the dead will rise up in various classes, some righteous and some wicked, but I do not know among whom I shall be found.” God answered, “To thy lot.” Daniel then said, “As there is a right end and a left end, I do not know whether I shall go to the right end (l’qets hayamin) or to the end of days (l’qet hayamim).” The answer was, “To the end of the right (l’qets hayamin).” Similarly, David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “Make me to know my end, “ that is, he wished to know to which end he was allotted, and his mind was not rested ‘til the good tidings reached him, “Sit at my right hand (Psalms 110:1).

The Biblical phrase “the end of all things” refers to the final apocalypse. The Zohar next surveys other scriptural citations of “the end,” including the distinctive and unparralleled (in the Old Testament) statements contained in Daniel 12:1-3. Based on a comparison of these rare citations, the Rabbis concluded that only two possibilities exist: being resurrected, or not being resurrected. Daniel had asked God if he would be resurrected, and God affirmed that he would be. Kabbalistic interpretations of Psalms 110 conclude that David will also be translated to heaven as his ultimate reward where he will be enthroned beside God.

The Zohar equates angels with stars, based not only on Daniel 12:3, but also on the concluding verse of Job 38:4-7, Below is Job 38:4-7, the commencement of God’s poetic response to Job’s numerous questions and complaints:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalm 148 is another source. Below are the first 6 verses of this psalm:

Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

Like the Rabbinical writings, the Zohar describes death as a manner of atoning sacrifice, Bereishit 65a-65b uses ritual animal sacrifice as an analogy to explain why good people must suffer and die:

At the rising of the moon in the early part of each month a goat is offered up as a supplementary sacrifice which the demon delighting in, cease for the time being from troubling Israel who is thus able to make its offerings in peace that bring them into closer relationship with their Lord and King. As a he-goat is what demons delight in, so is Israel the delight and choice of the Holy One as stated in scripture "for the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself and Israel for his peculiar treasure" (Psalm 136:4). Still further, "the end of all flesh" joys only in what is carnal and when he acquires power and influence over anyone, it is over his animal or lower nature and not over his higher self. This is spiritual and celestial in origin, that is earthly in its production. So is it with the two elements or parts in a sacrifice; like goeth to like, the material part remaineth below, take spiritual part ascendeth on high. When anyone lives the higher and diviner life, there is a continual sacrifice, that in a measure atones for the sins of humanity in general, whereas the life of an iniquitous man is of no benefit or advantage whatever to the world or it is blemished with sin and wrong doing and therefore it is written, "Whatsoever hath a blemish ye shall not offer, for it will not be acceptable" (Leviticus 22:25). From what has been said we can understand and gather the true meaning of sacrifice and how the lives of good men subserve to the benefit and salvation of humanity.

The Kabbalists who created this passage identified themselves with the “enlightened” of the prophecies of Daniel. The title of the principal book of the Kabbalah, Zohar, is taken from Daniel 12:3. Like the Rabbis, the Kabbalist believed that all of Israel (unrepentant sinners excepted) will be resurrected to inherit the land. Both groups believed that some would become transformed into angels, particularly themselves, but the creators of the Zohar were especially convinced. This doctrine of selective salvation restricted resurrection to the children of Israel, a form of consolation that, in the face of continuing persecution of the Jews, extended into the medieval era with its many accounts of heavenly ascents. Much of this body of ascent literature may reflect genuine visionary experiences, but some of it is likely consciously created, imaginative travelogues.

It has previously been noted that only two figures in the Hebrew Bible were believed to have ascended to heaven without having died beforehand. The first of these is Enoch, whose translation is tersely described in Genesis 5:21-24:

And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

A vast body of apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical literature featuring Enoch was developed based on this brief account. The Rabbis were much more attracted by the second of the two figures, Elijah, whose dramatic ascent to heaven is recorded in Second Kings 2:11:

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Elijah remains a popular figure in Jewish culture. The Havdalah service that marks the beginning of the liturgical week is a hymn sung to Elijah, who is regarded as a possible forerunner of the Messiah. Malachi 4:5-6 links Elijah to the appearance of the Messiah at the end of the world:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Prior to Elijah’s new emphasis in Rabbinical liturgy, second century BCE Jewish theologian Ben Siri attributed the future restoration of the tribes of Jacob to the prophet. This explains his implied presence at the seder, a Jewish ceremony and meal that commemorates the Israelites' exodus from Egypt during Passover. Ecclesiastes 48:1 introduces Elijah, the subject of the first 14 verses of this chapter:

Then stood up Elias the prophet as fire, and his word burned like a lamp.

Ecclesiastes 48:10 provides this detail about Elijah, and connects it with Malachi 4:

Who wast ordained for reproofs in their times, to pacify the wrath of the Lord's judgment, before it brake forth into fury, and to turn the heart of the father unto the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.

In contemporary seders, a cup of wine is set on the dinner table for Elijah. After the dinner, many Jewish households open their doors to allow him to enter and enjoy his cup of wine. The congenial and festive familial atmosphere of these celebration reinforce conditions described at the beginning of Malachi 4:6: “And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,” possibly in an effort to preclude the dire consequences described at the end of this verse: “…lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

The Biblical account of Elijah, in contrast to Enoch, is replete with notable miracles and theophanies. Elijah is continually evoked and blessed in Jewish liturgy as a harbinger of better things to come. In Christianity, the New Testament records an incorrect comparison of Jesus with Elijah in Mark 8:27-30:

And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Matthew 16:13-16 and Luke 9:18-20 are variations of Mark 8:27-30. Jesus himself identified his cousin John the Baptist with Elijah, thereby verifying the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy. Matthew 11:10-15 are the words of Jesus to his disciples:

For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

The dialogue recorded in Mark 9:11-13 occurs immediately after Christs transfiguration where he appears with Moses and Elijah, and indirectly identifies John the Baptist with Elijah:

And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.

In the Talmud, Bava Metzia 59a-b, Elijah Appears at the conclusion of the famous story of the oven of Akhnai, a debate held among the Rabbis over the halakhic status of a new type of oven. During the rabbinic disagreement, the story expresses differing views of the nature of law and authority, concerns about a fractured and divisive community, and the sinfulness of harming another person through one’s words and actions. Rabbi Eliezer, in the face of overwhelming opposition, has determined that the new oven is fit to use:

Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?

The unanticipated postscript, featuring Elijah:

Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.

Despite divine vindication for Rabbi Eliezer during the debate, Elijah’s postgame analysis seems to justify the ostracization of Eliezer by his peers. Rabbi Eliezer sought to reveal an innate Halakhah based on revelation, rather than by proceeding according to the dictates of proper jurisprudence. Rabban Gamaliel and the majority worked to create halakhah through human reason and correct protocol. Gamaliel has been judged as heavy-handed for his insensitive decision to exile Rabbi Eliezer, but in this era it was unity, rather than precision, that took priority. The Rabbis desperately hoped to suppress the sectarian disputes that threatened to splinter Judaism. When sectarian strife led to the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Rabbinical ambitions to stabilize society were temporarily thwarted.

Baba Metzia 85b interestingly describes Elijah as the revealer of the secrets of resurrection to humanity. For doing so, Elijah receives a punishment which is normally reserved for angels, thereby verifying the prophet’s angelic status:

They said in heaven: Who is the revealer of secrets in the world? They said in response: It is Elijah. Elijah was brought to heaven, whereupon he was beaten with sixty fiery lashes. Elijah came back down to earth disguised as a bear of fire. He came among the congregation and distracted them from their prayers, preventing Rabbi Ḥiyya from reciting the phrase: Who revives the dead.

Rabbinic Judaism explained Elijah’s survival in the wake of a punishment no mortal could withstand as proof of his angelic role as savior figure, consoler of the afflicted, and messenger between Isreal and God. His role as unsanctioned sharer of divine secrets with humanity, and his subsequent punishment, is analogous to the Greek myth of Promethius. His role as divine messenger is comparable to that of the Greek deity Hermes, the herald of the gods.

The final disposition of those who were not Jews was also discussed by the Rabbis. After the diaspora, Jews and non-Jews lived side by side. In the late second century Tosefta Sanhedrin, Rabbi Joshua advocated this position:

The righteous of all nations shall have a share in the world to come.

This Rabbi removed any distinction between the abilities of both Jews and non-Jews to attain salvation by doing good works. Other Rabbis, represented by Rabbi Eliezer, maintained that only Jews could be saved.

According to medieval-era Jewish law, gentiles are not obligated to convert to Judaism but are required to observe the seven Noahide Commandments (prohibitions against worshipping idols, cursing God, murder, adultery and sexual immorality, theft, eating flesh torn from a living animal, as well as the obligation to establish courts of justice) to inherit the final reward of the righteous. In the twelfth century Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 8:11, Maimonides writes:

Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven mitzvot and is precise in their observance is considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles' and will merit a share in the world to come. This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses, our teacher, that Noah's descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously. However, if he fulfills them out of intellectual conviction, he is not a resident alien, nor of 'the pious among the gentiles,' nor of their wise men.

The 15th-century Sephardic Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Caro, one of the early Acharonim and author of the Shulchan Aruch, rejected Maimonides' denial of the access to the World to Come to the gentiles who obey the Noahide laws guided only by their reason as anti-rationalistic and unfounded, asserting instead that there is not any justification to uphold such a view in the Talmud. Several centuries later, Moses Mendelssohn, a leading exponent of the Jewish enlightenment (Haskalah), strongly disagreed with Maimonides' opinion, contending that gentiles which observe the Noahide laws out of ethical, moral, or philosophical reasoning but did not believe in the Jewish monotheistic God, retained the status of "Righteous Gentiles" and would achieve salvation.

This chapter concludes with a discussion about Jewish conceptions of martyrdom that is introduced by an analysis of early synagogue decorative motifs. Whereas martyrdom was lauded by the early Christians, and persecutions counterintuitively served to expand the number of people who chose to become Christians, continually persecuted Jews advocated that martyrdom be avoided. Biblical examples of interrupted martyrdoms include the sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham and the rescue from death, by God, and of Daniel in the loin's den and his three fellow Babylonian captives in the fiery furnace.

Zodiac mosaics upon the floors of ancient synagogues are known from at least eight examples from Palestine in the fourth through the sixth centuries CE. Typically, the mosaic floors of these synagogues consisted of three panels, the central one containing the Jewish zodiac. Scholar Lucille A. Roussin interprets the sun deity depicted in the mosaics as the continuation of an ancient faith in angels as intermediaries between the highest, seventh firmament (the seat of God) and the earthly realm. A second panel of the synagogue floor frequently depicts the Temple in Jerusalem with its two pillars on its entry façade and the curtain that enshrouds the holy of holies, symbolic of the continuity of worship between the destroyed Temple and its expatriate successors, the synagogues.

An additional floor panel, in many synagogues, depicts the sacrifice of Isaac. For Christians, this event is interpreted as foreshadowing of the death of Christ, since both Abraham and God were willing to sacrifice their firstborn sons. In the synagogue floors, the binding of Isaac is most often depicted. Since this binding occurred on Mount Moriah, future site of the Jewish Temple, this motif serves to link the synagogue to the Temple. The author adds that the termination of Isaacs sacrifice helps explain why Temple sacrifices were no longer performed in synagogues. Portions of the Midrash, however, describe Isaac as having been successfully sacrificed and subsequently resurrected, the Jewish analog of Christian conceptions of vicarious atonement being achieved through human, rather than animal sacrifices. Pre-Christian Jewish martyrdom traditions equated Isaacs pending death with that of murder victim Abel.

In Late Antiquity and the Byzantine Period, Jews too often needed encouragement. Their principal persecutors were Roman Empire Christians. The Jews viewed the Muslim Arab invaders as liberators. Isaac’s interrupted sacrifice could be representative of Jewish ambitions to avoid martyrdom, if possible, but would also offer encouragement to those for whom martyrdom was unavoidable. Isaac deliverance through divine intercession also represented the synagogue’s faith that, despite their continually imperiled condition, God would also deliver them as well.