What do the dead feel and what do they say --
Berachot 18b
"The sons of R' Chiya
moved to town for work and forgot their studies. They regretted this. One of
the group said: Father, who is already dead, knows we regret this. Another said
to him: How do you know that the dead know what happens amongst the living? It
is written, 'His sons shall attain honor and he shall not know.' The other
answered him: Shall he not know? Yet it is written, 'The flesh upon him shall
ache and the soul upon him shall mourn;' and R' Isaac said: Worms are as
painful for the dead as a needle to live flesh." See there for the
continuation of this debate in the Gemara, discussing whether the dead know
what happens amongst the living; in the end the Sages concluded that the dead
do indeed know.
So you have, wise and rational
student, an example of debate amongst our rabbis and from that you can draw
conclusions on many other matters. For example: One who supposes the dead know
what happens amongst the living brings proof from the story of a righteous man
who spent the eve of Rosh Hashanah in a cemetery and heard ghosts talking
amongst themselves. One ghost said to another: "Leave me alone, for things
which should have stayed between us were already heard amongst the living"
-- which they brought as a proof that the dead do indeed know. But the Gemara
rejected this with the claim that perhaps the dead do not truly know about the
living, and the reason the ghosts in question knew was that another person, who
died later than the ghosts, told them what he heard while alive.
Good. We learn that those
"gone down to silence" are not silent at all. Not only do they take
stories with them to the grave, they also reveal them to the ghosts in
cemeteries. Moreover, see Agadot Maharsha, who asks: "Every time it says
'Once a righteous man…' it refers to either R' Judah son of Ilaei or R' Judah
son of Bava. How is it conceivable that either of these righteous men would
spend the eve of Rosh Hashanah alone in a cemetery, to sleep in an impure
place?" He answered that this was all a dream. A perfect fit!
Now matters are as clear as
the sun: A righteous man, R' Judah son of Ilaei (or maybe R' Judah son of Bava)
dreamt that he heard two ghosts conversing in a cemetery. In his dream he also
saw the ghosts saying that they heard things from the world of the living. The
Gemara says that the ghosts of whom R' Judah son of Bava (or maybe R' Judah son
of Ilaei) spoke heard in this dream what was said by those who died after them,
in the dream of course. We don't understand at all how proof can be brought
from dreams -- have our rabbis not already said in Berachot 55a, "Just as
it is impossible to find grain without straw, so no dream is without foolish
things"? Moreover, the Gemara rejected this argument because the story
might have involved a man who died after the ghosts; according to the Maharsha,
what had this to do with dreams at all? Perhaps we should answer that the one
who died later was in another righteous man's dream?
Think, you who learns and
investigates, how our rabbis debate upon a matter whose secrets only a
tradition from the Glory can reveal (for only there do they know what happens
amongst the dead). Why bother at all to debate this?
Come see how far the
matters go. The Gemara in Shabbat 13b: "'The flesh of the dead does not
feel a scalpel.' Doesn't this contradict what was said earlier? After all, R'
Isaac said that worms are as painful for the dead as a needle to live flesh,
for it is written, 'The flesh upon him shall ache and the soul upon him shall
mourn!' (Job 14:22) It should be said that dead flesh on one who lives does not
feel the scalpel."
According to the Gemara, a
dead body can indeed feel the pain of worms chewing away at its flesh. But the
words of the Gemara seem a little strange, for one should discuss here a simple
analogy from minor to major: If one who lives and his soul is within his body
does not feel the pain of dead flesh, how much more so must a dead person,
whose soul has departed from his body, not feel the pain of dead flesh…
The Rashba, in his
responsa, part one, paragraph 816, was asked whether it is permitted to
introduce lime into a dead body to speed the decomposition of flesh. He
answered that "If one wishes to speed the decomposition to take the body
to where the person had commanded he be carried, it is permitted. There is no
degradation here nor any pain being caused. The dead flesh does not feel the
scalpel, and certainly not lime. Likewise, the embalmers tear the body and
remove the entrails, and there is no degradation here."
Not only did the Rashba
ignore the above gemara (and we will return to our rabbis' handling of this
issue), see something great -- the Rashba brings proof from the Torah itself
that embalming is permitted and there is no specific obligation to bury the
dead (see below for more on this issue), for it is written explicitly in
Genesis 50:2: "And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm
his father; and the physicians embalmed Israel…" Similarly, in Genesis
50:26: "So Joseph died, being a hundred and ten years old. And they
embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt." See the Encyclopedia
Hebraica, entry chanitah for a detailed description of embalming. Even
the Abarbanel on the portion of Vayechi described it: "Embalming is removing
the brain and the heart [in the encyclopedia it is written, "All organs
aside from the heart and kidneys"] and liver, the intestines, and the bile
ducts from the body. The body is anointed from within and without with
persimmon oil, and the bowels are filled within and without with perfumes which
dry out the moist parts of the body. Each day the perfumes must be changed and
within days there remains a dry and hardened body form without any change. The
dead body looks as though it were asleep and it will neither mold nor
stink."
Some of our rabbis found it difficult to accept the embalming of our
father Jacob and the removal of his internal organs, his intestines, brain, and
liver. What did they say about this? The Chatam Sofer wrote in his responsa,
Yoreh Deah, paragraph 366: "The Leket HaKemach has written…that,
G-d forbid, they did not open Jacob's belly nor remove his intestines. Through
his navel they inserted the persimmon, for through the mouth it was impossible,
for with one's death his mouth is sealed and his navel opened, as when he was
inside his mother (a small opening a hair's breadth in size); and there the
physicians inserted the persimmon…This was known to the sons of Jacob and not
to the others, and therefore gentile physicians do not know to do their work
thus with their kings." We have already written quite a lot that this is
our rabbis' way, to invent things that never were and whose only use is as an
excuse. (There is no innovation in this method. We have already written in our essay about
animals that Chazal invented an animal called the shesuah and even
brought it as proof that the Torah is from the Heavens.) Here, too, they
discovered an amazing method of embalming and attributed its great secret to
the sons of Jacob. And this secret, they must add, was not known to the
gentiles, for blessing does not fall upon nonsense unless it is hidden from the
eye.
Come see something else. In I Samuel 31:12 it is said, "All the
valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies
of his sons from the wall of Beit-shan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them
there. And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree." This is
an explicit Scripture which states that it was customary to burn the bodies and
not to bury them, as the Radak wrote there: "It can be explained that the
flesh they burned was full of worms and they did not want to bury them with the
worms, for this was not dignified, so they burnt the flesh and buried the
bones." What do our rabbis, who absolutely forbid cremation, say about
this? In Responsa Chelkat Ya'akov, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 203: "And about
Saul, who was burnt, [the Reform] gnash their teeth against the Sages'
tradition that this was not the burning of bodies but only of their bedding and
the possessions made for them, as brought in Avodah Zarah 11." But the
Scriptures explicitly state that the bodies were burnt: "And they put his
armor in the house of Ashtarot, and they fastened his body to the wall of
Beit-shan…. and [they] took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from
the wall of Beit-shan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there" (I Smauel
31:10-12). The words of the Scriptures are extremely clear: the Philistines put
the armor in Ashtarot and the Scripture does not relate what happened to it,
while about the bodies of Saul and his sons the Scripture explicitly states
that they were removed from the walls of Beit-shan and burnt. How, in his fear
of the Reform, did the author of Chelkat Ya'akov sway from the explicit
Scripture?
We find that embalming and
cremation of the dead is permitted by the Scriptures, but our rabbis were the
ones who forbade it absolutely. We have said many times that we do not live
according to the Torah nor the actions of our forefathers recorded in the
Scriptures before us, neither the embalming of our father Jacob nor the burning
of the body of a king of Israel, but according to the laws of our rabbis in
each generation, absolutely human laws.
We will now return to the Rashba's
ruling, which contradicts the words of the Gemara. The Ridbaz in his responsa,
part one, paragraph 484, settles the contradiction: "You should always say
that the dead do not really feel the scalpel, and if you say that since the
dead do not feel, they do not feel even a worm, so how R' Isaac could say,
'Worms are as painful for the dead as a needle to live flesh' -- it should be
answered that worms, which are created from that very flesh as punishment for
his deeds, are felt, but other things are not felt; and this is one of the
wonders of His supervision." Before us again is an "invention for the
sake of an excuse" such as we mentioned above. Dead flesh does not feel
the scalpel which cuts, but worms it does feel, for these are created from that
very flesh and are therefore a punishment to that flesh. There is no need to
say that all this nonsense arouses laughter. What should be seriously
contemplated is that our rabbis debate things which the human intellect does
not know or understand (such as what the soul feels after death), and they use
their human intellect to discuss this, with no reason or purpose, for none of
these matters can be proven or refuted and therefore, why deal with them at
all? This is just a waste of time.
This is the place to clarify the
opinion of our rabbis about why autopsies are forbidden though because of them
many lives have been saved. Thus it is written in Responsa Noda B'Yehuda,
second edition, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 210: "But in the matter under
discussion [autopsies for purposes of studying medicine] there is no specific
patient who needs this, only people who want to learn this wisdom -- perhaps
some future patient will need it." And similarly on the issue of organ
transplants from the dead.
Not only did our rabbis not
receive from Sinai what exactly constitutes degradation of the dead (they only
discussed this based on their own knowledge, as clarified above), but they also
forbade us to save lives and deemed dead bodies more important than living
people. How did our rabbis know this constitutes degradation? Perhaps it is
better for the soul of dead to see a man saved because of his organs than to
see worms eating them. And reasoning from minor to major premises: Just as a
living person may donate an organ like a kidney to save his friend from death
(which is seen as a great mitzvah), how much more so should that same soul
agree to donate the kidney after death (whereby it would be taken from the body
with the use of scalpel, not painful for the dead) instead of leaving it for
worms to eat (which is painful indeed).
Another thing which the Noda
B'Yehuda did not realize is that autopsies for medical study are not
questionably the saving of lives but certainly the saving of lives. Go see how
medicine has advanced, in part because of autopsies. Without them there would
be many more ill and dead among us, G-d forbid, and though there is no specific
patient whom a given autopsy might benefit right on the spot, it is clear that
at some point relief and remedy will be found because of autopsies, and many
patients' lives will be saved. This is similar to what we brought on the
portion of Balak,
in the name of Rabbi Obadiah Yosef, in Responsa Yabiya Omer, part eight, Orach
Chaim, paragraph 38: "We learn that in our times, when there is fear of
more than mere animosity if Jewish doctors forbore from treating non-Jews on
the Sabbath and left them to die, even this issue is one of saving Jewish lives
-- for if non-Jewish doctors heard this they would stop treating Jewish
patients." So you see that even if there is no Jewish patient immediately
at risk, we permit the desecration of the Sabbath because it will save Jews at
some future point. If this is how we treat the Sabbath, autopsies (which are
not forbidden by the Torah) should be permitted even more.
Come see how far our rabbis the Halachic arbiters went. They have no
inspiration, wisdom, or foresight and they permit autopsies of gentiles but not
of Jews. That is, to enjoy the fruits of medicine based on autopsies of dead
gentiles (and of Jewish doctors who do not listen to our rabbis but rather to
their own sense) is permitted, and all religious Jews hurry to enjoy the fruits
of medical knowledge which they themselves are forbidden to obtain. Were the
situation the opposite and gentiles permitted to autopsy only Jewish bodies,
what a cry would reach to the heavens about anti-Semitism and persecution of
Jews. Don't the arbiters understand that in the end this will only lead to more
hatred of Jews?
We will conclude this
matter with an amazing thing we've written several times -- that our rabbis
insist on learning reality from the Holy Writings instead of from actual
reality!
The Gemara in Taanit 5b: "R'
Yochanan said: Jacob our forefather did not die. They said to him: So, was he
mourned, embalmed and buried for nothing? He answered: I expound the
Scriptures; it is written, 'Do not fear, My servant Jacob, said G-d, and do not
quail, Israel, for I will redeem you from afar and your seed from the land of
captivity' -- he is compared to his descendents: as his descendants are alive,
so is he alive." From here the author of Responsa Tzitz Eliezer learns in
part 14, paragraph 98: "Chazal showed here that if the physical sense is
contradicted by what is written in our holy Torah, we must conclude that the
physical sense is in error, and it only seemed that he was embalmed -- for
since one expounds the Scriptures through the true rules given us at Sinai, the
holy One, blessed be He, says so, and in any case it is clear that it only
seemed to them he died, but he lived. This is how Chazal learned the Torah, and
this is the great difference and the terrible distance between our views and
Chazal's. They are exactly the opposite: for us, in our sins, this world is
reality and the Torah is expounded -- but Chazal, with their holiness, saw the
Torah with their senses as real, and when one expounds the Scriptures all
senses and flesh-bound eyes are void, for they lie, mislead and are misled, and
it only seemed that he was embalmed."
First, one who holds such
odd opinions will quickly see that reality doesn't forgive those who ignore it.
Second, even according to his method, the Tzitz Eliezer says that only the
Torah is reality -- but it is written in the Torah that Jacob was embalmed
after his death. If this is what is written, then this is reality. How dare he
say, opposing the words of the Scriptures, that "it only seemed that he
was embalmed"? It seems that the Tzitz Eliezer's reality (and the reality
of many other rabbis like him) is not the reality of the Scriptures nor the
reality of the senses, but his own private reality, which he built for himself
to suit this reality to his world view. There is no need to say that his
imaginary world (in which Jacob was not embalmed but the rabbit is ruminant)
has nothing in common with objective reality.
Thus, too, did the Chatam Sofer act
in building reality from the words of Chazal instead of learning it from facts
and experiments. In Tractate Avodah Zarah 31b, after forbidding the drinking of
water which stood open for a time (due to the danger of snake venom having
fallen into the water), the Gemara asked: Why aren't the gentiles, who are not
careful about open waters, harmed? And it answered: "Since they eat
reptiles, they've developed an immunity." The Tosfot wrote that the eating
of reptiles and insects, practiced by gentiles, nullifies the snake venom's
effect.
And from this Gemara the
Chatam Sofer learned in his novellae on Avodah Zarah: "Since the idolaters
eat reptiles and insects their bodies are immune. Therefore, since all who
learn medicine through autopsies learn on bodies which have the nature of
idolaters, they are not experts on the nature of Jewish bodies."
First, this is absolute
nonsense -- and a sign is that all religious people rush to medical centers
outside Israel (where the doctors learned their trade from autopsying
non-Jews). They rely completely on the learning of foreign physicians and do
not demand that they take advanced courses in autopsying dead Jews before
starting to treat them.
Second, if the Chatam Sofer
really thought this way, he should have hurried and explicitly permitted
autopsying Jewish bodies so that physicians might learn the Jews' special
nature and be able to treat them. For if physicians cannot know about Jews from
autopsying idolaters, whose bodies are immune as result of eating reptiles,
then autopsying Jews is truly a matter of saving lives, for without it Jews would
never be healed…
Words of True Knowledge
