It would seem then that those who do not fit in that category will not rise in T’chiyas HaMeisim. In fact, the maamer “L’havin biur inyan ha’Avos” states explicitly that all Jews have a portion in Olam HaBa except those whom our Sages have specified…
Translated by Boruch Merkur - Continued from last issue
4. To summarize our conclusions: a) it is possible that every single Jew, without exception, will merit T’chiyas HaMeisim; b) there are even a number of sources that specify that it will in fact be that way; c) it must be that way.
Now we shall seek to resolve seeming contradictions to these conclusions that arise from the teachings of our Sages.
Here we will focus on individual teachings of our Sages, and thereby determine how they are to be understood in light of our findings:
a) The Mishna teaches (Sanhedrin 90a): “All Jews have a portion in Olam HaBa … And those who do not have a portion, etc.”
In Section 1 we explained how the souls of the wicked can still merit Olam HaBa – namely, through t’shuva (repentance), retribution exacted upon the body of the deceased, prayer on his or her behalf, and the like. It would seem then that those who do not fit in that category – that is, those who did not repent in their lifetime, nor did their bodies suffer post-mortem retribution, and no one prayed on their behalf – will not rise in T’chiyas HaMeisim. In fact, the maamer “L’havin biur inyan ha’Avos” (cited in Section 1) states explicitly that all Jews have a portion in Olam HaBa except those whom our Sages have specified.
This contradicts what was explained above, in Section 3, that every soul is eternal by definition and cannot be eradicated; each soul is “the branch of My planting, etc.,” destined to be counted among the tzaddikim. Just as there is no soul that is not “the branch of My planting, etc.,” G-d forbid, so too it is impossible for there to be even a single soul that will be lost and not rise in T’chiyas HaMeisim.
Our Sages have said (Sanhedrin 71a) about certain matters – Torah concepts that are explained at length in Scripture and by the Talmud – that they never transpired nor will they* [such as Ben Sorer U’Moreh and Ir HaNidachas]. It is a very weak claim, however, to say that someone who has no portion in Olam HaBa – someone who has not been subjected to post-mortem retribution nor does his soul merit to have another person pray on its behalf, etc. – is included in this category of Torah concepts that never was and never will be.
Notwithstanding the technical possibility for there to be one who has no portion in Olam HaBa, there is still no contradiction to our conclusions, for T’chiyas HaMeisim, the resurrection of the dead, always refers to the soul together with the body, as above in the beginning of the maamer.
And those enumerated by our Sages as having no portion in Olam HaBa refers to their bodies being eradicated and lost, but the soul of such a person, which is “the branch of My planting, etc.,” will arise in a different body.* This matter is elucidated in Shaar HaGilgulim, Preface 11, and in Seifer HaGilgulim Ch. 5, where it states: “If a spark (an individual soul) … transgressed, a sin that is punishable by the eradication of the body, G-d forbid, and lost, and it has no T’chiyas HaMeisim – since that body has been eradicated, its spark … reincarnates in a different body and it rises in T’chiyas HaMeisim with all aspects of the [original G-dly] spark, but the first body is indeed eradicated and cut off.**
NOTES;
*Footnote 7: According to this explanation, the passage, “And those who do not have a portion, etc.,” does not outright contradict the first part of the Mishna, “All Jews have a portion,” because even those who do not have a portion in Olam HaBa, with respect to their souls they too have a portion. Thus, the Mishna is being precise when it says “All Jews have … “And those who do not have, etc.,” rather than the Mishna’s common expression to indicate exception to a rule or list – and it is more concise and brief – the phrase: “All … other than – Kol … chutz.”
We cannot say that the Mishna, having interrupted its statement to bring proof for the general rule, “All Jews, etc.” (the proof being, “as it is said, Your nation is entirely tzaddikim, etc.”) returns to the topic and specifies, “And those who do not have a portion in Olam HaBa,” for there is precedent to the contrary. The Mishna in the beginning of Z’vachim as well as Menachos interrupt between the general principle and the exception to the rule in exploring the laws of the general principle (see also Yevamos 2:5), and yet they conclude with “chutz – other than, etc.” Also, we cannot say that this phraseology is on account of the lengthy list of “And these are those who do not have a portion in Olam HaBa,” for so is the case in the Mishna at the beginning of Chagiga (as well as Z’vachim and Menachos mentioned above), and in each instance it says “other than, etc.”
Rather, the reason is because the term “chutz” means “other than or outside,” a total exception to the general principle, which is not the case with the word “V’eilu – And those who, etc.”
**Footnote 8: In Shaar Maamarei Razal of the Arizal (Sanhedrin 90a) and in Shaar HaGilgulim, Preface 24, it explains the distinction between the souls of Jews that have a portion in Olam HaBa and those enumerated by the Sages who do not have a portion. This is not contradicted by what is explained inside the text proper that the souls of all Jews, without exception, shall merit T’chiyas HaMeisim.
For these works of the Arizal speak about the reward of souls, and “Olam HaBa” refers to the reward at the time of and immediately following their demise, for this too is included in the term “Olam HaBa,” as above in the maamer “L’havin biur inyan ha’Avos.” Thus, these statements do not at all refer to Olam HaT’chiya and the reward souls will experience in bodies. (Also see Rambam’s “Laws of Repentance” 8:8. His remarks reflect what is written in Midrash Rebbi Nechunia ben HaKana taken from Seifer HaBahir and quoted in Hashmatos HaZohar Vol. 1 265a. They are cited in Ramban Shaar HaG’mul and in Ikarim, as well as Seifer Avodas HaKodesh there, Cheilek Avoda Zara, yet this requires further investigation.)
(To be continued be”H)
(From a letter dated Monday, the 16th of Tammuz 5703; Igros Kodesh Vol. 1, pg. 141 ff.)