Pt2 Scripture, Logic, and Polemic: Proofs for the Principle of the Mass Resurrection of the Jewish Dead in the Future Messianic Era (Sanhedrin 90b-91a)

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline for the series can be found there.

R' Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: "You shall lie with your fathers and arise" – interpreted as referring to Resurrection (Deuteronomy 31:16)

The Romans challenge R' Yehoshua ben Ḥananya on resurrection and divine foreknowledge.

He cites Deuteronomy 31:16, interpreting “you shall lie with your fathers and arise” as proof.

When they suggest an alternative reading,¹ he concedes partial agreement but maintains that it's at least a biblical source that God knows the future.

שאלו רומיים את רבי יהושע בן חנניה:

מניין

שהקדוש ברוך הוא

• מחיה מתים

• ויודע מה שעתיד להיות?

אמר להו:

תרווייהו מן המקרא הזה:

שנאמר

“ויאמר ה' אל משה:

הנך שכב עם אבתיך וקם העם הזה וזנה”

ודילמא

“וקם העם הזה וזנה”

אמר להו:

נקוטו מיהא פלגא בידייכו

דיודע מה שעתיד להיות

The Romans asked R' Yehoshua ben Ḥananya:

From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He,

• revives the dead,

• and knows what is destined to be?

R' Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to them:

Both of those matters are derived from this verse:

as it is stated:

“And YHWH said to Moses:

Behold, you shall lie with your fathers and arise; this people will go astray” (Deuteronomy 31:16). This indicates that Moses will die and then arise from the dead and that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows what the children of Israel are destined to do.

The Romans asked: But perhaps the verse should be divided in a different manner, and it should be read:

“Behold, you shall lie with your fathers and this people will arise and go astray after the foreign gods of the land.”

R' Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to them:

Take at least a response to half of your question in your hands from that verse,

that God knows what is destined to be.

איתמר נמי:

אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי:

מניין שהקדוש ברוך הוא

• מחיה מתים

• ויודע מה שעתיד להיות

שנאמר:

“הנך שכב עם אבתיך וקם וגו”

The Gemara comments: It was also stated on a similar note by an amora citing a tanna,

as R' Yoḥanan says in the name of R' Shimon ben Yoḥai:

From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He,

• revives the dead,

• and knows what is destined to be?

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated:

“Behold, you shall lie with your fathers and arise.”

R' Eliezer ben Yosei: "His iniquity shall be upon him" implies posthumous punishment, proving afterlife (Numbers 15:31)

R' Eliezer ben Yosei refutes the Samaritans' claim that resurrection is not in the Torah, pointing to the phrase “his iniquity (עונה) shall be upon him,” which implies a future time for punishment, indicating an afterlife.

תניא:

אמר רבי אליעזר ברבי יוסי:

בדבר זה

זייפתי ספרי כותים

שהיו אומרים:

אין תחיית המתים מן התורה

It is taught in a baraita that

R' Eliezer, son of R' Yosei, says:

With this following matter,

I refuted the books of the Samaritans,

as they would say that

there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah.

אמרתי להן:

זייפתם תורתכם,

ולא העליתם בידכם כלום

שאתם אומרים:

אין תחיית המתים מן התורה

הרי הוא אומר:

“הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא

עונה בה” —

'הכרת תכרת' —

בעולם הזה

'עונה בה' —

לאימת?

לאו לעולם הבא?!

[…]

I said to them:

You falsified your torah

and you accomplished nothing,

as you say that

there is no source for the resurrection of the dead from the Torah,

and the Torah states:

“That soul shall be excised;

his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31).

You interpret the phrase “that soul shall be excised”

to mean that a sinner will be punished with death in this world.

If so, with regard to the phrase “his iniquity shall be upon him,”

for when is that destined to be?

Is it not for the World-to-Come, i.e., the world as it will exist after the resurrection of the dead?!

Apparently, there is a World-to-Come and there is an allusion to it in the Torah.

[…]

Dispute over the Meaning of “Hikkaret Tikkaret” (Numbers 15:30): R' Akiva's Reading - Two Forms of Karet; R' Yishmael's Objection - Redundancy and ‘Human’ Language

R' Akiva reads the doubled verb “היכרת תיכרת” (“hikkaret tikkaret”) as a compound construction that signals two distinct punishments:

• “Hikkaret” refers to being cut off in this world (i.e., premature death or loss of descendants).

• “Tikkaret” refers to being cut off in the World-to-Come (i.e., no share in the afterlife).

(This reading presupposes that repetition in biblical language is interpretively meaningful and that each verb adds a distinct punitive dimension.)

R' Yishmael challenges this interpretation by invoking the previous verse, “venikhreta” (Numbers 15:30), which already establishes excision. He argues that accepting R' Akiva’s reading would imply the sinner is excised from three (!) worlds (which is absurd).

Instead, he proposes the following division:

• “Venikhreta” implies excision in this world.

• “Hikkaret” implies excision in the World-to-Come.

• “Hikkaret tikkaret” adds no new meaning; it reflects the Torah’s idiomatic style—“the Torah spoke in the language of people.”

(This view limits the interpretive weight of repetition and appeals to linguistic convention rather than theological inference.)

כתנאי:

״הכרת תכרת״ –

• ״הכרת״ —

  • בעולם הזה,

• ״תכרת״ —

  • לעולם הבא,

דברי רבי עקיבא.

אמר לו רבי ישמעאל

והלא כבר נאמר ״את ה׳ הוא מגדף ונכרתה״,

וכי שלשה עולמים יש?!

אלא:

• ״ונכרתה״

  • בעולם הזה,

• ״הכרת״

  • לעולם הבא,

• ״הכרת תכרת״ –

  • דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

[…]

a dispute between tanna’im with regard to

“hikkaret tikkaret,” as follows:

• “Hikkaret” indicates that

  • the sinner is excised in this world,

• and “tikkaret” indicates that

  • the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come;

this is the statement of R' Akiva.

R' Yishmael said to him:

Isn’t it already stated in the previous verse: “That person that blasphemes YHWH, that soul shall be excised [venikhreta]” (Numbers 15:30),

and are there three worlds from which the sinner is excised?!

Rather:

• from the term “venikhreta” it is derived that

  • the sinner is excised in this world,

• from “hikkaret” it is derived that

  • the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come,

• and from the compound verb “hikkaret tikkaret”

  • nothing is derived, as the Torah spoke in the language of people

[…]

תניא:

יכול אפילו עשה תשובה?

תלמוד לומר: ״עונה בה״.

לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שעונה בה.

taught in a baraita:

One might have thought that the sinner is excised even after he repented.

Therefore, the verse states: “His iniquity shall be upon him.”

God states: I said that the sinner will be excised only when his iniquity remains upon him.

Cleopatra’s Inquiry: Will the Dead Rise Clothed? R' Meir: Just as plants grow “clothed” after being sown, the dead will also sprout “clothed” (Psalms 72:16)

Cleopatra accepts resurrection but asks R' Meir if the dead will rise clothed.²

R' Meir uses an analogy to wheat, which is sown bare (ערומה - literally: “naked”) but grows with layers (לבושין - literally: “garments”), to argue that the righteous will be resurrected in garments.

שאלה קליאופטרא מלכתא את רבי מאיר:

אמרה:

ידענא דחיי שכבי

דכתיב:

“ויציצו מעיר

כעשב הארץ”

אלא

כשהן עומדין,

עומדין ערומין או בלבושיהן עומדין?

אמר לה:

קל וחומר מחיטה:

• ומה חיטה --

  • שנקברה ערומה,

  • יוצאה בכמה לבושין

• צדיקים --

  • שנקברים בלבושיהן,

  • על אחת כמה וכמה

The Gemara relates: Queen Cleopatra asked R' Meir a question.

She said:

I know that the dead will live,

as it is written:

“And may they blossom out of the city

like grass of the earth” (Psalms 72:16).

Just as grass grows, so too, the dead will come to life.

But

when they arise,

will they arise naked or will they arise with their garments?

R' Meir said to her:

It is derived a fortiori from wheat:

• If wheat,

  • which is buried naked, meaning that the kernel is sown without the chaff,

  • emerges with several garments of chaff,

• the righteous,

  • who are buried with their garments,

  • all the more so will arise with their garments.

The Roman Emperor’s Daughter: If God can create man from nothing, He can certainly recreate him from dust

A Roman emperor doubts Resurrection, arguing that dirt (עפרא) cannot live.

His daughter rebuts with a parable, demonstrating that if God could create man initially, He can surely recreate him from dirt (טיט - literally: “mud”).

אמר ליה קיסר לרבן גמליאל:

אמריתו דשכבי חיי.

הא הוו עפרא,

ועפרא מי קא חיי?!

אמרה ליה ברתיה:

שבקיה!

ואנא מהדרנא ליה.

שני יוצרים יש בעירנו:

1. אחד — יוצר מן המים,

2. ואחד — יוצר מן הטיט.

איזה מהן משובח?

אמר לה: זה שיוצר מן המים.

אמרה לו:

מן המים — צר,

מן הטיט — לא כל שכן?!

The Roman emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:

You say that the dead will live.

Aren’t they dust?

And does dust come to life?!

The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel:

Leave him!

and I will respond to him with a parable.

She said: There are two craftsmen in our city:

1. one — fashions vessels from water,

2. and one — fashions vessels from mortar.

Which is more noteworthy?

The emperor said to her: It is that craftsman that fashions vessels from water.

His daughter said to him:

If he fashions a vessel from the water,

all the more so is it not clear that he can fashion vessels from mortar?!

By the same token, if God was able to create the world from water, He is certainly able to resurrect people from dust.

R' Yishmael’s School: Parable of Glassmaking - If human breath can create and repair glass, God’s breath can restore life

The school of R' Yishmael compares resurrection to glassmaking:

Just as glass, made by human breath, can be remade when broken, humans, created by God's breath/spirit (רוחו), can be revived.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא:

קל וחומר מכלי זכוכית

• מה כלי זכוכית --

  • שעמלן ברוח בשר ודם,

  • נשברו — יש להן תקנה

• בשר ודם --

  • שברוחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא

  • על אחת כמה וכמה

The school of R' Yishmael taught that

resurrection of the dead a fortiori from glass vessels:

• If concerning glass vessels —

  • which are fashioned by the breath of those of flesh and blood, who blow and form the vessels,

  • and yet if they break — they can be repaired, as they can be melted and subsequently blown again,

• then with regard to those of flesh and blood —

  • whose souls are a product of the breath of the Holy One, Blessed be He,

  • all the more so can God restore them to life.

R' Ami

Parable of the Collapsed Palace - If man can build from nothing, he can rebuild from existing material; Analogies to Nature and Creation

A heretic challenges R' Ami on the plausibility of resurrection: if the dead decompose into dirt, how can they come back to life?³

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי אמי:

אמריתו דשכבי חיי

והא הוו עפרא

ועפרא מי קא חיי?!

The Gemara relates that a certain heretic said to R' Ami:

You say that the dead will live.

Aren’t they dust?

And does dust come to life?!

R' Ami responds with a parable:

A king once instructed his servants to build a palace⁴ in a barren place without water or earth.

They succeeded, but the palace later collapsed.

אמר ליה:

אמשול לך משל, למה הדבר דומה

למלך בשר ודם

שאמר לעבדיו:

'לכו ובנו לי פלטרין גדולים

במקום שאין מים ועפר'

הלכו ובנו אותן

לימים, נפלו

R' Ami said to him:

I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable?

It is comparable to a flesh-and-blood king

who said to his servants:

Go and construct for me a great palace [palterin]

in a place where there is no water and earth available.

They went and constructed it.

Sometime later, the palace collapsed.

When told to rebuild it in a place with both water and earth, the servants said they could not.

The king angrily rebukes them: if they managed to build without materials, surely they can rebuild with them.

(The analogy is that if God created human beings ex nihilo, reviving them from existing matter (dust) should be easier. R' Ami uses this to reject the heretic’s incredulity—resurrection is not more implausible than original creation.)

אמר להם:

'חזרו ובנו אותן

במקום שיש עפר ומים'

אמרו לו: 'אין אנו יכולין'

כעס עליהם,

ואמר להן:

• במקום שאין מים ועפר —

  • בניתם,

• עכשיו שיש מים ועפר –

  • על אחת כמה וכמה!

The king said to them:

Return to your labor and construct the palace

in a place where there is earth and water available.

They said to him: We are unable to do so.

The king became angry at them

and said to them:

• If in a place where there is no water and earth available —

  • you constructed a palace,

• now that there is water and earth available —

  • all the more so should you be able to do so.

Similarly, concerning man, whom God created ex nihilo, all the more so will God be able to resurrect him from dust.

Proofs From Nature

To reinforce the plausibility of life emerging from dust, R' Ami provides two empirical analogies:

Analogy #1 - the Akhbar (possibly a shrew or field creature)

He claims there is a creature partially made of earth and flesh that later develops into full flesh.

(The ontological claim is that visible, organic matter sometimes arises from inanimate material.)

ואם אי אתה מאמין,

צא לבקעה

וראה עכבר

שהיום —

• חציו בשר

• וחציו אדמה,

למחר —

השריץ

ונעשה כלו בשר

And if you do not believe that a being can be created from dust,

go out to the valley

and see an akhbar,

a creature that today —

• is half flesh

• and half earth,

and tomorrow —

the being will develop

and all of it will become flesh.

Analogy #2 - proliferation of snails After Rain

He invites the skeptic to observe a mountain where a single snail is found one day, and after rainfall, the area is teeming with snails.

(The idea is spontaneous proliferation, probably drawing on post-rain fauna as a common natural phenomenon.)

שמא תאמר לזמן מרובה?

עלה להר

וראה

שהיום —

אין בו אלא חלזון אחד,

למחר —

ירדו גשמים

ונתמלא כולו חלזונות.

Lest you say that creation of living creatures is a matter that develops over an extended period,

ascend a mountain

and see that

today —

there is only one snail there;

then ascend tomorrow —

after rain will have fallen,

and see that it will be entirely filled with snails.

Geviha ben Pesisa: If those who never existed were created, it is all the more logical to revive the dead

A heretic critiques the doctrine of Resurrection, stating: “Woe unto you (ווי לכון), the wicked (חייביא)!”, rhetorically asking: the living die (that is the observable pattern) so why expect the dead to live again?

Geviha flips the logic: if those who never existed can be created (i.e., birth from nonexistence), then surely those who once lived can be revived.⁵

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לגביהא בן פסיסא:

ווי לכון חייביא!

דאמריתון:

מיתי —

חיין

• דחיין —

  • מיתי,

• דמיתי —

  • חיין?!

אמר ליה:

ווי לכון חייביא!

דאמריתון:

מיתי —

לא חיין

• דלא הוו —

  • חיי,

• דהוו חיי —

  • לא כל שכן?!

The Gemara relates that a certain heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa:

Woe unto you, the wicked!

as you say:

The dead —

will come to life.

• The way of the world is that those who are alive —

  • die.

• How can you say that the dead —

  • will come to life?!

Geviha ben Pesisa said to him:

Woe unto you, the wicked!

as you say:

The dead —

will not come to life.

• If those who were not in existence —

  • come to life,

• is it not reasonable all the more so that —

  • those who were once alive will come to life again?!

The heretic responds angrily to Geviha ben Pesisa for calling him wicked, mocking his hunchback and threatening violence, stating:

“If I wanted, I could kick you and flatten (פשיטנא) your hump (עקמותך)”.

Geviha responds sarcastically: if you fix my back, you'll be praised as a “skilled doctor” (רופא אומן) and earn much income (שכר).

אמר ליה:

חייביא קרית לי?!

אי קאימנא,

בעיטנא בך

ופשיטנא לעקמותך מינך

אמר ליה:

אם אתה עושה כן,

רופא אומן תקרא,

ושכר הרבה תטול

The heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa angrily:

You called me wicked?!

If I wanted,

I could kick you

and flatten your hump, as Geviha ben Pesisa was a hunchback.

Geviha ben Pesisa said to him jocularly:

If you do so,

you will be called an expert doctor

and will take high wages for your services.

Appendix 1 - Table summarizing the 13 proofs for resurrection cited in the sugya

This table outlines the variety of approaches used—textual proofs, logical reasoning, and analogies—to support the doctrine of resurrection.⁶

Appendix 2 - The Prohibition Against Giving Teruma to an Am Ha’aretz Priest (Sanhedrin 90b sections # 3-6)

Sanhedrin.90b.3-6

R' Yishmael’s School: Teruma should be given only to righteous priests (Numbers 18:28)

The school of R' Yishmael interprets the verse (interpreted in the previous section) differently, emphasizing that teruma should be given only to righteous priests.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא:

'לאהרן' --

כאהרן

• מה אהרן —

  • חבר,

• אף בניו —

  • חברים

The school of R' Yishmael taught a different derivation from this verse.

From the term “to Aaron”

one derives that teruma must be given to a priest like Aaron;

• just as Aaron —

  • is one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, particularly those relating to ritual purity, teruma, and tithes [ḥaver],

• so too one gives teruma to his descendants —

  • who are ḥaverim.

R' Yonatan: One should not give teruma to a priest who is an am ha’aretz (II Chronicles 31:4)

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani states in the name of R' Yonatan that one should not give teruma to a priest who is an am ha’aretz.

This is derived from a verse stating that portions are given to those who "firmly adhere to the Torah of YHWH", implying that those who do not adhere do not deserve a portion.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:

מניין שאין נותנין תרומה לכהן עם הארץ?

שנאמר:

“ויאמר לעם ליושבי ירושלים

לתת מנת הכהנים והלוים

למען יחזקו בתורת ה”

• כל המחזיק בתורת ה' —

  • יש לו מנת

• ושאינו מחזיק בתורת ה' —

  • אין לו מנת

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that R' Yonatan says:

From where is it derived that one does not give teruma to a priest who is an am ha’aretz?

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated:

“And he commanded the people who dwelled in Jerusalem

to give the portion of the priests and of the Levites,

so that they may firmly adhere to the Torah of YHWH” (II Chronicles 31:4).

• Everyone who firmly adheres to the Torah of YHWH —

  • has a portion,

• and anyone who does not firmly adhere to the Torah of YHWH —

  • does not have a portion.

Rav Yehuda: Comparison to Feeding a Lion

Rav Aḥa bar Adda, citing Rav Yehuda, likens giving teruma to an am ha’aretz to placing food before a lion:

Just as a lion may or may not maul its prey before eating it, there is uncertainty whether an am ha’aretz priest will eat the teruma in purity or impurity, risking a Torah violation.⁷

אמר רב אחא בר אדא, אמר רב יהודה:

כל הנותן תרומה לכהן עם הארץ

כאילו נותנה לפני ארי

• מה ארי --

  • ספק דורס ואוכל,

  • ספק אינו דורס ואוכל

• אף כהן עם הארץ --

  • ספק אוכלה בטהרה,

  • ספק אוכלה בטומאה

Rav Aḥa bar Adda says that Rav Yehuda says:

With regard to anyone who gives teruma to a priest who is an am ha’aretz,

it is as though he placed the teruma before a lion.

• Just as with regard to a lion —

  • there is uncertainty whether it will maul its prey and eat it,

  • and uncertainty whether it will not maul its prey and instead eat it alive,

• so too, with regard to a priest who is an am ha’aretz to whom one gives teruma —

  • there is uncertainty whether he will eat it in purity,

  • and there is uncertainty whether he will eat it in impurity, thereby violating a prohibition by Torah law.

R' Yoḥanan: Risk of Death (Leviticus 22:9)

R' Yoḥanan asserts that giving teruma to an am ha’aretz could even lead to the priest's death, via capital punishment, based on the Biblical verse.

רבי יוחנן אמר:

אף גורם לו מיתה

שנאמר: ומתו בו כי יחללהו

R' Yoḥanan says:

One who gives teruma to a priest who is an am ha’aretz even causes the priest’s death,

as it is stated with regard to teruma: “And die therefore if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9).

R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s School: Accumulating Sin (Leviticus 22:16)

R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s School adds that giving teruma to an am ha’aretz leads to further sin:

Since such priests are likely to consume it improperly, they incur guilt, which can lead to additional transgressions.

דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב תנא:

אף משיאו עון אשמה

שנאמר:

“והשיאו אותם עון אשמה

באכלם את קדשיהם”

Priests who partake of teruma in a state of ritual impurity profane it and are liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven. The school of R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught:

By giving teruma to a priest who is an am ha’aretz, one also brings upon him a sin of guilt, i.e., a sin that will lead to additional sins,

as it is stated:

“And so bring upon them a sin of guilt

when they eat their sacred items” (Leviticus 22:16).

Appendix 3 - Indeterminate Verse Division and Interpretive Ambiguity: Five Ambiguous Verses in the Pentateuch (Genesis 4:7, 49:7; Exodus 17:9, 25:34; Deuteronomy 31:16; Yoma 52a-b)

Yoma.52a.10-52b.5

A baraita lists five verses in the Pentateuch whose meaning “cannot be decided”:⁸

1. “Se’et” (Genesis 4:7):

   • If read with the first clause: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted [forgiven]?”

   • Or with the second: “But if not, your sin is lifted up [remembered].”

2. “Meshukkadim” (Exodus 25:34):⁹

   • Does it describe the menorah’s cups (“four cups shaped like almond-blossoms”)?

   • Or the menorah’s knobs and flowers (“its knobs and flowers shaped like almond-blossoms”)?

3. “Maḥar” (Exodus 17:9):¹⁰

   • Is Joshua to fight tomorrow?

   • Or immediately, while Moses only joins tomorrow on the hill?

4. “Arur” (Genesis 49:7):

   • Does “cursed” refer to Simeon and Levi’s wrath?

   • Or to the “oxen” in the previous verse (“they maimed oxen, cursed [arur] be they”)?

5. “Ve-kam” (Deuteronomy 31:16):

   • Does it mean: “You will lie down with your ancestors [=die] and rise [=resurrected]”?

   • Or: “You will lie down [=die], and this people will rise and stray”?

תניא,

איסי בן יהודה אומר:

חמש מקראות בתורה אין להן הכרע:

1. ״שאת״.

2. ״משוקדים״.

3. ״מחר״.

4. ״ארור״.

5. ״וקם״

taught in a baraita that

Isi ben Yehuda says:

There are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided, i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read:

1. The first example is the term: “Se’et” (Genesis 4:7).

   1. It is unclear whether the verse should be read: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up [se’et]?” in which case se’et involves forgiveness and pardon;

   2. or: “If you do well, but you will lift up [se’et] your sin if you do not do well.” According to this interpretation, se’et is referring to remembrance: If you do not do well, your sin will be remembered.

2. The second uncertain case is the term: “Meshukkadim” (Exodus 25:34).

   1. This verse can be read: “And in the candelabrum four cups made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim]”;

   2. or as: “Its knobs and its flowers made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim].”

   3. In other words, the term meshukkadim can be read either with the first part or the last part of the verse.

3. Likewise, the term: “Maḥar” (Exodus 17:9)

   1. can be read: “And go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow [maḥar]”.

   2. Alternatively, it can mean that Joshua must go out to war with Amalek immediately, and Moses added: “Tomorrow [maḥar] I will stand on the top of the hill” (Exodus 17:9), but today you do not need my prayer.

   3. Once again, the issue is whether this term belongs to the beginning or the end of the verse.

4. The fourth case is the term: “Arur” (Genesis 49:7).

   1. This verse can be read: “Cursed [arur] be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel,” on account of Levi and Simeon’s treatment of Shechem.

   2. Alternatively, this term, which appears at the beginning of the verse, can be read as the last word of the previous verse: “And in their anger they cut off cursed [arur] oxen” (Genesis 49:6–7). According to this interpretation, “cursed oxen” is referring to the oxen of Shechem, who descended from the accursed Canaan.

5. Finally, the term: “Vekam” (Deuteronomy 31:16)

   1. can be read as: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers and rise up [vekam]” at the time of the resurrection of the dead;

   2. or: “And this people will rise up [vekam] and go astray.”

1. The same (purported) ambiguity in this verse is mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud as well, see my appendix at the end of this piece: “Appendix 3 - Indeterminate Verse Division and Interpretive Ambiguity: Five Ambiguous Verses in the Pentateuch (Genesis 4:7, 49:7; Exodus 17:9, 25:34; Deuteronomy 31:16; Yoma 52a-b)”.

2. Historically, this is impossible, as Cleopatra (died 30 BCE) lived more than 150 years before R’ Meir (fl. mid-2nd century CE).

3. The question is phrased in exactly the same way as the Roman emperor to Rabban Gamliel', in the earlier section.

4. פלטרין - likely derived from Latin palatium or praetorium (both meaning palace or court), which reflects the Roman imperial setting of much rabbinic imagery.

Its use evokes royal architecture, framing God as a monarch commissioning His realm—fitting for a discussion of cosmic rebuilding.

5. I cite this section in a previous piece of mine, on the prevalence of rhetorical questions in the Talmud.

6. See also later, in 91b.13-17 and 92a.5, where another seven proofs for Resurrection are brought.

The first four each conclude with the line:

מכאן לתחיית המתים מן התורה

From here [it is proved/derived that] resurrection of the dead from the Torah

The four are:

1. Anonymous baraita - Deuteronomy 32:39 - Just as wounding/healing is one person, so too death/life

2. R' Meir -

   1. Exodus 15:1 - “Then Moses will sing” (ישיר) implies future action by resurrected Moses

   2. Joshua 8:30 - “Then Joshua will build” (יבנה) also implies future participation

3. R' Yehoshua ben Levi - Psalms 84:5 - Those who dwell in God's house will praise Him in the future

4. R' Ḥiyya bar Abba (via R' Yoḥanan) - Isaiah 52:8 - “They shall sing” (ירננו) indicates future collective song

Another three proofs are then brought in 92a.5, in response to the question “From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? (מניין לתחיית המתים מן התורה)“:

1. Rava - Deuteronomy 33:6 - “Let Reuben live and not die” implies eternal life

2. Ravina - Daniel 12:2 - “Many who sleep… shall awaken”

3. Rav Ashi - Daniel 12:13 - “You shall rest and arise for your lot at the end of days”

Notably, only 3/8 of the verses are strictly speaking in the Torah (=Pentateuch); the rest from the later sections of the Bible (Prophets and Writings). See my note in Part 1 on the senses of the term “Torah”, in this sugya and in general.

7. The comparison of an am ha’aretz to a lion is notable; the same analogy is made in the major aggadic sugya of am ha’aretz in tractate Pesahim, see my piece “Pt2 Rabbinic Elitism and the Am Ha’aretz: Hierarchy, Hostility, Hatred, and Distrust (Pesachim 49b)”, section “Marrying One's Daughter to an Am Ha’aretz Is Like Tying Her Up and Placing Her Before a Lion: The Am Ha’aretz Shamelessly Beats Her Then Has Sex With Her”.

See that series in general for more on the Talmud’s view on the am ha’aretz, final part here.

8. אין להן הכרע.

I.e., their syntactic division is ambiguous. Each involves a single word.

The interpretations here are based on ed. Steinsaltz, which are in turn based on the interpretations of the traditional Talmud commentaries; the baraita itself simply lists the five words.

Compare my recent piece discussing the Talmudic sugya about ambiguous syntactic division relating to the word ‘Halleluyah” in Psalms.

9. In the context of describing the design of the tabernacle’s menorah (candelabrum), specifically the decorative elements.

Exodus.25.34, with translation JPS 1985 (from Sefaria, I added bracketing):

ובמנרה ארבעה גבעים משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה

And on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups [shaped like] almond-blossoms, [each with] calyx and petals

See Hebrew Wikipedia ibid, section “הפסוקים לפי איסי בן יהודה“, my translation:

The description "almond-shaped" (משוקדים) can be interpreted as referring to the “cups” (גביעים), or alternatively to "its knobs and its flowers" (כפתוריה ופרחיה).

According to the cantillation marks (טעמים), the main pause in the verse is established at the word "cups," and the word "almond-shaped" belongs to "its knobs and its flowers."

[…] Maimonides ruled that both the cups and the knobs and flowers need to be "almond-shaped."

10. In the context of Moses' prayer during the battle with Amalek, specifically analyzing whether "tomorrow" refers to when the battle would begin or when Moses would take his position for prayer.

Exodus.17.9a:

ויאמר משה אל־יהושע

בחר־לנו אנשים

וצא הלחם בעמלק מחר אנכי נצב על־ראש הגבעה

Moses said to Joshua,

“Pick some men for us,

and go out and do battle with Amalek. Tomorrow I will station myself on the top of the hill

See Hebrew Wikipedia, ibid.:

The word "tomorrow" can be interpreted as referring to going out to war, and if so, Moses' standing for prayer began before the war.

However, it can be interpreted as referring to the standing - "tomorrow I will stand" - and the prayer began only on the second day.

According to the cantillation marks, the main pause in the verse (ethnachta) is established at the word "against Amalek," and the word "tomorrow" belongs to what follows.