In the Yalkut Shimoni of Yechezkel perek 37, it says a discussion of how the people will wake up in olam haba, with Hillel and Shammai presenting arguments. One of my siblings asked, "Aren't we going to hold by Shammai then anyway?"

Only if you assume that Olam Haba and Yimot Hamashiach are the same thing.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

what does that mean?

I always understood Olam Haba/Gan Eden to be where we go after we die. Yimot Hamashiach is life after Moshiach comes. When we're dead we don't do mitzvot, and there's no reason why Hillel and Shammai's neshamot can't be arguing there.

Its BEIS Shmai and BEIS Hilel. and they argued THEN about how it WILL be. I believe that it is discussed in various places as to when exactly we will start paskining like Beis Shammai.




Olam Habah can refer to either where one goes after death or to the days of Moshiach etc. gan eden is where one goes after deathh

refers to this*:
"And I saw and behold there was upon them sinews"
Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel. Beis Shammai say that the form of a person in this world is not the same as the one in Olam Haba. In this world we begin with skin and flesh and end with sinews and innards but in the future we will begin with innards and finish with skin and flesh as it says by the corpses [that] Yechezkel [revived] "and I was and behold there was upon them sinews and meat came up and [lo hevanti] skin." Rabbi Yochanan said, "You can't bring proof from the corpses of Yechezkel. What were these corpses like? They were like someone who went to take a bath, the clothes that he takes off first he puts on last." Bais Hillel said that the form of the person in this world is the same as his form in Olam Haba, as Iyov says [lo hevanti]








*not a great translation

What I learned:
After we die we go to Gan Eden or Gehenom. Yemot Hamashiach is life during the life of Mashiach. After but perhaps starting during yemot hamashiach is olam haba, where both our bodies and souls get rewarded for the mitzvot they did together on this world, (which is why we need techiyas hameisim).

Yes, sorry.
But why does it have Hillel's opinion? Since we're not going to follow it anyway?

First of all, through out the gemora it brings opnions that the halacha does not follow.

Second as I said there are various opnions as to when we will start paskining like them.

First, why does it do that?

And also various opinions as to whether Techiyas Hameisim will be in Olam Haba or not?

Oh, wow. That's too complicated for me. I'm going to stick with good ol' emunah peshuta on this (so to speak).

because they are also torah, and they are also true at some level and also as the gemora itself says in Eruvin 13b (actually in regrads to Beis Hillel and Beis shamai) "Eilu veilu divrei elokim chaim...vehalacha kbeis Hillel"



well yes there are various opinions as to when techiyas hameisim will be, but I meant as to when we will start paskining like Beis Shamai (BTW you are aware that this that we will paskin like beis Shamai is from kabala).

Thank you.

(I'm not, I thought that we will pasken like Beis Shammai is from gemara.)

Like others have said here, opinions that are not halacha are still Torah, which is why we learn them today. Actually, only a fraction of the Torah we learn is halacha lemaiseh...

shabua tov

It's an awesome tradition that we have that Bet Shammai's principles will rule in Yamim haMashiach; none-the-less, what is the source for this tradition?

Though, I see the logic behind the saying, I find it difficult to actually accept on some points based on the reason that no one really said it. Well, one source I find is the hakham of nicolsburg, Hakham Moshe Graf, which a majority of people have never heard of. But none of his works have the statement, le atid lavo the law will revert to honor Bet Shammai. But the statement is no where found in Talmud or commentaries save for one written by R. Levi of Beredichev ( hassid master of 18th cent) in his opening commentary to Pirke Avoth which only states that he heard it in the name of the rabbi from nikolsburg.

So no, there is no where in Kabbalah or Gemara in early sources (only in modern and contemporary sources) that state that we will pasken like bet Shammai- unless omeone has an exact source that I haven't come across yet?

Actually its from the Arizal as he is quoted in the Mikdash Melech on Zohar vol. 1 17b .

Actually, that quote isn't exactly from Arizal. It's as you said that its from Shalom Buzaglo (mik'dash melekh) on Arizal who lived during the turn of modern civ. (1700s). R. Buzaglo also relied heavily on the earlier work Kol ha Remez. Ramaz (kol ha remez) was the one who organized Arizal and none of his works contains such a quote.

Even still, most people I ask say that the first source they get this quote form is from Moshe Graf (1600's) who lived earlier than the mik'dash melekh. Mik'dash Melekh may have just heard it said in his name also. And since this idea was most likely widespread in his day, it was common knowledge and he dedicated it to writing. However, this doesn't mean it was straight from Arizal either. Hence, my basis on not completely accepting this "tradition". I'm looking to see if someone does have a quote from Arizal or someone earlier; as I am not that knowledgeable anyway; and I don't have access to all the books on Kabbalah. But, these I have researched so far and find no reliable source, as of yet, for this 'tradition'.

Especially, since I tend to agree with more ancient authorities than more modern authorities.

Thanks.

The Mikdash Melech is not on the arizal, its on the Zohar and it is generally considered to be a valid source [ETA which is why it is what is usually cited] , He says it in the name of the Arizal, I am not sure what you call "reliable source", also I am not sure what you mean by "tradition", I don't think anyone claims there is a tradition going back further than the arizal.

What year is your cut off year to be considered an "ancient sefer"?

Actually, I accept the opinions of the Hakhamim (mostly unquestioned) up to the 19th Century with the passing of R. Shimshon Hirsch, may his memory be for benefit, and sages like the Ben Ish Hai.
Today, very few sages I accept in that manner. Other's today I leave as considerable but not 100% reliable on my part according to my minhag and how I've learned Torah from my teachers.

I was arguing for a clear and cut quote from anyone predating the late kabbalistic development- especially since its concerning a seemingly redevelopment on the understanding of the Gemarah in Erubin 13b. Many say that what the mik'dash melech says came from Arizal. I am, however, a little dubious as to its actual validity of this statement actually coming out the mouth of Arizal. Or if someone has an earlier source, I'd like it. The latest sources we have of it being written is in the 18th cent.

on the issue of tradition, there is developed tradition and received tradition. You know better than I, that developed tradition is based on received tradition and is not really anything 'new' since we're not in the business of innovating in a vacuum. I maintain that this statement is more on developed tradition.

In that light, I don't see the validity of this statement in a literal sense, maybe outside a peshat, but literally, I can't accept it. What's even more, if the principles that Arizal taught led up to this statement, then I can reason that it should be accepted, albeit, on a non-peshat (needs to be flushed out) degree.

Personally, I find no reason that we should ever go back to the ways of Bet Shammai. If, however, one should mean "Bet Shammai" that all will go back to a strict adherence of Torah as Bet Hillel themselves also practiced, then great. But to actually go revert to the views and ideals of Bet Shammai that wasn't shared by Bet Hillel, I don't see how that could be any kind of progress into yamim haMashiach. I don't think for 1) this statement should be taken at face value. And 2) That it was based off the teachings of previous Hakhamim and has the possibility of not being a direct quote of Arizal- similar to earlier, more ancient works that wrote books under others names.

Aren't we commanded to obey the judges who are in our day?

That is a mute argument and it doesn't actually relate to the discussion.
However, if you wish for me to answer your question to validate my personal stand for your sake of mind, then yes, we ofcourse are to obey the sages that rule in our day. That's a given.
But, in this case... what judge do we follow if they disagree in some points here and there? we can't follow all. This you know well, I'm sure.
I follow the rulings according to the customs I follow and I am more of a Rambamist. Hence, I follow rulings of Hakhamim that are according to the minhag I follow, and I do so without bend.
Never-the-less, that doesn't have 100% regard and bind to hashgakhah.

Going back to the original argument whilst relating it to yours, I'm dealing with the validity of the statement that we will pasken according to Bet Shammai. If this is meant only to say that we will rule in a strict fashion, that even Bet Hillel practiced (some of which were even more strict then Bet Shammai in some instances) then I accept that. For the position of Bet Hillel today is that the populace should be given a more lenient observance depending on their level. If one is able to be more machmir in his observance then he should be... but not to make everyone observe the strict way no matter what his level (Bet Shammai's stance). When Mashiach arrives, it is with sweet words that he will bring the people to observe, not by force.

If it makes you feel any better, many do explain that it is only in regards to the Chumros of Beis Shamai that we will paskin like them (this is based on the reason that the halacha will be like beis shamai because Gevurah will be higher then).

(There is no point in arguing the validity of the statement so I wont, especially since you say that you "follow the Rambam" , I am unsure altogether as to where you stand in regards to Kabala etc.)

I hold to Kabbalah, the rules that I abide by are more strict, however.

Since you explain that its in regards to the Chumroth since Geburah will be elevated to a higher standard, that makes more sense; that's one of the answers I was looking for- that was my logic also as to why that statement was said- just been wondering if it was held by our hakhamim.

Even more, I'd still like an earlier source on the statement. There's nothing I can do if there isn't one, but it's only something I'd consider at the moment rather than take it as whole and valid just because. Especially, sine the first time it's heard is in a very late Kabbalistic work.

Anyway, thanks for the one answer thus far. I just need to find which Hakhamim state that peshat

I could cite some, but I don't think you would consider them a source, so I won't bother.

I'm afraid that off the top of my head (and late at night) i don't have a source. I'm pretty sure it is not in the kaballah (i.e. anything before the Ari, or the writings of R' Chaim Vital). However I believe the idea comes from Mahari Srug, possibly via the Maharam Me-Pano, who had a different tradition from the Ari. I think the idea was popularised by Lubavitch, which is why it has become common parlance now.

I'm pretty sure that the Ramchal is explicit in Derech Hashem that Halacha will not change in the times of Mashiach (or any other time in the future).

Bli Neder I'll try to find some sources when I'm more awake.

Rabbi Sedley

You're a Rambamist? You sure?

I'd really like to get a hold of those sources as soon as you get them! I really appreciate the work you will put into getting it!!!
so, in advance, THANKS!



No, I'm not 100% Rambamist. I hold somewhere in the middle, give or take- But I hold more toward Rambam as a Sefard anyway. I'm a little more lax on accepting Kabbalistic work, never-the -less, the Rambamists impression left on me has made it that I am a bit more strict on what is considered genuine and what is not.