Sholom Praver is the author of the recently published book, Seek Out the Living Light: An Evidence-Based Study on Resurrection and the Eternality of the Soul (Ktav Publishing, 2023), a translation with commentary of the Tiferes Yisrael’s Drush Ohr Hachaim. The following is an excerpt from the book, which the author has graciously shared with us.
In Judaism’s Thirteenth Principal of Faith, codified by Maimonides, a devout Jew declares, “I believe with complete faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead…” But while this fundamental edifies our national heart, an earnest individual might privately ask himself, “How much do I really believe dead bodies will rise from the ground?” Rabbi Israel Lipschitz, in his Drush Ohr HaChaim, a culminating entry to his magnum opus, Tifereth Israel, explicating the six orders of Mishnayoth, seeks to strengthen the faith of such an individual. Rabbi Lipschitz claims the life cycle of the butterfly as a phenomenon most emblematic of resurrection ~ a transformational process the Creator places in nature to encourage us to visualize the upward evolution of the soul. In this 1842CE sermon-transcribed (in chapter 8.4 of this updated translation) Tifereth Israel urges others to marvel over this remarkable metamorphosis:
ואם אתה אחי האהוב תרצה לראות תחיית המתים עין בעין, התבונן התולעה הנקרא רויפע שתחיה איזה שבועות, תזחיל ותתנועע ותאכל, עד שאח"כ תאחזנה השבץ, ותארג סביב עצמה בית צמר, ותתקשה תוכו, ויהיה ביתה קברה - ושם מונחת כמת ה' או ו' שבועות - עד שאני פתחתי בעצמי בית ביצה כזאת תוך זמן זה, ומצאתי שם דבר מושחת דומה כמעופש. אולם לאחר כלות זמן התהוותו בתוך קליפתו, תנקר הבריאה הנ"ל הקליפה ויצא לאור בריה חדשה עם כנפיה מבריקים ויפים, ושמעטטערלינג חי שש ושמח יעוף למעלה הנה והנה.
And if you, my dear brother, should be so intrigued to witness resurrection with your own discerning eyes, study a type of worm called caterpillar [רויפע, raupe in German]. It lives for some weeks, creeping, crawling, and eating, before becoming predictably apprehended by convulsions. It then proceeds to weave a woolly enclosure [a cocoon] around itself, hardening within what will essentially be its tomb. There it remains like a corpse for five to six weeks.
Having myself witnessed this process, I opened such a casing at that stage, to find inside a spoiled residue, like a chamber of rot. But after a requisite time of incubation beneath its [chrysalis] shell, something once having a primitive, wormy form, punctured through the shell into the light of a “new creation” with its beautiful, flickering wings. A living butterfly [שמעטטערלינג, schmetterling in German]! Delightful and joyous. Fluttering above, to and fro.
As Rabbi Lipschitz here appears to celebrate the butterfly as the quintessential symbol of resurrection, does he imply it trumps any other embodiment of biological regeneration, even specimens our Sages of the Talmud z”l offer to epitomize resurrection? In one tractate (TBSanhedrin 91a), the rabbis direct someone struggling to imagine ‘dead persons reviving from dirt in their graves,’ “צֵא לַבִּקְעָה וּרְאֵה עַכְבַּר ֹשֶהַיּוֹם חֶצְיוֹ בָּשָֹר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה to go forage through a valley in search of a particular species of half-dirt rodent appearing at first half-way composed of flesh/half-way of ground, לְמָחָר הִֹשְרִיץ וְנַעֲשָֹה כֻּלּוֹ בָּשָֹר for shortly after, it will cumulate, and transform into a creature entirely made of flesh.” - Why would Tifereth Israel circumvent mention of this remarkable species, employed by our Sages z”l, no less, only to shepherd similar arguments via a different creature? It would be totally out of character for this master of Oral Law to not champion the words of our Sages z”l! But perhaps he opted for the butterfly because those ‘rodent-creatures of the Mishna’ were only known from ancient times, and had come to be, by his time, too uncommon and fantastical to persuade the imagination of his readers. (To reinforce our presumption of his motive here, recall, ch.7.2 Germination, where R’Lipschitz previously made accommodations to suit the perspective of a particular audience, “an unacquainted recluse.”)
Aside from stirring fascination, it would be halachically imperative to verify the identity of this particular type of עַכְבָּר/rodent (אשקרו"ל/squirrel - as per Rashi), for it appears in another mishna (Chulin 9:6) assuming a prominent role in polemics of Torah Law. There, the Tanna first focuses on the status of embryos incubating inside eggs laid by any of the (three) specifically oviparous species of sh’mona sherutzim (see Leviticus 11:29-30, eight classes of animals whose carcasses transmit the spiritual pollution of tumah), viz., eggs of הַצָּב the toad, הַלְּטָאָה the lizard, and וְהַחֹמֶט the snail (see Rashi). But that mishna then turns its attention to a most unusual creature, עַכְבָּר שֶחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָֹר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה a half-dirt rodent whose marsupial-like growth development includes an exterior gestational stage at which half the animal dons normal flesh, while the other half appears made of dirt.
Rambam (in his Perush HaMishnayoth) maintains וָהִתְּהֲוּוֹת הַעַכְבָּר דַּוְּקָא מִן הֶעָפָר this mouse is purported to literally emerge from the ground, עַד ֹשֶיִמְּצָא מִקְּצַתוֹ בָּשָֹר וּמִקְּצַתוֹ טִיט and is supposedly so integrated with its earthy nest that while parts of its body are fleshy, other parts exhibit qualities of clay, וְהוּא מִתִּנוֹעַע כּוּלּוֹ yet all its parts move in coordination with one another. הוּא סִפּוֹר מְפוּרְסָם מְאֹד Not only are tales of such a critter quite prolific, וְאֵין מִסְפָּר לְרַבִּים אֲֹשֶר אָמְרוּ לִי ֹשֶרָאוּ אוֹתוֹ but countless individuals have told me they’ve witnessed it with their own eyes. וּמְּצִיּאוּת בַּעַל חָי כְּזֶה הוּא דָבָר מֻפְלַיָא Still, I consider the existence of such an animal quite a fantastical matter, ֹשֶאֵין לָדַּעַת לוֹ הֶסְבִּר כְּלָל one which the human mind cannot rationalize at all.
R’Ovadiya MiBartenura (Italy, 1440 - 1530CE excerpting Rashi, 126b) opines יֵֹש מִין עַכְבָּר ֹשֶאֵינוֹ פָּרָה וְרָבָה this half-dirt rodent does not procreate [as other species normally do], אֶלָּא מֵעַצְּמוֹ נוֹצָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה but appears to propagate by means of “spontaneous generation” - כְּאַֹשְּפָּה הַמִֹּשִרֶצֶת תּוֹלָעִים comparable to how maggots and larvae seem to suddenly proliferate in garbage.
Tosfoth YomTov (Rabbi YomTov Lipman haLevi Heller, Germany, 1579 - 1654CE) draws from the notion of ‘spontaneous generation’ וְזֶה לְדַּעֲתִּי טַעֲנָה גְּדוֹלָה עַל מַאֲמִינֵי הַקְדָּמוּת to claim the reproduction of this half-dirt rodent outdoes any notion of eternal antiquity, the Static State Theory which claims, “the observable universe is basically the same at every time, and at any place.” And he bolsters his principled stance with reference to other analogous quirks of nature discussed in another mishna (Nidda 3.2): “כֹּל ֹשֶאֵין בּוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם אֵינוֹ וָלָד Any fetal issue lacking human form does not constitute a birth...” הַעִנְיָנִים הַטְּבָעִים כֻּלָּם הוֹלְכִים עַל הַרוֹב Although matters of natural phenomenon, by definition, generally respond to a range of predictable patterns, וַיִּפּוֹל בָּהֶם הַזַרוּת וְהַפְּלִיאָה aberrations, such as mutation, do occur. ~ Thus, Tosfoth YomTov implies, although the case of the half-dirt rodent is a bizarre, unlikely case, the mishna nonetheless considers its halachic ramifications [also see The Mordechai, Chulin 735 - עופות הגדלין באילן; Shulchan Aruch,Yoreh De’ah 84:15].
Considering all to now, Tifereth Israel himself (Chulin 9.6, Yachin 68, Boaz 2) reacts to Tosfoth YomTov’s counterclaim [above], ‘ֹשֶזֶה טַעֲנָה גְּדּוֹלָה נֶגֶּד מַאֲמִינֵי הַקְדָּמוּת that this phenomenon [spontaneous generation] is a triumphant argument against the adherents of Static State Theory:’ [While I certainly sympathize with the cause of his counter-claim] וּלְכָאוֹרָה תָּמוּהַ his logic is bewildering. דְּהֲרֵי הָכָא יֵֹש מֵיֵש הוּא For [aside from how bazaar this creature seems] the emergence of a half-dirt rodent only exhibits the physical law of conservation of matter; its merely an example of one physical entity arising out of another [its not spontaneous generation]. וּמָה זוּ רְאַיָּה לְמַאֲמִינֵי הַתְחָלָה So how could it anywise be a proof for us, the adherents of the Genesis model ֹשֶאוֹמְרִין ֹשֶהַכֹּל נִבְרָא יֵֹש מַאָיִּן who attest, ‘all which exists was created [In the beginning] ex nihilo’? [The phenomenon Tosfoth YomTov assumes might actually advance other wild notions, of a quasi-steady state universe (e.g., the QSS theory - 1993, F.Hoyle, G,Burbidge, & J.V.Narlikar) whereby pockets of creation, or minibangs might arise.]
It appears to me (Israel Lipschitz) that Tosfoth YomTov rather intended to relay the following: דְהֲרֵי בָּה דּוֹמֵם אֵין בּוֹ ֹשוּם חִיּוּת In that the underdeveloped dirt-rodent is partially composed of inanimate, lifeless material, וְאעפ"כ יִתְהֲוֶּה מִמֶּנּוֹ חָי it nevertheless morphs into living flesh. וְזֶה דּוּגְמַת מַעֲשֶֹה בְּרֵאְֹשִית And in this way this phenomenon resembles the works of Genesis, ֹשֶנוֹצְרוּ כּוּלָם מֵהַאֳדָמָה whereby all life was formed from the ground, as God declares (Genesis 1:24), “תּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ נֶ֤פֶשׁ חַיָּה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ let the earth bring forth species of living creatures.” ומַאֲמִינֵּי הַקְדָּמוּת ֹשֶכּוֹפְרִים בַּתּוֹרָה אוֹמְּרִים ֹשֶכַּךְ הָיָה לְעוֹלָמִים But adherents to the notion of a static state universe, who deny the truth of Torah, insist the world must be the same as it ever was − “חַי מוֹלִיד חַי that only something living can spore something living.” אוּלָם אֵין לְהָבִיא רְאַיָּה מִכֹּל בֵּיצָה Still, it is not efficacious to cite any case of an egg [or some underdeveloped extra-gestational marsupial embryo] ֹשֶאֶפְרוֹחַ נוֹלַד מִדּוֹמֵם to prove a fetus can issue from lifeless matter, דְּהָתָם הָךְ דּוֹמֵם פיפייה יָצָא מֵחָי for such examples of “inanimate mass” are actually collections of [genetic] material emitted by living creatures.
And as for a collateral issue, וְאֲנִי ֹשָמַעְתִּי אֲפִּיקוֹרְסִים מְלַגְּלְגִּין עַל בְּרִיָּה זוּ I have heard heretics mock and deride the attention paid to this creature (TBSanhedrin 91a). וּמַכְּחִיֹשִים וְאוֹמְּרִים ֹשֶאֵינָה בַּמְּצִיּאוּת כְּלָל They controvert the rabbis for mentioning it, and categorically deny such a thing could have ever existed. ~ I have thus seen fit (recall fn.97, end) to cite scientific research of the German botanist and Zoologist, [Johann Heinrich Friedrich] Link (d. 1851), renowned amongst scholars of the world, who in his book (Urwelt, “The Primeval World and Antiquity Elucidated by Natural History” - Vol. I, page 327) wrote that ֹשֶנִמְּצָא בִּרְיָה כְּזאֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם בְּמָחוֹז טהעֶבּאִיס a creature fitting this description was found in Egypt in the district of Thebes. וְנִקְרַאת הַעַכְבָּר הַהִיא בְּלָֹשוֹן מִצְרָיִם Link says that that [half-dirt] rodent in Egypt is called דִּיּפּוּס יאַקוֹלוּס/dipus jaculus [viz., in Latin - jerboa in Arabic]; ובל"א and in German, שְֹפּרִינְגמָוּיז/springmaus. אֲֹשֶר הַחֵלֶק ֹשֶלְפָנֶיהָ Its forequarters – רֹאֹש וְחַזֶהּ וְיָדֶּיהָּ its head, chest and hands – מְתּוּאֲרִים יָפֶה are perfectly formed; וְאַחוֹרֶיהָּ עָדַיִּין מְגּוּלְּמִים בְּרִגְּבֵי אָרֶץ but its hindquarters, while still underdeveloped, appears made from clumps of earth, that is, עַד אַחַר אֵיזֶה יָמִים הִתְהָפֵךְ כּוּלָה לְבָּשָֹר until after several days, when it transforms fully into flesh.* ~ It is a biological wonder which proclaims, in essence, “מָֽה־רַבּ֬וּ מַֽעֲשֶׂ֨יךָ יְֽיָ֗ How great are Your works, HaShem!” (Psalms 104:24).
* Rabbi Yaakov Elman z”l participated in editing Hazon Nahum, Studies in Jewish Law, Thought, and History (New York: Yeshivah University 1998), a collection of scholarly essays, featuring an article by Professor Sid Z. Leiman, entitled R.Israel Lipshutz and the Mouse that is Half Flesh and Half Earth: A Note on Torah uMadda in the Nineteenth Century, which refers to the comments of Tifereth Israel, above.
Professor Leiman writes:
In discussing ancient Egypt, [Johann Heinrich Friedrich] Link cites Diodorus Siculus, a first-century B.C.E. Greek historian, who reports that the Egyptians proclaim that life first began in Egypt, and as proof of this, they note that mice are generated in vast numbers from the soil of their land. Diodorus himself concurs that this takes place:
Indeed, even in our day, during the inundations of Egypt, the generation of forms of animal life can clearly be seen taking place in the pools which remain the longest; for, whenever the river has begun to recede and the sun has thoroughly dried the surface of the slime, living animals, they say, take shape, some of them fully formed, but some only half-so - and still actually united with the very earth.
Link himself adds a footnote to the account of Diodorus:
The Springmaus (dipus jaculus), which dwells in Upper Egypt and is characterized by very short forelegs, looks as though it is a creature that is not yet fully developed.
The animal Link identifies (springmaus) is from a subfamily of tiny jerboa rodents, Dipodine, which includes the genus Jaculus. They have long back legs for both jumping and digging burrows in which they sleep. Compared to other rodents, jerboas have a long gestation period (six weeks) and weaning period, and do not become bipedal until around seven weeks after birth. Until this stage, the young jerboa moves slowly, using only the short forelegs to drag the trunk and hind-legs forward. [Eilam, D. and Shefer, G. (1997) The developmental order of bipedal locomotion in the jerboa (Jaculus orientalis) pivoting, creeping, quadrupedalism, & bipedalism. Developmental Psychobiology, 31: 137-142.]
While Tifereth Israel here challenges Tosfoth YomTov, calling into question the later scholar’s statements on biology and science, it is a clear given that he firmly reveres statements of the Talmud - such as this about the mouse seen growing from the ground. But since few people today have much, if any experience with ‘half-dirt rodents which turn fully into flesh,’ he detected a premise in the mishna even non-heretical individuals would find difficult to accept. So he sought contemporary resources which might more comfortably reinforce peoples’ trust in the veracity of our Sages’ statements. And that is why here, in this exposition, דְּרוֹּש אוֹר הַחַיִּים Drush Ohr HaChaim, he exclusively employed the butterfly, to more easily persuade his readers to visualize now the future wonder of resurrection.
Tiferwth Israel recognizes the Fundamentals of Emuna are essential for a successful life. But while these fundamentals are taken as foundation stones supporting your ever-growing, ever-maturing spiritual edifice, they are pillars you must reinforce with both emunah pshuta and emunah hasichlith. Faith in Techiyath HaMeihim is not a box you check on a list, it is a process you nurture over the course of a dynamic life. Tifereth Israel is inviting us to take this path, so he selected what he felt was the best example for us, in these later generations, to visualize resurrection. Its all about preparing for a fantastic reality. On your marks....
Well this is interesting, but I don't really get the chiddush. So the Tiferes Yisrael used an example of a butterfly rather than a mud-mouse because people are familiar with butterflies? You need a long essay to explain this trivial point? Maybe it makes sense in the context of the book?