In the Bavli, Berakhot 15b, R' Tavi explains Proverbs 30:15-16 in such a way that it implies a resurrection of the dead, and concludes that this is a response to those who say that there is no reference to the resurrection of the dead in the Torah. But is Proverbs part of the Torah?

If we consider the book of Proverbs to be part of the Torah, then surely we can also consider the books of Isaiah and Daniel to be part of the Torah, and they mention the resurrection of the dead explicitly:

Isaiah 26:19, "Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!"

Daniel 12:2, "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

If references like these can be considered "part of the Torah", then why do we need to find clever interpretations of non-explicit passages in order to answer those who claim that the Torah contains no reference to the resurrection of the dead? And if the books of Isaiah and Daniel are not to be considered "part of the Torah", why is the book of Proverbs?

  • dont understand the question. who said this is the only hint of the ressurection in tanach?
    – ray
    Oct 25, 2016 at 20:30
  • @ray You're right - it clearly isn't! My question is: if there are explicit references to the resurrection in Tanakh (and there are), then why do we need something non-explicit like this to answer those who don't think there's a reference to it in the Torah? Why not quote Daniel or Isaiah, which are more obvious? And if that's because Daniel and Isaiah are not in the Torah, can we say that Proverbs is?
    – Shimon bM
    Oct 31, 2016 at 2:27
  • because this was R.Tavi's chidush.
    – ray
    Oct 31, 2016 at 6:02
  • @ray Sorry - which bit was his chiddush? That Proverbs is "Torah" but Daniel and Isaiah aren't? Or that the passages in Isaiah and Daniel that I quoted are not actually references to the resurrection of the dead? Or just that the cryptic passage from Proverbs is a better reference to the resurrection than those ones? Or something else?
    – Shimon bM
    Nov 2, 2016 at 9:40
  • 1
    @ray I see - instead of, "here's an answer to those who say...", "here's an[other] answer to those who say..."? That's a possibility! (You want to put it in an answer?)
    – Shimon bM
    Nov 2, 2016 at 21:08

1 Answer 1


it appears this was Rabbi Tavi's chidush, i.e. he deduced a new additional reference to the resurrection. so read it as "here's [another] response.."

the talmud in sanhedrin 92a where this also appears lists several different possible responses (see bottom of 91b).

Likewise, he is coming to explain that the verse is not just a comparison but a Kal V'Chomer as explained here

  • Thanks, Ray! Where in Sanhedrin are you referring to? My source for this was Berakhot 15b.
    – Shimon bM
    Nov 3, 2016 at 5:16
  • @ShimonbM updated
    – ray
    Nov 3, 2016 at 6:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .