5

Talmud Berachot 10a tells the discussion between Yeshaya and Chizqia about children:

מת אתה בעולם הזה ולא תחיה לעולם הבא! אמר לו מאי כולי האי?! אמר לו משום דלא עסקת בפריה ורביה. אמר לו וכולי Dead in this world and no life afterwards! -Why so much?! -Because you did not imply in fructifying & multiplying. - ...

What is, in fact, the response? Why was Chizqia losing his olam haba because of lacking one mitzva?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

This question was raised by R. Samuel Eidels in his commentary to this passage. He explains it based on another Talmudic passage (Bava Batra 116a) which explains that King David was described as "lying with his forefathers" while Yoav was described as "dead" because David left behind a worthy son while Yoav did not.

Thus, here Isaiah was telling Hezekiah that he would be considered "dead" in the world to come (like Yoav) because he did not leave behind a son. Hezekiah's response was that even if he did leave behind a son he would still be "dead" because the Talmud there explains that it has to be a worthy son, and Hezekiah had foreseen that his son would be wicked.

ויש לדקדק מאי השיב לו דאכתי תקשי מאי כולי האי וכי משום דלא עסק במצות פ"ו לא תחיה לעוה"ב וי"ל ע"פ מ"ש פרק י"נ דוד נאמר בו שכיבה לפי שהניח בן כמותו יואב שלא הניח בן כמותו נאמר בו מיתה וז"ש לו ולא תחיה לעוה"ב כיון שלא תניח בן כלל שיהיה כמותך וע"ז השיב לו שפיר משום דנפקי מנאי בנין דלא מעלי וגם אם אנסיב אתתא כיון דלא הוה לי בנין כמותי לא אצא מכלל ולא תחיה לעוה"ב דנאמר בו מיתה

R. Ezekiel Landau in his commentary to this passage assumes that it was an exaggeration in order to bring Hezekiah to repentance:

וזה הוכחה שהקב"ה גיזם כדי להחזירו בתשובה לבטל הגזירה

אבל הגיזום לעוה"ב למה

Improve this answer
6
  • You've explained "Mo's ata" like with Yoav who didn't have fitting children. But this does not explain "Lo Sichye" in Olam Habba which Yoav had but Chizkyahu was threatened not to have.
    – yosefkorn
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:17
  • @yosefkorn Thus, here Isaiah was telling Hezekiah that he would be considered "dead" in the world to come (like Yoav) because he did not leave behind a son.
    – Alex
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:21
  • Don't just quote, You can see yourself that the Maharsha does not rationally explain at all about the world to come,and the comparison to Yoav is with regards to no longer living in this world with no children hence Yoav Died.
    – yosefkorn
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:41
  • @yosefkorn I think his point is that "you won't live in the world to come" is actually referring to getting the appellation "dead" by not having (worthy) kids, and that he would be the same as Yoav.
    – Alex
    Jan 11, 2019 at 15:48
  • Yoav is is not mentioned in Chelek Sanhedrinas one of the people who didn't get Olam habo so your interpretation of the Maharsha is contradictory to the Gemora. He was a Tzaddik Gammur and he was buried in the Midbar because he made his house and possessions free for everyone like Avraham avinu see midrash on that Passuk.
    – yosefkorn
    Jan 12, 2019 at 19:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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