The World To Come and Gilgulim

Home Forums Controversial Topics The World To Come and Gilgulim

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 62 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #612832
    A nony mouse
    Participant

    Where does it say in all of Torah She’Beksav that there is another world after this one?

    And where does the idea of a Gilgul come into judaism? I think that’s a Hindu belief…reincarnation…

    #1117236
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    A. We don’t only believe in Torah SheB’ksav.

    B. So, don’t believe in gilgullim. It’s not like it’s one of the ikkarei emunah.

    The Wolf

    #1117237
    ezlev
    Participant

    Wen our patriarchs passed on it says that god gathered him to his people.

    Rambam (author of ikkarei emuna) has a book shaar hagilgulim, gates of gilgulim, – hebrew- you can start there.

    there are a wealth of sources for these things all over the place. if i may suggest– ask this question to aish .com (ask the rabbi), you cant go wrong with them. you can ask them anything, and they dont dissapoint, (thats their job;)

    good question though. keep asking. only success in all your endeavors:)

    #1117238
    Sam2
    Participant

    ezlev: Sha’ar HaGilgulim was written by the Ari Z”L. I can’t tell you for sure, but find it highly, highly improbable that the Rambam believed in Gilgul. It didn’t really become popular in Jewish thought until the Zohar came out. R’ Saadya Gaon rejects the notion as a non-Jewish one.

    #1117239
    ezlev
    Participant

    Sam2: thank you for the correction. But doesn’t the fact thaat the Arizal wrote the Sefer show enough proof? Gilgulim are discussed all over oral Torah, midrash, tradition, etc… to say that someone doesn’t “believe ” in Gilgulim is denying a chunk. Of what our Torah has to say on it… and regarding the kodosh Harav Saadia gaon- our mixed up notion of the subject is what he dissmissed- correct, as goyish- is what your referring to.

    I know I must do my own research on who wrote what Sefer..but with all do respect, please do your own research on this subject at hand. The chofets Chaim (don’t know source) has alot to say on the matter. Start there. Even ask a rov..I did.

    The subject of Gilgulim is a fact of our holy Torah. To deny it is not advisable.

    Please consult a Rov before you stand your ground, or try aish. Com, (yes, I’m a fan) as they deal with these Q ‘s on daily basis.

    thanks for reading

    #1117240
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Mekubalim knew about before the Zohar. The Ramban alludes to it in quite a few places and he didn’t have the Zohar.

    There are many reasons why the Torah doesn’t talk about another world explicitly. However, Chazal understood Arichas Yamim to mean beyond this world. In Navi there are some references to life after death. Vehaya Nefesh Adoni …

    #1117241
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “The subject of Gilgulim is a fact of our holy Torah. To deny it is not advisable.”

    Tell that to R’ Yosef Albo, R’ Chasdai Crescas, the Rashash and other great Rishonim and Acharonim.

    #1117242
    charliehall
    Participant

    “But doesn’t the fact thaat the Arizal wrote the Sefer show enough proof?”

    No.

    “Please consult a Rov before you stand your ground”

    I once heard a Chasidic Rebbe “pasken” against the position of the Arizal on the topic of gilgulim.

    #1117243
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    I once heard a Chasidic Rebbe “pasken” against the position of the Arizal on the topic of gilgulim.

    Who is this “Chasidic Rebbe”, Abraham Joshua Heshel?

    #1117244
    Sam2
    Participant

    ezlev: I don’t know whether they exist and it doesn’t bother me. There were great Gedolei Torah that held that they don’t exist. There were many more Gedolei Torah who held that they do. There are philosophical theological issues involved in believing in Gilgulim. There are other philosophical theological issues that Gilgulim can explain. At the end of the day, I don’t know and I’ll probably never know. I do disagree with your statement, though, that denying them is denying a part of our Torah.

    HaLeiVi: The Ramban mentions several ideas from the Zohar because it’s clear that he had many of the traditions that R Moshe De Leon used when he put together the final text of the Zohar. And well-played with Heshel. But I think charlie meant a detail within Gilgulim, not whether or not they exist at all.

    #1117245
    ezlev
    Participant

    Sam2: Thank you. I apparently don’t know the depth and breadth of the subject. I’m only aware of those who say its real…thank you. Now may we help “a noney mouse” with his other question?

    #1117246
    charliehall
    Participant

    ‘Who is this “Chasidic Rebbe”, Abraham Joshua Heshel?’

    No. He is widely respected. But it is up for him to publish his opinion if he wishes to.

    ” I think charlie meant a detail within Gilgulim, not whether or not they exist at all.”

    Correct. The machloket was associated with the famous talking fish incident over a decades ago; this rabbi held contrary to Arizal that humans can’t return as anything other than a human.

    #1117247
    Sam2
    Participant

    To answer the original question, the Gemara (I think in Perek Chelek) goes through a list of many places where it’s hinted to in Torah Shbiksav.

    #1117248
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    So he is a Chasidic Rebbe who, as it turns out, disgrees with the Baal Shem Tov. He might be a Rav and comes from a Chassidic dynasty, and might have retained some of the style — perhaps with a new flavor — but one thing he isn’t is a Rebbe.

    Now, to argue on the Arizal on an Inyan in Kabbala is foolish and arrogant. Does this person really know the intricate details of what a Neshama is, from where it originates, the many different types of Gilgulim and their purpose? This is like preferring speculation over a first hand report.

    But for interest sake, from the later Rishonim who openly speak of Gilgul we only find it about a person. But the Gemara in Bava Kama does seem to allude to another kind, in the topic of changing after seven years.

    #1117249
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Sam, I don’t know why you had to bring that in and be on the opposite side of practically any Gadol from the time it came out. The Ramban actually only has very little of what is in the Zohar. He didn’t invent Kabbala, nor did the Ibn Ezra. But we see the Yesodos. The Zohar Hakadosh is assuming knowledge in what they discuss, it is far from a compilation of what was known. It is also not the final text, since the Zohar Chodosh and Tikkunim were found later.

    R’ Moshe de Leon’s own writings don’t show more knowledge and depth than his contemporaries, of whom the Arizal said it doesn’t pay to study since they have just a few Yesodos. This is not emotional. It would be like saying that my uncle really wrote Reb Chaim’s Chiddushim and fooled the world. Although you don’t understand

    #1117250
    yytz
    Participant

    A nony mouse: There are various places in Tanakh in which the existence of life after death is alluded to or mentioned. Look at Tehillim 17, for example, or 1 Samuel 28.

    Belief in gigulim appears in the Zohar, the Ramban, the tzfat Kabbalists, and virtually every major rabbi to discuss the subject in the past 500 years (with the exception of the Rashash). Yet because some pre-publication-of-the-Zohar rishonim were against the concept of gilgulim, one is not obligated to believe in it. Some also say that one is not obligated to believe in any particular kabbalistic concept; it is all seen as optional.

    But reincarnation is not just a Hindu belief — it is found in various religions throughout the world.

    #1117251
    Sam2
    Participant

    HaLeiVi: I was very, very Medakdek with the Lashon I used. I think Pashut P’shat is that there were traditions from R’ Shimon Bar Yochai which R’ Moshe De Leon was privy to. I think most agree that, Milah B’milah, the Zohar is his and not R’ Shimon’s, even if it wholly represents Shittas R’ Shimon. Thus, there shouldn’t be surprise when earlier Rishonim have access to some of those Kabbalistic traditions.

    #1117252
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    ????”? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??”?

    Quote from R’ Dovid Sinzheim (1745-1812) in Sheva Chakiros.

    #1117253

    What about the Ramchal who is the gilgul of Rabbi Akiva?

    #1117254
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Sam, most of who? Not Rabbanim Gedolei Yisroel throughout the generations from his time. I don’t either think Rebbi Shimon wrote it, just like Rebbe Eliezer didn’t write Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer. Neither did Rav Ashi write the Gemara. Most of these Sefarim were written by Rabban Savurai or early Geonim.

    The Ramban had the Sefer Habahir and a Kabbalah from his Rebbe. As I said, what you find from beforehand pales in comparison to the Zohar Hakkadosh. R’ Moshe De Leon was no greater Mekubal than the Ramban. The Ramban writes that we don’t have the Sod of Arayos, which is in the Zohar. It is very obvious from many areas that the Ramban was not privy to the Zohar. In fact, before it came out, Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochay was not the central figure of Kabbalah as he is today.

    Although to you this is all one mush, to those that learn these Sefarim Be’iyun there is no Shaychos between what preceeded the Zohar and what followed. This is besides the fact that more was found after his time.

    #1117255
    Sam2
    Participant

    HaLeiVi: I’m not sure that what you’re saying has any bearing on what I said. I didn’t say he was privy to the Zohar. Just to some of the traditions contained therein. Did I use the word “many”? Maybe saying many was too much.

    #1117256

    We have to take into consideration that Hashem didn’t want those things revealed until the late 1800s when the wellsprings came forth. Humans were not ready for this information until the time of the redemption, although Sages who lived beyond this World of Lies had this knowledge beforehand.

    Shema Yisrael, Hashem is One. There is only one knowledge that has now burst forth into many different streams and religions all steaming from the one knowledge that was given to us on Mount Sinai.

    #1117259
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    There is a very simple argument against the concept of gilgul:

    In regards to the issue of ???? ??? ??, the Chofetz Chaim said

    ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????

    and similarly the Maharalbach writes in a teshuvah (siman 8) that gilgul is ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??.

    However, Rabbeinu Yonah writes about ???? ??? ?? that ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ????. And we know that various nevi’im and even Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t understand ???? ??? ??. So they obviously didn’t know from the concept of gilgul (or they disagreed that it could explain ???? ??? ??).

    #1117260
    golfer
    Participant

    Interesting, PAA.

    But personally, I find the CR a better place to discuss shidduch crises, other socioeconomic crises, pareve pots,and recipes.

    Gilgulim is somewhat above my pay grade.

    And probably, though they”ll pretend not, the same might go for a few other posters.

    #1117261
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    It is above my pay grade too. Which is why I am not issuing any definitive statements on the matter. But I can quote great sages of yesteryear even on matters that are above my pay grade. As for the statement “I find the CR a better place to discuss shidduch crises, other socioeconomic crises, pareve pots,and recipes”, that is a nice side benefit, but the coffee room only exists because of all the Torah that is discussed here. Feel free to disagree.

    #1117262
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “and even Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t understand ???? ??? ??”

    Actually, the pashtus of the Gemara and I think the Penei Yehoshua actually spells this out is not that he didn’t understand why there could be ???? ??? ?? but that he didn’t understand how there could be ???? ??? ?? and ???? ???? ??.

    #1117263
    benignuman
    Participant

    To clarify some issues: There is a difference, according to many, between “the world to come” and “life after death.” The former is the state of the world after techias hameisim in the future, which is the subject of multiple nevuos in Tanach. The latter is the idea that the soul survives death even in the present.

    This latter concept of life after death is, I believe, assumed as a fact in the Torah despite no explicit statement that it exists. As Rabbi Avigdor Miller points out, almost every time somebody important dies in Chumash it says “and he was gathered unto his people” a phrase which implies that the newly dead person is joining another group of people, presumably his dead relatives.

    The most explicit mention of life after death in Tanach is the story of Shaul seeking counsel from Shmuel HaNavi after Shmuel died.

    #1117264
    benignuman
    Participant

    Gilgulim is interesting because some Rishonim and Acharonim have declared it to be a very important yesod and some have said that it is Avoda Zara. I wonder if it is possible that there is a middle ground (i.e. gilgulim do occur but aren’t that important).

    Interestingly reports of gilgulim have been studied pretty extensively and there is substantial evidence that they do occur. A Professor at the University of Virginia, a psychiatrist, extensively researched numerous cases, and published many articles and books on the subject. A colleague of Stevenson published a book called “Life before Life: Children’s Memories of Previous Lives” which summarized the results of their research at the University.

    #1117266
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Nobody called it Avoda Zara, and an idea is not Avoda. They said that thee idea comes from outside, from Ovdei Avoda Zara.

    #1117267
    benignuman
    Participant

    Haleivi,

    You are correct. I was not careful in the way I wrote.

    #1117268
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Pashtus of the Gemara is actually that Moshe Rabbeinu did get an answer, ???? ???? ????? ????? ????. The Gemara then says that Rebbi Meir holds that for ??? ???? ?? there is not always a reason.

    Although the Ramban says that Gilgul answers Iyuv’s question of seemingly undeserved Tzaros, that is not the primary function of Toras Hagilgul in the Arizal.

    #1117269
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Pashtus of the Gemara is actually that Moshe Rabbeinu did get an answer, ???? ???? ????? ????? ????. The Gemara then says that Rebbi Meir holds that for ??? ???? ?? there is not always a reason.”

    I wasn’t discussing the answer; I was discussing the question.

    “that is not the primary function of Toras Hagilgul in the Arizal.”

    It doesn’t have to be the primary function. As long as it answers the issue, my point is that anyone who was bothered by this issue obviously didn’t hold of, or didn’t know about gilgul.

    #1117270
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    It doesn’t answer the question if you think it is not fair to be punished for the body that your Neshama inhabited some time ago.

    Mekubalim explain the answer given that it is aluding to Gilgul. It is not explicit in the Gemara just as all Sod isn’t explicit in the Gemara.

    #1117271
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    That’s not the Gemara’s answer.

    #1117272
    yerushalmi in exile
    Participant

    the ?????”? says in a ????? that one is not an ??????? if he doesn’t believe in ??????? but he goes on to say that they do exist.

    #1117273
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Yerushalmi:

    I quoted the Maharalbach above and used it as part of a proof that gilgulim don’t exist.

    #1117274
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    I, for one, wouldn’t want to take on the Ramban. I do think he was aware of the Gemara in Brachos, especially since he focused on that topic for quite a while in his Shaar Hagemul, and used that explanation given by the Gemara to mean the usual but wouldn’t apply to Iyov. How does Rabbeinu Yona reconcile his statement with that of the Gemara once the Gemara gives an explanation — and as I pointed out, Rebbi Meir only argues that Rasha Vetov Lo can sometimes be undeserved? How does the Moreh Nevuchim reconcile his Pshat on the topic with the explanation given in the Gemara?

    #1117275
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Haleivi:

    1)I’m not sure that your understanding of R’ Meir is correct. All the Gemara says is that R’ Meir argues. Then it says shene’emar… and quotes a pasuk which proves that Rasha V’tov Lo can defy explanation. I don’t think that necessarily means that R’ Meir was only arguing about Rasha v’tov lo. It could be that that pasuk was just used to prove that Moshe’s request to understand H’s ways was not answered, the proof being that Rasha v’tov lo is unexplainable. I am not saying that you are wrong (in fact I think I am more noteh to your reading) but I am suggesting another reading.

    2)As for the Ramban, he discusses tzadik v’ra lo in his introduction to Iyov. He does not directly mention the Gemara in Berachos but he doesn’t seem to accept the Gemara’s answer of “tzadik gamur…” as the final word on the matter – he points out that there can be tzadikim gemurim like Iyov who still have troubles.

    3)As for Rabbeinu Yonah, he is explaining pshat in the Mishnah in Avos which by the way, Rashi explains pretty much the same way. He also quotes the Prophet Jeremiah so he seems to have good backing. Additionally, his understanding of the Gemara in Berachos might be in accordance with what I wrote in point#1 or point#2.

    4)I won’t claim to be an expert in Maimonidean thought, but in Moreh Nevuchim 3:17 he discusses different views of Hashgacha and he seems to hold that any little thing that goes wrong for someone is a punishment for some bad deed and every little thing that goes right is a reward for a good deed. He implies that Yissurin shel ahava is a minority view (and again implies it in 3:25).

    If one believes in Olam Haba and/or yissurin shel ahava, I don’t really see why anyone would have the kashya of tzadik v’ra lo. But anyway my original point was that if tzadik v’ra lo makes perfect sense based on the concept of gilgul, then anyone who struggled with this issue perforce did not know of/hold of gilgul. Now perhaps you can make the same argument in regards to olam haba/yissurin shel ahava in which case I would either be stumped or I would say that perhaps they hold like the Rambam (or what I think the Rambam seems to be saying).

    In summation, this is definitely a complex topic and I am definitely not claiming to have expertise in it.

    #1117276
    yerushalmi in exile
    Participant

    If your non belief in gilgulim comes from studying the works of the Rambam or Rabanu Saadya Gaon, then you are justified in your position. However if you just don’t like the idea, or you think that it is not fair ??????, then you might just be a ??? who doubts the torah, because you have decided what the torah says according to your own emotions. BIG NO NO

    #1117277
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    By the way Haleivi, not really anything to do with gilgulim, but about pshat in the Gemara of Moshe’s questions, the Benayahu has an interesting pshat in R’ Meir.

    He explains that there were three questions. (He assumes that the questions were already assuming that we are dealing with a tzadik gamur.)

    1)Why is there tzadik v’tov lo? Getting rewarded in this world is bad for him. The answer to that was ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??”? ????? ???? – the reward in this world is a complete gift and it doesn’t come out of his share in the next world.

    2)Why is there tzadik v’ra lo? If he didn’t do any aveiros why is he getting punished? This question was not answered.

    3)Why is there Rasha v’tov lo? The obvious answer would be that there’s no one who hasn’t done any mitzvos, so he is getting his reward in this world. But that would beg the question – why is there rasha v’ra lo? He should have it good in olam hazeh in order to use up all his reward. The answer to this question was ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??”? ????? ???? – H’ is merciful when he gives the rasha his reward. Some people when they have it good, it causes them to do more bad. For such a person H’ won’t give him a good life in this world because that will cause him to be even worse which will make the next world even worse for him.

    Although I’m not sure why he didn’t just say that tzadik v’ra lo is because even a tzadik does some aveiros, just like he says that even a rash does some mitzvos.

    #1117278
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Why do you say that? It’s possible, albeit not common, to be completely good and not mess up. It’s impossible to be bad the whole day for every day of your life. A guy like that would be institutionalized.

    There’s a story about a Kofer who joked to the Noda Beyehuda that he transgressed every Issur in the Torah besides suicide. The Noda Beyehuda answered him that it’s a good thing, for then he would have been doing a Mitzva of Bi’artah Haraah Mikirbecha.

    #1117279
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ???????

    In fact I recall that one of the mefarshim pointed this out but I can’t find it now (it might have been the Tzlach which I don’t have now but I’ll try to check tonight.)

    #1117280
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I checked. It wasn’t the Tzlach.

    #1117281
    Sam2
    Participant

    PAA: It’s a Chassam Sofer. And he thinks the one thing that everyone, even a Tzaddik Gamur, is Over on is “Vihyisem N’kiyim”.

    #1117282
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Sam2:

    Thanks. However, I don’t think that’s what I was thinking of. I recall one of the mefarshim on the sugya in Berachos mentioned ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ???????. I looked back at all of my mefarshim and didn’t find it. It’s always possible that I’m misremembering.

    #1117283
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Looking back at the gemara, it seems to me like the lashon of ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? indicates that the entire question wasn’t answered; not that Rasha v’tov lo is an exception.

    #1117284
    Chortkov
    Participant

    I am afraid my knowledge doesn’t compare to Sam2, Halevi and PAA,but I once heard a shiur from somebody who wanted to prove that the Rambam did have the Zohar. It seems to be quite a controversial issue! The Rambam when he brings down the Ikkrim, he says that anybody who believes that any statement in the ???? is superflous is oiver on an ikker, and brings a specific example which seems very random, yet the ???? on that ???? is ????? to explain how ????? ????? exist in every ???? including that very one.

    He said this Bshem R’ Moshhe Shapiro

    #1117285
    Hashemisreading
    Participant

    If I’m a gilgul of someone who lived a long time ago, then by Techiyas Hameisim, which body gets the neshama? There’s 1 neshama for 2 bodies!

    #1117286
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    If I’m a gilgul of someone who lived a long time ago, then by Techiyas Hameisim, which body gets the neshama? There’s 1 neshama for 2 bodies!

    If we’re going to say that HKBH can bring dead bodies back to life, then I’m sure He’ll have a way of resolving this issue too.

    The Wolf

    #1117287
    Joseph
    Participant

    You’ll be a Siamese twin when Moshiach comes.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 62 total)
  • The topic ‘The World To Come and Gilgulim’ is closed to new replies.