- This topic has 38 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
What do you think about gilgulim? And if we all were someone else In a Previous life, which spouse do you end up being with in Olam haba??
The only two authorities I can think of offhand who explicitly said gilgulim are not part of Judaism are Rabbeinu Saadya Gaon and lehavdil Rabbi Avigdor Miller. I once saw a third (following the well known rule that there’s a Rishon for everything) but I forget who it was.
depends if you go to gehinom or gan eden 🙂
I highly doubt Rabbi Miller said that. What I did hear him say is that he’ll follow the example of Chazal and not speak about it. It’s obvious; it did not fit into his area of work. Although he does mention the existance of Kabbalah and the importance of learning it when you are holding at that point, he does not discuss such issues openly.
absolutely
Believe in them? I see them on the CR all the time!
They let you into this world with only one user name at a time. Any attempt to log in here with another user name will be ..
Itche: The Rashash.
He doesn’t say it is not a Jewish concept. On the contrary, he acknowledges that there are such Shitos while he apparently has a (very weak) Kasha on it.
This is besides the fact that Reb Chaim Kenievsky said that it was probably put in by someone other than the Rashash himself. I believe this as well. I think it is unlikely that he would argue on the Gra, or that would would ask this as a Kasha. Also, Baalei Gilgulim a funny term for the post-Zohar period.
Listen Buster,
It’s not your conscious self that gets re-shuffled into another body. That is the concept that Rabbeinu Saadya rejected. Every person born is a new consciousness. The Neshama is something that most people never tune into. One Neshama can have more than one body, or person, under it.
If you google the topic you’ll find that there are people today who remember a previous life.
I remember previously when I had a life.
People have fake memories all the time. That’s not a proof.
There are many, many documented reports of people remembering things they could not have known. Either lots of people are conspiring to fabricate these stories all around the world in a really bizarrely coordinated way, or they’re real. There’s a chapter in Soul Searching by R’ Astor about this, but there are probably more thorough and convincing sources available today.
It’s not mandatory to believe in gilgulim, since there are rishonim who spoke against it and it’s not explicitly mentioned in Gemara or Tanach. But virtually every major rabbinical authority since kabbalah was popularized 500-1000 years ago has believed in it (if they said anything about it). The Rashash is the only exception I know of.
No.
I generally avoid delving into these issues.
I have quite enough to occupy myself with, trying to keep informed regarding the parts of the Torah that I’m obligated to study, and those I’m allowed to study if I’m so inclined.
I have no idea who you are or where you’re up to, but there’s a chance that might be a good plan for you too, Busterc.
What is not to believe? ITs from the Torah!
i’d prefer not to believe in gilgulim but there are certain events that are difficult to understand without the concept of gilgulim. i guess, as a whole, i am agnostic about gilgulim.
So let us assume, for the purpose of this thread, that there are indeed two shittos regarding the matter (as opposed to well-accepted, mainstream thought vs. a small, perhaps misunderstood minority).
So either its a topic where you can claim to “hold by” one of the shittos, or its not.
Either way – asking “Do you believe” in something discussed by countless of our Seforim HaKedoshim is absolutely unacceptable.
Logician: Not really. Just re-word the question to “do you hold like R’ Saadya on Gilgulim or on everyone else”. It’s the same thing. And no, R’ Saadya is not misunderstood in the slightest. He is against the existence of Gilgulim in the strongest terms.
sure
The strongest terms? Does he think it is as bad as evolution (which he knocks down in the first Maamar)? He says it is foolish and comes from outside. That’s not Mamesh the strongest terms. Besides, as I mentioned other times and hinted to above, he might have held of it as a Sod, like the Ramban, and it is not a regurgitating conscious entity, which is what he was addressing.
By the way, in retrospect, many Maamarei Chazal are only understood with Gilgul, when they say this one is that one. This is where Mekubalim and rationalists meet.
You can’t just decide to “hold like him”. A concept discussed by the mainstream seforim cannot be waved away.
When you lack a belief in something discussed by “everyone”, quoting a source for your position does not justify it. It may be a legitimate shita, but not accepting the plausability of the mainstream opinion is not an option. We do not have the ability to pick sides in such cases.
Of course people can pick sides. That doesn’t mean you should denigate those (the majority of authorities, including virtually all authorities in the last 500 years!) who believe in it. But one is certainly entitled to side with those who reject gilgulim. (I say this though I personally believe in them.)
Google “trusting the torah’s sages” aishdas and you’ll find a pdf of some very interesting essays by Rav S.R. Hirsch discussing one’s obligations in hashkafa.
The Ramaq writes that if you find something hard to believe, it is fine to hold your belief as long as you don’t make noise about it.
I am not planning on debating the subject of which topics of “agada” are subject to Halachic decision.
My point is that leaning to one side of an issue due to logical reasoning and proofs from the sugya have no relation to “deciding” how one “holds” based on their “belief”.
I can say that based on whatever proof or svara I “hold” like R’ Sadya (still presumptuous, but all right). But to therefore say “I don’t believe in gilgulim” is not the same thing.
Logician: So you would rather people say what, exactly? “I think R’ Saadya Gaon is correct when he states that reincarnation is not a Jewish concept in the slightest and was borrowed from pagan beliefs.” That sounds a lot less respectful than “I don’t believe in Gilgul”.
If someone came to that conclusion based on his legitimate understanding of the sugya, fine. That’s what RSG did.
If someone came to that conclusion based on a belief system influenced by outside, secular sources, that’s not fine.
HaLeivi: Yes, calling something nonsense coming from Indian idolatry is the strongest terms. I’ll get the source from Rabbi Miller, bli neder.
Sam2: Surely not Rav Shalom Shabazi the paytan?
Yeah, sort of.
This would be my preferred phraseology, once you’re “asking”: I have logical reason (Talmudic-based) to prefer the approach which rejects the concept of gilgulim. However, I am cognizant of the fact that the majority of classical sources accept this idea, and so I cannot say that I have an inherent problem with the concept.
Its not disrespectful to any other source to agree, for whatever reason, with R’ Sadya.
It really is foolish, I believe, to think you can reject the mainstream of Jewish thought.
Reminds me of an incident recently where someone referenced a Kuzari. I said, wait a minute, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban and probably many others say differently ? So the fellow says, yes, the Kuzari shows how they’re wrong. Huh ?
I hear the Kuzari’s position ? Fine. I therefore reject the position of these Rishonim ? No. We have a machlokes rishonim. We consider them two mehalchim which to us (barring psak, when relevant) are both Torah, and deserve our study and respect.
DY – Based on what I wrote earlier, I’m not sure I agree. Depends what you mean by “believe”. I think RSG’s right, therefore my understanding tells me it doesn’t exist, fine. I don’t believe, i.e. I reject the possibility, not fine.
Same as in Halachah. I have twenty proofs against a rishon, I pasken against him – but do I say “its wrong” ? We even say a pshat in a Rambam, despite knowing that it was not even his intent!
Its just more difficult to deal with the idea when it comes to things we consider “fact” – true or false. I think that just means we approach halachic ideas as so abstract, so we’re ok with “anything goes”.
Logician: Sometimes Rishonim thoroughly disprove one another. Should R’ Saadya be correct here, then the concept would be totally illegitimate.
When I say believe, I’m borrowing the term from the thread title. I think it’s not something we would normally categorize as belief.
I think one is only entitled to an opinion if it’s Talmud based, as you say, but it needs to be from the same perspective as one should have on any sugya: you can come out understanding one tzad better than another, but with the recognition that we’re ants compared to the Rishonim, and that our opinions are severely handicapped by our limited mental and spiritual abilities.
No. They may thoroughly disagree, and may be logically incompatible, but to us they’re not “disproven”.
The Ramban in intro to milchamos writes briefly how machlokes in Gemara is NOT about absolutely disproving the other opinion. I’ve heard and read from great people about this, and they seem to treat it as a very important foundation for understanding Talmudic debate.
Logician: I’m not saying it’s common or that it happens in many Machloksim, but as a concept it exists. There are Shittos in the Rishonim that are outright rejected because it is accepted that the other Rishonim have thoroughly refuted them.
DY – If I understand you correctly, I entirely agree.
And if so, like in any sugya, I go with my svara, not really thinking I’ve decided the issue. In which case it doesn’t make sense to believe in one stance in the classical sense of the word. Which is all I was saying.
Sam2,
Can you give some examples?
Itche, you have a mild imagination. The Satmar Rav zt”l spoke in stronger terms than that.
Rejected as in being unacceptable for someone today to hold that way ? Yes, but clearly that would be in an area where psak pertains, which is being claimed doesn’t apply here. If anything, it should be clear here that our mesorah has accepted these concepts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.