Shalom

[Zelhar]

The sages, who have spent their life studying, have passed down the interpretation. No sage ever took that passage literally. This is not an argument...

It comes from the same chapter of Isiah that is quoted as proof for the resurrection. Isaiah used metaphors.

Oh and here is another question for you about resurrection- who is going to be top dog- David ? Moses ? the Messiah ? Adam ? generic republican ?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Listen guys, when you read the Torah, the prophesies are very clear for example about the inheritance of Eretz Israel as well as punishment and exile for failing to follow the commandments. These phrases one may not believe in but cannot deny their meaning. But all the "proofs" about after life and resurrection stem from much more opaque texts that can be understood allegorically and in different contexts.

Do you take literally the phrase "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, "  seriously ?! Will the Leopard also "lie" with the goat on the other meaning will intermarry and spawn a hybrid ?

 No and neither did the Rambam, yett he wrote explicitly from the Tannach about the ressurection of the dead. I don't have the book in front of me because I borrower it, but read it and see the exact things he brings. Why would he of all people believe in something "irrational" as you put it. What was the point? Anyway their is reward both for the body and the soul. The reward of the soul is bigger but the body also gets its reward (those who are worthy). According to Rambam are ressurected, live a very long time and then go up to the spiritual bliss that awaits the rightious. RambaN I believe if I remember correctly has the ressurection period much longer, maybe forever, but I don't know for sure.

[Zelhar]

No and neither did the Rambam, yett he wrote explicitly from the Tannach about the ressurection of the dead. I don't have the book in front of me because I borrower it, but read it and see the exact things he brings. Why would he of all people believe in something "irrational" as you put it. What was the point? Anyway their is reward both for the body and the soul. The reward of the soul is bigger but the body also gets its reward (those who are worthy). According to Rambam are ressurected, live a very long time and then go up to the spiritual bliss that awaits the rightious. RambaN I believe if I remember correctly has the ressurection period much longer, maybe forever, but I don't know for sure.

He could say that he believed in resurrection based on the texts, but it bothers me that he ruled categorically that every Jew must accept that version as an axiom or else be heretic. And I am not sure anyone before him said so. If resurrection is such an important principle that denying it means karet, how comes Moses never warned the Israelites, nor Joshua nor David, nor even the prophets Isiaiah and Daniel who supposedly spoked about resurrection, none of them said "beware. if you deny this, you are going to hell !".

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't know what a Rambamist is? Is that something someone made up? I just spent all weekend with one of my favorite Chabad Rabbis who revealed he studies Rambam every day. Does this make him a Rambamist?

. No and no.

[muman613]

. No and no.

Chabad studies Rambam more than most...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

A Rambamist is someone who follows the Mishneh Torah as their halachic guide as opposed to the Shulchan Aruch.  It's not someone who holds every opinion the Rambam ever held, just like followers of the Shulchan Aruch in practice don't hold every opinion that its author Rabbi Yosef Karo ever held.  Another word for Rambamist is "talmid haRambam" (student of the Rambam).  The only major ethnic Jewish group that holds by the Mishneh Torah over the Shulchan Aruch is the Yemenites.  This group is the most rational group and has not only a purer religious tradition but a purer form of Hebrew.  They did not experience the schisms that took place in Europe (Reform, Conservative and the Orthodox reaction) or the pagan innovations made by the mystic movements and the Zohar (aka the Book of Mormon of Judaism).  The terms "Talmidei HaRambam" and "Rambamists" can be used to denote Jews who have attached themselves to Mishneh Torah observance even though they are not of Yemenite descent.  There are Yemenite rabbis such as Rabbi Yihiye Kafach who have written against the Zohar.  Since one rabbi doesn't trump plain reason, it should be clear to anyone (not just Rambamists) who can read that the above verses don't speak about gilgul, and if you want support for gilgul I'd say consult Hindu texts.

That's actually not what the term rambamist means.  (Maybe its what you meant by your comment but not what the word means).  The term refers to someone who follows what the Rambam says on every single issue no matter what and disregard other halachic commentaries or other explanations as a rule they've taken on themselves that everyone else is always wrong and he always right - and not just in halacha.  (See for example certain rambamist nuts who have slandered Reb Yaakov kamenetsky since he rightly pointed out that certain scientific/astronomical beliefs espoused by rambam have been disproven by modern science and his views in those specific instances can and should be disregarded.  They attack him for this and they insist that the stars and planets really are sentient beings and the moon landing was a hoax etc.   Maybe most or many of those yemenites and/or others who use mishne Torah as a guide rather than shulchan aruch also fall into this category of rambamist I have described..  But it certainly exists and is what the term refers to.  Rav bar hayim has an article (editorial) up on machon shilo about this topic written by Yair haKohen I believe where Yair takes issue w that approach and raises some relevant cautions.  But hey the same cautions should certainly be raised on the many many "shulchan aruchists" (I just made up that term) in the orthodox world.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/holidays/67-featured/563-on-rambamism-a-word-to-the-wise

[muman613]

When I talk about rationalism I'm not talking about rationalizing prophecy itself.  All Orthodox Jews accept Torah prophecy's truth as axiomatic.  You either believe it or you don't, for a variety of reasons which may or may not be rational.  I'm talking about a rational approach to interpreting and deriving Halacha and beliefs BASED on this prophecy.  Rabbis are not prophets.  Therefore they are not divinely inspired to talk about the afterlife and the spiritual world off the top of their heads, or make up laws out of thin air.  They are given authority to DERIVE these things from what prophets who actually did experience Divine revelation already passed down to us.  Rationalism is needed in this derivation process because without it, a rabbi could just invent whatever he wanted and pass it off as valid.  In other words, G-d doesn't owe us any rational explanation of what He says, but a rabbi does.  So with the example of gilgul, since this is not in any prophecy, a rabbi who has no prophetic powers would have to demonstrate how he got this out of the Torah with rationalism which does not hold up as we saw above.  But with the resurrection of the dead and Mashiach, Rambam CAN demonstrate how he got this out of the Torah because it's right there in the aforementioned Tanach verses.  Some rabbis are more rational than others when they explain things.  Since I take Tanach seriously, I want the most reasonable people interpreting it for me, telling me what it actually said, not people out in mystical la la land taking scriptures out of context to tie them to illogical and impractical concepts.

Mystical La La Land? What is that? You have a basic problem with spiritual matters dealt with in the Torah. I really don't know why you have such a problem. The mystical interpretations have existed long before Zohar existed on the scene. The Zohar is not the single source of Jewish mysticism. But you have a problem with any Rabbi who believes in things which contradict what Rambam says. You realize that Rambam was not accepted at the time he wrote his Mishneh Torah.... He virtually re-invented Judaism in the form of Aristotlean philosophy which was not acceptable to much of the Jewish world at the time.

I have a problem with people who only accept Rambam and not other sages. As I have said and demonstrated multiple times there are non-rational things which the Talmud relates. Picking and choosing what is acceptable to you is not considered the Jewish way. I learn from all sources... It is s simplificaton if you listen to only one source.

[muman613]

When I said Rambamist I did not mean to imply that Rambam is the only rabbi worth listening to.  The context that I've seen "Rambamist" used in (and this may not be the only context out there) is when referring to adherents of the Mishneh Torah code.  Now all practitioners of Torah go by a code.  All communities have a standard practice.  Out of the codes out there today, I find the Mishneh Torah to be the purest one.  However that's not to say that further study can't come up with something better, but I'll leave that up to the Torah scholars.  I support what Rabbi David Bar Chayim is doing in Israel, and value the insights of all knowledgeable rabbis who use reason.

This sounds like a good approach.... I hope I have not offended you by being defensive of my beliefs...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

When I said Rambamist I did not mean to imply that Rambam is the only rabbi worth listening to.  The context that I've seen "Rambamist" used in (and this may not be the only context out there) is when referring to adherents of the Mishneh Torah code.  Now all practitioners of Torah go by a code.  All communities have a standard practice.  Out of the codes out there today, I find the Mishneh Torah to be the purest one.  However that's not to say that further study can't come up with something better, but I'll leave that up to the Torah scholars.  I support what Rabbi David Bar Chayim is doing in Israel, and value the insights of all knowledgeable rabbis who use reason.

Fair enough.  I agree with you on all that.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

I hate it that you all fight so much, but all of you teach so much when you do. Thank you! I pray one day all Chirstians, Noachides, and Jews can come together! And come back to Hashem, and the Torah!

 P.S. I'm not meaning to sound like a Homo!

[edu]

For the benefit of Zelhar who has questions about where the resurrection of the dead and the world to come are found in the Bible I am repeating what I wrote on an earlier thread.

I will restate what I have written above as an introduction
There are 2 types of reward after death for the righteous Jew or righteous Gentile.
1 The Spiritual resting place of the soul - called Gan {Garden} Eden, where the soul experiences spiritual delights in accordance to the merit it earned directly or indirectly.
2 According to Rabbis, such as Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura, [and I believe this is the majority viewpoint], some time in the future, the soul will be reunited with an improved body and the soul and body will continue to exist eternally in a world that is much more satisfying than it is today.
Given my contention that resurrection of the dead is describing the World to Come, there are many references in the Tanakh. The source that the Sages cite in tractate Sanhedrin is Dvarim/Deuteronomy 32:39 "I will make them die and bring to life". The Talmud asks perhaps, the verse is talking about making one individual die and a different one alive. The Talmud answers, since the verse continues on by talking about the healing of an injured individual, just like in that instance it is talking about the same individual, so too at the beginning of the verse, when talking about bringing to life, it is talking about the same individual that was put to death.
Indication #2, Yaakov/Jacob makes a big fuss about not burying him in Egypt, but rather to bury him in Israel. Why all the fuss? One of the reasons is that as far as the afterlife is concerned it makes a big difference. There is an element of atonement plus one comes to back life earlier if one is buried in Israel.
The prophets Eliyahu and Elijah bring the dead back to life (although only temporarily)
Many (but not all) understand Yechezkel's/Ezekiel's vision of the bones of killed people coming back to life as referring to resurrection of the dead (see chapter 37)
see Daniel 12:2 "And many that sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken, these for a life of eternity", etc.
There are other examples, but I think I have provided more than enough.
I will also bring up one more point. If man had eaten from the tree of life, it says in the Tanakh, he would have lived forever. So again we see, the concept of eternal life is not alien to the Tanakh and from the other verses that I brought, we see that after man has gained atonement through death, he regains his access to eternal life, if he was righteous.

[Zelhar]

For the benefit of Zelhar who has questions about where the resurrection of the dead and the world to come are found in the Bible I am repeating what I wrote on an earlier thread.

Thank you for bringing this and as far as I comprehend this is not a valid proof that the Tanakh states there is an after life and resurrection. Yes there are verses that may be a hint of such things in the Tanakh, but apparently only because the Talmudist seem to be sure that such concepts exists. Moreover all the detailed description given in later sources about the world to come, the resurrection, and some other fantastic concepts must be based at best on some oral traditions, it cannot be based on the tanakh.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

Thank you for bringing this and as far as I comprehend this is not a valid proof that the Tanakh states there is an after life and resurrection.

Just curious, what do you think happens when you die? Do you not believe there is anything outside this life?

[Zelhar]

Just curious, what do you think happens when you die? Do you not believe there is anything outside this life?

I would like to think that there is a soul that survives.

[muman613]

I would like to think that there is a soul that survives.

Is this just your opinion or do you have sources to back it up? Sometimes it seems to me like you are a Karaite, one who accepts only the Written Torah yet rejects the Oral Tradition.

[Zelhar]

Is this just your opinion or do you have sources to back it up? Sometimes it seems to me like you are a Karaite, one who accepts only the Written Torah yet rejects the Oral Tradition.

I am a skeptic secular Jew. So I don't actually accept the Torah as absolute truth either. I try to analyze information logically both in terms of absolute truth as well as in relation to premises.  So, in my arguments here I took for the sake of the argument the Torah as premiss as Judaism does. I also accept as premiss, for the scope of this discussion at least, the oral Torah that was given to Moses. BUT, to me the Oral Torah means:
A. Halacha that is specifically said to be "halacha lemoshe mesinai".
B. Halacha that is logically derived from the Torah (including oral Torah of type A).

There is another type which I hold on a lesser category of "truth" and that is:
C. Halacha that is derived by "extended" logic such as remez, drash, metaphors and agadah. Obviously such derivation is significantly weaker then pure logic.

So far all the proofs I see regarding resurrection, eternal souls etc fall into category C.

[edu]

I will present to you Zelhar the proof I once used to convince a secular "Jewish Studies" professor, that the Torah believes in an afterlife and resurrection.
There are various overt sentences in the Torah which state that G-d is just in his ways and rewards the good and punishes the bad.
For centuries though, from the very writing of the Torah, however, one might witness instances where it would not be so apparent the connection between good deeds getting reward and bad deeds getting punishment.
So as mere logic you should already assume that built into the system of reward and punishment and G-d's justice is an afterlife, where those that did not get for the good or the bad what was due to them during their lifetime, would be paid back what was owed them.
This logical conclusion would not take a thousand years or more to come upon the scene until having met with some Gentile culture, that also believed in an afterlife.

[Zelhar]

The belief in reward and punishment certainly gives a strong motivation to believe in afterlife. I don't think it's a a logical proof.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Chabad studies Rambam more than most...

Still no.

[edu]

Zelhar, there are secular Jews who were clinically dead that claimed they saw
the judgement of souls for good and bad, while clinically dead. When they came back to life, for example, through some electric shock that restarted their body functions, some of them decided due to their experience to become religious.
Unless, you believe they are not telling the truth, how do you account for these stories?

[edu]

If you need an example of near death experiences or clinical death experiences on Video
see

[Zelhar]

Zelhar, there are secular Jews who were clinically dead that claimed they saw
the judgement of souls for good and bad, while clinically dead. When they came back to life, for example, through some electric shock that restarted their body functions, some of them decided due to their experience to become religious.
Unless, you believe they are not telling the truth, how do you account for these stories?

These stories prove nothing about what's "out there". They tell about the experience and senses of a person who undergoes massive trauma injury and clinical death.

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

I would like to think that there is a soul that survives.

So you would like to believe there is a soul, but your not sure because there is no proof?

[Zelhar]

So you would like to believe there is a soul, but your not sure because there is no proof?

Yes pretty much.