Is it permitted for a man to marry his dead wife's sister?

[Lisa]

Aren't we talking about levirate marriages here? 

[Sveta]

Yes, levirate marriage or the yibbum. Also, over mamzerut and also the non-levirate scenario of if a widow who had children can marry her brother-in-law...

[muman613]

Aren't we talking about levirate marriages here?

No, Leverite marriage is when a man must marry the wife of his dead brother if he had not had children with her...


http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter24.html

24. Levirate Marriage and Chalitzah - Yibbum ve-Chalitzah


If a man dies childless his oldest brother (on the father's side) is commanded to marry his wife (even though ordinarily marrying a brother's wife is incest), as it says "If brothers live together and one of them dies and has no child the dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider; her brother-in-law shall take her for his wife".1 In principle the brother need not betroth her since she is automatically his, but the sages instituted betrothal in such cases. Once he has married her she is like his wife in all respects.a

If they do not want to marry they must perform the ceremony of chalitzah, as it says "And if the man does not want to take his sister-in-law she shall go up to the elders... and pull his shoe off his foot (chalitzah)... and say `Thus shall be done to the man who will not build his brother's house'".2 Afterwards she is like his divorced wife.b Until they marry or perform chalitzah she is forbidden to marry anyone else, as it says "The dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider".l,c

Sources:

1. Deut. 25:5; see Lev. 18:16   a. 1:1,15; 2:1,6
2. Deut. 25:7-9   b. 1:2,13; 2:10
c. 2:18

[Sveta]

No, Leverite marriage is when a man must marry the wife of his dead brother if he had not had children with her...

Oh yes, I got confused, we are discussing various terms. Yibbum was discussed but it is not the subject of the thread. The thread itself is about a man marrying his dead wife's sister.

So from a man marrying his dead wife's sister, to mamzerut to Yibbum and chalizah.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Israeli heart- You wrote that it is "FORBIDDEN". I would like a source for that. Yes Halitza is to performed in a situation where the brother (of the man who did not have children) refuses to marry her. BUT in the case that she does have a child and the father dies I don't see why it would be FORBIDDEN for her to marry his brother. I wouldn't think it would be normal yet not forbidden and the children would most definitely not be mamzerim.

[Sveta]

Israeli heart- You wrote that it is "FORBIDDEN". I would like a source for that. Yes Halitza is to performed in a situation where the brother (of the man who did not have children) refuses to marry her. BUT in the case that she does have a child and the father dies I don't see why it would be FORBIDDEN for her to marry his brother. I wouldn't think it would be normal yet not forbidden and the children would most definitely not be mamzerim.

Leviticus 18:16.

Also explained here: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/468337/jewish/Prohibited-Marriages.htm

(e) His sister, half-sister, his full or half-brother’s wife (divorced or widowed) except for Levirate marriage with the widow of a childless brother. and the full or half-sister of his divorced wife in her lifetime.

And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred.
There are cases where a Yibbum is not required. Let's say a man and a woman were married for 50 years and never had kids. Now the widow is 95 years old, and her dead husband's brother is 97. Would there be a Yibbum required? NO. Because she is no longer able to bear children and therefore Yibbum does not apply. Likewise if a woman who can bear children becomes a widow but her brother-in-law had an accident and is known to not be able to sire children, then a Yibbum is not required either (but a chalitza is preformed according to some rulings). If a man died childless, his wife is not required to marry her maternal half-brother, because the brothers do not share the same father. And thus Yibbum is not required.
If a man had Jewish children from a previous relation and then marries a woman but then died while she never had kids, she would not be required to marry her brother-in-law because her dead husband already had children and thus Yibbum would not apply. Furthermore under Leviticus 18:16- she is NOT permitted to marry her brother-in-law anyways.

Please note, that the article from Chabad also talks about how it is prohibited to marry a sister-in-law IF the wife is alive or divorced, as we have discussed in the thread.

I'm not just making it up, I have studied and these are my conclusions based of studies and lectures, just have to gather my sources. In any events, most of my sources for this also are found in the Mishneh Torah, apart from knowing the prohibition in Leviticus. But it would be hard to pin point the exact location of where I get my information.  Also, I am uncertain if a brother-in-law and the widow sharing the status of sh'niyot under Rabbinical prohibition carries the same consequences under gillui arayot such as mamzerut would. But searching about it online, I found this as well:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_13339.html

marriage with his brother's widow (except in the case of the levirate widow) or divorced wife: such marriages are punishable by karet (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah, 2:1, 9; Sh. Ar., EH 15:22, 26; 44:6; see also *Levirate Marriage)

Furthermore, in Mishne Torah Chapter 1 Halacha 22:

"If she gives birth [different rules apply]: If the child dies, even on the day it was born, the yavam should divorce her, [give her] a get and perform chalitzah with her. 57 [Only] then, is she permitted to marry another man. If the child lives for 30 days after its birth,58 [the child] is considered to be viable, and there is no need for a divorce, for [relations between the two are forbidden by] a severe prohibition].59

If anything we see that in case of a Yibbum, chalitza and divorce under some situations are extremely prefered, as it says "relations between the two are forbidden by a severe prohibition"

I have also found this as well: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558049/jewish/Yibum-and-Chalitzah.htm

Sexual relations between a brother and sister-in-law are forbidden by the Torah unless within the context of the mitzvah of Yibum. For example, if the widow's husband did not die childless, it would be forbidden for them to marry. There is an opinion expressed in the Talmud that if the Levirate couple are intimate with each other and their intention is not to fulfill the mitzvah, rather they are attracted to each other's beauty or personality, then they have transgressed the prohibition against forbidden incestuous relations!

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

"And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred."


 Before I read the rest I will stop here (for now) Chalizah is not preferable. It is in the situation where if he refuses he goes through a humiliating procedure where she spitts on his shoes (which was something embarrassing especially back in the day).

[Binyamin Yisrael]

What if a man has a baby with his brother's widow, and the baby grows up? Are they allowed to continue to be married and have more kids or is it once the baby is born, they are not allowed to stay together?

[Sveta]

"And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred."


 Before I read the rest I will stop here (for now) Chalizah is not preferable. It is in the situation where if he refuses he goes through a humiliating procedure where she spitts on his shoes (which was something embarrassing especially back in the day).

There is an answer for that too:

As I noted previously- in cases where the brother-in-law and the widow desire to marry because they like each other, desire each other- then they are actually going against the laws of incest. Because the Yibbum must be done for the sake of Heaven. It is like a sacrifice where the man must marry the widow ONLY to bring progeny under the name of his brother. In the past, this was preferred but today it is so rare that people would actually see it this way and not see it as a way of pleasure and love that a Chalitza is preferred. In other words, to avoid two people who do not have the right intentions, it is preferable that they do a Chalizta instead of the Yibbum.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Custom/Halitzah.shtml?p=1

In the rabbinic sources the opinion is ex­pressed that while it is clear from the biblical passage that the ideal is for the levir to marry the widow, "nowadays" he should not be allowed do so but must release her through halitzah. The reason for the change is that since levirate marriage involves a man marrying his brother's widow, an act otherwise forbid­den, the levir must be motivated solely by his wish to carry out his religious obligation and it can no longer be assumed that the levir's intention is "for the sake of heaven." Another opinion is recorded, however, that levirate marriage has priority over halitzah. The difference of opinion continued for centuries, some Sephardi and Oriental communities following the opinion which prefers levirate marriage to halitzah.

The Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel introduced the law that halitzah is always to be preferred for all Jews in the state, whatever their original practice was. Obviously, once the ban on polygamy had been established, halitzah was the only option in any event where the levir already had a wife.

A woman did have a choice to not accept the brother-in-law as her husband too. So it would have been better that the brother not suffer through the humiliation and force a woman to be in the terrible situation of becoming an agunah? In any events a Beis Din could have intervened and recommended the Chalizah. In fact, in the chapters of the Mishneh Torah, it does speak of times where the judges would recommend or not recommend a yibbum or chalitza:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960622/jewish/Chapter-Four.htm

If the appropriate advice is for them to perform yibbum, they advise him2 to perform yibbum.3 If the appropriate advice is for them to perform chalitzah - e.g., she is young and he is older, or she is older and he is young4 - they advise him to perform chalitzah.

For example, would a Yibbum be preferable if the brother in law is 65 years old and the widow is 24 or vice versa? Or if he is a eunuch? Then should a Yibbum be preferable?

[Binyamin Yisrael]

If you think about it...if the wedding took place in Israel, the Beis Din would NOT have allowed a marriage that would produce a mamzer. So when Sharon married his dead wife's sister and it was allowed in Israel and recognized under the auspices of the Orthodox religious courts, it would be because it was allowed. Considering the first wife is dead.

Maybe they didn't have a real wedding. Sharon also buried his wife on his ranch even though Israeli law requires dead people to be buried in cemeteries. I remember hearing Kahanists say that her body should be moved to a real cemetery because Sharon removed dead bodies from the cemetery in Gush Katif to be re-buried in other cemeteries.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

What if he divorces his wife and she dies after they get divorced? Could he marry her then?

I thought maybe Omri Sharon was a mamzer. I say this because he had a child out of wedlock. If he was a mamzer, he couldn't have married the mother. When I was at Hebrew University in 2001, Omri Sharon's son had his brit at the Hyatt Hotel in French Hill where a few week later, Rechavam Ze'evi, HY"D was murdered by an Arab Muslim Nazi. So I saw all the security near the hotel which is near Mount Scopus during the brit.

Why don't you ask a rabbi?  They usually know the answers to these types of questions.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Interestingly, I just finished listening to a lecture and the speaker did mention the children born to a woman who was niddah at the time of conception. How the children born in this manner tend to be rebellious and predisposed to evil.

Based on what proof?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So other than yibum, a woman is forbidden from marrying her first husband's brother, right?

Let's say a woman has a son from her husband. After she gave birth, her husband does. If the widow marries his brother, would kids from such a union be mamzerim?

Also, if she got divorced from her husband, if she marries his brother, would the kids be mamzerim?

I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at (if anything) but I really encourage you to learn Talmud.  You would be in heaven.  They ask all of these kind of questions and discuss all the type of rare cases you can think of.   Have you tried learning before?

[Sveta]

Based on what proof?

Well actually, I never said I just came up with it nor am not making any claims. I said that I heard it from my Rabbi from a lecture. 
He is available by email, if you want to ask him what proof this is based on then you can ask him here: http://www.divineinformation.com/
He is very nice and is open to answering those who message him, as long as it is a short message- as he gets many emails a day.


He speaks of it here.
He starts talking about niddah laws at: 30:21
He talks about what a horrible sin it is at: 31:15
He talks about children of niddah at: 34:55
He explains the children of niddah/kids of impurity: 39:27 and their souls at: 39:58 and 40:44



He says there are more examples, maybe you can ask him where you can get these examples.

I don't know if you have heard of the term "bnei niddah" before. Anyways this is merely what I heard in a lecture.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Israeli heart, these things are based on false teachings mainly from the Zohar and belief in reincarnation. We don't believe in bad souls vs good souls being born. Every person is born clean. If this somehow motivates couples to go to the mikvah, fine but true motivation should be serving G-D.
  About halitza it is mainly apologetics. It is not Halacha to not be attracted to her and in fact it is very wired not to. It would be like saying a homo has an advantage of being a better husband then a normal man to his wife. Also no real bann on polygamy, the rabbanut is a joke.

[muman613]

Israeli heart, these things are based on false teachings mainly from the Zohar and belief in reincarnation. We don't believe in bad souls vs good souls being born. Every person is born clean. If this somehow motivates couples to go to the mikvah, fine but true motivation should be serving G-D.
  About halitza it is mainly apologetics. It is not Halacha to not be attracted to her and in fact it is very wired not to. It would be like saying a homo has an advantage of being a better husband then a normal man to his wife. Also no real bann on polygamy, the rabbanut is a joke.

Tag,

This is simply your opinion concerning the Zohar. The Zohar is considered a major source for a lot of Chassidus and I consider it an insult that you disrespect it such without even understanding it. You call it 'false teaching' which is completely false in itself. You have never studied it and know nothing other than the lies spread by the mitnagdim.

I can supply sources even other than from the Zohar, explicitly from the Talmud which devestate your argument. Indeed the Talmud in several places suggest that there are influences which can affect a soul toward good or evil. And the Zohar takes the Talmud and looks a level deeper in the Sod (Hidden meaning of the Torah).

Your malignment of the Zohar does nothing but expose your bias.

I believe Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, and so many other Rabbis who teach the deeper meaning of the Torah. You don't have to believe it, but certainly don't call something false if you have no idea what you are talking about.

[muman613]

http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_156.html

Shabbat Page 156A

It was recorded in R. Joshua b. Levi's notebook: He who [is born] on the first day of the week [Sunday] shall be a man without one [thing] in him — What does 'without one [thing] in him' mean? Shall we say, without one virtue?16  Surely R. Ashi said: I was born on the first day of the week! Hence it must surely mean, one vice. But Surely R. Ashi said: I and Dimi b. Kakuzta were born on the first day of the week: I am a king17  and he is the captain of thieves!18  — Rather it means either completely virtuous or completely wicked.19  [What is the reason? Because light and darkness were created on that day.]20  He who is born on the second day of the week will be bad-tempered — What is the reason? Because the waters were divided thereon.21  He who is born on the third day of the week will be wealthy and unchaste. What is the reason? Because herbs were created thereon.22  He who is born on the fourth day of the week will be wise and of a retentive memory.23  What is the reason? Because the luminaries were suspended [thereon] — He who is born on the fifth day of the week will practise benevolence. What is the reason? Because the fishes and birds were created thereon.24  He who is born on the eve of the Sabbath will be a seeker. R. Nahman b. Isaac commented: A seeker after good deeds.25  He who is born on the Sabbath will die on the Sabbath, because the great day of the Sabbath was desecrated on his account. Raba son of R. Shila observed: And he shall be called a great and holy man.26

R. Hanina said to then, [his disciples]: Go out and tell the son of Levi, Not the constellation of the day but that of the hour is the determining influence. He who is born under the constellation of the sun27  will be a distinguished28  man: he will eat and drink of his own and his secrets will lie uncovered; if a thief, he will have no success. He who is born under Venus will be wealthy and unchaste [immoral]. What is the reason? Because fire was created therein.29  He who is born under Mercury will be of a retentive memory and wise. What is the reason? Because it [Mercury] is the sun's scribe. He who is born under the Moon will be a man to suffer evil, building and demolishing, demolishing and building. eating and drinking that which is not his and his secrets will remain hidden: if a thief, he will be successful.30  He who is born under Saturn will be a man whose plans will be frustrated.31  Others say: All [nefarious] designs against him will be frustrated. He who is born under Zedek [Jupiter] will be a right-doing man [zadkan] R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Right-doing in good deeds.32  He who is born under Mars will be a shedder of blood. R. Ashi observed: Either a surgeon, a thief, a slaughterer, or a circumciser. Rabbah said: I was born under Mars.33  Abaye retorted: You too inflict punishment and kill.34

[muman613]

http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_16.html

Niddah 16b

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25  What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.26  The night is thus set aside27  for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways28  shall die.29  As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?26  — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop? Shall it produce a strong man or a weak man, a wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man?' Whereas 'wicked man' or 'righteous one' he does not mention, in agreement with the view of R. Hanina. For R. Hanina stated: Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of God, as it is said, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear etc.30  And R. Johanan?31  — If that were the only meaning,32  Scripture should have written,33  'A man-child is brought forth'34  why then was it stated, 'was brought forth a man-child'?35  To indicate that the night36  is set aside for conception36  but the day is not set aside for conception. As to R. Johanan how does he expound the text of Resh Lakish?29  — He requires it for [an application to the same types] as those described in the Book of Ben Sira:37  'There are three [types] that I hate, yea, four that I do not love: A Scholar38  who frequents wine-shops39  [or, as others say, a scholar that is a gossip],40  a person who sets up a college in the high parts of a town,41  one who holds the membrum when making water and one who enters his friend's house suddenly'.42  R. Johanan observed:43  Even his own house.

R. Simeon b. Yohai observed: There are four [types]44  which the Holy One, blessed be He, hates, and as for me, I do not love them: The man who enters his house suddenly and much more so [if he so enters] his friend's house, the man who holds the membrum when he makes water,

http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_17.html
Niddah 17a

the man who when naked makes water in front of his bed, and the man who has intercourse in the presence of any living creature. 'Even', said Rab Judah to Samuel, 'in the presence of mice?' 'Shinena',1  the other replied, 'no; but [the reference is to] a house like that of So and so where they have intercourse in the presence of their men-servants and maidservants.2  But what was the exposition they made? — Abide ye here with3  the ass,4  implies: peoples that are like an ass. Rabbah son of R. Huna used to chase away the wasps from his curtained bed.5  Abaye drove away the flies.6  Rabba7  chased away the mosquitoes.6

R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, There are five things which [cause the man] who does them to forfeit his life and his blood is upon his own head: Eating8  peeled garlic, a peeled onion or a peeled egg, or drinking diluted liquids that9  were kept over night; spending a night in a graveyard; removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare; and blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse.

'Eating peeled garlic etc.' Even though they are deposited in a basket and tied up and sealed, an evil spirit rests upon them. This, however, has been said only where their roots or peel did not remain10  with them, but if their roots or peel remained with them there can be no objection.11

'And drinking diluted liquids that were kept over night'. Rab Judah citing Samuel explained: This applies only where they were kept over night in a metal vessel. R. Papa stated: Vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal. So also said R. Johanan: This applies only where they were kept in a metal vessel; and vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal.
        
'Spending a night in a graveyard', in order that a spirit of uncleanness may rest upon him.12  [This should not be done] since in consequence he might sometimes be exposed to danger.

'Removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare'. [This is dangerous] because a pregnant woman passing over them would miscarry. This, however, has been said only of a case where one removes them with a pair of scissors. Furthermore, this has been said only of a case where one removes the nails of both hands and feet. Furthermore, this has been said only in the case where one did not cut anything immediately after cutting them but if something was cut immediately after they were cut there can be no danger.13  This, however, is not [to be relied upon]. One should be on his guard in all the cases mentioned.14

Our Rabbis taught: Three things have been said about the disposal of nails: He who burns them is a pious man, he who buries them is a righteous man, and he who throws them away is a wicked man.15

'And blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse'. [This should be avoided] because a Master said: If a man has intercourse immediately after being bled, he will have feeble16  children; and if intercourse took place after both husband and wife have been bled, they will have children afflicted with ra'athan.17  Rab18  stated: This has been said only in the case where nothing was tasted after the bleeding but if something was tasted after it there can be no harm.19

R. Hisda ruled: A man is forbidden to perform his marital duty in the day-time, for it is said, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.20  But what is the proof? — Abaye replied: He might observe something repulsive in her and she would thereby become loathsome to him.

R. Huna said, Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time. Raba said, But in21  a dark house this is permitted; and a scholar22  may darken a room with his cloak and perform his marital duty. [But] we have learnt, OR SHE MUST PERFORM IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP? — Read: SHE MUST examine IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.

Come and hear: Although [the Sages] have said, He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is loathsome [etc.]?23  — Read: He who examines his bed24  in the light of a lamp is loathsome.25

Come and hear: And the people of the house of Monobaz26  did three things, and on account of these they were honourably mentioned: They performed their marital duties in the day-time, they examined their beds with cotton,27  and they observed the rules of uncleanness and cleanness in the case of snow. At all events, was it not here stated, 'They performed their marital duties in the day-time'? Read: They examined their beds in the day-time. This may also be supported by logical argument. For if one were to imagine [that the reading is] 'performed their marital duties', would they have been 'honourably mentioned'? — Yes, indeed;28  because owing to the prevalence29  of sleep30  she is likely to become repulsive to him.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Tag,

This is simply your opinion concerning the Zohar. The Zohar is considered a major source for a lot of Chassidus and I consider it an insult that you disrespect it such without even understanding it. You call it 'false teaching' which is completely false in itself. You have never studied it and know nothing other than the lies spread by the mitnagdim.

I can supply sources even other than from the Zohar, explicitly from the Talmud which devestate your argument. Indeed the Talmud in several places suggest that there are influences which can affect a soul toward good or evil. And the Zohar takes the Talmud and looks a level deeper in the Sod (Hidden meaning of the Torah).

Your malignment of the Zohar does nothing but expose your bias.

I believe Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, and so many other Rabbis who teach the deeper meaning of the Torah. You don't have to believe it, but certainly don't call something false if you have no idea what you are talking about.

  And you know that I havn't studied or believed these things at once based on what? You know me?

 The Talmudh actually says that a person should die the way he was born (free of sin). Those who say people are born with evil or other such things actually reminds me more of xtianity which believes that a person is born with "sin" and thus destined to hell (unless they accepted yoshka of course).
 The "gilgulists" are promoting non-sense about the way people are born and die etc. Its an easy way of explaining the world for example a child born with a handicap, of-course he is just a "reincarned" soul that has to make some sort of correction. How convenient of them to explain away all these serious issues.

[muman613]

  And you know that I havn't studied or believed these things at once based on what? You know me?

 The Talmudh actually says that a person should die the way he was born (free of sin). Those who say people are born with evil or other such things actually reminds me more of xtianity which believes that a person is born with "sin" and thus destined to hell (unless they accepted yoshka of course).
 The "gilgulists" are promoting non-sense about the way people are born and die etc. Its an easy way of explaining the world for example a child born with a handicap, of-course he is just a "reincarned" soul that has to make some sort of correction. How convenient of them to explain away all these serious issues.

Then it seems to me that you did not learn the lessons which are taught about the Talmud. The Talmud is not telling us anything like Christianity. It is telling us that we are placed in a physical world with various pre-dispositions towards things and despite this we are able to overcome them. We are not helpless pawns in this game, yet we are not all created with the same character traits or ratzon/wills. We have differences which are as plain to see as the noses on our faces. Some are ugly and some are attractive, some are smart and others not so smart. There certainly are reasons we are given the challenges we have. We are all expected to overcome these pre-dispositions and this is why the Torah is so important to help rectify the world.

I don't know why you have such a reaction to basic kabbalistic ideas which are the source of the deep meaning of Torah. I am not judging you but in my experience with you it seems you reject a good amount of the Talmud which clearly discusses these topics.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

   Muman- you know your either slow and hard of reading or your just deceiving yourself and others. No 2 ways about it. Where did I ever say anything against the Talmudh? The Talmudh is not the zohar and the Talmudh doesn't discuss or support the idea of "reincarnation". You want to believe in it, fine it is your problem but don't twist things and claim things that aren't even said or written.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id77.html

http://jtf.org/forum/index.php?topic=63722.0

[muman613]

   Muman- you know your either slow and hard of reading or your just deceiving yourself and others. No 2 ways about it. Where did I ever say anything against the Talmudh? The Talmudh is not the zohar and the Talmudh doesn't discuss or support the idea of "reincarnation". You want to believe in it, fine it is your problem but don't twist things and claim things that aren't even said or written.

Hmmm... It seems you have made this an argument about gilgulim, which is not what I was addressing with the Talmud. I was addressing the concept that people can and are born with certain inclinations.

We don't believe in bad souls vs good souls being born. Every person is born clean.

What you said here contradicts clearly several portions (some of which I reproduced above) of the Talmud which discuss how certain souls are affected by actions and thoughts in this world.

The discussion of gilgulim is an entirely different discussion and I believe I have brought the sources for this belief. It is not something which was just made up and people blindly accepted, the sources go back to sources other than the Zohar (you know there are other Kabbalistic sources than Zohar). Nobody has ever said that one must accept these beliefs, as they constituted a part of Torah known as Sod (The deep insight).

I am sure you have heard this explanation of PaRDeS...

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5764/yisro.html

In other words, Tosfos is explaining, these four rabbis meditated on one of the Names of G-d to intellectually transcend levels of Torah consciousness, to which the word "Pardes" alludes. Indeed, though the word itself means "orchard" (and is the Hebrew source of the English word "paradise" because the original paradise, Gan Aiden, was an orchard), the four letters are in fact the first letters of four other words: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod.

As it is well known, Torah can be learned on four distinct levels: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod (literally: Simple, Hint, Exegetical, and Mystery). This means that a Torah concept, like reality, has many levels of meaning, from the simple to the most sublime.

In fact, these four levels of learning also correspond to four areas of Torah learning: Mikrah (Chumash), Mishnah, Talmud, and Kabbalah, respectively. Thus, "entering" Pardes is also a process of going from one area of Torah learning to a higher one, from Pshat to Remez, to Drush, and finally to Sod.

Another way of looking at these four levels is as layers, concentric spheres that overlap each other like layers of an onion. Pshat represents the most outer, obvious layer, while Sod represents the most hidden, inner, and essential layer. In fact, Sod, being the most inner layer, is said to be enclothed by Drush, which is enclothed by Remez, all of which are enclothed by the most outer layer, Pshat.

Anyway I hope you realize that I am not desiring any conflict with you, just that I ask you to avoid rushing to calling these things 'false belief' or at least state in your "informed" opinion it is not the correct belief. I am willing to work together to bring about the truth in Torah, but bold attacks on an entire portion of Jewish belief (Chassidus) I will protest.

[Sveta]

Fair enough, everyone has their own beiefs. I have personally never met an Orthodox rabbi who would say that something in the Zohar is a lie or nonsense. I think Rabbis go through yyears of study and the Zohar is one of the books they have to master. Not to mention the thin line of calling the author of the Zohar a false teacher, who would dare say it?
I happen to believe in the gilgul. Anyways, have a good Shabbos.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Not to mention the thin line of calling the author of the Zohar a false teacher, who would dare say it?

 For example the Yaabetz (among others). The Hatam Sofer (of who'm "Orthodox Judaism" is said to be from, meaning the same people who claim to be Orthodox trace their "Orthodoxy" to the Hattam Sofer) and others as well.