JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Dan Ben Noah on April 07, 2012, 05:58:47 PM
-
Shalom
-
Dan, the video is done by one meshuga, Asher Meza. He is anti-zionist. He calls for all gentiles to convert.
http://jtf.org/forum/index.php?action=search2;params=eJwtzcEOgyAQBNBfaXrpZQ4gIPI1BmET26A0q7Zpw8cXGm8zL9kdH19-DRTLrYhyLRO3JKEElIKC1VAGGoOAFrBwMDAdbA9pIAdoh95BOnTtepvzewx5eSbaqf5pdEwPCvuY1_Q5JfNeE1Oi__RJY7xz5UhbaEKew1y732biy0Jf_wM59ziq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBUm1fyCXAE
-
I find him repulsive and I think he is doing a great disservice for Judaism. He is a very bad spokesperson and presenter but that's the least of the problem. The major ones is that he some of the things he says are without validity and even sacrilege, and another one is that he is preaching to Christians and Jews aren't supposed to do that.
-
Most non-chassidic ashkenazi Jews follow the Mishna Brura. Mishna Brura rules that Zohar is not to be followed if it contradicts, standard halachic texts and the poskim.
Mishna Brura does however, (unlike Chatam Sofer) give the Zohar a tie breaking role, if there is an argument among the standard halachic sources.
This is to say, the Dor Daim speaker goes too far in his attack on the beliefs of other Jews. One does not have to be a Rambamist, to have halacha supersede zohar views.
Chatam Sofer and in our times, Rabbi Dovid Bar Chaim have almost entirely taken out zohar from halacha considerations and they are not Rambamists.
point 2, Even if the vast majority of the Zohar was written at a much later date, nevertheless it is still many centuries old and will at times provide useful new outlooks and commentaries. We don't have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." We just have to be somewhat more skeptical.
To be honest though after having been convinced about the late authorship of many parts of the Zohar, I personally try to minimize my connection and contact with the book. But I don't look down upon others, who are more "into the Zohar" as long as they aren't violating halacha.
point 3, Rabbi Saadia Gaon indeed, does reject the idea of reincarnation. But Ramban, writing one generation before the Zohar interprets the Biblical book of Iyov {Job} 33:30 as well as Breishit Genesis 38:8, as supports for reincarnation. This seems to me, an optional belief in Judaism, where you are free to accept or reject. It is not a fundamental element one way or another of Judaism.
-
point 3, Rabbi Saadia Gaon indeed, does reject the idea of reincarnation. But Ramban, writing one generation before the Zohar interprets the Biblical book of Iyov {Job} 33:30 as well as Breishit Genesis 38:8, as supports for reincarnation. This seems to me, an optional belief in Judaism, where you are free to accept or reject. It is not a fundamental element one way or another of Judaism.
Can you please bring the uotes from the RambaN if possible? I heard this before, but would like to see it.
As far about the video's above- some are good and true, some are bad and wrong.
And I also take the approach of Rav Bar-Hayim, he says not to follow only the Rambam, we have many Hachamim and their vast knowledge should be applied to making Halahic decisions. Also note about Jerusalem Talmudh vs. Bavli, its a misconception that he favors the Jerusalem over the Bavli, he uses both as well as the the valid sources of Halacha for decision making. (as listed by the Rambam and Chazal.)
-
Here a good response and video on this (link to 2 responses and the video)
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-audio-shiurim/43-philosophy/584-the-authenticity-of-the-zohar-update-01
-
I have never read the Zohar, what is so bad about it? Mysticism? Wasn't there a lot of mystical things about King Solomon?
-
Here a good response and video on this (link to 2 responses and the video)
?
-
?
Fixed
-
DBN- "3. Reincarnation is a doctrine that is spiritually harmful because if true, people don't have to be good because they'll get a another chance in another life."
Not true necessarily. In fact most of the time its presented and used to scare the people. Anyway I saw today that it was mentioned again and I also see the faces of some of the simple people, I just think to myself just let them be.
I personally don't believe in it, not now, but perhaps their is a chance, maybe. Their are and can be major problems with these beliefs and I blame partly the speakers. Our priorities are simple messed up and even when things like the Beit Hamikdash and Korbanot are mentioned I see such mistakes and wrong halachot being said- over and over again especially with the attitude of we cannot do this or do that. When in fact we can, and must. (One example is Korban Pessah).
-
I too find this guy to be a fool who is attempting to discredit Judaism. I would not even listen to a word he says knowing his opinion.
We have discussed the pros and cons of the Zohar many times. There is much good in the Zohar and I have never heard anything which contradicts the Torah in it.
There is something fishy when one Rabbi attempts to paint himself as the one authentic Jewish Rabbi and all the rest are fakers. I have learned from many Rabbis and I know what is authentic Judaism and what is false. I have studied Torah for almost 10 years and have a lot of sources to draw from, and the Zohar and Chassidic and Sephardic Judaism are as Authentic Judaism as it gets.
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?
And the comment about Gilgul is completely ignorant in my opinion. That you think that you get another chance just like that? Your challenges in the next life are going to be a real test according to your weekness... It is not something to wish on yourself..
Also I have not met a Rabbi who says that the Halacha is that we should not offer the Pesach. Even according to Chabads own Halacha page it is discussed, and if you listen to the Chabad Rabbis it is clear that we want to rebuild the Temple and offer the Pesach offering. I do not listen to anything other than Orthodox Rabbis and I do not share the opinion of several posters of them..
-
I have learned from many Rabbis and I know what is authentic Judaism and what is false. I have studied Torah for almost 10 years and have a lot of sources to draw from, and the Zohar and Chassidic and Sephardic Judaism are as Authentic Judaism as it gets.
What does that exactly mean? By authentic do you mean to say "accepted"? And who says that having numbers (in theory) makes an idea or ideas correct or not? You need to prove your claims.
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?
They are people who follow the Rambam in both philosophy and Halacha. And no a Chabadnik is farrrr from a Rambamist. For the most part a mirror opposite. Rambamists are rationalists in the strictist sense. Chabad are Hassids who are more on the mystical side.
Also I have not met a Rabbi who says that the Halacha is that we should not offer the Pesach. Even according to Chabads own Halacha page it is discussed, and if you listen to the Chabad Rabbis it is clear that we want to rebuild the Temple and offer the Pesach offering. I do not listen to anything other than Orthodox Rabbis and I do not share the opinion of several posters of them..
Maybe you havn't but I heard a number of them. Just in fact I heard it this Yom Tov as well.
"Of them"- Serveral of the posters including myself are Orthodox. If of them you mean generally Haredim, then yes you can count me in. I will openly state the Charedi ideology will not move forward and get things done. It just won't happen.
Temple? Korbanot? Jewish state? These things do not exist in the Haredi ideology. Not in the present. Maybe in the distant past and only a fantasy for the future, but only a fantasy. NOT in actual deed.
And about Rabbis is Rabbi Elyashiv not Haredi enough?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/prominent-rabbi-to-peres-jews-forbidden-on-temple-mount-1.6463
-
I agree there is a great disagreement about whether Jews can go to the Temple mount.
As I said I listen to Rabbi Richman who discusses this issue quite a bit.
http://www.templeinstitute.org/aliya_temple_mount.htm
Here is Rabbi Richmans response to Rabbis who oppose Jews on the Temple mount:
"Chief rabbis prohibit Jews from entering Temple Mount" (Jan. 19) took a minimalistic approach to a complicated and vastly misunderstood issue. Like other matters of complex and erudite Torah knowledge, the subject of the Temple Mount is an area in which one must have an expertise before issuing a judgment. Unfortunately, it is an area of study that has been largely neglected, even by Torah authorities. To say that there is a prohibition against Jews visiting the Temple Mount is misleading and inaccurate, and does a serious injustice to the many religious Jews, great rabbis among them, who do ascend the Mount today in strict accordance with all the requirements of Jewish law, based for example on the previous halachic ruling of the great Radbaz (Rabbi David ben Zimra, 1479-1573). Any religious ruling must be firmly based on Torah law and must be substantiated; authentic rulings cannot be based on opinion, feelings, or alleged security concerns. No group of rabbis have the authority to uproot a Torah law, and according to the "due process" of the formation of halacha, a religious ruling must be based on sources. It should be noted that the great codifier Maimonides establishes as a positive commandment that showing proper reverance (morah mikdash) to the holy site of the Temple Mount even in its present state of disrepair means, for example, "entering into the permitted areas" (Maim. Hilchot Beit HaBechira Ch. 7, 7). Indeed, Maimonidies himself - in the tradition of the great sages of Israel - ascended to the Temple Mount, in spite of great personal danger, and prayed there. He gives the date as the sixth day of Cheshvan and writes that he was so moved to have "entered into the great and holy house and prayed there on the sixth of Cheshvan... and I vowed an oath, that I will always celebrate this day as a personal festival, to be marked by prayer and rejoicing in G-d, and by a festive meal (Maimonides, Letters).
Anyone seeking information regarding how to ascend the Temple Mount in accordance with Jewish law may contact us at [email protected]. Further information is available at www.templeinstitute.org
Rabbi Chaim Richman
Director, The International Department
The Temple Institute
Jerusalem"
PS: All the Chabad Rabbis I know consider Maimonides to be a central Jewish authority. There is nothing about Rambam which precludes belief in the more mystical aspects of Judaism.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1806271/jewish/Audio-Classes-on-Maimonides.htm
http://www.rabbiwein.com/Rashi-and-Rambam-Two-Worldviews--3-Lectures-P174.html
http://www.torahcafe.com/jewishvideo.php?vid=4125bb847
-
"PS: All the Chabad Rabbis I know consider Maimonides to be a central Jewish authority. There is nothing about Rambam which precludes belief in the more mystical aspects of Judaism."
I said mystical in order to be nice. Its also more of irrational aspects as well of Chabad. Anyway the Rambamists are usually rationalists to the extreme. Also the writings of the Rambam are much more geared for rationalism and looking at the world much more logical sense, than suppose Chassidic or Kabbalistic works (and i'm familiar with some of them, not saying they are bad just the styles are complelty different.) The Rambam also includes some esoteric things but not really in the sense and style of lets say Chassidut or the kabbalists. (And in fact was against some of the kabbalist books going around even before the Zohar which today are fully accepted by the kabbalists as is the Zohar.)
-
Dan Ben Noah stated:
Clearly, when verses 29-30 talk about turning someone away from "the pit" two or three times, it is talking about G-d giving them multiple chances to escape the death of their souls through repentance, NOT through reincarnation. The hypothetical sinner in the passage does not actually die, he is kept from death through circumstances G-d graciously gives him in order to encourage him to repent. 1. This should just be obvious from the plain meaning of the text. 2. Repentance is a doctrine that is spiritually beneficial because it actually encourages people to be good. 3. Reincarnation is a doctrine that is spiritually harmful because if true, people don't have to be good because they'll get a another chance in another life.
Now let's look at Genesis 38:8
Genesis 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
This is the custom of levirate marriage in order to ensure a man has children to carry on his name. Not multiple lives. I'm not even sure how this could be connected to reincarnation.
Someone like Rabbi Saadia Gaon might indeed interpret the verses like you did, Dan.
However, let's take the first quote from Iyov/Job. The context of the passage, was in light of the bigger question of the whole book, how can it be that you sometimes see in this world, a righteous person who suffers. Ramban (Nachmanides) interpreted the verse as answering that a person might be reincarnated and come back to a situation where he suffers in a new life as an atonement for what he did in a previous life and so Iyov was being told, even though now you are a righteous man, don't question G-d about your suffering, because perhaps in a previous life you did some evil deed that needs now atonement through suffering.
In other words, according to Ramban's view, belief in reincarnation actually helps strenghten the observance of commandments by convincing those that see suffering that G-d indeed is a true and fair judge.
You Dan, might have a different solution to the question of Why Bad Things Happen To Good People.
I am just trying to fairly represent Ramban's opinion here.
As far as the quote from Breishit/Genesis, Ramban understood to answer several problems with the text, that the Levirate Law of Marriage (Yibum) helps the soul of the departed brother via reincarnation.
As I said before other great Rabbis interpreted the text differently and you are free to adopt whichever interpretation, you find more truthful. I am just bringing this up, to show that Ramban's viewpoint is not ridiculous.
-
I know, but he's right on the Rambamist issue just like he's right on his videos which disprove Christianity and Islam. The problem is Jews are so messed up at this point in history that most of them are not as accurate as they could be politically (aka not Kahanists) as well as religiously (aka not Rambamists). He's apparently some form of Rambamist, but not a Kahanist just like there are Kahanists who are not Rambamists.
To be a "rambamist" (knowing what that word actually means and assuming you meant it that way) is not "religiously accurate" it's stupid and bound to be inaccurate. Slavishly devoting oneself to every single ruling of one rabbi and convincing oneself that they were always right about everything is wrong, no matter which rabbi. It is a slaughtering of a person's daas and a surrender to irrationality.
I say this as someone who feels the Rambam should be relied upon in the vast majority of cases and should have much more weight than shulchan aruch for example. But the Rambam himself would not have wanted a person to defend a point of view of the rambam if the person thinks that one view is completely wrong and can be proven so, just because of some misplaced "loyalty" to his fame or stature. Goes against all that he taught. But that's how "rambamists" are.
-
Dan, you might appreciate Rambam's views when it comes to mysticism, but if you look at other issues, you will probably appreciate other viewpoints that argue with Rambam.
Take for example, Bilaam's talk with his donkey or Yaakov's (Jacob's) wrestling with an angel.
Rambam views these incidents as prophetic dreams while I believe most Rabbis believe that they literally took place. If you are a strict Rambam person down the line, you might find yourself, stuck with several opinions that you might not hold to be the truth.
-
"the pagan innovations made by the mystic movements and the Zohar (aka the Book of Mormon of Judaism). "
Please dont make such rediculous comparisons. Anyway the Zohar is rejected, but not entirely. Its a complicated subject and not black and white.
-
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.
Is it not funny that a non-Jew is telling Jews what is more Jewish? I find it ironic..
Have you ever heard of Chutzpah? Ever learn what Lashon Hara is?
Im just waiting for the esteemed Dan to start attacking the Talmud as satanic...
-
Rabbi Yihiye Kafach was in fact the founder of the dardaim. It was a reactionary halachic school to the increasing influence of kabbalah on the mainstream Yemenite Jewish community.
I don't think it's fair to dub the Zohar "the book of mormon of judaism". It is definitely a valid argument to say the zohar isn't suppose to be given such high rank and even though it isn't a rational book and isn't a halachic book but a mysticism book (or books to be more accurate).
The fact that the zohar or kabbalah are supposedly the foundation to heretic religions like that of the cult of kabbalah by "rabbi" shraga berg doesn't mean the zohar itself is heretic.
-
Is it not funny that a non-Jew is telling Jews what is more Jewish? I find it ironic..
Have you ever heard of Chutzpah? Ever learn what Lashon Hara is?
Im just waiting for the esteemed Dan to start attacking the Talmud as satanic...
What's your problem man, why won't you compile a reply based on the content rather then the person who expressed it ?
-
Have you ever heard of Chutzpah? Ever learn what Lashon Hara is?
What he said was/is not Lashon Hara.
-
What he said was/is not Lashon Hara.
Yes, as he is not a Jew he is not capable of Lashon Hara. But what he has done is defamed an entire segment of Jewish identity.
There is no comparison between the Zohar and the book of Mormon... Such comparison sounds almost like the claim by the Jew haters that our Oral Tradition is satanic. The Zohar is the source of a lot of the Jewish mysticism but it is surely not the singular source as the Torah and the Oral law are replete with mystical content.
As was discussed in the forum so many times, there has always been the PaRDeS system of interpreting the Torah, the Pshat {simple meaning} the Remes, the Drash, and the Sod {Hidden/mystical}.
I find it funny that a Rationalist doesn't find it odd to believe in Angels and in Miracles which the Torah and the Oral law, and even RAMBAM discusses. Today a 'rationalist' who needs a rational answer for every mitzvot would find RAMBAM to be not so rational when it comes to two of his THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES, these being:
9) I believe with absolute faith in the ressurection of the dead
10) I believe with absolute faith in the coming of Moshiach, and though he delays I wait every day.
These two, where are they in the Torah? Neither the Ressurection nor Moshiach coming are discussed unless you look into deeper sources such as the Talmud.
I am working today but I hope to expound further arguments which support so-called 'mystical' beliefs of Judaism. I have accepted that all the Zohar is not what it seems, but this is not a reason to discount it entirely.
-
Muman you are right about principles 9,10. And not all Jews agree on them for that reason.
Personally I think 9 is a fairy tail that cannot be positively proved from our holly scripture. As for 10 well it doesn't necessarily mean something entirely supernatural. And there is not a word about either 9 or 10 in the Torah. It's all based on a certain way of understanding certain prophetical passages in the bible and on a whole lot of imagination piled up on that over the years.
But anyway it's just my own secular opinion and I don't have any authority to say what the proper Jewish opinion should be.
-
One bit I wanted to post was about Rambams opinion on Techiyat HaMatim/Resurrection of the Dead:
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/to-live-and-live-again/02.htm
Rambam's Definition
In his Discourse on the Resurrection,[2] Rambam writes: "The concept of Resurrection - which is well known among our people and accepted throughout all its circles, and which is often mentioned in the prayers and aggadic teachings and supplications (written by the prophets and the foremost Sages) with which the Talmud and the Midrashim are replete - signifies the following: The soul will return to the body after they have been separated [by death]. No Jew has disputed this concept, and it cannot be interpreted other than literally. One may not accept the view of any Jew who believes otherwise.
"As I shall explain in the present discourse: Why should we not interpret these verses [regarding the Resurrection] allegorically, as we have done with many other Biblical verses, departing from their literal meaning? The reason is as follows: The concept of Resurrection, namely, that the soul will return to the body after death, is expressed by Daniel[3] in such a manner that it cannot be interpreted other than literally: 'Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting contempt.' Daniel was likewise told by the angel,[4] 'Now go your way to the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days.'"
The Talmud[5] teaches that those who deny Resurrection will have no share in the World to Come, and Rambam in Mishneh Torah[6] rules that this teaching has the authority of Halachah.
Notes:
1) This is the 13th and last of Rambam's Principles of Faith, in the paraphrased form that many Siddurim append to the morning prayers. (In their original form, the Principles appear in the Rambam's introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah of Sanhedrin, ch. 10.) See also Maimonides' Principles by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (N.C.S.Y.).
2) Maamar Techiyas HaMeisim, (also known as Iggeres Techiyas HaMeisim - Letter on the Resurrection), beginning of ch. 4.
3) Daniel 12:2.
4) Ibid., v. 13.
5) Sanhedrin 90a.
6) Hilchos Teshuvah 3:6.
-
Muman you are right about principles 9,10. And not all Jews agree on them for that reason.
Personally I think 9 is a fairy tail that cannot be positively proved from our holly scripture. As for 10 well it doesn't necessarily mean something entirely supernatural. And there is not a word about either 9 or 10 in the Torah. It's all based on a certain way of understanding certain prophetical passages in the bible and on a whole lot of imagination piled up on that over the years.
But anyway it's just my own secular opinion and I don't have any authority to say what the proper Jewish opinion should be.
Rambam, the rationalist, said that any Jew who denies Resurrection and Moshiach have no part in Olam Haba/The world to come...
-
Rambam, the rationalist, said that any Jew who denies Resurrection and Moshiach have no part in Olam Haba/The world to come...
Well the talmud prescribes karet for practically every violation of mitzvot, so, whatever...
PS I don't deny them, I just don't believe in this. I don't know if its true or false.
-
Yes, as he is not a Jew he is not capable of Lashon Hara. But what he has done is defamed an entire segment of Jewish identity.
No, even if he was/is a Jew what he said is not Lashon Hara. If it is then please quote from the Hafetz Chaim how what he said is lashon hara.
-
Well the talmud prescribes karet for practically every violation of mitzvot, so, whatever...
No only 36.
-
Here also are several selections from our Holy Talmud which support the idea that the body will be resurrected after death:
Selections From The Talmud
[R. Elazar HaKapar[7]] used to say: "Those who are born are destined to die: those who are dead are destined to live again" (another version: 'to be resurrected')."
All[8] Israel have a share in the World to Come....[9] The following, however, have no share therein: He who maintains that Resurrection is not a Biblical doctrine....[10]
How[11] is Resurrection deduced from the Torah?[12]
It is written,[13] "Of [these tithes] you shall give G-d's heave-offering to Aharon the priest." But would Aharon live forever?! After all, he did not enter the Land of Israel and thereby make it possible that terumah be given to him! Rather, this verse teaches that he will ultimately be resurrected, and the Jewish people will give him terumah....[14]
R. Simai[11] says: "Whence do we learn Resurrection from the Torah? - From the verse,[15] 'And I also have established My covenant with them (i.e., the Patriarchs) to give them the Land of Canaan.' The verse does not say 'to give you' but 'to give them.' [Since, as Rashi points out, the Land was given to their descendants, and has not yet been given to them personally,] their future Resurrection is thus proved from the Torah."
Sectarians[11] asked Rabban Gamliel: "From where do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead?"
He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets and the Hagiographa....
Queen[11] Cleopatra said to R. Meir: "I know that the dead will live again, for it is written,[16] 'And they shall blossom out of the city like grass from the earth';[17] but when they arise, will they arise naked or clothed?"
He replied, "You may deduce the answer by observing a wheat grain.[18] If a grain of wheat, which is buried naked, sprouts forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous, who are buried in their garments."
An[11] emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: "You maintain that the dead will live again; but they turn to dust - and can dust come to life?!"
Thereupon the [emperor's] daughter[19] said to [Rabban Gamliel]: "Here, let me answer him. In our town there are two potters: one fashions his vessels from water, and the other from clay. Who is the more praiseworthy?"
"He who fashions them from water," replied [her father].
She concluded: "If He can fashion man from water,[20] surely he can do so from clay."[21]
According[22] to the School of R. Yishmael, [in the above exchange the emperor's daughter answered her father with] a different analogy: If glassware, made by the breath of mere flesh and blood, can be reconstituted when shattered, then how much more so man, who was created by the breath of the Holy One, blessed be He.
A[22] sectarian challenged R. Ami: "You maintain that the dead will live again; but they turn to dust - and can dust come to life?!"
He replied, "Let me offer you a parable. A mortal king commanded his servants to build him great palaces in a place where there was neither water nor earth [for making bricks]. They went and built them. After some time they collapsed, so he commanded them to rebuild them in a place which did have water and earth, but they said, 'We cannot.' The king was indignant: 'If you could build in a place that had neither water nor earth, surely you can build in a place where there is!'"[23]
R. Ami concluded: "And if you do not believe [that G-d can form creatures from dust], go out to the field and you will see a certain mouse; today it is part flesh and part dust,[24] and yet by tomorrow it has become entirely flesh. And should you say that this metamorphosis takes a long time ['and hence argue that G-d does not revive the dead in an instant' - Rashi], go up to the mountain; there you will see but one snail, whilst after tomorrow's rain the mountain will be covered with snails ['which are generated immediately' - Rashi]."
A[22] sectarian said to Geviha ben Pesisa: "Woe to you, you wicked ones, who maintain that the dead will revive! The living indeed die, but shall the dead live?!"
He replied: "Woe to you, you wicked ones, who maintain the dead will not revive. If those who never lived, now live, surely those who have lived, will live again!"
Resh Lakish[25] contrasted two verses: "One verse promises,[26] 'I will gather them in...; among them there will be the blind and the lame, the woman with child together with the woman in labor.' Another verse, however, states:[27] "Then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing, for waters shall break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.' How so? - They shall rise with their defects[28] and then be healed."
Ulla[25] contrasted two verses: "It is written,[29] 'He will destroy death forever, and G-d will wipe away tears from all faces,' whilst elsewhere it is written,[30] 'For a child shall die a hundred years old....' However, this presents no difficulty: one verse refers to Jews, the other to heathens. But what business have heathens there? - The reference is to those of whom it is written,[31] 'And strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.'"[32]
Rava[25] also contrasted two quotations: "It is written,[33] 'I kill, and I make alive.' [Rashi: 'This implies that a man is resurrected in the same state (e.g., wounded) as he was at the time of death.'] The same verse goes on to say, 'I have wounded, and I heal!' [Rashi: 'This implies that a wounded man is resurrected whole.'] Yet there is no contradiction here, for in this verse the Holy One, blessed be He, is saying: 'What I kill I make alive' [i.e., in the same state], and 'What I have wounded, I then heal.'"[34]
On[25] the verse,33 "I kill, and I make alive," our Sages commented: "One might understand this to mean, 'I kill one person and give life to another,' as is the way of the world, ['so that one man dies and another is born' - Rashi]. The same verse therefore goes on to say, 'I have wounded, and I heal.' Just as wounding and healing [obviously] refer to the same person, so putting to death and bringing to life refer to the same person. This is an answer to those who maintain that Resurrection is not intimated in the Torah."
R. Meir[25] said: "From where do we learn Resurrection from the Torah? - From the verse,[35] Oz Yoshir Moshe ('Moshe and the Children of Israel then sang this song to G-d'). The literal meaning of the verb is not 'sang' but 'shall sing.' Thus Techiyas HaMeisim is taught in the Torah."[36]
R. Yehoshua ben Levi[25] said: "Where is Resurrection derived from the Torah? - From the verse,[37] Ashrei Yoshvei Beisecha, Od Yehalelucha Selah ('Happy are those who dwell in Your house; they shall praise You forever'). The verse does not say, 'they praised You,' but 'they shall praise you.' Thus Techiyas HaMeisim is taught in the Torah.
R. Chiya bar Abba[25] said in the name of R. Yochanan: "Where in the Torah do we learn of Resurrection? - From the verse,[38] 'The voice of your watchmen is raised aloft: together shall they sing.' The verb Veranenu does not mean 'sang' but 'shall sing'. Here, then, is a source in the Torah for Techiyas HaMeisim."
Rava[39] said: "Where is Resurrection derived from the Torah? - From the verse,[40] 'May Reuven live and not die.' [This seeming repetition implies:] 'May Reuven live in this world, and not die in the next."
Ravina said it is derived from this verse:3 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting contempt."[41]
R. Ashi said it is derived from this verse:4 "Now go your way to the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days."
R. Tavi[39] said in the name of R. Yoshia: "What do we learn from the following text?[42] 'There are three things that are never satisfied:... the grave and the womb....' How comes the grave next to the womb? - This juxtaposition teaches you that just as the womb takes in and gives forth again, so the grave takes in and will give forth again. Moreover, if the womb which takes in silently gives forth with loud noise [i.e., the crying of the infant], does it not stand to reason that the grave which takes in with a loud noise [i.e., the wailing of the mourners], will give forth [those who are revived] with a loud noise?[43] Here is an answer for those who deny that Techiyas HaMeisim is taught in the Torah."
Tanna dvei Eliyahu[39] states: "The righteous whom G-d will resurrect will not revert to dust, for it is said,[44] 'And it shall come to pass that he who is left in Zion and he who remains in Jerusalem shall be called holy: everyone in Jerusalem who is inscribed for life.' Just as the Holy One endures forever, so too shall they endure forever."
Three[45] keys have not been entrusted to an agent: the keys to birth, rain and Resurrection.[46]
R. Eleazar[47] said: "The illiterate will not be resurrected, for it is written,[48] 'The dead will not live...,' but since this might be assumed to refer to all, the verse goes on to say, 'The shades of the dead shall not rise,' thus alluding specifically to him who is lax in studying the words of the Torah."
Said R. Yochanan to him: "It gives no satisfaction to their Master that you should speak of such people in this manner.[49] That text speaks of a man who was so lax as to worship idols!"
Replied [R. Elazar]: "Then let me base my exposition [to the same effect] on another text. It is written,[50] '[Your dead shall live, my dead body shall arise; awake and sing, you who repose in the dust.] For Your dew is a dew of light, and the earth shall cast down the shades of the dead.' This means that he who makes use of the light of the Torah, him will the light[51] of the Torah revive, but as to him who does not make use of the light of the Torah, him will the light of the Torah not revive."
Observing however, that [R. Yochanan] was [still] distressed, [R. Elazar] said to him: "Master, I have found a remedy for [the illiterate] in the Torah, for it is written,[52] 'But you who cleave to the L-rd your G-d are all alive today.' Now is it possible to cleave to the Divine Presence, concerning Whom it is written,[53] 'For the L-rd your G-d is a consuming fire'?! The meaning is this: Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, invests on behalf of scholars, or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by the Torah as if he had cleaved to the Divine Presence."
R. Chiya bar Yosef[47] said: "A time will come when the righteous will break through the soil and rise up in Jerusalem, for it is written,16 'And they shall blossom out of the city like grass from the earth'[17] - and 'city' can allude only to Jerusalem, as in the phrase,[54] 'For I shall defend this city.'"
7) Avos ("Ethics of the Fathers") 4:22.
8) Sanhedrin 90a, in the mishnah.
9) See at length in ch. 5 and in Appendix 2 (below). See also Rashi on the above-quoted mishnah. Midrash Shmuel on Avos understands Rashi to mean - and Bartenura holds likewise - that although the previous chapter of Sanhedrin referred to those liable for capital punishment, they too have a share in the World to Come.
In the Hebrew text, the literal translation of the above-quoted phrase is not "in the World to Come" but "to the World to Come". See Margaliyos HaYam, citing Ruach Chaim, for an explanation of this observation and others.
The phrase "to the World to Come" calls to mind a teaching of the Rebbe Rayatz on the following phrase from the Mishnah (Berachos 1:5) that is quoted in the Haggadah: "The phrase 'All the days of your life' includes (lit., 'is to bring') the Messianic Era." The plain meaning of this phrase is that the Exodus is to be recalled not only during the days of our present life, but even in the days of the Messianic Era. Noting the literal meaning of the verb lehavi ("to bring"), the Rebbe Rayatz perceived an additional teaching in these words: Throughout all the days of your life, your avodah should be directed to bringing about the days of Mashiach.
Along these lines, in the phrase "All Israel have a share to the World to Come" one may perhaps find a hint that every Jew should play an active role in hastening the advent of the World to Come.
10) Rashi comments: "I.e., he denies the validity of the Scriptural interpretations - at the [non-literal] level of derush - through which the Gemara below proceeds to derive Scriptural authority for the concept of Resurrection. Even if he concedes and believes that the dead will be resurrected, but denies that this belief is alluded to in the Torah, he is a heretic (kofer). Since he denies its Biblical source, of what value to us is his faith? From where does he know that this is the case? Accordingly, he is unequivocally considered a heretic."
The author of Beer Sheva states that the above thought is originally quoted in Yad Ramah in the name of Rabbeinu Shlomo. See also the Responsa of Rashba, sec. 9.
11) Sanhedrin 90b.
12) In the expositions that follow, the word "Torah" sometimes embraces the entire Tanach. See at length in Margaliyos HaYam on Sanhedrin 92a, sec. 3.
13) Bamidbar 18:28.
14) See ch. 11 below.
15) Shmos 6:4. See Maharsha and Rif on Ein Yaakov.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 90b quotes a similar verse (Devarim 11:21, which is read in the course of the daily Shema) as part of Rabban Gamliel's response to the heretics. Ben Yehoyada (on Sanhedrin, loc. cit.) discusses why Rabban Gamliel did not instead refer his disputants to the earlier verse in Shmos.
16) Tehillim 72:16.
17) Citing Kesubbos 111a, Rashi teaches that the righteous will pass through subterranean tunnels and be resurrected in Jerusalem. See ch. 7 below.
18) The Gemara often draws analogies with the wheat grain. (In Kesubbos 111b the Gemara cites the same answer in the name of R. Chiya bar Yosef.) Ben Yehoyada (on Sanhedrin 91a) points out that arguments of this kind are intended merely to provide additional support for beliefs which are based on Biblical verses. He aptly quotes the verse (Devarim 8:3), "Man does not live by bread alone: man lives on that which comes forth from G-d's mouth," and concludes: Ultimately, our faith is not nourished by arguments based on a grain of wheat, but by the words that come forth from G-d's mouth.
19) Why did she interject? Ben Yehoyada explains that since she was afraid that Rabban Gamliel might say that gentiles would not be resurrected, she offered her own inoffensive answer. He goes on to explain that the emperor in fact believed in G-d, but he was perplexed by the concept of Resurrection, for it appeared to defy the principle that "there is nothing new under the sun" (Koheles 1:9). Hence his daughter's answer: any process which already exists may be a prototype for Resurrection.
20) Rashi: "From a drop of semen which resembles water."
21) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVIII, p. 247.
22) Sanhedrin 91a.
23) Rashi offers two alternative ways of understanding this parable: (a) If G-d can create man from a small drop which is almost intangible, surely He can create him from dust; (b) G-d created the entire universe out of chaos.
24) Margaliyos HaYam cites Tiferes Yisrael on Chullin 9:6 to the effect that such a mouse exists in Egypt.
25) Sanhedrin 91b.
26) Yirmeyahu 31:8.
27) Yeshayahu 35:6.
28) And thus be identifiable (Bereishis Rabbah 95:1) See also Margaliyos HaYam, and ch. 9 below.
29) Yeshayahu 25:8.
30) Ibid. 65:20.
31) Ibid. 61:5.
32) See ch. 10 below.
33) Devarim 32:39.
34) Rashi: "As with the above teaching [of Resh Lakish]."
35) Shmos 15:1.
36) Margaliyos HaYam cites many sources for this teaching in the Zohar.
37) Tehillim 84:5.
38) Yeshayahu 52:8.
39) Sanhedrin 92a.
40) Devarim 33:6.
41) "The verse does not say 'all who sleep...shall awaken,' because this... would include all of mankind, and G-d made this promise only to Israel; hence the verse says, 'Many of those who sleep...shall awaken.' Moreover: the phrase, 'some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting contempt,' does not mean that among those who are resurrected some will be rewarded and some punished, for those who deserve punishment will not be resurrected at the time of the Redemption. Rather, it means that those who awaken will have everlasting life, and those who will not awaken will be destined to reproach and everlasting contempt. For all the righteous [including those] who repented, will live; only the unbelieving and those who died without repentance will remain. All this will happen at the time of the Redemption." - R. Saadiah Gaon, Emunos VeDeos, ch. 7.
See also Ibn Ezra (ad loc.); Rambam, Peirush HaMishnah, on Sanhedrin, ch. 10; Ramban, Shaar HeGemul, ch. 11; Or HaShem, Part 3, 4:4, p. 77. See, however, Abarbanel, Maayanei HaYeshuah, p. 11a.
42) Mishlei 30:15, 16.
43) Rashi cites the verse (Yeshayahu 27:13), "And it shall be on that day, that a great Shofar shall be sounded...." The Midrash entitled Osios deRabbi Akiva elaborates (sec. 9): "How will the A-mighty resurrect the dead in the time to come? He will take up a Shofar a thousand cubits long and will sound it, and it will reverberate from one end of the world to another. With the first blast the world will be in an uproar; with the second, the earth will split," and so on. See also Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, sec. 34.
44) Yeshayahu 4:3.
45) Sanhedrin 113a.
46) Cf. the mishnah at the end of Tractate Sotah, "Resurrection comes through Eliyahu (the Prophet Elijah)." (According to Emek HaMelech, Shaar Olam HaTohu, sec. 29, this means that the key to the dew of Resurrection was entrusted to the hands of Eliyahu.) The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 3:3) states, "Resurrection brings about [the coming of] Eliyahu." See the comment of Ran on Avodah Zarah 20b.
47) Kesubbos 111b. See also Tanna dvei Eliyahu, sec. 5.
48) Yeshayahu 26:14.
49) "G-d does not desire that you judge Israel so harshly" (Rashi on the same sentence in Sanhedrin 111a).
50) Yeshayahu 26:19.
51) A footnote in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XI, p. 193, observes that Yalkut Shimoni on this verse writes that "the dew of the Torah will revive him"; so, too, Tanya, ch. 36. See also: Jerusalem Talmud, Berachos 5:2; Shabbos 88b; Likkutei Torah, Parshas Haazinu, p. 73c.
The maamar entitled Samchuni (in Sefer HaMaamarim 5660) explains that or Torah ("the light of the Torah") signifies razin (the secrets of the Torah) while tal Torah ("the dew of the Torah") signifies razin derazin (the innermost secrets of the Torah).
52) Devarim 4:4.
53) Ibid., v. 24.
54) II Melachim 19:34.
-
No only 36.
If you miss one prayer you get karet. So that's pretty severe, if you take it at face value.
-
My argument is that it is wrong to just say that Jewish mysticism is some kind of avodah zarah... It most obviously is not.
To impugn the several Jewish groups such as Chassidim and Sephardim by saying that such beliefs are un-Jewish is simply slander. It is not based in truth and it is an attack on the deep seated beliefs of a good segment of the religious, righteous, Jews of this world.
-
I find it funny that a Rationalist doesn't find it odd to believe in Angels and in Miracles which the Torah and the Oral law, and even RAMBAM discusses. Today a 'rationalist' who needs a rational answer for every mitzvot would find RAMBAM to be not so rational when it comes to two of his THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES, these being:
9) I believe with absolute faith in the ressurection of the dead
10) I believe with absolute faith in the coming of Moshiach, and though he delays I wait every day.
These two, where are they in the Torah? Neither the Ressurection nor Moshiach coming are discussed unless you look into deeper sources such as the Talmud.
- The Rambam discusses angels and says that they exist in prophetic visions, or prophetic slumber.
- Ressurection and gilgul are different things. And the Rambam does bring down mention of ressurection in scripture as well from a number of places (See his treatise in full and not just the 13 princliples brought down from the outside).
- Moshiah is not an irrational phenomenom. Check the Rambam he descibes it in completly worldly affairs and natural process. He calls those who believe in it happeing with open miracles and things like that as mitapshim.(fools).
-
If you miss one prayer you get karet. So that's pretty severe, if you take it at face value.
No not true. This isn't even written or implied. What are you talking about?
-
So Muman, if Tehiyas Hamesim is such a high and important principle that denying it is like denying the Torah, how comes it is not mentioned once in the Torah, excepts *maybe* in hints like you posted above.
-
So Muman, if Tehiyas Hamesim is such a high and important principle that denying it is like denying the Torah, how comes it is not mentioned once in the Torah, excepts *maybe* in hints like you posted above.
He misquoted it, The ressurection of the dead is mentioned in the Torah in a number of places, the Rambam brings them down as well (for example from Isaia, and other places).
What we were arguing is something else, it was about gilgulim- reincarnations. These are different things entirely.
-
So Muman, if Tehiyas Hamesim is such a high and important principle that denying it is like denying the Torah, how comes it is not mentioned once in the Torah, excepts *maybe* in hints like you posted above.
It is mentioned in the Talmud many times.
Your question has been asked to Rabbis before... I will attempt to find the answer for you.
Basically the answer I remember is that the Torah is a book which intends on telling us how to live, not that we should do the mitzvahs for the reward of the afterlife, or to be righteous to merit resurrection.... The Torah concentrates on being a book of life... The Talmud and the Oral tradition on the other hand address the topic of Resurrection.
I have also heard it said that these things were not written down because of the fact that other religions would take these concepts and twist them {as we witnessed with Christianity and then Islam}...
See this: http://www.puretorah.com/resources/The%20Resurrection%20of%20the%20Dead%20-%20Rabbi%20Kin.pdf
We have sources in the Torah that allude to the resurrection. It is not explicitly written in the Torah because Hashem doesn't want us to serve him for ulterior motives. The verse says in the Torah that Hashem tells Moshe, you are about to leave this world to go to your forefathers, but “they will rise”. This refers to the resurrection of the dead. Similarly, the verse states“then Moses will sing”. Meaning, there will be a time in the future, at the resurrection of the dead, that Moses will sing again. Also it says “I will fulfill my promise to the forefathers” (they will see the land of Israel in its full glory), how will Hashem fulfill his promise? When the forefathers resurrect. And the verse also says “I will strike them dead and I will bring him back alive.” Just like G-d can bring about someone's death, he can bring someone back alive.
-
If you miss one prayer you get karet. So that's pretty severe, if you take it at face value.
Here is the list of the 36 for karet. Mostly sex crimes but other things as well.
http://halakhah.com/pdf/kodoshim/Krithoth.pdf
-
Here is the list of the 36 for karet. Mostly sex crimes but other things as well.
http://halakhah.com/pdf/kodoshim/Krithoth.pdf
Yes I have NEVER heard that missing a prayer invokes Kaaret...
Maybe the punishment is Lashes, but I do not know a source of that...
Exempt from Lashes
* Shavuot 3b
Mesechta Shavuot, which we begin this week, follows Mesechta Makkot, and the reason given in the gemara for the sequence is based on a certain similarity between the last mishna of the former and the first of the latter.
There is a topic in the opening pages of this mesechta that recalls the subject of the punishment of lashes so elaborately discussed in its predecessor. Although the general rule is that one who violates a prohibition of the Torah is punished by lashes, there are exceptions. One of them is the case of someone who took an oath to eat a loaf of bread today and failed to do so. Despite the fact that he is guilty of transgressing the command to avoid false oaths, he is not liable for lashes. Two different approaches are offered by the Sages for this exemption.
Rabbi Yochanan's position is that lashes are due only for an active violation and since failure to eat the bread is a passive one it is not punished by lashes.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (Reish Lakish) sees this exemption as the result of an impossibility to definitively warn the transgressor, an absolute requirement for any punishment administered by the court. Since the witnesses issuing a warning that he must eat the bread or be guilty of violating his oath cannot be certain at that moment that he will not eat sometime during the day, such a warning cannot make him liable for lashes.
These two explanations also apply to the case of one who transgresses the prohibition against leaving any of the flesh of the Korban Pesach overnight. In this case, however, we find a third reason for exemption from lashes. Rabbi Yehuda states that since the Torah commanded one who did leave such flesh overnight to burn it, we consider this as the Torah's way of saying that such burning is the atonement and no other atonement is necessary.
http://www.torah.org/learning/rambam/talmudtorah/tt7.1.html
-
I was indeed wrong, I referred to rashi on bavli page 1 and rashi mentioned karet as a punishment for the kohen who ate from the korban on the day after.
-
He misquoted it, The ressurection of the dead is mentioned in the Torah in a number of places, the Rambam brings them down as well (for example from Isaia, and other places).
What we were arguing is something else, it was about gilgulim- reincarnations. These are different things entirely.
Isaiah is not the Torah but Neviim, and Daniel is not even Neviim but from Ktuvim. Isn't it strange the farther you go from Torah the more elaborate phantasy you get regarding the resurrection of the dead ?
-
Isaiah is not the Torah but Neviim, and Daniel is not even Neviim but from Ktuvim. Isn't it strange the farther you go from Torah the more elaborate phantasy you get regarding the resurrection of the dead ?
You seem uninformed because Jews consider ALL OF TANACH to be Torah...
The entire TORAH, the Chumash/5 books, the Prophets, and the Writings and the Oral Law are all considered Holy to Jews. The Word Torah means 'Teachings' it does not mean only the 5 books... We call the Five Books of Moses Chumash... The Prophets were divine in origin and we always believe that Moses was the most high of the prophets {who spoke 'face to face' with Hashem} but all Prophets {and prophecy is discussed in the Torah, and Hashem promises to send us prophets} were able to 'speak' with Hashem.
There are FUNDAMENTAL Jewish concepts. They are not invented by outsiders. The Mesorah {chain of transmission} is laid out in the Pirkie Avot and also RAMBAM records the chain of transmission of these ideas. The Oral laws are as much Torah as the Chumash, for the Torah means virtually nothing without the explanation of the Oral law.
http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/primer/torah/oraltorah.html
What is the Oral Torah?
As mentioned earlier, there are two "Torahs": the Written and the Oral. In Jewish tradition, both were given to Moses at Mt. Sinai and during the forty years in the desert, and taught to the whole nation. [In fact, when Judaism says "G-d gave the Torah to Moses at Sinai" it is talking only about the Oral -- otherwise, Moses should have known about the Golden Calf, and as for Korach's Rebellion, Moses should have reacted "well, we've been expecting you..."]
Both have been with us, according to Jewish sources, for all of the past 3300 years. And without both, it is impossible to fully understand traditional Jewish teaching or thought. The Written Torah, mentiones each of the Commandments, or Mitzvos, only in passing or by allusion. The Oral Law fills in the gaps.
Here is an example: "And you shall tie them as a sign on your arm and for (Totafos) between your eyes." (Deut. 6 8) This is the source for the Mitzvah of Tefillin (phylacteries - if that's any clearer), but it doesn't tell us that much. From this alone, we'd never know how to do this Mitzvah. What are we supposed to tie to the arm? With what do we tie it? What are "Totafos?" What is it a sign of? Without the Oral Law, quite simply, there's no Mitzvah of Tefillin. And there aren't too many other Mitzvos that'll make much sense either. Not, that is, without some form of commentary.
.
.
.
-
According to the Great Rationalist Rambam there were 40 generations from Rav Ashi to Moses...
From the Mishneh Torah:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901698/jewish/Part-1.htm
Thus, there were forty generations from Rav Ashi back to Moses, our teacher, of blessed memory. They were:
1) Rav Ashi [received the tradition] from Ravva.
2) Ravva [received the tradition] from Rabbah.
3) Rabbah [received the tradition] from Rav Huna.
4) Rav Huna [received the tradition] from Rabbi Yochanan, Rav, and Shemuel.
5) Rabbi Yochanan, Rav, and Shemuel [received the tradition] from Rabbenu Hakadosh.
6) Rabbenu Hakadosh [received the tradition] from Rabbi Shimon, his father.
7) Rabbi Shimon [received the tradition] from Rabban Gamliel, his father.
8) Rabban Gamliel [received the tradition] from Rabban Shimon, his father.
9) Rabban Shimon [received the tradition] from Rabban Gamliel, the elder, his father.
10) Rabban Gamliel, the elder, [received the tradition] from Rabban Shimon, his father.
11) Rabban Shimon [received the Tradition] from Hillel, his father, and Shammai.
12) Hillel and Shammai [received the tradition] from Shemayah and Avtalion.
13) Shemayah and Avtalion [received the tradition] from Yehudah and Shimon [ben Shatach].
14) Yehudah and Shimon [received the tradition] from Yehoshua ben Perachiah and Nittai of Arbel.
15) Yehoshua and Nittai [received the tradition] from Yosse ben Yo'ezer and Yosef ben Yochanan.
16) Yosse ben Yo'ezer and Yosef ben Yochanan [received the tradition] from Antignos.
17) Antignos [received the tradition] from Shimon the Just.
18) Shimon the Just [received the tradition] from Ezra.
19) Ezra [received the tradition] from Baruch.
20) Baruch [received the tradition] from Jeremiah.
21) Jeremiah [received the tradition] from Tzefaniah.
22) Tzefaniah [received the tradition] from Chabbakuk.
23) Chabbakuk [received the tradition] from Nachum.
24) Nachum [received the tradition] from Yoel.
25) Yoel [received the tradition] from Michah.
26) Michah [received the tradition] from Isaiah.
27) Isaiah [received the tradition] from Amos.
28) Amos [received the tradition] from Hoshea.
29) Hoshea [received the tradition] from Zechariah.
30) Zechariah [received the tradition] from Yehoyada.
31) Yehoyada [received the tradition] from Elisha.
32) Elisha [received the tradition] from Elijah.
33) Elijah [received the tradition] from Achiah.
34) Achiah [received the tradition] from David.
35) David [received the tradition] from Shemuel.
36) Shemuel [received the tradition] from Eli.
37) Eli [received the tradition] from Pinchas.
38) Pinchas [received the tradition] from Joshua.
39) Joshua [received the tradition] from Moses, our teacher.
40) Moses, our teacher, [received the tradition] from the Almighty.
Thus, [the source of] all these people's knowledge is G-d, the Lord of Israel.
From the Mishneh Torah:
Rabbenu Hakadosh composed the Mishnah. From the days of Moses, our teacher, until Rabbenu Hakadosh, no one had composed a text for the purpose of teaching the Oral Law in public. Instead, in each generation, the head of the court or the prophet of that generation would take notes of the teachings which he received from his masters for himself, and teach them verbally in public. Similarly, according to his own potential, each individual would write notes for himself of what he heard regarding the explanation of the Torah, its laws, and the new concepts that were deduced in each generation concerning laws that were not communicated by the oral tradition, but rather deduced using one of the thirteen principles of Biblical exegesis and accepted by the high court.
This situation continued until [the age of] Rabbenu Hakadosh. He collected all the teachings, all the laws, and all the explanations and commentaries that were heard from Moses, our teacher, and which were taught by the courts in each generation concerning the entire Torah. From all these, he composed the text of the Mishnah. He taught it to the Sages in public and revealed it to the Jewish people, who all wrote it down. They spread it in all places so that the Oral Law would not be forgotten by the Jewish people.
Why did Rabbenu Hakadosh make [such an innovation] instead of perpetuating the status quo? Because he saw the students becoming fewer, new difficulties constantly arising, the Roman Empire18 spreading itself throughout the world and becoming more powerful, and the Jewish people wandering and becoming dispersed to the far ends of the world. [Therefore,] he composed a single text that would be available to everyone, so that it could be studied quickly and would not be forgotten.19 Throughout his entire life, he and his court taught the Mishnah to the masses.
These are the great Sages who were part of the court of Rabbenu Hakadosh and who received the tradition from him: His sons, Shimon and Gamliel, Rabbi Effess, Rabbi Chanina ben Chama, Rabbi Chiyya, Rav, Rabbi Yannai, bar Kafra, Shemuel, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Hoshaia. Thousands and myriads of other sages received the tradition from [Rabbenu Hakadosh] together with these great sages.
Even though all of the eleven sages mentioned above received the tradition from Rabbenu Hakadosh and attended his study sessions, [there are differences between them. At that time,] Rabbi Yochanan was of lesser stature. Afterwards, he became a disciple of Rabbi Yannai and received instruction from him. Similarly, Rav received the tradition from Rabbi Yannai, and Shemuel received the tradition from Rabbi Chanina ben Chama.20
See also : http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/howtoask.html
Asking Questions
Judaism is the way of life that Hashem gave us at Mount Sinai, and taught to us in the Sinai Desert.
It includes a Written Torah and an Oral Torah.
It has always included an Oral Torah, and in fact, some of the Commandments were first taught to us orally before we had them in writing. But by and the large, we were taught both at the same time. Hashem would recite a paragraph of the Written Torah to Moses, telling him what to write, letter by letter. Hashem would then teach Moses the details of that Law, along with the deeper meanings, the applications of that Law, and all concepts related to it.
It is impossible to fulfill the Commandments of the Torah without the Oral Torah, because we need to know those details.
On the other hand, if we had only the Oral Torah, it would be possible to fulfill the Commandments. The Written Torah's function is primarily to prevent the Oral Torah from being forgotten.
The Written Torah is similar to a series of very brief notes a student writes at a lecture. I attended a class once in which I wrote in my notebook: "DY = 2; SY = 1." Do you have any idea what that means? How could you? It means: "A double yellow line in the middle of the road means it is a two-way road, a single yellow line means it is a one-way road." When you know what was said in the class, the notes make perfect sense to you. If you do not know what was said at the lecture, you cannot understand the notes.
Hashem created the Torah two thousand years before He created the universe. That refers to both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah is the extended "lecture." The Written Torah contains the brief notes that make certain that we do not forget the "lecture." Thus, in a sense, the Oral Torah gives us the context of the Written Torah.
I sometimes get questions from people who insist that I prove something from "Scriptural sources." Christians, and those who follow their example, will accept only what is written in the Written Torah. (Which is surprising, considering the fact that they don't obey the Scriptures anyway.)
Well, sorry, but quoting Scripture is not necessary. Judaism includes both a Written Torah and an Oral Torah, and it has always included both. If it is in the Oral Torah, it is Torah, and that's a good enough source. If neither the Written nor the Oral Torah mention something, then it is not Torah. But if the Talmud teaches something, it is Torah, and therefore it is Judaism.
.
.
.
-
You seem uninformed because Jews consider ALL OF TANACH to be Torah...
The entire TORAH, the Chumash/5 books, the Prophets, and the Writings and the Oral Law are all considered Holy to Jews. The Word Torah means 'Teachings' it does not mean only the 5 books... We call the Five Books of Moses Chumash... The Prophets were divine in origin and we always believe that Moses was the most high of the prophets {who spoke 'face to face' with Hashem} but all Prophets {and prophecy is discussed in the Torah, and Hashem promises to send us prophets} were able to 'speak' with Hashem.
There are FUNDAMENTAL Jewish concepts. They are not invented by outsiders. The Mesorah {chain of transmission} is laid out in the Pirkie Avot and also RAMBAM records the chain of transmission of these ideas. The Oral laws are as much Torah as the Chumash, for the Torah means virtually nothing without the explanation of the Oral law.
http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/primer/torah/oraltorah.html
This is false revisionism. Only the Torah is written on a scroll by hand and kept in its special cabin in the synagogue. It is clearly obvious that the Torah trumps Neviim which trumps Ketuvim. All are holy, but there are very obvious ranking.
-
So you admit there are many things in Judaism which are 'EXTRA-RATIONAL' meaning beyond a rational explanation.
Many Jewish laws are considered Chukim, meaning laws which have no rational explanation.... I would like to hear a rationalist give a good reason for how the Red Heifer works {transmitting impurity from the sinner to the kohen}? Even the greatest Jewish sages could not comprehend this law, and yet people expect rational explanations?
Obviously we are aware you did not come up with questions about the Zohar on your own. I have heard the arguments many times, bother here in the forum, and elsewhere.
I listen and learn from Rabbis and form my understanding based on whether the concept is accepted or rejected by the majority of the Rabbis I know. Hashem granted the right to determine halacha to the Sanhedrin and the sages according to certain precepts {called Exegesis}.
You mention damage done by Zohar? What is the damage according to you? I wonder just how long you have studied the Torah and how many Rabbis you have consulted before making your pronouncements on Zohar and mysticism in general.
-
This is false revisionism. Only the Torah is written on a scroll by hand and kept in its special cabin in the synagogue. It is clearly obvious that the Torah trumps Neviim which trumps Ketuvim. All are holy, but there are very obvious ranking.
No sir. You are the revisionist... The entire Torah is divine according to Orthodox Jewish belief.
So it is only holy if it is written on a scroll? Who said this? Is this something you made up? I guess then you consider Megillat Esther Holy and not Isiaah because Esther is written on a scroll... And Hashems name doesn't even appear once in the Megillah...
You realize that the Mezuzah and Tefillin are also written on a scroll? And the Torah doesn't mention them except through the Oral law and cryptic mention in a couple of places {writing a sign on the doorpost, and binding this on the head and on the arm}..
-
Rationalism means having a rational explanaton for the Torah, not just accepting that what it says is true. Judaism NEVER expects a Jew to believe based on blind faith. As a matter of fact the 1st Commandment of the Aseret HaDibroth is a command to KNOW that there is a Hashem. The only way to Know this is to inquire of the matter, to ask questions, and there are answers to all questions in the Torah.
The Chumash is only the 'Cliff Notes' of the entire Jewish scriptures...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalism
3) Theology . the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
A belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
-
Zelhar- read the Rambam's treatise on ressurection of the dead. Many thought that he perhaps also was against the idea of ressurection of the dead, but he says otherwise and brings many proofs from the Tannach, I don't know them off the head but you can do the research maybe includes the 5 books of Moshe as well, I don't remember. Either way we beleive in all the true Prophets after Moshe as well and to deny them goes against the 5 books as well which say to accept a true prophet that will be and speak in the name of G-D (of-course after proper investigation of which we knoe that people like Isaia and Ezekiel are included in the prophets of
G-D).
The ressurection of the dead doesn't have to be "irrational". I believe that Rav Ari Kaplan discusses it in one of his books (something to do with ressurection) and says it's part of the natural world. Also we can look at DNA and other things.
Also not long ago I saw it mentioned on a science show as well in the show "morgan freeman through the wormhole " Not sure which episode.
-
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 ?
-
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 ?
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... But the Oral law clearly clarifies things which are opaque {as you call them}...
What you appear to be denying is that there is a Mesorah or Transmission of Torah teaching... But there is a well documented chain of transmission which goes back to Moses. You have issues with this... That is your issue which you need to resolve...
Regarding the Wolf lying with the lamb, there is a precedent when it did happen... Noahs Ark...
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/402077/jewish/Peace-by-Choice.htm
Noah and the Messianic Age
The prophet Isaiah promised that in the messianic age, animals of prey will set their aggression aside. “The wolf shall live with the lamb, and the leopard lie down with the goat; the calf, the cub and the ox will be together, and a child will lead them. The cow and the bear will graze together . . . the lion and the cattle will both eat straw."2
This particular miracle already occurred once before in history. In Noah’s ark, during the deluge, the animals tamed their aggression and lived together. The lion did not prey on the sheep and the tiger did not stalk the lamb.
The former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yisrael Meyer Lau, posed the following question. If this miracle did not herald the messianic age when it occurred the first time, why was Isaiah convinced that it would herald the messianic age the next time it occurred?
In response, Rabbi Lau suggested that a distinction can be drawn between that which occurred in Noah’s ark and the miracles of the messianic age.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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 !".
-
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.
-
. No and no.
Chabad studies Rambam more than most...
-
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.
-
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/holidays/67-featured/563-on-rambamism-a-word-to-the-wise
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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! :::D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Chabad studies Rambam more than most...
Still no.
-
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?
-
If you need an example of near death experiences or clinical death experiences on Video
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9MKYskQ64w
-
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.
-
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?
-
So you would like to believe there is a soul, but your not sure because there is no proof?
Yes pretty much.
-
Quote from Zelhar
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.
One problem with this answer is that the clinically dead sometimes come back with information that they did not have access to before the massive trauma injury and clinical death.
-
Wound you like to hear a short story? Of one reason I believe in the after life.
-
One problem with this answer is that the clinically dead sometimes come back with information that they did not have access to before the massive trauma injury and clinical death.
I heard such claims and if they are true I don't know how to explain them. It wouldn't be enough to convince me though.
Wound you like to hear a short story? Of one reason I believe in the after life.
sure.
-
I wasn't going to give him some crazy pagan ghost story! I was going to tell him a story that everything is ok when we die!
-
quote from dan ben noah
The fact that miracles have happened, even false miracles, suggests that there is more to reality than meets the eye. But ultimately miracles are not what's going to make Jews observe Torah. The Tanach's history shows that even after G-d had performed many miracles at the hands of Moses for all Israel to see, they still sank into the lowest forms of idolatry. So ultimately it's a decision of whether to do the right thing or not, because there will always be some excuse not to believe.
My response is that there are at least 2 types of people who are not religious.
The first type honestly has, what he believes to be logical reasons not to believe and when he is presented with evidence against his initial conclusions, such as, miracles he changes his opinions.
The second type really does not want to believe no matter what the evidence, suggests. Those types will twist the evidence in any direction they can in order to avoid being religious, even if shown a miracle.
-
quote from dan ben noahMy response is that there are at least 2 types of people who are not religious.
The first type honestly has, what he believes to be logical reasons not to believe and when he is presented with evidence against his initial conclusions, such as, miracles he changes his opinions.
The second type really does not want to believe no matter what the evidence, suggests. Those types will twist the evidence in any direction they can in order to avoid being religious, even if shown a miracle.
I think that like Dan said, eventually a person just has to make a decision to believe and observe. The talmud has a very good story, "akhnai oven", that teaches us (even skeptics like me) not to rely on miracles but on the laws of Torah.
-
Quote from Zelhar
I think that like Dan said, eventually a person just has to make a decision to believe and observe.
The talmud has a very good story, "akhnai oven", that teaches us (even skeptics like me) not to rely on miracles but on the laws of Torah.
The akhnai oven story tells us not to rely on miracles, to decide halachic disputes.
It is not dealing with the question of why to believe at all in the Torah.
In the Torah, when skeptics raised a question if G-d had indeed commanded Moshe (Moses) to make his brother, the Cohain Gadol (high priest), Moshe in fact did prove, that the command originated from G-d, by means of a miracle.
As stated in Bamidbar (Numbers) chapter 17, Moshe gathered 12 staffs from the princes of 12 tribes and each man had his name written on the staffs. Among the staffs was the staff of Moshe's brother Aharon (Aaron).
The staffs were left overnight in the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and the next day everyone noticed that flowers miraculously had sprouted from Aharon's staff. This miracle staff was to be left for all generations as a sign to rebellious people near the ark of the covenant that indeed G-d had chosen Aharon and the choice was not a personal, human choice of Moshe.
-
I guess my question for this this Asher guy is: if he converts the entire world to Judaism, then who will be the ten Gentiles who will want to study under every Jew as promised by Zechariah 8:23?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-OlAY4Iq0kc#t=188s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-OlAY4Iq0kc#t=188s)
It's like he's trying to lead a revolt against G-d's natural order. Spiritual communism, basically. Jews and gentiles were created for different purposes and given different jobs, and we must all know our place in creation. And sure, every now and then, a Jewish soul may end up in a gentile body, and a so-called conversion is needed. But this is really no conversion at all - just a soul finding its way back.
I've heard Asher compared to Muslims by some. But I would disagree. With Muslims, you don't have to convert. You just have to submit to their rule. Asher isn't demanding that anyone convert or submit to his rule.
-
And sure, every now and then, a Jewish soul may end up in a gentile body, and a so-called conversion is needed. But this is really no conversion at all - just a soul finding its way back.
No. someone who comes to convert is not a Jew beforehand. They are a non-Jew who wishes to become Jewish and that is alright. What you are saying is predeterminism which we don't believe. A non-Jew who wishes to convert is given the chance, but he/she is a non-Jew before hand and then they become Jewish. If what you are saying is correct then the non-Jew who is in the process of conversion wouldn't have to be told to do 1 melacha on Shabbath.
-
No. someone who comes to convert is not a Jew beforehand. They are a non-Jew who wishes to become Jewish and that is alright. What you are saying is predeterminism which we don't believe. A non-Jew who wishes to convert is given the chance, but he/she is a non-Jew before hand and then they become Jewish. If what you are saying is correct then the non-Jew who is in the process of conversion wouldn't have to be told to do 1 melacha on Shabbath.
Ok well I didn't mean to insinuate that just anyone who approaches a rabbi with the desire to convert was a Jew beforehand - only those who make it through all the obstacles and then get converted in an orthodox bet din. But yes, I now see that I have wrongly injected predestination into Judaism in an attempt to make sense out of it from my perspective (raised Calvinist with a belief in predestination, etc.).
-
only those who make it through all the obstacles and then get converted in an orthodox bet din.
Again no as well. Sorry.
-
quote from roermy
Ok well I didn't mean to insinuate that just anyone who approaches a rabbi with the desire to convert was a Jew beforehand - only those who make it through all the obstacles and then get converted in an orthodox bet din.
This statement has to be further refined.
We will not say that once a gentile converted, retroactively all the actions he did in his life before the conversion, are to be defined as an action performed by a Jew. So for example, if that convert had "married" a Jewish woman before the conversion, that marriage would not be legally binding according to halacha, (religious law).
On the other hand, there is a viewpoint among Jewish sources, that even before the convert, converted he had a Jewish soul.