Shalom Andy
hmm. at best i could say it is the learning of Torah and nothing more. surely when one comes to a contradiction in torah do they just accpet the oppion that suit them or just say this was written by the aurthor of J or E. or should we not take the time to study the depth and richness which the Torah is trying to relate to those who are asleep to that matter. and this is what Pardes is. the garden which with each taste brings us a deeper connection with the Creator and it is to this end that it is necessary to at least look into the matter more closely

one opinion can be incorrect if the opinion comes from that of the Hertic, yet if it comes from such luminaries of Torah then both are correct.


source

Heavenly Beit Din Cases of Hillel vs. Shammi

quote:

Originally posted by Mack K:

one opinion can be incorrect if the opinion comes from that of the Hertic, yet if it comes from such luminaries of Torah then both are correct.

source

Heavenly Beit Din Cases of Hillel vs. Shammi

You mean to say that if both are Torah luminaries then it is NOT heritical on either of their positions?

Sam, yes, neither of their positions is heritical.

Well, clarity is very important in helping others understand and learn from.

just to get back to the original strain, one thing that is not often mentioned with regard to gulgul is: there are times that a neshama comes back to this world because the world needs it. There are some Neshamos that are so holy they help purify the world around them and therefore need to come back at certain times.

Another point is: Hashem created this world because he wanted us humans to make it holy for him. In light of this every neshama comes into this world for a purpose, one that is part of the larger goal of purifying this world. We also know that a person has free choice so there is a posiblity that he will not fulfill his goal. so if a person does not fulfill his goal and he passes on can we posibly say that Hashem wanted something and it didn't happen? Therefore the Neshama comes down again and again until it completes its mission down here. There are times when a neshama does everthing good and there is just one small thing that was not completed so it will come down again. this is why a baby may be born stillborne or pass away after only a few days.
it may be that this neshama was not concieved in holiness or that it did not get to drink milk from a jewish mother for the first few days of life. This Neshama may have gone on to leade a very holy life and its because she did everthing else right that she is given and oportunity to correct somethign that was beyond her controle.

The fact is that most of our Neshamos are reincarnations at this point. This does not mean that previously we were bad people there are just some things we never had the oportunity to do. it may be for the very simple reason that we were of a different gender in a prevous gilgul. there are some mitzvos that can only be done by people in a certain position and we our neshamos will keep coming back as different kinds of people to do different kinds of things.
There are some people that say we are the Neshamos of the generation that left mitzrayim.

quote:

There are some people that say we are the Neshamos of the generation that left mitzrayim.[/QUOTE]
The "some people" is Rabeinu Zadok of Lublin in the sefer Kuntres Divrei Chalomos (pg. 181/3);" I dreamt that there was revealed to me various things concerning the source (root) of my neshama. Among the things revealed, I was told that the neshamos of the generation of Messiah will be identical to those of the generation of the Midbar (the Messiah will have the neshama of Moshe Rabeinu)".

R, what is the source for this aside from post-Talmudic lierature?

Hi Andy,
I'm not aware of any other source for this.

quote:

Originally posted by Shmuel Kessler:

quote:

There are some people that say we are the Neshamos of the generation that left mitzrayim.

The "some people" is Rabeinu Zadok of Lublin in the sefer Kuntres Divrei Chalomos (pg. 181/3);" I dreamt that there was revealed to me various things concerning the source (root) of my neshama. Among the things revealed, I was told that the neshamos of the generation of Messiah will be identical to those of the generation of the Midbar (the Messiah will have the neshama of Moshe Rabeinu)".[/QUOTE]

That can't be possible literally because that would make Moses the Messiah, unless uniqueness comes from our bodies and not our neshamos. If our neshamos were the source of uniqueness and could be reincarnated, and Moses was not the Messiah, that would mean that the world would remain constantly the same, and that there is no freewill when it comes to how unique we are i.e. G-d controls our personalities and actions(we all know that neshamos are "little pieces of G-d" and that G-d does have a will). In that case, the world will continue to endlessly have problems (as the world had problems at the time of the Exodus and afterwards) and the only way out of it (as Jewish prophecy states that there will be a perfect world eventually) would be if G-d himself, being the only Being in the universe with an independent will in this case, to intervene Himself in matters of earth by creating a totally different being with His mark, and this new being, in order to help matters in earth, would have to become in-fleshed, and to do that, G-d would have to create a third being in the same way to make this plan possible in the physical realms....

The rest is in the Nicene Creed, shown below:

http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html

Just thought I'd tell you.

What does this have to do with reincarnation?

I was just saying what could happen if souls were reincarnated in Judaism.

I don't understand what the Nicene Creed has to do with any of this... I don't accept it nor do I promote it...


as for other quotes from the bible other than the KJV , this is a good site to read upon:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Karma in Judaism would probably be the same as in Hinduism or Buddhism but most Jews do not believe in the reincarnation of one's soul. On another note: Karma does play a big role in what you will be reincarnated into. For example: A person who's had bad karma will turn into a bug or something whereas a person with good karma will turn into something beautiful. Anyways, reincarnation really has nothing to do with Judaism so I'm curious as to why someone would post something about it in a Jewish forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Kerri:
Anyways, reincarnation really has nothing to do with Judaism so I'm curious as to why someone would post something about it in a Jewish forum.

Their are strong Jewish sources for reincarnation in Judaism in my post above

Really? I didn't know that. I'll check it out.

I have heard that the saadya gaon rejected the concept of reincarnation because he thought that the concept was derived from idolatrous sources (other idolatrous religions perhaps).
Since the Arizal is held in such high esteem, and the Arizal held to reincarnation, people tend to accept it.
There are different schools of thought in kabbalah that are diametrically opposed.
Some kabbalists talk about tzim tzum as G-d constricting his presence and G-d is in this world. It's a slightly pantheistic concept, all is G-d and G-d is all. The other school of thought says that G-d is not literally in this world.
A scriptural source or perhaps just a hint for G-d being literally everywhere is Deut 4:39 , some translate as "... G-d; in the heaven above and upon the earth below there is nothing else" <-- implying that g-d is all and all is g-d.
Others translate as "there is no other" at the end of that verse.

The RAMBAM seems to me and a rabbi I spoke to, to be against the idea of G-d being everywhere. since he writes in his mishneh torah that G-d is not connected like a body. He cannot be divided into parts(or areas) like a body.

The RAMBAM is seen by many (including the RAMBAN) to be a master kabbalist.

http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/rambam.pdf

The RAMBAN is my favorite commentator. He doesn't try to reconcile opinions that are clearly diametrically opposed - if he thinks they are opposed. Sometimes, 2 opinions cannot possibly be held simultaneously, and the rabbis intended to disagree.

The kabbalah that all accept, is any kabbalah hinted at or explicitly mentioned in the talmud.

to a noachide, and to a jew that is still studying tenach or jewish law in the talmud, i don't think kabbalah is improtant.

as we all know that the Saadia HaGoan was aganist reincaration. How the question is in what sense of the word was he aganist reincartion? we know in the sense of how the kariate believe it.

there are many understanding of reincaranation among the outside world. They should not be confused or mix up with the concept and ways of reincarnation. for example it is some beleif that in a past life they were male and in this life they are female this completely goes against the concept of reincarnation by the rabbi's of old. and the list goes on and on.

as much the Rambam by that very statement of G-d being without a body allows G-d to be in all places and not limited to one place or another as the body which has a physical deminson is either in a house or outside of it.

reference to kabbalsitic matters is mention in the talmud. on the same subject matter of the first 4 chapters of the mishnah torah.

I don't think the RAMBAM says that G-d being without a body allows him to in all places.
Quite the opposite. If G-d were everywhere he would be connected, and he would have a right and a left. The RAMBAM considers these characteristics to be functions of a body. The RAMBAM is clear , not just that G-d does not have a body but he says that none of the functions of the body are appropriate to him. This is all in 1:11 of mishneh torah. hilchot yesodei hatorah. It's just A few lines, I'll quote it.
1:11 "Since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corpeal form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are appropriate to Him: neither connection nor separation, neither place nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, neither right nor left, neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"

I am a big fan of the RAMBAN(with a nun). And the RAMBAN (according to that koshertorah website) says that the RAMBAM(with a mem) was a master kabbalist.
To me, this demolishes the myth that the RAMBAM was not a kabbalist, and gives more weight to what he writes on this subject that touches on kabbalah.
I'm not going to make a choice between one kabbalistic school of thought and another. Holding to the RAMBAM may be erring on the side of caution, and not recognising the greatness of later kabbalists, like the Arizal.

The Arizal (According to that koshertorah website) says that the RAMBAN merited certain kabbalistic teachings that the RAMBAM did not, since the RAMBAM's soul from the 'right side' - the side of stringency.
The RAMBAN doesn't say anything about G-d being everywhere either. And there is a site that conducts an investigation into claims that the RAMBAN accepted the idea of reincarnation, and concludes that the claim is false.

http://www.torahcurrents.org/index.php/article/reincarn...w_of_gilgul_neshamot

Davidt, if G-d is everywhere what makes you say It would have a right and a left. surely above and below are terms used by things which have a beganing point and a ending point. like the body has a head and feet. however G-d doesn't have such a thing therefore there is top nor a bottom. for nothing is outside of G_d.

but you are right i didn't get this concept from 1:11 ; but rather from 1:8 the RamBam uses the quote "That the L-rd He is G-d in heaven above and upon the earth beneath." and begans to commet by saying "a corporeal being is incapable of being in two places simultaneously; and it is also said: 'For ye saw no manner of form:' and it is moreover said: 'To whom will ye liken to me, that I should be equal?' ; had He been corporeal He would be like other bodies."

for Had the creator been corporeal then surely he could not be right and left, above and below right and left. but rather one or the other. yet since the Holy Blessed be He is without a body and is not limited to such measurement. surely the holy one is in all places and not one or the other, for no place is void of G-d.

Mishanh Torah book One
chapter 1:8

as far as the RamBam being a great kabbalist it is a debate for ages weather he was a great Kabbaliast or a true beliver in Aristotle. i don't know. however it is clear towards the end that the first four chapter deals with two ealier kabbalistic school. which he says quite clearly. (i wonder why he did it that way but hey i am no RamBaM so why quiestion it).

as far as the RamBaN i have heard that he is a kabbalist and it speaks of reincartion where i have no idea.

>Davidt, if G-d is everywhere what makes you >say It would have a right and a left. surely
>above and below are terms used by things which >have a beganing point and a ending point. like
>the body has a head and feet. however G-d
>doesn't have such a thing therefore there is
>top nor a bottom. for nothing is outside of G-d.

the rambam says as you do regarding him up not having right left up down. But the reason he gives, is that these are functions of a body, and G-d has neither a body nor does he have functions of a body.
Examining Your reason, that he can't have up down left right because these are only for finite objects - objects with beginning and end points. I disagree. the infinite or non-finite can have an up down left and right. A practical example is space. If you consider space infinite and having no end points whatsoever, you can still look Up down left or right. THese are usually directions relative to where you are facing. You can point to space in that direction, and exclude the space in the opposite direction. You are thinking of up down left right as end points, and moving towards end points. But you could theoretically draw an infinitely long line going to the 'right' or 'left' or 'up' or 'down'. All these directions of course are relative. If you turn your head then right can become up. But space is perhaps a better example of what I am saying, because it has no end points whatsoever, and still directions are an issue. Directions are relative and do not require end points. You can go also go in one direction infinitely too.
Anything that is everywhere, has relative points to the left, right, up or down.



>from 1:8 the RamBam uses the
>quote "That the L-rd He is G-d in heaven above
>and upon the earth beneath."
> and begans to commet by >saying "a corporeal
>being is incapable of being in two places
>simultaneously;

also relevant is 1:7 ".it is impossible for a body not to be limited"


strictly/cautiously speaking, the RAMBAM is just bringing another proof that G-d does not have a body. And since he defines a body as finite, it doesn't really help us, because we all agree on that!


It does seem that the juxtaposition of those 2 statements that "G-d is in heaven and earth" with "a corporeal being is incapable of being in two places simultaneously", does support your interpretation against mine.

The first statement that G-d is in heaven and earth, might have just meant that he is G-d to heaven and earth. Like the president in america is president in america even if he is visiting elsewhere. But since it's alongside a statement that says that a body can't be in 2 places at once. It may imply or be hinting that G-d can be in 2 places at once. It leaves that possibility open.

**However**

Although that interpretation of those verses is quite reasonable. It msut be rejected and the cautious interpreation of those verses chosen. Because 1:11 makes clear that G-d is not everywhere. I gave reasons why I disagree with your interpretation of 1:11, it's simply because of the left right up down. I'll add

1:11 is very important, because the RAMBAM doesn't say
"G-d doesn't have a body, thus the functions of the body aren't applicable to him"
he says
"He does not have a body or corporeal form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are appropriate to him"

It is a nuisance that the RAMBAM hasn't dealt with the concept of an infinite 'body', thus when he says in 1:11 that G-d has 'netiher place nor measure' it is ambiguous. However, it is not ambiguous, when he talks of left or right or down or connection (or areas - 'divisions' 1:8) , he says that G-d has none of these. That is clearly against the idea of G-d having an infinite 'body'/presence.

So it seems to me, that the RAMBAM says G-d is in the spiritual realm and does not occupy space.



>and it is also >said: 'For ye saw no manner of >form:' and it is moreover said: 'To whom will >ye liken to me, >that I should be equal?' ; >had He been corporeal He would be like other >bodies."

both our interpretations would agree on those 3 lines . It's the other ones that are more relevant.


besides. there is a kabbalistic idea that G=d really is not everywhere.
The idea that he is everywhere may be late, and chassidic (1700s)
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=86041
though maybe the arizal supported it too (1600s).

There is an article somewhere online that there are 2 distinct kabbalistic schools of thought. one that G-d is everywhere, and the other that G-d is not present in this world. At the moment I can't find the article anywhere.

I think the idea of G-d being everywhere although a radical but reasonable interpretation of 1:8 , it is unreasonable and wrong in consideration of 1:11.