quote:

If it is plain that the Torah speaks of reincarnation, how come it does not say so plainly in any of our sources?

I am tempted to speculate some possible benefits to us of having it only slightly veiled, such as if there would be doubters who could follow a proper halachic life without having to believe that there will be reincarnation other than the final resurection, they are free to do so without penalty. And since its so beyond our domain which soul comes into which body when, it would have no practical value to be any more explicit.

Are there any other details of which we are certain but which are not plainly stated? Other than the whole book of Esther?

To David Ben Avraham
"David will be king over you" talks of the Messiah and refers to a descendent of the lineage of King David, from the tribe of Yehuda, to whom Kingship was given like Priesthood was given to the tribe of Levi.

To Peretz Montchash:
The Malbim applies the idea of reincarnation to the pasuk of "Behold a son is born to Na'ami", he does not derive it from the passuk or from Yibum because there in no basis in the oral law for belief in reincarnation (I already said it is NOT one of the 13 principles of our faith and it is mentioned nowhere in the Tanach or the Talmuds, or any other text of Chazal.

To Rob:
You say: "….Since it's so beyond our domain which soul comes into which body when, it would have no practical value to be any more explicit".
For sure, God revealed to us only that which we need to know to serve Him properly. However, believing in reincarnation or not has TREMENDOUS practical consequences for our faith in the way God rewards us for our obedience and punishes us for our rebellion. He would not be a just God if he did not hold ME responsible for what I do, and how could He hold ME responsible if He gave me someone else's dirtiedsoul? I say "dirtied" because every morning we say the blessing "the soul You gave me is pure".
So believing in reincarnation is making fun of God's justice, let alone despising our own intelligence.
When you wake up in the morning, did you ever have a doubt that maybe you are a different person?

quote:

Originally posted by sheva:
"... believing in reincarnation or not has TREMENDOUS practical consequences for our faith in the way God rewards us for our obedience and punishes us for our rebellion. He would not be a just God if he did not hold ME responsible for what I do, and how could He hold ME responsible if He gave me someone else's dirtiedsoul?

Dear Sheva,

It would seem by this that you have not understood the portent of our words. No one has said that in reincarnation you receive someone else's dirtied soul. You receive, rather, your own soul. And while every man's soul is clean and pure, this refers to the soul without the body. But the body and the soul together are prone to many mishaps. When G-d returns a man's soul into a second body, it is only done in order to make amends (rectifications) for what that same soul and another body have done.

As for the prophecy about David ruling over us as king and Messiah, why would he be called "David" if not that he were indeed David?
This is my personal opinion.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
No one has said that in reincarnation you receive someone else's dirtied soul. You receive, rather, your own soul.

If I receive "my own soul", what is reincarnation???

quote:

And while every man's soul is clean and pure, this refers to the soul without the body. But the body and the soul together are prone to many mishaps. When G-d returns a man's soul into a second body, it is only done in order to make amends (rectifications) for what that same soul and another body have done.

So from what you say, without the body, the soul would remain pure. And since the sins are committed by the body (ah! the weakness of the flesh!), it means that reincarnation is the best way NOT to ever be able to make amends.

PLEASE, don't be obstinate! Reincarnation is a doctrine that has no logic, let alone no proof.

quote:

As for the prophecy about David ruling over us as king and Messiah, why would he be called "David" if not that he were indeed David?
This is my personal opinion.

For the same reason that we are called "Yehudim" even if we are not of Shevet Yehuda. The wording of the prophecy is based on the fact that everybody knows Messiach is a descendent of King David, so it says "David".

In fact, what is at the basic of the theory of reincarnation in the cultures which developped it is the very central question of what is life and death. Because these cultures do not say that God is the Creator and holds life and death in His hands, because they do not have a clear concept of what is the "soul" which departs the body at death and where it goes, because they NEED to make themselves a picture in order to be able to settle their fears and qualms about life and death, they concocted a system called reincarnation whereby a dog can receive the soul of a human (and vice-versa), because they have no idea what is the difference between the life force of a dog (or plant) and the soul of a man - which King Shlomo says "returns to Heaven where it came from".

I hope you will think about it seriously, and that my efforts have not been in vain - considering NO ONE on this forum was able to give a PROOF that the soul migrates from body to body like a bee does from flower to flower...

quote:

Originally posted by sheva:

If I receive "my own soul", what is reincarnation???

Reincarnation (Heb. "gilgul neshamos) has also been defined as "transmigration of the soul." The soul of that individual simply passes into another body.

Sheva, you also wrote:

"So from what you say, without the body, the soul would remain pure. And since the sins are committed by the body (ah! the weakness of the flesh!), it means that reincarnation is the best way NOT to ever be able to make amends."

Remember that if we're talking about the same soul that comes back down to earth after one has died (even though it inhabited a different wretched piece of clothing - a euphemism for one's body), it can still make amends for what it did while inhabiting its former body. For, afterall, a body & soul that are bound together are making the necessary amends. The reincarnated person is still confronted with the same lusts and desires as he had in his previous life, but this time he has the opportunity to make good where he had formerly done wrong.

You said, moreover,

"PLEASE, don't be obstinate! Reincarnation is a doctrine that has no logic, let alone no proof."

Sheva, we are not talking about proof here. We are only showing where it is either mentioned, or alluded to, by the ancients of our nation. If you find it hard to accept, what can I do? My responsibility is to report things as we have received them. Your believing, or disbelieving, is a different thing altogether.

You wrote:

In fact, what is at the basic of the theory of reincarnation in the cultures which developped it is the very central question of what is life and death. Because these cultures do not say that G-d is the Creator and holds life and death in His hands, because they do not have a clear concept of what is the "soul" which departs the body at death and where it goes, because they NEED to make themselves a picture in order to be able to settle their fears and qualms about life and death, they concocted a system called reincarnation whereby a dog can receive the soul of a human (and vice-versa), because they have no idea what is the difference between the life force of a dog (or plant) and the soul of a man - which King Shlomo says "returns to Heaven where it came from".

Sheva, many times pagan beliefs happen to be congruous with our own - lahavdil. This does not mean that the logic behind those beliefs is the same for both Jews and pagans.

Sincerely,
David

david,
what you say about the relationship between body and soul is totally contrary to what our Sages teach us, and no one is born with "past sins".
You also say: "We are only showing where it is either mentioned, or alluded to, by the ancients of our nation" but you have not mentioned a single ancient of our nation who talks about gilgul neshamot (because there isn't!).
So your contention about gilgul and its consequence, reward and punishment, is in contradiction with the Torah and it is forbidden to "resemble the nations in their thoughts as much as in their deeds", like it is forbidden to hold opinions which are contrary to those of the Torah.

I suggest you come back home.

B"H
Sheva,

Is not the Zohar ancient enough for you? Has Ari z"l imagined all that he said about the migration of the soul?

We are not shaken by your disbelief. I recall reading somewhere how that the Saddukim did not hold to mainstream Jewish beliefs as far as the resurrection is concerned, and demons, and angels, &c. The Karraites did not hold to any of our oral traditions, but only took the written Law (Torah) as divine.

I would suggest you start a new thread on the topic of "reincarnation," since this thread belongs to "Pesach stories." I'll be happy to continue this topic with you on a different thread.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

reincarnation

Being that I openned this thread, I feel I have the right to request moving on from the diverted topic of reincarnation. I agree with David to reopen it under a new thread. However, being that I agree with Sheva that her request for an exact source hasn't fully been fulfilled, I am posting the following links to help. These URLs only provide information on where to look and don't seem to quote from the sources.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/reincarnation.html

http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Introductions/firststeps/J...nd_Reincarnation.asp

NOTE - I HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED THE VARACITY OF THE SOURCES OR THE WEBSITES PROVIDED.

Magedman, let's verify sources together:

Virtual Library link says
"Reincarnation, gilgul in Hebrew, is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, though some interpret traditional Jewish practices to refer to reincarnation. Maimonides has written about the allusion of biblical verses to its occurrence. For example, Daniel 12:13 states, "now go your way to the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days."

"You shall arise to your destiny at the end of days" is a promise that Daniel will be RESURRECTED at the end of days, accordding to the opinion that "Tchiyat Ha'Metim l'Tzaddikim" (Taanit 7:1). To the best of my knowledge the Rambam does NOT quote this verse anywhere, and he wrote an Epistle on Techyat Hametim, and NEVER mentionned "Gilgul Neshamot".

Kabbala on line says:
"And it is firmly rooted in source-verses".

But the root they quote is NOT a source-verse or Chazal (the Oral Law), but the interpretation of this verse by the RambaN, who indeed plunged into the newly "discovered" fashion of Kabbala, and he applies the inciting idea of reincarnation to a Torah commandment which does NOT say that.
This child continues the "name" of the deceased brother so that he has descendents to his "name" to inherit the Land of Israel which is divided between the families of each tribe.
The widows of those who are sterile and would not have had children anyway are dispensed of Yibum, and they continue their names by building a YAD V'SHEM - a memorial monument (see Yshaiahu 57:5).

Add this "verification" to all the other arguments I presented clearly enough to convince anyone who can think straight.
THERE IS NO GILGUL MIN HA'TORAH.

To David:
No, the Zohar is not ancient enough for me, because it is not mentioned in our sources, let alone that what it says is contrary to the principles of our faith.

And yes, the Ari z"l did imagine all that he said about the migration of souls, or rather borrowed it from foreign creeeds (of which dafka the Karaites you mention) because the idea itself existed since long in many ancient pagan cultures, and he adopted it to Jewish Tanachic and Rabbinic figures.
I suspect that since then, hu mitgalgel b'kivro...

SO PLEASE EITHER GIVE ME A SCIENTIFIC, A TORAH, A FACTUAL, and/or A LOGICAL, PROOF ABOUT THOSE GILGULIM, OR STOP REPEATING BLINDLY THINGS YOU YOURSELF HAVE NOT VERIFYIED.

Thre us no need for a separate link on this subject, unless someone has a CHIDUSH!

quote:

This child continues the "name" of the deceased brother so that he has descendants to his "name" to inherit the Land of Israel which is divided between the families of each tribe.

Sheva,

Three questions:

1) If all that the Torah wanted was simply to give the "name" of the deceased to the new-born child who was to come into this world through the act of yibum (in order that the deceased might have "descendants to his name to inherit the Land of Israel"), why then was it necessary for him to do all these things by an act of yibum? If it's only a name that G-d wishes to perpetuate, wouldn't it have been sufficient for the brother of the deceased to come upon his own wife (not his deceased brother's wife) and to call their new-born son by the name of his deceased brother? Why was it so imperative for him to take his deceased brother's wife in order to perpetuate the name of the dead? Afterall, as you said, it's only the "name" that G-d was concerned with, and no more.

2) If the Torah (Devorim 25: 5-ff.) says, as it is explained by Yonathan ben Uzziel in his Aramaic Targum, that the purpose of the yibum (levirate marriage) is to ensure that the inheritance left by the deceased will pass down, uninterrupted, unto his progeny and unto his descendants after him, how can this ever be in truth? Seeing that the child born from that yibum, in reality, came from the loins of the brother of the deceased, and not from the deceased himself, the son should have been the rightful heir of his progenitor!? Yet, the Torah says he inherits only that which belonged to the deceased, and he continues in his uncle's inheritance!? Why?

3) Yoseph Matthiah, in his Antiquities (a book compiled in 91 C.E.), says that the child who is born from a levirate marriage (Heb. "yibum") is called, literally, by the same name of the deceased. If his uncle's name was "Moshe," he too would be called "Moshe." Why was it so necessary to give the name of the deceased to his nephew?

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by sheva:
Magedman, let's verify sources together:

...Add this "verification" to all the other arguments I presented clearly enough to convince anyone who can think straight.
THERE IS NO GILGUL MIN HA'TORAH.

Sheva,

Here is my response based on my limited knowledge of Torah:

1. The Holy RAMBAM enumerates 13 articles of faith that are incumbent upon every Jew to instill upon him/herself. To my knowledge, if a person denies the veracity of even one of them, he/she loses his/her חלק of עולם הבא. Now, it is quite clear that Reincarnation (גלגולי הנשמות) is not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, assuming that Reincarnation (גלגולי הנשמות) does not fall under the last article of faith of Techiyas HaMeisim (תחית המתים) as a subcategory, then you certainly have the rights not to believe in Reincarnation (גלגולי הנשמות). However, it would be advantageous to check into the commentaries to make sure.

2. Being that there are enough legitimate authorities that held of Reincarnation (גלגולי הנשמות), it seems to me that it is prohibited to denigrate and/or disparage Yidin who are basing their beliefs on those legitimate authorities regardless of whether you agree with the sources or not.

3. If we are to search for אמת in our lives, we must be honest and ask ourselves the obvious - Has any legitimate authority (I.E. a known Tzaddik) challenged this belief? If not, why?

[To be honest, I have not personally studied the subject matter in depth, so I do not know either way; and to add, it really doesn't matter to me either way. I try to live in the here and now, not the past or the future. This in itself is a handful leaving me no time to worry what Tikkunim my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Gilgul needs.]

4. It appears to me that you want a straight quote from תנ"ך stating “…reincarnation…” as opposed to mere allusion. If I am correct, may I bring to your attention that you say 100 brachot a day that are purely based on an allusion (אסמכתא) from a pasuk?! Are we to say that since it is merely alluded to in the Torah we’re not going to say any of them (chas v’shalom)?!

In conclusion, it appears to me that there are enough sources, authorities, and verified stories to justify the belief in Reincarnation. However, our focus in life should be on the following 3 things without worrying what’s going on in the upper realm:
אמונה
מצוות
תורה

טוב עלך ברכה

Magedman

quote:

), but the interpretation of this verse by the RambaN, who indeed plunged into the newly "discovered" fashion of Kabbala,

And he probably came up with it while drinking a few beers with his buddies at the campus :rolleye:
Why doesn't it dawn on any of the left wing fringe that the Ramban might have a better idea of our Mesorah than some pointy headed proffessor? Those who actually learn gemarah understand that there are medrashim and Chachmos Hatorah that are hinted to us through shas that the manuscrips weren't handed down to us. If people would actually learn some Gemarah instead of from some poffessor, then we might have some progress

To David
Your Q. 1
A "name" does not mean calling this child Moshe or Avraham, it means a descendent, a child of whom it is said: This is the son of so-and-so (like in English "a good name" does not mean "James", but "a good reputation).

Your Q. 2:
The brother who did the Yibum inherits the deceased's property (Halachot Nachalot 3:7 and 7:2) This is also what Rashi and Ibn Ezra say.
You say:

quote:

Seeing that the child born from that yibum, in reality, came from the loins of the brother of the deceased, and not from the deceased himself, the son should have been the rightful heir of his progenitor!? Yet, the Torah says he inherits only that which belonged to the deceased, and he continues in his uncle's inheritance!? Why?

As stated above, the 1st son of the Yebama will inherit his natural father, who is the one who inherits the deceased brother "in exchange" for giving him a descendent to his "name", and this is the way the inheritance of the deceased passed on to his "progeny". This being said, I did not see in my edition of Yonathan Ben Uziel what you quote, but the matter itself is, I think, cleared.

Your Q. 3
If this is what Josephus says, he's got it wrong. And since when is Josephus' interpretation of Torah an authoritative source (and for that matter, his historical accounts are also unreliable!)

To Magedman,
Your point 1:
Not only is gilgul nechamot not in the 13 basic tenets of our faith, it is not mentioned in any of the Sifrut Chazal. And it is not a sub-category of resurrection either because resurrection is YOU: body and soul. This is the verification. Later commentaries adopted this tenet from other sources which are not authoritative, let alone not Jewish.

Your point 2:
The later days holy Yiden who hold reincarnation themselves have to tell us from where they derive their knowledge. If they derive it from Sinai, via Chazal who spelt out the Oral Law, their opinion is backed by solid (and binding) authority. If they cannot bring a source from Chazal, their opinion does not come from the Torah and is not taught by Judaism. I am not denigrating them, I am saying their opinion in that matter is not Jewish.

Your point 3:
I do not know what is the extent of the authority of a "known Tzaddik" is. And for that matter, I don't even know what a "known Tzaddik" is. The Torah teaches us how to check who is a true prophet and the "miracles" someone will perform (even if they are "greater" than those of Moses) are NOT taken into account for this verification. The Torah also gave authority to expound the Law to "smuchim" (chazal), the chain of whom is given in Pirkey Avot. If they say this is the Law, this is the Law, and this is what we must follow even if we do not understand it. Chazal do not teach Gilgul Neshamot, and therefore there is no Gilgul, whatever "later day saints" think. I am not disrespectful, I am ironic because when it comes to uprooting a belief which according to the Torah is false, it is permissible, nay advisable, to mock them like Eliyahu Hanavi mocked the Priests of Baal. Why don’t the known Tzaddikim teach the truth??? (My answer is: because people don't search truth, but something exciting).
[You're right, concerning one's life time it is here and now, concerning the Jewish people, it is from the beginning of times to the end of times, one long chain of tradition to hang on to].

Your point 4
Is also a good point. The Torah does not say everything explicitly, in fact it says quite little explicitely. This is why Mosses gave us not only the written Law, but the Oral Law which is its explanation together with 13 principles of interpretation of the written Law to be able to derive the law in case we forgot it. This is what Chazal do. So here, listen at this marvelous thing: an asmachta does not mean that the passuk they quote says what they derive from it – if you do study, you will see that more often than not it DOESN'T!!! The asmachata shows, by a certain association with the words of the passuck (or one word) that the idea they convey is contained in it! The Talmud brings asmachtot to show that Chazal's authority comes from the Torah (like we bless asher kidshanu b'mitzvotav for lighting Hanuka candles although it is not a Torah commandment). A law is d'Oraitha or Halacha l'moshe mi'Sinai or Kabala (the true tradition), or d'rabbanan when Chazal tell us it is!
One of these asmachtot of Chazal is indeed that they based the obligation to say 100 blessings a day on the verse "ma Hashem doresh m'itecha…", don’t read "Ma" (what), read "Meah" (one hundred). We say these 100 blessings a day, not because the Torah commands them (it doesn't), but because the Sages do.

I agree with your conclusion: אמונה, מצוות, תורה is right. That is why I say we have no sources for the belief in reincarnation, no traditional (as I defined previously tradition from Sinai) authority teaches it, and the fantastic stories sh'mitgalgelin b'olam to justify the belief in Reincarnation are not a verification.

And for Reb Chaim, acharon chaviv:
I am neither left wing nor a professor, pointed or not.
However, it dawned on me that the Ramban does not have a better idea of our Mesorah concerning gilgul neshamot than I do, because I have the same "Aron Sfarim Hayehudim" as he does and although for sure, he studied more of it than I did, he did not study gilgul in these sources because it is simply not there.
If there are as you say "manuscripts that weren't handed down to us", they weren't handed down to anybody. Rav Saadya Gaon produced a correct text of Sefer Hayetzira which is a Midrash Tannayim and in his introduction he says he had to do that because he saw how this book was disfigures, distorted and tampered with beyond recognition. The Perush Ha'Rav Saadya that appears in the standard edition of Sefer HaYetzira is NOT his. His has been kept by the Yemenites, and it is published today by Machon Moshe.
Concerning your last remark that " If people would actually learn some Gemarah instead of from some poffessor, then we might have some progress", let me tell you that I learnt both some Guemara and some professors and מכל מלמדי השכלתי .

B"H
Dear Sheva,

You have categorically denied all the logical proofs that we could ever show you. The Torah speaks in the peshat, remez, darash and sod, whereas the "transmigration of the soul" falls under the category of remez.

1) In answer to my first question, the brother of the deceased could have only perpetuated the name of the deceased by coming upon his brother's widow, since it was through her, and only her, that his brother was wont to bring forth his issue (seed). And since the brother of the deceased is the nearest of kin to the dead, it was through him that G-d has seen fit to restore his brother's soul unto its former place, id est, in the very womb that was intended to house and carry the child of the deceased.

2) In answer to my second question, why is it that the nephew of the deceased inherits his deceased uncle's property when, in reality, he is only the offspring of his father (not the offspring of his uncle)? And this is stated in the Aramaic of Yonathan ben Uzziel (Devorim 25: 6), of whom I shall quote:
ויהי בוכרא דיתליד יקום באחסנתא על שום אחוי שכיבא

(Translation)
"And the firstborn son who is born shall be accorded the inheritance in the name of the deceased brother..."

The only logical answer for this is to say that that child who was born, and who came into this world by way of "Yibum," carries within him the very same soul of the deceased. Otherwise, how could he ever become the only legal heir of the deceased?!

3) In answer to my third question, why (according to Yoseph Mathiah) must that child who is born from the "Yibum" be given the exact same name of his deceased uncle? Again, it is because he was born with the very same soul of his deceased uncle.

Yoseph Mathiah's worth may not be fully appreciated by many, as you rightly observed. But he is a primary source for many ancient Jewish practices and customs, whether you accept this or not. Indeed, I could bring many proofs as touching his invaluable worth, showing how he has many times confirmed the traditions of the Sages brought down in the Talmud, as well as, at other times, how he has clarified difficult matters in our Talmud. This man's work is not to be belittled, but I would recommend reading him without the X-tian commentators, because of their many unfounded bias. In the forward found in the book, "Antiquities," Yoseph Mathiah writes of himself that, in his day, he was one of the most trained and most knowledgeable persons in the laws of our fathers. He was contemporary with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was a friend of his father. Perhaps, I will start a new thread on the importance and value of his writings.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

It's obvious that there is much more to Torah to what is recorded in the talmud. This is recorded in the gemarah itself. The following is the Gemarah in Sukkah 28a and in BB 134a and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf.


2. R. Yochanan Ben Zakai learned everything - Torah,

prophets and Kesuvim, Mishnah, Gemara (resolutions of

difficulties between Mishnayos), Halachos, Agados,Drashos, Rabbinical enactments, laws learned from Kal va'Chomer and Gezerah Shavah, calculation of the Tekufos (equinoxes and solstices), Gematriyos, parables about launderers and foxes, the speech of Shedim, date trees and angels, big and small matters;

i. A big matter - Hash-m's chariot (mentioned in Yechezkeil); a small matter - the questions of Abaye and Rava.

Do you have the manuscripts on all this? Do you know what "The speech of angels are? Do you know what Maaseh Markava is (or Maaseh Braishes which is brought together in the 2nd perek of Chagiga as things you don't teach to the public.) The Gra in YD 246 takes from the implication that Maaseh Markava is called a big matter as Shas as the small matter, that the greatest learning is in Kaballah.

The whole first part of the 2nd perek of chagigah hints to that Limud. The reason it wasn't recorded was, as the gemarah says 13a (paraphrased from KIH)

2. R. Yosef, after learning Ma'aseh Bereishis from the elders of Pumbedisa, refused to teach them Ma'aseh Merkavah.

(i) "Honey and milk beneath your tongue" (Shir ha'Shirim 4:11) -- the things (secrets of Torah) which are sweeter than honey shall remain beneath your tongue (and not be divulged).

(ii) (R. Avahu) "Kevasim Lilvushecha (the wool of lambs is your clothing)" (Mishlei 27:26) -- do not read "Kevasim" but rather "Kevushim (the hidden things)," meaning that the hidden things about the world shall remain hidden under your garment.

We see the 4 that went into "The Pardes"

We see gemaras referring to accomplishing things by the Shem, like flying. This is also in Halacha Gemaras (for example Eiruvin 43a) where are all these Chachmos now?

Even in Niglah we see what we have is a minority of what is in the Torah. For example Sanhedrin 68a

9. R. Eliezer: Your death will be worse than theirs! I am like a closed Sefer Torah (that people did not open it to learn from it).

i. I learned much from my Rebbi'im, but it was like a dog licking water from the ocean (compared to what they knew);

ii. I taught much, but it was like a stick inserted in a tube of eye-liner (it absorbs a tiny amount of what is there, i.e. of what I know).

iii. I know 300 laws of a bright Baheres (appearance of Tzara'as), no one ever asked me about them!

iv. I know 300 (some say, 3000) laws of planting gourds (through Kishuf), R. Akiva is the only one who ever asked me about them!

v. Once we were walking together, he asked me to teach him about planting gourds. I said something, the field became full of gourds. He asked me about uprooting gourds; I said something, they all gathered to one place.

We also have from the Rishonim that the words of the Bahag are words of "kaballah" (though they might not be necessary from the gemarah but he has it from an oral tradition.)

After all this, the facts was that there was definitely a kabbalh in the days of Chazal which was only taught to the best and the brightest with the most Yiras Shamayim (which is why it never ended up by the leftists.) Fact: The Ramban brings the concept of Gilgul. Now, if anyone had any respect for the Ramban and his learning, he would deduce that the Ramban did not just pull it out of nowhere and just make up nonsense. he most probable was that he had such a Kabbalah from his Rabbeim that had such a Kabbalah from Chazal.

This is why I say it's Taloy if a person is on the leftist fringe. They're the only ones that would have the Chutzpah of saying that the Ramban cannot be trusted and is introducing things from pagan ideas and wasn't smart enough to understand the difference. The leftist whole bent is to be able to fit their Judaism into their secular lifestyle and outlook. Thus they take the ramban and Gra as fools (Chalilah V'Chas) and can be disposed by those that at best have a rudimental understanding of a extremely small quantity of gemarah. Like some other Shmoe on a different thread trying to claim that the Bais Yosef had psychiatry problems (Chalilah V'Chas.) That's why I feel these attacks (which is not your own, which I've seen the propaganda on the forum before) is more a social problem than a intellectual one.

Rav Chaim,

What do you think was the problem of Moshe Rabbeinu when God dictated to him His mission at the Sneh, that he objected :"They will not believe me when I will tell them that You spoke to me and sent me"? And their disbelief is justified! In order to obey a prophet, follow a law, or beleive in creed, we need to KNOW that it is true - we want PROOFS.

Each Midrash Chazal you quote deserves a study of its own (if we are capable of understanding the matters they conceal in them). None of them is a proof that Shimon Bar Yochai wrote the Zohar, that there is transmigration of souls, or that there is a mystical domain which is sealed off entirely since Chazal DID write down in the Talmud all those mysterious stories.

If I say the Ramban does not refer to reincarnation from our sources, is not minimizing his Torah knowledge, in the same way that a Talmid who knows that the Sanhedrin is mistaken is not obligated to obey them on that particular halacha.

Quote "What do you think was the problem of Moshe Rabbeinu when God dictated to him His mission at the Sneh, that he objected :"They will not believe me when I will tell them that You spoke to me and sent me"? And their disbelief is justified!"
On the contrary, Hashem considered it Moitzie Shem Ra to say that Yisrael wouldn't believe. That's why he received Tzaras. See Rashi. What Moshe Rabeinu was worried about would be Nudniks that are trying to undercut his authority, as what happened by the Meraglim, korach.

Even if you want to compare this to Neviyos, once a Navi is Muchzik as a Navi, the Chazuka alone makes the obligation to listen to him. The Ramban is Muchzik as an authorities voice in Torah and cannot be dismissed. If you want to dismiss him, why not dismiss Chazal also?

Quote "Each Midrash Chazal you quote deserves a study of its own (if we are capable of understanding the matters they conceal in them)."

This contradicts your whole hypothesis. If you don't think we're capable of understanding the matters they conceal, how can you possibly claim that there is nothing in Chazal that talks about Gilgulim. We're not capable to understand what Chazal means, no matter how much of a library you have.

Quote "None of them is a proof that Shimon Bar Yochai wrote the Zohar, that there is transmigration of souls, or that there is a mystical domain which is sealed off entirely since Chazal DID write down in the Talmud all those mysterious stories."

What it does prove is that the Talmud is not the whole Torah, there are mystical parts of the torah that YOU don't know what happened to them.

Also, I proved that the written manuscripts are not the only way torah is preserved and can be learned by, as we see the words of the Bahag are Divrai Kabbalah, so to there are possible (and probable) other traditions that where passed on from rav to Talmid that wasn't officially recorded. Especially given the reason why it wasn't recorded as per the gemarah in Chagigah.

There are other methods besides these 2 that someone can learn Torah by (which these extra methods are written in the gemarah) I'll leave it at this for now to see if you can come up with them (in order to force you to think there is a bigger picture, and you shouldn't narrow your views, especially when you going up against Torah giants that your not in the class of people that are not in the class with them.)

Quote "If I say the Ramban does not refer to reincarnation from our sources, is not minimizing his Torah knowledge"

Yes it is. Your saying that the Ramban cannot fathom what some yukel could. That the Ramban would buy into dubious sources without realizing that they're non Jewish sources. Ditto to many of the greatest Ga'onim of the last millennia. Besides being highly insulting to these Ga'onim which our whole understanding of torah is based on, it's completely short sightness. It's not realizing your extreme limitation in your learning and not even knowing what you don't know. for example You're assuming that the only way to have authentic Torah is to have it from something written down, which I can think of at least 2 other ways pushut in Chazal and probable a 3rd (that includes many other ways.)

Quote "in the same way that a Talmid who knows that the Sanhedrin is mistaken is not obligated to obey them on that particular halacha."

This is wrong. If you see the Mekor of this (beginning of Hariyos,) you will see that you're leaving out an important condition to this which definitely makes this not apply to you.

If you didn't despise someone who brings up arguments you don't even try to understand, there might be a dialogue.

quote:

If you didn't despise someone who brings up arguments you don't even try to understand, there might be a dialogue.

You're coming with the assumption that you're right and the only reason people do not accept it is because they're not "trying to understand it." The truth is, I see your argument, and it very weak. I spent a lot of time typing and collecting from many areas of Shas that shows the assumptions that you base your conclusions on are false, which where never refuted. you expect more effort to "try to understand" your arguments more than you give to understand the Ramban and Gra (which you try to dismiss with the slightest "question.") Maybe you should read and understand what my arguments are? After all, I do seem to have a greater scope of Torah knowledge than you have. (I don't see you extensively quoting from Shas.)

Another problem with what you're trying to imply is that you don't give Ramban, Gra etc. any more credence then you would give, let say, President Bush. He cannot be believed unless he reveals his sources. Originally, you wanted to claim that since Shas doesn't flatly say it out, so it doesn't exist in Torah, so the Ramban must have made it up or received it from Goyish sources. This I amply refute that the Shas indeed admits there are mystical parts of the torah that it doesn't reveal.

Then you moved over, even though they existed, but since we don't (definitely) have manuscripts of it, then what the Ramban couldn't have the same Kabbalah. Then I proved to you that having a manuscripts (even if you say they didn't have, which you have no proof to, since you are not privy to know if he had manuscripts that was not made public to the public at large.)

Furthermore, in his introduction to his Pirush Hatorah (towards the end) the ramban says that he wrote the Kabbalah pieces solely for the Mekubalim and their students, and not for the public at large, since the probability of misunderstanding. It would seem, though maybe was the fist to come up with a public book with Kaballah thoughts written in them, that he was by no means the only Mekubal. That there where plenty of Mekubalim around and the Mesorah was passed on, either by private manuscripts or between a Rav and his students orally.

Now, it's not good enough that it's possible that the Ramban could of got it from a Kosher kaballah, but you don't trust him, so unless he shows you the actual place where he received his Kaballah.

Since your not going to continue the dialogue, I will say another way the Kabalah could be passed on, even if the Kaballah was totally forgotten.

Eliyahu Hanavi

Am I kidding?

Of course not. Shas has many places that bring that Eliyahu Hanavi taught the Tanaim and Amarayim Torah. We need not to go to far into Shas either.

Brachos 3a as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Once, when I was traveling, I
entered one of the ruins of Yerushalayim to pray. Eliyahu
waited for me at the door. Afterwards, he told me that I
should have prayed on the road.
1. R. Yosi: I was afraid that passersby would interrupt
me!
2. Eliyahu: You should have said an abridged prayer.
(b) (R. Yosi): I learned three things from this: one should
not enter a ruin, one may pray on the road, and one who
prays on the road may say an abridged prayer.

Eiruvin 43a
Seven teachings were said Shabbos morning in
front of Rav Chisda in Sura, and Shabbos afternoon in
front of Rabah in Pumbadisa [which is outside the Techum
of Sura; surely, the same person said them]!
1. Suggestion: Eliyahu said them (he flew above 10 from
Sura to Pumbadisa) - this shows that Techumim does
not apply above 10!

Kesuvos 106a
(b) Eliyahu used to teach Rav Anan. After this
episode, he stopped coming. Rav Anan fasted and prayed
until Eliyahu returned. He was frightened, and had to
sit in a box.
1. What he learned before this episode is called Seder
Eliyahu Rabah; after this episode, Seder Eliyahu Zuta.

I don;t quote Shas on reincarnation because it is not there, and that is my point that if it is not there, it is not a Jewish teaching.
The mystical allegories of Chazal do not refer to transmigration of souls and it is better to say "I don;t understand what they allude to" than to interpret them according to "keys" which are not compatible with the basic principles of Torah and the faith it teaches.
There are no "manuscripts" of the any holy writings which are not known, because if there was, being holy, Chazal would have mentionned them.
Eliyahu Hanavi is indeed a wonderful figure, but he did not teach the concepts of Kabala (transmigration, sefirtot, tzimzum, partzufim, and NOT TO PRAY TO HASHEM (!) because He is too far away in the skies (re-!,and there is nothing of the kind in Eliyahu Rabba or Zutta.
I understand it takes a lot of courage to dare question all the gdolim who adhered to this new doctrine called the Zohar, Kabaka, and Jewish mysticism ON THIS POINT, but in the same way I will not learn the laws of conquering and settling the land of Israel from Bush, I will not learn the Jewish mystic doctrine of Merkava from the Zohar. I have other keys for that.
Basic line: Anything that contradicts what Chazal teach does not come from Chazal, whoever teaches it. The Zohar is a system of its own, in total contradiction with what the Torah teaches. As long as you base yourself on the gdolim who adapted the Kabbala into the Torah, you cannot see that.