Rambam:Okay Kids let's talk a bit about olam haba! Who here is the smartest kid in the class.
[everyone looks at the nerdy kid with the glasses]
Rambam: Okay if he works really hard to do Torah and Mitzvot and THEN sits and studies philosophy for a long long time, then maybe, just maybe he will generate enough active intellect to gain immortality
Dumb Kid: But what about the rest of us?
Rambam: You guys are around so he won't be too lonely
Dumb Kid: But what happens after WE die
Rambam: Hmmm you'll probably be gone forever.
(The Rambam claimed to believe in the Resurrection of the Dead so maybe not FOREVER)
Posts
The ICC and Their Willing Collaborators
18 hours ago
20 comments:
Ancient Judaism had no idea of afterlife. You die and you stay dead. Not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. Afterlife is a fantastic marketing idea that was introduced by newer religions.
Off topic but basically true. In Ancient Judaism AFAIK reward and punishment were communal things.
The point of my post was that the Rambam took away much of the comfort of the afterlife by explaining it in a naturalistic, Aristotelian way.
This kind of explains why he did not really catch on until the haskala.
Shilton, you are invited to post here- http://thoughtsofasj.blogspot.com/2010/06/non-fundamentalist-bible-study.html
I think you misunderstand the Rambam because he does say that even if you are not that knowledgeable, if you were a good Jew there is still olam haba.
Where does he say that?
The best place to start is probably Rambam's peirush hamishnayos on the mishna in sanhedrin that says All of Yisroel has a Chelek in Olam Haba.
Also, where did you get the idea that he says otherwise? I am curious if you have a source or is it just something you heard?
One more question, if Judaism did not believe in the afterlife how did King Saul call up Shmuel Hanavi from his rest in Shmuel 1 chapter 28? Where was he resting? If once you die you are over then how did Saul call him up?
Also, where did you get this idea from "This kind of explains why he did not really catch on until the haskala. "
He "caught on waaaaay before the haskala. The controversy surrounding him and his books started shortly after his death and ended within a hundred years. So, by the 1400's everyone accepted him as a big part of Judaism. So much so that the Shulchan Orech used the Rambam as one of three major opinions to comopile his halachos. That was the 1500's. The haskala was not until the mid 1700's.
The truth is that he got recognized as a gadol in his lifetime and never lost that status. For about 200 years or so his philosophy was very widespread and accepted (at least in Spain and Provence). After the advent of kabbala most of Jewry stopped using HIS philosophy and focused on the philosophy of kabbala. His halachic work remained popular but people were more interested in studying the Zohar and Vital than the Moreh for hundreds of years. Rationalism was basically only revived during the haskala.
>One more question, if Judaism did not believe in the afterlife how did King Saul call up Shmuel Hanavi from his rest in Shmuel 1 chapter 28? Where was he resting? If once you die you are over then how did Saul call him up?
Excellent point! I'm actually not sure. I would assume that the Ancient Hebrew conception of an afterlife was something gloomy and un- fulfilling similar to the Greek afterlife.
It is clear that Kohelet, Tehillim, and Iyov did not believe in a REWARD after death.
E-man,
I will post some time in the future about the Rambam's exact views of the afterlife. I have to do some research before I can make an adequate presentation of his exact views.
"It is clear that Kohelet, Tehillim, and Iyov did not believe in a REWARD after death."
I do not think that is true at all. Just because they do not discuss it does not mean they do not believe in it. That is like the archeological argument against the bible, "We should have found something!" Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"Excellent point! I'm actually not sure. I would assume that the Ancient Hebrew conception of an afterlife was something gloomy and un- fulfilling similar to the Greek afterlife."
Why would you ASSUME that instead of ASSUMING the Gemorah is right?
Also, just something to think about, because that is really the only reason why I am commenting, why would Shmuel be angry at Saul for bringing back if the afterlife is un-fulfilling? If the afterlife was worse than life, wouldn;t Shmuel be happy he was being brought back?
>Just because they do not discuss it does not mean they do not believe in it.
There are explicit verses that say (or at least entertain the idea) that there is no reward after death. If you want I'll post the exact verses.
The whole book of Iyov makes no sense if you say there is an afterlife. Why can't God's justice simply be explained with an afterlife instead of the endless arguments between Iyov and his friends.
Also it is very conspicuous that such an important aspect of religion was just omitted by chance (or maybe on purpose TO TRICK US) from the Tanach
>Why would you ASSUME that instead of ASSUMING the Gemorah is right?
I only assume that because I have already decided that there is no important afterlife in the Tanach.
>Also, just something to think about, because that is really the only reason why I am commenting, why would Shmuel be angry at Saul for bringing back if the afterlife is un-fulfilling? If the afterlife was worse than life, wouldn;t Shmuel be happy he was being brought back?
Once again that is a plausible explanation GIVEN the assumption that there is an afterlife in the Tanach.
Why is he mad? I mean we could speculate to no end so I doubt its too productive but: Maybe he's mad because he's sinning by consulting an sorceress
>There are explicit verses that say (or at least entertain the idea) that there is no reward after death. If you want I'll post the exact verses.
Please do.
>The whole book of Iyov makes no sense if you say there is an afterlife. Why can't God's justice simply be explained with an afterlife instead of the endless arguments between Iyov and his friends.
I guess you have to read the Rambam and Ralbag's explanation in order to understand why this would not work. I understand the question, but I would suggest reading the Ralbag's commentary on Iyov and his views on punishment and reward. Also, the Rambam's, I think it is explicitly discussed in the Moreh.
Plus, this statement that you put forth plays on the idea of absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
>Also it is very conspicuous that such an important aspect of religion was just omitted by chance (or maybe on purpose TO TRICK US) from the Tanach
I showed you at least one place it IS found. I also do not know all of tanach by heart. Do you really feel confident in making this statement?
>I only assume that because I have already decided that there is no important afterlife in the Tanach.
Oh, so you assume that because you already made another assumption. Ok.
>Why is he mad? I mean we could speculate to no end so I doubt its too productive but: Maybe he's mad because he's sinning by consulting an sorceress
Shmuel only says he is upset that he was disturbed, not that Saul used sorcery. Had Shmuel been upset about the sorcery then Shmuel would have said why have you used sorcery to awaken me. If we are going to be literalists about this we gotta be literalists and not dance around, but take the plain meaning, no?
>Plus, this statement that you put forth plays on the idea of absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
I argue that conspicuous absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
>Oh, so you assume that because you already made another assumption. Ok.
Lol you do the same thing you assume the Gemara is right so you REINTERPRET everything that gets in your way. We all have SOME preconceived notions. I try my best to read the Tanach with an open mind and the conclusion I got from the overall picture of things was that it does not really believe in much of an afterlife.
THEN the few possible exceptions I explain according to my conclusion. No need to get snarky.
EVERYTHING in the Tanach can be reinterpreted to fit the Gemara. To this I agree. However I believe that those reinterpretations are forced and are a bit unrealistic. Read my post "How to Read the Bible".
Verses coming up....
some verses (thanks to the convenience of Hebrew wikipedia!)
כִּי הַחַיִּים יוֹדְעִים, שֶׁיָּמֻתוּ; וְהַמֵּתִים אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים מְאוּמָה, וְאֵין-עוֹד לָהֶם שָׂכָר כִּי נִשְׁכַּח, זִכְרָם. גַּם אַהֲבָתָם גַּם-שִׂנְאָתָם גַּם-קִנְאָתָם, כְּבָר אָבָדָה; וְחֵלֶק אֵין-לָהֶם עוֹד לְעוֹלָם, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-נַעֲשָׂה תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ
Kohelet 9:5-6
לֹא הַמֵּתִים יְהַלְלוּ-יָהּ; וְלֹא, כָּל יֹרְדֵי דוּמָה
Tehillim 115:17
אֵין מַעֲשֶׂה וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן, וְדַעַת וְחָכְמָה, בִּשְׁאוֹל, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה הֹלֵךְ שָׁמָּה
Kohelet: 9:10
Read this Hebrew wikipedia article (from where I got the sources) it brings a lotta pertinent sources.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%90#.D7.94.D7.A2.D7.95.D7.9C.D7.9D_.D7.94.D7.91.D7.90_.D7.91.D7.AA.D7.A0.22.D7.9A
Note: I realize there are Rabbinical interpretations to the verses above. I just don't believe those interpretations are "pashut peshat"
The link brings me back to this page.
Here is the deal, none of these things have a simple meaning that denies the afterlife. It talks about how man no longer can do anything on earth. That is true since an afterlife is completely removed from the world. Now, maybe you could argue that this denies the revival of the dead, I have heard that argument, but none that it denies an afterlife.
I still think there are reasons not to believe these verses deny anything, but that is because I know how to explain everything and how perfectly it fits with Chazal's ideas.
You decide to understand the verses according to some recent interpretation on the tanach and I rely on one that, I believe, came from when it was created. Which one is more reliable? You don;t think chazal are reliable to interpret this, I do. We disagree. However, do you really think the simple meaning of these verses denies the afterlife?
Sorry here is the link again :
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%90
The tone of these verses is very pessimistic. Why the pessimism! There is a heaven full of spiritual delight why does Kohelet have to mope about dying so much?
>how perfectly it fits with Chazal's ideas.
I know how to explain everything acc. to Chazal also been there done that. That's what I spent high school doing trying out all sorts of explanations for "seemingly problematic" verses.
>You don;t think chazal are reliable to interpret this, I do.
I judge what people say not who they are (or were in this case) When Chazal has a good explanation for something I will be the first to admit.
>However, do you really think the simple meaning of these verses denies the afterlife?
Yes. I'll tell you the truth the main reason I decided that there was no afterlife in the Tanach was from contrasting Chazal's stress on it to the almost non-existent mention of it in the Tanach. I just can't believe that the Tanach would fail to give an elaborate account of such an important theological concept.
It is so conspicuously absent that I had to assume that it was absent from Ancient Israelite religion.
Post a Comment