Conference taveng::bagels

    This is my knowledge of Judaic beliefs about death and after-life. 
    Maybe other noters can add their own knowledge.
    
    1.  The earliest patriarchs (and presumably matriarchs -:) ) thought
    they would join their ancestors in "sheol" - which does not translate
    as heaven or hell - usually "pit".  It was not articulated more than
    this.
    
    2.  There have been significant strains of reincarnation belief in
    Judaism, although not as clearly articulated as in Buddhism or
    Hinduism.  This is still an element in contemporary thinking.
    
    3.  There is a traditional belief in resurrection at the coming of
    Moshiach.  This is why burial is popular on the slopes facing
    Jerusalem: so the resurrected ones could "roll" right into Jerusalem.
    Traditional Judaism requires burial of the body without autopsy,
    removal of body parts for transplantation, and with the burial in the
    same grave of any medically removed body parts, such as an arm or leg. 
    This is primarily to respect the corpse, but is also, I believe,
    related to the belief in physical resurrection.
    
    4.  I was taught as a child, in Reform Hebrew school, that "nobody has
    ever come back from the dead, so we cannot know what follows."  In
    prayers, we said the dead are taken to G-d.  I think this is what most
    Jews believe, at least the non-Orthodox.  
    
    5.  Judaism strongly stresses life, not death.  What matters is how a
    person lives.  A person's life continues in the memories of those still
    alive - primarily through their ethics.  This is why it is popular for
    people's surviving children to donate hospital wings and schoolrooms in
    their memory.  The Kaddish, used as a prayer for the dead, consists
    entirely of praise for G-d.  This embodies the heritage of the dead. 
    Some Jews write ethical wills for their children.  During Yizkor
    services memorializing the dead, conducted at major holidays, the
    congregants pledge charity (tzedakah) in the memory of the dead.  It is
    traditional to donate to a charity which the dead person espoused, or
    which they would have cared about.    
    
    All Jews have this belief and practice.  This is the most important
    element in Judaism relating to death.
    
    
    I hope this helps our non-Jewish readers who wonder about this.
    
    I see little relationship between Jewish and Christian beliefs about
    death.  Christianity picked up resurrection, making it a much more
    important part of its theology, compared to its role in Judaism. 
    Resurrection in Christianity has a greatly detailed theology and
    emphasizes spiritual resurrection at the coming of a global Messiah,
    the return of Jesus.  
    
    Heaven, hell and purgatory are entirely Christian.  There is some
    informal Jewish folk belief in heaven and hell, but this is not part of
    our formal theology and probably has its source in our close proximity
    to Christians in Europe.
    
    Christianity greatly stresses the soul - it seems to be considered a
    discrete entity that enter the body at conception, leaves it at death,
    and goes to heaven or hell.  Judaism's beliefs about the soul are quite
    different.  There is no exact correspondence.  Judaism actually has
    several different words that are often translated as soul.  For
    instance, neshamah is a sort of spiritual identity while ruach is the
    life energy in the body; Nefesh is also translated as soul - maybe
    somebody else can explain what nefesh means.  While Judaism believes
    the "soul" is a spiritual entity that enlivens the body, it does not view
    it as a discrete, "trackable" entity.  
    
    Laura

    Another element in Judasim relating to death is the naming of children. 
    While Sephardic Judaism allows the naming of children after living
    relatives, Ashkenazic (European) Judaism strongly discourages this. 
    However Ashkenazic Judaism does strongly encourage naming children
    after deceased relatives.  Neither practice is actually codified in the
    Talmud; both are customs enforced within the community.
    
    For example, my daughter is named Ilona Marie, with a Hebrew name of
    Miriam (related to Marie).  She is named directly after my husband's
    grandmother Ilona Steinhart.  The first Ilona Steinhart narrowly
    escaped from the Nazis in Austria.  She was a traditional European lady
    of Hungarian derivation who loved opera and baked great strudel.  The
    name Marie is a variation of Mamie.  Mamie Himoff was my grandmother. 
    For her entire life, she was dedicated to the Jewish community.  She
    worked tirelessly for charities and for senior citizens.  Her Hebrew
    name was Miriam.  (The name Marie is a Hellenic form of Miriam.)  I hope
    my daughter embodies these qualities of Jewish identity and commitment,
    culture, and family life.  She honors the Jewish people's survival of
    the Nazi holocaust.    By her name Miriam, I hope she feels tied to the
    earliest Jews, and remembers the exodus from Egypt.
    
    So you see, by naming my daughter this way, I have perpetuated the
    memory of two of her great-grandmothers.  She will explain to her
    children, some day, how she got her names, and the original Ilona and
    Mamie will live on to the next century.
    
    Laura

    Our (liberal) rabbi explained that most Jews consider it proper to
    donate organs only to identified individuals - for example, if I were
    to donate a kidney to my brother.  But most disapprove of organ donor
    programs that "mutilate" the body after death - probably the same set
    of people who object to cremation.  I am an extreme liberal in this
    matter: I carry an organ donor card.  I think that bodily resurrection
    in the "time of the messiah" (a hazy concept anyhow) is an extremely
    remote possibility, whereas my corneas, etc., might help someone else's
    life after I'm gone.   I recall the issue of "amputated body parts"
    coming up in a discussion a few years ago, too - the ruling we got was
    that only body parts containing a bone have to be preserved to be
    buried with the person when they die - this came up because one of our
    congregation members had a mastectomy; the excised tissue and tumor did
    not have to be kept (according to this interpretation, anyway).
    
    I guess I think that the "time of the messiah" will be brought about by
    our own human actions to improve the human condition, not awarded to us
    by G-d apart from any actions of our own.  So I view donating my organs
    after I die as a way that human life might be improved.
    
    /Charlotte

My wife and I are split on the organ donation issue, she is an organ donor and I 
refuse on the ground that I won't contradict the Halacha.  I realize that organ
donation could save someone else's life, but I'll try and find another way to 
contribute.

--David

re heaven and hell:

The Jewish belief in a (sort of) heaven and hell (olam haba and gehinnom)
predates European Christianity -- it's mentioned in the Talmud.

    I thought olom haba means "world to come".   Does it really translate
    into heaven?  It always seemed rather vague to me.  How do people
    imagine it? What qualities are ascribed?  You are right - I forgot
    about gehinnom.  
    
    You can tell how I was raised - neither concept is familiar to me.
    
    Laura

Re: .0 (Steve)

>    What are some of the schools of Jewish thought on what happens to man
>    after we die?  Is there an afterlife?  What is it?  Is there a
>    resurrection?  What does the Bible say?  

Usually not a question answered on one foot. Nevertheless in a
nutshell... 

Contrary to popular opinion, the Jewish Bible does indeed refer to
resurrection:

	The dead men of your people shall live, my dead will arise.
	Awake and sing, all who dwell in the dust...and the earth
	shall cast out its dead (Is. 26:19).

	Therefore prophesy, and say unto them, "Thus says the L-rd
	G-d, behold I will open your graves and cause you to come
	up out of your graves, O my people...And you shall know 
	that I am the L-rd, when I have opened your graves" (Ez. 37:12-14).

	...and there shall be a time of trouble, such as had never
	been before...and at that time your people shall be delivered - 
	every one who is found written in the book. And many of them that
	sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting 
	life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:1,2).

	But go your way till the end; and you will rest, and you will
	stand up...at the end of days (Ibid. 12,13).

>What did the ancient sages
>    say?  

The Sages had a very rational approach:

	If those who had never been came to life, surely those who 
	once had been would come to life again (Sanhed. 91a).

However, this promise does not necessarily apply to all equally:

	The power of rain is for the righteous as well as the wicked;
	the resurrection of the dead is for the perfectly righteous
	only (Ta'anit 7a).

>What do modern sages say?  What do *you* say?  8-)

	Those who are indeed sagacious hold their peace (Pes. 99a).
	(See Rabbi J. David Bleich's "In Perfect Faith," where many
	of the classical sources are compiled and translated).

Re: .1 (Laura)

>    1.  The earliest patriarchs (and presumably matriarchs -:) ) thought
>    they would join their ancestors in "sheol" - which does not translate
>    as heaven or hell - usually "pit".  It was not articulated more than
>    this.

There are indeed verses which on the surface appear to contradict the
principal of resurrection (e.g. II Sam. 14:14). Maimonides, in 
_Ma'amar Techiyat Hametim_, deals at length with these questions and 
distinguishes between the apparent contradictions. If you look 
carefully at the verses in Daniel quoted above, much of the 
answer becomes apparent. 

>    2.  There have been significant strains of reincarnation belief in
>    Judaism, although not as clearly articulated as in Buddhism or
>    Hinduism.  This is still an element in contemporary thinking.

I think we need to distinguish between "reincarnation" and "resurrection,"
which is the subject of the base note. The two are not synonymous, although
both subjects are treated on extensively by the _Rishonim_ (medieval
sages).

>    4.  I was taught as a child, in Reform Hebrew school, that "nobody has
>    ever come back from the dead, so we cannot know what follows."  In
>    prayers, we said the dead are taken to G-d.  I think this is what most
>    Jews believe, at least the non-Orthodox.

Another distinction: _Olam Haba_ (the world to come) is different from
physical resurrection. In Maimonides' treatise, the former is described
as an existence in which the spirit is not confined to bodily elements,
whereas the latter refers to a rejuvenated state similar to life as
we know it (eating, drinking, procreating and finally dying [Ben would,
of course, insert paying taxes]). The latter is, of course, one of Maimonides'
Thirteen Principals of Faith.

>    5.  Judaism strongly stresses life, not death.  What matters is how a
>    person lives. 

But "life" is measured only in decades. Although ideally an individual
would seek ethics and good deeds simply for their own sake, in fact
people don't. If there is no reward and no punishment, there is also
no incentive for (most) people to weigh their deeds. With human nature 
in mind did our Sages say, "a person should always study Torah and perform 
mitzvot even with ulterior motives, for through ulterior motives one comes
to do them for their own sake" (Pes. 50b).

>    Heaven, hell and purgatory are entirely Christian.  There is some
>    informal Jewish folk belief in heaven and hell, but this is not part of
>    our formal theology

These statements are not accurate, but are subjects for another note.

Re: .3 (Charlotte)

>    I guess I think that the "time of the messiah" will be brought about by
>    our own human actions to improve the human condition, not awarded to us
>    by G-d apart from any actions of our own.

Actually, both are true. Isaiah (60:22) says regarding the redemption,
"in its time, I will hasten it." Our Sages (San. 98a) comment, "if they 
merit it, it  will be hastened, if not, they will have to wait until 
its time." 

Re: .5 (Gerald)

>The Jewish belief in a (sort of) heaven and hell (olam haba and gehinnom)
>predates European Christianity -- it's mentioned in the Talmud.

There are many thought-provoking talmudic-era dicta regarding this life and 
the hereafter. Among the more famous Midrashim are, "this world is
compared to Erev Shabbat, and the world to come to Shabbat - one who
toils on Erev Shabbat will eat on Shabbat; this world is like land
and the world to come like the ocean - if one does not prepare food
on land, what will he eat at sea?" (It must be close to lunch time. :)

Re: .6 (Laura)

>    I thought olom haba means "world to come".   Does it really translate
>    into heaven? 

If your definition of Olam Haba is "everlasting reward," then it's 
roughly equivalent.

Jem

	Another reference to add to Jem's outstanding reply in .7:

	When Job is facing his "friends" (who are, to say the least, less than
comforters), he describes in Chapter 19 *why* he is as dedicated as he is.
Included in this passage is the following reference:

	"I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter
day upon the earth;  and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in
my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold"
(vs. 25-27)

	David, as well as others, refers to "sheol" as the place of the dead:

	"For my soul is full of troubles, and my life draws near unto Sheol"
(Psalm 88:3)

	Later in that same passage, the psalmist appears to also support the
idea of a resurrection in vs. 10:

	"Wilt thou show wonders to the dead?  Shall the dead arise and praise
thee?"  (asked rhetorically, along with a number of other questions, all of 
which have the obvious answer of "Yes").

	Sheol is often referred to as a place to which the dead go.  It is
roughly equivalent to the grave, where all human activities cease; a terminus
of life.  Yet it is a place of sorrow, and (apparently) full consciousness
(viz. Isaiah 14:9-17, which describes the original fall of Lucifer; Ezekiel
32:21).

	I have always understood 'gehinnom' to refer to the place in the Valley
of Hinnom, just south of Jerusalem, where human sacrifices were offered, and
which was later turned into a continuously-burning rubbish heap.  It seemed to
illustrate the idea of unending judgement of the wicked, and was always
associated with extreme evil:

	"And he (Manasseh, the evil son of Hezekiah) caused his children to
pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom; also, he observed
times, and used enchantments, and practiced sorcery, and dealt with spirits and
wizards; he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord."  Chronicles 33:6

	"For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord...
they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son
of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire."  Jeremiah 6:30ff

	'Nuff for now...

Job, in 7:6-10 (in my reading) explicitly denies that there is a life after
death, and seems to clearly be telling God that if his lot is not soon
improved it will be too late: "Remember, O God, that my life is but a
breath; my eyes will never see happiness again. The eye thatnow sees me
will see me no longer; you will look for me, but I will be no more. As a
cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who goes down to the grave does not
return."

In fact, I remember reading a discussion of the Talmudic attitude towards
Job, which said that the Talmudists faulted Job for denying the existense
of a world to come.

As to psalm 88, the author is (I think) clearly saying that the dead do
*not* praise God, so if help is not forthcoming soon, it will be too late.
To me, the rhethorical questions clearly have an answer of "no!":

    (10-12) Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead
    rise up and praise you? Is your love declared in the grave, your
    faithfulness in Destruction?  Are your wonders known in the place of
    darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?

Again, I can't recall the source, but I remember reading another discussion
of the Talmud which includes the question, "Why does David say that the
dead do not praise God?" and the answer is "Because they are exempt" (just
like women and slaves!)

� Job, in 7:6-10 (in my reading) explicitly denies that there is a life after
� death, and seems to clearly be telling God that if his lot is not soon
� improved it will be too late

	Interesting; I have always understood that passage in terms of any kind
of *reincarnation*, not an afterlife.  As you mention, vs. 9 and 10 say that
"he that goes down to the grave [sheol] shall come up no more"... yet you didn't
continue into verse 10:  "He shall return no more to his house, neither shall
his place know him any more."

	To me, that's always seemed a verification that there will not be a
simple return to "normal life" -- a bodily, day-to-day existence as one knows
it today.  But I think that the other passage I mentioned goes beyond that.
Job *does* say that his body will decay (see earlier reply); that tends to agree
with this passage -- his body will not return to its former existence.  But
he will see God, and God will see him.

	If anything, I would tend to believe that the *two* passage combined
support a) some sort of an afterlife, and b) an afterlife that is *not* a simple
reincarnation to this "life" as we know it.

	Good food for thought...

	F

	I also meant to add that the psalmist, in Psalm 30, praises Adonai for
deliverance by using the analogy:  "O Lord, you have brought up my soul from
the grave [sheol]; you have kept me that I should not go down to the pit."

	So there does appear to be a "salvation", or rescue from or alternative
to, sheol.  (Of course, what could start an interesting discussion here is the
reference to bringing the "soul" up from the grave... not the body.  And what
that all involves...)

	F

              
Re: .8

Louis' point is correct - Job did deny the tenet of _techiyat hametim_
(resurrection): 

	But man dies...and where is he?...but man lies down and
	does not rise...they shall not awake, nor be raised out
	of their sleep...if a man dies, shall he live again?

						Job 14:10-14.

>	"I know that my redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter
>day upon the earth;  and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in
>my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold"
>(vs. 25-27)

I don't have much time right now, but your quote raises several
questions:

1. Who the "redeemer?"

2. What does "he shall stand" mean?

3. If the passage refers to resurrection, how can he claim
that he will "see G-d," doesn't this directly contradict
G-d's own pronouncement, "for no man shall see Me and live?"

The Hebrew term _goel_ is used not only to mean
"redeemer." It also means "avenger" (one who seeks to avenge
the blood of an accidentally slain relative 
[see Num. 35:12,19,21]) and "close relative"
(who is obliged to repurchase the field of an impoverished
relative who had sold it out of desperation - Lev. 25:25,
Ruth 2:20).

Malbim indeed translates _goali_ as an "avenger" of
sorts. Here is the passage in context:

	23. Oh that my words were now written, that they
	were inscribed in a book! 24. That with an iron pen and
	lead they were engraved in a rock forever!
	25. For I know that my avenger lives and in the end
	he will stand on the earth. 
	
Job is facing his accusing "friends," who feel that he is
unrighteous and has brought all the misfortune upon himself.
He wishes that his story would be written, so that future
generations could judge his righteousness for themselves.
Specifically, that an "avenger" would arise who would
"fight" Job's "battles" - i.e., justify his actions and
demonstrate his righteousness. He feels assured that an
unbiased reader of such a biography would have to come
to such a conclusion, and that "in the end" such an 
individual is sure to arise, although he had no such
luck during his lifetime.

	
The next verse Malbim sees as a retort to his "friends'"
attempt to comfort him by speaking of the immortality
of his soul:

	26. And after my
	skin and flesh is torn from my body, can I see G-d
	with my eyes?...

That is, another instance of his denying the principle
of resurrection.


Rashi says that _goel_ actually refers to G-d Himself.
The phrase "he shall stand," however, is a mistranslation -
it simply means that after all else has died (including
his accusers), G-d (Who knows the truth about his 
righteousness) will *endure* (see Is. 40:8, and the
Targum there).

In the following verse, the term _Eloah_, usually translated
as "G-d," is profane, to be rendered "judgment" (that is,
his flesh will experience the "judgment" of disintegration
after death. (For other instances of G-d's name being used
in a profane sense, see Ex. 21:6; 22:7,8,27; I Sam. 2:25;
Ju. 5:8; Ps. 82:1,6; 138:1. Similarly, the term "lord"
is used for persons other than a diety in English).

There are other references to resurrection in the Bible
(including the Pentateuch itself), but this is clearly
not one of them.

Jem

>Again, I can't recall the source, but I remember reading another discussion
>of the Talmud which includes the question, "Why does David say that the
>dead do not praise God?" and the answer is "Because they are exempt" (just
>like women and slaves!)

I don't remember any such answer. The Gemara in Shabbat says that
one should involve himself in Torah and mitzvot (precepts) during
his lifetime, for he cannot do so after death, since G-d derives
no praise from the dead (i.e., a "soul" doing mitzvot would have
no value, since there are no forces tempting it to do otherwise).

Jem

         Some of the objections to the concept of resurrection can be 
    explained when it is understood that the context of a word determines
    its meaning. There is an apparent contradiction when verses are
    produced whose surface structure gives the appearance that its just
    "lights out" for everyone. But I think we confuse the surface structure
    of a language when we ignore its semantic structure.
    
         Inflection and volume are ways to determine the semantic value of a
    statement. In the Torah we do not have these unless context supplies
    them, e.g. "his wrath was kindled." So we find it necessary to locate
    all the usages of a word, determine their individual contexts and come
    to a conclusion. Nephesh supplies a case in point and, I think,
    substantiates the idea of a resurrection.     
    
         The Hebrew noun prdominantly translated "soul" or "life" is
    nephesh. Its use as the subject of verbs expressing emotion (Gen.
    34:8), volitional activity (Ps. 77:2, and intellectual thought (Ps.
    139:14) as well as its association with the noun "heart" (Dt. 6:5),
    indicates that nephesh embraces the concept of the immaterial sphere of
    life. Yet nephesh is also indicative of narrower meanings such as mere
    "appetite" (Jer. 22:27), of animal life (Lev. 24:18), and even of the
    material human corpse (Lev. 21:11). While it is true that in some
    contexts nephesh is distinguished from terms for the material "body"
    (e.g. 1 Ki. 17:21), nontheless, there is an emphasis in the Torah on
    the *unity* of body and soul (Gen. 2:7) interrupted only by death (Gen.
    35:18).
    
         Generally speaking nephesh has a broader range of meaning than the
    English word "soul." Nephesh may refer to (1) the material body, (2)
    breath, (3) desire, and (4) the essential being, the whole or totality
    of a person or thing. An example of meaning 1 is seen in levitical laws
    of cleanness where contact with a dead "body" (nephesh) is forbidden
    (Lev. 21:11). An illustration of 2 is seen in Job 41:21: "His 'breath'
    kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." Meaning 3
    encompasses various senses of appetite as when G-d allowed an Israelite
    to eat from his neighbors vineyard "at thine own 'pleasure' (Dt.
    23:24). A study of Genesis 2:7 yeilds meaning 4. Here God "breathed"
    into material dust and it became a living "soul" (cf. Is. 10:18). In
    this regard nephesh may unfold varying degrees of specificity: from
    mere "life" (Jonah 2:5) to the *essential being* of man (Ps. 42:2),
    depending on its context. In contemporary English usage "soul" has both
    meanings 3 and the immaterial aspects of 4, but meanings 1 and 2 are
    absent. The basic distinction between the English and Hebrew is that
    the English word range comprehends only the *immaterial* whereas the
    Hebrew embodies the *corporeal* as well. There is an objective emphasis
    in the use of nephesh which the English word "soul" falls short of.
    
         This knowledge of nephesh aids in better understanding certain 
    passages in the Torah. (1) When Scriptures state that, "the 'life' of the
    flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11), it is not saying that the blood
    simply contains animate properties, but that the *essence* of the
    creature is in the blood. (2) Where we are told to love the L-RD "with
    all thy heart and with all thy 'soul'" (Dt. 10:12), The Torah is not
    simply stacking synonyms for emphasis, but drawing attention to the
    fact that not only the "heart," the inner seat of man's affections, but
    also the material being, the *soul*, with its emphasis on the totality
    of man's being, is intimatly connected to one's devotion to G-d (cf.
    Ps. 25:1). No strict dichotomy between soul and body which
    characterizes many pagan religions and which resulted in 2nd century
    A.D. Gnosticism is in view.

    John

Re: .14

I'm not sure how much light your exposition sheds on the 
discussion of resurrection per se, but it is interesting
nonetheless. However, some objections:
    
>    volitional activity (Ps. 77:2, 

Didn't find this one in my Tanach.
    
>    and intellectual thought (Ps.
>    139:14)

This verse is not necessarily referring to strictly "intellectual
thought." See commentator Malbim, who indeed interprets it more
in terms of "spiritual apprehension."

>    as well as its association with the noun "heart" (Dt. 6:5),
>    indicates that nephesh embraces the concept of the immaterial sphere of
>    life. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "association." The fact that they
appear in the same verse? If anything, this indicates contrast
rather than association. The Jewish interpretation of _bechol
naphshecha_ in this verse is that one must be prepared to sacrifice
his very life (soul) to demonstrate his love of G-d.

>    Yet nephesh is also indicative of narrower meanings such as mere
>    "appetite" (Jer. 22:27), 

I don't agree. The Hebrew word in that verse associated with "desire"
or "yearning" is _Menase'im_, which modifies _naphsham_, just as
in English one might poetically say that his soul yearns for an 
object. This does not change the meaning of "soul."
    
>    of animal life (Lev. 24:18), 

This is not inconsistent; animals also possess "souls" (although they
are of a different calibre - see below).

>    and even of the
>    material human corpse (Lev. 21:11). 

According to the Talmud, the word _naphshot_ was included here
to indicate that not *only* a corpse, but even a measure of
*blood* without the corpse being present renders the High
Priest unclean ("for the blood is the soul").

(Aside: to get a sense of how much is utterly lost in 
translation, see Baal Haturim on this verse, who 
ingeniously discerns that the last letter of each
word in this verse is paired, to support the talmudic
teaching that a *mixture* of blood from two corpses
combines to the minimal _revi'it_ measure for impurity).

    
>    While it is true that in some
>    contexts nephesh is distinguished from terms for the material "body"
>    (e.g. 1 Ki. 17:21), nontheless, there is an emphasis in the Torah on
>    the *unity* of body and soul (Gen. 2:7) interrupted only by death (Gen.
>    35:18).

I don't understand the point you're making. In each of those cases,
the "soul" is clearly distinguished from the body. 
    
>         Generally speaking nephesh has a broader range of meaning than the
>    English word "soul." Nephesh may refer to (1) the material body, (2)
>    breath, (3) desire, and (4) the essential being, the whole or totality
>    of a person or thing. An example of meaning 1 is seen in levitical laws
>    of cleanness where contact with a dead "body" (nephesh) is forbidden
>    (Lev. 21:11). 

This verse has already been addressed. Had the Torah been referring to
the corpse alone, it would have been sufficient to say _met_, without
the modifying _naphshot_.
    
    
>    An illustration of 2 is seen in Job 41:21: "His 'breath'
>    kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth." 

In the Tanach it is in verse 41:13. Here "naphsho" is used 
with poetic license, allegorically referring to breath (see
Metzudat David). It's interesting to note, though that this 
example is from Job, who as pointed out in previous notes
denied the existence of a hereafter.

>   Meaning 3
>    encompasses various senses of appetite as when G-d allowed an Israelite
>    to eat from his neighbors vineyard "at thine own 'pleasure' (Dt.
>    23:24). 

As above, this is used in the sense of "as your soul desires" (see 
Targum Yonatan on Deut. 23:25). The soul and the heart are portrayed
alternately as the seat of desire (vis. Ps. 21:3). 

>    A study of Genesis 2:7 yeilds meaning 4. Here God "breathed"
>    into material dust and it became a living "soul"

As above, man is not the only creature referred to as a _nephesh
chaya_ (living soul), however this verse is where we see that
his soul is unique, G-d having breathed a "breath of life" into
his nostrils. Onkelos translates the words as "a soul with the
power of speech," the quality which distinguishes him from the
rest of the animal kingdom (when used properly). The emphasis
in this verse is on _nishmat chaim_ (a breath of life), which 
*defines* the essence of the human *version* of _nephesh chaya_.
See Nachmanides who treats on the term _nephesh_ in contradistinction
to _neshama_ at length.

>(cf. Is. 10:18). 

I don't see the point. Here the body is clearly differentiated
from the soul.

>    In
>    this regard nephesh may unfold varying degrees of specificity: from
>    mere "life" (Jonah 2:5) to the *essential being* of man (Ps. 42:2),

I don't know what you mean by "mere" life -- my life isn't "mere."
When you are in a state of distress, you are concerned primarily
with *preserving* your soul; when you are at peace you may strive
to *fulfill* your soul's desires.

>         This knowledge of nephesh aids in better understanding certain Old
>    Testament passges. (1) When Scriptures states that, "the 'life' of the
>    flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11), it is not saying that the blood
>    simply contains animate properties, but that the *essence* of the
>    creature is in the blood.
    
I'm not sure how this fits into your thesis. If nephesh can broadly
be used to mean more than an intangible soul, the most natural 
living substance to use it for would be the ultimate life-giving
substance, blood itself.
    
>    (2) Where we are told to love the L-RD "with
>    all thy heart and with all thy 'soul'" (Dt. 10:12), The Torah is not
>    simply stacking synonyms for emphasis, but drawing attention to the
>    fact that not only the "heart," the inner seat of man's affections, but
>    also the material being, the *soul*, with its emphasis on the totality
>    of man's being, is intimatly connected to one's devotion to G-d 

See above. The terms "heart" and "soul" refer to totally different
manifestations of one's love for G-d.

    
>    (cf.  Ps. 25:1). 

Again, this verse is not inconsistent with the English usage of "soul."

>No strict dichotomy between soul and body which
>    characterizes many pagan religions and which resulted in 2nd century
>    A.D. Gnosticism is in view.
>
>    John

I don't think that you've proven this thesis here, (although I'm
not defending paganism :).

Jem

	A couple of questions that relate to this issue, that I'm hoping someone
can help clarify for me.  In the ahmidah (sp???), one of the 13 phases is a
prayer of resurrection.  How does this apply to the discussion at hand?

	Also, in addition to an earlier reference by Job that he would "see
God" after his death, there are several instances of individuals who were taken
to be "with God" without (apparently) suffering death.  (I know that this more
directly relates to the original topic of "afterlife", as opposed to "resurrec-
tion", but I thought it might fit here.)

	I'm thinking of two instances: one reported in Genesis, where Enoch
"walked with God, and he was not; for God took him."  Took him where?  Is this
an indication of something beyond/after this "mortal" body?

	The second case, of course, is the prophet Elijah -- perhaps the most
notable individual who "didn't die".  When Elijah transfers the "mantle" of
responsibility to Elisha, there is a scene where "there appeared a chariot of
fire, and horses of fire... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
Same question:  doesn't this bespeak of something above and beyond this mortal
self, something here referred to as "heaven"?

	F

Re: .16 (Frank)


F>        A couple of questions that relate to this issue, that I'm hoping someone
F>can help clarify for me.  In the ahmidah (sp???), one of the 13 phases is a
F>prayer of resurrection.  How does this apply to the discussion at hand?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "13 phases" - it is called "Shemona
Esrai," referring to the original *18* blessings, later expanded to
19.

Anyway, the second blessing is indeed the blessing of _techiyat hametim_,
and quite simply reflects the ancient Jewish hope for that Biblical
promise in the messianic era, may we merit it speedily.

F>        The second case, of course, is the prophet Elijah -- perhaps the most
F>notable individual who "didn't die".  When Elijah transfers the "mantle" of
F>responsibility to Elisha, there is a scene where "there appeared a chariot of
F>fire, and horses of fire... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
F>Same question:  doesn't this bespeak of something above and beyond this mortal
F>self, something here referred to as "heaven"?

Indeed it does, although the case of Elijah is obviously unusual,
in that he is thereby thought never to have died at all. (In fact,
Jews reserve a "Cup of Elijah" at the Passover Seder, and a "Seat
of Elijah" at circumcisions.)

Jem

    Reply to .12
    
    Christians believe that the redeemer is Jesus.  Christians also believe
    that Jesus said that if you see Him (Jesus) you have seen G-d.
    
    
                              Marshall

    
    Re: .18
    
    Just because they believe it doesn't make it true. I think we should
    take this discussion offline.
    
    Jem
    

    Reply to .19
    
    Why take this offline?  I do not intend to push it here because that is
    not why I placed the reply.  I just stated it in passing due to the 
    question in .12.
    
    
    
                                  Marshall

    
    Re: .20
    
    >    Why take this offline?
    
    Because this is a Jewish conference. Christian interpretations
    are probably more appropriate in the Christian conference.
    
    Jem
    
    

    Reply to .21
    
    Then why do you allow me to place replies in the note on Messiah
    without protest?
    
    
    
                            Marshall

    Re: .22
    
    My offer to take the discussion offline applies to all
    such matters. When an interpretation is presented which
    I consider false or misleading, I will point that out 
    publicly. 
    
    *Questions* about Judaism are altogether appropriate in
    my view. Unsolicited Christian commentary is far less
    appropriate in a Jewish conference (again, in my opinion).
    
    Jem
    

    RE: .23, what is wrong with diversity of opinion? Your's is not the
    only one out there Jem. Your knowledge on Judaic subjects is well known
    and respected, but there can be other opinions that have the right to
    be heard. Let us not make this notesfile as closed minded as some
    others on religious topics.
    
    Eric

    Re: .24
    
    Whoa!  What a "last liner"!
    
    ;-}
    
    Richard

If someone asks what the Christian view of such-and-such is, it may be
appropriate to post a reply like .18.  But since no such question was
asked in .12 (which .18 refers to), I agree that it's inappropriate.

In other words, this notesfile is not an appropriate place for Christians
to evangelize.

    Having been brought up in a country (England) in which christian
    theology is a mandated school subject, and living now in a country
    where it is extremely difficult to avoid hearing about the christian
    point of view, especially in December and the Spring, one of the
    pleasures I receive from reading BAGELS is to hear the many diverse
    JEWISH points of view.  I value diversity, and I value difference of
    opinions, however, I am sure I speak for many of the BAGELers who are
    not the slightest bit interested in hearing any more than we have to
    about christian theology. (My education on the subject was more
    thorough than that of most of my non-jewish friends).   There are many
    non-jewish BAGELers who ask very thought-provoking questions, which
    provide for an interesting set of answers, which in themselves may
    disagree.  If you wish to ask why we have a certain interpretation, by
    all means, ask your question.  But please do not expect us to have to
    tolerate christian theology in our notes file; it is equivalent to
    having a jew stand up in church and denounce christian beliefs, or
    having a white person make racial comments in an African-American
    notesfile - equally objectionable, I would expect. 
    
    If you would like to hold a private conversation on judaic vs.
    christian interpretations, I'm sure there would be many people willing
    to oblige, but please, not in BAGELS.
    

    Reply to .26
    
    Gerald,
    
    I assumed that the question in .12 was "Who is the redeemer?"  I also
    assumed that the question was asked of all who are taking part in this
    note.  How am I to know when someone asks for a "Christian view"?  
    
    
                                     Marshall

    RE: .27
    
    I agree with Mr./Ms. Kaplan that this is not an appropriate place for
    Christian evangelization.  It is not difficult to distinguish
    evangelization from curious inquiries or the honest exchange of views. 
    
    There was a similar problem recently in the INDIA notes file, btw. 
    in a basenote titled, "Hinduism burden to India".
    
    In such cases, I think this course of action is best taken:
    
      - Post a reply stating that the individual's discourse is inappropriate
      - Decline to debate with him
    
    This is why I have not responded here previously.  I prefer to use 
    my energy for better purposes.
    
    Laura