I have heard that somewhere in Shas, there is a case of Gilgul neshama mentioned. Is there actually such a case, and where is this to be found?
7
-
1There are many ways to understand the expression “gilgulei neshamot”. For example, in some places it is referring to how a person changes through the course of their life experience in this world. How are you intending your use of this expression?– Yaacov DeaneDec 29, 2019 at 14:02
-
3@YaacovDeane my impression is that isn't the common understanding of the term...– robevDec 29, 2019 at 18:18
-
@YaacovDeane what was the question– KapinKrunchDec 29, 2019 at 18:59
-
Shabbat 152aff.– Dr. ShmuelDec 29, 2019 at 19:47
-
1@YaacovDeane the fact that your explanation is discussed doesn't change common perception– robevJan 1, 2020 at 3:08
|
Show 2 more comments
1 Answer
No there are no explicit sources. In fact Rav Saadia Gaon in Emunos V'Deos explicitly rejects this concept and considers it a non Jewish concept. The Rashash in the back of the gemara in Bava Metziah 107 brings an indication from that gemara against concept of gilgulim.
(This does not mean other do not hold of the concept, in fact many Rishonim ,and even Geonim do ,but a source in Shas is not explicit).
-
@sam סתירה קצת means ‘a minor contradiction’. That is not by any measure a “clear rejection”. It simply means the detail needs clarification. And the quote from Emunot v’Deot is also incorrect. You don’t understand what Saadia Gaon is saying there. Dec 29, 2019 at 16:15
-
-
1I am unsure what you are talking about but it seems pretty clear from his writings that he rejects the concept in its entirety, and I do not understand how saying that the Baal Shem was a gilgul prove anything. Also see his third argument against gilgulim which seems pretty straight fwd,not sure how else you can learn Rav Saadia– samDec 29, 2019 at 19:47
-
1I really am trying to understand your position but having a difficult time ,I read through Emunos Vdeos and it seems like we read 2 different books. How do you read his 3rd argument ?– samDec 31, 2019 at 23:43
-
1It says "hashlishi" והשלישי הבאתם את דבריהם על דרך ההוכחה, ואומרים כי הבורא מעשיו צדק, ואינו מייסר טף אלא על עוון שהזידה בו נפשם בזמן שהייתה בגוף אשר לפני גופם. ועל זה יש תשובות רבות: הראשונה שהם התעלמו מאחד סוגי הגמול אשר הזכרנוהו9. ועוד שאנו נשאל אותם על המצב הראשון, כלומר בתחילה כאשר נבראה, האם הטיל עליה ה' משמעת מסוימת או לאו. אם יאמרו לא הטיל עליה, הרי נפלו כל העונשים, מפני שלא היה צווי כלל, ואם יאמרו כן התחייבה, והרי הנפש אז טרם הונחה וטרם הוזהרה10. נמצא שהודו שהוא מחייב את בני אדם על העתיד, לא על העבר דווקא, והרי חזרו למה שאנו אומרים בגמול ועזבו את שיטתם שאין ייסורים אלא על מה שעבר.– samJan 1, 2020 at 3:36