I’ve been misunderstood here. I didn’t mean a great problem to consider, only that i think a rabbi would want to clearly distinguish between ‘legend’ and what is derived from the Old Testament. Not at all that they wouldn’t discuss it. And you have identified why that would come up with this issue, it’s not surprising for rabbis to be asked about life after death in the context of the extensive and ubiquitous Christian ‘legends’. A rabbi asked about life after death wouldn’t want to give the impression of having a known answer.
That part I get, and your other point about Pascal’s Wager being about the next life is part of this.
It’s perfectly reasonable to do things to avoid punishment, but punishment, even death or the death of the soul, is finite. Since I assume you are not 100% certain about Judaism being true, you did a calculation that resulted in you deciding that your actions had a benefit to you. No argument there - our assessment of the probabilities of Judaism being true just differ. (And if for some reason I had to adopt a religion I’d go right back to shul.)
In Pascal’s Wager the punishment is infinite, so no matter what your assessment of the probabilities unless you get an infinite reward for not believing, you would do better to believe.
Pascal’s Wager doesn’t fail because of that, it fails because it assumes that no other god will punish you infinitely, and that options are only the Christian God or no god. Also that God won’t know you believed because of an economic calculation, not faith. Terry Pratchett had a footnote about this, where someone on Discworld took the wager, died, and found a batch of gods not pleased by his actions.
Or, in Jewish terms (assuming I understand you correctly), Pascal’s Wager fails because it assumes that no other god will punish you infinitely, and that the only options are either the Jewish God or no god.
Good point. But I will repeat something I wrote at the beginning, but may have gotten lost in the rest of this conversation. Namely, it was 50 years ago that I made this wager/calculation. A teenager at the time, I was already predisposed to Judaism because that’s how I was brought up. As I got more and more into Judaism, and as I learned more and more about it, I became more and more convinced that the Jewish God is the One and Only Real God, and there’s no other gods to worry about.
If I was still sitting on the fence and hedging my bets, I might have explored other religions, at least to the point of choosing between “It’s definitely not true” vs “It’s worth worrying about.” But that’s not how it ended up happeneing, in my case.
As I understand it, Lilith isn’t referring to a mythological creature. Lilith was kind of like the Karen of their day. It was an inside joke for rabbis that Lilith was Adam’s first wife, and was such a harsh and demanding harpy, Adam had her replaced with Eve.
This doesn’t fit anything I’ve ever heard. Ardat Lilitu was (OTTOMH) a Sumerian goddess. When Judaism came along, it made her into a demon type thing. Lilith is blamed not only for wet dreams, but for various wasting diseases and sudden infant death syndrome.
Yes, whatever these Lilu are supposed to be, they are already mentioned in Sumerian—definitely not invented by some Rabbi.
I wish I could support my claim. I could have sworn I read it on Wikipedia, but I just looked Lilith up and found nothing like that in all the myths about her. I can’t even find it outside of Wikipedia.
I hereby retract my Lilith post. My point was to explain that Lilith wasn’t necessarily considered a mythological creature, but it turns out that for the most part, she was.
I wouldn’t call the Christian take on life after death “legend”. That’s official dogma, and rather central to the religion.
Not life after death itself, but the popularized notions of what heaven is like with people in their human form, wearing white robes, earning wings, and not minding the lack of beer.
Some relatively modern “interpretive” English translations of the Tanakh, incorporating Rabbinic teachings from the Gemara, use the phrase “world-to-come”. For example here is one translation of Leviticus 18:5, from Torah Yesharah (1965; PDF scan of page courtesy of Sefaria):
By observing My moral decrees and My civil judgments, you will live in the world to come: I am the Eternal, Who will reward you.
My understanding of the concept as taught by my rabbi was some sort of future utopian paradise. But nobody knows, or can know, what it will be like.
~Max
To me, this is an excellent example of Rabbinic teachings. More specifically: Much of this thread has been requests to see where the Torah/Tanakh/Bible talks about the afterlife explicitly, in black and white. And much of the response (my own included) has been pretty wimpy, along the lines of how it depends on interpretation and stuff.
Well, here’s an example of where the literal words of the verse are so close to the rabbinic understanding that we accept the rabbinic teaching as if it were explicit. So let’s see what this particular verse is saying.
-
King James translation: Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
-
New American Standard: So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
-
Revised Standard Version: You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live: I am the LORD.
-
Jewish Publication Society: Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
The classic commentator Rashi explains that the word “live” in this context can’t possibly mean here in this world. His words (my translation) are: “[Live] in the World-To-Come. If you would say that it refers to this world, doesn’t everyone eventually die?”
Thus, although one might not think so at first, the translation which Max_S gave us IS an excellent illustration of how traditional Judaism understands that verse.
By the way, the translation which Max_S cited diverges from the others in several other points as well, not only by adding the words “in the world to come.” And I applaud that translation for the changes.
For example, do any of us, off the top of our heads, know the difference between a “statute” and a “judgement” or an “ordinance”? I certainly don’t. So that translation tells you why the original Hebrew version’s Author chose to use those particular words, and what the connotation is behind those words.
Similarly, all four of the translations which I cited close with “I am the LORD”. Duh! Of course He is the Lord! If you look at the rest of that chapter, it’s pretty obvious who is speaking! So why does this verse need to emphasize it? According to Jewish tradition (again as recorded by Rashi on this very verse) it is to remind us that He is reliable and faithful to give us that reward.
It says “I Am The Lord” at least 6 times in that chapter alone. There’s nothing special about that verse.
Good point. It would be interesting to figure out what - if anything - those cases have in common.
My 2 cents. Different streams of Jews have different emphasis on the concept of an after life. Chassidim (and there are many groups but some of these stories trace back to the Baal Shem Tov, the initiator of chasidism) have many stories that imply heaven is an actual ‘other world’ place. Such as great Rabbi’s who were offered wealth in this world but then dreamt about their heavenly reward and all their predecessors learning at golden tables, but their table was missing a golden leg as they were to receive it in this world instead of the next, then waking up to pray not to have wealth. Many others in this vein.
Other stories have leaders of previous generations hanging around the throne of God interceding on the jewish community (or an individual’s) behalf to ameliorate harsh heavenly judgements.
Other stories cover great Rabbi’s who are visited by in-person visits by deceased Rabbi’s who sit with them all night to learn.
Then you have some who ascended to heaven in a chariot while still alive (some of the prophets).
For what it’s worth, there are at least two streams of though in general for all elements Jewish. The mystical approach and the rationalist one. IIRC, Rambam (Maimonedies), a famous rationalist, probably did not believe in an after life (and perhaps not even a soul - not clear on this). Even then, things are not black and white as he did believe in some things we would consider less aligned to his other beliefs but that was more to do with what was generally considered fact at the time.
Regarding the 12 months of punishment after death, the tradition is to stop saying the Kadish prayer for the dead after 11 months as an indication that we do not believe our dead loved one was evil enough to warrant the full 12 months punishment.
Again, among many of the chasidim (not sure about Litvaks), there exists the concept of providing an Aliyah for the Neshama. What that means is that by doing good works in the name of a deceased person, you can provide him the merit so that his soul is further elevated (the implication being that his soul exists somewhere and benefits from this elevation).
But like most of the others, little is formalized and orthodox jews generally just absorb a sense about heaven/hell. Even the name for heaven, Gan Eden, literally translates to The Garden of Eden, which in Bereshit (Genesis) was an actual place on earth. Same with hell, referred to as Gehinom (also an actual place in Israel).
Probably the DMV or a Walmart.
Actually, it was a valley where the people of Jerusalem burned their garbage.
Some of those Chassidim also seem to have been excommunicated for heresy by Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, better known as the Vilna Gaon, which just goes to show this sort of thing is/was not uncontroversial.
And it sounds like the possibility that if you did not become more Jewish you’d get your butt whupped by God had nothing to do with it. I’d say that your actions were far more sincere than if they were driven by the fear of punishment.
I have heard many Christians who have deconverted and become atheists express fear that they may be wrong and will be punished eternally for it. I’ve never heard a Jew say this. I certainly didn’t have this issue.
Pascal’s Wager isn’t about being right, it is about making the safest bet. My path a bit over 50 years ago was different from yours, but I respect your choice.
Could well be. Many memories have faded, but I do know that Pascal’s Wager was only one of several factors. For example, the intellectualism of the many laws and rules appealed to me greatly.
Excellent point. There are many objections to his wager and it seems to me that those critics fail to grasp what you said so simply.