Belief in this world and the next and in the resurrection of the dead

The rabbi doesn't study the Bible, so he can't tell you what's written in the Bible.

I didn't mean that 🙂
As I've written several times in the past, I argue that even if something is written in the Bible, it is subject to so many interpretations that it is difficult to derive a clear position on any given subject. If an "eye for an eye" becomes a treasure, and if a "forever" of a slave becomes a "forever" of the Jubilee, etc., etc., I don't see how verses in Ezekiel that speak of the resurrection of the dead cannot be interpreted as metaphors. Therefore, in my opinion, it is difficult to derive a clear position from the Bible on such subjects and in general. This is of course also the reason why I don't see much point in studying the Bible. Why engage with a text that teaches me nothing but what I actually think?!

You cannot claim that there are tenets of faith that are a later invention as you claimed (which of course invited the question above) without assuming that you have direct access to the original text in which, according to you, these tenets of faith are not found (and this direct access may be whatever it may be - Semitic philology, grammar, or literary analysis). Without this direct access, the claim that these tenets were invented at a later period is simply invalid. Since you claim that we do not have direct access to the text because everyone puts into it what they think, the question arises, so where do you claim that they are a later invention? From intuition?

To the questioner, you certainly meant the book of Daniel (not Ezekiel): And many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake, some to eternal life and some to eternal damnation. And you shall go to the end and rest and stand for your lot at the end of the right hand.
And it is not a hint but an explicit source no less than the words of Chazal themselves (although it is not from the First Temple period, of course).

Regarding the afterlife, at the time I wanted to add some sources to the Wikipedia entry on the subject, but I didn't have time and slowly the desire diminished with it... I remember at the time I had in my pocket photographs on this subject from all sorts of books that I didn't have time to add to the discussion (but it broke).
From what I remember, I took most of the things here from Joshua Inbal in his book on the Inhabitant, but also from other people and books. Sometimes I mentioned who I took them from.

The Torah hardly talks about what happens after death, but at the same time it never denies an afterlife. There are many references throughout the Bible that hint at this.
1. The story of creation in Genesis presents a dualistic view... And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) Given this understanding, it is reasonable to assume that just as the human body returns to the ground, the soul returns to its source. Thus the verse in Ecclesiastes testifies to the soul's survival after death. As it says, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
2. From the story of Enoch, it can be assumed that there is a system in which souls exist in heaven: “And Enoch walked with God, and God took him not.” (Genesis 5:24). So also Rachel, weeping for her children in Ramah (Jeremiah 31:1). Elijah ascended to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11) and Malachi prophesies that the prophet Elijah, who had departed from the people hundreds of years earlier, would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.” (Malachi 3:23). David expresses that while he will meet his son after his death, his son, on the other hand, will not return to him while he is alive (2 Samuel 12:23).

3. Introduction to the concept of “his people” and”cut off”.”I will be gathered to my people, and they will bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite” See the words of Rashi and the submission of Rashi there.
In any case, the abstract from the verse “the opposite” “and that soul was cut off from its people” and so on’ It is a cutting off from eternal life
And so it is said about the cutting off of circumcision on Maimonides and others (Ya Elizur)

3. It is said about the fathers – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and about other individuals who were “gathered to their people” Even in the place where they were not buried with their ancestors (Genesis 25:8, 25:17, 35:29, 49:29, 49:33, Deuteronomy 39:51. 1 Kings 1:21 and many others.)
For example, it was said to Moses, “And you shall die on the mountain where you are going up, and be gathered to your people: as your brother Aaron died on the mountain, and was gathered to his people.” (Deuteronomy 32:5) All these expressions show that the belief in life after death always existed among the people of Israel. Death was for them nothing more than a union with the fathers or with the people who had already passed away, and all are united in the world of truth. The expression “gathered” means to bring something to its true place, to its homeland, and the expression “gathered to its people” therefore shows that the world of truth is considered the true homeland of man.
4. As opposed to the phrase “and he shall die and be gathered to his people,” the punishment that comes upon someone who commits certain offenses is — “and that soul shall be cut off from among his people” (Numbers 16 and many others), meaning that he will not be reunited with his people after death. It is worth noting that this punishment is mostly applied to the soul (Exodus 12, 15:19, 31:14, Leviticus 7:20, and many others.) While the soul is not mentioned in the expressions about death itself mentioned above. This may be so, because the punishment specifically harms the soul, while the body is certainly gathered to the grave of its ancestors. “Gathered to his people,” on the other hand, was initially applied to both the body and the soul.
5. The prohibitions on conjuring and inquiring of the dead, which are woven throughout the Torah and the Prophets, clearly show that the belief in the survival of the soul was widespread in their time. As it is said in Leviticus (20:27) and Deuteronomy (18:17), “There shall not be found among you a man who shall seek his friend, and shall inquire of his father, and shall know me, and shall inquire of the dead.”
6. In the book of Samuel, chapter 28, it is described how Saul seeks to speak with Samuel, who has already died. This clearly shows the basic belief prevalent during the time of Saul, King of Israel, in the survival of Samuel’s soul. Moreover, Samuel appears to him, and even speaks to him. (It is interesting to note that the spirit-born Samuel is angry with Saul, “And Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you displeased me by bringing me up?’ For he is in a place that is good for him there.’)
7. Abigail said to David in 1 Samuel (25:29): And a man rose up to pursue you and to seek your life, and the life of my lord was a snare in the midst of the life of the LORD your God, and the life of your enemies he will pierce in the palm of the spear.” Some commentators have seen this as eternal spiritual existence in contrast to the punishment of the wicked.
8. In the book of Kings it is said (chapter 22, 23) “And the spirit went out, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will pierce him” Here we see the existence of a spirit and its activities and its connection with God and in prophecy also the absence of the body.
9. In the book of Numbers, chapter 23, Balaam wishes that he would be worthy to die like Israel and that his end would be like them. We clearly see from this a perception that implies belief in the world to come. “Who will number the dust of Jacob and number the fourth part of Israel? My souls will die the deaths of the righteous, and my end will be like him. ”
10. Certain psalms in the Book of Psalms clearly state that reward and punishment will occur in the future as a prophecy about the deeds of the wicked, for example in Psalm 49 (and this can also be inferred from Psalms 33:17). Similarly, at the end of Ecclesiastes chapter 12 it is said, “The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every deed, whether it be good or evil.”
11. Some claim that in some places the word Sheol means hell, and this is perhaps implied by what is said in the book of Proverbs: ” Do not withhold discipline from a child, for if he is trained in the Sabbath, he will not die: if he is trained in the Sabbath, he will deliver his soul from the grave… Do not envy sinners, for if you fear the Lord all day long, your hope will not be cut off.
11. It is possible to interpret part of the meaning of the word "life" and "death" in the Torah as life and death in the world to come, as is possible and implied in Psalm 17 (17): "For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol; you will not allow your faithful one to see corruption." Make me know that I will live a life of seven days, rejoicing in your presence, delights at your right hand, and victory. ” And in the same way, the commandment of the Torah can be interpreted as the interpretation of the translation: “And you shall keep my statutes and my judgments, which a man shall do, and I will live in them: I am the Lord. ” (Leviticus 18:17) . And conversely, as it is said in Ezekiel 18:17 about the reward of every man according to his deeds ” “The soul that sins shall die”.
12. There are verses in which we see that the righteous will be remembered before God, and the wicked will be remembered badly. For example, it is said in Proverbs 1:17; “The memory of the righteous brings blessings, but the name of the wicked will rot.”. And the request that God remember Sanballat for his evil deeds “May my God remember Tobiah and Sanballat for these deeds, and also Noadiah the prophetess and the rest of the prophets who feared me.”
13.
14.
The Resurrection
In conclusion,
It is important to remember that when combined with the various evidence, it does appear to be true that the belief in reward and punishment after death is indeed reasonable and necessary.
1. Reward and punishment was a widespread belief in the ancient East and therefore it is not unreasonable that it is also among us. For example, the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
2. There are several verses that hint at this, even if the interpretations of some of the verses can be debated, in the end, when the cross-reference of the verses + tradition + explanation, etc. joins a certain interpretation that easily fits into the verse, it is worthy of acceptance.
3. From explanation it is logical to assume that there is such a thing as a reward for the righteous who do the will of God. And punishment for the wicked like Hitler. And look at the extensions.
4. This is the tradition and there is certainly no reason to reject it, considering the additional data.

PS
In section 3 it is written incorrectly and confusedly. I wrote it incorrectly at the time. True. It turns out that the punishment of cutting off is a punishment in the hands of heaven and not in the hands of man as the commentators have extended, but it is unclear whether the intention is cutting off from the next world or from this world..
(The reference to Mi’ Elitzur is also inaccurate)
And there is more room to expand on this subject.

Again, a mistake, I saw that there were two Section 3s. So I meant Section 3 first.
I suppose the amount of errors in the way and content of the writing here explains why I stopped writing on this topic….

Dear Y, I did not claim that there are such, but that there could be such. What I wrote is that I am not sure that all the principles are tradition and not a later invention. Am I allowed to claim that? Thank you.

“In the beginning, our ancestors were idolaters”
The origin of these beliefs is as ancient as idolatry.

Gilad: The story of Enoch does not mention the afterlife (at least according to Genesis). If you mean the book of Enoch, then it is very late and achronistic. It is not difficult to see that it is actually a pseudo-epigraphic book. It is even forbidden to read according to the sages. Moreover, even the Christians did not consider it a sacred book. The descriptions of God there are very fulfilled.

Regarding 3: I don't agree at all. First of all, the word “nefesh” in the Bible means “life”, not נפש in today's sense.
Note that every place where the word “nefesh” is mentioned, as well as נשה, speaks of human life.
Perhaps the word רוח, refers to the soul in its Naachak meaning, as in “and the spirit will return to God who gave it”.

“And was gathered to his people” or ”and lay down with his fathers” is a description that is consistent with the burial ritual in the ancient East, and has nothing to do with the afterlife.
The interpretations that interpret it this way are very late and very interpretive. Incidentally, Maimonides' interpretation is based more on Aristotle's view than on an explicit verse, the union of the intellect with the Logos.
And yet, as can be understood from his words, Maimonides is not entirely closed to this view.

“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return”

That is, according to the Torah, Paradise existed in the past, and after sin, man was punished. We are in hell. 🙂

Yoav, I'm sorry, but from the verse it doesn't seem that way to the Hadiya. The simple interpretation is the religious claim, certainly combined with the concept of “his people” which usually refers to family members from the previous generation.
The gathering is not the burial. The “soul” is what joins the previous generations.

Forgive me, you are all discussing here the world of souls that exists in the present parallel to this world, while the questioner spoke of the next world – that will come after this world in the future. Well, such a utopian world is the universal destiny of all the prophecies of the prophets - this is the world in which there will be no wars and delicacies will be found as dust and we will return to the reality of the Garden of Eden where children play with snakes without fear. Although this is not related to the resurrection of the dead, of course. Without a doubt, the novelty of the resurrection of the dead is Jewish in nature and more indicates the form of existence of the believer in the present than his physical state of accumulation in the future: a person who believes that he will return to this life in peace with all his loved ones and family, etc. ’ cherishes and appreciates life here and now because it is his entire world. In this and in the future. The Torah emerged within cultures that all believed in the world of souls and the sanctification of death. It does not oppose this and hence it is clear that it believes in the existence of this reality. But her silence shifts the focus to a moral life here in this world and to family life, which is the true inheritance (A. A. Samet on the daughters of Tzafahad). Hence, the idea of resurrection is a consistent result of these views. To say: If there is life after death, then it is exactly like your life here. So invest in it. (And look at the successful comic book Kamikaze by the Hanukkah brothers, which is entirely a description of the behavior and fate of the suicide bombers in the club after a mob. They are all continuations of

Continued – Their lives continue as in the real world, with the only difference being the location of the suicide scar. Brief. An important article was written about this in the past by Shalom Rosenberg, and Moshe Ratt elaborates on it in his website “Mysterion”

Gilad, there is no mention of ”soul” or “soul” in the verses (at least not in its current meaning). Note that all references to “soul” or “soul” appear only in the sense of life. In contrast, the concept “spirit” is mentioned in the sense of soul as understood today.
Note that even in the story of Saul and the woman of fear, what is being brought up is Saul's spirit and not his soul or spirit.

“And was gathered to his people” corresponds exactly to the ancient burial ceremony in the Ancient Near East. Initially, the concept meant physical burial, until in the course of the natural development of the language it described death without physical gathering (similar to many words and phrases that have changed a little from their original meaning and are used in everyday life).

Note ”And all that generation was gathered to its fathers” Were they all righteous and worthy of the world to come?

I agree that we should discuss the contrasts of the words “نفع” “ناسنشما” “روح” and so on. But in any case, there is no doubt that when there is a certain meaning then the interpretation will go in its direction even where they need to say the same thing twice in different words. A simple and natural one. (But there is another better meaning)…

A. In any case, from the verse it seems to the Hadith that it is divided into two ideas.
(1.) “And they sent them away, and he said unto them, I am gathered unto my people (2) Bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite.”
I will copy with some editing the commentary of the Bible on the verse
And Rashi has already mentioned on a site that the word ‘gathered’ also carries the meaning of income.
And it is further evident that the scripture speaks of two ‘gatherings’:
(1.) The gathering of the “Spirit of God” which He breathed into the nostrils of man. And as the wise man says: “And the spirit shall return to God who gave it” [God ” Note that the idea of the spirit is somewhat parallel to the soul of life..]
(2.) The other – The bringing of the body of man to the place of the graves of his fathers. And in both of them the word aspa falls.

So I do not understand why you want to connect the parts of the verse? It seems to me like apologetics.

B. Also,
I do not understand why the idea of “gathered to his fathers” Opposes and ignores the idea of “soul” or “soul”. What do you want Jacob to say?! My soul/spirit/and my soul is gathered upon my people that this is the place where the spirit will return to God?!? That sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry.
A hint of this (which I found in a Bible commentary on Judges and see more below) is found in Samuel 2: ” And now why do I fast to return? I go to him and he does not return to me.”
I think the idea is the same.. and the meaning of the verses alludes to the same idea.

C. I can only quote the language of Rabbi Hirsch On the website: Customer from mg.alhatorah.org:
I will be gathered and so on – Chazal explains: “If you are successful and take care of me, or if not, I will be gathered to my people” (ibid.). Whether you bury me or not, and wherever you may bury me, it does not concern me in any way. “I”, my true self, will already be in heaven; and on its way there the soul does not need any human help. But for you, it will be a necessity and a right to deal with my body, which I leave behind. Carry it to the earth and the place where my fathers lie, and lay me beside them.

2. Regarding the judges and the generation of Joshua, (I used the website sefaria.org.il)
The verse says this:
“And the day Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD the son of Maah, died And he was buried in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, which is on the east side of Mount Gaash. And all that generation also were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the work that he had done for Israel. (S) ”
A.
I have only to bring the words of the Midrash:
Otzar Midrashim, Midrashimi Kasser Vetar 1:12

All his fathers in the Bible are missing except for 3: And also all that generation were gathered to their fathers (Judges 2:10) complete, why? All that generation were righteous and complete, as it is said, And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua; You will come to the generation of his fathers (Psalms 49:20) complete, to teach you that the souls of the wicked walk with them in darkness because they are full of wickedness; his whole heart was prepared to seek God, the Lord, the God of his fathers (Deut. 32:19) [to inform you that he was complete]. Here are three names, and what is the meaning of the verse: Not the God of Ahaz, nor the God of Amaziah, nor the God of Jehoram ben Shaphat, nor the God of Ahaziah, nor the God of Jeroboam 21, the God of David, the God of Solomon, the God of Asa, the God of Jehoshaphat, the God of Uzziah, his ancestors, was full of 16 against six righteous men before him and six wicked men.

B.
I will ask you the same question, were all of them, without exception, buried in the ancient burial ceremony?!…
C.
According to your words, it may be more appropriate to come and argue that the verse simply states that they all entered into the burial of Joshua's ancestors. As it is said, and also all that generation was gathered to its ancestors. His ancestors were exact.

Gilad: You don't seem to have understood me. I'm not claiming that the verse is talking about someone who is buried only with their ancestors, but rather it's a natural development of language. Until ”gathered with their ancestors” became synonymous with deceased.
Note that the term “passed away from the world” originally refers to the righteous. Today, every person who ”dies” has become ”passed away”.

My claim is that the term “soul” and ”soul” mean life. There is no reference anywhere to its current meaning. It is possible to discuss whether “ruach” means soul, but “soul” and ”soul” mean life. Although the words are not exactly synonymous, the intention is still in the sense of life.

A. I don't understand why the verse is divided? Abraham is actually saying, "I am about to die, bury me in a cave." This is the meaning of the verse. All the rest are interpretations that do not appear in the text. If anything, this is apologetics. Incidentally, Rashi interpreted the concept of cutting off as cutting off the lineage.
In any case, this is a later interpretation that did not recognize the language and culture that prevailed during the Tanakh period.
Rashi is also not known as a commentator who sticks to the simple but rather extends the interpretation.

B. "Gathered to my people" refers to the dead. From the parallels between the concepts "soul" and "soul" in other places, it can be seen that the intention is not "soul" as it is today. Even in the Sages, the concept of pikuach nefesh does not refer to the supervision of the soul, and in the Bible there are many quotes like "no soul shall live".
I tried to bring accurate quotes, but I have a space limit on the site. Therefore, my responses also come in several parts.

Thanks for the responses,
But I have two questions about your responses Rabbi Michael,
If the Mishnah was preceded by writers such as Josephus Polybius and Philo of Alexandria, etc. (whose writings I am not familiar with), we can glean from them evidence about those periods, right?

Secondly, you wrote, “And this is of course also the reason why I don’t see much point in studying the Bible. Why engage in a text that teaches me nothing but what I think in the first place?!” Does your statement negate Bible study as a mitzvah or diminish its value, or do you think that there is a mitzvah in it but you don’t find a reason in this mitzvah (such as the prohibition of tattoos or circumcision of the hair of the head, which according to the Maimonides is for reasons of imitation of the Tsava) and therefore you believe that this is what should be done even though it makes no sense?

Yoav, even if the expression of being gathered to his ancestors is an expression of someone who has passed away. There is no expression that simply goes beyond my grasp.
That he is being put in the place of his ancestors from previous generations.
It is clear that one can argue about everything and claim that it speaks to the situation, etc.
But when there is tradition + reason + simplicity of things, it adds up.

Gilad is right, the original expression speaks of burial. But it apparently underwent a transformation until it became a synonym for ”deceased”. Many modern words and expressions have undergone and are undergoing transformation.
For example, the word bank, its original meaning is bench. Because money changers in the past would sit on a bench around the ports and make transactions, the word bank underwent a transformation to its current meaning.

When it comes to colloquial language, like in the Bible, this is even more noticeable. The interpretations and explanations are late to the period. They did not know the biblical nature and language. There is no clear tradition on the matter. The simple is very different from these interpretations.
It is based more on assumptions. Some of which generally followed opinions and ideas that prevailed in those periods when the sages lived and less on the text itself.

It is true that people usually choose the simple explanation.
I have nothing to add except that this is a simplification of words, probably in conjunction with the rest of the information.
As I wrote before, I know that this belief was widespread in the ancient world, such as in Egypt.

I don't understand how these are simplifications of words? There is no mention of ”gathered with his fathers” in the context of the world of souls, the underworld (which from other quotes in the Bible we can see that both the righteous and the wicked go there) or a state of consciousness of union with the Logos (which the chances that the Bible writer referred to tend to 0).

In my opinion, my explanation is much simpler and assumes much less.
By the way, I'm not sure that the Egyptians believed in the duality of body and soul, otherwise they wouldn't have embalmed their dead.

Note also that the questioner sought evidence for this belief from the Bible, not from later commentators.

His ancestors are no longer alive, and this does not speak of burial. As Rabbi Hirsch specifies there.
You want to claim that this is an expression that developed and began with the burial of people and developed into an expression for death.
That's right
And you don't use later commentaries that try to explain the Bible (maybe it's because you also use theories)

As far as I know, it was in Egypt and I gave the name of the book above.

Again, Rabbi Hirsch is a later interpretation. When you understand the culture and the world of biblical concepts, you see that the expression cannot describe the world of souls. Note that in the entire Bible, everyone goes down to Sheol. Both the righteous and the wicked. Even Jacob and Saul.
Note that in relation to section 4, most of these commentators will not agree with you. And yet you still claim it.

My theory (and by the way, it is not mine, there are many who agree with me) is based on findings and connections from what is written in the Bible. They are not hanging in the air. On the other hand, the interpretations are sometimes very disconnected from the biblical text (for example, Maimonides). And since the questioner asked for evidence from the Bible, then from the very beginning these interpretations are not valid, and are the opinions of the sages, not to mention speculation.

Regarding the Egyptians, I didn't mean that they didn't believe in the survival of the "soul", but I'm not sure they believed in dualism. That is, it is possible that the body and soul are not separate even though the soul continues to exist after death. And the sight of the spear of the dead or the excessive attention to the body.
If so, I'm not familiar enough with the mythologies and beliefs of ancient Egypt to determine.

By the way, the section about Shaul and the woman with the fear does not necessarily have to be a belief from Sinai. It could be that it is an influence from outside (I am not claiming that such a possibility does not exist, but the story is not evidence).
The fact that Shaul was raised does not prove that he was indeed raised. It could be that it was a case of poor people being deceived.
After all, even today there are all kinds of people who claim to speak with the dead, read fortunes, and more.
The Radak also interpreted it this way. Not to mention the Rambam who claimed that it was a deception.
So if you are basing your argument on commentators, it would be appropriate for you to present the full picture.

I think we are overthinking all the explanations on the table.
You are attacking the traditional commentators too much for no real reason. Certainly not on this subject and in this case.

It seems to me, “from the side” that you are too much of an apologist for the research owners. Certainly with the huge ad hominem that is happening here.
Real research is supposed to reach the truth by weighing the majority of the data. As we know, there are two “simplest interpretations of the Bible” – there is the literal simple interpretation and there is the simple interpretation from a broad perspective.
But in this case, we will answer that you do not have both.

If there is no innovation in the following response, then I will not respond. Because I predict that this will lead to an empty and time-wasting debate.

Where did you see ad hominem here? I didn't attack anyone personally. Unlike you in your last response. Where did you see apologetics here?
I'm not really defending the authors of the study here. Although their perception is often more reasonable, since they know the biblical culture and mindset better. And yet, even on the interpretive level, your words are controversial. Note that you also brought things that most commentators will not agree on (section 4, section 6, etc.).
True, real research is supposed to consider all the data, and not just what it seems to him (certain commentators, ignoring the parallelism of certain words, etc.).

The questioner asked for evidence in the Bible for the existence of reward and punishment in the next world (in the Bible, not the Toshbin, not the interpreters, the Bible), so I respond accordingly. If he wanted to hear what the commentators say on the matter, I would respond differently, and also bring all the perceptions.

In the 23rd of Elul, Gilad beautifully listed the many sources in the Holy Scriptures that explain the survival of the soul, and in stating that science has discovered the ‘law of conservation of matter’ and the ’law of conservation of energy’ and the other laws of physical conservation– it is easy to believe that the human spirit, his thoughts and feelings – are not lost, but continue to exist even after the end of the body.

With greetings, ShÞz Levinger

Notice the disregard for the world in which the Bible takes place, the disregard for commentators who don't say what you want to hear, the disregard for biblical perception and thought (since when is the underworld in heaven? Notice the concept of conjuration, the spirit of Samuel was raised up), the disregard for the context of the words and their meaning (“You shall not revive any soul” does that mean killing the souls in your opinion?).
Is this real research? At least you were honest with yourself and showed the full picture.

24:3 Elul 8:8

To Yoav, greetings,

The soul is spiritual, so the discussion of its “place” is in the form of a parable. As Ecclesiastes concluded, “the body will return to the dust it was, and the soul will return to God who gave it.” Man has merited that his soul is “bound in the bundle of life with the Lord your God,” as Abigail blessed David. Man has not merited that his soul is rejected from the presence of God, but as in the image of Abigail, “and the soul of your enemies will be snared in the grip of the sling.” Or as the common image goes, "The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that have forgotten God" (Psalm 13).

But even from Sheol there is a cry, as Hannah said in her prayer: "The Lord kills and makes alive, He brings down Sheol and brings it up," and so in Psalm 11: "You will increase their spirit, they will perish, and they will return to their dust; send forth Your Spirit, they will be healed, and you will renew the face of the earth." And Elijah the prophet, who ascended in a whirlwind into heaven, will come, according to the prophecy of the angels, to return and turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers." And so Isaiah prophesies: "Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust, for the dew of Your light is like the dew of Your light." And so the angel announces to Daniel: ‘Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken, these to eternal life… and the wise will shine like the brightness of the firmament, and the righteous as the stars forever and ever’.

With blessings, Sh”z Levinger

It's amazing what people will do to deny the fact that they are dust and ashes.
I brought an explicit verse from the Torah, and here they are deluding interpretations from wordplay.
It's like someone in the future seeing that they once said, "May he rest in peace," and from this he will interpret that people once believed that the dead go to sleep in the grave and perhaps even snore.

In short, it's not about the fear of death, but about the instinct of pride that is unwilling to accept the fact that he is not God.

Sz. Levinger read my words again. My argument was that the concept of “spirit” can be interpreted as ”soul” (although it is not certain that it exactly coincides with the current concept).
Although the concept of “spirit” or “soul” means “life” similar to other parallels from the Tanakh.

Note that I cited exactly the same verse “and the spirit will return to God who gave it”. And I agree with that in principle, although the concept needs to be discussed in more depth.
I do not accept “and the soul of your enemies will be slung in the sling” as evidence. The bundle of life means life itself, and soul again means “life”

In the third line I meant ”soul” or “soul” and not spirit as I mistakenly wrote.

Yoav,
To say that Maimonides was disconnected from the Bible is simply puzzling, even if you disagree with his interpretation.

Dor,

These writings are far from reflecting mainstream Jewish beliefs, and therefore it is difficult to see them as real sources. They were also written in the Second Temple and after. Therefore, the question of the origins of these beliefs is not resolved in any way.

I cannot deny the fact that studying the Bible is studying Torah. A little bit. But I do not see much value in it beyond the mitzvah itself. Since we have not finished the entire Torah, we can focus on the valuable things before moving on to the written decrees.

I have already written here more than once about the question of studying the Bible.

“And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 And you shall bind them as arrows upon your hand; and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house, and on your gates.”

Rabbi Michael,
Thank you. It is not clear to me which writings you mean when you say they were written during the Second Temple period. That means you also mean the five books of the Torah. Yes?

Asking about the origins of these beliefs may help us get closer to the ’original Jews’ and avoid the beliefs and prayers that we believe in our time.

No. I mean the writings where you can find Jewish worldviews (such as ancient books of Kabbalah and ancient books of Tosheva and Meshavah).
I don't see why you think there couldn't be superstitions in the Second Temple. In my cautious assessment, it's no less possible than today. The question is what came from Sinai, not what was in the Second Temple.