Reward and punishment and the afterlife

Could it actually be that I am trying hard to keep the commandments, trying even harder to avoid transgressions, and I will not receive any reward for it?

He has already written and detailed that he does not know
He has a reasonable hypothesis regarding the soul's remains
And he does not know the rest
But it is a very fair lottery since the doubt can also be balanced on the side that there may be a reward, as you say or the sages have said
It is worth investing in a provider
And the fact that Rabbi Michael also invests and it is likely that he invests not only but perhaps also because of the consideration that there may be a reward

As stated, I don't know. But work for God's sake is not done with the hope of reward (see Rambam Rafi Mahal's reply).

1. What does the Rabbi think about angels? For example, in the Maharash”a (Matchot 10:) “By good thought and good will angels are created who guard man”.

2. If the Rabbi thinks that the world is given over to the laws of nature and from now on there is no divine intervention - what is the point of praying for mercy upon us, our God’? And what is the difference between a Jew and a Gentile regarding his fortune?

3. What does the Rabbi feel about the reincarnation of souls?

4. How does the Rabbi explain that many of those who sleep in the land of dust will awaken, some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation?

5. Why did Joseph and Jacob insist on being buried in the Holy Land? After all, everything returns to dust as it was. For from dust you came and to dust you shall return.

1. It is certainly possible that these are metaphors, or a mistake.
2. As I have written here several times, the meaning of requests is indeed problematic in my opinion. Either God does answer rarely and that is what we ask for, or it is truly a mistake. How do you know there is a difference between a Jew and a Gentile?
3. I don't know.
4. What is the question? Some will awaken to eternal life and some will not (or some will, but to a life of darkness). The question is whether this is true and not what the meaning of this is.
5. I have no idea. By the way, I don't know if everything returns to dust. As I wrote, it is quite likely in my opinion that it does not (otherwise where does the soul go after death). And yet this is of course only an explanation. But the various descriptions of Awwa sound dubious and baseless to me.

I have a lot more questions on the subject, but I'm afraid to put them down.

1. Your Honor - Angels spoke to Abraham... and saved Lot from Sodom..how metaphors how mistakes?
2. There must be a difference because we are the firstborn sons of the Creator. You are my firstborn, What do you feel inside you without knowing - just a feeling, no one knows anyway.

4. Yes - but it is written from the dust of the earth!!!!!!! If it is written then how do you interpret it assuming that it is true, and if it is not true - why was it written and why do you think it is not true…

5. Yes - but the Rabbi knows that there is a verse The spirit shall return to God who gave it… and it is written My spirit shall not dwell in man (within his body) forever, for he is also flesh and his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
What is the point of teaching the soul words of wisdom, since learning comes at the expense of other bodily pleasures… Rambam

6. How does the Rabbi explain “Keret” ?

7. Does the Rabbi believe in the existence of Job really?
8. If so, then the Rabbi thinks that Job should have listened to his wife's advice? Because he suffers a lot anyway and maybe there is no next world?
9. What is the Rabbi's opinion on the ten righteous who entered the kingdom of God during their lifetime?
10 What is the Rabbi's opinion on the taking of Enoch? Without the language of death.
11 What is the Rabbi's opinion on the destruction of the former court, was the prophecy given to fools?

1. Do you have a question? I didn't notice it.
2. Are you planning to go over every detail in the sagas of the sages or in the Bible and ask the same thing over and over again?
3. Think for yourself. Even when I explain it, you will be able to ask what I mean. I wrote in pretty simple Hebrew.
4. I don't know when, if and where it will be, and to whom. Nor whether it is a metaphor or not. It is also written that the dead have their lips in the grave. And many other things are written that are interpreted in different ways. As I have written more than once, it is difficult to learn anything clear from the words of the prophets.
5. And if there is a curse, what is the point? Because you gain more?
6. The first scholars disagreed on the question of recognition and its meaning, and no one seems to really understand what is being discussed.
7. I don't know. The sages already disagreed on this.
8. No. See 5.
9. I don't know.
10. Maybe he didn't die but was taken to another place. And even if his soul was taken, in your opinion this is what is called death, so why is it written about Enoch that he didn't die? This is evidence to contradict it, of course.
11. I think the intention is that there are no prophets after the destruction, and therefore those who consider themselves prophets and those who believe in them are actually fools (in modern parlance: crazy).
This seems more like a trivia quiz to me that isn't very useful.

Thank you, Honorable Rabbi, these questions are just to understand your mind and nothing more - you are very special! You know! And that's why I was afraid to ask, but I appreciate every answer. It's enough for me that I understood even the tiniest bit of iodine from you. I did my part.
And I have more to ask, but I'll block myself this time!
And if the Rabbi wants to hear my words about his words, let him just say them!

Today an interesting question occurred to me:
If the Rabbi is satisfied with sin, then why did he choose to be killed and not to transgress? What is the logic in this?
Maybe it is better to stay alive and enjoy them, and to even fulfill more commandments, and atone for a sin (which we have transgressed, so that we are judged to be killed and not to transgress).

Honorable Rabbi, why is it not killed and not to transgress for desecrating the Sabbath? After all, this is a covenant (part of the covenant). It is a fact that Moses broke the tablets when his son was serving the Law when he saw it with his own eyes when he came down from the mountain with the first tablets. And the sages said that one transgression leads to another transgression, so that in the end he will transgress the first commandment and serve the Law, so in the first place it is better for the whole city to be killed and not to transgress? And the same is the case with a rebellious son and a teacher who imposed death on him by law, because if he does not respect his parents, how will he respect his Creator?

Someone who is content with a significant amount will indeed not be killed. But if you have sufficient (not complete) certainty, you do sacrifice your life for all sorts of things (like a soldier in war, who if he is a sober person then he too is certainly not completely sure of his righteousness).

Regarding desecration of the Sabbath, as it is said and live in them. The Torah is meant for life and not to die in it. You ask why the rabbis did not decree that we be killed because of fear of a slippery slope? This is truly an absurd question.

Does Maimonides believe that you are Epicurus based on what you wrote?

Ask him.

This is an unclear answer. According to what you learned from the Rambam, what is the ruling on someone who does not accept his method in these matters?

Why do you treat the providence described in the Bible as a fact that came “in a time when there were prophets and prophecy and miracles, and then God was more involved in the world.” And not as a mistake or a metaphor (or folktales)?

Israel, I assume you know the following two (in my opinion) laws: A man is close to himself and no man considers himself wicked. In short, check it out for yourself. I'm not really interested in it.

Yehoshua, maybe this is a metaphor, but my impression from the language of the Bible is that these are not metaphors but descriptions of fact.

Ambush?
Israel - I do not consider myself an infidel. I will explain with an example:
You know those vegans who are unable to put “meat or honey or milk” into their mouths. They cannot bear the thought that something of an animal is inside them. This is how I answer you, there are those who would rather die than pass through the mouth of the ’, what does this have to do with the Rambam we are discussing here. It has more to do with emotion. The moment a person commits a transgression it is one thing but to transgress one of the ten things is another… and live in them - a beautiful verse - but I explained that there are people who are unable to live when they have transgressed one of the ten things, it eats them up from the inside - and certainly if they had a choice not to transgress the Sabbath.

Regarding the soldier who gives up his life, I answer - not every soldier has to be a combatant - with a little show they will put him in a job and he will save his life like a great man.
Long live the small difference, a person whom the Creator calls upon with premeditation to desecrate Shabbat and has the choice to die or pass away, there is no other option - not soldiers have another option, depending on how elusive he is from being a combatant. By the way, the army is also forbidden to go to war on a mitzvah if you know about: Whoever builds a new house and does not dedicate it should go and return to his house, lest he die in war and someone else dedicates it… so that the offenses invite death to a person.

Regarding the two laws that the Rabbi brought: We are here to learn, and if we learn according to this law in order to apply it - then it is not appropriate to think that we are wicked.
An opportunity for me to express my opinion on G-d's intervention in the world today, I don't know about you, but I know endless stories of miracles in which G-d saves people from accidents that I am amazed and bless G-d Who has done and performs miracles and reveals them to me, do you not have people who go up to the Torah and bless the redeemer? There is no such situation.

The Rabbi said: Regarding the desecration of the Sabbath, as it is said and live in them. The Torah is intended for life and not to die in it. You ask why they did not decree that we be killed by the rabbis because of fear of a slippery slope? This is truly an absurd question.
My opinion is - maybe this is an experiment? If you love the Lord more than your body? I do not understand your bewilderment, Honorable Rabbi? After all, our father Abraham did not ask questions, he went and sacrificed his son and behold, the angel of the Lord did not give it to him - it was pure experiment. It is impossible to disagree.
“Which a man will do and live in them” This is a statement from the Lord that implies that whoever does the commandments will live. Just as I showed: Whoever does not dedicate his house can die because of this! Yes! This shows that Providence has departed from him and this can shorten his life.
Especially since the rabbi admits that he does not know what a keret is and there are differences of opinion about it, so what is better: to accept a sure keret or to rely on the opinion of the Lord that he who keeps the commandments will live. And everyone knows that our lives are in His hands alone. If the Lord does not preserve a city (from a mason and an enemy), in vain will its builders labor in it.
I will ask the rabbi how a person who is content with meaning - indeed will not be killed (and will pass away) then every person will choose to be content with meaning - after all, you have no proof one way or the other regarding the הוא אבעלה.

In another discussion, a wise man said today that one must respect the creatures so that peace may come! I told him - true, but first of all the Creator. And then the creatures. With all your heart and with all your soul, even if he takes your soul! Thus the wise men ruled.
And again, did you see how the angel of death wanted to harm Moses our master? Why? Because he did not circumcise his son Gershom, go out and learn whether for circumcision one is liable to death. For desecrating the Sabbath, which is clearly written, they shall be stoned to death. Not only that, he is liable to death, and there is no need to ask whether even unintentionally, because we are also liable for mistakes, as it is known that a soul sins unintentionally. And it is written, "And if all the congregation of Israel err, and the matter is lost, from the eyes of the assembly;" And they did one of the commandments of the Lord, which you should not do, and they were guilty.

Agam does not choose to be satisfied. If he is satisfied, then he probably will not give up his life. And if not, then he will give up his life like soldiers. I have already explained this.

This is the point I was aiming for, we need to seek the path of peace. Will war bring peace? No. So why should I be a soldier? And to believe even in contentment in this way and lose my soul - that is a stupid soldier! A wise soldier who is content – will not give up his life. And if a person is not content then he will give up his life, how can he be not content? I hope I didn't complicate things.

How can we say that God does not intervene in the world if it is about half of the Bible, Midrashim and Gemarat that God intervenes in (or 90% of what is not Halacha). We can say that we are not obligated to the views of the Sages, but are we not obligated to the views of the Torah? We can use a metaphor for a couple of chapters, two, five, not for most of the Bible.

See here, and in particular the link:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A2%D7%96%D7%91-%D7%93-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5/

B.E.
There is no need to philosophize.
Whoever studies the Book of Tanya will receive answers about the world and the hereafter. About the soul, about reward.
What do we say every morning?
I thank you, living and existing King, that you have restored my soul to me
So what? Do they say this out of the blue?

Whose answers
and why do you think these are more than just beautiful and sometimes even dangerous speculations?

And if you recited the phone book every morning, then there would be no need to discuss what so-and-so's phone number is? And if you said every morning that there are three-winged demons, does that mean there are such demons?

The truth is that the answerer should write a scroll. But I will point out a few points.
A. The statement that providence exists only during the time of the prophets is heresy and contradicts even the Gemara: ‘I gave you, Debi Hezekiah, from the day the Temple was destroyed, even though the Sanhedrin was abolished, four deaths were not abolished, they were not abolished, and they were not abolished, but the law of four deaths was not abolished: one who is liable to be stoned or falls from the roof or is trampled by an animal; one who is liable to be burned or falls into a fire or is bitten by a snake; one who is liable to be killed or is handed over to the king or is killed without being on him; one who is liable to be strangled or drowned in a river or dies in a sarona;
B. And what you said is that in matters of thought there is no decision and tradition. In Yerushalmi, the verse is explained between a judgment and a judgment and a touch and a touch... between a matter of a legend. That is, even a legend is decided.
C. There is a deep lack of understanding of the Maimonides on many issues. But I will mention the subject for our own purposes. We think of providence as a kind of outside intervention. The Rambam says that providence depends on knowledge. And I will explain that all conduct in our reality depends on our knowledge. Knowledge is not understanding and education. But identification with reality. For example, in the past, warriors identified with death and evil, until they saw it as part of reality that does not need to be corrected, and therefore they murdered and raped women and children. After all, everyone will die and life has no eternal value in their opinion. And the reality of life is self-satisfaction until you die. Anyway...
But reality has many layers. And the knowledge of the is the knowledge that there is there, that is, beyond the first, existing consciousness. And it is the reality of reality. Which is not depicted by the senses. That the senses depict reality as it is received by us and not its reality. Reality without the truth is called imagination. As much as the knowledge with wisdom, that is, with caution, from knowing and thinking that in this one knows everything. That the wise man knows that he does not know. And especially the truth of reality. That way the actions are more accurate. And just as there are actions in nature such as natural disasters, etc., so the wiser a person's response, that is, the more ignorant he is, the more correct his action will be, and his action will be its objective response, the full meaning of the action will be revealed over time and forever. Just as the meaning of death can have many layers. And recognizing its limited meaning can also lead to cruelty.

D. In the difference between a Jew and a Gentile, this too must be extended. But I will point out that only the Jew's awareness is developed enough as a person to be able to feel himself within a strong national cultural framework. And even to experience himself outside this existential framework. A Jew is a people of peoples of all humans. In contrast to a Gentile who is always part of humans, a certain way of life of humans.
There can also be Gentiles who tend towards the universal aspect, but this is only while blurring their national identity. The Jew experiences himself as the very person. And the Gentile as an external way of life of man.

Also, statements about the author of the Tanya as the kelpit of the Gentiles who are Gentiles today are not like the Halacha. Beyond that, which is plagued by a lack of understanding, the statement that the Halacha is not eternal also has a very serious flaw. Not in this Halacha but in the approach to the Torah as a whole. Because the Torah, even in its halachic interpretations, is always objective and not circumstantial. And as the Maharal says, the sages always speak with wisdom that it is what must be. And indeed there are disagreements, but this is because there are several angles to what must be. As is known to everyone who studies Talmud and to Rabbi Mekal Avraham himself.

The kelpit is a designation of the conscious recognition of an entity that it is separate from its other. And for this there are four kelpits. And as long as man is in this body, it is necessary to feel his body.
And he is in his animal soul, which is the feeling of life that is in the warmth of his blood that he feels his body. And in that which feels a body, he feels an essence separate from its other.

There is a melancholy layer in the soul of the Righteous Among the Nations and the Children of Israel. And among the Gentiles there are impure layers.
The essence of a Hasid, as stated in the Rambam, is that he does not act like a wise man who is in the middle opinion exactly, but rather restricts himself to the extremes. And all this is because of his awareness of his surroundings as a whole. To the point that a Hasid wants him to give and others to give. Mine is yours and yours is yours. And even burns nails even if it harms himself. Not everyone could be a Hasid.
The Hasid is someone who has excessive wisdom in him who is aware of his belonging and dependence on the whole to the point that the good of the whole is his own good. Like Moses' grandson who worshipped idols. And Moses sought atonement for this in the act of the calf, and Israel would not be a people from him. Because he needs a people.

Jewish identity is essentially general. Because the Jew's awareness of his own nationality is the knowledge of God. Which is the truth of reality that is not limited by reason. The Jew disbelieves in idolatry by conceptualizing reality at the limit and turning it into a super principle. He remains in the very knowledge that he does not know is knowledge of the truth of reality.
Indeed, Jews can also worship idolatry. But not from his Jewish belonging. Rather, one must invent for himself a life like an Israeli and the like. The very reality of Judaism is disbelief within the limits of human opinions that separate one people from another. He is simply a Jew. It is not about a higher power, G-d, but about identifying with the truth of reality by experiencing himself as a Jew without any definition of what a Jew is.

The Righteous Among the Nations is one who keeps the Seven Commandments because that is how he is in the Torah of G-d. That is, from the clarity of knowing the truth of his invention. Which is not due to intellectual reasons. Rather, just as nature acts not because of intellectual reasons but because it is the nature of its creation. So he keeps the commandments because it is its nature. And the ability to recognize the truth of his invention requires accepting the commandments before three Jews. That express the true identity connection that is not depicted by any fence.
In this way, even a Gentile, despite belonging to a people who do not worship God, is limited by his national identity and therefore does not have a soul that is the knowledge of God in a general national way. Rather, he only knows God in a private way. And the inhibition of knowledge is, in the language of our sages, the filth of the serpent.
In any case, he is beyond the limited knowledge of reality, he is in the truth of reality and therefore he is a Hasid. And in this he acts what is worthy of all humans and not just his own people. Which is the wisest of nations.

The separation in the sense of physicality leads to crimes and cruelty, even if in practice he behaves nicely and nicely. It should be remembered that the Germans were also nice until before the Holocaust. This is not a matter of fantasy evil. Rather, evil is a fragile essence that cannot exist alone.