Q&A: Hell
Hell
Question
I saw that you wrote that it’s not certain there is a hell, since the threat alone is enough. I had always understood that hell is the “bread of shame,” as mentioned in early books, meaning that hell is the shame. Since there is a certain limitation whereby we cannot receive the good if we ourselves are not good, and after we are punished we will be able to receive the good—what do you think?
Answer
I have no idea, and I assume they didn’t either. But even if you assume that, the shame still stems from a character trait of ours, and it’s unnecessary after death.
Discussion on Answer
After all, according to you there are no character traits after death
I think the point is clear. But in my opinion, just as I have no idea, he didn’t either. It’s an idea that he or others came up with. Without a source from above, it seems pointless to me to discuss it.
I don’t know about character traits after death, and I don’t know where you got that position of mine from.
From a rational point of view, don’t you think that if a person commits a prohibition like murder and the like [which is something wicked, unlike, say, the prohibition of mixed species], he won’t have hell?
?
If he is aware that it is wicked, then if there is a hell he might receive it. Punishment can be given for a moral transgression just as for a religious transgression. Ask the Holy One, blessed be He.
So what is meant by the Ramchal’s explanation of the “bread of shame,” or do you agree with the Ramchal’s words?