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

That’s not what I meant 🙂
As I’ve written several times in the past, I claim that even if something is written in the Bible, it is open to so many interpretations that it is hard to extract from it a clear position on any issue. If “an eye for an eye” turns into monetary compensation, and “forever” regarding a pierced slave turns into until the Jubilee, etc. etc., I don’t see how verses in Ezekiel that speak about resurrection can’t be interpreted as a metaphor. So in my view it is hard to derive from the Bible a clear position on these kinds of issues, and in general. And this is of course also the reason why I don’t see much point in studying the Bible. Why deal with a text that teaches me nothing except what I thought from the outset?!

You can’t claim that there are principles of faith that are a late invention, as you claimed (which of course prompted the question above), without assuming that you have direct access to the original text in which, according to your claim, these principles of faith are not found (whatever that direct access may be—Semitic philology, grammar, or literary analysis). Without such direct access, the claim that these principles were invented in a later period is simply void. Since you claim that we have no direct access to the text because everyone reads into it what he thought from the outset, the question arises: then on what basis do you claim they are a late invention? Intuition?

To the questioner: surely you meant the book of Daniel (not Ezekiel): “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt…. But go your way till the end; and you shall rest, and stand in your lot at the end of days.”
And this is not a hint but an explicit source no less than the words of the Sages themselves (though of course it is not from the First Temple period).

Regarding the world to come: at one point I wanted to add some sources on the matter to the Wikipedia entry, but over time I had no free time, and little by little the desire also faded… I remember that at the time I had photos on my phone about this from various books that I didn’t get around to adding to the discussion (but the phone broke).
From what I remember, I took most of the material here from Yehoshua Enbal, from his book on the Oral Torah, but also from other people and books. Sometimes I noted whom I took it from.

The Torah hardly speaks about what happens after death, but at the same time it never denies life after death. Throughout the Bible there are many references hinting to it.
1. The creation story in Genesis presents a dualistic outlook: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7). Given this understanding, it is naturally reasonable to assume that just as a person’s body returns to the earth, the soul returns to its source. And so the verse in Ecclesiastes testifies to the survival of the soul 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 one may infer that there is a system in which souls exist in heaven: “And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.” (Genesis 5:24). So too Rachel, weeping for her children in Ramah (Jeremiah 31). Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven (II Kings 2:11), and Malachi prophesies that in the future Elijah the prophet, who departed from the Jewish people hundreds of years earlier, will turn the heart of fathers to children: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.” (Malachi 3:23). David says that while he will meet his son after his death, his son will not return to him while alive (II Samuel 12:23).

3. An introduction to the concept of “his people” and cutting off. “I am being gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite.” See Rashi there and the presentation of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch there.
Accordingly, the plain meaning of the opposite verse, “that soul shall be cut off from her people,” and the like, is cutting off from eternal life.
And so too it is said regarding the punishment of karet in circumcision according to Maimonides etc. (Y. Elitzur).

3. It is said of the Patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and of other figures as well that they were “gathered to their people,” even where they were not buried with their fathers (Genesis 25:8, 25:17, 35:29, 49:29, 49:33, Deuteronomy 39:50, I Kings 1:21, and many more).
For example, it is said to Moses: “And die on the mountain which you are ascending, and be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people” (Deuteronomy 32:50). All these expressions show that there was always among the Jewish people a belief in life after death. Death was for them nothing but reunion with the fathers or with members of the nation who had already passed from this world, and all are united in the world of truth. The expression “to be gathered” means to bring something to its true place, to its homeland, and the expression “gathered to his people” therefore shows that the world of truth was regarded as man’s true homeland.
4. As a contrast to the phrase “and he expired and was gathered to his people,” the punishment that comes upon one who commits certain transgressions is “that soul shall be cut off from among her people” (Numbers 15 and many other places), and its meaning is that he will not be united with his people after death. And it is fitting to note that this punishment usually refers to the soul (Exodus 12:15, 19; 31:14; Leviticus 7:20; and many others), whereas the soul is not mentioned in the expressions concerning death itself cited above. And perhaps that is because in the punishment it is specifically the soul that is harmed, whereas the body is certainly gathered in the ancestral grave. “Gathered to his people,” by contrast, originally referred to body and soul together.
5. The prohibitions against necromancy and consulting the dead woven throughout the Torah and the Prophets clearly show that belief in the soul’s survival was widespread in their time. As it says in Leviticus (20:27) and in Deuteronomy (18:10): “There shall not be found among you… one who casts spells, or a consulter of ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead.”
6. In I Samuel chapter 28 it is described how Saul asks to speak with Samuel, who had already died. This clearly shows the basic common belief in Saul’s time, king of Israel, in the continued existence of Samuel’s soul. More than that, Samuel appears to him and even speaks with him. (It is interesting to note that Samuel, brought up by necromancy, protests to Saul: “And Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’” which shows he is in a place that is good for him there.)
7. Abigail said to David in I Samuel (25:29): “Though a man has risen to pursue you and seek your life, yet the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord your God; and the lives of your enemies He shall sling out, as from the hollow of a sling.” Some commentators saw this as spiritual eternal existence, in contrast to the punishment of the wicked.
8. In I Kings it says (22:21): “And the spirit came forth, and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will entice him.’” Here we see the existence of a spirit, its actions, and its connection with God and with prophecy even without the body.
9. In Numbers chapter 23, Balaam hopes that he will merit to die like Israel and that his end will be like theirs. From this we clearly see a conception implying belief in the world to come. “Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the upright, and let my end be like his.”
10. Certain psalms in the book of Psalms seem to make clear claims about reward and punishment that will happen in the future, as a response to the deeds of the wicked—for example Psalm 49 (and it can perhaps also be inferred from Psalms 73, 16). And so too at the end of Ecclesiastes chapter 12 it says: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether good or evil.”
11. Some claim that in some places the meaning of the word Sheol is Gehenna, and this may perhaps be implied by what is said in Proverbs: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod and save his soul from Sheol… Let not your heart envy sinners, but continue all the day in the fear of the Lord…. For surely there is a future, and your hope shall not be cut off.”
11. It may be possible to interpret some occurrences of the words “life” and “death” in the Torah as the life and death of the world to come, as may perhaps be implied by Psalms 16:10: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; You will not let Your pious one see the pit. You will make known to me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forever.” And so too one can interpret the Torah’s command, according to the Targum’s view: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:5). And conversely, as it says in Ezekiel 18 regarding each person’s recompense according to his deeds: “The soul that sins, it shall die.”
12. There are verses in which one sees that there remains a memory of the righteous before God, and an evil remembrance for the wicked. For example, it says in Proverbs 10:7: “The memory of the righteous is for a blessing, but the name of the wicked shall rot.” And similarly the request that the Holy One remember Sanballat for his evil deeds: “Remember, my God, Tobiah and Sanballat according to these deeds, and also Noadiah the prophetess and the rest of the prophets who would have put me in fear.”
13.
14.
Resurrection of the dead
In summary,
It is important to remember that when the various proofs are combined, it does indeed seem plausible to argue that belief in reward and punishment after death is the most reasonable and natural conclusion.
1. Reward and punishment was a common belief in the ancient Near East, so it is not unreasonable that it existed among us as well. For example, the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
2. There are several verses that hint to this; and even if one can argue over the interpretation of some of the verses, in the end, when the cross-reading of the verses + tradition + reasoning etc. combine into a certain interpretation that fits easily into the plain meaning of the verse, it is proper to accept it.
3. By reasoning, it makes sense to assume there is such a thing—reward for the righteous who do the will of God, and punishment for the wicked like Hitler, may his name be blotted out. See those who discuss this at length.
4. This is the tradition, and there is no reason to reject it, certainly when taking into account the additional data.

P.S.
In section 3 it is written incorrectly and in a confused way. I wrote it incorrectly at the time. True, it appears that the punishment of karet is a punishment at the hands of Heaven and not by human hands, as the commentators discuss at length, but it still requires analysis whether the meaning is being cut off from the world to come or from this world.
(Also the reference to Y. Elitzur is not precise.)
And there is more room to expand on this topic.

Another mistake—I saw that there are two section 3’s. So I meant the first section 3.
I suppose the number of mistakes along the way and in the writing here explains why I stopped writing about this topic….

Y.D., my dear fellow, I didn’t claim that there are such cases, only that there can be such cases. What I wrote is that I’m not sure all the principles are tradition and not a later invention. Am I allowed to claim that? Thanks.

“At first our ancestors were idol worshipers.”
The source of these beliefs is as ancient as idolatry.

Gilad: the story of Enoch does not mention the world to come (at least according to Genesis). If you mean the Book of Enoch, then it is very late and anachronistic. It’s not hard to see that it is basically a pseudepigraphic book. It is even forbidden to read according to the Sages. More than that, even the Christians did not take it as a sacred book. The descriptions of God there are very anthropomorphic.

Regarding 3: I don’t agree at all. First of all, the word “nefesh” in the Bible means “life,” not soul in today’s sense.
Notice that every place where the word “nefesh” is mentioned, as well as “neshamah,” is talking about human life.
Perhaps the word “ruach” means soul in its current sense, as in “and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

“And was gathered to his people” or “and lay with his fathers” is a description that matches burial ritual in the ancient Near East, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the world to come.
The interpretations that explain it that way are very late and very interpretive. By the way, Maimonides’ interpretation is based more on Aristotle’s conception than on an explicit verse—the union of the intellect with the logos.
And still, as can be understood from his words, Maimonides is not entirely settled on this conception.

“By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread, until you return to the ground, for out of it were you taken; for dust you are, and to dust shall you return.”

Meaning, according to the Torah, the Garden of Eden was in the past, and after the sin man was punished. We’re in Gehenna. 🙂

Yoav, sorry, but from the verse it clearly appears otherwise. The simple interpretation is certainly the religious claim, especially together with the concept of “his people,” which usually refers to family members from the previous generation.
The gathering is not the burial. It is the “soul” that joins the previous generations.

Forgive me, but all of you are discussing the world of souls that exists now in parallel to this world, whereas the questioner was speaking about the world to come—that which will arrive after this world in the future. Well then, such a utopian world is the universal destiny of all the prophets’ prophecies—it is the world in which there will be no wars, delicacies will be as common as dust, and we will return to the reality of Eden where children play with snakes without fear. True, that is of course not connected to resurrection of the dead. Without question, the innovation of resurrection of the dead is Jewish in character and teaches more about the mode of existence of the believer in the present than about his physical state in the future: a person who believes that he will return to this very life, this time with all his defects, his family, etc., cherishes and values life here and now because it is his whole world. In this world and in the next. The Torah emerged within cultures that all believed in the world of souls and in the sanctification of death. It does not oppose this, and from that it is clear that it believes in the existence of such a reality. But its silence shifts the focus to moral life here in this world and to family life—which is the true inheritance (see A. Samet on the daughters of Zelophehad). From here, the idea of resurrection of the dead is a consistent outgrowth of these views. That is to say: if there is life after death, then it is exactly like your life here. So invest—here. (And see the excellent comic Pizzeria Kamikaze by the Hanuka brothers, which is entirely a depiction of the lifestyle and culture of suicides in the afterlife club. They all continue

Continuation—they go on living their lives as in the real world, with the only difference being the location of the scar from the suicide event. In short: Shalom Rosenberg once wrote an important article about this, and Moshe Rat also discusses it at length on his site “Mistorion.”

Gilad, in the verses there is no mention at all of “neshamah” or “nefesh” (at least not in the sense those words have today). Notice that all the occurrences of “nefesh” or “neshamah” appear only with the meaning of life. By contrast, the concept “ruach” is mentioned with the meaning of soul as understood nowadays.
Notice that even in the story of Saul and the medium, what was brought up was Samuel’s spirit, not his nefesh or his neshamah.

“And was gathered to his people” fits exactly the ancient burial rite in the ancient Near East. At first the concept referred to physical burial, until in the course of the natural development of language it described death without physical gathering (similar to many words and phrases that have shifted somewhat from their original meaning and that we use in everyday speech).

Notice the phrase “and all that generation were gathered to their fathers”—were they all righteous and deserving of the world to come?

I agree that one must discuss the distinctions among the words “nefesh,” “neshamah,” “ruach,” and the like. But in any case, there is no doubt that when there is a certain plain meaning, interpretation will go in that direction even where one has to say there is repetition of the same idea in different words. And that seems simple to me. (Unless there is another better plain meaning…)

A. In any case, from the verse it clearly appears that it is divided into two ideas.
(1.) “And he commanded them and said to them, I am being gathered to 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 note of Da’at Mikra on the verse.
Rashi already mentioned there that the term “to gather” also bears the meaning of bringing in.
And it further seems that Scripture is speaking of two “gatherings”:
(1.) The gathering of the “breath of God” which He breathed into man’s nostrils. As the wise man says: “and the spirit returns to God who gave it” [please note that the idea of spirit is to some extent parallel to the breath of life…]
(2.) The other—the placing of the human body in the burial place of his fathers.
So I don’t understand why you want to connect the two parts of the verse. To my eye that looks like apologetics.

B. Likewise,
I don’t understand why the idea of “gathered to his fathers” conflicts with and ignores the idea of “soul” or “life-force.” What exactly do you want Jacob to say?! “My nefesh/ruach/neshamah is gathered to my people, which is the place where the spirit returns to God”?! That sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry.
A hint to this idea (which I found in a Da’at Mikra note on Judges, and see further below) is found in II Samuel: “And now he is dead—why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me.”
I think the idea is the same… and the two verses hint at the same thing.

C. I can only quote the wording of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch there, taken from mg.alhatorah.org:
“I am being gathered” etc.—our Sages explain: “Whether you merit and attend to me, or if not, I am gathered to my people.” Whether you bury me or not, and wherever it may be that you bury me, it does not affect me in the least. “I,” my true self, will already be in heaven; and on its way there the soul needs no human assistance. But for you, it will be a need and a privilege to deal with the body that I leave behind. Carry it to the land and the place where my fathers lie, and lay me beside them.

2. Regarding the Judges and Joshua’s generation (I used the site sefaria.org.il),
it says in the verse as follows:
“And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being one hundred and ten years old.
And they buried him within the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.
And also all that generation were gathered to their fathers, and there arose another generation after them that did not know the Lord, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel.”
A.
I can only bring the words of the midrash:
Otzar Midrashim, Midrashim Haserot VeYeterot 1:12
Every occurrence of “his fathers” in Scripture is defective in spelling except for three: “And also all that generation were gathered to their fathers” (Judges 2:10) is written in full. Why? Because that entire generation was righteous and complete, as it says, “And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua”; “he shall go to the generation of his fathers” (Psalms 49:20) is written in full, to teach you that the souls of the wicked dwell with them in darkness, for they are full of wickedness; “his whole heart he prepared to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers” (II Chronicles 30:19), to let you know that he was complete. These are the three names. And why not “the God of Ahaz,” nor “the God of Amaziah,” nor “the God of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat,” nor “the God of Ahaziah,” nor “the God of Jeroboam,” but rather “the God of David, the God of Solomon, the God of Asa, the God of Jehoshaphat, the God of Uzziah his fathers,” written with a full vav corresponding to the six righteous before him and the six wicked.

B.
The same question I direct to you: were they all, without exception, buried in the ancient burial rite?!…
C.
According to your words, perhaps it would be more fitting to come and claim that according to the plain meaning of the verse, all of them entered into the burial place of Joshua’s fathers, as it says “and also all that generation were gathered to his fathers.” To his fathers specifically.

Gilad: it seems you didn’t understand me. I’m not claiming that the verse speaks only of someone buried with his fathers; rather, this is a natural development of language, until “and was gathered to his fathers” became a synonym for “passed away.”
Notice that the phrase “departed from the world” originally referred to the righteous. Today every person who “dies” has “departed.”

My claim is that the terms “nefesh” and “neshamah” mean life. There is nowhere any reference to them in their current meaning. One can discuss whether “ruach” means soul, but “nefesh” and “neshamah” mean life. True, the words are not exactly synonymous, but the intent is still in the sense of life.

A. I don’t understand why split the verse? Abraham is basically saying, “I am about to die; bury me in the cave”—that’s the meaning of the verse. Everything else is interpretation that does not appear in the text. If anything, that’s apologetics. By the way, Rashi interpreted the concept of karet as the cutting off of one’s lineage.
In any case, we are dealing with late interpretation that did not know the language and culture that prevailed in the biblical period.
Rashi is also not known as an interpreter who sticks to the plain meaning, but rather expands in interpretation.

B. “Gathered to my people” means dead. From the parallels of the concepts “nefesh” and “neshamah” in other places one can see that the meaning is not “soul” as it is today. Even in the Sages, the concept of pikuach nefesh does not mean safeguarding the “soul”; likewise in the Bible there are many citations in the style of “you shall not let any soul live.”
I tried to bring precise quotations, but I have a space limitation on the site. That’s also why my comments come in several parts.

Thanks for the responses,
but I have two questions about your comments, Rabbi Michael:
If I’m not mistaken, writings such as those of Josephus, Polybius, and Philo of Alexandria preceded the Mishnah, etc. (I’m not knowledgeable in their writings). One can extract testimony from them about those periods, no?

Second, you wrote: “And this is of course also the reason why I don’t see much point in studying the Bible. Why deal with a text that teaches me nothing except what I thought from the outset?!…”
Does your statement negate Bible study as a commandment or lessen its value, or do you simply think there is indeed a commandment in it but you personally do not find much point in this commandment (like, for example, the prohibition of tattooing or rounding the corners of the head… which according to Maimonides were due to imitation of the Sabeans), and therefore you think that this is what one should do even though there is no logic in it?

Yoav, even if the expression “was gathered to his fathers” is an expression for someone who died, an expression does not depart from its plain meaning….
That he is brought into the place of his fathers from previous generations.
Of course one can argue about everything and claim it speaks about the situation etc.
But when there is tradition + reasoning + the plain sense of things, that adds up.

Gilad, נכון, the original expression speaks about burial. But apparently it underwent a transformation until it became a synonym for “passed away.” Lots of modern words and expressions have undergone and continue to undergo transformation.
For example, the word “bank”—its original meaning is bench. Because money changers used to sit on benches in the ports and conduct business, the word bank underwent a transformation to its current meaning.

When it comes to poetic language, like in the Bible, this is even more pronounced. The interpretations and reasonings are later than the period. And they did not know the biblical atmosphere and language. There is no clear tradition on the matter. The plain meaning is very different from these interpretations.
It is based more on conjectures, some of which actually came in the wake of opinions and ideas that prevailed in the periods in which the sages lived, and less on the text itself.

We hold that generally one chooses the simpler explanation.
I have nothing to add beyond that this is the plain meaning of the words, certainly when cross-checked with the rest of the information.
As I wrote earlier, to the best of my knowledge this belief was widespread in the ancient world, as in Egypt.

I don’t understand how these are the plain meaning of the words. There is no mention whatsoever of “gathered to his fathers” in the context of a world of souls, Sheol (which from other citations in the Bible one can see both righteous and wicked go to), or a state of consciousness of union with the logos (the chance that the biblical author meant that approaches zero).

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

Also notice that the questioner asked for evidence for this belief from the Bible, not from later commentators.

His fathers are no longer alive, and this is not talking about burial, as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch points out there.
You want to claim this is an expression that developed and began with the burial of people and developed into an expression for death.
Fine, suit yourself.
And you’re not using later interpretations that try to explain the Bible… (maybe it’s because you’re also using theories)…

To the best of my knowledge it was like that in Egypt, and I gave the name of the book above.

Again, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch is a late interpretation. When one understands biblical culture and its conceptual world, one sees that the expression cannot describe a world of souls. Notice that throughout the Bible everyone goes down to Sheol—both the righteous and the wicked. Even Jacob and Saul.
Notice that regarding section 4, most of these commentators would not agree with you. And still you claim it.

My theory (and by the way it’s not mine; many agree with me) is based on findings and contexts from what is written in the Bible. They are not hanging in the air. By contrast, the interpretations are sometimes very detached from the biblical text (for example Maimonides). And since the questioner asked for proofs from the Bible, those interpretations are invalid from the outset, and are just the conjectures of sages, not to say speculations.

Regarding Egypt, I didn’t mean that they didn’t believe in the survival of the “soul,” but that I’m not sure they believed in dualism. In other words, it may be that body and soul were not separate even though the soul continued to exist after death. As evidence, the embalming of the dead or the exaggerated treatment of the body.
That said, I’m not sufficiently expert in the mythologies and beliefs of ancient Egypt to determine.

By the way, even the section about Saul and the medium does not necessarily prove that this belief is from Sinai. It could be an outside influence (I’m not claiming there is no such possibility, but the story is not proof).
Also, Saul’s being brought up does not prove that he was actually brought up. It could have been sleight of hand.
After all, even today there are all kinds of people who claim to speak with the dead, tell fortunes, and so on.
Radak also interpreted it that way. Not to mention Maimonides, who claimed it was an illusion.
So if you are basing yourself on commentators, it would have been proper to present the full picture.

I think we’re grinding water here; all the explanations are on the table.
You are attacking the traditional commentators too much without real reason. Certainly not in this matter and in this case.
To me it looks “from the side” like you are too much of an apologist for the academic scholars. Certainly with the huge ad hominem going on here.
Real research is supposed to hit the truth by weighing most of the data. As is known, there are two kinds of “plain meaning of Scripture”—there is the literal plain meaning, and there is the plain meaning from a broad perspective.
But in this case it seems to me that you have neither.

If there is no new point in the next comment, I won’t respond, because I expect this to lead to an empty and time-wasting argument.

Where exactly did you see an ad hominem here? I didn’t attack anyone on a personal level. Unlike you in your last comment. And where exactly did you see apologetics here?
I’m really not defending the academic scholars here. Though their view is often more reasonable, since they know the biblical culture and mindset better. Still, even on the interpretive level your statements are disputed. Notice that you also brought things that most commentators would not agree to (section 4, section 6, and more).
Right, real research is supposed to weigh all the data, and not only what seems right to it (certain commentators, ignoring the parallels of certain words, etc.).

The questioner asked for evidence in the Bible for the existence of reward and punishment in the world to come (in the Bible, not the Oral Torah, not commentators, Bible), so I’m responding accordingly. If he had wanted to hear what the commentators say on the matter, I would have responded differently, and would also have brought all the positions.

With God’s help, 23 Elul 5778

Gilad did well to list the many sources in the holy writings in which the survival of the soul is clarified, and in our day, when science has discovered the “law of conservation of matter” and the “law of conservation of energy” and the other physical laws of conservation—it stands to reason, all the more so, that the human spirit, its thoughts and feelings, do not simply disappear, but continue to exist even after the destruction of the body.

With blessings, S.Z. Levinger

Notice the ignoring of the world in which the Bible takes place, the ignoring of commentators who don’t say what you want to hear, the ignoring of the biblical conception and thought (since when is Sheol in heaven? Notice the expression “bringing up by necromancy”; Samuel’s spirit was brought up), the ignoring of the context of the words and their meanings (“you shall not let any soul live”—in your opinion does that mean killing the souls?).
Is that real research? At least be fair with yourself and present the full picture.

With God’s help, 23 Elul 5778

To Yoav—greetings,

The soul is spiritual, so speaking of its “location” is metaphorical. As Ecclesiastes concluded: “the body returns to the dust as it was, and the soul returns to God who gave it.” If a person merits it, then “his soul is bound in the bundle of life with the Lord your God,” as Abigail blessed David. If a person does not merit it—his soul is cast away from closeness to God, whether in Abigail’s image, “and the soul of your enemies He shall sling out in the hollow of a sling,” or in the common image, “the wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God” (Psalms 13).

But even from Sheol there is ascent, as Hannah said in her prayer: “The Lord kills and gives life; He brings down to Sheol and raises up,” and likewise in Psalm 104: “You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. You send forth Your spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth.” And Elijah the prophet, who “went up by a whirlwind into heaven,” is destined, according to Malachi’s prophecy, to return and turn the heart of fathers to children and the heart of children to their fathers. And likewise Isaiah prophesies: “Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust, for your dew is a dew of lights.” And similarly the angel tells Daniel: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life… and those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.”

With blessings, S.Z. Levinger

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 people are fantasizing interpretations from word games.
It’s like if in the future someone sees that people once said, “may he rest in peace,” and from that interprets that people once believed the dead goes to sleep in the grave and maybe even snores.

In short, this is not about fear of death, but about the ego’s unwillingness to accept the fact that it is not God.

S.Z. Levinger, read my words again. My claim was that the concept “ruach” can be interpreted as “soul” (though it is not certain that it exactly overlaps with the current concept).
Whereas the concepts “nefesh” or “neshamah” mean “life,” similar to other parallels from the Bible.

Notice that I brought exactly that same verse, “and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” And regarding that I agree in principle, though the concept needs deeper discussion.
As for “and the soul of your enemies He shall sling out in the hollow of a sling,” I do not accept it as proof. “The bundle of life” means actual life, and “nefesh” again means “life.”

In the third line I meant “nefesh” or “neshamah,” not ruach as I wrote by mistake.

Yoav,
To say that Maimonides was detached from the Bible is simply bizarre, even if you don’t agree with him in interpretation.

Dor,

Those writings are far from reflecting mainstream Jewish beliefs, so it is hard to see them as real sources. And they too were written in the Second Temple period and afterward. So the question of how early these beliefs are is not solved in any case.

I cannot rule out the fact that studying the Bible is Torah study. I’m not worthy enough to do that. But I do not see in it much value beyond the commandment itself. Since we have not finished the whole Torah, one can focus on things of value before moving on to scriptural decrees.

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

“And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates.”

Rabbi Michael,
Thank you. It is not clear to me which writings you meant when you said they were written in the Second Temple period. That is, do you mean the Five Books of Moses as well? Yes?

The question of how early these beliefs are may help us get closer to the “original Jews” and avoid superstitious beliefs that we nowadays believe.

No. I meant writings in which you could find Jewish worldviews (such as early kabbalistic books and early books of the Oral Torah and Jewish thought).
I don’t see why you think there could not be superstitious beliefs in the Second Temple period. In my cautious assessment, that is no less possible than today. The question is what came from Sinai, not what existed in the Second Temple period.