Ask the Jews

[Levite]

Ok another question, what exactly does Judaism teach about angels?

There have been, unsurprisingly I'm sure, many opinions as to what angels are. And the main stream of the tradition has generally held that there are several kinds of angel, each with apparently different measures of individuality, durability, authority, and so forth.

Some angels are said to exist purely in the spiritual plane surrounding God's inmost presence. Some are said to be capable of existing in both the spiritual and the physical, if they are given a reason to take physical shape. Some are created apparently for just one purpose, and once that it fulfilled, they cease to be. Others remain and serve many purposes. And of those, it seems that some are what we might call "drones," serving simple metaphysical purposes only, and not apparently invested with much persona, while others seem to be capable of complex thought, action, and are said to be given certain measures of functional authority, either over other angels, or to guide certain aspects of the world as overseers or viceregents, as it were.

They were never seen as being either sweet and cuddly winged babies, or handsome blond guys with wings, but in their own forms, were beings that appeared to human eyes as fantastical creatures embodying mystical and mythopoeic concepts, often of strange and fearsome aspect. Regarding the sort that are sometimes held to have been sent to our world in order to interact with people, when physicalized, such angels are said to resemble normal human beings, although certain people seem to have been sometimes able to recognize something about them that marked them as spiritual beings-- although no one can seem to agree on what such a feature might have been.

The one thing that pretty much all mainstream teachings about angels agree on is that they have no free will.

Granted, these are all traditional mainstream beliefs, and there have been other beliefs that never made it into the main stream. Certain Kabbalistic schools hold other opinions, also, especially Lurianic Kabbalah, which tends to prefer a universe with much more impersonal metaphysics. And I believe the Maimonidean rationalists of the middle ages considered angels to be entirely aphysical creatures constructed of agglomerated philsophical intelligibles.

And, of course, many non-Orthodox Jews today don't believe in literal angels at all.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Do Jews have a take on what Christians call the seven archangels?

Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jophiel, Samael, etc.?

 

[Levite]

Do Jews have a take on what Christians call the seven archangels?

Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jophiel, Samael, etc.?

We usually count just four: Michael, Rafael, Uriel, and Gavriel. Some have had other counts, even as many as a dozen or eighteen. But the typical mainstream belief is just the four.

We call them the sarei ha-panim, which can be translated roughly "Princes of the Presence." They are believed to be the ministering angels closest to God's core Presence, with the exception only of the chief angels, Metatron (the chiefest angel) and Sandalfon. They are generally supposed to be Serafim (probably the "highest" class of angel; the name literally means "Those Who Burn," and they are associated with light and fire), though some have called them Ch'ruvim (the next "highest" class of angel; the literal meaning of the name is unclear, although it probably derives from Assyrian words meaning "blessed" or "mighty").

The sarei ha-panim are still referenced in Jewish liturgy, and are often referred to in the folk Kabbalah of Mizrahi Jewish communities.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Do Jews have stories and legends about these angels?

 

[Rakhel]

I have heard of Metatron, but never Sandalfon. Where can I find more about him/her/this angel?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

IMHO, the main reason why we don't accept the NT is because of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology, which is the theme of the whole NT. A Christian preacher cannot open his or her mouth from any pulpit without promoting that infamous antisemitic policy. Also IMHO, Replacement Theology is the worst insult to the Jewish People.

I understand that but not everything revolves around being Jewish. The authenticity of the Synoptic NT Gospels is a combination of telling/depicting a story and historical narrative. Taking the context,meaning,and message of the gospel and calling it "replacement theology" will not dissuade a genuine Christian from its historical truth.

 

[Caladan]

Ok another question, what exactly does Judaism teach about angels?

In most cases of the Hebrew Bible. angels appear in human flesh. not as the Christian idea of angelic spiritual beings. they come and discourse with other people, physically and in human tongue, they warn them, guide them, or struggle with them. the literal Hebrew meaning of the word Angel, is Messenger. in turn translated into the Greek ἄγγελος and from there into the English 'Angel'.
The Hebrew Bible describes men of Israel or spies, crossing into foreign lands, such as Canaan, just before the Israelite conquest in order to bring back information of the terrain and the people in the land. the Hebrew Bible calls them Mal'akhim (or Angels).
The Hebrew Bible describes Israelite men as message runners, ambassadors, spies and assassins. these are all men which may be called Mal'akhim. or Angels.

 

[David_2010]

Yeah, if you can get your hands on a Schottenstein Talmud, you can read this great story, one of the world's longest tangents, in Tractate Gittin 68ab, all about Ashmodai King of Demons, and one of the things you find is that every day, he spends the morning in Heaven, learning Torah at the Heavenly Yeshivah.

You gotta keep in mind that the Rabbis of the Talmud created an ideal of the world in their own image, and in their literature, imposed it on reality. So when one reads Talmud critically, one can spot a number of flaws in the reasoning, as well as having to sort out, from time to time, what actually was the truth about the world at the time of the Rabbis, and what do they want to believe was the truth. The same thing kind of goes for their midrash, as well. So in their world, everyone studies Torah. Even the King of Demons studies Torah. The fact that it seems odd that he might do so and yet still be, if not really evil, certainly quite unpleasant, doesn't seem to have struck the Rabbis as needing resolution. For which there really is none. One either lets it go, or not, I'm afraid.

Or, as one of my professors at rabbinical school said, "Sure, he studied Torah every day. But there's nothing that says he learned anything from it."



Demons have gone through a lot of different conceptualizations through Jewish history, and depending upon where in the Jewish world they were being written about. But it was in the Babylonian communities, and then in the communities in Israel with whom the Babylonians interacted that there first appear talismans and amulets concerning demons and malign spirits that bring ill-health, dangers, and other misfortunes on people. That was a step in a darker direction, and during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, demons were thought of us much more worrisome, much more evil, in the sense of having all kinds of malicious schemes against people, thirsting for blood sometimes, or such things.

It seems like, for whatever reasons, demons became rather less feared and focused-on during the Enlightenment (not that the majority of Jews in Europe were becoming Enlightened), and in the Mizrahi communities, while demons were still widely spoken of until a generation or two ago (and occasionally are still spoken of), they seem much less sweepingly evil, and more akin to the petty thugs they were once thought of as being.

Lilit started off as a midrash about rebelling against God's will, and perhaps about what the Rabbis of the Talmud perceived as the perennial imperfection of woman's nature (those guys were not feminists, unfortunately). She took on a persona in culture not long after as the spirit of jealousy, being kind of a succubus, going after men's spilled seed (a midrashic object lesson about masturbation, possibly), and using it to have demon babies, and, initially, doing wicked things to women, because she envied them their married happiness.

Over the course of the following millennium, she kind of passed into an uber-demoness character, mother of a host of demons, willing and eager to do all sorts of horrible things to people because of her mad jealousy at their goodness and happiness. I think in that particular strain of the mythos, she probably is, in some ways, the closest analogue to Satan we have, and for good reason: I would guess, as I believe some others have also, that stories of Lilit were increasingly influenced by Christian demonology over time. Our demonology and attandant magic and rituals were "low Kabbalah," being very much folk beliefs, and having little support either from mainstream rabbis or from greater Kabbalists.

Which is in part, I think why the authors of the Zohar sort of tried to re-appropriate her and elevate her up a notch into a sort of anti-Shechinah of the Sitra Achra, or of a negative influence on the Atik Yomin (higher aspects of the emanations), blocking or diffusing the flow of shefa (divine energy) through the Ze'er Anpin (the lower aspects of the emanatons).

Frankly, I never cared for the Lilit mythos. It started off reeking too much of misogyny, and ended up smacking too much of Christian syncretism. I don't hold that there is a Lilit, personally.

Yes, yes, Shevirat ha-Kelim, the Breaking of the Vessels that culminated in the creation of the physical universe, that is what I was taught. The demons are the spiritual toxic waste by-product of that cataclysmic event. They are chaos and deceit incarnate, and feed off our superstitions to become whatever bogeyman we fear.

I agree about Lilith myths, never did ring true to me.

Thanks for all that great information, I quite like the topic of demons, and other folklore topics as well (both in Judaism, but, in other world cultures as well).

Also, when you say demons are chaos and deceit incarnate that feed off our superstitions, does that mean they grow stronger the energy they get from us?.

I was always kinda partial to the Lilith stories. I mean, the very first feminist and the first to tell G-d "no." What woman could argue with that?

I've always quite liked the stories of Lilith as well. Both in its empowering aspects for women (being independent from men, etc) as well as it's general scariness or horror aspects, if that makes sense.

 

[Levite]

Also, when you say demons are chaos and deceit incarnate that feed off our superstitions, does that mean they grow stronger the energy they get from us?

In addition to whatever Zardoz has to say on the matter, I can tell you there were several medieval aggadot (folk legends) that seem to imply just that: that demons feed off of our fear, or our terror, or our rage, or our hatred, or sometimes our lust. It's one idea among many, but it has been suggested.

 

[Levite]

I have heard of Metatron, but never Sandalfon. Where can I find more about him/her/this angel?

Sandalfon is discussed in the second chapter of Tractate Chagigah. Which, if you're interested in the mystical, is maybe the awesomest chapter in the Talmud.

Also, if you're interested in angels, and your Hebrew is pretty good (or when it gets pretty good), there's a lovely little book by Rav Reuven Margoliot, a scholar of the mid-20th century, called Malachei Elyon, which basically is an encyclopedia of every angel named in Rabbinic literature: most have only a verse or two associated with them, but those that have more, like Metatron, Sandalfon, or the sarei ha-panim, or Samael, and so forth, have every single section of text that discusses them quoted in full in their entry. It's a great resource, and shockingly cheap. I think I got my copy on nehora.com, for something like $15 or $20.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So what is the Jewish idea of hell, if indeed there is one?

 

[Levite]

So what is the Jewish idea of hell, if indeed there is one?

There is no official doctrine of hell in Judaism.

In Biblical Judaism, there was an underworld, she'ol, but there is no evidence that this was specifically a place of punishment. It seems to have merely been where everyone went, probably something akin to the Greek Hades, where everyone went there, and the bad got what was coming to them, and the good got their reward. And in any case, the concept of she'ol doesn't seem to have survived the Biblical period.

There is a somewhat analogous concept of a hell-place called gehinnom (The name is actually taken from a valley outside the Old City of Jerusalem, Gei Hinom, the valley of Hinom-- ironically, it's prime real estate today). There has never been unanimous agreement about what precisely goes on in gehinnom, although all seem to agree it is unpleasant. Nor has there ever been unanimous agreement about what merits one getting sent there, or for how long people stay, though in fairness, nobody ever really proposed it was eternal.

This concept seems to have originated in early Rabbinic times, and it has fallen in and out of favor and use many times over the centuries since, though its most popular acceptance was during the medieval period among Jews living in Christian lands, so it seems likely that its persistence is in some part the result of Jews trying to have common theological language with their Christian neighbors.

But it never gained widespread enough popularity and authority to become an official doctrine; which is just as well, because the idea is extremely unpopular today.

Today, it's mostly embraced by Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews), who keep to it because it was worked into the literature of the mussar movement (a movement of ascetic homiletical literature dating from the 12th century in central Europe, and continuing on and off through today), and because Haredim are (oddly enough) literalists about the Talmud, and refuse to acknowledge that it is by nature a compendium of different ideas and opinions, not all of which we are bound to believe-- and not all of which the Rabbis of the Talmud believed, either.

If one believes in gehinnom, the idea is that it is something akin to Purgatory. Sinners whose sins are unrepented at death, or whose sins are grave enough that repentance and death alone are not sufficient, go there (although there's no agreement on what the minimum level of unresolved sin necessary for having to go there is) and suffer some sort of unpleasantness (opinions range from merely waiting, to more inventive, Dante-esque ironic punishments, to flat out torment of vile and horrendous natures) for some length of time (again, nothing close to agreement on this, although the predominate view that has survived to these days is usually about a year) until one has "worked off" one's sins, and goes on to the next step. Since, of course, there is no agreement in Judaism about what the next step would be, some say that it is to go directly to Olam ha-Ba (more or less analogous to Heaven), some say that it is to build up positive merit before admittance to Olam ha-Ba, by means of reincarnation.

But as I said, most Jews today don't believe in gehinnom at all, and historically, it has never been overwhelmingly popular theology.

Personally, I think it's an awful idea, and I reject it utterly as being far too theologically problematic.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So what is the most popularly accepted idea among Jews today regarding an afterlife? Also, a second question related to Gehenna again. You said the belief seems to have originated around the beginning of the Rabbinic Era. Do you think Christians got the belief from there, or did Jews get the idea from Christians?

 

[Zardoz]

I understand that but not everything revolves around being Jewish.

In this thread and DIR, yes it does.

The authenticity of the Synoptic NT Gospels is a combination of telling/depicting a story and historical narrative. Taking the context,meaning,and message of the gospel and calling it "replacement theology" will not dissuade a genuine Christian from its historical truth.

As has already been pointed out to you once in this thread, stop this. Yes, you do push the DIR forum rules. Don't like the answer then don't debate it here.

 

[Levite]

So what is the most popularly accepted idea among Jews today regarding an afterlife? Also, a second question related to Gehenna again. You said the belief seems to have originated around the beginning of the Rabbinic Era. Do you think Christians got the belief from there, or did Jews get the idea from Christians?

There is very little universality about afterlife beliefs in Judaism today, and, unfortunately not a lot of sophistication. Because most non-Orthodox Jews are deeply uneducated about what the various theological possibilities are, and what options they have for what to believe about the afterlife, most choose not to think about it much. Most I have met have a vague belief in Olam ha-Ba, but it's quite abstract, and if coherent much past just a sentiment, it tends to be a bit simplistic.

The theology in Orthodoxy may be a bit more elaborated, but, unfortunately, outside of Modern Orthodoxy and some more Kabbalistically-minded Orthodox folks, it's usually a fairly simplistic theology of Olam ha-Ba, with an option on gehinnom, and the occasional person who believes that souls of the truly wicked are simply ended at the termination of physical life, or remain, but remain in some sort of nonexistence limbo until Judgment Day.

The influence of Jewish Renewal has some non-Orthodox Jews rethinking the possibilities of afterlife, including looking back into Kabbalah for different options, so we'll see what happens.

About the second question, the Christian hell always seemed like a syncretic notion to me-- something about it smacks of non-Jewish thought-- but I wouldn't at all be surprised if one of the concepts being fused was that of gehinnom. Because I'm pretty sure it would have gone in that direction, and not come the other way.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So reincarnation isn't fairly popular among Jews today?

 

[Levite]

So reincarnation isn't fairly popular among Jews today?

Unfortunately not. Though, to be fair, it is gaining ground. Up until quite recently, most non-Orthodox Jews had no idea that reincarnation was a Kabbalistic concept, and that it was perfectly acceptable as Jewish belief.

As many issues as I have with Jewish Renewal, they did do a great job of popularizing Kabbalisitic thought and getting it out there into the main stream of non-Orthodoxy.

I am hopeful that more and more Jews will consider reincarnation as a very effective theology of afterlife. As you know, I personally believe in it, and in addition to being very spiritually and aesthetically pleasing, it does handily resolve a number of theological issues.

 

[Caladan]

Unfortunately not. Though, to be fair, it is gaining ground. Up until quite recently, most non-Orthodox Jews had no idea that reincarnation was a Kabbalistic concept, and that it was perfectly acceptable as Jewish belief.

As many issues as I have with Jewish Renewal, they did do a great job of popularizing Kabbalisitic thought and getting it out there into the main stream of non-Orthodoxy.

I am hopeful that more and more Jews will consider reincarnation as a very effective theology of afterlife. As you know, I personally believe in it, and in addition to being very spiritually and aesthetically pleasing, it does handily resolve a number of theological issues.

I'm in the hope that most Jews will keep rejecting these kind of philosophies. our tradition teaches us to purge our own tradition from foreign influence. less things become twisted up.
It was the job of the priests in Biblical eras to purge Israelite religion from all foreign religious ideas.

 

[Levite]

I'm in the hope that most Jews will keep rejecting these kind of philosophies. our tradition teaches us to purge our own tradition from foreign influence. less things become twisted up.
It was the job of the priests in Biblical eras to purge Israelite religion from all foreign religious ideas.

Every tradition, everywhere, always includes some syncretic ideas. There is no such thing as a 100% "pure" tradition.

The real trick is whether one's syncretism is done in such a way that it becomes transformed, and is able to successfully meld and blend into the tradition that has borrowed it, adding to the tradition of the borrowers without jarring or creating discontinuities.

Gilgulei neshamot is a Kabbalistic idea that goes back to the Zohar, if not before. It's been with us in the esoteric community of mystics for a long, long time now. And in its various forms, it blends seamlessly with our mysticism and tradition. Especially since we have never had concrete, elaborated, and universally accepted doctrines of the afterlife, it seems unreasonable to say at this point that gilgulim are any less Jewish than our other afterlife doctrines.

 

[Caladan]

Every tradition, everywhere, always includes some syncretic ideas. There is no such thing as a 100% "pure" tradition.

Of course. the reality of things is that Israelite and Jewish society has adapted its syncretism in the frame of the Near East with related people. we fought them and made alliances with them and evolved with them for thousands of years. they are of related ethnic baggage to us.

The real trick is whether one's syncretism is done in such a way that it becomes transformed, and is able to successfully meld and blend into the tradition that has borrowed it, adding to the tradition of the borrowers without jarring or creating discontinuities.

In other words downgrading one's already proficient tradition which was bred and evolved out of centuries of experience and pragmatism.

Gilgulei neshamot is a Kabbalistic idea that goes back to the Zohar, if not before. It's been with us in the esoteric community of mystics for a long, long time now. And in its various forms, it blends seamlessly with our mysticism and tradition. Especially since we have never had concrete, elaborated, and universally accepted doctrines of the afterlife, it seems unreasonable to say at this point that gilgulim are any less Jewish than our other afterlife doctrines.

Of course it is. because most Jews stay away from the Kabbalah like from wild fire. it is too esoteric. and the word 'mystical' brings bad connotations that most Jews want to keep away.
The Kabbalah is not THAT old. it is rooted in Middle Ages Spanish work which was greatly influenced by blended Christian esoterics. it was produced during the time that a more Enlightened Spain under Muslim leadership has fell again into Christian hands and thus began the history of the Reconquista and the ethnically cleansing of our people from Spain.
It does not measure to the Hebrew Bible. what it does however is take the Hebrew Bible and give it a mystical and highly romanticised interpretation. the kind which rabbis have forbidden Jews to indulge in for centuries.