URJ Books & Music - Jewish Songs, Music, Books, Sheet Music

Discussion Guide For

What Happens After I Die? Jewish Views of Life After Death

By Rifat Sonsino and Daniel B. Syme

Discussion Guide Created
by Benjamin David

On page 4, it is noted that Rabbi Maurice Lamm once said: "As there is a Jewish way of life, there is a Jewish way of death." Does grappling with one's own mortality or the loss of a loved one become at all easier within a Jewish context? If so, why do you think this is the case? If not, why does the Jewish framework fail to alleviate our pains? Will we forever be like Job in the Bible and thus left with many unanswered questions?

Rabbi Roland B. Gittelsohn, on page 6, lists five reasons he believes people tend to be so preoccupied with death. Is it that we fear death or is it that each of us privately longs for immortality, even if this may be something of a "wish" or "childish aspiration" as is stated on page 9?

On page 12, the authors mention that the Israelites, while living in Babylon, "did not subscribe blindly to Babylonian ideas, preferring to shape their own view of life after death." To what extent have our understandings of death and immortality been shaped by surrounding cultures? To what extent have our perceptions been influenced by modernity?

"The overwhelming message of the Bible is that death is final" (page 14). In spite of this, however, the ancient Israelites believed in a place located beneath the earth known as Sheol. It was a realm to which all of those who passed away went. As is noted on page 17: "Though dreary, Sheol is not seen as a place of punishment. Every living being, without regard to moral character, goes down to Sheol at the time of death (Ezek. 32:18-32, Job 3:17-19, Eccles. 3:19ff)." Does this concept at all intersect with our own perceptions? Is it possible that the notion of Sheol is not a physical place but an idea? Does the concept of Sheol seem comforting to you? Why might it have been comforting to the ancient Israelites?

The rabbis of old "called the world in which we live haolam hazeh (this world) and the hereafter haolam haba (the world to come), or atid lavo (what is to come)" (page 23). With the arrival of the Messiah, they believed that the dead would be resurrected. Years later, in 1869, a group of Reform rabbis in Philadelphia proclaimed: "The belief in bodily resurrection has no religious foundation" (page 33). Early on, Reform Jews came to denounce many of the elements of Judaism that strayed from reason. Well into the twentieth century the idea stated in Philadelphia was widely accepted by the Reform Jewish community. In recent years, however, "in an article in the Journal of Reform Judaism, Rabbi Richard Levy argued that 'if Reform has affirmed these ideas [the miracle of the Exodus and the notion that God "rested" on Shabbat], which reason and nature would seem to contradict, why eliminate resurrection and other beliefs related to the messianic future?&... Each morning's arising [is] a little resurrection'" (pages 33-34). Rabbi Levy maintains that Reform Jews should 'rescue' this belief even if it means viewing it in a slightly different light. Do you agree with the rabbis of long ago, the statement made in Philadelphia, or Rabbi Levy's modern interpretation? Or do you believe in a combination of the three?

Over the course of history many prominent thinkers have grappled with notions of immortality. The term certainly had different implications for different people. While some believed in actual resurrection with the coming of the Messiah, others thought that it was only the soul that would endure after death. Both Maimonides and Moses Mendelssohn, as is noted on page 43, affirmed that the human soul is imperishable. On page 627 in Gates of Prayer, before the Kaddish, one of the meditations is entitled "The Spirit Lives On." Finally, as is noted in the chapter's summary, "many believers affirm that even after death something of us remains forever" (page 45). Discuss your own feelings on the possible existence of a soul or spirit and whether it may remain after the body has passed.

Within the Jewish community, talk of reincarnation tends to take place among the Chasidim only. In the Zohar, the classic text of early mysticism, it is said that, upon death, one's soul leaves the body so to inhabit the body of someone just entering the world. "The concept of reincarnation, that a spark from one soul can be born into another person, is, according to Rabbi [Gedaliah] Fleer, the deeper meaning of the idea that 'every Jew is responsible for every other Jew'" (page 53). What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him? Although belief in reincarnation is certainly not widespread in Judaism today, it raises various questions. Can such an idea exist within Reform contexts? Can the notion of reincarnation provide an answer to the "perplexing question of divine justice in the world and a hope for life after death?" (page 53). What do you think?

Because the issue of reincarnation as it is understood in the Zohar is perhaps difficult for us to fully accept, we find ourselves turning toward other, more progressive, conceptions of life after death. On page 56, Milton Steinberg is referred to; he argues that people transcend death "in many altogether naturalistic fashions." Through their children, for instance, parents are able to endure. "In a published sermon entitled 'A Jewish View of Immortality,' Rabbi Bernard S. Raskas wrote: 'What is the immortality in which I believe? I believe that a person lives on in his or her family&.... I believe in the immortality of friendship and helpfulness&.... I find immortality in my people" (page 56). How might loved ones live on through us? What might we do so to ensure that those close to us will go on living even after they are gone? How might our everyday behavior be affected by those who have passed away? Are we to find solace in the idea that our memory will be preserved by those friends and family members we leave behind when we go?

What is your understanding of an "invincible surmise," as it is referred to on page 71? With whose conception of the hereafter does Rabbi Schindler seem to agree?

In her essay, Blu Greenberg quotes Arthur Cohen: "Belief in the hereafter is a doctrine of trust, neither pressed upon others nor denied by ourselves" (page 94). Greenberg seems to have a great many questions, yet she finds solace in God and knows that God "can lift us up, over and over again," an idea that she applies not only to death and notions of reincarnation, but to overcoming depression and illness as well. In the end, however, she argues that each of us holds the power to "restore, renew, refashion our lives" (page 95). Do Reform Jewish contexts truly provide enough space for us to formulate our own conceptions of a potential hereafter?

For Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis, death is to be surrounded on all sides by life. As he points out: "The ritual of the Kaddish calls for a minyan, a living community of at least ten Jews, to honor the deceased" (page 101). Individuals die, but the community does not. The focus is thus upon those who live on: "To be alive is to have deeds to perform and imperatives to be followed" (page 98). Indeed, the Torah clearly instructs us to choose life, to even break commandments outright if such will ensure survival. How might this model be of assistance at a time of mourning? How can our deeds and imperatives be further fueled by the thought of a loved one lost? Why might Jews turn their attention to life and community in times of death? How might loved ones live on through our lives?

"Don't try to imagine what it's like being dead&.... Death being the opposite of life, as far as we can tell, all you can imagine is different kinds of nothingness.&... The words 'being dead' make no sense together. If you have 'being,' you're not 'dead'" (page 113). For Eugene Borowitz, death is most mysterious. He continues: "Ultimately I trust in what I have experienced of God's generosity, so surprising and overwhelming so often in my life" (page 115). That is, as he trusts in God's goodness during life, so does Borowitz anticipate such benevolence once life has ended. How do Borowitz's ideas relate to others presented in the book? Are his faith-based conceptions any more difficult to accept than others? Why or why not?

Chapter 11 chronicles the beliefs of Jewish feminist, Arlene Agus. Agus's chapter begins with the story of her father, who attributed his receiving Parkinson's disease to sins he committed during his lifetime. "But, Dad, you are not a sinful man; you are a good man. How can you believe God would do this to you?" (page 118). The question remains: Why is it that people continue to refer to their pains as punishment for past acts? Which models are such ideas based upon? "[P]erhaps my father can accept his fate stoically, but I certainly cannot. I am furious. I am outraged. I challenge God to explain, to correct this unfairness" (page 118). Are modern, liberal Jews altogether free to think, choose, and act as Agus argues? At what point does this concept intersect with our sacred texts?

Even though we cannot see the full dimensions of the Divine Plan, can we not continue exploring and challenging? Should we not continue to ask: Why am I here? What/Who/Where is God?

Alvin Reines's views concerning death in various ways harmonize with his views concerning Reform Judaism itself: "Reform Judaism, as I define it, is a polydoxy. Essentially this means Reform Judaism is a religion affirming the principle that each of its adherents possesses an ultimate right to religious autonomy or self-authority" (page 128). Thus, "there is complete freedom to respond to the question of the afterexistence as one chooses. There is no heresy or sin regardless of the decision that is made" (page 129). Indeed, as we have already discovered, the options are many. Reines lists seven potential beliefs, seven (occasionally conflicting) alternatives. Consider, for instance, the relationship between immortality and finitism or resurrection and transmigration. Discuss Reines's own choice of finitism over the other six on the list. Do you subscribe to the same view? Why or why not? Do you agree with the reasons he implements in attempting to bolster his view? In light of the chapter's final sentences, discuss the notion of human finitism in terms of belief in God.

Daniel Syme writes: "We cannot depend upon the existence of a life after death. We have no way of proving or disproving that once we die there will be anything else. Therefore, for me at least, the only course to be followed is to live this life as though it were the only one" (page 142). This means experiencing the "new adventure" that everyday brings with it as well as giving to generations of Jews yet to come. How can we attain this balance? Might the story he relates at the end of his section prove effective in alleviating the pain of losing a loved one?

Rifat Sonsino notes: "I am left wondering what lies beyond the point of death. In the meantime, I am grateful for being alive, knowing full well that my limited existence makes each of my days more precious" (page 146). He of course does not know what will be after death. It is this sense of the unknown to come that fuels him now. How might we feed from that which we do not know? Is there a way to prepare for that which remains such a mystery? How are we to approach an issue (What Happens After I Die?) so difficult to approach? Why might the book end with Psalm 90: "'Teach us to number our days that we may obtain a heart of wisdom'" (page 147)?