

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

What is the source of Gilgulim (reincarnations) in Judaism? Are there people who disagree with its existence? Who was the first to mention it? What I am asking essentially is what is the historical development of Gilgulim in Judaism?

share|improve this question
An Intresting Paper on the Topic All about Gilgulim – SimchasTorah Aug 17 '10 at 23:13

In regards to the first one, Gilgulim are first mentioned in the Heikhalot texts, also found in the Zohar, and Sefer HaBahir. According to those who hold the Zohar is Tannaic, that puts the idea at least as far back as Tannaim and Amoraim. Several of the Geonim argued over it, such as Sa'adia Gaon.

share|improve this answer
mekubal, Welcome to mi.yodeya, and thanks very much for bringing your knowledge to the table! We'd love to have you as a fully-registered member, which you can accomplish by clicking register, above. – Isaac Moses Aug 8 '10 at 17:01
Nevertheless, if the idea is totally absent in both Talmuds, that might say something. – Shalom Aug 9 '10 at 0:51
Yes and no. For Rabbanim like Sa'adia Gaon it gave them permission to argue on the premise and even delcare it non-Jewish. Others saw it(as many Kabbalistic concepts) as being veiled within Shas, thus claiming that it is mentioned but not explicitly, and one would have to have insiders knowledge to know what they were saying. Many Kabbalists consider this to be the case with all of Kabbalah. R' Kaduri ZTz"L told me many times, all of Kabbalah is hidden within Shas, one just needs to know how to find it. – Rabbi Michael Tzadok Aug 9 '10 at 1:23
I'm not disagreeing; but apparently the Talmud didn't intend for that to be revealed in its simplest level. Skeptics have even argued that the Gemaras about Moshe debating the angels at Sinai is intended as satire of the Heikhalot literature! – Shalom Aug 9 '10 at 1:41
I would agree. I am not sure that even the Ari or his student Haim Vital intended for much of this to be open for mass consumption as it is today. Take for instance Shaarei Kedusha, R' Haim Vital's work for beginners and lay people, gilgulim there are not explicitly spoken of the advent of Hassidus put these concepts intot he public sphere, and Gershom Scholem put the texts(poorly translated) into the public sphere. Only HaShem knows if either ever belonged there, but it seems clear that their authors intended otherwise. – Rabbi Michael Tzadok Aug 9 '10 at 2:58

There is a piece in the Tshuvas HaRashba in siman 418 which denigrates the belief in gilgulim. It is a response from the Chachmei Luniel to the Rashba, proving that they don't believe in any nonjewish ideas. See there ד.ה. ומתועלותיה בסוד הנפש. One of the points they raise why it is an unjewish belief is because judgement and punishment is a fundamental belief in this religion, and if an evil man can come back as a righteous one and vice versa, the entire system doesn't work. Although this is not the Rashba talking, he did choose to put it in his tshuvos, seemingly accepting their argument of being good Jews. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that people like to quote the Ramban, the Rashba's teacher, as believing in gilgulim.

This is a list of opponents to the belief in gilgulim taken from here (2001).http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/02/dove-of-war.html?m=1

As is well known, there have been many rabbinic authorities who subscribed to belief in gilgulim.On the other hand, there have also been numerous opponents to this belief, including Rav Saadiah Gaon (Emunos v’Dayos 6:8); Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam (see R. Margoliyos, in his introduction to Milchamos Hashem p. 19 note 11); Rabbi Avraham ibn Daud (Emunah Ramah 7); Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Avraham Ibn Latif (Rav Poalim, p. 9 section 21); Rav Chasdai Crescas (Ohr Hashem, ma’amar 4, derash 7); Rav Yosef Albo (Sefer HaIkkarim 4:29); and Rav Avraham Bedersi (Ktav Hitnatzlut leRashba). See too Rashash to Bava Metzia 107a (I am told that certain Chassidim will never study Rashash because of his comments on this topic). Also see Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, commentary to Genesis 50:2. For further discussion, see Rabbi Yitzchak Blau, “Body And Soul: Tehiyyat ha-Metim and Gilgulim in Medieval and Modern Philosophy,” The Torah u-Madda Journal vol. 10

See there also for the bird story.

Rabbi Hirsch's words are particularly harsh describing what we call 'gilgulim' where "the soul did not remain in its personal individuality, but wandered from body to body-even to animals- in manifold metamorphosis" as a decidedly Egyptian belief in diametric contrast to Jewish ideas.

Rav Sadia Gaon also famously decried this belief as an impossible insult to the human soul, where we would find the human soul in the body of an animal.

share|improve this answer
+1 - "the bird story"? – Y ez Apr 8 '15 at 20:11
@Yez i don't remember which gadol it was but basically the Bird flew in at a seemingly meaningful time and someone said maybe its a gilgul. The Rabbi said maybe its a bird. Its in the link. – user6591 Apr 8 '15 at 22:49

If I'm not mistaken (if I recall correctly from an "intro to Kabbalistic concepts" lecture by Rabbi Breitowitz given at Ohr Sameyach; contact them for the audio), the notion of Gilgul (whereby a departed soul returns to earth in a different body) appears in a major way with the kabbalistic teachings of the Arizal in the 1500s. As we have none of the Arizal's original writings other than a receipt for a sum of pepper (he was a spice-seller), I suppose you'd have to consult his students' writings, such as those of R' Chayim Vital.

Does the concept appear in the Zohar? I don't know.

Certainly if you look through Sefer Chafetz Chaim and Shmiras HaLashon (c. 1900), while the author is known as a Halachist and not Kabbalist, he accepts this kabbalistic notion (and many others) and cites it vis-a-vis a punishment for speaking Lashon Hara ("lakelev tashlichun oso").

As Dave so kindly informed me, it's the Rashash (Lithuania, 1800s) who comments on a Gemara (describing a person's entry to the world "free of sin"):

This somewhat contradicts those who believe in the notion of Gilgul.

Or in Yeshivish:

It's a shtickel of a shlug-up for the oilam that holds by the inyan of Gilgul.

I've heard that some Hassidim purposely avoid the Rashash's commentary in general, because of this.

Today it's certainly accepted in many circles; most siddurim have a version of Bedtime Prayers that forgives "all those who have wronged me, whether in this incarnation (gilgul) or another one." On the other hand, it's not one of the Thirteen Principles, and I know one rabbi (who I personally respect) who omits that phrase (not that he necessarily rejects Gilgul, just he's not sure how this forgiving-acts-from-other-incarnation works).

share|improve this answer
It's the Rashash to Bava Metzia 107a: מה ביאתך לעולם בלא חטא אף יציאתך בלא חטא. Rashash comments: מכאן סתירא קצת לבעלי דעת הגלגול. – Dave Aug 6 '10 at 20:19
Here's a link to a Munkatcher journal which has lots more info, including the Minchas Elazar's sharp dismissal of Rashash's statement. hebrewbooks.org/… – Dave Aug 6 '10 at 20:24
can somone put the rashash in context whats the Gemara talking about? – SimchasTorah Aug 6 '10 at 20:57
The Gemara says "just as you entered the world without sin, so may you exit the world without sin." (The blessing of baruch ata b'voecah uvaruch ata b'tzeisecha). The Gemara was taking for granted that we enter this world without sin; but Gilgul talks about reincarnated souls in need of correcting previous life's flaws. – Shalom Aug 6 '10 at 21:09
This Zohar in Parashat Mishpatim, almost the whole Zohar on the Parasha talks about Gilgulim... – Hacham Gabriel Dec 9 '11 at 20:48

See: Sefer Bahir (as already mentioned), Reshit Hochma (Shaar HaYira 13),Ramhal (Derech Hasgem), Shaar HaGilgulim 22), Sefer Haredim (7:57), Degel Mahane Efraim (Parashat Mishpatim), Abarbanel (Debarim 25), Rabenu Bahya (Debarim 22:1), Ohr Hashem (4:7), Sefer HaIkarim 4:29). All these are sources for the discussion. EDIT: There is scientific proof to Gilgulim, and most of the Hachamim agree that Gilgulim exist.

share|improve this answer
can you site a source for the scientific proof to Gilgulim you mention? – none Feb 27 '12 at 20:19
What is the scientific proof? – Double AA Aug 23 '13 at 15:22
youtube.com/watch?v=7OU0fRygn94 @DoubleAA – Hacham Gabriel Aug 30 '13 at 15:26
That's a 2.5 hour movie. Can you tell me more specifically where in it I should watch where it describes the relevant experiment? – Double AA Aug 30 '13 at 18:54
@HachamGabriel To not know the sky is blue you have to be both blind AND a bumbling idiot who has never spoken to another human in his life. – Double AA Apr 8 '15 at 21:49

The Sefer Gilyon Ari (p. 40 - found on Otzar Hachochma) mentions the Rashash noted by Shalom. He adds that only a few rishonim questioned the concept of reincarnation and that it is widely accepted in traditional Jewish sources. Gilyon Ari then resolves the Rashash's difficulty by explaining the gemara in Bava Metzia (107a) as a reference to a person's first reincarnation:

וכן העיר ברש״ש כאן, וז״ל "דמכאן סתירה קצת לבעלי דעת הגלגול", ובאמת הגם שמקצת מהראשונים פקפקו בכללא דגלגולים, מ״מ רובם אשרוהו וקיימוהו כמש״כ בתשובת מהר״ל בן חביב סי׳ ח׳,ובפירוש תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל (דברים לג-ו), ובספר שער הגלגולים לר״ח ויטל, וברמח״ל ספר המאמרים מאמר החכמה, ורבינו הגר״א משלי כא-טז, ויונה ד-ג. וע״ע באבן שלמה (פ״ג אות ה׳) אשר בזה מתבאר ענין צדיק ורע לו רשע וטוב לו, לפי שנגזר עליו מתחילת יצירתו מזל הראוי לפי מעשיו בגלגול ראשון, ע״ש. ולשיטתם צ״ל דסוגין איירי בגלגול ראשון דביאתו בלא חטא.‏

share|improve this answer
In Derech SIcha on Ki Savo Rav Kanievsky seems to say it is not a question at all if i understand correctly he says it is a foolish question – Chalutzhanal Aug 23 '10 at 19:41
Derech Sicha the first one – Chalutzhanal Aug 23 '10 at 19:41
@Chalutzhanal I agree 100% I just didn't have the guts to say it without a Gadol on my side. – Hacham Gabriel Sep 1 '13 at 23:11

it is hinted in the book of Job:

"Behold, G-d does all these things with man two or three times" (Job 33:29)


also the Vilna Gaon in Even Shlema says from this verse that one has a maximum of 3 gilgulim to rectify himself

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


