Reincarnation, Justice, and the World to Come: What the Talmud and Kabbalah Teach

Sanhedrin 105a: “He is Beor, he is Cushan-Rishathaim, he is Lavan the Aramean.”

From ancient times, the idea of reincarnation of souls — a teaching rooted in Kabbalah, has fascinated people across all walks of life. Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv (Responsa of the Maharlbach) writes candidly: “Because of my sins, I have not yet merited this wisdom, for a person is not given permission to understand it on his own or to investigate it independently. Rather, just as its name implies, it must be received — passed down from a teacher who himself received it.”

He goes on to survey opinions on the matter and concludes decisively: “There is a very large group among the sages of Israel who believe in it, and all of them have written that it is a true belief and one of the foundations of the Torah… We are all obligated to heed the words of these latter authorities and to believe in this faith without any doubt or hesitation whatsoever.”

“A Righteous Person Who Suffers”: Why?

The Ramban (in his commentary on Iyov 33) hints that the classic problem of “a righteous person who suffers” — the central theme of the Book of Iyov and a subject debated by the greatest sages, may be rooted in previous incarnations of the soul. The deeds of earlier lives can profoundly affect a person’s circumstances in the present one (see also Ramban’s writings, vol. 1, p. 101; Responsa Torah Lishmah 458).

One Soul, Many Lives: A Talmudic Proof

An intriguing proof for reincarnation is drawn from the Talmudic passage itself. The Gemara states: “He is Beor, he is Cushan-Rishathaim, he is Lavan the Aramean.”

This implies that Lavan the Aramean, Beor the father of Balaam, and Cushan-Rishathaim (the Aramean king who oppressed Israel in the era of the Judges; see Judges 3:8) are, in essence, the same individual.

Is it conceivable that Yaakov’s father-in-law lived until the time of the Judges? The commentators Yaavetz and Zikukin de-Nura (cited in Etz Yosef) explain that this refers not to physical longevity, but to the same soul reincarnating in different bodies across generations.

“A Generation Goes, and a Generation Comes”

Rabbi Yosef Chaim (Torah Lishmah, loc. cit.) points to a subtle allusion in Shlomo HaMelech’s words: “A generation goes, and a generation comes” (Kohelet 1:4).

Logically, Scripture should have said, “A generation comes, and a generation goes.” The reversed order hints that the souls of the coming generation arrive through the departure of the previous one, so that the earlier generation “goes,” and within their souls, the next generation “comes.”

Why Did Shlomo HaMelech Rule the Entire World?

The author of Arvei Nachal (Parashat Nitzavim) raises a striking question: Why did Shlomo HaMelech rule not only over Israel, but over the entire world — even over animals and plants (see Targum Sheni to Esther, ch. 1), while David his father, and even Moshe, ruled only over Israel?

He explains that until Shlomo’s era, every Jewish child was born with a new soul. From Shlomo’s time onward, souls began to reincarnate, sometimes even entering non-Jewish bodies, animals, or plants. Since Shlomo was destined to rule over all Jewish souls, he had to rule over the entire world, so that all incarnations of those souls would fall under his dominion.

A Halachic Consequence: Blessing HaGomel

An interesting halachic implication of reincarnation appears in the responsa of Maharam Mintz. He rules that a father should not recite the blessing HaGomel when his young son recovers from illness. Although children may suffer due to their parents’ sins (hence the blessing “Baruch she-petarani me-onsho”), it is possible that the child’s suffering stems from sins in a previous incarnation. In that case, the father is not considered personally “liable” and cannot recite HaGomel.

A Baby Who Recited Shema

The Steipler Gaon relates an extraordinary story in the name of Rabbi Isaac of Modena. He did not believe in reincarnation, until he witnessed a six-month-old infant, gravely ill and nearing death, recite “Shema Yisrael” and pass away on the word “Echad” (“One”) (Chayei Olam, ch. 12).

Do Non-Jews Have a Share in the World to Come?

Sanhedrin 105a: “Balaam does not come to the World to Come — but other nations do.”

The Tannaim dispute whether the nations of the world have a share in the World to Come. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that they do not, while Rabbi Yehoshua rules that they do — and the halacha follows Rabbi Yehoshua.

When a non-Jew seeks conversion, the court informs him of the obligations of Jewish law, but also tells him: “Know that the World to Come is reserved only for the righteous — and they are Israel” (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 268:2; Rambam, Issurei Bi’ah 14:4).

This seems to imply that only Jews merit the World to Come. Yet the Rambam also writes (Laws of Kings 8:11): “Anyone who accepts upon himself the seven Noahide commandments and is careful to observe them is among the righteous of the nations of the world and has a share in the World to Come.”

So which is it?

The Righteous of the Nations

Many authorities address this apparent contradiction. Tiferet Yisrael explains that all Jews, righteous or not, have an inherent share in the World to Come. Non-Jews, however, do not receive such a share automatically; only the righteous among them do (see also Rabbeinu David, Sanhedrin 91b; Sefer HaIkkarim IV:31; Be’er Sheva, Sanhedrin 90a; Responsa of the Radbaz).

Saying Kaddish for a Non-Jewish Parent

May a convert recite Kaddish for his non-Jewish father?

The responsa Zaken Aharon (Yoreh De’ah 87) explains that reciting Kaddish benefits the soul of the deceased. Since righteous non-Jews have a share in the World to Come, Kaddish can indeed help them. Were non-Jews to have no share at all, there would be no point in reciting Kaddish for them.

Accompanying a Non-Jew to Burial

The work Kol Bo writes that one must stand and show respect when encountering a funeral procession, even for a non-Jew. The Beit Yosef clarifies that this refers specifically to a righteous non-Jew, who possesses a soul that continues after death. Maharsham adds an important caveat: since non-Jewish funerals may involve idolatrous symbols, one must ensure that no such symbols are present before participating.

A Conceptual Explanation: Ownership of the World to Come

Rabbi Yosef Rosen, known as the Rogatchover Gaon, offers a conceptual explanation using an analogy from property law.

When a person purchases land, he must perform a formal act of acquisition via payment, a deed, or a concrete act demonstrating ownership. Merely walking the boundaries is insufficient. However, when partners divide land they already jointly own, each need only walk the boundaries to define his portion, since the land was already theirs.

So too with the World to Come. Like jointly owned property, it is inherently reserved for Israel. Any mitzvah a Jew performs serves merely to define and clarify his portion. A non-Jew, by contrast, must perform a true “act of acquisition” — namely, righteous conduct, to earn a share in the World to Come.