supervision
From the Rabbi’s words in several places, it seems that there is no reason to assume divine intervention in the world today. (And throughout the generations there have been commentators who denied every miracle that ever happened. The Rambam believes only in the miracles of Scripture, although more radical commentators such as Karlberg and Abarbanel also tried to explain the parting of the Red Sea and the plagues through nature.)
This is indeed a very plausible assumption.
It is true that even the Rambam, who wrote that private providence is only for great righteous people, ruled (following the Gemara) that those who are afflicted by a calamity that befalls the public are cruel. He even calls those who do not repent and wake up from difficult things that happen cruel.
How can this be reconciled with his concept of providence? And can’t there be a plague that is not a decree of heaven? Or floods or famine or war that are natural?
Did he divide between supervision over an individual and the public?
And if so, what is your attitude towards this ruling of the Rambam?
Do you see October 7th as an event that requires us to awaken in repentance and prayer, or something natural for Arabs who hate us and simply turn a blind eye to seeing and preparing?
Perhaps he means that one should act as if it were from heaven in order to awaken to repentance. But I am not engaged in settling first-hand methods in matters of thought. That does not interest me. This is not a law but a statement of thought. Regarding October 7, both answers are correct. It is Arabs who hate us, but there is an opportunity here to repent. Not to be saved but to improve.
What is meant is not a halacha but a statement of thought. It is a halacha that says that one must fast and cheer. This is a halachic conclusion from the Gemara on fasting for any trouble that comes upon the public.
This is the halakha. The statement about what the matter means is a matter of thought.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
