Indeed, a good question. And why in the “Nahem” prayer do we deal with the ruined city without a sitter? The subject of the prayer is in urgent need of refreshment. In the meantime, we can look for creative solutions. For example, perhaps God does intervene rarely (since it is impossible to know for sure). So I pray for the entire public that if there is someone in a difficult situation that God will help them. Maybe for someone somewhere it will work. And yet, it is really an anachronism that must be abolished.
A similar question arises regarding confessions. If God is not doing things, why thank Him? Here I have a simpler answer. This is the opportunity to thank Him for the world He created and for His laws, thanks to which what happened happened and thanks to which we are here. The “miracle” that happened to me is because of the laws of nature and not a special intervention by God, but this is just an opportunity for general confession.
I expand on all of this in the book on Jewish theology that I am currently writing.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
According to this opinion, were a significant portion of the prayers really ‘just’?!
In essence, this perception has “clipped the wings” of God – He has almost no influence on the world, does not know a significant part of the future that depends on man’s choice, and in essence, it is more like “Big Brother” in which God watches over us and does not do too much (!). Such an approach contradicts most Jewish sages of their generations!
How does the Rabbi define God and His action in the world?
And regarding the “Nahem” prayer, the wording may need to be corrected, but the overall idea remains the lamentation that Jerusalem is not in its ideal form – but in the requests it is fundamentally different from the original.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The prayers were not “just” but now they are just. In the past, when God was more involved, maybe not.
Indeed, this contradicts the accepted view. In my opinion, God left the earth (perhaps with the exception of rare and exceptional cases, but I cannot know about them).
I referred here in the past to things I once wrote in response to a student from Midreshet Be’er Yeruham .
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
In fact, the Rabbi claims that God “left” the land,
Such a perception stems (it seems to me) from new scientific developments, but in the past (before the developments) he was more involved (it is impossible to claim yes or no because we did not have the tools to test this claim at that time – and therefore it is also possible to claim quite a few things),
What is the difference between this and the claim that before the microscope was discovered, there were no bacteria (because we didn’t see them)?
And another question, what does the rabbi mean by praying with blessings like “Rafa’nu” or “Shema Kol’nu”?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The main difference is that the first claim is true and the second is not. If I accept the words of the Torah, then it says that God is involved. Now I see that it is not. The obvious solution is that He changed policy. There are also various indications for this (such as the disappearance of prophecy and miracles. Facts that are universally accepted, regardless of what I say).
On the other hand, on the subject of bacteria, it is clear to me why they were not seen in the second century AD. Simply because there were no microscopes. So why assume that they were not there? There is no indication of this and there is no need for this assumption. If there were indications of this, I have no problem saying so. After all, it is a well-known fact that there are bacteria that did not exist then and exist today, and vice versa. Therefore, in principle, it is possible that there were no bacteria at all, only that I see no indication that this is indeed what happened.
As for our cure, I try to point to some sick person around the world who needs medicine and has no natural or scientific cure. Maybe God will answer in such unusual circumstances without anyone noticing. Maybe not… I will not align my forces with my incompetence.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
According to the rabbi, the involvement may have been clearer (even if clearly incorrect) in the absence of actual scientific information (god of gaps), but today, when we have the knowledge, it is different.
This claim about God’s departure is not hopeless, but it is baseless (for the sake of argument).
If once (in the pre-modern scientific world) they saw involvement, and today (in the modern scientific world) they don’t,
It seems as if the gap is in the perception of reality and not in reality itself,
According to the rabbi, there is no place for personal prayers and requests?
And what about providence in the world (God rolls over events), according to the opinion of the departure, there is no providence (general and private)?!
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
If you don’t believe what is written in the Torah, this is indeed the obvious conclusion. I am starting from a point of trust in what is written in the Torah (and this is the basis you wrote that does not exist according to me).
There is passive, not active, supervision. He monitors what is happening and perhaps rarely intervenes. But he does not cause what is happening. Indeed, there is no room for personal requests, except perhaps in cases where there is no natural way to cope, and then one hopes for the rare intervention that may sometimes occur. But do not count on it.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
So according to the Rabbi, in the case of a stoppage of rain, for example, there is no place for fasting/prayer gatherings/additions and requests (because it probably won’t be helpful at all)?
So why did the people of the Great Knesset fix the prayer for us and force us to ask and pray if, in all likelihood, nothing will come of it!?
This empties a significant portion of the prayer of almost all content!!
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Avishai. My feeling is that both you and I keep repeating the same thing. What is unclear in what I wrote in the previous messages? What is new in this question of yours? You may disagree, and that is perfectly fine. But what is the point of constantly repeating the same question?
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Sorry for the repetition (and digging),
I tried to understand the Rabbi’s opinion and I really can’t understand how it fits in with the sources I know.
It’s hard for me to deal with God’s great passivity, according to the Rabbi,
That’s all.
I agree to disagree.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
It does not fit in and does not try to fit in. I do not accept the accepted approach according to which God, the Almighty, causes everything that happens here in our world, and even the claim that He does part of what happens here (except perhaps in exceptional cases). I have written here more than once that there is no binding authority in the field of thought, and I do not see myself as obligated to what all our sages have written in these areas.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
But in the context of prayer, this concerns the realm of halakhic law.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
There are halachic determinations that are based on an assessment of reality and on intellectual principles (such as killing a louse on Shabbat). In such a place, a halachic determination is also open to criticism and has no authority over it. Although, as I wrote, for the time being, I do not allow myself to actually change the laws of prayer precisely because it is a matter of halachic law. For the time being, I am only glossing over it. But to be honest, I think it is also possible to change in practice for the above reason. Although my words above are only meant in relation to a determination that was fundamentally incorrect and not to a determination that was void of reason. After all, according to halachic law, a void of reason does not invalidate a rule. But even in this case, there are many exceptions. See the last chapter of Neriah Gotal’s book, The Changing Nature of Halachic Law.
——————————————————————————————
Eliyahu Feldman:
Why wouldn’t you interpret that God intervenes in the world through the laws of society? After all, it is known that there are many areas of life (such as social, psychological, and historical developments) that do not operate according to fixed laws. Why not say that God intervenes here? For example: If there is currently a revolution in Arab countries in a way that affects us, why not say that God’s hand directed the events so that they would occur in favor of the State of Israel? And if you say that this violates the free choice of the revolutionaries or those who oppose them – the Law has no reason to say that God directs man to a certain path (the Book of Psalms is full of requests for fear of God and closeness to God, even though these depend fundamentally on free choice).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I really don’t know. Some argue that these are completely deterministic laws, but they are complicated. In my opinion, what is happening in the world is a combination of deterministic physical laws with human choices (this is the only exception to physics). Interfering with these two violates either the laws of nature or free will. Therefore, there is no preference for one intervention over another, and I assume that is why God, the Almighty, does not often do either of them.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
