On security in the name of

The discussion must be divided between halakha and thought. Halacha. It seems to me that confidence in God has no halakhic source, and therefore it should not be mentioned in the hand of the strong. Although in the laws of opinion it mentions good and bad qualities, it seems to me that these are universal moral qualities (a right and wrong mental structure) and not religious qualities like confidence in God. Confidence could have been mentioned together with love of God and fear of Him (these are religious qualities), but as far as I remember such qualities do not appear in the laws of opinion, but only in the Basic Principles of the Torah. However, there it is already a regular halakhic composition (unlike the laws of opinion), and therefore confidence cannot appear there (because there is no such halakhic obligation. Love of God and fear of Him are prescribed mitzvot and are commanded by the Torah). thought. I don’t know if it appears in the MUN, because I’m not familiar enough with this composition. In closing, I will add two comments: 1. The Chazo’a in Faith and Confidence explains that confidence in God does not mean trusting that good will happen to us, but rather that what needs to happen will happen (sometimes these are bad things for us). 2. I personally do not believe that God is involved in our world (except perhaps in very rare cases). The world operates as it should, and the laws of nature together with human choices direct the world. Because of this, the question of security does not arise at all. Maybe Maimonides didn’t believe in this either, and that’s why the issue of security doesn’t appear in his intellectual literature either. I don’t know. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Thank you very much. I know the Chazon Ish. And although his definition is different from what is accepted in Hasidism, he completely has a duty of security for what he means. By the way, I don’t agree at all with your view on the presence of God in our lives. I read your words on your blog… Beyond the fact that they clearly do not fit in my opinion with the words of Chazal, I am curious how you personally can pray in general and in times of difficulty in particular, or conduct yourself in general before God. As for keeping the Halacha and the mitzvot, it does not seem difficult to me. This is a distinctly Leibowitzian view. If you feel like it, I’d love to hear it. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I have difficulties with the requests in prayer. The confessions are about the laws of nature that create everything around us. The requests are meaningless in my opinion because God is not involved except perhaps in rare cases. The only meaning I find for the requests is merely an attempt to cause such rare intervention, and therefore there is no point in doing so except for very exceptional cases (when there is no natural solution) or for others who are in such situations (in the obligatory prayer this is the only meaning I find, to think of others). Unlike Leibowitz, who sees this as an ideal, I see this as a problem. But today I have no way to change this (something that one minyan needs another minyan to allow, and in the eyes of the Dervish, they are wise and wise). Indeed, this is against the Sages, and there is one of two things here: either they were wrong (because they thought that God was involved as they once thought when they did not yet know the laws of nature and its conduct as they do today), or the situation has changed (that in their time He was more involved). I deal with all of this in my book on theology (a trilogy I am currently writing). There I also explain why I do not think that God is involved in the ongoing conduct of the world. In my opinion, beyond the fact that anyone who is honest will admit that they do not see this, the scientific picture of the world denies this. It is indeed difficult to deal with God when you think this way, but on the other hand I think that others also think this way, because that is what experience and common sense teach, but they do not dare to admit it to themselves (it is not clear whether the puma is a good fit). Working on myself does not seem like a reasonable solution to me. This is really what I think, and the fact that it is difficult cannot change it. —————————————————————————————— Yitzhak Schwartz: And what about private providence? And from there to man’s purpose and path in the world? Man’s destiny, etc.?
Thanks in advance.
Yitzhak Schwartz, Kora is loyal and always has a hard time coming to terms with your thoughts. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Hello Isaac.
In my opinion, there is no private supervision (except in a passive sense: He monitors what we do) but not active (He acts in our environment and manages it and us). Man’s path and destiny is to live while fulfilling the commandments given to us in the Torah. There is no need to assume divine involvement for our lives to have a destiny.
By the way, I once thought that those who returned from war were those who built a house, married a wife, and planted a vineyard, and not those who did not complete the Shas or did not redeem a severe absolution. And the point is that the purpose of life is to live, and the mitzvot come to tell how to live (this is the essence of the idea of ​​”and live in them” and not die in them). That is why I defined the purpose as living according to the Halacha and not the observance of the Halacha per se.
I mean more than that. Each person determines their destiny for themselves. Halacha is the framework within which this is conducted. —————————————————————————————— Yitzhak Schwartz: And if providence were in the passive sense only, why is there not one destiny for man? Who will live, who will perish, who will be in water, who in fire, who will be healthy and who will be sick, who will be rich and who will be poor, {and doesn’t everything depend solely on man’s efforts}?
Thank you Isaac —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Why should there be one fate? Each one has its own nature and environment. I didn’t understand the argument.
As for who will live, see here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9c%d7%9e%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%aa%d7%9d-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%a8%d7%9e%d7%96%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%90%d7%95-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%91%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%98%d7%90-%d7%98%d7%95/ —————————————————————————————— Yitzhak Schwartz: I will read God’s will, I must reflect deeply on your positions, thank you very much for your respectful responses. —————————————————————————————— pleasantness: Shalom Rabbi, what about the explicit verses in the Torah that directly link the actions of the Jewish people to God’s reward? (If it is about rain and in general all the blessings that He will give in the Land of Israel when we fulfill His commandments, longevity as a result of performing certain commandments, and so on.) And all of this is assuming that I do not accept the words of Chazal, which also have weight that must be considered. In addition, there is the teaching of Kabbalah that falsely links our actions to the abundance that we bring to the world. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I have been asked this dozens of times on this site. My answer is that apparently God’s dealings in the world have changed, just as miracles and prophecy have disappeared, so has God’s hand disappeared from the world.
But all these theories and interpretations do not change the clear feeling that there is no such involvement in the world.