Prayer
Hello Rabbi, I want to thank you for agreeing to listen to what is going through my mind. I want to warn the Rabbi that sometimes what I will bring up will be anti-emotional that developed as a result of the yeshiva and the crisis of trust that I have with Judaism and not an argument for the matter. I apologize for that in advance.
I have many questions that started in yeshiva and only multiplied when I started at the Technion. Today I no longer know the validity of the miracles that happened to Israel, especially the event at Mount Sinai, whether it really happened, what is unique about the Tanakh (isn’t it simply the first book that gained a lot of sympathy), whether it is a historical or religious book, why do I have to obey the halakha, why do I have to demand that others obey the halakha.
For all these questions, I lack the historical and scientific background (for example, the Big Bang or Darwin’s theory and its effects on Judaism. Or in the Gemara on Shabbat there is a discussion about lice that are created by sweat and a scientific discovery that refutes it. What I remember is that one should listen to religion because there is a chance that science will come up with an opposite theory in a few years. Even when I was in yeshiva, I thought this was a bad reason) to answer them, and the questions are growing at a faster rate than the rate of my book reading, and the pressure of the Technion is not helping. If you could refer me to the appropriate books, I would be happy. The last book I read that really disturbed me was The History of Humanity by Yuval Noah Harari. The questions that arose are – is our religion true? Why is the Jewish people special? Is it special? (The fact that we remained separate from other nations is supposed to indicate something? Read in some book that there is historical evidence of the separation of the people of Israel that the religion is true. Even if that is true, what did people do in the first generations, when there was no history yet?) Isn’t our religion essentially just another culture among many?
For some reason, I’m not annoyed with the belief that there is a God in the world.
I’ll start with the first question, which came to me back in the yeshiva, and that evening you arrived at the yeshiva, I asked you – What is the place of prayer? What does it help with? I don’t think I’m a good enough lawyer to convince the Kabbalah, who knows everything about me, to do me a favor and fulfill my request. Even if I were good enough, why would He do that?
I read some answers on the subject, some who said that the prayer was defined so that the Kabba would answer anyone who said this phrase and that the Kabba wants our prayers. This just sounds completely narcissistic on the part of the Kabba and I find it hard to accept. There were those who said that the person redefines themselves and the decree that was on them before will not apply to the new person created by the prayer. I didn’t connect with that either.
When I heard that there were opinions that said that praying was like reading a phone book, I generally considered it a waste of time.
What do you think about the topic?
thanks.
Hello X.
There are a lot of questions in your words, and as you suggested, we will begin the discussion with the last one you brought up for discussion. This one also contains several questions. I will discuss them briefly because it is difficult to write so much.
My starting point is that God’s providence does not generally exist in our time. The world, as it is, operates according to the laws of nature. There are many reasons and arguments for this view, but it seems completely simple to me. If someone takes paracetamol, their fever will go down even if they are a criminal, and if they do not take paracetamol, it will not go down even if they are not a criminal. When we observe nature, we do not see any deviation from the laws of nature, nor does it see any dependence of nature on our spiritual state. In general, in the scientific view, the laws of nature are the causes of what happens, but a cause by definition is a sufficient condition for the surrounding. So if the necessary conditions are met, the result will occur regardless of my spiritual state. And if they are not met, then it will not occur, and that too regardless of my spiritual state.
It is possible that there are exceptions, that is, points where God nevertheless intervenes. But even if this happens (I don’t know), it is something very sporadic and rare. I wouldn’t count on it.
The Torah’s description of our situation depending on the commandments (if you do my commandments, etc.) is, in my understanding, a description of the situation in ancient times when there was prophecy and miracles and visible providence. Today, this has changed, and providence has also disappeared (and rightly so. It did not become hidden, but it does not exist). People find it difficult to accept this, but everyone agrees about prophecy and miracles. So why not providence? After all, every event of providence is an intervention by God, in other words, a deviation from the laws of nature, in other words, a miracle (talk about providence within nature is complete nonsense on a logical level. There is no such animal: every intervention is a miracle. A hidden miracle is at most a miracle that we do not notice, but a miracle is always a deviation from the laws of nature). So if miracles have disappeared, so has providence. And simple.
And hence to prayer.
It has several parts (both in the prayer itself and in its goals and direction): confession, praise, request, connection with God, the Almighty, and standing before Him. The request is intended for Him to intervene in my favor, that is, to perform a miracle. I only do this in a place where there is no natural way out, and even then I don’t count on it being answered. As mentioned, in most cases this doesn’t happen. But you can try.
I am not acting as an advocate when I convince him, but rather I am making an act of connection with him that will cause him to intervene in my favor. Some have explained that I change with prayer and then I deserve intervention. This is roughly what I am suggesting here (with minor differences. I am not talking about actual changes that occur to me as a result of prayer).
He is worthy of praise. If he doesn’t intervene, then what is the praise for? But here there is a difference. After all, he created us and the laws of nature, and therefore he is in fact responsible for everything that happens here. He is praised for that. That actually seems fine to me.
Beyond all, there is the standing before Him. Without prayer facilities, we would not do it (it is difficult to do this spontaneously). Therefore, there is a kind of skeleton here for our religious life. Think about it, you will see that without it they would not exist.
Therefore, even if the Sages thought that prayer was beneficial and led to intervention, and some of them (certainly not all) thought that everything depended on God and His providence, they were wrong about this. Just as they were wrong about many other things (in reality, in Halacha, and in thought). But this regulation is still valid for two reasons: 1. Formally, as long as the law is not changed, it is the law. A regulation that is void of its own accord needs a court to nullify it, and we do not have one today. 2. The need for a framework for standing before God, and so on. Even if this was not the original intention of the Sages themselves.
Leibowitz’s formulation as if there is a rule here to say phone book is aimed at this perception, but as usual he takes it to too great an extreme (Leibowitz’s problem is that most of his arguments are correct, and he always continues them beyond their validity. He takes them to an extreme that makes them foolish).
Goodbye,
Michi
By the way, for this reason I use the prayers on Shabbat (which are long and annoying) to read and study. It turns out to be very useful. I don’t cancel them and say what is necessary (at least what is halachically obligatory), but at the same time, without any qualms of conscience, I use the time and so on.
This is the explanation for the proliferation of leaflets in the synagogues, and therefore they are unable to deal with the phenomenon (even though it involves several prohibitions). The only reason why people read these nonsense (most of them) is boredom. It’s just that people don’t admit it outright. I would significantly shorten the prayer, but I wouldn’t eliminate it because you need a framework for standing before God (see previous email).
Thank you very much for the answer. I really, really appreciate it.
I feel a little uncomfortable talking to you about such basic issues, so if writing an answer in an email takes too much of your time, I can also come to you at Bar Ilan. (It takes fewer words to destroy with a question than to build an answer)
I had a few questions in response to the topic of prayer, and I will address those that occurred to me during private supervision later.
Regarding the first part of my question about prayer (the lawyer's part). I very much agree with your approach that intervention is very rare if at all. You went on to say that a relationship with him will (perhaps) result in intervention in my favor, and as an explanation for this – a change in the person praying through prayer. What is this change? Is it the work of virtue? Psychology? Mysticism? A definition that this is how it works? Why and how does it work? What is the evidence that it works?
Regarding the actual intervention (which is very rare), why should we assume that the action of the relationship was the cause of this happening? How come we don't have it anyway?
(The questions are a bit repetitive, so if you feel you've already sufficiently established the answers, there's no need to explain)
When I look at the explanation for prayer in general, I find myself thinking that the reasons leave a blank; whether it's because standing in front of the Kaaba is a framework for our religious life - that is, a means and not an end in itself, or whether the regulation is simply a mistake by the Sages that we have to suffer the consequences of because technically we don't have a court of law today. (The authority of the court of law is another question of mine).
I have a hard time finding an instigator for prayer, because it just sounds to me in retrospect. That's how it should be?
And in the context of private supervision -
When and why did the supervision disappear? Could you point me to a book? I don't remember learning about it in yeshiva.
To the more substantive questions on the matter - when you said providence, did you mean that the Almighty does not intervene (a miracle) or that the Almighty is not even aware of everything that goes on in the world? Even if it is the former - does this have a practical implication? After all, he will not do anything anyway. I find myself thinking more and more like the philosophers of the Book of the Khazari - that the Almighty created the world and since then we have become apathetic to it - is this not an accurate description of what is happening?
On the other hand, as the devil's advocate - there are many cases in the world where we do not have the tools to know the cause and effect. Either because the calculations required are too large, for example, throwing a die, or because we have not yet solved the exact causes of the result, for example, the stock market or the weather. Is there intervention there?
Finally - last week I was at X and spoke to two people about the subject and they wanted to know your opinion. Could I send them our correspondence?
Thank you very much and very much appreciate it,
As for prayer. It is clear that from my observation of the world I would not conclude that prayer is beneficial or that God intervenes. In my opinion, the question of “why do we need it?” is irrelevant here. I have a tradition that claims that this is what is happening. If I have basic trust in this tradition, then I accept what is acceptable from it. Still, despite my trust, if there is something that is clearly not true, I reject it. Therefore, if the Torah says, “And I gave you rain in its season,” etc., I believe that in principle there could be intervention, and probably there once was. In fact, today it is difficult for me to see it and I do not think it exists. So I reject that. The conclusion is that I must qualify the traditional message and conclude that there is probably a gradual disappearance of God from the world. And the helpful condition is that this aligns well with the disappearance of prophecy and miracles.
Indeed, don't tell anyone, but the philosopher of the Khazari is definitely right. Has God left the earth. That's how I wrote the things in the book I told you about. But I explained there that this doesn't necessarily mean that God has become apathetic. To the best of my understanding, it's more likely that He simply lets us grow up, and just as every parent slowly leaves their children and lets them fend for themselves, so is God's attitude towards the world. Once upon a time, when we had childish faith, we had to hold His hand: miracles, prayers, providential interventions, and the like. Today we are grown children. I am attaching a file that I once wrote on this subject for my student at Midreshet Be'er Yeruham.
I explained there that this perception is not just a result of our level of scientific knowledge. Knowledge is a result of God's departure. As long as the world does not operate according to laws but rather frequent interventions by God, there is no possibility of developing science. Science allows for behavior according to fixed laws. And God wants the world to be governed by fixed laws, so when He sees that we have overcome, He lets it happen. Behavior according to laws is better for us, since we have the ability to govern the world and anticipate what will happen and control our destiny. And this is indeed what is happening today.
Therefore, the lack of knowledge or the complexity of the calculations is not a reason to put God in this hole (this is what our atheist cousins call God pf the gaps), but at most a reason for further scientific research. If something happens systematically, even if we do not understand it, there is probably a law of nature here that we are not yet familiar with. Although a temporary and local intervention (=miracle) that I of course. In my modern mind, it is almost impossible to recognize a miracle (the owner of the miracle does not recognize a miracle), because I will almost always find a scientific explanation for it, and even if not - I will assume that there is such an explanation. But I still do not rule out the possibility that there are such local interventions. I have no way of knowing that either, either way.
I approach the matter of prayer with the same approach. Here too, I do not look for evidence that prayer works because there is none. I assume things by virtue of tradition and examine how willing I am to accept them. I reject what is clearly unreasonable. First, there is a halakhic obligation to pray. I accept the commitment to the law, its founding texts, and the authorized institutions. Just as in the Knesset when there is a law and I do not agree with it, I uphold it as long as it has not changed, so too with regard to halakhic law. I don't want the system to fall apart, so I'm willing to pay the price (by the way, I'm very glad that there is no Sanhedrin today, because whoever sat on it today - the so-called Torah gurus - would make for a horrible and dark world for us. The absence of the Sanhedrin is a problem we created. I believe that if there were worthy people, there would be a Sanhedrin, or another authorized and agreed-upon institution, and God did well, if at all, to not let this happen for the time being until we improve a little. As far as I'm concerned, establishing a Sanhedrin now is the arrival of the horsemen of the apocalypse).
At the same time, I have an aspiration to change and correct within the possible framework in order to reach a smaller gap between what I do and what I think (as I said in the class in X), and there is quite a bit to do. For example, to give up the non-binding parts of prayer. Perhaps add more relevant parts. And so is Halacha in general. Even without a Sanhedrin, there is quite a bit to do. There are indeed things that need consensus, and therefore one must write and try and convince in order to create such a consensus. My basic trust in the system exists, and therefore my criticism does not lead me to want to dismantle it. Therefore, I pray even though some of the prayer (not all of it) does not have an incentive.
And from this I conclude that one must continue to pray, albeit with reservations. I omit unnecessary parts. I read various materials when possible. My requests to God deal with other people who are in a situation that needs a miracle (in the hope that it might happen to them, although I do not count on it). The praise and acknowledgment remain the same (not for the current interventions but for the creation of the world and its laws that allow me to function). In general, critical thinking must be applied.
Regarding the response to prayer. What can cause God to respond to prayer is our action. This is not about the mystical mechanics of prayers that respond to actions. I ask and pray, and that is why God intervenes. It is not about persuasion or bringing the information to His attention (I assume He knows it, although He does not supervise and intervene practically. In my opinion, there is a passive supervision of monitoring what is happening - like a parent following his children).
It is like between people, as long as you do not ask, the other person will not necessarily help you. And there, too, the purpose of the request is not only bringing the information to the other person's attention. The request itself is a reason for His compliance because He sees that it is important to you and you are willing to ask and see Him as a factor that can help. Therefore, even towards God, the request can be a reason for intervention, even without any additional mysticism. It does smell of an attitude of pursuing honor (as you wrote), and it bothered me for a long time. But it seems to me that this is not a necessary interpretation. He wants to bring us to recognize Him for ourselves. But all of these are of course His personifications, and therefore they should be taken with limited responsibility. As mentioned, we are no longer in the place of childish faith that must see God as a kind of great father and attribute human qualities to Him (as they did in the Torah according to the Onkelos translation. This was also a need of that generation that was still struggling with mythologies of personal gods).
As far as I am concerned, there is no problem. You can pass the things on to whoever you wish.
Goodbye,
Miki
Rabbi Hirsch has an interesting reference to this issue: Rabbi Hirsch in Genesis, chapter 20, verse 7 (And the man's wife, being a prophet, will pray for you and you will live; but if you do not answer, you will surely die, you and all who belong to you:) and he will pray for you, from the root of the word "falal" (judge), close to "belal". We have already seen in the story of the generation of Pelaga, who "belal" He does not mix materials with each other, but: brings a new element to the material, infuses it into all its parts, and thereby transforms it into a new material. But this is the role of the judge according to the Jewish concept. Lies and injustice separate, create contradictions and strife. The judge injects the law, he is the divine truth of reality, into a place where there is contradiction and strife, and he is found to be a peacemaker, creating harmonious unity, where lies and injustice caused contradiction and separation. Similarly, the “prayer”, as it were, “infuses” himself, injects the divine truth into all aspects of his being and existence, and thus acquires for himself unity and spiritual wholeness in the light of the face of God. Jewish prayer stands in complete opposition to the mass concept of “prayer”. Not an outpouring from within, not an expression of what the heart is already feeling, – this is what we call “station”, “discussion” and so on’, – but: the introduction of the heart into that truth that is given and acquired from without. There is no prayer but a “work of the heart”, there is no “prayer” but a “worker” on correcting oneself, raising one's heart to the highest peak of knowing the truth and the desire to serve God’. If this were not so, if prayer were merely an expression of the feelings of the heart, how could it be possible to set a time and a formula for it, how could it be possible to assume that the entire congregation, in all its details, would be imbued with one emotion and think one thought, at the predetermined times. Furthermore, such a prayer is simply unnecessary. Feelings and thoughts that already live in our hearts no longer need expression, least of all do they need a fixed and formulated expression. A deep feeling always finds expression, and if the feeling is great and extremely sublime, then it is above all expression and has silence as its praise. Say from now on: The constant prayers have come only to awaken the heart and revive within it those eternal values that still need strengthening and excellent preservation. Indeed, the truth has been given to say: The lack of a “mood” for prayer will only increase the spiritual need to pray, will only increase the saving power and the sublime value of that “work of the heart” that is done “by means of prayer.” A lack of a “mood” is nothing but a clear sign of the blurring of that spirit that is not the basis of prayer but its highest purpose and goal.
Shalom X and Shalom Honorable Rabbi,
Perhaps it is worth adopting the method of the author of the book Shabili Emuna (who was the grandson of the first) regarding prayer. There he explains at length how prayer works, that it was not created so that God would do something, since He does not change. In short, prayer is intended to awaken and bring us closer to Hashem, and in this way spiritual barriers that prevent us from receiving favor will be removed. Regards.
This is not helpful for the difficulties I am talking about. It is clear that prayer is not really helpful in general. Therefore, such a mechanism also does not fit the scientific concept and simple observation.
Hello
Your theory on the subject of providence is very fascinating. I just wanted to understand if, in your opinion, you also disbelieve in the redemption and resurrection of the dead and all that goes with it, because now everything is in our hands?
And if so, we do not understand what the purpose and goal of the world is (unlike the Sages and the Rishonim).
Not necessarily. It is possible that God will take the reins back into His hands and bring us a Messiah and resurrect the dead (or at least manipulate the world to make it happen).
I am not at all sure that according to Chazal the purpose of the world is redemption and resurrection of the dead. This is supposed to be the end of the road but not necessarily the purpose. The purpose could be the correction of the world, and when the correction is created, these will also come. See the words of the Rambam in the answer to the question of how it is not appropriate to worship God in the way of hope for reward and fear of punishment, but to do the truth because He is the truth and the end of goodness is to come.
Rabbi,
For you, is the Messiah a miracle like the resurrection of the dead or a natural process like the gathering of the exiles?
No event that is promised in advance is a natural process. A promise means that God will intervene to ensure that it happens.
I didn't understand. What could bring God to suddenly intervene if he can't find a reason for it now? Is he waiting for us to grow up? And what do you think, if there is something that could cause him to intervene, it could be even today, in the smallest detail, and there is a good reason to pray.
I also didn't understand the evidence from the Rambam that speaks of the individual's attitude towards the reward for his actions in terms of the purpose of the creation of the world (which the sages of Kabbalah based the entire Torah on).
For example, that he is waiting for the world to be better reformed. Even today he may have reason to intervene, but it seems that he is not doing so. What I wrote is that this does not mean that in the future he will not find it appropriate to change the policy, at least in the area of redemption and resurrection of the dead.
I do not know who these “sages of Kabbalah” are, and I do not think you are right about that either.
And what about a prayer for the peace of the country, for example?
Its name gives away its purpose, and once a prayer doesn't help with that, it's useless, right?
What does "inactive" mean? That there is no obligation to say it? Of course not. Even if it helps, there is no obligation to say it. Whoever thinks it helps, let him say it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
