Answer

Indeed, that is a good question. And why, in the prayer “Nachem,” do we speak about a city that is ruined and without inhabitants? The whole issue of prayer urgently needs updating. In the meantime, one can look for creative solutions. For example, maybe the Holy One, blessed be He, does intervene on rare occasions after all, since one cannot know for certain. So I pray for the public as a whole, that if there is someone in a difficult situation, the Holy One, blessed be He, should help him. Maybe somewhere, for someone, it will work. But in truth this is an anachronism that should be abolished.
A similar question arises regarding thanksgiving. If the Holy One, blessed be He, does not do these things, why thank Him? Here I have a simpler answer. This is an opportunity to thank Him for the world He created and for its laws, thanks to which what happened happened, and thanks to which we are here. The “miracle” that happened to me occurred because of the laws of nature, not because of special intervention by the Holy One, blessed be He, but it is still an opportunity for general thanksgiving.
I elaborate on all this in a book on Jewish theology that I am currently writing.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
According to this view, were a considerable number of prayers really just ‘for nothing’?!
Basically, this outlook has “clipped the wings” of the Holy One, blessed be He—He hardly affects the world, does not know a considerable part of the future that depends on human choice, and in effect it is more like “Big Brother,” where the Holy One, blessed be He, watches us and does not do very much(!). Such an approach contradicts most Jewish sages throughout the generations!
How does the Rabbi define God and His activity in the world?
And regarding the prayer “Nachem,” maybe the wording needs to be corrected, but the basic idea remains mourning over the fact that Jerusalem is not in its ideal state—but in requests and petitions this is fundamentally different from the original issue.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The prayers were not “for nothing”; rather, now they are for nothing. In the past, when the Holy One, blessed be He, was more involved, maybe not.
Indeed, this contradicts the accepted view. In my view, the Holy One, blessed be He, has left the earth (perhaps with the exception of rare and exceptional cases, but I cannot know about those).
I previously referred here to something I once wrote ina response to a student from the Be’er Yerocham women’s seminary.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
So the Rabbi is basically claiming that the Holy One, blessed be He, “left” the earth.
Such a view seems to me to stem from new scientific developments; but in the past (before those developments) He was more involved. One cannot claim yes or no, because we did not have the tools to test this claim in those times—and therefore one can also claim quite a few things.
What is the difference between this and claiming that before the microscope was discovered there were no bacteria, because we did not see them??
And another question: what does the Rabbi intend during prayer in blessings like “Heal us” or “Hear our voice”?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The main difference is that the first claim is true and the second is not. If I accept what the Torah says, then it says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is involved. Now I can see that He is not. The obvious solution is that He changed policy. There are various indications of this as well (such as the disappearance of prophecy and miracles—facts accepted by everyone, regardless of what I say).
By contrast, regarding bacteria, it is obvious to me why people did not see them in the second century CE: simply because there were no microscopes. So why assume they did not exist? There is no indication of that and no need for such an assumption. If there were indications of it, I would have no problem saying so. It is, after all, a known fact that there are bacteria that did not exist then and do exist today, and vice versa. So in principle it is possible that there were no bacteria at all, but I see no indication that this is indeed what was the case.
As for “Heal us,” I try to have in mind some sick person somewhere in the world who needs healing and has no natural or scientific solution. Maybe the Holy One, blessed be He, does respond in such exceptional circumstances without anyone noticing. And maybe not… If I had the strength, I would abolish it.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
According to the Rabbi, perhaps the involvement looked clearer in the absence of real scientific knowledge (God of the gaps), even if that was not actually correct—but today, when the knowledge exists, it is different.
This claim about God’s departure is not impossible, but in my humble opinion it is baseless.
If once, in the pre-scientific modern world, people saw involvement, and today, in the modern scientific world, they do not see it,
it seems as though the gap is in the perception of reality and not in reality itself.
According to the Rabbi, is there no place for personal prayers and requests?
And what about providence in the world—God rolling events along? According to the idea of departure, is there no providence, whether general or individual?!
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
If you do not believe what is written in the Torah, then that is indeed the required conclusion. I begin from a starting point of trust in what is written in the Torah (and that is the basis you wrote is missing from my position).
There is passive providence, not active providence. He follows what happens and perhaps rarely intervenes. But He does not bring about what happens. And indeed there is no place 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.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
So according to the Rabbi, in a case like drought, for example, there is no place for a fast day / prayer assembly / additions and requests, because it probably will not help at all?
So why did the Men of the Great Assembly institute prayer for us and obligate us to ask and pray, if in all likelihood nothing at all will come of it?!
This empties a considerable part of prayer of almost all content!!
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Avishai. My feeling is that both you and I are just repeating the same thing over and over. What is unclear in what I wrote in the previous messages? What is new in this question of yours? It may be that you disagree, and that is perfectly fine. But what is the point of constantly repeating the same question?
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Sorry for the repetition (and the nagging).
I tried to understand the Rabbi’s view, and I really cannot understand how it fits with the sources I know.
It is hard for me to deal with the great passivity of God according to the Rabbi’s view.
That’s all.
I agree to disagree.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
It does not fit, and it is not trying to fit. I do not accept the common approach according to which the Holy One, blessed be He, brings about everything that happens here in our world, or even the claim that He does some of what happens here (except perhaps for exceptional cases). I have written here more than once that there is no binding authority in matters of thought, and I do not see myself as obligated by what all our rabbis wrote in these areas.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
But in the context of prayer this touches on the halakhic realm, Jewish law.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
There are halakhic determinations that are based on assessments of reality and on principles of thought (such as killing a louse on the Sabbath). In such a place, even a halakhic determination is open to criticism, and there is no authority regarding it. Still, as I wrote, for the time being I do not allow myself actually to change the laws of prayer, precisely because this is Jewish law. For now I just cut corners. But to tell the truth, in my opinion one can also actually change things in practice for the reason mentioned above. Still, my comments above apply only to a determination that from the outset was not correct, and not to a determination whose rationale has lapsed. For as a matter of Jewish law, when the rationale lapses, the enactment does not lapse. But here too there are many exceptions. See the last chapter of Neria Gutel’s book, The Changing of Nature in Jewish Law.
——————————————————————————————
Eliyahu Feldman:
Why not explain that the Holy One, blessed be He, intervenes in the world through the laws of society? After all, it is well 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 here God intervenes? For example: if there is currently a revolution in the Arab countries in a way that affects us, why should we not say that the hand of God directed events so that they would occur for the benefit of the State of Israel? And if you say that this harms the free choice of the revolutionaries or their opponents—in my humble opinion there is no obstacle to saying that God directs a person toward a certain path (the book of Psalms is full of requests for fear of Heaven and closeness to God, even though these fundamentally depend on free choice).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
That is not at all something known to me. Some maintain that these are entirely deterministic laws, just complicated ones. In my view, what happens in the world is a combination of deterministic physical laws and human choices (this is the only departure from physics). Intervention in either of these harms either the laws of nature or freedom of will. Therefore there is no reason to prefer this kind of intervention over another, and I assume that is why the Holy One, blessed be He, does not often do either one.