Question

Hello Rabbi,
 
I read the column published today about Rama Burshtein's film,
and I tried to examine myself critically regarding the set of assumptions.
A. Do I think that her wedding is objectively good? It’s not at all clear to me why that should be taken as self-evident. I can think of infinitely many reasons why getting married at that time would not maximize her happiness and that of those around her.
And then there’s the minor detail that we need a groom whose happiness also, incidentally, would be maximized.
B. Is the Holy One, blessed be He, good? True, but I never had it in my head that this is the only parameter driving His actions.
We have received the tradition that providence is conducted through the Thirteen Attributes, which means there are other parameters too, the simplest of which is “truth.”
On the straightforward interpretation, if she does not deserve it, then it is not true to give it to her, and that is a perfectly good reason she would not receive it.
C. “Everything is in the hands of Heaven” does not mean that in every action the Holy One, blessed be He, breaks nature. We accept that this too is a parameter God takes into account,
for example, that breaking the laws of nature has a cost. So true, we have no proof of that, but there is no reason simply to assume that none of us attaches importance to breaking the laws of nature.
Therefore I see a Breslov-type religious woman as fairly ridiculous, and I do not think I am living in some denial of my basic set of values.
I would be happy to understand which of my translations of the assumptions you disagree with and think do not stand the test of reasonableness.