Q&A: A Question About Reward and Punishment
A Question About Reward and Punishment
Question
I have to say that the Rabbi’s view, in a certain sense, kind of “saves” me, because by removing “extraneous” ideas, the Rabbi frees me from having to deal with the questions connected to them. But that is on the level of faith; on the existential level, though, I feel there is a problem here. A God so “thin” that He does not intervene in creation and does not repay those who keep His commandments is a God who is indifferent to the world, indifferent to evil, and therefore evil Himself as well. How can it be that God—the ultimate good—would be indifferent to human suffering?
(I’m not asking what the motivation is to keep the commandments, because presumably the Rabbi will answer that there is an obligation to keep the commandments, and the motivation is the desire to do what one is obligated to do, and whoever lacks motivation simply should not keep them. What does bother me a bit, though, is that the concept of “obligation” is a moral one, and whether there is a moral obligation to keep the commandments of a non-moral being.)
Thank you very much for the answers so far!
Answer
There is a misunderstanding here.
He is not indifferent to the world, because otherwise He would not have commanded us anything at all (and really would not have created us). But it is important to Him that the world be run by us. If He were to intervene and prevent everything that was not done according to His will, then in practice He would be the one running things, not us.
He is also not indifferent to evil, since He commands us to do good. True, sometimes the laws of nature and human conduct cause evil, but that is a necessary evil. Not because He wants it or is indifferent to it.
Discussion on Answer
As for reward in this world, clearly if the Holy One, blessed be He, is not involved, then there is no reward and punishment in this world. After all, every reward and every punishment is the result of His intervening on my behalf or against me. That is just saying the same thing in different words. The dispute took place when it took place, and the situation can change. And even then, perhaps they were mistaken (since we are talking about an assessment of reality).
As for the World to Come, I do not know whether there is reward there or not (I have never been there). If there is no reward there, then apparently there is none at all—unless the soul somehow returns here again, and then there will be a period of intervention. But all these are speculations, and nobody knows who or what.
By the way, there is no connection at all to Abraham and his hat. There it is a case of begging the question, whereas here it is a completely ordinary inference.
The question of who held such a view and who did not is irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether this view is correct or not.
I’m asking in connection with something I read here on the site: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A9%D7%9B%D7%A8-%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9-%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%90/
The Rabbi writes that in his view there is no divine intervention in creation and the world is conducted according to fixed laws of nature.
Assuming this position is a principled philosophical one and not merely an empirical one, it would seem there is no difference between periods, and no reason why in one period the Holy One, blessed be He, would intervene in creation and in another period not.
If so, how does the Rabbi account for all the descriptions in the Torah of divine intervention, the punishment of karet as it appears in the words of the Sages, “but God caused it to happen at his hand” regarding one who kills unintentionally, “for I will not acquit the wicked,” and so on and so on.
It is not principled but empirical. It does not seem that there is such involvement today. Apparently there is a difference between periods (if we believe the prophets). See here:
The Rabbi derived from this a theoretical principle that there is no reward and punishment in this world. If there is a division into periods in divine involvement, is there likewise a division into periods also regarding reward and punishment in this world (so that the dispute over whether there is reward for a commandment in this world depends on the period)? That sounds a bit strange to me.
Be that as it may, if there is no reward in this world and no reward in the World to Come, the conclusion is that there is no reward at all (Abraham Avinu’s logic and the hat…). Isn’t this the theory of the students of Tzadok?