Q&A: Prayer
Prayer
Question
1. The Rabbi writes in the second book of the trilogy that, according to his intuition, people feel prayer is boring because they do not think prayer is effective. In practice, though, we seem to see the opposite—in difficult situations, when people pray for someone close to them, they do in fact pray. It seems to me that when people feel everything is fine with them, then there is no point in praying because they “don’t need God,” but when they do need something, then they also feel a need to pray.
2. If prayer is not effective, as the Rabbi says, then why did the prophets who were among the Men of the Great Assembly institute prayer in the first place?
3. The Rabbi cites the Mishnah in Berakhot (9:3) and proves from there that the distinction between an “overt miracle” and a “hidden miracle” is incorrect, because in its time the case of the pregnant woman is a hidden miracle, and that too is forbidden according to what emerges from that Mishnah. Why can’t one say that the distinction is between praying about something that has already happened and something that will happen? In other words, that all the cases discussed in the Mishnah are things that already happened in the past, and those God does not change; God changes only things in the future, and for those it is indeed permitted to pray?
4. A note: at the end of the chapter on prayer, the Rabbi speaks about the problematic nature of prayer and suggests that perhaps one should say that only in extreme situations, when there is no choice, is it permitted to pray. After that, the Rabbi asks how it is permitted to make requests in prayer and answers that perhaps one can intend to pray on behalf of other people… There is a common saying that requests are made in the plural precisely because one is supposed to pray for the needs of the public, not the needs of the individual (I think the source is in the Kuzari).
Answer
- As the saying goes, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” When a person is afraid, he looks for an anchor to cling to. The fact is that afterward, usually nothing remains of all that awakening.
- In the past, it seems there really was involvement. I have written about this more than once here on the site.
- Because there is no such distinction. What will happen has already happened. After all, given the cause, the effect follows as well. So what difference is there?
- Perhaps. I raised that possibility too.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know. It could be that there are some like this and some like that. Each person decides for himself what his intuition is. Religious preachers prefer to see this as hidden faith, but that is exactly what I commented on: I’m not at all sure about that. Why prefer the faith in the foxholes over the atheism outside them?!
1. That still doesn’t answer the theory I suggested. I suggested that when those people need something, they feel a need to turn to God, and when they do not have a strong need, they do not feel a need to speak with God. I assume it’s a matter of intuition and what their intuition tells them their assumption is. (I’ll just add that the Rabbi tends to mention the insight about the prophet Jonah in the context of the gourd—that we immediately attribute to him a criminal mindset from the outset. The question is whether here too this is not the same case, where we tend to think in a criminal way when we say that those people do it only because of fear.)
2. What I meant in my question was that if the prophets instituted prayer, it is reasonable to assume they would have known that the level of providence was declining and would have said something about it. It seems the opposite is true—that they specifically instituted a fixed text for prayer. I’m not so expert in the subject, but I know that Rabbi Cherki tends to say that the Men of the Great Assembly instituted prayer as “a kind of prophecy.”
3. According to the Rabbi’s approach, the “punch line” in reality is a person’s different choices. That is, in a given situation X, did he choose Y or Z (in a simplified description). Meaning that a person can change only what will happen in the future and act toward that. And likewise, according to the Rabbi, God knows what happened in the past, but the future He does not know because human decisions are involved in it. One could say that what was in the past has already happened and there is no way back from it, whereas in present reality, which is changeable by human hands, God also intervenes and sometimes decides.
1. There are many theories. I have nothing to add beyond what I wrote.
2. I wrote that according to my suggestion, reality changed. I have nothing to add.
3. Of course God can intervene, but the question is whether He does so. He can also intervene to change the sex of the fetus even after 40 days. The past is like the future in this respect. And again, I wrote this.
Sorry for the impertinence.
Does the honorable Rabbi pray?
And if so,
just the ritual? Or with intention?
My position is described here on the site and also in my trilogy books. Take it from there.
Unrelated to the question,
1. Are they hidden believers? Meaning, would it be right for them to rely on this basic intuition of something above them in order to believe in it? Or would it not be rational to believe in God on that basis?
I’m not talking about His intervention in the world and whether it is right to pray or not, but about existence itself.