Q&A: A Proposed Refinement to the Rabbi’s View of Providence
A Proposed Refinement to the Rabbi’s View of Providence
Question
Good evening, Rabbi!
A long time ago I was already persuaded, in general, by the Rabbi’s view of providence, based on the website and the responsa. I still haven’t read the new books, so if my question is answered there, my apologies. This view of course resolves a lot, but it also adds new difficulties.
There is the difficulty of dealing day to day with observance of the commandments, with requests found in the prayer text that no longer have any meaning, with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which seemingly can’t possibly have any meaning of judgment, and many other difficulties, some small and some large, which of course have been discussed here on the site in great detail. And of course, for each of them one can find a local answer, but together they accumulate. Added to that is the very difficult emotional feeling—even resentment—toward God, who left us like this without any notice and against all His promises, and more besides, as I’m sure you also deal with. Of course emotional distress is not a reason to abandon a correct view, but it is an incentive to try to improve it. I would like to suggest a refinement to your view, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion of it.
The original Jewish view, and apparently also the way things worked in the world until around the destruction of the Temple—which you too probably agree about—seemed to be roughly like this:
1. A person prayed / did a good deed / did anything else.
2. In Heaven they judged his prayer / deed etc. and issued a decree.
3. A change was made in reality, for his benefit or to his detriment.
Today we know that in reality there is no change from the course of the laws of nature.
The conclusion you draw is that steps 2 and 3 were canceled.
I would like to suggest that the conclusion should be to cancel only step 3.
That is, a person does an act, in Heaven they issue a decree, and on earth there is no change. And the meaning is for the World to Come or after death.
As in fact we all agree happens with performing commandments and their reward: 1. A person performs a commandment, some act. 2. In Heaven there is some sort of deliberation. 3. Reward or punishment is added to his credit or liability.
More specifically, it may be that even though the reason a person does or does not receive something specific is determined solely by the laws of nature, there is still a big difference in terms of his standing in Heaven between a situation in which there is correspondence between what he deserved from Heaven and what actually happened on earth, and a situation in which there is no such correspondence—a situation in which the laws of nature dictated that something would come into his hands, while in Heaven it was decreed that he should not receive it.
The same applies to judgment on Rosh Hashanah. It may indeed be decreed for a person for life or for death, but the meaning is not what will actually happen in reality, rather a spiritual meaning: whether he is in fact alive because of the laws of nature, and Heaven also so decreed, so that he lives by right; or whether he lives naturally, but from Heaven he does not deserve to live, and he lives without merit; and so on. In essence, Heaven continues to conduct itself as if no change in policy had been made, and treats everything as if there were change on earth and providence.
(According to this, all the prayers for redemption are exactly about that: they are our plea for the restoration of the old policy, to a state in which there is correspondence between what happens in Heaven and what happens on earth.)
I tried to be brief, and it still came out long—sorry about that…
I’d be glad to know your opinion.
Thank you very much!
Answer
I have no problem with any of this. Since neither I nor you knows what happens in Heaven and in the World to Come, anything is possible. My claim is that there is no divine involvement in our world, but accumulation of merit and judgment for the World to Come is certainly possible. I have no information on the matter.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand the question. What meaning is there to a request for rain or livelihood? That they should give me rain and livelihood in the World to Come?
As I said, I don’t know what happens in Heaven, but assuming I accept that nothing changed there even though things changed on earth, I can think of it as looking roughly like this:
If you asked for rain and livelihood and nature provided them to you—then you received what you asked for.
If you asked and did not receive—something is recorded to your credit for the World to Come.
If you received by way of nature even though you did not ask—something is recorded to your liability for the World to Come.
Likewise regarding the decree of Yom Kippur.
You were inscribed for life and indeed you live—excellent!
A person was inscribed for life and died—it is recorded to his credit.
A person was inscribed for death and lived—it is recorded to his liability.
And so on…
This is casuistry that I do not understand. If in any case rain was going to fall, then that is not an answer to your prayers. If they want to record points for you in Heaven for prayer—fine. That is not what we were talking about.
Heaven forbid, I didn’t mean that casuistry; I used problematic wording. Obviously it can’t be considered an answer to prayer. I only meant to say that in such a state of affairs I can’t have claims against Heaven, because in the end I got what I wanted, so what difference does it make to me whether it came naturally or miraculously? And of course I would have gotten it even without the prayer, but I have no complaint. Of course this is a marginal part of what I’m arguing, and I’m sorry the Rabbi is dwelling on it, but fine, as you wish.
More generally, throughout the discussion I somewhat feel that the Rabbi is not getting to the bottom of what I mean, or perhaps I am not getting to the bottom of what you mean. Let’s hope for the best.
To the matter itself: my claim is that even though God left the world to the control of the laws of nature, even if He had very good reasons, still, since He promised many times to conduct Himself according to a certain policy, and since He did not explicitly announce a change of policy, He is fully responsible for every deviation from the original policy.
Based on this I make the following assumptions.
My assumptions are similar to the Sages’ answer that a wicked person receives reward in this world regarding the question of why a righteous person suffers and a wicked person prospers, except that I am applying it to prayers.
When there is correspondence between my prayers and what I received naturally—I have no complaints.
When I prayed and did not receive—apparently it is credited to me in the World to Come.
When I did not pray and did not deserve it, yet the laws of nature gave it to me—apparently it is charged to my liability.
Your opinion?
It is important to me to emphasize that when the Rabbi says that prayer has no meaning, the Rabbi is making an active claim about what happens in Heaven: the Rabbi is claiming that nothing happens there when a Jew prays.
We’ve exhausted this. I explained what I had to explain.
Thank you for your answer!
If I may, I’d like to ask a bit more on this.
The Rabbi always actively argues that requests in prayer have no meaning whatsoever.
Now the Rabbi is saying that prayer may have meaning. Isn’t it much harder to set aside an enactment of the Sanhedrin if it may still be correct?
In addition, I am not claiming that I know exactly what happens in Heaven. I am claiming that the fact that there was a policy change on earth does not prove that there was a policy change in Heaven as well, and that prayer has no meaning.
Does the Rabbi agree with the description of the 3 stages of roughly how the world once looked? If there is providence, doesn’t that require some kind of measuring of a person’s deeds in Heaven?
And if the Rabbi agrees, why cancel step 2?