Q&A: Regarding Column 298 (Divine Involvement)
Regarding Column 298 (Divine Involvement)
Question
The Rabbi argues that God has left the earth, and that this is a plausible interpretation because of the general process of God’s disengagement from the world, as expressed in prophecy and open miracles. A. This claim may explain the Torah’s stories that speak about providence, but not an explicit claim of the Torah that there is providence. When the Torah writes that God watches over us, it means this permanently, just as keeping the Sabbath is an eternal commandment. There should not be a distinction between commandments and factual claims. Therefore, if the Torah writes “And it shall come to pass, if you indeed listen,” or also “And if he cries out to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious” (and “your wives shall be widows,” etc.), it is promising us that there is providence, permanently.
B. Regarding allegorical interpretations of claims of providence in the Bible, it seems to me that this kind of interpretation is possible only in historical narratives, such as the creation of the world, since the basic claim is that the Torah did not come to teach us history but morality and commandments, and therefore historical stories can be interpreted allegorically. Theological claims, by contrast, cannot be interpreted this way, since they are part of the Torah’s purpose. That would be like explaining a halakhic commandment as an allegory, or in general explaining the sacrifices as an allegory for the need for self-sacrifice rather than the actual slaughtering of animals. And regarding an allegorical interpretation of anthropomorphic descriptions of God, such as “And the Lord smelled,” it seems to me that the two are not comparable: first, because in that case it is required due to a clash with explicit verses (“for you saw no form,” Va’etchanan / Deuteronomy), and second, because there it is not an allegory that uproots the plain meaning entirely, but only an explanation that borrowed concepts are being used: God does not literally smell, but from our perspective He does, as it were. (In addition, I suspect that Maimonides had a tradition about this.)
Thank you
Answer
A. Why can’t that explain the verses in the Torah? Do the verses that speak about prophecy deal with our time? You assume it was said for all time, and I say it was said for each period according to what would exist in it. That certainly takes the text no further from its plain meaning than what the Sages did with various verses.
B. A nice consideration. Jewish law, too, is not supposed to be interpreted allegorically. “An eye for an eye” literally? “To establish a name for his dead brother” literally?
In general, your arguments are based on a mistaken methodology. You are dealing with this on the interpretive plane, but I begin from observing reality. If that observation shows me that there is no involvement—then my conclusion is that there is none. The interpretive difficulties come only at stage two. One should not deny what is evident. You begin from interpretation, and if you run into difficulties in reality, you ignore them.
Discussion on Answer
Then those Sages are heretics. I’m in their camp.
In general, I’m in the camp of those who choose a position based on what seems correct to them, not based on who else is in that camp. I’m certainly not in the camp of those who have no arguments and talk nonsense, and then justify it with irrelevant ad hominem arguments.
The Sages already claimed that there is no reward for commandments in this world (and by implication no punishment for transgressions either). And that was in response to the claims of Elisha ben Avuyah. So if you want to be in Elisha ben Avuyah’s camp, please. By the way, I know someone who, because he became convinced that there is no providence in the world, went in Elisha ben Avuyah’s path and gave up observance of the commandments.