Q&A: A Futile Prayer
A Futile Prayer
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the last lecture on messianism, you brought up the topic of a futile prayer as an expression of cases in which the Holy One, blessed be He, changes the course of nature. In my opinion, that is not the indication of a futile prayer. What the cases in which the prayer is a futile prayer have in common is a request relating to an event that has already taken place in the past. In other words, the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot turn time backward. The woman already has a baby boy in her womb, and likewise the cry has already been heard in one of the houses. It makes no sense to pray about something that has already happened.
Answer
The baby in the womb can now turn from male to female. What’s the problem with doing that? It’s no different from any other miracle.
By the way, even in a fire that has already happened, the result can be changed: to revive those who died, to kill those who are alive. There is no problem at all doing that (physically, not morally), except that here it is an overt miracle and not a hidden one, as in the case of the fetus.
Discussion on Answer
In the Tosefta in Berakhot, there is also a case brought of someone who had one hundred se’ah and prayed that they should become two hundred, and it is defined as a futile prayer: “rather, he should pray that blessing enter them and that curse not enter them.”
I have never in my life heard of a futile prayer. And from what I understood from what I read above, I understood that someone who wants to change situations that already happened does not accept divine justice as it is. In your opinion, can a barren woman not pray that she will give birth? Do you think that is a futile prayer? Of course not..
The Tosefta also implies that one should not pray about an event that has occurred. And as proof—the very quote you brought: “rather, he should pray that blessing enter them and that curse not enter them.”
Moshe, in tractate Berakhot it says that someone who hears a person screaming and prays that it should not be someone from his household—this is a futile prayer, because either it is someone from his household or it isn’t. I don’t think there is any issue here of divine justice.
The prayer is about the cry itself—”may these not be my household”—not that the Holy One, blessed be He, should revive the people who were harmed. A prayer for reviving the victims is legitimate, as I understand it.
As for the baby—here too we are dealing with changing an existing state; the meaning of a futile prayer is changing the past. That’s why it is legitimate to pray as long as the woman has not yet conceived.
That is also the wording of the Mishnah: “one who cries out over what has already passed.”