Q&A: Prayer
Prayer
Question
Hello Rabbi, I want to thank you for agreeing to listen to what’s going on in my head. I want to warn the Rabbi that sometimes what I bring up will be emotionally antagonistic, something that developed because of the yeshiva and the crisis of trust that developed for me with Judaism, and not really a substantive argument. I apologize for that in advance.
I have many questions that already began in yeshiva, and they only multiplied once I started at the Technion. Today I no longer know what validity to assign to the miracles the Jewish people experienced, especially the revelation at Mount Sinai—did it really happen? What is unique about the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)—is it not simply the first book that gained a lot of popularity? Is it a historical book or a religious one? Why do I need to obey Jewish law? Why do I need to demand that others obey Jewish law?
For all these questions, I feel I lack the historical and scientific background (for example, the Big Bang or Darwin’s theory and their influence on Judaism; or the Talmudic discussion in tractate Shabbat about lice being generated from sweat, and the scientific discovery that refutes that. What I remember is that one is supposed to listen to religion because science might come up in a few years with the opposite theory. Even when I was in yeshiva I thought that was a bad reason) in order to answer them, and the questions grow at a faster rate than my reading of books, and the pressure of the Technion does not help. If you can direct me to suitable books, I’d be grateful. The last book I read that shook me a lot was Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. The questions it raised are: Is our religion true? Why is the Jewish people special? Is it special? (Is the fact that we remained distinct from the other nations supposed to prove something? I once studied in some book that there is historical evidence from the separateness of the Jewish people that the religion is true. Even if that is correct, what did people do in the early generations, when there still was no history?) Is our religion really just one culture among many?
For some reason, I am not at odds with the belief that there is a God in the world.
I’ll begin with the first question, which already came up for me in yeshiva, and that same evening when you came to the yeshiva I asked you—what is the place of prayer? What does it help? I don’t think I am a good enough lawyer to persuade the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows me completely, to do me a favor and fulfill my request. And even if I were good enough, why would He do it?
I read several answers on the matter—some said that prayer was defined such that the Holy One, blessed be He, answers anyone who says this formula, and that He desires our prayers. That sounds to me simply completely narcissistic on God’s part, and I find it hard to accept. Others said that a person redefines himself, and the decree that had been upon him before will not apply to the new person created by prayer. I didn’t connect to that either.
When I heard that there are views saying that praying is like reading a phone book, then I related to it altogether as a waste of time.
What do you think about the subject?
Thank you.
Answer
Hello X.
There are a great many questions in your remarks, and as you suggested, let us begin the discussion with the last one you raised. This too contains quite a few questions. I will discuss them briefly, because it is difficult to write so much.
My point of departure is that, generally speaking, God’s providence does not exist nowadays. The world runs according to its normal course, according to the laws of nature. There are many reasons and arguments for this view, but to me it seems entirely straightforward. Someone who takes acetaminophen sees his fever go down even if he is a sinner, and if he does not take acetaminophen it does not go down even if he is not a sinner. When we observe nature, we do not see deviations from the laws of nature, nor do we see dependence of nature on our spiritual state. And in general, in the scientific conception, the laws of nature are the causes of what happens; but a cause, by definition, is a sufficient condition for its effect. So if the required conditions are met, the result will occur regardless of my spiritual state. And if they are not met, it will not occur, also regardless of my spiritual state.
It is possible, however, that there are exceptions—that is, points at which God nevertheless intervenes. But even if that happens (I do not know), it is something very sporadic and rare. I would not build on it.
The Torah’s description that our condition depends on the commandments (“If you follow My statutes,” etc.), in my understanding, is a description of the situation in ancient times, when there was prophecy and miracles and manifest providence. Today this has changed, and providence too has disappeared (note carefully: not become hidden, but gone). People find this hard to accept, but regarding prophecy and miracles everyone agrees. So why not regarding providence? After all, every event of providence is an intervention by God—that is, a deviation from the laws of nature—that is, a miracle. (The talk about providence within nature is utter nonsense on the logical level. There is no such animal: every intervention is a miracle. A hidden miracle is at most a miracle we do not notice, but a miracle is always a deviation from the laws of nature.) So if miracles have disappeared, providence has disappeared as well. Simple.
And from here to prayer.
It has several components (both in prayer itself and in its goals and orientation): thanksgiving, praise, request, connection with God, and standing before Him. The request is meant to lead Him to intervene for my benefit, that is, to perform a miracle. I do this only where there is no natural way out, and even then I do not count on it being answered. As stated, in most cases that does not happen. But one can try.
I do not function as a lawyer when I persuade Him, but rather perform an act of relating to Him because of which He may intervene for my benefit. Some have explained that I change through prayer, and then I deserve intervention. That is more or less what I am suggesting here (with small differences. I am not speaking about actual changes that happen in me as a result of the prayer).
The same is true of praise. If He does not intervene, then what is the praise for? But here there is a difference. After all, He created us and the laws of nature, and therefore in practice He is responsible for everything that happens here. For that we praise Him. That actually seems fine to me.
Beyond all this, there is standing before Him. If prayer had not been instituted, we would not do this (it is hard to do it spontaneously). So there is here a kind of skeleton for our religious life. Think about it and you will see that without it, it would not exist.
Therefore, even if the Sages thought that prayer is effective and brings about intervention, and some of them (definitely not all) thought that everything depends on God and His providence, they were mistaken in this. Just as they were mistaken in many other things (about reality, in Jewish law, and in thought). But this enactment is still valid for two reasons: 1. Formally, as long as the law has not been changed, it is the law. An enactment whose reason has lapsed requires a religious court to repeal it, and we do not have one today. 2. The need for a framework for standing before God, as above. Even if that was not the original intention of the Sages themselves.
Leibowitz’s formulation, as though this is an enactment to recite a phone book, is aimed at this conception, but in his usual way he takes it to too great an extreme (the problem with Leibowitz is that most of his arguments are correct, and he always continues them beyond their validity. He takes them to an extreme that turns them into nonsense).
Goodbye,
Michi
By the way, for this reason I use the Sabbath prayers (which are long and irritating) for reading and study. It comes out very useful. I do not cancel them and I say what needs to be said (at least what is halakhically obligatory), but along with that, without pangs of conscience, I make use of the time as above.
This is the meaning of the spread of the pamphlets in synagogues, and therefore they are unable to deal with the phenomenon (even though it involves several prohibitions). The only reason people read that nonsense (most of it) is boredom. It’s just that people don’t admit this openly. I would significantly shorten the prayer, but not abolish it, because a framework is needed for standing before God (see previous email).
Discussion on Answer
As for prayer: obviously, from my observation of the world, I would not conclude that prayer is effective or that God intervenes. In my opinion, the question “How do we know?” is not relevant here. I have a tradition that claims this is what happens. If I have basic trust in that tradition, then I accept what is acceptable within it. Still, despite that trust, if there is something clearly untrue, I reject it. Therefore, if the Torah says, “And I will give your rains in their season,” etc., I trust that in principle intervention can happen, and apparently once it did. Factually, today I find it hard to see it and I do not think it exists. So that I reject. The conclusion is that I must qualify the traditional message and infer that there is apparently a gradual withdrawal of God from the world. And supporting this is the fact that it fits very well with the disappearance of prophecy and miracles.
Indeed, don’t tell anyone, but the philosopher in the Kuzari is absolutely right. “The Lord has forsaken the land.” Those are the very words in which I wrote the matter in the book I told you about. But I explained there that this does not necessarily mean that God became apathetic. To the best of my understanding, it is more plausible that He is simply allowing us to grow up, and just as every parent slowly leaves his children and lets them manage on their own, so too is God’s relation to the world. Once, when we had childish faith, we needed to hold His hand: miracles, prayers, interventions, providence, and the like. Today we are grown children. I am attaching a file I once wrote on this issue to one of my students at the Be’er Midrasha in Yeruham.
I explained there that this conception is not merely a result of the level of our scientific knowledge. Knowledge is the result of God’s leaving. As long as the world is not conducted according to laws but rather by frequent interventions of God, there is no possibility of developing science. Science requires conduct according to fixed laws. And God wants the world to be conducted according to fixed laws, and therefore when He sees that we have matured, He allows this to happen. Conduct according to laws is better for us, since we then have the ability to function in the world and foresee what will happen and control our fate. And that is indeed what happens in our time.
Therefore, lack of knowledge or complexity of the calculations is no reason to insert God into that hole (what our atheist cousins call “god of the gaps”), but at most a reason for further scientific research. If something happens systematically, even if we do not understand it, there is probably a law of nature here that is not yet known to us. Admittedly, a temporary and local intervention (= a miracle)—that, of course… In the modern mindset, it is almost impossible for me to recognize a miracle (“the beneficiary of a miracle does not recognize his miracle”), because I will almost always find a scientific explanation for it, and even if not, I will assume that such an explanation exists. But I still do not rule out the possibility that there are such local interventions. That too I have no way of knowing, neither one way nor the other.
I approach prayer in the same way. Here too I do not look for proofs that prayer works, because there are none. I assume things by virtue of tradition and examine how far I am willing to accept them. What is patently unreasonable I reject. First, there is a halakhic obligation to pray. I accept commitment to Jewish law, to its foundational texts, and to its authorized institutions. Just as in the Knesset, when there is a law and I disagree with it, I still obey it as long as it has not been changed, so too with respect to halakhic law. I do not want the system to fall apart, and therefore I am willing to pay the price. (By the way, I am very glad there is no Sanhedrin today, because whoever would be sitting there today—the people called the great Torah sages—would create for us a horrific and dark world. The absence of the Sanhedrin is a problem that we created. I believe that if there were worthy people, there would be a Sanhedrin, or some other authorized and accepted institution; and God did well, if it is indeed He, in not allowing that to happen yet until we improve a bit. As far as I’m concerned, establishing a Sanhedrin now would be the coming of the horsemen of the apocalypse.)
At the same time, I aspire to change and repair within the possible framework in order to arrive at a smaller gap between what I do and what I think (as I said in the lecture in X), and there is quite a lot to do. For example, to give up the non-obligatory parts of prayer. Perhaps to add more relevant parts. And similarly in Jewish law in general. Even without a Sanhedrin, there is quite a lot to do. Admittedly, there are things that require consensus, and therefore one has to write and try to persuade in order to create such a consensus. My basic trust in the system exists, and therefore my criticism does not bring me to want to dismantle it. Therefore I pray, even though indeed part of the prayer (not all of it) has no incentive.
From this I conclude that one should continue to pray, though with qualifications. I omit unnecessary parts. I read various materials at times when possible. My requests of God concern other people who are in a situation requiring a miracle (in the hope that perhaps it will happen for them, though I do not count on it). The praise and thanksgiving remain as they are (not for current interventions, but for the creation of the world and its laws, which enable me to function). In general, one must employ critical thinking.
As for a prayer being answered: what can cause God to answer a prayer is our act. This is not some mystical mechanics by which prayers are answered through actions. I ask and pray, and because of that God intervenes. This is not about persuading Him or bringing the information to His attention (I assume He knows it, even though He does not actively supervise and intervene; in my assessment there is passive providence, in the sense of following what happens—like a parent watching his children).
It is like between human beings: as long as you have not asked, the other person will not necessarily help you. And there too the purpose of the request is not only to bring the information to the other person’s attention. The request itself is a reason for his response, because he sees that it matters to you and that you are willing to ask and see him as someone who can help. So too toward God, the request can be a reason for intervention, even without any additional mysticism. It does indeed smell like a pursuit of honor (as you wrote), and that bothered me for a long time. But it seems to me that this is not a necessary interpretation. He wants to bring us to recognition of Him, for our sake. But all of these are, of course, personifications of Him, and therefore they should be taken with limited confidence. As I said, we are no longer in the place of childish faith that needs to see God as a kind of big father and attribute human qualities to Him (as they did in the Torah according to the Aramaic translation of Onkelos. That too was a need of that generation, which was still struggling with mythologies of personal gods).
As far as I’m concerned, there is no problem. You may pass these things on to whomever you wish.
Goodbye,
Michi
There is an interesting treatment of this issue by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 20:7 (“And now restore the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you shall live; but if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours”):
“And he will pray for you”—from the root ‘palal’ (to judge), related to ‘balal.’ We have already seen in the account of the generation of the dispersion that one who ‘mixes’ does not merely combine materials with one another; rather, he introduces a new element into the substance, permeates all its parts with it, and thereby transforms it into a new substance. This, however, is the role of the judge according to the Jewish conception. Falsehood and injustice divide, creating conflict and strife. The judge introduces law—the divine truth of reality—into a place where there is conflict and contention, and thus makes peace, creating harmonious unity where falsehood and injustice had caused tension and separation. Similarly, one who prays, as it were, ‘judges’ himself: he infuses the divine truth into every corner of his being and existence, and thereby acquires unity and spiritual wholeness in the light of God’s countenance. Jewish prayer thus stands in complete contrast to the popular notion of ‘prayer.’ It is not an outpouring from within, not an expression of what the heart is already teeming with—for that we use terms like supplication, meditation, and the like—but rather the infusion into the heart of that truth that is given and acquired from outside. Prayer is nothing other than ‘service of the heart’; the ‘one who prays’ is one who ‘works’ on self-correction, to elevate his heart to the highest summit of recognition of truth and the desire to serve God. Were it otherwise—if prayer were only expression of the stirrings of the heart—how could one assign it a set time and text? How could one assume that the entire community in all its particulars would be permeated with one feeling and think one thought at preassigned times? Moreover, such prayer would be superfluous. Feelings and thoughts already alive in our hearts have no further need of expression; least of all do they need fixed, formulated expression. A profound experience always finds expression for itself, and if the experience is great and sublime beyond measure, then it is above all expression, and silence is its praise. Therefore, fixed prayers came only to awaken the heart and revive within it those eternal values that still require strengthening and careful preservation. Indeed, the truth must be said: a lack of ‘mood’ for prayer only increases the soul’s need to pray; it only strengthens the saving power and exalted value of that ‘service of the heart’ carried out through prayer. A missing ‘mood’ is only a clear sign of the blurring of that spirit which is not the basis of prayer but rather its purpose and lofty goal.”
Hello X, and hello honorable Rabbi,
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to adopt the approach of the author of the book Shevilei Emunah (who was the grandson of the Rosh) regarding prayer. There he explains at length how prayer works: it was not created so that the Holy One, blessed be He, would do something, since He does not change. In short, prayer is intended to awaken us and draw us closer to God, and thereby spiritual barriers are removed that prevent us from receiving good. See there.
That does not help with the difficulties I am talking about. It is evident that prayer does not really help in most cases. Therefore such a mechanism also does not fit the scientific conception or simple observation.
Hello,
Your approach on providence is very fascinating. I just wanted to understand whether, according to your view, you also deny redemption and resurrection of the dead and everything associated with them, because now everything is in our hands?
And if so, then we do not understand the purpose and goal of the world (unlike the Sages and the medieval authorities (Rishonim)).
Not necessarily. It is possible that God will take the reins back into His hands and bring us the Messiah and resurrect the dead (or at least maneuver the world so that this happens).
I am not at all sure that according to the Sages the purpose of the world is redemption and resurrection of the dead. That is supposed to be the end of the road, but not necessarily the purpose. The purpose could be the repair of the world, and when that repair comes into being, those things will come as well. See the words of Maimonides in chapter 10 of the Laws of Repentance, that it is not proper to serve God out of hope for reward and fear of punishment, but rather to do the truth because it is truth, and in the end the good will come.
Rabbi,
From your perspective, is the Messiah a miracle like resurrection of the dead, or a natural process like the ingathering of the exiles?
No event that was promised in advance is a natural process. A promise means that God will intervene to make sure it is carried out.
I didn’t understand. What could suddenly bring God to intervene if now He finds no reason for it? Is He waiting for us to mature more? And in any case, if there is something that could cause Him to intervene, then that could also happen today on a small scale, and there is good reason to pray.
I also did not understand the proof from Maimonides, who is speaking about the individual person’s attitude toward reward for his actions, in relation to the purpose of the creation of the world (which the kabbalistic sages made the entire Torah revolve around).
For example, that He is waiting for the world to be more repaired. Even today He could have a reason to intervene, except that it seems He does not do so. What I wrote is that this does not mean that in the future He will not see fit to change the policy, at least in the area of redemption and resurrection of the dead.
I don’t know who these “kabbalistic sages” are, and I don’t think you are right about that either.
And what about a prayer for the welfare of the State, for example?
Its name gives away its purpose, and the moment prayer doesn’t help with that, it is void, no?
What do you mean by “void”? That there is no obligation to say it? Obviously there isn’t. Even if it helps, there is no obligation to say it. Whoever thinks it helps should say it.
It is hard to deny that it seems there is special providence over the Jewish people. Would the Rabbi agree that prayer for the people and the State has significance?
I do not see an effect.
Thank you very much for the answer. I appreciate it very, very much.
I feel a little uncomfortable speaking with you about such basic subjects, so if writing an email response takes too much of your time, I could also come to you at Bar-Ilan. (It takes fewer words to destroy with a question than to build an answer.)
A few questions came up for me in response to the issue of prayer, and I’ll relate to those that came up for me about individual providence afterward.
Regarding the first part of my question about prayer (the lawyer part): I very much identify with your approach that intervention is very rare, if it exists at all. You went on to say that a relationship with Him will bring about (perhaps) intervention for my benefit, and as an explanation for this—the change in the one who prays through prayer. What is this change? Is it character work? Psychology? Mysticism? A definition that this is simply how it works? Why and how does it work? What is the evidence that it works?
Regarding actual intervention (which is very rare), why should we assume that the act of relationship was what caused it to happen? How do we know it would not have happened anyway?
(The questions are a bit repetitive, so if you feel the answers have already been sufficiently established, there is no need to explain.)
When I look at the explanation of prayer overall, I find myself thinking that the reasons leave a void; whether it is because of standing before the Holy One, blessed be He, which serves as a framework for our religious life—that is, a means and not an end in itself—or whether the matter of the enactment is simply an error by the Sages whose consequences we have to suffer because technically we do not have a religious court today. (The authority of a religious court is another question of mine.)
It is hard for me to find an incentive for prayer, because it just sounds post facto to me. Is that how it should be?
And in connection with individual providence—
When and why did providence disappear? Can you refer me to a book? I don’t remember having studied this matter in yeshiva.
As for the more substantive questions on the issue—when you said providence, did you mean that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not intervene (miracle), or that He is not even aware of everything going on in the world? Even if it is the first—does that have any practical implication? After all, He won’t do anything anyway. I find myself thinking more and more like the philosopher in the Kuzari—that God created the world and since then has become apathetic toward it—is that not an accurate description of what is going on?
On the other hand, as the devil’s advocate—there are many cases in the world where we do not have the tools to know the cause and effect. Either because the required calculations are too enormous, for example throwing dice, or because we have not yet solved the precise causes of the result, for example the stock market or the weather. Is there intervention there?
To conclude—this past week I was at X and spoke with two people about the topic and they wanted to know your opinion. May I send them our correspondence?
Thank you very much, and I appreciate it very, very much,