Q&A: A Question Regarding Particular Providence in the Meiri’s View
A Question Regarding Particular Providence in the Meiri’s View
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael, the Meiri explains an aggadic passage in Sotah in such a way that ever since the Jewish people sinned in matters of sexual immorality, there is no particular providence. His words are as follows:
Beit HaBechirah by the Meiri, tractate Sotah 3b
“We already explained above that among the foundations of religion is the belief that God watches over human affairs with particular providence, for reward or punishment. We also already explained that being abandoned to chance occurrences is one of the modes of punishment. With this in mind, they said in this passage, by way of allusion, that on the day the Jewish people sinned, the Divine Presence had previously dwelt with each and every one of them—that is, particular providence—as it is said: ‘For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp.’ Once they sinned, the Divine Presence departed from them, as it is said: ‘and let Him not see in you an indecent thing,’ meaning that He does not watch over them and leaves them to chance occurrences. Nevertheless, the ultimate reward or punishment is in the World to Come. By way of allusion they said: whoever commits even one transgression in this world becomes bound up with it also in the World to Come, as it is said: ‘and he did not listen to her, to lie beside her, to be with her’—‘to lie beside her’ in this world, ‘to be with her’ in the World to Come. And so too they said: whoever commits one transgression in this world, it wraps itself around him and goes before him to the Day of Judgment, as it is said: ‘their paths will twist around them.’ And whoever performs one commandment in this world, it goes before him into the World to Come, as it is said: ‘your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall gather you in.’”
I know that your view is that there is no particular providence, since this is not something visible to the eye. Does this strengthen your position, or is this an explanation that is not relevant?
Answer
There is a different explanation here: he sees this as a punishment, whereas I see it as progress. But in the bottom line, he indeed says that the Divine Presence departed as a result of the sin. So factually, this still runs against the view that sees the hand of God in everything. But it is not clear that he means an actual, full departure. It is possible that he is speaking about a momentary withdrawal because of sin, rather than a permanent mode of conduct.