Q&A: Praying for What Has Already Happened
Praying for What Has Already Happened
Question
Hello and blessings,
The Rabbi argues regarding the issue of praying for what has already happened in tractate Berakhot, that the Sages forbade praying for the past because that would be an overt miracle, and we do not pray for miracles because God does not break the order of nature. And the Rabbi argues that they permitted a hidden miracle because they thought it was not considered an overt miracle that departs from nature, but rather that nature simply allows it, and so it is a natural intervention. I would like to suggest an interpretation that I understand to be the straightforward meaning. They did not permit the hidden miracle because it is not a miracle that changes the order of nature, or because nature allows it, but rather because it has still not yet happened, and it is impossible to change the past, whereas it is possible to ask God to change nature in favor of things that have not yet been decided. What do you think? What is the problem with this interpretation?
Answer
There is no problem with it except that it makes no sense at all. If one is willing to change nature, why should there be any difference between past and future? Especially since the difference is not well defined. If members of my household died, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not need to change history, only to revive them now. And the same applies to changing the sex of the fetus.
Discussion on Answer
I already addressed all of this. Just read. Intervention regarding the past is hidden too (changing the sex of the fetus). That’s it.
Maybe the difference we should bring in here is between different kinds of requests?
To ask about the past is a miracle that would necessarily have to be overt and break nature, whereas asking about the future lets God preserve the laws as they are. That is, asking for something whose very definition is a miracle (changing the sex of a fetus, or any change in a reality that has already been fixed and that can only be changed by a miracle) would be a problem. But asking about the future, for something that can happen by way of nature, would not be a problem. And the difference is that God wants there to be nature so that there can be choice and so that reality can exist, so He does not want to break the laws and preserves reality and its probabilities. And regarding the question of how God hears our prayers without breaking the laws if everything is causal, then I ask: why shouldn’t we make the following claims?
1. God can intervene as He wishes, and the difference is that He intervenes in a hidden way, as it is said that God hides Himself. And He does not want it to be overt for various reasons, such as so that there should not be coerced belief because of miracles that we see, or for any other reason for which He decides to hide His face.
2. The ways of God are not known to us, and we do not know the nature of His providence or what it means in practice. And He has ways of acting in reality in some manner that would be called providence.