Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 054

Wednesday, January 5 2005

• RE: Why Are You Sleeping
• Chartumim
• Feet together by Kaddish?
• Re: Feet together by Kaddish
• RE: Torah and Science (a challenge to the theory of evolution)
• RE: Torah and Science (a challenge to the theory of evolution)
• RE: Torah and Science (a challenge to the theory of evolution)
• Re: Torah and Science
• 25th of Tevet
• Re: 25th of Tevet
• Re: Mezuzah during Shema
• RE: Torah and Science
• RE: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping

I could have reacted to RGS's position in his blog
<http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/01/natural-disasters-and-rabbinic.html>
by actually posting a comment on his blog. But I have more confidence
in the audience here than in a bunch of anonymous commentors.

One line summary: RGS defends the practice of a rabbi announcing which
sin he believes is the probable cause of some tragedy.

I, OTOH, repeatedly have posted RYBS's position (also cited by RSB in a
comment on the blog). The Jewish response to tragedy is "How am I supposed
to respond?" Not "Why?" The only answers man could offer to "Why?" are
impossible intellectually (because "lo Machevosai kemachshevoseikhem")
as well as emotionally (because they deny the very real experience of
suffering. At the end of Iyov, he's told to ignore this very line of
questioning!

I would add to that that perhaps after time, after the period of aveilus
and its consequent emotional stance of aval, of "yes, I hear your
explanation but..." that one can accept an explanation emotionally. But
not Iyov himself.

I have also posted two critical distinctions that must be made, but I
did so too concisely to be of much use. So to elaborate:

First, identifying something as a cause doesn't mean that someone is
assigning blame. The fact that many Jews lived in Europe rather than
another part of the diaspora was a necessary factor in causing the
Holocaust. That doesn't mean we're to blame because of it. Similarly,
someone who finds some critical flaw in pre-WWII European Yahadus and
says the Holocaust was an onesh is identifying a cause. Not blame. "Vesof
matifayich yatufun." (Hillel, Avos 2:7)

Second, identifying a lesson is not the same as identifying a reason.
"Pishpush bema'asim" is about finding a lesson, and thereby identifying
a response. It means using the emotional moment of tragedy as a
motivator. It does not require answering "Why?"

RGS writes: "Do we not find in the Talmud many statements that attribute
specific disasters to specific sins? For example, Bava Metzi'a 85a-b"
which finds a reason for churban bayis.

This justifies a later generation exploring the lessons of centuries
prior. The gemara might explore churban bayis rishon. Rabbi Aqiva might
find lessons from churban bayis rishon -- but he doesn't try to explain
to the survivors of churban bayis sheini their lack of ahavas Yisrael.

RGS quotes Sha'ar Ha-Gemul (Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 p. 281) that talks
about the need to ask "Why me?", that only a boor would stand back from
the question. From this RGS concludes. "Tziduk ha-din is obligatory."

I would instead conclude that one must struggle with the question of
"Why?" but not necessarily that one must answer it. Struggling with the
question turns the tragedy into an event in the relationship between
the person and G-d. It motivates a response.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I seem to recall some sachar being given to the Chartumim for saying
"etzbah Elokim hee". Anyone?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Prof. Aryeh Frimer asks:
> The Shulkhan Arukh in OH 95:1 for the Amida and in 95:4 and 125:2 for
> Kedusha indicates that one's feet should be held together. I have not
> found any similar source by Kaddish, though I believe the general minhag
> is to do so. Does anyone know of a source? What about Borkhu?

I know of no halacha for keeping one's feet together for the Kaddish
or Borkhu. In fact one is supposed to step back three steps at the
conclusion of the Kaddish ("oseh shalom..."). Interestingly, the mystics
found that the congregational response during the Kaddish (Y'hei shmay
rabah...) contains in its Aramaic formulation seven words composed of
twenty-eight letters. This corresponds to the number of words and letters
in the first verse of the Torah. This, the mystics said, is the reason why
the Talmud attaches great importance to the utterance of this response
(Ber. 57a). One who responds to the Kaddish with these words becomes,
as it were, G-d's partner in the creation of the world (which is the
theme, of course, of the first verse of Bereshis).

As a side, the shulchan arukh states that one must certainly be extremely
careful to avoid talking in the middle of Kaddish or Kedushah. In the
Sefer Chasidim, a tale is recorded of a frum person who saw another
frum person who had died and looked gloomy (how would he expect him to
look?). He asked him why he looked so gloomy and the other answered him
that it was because he used to talk during the Vay'chulu, Mageyn Avos,
and the Kaddish. In the work Mateh Moshe, Sec. 411, the author cites a
midrash which relates that a certain Torah scholar appeared to his pupil
in a dream and the pupil noticed that the scholar had a stain on his
forehead (No, it wasn't Ash Wednesday). The pupil asked him why this
happened to him and he answered that it was because he did not avoid
speaking while the chazan said Kaddish.

"A word to the wise..."
Richard Wolberg

From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk>
> Um, I believe the general minhag for Sephardim is to sit for kaddish (or 
> at least, if standing to continue to stand, but if sitting to continue 
> to sit) - or are you referring to the person saying (not just the people 
> answering) kaddish?

    I was referring to the one reciting Kaddish and Borkhu.
        Aryeh 

From: "Jonathan Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca>
>> - and the figure of 14
>> billion years is not one that is hard and fast - but whatever number it
>> is, it is more than 6000 years.

> What evidence do you have for this assertion that does not depend on
> assumptions, interpolations, extrapolations, deep theory and that is
> not plagued by stubborn anomalies?

<Delurking>

As mentioned several times on the list:

Ice core samples, sediment core samples, and tree rings ALL indicate a
world older than 6000 years. IN the case of Ice core and sediment layers,
MUCH older.

without any of the problems listed above.

Akiva

</delurking>

RJO 
> What evidence do you have for this assertion that does not depend on
> assumptions, interpolations, extrapolations, deep theory and that is not
> plagued by stubborn anomalies?

(sigh) yes, one uses interpolations and extrapolations (that is known
as using one's reason).

If one wants to adopt a deeply sceptical position a la Hume, one then
can't prove anything - including that one exists or that the sun will
rise tomorrow (an extrapoloation)(or that it rose yesterday even though
it was cloudy (an interpolation)).

Such intense scepticism is one that is not taken seriously (in the sense
that they act as if it is true) by anyone I know, and is (IMHO) deeply
antithetical to the torah, that tells us ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem
and that ata hor'eta la'da'as - telling us that we can rely on our sense
to reach conclusions...

While there is no absolute proof of any one cosmological theory, and
it will remain just that - the evidence for old age is overwhelming
(age of stars from light and distance, radioisotope dating, fossils,
geology) - that even though the precise accuracy of any one measurement
can be reasonably doubted, the range of error is such that 6000 years
is excluded.

IN general, it is far easier to prove that an alternative or theory is
wrong rather than to prove that a theory is right - and there is proof
that 6000 is wrong (even though one can argue about the real age or even
eternity of the universe).

> The last time the age of the universe had to be changed it had to be
> resolved *downwards* by an infinite decrement from t=-\infinity to t = 14GY.

> In a recent discussion on Avodah there was a (so far failed) attempt to use
> SN1987A as a proof that the universe is older than 168,000 years. This
> attempt has so far failed because it is undermined once you subject it to
> the Credibility Ladder.

Assertions of being undermined are not fact.

..
>>  How exactly the later species arose from the earlier
>> ones is a matter of some debate - but that they arose is not.

> RMS is attempting, hereby, to distinguish between the so called "fact" of
> evolution (common descent with modification) and its mechanism (natural
> selection). However, Darwin himself wrote that without a mechanism there is
> no proof for common descent -- the one time the man actually made a telling
> point.

sigh  this is ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem?

let us first state what are the facts.
1) Phyla appear at different times.
2) there appears a biological relationship between the phyla that is
correlated to the time of appearance.

THat is something that no reputable biologist of any stript denies
(including his source, Dawkins). Note the extreme age of the Cambrian
era (relevant to the first part).

WHat is also agreed on:
1. The record is not complete - there are major gaps (especially in the
older part)
2. The issue of a mechanism is not yet proven - there are competing
theories, each with difficulties - how major the difficulties are is
in dispute. (the facts that Darwin thought a mechanism was necessary is
irrelevant - it is relevant only to a complete theory - and our knowledge
is not complete)

 From a scientific standpoint, the fact that there are gaps in our
knowledge does not mean that one invokes divine intervention - nor can
one disprove divine intervention.
However, a creationist theory which has the sudden denovo creation
of species at different times (with extermination of older species)
is fundamentally different than standard creationism. One can not
resuscitate classical 6 day creationism. Using hashem as the deus ex
machina to fill in the holes in our knowledge, IMHO, denigrates hashem
and the torah rather than defending them. The picture that emerges is
still very far from traditional belief.

RJO is worried about the theological implications of evolution. I worry
about the theological implications of trying to deny what is proven -
it violates the fourteenth ikar. Ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem is also
part of the torah. These attempts to defend a traditional viewpoint by
selective citation and scepticism lead, IMHO, only to bizayon hatora.

Meir Shinnar 

> RJO
>> [Credibility Ladder] 
>> What evidence do you have for this assertion that does not depend on
>> assumptions, interpolations, extrapolations, deep theory and that is not
>> plagued by stubborn anomalies? 

[RMS]
> sigh . If one wants to adopt a deeply sceptical position a la Hume, one then
> can't prove anything - including that one exists or that the sun will
> rise tomorrow (an extrapoloation)(or that it rose yesterday even though
> it was cloudy (an interpolation)).

The Credibility Ladder has very little to do with the type of skepticism
you are describing. It merely states that extrapolation is less
credible than direct evidence, and direct sense evidence, for example,
that you exist would be entirely credible. The "sina qua non" of the
Credibility Ladder (and science) is repeatable experimental evidence.
Large extrapolations are less credible than small extrapolations. If
an extrapolation results in stubborn anomalies or is made from a small
base of evidence and extended to vast eons of time then it becomes less
credible yet. It is this type of analysis that allows us to assess the
scientific strength of a theory (e.g. the Mercury anomaly indicated a
potential problem with Newtonian Physics). The extrapolation of Newtonian
Physics outside of its domain of experimental applicability is one of the
contributing reasons the age of the university had to be changed not too
long ago with an infinite decrement from t = -\infinity to t=14BY. You
are criticizing a straw man and this makes it difficult for me to respond
to your post.

[RAA]
> Ice core samples, sediment core samples, and tree rings ALL indicate a
> world older than 6000 years.

I notice that you make these assertions without presenting any evidence. I
am thus unable to evaluate your claim until the evidence is presented,
although you are of course free to place your faith in them. As an
example, starlight was brought by RNS in his book as simple and virtually
incontrovertible proof for an old universe. Having subjected it to the
Credibility Ladder in detail on Avodah, it has so far come up short. Since
I did not notice your participation in that discussion you might want to
look at that thread to see, in detail, the sorts of problems that arise.

So let's start with tree ring dating (also brought as the next compelling
"proof" by RNS after starlight). Please present your tree ring dating
evidence including experimental observations, assumptions, interpolations,
extrapolations, deep theory and anomalies (if any). Once you have laid
out all the evidence (as well as any problems, if any) we will be able
to determine the credibility of your claim.

KT . JSO

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>                    More on the fact that the classical commentaries all
> assume that days are days in another post.

During the months of this debate this claim was made repeatedly and
responded to with counterexamples repeatedly. And yet again you write "all
assume". Clearly further discussion on this point won't get us anywhere.

BTW, R' Dr Ehrenpreis asks how can one define "one day"?

What if there was a period in which one person experiences an hour,
and another a week? Or one ages 20 years, experiences 10 years, and
another person doesn't age at all and only experiences an hour? Or if
someone else has 20 heartbeats to your 70, but 120 to your next 70 --
and both of you perceive your heatbeats as being regular? What if one
pendulum swings 20 times to another's 30 but then 40 times to the next
30? Which is the "real" yardstick of time, and which is the variable
that keeps on changing speed?

The question is meaningless. Until the laws of nature were in place and
forcing operations to stick to the same relative speeds, there is really
no way to define the day (or any other unit of time).

Perhaps this is how we get from the Rambam's position that the laws
of nature were not in place to the Maharal's and REED's limit on our
ability to understand the occurances of the week of creation.

Did it take a week? Even if saying literally yes, it's only "in a way".
Because time had no consistant meaningful measure, there is also "in a
way, not".

I can make a parallel argument about space / location, mass, electric
charge, color...

That's how RDEE argues that creation must necessarily involve a decrease
in quantum uncertanty. Which gets us back to that discussion of alpha
and whether c is variable.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

There is a fascinating story about Alexander's first encounter with the
Jews of Israel, who were subjects of the Persian Empire.

The narrative concerning Alexander's first interaction with the Jews
is recorded in both the Talmud (Yoma 69a) and in the Jewish historian
Josephus's Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47). In both accounts the High
Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, fearing that Alexander would destroy
the city, went out to meet him before he arrived at the city. The
narrative describes how Alexander, upon seeing the High Priest,
dismounted and bowed to him. (Alexander rarely, if ever, bowed to
anyone). In Josephus's account, when asked by his general, Parmerio,
to explain his actions, Alexander answered, "I did not bow before him,
but before that God who has honored him with the high Priesthood; for
I saw this very person in a dream, in this very apparel."

Alexander interpreted the vision of the High Priest as a good omen and
thus spared Jerusalem, peacefully absorbing the Land of Israel into his
growing empire. As tribute to his benign conquest, the Sages decreed that
the Jewish firstborn of that time be named Alexander -- which remains a
Jewish name to this very day. And the date of their encounter, the 25th
of Tevet, was declared a minor holiday. Happy 25th (as of tonight).

Richard Wolberg

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:22:30PM -0500, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: Alexander interpreted the vision of the High Priest as a good omen and
: thus spared Jerusalem...      And the date of their encounter, the 25th
: of Tevet, was declared a minor holiday. Happy 25th (as of tonight).

Had Megilas Ta'anis not been suspended, yes.

Perhaps it should be a day of mourning, as the current mundane status
of the day is another reminder of galus. I have a pet theory that this
is an unwritten part of the motivation for turning sefiras ha'omer from
simchah to eivel.

-mi

Concerning the touching/holding/kissing tzitzit, tefillin, mezuzah during
Sh'ma', I think it is time to repeat something I have posted to Avodah
in the past.

I quote the words of R' Natronai Gaon  close to 1200 years ago:
    Regarding your question on holding his four tzitziot when saying the
    Shema': This is not the way of chakhamim and talmidim. it is the way
    of arrogance (derekh y'hirut). As he has looked intently (hitbonen)
    at his tzitzit when putting them on and made the b'rakha, why should
    he hold them afterwards? If one does so, it would follow that,
    when he reaches ukshartam, he would also have to hold the tefilin
    in his hand. If you agree to this, then, when he reaches ukhtavtam,
    he must run home to put his hand on the mezuzah. Therefore, the one
    who does so (holding tzitzit) must be taught and have explained to
    him that he should not do so.

Over the next thousand years, R' Natronai Gaon lost the battle as
holding tzitzit gradually became acceptable (unless, as R' Hai Gaon
says perhaps fifty years or so later, it causes distraction and loss
of kavana, just as it is improper to hint, signal or make hand motions
during Shema'). From looking at and/or holding it developed into kissing,
spread from tzitzit to t'fillin, but, AFAIK, not to galloping home to
mezuzot beitekha.

The kissing of tzitzit in Shema' appears to have started with doing so
only when releasing them as chibuv mitzvah. Then three other kissings
were added and by the late nineteenth century l'misparam one source
recommends seven or eight places to kiss.

What aroused my interest many years ago was that most people seemed to
kiss three times on the word tzitzit. The second time I heard them say
'al tzitzit, then interrupt while kissing, after which they announce a
new phrase beginning hakanaf. As the text makes no sense when tzitzit
hakanaf are not read together I ended up unearthing some 15 sources of
the historical development.

BTW, kissing on the words tzitzit is evidently relatively new and
probably a mistake. 18th century sources speak of kissing three times
but not on the words tzitzit. People saw some chakhamim kissing three
times and decided that it must be on the word tzitzit, which it wasn't.
And so customs change. In the last fifty years there seems to be a
reversal in litvak circles as they go back to one single kissing upon
release as per the Gr"a and CC. This phenomenon would be explained by R'
Chayyim Soloveichik.

k"t,
David 

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> starlight was brought by RNS in his book as simple and virtually
> incontrovertible proof for an old universe. Having subjected it to the
> Credibility Ladder in detail on Avodah, it has so far come up short. 

The only thing that has come up short is your inabilty to answer my
question to you about the speed of light and an exploding star 1 mllion
light years away. You explanation that the speed of light accelerates as
you go back further in time would then mean that light would have had to
travel the distance of 1 million years (based on the speed constant of
186,000 miles per second) in a time frame of 5765 years plus one split
second to account for the additional 994,235 light years. A split second
is just a wee bit too fast for light of that star to accelerate and travel
all those miles. Is this what you believe? The only other explanatiion
is that the light from the exploding star was created "midstream"
and that the exploding star never really existed. Is that what you are
syaing? If it is, fine. But that version of creation does not satisfy me.

HM

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>>                    More on the fact that the classical commentaries all
>> assume that days are days in another post.

[RMB]
> During the months of this debate this claim was made repeatedly and
> responded to with counterexamples repeatedly. And yet again you write "all
> assume". Clearly further discussion on this point won't get us anywhere.

Reb Micha:

There are many many Chazals and meforshim that state *explicitly* that
each day of creation was a regular day of a single night followed by a
single period of daylight ("vayehi erev vayehi boker"). These sources
even refer to the hours of the creation days, e.g. Adam HaRishon created
"afar min ha-adamah" on "yom hashishi" in less than 24 hours just under
6000 years ago:

[Sanhedrin 38a to 38b] 

[38a] Our Rabbis taught: Adam was created [last of all beings] on the
eve of Sabbath <snip>

[38b] Rebbe Yochanan ben Chanina said: The day consisted of twelve
hours. In the first hour, his [Adam's] dust was gathered; in the second,
it was kneaded into a shapeless mass. In the third, his limbs were shaped;
in the fourth, a soul was infused into him; in the fifth, he arose and
stood on his feet; in the sixth, he gave [the animals] their names;
in the seventh, Eve became his mate; in the eighth, they ascended to
bed as two and descended as four; in the ninth, he was commanded not to
eat of the tree, in the tenth, he sinned; in the eleventh, he was tried,
and in the twelfth he was expelled [from Eden] and departed, for it is
written, Man abideth not in honour.

Can you please remind me of any Chazal or any classical source (in RZL's
sense) that *explicitly* says that the 6th day of creation (or any other
creation day) was more than precisely one period of evening followed
by precisely one morning or more than approximately 24 hours. Note
that the rate at which processing happens is faster on the 6th day
(e.g. birth supernaturally takes less than an hour rather than 9 months)
but there still is only one cycle of night followed by daylight in a
24 hour period. A supernatural processing speed-up is inevitable with
a mature creation, e.g. the Midrash says that the sun used to move
much faster along the ecliptic (seasonal ripening was hastened but not
the day-length) on the 6th day (until Adam sinned) and thus a tree that
would normally take years to produce its fruit could produce it almost
instantaneously on the day it was created, ready for Adam to eat.

According to the theory of evolution man evolved from an amoeba over
billions of regular days of night-followed-by-day and you presumably
cannot evolve a human over x million years of continuous darkness
followed by x million years of continuous daylight. The Tiferes Yisroel
is not a counter-example because he assumes that the worlds created and
destroyed were before the six days of creation merely leaving over debris
("tohu vevohu") for a brand new cycle of creation in six regular days
just under 6000 years ago; thus, he is consistent with Sanhedrin 38
(understood as history).

A single explicit quote would be fine.

KT . JSO

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:31:19PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: There are many many Chazals and meforshim that state *explicitly* that
: each day of creation was a regular day of a single night followed by a
: single period of daylight ("vayehi erev vayehi boker"). These sources
: even refer to the hours of the creation days, e.g. Adam HaRishon created
: "afar min ha-adamah" on "yom hashishi" in less than 24 hours just under
: 6000 years ago:

RZL tried this already. Twice.

How do these quotes prove anything? It simply means that Chazal use the
phrase "day six" regardless of whether they thought it was a 24 hour day
or a metaphorical day, or even if "yom" is being used to mean "period"
as in "yom Hashem", "zechor H' livnei Edom es Yom Y-m", etc...

...
: A single explicit quote would be fine.

I refer to again to RYmA, the Maharal, REED's take on the Ramban, the
Tif'eres Yisrael's meqoros, or any of the posts already written. As I
wrote, this is absurd already. Five people are making an argument and
those who disagree are simply ignoring that it was ever made. I lack
the time or desire to do research just to be asked the same thing again
a month from now.

I do not foresee posting again to this thread. It's not going anywhere.
I suggest the other contributors also think "How many times did I make
this point before? Why do I think this iteration will be more fruitful?"
and only hit <send> if they like the answers to those questions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

Micha Berger wrote:
>One line summary: RGS defends the practice of a rabbi announcing which
>sin he believes is the probable cause of some tragedy.

>I, OTOH, repeatedly have posted RYBS's position (also cited by RSB in a
>comment on the blog). The Jewish response to tragedy is "How am I supposed
>to respond?" Not "Why?" The only answers man could offer to "Why?" are
>impossible intellectually (because "lo Machevosai kemachshevoseikhem")
>as well as emotionally (because they deny the very real experience of
>suffering. At the end of Iyov, he's told to ignore this very line of
>questioning!

There are a number of sources which seem to indicate that one must
seriously attempt to find a sin worthy of the punishment - instead of
just assuming that G-d is just. It would follow that one should also
believe the validity of the attribution. If one doesn't really believe
that a particular sin caused or could have caused the suffering - then it
is simply a game. A corrolary is that if an attribution is made that is
perceived as unreasonable or unlikely - it undermines faith rather than
strengthening it. To claim that a disaster is just a generic reminder
to repent - rather than a message that you are doing something wrong -
goes against the following sources.

*Berachos(5a): *When a person sees that he suffers from misfortune, he
should examine his deeds to repent… If after examination of his deeds,
he finds no sins that would justify such suffering he should assume that
the suffering is because of his neglect of his Torah studies. If this
attribution does not seem true then he should assume that the suffering
is from G‑d's love to increase his merit in the World to Come. **

*Ramban(Shaar HaGemul #120 chapter 6):* In conclusion a person should
believe that all mishaps and calamities are the consequence of sin
and transgression. He should repent on those sins that he knows about
and those that he has forgotten about or wasn’t aware of, he should
make a general confession. If he sees a tzadik suffering in spite of
his righteousness he should assume it is because of the few sins that he
has done. Similarly when he sees a wicked person have a pleasant life, he
should ascribe it to the few good deeds that he has done…. Nevertheless,
whether he knows or doesn’t know – it is necessary to accept that
everything that G‑d does is absolutely just and merciful – even
though the justice and mercy might be hidden. You may ask us that since
there is an element that is hidden in divine judgment and consequently
that it is necessary to believe in His justice as the True Judge –
why do you trouble us and require us to learn the various explanations
of why the righteous suffer? Why not just simply rely totally on this
principle that G?�?�?�?�-d is inherently righteous and therefore it
is impossible that He commit an injustice – either on purpose or by
inattention? The answer to this question is that this assertion that
we should simply believe that G‑d’s actions are righteous - without
trying to understand how - is the view of fools that despise wisdom. We
in fact greatly benefit by learning the various explanations because
this is wisdom which helps us become wise men. By this endeavor we also
increase our knowledge of G‑d through understanding His conduct and
deeds. Furthermore we will have faith and have trust in our faith – in
both the known and the concealed matters – more than other people. That
is because we in fact learn about the nature of the concealed matters from
that which is knowable. This intellectual involvement leads us to know
the righteousness of Divine Judgment and the justness of His Law. Thus
it is the obligation of everyone who worships G‑d from love and fear to
search his mind to justify G‑d’s justice and to validate His decisions
the limit of his ability. The explanations, of course, need to be based
upon the approach of our Sages as we have already explained. Consequently
he will have peace of mind concerning these issues by validating the
judgment of G‑d to the best of his ability. He will then be able to
generalize from what he knows to that which he can’t comprehend –
especially with the secret that was mentioned previously. He find that
he no longer has any doubts and questions. On the other hand, even if
he doesn’t want to go through all this analysis it is legitimate just
to accept that whatever G‑d does is just.

*Rambam(Moreh Nevuchim 2:48): *It is very clear that everything that
happens must have something that caused it. That cause must itself have
a cause. This chain continues until we arrive at the original cause
– namely G‑d’s will and desire. Because ultimately everything
is caused by G‑d, the prophets sometime attribute things caused by
intermediate factors as being caused by G‑d. All of this is well
known and this is in fact the view of the men of Torah…. You should
know that all proximate causes which produce that which is produced –
with no distinction made between whether the intermediately causes are
essential, natural, free will (of man or animal) or accident – they are
all attributed by the prophets to G‑d. For example natural events such
as the snow melting from the warm air or waves created by the wind are
described by the prophets as being commanded by G‑d as is the falling
of the rain… Concerning that which is caused by man’s free‑will
such as war between two nations or one person attempting to harm or
even insult another person – the prophets describe it as the result
of G‑d’s command. … When Yosef was freed from prison the prophet
said that G‑d sent a king and freed him. Furthermore Yosef said to his
brothers that they had not sent him to Egypt but rather G‑d had. We
also find that events caused by the desires of animals are described as
being caused by G‑d such as “G‑d spoke to the fish” (Yonah 2:11)
since G‑d in fact initiate the desire of the animal. Even things which
are accidental from pure chance are attributed to G‑d. For example
concerning Rivkah, “Let her be your master’s son’s wife as G‑d
has spoken (Bereishis 24:51). And Yosef said that “G‑d sent me before
you” (Bereishis 45:7).

*Rambam(Hilchos Taanis 1:1-3): *It is a Torah mitzva to pray and to sound
trumpets for every calamity that comes on the community. This is part of
repentance so that all will know that the suffering is because of their
sins and that the prayer is to remove the suffering. But if a person does
not respond to calamity by prayer and sounding the trumpets but simply
says that it was a natural event – that is being hard hearted. Such an
attitude causes him to cling to his evil deeds and to receive additional
suffering. That is why the Torah (Vayikra 26) says that if you relate
to me incidentally I will treat you with chance. In other words “When
I bring calamity on you in order for you to repent – if you say it is
accidental I will add to you more ‘accidents’ “

*Kuzari (5:20): *Since all that exists must exist either because of a
direct decree of G‑d or by means of intermediate factors and it is
possible that they are all directly decreed by G‑d – the masses
prefer to attribute all causes directly to G‑d because this is more
certain and strengthens faith.

*Kuzari (5:20): … *The Prime Will is manifest when the Divine Presence
is amongst the Jews. However after the destruction of the Temple
it became doubtful - except in the hearts of those who have faith -
whether specific events were the result of the direct command of G‑d
or the Heavenly spheres or were accidents. There is no definitive way
to resolve this issue. Nonetheless it is best to attribute everything
that happens to G‑d, especially major things such as death, victory,
war, success and bad fortune.

*Rabbeinu Bachye(Vayikra 26:21): /If you act with Me as if the world is
random. /*The Torah attitude is that when a person achieves success and
things work out properly - he should attribute this to G‑d’s kindness
and not to his merit and good deeds. This attitude is stated in Devarim
(9:5): /And not because of your righteousness and the uprightness of
your heart. /In contrast when misfortune and tragedy happens to him, he
must confess his sins to G‑d and attribute it entirely to his sins and
not to chance or bad luck. If he insists on attributing his suffering to
coincidence than G‑d will add to his “bad luck”. This is the meaning
of this verse where it says “Also I will behave to you in a random
way”. This threat is repeated in stronger form in Vayikra (26:28)
where it is an expression of anger. In other words in this latter verse
G‑d says He will pour upon you “bad luck” out of His anger with you.

*Rabbeinu Bachye(Kad HaKemach Avel):*. … Nevertheless in fact this
statement is the very essence of faith. It is to be understood as saying
that one’s talents alone do not bring about success but rather it is a
result of merit which is earned. It is only because of their merit that
they are provided with the opportunity and other factors which lead to
success. Thus every successful endeavor for peace and prosperity in this
world is determined by the person’s merit. Similarly failure is the
result of deserved punishment. The proper Torah attitude is to ascribe
the peace and prosperity that comes to others as being the result of
their merit or that of their ancestors. The peace and prosperity of the
person himself is to be viewed as the result of G‑d’s mercy. He
is not to ascribe his success either to the stars or his own merit
because one should consider himself to be wicked or a sinner even if he
is in fact righteous. It is correct to ascribe all bad happenings –
whether to himself or to others – as being the result of sin and not
accident. That is the meaning of the verse (Vayikra ) If you view events
as being accidental then G‑d will leave you to accident and chance.

*Meiri(Shabbos 55a): *It is one of the foundation principles of Judaism
to believe that all happens to a person - both the good and the bad - is
determined by G‑d according to the person’s deeds. One should not be
confused by what seems to contradict this principle i.e., the suffering
of the righteous and the pleasures of the wicked. It seems that the
righteous and wicked are treated the same. In fact the nature of justice
is hidden from us and we don’t know why a particular person is punished
or is rewarded. We do know the general principle that G?�?�‑d does not
withhold the reward due to any creature- whether pleasure or punishment.
This principle is what our sages meant when they said “There is no
death without sin and there is no suffering without transgression”. You
shouldn’t be disturbed by the fact that this principle is apparently
refuted in the gemora when it says that four died by the sin of the
Serpent - thus indicating that death is a universal punishment because
of the Serpent and was implanted in Nature. It should not be taken
literally because we know that there is no one who hasn’t sinned.
Furthermore even though the gemora appears to reject the principle that
death and suffering is caused by sin since it uses the term “tiyuvta”
– that conclusion is incorrect. That is because our religious beliefs
are not dependent upon proofs from the simple meaning of verses and agada.
There is the established principle that one does not resolve issues
entirely on the basis agada. The fact is that even Moshe and Aaron died
because of their sins - so obviously so has everyone else.

Daniel Eidensohn

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]