When Hashem Prefers Telling Lies Over Doing Miracles

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by Naomi Mann in honor of Rabbi Moskowitz zt"l, whose shloshim is this week.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Teyo Verada (artist unknown)

When Hashem Prefers Telling Lies Over Doing Miracles

After taking the monarchy away from Shaul, Hashem charges Shmuel ha’Navi with the mission of anointing a new king, saying: “Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Yishai of Bethlehem, for I have seen a king for Myself among his sons” (I Shmuel 16:1). Shmuel asks: “How can I go? Shaul will hear and will kill me!” Hashem responds: “Take a heifer and say, ‘I have come to bring an offering to Hashem.’ Invite Yishai to the feast and I will tell you what to do, and you will anoint for Me whom I shall tell you.”

In other words, Hashem instructed Shmuel to lie. Shmuel did not come to Bethlehem to bring an offering to Hashem, but for the express purpose of anointing a new king. Why did Hashem advise him to do this? How could He advise a tzadik to lie? Why didn’t He miraculously protect His navi from all harm? Ralbag answers these questions in his “lessons” section:

The 14th lesson pertains to ethics, namely, that it is not considered to be a deficiency [of character] for a navi to lie in order to save his life. You see that Hashem advised Shmuel to say, “I have come to bring an offering to Hashem,” even though he really only came to anoint a king from the sons of Yishai.

The 15th lesson is to teach us that a person should not rely on a miracle, even though he is exceedingly perfected and clings to Hashem [in his righteousness]. You see that Shmuel, despite his high level [of perfection], was afraid that Shaul would kill him, and sought strategies to avoid this, saying: “How can I go? Shaul will hear me and kill me!” He did not rely on a miracle, even though he was going by the command of Hashem, for Hashem’s will is that a person should strive to save himself based on the most probable course of action, since Hashem will not do a miracle unless it is absolutely necessary.

Radak extrapolates the same lessons as the Ralbag, but ties the two points together. He writes: “We find that even when Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu makes a promise to a navi or a tzadik, nevertheless, [these individuals] will be careful when going to a place of danger.” Radak cites the well-known example of how Yaakov Avinu feared Eisav and took precautions, even though he was on a mission from Hashem to return to Aram Naharayim and was promised that Hashem would be with him. Likewise, David fled for his life from before Shaul even after being anointed as king. Gideon, Yehoshua, and others acted strategically in waging wars, even though they were doing so at the behest of Hashem. Radak explains:

The reason [for all this] is that even though Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu does miracles and wonders for those who fear Him, [these miracles] mostly proceed in accordance with the laws of nature. Thus, Yaakov feared Eisav and Shmuel feared Shaul in accordance with the laws of nature, [reasoning that] if he anointed a king during [Shaul’s] lifetime, he would need a strategy for how to go, and this was his question: “How can I go?” Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu answered him: “Take a heifer with you” …

Our Sages learned from this pasuk that it is a mitzvah to distort [the truth] for the sake of peace, for Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu told Shmuel, “Take a heifer with you,” thereby showing him that it is not proper for a person to go to a place of danger and rely on a miracle, as it is stated: “do not test Hashem, your God” (Devarim 6:16).

To put it bluntly: Hashem would rather advise Shmuel to tell a lie than to do an unnecessary miracle for him.

I used to wonder why more frum Jews – especially boys and men – don’t learn Tanach with the classical commentators. The more I learn, the more I begin to suspect I know the answer: they can’t learn Tanach with the classical commentators without undermining their own beliefs about how Hashem does and doesn’t work. How many Jews go about life thinking that Hashem will protect them because they consider themselves to be righteous, or because they’re on a mitzvah mission? How many Jews give lip service to notions of “hishtadlus” but privately believe that Hashem would never allow them to fall into harm? But the ways of the tzadikim and neviim in Tanach are different. They harbor no illusions about guarantees of divine protection. Instead, they rely on their God-given wisdom to strategically implement God’s will.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  

Tishah b'Av 5778: Where is "So"?

As I have done in past years, I came home from shul and hastily typed up a blog post based on the kinnos recitation and discussion I had in the morning. Think of this as "musings on kinnos" rather than as a proper "shiur." 

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Doomsday, by Noah Bradley

Tishah b'Av 5778: Where is "So"?

This year the kinnah (lamentation) that caught my eye was #13. The refrain of this kinnah is based on a Hebrew wordplay involving the first word of Megilas Eichah: איכה (eichah), which is usually translated as "how"? The paytan (poet-author) of this kinnah breaks איכה into two words: אי כה (eiy koh), which translates as "Where is [the] 'so'?" 

Here is the text of this kinah in English, based on the [bracket-laden] Artscroll translation (with a few of my own tweaks):

Kinnah #13 - by R' Elazar ha'Kalir 

Where is the "so" promised with a proclamation to [our] father [Avraham] at the Covenant Between the Parts, "so shall [your offspring] always be [as numerous as the stars]" (Bereishis 15:5)? Behold, now, how my bones are swallowed up murderously. Why, O God, have You abandoned us [for what seems like] an eternity?

Where is the "so" [mentioned when Avraham] approached [with his son] as with a sheep for a burnt offering to please You? They persuaded [the others to stay behind, saying], "we shall go so far" (ibid. 22:5) [in order to fulfill] Your testimonies. Behold now, how Your beloved ones are speared like a piece of fruit. Why does Your wrath smolder against the sheep of Your pasture?

Where is the "so" in the promise [to Yaakov] in the dark of night [when You promised him an abundance of] striped and spotted [sheep]? When [Lavan] would say, "[with sheep marked] so [I will reward you]" (ibid. 31:8), so was the sign swiftly fulfilled. Behold now, how You admonished [Jerusalem,] the city once filled with a chorus of jubilation. Lift Your footsteps to wreak [eternal] ruin [upon the enemy who destroyed this holy city]. 

Where is the "so" when [Moshe] intentionally killed an Egyptian [who was beating a Jew] in [view of the Israelites, who are like] a garden locked in with holiness? "He turned like so and like so" (Shemos 2:12), and the matter [of the Egyptian's death] was kept sealed within the holy congregation [of Israel]. Behold now, how their portion was devoured in the month [of tragedy, Av], when all of the enemy's wickedness was wreaked in the Sanctuary.

Where is the "so" when Tov[iah, Moshe,] was sent to redeem Your servants? [When You said,] "so shall you say [unto the Children of Israel" (Shemos 3:14), this nation must be sent out to serve You. Behold now, how traitors occupy Your House of Meeting, [as it is written,] Your enemies have roared amidst Your meeting place. 

Where is the "so" when new [blood] covenants were sealed [when the Jews were redeemed from Egypt]? Moshe said, "so says [Hashem]: At about midnight [I shall go out among the Egyptians]" (ibid. 11:4) with miraculous signs. Behold, now, how they have gathered to come into [the Temple] in their shoes; they have made their signs for signs.

Where is the "so" which was heard when Moshe ascended [Mount Sinai and God told him to tell Israel,] "so shall you say unto [the women]" (ibid. 19:3), the distinguished homemakers? Behold, now, how the sons of iniquity blaspheme Him and it is regarded as an attack on [God] above.

Where is the "so" mentioned at [the beginning of] the sixty-letter premier] benediction, "so shall you bless" (Bamidbar 6:23) which is like sixty mighty warriors? Behold, now, the once slumbering [Babylonian Empire] has reawakened [and ascended] to power and its axes are in the wooden thicket.

Where is the "so" when [the wicked Bilaam] opened his mouth to curse - but instead blessed - Your holy nation? [You commanded Bilaam,] "Return [to Balak, the king who hired you,] and so shall you say" (ibid. 23:5) [that the curses were] transformed [into blessings] for Your holy ones. Behold, now, how they have set upon Your holy city; they have sent Your Sanctuary up in flames. 

Where is the "so" when the Levites, Your perfect [attendants,] were taken [into Your service with the words], "So you shall do unto them, to purify them" (cf. Bamidbar 8:7) for your Eternal Temple? Behold, now, how they have stormed [the earthly Temple] and thereby caused Your heaven[ly Temple] to tremble; to the ground have they desecrated the Abode of Your Name.

Where is the "so" [when the Jews circled the walls of Jericho and seven priests sounded] seven powerful ram's horns? [For You had said,] "So shall you do for six days" (Yehoshua 6:3) to topple the wall to the ground. Behold, now, how the gates [of our Holy Temple] have sunk into the ground; [and] they have burned all of God's meeting places on earth.

Where is the "so" [which assured] salvation emanating from [the Holy Temple described as] the storehouses brimming with abundance. [The prophecies of future redemption which God] designated for His visionaries [all began with the words], "So says [Hashem]." Behold, now, how my flower[-like children] lie bloated [from starvation] in each courtyard. How long, O God, will the tormentor revile? 

The theme of this kinnah is easily identifiable: "Where is the 'so'?" The question is: What does this mean? It would seem that the instances of the word "so" in Tanach cited by the paytan have little or nothing to do with each other. What does Hashem's promise to Avraham of "so shall be your offspring" have to do with Moshe Rabbeinu "look[ing] like so and like so"? What does the opening of Birkas Kohanim ("so shall you bless") have to do with Yehoshua's conquest of Jericho ("so shall you do for six days")?

Apparently, this kinnah is based on a midrash in Eichah Rabbah 1:1, which is quoted by Rav Avigdor Kohen Tzedek in his commentary on Eichah 1:1:

"Eichah" is two words: "eiy koh." This means that Yirmiyahu lamented, saying: "Where is the zechus (merit) of Avraham, that it was said to him: "so shall be your offspring"? This is "Where is the 'so'?" And where is the zechus of Moshe, that it was said to him: "so said Hashem: 'at around midnight etc.'"? Likewise, where is the zechus of the Akeidah (Binding of Isaac), about which it was stated: "we will go until so far"? And where is the zechus of Yaakov, as it is stated: "so shall you say to the House of Yaakov"? And where is the zechus of the berachos, as it is stated: "so shall you bless Bnei Yisrael"? And where is the zechus of David, who said Torah koh times (i.e. 25 times) in the eight-fold [psalm 119]?

In other words, R' Avigdor Kohen Tzedek learns the word "so" as an expression of zechus. Accordingly, this kinnah is a lamentation over the fact that the zechus of these righteous people and phenomena is absent, to the extent that we have been subject to so much destruction and affliction. 

I have a slightly different approach, based on the definition and function of the word "so" in this context. In all of the citations in this kinnah the word "so" is used to signify "in the manner or way indicated or suggested." (If you don't believe me, go back and check; substitute each instance of "so" for "in this manner.") Understood in this way, the word "so" points to a director, who supervises what is going on, and says: "This is what will happen," "This is how things should be," "This is how things will go," "This is what you shall say," "This is how you should act." 

Thus, the repeated question in the refrain: "Where is the 'so'?" expresses astonishment at the seeming absence of Hashem as the manhig (director) - as the mashgiach (supervisor) who oversees the events of Jewish history as they unfold, and ensures that they do so in accordance with what is best for His people. Each of the citations in the kinnah represents a key turning point in Jewish history where Hashem's intervention resulted in a different path for our nation. Were it not for His promise to Avraham Avinu, we wouldn't be here. Were it not for the zechus of the Akeidah or the success of Yaakov Avinu, we wouldn't be here. Were it not for Moshe Rabbeinu killing the Egyptian, or Moshe's statement to Paroh, or makkas bechoros (the plague of the first born), we wouldn't have left Egypt. And so on.

I believe this is why the rendering of "eichah?" as "eiy koh?" is more than just a play-on-words. Lurking behind the question of eichah - "How can this have happened to our city and our people?" - is an underlying feeling that God has abandoned His people, leaving no one to guide the events of history by saying, "So shall it be." The paytan brings out this sentiment by explicitly asking: "Where is God? Where is the Conductor Who says 'so' in steering the course of our people?" This the meaning of the antithesis in each stanza: the paytan juxtaposes God's supervision in the past, expressed in the word "so," with the hester panim (withdrawal of Divine providence) in the calamities of the past and the present:

Where is the "so" promised with a proclamation to [our] father [Avraham] at the Covenant Between the Parts, "so shall [your offspring] always be [as numerous as the stars]" (Bereishis 15:5)? 

(Avraham was promised by Hashem that He would oversee his descendants and help them become as numerous as the stars.) 

Behold, now, how my bones are swallowed up murderously. Why, O God, have You abandoned us [for what seems like] an eternity?

(Where did His supervision go? The fact that our numbers are being diminished by our enemies would seem to indicate that He has forsaken us, and that we are no longer under His watchful care.)

This reading forces us to confront the question: Where is the "so"? Where did our Supervisor go?

The answer lies in the recognition that the abandonment, itself, is an act of Divine providence.  Hester panim is a type of hashgachah, even if it looks like the absence of hashgachah. 

This perspective is clear from the words of the neviim (prophets) who prophesied about the destruction and exile. They repeatedly emphasize that God will never abandon His people, even when they are deserving of punishment. It is also clear from the words of the Torah itself, at the end of the tochachah (rebuke) in Parashas Bechukosai:

But despite all this, while they will be in the land of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul My covenant with them - for I am Hashem, their God. I will recall for them the covenant of the ancients, those whom I have taken out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be God unto them - I am Hashem. (Vayikra 26:44-45)

This is even more explicit in Moshe Rabbeinu's statement about the present exile, which we read this morning:

When you beget children and grandchildren and will have been long in the Land, you will grow corrupt and make a carved image of anything, and you will do evil in the eyes of Hashem, your God, to anger Him. I appoint heaven and earth this day to bear witness against you that you will surely perish quickly from the Land to which you are crossing the Jordan to possess; you shall not have lengthy days upon it, for you will be destroyed. Hashem will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where Hashem will lead you. There you will serve gods, the handiwork of man, of wood and stone, which do not see, and do not hear, and do not eat, and do not smell. From there you will seek Hashem, your God, and you will find Him, if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have befallen you, at the end of days, you will return unto Hashem, your God, and hearken to His voice. For Hashem, your God, is a merciful God, He will not abandon you nor destroy you, and He will not forget the covenant of your forefathers that He swore to them. (Devarim 4:25-31)

The only way we will be able to find Hashem in our state of distress is if we recognize that the abandonment of the Jewish people is an act of hashgachah (Divine providence), for our benefit, to spur us to do national teshuvah. 

Without this recognition of Divine immanence in what appears to be Divine neglect, our observance of Tishah b'Av cannot achieve its purpose, and the suffering of our people throughout our many centuries of exile is for naught. 

"imo anochi b'tzarah" says Hashem. "He will call upon Me and I will answer him, I am with him in distress" (Tehilim 91:15) - but only if we recognize it. 

Parashas Chukas: No - it was NOT "Meant to Be"

Ordinarily I only write a new dvar Torah for the weekly parashah on Fridays. Today's blog post happens to be an exception to that rule. I've wanted to write about this topic for a while, and I just happened to find a Ralbag on Parashas Chukas which serves as a perfect platform for the discussion. Tomorrow's blog post will also be on Chukas.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Murder, by Allen Williams

Parashas Chukas: No - it was NOT "Meant to Be"

One of the greatest human tragedies is the death of one human being at the hands of another. Whether intentional (e.g. a murder, an act of terrorism, or a wartime casualty) or unintentional (e.g. vehicular manslaughter, an instance of gross negligence, or a freak accident), the sense of loss is compounded by the outrage over the involvement of human agency.

Although I haven't taken a formal survey, it seems to me that there are many Jews respond to such tragedies by saying "it was meant to be." People will say this about the full gamut of homicide, from suicide bombings, to car accidents, to complications arising from medical procedures. The "it was meant to be" sentiment will be expressed in a variety of ways. Some people exclaim "gam zu l'tovah," which they erroneously translate as "this, too, is for the best," or they invoke the even more common false notion that "everything is hashgachah pratis." Others give some variant of the allegedly more comforting explanation of "God wanted this person to be with Him" or the more neutral "it was his time to go." Others chalk it up to other common falsehoods, such as "this person must have fulfilled his tafkid (life's purpose) and that's why he died" or "her soul needed a tikkun (correction), and now it's free to move on." 

Although there is a lot that can be said here, I would like to limit the scope of our analysis from the outset. We will NOT be discussing this issue from the standpoint of God's justice or reward and punishment. We will NOT be dealing with the concept of God's Omniscience or Omnipotence. We will NOT address the question of what is or is not hashgachah pratis. We will NOT be discussing reincarnation or any of the doctrines that are based thereupon.We will certainly NOT discuss how to comfort someone who has experienced such a loss, or how to deal with such hardships in one's own life. 

The objective of this post is to make one point: just because one person dies prematurely at the hands of another doesn't mean that "it was meant to be." Or, to put it in positive terms: Judaism does hold that a person's life can be taken before his or her time. And what is true of death, which is the ultimate loss, certainly applies to other forms of harm and suffering that are brought about by human action.

My impetus for writing about this topic was the Ralbag's comparison of the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) at the beginning of Parashas Chukas with the Eglah Arufah (Axed Calf) at the end of Parashas Shoftim. There are several structural similarities between these two mitzvah-institutions, most notably:

• Both involve cows: the Parah Adumah an adult female, and the Eglah Arufah a young calf.
• Both are associated with human death: the Parah Adumah is the means by which we purify people from tumas meis (halachic impurity brought about by a human corpse), and the Eglah Arufah is brought to atone for an unsolved murder of a human being.
• Both are associated with a prohibition of work: the Parah Adumah must not have work done with it, and the land on which the Eglah Arufah is killed may not be worked.

The Ralbag [1] explains that the difference in the age requirement of the Parah Adumah and the Eglah Arufah is intended to clarify Judaism's stance on premature death. He writes:

The [Eglah Arufah] is a young calf and the [Parah Adumah] is an adult cow in order to teach us that the killer caused this person to die prematurely - that is, the person whose corpse was found in the field, whose assailant is unknown - because many people have erred, thinking that this (i.e. premature death) is impossible. This [error] leads to great harm in the Torah's beliefs, and in philosophy, and in matters [2] of ethics and practical decision-making, and denies the reality of the possible - but this is not the place for this inquiry.

In other words, when we carry out the procedure of Eglah Arufah in response to an unsolved murder, the young calf whose life we cut short is supposed to remind us that this victim's life was cut short by the murderer. This reinforces the Torah's view that this person's death was not "meant to be," but occurred prematurely. 

According to the Ralbag, the belief that a person's death was "meant to be" leads to "great harm" in four areas. First and foremost, such a belief undermines the beliefs of Torah - specifically, the yesode (fundamental principle) of bechirah chofshis (free will), as the Ralbag specifies elsewhere. [3] Secondly, this belief is not consistent with philosophical truth (though there are philosophers that arose after the Ralbag who would disagree). Third, it causes harm in the realm of ethics and practical decision-making. Fourth, it is predicated upon a denial of the category of "the possible" (by presupposing that everything that can happen is either "necessary" or "impossible"). 

The clearest and most comprehensive treatment of Judaism's view of bechirah in Rishonic literature (that I know of) is the Rambam's presentation in the eighth chapter of the Shemoneh Perakim. As it so happens, he addresses each of the four points mentioned by the Ralbag. He even mentions our case, about murder. Instead of summarizing each of these points on my own, I'm going to let the Rambam speak for himself, with my own paragraph breaks for clarity:

It is important for you to know that our Torah is in agreement with Greek philosophy, which have been substantiated by true proofs, that man's actions are in his control; no one compels him to do anything, and nothing other than himself ever inclines him toward a character virtue or flaw - other than a predisposition, which, as we explained, would [merely] make him find it easier or harder to do a specific thing [but doesn't necessitate any action on his part].

If man were compelled in his actions, then all of the Torah's commands and prohibitions would be utterly pointless, since man would not have freedom in his actions. 

Likewise, all study, education, and craft-related training would also be in vain, since - according to this theory - man would have something external to himself compelling him to do a certain action, or to know a certain subject, or to have a certain trait.

Reward and punishment - whether society's or God's - would be absolutely unjust. For if one person ("Shimon") killed another ("Reuven") because he was forced or compelled to kill, and his victim was forced or compelled to be killed, then why should [the killer] Shimon be punished? And how could it ever be said that God, Who is just and fair, punished someone for doing something he was compelled to do and could not help but do, even if he didn't want to? 

Besides, any precautions we would take - like building houses, acquiring food, fleeing when frightened, and the like - would be pointless, since it would be "meant to be" by [Divine] decree. 

All of this is nonsense and absolutely invalid; it runs counter to rationality and common sense, tears down the wall of Torah, and deems Hashem to be unjust - God forbid! 

But the truth, beyond any doubt, is that all of man's actions are in his own hands. If he wants to do something, he can; and if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to. There is no compulsion or force upon him. Therefore, the mitzvos are binding. 

[Hashem] said, "Behold - I have placed before you today the life and the good, and the death and the bad ... [therefore, choose life]" (Devarim 30:15-19), thus placing the choice in our hands. And there is necessarily punishment for transgression and reward for obedience, [as it is stated:] "[You will receive blessing] if you obey [the mitzvos of Hashem, your God], and [you will be cursed] if you disobey]" (ibid. 11:26-28). And there is an obligation to learn and to teach, [as it is stated:] "Teach them to your children" (ibid. 11:19), and "learn them, observe them, and do them" (ibid. 5:1). [There is an obligation] as well to do everything else that is involved in the learning and fulfillment of mitzvos.

One is also obligated to take all of the precautions [against harm or damage] enumerated in the Book of Truth, which says, "Make a maakeh (guardrail) for your roof ... lest someone fall" (Devarim 22:8); "[Let him go back to his house,] for he may die in battle" (ibid. 20:5-7); "[If you take your neighbor's garment as collateral, bring it back to him by sundown, for that is his only covering ...] What would he then sleep with?" (Shemos 22:26); "Do not take lower or upper millstones as a pledge" (Devarim 24:6). And there are many other statements in the Torah and the Books of the Prophets on this subject of taking precautions. 

As for the Sages' statement that "ha'kol bi'ydei shamayim chutz mi'yiras shamayim" - "Everything is in the hands of heaven except for fear of heaven" (Berachos 33b) - this, too, is correct, and follows what we have said.

Many people erroneously believe that a person is compelled to do certain things that are actually open to choice, for example, marrying a particular woman or acquiring a certain amount of money by stealing - but that is incorrect. For it is a mitzvah to marry a woman permissible to you by means of a kesubah (wedding contract) and kiddushin in order to have children, and God does not compel in the observance of mitzvos. In addition, if there were some wrongdoing in marrying her [i.e., if someone were to marry a woman who were prohibited to him], it would be a transgression, and God does not decree that a person transgress. The same would be true if one stole money from a person or robbed or defrauded him, then denied it and took an oath about the money [declaring it to be his own]. If one claimed that God decreed that the money be taken from the other person's hands and placed in his, it would be saying that God decreed a transgression, but that is not so. 

Rather, all of a person's actions are in his own hands, and through them obedience and disobedience will undoubtedly be demonstrated. For as we explained in the second chapter, Torah-based commands and prohibitions only apply to the deeds one is free to act upon or not. As such, the "fear of heaven" which is not in the hands of heaven, but is rather given to man, as we have explained, lies in this part of the soul.

And the statement that "everything [is in the hands of heaven]" is not intended literally; what they were referring to were natural phenomena which man has no control over, like being tall or short, whether it will rain or be dry, whether the air will be foul or pure, and everything else that occurs in the [natural] world, rather than through man's actions.

But the point the Sages made, that obedience or disobedience [i.e. the fear of heaven] are not by the decree of God or by His will, but rather by man's will, were deduced from the words of Jeremiah, who said, "Neither bad nor good comes from the mouth of the Most High" (Eichah 3:38) where "bad" refers to bad deeds and "good" refers to good deeds. That means to say that God does not decree whether a person will do bad deeds or good deeds.  

That being so, it is only right that man mourns for and regrets all his sins and transgressions, since he has done wrong of his own volition, as [Yirmiyahu] said, "What should a living man mourn for, a mortal man? For his sins" (ibid. 3:39). He then goes on to say that the cure for this illness therefore lies in our own hands. For just as we disobeyed by choice, so too, we can turn aside from our bad deeds. Hence he concluded with, "Let us search and examine our ways, and return to Hashem. Let us life up our hearts with our hands to God, in heaven" (ibid. 3:40-41).

There you have it. Let's summarize by applying the Rambam's analysis to the case of a premature death at the hands of another person. If someone was killed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, we do not say that "it was meant to be," for this would undermine the fundamental principle of free will on which the entire Torah is premised. To say that this person's death was "meant to be" would mean that the killer was somehow forced or compelled in his actions. If that were the case, how could he be held culpable by God or by human courts? Furthermore, from the standpoint of the victim, we cannot say that an untimely death was "meant to be" without reducing all of our preparatory and precautionary measures to absurdity. It would be senseless for the Torah to tell us to build a fence around our roof to prevent people from falling, or to send back the fearful person from battle, or to seek medical attention for illness and injury.

Rather, as Chazal said, "everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven" and, as the Rambam explained, "the fear of heaven" includes any and every action that directly or indirectly involves a mitzvah or a transgression. This certainly applies to a case in which one person caused the death of another.

Some might object to all of this, saying, "What's the big fuss? Let people think that it was meant to be! After all, they don't realize the philosophical implications of what they are saying. They just want to take solace in a belief that will comfort them."

To my mind, this is what differentiates Judaism from other systems of belief. Other belief systems are the products of the human psyche, with all of its wishes, fantasies, and insecurities. Even non-religious people tend to adapt or reject beliefs on this subjective basis. Judaism is different. We strive to base our beliefs on objective knowledge, truth, and reality, to the best of our understanding. We do not accept or reject something as true based on how pleasing or displeasing it is, or how much we want it to be true. To the contrary, we aim to determine our beliefs by using our God-given intellect to understand the universe - based on our own analysis, in light of our knowledge of Torah - and to accept the truth even if it clashes with our desires and preferences.

Again, I would like to emphasize the questions that this article intentionally did not aim to answer. We haven't addressed questions of God's justice, reward and punishment, Omniscience, Omnipotence, hashgachah pratis, the fate of the soul, or how to provide comfort to the bereaved. Each of these topics is "longer than the earth and broader than the sea" (Iyov 11:9), and should be investigated with deliberation and clarity.

But certain investigations cannot begin until the mistaken assumptions which hinder them are cut down, and - like the life of the Eglah Arufah which is cut short by the free choice of the ax-wielder - so too, it is our duty as purveyors of Torah knowledge must cut down the erroneous beliefs which preclude philosophical growth and maturity. 

[1] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 19

[2] The phrase used by the Ralbag here is inyanim ha'mediniyim; since, in Gersonidean terminology, this includes interpersonal ethics and personal decision-making, I decided to translate it as "ethics and practical decision-making."

[3] see, for instance, Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Melachim I, Toeles #24 

Tehilim 92: Mizmor Shir l'Yom ha'Shabbos

Although this can be read as a standalone post, I highly recommend reading my How to Learn Tehilim (Psalms) post first, in order to familiarize yourself with the methodology I'll be using.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post. 

Artwork: Wildest Dreams, by Daniel Ljunggren

Tehilim 92: Mizmor Shir l'Yom ha'Shabbos

Here is the text of Tehilim 92:

Tehilim 92 

(1) A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day. (2) It is good to thank Hashem and to sing to Your Name, O Exalted One; (3) to recount Your kindness in the morning, and Your faithfulness in the nights. (4) Upon a ten-stringed instrument and upon lyre, with singing [accompanied] by harp. (5) For You have gladdened me, Hashem, with Your actions; about Your handiwork I will sing joyously. (6) How great are Your works, Hashem; [how] very deep are Your thoughts - (7) a boorish man doesn’t know, and a fool doesn’t understand this - (8) when the wicked bloom like grass, and all the doers of iniquity blossom, it is to destroy them forever and ever. (9) But You [remain] exalted forever, Hashem. (10) For behold Your enemies, Hashem, for behold – Your enemies shall perish; dispersed shall be all doers of iniquity. (11) You raised like a re’eim my pride; I was saturated with fresh oil. (12) My eyes have seen my foes; when those who would harm me rise up my ears have heard. (13) A righteous person will flourish like a date palm, and like a cedar in the Lebanon he will grow tall. (14) Planted in the house of Hashem, in the courtyards of our God they will flourish. (15) They will still be fruitful in old age, vigorous and fresh they will be, (16) to tell that Hashem is upright, my Rock in Whom there is no injustice.

Let's review our basic method. The four questions we're going to try to answer are:

(1) What is this perek about as a whole? What is the main idea? What major insight is this teaching us about Hashem and His relationship to His world - or how He relates to man, in particular?

(2) What is being said in detail, and how? How does each pasuk - or each word and phrase - contribute to the main idea?

(3) Is this perek true, in whole or in part? Remember: it's not enough to know what David ha'Melech thought, nor is it enough to accept the truth of Tehilim based on the authority of Torah she'bi'Chsav (even though we have no choice but to start with this). We must strive to verify the contents of this perek to the satisfaction of our own minds. 

(4) What of it? What "inspiration via knowledge" is this perek written to bring about? How is the main idea in this perek supposed to affect your life, your view of reality, and your relationship with God? What else follows - what is further implied or suggested by the insights? What else can you do to internalize and be moved by these ideas? 

The only question we will not attempt to fully answer is Question #2, since I specifically want to avoid getting too bogged down in details, as I wrote about in my methodology article.

Question #1: What is this perek about as a whole?

According to our methodology, the first step is to find "the pivot point." In this case, the pivot point is obviously verse 7: "a boorish man doesn’t know, and a fool doesn’t understand this." This is a unique type of pivot point in that it can be read with either half of the perek. [1] If read with the first half, it will look like this:

A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day. It is good to thank Hashem and to sing to Your Name, O Exalted One; to recount Your kindness in the morning, and Your faithfulness in the nights. Upon a ten-stringed instrument and upon lyre, with singing [accompanied] by harp. For You have gladdened me, Hashem, with Your actions; about Your handiwork I will sing joyously. How great are Your works, Hashem; [how] very deep are Your thoughts! A boorish man doesn’t know [how great Your works are], and a fool doesn’t understand [how very deep are Your thoughts].

If read in accordance with the second half, it will look like this:

A boorish man doesn’t know, and a fool doesn’t understand [the following phenomenon]: when the wicked bloom like grass, and all the doers of iniquity blossom, it is to destroy them forever and ever. But You [remain] exalted forever, Hashem. For behold Your enemies, Hashem, for behold – Your enemies shall perish; dispersed shall be all doers of iniquity. You raised like a re’eim my pride; I was saturated with fresh oil. My eyes have seen my foes; when those who would harm me rise up my ears have heard. A righteous person will flourish like a date palm, and like a cedar in the Lebanon he will grow tall. Planted in the house of Hashem, in the courtyards of our God they will flourish. They will still be fruitful in old age, vigorous and fresh they will be, to tell that Hashem is upright, my Rock in Whom there is no injustice.

Now that we've discovered the pivot point, the four sub-questions we must answer under the heading of Question #1 are: (a) What is the main idea of the first half? (b) What is the main idea of the second half? (c) What is the unified idea (i.e. the main idea of the perek)? (d) What is the purpose or function of the pivot point? 

In this case, I believe we can answer all four sub-questions in one shot. Here is my summary of the main idea in four sentences:

The purpose of this perek is to answer the question of how the wicked are able to flourish in a world governed by Divine justice.[2] David ha'Melech's answer is that the only person who will be bothered by this question is the foolish, boorish man who doesn't comprehend the perfection, harmony, and depth of God's wisdom in nature. To the extent that a person recognizes how all natural systems operate in accordance with perfect justice - with every component perfectly suited to achieve its end, and each species receiving exactly what it needs for the continuity of the system as a whole - he or she will also recognize that there must be a similarly perfect system which governs human beings; just as there will inevitably be destructive consequences for interfering in a natural system, so too, there will be destructive consequences for those who deviate from the Creator's laws which govern human interactions. True, the wicked may flourish, but their success is short lived, like lowly grasses that quickly wither and die, whereas the righteous flourish like date palms and cedars - tall, long-lasting, and bearing fruit into their old age. 

This answers all of the sub-questions under Question #1: (a) the main idea of the first half is that nature is absolutely perfect and reflects the profound wisdom of the Creator in its lawful design; (b) the main idea of the second half is that the flourishing of the wicked is only temporary and is destined to end in destruction, whereas the flourishing of the righteous is the opposite; (c) the unity in the perek is that the human realm is merely a special case of the general character of the universe as a whole, and operates in accordance with the same principles, the same perfection, and the same justice; (d) the function of the pivot is to bring us to the realization that the key to seeing the justice in the human sphere is to recognize the justice in the natural world, and that to the extent that one recognition is lacking, so will the other. 

Question #2: What is being said in detail, and how?

As I said, I'm not going to go into this part in depth. I'll just write a few brief comments on each pasuk or two in order to give you an idea of how deep and how not deep I like to go when answering Question #2:

(1) Shabbos embodies the main idea of this perek since it is a day devoted to both objectives: recognizing God's wisdom in nature (zeicher l'Maaseh Bereishis - remembering the Act of Creation) and His justice in the human realm (zeicher l'Yetzias Mitzrayim - remembering the Exodus from Egypt). Moreover, Shabbos affords us the opportunity to re-calibrate ourselves to the Maaseh Bereishis framework, since the issur melachah (prohibition of creative work on Shabbos) forces us to withdraw our energies from striving to dominate the material world and to invest that energy in the contemplation of Hashem's reign over the natural world.

(2) Hodaah (giving thanks) and zemirah (singing praise) are two vehicles of achieving the recognition that is central in this perek; David refers to Hashem as "the Exalted One" to emphasize His transcendent supervision of the physical universe.

(3) "your chesed (kindness)" refers to the totality of the Creator's beneficence in nature, as it is stated: "the world was built with chesed" (Tehilim 89:3), and "your  emunah (faithfulness)" refers to the reliability of Hashem's hashgachah klalis (laws of nature); David describes himself as engaging in this praise "morning" and "night" to emphasize the infinite depth and breadth of Hashem's chesed and emunah in the universe, saying that in order to express his recognition, he would have to be involved in praise all day and all night.

(4) Who knows what the significance of the "ten-string instrument," "lyre," and "harp" are? Who even knows what these instruments were? As far as I'm concerned, trying to explain these details would be pure speculation, and the answer isn't going to have any bearing on the main idea anyway. 

(5) David is pointing out yet another benefit of contemplating Hashem's works: not only does this answer the question of how the wicked can flourish, but it is also an enjoyable activity in and of itself!

(6) and (7) we explained in our summary of the main idea.

(8) "it is to destroy them forever and ever" implies that there are two types of destruction that the wicked will suffer: the natural consequences of their lifestyle in Olam ha'Zeh, and the consequences to their soul in Olam ha'Ba.

(9) see my comments on (2).

(11) and (12) contain David's testimony about how he has seen the truth of this perek play out in his own lifetime; in addition to encouraging the reader to check out this claim by examining the events of David's life, this also provides an important piece of advice, namely, that a person should look for evidence of this in his own observations of the wicked and the righteous.

(13) In addition to the general idea that the righteous will succeed, I believe that the "flourishing plants" metaphor also suggests that the righteous person's success goes hand in hand with his development as a tzelem Elokim; plants are a perfect mashal for this, since we associate plants with natural growth and development. 

(14) It is unclear to me whether "house of Hashem" and "courtyards of Hashem" are references to the Beis ha'Mikdash (the Sanctuary) - and, by extension, Batei Kenesiyos (synagogues) and Batei Midrashos (study halls) - or whether they are a reference to the universe as a whole. [3] Either way, the idea is that by aligning oneself with the lawfulness which governs the human realm and seeking to comprehend the lawfulness in nature, a person will, in effect, be "planted" (i.e. permanently established in a manner which provides sustenance and continued growth) as a component part of the system of the universe - in contrast to the wicked, who seek to detach themselves from the system in a futile attempt to dominate it. 

(15) The lifestyle of the righteous as portrayed here will result in a prolonged and enhanced old age, in which the person's tzelem Elokim and righteous actions will continue to bear fruit - as I wrote about in my article On Aging: With (and Without) Torah.

(16) In a very "ecosystem-esque" manner, the righteous who live in this manner will, through their words and their actions, pass on their worldview to the next generation of mankind, thereby moving others to recognize the benefits of praising the Creator.

This is a good example of the level at which I like to answer Question #2. My goal is to be able to read the perek and see how most of the words and phrases contribute to or reflect the main idea. I'm not trying to get everything.

Question #3: Is this perek true, in whole or in part?

Personally, this perek didn't raise any questions of veracity to me. However, if I taught this in school, I would have to be prepared to demonstrate the truth of the following three claims:

1. that nature exhibits profound wisdom and perfection
2. that the success of the wicked is only temporary, and is destined to end in destruction
3. that tzadikim will flourish and enjoy a long life 

Originally I was going to write out how I would go about doing that, but I think this would take us beyond the scale of this blog post. Suffice it to say: watch nature documentaries for #1, and learn Mishlei, for #2 and #3.

Question #4: What of it?

What function does this serve in our avodas Hashem? I think the answer is clear from the perek: whenever we see the wicked flourishing and we feel troubled, we need look no further than the natural world around us. The more we recognize the absolute justice and benevolent functionality of nature, the more we can rest assured that the wicked will get what they deserve, no matter how successful they appear at the present. 

Similarly, if we are in doubt as to whether following the laws of the Torah will result in the best life for ourselves and for society as a whole, all we have to do is contemplate any ecosystem in nature. Each organism is cared for by Hashem's hashgachah klalis, and everything exists in peace and harmony. The same is within the reach of human beings, if only we align ourselves with the will of our Creator.

Concluding Thoughts

I hope this walk-through of Tehilim 92 has been beneficial in its own right, and in familiarizing you with our method of learning Tehilim. I plan on writing a post on Tehilim 23 in the near future, and possibly more later on in the summer. I'd love to hear your feedback! 

[1] Rabbeinu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Tehilim 92:7

[2] Note that this is specifically an answer to the question of why the wicked flourish, in a general sense, but this is NOT an answer to the specific problem of tzadik v'ra lo (how can bad things happen to a righteous person) which is addressed in Sefer Iyov.

[3] see, for example the Rambam's explanation of Hashem's praise of Moshe as "the most trustworthy in My house" (Bamidbar 12:7) in the Moreh ha'Nevuchim 1:54.

Parashas Behaalosecha: Moshe's View of Miracles

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Flamewake Phoenix, by Min Yum
This is NOT the type of bird-meat that Hashem would provide. 

Parashas Behaalosecha: Moshe's View of Miracles

Introduction

The episode in the wilderness known as Kivros ha'Taavah (the Graves of Desire) begins with Bnei Yisrael's craving for meat, instigated by the Erev Rav (Mixed Multitude):

The multitude that was among them cultivated a craving, and the Children of Israel also wept once more, and said: "Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge: the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic. But now, our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing to anticipate but the mahn!" (Bamidbar 11:4-6)

Moshe Rabbeinu responds to their outcry in an uncharacteristically agitated manner:

Moshe said to Hashem: "Why have You done evil to Your servant? Why have I not found favor in Your eyes, that You place the burden of this entire people upon me? Did I conceive this entire people or did I give birth to it, that You say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a suckling, to the Land that You swore to its forefathers'? Where shall I get meat to give to this entire people when they weep to me, saying, 'Give us meat that we may eat'? I alone cannot carry this entire nation, for it is too heavy for me! And if this is how You deal with me, then kill me now - if I have found favor in Your eyes - and let me not see my badness!" (ibid. 11:11-15)

Clearly there is a LOT to understand here. A full analysis of Moshe's reaction is beyond the scope of this blog post. I refer you to Rav Soloveitchik's shiur (available here in audio and here as a transcript). In this post I intend to focus only on Moshe's dialogue with Hashem regarding Bnei  Yisrael's demand for meat.

The Question

After instructing Moshe to gather 70 elders to help him bear the burden of leadership, Hashem tells Moshe how He intends to address Bnei Yisrael's demand for meat:

[Hashem said to Moshe:] "To the people you shall say: 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the ears of Hashem, saying: Who will feed us meat? for it was better for us in Egypt! So Hashem will give you meat and you will eat. Not for one day shall you eat, nor for two days, nor for five days, nor for ten days, nor for twenty days. Until an entire month of days, until it comes out of your nose, and becomes nauseating to you, because you have rejected Hashem Who is in your midst, and you have wept before Him, saying: 'Why did we leave Egypt?'" (ibid. 11:18-20)

Hashem responds by telling Moshe to inform Bnei Yisrael that He will provide them with more meat than they can handle, as a way of rebuking them for their underlying desire to return to Egypt. One might expect Moshe to accept this without any problems. Instead, he bemoans the logistics of Hashem's plan:

Moshe said: "Six hundred thousand foot-soldiers are the people in whose midst I am, yet You say I shall give them meat, and they shall eat for a month of days?! Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? Or if all the fish of the sea will be gathered for them, would it suffice for them?" (ibid. 11:21-22)

On the surface it seems as though Moshe doubts Hashem's ability to miraculously provide meat! This reading of Moshe's words is supported by Hashem response to Moshe's question:

Hashem said to Moshe: "Is the hand of Hashem limited? Now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!" (ibid. 11:23)

Hashem then provides meat by causing the wind to blow quail from the sea: "A wind went forth from Hashem and blew quail from the sea and spread them over the camp, a day's journey this way and a day's journey that way, all around the camp, two cubits above the face of the earth" (ibid. 11:31-32).

This exchange between Moshe and Hashem is problematic. The pesukim make it sound as though Moshe doubted Hashem's ability to provide meat for Bnei Yisrael. Our question is: What was Moshe thinking? After all, this is Moshe Rabbeinu we're talking about - the greatest navi who ever existed, through whom Hashem performed the miraculous Ten Plagues, the splitting of the sea, the mahn in the Wilderness, and a number of other miracles and wonders. How could he express incredulity about Hashem's ability to perform this simple miracle of providing meat for the nation?

The Ran's Answer

The Ran [1] provides an eye-opening answer to this question in the eighth drashah of his Drashos ha'Ran. As is my custom, I will first present a translation of the relevant excerpt - with my own paragraph breaks for clarity - and then I will summarize and comment on each point. The Ran writes:

Hashem's desire and will is to maintain the natural order (minhago shel olam) as much as possible; nature (teva) is precious in His eyes, and He will only change it if there is an absolute necessity. 

It is because of this that Moshe said: "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? etc." for Moshe thought that Hashem would not generate a miracle and a wonder in order to fill their bellies with something that is not necessary. He was astonished and wondered how, by natural means, he would be able to provide enough meat for those people.

And since the natural order is precious in Hashem's eyes and He desires it, as we have written, then sometimes, when it becomes necessary for Him to do a miracle and a wonder, He will intermingle it with a natural phenomenon which will serve as a basis for that miracle - even though that natural phenomenon is not sufficient to bring about that miracle, but is merely a support for it.

An example of this what Elisha said to that woman from among the wives of the prophets' disciples: "[Elisha said:] 'Tell me: what do you have in the house?' and she said: 'Your maidservant has nothing in the house except for a jar of oil'" (Melachim II 4:2) and he responded to her: "Go, borrow vessels for yourself from the outside, from all your neighbors - empty vessels; do not be sparing" (ibid. 4:3). [Elisha then went on to miraculously fill all of the empty vessels with oil from that single original jar.]

There is no doubt that it would have been impossible within the laws of nature to produce that much oil from that jar - as impossible as if there were no oil there at all. Nevertheless, the navi's request was in line with Hashem's will that this miracle should have a natural basis to lean on. 

The Ran makes four points, which we will now summarize and briefly analyze.

Point #1: Nature is Precious in Hashem's Eyes

Truthfully, this point deserves its own blog post, since it has so many implications, and there is so much evidence to support it. Instead of writing my own thoughts about this, I will quote an excerpt from the introduction to a well-known essay written by my Rosh ha'Yeshiva:

Judaism, as seen through the eyes of the scholars of the Talmud, has its own unique religious orientation. While basing itself on a cataclysmic event – revelation, it does not look to miracles as the source of its intimate relationship with God. God's revelation at Sinai was a one-time occurrence never to be repeated. This is expressed in Deuteronomy 5:19, “a great voice which was not heard again.” In the mind of the Talmudic scholar God continuously reveals himself not through miracles but through the wisdom of his laws. These laws manifest themselves in Torah –the written and the oral law – and in nature. 

The Psalmist expresses this view most clearly. He speaks freely of the wonders of nature and the awe-inspiring universe as in Psalm 8:4, "When I look at the heavens, the work of Your fingers; the moon and stars which you have established". Psalm 104, dedicated to the wonders of nature, climaxes with the exclamation, "How many are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom." Regarding the sheer intellectual joy one derives from studying Torah, he states, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul, the testimony of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the simple person. The precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is lucid, enlightening the eye. The statutes of the Torah are true; they are all in total harmony. They are more to be desired than gold, even fine gold, and they are sweeter than honey and the honeycomb." 

When speaking of man's search for God the Psalmist states: "The Lord, from heaven, looked down upon the children of man, to see if there were any man of understanding searching for God" (Psalms 14:2). Man discovers God only through understanding. Accordingly, the righteous are depicted as being constantly involved in this process of searching for and discovering God. "But only in the Torah of the Lord is his desire, and in His Torah he mediates day and night" (Psalms 1:2). Maimonides sharply criticizes those who consider themselves religious and search for God through the miraculous. "Say to a person who believes himself to be of the wise men of Israel that the Almighty sends His angel to enter the womb of a woman and to form there the fetus, he will be satisfied with the account; he will believe it and even find in it a description of the greatness of God's might and wisdom; although he believes that the angel consists of burning fire and is as big as a third part of the Universe, yet he considers it possible as a divine miracle. But tell him that God gave the seed a formative power which produces and shapes the limbs and he will turn away because he cannot comprehend the true greatness and power of bringing into existence forces active in a thing that cannot be perceived by the senses." 

While Judaism is based on a supernatural event, it is not oriented toward the supernatural. The essence of Judaism is not realized through religious fervor over the miraculous but through an appreciation of God's wisdom as revealed both in Torah and the natural world. A miracle, being a breach of God's law, does not contribute to this appreciation. This distinction is crucial since it gives Judaism its metaphysical uniqueness.

I believe that the view expressed by my Rosh ha'Yeshiva is what the Ran means when he says that nature is "precious in Hashem's eyes." He cannot mean that nature is "precious" to Hashem simply because He created it. This wouldn't warrant the word "precious," which implies that it is more valuable to Hashem (so to speak) than other things in His world. Rather, nature is "precious in Hashem's eyes" in that it provides the basis of man's relationship to Hashem - namely, the wisdom and beauty of the Divinely authored laws of nature. Nature is precious as a means of drawing closer to Hashem.

That, according to the Ran, is why Hashem is "reluctant" (so to speak) to do miracles, except when absolutely necessary. A miracle is a pgam (blemish) which mars the beauty of Hashem's wondrous laws of nature. 

Point #2: Conservation of Miracles

The Ran's second point is an explicit formulation of what I've heard some people refer to as "The Law of Conservation of Miracles." Hashem doesn't perform miracles gratuitously. Rather, He will only perform a miracle when it is "absolutely necessary." 

The Rambam [2] mentions an application of the Law of Conservation of Miracles in his discussion about nevuah (prophecy), emphasizing the point that all of Moshe's miracles were done out of practical necessity - not to establish his prophecy:

Israel did not believe in Moshe Rabbeinu because of the [miraculous] signs he performed, for one whose belief is based on miracles will have doubt in his heart, since it is possible that he did [these miracles] using illusions and trickery. Rather, all of the miracles he performed in the wilderness, he did out of necessity – not to bring a proof for his prophecy. He needed the Egyptians to be drowned – he split the sea and drowned them in it; we needed sustenance – he brought down the mahn; we were thirsty – he split the stone for them; the congregation of Korach denied him – he caused the earth to swallow them; and the same for all the other [miraculous] signs.

As a Chumash teacher I am often asked, "Why didn't Hashem solve such-and-such problem by miraculously doing such-and-such?" Although this question must be taken up on a case-by-case basis, the general answer can be boiled down to The Law of Conservation of Miracles: if a natural solution is possible, Hashem will not make recourse to miracles - and even when He does resort to miracles, He will minimize His intervention in the laws of nature as much as possible.

This is the basis of the Ran's answer to our question about Moshe's response to Hashem's proposed solution for the meat crisis ...

Point #3: Moshe's Response to the Meat Crisis

According to the Ran, Moshe's response ("Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? etc.") did not stem from any disbelief in Hashem's ability to do miracles. Rather, Moshe was operating under the assumption that God wouldn't do a miracle in this particular case. He reasoned that Hashem wouldn't do a miracle since it wasn't absolutely necessary for Bnei Yisrael to eat meat. Therefore, he assumed that the solution to Bnei Yisrael's dissatisfaction would have to be found within the laws of nature, and that seemed to be an impossible task to him. 

(Indeed, the Chizkuni [3] learns that Moshe thought that the 70 elders were appointed to help him with all of the meat-slaughtering. Part of his question, "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them?" was:  "How can 71 men slaughter enough meat for 600,000 men?")

According to the Ran, Hashem's response to Moshe ("Is the hand of Hashem limited?") was not intended to rebuke Moshe for thinking that the hand of Hashem is limited; rather, His response was intended to correct Moshe's mistaken assumption that the meat would be provided by his hand rather than Hashem's hand. The rhetorical formulation of Hashem's rebuke was intended to highlight Moshe's mistake about whose hand would provide the meat.

(Unfortunately, I do not know of any commentary by the Ran on the second part of Hashem's response: "Now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!" which seems to imply that Moshe did have some doubt as to whether the word of Hashem would come to pass. Let me know if you find or think of anything on this remaining question!)

Point #4: Miracles Via Nature

The Ran's fourth and final point is related to his first point. Because nature is precious in Hashem's eyes, then even when it becomes necessary for Him to do a miracle, He will do it by using a natural phenomenon as a "support" in order to convey his "reluctance" (so to speak) to completely do away with nature. 

The examples of this principle are too numerous to recount here. I'll just mention a few:

• Hashem could have just miraculously protect Noach, his family, and the animals. Instead, He made Noach build an ark and gather a male and female of each species. Undoubtedly, this ALSO required miraculous intervention - but the miracle was done using nature as a "support."
• The flood, itself, is an example of this. Hashem could have instantaneously "zapped" all of the evildoers. Instead, He utilized a natural disaster of miraculous proportions.
• Hashem could have designed the Ten Plagues to be completely supernatural. Instead, He utilized natural phenomena and caused them to behave in unnatural ways.
• Hashem could have split the sea by causing the waters to levitate or miraculously move aside on their own. Instead, "Hashem moved the sea with a strong east wind all the night" (Shemos 14:21).

This principle answers many questions about why Hashem performed specific miracles in the manner that He did. As the Creator of the universe yesh me'ayin (ex nihilo), of course Hashem could do miracles in any way He desires - and yet, He opts to incorporate nature as much as possible into these miraculous interventions in order to convey to us how precious nature is in His eyes.

Concluding Thoughts

I think there is an important lesson we can learn by comparing the popular view of miracles to Moshe's view miracles, as explained by the Ran. The Rambam [4] articulates the popular view in his Maamar Techiyas ha'Meisim: 

I will explain to you that which brought me to this approach, and that is that our aim and the aim of every intelligent person among the select few is opposite to the aim of the masses of people. For the most cherished and beloved thing to the masses of Torah-observant people, because of their ignorance, is to consider the Torah and human intellect to be two opposite poles. Everything which is incomprehensible to the intellect they consider to be a miracle. They flee from explaining something as a natural phenomenon whether it pertains to something recorded in the past, or in regard to something which is discernible at the present time, or whether it relates to something which is written will happen in the future. We, on the other hand, strive to reconcile the Torah with human intellect and regard everything in its natural light wherever possible, unless it is self-evident therefrom that it is of miraculous connotation and cannot be interpreted at all; then we are forced to say it is a miracle.

The "masses of Torah-observant people" look for miracles everywhere. They are eager to posit a miracle whenever possible. In their eyes, the more "miraculous" the miracle is, the better. Many even believe that nature diminishes Hashem's greatness and detracts from our ability to relate to Him.

From Moshe Rabbeinu we see that the Torah encourages the opposite of this orientation towards miracles. Moshe didn't expect Hashem to do a miracle for him, even though it would have solved a lot of problems, since he knew that Hashem only does miracles when they are absolutely necessary. Moshe knew that even when Hashem does perform a miracle, He uses natural phenomena as a "support" in order to convey how "precious" nature is in His eyes. The reason for this is because nature exhibits the wisdom of the Creator, and is our greatest vehicle for relating to Him. As tempting as it might be to seek out the miraculous as a basis for our relationship to God, His preference is for us to seek Him by appreciating the wondrous wisdom of His natural law: "How great are Your works, Hashem! With wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creations" (Tehilim 104:24).

Indeed, this is why the Torah presents us not only the historical account of the miracles that Hashem did, but also includes the information we need in order to learn how Hashem wants us to relate to His miracles. The challenge is to set aside our own preconceived notions, wishes, and fantasies about Divine intervention, and instead, to learn about the ways of Hashem from the words and teachings of Hashem in His Torah.

[1] Rabbeinu Nissim ben Reuven, Drashos ha'Ran #8
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 8:1
[3] Rabbeinu Chezkiah ben Manoach, Commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 11:21-23
[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead; see my post entitled On Interpreting "Miracle Stories" in the Talmud for a further exploration of this view

Human Expectations and Divine Redemption

Here's a blog post I cranked out just now, on Purim afternoon, in the few hours between minchah and seudah. My apologies for any errors or lack of clarity or incompleteness. Time was of the essence! 

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Forest (Zendikar), by Vincent Proce

Human Expectations and Divine Redemption

Yeshayahu 55 as an Introduction to Megilas Esther

When Chazal gave drashos (homiletic expositions) on entire books of Tanach they would customarily begin with a pesichta - an introductory drashah. This pesichta would usually be rooted in a pasuk from another book of Tanach, but would aim to encapsulate a major theme or idea of the book for which the pesichta served as an introduction. For example, a pesichta to Megilas Eichah might be based on a pasuk in Mishlei; a pesichta to Shir ha'Shirim might be based on a pasuk in Tehilim. 

The Gemara in Megilah (15b) presents a collection of pesichtos on Megilas Esther. I would like to briefly explore the drashah of R' Shmuel bar Nachmani. Here is the translation: 

R' Shmuel bar Nachmani began with this pesichta: "In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise; [and it shall be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off]" (Yeshayahu 55:13). 

"In place of the thorn" - [this means:] in place of the evil Haman, who made himself into object of avodah zarah (idolatrous worship), as it is written: "and upon all thorns and upon all branches" (ibid. 7:19).

"a cypress will rise" - this refers to Mordechai, who was called "the finest of the spices," as it is stated: "And you - take for yourself the finest of the spices, pure myrrh" (Shemos 30:23), and the Targum translates ["pure myrrh"] as "mari dachi" (מרי דכי in Aramaic, which resembles the spelling of Mordechai, מרדכי, in Hebrew).

"and in place of the nettle" - [this means:] in place of the evil Vashti, granddaughter of the evil Nevuchadnetzar, who burnt the resting place of the House of God, as it is written: "His resting place was gold" (Shir ha'Shirim 3:10).

"a myrtle (hadas) will rise" - this refers to the righteous Esther, who was called "Hadassah" (myrtle). 

"and it shall be for Hashem for a name" - this refers to the reading of the Megilah. 

"for an everlasting sign that will not be cut off" - this refers to the days of Purim. 

When my chavrusa and I prepared this drashah we found the particulars to be a bit daunting. Why is Vashti mentioned and not Achashveirosh? What's with comparison between Mordechai and the spices of the ketoress (incense)? How are the pesukim cited here relevant to the points that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani made? Why do the points about Mordechai and Esther focus on their names, whereas the points about Haman and Vashti focus on the wicked deeds associated with them?

Instead of trying to answer these questions, we focused on trying to get the main idea, and attempting to understand how R' Shmuel bar Nachmani intended this pesichta to be an introduction to Megilas Esther.

The Main Idea of Yeshayahu 55

In order to understand the insight that R' intended to shed on Megilas Esther, we must analyze the pasuk from Sefer Yeshayahu in its context. Here is the full passage:

Seek Hashem when He can be found; call upon Him when He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his path and the iniquitous man his thoughts; let him return to Hashem and He will show him mercy; to our God, for He is abundantly forgiving. For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem. As the heavens are high over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. For just as the rain and snow descend from heaven and will not return there, rather it waters the earth and causes it to produce and sprout, and gives seed to the sower and food to the eater, so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth, it will not return to Me unfulfilled unless it will have accomplished what I desired and brought success where I sent it. For in gladness shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive, the mountains and hills will break out in glad song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap hands. In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off (Yeshayahu 55:6-13).

This passage can be divided into three sections. I will restate the pesukim according to their divisions, prefaced by titles which summarize their themes:

Section #1 - Hashem's Acceptance of Teshuvah: Seek Hashem when He can be found; call upon Him when He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his path and the iniquitous man his thoughts; let him return to Hashem and He will show him mercy; to our God, for He is abundantly forgiving. For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem. As the heavens are high over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

Radak explains that the navi is reassuring the sinner that his teshuvah will be accepted. Hashem is not like a human being. A human being who is wronged might not be willing to forgive the wrongdoer on account of the severity of the offense. Alternatively, he might forgive him outwardly but secretly continue to bear a grudge. Hashem isn't like that. Even if a person is a rasha (evildoer) who has sinned egregiously, he should never give up on doing teshuvah. Hashem always desires and accepts teshuvah, and is abundant in His forgiveness. 

Section #2 - Hashem's Word is Beneficial and Reliable: For just as the rain and snow descend from heaven and will not return there, rather it waters the earth and causes it to produce and sprout, and gives seed to the sower and food to the eater, so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth, it will not return to Me unfulfilled unless it will have accomplished what I desired and brought success where I sent it.

We are familiar with the water cycle: rain and snow fall from heaven, they water the earth, causing vegetation to sprout and food to grow for humans and animals; then the water "returns to the heavens" and the cycle begins anew. We have no trouble accepting the reality of the water cycle, and yet, when it comes to the word of Hashem, we become filled with doubt. We fear that His prophecies will not come true, we doubt that the mitzvos will actually be "for our benefit" (cf. Devarim 10:13), and we are skeptical about His hashgachah (providence). Yeshayahu is pointing out that we are being hypocritical: if we accept the water cycle, which operates in accordance with the word of Hashem, then we should accept all other instances of the word of Hashem as equally reliable. There should be no difference in our reliance on the laws of physics and the laws of metaphysics, since Hashem is the author of both sets of laws.

Section #3 - Hashem's Redemption is Certain: For in gladness shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive, the mountains and hills will break out in glad song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap hands. In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

According to the Radak, this last part of the nevuah (prophecy) is about the future geulah (redemption) from galus (exile). He explains: "For in gladness you shall go out" of exile, "and in peace you shall arrive" in your Land. The rest of the passage is an allegory for the joy and flourishing that we will experience when we are redeemed. 

Now that we've gone over the pshat of this passage, we need to understand the main idea. What is the relationship between these three points that Yeshayahu is making? 

I believe the answer lies in what is perhaps the most important pasuk in this entire passage: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem." I say that this is the most important pasuk because, according to the Rambam (Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:23), the idea of this pasuk contains the core message of Sefer Iyov - a book of profound wisdom, ascribed to Moshe Rabbeinu, on the subject of Hashem's management of human affairs. Rambam writes: 

How can we think that His management (hanhagah) and supervision (hashgachah) over [His creations] is at all similar to our management of what we manage and supervision over what we supervise? … Rather the term “supervision” (hashgachah) as applied to Him is not the same concept as our supervision, nor is His “management” (hanhagah) of His creations the same concept as our management of what we manage. The two concepts are not even comprised in one and the same definition – as is thought by those who are confused – and there is nothing in common between the two except in name alone. 

In the same way, our actions do not resemble His actions, and the two are not comprised in one and the same definition. Just as natural acts differ from those of craftsmanship, so do the Divine management (hanhagah), supervision (hashgachah), intention (kavanah) in these natural phenomena differ from our management, supervision, and intention of what we manage, supervise, and intend. 

This is the purpose of the entire Book of Iyov as a whole, namely, the establishing of this foundational concept, and the drawing of attention to the inference to be drawn from natural matters, so that you should not err and seek to affirm in your imagination that His knowledge (yediah) is like our knowledge, or that His intention (kavanah), supervision (hashgachah), and management (hanhagah) are like our intention, supervision, and management. 

We humans are prone to mistakenly thinking that Hashem operates in the same way that we do. We project our fallible, human tendencies onto the transcendent Creator. We imagine that His management, His knowledge, His intentions, and His supervision are the same as our own, and that we can understand these things by relying on the same premises as we do when we think about human behavior. This is a major error.

Yeshayahu pointed out three manifestations of this error: (1) we don't do teshuvah because we think of Hashem in the same way that we think of an unforgiving human being, (2) we don't trust that His words are true and will yield benefit, and (3) when we see the "overgrown thorns and nettles" of our state of exile, we can't imagine that there will ever be lush growth there; we don't believe that the joy and geulah will ever replace the sorrow and oppression of galus. 

By drawing allegories from the natural world - an instantiation of "Hashem's ways" that we are  familiar with, and that we do rely upon - Yeshayahu reassures us that we can also rely on Hashem in these three areas with the same degree of trust: we can trust that our teshuvah will be accepted, that the word of Hashem will be fulfilled and will benefit us, and that He will redeem us from exile and cause us to rejoice and flourish in our Land.

Yeshayahu 55 as the Theme of Megilas Esther

Okay, now that we've gone over the main idea of this passage in Yeshayu, the question is: What does this have to do with Megilas Esther? What is the connection that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani wanted us to see, and to adopt as our framework for reading Megilas Esther?

I believe the answer is that the Jews in Shushan might have easily made the same mistake that Yeshayahu warned about, namely, equating Hashem's ways with our ways. 

Think about what it would be like as a Jew in Shushan. Haman, second-in-command to the king, decreed a total genocide on the entire Jewish population. The situation seemed utterly hopeless. It would have been very easy for the Jews to give up hope - to doubt or deny all of the promises made by countless neviim that Hashem would ultimately deliver His people from their enemies and bring them back to their Land. They might think that even if they did teshuvah and turned to Hashem in tefilah, He would neither forgive them nor listen to them. They might think that He had abandoned His people, despite his numerous promises.

But they didn't make that mistake. Bnei Yisrael, led by Esther and Mordechai, remained true to the word of Hashem. They fasted, they davened, and they did teshuvah. They relied on the chochmah that they had acquired from Torah and did everything in their power to bring about salvation. They trusted that Hashem would save them, and they acted on that trust. 

And what was the result? V'nahafoch hu - a complete reversal of our expectations. The "thorn" of Haman was replaced by the "cypress" of Mordechai, and the "nettle" of Vashti with the "myrtle" of Esther. Instead of the Jewish people being annihilated by their enemies forever, the opposite happened: their enemies' lives were cut short, the Jews were saved, and their salvation was memorialized forever in the institution of Megilah and the days of Purim. 

Mordechai and Esther established Purim and its mitzvos so that Klal Yisrael would always have an example of how to respond to an existential threat. "In each and every generation they stand against us, to destroy us" (Haggadah shel Pesach). If we, like the audience of Yeshayahu 55, view Hashem's management of the world the same way that we view human management, then we will be prone to despair and to reliance on futile plans that are built upon human delusions, and we will fail. But if we take Yeshayahu's message to heart, that "My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways," and we trust in Hashem, rely on His word, and act accordingly - as did the Jews of Shushan - then "Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu [will] save us from their hand." 

No matter how dire the situation may seem from a human standpoint, Hashem is not bound by human conventions, nor is He confined to our limited understanding of how He will bring about redemption, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways." And we need look no further than Megilas Esther for a real-world example of how all of our expectations were completely reversed: "In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off." 

As we celebrate Purim, we should take these ideas to heart so that if (God forbid) we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future, we will be able to have trust in the word of Hashem, Whose ways transcend human understanding.