There are those who argue that perhaps we should teach that the Torah is allegorical for the purposes of kiruv. Wouldn’t a non-affiliated Jew be more receptive to the Torah if he didn’t have to believe in a worldwide flood? This is not a new approach, and Rabbi Meiselman felt that this was the wrong approach.
This same argument was made in the past when Torah was confronted by a challenge from a different culture and/or discipline. Some felt that Torah is in an intellectually inferior position when confronting modern intellectual theories and discussion. Hence, these people developed a need to reinterpret Torah concepts to fit an intellectual worldview to which they accorded respect and veneration. This is being done today to accommodate modern academia.
For years, people looked the other way when kiruv workers and others expounded theories about Torah and science that were unacceptable to the world of talmidei chachamim. Some looked away because they did not want to interfere with otherwise important work. Some were not sufficiently sophisticated in the various disciplines to navigate properly and give the proper Torah response. However, this silence should not be interpreted as acquiescence or agreement to these positions. Some talmidei chachamim who had not sufficiently understood these areas and were expert elsewhere may even have consented. What changed recently is the attempt by some contemporary authors to make these accommodating theories mainstream. While in the past some have looked the other way, this can now no longer be continued. Torah can defend itself. The most potent kiruv tool is to expose the uninitiated to the depth and sweep of authentic Torah.
The problem is that many times, it's the position being described as "apologetic" that is the one held by most of chazal and rishonim, and the position being championed that is a (relatively) modern reaction to R and C excesses.
ReplyDeleteIOW, there is no question why a kiruv organization would teach that the universe is over 13bn years old. There is a huge question why the "defenders of the faith" would have a problem with it.
To talk both about marginalizing approaches to Torah the author considers "apologetic" and yet to conclude "The most potent kiruv tool is to expose the uninitiated to the depth and sweep of authentic Torah" is self contradictory. Approaches that seem more apologetic are also part of the sweep.
> This is being done today to accommodate modern academia.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's being done because people aren't stupid and don't blindly accept what a religious figure says.
The gemara says that lice generate spontaneously from sweat. It's not correct and saying so doesn't change the halacha about whether or not you're allowed to kill a louse on Shabbos anyway.
The gemara says the world is covered with a dome. It's not correct and saying so doesn't imply disrespect for Chazal, their authority or their intelligence.
I find it fascinating that when it comes to interpreting the Torah, almost nothing is as simple as the pshat of the text implies it is. We don't literally take an eye for an eye. We don't accept that Reuven slept with his father's wife. But suddenly when it comes to the parts about Creation and the Flood it's heresy to understand them in any way other than the literal! And especially when there is plenty of evidence that great authorities also approaches these subjects in that fashion.
Garnel,
ReplyDeleteI find a major distinction in what you lumped together. Maaseh bereishis was not historically presumed to be literal. Scientific challenge shouldn't require us to change to a new position that creates more problems.
The notion of a local mabul lacks such Torah shebaal peh. There I find it far more apologetic in the article-writer's negative sense of the term, as you're proposing acceptance of a new position solely in response to a scientific challenge.
Rabbi Meisselman's approach is the correct approach. I say this as a person with a very good secular education. Torah doesn't change with time. Emprical science does.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah says that the universe is 5772 years old, according to the mainstream opinion. You cannot ignore this. You either believe in modern science or Torah. You have to choose which one you believe in. Believe it or not, this is one of the main issues of our times, as so many kids who are frum from birth are learning about science and questioning their faith.
I personally believe in Torah. I am a baal teshuva who has had the honor and pleasure of speaking with with some of the greatest scientists in the world (who are considered Gedolim in the scientific world) and some great Torah scholars (who are not considered Gedolim) and I can say that the Torah scholars win hands down intellectually speaking. They have the ability to understand issues in ways that scientists are clueless. I have seen how learning Torah opens up a person mind to see the world in a completely different way than secular people see the world.
Betzalel, this link points out that Rabbi Meisselman's article is full of misstatements. After reading this, are you still so sure his is the right approach?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/perfect-torah-science-authority-fact-or.html
>>The gemara says that lice generate spontaneously from sweat. It's not correct and saying so doesn't change the halacha about whether or not you're allowed to kill a louse on Shabbos anyway.
ReplyDeleteThat is not so clear cut.
"That is not so clear cut."
ReplyDeleteJames: Please explain. Thanks
yeshaya,
ReplyDeleteI actually think Rabbi Meisselman pegged Rabbi Slifkin right. See
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/ummm-no-he-doesnt.html
This is not the writing of an Orthodox rabbi.
"נָעַר הַיִיתִי וְגַם זַקָנְתִי וְלֹא רָאִיתִי צָדִיק נֶעֶזָב וְזָרְעוֹ מְבַקֵש לַחֶם". Really? You have never seen an impoverished tzadiq? I have. (If nothing else, do you recall what the gemara says R' Chanina ben Dosa had to live off of?)
ReplyDeleteSo, either one takes an approach as RNS does, or one resorts to Xian faith -- belief despite the obvious evidence.
FWIW, in the pasuq I quoted, I believe the most important word is "נעזב". The tzadiq and his family family may well suffer poverty, but it's not due to abandonment.
My own resolution, unlike RNS's, is to compare it to Newton's first law of motion: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." This law is certainly true. However, in the everyday world, there is always friction and air drag, and therefore there is always an external force to slow things down. We don't see this law in action outside of arcane experiments or space travel.
Similarly, Hashem rewards in olam hazeh. But there is another principle always in operation that reduces the pragmatic outcome of that statement -- this world isn't about reward, but about growth. "Sechar mitzvos behai alma leiqa". And so the reward could well be being blessed with the hardships that it takes to grow even further, and be even more suited for olam hava.
Betzalel, my usual example of why faith of the kind you're advocating is insufficient is from the life of a baalas teshuvah I know. Out of 12 siblings and first cousins, she alone married a Jew, and that was only because she became frum as a teenager. And out of 12 siblings and first cousins, she alone lost a child. After years of books of the genre that teach that once you become frum, the only planes you will miss are the ones that are about to crash, the "Why me?" she went through was challenging and painful.
Either you build a hashkafah that actually fits the real world, or the real world will disabuse you of your faith.
Betzalel, to be honest I didn't like that post, and I don't agree with his views on providence, but they're not un-Orthodox -- Rambam makes very clear in Moreh that he thinks individual living creatures are governed by chance, for example.
ReplyDeleteYou have to admit that in the link I gave you, R' Slikfin demonstrates that R' Meisselman is actually *lying* (or ignorant) about the views of rishonim and Chazal. His perspective seems to be based on clear distortions, both hashkafic and scientific.
micha,
ReplyDeletethe pasuk in Tehillim about the impoverished tzadik says the author has never seen one. That doesn't mean it can't happen. The author is praising Hashem in that he's never seen it happen.
yeshaya,
Rabbi Slifkin is claiming that "poteach et yadecha..." is false. He's saying that the sages said it only because they wish it were true. That is simply not an Orthodox Jewish position. So as a layman, why should I take anything else he says seriously about Orthodox Judaism?
Furthermore, why should I take anything seriously from a rabbi who has a blog where I can vote on whether his post is "emes" or "kefira"? The rabbis I learned from in my yeshiva wouldn't even dream of doing something like this.
Also, Rabbi Slifkin doesn't demonstrate that "R' Meisselman is actually *lying* (or ignorant) about the views of rishonim and Chazal." He is arguing with what a reporter said about what Rabbi Meisselman said. It's second hand knowledge.
Betzalel, R' Chanina ben Dosa starved. R' Aqiva's children lived off next-to-nothing for much of their lives. RNS's general question is that of "tzadiq vera lo" and is raised by Chazal (and the Greeks, and most theologians). To simply deny it is a real problem, that it's unfrum to ask something Chazal did, is intellectually dishonest.
ReplyDeleteAnd Betzalel, it's your senses that say that "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon" doesn't mean what a naive reading takes it to mean. Plenty of living things don't get everything they want. Few if any do, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI too find RNS's approach problematic, but I find your ignoring the question more so. Like the BT mother who lost her child, what will anchor you to Judaism if reality ch"v robs you of this luxury of ignoring what's out there?
Betzalel, there is not some universal list of Orthodox and non-Orthodox interpretations of each passage in Tanakh -- hashkafa has never worked that way. RNS is entitled to interpret the pasuk as he wants, as long as it doesn't have any halachic significance or contradict a universally-agreed hashkafic principle. He never said that Hashem does not bestow kindnesses to his creatures at all -- now *that* would go against universally-agreed Orthodox beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether R' Meisselman is lying, ignorant or just being misquoted, we shall see.
RNS has explained that he doesn't mean "kefira" literally -- it's just a version of thumbs-up or thumbs-down meant to poke fun at those who have unjustly accused him of heresy. Who says Orthodox rabbis can't have a sense of humor? People also complain about his "tone" regarding gedolim, but I actually think it's quite respectful (did you see his defense of their ban on him)? He's been a real gentleman, considering the way he's been treated.
I don't agree with RNS on everything, but I think it's very clear from his writings and his blogs that he is committed to seeking the truth, regarding what science says today and what Chazal and rishonim really said and believed. And he's demonstrated quite well that his opponents refuse to do that.
Ramban (Emuna and Bitachon chapter 1): If it weren’t for the fear that sin will prevent success, then effort to achieve success - even in the normal way of the world - would be viewed as a lack of bitachon. We can see that from the verse (Tehilim 37:25) And I never saw a tzadik deserted and his descendants lacking bread. Even Hillel and R’ Chanina ben Dosa and his colleagues who were extremely poor [Yoma 35b] were not classified as deserted since they had no interest in material possessions. Desertion only is relevant to someone who was well off and then lost his wealth. In contrast one who never had wealth cannot be described as deserted. Furthermore there is no such thing as gratuitous desertion but rather it is always the result of sin…
ReplyDeleteRabbeinu Bachye (Kad HaKemach Bitachon): I never saw a tzadik who had been deserted and his descendants seeking food (Tehilim 37:25):. It is well known that even though Hillel and R’ Chanina ben Dosa were extremely poor they were not “deserted.” That is because they never had any interest in material possessions. “Deserted” only applies to someone who was well off and afterwards was deserted. In contrast someone who never was wealthy is not considered “deserted.” Furthermore there is no such thing as gratuitous desertion but rather it is always the result of sin…
Rabbeinu Bachye (Kad HaKemach Parnosa): I never saw a tzadik who had been deserted and his descendants seeking food (Tehilim 37:25). In other words, “I never saw someone who was a wealthy tzadik ever losing their wealth and becoming poor” However someone who was never wealthy e.g., R’ Chanina ben Dosa is not described as being deserted and doesn’t constitute a refutation.
I wrote: "FWIW, in the pasuq I quoted, I believe the most important word is "נעזב". The tzadiq and his family family may well suffer poverty, but it's not due to abandonment."
ReplyDeleteNow, after our host's comment, I will add "barukh shekivanti!"
But the last quote from R' Bachya also has counterexamples.
This is why I would also invoke my mashal of a scientific law that is both true, and yet never seen in the real world without other issues occluding it.
see here is support of r meiselman
ReplyDeletehttp://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-omitting-non-parenthetical.html
I want to make it clear that I don't think badly of Rabbi Slifkin, despite what I said. I'm sure he's a very good Jew. It's just that what he says has the potential to confuse a lot of people, including myself. I think he acknowledges this.
ReplyDeleteBetzalel: yes, he acknowledges this. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Torah-and-science matters. I don't like the claim (in one of his books) that the "there is no coincidence" view originates with the Besht. This is because this view is clearly expressed in the Gemara and by some rishonim. So even if his approach was somewhat subtle, I still think it could be unecessarily damaging to people's emuna/bitachon. Which to me is more important than whether such-and-such a statement about the natural world in the Gemara is literally true. Because there is no mitzvah to believe in anything literally, as I believe R' Dessler said. But believing that everything is for the best and thanking Hashem for all the kindnesses he constantly bestows upon us through the supposed coincidences of every day life -- this is absolutely vital for our avodas Hashem.
ReplyDeleteyeshaya said...
ReplyDeleteBetzalel: yes, he acknowledges this. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Torah-and-science matters. I don't like the claim (in one of his books) that the "there is no coincidence" view originates with the Besht. This is because this view is clearly expressed in the Gemara and by some rishonim. So even if his approach was somewhat subtle, I still think it could be unecessarily damaging to people's emuna/bitachon.
===============
actually this was stated explicitly by the Lubavisher Rebbe as the chiddush of the Besht. Even Rav Dessler represents the pre Beshtian view of the Rishonim
The Lub Rebbe credited the Baal Shem Tov, the Sifsei Chaim says it's the Gra.
ReplyDeleteRishonim argued whether all people got hashgachah peratis (individualized, customized, Divine Providence) in every event in their lives. Non-humans? No one entertains the idea, which is how it can be attributed to 18th cent acharonim.
That said, ideas like chaos theory (you might be familiar with part of it as "the butterfly effect") make it very hard to separate anything that happens from just those events that don't effect people who are getting hashgachah peratis. So, logic kind of forces me to accept the modern position.
Either way, believing that providence is less than universal is like believing in an old universe -- both were the historically dominant position among baalei mesorah, and yet today's "the gedolim" (not to be confused with the variety of opinions of our actual full collection of gedolim) would have you believe they're heretical.
So, Yeshayah, I must correct you about it being found in the gemara and some rishonim. It isn't to the best of the LR's and Sifsei Chaim's knowledge.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the original Daas Torah sefer that our host wrote / compiled on hashkafah (it's all paragraph and multi-paragraph quotes and translations of primary sources giving a spectrum of positions) has a long section on the topic.
I stand by what I said. Rabbi Akiva says "everything the merciful one does is for the good," and the Nachum Gamzu story is clearly meant to illustrate that everything that happens is for the good.
ReplyDeleteRashi, commenting on Chullin 63a, says that G-d decides which fish will be caught by which bird.
The Ramak (in the 16th century) said that: "No person who believes should entertain the concept that any action, large or small, takes place by coincidence. Instead, everything is determined by Divine providence" (Ein Kol Tamar, ch. 5).
R' Avraham ben Rambam said: "[T]he bitachon incumbent upon all the religious people...is a firmly placed conviction and a genuine, heartfelt awareness that the natural causes and normal channels are directed by God's detailed will for each person, in every time and every situation." (p. 213).
Even more like the Besht, Rabbenu Bachya (writing nearly a thousand years ago) wrote: "We ought to trust in God with the trust of one, fully convinced that all things and movements, together with their advantageous and injurious results happen by the decree of the Eternal, under His authority and according to His sentence."
These passages clearly demonstrate the existence of the "no such thing as a coincidence" view among Chazal and rishonim. Even if it was a minority view, that does not mean it is not true, or a valid belief we should today.
R' Aqiva says "everything that the All-Merciful does..." which doesn't say He does everything. R' Aqiva's attitude (probably learned from one of his rabbeim, Nachim ish Gamzu) relies only on believe that one's own life is the product of providence. Not that a leaf that falls in the forest this way or that because you
ReplyDeleteSee the sources, rather than just insisting on something they all deny. The Chinukh ridicules our position (see this translation on this blog). The Rambam says it's a difference between Judaism and Islam (also available on this blog). See also our host's book, Daas Torah: A Jewish Sourcebook pp 264-273, 277-282.
Or, the aforementioned essay by the LR, which I put up at avodah's archive.
You appear to be confusing the "Everything that happens to people, and thus to you" view with the "everything" view.
Micha: thank you for the links and references! Yes, let's separate two views. One view is that "there is no such thing as a coincidence" regarding what happens to people (let's call this the human-maximalist view of divine providence). The other view that "there is no such thing as a coincidence" even when it comes to individual animals and inanimate objects (let's call this the ultra-maximalist view).
ReplyDeleteThe Lubavitcher Rebbe says that the ultra-maximalist view, not the human-maximalist view, originates with the Besht. He quotes at least two pre-Besht sources expressing the human-maximalist view (Shomer Emunim, which says "There is nothing that takes place by coincidence, without a Divine intent and providence," but does not apply this to individual animals, and the Ramak passage I quoted above). Given the Rashi reference I provided in my last comment, I am not sure the Lubavitcher Rebbe was correct about the Beshtian origin of the ultra-maximalist view.
Also, the quotes by Ramak and Rabbeinu Bachya are actually consistent with the ultra-maximalist view, but I'd have to scour the rest of their writings to see if either author clarified this.
Interestingly, it seems possible that Rambam was a human-maximalist. He is clearly not an ultra-maximalist. But in the Moreh he seems to say that whatever suffering someone experiences is due to some sin (as in the Talmud passages that "there is no tribulation without transgression" and giving trivial examples like taking the wrong coin out of your pocket) (Shabbat 55a). Rambam gives the example of being pricked by a thorn. Rambam says in Moreh:
"The principle which I accept is ...this: In the lower or sublunary portion of the Universe Divine Providence does not extend to the individual members of species except in the case of mankind. It is only in this species that the incidents in the existence of the individual beings, their good and evil fortunes, are the result of justice, in accordance with the words," For all His ways are judgment."
"It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents, as in the above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house falls upon those
within; but it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding."
(continued) This comes close to saying that everything that happens to a person is sent from God (perhaps excluding things that are neither good nor bad).
ReplyDeleteRambam goes on to say that the more advanced one's piety and knowledge, the more providence one experiences. He suggests that heretics are like animals. But he never says that they experience no providence whatsoever. Rather:
"The greater the human perfection a person has attained, the greater the benefit he derives from Divine Providence."
So one could interpret Rambam as saying that a certain level of Divine Providence applies to all humans, meting out punishment to the wicked (perhaps inspiring them to teshuvah as well as giving them what they deserve), but providing more divine protection to those who are more advanced spiritually.
This is consistent with more maximalist views. For example, although Breslov teachings generally emphasize that everything is for the good no matter what, there are also a lot of Breslov teachings indicating that the greater one's emuna (and bitachon and prayer), the greater the kindnesses and wonders one will experience.
In sum, a human-maximalist position is clearly suggested by Rabbi Akiva, potentially consistent with Rambam, and is definitely articulated by Rabbi Avraham ben Rambam, the Ramak, and Rabbenu Bachya. An ultra-maximalist position is found in Rashi, and perhaps Rabbenu Bachya and Ramak. (Not to mention "poteach et yadecha" in Tehillim 145, which Rambam curiously omits in his critique of the ultra-maximalist view).
Look at the Moreh, 3:18. You leave 3:17 thinking that the Rambam is a human-maximalist. Then in 3:18, you find out that personhood, WRT hashgachah peratis, is relative to one's knowledge of G-d. Not every homosapien is fully a person, thus reducing chazal's position to being proportional to one's knowledge of G-d, and total HP is only for the navi. This is explicitly stated.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is proportional, but my point in my last comment was that even those who lack knowledge or piety may have a certain level of Providence. He never says that the wicked have no divine protection whatsoever, or that they are not punished for their sins. He is very emphatic that Hashem rules the world with justice. And this punishment of sin itself can be a form of divine providence, because Jews have always been taught to examine their deeds if something bad happens to them (even, as the Talmud says, a slight annoyance like putting your shirt on backwards). So since the punishment can spur one to teshuvah it too is a divine kindness, a form of Providence that can allow the person to achieve piety and knowledge of G-d.
ReplyDeleteI believe Ramabam in Mishneh Torah says we should bless Hashem for the bad because we do not know what good will result from it. And the Shulchan Aruch even codifies this 230:5, saying
"A person should always be accustomed to say, 'Whatever the Merciful One does, He does for the best.'"
Another thing I wanted to point out is that Rambam suggests the ultra-maximalist view derives from a Muslim sect, but he admits that some Geonim adopted their view. He says that they must have heard it from the Muslims. But that's just his claim -- we don't know how Rambam knows they got these ideas from the Muslims. It sounds like more of a way to insult them and make their ideas seem wrong.
There is a third view of Providence which I think is more or less universal: that Hashem is bestowing kindnesses upon us all the time. This does not necessarily mean that everything that happens is for the good, or that "there is no such thing as a coincidence," but simply that lots of good things happen all the time that are sent from G-d because of His mercy and kindness. I call this view universal because it is clearly present in many of our prayers, such as the modim blessing of the Amidah, Birkat Hamazon, and Nefesh Kol Chai. Modim, for example, speaks of "your miracles that are with us daily, and for your continual wonders and beneficences." We could call this view of Providence "continualism." If we do not at least believe in Providence at this level, then our daily prayers are a lie.
Let's say someone believes in continualism but not necessarily maximalism. Since the person does not know what "coincidences" or other happenings will turn out to be for the good, and which are sent by Hashem and just "chance," then he might as well err on the side of attributing all the things that happen to us as being sent by G-d for the good. Perhaps that's why it makes sense that Gamzu l'tovah was codified in the Shulchan Aruch.
You claimed everything that happens to everyone is due to hashgachah. The Rambam would have you believe that for the masses, very little is. Yes, not zero, but that wasn't the point.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you're confusing providence with reward. In the Rambam's system, it would seem to be that there are two kinds of punishment: the basically G-d-knowing person who sinned would get a Divinely guided punishment. The other kind of punishment is loss of that guidance, abandonment to nature.
Rav Menachem Schneerson (Igros Kodesh #1:94): I. THE CONCEPTION OF THE BAAL SHEM TOV :Divine providence involves every particular occurrence that affects man and also that affects inanimate matter, plants, and animals…The maamar entitled Al Kein Yomru, 5696, makes an even more inclusive statement:As explained by our master, the Baal Shem Tov, not only are all the particular activities of the created beings [controlled by] Divine providence. This providence is the life-energy of the created being and maintains its existence. Moreover, every particular movement of an individual created being has a connection to the intent of the creation as a whole…. A slight movement of one blade of grass fulfills G-d’s intent for the creation as a whole…
ReplyDeleteII. The conception of the Jewish Sages who preceded the Baal Shem Tov They maintain that G-d manifests His providence over every member of the Jewish people in a particular manner and over all animals and plants in a general manner. Thus after mentioning several other perspectives with regard to His providence, [the Rambam] writes (Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 17): The approach of our Torah is that… Divine Providence focuses on the individual only in regard to the human species… With regard to animals and how much more so, with regard to plants… [His] Providence governs the species as a whole, but not its individual components. (And in ch. 18:) Divine Providence does not rest upon all men equally…. As to the fools who rebel [against Him],… their interests will be loathed and will be controlled by the [natural] order as are those of the animals. To them can be applied the verse:7 “He (a sinner) is comparable to the animals who cannot speak.”
Yes, but did Rambam think of Providence and Punishment as separate things? He could believe that "fools who rebel" are left to nature in that Hashem does not protect them from harm, but that they are also given specific divine punishments for their sins. From this passage in Moreh 3:16 I would think he would say even the rebellious fools also receive divine punishment:
ReplyDelete"It is distinctly stated in the Law, that all is done in accordance with justice; and the words of our Sages generally express the same idea. They clearly say:" There is no death without
sin, no sufferings without transgression." (B. T. Shabbath, 55a.)
Again," The deserts of an are meted out to him in the same measure which he himself employs." (Mish. Sotah, i. 7.) These are the words of the Mishnah. Our Sages declare it wherever
opportunity is given, that the idea of God necessarily implies justice; that He will reward the most pious for all their pure and upright actions, although no direct commandment was given them through a prophet; and that He will punish all the evil deeds of
men, although they have not been prohibited by a prophet, if
common sense warns against them, as e.g., injustice and violence."
My point was that even if the only way G-d acts upon a "fool who rebels" is by punishment, that too can be a form of Providence if it inspires him to repent.
Another thing to consider:
ReplyDelete"When a person performs good deeds, he is dealt with via providence. When he is not good... God leaves him to nature. In truth however we are not able to understand what is meant by nature and providence. This is because nature is actually also a manifestation of God's providence. It is impossible for people to understand how two things are actually one, i.e., how nature is in truth God's providence." Likutei Moharan
Based on this quote, Rabbi Slifkin speculates that perhaps what Rambam understood by Providence was an actual intervention in the natural order, while things that happen within the natural order (such as seeming coincidences, I would think) can be understood as another form of Providence (Challenge of Nature, p. 70-71). That is certainly what Chazal seem to have meant in Modim, Birkat Hamazon, etc. -- we know that we do not experience obvious miracles on a daily basis, but nonetheless we thank G-d for giving us food and other good things (because He has arranged for us to have these things within the natural order).
His punishment is abandonment to nature. You're using deductions you yourself made to argue with what the Rambam says explicitly. The rishonim did not hold what we do. You will only get to the emes of what they're saying by coming with a blank slate rather than bringing your assumptions to their works.
ReplyDeleteBtw, check out Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim where he clearly rejects this view that "nothing is coincidence," attributing it to a muslim sect of his era who insisted on this view. Rambam holds that Divine Providence is bestowed upon those with intelligence and worthy enough to receive it. Rocks and sticks and twigs do not qualify.
ReplyDeleteIn a Kiruv yeshiva, which is mainstream hareidi, the same lecturer will give the following kiruv -philosophy classes:
ReplyDeletelecture 1: Proving the Torah - The Torah prophesies that at the end of a long disapora, the Jews will be brought back to Eretz Yisroel from the 4 corners of the Earth. This happened in 1948, and then in 1967, Jerusalem was liberated again. This is proof of the Torah as a prophetic (Divine) document.
Lecture 2: Disproving Zionism - The secular Zionists are not Torah observant; the Navi may say that when its children return, Eretz Yisroel will produce its fruit - but some commentary says this means it will be independent financially - today Israel receives $4bn in financial and military aid from the USA - so Zionism has no halachic or Torah significance!
The same Rabbi, who has a PhD in Philosophy gives both of the above lectures. Geneivas daas, is what it's all about.
Geneivas Daas implies willfully misleading others. But one is misleading oneself, and just repeating what one conconved oneself of...
DeleteOne of the problems of the truly brilliant and of geniuses is that all that intellect gives a person more.tools.to.justify the conclusions they already reached.
So I wouldn't be so judgemental about it, even though I agree the position is self-contradictory.
Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.