Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joshua Waxman's avatar

My father has a nice related interpretation of this interplay from a pasuk from last week's parsha, Beshalach.

ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן

"Hashem will provide you with bread. All you have to do is plow."

Expand full comment
Dawkin's Terrier's avatar

>>>In other words, for Chazal, and the Rishonim, increasing the amount of money that you make requires you to make the ordinary efforts that people engage in to increase the amount of money that they make.>>>

I wonder what this means.

Many years ago, people used to think a whole bunch of crazy things about human health and well being, and it's somewhat unfair to characterize it that way, because it's only crazy from today's perspective, so I'm not judging them. Just like in 100 years from now the way to treat cancer will be with gene editing and they'll look back and say that we did crazy things like infusing people with nonspecific poisons that kill the cancer but also kill the patient, but we titrated it just enough so that we maximize cancer death and minimize person death.

But people used to think that, let's say, bloodletting was a good medical procedure to have done to cure yourself of various ills. Now we would say we know better.

If we can't observe the universe to see the relationships between causes and effects, then where do we look for this information? R' Slifkin says that "[halacha] requires you to make the ordinary efforts that people engage in to increase [their] amount of money" but why do things that make no sense? Maybe doing things to increase one's income are like bloodletting? I presume that halacha does not endorse bloodletting.

The problem with disjointing cause and effect as we observe it in the universe and supplanting the way we see things with a mystical perspective that has never been tested and cannot be tested is that we actually don't even know what it means to "do the things that make sense" or that "people ordinarily do."

Without admitting that anything we see is connected to anything else we see, how can we know what is a relic of bygone times and what is something that currently makes sense? And if it currently makes sense, then why the need for mysticism at all? Isn't that what "makes sense" means? That we don't need to look at mysticism? No one would suggest fixing the "car with low gas" problem with anything other than more gas. Why is that never called into question, but fixing the "bank account with low funds" problem is seen as different? These are not asked sarcastically.

Expand full comment
54 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?