I started writing about blaming a "them", but as I did so R Chaim Lando's comment appeared beneath this edit window. Barukh shekivanti.
You write "The fact that the majority of fatalities on October were of secular Jews is meaningless, since secular Jews happened to be the majority of people living next to Gaza." Not really. After all, HQBH chose this catastrophe rather than something else. So, while I think that we cannot meaningfully play the game R Feldman is suggesting, I do not think this particular argument against it is valid.
Rather, the whole thing is meaningless because if Hashem is punishing a sin, or pushing us to do better even if not a sin (a likely definition of "yissurim shel Ahavah -- tribulations of [Divine] 'Love'"), it has to be a message that could be read by and acted on by those who are at fault. So, even a "this happened to them but we could learn from it to ..." is a valid message. Like the Chafeitz Chaim's response to an earthquake in Japan.
As it is, the analysis as described here is a call not to act. Nothing for us, it's "their" problem.
And a second difference between what Chazal did and the way these modern statements are presented (and I am hoping it's in the presentation, and not the original statement): While we may never know THE Divine 'Reason' for anything with any reliability -- and likely cannot understand one anyway, any lesson the person could take would be of value. We are obligated to use these opportunities as motivations to improve. The Rambam says to ignore them would be akhzaryius -- cruelty. But that doesn't mean the motivation is the Divine "Reason" for the event. To think we can understand such things, with mere human-sized minds, is incredible hubris.
Very well said, R’ Berger (particularly your point about how even if HKB”H *might* have “chosen” to visit this catastrophe upon predominantly secular Jews, that fundamentally doesn’t matter anyway).
The very notion of pointing fingers at group A or group B for causing a tragedy (to befall *others*, no less!) by committing sin X or sin Y is a patently ludicrous proposition for mere mortals like us, and claiming to know the mind of the Eternal One (so well as to lay blame upon *others*) entails breathtaking hubris.
As others have ably explained, the traditional Jewish response to tragedy is to examine *our own* deeds, not to seek to vilify others.
Hashem "chose" the events of 10/7? You realize you are opening a huge can of worms with that very loaded - but apparently flippant and obvious to R. Berger - hashkafic statement. It is not pashut at all what you both are claiming i.e. there is bechira chofshis of hamas (this wasn't 10 makkos from heaven, these were cruel acts of barbarism by human choice - did Hashem "choose everything the Nazi's did?") plus the b'derech hateva failure of idf higher ups to listen to "lower-downs", etc etc. Please reconsider your choice of phrasing.
This is not a "can of worms", it's mainstream/canonical Jewish theology. Pirkei Avot phrases it as follows: עַל דַּאֲטֵפְתְּ אַטְפוּךְ וְסוֹף מְטַיְּפַיִךְ יְטוּפוּן. That is to say, God will punish murders by arranging things so that the murderer is himself murdered, but then there exists another murderer who himself will incur punishment for his choice.
Of course it is not so simple to explain how God's arrangement of punishment combines with human free choice, but we can leave that question to the philosophers to wrestle with. What matters for current purposes is that the belief that somehow both are true is not an invention of the comment, it's mainstream Jewish theology.
Ah! There is the rub. You are indeed correct about that Mishna. HOWEVER, there are several caveats that render it non-applicable here:
a) There he saw the skull but did not see the whole story. He was making an educated assumption about what happened. In this case we know that these Jews were doing and what happened to them. *They were not murderers*! (Were they perfectly halachic? Some not yet, true. Worthy of a Misa Meshuneh, though? If so, why wouldn't all Jews around the world that are chayiv for these same infractions be punished? ) Thus, the Mishna does not apply here. Were the Har Nof victims murderers? The Dee's? The 6M in the Holocaust?
b) The mishna obviously only applies in limited fashion. For instance, would you say anyone that gets cancer could not be punished mida kneged mida?
C) Free will - The Mishna does seem to be limit free will. Would have to look at the mefarshim to see what they do with it but keep reading:
D) See the Ohr haChaim on Yosef in the pit. Clearly he does not hold that human free will actions such as murder are controlled by Gd. How he would square that with Hillel is a good question but ...
E) That Mishna is just Hillel's opinion. There could be other Tanaim (?) that would argue.
Well, if you are asking why Hashem did something, you presume He did it.
But personally, I think it's a distinction without a difference.
Hashem, after all, can do anything. Effortlessly. So, His Action is no more a topic of culpability than His Inaction. There is nothing to be gained by saying "the Nazis did it", since Hashem allowed them to do it with as much (or as little) Effort as it would take had He done it Himself.
I would say there are some tragedies that happen without Divine Intervention because robbing us of free will by making all our choices meaningless by Hashem determining all the outcomes would be a greater tragedy. But in that sense, Hashem still Chose not to Act, and for that Reason.
And now we are back to the impossibility of comprehending Divine Reason, never mind guess at anything more than an infintesimal sliver of it.
Not to speak for him, but I think that R' Berger's point is that there are certainly strains of Jews who would argue that Hashem did indeed choose to visit this "punishment" on the predominantly secular Jews of Otef Aza (as R' Feldman's letter demonstrates).
But *even* if you accept that questionable premise, R' Berger continues: "the whole thing is meaningless because if Hashem is punishing a sin, or pushing us to do better even if not a sin ... it has to be a message that could be read by and acted on by those who are at fault."
a) There is a famous tension between Hashgacha and Bechira. This of course fits into that paradigm. I believe that if it was tsunami that destroyed their houses, let's say, that would perhaps be a little more sensical as a message from Hashem. But the Rambam holds that people have bechira to choose what they want to do (even the mitzriyim were punished for their excessive force which was not "ordered" by Hashem); Hamas chose this evil. Now you can say Hashem allowed it to happen (clearly) but on a very nuanced level, that is different than choosing it l'chatchila. Now the theodicy is why Hashem chose *to allow it.
b) I agree with that next statement. The Kedoshim cannot keep shabbos anymore because they are of course not here.
Since he asked me to change my wording, I don't think anyone is arguing about what I think, just with how I said it.
The truth is, I gave up on most theology. Infinite topic, finite mind... Can't end well. All we are doing is finding approximations that model only part of the truth, incompletely.
I was only playing the game already in play: We cannot argue what Hashem was trying to do on Simchas Torah if we aren't assuming He Did the 7.10 attack.
To paraphrase the Or Samayach on "all is known, but freedom is granted": When it comes to understanding things like G-d and time, or Omniscience and Free Will, and I would add Theodicy to the list, reason is like a blanket that is too short for the sleeper. You can choose to keep your shoulders warm, but then your feet will be cold. And if you pull it down to your feet...
"As it is, the analysis as described here is a call not to act. Nothing for us, it's "their" problem."
I don't think that's true. R Feldman worked in ohr somayach for many years. He seemed to very much consider it 'his' problem to reach out to secular Jews.
"THE Divine 'Reason' for anything with any reliability -- and likely cannot understand one anyway, any lesson the person could take would be of value. We are obligated to use these opportunities as motivations to improve. The Rambam says to ignore them would be akhzaryius -- cruelty. But that doesn't mean the motivation is the Divine "Reason" for the event. To think we can understand such things, with mere human-sized minds, is incredible hubris."
I think that if you read his actual statement, rather than Dr Slifkin's caricature of it, it's pretty clear he doesn't think he 'knows'.
Also, it's not like he said anything crazy. It isn't like he's claiming this happened because people voted for the wrong political party. Having a Jewish Woodstock on shabbos simchas torah is hardly a good thing.
davka this, out of everything else was worthy of cruelty akin to the Nazis acts =?
You mentioned Ohr Sameach - do you agree that people have the ability to do teshuva as they grow older ? If so, why wouldn't these kids be given that chance?
One of the "casualties" of this war has been one of the favorite tropes of the Charedi world. The accusation that Israel has a Godless כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי attitude.
Here's Jonathon Rosenblum is Jewish Observer, giving excuses for UTJ's acquiescing to the Gaza withdrawal:
"The great Torah leaders always feared that the continual emphasis of the national religious world on Jewish military strength, and the glorification of military service as the highest calling, could veer dangerously close to an attitude of kochi ve'otzem yadi. The swagger of settlers, with a gun
inevitably attached to their belts, has always been faintly unnerving to those for whom the term galus Jew is no insult. Admittedly, no one would travel the roads of Judea and Samaria without a gun at
hand..."
Israel had abandoned any pretense of that "all guns blazing" bravado militarism. There was withdrawal, negotiations, release of terrorists and money transfers- perhaps knowingly to Hamas. On the military side, there were fancy fences, iron dome. Airstrikes were preceded by polite knocks on he door. Politically, there was dithering can kicking. Gone were the JR's despised gun swaggering. Is he still unnerved when there's a gun totting settler in shul? Or is he unnerved when there isn't?
Admittedly, this rant is somewhat off topic. But it was inspired by Rav Feldman's comment that "The army which was the basis of their security had failed them. " The military failures that Rav Feldman laments are unnervingly close to a fulfillment of JR's vision of abandoning his version of כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי.
What "glorious" military conquest was Rav Feldman referring to when he wrote "You decided to use My land to remake Jews into a nation like the nations of the world...and military conquest the apex of their glory."? What has been clear and been repeated over and over again for the duration of this war is that Israel prides itself over NOT being " a nation like the nations of the world", and has steadfastly denied that "military conquest" is "the apex of their glory."!!!
Well said. But the fact is, the world into which Jonathan (or is it “Yoinussen” these days?) Rosenblum has insinuated himself has long regarded *any* hint of worldly “hishtadlus” vis-a-vis Israel as reflective of a “Godless כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי attitude”.
Even, apparently, carrying a gun for self-defense (though Rosenblum admits it’s necessary in practically the same breath!). Better to carry tzedakah for protection on the roads of Judea and Samaria, I suppose.
The Rav has virtually no choice but to use non-falsifiable statements to make his case. This means the whole idea of thinking there is logic is undermined by the use of logical fallacies. There are a lot of logical fallacies - and religion and apologetics rely on a bunch of them. These are understood, as arguments, to be persuasion tricks - or errors in thinking - or both.
Even when we say we are too "finite" to know what something means - we are somehow smart enough to know we are too finite to know..! I mean if we are so finite - how do we know we're right that we're too finite to know why bad things happen?
There’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere I think. I think circular reasoning.
I think it's fascinating that Rabbi Emanuel Feldman, Rav Aharon's brother, wrote a fantastic article about this subject in Tradition magazine after Hurricane Katrina and was republished during Covid. I believe the title is something to the effect "Don't dive in dark waters". He takes the complete opposite stand of his brother and says that is dangerous to seek reasons for why events occur.
I can't ❤️ the article as a whole because there are several details I strongly disagree with. But I wholehearted agree and stand by the main point being made.
I mean, why did the attack come from Gaza? It could have come from WB and killed the Frum people in Yehuda and Shomron! Or from Ramllah, and the Frum people of Neve Yaakov could have died!
Yet it came from Gaza, and managed to miss all the major frum communities that live in the Gaza envelope.
Indeed, and I think the Palestinian Authority's Jibril Rajoub said something just like that: that the next October 7th attack will be against the settlements.
"In an interview with Egyptian TV channel MBC, Rajoub said that "the next, more severe violence will come from the West Bank. What is happening in the West Bank, which includes 700,000 Israeli settlers, is a similar situation and is connected to all aspects of life, holy sites and even olive trees, our schools, mosques and churches. Therefore, the next oonflagration will be more violent in the West Bank.""
A massacre like that against religious West Bank settler communities (ח"ו) would not have had the same impact at all. If anything, it would have strengthened the contention, "What are these settlers doing there? Serves them right, for violating international law and stealing land and resources from the Palestinians! If Israel would have torn up the settlements and handed over control to the Palestinian Authority, this wouldn't have happened!"
Now, what can they say? The Gaza envelope communities are predominantly left-wing, with some 75% voting for left-wing parties. Many of the survivors felt betrayed: just as when the rocket fire from Gaza resumed almost immediately after the Gaza Disengagement was performed, they were bewildered that their houses would be ransacked and burned to the ground by the very same Palestinians that they wanted so much to help over the years.
At least some people in Europe and the US sincerely express sympathy for the victims of the October 7th massacre. They would number far less if it would have happened in the West Bank.
Luckily the IDF is in the West Bank to prevent Hamas from building up an army there, so this scenario is highly unlikely.
[No this is not the same overconfidence of before October 7. In that case, everyone knew that Hamas had a large, highly trained, well armed and organized army practicing scenarios of conquering yishuvim. The IDF's response to this scenario was to 1) hypothesize that Hamas was "deterred" and didn't currently want a big war, 2) guard the border with various electronic systems which Hamas drones and EM warfare were able to overcome. In retrospect that was a completely insufficient response to the threat. But in the West Bank it is pretty obvious there is no comparable threat to begin with. Of course there is such a threat in Lebanon.]
According to Rav Feldman, HASHEM was sending a message to secular Israel.
And HASHEM needed Rav Feldman to help Him do this.
(to speak to secular Israel in a way they would respect and positively respond to.)
Has Rav Feldman's letter done a better job at effectively communicating with its intended audience (secular Jews) than HASHEM's personal message (killing off 1,200 secular Jews but sparing yeshiva students)?
I was taught years ago that it is pretty close to blasphemy to attribute what is a tragedy to another person's "misbehavior". Why? Because it is not our job to interpret Hashem's motivations. Our job is to trust Hashem, and deal appropriately with what has happened.
I'm not sure that I agree with your point that only prophets can engage in theodicy. After all, Chazal spoke about reasons for the destruction of the Temple and Rishonim gave suggestion for various tragedies like the inquisition. I agree with those you quoted that the Torah seems to teach us through the tochacha that we are supposed to take lessons from tragedies.
That being said, when Rabbonim talk about theodicy, they are usually quick to find flaws in other sects. How they are to blame or they need to change. The truth is, a tragedy of this magnitude was probably a message to all of us, and ignoring your own flaws or your own tziburs flaws to finger point at others seems to be missing the message of the Torah
Actually, every time the gemara discusses a calamity, whether a historical event (like the Churban) or in principle (like tzora'as), it consistently brings a wide list of opinions.
(And often we pick one of them and it becomes the "everyone knows" taken for granted in Shabbos derashos. I don't know why.)
The overall message of the gemara is that we both have to look for a lesson we can take from tragedy AND not expect to find a definitive answer. Possibly the latter is because of our lack of nevu'ah. Personally I think it's because we are human, with finite minds, and Hashem's "Reason" is Infinite. But this obligation to search for something knowing you won't necessarily find a single "the answer" fits the distinction I made in an earlier comment between trying to find "THE reason" and looking for a lesson one can take so that the tragedy motivates positive change.
And in either case, I agree with your "that being said": Chazal never say "it's because of the Tzeduqim" or otherwise deflect the tragedy from motivating change in themselves and their own audience.
I agree. I hinted to that idea when I said that a calamity like October 7 probably has a message for all of us. In other words, there is never a certain or definitive answer... But we have to find the message for ourselves and not to deflect on others.
The multiplicity point only means that instead of only blaming secularization R. Feldman should have added a couple of other sins to the mix. Perhaps its an argument against being confidant in our assertions but it still supports attempting to provide explanations.
The bottom line is that the gemara has no bottom line. And we should take that to heart.
Which leaves you wondering: if so, why does it look like those various amora'im tried anyway? Well, the gemara says that when something bad happens, you should examine your deeds. So we have Amora'im giving Mussar Shmuessin -- and a clear indication that we can't hope to do anything but that.
The thing about a Mussar Shmuess is that it only makes sense to discuss flaws the audience has. Not those of other communities.
So, if R Feldman was following the gemara's example, he would have looked at the sins his own Talmidim fall prey to, and not blame the non-Orthodox or Orthodox-Lite and their secularization. And he should have phrased it as cause-and-effect. Something more like: since things aren't going well in the rut we're in, let's use that push to try something new, something better.
I like your point that when giving a musar shmooze "it only makes sense to discuss flaws the audience has"
A couple of questions/points (which i suppose is a reasonable translation of kashya)
1. Why does the Gemara phrase it as "X happened because of Y" rather than "since things aren't going well in the rut we're in, let's use that push to try something new, something better."?
2. Why couldn't it be that at least part of Chazal's goal is to (at least potentially) defend the justice of God's actions be explaining (or even theorizing) why God allowed the punishment to occur.
3. (A limud zechut on R. Feldman) Perhaps he overestimated his ability to disseminate his message to secular people (and overestimated the likelihood of them being receptive to his message)
Reducing financial support of yeshivos is a bad thing, not a good thing.
We want yeshivos to thrive, to teach Torah and spread Torah. This does not have to hinge on the issue of the army. Regardless Yeshivos must teach Torah to Jewry.
Anyone making a blanket statement about how reducing support to yeshivos is a good thing, is a Jewish renegade.
Certainly, but you don’t need the government to provide funding to Yeshivos. And doing so may have negative consequences. Among other things, it can generate resentment from taxpayers who do not see their value and it ties Yeshivos to politics, generally an ugly business.
In an ideal world, there would be infinite money for both yeshivos and the army (and for universal healthcare, and building roads & bridges, etc, etc).
But in the real world, every dollar (or shekel) that goes to subsidizing yeshivos is a dollar that could otherwise have been spent elsewhere.
Given that there are more yeshivos (and more Jews learning in them) today than at any time in history, at what point to we recognize, “OK, yeshivos are thriving, Torah is being amply taught and spread, now it’s time to devote resources to more practical, worldly concerns as well”…?
Simple: if the learning of Torah has magical apotropaic effects, and more Torah learning is always better, then it stands to reason that having more people learning Torah than ever before should afford us absolutely unprecedented spiritual protection.
Yet, as R’ Slifkin points out, Israel’s greatest yeshu’ot (in ‘48 and ‘67) took place with far less Torah being learned… implying that perhaps Torah learning wasn’t the decisive factor.
On the other hand, when our enemies are able to inflict such a devastating blow to our people *despite* Israel having more Jewish (and non-Jewish) soldiers than ever before, then it is necessary to employ serious, critical, non-magical thinking (to do “hishtadlus”, one might say) to determine and rectify the root causes of this failure (whether those causes involve the raw # of soldiers or otherwise).
"The fact that the majority of fatalities on October were of secular Jews is meaningless, since secular Jews happened to be the majority of people living next to Gaza"
Or alternatively, it is not meaningless but the opposite (Shabbat 33b):
דאמר רבי גוריון, ואיתימא רב יוסף ברבי שמעיה: בזמן שהצדיקים בדור - צדיקים נתפסים על הדור, אין צדיקים בדור - תינוקות של בית רבן נתפסים על הדור. אמר רבי יצחק בר זעירי ואמרי לה אמר רבי שמעון בן נזירא: מאי קראה - אם לא תדעי לך היפה בנשים צאי לך בעקבי הצאן וגו' ואמרינן: גדיים הממושכנין על הרועים. שמע מינה: אף על לשון הרע נמי קאמר, שמע מינה.
If the generation is being punished the tzadikim are seized first. If there are no tzadikim, then it is small children. Even if one does not hold by the position that a secular Jew is to be considered a tinok shenishba, think of the numbers of small children. Surely one would learn from this that indeed the generation has no tzadikim, not that the charedim are tzadikim that therefore were saved leaving the rest of am yisrael behind.
I live in Ramot, Jerusalem. In February 2023, an Arab from East Jerusalem plowed into a bus stop here, killing Asher Menachem (age 8) and Ya'akov Yisrael Paley (age 6), and R. Shlomo Alter Lederman (age 20, only 4 months after his marriage).
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Fuchs, the Rav of Ramot Dalet, quoted that Gemara at the funeral of Ya'akov Yisrael Paley.
The grandfather of the children also spoke at the funeral. He said, "We see all sorts of calamities in the world: war [in Ukraine], earthquakes [there had just been a devastating earthquake in Turkey]. Who knows? Maybe the deaths of these people averted a much greater calamity."
[Vicarious suffering is not really that alien to Judaism. There are statements of Chazal that support it.]
This whole discussion is very old. We know from Avot that we cannot understand the affliction of the righteous or the uplifting of the wicked. I suggest reading (rereading) Iyov where the righteous Iyov suffers and three friends come to console him and say "Well, you must have done something wrong." His three "friends" are cast aside from God Himself who bellows that we humans know little of how the justice/fairness works in the world. The Just-World-Fallacy indicates it is natural to blame the victim. (makes us feel better: I would never do what they did; they had it coming) The Torahs descriptions leave open that consequences are maybe in this world, maybe the next, maybe individual, maybe communal. Other then Gods efforts via derech b'teva we know next to nothing. Better to be safe and treat the next person as you want to be treated.
You know, looking at your “name”, I just realized what an odd grammatical construction that is (“ishah yirat Hashem”)…
I mean, I know it’s from Mishlei, but… “yirat Hashem” is a noun (in the “construct” state): “fear of G-d” (or “the fear of G-d”), so “ishah yirat Hashem” would seem to mean “a woman, fear of G-d”…
If a “G-d-fearing man” is a “y’rei Hashem” wouldn’t it seem to follow that a “G-d-fearing woman” should be… “ishah y’rei’at Hashem”? 🤔
Any explanation of a calamity that points fingers at others and doesn't place any responsibility on the head of the explainer is meaningless
I see you have discovered how to delete comments as well… 👍
R’ Lando, it is possible to edit your comments on this platform 😉
Click the 3 horizontal dots at the lower right of your comment. Kol tuv.
I started writing about blaming a "them", but as I did so R Chaim Lando's comment appeared beneath this edit window. Barukh shekivanti.
You write "The fact that the majority of fatalities on October were of secular Jews is meaningless, since secular Jews happened to be the majority of people living next to Gaza." Not really. After all, HQBH chose this catastrophe rather than something else. So, while I think that we cannot meaningfully play the game R Feldman is suggesting, I do not think this particular argument against it is valid.
Rather, the whole thing is meaningless because if Hashem is punishing a sin, or pushing us to do better even if not a sin (a likely definition of "yissurim shel Ahavah -- tribulations of [Divine] 'Love'"), it has to be a message that could be read by and acted on by those who are at fault. So, even a "this happened to them but we could learn from it to ..." is a valid message. Like the Chafeitz Chaim's response to an earthquake in Japan.
As it is, the analysis as described here is a call not to act. Nothing for us, it's "their" problem.
And a second difference between what Chazal did and the way these modern statements are presented (and I am hoping it's in the presentation, and not the original statement): While we may never know THE Divine 'Reason' for anything with any reliability -- and likely cannot understand one anyway, any lesson the person could take would be of value. We are obligated to use these opportunities as motivations to improve. The Rambam says to ignore them would be akhzaryius -- cruelty. But that doesn't mean the motivation is the Divine "Reason" for the event. To think we can understand such things, with mere human-sized minds, is incredible hubris.
Very well said, R’ Berger (particularly your point about how even if HKB”H *might* have “chosen” to visit this catastrophe upon predominantly secular Jews, that fundamentally doesn’t matter anyway).
So why did HKB"H only visit the Har Nof capacity on charedi Jews? I know people who lost a family member there.
That is precisely my point (and R’ Berger’s).
The very notion of pointing fingers at group A or group B for causing a tragedy (to befall *others*, no less!) by committing sin X or sin Y is a patently ludicrous proposition for mere mortals like us, and claiming to know the mind of the Eternal One (so well as to lay blame upon *others*) entails breathtaking hubris.
As others have ably explained, the traditional Jewish response to tragedy is to examine *our own* deeds, not to seek to vilify others.
Wait, wait a second, R. Berger.
Hashem "chose" the events of 10/7? You realize you are opening a huge can of worms with that very loaded - but apparently flippant and obvious to R. Berger - hashkafic statement. It is not pashut at all what you both are claiming i.e. there is bechira chofshis of hamas (this wasn't 10 makkos from heaven, these were cruel acts of barbarism by human choice - did Hashem "choose everything the Nazi's did?") plus the b'derech hateva failure of idf higher ups to listen to "lower-downs", etc etc. Please reconsider your choice of phrasing.
This is not a "can of worms", it's mainstream/canonical Jewish theology. Pirkei Avot phrases it as follows: עַל דַּאֲטֵפְתְּ אַטְפוּךְ וְסוֹף מְטַיְּפַיִךְ יְטוּפוּן. That is to say, God will punish murders by arranging things so that the murderer is himself murdered, but then there exists another murderer who himself will incur punishment for his choice.
Of course it is not so simple to explain how God's arrangement of punishment combines with human free choice, but we can leave that question to the philosophers to wrestle with. What matters for current purposes is that the belief that somehow both are true is not an invention of the comment, it's mainstream Jewish theology.
Ah! There is the rub. You are indeed correct about that Mishna. HOWEVER, there are several caveats that render it non-applicable here:
a) There he saw the skull but did not see the whole story. He was making an educated assumption about what happened. In this case we know that these Jews were doing and what happened to them. *They were not murderers*! (Were they perfectly halachic? Some not yet, true. Worthy of a Misa Meshuneh, though? If so, why wouldn't all Jews around the world that are chayiv for these same infractions be punished? ) Thus, the Mishna does not apply here. Were the Har Nof victims murderers? The Dee's? The 6M in the Holocaust?
b) The mishna obviously only applies in limited fashion. For instance, would you say anyone that gets cancer could not be punished mida kneged mida?
C) Free will - The Mishna does seem to be limit free will. Would have to look at the mefarshim to see what they do with it but keep reading:
D) See the Ohr haChaim on Yosef in the pit. Clearly he does not hold that human free will actions such as murder are controlled by Gd. How he would square that with Hillel is a good question but ...
E) That Mishna is just Hillel's opinion. There could be other Tanaim (?) that would argue.
Well, if you are asking why Hashem did something, you presume He did it.
But personally, I think it's a distinction without a difference.
Hashem, after all, can do anything. Effortlessly. So, His Action is no more a topic of culpability than His Inaction. There is nothing to be gained by saying "the Nazis did it", since Hashem allowed them to do it with as much (or as little) Effort as it would take had He done it Himself.
I would say there are some tragedies that happen without Divine Intervention because robbing us of free will by making all our choices meaningless by Hashem determining all the outcomes would be a greater tragedy. But in that sense, Hashem still Chose not to Act, and for that Reason.
And now we are back to the impossibility of comprehending Divine Reason, never mind guess at anything more than an infintesimal sliver of it.
Not to speak for him, but I think that R' Berger's point is that there are certainly strains of Jews who would argue that Hashem did indeed choose to visit this "punishment" on the predominantly secular Jews of Otef Aza (as R' Feldman's letter demonstrates).
But *even* if you accept that questionable premise, R' Berger continues: "the whole thing is meaningless because if Hashem is punishing a sin, or pushing us to do better even if not a sin ... it has to be a message that could be read by and acted on by those who are at fault."
a) There is a famous tension between Hashgacha and Bechira. This of course fits into that paradigm. I believe that if it was tsunami that destroyed their houses, let's say, that would perhaps be a little more sensical as a message from Hashem. But the Rambam holds that people have bechira to choose what they want to do (even the mitzriyim were punished for their excessive force which was not "ordered" by Hashem); Hamas chose this evil. Now you can say Hashem allowed it to happen (clearly) but on a very nuanced level, that is different than choosing it l'chatchila. Now the theodicy is why Hashem chose *to allow it.
b) I agree with that next statement. The Kedoshim cannot keep shabbos anymore because they are of course not here.
I agree with you 10,000% (and I would venture to suggest that R' Berger likely does as well).
Since he asked me to change my wording, I don't think anyone is arguing about what I think, just with how I said it.
The truth is, I gave up on most theology. Infinite topic, finite mind... Can't end well. All we are doing is finding approximations that model only part of the truth, incompletely.
I was only playing the game already in play: We cannot argue what Hashem was trying to do on Simchas Torah if we aren't assuming He Did the 7.10 attack.
To paraphrase the Or Samayach on "all is known, but freedom is granted": When it comes to understanding things like G-d and time, or Omniscience and Free Will, and I would add Theodicy to the list, reason is like a blanket that is too short for the sleeper. You can choose to keep your shoulders warm, but then your feet will be cold. And if you pull it down to your feet...
“The truth is, I gave up on most theology.”
I once heard R’ J.J. Schacter say “there’s no such thing as Jewish theology”.
(After all, unlike the Christians, that’s not what we’re about.)
"As it is, the analysis as described here is a call not to act. Nothing for us, it's "their" problem."
I don't think that's true. R Feldman worked in ohr somayach for many years. He seemed to very much consider it 'his' problem to reach out to secular Jews.
"THE Divine 'Reason' for anything with any reliability -- and likely cannot understand one anyway, any lesson the person could take would be of value. We are obligated to use these opportunities as motivations to improve. The Rambam says to ignore them would be akhzaryius -- cruelty. But that doesn't mean the motivation is the Divine "Reason" for the event. To think we can understand such things, with mere human-sized minds, is incredible hubris."
I think that if you read his actual statement, rather than Dr Slifkin's caricature of it, it's pretty clear he doesn't think he 'knows'.
Also, it's not like he said anything crazy. It isn't like he's claiming this happened because people voted for the wrong political party. Having a Jewish Woodstock on shabbos simchas torah is hardly a good thing.
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%97%D7%96%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%9B/%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D#%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D
בֶּן־אָדָ֗ם דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶת־זִקְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֗ם כֹּ֤ה אָמַר֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה הֲלִדְרֹ֥שׁ אֹתִ֖י אַתֶּ֣ם בָּאִ֑ים חַי־אָ֙נִי֙ אִם־אִדָּרֵ֣שׁ לָכֶ֔ם נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֥י יֱהֹוִֽה׃ הֲתִשְׁפֹּ֣ט אֹתָ֔ם הֲתִשְׁפּ֖וֹט בֶּן־אָדָ֑ם אֶת־תּוֹעֲבֹ֥ת אֲבוֹתָ֖ם הוֹדִיעֵֽם׃ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵיהֶ֗ם כֹּה־אָמַר֮ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִה֒ בְּיוֹם֙ בׇּחֳרִ֣י בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וָאֶשָּׂ֣א יָדִ֗י לְזֶ֙רַע֙ בֵּ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וָאִוָּדַ֥ע לָהֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וָאֶשָּׂ֨א יָדִ֤י לָהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם׃ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא נָשָׂ֤אתִי יָדִי֙ לָהֶ֔ם לְהוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֶל־אֶ֜רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־תַּ֣רְתִּי לָהֶ֗ם זָבַ֤ת חָלָב֙ וּדְבַ֔שׁ צְבִ֥י הִ֖יא לְכׇל־הָאֲרָצֽוֹת׃ וָאֹמַ֣ר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם אִ֣ישׁ שִׁקּוּצֵ֤י עֵינָיו֙ הַשְׁלִ֔יכוּ וּבְגִלּוּלֵ֥י מִצְרַ֖יִם אַל־תִּטַּמָּ֑אוּ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ וַיַּמְרוּ־בִ֗י וְלֹ֤א אָבוּ֙ לִשְׁמֹ֣עַ אֵלַ֔י אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־שִׁקּוּצֵ֤י עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ לֹ֣א הִשְׁלִ֔יכוּ וְאֶת־גִּלּוּלֵ֥י מִצְרַ֖יִם לֹ֣א עָזָ֑בוּ וָאֹמַ֞ר לִשְׁפֹּ֧ךְ חֲמָתִ֣י עֲלֵיהֶ֗ם לְכַלּ֤וֹת אַפִּי֙ בָּהֶ֔ם בְּת֖וֹךְ אֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ וָאַ֙עַשׂ֙ לְמַ֣עַן שְׁמִ֔י לְבִלְתִּ֥י הֵחֵ֛ל לְעֵינֵ֥י הַגּוֹיִ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֣מָּה בְתוֹכָ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר נוֹדַ֤עְתִּי אֲלֵיהֶם֙ לְעֵ֣ינֵיהֶ֔ם לְהוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ וָאוֹצִיאֵ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וָאֲבִאֵ֖ם אֶל־הַמִּדְבָּֽר׃ וָאֶתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֶת־חֻקּוֹתַ֔י וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֖י הוֹדַ֣עְתִּי אוֹתָ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ם הָאָדָ֖ם וָחַ֥י בָּהֶֽם׃ וְגַ֤ם אֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתַי֙ נָתַ֣תִּי לָהֶ֔ם לִהְי֣וֹת לְא֔וֹת בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵינֵיהֶ֑ם לָדַ֕עַת כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשָֽׁם׃ וַיַּמְרוּ־בִ֨י בֵֽית־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל בַּמִּדְבָּ֗ר בְּחֻקּוֹתַ֨י לֹא־הָלָ֜כוּ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֣י מָאָ֗סוּ אֲשֶׁר֩ יַעֲשֶׂ֨ה אֹתָ֤ם הָֽאָדָם֙ וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֔ם וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י חִלְּל֣וּ מְאֹ֑ד וָאֹמַ֞ר לִשְׁפֹּ֨ךְ חֲמָתִ֧י עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם בַּמִּדְבָּ֖ר לְכַלּוֹתָֽם׃ וָאֶעֱשֶׂ֖ה לְמַ֣עַן שְׁמִ֑י לְבִלְתִּ֤י הֵחֵל֙ לְעֵינֵ֣י הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹצֵאתִ֖ים לְעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃ וְגַם־אֲנִ֗י נָשָׂ֧אתִי יָדִ֛י לָהֶ֖ם בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר לְבִלְתִּי֩ הָבִ֨יא אוֹתָ֜ם אֶל־הָאָ֣רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֗תִּי זָבַ֤ת חָלָב֙ וּדְבַ֔שׁ צְבִ֥י הִ֖יא לְכׇל־הָאֲרָצֽוֹת׃ יַ֜עַן בְּמִשְׁפָּטַ֣י מָאָ֗סוּ וְאֶת־חֻקּוֹתַי֙ לֹא־הָלְכ֣וּ בָהֶ֔ם וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתַ֖י חִלֵּ֑לוּ כִּ֛י אַחֲרֵ֥י גִלּוּלֵיהֶ֖ם לִבָּ֥ם הֹלֵֽךְ׃ וַתָּ֧חׇס עֵינִ֛י עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מִֽשַּׁחֲתָ֑ם וְלֹא־עָשִׂ֧יתִי אוֹתָ֛ם כָּלָ֖ה בַּמִּדְבָּֽר׃ וָאֹמַ֤ר אֶל־בְּנֵיהֶם֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר בְּחוּקֵּ֤י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶם֙ אַל־תֵּלֵ֔כוּ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפְּטֵיהֶ֖ם אַל־תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ וּבְגִלּוּלֵיהֶ֖ם אַל־תִּטַּמָּֽאוּ׃ אֲנִי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֔ם בְּחֻקּוֹתַ֖י לֵ֑כוּ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֥י שִׁמְר֖וּ וַעֲשׂ֥וּ אוֹתָֽם׃ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתַ֖י קַדֵּ֑שׁוּ וְהָי֤וּ לְאוֹת֙ בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵינֵיכֶ֔ם לָדַ֕עַת כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ וַיַּמְרוּ־בִ֣י הַבָּנִ֗ים בְּחֻקּוֹתַ֣י לֹֽא־הָ֠לָ֠כוּ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֨י לֹֽא־שָׁמְר֜וּ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת אוֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁר֩ יַעֲשֶׂ֨ה אוֹתָ֤ם הָאָדָם֙ וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֔ם אֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתַ֖י חִלֵּ֑לוּ וָֽאֹמַ֞ר לִשְׁפֹּ֧ךְ חֲמָתִ֣י עֲלֵיהֶ֗ם לְכַלּ֥וֹת אַפִּ֛י בָּ֖ם בַּמִּדְבָּֽר׃ וַהֲשִׁבֹ֙תִי֙ אֶת־יָדִ֔י וָאַ֖עַשׂ לְמַ֣עַן שְׁמִ֑י לְבִלְתִּ֤י הֵחֵל֙ לְעֵינֵ֣י הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵ֥אתִי אוֹתָ֖ם לְעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃ גַּם־אֲנִ֗י נָשָׂ֧אתִי אֶת־יָדִ֛י לָהֶ֖ם בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר לְהָפִ֤יץ אֹתָם֙ בַּגּוֹיִ֔ם וּלְזָר֥וֹת אוֹתָ֖ם בָּאֲרָצֽוֹת׃ יַ֜עַן מִשְׁפָּטַ֤י לֹֽא־עָשׂוּ֙ וְחֻקּוֹתַ֣י מָאָ֔סוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתַ֖י חִלֵּ֑לוּ וְאַֽחֲרֵי֙ גִּלּוּלֵ֣י אֲבוֹתָ֔ם הָי֖וּ עֵינֵיהֶֽם׃ וְגַם־אֲנִי֙ נָתַ֣תִּי לָהֶ֔ם חֻקִּ֖ים לֹ֣א טוֹבִ֑ים וּמִ֨שְׁפָּטִ֔ים לֹ֥א יִֽחְי֖וּ בָּהֶֽם׃ וָאֲטַמֵּ֤א אוֹתָם֙ בְּמַתְּנוֹתָ֔ם בְּהַעֲבִ֖יר כׇּל־פֶּ֣טֶר רָ֑חַם לְמַ֣עַן אֲשִׁמֵּ֔ם לְמַ֙עַן֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵדְע֔וּ אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃
לָכֵ֞ן דַּבֵּ֨ר אֶל־בֵּ֤ית יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בֶּן־אָדָ֔ם וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם כֹּ֥ה אָמַ֖ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֑ה ע֗וֹד זֹ֚את גִּדְּפ֤וּ אוֹתִי֙ אֲב֣וֹתֵיכֶ֔ם בְּמַעֲלָ֥ם בִּ֖י מָֽעַל׃ וָאֲבִיאֵם֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נָשָׂ֙אתִי֙ אֶת־יָדִ֔י לָתֵ֥ת אוֹתָ֖הּ לָהֶ֑ם וַיִּרְאוּ֩ כׇל־גִּבְעָ֨ה רָמָ֜ה וְכׇל־עֵ֣ץ עָבֹ֗ת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ־שָׁ֤ם אֶת־זִבְחֵיהֶם֙ וַיִּתְּנוּ־שָׁם֙ כַּ֣עַס קׇרְבָּנָ֔ם וַיָּשִׂ֣ימוּ שָׁ֗ם רֵ֚יחַ נִיח֣וֹחֵיהֶ֔ם וַיַּסִּ֥יכוּ שָׁ֖ם אֶת־נִסְכֵּיהֶֽם׃ וָאֹמַ֣ר אֲלֵהֶ֔ם מָ֣ה הַבָּמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֥ם הַבָּאִ֖ים שָׁ֑ם וַיִּקָּרֵ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ בָּמָ֔ה עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
לָכֵ֞ן אֱמֹ֣ר ׀ אֶל־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל כֹּ֤ה אָמַר֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה הַבְּדֶ֥רֶךְ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם אַתֶּ֣ם נִטְמְאִ֑ים וְאַחֲרֵ֥י שִׁקּֽוּצֵיהֶ֖ם אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִֽים׃ וּבִשְׂאֵ֣ת מַתְּנֹתֵיכֶ֡ם בְּֽהַעֲבִיר֩ בְּנֵיכֶ֨ם בָּאֵ֜שׁ אַתֶּם֩ נִטְמְאִ֤֨ים לְכׇל־גִּלּֽוּלֵיכֶם֙ עַד־הַיּ֔וֹם
וַאֲנִ֛י אִדָּרֵ֥שׁ לָכֶ֖ם בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל חַי־אָ֗נִי נְאֻם֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה אִם־אִדָּרֵ֖שׁ לָכֶֽם׃ וְהָֽעֹלָה֙ עַל־ר֣וּחֲכֶ֔ם הָי֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִֽהְיֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ אַתֶּ֣ם אֹמְרִ֗ים נִֽהְיֶ֤ה כַגּוֹיִם֙ כְּמִשְׁפְּח֣וֹת הָאֲרָצ֔וֹת לְשָׁרֵ֖ת עֵ֥ץ וָאָֽבֶן׃ חַי־אָ֕נִי נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֑ה אִם־לֹ֠א בְּיָ֨ד חֲזָקָ֜ה וּבִזְר֧וֹעַ נְטוּיָ֛ה וּבְחֵמָ֥ה שְׁפוּכָ֖ה אֶמְל֥וֹךְ עֲלֵיכֶֽם׃ וְהוֹצֵאתִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים וְקִבַּצְתִּ֣י אֶתְכֶ֔ם מִן־הָ֣אֲרָצ֔וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר נְפוֹצֹתֶ֖ם בָּ֑ם בְּיָ֤ד חֲזָקָה֙ וּבִזְר֣וֹעַ נְטוּיָ֔ה וּבְחֵמָ֖ה שְׁפוּכָֽה׃ וְהֵבֵאתִ֣י אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֶל־מִדְבַּ֖ר הָעַמִּ֑ים וְנִשְׁפַּטְתִּ֤י אִתְּכֶם֙ שָׁ֔ם פָּנִ֖ים אֶל־פָּנִֽים׃ כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר נִשְׁפַּ֙טְתִּי֙ אֶת־אֲב֣וֹתֵיכֶ֔ם בְּמִדְבַּ֖ר אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם כֵּ֚ן אִשָּׁפֵ֣ט אִתְּכֶ֔ם נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֥י יֱהֹוִֽה׃ וְהַעֲבַרְתִּ֥י אֶתְכֶ֖ם תַּ֣חַת הַשָּׁ֑בֶט וְהֵבֵאתִ֥י אֶתְכֶ֖ם בְּמָסֹ֥רֶת הַבְּרִֽית׃ וּבָרוֹתִ֣י מִכֶּ֗ם הַמֹּרְדִ֤ים וְהַפּֽוֹשְׁעִים֙ בִּ֔י מֵאֶ֤רֶץ מְגֽוּרֵיהֶם֙ אוֹצִ֣יא אוֹתָ֔ם וְאֶל־אַדְמַ֥ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֹ֣א יָב֑וֹא וִידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּי־אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ וְאַתֶּ֨ם בֵּֽית־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל כֹּה־אָמַ֣ר ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֗ה אִ֤ישׁ גִּלּוּלָיו֙ לְכ֣וּ עֲבֹ֔דוּ וְאַחַ֕ר אִם־אֵינְכֶ֖ם שֹׁמְעִ֣ים אֵלָ֑י וְאֶת־שֵׁ֤ם קׇדְשִׁי֙ לֹ֣א תְחַלְּלוּ־ע֔וֹד בְּמַתְּנוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם וּבְגִלּוּלֵיכֶֽם׃ כִּ֣י בְהַר־קׇדְשִׁ֞י בְּהַ֣ר ׀ מְר֣וֹם יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל נְאֻם֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה שָׁ֣ם יַעַבְדֻ֜נִי כׇּל־בֵּ֧ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל כֻּלֹּ֖ה בָּאָ֑רֶץ שָׁ֣ם אֶרְצֵ֔ם וְשָׁ֞ם אֶדְר֣וֹשׁ אֶת־תְּרוּמֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם וְאֶת־רֵאשִׁ֛ית מַשְׂאוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם בְּכׇל־קׇדְשֵׁיכֶֽם׃ בְּרֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֘חַ֮ אֶרְצֶ֣ה אֶתְכֶם֒ בְּהוֹצִיאִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים וְקִבַּצְתִּ֣י אֶתְכֶ֔ם מִן־הָ֣אֲרָצ֔וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר נְפֹצֹתֶ֖ם בָּ֑ם וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּ֥י בָכֶ֖ם לְעֵינֵ֥י הַגּוֹיִֽם׃ וִֽידַעְתֶּם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בַּהֲבִיאִ֥י אֶתְכֶ֖ם אֶל־אַדְמַ֣ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נָשָׂ֙אתִי֙ אֶת־יָדִ֔י לָתֵ֥ת אוֹתָ֖הּ לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶֽם׃ וּזְכַרְתֶּם־שָׁ֗ם אֶת־דַּרְכֵיכֶם֙ וְאֵת֙ כׇּל־עֲלִיל֣וֹתֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִטְמֵאתֶ֖ם בָּ֑ם וּנְקֹֽטֹתֶם֙ בִּפְנֵיכֶ֔ם בְּכׇל־רָעוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר עֲשִׂיתֶֽם׃ וִֽידַעְתֶּם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בַּעֲשׂוֹתִ֥י אִתְּכֶ֖ם לְמַ֣עַן שְׁמִ֑י לֹא֩ כְדַרְכֵיכֶ֨ם הָרָעִ֜ים וְכַעֲלִילוֹתֵיכֶ֤ם הַנִּשְׁחָתוֹת֙ בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֥י יֱהֹוִֽה׃
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%94/%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D#%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A7_%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D
זְכֹ֤ר יְ-הֹוָה֙ מֶֽה־הָ֣יָה לָ֔נוּ הביט הַבִּ֖יטָה וּרְאֵ֥ה אֶת־חֶרְפָּתֵֽנוּ׃ נַחֲלָתֵ֙נוּ֙ נֶֽהֶפְכָ֣ה לְזָרִ֔ים בָּתֵּ֖ינוּ לְנׇכְרִֽים׃ יְתוֹמִ֤ים הָיִ֙ינוּ֙ אין וְאֵ֣ין אָ֔ב אִמֹּתֵ֖ינוּ כְּאַלְמָנֽוֹת׃ מֵימֵ֙ינוּ֙ בְּכֶ֣סֶף שָׁתִ֔ינוּ עֵצֵ֖ינוּ בִּמְחִ֥יר יָבֹֽאוּ׃ עַ֤ל צַוָּארֵ֙נוּ֙ נִרְדָּ֔פְנוּ יָגַ֖עְנוּ לא וְלֹ֥א הֽוּנַֽח־לָֽנוּ׃ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ נָתַ֣נּוּ יָ֔ד אַשּׁ֖וּר לִשְׂבֹּ֥עַֽ לָֽחֶם׃ אֲבֹתֵ֤ינוּ חָֽטְאוּ֙ אינם וְאֵינָ֔ם אנחנו וַאֲנַ֖חְנוּ עֲוֺנֹתֵיהֶ֥ם סָבָֽלְנוּ׃ עֲבָדִים֙ מָ֣שְׁלוּ בָ֔נוּ פֹּרֵ֖ק אֵ֥ין מִיָּדָֽם׃ בְּנַפְשֵׁ֙נוּ֙ נָבִ֣יא לַחְמֵ֔נוּ מִפְּנֵ֖י חֶ֥רֶב הַמִּדְבָּֽר׃ עוֹרֵ֙נוּ֙ כְּתַנּ֣וּר נִכְמָ֔רוּ מִפְּנֵ֖י זַלְעֲפ֥וֹת רָעָֽב׃ נָשִׁים֙ בְּצִיּ֣וֹן עִנּ֔וּ בְּתֻלֹ֖ת בְּעָרֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה׃ שָׂרִים֙ בְּיָדָ֣ם נִתְל֔וּ פְּנֵ֥י זְקֵנִ֖ים לֹ֥א נֶהְדָּֽרוּ׃ בַּחוּרִים֙ טְח֣וֹן נָשָׂ֔אוּ וּנְעָרִ֖ים בָּעֵ֥ץ כָּשָֽׁלוּ׃ זְקֵנִים֙ מִשַּׁ֣עַר שָׁבָ֔תוּ בַּחוּרִ֖ים מִנְּגִינָתָֽם׃ שָׁבַת֙ מְשׂ֣וֹשׂ לִבֵּ֔נוּ נֶהְפַּ֥ךְ לְאֵ֖בֶל מְחֹלֵֽנוּ׃ נָֽפְלָה֙ עֲטֶ֣רֶת רֹאשֵׁ֔נוּ אֽוֹי־נָ֥א לָ֖נוּ כִּ֥י חָטָֽאנוּ׃ עַל־זֶ֗ה הָיָ֤ה דָוֶה֙ לִבֵּ֔נוּ עַל־אֵ֖לֶּה חָשְׁכ֥וּ עֵינֵֽינוּ׃ עַ֤ל הַר־צִיּוֹן֙ שֶׁשָּׁמֵ֔ם שׁוּעָלִ֖ים הִלְּכוּ־בֽוֹ׃
אַתָּ֤ה יְ-הֹוָה֙ לְעוֹלָ֣ם תֵּשֵׁ֔ב כִּסְאֲךָ֖ לְד֥וֹר וָדֽוֹר׃ לָ֤מָּה לָנֶ֙צַח֙ תִּשְׁכָּחֵ֔נוּ תַּֽעַזְבֵ֖נוּ לְאֹ֥רֶךְ יָמִֽים׃ הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ יְ-הֹוָ֤ה ׀ אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ ונשוב וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם׃ כִּ֚י אִם־מָאֹ֣ס מְאַסְתָּ֔נוּ קָצַ֥פְתָּ עָלֵ֖ינוּ עַד־מְאֹֽד׃
"hardly a good thing" = agreed.
davka this, out of everything else was worthy of cruelty akin to the Nazis acts =?
You mentioned Ohr Sameach - do you agree that people have the ability to do teshuva as they grow older ? If so, why wouldn't these kids be given that chance?
"If so, why wouldn't these kids be given that chance?"
I have no idea. But the neviim said these sorts of things happen due to those sorts of behavior.
My thoughts almost exactly--even the word "hubris"!
One of the "casualties" of this war has been one of the favorite tropes of the Charedi world. The accusation that Israel has a Godless כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי attitude.
Here's Jonathon Rosenblum is Jewish Observer, giving excuses for UTJ's acquiescing to the Gaza withdrawal:
"The great Torah leaders always feared that the continual emphasis of the national religious world on Jewish military strength, and the glorification of military service as the highest calling, could veer dangerously close to an attitude of kochi ve'otzem yadi. The swagger of settlers, with a gun
inevitably attached to their belts, has always been faintly unnerving to those for whom the term galus Jew is no insult. Admittedly, no one would travel the roads of Judea and Samaria without a gun at
hand..."
Israel had abandoned any pretense of that "all guns blazing" bravado militarism. There was withdrawal, negotiations, release of terrorists and money transfers- perhaps knowingly to Hamas. On the military side, there were fancy fences, iron dome. Airstrikes were preceded by polite knocks on he door. Politically, there was dithering can kicking. Gone were the JR's despised gun swaggering. Is he still unnerved when there's a gun totting settler in shul? Or is he unnerved when there isn't?
Admittedly, this rant is somewhat off topic. But it was inspired by Rav Feldman's comment that "The army which was the basis of their security had failed them. " The military failures that Rav Feldman laments are unnervingly close to a fulfillment of JR's vision of abandoning his version of כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי.
What "glorious" military conquest was Rav Feldman referring to when he wrote "You decided to use My land to remake Jews into a nation like the nations of the world...and military conquest the apex of their glory."? What has been clear and been repeated over and over again for the duration of this war is that Israel prides itself over NOT being " a nation like the nations of the world", and has steadfastly denied that "military conquest" is "the apex of their glory."!!!
Well said. But the fact is, the world into which Jonathan (or is it “Yoinussen” these days?) Rosenblum has insinuated himself has long regarded *any* hint of worldly “hishtadlus” vis-a-vis Israel as reflective of a “Godless כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי attitude”.
Even, apparently, carrying a gun for self-defense (though Rosenblum admits it’s necessary in practically the same breath!). Better to carry tzedakah for protection on the roads of Judea and Samaria, I suppose.
The Rav has virtually no choice but to use non-falsifiable statements to make his case. This means the whole idea of thinking there is logic is undermined by the use of logical fallacies. There are a lot of logical fallacies - and religion and apologetics rely on a bunch of them. These are understood, as arguments, to be persuasion tricks - or errors in thinking - or both.
Even when we say we are too "finite" to know what something means - we are somehow smart enough to know we are too finite to know..! I mean if we are so finite - how do we know we're right that we're too finite to know why bad things happen?
There’s a logical fallacy in there somewhere I think. I think circular reasoning.
I think it's fascinating that Rabbi Emanuel Feldman, Rav Aharon's brother, wrote a fantastic article about this subject in Tradition magazine after Hurricane Katrina and was republished during Covid. I believe the title is something to the effect "Don't dive in dark waters". He takes the complete opposite stand of his brother and says that is dangerous to seek reasons for why events occur.
I can't ❤️ the article as a whole because there are several details I strongly disagree with. But I wholehearted agree and stand by the main point being made.
“But his arguments not only lack evidence - the evidence would point to the exact opposite conclusion.”
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Hitchens’ “razor”
Great news from IM! After a long hiatus, a new post about theodicy just dropped! Hot off the press!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/theo-dicey
And now for a nitpick:
He writes:" For this I gave them a Torah where I commanded them to have ..mezuzos on their doorposts"
Something like 98% of Israeli Jews have מזוזות.
But are they up to date on checking them? 🤔
Rav Feldman was not talking about checking them frequently.
(I was being facetious)
Then why didn't you use the facetious emoji?
Haha, what emoji is that?
I mean, why did the attack come from Gaza? It could have come from WB and killed the Frum people in Yehuda and Shomron! Or from Ramllah, and the Frum people of Neve Yaakov could have died!
Yet it came from Gaza, and managed to miss all the major frum communities that live in the Gaza envelope.
Indeed, and I think the Palestinian Authority's Jibril Rajoub said something just like that: that the next October 7th attack will be against the settlements.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/h1zvqrqh6
"In an interview with Egyptian TV channel MBC, Rajoub said that "the next, more severe violence will come from the West Bank. What is happening in the West Bank, which includes 700,000 Israeli settlers, is a similar situation and is connected to all aspects of life, holy sites and even olive trees, our schools, mosques and churches. Therefore, the next oonflagration will be more violent in the West Bank.""
A massacre like that against religious West Bank settler communities (ח"ו) would not have had the same impact at all. If anything, it would have strengthened the contention, "What are these settlers doing there? Serves them right, for violating international law and stealing land and resources from the Palestinians! If Israel would have torn up the settlements and handed over control to the Palestinian Authority, this wouldn't have happened!"
Now, what can they say? The Gaza envelope communities are predominantly left-wing, with some 75% voting for left-wing parties. Many of the survivors felt betrayed: just as when the rocket fire from Gaza resumed almost immediately after the Gaza Disengagement was performed, they were bewildered that their houses would be ransacked and burned to the ground by the very same Palestinians that they wanted so much to help over the years.
At least some people in Europe and the US sincerely express sympathy for the victims of the October 7th massacre. They would number far less if it would have happened in the West Bank.
Luckily the IDF is in the West Bank to prevent Hamas from building up an army there, so this scenario is highly unlikely.
[No this is not the same overconfidence of before October 7. In that case, everyone knew that Hamas had a large, highly trained, well armed and organized army practicing scenarios of conquering yishuvim. The IDF's response to this scenario was to 1) hypothesize that Hamas was "deterred" and didn't currently want a big war, 2) guard the border with various electronic systems which Hamas drones and EM warfare were able to overcome. In retrospect that was a completely insufficient response to the threat. But in the West Bank it is pretty obvious there is no comparable threat to begin with. Of course there is such a threat in Lebanon.]
Compare with Mordechai Kedar here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O9T6s6CGHI
(For his conclusion, skip to 6:50)
" לכן המסקנה של חמאס זה שיש לכוון את המתקפה הבאה שלהם נגד ישוב אחד או כמה ישובים ביהודה ושומרון"
Wow, how depressing. May it never come to pass.
היו לא תהיה.
Please see R’ Berger’s excellent response above (it is, quite deservedly, the “top comment” on this post).
Gaza is stronger
According to Rav Feldman, HASHEM was sending a message to secular Israel.
And HASHEM needed Rav Feldman to help Him do this.
(to speak to secular Israel in a way they would respect and positively respond to.)
Has Rav Feldman's letter done a better job at effectively communicating with its intended audience (secular Jews) than HASHEM's personal message (killing off 1,200 secular Jews but sparing yeshiva students)?
I was taught years ago that it is pretty close to blasphemy to attribute what is a tragedy to another person's "misbehavior". Why? Because it is not our job to interpret Hashem's motivations. Our job is to trust Hashem, and deal appropriately with what has happened.
I'm asking as per Rav Feldman.
Got it!
I'm not sure that I agree with your point that only prophets can engage in theodicy. After all, Chazal spoke about reasons for the destruction of the Temple and Rishonim gave suggestion for various tragedies like the inquisition. I agree with those you quoted that the Torah seems to teach us through the tochacha that we are supposed to take lessons from tragedies.
That being said, when Rabbonim talk about theodicy, they are usually quick to find flaws in other sects. How they are to blame or they need to change. The truth is, a tragedy of this magnitude was probably a message to all of us, and ignoring your own flaws or your own tziburs flaws to finger point at others seems to be missing the message of the Torah
Actually, every time the gemara discusses a calamity, whether a historical event (like the Churban) or in principle (like tzora'as), it consistently brings a wide list of opinions.
(And often we pick one of them and it becomes the "everyone knows" taken for granted in Shabbos derashos. I don't know why.)
The overall message of the gemara is that we both have to look for a lesson we can take from tragedy AND not expect to find a definitive answer. Possibly the latter is because of our lack of nevu'ah. Personally I think it's because we are human, with finite minds, and Hashem's "Reason" is Infinite. But this obligation to search for something knowing you won't necessarily find a single "the answer" fits the distinction I made in an earlier comment between trying to find "THE reason" and looking for a lesson one can take so that the tragedy motivates positive change.
And in either case, I agree with your "that being said": Chazal never say "it's because of the Tzeduqim" or otherwise deflect the tragedy from motivating change in themselves and their own audience.
I agree. I hinted to that idea when I said that a calamity like October 7 probably has a message for all of us. In other words, there is never a certain or definitive answer... But we have to find the message for ourselves and not to deflect on others.
The multiplicity point only means that instead of only blaming secularization R. Feldman should have added a couple of other sins to the mix. Perhaps its an argument against being confidant in our assertions but it still supports attempting to provide explanations.
The bottom line is that the gemara has no bottom line. And we should take that to heart.
Which leaves you wondering: if so, why does it look like those various amora'im tried anyway? Well, the gemara says that when something bad happens, you should examine your deeds. So we have Amora'im giving Mussar Shmuessin -- and a clear indication that we can't hope to do anything but that.
The thing about a Mussar Shmuess is that it only makes sense to discuss flaws the audience has. Not those of other communities.
So, if R Feldman was following the gemara's example, he would have looked at the sins his own Talmidim fall prey to, and not blame the non-Orthodox or Orthodox-Lite and their secularization. And he should have phrased it as cause-and-effect. Something more like: since things aren't going well in the rut we're in, let's use that push to try something new, something better.
I like your point that when giving a musar shmooze "it only makes sense to discuss flaws the audience has"
A couple of questions/points (which i suppose is a reasonable translation of kashya)
1. Why does the Gemara phrase it as "X happened because of Y" rather than "since things aren't going well in the rut we're in, let's use that push to try something new, something better."?
2. Why couldn't it be that at least part of Chazal's goal is to (at least potentially) defend the justice of God's actions be explaining (or even theorizing) why God allowed the punishment to occur.
3. (A limud zechut on R. Feldman) Perhaps he overestimated his ability to disseminate his message to secular people (and overestimated the likelihood of them being receptive to his message)
Reducing financial support of yeshivos is a bad thing, not a good thing.
We want yeshivos to thrive, to teach Torah and spread Torah. This does not have to hinge on the issue of the army. Regardless Yeshivos must teach Torah to Jewry.
Anyone making a blanket statement about how reducing support to yeshivos is a good thing, is a Jewish renegade.
Which kind of yeshivos should thrive? Is it just about teaching Torah? What if they are corrupting in other ways?
Like cheating the govt by claiming to have more students than they actually do, or misusing funds they receive.
Certainly, but you don’t need the government to provide funding to Yeshivos. And doing so may have negative consequences. Among other things, it can generate resentment from taxpayers who do not see their value and it ties Yeshivos to politics, generally an ugly business.
The problem is that resources are finite.
In an ideal world, there would be infinite money for both yeshivos and the army (and for universal healthcare, and building roads & bridges, etc, etc).
But in the real world, every dollar (or shekel) that goes to subsidizing yeshivos is a dollar that could otherwise have been spent elsewhere.
Given that there are more yeshivos (and more Jews learning in them) today than at any time in history, at what point to we recognize, “OK, yeshivos are thriving, Torah is being amply taught and spread, now it’s time to devote resources to more practical, worldly concerns as well”…?
Strange that 'any time in history' is a yardstick. Why?
There are also more Jewish soldiers than 'any time in history', yet that doesn't seem to resonate.
Simple: if the learning of Torah has magical apotropaic effects, and more Torah learning is always better, then it stands to reason that having more people learning Torah than ever before should afford us absolutely unprecedented spiritual protection.
Yet, as R’ Slifkin points out, Israel’s greatest yeshu’ot (in ‘48 and ‘67) took place with far less Torah being learned… implying that perhaps Torah learning wasn’t the decisive factor.
(1/2, cont'd)
The appropriate reason is that it's stealing
On the other hand, when our enemies are able to inflict such a devastating blow to our people *despite* Israel having more Jewish (and non-Jewish) soldiers than ever before, then it is necessary to employ serious, critical, non-magical thinking (to do “hishtadlus”, one might say) to determine and rectify the root causes of this failure (whether those causes involve the raw # of soldiers or otherwise).
(2/2)
"The fact that the majority of fatalities on October were of secular Jews is meaningless, since secular Jews happened to be the majority of people living next to Gaza"
Or alternatively, it is not meaningless but the opposite (Shabbat 33b):
דאמר רבי גוריון, ואיתימא רב יוסף ברבי שמעיה: בזמן שהצדיקים בדור - צדיקים נתפסים על הדור, אין צדיקים בדור - תינוקות של בית רבן נתפסים על הדור. אמר רבי יצחק בר זעירי ואמרי לה אמר רבי שמעון בן נזירא: מאי קראה - אם לא תדעי לך היפה בנשים צאי לך בעקבי הצאן וגו' ואמרינן: גדיים הממושכנין על הרועים. שמע מינה: אף על לשון הרע נמי קאמר, שמע מינה.
If the generation is being punished the tzadikim are seized first. If there are no tzadikim, then it is small children. Even if one does not hold by the position that a secular Jew is to be considered a tinok shenishba, think of the numbers of small children. Surely one would learn from this that indeed the generation has no tzadikim, not that the charedim are tzadikim that therefore were saved leaving the rest of am yisrael behind.
I live in Ramot, Jerusalem. In February 2023, an Arab from East Jerusalem plowed into a bus stop here, killing Asher Menachem (age 8) and Ya'akov Yisrael Paley (age 6), and R. Shlomo Alter Lederman (age 20, only 4 months after his marriage).
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Fuchs, the Rav of Ramot Dalet, quoted that Gemara at the funeral of Ya'akov Yisrael Paley.
The grandfather of the children also spoke at the funeral. He said, "We see all sorts of calamities in the world: war [in Ukraine], earthquakes [there had just been a devastating earthquake in Turkey]. Who knows? Maybe the deaths of these people averted a much greater calamity."
[Vicarious suffering is not really that alien to Judaism. There are statements of Chazal that support it.]
This whole discussion is very old. We know from Avot that we cannot understand the affliction of the righteous or the uplifting of the wicked. I suggest reading (rereading) Iyov where the righteous Iyov suffers and three friends come to console him and say "Well, you must have done something wrong." His three "friends" are cast aside from God Himself who bellows that we humans know little of how the justice/fairness works in the world. The Just-World-Fallacy indicates it is natural to blame the victim. (makes us feel better: I would never do what they did; they had it coming) The Torahs descriptions leave open that consequences are maybe in this world, maybe the next, maybe individual, maybe communal. Other then Gods efforts via derech b'teva we know next to nothing. Better to be safe and treat the next person as you want to be treated.
Additionally, is it possible to correct the title of the PDF?
You know, looking at your “name”, I just realized what an odd grammatical construction that is (“ishah yirat Hashem”)…
I mean, I know it’s from Mishlei, but… “yirat Hashem” is a noun (in the “construct” state): “fear of G-d” (or “the fear of G-d”), so “ishah yirat Hashem” would seem to mean “a woman, fear of G-d”…
If a “G-d-fearing man” is a “y’rei Hashem” wouldn’t it seem to follow that a “G-d-fearing woman” should be… “ishah y’rei’at Hashem”? 🤔
Hmmm. Isn't yirah a verb?
No, actually. ״Yirah” is a noun (like “ahavah”).
“Yarei” is “he fears” and “y’rei’ah” is “she fears”.
Yes, but it's Yirat יראת
That’s my point: *why* is it “yirat”?
“Yirat” is the construct (s’michut) form of the noun “yirah”: “fear of…”
Apparently, it must also be something else, as its use in this pasuk demonstrates, but why?
The problem is, this seems to be the only instance of this particular grammatical construction in all of Tana”ch, so there’s nothing to compare it to!
Maybe it has to do with aishet chayil? I'm impressed at your knowledge. Pretty please subscribe to my substack?