Do-It-Yourself Theodicy
I. Where’s the Miracle?
Rabbi Morey Schwartz, in his new book Where’s My Miracle?, does to contemporary notions of divine providence what Voltaire did with his satirical play Candide to eighteenth century notions of theodicy, only in a serious and constructive way. Voltaire famously mocked the various attempts to explain divine justice by sarcastically showing exceptional cases that make the theories seem implausible (link). Rabbi Schwartz does the same, without the mocking, by producing newsclip after newsclip from the Second Intifada in Israel.
What justification can be offered to the murder of a baby in her mother’s arms? Innocent children out playing? An entire family except for the grieving father/husband? Etc. etc. etc. With each story of a miraculous salvation from danger, Rabbi Schwartz cites a similar story with a fateful ending. The result is similar to that which Voltaire accomplished, but without the cynicism. What, then, does Rabbi Schwartz accomplish?
II. Multiple Voices
The main theme of Where’s My Miracle? is that the primary rabbinic texts — Talmud and midrash — do not speak in a single voice on these issues. Each chapter brings texts and counter-texts, consistently showing that the rabbis did not agree on how to interpret suffering in the world.
Some rabbis, from the Talmud through the Middle Ages and into the twentieth century, saw everything as a divine decree while others, along a similar timeframe, allowed room for undecreed suffering. Sometimes people are injured or die because of chance, the natural way of the world. Rabbi Schwartz cleverly, but unconvincingly, relabels nature as a “first-order miracle,” because the laws of nature were divinely formed. Everything, therefore, is somehow a miracle, just not necessarily an act of divine intervention.
What is the reader supposed to do with all this information? Rabbi Schwartz is a former pulpit rabbi who is currently active in adult education. He personally lost both parents by the time he was twenty and has been counseling and teaching grieving people for decades. This is a pastoral book. Rabbi Schwartz offers healing words to help religious people accept and understand their suffering.
III. Buffet Theology
After laying out the various approaches like a buffet kiddush, Rabbi Schwartz encourages people to take whatever satisfies them. Whichever approach works best for you. His last chapter is devoted to defending this approach of a do-it-yourself Judaism.
Here is where we hit a thorny problem because we are dealing with mutually exclusive views. Is everything due to direct divine intervention, some things, nothing? You cannot answer “all of the above.” Only one can be the true way that God runs the universe. If so, we are unable to say that they are all different versions or aspects of truth. That will not work here.
We can say that we have no tradition on which is true, since we find the different views accepted by a variety of authorities. And we have no way to prove that any of them is true. Therefore, Judaism has to tolerate untrue views — we know that, of the above three, one is true and the other two are not — simply because we lack the tools to conclusively verify them.
IV. What About Tradition?
Is this a prototype for theology? Do we say that any time there are multiple views within the Jewish tradition people are free to choose which to accept, even if they are mutually exclusive? I don’t have a definitive answer but I am left skeptical of this attitude because nowhere do I see discussion of intellectual humility and instruction from teachers. Do we not value the person-to-person transmission of beliefs? Have we so submitted to the textual culture that we are willing to reject the deeply held convictions of our mentors for the writings of others?
On the particular subject of theodicy and divine intervention, though, we are on strong ground because such influential recent teachers as R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Halakhic Man, pp. 123-128) adopted the view of the Rambam (and most rishonim) that God only intervenes sometimes. R. Morey Schwartz sensitively and adeptly demonstrates the continued relevance of this view of God’s role in our daily lives. On other important issues of belief, though, I have less confidence in this approach.
This reminds me of when the “Little Miracles” series did a volume called “Little Miracles of the Holocaust.” I thought it was the height of bad taste, not to mention hutzpa, considering that for six million people, there wasn’t exactly a happy ending.
“I thought it was the height of bad taste, not to mention hutzpa, considering that for six million people, there wasn’t exactly a happy ending.”
I have not read the book but in general I agree with Nachum-I can’t stand books or speeches that talk about the “miracle” of ones survival. That implies the other people were punished by God.
BTW-I dislioke such talk not only about the Shoah but people who were not in the WTC on 9/11 etc.
What they said (insert anecdotal data rant)!
KT
Then you will like this book. He makes that point in a number of different ways.
I agree with the above comments (esp. Nachum). Still, this begs the serious question as to whether it is possible to believe in the principle of sachar va’onesh (or even just God’s involvement in history) in any meaningful way.
Avi
The little miracles of the holocaust were that much more miraculous davka because they occurred during a time of gezeira. We can try to explain why the holocaust happened (an issue that has been thoroughly discussed on this blog).But how do we explain the death of an infant from Tay-Sachs? First of all we must have the humility to admit that there is much we do not and can not know.Machshevotav lo machshevoteinu, even MRAH wasn’t granted the understanding of all of middot Hashem.
I think that the more rationist view (Rambam aliba d’RYBS) leaves too much unexplained,and leaves the question of hashgacha pratit up in the air. While I understand that for many the more mystical view is difficult to accept, IMHO R’Nachman, R’Tzadok Hacohen of Lublin and Rav Kook show us that not only are machshevotenu lo machshevotav but olameinu lo kol olamo. They give us some understanding of that which can never be completely understood.
aiwac: It doesn’t impact the concept of reward & punishment because you can still be rewarded for good and punished for bad, both in this world and the next. But there can be a third category of neither reward nor punishment, just nature and the way of the world.
R’DT,
I think we all agree we can’t understand it all-perhaps the point of the book is we each have to find what gets us through the night-and perhaps R’ Gil’s complaint is that this should be a mesorah rather than personal ntiyah issue (If so I tend to disagree – we owe our parents and teachers a careful listening and then they let go for us to seek our own derech home – kach mkublani mbeit avi abba)
KT
“I think that the more rationist view (Rambam aliba d’RYBS) leaves too much unexplained,and leaves the question of hashgacha pratit up in the air.”
Why does everything have to have an explanation?
I agree with the theme of this book. A bad explanation is worse than no explanation. Think of the difference between how Rishonim understand the differences between a Kushiya, Teiku and a Tiyuvta-in some cases we live without answers, in others only in Messianic times will we be told or learn the answer and in another set of cases, what is purported to be an answer is completely rejected as beyond the boundaries.
I must admit that frankly I do not understand the idea that theodicy need not or should not offer comfort and solace to the individual. As acknowledged in the post, no one actually knows the answer to the question. It seems that adhering to something because it is what one was “told” or a more popular opinion among authorities, but leaves the individual cold or with questions or a crisis is inherently a bad way of dealing with the problem.
In other words, read Job. No one knows. If you want to go past that, what is the point if it doesn’t make you feel better, or worse: it makes you feel worse?
Those looking for a miracle need look no further than the web, but I doubt anyone is going to like this one, even if it could very well be the real thing! This understanding comes at a price most religious will find high indeed. Check it at http://www.energon.org.uk
In cases where Judaism offers no definitive answer, it can still make a contribution by eliminating answers that are unacceptable. For example, it’s unacceptable for Jews to believe in two separate powers (sh’tai reshuyot), a good one and an evil one, as the Zoroastrians do. In other words, Judaism may offer a buffet, but it’s a kosher buffet, in which certain dishes are necessarily absent.
Steve Brizel-Kushia, teiku and tiyuvta are terms used in halachic discourse. AFAIK they are not used in discussions about aggadita. There is no need to wait for Eliahu to decide between haskafot expressed in Midrash and Aggada. Commentaries such as Chidushei aggadot Maharsha dont use the same terms in explaining aggada as in halacha.
R.A. Landbeck- Thanks for the link! I had no idea that my future and the future of the whole world depends on belief in YKW!!
It’s important to distinguish theology that impacts on practice from theology that does not impact on practice. We’re talking here about a belief that does not impact on practice.
It’s also important to distinguish choices between approaches found in chazal rishonim and achronim from approaches without traditional foundation. Here we’re clearly apparently talking about choices found in mesora.
If we accept people paskening halacha from Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata, or from the Mishna Berura for that matter, weighing between the different shitos in achronim, why is this wrong in areas of belief?
Of course, were it an area that impacted on practice, or a belief without basis in chazal, that would be a different matter.
“Do we say that any time there are multiple views within the Jewish tradition people are free to choose which to accept, even if they are mutually exclusive?”
Yes, this is called hashkafa. Welcome to its world. We need in-depth study of hashkafa just like we have in depth study of halakha. The neglect in that regard is what produces your “skepticism” that multiple views are acceptable. There is a vast, widespread ignorance of the relevant sources.
Sorry, to clarify, I’m not implying that you are involved in the ignorance – God forbid – that is a general condition affecting the masses and even great rabbis. I certainly did not mean to imply that as a personal statement about Rabbi Student. And who knows, you Rabbi Student could be one of those few exceptions, but I am saying that your approach with “skepticism” of the view you presented is a product of the massive vortex that exists in the Jewish world in general in the area of hashkafa and that many great people would share your skepticism there.
1. We on our level can’t fully understand HaShem’s actions.
2. HaShem nevertheless sends us messages through events that happen to us or come to our attention.
3. We have tzaddikim and gedolim to help us sort out the difficult tensions between 1. and 2.
I want to thank Gil for taking the time to read and to write up his impressions of my book. I am particularly satisfied that it has engendered this important give and take.
The book does not give simple answers, and, as Gil points out, its focus is on presenting the multiple traditions, giving more people the opportunity to find themselves inside the masoret.
Hashkafa is not halacha, and therefore I believe it is something that one must find comfort with after exploring the options that traditon presents.
[...] line with the recent discussion about a Maimonidean view of suffering (link), the following letter by the Rambam is fascinating. It is not entirely clear about whom he is [...]