Sago Boulevard

Plenty has been written about Pat Robertson’s suggestion that “Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.” Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, guest posting at Cross-Currents, suggests that while Robertson’s comment was “foolish and off base”, it may have a kernal of truth.

In Robertson’s case… it is only his presumptuousness that I find shocking. He pretends to know what G-d is thinking. Prophecy, he forgot, ended with Zechariah some 2,500 years ago.

In another way, though, Robertson utters a simple truth, which his crude logic makes easy to ignore. This truth is a basic one. It is the foundation of the Hebrew Bible and indeed of Judaism: G-d cares about humanity and intervenes in human affairs, of both the individual and the community.

I understand what’s bothering Rabbi Goldberg. He’s right that we assume God is always in charge, and thus the suggestion that our current hardships are the result of our sins is merely presumptuous but not beyong the pale. That said, there may be something additional wrong with such a comment. Consider Zechariah 3:1-4:

He showed me Yehoshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of God, and Satan standing on his right side, to accuse him. God said to Satan: “God rebukes you, Satan; God – Who has chosen Jerusalem – rebukes you. Is this [man] not a brand plucked from the fire?” Yehoshua was clothed in filthy garments, and he stood before the angel. He answered and said to those standing before him, saying: “Remove the filthy garments from upon him.” And he said to him: “See, I have removed your sin from upon you, and I shall clothe you in festive garments.”

R. Aharon Lichtenstein elaborates:

God silences Satan not because Satan’s claims are untrue - the “garments” are indeed “filthy.” Rather, God tells Satan: Without any connection to the correctness of the actions or to the truth of your words, it is forbidden for you, Satan, to voice this accusation!

Why does God not let Satan voice his accusation? Because the man is question is a “brand plucked from the fire.” A brand plucked from the fire – even if his garments are filthy – must be treated differently. At this moment, although he presents truthful accusations and substantial claims, Satan must keep silent.
…
All too often, we hear people claiming, “Why was there a Holocaust? Because their garments were filthy” – i.e., the generation was sinful. These people should be told that it is none of our business to determine the degree of “filth” on the garments. To them we say unequivocally: “God rebukes you, Satan; God – Who chooses Jerusalem – rebukes you!” Such talk is forbidden!

It is forbidden not because it is inconceivable, but because such explanations are in the realm of prophets, and perhaps Chazal – but we? Who gave us the right to speak in such terms?

Every Jew today – and the State of Israel and Jewish People as whole – is, to some extent, a “brand plucked from the fire,” and the Holy One rebukes those who bring accusations against him.

Krum as a bagel has a good post on one of R. Soloveitchik’s most important essays, “Catharsis” (Tradition, Spring 1978). Krum’s particular interest is the implication it has for apparent discrepancies between Torah and science. The Rav writes:

Judaism insisted upon the redeeming of the logos and maintained that there is an unredeemed cognitive gesture, just as there is an unredeemed carnal drive… I do not refer to mythical thinking… but to the most modern system of scientific inquiry. The latter may be considered unredeemed if the scientist does not subject his cognitive act to an extraneous catharsis… I do not mean to suggest that the scientist should conduct his inquiry without thoroughness or inconclusively. On the contrary every scholar is guided intuitively by an ethical norm, which tells him to search the truth assiduously and not to rest until he has it within his reach. Cognitive withdrawal is related, not to the scientific inquiry as a logical operation, but rather to the axiological experience of scientific work. Knowing is not an impersonal performance which can be computerized, emptied of its rich, colorful, experiential content. It is, instead, an integral part of the knower as a living person… Next to the religious experience, knowledge is perhaps the most vibrant and resonant personal experience. It sweeps the whole of the personality, sometimes like a gentle wave infusing the knower with a sense of tranquillity and serenity; at other times like a mighty onrushing tide, arousing the soul to its depth and raising it to a pitch of ecstasy.

This touches on an important recurring theme in R. Soloveitchik’s writings, in particular as it relates to Torah study: the experience of knowledge. In the Rav’s understanding, our encounter with the world has two elements, the quantitative and the qualitative. Much of the Rav’s writing deals with the relationship between these two approaches to knowledge. R. Zeigler elaborates on this point in his notes on “Catharsis“:

In the scientific realm, cognitive catharsis implies recognizing the ultimate mystery of being… [O]nce a certain phenomenon has been assigned a scientific explanation, this does not imply that there is nothing more to be said about it. According to a theory of science subscribed to by the Rav, modern science merely creates an abstract mathematical world which parallels the functioning of nature. This quantitative correlate is useful as far as technology is concerned, but it operates on a wholly different plane than the qualitative world experienced by us. We experience not a world of abstract quantities, but rather one of living qualities, of impressions and sensations. An equation describing the flight of a bird or the wavelength of a red flower cannot elucidate the great mystery of qualitative being, in which we live our lives and to which we react with awe and wonder.

Attention fellow hockey fans: James Mirtle has compiled a complete listing of hockey blogs (via Ranger Pundit).