Sunday, November 28, 2004
Free will, Talumd style
An interesting theory.
Let's say, however, Joe does kill Bob. This means that G-d acquiesced to the murder. G-d must have determined that on some level Bob "deserved" to die.And this of course raises two important questions. First, can we really say every innocent bystander, every child who dies violently deserved his or her fate? Second, if Joe kills Bob, it certainly seems that he snuffed out a life which would have continued for many more years. Are we forced to say the victim would have died just then anyway? And if not, hasn't Joe just changed the course of G-d's world -- killing someone who would otherwise have continued living? The first question I will deal with only very briefly. Did Bob really deserve to die? On one level we must say yes. There are a number of approaches to this issue, each valid in its own context. Yet here I feel we must accept that G-d's justice is not something truly understandable to man. Why every unfortunate victim "deserved" it -- what is the answer to Wiesel's "Where is G-d?" -- is clearly beyond our ability to discern. And so, I will only suggest a few of the basic approaches, and we will have to content ourselves with that.
One answer is that G-d's justice is exceedingly strict. We all carry some degree of guilt, and G-d alone knows the proper compensation for each wicked deed. Even the most worthy among us might well have brought upon himself sufficient guilt to be deserving of death. Second, it's possible the individual did not deserve death himself, but he suffered as an atonement for his generation. (I realize people view this as a Christian concept, but it is actually quite Jewish (see for example Ezekiel 4 and Talmud Sanhedrin 39a) -- although we certainly believe the Christians blew it way out of proportion.) Third, the concept of reincarnation -- though barely hinted in the Talmud (to my knowledge) -- is well-established in kabbalistic sources. Perhaps even a child deserved death as atonement for sins of a past life. Fourth, the Sages state that G-d may take away small children from this world as a punishment to the parents. Finally, there are times -- and this supposedly is rare -- in which G-d has no way of saving a victim from his assailant via natural means. And performing an open miracle is not viable because it would reveal G-d's Presence too openly in this world -- something man is hardly prepared for. Thus, to preserve G-d's concealment, G-d at times must allow unfortunate victims to perish. There is supposedly a special place reserved in the World to Come for innocents who are sacrificed for such.
Let's say, however, Joe does kill Bob. This means that G-d acquiesced to the murder. G-d must have determined that on some level Bob "deserved" to die.And this of course raises two important questions. First, can we really say every innocent bystander, every child who dies violently deserved his or her fate? Second, if Joe kills Bob, it certainly seems that he snuffed out a life which would have continued for many more years. Are we forced to say the victim would have died just then anyway? And if not, hasn't Joe just changed the course of G-d's world -- killing someone who would otherwise have continued living? The first question I will deal with only very briefly. Did Bob really deserve to die? On one level we must say yes. There are a number of approaches to this issue, each valid in its own context. Yet here I feel we must accept that G-d's justice is not something truly understandable to man. Why every unfortunate victim "deserved" it -- what is the answer to Wiesel's "Where is G-d?" -- is clearly beyond our ability to discern. And so, I will only suggest a few of the basic approaches, and we will have to content ourselves with that.
One answer is that G-d's justice is exceedingly strict. We all carry some degree of guilt, and G-d alone knows the proper compensation for each wicked deed. Even the most worthy among us might well have brought upon himself sufficient guilt to be deserving of death. Second, it's possible the individual did not deserve death himself, but he suffered as an atonement for his generation. (I realize people view this as a Christian concept, but it is actually quite Jewish (see for example Ezekiel 4 and Talmud Sanhedrin 39a) -- although we certainly believe the Christians blew it way out of proportion.) Third, the concept of reincarnation -- though barely hinted in the Talmud (to my knowledge) -- is well-established in kabbalistic sources. Perhaps even a child deserved death as atonement for sins of a past life. Fourth, the Sages state that G-d may take away small children from this world as a punishment to the parents. Finally, there are times -- and this supposedly is rare -- in which G-d has no way of saving a victim from his assailant via natural means. And performing an open miracle is not viable because it would reveal G-d's Presence too openly in this world -- something man is hardly prepared for. Thus, to preserve G-d's concealment, G-d at times must allow unfortunate victims to perish. There is supposedly a special place reserved in the World to Come for innocents who are sacrificed for such.
