When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham
launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional
arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he
could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How
does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with
logical/emotional arguments?
Yes, he did.
How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits
perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah,
utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah.
: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham
: launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional
: arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he
: could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How
: does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah...
RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading.
However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the
hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something
we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds
to us.
Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if
he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more
appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer.
But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily
part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on
Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out
of it.
Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys"
of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions,
or at least not ones they hadn't already given me.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah...
RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading.
...
But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily
part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on
Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out
of it.
I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments
to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade
Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game.
Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with
logical/emotional arguments?
Yes, he did.
How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits
perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah,
utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah.
Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the
wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an
omniscient perfect god?
The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after
all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the
point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to
Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla
is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to
tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem
doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need
to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set
of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake.
How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's
decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either
that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original
decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or,
that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that
you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind.
Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless.
:> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah...
:> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading.
: ...
:> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily
:> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on
:> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out
:> of it.
: I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments
: to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade
: Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game.
Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion.
As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's
calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my
support system than expecting something out of it."
The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah
is never about pursuasion or begging.
It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his
maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that. Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase. This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/ he would take it that far.
The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/. No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/ (advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban /l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity.
We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to want it.
Lisa
Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion.
...
The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah
is never about pursuasion or begging.
It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his
maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself.
In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is
unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as
logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe
Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people
because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is
attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays
daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in
the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones
should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when
he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission
with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to
persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning
that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit?
If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have
sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked?
However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with
Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't
sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a
relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion.
Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to
be see save Sdom?
He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that.
Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem...
And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson
for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good
for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't
even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could
have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...."
It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was
doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what
Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham
trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that
nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to
Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells
Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to
change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim?
Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
an omniscient perfect god?
Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode
of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.
in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind.
"Vayinachem Hashem".
If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to
His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of
them "first" and another "next".
: > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his
: > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself.
:
: In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is
: unfair...
And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him.
: ... When Moshe
: Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people
: because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is
: attempting to persuade....
Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
Etc...
When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
give a one line summary of its problems?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
an omniscient perfect god?
Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode
of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.
So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience
and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash
on the other hand?
[Email #2]
Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
...
When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
give a one line summary of its problems?
WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these
incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change
his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his
relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a
preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just
reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way.
Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your
explanation.
[Email #3]
Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to
focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end.
1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha"
means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c.
tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3
(war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct
from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's
decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when
tefilla is mentioned separately?
2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the
sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the
dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between
Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence
attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to
convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly
seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not
simply airing his grievances.
I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel
leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without
formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and
therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes
the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to
conform to the map then the fault is with the map.
For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah
in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also
think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions
and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them.
It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem,
most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour-
blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his
eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives
in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum,
so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would
disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words,
that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the
lens.
: I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel
: leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without
: formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and
: therefore, while useful, they are not necessary...
I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential.
Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it
creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.
I think Rav Nachman's comments about theology are based on this point.
It's also why I prefer the dialog version of Mesilas Yesharim, even though
the Ramchal apparently rejected it in favor of the chapter version.
The dialog is between two old friends -- the protagonist, called the
chasid, who presents the ideas of MY and an old friend he encounters,
the chakham, who knows a lot of Torah, but at the beginning of the book
doesn't "get" the whole middos thing.
Personally, I need a reminder to stay on the topic of learning zehirus,
rather than learning what zehirus is. The structure of the original
format helps me that way.
I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical
arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try
to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game.
Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical
arguments
R' Eli Turkel asked:
"Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make logical
arguments?"
What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect God?
He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and others
explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer to
Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that?
"Why are you disturb by Avraham then Moshe's many prayers that make
logical arguments?"What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect
God? He obviously a;ready knows them and considered them. As R' Micha and
others explained the point of tefilla is to improve yourself and get closer
to Hashem, how does making logical arguments do that?
Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet
ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ?
Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"
Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
an omniscient perfect god?
Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode
of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.
So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience
and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash
on the other hand?
[Email #2]
Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
...
When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
give a one line summary of its problems?
WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these
incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change
his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his
relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a
preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just
reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way.
Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your
explanation.
[Email #3]
Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to
focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end.
1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha"
means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c.
tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3
(war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct
from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's
decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially
when tefilla is mentioned separately?
2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since
the sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say,
the dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between
Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence
attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to
convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly
seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision
not simply airing his grievances.
[Email #4]
Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"
What is the point of making logical arguments to an omniscient perfect
God?
How are we supposed to understand that? Obviously not literally just like
God doesn't really get angry or jealous. These are just ways of expressing
Gods behavior in terms that we as human beings can understand it. However,
the underlying question of tefilla still remains.
Furthermore was the point of Moshe Rabbenu's prayers after the "chet
ha-egel" and "chet hameraglim" for Moshe to get closer to G-d ?
I raised this question as well. If tefilla is not to get closer to God
then what is it for?
The obvious answer without philosophy is that prayer is to get something
done. After Moshe prayed G-d "changed" his mind and did not wipe out the
Jewish people.
Most prayers in Tanach seem to be for a purpose, eg the prayer of Chizyaku
to live longer which G-d answered.
I get the impression that these questions didnt disturb Chazal and they
appeared only in th gaonim/rishonim who were affected by philosophy
Eli
Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for
a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person
better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does
not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying
philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise
fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla
could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly.
: Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for
: a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person
: better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does
: not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach...
It doesn't?
Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By
contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence?
The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's
G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'"
Moshe alone achieved.
I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those
descriubing the function.
When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical
objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it
on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance.
However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham
atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the
Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern
Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others.
The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different
part of the dialectic.