MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav
Yitzchak
Blau
*********************************************************************
This shiur is
dedicated in memory of
our beloved father Harry Meisles (Elchanan ben
Yitzchak) z"l
whose yahrzeit falls
on 26 Adar the Meisles family.
**********************************************************************
Shiur #18:
Nature and the
Miraculous in the Thought of R. Meir Simcha
HaKohen
Posterity associates
R. Meir
Simcha HaKohen (1843-1926) with Dvinsk, the city of which he
was rabbi for close to forty years.
When the community of Yerushalayim invited R. Meir Simcha to become Rav of
their city in 1906, the people of Dvinsk wrote a letter to Jerusalem pleading with
them not to take R. Meir
Simcha away. At
one point, Dvinsk was blessed with the simultaneous presence of two rabbinic
giants, when both R. Meir
Simcha and the Rogochover, R. Yosef Rosen, lived
there.
R. Meir
Simcha HaKohens two major
works are Ohr Sameach on Rambams Mishneh Torah and Meshekh
Chokhma on Chumash. In
addition, we have his chiddushim on parts of the Talmud. Even though he completed his commentary
on Chumash early in life, it was not published until after his
death. R. Meir Simchas father was
concerned that his brilliant son would not be taken seriously as a lamdan
if he published a work on Tanakh before coming out with something in the
realm of Gemara or Halakha.
Toward the end of R.
Meir Simchas life, my grandfather, R. Pinchas Teitz, arranged
for a member of the Slobodka kollel to edit the Meshekh Chokhma, and it
came out within the year of its authors passing. There is some irony in his fathers
concern, since the Meshkeh Chokhma could only have been written by a
lamdan and it is arguably a more innovative work than the Ohr
Sameach. Apparently,
R. Meir
Simcha himself saw his commentary on Chumash as more
significant.
Scholars have not yet
given R. Meir
Simcha due attention.
Yona Ben Sasson analyzes themes in R. Meir Simchas worldview in his
Hagut Yehudit be-Mivchan ha-Dorot. R. Yehuda Cooperman probes issues in
R. Meir
Simchas Torah commentary in the introduction to his fine
edition of Meshekh Chokhma.
R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin includes a relevant chapter in his Ishim ve-Shitot. However, R. Meir Simcha deserves far more
study. I hope that these
shiurim will encourage others to turn their attention to his wisdom and
insight.
Nature
R. Meir
Simcha emphasizes the
significance of the natural order, arguing that this order represents the
authentic purpose of creation.
Miracles are a temporary necessity to establish that God lies behind
nature, but God truly wants the world to function in a natural way. In fact, Gods ability to make a
stable order that provides sustenance for a myriad of creatures is a greater
feat than His performing of miracles.
The generation of the
desert, which experienced the pillars of glory and the sustenance of the manna,
was a brief period of miraculous existence; but entry into the Land of Israel brought about a normal existence
working within natural limitations.
Our nation needed a miraculous beginning so that belief in God could take
root amongst our people, but that type of lifestyle was never the true
goal. Once its purpose had been
fulfilled, the miraculous living ceased. Perhaps this theory explains why Jewish
life seems to incorporate fewer miracles as history progresses.
Moshe explicitly
tells the people this message in Devarim 29. He first refers to the many miracles the
Jewish people witnessed in Egypt and in the desert. And God has not given you a heart to
perceive and eyes to see until this day (Devarim 29:4). R. Meir Simcha argues that Moshe
outlines here the ideal context of Jewish existence. Religious striving is meant to happen
within a natural order and not within a miraculous existence. Only on this day, when the Jews will
soon enter the Land of Israel and switch to the naturalistic
mode, will the people acquire a truly sensitive heart and discerning eyes.
R. Meir
Simcha adamantly rejects
the generation of the deserts lifestyle as a model. Could this be called the goal? he
incredulously asks. That would mean
jumping ahead to the existence of the World to Come or emulating the existence
of angels. Authentic
religious life demands struggling and striving within the limitations of
nature. For this reason, one
opinion in the gemara (Sanhedrin 20a) applies the verse, Favor is
false and beauty is vanity (Mishlei 31:30), to the generations of Moshe
and Chizkiyahu. These generations
saw the revealed miracles of the splitting of the Red
Sea and the wiping out of Sancherivs army. Such miracles look impressive, but
religious life is not about such things.
A woman that fears God should be praised refers to the generation of R.
Yehuda bar Ilai, when six people shared one cloak to study Torah. No miracle warmed them up or provided
extra clothing, but they still studied with diligence.
This approach
explains the following Talmudic discrepancy. One gemara (Shabbat 118b)
identifies daily recital of hallel with blasphemy, whereas another
gemara (Berakhot 4b) says that a person who says Tehilla
Le-David each day merits the World to Come. R. Meir Simcha explains that
hallel, which we say on festivals, thanks God for miraculously changing
the natural order. Tehilla
Le-David (which we commonly refer to as Ashrei) offers gratitude for
the natural order itself. Someone
who recites hallel daily indicates that only miracles deserve thanks, but
nature does not. This indifference
or rejection of Gods masterful creation borders on the
blasphemous.
Tehilla Le-David
thanks God for the
everyday world; therefore, it is appropriate to say it daily. Berakhot 4b states that this
prayer has great value for two reasons: the opening letter of each verse forms
an acrostic of the Hebrew alphabet, and the verse You open Your hand and
satisfy every living creature (Tehillim 145:16) is especially
meaningful. According to
R. Meir
Simcha, these are not disparate positive qualities but rather
jointly form an integrated message.
The predictable regularity of an acrostic symbolizes the consistency of
nature. For the same reason,
the first berakha of keriat shema, a blessing about Gods
creation, includes an acrostic every Shabbat morning. The verse about opening Your hand
conveys the fact that this natural order enables so many creatures to
survive. Someone who says this
prayer each day and internalizes the wonders of the divine handiwork will find a
place in the World to Come.
The ability to
recognize God in nature manifests religious depth. Adam knew God from direct
experience and passed that tradition down to Metushelach. After knowledge of God gave way to
idolatrous beliefs, Avraham was the first to discern Gods existence from
nature. Since Avraham initiated
that aspect of religious consciousness, the gemara (Berakhot 7b)
says that Avraham was the first person to refer to God as Adon, a new
form of address recognizing this aspect of God.
R. Meir
Simcha adopts a form of the
argument from design. If
happenstance led to the emergence of the animal kingdom, then the same
historical contingencies should cause many more species to become extinct. The basic stability of the animal
kingdom points to the existence of a Creator.
An excessive interest
in the miraculous also reveals a lack of refined discernment. R. Meir Simcha says that noble
people revere a great man for his wisdom and character. The masses, on the other
hand, stand in awe of wild deeds that seem to break natural boundaries. In Egypt, everyone
revered Moshe, but for different reasons.
The man Moshe was very great in the land of Egypt in the eyes of Pharaohs servants
and in the eyes of the people (Shemot 11:3). This verse refers to the two groups
impressed by Moshe. Servants of
Pharaoh refers to the wise men of Egypt, who were astounded by Moshes
humility and intelligence; the people means the common Egyptians, who were
impressed by his signs and wonders.
Showing keen
psychological insight, R.
Meir Simcha argues that each group invariably influences the
other. If all the wise men honor an
individual, the masses see this and want to honor him as well. Conversely, if the masses admire
someone, this influences the intellectuals also. Interestingly, the elite are not immune
to influence from the popular voice.
The above verse, which refers to Moshe as a man, focuses on Moshes
ability within nature. In that
case, he first impacts on the servants of Pharaoh and it then trickles down to
the people.
R. Meir
Simcha finds an analogous
theme within Tehilla Le-David.
All Your works shall praise You and Your pious ones shall bless You
To
make known to the sons of men His might and the glorious majesty of His kingdom
(Tehillim 145: 10, 12). The
pious need not witness miracles to discern the greatness of God Gods
works suffice. However, the sons
of men lack this appreciation for nature.
They only want to talk about divine might and glorious majesty as
manifest in His miracles.
At the same time, we
should not identify R. Meir
Simcha with the philosophic position of R. Levi ben Gershom, who
emphasizes general Providence more than
individual Providence. R. Meir Simcha strongly believes in
individual Providence for humanity, but he
believes that individual Providence becomes manifest within the natural
order. Those who fulfill the
divine will receive help in a naturalistic manner. Despite the absence of an open miracle,
Avraham attributes his military victory over the four kings to God. I lifted up my hand to God
(Bereishit 14:22). That
explains why Avraham refuses to take from the spoils of war. He views them as belonging to God more
than to himself. One midrash
(Bereishit Rabba 43:9) compares Avrahams praise of God after the victory
to the Jews rapturously singing to God after the splitting of the Red Sea. Just
as Am Yisrael saw the divine hand in the open miracle, Avraham detected
divine influence in a naturalistic battle.
R. Meir
Simcha rejects the notion
that God is too exalted to care about particular human beings. He roots the prohibition against praying
to any being other than God in the assumption that God cares about individual
people. Those who think that God
handed over managing the world to intermediaries might want to pray to these
lower governors. Since we deny such
a notion, God remains the sole address of our supplications.
Nor should we think
that individual Providence is restricted to those already
intensely cleaving to the way of God. God provides the manna before He
gives the Jewish people the Torah in order to establish this point. Anyone who makes a basic commitment to
follow God can count on some material support. Nonetheless, not everyone receives the
same intensity of Providence. Degrees of Providence depend upon the
quality of the person
and that persons ability to stay connected to God.
Individual Providence does not apply
to the animal kingdom. God
insures that species survive but does not watch particular animals. This distinction helps R. Meir Simcha explain a
verse in Shema. What does it
mean that one must love God be-khol meodekha? One interpretation cited by Rashi
(Devarim 6:5) says that we should love God with regard to every
midda or attribute with which He deals with us. We love Him in response to bounty and
reward and in response to hardship and punishment. R. Meir Simcha argues that the
animal kingdom could never view the punishment of a particular animal as an act
of God, but people can think in those terms.
He adds another
insightful explanation of this verse.
Animals want to achieve immediate gratification. They will not endure
hardships and danger for the sake of a long term plan. A human being can overcome his natural
inclination to avoid difficulty and take on something difficult that leads to a
better end. Thus, only humans can
understand how a punishment might prove helpful, either to achieve atonement or
to purify character.
, full_html
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!