Daf 5a - El Maleh Rakhamim?
Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture
16: Daf 5a - El Maleh Rakhamim?
The Gemara
now turns to one of the most profound and disturbing issues in all of religious
thought: Why is there suffering in this world, and, in particular, why do the
righteous suffer? While this problem has bothered thinkers of many cultures, it
is particularly pressing for Jews and others who subscribe to the belief in
ethical monotheism. Ethical
monotheism declares that not only is the world controlled by a single,
all-powerful Divine entity, but that this God of the heaven and earth is also
supremely moral and good. For
polytheists, the existence of suffering in this world can be explained by the
fact that the universe is ruled by a number of gods who are often in conflict
with one another. None of the gods
are all-powerful or necessarily paragons of morality, and some are downright
evil. So it is hardly shocking that
sometimes the gods unleash all sorts of pain and destruction on both individuals
and entire communities. However, a
God who is both all-powerful and all good should be able to prevent the
suffering of his loyal servants. His
failure to do so would seem to imply, heaven forefend, that either He is not
all-powerful or He is not all good, or He is neither of the two.
The Rabbis
are thus challenged to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of apparently
senseless suffering in this world.
As Professor Yaakov Elman has argued in a series of articles, the Rabbis of
Babylonia invoke a much wider and richer array of possible explanations of
suffering in the world than do their compatriots in the Land of Israel. In this passage, we see a sampling of
the methods that the Babylonian Talmud proposed to deal with the question of
suffering.
The sugya
opens with a statement of Reish Lakish (R. Shimon b. Lakish):
R. Shimon b.
Lakish says:
If one
studies the Torah,
painful
sufferings are kept away from him.
For it is
said:
And the sons
of reshef fly upward.
The word
uf refers only to the Torah,
as it is
written:
'Wilt thou
cause thine eyes to close upon it?
It is gone'.
And 'reshef'
refers only to painful sufferings,
as it is
said:
'The wasting
of hunger, and the devouring of the reshef [fiery bolt].
The reader
may recall that this passage is nearly identical to the saying of R. Yitzchak
that immediately preceded it in the Talmud.
(As we mentioned, the Ein Yaakov has a slightly different order, which we
have followed). The only difference
is that R. Yitzchak uses this exact same sequence of verses to prove that those
who recite the bedtime Shema will be safe from mazikin (demons). Reish Lakish thus substitutes Torah
study for Shema and suffering for demons.
We have already noted that R. Yitzchaks derasha itself conflates
the saying of Shema with Torah study, because his proof speaks only of
learning Torah and not of saying the Shema. We have also discussed how the
Shema is, in part, a form of Torah study, and may even be viewed as the
quintessential type of Torah study.
Thus it is hardly surprising that Reish Lakishs version deals exclusively with
Torah study.
Reish
Lakishs use of suffering to replace demons is perhaps of greater
significance. This substitution
suggests an inherent relationship between demons and suffering, just as there is
an inherent relationship between Torah study and the Shema. Though Reish Lakish does not say so
explicitly, his statement suggests that he believes that suffering in this world
is either caused by demons or by some similar set of forces.
Reish Lakish
does not explain why there is suffering in this world. He seems to take its existence for
granted. Whether we attribute it to
demons or the collective causality of the laws of nature, suffering is an
integral part of the way the world works.
God created a world in which suffering is inevitable and apparently
unrelated to ones deeds. However,
God gave His people a way of avoiding this suffering the study of Torah. The question for Reish Lakish is not,
why did God bring suffering to this world? But rather, how can Gods servants
avoid this suffering?
Reish
Lakishs teacher and frequent disputant, R. Yochanan, challenges his view:
R. Yochanan
said to him:
This
is known even to school children.
For it is
said:
And He said:
If thou wilt
diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God,
and wilt do
that which is right in His eyes,
and wilt give
ear to His commandments,
and keep all
His statutes,
I will put
none of the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians;
for I am the
Lord that healeth thee (Shemot 15:26).
R. Yochanan
does not dispute that Torah study can save one from suffering. Rather, he sees it as obvious,
because the Torah itself states explicitly that the observance of all the
mitzvot will lead God to protect the Jewish people from suffering. Torah study is a fundamental part of
mitzva observance and hence obviously leads to Divine protection. There is no need for an elaborate
explication of an obscure verse in Iyov to prove this point, when it is
stated explicitly in a well known verse from Shemot.
Thus far, R.
Yochanan also agrees with Reish Lakishs model of the place of suffering in the
world. Suffering is a given; it is
part of the way the world is set up.
God, however, has given the Jews a way of avoiding this suffering by doing the
mitzvot.
With R.
Yochanans next statement, he veers into a rather different understanding of
suffering:
Rather [you
should say]:
If one has
the opportunity to study the Torah and does not study it,
the Holy One,
blessed be He,
visits him
with ugly and painful sufferings which stir him up.
For it is
said:
I was dumb
with silence,
I kept
silence from the good thing,
and my pain
was stirred up (Tehillim 39:3).
'The good thing' refers only to the
Torah,
as it is
said:
For I give
you good doctrine; forsake ye not My teaching (torati) (Mishlei
4:2).
R. Yochanan
begins his statement with the word rather, suggesting that he is offering an
alternative to Reish Lakishs statement.
However, the relationship between these two statements is far from clear. R. Yochanan has already presented an
alternative verse whose meaning subsumes Reish Lakishs teaching and, as such,
has already made his theological point.
At first, it might seem that R. Yochanan seeks to present an alternate
interpretation of the verses used by Reish Lakish. However, it soon becomes apparent
that R. Yochanans statement is based on his explication of a different set of
verses.
Possibly,
Reish Lakishs statement was based on an earlier tradition. Having shown this statement to be
superfluous, R. Yochanan now wants to present a better version of this
statement, which preserves much of the wording, but makes a point that is not
made elsewhere. Alternatively, R.
Yochanan simply uses Reish Lakishs discussion of the relationship between
suffering and Torah study to present his own ideas on the matter.
R. Yochanan posits a rather different
view of suffering. While doing the
commandments may protect one from suffering, suffering does not just come
randomly or as part of the course of nature.
At least sometimes, suffering comes as a punishment for improper deeds. This is the classic biblical
perspective on suffering. However,
R. Yochanan goes one step further.
One can be punished for sins of omission, as well as those of commission. Merely the failure to take advantage
of the opportunity to learn Torah can lead to unspeakable pain and suffering.
With regard
to R. Yochanans reading of the verse, a few comments are in order. First, R. Yochanans explanation of
the word tov as meaning Torah is probably partially rooted in the fact
that it is not at all clear what this word means in its context. The translation cited in the English
text above assumes that the word means good as it usually does, rendering the
line, I kept silence from the good thing. But it is not at all clear what this
good thing is, or why one would keep silent about it in this context. As such, the JPS translation renders
these words as I was very still with a note providing other instances in the
Bible where the word tov means very.
Similarly, Amos Chakham, in his Daat Mikra commentary on
Tehillim, lists a series of possible meanings other than good for the word
tov in this context. As is
often the case, practitioners of midrash find biblical texts whose
meaning is ambiguous or problematic to be especially productive locales for
practicing their art.
R. Yochanan
also suggests a new reading of the syntax of this verse. JPS renders the key phrase as I was
very still/ while my pain was intense.
The use of the word while suggests that the stillness (or silence)
was simultaneous with the pain. This
would appear to be the simple meaning of the words. In order to better capture the
relationship between the stillness and the pain, one could render the phrase as:
I was very still/ despite the fact that my pain was intense. R.
Yochanan, in contrast, translates the text literally as, I was very still/
and my pain was intense. This and is understood not only as signifying
sequence, but also causality. Not
only does the pain strike after the silence, but it comes as a result of the
silence. The pain or suffering is a
punishment for the silence, here understood as the neglect of Torah study.
The Gemara
continues with a further explication of the Mishlei verse quoted by R.
Yochanan at the end of his statement:
R. Zera (some
say, R. Chanina b. Papa) says:
Come and see
how the way of human beings
differs from
the way of the Holy One, blessed be He.
It is the way
of human beings
that when a
man sells a valuable object to his fellow,
the seller
grieves and the buyer rejoices.
The Holy One,
blessed be He, however, is different.
He gave the
Torah to Israel and rejoiced.
For it is
said:
For I give
you good doctrine; forsake ye not My teaching.
This little
homily could easily be seen as a digression from the main focus of the passage. It may have been cited almost
mechanically by the transmitters of the Talmud in response to the citation of
the verse from Mishlei.
However, given that Torah study is a central concern of the Gemara here, it
seems that the placement of these lines is not a coincidence. Rather, this discussion invites a
comparison between the giving of the Torah and the infliction of suffering, for
which the Torah is an antidote. Both
the Torah and suffering come from God.
However, whereas the Torah brings joy both to God and those humans who
receive it, suffering brings joy neither to God nor to His creatures upon whom
He inflicts it.
The Gemara
now returns to the question of suffering:
Rava (some
say, R. Chisda) says:
If a man sees
that painful sufferings visit him,
let him
examine his conduct.
For it is
said:
Let us
search and try our ways, and return unto the Lord (Eikha 3:40).
If he
examines and finds nothing [objectionable],
let him
attribute it to the neglect of the study of the Torah.
For it is
said:
Happy is the
man whom Thou chastenest, O Lord,
and teachest
out of Thy law (Tehillim 94:12)
If he did
attribute it [thus], and still did not find [this to be the cause],
let him be
sure that these are chastenings of love.
For it is
said:
For whom the
Lord loveth He correcteth (Mishlei 3:12).
This passage
starts out with what we identified as the traditional understanding of the cause
of suffering: Suffering is a punishment for sin.
Hence the first response of an individual who is experiencing suffering
should be to examine his or her deeds, searching for sins, and repent for them.
However, the
Gemara here is aware that the simple equation of sin and suffering does not
always work. Not everyone who
suffers is, in fact, a sinner.
A person who
can find no sins on which to pin his suffering should assume that the cause is
bitul Torah, neglect of Torah study. This recalls R. Yochanans statement
that one who fails to study when given the opportunity will be subjected to
terrible afflictions. I think that
there is actually a significant difference between the two statements. R. Yochanan seems to be talking about
a person who has the opportunity to devote a significant amount of time and
energy to Torah study and fails to do so.
This is suggested by his use of the term la'asok ba-Torah, perhaps
best translated as to be involved with Torah. In contrast, Rava here refers to
bitul Torah, which can mean neglecting to learn Torah for even a few
seconds. Thus the Tosefta Shabbat
7:5 discusses the permissibility of saying merapeh after sneezing, the
ancient equivalent of our Gezuntheit!
R. Elazar b. R. Tzadok rules that while such a practice may not be
considered a prohibited superstition, as first suggested, it should not be done
because of bitul Torah. Bitul
Torah is thus a sin that is almost impossible to avoid. Even the most diligent scholar is
guilty, at times, of a momentary lapse of attention. Avoiding bitul Torah is thus
not a halakhic requirement like that of Torah study. It is all-encompassing, impinging on
every moment of our existence. As
such, the Rabbis often use bitul Torah, as they do here, to explain
suffering when there is no apparent sin.
But even this explanation is not fully satisfying. Suffering appears to be so universal
that it afflicts even the rare individual who cannot be suspected of bitul
Torah. In order to account
for such situations, Rava introduces the concept of yisurin shel ahava,
translated here as chastenings of love.
By introducing this concept, Rava rejects the supposition that all
suffering is a punishment for sin.
Indeed, sometimes people suffer precisely because they are beloved by God. Thus far, the reason that God would
want to do such things to the righteous is not explained. We are merely told that the
phenomenon exists. In the next
section Rava presents a partial explanation for yisurin shel ahava:
Rava, in the
name of R. Sahora, in the name of R. Huna, says:
If the Holy
One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man,
he crushes
him with painful sufferings.
For it is
said:
And the Lord
was pleased with [him, hence]
he crushed
him by disease (Yishayahu 53:10).
Now, you
might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said:
To see if
his soul would offer itself as a trespass-offering (ibid.).
Even as the
trespass-offering must be brought by consent,
so also the
sufferings must be endured with consent.
And if he did
accept them,
what is his
reward?
He will see
his seed, prolong his days (ibid).
And more than
that,
his knowledge
[of the Torah] will endure with him.
For it is
said:
The purpose
of the Lord will prosper in his hand (ibid).
This passage
is focused on a verse from Yishayahu 53, the famous suffering servant
chapter from which Christians draw much of their own theology of suffering. The Gemara is also drawn to this
passage, with its dramatic account of human suffering. However, the Gemara does not cite the
verses from this chapter that explain why this servant of God must
suffer. The prophet states
repeatedly that the servant suffers for the sins of others. As it states at the outset of the
chapter:
Yet it was
our sickness that he was bearing,
Our suffering
that he endured,
We accounted
him plagued,
Smitten and
afflicted by God,
But he was
wounded because of our sins,
Crushed
because of our iniquities.
He bore the
chastisement that made us whole,
And by his
bruises we are healed.
We all went
away like sheep,
Each going
his own way;
And the Lord
visited upon him
The guilt of
all of us (vv.4-6).
The Rabbis
here do not ignore this option because they found it theologically problematic
in light of the Christian appropriation of it.
Indeed, the idea that the righteous suffer for the sins of others is
found in the Talmud. Rather, they do
not focus on this idea because it is not part of their current agenda. In this passage, the Gemara derives a
very different understanding of the suffering of the righteous based on their
reading of verse 10 of the chapter.
What strikes the Rabbis most about this verse is the comparison of suffering to
a sacrifice. By inflicting suffering
on the righteous, God gives them an extra opportunity to serve Him. Suffering itself may be meaningless,
but a person can accept this suffering as a gift and, in turn, offer it up to
God as a sacrifice. Suffering can
thus be the basis of what is perhaps the most sublime form of Divine service.
The Gemara
then lists the rewards for this service as listed in the verse. The Rabbis understand these rewards
as long life for the servant and his immediate progeny, and success in Torah
study. It is interesting that a
discussion of yisurin shel ahava, which effectively denies the notion of
fair recompense for ones deeds in this world, actually promises that those who
undergo this suffering and accept it accordingly will receive earthly recompense
for it.
The Gemara
thus far has presented a series of possible understandings of suffering. Suffering may be an inevitable
function of the natural world which can only be prevented by Torah study and
doing mitzvot. Alternatively,
suffering may be a punishment for our sins, even sins as apparently minor as
neglecting Torah study for a few minutes.
Finally, suffering may be an opportunity given by God to a select few, to
enable them to worship Him at the highest possible level.
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!