Trials and Suffering

          We are moving back in time this week, to right after Avraham finally manages to arrive in the Land of Israel.  A strange thing takes place.  No sooner does he arrive, then a famine strikes the land and he is obliged to go down to Egypt, where there is food.  It seems amazingly ironic - Avraham leaves his homeland, his father's house, and his family, to travel to the promised land - and immediately leaves it for another land, one which to anyone familiar with Biblical geography, cannot fail but be identified as the opposite of the promised land.  Egypt, which we know as the land of oppression! What is going on?

1. Famine

"And there was a famine in the land" (Bereishit 12,10).  R. Pinchas in the name of R. Chanin of Tzippori began: "Blessed is the man who is chastened by You, God" (Psalms 94).  But if he complains, then "Teach him from Your Torah" (ibid.). 

What is written concerning Avraham? "I will bless you and make your name great." As soon as he departed, a famine fell on him, but he did not criticize and did not complain.  Rather, "Avraham went to Egypt to live there." (40,2)

          The midrash is stating that the misfortune which befell Avraham is not accidental, or due to some sort of "oversight" on the part of God, nor does the midrash offer an explanation based on any sin committed by Avraham.  The famine is indeed to be viewed as a direct action of God directed specifically to Avraham, which is intended to bring him to suffer (the verb translated as "chastened" from Psalms 94 literally means "to make one suffer").  The verse teaches us that Avraham is to be considered "blessed," as is anyone who would merit (or suffer) this fate.  The proper response is "taught us from Your Torah" - like Avraham, one is not to complain or criticize, but to accept.

"And there was a famine in the land." R. Yehoshua b. Levi began: "He gave meat ("teref") to His adherents" (Psalms 111) - He gave disturbances ("tiruf") to His adherents in this world - but in the next world, "He will remember for ever His covenant" (ibid.). 

What is written concerning Avraham? "I will bless you and make your name great." As soon as he departed, a famine fell on him, but he did not criticize and did not complain.  Rather, "Avraham went to Egypt to live there." (40,2)

          Both of these midrashim emphasize the quiet acceptance of Avraham, despite the apparent contradiction between his immediate fate and the promise still fresh in his mind.  The second midrash adds a note concerning these sorts of misfortunes - they are only temporary, in this world.  On the other hand, the midrash makes clear that the fate of the righteous man who suffers in this world is in apparent contradiction to God's remembrance of His covenant - and hence the necessity of referring the "forever" of "He will remember forever His covenant" to the next, future world, the world of eternity. 

          What is the meaning, the purpose, of the suffering and disturbances?  The first midrash implies that there is a positive purpose, for he who suffers by God's hands is blessed.  Philosophers and commentators have investigated this idea over the years, and we shall examine one approach shortly.  But it is striking that the midrash itself does not seem to offer any guidance - at most, a clue, or rather the hint of a clue.  The second midrash seems to skirt the philosophic problem of justification - theodicy - entirely, only emphasizing that while the apparent injustice of this world is conceded, the covenant will be remembered - and remembered forever, eternally and presumably in infinite measure - in the next world.

          Let us continue with the midrash itself.  The next part of the midrash records a particular feature of the phenomenon under discussion, and although it appears to be somewhat peripheral at first glance, I believe it can at least give us an idea of the central motive in this type of suffering.

Ten famines came to the world.  The first was in the time of Adam….  And the tenth will be in the future, as is written, "Not a famine of bread and not a thirst of water, but rather to hear the word of God" (Amos 9).

R. Huna and R. Yirmiya in the name of R. Shmuel b. R. Yitzchak said: The main force (of the seventh famine in the list) struck during the time of David, but it should have been in the time of Shaul.  However, because Shaul was a "sycamore sapling" (a weak branch of a tree which bears poor fruit), God rolled it over and brought it in the days of David.  Shilo sins and Yochani pays!

That is why all of the famines come in the days of mighty men who can bear them and not in the days of broken men who cannot bear them.

R. Chiya the Great said: This is like the glassblower, who has a container of cups and vessels.  When he desires to hang up the container, he takes a peg and bangs it into the wall and hangs from it, and only afterwards does he hang the container on it.  That is why they do not come in the days of broken men but in the days of mighty men who can bear them.  (40,3)

          Suffering, as all three of these midrashim seem to emphasize, is not only not strange to the righteous, but is, on the contrary, directed especially to them, if for no other reason than that they are "mighty, who can bear it." And while this is indeed a "tiruf," an upsetting of the proper order, the covenant is not broken thereby, for "He will remember His covenant forever."

          It is quite clear that these midrashim are not actually attempting to provide an explanation for suffering in general, nor that of the righteous.  However, there is one hint in the parable of R. Chiya the Great. 

R. Chiya is exemplifying the idea that God tests the righteous to see if they are strong enough to bear whatever He has in mind.  But the parable suggests more than that.  In the parable, two things are hung on the peg, first the glassblower himself, and secondly, when the peg has proven strong enough, the container with his fragile produce.  Why does the glassblower not hand the container directly? The answer is obvious - the fall of the container, if the peg proves weak, will result in the shattering of all his glass.  If the righteous one - Avraham or David - is the peg, then the famine is God's demonstrating his strength in order that he will also bear the weight of God's purpose.  Furthermore, why does the glassblower hang up the container in the first place? Obviously, in order to publicize his produce and sell it.  So God's purpose, if the parallelism holds, is to publicize His purpose - the sanctification of His name.  That the whole world should see and learn some important lesson, it is necessary to have a mighty tzaddik who can bear the weight of the world and its sorrows and thereby demonstrate to others how they should act.  The famine, at least for the righteous one, is a test, to show that he can bear the weight of the sorrows of this world.  The ultimate purpose though is not the famine itself, but the attendant kiddush HaShem, the sanctification of God's name.

Rav Chiya's parable seems to view the famine as a test, what is called in Hebrew a "nisayon." This word is not used in any of these midrashim, nor in the verses dealing with famines, but several commentators have connected our midrash about famines with the concept of nisayon. 

2. Trial

The most famous "nisayon" in the Torah is the akeida, Avraham's binding of Isaac.  We will, naturally, devote considerable time to the midrashic commentary on the akeida, since, as you can of course imagine, the midrash deals extensively with that great topic.  At this point, I wish merely to examine the use of our midrash by the commentators in explaining the concept of nisayon in the Torah.

On the opening verse of the akeida - "And God tried Avraham" (Bereishit 22,1) - the Ramban comments:

The concept of "nisayon" is, in my opinion, based on the fact that all human actions are absolutely free - if he wills it, he does it, and if not, he does not.  Something is called a nisayon from the point of view of the one undergoing the trial.  He who imposes the trial (i.e., God) does so in order to bring a potentiality to actuality, so that the individual should have the reward of a good action and not merely the reward of a good heart. 

Know that the Righteous God tries only when He knows that the righteous individual will do His will, and God wishes to justify him, so that He subjects him to a trial.  He does not, however, try the evil ones, who will not obey.  So you see that all the trials of the Torah are for the good of the one tried.

While he does not state this explicitly, it is clear that the Ramban is referring in his closing remarks to our midrash.  The Ramban's point is that since the purpose of the nisayon is to have the good personality traits of the tzaddik become actual and be expressed in action, it follows that God has no interest in seeing one fail the test; hence He only tests those He knows will be able to bear it.

Even closer to the implicit idea of R. Chiya's parable is this statement in the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya (Shemot 16,4):

Know that the main point of the nisayon that God tries His creatures is to publicize the belief that He rewards the righteous and punishes the transgressors.  The nisayon is not a need of God's, for He knows the secrets of the heart, but it is to inform the creatures of the world that which they do not know.  For this reason, God tries the righteous, as is written, "God tries the righteous" (Psalms 11), in order to publicize the extent of the obligation to serve (God) when he passes the test.

There is an important difference between these two comments (though the points need not be mutually exclusive).  The Ramban is explaining why suffering is beneficial for the righteous, since it leads ultimately to his receiving a full measure of reward - the reward commensurate with good deeds which otherwise would have remained only potential.  Rabbeinu Bachya does not see any benefit for the righteous in the "test," but rather sees it as a vehicle for educating others.  The tzaddik suffers for the glory of God in the world and bears on his back, so to speak, the burden of God's task in this world. 

If you go back and read the first pair of midrashim quoted in section A, which directly commented on the famine of Avraham, it is immediately apparent that the comments of Rabbeinu Bachya and the Ramban reflect the two midrashim respectively.  Rabbeinu Bachya sees the purpose of the suffering of the righteous in the message it conveys to others.  This reflects the first of the two midrashim, where Avraham's suffering in the famine was used to draw a lesson for mankind - "Teach him from your Torah."  The Ramban, who sees the ultimate justification of the suffering of the righteous in the engendered reward, is at least partially reflecting the second of the two midrashim, where the suffering of the righteous in this world was compared to the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant in the next..  (Don't take my word - go back and read those two midrashim [40,2 - "and there was famine in the land…."]).

This topic, which is perhaps the most important in the philosophy of religion, obviously deserves a more extensive treatment.  We will, in fact, return to it when we reach the akeida, where the midrash treated it and related topics at length.  Here, I am following the lead of the midrash itself, which seemingly declined to directly attempt to explain the phenomenon of suffering, but only offered some hints of how one should basically confront it.  There is, however, one last point we should notice, even if it is implicit in a mere single short line in the midrash.

Immediately after the conclusion we read that God brings famines and suffering on the mighty, and not on broken men who could not bear it, we find the following additional line:

R. Brechya would recite on this verse, "He gives strength to the weary" (Is. 40).

The commentators all explain that this supports the conclusion that a nisayon will not be imposed on one who can not bear it; hence, God will ensure that one receive enough strength to endure.  However, we cannot help but notice that while this statement reflects the same principle as the preceding statements, in fact it posits the opposite.  For while the preceding statements declared that God will only try the mighty, R. Brechya implies that He might indeed try the weak, but that He will provide the strength as needed.  In other words, the preceding midrash, limiting the experience only to the "mighty," would appear, in the troubled times in which the Sages were writing, in the years of exile and persecution, when the Jewish spirit was weary and worn, that there might be no one who could bear the burden of God's Name in the world.  R. Brechya answers that the trial is in fact not purely one sided - God testing, and Man being tested.  God imposes the trial, but then He turns and bears part of the burden Himself.  God is not an adversary in the nisayon, but a helping hand and a source of strength.  He who is weary from bearing the burden of God's Name in the world is also granted additional strength to succeed, for, as we saw, God is not interested in the test but in its success. 

----------------

Next week:

Avraham's trip to Egypt: 40,4; 40,6