Relatively speaking, it is a simple matter, one that comes up quite often—a case in which the text, as we have it, seems to contradict the reality that we live with. Any investigative, Torah-observant person will be forced to confront such discrepancies frequently. There are many different ways to deal with these questions and not everybody is bothered by all occurrences. But every so often, one apparent inconsistency finds itself, for some reason, in a unique position to overthrow a person’s faith. For someone who cares deeply about third-world children, for example, the statement that “He gives bread to all flesh,” will have a special significance. And this one small infection in an otherwise healthy belief-system may quickly spread until every minor challenge seems inescapable and, eventually, it feels entirely foolish and dishonest to do anything other than abandon Halacha.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
19. Grace After Meals
When there are so many people starving in the world, how can we say that God “gives bread to all”?
Relatively speaking, it is a simple matter, one that comes up quite often—a case in which the text, as we have it, seems to contradict the reality that we live with. Any investigative, Torah-observant person will be forced to confront such discrepancies frequently. There are many different ways to deal with these questions and not everybody is bothered by all occurrences. But every so often, one apparent inconsistency finds itself, for some reason, in a unique position to overthrow a person’s faith. For someone who cares deeply about third-world children, for example, the statement that “He gives bread to all flesh,” will have a special significance. And this one small infection in an otherwise healthy belief-system may quickly spread until every minor challenge seems inescapable and, eventually, it feels entirely foolish and dishonest to do anything other than abandon Halacha.
Relatively speaking, it is a simple matter, one that comes up quite often—a case in which the text, as we have it, seems to contradict the reality that we live with. Any investigative, Torah-observant person will be forced to confront such discrepancies frequently. There are many different ways to deal with these questions and not everybody is bothered by all occurrences. But every so often, one apparent inconsistency finds itself, for some reason, in a unique position to overthrow a person’s faith. For someone who cares deeply about third-world children, for example, the statement that “He gives bread to all flesh,” will have a special significance. And this one small infection in an otherwise healthy belief-system may quickly spread until every minor challenge seems inescapable and, eventually, it feels entirely foolish and dishonest to do anything other than abandon Halacha.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your piece was beautiful and inspiring. My question is: if an individual says that it is only the belief in one's self that can be defended, that is responsible -- that all the apparent truths outside of us are beyond our apprehension -- what would you respond? Is it comfort we seek when we attempt to see in the world and its forces -- a nest? Is it there? What is the true value of an external system? A hope, a longing -- or a reality?
I. Borg
The uniqueness of Torah may actually be found in the very fact that it acknowledges these questions and recognizes them to be an inherent part of the human condition. Even in terms of Avraham Avinu, while he eventually found God he spent many years dealing with the question and experimenting with other thoughts. Yitro was a similar individual having partaked in all known forms of avodah zara. We not only celebrate the conclusion but the very process in that these great men are praised for being involved in their very struggle. Indeed while religions in general attack the very act of quetioning, Torah accepts that it must be part of humanity efforts. They are, in a certain way, part of Torah.
So the question is further rightfully asked: does it not seem that we only encourage questioning by one outside the system -- thereby allowing for the possibility of that person accepting Torah -- but we actually discourage questioning by one inside the system -- thus preventing the possibility of that person leaving Torah? Is that inherently contradictory and even manipulative? My response is that one must act based upon one's beliefs and if one believes Torah to be true, that individual has to advise another aswell based on this truth. So it should be accepted that one within Torah will apply that system, as well, in giving advice and the result will include a bias towards the truth of the system. Yet, there is a difference between advising based upon one's of what is and intentionally manipulating another and stating that which one really does not believe. It is thus not correct for one who believes that one should not question to, for the purposes of kiruv, states that questioning is what a person must do yet, when this person becomes frum to state that questioing itself is wrong. It is another matter, though, in regard to the questioning, to respond to a question on Torah with an answer that one must give oneself time to find the answer yet did not offer that allowance for time in the process of kiruv. It may be -- and should be -- that the one immersed in Torah thought has enough evidence to argue for patience in the study of Torah. He does not have to extend that patience to another system for which he does not have this evidence.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
I. -
Thank you for writing.
Is belief a feeling? A self-fulfilling prophesy? Does it start, somewhere, with a desire to believe? Only later to have its own legs? And then to exist outside of me, to control me, to direct me?
Or can I say that my belief exists outside of me? That I am not a victim of my belief (or my belief a victim of me), but that it is a reality of mine, like the colour of my eyes or the names of my grandparents?
And if this question cannot be answered -- and I don't think it can be -- then it is difficult to distinguish ever between a belief in Self and a belief in something outside of Self. I understand the distinction, and that it has relevance from within the framework of belief, but if I am to consider the validity of the belief --
Well.
There is something to attempting a foot-planted stance in the world of belief, and since it is, I think, an internal dialogue for everyone -- or if there is a dialogue at all, it is internal first -- then it might be limiting to delve exclusively into the abstract Self when the tangible Self -- the world as you perceive it -- might be --
Well.
I don't know what I would say, I..
What would you say?
Post a Comment