Daf 7a - The evil that men do lives on?
Ein Yaakov - The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture #27: Daf 7a
The evil that men do
lives on?
The next statement in the series that R. Yochanan presents in the name
of R. Yosi returns to the passage in Shemot 33:12-16, which we discussed
earlier on this daf (double-sided page of Talmud). This passage contains
Moshes pleas with God to remain with His people following the sin of the golden
calf.
R.
Yochanan further said in the name of R. Yosi:
Three
things did Moshe ask of the Holy One, blessed be He,
and they
were granted to him.
He asked
that
the
Divine Presence should rest upon Israel,
and it
was granted to him.
Is it
not in that Thou goest with us (Shemot 33:16).
He asked
that
the
Divine Presence should not rest upon the idolaters,
and it
was granted to him.
For it
is said:
So that
we are distinguished, I and Thy people
[from
all the people that are upon the face of the earth] (ibid.).
He asked
that
He should show him the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, and it was
granted to him.
For it
is said: Show me now Thy ways (ibid. 13).
In the biblical passage, Moshe asks God to go with us. The exact
meaning and implication of this request are not entirely clear. The Gemara here
rephrases this as Moshes request that the Divine presence should rest on
Israel. The rephrasing still does not clarify exactly what Moshe wants. The
phrase used here, hasharat ha-shekhina, is often used by the rabbis with
reference to the Mishkan and the Beit Ha-mikdash. The Gemara could
mean that Moshe requested that God allow the building of the Mishkan
despite Israels sins. This is Cassuttos interpretation of the peshat in
these verses. However, in Bava Batra 15b, we find a passage that closely
parallels our Gemara. There, the Gemara understands Moshes request for
hasharat ha-shekhina as referring to the continuation of prophecy in Israel.
Moshes second request is for there to be no prophecy among the nations. In sum,
Moshe demands for the people of Israel exclusive privileges to Divine
communications. Prophecy is seen as one of the distinguishing features of the
Jewish people and their relationship with God. This position was adopted by R.
Yehuda Ha-levi in his Kuzari.
Moshes final request is to know Gods ways. The Gemara explains this
request as relating to theodicy, an issue that has
already received considerable attention in this chapter of the Gemara:
Moshe said before Him:
Lord of the Universe,
why is it that some righteous men prosper
and others are in adversity,
some wicked men prosper
and others are in adversity?
He replied to him:
Moshe, the righteous man who prospers
is the righteous man the son of a righteous man;
the righteous man who is in adversity
is a righteous man the son of a wicked man.
The wicked man who prospers
is a wicked man son of a righteous man;
the wicked man who is in adversity
is a wicked man son of a wicked man.
This is the classic
Jewish formulation of the problem of theodicy: Why do the righteous suffer and
the wicked prosper? Underlying this question is an assumption about the moral
autonomy of each human being. Every person is responsible for his or her actions
and only those actions. Therefore, in a just world, ones actions should be
directly correlated with ones Divinely bestowed fate. Sinful behavior should be
punished, and righteous behavior should be rewarded.
God responds that
this assumption is faulty. A persons actions are an important factor in
determining the fate that God assigns to each individual. However, we are not
entirely autonomous actors in the eyes of God. We are inexorably tied up with
the deeds of our forbearers. We may be rewarded or punished on the basis of our
parents deeds, regardless of whether our own deeds make us worthy of such a
fate. We are not just individuals, but part of a chain of descent. A persons
actions affect not only himself, but those further down the chain.
The basis for this
idea in the Torah appears just a few verses after Moshes request to know Gods
ways. In Shemot 34:7, at the end of the famous thirteen Divine attributes
which God reveals to Moshe, we read that God visits the iniquity of parents
upon their children and childrens children, upon the third and fourth
generation. The Gemara apparently understands the revelation of the thirteen
attributes as Gods response to Moshes request to know Gods ways. God
answers that righteous people may suffer if their ancestors were evil-doers, and
evil people may prosper if they are descendants of the righteous. This approach
has the advantage of maintaining the principle that there is no suffering
without sin nor reward without righteousness, while granting that we do not see
such a correlation in our day-to-day lives. We cannot expect to see the
righteous prosper and the evil suffer, because their fates may be driven by the
actions of their long dead ancestors.
As usual, the Gemara
is not satisfied with a simple rule which purports to solve the most fundamental
of theological problems:
The Master said above:
'The righteous man who prospers
is a righteous man son of a righteous man;
the righteous man who is in adversity
is a righteous man son of a wicked man'.
But this is not so!
For, lo, one verse says:
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children (Shemot
34:7).
and another verse says:
Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers (Devarim
24:16).
A contradiction was pointed out between these two verses
and the answer was given that there is no contradiction.
The one verse deals with children
who continue in the same course as their fathers,
and the other verse with children
who do not continue in the course of their fathers!
The Gemara
challenges the notion that individuals suffer for the deeds of their parents and
the exegesis on which it is based. While the verse in Shemot does state
that God punishes people for the sins of their ancestors, a verse in Devarim
seems to say the exact opposite, declaring, Parents shall not be put to death
for the sake of their children, nor children for the sake of their parents. Each
person shall be put to death only for his own crime. The conflict between these
verses could be resolved by arguing that the Shemot verse refers to
Divine justice, whereas Devarim refers to punishments carried out by
human courts. Perhaps inter-generational punishment is a prerogative that God
reserves for Himself. However, the Gemara does not take this approach. The
Gemara seems to see individual accountability as a fundamental moral principle
which even God must adhere to.
The rabbis were
likely influenced by the words of the prophet Yechezkel, who devotes chapter 18
of his book to rejecting the notion that people live or die on the basis of
anything but their own actions. At the beginning of the chapter he declares:
The word of the Lord came to me:
What do you mean by quoting this proverb
upon the soil of Israel,
Parents eat sour grapes
And their childrens teeth are blunted?
As I live, declares the Lord God,
This proverb will no longer be current among you in Israel.
Behold, all lives are Mine;
The life of the parent and the life of the child
Are both Mine.
The person who sins, only he shall die
(Yechezkel 18:1-3).
The Gemara
reinterprets the verse in Shemot to bring it into line with the principle
that God punishes people only for their own actions. The verse means to say that
a person is only punished for the deeds of his parents if he continues in their
ways. From the continuation of this passage, this seems to mean that people are
not directly punished for their parents sins; rather, people tend to be
influenced by their upbringing.
After rejecting the
notion that God deals with people on the basis of their ancestors actions, the
Gemara presents a new theory explaining why, at times, the righteous suffer and
the wicked prosper:
[You must] therefore [say that] the Lord said thus to Moshe:
A righteous man who prospers
is a perfectly righteous man;
the righteous man who is in adversity
is not a perfectly righteous man.
The wicked man who prospers
is not a perfectly wicked man;
the wicked man who is in adversity
is a perfectly wicked man.
The Gemara argues
that its initial premise is true the righteous are rewarded for their deeds,
while the wicked are punished. However, this principle does not explain the
events which we witness on a day-to-day basis, because it works only in
laboratory conditions which are rarely reproduced in the real world. Only the
perfectly righteous and the thoroughly wicked can be expected to lead prosperous
and wretched lives, respectively. But as Kohelet says, There is not one
righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin (7:20) and, similarly,
even the worst sinners do some good at times.
Even if we accept the existence of such pure specimens, only God can
distinguish them from almost perfectly good and almost perfectly bad people.
People are generally a mixture of good and bad. We cannot always know the true
reward and punishment for our deeds. Hence a righteous person who suffers may be
being justly punished for sins he has done, while a sinner who prospers may be
receiving his just desserts for some good he has done.
While this
explanation may work well in theory, in practice it is not always particularly
comforting. We all know individuals who have lead truly virtuous lives, who
nevertheless have endured terrible suffering. We find it hard to believe that
whatever wrongs that person may have done actually outweigh the good they did to
such a degree that their suffering is deserved. So it is hardly surprising that
the Gemara presents yet another explanation of Gods response to Moshes request
to know His ways, to understand the suffering of the righteous:
Now this [saying of R. Yochanan]
is in opposition to the saying of R. Meir.
For R. Meir said:
Only two [requests] were granted to him,
and one was not granted to him.
For it is said:
And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,
although he may not deserve it,
And I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy (Shemot 33:19),
although he may not deserve it.
According to R.
Meir, God never answers Moshes question about the suffering of the righteous.
R. Meir, in effect, rejects all of the
Gemaras discussions in this chapter which seek to justify Gods ways of dealing
out suffering and success to humans in this world. For R. Meir, these debates
are pointless. Even Moshe Rabbeinu did not know the answers to these questions.
Furthermore, the
Gemara here suggests that Gods actions may not be justifiable by any rational
standard. God declares that He dispenses mercy (and by implication, punishment
as well) upon people af al pi she-eino hagun. We have translated this
phrase as although he may not deserve it.
This phrase, however, may be translated even more forcefully as, even
though [this act of mercy] is improper.
Rashi explains God as saying here that My mercy is stirred up
momentarily, even though it is not appropriate (kedai). Rashi implies
that God acts capriciously at times, in ways that are neither wise nor moral. If
the Gemara, as interpreted by Rashi, did not seem to say these things, we would
have no right to accuse God in this way. The Ein Yaakov was so disturbed
by R. Meirs words that he declares in his commentary,[*]
Reason cannot tolerate the possibility that R. Meir means what the
simple reading of his words imply that there is no reason behind His will, may
He be blessed, and that at times He has mercy on individuals who are not
deserving at all. May the Merciful One save us from such a worthless opinion!
Rashi makes a brief statement suggesting, according to the simple reading of his
words, thatHeaven forefend!God changes His will from time to time without any
reason.
After rejecting the
simple reading of the Gemara and Rashi as heretical, Ein Yaakov presents
a lengthy explanation of R. Meirs words, the gist of which is that only God can
ultimately evaluate a persons worthiness. However, we can rest assured that
these Divine determinations are ultimately in accord with reason and justice.
In sum, this passage
presents a series of three different explanations of why the righteous suffer
and the wicked prosper. The first position is that God evaluates us, not as
individuals, but as part of an intergenerational continuum. While this idea has
basis in some parts of the Bible, it is resoundingly rejected in others. Next,
the Gemara suggests that absolute justice exists only for those who are
absolutely righteous or absolutely wicked. For the rest of us, things are more
murky. Finally, R. Meirs argues that Gods ways have not been revealed to man,
with the disturbing implication that His ways may not be just by any
comprehensible standard.
Notably, no mention is made in this passage of the World to Come. Each position
is concerned only with the individuals fate in this world. The Gemara offers no
easy answers to this most profound of questions, only a series of partial
solutions, each one of which is problematic in its own way.
Hide and Seek
The Gemara continues
its discussion of Moshes series of conversations with God following the golden
calf, focusing on Moshes request to see Gods face:
And He
said, Thou canst not see My face (Shemot 33:20)
A Tanna
taught in the name of R. Yehoshua b. Korha:
The Holy
One, blessed be He, spoke thus to Moshe:
When I
wanted, you did not want [to see My face]
now that
as a reward of three [pious acts]
you
want, I do not want.
This is
in opposition to [the interpretation of this verse by]
R.
Shmuel b. Nachmani in the name of R. Yonatan.
For R.
Shmuel b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonatan:
Moshe
was privileged to obtain three [favours].
In
reward of 'And Moshe hid his face' (Shemot 3:6),
he
obtained the brightness of his face.
In
reward of 'For he was afraid' (ibid.),
he
obtained the privilege that
They
were afraid to come nigh him (Shemot 34:30).
In
reward of To look upon God (Shemot 3:6),
he
obtained, The similitude of the Lord doth he behold (Bamidbar 12:8).
This passage in the
Gemara engages two issues of interpretation involving Moshe in the book of
Shemot. The first issue is whether or
not Moshe ever actually saw God. In His dialogue with Moshe following the sin of
the golden calf, God unequivocally states, Thou
canst not see My face, for no man can see my face and live. Yet there are
numerous verses in the Torah that would seem to suggest otherwise. Just a few
verses previously, in the very same chapter, we read, The Lord would speak to
Moshe face to face (33:11). The Gemara does not seek to resolve this
contradiction. Rather, it lets the contradictory positions stand in tension. R.
Yehoshua ben Korha assumes that Moshe never saw Gods face, while
R. Shmuel b. Nachmani assumes that Moshe did see it. The
Gemara seems to respond to the contradiction in verses with, These and these
are the words of the living God.
Notably, even
R. Yehoshua ben Korha
agrees that Moshe could have seen God. Moshe was
simply denied this privilege due to his previous behavior. This directly
contradicts the verse that
R. Yehoshua ben Korha himself cites, which clearly states
that it is impossible for any human to see God under any circumstances.
R. Yehoshua ben Korha
argues that Moshe turning his face away from God was
inappropriate. He should have eagerly greeted Gods appearance before him.
Moshes failure to do so leads to his being punished, measure for measure, much
later in the story. Moshe did not seize the opportunity early in his career to
see Gods face. As a result, later, at the height of his career, Moshe was
denied his request to see Gods face.
R. Shmuel b. Nachmani, on the
other hand, sees Moshes actions at the burning bush as meritorious. Moshe was
later rewarded for his actions, not only with the opportunity to see Gods face,
but also with his own face taking on Divine qualities. After his descent from
Mt. Sinai, Moshes face shone with Divine radiance, and the people feared to
approach him in the same way they fear to approach God.
Rearview
Mirror
The
Gemara concludes its discussion of Moshes encounters with God after the sin of
the golden calf by once again returning to a theme that has been raised earlier
in the chapter -- Gods tefillin:
And I
will take away My hand,
and thou
shalt see My back (Shemot 33:23).
R. Chama
b. Bizana said in the name of R. Shimon the Pious:
This
teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He,
showed
Moshe the knot of the tefillin.
In our previous discussion of God wearing tefillin, I
argued that there is tension between those sources which are open to a
metaphorical understanding of Gods tefillin, and those that suggest that
God literally wears tefillin on His head and arm. As it appears in our
Gemara, this passage seems to be open to non-literal interpretation. According
to this view, God does not actually wear tefillin. Rather, the Gemara
describes God as doing so in order to teach some sort of lesson. The
commentaries include many interpretations of the idea of the knot of Gods
tefillin.
Several of them are brought by the Ein Yaakov in his commentary to this
passage.
However, this very same passage appears in Menachot
35b. There, the context is not the explication of the verses in Shemot,
but the laws of tefillin. The Gemara there states that the proper way to
tie the knots of tefillin is Halakha Le-Moshe Mi-sinai,
transmitted to Moshe on Mt. Sinai. The Gemara there brings our passage about
Moshe seeing Gods tefillin knot to tell us the circumstances under which
God revealed these laws to Moshe. Moshe learned to make tefillin knots by
copying the one he saw on God. Our tefillin are thus copies of copies
which ultimately imitate Gods own tefillin. According to this
interpretation, there can be no doubt that the Gemara means that God actually
wears tefillin on His head that resemble the ones we wear. I discussed this
difficult and problematic idea in my comments on the sugya of Gods
tefillin on daf 6a.
This concludes our discussion of the series of statements that R.
Yochanan presents in the name of R. Yosi, and the Gemaras comments on them.
(The Gemara does present one more such
statement. However, for some reason it is not included in the text of the Ein
Yaakov, so I have not commented on it. ) As we have seen, this collection is
held together by several common threads. On an exegetical level, this unit
presents an extended treatment of Moshes conversations with God in Shemot
chapter 33. In line with the issues raised in this biblical passage, this
section in the Gemara also contains a wide-ranging discussion of Divine anger
and Divine justice.
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!