All for the Good
TALMUDIC AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
*********************************************************
This week's shiur is dedicated by Matt Tambor
in memory of Abraham Tambor z"l
*********************************************************
Shiur #27: All
for the Good
R. Huna said in the name of Rav citing R. Meir, and
so it was taught in the name of R. Akiva: A man should always accustom himself
to say, Whatever the Merciful One does is for the good, [as exemplified in]
the following incident. R. Akiva was once
going along the road and he came to a certain town and looked for lodgings, but
was everywhere refused. He said,
Whatever the Merciful One does is for the good," and he went and spent the
night in the open field. He had with him
a rooster, a donkey, and a lamp. A gust
of wind came and blew out the lamp, a weasel came and ate the rooster, and a
lion came and ate the donkey. He said:
Whatever the Merciful One does is for the good. The same night some brigands
came and carried off the inhabitants of the town.
He said to them: Did I not say to you, Whatever the Merciful One
does
is all for the good. (Berakhot
60b)
Why did they
call him Nahum Ish Gam Zu? Because
whatever would befall him, he would say: "This, too, is for the good." It once
happened that the Jews wanted to send a gift to the Roman Emperor. They said: Who should go? Let Nachum
Ish Gam Zu go because he is well practiced in miracles. They sent him with a
bag full of jewels and precious stones.
He left and spent the night at an inn.
The innkeeper stole the jewels and precious stones and filled the box
with dirt. When he arrived there, he
opened the bag and saw that it was full of dirt.
The Emperor wanted to kill him.
He said: The Jews are mocking me.
He (Nachum Ish Gam Zu) said:
This too is for the good.
Eliyahu took on the appearance of a Roman and said to the Emperor: Perhaps this
is the dirt of Avraham their forefather. When Avraham threw the sand, it turned
into swords, and when he threw stubble, it turned into arrows ...There was one
province that the Emperor was unable to subdue. He tested the sand, [used it,]
and conquered the province. He
brought Nachum up to his treasury, filled the bag with jewels and precious
stones, and sent him off with great honor.
When he came
back to the same inn, they asked him: "'What did you bring with you that he
rewarded you so richly?" He said to
them: Whatever I took from here.
The innkeeper knocked down the inn and he carried the dirt to the Emperor. He said to him: The dirt which was
brought to you is from us. They
tested the sand and found nothing [no miracles occurred]. They put the innkeeper to
death. (Taanit 21a)
In the first story, the noise of the animals and the light
of the lamp would have alerted the thieves to R. Akivas presence. Similarly,
had he found a host in the town, he would have been carried away with the rest
of the inhabitants. Thus, his
apparent cycle of misfortune actually preserved his freedom.
R. Kook views the three items stolen from R. Akiva as
representing three kinds of evil that befall humanity. People suffer due to human choices,
whether their own or others, due to the animal kingdom, and due to inanimate
matter. First, human society refused
to grant R. Akiva lodgings. The loss of a donkey and a rooster symbolizes the
evils resulting from animals.
According to R. Kook, the donkey stands for the material world, and the rooster
which woke R. Akiva for prayer and study reflects spiritual endeavors. Finally, the lamp represents
inanimate matter. R. Akiva teaches his students to react to all categories of
suffering as part of the Divine plan, which is ultimately good.
We may find these two stories overly optimistic and ripe for
the kind of satire Voltaire unleashed against Leibniz in Candide. Human life as we experience it
includes severe hardships and does not always have happy endings. Before we accuse the Gemara of a
Pollyannaish worldview, let us recall two adjacent Talmudic texts. Berakhot 61b tells us about
the gruesome death of R. Akiva in which the Romans scrape away his flesh with
iron combs. Taanit 21a
relates the intense suffering that Nachum Ish Gam Zu experienced. Granted that both rabbis react
to their pain with equanimity; but it can hardly be said that the Sages were
unaware of lifes horrors. In our
current existence, the good guys do not always win.
Some commentators wonder about the different phrases. R. Akiva says:
Whatever the Merciful One does is for the good, whereas
Nachum says: This too is for the good.
Do the two phrases differ in meaning?
Is there a reason why these two rabbinic giants adopted slightly
different terminology? Maharsha suggests
that only R. Akivas phrase explicitly mentions God. Perhaps R. Akiva wanted to
clarify that Divine providence is the source of our optimism.
R. Yaakov Yosef from Polnoye (Toldeot Yaakov Yosef,
parashat Vayechi) rejects Maharshas approach by claiming that Gods
involvement is implicit in Nachums statement as well. What else other than belief in God
would enable Nachum to declare: This too is for the good? Instead, R. Yaakov Yosef draws a
different distinction between the similar phrases. R. Akiva says that suffering
now may have a good effect later.
This approach does not deny the difficulties of our current reality. Nachum, on
the other hand, insists that reality at present is all good.
The broader context of the passage in Berakhot
supports this take on R. Akiva. The
gemara teaches that we make different blessings on good tidings and on
bad tidings. We recite on the former barukh ha-tov ve-hameitiv (blessed
[are You] who is good and causes good) and on the latter barukh dayan
ha-emet (blessed [are You] who is the true judge). Would we experience
everything that happens to us as immediately positive, then the distinction
collapses and we should always recite the same blessing. We do not do so because
we experience bad tidings as different from good tidings. When troubles arise, we have faith in
Gods ultimate justice, but we still confront profound difficulty in the
present. Thus, we bless the true judge and not the One who is good and
bestows good.
R. Yaakov Yosef makes an additional point that helps
distinguish Nachum. Everything
depends upon the recipient. If one
receives it in such a way that it should be for the good, it immediately becomes
for the good. From the ongoing
discussion, it seems R. Yaakov Yosef means that certain righteous people can
transcend the limitations of the natural order and rely upon Divine providence. Along these lines, Nachum Ish Gam Zu
resembles R. Shimon Bar Yochai who survived in the cave (Shabbat 33b) and
thought Jews could dispense with working to support themselves (Berakhot
35b).
Perhaps we can take R. Yaakov Yosefs idea in a different
direction. Frequently, our responses
to the vicissitudes of life generate their own reality. A negative response
encourages a bad outcome, whereas a more positive response helps create a better
ending. This has nothing to do with
Divine involvement or escaping the natural order, and everything to do with the
immense significance of attitude. Of
course, it is easier to have a positive attitude about a rainy day than about a
serious illness. Nonetheless, we see heroic people who somehow remain upbeat
despite serious difficulties, and their very attitude changes the impact of
their suffering.
From this perspective, the two phrases teach distinct
messages. One instructs us to
believe that things will eventually turn out for the good as a result of Divine
providence. The other emphasizes the importance of attitude and how our response
to what we experience influences the outcome of that experience.
While admittedly this latter idea is not
the simple interpretation of Nachum Ish Gam Zu, it certainly seems true to life.
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!