Disaster threatened the Jewish community in the time of the Baal Shem Tov. He went up into the mountains, he lit a fire, said a prayer, meditated a proper meditation, and the disaster was averted. In the next generation, again disaster threatened.. A student of the Baal Shem Tov said "I don't know the meditation, but I know where the Baal Shem Tov lit the fire, and I know the prayer. this will have to be enough. He did this, and, indeed, disaster was averted. In the next generation, there was again the threat of disaster. A later student said "I don't know the prayer, but I know the place, and will light a fire". That was enough! In the next generation, again the same situation. A student said "I no longer know how to light the fire, but I will go to that place. Indeed, it was enough. In the next generation, a student said" I no longer know the place, I no longer know how to light the fire, but I will tell the story" Indeed, it was enough, and disaster was averted. We may not be Moses, David, Rabbi Akiva, the Baal Shem Tov, or any of the great figures. But as long as we tell the story, receive and transmit the message, that will be enough.
I once posted this, and received several questions from people asking "what about the times that the disaster is NOT averted?" Realizing that this is a far vaster question, with more facets than meet the eye, I decided to make a series on this topic. There are three main themes in this little story, which need to be dealt with separately. One is the issue of the efficacy of prayer. The second is the power of Tzaddikim to alter events, beyond the ability of most people. The third is the fascinating question as to the necessity of "getting it right". Can, for instance, the "telling of the story", be anywhere as efficacious as the prayer and meditation of the Baal Shem Tov? Let us first deal with prayer in general. Like nearly everything else, there are many "Jewish approaches". Anyone who speaks of THE Jewish approach should be avoided like the plague. First of all, there is no clear obligation in the Torah to pray. Some rabbis interpret the phrase "You shall serve G-d in your heart" to mean prayer. Others understand prayer to be a rabbinic enactment. We must also distinguish between spontaneous prayer, and fixed, formal prayers. We find many cases in Tanach of prayer performed by individuals or groups. In most cases, these prayers are answered, although sometimes a prophet will inform the people that they have so distanced themselves from G-d, that their prayers are being ignored. In the Talmud, the first several chapters are devoted to prayer. Prayer is understood to be an obligation, and a fixed formula is established, although we find many instances of individuals reciting their own supplications. RAMBAM gives a beautiful analysis of the form and structure of Jewish prayer. He states that prayer is, indeed, a Biblical, law. The original requirement was to pray once a day, in one's own words and language, so long as his prayer contained the elements of praise of G-d, request, and thanks. Upon returning from the Babylonian Exile, Ezra and his Court instituted a fixed prayer (which we call the amidah) that contains all the basic needs of Man. Ezra did this because people's knowledge of Hebrew at that time was inadequate to compose their own prayers (their language was Aramaic), and were, in fact, not sufficiently eloquent in any language.. This unified prayer would be suitable for all. A debate ensued whether RAMBAM considered this the ultimate, ideal prayer, or whether it was a "lowest common denominator", with those knowing how to pray still requires to say supplications in accordance with their abilities. This debate continues to this day, with most accepting that the amidah is the ultimate prayer. Some, especially Rabbi Nachman, hold that individual prayer, in one's own language is the ultimate prayer, with the amidah a basic beginning, to be built upon. He added that had he been there in the time of Ezra, he would have argued that the amidah should have been instituted to be said by each person in his own language, so the words would be close to the heart. RAMBAM goes on to say that at the destruction of the Second Temple, prayer was instituted to be said at the times of the daily sacrifices. Here, however, he puts in a "zinger". RAMBAM posits that G-d's will is unchanging. He would not alter His plans just because someone asked. Therefore, G-d neither hearkens to our prayers nor acts upon them. So why pray? In order to internalize our dependence upon G-d. I often argue with my colleagues, many of whom consider RAMBAM's philosophy as THE Jewish philosophy, declaring the sages of the Talmud as having mistakenly accepted heretical beliefs, while these colleagues often prefer other rabbis' halachic views over RAMBAM. My approach is just the opposite. I see RAMBAM's halacha as second to none, while his viewpoints are often Jewish ideals forced into an Aristotelian framework. The opinion of some others, that RAMBAM's true views have nothing to do with what he wrote, and are, in fact, in a sort of code, too ridiculous to even consider. Since both Bible and Talmud are full of G-d hearkening to prayer, I must conclude that RAMBAM's ideas on this, and many other points are heterodoxic. In short, RAMBAM says that prayer has no efficacy, but this is contradicted by every other source. Next time, I will go into the alternative views.
No comments:
Post a Comment