Rosh Hashanah prayer: is God listening?

As we ready ourselves for the upcoming Rosh Hashanah shul-marathon, it is striking how much the Jewish new year is characterised and dominated by prayer. Yet when we set aside the haunting traditional melodies and important communal aspects of the Rosh Hashanah services, the concept of praying to God is one that many people seem to find challenging.

There are two primary problems that people sometimes have with prayer. The first is from a rationalist perspective: Why do I need to pray? Does God not know what I want and need better than I do? Am I seeking to change God’s mind? Cause a Perfect Being to alter His plans?

Various rational responses have been developed in response to these sorts of questions. Judaism Reclaimed examines those of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch and Rambam.

R’ Hirsch notes that the Hebrew term to pray lehitpallel is in the reflexive form, meaning that it focuses inwards as an action performed for oneself. He continues that the focus of communal prayer from a fixed prayer-book liturgy is primarily intended:

to infuse oneself with Divine ideas. Jewish prayer is not an outpouring from within oneself; rather it means infusing the heart with truths that come from outside of oneself. If prayer were merely an expression of what the heart already feels, prescribed prayer…at fixed times would be absurd. For such prayer would assume that certain emotions could be present on demand at predetermined times. Instead, “hitpallel” means to steep oneself with lasting, eternal truths because they are likely to fade away from one’s consciousness.

This view sees prayer primarily as an educational tool which serves to guide one’s thoughts and perspective towards a more elevated religious viewpoint. In the specific context of Rosh Hashanah, it would mean starting the year with a two-day humble meditation on what it means to “appoint God as king”, and appreciating both the individual and communal responsibilities that arise from such a realisation when planning our year ahead.

A second rational approach to prayer emerges from Judaism Reclaimed’s analysis of Rambam’s approach to prayer. Without entering into specifics concerning his theory of providence, Rambam views all aspects of the world as being governed by hashgacha klalit – the natural order that runs according to His wisdom from the time of Creation. Only the human being, out of the entire creation, possess the Tzelem Elokim “image of God” which grants it the potential to refine and perfect its character and intellect – a process through which we can form a relationship with God and thus be worthy of individual providence. This lofty goal can only be achieved gradually and represents a lifetime’s work.

A key function of prayer, according to Rambam’s understanding, is helping human beings form, maintain and improve this relationship with God. He advises in the third section of Guide to the Perplexed:

Know that the intended function of all of these acts of worship such as reading from the Law and prayer and performing other commandments is only to train one to be involved in the commands of God and to free oneself from worldly matters …You should empty your thoughts of all matters when you read the Shema and pray

Prayer provides a crucial (and regular) opportunity for people to unburden their minds and transcend the stresses and strains that tie them down in day-to-day life. Instead they are able to focus their mind on their relationship with God and see their life in that context. A relationship which, in its own right, is understood to enhance the providential input one can expect to receive in one’s life.

A second aspect of prayer that people sometimes struggle with is the difficulty in not knowing how a prayer has been received. Has the prayer been answered? How do I even know if God is taking any notice?

While the rationalist templates of Rambam and R’ Hirsch that we have described offer some degree of function of prayer regardless of how it received, this remains quite distant from the popular idea of prayer with which most people are likely to be entering shul later this week.

This suggests that there remains a further function of prayer. The biblical template in which key characters such as Hannah – who we read of over Rosh Hashanah – cry out to God in pain for many years, pouring out their heartfelt troubles in prayer. Hannah’s prayer, which is a prototype upon which Jewish law has constructed various features of contemporary prayer, reaches beyond our limited rationalisations of the utility of prayer and how we believe a Perfect Being is able to relate to us.

Rambam places great emphasis upon the fact that we cannot fathom the very nature of God’s knowledge, and deems His providential interactions with the physical world to be one of the secrets of the Torah. While Rambam emphasises that the primary function of prayer is its role in strengthening the crucial relationship between God and humanity, he also considers it to be critically important that the nation cry out in prayer to God over any calamity which befalls them.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the optimum approach to prayer integrates all of these different components and approaches. The primal cry out to God – the inexpressibly powerful feelings represented by the Shofar’s cry – represents the most basic biblical features of emptying one’s soul to God. But our prayers should not be limited to our personal feeling that God is responding by providing what we perceive to be our needs. And our assessment of prayer’s utility should not be entirely dependent on its ability to satisfy us emotionally.

To this end we must bear in mind the approaches of Rambam and R’ Hirsch that the very act of standing before God and praying reinforces important religious principles within our consciousness, and allows us to maintain and strengthen our relationship with God for the upcoming year.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the readers of this group a Shana Tova – a wonderful happy and healthy new year in which all their prayers are answered, and in which their relationship with God is meaningfully and profoundly developed.

First posted to Facebook 5 September 2021, here.

Rambam, Greeks and Chanukah: ideological battle or philosophical synthesis?

Earlier this week we explored the interplay between “Yafet” – representing the artistic and cultural faculties of humanity – and the religious dimension symbolised by “Shem”. We did so primarily through the perspective of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch who taught that the arts and aesthetics hold substantial positive value for humanity, but only when influenced by and “dwelling within” the tents of Shem.

This post will attempt to examine the dynamics of the ideological clash between Maccabees and Hellenists from the perspective of Rambam. This is of particular interest since Rambam – one of Judaism’s primary sources concerning philosophy and theology – is remarkably silent when it comes to the ideological battles of the Chanukah era. Even though such ideological divergences are emphasised in prior Rabbinic sources. Additionally, it is evident throughout his writings that Rambam possessed a healthy respect for many aspects of Greek philosophy, albeit as we will discuss, from an earlier era. What did he see as being the key differences between Greek thought and Judaism? And could any of these ideological tensions have been at play in the Chanukah story?

While it is true that Rambam enthusiastically embraced many aspects of Greek philosophy and science which represented in his day (and for many centuries after), the main framework and template for understanding the world, he does make some crucial qualifications.

At the conclusion of Rambam’s explanation of the concept of miracles as having been built into nature at the world’s creation, he presents a simple summary of his fundamental agreement and disagreement with Aristotle. Rambam explains that, with regard to the functioning of the physical world according to its natural order, he broadly follows the Aristotelian structure of fixed, immutable and eternal rules of nature – that God instituted the rules of nature and doesn’t plan to breach them. In fact, the wisdom contained within the functioning of the universe bears testimony to God’s supreme wisdom. Nevertheless, the same section of Moreh Nevuchim also firmly rejects Aristotle’s understanding of the world as having existed eternally in the past, with God merely ensuring its existence.

Aristotelian theory, as presented by Rambam, held that God cannot be said to have created the universe at any one specific point in time, but rather constantly and eternally causes the world to exist. According to Aristotle’s understanding therefore, God is not free to in any way influence the physical world which emanated from Him.

Rambam states strongly that such an Aristotelian understanding would render the Torah meaningless since it would relegate God to some kind of technical cause, unable to exercise (or grant) free will, perform miracles and all other aspects of providential interaction with the world. For this reason, Rambam emphasises creation in time as “the basis for the Torah”; if Aristotle were correct on this point, writes Rambam “the entire Torah would become void”. The reason for this becomes more apparent when we explore Rambam’s understanding of miracles.

Rambam addresses the concept of miracles in two of his works – both of which emphasise how all miraculous occurrences were built into the natural order at the time of creation – based on God’s knowledge of the future. In Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam cites a midrashic teaching to support his understanding that “When God created this existence and established all of its nature, He placed within the physical world that all miracles too would occur.”

Then in his commentary to Avot, he states further that the ten miraculous phenomena – such as Moshe’s staff and the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korach – were said to have been formed already during the days of creation because:

The Sages did not believe in the constant renewal of God’s will, but at the beginning of Creation [God] put the nature of things into the world, both the way in which things should act regularly—this is “nature”—or the abnormal manner in which they should act rarely—this is a “miracle.”

For Aristotle however, who opposed the very notion of creation in time by a freely-acting God, there is no scope within the rigid rules of nature for any miracles, providence or revelation. For this reason, Rambam considers that such an Aristotelian system renders the entire Torah void.

How might this relate back to Chanukah?

It must be borne in mind that Greek philosophical thought of the Hellenic Chanukah era had evolved somewhat from the Classical era of Aristotle. Nevertheless, and without wanting to get too involved, there were strong trends of similarity in the way that major Hellenist philosophical groups such as the Epicureans understood God as no longer involved in any meaningful way in the functioning of His Creation. Aristotle’s thought too remained highly influential right the way through to, and beyond, Rambam’s era.

As we explained in the previous Chanukah post, within the worldview of R Hirsch, Noach’s prophecy implies that the ideology of Yafet (of which the Greeks are a primary element) is not to be viewed as an entirely negative contribution to humanity – but rather as containing positive potential when correctly harnessed to the Torah’s teachings – ie when it “dwells in the tents of Shem”.

Similarly, we can suggest within Rambam’s worldview, that the Greek-Aristotelian conception of steady and unbreakable natural laws emanating from a single source is to be embraced. As Rambam writes, reflecting upon the beauty and wisdom inherent in the universe can lead one to fear and love of God and appreciation of His wisdom.

Rambam believed that Aristotle’s methodology for analysing the world was extremely beneficial, and could lead to recognition and knowledge of the Single God of the Torah. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote how monotheism and the Torah’s description of God creating the world:

“made science possible. No longer was the universe seen as unpredictable. It was the work of a single, rational, creative will.”

Others have noted how science has particularly flourished in societies based on monotheistic belief. Only if one perceives the world as an organic whole designed by a single Creator, can one analyse and develop meaningful theories as to how it all functions together.

But this acceptance and approval of Yafet’s systematic understanding of the natural order is only proper when placed in the correct context of creation in time – an acceptance of God’s creation of the universe with all of the accompanying implications for providence and miracles. If this is correct, then for Rambam too the ideological conflict between the Jews and the Greeks was not a total rejection of Greek thought, but rather represented an attempt to reposition the beneficial aspects of Yafet firmly within the tent of Shem as the verse advises. So that, as Rambam demands, appreciation of the structure, wisdom and beauty of the universe can lead to the further comprehension of the Creator who freely designed it.

Perhaps this can explain the strong emphasis we find in Rambam’s Laws of Chanukah on publicising miracles. Particular attention is paid by Rambam at the start of his discussion of Hilchot Chanuka to the miraculous aspects both of the deliverance from the Greeks and its connection to the miracle of the oil. At the conclusion of these laws Rambam teaches that the mitzvah of the Chanukah light holds particular importance as it makes God’s miracles known.

According to the ideas highlighted in this post, it is the capacity of God to have introduced miracles into the natural order which represented the crucial distinction, for Rambam, between Jewish and Greek ideologies. For Rambam therefore, so-called “Greek” truths and appreciation of the wisdom and beauty inherent in the world can and must lead us towards understanding, appreciation and love of its Creator.

Devoid of Shem’s guidance this wisdom loses its deeper meaning and utility. Rather than leading to a warm appreciation of and relationship with the Creator, scientific and philosophical wisdom outside the tent of Shem becomes cold, detached speculation and knowledge. In such a system of thought, God can be relegated to an eternal but irrelevant and limited cog in the eternal wheel of existence – rather than the Source of the wisdom - who freely created and interacts with the world.

First posted to Facebook 16 December 2020, here.