I don't know why, but I don't feel in the mood to write any lomdus now (a fact which may actually increase the readership here : ) The Rambam famously writes (Moreh Nevuchim III:17) that there is no Divine hashgacha on animals and plants and he explains why -- there is no place in Tanach where we find any hint to such a concept. The Navi Chabakuk compares the wanton destruction of Nevuchadnezer to the killing of animals and beasts in order to illustrate that it was seemingly without rhyme or reason, without a plan (an idea the Navi subsequently rejects as wrong), reinforcing the idea that Divine plans are reserved for humans alone.
There appears to be clear proof against the Rambam from a Yerushalmi cited by Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 16b d"h dimus). The Yerushalmi records that when R' Shimon bar Yochai exited his cave he saw a hunter trapping birds. With each attempt, RSB"Y heard a bas kol declare whether the bird would be caught or not. Apparently the Yerushalmi and Tosfos would agree with Shakespeare's Hamlet that quite literally, "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow."
If hashgacha is all encompassing, why is it that the only allusion we find to it is this isolated Yerushalmi -- as the Rambam argues, isn't the absence of any mention of such a concept in Tanach telling? The Divrei Chaim (i.e. the Sanzer Rav, Parshas Mikeitz) answers that this is no proof at all. The purpose of creation is to utilize what we find in the world to serve G-d. It is not the fall of the sparrow as an end in itself which is G-d's concern, but rather it is the success or failure of the hunter of sparrows which is His concern. Everything in creation has a purpose relative to man's service of G-d, and it is through Divine hashgacha over man's service and purpose that the rest of creation is watched as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So the Divrei Chaim is defending the Rambam from the Yerushalmi, right? He's saying that nobody, not even God Himself, cares if animals suffer, and it is only where their suffering has some relevance to mankind that what happens to them is ordered and intentional. So the apikorsus of "les din v'les dayan" is kosher when it comes to non-humans. Well, that explains why all of nature is based on things devouring other things, but it is hard to see why it was different before the sin of Gan Eden, and why it needs to be different after Mashiach, as we just read in the Haftorah of "ode hayom benov..." about herbivore lions and wolves, unless that's just metaphor.
ReplyDelete>>>So the Divrei Chaim is defending the Rambam
ReplyDeleteYou have it reversed - the Divrei Chaim is saying that the Rambam is wrong (as the Y-lmi clearly indicates) and the Rambam's proof from the lack of mention of hashgacha pratis on animals in Tanach can be answered -- there is hashgacha pratis on animals because their fate is tied to humanity's goals in avodas Hashem.
>>>it is hard to see why it was different before the sin of Gan Eden
Who says it was?
>>>"ode hayom benov..." about herbivore lions and wolves, unless that's just metaphor.
See Rambam Melachim ch. 12 who writes explicitly that this is just a metaphor.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. The Rambam says there's no hashgacha on animals. Tosfos/Yerushalmi says there's a bas kol on each attempt that calls out trapped, or not trapped. Answer- the Rambam is right, animal suffering is no more significant to Hashem than stones being split, and is left to randomness. The Bas Kol, i.e. hashgacha, i.e. divine manipulation of nature, only occurs insofar as whether the hunter's attempt will succeed or fail. Therefore, the Rambam is right. No?
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam holds there is never hashgacha on animals. Tosfos holds there is hashgacha on animals. The Divrei Chaim is saying that according to Tosfos the reason for that hashgacha is because animals serve a purpose for mankind's avodas Hashem.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I think the D.C. would say that *everything* in the world was created with a purpose for man's avodas Hashem, and therefore hashgacha pratis is ultimately all-encompasing.
>> The Rambam holds there is never hashgacha on animals. Tosfos holds there is hashgacha on animals. The Divrei Chaim is saying that according to Tosfos the reason for that hashgacha is because animals serve a purpose for mankind's avodas Hashem.>>
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that the Sifsei Chaim understood the Rambam like the Divrei Chaim. Meaning that there is only hashgacgha klalis on animals however,an animal can in a sense be affected by hashgacha if it affects a person who deserves the hashgacha. If it is in a person's benefit for a certain animal to live and the person is deserving of having that benefit happen then the animal will live.
I believe the Sifsei Chaim gets it from Rav Dessler.
Also, the Rambam holds that you can have people who are removed from hashgacha but they too can have hashgacha if it benefits another person who deserves hashgacha
>>>Also, the Rambam holds that you can have people who are removed from hashgacha but they too can have hashgacha if it benefits another person who deserves hashgacha
ReplyDeleteWhat is the makor for this in the Rambam?
This is another discussion, but one can take the exact opposite view -- even great tzadikim will not be protected by hashgacha in order to allow the bechira of lesser people to express itself (e.g. see the Ohr haChaim on the episode of Yosef being thrown into the pit).
Chaim M, I wouold say that there's a big gulf between the Divrei and the Sifsei. I personally think the Sifsei is right, but I didn't see anything inside.
ReplyDeleteChaim B., , even you would not say that the Rambam's "Not Hashgacha" on animals will push our interactions with them into the "Not Hashgacha" category. Of course, vis a vis animals, it's not a din of davka "Not Hashgacha," it's a din of "who cares what happens." People who are in the "Not Hashgacha" category, on the other hand, might be in the "Davka Not Hashgacha" camp.