How can a Jew argue with God...and win?

Great Debates
1

I was reading some Talmudic stories and was struck by this one:

As I understand this story, the scholars have argued with God, directly contradicting his voice from heaven and a variety of miracles. More surprisingly, they’ve won. The only word I can think of for this is Yiddish, fittingly - “chutzpah”! ;j

Now, I’m an athiest or a strong agnostic, but brought up as a Protestant Christian (Anglican), and this story of a successful argument with God strikes me as bizarre. If God is all-knowing and all-seeing, you’re going to lose any argument you have, right? Indeed, you’re not going to get into an argument with him in the first place, for fear of the proverbial thunderbolt, are you? What am I missing here about the Jewish perception of God? Is my assumption that he is seen to be all-knowing and all-seeing incorrect? Can anyone help me out?

Although this is a question, it might be a controversial area, so I’ve started the thread in GD instead.

2

Well, there is precedent, not in the sense of debating, but haggling: in Genesis 18: 16 - 33, Abraham dickers with God over how many just men it would take to spare Sodom.

And, of course, it is true in many cultures that teaching tales and parables suspend the normal rules of behavior.

3

Read the Book of Job. It’s all about the hero arguing with God. Some Christian traditions (and Jewish as well, I would assume from the Talmudic story you quote) argue that God does not want unquestioning, unthinking obedience - He has given humans the powers of reason, logic and a sense of justice, and expects us to use them, even in discussions with Him.

4

And see also the Book of Jonah, another case where the hero argues throughout with God.

5

It could also be that God is making a deliberatly flawed argument, to test if his followers can spot what’s wrong with it.

6

But what about the story of Abraham and Isaac atop Mt Moriah (or Abraham and Ishmael, for some)? God rewards Abraham for being prepared to do something incredibly crazy and evil (kill his own son) just because He told him to…

Also an theologically troubling proposition, especially in the context of something like the 10 Commandments, which I believe the rabbis were supposed discussing at the time…

7

I see this as an amusing account of Zen Judaism. :slight_smile:

8

Like ** Tomndebb **, I see this as a funny teaching tale, not as a theological statement. I believe this kind of thing isn’t uncommon in Jewish folklore.

9

Because of the special relationship Jews have with God, this sort of parable is not intended to be blasphemous or arrogant. There is a similar story of a Rabbi summoning God to a bin det, a civil trial.

10

It should also be noted that Israel means “struggles with G-d”.

A similar tale:

So it seems that these four Rabbis had a series of theological arguments, and three were always in accord against the fourth. One day, the odd Rabbi out, after the usual “3 to 1, majority rules” statement that signified that he had lost again, decided to appeal to a higher authority. “Oh, G-d!” he cried. “I know in my heart that I am right and they are wrong! Please give me a sign to prove it to them!”
It was a beautiful, sunny day. As soon as the Rabbi finished his prayer, a storm cloud moved across the sky above the four. It rumbled once and dissolved. “A sign from G-d! See, I’m right, I knew it!” But the other three disagreed, pointing out that storm clouds form on hot days.
So the Rabbi prayed again: “Oh, G-d, I need a bigger sign to show that I am right and they are wrong. So please, G-d, a bigger sign!” This time four storm clouds appeared, rushed toward each other to form one big cloud, and a bolt of lightning slammed into a tree on a nearby hill.“I told you I was right!” cried the Rabbi, but his friends insisted that nothing had happened that could not be explained by natural causes.
The Rabbi is getting ready to ask for a “very big” sign, but just as he says “Oh G-d…” the sky turns pitch black, the earth shakes, and a deep, booming voice intones, “HEEEEEEEE’S RIIIIIIIGHT!”
The Rabbi puts his hands on his hips, turns to the other three, and says, “Well?”
“So,” shrugged one of the other Rabbis, “now it’s 3 to 2!”

11

First, in the context of the time, it wasn’t unheard of to sacrifice one’s child to a patron deity- the Jewish view of this passage is that it was in God’s rescue of Isaac that He made it clear that He does not want child-sacrifice.

Second, and I know this is NT, but the author of Hebrews (I think Ch 11) said that Abraham trusted that God would keep His promise of raising up a great people through Isaac, even if it meant raising Isaac from the dead.

Maybe another possibility- God & Abraham were playing chicken with each other & God flinched (God: “My Me! Abe was supposed to argue with Me! That crazy SOB is gonna kill his kid! Cue to the Ram in the Thicket!” Abraham: “Hah hah!”)

12

I’d say this story is indicative.

First of all, God feels obligated t tell Abraham what he’s doing:

"Genesis 18:17
And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

18:18
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

18:19
For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. "

And then Abraham makes a very telling statment:

"18:25
That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: **Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? ** "

Seems to me God is establishing himself as a God not just of power but of justice. And is expecting his people to be just as well. Given that, Abraham can ask him that question.

And likewise as in the OP,if God has established somethng in his Word, even he can’t arbitarily change it without being unjust.

After all a covenant is a two way contract :slight_smile: .

13

Sure as shooting it works both ways. He’s God and we’re the chosen people but the obligations go up and down.

Yeah, it’s sort of like ‘Dances with Wolves’…but with more smiting.

14

Sounds like the Biblical version of Great Debates. Sometimes all the proof in the world isn’t going to make a difference to a particularly block-headed debater :slight_smile:

15

Without going into too much detail, unless someone is really interested, the story as posted does not include the beginning, the end, or the context.

It is not about what it looks like its about from truncated, out of context version posted here.

16

I’m pretty interested. The story as I posted it was told to me by a Jewish scholar, so I naturally took his word for how it was supposed to go. Here’s the full thing - what’s the context I’m missing?

Ok, many of you describe this as an interesting teaching tale, rather than a flat statement of theology (Tomndebb, Bricker, Clairobscur) and offer similar stories. Fair enough, I won’t attach too much weight to it. But even so, with the various stories, it does say some interesting things aobut how Jews view their relationship with God, doesn’t it? Maybe the question is where Christians lost this idea of talking to and bargaining with God…

17

If I had to speculate (and I’m at best, light-to-moderate informed) it would be when there began to be a concept of God’s representative. Instead of each person having a direct relationship with God there’s an intermediary who interprets and acts as guardian.

You know what they say about Jews, on the other hand…two Jews equals three opinions. Even me, a not-very-good-Jew, still argue every point and pick at every problem seeing what it can tease out.

18

[QUOTE=Atticus Finch]
I’m pretty interested. The story as I posted it was told to me by a Jewish scholar, so I naturally took his word for how it was supposed to go. Here’s the full thing - what’s the context I’m missing?

The full context is this: If you go down to Mishnah vii in the text you have provided, you see that the problem there is “cheating” in buying and selling. In the Gemara, the theme goes to “over reaching” in the use of words. The Hebrew term is “on’a’ah”, which has the sense of “treating unfairly”, or oppression.

The sugiya goes on the develop the problem of “ona’ah b’devarim” “treating unfairly through words.”

The case you brought forward originally, then is a story about how the rabbis “defrauded” their colleague Rabbi Eliezer through the use of words. We know that Rabbi Eliezer is right in declaring the oven ritually clean (God announces this), but the rabbis out vote him, and then, outrageously, declare that everything Rabbi Eliezer has ever declared clean, is now declared unclean. See bottom of p. 140 in the text you provide. They destroy the property of those who have utensils that R. Eliezer declared ritually clean.

Now, what is the textual evidence given for majority vote in these cases: Exodus 23:2 “incline after the majority” – here is the major “ona’ah” – cheat, defraud through words! Go look up Ex 23:2 and see whether it is proof text for “following the majority.”

They defeat God in argument? What happens to Rabban Gamliel, who was the head of rabbinical court during this incident: he is drowned. And why – see the text: because the gates of tears of those who have been defrauded by words (our R. Eliezer) are never closed.

So how do we construe the line that R. Jeremiah said that Elijah told him, “my children have overruled me”? if you look at everything else in the story that I have adduced here, it is obvious that that God’s words are a rhetorical question, “My children have over ruled ME?”

The text is not about arguing with God and defeating God, but rather using cheating and defrauding language against someone to defeat them, and the consequences of such behavior.

19

Certainly other scholars have a different take on it than does Lynwood.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin uses that story in “Jewish Literacy” (pp 155-156) and claims that the story refers to whether or not a particular impure oven could ever become pure.

He quotes the scholar Hyam Maccoby as commenting “This extraordinary story strikes the keynote of the Talmud. God is a good father who wants His children to grow up and achieve independence. He has given them His Torah, but now wants them to develop it …”

That certainly is the take that I’ve always had (though no Talmudic scholar, I). The Jewish tradition is to argue with God and to sometimes win. By tradition, God may have created the world, but He has left it to us to perfect it. It is up to us now.

20

What I was always taught regarding this story (in an Orthodox yeshiva) was that it was meant to signify that G-d had given the Jews the Torah and the guidelines with which to interpret it (there are 13, I believe). In order to have a workable society that lives by the Torah, it’s necessary to follow those guidelines thoroughly. One of the guidelines it that in the case of a dispute, the majority opinion is treated as truth.

    By the time G-d intervened to back up R' Eliezer, the law had already been decided.  The fact that R' Eliezer had been right in his interpretation no longer mattered, because the majority had ruled and their opinion had become functional truth.  

     It was vital above all else to preserve the system.  If the ruling of the majority could be called into question when G-d had commanded that majority should rule, the entire system of practical Jewish law could collapse.  You can't demand divine intervention every time a tough question comes up.  A society needs to be able to deal with its problems according to its laws.  G-d's intent in originally saying "The law is not in heaven" in Deuteronomy was to give man the ability, and the license, to take what he was given and use it in the real world, to create a workable, Torah-observant community.

  I see this story as being analagous to a court case in which the damning piece of evidence against a defendant is ruled to have been siezed during an illegal search.  The evidence is excluded, and a man who is known to be guilty goes free.  How is this acceptable, if the verdict is clearly wrong?  It's acceptable because It's more important to preserve the system.  So the not guilty verdict becomes the functional truth, even though the man was guilty.

Though I could be wrong here, my impression of the description of the Rabbis treating R’ Eliezer “unfairly with words,” as Lynwood Slim mentions, was that they were right overall but wrong in their harsh treatment of him. They should have been nicer about it, basically.

One book on the subject is Eliezer Berkovitz’s Not In Heaven, which is very interesting, though he is controversial. A more widely accepted book on this topic is Dynamics of Dispute by Rabbi Zvi Lampel.