"Raba, in the name of R. Sahorah, in the name of R. Huna, says: If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man, he crushes him with painful sufferings."
To be honest, I was a bit surprised to see this one in today's Daf. I was always aware that rabbinic theodicies spanned the range from post-creation chaos, to the Sitra Achra, to a divine court of judgement, etc. I was never aware that the rabbis embraced 'purifying suffering' as a compatible theodicy. Now on one hand, its terribly disturbing that this reflects so much Gevura without the requisite Chesed. On the other hand, this could be terrifically comforting to someone who feels their afflictions are invested with value because of their indication of a more superior relationship to God.
What do you guys think? How do we divide what's an effective theology to believe and what's an effective theology to preach (particularly to those who are ill)?
The ultimate pastoral question. I'd be curious to hear what some of our CPE alumni think (Lauren?).
ReplyDeleteAdam, thanks for bringing this up. It's an extremely difficult sugya, and personally it weighs heavily on my self-expectations as a rabbi. Is this what people think I believe? Is this what they think I want them to believe? Your belief/preach paradigm is crucial: can I believe something other than I preach? I don't think such an adjustment for the sake of guiding our neighbor's theological exploration should be considered hypocritical or not genuine. Such is the way of spiritual leadership.
On a slightly related note, though, there is something very Christian about this, no? God punishes/suffering to God's most beloved creatures? This after a subtle reference to a "second coming" on the previous daf. Perhaps we're seeing some Christian theological influences on our ancestors.