Part II: God and Superstorm Sandy

Many people are wondering what the higher meaning is behind the natural disaster which devastated the lives of millions.

By NATHAN LOPES CARDOZO
A rainbow is seen among homes devasted by Sandy 300 (photo credit: REUTERS/ Adam Hunger )
A rainbow is seen among homes devasted by Sandy 300
(photo credit: REUTERS/ Adam Hunger )
To see Part I, please click here
During a two-and-a-half-year debate, Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai (Eruvin 13b) discussed the question whether it is better for man to have been created, or not. They concluded that it would have been better for man not to have been created. This is a most remarkable observation. The truth about this bizarre debate is that it touches on one of the greatest mysteries known to man. What is the purpose of the universe and of man’s existence? Is that something he can even know? By deciding that it would have been better for man not to have been created, Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai made a powerful point. There is no way to know the ultimate purpose of man’s existence. We have no idea why God wanted man or, for that matter, a universe. Perhaps to reward man for his good deeds? So he may enjoy life and merit to observe the mitzvoth? But these answers only beg more questions. Why does man need to be created so as to be rewarded, or to enjoy life and perform the mitzvoth? Would it not have been better if man had not been created? First, he would have been unaware of what he was missing. Second, he would not have had to encounter the many and frequent severe trials accompanied by unbearable pain. Are the joys of life and reward really enough reason to warrant creation when it goes hand in hand with genocide, natural calamities, disease and death? From the point of view of righteousness there is nothing to support creation. It is unjust and indefensible. Yet, God has decided it must be. The reason, then, must be much greater than man can ever fathom.
Ultimately, God alone is responsible, not only for natural catastrophes but also for man’s evil deeds. After all, He created him. The most Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai could conclude was: now that man is here, he had better watch his deeds—a rather dismal view.
Or, would it have been more honest to deny God’s existence? Does all the pain in this world not make a strong case for such a proposition? Is the constant attempt to justify God’s existence, by way of apologetics, not a farce, and futile? An attitude such as this, however, is guilty of erroneous reasoning. It assumes, as do the “pro-God” apologists, that God needs to fit the picture we have of Him, or would like to have of Him: a good God. That is, good by our standards. God may very well not be the type of “good God” we always speak about. His goodness may apply only to the fact that He is good in and of Himself, meaning, He possesses a goodness known only to Him, and which has no bearing on man.   
This idea is supported by a well-known passage in the Talmud (Berachoth 33b) discussing the case of shiluachhaken—the obligation to send away a mother bird before taking her young (Devarim 22:6-7). In an unusually harsh statement, the Sages forbid one to say that compassion is the reason for this law, and they declare that such a person “is to be silenced.” It is not mercy behind this law, says the Talmud, but the unknowable Divine Will. Ultimately, we do not know why things are the way they are. God cannot be scrutinized.
The problem of creating God in our image is not a new one. Moshe asks God to reveal His name to him before he conveys the message to the Jews that He will redeem them from Egyptian bondage. God refuses to do so, and His answer is astonishing: “I will be Whoever I will be.” I am not a “what,” or a “when.” I am not even a “who.” There is no term you can use to describe Me. Any attempt to give Me an image is a serious violation of My very being. Any conclusive explanation of My deeds is idol-worship. I permit you to describe Me in human terms only as long as you know that any such description will ultimately break down. No word can ever contain Me.
When disasters befall mankind, they may very well have no correlation with man’s behavior. They may simply be part of God’s cosmic plan, perhaps alluding to other divine aspects that are totally beyond man and known only to God. As long as we do not know why God created the universe, including so many other worlds, we cannot say for sure whether every calamity is a result of man’s shortcomings. Some may be, and some may not be. We should never deny the ever-present possibility that various divine factors are at work. The joy of life, which is so much a part of Jewish tradition, focuses on the fact that from a divine perspective, things could actually be much worse. Despite God’s impenetrable nature and thoughts, He shared some of His good qualities with man, informing him that his existence has great meaning, though he will never know what it consists of. It is this aspect that is celebrated by Jewish tradition and beckons man to understand that despite all the pain, it is possible to enjoy life, to attain simchathayim!     
The constant claim that man is responsible for every disaster is a burden he may not be able to bear. It is an attitude of hopelessness that may lead him to giving up and seeing God only as a vengeful God with Whom he cannot have a relationship. It would be better to reason, as does Søren Kierkegaard, that God sometimes applies His “teleological suspension of the ethical” so as to achieve His goals within the universe and that God has His reasons beyond righteousness. It is not just because we have a psychological need to see God in terms of his total Otherness, but because it may be closer to the truth. Theodicy as a means of claiming that God can be justified in human terms is a form of idol-worship.    
Over the years, Jewish worship has adopted an attitude of mipneichato’enugalinume’artzenu (because of our sins we have been exiled from our land), which has developed into a form of pessimism that is not loyal to the teachings of our Jewish tradition. It pretends that man is superhuman; it is dangerous and religiously unhealthy. This approach has infiltrated and dominates too many of our daily prayers, which should be replaced with prayers about God Whose exalted greatness is inscrutable but worthy of our worship.    
Whether or not Hurricane Sandy is an expression of divine displeasure we do not know. Nor will it ever be known, unless we will again be blessed with prophets. What it should evoke in us is a feeling of deep humility. It should serve as a wake-up call, that all our boasting, our arrogance, our claiming that we know it all and that one day all of nature will be under our control is one of the most pathetic dreams man has ever entertained. One storm brought the mightiest nation in the world to its knees.
No doubt we should treat it as if it were a warning, a call for repentance and, above all, for humility. But we must be fully aware that it was perhaps part of God’s cosmic plan far beyond human behavior. And we are not to be blamed. This is an important message to send to our young people, lest they despair under the yoke of religious pessimism. Better a God who is incomprehensible than a God who unremittingly causes man to feel that all calamities are his fault. Believing the latter is un-Jewish.
The writer is the Founder and Dean of the David Cardozo Academy in Jerusalem. Author of many books and international lecturer on Jewish Philosophy. To receive his weekly Thoughts To Ponder, contact nlc@internet-zahav.net