COMMUNICATIONS DIVINE JUSTICE tov 10. Why cannot Rabbi Granatstein To THE EDITOR OF TRADITION: accept the traditional explanation of Jonah's conduct namely: Jonah In Rabbi Granatstein's recent knew that Nineveh was likely to article "Theodicy and Belief (TRA- repent in contrast with the conduct DITION, Winter 1973), he sug- of Israel who had had ample warn- gests that Jonah's motivation in ings of doom without responding trying to escape his mission to to them. The fate of Israel would Nineveh was that he could not ac- be negatively affected by an action cept "the unjustifiable selectivity of Jonah. Rather than become the involved in Divine "descent"; that willng instrument of his own peo- God's desire to save Nineveh is ple's destruction, Jonah preferred "capricious and violates the univer- self-destruction to destruction of sal justice in which Jonah be- his people. In a conflct between lieves." These are strong words loyalty to his people and loyalty which are not supported by quo- to God Jonah chose the former _ tations -from traditional sources. to his discredit, of course. In this Any student of Exodus 33: 13 is vein, Jonah's actions are explained familar with Moses's quest for un- by Redak, Malbin, Abarbarnel derstanding the ways of Divine based on M ekhilta in Parshat Bo. Providence and is also familar Why must we depart from this in- with the answer in 33: 19, "And I terpretation? shall be gracious to whom I shall Elias Munk show mercy." The selectivity of Downsview, Ontario God's providence has thus been well established ever since the days of the golden calf and it would RABBi GRANA TSTEIN REPLIES: seem unlikely that God had cho- sen a prophet who was not perfect- I cannot agree with Mr. Munk ly aware of the diffculty of recon. that the selectivity of Divine Provi- cilng the apparent injustices in- dence is a simple matter estab- volved in tzadik vera 10, rasha ve- lished by appeal to a verse in Exo- 131 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought dus. Jewish tradition has, after all, quences to Israel should idolators, been perpetually concerned with the especially those of hated Assyria interplay of the attribute of justice repent. The commentators men- on the one hand with its universal tioned by Mr. Munk have relied objectivity and the attribute of on the external evidence of the compassion on the other. While conflict between Israel and Assyria Exodus 33: 19 expresses the selec- to gauge the probable motivations tivity of God's compassion it must of Jonah and have found certain be contrasted with, for example, midrashim helpful in this respect. Deuteronomy 32: 4 with its em- I have adopted the pattern sug- phasis on God's inexorable and gested in the latter part of the absolute justice. Religio-moral Yalkut out of a desire to avoid any problems tend to arise when we change of reading external material must confront the polar tension into the text. This interpretation has of the demands of justice over that merit. against the appeal to compassion. Whether the method I have To my thinking the religious per- adopted is legitimate or not de- son must respond responsibly to pends on whether the members of the concrete situations in which the Great Assembly intended the this tension presents itself and this book to be read in the context of is where the greatest uncertainty the particular historical events in is likely to be found. By all inter- which Jonah's mission occurred or pretations including the one pre- whether they sought to lift the ac- sented so articulately by Mr. Munk, count out of its historical context this is the central problem for the in order to express the profound prophet Jonah. and historically unconditioned truth I have indeed departed from the of the power of repentance and the classical commentators cited by compassion of God. I believe the Mr. Munk and have followed in- latter is the case and this is sup- stead a direction on interpretation ported by the almost mysterious cited in the Yalkut Shimoni Jonah lack of reference to the conflict of 4. The Yalkut begins by asserting Assyria and Israel in the book. that God arose from the throne of Let me correct a misinterpreta- justice and sat upon the throne of tion of the point made in my essay mercy in dealing with Nineveh. regarding Jonah. I do not assert There then continues a recounting that God's desire to save Nineveh of the substance of the last dia- is capricious. That would have the logue of God and Jonah finally ac- effect of asserting that God is ca- claims the wisdom of God in judg- pricious and this would be incom- ing the world through mercy~. patible with Jewish belief. It is The midrashim followed by the rather that Divine intervention (and classical commentators introduce indeed the absence of it) can and elements that are not present in the often does appear capricious to the text, e.g., concern for the welfare human mind and that we have no and honor of Israel over against way of escaping from the very the honor of God and the conse- practical view open to us. It is in 132 Communications no sense unlikely to my thinking to death by it. By the evidence of that a person entertaining such a the text God asks rhetoricaIJy if despairing viewpoint in a given He should not be compassionate situation should be selected for a toward his creatures. Apparently prophetic mission. Metaphysical re- that to Jonah was an inexplicable bellon is not always a sign of an descent in the service of compas- inferior religious and moral de- sion by God troubled him. There- velopment. It may be the mark of fore I have been led to the inter- a powerful religious sensitivity that pretation outlned in my essay. is forced, perhaps ag.inst its wil, to rebel and attempt to.1 escape from a Divine mission. For the Rabbis in Sanhedrin 89, Jonah is the arch-type of the MICROPHONES prophet who sins by suppressing his prophecy the punishment for which To THE EDITOR OF TRADITION: is "death at the hands of heaven." Let us redirect Mr. Munk's ques- In the light of Rabbi Bleich's tion and ask how God could choose discussion of the microphone con- a prophet who would violate a clear troversy (TRADITION, Summer mortal prohibition. Ibn Ezra, in 1971 ), I find myself again forced raising this question, is quick to to defend the decision rendered by point out that even Moses sought the Halakhah Commission of the to evade the prophetic mission en- Rabbinical Council under the trusted to him and that the pro- chairmanship of my very good phetic callng assumes some decis- .friend, the late Rabbi Simcha ion making capacity on the part of Levy Z"L. permitting the use of the prophet; namely, do and obey a microphone on Shabbat and Yom or rebeL. That by halakhic obliga- Tov. tion a prophet must obey his call- For the record I want to estab- ing no matter how paradoxical or lish the chronological sequence of morally troubling, in no way ob- this matter, that has become a viates the discomfort and mental "cause celebre." anguish he wil experience. There Rabbi Levy and his Halakhali is plenty of evidence of this in the Commission published its decision Bible. Jonah initially sins, but his permitting the use of a microphone sin is paradoxically a sign of his on Shabbat and Yom Tov before great moral integrity. A prophet is any other group took a stand. not a religious robot. He does not Much later the Agudas Hora- practice what S. R. Hirsch called bonim, for reasons best known to "magical mechanism." He responds themselves, suddenly published an to the Divine voice. out of the "issur" on the use of á micro- depth of his own moral and re- phone in the Morning Journal. ligious sensitivities. Ultimately, One could have expected a re- Jonah cannot escape his mission but spectable rabbinic organization pre- he is nonetheless sickened almost pared to take a public stand against 133 TRADTTION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought a decision rendered by another which states among other things, rabbinic organization to show them that it is prohibited to load a the courtesy of prior consultation water-mil with wheat .!?rev shabbat before making public statements. unless one is certain that' it wil And secondly, one would expect all be ground before shabbat. If, such a decision to be published in however, there is not sufcient time a Torah publication before going to grind the whole load before to the newspapers. The Agudas Shabbat, then it is forbidden to Horabonim, however, did neither. load the mil before Shabbat. The Now again, one of the greatest question is - why? poskim of our day, Rabbi Moshe The Talmud cites two reasons: Feinstein Shlita has published a vol- One by Rabbah who says, "be- ume where he deals with the matter. cause it gives forth a sound", and It is precisely for this reason the other by Rav Y osef who says, that I am undertaking the monu- "that the rest law of Shabbat ap- mental task of challenging one of plies even. to the personal prop- the greatest scholars of our present erty ." day both as to the manner handled Subsequently the Talmud cites as well as to the substance. I do t~e opinion of Rabbi Oshaya who not undertake this lightly.