Arguing with Hashem

[MahTovChelkeinu]

This week Hashem opens the parsha by chastising Moshe for asking him at the end of last weeks parsha (translation from chabad.org)

Shemot, Chapter 5
22. So Moses returned to the Lord and said, "O Lord! Why have You harmed this people? Why have You sent me?

23. Since I have come to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has harmed this people, and You have not saved Your people."



But even though Hashem seemingly chastises Moshe for asking questions, we find that the Moshe is praised for the way he advocated for the Jewish people throughout the Torah. We also see that Moshe does keep asking questions, so he seemingly did not accept Hashem's chastisement. And while Hashem says that Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov did not ask any questions, the first major debate with Hashem is actually when Avraham tries to prevent the destruction of S'dom.

There is a lot of discussion on this topic in sforim, but I want to hear people's thoughts on this forum in light of some recent posts. What is the Torah teaching us by recording these debates; how do we take Moshe and Avraham's advocacy and Hashem's rebuke in this week's parsha and apply them to our own avodah?

[constantavodah]

We know that everything in torah is a horah for us, with that said heres what i think:
This conversation with moshe and hashem is recorded to show us how to respectfuly complain to hashem. Moshe doesnt say why did you do this or why didnt you save them, he merely states his complaint. We find similar ideas in tehillim and davening (i cant think of anyexamples right now, but maybe others can).

I think the point is, show hashem that we dont like this/ we dont see how this is ok. but dont say hashem you are wrong chas veshalom or why are you doing such and such.

[noahidelaws]

dont say hashem ... why are you doing such and such.
What about "lomo harei'oso l'am hazeh"? Sounds like that tone to me!

[MahTovChelkeinu]

I'm not sure I agree with constantavodah's answer yet because I want to have a look at some of Moshe's later arguments with Hashem, but I believe that Noah is missing Constant's point.

If I understand your answer correctly, Hashem was specifically chastising Moshe for the tone of that specific argument - that in the first posuk he asks "why are you doing such and such" directly challending Him rather than the more typical "if... then..." shailos. On this logic, Moshe's second statement that Pharoah is now worse than before could be interpreted as a bit more in line with proper questions.

I actually had thought the opposite. That Moshe's 'mistake' was implying that Hashem was not having an effect on Pharoah. This would jive with Elokim's statement "Ani Havaya" in this weeks Parsha - basically saying don't think this isn't part of the plan. And also it jives with the reference to the Avos (who suffered without seeing the brochoah to become a nation materialize) and Rashi's perush that Havaya is the one who delivers the reward. This answer is also good because it explains the form of Avraham's challenge regarding S'dom - he was not questioning Hashem's methods, but rather his conclusions. Sure, Hashem can destroy S'dom, but is that the best decision? Likewise, when Moshe challenged Hashem regarding destroying the Jewish people post Golden Calf ("write me out of your book"), he was not questioning that Hashem could do it, rather he was questioning whether doing it was a good plan.

The concern with this answer is: how can you ever ask a question on how Hashem operates? If Hashem does something, and Moshe challenges Him, He can say "its all according to plan, why are you doubting me." And even in the case of S'dom or the Egel, Hashem can say "its all part of my grand plan to bring the world to Moshiach." So we are still left with the question, why did Moshe challenge Hashem on later occassions.

[emes m'eretz]

See Lekutei Sichos vol 31 vaeira(1) where the interpretation of Hashem's answer is not that it is a chastisement, but rather that Hashem is giving Moshe an explanation.

In general, I remember reading that, according to the Rebbe, regarding Avrohom's questioning of Hashem, and regarding the holocaust, that if the question is asked in a spirit of humility, then it is a proper question.

[Majorthinker]

What about "lomo harei'oso l'am hazeh"? Sounds like that tone to me!
Except that it wasn't for his sake, but for the sake of the nation. And Hashem was happy that he protested.

I can kvetch to Hashem that He gave x tzarot. I cannot and will not ask why He gave me tzarot. For myself, I can and should have emuna. For the other guy, I can and should daven. Nunu...

[emes m'eretz]

For myself, I can and should have emuna. For the other guy, I can and should daven.
For yourself you shouldn't daven?

[Majorthinker]

For myself, I don't need to argue with Hashem. Obviously, if I was given a certain test, then I have to grow from it. Also obviously, it isn't as bad as I thought at first. So, if it's not so bad, what is there to suffer? I daven to Hashem that I should find the koach within me to deal with it properly. Not that He should take it away...it's there for a reason.

It's like a rock- you either trip over it, or use it as a stepping stone.

[benyehudao]

For myself, I don't need to argue with Hashem. Obviously, if I was given a certain test, then I have to grow from it. Also obviously, it isn't as bad as I thought at first. So, if it's not so bad, what is there to suffer? I daven to Hashem that I should find the koach within me to deal with it properly. Not that He should take it away...it's there for a reason.

It's like a rock- you either trip over it, or use it as a stepping stone.

that very high level of emunah vebitahon bashem!

on other hand is ok to ask that a test you or someone else is having instead be given to a goy who is a rasha and did you wrong? a jew who is rasha and did you wrong?

often when i hear from young person suffering from disease or leave world early i ask why is still around amadinejad and why hashem cannot take tumor out from Jewish young person and plant in rosho goy or even rosho jew who cause people much problem like maybe madoff or olmert.

[Majorthinker]

-If I could reach it, it obviously isn't such a high level. I would actually assume that most people have reached that level, and that it's pretty basic.

-No, just daven that the resha'im get what they deserve. But only goyishe resho'im; no Jew is a rasha. (V'ameich kulam tzaddikim...)

-I wonder, too. I used to wonder why they deserved that more than me, and wished I could take it from them, but I was forbidden to think that way...

[chossidnistar]

I daven to Hashem that I should find the koach within me to deal with it properly. Not that He should take it away...it's there for a reason.

It's like a rock- you either trip over it, or use it as a stepping stone.

and if someone has,cv, a bad sickness?

[emes m'eretz]

I daven to Hashem that I should find the koach within me to deal with it properly. Not that He should take it away...it's there for a reason.
But what about prayers in the siddur?

For example, in the birchos hashachar, we ask Hashem to protect us from many things, including physical dangers etc.

And in Shmoineh Esrei, we ask Hashem to bless us with physical blessings like parnoso, healing etc.

[emes m'eretz]

.it's there for a reason.
But what if the reason is that you should daven to Hashem to remove it?

What if the reason was only relevant for the past? And for the future we have an obligation to try to remedy the problem, to have bitochon that Hashem will help us, and to daven that Hashem should make our efforts successful.

In other words, what if we believe that whatever happened in the past was for the best, for our own good; and for the future we are optimistic that G-d will make things happen in a way that is a revealed good.

Because even though everything that happened is bashert, and is for our own good; nevertheless Hashem wants us to try to take care of ourselves and others, by working with nature, and by davening to Him for our needs.

[Remy]

How about Eli who says, "He is G-d, whatever he does is just" or something to that effect when he is told by Samuel of his soon coming destruction and what not?

[emes m'eretz]

It's more like "G-d will do what He considers good."

In other words, G-d will do whatever He wants, and no one can stop Him.

But G-d still wants us to do what we can to protect ourselves.


So even though we acknowledge that G-d is all powerful, at the same time we have the obligation to try our best to help ourselves and others. Because that's what G-d wants us to do.

And sometimes, in the merit of charity, prayer, trust in G-d, and other good deeds, it is possible to change G-d's decree. And this is also part of G-d's Will.


So to summarize: When Eli said that G-d is all powerful, this did not necessarily mean that he wouldn't try (through prayer etc.) to change the decree.

[Majorthinker]

and if someone has,cv, a bad sickness?
Then you daven that they should be healthy. I never said that you shouldn't...

But what about prayers in the siddur?
You daven them, too. But as both R' Chaim MiVolozhin and ADH"Z point out, the purpose of davening is not the physical. (The former holds that it is to bring kavod to Hashem, and that we should not ask for relief from out tzarot, since we already caused Hashem tza'ar by sinning, and therefore, we brought this upon ourselves- which hurts Hashem already- and you don't need to add by showing your distress. Instead, think of the distress of the Sh'china. The latter states that the purpose of davening is to break the nh"b.)

For example, in the birchos hashachar, we ask Hashem to protect us from many things, including physical dangers etc.
And therefore?

And in Shmoineh Esrei, we ask Hashem to bless us with physical blessings like parnoso, healing etc.
These weren't just written on the simple level, you know.

But what if the reason is that you should daven to Hashem to remove it?
And what if the reason is so that you should find the kochot that you never knew you had?

What if the reason was only relevant for the past? And for the future we have an obligation to try to remedy the problem, to have bitochon that Hashem will help us, and to daven that Hashem should make our efforts successful.
So why do you have it now, if it was relevant only in the past? Let's say I have a headache. As soon as I realize that I have a headache because Hashem is trying to tell me something, and I realize what it is (or ask Hashem to help me realize), the headache goes away. Why? Because its purpose is finished. You aren't stuck with tzarot that you don't need to deal with.

And yes- remedy it. Make sure that the reason you ended up with it doesn't exist. I have a headache physically because my glasses are on funny, or are dirty, etc. Spiritually, probably because I haven't spent enough time....saying tehillim. Or whatever. So, in the future, I'll (for the sake of the example, no nedeirim here) I'll make sure to say that much mroe tehillim per day.

In other words, what if we believe that whatever happened in the past was for the best, for our own good; and for the future we are optimistic that G-d will make things happen in a way that is a revealed good.
Revealed is what you see. Different people see revealed good in different things.

Because even though everything that happened is bashert, and is for our own good; nevertheless Hashem wants us to try to take care of ourselves and others, by working with nature, and by davening to Him for our needs.
By davenin....ich, I don't feel like repeating everything over. Read 'בגן האמונה', by R' Shalom Arush (shlit"a). In English: In the Garden of Emuna. Read it twice.

How about Eli who says, "He is G-d, whatever he does is just" or something to that effect when he is told by Samuel of his soon coming destruction and what not?

It's more like "G-d will do what He considers good."
And it's up to you to make His will your will.


In other words, G-d will do whatever He wants, and no one can stop Him.

What?!?! No one can stop G-d?!?! Noooo.....:rolleyes:


But G-d still wants us to do what we can to protect ourselves.

That's called hishtadlut. After your hishtadlut, then you're working with emuna.


So even though we acknowledge that G-d is all powerful, at the same time we have the obligation to try our best to help ourselves and others. Because that's what G-d wants us to do.

And afterwards, when you've done all you can? Believe in G-d and ask Him to give the kochot to manage.


And sometimes, in the merit of charity, prayer, trust in G-d, and other good deeds, it is possible to change G-d's decree. And this is also part of G-d's Will.

[tekkiiiiiiiiiiiiiia]

So to summarize: When Eli said that G-d is all powerful, this did not necessarily mean that he wouldn't try (through prayer etc.) to change the decree.
I'm not even sure which Eli you're talking about.

[joel]

abraham was aguing with Hashem about sodom and gomora
hashem broke the coversation after he asked him
if he would save her if there would be only ten innocent people

my question is would hashem save sodom and gomora for one innocent person

[emes m'eretz]

These weren't just written on the simple level, you know.
Thanks for explaining another way of understanding duvening. It was interesting to hear that.

The Rebbe made it clear in many places that when we duven, we ask for our physical needs.

There is a Sicha in vol 19 Rosh Hashona-Vov Tishrei, where the Rebbe asks if, on Rosh Hashono, there is a contradiction between asking for one's personal needs in duvening, and being botul (subservient) to Hashem. The Rebbe anwers that there is no contradiction, because we ask Hashem to take care of our physical needs in order to serve Him better.

You mentioned that the Alter Rebbe talks about Tefila for a spiritual purpose. Yes, Tefila is about bonding with Hashem etc. But the simple meaning is also important -- asking for one's needs.

In the above Sicha, the Rebbe brings a footnote (#36) that points to the Rambam's and the Alter Rebbe's reference to davening as asking for one's physical needs.

[emes m'eretz]

gomora for one innocent person
Save the the gemoro where the people were so horribly cruel? Doubt it.

[joel]

Save the the gemoro where the people were so horribly cruel? Doubt it.

then i ask myself if hashem saved the world for one righteous
would he saved s'dom g'mora for one righteous from destruction

[Remy]

Joel, can we be righteous? Was not Abraham faithful before he was righteous and it was because of his faithfulness that Hashem called him righteous?

[joel]

Joel, can we be righteous? Was not Abraham faithful before he was righteous and it was because of his faithfulness that Hashem called him righteous?

abraham is only righteous before hashem bcoz he believed hashem

[Remy]

Well that leads me to believe, if his righteousness was by faith, how then could there be anyone righteous in sodom?

[Majorthinker]

Thanks for explaining another way of understanding duvening. It was interesting to hear that.
Thanks. :)

The Rebbe made it clear in many places that when we duven, we ask for our physical needs.
Okay, but that's not the ikkar.

There is a Sicha in vol 19 Rosh Hashona-Vov Tishrei, where the Rebbe asks if, on Rosh Hashono, there is a contradiction between asking for one's personal needs in duvening, and being botul (subservient) to Hashem. The Rebbe anwers that there is no contradiction, because we ask Hashem to take care of our physical needs in order to serve Him better.
This reminds me of eating to daven vs. davening to eat. The question is: Do you daven for your physical needs, or do your physical needs help you daven? One always takes priority, and somehow...

You mentioned that the Alter Rebbe talks about Tefila for a spiritual purpose. Yes, Tefila is about bonding with Hashem etc. But the simple meaning is also important -- asking for one's needs.
Okay, but it's enough to say that without so much kavana. Better to put the kavana into more spiritual things. [Oy vey, I sound like a mussarnik.]

In the above Sicha, the Rebbe brings a footnote (#36) that points to the Rambam's and the Alter Rebbe's reference to davening as asking for one's physical needs.

Thanks.

[existwhere?]

It's not arguing, it's davening.
Davening means making a kesher with Hashem.
Through davening, Moshe Rabbeinu redefined our kesher with HaShem, allowing us to be saved.
So when HaShem said "Hanicha li" maybe Moshe Rabbeinu realized that if he didn't leave HaShem, unlike Bnei Yisrael leaving HaShem after Matan Torah, they could be saved from Cheit HaEgel? Does this make sense?

[emes m'eretz]

It's not arguing, it's davening.
Davening means making a kesher with Hashem.
I think that this is a very nice way of showing the difference between a (divisive kind of) arguing and duvening.

When arguing is done without respect etc, then it divides and pushes people away from each other.

When the discussion is done in a respectful way, with ahavas Yisroel, or in the case of Hashem, with love and respect for Hashem, then it is constructive, and can lead to the parties becoming even closer to each other.

[Rachelle]

Interesting points brought up here. I just finished reading Rav Immanuel Schochet's 3 volumes "The Mystical Dimension." In vol. II (the section he Dynamics of Prayer) he deals with basically all the issues raised here about davening resolving the various questions (too much to copy here). In vol III (p. 92) he deals with the original question of this post, citing Midrash Tehillim, that tzadikim stand up and protest to G-d about troubles befalling Israel - and G-d approves of it because they do not do so for their own sake but for the benefit of Israel, see there.
IIRC (can't recall the source right now), there is a sichah of the Rebbe in which he asks - if Mosheh acted improperly, why would the Torah mention it when the Torah avoids saying unseemly things even about animals? And he answers that this comes to teach something positive, i.e., that we must learn from Mosheh that we do have to speak up and "protest" when things are not going good with Israel. isn't that what "ad mosai" is all about?

[emes m'eretz]

It sounds good, but I just want to repeat that the protest needs to be founded on faith and devotion and love.

Sometimes a child may argue with a parent, but there is an underlying bond of love and closeness and respect, and the language and tone matches the feelings.

Sometimes a child may become alienated chas vesholom, and then the tone is completely different.

It's the difference between arguing with someone you love, or arguing with someone you hate.

And when a Tzadik argues with Hashem, it's out of love. Love for the Jewish people, as you pointed out, and also love for Hashem. And the Tzadik's words and tone reflect this love.

[constantavodah]

How much of davening/tehillim is arguing?

Its more like protesting.

for example, when i daven for someone sick r"l so im not arguing with hashem chas veshalom but rather im protesting the situation and asking for the situation to be changed.

And sometimes we do ask "why" or "how can g-d do this"
what about that type of davening

[Torah613]

Where in the regular davvening to you find a "protest"?

[constantavodah]

where do you find arguing?

[Torah613]

Who said I do?

[emes m'eretz]

Its more like protesting
I think that davening is more like asking. Asking for what we need. As the Rambam defines it.

In Shmoineh Esrei we praise Hashem, then we ask for what we need, then we thank Hashem.

I looked through tachnun, and I didn't get a sense of protest. It seemed more like heartfelt request.

[emes m'eretz]

I glanced quickly at some tehilim, and it seems to be a very intimate conversation that Dovid Hamelech has with Hashem. Even when he asks for help, it's done in a very intimate way, respectfully.

[emes m'eretz]

Ad mosai seems a bit more difficult to explain.

It seems to come very close to protesting.

But I think it sort of stops short. So it's still asking. But a very urgent, heartfelt asking. An asking which reflects the pain of the Jewish people, and of the Shechina.

[emes m'eretz]

However, the Rebbe's expression "daloi golus!" (enough golus) sounds like protest.

I guess that fits into the role of Tzadikim, in their defence of the Jewish people.

(But even then, it is done out of love and respect, as noted above.)

[Rachelle]

Whatever you may want to call it (arguing, protesting, defending, persistent pleading etc.) - obviously it is based on a prior recognition, acknowledgement and consciousness of Hashem (why else would you be doing it without that???). By definition this implies recognizing boundaries (who and what is Hashem, and who and what are you etc.) and analysis of motivation as in asking for self-gratification etc. ( which you may still do quite legitimately for as long as you submit to the transcedental knowledge of Hashem vs. you not knowing what is in your best interest etc.), or out of empathy with others (thus selfless and unlimited) - let alone as in case of Abraham and Mosheh out of concern of chilul Hashem, especially when certain things happen to His chosen people etc. (Mosheh going so far as even giving "ultimatum" of "im ayin mecheini no misifrecho). [Case in point pleadings by R. Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev - even, as it were, "summoning Hashem to Din Torah".]

No doubt Hashem "loves" to see and hear that, even as a parent loves nothing better than to see children sticking together, defending one another and pleading for one another (even, and davka if the other may not be so deserving - the attribute of tiferes-rachamim where even midas hadin will go along), and then Hashem acts midoh keneged midoh.

Bottom line, however, remains that Hashem is in charge. In effect we ask that He change midas hadin to midas horachamim - for surely the Kol Yochol can find merciful ways to effect the same goals.

[constantavodah]

while i read rachelle's response today i was reminded of a poem written by mimi notik, i think she wrote it after the accident in australia. So I thought i would share and i think the underlying message is aproppo for this thread.

I'm talking to you, G-d. (http://livefromthehilltop.blogspot.com/2007/12/im-talking-to-you-g-d.html)


http://tallpoppiesart.com/galleries/bgalleries/pbangallery/slides/p03.JPG (http://tallpoppiesart.com/galleries/bgalleries/pbangallery/slides/p03.JPG)

Today, I felt like everyone was losing you.
Yes, G-d, I’m talking to you.
Everyone hates you today.
Do you know that?
We heard the tragic news and your name was on our lips.
And we weren’t saying nice things.

You see, we don’t exactly get you.

But we’re not ignorant.
We know it’s entirely your fault.
That’s how much we believe in you.

But we’re starting to expect less from you.
How does that make you feel?

You know, G-d.
As your children, we have some expectations.
You brought us into this world without our consent, so we have some demands.
Some very basic, basic demands.

Like our health.

Like a roof over our head.

We also expect you to let us keep the things that you give.
You know, like our family.

Is that too much to expect? Well, then you should have told us.
That’s what I call having some decency.

You want us to expect less?

Well, we just can't.

You told us you are our father.

If we expect nothing from you, we have lost you.

So we will always make our demands.

And when you cause us pain, we will still want you.

But, please.

Just don’t forget.

Don’t forget that we need you the most when you make us cry.

We expect that you will wipe our tears and help us stand straight.

Because, though we turn to you in anger and questions and turmoil, we still yearn for your embrace. Always.

For only you can heal the wound you created.

Yes, true comfort will always come from you.

No matter how much you hurt us.

I guess we’d rather expect a lot from you - risking everything - then expect nothing and risk losing you.

So let us scream at you, throw up our fists, and blame you for everything. You deserve it.

But please, respond to our fits with a hug.

The kind of hug that tells us you will never let go.

And, this time, make us believe it.

[emes m'eretz]

Maybe a bit too disrespectful. But then again, she seems to have been overcome with grief, and you can't blame people then.

I remember hearing about one girl who, when her mother died r"l, screamed at that Rebbe, why he didn't prevent it.
The next day the girl came back to her senses somewhat, and she asked the Rebbe for mechila (forgiveness). The Rebbe said, "There's nothing to forgive."




I remember watching, many years ago, a video of Rabbi Immanuel Schochet, debating a number of people in Australia. He really conducted himself very well, answering very difficult questions with a lot of chochmo.

There was one lady on the panel who was a holocaust survivor, and she asked him about the holocaust. He answered that once, in the middle ages, a Jew was shipwrecked. And he lost everything -- his family, his possessions. And he was on this island, by himself, and he looked up at Hashem and he said, "Hashem, you took away my family. You took away all my possessions. Now you want to take away my emuna (belief) in you. Oif lehachis, (out of spite), I won't let you take that away."

Rabbi Schochet explained that this Jew wanted so much to hold on to his belief in Hashem. And the only way he could do it, was to do it out of spite. So he did so, just to be able to hold on to Hashem.

I remember that as he told this story, he was crying.

[constantavodah]

Maybe a bit too disrespectful. But then again, she seems to have been overcome with grief, and you can't blame people then.

At first glance I also thought it was disrespectful, But Then i found an interesting point and i think its part of her underlying message: we fully recognize that hashem sent this tragedy so therefore we come back to hashem to daven so that hashem should change the decree or R"L we come back to hashem to say its not fair....

And if you think about it, its quite ironic and i dont think any other religion has this idea.

[emes m'eretz]

How about this: We fully recognize that Hashem sent this tragedy, so therefore we come back to Hashem to daven so that Hashem should change the decree.

The rest, "or we come back to say it's not fair," is probably not appropriate.

There's a Rashi somewhere that Shlomo Hamelech asked Hashem to give the Goyim what they ask for, or else they'll say it's not fair (or something like that); but the Jews will be loyal to Hashem regardless.

I think that all the "arguing" of the leaders of Israel throughout the generation was done in a spirit of humility. They tried to help the Yidden, but they kept the proper decorum and respect towards Hashem. They didn't accuse Hashem of being wrong, or unfair.

There were certain red lines which they didn't cross, And they operated within those lines.

[Torah613]

Maybe this is the Rashi you mean:
Toldos 27:28:
ד"א מהו האלקים בדין אם ראו לך יתן לך ואם לאו לא יתן לך אבל לעשו אמר משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך בין צדיק בין רשע יתן לך וממנו למד שלמה כשעשה הבית סידר תפלות ישראל שהוא בעל אמונה ומצדיק עליו הדין לא יקרא עליך תגר לפיכך ונתת לאיש כדרכיו אש תדע את לבבו, אבל נכרי מחוסר אמנה לפיכך אמר ואתה תשמע השמים וגו' ועשית ככל אשר יקרא אליך הנכרי בין ראוי בין שאינו ראוי תן לו כדי שלא יקרא עליך תגר
I was reminded of this Rashi in wake of the Bombay tragedy (actually the Chitas while the tragedy unfolded), reading some of the articles (in particular one of them) that some people wrote, which in my opinion definitely came across as קראו עליך תגר ר"ל.
Listen, OTOH to the LaPine sicha, where the Rebbe speaks about the tragedy - and stops short at one point...
Us little people do not know the lines. It behooves us to be careful...לא כל הרוצה ליטול את השם יטול.

[emes m'eretz]

That's it. Thanks.



I'm thinking about the different words over the centuries. And it seems that no Tzadik said that Hashem is unjust (which is the idea of "tagar").

Avrohom said, "Chalilah ([Heaven] forbid) that the the Judge of the world should not act justly." But he didn't say that He was unjust.

Moshe said "Why did you make things bad for this nation?" So he asked a question. He didn't say that Hashem was unjust.

The Rebbe, as you pointed out, stopped short. He quoted Mishli (10:19) (in Sefer Hasichos 5752 vol. 2 page 404) and Koheles (5:1) about the advisability of saying little. He said (rough translation): "A person should not talk a lot in matters of claims and 'answers' towards G-d."
But then he goes on to demand very strongly about the need to end this suffering, and the suffering of Golus.

You're right, we ourselves need to be careful. I think it says: Bimkoim gedoilim al tamoid. (Don't stand in the place of the great ones.) And as you quoted, loi kol horoitzeh...

But if you want to look at the great Tzadikim, and what they did; I think that there is a pattern. They asked, pleaded, cried, and even demanded for their people. But they didn't accuse G-d of being unjust. "Hatzur tomim poloi" G-d is perfect.

"Moshe emes vetoirosoi emes." Moshe is truth, and his Torah is truth. And the same with the ispashtusa of Moshe, the Tzadikim in each generation. And the same is with our inner soul. There is a clear awareness of the truth, that G-d is perfect and just. And when we know the truth so clearly, we can't deny it.

I think it says something like "ein odom nitfas beis tzorosoi." So if some Mumbai expressions were out of line, I'm sure that there is mechila mishomayim. Or, as the Rebbe told the girl, "there is nothing to forgive."

May we soon be zoicheh to the Geula Shleima, when we will be able to say, (I think from Yeshayohu) "Oidcho Hashem ki onafto bi," (I thank You Hashem that You were angry at me), when we will understand how everything was for our benefit, and when Hashem will wipe away the tears from everyone's face.

And when the Holtzbergs, and Mrs. Lapine, and all the kedoishim, and all Am Yisroel will wake up and dance, with ultimate simcha.

[Torah613]

I meant, literally, to listen to that sicha. Not to read the mugah version. You will then see what I meant.
And again - what Tzaddikim said at times of pain when emotions overflowed etc. is one thing (and like I said, they also had strict boundaries).
Writing a poem or an article, editing it (for maximum "effect"...), correcting mistakes, maybe showing it two one or two people for comments etc., and then publishing it and putting it out on the web etc. - is something else entirely...

[Majorthinker]

And when the Holtzbergs, and Mrs. Lapine, and all the kedoishim, and all Am Yisroel will wake up and dance, with ultimate simcha.
Some people who didn't physically die also need to wake up.

Writing a poem or an article, editing it (for maximum "effect"...), correcting mistakes, maybe showing it two one or two people for comments etc., and then publishing it and putting it out on the web etc. - is something else entirely...
Indeed.

[emes m'eretz]

I meant, literally, to listen to that sicha
I listened and I think I understand what you meant that he stopped short. But it's perhaps also open to the interpretation which is in the edited sicha, that it's a reference to the posuk in Mishli.

[joel]

Well that leads me to believe, if his righteousness was by faith, how then could there be anyone righteous in sodom?

but imagine what if there was only one righteous in s'dom
would you think hashem saved s'dom