-6

I think that would change the balance of power dramatically and ensure fast and effortless conquer of the Promised Land.

For those (interpreters and those of you) who hold that the conquest had to be "natural", by the power of force - battles, and wars, why didn't G-d reveal the secret recipe for gunpowder?

I think in the eyes of the nations that would surely raise the Israelites in the rank of G-d's people.

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 8
    In what way is granting the Israelites futuristic technology natural? – Double AA Jun 27 '19 at 17:32
  • @DoubleAA It was only futuristic because discovered centuries later. There's no futuristic in it, it is very easy to make, handle and use. – Al Berko Jun 27 '19 at 22:06
  • It's no longer futuristic but it was then. That's the definition – Double AA Jun 28 '19 at 00:34
  • Penicillin and some rudimentary airplanes(bombing Titus and Hadrian's armies to powder) would've come in handy, too. All good things in all good time. – Gary Jun 29 '19 at 11:56

5 Answers5

8

God didn't give the Jews a super weapon because he was the super weapon.

The covenant with the Jews is that if the Jews keep the Torah, God will protect them. If God gives them all machine guns with unlimited ammo, they don't need God to protect them because they could just massacre all of the Canaanites, Philistines, Arameans, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians within a month.

God wants the Jews to be dependent on Him so they will always serve him.

Clint Eastwood
  • 8,303
  • 17
  • 44
  • 1
    You might want to move it into the comments section. Also, I specified "for those who held it should be natural", not relying on Hashem. – Al Berko Jun 27 '19 at 22:10
  • 2
    This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review – sabbahillel Jun 28 '19 at 01:52
  • @sabba How doesn’t this answer the question? – DonielF Jun 28 '19 at 12:46
  • 1
    @DonielF The question was why did Hashem not teach future science for natural means not use obvious miracles. Your answer implied obvious miracles. – sabbahillel Jun 28 '19 at 16:06
8

Besides for the fact that G-D could have helped the Jewish people conquer Israel using 'natural' methods in a quicker manner without giving them futuristic technology, the premise of the question that G-D wanted Israel to have a 'fast and effortless' conquest is also mistaken.

Devarim 7:22 explicitly writes that G-D wanted the conquest to be slow and gradual:

וְנָשַׁל֩ ה"א אֶת־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֛ל מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ מְעַ֣ט מְעָ֑ט
לֹ֤א תוּכַל֙ כַּלֹּתָ֣ם מַהֵ֔ר פֶּן־תִּרְבֶּ֥ה עָלֶ֖יךָ חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃

The LORD your God will dislodge those peoples before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them at once, else the wild beasts would multiply to your hurt.

The simple explanation for this (said by Rashi and others) is that if Bnai Yisrael captured too much of the land at once, their population would not be large enough to fill all the land, and wild animals would come in to fill the void.

Community
  • 1
Salmononius2
  • 6,791
  • 20
  • 39
  • I liked the idea. But not Rashi - isn't millions enough for populating Israel? There were much fewer Jews at the beginning of the 20th century (based on 600K grown-up males). – Al Berko Jun 27 '19 at 22:13
  • 1
    @AlBerko, well, you're wrong. Clearly, however many people there were was not enough to properly populate the country. Two proofs: 1) Rashi (and the Torah, basically) says so. 2) Even nowadays, there are large swaths of uninhabited areas of Israel. It just affects us a lot less due to technological and social factors. – Salmononius2 Jun 28 '19 at 01:07
  • @Salmononius2 The detail you’re pointing out is an excellent one. But the obvious question it raises is what is meant by the expression, “חית השדה”? Is it referring to actual four legged creatures or a particular type of person already within the Jewish society? – Yaacov Deane Jul 01 '19 at 10:16
  • @Salmononius2 Think of the related expression in Devarim 20:19. – Yaacov Deane Jul 01 '19 at 10:29
  • @YaacovDeane And the obvious answer it raises is that “חית השדה" means "wild beasts", as in literal 'four legged creatures'. Yes, I'm aware that there are quite a few midrashic/'mystical'/whatever interpretations one could make, but the plain and simple reading, backed up by Rashi and others, is that we're talking about literal wild beasts roaming the barren land. And this is in no way comparable to Devarim 20:19, where the Torah is explicitly writing an allegory. – Salmononius2 Jul 01 '19 at 12:39
  • @Salmononius2 Rashi states he is basing his comment on Iyov 5:19-27 which follows what I have suggested to you. It is not talking about literal 4 legged creatures according to the commentaries there. Similarly, looking at Gra, Malbim, Ramban and others to your citation in Devarim, they don't take it to mean literal 4 legged creatures either. Peshat, (Rashi's commentary) doesn't mean 'simple-minded' (בקטנות). – Yaacov Deane Jul 01 '19 at 13:57
  • @YaacovDeane Rashi in Iyov: וחית השדה. הוא שנקרא גרוש"ה בלע"ז וזו היא חית השדה ממש ובלשון משנה תורת כהנים נקראים אדני השדה: Rashi in Iyov himself says that "חית השדה" means literally animals. Again, I am not doubting that there are other deeper and more esoteric meanings behind the Passuk, but to claim that the Peshat is not referring literally to animals is just plain false. – Salmononius2 Jul 01 '19 at 15:48
2

A simple answer to this question is that Maimonides felt that G-d never instructed Israel which was contrary to our state of development at that time. This could be applied to gunpowder and is applied to animal sacrifices, in which he felt that G-d did not want nor need but that people felt that this was the best way of worship. See Ben Shapiro regarding this. Now to the long answer.

Although the Torah commands to conquer Canaan, Moshe Rabbeinu sought peace, which was the true goal of the Torah. The Torah teaches to treat non-Jews fairly, as we ourselves were once slaves in a foreign land. More than forty times Israel is commanded to love its neighbors. See (Leviticus 25:35). Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai gave blessings of peace even to pagans. See (Berakhot 17a). And Rabban Gamliel passed out bread to a pagan he never knew simply because he was in need of food. Refer to (Eruvin 64b). We are even encouraged to visit non-Jews and pray when they are ill. (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 151:12) and (Tosefta Gittin 3:13).

Thus, G-d, who is transcendent, would not reveal gunpowder (which will be invented a few thousand years later by the Chinese in the 9th-century). True, the Torah demands the conquest of Canaan, but Moshe saw that Torah's ultimate purpose was peace, and realized that this was placed because Israel needed to hear the call to arms at that time, but when a close examination is applied, we find that Joshua never "conquered" or destroyed the inhabitants of the Canaanites against their will but gave three options, a) leave peacefully, b) convert, or c) fight. While some chose to fight out of free will, we cannot call this a genocide as the land was promised to Abraham and his descendants, and Joshua proposed a peaceful solution. To call this an act of aggression or genocide, you can not.

PS the term "genocide" was invented only a long time later, and no one regarded the Bible as a "book of genocide." Not to mention that the word genocide and the concept of genocide is alien in the Hebrew language of the Torah. Thus, there was no need to reveal gunpowder. And if there were, one could speculate why not reveal nuclear power or biological weapons. Because the goal of Torah is peace, not war.

Turk Hill
  • 1,348
  • 7
  • 16
  • 1
    A very fresh idea. Personally, I disagree with your idea that Torah's peace - Torah is seemingly very clear with the fate of the idolaters dwelling in the Holy Land. We also see "לא תחיה כל נשמה" which I can't interpret other than genocide, which Moses implemented once. Bio or nuclear weapons couldn't be contained therefore needless to reveal, but gunpowder would be very handy AND peaceful as it could prevent bloodshed in the first place as it did in other places when used againt primitive nations. – Al Berko Jun 27 '19 at 22:32
  • @AlBerko Although I support the 2nd Amendment, I do not think gunpowder would have aided Israel. When the Spaniards arrives at the new world, their guns were used to manipulate the indigenous populace. Sure they may have kept some peace but at who’s expense? Then they said machine guns would end all wars. It’s been two world wars later. In short, the Torah’s purpose is twofold; to teach some truths, to perfect the self and improve society. Contrary to what most people think, the Bible is neither a history book nor a philosophy book. It teaches us about G-d and proper action. – Turk Hill Jun 28 '19 at 02:15
  • @AlBerko Israel needed to hear a call to arms. Today, we should refer to Guide 3:41, where G-d only allowed certain things the ancients thought G-d required, such as sacrifices and the deaths of the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 7:2). But does G-d desire the death of the wicked? (Yechezkel 18:23). Again, genocide is not a Hebrew word found in the Bible. Anyone who says the Torah permits genocide is gravely mistaken and leaves a bad stain on Judaism. When the Christians committed crimes against humanity in the inquisition, we should note the Jews never had an inquisition. – Turk Hill Jun 28 '19 at 02:16
  • I do not think that G-d permits nor demands genocide. When a deeper examination is applied, we see that Joshua did not implement genocide but peaceful solutions, as the Torah emphasizes love. “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole Law. The rest is commentary. Now go and learn.” — Rabbi Hillel – Turk Hill Jun 28 '19 at 02:31
  • PS Biological weapons can be contained. Sir Jeffery Amherst did it in 1763 to the Native American Indians with blankets and smallpox. – Turk Hill Jun 28 '19 at 03:02
  • If your answer is based upon the premise that Rambam advocates and suggests that animal sacrifice is neither desired, nor necessary that is simply contrary to reality. Consider the bulk of laws presented by Rambam in the Mishneh Torah dealing with that subject. The idea you present that the Torah is anti-genocide is one I have asked about here before and advocated. But the community view here believes the opposite. – Yaacov Deane Jul 01 '19 at 10:42
  • @YaacovDeane I am convinced that Maimonides felt G-d does not need or want sacrifices and only allowed the people to have them because the ancient people felt they had to do sacrifices to show love of God. See Ben Shapiro. I am glad that you know the Torah is against genocide. As my answer shows, the word genocide does not exist in the Torah. The term was placed by anti-semites to degrade the Bible and Judaism. – Turk Hill Jul 01 '19 at 16:11
  • @TurkHill Actually, the term genocide originated following the Holocaust as far as I am aware. If memory serves, it came up in connection with the Nuremberg trials. See this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide – Yaacov Deane Jul 02 '19 at 04:30
  • @YaacovDeane Yes you are right. It was coined by Raphael Lemkin. He wrote a book called, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,” 1944. Lemkin was Jewish and might have termed it in response to the Shoah. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 04:39
  • @TurkHill Concerning your Ben Shapiro reference (without a link), please see explanation from the OU. They make very clear that people who suggest the idea that Rambam and/or Rav Kook thought animal sacrifices would not be reinstated with Moshiach & the rebuilding of the 3rd Temple are mistaken. It is based only on statements in Moreh Nevuchim & ignoring both Mishneh Torah & his commentary to Mishnah. https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/the-korbanot/ – Yaacov Deane Jul 02 '19 at 04:40
  • @YaacovDeane Thank you for link. I will read it and get back to you tomorrow. Unless the link convince me otherwise, I hold that both the Rambam and Kook were against sacrifices, but I will read the link and let you know. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 04:43
  • @YaacovDeane Thank you for the link. Although the link was helpful, I remain unconvinced. Animals, according to the Torah, have rights just like humans do. In fact, the Torah offers a right to rest not only for humans but for animals as well. See Exodus 20:10. Jews always rested on Shabbat, but the goyim didn't always have the weekend. It was not until the end of the 19th century were US citizens (employees) were still expected to work a 7-day work week. There was actually a small war over it. People were killed to win the weekend! – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:53
  • More moral obligations to keep animals safe. See Deuteronomy 22:10. And for the well-being of mother sheep, see (Leviticus 22:28). Then there is shiluakh haKan (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). This is a good command. Although the young chicks die, the mother bird is spared witness to their immature deaths. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:53
  • Rambam teaches that there is no distinction between comparison of a mother that is human and a mother who is an animal. See Moreh Nevukhim 3:48. And The Gemara in Baba Metsia 32 outweighs rabbinical law in regards to prevent animal suffering. Rambam also says that animals were here before us. Darwin proved that. But the Torah preceded him in Genesis! Also see Rama, Yoreh Deah 60:1 and Iggrot Moshe, Even HaEzer 4:92. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:53
  • almud (Berakhot 40a) says we must make sacrifices to secure animal rights. Ex, you must first feed your pet before you eat. It is Jewish law and now also a virtue to do so. The Midrash teaches that Moshe was chosen by G-d beyond his huge consideration for animals. G-d loved Moshe the best and he is considered the best of prophets. Animals are not mere property. In the Gemara (Baba Metsia 85a), we read that Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi suffered because he ruled that animals should be killed. His ailments ceased when he became compassionate to animals. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:54
  • The rabbis in Eruvin 100b teach that if we never received the Torah, we would learn it from nature. From a cat, an ant, a dove. Noah sent a dove to fly across a new world first. Yet there is no special blessing over-consumption of meat? Because we were never meant to consume meat. The detrimental of meat products have pushed a large percentage of Jews away from the dinner table. It is now proven that pork, no matter how cooked, always contain warms. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:55
  • Rambam sought to prove every mitzvah rational. This is one way of looking at it. Jean Mayer, a Harvard nutritionist, claims that third world countries (60 million people) could be fed over if Americans limited their meat intake to just 10%. Not to mention that a nutritionist diet prevents cancer, cures disabilities, and lowers weight to the point were exercise must work harder to keep up. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:55
  • Originally G-d made us all vegetarian, but after the Great flood, we began to consume meat. In the days of the messiah, we shall again return to vegetarianism. See Genesis 1:29 and Gemara (Sanhedrin 59b). See Rav Yehudah. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:55
  • What of shehita (ritual slaughter)? Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook recommends vegetarianism in order to expiate sin. This will be the messianic era also. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:56
  • We are permitted under permission to eat meat, not obligated. (Deuteronomy 12:20). Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the Chief Rabbi of Efrat, says “The dietary laws are intended to teach us compassion and lead us gently to vegetarianism.” Jewish Week (New York, August 14, 1987), p. 21. We do not live in a hedonistic society. Halakha requires the consumption of meat even in Jewish holidays but only in a historical context. But there is no more temple. See Gemara (Pesahim 109a). And Gemara (Pesahim 71a; Baba Batra 60b) claims that joy was not fully dependent upon the consumption of meat. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:56
  • Medieval Jewish legal authorities claims there is no more obligation to eat mean in holidays. Rishonim even claims there was no need to eat meat during the temples! See Bet Yosef and Magen Avraham. True, there is some posekim but there is more obligation to refrain then not. Isaac Bashevis Singer, a survivor from the Shoah who says we should treat animals well as humans and give them rights. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 18:56
  • It is, therefore, my belief that God neither wants nor is He in a dire state of need for sacrifices. Refer to Rambam and Rav Kook. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 19:13
  • The Rambam says that G-d neither needs nor wants sacrifices, and only allowed it because people in ancient times felt differently. It is a concession to human needs. He also states that this is not only his view but is the view of the prophets. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 19:18
  • We can add that the ancient rabbis around 70 CE when the temple was destroyed also felt that sacrifices were unnecessary. Therefore when the temple was destroyed, they did not seek a way to continue sacrifices. It would have been easy for them to do so if they felt it was necessary. Of course, as is to be expected, many rabbis disagreed. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 19:18
  • Thus, is the Maimonidean controversy. Some think Maimonides meant this, yet others think he meant that. It all depends on which view you hold true. But we shall find out when Mashiach arrives and the Third Temple is reestablished in Jerusalem. Let's pray those events occurs within our lifetimes. – Turk Hill Jul 02 '19 at 19:27
1

Could be this would answer your question.

וכתב הבניהו בגיטין (דף סח.) וז"ל יש חוקרים שלמה המלך ע"ה היה חכם מכל אדם ועשה כסא עצום ונורא המבהיל בדמיון ועוד כמה וכמה מיני חכמות,ואיך לא היה יכול לעשות חכמה זו של שמנדפי"ר [רכבת] לעשות מרכבה של עגלות ההולכים במרוצה ע"י אש כעוף הפורח,

והשבתי להם בודאי ידע חכמה זו ועשה אותה, אך לא עשאה לתשמיש בני אדם אחרים כי לא רצה שתתפשט חכמה זו בעולם וילמדו אותה גם האומות לעשותה, כי צפה ברוה"ק שאח"ז יבואו האומות בבל ויוון ואדום וילחמו בישראל, אך מחמת שמקומם רחוק לא יוכלו לבא על ירושלים בקלות כנשרים אלא צריכין להתעכב בדרך זמן הרבה וכאשר ילחמו בישראל ויפלו מן האויבים של ישראל חללים ויצטרכו להביא חיל מעירם להוסיף על חיל שלהם לא יוכלו לבא במהרה ומה דביני ביני יהיה הצלה וישועה לישראל ואם היה עושה זה למהלך רבים היתה נודעת לכל העמים והיה יוצא היזק לישראל בדורות הבאים כאמור על כן עשה זה המהלך ע"י אש בעגלה אחת וכו' שלא יהיה נודע מעשיה לרבים וכו' ונראה על זו העגלה וכו' קרי לה שידתא כי שידתא לשון שד כלומר עגלה זו הולכת במרוצה גדולה כמו שד ושידה, כי השידין יש להם מהלך קל מנשר וכהרף עין ילכו מקום הרחק יום אחד או יומיים" עכ"ל

Community
  • 1
sfeksfeika
  • 196
  • 7
  • An interesting explanation. Where is it taken from? Why didn't Salomon use those technologies for the Jews only to win their numerous wars? – Al Berko Jul 01 '19 at 13:37
0

The question seems arbitrary, but this much is certain: If the Israelites had gunpowder, the rest of the world would have discovered the recipe soon enough and primitive, idol-worshipping societies would have destroyed any hope of progress in the world, especially since there were so much fewer people in the world at that time to begin with.

Derdeer
  • 788
  • 4
  • 10