The surpisingly small size of the Beis Hamikdash and it's effect on Korban Pesach

Since we are in the middle of the 9 days, mourning the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, this is an appropriate time to discuss issues relating to the Beis Hamikdash.

The Azara of the Beis Hamikdash was surpisingly small, 187 x 135 amos, 25425 square amos. Even assuming a large amah like the Chazon Ish, of 24 inches, that makes the Azara about 50,000 square feet. Of course the Azara had things in it like the kevesh, mizbeach, kiyor, shulchanos, amudim and taba'os which took up space, but even ignoring these this would allow a maximum of 10,000 people (5sq feet a person) in the Azara at one time. Even halving the space requirements per person to 2.5 sq feet a person gets us to a maximum of 20,000 people in the Azara at one time (again ignoring all of the "furniture").

This becomes very important on Erev Pesach when the Korban Pesach needs to be sacrificed in the afternoon. The Gemara in Pesachim (64b) states that King Agrippas wanted to take a census so he had the Kohanim count the number of Korban Pesachs that were brought and it came out to 1.2 million korbanos, 12 million people (10 to a korban).

How could they possibly have fit all of the people and animals in the Azara? The Gemara states that the Korban Pesach is brought in 3 shifts. 1.2 million korbanos means 1.2 million animals and at least 1.2 million people, even in 3 even shifts that is 400,000 people and animals a shift!!! As was pointed out above there is no way to fit in even a fraction of the people and animals required per shift. In addition, moving 400,000 people into and out of a confined space takes hours, the whole 3.5 hours would have been taken up by simply trying to get the people in and out without having time to do anything.

This leads to the question that given the dimensions of the Beis Hamikdash and the number of people, how did everyone ever bring a korban pesach? The numbers just don't work.

There is another related question that needs to be raised as well. The Korban Pesach is only brought in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan after the korban tamid is brought. The Mishna (58a) states that on Erev Pesach the Tamid was brought from 7.5 - 8.5. That leaves just 3.5 hours (8.5 -12) to bring the korban pesachs. That means that they had to sacrifice over 340,000 korbanos an hour, over 5700 a minute and over 95 a second. That is simply impossible. Let's think about what needed to be
done.
A. shechita
B. collect the blood
C. sprinkle the blood on the mizbeach
D. Skin the animal and take out the organs to be burned on the mizbeach.

All of this at the pace of 95 a second???

Just for comparison a modern slaughterhouse kills about 1000 animals an
hour, so in the time allotted could get to 3500 animals.

Nowhere in the Gemara (or in any of the Rishonim/Acharonim that I saw) is
there even a hint that these numbers are not real.

Some want to answer that you are right, it's impossible under normal conditions, and therefore, it must have been miraculous. However, this answer is very difficult for a number of reasons:

1. The Gemara on the same Daf (Pesachim 64b) has a dispute between Abaye and Rava how the doors to the Azara were closed when they were makriv the korban pesach. Abaye says that they were closed by a miracle and Rava says that they were closed by the Kohanim and the dispute revolves around whether we can rely on a miracle to close the doors. However, if the entirety of the hakrava of the korban pesach was ma'aseh nissim from beginning to end, then Rava's position is completely untenable.  Nobody went into the Azarah for pesach without relying on countless miracles, so why is the closing of a door by a miracle a problem but all of the other miracles were not? Additionally, in a machlokes Abaye and Rava we always pasken like Rava (except for 6 cases, this not being one of them) so halacha l'ma'seh we should pasken that we can't rely on miracles.
2. There is no source in Chazal for saying that bringing the Korban Pesach required multiple major miracles. For example, Chazal do state that there was a miracle on Yom Kippur that the people were standing packed together and yet had room to bow. The miracles required for bringing the Korban Pesach are much bigger and greater then this and yet there is no mention. 
3. We have a general principle of אין סומכים על הנס, it would be a gross violation of this principle to have a very important mitzva (if you don't do it you are חייב כרת) that can only ever be done with miracles. 

All of the questions that we asked above about the Korban Pesach in the Beis Hamikdash are even more difficult regarding the Korban Pesach that was brought in the Midbar in the second year.  The Mishkan was much smaller then the Beis Hamikdash and there were only 3 Kohanim at that time in the Midbar, Aharon and his 2 sons. So in addition to the questions already asked above, we can ask another question. How could 3 Kohanim possible have done all of the Avoda for hundreds of thousands if not million of korbanos?

Based on all of the above we have the following choices to explain Korban Pesach:

1. The masses of Jews never actually came to the Beis Hamikdash and brought the Korban Pesach
2. Ignore all of the above and rely on miracles to believe that million of Korban Pesachs were brought in 3.5 hours.

Parshas Matos - Mass Murder

The Parsha describes how the Jews waged war against Midyan and won the war. They returned with booty and captives, all of the women and the young boys. Moshe Rabbenu then commands them to kill all the young boys as well as any woman/girl who can have sexual relations (anyone over the age of 3). There is no other way to describe this but mass murder of innocent woman and children. Yet, we read this parsha every year and don't blink an eye.

What is hypocritical is that whenever someone else does this to us we scream bloody murder. The Nazis did nothing worse then what the Bnei Yisrael did to the Midyanim (except maybe more efficiently). If we can wipe out Midyan, Amalek, the 7 nations, killing men, women and children, why can't the Nazis wipe us out? What is the difference? Of course the dfference is that we believe that we were commanded by God to do it and therefore it is by definition moral, well guess what, most mass murderers also believe that.

We all believe that certain things are wrong because we were brought up in the western world. Slavery, rape, mass murder, etc. are all unacceptable now, yet, are integral parts of Judaism.  The fact is there is a fundamental clash of culture between Western liberal democracy (and Orthodox (especially Charedi) Judaism.

Using the US as an example let us look at a number of the fundamental principles underlying the US:
1. All men are created equal
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom of speech
4. Democracy

All of these are denied by Orthodox Judaism.
1. All men are created equal - non-believers are not equal, women are not equal, etc. Judaism has a very clear hierarchy spelled out by the Mishna in Horayos and has many discriminatory halachos against non-Jews. R' Weinberg (the Seridei Eish) wrote the following in one of his letters:
The entire world hates us. We assume that this hatred is due to the wickedness of the nations, and no one stops to think that perhaps we also bear some guilt. We regard all the nations as similar to an ass. It is forbiddent to save a gentile., it is forbiddent to offer him free medical treatment, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save his life ... Can the nations resign themselves to the deprivation of rights?
2. Freedom of religion - Idolaters are put to death
3. Freedom of speech - various issurim of mekallel hashem, lashon hara, etc.
4. Democracy - Davidic monarchy, Daas Torah

There is a simple test. A Charedi Jew can live very well and prosper in the US without the government really bothering him. He/she can dress the way they want, educate their children for the most part the way they want, etc. The same could not be said for a halachic state. Put the average American in a halachic state and they would have to change their way of life. They couldn't dress the same way, worship, etc.

Hilchos Nidda vs reality

Hilchos Nidda is one of the most important set of laws in halacha as not only is the punishment כרת but it can severely impact the relationship between husband and wife. While many women have no problem with hilchos nidda, others have a very hard time with it, leading to halachic infertility or simply long stretches where she remains a nidda and cannot even pass an object to her husband.

To understand hilchos nidda you have to understand the female reproductive anatomy. Chazal in Maseches Nidda described the anatomy cryptically and as usual it is the source of a dispute in the rishonim how to understand the Gemara. What is very clear from the sources is that Chazal and the Rishonim, and in fact even contemporary poskim did not understand the female reproductive anatomy.

No less then the Chasm Sofer wrote the following in his chiddushim on Nidda (18a):

 מהו הפרוזדור וחדר וגג וקרקע ועליה. אחרי החקירה מפי ספרים וסופרים חכמי וספרי הניתוח א"א לנו להכחיש המציאות שאינו כפירוש רש"י ותוס' וציור מהר"ם לובלין ואין לנו אלא מה שכתב הרמב"ם
...

What is the corridor, the room, the roof, the ground and the attic [terms used by the Gemara to describe a womans reproductive anatomy]. After research from books, authors, doctors and medical books we cannot deny the fact that the reality [of a womens reproductive anatomy] is not like Rashi, Tosafos and the pictures that the Maharam Lublin provided, and all we have are the words of the Rambam.

This is quite an admission from one of the foremost poskim of the last 200 years, that Rashi and Tosafos simply didn't understand the female anatomy and therefore they didn't understand the Gemara in Nidda.

Of course the Rambams description is not completely accurate either as the Nishmas Avraham points out a number of places where the Rambam contradicts reality.

For example, the Rambam writes the following (Nidda 2:5)

To the concavity of the uterus, which is called the chamber, an artery is connected, through which the menstrual blood courses and flows through the uterus out to the cervix

We see clearly from the Rambam that he thought that there was a special artery that was the source of menstrual blood. Of course there is no such thing.

The Ramban in Chumash in Vayikra writes:

And how shall he make of it [menstrual blood] a fetus as it is a fatal drug, will kill all living creatures who drink or eat of it, etc. and it is of the wonders of the Innocent of Judgment in nature that menstruation starts as a venereal discharge. If she [the menstruating woman] looks at a light brass mirror and continues to look at it, you will see in the mirror red drops as though drops of blood, for the evil nature which harms will give birth to rebuke and the evil air will infect the mirror

You see from the Ramban that he believed that דם נדה was not regular blood and was in fact very harmful.

What we see clearly from Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim is that they believed that there was a separate source from which דם נדה came from, the מקור and in fact, the blood is different then what they called דם מכה.

R' Wosner, a very prominent Chassidish posek (described by some in the Charedi press as the פוסק הדור) who died only a year ago, writes in the sefer שיעורי שבט הלוי describing the the female reproductive anatomy as follows:

And inside of this, deep, on the side of the back, etc., and it is called the source for this is the source of the blood, and it is called the room or uterus; the blood gathers there during approximately a month and the opening is sealed. At the time of her menstruation the opening of the cervix opens and the blood exits. In the uterus the fetus is created and the source of blood is for the purpose of creating the fetus. Therefore, while creating the fetus the woman does not see menstrual blood, for then the blood serves the purpose of creating the foetus.

This is a a very incorrect description of both the anatomy and the menstruation process and again shows that he understood that there is a separate source of menstrual blood. Here are some of the problems with what R' Wosner said:

1. the blood gathers there during approximately a month and the opening is sealed - This is simply not correct, blood doesn't gather anywhere in the uterus, rather what happens is that the uterine lining thickens and contains many blood vessels in anticipation of pregnancy. If the woman doesn't become pregnant the lining is shed which causes bleeding. 
2. The cervix is never completely sealed, it is always open 3mm or more
3. In the uterus the fetus is created and the source of blood is for the purpose of creating the foetus - This is completely and utterly wrong. The blood does nothing to create the foetus, the foetus is created by the sperm fertilising the egg. The fertilised egg is then implanted into the uterine wall where it is nourished by the blood vessels there.
4. Therefore, while creating the fetus the woman does not see menstrual blood, for then the blood serves the purpose of creating the foetus - Again this is completely wrong. A woman doesn't menstruate while pregnant because she doesn't shed the uterine lining. Rather the blood vessels in the uterus are used to nourish the baby.

It is clear that R' Wosner is basing himself on the Gemara and is either ignorant of or ignoring the medical reality.

The Shulchan Aruch (Siman 187) paskens based on the Gemara that if a woman has מכה, a wound in the uterus then she doesn't become a nidda. In fact, the contemporary poskim discuss uterine fibroids which are are benign lumps that grow on the uterus and can cause bleeding and some are מיקל in this case. Yet, the fact is that the fibroids cause bleeding from the same uterine blood vessels that cause menstrual bleeding. In fact, any wound in the uterus is causing bleeding from the same uterine blood vessels that bleed during her period.

The bottom line is that there is nothing special about menstrual bleeding, neither the source of the blood or the blood itself. It is simply blood from the blood vessels in the uterine lining that are exposed when the lining is shed. It is no different in any way then any other blood that comes out of womens body. 

The apologetic answer to explain Nidda is that the a woman becomes טמאה from menstruation because it represents the fact that an opportunity to create a new life was lost. Therefore, it only applies to her period and not to other bleeding. This sounds very nice but is clearly not what Chazal, the Rishonim and even the Acharonim believed the Torah was saying. 

Why don't I follow Modern Orthodoxy(MO)/Rationalism/Academics ...?

As they seem to have some answers to the questions that I am raising.

Before I answer I want to provide a minimalist definition of what I mean when I say MO/Rationalism/Academics
1. Engagement with the world and secular culture
2. Belief in the scientific/academic process, for example, they accept the fact that the world is billions of years old and strive to reinterpret the beginning of Breshis or allegorise it
3. Observe mitzvos

I have a number of issues with this approach the biggest being the following. I would ask the following question. Do you have any red lines that you will not cross? Is there something that you believe no matter what, namely, mass revelation at Har Sinai?

If the answer is yes, then in essence they are being hypocritical and inconsistent. The same scientific/academic process that says that the world is billions or years old and that a global flood didn't happen says that a mass revelation at Sinai didn't happen. All of the experts (historians, archeologists, etc.) say that the story of 600,000 men over the age of 20, 2-3 million people in total,  leaving Egypt going to Har Sinai and then wandering in the desert for 40 years simply could not have happened based on the archeological and historical evidence. Additionally, all of the experts say that the Torah was not written at the time of Har Sinai but that it was actually written much later by men. You can't believe in science sometimes and then not believe in it when it destroys your worldview. In essence they have no answer to the essential questions of Matan Torah, mass revelation, Torah from God.

If the answer on the other hand is no, you have no red lines, then what is left if you reject mass revelation at Sinai? If there was no mass revelation, the Torah was not given by God but instead was written by man, then everything is man made. This approach destroys Torah Shebaal Peh and specifically Gemara. The gemara on almost every page derives halachos from various derashos of extra words, extra letters, the same words (גזירה שוה), etc. If the torah was written by man then these are all worthless and have no meaning. How can you make a derasha by asking why is this ו extra when the whole Torah was cobbled together from different pieces by an editor. Of course there are extra words/letters but not because God put them there to learn something but rather because the editor didn't do a good job. This answers the questions by removing everything. Why keep arcane halachos like wearing boxes on your arm and head every day when it was made up by men? All that is left is a bunch of platitudes about tikkun olam.

Additionally, when I was learning in yeshiva and even after, the Brisker or conceptual approach to learning really talked to me. I got tremendous pleasure from hearing shiurim in this style.  R' A Lichtenstein said the following about the Brisker derech:

R' Chaim espoused conceptualism because he could not imagine the words of God as a pedestrian amalgam of incommensurate detail. There is a power, majesty, and grandeur in Torah conceptually formulated, that a patchwork of minutiae largely folded by ad hoc pragmatic considerations, simply cannot match

At the time I believed this wholeheartedly. Torah was brilliant and everything was so logical and fit in together. However, as I got older, I realised that as brilliant as the Brisker approach is, it is not historically true and is certainly not how the Tannaim and Amoraim, and even the Rishonim approached Torah. The שרידי אש in both a teshuva and a published letter says that R' Chaim's analyses of the Rambam are not historically true. It is clear that the Rambam's derech was not R' Chaim's. All you have to do is look at the Teshuvos Harambam where he deals with some of the issues/contradictions. The Rambam never gives any lomdus to explain his psak, rather he gives what we would call Baal Habatish answers. He had a different girsa in the Gemara, their copy of the Mishne Torah was wrong, he made a mistake, etc. Not once does he employ anything close to Brisker loads.

I recently read a fascinating essay about Brisk and 19th century legal philosophy, Legal Theology: The Turn to Conceptualism in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Law, where the author see parallels between the rise of the Brisker derech and similar trends in the field of law in Europe. From there you see clearly that the Brisker Derech arose n the 19th century at least in part because of what was going intellectually in the 19th century, and that the Brisker Derech was a new way of learning Torah.

The academic approach on the other hand, believes that the Talmud Bavli is a compilation of various שמועות of אמוראים cobbled together by many editors over many דורות; probably never “officially” completed (except in hindsight); not necessarily comprehensive or even self-consistent. There certainly is no overall logical system and many disputes are simply disputes about how things were done. For example, the Rishonim argue about how high someone must pick up an object to acquire it, one tefach or 3. The Brisker approach is to make this a dispute about the nature of a kinyan, does it actually transfer ownership or is it simple proof that you acquired the object. While this sounds great, the more probably explanation of this dispute is based on the prevailing customs in each locale or that there is no underlying principle, each side simply states what seems intuitively correct. To believe that the Tannaim/Amoraim or even the Rishonim thought in 19/20th century conceptual terms is simply not credible.  I am convinced that the academic approach is the historically correct one but it robs the Torah of it's majesty and makes it into a set of obsessive details that don't fit together.

The disorganisation and illogic of Torah Shebaal Peh

We are taught in yeshiva that learning Torah is the ultimate intellectual exercise. Yet, when you actually take a close look at Torah Shebaal Peh, you see that it is disorganised and illogical.

Organization

Mishnayos are the basis for Torah Sheball Peh and yet they are actually very disorganised and illogical. Comparison of the Mishna to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah presents a stark contrast between the Rambam's logical method of presenting a topic and the Mishna's lack of logical order and disorganisation. The first tractate of Mishna is Berachos which in and of itself is puzzling. You would think that the first tractate would provide some background/introduction like the first Mishna in Avos and as the Rambam does with Sefer Hamada. However, the first tractate Berachos starts off with the halachos of Krias Shema.   Lets contrast the Rambam to the Mishna. Rambam's Hilkhot Keriyat Shema opens by explaining the scriptural mitzva of a morning and evening recitation, continuing with the exact content of the three parshiyot and with the berakhot associated with keriyat shema, and then explaining what the exact times for the recitation are.  The Mishna opens with: "From when do we recite shema in the evenings?"  A seemingly random question when we haven't even established that there is a mitzva of Krias Shema in the evening. Only in mishna 3 do we encounter the scriptural basis for the mitzva and only in 2:2 are we told which parshiyot to recite.  The Gemara's question (2a) "Where was the Tanna located that he said: 'From when'" is merely the tip of the iceberg and doesn't address the fundamental question of logical ordering. The entire presentation of shema in chapters 1-2 seems to be arranged in haphazard fashion.

Lets take Maseches Shabbos as another example. You would think that it would start with a general introduction to the idea of Melacha and then proceed from there. Instead it starts with the laws governing hotza'a and hakhnasa (1:1), again without even establishing the prohibition. The Mishna then shifts to laws related to actions performed on 'erev shabbat which result in melakhot continuing into Shabbat (1:3-4:2), interrupting from time to time to bring tangentially related topics (1:2, end of 1;3, 1:4, part of 2:3, part of 3:6).  In chapters 5-11 the Mishna returns to the laws of hotza'a, interrupting them in 7:1-2 to finally explain the most fundamental principle of the laws of Shabbat, the 39 avos melakha, and in 9:1-4 to bring an associative sequence of assorted principles derived midrashically from scripture.  From chapter 12 the Mishna begins to discuss several of the 39 melakhot in no discernible order - and so forth till the end of the masekhet.

The Gemara continues with this approach, partly because it is based on the mishnayos, and amplifies it. One of my Rebbeim used to say you can't pasken a shaila in hilkchosf shabbos unless you know all of Shas because if you don't, there will be some obscure Gemara (in Zevachim, Erchin, etc.) which you don't know which changes the whole view of the sugya. He said this with pride, however, it really speaks to the complete disorganisation of Torah Sheball Peh.

Until now, we spoke about the halachic portion which is at least semi organised. Maseches Shabbos does contain most of hilchos Shabbos etc. When it comes to the hashkafic portion there is no order whatsoever. For example, if you want to understand the parameters of Hashgacha Pratis, where would you look in the Gemara? The answer is all over. There are statements relating to this scattered all over shas (Bava Basra 144b, Moed Katan 14b, Avoda Zara 54b, Shabbos 129a, etc.).

Explanations of Mishnayos

The Gemara more often then not, explains Mishnayes in a way that completely and utterly changes the meaning of the Mishna. The Gemara will say because of a question, הכא במאי עסקינן, the Mishna is talking about some strange corner case and not the straightforward case that we thought. Lately, every time I come across an explanation like this I groan to myself and think really??? Is this really what the Mishna meant? Another very prevalent explanation found in the Gemara is חיסורא מחסרא והכי קתני. The Mishna is missing words which the Gemara proceeds to add which completely change the meaning of etc Mishna. For more about this see this post. 

The שרידי אש in both a teshuva and a published letter says that R' Chaim's explanations of the Rambam are not historically correct. He writes that it is clear that the Rambam's derech was not R' Chaim's. All you have to do is look at the Teshuvos Harambam where he deals with some of the issues/contradictions. The Rambam never gives any lomdus to explain his psak, rather he gives what we would call Baal Habatish answers. He had a different girsa in the Gemara, their copy of the Mishne Torah was wrong, he made a mistake, etc. Not once does he employ anything close to Brisker lomdus. I get the same feeling when I learn Mishna and Gemara, the Gemara's explanations of the Mishnayos are not what the Tannaim really meant, and the Rishonim's understanding of the Gemara is not what the Amoraim meant, and last but not least, the Acharonim's understanding of all both above is certainly not what they meant. 

Summary

We find that Torah Shebaal Peh (Mishna and Gemara) is disorganised and not very logical. If this is all from heaven then woe is to us.

More to come on this topic ...

Rabbi Moshe Benovitz: Kiruv arguments can do more harm then good

R'  Moshe Benovitz was interviewed by the OUs Steve Savitsky a few years ago and they had the following back and forth:

R. Benovitz: ...In the kiruv community, for example, they are coming to grips with the fact that some of the arguments-- historical arguments, philosophical arguments-- that like I said a charismatic educator could tell a person off the street and who would know better, is checked instantly on a hand held device that’s pulled out of a pocket. If those arguments do not hold water, then we've done more damage than good. We need to adjust to that, and we should adjust to that.

Steve Savitsky: Do you have an example of that?

R. Benovitz: ...This is probably beyond the scope of this limited discussion because there are obviously complexities and layers here. But examples like mass revelation at Sinai being the only way possible, when you have challenges from other sources, the fact that Torah seems to have been forgotten in certain periods explicitly in the Navi and the like. The chain of the Mesorah-- there is certain reason to believe that were times where it was if not broken, but then it was down to a precious few; that’s a challenge, just to use one example, [to that] mass revelation argument of sorts. [Similarly there are challenges] in the scientific realm, and in the archaeological realm. 

We need to be able to know that there is information at the fingertips of our students that of course we have answers to, and of course we have ways of responding to, but to just throw arguments out there, they’re not going to, nor should they simply accept at face value. 

The interview is available here.

The most interesting part was the statement that there is information at the fingertips of our students of course we have answers to, and of course we have ways of responding to. I"m still waiting for those answers and responses. Everyone always says they have answers but in my experience these answers don't really exist and they trot out the same old tired answers that we have all heard many times. RYGB on Harry's blog is making similar claims that he has the answers, that he has a preponderance of evidence that Judaism is true, however, he refuses to  post them (see the comments here). The reason is very simple, he knows that as soon as he posts them they will be instantly refuted.

Is medical research a good thing for humanity? R' Dessler's opinion on hishtadlus and hashgacha

The answer seems obvious, of course it is. After all, medical research helps finds cures for diseases and saves lives.

However, according to R' Dessler medical research is actually a bad thing for humanity for the following reason.

R' Dessler holds that there is no cause and effect in this world, everything is from Hashem. Man cannot do anything in this world, what looks like cause and effect is actually a test for man. Man is supposed to see through cause and effect and recognise that Hashem is actually the only cause and effect. Hishtadlus/man's effort, is only a tax. It has no effect, it is simply there so that the charade is kept up. According to R' Dessler, a person should do the minimum hishtadlus that is required because it doesn't help anyway. Anything more then the minimum is simply a waste of time and effort and if the person thinks that it helps is actually kefira. Therefore, medical research not only doesn't help, no one is cured by medicine, they are cured by Hashem, but it makes things worse. Medicine is just another test from Hashem and since medicine makes it look like there is cause and effect, it takes away from peoples emuna and causes more kefira in the world. Additionally, now that medicine has become common and accepted, everyone must do it to fulfill their minimum hishtadlus. In other words, nowadays, we have to waste time and money on medicine that doesn't work anyway because it has become accepted and therefore falls under hishtadlus. In other words, every time we come up with a new medical procedure, we are in essence increasing our hishtadlus tax.

If we think hard about R' Dessler's opinion it is essentially absurd.

Life expectancy until about 1850 was between 35-40 in Europe. Since 1850, life expectancy has gone up to about 80 (see https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/). The explanation would seem to be quite simple. Modernization and industrialisation (especially the advances in medicine) improved the health of the population dramatically and caused the dramatic rise in life expectancy.

However, according to R' Dessler how can we explain this dramatic increase in life expectancy? If modern medicine has no effect and it's just a charade/tax and everything is only from Hashem why the change? When you couple this with the idea of yeridos hadoros, that every generation declines spiritually and is on a lower level then the previous generation, the question gets even stronger. Why should our generation which is on a lower spiritual level then the generations a few hundred years ago live so much longer?

Additionally, according to R' Dessler, there really is no such thing as an expert in anything other then Torah. The reason is very simple, mans actions have no effect on the real world. The only thing that affects the world is Hashem. The expert surgeon saves no one with his skill, rather Hashem does, its all just a facade, Hashem is saving the person. So in essence, the experts success proves nothing since there is no cause and effect.

In fact, even the Charedi world doesn't seem to hold like R' Dessler all the time.  The Jewish Worker pointed out when R' Elyashiv needed heart surgery, they flew in the top cardiac/blood vessel surgeon from Cleveland (a religious Catholic) to do the surgery. According to R' Dessler bringing the top surgeon from America should be considered too much השתדלות and a lack of בטחון. After all, Hashem is doing the healing not the surgeon and once we have done our השתדלות, going to the doctor and having the surgery, why should it matter whether the surgeon is the best in the world or simply Joe surgeon who is competent? As long as we do our השתדלות to avoid requiring a נס, the rest is a גזירה מן השמים. If the גזירה is that the surgery will be successful, then it will be successful even if done by the average surgeon, and if the גזירה is that it won't be successful then it won't help that you have the best surgeon.

Another example is when government funding to the yeshivas was cut. Everyone in the Charedi world blamed Yair Lapid and the government for taking the money away from the Yeshivas. And yet, according to R' Dessler, that is kefira. Money like everything else comes from Hashem and if Hashem wanted the Yeshivas to get the money they would get it no matter what Yair Lapid wanted.

On the other hand when it suits them, the Charedi world adopts R' Dessler's opinion. For example, the Charedi take on Iron Dome during the war with Gaza was it's not "Iron Dome [saving us] it's Hashem". This went so far that a columnist on the Charedi site Kikar Hashabbat wrote a column bemoaning the fact that all we hear about in the news is praise for Iron Dome and that no one gets up and says that we are being saved by Hashem in the merit of our Torah learning and mitzvos.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable, but it also shows how even on fundamental issues like how does the world run, Judaism has no real answer. When it really affects them (health issues, money issues) people instinctively understand that the world works on cause and effect and therefore act that way. On the other hand, to justify their hashkafa of no army and torah only, they use R' Dessler's hashkafa.