Measuring Hishtadlus - Bais HaLevi's Approach

In the previous post I set out to explain two alternative approaches to bitachon. What I (somewhat inaccurately, but intentionally) termed the Novhardok approach is the belief that everything will turn out, with God's help, to be good. The Chazon Ish, on the other hand, flatly rejects this approach, and explains bitachon to be the expression of emuna - the absolute conviction that nothing in this world is a coincidence - everything, both good and bad, is controlled by God. (How much is controlled by God directly and how much God leaves to nature is not the topic of this series of posts.) Now we turn to the concept of Hishtadlus (effort).

The Torah relates that Yosef remained in prison for two years after the episode in which he interpreted the dreams of the royal butler and baker of Pharaoh. The Midrash explains that these two years were a punishment a seemingly minor infraction - the attempt to enlist the royal butler to help him get out of jail. This act on Yosef's part was considered to be a lack of bitachon, as he should have simply relied on God and not mentioned anything to the butler. The obvious difficulty with this Midrash is its conflict with the concept of hishtadlus. Does it not make sense that Yosef should have been required to exert some minimal effort (hishtadlus), in this case the enlistment of the royal butler, and then pray to God for his efforts to come to fruition (bitachon)? Or perhaps the concepts of bitachon and hishtadlus are at loggerheads with each other, and the Midrash is requiring us to eschew hishtadlus in toto, and turn to God with complete bitachon and nothing else?

Before resolving these issues, it is necessary to see the text of the Midrash, which, at first glance, seems to only make things worse. Commenting on the verse "אשרי הגבר אשר שם ה' מבטחו ולא פנה אל רהבים" the Midrash states:

"אשרי הגבר אשר שם ה' מבטחו, זה יוסף, ולא פנה אל רהבים, ע"י שאמר לשר המשקים זכרתני והזכרתני ניתוסף לו שתי שנים" (בראשית רבה פרשת מקץ פרשה פט)

"'Praiseworthy is the man who places his trust in God': This is [a reference to] Yosef. 'And he does not turn to the haughty': Because he said to the butler 'remember me' twice, two years were added to his [sentence]".

At first glance this Midrash is completely incoherent; the contradiction is blatant. How can one proclaim, in one breath, that אשרי הגבר אשר שם ה' מבטחו is a reference to Yosef, making him the quintessential ba'al bitachon, while at the same time condemning him to an extra two years in prison because of his lack of bitachon?

The Bais HaLevi (on Parshas Miketz) offers an interpretation of the Midrash based upon his analysis of the interplay between the two concepts of bitachon and hishtadlus. Ideally, the Bais HaLevi writes, one should be completely reliant on God and have no reason for hishtadlus. However, being that most people have not achieved such a high level of bitachon, the Torah permits us to exert effort in worldly matters in order to enable us to eventually reach higher levels of bitachon. Essentially, hishtadlus and bitachon have an inverse relationship. As man exerts the correct amount of hishtadlus, and comes to the realization that it is really God who allows his efforts to bear fruit, he begins to rely more on God and less on his own effort. On the other hand, if man exerts too much effort, he will begin to only believe in himself - כחי ועצם ידי - and his level of bitachon will diminish. The goal is to achieve such a level of bitachon that hishtadlus is deemed completely unnecessary.

According to this understanding, it stands to reason that the measure of proper hishtadlus does not depend upon external factors, such as the economy or geographical location. Rather, it depends upon the person. The yardstick for measuring hishtadlus is the individual's level of bitachon.

With this in mind, the Bais HaLevi is able to explain both statements of the Midrash. Yosef's "lack" of bitachon was displayed through his request of the butler to remember him and mention his name to Pharaoh. In fact, a careful look at what Yosef said will reveal that he didn't even make a request! He simply said, as part of his interpretation of the butler's dream, "והזכרתני אל פרעה". Nevertheless, Yosef was punished with two extra years in prison, for this seemingly minor infraction. It is with this understanding that the Midrash can exclaim, אשרי הגבר אשר יבטח בשם, praiseworthy is Yosef, who embodies the trait of bitachon - precisely because he was punished for this minor act of hishtadlus. The very fact that he was held accountable for this act is testimony to his lofty trait of bitachon.

Based on this analysis, hishtadlus has been essentially diminished. It serves no purpose in and of itself, except as a means to attaining higher levels of bitachon. If one were to ask, "does my hishtadlus actually achieve anything?", the answer would be a resounding "no". This is why the Bais HaLevi makes no mention of a חיוב השתדלות - a requirement to exert effort, like many other commentators. Rather, he stress that there exists a היתר השתדלות - permission to exert effort, temporarily, until one becomes a true ba'al bitachon. From this we may conclude that the Bais HaLevi follows what we originally termed the Novhardok approach to bitachon. Bitachon is the belief that God will take care of all of your needs - in the end all will turn out good. The true ba'al bitachon, therefore, has no reason for hishtadlus. Only one who is lacking true bitachon is allowed to perform hishtadlus in order to eventually attain loftier levels of reliance on God.

In the next post, I hope to examine the manner in which the Chazon Ish interprets the Midrash about Yosef, and how it relates to his definition on bitachon.

Bitachon - Two Approaches

After a brief summer hiatus, during which I passed my first actuarial exam (a dream vacation for a mathematician!), I am returning with a post presenting two approaches to the concept of Bitachon, and in a follow-up post, I will explore how each one relates to the concept of Hishtadlus.

Bitachon is commonly understood to be the conviction that, in every circumstance one finds oneself, its outcome will be positive. The most extreme adherents of this school of thought go so far as to say that Bitachon alone can produce the desired result. (For now I will refer to this as the Novhardok approach to bitachon, though it is not exclusive to Novhardok. A complete analysis of the Alter of Novhardok's approach to bitachon will need to wait until I can sift through the many pages recorded from his lectures in Sefer Madregas HaAdam.)

However, the Chazon Ish vehemently disagrees with this approach, to the point that he grants it no credence at all. He begins his chapter on Bitachon as follows:

"טעות נושנת נתאזרחה בלב רבים במושג בטחון. שם בטחון המשמש למדה מהוללה ועיקרי בפי החסידים, נסתובבה במושג חובה להאמין - בכל מקרה שפוגש האדם והעמידתו לקראת עתיד בלתי מוכרע ושני דרכים בעתיד, אחת טובה ולא שניה - כי בטח יהיה הטוב, ואם מסתפק וחושש על היפוך הטוב הוא מחוסר בטחון". (אמונה ובטחון פרק ב אות א)

"There is an old misconception rooted in the hearts of many when it comes to the concept of trust in Hashem [known as bitachon]. This term, used by the righteous to name a celebrated and central character trait, has undergone a change, and has mistakenly become a term to describe the obligation to believe in any situation a person finds himself in where he faces an undecided future with two ways apparent - one good and the other not - that surely the good outcome will be the one to occur; if one is doubtful and fears the possibility of the opposite of good occuring, he is lacking in trust in Hashem". (Translation taken from Y. Goldstein, published by Am Asefer)

Instead, the Chazon Ish explains, bitachon is the absolute conviction that all happenings, for better or for worse, are the result of the Divine will. No outcome may be dismissed as a coincidence. According to the Chazon Ish, bitachon (reliance) is nothing more than an extension of one's emuna (belief). Emuna describes the inner convictions of belief in the existence of God. Bitachon is the expression of that belief in actuality. In the words of the Chazon Ish:

"ולהאמור האמונה והבטחון אחת היא, רק האמונה היא המבט הכללי של בעליה, והבטחון המבט של המאמין על עצמו, האמונה בבחינת הלכה, והבטחון בבחינת מעשה" (אמונה ובטחון פרק ב אות ב)

 "According to that which was said [above] belief and reliance are inseparable, except that belief is the general worldview of the believer, whereas reliance is his approach to his personal life. Faith is the theory; reliance the practice". (My Translation)

It is of importance to note a major distinction between the Novhardok approach and that of the Chazon Ish. According to the Chazon Ish, reliance is the expression of one's inner faith. It stands to reason that commensurate to the strength of one's faith will be his reliance. Furthermore, the atheist has no claim to any level of bitachon - the denial of God's existence precludes the possibility of relying on Him. On the other hand, according the Novhardok approach emuna and bitachon are two distinct beliefs - emuna being the belief in God's existence and bitachon being the belief that the outcome will be positive. For the ma'amin, his bitachon will be expressed as the belief that God will cause the desired result; for the atheist, bitachon is simply the idea we refer to as "optimism". We may term Novhardok bitachon to be Divine optimism. (I mentioned above that the most extreme followers of the Novhardok approach believe that true bitachon can actually produce desired outcomes. It is interesting to note that even for the atheist, optimism in general may be helpful in producing better outcomes.)

In my next post, I hope to explore the concept of hishtadlus, specifically in how it should be viewed according to these two approaches.