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.