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:
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.
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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDoes it necessarily follow that the Beis Halevi follows the Novhardok approach? If you hold that hishtadlus is inherently worthless, then presumably, even if it is possible for things to turn out badly, hishtadlus would have no effect.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting!
ReplyDelete1) The Bais HaLevi doesn't view hishtadlus as worthless in the same way as the Alter of Novhardok. The Alter eschewed all hishtadlus, whereas the Bais HaLevi sees value in hishtadlus as a means to attain higher levels of bitachon. I may do a post on that if I ever finish collecting my thoughts on the Alter.
2) The Novardhok approach includes both - it starts with the belief that the outcome will certainly be good, and therefore hishtadlus is worthless. Here we have the Bais HaLevi taking a similar approach to hishtadlus, so I would conjecture that he also approached bitachon like Novhardok. Furthermore, based on my understanding of the Chazon Ish's approach to bitachon, I think that he couldn't accept the Bais HaLevi's hishtadlus - stay tuned for more on that.
As I understand it (and my understanding is coming from your two posts), the Novardhok approach is that since everything will end up good, there is no reason to do hishtadlus. I.e. the outcome is predetermined such that hishtadlus cannot possibly have any effect. Whereas the Beis Halevi says that ideally there should be no need for hishtadlus but in practice it is necessary in order to achieve greater bitachon. This also assumes that the outcome is predetermined. What I'm saying, though, is that while both the Beis Halevi and Novhardok assume a predetermined outcome, perhaps they differ in what the predetermined outcome will be - according to Novhardok, always good, while according to the Beis Halevi it could be bad.
DeleteCould be - but if the outcome is predetermined by God, then by definition it should be good. Or if it seems to not be good, either it will turn out good, or there must be some greater plan. What I hope to demonstrate in the next post is that according to the Chazon Ish things can turn out bad for one of two reasons - 1) God wanted it that way or 2) Man didn't do the right hishtadlus.
Delete