Measuring Hishtadlus - Chazon Ish (Part II)

Lining Up the Chazon Ish with Rabbeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam

I previously mentioned two levels of bitachon as explained by Rabbeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam. (Altogether he maintains that there are four levels.) The upper level is referred to as bitachon of the nevi'im, who are required to forego all hishtadlus and have complete faith in the truthfulness of prophesy. However, for those who are not nevi'im, or even a navi himself at a time when he has not received a particular prophesy, it is forbidden to have complete bitachon to the exclusion of all hishtadlus - to do so is considered to be reliant upon miracles. Rabbeinu Avrohom goes even further as to say that it is scornfully arrogant for a person to consider oneself worthy of such divine intervention.

A careful reading of the second chapter of Emuna U'Bitachon will reveal that the Chazon Ish also divided Bitachon into different levels. Most of the chapter deals with the level of the hamon am. In rejecting the Novhardok approach to bitachon, the Chazon Ish writes:

"ואין הוראה זו בבטחון נכונה, שכל שלא נתבררה בנבואה גורל העתיד אין העתיד מוכרע, כי מי יודע משפטי ה' וגמולותיו ית'" (אמונה ובטחון פרק ב אות א)

"This explanation of reliance is incorrect; as long as the future has not yet been revealed in prophecy the future is uncertain, for who knows the ways of God." (Translation mine)

The entire basis of the Chazon Ish, namely that bitachon includes the possibility of a negative outcome, so long as the bote'ach accepts it as the divine will, is predicated on this statement. As long as the future has not been revealed to man through prophecy, there is no way for man to know whether the outcome will be good or bad. The most one can do is firmly believe that whatever happens will be divinely ordained.

However, even the Chazon Ish will concede that there exists a higher level of bitachon, that of the navi. His concluding words at the end of his discussion of bitachon are as follows:

יש עוד ממדת הבטחון, כי על הבוטח שורה רוח קדש ומתלוה עמו רוח עוז המבשרו כי אמנם יעזרהו ד', וכמו שאמר דוד המלך ע"ה אם תחנה עלי מחנה לא יירא לבי אם תקום עלי מלחמה וגו', וזה ענין מתחלף לפי מעלת הבוטח ורב קדשו." (אמונה ובטחון פרק ב אות ז)

"There is more to the trait of reliance - for a holy spirit rests on the one who trusts in Hashem, accompanied by a strength of spirit that tells him that Hashem will indeed help him, as David HaMelech said, 'If you bring a host upon me, my heart will have no fear; if a war comes upon me [in this I will trust].' This matter varies according to the level of the person's trust and his degree of holiness. [In other words, the conviction of a person who has complete trust in Hashem, can indeed bring about a good outcome as opposed to a bad one.]" (Translation by Y. Goldstein, Published by Am Asefer)

Before taking issue with Yaakov Goldstein's* translation, let us focus on the line that I put in bold. The Chazon Ish does not say that the true bote'ach will merit divine intervention to ensure a positive outcome. What he does say is that the bote'ach will receive a message via ruach hakodesh, and then he will know that the outcome will be positive. In accordance with the view of Rabbeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam, it is not the bitachon which creates the desired outcome. It is the knowledge of the outcome which requires the navi (or ba'al ruach hakodesh) to have complete faith in his nevuah to the exclusion of all hishtadlus.

For this reason I take issue the translation cited above. The words "וזה ענין מתחלף לפי מעלת הבוטח" are rendered, "This matter varies according to the level of the person's trust". Contrary to the translation, I submit to you that the matter varies not according to the level of trust, but according to level of the person, whether or not he has reached a level of ruach hakodesh or not. The Chazon Ish says לפי מעלת הבוטח - not לפי מעלת הבטחון. Furthermore, the last sentence, which appears in brackets in the translation itself, does not exist in the language of the Chazon Ish, and for good reason - the Chazon Ish thinks that the notion of complete faith in a positive outcome is a טעות נושנת. It is only the ba'al ruach hakodesh who has the license to engage in complete reliance. I would therefore remove the last line of Yaakov Goldstein's translation - כל המוסיף גורע**.

Is there anything wrong with doing less hishtadlus?

I stumbled upon this fascinating tangent, in the middle of a halachic discussion regarding a dispensation made by Chazal to permit working fields during Shemita because of a potential danger. In the bracketed portion, the Chazon Ish addresses why this dispensation was necessary. After all, the Torah promises that an abundance of produce will grow in the sixth year to last throughout the Shemita year.

"ואע"ג דמשום ארנונא התירו הכל כדאמר סנהדרין כ"ו א' התם אניסי טפי ע"י המלכות וקרוב הדבר לפיקוח נפשות ע"י עניות וגביית ארנוניות, [והא דכתיב וכ"ת מה נאכל וגו' וצויתי את ברכתי, אין הכוונה הבטחה שלא תבוא לידי פיקוח נפש ע"י חסרון תבואת שנה שביעית, אלא הבטחת ברכה בשביל שמירת שביעית, ומה נאכל דכתיב, ר"ל, לא כמו שתחשוב בדרך הטבע ששביתתך תביא לך הפסד ותחיה בחיי צער אלא אצוה לך את הברכה, והבטחה זו אפשר שיגרום החטא לקפחה וגם הברכה אינה אלא לכל ישראל, אבל היחיד יוכל ללקות בשביל חברו, ומצות שביתת שביעית נדחית מפני פיקוח נפש ככל מצוות התורה בשעת מצור ומלחמה ואין להם לחם לאכול..." (הל' שביעית סימן יח אות ד)

"...And that which is written, 'and should you say, what shall we eat etc. and I will command my blessing' - that does not mean to say there is a[n absolute] guarantee that the lack of produce during the seventh year will not lead to the endangerment of life. Rather, it is a [general] blessing for keeping the [laws of] the seventh year. That which is written, 'what shall we eat' - that means to say, [it is] not as you think based on the rules of nature, that your rest [from working the land] will cause you a loss and you will live painfully - rather, I will command my blessing. [But] this promise can be negated because of sins. Furthermore, the blessing is given [generally] to all of Israel - but the individual may be afflicted because of [the sins of] his friend. The commandment of resting [the land] during the seventh year is pushed aside in a situation of life endangerment, just like all the commandments of the Torah during a time of siege and war when there is no bread to eat..." (Translation mine)

The first thing I find noteworthy in this paragraph is that the Chazon Ish uses his definition of bitachon in the middle of a strictly halachic discussion of when the laws of Shemita may be suspended due to pikuach nefesh. This is not surprising at all, as the Chazon Ish devotes most of the third chapter in Emuna U'Bitachon to driving home the point that Mussar and Halacha are inextricably linked to each other. Bitachon, through the eyes of the Chazon Ish, does not guarantee that life during Shemita will be good and easy. Although there is a blessing, the individual's sins may deem him unworthy of such a blessing.

I also find it interesting that the Chazon Ish understands the blessing of Shemita to be a general blessing to the entire Jewish nation. For that reason, one cannot rely on the havtacha because it is possible, even for the most righteous individual, to lose that blessing on account of the sins of somebody else. In order for the blessing to take effect, the nation as an entity must be deserving. Because of this, one may not rely on the blessing, and in a situation of pikuach nefesh, we are actually required to suspend the laws of Shemita and engage in the hishtadlus of planting our fields. The Chazon Ish continues:

"ובזה ניחא שהניחו כרכים מלקדש כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית, ולא סמכו על הבטחת ברכה בששית דודאי גם עניים בכלל הברכה, אלא שראו שגברה העניות ולא אמרה תורה לסמוך על הברכה להמנע מהשתדלות המחויבת בדרכי הטבע. ובסמ"ע סי' ס"ז סק"ב פי' כונת תוס' גיטין ל"ו ב' בהא דלא תיקנו יובל בזה"ז משום דאין רוב הציבור יכולין לעמוד שאין הברכה אלא בזמן שהוא מה"ת, ועדיין אינו מתישב בהא דלא כבשו עולי בבל והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית, אבל למש"כ שאין ב"ד פורשים מלעשות מה שמתחייבים בהשתדלות בשביל הציבור ובשביל עניי הציבור מפני הבטחת ברכה ניחא הכל, ומסתבר דהיתה הברכה גם בבית שני וגם אחר החורבן דב"ד שלמעלה עושין מה שגוזרין בב"ד של מטה, והברכה נאמרה אחר שעשו את ההשתדלות או במקום שנפטרו מהשתדלות, ועד כמה להשתדל מסור לחכמים ע"פ עיון התורה ברוח קדשם." (שם)

According to this we understand that which they left aside cities [in the times of Ezra] and did not sanctify them [as part of E. Israel] in order that the poor can rely on them [for food] during the seventh year, and they did not rely on the promise of blessing in the sixth year - for certainly the poor are included in the blessing. Rather, they [the Sages] saw that poverty was rampant and the Torah never required one to rely on the blessing and to withhold from the hishtadlus that is required by the laws of nature... But according to what we have written, that the Beis Din does not abstain, because of the promise of blessing, from fulfilling its requirement of hishtadlus on behalf of the community and on behalf of the poor, all is resolved... The blessing is said [only] after they have done their hishtadlus, or in a situation where they are exempt from hishtadlus. The amount of hishtadlus must be determined by the sages based on their insight into the Torah and with their holy spirit."

Here, the Chazon Ish, following from his definition of bitachon, launches straight into his understanding of hishtadlus - for they are two sides of the same coin. Being that the blessing is not guaranteed, and the possibility of a negative outcome exists - particularly in a time of rampant poverty, one may not abstain from exercising hishtadlus as measured by the laws of nature.

Also, like Rabbeinu Avrohom, who explains that one must engage in the required hishtadlus, while at the same time beseeching God in prayer that the hishtadlus bear fruit, so does the Chazon Ish; The blessing is given only after we have either fulfilled our required hishtadlus or are exempt from it.

From this we may conclude, that not only is it wrong to engage in extra hishtadlus, deemed as acts of desperation rather than the proper exertion of effort, such as in the case of Yosef, but it is equally as wrong to ignore the required hishtadlus and to do less than necessary, as in the case of Shemita.

Quick note on the Chief Butler

Somebody raised the following difficulty to my father regarding the assertion made by the Chazon Ish that it was not the nature of the Chief Butler to remember Yosef, and therefore, Yosef's petition was one of desperation rather than proper hishtadlus. My father acknowledged the difficulty, and conceded that given this midrash one cannot derive the bitachon of the Chazon Ish - but given the concept of bitachon expressed by the Chazon Ish, which he most certainly already knew before he explained the midrash - that is the way to read the midrash. The Chazon Ish could not approach the midrash in the same way the Bais HaLevi did because it would run counter to his entire formulation of bitachon.

While I agree in principle, that the Chazon Ish explained the midrash in light of his understanding of bitachon, I would like to add two more points of resolution. First, the midrash criticizes Yosef for saying v'hizkartani twice. It could be that the Chazon Ish understood that even if the Chief Butler would have remembered Yosef, the fact that Yosef reminds him not once, but twice, shows that the driving force of Yosef's actions was desperation and not hishtadlus.

Furthermore, my brother-in-law, R' Menachem Rosenbaum suggested that the Chazon Ish was basing himself on a Mishna in Avos - הוו זהירים ברשות, שאין מקרבין לו לאדם אלא לצורך עצמן נראין כאוהבין בשעת הנאתן ואין עומדין לו לאדם בשעת דחקו - Be careful with the government [officials], for they only draw people close for their own benefit but do not stand up for them during their times of need. Yosef was not dealing with any simple butler. We are talking about the שר המשקים, an important position in the kingdom of Pharaoh. Of such people we are warned that they will not stand up for you during a time of need, as they only draw people close when it serves their own political agenda. Indeed, the Chief Butler promptly forgot about Yosef - and only remembered him two years later, when he saw the opportunity to further his own political agenda, to rise to further prominence in the eyes of Pharaoh.

EDIT: It seems that the Chazon Ish had a negative attitude toward asking favors from other people, as can be seen from this letter he sent to his mother:

"הזכרתי במכתב שני על דבר... ולא מצאתי לנכון להרבות עליו בבקשות, וסמכתי למה שהיה מרגלא בפומיה דהחפץ חיים זללה"ה דמבן אדם אין מרבין לבקש." (קובץ אגרות חלק א אגרת קנח)

"I mentioned in the second letter regarding... I did not find proper to make too many requests from him, relying on that which the Chofetz Chaim often said, that from a human we do not make too many requests." (Translation mine)

In Part III of this series I will introduce other writings of the Chazon Ish that may run counter to my analysis, and we will see if I can reconcile the texts, or if I will need to start from scratch.

* By the way, Yaakov Goldstein is clearly a pseudonym - check out the letters of approbation printed at the beginning of the English version of Emuna U'Bitachon. You will notice that R' Zev Leff refers to only "the translator", R' Daniel Belsky writes a letter of approbation for R' Gedalia Spinadel, (who has translated other seforim, and obviously had what to do with this one), and refers to "המתרגם של ר' גדליה", or "the translator of R' Gedalia". Apparently the actual translator wishes to remain anonymous.

** Not that my approbation is needed, but after repudiating the words of the translator in this case, I feel obligated to say that the rest of the translation is fantastic, in my opinion. I would apply here the words that the Chazon Ish himself expressed in a letter (on an unrelated topic) - מטבע החכמים להתענג על מיתיבי יותר מתניא נמי הכי - עיין קובץ אגרות החזו"א חלק א סימן קנד.

Measuring Hishtadlus - Chazon Ish

Continuing in our series of posts on Bitachon and Hishtadlus, we now turn to the opinion of the Chazon Ish. As we have already explained, the Chazon Ish views bitachon as nothing more than the expression of emuna. As such, there is no such thing as "working on bitachon". One can only strengthen emuna, which can then be expressed as bitachon when the situation calls for it. Furthermore, bitachon does not deny the possibility of a negative outcome. Rather, it accepts the outcome, for better or worse, as the Divine will. Now, how does hishtadlus play a role?

The Chazon Ish resolves the difficulty of the midrash in a different manner than the Bais HaLevi. In the words of the Chazon Ish:

"יוסף ידע שאין הצלתו תלוי' בהשתדלות והכל מיד ה', אבל בהיות שנתחייב האדם בפעולות ולא לסמוך אניסא, חייב יוסף את עצמו לשמש בהזדמנות זו ולבקש משר המשקים, ואמנם בהיות שלפי תכונת הרהבים אין בטבעו לזכור ולהיטיב אין ראוי המעשה הזה רק מתוך יאוש, והמיואש עושה כל מה שיכול אף דברים הרחוקים מכל תועלת, אבל אין לבוטח לעשות כמו אלה ואין פעולה זו מפעולות החובה, ויש במעשה זה כעין זריית אבק על זוהר האמונה והבטחון, ואחרי שאינה חובה היא אסורה, וכונת חז"ל על הפעולה ולא על מדת הבטחון של יוסף חלילה, וידע יוסף שאין עזר מבן אדם בלתי מיד ד' לבד, אבל מה שחייב עצמו לשאול משר המשקים לא הי' לפי קבלת חז"ל דין אמת, אלא לא הי' לו לפנות אל רהבים". (אמונה ובטחון פרק ב אות ו) 

 "Yosef knew that his salvation was not dependent on any exertion on his part, and that everything comes from Hashem, but since human beings are obligated to act, and not to depend on miracles, Yosef obligated himself to make use of the opportunity and to enlist the help of the Chief Butler. But it is not the nature of people of that rank to remember and to do favors, and therefore this act of Yosef's was not appropriate - since it was an act of desperation. A desperate person does anything he can, even futile actions - which someone who trusts in Hashem should not do; he is not obligated to take such actions. This act of Yosef's, as it were, was akin to throwing dust on the glory of his faith and trust in Hashem, and since it was not obligatory, it was forbidden. Our Sages here are referring to Yosef's action, not to the extent of his trait of trust. Yosef knew that no human being could help him - only Hashem. But his feeling of obligation to ask the Chief Butler, according to the tradition of our Sages, came from a mistake in judgement; he should not have turned to untrustworthy sources of help" (Translated by Y. Goldstein, Published by Am Asefer)

Though not the topic of this post, it is noted that the Chazon Ish is prepared to attribute a mistake in judgement to Yosef, something that the Bais HaLevi somewhat softens by relegating Yosef's "sin" to nothing more than an slight imperfection of his lofty trait of bitachon. Neverthless, the Chazon Ish resolves the difficulty by saying that, indeed, Yosef was a true ba'al bitachon. However, he erred in calculating the required amount of hishtadlus. In his case, he crossed over the threshold of hishtadlus into the realm of desperation.

There exists a fine line between what the Chazon Ish considers proper hishtadlus and a lack of bitachon, and that line is drawn on the basis of nature. Hishtadlus, according to the Chazon Ish, is not measured based on the individual's level of bitachon, rather it must be measured according to the laws of nature. For this reason, whereas the Bais HaLevi speaks about when it is permitted to do hishtadlus, in order to achieve higher levels of bitachon, the Chazon Ish speaks about an obligation to do hishtadlus.

At this point, I would suggest that the Chazon Ish subscribes to the view of Rabbeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam, in his Sefer HaMaspik L'Ovdei Hashem, that there are essentially two levels of bitachon. (In reality, Rabbeinu Avrohom says there are four, but I will focus on two of them.) On the higher plane is the bitachon of nevi'im and ba'alei ruach hakodesh. Because they have received knowledge of what is to come via some form of prophesy, they are bound to follow the path of total bitachon, to the exclusion of all hishtadlus. This applies, presumably, to both the navi himself, as well as the one to whom the nevuah is addressed, be that an individual or even an entire nation. However, so long as the navi has not received knowledge of what is to come, he is required, as any other individual who is not a navi, to engage in hishtadlus, to be measured by the yardstick of nature. The bitachon of the hamon am, as well as the navi who has not received a particular nevuah, is to engage in hishtadlus, while at the same time beseeching God in prayer to allow the hishtadlus to produce the desirable outcome.

This touches upon the concept of hashgacha pratis, which I prefer to explain with the model of the statistical normal distribution. For most of the area under the bell curve, God does not actively engage in hashgacha pratis in order to arrange for the outcome He wills into being. Rather, God takes a passive role, and allows nature to run its course. But let us not forget who the Creator of nature is. Rabbeinu Avrohom refers to this concept as the סיבה ומסובב - cause and effect. When one engages in hishtadlus, a chain of causes and effects goes into play, of which God is termed the סיבה ראשונה. Starting at the original source, God caused nature to exist, He created the ability for you to do some act of hishtadlus, and that hishtadlus, hopefully, causes the result that you are looking for. However, as the architect of nature, God is able to manipulate nature to either end of the bell curve - the outcome can actually fall at the two tails of the bell curve, for better or for worse.

Using this backdrop, the Chazon Ish would define our obligation of hishtadlus to be measured with the 95%* interval situated in the centre of the bell curve, and bitachon as the expression of our belief, that no matter where in the bell curve the results actually fall, for better or for worse, it is the divine will that it should happen that way.

So that this post will not be too long, I will stop here. The next post, iy"h, will provide a couple of inferences from the words of the Chazon Ish that he actually subscribes to the view of Rabbeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam. I also hope to answer the following difficulty that somebody in Yeshiva raised against my thesis: Though I have provided explicit proof that the Chazon Ish does not allow for extra hishtadlus beyond the norm set by nature, I have yet to introduce that he likewise rejects the idea of doing less hishtadlus than the norm. There is the slight inference from the fact the Chazon Ish terms hishtadlus as a חיוב and not a היתר, but in the next post I will provide something more explicit. And before Rabbi Oppenheimer (or anybody else for that matter) jumps on me - I know what it says in Kovetz Igros and I have seen the Chazon Ish in Bava Basra.

* I arbitrarily chose 95% as an example.