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.
No comments:
Post a Comment