Returning to my series that I began here and here, we have been discussing the opinion of the Chazon Ish regarding bitachon and hishtadlus. Here I present some sources that seem to indicate otherwise, and I will point out where I think my analysis and the additional sources converge and diverge.
1) Exhibit number one relates to the idea that talmidei chachamim are exempt from paying certain taxes, for instance, they are not required to contribute to the fund for a city's outer walls on the basis that talmidei chachamim are placed under God's protection and have no need for walls of fortification. At first glance, the Chazon Ish blatantly contradicts my previous two posts:
1) Exhibit number one relates to the idea that talmidei chachamim are exempt from paying certain taxes, for instance, they are not required to contribute to the fund for a city's outer walls on the basis that talmidei chachamim are placed under God's protection and have no need for walls of fortification. At first glance, the Chazon Ish blatantly contradicts my previous two posts:
"ואחרי שבאמת תורתן מגנת עליהן ואינן נתונים תחת מקרי הטבע כשאר בני אדם, כי השגחתו ית' הוא לפי מדת הבטחון שאדם משליך יהבו על בוראו ית', והלכך ראוי תלמיד חכם לפוטרו מנטירותא". (חזון איש בבא בתרא סי' ה' ס"ק י"ח)
"... Because in truth their Torah [knowledge] guards over them, and they are not placed in the confines of nature like the rest of manking, for Divine Providence is according to the measure of trust that man throws everything to the Creator, and therefore it is proper to exempt Torah scholars from paying for protection".
It would seem that the Chazon Ish is advocating the view that bitachon can guarantee results, and therefore Torah scholars are exempt from contributing to the construction of a security fence, because they do not need such protection measures. However, this raises a number of questions. First of all, who is to say that every Torah scholar has attained such a level of bitachon to the extent that he does not need protection. Furthermore, as the Chazon Ish points out himself, even Torah scholars are not supposed to rely on miracles. In fact, this is the very question the Chazon Ish is attempting to resolve with his words that I quoted above. It would therefore seem prudent to analyze the words of the Chazon Ish in its entirety.
"...יש לעיין, הלא גם רבנן צריכין לנהוג מנהג עולם ולא לסמוך על הנס כדאמרו ברכות ל"ה ב' הנהג בהם מנהג דרך ארץ, ובשבת ל"ב א' אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה, ובחולין ק"ה א' אילו אבא הוי סייר נכסי כו'. ואפשר דבעיר דכולהו רבנן כופין זה את זה לבנות חומה, אבל בעיר שדרין בה בני אדם ויש ביניהם רבנן מטילין את החומה על המון העם ופוטרין את החכמים כמו שפטורין מן המס שהתורה פטרתן כיון שאינם משתדלים על השגת הממון בשביל עסקם בתורה אין ליטול מהם ממונם בשביל מס. והכי נמי, מצאו חכמים שאין ליטול מהם לנטירותא. ואחרי שבאמת תורתן מגנת עליהן ואינן נתונים תחת מקרי הטבע כשאר בני אדם, כי השגחתו ית' הוא לפי מדת הבטחטון שאדם משליך יהבו על בוראו ית', והלכך ראוי תלמיד חכם לפוטרו מנטירותא, ולהטל את החומה על שאר בני העיר לבנות חומה". (חזון איש בבא בתרא סי' ה' ס"ק י"ח)
"...This requires investigation, for are not rabbis also required to engage in worldly pursuits and not to rely on a miracle, as it is stated in... Perhaps [we may suggest] that in a city consisting of only rabbis, they may in fact force one another to [contribute] to building a wall. But in a city of laymen, and there are among them rabbis, we place [the cost] of the wall on the laymen and exempt the rabbis, just as they are exempt from taxes. Because they are not engaged in earning a livelihood and instead toil in Torah we do not charge them taxes. Here as well, the Sages decided that we should not charge them for protection. Because in truth their Torah [knowledge] guards over them, and they are not placed in the confines of nature like the rest of mankind, for Divine Providence is according to the measure of trust that man throws everything to the Creator, and therefore it is proper to exempt Torah scholars from paying for protection."
At first glance, the Chazon Ish seems to contradict himself from beginning to end. The Chazon Ish first suggests that in a city consisting of only Torah scholars, they would in fact be required to pay for protection and not rely on a miracle. Only in a city of laymen and scholars do we say that it is proper for the majority to cover the expense and exempt the elite scholars from paying because they cannot afford it. However, near the end of the paragraph the Chazon Ish contends that the scholars are not required to pay because their Torah knowledge provides protection.
I would suggest that this passage should be interpreted in light of the definition of bitachon put forth in the previous posts, namely, that bitachon and hishtadlus are inextricably connected to nature. One is required to engage in hishtadlus commensurate to what nature demands. Beyond that, bitachon is the conviction that whatever the outcome may be, it is the will of God. Therefore, in a city consisting of just Torah scholars, it would be considered relying on a miracle to have no protection measures in place. In such a case, everybody is required to contribute to protection expenses. However, in a city consisting of both scholars and laymen, it is possible for the cost of protection to be covered by the majority of laymen. In such a case, a Torah scholar is able to rely on Divine Providence, for it would does not take an open miracle to protect him once the laymen have already erected a protective fence. This is where the Chazon Ish maintains that it is proper to exempt Torah scholars from contributing to the construction of a wall. With this understanding we can proceed to the words of the Chazon Ish that follow:
"יש לעיין עד כמה חייבין בני העיר לסלק המס של רבנן, הגע עצמך, עיר שכולה רבנן ואחד הדיוט אם אתה מטיל עליו מס של כל העיר לא יספיק לו כל רכושו, ונראה דאם ע"י המס המרובה לא ישאר להם פרנסתם ויצטרכו לעזוב את העיר אין על בני העיר לסלק מס החכמים וקרוב הדבר שאינם חייבים ליתן יותר מחומש כמו בשאר מצוה כדאיתא באו"ח סי' תרנ"ו".
"It should be clarified, to what extent are the people of the city required to exempt the rabbis from taxes. Consider, a city consisting of all rabbis except for one person - if you would charge him all of the taxes for the entire city, his entire wealth would not be enough! It appears that if after [the laymen] cover all of the taxes they will not have enough left for their own livelihood, and they will be forced to leave the city, then the laymen have no responsibility to exempt the rabbis from paying taxes. It seems reasonable that they should not be required to contribute more than a fifth [of their earnings*], just like any other mitzvah."]
This section lends support to my contention - according to the Chazon Ish, Torah scholars are only exempt from paying taxes when it is financially feasible for the city to do so under natural circumstances. However, if the exemption will cause the city to rely upon a miracle, the requirement of hishtadlus kicks in.
* I translated מחומש as a fifth of their earnings, not a fifth of their total wealth, but neither of them are really an accurate translation. See Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 for more details.
2) The next example comes from a letter the Chazon Ish wrote to an unnamed recipient. Judging from the contents of the letter, it is written to a Yeshiva student, most probably not married. The recipient was facing the decision of going to a kibbutz where he knows the environment is religious, or remaining in Yeshiva for one more year, after which he does not know if he will find a religious kibbutz. The Chazon Ish writes:
"ואמנם על דעתי שאין דבר בעולם אשר ערכו ישוה לשלם מחיר לימוד התורה שנה, ובכלל אין לעזוב התורה עכשו בשביל חקור אחר העתידות [כמו שפרש"י מקרא תמים תהי' ולא תחקור אחר עתידות]..." (קובץ אגרות חלק א אגרת ה')
Although it would not surprise me if the Alter of Novhardok or the Bais HaLevi wrote this sentence, I don't believe one can conclude anything about bitachon and hishtadlus from this letter. First of all, we do not know who the recipient of the letter is or what his personal situation was at the time. Additionally, the Chazon Ish is not telling him to ignore the future indefinitely. He is telling him to remain in Yeshiva for one more year, and not to worry about the future prospects of whether or not he will be able to find a religious kibbutz the following year.
3) In another letter, the recipient seems to be faced with the decision of choosing between a kollel with a very high level of learning or something else Torah related that will earn more money (maybe taking a position as a maggid shiur somewhere? The details are not mentioned). The Chazon Ish tells him:
"ומי שתורתו אומנתו הוא בטוח מבטח עוז וכמו שנאמר ולא ראיתי וגו'. אך ביחוד אינך מזוין כ"כ לחיים של דחק ח"ו, ויש להקפיד על עתיד הקרוב לחושבו להוה ומותר לחקור עליו". (קובץ אגרות חלק א' אגרת כ"ט)
This letter is consistent with the general approach the Chazon Ish takes to bitachon and hishtadlus. On the one hand, one whose "profession is Torah" merits Divine Providence. However, in the general sense, Divine Providence is not a guarantee that everything will work out as planned. Therefore, one who chooses "Torah as a profession" should expect that he may be required to live a difficult life. In this person's case, the Chazon Ish tells him that because he is not capable of such sacrifice, hishtadlus allows him to prepare for the future as if it was the present.
I have more examples to present, but for the sake of brevity I will end the post here, thus wrapping up my three-part series on bitachon and hishtadlus in the view of the Chazon Ish. My next post will be on a different topic, iy"h.
