The conflict between bitachon and hishtadlus and the beginning of an approach to resolve it (Week 1)

On Sunday night, 6 Cheshvan 5777 / Nov 6, we began learning the sugya of hishtadlus from Sefer Ben Melech by Rav Leib Mintzberg shlit"a

Rav Leib Mintzberg begins his essay on hishtadlus by quoting from the Sifre. On the verse

לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדְךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה

"so that the Lord, your God, will bless you in all the work of your hand that you will do" (Devarim 13:29) the Sifre (Parshas Re'eh section 123) teaches:

יכול בטל תלמוד לומר בכל אשר תעשה

"that HaShem your G-d will bless you”. You might think that you will be blessed even if you are idle [and doing nothing]? Therefore, the Torah says “in whatever (all) that you do”, to teach you that you cannot remain idle [the blessing of HaShem will be on whatever it is that you do. But you must do something].

So if the question is whether you do hishtadlus or do NOT do hishtadlus, we can declare victory for hishtadlus and go home.

But it's not so simple.

There is a counter-weight to this Sifre in that, seemingly the Sifre contradicts a very basic, core belief that we have, that HKBH does everything and controls everything. We have all been taught that if HKBH decrees what your livelihood is going to be this year, then that is the end of the story and it will surely happen as HKBH decreed it. In which case, why should I have to do anything at all? After all, it is already decreed. If the person then goes ahead and engages in hishtadlus in keeping with the Sifre, it is seemingly proof that the person is lacking in bitachon. Isn’t it? Does G-d need my help? If my bitachon in G-d is real, why am I trying to help G-d?

In one way or another, THIS IS THE PARADOX THAT ANYBODY WRITING ON THIS TOPIC MUST GRAPPLE WITH.

Rav Mintzberg begins to present his approach for balancing the need for hishtadlus on one side, with our emunah and bitachon that everything happens only because of the individual divine providence (hashgacha pratis) decreed by the RBSO on the other side. He points out the obvious, i.e. that the way that EVERYTHING in this world works is through the mechanism of cause and effect. HKBH set down the Laws of Physics and the Laws of everything else of how the world works. Just like HKBH decreed and built into the running of the world that for things to grow there are certain things that that must happen, so too for all other needs that a person has, in order to fill those needs, there are certain steps that must happen. Just like to live in a house, alot of effort was spent on planning, construction etc. so too for everything that you need, there are tasks involved that must occur, in order for what you need and want to materialize. This is the way that HKBH created everything in the world to work.

Building on top of that premise, Rav Mintzberg says that since this is the way that HKBH wants the world to run i.e. through cause and effect, a person who has emunah and bitachon in HaShem has to accept the divine wisdom and serve HaShem by adapting his behavior to the will of HKBH. Since HaShem decreed that a person has to do hishtadlus to fulfill all of his needs, a person with bitachon will accept that the way to get anything done is through hishtadlus. And it is not proper for a person to pin his hopes on seeing his desires fulfilled without the difficulty of doing hishtadlus, taking the position that since HKBH wants to sustain me, he will provide my needs without my taking any action.

In the next paragraph, Rav Mintzberg continues and makes these points in stronger terms. He writes with strong conviction, that even though the person imagines himself to be scaling great heights in the trait of bitachon, actually, on the contrary, he is behaving in a way that is the opposite of bitachon. (Yes, he actually wrote that. see quote from Ben Melech below). This person refuses to depend and rely on HKBH and shows no faith in HKBH's divine individual providence, which dictates that HKBH's will is such, that in order to provide for his needs, a person must engage in activities that are the normal way that the world goes about fulfilling needs of this type. This person wants to have his needs fulfilled in a way at odds with the will of HaShem. This is the opposite of bitachon.

ואף שמדמה שבכך הוא מהדר ביותר במדריגת הבטחון, הרי אדרבה לאמתו של דבר הריהו נוהג בזה בהיפך מידת הבטחון, שאינו סומך ובוטח על ה' ואינו נותן אמון בהשגחתו, להניח עצמו על הנהגתו יתברך, שיהיה משיג צרכיו בדרך שקבע ה' עבורו, וכפי שמנחה אותו בדרכו של עולם, אלא רוצה שיתנו לו באופן אחר, כפי שנראה לו, ולא כפי שהקב״ה קבע, וזה היפך הבטחון.

For reasons that are beyond me, Rav Mintzberg limits his sharp words to those who do no hishtadlus whatsoever. While if you read this paragraph carefully, you will notice that the words that Rav Mintzberg uses while describing the person who deigns to do no hishtadlus whatsoever, are equally true of the person who wants to do less than the appropriate amount of hishtadlus. Yet the paragraph heading is: A person who wants to rely on a miracle is opposing the will of Hashem.

המבקש לסמוך על הנס - מתנגד לרצון השם

It is clear from what he writes immediately above this paragraph, that when Rav Mintzberg writes that this person is behaving in a way that is the opposite of bitachon, he is referring to a person who does zero hishtadlus. He writes,

אולם אם יצפה האדם להשיג כל צרכיו בלי טורח, בטענה, שמאחר והקב״ה רוצה להאכילני, יספק לי אפוא את מזוני באיזה דרך שהוא בלי פעולות מצידי, לא זו הדרך.

Because Rav Mintzberg is limiting his issue regarding the need for people to do hishtadlus, to people who do no hishtadlus whatsoever, he has an easy time of it, finding four early sources that make it clear that a person must do hishtadlus and cannot remain idle and leave it all up to HKBH to do it all for him.

The first of four early sources that Rav Mintzberg brings to make his case that a person must do hishtadlus and is not allowed to remain idle and rely on miracles is the Rashba. The Rashba in a response printed in Tshuvos HaRashba vol I, responsa #413 as well as in Minchas Kenaos letter #3 writes:

ואפילו החסיד שבחסידים אין לו רשות לעשות מלאכתו דרך בטחון, רק בדרכו של עולם וכו', ואין זה ממעט בטחון, אדרבה אסור לסמוך על הנס (ספר מנחת קנאות מכתב ג').

The Rashba uses the term b’darko shel olam differently than the way it is used in Ben Melech. In Ben Melech it connotes actions or behaviors that are the normal way that people in the world accomplish whatever it is that they are trying to do. When the Rashba uses b’darko shel olam, he means that it is accepted by the world to be a phenomena that has a physical effect. Nonetheless, the Rashba does state quite emphatically that even a saintly person is not permitted to try to get things done by relying on miracles, rather, he is required to do things in the normal way that people do them (b’darko shel olam), supporting Rav Mintzberg's point that a person must do some actual real-life hishtadlus and is not allowed to remain idle and rely on miracles.

The second source that Rav Mintzberg marshals to prove that you cannot rely on bitachon alone and let HKBH take care of everything for you, is from Chovos Ha-Levavavos in the fourth chapter where R Bachya writes:

ועם ברור אמונתו כי ענינו מסור אל גזרות הבורא יתעלה ושבחירת הבורא לו היא הבחירה הטובה הוא חייב להתגלגל לסבות תועלותיו ולבחר הטוב כנראה לו מן הענין והאלהים יעשה מה שקדמה בו גזרתו.

… Even though a human being's end and length of his days are determined by the Creator's decree, nevertheless, it is a man's duty to pursue means to survive such as food and drink, clothing, and shelter according to his needs, and he must not leave this to the Al-mighty, and think: "if the Creator has pre-decreed that I will live, then my body will survive without food all the days of my life, therefore I will not trouble myself in seeking a livelihood and toiling in it". If one's emunah (faith) is clear, that his matters are given over to the decrees of the Creator, and that the choice of the Creator for him is the best choice, nevertheless, it is one's duty to pursue means which appear to be beneficial to him and to choose what seems to be the best choice under the circumstances, and the Al-mighty will do according to what He has already decreed.

The third of the Rishonim quoted by Rav Mintzberg to prove his point that a person cannot rely solely on HKBH’s divine individual providence and must be actively engaged in actions that can be expected to produce the desired outcome is R Yitzchak Arama, who writes in Akeidas Yitzchak (Vayishlach Gate 26) about Dovid ha-Melech who did not rely on the prophecy of Shmuel and used all the strategies at his disposal to save himself from all of his enemies and from Shaul. Because he knew that HaShem's salvation will only rest upon those who undertook and performed all of the actions that they could devise to bring about their own salvation. And that when he is derelict in the performance of those requisite actions, he will find himself stricken with the impairment of laziness and carelessness which will weaken his ability to hold on to the divine salvation.

ומי לנו גדול ומשוח מלך ואהוב לאלוקיו כדוד אדונינו, אשר היה מובטח מפי נביא נאמן לה', ועם כל זה לא סר מהשתדל בכל מאמצי כוחו להנצל מכף כל אויביו ומכף שאול. ולא סמך על הבטחותיו, כי ידע כי ישועת השי״ת והבטחותיו לא יחולו רק על ראש המשלים את חוקו בפעולותיו האנושיות ככל אשר תספיק שכלו, וכאשר יחסר ממנו, כבר יפול בו מום העצלה והרישול, ויוחלש כוחו מלקבל העזר והתשועה האלוקית (פרשת וישלח שער כו).

The fourth source that Rav Mintzberg cites to prove his point that a person must do hishtadlus and may not rely on HKBH to do everything for him without the person being engaged in the process is from Ramchal in Mesilas Yesharim (chapter 9):

ומי שירצה שלא ינהג עצמו בדרך החכמה ויפקיד עצמו לסכנות הנה אין זה בטחון אלא הוללות, והנה הוא חוטא במה שהוא עושה נגד רצון הבורא יתברך שמו, שרוצה שישמור האדם את עצמו, ונמצא שמלבד הסכנה המוטבעת בדבר אשר הוא עלול אליה מפני חסרון שמירתו, הנה עוד הוא מתחייב בנפשו בקום עשה בחטא אשר הוא חוטא, ונמצא החטא עצמו מביאו ליענש.

The Lord blessed be He, has invested man with sound intelligence and judgment so that he may follow the right path and protect himself from the instruments of injury that have been created to punish evildoers. One who allows himself not to be guided by wisdom and exposes himself to dangers is displaying not trust, but recklessness; and he is a sinner in that he flouts the will of the Creator, blessed be His Name, who desires that a man protect himself. Aside from the fact that because of his carelessness he lays himself open to the danger inherent in the threatening object, he openly calls punishment down upon himself because of the sin that he commits thereby, so that his hurt results from the sin itself.

Each of these four sources cited in Ben Melech, require deeper analysis to ascertain where they differ and whether there is a context inherent in each of the sources that limits an across the board application of what each one is writing. The chabura will hopefully delve into them, in the coming weeks.