In this final source brought in Ben Melech as support that bitachon without hishtadlus is untenable, Rav Mintzberg moves us a few hundred years forward and quotes from Mesilas Yesharim.
As with the previous three sources cited by Rav Mintzberg, we will attempt to test whether the ideas that Rav Mintzberg's presents later, such as the idea that minimal hishtadlus is not sufficient and that hishtadlus is gauged by what is darko shel olam can find support in Ramchal. And as we have seen previously, we may also find passages in Mesilas Yesharim that contradict Rav Mintzberg or at least cannot be proven to take one side or the other.
The fourth and last source in Ben Melech, quotes from chapter 9 in Mesilas Yesharim, where the Ramchal writes
As with the previous three sources cited by Rav Mintzberg, we will attempt to test whether the ideas that Rav Mintzberg's presents later, such as the idea that minimal hishtadlus is not sufficient and that hishtadlus is gauged by what is darko shel olam can find support in Ramchal. And as we have seen previously, we may also find passages in Mesilas Yesharim that contradict Rav Mintzberg or at least cannot be proven to take one side or the other.
The fourth and last source in Ben Melech, quotes from chapter 9 in Mesilas Yesharim, where the Ramchal writes
וכך כתב הרמח״ל - 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. ואולם השמירה הזאת וזאת
היראה המיוסדת על הנהגת החכמה והשכל היא הראויה, שעליה נאמר ׳ערום ראה
רעה ונסתר ופתיים עברו ונענשו׳(משלי כב). אך היראה השוטה היא שיהיה האדם רוצה
להוסיף שמירות על שמירות ויראה על יראה ועושה משמרת למשמרתו, באפן שיגיע
מזה בטול לתורה ולעבודה(מסילת ישרים פרק ט)
"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.
The type of fear and self-protection which is appropriate is that which grows out of the workings of wisdom and intelligence. It is the type about which it is said (Proverbs 22:3), "The wise man sees evil and hides, but the fools pass on and are punished." "Foolish fear" is a person's desiring to multiply protection upon protection and fear upon fear, so that he makes a protection for his protection and neglects Torah and Divine service."
We thought that we could make the case in showing that Ramchal was in general in favor of hishtadlus. Perhaps not to the degree of R. Yitzchak Arama, but conceivably as much as R. Bachya. We see that Ramchal speaks of recklessness as flouting the will of Hashem and proclaims the need for behaving with wisdom in human endeavors. So we thought that we were well on the road to claiming that Ramchal not only supports Rav Mintzberg's basic premise of the need for hishtadlus in all human pursuits, but would also support the concept of the b'darko shel olam type of hishtadlus favored by Rav Mintzberg.
At this point, Naftali interjected that he thought that we were missing a key point in understanding what Ramchal was driving at. First of all, Naftali pointed out, Ramchal in this chapter of Mesilas Yesharim is not addressing bitachon VS. hishtadlus, he is concerned with laziness VS. diligence. In which case, Ramchal may be a vote for being industrious and not falling into the trap of laziness, instead of being a vote for obligatory levels of hishtadlus accompanying bitachon. Naftali then continued with another winning argument for not taking more from Mesilas Yesharim then what is written. Naftali's point is that the Mesilas Yesharim is describing a situation involving real danger. In which case it would be a chiyuv and mitzvah to do hishtadlus to save yourself. So while we can take from here that Ramchal holds that in the case of a mitzvah rabba like v'nishmartem l'nafshosaichem (a great mitzvah like "guard your soul"), you cannot rely on miracles or near-miracles, that is not a novel idea (either as per Rambam or because when you are faced with a mitzvah, then surely you must do absolutely ALL the hishtadlus possible and necessary to be pass the nisayon and fulfill the mitzvah. The only parameters for deciding when to dis-continue the hishtadlus, are the existing halachic guidelines for the specific mitzvah).
So it looks like we've been spun 180 degrees. Instead of finding support for making normal hishtadlus mandatory, we're seriously questioning whether Ramchal can even be brought as a proof to the idea that a minimal amount of hishtadlus is required, if only so that you aren't violating the dictum of the Chazal that one is not permitted to rely on miracles. A plausible way out of this would be to decide that almost every action (or in this case inaction) would lead to the kind of very bad situations which would border on the downright dangerous. In which case, once again, the mitzvah would demand that hishtadlus be the order of the day.
Supporting this idea that Ramchal can't be brought to support hishtadlus across the board, is what Ramchal writes in the 21st chapter of Mesilas Yesharim, where he basically comes out and says that a minimal amount of hishtadlus is all that is required and indeed proper.
The type of fear and self-protection which is appropriate is that which grows out of the workings of wisdom and intelligence. It is the type about which it is said (Proverbs 22:3), "The wise man sees evil and hides, but the fools pass on and are punished." "Foolish fear" is a person's desiring to multiply protection upon protection and fear upon fear, so that he makes a protection for his protection and neglects Torah and Divine service."
We thought that we could make the case in showing that Ramchal was in general in favor of hishtadlus. Perhaps not to the degree of R. Yitzchak Arama, but conceivably as much as R. Bachya. We see that Ramchal speaks of recklessness as flouting the will of Hashem and proclaims the need for behaving with wisdom in human endeavors. So we thought that we were well on the road to claiming that Ramchal not only supports Rav Mintzberg's basic premise of the need for hishtadlus in all human pursuits, but would also support the concept of the b'darko shel olam type of hishtadlus favored by Rav Mintzberg.
At this point, Naftali interjected that he thought that we were missing a key point in understanding what Ramchal was driving at. First of all, Naftali pointed out, Ramchal in this chapter of Mesilas Yesharim is not addressing bitachon VS. hishtadlus, he is concerned with laziness VS. diligence. In which case, Ramchal may be a vote for being industrious and not falling into the trap of laziness, instead of being a vote for obligatory levels of hishtadlus accompanying bitachon. Naftali then continued with another winning argument for not taking more from Mesilas Yesharim then what is written. Naftali's point is that the Mesilas Yesharim is describing a situation involving real danger. In which case it would be a chiyuv and mitzvah to do hishtadlus to save yourself. So while we can take from here that Ramchal holds that in the case of a mitzvah rabba like v'nishmartem l'nafshosaichem (a great mitzvah like "guard your soul"), you cannot rely on miracles or near-miracles, that is not a novel idea (either as per Rambam or because when you are faced with a mitzvah, then surely you must do absolutely ALL the hishtadlus possible and necessary to be pass the nisayon and fulfill the mitzvah. The only parameters for deciding when to dis-continue the hishtadlus, are the existing halachic guidelines for the specific mitzvah).
So it looks like we've been spun 180 degrees. Instead of finding support for making normal hishtadlus mandatory, we're seriously questioning whether Ramchal can even be brought as a proof to the idea that a minimal amount of hishtadlus is required, if only so that you aren't violating the dictum of the Chazal that one is not permitted to rely on miracles. A plausible way out of this would be to decide that almost every action (or in this case inaction) would lead to the kind of very bad situations which would border on the downright dangerous. In which case, once again, the mitzvah would demand that hishtadlus be the order of the day.
Supporting this idea that Ramchal can't be brought to support hishtadlus across the board, is what Ramchal writes in the 21st chapter of Mesilas Yesharim, where he basically comes out and says that a minimal amount of hishtadlus is all that is required and indeed proper.
אמנם מה שיוכל לשמור את האדם ולהצילו מן המפסידים האלה הוא הבטחון, והוא שישליך יהבו על ה' לגמרי, כאשר ידע כי ודאי אי אפשר שיחסר לאדם מה שנקצב לו, וכמו שאז"ל במאמריהם (ביצה ט"ז): כל מזונותיו של אדם קצובים לו מראש השנה וגו', וכן אמרו (יומא ל"ח): אין אדם נוגע במוכן לחבירו אפילו כמלא נימא, וכבר היה אדם יכול להיות יושב ובטל והגזירה (גזירת קיצבת מזונות שקצבו לו בראש השנה) היתה מתקיימת, אם לא שקדם הקנס לכל בני אדם, (בראשית ג): בזעת אפך תאכל לחם, אשר על כן חייב אדם להשתדל איזה השתדלות לצורך פרנסתו, שכן גזר המלך העליון, והרי זה כמס שפורע כל המין האנושי אשר אין להמלט ממנו.
על כן (הואיל וכך גזר המלך) אמרו (ספרי): יכול אפילו יושב ובטל (יראה סימן ברכה) תלמוד לומר: בכל משלח ידך אשר תעשה (שצריך אתה להשתדל ולעשות), אך לא שההשתדלות הוא המועיל, אלא שהשתדלות מוכרח, וכיון שהשתדל הרי יצא ידי חובתו, וכבר יש מקום לברכת שמים שתשרה עליו ואינו צריך לבלות ימיו בחריצות והשתדלות, הוא מה שכתב דוד המלך ע"ה (תהלים ט"ה): כי לא ממוצא וממערב ולא וגו', כי אלהים שופט וגו' ושלמה המלך ע"ה אמר (משלי כ"ג): "אל תיגע להעשיר מבינתך חדל". אלא הדרך האמיתי הוא דרכם של החסידים הראשונים עושים תורתן עיקר ומלאכתן תפלה, וזה וזה נתקיים בידם, כי כיון שעשה אדם קצת מלאכה משם והלאה אין לו אלא לבטוח בקונו ולא להצטער על שום דבר עולמי, אז תשאר דעתו פנויה ולבו מוכן לחסידות האמיתי ולעבודה התמימה.
על כן (הואיל וכך גזר המלך) אמרו (ספרי): יכול אפילו יושב ובטל (יראה סימן ברכה) תלמוד לומר: בכל משלח ידך אשר תעשה (שצריך אתה להשתדל ולעשות), אך לא שההשתדלות הוא המועיל, אלא שהשתדלות מוכרח, וכיון שהשתדל הרי יצא ידי חובתו, וכבר יש מקום לברכת שמים שתשרה עליו ואינו צריך לבלות ימיו בחריצות והשתדלות, הוא מה שכתב דוד המלך ע"ה (תהלים ט"ה): כי לא ממוצא וממערב ולא וגו', כי אלהים שופט וגו' ושלמה המלך ע"ה אמר (משלי כ"ג): "אל תיגע להעשיר מבינתך חדל". אלא הדרך האמיתי הוא דרכם של החסידים הראשונים עושים תורתן עיקר ומלאכתן תפלה, וזה וזה נתקיים בידם, כי כיון שעשה אדם קצת מלאכה משם והלאה אין לו אלא לבטוח בקונו ולא להצטער על שום דבר עולמי, אז תשאר דעתו פנויה ולבו מוכן לחסידות האמיתי ולעבודה התמימה.
"However, a man can be protected against these deterrents and rescued from them by trusting to G-d, by casting his lot with Him in the realization
that a person can never be deprived of what has been set aside for him, as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Beitzah 16a), "A man's entire sustenance is determined for him on Rosh Hashana ..." and (Yoma 38b), "A man cannot touch even a hairsbreadth of what has been set aside for his neighbor." A man could sit idle and what was ordained for him would materialize, were it not for the penalty imposed upon all men: "With the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread" (Genesis 3:19), because of which, by Divine decree, a man is required to exert himself somewhat for his sustenance. This is a tax, as it were, which must be paid by every member of the human race and which cannot be evaded. In the words of our Sages of blessed memory (Sifrei), "I would think that a man would be permitted to sit idle, had we not been told (Deuteronomy 28:20), `With all the putting forth of your hand which you undertake.' " This is not to say that the exertion produces the results, but that it is necessary. Once one has exerted himself, however, he has fulfilled his responsibilities and made room for the blessing of Heaven to rest upon him, and he need not consume his days in striving and exertion. As King David, may Peace be upon him, said (Psalms 75:7,8), "For not from east or west and not from the wilderness comes uplifting. This one He puts down and this one He lifts up. For G-d rules." And King Solomon, may Peace be upon him, said (Proverbs 23:4), "Do not weary yourself to become rich; cease from your understanding." The correct approach in this area is that of the early Saints, who made their Torah primary and their labor secondary, and were successful in both; for once a man does a little work, from then on he need only trust in his Master and not be troubled by any worldly matters. His mind will then be free and his heart ready for true Saintliness and pure Divine service."
Clearly, the implication of this passage is that the less hishtadlus you do, the better. Which supports the minimalist approach to hishtadlus. Possibly, we can differentiate between what the Ramchal wrote in chapter 9 in favor of hishtadlus and chapter 21 where he wrote disparagingly of hishtadlus is that in chapter 9 we are talking about a person towards the beginning of his climb in avodas Hashem and thus still at the level where he needs to be actively involved with hishtadlus, while chapter 21 is at the level of saintliness and therefore hishtadlus is best to be minimized. While Naftali will tell you that the difference between chapter 9 which demands active involvement in hishtadlus and chapter 21 that has very little use for hishtadlus is that chapter 9 is talking about a chiyuv or a mitzvah, while chapter 21 is not talking about a chiyuv or a mitzvah.
However, this may not be the end of the story and we shouldn't take it to be as simple and open and shut as it reads at face value, because as Rav Moshe Chaim Shlanger, Mashgiach Ruchni of Yeshivat Porat Yosef, in his running commentary on Mesilas Yesharim points out,
"a little work" - Rabeinu's intent is not that a person do a tiny effort and then rely on a miracle. Rather, it makes sense that the amount [of hishtadlus] is what one needs according to the ways of nature to attain his [basic] needs. He comes only to preclude that "he does not need to consume his days in exertion and labor"...
Clearly, the implication of this passage is that the less hishtadlus you do, the better. Which supports the minimalist approach to hishtadlus. Possibly, we can differentiate between what the Ramchal wrote in chapter 9 in favor of hishtadlus and chapter 21 where he wrote disparagingly of hishtadlus is that in chapter 9 we are talking about a person towards the beginning of his climb in avodas Hashem and thus still at the level where he needs to be actively involved with hishtadlus, while chapter 21 is at the level of saintliness and therefore hishtadlus is best to be minimized. While Naftali will tell you that the difference between chapter 9 which demands active involvement in hishtadlus and chapter 21 that has very little use for hishtadlus is that chapter 9 is talking about a chiyuv or a mitzvah, while chapter 21 is not talking about a chiyuv or a mitzvah.
However, this may not be the end of the story and we shouldn't take it to be as simple and open and shut as it reads at face value, because as Rav Moshe Chaim Shlanger, Mashgiach Ruchni of Yeshivat Porat Yosef, in his running commentary on Mesilas Yesharim points out,
"a little work" - Rabeinu's intent is not that a person do a tiny effort and then rely on a miracle. Rather, it makes sense that the amount [of hishtadlus] is what one needs according to the ways of nature to attain his [basic] needs. He comes only to preclude that "he does not need to consume his days in exertion and labor"...
אמנם נראה, שאין כוונת רבינו לומר שדי לשם השגת פרנסה בעשיית דבר מועט ממש ואח"כ לסמוך על הנס, אלא מסתבר שהשיעור הןא בהשתדלות מזערית שתספיק בדרך הטבע למלא את צורכי האדם. כן משמע גם מדבריו כאן שבא להוציא רק מ"לבלות ימיו בחריצות והשתדלות"
ולא מהשתדלות טבעית
וכן נראה מדבריו בפֶּרֶק ו' - בְּבֵאוּר מִדַּת הַזְּרִיזוּת והנה שלמה שנה מאד באזהרתו על זה בראותו את רוע העצלה וההפסד הגדול הנמשך ממנה ואמר (משלי ו): מעט שנות מעט תנומות מעט חבק ידים לשכב, ובא כמהלך ראשך ומחסרך כאיש מגן. כי הנה העצל אף על פי שאינו עושה רע בקום עשה, הנה הוא מביא את הרעה עליו בשב ואל תעשה שלו.
ואמר (שם יח): גם מתרפה במלאכתו, אח הוא לבעל משחית. כי אף על פי שאיננו המשחית העושה את הרעה בידיו, לא תחשוב שהוא רחוק ממנו, אלא אחיו הוא ובן גילו הוא.
והנה מלבד פשוטו אשר הוא אמיתי כמשמעו שהוא מה שקורה אל שדה העצל ממש...
וכן נראה מדבריו בפֶּרֶק ו' - בְּבֵאוּר מִדַּת הַזְּרִיזוּת והנה שלמה שנה מאד באזהרתו על זה בראותו את רוע העצלה וההפסד הגדול הנמשך ממנה ואמר (משלי ו): מעט שנות מעט תנומות מעט חבק ידים לשכב, ובא כמהלך ראשך ומחסרך כאיש מגן. כי הנה העצל אף על פי שאינו עושה רע בקום עשה, הנה הוא מביא את הרעה עליו בשב ואל תעשה שלו.
ואמר (שם יח): גם מתרפה במלאכתו, אח הוא לבעל משחית. כי אף על פי שאיננו המשחית העושה את הרעה בידיו, לא תחשוב שהוא רחוק ממנו, אלא אחיו הוא ובן גילו הוא.
והנה מלבד פשוטו אשר הוא אמיתי כמשמעו שהוא מה שקורה אל שדה העצל ממש...
and in a similar vein, he writes in chapter 6 in defining the Trait of Zeal.
"Behold, Shlomo repeatedly exhorted many times on this in seeing the evil of laziness and the greatness of the harm resulting from it. He said "a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest. Then shall your poverty come as a traveler.." (Mishlei 24:33). For behold, even though the lazy person is not doing evil actively, nevertheless he brings evil on himself through his very inactivity."
"Shlomo further said: "also he who is slack in his work is a brother to the destroyer" (Mishlei 18:9). For even though this person is not a destroyer who commits evil directly with his own hands, don't think he is far removed from being one. On the contrary, he is the destroyer's brother, and his comrade."
"He further used a familiar, every day illustration to explain the evil that befalls the lazy person: "I passed by the field of a lazy man, and by the vineyard of the man without understanding; And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face of it, and its stone wall was broken down; Then I observed; I put my heart to it; I beheld and I received mussar (instruction); A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to lie down; so shall your poverty come as a traveler, and your want like a man with a shield" (Mishlei 24:30-34)."
"Besides the plain meaning, which is true in the literal sense, for this is indeed what happens to the field of a lazy man."
Indicating that the lack of success comes from being lazy [and not doing the proper hishtadlus]. The implication being that if the person had not been lazy and had done the appropriate amount of hishtadlus, he would have met with success.
This is implied in chapter 11 - the Details of Cleanliness, as well
"Behold, Shlomo repeatedly exhorted many times on this in seeing the evil of laziness and the greatness of the harm resulting from it. He said "a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest. Then shall your poverty come as a traveler.." (Mishlei 24:33). For behold, even though the lazy person is not doing evil actively, nevertheless he brings evil on himself through his very inactivity."
"Shlomo further said: "also he who is slack in his work is a brother to the destroyer" (Mishlei 18:9). For even though this person is not a destroyer who commits evil directly with his own hands, don't think he is far removed from being one. On the contrary, he is the destroyer's brother, and his comrade."
"He further used a familiar, every day illustration to explain the evil that befalls the lazy person: "I passed by the field of a lazy man, and by the vineyard of the man without understanding; And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face of it, and its stone wall was broken down; Then I observed; I put my heart to it; I beheld and I received mussar (instruction); A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to lie down; so shall your poverty come as a traveler, and your want like a man with a shield" (Mishlei 24:30-34)."
"Besides the plain meaning, which is true in the literal sense, for this is indeed what happens to the field of a lazy man."
Indicating that the lack of success comes from being lazy [and not doing the proper hishtadlus]. The implication being that if the person had not been lazy and had done the appropriate amount of hishtadlus, he would have met with success.
This is implied in chapter 11 - the Details of Cleanliness, as well
וכן משמע מן האמור בפרק י"א - בפרטי מדת הנקיות
ואם תאמר בלבבך: ואיך אפשר לנו שלא להשתדל במשאנו ובמתננו לרצות את חבירנו על המקח ועל שוויו? חילוק גדול יש בדבר, כי כל מה שהוא להראות את הקונים אמיתת טוב החפץ ויפיו, הנה ההשתדלות ההוא טוב וישר.
ואם תאמר בלבבך: ואיך אפשר לנו שלא להשתדל במשאנו ובמתננו לרצות את חבירנו על המקח ועל שוויו? חילוק גדול יש בדבר, כי כל מה שהוא להראות את הקונים אמיתת טוב החפץ ויפיו, הנה ההשתדלות ההוא טוב וישר.
If you ask yourself, "How is it possible for us in our dealings not to attempt to favorably incline the prospective buyer towards the object to be sold and its worth?" know that there is a great distinction to be made. Whatever effort is made to show the purchaser the true worth and beauty
of the object is fitting and proper
So it seems that we have come full circle. Rav Schlanger's citations imply that Ramchal would not be happy with the person whose bitachon is not accompanied by hishtadlus. We can confidently claim that Ramchal would agree with what we have been learning in Ben Melech, that proper hishtadlus is when it is done in a way that the effort expended could be expected to deliver the positive results desired.
So it seems that we have come full circle. Rav Schlanger's citations imply that Ramchal would not be happy with the person whose bitachon is not accompanied by hishtadlus. We can confidently claim that Ramchal would agree with what we have been learning in Ben Melech, that proper hishtadlus is when it is done in a way that the effort expended could be expected to deliver the positive results desired.
No comments:
Post a Comment