In a previous post, there is discussion related to Rav Leib Mintzberg's citing the four early sources on pages 90-91 (Rashba, Chovos Ha-Levavos, Akeidas Yitzchak and Ramchal), to support his contention that you MUST do hishtadlus and are not allowed to jettison (all?) histadlus and rely solely on HKBH to intervene on your behalf.
We had said that considering that we don't know many people who are driven to forsake all hishtadlus in their belief that since everything is governed by HKBH's will anyway, there is no need for them to get off the couch, we thought that the scenario laid out in Ben Melech was a diversion from what we thought the main thrust would be. We pointed out that it would be a much more realistic scenario to discuss a person, who in his working on his bitachon has decided to do a minimal amount of histadlus, way below the level of histadlus that he has done in the past.
We also detected that the force with which Rav Mintzberg went about proving what is basic and simple, was much greater than the effort expended to validate his novel ideas that followed. We were left with the impression that the proofs that hishtadlus is mandatory, were meant to be used in proving that minimal hishtadlus is not sufficient and that hishtadlus is gauged by what is darko shel olam. Verifying whether this impression has any validity is very worthwhile for our understanding of Rav Mintzberg's thinking on histadlus, but it will take some effort.
To be clear. We are not questioning that Rav Mintzberg's point i.e. that bitachon does not relieve you of the responsibility to engage in appropriate hishtadlus, is valid. Just that is almost unnecessary.
Especially, when you consider what R. Bachya pointed out in Chovos Halevavos, that histadlus is required, because cause and effect are the way HaShem programmed the world to work and even this fellow who is relying on a miracle, is also doing some level of hishtadlus. For example, when the fellow just described, opens the envelope containing the inheritance check with his name on it, from a great-uncle that he didn't know he had or when he goes out and buys what he needs or even when he picks up the soup spoon; he is involved in hishtadlus.
We had said that considering that we don't know many people who are driven to forsake all hishtadlus in their belief that since everything is governed by HKBH's will anyway, there is no need for them to get off the couch, we thought that the scenario laid out in Ben Melech was a diversion from what we thought the main thrust would be. We pointed out that it would be a much more realistic scenario to discuss a person, who in his working on his bitachon has decided to do a minimal amount of histadlus, way below the level of histadlus that he has done in the past.
We also detected that the force with which Rav Mintzberg went about proving what is basic and simple, was much greater than the effort expended to validate his novel ideas that followed. We were left with the impression that the proofs that hishtadlus is mandatory, were meant to be used in proving that minimal hishtadlus is not sufficient and that hishtadlus is gauged by what is darko shel olam. Verifying whether this impression has any validity is very worthwhile for our understanding of Rav Mintzberg's thinking on histadlus, but it will take some effort.
To be clear. We are not questioning that Rav Mintzberg's point i.e. that bitachon does not relieve you of the responsibility to engage in appropriate hishtadlus, is valid. Just that is almost unnecessary.
Especially, when you consider what R. Bachya pointed out in Chovos Halevavos, that histadlus is required, because cause and effect are the way HaShem programmed the world to work and even this fellow who is relying on a miracle, is also doing some level of hishtadlus. For example, when the fellow just described, opens the envelope containing the inheritance check with his name on it, from a great-uncle that he didn't know he had or when he goes out and buys what he needs or even when he picks up the soup spoon; he is involved in hishtadlus.
ואם תהיינה הסיבות נעדרות בכלל, לא תיגמר יציאת דבר מן הפעולות הטבעיות אל גדר ההוויה. וכאשר נסתכל בצורך האדם לסבב ולהתגלגל ולגמור ענייניו, נמצאהו בראות העין, כי הצריך אל המזון, כשיושם לפניו המאכל כראוי לו, אם לא יתגלגל לאוכלו בהגבהתו אל פיו ולעסו - לא ישבר רעבונו. וכן הצמא בצורכו אל המים. וכל שכן אם יימנע המאכל ממנו עד שיתגלגל לתקנו בטחינה ולישה ואפיה והדומה לה, ויותר גלגול מזה וקשה, אם יצטרך לקנותו ולתקנו,
"And if the means are blocked, none of the actions which normally bring this matter into existence will succeed. When we examine the need for a man to pursue means and exert himself to complete his needs, we can see with our own eyes that for one who needs food and proper food is served before him, if he does not exert himself to eat it by lifting the food to his mouth, chewing it, etc., he will not break his hunger. Likewise for someone thirsty, who needs water. And all the more so, if he has no food prepared, until he needs to exert himself through milling flour, kneading, baking, etc . And more so, if he needs to buy the food and prepare it."
So nobody can claim to be living a hishtadlus free existence. (note: For some reason, many people have this idea that hishtadlus only has to do with how you get the money to do what you want, but that everything after that is not an area where you need to think about hishtadlus).
In looking for an explanation for why Ben Melech might start with the outlier case of someone who doesn't do any histadlus, we wondered whether Rav Mintzberg might hold the position that a person who only does minimal hishtadlus is the moral equivalent of the no-histadlus person, in that he is also relying on HaShem performing a miracle on his behalf (note: Rav Mintzberg never comes out and says this). If that is true, then the next step is to ascertain whether the four sources brought in Ben Melech to prove that not doing any hishtadlus is defying the ratzon Hashem, can also be brought as proof that doing minimal hishtadlus is also in contravention of HaShem's will. If we can show that the proofs additionally work to prove that minimal hishtadlus is the moral equivalent of doing no hishtadlus whatsoever, we can understand why Ben Melech would introduce the discussion of hishtadlus using the case of the person not doing any hishtadlus. Since the case of doing no hishtadlus is so much clearer, it is an excellent way of demarcating the playing field where we will examine the minimal limits of hishtadlus
If it can be proven that the proofs can be used to invalidate both the no hishtadlus and minimal hishtadlus positions, then these proofs come very close to endorsing the position explicated in Ben Melech, that proper hishtadlus is b'darko shel olam. To be able to marshal support early in the essay to what is its central theme, would itself be good enough reason to start off with the scenario as described, even if it isn't likely to be applicable in the lives of most of the people learning his sefer.
If on the other hand, Rav Mintzberg is of the opinion that no-hishtadlus and minimal hishtadlus are not comparable OR the proofs brought to undermine the validity of no-hishtadlus do not support the invalidating of minimal hishtadlus, we are left with the question we opened with at the top of this post.
So we have our work cut off for us. Examining each of the sources in turn, we will look to see whether the sources that prove that at least some hishtadlus is mandatory, will also prove Rav Mintzberg's theses about normative hishtadlus.
There is at least one indication that Rav Mintzberg cited these early sources, solely for proving that you can't just stand idly by and expect Hashem to help you, without your doing any hishtadlus and nothing more than that.
If he had meant to prove that hishtadlus had to be b'darko shel olam and that minimal hishtadlus was also defying the ratzon Hashem, he should have quoted from the passage in Chovos Halevavos below and not the quote that he inserted in Ben Melech. In the quote below, R. Bachya refers to hishtadlus through normal human endeavors as a mitzvah (note: R. Bachya further makes the point that this kind of hishtadlus involvement in normal human endeavors will not harm his bitachon., the likely reason for reducing the amount of hishtadlus being expended).
So nobody can claim to be living a hishtadlus free existence. (note: For some reason, many people have this idea that hishtadlus only has to do with how you get the money to do what you want, but that everything after that is not an area where you need to think about hishtadlus).
In looking for an explanation for why Ben Melech might start with the outlier case of someone who doesn't do any histadlus, we wondered whether Rav Mintzberg might hold the position that a person who only does minimal hishtadlus is the moral equivalent of the no-histadlus person, in that he is also relying on HaShem performing a miracle on his behalf (note: Rav Mintzberg never comes out and says this). If that is true, then the next step is to ascertain whether the four sources brought in Ben Melech to prove that not doing any hishtadlus is defying the ratzon Hashem, can also be brought as proof that doing minimal hishtadlus is also in contravention of HaShem's will. If we can show that the proofs additionally work to prove that minimal hishtadlus is the moral equivalent of doing no hishtadlus whatsoever, we can understand why Ben Melech would introduce the discussion of hishtadlus using the case of the person not doing any hishtadlus. Since the case of doing no hishtadlus is so much clearer, it is an excellent way of demarcating the playing field where we will examine the minimal limits of hishtadlus
If it can be proven that the proofs can be used to invalidate both the no hishtadlus and minimal hishtadlus positions, then these proofs come very close to endorsing the position explicated in Ben Melech, that proper hishtadlus is b'darko shel olam. To be able to marshal support early in the essay to what is its central theme, would itself be good enough reason to start off with the scenario as described, even if it isn't likely to be applicable in the lives of most of the people learning his sefer.
If on the other hand, Rav Mintzberg is of the opinion that no-hishtadlus and minimal hishtadlus are not comparable OR the proofs brought to undermine the validity of no-hishtadlus do not support the invalidating of minimal hishtadlus, we are left with the question we opened with at the top of this post.
So we have our work cut off for us. Examining each of the sources in turn, we will look to see whether the sources that prove that at least some hishtadlus is mandatory, will also prove Rav Mintzberg's theses about normative hishtadlus.
There is at least one indication that Rav Mintzberg cited these early sources, solely for proving that you can't just stand idly by and expect Hashem to help you, without your doing any hishtadlus and nothing more than that.
If he had meant to prove that hishtadlus had to be b'darko shel olam and that minimal hishtadlus was also defying the ratzon Hashem, he should have quoted from the passage in Chovos Halevavos below and not the quote that he inserted in Ben Melech. In the quote below, R. Bachya refers to hishtadlus through normal human endeavors as a mitzvah (note: R. Bachya further makes the point that this kind of hishtadlus involvement in normal human endeavors will not harm his bitachon., the likely reason for reducing the amount of hishtadlus being expended).
ויכון בטרדת לבו וגופו בסבה מן הסבות והסבוב עליה לעמד במצות הבורא שצוה האדם להתעסק בסבות העולם כעבודת האדמה וחרישתה וזריעתה כמו שכתוב (בראשית ב טו) ולהשתמש בשאר בעלי חיים בתועלותיו ומזוניו ובנין המדינות והכנת המזונות ולהשתמש בנשים ולבעל אותן להרבות הזרע ויהיה נשכר על כונתו בהם לאלהים בלבו ומצפונו בין שיגמר לו חפצו בין שלא יגמר לו חפצו כמו שכתוב (תהלים קכח ב) ואמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה (משנה אבות ב יב) . ויהיה בטחונו באלהים שלם ולא יזיקנו הסבוב על הסבות להבאת טרפו בהם מאומה כשהוא מכון בהם בלבו ומצפונו לשם שמים.
And he should have intention when his mind and body is occupied with one of the means of earning a living to fulfill the commandment of the Creator to pursue the means of the world, such as working the land, plowing and sowing it, as written "And G-d took the man and placed him in Gan Eden to work it and to guard it" (Bereishis 2:15), and also to use other living creatures for his benefit and sustenance, and for building cities and preparing food, and to marry a woman and have relations to populate the world. He will be rewarded for his intentions in heart and mind to serve G-d whether or not his desire is accomplished, as written "If you eat from the toil of your hands, you are praiseworthy, and it is good for you" (Tehilim 128:2), and our sages of blessed memory said "Let all your actions be for the sake of Heaven (to serve G-d)" (Avot 2:12). In this way, his trust in G-d will be intact, undamaged by the toiling in the means to earn a livelihood, as long as his intention in heart and mind is for the sake of Heaven (to do the will of G-d that the world be populated and built up).
At some future date, it would be worthwhile analyzing these four sources to answer such questions as
1. how much hishtadlus do these early sources hold is the proper amount of hishtadlus?
2. does their idea of the proper amount of hishtadlus, hint in any way to darko shel olam?
3. do they have the concept that the trip wire for having done too much hishtadlus, is when you keep doing hishtadlus to calm your nerves?
4. where does tefila fit in with hishtadlus?
5. to what degree is the success of your hishtadlus dependent on your bitachon?
At some future date, it would be worthwhile analyzing these four sources to answer such questions as
1. how much hishtadlus do these early sources hold is the proper amount of hishtadlus?
2. does their idea of the proper amount of hishtadlus, hint in any way to darko shel olam?
3. do they have the concept that the trip wire for having done too much hishtadlus, is when you keep doing hishtadlus to calm your nerves?
4. where does tefila fit in with hishtadlus?
5. to what degree is the success of your hishtadlus dependent on your bitachon?
But isn't RLM playing a game of transvaluation when (eg) he quotes the Chovos haLvavos about the need for hishtadlus, but then defines hishtadlus as including tefillah -- even though R' Bachya doesn't? What the ChL says is needed is only a homonym to what the BM is talking about!
ReplyDeleteFor the last few months, we also have been wrestling with the point that you are making.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that Rav Mintzberg would say to us, that he is not looking to follow one specific approach to bitachon and hishtadlus; rather, he is forging his own approach and taking support for his individual ideas from earlier sources, to show that the idea on its own has validity. Where we find that the idea in the original source, doesn’t quite align with his idea completely (or across the board), he would say that he never intended to imply that it did.
It probably bothers us, more than it would bother Rav Mintzberg, because while we are using Ben Melech as a springboard for discussing ideas that are rarely as well formulated in other sources, we are not looking to become followers of Rav Mintzberg.
So while Rav Mintzberg may be happy with the way things are presented in Ben Melech, for us, on the other hand, we’d like to see
1. Which ideas are being used in the same way as the original source brought as support
a. Even then, does the overall approach fit with the original source (overall for bitachon and overall for the sub-section within bitachon which is in front us right now) ?
b. And if not, where is the line that demarcates Rav Mintzberg from the source that he is citing?
2. Which ideas are unique or distinct enough to call out as being organic Rav Mintzberg ideas?
3. Which ideas do not really have support in the original sources that Rav Mintzberg says they do.
If I had more "get up and go" (and more time), by now, I would have put in more effort towards contacting Rav Mintzberg and running our questions by him, to hear what he has to say.