Looking forward last Spring, the question was, "So where does the Emunah and Bitachon Chabura go from here
For most of the Emunah and Bitachon chabura's first year, we focused on learning the approach (shita) to bitachon of the Chazon Ish. As we pointed out, the Chazon Ish's approach to bitachon is remarkably similar to that of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam.
Remarkable, because it is highly unlikely that the Chazon Ish ever read ha-Maspik li-Ovdei HaShem. Sefer ha-Maspik li-Ovdei HaShem was not available in any language other than classical Arabic until 1927, when part of it was translated into English (yes, English), followed by a second part in 1938. It was not translated into Hebrew until 1965 (the Chazon Ish died in 1953). Why this is noteworthy is that, the approach to bitachon outlined in ha-Maspik li-Ovdei HaShem is clearly different from the approach of just about all the other Rishonim. Opening up an Emunah and Bitachon Chazon Ish and seeing ideas expressed in the same way over 700 years ago, when you know that the latter author could not have seen the former's work is quite fascinating. The question of what brought the Chazon Ish to think in those terms, confounds the reader. It is worth noting that while today, the Chazon Ish's approach has gained traction, this was not the case in his lifetime. While the approach itself is not a particularly radical departure from a philosophical perspective, it was also not a particularly popular approach, as the centuries progressed. Even today, after multiple printings in a relatively short amount of time, it is unlikely that his work on Emunah u-Bitachon would be as popular as it is, if not for the Chazon Ish's charisma that became attached to it. That the Chazon Ish formulated his ideas about bitachon on his own, is a tantalizing mystery for the reader.
[ It is possible that the Chazon Ish's approach to emunah and bitachon came directly from his knowledge of Rambam. In general, those familiar with the writings of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam and of the Rambam himself are almost uniform in the opinion that almost everything that Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam wrote is based very closely on the writings, philosophy and approach (derech) in avodas HaShem of his father. And there is always the possibility that Chazon Ish became aware of the work of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam on avodas HaShem and perhaps had someone who knew classical Arabic read and translate it to him. It makes for an entertaining theory, but without some kind of corroboration that the Chazon Ish would even be interested in such an exercise, I think that we can put this product of my overactive imagination to rest. ]
From the chabura's experience, learning Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish turned out to be an excellent introduction to the whole topic of bitachon. The struggle to extract the Chazon Ish’s intent from the text, the difficulty with clarifying and understanding those ideas and then the effort needed to absorb those concepts, led us to a much clearer and broader understanding of bitachon than we might have acquired otherwise.
So the question was, what should the chabura learn next?
Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam's sefer ha-Maspik li-Ovdei Hashem had the advantage for the chabura, that he more or less defines bitachon like the Chazon Ish and discusses it at greater length. This seemed to be a natural next step to expand our understanding of bitachon, except that while learning Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish, we already engaged sefer ha-Maspik li-Ovdei Hashem as an aid in reading between the lines and deciphering what the Chazon Ish meant. So we were already somewhat familiar many of the issues related to bitachon that Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam touches on. The lack of novelty (chiddush) would probably drain the enthusiasm from the chabura.
There are other approaches to understanding the underpinning of bitachon and an easy choice would have been to choose to learn one of those alternate approaches. The most obvious would have been Chovos ha-Levavos. There is also the approach of Rabbeinu Yonah, as well as more recent writings on bitachon that have been collected and discussed in various sefarim. While learning Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish, we had already spent some time comparing and contrasting the Chazon Ish's approach to other mainstream approaches, so that learning Chovos ha-Levavos would also have been a logical next step.
While that would have widened our knowledge, it would not have helped us in feeling that we could take ownership of our bitachon. Digging deeper at this point, to flesh out more issues and fill in more details of bitachon (regardless of any specific approach to bitachon), was thought to be more beneficial to the goal of living with bitachon and not just knowing bitachon.
So the search for a sefer to use as a text in the 2nd year of the chabura began. It got very frustrating very quickly.
The subject matter of emunah and bitachon that we are learning in this chabura is so central to who we are as Jews, that when opening a sefer on emunah or bitachon, it should be with the expectation the sefer would be written as an expression of the author’s deeply held beliefs on the subject matter; beliefs that the author wants to share with his readers in the hope of possibly helping others to understand, know and live with emunah and bitachon. That is not what I found.
What I found instead were sefarim that read like lomdus, with the subject matter being bitachon, which is something else entirely. Further, the lomdus proposed produced no new ideas. Broadly put, they were attempts by the authors to raise seeming contradictions between what different Rishonim and Achronim had to say about bitachon and reconcile them. In most cases, squirming out of these difficulties, of their own making, is a better description.
We needed a sefer that talks to us! Talks to our hearts as well as our brains and is a sefer full of ideas that we intuitively feel are emes. While marveling at how few ideas were being presented in these newer sefarim, it occurred to me that perhaps the reason why the Chovos ha-Levavos is so popular, is that for the most part Rabbeinu Bachya is presenting ideas and explaining those ideas. The proof-text verses from Tanach and the quotes from Chazal are very often not crucial to understanding the points being made. They are almost secondary to what the Chovos ha-Levavos is aiming to accomplish. In fact, there is a sefer published hundreds of years later named Sefer Chovos ha-Levavos ha-Katzar, which is an abridged form of Rabbeinu Bachya's work, which abridges by leaving the ideas intact and leaving out the proof-texts.
One of the most endearing qualities of Sefer Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish is exactly this point. The Chazon Ish is presenting concepts and ideas. When he cites verses from Tanach and quotes from Chazal, it is as a way of aiding the reader's comprehension of the concept, by painting a vivid picture using a reference to something that enhances the reader's understanding.
Why Hishtadlus?
For most of the Emunah and Bitachon chabura's first year, we focused on learning the approach (shita) to bitachon of the Chazon Ish. As we pointed out, the Chazon Ish's approach to bitachon is remarkably similar to that of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam.
Remarkable, because it is highly unlikely that the Chazon Ish ever read ha-Maspik li-Ovdei HaShem. Sefer ha-Maspik li-Ovdei HaShem was not available in any language other than classical Arabic until 1927, when part of it was translated into English (yes, English), followed by a second part in 1938. It was not translated into Hebrew until 1965 (the Chazon Ish died in 1953). Why this is noteworthy is that, the approach to bitachon outlined in ha-Maspik li-Ovdei HaShem is clearly different from the approach of just about all the other Rishonim. Opening up an Emunah and Bitachon Chazon Ish and seeing ideas expressed in the same way over 700 years ago, when you know that the latter author could not have seen the former's work is quite fascinating. The question of what brought the Chazon Ish to think in those terms, confounds the reader. It is worth noting that while today, the Chazon Ish's approach has gained traction, this was not the case in his lifetime. While the approach itself is not a particularly radical departure from a philosophical perspective, it was also not a particularly popular approach, as the centuries progressed. Even today, after multiple printings in a relatively short amount of time, it is unlikely that his work on Emunah u-Bitachon would be as popular as it is, if not for the Chazon Ish's charisma that became attached to it. That the Chazon Ish formulated his ideas about bitachon on his own, is a tantalizing mystery for the reader.
[ It is possible that the Chazon Ish's approach to emunah and bitachon came directly from his knowledge of Rambam. In general, those familiar with the writings of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam and of the Rambam himself are almost uniform in the opinion that almost everything that Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam wrote is based very closely on the writings, philosophy and approach (derech) in avodas HaShem of his father. And there is always the possibility that Chazon Ish became aware of the work of Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam on avodas HaShem and perhaps had someone who knew classical Arabic read and translate it to him. It makes for an entertaining theory, but without some kind of corroboration that the Chazon Ish would even be interested in such an exercise, I think that we can put this product of my overactive imagination to rest. ]
From the chabura's experience, learning Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish turned out to be an excellent introduction to the whole topic of bitachon. The struggle to extract the Chazon Ish’s intent from the text, the difficulty with clarifying and understanding those ideas and then the effort needed to absorb those concepts, led us to a much clearer and broader understanding of bitachon than we might have acquired otherwise.
So the question was, what should the chabura learn next?
Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam's sefer ha-Maspik li-Ovdei Hashem had the advantage for the chabura, that he more or less defines bitachon like the Chazon Ish and discusses it at greater length. This seemed to be a natural next step to expand our understanding of bitachon, except that while learning Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish, we already engaged sefer ha-Maspik li-Ovdei Hashem as an aid in reading between the lines and deciphering what the Chazon Ish meant. So we were already somewhat familiar many of the issues related to bitachon that Rav Avraham ben ha-Rambam touches on. The lack of novelty (chiddush) would probably drain the enthusiasm from the chabura.
There are other approaches to understanding the underpinning of bitachon and an easy choice would have been to choose to learn one of those alternate approaches. The most obvious would have been Chovos ha-Levavos. There is also the approach of Rabbeinu Yonah, as well as more recent writings on bitachon that have been collected and discussed in various sefarim. While learning Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish, we had already spent some time comparing and contrasting the Chazon Ish's approach to other mainstream approaches, so that learning Chovos ha-Levavos would also have been a logical next step.
While that would have widened our knowledge, it would not have helped us in feeling that we could take ownership of our bitachon. Digging deeper at this point, to flesh out more issues and fill in more details of bitachon (regardless of any specific approach to bitachon), was thought to be more beneficial to the goal of living with bitachon and not just knowing bitachon.
So the search for a sefer to use as a text in the 2nd year of the chabura began. It got very frustrating very quickly.
The subject matter of emunah and bitachon that we are learning in this chabura is so central to who we are as Jews, that when opening a sefer on emunah or bitachon, it should be with the expectation the sefer would be written as an expression of the author’s deeply held beliefs on the subject matter; beliefs that the author wants to share with his readers in the hope of possibly helping others to understand, know and live with emunah and bitachon. That is not what I found.
What I found instead were sefarim that read like lomdus, with the subject matter being bitachon, which is something else entirely. Further, the lomdus proposed produced no new ideas. Broadly put, they were attempts by the authors to raise seeming contradictions between what different Rishonim and Achronim had to say about bitachon and reconcile them. In most cases, squirming out of these difficulties, of their own making, is a better description.
We needed a sefer that talks to us! Talks to our hearts as well as our brains and is a sefer full of ideas that we intuitively feel are emes. While marveling at how few ideas were being presented in these newer sefarim, it occurred to me that perhaps the reason why the Chovos ha-Levavos is so popular, is that for the most part Rabbeinu Bachya is presenting ideas and explaining those ideas. The proof-text verses from Tanach and the quotes from Chazal are very often not crucial to understanding the points being made. They are almost secondary to what the Chovos ha-Levavos is aiming to accomplish. In fact, there is a sefer published hundreds of years later named Sefer Chovos ha-Levavos ha-Katzar, which is an abridged form of Rabbeinu Bachya's work, which abridges by leaving the ideas intact and leaving out the proof-texts.
One of the most endearing qualities of Sefer Emunah u-Bitachon Chazon Ish is exactly this point. The Chazon Ish is presenting concepts and ideas. When he cites verses from Tanach and quotes from Chazal, it is as a way of aiding the reader's comprehension of the concept, by painting a vivid picture using a reference to something that enhances the reader's understanding.
Why Hishtadlus?
No comments:
Post a Comment