Akeidas Yitzchak on the famous Ramban about doctors

ומכל זה דחייה עצומה למה שכתב הרמב"ן ז"ל, שאם נתנה רשות לרופא לרפאת, דכתיב ורפא ירפא (שמות כ"א), לא נתנה רשות לחולה לקבל רפואתו, אלא שיקווה אל השם השם מחלה בקרבו כי הוא יהיה רופא כשיושלם עונו וגו'. כמו שכתב שם פרשת אם בחקותי. כי מי ישמע אליו על הדבר הזה, והלא כל אדם חייב להראות עצמו מהבינונים אשר השתדלותם תועיל להם כמו שאמרנו. ומי כמוהו שומע אמרי אל אשר אמר לשמואל (ש"א ט"ז) עגלת בקר תיקח בידך ואמרת לזבוח לה' באתי, שלמדו חז"ל ממנו אל סולם רעוע דנפיש הזיקי (חולין קמ"ב). ויתר התחבולות שסדרה הערמה האלוהית במלחמות. ואם בשוב הבית כאשר אמרנו.

ויאמר בדבר הזה, מלבד שלא יסבול שום דעת שיהא הרופא רשאי לרפאות והחולה אסור להתרפאות, וכבר ניתן בזה רשות על ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול )ויקרא י"ט( ולא יאמן ק"ו ממה שאמרו (ב"מ ה' ב) אנן חיותא לרעיא היכי מסרינן והא כתיב ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול. ובן בנו של ק"ו מאיסור משא ומתן עם הגוים סמוך ליום חגם (ע"א ב' א) וזולת זה.

וראייתו מאומרו (ד"ה ב' ט"ז) וגם בחוליו לא דרש את ה' כי ברופאים, אינה ראיה. שכבר אמרנו שאין לאדם לסמוך על השתדלותו בלי בקשת רחמי שמים. והראוי ומחויב להקדים הבקשה והדרישה מאליו. וכמוהו בשאול וימת שאול במעלו וכו'. וגם לשאול באוב לדרוש ולא דרש בה' וימיתהו (שם א' י'), כמו שכתב' בפרשת קדושים תהיו, ולזה אין לפקפק כי אשר כתבנו הוא הראוי והנכון לנהוג בו.

ועל המנהג כזה נהגו האבות הראשונים והנביאים הקדושים בכל עסקיהם הזמניים עם היות שהיו מושגחים מאת האל יתעלה ומובטחים מאתו כי ראו שהרישול והרפיון במה שבידם להיעזר בדעתם ויכולתם יהיה חטא עצום בידם, כבר אפשר שעל ידו ייחלש כוח הביטחון ההוא. וזה כי כאשר בשלום הגוף ובריאותו ותוכן פעולותיו הטבעיות יהיה שלום לכוח השכלי להתעסק בפעולותיו המיוחדות, ובהיפקד אחד מהנה יפקד גם הוא מהמושכל ממושכליו, ע"ד זה בהיות הנפש המשכלת מתחזקת ומתאמצת בפעולותיה המיוחדות ומשלמת אותן בכל עוז, ימשך אליה חוט החסד המשוך אליה מאת הש"י והשגחתו המיוחדת, עד שיושלמו כל ענייניו בתכלית השלימות וכפי אשר יחסר ההתחזקות על השלמתן יחסר השפע האלוהי גם הוא מהגיע עדיו, כי טבע המדרגות האלו לבוא בזו אחר זו, עד שתהיה זאת הצורה השכלית ופעולותיה הכנה לקבל ההשגחה האלוהית האישיית כמו שהצורה ההיולאנית, וכוחותיה היא בסיס ובית מושב אל הצורה הזאת השכלית.

Ramban on the role of doctor's in Jewish life

When the Jewish People are in a state of spiritual perfection, neither their physical bodies nor their country, nor any of their other affairs are governed by nature at all. This applies to the nation as a whole and to each individual Jew. For God `will bless their bread and their water, and remove illness from their midst' (Exodus 23:25). They will have no need of doctors, nor will they have to follow medical procedures even as precautionary measures, `For I, God, am your healer' (Exodus 15:26). In the era of prophecy, the tzaddikim acted accordingly. Even if they happened to sin and became sick, they consulted not doctors but prophets, as did King Hezekiah when he was sick (Kings II, 20, 2-3). It is said of King Asa that `even in his sickness he did not seek out God, but he turned to the doctors' (Chronicles II, 16:13). If it was common for them to go to doctors, why should the verse mention doctors at all? Asa's only guilt would have lain in the fact that he did not seek out God. But this phrasing is similar to saying, `He did not eat matzah on Pesach but chametz. Someone who seeks out God through the priest will not consult doctors. 

"What place do doctors have in the house of those who carry out the will of God, after He promised that `He will bless their bread and their water, and remove illness from their midst'? The only function of the medical profession should be to give nutritional advice - what to eat and drink and what to avoid. Thus the Rabbis said, `For the entire twenty-two years of Rabbah's leadership, Rav Yosef did not even call a bloodletter to his house' (Berakhot 64a). They went by the principle that `a door that does not open to charity will open to the doctor' (Bemidbar Rabbah 9:3). It is true that the Rabbis said, `because it is not the way of human beings to bring about a cure, but this is the practice' (Berakhot 60a). But this merely means that, had they not been in the habit of resorting to medicine, a person who became sick because of his sin could have been healed through the will of God alone. However, since they resorted to medicines, God abandoned them to the vicissitudes of nature. 

"As for the rabbinic comment on the verse, `He shall cause him to be thoroughly healed' (Exodus 21:19) - `from here we learn that the physician has been given sanction to heal' (Berakhot 60a) - they did not say that license has been given to the sick to resort to medicine! What they meant is that if a doctor is approached by a patient who was in the habit of resorting to medicine and was not part of the community of God whose share is life, the doctor should not refrain from treating him, not from fear that the patient might die under his hand - seeing as the doctor is expert in his craft - nor on the grounds that God alone is the healer of all flesh - because this patient is already in the habit of resorting to medicine. It is true that if two people quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or his fist, the Torah lays down that the attacker must pay the medical expenses of the injured party (Exodus 21:18). But this is because Torah law does not rely on miracles, for God knew that `the needy will not cease from the midst of the earth' (Deuteronomy 15:11). But when a person's ways find favor in God's eyes, he has no business with doctors." 

Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Leviticus 26:11 

Gauging the appropriate amount (shiur) of hishtadlus

In chapter 4, Rav Mintzberg will elaborate in detail on what he wrote in chapter 1, where he only touched on briefly and without providing context or details to what is probably the main topic of the essay on hishtadlus in Sefer Ben Melech i.e. that proper hishtadlus is hishtadlus b'darko shel olam. We were left with quite a few questions at the end of chapter 1. Among them,
1. What does hishtadlus b'darko shel olam look like?
2. How much hishtadlus are we talking about?
3. What are the upper and lower limits of hishtadlus?

So while in chapter 1, Rav Mintzberg tells that a person's can only be certain and confident that his needs will be fulfilled, when he engages in hishtadlus in the way of the world,

והוא שקבע כיצד היא הדרך שהאדם ישיג צרכיו בעולם. וכשם שקבע שסדר הצמיחה הוא רק על ידי זריעה והשקיה ועידור וכו' והמאכל נעשה ראוי לאכילה רק על ידי אפיה ובישול וכדו', כך קבע בסדר העולם כי פרנסתו של אדם, ויתר צרכיו, יבואו לאדם רק על ידי השתדלות כדרכו של עולם.

that really is not very helpful. Especially, when the way that Rav Mintzberg uses the term hishtadlus k'darko shel olam, which as we will learn, has many different facets, is then used to marginalize those people who don't want to engage in any hishtadlus at all. He is surely correct, but it is distracting. But at the same time Sefer Ben Melech is almost masking the fact that the same issues that apply to not doing any hishtadlus at all, would also apply to those who want to limit the hishtadlus that they do, to less than is proper for them.

Rav Mintzberg starts off with what could be termed a Consumer Warning; that to determine the correct or proper shiur of hishtadlus takes extended focus, lots of wisdom and keen insight. In the chabura, we dealt with this at length and in detail, but that will have to wait for a future post. For the moment, we're just going to frame the basic structure of hishtadlus k'darko shel olam so that we can begin to build an understanding of proper and appropriate hishtadlus as it applies to us.

After which, before diving into the details, he leads with an over-arching rule, stating that the shiur (measure) of hishtadlus must be evaluated according to the normal ways of the world. While it seems overly sweeping and vague, since you could rightfully ask, "Does it mean that almost any hishtadlus that I do is OK, as long as it doesn't violate any of the Laws of Physics?" (as the Rashba uses the term darko shel olam?). And "Does it mean that I can figure out the proper hishtadlus by taking a poll of what people do? (and using the term darko shel olam as meaning to do things the way that people are used to doing it?). Nonetheless, that statement serves to anchor his entire discussion in the world of reality.

We are looking for definitive guidance as to how to determine the definition and boundaries of hishtadlus, define what proper hishtadlus is and how to gauge the appropriate amount of hishtadlus. Rabbi Mintzberg will not disappoint. First, he shows us the size of the playing field and then narrows it down to the dimensions that are real. He says,

There is almost no end to the amount of hishtadlus that a person can do, since we could take the side that a person can (or should) keep doing hishtadlus until they have accomplished what they are trying to do. [ it is even possible that this is the approach of the Akeidas Yitzchak and others (e.g. Ralbag) who say that a person should in fact do ALL that is humanly possible to accomplish his goals, as long as he concentrates and doesn’t forget that whatever he does will only succeed because HKBH decreed that it will succeed.]

On the other hand, we could argue the side, that since hishtadlus is to do things in the “way of the world” and not rely on miracles (whatever miracles means – since we haven’t defined it well enough or at all), then if I do something, almost anything at all that could conceivably be a way that would bring about the successful accomplishment of what I want to accomplish, then once I do that minimal hishtadlus that falls within the boundaries of “the way of the world”, I should be able to have bitachon that HKBH will provide me with my needs and what I want, without exerting myself to anything more.

In all of our discussing on hishtadlus, we have essentially been talking about maintaining our balance. The balance between bitachon and hishtadlus; the balance between too much hishtadlus vs. too little hishtadlus. Another way of viewing it is that hishtadlus is the combination of a Rorschach test and litmus test of our bitachon. If my hishtadlus flies in the face of what my level of bitachon is or should be, it implies that either I’m lying to myself or faking myself into thinking that I possess more bitachon than I in fact do.

But it’s not a tight-rope. HKBH is well aware that human beings are incapable of perfectly calculating the myriad of different variables that would go into balancing between bitachon and hishtadlus on a tight-rope. As we have seen, even the few parameters that we have discussed, make figuring out the hishtadlus that we should be doing, a very difficult task. In fact it probably isn’t a good analogy to use a balance beam. It’s probably closer to walking over a thin bridge (as the baalei haMussar used to sing).

And we are of no use to HKBH, if we end up being paralyzed by our fear of making a mistake. Slipping is built-in to the plan. We just have to keep trying and not give up if we do slip.

They way Sefer Ben Melech has it, where too much bitachon on one side is really a lack of bitachon (actually emunah, but this didn't bother any of us, because we have been working with the assumption that emunah and bitachon are two sides of the same coin, ever since we started Emunah u'Bitachon Chazon Ish last year). While on the either side, too much hishtadlus surely implies a lack of bitachon.

On the side that there can be too much hishtadlus according to Rav Mintzberg, who unlike Akeidas Yitzhak, Ralbag and others, feels that there must be room for bitachon, not just in what you think, but even in what you do. So he holds that doing ALL that is humanly possible to accomplish what you want to do, as long as you concentrate on the ratzon HaShem being the final arbiter of whether your efforts will succeed, is not the proper hishtadlus. Rav Mintzberg will also hold that if you do more hishtadlus than you would normally need to do, in order to expect to accomplish what you want to do, for reasons not having to doi with a change in the way the hishtadlus has to be done (Economic or others changes that require that the amount of hishtadlus that you do needs to be-calibrated), you would have gone over the line and entered the area where your displaying a lack of bitachon. On the side that there can be too little hishtadlus, Rav Mintzberg will tell you that if what you do, cannot be expected to deliver (for you) what you want, that would be less than the appropriate hishtadlus.

What we will not answer today, is,
1. how accurate does a person's estimate have to be?
2. Is it better to err on the side of doing too little hishtadlus or too much hishtadlus?
3. To what degree is my personal ability and experience a factor in assessing the appropriate amount of hishtadlus

The General Rule of appropriate hishtadlus is for YOU to do hishtadlus that YOU can confidently expect to successfully accomplish whatever the particular thing is that you are trying to do.

stay tuned. there is much more to come on this topic

Davening as one of the ways of obtaining your needs (Week 13 - Feb 5)

Chapter 7 of the essay on hishtadlus in Sefer Ben Melech, is entitled "Not to be obstinate in Tefila". This fits in logically enough, seemingly following the trend in the last few chapters, filling in some more specifics that pertain to the main thesis of sefer Ben Melech, that:

1. hishtadlus is the ratzon HaShem
2. Appropriate hishtadlus is hishtadlus k'darko shel olam

But upon looking at it more, it throws a monkey wrench into our understanding of what we have learned over the last few months about hishtadlus.

Rav Mintzberg starts off by saying that in addition to what we know about doing hishtadlus being the darko shel olam, to fulfill our needs, there is another way form of hishtadlus to acquire what we need or want.

We had learned that hishtadlus k'darko shel olam are the actions that we take in order to create a channel through which success will flow, should that be the will of HKBH (to grant us the success that we were trying to achieve). We learned that this is in keeping with the ratzon HaShem, in which HKBH established that the laws of nature are such, that everything in our lives, comes about through the mechanism of cause-and-effect.

But now Rav Mintzberg says, that there is another way to acquire what we need or want. This other way is through tefila to HKBH, asking HKBH to give us what we desire. He explains, that the meta-physical nature of the world is such that when a person davens, asking for something from HKBH, HKBH will answer him and provide him with what he asked for (we will deal with the line about provide him with what he asked for later in this post). So far we are with Rav Mintzberg, since it's a very basic concept in Judaism.

But then Rav Mintzberg goes a step further and says that davening is like one of [the other] ways of hishtadlus, through which we can take action and get what we need or want.

This last point bothered us, because it seems to fly in the face of much of what we have learned over the last few months, ever since we started learning hishtadlus in Sefer Ben Melech. The way that we have been understood from the beginning has been, that appropriate hishtadlus is about trying to accomplish something, by doing things in the normal way that can be expected to deliver successful results. Davening is not hishtadlus k'darko shel olam and while it is surely true that tefila can impact the outcome and therefore, obviously has its place when doing hishtadlus, that is not because tefila is itself a form of hishtadlus. Rather, a reason is that tefila makes a person more worthy of HKBH's beneficence and favor, resulting in HKBH decreeing success on the person's hishtadlus endeavors. Tefila may even go so far as to bring about a decree of success on a person's efforts, even if the hishtadlus that was done, doesn't quite measure up to the appropriate amount of hishtadlus.

We will need to investigate in the weeks to come, whether the Chazon Ish in the last paragraph of chapter 1 of his essay on bitachon in Emunah uBitachon Chazon Ish

גם עילות של ההצלה שטבעת בני האדם להשתדל בהן משתנות אצל הבוטח, כי תחת לרדוף אחר נדיבים ושרים ולבקש תחבולות שוא, יפשפש הבוטח במעשיו ויפנה את לבו לתשובה תפלה וצדקה להעביר רוע הגזירה.

is a support for what Rav Mintzberg is saying.

Furthermore, besides tefila not being appropriate hishtadlus on its own, any success brought about in this way is not necessarily a good thing and as Ben and Ariel pointed out, it should be tantamount to what Rav Mintzberg previously denigrated as being the kind of chutzpah, about which Chazal taught us that "chutzpah works; even when used towards HKBH". We understood, that as opposed to physical or worldly actions, which when in error cab be waved off as a bad estimate, tefila is directed totally towards HKBH and there is a greater need to be careful with how and what you ask for. Because, as Rav Mintzberg has pointed out, it may get a person what they want, but is surely not a sign that they did the correct hishtadlus and/or that it was proper behavior on their part, to daven in this fashion. According to Rav Mintzberg, with tefila or without tefila, not doing enough hishtadlus that is appropriate for you, besides being a sign of lack of bitachon, it is also an affront to HKBH; is not a good thing; and is something that they will probably live to regret.

It seems that Rav Mintzberg may have been aware that what he said would cause a disconnect with what he has been saying until now, because in the next paragraph he attempts to bring support for the idea that tefila can also function as a form of hishtadlus k'darko shel olam. He starts off by re-iterating what he just said in different words, that even when a person does not have the zechuyos (merit) to be granted what he desires (and it is a situation, where it has not been decided by HKBH that the person is going to be supplied with it under any and all circumstances), he can still acquire what he wants through the mechanism of tefila through which he beseeches HKBH and HKBH favors him by giving him what he is asking for. The reason for this extreme benevolence on HKBH's part, being that by beseeching HKBH with his request, HKBH's attributes of mercy, goodness and loving kindness are triggered. Plain and simple, this is just the way that HKBH established the metaphysical laws of the universe, end of story. What Rav Mintzberg adds is that Chazal teach us that the "The Kingdom of Heaven is akin in it's behavior to the kingdoms on Earth" and since we observe that human nature is that when a person asks another person for something, it arouses a desire on the part of the giver to give the requester what they asked for, we can now understand the way that the Kingdom of Heaven works and HaShem will provide a person with what they are requesting, just because he asked for it akin to human nature.

We could not understand what Rav Mintzberg's point was, since his analogy is not altogether intuitively true and furthermore, there seems to be no need for him to make the argument at all. Having been the beneficiaries of HKBH's granting us what we davened for, we innately relate to the fact that HKBH responds positively to our tefilos. We are less convinced of the basic benevolent qualities of humanity that Rav Mintzberg seems to champion. Who are these people that are always aroused to give, just because they were asked? Our conjecture was, that at the very least, we are talking about requesting something from a person, that the person is able to give, because asking a person for something that they cannot give, often gets the opposite (of benevolent) response. We contemplated ancient, benevolent, absolute monarchies, but being good Americans we couldn't even begin to relate to that example. We thought that perhaps Rav Mintzberg was referring to compassion raised in the parent-child relationship, when he says that HaShem will give people what they daven for. But that also didn't work in all cases, because parents often know what is best for the child and do not give the child what they are asking for, which would clash with what Rav Mintzberg seems to assert, that HKBH will always listen to your plea and give you with what you asked for. Then again, we may be reading too much into Rav Mintzberg's words and taking what he said to its illogical extreme.

So we weren't grasping the whole mashal/nimshal thing that Rav Mintzberg suggested. It was reminiscent of an insight from Rav Yosef Leib Bloch, who was the Rav and Rosh Yeshiva of Telz from 1910 until his passing in 1929. The Telzer Rav in the third lecture/shiur/essay in Shiurei Daas part 3, entitled   התגברות הדעת   makes the point that when a non-related idea ('B') is brought as a way of understanding the subject in front of you ('A'), it is obvious that 'B' is clearer and easier to grasp than 'A' and is brought as a way of re-setting your thinking, so that once you have a handle on 'B', you can now understand the more difficult 'A'. So for example, if a mashal is brought that is meant to clarify a nimshal and we find that it does not clarify or in fact is less clear than the nimshal, we need to think about the possibility that the idea that we are supposed to learn from the nimshal is very different than we thought. It is likely, that in order to solve the difficulty with the understanding what the mashal/nimshal is coming to teach, we would need to delve into the mashal to figure out what details we know about the mashal then see if any of that information tells us something important about the nimshal that we wouldn't have thought of and that we didn't "hear" in the original reading of the mashal/nimshal.

Sol went further and pointed out that even without the analogy to earthly kingdoms there is a problem understanding what Rav Mintzberg is getting at, because even with the Kingdom of Heaven, it is not true that a person davens for something and HaShem gives it to him. Often times, we ask HKBH for something and the answer is, No.

Ariel suggested that Rav Mintzberg was referring to the way that people were meant to be, before Adam and Chava ate from the Eitz HaDaas. Mankind wants to do good, it's that we have veered so far from HKBH and the Torah's values that we have corrupted our very nature and we no longer desire to bestow loving kindness on all and sundry. Ariel continued, citing the halacha in the Rambam, that a recalcitrant husband who refuses to follow Bais Din's decision that he must give a get, is beaten until he acquiesces to give the get. The Rambam's reasoning is that the recalcitrant husband wants to do the right thing, but his evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra) won't let him. So we beat the yetzer ha-ra in him, until his yetzer ha-ra has been weakened and he can do what his yetzer ha-tov knows that he really should do. Ariel used this as a metaphor to paint the picture of people who the Torah tells us want to do good and answer people's requests with benevolence, but their yetzer ha-ra has corrupted them to the point that they don't want to do what is good and what is right.

As I'm typing up these notes, it occurs to me that perhaps what Rav Mintzberg was referring to when he brought as a proof that it is human nature for people to grant other people's requests, simply because they asked, may be referring to something Sefer Ben Melech has on page 100 in footnote 46, where Rav Mintzberg writes that

אכן מותר לבקש מקרוביו ואוהביו שיסייעו לו מתוך ידידות כדי שיהיו לו צרכיו בהרחבה, ואין זה יציאה מגדר הבוטח, כיון שגם עזר וסיוע מידידים הוא מכלל דרכו של עולם.

it falls within the parameters of hishtadlus b'darko shel olam for a person to ask those close to him for help. He avers that asking your relatives and close friends for help, even for things that are "extras", is not outside of the realm of bitachon, since asking for help from those that are especially close to you is hishtadlus b'darko shel olam, since that falls with the range of normal behavior.

So in sum, while we did not agree with Rav Mintzberg that tefila is hishtadlus k'darko shel olam, it is likely that even Rav Mintzberg would strictly limit the concept of tefila being hishtadlus k'darko shel olam to cases of a very close relationship between the person doing the davening and HKBH.

Further, we don't understand how Rav Mintzberg could repeatedly make the point, quite forcefully, earlier in the essay that appropriate hishtadlus is where you take action and do things that under normal circumstances, could be expected to deliver the desired results and then here in this chapter, all of sudden abandon the idea of hishtadlus being b'darko shel olam, without mentioning that he has just jettisoned the main thrust of what he had been pushing from the beginning of the essay until now.

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.