Intended to write a short dvar Torah article about Yocheved as model of bitachon (trust in Hashem), but I ended up writing out my entire "hishtadlus rant."
Thanks for this article! It made me think about the approach I’ve been taking.
I had a question.
I appreciate the way that you distinguished the difference in approaches to Hishtadlut. My question is- aren’t the results the same regardless of approach? If I remember correctly you mentioned that effort as a means to unlock divine intervention is the popular view.
Even if someone follows the more sourced view, studies Hashem’s world and uses Chochmah and rational sense to make the best choices, at the end of the day there are situations that are utterly out of human control. In that case, what would be the issue with relying on Hashem to “ Do the rest”? I’ve always understood Hishtadlut to mean that humans need to do everything possible for the best outcome, but the results are determined by Hashem. So isn’t the goal of both views of Hishtadlut aiming for the same thing? Or is it flawed to think that if you do all you can that “ Hashem Will do the rest”? And if so, what is the issue with that thought? If cause and effect comes from Hashem, then it seems that the popular view makes sense too. Just trying to get clarity. Thank you!
Hi Sarah! Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. According to my understanding, the answer is: no, the results are not the same. I'm reminded of a passage from Ramban's "Shaar ha'Gemul," his book on reward and punishment. After delving at length into the problem of tzadik v'ra lo, the Ramban concludes that although certain aspects of God's justice are concealed from us, we can be certain that everything He does is in accordance with righteousness, justice, kindness, and mercy. After arriving at this conclusion through the method of rational inquiry, Ramban anticipates his reader's objection:
"And if you will object, saying: 'Since certain aspects of God's justice are hidden from us, and since we are required to believe in His righteousness as the True Judge, why do you trouble us and exhort us to learn the rational arguments that you have explained and the abstract ideas to which you have alluded? Why can't we throw all of this behind us and rely, as we ultimately must, on the belief that there is no iniquity or forgetfulness before Him, but that all of His ways are Just?'"
Ramban's response is harsh:
"This is an objection of fools who despise wisdom (ksilim moasei chochmah). The answer is that we benefit ourselves through the aforementioned learning and become wise individuals who know God by way of His conduct and actions. Furthermore, we will have even more conviction (emunah) and trust in God (bitachon) than those who do not pursue rational inquiry, in both the known and the hidden aspects of God's justice. It is the obligation of every created being, who serves [God] out of love and awe, to investigate with his mind to confirm the righteousness of His justice and to verify His judgment according to one's ability. The approach we have taken is the approach of those who are wise: to bring our minds in line with ideas and to rationally verify the Creator's judgments."
In other words, it's not JUST about recognizing what is in our control and what is in Hashem's. Rather, it's about seeking to understand maasei Hashem (His actions and creation) to the greatest extent possible, aligning not only our decisions but our minds with His wisdom and will as expressed in His universe, and THAT is what Hashem responds to.
Thank you for your question! Let me know if this clears things up. This is so important that I think I'll write a follow-up next week, highlighting this source from the Ramban, which I had forgotten was so relevant.
Thank you! That definitely clears up most of what I was unsure about. I guess my lingering thought is- how should we interpret results that occur after we make decisions?
Without access to נבואה, same way we interpret everything that happens: with a recognition that Hashem is the Cause of everything, whether through השגחה כללית or השגחה פרטית, and with the humility dictated by כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי (i.e. as long as you're not God, then you can't know exactly how He operates or "thinks" unless He tells you). We can theorize based on our understanding of השגחה, but we can't know with certainty. To quote my go-to example: מרדכי didn't say to אסתר, "Hashem made you queen so you can save the Jews!" Rather, he said וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לְעֵת כָּזֹאת הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת: "Who KNOWS whether you attained royalty for a time like this?" Even מרדכי, with all his knowledge of Hashem, didn't dare presume that He KNEW that אסתר being made queen was an act of השגחה פרטית. Either way, we should praise and thank Hashem for everything that happens in our lives.
Thank you! I really like the example from Esther. If Mordechai didn’t make assumptions, then we definitely should not. I also think that the danger of the popular approach is resentment when things don’t turn out the way people wanted them to. If your foundation is unshakeable rooted in the belief that Hashem is Just, then regardless of the result a person will have the right attitude.
שדל and Klein, hmm, that combination sounds vaguely familiar 😀
I think Rambam talks about this somewhere with regard to how the the two sides understand pregnancy, saying that one side thinks that it is more pious to postulate an angel that forms and grows the fetus than Hashem's biology which puts all the instructions and potential into the male seed, which for Rambam makes God much more impressive.
My two cents, at the moment, for what it's worth, is, that at its core, the issue seems to be one of allowing for Divine intervention.
If God is constantly managing stuff directly and is the proximate cause of everything that easily allows for His intervention and seeing Him in everything and to the popular understanding of hishtadlus.
Otoh, if one adopts the medieval philosophical approach, with everything the inexorable result of a cause, notwithstanding that God is at the top of food chain, that doesn't leave much room for a personal and interventionist God, namely, the God of a plainly read Tanach, but rather a God that "merely" created the myriad causes and effects of the created world that seem to be blind to human morality. Hashgacha pratis then needs to be reinterpreted as an intellectually advanced person being synced into future events or some kind of mad scientist, thus enabling one to avoid dangerous situation.
R Avraham's solution seems to be postulating miracles as proof that God can (temporarily) intervene and change the rules and nature of the causes to allow for a different outcome.
Such an abrogation careens perilously close to the non scientific approach and does not seem to have been adopted by either his father or Ralbag.
Ultimately it is an exceedingly difficult task to square the rationalist approach with an immanent and interventionist moral God, thus leading to the popular rejection of natural causality amongst the masses, and their understanding of hishtadlus and hashgacha.
Appreciate the thought provoking piece, Shabbat Shalom!
Great summary of the two perspectives! I was a bit reluctant to quote just a PART of Avraham ben ha'Rambam's presentation, since (a) it really should be learned in the context of the entire perek, and (b) I, MYSELF, should really review the entire perek before writing about it. But I don't have a copy of Ha'Maspik on hand, and I do think that the excerpt I shared stands on its own for the purposes of the article. Thanks for reading and for your feedback, as always. Shabbat shalom!
While reading your article, I found myself contemplating Yocheved’s approach to saving her son versus Hagar’s approach of not seeing the boy die.
While we can’t judge despair, we can learn from everything. Hagar turned away while Yocheved looked for a way to save him. Moshe too grew up looking and eventually leading the Jewish people out of Egypt.
One’s attitude and the measures they take to survive and thrive are never magically created. However, clearly God can surpass any system of thought or emotion to Create.
Great comparison! I hadn't thought about that before. And yes, I think that attitude is one of the main "anchors" (so to speak) of God's intervention, since that's something we CAN control.
Kol hakavod. As faulty as the "birthday candles" magical thinking concept of hishtadlus may be, there is an even more dangerous approach that Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin often writes about. He points out, for example, that many in the Charedi community "claim that the soldiers [of Tzahal] are only succeeding based on the merits of the yeshiva students. And more often, they just mean that the soldiers have to do 'hishtadlus,' which means that they have to just do a charade and go through the performance of doing material effort, but it’s actually the Torah study of yeshiva students which is accomplishing the real victories." This is magical thinking on steroids, and it leads to real social harm.
Hi Rabbi Schneeweiss,
Thanks for this article! It made me think about the approach I’ve been taking.
I had a question.
I appreciate the way that you distinguished the difference in approaches to Hishtadlut. My question is- aren’t the results the same regardless of approach? If I remember correctly you mentioned that effort as a means to unlock divine intervention is the popular view.
Even if someone follows the more sourced view, studies Hashem’s world and uses Chochmah and rational sense to make the best choices, at the end of the day there are situations that are utterly out of human control. In that case, what would be the issue with relying on Hashem to “ Do the rest”? I’ve always understood Hishtadlut to mean that humans need to do everything possible for the best outcome, but the results are determined by Hashem. So isn’t the goal of both views of Hishtadlut aiming for the same thing? Or is it flawed to think that if you do all you can that “ Hashem Will do the rest”? And if so, what is the issue with that thought? If cause and effect comes from Hashem, then it seems that the popular view makes sense too. Just trying to get clarity. Thank you!
Hi Sarah! Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. According to my understanding, the answer is: no, the results are not the same. I'm reminded of a passage from Ramban's "Shaar ha'Gemul," his book on reward and punishment. After delving at length into the problem of tzadik v'ra lo, the Ramban concludes that although certain aspects of God's justice are concealed from us, we can be certain that everything He does is in accordance with righteousness, justice, kindness, and mercy. After arriving at this conclusion through the method of rational inquiry, Ramban anticipates his reader's objection:
"And if you will object, saying: 'Since certain aspects of God's justice are hidden from us, and since we are required to believe in His righteousness as the True Judge, why do you trouble us and exhort us to learn the rational arguments that you have explained and the abstract ideas to which you have alluded? Why can't we throw all of this behind us and rely, as we ultimately must, on the belief that there is no iniquity or forgetfulness before Him, but that all of His ways are Just?'"
Ramban's response is harsh:
"This is an objection of fools who despise wisdom (ksilim moasei chochmah). The answer is that we benefit ourselves through the aforementioned learning and become wise individuals who know God by way of His conduct and actions. Furthermore, we will have even more conviction (emunah) and trust in God (bitachon) than those who do not pursue rational inquiry, in both the known and the hidden aspects of God's justice. It is the obligation of every created being, who serves [God] out of love and awe, to investigate with his mind to confirm the righteousness of His justice and to verify His judgment according to one's ability. The approach we have taken is the approach of those who are wise: to bring our minds in line with ideas and to rationally verify the Creator's judgments."
In other words, it's not JUST about recognizing what is in our control and what is in Hashem's. Rather, it's about seeking to understand maasei Hashem (His actions and creation) to the greatest extent possible, aligning not only our decisions but our minds with His wisdom and will as expressed in His universe, and THAT is what Hashem responds to.
Thank you for your question! Let me know if this clears things up. This is so important that I think I'll write a follow-up next week, highlighting this source from the Ramban, which I had forgotten was so relevant.
Thank you! That definitely clears up most of what I was unsure about. I guess my lingering thought is- how should we interpret results that occur after we make decisions?
Without access to נבואה, same way we interpret everything that happens: with a recognition that Hashem is the Cause of everything, whether through השגחה כללית or השגחה פרטית, and with the humility dictated by כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי (i.e. as long as you're not God, then you can't know exactly how He operates or "thinks" unless He tells you). We can theorize based on our understanding of השגחה, but we can't know with certainty. To quote my go-to example: מרדכי didn't say to אסתר, "Hashem made you queen so you can save the Jews!" Rather, he said וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לְעֵת כָּזֹאת הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת: "Who KNOWS whether you attained royalty for a time like this?" Even מרדכי, with all his knowledge of Hashem, didn't dare presume that He KNEW that אסתר being made queen was an act of השגחה פרטית. Either way, we should praise and thank Hashem for everything that happens in our lives.
Thank you! I really like the example from Esther. If Mordechai didn’t make assumptions, then we definitely should not. I also think that the danger of the popular approach is resentment when things don’t turn out the way people wanted them to. If your foundation is unshakeable rooted in the belief that Hashem is Just, then regardless of the result a person will have the right attitude.
שדל and Klein, hmm, that combination sounds vaguely familiar 😀
I think Rambam talks about this somewhere with regard to how the the two sides understand pregnancy, saying that one side thinks that it is more pious to postulate an angel that forms and grows the fetus than Hashem's biology which puts all the instructions and potential into the male seed, which for Rambam makes God much more impressive.
My two cents, at the moment, for what it's worth, is, that at its core, the issue seems to be one of allowing for Divine intervention.
If God is constantly managing stuff directly and is the proximate cause of everything that easily allows for His intervention and seeing Him in everything and to the popular understanding of hishtadlus.
Otoh, if one adopts the medieval philosophical approach, with everything the inexorable result of a cause, notwithstanding that God is at the top of food chain, that doesn't leave much room for a personal and interventionist God, namely, the God of a plainly read Tanach, but rather a God that "merely" created the myriad causes and effects of the created world that seem to be blind to human morality. Hashgacha pratis then needs to be reinterpreted as an intellectually advanced person being synced into future events or some kind of mad scientist, thus enabling one to avoid dangerous situation.
R Avraham's solution seems to be postulating miracles as proof that God can (temporarily) intervene and change the rules and nature of the causes to allow for a different outcome.
Such an abrogation careens perilously close to the non scientific approach and does not seem to have been adopted by either his father or Ralbag.
Ultimately it is an exceedingly difficult task to square the rationalist approach with an immanent and interventionist moral God, thus leading to the popular rejection of natural causality amongst the masses, and their understanding of hishtadlus and hashgacha.
Appreciate the thought provoking piece, Shabbat Shalom!
Great summary of the two perspectives! I was a bit reluctant to quote just a PART of Avraham ben ha'Rambam's presentation, since (a) it really should be learned in the context of the entire perek, and (b) I, MYSELF, should really review the entire perek before writing about it. But I don't have a copy of Ha'Maspik on hand, and I do think that the excerpt I shared stands on its own for the purposes of the article. Thanks for reading and for your feedback, as always. Shabbat shalom!
While reading your article, I found myself contemplating Yocheved’s approach to saving her son versus Hagar’s approach of not seeing the boy die.
While we can’t judge despair, we can learn from everything. Hagar turned away while Yocheved looked for a way to save him. Moshe too grew up looking and eventually leading the Jewish people out of Egypt.
One’s attitude and the measures they take to survive and thrive are never magically created. However, clearly God can surpass any system of thought or emotion to Create.
Great comparison! I hadn't thought about that before. And yes, I think that attitude is one of the main "anchors" (so to speak) of God's intervention, since that's something we CAN control.
Kol hakavod. As faulty as the "birthday candles" magical thinking concept of hishtadlus may be, there is an even more dangerous approach that Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin often writes about. He points out, for example, that many in the Charedi community "claim that the soldiers [of Tzahal] are only succeeding based on the merits of the yeshiva students. And more often, they just mean that the soldiers have to do 'hishtadlus,' which means that they have to just do a charade and go through the performance of doing material effort, but it’s actually the Torah study of yeshiva students which is accomplishing the real victories." This is magical thinking on steroids, and it leads to real social harm.
"charade" - THAT'S the word I was looking for but couldn't find! (I think I ended up using "performative demonstration" instead.) But yeah, ugh ...