Q&A: Human Effort and Providence in the Thought of the Hazon Ish
Human Effort and Providence in the Thought of the Hazon Ish
Question
Hello Rabbi, first I wanted to know what you think about the analysis the Hazon Ish makes between the personal effort a person is obligated to make and providence. In the chapter “Lo Yachpor,” the Hazon Ish rules that even at a time when a person’s sustenance has already been allotted to him, he is still obligated [when commanded] to make an effort, with no connection at all to the result that has already been decided in advance. What is the meaning of that effort? [I found this approach of the Hazon Ish in other places as well.]
Answer
I don’t think the Hazon Ish made any analysis at all. He expressed a position (and a position is not an analysis, so long as it isn’t based on arguments, definitions of concepts, and an orderly analysis of the problem).
As for the matter itself, the claim about an obligation of effort seems to me baseless nonsense (this is Druze fatalism, very far from the outlook we received and that is reflected in our sources), and since I respect the Hazon Ish, I assume it was said only so that the simple public would not be forced to give up its innocent faith that everything comes from Above. But that is not so.
Just think about how this fits with the supplications on Rosh Hashanah for our sustenance. Is that too merely an obligation of effort? Or does prayer actually work? And if prayer affects the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, then why wouldn’t our practical effort do so as well? And what is the point of making an effort at all if it doesn’t help? A scriptural decree? Where is that written? Is there a source for this commandment of effort, or is it just a matter of logic? Notice that here we have a “logic” invented by people, with no logic behind it at all. Why should I accept such an invention?
As for requests in prayer, good question. To the best of my understanding, the Holy One, blessed be He, usually is not involved in the world, and it runs according to the laws of nature. There may be rare cases where this does happen (since in any given case you can’t know who brought it about). Therefore, in my humble opinion, there is not much point in these requests, and certainly not where there is a natural way to deal with the problem. There is only an issue of authority when it comes to changing the wording of the prayer, and therefore perhaps it is worth intending that the Holy One, blessed be He, heal someone somewhere in the world (because sometimes perhaps He does intervene). But usually, it seems to me, there is no divine intervention in our world, and certainly one should not build on it.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Hello Rabbi. From the Hazon Ish’s rulings I got the impression that he was a unique halakhic decisor, one who did not strive to please the people but ruled based on an attempt to arrive at the thing closest to the truth as he understood it. In my opinion he rose above the categories of a strict or lenient decisor; in my opinion he developed a critical halakhic way of thinking whose goal was to aspire to the absolute truth, while being aware that this was truth as attained by him. He developed an approach in Jewish law that, although one can play around with it a lot, made it difficult to disagree with him. So it is a bit hard for me to understand that he took simple people into account in his rulings. Regarding the effect of prayer, the Hazon Ish thought it indeed has the power to influence providence, but even when providence is fixed and unchanging there is a dry halakhic point, with no emotion involved, in the obligation of effort. He writes regarding the right of one craftsman to prevent his fellow from competing with him: “Only if he is able to prevent him does this enter into his obligation of effort on his own side, and the obligation to distance damage on the part of his fellow; but if he is unable to prevent him, then there is no obligation of effort involved, and his fellow is not considered a damager. But the One who provides each creature with its allotted bread will surely give him all he lacks…” [Bava Batra 21b]—that regarding a local craftsman, anything by which he can prevent his fellow is not on the level of practical reality but on the level of the obligation of effort. And even if the Rabbi disagrees, then please explain to me the necessity that follows from this, because otherwise how can one understand the power of the craftsman to prevent the other?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Haim.
It seems to me that every halakhic decisor worthy of the name ignores categories like strict or lenient. Those categories are for scholars. The decisor does what he thinks is right, and the scholar is supposed to determine whether he is lenient or strict. And indeed it is clear that the Hazon Ish was also like that. And still, he has some strange claims (like “two thousand years of Torah” and others), which in my opinion were written in order to preserve the accepted conceptions so that the fence not be breached. But of course that is only a conjecture (precisely because I am one of his admirers, I don’t so much believe that he himself believed this seriously).
I don’t see what is special about this source. Can’t one say that the power of one craftsman to prevent another is a legal principle unrelated to theology, and the theological explanations are meant to reassure the person that the Creator will provide his allotted bread? Exactly like effort is valid in itself (because it is what has the effect), and saying that it helps nothing and there is only an obligation by scriptural decree to do it—that is just to calm the masses, who believe that everything is in God’s hands.
——————————————————————————————
H.:
Your views derive from Christianity regarding divine intervention in creation, because we believe that a person does not so much as move a finger below unless it has been proclaimed above.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, I do not evaluate views by the question of where they came from, but by whether they are correct or not. So it really doesn’t matter to me where the views came from or what they resemble. For all I care, they can come from Christianity or divine inspiration or inspiration from reading a poem by Zelda.
Second, a statement like “we believe” strikes me as truly absurd. How do you know someone else’s beliefs? Say: “I believe such-and-such.” People tend to think that their beliefs are “Judaism,” and then their ability to listen to other possibilities decreases, and they lock themselves into those views even where they are absurd. The view that “a person does not move a finger below” as you interpret it is a logical contradiction (if you believe in free will; I do), and therefore this is nothing but empty talk. That is the problem with the “we believe” approach: it is uncritical and adopts contradictory positions just because “we believe” in them.
I will elaborate on this more in my book on theology.
All the best and good luck,
Discussion on Answer
David—A person’s prayer tears through great barriers!
Also in the positive sense, the effect of speech is decisive. Spiritually, a person’s speech reaches very far. A Jew’s prayer is capable of piercing the heavens and reaching the Throne of Glory. Likewise, through the merit of Torah study and through those who study Torah, the world endures. Every word they utter in Torah study brings an abundance of blessing and success to the world.
An entire world depends on speech, both for good and for bad. Fortunate is the person who uses his speech as a vessel that holds blessing, and speaks only positive words—words that do not hurt and are not negative, words that include values of kindness, mercy, holiness, and Torah.
Quoted from the site “Lehavin,” at the link
http://www.lehavin.co.il/Index.asp?ArticleID=1913&CategoryID=321&Page=1
—–
And regarding moving one’s finger and so on—this indicates God’s providence, that even if there is free choice, and a person is worthy of being saved, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not let wicked people harm him. And this is what is written: “For He will command His angels concerning you, to guard you in all your ways.”
Rabbi, what could be the most “reasonable” reason for God’s ignoring us, His devotees? If we knew the answer, we would be capable of many things.
David, if prayer is natural effort, then I don’t know what is not natural. And the term “nature” has lost its meaning, and from that it follows that the Maharsha’s words also have no meaning. After all, if everything is nature, then it is meaningless to say that something is natural.
Moshe, as I’ve written here more than once, in my understanding His “ignoring” us may stem from the fact that we are already grown children and are supposed to manage our affairs ourselves. Exactly like a father “ignores” his children after they grow up (meaning he no longer runs their lives for them).
The intent is that sometimes such is the decree: if a person prays, he will receive; if not, he will not receive.
So is it a decree or nature?
Ramchal elaborated at length to explain that since the world was emanated from the spiritual Infinite, the roots of everything that exists in physicality are in spirituality. And there are ways to influence the spiritual roots of reality, and through that the influence will unfold into the physical world. And that is the meaning of magic and influence through the use of divine “names” and practical Kabbalah.
Likewise, in Nefesh HaChaim it is explained that the fixed prayer was established according to Kabbalah, such that the words themselves cause their content to operate in physical reality. And similarly the segulah-like effect of some commandments, for example the blowing of the shofar. And I won’t go on at length. Surely the Rabbi knows these things.
And Nachmanides in several places says that the influence of all the commandments on material reality is in this way.
And certainly it is fitting to add the words of Nachmanides at the end of Parashat Bo: “A person has no share in the Torah of Moses until he believes that all our affairs and occurrences are miracles; there is no nature in them, nor the ordinary way of the world at all. Rather, if one fulfills the commandments, his reward will make him succeed, and if not, his punishment will cut him off.”
David, I do indeed know all this. But when a question is asked, one should answer it and not just quote. You erase the difference between nature and miracle and thereby make the whole discussion superfluous. And if you want to say that Nachmanides, Ramchal, and Nefesh HaChaim did that too—fine by me.
I understand the Hazon Ish to mean that even effort that proceeds by way of nature must be carried out as a religious commandment, and not because it has independent value. Therefore, in a case where “he can prevent,” he must prevent; and if not, he may be harmed for failing to fulfill his commandment to carry out his religious duty to look after his property.
And similarly Rabbeinu Bachya in Duties of the Heart, Gate of Trust, suggests fulfilling the commandment to care for one’s wife and children as a religious commandment, and not as an investment in them. And if he does it as an investment, his punishment is that he will be disappointed. And that is how reality is…
And similarly the commandment of war, in Maimonides, is to be carried out as a religious commandment: “He should not think of his wife or his children, but only of fulfilling the commandment.” And not, as is commonly thought, as a “war for the homeland.” Then he is promised that he will not be killed in war—not according to the natural order.
Indeed, my explanation makes the discussion unnecessary. And the question never began. Indeed, we sweeten the severities at their root. Without begging the question in the style of “How did Noah build an ark if he was blind?”
Happy holiday.
The Rabbi said God’s ignoring us stems from our maturity. So what does the Rabbi think was the reason for the Holocaust? And where was the warning before the punishment? What was our enormous sin that “caused” the destruction of 6 million souls?
Really, what I’m fumbling toward here is preventing the next Holocaust. Back then too we were at the height of flourishing, wealthy and with positions of influence, and suddenly boom—we got a Holocaust as if out of nowhere.
And let’s not ignore all the “small” warnings happening in the world: an attack here, an attack there (abroad), an explosion here, an explosion there, and so on…
This sin must be something that the grown-up knows very well, as you described.
In my opinion, which you don’t like, preventing the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin is the motive/cause of another coming disaster—whether in waves or on the scale of a Holocaust.
You remind me of a story I once heard about Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky (it turns out he has a sense of humor). Once a kollel fellow came to him after his car had been broken into and asked what he needed to fix—what had he sinned in? Rabbi Chaim answered that he needed to fix his attitude toward locking the car door. Very sharp.
And as for our matter: the reason for the Holocaust was the Nazis’ decision to kill Jews. There is no sin and no punishment here, so no warning was needed.
As for your explanations, I tend to think it is more reasonable that the Holocaust was punishment for the fact that we did not redeem a firstborn donkey and did not inspect fish for kosher signs. But the righteous shall live by his faith.
You also have quite a sense of humor. But this time it doesn’t fit, because I’m serious.
On the one hand you and Mr. say that the kollel fellow was at fault and could have prevented the break-in, and on the other hand you say the Germans wanted to kill Jews, as if there was nothing to be done—make up your mind.
In my opinion you won’t be able to ignore this.
I claim—and many others like me and unlike you—that every terror attack in the world is a serious signal to us. It’s a shame they don’t establish a Sanhedrin and resolve problems, and we would see that the hatred toward us decreases. Because when God’s name is called upon us, the enemies are afraid. And in my opinion both the righteous and the wicked live by their faith. Especially the wicked, because maybe he “lives” on the grace of the World to Come.
Thanks. I didn’t understand what the two second points you raised are supposed to mean. Do you think there is a contradiction between them? What is it? Everyone has free choice—the burglar and the victim, the murderer and the murdered. Now what determines the outcome is who is stronger or more capable, and the circumstances.
That is exactly what I meant.
Might makes right.
The moment you said “and the circumstances,” you completed the whole tilt of the scales in my favor, because I say, as the Sages say, that the circumstances are what bring disasters upon us and what prevent disasters from us—that is, your deeds draw you near to His providence, may He be blessed, and your deeds distance you from it. After all, you saw how the strong one changes according to circumstances: Hitler was strong and confident, but all that changed during the war, just as Pharaoh trusted in his power and in his horses and chariots, and it did not help him. So God, the Cause of all causes, determines.
The Maharsha writes somewhere that prayer itself is a form of “natural” effort.