I've heard the argument made that sure if you work more you'll make more money but the "bracha" won't be there. God preordains how much "bracha" (ill-defined word) you will experience from your money but not necessarily how much money you will receive.
So while person A does minimal hishtadlus and person B does more - and perhaps makes more money - that extra money ostensibly goes to lawyers and bills etc.
Of course there is no evidence to support this assertion but c'mon "I know tons of people..."
I remember being very perturbed by this whilst studying in yeshiva. I finally summoned the courage to ask a certain Rav Moshe Stav. Expecting some profound explanation, his answer was short and simple: ‘we see it doesn’t quite work this way’, and off he strode. I felt very sheepish at having asked such a dumb question, but it was an important life lesson.
Intellectual honestly, in a nutshell. Accept a plain reality, even if it disagrees with one’s instruction manual for how God ought to run the world. Forget the acrobatics… and move on with life.
I find it curious that one can observe this as a fact, but then stop there. If we don't know how something works, it's possible that it's a so called "black box".
In other words, input is entered and output exits and we're unsure as to why a given stimulus generated a given response. It could be that there's a good reason why X produces X' why Y produces Y' and it could be that there's no good reason, and we just need more information to figure it out. Or it could be that there is no good reason, and that the correlation is absent. A third possibility is that there's a good reason but that the information necessary to figure it out is so astronomically massive that virtually no amount of information would give us sufficient basis for then figuring out the pattern. So if we were unfamiliar with pi, let's say, and when a digit was entered (let's say 192) the corresponding digit in pi (the 192nd digit in pi) was generated, how long would it take us to figure this out? Well, I'm not a mathematician, but I suppose there are infinite examples of infinitely repeating decimal sequences, we might never be able to figure out a given pattern, even though it's an actual pattern.
So maybe we can figure things out and maybe we can't and maybe when we can't, it can be because we can't yet or because we won't ever, either because the time commitment is too large (and so the pattern is indiscernible) or because there's actually no pattern. With AI, we may have a chance to figure out previously indiscernible patterns, but maybe another level of AI is necessary to figure out the next level of indiscernible things.
I wonder that more people don't consider things this way.
That post avoids the discussion in what some might say a typical charedi fashion of ad homenium attack instead of a substantive argument. As the things stand now - RNS touche!
I explained that the premise of the discussion is a mistake. There is nothing substantive in RNS's post to argue about. I believe you may be thinking of classic legitimate questions such as צדיק ורע לו רשע וטוב לו.
I disagree that there's nothing substantive to discuss, but I agree that it was written in an inflammatory manner.
Now whether it was needlessly inflammatory, that's editorializing. Perhaps Slifkin's point here is to be inflammatory, and thus be thought provoking and to stimulate a discussion. And perhaps not.
I wonder if we can really claim a factual correlation between hishtadlus and parnasa. I think that many, even irreligious people, would claim that the world is a very unfair place, and some with little effort do incredibly well, whilst other who work really hard, see little success.
Hishtadlus is not worth much if you are not any good at what you are doing. Hard well directed work results in profit. Badly directed work is unlikely to.
“I’m sure that creative Gemara minds can come up with some sort of intellectual gymnastics to resolve it. But have they even thought about it?”
In this paragraph, you’ve conceded that you’re approaching this with bad faith, and have already made up your mind that you’re not willing to take the other side seriously.
I question your framing of their position. Do they really believe that physical movements geared toward making parnassa are just random movements that have no correlation with parnassa? If so, do you have a source for this? Or is their position more in line with say, how David responded to Goliath: “And all this assembly shall know that not with sword and javelin does the Lord save, for the battle is the Lord's, and He will deliver you into our hand,” and proceeded to kill him without armor, and a mere slingshot? A so-called “rationalist” understanding of hishtadlus would lead people to call David crazy for undertaking this endeavor.
Speaking of which, how do you reconcile your understanding of physical action with the story of David (and many other stories throughout Tanach)?
This actually could have been a normal post, had it not been framed as a "chareidi" question. I mean, how to modern orthodox deal with this question? Do they think parnassa comes only from your hishtadlus? What do they do about all the מאמרי חז"ל that say the exact opposite?
Anyhow, to answer the question itself, I think most chareidim would tell you that there is no correlation between the amount of hishtadlus and the amount of money you will get, exactly as you quoted in the name of Rav Shteinman. The chovos halevovos elaborates on this.
Now there is obviously more to say about this. The Chovos Halevovos says you do need to do some hishtadlus, and the alter of Novahrdok famously disagrees. I wouls think you need to be on a high madreiga to get parnassa with zero hishtadlus, because that would be the equivalent of having a miracle happen for you. And generally the rule is that Hashem does not do miracles, עולם כמנהגו נוהג.
I don't see the problem with this approach. Defintiely in my own personal life I see little correlation between my hishtadlus and my parnassa. I can't speak on Natan's behalf.
I think part of the confusion here is the idea that one can measure hishtadlus in any sort of way that makes sense beyond "doing nothing" vs. "doing something".
What is more hishtadlus, applying for food stamps or getting a job that pays as much as foodstamps? What is more hishtadlus, spending 4 years getting a BA in History, or spending 4 years working in sales? What is more hishtadlus, leaving yeshiva before one gets married to start a career, or marrying a girl who already has one and staying in kollel for several years?
NS would probably say something like going to college vs. not going, but is there empirical evidence that WITHIN the chareidi community, the college goers have better parnassa than say, the people who went into real estate?
In the charedi world maybe it's divinely granted. In the real world it's a combination of preparation, hard work, connections, and other factors that where magical thinking has no measurable effect. Ever since Adam and Eve left Gan Edan we have earned our bread by the sweat of our brows just like Hashem said
Back in my more charedi days I gave this a lot of thought. I fully bought into 1, so 2 definitely bothered me. A lot. Where I ended up was something like this:
The axis that you are measuring "parnasa" for 1 and 2 are fundamentally different. 1 would be parnasa in the sense of life satisfaction, having what you need when you need it, being happy with what you have. For 2 you have parnasa in the sense of wealth. So you can have a correlation between chasing money and having money, while at the same time having no correlation between chasing money and getting where you are "meant to be".
While I can see reasons why that's not a satisfying answer for some, and you could argue that being more economically productive and driven is a good thing for society at large, ultimately there is some truth in it - at least in the modern welfare state world we live in. And it doesn't just apply to charedim either. Some people have a simpler attitude to life where they don't stress about money, and basically just make do with what they have. For such people, you could argue "maavirin memenu ol malchus veol derech eretz" (obviously in a sense). I am not one of those people, but I sometimes wish I was.
While the official 'party line' may be that the answer to 1 is yes, if you speak to the average common man sitting in a random row in shul, there's a really good chance he'll say the answer is no, or he'll say that while parnasa is ultimately in Hashem's hands, what we do certainly makes a difference in large part. People are not as single-minded as they seem from the pages of Mishpacha or the latest shul lecha dodi dvar torah pamphlet. And even many chareidi rabbis understand that practically speaking, there is nuance, and we must take the real world reality into account.
Many people will speak of the truth of the abstract idea of Hashem controlling the world; some might also point out situations where someone did or didn't do hishtadlus and the outcome was different than expected; and a smaller number of people might also mention as an abstract idea that a person with pure, absolute emuna would require very minimal hishtadlus, but even many in the last group probably understand that in practical reality this is almost non-existent, or perhaps there might be a small number of people where this idea is a partial reality for them, but not entirely, since almost no one is on the level of Rashbi (Berachot 35b).
For most people it's not a matter of intellectual gymnastics. They don't think very deeply, nor in stark black and white terms, and are comfortable with the abstract idea of control of the world by Hashem while they think of a large amount of the day to day facts on the ground as being due to worldly cause and effect, and to what they themselves do to bring about some of the effect.
From my expirience in real life most chareidi rabbies hustle like everyone else. As someone has already pointed out, this could have been a good discussion of the subject unrelated to charedim because there is a problem in reconciling the various oppinions of Hazal and the reality of life. But on this blog a discussion of a most interesting and fundamental topic becomes a waste of time.
You claim "classical Judaism would generally disagree with the first point" ((viz, that "parnasa is completely determined by Hashem based on spiritual reasons, and utterly unaffected by physical hishtadlus."
Leave aside the false straw man dichotomies, so typical of this blog, framing things in simplistic black and white. ("completely determined", "Utterly unaffected") Ask it the way a normal person would, whether the PRIMARY determinant is spiritual or toil. Of course, like most things in Judaism, there are enough sources to support either side of the debate, if a debate there is. And in no way, shape, or form does classical Judaism disagree that parnasah is primarily pre-determined by God.
In fact, if you're interested in surveys, don't ask about Charedim, which the readership of this blog can't help you with anyway. Ask it about modox. Try to determine their beliefs, and if it turns out they think its primarily hishtadlus based, ask how they reconcile their beliefs with the many contrary statements found in both the Bible and Chazal. I’m sure that creative doctors, lawyers, and accountants can come up with some sort of intellectual gymnastics to resolve it. But have they even thought about it?
You left out a 3rd possibility that is mentioned in chazal. The Gemara in Moed Katan 28a states: . אָמַר רָבָא: חַיֵּי, בְּנֵי וּמְזוֹנֵי, לָא בִּזְכוּתָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, אֶלָּא בְּמַזָּלָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.
Tosafos at the end of kiddushin takes this very seriously. The Mishna 82a states: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ אוּמָּנוּת נְקִיָּה וְקַלָּה וְיִתְפַּלֵּל לְמִי שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׁר וְהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אוּמָּנוּת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת שֶׁלֹּא עֲנִיּוּת מִן הָאוּמָּנוּת וְלֹא עֲשִׁירוּת מִן הָאוּמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הַכֹּל לְפִי זְכוּתוֹ
Tosafos there comments: אלא הכל לפי זכותו - פירוש לפי מזלו דבני וחיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא:
So in fact there is an opinion that your livelihood is based not in your hishtadlus and not on your spiritual accomplishments but rather on your mazal. Some people are decreed to be rich and some poor.
You also have the Gemara in Nidda 16b which states: דדריש ר' חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקב"ה ואומר לפניו רבש"ע טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני
This Gemara also seems to say that how much money a person will have is decreed before he is born.
All very true. Al derech niglah, you see many people who just don't have the intelligence/personality/life skills to succeed financially - we all know they won't and they usually do not.
I'll introduce another wrinkle - what about the concept of "Hashem leads one along the path they choose" and bechira in general?
Consider the following common scenario: a bright yeshiva guy is meeting with his rosh yeshiva to discuss his future life plans. He is torn between pursuing kollel/chinuch or medical school. The pros and cons of both options are weighed. One of which is very obviously money. The simple truth is that this person has the option of CHOOSING to make more money or LESS money.
It seems like when people say "It doesn't matter what you do, you'll make the make same either way" it's in the context of encouraging people to focus more of their efforts on spiritual pursuits, and less on working, not to make an airtight philosophical statement. I think deep down, everyone knows the more you work, the more money you make.
. . . Not to mention there are entire periods of history that are poorer or wealthier than others. How does that effect the gezaira on an individual? Someone born now will be far richer and more comfortable than someone born 500 years ago.
הנה, הטפול והטרדה כבר דברנו מהם למעלה, כי בהיות האדם טרוד בעניני עולמו, הנה מחשבותיו אסורות בזיקי המשא אשר עליהם, ואי אפשר להם לתת לב אל המעשה. והחכמים עליהם השלום, בראותם זה אמרו (אבות ד, י): הוי ממעט בעסק ועסוק בתורה. כי הנה העסק מוכרח הוא לאדם לצורך פרנסתו, אך ריבוי העסק אינו מוכרח שיהיה כל כך גדול עד שלא יניח לו מקום אל עבודתו, על כן נצטוינו לקבוע עתים לתורה,
פרק ה' בבאור מפסידי הזהירות
Occupying oneself to obtain a livelihood is indeed necessary but it is not necessary to occupy oneself to such an extent that he has no room left for service [of G-d]. For this we were commanded to fix times for Torah study.
אמנם מה שיוכל לשמור את האדם ולהצילו מן המפסידים האלה הוא הבטחון, והוא שישליך יהבו על ה' לגמרי, כאשר ידע כי ודאי אי אפשר שיחסר לאדם מה שנקצב לו, וכמו שאז"ל במאמריהם (ביצה ט"ז א): כל מזונותיו של אדם קצובים לו מראש השנה וגו', וכן אמרו (יומא ל"ח ב): אין אדם נוגע במוכן לחבירו אפילו כמלא נימא.
However, that which can protect a person and save him from these detriments is trust in G-d. Namely, that a person casts his burden entirely upon G-d, knowing that it is certainly impossible for a man to lack what was designated for him, as our sages taught: "all of a person's sustenance [for the year] is fixed for him from Rosh Hashana [to Yom Kippur]" (Beitzah 16a). Likewise, they said: "no man can touch what was prepared for his fellow even to the extent of a hair's breadth" (Yomah 38b).
וכבר היה אדם יכול להיות יושב ובטל והגזירה (גזירת קיצבת מזונות שקצבו לו בראש השנה) היתה מתקיימת, אם לא שקדם הקנס לכל בני אדם, (בראשית ג:יט): בזעת אפך תאכל לחם, אשר על כן חייב אדם להשתדל איזה השתדלות לצורך פרנסתו, שכן גזר המלך העליון.
A person could have sat idle and the decree would have been fulfilled (his designated portion would have come to him), had it not been preceded by the fine imposed on every human being: "by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread" (Gen.3:19), whereby a person is required to make some effort for obtaining his livelihood, for thus the exalted King decreed.
והרי זה כמס שפורע כל המין האנושי אשר אין להמלט ממנו. על כן (הואיל וכך גזר המלך) אמרו (ספרי): יכול אפילו יושב ובטל (יראה סימן ברכה) תלמוד לומר: בכל משלח ידך אשר תעשה (דברים כח:כ).
This is like a tax imposed on the human race which one cannot escape from paying. Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, said (Sifri 15:18): "I might think one can sit idle, but scripture says (Devarim 28:20): 'in all that you set your hand to do' ".
אך לא שההשתדלות הוא המועיל, אלא שהשתדלות מוכרח, וכיון שהשתדל הרי יצא ידי חובתו, וכבר יש מקום לברכת שמים שתשרה עליו ואינו צריך לבלות ימיו בחריצות והשתדלות, הוא מה שכתב דוד המלך ע"ה (תהלים עה:ז-ח): כי לא ממוצא וממערב ולא וגו', כי אלהים שופט וגו' ושלמה המלך ע"ה אמר (משלי כג:ד): "אל תיגע להעשיר מבינתך חדל".
Only that it is not the efforts (hishtadlut) that help. Rather, the efforts are necessary, but once one has put in some effort, he has already discharged his obligation and there is place for the blessing of Heaven to rest upon him, and he need not consume his days in exertion and labor. This is what king David said: "For not from the east or from the west, nor from... but it is G-d who executes judgment, [putting down one and lifting up another]" (Tehilim 75:7-8), and king Shlomo said: "Do not weary yourself to grow rich; cease applying your understanding" (Mishlei 23:4).
אלא הדרך האמיתי הוא דרכם של החסידים הראשונים עושים תורתן עיקר ומלאכתן טפלה, וזה וזה נתקיים בידם, כי כיון שעשה אדם קצת מלאכה משם והלאה אין לו אלא לבטוח בקונו ולא להצטער על שום דבר עולמי, אז תשאר דעתו פנויה ולבו מוכן לחסידות האמיתי ולעבודה התמימה.
Rather, the true path is that of the "early Pious ones", who made their Torah primary and their work secondary, and succeeded in both (Berachot 35b). For once a man does a little work, from then on, he need only trust in his Master, and not be distressed by any worldly matters. Then his mind will be free and his heart ready for true Chasidut and perfect divine service.
There is a difference between Chapter 5 Zehirus (Watchfulness) and chapter 21 Chasiddus. Divine Providence is dependent on the level of the individual. הרבה עשו כי רבי שמעון ולא עלתה בידם... because they were not on the level of Rabbi Shimon. תורה מה תהיה עליה? They are LIVING the Torah by engaging with the world in accordance with Torah's legal and moral framework. This is Torah. לא כל אחד זוכה לשתי שולחנות.
The Ramchal is chapter 21 is also promoting hishtadlus. RSHBY promoted doing NO hishtadlus. And even the followers of his disputant R' Yishmael discouraged an excessive amount of hishtadlus. But then again, they were advising how to maximize one's life for limud HaTorah and not giving advise on how to get rich.
I’ll try: those who stay in learning are on a higher madreigah. They are thus judged more harshly for their misdeeds. Also they are rewarded for their ameilus by having all of their punishment extracted in Olam Hazeh so as to preserve their Olam Haba. Finally, for them, less Parnassah is a reward because it keeps them focused on Torah and not cars. R Steinman knew all this, but he also knew not to say it because those starting out would be on a lower level and would not understand and might be discouraged from pursuing this righteous path.
Hashem decides. However, sometimes, He takes into consideration whether the person did the amount of hishtadlut expected of him.
It could actually be that someone on a high spiritual level will receive less as he is not so interested in material things. Once, a man asked Rav Aryeh Levine if he should look for a better paying job. He told Rav Aryeh, who had a much lower salary, how much he earned and that it was before taxes. Rav Aryeh said "that is not enough for you". On the other hand, another man was told that in his present job he had honor, which Rav Aryeh did not want at all for himself,
It seems clear to me that if one's perspective is to make decisions based on evidence, then following the evidence is the way to go on this. And if one's perspective is to make decisions in some other manner, then no amount of evidence will suffice one way or another because evidence is not what one is interested in.
To me, this is argument doesn't stand alone in a vacuum. Rather, it seems to fit nicely with similar disputes in regard to maintaining an army or having a police presence or maintaining one's health. How much contribution is necessary?
Well, from the perspective that there's some sort of metaphysical involvement, how are you supposed to argue against that? You can't. If you tell someone that their lucky constellation or their god doesn't play a role, but they didn't arrive at this perspective because of evidence, you can't use evidence to convince them out of this perspective. So to say that a greater human contribution is necessary when it comes to protecting your home / family from thieves or your country from invasion or your home from fire or your body from infection...it's really a silly conversation, as I see it, for anyone other than someone with a truly open mind..
This is from R"H (3rd perek). Someone with a very religious perspective can refer to this and say that everything is in God's hands, and you can't argue with them from within the religious perspective, really, because as soon as you argue against their principles, you are branded an outsider. How in the world can you heal someone from a snake bite with prayer? It's preposterous! But it's only preposterous from a natural viewpoint. Supernaturally, everything is possible. It's just that we have no evidence that this ever occurs or has ever occurred. Those who believe will say it doesn't matter and those who don't believe will say that's all that matters. And so we're at an impasse.
Woah. No one said that NO hishtadlus is necessary. Even the doc isn't accusing Charedim of thinking that. Charedim visit doctors, have Hatzalah, Shomrim, good relations with their local police department and politicians etc. What the doc is asking is that if hishtadlus is just token effort that we must expend because of Adam's curse, but everything is really min hashamayim, do Charedim agree that there is an empirical correlation between the AMOUNT of hishtadlus done and the AMOUNT of success.
And the answer is that although there is not necessarily an EMPIRICAL correlation, yes, you will find that Chassidim in Williamsburg hustling away in real estate are WAY more likely to make it big than Israeli yungerleit in Kiryat Sefer. I could think of a bunch of possible ways of explaining this but that's not the point. The point is that Charedim didn't come up with this concept and this question isn't new. Charedim are just more likely to accept the teachings of Chazal whether they understand them or not because they trust in the eternal truth of the Torah, and not try to dismiss them with empirical observations as the doc is oh-so-smugly insinuating should be done. But the doc is correct that on a practical level, most people will expend more effort if they want to see more results.
>>>Woah. No one said that NO hishtadlus is necessary.>>>
Once someone claims that mysticism is true and that the supernatural not only can, but does, occur, I don’t know if it’s meaningful to argue with them regarding the possibility and probability of the various degrees of mystical and supernatural occurrence. It’s like arguing whether unicorns have split hooves (because they are essentially magical goats) or not (because they are essentially magical horses), but one person in the argument doesn’t believe they even exist in the first place.
So when someone wants to discuss reality as they see it (without mysticism) with someone who wants to discuss reality as they believe it to be because of what they’ve read in holy books (with mysticism), how should such a discussion proceed? If there’s a dispute as to whether a mystical or supernatural role in finances or health or military conquest or protection exists, how can there be a discussion of the magnitude of said role?
The probability of all events is on a scale of 0 to 1 with 1 being literally definite and 0 being literally impossible. Because we can talk about 0.2 and even 0.25 as partial integers, it’s arbitrary that the scale is 0 to 1, and it could have been drawn as 0 to 100 or 0 to 1000…whatever. Sure, you can go to college and graduate school and try to get a great job and then it doesn’t work out. Maybe you pick nose at every interview and wipe in on your tie, or maybe you’re a passive aggressive jerk or maybe it’s something way more subtle. But the universe almost never works with things being 0 or 1 – almost everything is something of a gray area, no matter how dark or light that gray may be. For 5 or 20 or 100 years, we put marks on a chart as to how we’ve observed things for those 5, 20 or 100 years and then we can, with some degree of confidence (usually more confidence with more time and more instances, and so more data points) comment on future events that we haven’t even observed yet. Usually, we can’t really speak about any particular event, because statistics are usually super accurate in the aggregate but often highly unpredictive in any given case. Just like the US Dream Team had all the greats on it and we can predict with, let’s say, 0.8 probability that they’d win the championships against any other basketball team, we can’t necessarily know which individual games they’d win or lose. So too, we can say that there’s X chance of contracting HIV from a needle stick, assuming Y depth of penetration and Z viral load of the infected individual who the needle had already been in. That being said, these are statistics, and so they are very accurate across the population but you can’t complain that the universe doesn’t work or that statistics don’t work if in a particular situation, you had only a 20% chance of contracting HIV and you got it. You can’t complain that the 80% was bogus. And we use the word “science” to be a quick, one-word term to explain how the universe works based on many years of observation and data collection.
Prayer won’t change the average of HIV contractors among needle stick victims. Maybe a mystical person would claim that it would modify the individual’s rate of contracting, but if all 10,000 needle stick victims prayed, then the mystic would have to shift, and claim that some of the praying victims didn’t exhibit sufficient devotion in prayer, or that they prayed, but they simply didn’t deserve it. Be that as it may, there’s no data that supports the contention that leaving things up mystical involvement changes anything, and so once such an assertion is being made without evidence, and the ones making such assertions are ignoring evidence, it’s very easy to then make even wilder claims. What’s wild about a claim if it’s never subjected to rigorous testing and evaluation? Claims are wild when they don’t scale with the data. But if there is no data and we don’t even care about data, then what makes them wild. And so for the mystic, I don’t see why one has to worry about claims that one can put in literally zero effort and still get the job or be cured of the illness or avoid invasion, etc.
>>>Even the doc isn't accusing Charedim of thinking that. Charedim visit doctors, have Hatzalah, Shomrim, good relations with their local police department and politicians etc. What the doc is asking is that if hishtadlus is just token effort that we must expend because of Adam's curse, but everything is really min hashamayim, do Charedim agree that there is an empirical correlation between the AMOUNT of hishtadlus done and the AMOUNT of success.>>>
I’m not R’ Slifkin, so I can’t speak for him. But he’s an opinion on the matter, not an authority, so neither of us need match our views to his. Isn’t it possible that no one actually believes in mysticism and that they just talk about it all the time? And so when they score the touchdown, they thank the baby Jesus and prostrate themselves on the field. And they do all these extra things that never actually matter in the realm of mysticism (since there really is no realm of mysticism) but just say they believe. Because if belief is saying you believe in X when confronted with either data against X or the complete lack of data for X, what is the rational argument against such a belief? But then when their life or limb or country or money is on the line, then they do what needs to be done and either ignore the mysticism or work it in as an add on. There was no antivenom in Antiquity, so since there was nothing to do for a snake bite, why not tell people to look at a statue and direct their devotion heavenward? But we now have antivenom – would a Torah written today instruct people to look heavenward while taking antivenom, or would it still just say to look heavenward with no greater efforts? Likely the former.
Those who do not believe in mysticism likely do not believe in Adam or his curse. And when you say that chareidim agree, what does that mean? From the non-mystical perspective, it sounds like you saying “this group of people agree that unicorns were in fact cloven hoof ruminants, rather than magically modified horses.” What is the non-mystical perspective supposed to say to that? There is an impasse.
>>>And the answer is that although there is not necessarily an EMPIRICAL correlation, yes, you will find that Chassidim in Williamsburg hustling away in real estate are WAY more likely to make it big than Israeli yungerleit in Kiryat Sefer. I could think of a bunch of possible ways of explaining this but that's not the point. The point is that Charedim didn't come up with this concept and this question isn't new. Charedim are just more likely to accept the teachings of Chazal whether they understand them or not because they trust in the eternal truth of the Torah, and not try to dismiss them with empirical observations as the doc is oh-so-smugly insinuating should be done. But the doc is correct that on a practical level, most people will expend more effort if they want to see more results.>>>
Your last sentence is telling. It’s easy to seek treatment for an ailment while still claiming that one believes in mysticism, and then ascribe the success of the treatment to the mysticism. It’s much more difficult to avoid treatment and claim that treatment will be unhelpful because mystical outcomes have already been predetermined.
Woah, Dr. Buster. Phil Buster, that is. Are you an atheist by any chance? You sound just like Richard Dawkins. Let's see if you can answer this without filibustering again.
I am an Orthodox Jew who knows both sides of the argument.
The same as you, it seems.
>>>Are you an atheist by any chance? You sound just like Richard Dawkins.>>>
Interesting question and comment though. What made you ask and say this? Is there anything here you don't agree with? Or do you agree with all of this and you're an atheist, and so you're wondering if I am too?
These kinds of comments put in to words what so many who delve (unsuccessfully) in to religion decry, and deride: religious arguments not real arguments, and not real debates on the merits. The religious perspective is always a "heads I win, tails you lose," version of an argument. It really is part of the fun to "go with it," and "turn off your mind." It is a powerful way of "thinking," that I have felt, and ultimately turned away from. But, it is quite powerful to be caught up in the throes of it. We are only human, and want to feel delicious feelings, and not live quite so relentlessly in reality. Very well put.
As i said in another comment, it is ironic, because in many ways Jews were known for pouring could water on magical thinking. Freud brought psychoanalytic theory to the world, lifting the lid on conscious motives. It was the "Jewish science," and was annoying to those interested in magical thinking, and not analytic perspectives.
Religious Jews pushed back from this, and find magical thinking a lot more fun. (They are of course, not the only ones.)
I've heard the argument made that sure if you work more you'll make more money but the "bracha" won't be there. God preordains how much "bracha" (ill-defined word) you will experience from your money but not necessarily how much money you will receive.
So while person A does minimal hishtadlus and person B does more - and perhaps makes more money - that extra money ostensibly goes to lawyers and bills etc.
Of course there is no evidence to support this assertion but c'mon "I know tons of people..."
I remember being very perturbed by this whilst studying in yeshiva. I finally summoned the courage to ask a certain Rav Moshe Stav. Expecting some profound explanation, his answer was short and simple: ‘we see it doesn’t quite work this way’, and off he strode. I felt very sheepish at having asked such a dumb question, but it was an important life lesson.
I'm probably slightly dense, but what was the important life-lesson?
Intellectual honestly, in a nutshell. Accept a plain reality, even if it disagrees with one’s instruction manual for how God ought to run the world. Forget the acrobatics… and move on with life.
The truth is, I don't think anyone really knows, rishon, acharon or otherwise.
I remember a Pnei Yehoshua in Shabbos discussing schar v'onesh and saying that nobody actually knows how it works.
I find it curious that one can observe this as a fact, but then stop there. If we don't know how something works, it's possible that it's a so called "black box".
In other words, input is entered and output exits and we're unsure as to why a given stimulus generated a given response. It could be that there's a good reason why X produces X' why Y produces Y' and it could be that there's no good reason, and we just need more information to figure it out. Or it could be that there is no good reason, and that the correlation is absent. A third possibility is that there's a good reason but that the information necessary to figure it out is so astronomically massive that virtually no amount of information would give us sufficient basis for then figuring out the pattern. So if we were unfamiliar with pi, let's say, and when a digit was entered (let's say 192) the corresponding digit in pi (the 192nd digit in pi) was generated, how long would it take us to figure this out? Well, I'm not a mathematician, but I suppose there are infinite examples of infinitely repeating decimal sequences, we might never be able to figure out a given pattern, even though it's an actual pattern.
So maybe we can figure things out and maybe we can't and maybe when we can't, it can be because we can't yet or because we won't ever, either because the time commitment is too large (and so the pattern is indiscernible) or because there's actually no pattern. With AI, we may have a chance to figure out previously indiscernible patterns, but maybe another level of AI is necessary to figure out the next level of indiscernible things.
I wonder that more people don't consider things this way.
It's the famous question of tzadik v'ra lo. It's the message of sefer Iyov.
See happygolucky's take on this post here:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/its-all-greek-to-me
That post avoids the discussion in what some might say a typical charedi fashion of ad homenium attack instead of a substantive argument. As the things stand now - RNS touche!
I explained that the premise of the discussion is a mistake. There is nothing substantive in RNS's post to argue about. I believe you may be thinking of classic legitimate questions such as צדיק ורע לו רשע וטוב לו.
I disagree that there's nothing substantive to discuss, but I agree that it was written in an inflammatory manner.
Now whether it was needlessly inflammatory, that's editorializing. Perhaps Slifkin's point here is to be inflammatory, and thus be thought provoking and to stimulate a discussion. And perhaps not.
I wonder if we can really claim a factual correlation between hishtadlus and parnasa. I think that many, even irreligious people, would claim that the world is a very unfair place, and some with little effort do incredibly well, whilst other who work really hard, see little success.
Hishtadlus is not worth much if you are not any good at what you are doing. Hard well directed work results in profit. Badly directed work is unlikely to.
“I’m sure that creative Gemara minds can come up with some sort of intellectual gymnastics to resolve it. But have they even thought about it?”
In this paragraph, you’ve conceded that you’re approaching this with bad faith, and have already made up your mind that you’re not willing to take the other side seriously.
Actually I already tested these questions on people.
I question your framing of their position. Do they really believe that physical movements geared toward making parnassa are just random movements that have no correlation with parnassa? If so, do you have a source for this? Or is their position more in line with say, how David responded to Goliath: “And all this assembly shall know that not with sword and javelin does the Lord save, for the battle is the Lord's, and He will deliver you into our hand,” and proceeded to kill him without armor, and a mere slingshot? A so-called “rationalist” understanding of hishtadlus would lead people to call David crazy for undertaking this endeavor.
Speaking of which, how do you reconcile your understanding of physical action with the story of David (and many other stories throughout Tanach)?
100%. Bad faith may as well be his second name.
This actually could have been a normal post, had it not been framed as a "chareidi" question. I mean, how to modern orthodox deal with this question? Do they think parnassa comes only from your hishtadlus? What do they do about all the מאמרי חז"ל that say the exact opposite?
Anyhow, to answer the question itself, I think most chareidim would tell you that there is no correlation between the amount of hishtadlus and the amount of money you will get, exactly as you quoted in the name of Rav Shteinman. The chovos halevovos elaborates on this.
Now there is obviously more to say about this. The Chovos Halevovos says you do need to do some hishtadlus, and the alter of Novahrdok famously disagrees. I wouls think you need to be on a high madreiga to get parnassa with zero hishtadlus, because that would be the equivalent of having a miracle happen for you. And generally the rule is that Hashem does not do miracles, עולם כמנהגו נוהג.
I don't see the problem with this approach. Defintiely in my own personal life I see little correlation between my hishtadlus and my parnassa. I can't speak on Natan's behalf.
Note the contradiction between what you claim most people believe and what the comment above by Josephs claims that most people believe.
I think part of the confusion here is the idea that one can measure hishtadlus in any sort of way that makes sense beyond "doing nothing" vs. "doing something".
What is more hishtadlus, applying for food stamps or getting a job that pays as much as foodstamps? What is more hishtadlus, spending 4 years getting a BA in History, or spending 4 years working in sales? What is more hishtadlus, leaving yeshiva before one gets married to start a career, or marrying a girl who already has one and staying in kollel for several years?
NS would probably say something like going to college vs. not going, but is there empirical evidence that WITHIN the chareidi community, the college goers have better parnassa than say, the people who went into real estate?
In the charedi world maybe it's divinely granted. In the real world it's a combination of preparation, hard work, connections, and other factors that where magical thinking has no measurable effect. Ever since Adam and Eve left Gan Edan we have earned our bread by the sweat of our brows just like Hashem said
To borrow from a classic Muslim story:
"I don't understand. My camel ran away!"
"Did you tie it up?"
"I trusted in G-d."
"Trust in G-d, but first tether your camel."
Back in my more charedi days I gave this a lot of thought. I fully bought into 1, so 2 definitely bothered me. A lot. Where I ended up was something like this:
The axis that you are measuring "parnasa" for 1 and 2 are fundamentally different. 1 would be parnasa in the sense of life satisfaction, having what you need when you need it, being happy with what you have. For 2 you have parnasa in the sense of wealth. So you can have a correlation between chasing money and having money, while at the same time having no correlation between chasing money and getting where you are "meant to be".
While I can see reasons why that's not a satisfying answer for some, and you could argue that being more economically productive and driven is a good thing for society at large, ultimately there is some truth in it - at least in the modern welfare state world we live in. And it doesn't just apply to charedim either. Some people have a simpler attitude to life where they don't stress about money, and basically just make do with what they have. For such people, you could argue "maavirin memenu ol malchus veol derech eretz" (obviously in a sense). I am not one of those people, but I sometimes wish I was.
While the official 'party line' may be that the answer to 1 is yes, if you speak to the average common man sitting in a random row in shul, there's a really good chance he'll say the answer is no, or he'll say that while parnasa is ultimately in Hashem's hands, what we do certainly makes a difference in large part. People are not as single-minded as they seem from the pages of Mishpacha or the latest shul lecha dodi dvar torah pamphlet. And even many chareidi rabbis understand that practically speaking, there is nuance, and we must take the real world reality into account.
Many people will speak of the truth of the abstract idea of Hashem controlling the world; some might also point out situations where someone did or didn't do hishtadlus and the outcome was different than expected; and a smaller number of people might also mention as an abstract idea that a person with pure, absolute emuna would require very minimal hishtadlus, but even many in the last group probably understand that in practical reality this is almost non-existent, or perhaps there might be a small number of people where this idea is a partial reality for them, but not entirely, since almost no one is on the level of Rashbi (Berachot 35b).
For most people it's not a matter of intellectual gymnastics. They don't think very deeply, nor in stark black and white terms, and are comfortable with the abstract idea of control of the world by Hashem while they think of a large amount of the day to day facts on the ground as being due to worldly cause and effect, and to what they themselves do to bring about some of the effect.
Note the contradiction between what you claim most people believe and what the comment below by מרכבות פריה claims that most people believe,
From my expirience in real life most chareidi rabbies hustle like everyone else. As someone has already pointed out, this could have been a good discussion of the subject unrelated to charedim because there is a problem in reconciling the various oppinions of Hazal and the reality of life. But on this blog a discussion of a most interesting and fundamental topic becomes a waste of time.
You claim "classical Judaism would generally disagree with the first point" ((viz, that "parnasa is completely determined by Hashem based on spiritual reasons, and utterly unaffected by physical hishtadlus."
Leave aside the false straw man dichotomies, so typical of this blog, framing things in simplistic black and white. ("completely determined", "Utterly unaffected") Ask it the way a normal person would, whether the PRIMARY determinant is spiritual or toil. Of course, like most things in Judaism, there are enough sources to support either side of the debate, if a debate there is. And in no way, shape, or form does classical Judaism disagree that parnasah is primarily pre-determined by God.
In fact, if you're interested in surveys, don't ask about Charedim, which the readership of this blog can't help you with anyway. Ask it about modox. Try to determine their beliefs, and if it turns out they think its primarily hishtadlus based, ask how they reconcile their beliefs with the many contrary statements found in both the Bible and Chazal. I’m sure that creative doctors, lawyers, and accountants can come up with some sort of intellectual gymnastics to resolve it. But have they even thought about it?
You left out a 3rd possibility that is mentioned in chazal. The Gemara in Moed Katan 28a states: . אָמַר רָבָא: חַיֵּי, בְּנֵי וּמְזוֹנֵי, לָא בִּזְכוּתָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, אֶלָּא בְּמַזָּלָא תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא.
Tosafos at the end of kiddushin takes this very seriously. The Mishna 82a states: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ אוּמָּנוּת נְקִיָּה וְקַלָּה וְיִתְפַּלֵּל לְמִי שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׁר וְהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אוּמָּנוּת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת שֶׁלֹּא עֲנִיּוּת מִן הָאוּמָּנוּת וְלֹא עֲשִׁירוּת מִן הָאוּמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הַכֹּל לְפִי זְכוּתוֹ
Tosafos there comments: אלא הכל לפי זכותו - פירוש לפי מזלו דבני וחיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא:
So in fact there is an opinion that your livelihood is based not in your hishtadlus and not on your spiritual accomplishments but rather on your mazal. Some people are decreed to be rich and some poor.
You also have the Gemara in Nidda 16b which states: דדריש ר' חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקב"ה ואומר לפניו רבש"ע טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני
This Gemara also seems to say that how much money a person will have is decreed before he is born.
All very true. Al derech niglah, you see many people who just don't have the intelligence/personality/life skills to succeed financially - we all know they won't and they usually do not.
I'll introduce another wrinkle - what about the concept of "Hashem leads one along the path they choose" and bechira in general?
Consider the following common scenario: a bright yeshiva guy is meeting with his rosh yeshiva to discuss his future life plans. He is torn between pursuing kollel/chinuch or medical school. The pros and cons of both options are weighed. One of which is very obviously money. The simple truth is that this person has the option of CHOOSING to make more money or LESS money.
It seems like when people say "It doesn't matter what you do, you'll make the make same either way" it's in the context of encouraging people to focus more of their efforts on spiritual pursuits, and less on working, not to make an airtight philosophical statement. I think deep down, everyone knows the more you work, the more money you make.
. . . Not to mention there are entire periods of history that are poorer or wealthier than others. How does that effect the gezaira on an individual? Someone born now will be far richer and more comfortable than someone born 500 years ago.
The Ramchal writes #1. How would he answer #2? Was the correlation less obvious in his day?
This is what Ramchal writes:
הנה, הטפול והטרדה כבר דברנו מהם למעלה, כי בהיות האדם טרוד בעניני עולמו, הנה מחשבותיו אסורות בזיקי המשא אשר עליהם, ואי אפשר להם לתת לב אל המעשה. והחכמים עליהם השלום, בראותם זה אמרו (אבות ד, י): הוי ממעט בעסק ועסוק בתורה. כי הנה העסק מוכרח הוא לאדם לצורך פרנסתו, אך ריבוי העסק אינו מוכרח שיהיה כל כך גדול עד שלא יניח לו מקום אל עבודתו, על כן נצטוינו לקבוע עתים לתורה,
פרק ה' בבאור מפסידי הזהירות
Occupying oneself to obtain a livelihood is indeed necessary but it is not necessary to occupy oneself to such an extent that he has no room left for service [of G-d]. For this we were commanded to fix times for Torah study.
מסילת ישרים פרק כא
Translation from Sefaria
אמנם מה שיוכל לשמור את האדם ולהצילו מן המפסידים האלה הוא הבטחון, והוא שישליך יהבו על ה' לגמרי, כאשר ידע כי ודאי אי אפשר שיחסר לאדם מה שנקצב לו, וכמו שאז"ל במאמריהם (ביצה ט"ז א): כל מזונותיו של אדם קצובים לו מראש השנה וגו', וכן אמרו (יומא ל"ח ב): אין אדם נוגע במוכן לחבירו אפילו כמלא נימא.
However, that which can protect a person and save him from these detriments is trust in G-d. Namely, that a person casts his burden entirely upon G-d, knowing that it is certainly impossible for a man to lack what was designated for him, as our sages taught: "all of a person's sustenance [for the year] is fixed for him from Rosh Hashana [to Yom Kippur]" (Beitzah 16a). Likewise, they said: "no man can touch what was prepared for his fellow even to the extent of a hair's breadth" (Yomah 38b).
וכבר היה אדם יכול להיות יושב ובטל והגזירה (גזירת קיצבת מזונות שקצבו לו בראש השנה) היתה מתקיימת, אם לא שקדם הקנס לכל בני אדם, (בראשית ג:יט): בזעת אפך תאכל לחם, אשר על כן חייב אדם להשתדל איזה השתדלות לצורך פרנסתו, שכן גזר המלך העליון.
A person could have sat idle and the decree would have been fulfilled (his designated portion would have come to him), had it not been preceded by the fine imposed on every human being: "by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread" (Gen.3:19), whereby a person is required to make some effort for obtaining his livelihood, for thus the exalted King decreed.
והרי זה כמס שפורע כל המין האנושי אשר אין להמלט ממנו. על כן (הואיל וכך גזר המלך) אמרו (ספרי): יכול אפילו יושב ובטל (יראה סימן ברכה) תלמוד לומר: בכל משלח ידך אשר תעשה (דברים כח:כ).
This is like a tax imposed on the human race which one cannot escape from paying. Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, said (Sifri 15:18): "I might think one can sit idle, but scripture says (Devarim 28:20): 'in all that you set your hand to do' ".
אך לא שההשתדלות הוא המועיל, אלא שהשתדלות מוכרח, וכיון שהשתדל הרי יצא ידי חובתו, וכבר יש מקום לברכת שמים שתשרה עליו ואינו צריך לבלות ימיו בחריצות והשתדלות, הוא מה שכתב דוד המלך ע"ה (תהלים עה:ז-ח): כי לא ממוצא וממערב ולא וגו', כי אלהים שופט וגו' ושלמה המלך ע"ה אמר (משלי כג:ד): "אל תיגע להעשיר מבינתך חדל".
Only that it is not the efforts (hishtadlut) that help. Rather, the efforts are necessary, but once one has put in some effort, he has already discharged his obligation and there is place for the blessing of Heaven to rest upon him, and he need not consume his days in exertion and labor. This is what king David said: "For not from the east or from the west, nor from... but it is G-d who executes judgment, [putting down one and lifting up another]" (Tehilim 75:7-8), and king Shlomo said: "Do not weary yourself to grow rich; cease applying your understanding" (Mishlei 23:4).
אלא הדרך האמיתי הוא דרכם של החסידים הראשונים עושים תורתן עיקר ומלאכתן טפלה, וזה וזה נתקיים בידם, כי כיון שעשה אדם קצת מלאכה משם והלאה אין לו אלא לבטוח בקונו ולא להצטער על שום דבר עולמי, אז תשאר דעתו פנויה ולבו מוכן לחסידות האמיתי ולעבודה התמימה.
Rather, the true path is that of the "early Pious ones", who made their Torah primary and their work secondary, and succeeded in both (Berachot 35b). For once a man does a little work, from then on, he need only trust in his Master, and not be distressed by any worldly matters. Then his mind will be free and his heart ready for true Chasidut and perfect divine service.
There is a difference between Chapter 5 Zehirus (Watchfulness) and chapter 21 Chasiddus. Divine Providence is dependent on the level of the individual. הרבה עשו כי רבי שמעון ולא עלתה בידם... because they were not on the level of Rabbi Shimon. תורה מה תהיה עליה? They are LIVING the Torah by engaging with the world in accordance with Torah's legal and moral framework. This is Torah. לא כל אחד זוכה לשתי שולחנות.
The Ramchal is chapter 21 is also promoting hishtadlus. RSHBY promoted doing NO hishtadlus. And even the followers of his disputant R' Yishmael discouraged an excessive amount of hishtadlus. But then again, they were advising how to maximize one's life for limud HaTorah and not giving advise on how to get rich.
I’ll try: those who stay in learning are on a higher madreigah. They are thus judged more harshly for their misdeeds. Also they are rewarded for their ameilus by having all of their punishment extracted in Olam Hazeh so as to preserve their Olam Haba. Finally, for them, less Parnassah is a reward because it keeps them focused on Torah and not cars. R Steinman knew all this, but he also knew not to say it because those starting out would be on a lower level and would not understand and might be discouraged from pursuing this righteous path.
Hashem decides. However, sometimes, He takes into consideration whether the person did the amount of hishtadlut expected of him.
It could actually be that someone on a high spiritual level will receive less as he is not so interested in material things. Once, a man asked Rav Aryeh Levine if he should look for a better paying job. He told Rav Aryeh, who had a much lower salary, how much he earned and that it was before taxes. Rav Aryeh said "that is not enough for you". On the other hand, another man was told that in his present job he had honor, which Rav Aryeh did not want at all for himself,
It seems clear to me that if one's perspective is to make decisions based on evidence, then following the evidence is the way to go on this. And if one's perspective is to make decisions in some other manner, then no amount of evidence will suffice one way or another because evidence is not what one is interested in.
To me, this is argument doesn't stand alone in a vacuum. Rather, it seems to fit nicely with similar disputes in regard to maintaining an army or having a police presence or maintaining one's health. How much contribution is necessary?
Well, from the perspective that there's some sort of metaphysical involvement, how are you supposed to argue against that? You can't. If you tell someone that their lucky constellation or their god doesn't play a role, but they didn't arrive at this perspective because of evidence, you can't use evidence to convince them out of this perspective. So to say that a greater human contribution is necessary when it comes to protecting your home / family from thieves or your country from invasion or your home from fire or your body from infection...it's really a silly conversation, as I see it, for anyone other than someone with a truly open mind..
וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים משֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' (שמות יז), וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה. אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר (במדבר כא), עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל נֵס, וְהָיָה כָּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי. וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה. אֶלָּא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִים, וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נִמּוֹקִים.
This is from R"H (3rd perek). Someone with a very religious perspective can refer to this and say that everything is in God's hands, and you can't argue with them from within the religious perspective, really, because as soon as you argue against their principles, you are branded an outsider. How in the world can you heal someone from a snake bite with prayer? It's preposterous! But it's only preposterous from a natural viewpoint. Supernaturally, everything is possible. It's just that we have no evidence that this ever occurs or has ever occurred. Those who believe will say it doesn't matter and those who don't believe will say that's all that matters. And so we're at an impasse.
Woah. No one said that NO hishtadlus is necessary. Even the doc isn't accusing Charedim of thinking that. Charedim visit doctors, have Hatzalah, Shomrim, good relations with their local police department and politicians etc. What the doc is asking is that if hishtadlus is just token effort that we must expend because of Adam's curse, but everything is really min hashamayim, do Charedim agree that there is an empirical correlation between the AMOUNT of hishtadlus done and the AMOUNT of success.
And the answer is that although there is not necessarily an EMPIRICAL correlation, yes, you will find that Chassidim in Williamsburg hustling away in real estate are WAY more likely to make it big than Israeli yungerleit in Kiryat Sefer. I could think of a bunch of possible ways of explaining this but that's not the point. The point is that Charedim didn't come up with this concept and this question isn't new. Charedim are just more likely to accept the teachings of Chazal whether they understand them or not because they trust in the eternal truth of the Torah, and not try to dismiss them with empirical observations as the doc is oh-so-smugly insinuating should be done. But the doc is correct that on a practical level, most people will expend more effort if they want to see more results.
>>>Woah. No one said that NO hishtadlus is necessary.>>>
Once someone claims that mysticism is true and that the supernatural not only can, but does, occur, I don’t know if it’s meaningful to argue with them regarding the possibility and probability of the various degrees of mystical and supernatural occurrence. It’s like arguing whether unicorns have split hooves (because they are essentially magical goats) or not (because they are essentially magical horses), but one person in the argument doesn’t believe they even exist in the first place.
So when someone wants to discuss reality as they see it (without mysticism) with someone who wants to discuss reality as they believe it to be because of what they’ve read in holy books (with mysticism), how should such a discussion proceed? If there’s a dispute as to whether a mystical or supernatural role in finances or health or military conquest or protection exists, how can there be a discussion of the magnitude of said role?
The probability of all events is on a scale of 0 to 1 with 1 being literally definite and 0 being literally impossible. Because we can talk about 0.2 and even 0.25 as partial integers, it’s arbitrary that the scale is 0 to 1, and it could have been drawn as 0 to 100 or 0 to 1000…whatever. Sure, you can go to college and graduate school and try to get a great job and then it doesn’t work out. Maybe you pick nose at every interview and wipe in on your tie, or maybe you’re a passive aggressive jerk or maybe it’s something way more subtle. But the universe almost never works with things being 0 or 1 – almost everything is something of a gray area, no matter how dark or light that gray may be. For 5 or 20 or 100 years, we put marks on a chart as to how we’ve observed things for those 5, 20 or 100 years and then we can, with some degree of confidence (usually more confidence with more time and more instances, and so more data points) comment on future events that we haven’t even observed yet. Usually, we can’t really speak about any particular event, because statistics are usually super accurate in the aggregate but often highly unpredictive in any given case. Just like the US Dream Team had all the greats on it and we can predict with, let’s say, 0.8 probability that they’d win the championships against any other basketball team, we can’t necessarily know which individual games they’d win or lose. So too, we can say that there’s X chance of contracting HIV from a needle stick, assuming Y depth of penetration and Z viral load of the infected individual who the needle had already been in. That being said, these are statistics, and so they are very accurate across the population but you can’t complain that the universe doesn’t work or that statistics don’t work if in a particular situation, you had only a 20% chance of contracting HIV and you got it. You can’t complain that the 80% was bogus. And we use the word “science” to be a quick, one-word term to explain how the universe works based on many years of observation and data collection.
Prayer won’t change the average of HIV contractors among needle stick victims. Maybe a mystical person would claim that it would modify the individual’s rate of contracting, but if all 10,000 needle stick victims prayed, then the mystic would have to shift, and claim that some of the praying victims didn’t exhibit sufficient devotion in prayer, or that they prayed, but they simply didn’t deserve it. Be that as it may, there’s no data that supports the contention that leaving things up mystical involvement changes anything, and so once such an assertion is being made without evidence, and the ones making such assertions are ignoring evidence, it’s very easy to then make even wilder claims. What’s wild about a claim if it’s never subjected to rigorous testing and evaluation? Claims are wild when they don’t scale with the data. But if there is no data and we don’t even care about data, then what makes them wild. And so for the mystic, I don’t see why one has to worry about claims that one can put in literally zero effort and still get the job or be cured of the illness or avoid invasion, etc.
>>>Even the doc isn't accusing Charedim of thinking that. Charedim visit doctors, have Hatzalah, Shomrim, good relations with their local police department and politicians etc. What the doc is asking is that if hishtadlus is just token effort that we must expend because of Adam's curse, but everything is really min hashamayim, do Charedim agree that there is an empirical correlation between the AMOUNT of hishtadlus done and the AMOUNT of success.>>>
I’m not R’ Slifkin, so I can’t speak for him. But he’s an opinion on the matter, not an authority, so neither of us need match our views to his. Isn’t it possible that no one actually believes in mysticism and that they just talk about it all the time? And so when they score the touchdown, they thank the baby Jesus and prostrate themselves on the field. And they do all these extra things that never actually matter in the realm of mysticism (since there really is no realm of mysticism) but just say they believe. Because if belief is saying you believe in X when confronted with either data against X or the complete lack of data for X, what is the rational argument against such a belief? But then when their life or limb or country or money is on the line, then they do what needs to be done and either ignore the mysticism or work it in as an add on. There was no antivenom in Antiquity, so since there was nothing to do for a snake bite, why not tell people to look at a statue and direct their devotion heavenward? But we now have antivenom – would a Torah written today instruct people to look heavenward while taking antivenom, or would it still just say to look heavenward with no greater efforts? Likely the former.
Those who do not believe in mysticism likely do not believe in Adam or his curse. And when you say that chareidim agree, what does that mean? From the non-mystical perspective, it sounds like you saying “this group of people agree that unicorns were in fact cloven hoof ruminants, rather than magically modified horses.” What is the non-mystical perspective supposed to say to that? There is an impasse.
>>>And the answer is that although there is not necessarily an EMPIRICAL correlation, yes, you will find that Chassidim in Williamsburg hustling away in real estate are WAY more likely to make it big than Israeli yungerleit in Kiryat Sefer. I could think of a bunch of possible ways of explaining this but that's not the point. The point is that Charedim didn't come up with this concept and this question isn't new. Charedim are just more likely to accept the teachings of Chazal whether they understand them or not because they trust in the eternal truth of the Torah, and not try to dismiss them with empirical observations as the doc is oh-so-smugly insinuating should be done. But the doc is correct that on a practical level, most people will expend more effort if they want to see more results.>>>
Your last sentence is telling. It’s easy to seek treatment for an ailment while still claiming that one believes in mysticism, and then ascribe the success of the treatment to the mysticism. It’s much more difficult to avoid treatment and claim that treatment will be unhelpful because mystical outcomes have already been predetermined.
Woah, Dr. Buster. Phil Buster, that is. Are you an atheist by any chance? You sound just like Richard Dawkins. Let's see if you can answer this without filibustering again.
I am an Orthodox Jew who knows both sides of the argument.
The same as you, it seems.
>>>Are you an atheist by any chance? You sound just like Richard Dawkins.>>>
Interesting question and comment though. What made you ask and say this? Is there anything here you don't agree with? Or do you agree with all of this and you're an atheist, and so you're wondering if I am too?
He's just unafraid.
These kinds of comments put in to words what so many who delve (unsuccessfully) in to religion decry, and deride: religious arguments not real arguments, and not real debates on the merits. The religious perspective is always a "heads I win, tails you lose," version of an argument. It really is part of the fun to "go with it," and "turn off your mind." It is a powerful way of "thinking," that I have felt, and ultimately turned away from. But, it is quite powerful to be caught up in the throes of it. We are only human, and want to feel delicious feelings, and not live quite so relentlessly in reality. Very well put.
As i said in another comment, it is ironic, because in many ways Jews were known for pouring could water on magical thinking. Freud brought psychoanalytic theory to the world, lifting the lid on conscious motives. It was the "Jewish science," and was annoying to those interested in magical thinking, and not analytic perspectives.
Religious Jews pushed back from this, and find magical thinking a lot more fun. (They are of course, not the only ones.)