 |
Hashgachah Pratis:
Divine providence, hashgachah pratis, in Jewish spirituality is explored & elucidated in this masterful Jewish book on the Jewish view of divine providence, with a wealth of Torah sources to help us understand a pillar of our Jewish faith.
|
Chapter 1
The Traditional Approach
Human beings are governed by specific individual divine providence.1 This means that every single thing that occurs in an individual’s life is ordained by God. Even the seemingly insignificant things happen because God wants them to happen. This approach is well grounded in the literature of Chazal. The Talmud in tractate Chulin (7b) states:
Man does not stub his toe below [i.e., in this world] unless it has been decreed so in Heaven.
This is also the implication of the Talmud in tractate Erchin (16b), which discusses the extent of divinely ordained suffering. The implication is that even those events that have a minimal effect on an individual’s life are a result of divine providence:
How far does the definition of suffering extend? Rabbi Elazar said: [For example,] whoever has a garment woven for him but it does not fit him properly... Even if they intended to mix [one’s wine] with hot water, but instead they mixed it with cold, or [they intended to mix his wine with] cold water, but they mixed it with hot water... Mar the son of Ravina said: Even if his shirt was reversed. Rava, or some say, Rav Chisda, or some say Rav Yitzchak, or some say, a tanna, taught: Even if one extended his hand into his purse to take out three coins and two came in his hand.
The Rambam notes in his Moreh Nevuchim (3:17) that there are no sources in the Bible or Talmud that specific individual divine providence applies to non-humans. Hence, the Rambam advances his theory that only human beings are governed with specific individual divine providence. All other creations — the animals, plants, and inanimate objects — are governed through general species divine providence.
To illustrate this distinction: The death of a specific person is divinely ordained and is a direct result of God’s desire for this specific person to die. However, regarding horses, for instance, the life or death of a specific horse is not directly ordained by God. God rather desires for a certain number of horses to die, as he sees fit for the needs of the species or the world. Which horses specifically dies is not directly ordained by God.
This view would correctly be called the traditional view, as it is the most popular approach presented by Jewish thinkers from the times of the Rishonim and early Achronim.2 A careful reading of the excerpts below will yield a fuller understanding of the traditional approach. (A thorough study of the original Hebrew passages would be most advantageous to the reader.)
In Moreh Nevuchim the Rambam dedicates a few chapters to an exposition of divine providence. In section 3, chapter 17, he outlines four different approaches to understanding divine providence, all incorrect in his opinion, before suggesting his own:
The first view is the claim of some people that there is no divine providence at all regarding anything in existence, and everything that exists, in heaven and on earth, is merely a result of chance and happenstance. There is no organizer, director, or watchman over anything. This view is pure heresy3...The second view is the opinion of those who believe that over some things there is divine providence, and these are directed by a director and organized by an organizer, but other things are left to chance. This is the view of Aristotle...
The third view is the opinion of those who believe that nothing in existence is a result of chance, not specific individuals nor general groups; rather, everything is with [divine] will, intent, and direction...This view is held by the Muslim school [of theologians] known as the Asharites4 ...
The fourth view is the opinion of those who believe that all divine acts are a result of a divine wisdom which can bear no injustice [even in regard to animals and inanimate objects]... The Mu’tazilites5 subscribe to this view...and this view leads them to believe absurdities...they will even say about a guiltless mouse that is devoured by a cat or bird that God decreed this fate for this mouse, and God will compensate this mouse in Heaven for what happened...
After reviewing these four incorrect views the Rambam presents his own perspective.6
The fifth view is our view, that is, the Torah’s view... that man is completely in control of his actions, he has complete free will and acts on his own accord...and everything that occurs to man is fitting to occur...
The Rambam then continues and presents what we are calling the traditional approach.
I believe that divine providence in this lower world, that is under the lunar spheres, is directed towards the human species alone. Only [the human] species is governed [with divine providence] — in every detail [of life], and all good and bad that occurs to him — in accordance with what he deserves... However regarding all other animals, and even more so the plants and other inanimate objects, my view is that of Aristotle. I do not believe at all that this specific leaf falls as a result of divine providence, nor that this spider devours this specific fly as a result of a divine decree on this individual fly. Furthermore, I do not believe that when Reuven spits and the spit lands on a specific mosquito in a specific place and kills the mosquito, that this was fulfillment of a heavenly decree, nor that when a fish snatches a specific worm floating on the river that such was the will of the Lord. Rather all of the aforementioned occurrences are completely chance, as Aristotle contends.
FOOTNOTES
1. At this point we are speaking in general terms. Based on our discussion
in later chapters, a sharper and more correct statement would be: Human
beings could be governed by specific individual divine providence. As
we will develop in those chapters, many thinkers postulate that not all
humans, at all times in their lives, are governed by specific individual divine
providence.
2. The term Rishonim, “early ones,” refers to Jewish scholars who flourished
from the close of the Gaonic period (tenth century) through the codification
of the Shulchan Aruch (fifteenth century). The term Achronim, “later
ones,” refers to Jewish scholars who flourished from the codification of the
Shulchan Aruch through the present.
3. Alternative translation: “This is the view of [the ancient Greek philosopher]
Epicurus.”
4. The Asharite School of early Muslim theology was founded by the theologian
Abu l’Hasan al-Ashari (d. 945). The Asharites believed that comprehension
of the unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human
capability. They opposed Greek philosophy and were instrumental in
distancing Muslim philosophy from Christian philosophy.
5. The Mu’tazilite School of early Muslim theology was originated in eighth century
Basrah, and became the official court belief of the Abbasid Caliphate. Mu’tazilites called
themselves Ahl al-’Adl wa al-Tawhid (People
of Justice and Monotheism) based on the theology they advocated, which
expanded on the logic and rationalism of Greek philosophy, seeking to
combine them with Islamic doctrines, and show that they were inherently
compatible.
6. We will assume that the fifth approach, which he calls “The Torah’s view,”
is the same as the Rambam’s opinion, which begins with the words “I
believe.” It is beyond the scope of this work to address the possibility that
the Rambam suggests a sixth approach when he says “I believe.” For those
interested in further study of the Rambam’s opinion, beyond our discussion
in this work, be aware that at least three locations in the Moreh Nevuchim
must be studied: 3:17–18, 3:22–23, and 3:51.
Buy Hashgachah Pratis at an online discount at www.targum.com