[Avodah] Feedback, causality & G-d

[Daniel Eidensohn]

I have received a number of replies which indicate I need to clarify my
question. First let me present the following quote from Rav Yaakov
Kaminetsky where he notes the nature of effort is a dispute between the
Ramban and Chovas HaLevavos. This is my translation found in my Daas Torah
page 711

Symbolic act or causes success? -- Chovas HaLevavos versus Ramban Rav
Yaakov Kaminetsky(Emes L'Yaakov Bechukosai): The typical understanding
of the Ramban is that in truth it is prohibited for a person to utilize
doctors and medical treatment but should rely totally on Gd to cure
him... In contrast the typical understanding of the Chovas HaLevavos
(4:4) is that man needs to act as if he is helping Gd provide him with his
sustenance. Thus it is understood that the Ramban takes a more stringent
position that eschews personal effort while the Chovas HaLevavos requires
a person to exert himself and not rely on his spiritual merit. However
a closer look at the Chovas HaLevavos reveals that he is in fact more
stringent in the matter of personal effort. His actual position (4:3) is
that the sole reason for the effort is to be involved in building society
[which Gd requires to keep him busy and away from sin]. Thus the effort
is a mitzva like any other mitzva of the Torah and does not cause him
to reach the goal but is only a perquisite for Gd to give him what one
wants. That is why the Chovas HaLevavos says that one should not change
jobs even if he sees he is not being successful in a particular line of
work. [It is only a formality and thus the lack of success is not because
of the job but because Gd doesn't want to give him what he wants]. The
view of the Ramban is just the opposite. If a person is not completely
perfect than in fact he exists totally in the framework of nature. As such
he of necessity must work in order to achieve his goals. Work and effort
therefore is real and not just a formality. [Consequently according to the
Ramban it could make a difference as to how he is doing his job or what
job he is doing] This can readily be seen in Ramban's comments concerning
medicine. He says that if a person takes a natural approach and utilizes
a doctor he will consequently actually need the doctor to be cured. This
can also be seen from the gemora (Berachos 60a) that if a person prays
after the 40th day of conception that the baby be a boy it is considered
to be a meaningless effort -- even though the gemora indicates that the
matriarchs did in fact succeed in changing the gender of their unborn
children miraculously through pray. They had the ability since according
to their way of existence miracles were a natural thing for them and they
had a different set of rules. [Thus according to the Ramban there are
two totally different modes of functioning and one cannot combine them].

------------------------------

*[i]* **אמת ליעקב (בחוקתי)* עיין רמב"ן כאן שהאריך בענין מדת הבטחון,
ודעתו היא שעל פי האמת אסור לו לאדם לשאול ברופאים אלא ישיליך על ד' יהבה,
וסיים כי ברצות ה' דרכי איש אין לו עסק ברופאים ועיי"ש שביאר באריכות.
והנה החובת הלבבות [עיין שער הבטחון פרק ד'] סובר שעל האדם להשתדל עד כמה
שיכול להרפא בדרך הטבע, ועיי"ש. והנה נדמה בעינינו כי לדעת חובת הלבבות
צריך הוא האדם לסייע כביכול להקב"ה - שעל ידי הסיבה הזאת יוכל לפרנסו,
וכן מבינים רוב בני העולם ודומים הם כי הרמב"ן הוא המחמיר בנדון זה. אבל
המעיין בחובת הלבבות יראה כי הוא הנהו המחמיר בזה, אלא שהוא סובר כי כל ענין
ההתעסקות הוא מפני יישוב העולם [הכונה למש"כ בחובת הלבבות שער הבטחון פרק ג'
שאמר מן הסיבות שהצריך השי"ת את האדם לעמול על פרנסתו הוא משום שבלי זה יהיה
לו זמן פנוי לרדוף אחר תאוותיו וכו' עי"ש.] והרי זו מצוה ככל מצות שבתורה,
ולפיכך כותב הוא שהאדם לא ישנה את מלאכתו ואף שרואה הוא שאינו מצליח במלאכתו
זאת. אבל לדעת הרמב"ן אדרבה - אם האדם אינו בתכלית השלימות נמסר הוא למערכות
הטבע ואז צריך הוא לעבוד באמת כדי להתפרנס על ידי זה, כי כן כתב לענין רפואה
שאחרי שבא אל הרופא הרי הרופא צריך להזדקק לו כי הוא נמסר להנהגה הטבעית,
וכדמצינו בשלהי ברכות [ס.] דהמתפלל אחר מ' יום שיהא זכר ה"ז תפלת שוא,
ואעפ"כ האמהות התפללו מפני שלפי הנהגתם הנס היה אצלם לטבע ונשתנה דינם ודו"ק



On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:53 AM, harchinam <harchinam at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems that the official Jewish view is that human effort does not cause
>> success but only provides merit which justifies G-d making you successful.
>> This issue  cuts across a wide range of issues from child abuse, education,
>> parnossa etc etc.

> IIRC, the Rambam [and probably many others] holds that even though Hashem
> CAN just do anything in the blink of an eye and without any assistance, He
> created a system that we call teva in order that things should generally go
> according to the system [and nisim are those things that occur outside of
> this system] that would obscure His constant involvement. When we do
> hishtadlut of whatever form -- planting a field, sending out a resume, etc.
> -- we are merely providing the tzinor for the bracha to flow down through.
> So it is not really that we are providing merit, but instead the actual kli
> for the bracha to flow through in a figurative manner in order that things
> work according to the system of teva that Hashem set up.

this is not the view of the chovas halevavos and most others. Hishtadlus
merely needs to "appear" natural - such as buying a lottery ticket. You are
in fact paraphrasing the Ramban in regards to medicine. I just posted a
quote from Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky who says that this is a machlokes



On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Joel C. Salomon <joelcsalomon at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 01:04 PM, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> > I am working on the issue of feedback. I can not find any Jewish sources
> > regarding feedback - to pick a reference and modify behavior or
> > processes or efforts to maximize the referent.

> Is R' Aryeh Kaplan's idea about the point of free will, and how it
> moves, at all relevant?

I assume you mean Rav Dessler's point of free-will. He states that there
are only certain issues that you have genuine free-will. In that issue
he doesn't address the causality of your actions.



On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:55 PM, David Riceman <driceman at optimum.net> wrote:
> What about the Rambam's letter on astrology (Igros HaRambam, ed. Sheilat,
> pp. 478-490)? In the paragraph on p. 480 he blames hurban habayis on
> neglecting the study of war and instead studying astrology.

that is getting closer. But this could be understood that a person must
appear to act within teva but if he does so that it doesn't really matter
what weapons he uses and whether he uses good military strategy or bad.


On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> As some might recall from earlier debates in which I made bold claims
> about the mental life of animals -- or lack thereof -- I think this
> is Unqelus's point on the creation of man. The "nishmas chayim", the
> soul which turns Adam into a dynamic being, is "translated" to "ruach
> memalela". "Memalela" could be trivially taken to refer to a soul with
> the ability to speak to others. However, given the words being explained,
> I think Unqelus is pointing to the ability to "hear" one's own stream
> of consciousness.

your self-referent awareness is interesting and a topic in its own right.
There is a strange book , "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bicameral Mind by Princeton University psychologist Julian JaynesThe
Bicameral mind" directly looks at this and claims that this type of
thinking is relatively recent.

However I am not focusing on consciousness but rather effectiveness
or the natural of causality. When I teach my students - does it matter
how? If they don't learn is it my responsiblity to do something different?

In any act I do - is it necessary to pay attention to the effectiveness
of my action and modify the nature and intensity while monitoring the
consequences for a particular variable? Or is my effort merely a necessary
symbolic act - but not a sufficient condition for success?