[Avodah] Feedback, causality & G-d

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> 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?

At first, I was going to say that the answer will depend on the machlokes as you've explained it. According to the Chovos Halevavos ("one should not change jobs even if he sees he is not being successful in a particular line of work"), I suppose he should just keep on teaching in his usual way, but if he does more mitzvos and has more zechusim, then Hashem will give him more success.

But then I wanted to distinguish between teaching and other jobs. It seems cruel and inconceivable to imagine that the Chovos Halevavos would tell a teacher not to change jobs even if he sees that his students are not learning from him. Is it possible that students will learn or not learn depending on whether or not Hashem wants that teacher to be a successful or unsuccessful teacher?

And then I realized that this is exactly what happened with Paro and Yosef. Paro did a very poor job of explaining his dream, and left out some critical details. But Hashem wanted Yosef Hatzadik to be successful, and he understood even the things that Paro left out.

(Lest anyone think this example fits only the Chovos Halevavos, I would point out that it seems to fit RDE's explanation of Ramban too: Because Yosef was a tzadik, nature didn't apply, and no histadlus was necessary, so the omission of details was irrelevant.)

At this point, I'd like to move back from Yosef Hatzadik, and closer to our selves. RDE wrote:

> The view of the Ramban is just the opposite. If a person is not
> completely perfect then 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.

The older I get, the more wary I've become of such absolutist statements. Does the Ramban consider the possibility of a person who is *mostly* perfect? Would he accept that such a person exists *slightly* in the framework of nature?

The way RDE phrases it bothers me very much. I could be wrong, but I don't even like the idea of an *average* person being thrown out of Hashgacha Pratis and consigned to the laws of chance, or, as he put it, "totally in the framework of nature."

Even moreso am I bothered by the idea that only a "completely perfect" person would escape such a fate. Even Moshe Rabenu wasn't "completely perfect." Would the Ramban say that Moshe was "totally in the framework of nature", or would he concede that he was *slightly* in the framework of nature?

If RDE's use of the word "completely" was an error, or mere rhetoric, then I think this whole issue becomes moot on a practical level, because we are all somewhere in the middle, needing both work and zechusim.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e3afec94ab303e93b4st06vuc