Yosef : Is there Effortless Faith?
INTRODUCTION
TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA
PARASHAT
MIKETZ
YOSEF
IS THERE EFFORTLESS FAITH?
By
Rabbi Yaakov Beasley
Our
parasha begins two years after the end of Parashat Vayeishev. Yosef continues to languish in prison,
forgotten by the butler whom he had assisted. The scene shifts to the palace, where
disturbing dreams interrupt the sleep of Pharaoh. Deeply troubled, Pharaoh turns to his
trusted advisors for interpretation, but to no avail. The butler, finally remembering Yosef,
mentions a Hebrew lad that he once met while in prison. At the kings command, the servants
hurry Yosef out of prison to the palace.
Confronting the Egyptian king at last, Yosef calmly assures him that the
solution to his dreams will come from Hashem. He proceeds to explain that Pharaohs
dreams are no less then a Divine vision, foretelling seven years of amazing
plenty to be followed by seven years of excruciating famine. Yosef suggests that Pharaoh appoint a
wise man to supervise the gathering of the grain during the years of prosperity
to cope with the upcoming disaster.
Impressed, Pharaoh gives the task to Yosef, appointing him viceroy over
the land. As both Yosef and we
expected, his dreams of greatness are finally coming to
fruition.
One
aspect of Yosefs behavior troubles the Rabbis. In last weeks study, we suggested a
potential reason why Yosef, of all people, received the moniker Tzaddik
the righteous one. But the Rabbis were not above criticizing the behavior of
the forefathers when necessary. At the end of last weeks parasha, we
read, "and the chief butler did not remember Yosef, and he forgot him"
(40:23). Rashi comments that "since
Yosef placed his faith in him [the butler] to remember him [Yosef] to Pharaoh,
he was destined to be incarcerated for two years." Rashis
comment is based on the midrash (Bereshit Rabba 69:3):
Happy
is the man who trusts in Hashem.
This is Yosef. And who does not turn to the haughty - because Yosef spoke to
the butler, two years were added on. The
Targum
Yerushalmi elaborates in this vein:
Yosef
abandoned the heavenly kindness that accompanied him from the house of his
father, and placed his trust in the chief steward, in created flesh, flesh that
tastes of death, and he didn't remember the passage that states and explains,
Cursed shall be the man who relies upon flesh and makes flesh his stronghold
and blessed shall be the man that places his trust in Hashem and God will
be his stronghold. On account of this, the chief butler did not remember Yosef
and he forgot him until his time came to be redeemed.
Both
the Targum Yerushalmi and Rashi refer to Yosef's previous entreaty to the chief
butler:
If
you will only remember me when things are good with you and you will show
kindness to me and you will make mention of me to Pharaoh and bring me out of
this house. For I was stolen away from the land of the Hebrews; and here also
have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon.
(40:14,15)
According to this approach, it was apparently sinful that Yosef, after
interpreting the dreams of the chief baker and chief butler, should plead with
the chief butler to remember him to Pharaoh. This is perplexing, to say the
least. What did Yosef do wrong?
We
are not supposed to rely on miracles. Since when is
it
anathema to ask another human being for help when in need?
Doesn't
the Torah teach us that we should make use of all available means to bring about
beneficial results? Previously, we
saw that Yaakov Avinu engaged in multiple preparations before his confrontation
with his brother Eisav. He sent
elaborate gifts; he split the camp for military purposes. Only then did he turn in supplication
and prayer to Hashem a fact noted approvingly by Rashi. Why, then, should Yosef be
condemned for using, it would seem, the most natural method of securing his
freedom via the chief butler?
How
was Yosef to know that the chief wine steward was not the rope Hashem was
throwing to him to remove him from the dungeon? In a time of no direct communication,
was Yosef expected to wait for a heavenly voice to determine when and how he
would be released?
We
can discern two trends in rabbinic thought in dealing with this issue. The question that the Rabbis raise
regarding Yosefs behavior affects not only the specific case at hand, as a
matter of commentary on the Torah.
This question of the apparent conflict between having faith bitachon
- and ones own efforts to influence results hishtadlut
-
and
the resulting balance between them is one that we confront daily.[1]
The
first approach to explaining the rabbinic criticism of Yosef is that the
requirements for righteous people differ from those demanded of the average
individual. The average person must
use every human means possible (hishtadlut)
to save himself from a difficult situation. For a tzaddik
such as Yosef, however, this is considered a lacking in his reliance upon Hashem
(bitachon).[2] In the words of the Chassidic commentary
the Netivot Shalom:
When [a Jew] trusts in Hashem,
all the gates are open to him
If he reaches the highest level of
bitachon,
he requires no hishtadlut;
if not, he still requires some hishtadlut,
all according to the level of each individual. (Commentary ad.
loc.)
With
this dialectical approach as a guideline, the Rabbeinu Bachye outlines and
analyzes what he considers to be the continuum of degrees of faith, from the
lowest, which leaves a person no choice but to rely almost entirely on his own
efforts, to the highest, in which a person who trusts in Hashem will
allow events to unfold as they will.
Therefore, he concludes, when Yosef entreats the butler remember me,
this was a flaw in his faith, as it appeared that he was trying to dictate to
Hashem how he was to be rescued.
Imagine
a counter-factual scenario in which Yosef did nothing. Yosef interpreted the
dreams of the two dreamers who were with him in prison, and they were convinced
that he was correct. Within a few days, reality would corroborate his
interpretation. The chief butler
would have walked away dazzled by this young Hebrew who could foresee future
events. Yosef would have left an indelible impression upon him. But Yosef asked
him a favor. When Yosef requested
his assistance, the butlers estimation of him was seriously compromised. Baring his soul destroyed the idealized
image the butler had of him. Instead, the butler saw a man in need of his
favor. This is clear from the report the chief
butler subsequently gave of Yosef to Pharaoh two years later: "And there was
there with us a young man, 'naar,' a Hebrew servant to the officer of
the guard
" (41:12). The Rabbis point out that the chief butler was belittling
Yosef with these introductory remarks. The term naar carries with it a
connotation of foolishness.
However,
not all thinkers view the relationship between faith
(bitachon)
and ones own efforts to influence results (hishtadlut)
as one of opposites. One of the
most systematic treatments of this topic can be found in the Chazon
Ishs Emuna
U-Bitachon. While the Chazon Ish recognizes a range of levels of
faith (a master of bitachon will turn to teshuva,
whereas one of lesser faith will seek out natural means of salvation), he admits
that some acts constitute
permissible hishtadlut,
whereas others are prohibited according to the principle of
bitachon.
Before engaging in any activity, we must judge if it is in accordance with
bitachon.
How does the Chazon Ish explain the midrashs criticism of Yosef? He explains that Yosef knew that his
salvation was not dependent upon hishtadlut,
but that all was from Hashem. Since one is enjoined to act and not to
rely upon miracles, however, Yosef forced himself to ask the butler. But this
specific act was inappropiate, since Yosef knew that the butler was a haughty
individual and therefore could not realistically be expected to help him. Thus,
his turning to the butler was not a serious act of hishtadlut,
but rather an act of despair, in which one grabs at any ridiculous option for
salvation instead of relying upon Hashems exclusive powers of salvation.
This type of hishtadlut,
according to the Chazon Ish, is prohibited.
According
to this apprach, hishtadlut is required; we are not supposed to rely upon
miracles. However, certain acts are so far-fetched that they are disqualified
from the category of true hishtadlut.
In
the last speech that he ever gave, R.
Eliyahu Dessler provides his explanation of how one must balance personal
efforts and exertions with his trust in Hashem.[3]
If your faith is strong, you will be able to discern the spiritual trends that
are active in the world, in what direction they are propelling the world, and
you must direct your own efforts accordingly. Yosef was not
punished with an additional two years in prison because he asked the butler to
help him; everyone is required to act to save himself, and Yosef was correct to
approach the butler. His punishment came for a different reason he placed all
his hopes on the butler to save him.
During what was a momentary lapse, Yosef focused on the material means of
deliverance and forgot that Hashem directs the world and the pathways of
a person.
The
issues raised here are weighty ones, subject to individual circumstances and
situations. We should best conclude
with the words of King David, who as the ultimate man of faith, eloquently
expressed the questions weve raised:
I
have set Hashem before me always; because He is at my right hand I shall
not falter. For this reason my heart does rejoice and my soul is elated, my
flesh, too, rests in confidence: Because You will not abandon my soul to the
grave, You will not allow Your devout one to witness destruction. You will make
known to me the path of life, the fullness of joys in Your Presence, the
delights that are in Your right hand for eternity. (Tehillim
16:8-11)
[1] This tension exists in
several questions that appear to place value on human initiative. Regarding seeking medical treatment, the
clear normative view in Judaism is that of the Rambam (see Commentary to the
Mishna, Pesachim 4:9), who absolutely insists upon the use of
medicine and views treatment as a religious requirement. However, a minority view is expressed by
the Ramban in his commentary to Vayikra 26:11, who views medical
practices as a bi-dieved, showing a of lack of bitachon. (See the
commentary of the Taz to Yoreh Deah 336, where he eviscerates this
approach.) See the fascinating
Halachic discussions of R. Moshe Feinstein ztl regarding whether or not
buying insurance against future accidents reflects a lack of faith in
Hashems ability to care for us in the future (Iggerot Moshe,
Orach Chaim 2:111, 4:48). R. Feinstein says that insurance is in the same
category as other business activities, which he sees as not only permissible,
but also obligatory. He writes that not only is it prohibited to rely upon
miracles, it is also prohibited to pray to Hashem for a miracle for
parnasa, economic well-being. While one must believe that
ultimately his parnasa comes from Hashem, not from his
hishtadlut, he is absolutely required to work for a living through
natural means. In relation to insurance, his bitachon is expressed in
that he has faith that he will be able to keep up with the payments! (On the interface of deveikut and
hashgacha pratit, see also the Rambams comments in Moreh Nevuchim
3:51.)
[2] This approach is found
in the Chassidic commentaries; see R. Tzaddok Ha-Kohen in Pri Tzaddik,
Vaera 4, the Sfat Emet in several places, and the Piaseczner in
Derech Ha-Melech, Miketz.
The Meor Vea-Shemesh goes even further and states that it seems as
though Yosef relied exclusively upon the butler, not turning to Hashem at
all! Mussar thinkers also adopted this approach. For a detailed
Mussar treatment, see Madregat
Ha-Adam of the Nevordeker, Maamar Darchei Ha-Bitachon. A full
listing of sources can be found in Y. Nachshoni, Studies in the Weekly
Parasha Vol. 1, p. 248.
[3] Michtav
Mei-Eliyahu vol. 4, pp. 28-31