[NOTE TO READER:
This is a very complicated and extremely emotive subject.
The viewpoints presented here are for academic purposes only and the reader
must remember that there is no ‘competition’ as to which theories are more
correct than others. The purpose of this essay is simply to point out the diverse
array of theological material on the topic of Providence vs. chance as deliberated
upon by some of our great Torah thinkers.]
INTRODUCTION:
There appears to be an all pervasive perception that Judaism
believes in only one model of Divine Providence – namely, that every single event,
no matter how insignificant, occurs directly as a result of G-d’s Providence or
hashgacha peratit. - ‘A leaf doesn’t fall off from a tree’ and land in a
particular place unless it was so ordained by G-d.
Many would be surprised to discover that this view, greatly
publicised by Chassidim as a teaching of the Baal Shem Tov (1700-1760) was to a
large extent an innovation in, and a relatively new contribution to Jewish
thought.
We will attempt to explore some philosophical and hashkafic
models that are sometimes similar to and other times radically different from
this popular view.
TALMUDIC SOURCES:
The Talmud makes a number of statements that certainly do seem
to support the idea of G-d’s Providence extending over all of creation:
G-d is said to provide; “...from the horns of the wild oxen
to the tiniest louse.”
“Man does not knock his toe unless it has been decreed so in
heaven.”
And; “even if one intended to take out three coins from his
purse and two came out instead,”
nothing is by chance.
The ‘sea of the Talmud’ is an anthology of many statements
on many topics and it was only later, during the periods of the Geonim and
Rishonim that these statements were interpreted to form the basis of systematic
schools of thought and philosophy.
Although these different schools were all generally (although not always) based
on Talmudic thought, they often differed dramatically from each other.
RAMBAM (1135-1204):
Rambam, takes the surprising view that there are no definitive
sources in either the Torah or Talmud where G-d’s Providence is said to extend
to anything other than ultimately relating to human beings.
Thus hashgacha peratit (individual Divine
providence) applies only to humans - while hashagcha kelalit
(general Divine Providence) would apply to all other creatures and also
to inanimate objects.
According to Rambam, G-d takes care of the various species
or groups of animals, vegetation and inanimate matter as a whole but not the individual
in the cluster.
He writes:
“I do not believe that a leaf falls as a result of Divine
Providence, not that this spider devours this specific fly as a result of
Divine Decree...I do not believe that...when a fish snatches a specific worm
floating on a river that such was the will of G-d. Rather this was all through
absolute chance, as Aristotle contends.”
Rambam presents four popular models of Divine Providence
that were common in his day, and then adds a fifth which he considers to be the
most correct view:
1)
The first view is
the claim of some people that there is no Divine Providence at all
regarding anything in existence, and everything...is merely the result of
chance...this is pure heresy (or alternately the view of Epicurus).
2)
The second is the
view that over some things there is Divine Providence... but other
things are left to chance. This is the view of Aristotle.
3)
The third view...is
that nothing in existence is the result of chance, not specific
individuals nor general groups...This is the view held by the Muslim school
known as Asharites.
4)
The forth view
is...that all divine acts are a result of Divine Wisdom which can bear
no injustice (even in regard to animals and inanimate objects). This is the
(Muslim) school of Mu’tzalites,
where a guiltless mouse that is devoured by a cat will be compensated in
Heaven.
5)
The fifth view is
the Torah view that...man is completely in control of his actions...and
(paradoxically) everything that occurs to man is fitting to occur (as a
result of Divine Providence).
Amazingly, what
emerges from Rambam is that any belief in the concept of the ‘leaf falling from
a tree’ being ordained by G-d - is of Muslim and not Jewish origin!
He continues;
“This theory is in accordance with reason and with the
teaching of Torah, whilst the other theories either exaggerate Divine
Providence or detract from it.”
Rambam also points out that this concept of G-d’s Providence
extending only over humans does not mean that G-d is unaware of what takes
place in the non-human realms which are governed by chance:
“Understand thoroughly my theory, that I do not ascribe
to G-d any ignorance of anything or any kind of weakness...”
Rambam makes the point that there is a difference between
G-d’s Providence and G-d’s Knowledge. Accordingly, G-d is fully aware of everything
taking place within the animal, vegetation and inanimate realms but has no
direct involvement in them other than in terms of General Providence.
And even with regard to Direct Providence within the human
realm, the measure and intensity of the Providence is relative to the
intellectual comprehension of the recipient. Thus a more intellectual and contemplative
person will be privy to a more direct form of Providence.
RAMBAN (NACHMANIDES) (1194-1270):
The Rambam’s radical view as outlined above - which will
come as a surprise to many people - may be explained away by virtue of the fact
that he is known to be the father of Jewish rationalism.
The Ramban, however, born 60 years later and often known as
his philosophical adversary, was a great mystic.
Nonetheless, as counter intuitive
as it seems, Ramban quoted from and established his theology of Providence directly
upon Rambam’s position!
והענין הזה בארו
הרב זצ"ל ביאור יפה בספר מורה הנבוכים
“And this matter was explained beautifully by Rambam in his book ‘The
Guide For The Perplexed’” (from which we quoted from above).
Ramban, like Rambam, maintains
that Direct Providence is only the preserve of human beings, while all other
creatures and objects are subject to a more general form of Collective Providence.
Ramban clearly agrees that only
humans are subject to Providence, as opposed to; “the fish of the sea,
towards which G-d does not exert providence...”
“We follow the Greeks who say that the rainbow
appears naturally when the sun shines through moist air (instead of as a result
of Divine Intervention). This concept (of nature taking care of itself) is
borne out by the verse; ‘And I placed (past tense, i.e. from the time of
creation) my rainbow in the cloud.’”
Accordingly, the world continues
to maintain itself based on the natural first principles endowed upon it during
the creation process. He also agrees that there is no Scriptural basis for Individualized Providence outside of human beings:
ולא בא בתורה או בנבואה שיהיה האל משגיח ושומר אישי שאר
הבריות שאינן מדברות
השמים וצבאם רק שומר את הכללים בכלל
“We have not found in all of
the Torah that God will oversee anything that does not speak. Instead, for such
things, He preserves only the principles of science, or the “natural order” of
things.”
He further agrees with Rambam
that Providence amongst human beings is commensurate with their spiritual
(Rambam says intellectual) comprehension; “He directs His providence
to his righteous ones...so that His watchfulness will always be on them.”
Then Ramban (in a possible
departure from Rambam) adds the caveat that Providence is applicable only to
the extremes of either the truly righteous or wholly evil person
(who will alternately be rewarded or held accountable respectively). Most other
human beings who fall into a category somewhere in the middle will be subject
to randomness and chance!
RALBAG (1288-1344):
Rabbi Levi ben
Gershom writes: “When one understands that evil does not stem from
G-d it becomes clear that Divine Providence does not extend to all individual
members of the human race. (i.e. the evil prevalent amongst humans must
come from ‘chance’, because it certainly does not come directly from G-d). ”
CHASDAI CRESCAS (1340-1411):
Rabbi Chasdai Crescas, a halachist
and rationalist, takes issue with the notion that G-d’s Providence is
commensurate with the stature of the person. Instead he maintains that all
human beings, regardless of their righteousness or lack thereof, are subject to
Direct Providence.
RABBI YOSEF ERGAS (1685-1730):
Rabbi Yosef Ergas, the great
Italian mystic and kabbalist writes in his Shomer Emunim;
“Nothing occurs by accident,
without intention and Divine Providence. This is learned out from the verse;
‘And I will walk with you in chance (be’keri).’ From this we see that even the
state of apparent ‘chance’ is actually Providence.”
But then, in uncharacteristic language for
a mystic, he continues;
“But that does not apply to
the non-human species...whether this ant will be trodden upon or saved. There
is no special Providence for animals and certainly not for plants and minerals,
as they are governed by species and not individuals. Whatever occurs to
individual animals, plants and objects is purely by chance, and not by Divine Decree
– unless it is ultimately connected to humankind.”
CHASSIDISM:
For the Chassidic movement which
developed post the mid 1700’s, these ideas were a blasphemous anathema. Rabbi
Shneur Zalman of Liadi (also known as the ‘spiritual grandson’ of the Baal Shem
Tov) explains in his Tanya, that creation was not just a onetime
historical event. Rather the world is constantly and continuously being
re-created by G-d because that is the only way the Divine life-force can
sustain it. Were that energy to be removed even for an instance, the entire
universe would resort immediately to nothingness as it was prior to creation.
Thus by definition Providence of
the highest order is present in every single aspect of creation from the most
lofty even to a rock or sand.
Much of these teachings were
derived from Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, known as the Ari (1534-1572) who wrote that;
“Every leaf contains a soul that came into the world to receive a
rectification.”
Rabbi Pinchas of Koretz said; “A
man must know that even a piece of straw lying on the ground facing a
particular direction is a result of Direct Divine Providence.”
ANALYSIS:
It is strange to see that such a
basic and fundamental concept like Providence is subject to such variant and
diametrically opposed views.
Rambam and the rationalists claim
there is no Torah or Talmudic basis for Divine Providence extending to anything
beyond humankind.
He accuses those who follow the
view that G-d directs the affairs of non-humankind to be following an Islamic
theology.
Then, counter intuitively, great
and fearless mystics like Ramban and Rabbi Yosef Ergas side with the
rationalists on the issue.
Amazingly, only in the last 300
years with the advent of Chassidism, did the hashgacha pratit concept of
infinitely detailed Divine Providence take hold of the religious Jewish psyche.
To the extent that many are mistakenly under the impression that this has
always been an intrinsic part of mainstream Torah theology.
Although everyone’s personal view
on this highly emotive matter must be respected, nowadays the Chassidic view
does seem to have become the new mainstream approach.
Whatever position one takes, it’s
difficult to deny that the history, development, and theological debate behind
a concept we all take so for granted is indeed as intricate and divergent as it
is fascinating.