bitachon (II)

The Chazon Ish's model of bitachon is the opposite of nihilism. It sees suffering as directed by G-d and therefore ultimately justified. However, it makes no promise that G-d will offer deliverance from calamity -- if calamity is deserved, why should he? If not deserved, then G-d would not let it happen in the first place.

I think it's fair to say that the average person thinks of bitachon as more than that. When a person is suffering and turns to faith, he/she does so not just with the hope of finding meaning, but rather he/she hopes for redemption / salvation. Is there no basis for this approach?

Perhaps there is. Here is a rough translation of the Ramban in his work on Emunah u'Bitachon, ch 1:

"Trust (btach) in G-d and do good", meaning even though you have no good deeds to call upon, even though you know you are wicked, nonetheless, trust in G-d, for he is merciful and will have mercy upon you... Therefore it states first "trust" and only afterwards "do good" -- meaning, whether one is righteous [i.e. one has already done good] or wicked [i.e. one has not yet done good], trust in G-d.

This is certainly a remarkable statement coming from the Ramban who writes elsewhere (e.g. see his comments to Braishis 18:19 and R' Bachyei there) that only the purely righteous are guaranteed of direct hashgacha protection by G-d. According the the Chazon Ish it seems to makes no sense at all. Why should someone unworthy receive G-d's grace? Bitachon simply means trusting that G-d delivers just rewards, not that G-d delivers more than a person deserves?! Maharal (Nesiv haBitachon) similarly writes:

How great is the trait of bitachon... even for those who see and think that no hope is left, do not despair! Rather trust in G-d's eternal protection, because G-d can provide salvation. When a person places his/her trust in G-d, then it becomes incumbent upon G-d to save such a person..."

The apparent hopelessness of the situation or unworthiness of the victim is not a reason to despair of G-d's deliverance as absurd as that hope may be (I am reminded of Kierkegaard's knight of faith in contrast to the Chazon Ish that reminded me of the knight of resignation). Maharal proves the point from a number of gemaras. Brachos 60 tells us the story of R' Akiva who was stranded in the woods, had his donkey eaten, his rooster devoured, his lamp extinguished by the wind, but still trusted in G-d. In the end he discovered the town he might have stayed in was captured by an enemy army and he escaped because he was in the dark woods with no braying donkey to give him away or rooster to make noise. According to the Chazon Ish, what sort of bitachon is this? The story should more aptly end with R' Akiva suffering in the cold but not complaining because of his faith. But that is clearly not the lesson. The story ends on a note of this worldly salvation because that is the fruit of bitachon.

When Hillel heard a tumult in his city (fire engines? police siren?), he declared that he had no worries about his home because one who trusts G-d need not fear. According to the Chazon Ish, why not? All bitachon promises is that suffering is not meaningless, not that suffering does not occur! The gemara clearly seems to suggest otherwise.

There are two important questions that beg asking:

1) If a person is suffering because his/her behavior warranted G-d's punishment (and the principle of schar v'onesh suggests that all punishment is ultimately just), then by what right does that person have to demand salavation from G-d? As noted earlier, hashgacha-protection is promised to the righteous. How can bitachon deliver the same promise to all?

2) The more difficult question comes from this week's parsha. The Chazon Ish, the Chovos heLevavos, and others all write that true trust in G-d means a person need not worry. According to the Chazon Ish, at least we can say that if anything bad happens it must truly be deserved and part of G-d's plan -- nothing outside what G-d decrees can happen to a person, so there is no point in worrying about it. According to other models of bitachon, we can even go so far as to say that bitachon itself can be a source of salvation. Yet, Ya'akov Avinu who not only had the same general obligation to trust G-d that any of us do but also had an explicit guarantee from G-d against harm was filled with fear over his encounter with Eisav. Chazal (Brachos 4) interpret Ya'akov's fear as worry lest his sins render him unworthy of G-d's protection, but this still does not help. According to the Ramban, trust in G-d applies even to the wicked and undeserving. If Hillel was not afraid of calamity because of his trust in G-d, if R' Akiva was sure all would work out for the best because of his trust in G-d, if even the wicked can rely on bitachon, why should Ya'akov have been worried? If worry is the antithesis of faith, how are we to interpret Ya'akov's reaction to meeting Eisav?