Divine providence (, Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation: IPA ) is discussed throughout rabbinic literature in classical Jewish philosophy and Jewish mysticism.
The discussion brings into consideration the Jewish understanding of nature, and its reciprocal, the miraculous. This analysis thus underpins much of Orthodox Judaism's worldview, particularly regarding interaction with the natural world and the consequences of hishtadlut (, choices and personal efforts.
Classical Jewish philosophy Divine providence is discussed by all of the major Jewish philosophers, but its extent and nature are a matter of dispute."Jewish Philosophy" Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942. There are, broadly, two views, differing largely as to the frequency with which God intervenes in the natural order. The first view is the rationalist view, which does not deny the occurrence of miracles but attempts to limit them, rationalize the numerous miraculous events related in the Hebrew Bible and bring them within the sphere of the natural order. The second admits a frequency of miracles. Here, there is a stability of the natural order which nevertheless allows for the interference of God in the regulation of human events, or even in disturbing the natural order on occasion.
Maimonides
Maimonides is representative of the rationalists. He holds that the pattern of nature is basically immutable.The Purpose of Signs and Miracles According to the Ramban , R. Ezra Bick, vbm-torah.org "This Universe remains perpetually with the same properties with which the Creator has endowed it ... none of these will ever be changed except by way of miracle in some individual instances"., 2:29 This notwithstanding, Maimonides believes that God rewards and punishes appropriately.
To some extent, Maimonides reconciles the two views by defining providence as an essentially natural process. Here, individual providence depends on the development of the human mind: that is, the more a man develops his mind, the more he is subject to the providence of God. Providence is, in fact, a function of intellectual and spiritual activity: it is the activity, not the person that merits providence. "Divine Providence is connected with Divine intellectual influence, and the same beings which are benefited by the latter so as to become intellectual, and to comprehend things comprehensible to rational beings, are also under the control of Divine Providence, which examines all their deeds in order to reward or punish them."The Guide for the Perplexed 3:17
In accordance with his approach, Maimonides views the material rewards and punishments of the Torah as not the "ultimate" reward and punishment. Rather, the primary purpose of blessings such as wealth and peace is to enable a person to engage in mitzvah performance and study of wisdom without distractions, and by doing so, to merit the World to Come, which constitutes the ultimate reward of closeness to God.Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 9:1
By defining providence as function of human activity, Maimonides avoids the problem of how God can be affected by events on Earth, lessening any implication of change within God and the resultant implication of a lack of perfection"How bad things can happen to good people" Rabbi Gidon Rothstein, Moreh Nevukhim — Chapter 51, Part 5 (see divine simplicity).
Nachmanides
The teachings of Nachmanides are largely representative of the second view. He holds that God endowed the universe with physical properties, and sustains the natural order, and that any act of providence involves, by definition, an intrusion into the laws of nature. In the absence of providential interference, causality governs the affairs of the universe. In his view, reward and punishment, as well as guidance of the fate of the Jews, are the typical expressions of such providence in the Torat Hashem Temimah. In this sense, there is no difference between God causing it to rain (as a reward) and his splitting of the Red Sea, both are the result of Divine intervention:
All events (natural or providential) are the result of the direct will of God, and, as such, the seemingly natural order of the world is an illusion. At the same time, any (obvious) breach in the chain of causality involves a "compromise" in the default cause and effect nature of the universe—providence is thus exercised sparingly, and in as "seemingly natural" a manner as possible. Thus, whereas the fate of the Jews as a nation is guided by providence, individuals do not enjoy the same providential relationship with the Almighty. Only the righteous and the wicked can expect providential treatment, while the fate of more “average” individuals is primarily guided by natural law.
David Berger has argued that Nachmanides did subscribe to the existence of a natural order.Cultures in Collision and Conversation by David Berger, (Academic Studies Press, 2011), pp.129-151
R. David Nieto David Nieto (1654–1728) sought to reconcile classical Jewish philosophy with modern philosophical ideas. He argued that the classical concept of Divine Providence was replaced by the modern concept of Nature (טבע) that appeared in the Middle Ages.Nieto, David. "On Divine Providence or Universal Nature or Naturing Nature" p. 8, trans. Walter Hilliger, Shehakol Inc. 2020. “the word nature was made up by our modern authors 400 to 500 years ago, it cannot be found in the writings of the old sages.” (DECISION Senor HHS Hassalem, M.A.A.B.D., R.M.R. Zevi Asquenazi, BET DIN, published Elul 5468 (1704) In his treatise On Divine Providence or Universal Nature or Naturing Nature, he distinguished countless Providences (hashgachot), or Natures, with different degrees: General providences (), equivalent to the unchanging general natures, comprise the formal causes of species and natural laws that govern the behavior of objects and phenomena in the world Particular providences () comprise the efficient causes of particular natures in creatures, such as free will in humans Miraculous providences () comprise the final causes as seen in exceptional singularities or miracles.
Although he maintained the idea of an unchanging nature of general providence, as natural laws, he argued against the concept of determinism regarding the particular providence of free will.
Contemporary Orthodox thought Both of the above approaches continue to influence contemporary Orthodox Judaism. In general, Nachmanides' view is influential in Haredi Judaism, while Maimonides' view—in addition to Nachmanides'—underpins much of Modern Orthodox thought. Note that the Hassidic approach departs somewhat from these; see detail below.
The difference between the approaches of Nachmanides and Rambam manifests particularly in the importance assigned to, and attitudes toward, three areas: Derech Eretz (דרך ארץ): involvement with the natural world, particularly for purposes of livelihood. Technology: the use and manipulation of nature. Maddaʿ (מדע): knowledge of the functioning of nature and society, both to facilitate derech eretz and as a complement to Torah study.
Haredi Judaism A notable approach in the Haredi community is that of Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, "whose impact on the yeshiva world in recent years has been enormous".Martin Gordon, Modern Orthodox Judaism: Studies and Perspectives, p.31 To generalise, Rabbi Dessler"Rav Eliyohu Eliezer Dessler, zt'l, His Fiftieth Yahrtzeit" Rabbi Dov Wein, Dei'ah veDibur, January 2004 teaches that given the illusory "nature of nature", each individual must find their appropriate balance between hishtadlut (personal effort) and trust (bitochon / bitachon ביטחון). Rabbi Dessler, relatedly, often repeated the idea that every object and circumstance in the material world should be viewed as a means of serving Hashem (God). Rabbi Dessler defines nature as the arena of "Nisayon" (נסיון Hebrew: [spiritual] test)—i.e. one must engage in worldly toil in inverse proportion to his recognition of God's providential role. Rabbi Dessler thus advises that one make his Torah "fixed" (kavua קבוע) and his derech eretz "occasional" (arai עראי). Note that Rabbi Dessler stresses that "[one cannot] exploit a tendency to laziness in order to bolster his trust in Hashem ... Trust in Hashem cannot be built up this way because the goal here is not to refrain from work but to attain certainty in trust in Hashem that leads to lessening worldly endeavors."Michtav m'Eliyahu, vol. 1. pp. 194–5 (While Rabbi Dessler argues that this idea is sourced in Nahmanides, other scholars disagree.) Given this conception of nature, Rav Dessler criticizes preoccupation with technological enterprises, and equates such preoccupation with idolatry. He writes that a civilization which is preoccupied with developing the external and the material, while neglecting the inner moral content, will eventually degenerate to its lowest possible depths:"Cellular Terrorism" Rabbi Nosson Grossman, Dei'ah veDibur, May 2001 “Happiness in this world comes only as a result of being content with what one has in this world, and striving intensively for spirituality” and thus “the more that people try to improve this world, the more their troubles will backlash ... Instead of realizing they are drowning in materialism, they search for further ways to enhance physicality”.Michtav m'Eliyahu, vol. 2 p. 236–310 and vol. 3 pp. 143–70See also "Do We have a Hammer . . . or a Gun?" Mordechai Plaut, Dei'ah veDibur, December 2004 Rav Dessler writes that the acquisition of secular knowledge is likely to be at the expense of Torah knowledge or commitment. "The philosophy of Yeshiva education is directed towards one objective alone, to nurture gedolei torah (great Torah scholars) and yirei shamayim (those "fearful of Heaven") in tandem. For this reason university was prohibited to [yeshiva] students ... [educators] could not see how to nurture Gedolei Torah unless they directed all education towards Torah exclusively".Letter in Michtav m'Eliyahu vol. 3See also "Call to Stand Firm Against Chareidi Yeshiva High Schools" Yated Ne'eman Staff, December 2003
Modern Orthodox Judaism
Joseph B. Soloveitchik echoes Maimonides' teaching. He writes that "the fundamental of providence is ... transformed into a concrete commandment, an obligation incumbent upon man. Man is obliged to broaden the scope and strengthen the intensity of the individual providence that watches over him. Everything is dependent on him; it is all in his hands"Halakhic Man, p. 128 In line with this emphasis on proactivity, Modern Orthodox thought regards derech eretz, human involvement with the natural world, as a divine imperative inherent in the nature of creation (as opposed to as a "necessary evil" as above). Here, "worldly involvement" extends to a positive contribution to society at large."Practical Endeavor and the Torah U'Madda Debate" Rabbi Dr. David Shatz, Torah U'Madda Volume 3: 1991–1992 This understanding is reflected both in Soloveitchik's conception as well as in the teachings of Samson Raphael Hirsch. Similarly, Soloveitchik, in The Lonely Man of Faith, mandates the involvement of human beings in technological activity. This is based on God's blessing to Adam and Eve "Fill the land and conquer it" (Genesis 1:28), which extends to the obligation of the imitation of God. The use and development of technology, then, is not characterised as "prideful", but rather is seen as obligatory upon man. Further, Madda, knowledge of the natural world and society, is regarded as vital in Modern Orthodox thought. This knowledge plays an obvious role in facilitating derech eretz and the development of technology. It is also seen as valuable as a complement to Torah study. This further reflects Maimonides, in that he, famously, defines science and philosophy as "Handmaidens" of Torah study—one could not be a learned Jew without this knowledge."Tinsel Town does Morality" Rabbi D Hecht, nishma.org