94 —שיטת הבעש"ט בהשגחה פרטית ודעות קודמות

Shalom u'Vrachah! [Before the 18th of Menachem Av, 5703] Hashgachah Pratis (Divine Providence) is explained here through various approaches from the sages of Israel up to the Baal Shem Tov. The Baal Shem Tov's approach is that Hashgachah Pratis applies to every single detail of a person's experiences and even to animals, plants, and inanimate objects. This view is cited in Chassidus: Derech Chaim Shaar HaTeshuvah chapter 9, the discourse 'Es Hashem He'emarta', Reishis Chochmah. The discourse 'Hateh Elokai', 5694. Likkutei Torah Yud-Tes Kislev 5694 sections 3-4. Further elaborated in the discourse 'Al Kein Yomru' 5696: "The concept of Hashgachah Pratis as explained by our teacher the Baal Shem Tov is not only that every detail of every creature’s movement is under Divine Providence from the Creator, and this Providence is the creature’s life and existence, but also that even a single movement of a particular blade of grass fulfills the ultimate purpose of creation... One movement of a single blade of grass completes the higher intent in creation."

Note A. The discussion about Hashgachah Pratis in Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmunah chapter 2 and Iggeres HaKodesh section 25 refers to general Divine Providence—there are those who deny this concept or its possibility, even though they admit all creation comes into being through G‑d’s word ex nihilo, as shown by their answers there. Their view is explained elsewhere: they hold that creation occurred through a chain-like process where each effect causes change in its cause; therefore it cannot be said that G‑d is invested and supervising even lower worlds (Likkutei Torah discourse 'Shishim Heimah', section 2), as this would be a descent and would also cause multiplicity (Torah Or discourse 'Erdah Na'). Therefore, according to them, one must say G‑d has abandoned the earth and is only "G‑d of gods." For this reason they also deny the possibility of miracles (Torah Or discourse 'VeEleh Shemos'). Their answer: On the contrary—it must be said that the creative force always stands within what is being created; thus He is always present even in lower worlds. (See Pelach HaRimon by R' Peritcher on 'Erdah Na' section 2 for more on this.)

Note B. The types of supervision—one eye for those who fear Him, two eyes, one eye above two-eyed supervision (Likkutei Torah discourse 'Ki Tishma Bekol', etc.)—differ in manner but not in detail (according to the Baal Shem Tov; not so for earlier views). All are high levels of supervision—at least miracles clothed in nature—and thus even one-eye supervision applies only to those who fear Him. Natural conduct is below one-eye supervision; it is as if they sought to blind it (Bereishis Rabbah ch. 82). All this is explained in Ohr HaTorah discourse 'Asher Yomar Hayom'. Necessarily this must also be interpreted so in 'Hateh Elokai' Adar 5702 and other places.

B. The approach of Jewish sages before the Baal Shem Tov: Divine Providence over each individual human being but only general providence over species among animals and plants. As stated by Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed III:17): "The fifth opinion—which is ours—is that Divine Providence applies only to individual humans... but other living creatures and certainly plants... have species-level supervision, not individual..." In Shomer Emunim (by a student of Ramaz), at its end: Nothing happens by chance without intention or Divine supervision—as written "I will walk with you with happenstance"—even apparent chance events are attributed to Him; everything comes from Him via Hashgachah Pratis. However, details... as found in kabbalistic works especially Sefer Elimah: non-rewardable creatures—animals, plants, minerals—are supervised by angels appointed over each species... but specific events like whether this ox lives or dies are not under direct angelic supervision; such details are random unless they affect humans.

Thus all matters concerning individuals among animals are entirely random unless they impact people; G‑d did not decree which fish will live or die but did decree a person’s livelihood... Similarly for an animal belonging to a person—for example if his ox fattens or his jug breaks. This parallels what’s written about fish in Iggeres HaKodesh section 25: Even though a person with free choice curses another... he bears responsibility for his bad choice; still what happens to the victim was already decreed from Heaven—there are many agents for G‑d’s will. Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah ch.6 similarly matches our case.

What was quoted from Sefer Elimah appears there too: No believer should think any action big or small happens by chance—everything comes under higher supervision—not via created powers like angels or sefirot but directly from Ein Sof Himself... He then explains details as above.

To resolve contradictions between statements at the start versus end—that nothing happens by chance versus that animal individuals’ affairs are entirely random—it can be said Shomer Emunim means even apparent randomness comes from Him because everything derives from His providence.

Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah ch.5: "Know that everything happens according to His will—even though our actions are given over to us... just as a potter wants fire and wind to rise upward so too He wants man’s free will." See also Eight Chapters ch.8 at greater length.

See Tosafos Niddah 16b s.v. hakol—"This isn’t up to Heaven because G‑d doesn’t want to change natural order."

* * *

It should be known that even according to these opinions there may not be Hashgachah Pratis over animals/plants/minerals—but G‑d knows all particulars down to every detail—as stated by Sefer HaIkkarim IV:7: His knowledge encompasses everything big or small—but He does not supervise animals individually for reward/punishment except as part of their species’ role.

* * *

One should not ask how it’s possible—even according to these views—that something could happen among animals/plants/minerals unrelated to people since all were created for mankind—as Rambam elaborates in his introduction to Pirush HaMishnayos—it’s clear (at least according to these views—and I believe also according to the Baal Shem Tov) that when our Sages say "the whole world was created only for this person," it refers generally—not every specific event like a leaf falling at sea relates directly to an individual person; nor does Rambam mean Ben Zoma’s statement "Blessed is He Who created all these for me" implies every detail among festival pilgrims related personally.

Likkutei Torah discourse 'Vesamti Kadkod Hasheni' mentions primary/secondary aspects among animal creation.

C. In earlier Jewish thought before the Baal Shem Tov there are questions:

(a) Regarding Divine Providence over people—is it also over wicked people/gentiles/fools or just righteous Jews? Rambam holds it does not extend over fools/wicked since providence depends on intellectual attachment; thus removal of providence from wicked people isn’t punishment but natural consequence. Ramban seems similar (Bereishis 18:19): His providence preserves generalities; humans are left subject to chance until their time comes—but upon His pious ones He focuses individually.

Derech Chaim Shaar HaTeshuvah sec.9 criticizes Rambam based on verses indicating G‑d watches all human ways—even wicked ones—but explains that righteous receive kindness while wicked receive strict judgment.

Kehillas Yaakov entry on hashgachah brings Ramban/Bachya dividing providence into two types: (1) Supervising deeds—which applies universally including gentiles; (2) Protection from accidents—which applies only for tzaddikim.

Sefer Elimah/Shomer Emunim debate whether removal of providence from wicked people is natural or punitive; Elimah says everyone receives utmost individual attention but concludes with "the tenth level of providence is hiding His face due to sin—leaving him subject to nature/chance." Like water flowing from a spring—the further away you drink, the murkier it gets.

(b) Regarding animals/plants/minerals—is there no individual providence at all or do their overseeing angels supervise particulars? Rambam/Elimah/Shomer Emunim say details among animals/plants/minerals happen entirely by chance unless affecting humans—but Kehillas Yaakov challenges Ramban based on Yerushalmi Shevi’is ch.9 halacha 1 and Bereishis Rabbah chs.79/85 where Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says no bird falls without Heaven’s decree—a fortiori regarding human souls.

Note: It seems odd what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai learned from birds since many verses already show providence over people—it must teach us even danger doesn’t guarantee capture just as birds sometimes escape hunters despite risk—and likewise regarding standing in dangerous places where one shouldn’t rely on miracles except when unavoidable due to circumstances like hiding during decrees when survival options run out.

(And one cannot say—as R’ David Luria suggests—that perhaps birds get special attention if their capture affects someone’s livelihood because then Rabbi Shimon wouldn’t have made an inference from birds’ fate back onto people.)

The answer given is that angelic overseers supervise species collectively but may occasionally affect individuals—but I haven’t found others supporting this view yet.

(c) According to kabbalists regarding gilgul/reincarnation—since souls can reincarnate into animals/plants/minerals—it follows those individuals receive some measure of providence too.

D. Are there any pre-Baal Shem Tov Jewish thinkers who held Hashgachah Pratis extends even over animals/plants/minerals? Chinuch mitzvah #169 writes: Some groups think G‑d supervises every worldly matter—even causing each leaf fall—but this idea seems far-fetched intellectually; others deny any divine oversight which he calls heresy; true believers accept divine oversight over all animal species collectively... implying no mainstream Jewish authorities supported full individual providence before his time.

The language used by Shomer Emunim referencing kabbalistic works suggests such views weren’t found among classic kabbalah either.

* * *

This shows those who never investigated these questions simply followed literal readings assuming full providence everywhere—they aren’t counted among formal opinions though later analysis after revelation through the Baal Shem Tov showed their intuition matched truth—similar logic appears regarding mistaken rulings where laypeople aren’t counted among formal legal categories since their knowledge isn’t considered definitive enough for inclusion despite being correct after later clarification.

This distinction can be seen between Maimonides’ legal discussions versus Tanya chapter 42 which says all Jews believe etc., and similarly Iggeres HaKodesh section 25 calls it simple faith etc.

* * *

Maimonides Guide III:17 describes another opinion holding Divine Providence covers everything—even animals/plants/minerals—which would require reward/punishment for suffering/death experienced by creatures since "all His ways are just." But he concludes such reward/punishment isn’t part of our tradition nor mentioned by sages though some later Geonim accepted it after hearing it from philosophers—the Rambam rejects this view outright.

The question remains whether this matches the Baal Shem Tov’s approach since logically universal providence would require reward/punishment for animals too—but Chassidus teaches reward applies only for humans with free choice—even if we distinguish between reward/payment as Maimonides does versus spiritual benefit discussed elsewhere—it would follow logically such benefit should apply equally across plant/mineral realms if suffering occurs prematurely due to destruction/waste yet Likkutei Torah frames such benefit differently—as elevation rather than compensation—and thus doesn’t equate them fully with human experience nor make suffering itself grounds for reward/punishment.

E. Does constant creation—as explained by Baal Shem Tov on "Forever O L‑rd Your word stands firm"—require universal Hashgachah Pratis? If so then those denying detailed providence must also deny ongoing creation at every moment—but evidence suggests otherwise—even those accepting tzimtzum literally may still accept ongoing creation requiring continuous divine input—and most great authorities never explicitly rejected ongoing creation despite not spelling out its mechanics fully—their writings show:

(a) Even those denying detailed providence agree G‑d knows every event down to particulars—as cited above regarding Sefer HaIkkarim—and thus presumably accept ongoing creative power everywhere too;

(b) The novelty in "Your word stands firm" lies in constant renewal—not just initial creation like birth/ensoulment which everyone agrees comes directly from G‑d—even if subsequent animal births occur randomly per Maimonides;

(c) Just as free will doesn’t contradict constant divine input so too ongoing existence among non-human realms could be assigned via angels/natural law/chance without contradiction;

(d) Chassidus distinguishes between ongoing existence—which is unchanging and absolute—and individualized supervision which varies based on merit/reward/punishment—the former relates more generally while latter depends on relationship/status;

Summary

This letter analyzes how different schools—from early authorities through Kabbalah up until Chassidus—understood Divine Providence over all aspects of creation, highlighting how the Baal Shem Tov taught universal Hashgachah Pratis while earlier views limited detailed supervision mainly to humans or specific cases involving mankind's needs.