This Dvar Torah is being sponsored by Ms. Helen Bauer of France in memory of her aunt Taub bat Berel whose yahrtzeit is the 26th of Kislev.
PARSHAT VAYESHEV - EXTREME PIETY
Parshat Vayeshev contains one of the most dramatic stories of the Chumash (Bible) - the temptation of Yosef (Joseph). Yosef was then a slave in the household of Potifar, a high-ranking minister of the Egyptian king. Though a slave, Yosef was extremely talented, and Potifar entrusted him with the management of the entire household.
Yosef was extremely handsome. As a result, Potifar’s wife began to ceaselessly entice him to sin with her. On the day of a major Egyptian celebration, Potifar’s entire household left to join in the rejoicing save his wife who feigned illness and remained at home. Yosef then entered the house, and almost succumbed to her temptations. The image of his father Yaakov (Jacob) then miraculously appeared threatening that if he sinned, Yosef would be eternally severed from his heritage. Yosef then seized control of himself and fled.
The Midrash Rabbah on Shir Hashirim, as explained by the Commentary of Etz Yosef, writes that Yosef’s intention in coming to the house on that day was to do his regular work. This devotion to his duties was indicative of Yosef’s great piety and integrity.
To quote the original texts: “Rabbi Nechemiah said, It was a day of tiatron of the Nile, and they all went to see, and he [Yosef] entered to do his work, to calculate the accounts of his master” (Midrash Rabbah Shir Hashirim 1:1).
The Commentary of Etz Yosef on the Midrash explains – “To me it appears that it was the day that the Nile burst forth from its banks to rise upon the entire land of Egypt, [and therefore] they made on it [that day] a rejoicing in the land of Egypt. And that is what Rabbi Nechemiah concludes: “and they all went to see and he [Yosef] entered to do his work.” According to this, it is understandable that the scripture [took the trouble and] taught that he came to the house to do his work. For this is significant in that it demonstrates the chassidus (extreme piety) of Yosef. For even though all the servants and maidservants were subordinate to him, and they all went to be present at the merriment, nevertheless, he did not go with the counsel of the revelers, nor did he sit with scoffers. But he faithfully came to the house to do the work of his master.”
Much is written in the Torah describing Yosef’s G-dly stature. Yosef’s brothers were all people of enormous holiness. Yet, Yosef was apparently the most pious of them all. He is referred to in Torah literature as Yosef Hatzaddik — Yosef, the supremely righteous man. Yosef was also a great scholar of Torah. By age 17, he had already mastered all of the Torah that Yaakov had acquired over a 14 year period during which Yaakov did not even interrupt his study in order to sleep (Rashi, Bereishit 13:3). Furthermore, although Adam, Noah, and the patriarchs had already lived, it was the merit of Yosef fleeing from the temptation of Potifar’s wife that caused the Red Sea to ‘flee’ from before the Jews and split at the time of the Exodus when they were being chased by Pharaoh’s soldiers and chariots (Midrash Yalkut Shimoni on Tehillim 114:3).
The Midrash came to reveal an additional and heretofore unknown dimension to Yosef’s piety. What could eclipse all of Yosef’s other spiritual accomplishments? What deed demonstrated yet greater piety than that which is otherwise known about Yosef? This Midrash provides the answer…Yosef worked most faithfully for his master Potifar.
Evidently, extreme integrity in matters of money requires consummate righteousness and sanctity. Thus, Yosef’s being a faithful employee demonstrated an additional level of piety that would not have been otherwise evident, notwithstanding all of his other G-dly attributes.
Many people who do not work in Torah-related fields are troubled by the nagging feeling that their daily labors do not involve spiritual growth. The Midrash and Etz Yosef are teaching that in fact, virtually any workplace presents a unique opportunity for such. Working with absolute integrity as Yosef did can beget exalted holiness. Of course, “Absolute integrity” at work connotes far more than basic job performance. It means, for example, that unless permission is granted, one should work during every minute for which he is paid; one must never pocket anything from the business, however small, such as a paper clip, a pencil, and so forth.
It is very disappointing to hear reports of outwardly devout Jews being implicated in major financial wrongdoing. The (incorrect) impression given by such news is that devout Orthodox Jewish observance can coexist with ongoing financial misconduct. As this Dvar indicates, little could be further from the truth.
The following quote from the Kav Hayashar (a great 17th Century work on Torah ethics and the service of G-d) chapter 52 strongly emphasizes this Torah ethic. “One should not rely on what he sees with his eyes — that [the person observed] is acting with perfection, for one man does not know what is in the other’s heart. Always remember this principle: He who does not wish to have benefit from the money of his friend and certainly does not wish for stolen money, and [one whose] financial dealings are with integrity — he is certainly a man that is a tzaddik (truly righteous person) and is just. But when one sees another Jew kissing tefillin and praying and not dealing with money with integrity, one must distance himself from him with all forms of distancing. For the fundamental fear [of G-d] and piety is [expressed] in matters of money. And every man that maintains his piety in financial matters, he is the consummate tzaddik.”
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Vayishlach
PARSHAT VAYISHLACH – MULTIPLE FOCUS
Parshat Vayishlach begins by describing Yaakov (Jacob) returning to Israel together with his family after a long absence. Yaakov was then quite wealthy and his camp contained flocks of animals as well as other forms of wealth. As he drew closer to the destination, Yaakov was informed that his brother Eisav (Essau) was approaching with four hundred armed men. It was evident that Eisav might attempt to murder them all. Yaakov countered with a three-pronged strategy of 1) presents (bribery) for Eisav, 2) prayer, and if all else failed, 3) war.
On the eve of his encounter with Eisav, Yaakov relocated his entire party and divided them into two groups. His thinking was that if Eisav would prevail and attack one of the camps, the other one might be able to escape.
Yaakov then returned to the old camp to retrieve several small items. The Talmud (Chullin 91b) explains that Yaakov’s return was in keeping with the practice of tzaddikim (very righteous people) who guard their money most dearly. The classic work of ethics, Orchot Tzaddikim (probably 13th Century, author unknown) explains that Yaakov’s behavior was rooted in the principle that all people, including the wealthy, should take care to avoid the unnecessary loss of even small amounts.
Parshat Vayishlach begins by describing Yaakov (Jacob) returning to Israel together with his family after a long absence. Yaakov was then quite wealthy and his camp contained flocks of animals as well as other forms of wealth. As he drew closer to the destination, Yaakov was informed that his brother Eisav (Essau) was approaching with four hundred armed men. It was evident that Eisav might attempt to murder them all. Yaakov countered with a three-pronged strategy of 1) presents (bribery) for Eisav, 2) prayer, and if all else failed, 3) war.
On the eve of his encounter with Eisav, Yaakov relocated his entire party and divided them into two groups. His thinking was that if Eisav would prevail and attack one of the camps, the other one might be able to escape.
Yaakov then returned to the old camp to retrieve several small items. The Talmud (Chullin 91b) explains that Yaakov’s return was in keeping with the practice of tzaddikim (very righteous people) who guard their money most dearly. The classic work of ethics, Orchot Tzaddikim (probably 13th Century, author unknown) explains that Yaakov’s behavior was rooted in the principle that all people, including the wealthy, should take care to avoid the unnecessary loss of even small amounts.
Yaakov had just divided his camp so that if one group was slaughtered, the other might be saved. He was clearly in the midst of a true life-and-death struggle for himself, his family, and by extension, the entire Jewish nation of the future. Avraham (Abraham) and Yitzchak’s (Isaac’s) sacred heritage of monotheism was thus also at stake. The climax of this encounter would occur on the following day. Yaakov’s focus upon his salvation was thus no doubt most intense and single-minded.
The Torah attaches supreme importance to the value of human life. If one must choose between saving a life and observing a mitzvah, it is generally forbidden to perform the mitzvah. The Torah must be violated so that the life will be saved. Certainly then, one should not distract himself from rescuing people in order to retrieve small items of little value.
How then can Yaakov’s actions be explained? He had two choices before him. One option was to continue his efforts to protect himself and his family. The alternative was to divert a measure of time and attention and return to the old camp for a few small items. He elected to recover the objects. Was this choice correct if it in any way lessened his concentration on the salvation of human life? Could any other “unimportant” activity (such as recovering small items) even remotely compare to the importance of the imminent struggle with Eisav?
It must be that Yaakov’s focus on saving lives was in no way diminished. Yaakov calculated that this detour would not minimize his chances of saving himself and the others. All possible preparations had already been completed, and Yaakov was certain that retrieving the items would not divert his attention from the main task before him. Otherwise, the Torah would have forbidden his actions.
Evidently, man has the ability to rivet his attention on a major and all-engrossing undertaking while not losing sight of even the smallest minutia of other far less critical matters. Somehow, one can focus on ‘big’ topic while keeping all of the small details of life in the ‘back burner’ of the mind. Furthermore, pausing to attend to the minor issue need not compromise one’s focus on the more important situation. Both undertakings can be pursued with vigor without imperiling each other. Therefore, recovering the lost items was not a conflict to the major challenge that faced Yaakov.
There are people who become totally engrossed in their careers. Most often, the greater a person’s success, the more all-encompassing the involvement will be with his or her work. (Lehavdil) This is true of Torah scholarship as well. It is normally the most outstanding of Torah scholars who possess the most intense drive to continuously study the Torah.
What of a person’s other obligations? At times, that intense pursuit of career or studies may cause one to disregard those other responsibilities. The duties neglected may include anything from the attention to one’s family and friends to concern for personal health.
One must learn from the response of Yaakov that a deep commitment to career or to a cause need not interfere with other “less critical” responsibilities. One can be totally absorbed in the world’s most important emergency while remaining in touch with the smallest nuances of his other responsibilities. If one’s major undertakings become the reason for neglect of spouse, family or other of life’s details, it is a violation of the Torah perspective on the proper way to balance one’s life. People are capable of maintaining focus upon even the smallest details of life while pursuing greater causes without compromising either.
Without quoting the source text of this Dvar, Rabbi Dovid Leibowitz z”l (1889-1941 – the Rebbe of the author’s Rebbe) once made an observation about Napoleon I, emperor of France that reflects this idea. Napoleon was surely one of the most remarkable personalities of world history. He was the undisputed political ruler of his country and a master of palace intrigue. He was also one of the greatest battlefield generals of all time. He was also a great thinker. His Napoleonic Code was a visionary masterpiece; it reorganized the government of France into a structure that is, to this day, largely intact. The code’s ideas of equality before the law and freedom of religion were revolutionary for those times. The code was largely responsible for dramatically transforming a thousand years of the political thinking of European civilization.
Individuals may attain greatness in one field. But how often do even the most brilliant and successful people change professions, and attain comparable distinction in a second and completely different career? Napoleon was not only sequentially preeminent in several very different endeavors, he pursued them simultaneously. How did he do it?
Rabbi Liebowitz remarked that Napoleon likely possessed a trait that all people should attempt to emulate. When, for example, he dealt with warfare, the entire universe of his intellect was focused on that subject alone, and his many different careers did not in any way interfere with his concentration. Yet, despite riveting his mind on combat, he simultaneously maintained a focus all of the details of his many other involvements in the back of his mind. This was necessary to avoid having his activities conflict with each other and to be aware of when his attentions had to be diverted to another area.
Similarly, Yaakov (lehavdil) was focused on both the mortal threat facing him and on other issues as well. Furthermore, Yaakov didn’t only keep two or more highly important endeavors in mind. Though involved with a most crucial matter of life and death, Yaakov still did not lose sight of even the smallest details of his other responsibilities.
If you have a comment, please post it below.
(This Dvar Torah was adapted from Rabbi Ganz’s volume on Sefer Bereishit, “Defining Humanity.”)
To help defray the cost (in time) of its production, and as a way of supporting our Jewish outreach organization in Cambridge, we are asking people to consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc.The “cost” is $120, but amounts greater than $120 will of course be gladly accepted. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!(Should the situation arise, we consider it acceptable to have more than one sponsor per Dvar. If you would like to be sole sponsor, please let us know.)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Vayetze
PARSHAT VAYETZE – WEILDING INFLUENCE
Yaakov (Jacob) fled from his parents’ home in Israel because his brother Eisav (Essau) was plotting to kill him. Following the advice of his parents, he took up residence in Haran at the house of his uncle, Lavan (Parshat Vayetze 28:7), whose daughters (Leah and Rachel) he then married. Yaakov eventually became the father of a large family. After twenty years had passed, Lavan’s sons suddenly became openly hostile to Yaakov. This indicated to Yaakov that he was suddenly less welcome at Lavan’s home and that it was therefore advisable to return to Israel. Hashem (G-d) then appeared to Yaakov and instructed him to return to his homeland.
Yaakov then called his wives together and discussed with them why it seemed like an appropriate time for them all to leave. He then later mentioned to them that Hashem had also commanded him to return home.
The way that Yaakov presented his arguments seems peculiar. Why didn’t he simply relate that Hashem had specifically commanded them to leave Haran for Israel? Surely, that would have elicited their wholehearted cooperation – they surely would not have disobeyed Hashem’s overt command.
The Commentary of the Ralbag (by Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, 1288–1344) deals with this question. He explains that if someone is seeking to influence family members to act or act in a given manner (as Yaakov was), it is inadvisable to compel them. Rather, one should endeavor to bring them to the point of independently deciding the same. That was why Yaakov first dialogued with his wives. It was to get them to independently arrive at what he already decided. Only then, to yet further deepen their commitment to the plan, Yaakov added that Hashem had commanded them to leave.
This is saying that coercion is not the most effective method for influencing others — even where force is available. Rather, it is preferable to bring people to the point where they will arrive at a hoped-for decision on their own. When this occurs, the conclusion and commitment to that conclusion is more profound. Yaakov therefore first spoke to his wives about why he thought it best to depart, hoping that they themselves would choose to depart. It was only afterward, in order to further strengthen their commitment to his plan, that Yaakov added that this was also Hashem’s explicit command.
These words of the Ralbag require further elucidation. Every period of Jewish history is replete with examples of righteous Jews hastening to fulfill every commandment of the Torah. Yaakov’s wives were the mothers of the Jewish Nation. They attained prophecy, and they were no doubt supremely righteous and G-d fearing. Seemingly, to for such sanctified individuals, there is no higher imperative than obeying the specifically stated Word of Hashem. Seemingly, their commitment to Hashem’s Command would know no bounds. Every fiber of their beings, conscious and subconscious, would be dedicated to the task. Why then wasn’t it enough for Yaakov to simply relate that Hashem had commanded them to leave?
An unavoidable circumstance of humanity is that every individual has a distinct disposition and leaning. Furthermore, however spiritual one may be, his or her inclination will not always necessarily be one and the same as that of Hashem. When one has a ‘built in’ difficulty with performing a given action, a certain internal hesitancy can arise. This remains true even if when ‘holy people’ are complying with the stated dictate of Hashem.
Yaakov recognized that his wives might have harbored an inner trace of resistance to leaving their family and homeland. He therefore initially avoided mention of Hashem’s command. Yaakov knew that they would certainly never overtly disobey Hashem’s Order. Yet, Yaakov recognized the additional devotion that Rachel’s and Leah would have had to their own autonomous determination…It would have even exceeded their commitment to an outright directive of Hashem that ran contrary to their personal inclinations. Even in this type of situation, an independently formed conclusion remains preferable to a state of consent gained through external pressure. It becomes the change of heart to which one is most deeply committed.
Daily living includes frequent conflicts of wills. The concept of the Ralbag has obvious application to the conduct of these struggles. Parents and children, employers and employees, co-workers, siblings, friends, and spouses are always attempting to influence each other’s thinking. The Ralbag teaches that getting the other person to decide “my way” on his or her own accord is far more effective than “Please do this because I asked you to.”
Speaking anecdotally, a cardiologist recently remarked that most of his patients need to make significant lifestyle changes (i.e. diet and exercise) to increase their chances of recovery, Yet, the doctor said that only one in seven of them end up actually making the changes. Based on the Ralbag, a more effective approach might be to hand the patients articles with statistics on the relationship between lifestyle and cardiovascular health. Then, if they opt on their own for a healthier way of living, their decisions would be more likely to endure.
Another particular scenario comes to mind. A very critical period in one’s development is that of adolescence and early twenties. People then make seminal decisions on school, career and marriage — choices that will profoundly impact upon the direction of their lives. Parents, relatives, or rabbis often become heavy-handed “advice givers” who overwhelm these young people with what they assume to be the correct choices. (A common rationalization for this intrusion is that the young people are unprepared to decide alone on these weighty matters.)
The Ralbag indicates that the matter will likely not be best resolved by external pressure – even if it is in the form of absolutely correct advice. The young person will only be truly committed to decisions that are arrived at autonomously. The most powerful influence one can wield is to somehow bring that other person to correctly decide the issue — independently.
An interesting corollary to this application is that pressuring the young individual toward a given decision might not only fail to accomplish its goal, but it can be a recipe for future failure. This is because real success in marriage and career, even under ideal circumstances, is never automatic. Herculean exertions are often necessary to triumph over the difficulties that these areas present. Realizing this triumph will be incomparably more daunting for one who never fully embraced the choice of what the specific challenges would be.
(This Dvar Torah was adapted from Rabbi Ganz’s volume on Sefer Bereishit, “Defining Humanity.”)
To help defray the cost (in time) of its production, and as a way of supporting our Jewish outreach organization in Cambridge, we are asking people to consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc.The “cost” is $120, but amounts greater than $120 will of course be gladly accepted. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!(Should the situation arise, we consider it acceptable to have more than one sponsor per Dvar. If you would like to be sole sponsor, please let us know.
Yaakov (Jacob) fled from his parents’ home in Israel because his brother Eisav (Essau) was plotting to kill him. Following the advice of his parents, he took up residence in Haran at the house of his uncle, Lavan (Parshat Vayetze 28:7), whose daughters (Leah and Rachel) he then married. Yaakov eventually became the father of a large family. After twenty years had passed, Lavan’s sons suddenly became openly hostile to Yaakov. This indicated to Yaakov that he was suddenly less welcome at Lavan’s home and that it was therefore advisable to return to Israel. Hashem (G-d) then appeared to Yaakov and instructed him to return to his homeland.
Yaakov then called his wives together and discussed with them why it seemed like an appropriate time for them all to leave. He then later mentioned to them that Hashem had also commanded him to return home.
The way that Yaakov presented his arguments seems peculiar. Why didn’t he simply relate that Hashem had specifically commanded them to leave Haran for Israel? Surely, that would have elicited their wholehearted cooperation – they surely would not have disobeyed Hashem’s overt command.
The Commentary of the Ralbag (by Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, 1288–1344) deals with this question. He explains that if someone is seeking to influence family members to act or act in a given manner (as Yaakov was), it is inadvisable to compel them. Rather, one should endeavor to bring them to the point of independently deciding the same. That was why Yaakov first dialogued with his wives. It was to get them to independently arrive at what he already decided. Only then, to yet further deepen their commitment to the plan, Yaakov added that Hashem had commanded them to leave.
This is saying that coercion is not the most effective method for influencing others — even where force is available. Rather, it is preferable to bring people to the point where they will arrive at a hoped-for decision on their own. When this occurs, the conclusion and commitment to that conclusion is more profound. Yaakov therefore first spoke to his wives about why he thought it best to depart, hoping that they themselves would choose to depart. It was only afterward, in order to further strengthen their commitment to his plan, that Yaakov added that this was also Hashem’s explicit command.
These words of the Ralbag require further elucidation. Every period of Jewish history is replete with examples of righteous Jews hastening to fulfill every commandment of the Torah. Yaakov’s wives were the mothers of the Jewish Nation. They attained prophecy, and they were no doubt supremely righteous and G-d fearing. Seemingly, to for such sanctified individuals, there is no higher imperative than obeying the specifically stated Word of Hashem. Seemingly, their commitment to Hashem’s Command would know no bounds. Every fiber of their beings, conscious and subconscious, would be dedicated to the task. Why then wasn’t it enough for Yaakov to simply relate that Hashem had commanded them to leave?
An unavoidable circumstance of humanity is that every individual has a distinct disposition and leaning. Furthermore, however spiritual one may be, his or her inclination will not always necessarily be one and the same as that of Hashem. When one has a ‘built in’ difficulty with performing a given action, a certain internal hesitancy can arise. This remains true even if when ‘holy people’ are complying with the stated dictate of Hashem.
Yaakov recognized that his wives might have harbored an inner trace of resistance to leaving their family and homeland. He therefore initially avoided mention of Hashem’s command. Yaakov knew that they would certainly never overtly disobey Hashem’s Order. Yet, Yaakov recognized the additional devotion that Rachel’s and Leah would have had to their own autonomous determination…It would have even exceeded their commitment to an outright directive of Hashem that ran contrary to their personal inclinations. Even in this type of situation, an independently formed conclusion remains preferable to a state of consent gained through external pressure. It becomes the change of heart to which one is most deeply committed.
Daily living includes frequent conflicts of wills. The concept of the Ralbag has obvious application to the conduct of these struggles. Parents and children, employers and employees, co-workers, siblings, friends, and spouses are always attempting to influence each other’s thinking. The Ralbag teaches that getting the other person to decide “my way” on his or her own accord is far more effective than “Please do this because I asked you to.”
Speaking anecdotally, a cardiologist recently remarked that most of his patients need to make significant lifestyle changes (i.e. diet and exercise) to increase their chances of recovery, Yet, the doctor said that only one in seven of them end up actually making the changes. Based on the Ralbag, a more effective approach might be to hand the patients articles with statistics on the relationship between lifestyle and cardiovascular health. Then, if they opt on their own for a healthier way of living, their decisions would be more likely to endure.
Another particular scenario comes to mind. A very critical period in one’s development is that of adolescence and early twenties. People then make seminal decisions on school, career and marriage — choices that will profoundly impact upon the direction of their lives. Parents, relatives, or rabbis often become heavy-handed “advice givers” who overwhelm these young people with what they assume to be the correct choices. (A common rationalization for this intrusion is that the young people are unprepared to decide alone on these weighty matters.)
The Ralbag indicates that the matter will likely not be best resolved by external pressure – even if it is in the form of absolutely correct advice. The young person will only be truly committed to decisions that are arrived at autonomously. The most powerful influence one can wield is to somehow bring that other person to correctly decide the issue — independently.
An interesting corollary to this application is that pressuring the young individual toward a given decision might not only fail to accomplish its goal, but it can be a recipe for future failure. This is because real success in marriage and career, even under ideal circumstances, is never automatic. Herculean exertions are often necessary to triumph over the difficulties that these areas present. Realizing this triumph will be incomparably more daunting for one who never fully embraced the choice of what the specific challenges would be.
(This Dvar Torah was adapted from Rabbi Ganz’s volume on Sefer Bereishit, “Defining Humanity.”)
To help defray the cost (in time) of its production, and as a way of supporting our Jewish outreach organization in Cambridge, we are asking people to consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc.The “cost” is $120, but amounts greater than $120 will of course be gladly accepted. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!(Should the situation arise, we consider it acceptable to have more than one sponsor per Dvar. If you would like to be sole sponsor, please let us know.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Toldot
PARSHAT TOLDOT – HUMAN NEEDS
Rivkah (Rebecca) and Yitzchak (Isaac) were in a childless marriage for 20 years until finally, Rivkah became pregnant with twins. The pregnancy, however, was unusually difficult. Rivkah sought out prophetic explanation for what she was experiencing. Rivkah was told that she was carrying twins, Yaakov and Eisav, from whom two great nations would arise. The difficulty of the pregnancy was due to the fact that even in utero, they were already struggling with each other (Commentary of Ramban).
Quoting the Talmud (Berachot 57b), Rashi’s commentary adds that the prophecy also identified two extremely prominent members of those nations who would later coexist - Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi and Antoninus. R. Yehudah Hanasi (usually referred to as Rebbe) was a descendant of Yaakov and the compiler of the Mishnah; Antoninus, a descendant of Eisav, was a Roman ruler. Both individuals were extraordinarily wealthy. A sign of their wealth was the fact that their tables were always graced by out-of-season produce, a luxury then available to only the most affluent. This indicates that Rebbe spent a large amount of money on the meals served in his home.
The Talmud (Berachot 104a) writes of Rebbe that he did not partake of his wealth more than was absolutely necessary. When dying, he raised his fingers, stating that he did not have (any unnecessary) benefit from this world — even to the extent of the profit earned through working with one finger only. Several commentaries therefore ask, how could the Talmud write that Rebbe lived in great opulence? Did it not also write that Rebbe only partook of bare necessities?
The Commentary of the Taz (by Rabbi Dovid ben Shmuel Halevi, author of the Taz on Shulchan Aruch, d. 1667) on Rashi answers that both statements are true. Rebbe never indulged himself with even one extra penny’s worth of luxury. However, due to his great affluence, his opulent lifestyle was a necessity without which Rebbe could not function optimally. It was only relative to others that Rebbe lived immoderately. However, with regard to his own requirements, he partook of only the bare necessities.
Many are aware of the Talmudic dictum “He who has one hundred desires two hundred” (Midrash Rabbah, Koheles 1:13). Man can never achieve satisfaction from material possessions; whatever one obtains fosters the desire for twice that amount. Satisfying one’s desires in search of contentment is therefore pointless, for self-indulgence will only create the desire for yet greater indulgences (see chapter 14). Yet the Talmud’s treatment of Rebbe seems to sanction a most opulent lifestyle. This is evident from the fact that Rebbe’s “indulgences” were not criticized by the Talmud. How can this be understood?
In truth, it is a lust for ever more possessions which cannot be satisfied. However, each person has a threshold of personal need. Rebbe required this quality of lifestyle; due to his circumstances, he could not eat comfortably from a less lavish table. Rebbe, who descended from King David, was the ruling Prince of the Jews, whose immediate forefathers also held the same office. Rebbe was therefore likely raised in a very wealthy home. Although Rebbe’s expenditures were exorbitant relative to others, for him given the context of his life and his position, it was necessity rather than self-indulgence that inspired the consumption. His lifestyle was a result of a carefully analyzed conclusion based on his understanding of Torah guidelines and ethics rather than on his personal and unrestrained desires and needs. Hnce, it would have been wrong for Rebbe not to satisfy those needs; and fulfilling them did not create the need for more and more.
The words of the Taz also illustrate the enormous variance of human material needs. Rebbe’s lifestyle was indeed out of reach to all but the world’s most affluent. However, tit was what he personally required, due to his station and wealth. If his table were more modest, it would have been a deprivation of his appropriate needs. Rebbe partook of only what was necessary for him and not one iota more.
A given human indulgence cannot be unilaterally deemed as either a necessity or a luxury; what constitutes need is a highly subjective consideration. What is an outrageous extravagance to most of the world may in fact be a justifiable imperative to some. Rebbe (like Antoninus) expended as much on his own material consumption as perhaps anyone else alive at that time. To those who observed him from afar, he might have seemed like the archetype of wasteful consumption. Nevertheless, Rebbe became the Talmud’s model of one who subsisted for an entire lifetime on bare necessities.
This concept gives additional impetus to observe the Talmudic dictum (Avot 1:10) “Judge all people meritoriously [always give others the benefit of the doubt].” One type of being judgmental occurs when one points a finger at others, accusing them of extravagance. The Taz teaches that the enormous disparity between the needs of different individuals might be lost on these ‘finger pointers.’ Rebbe’s example demonstrates that one can be living in the world’s most sumptuous manner while at the same time being the Torah’s eternal paradigm of one who subsists on bare necessities alone.
The point should also be made that Rebbe never lost sight of the absolute definition of what his needs were and what they were not. Despite the outlay of tremendous sums to satisfy his needs, Rebbe scrupulously avoided even the slightest unwarranted expense. If, in modern denominations, three hundred dollars was needed for his every breakfast, he made certain that $301 was not spent. That extra dollar was an excess that Rebbe avoided throughout his lifetime.
In the ethical system of the Torah, it is accepted that major and ongoing expenditures of money might be required by some individuals to provide for their ‘needs’ – but only for needs and not for uncalled for indulgences. Furthermore, when it comes to unjustified spending, ideally, even overspending the smallest amounts should be avoided — as per Rebbe’s example. Notwithstanding his enormous affluence, Rebbe did not ever spend even a “small finger’s worth” more than necessary.
(This Dvar Torah was adapted from Rabbi Ganz’s volume on Sefer Bereishit, “Defining Humanity.”)
To help defray the cost (in time) of its production, and as a way of supporting our Jewish outreach organization in Cambridge, we are asking people to consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc.
The “cost” is $120, but amounts greater than $120 will of course be gladly accepted. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!(Should the situation arise, we consider it acceptable to have more than one sponsor per Dvar. If you would like to be sole sponsor, please let us know.)
Rivkah (Rebecca) and Yitzchak (Isaac) were in a childless marriage for 20 years until finally, Rivkah became pregnant with twins. The pregnancy, however, was unusually difficult. Rivkah sought out prophetic explanation for what she was experiencing. Rivkah was told that she was carrying twins, Yaakov and Eisav, from whom two great nations would arise. The difficulty of the pregnancy was due to the fact that even in utero, they were already struggling with each other (Commentary of Ramban).
Quoting the Talmud (Berachot 57b), Rashi’s commentary adds that the prophecy also identified two extremely prominent members of those nations who would later coexist - Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi and Antoninus. R. Yehudah Hanasi (usually referred to as Rebbe) was a descendant of Yaakov and the compiler of the Mishnah; Antoninus, a descendant of Eisav, was a Roman ruler. Both individuals were extraordinarily wealthy. A sign of their wealth was the fact that their tables were always graced by out-of-season produce, a luxury then available to only the most affluent. This indicates that Rebbe spent a large amount of money on the meals served in his home.
The Talmud (Berachot 104a) writes of Rebbe that he did not partake of his wealth more than was absolutely necessary. When dying, he raised his fingers, stating that he did not have (any unnecessary) benefit from this world — even to the extent of the profit earned through working with one finger only. Several commentaries therefore ask, how could the Talmud write that Rebbe lived in great opulence? Did it not also write that Rebbe only partook of bare necessities?
The Commentary of the Taz (by Rabbi Dovid ben Shmuel Halevi, author of the Taz on Shulchan Aruch, d. 1667) on Rashi answers that both statements are true. Rebbe never indulged himself with even one extra penny’s worth of luxury. However, due to his great affluence, his opulent lifestyle was a necessity without which Rebbe could not function optimally. It was only relative to others that Rebbe lived immoderately. However, with regard to his own requirements, he partook of only the bare necessities.
Many are aware of the Talmudic dictum “He who has one hundred desires two hundred” (Midrash Rabbah, Koheles 1:13). Man can never achieve satisfaction from material possessions; whatever one obtains fosters the desire for twice that amount. Satisfying one’s desires in search of contentment is therefore pointless, for self-indulgence will only create the desire for yet greater indulgences (see chapter 14). Yet the Talmud’s treatment of Rebbe seems to sanction a most opulent lifestyle. This is evident from the fact that Rebbe’s “indulgences” were not criticized by the Talmud. How can this be understood?
In truth, it is a lust for ever more possessions which cannot be satisfied. However, each person has a threshold of personal need. Rebbe required this quality of lifestyle; due to his circumstances, he could not eat comfortably from a less lavish table. Rebbe, who descended from King David, was the ruling Prince of the Jews, whose immediate forefathers also held the same office. Rebbe was therefore likely raised in a very wealthy home. Although Rebbe’s expenditures were exorbitant relative to others, for him given the context of his life and his position, it was necessity rather than self-indulgence that inspired the consumption. His lifestyle was a result of a carefully analyzed conclusion based on his understanding of Torah guidelines and ethics rather than on his personal and unrestrained desires and needs. Hnce, it would have been wrong for Rebbe not to satisfy those needs; and fulfilling them did not create the need for more and more.
The words of the Taz also illustrate the enormous variance of human material needs. Rebbe’s lifestyle was indeed out of reach to all but the world’s most affluent. However, tit was what he personally required, due to his station and wealth. If his table were more modest, it would have been a deprivation of his appropriate needs. Rebbe partook of only what was necessary for him and not one iota more.
A given human indulgence cannot be unilaterally deemed as either a necessity or a luxury; what constitutes need is a highly subjective consideration. What is an outrageous extravagance to most of the world may in fact be a justifiable imperative to some. Rebbe (like Antoninus) expended as much on his own material consumption as perhaps anyone else alive at that time. To those who observed him from afar, he might have seemed like the archetype of wasteful consumption. Nevertheless, Rebbe became the Talmud’s model of one who subsisted for an entire lifetime on bare necessities.
This concept gives additional impetus to observe the Talmudic dictum (Avot 1:10) “Judge all people meritoriously [always give others the benefit of the doubt].” One type of being judgmental occurs when one points a finger at others, accusing them of extravagance. The Taz teaches that the enormous disparity between the needs of different individuals might be lost on these ‘finger pointers.’ Rebbe’s example demonstrates that one can be living in the world’s most sumptuous manner while at the same time being the Torah’s eternal paradigm of one who subsists on bare necessities alone.
The point should also be made that Rebbe never lost sight of the absolute definition of what his needs were and what they were not. Despite the outlay of tremendous sums to satisfy his needs, Rebbe scrupulously avoided even the slightest unwarranted expense. If, in modern denominations, three hundred dollars was needed for his every breakfast, he made certain that $301 was not spent. That extra dollar was an excess that Rebbe avoided throughout his lifetime.
In the ethical system of the Torah, it is accepted that major and ongoing expenditures of money might be required by some individuals to provide for their ‘needs’ – but only for needs and not for uncalled for indulgences. Furthermore, when it comes to unjustified spending, ideally, even overspending the smallest amounts should be avoided — as per Rebbe’s example. Notwithstanding his enormous affluence, Rebbe did not ever spend even a “small finger’s worth” more than necessary.
(This Dvar Torah was adapted from Rabbi Ganz’s volume on Sefer Bereishit, “Defining Humanity.”)
To help defray the cost (in time) of its production, and as a way of supporting our Jewish outreach organization in Cambridge, we are asking people to consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc.
The “cost” is $120, but amounts greater than $120 will of course be gladly accepted. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!(Should the situation arise, we consider it acceptable to have more than one sponsor per Dvar. If you would like to be sole sponsor, please let us know.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)