This week’s Shabbat Chanukah Dvar Torah is being sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. Jay Viders of Huntington, New York in honor of their children and grandchildren.
PARSHAT MEKETZ – SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES
Parshat Meketz begins with Yosef’s (Joseph’s) interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams. Yosef explained that the dreams foretold that Egypt would enjoy seven years of abundant harvests, followed by seven years of severe famine. Pharaoh, following Yosef’s advice, utilized the first seven years of plenty to store the surplus food. Once the famine began, there were widespread food shortages, and the people had no choice but to begin buying their grain from the storehouses of Pharaoh.
The famine also affected Yaakov (Jacob) and his family of 11 adult sons (the future Tribes of Israel) who then lived in Israel. It became apparent that to avoid hunger and possible death from starvation they too would have to purchase provisions in Egypt. Nevertheless, time passed, but not one member of the family took action. Finally, Yaakov came forward and commanded his children to journey to Egypt to procure food, warning them that without this purchase, they all could perish.
Why didn’t they act sooner? Inaction would have endangered the lives of Yaakov, his sons and the Jewish people of the future. The Commentary of the Sforno (by Rabbi Ovadia Sforno 1475 - 1550) explains that their inaction was due to the Talmudic dictum: “A pot owned by partners does not become cold nor does it cook” (Eruvin 3a).
The Talmud’s words regarding the “pot of partners” describe a basic characteristic of group dynamics: a task presented to a body of people will tend to remain undone. The Commentary of the Maharsha (by Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer HaLevi Eidles, 1555-1631) explains that the pot neither cooks when that is desired, nor is it chilled when that is called for. The reason for the inaction is that each member of the group assumes that another person will attend to the matter.
Yaakov and all his sons were partners — members of a group that was collectively faced with the responsibility and task to procure food.
In the actual Talmudic example of the pot, the issue at hand is generally benign; whether or not a given food item is served in its optimal state is normally immaterial. But would a joint responsibility for something more crucial elicit a different outcome? What if the situation is potentially life threatening? What if the people of the group were extremely high-minded and capable? Could one expect a different response from the group? Would people then overcome their collective inertia and rise to immediate action?
The task before Yaakov and his sons concerned a life-and-death situation. Although all human life is precious, their lives were especially important. Yaakov is referred to in rabbinic literature as the chosen (most perfect) of the Forefathers; his great and distinguished family was the Jewish nation of the future. They were the proponents of monotheism in an idolatrous world. If food were not procured in Egypt, they could have all died of starvation.
One can hardly imagine a more urgent yet achievable task being placed before a more virtuous and capable group of individuals. Could there ever be a greater likelihood that a group would overcome its inertia and act? Yet, had Yaakov left it to the group, they may very well have starved to death due to the psychology of the “pot of partners.” They only acted and journeyed to Egypt after the explicit command and direction of Yaakov.
Evidently, the paralysis of the “pot of partners” can incapacitate people in any situation, notwithstanding the uprightness and wisdom of those involved and the gravity of the situation. In any group dynamic, unless there is a clear division of labor with assigned specific domains of responsibility, this will tend to hold true.
From the response of Yaakov, one can also discern the method for overcoming this phenomenon of collective inaction. Yaakov understood that as an entity, the group itself would do little or nothing to save itself, mortal danger notwithstanding. The dynamic of the “pot of partners” mummifies communal response, irrespective of the talents of those involved and the seriousness of the situation. Yaakov therefore personally assumed control of the situation, thereby averting disaster. A group can best realize an objective when one of its members assumes leadership and acts with cooperation and assistance from the others.
To segue a bit into politics…One of the most contentious issues of the day concerns the extent to which government should help its citizens. In particular, the recently passed Obama Health Care Bill seems to have polarized the Left and the Right of the political spectrum as few other issues have.
This is not a format for taking positions on such matters. However, the source text of this Dvar indicates that by definition, management by government is less efficient than management by the private sector. Who, for example, should be held responsible if a sector of the federal government misfunctions? At the very least, it is the senators and congressmen who voted to fund it, the Office of Management and Budget that approved the expense, and the paid professionals who administer the program. This translates into overlapping jurisdictions – all of whom are responsible for the same thing - overseeing that part of the government.
Accordingly, in this type of situation, the extent of government involvement in almost any entity will likely correlate with its inefficiency and demise. Again! This is not meant as a statement on the imperative of government to offer entitlements to its citizens. Rather, it is merely saying that very-often-or-most-often, ‘enterprises run by government do not run very well.’
This Dvar was mostly taken from Rabbi Ganz’s book, “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. Should you prefer to be a sole sponsor, please let us know?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment wasw posted by ABADI. It somehow did not make it on to th page, so I am putting it up.
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t a lack of communication be a key component of the “pot of partners” phenomenon? You seem to indicate this in your text when you say “The reason for the inaction is that each member of the group assumes that another person will attend to the matter.” When people do not discuss a particular matter, people are left to make assumptions, which can lead to inaction in ’pot-of-partner’ situations when everyone makes the same incorrect assumption. Hence, the ‘pot-of-partner’ phenomenon can clearly be applied in situations that require quick action and there is no time to communicate (e.g. when a group of people see the same emergency and everybody assumes that somebody else will call 9-1-1), or when the matter is not very important and never comes up naturally in conversation (e.g. when neither roommate replaces a lightbulb).
But when people are starving, surely this is on the forefront of everybody’s mind! Whenever the family would get together, how could they not discuss this ongoing situation, about their children going to bed hungry, or theorizing about why the famine is occurring? How could there be a lack of communication in this situation? Surely at some point they would have brainstormed potential solutions, which included descending to Egypt? And once they are explicitly discussing the matter, how can there be assumptions anymore?
Dr Abadi,
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud is where the phrase about a pot of partners not cooking comes from. The explanation of, “The reason for the inaction is that each member of the group assumes that another person will attend to the matter” is a quote from the Commentary of the Mharsha explaining the words of the Talmud.
Your point however is that there is little urgency in whether the pot cooks properly or not. Hence, in that case, it is more understandable the ‘pot of partners psychology’ would prevent a response. You asked though, “But when people are starving, surely this is on the forefront of everybody’s mind! Whenever the family would get together, how could they not discuss this ongoing situation, about their, or theorizing about why the famine is occurring? How could there be a lack of communication in this situation? Surely at some point they would have brainstormed potential solutions…”
I would say that there are three levels of urgency. The lowest level is the example of the pot where little is at stake. The highest level is being in the midst of an actual emergency – as you put it, when there are “children going to bed hungry.” In between those two extremes is a case where there is a looming threat of an impending emergency.
That was the case facing Yaakov’s family. They weren’t starving then, but they realized that if they wouldn’t go to Egypt to purchase food, they might later starve.
In essence, in applying the Talmudic idea of the pot to Yaakov’s situation, the Commentary of the Sforno was saying that in this type of in between case, people will tend to act as they would when it is nothing more important than a pot. The Sforno might however agree with you that in a case where “the children are ALREADY going to bed hungry,” people would somehow make sure that someone responds.
An example of this might be seen in how the world is responding to the threat from Iran. They have a history of troublemaking and sponsoring terrorists, they make threatening statements directed at the West, and they are rushing to build nukes. I suspect that if Mexico was doing the same but threatening the USA only, we would have taken decisive action to stop them long ago. But the whole world is a big pot of partners in this regard, and they are therefore doing nothing to stop Iran.
Yet, I suspect that (in keeping with your thinking) if they ever actually did something dramatic (G-d forbid), the countries would rush to respond in kind.