Stealing Another’s
Self-Respect
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parashat VaYikra, 5769
Just as it is challenging for an
individual to find personal meaning in the latter Parashiot of Sefer
Shemot that focus upon the design and construction of the Tabernacle and
the garments worn by the Priests while engaged in the Divine Service, a similar
difficulty presents itself with regard to the numerous Parashiot in Sefer
VaYikra that focus upon the myriad details regarding sacrifices, a ritual
activity that we can only imagine but at least to date have never directly
experienced. For this reason it is important to be on the lookout for
commentaries that are able to bridge the gap between our experience and quest
for spiritual meaning, so that our weekly public Tora reading experience can
maximally be significant for each of us.
I came across one such
interpretation for a section of Parashat VaYikra in R. Eliezer Brody’s
Tora commentary, Pi HaBe’er.[1]
Regarding the verses that describe how restitution can be made if one has deprived
another of property that belongs to that other person, the Tora writes:
VaYikra 5:21-6
A
person who sins and trespasses against God and denies his
friend’s (truthful claim) regarding
something that had been left in his
care to guard or which was a loan or that was
stolen (by him) or that he oppressed his friend in
order to obtain it.
Or
he found a lost object (belonging to the friend) and he denies
having it, and he swears falsely regarding anything that a person might
do to transgress,
And
it will be when he wishes to atone his sin either by a sin or
guilt offering, and he returns the stolen object that he
stole, or the object that he had obtained by
oppression or the object that
had been left with him to guard, of the lost object
that he found,
Or
anything about which he had sworn falsely, and he will
repay the principal and its fifth he
will add to it to the individual to whom the object actually belongs he will
give it on the day of his repentance for the sin.
And
his guilt offering he will bring to God, a perfect ram from
the flock according to the value of a guilt
offering, to the Priest.
And
the Priest will atone for him before God and he will be
forgiven for the one thing that he did that incurred guilt
R. Brody
associates the following Talmudic passage with the above section of Parashat
Tzav, shedding new light on the concept of thievery:
Berachot
6b
Said
R. Chelbo, said R. Huna: One who knows regarding his friend that he is
accustomed to greet him, should anticipate that greeting and greet him first,
as it is said, (Tehillim 34:15) “Seek out peace and pursue it.”
And
if he offers a greeting (first) and he (the other) does not return it, he (the
other) is called a “Gazlan” (thief.)
Whereas
most people do not engage in overt and criminal thievery, suddenly introducing
the manner in which we either acknowledge or ignore others whom we either are
acquainted with or are seeing for the first time as another manifestation of
taking something illegally from another, makes the Tora passages in question much
more immediate and offers serious food for thought. R. Broyde then quotes his
teacher, Rabbi Naftali
Asher Yeshayahu Moskowitz, the Shotz-Melitzer Rebbe, to the
effect that a thief is one who “steals the joy of life from another.” The
commentator then reflects upon the adverse psychological effects that arise
when a person does not greet another, in effect “stealing his joy of life”: :
…He (who does not return his fellow’s greeting) adversely
affects the other’s self-image, implying that the latter is not worthy of being
part of a relationship. Furthermore, the self-confidence of the individual has
been attacked and stolen, for he now is upset and worried. “What is wrong with
me that people do not wish to return my greeting?” and his heart aches. And
even further, the refusal to return a greeting constitutes an attack on the
Holy One, Blessed Be He, because it is a course act of arrogance, and whomever
engages in self-aggrandizement, is stealing the garb of HaShem, about
Whom it is stated, (Tehillim 93:1) “The Lord Reigns, He is clothed in
majesty.”[2]
Finally, R.Brody directly
incorporates a factor from VaYikra 5:25, where we learn that restitution
for the stolen object consists of the principle together with a monetary fine
of a “fifth,”[3]
into the equivalence between stealing property and stealing a greeting. He
posits that the manner by which the transgression of not having returned a
greeting is atoned, should not only be by means of properly offering a greeting
the next time that the offended individual is encountered, but by deliberately adding
to the greeting’s warmth by a hand shake or wave, thus augmenting the
response with the involvement of one’s five fingers! And as for the
offense against God, it can be made up by means of studying the Five
Books of Moshe, and making sure to take more seriously in the future the
statement in VaYikra 19:18, “And you will love your neighbor as
yourself.”[4]
Whereas
the passage in Berachot 6a focuses upon the obligation only to respond
to a greeting,[5]
this does not mean that Jewish tradition does not consider initiating a
greeting to everyone one meets a standard after which ideally we all should
strive:
Avot 4:15
R. Masya ben Cheiresh says: You should be the first
to greet every “Adam”[6]…
Berachot 17a
A
favorite saying of Abaye was: A man should always be subtle in the fear of
Heaven, (Mishlei 15:1) “A soft answer turns away anger,” and one
should always strive to be on best terms with his brethren and his relatives
and with all men, even the non-Jew on the street, in order that he be
beloved above and well-liked below and be acceptable to his fellow creatures.
It was related of R. Yochanan ben Zakai, that no man ever gave him a
greeting first, even a non-Jew on the street.
While some may think that to deprive
someone of an emotional feeling or a sense of personal significance is not
literally thievery, but at most a metaphoric turn of phrase, two rigorously
Halachic discussions in the Talmud bear out the idea that when we make another
feel good, it is actually giving him a gift of objective value. And if such an emotion is deemed to
constitute real
worth, then the converse is also valid, i.e.,
in the event that we withhold such feelings when it is within our
purview to enable another individual to experience them, then we are actually
taking something of value from him, an act of stealing.
Megilla 26a
With regard to a synagogue that has been made a gift,
there is a difference of opinion between R. Acha and Ravina, one forbidding it
(to be used for non-holy purposes) and one permitting. The one who prohibited
it believed that there was nothing upon which the holiness could be
transferred.[7]
The one who permits such a gift believes that if the giver did not receive pleasure
from the act of giving, he would not have done it, so in effect the gift
was analogous to a sale, (i.e., something is derived by the giver, the pleasure
of giving, to which the holiness of the synagogue can be transferred.)
Kiddushin 7a
Rava stated: If
woman declared, “Here is a Maneh (currency), and I will become
betrothed to you, Mar Zutra ruled in R. Papa’s name: She is betrothed.
(This is a striking pronouncement since the standard understanding of betrothal
is that the bride gives herself to the groom in exchange for something of value
from him. Today, that gift is the ring presented by the groom to the bride
under the Chupa (the bridal canopy.) The Talmud struggles to understand
how the Amoraim quoted could justify a procedure that reverses the
process.)…
Here the reference is to an important man (the
groom.) In return for the pleasure that she derives from his accepting a
gift from her, she gives herself to him.[8]
In
both of these instances, the pleasure of the gift giver that comes about when
the recipient agrees to accept the gift is treated as something of value with
regard to holiness being transferred to it, or effecting a marriage
relationship. And while in these two examples there was nothing forcing the
gift giver to send these gifts to another, with respect to Berachot 6a
cited above, since the other person already extended the initial greeting, he
is legally entitled to the pleasure engendered by a positive response, and
depriving him of it becomes thievery!
Perhaps part of the reason why R.
Brody’s interpretation made such an impression upon me was because during the
course of the Shiurim I have been giving this year on Elisha ben Avuya
and his colleagues, we had recently been focusing upon Yevamot 62b’s
account of a terrible ordeal that involved R. Akiva:
They said: R. Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students,
from Gabbatha to Antipatris, and all of them died at the same time because they
did not treat one another with respect and the world was desolate…
While
such a calamity would be terrible were it to happen to anyone’s students, it
seems to me that R. Akiva in particular must have been devastated in light of
his association with the following verse:
Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:4
(VaYikra 19:18) “And you will love your
neighbor as yourself”—R. Akiva says this is the most important rule in the
entire Tora.
In
effect, the Talmud implies that R. Akiva’s myriad students all missed the point
that we might imagine their teacher thought that he had taught and modeled, i.e.,
that love and respect for another is crucial if one purports to learn Tora and
live a Tora lifestyle. How does a teacher feel and what does he do when he sees
that he has not successfully imparted one of his most dearly held values,
leading to either the literal or metaphorical[9]
destruction of his students?[10]
[11]
This past week’s
“The Unknown Mitzva of Lashon HaTov”
The Hebrew term Lashon HaRa refers to
negative, critical speech about others. Maimonides proposes,[13]
in effect, the the precise opposite, Lashon HaTov, good speech in which
we praise others and relate anecdotes that show them in a good light…[14]
It
would appear that what is being called for when we advocate Lashon HaTov
is something beyond returning, let alone initiating a greeting. Whereas with
regard to greetings, we are dealing with interactions between two people who
are in each others presence, types of give and take that at least at times are
more a matter of social convention than indications of true affection and
admiration, when one talks about another’s virtues when he is not there to hear
the praises, this constitutes so much more of a purer form of care, respect and
even love. It would be wonderful if one level could lead to the next, i.e.,
friendly verbal greetings, physical demonstrations of high regard, and finally
unsolicited, pure positive praise.
A passage in R. Telushkin’s first
volume on Jewish ethics at first glance deals not with how to relate to someone
else, but rather how we should regard and inspire ourselves.
One of the
best-known prayers recited on Yom Kippur is the confessional prayer
known as the Al Chet. “For the sin I committed by …” On this day, Jews
confess repeatedly to 44 different transgressions. The awareness of how many
sins we routinely commit can, however overwhelm some of us with a sense of
guilt and despair. I suggest, therefore, that we can focus on the good things
we do, and the good things we can do. Hence the following—titled “For the Mitzva
we Performed”—is a suggested reading for the Yom Kippur service, which can be
read aloud by a congregation or recited and studied individually.
1. For the Mitzva
we performed by remembering the good someone did for us even when we were upset
with him or her.
2. For the Mitzva
we performed by stopping our child from teasing or humiliating another child or
using a hurtful nickname.
3. For the Mitzva
we performed by standing up for justice when we saw someone mistreated…
5. For the Mitzva we performed by
remembering to express gratitude to anyone who helped us...
8. For the Mitzva we
performed when we gave food or money to someone who said he was hungry…[15]
The
concept that in addition to our taking responsibility for all sorts of
transgressions, many which we would never dream of perpetrating, but which
nevertheless taken place somewhere within our community, we should also
remember positive things that we have done on behalf of one another, provides a
fuller and more accurate picture of our mutual interactions. But I would argue
that in addition to mitigating the “downer” aspect of Yom HaKippurim
when we repeat over and over how terrible our behaviors have been, the listing
of positive Mitzvot also offers something to aspire to. Even if some of
these statements presently apply to others rather than to ourselves, why not
resolve on Yom HaKippurim to strive to incorporate as many of these
positive values and actions into our own lives so that next year, the list
becomes a more accurate reflection of where we are at spiritually and socially.
A smile and a wave may not be much when
compared to greater and more pressing issues; however as a sign of community,
mutual respect and friendship; exchanging greetings is a first step followed
hopefully by many more, all intended to make our lives together more pleasant,
affirming and satisfying.
[1]
[2] Whereas God can deservedly, so to speak, expect to be revered and looked up to, this is not the case for a human being, even one of high social rank or who occupies high office. Of man, God Expects humility, as exemplified by Avraham in Beraishit 18:27, or Moshe in BaMidbar 12:3.
[3] In actuality, you add ¼, which with respect to the final sum becomes 1/5. See Bava Metzia 54a.
[4] Just as one would never wish to be snubbed after offering a greeting to someone, the same should be true with regard to returning another’s greeting. This also becomes an opportunity to embody Hillel’s explanation to a potential convert regarding what the essence of the Tora: What is hateful to you, to the next person do not perpetrate! (Shabbat 31a)
[5] The individual is directed to issue a greeting only to one who normally greets him, implying that if you encounter someone who normally does not greet you, you don’t have to greet him.
[6] The term “Adam” (man) generally makes no distinction between Jews and non-Jews, and therefore would apply to all human beings equally.
[7] In cases
like redeeming something belonging to the
[8] I believe that I first came across these two references within the context of an essay by R. Chaim Shmulevitz, Rosh Yeshiva of Mir in his book, Sichot Mussar 5731-3 (5740.) However, I have been unable to locate the exact reference. I do remember that the application to which he applied the issue of the deprivation of pleasure as thievery was to a classroom where if the teacher has properly prepared and presented his material, should the students refuse to participate and learn, they are “stealing” from the teacher the pleasure of teaching Tora to which he is entitled!
Proceeding
in a similar homiletic vein, I believe that the same could be said with respect
to those who come to the synagogue, and rather than engaging in prayer or
following the Tora and Haftora reading, they opt to talk to their
neighbors or even read books, including Tora texts. If the intent is that in
the synagogue an encounter between the individual and God is to take place (it
is to engender such a mood that many synagogues display above the Ark the line,
“Know before Whom you are standing”), then when a person undermines this
possibility, is he not depriving God, so to speak, from the “pleasure” of His
Creatures worshipping and listening to His Tora? See my article on “Fear of God
and Prayer” in ed. Marc Stern, Yirat Shamayim: The Awe,
Reverence and Fear of God, Yeshiva U. Press,
Said R. Yehuda in the name of Rav: Greater is the welcoming of guests than receiving a Divine Revelation, as it is stated (Beraishit 18:3)…
one could imagine that guests travelling through the desert might be literally dying of thirst or hunger, hardly a claim that one could make regarding the individual sitting next to him in the synagogue to whom some information is being passed, greeting extended, or joke shared.
[9] Could the students “deaths” be understood in a manner similar to the language in Avot 3:7:
R. Shimon said: An individual who is walking in the way and learning, and then interrupts his learning to say, “How beautiful is this tree! How beautiful is the view!” the verse treats him as if he is “Mitchayev BeNafsho” (forfeited his soul.)
[10] Of course, we are not necessarily aware of the relative chronology of these two sources. Could it be possible that R. Akiva first became a devotee of VaYikra 19:18 only after he suffered the tragedy of the deaths of his students?
[11] Intriguingly, the Talmud in Yevamot continues:
…until R. Akiva came to our teachers in the south, and taught them: R. Meir, R. Yehuda, R. Yosi, R. Shimon and R. Elezar ben Shamua, and they were the ones who erected the Tora.
At least two ideas suggest themselves from the continuation of this Talmudic passage:
a) R. Akiva substituted quality over quantity. Perhaps with such a mass of students spread across such a vast distance it was difficult to have a personal relationship with each of them and assure that the proper lessons were being learned. Dealing with a smaller number with whom more intense relationships could be forged was a better formula for success.
b) Rather than being discouraged, R. Akiva continued to teach Tora and attract students, hopefully correcting his miscalculations of the past.
[12] See this article in the Jewish Week.
[13] RaMBaM, Mishneh Tora, Hilchot De’ot 6:3.
[14] Joseph
Telushkin, A Code of
Jewish Ethics: Vol. 2 “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself,
[15] “ “ , A Code of Jewish Ethics: Vol. 1
“You Shall be Holy,