INSIGHT
5761 - #12
Concern for Property
Bereishit
32:25 presents a textual problem. Bereishit
32:23-24 states that Yaakov Avinu took his
entire camp across the river; the implication is that
Yaakov joined his camp, in fact led his camp, in the
crossing of the river. Verse 25 then states that Yaakov
was left alone. Why was Yaakov alone? Why was Yaakov left
on the other side of the river? Ramban explains,
simply, that Yaakov directed the movement across the
river, choosing to be the last to actually cross the
river.1 Rashi
explains that actually Yaakov did cross the river with
his camp but then returned because he left behind some
small jars. From here, T.B. Chullin 91a states, we
learn that to the righteous their money (i.e.
possessions) is dearer to them than their bodies.2
The understanding of property presented in Nishma
Insight 5761-11 may be of assistance in explaining
this attitude of the righteous. Our financial assets
provide part of our resources in life by which we are
able to meet our goals; they are thus to be managed very
carefully. It is this recognition that could have induced
Yaakov to return to collect the small jars. This
understanding alone, though, cannot fully explain the
statement of the gemara. The gemara
clarifies that the reason the righteous value their money
over their bodies is because they are not involved in
theft. It would seem that it is not simply the
recognition of the importance of property as an asset in
life that gives it its importance to the righteous. It
would seem to be the absence of theft that gives property
its importance to the righteous.
Many commentators explain the gemara by
emphasizing that the absence of theft reinforces the
importance of one's property as a resource in life.
Indeed the value given to property arises from the
recognition of its significance in achieving life's
goals. The fact that one's property is only gained
through honest toil and not through any dishonesty
attaches greater value to one's assets. According to
these commentators, the gemara is informing us
that resources in life are important and since for the
righteous they are achieved only through effort,
righteous individuals value their property even more.3 Yet, the gemara
seems to indicate a more direct connection between the
absence of theft and the value the righteous give their
property. It is not the potential use of the property
that seems to be significant; in fact, the small jars
that Yaakov left behind probably would have limited
usage. It would seem that it is the inherent fact that
the jars were not the product of theft, assets of an
individual who would have no part in theft, that gave
them their unique value to the righteous Yaakov.4
The absence of theft in the life of the righteous is
something that we would expect. T.B. Sanhedrin 99b,
however, implies otherwise. This gemara discloses
that the statement that Reuven collected dudaim
(mandrake flowers) during the wheat harvest5 informs us that
the righteous refrain from theft. Do we actually need a
verse to inform us that the righteous refrain from theft?
By definition, if someone is a thief we would not
consider him/her righteous and if someone is righteous,
he/she would not be a thief.
Avot 5:10 describes four different types of
individuals based upon their attitude to possessions. The
one who says what is mine is yours and what is yours is
mine is described as being an am ha'aretz. Rashi
explains that such an individual is boorish and lacking
culture; indeed, throughout the Talmud, the term am
ha'aretz has negative connotations. What is mine is
yours and what is yours is mine implies a lack of
parameters and with it a potential lack of
responsibility.6 Rabbeinu Yonah, however,
describes this individual in a positive way. He defines
an am ha'aretz in this context literally as one
who is part of the nation of the world, one who wishes to
see the perfection of the world and through mutual
sharing wishes to increase love amongst humanity. I would
say that both Rashi and Rabbeinu Yonah are
correct.
Theft may be a direct violation against the other. Theft
can also occur with the perception that the other is not
offended. As we develop communal bonds, as we begin to
share, we also begin to lose sight of the boundaries
between individuals. The righteous individual is at the
forefront of the movement to increase mutual concern and
care. He is thus extremely susceptible to such feelings
of "no boundaries" and able to project upon the
other a lack of concern if the other's property is used
for a good cause or to brighten someone's life. Indeed
this may be true but the property still belongs to the
other and it is for the other to make the decision and
thereby accept the responsibility. The truly righteous
individual is concerned about this other form of theft -
that arises from a projection that the use of the other's
property is alright - and thus property is dear to him.
It marks his/her realm of responsibility and decision
making.
Rabbi
Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Notes
1 See also Rashbam
and, most interestingly, Malbim who explain, in
different ways, that Yaakov's plan was actually to remain
alone after sending the camp across the river.
2 See also T.B.
Sotah 12a. In this gemara, it is clear that
what is meant by a concern for body is a concern for
bodily comfort. In the same vein, the concern for body in
the case of Yaakov must be seen as a concern for bodily
exertion, although in the case of Yaakov, as the gemara
in Chullin further explains, there was also danger
involved in returning to the other side of the river
alone.
3 See Rabbi S. R.
Hirsch, Bereishit 32:25. See also Yalkut Me'am
Lo'ez, Bereishit 32:25 who further explains the
matter in terms of opportunity costs, specifically time
for Torah learning. In that the righteous' assets only
arise from their own efforts, they protect these assets
as a loss will mean less time to learn Torah.
4 Rabbi Hirsch does
seem to also recognize this fact in further outlining the
value of property, when achieved honestly, as "God's
Providence and Goodness... and God's Blessing and hence
of invaluable worth" regardless of actual monetary
value.
5 See Bereishit
30:14. Rashi explains that although wheat was
then being harvested, Reuven still only took mandrakes
which were available to all. See however Rashi,
Sanhedrin 99b, d.h. bimei and the comments of Maharsha.
6 See also Rabbi
Reuven Bulka, As a Tree by the Waters 5:13.
Return to top
|