Last week's post generated some comments in response to my having written that someone who observes mishpatim simply because it's the right think to do still can call on zechus avos because he/she is doing the right thing. Since I opened that can of worms, let me continue on the same theme. R' Simcha Zisel of Kelm makes a striking claim with respect to the mitzvah of tzedaka mentioned in this week's parsha. It's davka not the person who gives to charity because it's a mitzvah who fulfills tzedaka to its fullest. Rather, it's the person who empathizes with the poor and gives because he is moved by their needs who fulfills tzedaka to its fullest.
R' Simcha Zisel sees tzedaka as an extension of v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha. Most of us don't eat because it's a mitzvah -- we eat because we feel hungry. Says R' Simcha Zisel, treat your fellow Jew in need the same way. Don't feed your friend because it's a mitzvah. Feed your friend because you empathize with his pain to such a degree that if he is hungry, you are hungry, and when you are hungry, you eat.
R' Ya'akov Naiman in his Darkei Musar uses this yesod of R' Simcha Zisel to answer a question posed by the Maharasha. The gemara in Kesubos (67) relates that Nakdimon ben Gurion was punished for not fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedaka properly. Asks the gemara: Nakdimon ben Gurion was rich and give a fortune to tzedaka; how is it possible to say he did not fulfill the mitzvah properly? The gemara gives two answers: 1) as much as he gave, he could have done more; 2) he gave for the kavod of giving. Maharasha on the spot questions this second answer. We know that someone who gives charity "al menas she'yichyeh b'ni," with ulterior motives, because he wants the zechus of tzedaka to bring a refuah to his child, is called a tzadik gamur. So who cares of Nakdimon ben Gurion did it for the kavod!? He should still go down on the books as a tzadik gamur!
Yes, says R' Naiman, someone who gives with ulterior motives is a tzadik and fulfills a mitzvah -- but that mitzvah is not the mitzvah of tzedaka. When you giving is motivated by any reason other than empathy, other than truly identifying with the needs of another, that's not true tzedaka.
The point of the mitzvah of tzedaka is not the ma'aseh nesina -- the act of giving -- but rather it's the chalos in the gavra of becoming a person who is sensitive to the needs of others.
Rashi quotes a derush that the Torah juxtaposes "aser te'aser" with "lo tevaseh g'di b'chaleiv imo" because G-d is telling us that if we don't give ma'aser he will be forced to be "mevashel gedi'im shel tevuah" = cause the grain to rot in its husk before it is fully ripe and ready to harvest. OK, it's talking about ma'aser, ma'ser sheni, and not tzedaka, but Chazal learn ma'aser kesafim from this pasuk, so derech derush you can give me some leeway and in turn I will give you a tremendous Ishbitzer (from Ne'os Desheh, the Mei HaShiloach's son). Someone who does not give properly is like that grain rotting in it's husk -- on the outside, everything looks OK, but when you peel back the shell, the husk, there is nothing there on the inside. A person who lacks empathy, who is not moved by others needs to want to help them, is just an empty shell of a person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So ideal tzedoko is not done for the sake of the mitzvah of tzedokoh, but nevertheless is still done as part of the mitzvah of v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha. There is a mitzvah to be empathetic, not simply giving on a touchy-feely basis.
ReplyDeletebut dare not empathize with the hunger of rei'acha asher k'nafshecha (13:7) for avodah zarah;
ReplyDeleterather, follow up his appeal with the mitzvah, not(?) of killing him (13:10), but of feeling enough self-*/klal-/truth-protective indignation--enough loyal indignation--to inflict the deadly punishment (yet perhaps still part of the mitzvah of v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha, in the sense of Ariella Brown's comment last post, "empathizing" with the culprit's deep[er] down need for atonement)
*ki bi'keish l'hadicha'cha mei'al Hashem Elokecha (13:11), noting that the offended self is as the culprit's own self (is as the offended's own self...)
In Alei Shur, vol II, the essay on "Frumkeit" (pp 152-155, here), he has a block quote from the Alter of Slabodka (translation mine, from a blog post here
ReplyDelete"'Ve’ahavta lereiakha komakha — and you shall love your peers like yourself.' That you should love your peer the way you love yourself. You do not love yourself because it is a mitzvah, rather, a plain love. And that is how you should love your peer." (emph. in the original)
But it's a mitzvah that creates that obligation in the first place to love your peer that way.
DeleteOf course that creates a bit of a paradox, somewhat like that in saying that there is a mitzvah to believe in G-d.
Or it could be that the love is innate. The mitzvah is simply to not extinguish it, or to enhance it or act upon it.
DeleteDo you recall somebody making this comment last week?
Delete"Sounds like is a Chassidic approach (the Rambam not withstanding) = assuming every good need is an expression of the Jew's incorruptible neshoma that is trying to get out."
I believe that you are right in regard to tzedaka and chesed, but not regarding other mishpatim.
ReplyDeleteFamous Rambam Pirush HaMishnayos Avos 3:15 [or 18, or 19, or 21 depending on the numbering system of the edition]: instead of giving 1000 shekel at one time, give 1 shekel a thousand times, to better inculcate and reinforce the middah of generosity.
ReplyDeleteThe Ya'avetz in Lechem Shamayim there [whichever there is there] disagrees for two reasons: first, giving a large amount has a more significant effect on breaking one's stinginess, and second, it's better for the recipient to receive a larger amount at one time.
Note that the Rambam doesn't seem to be concerned with the recipient, but with development of the donor, whereas the Ya'avetz is concerned with both.
The Rambam seems to regard the mitzvah as being a tool to develop empathy - but, please note - not that giving should be done out of empathy. The recipient seems to play no part. The Ya'avetz agrees in principle by not in practice, but adds that one must take the practical results [i.e., the recipient] into account also.
In short, it seems to parallel the belief in G-d paradox perfectly. One has to believe in G-d before one can accept the obligation of a mitzvah. However, the mitzva is, as the Rambam says, to continuously enhance and deepen one's belief and understanding of HaShem. So, while one may believe in G-d, there is always a mitzvah to work on believing more.
Similarly with tzeddaka and chesed, the mitzvah is to develop a sense of empathy and generosity. But having developed that, even to the point of giving out of innate altruism and v'ahavta, there is still a mitzvah of giving with a focus on enhancing one's empathy. Gemilus chasadim is ein lahem shiur. Such that, even when I am giving out of my vast, boundless generosity, I still have to focus on the act as a mitzvah and an exercise in order to expand the realm of my altruism.
BTW, regarding the Alter's aphorism on kamocha, I have to say that in my years doing counseling, I have seen too many cases where my students had to be brought to self-ahava through training. In the frum world, the best motivator seemed to be the focus on the fact that it was an implied mitzvah.
Also consider chyecha kodmim [baba metzia 62a] from Rabbi Akiva, no less. Thus, even v'ahavta is bound and restrained by halacha. [I like to tell people that I want to be mekayim with them v'ahavta, in the sense of the gemora in Sanhedrin. But that's a different story.]
As a counterpoint, it is said [a chassidishe ma'aseh, so apply grains of salt as necessary] that Reb Simcha Bunim would give each pauper twice: once out his innate mercy, and once to fulfill the mitzvah.
Now, having satisfied my altruistic instincts for today, I can go back to doing mitzvot.
This valuable discussion deserves to be somewhere more visible than the comments on Reb Chaim's post. Speaking of sins and mitzvos, it's a sin to molder in a pool of inertia when you have something important to communicate.
DeleteWhich is not to say that I agree with anything anyone else says here. The Rambam is not saying that he doesn't care about the recipient, he's saying that where a big nesinah will not change the guy's life, better to give a lot of little gifts. The Rambam would have to be a hard, hard, man to ignore the welfare of the ani for the mussar toeles of the philanthropist, a particularly bad description of the giver according to you, who's not philo anything but himself and God.
DeleteYou identify it as a paradox, but offer no resolution. If you act out of love, then your motivation is not G-d's commandment; if you are motivated by the commandment, then it's not empathy or love that is driving you.
ReplyDeleteSee Sefas Emes Va'Eschanan 5649 (an example of one of many places) in response to the Rambam.
I thought I had made that point. The action is out of love, but love is not finite. The mitzva wrapped in the action is to focus on increasing your empathy while you are acting out of your current level of empathy. Just as the mitzva is to increase your belief in G-d out of your current belief in G-d. Without the mitzvot one would stagnate at a certain level of emunah, or empathy, or whatever.
Deleteperhaps the tzedakah giver can act without kavanah, with empathy only,
ReplyDeletebecause Hashem in such an exchange is mochel His Own kavod as Commander, receiving the honor instead as Maker: m'kabdo chonein evyone (Mishlei 14:31)?
Coincidentally, someone just sent me the following:
ReplyDeleteOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have a lot to work on in this Sugya, especially in light of a private communication I recently received. But regarding Parshas Ki Seitzei, it appears that engaging in battle lesheim shamayim does not immunize the warrior from irresistible concupiscence.
ReplyDeleteI am aware of the Or HaChaim on the din of Yefas To'ar, that it is davka because he is osek be'mitzvah that he recognizes that this woman possesses a holy soul. But come on.