Rabbi and R, Hiyya were going on the way. When they arrived at a town, they asked if there were any scholars in the town so that they could go and greet them. They were told of a young scholar who is blind. R. Hiyya said to Rabbi: “You should sit here and not degrade the patriarchate. I will go and greet him.” Rabbi overruled him and went with him. When they were leaving this blind fellow, he said to them: “You greeted one who can be seen but does not see. You should merit greeting the One who sees but can not be seen.” Rabbi said to R, Hiyya: “If I had listened to you, this blessing would have been held back from me.” (Hagiga 5b)

A loyal disciple, R. Hiyya wants to protect the honor due to his teacher, the patriarch. He believes that people should come to see Rabbi rather than the other way around. Rabbi apparently disagrees. What lies at the root of Rabbi’s position? R. Aryeh Gunzburg (Turei Even) places this story in the context of a discussion in Kiddushin (32b)

The permissibility of relinquishing honor depends upon the nature of that honor. If a person receives honor for his personal accomplishments, then he can chose to forego such honor. Conversely, if the honor really belongs to the office which that public official represents, then the honor is not his to give away. Following R. Gunzburg’s reading, the honor due a patriarch must be for the person more than for the position.

R. Yehuda Leib from Gur disagrees with that reading in his Sefat Emet. He contends that the standard Talmudic scenarios of relinquishing honor question the right of others to act towards the esteemed person in a way that diverges from the normal honor. For example, can children sit in a parents’ chair with permission. In our story, no other individual had to confront the question of how to treat the patriarch. If the patriarch decides to visit a particular house, that is his business.

R. Menahem Meiri offers a very different reading, arguing that dignitaries are also obligated to honor scholars. A patriarch who visits a scholar does not relinquish his own honor. Quite the contrary! Such action raises his honor. Meiri cites a verse from I Shmuel (2:30) where the prophet quotes God as saying: “those that honor me, I will honor.” This verse in context powerfully captures Meiri’s point. That prophet addresses the high priest Eli whose corrupt sons demand large chunks of meat (far beyond the normal allotment for the priests) from everyone who brings a sacrifice. These children of privilege identify their position with entitlement, gifts, and honor. The prophet reminds them that authentic honor comes from dedication to God.

Rabbi’s approach diametrically opposes that of the sons of Eli. He understands that visiting the home of a blind scholar can only enhance the prestige of the patriarchy. Rather than demanding recognition and honor, our leadership must understand that true honor comes to those who stand for the highest ideals, even at the expense of their own superficial honor.

Showing the ongoing relevance of the classic medieval Jewish philosophy texts is one of this blog’s primary goals. I have argued that these texts discussions of ethics and reasons for the commandments remain very relevant. Biblical interpretation and analysis reflects another area of ongoing relevance. R. Yosef Albo’s discussion of the asseret hadibrot is a case in point.

At first glance, these ten utterances divide into two groups – mizvot between humanity and God and interpersonal commandments. The last five include the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness, and coveting a neighbor’s possessions. All five firmly belong in the interpersonal sphere. The same clarity of demarcation exists with regard to the first four utterances.

Denying other gods, not making or worshiping graven images, not taking God’s name in vein, and keeping the Sabbath in order to remember God’s creation all establish our people’s basic relationship with God. Only the fifth utterance, the need to honor one’s parents, does not fit in. Surely, this interpersonal inclusion in the first have of the dibberot ruins the perfect symmetry.

Some commentators did not consider this a problem. Ramban (Shemot 20:11) writes that the first four dibberot wrap up our obligations to God and the commandment to honor parents initiates the discussion of obligations towards people. He does also mention certain parallels between obligations to God and to parents but his opening comments reveal that he did not feel the need to maintain the perfect symmetry between two sets of five.

R. Albo (Sefer haIkkarim 3:26) assumes the exact symmetry. He employs a parable of a king who builds a state, takes a people out of slavery and settles them in that state. The people should acknowledge the king, not rebel by showing allegiance to other rulers, not disgrace his name and pick a day to commemorate what the king has done. So far, this parable parallels the first four dibberot.

Yet the younger generation in that province might not recall all that the king did in the early years of the state. They dream of rebellion or of finding another leader. Only a respect for the received traditions of their parents prevents this attitude. Children who honor their parents are more likely to take their accumulated wisdom and their vision of the good seriously. For this reason, honoring parents does belong in the section addressing responsibilities to God (a similar interpretation appears in R. Hirsch’s commentary on Shemot 20:12).

Modernity brought with it a great sense of excitement about fresh ideas and novel approaches. Sometimes, it also exhibited a rush to throw off the “yoke” of tradition in order to start from scratch. As modernity progressed, many thinkers realized that their intellectual endeavors also depended upon a tradition. Modern science (even according to Kuhn) builds in some fashion upon the work of predecessors and literature relies on symbols and allusions developed over millennium.

I am not claiming that the role of tradition in these disciplines exactly mirrors its role in Orthodox Judaism. The point of these analogies is that we should not think of working within a tradition as a foolish constraint that inhibits productive thought and behavior. Quite the contrary! The framework of a tradition enables constructive and creative work. Honoring our parents and accepting the account of God handed down through numerous generations of Jewish ancestors reflects a crucial first step. Without that step, the first half of the dibberot would remain incomplete.

A series of mini-shiurim on Neviim and Ketuvim, consisting of original insights into selected portoins of the Prophets and Biblical Writings. We will begin with insights into Sefer Yehoshua, exploring fascinating and surprising aspects of this unusual prophetic personality (how many Gedolei HaDor are also top generals, and visa versa?), and continue from there through the Tanach.

The analysis will focus on omek ha-peshat - a careful literary reading of the text in light of the entire book and parallels throughout Tanach. Additionally, many of the insights into the deeper meaning of the plain sense of the Biblical text will lead us to an understanding of seemingly strange and difficult statements of Chazal.

These shiurim will be available 3 times a week, each shiur will be approximately 20 minutes long and will be available via audio podcast.

Kindness to others shouldn’t be limited to the poor and needy.

Question: I want to put aside a certain sum each month to help my nieces and nephews, since my sister’s family barely makes ends meet. Is this considered a charitable contribution?

Answer: Your regular donations to your family members are not considered charity, but they are considered a wonderful mitzvah nevertheless.

When the Torah commands us to give charity, it naturally stipulates that we should help the needy: “When there will be a needy person from one of your brothers in one of your gates in your land which the Lord your God gives you, don’t harden your heart and don’t close your hand from your needy brother. Surely open your hand to him, and lend him enough for his needs, which he lacks.” (Deuteronomy 15:7-8).

Based on this verse, the Shulchan Aruch (authoritative Code of Jewish law) rules: “It is a great commandment to lend to the poor of Israel, and it is a commandment even greater than charity. And a poor relative has precedence over other poor. (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 97:1)

In the laws of charity, we find a precise definition of who is considered “poor”; a family whose income covers their needs, even if they have nothing left over (”barely make ends meet”) would not be considered “poor”. So your aid to your less fortunate relatives would not strictly speaking be considered “charity”.

However, the Shulchan Aruch then continues: “And even a wealthy person who needs to borrow, it is a mitzvah to lend to him on occasion, and to help him out with advice.” While some people have a strict definition of being needy, any person can be in need of help, and it is always praiseworthy to help them.

The source for this ruling is given as the following passage in the Talmud:

Acts of kindness are greater than charity in three ways: charity is only with money, where as acts of kindness can be done with one’s self or with one’s money. Charity is only to the poor, but acts of kindness are to both poor and rich. Charity is only to the living, but acts of kindness are to both the living and the dead [to provide them a dignified funeral]. (Sukkah 49b)

There are other cases where we find the rules of charity extended to others who are not quite poor. From the verse above, which starts with “from among your brothers”, the Talmud learns that charity to family members has precedence over charity to other. (Bava Metzia 71a.) This is also learned from the verse in Isaiah (58:7) “And don’t hide yourself from your own flesh”. (Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:3 and elsewhere) But this verse is also used to teach that in general we should look out for the welfare of family members. (Ketubot 52b)

The help you want to give your poorer relatives can not technically be considered charity, and should not be taken from your charity budget (typically a tithe). But it is a wonderful display of human kindness as well as family solidarity with your siblings and their children.

If you cannot commit to give a stipend indefinitely, be sure to stipulate that you are giving it for a set period of time – perhaps a year. Otherwise the recipient is likely to figure it into his or her budget and feel deprived if you can’t continue. Make sure to give any regular aid recipient realistic expectations.

A series of mini-shiurim on Neviim and Ketuvim, consisting of original insights into selected portoins of the Prophets and Biblical Writings. We will begin with insights into Sefer Yehoshua, exploring fascinating and surprising aspects of this unusual prophetic personality (how many Gedolei HaDor are also top generals, and visa versa?), and continue from there through the Tanach.

The analysis will focus on omek ha-peshat - a careful literary reading of the text in light of the entire book and parallels throughout Tanach. Additionally, many of the insights into the deeper meaning of the plain sense of the Biblical text will lead us to an understanding of seemingly strange and difficult statements of Chazal.

These shiurim will be available 3 times a week, each shiur will be approximately 20 minutes long and will be available via audio podcast.