The Carob and the Crown

Chulin – Daf 86

Our Gemara on amud aleph describes the interesting dynamic of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. “Each and every day a Divine Voice emerges and says: ‘The entire world is sustained in the merit of Ḥanina ben Dosa,’ yet still, for him personally, it is different. For Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa “a kav of carobs [i.e., a very small amount of inferior food] is sufficient to sustain him from one Shabbos eve to the next Shabbos eve.”

Ben Yehoyada notes that the text implies that it was sufficient for him, meaning that he did not subjectively suffer for any lack – he felt sustained by his meager portions.

I believe this is not a coincidence. The conduit of this spiritual and physical flow from G-d is facilitated by his making himself humble. This is not just emotional humility, but total humility. Because he needed little, his ego did not interfere, and it made space for the spiritual flow.

The godlier a place or situation, the more it requires a diminishment of ego and self. The greatest prophet, Moshe (see Bamidbar 12:7-8) was also the humblest person (ibid. 12:3).

This is related to the following aggadah (Megillah 31a): “Wherever you find a reference in the Bible to the might of the Holy One, Blessed be He, you also find a reference to His humility adjacent to it. Evidence of this fact is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and stated a third time in the Writings. It is written in the Torah: ‘For the Lord your G-d is the G-d of gods and the Lord of lords’ (Deuteronomy 10:17), and it is written immediately afterward: ‘He executes the judgment of the fatherless and widow’ (Deuteronomy 10:18), displaying his humility in caring for even the weakest parts of society. It is repeated in the Prophets: ‘For thus says the High and Lofty One that inhabits eternity, Whose name is sacred’ (Isaiah 57:15), and it is written immediately afterward: ‘In the high and holy place I dwell with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones’ (Isaiah 57:15). It is stated a third time in the Writings, as it is written: ‘Extol Him Who rides upon the clouds, Whose name is the Lord’ (Psalms 68:5), and it is written immediately afterward: ‘A father of the fatherless, and a judge of widows’ (Psalms 68:6).”

The point is, these blessings of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa are not a reward for humility, but rather a consequence of humility. Humility makes space for G-d to manifest.

Now, why is that? It is because humility is related to simplicity, and simplicity is ultimately about unity and perfection. A perfect wholeness is simple in the sense that it is not compound nor made of separate qualities; it is an entity whose existence and purpose and “actions” are all the same. This is why G-d is found in the humble, and to find G-d, one must be humble.

Stolen Blessings: The Math of Mitzvah Theft

Daf 87

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the matter of stolen mitzvos. This is a serious issue and not inconsequential. In fact, Rabban Gamliel obligated a person who stole another’s mitzvah to pay ten gold coins. The case was regarding someone who “stole” the mitzvah of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal, which is a mitzvah.

The Gemara then wonders: Are the ten gold coins for stealing the mitzvah, or for stealing the blessing? If it is the latter, the Gemara reasons that if one stole the opportunity of leading in the Blessing After Meals, he would have to pay 40 gold coins, as it would be ten gold coins for each of the four blessings. The Gemara concludes from an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi where the Blessing After Meals was valued by him at 40 gold coins that one who stole the mitzvah of Blessing After Meals would have to pay 40 gold coins.

Tosafos asks that since there is also a blessing after the meal over the wine, should it not be seen as five blessings and therefore 50 gold coins?

The Chasam Sofer (Mishpatim 25) offers a clever answer. We know that the severest punishment for theft is four to five times the value of the item, such as if a stolen sheep or ox was sold or slaughtered (Shemos 21:37). There is a dispute in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 79b) between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai to explain the difference between the sheep and the ox:

“The Gemara discusses why there is a fourfold payment for a sheep but a fivefold payment for an ox. Rabbi Meir said: ‘Come and see how great the power of labor is. The theft of an ox, which was forced by the thief to cease its labor, leads to a fivefold payment; whereas the theft of a sheep, which was not forced by the thief to cease its labor, as a sheep performs no labor, leads to only a fourfold payment.’

“Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: ‘Come and see how great human dignity is. The theft of an ox, which walked on its own legs as the thief stole it, leads to a fivefold payment, whereas the theft of a sheep, which the thief carried on his shoulder as he walked, thereby causing himself embarrassment, leads to only a fourfold payment.’”

Chasam Sofer says we see that there is a difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai over what the baseline fine is. According to Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, the baseline is five times, and we just discount one multiple for the sheep due to the embarrassment involved. According to Rabbi Meir, however, the baseline is four times, but since in the case of the stolen ox the animal also loses the chance to work, we add one more multiple to the fine.

Now we need to do a little math. Chasam Sofer reasons as follows: According to tradition, Eliezer gave Rivka a gold bracelet worth 10 gold coins. According to Rashi (Bereishis 24:22), the 10 gold coins were representative of the 10 Commandments. Thus, at its root, each mitzvah is worth one gold coin. However, there also was a doubling of the value of the shekel for use in sacerdotal matters (see Rashi on Shemos 38:24). So now we are up to two gold coins per mitzvah. If you hold that the fine is five times the value, then you get 10 gold coins for every mitzvah, 5×2. On the other hand, if you hold that the fine is at its base four times the value, then the cost of every mitzvah is actually eight gold coins, 4×2.

Thus, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was a student of Rabbi Meir, followed his opinion. If so, the baseline for theft is four times. If there are five blessings (including the wine), and each lost blessing is then eight gold coins (4×2), then four times the five blessings (5×8) equals 40.

What the Chasam Sofer does not make clear is how theft of a mitzvah is evaluated on the scale of four to five times, and not like regular theft of objects which are merely double. We could answer simply that it is a kal v’chomer, as how could a mitzvah be worth less than the most valuable possession (cattle) that the Torah saw fit to fine at four to five times its value? (And it would not be more than that because of Dayo laba min hadin? See Rashi on Bamidbar 12:14.) Or, we might add, if the beast stands for productivity (either by plowing, producing milk, or being sheared), then surely a mitzvah represents at least as much productivity and at least as much value.

Dirt, Gold, and the Golden Calf: A Hidden Reckoning

Daf 88

Our Gemara on amud beis brings Scriptural support for the idea that ground gold could be sufficiently dirt-like in its properties that it could be used in the mitzvah to cover the blood of animals after slaughtering.

Ben Yehoyada (Sotah 11a) uses the idea that gold can be considered as dirt for a clever exegesis. It starts with the aggadah (ibid.) that states the Egyptians were punished by drowning in the water (mayim) of the Red Sea, in a measure-for-measure response to them having drowned the Jewish male infants at birth.

Ben Yehoyada asks: Didn’t the Egyptians also seek to enslave the Jews? In fact, the verse (Shemos 1:11) mentions the enslavement before the decree of murdering the babies. If so, where is the measure-for-measure punishment on that?

He answers that within the Hebrew word mayim (water), which was the explicit punishment, is a hint for the second punishment. Mayim is composed of three Hebrew letters, Mem-Yud-Mem. If the letters are fully spelled out, you get Mem-Mem, Yud-Dalet, and Mem-Mem. This gives you the letters to form mayim (water) and domem (earthly substance). Therefore, the Gemara that says they were punished with water also hints at the earthly substance that was part of the punishment. The Jews were made to work with bricks and mortar (Shemos 1:14), a kind of dirt, and the Jews received payment in gold from the Egyptians (Shemos 12:35), which is a kind of earthly substance too, and that is the corresponding measure for measure. In fact, it is hinted at in Pharaoh’s name. The Hebrew letters for Pharaoh are Pay-Reish-Ayin-Heh, which unscramble into he-afar, the dirt.

This is a clever exegesis, but is there a deeper lesson? I think so. The idea that within one word another concept is also embedded expresses the idea that one matter should be explicit – the punishment of the water –while the other matter, the punishment for the labor and the payment for it, remains hidden within the letters. This suggests that one experience is supposed to be out in the open and the other private. We then must ask ourselves, why is that? The compensation for having their children murdered is a direct and clear balancing of the scales of justice. On the other hand, money is a mixed bag. Did the Jews really need the money? In fact, the Gemara (Berachos 32a and Rashi on Shemos 32:21) says Moshe defended the Jews, saying that G-d set them up with too great a test by giving them all that gold and silver, enabling them to sin with the Golden Calf:

“Moses said the following… ‘Master of the Universe, because of the gold and silver that you lavished upon Israel during the exodus from Egypt until they said “enough” [dai], it was this wealth that caused Israel to make the Golden Calf… This is comparable to a person who had a son; he bathed him and anointed him with oil, fed him, and gave him drink, and hung a purse of money around his neck… What could the son do to avoid sinning?’”

Therefore, the punishment and financial compensation are not stated explicitly, as a hint that these things should be received cautiously and modestly, which apparently the Jews did not fully accomplish.

There is an interesting side point to the above metaphor about a spoiled, indulged adolescent who was given a purse full of gold. Within the reality of the metaphor, there is a presumption that in certain circumstances, a temptation can be too hard to overcome. After all, in the metaphor, it’s being suggested that the young man will not be able to resist – otherwise how can Moshe’s defense be valid? This raises the larger question of whether, according to Jewish ethics, G-d gives a person a challenge that they cannot overcome, something I wrote about in a prior column (on Makkos, daf 6).