Ve-ahavta Le-reiakha Kamokha II: Putting the Needs of Others First
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #29:
Ve-ahavta Le-reiakha Kamokha II Putting the Needs of
Others First
In last weeks lesson, we started to see the
importance of the mitzva Ve-ahavta le-reiakha kamokha, You shall love
your fellow as yourself, the obligation to love ones fellow Jew. The language of the verse defines
this commandment with extreme parameters: to love another as oneself.
The significance of this
mitzva is evident in Rabbi
Akivas determination that this mitzva is a great principle of the Torah. In fact, a number of sources suggest
that one should accept this mitzva upon himself daily before praying, in order
to connect ones prayers to the needs of the community (Shaarei Teshuva,
Shaar Ha-avoda).
The mitzvas formulation is an unlimited call to
care for the Jewish people, but the literal definition of this mitzva poses a
challenge, as it would seem to require an emotional feeling of love for others
equal to oneself. How can one
understand this emotional obligation?
Secondly, the obligation seems to be excessive: can one really love
another as oneself?
Last week, we saw how this second question leads the
Ramban to explain this mitzva as a call for one to desire whatever he would want
for himself for others as well, rather than love others as himself; the latter,
the Rambam maintains, is humanly impossible, for no one can love another as he
loves himself. The Ramchal, on the
other hand, feels that the obligation to love another Jew as oneself is to be
taken mammash, literally.
In order to understand how one may strike a balance
between ones own needs and the needs of others, we must take other sources into
account. These sources provides a
different picture of the obligation to love ones neighbor as oneself.
Your Life Comes First
One certainly can understand that the obligations of
this mitzva direct one to pray for others wellbeing, to teach Torah to others,
to prevent others harm and various additional obligations. The question is the following: does
it require one to give up his limited resources in order to provide for others
what he has, even if doing so would require him to restrict his lifestyle?
Even if one must love another as oneself,
must he provide for others needs the same way in which he provides for his own?
In fact, there is an explicit source that addresses
this issue. Aside from the
obligation of Ve-ahavta, there is another verse which places ones own
needs above those of others. The
Talmud (Bava Metzia 62a) deals with an existential moral dilemma of two
people in the desert with a flask containing enough water for only one of them:
Two people are travelling along the way, and one of
them has in his possession a flask of water. If
both drink from it, they will both die.
However, if only one of them drinks, he will be able to make it out of
the desert.
Ben Petura expounded, It is better that both should
drink and die that that one should witness the death of his fellow.
Then Rabbi Akiva came and taught, Your brother
shall live with you (Vayikra 25:36) your life comes first, before the
life of your friend.
Rabbi Akivas
understands the verse as indicating ones own life takes precedence, and
therefore one should drink the water, even if his doing so will allow himself to
live and the other individual to die.
The exact parameters of this law are complex (see Iggerot Moshe, YD
145, and the Chazon Ish, YD 69:2) but the basic principle is of utmost
importance: ones own life takes precedence over that of others.
What is even more astounding is that this is Rabbi
Akiva talking, the same one who teaches us the importance of Ve-ahavta
as a great principle of the Torah is the same one who gives precedence to
mans own needs. Which one is it? Is one obligated to treat others as
equal to himself completely, as the great principle would seem to indicate, or
should one give precedence to ones own needs and only then deal with others
needs?
As we saw last week, some commentators use this as a
proof-text for their definition of Ve-ahavta as a call to care for
others needs but not to provide for them, because no one can in fact provide
for others as themselves.
A striking passage in the Talmud also discusses
putting ones own needs first, but takes it far beyond the case of two men in
the desert; instead, the passage examines the case of two cities and a spring
which provides enough water for only one of them:
A spring belongs to the residents of the city, so if
it comes to their lives against the lives of others, their lives come first,
before the lives of others. (Nedarim 80b)
This initial
statement is understandable; however, the conclusion is startling:
If they must choose between their own animals and
the animals of others, their own animals come first, before the animals of
others.
If they must choose between their own laundering and
the laundering of others, their own laundering comes first, before the
laundering of others
If, however, they must choose between the lives of
others and their own laundering, the lives of others come first, before their
own laundering. However, Rabbi Yosei
says that their own laundering comes first, before the lives of others.
Though it is
understandable that ones own animals are given precedence over those of others,
Rabbi Yoseis opinion gives precedence to the upper citys laundering needs
before the drinking needs of the second city which is mindboggling. Despite the continuation of the
passage, which discusses the importance of hygiene, in turn giving significance
to laundering needs, the opinion seems extreme: can ones laundering needs
actually take precedence over another communitys basic needs of hydration? (In fact, while the simple
understanding of the Talmud would indicate
that one citys laundering water takes precedence over another communitys
drinking water, the law is more complicated; see Mishpetei Shalom
13:10-11 and notes ad loc.)
In a slightly different context, the Talmud defines
ones obligation to others as taking a backseat to the license to fulfill ones
own needs. Regarding the mitzva of
tzedaka, charity, we find similar sources that would indicate that ones
providing for others should be done in ways that do not jeopardize ones social
standing.
The Talmud (Ketubot
50a) states:
In Usha they enacted: One who bestows money should
not bestow more than a fifth
lest he become dependent on other people for his
support.
Again, an
analysis of the mitzva of tzedaka will provide the halakhic guidelines
for this law (see, for instance, Ketubot 67a), but the simple
understanding is very straightforward: one should not, and might not even be
allowed to, be overly generous in ways that may hurt his ability to provide for
himself.
If we return to the question we started with, these
sources provide a clear ruling that only reiterates the original problem in a
different form. If all of these
sources state that ones own needs take precedence, at some points even in what
seems to be a selfish manner, then what does it mean that one should love others
as himself?
The Rambams Opinion
In last weeks lesson, we saw that a simple reading
of the Rambam indicates that one must in fact love others as himself. There are those who bring support to
this assertion from the way in which the Rambam addresses the various sources
brought above that seem to indicate otherwise.
The Rambam does not codify the law of two
individuals walking in the desert, nor does he codify the law regarding an upper
and lower city sharing a river. This
leads certain commentators to conclude that the Rambam rules against Rabbi
Akivas statement that ones life takes precedence over anothers. There is good reason to doubt that
this is in fact the Rambams position, as Rav Moshe Feinstein rejects this
understanding completely (see Iggerot Moshe, YD 1:145). Nevertheless, even if we accept that
the Rambam does not embrace this ruling, the question returns to Rabbi Akiva:
how can the same sage who makes Ve-ahavta the core principle of Judaism
rule that one is to give precedence to his own needs over those others?
A second look at the verse might provide some
information regarding this issue. As
we saw in the previous lesson, a number of commentators discuss the unique
formulation of the verse of Ve-ahavta: why is the language of the
commandment le-reiakha (with the prefix lamed, which normally
indicates an indirect object) instead of et reiakha," the formulation
found regarding the obligation to love God (Devarim 6:5)? The Hadar Zekenim (Vayikra
19:18) explains this in the following way:
If it had written reiakha without the
lamed, I would have understood that God commands man to give to his fellow
his own money and all of his possessions until they are equal.
Therefore, it says le-reiakha,
meaning: Love that which your friend has i.e., do not take from him without
permission, et cetera.
The Hadar
Zekenim explains that the purpose of the verse is to ensure that one does not
have to create parity with his friends.
One must love his neighbor, certainly, but not exactly as one takes care
of oneself. If this is true, then
even the great principle puts ones love of others behind ones love of
oneself.
The Chatam Sofer and Rav Moshe Feinstein on
Spiritual Responsibilities
Notwithstanding the difficulties involved in
understanding the requirement to care for others needs as opposed to giving
precedence to ones own needs, the Chatam Sofer (Torat Moshe 84, s.v.
Ve-ahavta) deals with the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi
Akiva and explains:
Rabbi Akiva states that Ve-ahavta le-reiakha
kamokha is a great principle of the Torah.
Yet it is Rabbi Akiva who also states explicitly that preserving ones
own life always takes precedence over the lives of others!
Clearly, this verse cannot be referring
to a situation wherein a person if facing physical danger along with his fellow. If so, how may one accomplish loving
ones neighbor as himself?
One must explain that Ve-ahavta le-reiakha
kamokha is referring to spiritual matters and Your life comes first
to physical matters. Regarding
physical matters, matters of this world, ones own needs take precedence, but
regarding the eternally important matters of learning Torah (and spiritual
pursuits), one is obligated to love and study with others, even if it will cause
him to accomplish less. It is
regarding this that Rabbi Akiva teaches, This is a great principle of the
Torah, because regarding Torah study, this is a great principle, directing one
to learn with others even if one could achieve more on his own.
The Chatam
Sofer concludes in parentheses:
Of course such altruism is hardly in vain. The Torah emphasizes kamokha
by loving ones fellow and studying Torah with him, one will benefit just as
the other does. The mitzva of
teaching Torah (whereby one gains as well) is adequate compensation for any
neglect of personal study that occurs as a result of learning with another. Kamokha
refers to the fact that both individuals gain.
Furthermore,
his son and student, Rav Shimon Sofer (in Pittuchei Chotam, the
introduction to Responsa Chatam Sofer, YD), expresses the greatness of
Avraham Avinu in this fashion:
In truth, even before him there were unique
individuals who knew God and desired knowledge of His ways.
Who was greater than Chanokh?
and he was lifted up to become like
one of the heavenly host who stand before the King to minister to him.
We do not find that the earthly elements
of Avraham Avinu, may he rest in peace, became that purified.
However, it was not on account of any deficiency or
lacking of his soul that Avraham did not reach this level
For he understood in
his wisdom that God does not desire that man only perfect his soul, leaving the
people of his generation behind, a brood of sinful men who provoke God to anger,
as happened to the generation of Chanokh and the Generation of the Flood.
This experience taught him that it is
better for a person to give up a little of the perfection of his soul in order
to increase the glory of God, reducing the number of those who rebel against Him
and increasing the number of those who serve and know Him.
While the
Chatam Sofer certainly views the will of God as demanding that one give of
himself spiritually in order to help others, Rav Moshe Feinstein takes issue
with this teaching of the Chatam Sofer in a responsum (EH 4:26). Rav Moshe brings a series of
proofs establishing that there is no distinction between physical matters and
spiritual matters regarding the question of who takes precedence.
In fact, he proves that in spiritual
matters and issues related to Torah study, it is most important to make
decisions based on ones personal needs, even if it comes at the expense of
others.
It is clear that regarding Torah study, the
individual himself takes precedence over others, considerably more than
regarding tzedaka. Regarding
tzedaka, it is clear that only his bread comes before others bread, but
if he lacks meat and his friend has no bread, he must provide bread for others
instead of providing meat for himself
Regarding physical matters, there is no
prohibition to provide for others in place of ones own needs.
However, regarding Torah, it is forbidden
to give precedence to others learning in place of his.
However, Rav
Moshe Feinstein continues that even though he disagrees with the Chatam Sofer
and says that one must give precedence to ones own spiritual development, there
is one caveat.
Still, I have ruled that every scholar, even though
he is still involved in his own personal growth, must take some of his time to
teach others, even if it will limit his spiritual growth
and it seems to me
that this should probably be a tenth of his time, like the tithing obligation of
tzedaka, though possibly if one wishes, one can expand this until a fifth
of his time, but I am not convinced regarding the actual amount of time.
Rav Moshe
Feinstein further clarifies his understanding (YD 1:145) when he explains
that the meaning of Rabbi Akivas statement Your life comes first is that one
has no obligation to provide for others before ones own needs are met. Only after one has fulfilled his own
needs is one then obligated to provide for others.
The one question which remains is how to define the
fulfillment of ones needs. At what
point can one say that his basic needs have been met and his tzedaka
obligation to provide for others has begun?
This may be part of the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Ben Petura as well
as the discussion of the upper and lower cities on the river. At what point is one considered to
have taken care of the needs of ones own life so that the obligation of loving
ones fellow may begin?
No Poor among You
In order to understand the upshot of the Torahs
directive for balancing ones needs against the needs of others, we must find
the source of the Torahs giving precedence to ones personal needs.
Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz (Ahavat Reiim,
recording) identifies a source for the obligation and the parameters of ones
responsibility for ones own needs before taking care of others. The Mishna (Bava Metzia 33a)
states:
If one spots his own lost object and his fathers
lost object, retrieving his own lost object takes precedence over his fathers
and over his teachers
The Talmud
brings the source for this surprising ruling that ones own lost object takes
precedence over others:
From where is this ruling derived? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:
The verse states There shall be no poor among you (Devarim 15:4)
this teaches that your concerns take precedence over those of everyone else.
In fact, Rav
Moshe Feinstein (loc. cit.) proves from here that the Rambam, who
codifies the responsibility to give precedence to ones own lost object,
essentially rules that ones own needs take precedence, for it is the same law.
However, the Talmud continues that while this is the
letter of the law, living a life of constant preference for ones needs over
others will boomerang and cause difficulties.
But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Although
one has the right to give greater weight to his own financial concerns than to
others, whoever establishes such a way of life will, in the end, come to endure
the very poverty he seeks to avoid.
While the
context of the Talmudic passage is monetary loss, requiring one to protect
himself from poverty and financial loss, the same would apply to not taking care
of any of our personal needs. Rav
Berkowitz explains that the Talmud is in fact telling us that man has a
responsibility not to impoverish himself.
For this reason, the focus is on ones attitude. Rabbi Akiva requires a verse in order
to derive the principle of surviving in the desert at the expense of anothers
death, because in fact one should care for others the way one cares about
oneself. This indicates that ones own
needs do not always take precedence over the needs of the other, whom one loves. Man has the responsibility to ensure
that all of his caring for others does not bring him to the point at which he
forgets himself.
Thus, in certain circumstances, ones personal needs
take precedence because one has a responsibility not to make oneself poor.
This is not an expression of caring for
oneself more, but of the greater obligation to maintain ones own mind and body
over those of another, as God gave them to one as a sacred trust.
Similarly, regarding tzedaka, ones
responsibility is first towards ones relatives before others. However, a mans closest relative is
himself, and he is his chief responsibility.
One does not make a living for others but for himself, not because one
cares about others less, but because one has a responsibility to provide for
oneself and cannot overlook his own needs.
Though there is a responsibility to ensure that one
does not become poor, the Talmud also expresses that living by this rule only is
even more dangerous. Someone who is
always involved in his particular needs and therefore unable to find time to
help others has thrown off the yoke of chesed, and he will be punished
ultimately by needing to rely on others.
What determines whether one is fulfilling or
overdoing his personal responsibility is determined by whether helping others
takes its toll on ones own health or not.
If one makes himself needy, then one is in violation of the
responsibility to oneself, and that is not altruistic but self-destructive. One cannot be a baal chesed at
the expense of himself and his family, and for that reason one must be honest
with oneself about meeting all personal needs before expressing ones love for
others.
The Importance of Loving Oneself
While one might view the Torahs stress on taking
care of ones own needs as undermining true caring for others, the opposite may
in fact be the case. God has created
man in a way that he cannot be fully altruistic, but by expanding his
understanding of his own identity and that which is important to him, his
self-love can be the guiding principle that brings him to care for others. Rav Shimon Shkop develops this idea
in his seminal introduction to Shaarei Yosher (see lesson #21). He explains that in the Midrash (Bereishit
Rabba 90:2), God states that My holiness is higher than your holiness to
impress upon man that, unlike God, he cannot be totally altruistic; his caring
for himself is necessary to allow him to truly care for others.
However, what of a person who decides to suppress
his nature, to reach a high level, so that he has no thought or inclination in
his soul for his own good, only a desire for the good of others?
In this way, he would achieve his desire
of reaching the sanctity of the Creator, as His Desire in all of the creation
and management of the world is only for the good of the created, and not for
Himself at all. At first glance, one might say that if a person reaches this
level, he would reach the epitome of being whole. But this is why our Sages of
blessed memory teach us, in this Midrashic passage, that it is not so. We cannot
try to emulate His Holiness in this respect.
This is because His Holiness is greater than ours.
His Holiness is only for the created and not for Himself, because nothing has
ever been added to or could ever be added to the Creator through the actions He
has done or is doing. Therefore, the entirety of His Desire can only be to be
good to the created; however, this is not what He wants from us. As Rabbi Akiva
taught us, Your life comes first.
[Our Sages] left us a hint of it when they interpret the scripture You shall
love your fellow as yourself in a negative sense: That which is hateful to
you, do not do to your peers. In terms
of the obligation, it is fitting for a person to place his own good first.
There are also grounds for asserting that in the
very foundation of the creation of Adam, the Creator planted in him a very great
measure of propensity to love himself. The Sages of truth describe the purpose
of all the work in this language, The Infinite wanted to bestow complete good,
in which there would not even be the embarrassment of receiving. This notion
reveals how far the power of loving oneself goes
In my opinion, this is true despite all the evil and
sin that the world is full of because of this trait of self-love. Added to the
challenge of wealth, this trait will cause one to stumble into the depths, as it
is written, Lest I grow full and deny (Mishlei 30:9)
Although at first glance it seems that feelings of
love for oneself and feelings of love for others are like competing sister-wives
to each other, we have the duty to try to delve into it, to find the means to
unite them, since God expects both from us. This means that one must explain and
accept the truth of the quality of his I, for with it the statures of people
are differentiated, each according to their level.
The entire I of a coarse and lowly person is
restricted only to his substance and body. Above him is someone who feels that
his I is a synthesis of body and soul. And above him is someone who can
include in his I all of his household and family. Someone who walks according
to the way of the Torah, his I includes the whole Jewish people, since in
truth every Jewish person is only like a limb of the body of the nation of
Israel. And there are more levels in
this of a person who is whole, who can connect his soul to feel that all of the
world and the worlds are his I, and he himself is only one small limb in all
of creation. Then, his self-love helps him love all of the Jewish people and all
of creation.
It is may be
for this reason that ones own needs take precedence. Only one who truly cares about
himself will be able to provide for others.
In next weeks lesson, we will identify the
connection between the obligation to love your fellow and the obligation to
provide for the needs of the community.
An analysis of this topic will help us define the parameters of weighing
ones own needs against the needs of others.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!