During its outline of the various korbanos (sacrifices), the Torah forbids bringing offerings of leaven and honey . It then immediately tells us that, in contrast, we must include salt in all the meal-offerings. What is the difference between salt with honey and leaven, to the extent that salt is obligatory, whilst the other two substances are forbidden?! The commentaries point out that there is great symbolism in the korbanos, and that each of these three substances represent various character traits – by analyzing their symbolism we can answer this question.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
Showing posts with label jealousy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jealousy. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Thursday, March 10, 2011
THE RIGHT KIND OF JEALOUSY - VAYIKRA
During its outline of the various korbanos (sacrifices), the Torah forbids bringing offerings of leaven and honey . It then immediately tells us that, in contrast, we must include salt in all the meal-offerings. What is the difference between salt with honey and leaven, to the extent that salt is obligatory, whilst the other two substances are forbidden?! The commentaries point out that there is great symbolism in the korbanos, and that each of these three substances represent various character traits – by analyzing their symbolism we can answer this question.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
The Sefer HaChinuch writes that honey represents base physical desire (taiva) because it is a sweet tasting food. The prohibition from adding honey to the offerings teaches us that one should refrain from chasing after sweet tasting foods, and should focus only on eating food that is necessary for his sustenance and well-being. The Chinuch continues that leaven is symbolic of arrogance because it rises up. With regard to arrogance, he brings the verse in Mishlei that states: “The haughty of heart is an abomination to HaShem.”
The Chasam Sofer zt”l continues in the same vein as the Chinuch with regard to honey and leaven. He then discusses the symbolism of salt. He alludes to the well-known maamer Chazal (saying of the Sages) that provides the background behind the obligation to include salt with the meal offerings. On the second day of Creation, HaShem separated the waters into two, bringing part of the water up to Shamayim and leaving part on the Earth. The lower waters complained that they also wanted to go up to the exalted Heavens rather than remain on the lowly Earth. HaShem appeased them by telling them that in the future the salt that is found in the water would, in the future, be offered up on the Altar along with the korbanos.
Based on this Midrash, the Chasam Sofer explains that salt represents the trait of jealousy because it is offered as a result of the jealousy of the lower waters towards the upper waters. He continues that honey, leaven, and salt represent the three basic negative traits; kina (jealousy), kavod (desire for honor) and taiva. However, he argues that jealousy is very different from the other two: There is no place for them in the Mishkan, and, by extension, in all Avodas HaShem (Divine Service), Therefore, there is no place for honey and leaven with the korbanos. He writes that jealousy, in contrast, does have a place in Avodas HaShem. We see this from the Gemara that says, ‘kinas sofrim tarbeh chachma’ – jealousy amongst those learning causes an increase in wisdom. This means that there is a benefit to jealousy in the spiritual realm because it can motivate a person to grow in his spirituality when he sees others performing on a higher level than himself. In this vein he explains that the jealousy of the lower waters for the upper waters was an example of a valid type of jealousy – the lower waters wanted to be as close to HaShem as the upper waters. Their reward was the salt that would be offered up. Accordingly, this salt remains as an eternal reminder of the praiseworthy form of jealousy.
The Chasam Sofer’s explanation teaches us that when the generally negative trait of jealousy is used in the right way, it can enhance one’s Avodas HaShem. It is instructive to analyze the difference between jealousy in the spiritual realm and jealousy in the physical realm. It seems that there are two main differences: Firstly, the motivation of the two types of jealousy varies greatly. Jealousy in the material realm often has a particularly abhorrent aspect – it is not limited to wanting the same things the other person, rather the jealous person wants that the other person to not have that thing as well. Indeed, the Torah prohibition that relates to jealousy, loh sachmod (do not covet), only applies when Reuven wants to have Shimon’s item itself, whereas if he only wants the same item as Shimon, there is no Torah prohibition. In contrast, the Baalei Mussar point out that jealousy in the spiritual realm is only acceptable when the jealous party does not begrudge his fellow of his success, rather he uses his friend’s success as a tool to help motivate himself to achieve similar heights. However, if he begrudges his friend his success then his jealousy is again considered totally unacceptable because it is clearly not driven by pure motivations.
The second difference is brought out by the Ibn Ezra’s explanation of the Mitzvo of loh sachmod. He offers an analogy of a peasant who desires to marry a princess. The peasant should realize that she is simply not in his domain, and that he has no right to expect to gain her hand in marriage. So too, each person is allotted exactly what they need in the material world. Anything that someone else owns is totally irrelevant to them and outside of their domain. They have no reason to desire it, because HaShem provides each person with exactly what they need. The reasoning of the Ibn Ezra only applies to jealousy in the material realm, because no amount of hishtadlus (effort) will alter a person’s possessions – that is completely in HaShem’s Hands. The one area in which HaShem stands back, so-to-speak, is spirituality. In the spiritual realm there is no predestined limit to what a person can achieve. It is completely dependent upon his own free will. Accordingly, it is not fruitless to desire to emulate someone else’s spiritual achievement; through personal effort, a person can attain more in ruchnius.
Bearing these two points in mind – that kinas sofrim induces a person to emulate his fellow without begrudging him his own success; and that one has the right to try to attain more than he presently has – we now have a deeper understanding of the role of jealousy in our lives. The Chasam Sofer teaches us that, whilst in many circumstances, it is a negative trait, when utilized in the right way, it can help us grow closer to HaShem, and in that way emulate the lower waters whose burning desire to get close to HaShem bore fruits.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
DO NOT COVET, PART 6
We noted in an earlier article, that the prohibition of ‘Do Not Covet’ refers specifically to not trying to attain someone else’s item. However, it is not prohibited to want the same item as his friend, and to try to acquire it for himself. For example, if Brian owns a laptop computer, Dave is allowed to try to buy the same make of laptop for himself. However, Dave is not permitted to pressure Brian into selling his very own laptop to Dave. Why is it considered so bad to desire someone else’s item in particular?
In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand the possible motivations for acquiring physical property. A person may want possessions simply because they offer a certain benefit to him. For example, a person may want a large house because he has a big family and needs a certain number of bedrooms to provide enough space for his family. However, a person may desire possessions for a very different reason. He may judge his sense of value on the basis of his acquisitions. He may see property ownership as a measure of a person’s success in life. Accordingly, if he sees that his friend owns a large house, he will feel that his friend is ‘beating’ him in an unspoken competition for possessions. This will engender feelings of jealousy which he will want to assuage. The best way of doing this is to acquire his friend’s very house. In this way, the large house, which was the source of his feeling of inferiority, would now engender in him feelings of superiority.
We can now understand why the desire for someone else’s specific item is considered so negative. It is driven by an attitude that is totally foreign to Torah values. This is an attitude that stresses the value of a person according to his material possessions. The only measure of one’s success in this area, is how much he owns in comparison to other people. Accordingly, a person who lives with this value system will constantly desire to acquire other people’s possessions so that he can ‘overtake’ them in the relentless battle to see who can own the most ‘toys’.
The Torah approach is diametrically opposed to this attitude. The Torah ascribes no importance to material ownership in appraising the value of a person. All people are of infinite value because they are made in the Image of G-d. Moreover, the only acquisitions that are important and lasting are those of the spiritual kind. The wealthiest person in the world will lose all his possessions when he dies, they are only temporary acquaintances. The only ‘possessions’ that accompany a person to the Next World, are the Mitzvos and good deeds that a person performed in this world. When a person recognizes this truth, he will find no desire to want the possessions of his fellow man.
In order to answer this question it is necessary to understand the possible motivations for acquiring physical property. A person may want possessions simply because they offer a certain benefit to him. For example, a person may want a large house because he has a big family and needs a certain number of bedrooms to provide enough space for his family. However, a person may desire possessions for a very different reason. He may judge his sense of value on the basis of his acquisitions. He may see property ownership as a measure of a person’s success in life. Accordingly, if he sees that his friend owns a large house, he will feel that his friend is ‘beating’ him in an unspoken competition for possessions. This will engender feelings of jealousy which he will want to assuage. The best way of doing this is to acquire his friend’s very house. In this way, the large house, which was the source of his feeling of inferiority, would now engender in him feelings of superiority.
We can now understand why the desire for someone else’s specific item is considered so negative. It is driven by an attitude that is totally foreign to Torah values. This is an attitude that stresses the value of a person according to his material possessions. The only measure of one’s success in this area, is how much he owns in comparison to other people. Accordingly, a person who lives with this value system will constantly desire to acquire other people’s possessions so that he can ‘overtake’ them in the relentless battle to see who can own the most ‘toys’.
The Torah approach is diametrically opposed to this attitude. The Torah ascribes no importance to material ownership in appraising the value of a person. All people are of infinite value because they are made in the Image of G-d. Moreover, the only acquisitions that are important and lasting are those of the spiritual kind. The wealthiest person in the world will lose all his possessions when he dies, they are only temporary acquaintances. The only ‘possessions’ that accompany a person to the Next World, are the Mitzvos and good deeds that a person performed in this world. When a person recognizes this truth, he will find no desire to want the possessions of his fellow man.
Monday, December 20, 2010
DO NOT COVET PART 5
We have completed the halachic (legal) issues relating to the mitzvo of ’Do not Covet’. It is now important to discuss some of the philosophical aspects of this mitzvo.
The commentaries discuss why it is wrong to covet someone else‘s item. The early commentator, the Ibn Ezra, offers a useful analogy to help understand the Torah’s outlook on what one’s attitude should be towards material possessions. He tells us to imagine a lowly peasant man who sees a beautiful princess. If he is of sound mind, he will not contemplate marrying her, because he is well aware that she is not designated for him, because she is in a completely different social sphere. In a similar vein, everything that a person has is given to him from HaShem and anything that he does not need is not given to him. Therefore, the property of another person has no relevance to him - it is completely out of his sphere of ownership.
This idea is developed further by an illuminating saying of the Sages. They tell us that righteous people are very careful about looking after their material possessions because they know that they did not acquire anything dishonestly. As we said above, everything that a person owns is given to him from HaShem. However, this is on condition that it was acquired in an honest fashion. A righteous person recognizes that since he is totally honest, whatever he has been given or acquired is necessary for him to properly serve HaShem. Accordingly, he is very careful not to damage or lose his property, because to do so, would make it very difficult to achieve his purpose. With this in mind, it is evident that acquiring other people’s property is totally unnecessary for a person to achieve his life potential. By definition, anything that his fellow owns is not needed for him. Therefore, it is fruitless for him to try to attain it from his friend.
With this attitude a person can learn to become far more satisfied with his lot.
The commentaries discuss why it is wrong to covet someone else‘s item. The early commentator, the Ibn Ezra, offers a useful analogy to help understand the Torah’s outlook on what one’s attitude should be towards material possessions. He tells us to imagine a lowly peasant man who sees a beautiful princess. If he is of sound mind, he will not contemplate marrying her, because he is well aware that she is not designated for him, because she is in a completely different social sphere. In a similar vein, everything that a person has is given to him from HaShem and anything that he does not need is not given to him. Therefore, the property of another person has no relevance to him - it is completely out of his sphere of ownership.
This idea is developed further by an illuminating saying of the Sages. They tell us that righteous people are very careful about looking after their material possessions because they know that they did not acquire anything dishonestly. As we said above, everything that a person owns is given to him from HaShem. However, this is on condition that it was acquired in an honest fashion. A righteous person recognizes that since he is totally honest, whatever he has been given or acquired is necessary for him to properly serve HaShem. Accordingly, he is very careful not to damage or lose his property, because to do so, would make it very difficult to achieve his purpose. With this in mind, it is evident that acquiring other people’s property is totally unnecessary for a person to achieve his life potential. By definition, anything that his fellow owns is not needed for him. Therefore, it is fruitless for him to try to attain it from his friend.
With this attitude a person can learn to become far more satisfied with his lot.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
DO NOT COVET AND DESIRE PART 3
Thus far, we have seen how it is forbidden to pressure one's fellow Jew into selling, renting or giving him an item. However, not every attempt to acquire a possession that is not for sale violates the prohibition of loh tachmod.
One is permitted to ask the owner, if he would consider selling the item. This is because asking the owner if he is interested in such a fashion is not considered pressuring him. However, if the owner refuses, he is not permitted to continue asking him to sell the item. Statements such as, 'please reconsider', 'we need it so badly' and so on, in such a setting, are forbidden.
If the owner showed no interest in selling, is one allowed to come back to him with a bigger offer? There is a difference of opinion amongst the authorities on this issue. There are those that say this is permitted. This is because the prohibition of loh tachmod involves embarrassing or pressuring the owner to sell the item when he has no desire to do so. However, many items are not for sale at a certain price, but were the owner to be offered a higher price, then the item would be for sale at that price. Therefore, the owner is not selling the item at this price because he is pressured, rather because he genuinely desires to sell it at this price.
Other authorities are stricter in this question - Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita rules that it is forbidden to return to the owner with a bigger offer once he has refused the first offer. However, if the owner had given some indication that he would consider selling the item at a higher price, or some change in the owner's situation indicates that he would reconsider, he may be approached again.
One is permitted to try to demonstrate to the owner why it is in his best interest to sell, provided that it would genuinely be in the owner's best interest. A distinguished person may not ask someone for an item even once, if he feels it is possible that the owner will feel pressured to refuse his request.
One is permitted to ask the owner, if he would consider selling the item. This is because asking the owner if he is interested in such a fashion is not considered pressuring him. However, if the owner refuses, he is not permitted to continue asking him to sell the item. Statements such as, 'please reconsider', 'we need it so badly' and so on, in such a setting, are forbidden.
If the owner showed no interest in selling, is one allowed to come back to him with a bigger offer? There is a difference of opinion amongst the authorities on this issue. There are those that say this is permitted. This is because the prohibition of loh tachmod involves embarrassing or pressuring the owner to sell the item when he has no desire to do so. However, many items are not for sale at a certain price, but were the owner to be offered a higher price, then the item would be for sale at that price. Therefore, the owner is not selling the item at this price because he is pressured, rather because he genuinely desires to sell it at this price.
Other authorities are stricter in this question - Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita rules that it is forbidden to return to the owner with a bigger offer once he has refused the first offer. However, if the owner had given some indication that he would consider selling the item at a higher price, or some change in the owner's situation indicates that he would reconsider, he may be approached again.
One is permitted to try to demonstrate to the owner why it is in his best interest to sell, provided that it would genuinely be in the owner's best interest. A distinguished person may not ask someone for an item even once, if he feels it is possible that the owner will feel pressured to refuse his request.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
DO NOT COVET AND DO NOT DESIRE Part 1
Having spent several months discussing the prohibition of stealing, it is instructive to examine another commandment that pertains to our attitude and relationship to other people's property. Right at the end of the Ten Commandments the Torah instructs us:
"Do not covet (tachmod) your fellow's house. You shall not covet your fellow's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow."
From a simplistic reading of this verse, it would seem that the Torah is prohibiting a person from merely wanting someone else's possessions. However, the Shulchan Aruch states that this is not the nature of this prohibition. Rather, the word, 'tachmod' implies to cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell. This is what the Torah is prohibiting.
Later in the Torah, the Ten Commandments are repeated with slight changes. One of them is in the above mentioned verse. The verse begins; "You shall not covet your fellow's wife," using the same word, tachmod, implying an active effort to attain the item. However the verse continues differently, saying, "you shall not desire (titaveh) your fellow's house..." The Shulchan Aruch explains here the Torah is prohibiting merely thinking and scheming how to pressure one's fellow into selling him the item. Thus, even if one only plans how to attain the item in such a fashion and never proceeds, he nonetheless transgresses the Torah commandment of 'loh titaveh'.
In the coming weeks we will discuss the details of this mitzvo.
"Do not covet (tachmod) your fellow's house. You shall not covet your fellow's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow."
From a simplistic reading of this verse, it would seem that the Torah is prohibiting a person from merely wanting someone else's possessions. However, the Shulchan Aruch states that this is not the nature of this prohibition. Rather, the word, 'tachmod' implies to cajoling, pressuring, or embarrassing someone into selling him something that the owner really did not want to sell. This is what the Torah is prohibiting.
Later in the Torah, the Ten Commandments are repeated with slight changes. One of them is in the above mentioned verse. The verse begins; "You shall not covet your fellow's wife," using the same word, tachmod, implying an active effort to attain the item. However the verse continues differently, saying, "you shall not desire (titaveh) your fellow's house..." The Shulchan Aruch explains here the Torah is prohibiting merely thinking and scheming how to pressure one's fellow into selling him the item. Thus, even if one only plans how to attain the item in such a fashion and never proceeds, he nonetheless transgresses the Torah commandment of 'loh titaveh'.
In the coming weeks we will discuss the details of this mitzvo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
