“And
it was in the times that the judges judged that there was a famine in the land
and a man from Bait Lechem in Yehuda went to sojourn in the fields of Moav – he
and his wife and his two sons.” (Megilat Ruth 1:1)
One of the issues we encounter in teaching students TaNaCh is that the interpretations of our Sages often seem far removed from the literal translation and intent to the passages. It is important that the teacher relate these interpretations to the passage by explaining the basis for the insight within the wording of the passage.
The
above passage introduces the Megilah of Ruth.
The pasuk tells us the land of
Israel was stricken with a famine. In
response, Elimelech left the land of Israel with his family and relocated to
the land of Moav. Malbim quotes the
midrash that explains the there were actually two famines that afflicted the
land of Israel. One was a famine
involving a scarcity of foods. In
addition, the land was also afflicted with a scarcity of Torah. The midrash does not elaborate on the
specific form or nature of this scarcity of Torah. Neither does the midrash explain its basis for this
interpretation of the passage. However,
Malbim suggests that the nature of this scarcity of Torah is indicated by
another teaching of the Sages. Based on
his analysis, he also indicates the basis in the passage for our Sages’
comments
Malbim
begins by referring us to a comment of the Sages quoted by Rashi. According to our Sages, Elimelech was a
wealthy person. As a result of the
famine Elimelech was approached by many impoverished individuals needing his
support. He fled the land of Israel in
order to avoid his duty to support the poor. [1] At first glance, this seems to be another
amazing comment that lacks any connection to the text. However, a careful analysis does provide
significant support for these comments of our Sages.
Our
passage describes Elimelech as “a man.”
Only in the next passage does the Megilah reveal his identity. Like the Chumash, NaCh does not waste
words. Ideas are expressed in as
precise a manner as possible. So, we
would have expected the Megilah to reveal Elimelech’s identity in the first
passage instead of referring to him as “a man.” The Sages often comment explain the term eysh – a man – usually refers to a person of importance. The Megilah is telling us that Elimelech was
a person of significance.
Furthermore,
the Megilah is referring to Elimelech as an eysh
in describing his abandonment of the land of Israel. The implication is that his decision to leave was in some manner
associated with his status as a person of significance. What is the connection to which the pasuk alludes?
In
order to answer this question, we must ask one further question. In what sense was Elimelech an eysh – a person of significance? How was he special? The only remarkable characteristic of
Elimelech that is mentioned in the Megilah is his wealth. It seems that the Sages concluded that this
must be the distinction to which the Megilah refers in describing Elimelech as
an eysh.
Now,
we can better understand the message communicated in the passage in relating
Elimelech’s decision to leave the land of Israel to his status as an eysh. The apparent message of the passage is that Elimelech’s wealth was
the basis for his decision to leave the land of Israel.
So,
how did Elimelech’s status as a wealthy person influence his decision to leave
the land of Israel? Our Sages conclude
that his decision must have been motivated by a desire to preserve this
wealth. They continue to explain that
as a result of the famine Elimelech was accosted by the poor seeking
relief. Elimelech was not willing to
provide this support but neither was he comfortable turning the poor away. In order to evade his dilemma, he elected to
leave the land of Israel and relocate to the land of Moav.
Based
on the comments of the Sages quoted by Rashi, Malbim explains that nature of
the famine for Torah. He explains that
this famine was characterized by this attitude towards tzedakah – charity – expressed by Elimelech. In other words, the reluctance to provide
support for the poor is described by the Sages as a famine for Torah.
In
summary, although at first glance it would appear that the comments of the
Sages are not reflected in the passage, a careful analysis of the passage does
indicate that the Sages are responding to specific problems in the passage and
resolving these problems based upon a thorough analysis of the text.
Let
us now consider another issue. Malbim
continues to explain that this is not the only instance in which the Sages use
very harsh terms to describe a person who is remiss in performance of the mitzvah of supporting the poor. Malbim quotes two statements of the
Sages. The Sages comment that anyone
who hides his eyes from the poor is regarded as serving idolatry. In another instance, the Sages comment that
anyone who does not involve oneself in acts of kindness is comparable to a
person who has no G-d.
Malbim
suggests that the Sages – like the TaNaCh – choose their words carefully. These two comments are not reiterations of
the same idea. The subtle differences
in the phrasing are significant. He
quotes Rav Hai Gaon. Rav Hai explained
that there is an important difference between hiding one’s eyes from the poor
and not involving oneself in acts of kindness.
When one hides one’s eyes, the person is attempting to not see
something. In other words, there is a
situation with which the person is confronted and the person turns away to
avoid seeing and needing to respond to the situation. According to Rav Hai, this characterization describes the person
that is confronted with a poor person – the poor person is knocking at his door
– and he refuses to open the door or – like Elimelech – he flees from his
responsibility. In contrast, in
referring to a person who does not involve oneself in acts of kindness, the
Sages are describing a different behavior.
This person makes a decision to not get involved in acts of
kindness. Perhaps, if a poor person
came to the door, he would respond and provide assistance. But this person will not seek out the poor
and those in need of help in order to provide for them.[2]
Although
Malbim does not comment on the issue, it is interesting that the Sages refer to
the person who hides his eyes as an idolater and the person who does not
involve oneself in acts of kindness as not having a G-d. Can we explain the difference between these
two characterizations and why each is used in reference to its respective
behavior?
When
a person turns away and avoids a needy person, a calculation is being
made. The person is confronted with
someone needing help and is aware of the obligation to respond. At the same time, that person is reluctant
to give of his wealth. He balances his
love for his wealth against his Torah obligation to support the poor and
decides to ignore his obligation in favor of his attachment to his possessions. In this calculation, the person is giving
precedence to his love for his wealth over his commitment to Hashem and His
Torah. In deciding that the love of
wealth comes first, the person has given his wealth a position in his outlook
that is reserved for Hashem. He has
placed love of wealth above love of Hashem.
In assigning this position – reserved for Hashem – to his wealth – he
has replaced Hashem with his wealth. In
this sense, he is characterized as an idolater.
A
person who does not involve oneself in acts of kindness is not making this
calculation. In fact, through removing
himself from involvement in acts of kindness – chesed – the person has avoided the necessity of any such
calculation. However, this person is
also making a clear statement regarding his relationship to Hashem. Who is this person? Our Sages accuse him of abandoning G-d
because he does not perform chesed. The implication is that the Sages are
referring to a person who is otherwise conscientious in his observance. But in the area of chesed he is remiss. He is
establishing boundaries for his relationship with Hashem. He is establishing a realm or framework in
which he must serve Hashem and defining a corresponding realm or framework in
which duty to Hashem is irrelevant.
This person is not denying that he must serve Hashem. Instead, he is establishing perimeters to
this service. He relegates his service
to the synagogue or the bait hamidrash
– the study hall. But he banishes
Hashem from important elements of his personal life. The message of our Sages now emerges more clearly. We cannot establish artificial boundaries
designed to exclude Hashem from portions of our life. Devotion to Hashem – by definition – requires recognition of
Hashem’s mastery over all elements of a person’s life.
An
analogy will help convey this idea.
Assume a king decrees that his subjects should pay a five-dollar tax
every year. The subjects respond that
although you are king, we do respect your right to demand taxes. You do not have authority over our
possessions. Does this king truly have
power over his subjects or does he rule only by virtue of the indulgence of his
subjects? Cleary, he rules by virtue of
their indulgence. They have the power
to decide the areas over which he does and does not have authority.
Now,
let us apply this analogy to our discussion.
If we accept that Hashem has complete authority over us – that He is
truly our G-d – then He does not need our indulgence in order to dictate
behavioral expectations. We must
acknowledge His authority in every aspect of our lives. However, if we insist that Hashem does not
have the authority to prescribe behaviors in some areas, then we are implying
that Hashem cannot dictate to us but instead rules through our indulgence. If Hashem requires our indulgence, then we
do not really regard Him as our G-d.