Opportunities can be Lost or Even Forsaken…

Enjoy this Shirks!

There is a concept in economics called, “opportunity cost.” The basic premise is that in order to be involved in one activity, a person must forgo another. Basically you can’t do two things at once, so you choose which to involve yourself in. But when you choose one, you necessarily give up the other opportunity.

We know that the Torah is universally applicable, so how do we apply this concept of opportunity cost to Torah and its ideals? To start, we should investigate how this concept affects our purpose in creation.

As human beings one of our principle reasons for existing is to revel in Hashem’s goodness (be close to him), and thus realize ultimate pleasure. When Hashem created the world he recognized, in his unfathomable wisdom, that we human beings could only enjoy pleasure if we felt we had earned it. Thus olam hazeh was designed to challenge us and let us “earn” our reward, which we will principally get pleasure from in olam haba.

Hashem in his chesed gave us the Torah, “an instruction booklet” so-to-speak, full of mitzvos that if done correctly will connect us to Hashem and therefore give us merit in olam haba as-well-as allowing us to live the best possible life in olam hazeh.

What does all this have to do with economics—specifically opportunity cost?

Hold that question and read the following pasuk to see if we can find a hint as to the connection. David hamelech, in Tehillm¹ states: “סוּר מֵרָע, וַעֲשֵׂה-טוֹב”, “turn away from evil/bad, and do good.” Would it not have been sufficient to merely say, “turn away from evil/bad”. Is it not a bit redundant to say, “and do good.” If an individual is not doing evil/bad, isn’t that the same as doing good? Put another way: if there is a choice between doing good or doing bad, if you are not involved in bad wouldn’t you necessarily be doing good?

Tehillm is part of the Torah and we accordingly can conclude that, David hamelech is not “wasting” words; if he could teach the same lesson in one word he would not use two. Consequently, the phrase “turn away from evil/bad,” is not the same as “do good.”

What is the difference?

At this point it is appropriate to ask whether there exists a “neutral” act; neither overtly evil, nor clearly good? And for that matter, are there different levels of good and of evil? Is what is good for one person, neutral for another? Or even evil/bad for that individual?

To answer some of these pressing questions, we will look at a mishna in Avos. The mishna states²: רבי יעקב אומר המהלך בדרך ושונה ומפסיק משנתו ואומר מה נאה אילן זה מה נאה ניר זה מעלין עליו כאילו הוא מתחייב בנפשו. Translated basically as: “Rabbi Yaakov said: If a man is walking by the path and is studying and then interrupts his study and exclaims: "How fine is this tree!" or "How fine is this ploughed field!" Scripture regards him as though he was liable for his life (nafsho).”

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch comments³, “This mishna teaches us the following great lesson: He who, while studying, does not become aware of the higher beauty of G-d’s teaching, so that he will break off from his sacred work to exclaim over the beauty of nature…[it is] as if he has forfeited his soul. For, despite his study, he thus shows that he has not come to understand the dignity and beauty of a human soul that is guided and enlightened by the spirit of G-d; a beauty and dignity that surpasses all earthly beauty by far.” This is said by the same Rav Hirsch whom is presumed to have “announced his plans to visit the Swiss Alps. [And] when pressed for the reason behind planning so arduous a journey at his advanced age, Rabbi Hirsch replied, "I may have only a few years left, and when I stand before the Almighty on Judgment Day, I don't want Him to ask me, 'Shimshon, why didn't you see My Alps?'"⁴”

Is it not a contradiction? On the one hand we should “see” nature and take pleasure and be in awe of its beauty. But on the other hand if we take a break from Torah study to admire a tree, we are liable for our very lives?!?!

One approach would be to say that while admiring Hashem’s glory—in the form of nature—builds and strengthens our connection to him, Torah does that and more. Not only does Torah construct and develop our relationship to Hashem, but also provides a link to eternity which is lacking in nature. Put another way, viewing nature is good and proper, but studying Torah is greater and provides an eternal link to the almighty. We therefore can conclude that there are in fact different “levels” of good, and by inference, bad/evil. And as a side note, we can recognize that just as a person’s point of freewill is different from his peers, so to a person’s range of what is “good” for him to do is dissimilar from his peers.

Now that we’ve recognized that there is in fact a range from what is considered good to neutral to evil/bad, we can reexamine the question of why David hamelech felt it crucial to make the distinction of, “turn away from evil/bad, and do good”? In light of our discussion of the various ranks of what is good, we find that merely not doing bad is not enough, but rather one must “do good.” Merely not doing bad could be neutral and therefore a barrier to one’s opportunity to advance in the construction of his connection to Hashem.

It is at this point in our discussion that we can return to our original question of, “how can we apply the concept of opportunity cost (remember, when your involved in one activity you can’t be involved in another) to Torah and its ideals? In essence, if we are involved in neutral activities we are not actively involved in building our connection to the ribono shel’olam. When we are not actively involved in doing good, we have unfortunately given up the remarkable opportunity to draw ourselves nearer our unique creator.

Footnotes:

1) Tehillm 34:15

2) Avos 3:9

3) Chapters of the Fathers 3:9 (published by Feldheim) with slight alteration

4) http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Ethics_of_the_Fathers3_39_Direct_Line_to_the_Heavens.asp

Mitzvos: “Simply the Right Thing to Do?”

Yeah yeah Shirks this is just for you...
I wrote this in Kislev (I haven't really modified it) so it is a bit old, but since Torah is eternal I figured I could post still...
Btw, sorry the foot notes are messed up, but I don't really know how to fix them.

Anyway, here it is:

What goes through our minds when someone says “it’s a mitzvah,” or some other variation of the phrase? I have found that for some people “it is a good deed,” “brownie points,” or even simply that “it’s the right/good thing to do” are the types of phrases that first come to one’s mind. Some may even venture to go as far as saying, “mitzvos are what Hashem wants us to do to be good people” or “I have an obligation to fulfill them.” There are even those among us who are slightly more sophisticated, and will persist that mitzvos “are how one achieves a good life.”

Are any of these ideas true according to Torah hashkafa? Let us consider various sources and see if we can come to an answer[1].

One might wonder, “Why did Hashem create the world, for what purpose?” We only know this: Hashem’s ratzon was/is the reason for creation, and all we can observe is what Hashem does, not why he does it.

Our human notion of “reality,” is basically that we can tangibly experience it with at least one of our five senses. However, for Hashem, “reality” is him; everything else is merely what he creates.

Hashem’s reality is that he alone exists, and that everything else that “exists,” is dependent on him. In order to draw close to Hashem we need to have a method of peeling away the falsehood of us humans existing independently, and instead, recognize true reality.

How do we change our limited perspective of reality, to the all encompassing reality of Hashem?

Hashem, in his abundant chesed, gave us specific instructions of how to tap into true reality. These instructions are what we commonly call, “mitzvos.” Hashem set up this world as an obstacle course, where he presents us with a world that appears one way (what we think of as reality), and gives us the keys and the tools to transform the world into a world of reality (Hashem’s true reality)[2].

Again, why he did this is not something we can comprehend.

Hashem[3] clearly tells us “וְעַתָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל--מָה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ: כִּי אִם-לְיִרְאָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ,” “Now, Israel, what does Hashem your G-d ask of you? Only to fear Hashem your G-d…” The word “yirah,” could be said to come from the shoresh: reish, aleph, heh, meaning to fear, or to see. So we can read the verse as saying, “What does Hashem your G-d ask of you? Only to see Hashem your G-d [to see his reality]…”

How does one “see” G-d’s reality? That is where mitzvos come in. Mitzvos are specific instructions of what and how to do things in order to see Hashem’s reality. Mitzvos are Hashem’s gift to us, so that we can have glimpses into his “mind”—so-to-speak.

So ultimately, each mitzvah—in some way or another—helps us to see Hashem.

The more we “see” Hashem, the closer we can draw near to him, because we have an understanding of him (although even this is limited). As human beings, this is our goal.

As a nation, we expressed this idea by saying, “כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר יְהוָה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע,” “all that Hashem has spoken [his mitzvos], we will do [we will perform them] and we will hear [understand].” We are saying that first we will learn how to perform mitzvos, and then through them, we will learn to understand G-d’s true reality (“see” him).

So, to return to our original query: are ideas like, “a mitzvah is a good deed,” or “a mitzvah is the right thing to do,” and even the idea that “mitzvos are how one achieves a good life,” correct according to Torah hashkafa?

I think we can safely conclude that, although all of these ideas have some truth to them, they are somewhat incomplete.

The very essence of what is a mitzvah is that it reflects Hashem’s instructions on how we can draw close to him. Mitzvos function by slowly removing layers of a false reality, in order to allow us to see true reality (Hashem). This occurs whether we personally see it (depending on our individual madrayga), or even if we do not, this change is still happening.

---

[1] This dvar Torah is merely one basic understanding of what a mitzvah is; there are many other explanations, but this is the one that currently makes the most sense to me.

[2] This analogy and many of the other concepts in this dvar, were heard from a shiur given by Rabbi Bentzion Twerski. If you want to know which specific concepts he went over (that I discuss), please ask me.

[3] Devarim 10:12

Bishul on Shabbos part 1

As most of you know, this year I'm focusing my learning about Shabbos (mainly the halachic aspects).
One of my learning methods is defining concepts in my own words and being able to do so in a few concise sentences.

Here is my attempt at a concise paragraph explaining/examining the historical background of bishul:

The Av melacha of bishul falls into a broader category of malachos termed by the gamara¹, “sedura d’pas,” (lit. “The order of bread”). All of the malachos in this catagory are in some way or another connected to the making of the lechem ha’panim, or the dyes that were used to color the wool (curtains etc.) and tapestries in the mishkan. There is a machlokes Rishonim regarding if the malacha of bishul should be the av malacha, or if afiya (baking) is the rightful av. Many meforshim argue against the idea that afiya is the av malacha; they explain that only activities preformed as part of the construction of the mishkan can be classified as av malachos, where as afiya was only used in the regular functioning of the mishkan². For most practical purposes the distinction is purely academic (theoretical).

Hatzlacha,
Shanee

Footnotes:
1. Shabbos 74b
2. Lamed Tes Malachos, R’Ribiat p552 see source there

The Beginning...

Hello observers,

I created this blog in order to share abissleh Toireh with the people I care about.
It is my sincere hope (IY"H) that this blog will help myself and you draw close to Torah and ultimately Hashem, through inspiring yiras Hashem and ahavas Hashem!

Hatzlacha,
Shanee