תנו רבנן: מעשה באנשי גליל העליון, שלקחו לעני בן טובים אחד מציפורי ליטרא בשר בכל יום. ליטרא בשר? מאי רבותא? אמר רב הונא: ליטרא בשר משל עופות. ואיבעית אימא בליטרא בשר ממש. רב אשי אמר: התם כפר קטן היה בכל יומא הוה מפסדי חיותא אמטולתיה. ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי נחמיה אמר ליה 'במה אתה סועד?' א"ל 'בבשר שמן ויין ישן.' רצונך שתגלגל עמי בעדשים? גלגל עמו בעדשים ומת. אמר: אוי לו לזה שהרגו נחמיה. אדרבה! אוי לו לנחמיה שהרגו לזה מיבעי ליה! אלא איהו הוא דלא איבעי ליה לפנוקי נפשיה כולי האי. ו
Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that the people of Upper Galilee bought for a poor member of a good family of Sepphoris a pound of meat every day. 'A pound of meat'! What is the greatness in this? — R. Huna replied: [It was] a pound of fowl's meat. And if you prefer I might say: [They purchased] ordinary meat for a pound [of money]. R. Ashi replied: The place was a small village and everyday a beast had to be spoiled for his sake.
A certain man once applied to R. Nehemiah [for maintenance]. 'What do your meals consist of', [the Rabbi] asked him. 'Of fat meat and old wine', the other replied — 'Will you consent [the Rabbi asked him] to live with me on lentils?' [The other consented,] lived with him on lentils and died. 'Alas', [the Rabbi] said, 'for this man whom Nehemiah has killed.' On the contrary, he should [have said] 'Alas for Nehemiah who killed this man'! — [The fact], however, [is that the man himself was to blame, for] he should not have cultivated his luxurious habits to such an extent.
Your thoughts? Comments? Kushiot?
At first this text is very confusing. Then you read it again.... and it is still very confusing. So, I think that it is best to break it up into parts. The first paragraph talks about how the community of the Upper Galilee bought a pound of meat for a poor man of a rich family. This returns to our question about Kavod, honor. The community buys him a whole animal because he is accustomed to that life style, so they feel obligated to return him to the life style he is comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteThe second paragraph explains that a man when to R. Nehemiah and asked what he served for a meal, and the Rabbi said he gave fat meat and old wine, or in other words, favorable foods. The Rabbi asks if the man would rather live off of lentils, or not so luxurious foods. The man then dies because he was not used to this life style. The last paragraph just gives a story to explain why someone should life by the life style they are accustomed to living.
I agree with Grants statement that the text indeed is very confusing. However, it seems to me that the two texts are a little controversial. the first text is explaining how the community provides for a once rich person who has suffered a misfortune and no loner is rich. It states that you give the poor person from a good family meat... what i think the message that is trying to be conveyed in this is that you should help out that person (the text is setting an example) however i am curious as to why it never brings up the question weather the person is deserving of the meat or not, weather they were a good person when they were rich and helped the community. i would like to know if this person is deserving of the meat and also for how long they would have to be provided with meat for. Also i it never says anything about the once rich person helping out the community it always talks about the community helping the person once they have fallen. The second text is a little more confusing to me. It seems to me that this person is kind of a spoiled rich snob, and when proposed the idea of eating not such high quality food for the rest of his life, he dies. (like what Grant said) the reason i see this to be controversial is because the first text is implying to help the needy, once rich person this second text is giving the image that rich people are snobs and only accept the best which wouldnt make anyone too willing to helping them out.
ReplyDeleteI believe the whole point of these two texts is to distinguish between how to treat the rich and the poor. In the first texts Rabbi Ashi explains that even though it was a small village, an animal had to be killed for the rich-turned-poor person’s sake. The second texts demonstrates how when a rich person chose to dine with a poor rabbi, he died. While I do not believe this scenario actually occurred, I do believe it is a metaphor for what happens when the rich and poor mix… at least according to the text.
ReplyDeleteBen Stein for newsmax.com argues that moving poor people into rich neighborhoods, makes them (the poor people) feel like in order to achieve in life, they must be around rich folk. Although I do not agree with a lot (most) of his points, including this one, I do believe it is an interesting argument. (Note: Stein tends to use “black people” as a synonym for poor). “There are legions of talented black men and women who, through their own abilities and work, will get into those elegant neighborhoods soon anyway. Some of those people — many of them — will be men and women who worked their way out of poor neighborhoods… It reminds me of school busing, in which the principle was that black people could not learn unless they were seated next to white people. This was a wicked blow at the intelligence of black people” (http://www.newsmax.com/BenStein/poor-rich-mix/2009/11/09/id/336087).
The reason I do not agree with Stein’s point, as well as what the Talmud seems to be implying about how poor and rich people should not mix, is because of the following. I believe that in order to enable the poor to raise themselves up in society, they need encouragement, whether it is financial help or just the knowledge that there are people out there to support them. It is not as simple as legions of poor people finding the will power to “get into those elegant neighborhoods soon anyway.” They must have an incentive to do so, and segregation of the rich and poor does not provide this incentive.
I would like to ask a small maybe out of place question: Does Kavod (honor) only pertain to weddings and deciding upon dowry, or can it be used as a generic, Talmudic term for honor? If it can be used as a generic Talmudic term, then I believe that the first text is not only talking about giving chicken to a poor boy, but it is also talking about how the boy's Kavod is influencing how much meat he gets. The reason I think this is because in the text it says, "It once happened that the people of Upper Galilee bought for a poor member of a good family of Sepphoris a pound of meat every day." The Talmud had no need to talk about whether or not the boy is of a good family, thus reassuring my conclusion of the boy's kavod influencing what he gets. Also, because if kavod is indeed the correct term to use here, this text proves that a person's Kavod was not all about how much money they had; it could also be about the good qualities in character a person or family had. That may also be the moral to this story; that you shouldn't judge or limit anyone to anything based solely on their money, that you also need to take into consideration their character and the good things they have done in this world.
ReplyDeleteThe line that really surprised me was "R. Ashi replied: The place was a small village and everyday a beast had to be spoiled for his sake."
ReplyDeletethe word in this line that made me think about it was "spoiled."
Rabbi Ashi talks about the chicken being spoiled, as if it is being wasted and killed for a wrong purpose. I do agree that it is a lot to slaughter a chicken each day for a man and family. this is a different case though, since it says he is poor that is probably implying that he cannot afford much of his own food. it seems like it would have been the tzedakah that did this, but it was actually the "upper people of Galilee." It's good to see that they are contributing to help people that aren't as well off.
Also i agree with what zoe said, the text says a good man, meaning he had lots of kavod which is why he gets a good" amount.
The text is saying two things. First, the way society is broken up, with the rich and the poor, is such that if you try and disturb that balance it won't end well. If you take someone from their life of luxury and downgrade their lifestyle it will have dire consequences. This would seem to imply that we should take care of the rich and allow them to maintain some semblance of their former glory. However, the text ends with a point that contradicts this, which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the text it says that the fact is that the man should not have cultivated for himself, this life of luxury. The text is saying, if he is rich, then we cannot begin to treat him like a poor person, however, ideally, he would never be leading this luxurious life to begin with.
A real-world example that we can tie into this would be the bailout of the large financial institutions in fall of 2008. The institutions we bailed out were considered "too big to fail". While that was different because if they failed it would have impacted not just them, but the entire economy badly, they are still similar situations. Just as the village probably had better uses for it's meat, nobody wanted to bailout these big banks. In both cases the unpopular decision was made to continue to support the luxurious lifestyles, even when it was generally agreed that they should never have had the lifestyles in the first place, simply because to not continue to support them would end badly.
What I take away from this is that we should have a more equal society where we shouldn't have to worry about whether we have to sustain a rich person's lifestyle because we will all live within similar means.
The second text is saying that the rich must be treated to what they're accustomed to. The rich man dies because he no longer is treated to the meat and wine he was used to. This story supports the previous stories we've read about providing according to honor. Rabbi Nehemiah doesn't provide, food, according to the man's honor and he dies. I think this text is a bit dramatic, because human beings are able to adapt and it's not the job of society to provide according to ones honor. Also, going off of what Elijah said, if a poor man can't provide for a rich man does that mean they can not interact with each other? It seems like if people followed this idea the rich and poor of society would be very segregated.
ReplyDeleteTrading Places exemplifies the Talmud's idea about the cruciality of providing according to ones honor. When Dan Aykroyd loses all his possessions he tries, unsuccessfully, to kill himself.
I agree with the collective consensus of the comments above; the text is exhibiting the effects of loss. Whether it be the loss of one's luxuries, or the loss of the town's collective meat [in order to support the poor]. But we must not only focus on the text itself, we must too, draw connections to the modern day world, in which you and I live.
ReplyDeleteThe clash between the rich and the poor has long since been a pressing issue facing advanced civilizations. The gap, (according to freedomkeys.com/gap.htm) is widening, and as a result the segregation between the two classes is also becoming more prominent as each decade, year and even day progresses. We can see that this issue still faces us today as vice presidential candidate John Edwards states, "two Americas . . . one privileged, the other burdened . . . one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks."
As to whether these events actually occurred in the Talmud is your opinion in itself, but I do believe that there is an underlying message yearning to be taught here. What the Talmud is attempting to teach us is as follows: it is not easy going about loss, especially if that loss has negatively affected your entire lifestyle. Proof of this is found in the line, “ 'What do your meals consist of', [the Rabbi] asked him. 'Of fat meat and old wine', the other replied — 'Will you consent [the Rabbi asked him] to live with me on lentils?' [The other consented,] lived with him on lentils and died.” Here we can see that the man accustomed to his luxuries of meat and wine died as a result of a change that negatively affected his life, in other words: a loss. Now I do believe that this is an over-dramatization (because one can in fact survive on lentils no matter what background he/she is from), but one nonetheless to forward a point. This is a difficult issue to propose a solution for, because by definition, the rich are classified as rich with reference to the status of the poor. But one step towards the progression of this issue is the following: if a society were able to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, then this would create a “safety net” for anyone who experiences loss (on a monetary scale) because the change would be much less drastic. In other words, we must support the poor as much as possible, with as much help from the wealthy as possible, in order to lessen the gap.
Anna Brodski:
ReplyDeleteIs a person who sells someone a gun, with which they later kill themselves, responsible for the killers death? The man was entirely conscious of the decision he was making, in accepting R. Nehemiah’s proposal of living off lentils rather than “fat meat and old wine”. Also I am confused as to what the Talmud is trying to achieve in this text. The man who has somehow lost all of his money is eventually going to need to make some kind of life of his own, which will involve getting a job most likely not in accordance to his “kavod”. Thus all that treating him based on his “kavod” is achieving is prolonging the period till he must live in accordance to his present state. How long is the community responsible for accommodating the needs of someone who is used to living off “fat meat and old wine” before his “kavod” goes down to what he actually is, poor?
If it is embarrassment that the Talmud is trying to avoid; Wouldn’t it be less of an embarrassment to adjust ones habits, rather than be feeding off a community that is at large killing itself in attempt to sustain the persons habits?
I think the story in the second paragraph is a great example of why we should have to slowly ease someone who has gone from rich to poor in to their new life. It is very hard to break a habit that has been developed for all those year of the rich mans life. According to an MIT article on breaking habits, one sight of an old part of the rich mans life will be very difficult for him to take. It uses chocolate as an example for someone who is trying to lose weight.http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2005/10/20/mit-explains-why-bad-habits-are-hard-to-break/
ReplyDeleteIf the rich person has formed a habit to go to a store and but the most expensive wine it will be hard for him to go to the store and just buy the cheapest water. This is why we need to start by letting him drink medium priced wine and slowly ease him in to just drinking water to satisfy his quench. This way what happens in the story wont happen to those who lose their wealth.
What should happen in the case where, say, a rich man squanders his money on luxuries, and becomes poor. Should the community, as the Talmud says, continue to give the man (who is now poor) luxurious food? After all, the man wasted his money-- why should the community continue to support him even though it was his fault he became poor. Shouldn't there by consequences for his actions?
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that the rich man who is now poor is not used to "poor" food. But, as other people have said, it is unrealistic that someone would die from eating lentils because they were used to eating more luxurious food. In fact, a wealthy person should adjust to their new living style if they become poor. The last line in the text says that the it was the rich mans fault that he died, because he set himself up. This makes sense. Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense to put the blame on R'Nehemiah, because, firstly, the man came to R'Nehemiah. Secondly, R'Nehemiah offered the man lentils, and the (wealthy) man accepted them, even though he had the choice to decline the offer. So, it is safe to say that it was the (wealthy) mans fault that he died.
One question I have involves the first paragraph of the text: couldn't the people of Upper Galilee kill the animal, give a pound of meat to the poor person, and then use the rest of the meat for their own good. Why do they waste the meat after giving a pound of it to the poor person?
To Alex Preneta's question-"why should the community continue to support him even though it was his fault he became poor. Shouldn't there by consequences for his actions?" The community should not continue to support nor give any consequences. My question would be, what if its not one man, what if it is him and his whole family; wife and kids, become poor? The community would obviously feel obligated to help them, but would it be the right thing to do according to the Talmud? How about morally? When I was young, i saw a family, two kids with their parents, in the back of Can Foods and the lived in a small tent. The tent clearly being way to small for all four of them and i felt obligated to help, and did. But, when I see a single homeless man on the streets of San Francisco i don't feel obligated at all to give him one dollar, in fact i get a little angry they ask. Is this against the Talmud? Should i give to every homeless man i see?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.grandtimes.com/A_Different_View.html
http://www.grandtimes.com/A_Different_View.html
The thing I find most confusing of all is the end of the text when all of a sudden the guy dies. I don’t really understand what happened. He ate the lentils and died? Why? Because they were beneath him? I just think it’s a bit of a stretch. Is it saying that if a rich person touches a poor person or poor people moves into their neighborhood there going to die? I’m just not sure I can understand that. I can see that rich people might have a certain way of living that they are accustomed to and they might not be able to handle the drastic change from being rich to all of a sudden being so poor that they need help form the community and the tzedakah fund. We saw what happened to Winthorp when he was made poor and yes he drove himself to try to commit suicide and but being poor didn’t kill him and thinking that way just further goes to show you that the tzedkah fund shouldn’t provide according to what they are accustomed to which I guess is what the text it trying to say. Yet, still I’m not sure if that is right or if the text went a little overboard.
ReplyDeleteMany people are interpreting this text as saying that the tzedakah fund should support the recently poor person, and continue to support them. I think that it’s saying that a person has to transition gradually, or else it will be a shock. Nobody can die from eating food just because it is not as rich as they are used to (although one dried fig a week might) so this is an analogy for being very uncomfortable. Many people think that its cheaper to make a poor person happy than a rich person, and should therefore only help poor people. I agree that if we gave a poor people one chicken every day then they would be overall happier than if we gave one chicken to a recently poor person. However if you gave neither any chicken, the rich person would be far more depressed than the poor. Because of this we need to feed the rich person, not because it will make him happier, but because he has more to lose. Although it was not the main message of the movie, we see in Trading Places that people can’t really control how much money they have, and a lot of wealth is based on luck. Both Winthorpe and Billy Ray were honest, smart, and hardworking, but fortune put them in different places. This text teaches us that people need to know that things change, and need to be ready for changes. It is not the responsibility of the Tzedakah fund, but of the man himself to be able to adjust, either by setting aside emergency money beforehand, or developing a taste for dried figs and lentils. Just like the Talmud has a specific scale of tzedakah in general, I think there should be a more complex system for giving to recently poor people. This could include how they lost their money, how much do they have left, or how much tzedakah they gave to others before. I would love to hear suggestions about a system like this, because the current rule is up to interpretation, and if taken to the extreme could bankrupt a community.
ReplyDeleteWhile it’s probably true that it was the man's fault, ho could you blame a person for having enough money to eat well. That is probably a good thing if a person can afford good food and feed himself well. And also, people don't usually take precautions because they think they will be poor one day. That's just not how most humans think, and that is probably for a good cause. But to blame someone for spoiling themselves is a little strange. (Although in biblical/Talmudic times it may have been different). It may just be that the Rabbis are trying to make R'Nechemia "feel better" or make him feel lass guilty for killing the man, by saying that it was the man's own fault, and he should not worry about it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, another theory is that it may have been equally the man’s fault and R’Nechemia’s fault, (even though the rabbis say otherwise). I think it was the man’s fault not for spoiling himself, but for agreeing to eat the lentils. He could have said that he wanted something else, and Nechemia would have probably given it to him. (the way the text shows the situation, it doesn’t seem like Nechemia could not give anything else, it just seems like it was easier to give him lentils.) Also, he could have sent him off to the next person who can help him. In fact, that is what it says to in the Talmud, and I assume that, being a Rabbi, R’Nechemia would know that.
My thoughts on this encounter is that you can approach this in several ways. If the man who is accustomed to meat and wine can either be given what he wants and can keep expecting to get those results all the time, or the man providing food can give him a small amount of what he wants and lentils. This will give the man who is accustomed to expensive food that he has to adapt to the situation he is in instead of asking to much from someone who cannot afford what he ask for.
ReplyDelete“…everyday a beast had to be spoiled for his sake”
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I do not think it was reasonable to compensate this much with the man as to waist a whole animal just to feed him a little bit of food. I feel that the man in this case is just acting in selfishness by not rejecting the meal and asking for the normality, for what everyone else gets. Second, if they are going to kill this beast, why do they have to throw away the whole beast? In other words, if they are already killing it, and only feeding the man a portion, why not keep the other portion and feed it to the others?
Third, if one person alone must have one whole beast, how much do the other people relying on this food get? Wouldn’t it make sense that the people who weren’t brought up well, should get a taste of what it feels like to be fed good poultry? Maybe even feed the wealthy man poor food to show him what it is like to not be raised in a good family.
Then it goes into again the question, what is honor? If honor is good deeds and personal accomplishments, then how could the Tzedakah collectors afford to pay for nice food for all the citizens? Because how can one judge accomplishments, and define a good person. Therefore we can infer that the Talmud defines honor by ones money related status.