TERUMAH – Rosh Chodesh ADAR

The Beit Halevi answers with a psychological approach. He brings the following allegory. How does a groom know if his rich father in law loves him? If  the rich father of the soon- to-be bride buys the extra fancy watch first, before buying the basic presents, then this shows that he really loves his son in law. These extra things display his love. However, if he pushes the extras off to the last, and first takes care of the things that he has to, this shows that the fancy watch was not bought with great enthusiasm, ultimately, showing that the love for this son in law is not the greatest, either.

The Mitzvah of Shabbat and the Mitzvah of building the Mishkan were both given to the Jewish Nation as their “wedding present” upon becoming G-d’s nation. The Mitzvah of Shabbat is a Mitzvah that we need as the Jewish Nation, a mitzvah that we have taken with us through all the exiles. The Jewish Nation needs the Shabbat, and it loses its identity without it. In contrast, the Mitzvah of the Mishkan and the sacrifices are mitzvoth which express the love in our relationship with G-d and show that He is among us. This is not something that is crucial for the nation’s survival. We do not need it as much as we want it. We could say that the Mishkan, lehavdil, was like the fancy watch that the rich father in law either has to or wants to buy for his son-in-law to be.

Before the sin of the golden calf, G-d wanted to give the laws of the Mishkan first, for this was the glory of the Jewish nation, and the present that openly displayed G-d’s love. However, after the sin, G-d gave us the Mishkan only as the present for becoming his nation, but not with the same enthusiasm. The love and excitement had calmed down a little. G-d first gave us the Shabbat – something that we need, and then the Mishkan, something that is an extra. So, said the Beit Halevi.

This illustrates something that we can notice within ourselves. When we would like to express our love to spouses or to children, it makes a big difference if the present we give is something special, or something from the regular shopping list!  An item given out of the perception of a need gives a far weaker message than one perceived as being given solely for the other person’s enjoyment. If a husband buys something out of the usual from the supermarket, something not on the basic list, like a chocolate bar, and leaves it in the kitchen for his wife as a present, she will appreciate that. She will not appreciate it in the same way if he puts the milk or margarine down on the table and says – “I thought about you in the supermarket, dear”. This is because the chocolate is an extra, a want, and the milk and margarine are basic needs.

It is the same with our relationship with G-d. It is more difficult for us, psychologically, to feel gratitude to G-d for things that we need, like air and sunshine, than it is to feel gratitude to G-d for winning the Lotto. Naturally, we appreciate the fulfillment of our desires more than we appreciate the fulfillment of our needs, although we should certainly be appreciative of both. Needs aren’t noticed; the wants and extras are. Receiving a “need” is never like receiving a “want”.

Distinguishing between existential needs and “extras”, and the different feelings evoked by each type of “gift”, can shed much light on parent – child relationships.  A healthy family is one where children are not brought up feeling that they had a utilitarian, existential need for their parents.  The bond between children and their parents in such families greatly surpasses that in the families where the parents feel and support the belief that their children are not capable of managing on their own. In the healthier relationships, the children are willing to do anything and everything to take care of their parents when their parents get older, for the relationship was built on wanting such relationship as opposed to merely needing it. This relationship with the parent is perceived as a desire, and not as a necessity. For many people I know, the relationship with their parents is perceived as being utilitarian: it is based on need, not on love.  In some cases, parents encourage this feeling, purposely giving their children the impression that they need their parents in order to survive.  This kind of a relationship is neither as strong nor as lasting as a relationship built on the recognition that there is a deep, basic desire to care for each other.  The bond is emotional, as opposed to being technical. By realizing that they do not need one another for utilitarian, existential purposes, they can remove a barrier from between each other and relate to the person, the heart, the soul and build a true and meaningful relationship.  Parents and children should want this closeness to the extent that they need (emotionally) each other.

Someone told me, once, that he never really respected his parents or loved them, until he realized that he did not need them. Then, he just loved them for who they were. This is true in marriage, as well. When love is utilitarian, based on needing each other in order to manage, it is not as great as the love of appreciating one another.

This difference between need and want is a major factor affecting our enthusiasm for everything we do. When we come to pray with a feeling that we want to pray, our prayer is different from a prayer recited because we feel we have to pray, or one recited by rote. There is a great difference between our thanking Him because we feel obligated to do so – and between thanking Him because we really want to. That is thanks on an entirely different level. All it is is a change of perspective. We should be coming to prayer, either way. We should be respecting and loving our parents, either way. The difference is just in the enthusiasm. And the enthusiasm is dependent on the way in which we perceive the “want”.

Imagine waking up in the morning and saying –    O K. Today I am going to do only what I want to. And then, do everything that you are doing anyway. What a different life. That is actually the “real me”, anyway.

First, we must define our terms – what is happiness? Many mistakenly equate pleasure with happiness. Let us take ice cream for example. Ice cream makes people happy. Still, the happiness the world’s greatest ice cream brings is measurable. It is only 3-4 inches long! That is the distance from the lips to the throat. Happiness that is not physical pleasure alone, but rather an emotion or a state of mind, is much greater range than those three to four inches.

The Orchot Tzadikkim helps us understand the makeup of such happiness and how to get there. In Sha’ar Hasimcha, he lists the four ingredients of happiness: Emunah (faith in G-d), Bitachon (trust in G-d), Histapkut (contentment) and Sechel (intellect) make one happy. When someone is not happy, it is because one of these components is non-existent in his state of mind. When someone is not happy – it is not because his wallet is empty, or because he or a family member is ill. There are those who have empty wallets, and still have a smile on their face. There are those who have family members who are ill, and still remain happy. Happiness is dependent on how we think and not on the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Let us take contentment for example. There are a few irrational thoughts that cause us to feel a lack of contentment. “If someone else I know, or I am close to, has (a certain item or situation that I would like to have), I should also have it. I should have more, because that is what I want.” Alexander the Great was actually not so great when it came to being content. During his quest to conquer the world, Alexander the Great found the gate to Gan Eden. He begged to enter but was refused. He begged to be given at least something from Paradise. Suddenly, an eye socket was thrown to his feet. He looked at the bone, the encasement of the eye, and was puzzled.  What kind of heavenly gift was this? This bothered him no end. None of his advisors was able to explain the riddle. Alexander asked the Jewish Sages to interpret the meaning of this “gift”, and they told him to bring a scale, a kernel of wheat and a bag of heavy, gold coins. They weighed the eye socket against a single grain of wheat, and the kernel was heavier. Then they weighed the eye bone against the gold coins, and the bone was heavier. No matter how many gold coins were added to the scale, the eye socket outweighed them all. Alexander, disturbed, asked for an explanation. The Jewish Sages explained “The message from Gan Eden was: when the eyes are always coveting more, they will never be satisfied, no matter how much they get. Alexander, you will never feel content with the amount you conquer. Paradise is reserved for those who feel content with what they have.” (Tamid 32a).

It seems that the more we have, the more we want. The Talmud teaches that “מי שיש בידו מאה רוצה מאתיים ” – someone who has one hundred of something wants two hundred. Rav Moshe Aaron Stern, the former Mashgiach of Kaminitz Yeshiva, points out that in the Telze Yeshiva, they contemplated this: does this Gemara mean that he wants another 100 (for a total of 200), or that he wants an additional 200, for a total of 300? They answered the question based on another passage in the Talmud: “אין אדם מת וחצי תאותו בידו”– when one dies, he does not even possess half of what he had desired. Thus, the Talmud must mean that a person who has 100 wants an additional 200, since if he wanted only a total of 200, he would already have achieved half of his desires.

Let us move on to Sechel. What is meant by sechel, and how does it bring one to happiness? We find throughout the Chovot Halevovot that the sechel is the adversary to the nefesh behemit. The Sechel, Yetzer Hatov and the Neshama are all one. The way this makes one happy is that the Sechel enlightens and reframes things. It looks at things in different perspectives. The Yetzer Hatov and the Neshama bring one to see things in this world as they really are – or, in other words, represent reality from G-d’s point of view. This is the ability to reframe constantly, to be able to look at things from the perspective of the underlying meaning of their existence – to recognize the purpose of our existence. This change of outlook is the idea behind Mussar. It constantly puts things back into place exactly the way they are supposed to be. It helps us understand that many things that we thought were problems are actually solutions. Conversely, what we thought could have been a solution that we did not achieve was actually the problem.

The Talmud (Berachot 60) writes a story about Yehuda bar Natan, who was walking behind R’ Hamnuna. Yehuda bar Natan sighed. R’ Hamnuna said that this person wants to bring suffering upon himself. When someone looks at life in a bleak way, that is the way life will be: it is a self- fulfilling prophecy.

R’ Nachman from Breslov is quoted as  having said that happiness nullifies and prevents decrees from being enacted upon a person. This is seen in the Megilla. After having invited King Achashverosh and Haman to a special, festive meal, Esther was particular to make a second party, and only then did she make her accusation against Haman. Why should she not have spoken out against him in the first instance?  Why was it necessary to have a second party?

At the first party, Haman was happy, and when someone is happy, suffering and evil decrees do not fall upon him. This is true even in regard to a Rasha. Once Haman became depressed for having suffered the disgrace of leading Mordechai around the city on the King’s horse, while Mordechai was wearing the Kings clothes – this put Haman in a position that made him vulnerable to his fall.

Evildoers can also be happy. They can be happy only temporarily, when it looks as if things are going their way. However, this happiness is limited to the time that the sun shines for them. The way of the Torah is for a person to be happy even when things look bleak. This was the power of Mordechai: he was able to stay in a positive state of mind despite the decree and throughout it. Had he succumbed to depression, he would not have been able to receive Ruach Hakodesh and know what was going on behind the scenes with Achashverosh and Haman.

By reframing or changing our perspective, with the help of emunah or bitachon, we will be able to find happiness in all of life’s many different situations.

Shabbat Shalom, Yosef Farhi

To support this publication, receive it by e-mail, or to submit questions or comments, please contact us.

rabbiyoseffarhi@gmail.com   0527161854                                                                                                               IN LOVING MEMORY OF REUVEN BEN SARA AND CHANA BAT HENYA