How about the rich? With the 99%/1% divide in this country, you would think that the rich have it so easy, that they don't have to deal with any issues. If you think that it's clear sailing for the rich, you're wrong, and nothing shows that like this week's Torah portion. As Abram was leaving Egypt, Torah said that Abram was very rich, in cattle, in silver, and in gold (Genesis 13:2).
וְאַבְרָם, כָּבֵד מְאֹד, בַּמִּקְנֶה, בַּכֶּסֶף וּבַזָּהָב.
What is interesting is that כָּבֵד does not simply mean "rich." As Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz points out, כָּבֵד can also mean "heavy" or "burdensome." Being rich beyond your wildest dreams means you can afford whatever you want. How is it that being rich is burdensome?!
I have two possible answers for this question.
The first is that when one has a lot of money, it is all too tempting to succumb to avarice. Money becomes the ends rather than the means, and maintaining a moral compass is all the more difficult, and as a result, the rich man's pursuit for acquiring more money for the sake of acquiring more money can result in ruining people's lives.
The second answer is that money is actually a great responsibility. Everyone in life has their tests. What is the test for the rich man? Generosity. There is the story that the Chofetz Chaim had a nightmare. What was that nightmare? Being rich. Why was that a nightmare? Because he realized that he would have to distribute a huge amount of tzedakah. Doing so requires a lot of time and effort. He wouldn't have had any time left to study Torah, which for him being a rabbi, was a nightmare. Testing one's generosity amidst a load of wealth is never an easy task. It takes strong moral fiber to successfully pull it off. Even though the obligation of most citizens will never reach the level of the rich, it should nevertheless make our awareness to the responsibility to help the poor all the more heightened.
The Responsibility of Wealth is always an interesting idea, and one I think that has fallen by the wayside in the last 60 or 70 years. I like to point out the Roosevelts: a very wealthy, powerful family that produced two presidents, one "Conservative," one "Liberal" (Though modern definitions of those terms really don't accurately apply to either). Both clearly felt it was the responsibility of the rich to look out for the poor, though obviously they differed as to the methods.
ReplyDelete