Temple Beth Shalom
208 Madrona St. Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 420-6040
  • Home
  • About
  • Officers and Board
  • Rabbi's Corner
  • Bulletins
  • Education
  • Calendar
  • Get Involved
  • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Upcoming Events

You Shall not Covet: Is it Possible to Legislate a Feeling? Part 1.

1/15/2018

1 Comment

 
By Rabbi Michael Samuel
​
From Maimonides’ description, it is clear that the man who covets is someone who has an unhealthy soul and may not realize it. By being unconscious of this problem, his behavior embarks on a path of self-destruction and moral ruin. Based on this reading of Maimonides, it becomes clear the role of Nathan the Prophet played in confronting King David for his illicit affair with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). From a purely Maimonidean perspective, Nathan acted as a physician of the soul for David by prescribing him a regimen for David’s complete moral and spiritual rehabilitation. It is always intriguing to see how Maimonides’ exposition of coveting compares with other famous Judaic thinkers of history. Some of these scholars also examined the psychological component in the negative imperative “You shall not covet.” Yet, it is strange Maimonides did not illustrate his point by mentioning this famous biblical story!
Abraham Ibn Ezra: Now I shall present a parable: Know that a peasant who is of sound mind, and who sees a princess who is beautiful, will not covet her in his heart, to lie with her, for he knows that it is impossible. Do not consider this peasant to be like a lunatic, who would desire wings to fly to heaven, even though it is impossible. Likewise, a person does not desire to lie with his mother, although she may be beautiful, for he has been accustomed since his youth to know that she is forbidden to him.
In the same way, an intelligent person must know that he will not find a beautiful woman or wealth because of his wisdom or knowledge, but only if God allows it to him… and therefore an intelligent person does not desire it or covet it. When he knows that God has forbidden his neighbor’s wife to him, then she is more elevated in his eyes than the princess in the eyes of the peasant. Therefore, he is satisfied with his portion and does not allow his heart to covet and desire something that is not his, for he knows that God does not wish to give it to him; he cannot take it by force or by his thoughts or schemes. He has faith in his Creator, that He will provide for him and do what is good in His eyes.”[1]
Philo of Alexandria: While Philo‘s explanation is similar to Maimonides, but he expands much further on the proscription’s psychological aspects:
This commandment aims to curtail desire, the fountain of all iniquity, which from it flows all the most serious offenses—whether of individuals or of states; whether important or trivial; whether they relate to one’s life and soul; or whether the coveting pertains just to external objects. Like fire consuming wood, desire expands, consuming, destroying everything that is in its path. Indeed, many other subordinate sins subsumed under this proscription. These laws exist in order to correct those persons who are receptive to improvement; these other laws also serve to chastise those stubborn people who dedicate their entire lives to the indulgence of passion.[2]
The law here aims to curtail desire, the fountain of all iniquity, which from it flows all the most serious offenses—whether of individuals or of states; whether important or trivial; whether they relate to one’s life and soul; or whether the coveting pertains just to external objects. Like fire consuming wood, desire expands, consuming, destroying everything that is in its path. Indeed, many other subordinate sins subsumed under this restriction. These laws exist in order to correct those persons who are receptive to improvement; these other laws also serve to chastise those stubborn people who dedicate their entire lives to the indulgence of passion.[3]




[1] Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:17.
[2] The Decalogue 173-174.
[3] The Decalogue 173-174.
1 Comment
essay writing paper link
9/28/2019 04:13:15 am

They say that holding on to people and things that are not meant for us are more painful than letting go. I say maybe all the more we should hold on. We don't really hold on without a reason to begin with. If we really intend to let go, why are we only doing this now? Is it just because someone else or we read randomly somewhere say so? I don't think that is enough reason to let go. You only let go of something or someone when you are dead. If we don't tighten our grip on anything, there really is no reason for anyone to try to escape or walk away from us.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Michael Leo Samuel is the rabbi at Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, California.

    Archives

    November 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    May 2019
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    September 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    September 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013

    Categories

    All
    Holidays
    Jewish History
    Midrashic Ideas
    Political Reflections
    Science & Religion

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.