Righteous people are scrupulous to avoid any financial impropriety. Therefore, they are very careful to hold onto whatever they have legitimat
ely acquired. Thus Yaakov crossed the Yabok River to retrieve small jars that he had inadvertently left there (Chullin 91a). The Torah assumes that just as Yaakov avoided any financial impropriety, so too we are all equally scrupulous to avoid any hint of financial misdeeds. This assumption is based on the idea that “Our forefathers’ actions predict those of future generations” (Ma’aseh avot siman la-banim). Recognizing this, the Torah tries to make sure that we do not lose money unnecessarily, and thus it provides certain leniencies where financial loss is involved. The Sages call this “Torah sensitivity to people’s finances” (HaTorah chasah al mammonam shel Yisrael).
We see this sensitivity in a number of areas. For example, before a Kohen decides whether a nega (blemish) in someone’s home is tamei (impure) or tahor (pure), he first instructs the homeowner to remove all the moveable items from the home, in order to protect him from possible financial loss. This is because if the Kohen declares the blemish impure, items in the home would become tamei as well, and would need to be destroyed.
Additionally, in the Beit HaMikdash, various items were made of less expensive materials to save money. Thus the kalpi (the box used on Yom Kippur to hold the lots designating which of the two goats was to be sacrificed and which was to be sent away and killed) was made from wood, not gold or silver. The shovel (for the incense) and the mouthpieces of the shofars (which were blown on fast days) were made from silver rather than gold.
Another example of the principle is that when a person is obligated to offer a sacrifice, he is explicitly exhorted not to sacrifice everything that he has. Rather, the Torah says (Vayikra 27:28) that he offers “from anything that is his” (mi-kol asher lo). Elsewhere he is instructed to offer in accordance with his means (Devarim 16:10). There is also a general rule that one should not spend more than one fifth of his wealth on any mitzva.
Nevertheless, there are times a different principle applies: “Ein aniyut bimkom ashirut” (“We do not introduce poverty in an opulent place”). Therefore, in the Beit HaMikdash, things were not done in a penny-pinching fashion, but rather on a grand scale. For example, broken items were not repaired but replaced, and the wine libation offered with the daily morning offering was poured from a golden goblet.
It would seem that deciding which of the two principles is applicable in any given situation is left to the discretion of rabbinic authorities, who can balance the possible financial loss to people against issues such as giving proper honor to the worship of G-d.
Comments