Beha'aloscha, Bamidbar 11:6. Tired of Mahn: Orienting, Habituation, Sensory-Specific Satiety, Ruchnius and Gashmius.

Most people will find this post boring.  I find the question fascinating, possibly a key to the nature of human motivation, but that's just my opinion.

How would you like to eat the same food for forty years?  Let's say that the food could have different flavors, even different textures, but it always looked the same, and only changed when thought about some other specific food while you were eating it.  But when you ate it without the hineni muchan, without imagination, it would always taste and feel the same, kind of like shortbread cookies.  Would you enjoy it much?  

The fact is that we experience a decline in appetite when that appetite is satisfied repeatedly in the same manner.  We're all familiar with this phenomenon.  Although some people, particularly children with food obsessions, can eat and will only eat one or two foods for years- with one of my children, it was Cheerios and macaroni and cheese, and by the end of Pesach he lost lost ten percent of his body weight- for most people, repeatedly eating one food results in not only diminished enjoyment, but even disgust.

This is not specific to eating.  It applies just as well to sexual relations and to music.  Passionate affairs inevitably cool, and listening to the same music over and over has been used by the military as a form of torture.  There are so many words to describe it- bored, jaded, world-weary, ennui..... (Recently, I heard this referred to as "The Hedonic Treadmill.")

Why is this so?  The food tastes the same as it did before, you're the same person, so why don't you enjoy it as much as you did in the beginning?  The pate de foie gras is still exactly the same as when you tasted it and swooned from pleasure.  Your taste buds are the same.  The ambiance is the same.  What's the problem?  The spouse is the same, why are you bored, why are you looking at another person whose only distinction is that she is not the one to whom you've been married for seven years?  What does boredom have to do with physical enjoyment?  

And given that this is a reality, we need to kler a Chkira: 
However it works, what is the underlying logic?  Is novelty a necessary component of enjoyment?  Or does repetitiveness work against pleasure?  

There are two mechanisms that psychologists have studied that bear upon this question.  (I) is Orienting/Habituation and the other (II) is Sensory-Specific Satiety.  Following brief discussions, we will talk about (III) why the Ribono shel Olam was angered by the complaints about the Mahn.

I
Orienting responses are heightened sensitivity experienced by an organism when exposed to a new or changing stimulus. Orienting responses can result in overt, observable behaviors as well as psychophysiological responses such as EEG activity and undergo habituation with repeated presentation of the eliciting stimulus.

The importance of mind over stomach was demonstrated in 1998 in a striking experiment with two men whose mental functions were normal except for a severe form of amnesia. They were unable to remember an event for more than a minute. Their eating habits were studied on several days by researchers, led by Paul Rozin at the University of Pennsylvania, who created a rather extended lunch period.

After each man ate his lunch, the food was cleared. In a few minutes, a researcher appeared with an identical meal and announced, “Here’s lunch.” The men always ate up without any complaint about feeling full. Then, after the food was cleared and another few minutes passed, a third lunch was served, and the men always dug into it, too.In fact, one of them stood up after his third lunch of the day and announced that he would “go for a walk and get a good meal.” Asked what he planned to eat, he replied, “Veal parmigiana” — the same food he had just had for lunch. When the researchers tried the same experiment on a control group with normal memories, the people all refused a second lunch. They, unlike the men with amnesia, consistently felt less hungry after eating, but the sensation apparently wasn’t just coming from their stomachs, as the researchers concluded.
“Nonphysiological factors seem to be of major importance in the onset and cessation of normal eating,” Dr. Rozin and his colleagues wrote in  Psychological Science. “The results suggest that one of the principal nonphysiological factors is memory for what has recently been eaten.”

I would put it this way.  It seems that after eating a particular food, the memory of satiety is imprinted more strongly than the memory of the appetite.  With repeated experiences of the satiety brought about by eating this food, the sense of not being hungry becomes a conditioned reflex.  A nafka minah would be that according to this model, habituation would not occur unless the person ate to full satisfaction.  A person who every day eats a particular food but not to satisfaction will never tire of eating it.

II
The other is Sensory-Specific Satiety- that eating will decrease appetite selectively- a person will be satiated for one food but not for others: For item A, I have no appetite.  For item B, I'm hungry.  There is an aphorism for this in many languages, such as (Eiruvin 82b)  רווחא לבסימא שכיח.  In English, the expression is, as Dr. Rolls says,  New meat begets a new appetite.

The following is an excerpt from a paper by Dr. Barbara Rolls, "Sensory-specific Satiety" NUTRITION REVIEWS VOL. 44, NO. 3/MARCH 1986, in which she discusses a concept in which her peers (e.g., Dr. Paul Rozin, who was kind enough to send me the information) consider her pre-eminent.  Dr. Rolls is the author of a series of popular weight management books titled "Volumetrics."

Monotony in the Diet 
Up to this point we  have been considering hedonic responses to foods during a meal and for  several  hours  after  a  meal.  Let  us look beyond  daily consumption and consider changes in food preference that can develop over longer periods. People tire  of  particular foods and this, of course, means that they stop eating them. There is  little understanding of why  the  preference for particular foods  declines over time, but one obvious possibility is that eating a food too often can affect acceptance. 

Studies of the effects of consumption of monotonous army rations indicate that  repeated presentation of some foods can lead to a very persistent decrease in the pleasantness of  these foods.  For  example,  with  repeated consumption canned meats became very un- palatable and continued to be disliked for 3 to 6 months after the study. Canned meats were not rated as very palatable at the start of the study, and the effects of repeated consumption appear  to be  different  for  staple foods and foods of initial high palatability. For example, in the army studies repeated consumption did not change  the  palatability  of  desserts, sweets, canned fruits, cereal, or staples such as dairy products, bread, or coffee.  We also found no decline in the rating of pleasantness of the taste, appearance, texture, or smell or either a confectionery or a savory corn snack after they had been eaten every day for 3 weeks. 

Moskowitz has described time preference curves for different food types. These indicate that foods not consumed for about 3 months are highly desired,  but those eaten the  day before may not be desired at all. Foods such as meat and shellfish, foods with a heavy fat content, or foods that carry the meal such as the entree have steep curves and are greatly desired if  not eaten for  a very long period, but recent consumption eliminates the desire for such foods. Items that do not carry the meal and do not have a high fat or  protein content such as bread, salad, potatoes, and some desserts have a much flatter function and can be eaten every day with no loss of preference. (emphasis mine.)

A recent study of food preference of Ethiopian refugees illustrates the importance of understanding the effects of  monotony on food intake. The refugees reported that the taste of the three foods that they had been eating for approximately  6 months  was  less pleasant than  that  of  three new foods. Refugees who had been eating the usual diet for only 2 days found its taste as pleasant as that of the new foods. The monotonous diet affected the refugees in that they would often trade the staple diet for small quantities of less nutritious foods, and they  would stop preparing the  monotonous foods adequately. This effect could possibly have been overcome by the simple expedient of adding spices to vary the flavor, as is the practice when people subsist on diets consisting primarily of one food such as rice. It appears that decreases in palatability can extend beyond a meal to affect general acceptability of  some foods. It seems unlikely, however, that  this  is the same phenomenon as sensory-specific satiety. Sensory-specific satiety occurs rapidly after eating, and tends to be fairly short-term. 

The food industry refers to decreases in acceptance of  foods in the long term as “wear-out.’’ It seems likely that wear- out is partly due to cognitive satiety. That is, a person knows a lot of a particular food has been  consumed and  desires a change.  It is possible that eating too much  of  a food  or being forced to  eat  a food  can contribute to cognitive satiety. Supporting this cognitive hypothesis is the finding that, in a study of factors affecting food monotony, self-selection of  the items to be included in a repetitive diet reduced dissatisfaction with the diet. Thus overall satisfaction with a 3-day, self-planned menu cycle was the same as with a 6-day cycle chosen by someone else. Making people eat foods that they  have  not selected themselves can decrease the preference for those foods. (emphasis mine)  This is supported  by  studies  of  young children,  in which foods they were  forced to  eat to  gain rewards  decreased  in  preference. Clearly, much more work is needed to understand what makes foods change in desirability. Variety, Monotony, and Body Weight Body  weight maintenance may  depend to some extent on the availability of a varied and palatable diet. 

In studies of the effects of consumption of  a monotonous liquid diet, it was found that both obese and normal-weight individuals voluntarily  restricted intake and  lost  weight. There is also some evidence that if freely available diets are varied and palatable there may be excessive weight gain. In studies of  caloric regulation  in  obese  and  normal- weight subjects confined  to  the hospital, a plentiful and varied supply of food led to over- eating and weight gain over 3- to 6-day period . It is difficult to conduct long-term controlled studies of the effects of variety and palatability on human body weight.  It  is therefore worth considering the literature on animals. 

In recent years there have been several reports of obesity in rats given free access to  a variety of  palatable, high-energy  food.  In most  of  these studies the obesity could have been due to the high palatability and high energy content of the foods as well as their varied sensory properties. However, in one study the effect of  variety per se was examined by using foods of similar energy  density which were eaten  in  similar amounts in pilot studies (ie, they appeared to be of similar palatabilities). Rats were offered either laboratory chow alone, chow plus one palatable food, or chow plus three palatable foods (cookies, crackers, chocolate)  in  succession (changed every  12 hours), or  simultaneously, for 7 weeks. All rats offered the palatable foods ate more than the chow-fed controls. Rats given the simultaneous but not the successive variety ate more than the other palatable food groups and had significantly greater body weight gains and more body fat at the end of  the 7 weeks. Thus the effect of  variety on food intake can extend beyond a single meal and can contribute to the development of  obesity. 

It seems likely that, in affluent societies where there is continual appetite stimulation by both successive and simultaneous variety within and between meals, there will be little opportunity to compensate for overeating due to variety without conscious limitation of intake. Mechanisms of Sensory-specific Satiety Is the  decrease in the palatability of  foods that accompanies consumption simply  because of sensory adaptation or habituation? In other words,  does the perceived intensity of foods decrease with consumption? In a study conducted by Mower et al on the effect of  a meal  on  olfactory stimuli, decreases  were found in the pleasantness of  the  odors, but there were no changes in the perceived intensity  of  the stimuli. In another study  it was found that the decrease in the pleasantness of the taste  of  particular foods  was  associated with only minor changes in the intensity of the taste of those  It would not be adaptive to have food consumption lead to a decreased ability to taste foods. Indeed, we all know that we  can still taste and smell foods after they have  been consumed.  It  is  more  likely that sensory-specific satiety involves a change in a mechanism concerned particularly with the reward or hedonic value of food. 

Electrophysiological studies of brain cells in monkeys are  clarifying  the mechanisms  of sensory-specific satiety. The electrical activity of  single cells has been recorded while mon- keys ate particular foods  to  satiety.  When recordings were  made  in  areas of  the  brain concerned with the sensory analysis off  taste stimuli (the nucleus tractus solitarius and the opercular cortex) or visual stimuli (the inferior visual temporal cortex and the amygdala), satiety  had no  effect  on  the responses of  the This finding is in marked contrast to the effects of  consumption on cells in the lateral hypothalamus, an  area  of  the  brain involved in the control of  motivational state and reward. It  was  found that  when  a  monkey was hungry, cells in the lateral hypothalamus responded to the sight or taste of food, but as it consumed a food the neurons became less responsive to it and acceptance for that food gradually decreased. However, if the monkey was then offered another food, the neuron responded and the monkey then accepted this food. Thus, sensory-specific satiety does not appear to be  related to  changes in  sensory processing of  responses to foods, but it is related to brain areas controlling motivation and the reward value of foods. 

To further define the neuronal basis of   sensory-specific satiety, Rolls and colleagues followed taste processing from the primary (opercular) taste cortex into a secondary gustatory area in the caudolateral orbitofrontal cortex, which  in turn  has  connections to  the  lateral hypothalamus.  Sensory-specific satiety  is paralleled by the responses of single neurons in this caudolateral orbitofrontal cortex taste area. A neurophysiological basis for  this,  in terms of altering responsiveness of specifically tuned neurons in this area of gustatory cortex as a food is eaten, has been proposed.  It is likely that cognitions contribute to sensory-specific satiety. People seem to learn how much of  a  particular food they  can eat  in a meal.  It  may  be that when this  limit is exceeded, food  becomes unpleasant. Learning about the  caloric value  of  foods and appropriate amounts for  consumption depends on the sensory properties of the foods. Since cognitions about foods depend on sensory properties  of  foods,  it will  be difficult to  determine whether sensory-specific satiety and cognitive satiety are distinct phenomena. 

Conclusion 
During consumption of  a food the pleasantness of  its taste, appearance, smell, and texture  decrease.  The  pleasantness  of  other foods not consumed decreases much less or remains unchanged. Such responses to foods occur  very  rapidly, within  2  minutes after a meal, and appear to depend more on the sensory properties of  foods than the caloric content, hence the term “sensory-specific satiety.” Sensory-specific satiety helps to  ensure the consumption of  a varied, and therefore  balanced, diet. Thus, when a variety of  foods is available, there will  be a tendency to switch from one food to another because of  the decrease in palatability in any one food after consumption. Sensory-specific satiety can also affect the amount of  food consumed in a meal, so that the more varied a meal, the greater the intake will be. Since sensory-specific satiety is one of many factors controlling food intake and selection, its influence depends on the  context in which eating takes place. An understanding of factors  that affect the hedonic response to foods is important, for this response potentially influences both appetite and the acceptability of foods.

III
Considering these realities, it is not surprising that we found the Mahn unappetizing after a while.  The reaction was natural and expectable, perhaps inevitable.  In fact, in Devarim (8:16) it says   המאכלך מן במדבר אשר לא ידעון אבתיך למען ענתך ולמען נסתך להיטבך באחריתך  , He fed you the Mahn in the desert...so that you would suffer and to test you so that you would benefit in the end.     The Gemara (Yoma 74b) says 
המאכילך מן במדבר למען ענותך רבי אמי ורבי אסי חד אמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו וחד אמר אינו דומה מי שרואה ואוכל למי שאינו רואה ואוכל אמר רב יוסף מכאן רמז לסומין שאוכלין ואין שבעין אמר אביי הלכך מאן דאית ליה סעודתא לא ליכלה אלא ביממא that the people did not enjoy the Mahn as they would regular food, either because it didn't look like food, and appearance is an important part of gustatory satisfaction, or because they never had tomorrow's food in the pantry.  I would say that equally problematic was the sameness of the Mahn, the constant repetition.  Even if it did taste different, it was the same old thing every day.  It was missing the sizzle, the excitement of newness.  Just like a blind person is not as satisfied as a sighted person, because he is missing the visual aspect, so too the sameness of appearance caused boredom and ultimately disgust.  So what was the Ribono shel Olam's kpeida?  Why was He angered? 

I'd like to think about the fact of our abhorrence of sameness, how boredom subverts pleasure and drives us to seek new experiences, even if they are absolutely not better than what we've had before.  Irrespective of Darwinian necessities (ensuring a varied diet, fathering children with many women,) or physiological mechanisms (altering responsiveness of specifically tuned neurons), let's assume there's an intentional spiritual component in this phenomenon.  In the section I emphasized above, Moskowitz's observation, we note that the problem only occurs in foods "with a heavy fat content or foods that carry the meal".  But there does not seem to be any such phenomenon in foods that "do not carry the meal or do not have a heavy fat or protein content."  Similarly, see Rolls' reference to the difference between self-planned repetitive menus and menus planned by someone else.  These strongly imply a predominant mental component in this phenomenon.  Let's further assume that the disgust with the Mahn bespoke an extreme spiritual flaw on the part of Klal Yisrael.  The question then becomes, what, exactly, was that flaw?

to be continued

I don't have time to finish this, so here's what I'm thinking.
This problem is intensified where the foods have a high fat content, or carry the meal, or are imposed externally.  The common denominator is the attitude of eating to satisfy the nefesh ha'be'hamis- self-indulgence.  In other words, a kind of eating that satisfies the appetite, not hunger, desire, not need.  Hashem created us with a hatred for stagnation, and this emotion should serve a desire to grow in ruchnius, to never be satisfied, to feel impatience and disdain for what we've already achieved, because of a burning desire to accomplish more.  For the Dor Hamidbar to allow infantile impulse for self-indulgence to redirect this spiritual drive toward a desire for new food meant that they didn't appreciate what it meant to eat the Mahn, which was the food of Malachim and enabled them to grow in havanas hatorah.  It was, basically, Me'ilah.

The Public and the Private Domain

Reb Yisrael Salanter said "How you feel inside is a reshus hayachid.   Your face is a reshus harabbim."  Reb Yisrael was using the language of Bava Kamma, where we are told that one may dig holes or leave things lying around on his private property, where outsiders are not allowed to enter and the only person affected is himself.  But if one digs a hole or leaves a stumbling block in a public place, he is liable for any resulting damages and injuries.  How you feel inside is your private affair.  But your behavior and appearance affect the people around you, and you are obligated to present a happy appearance so as not to hurt the people that see you.

The Mesillas Yesharim in the seventh perek says:

ואמנם כבר ידעת, שהנרצה יותר בעבודת הבורא, יתברך שמו, הוא חפץ הלב ותשוקת הנשמה. והוא מה שדוד המלך מתהלל בחלקו הטוב ואומר (תהלים מב): כאיל תערג על אפיקי מים כן נפשי תערוג אליך אלקים, צמאה נפשי לאלקים וגו'. (שם פד): נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות ה'. (שם סג): צמאה לך נפשי כמה לך בשרי. ואולם האדם אשר אין החמדה הזאת לוהטת בו כראוי, עצה טובה היא לו שיזדרז ברצונו, כדי שימשך מזה שתולד בו החמדה בטבע, כי התנועה החיצונה מעוררת הפנימית, ובודאי שיותר מסורה בידו היא החיצונה מהפנימית. אך אם ישתמש ממה שבידו, יקנה גם מה שאינו בידו בהמשך, כי תולד בו השמחה הפנימית והחפץ והחמדה מכח מה שהוא מתלהט בתנועתו ברצון. והוא מה שהיה הנביא אומר (הושע ו): ונדעה נרדפה לדעת את ה', וכתוב (שם יא): אחרי ה' ילכו כאריה ישאג.

For current purposes, one of the things he says here is that it is very hard to directly change how we feel, but our external behaviors do influence and can eventually modify our emotional state.  

The two reasons for acting cheerful despite how you really feel can be restated succinctly, albeit pedantically (1).  Our affect (2) affects (3) the people around us, so affectation (4) might be a civic duty.  Sometimes, affectation is the best way to effect (5) change in our own emotions.
1.  Pedantically:  Characterized by ostentatious display of formal scholarship.
2.  Affect (Noun): the observable manifestation of feelings.
3.  Affects (Transitive Verb): influences or causes change   
4.  Affectation (Noun): the display of feelings not genuinely felt
5.  Effect (Transitive Verb):  cause or bring about, especially used in overcoming resistance.

I once heard a drasha from Reb Sholom Shvadron on the pesukim in Malachi 3 

ואמרתם, במה נשוב.  היקבע אדם אלוקים כי אתם קובעים אותי ואמרתם במה קבענוך:  המעשר, והתרומה.  במארה אתם ניארים ואותי אתם קובעים הגוי כולו.... חזקו עליי דבריכם, אמר ה' ואמרתם מה נדברנו עליך.  אמרתם, שוא עבוד אלוקים ומה בצע כי שמרנו משמרתו וכי הלכנו קדורנית מפני ה' צבאות

Can a man blaspheme the Lord as you have? And you say, how have we blasphemed?.... You have used strong words against me, says Hashem.  You say, what did we say?  You said it is futile to serve the Lord, what benefit is there in observing his observances, we accomplish nothing in our lives because of Hashem.

Reb Sholom asked, if that's what they said, why did they claim innocence?  If they used such blasphemous, chutzpedikeh language, they would have fully aware of their disloyalty and their sin and, while talking to the Navi who could see the truth, admitted it.  They seem honestly bewildered, they sincerely have no idea of what they did wrong.  How could they have been totally oblivious of such a grievous sin?  He answered that they never chas veshalom actually said these things.  On the contrary, they were meticulous in their observance.  The problem was that they would walk around like the weight of the world was on their shoulders, as if being a frum Jew was a heavy burden and an unpleasant obligation.  By walking around with this look on their faces, they are essentially making a public proclamation that they dislike having to do the mitzvos and not do aveiros and they would be thrilled to free themselves from those obligations.  Nobody cares if an employee that you hire likes you or not.  But a servant is not just an employee.  A servant to his master is like a subject to his king.  He is a member of the master's household.  A servant that makes it clear that his duties are a burden he dreams of removing, that he wishes you weren't his master, is not a good servant, no matter how efficient and skilled he is.  He is a constant offense to his master.  The dour mien, the dragging feet, the "let's get it over with" davening, all of these loudly declare "I wish I didn't have to do this."

Rabbi Moshe Goldberger, of the Yeshiva of Staten Island, wrote the following:

A smile costs nothing, but gives much. It reaches those who receive without making poorer those who give. It takes but a moment, but the memory can sometimes last a lifetime.

None is so rich or mighty that he can get along without it and none is so poor but that he cannot be made richer by it.

A smile creates happiness in the home, fosters goodwill in business, and is the countersign of friendship. It brings rest to the weary, cheer to the discouraged. A smile is sunshine to the sad and is nature’s best antidote for trouble.

Yet it cannot be bought, begged, borrowed or stolen, for it is of no value to anyone until it is given away. Some people are too tired to give you a smile. Give them one of yours, as none needs a smile so much as he who has none to give.

I saw these ideas presented very well in a video by Dennis Prager, here.  (Dennis Prager went to Yeshiva of Flatbush and RJJ, and his brother is Orthodox, but he is no longer observant.   I assume he is aware of the two references above.   Mr. Prager is not only fluent in Russian, but he can also read Hebrew backwards as well as he can forwards, a skill he developed while trying to kill time at RJJ.)

Be'ha'aloscha, Bamidbar 11:7. The Color of the Mahn

Rav Yehoshua ibn Shu'ib, (Spain 1280-1340, a talmid of the Rashba,) in his drashos on this week's parsha, writes that one should cover the Challa with white covers.  Similarly, the Eliah Rabba (OC 271 SK 16) brings from the Tzeida Laderech that the cover should be white.  (Actually, the Tzeida Laderech says that whole tablecloth should be white.   Considering that ibn Shu'ib was the rebbi of Rav Menachem ben Zerach, author of the Tzeida LaDerech, it is very likely that the Tzeida Laderech is just quoting his rebbi.  On the one hand, that means that the ibn Shu'ib really did mean 'white', but on the other hand, it makes it likely that ibn Shu'ib also meant the whole tablecloth, not the covers of the challos.  But this doesn't matter.  The Achronim take it to refer to the challah cover, so we will, too.) Achronim ask why the cover should be white, and some suggest that Levanos simply means Clean, as we find in the issur of Libun on Shabbos, where Libun means removal of dirt.  In Shulchan Aruch, it just says that the cover should be clean.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that the cover of the Challos can be transparent, because the main purpose is to physically cover the Challah, as a remembrance of the Mahn which was also covered, and not to hide it from exposure to the wine.  So, what to do? White or transparent?  This is not a momentous question.  I guarantee that nobody is going to give a din v'cheshbon on having the wrong color challa cover.  But..... read on.

It so happens that the Malbim in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 16:31) asks that there, the Torah describes the Mahn as being והוא כזרע גד לבן, while in our parsha, in 11:7, it is described as והמן כזרע גד הוא ועינו כעין הבדולח.  In Beshalach it is called Zera Gad Lavan, while in Behaaloscha it is just called Zera Gad which is like crystal, bedolach.  He answers that the whole week, the Mahn was transparent, but on Shabbos it was white, and Parshas Beshalach is talking its appearance specifically on Shabbos.


(I've always thought that Lavan sometimes is used to mean transparent; although the words בהיר צלול and  שקוף are more clear, so to speak, I think that when the Gemara talks about זכוכית לבנה, the most valuable and extravagant kind of glass, they mean colorless.  As evidence, see Pliny's Natural History book 37, where he says "Still, however, the highest value is set upon glass that is entirely colourless and transparent, as nearly as possible resembling crystal, in fact. "  Transparent and translucent are to some extent on a continuum.)


If so, we might say that this would explain why on Shabbos, the covers of the Challos should be white, but on Yamim Tovim, you can use whatever color you want, including transparent.  In fact, maybe transparent would be especially appropriate for Yomtov.  To be yotzei le'chol hadei'os, use a white cover inside transparent vinyl.


(See also here, which, if it matters, I saw after I got ready to write this.  The only thing new that I saw there was the Ibn Shu'ib, and as I pointed out above, that's just the Tzeida Laderech in an earlier iteration.  On the other hand, the mar'ei mekomos that I did have were basically from Rav Shimon Kalman Goldstein.  Yasher Koach.)

Kaplan, Louisiana.

The other day, a correspondent sent me a letter noting that the famous Indian actor, Iron Eyes Cody, whom you might remember from his litter and pollution advertisement in which he sheds a tear for the defiling of our beautiful country, was actually Italian, or, more precisely, Sicilian.  He titled the letter עלמא דשיקרא, World of Lies, and linked to the relevant article on Wikipedia.  Iron Eyes played the role so thoroughly, I think he ended up believing it himself.

I wrote back "At least he wasn't Jewish."


My correspondent replied "He was born in the city of Kaplan; that's close enough"


This remark reminded me of something I had recently seen, and I checked the ISP list of people who had recently accessed this blog, and I found that, amazingly enough, just yesterday someone had used a link at Shirat Devora to come to Havolim, and his ISP was The Kaplan Telephone Company, from Abbeville Louisiana, which is indeed where the town of Kaplan is located.  This was an awesome coincidence, and too remarkable to let it pass.  You can't be here for almost sixty years and never hear of a place, and then twice in one day have it emphatically placed right in front of you.  This is not a 'hint.'  This is more like being grabbed by the lapels and shaken.  I'm sure that something is going on on a spiritual level, but I can't know what that is until it unfolds.  But for right now, I wanted to know how on Earth a town in the bottom of Louisiana got the name Kaplan, so we went to work.  This is what I found:  Kaplan was founded by a man named Abrom Kaplan in 1902, as described in this Wiki article.


More interesting, and with a picture, is this history of the town and the family.  Here's the link, but I wanted to put the whole thing here.  For one thing, Abrom looks eerily similar to my uncle, my father's brother.  And another, it makes you think about the strange and winding road we have walked since the beginning of the Galus- and even before that, as Avraham Avinu wandered from his home to K'na'an.  I direct your attention in particular to the fourth paragraph of the article.


What follows is copyrighted by the Goldring-Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life, reprinted with permission.

HISTORY DEPARTMENTEncyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities Kaplan, Louisiana Considering its location among some of Louisiana’s oldest municipalities, Kaplan boasts a relatively short history. Situated twenty miles southwest of Lafayette and ten miles west of Abbeville, this small town lies at the epicenter of a lucrative rice industry that has transformed the region from swampland into an agricultural hub. Abrom Kaplan, a local Jew and agriculture tycoon, founded the town in 1902 after purchasing the land from a plantation that had recently closed. To attract an active workforce to the area for his rice mills, he gave away parcels of this fertile land to families. The Jews who made their homes in Kaplan, including the Jack Kaplan and Tartak families, became active members of Congregation Gates of Prayer in nearby New Iberia. Yet despite Abrom Kaplan’s important role in the regional Jewish community, most residents of the town over the past century have not been Jewish but rather French-speaking descendents of Acadians.

In the twenty years before the town’s incorporation, Abrom Kaplan had become a pioneer in Southwest Louisiana’s rice industry. He emigrated from Poland in 1885 after having spent his adolescence working in cigar and furniture businesses. After settling in Crowley, Kaplan opened a small store and speculated in real estate. He developed land, established local banks and credit unions, financed the excavation of irrigation canals, and, most importantly, opened rice mills across the region. By the turn of the century, Kaplan had established himself as the foremost industrialist in the region, owning and operating rice mills in Crowley, Abbeville, Gueydan, and several other towns westward of the Mississippi River.

As Abrom Kaplan built his fortune, he began to bring his relatives to Southwest Louisiana. In 1915, Abrom paid for his nephew, Jack Kaplan, to immigrate to the United States from Poland. Jack worked under the tutelage of his uncle Abrom for two decades and by 1935, Jack and his brother-in-law Abe Tartak bought Liberty Rice Mill, one of Abrom’s many mills in the region. At the time of Abrom’s death in 1944, the Kaplan family owned the largest rice irrigation system in the world.

Despite the lack of Jews, Abrom Kaplan strived to create an active religious climate in this town. Only a handful of Jews ever lived in Kaplan and thus the town had neither a synagogue nor a Jewish cemetery. He, however, helped fund the creation of several churches in the town, including the Kaplan Baptist Church. His grandson and son-in-law helped fund the town’s Holy Rosary Catholic Church in later years.  Kaplan’s small Jewish population was well integrated in the larger community. A Kaplan descendant, Connie Kaplan, served as the editor of the local newspaper for several decades in the late 20th century.

Today, Kaplan, Louisiana is known affectionately as the “gateway to the coastal wetlands” and occasionally as “the most Cajun place on earth.” Few if any Jews still live in the small town of 4,500 residents, many of whom still work for the rice industry. The town instead celebrates the French-Cajun heritage of its populace. Each July since 1906, Kaplan has hosted the largest public celebration in Louisiana of Bastille Day, the French national holiday celebrating the famed uprising on the eve of the 1789 French Revolution. Events at the festival include greased pig chases, political speeches, Cajun fais-do-do dances, and a re-enactment of the storming of the Bastille. The presence of Kaplan family has abated significantly; however, Abrom’s grandson Ben Kaplan continues to operate Liberty Rice Mill, which produces three million barrels of rice annually for export worldwide. Moreover, the legacy of Abrom Kaplan lives on. Several years ago, Jack Kaplan donated the land to build the Abrom Kaplan Memorial Hospital of Kaplan, one of the most modern medical facilities in Southwest Louisiana.

 

Bechukosai, The Law of Arachin and Happy Birthdays

When a person orally obligates himself to donate to Hekdesh or to any charity his own or another person's "value", the court has to determine the subject's monetary value.  If, however, the person uses the term "Eirech," as opposed to the word "D'mei," or "value,"then his obligation is not dependent on the particular person he named.  The Torah lists standard monetary amounts for people according to their age and gender, and actual market values are irrelevant.  This year, my Eirech is going to drop like a rock.  From fifty Shekel to fifteen.  Overnight.  (See pesukim 27:3 and 27:7.)  Time to buy karka.

Well, in ten years I'll qualify for מפני שיבה תקום, if not והדרת פני זקן, for whatever that's worth.  See Aruch Hashulchan YD 245:1-3.  It's not worth much.  When I was at Ner Israel in the seventies, there was a bachur, a bright young man, who liked to walk into the Beis Medrash behind Rav Rudderman, so that when the entire Beis Medrash stood up, he could imagine that they were standing up for him.  Like many noisome young baalei ga'ava I knew, he turned out quite successful- the last I heard, he was practicing law in DC.  In any case, my personal collection of Yetzer Haras does not happen to include this one, so it's not much of a consolation.

Behar, Vayikra 25:36. Ve'chei Achicha Imach. וחי אחיך עמך

The Gemara in Bava Metzia 62a brings an argument between Bar Petura and Reb Akiva.  The discussion begins on 62a, and focuses on the words in passuk 25:36 וחי אחיך עמך.   

א"ר אלעזר רבית קצוצה יוצאה בדיינין אבק רבית אינה יוצאה בדיינין רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו רבית קצוצה נמי אינה יוצאה בדיינין א"ר יצחק מ"ט דרבי יוחנן דאמר קרא (יחזקאל יח) בנשך נתן ותרבית לקח וחי לא יחיה את כל התועבות האלה עשה למיתה ניתן ולא להשבון רב אדא בר אהבה אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא כה) אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלהיך למורא ניתן ולא להשבון רבא אמר מגופיה דקרא שמיע ליה (יחזקאל יח) מות יומת דמיו בו יהיה הוקשו מלוי רבית לשופכי דמים מה שופכי דמים לא ניתנו להשבון אף מלוי רבית לא ניתנו להשבון אר"נ בר יצחק מ"ט דר"א דאמר קרא

דף סב,א גמרא  (ויקרא כה) וחי אחיך עמך אהדר ליה כי היכי דניחי ורבי יוחנן האי וחי אחיך עמך מאי עביד ליה מבעי ליה לכדתניא שנים שהיו מהלכין בדרך וביד אחד מהן קיתון של מים אם שותין שניהם מתים ואם שותה אחד מהן מגיע לישוב דרש בן פטורא מוטב שישתו שניהם וימותו ואל יראה אחד מהם במיתתו של חבירו עד שבא ר' עקיבא ולימד וחי אחיך עמך חייך קודמים לחיי חבירך 

Two people are traveling in the desert.  One has a bottle of water.  If they share it, they will both die.  If one drinks it, he will live and the other will die.  Bar Petura says that better that both drink and both die rather than one drink and see the other die.  Reb Akiva learned from our passuk that your life has precedence: the owner of the water should drink and survive.  Our duty to preserve our own lives is greater than our duty to save the life of another, and one should not sacrifice his life to extend someone else's life.  Everyone reading this knows very well that this Gemara is the foundation stone of thousands of halachos and haskafos and that it has been interpreted in many many ways.  I bring it only because of an interesting question asked on this Gemara by several mefarshim, which I haven't seen collected in one place.

The Maharit (Yoseph Trani, 1538–1639, or Yoseph di Trani who lived in Greece), and the Maharam Shif (Meir ben Yavov Hakohen Schiff, 1608-1644, of Frankfort on Main), the Minchas Chinuch (Yoseph ben Moshe Babad, the Av Beis Din of Ternopil, Poland, 1801-1874) (who actually just brings the kashe from the Maharit and uses it to say pshat in a Rambam, as noted below), and Reb Yisrael Salanter (Lithuania, 1810-1883), and Rav Baruch Epstein in the Torah Temimah (Behar כה:לז אות קצד) all point out that this Gemara seems to contradict the Gemara in Kiddushin 20a,  The Gemara in Kiddushin discusses the Eved Ivri, and says that the legal requirements of how a one must treat his Jewish slave are so burdensome that buying a Jewish slave is like buying a master.

ת"ר כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי תבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו 

Tosfos there brings a Yerushalmi that if you only have one pillow, the slave gets it and you can sleep without a pillow:

כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו. וקשה מאי אדון די לו להיות כאדונו ויש לומר כדאיתא בירושלמי דפעמים אין לו אלא כר אחת אם שוכב עליו בעצמו אינו מקיים כי טוב לו עמך ואם אינו שוכב עליו וגם אינו מוסרו לעבדו זו מדת סדום נמצא שע"כ צריך למסור לעבדו והיינו אדון לעצמו

All the aforementioned mefarshim point out that the two Gemaros are contradictory.  Reb Akiva said that the words וחי אחיך עמך indicate that while you have obligations to the other, you come first, and the Gemara in Kiddushin, or at least the Yerushalmi as read into the Bavli by Tosfos, says that כי טוב  אחיך עמך  indicates that because of your obligations to the other, he comes first, even at your expense, even when as a result he will have and you will not have.  אחיך עמך- you have priority.   לו עמך- he has priority.  Why?  In fact, the Minchas Chinuch suggests that because of the contradiction the Rambam decided that the Bavli and Yerushalmi are indeed arguing.  The Minchas Chinuch is in Mitzva 42, here, first column, fourteen lines from the bottom.

The Maharit is in his pirush to Kiddushin on daf 20, here.  The Maharam Schiff is in Bava Metzia on 62 and in his Drushim at the end of Chulin.  Reb Yisrael Salanter is in his Even Yisrael, Drush 4, on the bottom. DH אך קשה דכאן אמרינן מדכתיב וחי אחיך עמך.  

I think the question is very stimulating, and it's more profitable for each of us to think about it and come up with our own approach rather than to be told what the above mefarshim have said about it.  Or you can just look them up.

We had a very nice discussion about this question at the kiddush in our home this Shabbos, and afterwards, at a Bar Mitzva, my wife told it over to some other women, and Mrs. Caron Rice, the plant manager at WITS, said a very clever thing- that if you have to go on a trip through the desert, make sure you don't take your Eved Ivri along with you.

Emor, Vayikra 21:14. The Holy Kohen Gadol.

The Tosfos Ri'd, רבינו ישעיה בן מאלי הזקן דטראני, has a sefer called Nimukei Chumash L'Rabbeinu Yeshaya.  I have Rav Chaim Chavel's Mosad Harav Kook edition.  On Parshas Emor, he brings the following from Reb Yehuda Hachasid:

אלמנה וגרושה לא יקח  הקשה רבינו יהודה החסיד מה טעם כהן גדול אסור באלמנה וכהן הדיוט מותר בה  ותירץ דאמרינן בפרק עשרה יוחסין (קידושין ע"א א) דאין מוסרין שם המפורש אלא לצנועין שבהם וכהן גדול אומר אותו ביום הכיפורים כדאמרינן ביומא (ס"ו א) ושמא ישא עיניו באשת איש שיראה אותה יפה ויזכיר השם על בעלה ויהרג אותו

This is found in several other likutim written by Rishonim on Chumash, namely, the Imrei No'am of Rav Yaakov D'Illescas (שמא היה מתפלל על בעלה שימות וזה לא היה טוב) and the Moshav Zkeinim (ושמא נתן עיניו באשת איש בשעת אזכרה שימות בעלה), both of which were written in the fourteenth century and both of which gathered Torah from the Ba'alei Tosfos and other Rishonim.  I quoted Rabbeinu Yeshaya's sefer because he is the only one who identifies the source of this idea as Reb Yehuda Hachasid, while the Moshav Zkeinim only says "Hachasid."  (I've seen several people who erred as to who "the Chasid" was.) 

Basically this is what he says:  A kohen gadol may not marry a widowed woman.  Our passuk, in 21:14, says אלמנה וגרושה וחללה זונה את אלה לא ייקח כי אם בתולה מעמיו ייקח אישה.  Why is a widow prohibited to him, when she is allowed to other kohanim?  Reb Yehuda Hachasid explained that the Kohen Gadol has great power when he enunciates the name of Hashem on Yom Kippur, and perhaps he has his eye on a married woman and he will use his power to cause her husband's death so that she would become available to him.

This is more than a little odd.  Yes, we know that something along those lines happened to one of our kings, a man beloved by the Ribono shel Olam, a holy and spiritual man.  But for Reb Yehuda Hachasid to say that the Kohen Gadol, the most holy of the holy Kohanim, on the holiest day of the year, while standing on the holiest spot on Earth, in front of the Aron Kodesh, enunciating the holiest secret Name of Hashem, (a Name that most humans could not survive saying and when others hear it they fall down on their knees and pray,) and considering that the Medrash in Acharei Mos (21:12) says that the Kohen Gadol was not considered to be a human being at that moment, he was, for all intents and purposes, an angel:   וכל אדם לא יהיה באוהל מועד בבואו לכפר בקודש (ויקרא טז,יז)  אמר ר' אבהו וכהן גדול לא אדם היה? אלא כההוא דאמר ר' פנחס בשעה שהיה רוח הקודש שרוי עליו היו פניו בוערות כלפידים עליו הדא היא דכתיב (מלאכי ב:ז) "כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא'" and he's got his neighbor's wife on his mind, and he might pray that his neighbor should go to his eternal reward so that the Kohen Gadol can take his widow????  Are we talking about a mee'isseh sheigetz or an Malach????
This is passing strange.

And even leaving aside how strange this is, what mussar haskeil do we derive from it?  Wouldn't we be better off not hearing this depressing dvar Torah?  Why would these rishonim write it in their sefarim for us to see?

The answer is, no, it's not strange and it's not depressing, and yes, it is important for us to know.  It is comforting.  We are subject to the power of the Yetzer Hara until the day we die.  There are moments of weakness and we might have a fleeting thought that is completely at odds with who we are and what we've made of ourselves.  Such moments are not a reason to despair and to think that we are fooling ourselves into thinking we're decent people.  We are good and we are holy people, and when we fail or lapse, the challenge is to overcome these moments.  We can't ever be sure they will never happen; we have to be on guard at all times, and when they break through, we can strive to overcome them.

As the Gemara in Shabbos (88b] says, the Ribono shel Olam wants people who were on the forty ninth level of Tumah, and who seven weeks later stood at Har Sinai ready to receive the Torah.  The Kotzker Rebbe said, the Ribono shel Olam says ואנשי קודש תהיו לי.  I have enough Malachim.  I want Men that are holy.  It is that willpower to overcome, the courage to never despair, the drive to change ourselves, the strength to fight the battle, that is what is precious to the Ribono shel Olam.

The anti-religious in Warsaw once put on a play, in which they re-enacted the procedure of ensuring that only those without sin would fight in our wars.  The conscripts were asked, did you do this?  And half left.  Did you do that?  And more left.  As they got down to more and more minor sins, more and more left, until there were only two soldiers left, two bent and bearded talmidei chachamim.  And then they were told that if they found a Yefas Toar, they were allowed to take her on the battlefield and bring her home as a captured wife, all because it was assumed they couldn't fight their yetzer hara.  This, of course, was the big joke of the evening, and all the enemies of Orthodoxy had a fine time.  But it's not a joke, and the Torah understands that there is regular daily behavior and then there is anomalous behavior and behavior under conditions of great stress.  We don't sweep it under the rug: we admit the possibility of sin and we prepare for it and we learn how to deal with it.

(I think the reason it's a bigger problem by war because a soldier needs to act immediately. He doesn't have the time for thought and decision, it's impulse/action. That is the problem: a normal person has an impulse and he thinks before acting. A soldier does not have that split second of impulse control, so he'll have the thought and begin moving forward. Once he begins moving forward, it's ten times harder to step back.)