Kadesh Atzmecha b'Assur Lach

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Dispel, by Chase Stone

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Assur Lach

What is kedushah?

"Kedushah" is a prominent theme within Judaism. Although this term is typically translated as "holiness,""sanctity," or "sacredness," I have never found such translations to be of much use. If anything, they tend to be a hindrance to understanding. They're vague, they're loaded with foreign connotations, and they fail to convey Judaism's unique take on what it means to be kadosh. 

According to Judaism, "kedushah" is based defined as "transcendence of physicality." Hashem is called "kadosh" because He transcends physicality in an absolute manner: He has no physical body, has no physical characteristics, and is not subject to any physical effects, changes, or occurrences whatsoever. Angels [1] are called "kedoshim" because although they affect the physical world, they, themselves, are not physical.

How can a human being become "kadosh"? After all, we have a physical body and physical drives in addition to our non-physical soul. The answer is: human beings can become kedoshim insofar as we transcend our own physicality by rising above the dictates of our animalistic instincts and psychological drives and living our lives based on, and in service of, our tzelem Elokim (non-physical intellect). 

All mitzvos are instruments of kedushah: they are all serve the Torah regimen's goal of developing man into a knowledge-seeking being, whether by perfecting the body/psyche, or the intellect, or both. We acknowledge the kedushah dimension of mitzvos every time we make a birkas ha'mitzvah (blessing over mitzvos) by saying: "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav" ("Who made us kadosh through His mitzvos"). 

While all mitzvos partake of the general character of kedushah, there are other mitzvos whose specific character is kedushah as well. The Rambam divided all 613 mitzvos into 14 categories, as codified in the 14 books of his Mishneh Torah. His Sefer Kedushah includes two categories of mitzvos: issurei biah (prohibited sexual relations) and maachalos assuros (prohibited foods). These mitzvos are designed to instill kedushah on an individual and national level by targeting the two primary instinctual drives in man: the sexual and the appetitive.

This explanation of kedushah applies to the other groups of mitzvos and halachic institutions which are explicitly associated with kedushah. For example, the mikraei kodesh ("holidays") are time periods devoted to kedushah-development, in which we withdraw from our involvement in melachah (shaping the physical world in accordance with our design) and focusing on the development of our tzelem Elokim. The Beis ha'Mikdash is the national kedushah-center, run by the kohanim ha'kedoshim - those individuals governed additional strictures of kedushah whose job is to process all of the kodshim (consecrated sacrifices) funded by hekdesh (consecrated property). The institution of kiddushin (betrothal and marriage) is designed to instill the relationship between a man and his wife - and, by extension, their home and family - with kedushah. And so on.

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Mutar Lach 

In addition to the kedushah-development that is facilitated through the observance of halacha, Chazal also urge us to practice kedushah beyond what is required by halacha. Parashas Kedoshim begins with the statement of kedoshim tihiyu (you shall be kadosh): 

Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to the entire assembly of the Children of Israel and say to them: "You shall be kedoshim, for I, Hashem, your God, am kadosh" (Vayikra 19:2).

The Ramban [2] explains kedoshim tihiyu as a commandment to strive for kedushah within the realm of the permissible:

The idea [of this mitzvah] is that the Torah warned against prohibited sexual relations and prohibited foods, but it permitted the cohabitation of a man with his wife and the [unlimited] consumption of meat and wine. Accordingly, the baal taavah (pleasure addict) can find room [within the parameters of the law] to be steeped in sexual indulgence with his wife or to be "one of the guzzlers of wine and gorgers of meat" (Mishlei 23:20), and to speak as he pleases about all vile things - for the prohibition of [such speech] is not [explicitly] mentioned in the Torah - and thus, he will be a naval bi'reshus ha'Torah (a degenerate within the parameters of the Torah's permission).  

Therefore, this pasuk [of kedoshim tihiyu] comes after [the Torah] detailed the categorical prohibitions, and commands in a general statement that we shall remove ourselves from excess within permissible acts. [For example,] one should be temperate in cohabiting [with his wife] ... utilizing [marital relations] only as needed for the fulfillment of the mitzvah regarding it; he should be kadosh with regard to wine by being temperate in [its consumption] ... similarly, he should guard his mouth and tongue from becoming polluted with excessive, gluttonous eating or with vile speech ... 

It is with regard to these matters and those like them that this general mitzvah [of kedoshim tihiyu] comes [to caution], after [the Torah] detailed all of the transgressions which are categorically prohibited.

Chazal summed up this application of kedoshim tihiyu in the injunction: "kadesh atzmecha b'mutar lach" ("sanctify yourself within what is permissible to you"). Just because the Torah grants freedom within a certain area doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all. Instead of acting like an animal, a person should exercise restraint and strive for moderation even with regard to what is permitted.  

One might ask: "If the Torah is against excessively indulgent behavior, then why didn't it prohibit all forms of such behavior so there would be no need for a separate mitzvah of kedoshim tihiyu?" The answer to this is two-fold. First of all, it is inherently impossible to legislate kedushah in this manner. No matter how far the Torah might have gone in prohibiting a specific type of indulgence, there would always remain a permissible realm, and a person could still be a naval bi'reshus ha'Torah in that area. In other words, as long as there is any amount of reshus (permission), then there is room to be a naval bi'reshus ha'Torah.

Secondly, the Torah recognizes that certain courses of development are most effective if the individual is allowed to tailor the Torah regimen to his own specifications, and to ramp it up at his own pace. For this reason, the Torah regulates the behavior of all Jews in a uniform manner up to a certain point, but beyond that, it is the responsibility of the individual to take on additional strictures and strive to fulfill the Torah's objectives in a personalized manner, beyond what is required by the strict letter of the law. (This is the basis of Rabbeinu Avraham ben ha'Rambam's distinction between the Derech ha'Ahm and the Derech ha'Yachid; see this post for an elaboration.)

According to the Ramban, this is why the Torah included a mitzvah of kedoshim tihiyu. Even though it is impossible and ineffective to legislate this type of kedushah on a particular level, the Torah can still urge us to implement this in a general way by broadly commanding us in kadesh atzmecha b'mutar lach.

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Assur Lach

I would like to coin a new phrase, which is an extension of the Ramban's explanation of kedoshim tihiyu and kadesh atzmecha b'mutar lach. That phrase is "kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach" ("sanctify yourself within what is prohibited to you"). I am not suggesting that this principle is an actual mitzvah or a halacha. I do, however, believe that it is an important part of the Torah's approach to kedushah, and an indispensable practical guideline in the observance of halacha.  

By "kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach" I mean that even when a person violates halacha, he or she should still practice kedushah to the extent possible. In other words, just because the transgressor knows he or she is going to violate halacha doesn't mean that he or she should just say, "To hell with it," and go on to act in a totally unrestrained manner. Instead, he or she should still exercise restraint and self-control within that violation of halacha - and, if feasible, should try to act in accordance with the objectives of the Torah, even though his or her actions are not in line with halacha itself.

Let's use a familiar, non-halachic analogy to illustrate this principle: dieting. Reuven is on a diet which requires him to observe precise dietary restrictions and to moderate his caloric intake. He's been sticking to his diet religiously for months. But one evening, he finds himself standing in front of a wedding smorgasbord featuring his arch-nemesis: UNLIMITED SUSHI. After battling with the urge to consume his favorite food, he admits defeat, and gorges himself on sushi ... and then he has some pasta ... and then some cookies ... and then ice cream ... all while telling himself, "Now that I've gone off my diet, I might as well let loose."

Although we may sympathize with Reuven's plight, we recognize the irrationality of his rationalization. He only lost the battle against sushi. Why should he concede additional territory to pasta, cookies, and ice cream as well? Just because he made one mistake doesn't mean that he should make three more mistakes! Instead, he should some sushi, and then return to his diet.

The same approach applies to halacha. Just as the person who stumbles in his diet should still exercise as much self-control as possible in line with the objectives and principles of his diet, so too, a person who stumbles in halacha should still exercise as much self-control as possible, in line with the objectives and principles of Torah. In doing so, he will at least be practicing kedushah even as he violates halacha. That is what I mean by kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach.

I will expand upon on this by focusing on three related (arguably identical) applications.

Application #1: The Baal Teshuvah

A baal teshuvah is someone who was once involved in a sin, but has engaged in teshuvah (repentance) and changed his or her ways for the good. Strictly speaking, "baal teshuvah" can refer to anyone who routinely engaged in any transgression or transgressions, and has subsequently done teshuvah. Colloquially, this term is reserved for people who "weren't religious" and became religious.

Halacha can be VERY daunting for a baal teshuvah who grew up non-observant. Most areas of halacha are so detailed that it is a challenge to even learn what to do and what not to do, let alone actually change one's lifestyle from non-halachic to halachic. This intimidation-factor can be a huge deterrent for potential baalei teshuvah, pressuring them to feel that they need to go from complete non-observance to being completely shomer Torah u'mitzvos (halachically observant). In many cases there exists a real danger that the would-be baal teshuvah will not even embark on the path of teshuvah because he or she feels the pressure to make an all-or-nothing lifestyle change in a very short amount of time.

This is where kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach comes in. Halacha really is all-or-nothing in terms of its  absolutely binding nature as a legal system, but that doesn't mean that the baal teshuvah should approach his return to halacha with such absolutism. It is often more realistic to take on halachic observance piecemeal, one step at a time, until one is fully shomer Torah u'mitzvos.

The first example of this that I witnessed happened in my own home. I was raised irreligious, but our family started becoming baalei teshuvah when I was around 13 years old. My dad was the first one to start keeping kosher in our family. However, he didn't go from zero observance to full observance of kashrus overnight. He began by giving up pork. Next, he stopped eating shellfish. Then he stopped eating milk with meat. After that he stopped eating milk after meat. Eventually, after around two years, we all took the plunge, kashered our kitchen, and kept a fully kosher home.

Now, a person could make the argument that what my dad did would be frowned upon by halacha. After all, almost everything that was cooked in our non-kosher kitchen was technically assur (prohibited), so it's not like he was actually "keeping kosher" until he fully made the switch.

Nevertheless, I believe that this step-by-step approach to doing teshuvah was a kiyum (fulfillment) of the principles of kedushah, even though it was an imperfect kiyum of the halachos of kedushah. It is assur to eating a piece of pork and it is also assur to eat a piece of chicken cooked in a pot that was used to cook pork - yet, my dad's act of resisting the urge to eat pork and forcing himself to eat chicken in order to uphold halacha was an act of kedushah, despite the fact that it involved a transgression.

I would argue that this is true for all of halacha, insofar as all mitzvos are vehicles of kedushah. Every step that a baal teshuvah takes towards halachic observance is a step taken with kedushah, even if it doesn't completely meet the standards of halacha at the present time.

I think that this is an important idea to emphasize with baalei teshuvah as they make their journey, since baalei teshuvah sometimes feel guilty about taking things slowly. Admittedly, it's a difficult balancing act: on the one hand, it must be made clear that halacha is an objective, uniform, Divinely mandated system, and that an aveirah (transgression) is still an aveirah; at the same time, it is psychologically beneficial and philosophically instructive to point out that the transgression of a baal teshuvah on the path towards observance is fundamentally different than the transgression of a non-baal teshuvah.

Application #2: The Teenager

Another demographic that kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach pertains to is teenagers. Teenagers and young adults from all across the shomer Torah u'mitzvos spectrum face a number of challenges throughout this difficult time in their lives. It is quite common for teens to go through lapses in various areas of their halachic observance.

As I - and I'm sure other Jewish Educators - can attest, these young men and women often feel "doomed" by their lapses or by their imperfect observance of halacha. They feel that if they're intentionally and habitually doing one aveirah, they might as well do more aveiros. For example, if they're texting on Shabbos, they might as well turn on lights on Shabbos; if they wear short sleeves, they might as well wear short skirts; if they eat non-kosher candy, they might as well eat at non-kosher restaurants; if they're violating "shomer negiah," they might as well do other things.

I think that the message we give baalei teshuvah should be given to these teenagers as well. Yes, halacha is absolutely binding. No, halacha does not grant you the permission to pick and choose. But if you feel that you can't give an area of halacha your 100%, then at least give it 80%, or 60%, or even 10%. So long as you are still exercising as much control as you can muster, that is still the derech of kedushah, and that is still something worth holding onto.

I witnessed a great example of this involving a teenager who happened to be a baal teshuvah. This incident took place during my second or third year of yeshiva, when I went back to visit my old high school. I sat in on a Q&A session with my Mishlei rebbi and a class of 10th graders. This kid told my rebbi that he was struggling with a certain area of halacha involving self-control. He said that it felt like the halacha was impossible for him to keep, and he wanted to know what to do about it. My rebbi asked him, "Can you control yourself sometimes or never?" The kid answered, "Sometimes." My rebbi then simply said, "Okay. So try to keep the halacha and only give in to your desires when you're in a situation where you can't control yourself," to which the kid replied, "Oh. I guess that makes sense!"

My first thought upon hearing this was, "Duh! Isn't that what the kid had already been doing in the first place? Wasn't he just trying to keep the halacha and then failing when the desire became overpowering? What did my rebbi's advice change in this kid's mind?" But then I realized what had happened. From the kid's question it was clear that he was ready to give up on trying to keep the halacha altogether. What my rebbi essentially did was to say, "Nobody's perfect, and it seems that you can't keep this halacha perfectly right now - but that doesn't mean that it's rational to just stop trying to keep it. Instead, approach the observance and the violation of this halacha with kedushah: try to observe the halacha, and only violate it when you can't control yourself."

Obviously, this must all be done delicately. The expression "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" definitely applies to the average teenager. The approach that my rebbi took worked in that case, but there are a number of ways in which it could have gone wrong. Educators must proceed with caution.

Application #3: The Uncontrollable Yetzer

The last application of kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach relates to a topic I've written about before. Years ago I wrote a blog post about Chazal's advice for someone who is overcome with an irresistible urge to violate halacha. Under certain circumstances, Chazal would instruct such a person to "go to a place where they don’t recognize him, put on black clothes and cover himself in black, and do what his heart desires, and not cause a chillul shem shamayim b'farhesya (public desecration of God's Name)." See what I wrote for a full analysis, which includes important details and qualifications. For our purposes, I'll quote an excerpt from that post which pertains to the topic at hand:

There are so many Jews who have an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to halachic observance. This is ridiculous. From a philosophical, halachic, and metaphysical standpoint, Torah is an "all or nothing" system. You can't pick and choose which halachos to keep. At the same time, realistically speaking, not every person is able to keep every halacha in every case. But the Torah has advice even for these people. The Torah doesn't just say, "To hell with you. Do whatever you want. See if I care."

This is highlighted very clearly in [Chazal's] teaching. [They are] essentially telling this person: "I understand. You can't control yourself in this case. Your own observance of this halacha will be compromised. But there is still the consideration of chillul shem shamayim, and you should at least retain that consideration as a priority."

Although Chazal identify chilul ha'Shem - not kedushah - as the governing principle, it is still a good illustration of the manner in which kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach should be applied.

Concluding Thoughts

I don't think what I've written about here contains anything new. It is simply a particular application of the principles discussed by the Ramban in his commentary on kedoshim tihiyu. Still, I think that by coining the phrase "kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach," this principle will become easier to think about, to discuss, and to apply in practice. 

[1] Ha! You probably thought that this footnote would define what "angels" are, didn't you? I'm afraid that question is beyond the scope of this blog post. 
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Vayikra 19:2

Parashas Shelach: The Torah's View of Temptation

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Mother of Runes, by Terese Nielsen
(for the record, this is my mental image of Eishes Potiphar)

Parashas Shelach: The Torah's View of Temptation

The last mitzvah mentioned in this week's parashah is "lo sasuru acharei levavchem v'acharei eineichem" ("you shall not explore after your heart and after your eyes"). [1] Here is the mitzvah in its context:

And they shall be tzitzis (lit. fringes) for you, that you may see it and remember all the mitzvos of Hashem and do them, and you shall not explore after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray. So that you may remember and do all of My mitzvos, and be kedoshim (holy) to your God. I am Hashem, your God, Who has removed you from the land of Egypt to be a God to you; I am Hashem, your God. (Bamidbar 15:39-41)

The Torah she'baal Peh [2] teaches us that each phrase relates to a different category of illicit "exploration":

"after your heart" - this refers to meenus (heresy); "after your eyes" - this refers to  zenus (licentiousness).

Although my usual practice is to provide all of the basic background information for each topic that I introduce, I'm not going to do so in this case because I believe it would distract us from the question we will be focusing on. Suffice it to say, this mitzvah prohibits us from giving in to certain harmful temptations in the realm of our intellectual speculations [3] and sexual desires. [4]

Our central question arises from an inference made by Sifre: [5]

"after your heart and after your eyes": Does this tell us that the eyes follow after the heart, or that the heart follows after the eyes? - You'll argue: "Is there no blind person who does all the abominations in the world?" Indeed, this is why the Torah teaches "do not explore after your heart and after your eyes" - this tells us that the eyes follow after the heart. 

This Sifre is cryptic. What, exactly, does it mean to say that "the eyes follow after the heart"? What are the implications of the Sifre's conclusion? 

The Malbim [6] addresses these questions in his commentary on the Sifre: 

Many people are of the opinion that the heart's desire for transgression is aroused by the senses, as it is said: "The eye sees, and the heart desires" [7], and "a person only desires what his eyes have seen." [8] However, Chazal infer the opposite ... [namely,] were it not for the fact the mind was seized by the preexisting desire-fueled fantasies of the heart, he would not be affected by what his eyes saw - whether in terms of going on a bad path [of licentiousness] or following the ways of heresy to remove from himself the fear of Hashem. [If he goes on the bad path of licentiousness,] this is a sign that his fantasy-based desires have already paved the way ahead of time. Likewise, [this is a sign] that the thoughts of iniquity have already preceded him in his heart and caused him to make light of the fear of Hashem, Who sees his hidden and revealed dimensions. 

In other words, it may be true that a desire will be awakened by what the eyes see, [9] but Sifre is teaching us that the seeing of the eyes will only awaken one's desires if the path was paved ahead of time by the desire-fueled fantasies (tziyurei ha'taavah) of the heart. This, according to the Malbim, is what Chazal mean when they say that "the eyes follow after the heart." 

In order to further elucidate his meaning, the Malbim cites Ibn Ezra's [10] explanation of "lo tachmod" ("you shall not covet") and "lo tisaveh," which reflect the Sifre's view of the relationship between "the heart" and "the eyes." Here is the Ibn Ezra's commentary in his own words:

"you shall not covet": Many people are astounded by this mitzvah, [wondering] "How can a man not covet something which his heart and eyes find to be beautiful?" Now I will give you a mashal (example). Consider a peasant who is of sound mind, and who sees a beautiful princess. He will not covet her in his heart, [desiring] to sleep with her, because he knows that this is impossible. This peasant will not be like the insane, who think they can do impossible things like sprout wings and fly in the sky. Just as a man doesn't desire to sleep with his mother, even though she is beautiful, because he has been raised from youth to know that she is prohibited to him, so too, every rational person needs to know that neither a beautiful woman nor possessions will be found by him through his own wisdom and knowledge, but only as apportioned to him by Hashem ... and because of this, he will neither desire nor covet [the belongings of others]. Once he knows that his friend's wife has been prohibited to him by Hashem, she will be more out of reach to him than the princess in the heart of the peasant. 

The Malbim then goes on to explain how the Ibn Ezra's take on lo tachmod and lo tisaveh follows the view expressed by the Sifre:

On the basis of this approach the Ibn Ezra explained what Hashem commanded - "you shall not desire your friend's house," "you shall not covet your friend's wife" - [saying] that if a person diminishes the desire-fueled fantasies and doesn't bring them to mind, and similarly, if he continually remembers that Hashem commanded him and prohibited him and stands over him and sees his actions, then he will not come into the grips of any desire at all, just as the peasant will not desire the princess. 

This is what is meant by the statement that "the eyes follow after the heart": were it not for the desire-fueled fantasies that are generated in the heart, he would not be moved by the sight of his eyes. It is for this reason that "do not explore after your heart" comes first, since it first must generate the fantasies of desire and the bad middos, and only afterwards will "the eyes explore."

[Chazal] bring a proof against those who say that the heart is only aroused by fantasies after the eyes draw them in, for even a blind person will commit tremendous abominations, even though he hasn't seen [anything] with his eyes.

Here's another mashal to illustrate the Sifre's idea. A person's cravings might be awakened by the sight of a delectable slice of chocolate cake sitting on the plate in front of him, but if he is informed that the cake was accidentally baked using salt in place of sugar, or that the cake is laced with rat poison, or that it's actually a model made of wax, his desire will quickly subside - despite the fact that the appearance of the cake remained unchanged. And if he knew ahead of time that the cake was disgusting, poison, or fake, then seeing the cake wouldn't have awakened his desires in the first place.

The same is true for all of your desires: they will only be awakened by what "your eyes" see if "your heart" (i.e. your inner thoughts, values, fantasies, beliefs, etc.) has been primed to desire them. In other words, our susceptibility to temptation is fundamentally influenced by our internal thoughts - not by our perceptions of external stimuli. Therefore, in order to master our desires and resist temptation from without, we must start by cultivating our hearts from within.

Even the Sefer ha'Chinuch, [11] who continually emphasizes the impact of our actions on our inner character, nevertheless acknowledges the truth of the Sifre's interpretation, as he writes in his explanation of "lo sasuru etc.":

The root purpose of this mitzvah is evident: for by it a man will be guarded from sinning to Hashem all his days. In truth, this mitzvah is a great foundation of the religion, since evil thoughts are the "fathers" of impurities, and the [resulting] actions are their "children," and if a man will die before begetting any offspring, there will be no remembrance (i.e. trace) of children. Consequently, this prohibition [of "do not explore after your heart and after your eyes"] is a root from which all good things sprout.

The big question is: How do we change our "hearts" to regulate our desires and temptations? The Sifre only establishes the general framework, but doesn't give us any clues as to how to effect real change.

The answer can be found in the pesukim surrounding "lo sasuru etc.":

And they shall be tzitzis (lit. fringes) for you, that you may see it and remember all the mitzvos of Hashem and do them, and you shall not explore after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray. So that you may remember and do all of My mitzvos, and be kedoshim to your God. I am Hashem, your God, Who has removed you from the land of Egypt to be a God to you; I am Hashem, your God. (Bamidbar 15:39-41)

In short, the answer is: mitzvos. One of the many functions of mitzvos is to cultivate within us the quality of kedushah (i.e. rising above the influence of our animalistic tendencies in order to live b'tzelem Elokim). We acknowledge this function in every berachah (blessing) we make over mitzvos: "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav" ("Who made us kadosh through His mitzvos").

How do the mitzvos make us kedoshim? That is a topic for another day.

[1] It should be noted that the Ralbag maintains that "lo sasuru etc." is not its own mitzvah, but is the reason for the mitzvah of tzitzis; for the purposes of this blog post, it doesn't make a difference.
[2] see Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 2:3; his citation differs from our version, which can be found in Berachos 12b
[3] for an extended treatment of this topic see my blog post entitled Parashas Shoftim: Comparative Religion
[4] see Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Sefer ha'Mitzvos: Lo Taaseh #47, and Sefer ha'Chinuch at the end of Parashas Shelach
[5] Sifre: Piska 115
[6] Rav Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 15:39
[7] Yalkut Shimoni: Yeshayahu 445
[8] I wasn't able to locate this source
[9] see Rav Baruch ha'Levi Epstein, Torah Temimah: Sefer Bamidbar 15, 136, who clarifies the scope of the Sifre: 

From the fact that "after your heart" is written first and "after your eyes" is written afterwards, it would seem that this doesn't come to exclude the heart being drawn after the eyes. Don't Chazal explicitly say: "The yetzer ha'ra (evil inclination) only dominates based on what the eyes see" (Sotah 8a)? Likewise they say: "the eye sees, and the heart desires." Rather, the matter is that each one is drawn after the other: the eyes after the heart and the heart after the eyes. And since the heart being drawn after the eyes is an obvious and perceivable matter, therefore the pasuk comes puts the heart before the eyes in order to teach us that sometimes the eyes are drawn after the heart - namely, in the case of someone who has bad thoughts which incite the yetzer ha'ra against him with bad fantasies and musings. This is [why the Sifre] brings a proof from a blind person.

[10] Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemos 20:13
[11] Sefer ha'Chinuch, Mitzvah #387

"I Ordered a Tall, Not a Grande!"

This blog post was written back in my graduate school days, and was originally published in July of 2009. I've kept "real-world 'aha!' moment" posts like this to a minimum on this blog, but I decided to post this one to gauge whether it's something I should write more of this summer.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

"I Ordered a Tall, Not a Grande!"

Last week Wednesday I woke up at 5:00am to finish an assignment for school. As usual, I enjoyed one-and-a-half mugs of Starbucks Verona coffee, made with a French Press. But by the time I got into Penn Station at 9:45am, the caffeine had started to wear off, and I knew I needed a little something extra to stay alert in class. I decided to stop by the Starbucks in Penn Station to remedy the situation.

I was aware that ordering coffee would load me up with more caffeine than I could handle, so I decided on my favorite non-coffee drink: a tall, no syrup, skinny green tea latte. I figured it was just what I needed: a hot drink with minimal sweetness and minimal caffeine. I specifically ordered a tall (12 fl. oz.) rather than a grande (16 fl. oz.) because (a) I wasn’t in the mood to drink such a large quantity of a sweet beverage, (b) it wasn't worth consuming the extra calories, and (c) I didn’t want that much liquid sloshing around in me for the remaining 40 minutes of traveling to school.

As you might imagine, the Starbucks in Penn Station is extremely busy. Although they are usually quite professional, they messed up my order and gave me a grande green tea latte instead of a tall. I told the barista, “I ordered a tall, not a grande,” but she said, “Go ahead and take it. It was our mistake, so your drink is on the house.” I protested, but she shook her head and told me that it would take a while to prepare a new drink, and they’d have to throw this one away anyway. So I took it.

Then something unexpected happened. As I started to drink, I noticed my desire slowly changing. In spite of my initial desire for a tall and my three reasons for rejecting the grande, I sensed my appetite sneakily adapting itself to the new reality of the larger beverage in front of me. I didn’t want to want the grande, but my desire didn’t obey my will! 

Not only did my desire increase, but I started to automatically make excuses for it, saying things like: “Wow, you were lucky to pay for a tall and get a grande! How can you let this drink go to waste? Come on – it’s not so bad if you just finish the drink. So what if it wasn't in line with your original plan?” I started to think in terms of “finishing the drink is the right thing to do” instead of “finishing the drink is something I want to do.”

My desire continued to grow as I drank more, and my ability to exercise my free will continued to weaken. Finally, as I crossed the tall/grande threshold of beverage consumption, I forced myself to get up, to walk over to a trash bin, and to throw away the remaining 4 fl. oz. of the drink in order to follow through with my initial decision. After vanquishing the "grande demon," I snapped out of my green tea trance and was happy with my decision.

Afterwards, as I sat on the subway, I began to wonder how often something like this happens to us without our realizing it. How often do we start out with little or no desire, end up into a situation where desire is expected or contextually appropriate, and our desire changes to fit into the pre-established expectation?

This reminded me of a pair of experiments I heard about, conducted by Brian Wansink. The following is a summary of the experiments and their findings, excerpted from the book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (pp.43-44):

In many situations, people put themselves into an "automatic pilot" mode, in which they are not actively paying attention to the task at hand ... Eating turns out to be one of the most mindless activities we do. Many of us simply eat whatever is put in front of us. That is why even massive bowls of cashews are likely to be consumed completely, regardless of the quality of the food that is soon to be arriving.

The same is true of popcorn - even stale popcorn. A few years ago, Brian Wansink and his colleagues ran an experiment in a Chicago movie theater in which the moviegoers found themselves with a free bucket of stale popcorn. (It had been popped five days earlier and stored so as to ensure that it would actually squeak when eaten.) People were not specifically informed of its staleness, but they didn't like the popcorn. As one moviegoer said, "It was like eating Styrofoam packing peanuts." In the experiment half of the moviegoers received a big bucket of popcorn and half received a medium-sized bucket. On average, recipients of the big bucket ate about 53 percent more popcorn - even though they didn't really like it. After the movie, Wansink asked the recipients of the big bucket whether they might have eaten more because of the size of their bucket. Most denied the possibility, saying, "Things like that don't trick me." But they were wrong.

The same is true of soup. In another Wansink masterpiece (2006), people sat down to a large bowl of Campbell's tomato soup and were told to eat as much as they wanted. Unbeknownst to them, the soup bowls were designed to refill themselves (with empty bottoms connected to machinery beneath the table). No matter how much soup subjects ate, the bowl never emptied. Many people just kept eating, not paying attention to the fact that they were really eating a great deal of soup, until the experiment was (mercifully) ended. Large plates and packages mean more eating; they are a form of choice architecture, and they work as minor nudges.

Many of us were told as children, "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach." Well, sometimes the stomach rises to meet the demands of the eyes. The Sages concisely identified this phenomenon in their statement (Tanchuma 15): 

The heart and the eyes are the spies of the body, and are responsible for a person's sins. The eyes see, the heart desires, and the limbs complete the act.

That pattern is exactly what happened to me: my eyes saw the grande, my desires changed, and my body began to carry out my newly awakened desire. 

So next time you order a tall and they give you a grande, ask yourself whether you really want to finish it, or whether you're finishing it because your appetites have caused you to rationalize that this is the "right" thing to do.