🎤Kol-🐥Hayyah🐘 - קוֹל־חַיָּ֖ה
VaYeira’ 5779: Michal Morris Kamil
When my Ketubah was set and signed by male witnesses and my husband prior to my wedding ceremony, the Qiddushin, I became aware that eighteen Zuzim were promised as compensation if my husband, for whatever reason, let me down and the marriage dissolved. That was the sum my father agreed to and would receive in compensation for me returning to my birth home. I always wondered about the value of the eighteen Zuzim, and took comfort that it symbolized the Gematria of the wonderful Jewish concept of Hai meaning life, and so I was at peace. But I did think it was an awfully cheap deal these men bartered me for.
In this week’s Parashah, Vayeitzei’, we see the continuation of the tradition of bartering. Jacob, who is madly in love with Rachel, agrees to work for her father Laban, his uncle, as a shepherd, for seven years, in return for Rachel’s hand, only to be cheated on the wedding night when Laban switches the brides, and places his eldest, Leah, in her place, unbeknownst, to Jacob. Jacob, in shock horror and fury, then agrees to a further seven years of work in exchange for Rachel becoming his second wife.
Bartering is a common feature of the Torah dealings between siblings, relatives, and even Kings and servants. Tending sheep, animals for arranged marriages, and as sacrifices in return for God’s protection and blessing, are common in the Torah. How do you assess the value and equivalence?
The Mishnah [Bava’ Metzi‘ah 100a, 46b] discusses the term halifin (exchange) of two animals. According to the explanations, an animal is similar to a utensil since it can be used for work. However, Rabbeinu Tam maintains that there is a second form of halifin involving barter of equivalent items. This halifin can be done with food, too, so that if one food item is given as barter for another, the other item is immediately acquired by the second party. There is a discussion and difference of view. One commentary is that you can exchange food for an animal.
Do the items have to be of equivalent value? Apparently there needs to be an evaluation. But as long as the parties agree that the items are of similar value, then it is acceptable. Eighteen Zuzim was the value for my role as wife, income earner, housekeeper, and mother. A good deal. Rachel was actually worth fourteen years of labor as a shepherd and an additional wife thrown in.
Humans, from ancient exchanges of food to modern day home mortgages, have bartered or traded to receive something that they couldn't achieve on their own. It's the basis of the economy, and it requires a leap of faith to believe that each party will receive a payoff in return for taking a risk.
The willingness to take risk is based at least in part on the reputation of trading partners and may be unique among humans. Our closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, aren't very good at it, according to new research by scientists at Georgia State University's Language Research Center.
Georgia State's Sarah Brosnan, assistant Professor of Psychology, and research scientist Michael Beran conducted a study to see if chimpanzees spontaneously bartered foods among each other, using tokens that represented those foods. While results indicated that the animals were cognitively able to understand trade, without enforcement from human experimenters, trade disappeared. Chimpanzees are known to trade services, such as grooming for food, but the ability does not seem to extend to trading commodities. Most of the trading of services seems to occur between partners who interact a lot, and so are familiar with each other’s behavior. The chimpanzees thus know whether the risk is likely to pay off, and most of the time, what's being traded is a relatively inexpensive commodity.
"If I spend five minutes grooming you, but you don't groom back, I haven't lost very much," Brosnan said, "but I might not want to trade a food that represents 10 or 20 percent of my calories for the day if I risk getting noting in return. If you don't complete the trade, I've lost a lot." One thing that may separate humans from chimpanzees is our third-party reinforcement mechanisms, Brosnan said. While chimpanzees rely on personal interactions, humans have mechanisms to foster confidence in trade, such as legal or social penalties for those who don't follow through. At the simplest level, a critical aspect to confidence in trade is reputation — reinforced through language, or gossip, which is something chimpanzees lack.” I can say to someone, 'I gave this person a banana, and they were supposed to give me strawberries in return, but they didn't.' It's a powerful enforcer of reputation," Brosnan said. The results of this research help scientists to better understand the roots of human economic behavior, Beran explained.” We need to continue these kinds of tests with nonhuman animals to properly place human behavior in context with nonhuman behavior, and to understand the evolutionary roots of human economic decision making," he said.
It is fascinating that the notion of evolution, as it is related to ‘progress’, includes the human ability to barter sentient beings for economic gain. Slavery is the extremity of this. When humans, racists in their views decided that other humans literally, had a ‘market value’, on par with how they dealt with animals, entire economies developed and were responsible for the worst humanity could inflict upon itself. So if we behave this way to humans, women until the 19th century included, and continued in certain cultures, then animals continue to be integral to this thought and behavioral process and hence become huge victims to these same economic systems. If Judaism addressed slavery providing for a way out, and the laws of Tza‘ar Ba‘alei Hayyim (the prevention of cruelty to animals) in recognition of the inhumanity these economic ways of thinking created, I am proud that the thinking was as progressive as it could be so many thousands of years ago. But altruism, considered a divine trait, was not apparent in humans, even then. It is ironic that scientists today, as indicated above, identify pure altruism as far more evident in what we refer to as a ‘lower stage of evolution’ among animals. It’s time to reverse this terminology and recognize in many ways, animals, as the higher form of evolution.
---
Brosnan, Sarah F. and Michael Beran. "Trading Behavior Between Conspecifics in Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes." Journal of Comparative Psychology, vol 123, no. 2. May 2009, doi:10.1037/a0015092, pp. 181-194.
VaYeira’ 5779: Michal Morris Kamil
When my Ketubah was set and signed by male witnesses and my husband prior to my wedding ceremony, the Qiddushin, I became aware that eighteen Zuzim were promised as compensation if my husband, for whatever reason, let me down and the marriage dissolved. That was the sum my father agreed to and would receive in compensation for me returning to my birth home. I always wondered about the value of the eighteen Zuzim, and took comfort that it symbolized the Gematria of the wonderful Jewish concept of Hai meaning life, and so I was at peace. But I did think it was an awfully cheap deal these men bartered me for.
In this week’s Parashah, Vayeitzei’, we see the continuation of the tradition of bartering. Jacob, who is madly in love with Rachel, agrees to work for her father Laban, his uncle, as a shepherd, for seven years, in return for Rachel’s hand, only to be cheated on the wedding night when Laban switches the brides, and places his eldest, Leah, in her place, unbeknownst, to Jacob. Jacob, in shock horror and fury, then agrees to a further seven years of work in exchange for Rachel becoming his second wife.
Bartering is a common feature of the Torah dealings between siblings, relatives, and even Kings and servants. Tending sheep, animals for arranged marriages, and as sacrifices in return for God’s protection and blessing, are common in the Torah. How do you assess the value and equivalence?
The Mishnah [Bava’ Metzi‘ah 100a, 46b] discusses the term halifin (exchange) of two animals. According to the explanations, an animal is similar to a utensil since it can be used for work. However, Rabbeinu Tam maintains that there is a second form of halifin involving barter of equivalent items. This halifin can be done with food, too, so that if one food item is given as barter for another, the other item is immediately acquired by the second party. There is a discussion and difference of view. One commentary is that you can exchange food for an animal.
Do the items have to be of equivalent value? Apparently there needs to be an evaluation. But as long as the parties agree that the items are of similar value, then it is acceptable. Eighteen Zuzim was the value for my role as wife, income earner, housekeeper, and mother. A good deal. Rachel was actually worth fourteen years of labor as a shepherd and an additional wife thrown in.
Humans, from ancient exchanges of food to modern day home mortgages, have bartered or traded to receive something that they couldn't achieve on their own. It's the basis of the economy, and it requires a leap of faith to believe that each party will receive a payoff in return for taking a risk.
The willingness to take risk is based at least in part on the reputation of trading partners and may be unique among humans. Our closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, aren't very good at it, according to new research by scientists at Georgia State University's Language Research Center.
Georgia State's Sarah Brosnan, assistant Professor of Psychology, and research scientist Michael Beran conducted a study to see if chimpanzees spontaneously bartered foods among each other, using tokens that represented those foods. While results indicated that the animals were cognitively able to understand trade, without enforcement from human experimenters, trade disappeared. Chimpanzees are known to trade services, such as grooming for food, but the ability does not seem to extend to trading commodities. Most of the trading of services seems to occur between partners who interact a lot, and so are familiar with each other’s behavior. The chimpanzees thus know whether the risk is likely to pay off, and most of the time, what's being traded is a relatively inexpensive commodity.
"If I spend five minutes grooming you, but you don't groom back, I haven't lost very much," Brosnan said, "but I might not want to trade a food that represents 10 or 20 percent of my calories for the day if I risk getting noting in return. If you don't complete the trade, I've lost a lot." One thing that may separate humans from chimpanzees is our third-party reinforcement mechanisms, Brosnan said. While chimpanzees rely on personal interactions, humans have mechanisms to foster confidence in trade, such as legal or social penalties for those who don't follow through. At the simplest level, a critical aspect to confidence in trade is reputation — reinforced through language, or gossip, which is something chimpanzees lack.” I can say to someone, 'I gave this person a banana, and they were supposed to give me strawberries in return, but they didn't.' It's a powerful enforcer of reputation," Brosnan said. The results of this research help scientists to better understand the roots of human economic behavior, Beran explained.” We need to continue these kinds of tests with nonhuman animals to properly place human behavior in context with nonhuman behavior, and to understand the evolutionary roots of human economic decision making," he said.
It is fascinating that the notion of evolution, as it is related to ‘progress’, includes the human ability to barter sentient beings for economic gain. Slavery is the extremity of this. When humans, racists in their views decided that other humans literally, had a ‘market value’, on par with how they dealt with animals, entire economies developed and were responsible for the worst humanity could inflict upon itself. So if we behave this way to humans, women until the 19th century included, and continued in certain cultures, then animals continue to be integral to this thought and behavioral process and hence become huge victims to these same economic systems. If Judaism addressed slavery providing for a way out, and the laws of Tza‘ar Ba‘alei Hayyim (the prevention of cruelty to animals) in recognition of the inhumanity these economic ways of thinking created, I am proud that the thinking was as progressive as it could be so many thousands of years ago. But altruism, considered a divine trait, was not apparent in humans, even then. It is ironic that scientists today, as indicated above, identify pure altruism as far more evident in what we refer to as a ‘lower stage of evolution’ among animals. It’s time to reverse this terminology and recognize in many ways, animals, as the higher form of evolution.
---
Brosnan, Sarah F. and Michael Beran. "Trading Behavior Between Conspecifics in Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes." Journal of Comparative Psychology, vol 123, no. 2. May 2009, doi:10.1037/a0015092, pp. 181-194.