Upon learning that Sarah was married to Abraham and was not a single woman as he had been led to believe, Abimelech sets her free and sends them on their way. But he does more than that. The Torah describes how he also gave a parting gift to the now reunited couple:
“And Abimelech said, ‘Here, my land is before you; settle wherever you please.’ And to Sarah he said, ‘Behold I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver…’” (Genesis 20:15-16).
While the money was given to Abraham, there was also a clear message to Sarah – a message that included a complaint, that included a reference to the source of the problem – for the money was given to her “brother.” It appears that Abimelech is hinting to the fact that on the one hand the gifts he is bestowing on them stem from his obligation to offer compensation for the pain and suffering that he caused, but that on the other hand they come from a place of generosity on his part. After all, the need to compensate them was based on their trickery, for they had introduced Sarah as Abraham’s sister. Abimelech can hardly be held responsible.
This brief discussion raises the question of how we define the concept of a gift. This question is relevant to a number of areas of Jewish law. One example is the concept of zakhin le-adam she-lo be-fanav – that we act on a person’s behalf to acquire something, even when he is not present. Based on this idea, a person can acquire a gift even if he is not aware that it has been given to him, since it is obvious to all that it is to his benefit and that he would want it. This assumption is so strong that it supplants the usual need for da’at koneh – that one can only take possession of something if he is aware of it. However, the rabbinic sages understood that it is not always clear to both sides that the object being transferred is a gift. It also may not be clear that receiving it is entirely to the benefit of the recipient.
In Tractate Shabbat in the Babylonian Talmud we find a disagreement whether someone who gives a gift is obligated to inform him of the gift.
The opinion that the giver must inform the recipient about the gift is based on two sources:
First, when God informs the Israelites that they have a unique holiness, the verse reads “That you may know that I the LORD have consecrated you” (Exodus 31:13). We see that God does not merely grant them this special status, He also informs them that he has done so.
The second source is an aggadic tradition. According to the aggadah, Moses is obligated to inform the Israelites about the gift – Shabbat – that they are about to receive:
The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: I have a good gift in My treasure house and Shabbat is its name, and I seek to give it to Israel. Go inform them about it.
There is also an opinion that posits that there is no need to inform the recipient of the gift. The proof that is brought in support of this position is that after his meeting with God, Moses’ face glowed, yet Moses was unaware of this and was never told about it. The Gemara explains that the reason God was not obligated to let Moses know about the glow is that it was something about which Moses would learn about in any case. We can conclude from this that the only time the recipient must be told that he is receiving a gift is when he is unaware of it and would never otherwise learn of it (Shabbat 10b).
There is a wide variety of cases where people are unaware of a gift that they have received. We have already seen two such examples. In one, the gift was abstract and spiritual and could not be felt or experienced – the holiness of the Jewish people – which is why they had to be informed. The second example is the Shabbat. Indeed, everyone is aware of the Shabbat, but not everyone views a day of rest as an unmitigated good. For some people, being obligated to refrain from labor is the equivalent of being jailed in prison. It is for this reason that the people must be informed of the gift of Shabbat, for those who internalize the message of rest and enjoy a Shabbat that is removed from mundane weekday concerns, truly view it as a gift.
Other situations also require informing the recipient about a gift, because it is not always clear that what is being given is truly a gift. When someone gives charity, his intention may be to fulfill a commandment, yet it remains a gift. Workplaces may distribute gifts to their workers based on legal requirements and societal norms – and the workers even must pay tax on what they received – so why is this considered a gift?
The blurring of boundaries between what is obligatory and what is a gift can sometimes lead to ridiculous situations. One of the online news sites reported a story about a young couple that sent the following letter to their wedding guests:
Dear Dr. N and Dr. M.,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to you for having participated in our recent wedding and for the generous present that you gave us. We would like to inform you that the gourmet dish that was served to you cost us 350NIS for each guest (700NIS for both of you), so it turns out that we paid 400NIS out-of-pocket to have you join us at the reception.
…Surely you agree that a wedding guest should minimally pay the cost of their meal, as no one would expect a struggling young couple to pay for the gourmet meal that he ate!!! It is simply scandalous!
(Appeared in ynet.co.il, July 21, 2008)
The feeling expressed by this young couple that it is incumbent on the guests to pay for their participation in the wedding reception clarifies how the concept of a gift has become weakened to the extent that many view it as an obligation. There are times when neither the recipient nor the giver is aware that a gift has changed hands. When a worker puts in unpaid overtime to finish a project, his perspective is that he is donating his free time to his employer.
It is clear that the dispute as to how to define a gift has its roots in the writings of the Bible and in the story of Sarah and Abimelech. The sensitivity of the rabbinic sages to this question obligates each of the two sides to look deeply into the shared experience. Sometimes the difference between a gift and an obligatory payment lies less in the question of whether the object was paid for and more in the feelings expressed by the two participants. Sometimes the act of accepting something from another effectively is a gift to him, because the recipient doesn’t want to feel obligated to the giver. Sometimes a person may feel that he is giving a gift because of the situation in which he found himself, while other times someone may feel that he has not received a gift because he believes that it was his by right. We must remember that many gifts are given with a sentiment of thoughtfulness and generosity, and that we may simply accept a gift recognizing that someone has been good to you and wishes you well.
On its most basic level, giving and receiving gifts should be grounded in an expression of love and friendship.
