Our Gemara on amud beis discusses the legal position of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding the splitting of a courtyard that was held in partnership but it is too small to divide in half and still retain its function or description, such as each part would be less than four cubits:

If a courtyard or the like was not large enough to warrant division into two, and one of the co-owners said to the other: You take a minimum measure of the courtyard, e.g., four cubits, and I will take less, the court listens to him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They do not listen to him.

The Gemara suggests a reason for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s position:

The second owner can say to him: If you want me to compensate you with money for the difference between my share and your share, I have no money to give you. And if you wish to give it to me as a gift, I am not at ease with that, as it is written: “But he who hates gifts shall live” (Proverbs 15:27).

This is remarkable. The ethic of aversion to gifts is so strong, that this person has the right to decline a division of assets that his partner is offering. While technically this is a gift, it is also a favor to the other fellow who is obviously hankering to close out the asset and move on. Yet still, he can object to the proceedings.

Sefer Daf al Daf brings down Otzaros Yehoshua (6:1) that analyzes this ethic in the light of another dispute about gifts in Chulin (44b):

With regard to the verse: “He that hates gifts shall live,” the Gemara relates that when they would send Rabbi Elazar some gift from the house of the Nasi, he would not take it. And when they would invite him, he would not go there. When declining these offers, he said to them: Does Master not desire that I live? As it is written: “He that hates gifts shall live.” By contrast, when they would send a gift to Rabbi Zeira, he would not take it, but when they would invite him he would go. He said in explanation: It is an honor for them to honor me. My attendance is not for my benefit but for theirs.

We see that both Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Elazar hold that it is proper to avoid taking gifts.  However, they differ in degree. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar was so concerned about the slippery slope and corrupting effects of taking handouts, that he would allow no rationales – even if it benefitted the gift-giver. On the other hand, Rabbi Zeira felt that if accepting the gift also confers a benefit or honor upon the gift-giver, it is not really a gift, but more so an exchange.

Otzaros Yehoshua suggests that this is the same dispute in our Gemara between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the person may refuse the division of the courtyard that gives him extra, even if it benefits the other person who wants to divide the asset anyhow.  However, the Sages held like Rabbi Zeira that when there is a degree of mutual benefit, the ethic of disdaining gifts cannot be invoked.

While this ethic is admirable, in human relations, there are nuances and ways that any ethic or Torah law can be abused or used to cover for distorted and anti-social aspects of a personality.  There are individuals who tend toward rigidity and emotional restriction. They who cause their spouses and loved ones pain and distress because they do not allow themselves to be vulnerable and accept compliments, love, or even gifts.  It is fair to say that even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds the ethic also applies when there is mutual benefit, would still draw the line at causing alienation and hurt feelings.  A courtyard is business and only money, but relationships have much higher and personal stakes.

The words of the Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Haosher 1.6) are instructive on this point:

The trait of feeling satisfied with simple things is characterized as part of the ethic to completely detest gifts.  As we saw in Chullin (44b), where it is said that Rabbi Zeira refused gifts from the house of the Nasi…

Maharal explains the psychological and metaphysical reasons for this ethic:

A poor person is considered as if he is dead because he receives from others and does not live from his own resources. This cannot be called living; only someone who lives independently can truly be called alive. It is clear that anyone who receives is lacking, and anything lacking is associated with absence. Conversely, someone who does not receive is free from absence, and therefore "one who hates gifts will live."

In other words, true life comes from emotional independence, save for attachment to God who is the source of all life.  Being craven and dependent waters down this channel for emotional, spiritual and even physical vitality.

Yet, despite this, Maharal goes on to say:

Everything certainly depends on the intention: If someone receives the gift only to honor the giver, it is permitted. 

Why does the Maharal go out of his way to make that final point? I believe he knew full well about such personalities who hurt others under the guise of piety, but really are protecting themselves from their own fears of relating and interdependence.  There are times when receiving is really giving.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)