The 120% ENOUGH - Charity & Tzedakah
According to The Sparks of Mussar (p. 223)Rabbi Chofetz Chayim’s family was supported by a store that was operated principally by his wife. The store became very successful, so the rabbi reduced the hours it was open to half the day.
Rabbi Chofetz Chayim understood ENOUGH. .
I am going to send the angel Metatron (Metat) before you to protect you on the way, and to bring you to the Land of Israel…you should heed his voice since
My Name is in him whatever he does, he does in My Name.
Exodus, Mispatim 23:20-21 Torah Chumash (The Book of Exodus) Commentary Based on the Works of The Lubavitcher Rebbe
It is noted that in Gematria (Judaic numerology) the value of ‘his name’ per the Hebrew is 314 the same as that of My Name- Shaddai 314
And Shaddai is defined as ‘God, God Almighty, God All Sufficient, ENOUGH.
Per observation in myself, others, and years of interacting with personal financial planning clients and participants in workshops, the heuristic sequence (derived from Cain ((acquisition in Hebrew)) for living, survival and or palliation out of fear of physical extinction is to acquire ‘more’ for the delusion of permanence, continuity, & certainty. The derivative progression of acquisition/more is have, do, then be. “Be” is the leftover once the having from doing (or inheriting) is secured. Thus, I’ll be after I have. And so, identification becomes being through having & doing. (There are exceptions to : Sinatra: do be, do be, do; Fred Flintsone, yabba, daba, do – but these are comedic interlude outliers)
The pursuit of More at the expense of ENOUGH, enough, & being is rationalizes have, do, then be as there never seems to be enough only just another ‘if only’ to consider. And even if one is anchored in the personal financial planning concept of enough(sm) having, doing, precedes to be leaving Tzaddah and or charity – to being ‘the leftovers’ – the residual.
Unlike Abel who gave to Shaddai (being ENOUGH) the first yearlings but like Cain (acquisition) who gave to God after meeting his having (i.e. after he met his ‘nut’ – hi expenses), our Tzedakah (1) and or Charity is from the net – the leftover.
And yes, this writer is guilty as charged as well.
There, however, may be a corridor – stepping stone intermediate method – to the eventual giving of first yearlings – regardless of meeting one’s nut.
Recognizing man’s perceived ‘need’ for enough (though it seems enough is rarely enough as tautologically the hamster wheel of more is ‘needed’ for enough), instead of giving from the net quantify enough that is required yearly, mark this enough up 20% - The 120% enough. The result: instead of being ‘the leftover’ of a ‘good year,’ Tzedakah (1)/charity can be given ‘off the top’ as a royalty – as the first yearlings.’ This 120% enough procedure recognizes both ENOUGH and the perceived need for enough while harnessing the more/acquisition comparative Jones habituation.
Of course, this 120% enough stepping stone toward ENOUGH would also require defining enough (and the avoided or perplexing questions of what next in one’s life if there is enough i.e. meaning IN one life) which is anathema to the hardwiring of Moreons habituation.
After 40+ of honing, cogitating, defining, refining enough in contrast to More with the latest version being ‘healing personal financial anxiety, puttin’ money in its place, to connect to elevate to one’s significance and assignment’ the aforementioned refined still germinates the having, doing, to then be but ‘an inch is a cinch a yard is hard.’ If one moves an 1/8” it is said that God – Shaddai moves the other 7/8” of an inch
And yet there is till that not still and not small voice that says believe in Shaddai but cut the deck twice.
And that is the test (nes - in Hebrew that also means 'miracle') of ENOUGH.
- Tzedakah is really about obligation restoring justice rather than charity per se which it is confused with. However, a more definitive distinction is beyond the scope of this essay.
- enough otherwise service marked as ENOUGH(sm) but changed for distinction from ENOUGH i.e. Shaddai in this essay)