Arachin 16: Like Father, Like Son

Rebbe Yochanan says that a person should not deviate from his own trade or the trade of his fathers (Arachin 16b). The Gemara often offers Torah-based advice regarding how one should conduct himself in his affairs. Is this one such example of business advice? Further, Rebbe Yochanan doesn’t offer any explanation for his statement. What are the reasons one should not give up his profession? The Ben Yehoyada explains that there are three distinct rationales for Rebbe Yochanan’s dictum. The first is that after many years in business, a person has likely developed a steady stream of loyal customers. A son taking over his father’s business could tap into these customers. Hopefully, these customers will show him the same loyalty they showed to his father. When making a decision to start a new profession, this factor must be taken into account. The second reason offered is that people generally become comfortable with a trade that they have practiced for a while. The same can be true of a trade that was practiced by one’s father. Even if a new opportunity arises, one must understand that although he may be capable of performing admirably in the new profession, he may suffer from the fact that his “heart and soul” are not into it. To me the most intriguing rationale for Rebbe Yochanan’s statement is the third one offered by the Ben Yehoyada. It used to be very common for a son to practice the same trade as his father. Presumably, the father davened many times for his son to be successful in his profession. For example, when the father davened that he should be a successful coppersmith, he included his son in his prayers. When a son leaves his father’s profession, he is also leaving behind all of those specific prayers. Although there is a concept that no prayer is ever lost, there is a special power of prayers that are specific in nature. This must be factored in to a decision to not follow one’s father’s trade. If the father never expected his son to practice the same trade, this reasoning would not apply. An interesting lesson can be extracted from the above regarding tefillah. One can just daven generically that he or his son should be successful in whatever they do. Yet, the Ben Yehoyada assumes that one’s prayers should be specific, mentioning the nature of one’s profession. Another example of this concept can be found in Bava Metzia. The mishnah in Bava Metzia (105b) says that a renter of a field that was affected by a general calamity may deduct from his rent according to the amount of damage the field suffered, according to the tanna kama. The two examples of general calamities offered in the mishnah are strong winds and locusts. How widespread does the damage have to be to be considered a general calamity where the farmer may deduct from his rent? According to Rav Yehudah, most of the fields in the same valley as the rented field have to be negatively affected as well. This way the calamity can’t be blamed on the renter’s bad mazal, since it wasn’t just his field that was harmed. The Gemara (106a) makes an interesting qualification to the above law. Where the landowner stipulated with the tenant farmer that he plant wheat, and the tenant planted barley instead, he may not make a deduction for a general calamity. Even though all the fields nearby, whether they were planted with wheat or barley, were attacked by locusts or harmed by wind, the farmer may not deduct from his rent for his ruined field. Why? The landowner can say to him: True, all the nearby fields were harmed; but I davened on Rosh Hashanah that my wheat crop should be successful. If you had planted wheat, as we agreed, perhaps Hashem would have listened to my tefillos and my field would have been spared from the locusts. You planted barley instead, so my tefillos on Rosh Hashanah for a successful wheat crop had no effect. You are responsible for this; therefore, you must absorb the loss. We see from here the power of a tefillah that mentions specifics. The landowner davened specifically that his wheat crop should be successful. He didn’t just pray that his crops should be successful. All the fields in the valley might be destroyed, but the landlord’s tefillah can save his field. This is not considered to be in the realm of the miraculous; this is just the power of tefillah. A careful study of that Gemara seems to indicate that if a generic prayer saves one’s field from general calamity, that may be considered in the realm of miraculous, which may require more zechuyos. (This was expressed in an earlier article entitled “Exercise and Davening” found in the August 21, 2009 edition of this paper.) Getting back to our original topic, there is a local businessman that has adopted his father’s and grandfather’s trade. Yehuda Uriel emigrated from Samarkand, Uzbekistan in 1993. His grandfather was a shoemaker there. His father followed in his father’s footsteps and runs a shoe repair shop in downtown Manhattan. Yehuda graduated from Touro College with a degree in business management. When the opportunity arose to run a shoe repair store on Doughty Boulevard that serves a significant Jewish clientele, he jumped at the offer. My rav, Rabbi Forst, once mentioned Yehuda in his derashah. When my rav entered the store he witnessed Yehuda utilizing his downtime in the store to learn. This, my rav explained, is an example of diligence required in Torah study. When not fixing shoes, watches, or jewelry, he dedicates himself to Torah. As an interesting side business, he also has the opportunity to promote shalom bayis. A man came in with a jacket with a broken zipper. He doubted it could be repaired. His wife was therefore urging him to buy a new jacket, but he didn’t want to spend the money. Yehuda successfully repaired the jacket and now everyone is happy!

Like Father, Like Son

Questions on this article

Rabbi Avrohom Sebrow