The Torah needs no “proof” from psychology or any other academic discipline. Yet we should not be surprised when psychological research offers support for the idea that a Torah life is uniquely beneficial. Since Torah is the blueprint from which HaKadosh Baruch Hu created man we would expect to find evidence that man experiences the greatest feelings of wellbeing when he is living in sync with the dictates of the Torah the Divine instruction manual.

A recent article in the Atlantic by Emily Esfahani Smith entitled “Meaning Is Healthier Than Happiness” offers such evidence. The subject of happiness is all the rage. Esfahani Smith notes that Amazon listed 1000 new titles on happiness in the preceding three months alone.

And among the claims made by celebrants of happiness is that it pays off all kinds of health benefits. A recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences however suggests that all depends upon what you mean by happiness.

Steven Cole a professor of medicine and psychiatry at UCLA has researched the impact of chronic adversity — loneliness financial stress grief over the loss of a loved one — on a particular gene expression pattern. Such chronic adversity produces a stress-related pattern marked by an increase in activity of pro-inflammatory genes and a decrease in activity of genes involved in antiviral responses.

Cole and coresearcher Barbara Frederickson ofUniversityofNorth Carolina found to their great surprise that those who score high on what they call “hedonic wellbeing” — as measured by such questions as “How often do you feel happy?” “How often do you feel interested in life?” “How often do you feel satisfied?” — display the same gene expression patterns as people who are enduring chronic adversity.

What leads to a dramatic difference in gene expression is a state researchers term “eudaimonic predominance.” Here the crucial questions are: “How often do you feel that your life has a sense of direction or meaning to it?” “How often did you feel that you have something to contribute to society?” And “How often do you feel that you belong to a community/social group?”

Hedonic wellbeing and eudaimonic wellbeing are not mutually exclusive. Some people rank high on both scales. But where there is a strong predominance of hedonic wellbeing then the gene expression is that of people suffering from chronic adversity. And where there is an eudaimonic predominance even among those who express low levels of hedonic happiness we find exactly the opposite.

Smith describes the essential difference between the two types of wellbeing as that between “giving” and “taking.” Hedonic happiness corresponds to selfish “taking” behavior. The happiness associated with meaning is associated with selfless “giving” behavior. The triggers for the former type of happiness tend to be self-centered and all about one feeling good — e.g. a good meal the victory of one’s favorite sports team. “Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow self-absorbed or even selfish life in which things go well needs and desires are easily satisfied and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided ” write Cole and Frederickson. At the other end are those activities that involve helping others and contributing to their wellbeing. Such activities do not necessarily make a person happy but they do make life meaningful.

What I find astounding is that scientific researchers discovered Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler’s basic division of the world into givers and takers. And being one of the givers it would seem is a crucial determinant of good health.

Another way of describing the distinction between hedonic wellbeing and eudaimonic wellbeing is as the difference between fun and joy. Fun is associated with particular activities. Joy on the other hand is less related to specific events. Rather it is a state of being a feeling of connectedness to Hashem one’s fellow human beings and to oneself.

A sense of meaning in one’s life may be felt more intensely while engaging in particular activities or at specific times. But the basic feeling that the world has a purpose and that one’s life has meaning within that larger purpose is more or less constant.

And that explains why the Gallup-Healthways composite picture of the happiest person inAmerica(based on 372000 interviews) concluded that he or she would be an Orthodox Jew. For who else has such a clear sense of being created for a unique mission (one that no one else who ever lived or ever will live can perform) — a mission to bring the world to its ultimate perfection.

Torah Aristocracy

Moshe (Paul) Reichmann ztz”l was one of those very few Jews in the public limelight who left every person whom he ever met Jew and gentle alike with an elevated view of Torah Jews. As was once said of the late Rabbi Moshe Sherer “He made us seem better than we actually are.”

That Mr. Reichmann (he had smichah but never used it) did so at the pinnacle of international business where the stakes are high and the parties play to win is even more remarkable. Such was their trust in Mr. Reichmann that banks often extended loans of hundreds of millions of dollars to him (and his brothers Barry and Isaac) without adequate security or before completing all the necessary paperwork.

Their word was accepted by all. And the trust others placed in them proved fully justified when their real estate companyOlympiaand York suffered a precipitous collapse. What the brothers had said they would do they did even when those promises were not legally enforceable.

The scope of Moshe Reichmann’s business and charitable activities was so wide and the indelible impression he made on all with whom he came into contact so powerful that it is impossible to think of another figure in our time who performed a Kiddush Hashem of such magnitude.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE of spending several hours with Mr. Reichmann more than a decade ago while researching my biography of Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler with whom he had enjoyed a close relationship while learning in Ponovezh yeshivah.

The truth is that Mr. Reichmann was a difficult interview. He did not like to speak about himself and indeed the first person pronoun was almost absent from his speech. He began the conversation. “Please tell me about yourself” and would not proceed until I had done so at length. He poured the tea himself and was solicitous of my every possible comfort.

In the end he did offer important insights into Rabbi Dessler’s personality and approach which he contrasted at length to that of Rav Chatzkel Levenstein who succeeded Rav Dessler as mashgiach of Ponovezh and with whom he also enjoyed a close relationship.

But what remained with me mostly was the exposure to Torah royalty. Despite being one of the most admired men in the world he was completely focused on my needs and making me feel comfortable and at ease. So great an impression did Mr. Reichmann make that on most of my recent visits toToronto I would always inquire whether he was well enough to receive visitors. Alas I had to suffice with that one precious memory.

I have only encountered that same regal dignity one other time: In the presence of the long-time Agudah MK Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz. When I was translating his Be’Mechitzasam he would never start any meeting without inquiring at length about me and my family. And at the end of each meeting he insisted on making a complete financial accounting and assuring himself that I was fully satisfied. Perhaps there was something in the shared Hungarian Jewish background of Reb Moshe Reichmann and Rabbi Lorincz that gave rise to such nobility.

The two shared one other trait. After more than three decades in the Knesset Rabbi Lorincz walked right back into the beis medrash as if he had never left. And Mr. Reichmann’s son Barry said at the shivah house that when his father retired from business about ten years ago he never again manifested the slightest interest. He simply delved deeper into his seforim and carried on with his tzedakah activities most conducted completely in private. (Even at the height of his business activities he rarely discussed business in the house and never on Shabbos.)

The widespread corporate activities had never been for him more than a shlichus from the Ribono shel Olam on behalf of Klal Yisrael. And when the shlichus was complete it held no further interest.