The Challenge of Wealth
By Dr. Meir Tamari
SHOFTIM- Week of 26th, Menachem Av- 1st Elul,5763.
As result of the economic distortions and a certain loss of individual
freedom, government intervention in the marketplace and public sector
regulation throughout the world, have given way to a more open economy and
a freer market, together with the search for greater efficiency. However,
the results give rise to moral and ethical questions regarding the degree
of social justice and economic welfare in all societies. These questions
cannot and should not be considered only from an economic viewpoint but
also from the religious, cultural, social and historical perspectives of
each society. This paper submits a possible Jewish perspective on the role
of the government in the economy; based on source material that includes
law, homiletical literature, and communal legislation that mirrors the
experience of some 2000 years. They include both considerations of welfare
and also of justice in the marketplace.
THE IDEOLIGICAL ROOTS OF THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.
Jewish social justice and economic responsibility can only be understood in
the light of the important role that society plays in Judaism. This makes
them normative in contrast with the relativity of humanism and legislative
and obligatory in contrast to the individualistic emphasis of Christianity
and to a lesser degree Islam. In contrast to the idea of the individual
salvation of these other monotheistic faiths and the mystical concept of a
multinational Christendom or of a Moslem Umma, Judaism is a single nation
religion. It is between that nation, the House of Israel, and God that the
covenant at Sinai was made and not with its founder or with the individual
followers of a religion. The legislated and spiritual Jewish economic
morality obligates the national entity to intervene both in the economic
activity between individuals and individuals, as well as between the
individual and society.
This communal nature of Judaism is also different from the social contract
between men and their government envisaged by Hobbes, which so influenced
much of Protestant thought. There, the idea is that men should give up
their sovereign powers out of self-interest. It was only by the governor
possessing more power than each individual that he would have the ability
to protect him or her. Here the unity is phrased in egocentric and
utilitarian terms. Since the only reason for the social contract was the
benefit that the individual received, the major motivation remained the
ego, seen in utilitarian terms (T. Hobbes, Leviathan).
The Jewish communal concept, however, is neither utilitarian nor ego
centered. Judaism is not a religion but rather a nation (S. R. Hirsch,
Exodus, 19:6). The Torah was given in order to create a Kingdom of Priests,
a Holy Nation, through which worship and knowledge of the Lord could be
translated into the reality of the everyday world. Sanctity is achieved not
by contracting out some of one’s rights to others, but by doing or sharing
with others, irrespective of the utility or reciprocity.
This is show by the saying of the Rabbis that “he who does not do his
fellow a favor, is not of the sons of Abraham.” At the same time, bearing
in mind that good intentions alone tend to remain just that, the same
Rabbis taught that “we force one to act contrary to the selfishness of
Sodom ”. “He who acts because he is commanded is more commendable than he
who acts without being commanded ” (Talmud, Kiddushin, 31a). This is
because that latter is obeying his own intelligence and biases rather than
the Divine Will, which transcends his relative or self-determined morality.
So that charity, both by individuals and by the State is coerced, by
non-voluntary taxation in all its forms.
Judaism, considering the pervasiveness of the moral issued flowing from the
economic tension between individual and group, places them in a fundamental
role in the scheme of religious living, as may be seen from the rabbinic
understanding of the biblical verse in Exodus “and will do that which is
right in His eyes, and will hearken to His commandments and observe all His
statues” (Exodus 15:26). “That which is right in His eyes” refers to the
business dealings of people. This is to teach us that one who deals
honestly in his business affairs and enjoys moral relationships with people
is regarded as having observed the whole Torah (Torah Temimah, Exodus, 15:26).
This Torah aims at making the Jew kadosh holy, as distinct from
tahor purel. Tahor refers to one who has had no contact with impure things
or has undergone a ritual of purification. Holiness, however, is the
transformation of ordinary and material human actions into the elevated and
“How is it possible for frail human flesh and blood to become holy, which
is a Divine state? The biblical verse (Leviticus 19:1-2) “And the Lord
spoke to Moses, saying: Speak unto all the congregation of the Children of
Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am
holy, is couched in the plural. Here we learn that the individuals cannot
achieve holiness through their own efforts alone, this becomes possible
only through integration with the congregation of the Children of Israel.
Through any removal or distance from the community they lose their holiness
(Shem Mi Shmuel, Mishpatim). The spiritual influence creating holiness
flows from the community to the individual and vice versa, so that economic
immorality of either of them diminishes or destroys the holiness.
Many of the mitzvoth given to the Jews come to educate and to intensify the
spiritual dimension of the economic actions of the individual and the
community, primarily, by stressing the social responsibility that comes
with wealth. Perhaps the best example is that of the Yovel, the Jubilee
year. In this year all land had to be returned to its original owner, in
effect substituting lease-holding for actual permanent sale. Many social
thinkers and biblical scholars have seen Yovel as a Mosaic means of
reducing social tensions between rich and poor, redistributing land every
fifty years (Robert North, Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee, Rome, 1954.).
There seems, however, to be in Jewish thought another educational aspect
beyond this. The Sefer HaChinukh sees Yovel as an institution that comes
to counteract economic injustice, through the molding of people’s character.
“The Deity, blessed be He, wished to teach His people that all wealth
belongs to Him and that ultimately all would be transferred (from the
present owners) to those to whom He had wished to give it in the first
place. This mitzvah (Yovel) by requiring the national counting of the years
(in the Yovel cycle, thus permeating the communal and individual conceptual
framework), will prevent people from coveting their neighbor’s land and
from stealing it ” (Mitzvah430).
Rabbi Avraham HaKohen Kook (the first chief rabbi of Israel) understood the
Yovel as the release of communal spirituality, which is able to remedy the
moral faults and shortcomings that have led to the inequalities and
inequities in the marketplace.
“The individual recovers from the influence of the material the mundane at
regular frequent intervals every Shabbat day. What the Shabbat achieves for
the individual (breaking the influence of man’s involvement with his
material possession), the Yovel achieves for the society as a whole. This
temporary, periodical suspension of the normal economic routine raises the
Nation spiritually and morally . … a year of peace and quiet without
oppressor or tyrant. There is no private property and no privilege and the
peace of God reigns. Sanctity is now not profaned by the search for the
private accumulation of all the year’s produce, while the covetousness of
the wealth stirred by business, is now forgotten” (Shabbat Haaretz).
Both of these views of the Yovel year represent Judaism’s attitude that
business immorality and social irresponsibility are first and foremost
communal ideological problems, so that any legal framework concerned with
restraining or preventing them, have to be accompanied by a spiritual
dimension. Concentrating on the material damage done to others, important
and necessary as this is, is not sufficient to prevent injustice. Unless
people are aware of the spiritual damage involved and are sensitized to the
unacceptability of economic immorality and injustice, legislation can
achieve only minimal results. In the long term, such legislation will
usually crumble before the widespread acceptance of unethical behavior,
corruption, leading to what the Rabbis called naval bireshut dfHaTorah
dishonesty within the parameters of the Law.
The important role played by the economic rights and obligations of the
community is not restricted to Jews. Just as there exists a covenant
between Israel and God, so there exists an additional covenant between God
and man. This differs in extent and in depth from that of the Israel-God
covenant, with greater scope for human legislation and input. Nevertheless,
being created in God’s image, all men constitute a brotherhood, with mutual
spiritual obligations, promulgated by the Creator as ethical guidelines in
all spheres of life. In the covenant made first between God and Adam, and
later with Noah and his sons, the Seven Noachide laws were made obligatory
on all Mankind. These Noachide laws are concerned with idolatry, cursing
the Lord, murder, sexual immorality, robbery, the eating of living-animal
flesh, and the establishment of a judicial system (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot
Melakhim, chapter 9, halakhah1).
The Chatam Sofer (Hungary, nineteenth century) remarks, “Both Nacmanides
(Spain and Eretz Yisrael, thirteenth century) and Maimonides (Egypt,
twelfth century) agree that the Noachide laws include all those applicable
to the Jews regarding monetary matters ” (Teshuvot Chatam Sofer, part 2,
section 14). “ All peoples are obligated under the injunction to appoint
judges, to observe the laws of the Torah regarding onaah (price
oppression), removing a neighbor’s landmark (infringing property rights)
bailees, theft, oppression, protecting wages, causing damage to property,
person, health or environment, buying and selling, and those regulating
money lending and borrowing” (Ramban, Genesis, 34:13). This obligation
would logically seem to apply to proving for the stranger, the needy, the
weak, and the inefficient members of society, since this is one of the
purposes of the divinely provided wealth. Indeed, many rabbinic authorities
ruled that Noachides are also obligated to give charity as part of the
requirement to establish an equitable judiciary. It was the failure of the
people of Sodom to do just that led to their destruction (Genesis 19:24-26.
14), while the destruction of the men of Shechem was required, since they
had witnessed the rape of Dinah (Genesis, chapter 34) and had done nothing
to punish the perpetrator.
Copyright © 2002 by Rabbi Meir Tamari and Project Genesis, Inc.
Dr. Tamari is a renowned economist, Jewish scholar, and founder of the Center For Business Ethics (www.besr.org) in Jerusalem.