B'Or Ha'Torah | Judaism, science, modern life and art



B’OR HA’TORAH 9 (1995)464502523241000Yehudah (Leo) Levi was born in German y and educated in the USA. While earning his doctorate in physics at the Polytechnical Institute of Brooklyn (1964), he studied intensively with great Torah sages at the Gur Aryeh KoleL and received rabbinical ordination there. In 1970, with his wife and three sons, Levi settled in Jerusalem, where he founded the electro-optics department of the Jerusalem College of Technol? ogy. (See "Hi -Tech in a Torah Frame" in BHT SE for a description of this unique school.) From 1981 to 1988 Levi served as rector of the college.Professor Levi has published over 100 articles in scientific, technical, and Jewish? 'thought journals , two large volumes of Applied Optics (Wiley, 1968 and 1980) and A Handbook of Tables for Applied Optics (CRC, 1974), as well as many Jewish works which study the practical law combined with philosophic discussion. Among these titles are: Vistas from Mount Moriah: A Scientist Views Judaism and theWorld (Gur Aryeh , 1959); Halachic Times for Home and Travel (Rubin Mass, 1992); Torah and Science -Their Interplay in the World Scheme (Feldheim , 1983); Torah Study : A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues (Feldheim, 1990); and, with Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, a three-volume study guide in Hebrew to Seder Zraim of the Jerusalem Talmud. Mul Etgarey Ha'Tikufa, the book from which this article was taken, will be published in English translation as Judaism Faces Current Issues.Yehudah Levi has received the Feder Award for Torah and Science and the Abramowitz -Zeitlin Award for Jewish Literature. He has served as president of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists in both the USA and Israel.The Right to Private Propertyby Professor Yehud ah LeviIn the first part of this essay in B'Or Ha'Torah 8E ("Is the Torah Capitalistic or Socialistic?"), we noted that in some areas the individual cannot efficiently take care of his own needs, and must hand that task over to organized society, namely government. These areas include internal security (police and fire departments), external security (the army and intelligence services) and education of the young, all of which must be financed through taxation.The Torah's Approach to TaxationEvery community, and certainly every state, needs money for its administration; hence taxes are necessary. Taxation should be fair, and ensuring that it be so is one of society's major problems. Clearly, the form of taxation selected will largely be influenced by the country's general economic system. Socialist countries will set tax rates according to the taxpayer's means; capitalist countries, according to his benefits. In the latter system, the citizen may be taxed only ifhe will receive a fair return, or ifhe shares in causing the need for the expenditure. Today, even capitalist societies compromise on this point and approach the Torah system, as will be explained later.516255-33655000Halakha (Jewish law) deals with this pro? blem at great length. We offer below selected samples from its rich literature on the subject. In halakha we find both the approaches we have mentioned, as well as a third approach, likewise based on the capitalist principle, which fixes tax rates according to the tax? payer's share in creating the need for the ex? pense. Three representative examples of the way tax rates are determined appear together in the Bava Kama tractate of the Talmud.If a desert caravan is threatened by bandits, defense costs are distributedwealth, and the other half according to wealth.In the case of the endangered ship, only weight is taken into account, because it is the weight which generates the danger, and everyone is required to bear losses relative to his own degree of responsibility in creating the problem . Here again, the approach is strictly legal, free of any socialist considera? tions.Another interesting example of a tax im? posed according to one's share in incurring expenses relates to defense budgets. Accord?2according to the wealth each traveler ising to Mordkhay,because tall buildings arecarrying, rather than by a uniform head tax. If they hire a guide to keep them from getting lost, a head tax is also levied ... .If a ship at sea is threatened by a storm, and heavy cargo must be jetti? soned, [the sharing of losses] is assigned according to the weight of each passen?ger's goods, and not their value. 1Let us analyze the guiding principle in each case. First, in the case of the bandits, if they attack in order to rob property, and hand? ing it over would save lives, it is primarily the property and not the lives that are threatened. Thus, the benefit each person derives from being saved clearly depends on how much property he has with him, and each person's share in costs should be based on that, even according to capitalist doctrine. Here, capital? ism, which assesses according to the benefit to the taxpayer, and socialism, which mea? sures according to ability to pay, converge.When members of a caravan hire a guide to save them from the dangers of the desert, not only is their property in danger, but also their lives. Therefore, half the cost is divided by head tax, without considering individualmore visible from afar, they draw greaterattention from thieves. Therefore their owners must bear a larger portion of internal defense costs.Accordingly, the rule in Jewish law re? garding a defense tax is that wherever a threat is chiefly to property, citizens are charged according to their wealth. In the Diaspora, an additional rule has been formulated, "When? ever the gentiles impose decrees ... the tax is assessed according to personal wealth, be? cause the gentiles' chief intention is to seize money ... but if they come with intent to kill,expenses are covered by a head tax ." 3The same applies to financing a city's gen? eral needs. Survival needs are covered by a head tax; taxes to cover conveniences are collected according to wealth. The reason is that convenience is worth more to the wealthy than to the poor, who will not spend money on it as long as they lack basic needs.This halakha can be illustrated by an ac? tual case. Villagers wished to lay a pipeline to3134360-1905000Talmud, Bava Kama 116bMordkhay on Talmud, Bava Batra, chapter 1, sec? tion 475 .Rosh on Talmud, Bava Batra, chapter 1, section 22.566420-34163000bring water from a nearby town. The weal? thier villagers argued that the water was a survival need, hence all should pay equally for the pipeline. But the Tsemah Tsedek ruled otherwise. He argued that to survive, it was enough to go on foot to bring water from the well or the town. The pipeline was only a convenience, hence the tax was to be assessed according to wealth.4Among the religious services each city is required to supply to its inhabitants are a synagogue, a Torah scroll,5 and a Torah tea? cher for children.6 It is common practice to collect for the synagogue according towealth, although ostensibly all contributors benefit equally. After all, everyone has to pray in a synagogue and hear the Torah read . The considerations underlying the practice are as follows. A synagogue is a long-term investment serving the entire lives of its con? gregants. Since the rich have closer ties to their domiciles than do the poor, who tend to move more freely from place to place, the rich benefit more. Hence they are chargedaccording to their wealth. 7As for wages paid to a communal cantor, Rabbi Hai Gaon ruled that this debt is partly assessed by head tax , for everyone needs a "minimum" cantor. At the same time, the addi? tional payment a community gives to retain a cantor with a pleasant voice is in the realm ofluxury and is assessed according to wealth. 8Thus, in principle , tax collection in Jewish law is capitalist. But in practice, the taxpayer is almost always assessed according to his ability to pay, in keeping with socialist princi? ples .The Disposition of Property by the Court isValidOnly in a general, ideal sense does theTorah recognize an individual's right to his property as sacred. We have already pointed out an exception in the realm of taxation. Beyond this, however, the Torah empowered the court to enact regulations in accordance with its understanding of the needs of the times, even if they contradict Torah law. This license includes interfering with the right to private property.Here we find an explicit halakhic princi? ple, that "the disposition of property by the court is valid." 9 This empowers the court to limit or even nullify an individual's right tohis own property .Our sages used this power to strengthen religious practice, for example in giving full legal status to the marriage of a girl less thantwelve years old; 10 in nullifying the remissionof loans in the sabbatical year; 11 and in their ruling that townspeople are entitled to fix prices and wages and to enforce their own ordinances.12 This represents outright socia? list practice and hence constitutes a very eco? nomically significant deviation from capitalist principle . Such steps are not taken, however , unless dictated by immediate need, usually3148330-1333500Tsemah. Tsedek, responsum 34.5 Rosh on Talmud, Bava Batra , chapter I, section 24,based on the Tosefta of Talmud, Bava Metsia , endof page 11.6 Talmud, Bava Batra 21a; Shu/flan tJ..rukh, Yoreh Dea, 245 :4.7 Maharam of Padua , responsum 42.Cited by Bet Yosef in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 53, s. v. katuv betshuva in the name of Rabbenu Yeruham, citing Rav Hai Gaon.Talmud, Yvamot 49b. According to some authori? ties this ruling is original Torah law; cf. Rashba, re? sponsa numbers 775 and 1206, cited by Bet Yosef, Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 67: 10.Talmud, Yvamot 89b.Talmud, Gittin 36b.12 Talmud, Bava Batra Sb; also cf. Ritva, Novellaeloc . cit.485775-32067500when the ethical level of the community is on the decline. Thus, educational failures some? times warrant such ordinances; and these or? dinances should be retained only as long as the educational failures remain uncorrected.Cartels and ProfiteeringSometimes our sages did not enact a ha? lakhic prohibition but made do with censure to limit the negative influences of unbridled capitalism. Thus, for example, the rabbis lim? ited those who hoard food to sell later at excessive prices, and, in general, those who comer the market on essentials and inflateprices, by invoking the verse, "The L-rd hasWelfareOnly in one area of taxation does the com? munity levy from each according to his abil? ity in the socialist way, and that is for the charity fund every town is required to estab?lish. 18 This fund is intended to aid the towns?people in fulfilling the mitsva (Command? ment) of giving charity. Therefore, the size of each donation has to fit the extent of the donor's obligations, which depend on his means.According to the letter of Torah law, acts of charity and kindness are private mitsvot (Commandments), incumbent upon each and every individual by virtue of his beingsworn by the pride of Jacob, 'Surely I willJewish19- and perhaps even by virtue of his20never forget any of their deeds.’” 13 Ourpro-being human.However, charity funds arephets cried out against collusive cartels that oppressed the consumer, "Loose the fetters of wickedness! Undo the bands of iniquity!" 14Our sages sometimes used lenient reli? gious rulings to combat profiteering that takes advantage of religious practice. Thus Shmuel compelled merchants to lower prices by declaring defective myrtles acceptable for the ritual lulav which all Jews are com-mentioned as early as the Mishna.21 Thisshows that collection and distribution of char? ity had largely been delegated to community appointees, as the Shulhan Arukh (The Codeof Jewish Law) ruled. 22Actually, the Torah itself imposes ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the individual upon the community, i.e. municipal adminis? trations or the courts. By Torah law, no pau-mantled to have on the Sukkot festival.15 13 Talmud, Bava Batra 90b, citing' Amos 8:7. Simi?Thus also, when Rabban Gamliel saw thatmerchants had raised the price of a bird pair to twenty-five zuz, he ruled that women had to bring the commanded offering of two pi? geons or turtledoves only once after having given birth (even in cases where a woman had five births or miscarriages). The Mishna relates that the day that Rabban Gamliel is? sued this ruling, the price of bird pairsdropped to half a zuz. 16 On the strength ofthis Mishna, the Tsemah. Tsedek 17 ruled thatwhen the fishermen excessively raise their prices, eating fish on the Sabbath was to be temporarily forbidden.13 Talmud Bava Batra 90b, citing Amos 8:7. Simi-larly the institution of mi sheppara ..., a curse pro? nounced on a person reneging on a purchase after he already paid for it (Mishna, Bava Metsia 4:2).14 Isaiah 56:6.15 Talmud, Sukka 34a.Mishna, Kritot 1:7.Tsemah Tsedek responsum 28, cited by Magen Av ?raham Z42:1.Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Zraim, Mat? not Aniyim 9: 1-3.Deuteronomy 15:7-11. Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Zraim. Mattenot Aniyim 10:1 .2° Cf. Rabbenu Yona, Shaarey Tshuva III: 15 and Tor?at Avraham, page 256.Mishna, Pea 8:7.Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Dea_ 256: l.620395-33147000per can be forced to leave a city without having eaten first. We know that this was actually practiced because it is alluded to in discussions of the Torah's treatment of un? solved murders. 23, Here we find the origins of Israel's con? temporary welfare system. The social welfare program of any modern state becomes an integral part of its general tax structure. This situation requires care, since charity collec? tion is supposed to be based on the donor's means, while public welfare taxation is calcu? lated chiefly according to the benefits accru? ing to the taxpayer.In SummaryFrom our discussion it emerges that the Torah approach is built upon what could be called a capitalist apparatus animated by a spirit today labeled socialist. The Torah edu-cates a Jew in a way that enables him to benefit from the efficiency of capitalism but largely saves him from the negative symp? toms associated with it. In the realm of taxa? tion, where economic philosophy is reflected, it has been demonstrated that the Torah ap? proach is formally capitalist, while in practice taxes are assessed in a socialist way.At the same time, the Torah is sufficientlyflexible to allow individuals or groups to adopt other economic systems. Essentially, it is not the system that determines success but the spirit that sustains it. Without the true Torah spirit, any system will lead to corrup? tion .3185160-635000Mishna , Sota 9:6 and Talmud there (45b-46a), cit? ing Deuteronomy 21 :7.Mishna, Avot 5; 14. The explanation given here was inspired by Meir Tamari, In the Market Place (Jer?usalem: Targum/Feldheim, 1991).25 Ezekiel 16:48-49.The Mishna describes four attitudes toward property rights."Whoever says, 'What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours,' is average. Some say,however, this is the behavior of Sodom ." 24What, essentially, is the dispute here? "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours" defines capitalism, and it is this the sages of the Mishna seem to be arguing over. Yet, in light of our conclusion, there is probably no disagreement at all. The first sage refers to one who opts only for the capitalist apparatus, shunning its spirit. The second comment, however, refers to one who chooses capitalism, including its spirit. In other words, the first sage refers to one who insists on his monetary rights, yet recognizes the duties linked to those rights. The second refers to one who insists on his rights but does not recognize his duties vis-a-vis others . "Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; she and her daughters had pride and surfeitof bread ... yet she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." 25The Mishna continues, "What's mine is yours, and what's yours is mine - this is the ignoramus." In denying his own right and th t of others to ownership, this person misunder? stands the will of G-d Who awards us property to expand our personalities so that we can better devote ourselves to serving Him. By arbitrarily nullifying this right, he is shirking the task assigned to him.On the other hand, "Whoever says, 'What's mine is yours, and what's yours is yours,'" notinsisting on his rights all the way, but consecrating what he has acquired to others and simultaneously honoring their rights, is a saint. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download