Number Seven from Pillar B: Ethics) Social Justice. Judaism seeks the attainment of a just society by the application of its teachings to the economic order, to industry and commerce, and to national and international affairs. It aims at the elimination of man-made misery and suffering, of poverty and degradation, of tyranny and slavery, of social inequality and prejudice, of ill-will and strife. It advocates the promotion of harmonious relations between warring classes on the basis of equity and justice, and the creation of conditions under which human personality may flourish. It pleads for the safeguarding of childhood against exploitation. It champions the cause of all who work and of their right to an adequate standard of living, as prior to the rights of property. Judaism emphasizes the duty of charity, and strives for a social order which will protect men against the material disabilities of old age, sickness and unemployment.
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| For this reason, man was created alone in the world. This teaches us that a person who eliminates one human life from the world is considered as if he eliminated an entire world and a person who saves one human life is considered as if she saved an entire world. [AJWS translation] |
לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי בעולם ללמד שכל המאבד נפש אחת מן העולם מעלין עליו כאילו איבד עולם מלא וכל המקיים נפש אחת בעולם מעלין עליו כאילו קיים עולם מלא.
|
1. What does it mean to save an entire world? Whose world?
2. What are the implications of this text on issues of discrimination?
1. Why is this obligation necessary?
2. How do we determine the limit of "fulfilling all of their needs" without making them wealthy?
The authors of the Shulchan Aruch, paragraph 5 wrote that if the poor of the city are many, the rich say that they should beg door-to-door, and the middle class say that they should not beg door-to-door. Rather, their sustenance should be incumbent upon the public according to their wealth. The law agrees with the middle class, because the essence of the obligation of tzedakah is according to one’s wealth. There are places where the custom is to give voluntarily and others where there is a tax and the giving is done according to the giver’s wishes. One who gives according to how they were blessed, it is suitable that they will be further blessed - until here are the Shulchan Aruch’s words. This is all from a responsum of Rashba (chapter 280), and he goes on to say in this vein that the strict law is according to the words of the middle class, etc. Rather, this generation is impoverished, and there is no wealthy, neither in pocket nor in knowledge. In any case, every place must sustain the poor according to the public tzedakah fund and according to the wealth of the community in general. If afterward they beg door-to-door, let them, and each person should give according to their opinion and will, etc - until here are the words of the Rashba. [Translation by Rabbi Bruce Elder. Edited for gender neutrality]
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| Whenever a person can save another person’s life but fails to do so, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Leviticus 19:16 states: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” Similarly, [this commandment applies] when a person sees a colleague drowning at sea or being attacked by robbers or a wild animal, and he can save him himself or can hire others to save him and does not. Similarly, [it applies] when he hears [others] conspiring to harm a colleague or planning a snare for him, and he does not inform him and notify him [of the danger]. And similarly this is true if he knows of others scheming to harm a friend and can appease the conspirator and prevent him from carrying out the plot and does not, and all things in this vein, the one who does these things transgresses the commandment of "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." [AJWS translation] |
כל היכול להציל ולא הציל עובר על (ויקרא י"ט ,ט"ז) לא תעמוד על דם רעך, וכן הרואה את חבירו טובע בים או ליסטים באים עליו או חיה רעה באה עליו ויכול להצילו הוא בעצמו או שישכור אחרים להצילו ולא הציל, או ששמע גוים או מוסרים מחשבים עליו רעה או טומנין לו פח ולא גלה אוזן חבירו והודיעו, או שידע בגוי או באנס שהוא קובל על חבירו ויכול לפייסו בגלל חבירו ולהסיר מה שבלבו ולא פייסו, וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו, העושה אותם עובר על לא תעמוד על דם רעך.
|
1. According to this text, one can hire others to save someone. In our contemporary context, who can we hire to save the thousands of lives lost daily?
2. We know that it is common practice for corporations to undermine labor and health regulations. How can we help those being hurt? How can we stop these practices from happening?
בְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ לִקְצֹר וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט: וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the corners of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am Adonai your God. [JPS translation]
1. How is the system of leaving the corners and the gleanings and the fallen food for the poor different than donating food?
2. What practices or values from these laws could we integrate into our modern lives and societies?
Of course, it should be understood within the context of this matter that the Torah does not command a person to give everything they have to the poor so that that person becomes poor because “its [the Torah] ways are the ways of pleasantness.” Truthfully, when Israel was in their land and their situation was good and there were only a few poor people, they were able to fulfill “according to [the poor person’s] needs, etc.” However, when we were exiled from our land and the poor increased and the rich diminished, even if the rich divided up all their wealth it was not enough to satisfy all the poor according to their needs. Therefore, the sages decreed a tenth and a fifth [of your property to be given to tzedakah], and not more, because of the necessity of making a boundary [of giving], and Rabba said in Taanit (20b): “All these things I could myself carry out except the last one..and I could not say ‘all who need come and eat’.because there are so many [poor people] in Mahuza.” There are many poor people there, and his estate would be consumed. [Translation by Rabbi Bruce Elder. Edited for gender neutrality]
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| A person is obligated to show great care for orphans and widows because their spirits are very low and their feelings are depressed. This applies even if they are wealthy. We are commanded to [show this attention] even to a king's widow and his orphans as [implied by Exodus 22:21]: "Do not mistreat any widow or orphan." How should one deal with them? One should only speak to them gently and treat them only with honor. One should not cause pain to their persons with [overbearing] work or aggravate their feelings with harsh words and [one should] show more consideration for their financial interests than for one's own. [Translation by R. Eliyahu Touger] |
חייב אדם להזהר ביתומים ואלמנות מפני שנפשן שפלה למאד ורוחם נמוכה אע"פ שהן בעלי ממון * אפילו אלמנתו של מלך ויתומיו מוזהרים אנו עליהן שנאמר כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, והיאך נוהגין עמהן, לא ידבר אליהם אלא רכות, ולא ינהוג בהן אלא מנהג כבוד, ולא יכאיב גופם בעבודה ולבם בדברים קשים, ויחוס על ממונם יותר מממון עצמו
|
1. How are we obligated to care for the orphan and widow? Why?
2. Whom in society do the orphan and widow represent? Do we treat them the way that the Rambam commands us to?
1. According to this text, what is the best way to help a poor person? Why might this be the best way to help?
2. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
The practices and theories of Jewish philanthropy that evolved in the second century C.E. anticipated many of the most advanced concepts of modern social work. Every Jewish community had four basic funds. The first was called the kuppah (“box”) and served only the local poor. The indigent were given funds to supply their needs for an entire week. The second fund was called tamchui (“bowl”) and consisted of a daily distribution of food to both itinerants and residents. The funds’ administrators, selected from among the leaders of the community, were expected to be persons of the highest integrity. The kuppah was administered by three trustees who acted as a beit din (“court”). They determined the merit of applications and the amounts to be given. The fund was always operated under the strictest regulations. To avoid suspicion, collections were always made by two or three persons. They were authorized to tax all members of the community, including tzedakah recipients, according to their capacity to pay—testimony to the principle that no individual was free from responsibility for the welfare of all. If necessary, they seized property until the assessed amount was paid. In most countries, clothing funds, burial funds, and schools to which everybody in the community could go — rich and poor alike — were also found
והחזקת בו - אל תניחהו שירד ויפול ויהיה קשה להקימו, אלא חזקהו משעת מוטת היד. למה זה דומה, למשאוי שעל החמור, עודהו על החמור אחד תופס בו ומעמידו, נפל לארץ, חמשה אין מעמידין אותו:
1. In today's world there are millions of people who are slipping and millions more who have already fallen completely. Knowing this, how can we still utilize the wisdom of this text?
2. How does this text impact how we might think about foreign aid?
1. Do you think that there is a difference between the mitzvah of leaving the corners of your field unharvested and the mitzvah of not returning to pick up what was left or forgotten? If so, what is the difference?
2. According to these verses, how much of any harvest belongs to the “owner?” Why? What does this tell us about who really “owns” the land? the trees? the labor? the produce?
3. What is the value of having the needy come to harvest their own portion?
4. We do not live in an agricultural society today. Do you think this text has contemporary relevance? How might we apply this sense of mandatory sharing of our earnings to the world we live in?
All of the mitzvot concerning the rights of the poor enable us to cultivate generosity and compassion, as well as the trait of abstinence. These are the mitzvot of leaving over the corner of the field, the fallen grapes and incompletely formed clusters, and forgotten produce; giving a tithe to the poor, charity, loans, gifts for the priests, and a tithe to the Levites; being generous toward the Levites and the converts - which is said repeatedly; giving gifts to a Jewish indentured servant upon their release; and keeping the laws of the seventh year regarding produce and loans, as well as the laws of the fiftieth year. (pg 57) [Translation by R. Yaakov Wincelberg, edited for gender neutrality. Translated from Judeo-Arabic]
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| Our sages commanded us to visit the non-Jewish sick and to bury the non-Jewish dead along with the Jewish dead, and support the non-Jewish poor along with the Jewish poor for the sake of peace. As it says, “God is good to all and God’s mercies extend over all God’s works” (Psalms 145:9), and “[The Torah’s] ways are pleasant and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). [AJWS translation] |
אפילו העכו"ם צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם, ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל, ולפרנס ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל, מפני דרכי שלום. הרי נאמר טוב ה' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו, ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום.
|
1. What does it mean to do something for the sake of peace? What are other reasons are there to do things?
2. Why might we assume that we would not be obligated to help the non-Jewish poor and sick? What does this tell us about the nature of community?
עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפַּט יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה וְאֹהֵב גֵּר לָתֶת לוֹ לֶחֶם וְשִׂמְלָה: וַאֲהַבְתֶּם אֶת הַגֵּר כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
1. In what ways does this text suggest that we mimic God?
2. What is God's responsibility to us and what is our responsibility to others? What are the different sources of these responsibilities?
3. This text reminds the reader of Israelite slavery. In what ways is a history of slavery connected to doing justice and loving the stranger?
Do not think that you are giving to the poor from your own possession, or that I despised the poor person by not giving them as I gave you. For they are my children, as you are, and their share is in your grain; it is to your benefit to give them their share from your property. This is the meaning of the use of the plural form – “And when you [pl.] reap” – in the beginning of the verse, and the use of the singular – “You [s.] shall not wholly reap afterward.” At the beginning the Torah uses the plural to designate the common ownership of the field by the owner, the poor, and the stranger, for in truth, they share in it. Additionally, the owner usually hires poor people and strangers to harvest the field, so the use of the plural form of “reap” refers to the owner and the reapers. Afterward – do not wholly reap but leave the corner – is addressed to the owner themselves. [AJWS translation]
1) What does this text teach us about our obligation to provide for those in need?
2) What social justice themes emerge from this text?
3) What do you do when you feel you are being asked for more than you can give?
1. What are the people being accused of in this text? What are the connections between the various accusations?
2. How are the dynamics between rich and poor portrayed here?
3. In what ways do the punishments listed here match the crimes that brought them?
The two key terms are Tzedakah (tzedek- justice) and mishpat (judgement). The word mishpat means the judgment given by the shofet (judge); hence the word can mean justice, norm, ordinance, legal right, law. The word tzedakah may be rendered by "righteousness." While legality and righteousness are not identical, they must always coincide, the second being reflected in the first. It is exceedingly difficult to establish the exact difference in meaning of the biblical terms mishpat, justice, and tzedakah, righteousness (which in parallelism are often used as variants). However, it seems that justice is a mode of action, righteousness a quality of the person. Significantly,the noun derived from shafat (to judge) is shofet, which came to mean a judge or arbitrator; while the noun from tsadak (to be just) is tsaddik, a righteous man. Righteousness goes beyond justice. Justice is strict and exact, giving each person his due. Righteousness implies benevolence, kindness, generosity. Justice is a form, a state of equilibrium; righteousness has a substantive associated meaning. Justice may be legal; righteousness is associated with a burning compassion for the oppressed. When you extend a loan to a poor man, "you shall not sleep in his pledge; when the sun goes down, you shall restore to him the pledge, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you before the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 24:10-13). It would be wrongto assume that there was a dichotomy of mishpat and kindess; "Justice was not equal justice but a bias in favor of the poor. Justice always leaned toward mercy for the widows and the orphans."
1. What does it mean that your fellow's means fail with you?
2. Why does the law specify whether a stranger or a settler?
3. How would this law read if it were on a national scale, rather than a personal directive?
1. To whom do these rules apply?
2. What assumptions are made about the various players in the text?
3. Why is it so crucial that the worker is paid each day?
3. How does the poor person's crying cause a sin upon the employer? If the poor person does not cry out is the employer free of sin?
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in the introductory paragraph in chapter 248 wrote that every person is obligated to give, even the poor, etc., and that whoever gives less than what is suitable for them to give, the court can force and even punish that person for their disobedience until they give what the court has assessed them to give. The court can go into that person’s possessions in their presence and take what is suitable for that person to give - until there are the Tur and Shulchan Aruch’s words. There are those who wrote that this does not refer to a poor person....This teaches us that the tzedakah the poor gives should be accepted. Lest you erroneously think that after the poor person gives a third of a shekel no more can be accepted, this teaches us that his is not so. It also says that a poor person cannot be obligated to give because they are exempt from the commandment of tzedakah every year after they have given their obligatory third of a shekel...[Translation by Rabbi Bruce Elder. Edited for gender neutrality]
1. Is this an inclusive list of what is just and right?
2. What do all of the situations listed have in common? Who would we be commanded to protect in today's society?
1. What is Rav's answer to Raba bar bar Hanan's first question of whether he was legally bound to return their clothes? What is his answer to the second question of whether Raba bar bar Hanan was legally bound to pay the workers their wages? How are these two answers different?
2. Why is Raba bar bar Hanan obligated to return the workers' clothes and give them their wages, in spite of the fact that they damaged his property? What does this teach us about how we should relate to poverty? Would Rav have provided the same answer if the workers had not been impoverished?
1. Why would your initial reaction be to refrain from helping your enemy's donkey?
2. Why are we commanded to fight that reaction and help?
3. Why does the text emphasize that you must help raise the donkey specifically with your enemy (as opposed to doing it alone)?
1) How do you think God might ‘bless people in their work’ for giving to the poor?
2) Traditional Jews believe that all texts appear in the bible for a reason. If so, why are we told, “there will never cease to be needy ones in your land?”
3) Do you believe that we can ever satisfy all human needs? If not, then why do we continue to try?