Part I: Pre-Capitalism in Rabbinic Judaism
(א) לפני אידיהן של גוים שלשה ימים אסור לשאת ולתת עמהן, להשאילן ולשאול מהן, להלוותן וללוות מהן, לפרען ולפרע מהן. רבי יהודה אומר: נפרעין מהן מפני שהוא מצר לו. אמרו לו: אף על פי שמצר הוא עכשיו, שמח הוא לאחר זמן.
(1) During the three days preceding the festivals of the non-Jews, it is forbidden to do business with them, to lend them something or to borrow something from them, to lend [money] to them or to borrow [money] from them, to resolve your debt to them or to have them resolve their debt to you. Rabbi Yehuda says: One can have them resolve their debt since it causes him distress. They [the Sages] said to him: even though he might be in distress at the outset, eventually he will be joyful.
: להשאילן ולשאול מהן כו': בשלמא להשאילן דקא מרווח להו אבל לשאול מהן מעוטי קא ממעט להו אמר אביי גזרה לשאול מהן אטו להשאילן רבא אמר כולה משום דאזיל ומודה הוא: להלוותם וללוות מהן: בשלמא להלוותם משום דקא מרווח להו אלא ללוות מהן אמאי אמר אביי גזרה ללוות מהן אטו להלוותם רבא אמר כולה משום דאזיל ומודה הוא: לפורען ולפרוע מהן כו': בשלמא לפורען משום דקא מרווח להו אלא לפרוע מהן מעוטי ממעט להו אמר אביי גזירה לפרוע מהן אטו לפורען רבא אמר כולה משום דאזיל ומודה הוא וצריכי דאי תנא לשאת ולתת עמהן משום דקא מרווח להו ואזיל ומודה אבל לשאול מהן דמעוטי קא ממעט להו שפיר דמי ואי תנא לשאול מהן משום דחשיבא ליה מילתא ואזיל ומודה אבל ללוות מהן צערא בעלמא אית ליה אמר תוב לא הדרי זוזי ואי תנא ללוות מהן משום דקאמר בעל כרחיה מיפרענא והשתא מיהא אזיל ומודה אבל ליפרע מהן דתו לא הדרי זוזי אימא צערא אית ליה ולא אזיל ומודה צריכא
"To lend them something or borrow something from them." I understand why there is a prohibition against lending since that causes them gain, but to borrow from them diminishes what they have?! Abaye says, indeed, it is a rabbinic decree against borrowing lest one comes to lend. Rava says it is all because of preventing the idol worshipper from being so grateful that he will thank his god. "To lend them money or to borrow money from them." I understand why one cannot lend them money since it causes them gain, but why should there be a prohibition against borrowing money from them? Abaye says it is a decree against borrowing lest one come to lend. Rava says all of them are to prevent him from going and thanking his god. "To pay a debt or to collect payment for a debt." I understand one cannot pay a debt since it causes them gain but collecting a debt limits their possessions. Abaye says it is a decree against collecting a debt lest one come to pay a debt. Rava says all of it is to prevent their going to thank their god. And all these cases are needed. For if the Mishnah had only taught the case of buying and selling with them, I might think that prohibition was because the idolator was gaining or would thank his god, but to borrow something from him when one limits what he has would be fine. And if only the case of borrowing were taught I would think that is since lending something is a sign of importance, but borrowing money from them is mere distress. As he hands over the money he thinks, "I will never see that money again." And if it had only taught the case of borrowing money from them I would think that is because the lender can force collection, and therefore he will thank his god, but when collecting money from him he knows that he will never see that money again and so it is only distress and he will not thank his god. And so all the cases are needed.
(ג) האונאה ארבע כסף מעשרים וארבע כסף לסלע, שתות למקח. עד מתי מתר להחזיר. עד כדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו. הורה רבי טרפון בלוד, האונאה שמונה כסף לסלע, שליש למקח, ושמחו תגרי לוד. אמר להם, כל היום מתר להחזיר. אמרו לו, יניח לנו ר׳ טרפון במקומנו, וחזרו לדברי חכמים.
(ד) אחד הלוקח ואחד המוכר, יש להן אונאה. כשם שאונאה להדיוט, כך אונאה לתגר. רבי יהודה אומר, אין אונאה לתגר. מי שהטל עליו, ידו על העליונה, רצה, אומר לו, תן לי מעותי, או תן לי מה שאוניתני.
(ה) כמה תהא הסלע חסרה, ולא יהא בה אונאה. רבי מאיר אומר, ארבעה אסרין, אסר לדינר. רבי יהודה אומר, ארבעה פנדיונות, פנדיון לדינר. רבי שמעון אומר, שמונה פנדיונות, שני פנדיונות לדינר.
(3) Fraud is [at least] four silver from twenty four silver [which constitute a] sela, [equaling] one-sixth of the sale price. Until when is it permitted to retract? Up to the time it takes to show it to a merchant or to one's relative. Rabbi Tarfon taught in Lod: Fraud is eight silver per sela, [which is] one-third of the sale price, and the merchants of Lod were happy. He said to them, "It is permitted to retract the entire day." They said to him, "Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us in our place," and they resorted to the words of the Sages.
(4) Both the purchaser and the seller have [the capacity to claim] fraud. Just as fraud applies to an ordinary person, so too fraud applies to a merchant. R. Yehudah says: Fraud does not apply to a merchant. The one who was defrauded - he has the upper hand. If he wants, he may say to him, "Give me my money," or "Give me the amount you defrauded me."
(5) How much can the sela lack [in weight] and it not be considered fraud? R. Meir says: Four issarin [at] one issar per dinar. R. Yehudah says: Four pundionot, [at] one pundion per dinar. R. Shimon says: Eight pundionot, [at] two pundionot per dinar.
Part II: Rabbinic Sodomy
(י) אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בָּאָדָם. הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ, זוֹ מִדָּה בֵינוֹנִית. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, זוֹ מִדַּת סְדוֹם. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי, עַם הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ, חָסִיד. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי, רָשָׁע:
(10) There are four temperaments among men: the one who says "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" -- that's an [average] temperament. And there are some who say that is the temperament of Sodom. One says, "what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" -- [that's an] am ha'arets (uneducated person). A third says "what is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" -- [that's a] pious person. [A final type is one who says] "what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine" -- [that's a] wicked person.
Part III: The Sacred Rebellion
Timeline of Socialist Religious Zionis
ShaHaL (Shmuel Hayim Landau) 1892 - 1928
Rabbi Yeshayahu Shapiro (Admor Halutz) 1891-1945
Shlomo Zalman Shragai 1899-1995
Moshe Unna 1903-1988
Yoske Ahituv 1933-2012
1922: Mizrachi Workers Party (HaPoel HaMizrachi)
1924: Leftist faction of Mizrachi Workers Party joins Histadrut
1927: Mizrachi Workers Party rejoins Mizrachi but remains part of Histadrut
1935: Founding of Religious Kibbutz Movement (HaKibbutz HaDati)
Nahum Syrkin, “The Jewish Problem and the Socialist-Jewish State”
Because the Jews are placed in an unusual situation, that they are forced to find a homeland and establish a state, they therefore have been presented with the opportunity to be the first to realize the socialist vision...what is utopian in other contexts is a necessity for the Jews...Israel is to be compared to a sleeping giant, arising from the slough of despair and darkness and straightening up to his infinite heights. His face is rimmed by rays of glory of the pain of the world which he has suffered on his own body. He knows his task, to do justice and proclaim truth. His tragic history has resulted in a high mission. He will redeem the world which crucified him. Israel will once again become the chosen of the peoples.
Shmuel Hayim Landau
The Histadrut has set for itself, along with building The Land, socialist goals, revolution, and class warfare, as among its most important principles. Not so the Ha-Po’el Ha-Mizrahi, which announced from its earliest days, that its agenda was not class warfare. Our agenda is to build The Land without revolution and without a socialist Shulhan Arukh.
The goal of Ha-Po’el Ha-Mizrahi is different from the goal of a secular Zionist worker. The secular worker comes to improve his lot in Eretz Yisra’el through class warfare, based in a type of Socialism that sees only materialist laws in creation which cause perpetual struggle between one class and another - and each class rallies for its own justice. On the other hand, Ha-Po’el Ha-Mizrahi fights for the building of The Land on the basis of social justice of the Torah.
The desire to make “Avodah” a basic premise of the renaissance is actually an organic expression of the essence of the movement of national rebirth—this is the new word of the labor movement in Eretz Yisra’el. Labor is important not for economic reasons, or even for the sake of social morality and righteousness (lofty though these values be), but for the sake of the renaissance. All the rest is commentary on this basic idea, that “Avodah” is identical with the national renaissance. . . . Torah cannot be reborn without labor, and labor, as a creative nation-building force, cannot be reborn without Torah—Torah which is the essence of the renaissance. This is the whole of our ideology
Rabbi Yeshayah Shapiro
When Nathan the prophet told King David about the rich man that stole the sheep of the poor man, the matter touched his heart to such a great extent that he declared a death sentence upon the rich man. Can one even imagine anyone today who would declare a death sentence on one who steals the sheep of a poor man? Of course we know full well the seriousness of the prohibitions against stealing, tormenting (ona’ah), spreading gossip, slander, baseless hatred, or embarrassing another in public. However violating these prohibitions no longer arouses within us the same agitation as is caused by the violation of other prohibitions such as eating forbidden foods. . . . A man who holds on to the wages of his employee or who spreads gossip is indeed considered to be not quite right—but he will not be considered as one who is secular and irreligious even though these prohibitions are not at all lighter than others. This situation is the outcome of the long exile.
Moshe Unna: “The Prophetic Destiny and Religious Socialism"
The slogan “prophetic destiny” asks of us to set up the social vision of the prophets in our day through our own actions. It comes to emphasize the social question through the approach of religious Judaism and to mark the way for traditional Judaism to solve it. It is not a scientific socialism based upon cold logic and research, rather a socialism based upon relationships between people and religious traditions. Not class warfare but clarifying obligations. . . . In contrast, “religious socialism” is a progressive modern scientific approach. . . . This is its approach to solving problems. Just as we use modern statistics to solve technical problems that arise... just as we use geological research to improve crops...without accepting materialist ideas that are brought by the developments of these sciences, so to it is upon us to conduct ourselves regarding the various questions of society.
יוסקה אחיטוב
ר' יעקב עמדן, בן המאה השמונה עשרה, הרחיק לכת ביותר וראה במשנה זו לא רק הסתייגות מקידוש הקניין הפרטי, אלא אף המלצה לכלכלה שיתופית, וזו לשונו:
״שבחו חז"ל השיתוף בממון... שבלי ספק היה דבר מועיל מאד בתיקון קיבוץ המדיני, אם היה כיס אחד לכולם. כי אז בטלה קנאה ושנאה מבני אדם. ולכן היו נמצאים בדורות קדמונים כתות פרושים בישראל שכל נכסיהם היו בשותפות, אין לאחד זכות בשום קניין מהקניינים לעצמו יותר מחבריו, אלא כולם ניזונים
מן האמצע.״
אם אל המשנה באבות ניתן להתייחס כהצהרת עמדה מוסרית גרידא, הרי לא כך המצב בתלמוד ובספרות ההלכתית הענפה. אנו מוצאים כי מידת סדום זו הנחשבת כשלילית נדונה בהרחבה רבה בכמה מקומות אצל פוסקי ההלכה וביניהם גם הרמב"ם. הדיונים סובבים סביב השאלה אימתי "כופין על מידת סדום", דהיינו אימתי בית הדין רשאי לשלול את זכות הבעלות המוחלטת מבעל הנכס, המסרב לאפשר לזולת ליהנות מנכסיו למרות שהוא עצמו אינו ניזוק בכך. בלשון ההלכה המדובר במקרה של "זה נהנה וזה לא חסר". אף שלא ניתן לעשות בפשטות טרנספורמציה לתנאי הכלכלה של ימינו, אפשר בכל זאת לנסח משפט זהיר ולטעון כי הבעלות על הנכס אינה מקנה לבעלים בכל מקרה חירות למנוע מהזולת ליהנות מהנכס. ואולי ניתן לומר יותר מכך, שהנכסים נועדו לשימושו של הבעלים ולא לשם שליטה בזולת.
הרב אהרן ליכטנשטיין דן לפני כמה עשרות שנים בסוגיית "כופין על מידת סדום", והסיק ממנה מסקנות
:כלליות החורגות מעבר לשאלה הספציפית שנידונה בגמרא. בין השאר העלה את המסקנה השקולה הבאה
האמת הפשוטה ניתנה להיאמר: הכפייה על מידת סדום נוגדת לחלוטין את האידיאה הרווחת שהאדם הוא השליט העליון על רכושו... זיקת האישיות לבעלות ... עלולה להידחות לנוכח גורמים מוסריים שונים –וטובת הזולת ביניהם.
Yoske Ahituv Amudim 5:711 (from the Journal of HaKibbutz HaDati)
R. Yaakov Emden, of the 17th century, was quite extreme in his interpretation of this Mishnah as not only a rejection of the sanctification of private property but as a recommendation for collective ownership. This is his language:
Hazal praised collective ownership of property...without doubt it would be something very effective for improving the collective government if there was a common fund for all. For then there would be no more jealousy or hatred among people. Therefore, in early generations there were sects of ascetics among Jews who shared all of their possessions and not one of them had any right to private property more than his comrade, rather they all ate from the common property.
If the Mishnah can be understood as a mere expression of an ethical stance, the Talmud cannot be understood that way, nor the broad Halakhic literature. We find that "Sodomite" characteristics is considered something very negative and is evaluated very extensively in many places by the halakhic poskim, including Rambam. The evaluations surround the question of when we "compel to prevent Sodomite characteristics" that is when is a beit din allowed to negate ownership rights from some owner who refuses to allow another to benefit from his property even though he himself will not be harmed by this. In the language of halakhah, this instince is called "one benefits and the other is not lacking." Even if it is not simple to translate this into a contemporary economic principle, it is possible, nonetheless, to express a clear statement and claim that ownership over property does not in all instances prevent someone else from benefiting from that property. Perhaps we can say more than this: property is designated for utility of its owners and not for ruling over another.
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein has evaluated over many decades the topic of "compelling against Sodomite attributes" and concludes some general principles that transcend the specific cases evaluated by the Gemara. Amongst his conclusions it emerges that the truth which can be said is as follows: Compulsion over Sodomite attributes is a forthright negation of the widespread idea that a person is the highest owner over his or her property. The connection of an individual to ownership can be pushed aside in the face of various ethical motivations and the good of another person is among them.
Shlomo Zalman Shragai: Vision and Fulfillment
In exile it is possible to fulfill only a portion of the Jewish faith. And Judaism became completely separate from nationhood, until the Mizrachi came to return the national crown - Eretz Yisrael - to Judaism. And then HaPoel HaMizrahi came and returned the Socialist crown which is labor. However, just as the Agudah doesn't want to admit that nationhood and Eretz Yisrael are foundations of Judaism but merely mitzvot of the faith, so too the Mizrahi does not want to acknowledge that Socialism, labor, is part of Judaism. There is, certainly much that Judaism obligates, but the definition of Judaism is religion and nationhood. And therefore, precisely from the religious perspective, that unites us with the Mizrahi, is also the basis for our divide with the Mizrahi for there is a different in the essence of the perspective that unites us.
So too when it comes to the Histadrut. Our essential opposition is not only that the Histadrut is not religious. Rather, more than this, our opposition pertains to the basic meaning of "labor." We see it as a part of Judaism whereas the Histadrut sees Judaism as opposed to labor. This separates us also in the ways and means to bring about social justice and certainly this divides us.
Religion and Labor have been presented for us as the revival of Judaism whose essence is the Torah of Israel, whose bearer is the People of Israel and whose place is the Land of Israel and whose purpose is social justice.
...From here is the source for rejecting class hatred and class warfare. Ethics - which is the essential driver for the idea of labor, has no class. And from here comes the conclusion that there is no special obligation or place for workers but rather all society must live an ethical life, a life of labor, that keeps far away from oppression and protects those who are oppressed and burdened. This obligation doesn't relate only to Eretz Yisrael but do these ideas not come from our national destiny which is to redeem humanity, individually and collectively adn this is destiny is national and universal all at once.
...Therefore our Torah demands personal, individual, fulfillment through tikkun of character and is not satisfied with general tikkun in the public domain. However, a perfected public domain can make it much easier for individual tikkun. On the other hand, the perspective of materialism, which claims the significant question to adjudicate is: who will rule the world. It believes that if the working class rules, automatically, the individual will find his solution and "there is no existence of the individual without the collective" and therefore it does not raise the question of personal fulfillment. The individual can live his life in total contradiction to the most essential principles if he just admits that the working class should rule, he is fitting and kosher to enter the assembly.