Print
PDF FormatYet Judaism’s affirmation of ownership does not end with the protection of property; in many places it also encourages the accumulation of wealth. Economic success is considered a worthy aim, so long as one achieves it through honest means. This stands in remarkable contrast to the classical Christian view, where the accumulation of wealth is rejected and the wealthy are held in contempt. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,” Jesus says in the book of Matthew, “than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.”37 In the Jewish view, however, man’s obligation to exercise dominion over the world, as a function of his having been created in God’s image, brings him to the exact opposite position—to an affirmation not of poverty, but of wealth. For wealth that is gained through hard work and honest means is, in Judaism, a positive expression of man’s efforts as a godly being. “One who benefits from his own labor is greater,” says the Talmud, “than one who fears heaven.”38 This stunning assertion is not meant to denigrate the fear of heaven, but rather to affirm the principle that one who turns his talents into achievements is greater than one who neglects his own capacity to strive and create in the world. In the Jewish view, wealth that is derived from hard and honest work is considered virtue rather than vice; in the rabbinic teachings, such wealth is the lot of the righteous. Thus the legend says of Jacob, who risked his life to save his property: “Said Rabbi Elazar…. ‘For the righteous, their property is dearer to them than their own body. Why so? Because they do not stretch out their hands to steal.’”39 Worldly wealth, despite having no obvious spiritual content, is even said to contribute to the indwelling of the Divine Presence: “The Divine Presence rests only on one who is wise, strong, wealthy, and of great stature.”40
Judaism’s affirmation of wealth becomes even more striking when one considers its attitude towards poverty. As opposed to the classical Christian view, nowhere in Judaism is poverty associated with righteousness. In the rabbinic teachings poverty is first of all considered a form of pointless suffering. “There is nothing worse than poverty,” we find in Exodus Rabba. “One who must weigh every penny—it is as though he bears all the suffering of the world upon his shoulders, and as though all the curses from Deuteronomy have descended upon him.”41 For this reason, Jewish law calls upon man to do everything in his power to avoid becoming dependent on his community for his welfare. As Rabbi Akiva taught his son: “It is better to profane your Sabbath than to become dependent on others.”42 From his perspective, man is never excused from taking responsibility for himself, and is never allowed to make himself a burden on others.
Poverty is therefore something which must be avoided at all costs. To that end, the sages exhort all men to earn their living through work. Under no circumstances are the poor to be absolved of their responsibility through the redistribution of wealth. As opposed to the classical Christian view, the property of the wealthy in Judaism is entirely theirs, to do with as they wish. Even in a society of significant income differences between the wealthy and the poor, the poor have no legal claim against the wealthy. Judaism’s concern for the poor, which will be discussed at length further on, does not extend to the juridical realm; judges are admonished in the Tora not only never to skew justice in favor of the wealthy, but likewise never to favor the poor.43 Even in a case of voluntary giving, Jewish law cautions against excessive generosity, and forbids a person from donating more than one-fifth of his assets, so as not to become poor himself.44 This was expressed powerfully in the ruling of Maimonides in his code, Mishneh Tora:
One should never dedicate or consecrate all of his possessions. He who does so acts contrary to the intention of Scripture.... Such an act is not piety but folly, since he forfeits all his wealth and will become dependent on other people, who may show no pity towards him. Of such, and those like him, the rabbis have said, “The pious fool is one of those who cause the world to perish.” Rather, one who wishes to spend his money on good deeds should spend no more than one-fifth, so that he may be, as the prophets commanded, “One who orders his affairs rightly,”45 whether in matters of Tora or in the affairs of the world.46
The prohibition against giving too much to the poor is an expression of the Jewish view that there never was, nor will there ever be, an ideal state of economic equality among all men. The sages emphasized that each man is created different from his fellow, and that this difference is an expression of every individual’s uniqueness, of every man having been created in the image of God.
According to the Jewish approach to property, then, economic equality is not only impossible, but even undesirable: Such a condition negates the uniqueness of the individual, and therefore negates the image of God within him. Thus the Bible says, “For the poor shall never cease out of the land.”47 Economic disparity does not demonstrate the moral corruption of society, but the fundamental differences among the individuals whom it comprises.
V
Of course, all this raises the obvious question: What, then, will become of the poor? How, indeed, is society to protect the unfortunate individual who is unable to support himself and his family?
Some will inevitably argue that it cannot protect him—that is, that so strong a concept of property contradicts the obligation to care for the poor, and that any society which adopts it will end up abandoning its weakest members to destitution. Yet such a claim misunderstands the Jewish conception of man’s role as being created in the divine image. In the Jewish view, man is granted dominion over the world not merely that he may benefit from it, but also that he may take responsibility for it. The legal understanding of property in Judaism is therefore only one part of a broader conception of the role of man in the world, one which plays itself out as well in his duty to care for those in need, through the commandment of charity, or tzedaka. As Maimonides explains:
The term tzedaka is derived from tzedek, “righteousness”; it denotes the act of giving everyone his due, and of showing kindness to every being according as it deserves. In Scripture, however, the expression tzedaka is not used in the first sense, and does not apply to the payment of what we owe to others. When we therefore give the hired laborer his wages, or pay a debt, we do not perform an act of tzedaka. But we do perform an act of tzedaka when we fulfill those duties towards our fellow men which our moral conscience imposes upon us; e.g., when we heal the wound of the sufferer.48
Fulfilling a legal obligation such as the timely dispensation of wages is not considered charity. Rather, charity is something that flows not from a sense of justice but from the goodness of one’s character, or the generosity of one’s heart. The same “image of God” which enjoins man to delight in this world and to exercise dominion over it also obligates him to take responsibility for his fellow man, in particular for those in need. The fact of his being created in God’s image indeed gives him the legal and moral basis for keeping his own interests in clear view and striving to advance them by the sweat of his brow. And yet, just as the godliness within him encourages man to work and to be productive for his own sake, it also obligates him to care for those who cannot care for themselves. Moreover, it is the affirmation of wealth and the struggle for it, and the legal protections that are given to wealth once it has been attained, which make philanthropy a possibility in the first place. If man did not strive first for his own interests, and if the fruits of his labor were not protected, he would have nothing to offer those in need.
For this reason, the sages defined charity foremost as a moral principle, not a juridical one. Thus they admonished those who would take money from others in order to give it to the poor: “Better is he who gives a smaller amount of his own charity than one who steals from others to give a large amount of charity.”49 Again, it is worth comparing this with the classical Christian approach, according to which, since all men are equal before God, they are all equally entitled to his benevolence. Therefore, those possessions in excess of our basic needs must be distributed among the poor. Charity, according to this view, is not an act of magnanimity so much as the means by which man acts as a vessel for God’s grace. And since all are equal before God, they are all entitled to the same measure of grace. Christian charity, then, is substantively superhuman, and leaves little room for the free choice of the individual: Not only is the individual enjoined to give of his wealth because it is not really his, he is also obligated to give to those who are not close to him, thereby giving expression to the universality of divine grace, rather than his own personal feelings of loyalty or mercy. Thomas Aquinas wrote of this quite forcefully:
It would seem that we are not bound to do good to those rather who are more closely united to us. For it is written: “When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brethren, nor your kinsmen.”50 Now these are the most closely united to us. Therefore we are not bound to do good to those rather who are more closely united to us, but preferably to strangers and to those who are in want. Hence the text goes on: “But, when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed....”51
