DEUT270 [Deuteronomy 6:7]. This biblical commandment to commit oneself to Torah study is a basic and far reaching one, codified into law and translated into individual and communal action. The codifiers of Jewish law all considered Torah study to be an obligation unlimited in time, so that all other activities became either limited in its light or were even frowned upon. Furthermore, the obligation of Torah study was considered not to be limited by one's age, knowledge, or economic or social condition. ... Torah education was not limited to children but had to be extended to adults, in view of the obligation "you shall devote yourselves to its [Torah] study" (Jos. 1:8).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT611 All too often, even where there is physical damage involved, the economic welfare of the community would be seriously harmed by the removal of an offending plant or industry. If the damage envisaged is one that causes bodily harm, as distinct from inconvenience or irritation, the economic loss is not allowed to take precedence over the paramount concern for the safety of human beings. This may be seen from the case, discussed in chapter 6, of an individual worker who wishes to endanger himself in order to increase his income. The rabbis taught that since man's need for economic growth is unlimited, we cannot allow him to endanger his life, even though he himself is willing to run the risk, in order to increase his income. Where, however, the conflict is between communal economic suffering and inconvenience or physical unpleasantness, we find that the halachic authorities were prepared to permit such inconvenience. After all, were this not done, the community would be threatened with extinction, or at least severe privation. We are assuming here, of course, that there is no alternative site at which to place a given plant. Should an alternative exist, all the authorities agreed that the factory or industry should be located so that the damage is removed. Furthermore, it should be noted that, according to all halachic authorities, the owner of a plant has to take as much care as possible to see that damages are kept to a minimum.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT818 In many modern economies, workers dismissed for reasons of health, etc., are compensated for the loss of income by severance pay. This is a form of compensation long practiced by Jewish communities. A modern application may be seen in the case of the principal of the Belz School in Haifa. This school is not part of the state school system, but rather a private institution financed primarily by donations and tuition. After years of service, the principal was dismissed and claimed severance pay. The court upheld his claim, basing its decision on the interpretation of the biblical injunction to grant a terminal payment to the Hebrew bondsman on the conclusion of his services (Deuteronomy 15:14).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT911 In the case of communal workers, we find an interesting form of providing for widows and orphans, over and above or instead of a pension. By custom or by law, the sons of communal officials were to succeed their fathers after their death. This is presented by Maimonides as follows. “The kingship is a hereditary function, as it is written ‘in order that his reign and that of his sons shall be prolonged in Israel’ [Deuteronomy 17:20] ... And not only is this [hereditary] but all communal officials in all appointments in Israel are hereditary.” Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melachim, chapter 1, halakhah 7. This succession was seen, then, not only as an expression of honor toward the former officials but also as a means of providing for the maintenance of the widow and other dependents. The son, legally, had the obligation to provide for his mother and younger unmarried siblings, so that providing him with a job enabled him to fulfill this obligation and freed the community from the financial burden. In order to protect the public from incapable or unsuitable heirs, the halakhah demanded that the successor be fit to fulfill the position. He need not, however, be the most capable or qualified candidate.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT918 By and large, there are no vows of poverty in Judaism as a means of achieving a Divinely blessed state of affairs. There are no accusing fingers pointed at those engaged in normal economic activities and the earning of material goods. The priests and Levites in biblical times were, it is true, not allowed to have a portion of the Land of Israel like all other tribes, except for the small number of designated towns and villages apportioned to them. According to most of the biblical commentators, however, this was done not in order to produce a priesthood living in a state of poverty and devoting themselves solely to God, but rather to ensure the dispersal of the tribe of Levi throughout the country, so that there would be no area bereft of spiritual leaders. S.R. Hirsch, Commentary on the Bible, on Deut. 18:1-3. The poet- philosopher of twelfth century Spain, Yehuda Halevi, in his presentation of Judaism known as the Kuzari, described the Jewish attitude to economic activity as follows: “Nor is the decreasing of wealth an act of piety if such wealth happens to have been gained in a lawful way and its further acquisition does not prevent him from occupying himself with Torah and righteous deeds, especially for one who has family and dependents and whose desire is to spend his money for the sake of God. .... For you are, as it were, enjoying the Lord's hospitality, being invited to His table, and should thank him for His bounty, both inwardly and outwardly. The Kuzari, part II, 45-50. Mainstream Judaism saw a man's material welfare as a reward from Heaven, a gift of the Deity and therefore as something not intrinsically bad, but rather to be valued and prized. … Yet, despite the legitimacy of economic activity and of man's enjoyment of material goods, Judaism does not allow unlimited accumulation of such goods or unlimited use of them. Thus, the admonition in Ecclesiastes “Go to the ant, you sluggard” is generally regarded as a favorable injunction to industriousness and economic diligence. The rabbis, however, saw the ant’s life as the epitome of foolishness and wasted endeavor. “After all,” they said, the ant eats only two grains of wheat and lives but for one season, yet it labors ceaselessly to amass a fortune.” I.B. Bunim, Ethics from Sinai, chapter 4, mishnah 1 (New York: Feldheim, 1974). [Continued at [[DEUT1673]] Deuteronomy 32:6 endure TAMARI 31-2]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT949 Some of the decisions in favor of restraints on competition were from the biblical commandment (Deuteronomy 19:14) against removing a neighbor’s landmark (the stones which served as the boundary markers between fields) -- hasagat g’vul. The sages queried the purpose of such an injunction, since the Torah had already forbidden theft, which hasagat g’vul is. They answered that this injunction taught that whoever annexed his neighbor’s domain in the land of Israel was guilty of two transgressions-- theft and hasagat g’vul. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzeakh, chapter 12, halakhah 12, based on Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, chapter 1, mishnah 7. The rabbinic legislators following this broader application expanded the concept of hasagat g’vul to encroachment on another's livelihood. ... in most cases the limitation on encroaching on the livelihood of one's neighbor did not apply to those cases where such competition would lead only to a decline in profitability, but primarily to cases involving the total destruction of the other’s livelihood. Furthermore, the restriction was, as often as not, limited in time, in effect providing a “breathing space” until the market adjusted itself.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1014 Great stress is laid in Jewish economic behavior on countering “dog in the manger” attitudes [i.e., preventing others from benefiting from one’s things of which one has no need--AJL]. This idea is closely allied to the notion of bal taschit, according to which a man is not permitted to vandalize or destroy even his own property, let alone that of another, since other people might be able to benefit from it. Even though the owner has an explicit indefensible right in his property, the concept in Judaism of man being a mere guardian of his economic assets makes such destruction immoral. The sages saw such waste as an act of rebellion, a rejection of God’s role as the creator and hence, “He who tears his clothing, breaks his utensils, or scatters his money and anger should be in your eyes as if he had served idols.” Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 105b The biblical paradigm of bal taschit is to be found in the laws against destroying trees bearing edible fruit in time of war (Deuteronomy 20:19). It is interesting to note that the discussion centers around trees that are owned by the enemy; all the dictates of war would seem to overrule such moral considerations. Nevertheless, we are logically required to refrain from needlessly destroying fruit-bearing trees, since one is destroying the products and creation of the Lord, who is responsible for giving man his sustenance. The rabbis extended this injunction to include all useful items; In our day, the inefficient use of fuel would be considered a transgression of bal taschit. bal taschit, it should be noted, is also relevant in the case of ownerless property, as may be seen from the story of Hezkeyahu, who, in anticipation of the siege of Jerusalem, closed up the spring of the Gichon, much to the displeasure of the rabbis. Talmud Bavli, Pesachin 56a

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1027 There is a ruling in the Torah (Deuteronomy 21:1-8) that if a corpse was found in a field, the leaders of the nearest community as well as national representatives were obligated to bring a heifer and to make a confession that they were in no way involved in the shedding of this blood. The rabbis ask in astonishment, “Can we imagine that the leadership of the Jewish community was responsible for the shedding of this blood?” So the discussion perforce centers around the community's responsibility for the social infrastructure that made possible such a terrible crime as murder. Communal leadership is responsible because it did not, in the words of the Talmud, provide for the stranger, thus forcing him to have to go out and attempt to steal in order to survive, such attempted theft leading either to his own death or to the death of the potential victim. However, it is possible that the murderer was a member of the community. Since he was not given a proper education and preparation for a productive life he turned to brigandage, and it was this brigandage that resulted in the murder of the corpse before them-- and for this the leaders were responsible. Mishnah, Sota, chapter 6, chapter 9; Talmud Bavli, Sota 45b. See also Rashi on Sota 46b; Talmud Yerushalmi, Sota, chapter 9. Such a notion, along with the attitude toward full employment discussed in a previous section of this chapter, would seem to indicate the necessity of public financing for secular and vocational training. The absence of a definite halachic ruling, however, leaves the issue of public financing, in a Jewish state, for universities and technical schools an area still to be resolved.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1155 ... a man is required to make certain investments in his property so as to prevent it from causing physical harm to other individuals when they are within its confines. The Shulhan Arukh is quite clear and emphatic on this obligation. “It is a positive commandment for a man to make a fence around his roof, as it is written in the Torah: ‘And you shall make a fence on your roof [in order to prevent somebody from falling from the roof]” [Deuteronomy 22:8]. He who does not make such a fence disregards this positive commandment and is also guilty of violating the negative commandment ‘And you shall not spill blood in thy house’ [Deuteronomy 22:8]. And so it is with every obstacle [even in a public thoroughfare] that is liable to cause damage to the human body: it is a positive precept to remove it [stones, garbage, even seemingly harmless items] and to do so diligently. Is written in the Torah, [and you shall surely pay heed and beware.’” Choshen Mishpat, Hilkhot Shmirat Hanefesh, section 427.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1251 See [[LEV164]] Leviticus 15:2 unclean TAMARI 297-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT