פרשת ויחי: שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אַחִים כְּלֵי חָמָס מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם.
This article draws from Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch.
Two Hebrew words for profit, for gain, are Yitron, and Betza. Yitron means ‘expansion’. There is an expansion of goods, services, and value in the economy. Put into Pareto terms, it is possible that everyone can gain, or at the least, that no one loses. So, when Yitron occurs as the result of economic activity and ingenuity, it is a question of distribution of the gains.
Betza is substantively different. It is related to the word Petza which means ‘to wound’. Betza is the type of profit where one person gains at another person’s expense or ‘wounding’. In other words, there’s a ‘zero-sum game’ at play.
The argument is: To the extent that an economy is motivated, organized, and conducted, with reinforcement by legal and financial structures, to achieve Betza, as opposed to Yitron, it is headed for ‘end stage’ failure or collapse. I utilize the term ‘end-stage’ failure much the way the term is used with respect to heart failure or kidney failure. The heart or kidney can be ‘in failure’ and still function, albeit, at a much-diminished capacity, for a while, until… ’end stage’ occurs.
Examples of Yitron abound. Think of innovation and invention that lead to new products, services, or efficiencies. Alas, examples of Betza also abound. Whether or not the reader will agree that the following examples are good examples of Betza, I would suggest that the above-stated argument is still worthy of analysis and debate.
The more common examples are in situations (not every situation) where a seller (or manufacturer) takes advantage of information asymmetry to provide an inferior quality product marketed as a superior quality product. Transaction costs make it prohibitive for the buyer to ascertain the true quality. ‘Marketing’ can be quite convincing, even when patently or mostly false. We all know this from experience. Moreover, in the calculus of the seller, ‘marketing’ costs much less than ‘quality’, and the cost of being revealed is judged to be small.
There is a Mishna in Bava Metzia 4:12 about mixing the wines and advertising superior wine or sifting the bran and cleaning only the top layer: (translation and Bartenura here.)
Of course, this model is predicated on the notion that there is little if any inherent value to integrity and honesty, except for its utility in gaining a profit. (Alas, there is an implicit editorial or, better, lament, here that ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’ are gone from much of economic life. Oh, we see people claiming these qualities and even putting them onto their product names, but these are lower cost ploys….’marketing’.)
Banks are notorious for Betza. Many (possibly hundreds) of the popular Betza schemes fall under the rubric called ‘predatory lending’ which generates billions in fees (late fees and many hidden fees – that the targeted consumers aren’t keen enough to discern). The Housing Bubble of the early 2000s may be an example where there was substantial Betza (even though there was some Yitron as well). Banks gave large mortgages to people who could according to the usual financial prudence and calculation could afford (or sustain) only small mortgages.
The reader may be able to think of other economic activity that follows the ‘zero-sum’ game plan or Betza.
I would like to conclude with the notion of Chamas, the Hebrew word which is often translated as robbery or violence. Rav Hirsch translates Chamas as legalized stealing. The sages of the Talmud provide support for this definition by saying that Chamas is stealing less than can be recovered in a court of law. At the time of Noah and The Flood, the world was full of legalized immorality and legalized stealing, Chamas. The decision to let The Flood occur was primarily because of all the Chamas that was the engine of economic activity in the time of Noah.
To this writer, when Betza and Chamas work together (and there is substantive overlap between the two, for sure) and reach some ‘critical mass’ in the economy, ‘failure’ follows. I do hope it’s not ‘end-stage’.
Dec-06-2018
During Operation Protective Edge in Gaza in August 2014, when I was a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, the Hezbollah was busy in Syria and its positions on Israel’s northern border were empty. “Why don’t we take advantage of this to destroy their missiles at a low cost to us?” I asked and was answered with a shrug of the shoulders.
Since the Oslo Accords, Israel’s military posture has changed unrecognizably and going to war in order to remove a strategic threat – as Israel did in the Sinai Operation and the Six Day War – is nowhere to be found, neither in the civilian or military lexicon.
The populist IDF desertion of the Lebanon front ordered by PM Ehud Barak in 2000 (with pressure from popular radio broadcaster Shelly Yehimovitz) created a strategic threat on our northern border that had been hitherto unknown. (See footnote 1). According to various estimates, there are at least 150,000 missiles aimed at Israel from our northern border. These missiles cover the entire state of Israel and many of them are equipped with GPS precision guidance systems that can strike any strategic target in the country.
It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah chose to show Israel Air Force runways in various places in Israel, clearly visible and vulnerable to the enemy, in its threat-video. Their message was: We are capable of paralyzing your long arm with the push of a button.
And we haven’t even related to Israel’s Ben Gurion airport, power stations, communications centers, military staging sites, hospitals and the like. Israel’s interception systems provide a partial response for unguided missiles because they know how to filter out a potential hit on unimportant space and to focus on the few missiles that will cause real damage. But these systems are insignificant when faced with a barrage of guided missiles. As we saw in our recent defeat in Gaza, the Gazans have also learned how to override our interception systems by sending large quantities of missiles. When faced with quantity barrages of guided missiles, Israel’s Iron Dome interception system will lose anything that is left of its effectiveness.
The real story, then, is not the tunnels, the construction of which residents of Israel’s north have been hearing underneath them for years. As shocking as this may be (and of course the tunnels must be neutralized) their potential damage is not strategic, but rather psychological. The real story is the missiles and the fact that they are currently being upgraded to precision capabilities.
Here, at this strategic turning point, at the point that the missile arsenal of the Hezbollah is transforming into a guided missile threat, deadly and with a potential of strategic damage on a nuclear scale (see footnote 2), the new threat meets an Israeli leadership – both civilian and military – that is anemic, deterred and for whom it is doubtful that considerations beyond the end of their tenure are of any interest.
Since the Syrians downed the Russian fighter jet in September, Israel has abandoned its attempt to stop the enemy missile-upgrading process. Iranian jumbo jets have been landing directly at the Beirut airport and unloading the guidance systems that will be attached to the Hezbollah missile arsenal. It seems that Israel is deterred by the existing Hezbollah missile capabilities in Lebanon. Its leaders prefer to buy quiet and political stability now in exchange for unprecedented danger to Israel’s security in the future. They prefer to pass the hot potato to some future leadership – despite the fact that that leadership will be forced to deal with an exceedingly more severe situation.
To the credit of Israel’s current leadership, we can say that it has prepared the army for the threat. The IDF also has guided missiles and the Air Force has rapid and precision strike capabilities – simultaneously and over a wide area. From that standpoint, it seems that the lessons of the Second Lebanon War were well-implemented.
Operation Focus, in which the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Egyptian Air Force in the first three hours of the Six Day War, essentially determining its outcome, could have been accomplished today, with our modern capabilities – in a matter of minutes.
Apparently, Israel can destroy Hezbollah’s missile arsenal in an all-out surprise attack and neutralize them before they are launched.
So why don’t we do that?
Two factors prevent Israel’s leadership from performing its duty:
The first factor is the trauma of the “400,000” person protest. The First Lebanon War, led by Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon, was the first and last war fought under the leadership of the Right. Israel’s Left made it clear then to the Right that it has a mandate to make “peace”, not war. In order for the entire nation to be willing to go to war, the leadership has to be from the Left. Simply put, Netanyahu is more afraid of the Left than of the Hezbollah and its potential threat to Israel’s security. There is no doubt that from his personal standpoint, there is much logic in his order of priorities.
The second factor is that like Gaza, the missiles in Lebanon are concealed in mosques, kindergartens and schools. As opposed to Operation Focus, this time it will be necessary to strike civilian populations in order to achieve the element of surprise. This means that Israel’s civilian and military command may be forced to remain in Israel for many years for fear of being arrested for war crimes overseas.
Israel’s operational forces are liable to also provide us with some unpleasant surprises. In the Second Lebanon War, a combat helicopter pilot refused to come to the aid of ground forces in trouble for fear of harming enemy civilians. Since then, the re-education of the IDF with its progressive new values system has deepened. Who can promise the PM that the F-15 pilot, armed not only with progressive weapons but also with progressive ‘values’ (see footnote 3) will carry out his orders and bomb kindergarten hiding missiles ready to be shot into Tel Aviv?
If so, then, what can the Prime Minister do to justify his resounding defeat in Gaza? He does not dare attack the Hezbollah and remove the missile threat due to the factors above. All that is left is to carry out a miserable clearing procedure in our own territory and to call it an “Operation”, making it seem like a war.
“Who is the enemy?” I asked Deputy Chief of Staff (today’s Chief of Staff) Gadi Eisenkot in my despair during Operation Protective Edge, when the missiles continued to fall in Tel Aviv. Eisenkot swallowed his tongue and almost choked, just as a different senior officer reacted when I asked him the same question in a television broadcast.(See the video here https://www.zehutinternational.com/single-post/2017/11/01/Who-is-the-Enemy).
Maybe if we turn the tunnel into the enemy, the real enemy will disappear… It is a sort of post-modern military thought exercise, which envelopes the entire senior army command today. Nothing is real anymore.
What will happen next?
Churchill has already explained that those who pay for quiet with dishonor will ultimately get both dishonor and war – and under the very worst conditions.
That is what happened to us in the recent round of fighting in Gaza (see footnote 4) and sooner or later it will happen in Lebanon. A pistol that appears in the first scene will shoot in the third scene. Unfortunately, the missiles in Lebanon will not rust on their launchers.
The “Operation” that the IDF is now carrying out in the “legitimate” space (inside Israel’s borders) will give the Hezbollah the excuse it needs for escalation. Like in Gaza, the IDF will attempt not to react, but we do not know how and when the gates of hell will open. What is clear is that a surprise attack and resounding defeat that would neutralize the threat before the steep price that will be exacted from Israel’s citizens – is not about to happen.
Perhaps Netanyahu thinks that the vital war in Lebanon can only be waged after we are attacked, with a consensus born of no-choice. “I feared the Nation,” said King Saul to Samuel the Prophet. With those words, he lost his throne. At the moment of truth, a leader has to lead the nation, not be led by it.
If this is the situation and these are Netanyahu’s considerations, we are liable, God forbid, to pay a terrible price because of the most fearful person who ever served as prime minister of Israel.
—
Footnote 1: For the sake of fairness, we can say that the strategic collapse that Barak led is nowhere near the collapse brought upon us by Netanyahu when he passed the responsibility for Israel’s existence and defense in the face of Iran’s threats of destruction to the US.
Footnote 2: A nuclear bomb like the bomb that fell on Hiroshima is capable of destroying a town and killing tens of thousands. From a human standpoint, it is of course a horrific act and a terrible blow. Equipping missiles with chemicals – a logical possibility that must be taken into account – will not take the same toll in human life as a nuclear explosion. But the strategic damage to military capabilities wrought by widespread implementation of guided missiles can be even greater. Air Force runways can continue to be used a number of kilometers from a nuclear strike, major traffic arteries can remain opened and military staging capabilities would be less compromised from one nuclear bomb than from a precision missile strike, coordinated to hit Israel’s strategic underbelly all at once.
Footnote 3: In answer to the claims of the students of the Atzmona military preparatory academy that the IDF endangers the lives of its soldiers in order to safeguard enemy civilians, today’s Deputy Chief of Staff answered: “The role of a person who wears a uniform is to endanger his life so that those who are not in uniform can live in peace. I have no problem with that.” (General Yair Golan, 2006)
Footnote 4: The heroic action in Gaza in which Lieutenant Colonel M was killed in battle, was meant to provide intelligence that would make it possible to continue to keep the threat on a low flame instead of defeating it. Retroactively we can see that the low-flame strategy is what brought about the last round of fighting, the 500 missiles on southern Israel and the resounding defeat that sends a very bad message to all those who would like to see us disappear from the face of the earth.
From Jewish Israel. [Defunct]
We live in a world where no truth can be taken for granted. It is difficult for me to imagine that the premise of this article would even need to be discussed in any prior generation, let alone bear the status of an “underdog” opinion. Nevertheless, the notion that it is an obligation for Jewish males to support themselves and those dependent on them has become so unpopular that in many circles those who work for a living are looked down upon as Jews who do not fear heaven.
In the absence of prophets, Hashem speaks to us in two ways: through His Torah and through His handiwork. Indeed, the very nature of the world that Hashem created reflects the necessity for Man to work. If it were true that the “ideal” lifestyle is to completely immerse oneself in Torah study, then a critical mass of people attaining this ideal lifestyle would spell the death of the human race. It is inconceivable that the ideal state of existence in this world is not self-sustaining without nature-defying miracles. (This is one of the great refutations of the Christian sects that promote celibacy as the holiest lifestyle.) Consequently, the nature of Hashem’s handiwork dictates the necessity to work as a component of the ideal and intended lifestyle.
The physical frailty of the human being also indicates that Hashem intended for Man to work. After all, the primary motivation for most people to work is to pay their bills, to be able to provide the basic physical necessities. Fortunate is the individual who derives personal and spiritual gratification from his occupation in addition to his paycheck. Were Man created in such a way that he did not require constant expenditures on physical needs, the average person would have little interest in working — and thereby the world would grind to a halt. It is only because of our physical needs and interdependence on one another for survival that society functions and can progress.
This is a key point that is often neglected by those who argue in favor of working. Although Hashem indeed made it necessary for people to work in order to survive, the reasons to work do not end at survival. After all, the need for survival is merely the mechanism by which Hashem compels people to work. But there is a deeper purpose to working that transcends one’s selfish needs: contributing to yishuv ha’olam, the needs and development of society, or, more simply, to make the world go ’round.
When viewed in this light, whether one is a world-class surgeon or a truck driver, he fulfills the will of Hashem through his worldly labor. The world needs a healthy supply of manpower and talent in all occupations, and the Jewish people should be amply represented, in fact, should serve as role models for their colleagues.
Of course, Hashem expects one to properly balance his physical pursuits with spiritual pursuits. The proper balance will vary from person to person, but it is not a mainstream Jewish lifestyle to be engaged exclusively in the physical or the spiritual, nor is involvement in the physical world to be denigrated as “less than ideal”. It is in the physical realm that one’s achievements in the spiritual realm are brought to life and have the greatest impact on civilization.
While there is certainly no shortage of Torah sources that admonish us not to place primary importance on the physical world, which is temporary, there is also a wealth of Torah sources that emphasize the importance of working and supporting oneself.
In Parshas Noach the dove returned to the ark with an olive branch to indicate that it is preferable to subsist on a bitter sustenance that nevertheless comes directly from Hashem (through one’s own work being blessed) than to subsist on handouts (Sanhedrin 108B). The Maharsha notes that we, in fact, pray for this regularly in Bircas Hamazon: “Please, Hashem our God, don’t cause us to be dependent on the gifts of people nor even their loans, but on Your full, open hand In order that we not be humiliated.”
Indeed, subsisting on charity is consistently portrayed in Torah literature as the harshest of fates, certainly not a fate that should be pursued. “A poor man is considered like a dead man.” (Nedarim 64B) “Make your Shabbos profane (by not honoring the day with special food) rather than make yourself dependent on others.” (Shabbos 118A)
Our parents and grandparents understood and appreciated the degradation of accepting a handout, let alone asking for one. Many of them scraped by week after week, yet continued to work all kinds of unglamorous jobs with pride and determination to support themselves and their families. Accept charity? Over their dead bodies.
Nowadays, however, it has become fashionable to snub supporting oneself as being beneath a true Torah Jew, and prominent rabbis regularly “endorse” charitable “causes” that our ancestors would scoff at. Their determination, work ethic, pride, and keen sense of priorities are largely absent in our generation. The ideal is now portrayed as someone who is “completely immersed” in Torah study to the exclusion of all worldly interest and involvement.
In Torah literature, however, supporting oneself through the labor of one’s hands, relying only on Hashem for one’s sustenance, is portrayed as the ideal. Working for a living and in fact working as a contribution to society and personal development is consistently spoken of in the highest of terms. In fact, an entire chapter of Pirkei Avos D’Rabbi Nasan, chapter 22, has been dedicated just to drive home this point, filled with statements by many of the most prominent authors of the Mishna. A selection:
“Shemaya said, ‘One is obligated to love work and to engage in work.”
“Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘Work is great, for just as the Jews were commanded regarding Shabbos, so were they commanded regarding work, as it says ‘Six days you shall work and do all of your work.’”
“Rebbe said, ‘Work is great, for people speak negatively about all those who don’t work. From where does he eat? From where does he drink?”
“Rebbe further said, ‘Work is great, for those who are engaged in work always have some money on hand.”
“Rabbi Yosi said, ‘Work is great, for anyone who is not engaged in work is responsible for his own death. How so?
Through idleness he will run out of money for food and may come to misappropriate money belonging to hekdesh.” (In modern times, one may be drawn to other forbidden behaviors to raise money.)
“Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘Work is great, for one who benefits the value of even one peruta from hekdesh is a transgressor, yet laborers in the Bais Hamikdash receive their wages from hekdesh.”
“Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said, ‘Work is great, for every tradesman takes pride in his trade. He goes out with his uniform or instrument and takes pride in his trade. Even Hashem called attention to His own work….”
“They further said, work is great, for even if one has a dilapidated courtyard or garden, he should go and involve himself with them so that he should be involved in work.”
These sources sing the praises of working, as a source of livelihood, as a source of personal gratification, as a protection from sin brought about by self-imposed poverty, and, without question, as a mandate from Hashem. And they are referring to skilled labor or physical labor, not Torah study. Torah study is a companion to work, not a substitute.
The Pnei Yehoshua notes an apparent contradiction between a comment of Rashi in Bava Kama 100A and another in Bava Metzia 30B. In one place Rashi interprets “the house of one’s life” as the study of Torah, whereas in the other place he interprets it as learning a trade through which to support oneself. The Pnei Yeshoshua explains that these are two sides of the same coin; Moshe was informing the Jews that with their study of Torah they should not neglect to acquire a trade. This is in line with the teaching in Pirkei Avos (2:2) that Torah that is not accompanied by “the way of the land” (meaning working) is destined to fail. Acquiring a trade is the primary “life” of Torah study. So writes the Pnei Yehosua. (Bava Kama 100A)
The Medrash Rabba comments on Koheles 9:9 that the Pious of Jerusalem earned that distinction by working in the winter and learning Torah in the summer. (This is quoted by the Ran in Brachos 9B.) Others have it that they divided their days into thirds, one part each for prayer, Torah study, and working.
In the Rambam’s hierarchy of charity, the highest level is making the poor person self-reliant so that he no longer needs charity. Suggestions include offering him a job, teaching him a trade, or giving him a free loan to further a business enterprise.
My father once offered a job to a young man who was shnorring money during morning prayers. (He was one of those professional, enterprising shnorrers who come from out of town in a van full of shnorrers to collect in various shuls. I sometimes wonder how one gets one of these limited spots in what is surely a competitive new industry.) The young man scoffed at my father’s offer, claiming he makes more money collecting, this, from someone with no education and no discernable skills. Nowadays subsisting indefinitely on charity is not a last option that is painfully resorted to, but a business decision, if not a dream for those who are fortunate enough to merit it. The Rambam is turning over in his grave.
There is a mitzvah to help someone load his animal with merchandise that has fallen off. The Torah qualifies this mitzvah by applying it only to situations in which the owner of the animal participates in loading the animal (assuming he is physically able to do so). However, if the owner crosses his legs, sips some lemonade, and tells you to do a mitzvah and work on his behalf, there is no obligation to help him. One who performs work for this person, who expects others to do more for him than he is prepared to do for himself, is known as a sucker.
It is true that there is a tradition of wealthy businessmen making private arrangements to support outstanding Torah scholars in exchange for a share in the mitzvah. However, there is no precedent for the welfare communities, the widespread intentional impoverishment that we are witnessing today. This brings neither glory to the Torah nor Torah scholarship to the Jewish people. While Chazal emphasize maximizing one’s time to learn and encourage certain individuals to make a career of learning and teaching, this never was and was never meant to be popularized for the masses. Chazal themselves emulated their own model of supporting themselves, and who is to say they are greater and deserve more?
The great luminary Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch summed it up best: “But as help and support for necessitous poverty is ensured under the regime of Jewish Torah law, Zedaka does not shame the recipient who requires it. Yea in the spirit of this law, one who is unable to work, or is out of employment, or, out of misplaced pride, goes short himself, or makes his family go short in the necessities of life rather than to resort to Zedaka to which he is entitled is taking a grave responsibility on himself, it is as though he is spilling blood (Yerushalmi at the end of Pe’ah).
“But just this law lays very great value on retaining self-independence, on restricting oneself to the bare necessities of life, on taking on what in the eyes of the thoughtless world is looked down on as the very lowest work to avoid having to recourse to charity. Nowhere in the world is honest work to gain an independent living held in such high esteem and honor as was the case in ancient Jewish circles. Our greatest spiritual heroes, whose light still illuminates us, and to whom their age and all ages looked up to, and still look up to full of respect and honor, a Hillel, a Rebbi Yehoshua, a R. Chanina and R. Auchio, a R. Huna all lived in the most straightened circumstances and earned their living as a woodchopper, cobbler, porter, drawer of water, and by their example taught the maxim, ‘live no better on Sabbath than on the rest of the week and be independent’; ‘skin carcasses in the open market and get paid, and do not say ‘I am a priest, am a learned man, such work is beneath me.’’
“At the end of Pea, the Mishna says: ‘He who does not really require Zedaka and still takes it, will not be allowed to leave this world without having to resort to charity out of dire necessity. But he who really could be entitled to take charity but manages to live without doing so will not leave this world in his old age without having supported others out of his own fortune.’” (Hirsch Commentary on the Torah, Judaica Press edition, Devarim page 275).
These powerful words are a stinging rebuke to our generation. If the comprehensive words of our Sages are not enough to cause us to rethink the proper balancing of our priorities, an increasingly grim reality eventually will. If the many thousands of able-bodied Jewish men who decline to contribute to the economy decided to support themselves while still devoting themselves to Torah study, countless millions of tzedaka dollars would become available, perhaps even to the extent that providing a solid Jewish education to all of our children could become readily affordable. Is this not a more appropriate use of our resources? Would this not build a better foundation for the future?
We can dismiss the exhortations of Chazal and rationalize the status quo, or we can make important changes before change is thrust upon us against our will. The choice is ours.
By Gerd Habermann
Equity & Freedom
November 23, 2018
The historically largely uprooted Germans have become accustomed to turning their gaze away from the history of their country. Didn’t it lead them to the catastrophe of 1945? Is there not an unbroken line from Charlemagne through Martin Luther to Frederick the Great and Bismarck to Adolf Hitler, as National Socialist historical propaganda has claimed? Hasn’t German history even ended with National Socialism, and shouldn’t fundamental political concepts like ‘nation,’ ‘people’ and ‘identity’ seem suspicious to a German?
There is no doubt that, at least in recent history since the emergence of the territorial states, particularly Prussia, there has been a tendency toward state dependence, toward being submissive, toward pure obedience – also to freedom – which has fostered the emergence of totalitarianism. Germans have also made a not inconsiderable contribution to the theoretical deification of the absolute state. Here the power state, just as the welfare state today, found its theoretical justification and idealization. Hegel, Rodbertus, Marx, Lassalle, Adolph Wagner, Treitschke, Gustav Schmoller (‘state socialism’) are only a few names from this questionable tradition. The modern welfare state is a child of Germany, for sure.
Meanwhile, there is also another line of tradition. From its very beginnings, German history can also be described, both institutionally and spiritually, as a history of freedom. ‘Freedom’ can be understood as individual freedom of action and property rights, as collective or political freedom (participation in political decisions) and finally as external self-determination under international law.
Even the classical liberals of the 19th century admired the ‘ancient German freedom:’ the Germanic peasants with strong property rights and the right to vote, and resist against, the freely elected political leadership. In late Roman times the Germanic conquerors were often welcomed as ‘liberators’ from an intellectually and economically totalitarian degenerated bureaucracy. Arminius preserved the ‘external freedom’ of some Germanic peoples and prevented the Roman tax bureaucracy from expanding as far as the river Elbe. He was killed by his relatives as he sought to rule as a king.
A few centuries later, in the absence of a central bureaucracy and a monetary economy, the feudal system with economically independent, self-equipping armored knights emerged, dominating large areas: a system of extreme decentralization of power, not based on equal rights, but nevertheless favorable to freedom.
The attempts at centralization by the German emperors and kings such as Charlemagne or Otto I, or later the Salians and Staufers failed – was this just an accident? Germans are particularly proud, and rightly so, of the free urban culture of the Middle Ages, the 3,000 city republics – in some cases more likely to be villages – with a population of citizens capable of defending themselves and possessing great self-confidence, which finds its expression to this day in the enormous churches, town halls, warehouses, city walls and towers. Even without a central bureaucracy, the city alliances – especially the German Hanseatic League – combined forces when they were threatened (by emerging territorial states). Their struggle for freedom against princes and bishops, united by sworn brotherhoods, is impressive. The only previous, similarly brilliant urban culture had been that of ancient Greece. Alpine and marsh farmers also joined forces in confederations – Switzerland still exists today, while the ‘Nordic Switzerland’ (the peasant republic of Dithmarschen on the North Sea coast) was defeated by the Danish territorial power in 1559.
A national republic could easily have developed on the basis of allied cities and peasant confederations. The Peasant War of 1525, with the cruel defeat of the peasants, ended these hopes.
A dubious role in this was played by Martin Luther, who was not a libertarian but a religious fundamentalist. Luther undoubtedly only indirectly promoted freedom by breaking the monopoly of faith of the Catholic Church and encouraging, albeit unintentionally, the individualization of faith.
The German ‘Kleinstaaterei’ (the proliferation of small states), which emerged out of the feudal fragmentation of power, is regarded by many as an original German political achievement. Before the French Revolution, there were about 1,800 independent political entities: not only the well-known larger territorial states, but also small knightly dominions, abbeys and monasteries, even individual ‘imperial villages’. Although not based on libertarian equality of rights, they were nevertheless favorable to freedom. The competition between the many centers of power created options for freedom: above all the exit option (“city air makes you free,” and similar spaces of freedom were also created by the internal and eastward colonisation of the Middle Ages: “forest air makes you free”).
The small-state world of the 18th and 19th centuries offered many opportunities for economic and political experimentation and promoted the dissemination of art, education and knowledge, despite the lack of free trade: you only have to think of Weimar and the many other courts. Benjamin Constant and Goethe or Justus Möser remarked positively about the cultural advantages of small-state pluralism. Even the much-maligned Prussia has its significant traditions of freedom, such as the establishment of an administrative court, the beginnings of the rule of law, or later the liberal revolutionary bureaucracy under Stein and Hardenberg. Manchester liberalism, which was much scorned in Germany, despite its triumphs until 1878, brought about the enormous increase and economic rise of the ordinary man and woman. Wherever ‘capitalism’ went, it overcame poverty. And, in any case, Germany too had a comprehensive classical liberal bourgeois movement with personalities such as Ludwig Bamberger, Eduard Lasker, and Eugen Richter, even though it was initially defeated politically in 1848. Workers, too, initially voted predominantly liberal. In federalism and localism, which were still strong until 1918, the small state and local self-government continue to have an effect to this day.
Even in the 20th century, Germans were not simply willing flocks of sheep that could be led into war and destruction. The resistance movement in the Third Reich was more comprehensive than most people know: Four million Germans went through the camps, many thousands were murdered, just as many, or more, fled abroad. There were 40 attempts to kill the tyrant. The actions of the ‘White Rose’ and especially the well- planned attempted coup d’état of July 20, 1944 are well known today.
Then there was the East German popular uprising of 17 June 1953, which was crushed by Soviet tanks, and finally the courageous ‘peaceful revolution’ in the GDR in 1989. Tens, even hundreds, of thousands of people took to the streets or went on strike, risking their lives.
Not to forget – after 1948 – the ‘Silver Age of German Liberalism,’ especially the achievement and charisma of Ludwig Erhard, a true social revolutionary with the ambition to replace the welfare state with individual property citizenship, even if he was defeated with regard to this ambition. We still feed economically on his act of liberation in May 1948.
A separate chapter is the intellectual-historical contribution of the Germans to thoughts and about freedom. With Althusius and Pufendorf, but also above all Kant, and finally the poets and thinkers of German classicism – such as Schiller’s, Goethe’s and Wilhelm von Humboldt’s contributions to personality theory, Lessing’s dramas and Lichtenberg’s aphorisms – the Germans made enduring contributions. It is often forgotten what the German-language theory of order, including the Austrian school around Menger, Mises, Hayek and Wilhelm Röpke, achieved in the 20th century to underpin the theory of freedom institutionally – these reflections on things ‘beyond supply and demand.’
If some Germans, alienated as they are from their own history, were to realize all this, they might perhaps find their way back to a friendly loyalty to their own nation, to a libertarian patriotism that does no harm to anyone, but protects many against uprooting and disorientation – to the “sense of well-being that roots give a tree,” of which Nietzsche spoke.
Translated from eigentümlich frei, where the original article was published on November 4, 2018.
From Equity & Freedom, here.
“Mishna Berurah” is an enormously popular work on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim written by Rabbi Yisrael Meir of Radin (otherwise known by the title of his other famous book, “Chafetz Chaim”).
One of the appealing characteristics of the work is its clarity. This post will address a puzzling exception to this rule.
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 61:6 (see also 61:7) –
ויאריך בדלי”ת של אחד שיעור שיחשוב שהקב”ה יחיד בעולמו ומושל בד’ רוחות העולם. ולא יאריך יותר מכשיעור זה.
One should prolong enunciating the letter Dalet of the word “Echad” long enough to consider G-d’s unity and rule over the four corners of the world. One should not prolong more than this amount of time.
The Mishna Berurah (subsection 19 ad loc.) adds –
(ולא יאריך יותר,) עפמ”ג בשם הפר”ח
“One should not prolong more than this amount of time”: See the Pri Megadim in the name of the Pri Chadash.
That is all; end quote; period. But what does the Pri Megadim tell us? Not even a hint in the ‘Sha’ar Hatziyun’! The Mishna Berurah mysteriously leaves it to the reader to check it up.
Not so generous, but OK. So let us do so.
Pri Megadim (‘Eshel Avraham’, subsection 5) –
(ולא יאריך יותר מכשיעור זה,) כתב הפר”ח בגמרא משמע שאין צריך אבל אין איסור, ובפרק הרואה דרבי עקיבא היה מאריך באחד, וי”ל, יעו”ש.
The Pri Chadash (subsection 6) writes that the Gemara (Berachos 13b) in fact deems protraction superfluous but does not disallow doing so. Elsewhere (ibidem 61a) too, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Akiva prolonged “Echad” more than usual. This last proof can be contested, however, see there.
The question arises: Why does the Mishna Berurah conceal his meaning?
The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch is a prohibition against prolonging the pronunciation of the letter Dalet. The Pri Megadim cited above almost certainly intends to disagree, noting his understanding to wit the Gemara does not intend any prohibition at all. The language of the Pri Chadash himself implies the same. Why send the poor reader to look this up? Is this most basic dispute not relevant enough?
The Pri Megadim was quite available, so it beggars belief to say the Mishna Berura was unable to quote or at least summarize it.
Maybe the obscuration is because his ruling is contrary to Shulchan Aruch, but the Mishna Berurah is usually unshy about his disagreements.
Conceivably the Mishna Berurah has not decided one way or another; he simply refers to Pri Megadim allowing the reader to decide the Halacha for himself. Is this Mishna Berura’s modus operandi? I personally don’t think so.
Can any of our readers weigh in on this?
These questions are highly relevant to publishers of Mishna Berura (and like works). Should the publisher quote the Pri Megadim in full even if he generally does not do so? In other words, is the Pri Megadim meant to stay hidden, (like the Mekoshesh)?
Have something to say? Write to Avraham Rivkas: CommentTorah@gmail.com
P. S., It would be exciting to check up the Gemaros inside, but this is not directly relevant to the point at hand.