ללא מחבר No Author

Judaism Is Not Anti-Family

 

Family Feeling

I argued in Covenant and Conversation Kedoshim that Judaism is more than an ethnicity. It is a call to holiness. In one sense, however, there is an important ethnic dimension to Judaism.

It is best captured in the 1980s joke about an advertising campaign in New York. Throughout the city there were giant posters with the slogan, “You have a friend in the Chase Manhattan Bank.” Underneath one, an Israeli had scribbled the words, “But in Bank Leumi you have mishpochah.” Jews are, and are conscious of being, a single extended family.

This is particularly evident in this week’s parsha. Repeatedly we read of social legislation couched in the language of family:

When you buy or sell to your neighbour, let no one wrong his brother. (Lev. 25:14)

If your brother becomes impoverished and sells some of his property, his near redeemer is to come to you and redeem what his brother sold. (25:25)

If your brother is impoverished and indebted to you, you must support him; he must live with you like a foreign resident. Do not take interest or profit from him, but fear your God and let your brother live with you. (25:35-36)

If your brother becomes impoverished and is sold to you, do not work him like a slave. (25: 39)

“Your brother” in these verses is not meant literally. At times it means “your relative”, but mostly it means “your fellow Jew”. This is a distinctive way of thinking about society and our obligations to others. Jews are not just citizens of the same nation or adherents of the same faith. We are members of the same extended family. We are – biologically or electively – children of Abraham and Sarah. For the most part, we share the same history. On the festivals we relive the same memories. We were forged in the same crucible of suffering. We are more than friends. We are mishpochah, family.

The concept of family is absolutely fundamental to Judaism. Consider the book of Genesis, the Torah’s starting-point. It is not primarily about theology, doctrine, dogma. It is not a polemic against idolatry. It is about families: husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and sisters.

At key moments in the Torah, God himself defines his relationship with the Israelites in terms of family. He tells Moses to say to Pharaoh in his name: “My child, my firstborn, Israel” (Ex. 4:22). When Moses wants to explain to the Israelites why they have a duty to be holy he says, “You are children of the Lord your God” (Deut. 14:1). If God is our parent, then we are all brothers and sisters. We are related by bonds that go to the very heart of who we are.

The prophets continued the metaphor. There is a lovely passage in Hosea in which the prophet describes God as a parent teaching a young child how to take its first faltering steps: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son … It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms … To them I was like one who lifts a little child to the cheek, and I bent down to feed them.” (Hosea 11:1-4).

The same image is continued in rabbinic Judaism. In one of the most famous phrases of prayer, Rabbi Akiva used the words Avinu Malkenu, “Our Father, our King”. That is a precise and deliberate expression. God is indeed our sovereign, our lawgiver and our judge, but before He is any of these things He is our parent and we are His children. That is why we believe divine compassion will always override strict justice.

This concept of Jews as an extended family is powerfully expressed in Maimonides’ Laws of Charity:

The entire Jewish people and all those who attach themselves to them are like brothers, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: “You are children of the Lord your God.” And if a brother will not show mercy to a brother, who will show mercy to them? To whom do the poor of Israel lift up their eyes? To the gentiles who hate them and pursue them? Their eyes are turned to their brethren alone.[1]

This sense of kinship, fraternity and the family bond, is at the heart of the idea of Kol Yisrael arevin zeh bazeh, “All Jews are responsible for one another.” Or as Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai put it, “When one Jew is injured, all Jews feel the pain.”[2]

Why is Judaism built on this model of the family? Partly to tell us that God did not choose an elite of the righteous or a sect of the likeminded. He chose a family – Abraham and Sarah’s descendants — extended through time. The family is the most powerful vehicle of continuity, and the kinds of changes Jews were expected to make to the world could not be achieved in a single generation. Hence the importance of the family as a place of education (“You shall teach these things repeatedly to your children …”) and of handing the story on, especially on Pesach through the Seder service.

Another reason is that family feeling is the most primal and powerful moral bond. The scientist J. B. S. Haldane famously said, when asked whether he would jump into a river and risk his life to save his drowning brother, “No, but I would do so to save two brothers or eight cousins.” The point he was making was that we share 50 per cent of our genes with our siblings, and an eighth with our cousins. Taking a risk to save them is a way of ensuring that our genes are passed on to the next generation. This principle, known as “kin selection”, is the most basic form of human altruism. It is where the moral sense is born.

That is a key insight, not only of biology but also of political theory. Edmund Burke famously said that “To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.”[3] Likewise Alexis de Tocqueville said, “As long as family feeling was kept alive, the opponent of oppression was never alone.”[4]

Strong families are essential to free societies. Where families are strong, a sense of altruism exists that can be extended outward, from family to friends to neighbours to community and from there to the nation as a whole.

It was the sense of family that kept Jews linked in a web of mutual obligation despite the fact that they were scattered across the world. Does it still exist? Sometimes the divisions in the Jewish world go so deep, and the insults hurled by one group against another are so brutal that one could almost be persuaded that it does not. In the 1950s Martin Buber expressed the belief that the Jewish people in the traditional sense no longer existed. Knesset Yisrael, the covenantal people as a single entity before God, was no more. The divisions between Jews, religious and secular, orthodox and non-orthodox, Zionist and non-Zionist, had, he thought, fragmented the people beyond hope of repair.

Yet that conclusion is premature for precisely the reason that makes family so elemental a bond. Argue with your friend and tomorrow he may no longer be your friend, but argue with your brother and tomorrow he is still your brother. The book of Genesis is full of sibling rivalries but they do not all end the same way. The story of Cain and Abel ends with Abel dead. The story of Isaac and Ishmael ends with their standing together at Abraham’s grave. The story of Esau and Jacob reaches a climax when, after a long separation, they meet, embrace and go their separate ways. The story of Joseph and his brothers begins with animosity but ends with forgiveness and reconciliation. Even the most dysfunctional families can eventually come together.

The Jewish people remains a family, often divided, always argumentative, but bound in a common bond of fate nonetheless. As our parsha reminds us, that person who has fallen is our brother or sister, and ours must be the hand that helps them rise again.

[1] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor, 10:2.

[2] Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai to Ex. 19:6.

[3] Edmund Burke (1729–1797).  Reflections on the French Revolution. The Harvard Classics.  1909–14.

[4] Democracy in America, Chapter XVII: Principal causes which tend to maintain the democratic republic in the United States.

From OU, here.

Leviticus

The Role of the Levites

1. The tribe of Levi was elevated to perform holy service, in the Tabernacle of the desert and in the Temple. Hence, it is a affirmative command for all Levites to be available and prepared for Temple Service, as stated in the Torah, “The Levites shall be for Me” (Numbers 18:14), indicating that the special relationship with the tribe of Levi is permanent. The prophet Jeremiah relates God’s promise that there will always be Kohanim and Levites fit to serve: “As I will never renege on My covenant with day and night, so is my covenant with…the Levites, the Kohanim, My servants” (Jeremiah 33:21).

2. The choice of the tribe of Levi for the highest spiritual service was due to their ability to channel their strong character in the service of God. Levi, the son of Jacob, was chastised for his anger by his father: “Cursed is their zealousness for it is brazen and their wrath for it is hard. I will separate them in Ya’akov and scatter them throughout Israel” (Genesis 49:6-7).

Four generations later, Moses blessed the same tribe of Levi: “Your righteous men…keeper of Your word and covenant; He shall teach Your judgment in Ya’akov and Your Torah in Israel…Blessed of God is his valor and his actions are pleasing…” (Deuteronomy 33:8-11). The Levites were able to apply their physical and spiritual strength to the fulfillment of God’s will and gain forever the role of God’s trusted servants.

3. The name Levi is derived from the words “he shall accompany”. This name was given to the third son of Jacob and Leah to indicate that he was to bring a strengthening of relationship between his parents, for now with three children, Jacob would need to accompany his wife Leah.

It was a natural development, therefore, that the task of the Levite became to accompany the Divine Presence and serve in the Temple. His role as teacher and spiritual example is to lead and, thereby, accompany others back to their spiritual purpose. The Midrash relates that in the future, Levites will lead the people of Israel back to their Father in Heaven.

4. Levi ben Ya’akov, the father of the tribe of Levites, lived 137 years, the longest of all of the sons of Jacob. He had a particularly strong influence on the spiritual development of his progeny, and lived to see his great-grandsons Moshe and Aharon.

5. The loyal nature of the Levites was most clearly demonstrated at the episode of the Golden Calf. The general population was influenced by the evil promptings of the mixed multitude. The Levites rallied to the side of Moshe to avenge God’s honor. They were rewarded with the spiritual service lost at that time by the firstborn of the other tribes. The Levites were tested and proved themselves able, thereby earning their elevated spiritual status.

The Levites were constantly willing to risk their lives for God’s service. They carried the sanctified vessels of the Tabernacle, which if mishandled, resulted in death.

6. The independent nature of the Levite was balanced by his role of Temple functionary. The Levites carried the Tabernacle and its vessels on its wanderings in the desert. Levites served as the honor guard, gatekeepers and musicians of the Temple. They also assisted the Kohanim in preparing toe offerings and in other aspects of the Temple’s functioning.

7. The economics of the tribe of Levi were unique among the tribes of Israel. In contrast to the other tribes, Levites had no inherited portion in the Land of Israel. Forty-two cities scattered throughout the portions of the other tribes were set aside as cities of Levites. In these cities, the Levites served as spiritual teachers to the people of Israel. These cities also served as shelters for those guilty of accidentally causing a person’s death. Whereas the other tribes worked the land, the Levite was dependent on the tithes and food gifts of others. Levites were made to be economically dependent on others for their income. In exchange for his life’s service, the Levite received God’s ordained sustenance through the required tithing of the nation. There was a mitzva upon the people of Israel not to abandon the Levi.

8. Levites were exempt from general military service. They were not counted in the census of the army in time of Moses or the Judge Deborah. Though relieved of the specific mitzva of waging war, they are required to take part in the mitzva of saving lives in times of direct threat.

The service of the Levite is the service of the spirit. Thus the tribe originally chastised for its warlike behavior became the tribe which exemplified peace, blessing and fraternal harmony. Yet the Levites throughout history were able to rise to the occasion to fight for values when necessary, as in the case of Channuka where they led the Jewish struggle against Greek influence.

An interesting contrast to the general army exemption of the tribe of Levi was the office of the “Kohen Anointed fir War”. This Kohen, whose position was an honored one in the hierarchy of Kohanim, was appointed to inspire and spiritually prepare the army of Israel before battle.

9. God’s special relationship with the tribe of Levi is promised to last forever. No other family is allowed to perform the Temple Service. Levites have been among the spiritual leaders of the nation from earliest times and continue to fulfill leadership roles until today. The true fulfillment of the soul of a son of the tribe of Levi is to once again serve God in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

From The Tribe, here.

‘With All Your Getting Get Understanding’

Commencement Season

By

May 24, 2016

This is the season of college Commencement speeches — an art form that has seldom been memorable but has increasingly become toxic in recent times.

Two themes seem to dominate Commencement speeches. One is shameless self-advertising by people in government, or in related organizations supported by the taxpayers or donors, saying how nobler it is to be in “public service” than working in business or other “selfish” activities.

In other words, the message is that it is morally superior to be in organizations consuming output produced by others than to be in organizations which produce that output. Moreover, being morally one-up is where it’s at.

The second theme of many Commencement speakers, besides flattering themselves that they are in morally superior careers, is to flatter the graduates that they are now equipped to go out into the world as “leaders” who can prescribe how other people should live.

In other words, young people, who in most cases have never had either the sobering responsibility and experience of being self-supporting adults, are to tell other people — who have had that responsibility and that experience for years — how they should live their lives.

In so far as the graduates go into “public service” in government, whether as bureaucrats or as aides to politicians or judges, they are to help order other people around.

It might never occur to many Commencement speakers, or to their audiences, that what the speakers are suggesting is that inexperienced young graduates are to prescribe, or help to dictate, to vast numbers of other people who have the real world experience that the graduates themselves lack.

To the extent that such graduates remain in government — “public service” — they can progress from aides to becoming career politicians, bureaucrats, and judges, never acquiring the experience of being on the receiving end of their prescriptions or dictates. That can mean a lifetime of people with ignorance presuming to prescribe to people with personal knowledge.

However well-educated the students might be in particular narrow fields — and, in too many cases, they have not gotten even that — what the graduates might have, at best, is a foundation for acquiring the real world experience necessary to complete their education and fulfill the ancient admonition, “With all your getting, get understanding.”

The presumption is not understanding. It is the antithesis of understanding.

It was my personal good fortune never to have been present at a college or university Commencement speech until I was 46 years old. In my earlier years, my college and postgraduate degrees had been mailed to a forwarding address that I left behind when I took leave of the campus at the earliest opportunity.

At age 46, I was a Commencement speaker and had to be told and shown how to wear the regalia. By the time I actually heard someone else give a Commencement speech, I was in my 50s — and knew enough by that time to be appalled, rather than inspired.

It was also my good fortune not to have gone to college until I was several years older than most people. At an age when too many young people have been told too often how brilliant and exceptional they are — presumably to promote “self-esteem” — I was working at unskilled labor jobs and struggling to buy food and pay my room rent.

Having to start work at the bottom was a blessing in disguise — and extremely well disguised at the time.

I learned the hard way that the good grades I had earned before dropping out of school were of no use to me in my low-level jobs. No one told me how brilliant I was. They were too busy correcting my mistakes.

It was painfully obvious that adults around me understood much more about their work — and about life. This taught me inescapable lessons and respect for people who had no academic pretensions but a lot of common sense.

It would take a lot more than lofty Commencement speeches to undo those lessons. We all have windfall gains and windfall losses. But, all in all, I feel lucky compared to those graduates who are so vulnerable to slick Commencement speakers.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Ribbis In Fiat Currency

THE RIBBIS PERILS OF FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS

Currency fluctuations can wreak havoc on people’s finances. Many investors and lenders sustained large losses with the recent plunge of the Russian ruble. When lenders granted ruble-denominated loans, even if they are repaid the entire face amount of their loans, the value and purchasing power of such repayment is substantially lower than the value at which the loan was originated. An American investor who purchased Russian bonds just two months ago lost around 20% of his investment simply because of the exchange rate fluctuations. Similarly, Russian homeowners who had outstanding foreign currency mortgages now pay substantially more rubles to service their loan.

Of even greater concern to the Torah Jew are the potential ribbis violations present in foreign currency transactions. These challenges apply to all of us, not just to the international businessman. People often borrow shekels from a friend or neighbor in the US for use when they arrive in Eretz Yisroel. There is no interest on the loan; they intend to simply repay with the same amount of shekels upon their return. This seemingly innocent transaction likely violates hilchos ribbis, as we will explain. Another seemingly innocuous case would be a dollar-based, non-interest-bearing loan between two individuals in Eretz Yisroel. This too can pose serious ribbis concerns.

In order to understand the issues at hand, we must first introduce certain basic tenets of hilchos ribbis.

Ribbis Ketzutzah

Ribbis that is prohibited min haTorah (biblically prohibited) is generally referred to as “ribbis ketzutzah,” meaning that the interest was set at the time the loan was initiated.[1]  However, in order to safeguard against violating ribbis min haTorah, Chazal extended these prohibitions to certain other transactions and loans. There are many forms that are included in this category, but one in particular is pertinent to the issue at hand:

Seah B’seah (Measure for a Measure)— Although lending out goods for repayment in kind is perfectly permissible according to Torah law (since the lender is receiving the same quantity of goods that he lent out), Chazal forbade such transactions. The reason for this prohibition is that if the price of the goods appreciates at the time of repayment, the lender will profit from the transaction. For example, if someone lent 100 ounces of silver when it was trading at 10 dollars an ounce, and was repaid in kind when it was valued at 12 dollars an ounce, the lender will have earned two hundred dollars from the transaction, despite the fact that he received the same weight of silver he initially lent. Although the profit was a result of a price fluctuation, and the price was just as likely to decrease, nevertheless Chazal prohibited such transactions.

Currency or Commodity

The prohibition of seah b’seah does not apply to local currency: If a person in the United States borrows one hundred US dollars, he may repay the same hundred dollars even if there was deflation and the purchasing power of the money increased at the time of repayment. The prohibition does not apply to currency, and is only applicable to items defined as “peiros” (literally, fruits), i.e., goods. The reason for this is that currency is treated in halacha as having a fixed value. Therefore, when prices increase, we view the increase as a change in the value of the peiros/goods, and not as a decrease in the value of the currency. By this definition, a lender who receives the same amount of currency he lent out is not considered to have made any profit off the transaction, regardless in the change in price levels. Rather, it is only when lending and receiving goods whose value appreciated during the course of the loan that a lender can be halachically deemed to have received more value than he lent out.

This distinction between currency and goods leads to some fascinating questions. In the US, it is easy to define currency —  the US dollar. However, in the times of the Gemara, currency in most countries consisted of gold, silver, and copper coins. These coins, even if minted in the same country, constantly fluctuated in their relative values. For example, the exchange rate of copper coins to silver coins would vary on a regular basis (unlike today, when a quarter is always twenty-five cents and a nickel is always five cents). The question that arose was which coins were considered currency — the gold coins, the silver coins, or the copper coins? The Gemara tells us that only silver coins were considered currency, while gcy rates only on a daily basis, this is sufficiently stable to qualify for yatza hasha’ar.[11] Others argue that even daily fluctuations are not considered as stable.[12]

However, there is another important issue: In the times of the Gemara, price instability was indicative of a lack of supply. Without regular availability, the borrower could not be considered in theory as having the product in hand (yesh lo); therefore, the problem of seah b’seah would apply. Today, however, regular fluctuations in terminally-traded markets (such as currencies) are generally not due to a lack of availability. On the contrary, the fluctuations occur because of minute shifts to the supply and demand equilibrium.  At the market price, freely traded currencies are virtually always available in significant quantities. Since the supply of currency is readily available, despite the fluctuating price, the problem of seah b’seah should not apply. This, however, holds true only if stable pricing was required only because it was indicative of ready supply. If however, the leniency of stable prices is not because of availability, but rather because stable prices allow the borrower to replace the material before the price appreciates, currencies, whose price fluctuates extremely rapidly, would not qualify for the leniency. This question seems to be a matter of dispute among both the Rishonim and Achronim.[13]

This discussion illustrates some of the challenges in applying halacha to modern-day scenarios. As commerce evolves, it is important to be sensitive how these shifts impact halacha. It also illustrates how seemingly insignificant factors can materially affect the halachic status.

As such, the purpose of this article is to create awareness of the halachic issues, and to stimulate discussion. It is not intended to be used for a psak halacha, and one should consult a competent halachic authority before engaging in such transactions.

[1] Some are of the opinion that in certain instances, even ribbis that was arranged subsequent to the loan can be a violation of Torah law (Rashi, Bava Metzia 68a, s.v. “velav milsa”; Shulchan Aruch 164:1; Shach 164:2).

[2] Bava Metzia 45a. The rationale for this will be explained later.

[3] See however, Minchas Shlomo Vol. 1, 27:4 (also quoted by, Nesivos Shalom p. 250) who suggests that nowadays, seah b’seah would not apply to currencies since all forms of legal tender are valued solely based on their worth as a currency (representative value) and not based on their material (intrinsic) value.  As such, they are never classified as a commodity.

[4] Teshuvos HaRashba 4:287; Chazon Ish, Yoreh De’ah 72:9. However, the Ritva (Bava Metzia 44a, s.v. “vechol hametaltelin” disagrees.

[5] Section 2:54

[6]  162:1

[7] HaRav Mendel Shafran, shlit”a, in Hayashar Vehatov Vol. 18, pp. 21–23.  See Nesivos Shalom p. 250, who quotes HaRav Elyashiv zt”l

[8] Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 162:2

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid., se’if 3

[11] Shevet HaLevi Vol. 3:109

[12] Mishnas Ribbis 6n12, quoting HaRav Elyashiv zt”l

[13] Bais Yosef (Tur, Yoreh Deah 162), citing Teshuvos Rashba Chadashos 76; Ba’al HaMaor, Bava Metzia 45a (dapei haRif); Sha’ar Deah 162:3

From Business Halacha, here.