Pensée juive sur Les Lamentations 4:6

Money can be used in four different ways. There are those who will employ their own funds, but will not use other people's money even as a loan. There are those who will employ other people's funds both willingly and reluctantly, if forced by circumstances. When such people use other people's money willingly, this can involve gifts, exchanges by means of barter, and other services. The first method is called shurat hadin, strict law. This is so, since such person will automatically impose on others restraints he has imposed upon himself. For this reason, he will not make his money available to others for whatever purpose. Such people fit the description of the first category mentioned in our Mishnah. The first method (in the Mishnah), being by far the most common, is called that of the am ha-aretz, the common people, the average person. The third method, involving complete disregard for other people's property, is labelled "wicked," and the last method stemming from a generous heart is described as the way of the pious, the devout. All commentators agree that the reason the first method is called "average" is because it represents a point midway between the two extremes possible. On the one hand, by not fulfilling the commandment to be helpful to our fellow man, people practicing this approach to life deny themselves the uplifting experience that fulfilment of such mitzvot entails. On the other hand, the fact that they scrupulously avoid infringing on other people's property, is insurance against their ever becoming guilty of theft, robbery, a whole register of transgressions. The minority opinion, viewing the lifestyle of the first category as like that of the Sodomites, bases itself on the verse in Ezekiel 16,49, "This then was the sin of Sodom your sister; surfeit of bread, undisturbed peace were hers and her daughters, but the hand of the poor and the needy they did not support." According to this, one may be puzzled at the fate of Sodom, seeing that they acted in a manner described as "average." Rabbi Nathan, who is normally the author of sayings in a Mishnah which contains such a statement as "there are some who say," tells us that "the golden mean," normally the path in life to be chosen, in this instance led to the destruction of those who were content to follow it. Aristotle in Ethics Book four, classifies as "the liberal man," i.e. as the average type, the one who shares his wealth with others who deserve it at the proper time and at the proper place and for the proper purpose. Such a person would also not be averse to accept help under similar conditions. This is no doubt acceptable behavior, and makes the problem of understanding the author of our Mishnah, who describes the "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" principle as an average attitude, even harder to understand. Furthermore, even though on rare occasions the desire not to touch other people's money may be motivated by the fear of violating someone else's property rights, in the vast majority of cases, the reason is simply that one does not want to be called upon to reciprocate on future occasions. Although in some cases the desire not to become a burden to others may be the reason one does not want to share, in the majority of cases it is simply an inability to give, to share with others, to extend help. How then can two combinations of negative attitudes be called "average?" It also seems hard to understand why a person who freely gives but refuses to receive help from others when the need arises, can be described as pious. Anyone who pursues such a course persistently will become insolvent and, at one stage or another, a burden on the community. The person who practices the principle of "he who hates gifts will live" (Proverbs 15,27), raises the suspicion that his attitude is really anti social, negative. After all, how can there be “giving" unless there are people willing to "receive?" In fact, however, this method is not one of refusing to accept anything, rather the pious person is generous both in heart and in spirit. He does not view his property as really his to dispose of. On the other hand, he does not view what is generally called "his generosity" as a basis entitling him to use someone else's property in return or exchange. In that respect he differs greatly from the am ha-aretz, the ignorant, whose willingness to share is based only on the realization that he will be likely to benefit from such behavior sooner or later in at least equal measure. To understand the meaning of "average" or "median," we must not assume that it is necessarily a halfway mark between two extremes. Let us assume that a very greedy individual aims to amass ten million dollars. On the other extreme of the scale, let us assume that a modest individual is content with amassing one hundred dollars. The "average" or "median" then is not an amount approximating five million dollars, which would be equivalent to the "golden mean.” Everyone realizes that such a definition of the "golden rule" would be quite erroneous. From this it follows that in matters of giving and taking, the median can only mean "not to take" (i.e. accept) while at the same time "not to to give." This is the halfway mark between greedy possessiveness and generous largesse. Still, this does not yet explain why on the frequent occasions when Israel seemed guilty of far greater sins than the ones quoted from Ezekiel above (as compared to those of Sodom), it was not punished, despite constant warnings by its prophets. Lamentations 4,6 makes it clear that Israel's sins were far greater than Sodom's. Moreover, why did Ezekiel ignore the behavior of the Sodomites described in our Parshah, surely a far more serious crime than merely refusing to share one's wealth? It is also puzzling that the Israelites who went to avenge the crime of Givah and made war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges Chapter 19), suffered repeated setbacks at the hands of the people of Benjamin. As a matter of fact, the Benjaminites had perpetrated their crime on a fellow Jewess, not on aliens like the men of Sodom in our Parshah. Also, whereas the men of Sodom never had a chance to carry out their evil designs, the men of Givah had executed their heinous deed. Clearly then, Israel had sinned more grievously than the men of Sodom. Concerning the opinions offered that the other tribes retaliated against Benjamin illegally, there are only two possibilities. If indeed the tribes acted illegally, why did the tribe of Benjamin not emerge victorious? If, on the other hand, the attack by the tribes was legal, why did Benjamin succeed in inflicting such tremendous losses on the other tribes on two separate occasions? We may find the answer in Aristotele's Ethics Chapter 7 Section 10. We know from Abraham's prayer that G-d does not punish the innocent together with the guilty. His ways are always perfect. The difference then lies in the distinction between someone called rasha, evil, and someone called chote, someone committing an isolated sin. The latter merely lacks self-control, his body having become somewhat corrupt, whereas his mind and spirit have not been perverted. The rasha, however, is corrupt both in body and in mind. From this there follow two other distinctions. 1) The rasha is not subject to having remorse, since his corrupt mentality does not allow him to be reminded of the error of his ways. The chote, however, once his passions have cooled, will be reminded by his mind of the wrong he has done and is afforded an opportunity to repent and mend his ways. 2) The chote, because of his unimpaired mind is curable, whereas the rasha due to his perverted mind, is already incurable, since there is nothing left to start the process of the cure, the healing of mind and body. The problem of Sodom was that theirs was not just a crime of unbridled passion which ignored existing laws that should have restrained the people. These people had legislated the kind of laws which would prevent those laws from acting as a restraint against their evil inclinations. They legislated penalties against those who would breach the principle of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." If someone were to step out of line and extend help to outsiders, he would be in defiance of the local laws and face death, even if his crime had only involved offering benefits to a third party at no cost or inconvenience to the donor. This is what really put them at the wrong end of the two extremes of greedy possessiveness and kind hearted generosity (Baba Batra 12). Our Torah has bent over backwards to include a host of legislation regulating our conduct in matters of extending help to others, both of a financial or physical nature. Tzedakah, loving kindness, interest-free loans, redeeming the property of an impoverished relative that has been sold to satisfy debts, are all part of this legislation. Even assisting an enemy when loading or unloading his donkey or taking into one's yard livestock lost by some neighbor at one's own expense to safeguard it on behalf of the absentee owner, are all examples of how not to emulate the behavior practiced by the Sodomites. Sodomite legislation prohibiting hospitality was designed to frighten off would be visitors and to ensure undisturbed life for its inhabitants.

Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, "The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, "He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with "my brother Benjamin" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" can reduce people to the level which borders on "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also," i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being.