Talmidav Shel Aharon
33-5767: Mitzvah 67
July 30, 2007
Mitzvah 67 – It is a positive commandment to render judgement on matters of buying and selling.
Hafetz Hayim: By the rule that the Torah ordained about it. This is to say that there are situations where a transaction between seller and buyer remains valid, and situations where it has no validity; and an obligation lies upon us to judge between them according to the instruction of the Torah. A specific commandment is given about this in a specific portion [of Scripture]: “and if you sell something to your fellow or buy from your fellow’s hand, etc. (Lev. 25:14) – because it [trade] is a constant thing among human beings, without which it is impossible for people to live even one day. Land can be acquired as one’s possession through money, a document, or demonstration of ownership; and moveable goods or a domestic animal by drawing {it to oneself] and all the more certainly by lifting it, and so forth. It applies everywhere and in every time.
This one surprised me for a couple of reasons. It is the first we have encountered that does not have a “proof text” from the Bible and the text that it does quote only makes the point of this Mitzvah more confused. Is this a Mitzvah only for judges, or for appraisers or does it apply to everyone, (note the conclusion does not include people).
Let me start with the quote from Leviticus 25:14. I need to give you the rest of the quote because, for some reason, the Hafetz Hayim does not quote the entire verse let alone the section in which it sits. Let me quote the section:
“When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another. In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct only for the number of years since the jubilee; and in selling to you, he shall charge you only for the remaining crop years; the more years, the higher the price; for what he is selling you is a number of harvests. Do no wrong one another, but fear your G-d; for I am the Lord your G-d.”
This is from Parshat Behar and speaks of the Jubilee year when land returned to its original owner. In a technical sense, the land was never sold, but leased for the number of years until it had to be returned. We see, in this case, there has to be a determination as to how many years are left until the land must be returned. Since we are talking about crop years, with the assumption that farming is the purpose of buying (leasing) the land, the number of years will depend on which crop is being planted and what time of year the sale takes place. This would mean that the Hafetz Hayim would be referring to land and the jubilee year only, and clearly he is not.
Perhaps since he is talking about buying and selling, he expands the mitzvah to include moveable property as well as cattle. The laws concerning buying and selling are very long and complicated and I have only a modest understanding of them. Part of the reason for this is because, under Jewish Law, when there is a conflict between Jewish law and civil law, in the case of monetary laws, we follow the law of the land and not Jewish law.
It seems more likely that the Hafetz Hayim is referring to all the laws of transactions here. The mitzvah is to make sure that all transactions are performed properly. In the case of land, to have a valid transaction you have to hand money for the land over to the seller in front of two or more witnesses, or you can draw up a contract, and by taking possession of the contract in front of witnesses, or a demonstration of ownership, that means putting up a fence, hoeing, locking the premises or putting down a mattress to sleep or any other act that would show that this person is the owner. (I note here that since a Ketubah, a marriage contract, transfers ownership of part of the grooms land to the wife in the event that he should predecease her, that the rules of transaction by contract, that is the need for witnesses and the placing of the Ketubah in her hands, is necessary and therefore a part of the wedding ceremony)
In the case of moveable property or animals, the actual object has to moved into the domain of the buyer. It can be carried there, or, in the case of animals, “pulled” there. If it is not practical to move the object, the buyer, lifting it from its place, can acquire it. There are other technical ways to acquire objects, such as using a handkerchief, or in some cases, the transfer of money. What I think the Mitzvah here is to be one of the witnesses to the transaction and therefore enable business to go on as usual. Without witnesses, business would grind to a halt and everyone would suffer.
This could explain why the Mitzvah is so unusual. While we are “commanded” to do this, it could involve a great deal of inconvenience. Rabbis would want to insure that commerce goes on but the requirement part of this seems to be very tenuous.
I invite any of my readers who have a deeper understanding of the laws of acquisition in Judaism to attach their comments if it would help clarify this Mitzvah.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
32-5767: Mitzvah 66
Talmidav Shel Aharon
32-5767: Mitzvah 66
July 16, 2007
Mitzvah 66 – It is a positive commandment to give the wages of a hired hand on the same day.
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says: “On his day you shall give him his hire” (Deut. 24:15) To a “resident stranger” ( who has committed himself to observe the seven commandments of Noah) this law also applies, that “on his day you shall give him his hire.” It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
I believe that this law is the source of the maxim: An honest days pay for an honest days work. That is the fundamental ethic behind this Mitzvah. If someone does work for you, they are entitled to be paid. The Mitzvah also insists that the payment should be given on the same day the work is done.
The importance of this law seems obvious. A day laborer depends on his pay to support himself and his family. To withhold that pay, or to make him or her wait to be paid, would cause needless suffering. It would also leave the laborer with little recourse to get his money later. Such day laborers do not have the resources to sue the employer for their wages. By the time the matter gets to court, the entire family could be starving. These workers are some of the most vulnerable in society. They are at the bottom of the labor hierarchy; The Sages passed many laws to protect them. One was last weeks Mitzvah, that they be given opportunities to snack on the job. This one adds the protection that they will be paid promptly.
I apply this mitzvah to all small business owners who go out and try to offer a service to the community. The gardeners, the pool technicians, the handyman and the roof repairman are all basically in business for themselves and depend on being paid promptly. If they accept a credit card, the bill is paid on the spot. If they are used to sending a monthly bill, I direct the bill pay at my bank to pay them as soon as the bill arrives and not wait 30 days to send payment. Large corporations, the power company, the mortgage company, the city water bureau, and the credit card companies I pay just prior to the due date, but not the “little guys.” The Torah teaches us that they deserve a break and should be paid, if possible, the same day. The Talmud records a dispute between such laborers and a wealthy landowner. He withheld payment and seized the workers garments because they were moving barrels of wine and broke one, causing him a loss. The workers took the man to court and the court insisted that their garments be returned, since they did not intend to break the barrel, it was just an accident and they could not be held liable for accidental damages. The court also demanded that they be paid for the day. The landowner was incensed that they had caused him damage and now he hand to pay them too! Still the court insisted that they had done their best that day and deserved to be paid.
32-5767: Mitzvah 66
July 16, 2007
Mitzvah 66 – It is a positive commandment to give the wages of a hired hand on the same day.
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says: “On his day you shall give him his hire” (Deut. 24:15) To a “resident stranger” ( who has committed himself to observe the seven commandments of Noah) this law also applies, that “on his day you shall give him his hire.” It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
I believe that this law is the source of the maxim: An honest days pay for an honest days work. That is the fundamental ethic behind this Mitzvah. If someone does work for you, they are entitled to be paid. The Mitzvah also insists that the payment should be given on the same day the work is done.
The importance of this law seems obvious. A day laborer depends on his pay to support himself and his family. To withhold that pay, or to make him or her wait to be paid, would cause needless suffering. It would also leave the laborer with little recourse to get his money later. Such day laborers do not have the resources to sue the employer for their wages. By the time the matter gets to court, the entire family could be starving. These workers are some of the most vulnerable in society. They are at the bottom of the labor hierarchy; The Sages passed many laws to protect them. One was last weeks Mitzvah, that they be given opportunities to snack on the job. This one adds the protection that they will be paid promptly.
I apply this mitzvah to all small business owners who go out and try to offer a service to the community. The gardeners, the pool technicians, the handyman and the roof repairman are all basically in business for themselves and depend on being paid promptly. If they accept a credit card, the bill is paid on the spot. If they are used to sending a monthly bill, I direct the bill pay at my bank to pay them as soon as the bill arrives and not wait 30 days to send payment. Large corporations, the power company, the mortgage company, the city water bureau, and the credit card companies I pay just prior to the due date, but not the “little guys.” The Torah teaches us that they deserve a break and should be paid, if possible, the same day. The Talmud records a dispute between such laborers and a wealthy landowner. He withheld payment and seized the workers garments because they were moving barrels of wine and broke one, causing him a loss. The workers took the man to court and the court insisted that their garments be returned, since they did not intend to break the barrel, it was just an accident and they could not be held liable for accidental damages. The court also demanded that they be paid for the day. The landowner was incensed that they had caused him damage and now he hand to pay them too! Still the court insisted that they had done their best that day and deserved to be paid.
Monday, July 9, 2007
31-5767: Mitzvah 65
Talmidav Shel Aharon
31-5767: Mitzvah 65
July 9, 2007
Mitzvah 65 – It is a positive commandment that an owner should allow the laborer to eat of what he is working at, when it is something that grows from the ground.
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says: “When you come into your fellow’s vineyard, then you may eat etc.” (Deut. 23:25) and it says, “When you come into your fellow’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears etc.” (Deut. 23:26) and by the Oral Tradition it was learned that Scripture speaks here of a laborer.
He may eat produce that either was plucked or is attached, whose work has not been completed yet, and by this act [of his labor] the work is completed. This means then, not before the completion of the work nor after the completion of the work, but only during the completion of the work. And for the purpose of returning a lost working time, to the owner, the Sages taught “that the workers should eat while walking from one furrow to another, and while returning from the winepress [even though they are not actually working then] so that they should not stop their work and sit down to eat, walking, and thus not be idle from their work.
If someone is guarding produce attached to the soil, he is not to eat of it at all since a watchman is not like one doing actual labor. If a person is guarding reaped produce he may eat of it not by the laws of the Torah, but by the norms of the land. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
We sometimes get so used to the Sages talking about moral laws and often neglect laws like these, which are basic labor laws. These laws are designed to help understand the relationship between labor and management. While we can also understand them as moral laws, they are really part of a genre of laws that relate to proper business practices.
What we have here is a basic law of management/labor where it spells out one of the rights that the laborers have when working in the field. Jewish law forbids a man to muzzle his ox when threshing grain to prevent the animal from eating the grain on the threshing floor. This was seen as preventing animal cruelty. If we feel that way about animals, how much more should we allow the laborer to eat of the produce he or she is harvesting!
The parameters of the law are identified here. If the reaping has not begun and the laborers are just repairing fences, then they cannot touch the grain or fruit. If the harvest is over and the grain or fruit is waiting to be tithed or other taxes need to be paid, the laborer cannot touch it. If the laborer is hired to be a watchman for produce still in the field, he is not allowed to eat from it since he is supposed to be guarding it. Normally this would apply to produce already reaped, but local custom says he is entitled to snack on what he is guarding.
Workers in the field, however, who are in the process of reaping the produce can eat from what they are harvesting. The only issue is if they spend all their time eating and not enough time actually working! The law states that when they move from field to field, or from one row to another, or when they are dropping off the grain or grapes at the barn or the winepress, they can eat while they are walking. This is not in lieu of a lunch break, for laborers were required to bring their own lunch and could sit for a while and eat it. This is just a snack during the day and they are supposed to keep working while they are “snacking”. To do otherwise would be stealing time from the owner of the field. I suspect that this walking rule also prevented the workers from eating too much of the produce they were harvesting.
Thus both the landowner and the laborer understood their responsibilities during the harvest and the work got done, and the laborer was treated with respect. It is not too bad a system. We will see more about worker rights in our next lesson.
31-5767: Mitzvah 65
July 9, 2007
Mitzvah 65 – It is a positive commandment that an owner should allow the laborer to eat of what he is working at, when it is something that grows from the ground.
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says: “When you come into your fellow’s vineyard, then you may eat etc.” (Deut. 23:25) and it says, “When you come into your fellow’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears etc.” (Deut. 23:26) and by the Oral Tradition it was learned that Scripture speaks here of a laborer.
He may eat produce that either was plucked or is attached, whose work has not been completed yet, and by this act [of his labor] the work is completed. This means then, not before the completion of the work nor after the completion of the work, but only during the completion of the work. And for the purpose of returning a lost working time, to the owner, the Sages taught “that the workers should eat while walking from one furrow to another, and while returning from the winepress [even though they are not actually working then] so that they should not stop their work and sit down to eat, walking, and thus not be idle from their work.
If someone is guarding produce attached to the soil, he is not to eat of it at all since a watchman is not like one doing actual labor. If a person is guarding reaped produce he may eat of it not by the laws of the Torah, but by the norms of the land. It applies everywhere and in every time for both men and women.
We sometimes get so used to the Sages talking about moral laws and often neglect laws like these, which are basic labor laws. These laws are designed to help understand the relationship between labor and management. While we can also understand them as moral laws, they are really part of a genre of laws that relate to proper business practices.
What we have here is a basic law of management/labor where it spells out one of the rights that the laborers have when working in the field. Jewish law forbids a man to muzzle his ox when threshing grain to prevent the animal from eating the grain on the threshing floor. This was seen as preventing animal cruelty. If we feel that way about animals, how much more should we allow the laborer to eat of the produce he or she is harvesting!
The parameters of the law are identified here. If the reaping has not begun and the laborers are just repairing fences, then they cannot touch the grain or fruit. If the harvest is over and the grain or fruit is waiting to be tithed or other taxes need to be paid, the laborer cannot touch it. If the laborer is hired to be a watchman for produce still in the field, he is not allowed to eat from it since he is supposed to be guarding it. Normally this would apply to produce already reaped, but local custom says he is entitled to snack on what he is guarding.
Workers in the field, however, who are in the process of reaping the produce can eat from what they are harvesting. The only issue is if they spend all their time eating and not enough time actually working! The law states that when they move from field to field, or from one row to another, or when they are dropping off the grain or grapes at the barn or the winepress, they can eat while they are walking. This is not in lieu of a lunch break, for laborers were required to bring their own lunch and could sit for a while and eat it. This is just a snack during the day and they are supposed to keep working while they are “snacking”. To do otherwise would be stealing time from the owner of the field. I suspect that this walking rule also prevented the workers from eating too much of the produce they were harvesting.
Thus both the landowner and the laborer understood their responsibilities during the harvest and the work got done, and the laborer was treated with respect. It is not too bad a system. We will see more about worker rights in our next lesson.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
30-5767: Mitzvah 64
Talmidav Shel Aharon
30-5767: Mitzvah 64
July 2, 2007
Mitzvah 64 – It is a positive commandment to release (cancel) a loan in the year of Shmitta (release).
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says: “every creditor shall release what he has lent his fellow.” (Deut. 15:2) If a borrower repays a creditor a loan over which the seventh year (shemitta) has passed, he is not to take it from him but is rather to tell him, “I release it”: for Scripture says, “And this is the manner (lit. the spoken word) of the release” (ibid). If the borrower says, “Nevertheless, take it.” He may accept it from him.
By the law of the Torah, the release of money obligations is in effect only at the time that the law of the jubilee year is in effect. But it is a decree of the Sages that the release of money obligations should be in force also in the present time, so that the law of release should not be forgotten by Jewry. However, a prosbul (the declaration in court after a loan is given that the shmitta year is not to cancel it) is effective against the law of released money obligations at the present time, that this loan should not be cancelled. It applies to both men and women.
The Torah is specific that a debt should be cancelled in the seventh year, the shmitta year. There is no basis in the Torah for getting around this release. That is why if the borrower comes to the lender and offers to repay it after the shmitta has begun, the lender must declare out loud, that he has released the borrower from his obligations for the loan. Only if the borrower insists on repayment, can the lender accept it.
The reason for this law reflects the reality of an agricultural economy. Farmers need cash to raise crops. They can borrow against the profit they will receive from their crops in the spring and repay it after the harvest is sold. That should leave the farmer with enough to feed his family and to be able to plant again in the spring. Any farmer knows, however, that the situation is far more precarious that that. Sometimes the produce prices are depressed after the harvest and they do not get enough money to repay the loan. Sometimes there are natural or man-made disasters that destroy the crops and leave the farmer with no way to repay the loan. A couple of bad growing seasons and the burden of debt can be so crushing that the farm will have to be sold or the farmer will have to sell himself into indentured servitude to repay what he owes. This release from debt every seven years allows the farmer to have a new start and to still keep his farm and his freedom.
The problem arouse when the Israelites began to develop a business class. In the cities, the release of debts was a serious impediment for developing capital for new ventures. As the seventh year approached, loans became impossible to get or with impossible terms. For this reason, the sages developed a law called “prosbul” where the debt was handed over to the court who did not have to release debts in the seventh year and could still claim payment when other debts had to be cancelled. While later Rabbis tried to fit this into the structure of Jewish Law, it was really a new idea that arose not from the law, but from the needs of the people. In much the same way that Conservative Judaism acts on behalf of the needs of the people today.
The reality of Judaism is that we no longer really follow the seven year cycle when we do not live in the land of Israel and we are far from the commitment to the calendar that our ancestors used to have. The whole process of releasing debts should have only applied to those who live in our holy land. The Sages tell us, however, that no matter where we live, we have an obligation for Jewish Law that insists that we continue to keep this basic Torah law in spite of it being almost impossible to enforce. Still, because of our love of G-d and our love of Torah, many pious Jews still include with all loans of substance, clauses that protect the lenders from losing their capital. Other Jews follow a different custom that teaches, that in monetary matters, “Dina d’malchuta dina” which means that the law of the land is the law. We follow the secular rules of lending money unless we are in the land of Israel where these laws are still very much a part of the legal landscape.
30-5767: Mitzvah 64
July 2, 2007
Mitzvah 64 – It is a positive commandment to release (cancel) a loan in the year of Shmitta (release).
Hafetz Hayim: As Scripture says: “every creditor shall release what he has lent his fellow.” (Deut. 15:2) If a borrower repays a creditor a loan over which the seventh year (shemitta) has passed, he is not to take it from him but is rather to tell him, “I release it”: for Scripture says, “And this is the manner (lit. the spoken word) of the release” (ibid). If the borrower says, “Nevertheless, take it.” He may accept it from him.
By the law of the Torah, the release of money obligations is in effect only at the time that the law of the jubilee year is in effect. But it is a decree of the Sages that the release of money obligations should be in force also in the present time, so that the law of release should not be forgotten by Jewry. However, a prosbul (the declaration in court after a loan is given that the shmitta year is not to cancel it) is effective against the law of released money obligations at the present time, that this loan should not be cancelled. It applies to both men and women.
The Torah is specific that a debt should be cancelled in the seventh year, the shmitta year. There is no basis in the Torah for getting around this release. That is why if the borrower comes to the lender and offers to repay it after the shmitta has begun, the lender must declare out loud, that he has released the borrower from his obligations for the loan. Only if the borrower insists on repayment, can the lender accept it.
The reason for this law reflects the reality of an agricultural economy. Farmers need cash to raise crops. They can borrow against the profit they will receive from their crops in the spring and repay it after the harvest is sold. That should leave the farmer with enough to feed his family and to be able to plant again in the spring. Any farmer knows, however, that the situation is far more precarious that that. Sometimes the produce prices are depressed after the harvest and they do not get enough money to repay the loan. Sometimes there are natural or man-made disasters that destroy the crops and leave the farmer with no way to repay the loan. A couple of bad growing seasons and the burden of debt can be so crushing that the farm will have to be sold or the farmer will have to sell himself into indentured servitude to repay what he owes. This release from debt every seven years allows the farmer to have a new start and to still keep his farm and his freedom.
The problem arouse when the Israelites began to develop a business class. In the cities, the release of debts was a serious impediment for developing capital for new ventures. As the seventh year approached, loans became impossible to get or with impossible terms. For this reason, the sages developed a law called “prosbul” where the debt was handed over to the court who did not have to release debts in the seventh year and could still claim payment when other debts had to be cancelled. While later Rabbis tried to fit this into the structure of Jewish Law, it was really a new idea that arose not from the law, but from the needs of the people. In much the same way that Conservative Judaism acts on behalf of the needs of the people today.
The reality of Judaism is that we no longer really follow the seven year cycle when we do not live in the land of Israel and we are far from the commitment to the calendar that our ancestors used to have. The whole process of releasing debts should have only applied to those who live in our holy land. The Sages tell us, however, that no matter where we live, we have an obligation for Jewish Law that insists that we continue to keep this basic Torah law in spite of it being almost impossible to enforce. Still, because of our love of G-d and our love of Torah, many pious Jews still include with all loans of substance, clauses that protect the lenders from losing their capital. Other Jews follow a different custom that teaches, that in monetary matters, “Dina d’malchuta dina” which means that the law of the land is the law. We follow the secular rules of lending money unless we are in the land of Israel where these laws are still very much a part of the legal landscape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)