Tzedek II — Middat Sedom and Its Relation to Us
Bein Adam Le-chavero:
Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #14: Tzedek II Middat Sedom and Its Relation to Us
In last weeks lesson, we developed the concept of tzedek,
righteous behavior rooted in feelings of legal obligation and responsibility. We tried to illustrate how God seeks
to clarify for Avraham the proper definition of tzedaka and mishpat,
by revealing to him that the legal system of Sedom has produced an incorrigible
society, to which the only remedy is destruction.
We started to identify Sedoms corrupt system of legalized cruelty; in
fact, a true understanding of their outlook is essential for recognizing similar
inclinations amongst ourselves.
Before identifying the evil of Sedom, we must be very clear on what the
Jewish understanding of tzedek is, as we discussed last week. A proper delineation of tzedek
is essential for any individual who strives to be a tzaddik, a righteous
individual, one who fulfills all the dictates that Avraham gave to his
descendants. An accurate definition
of tzedek is essential for another reason as well. Sometimes we find ourselves giving
undue credit to ourselves because of righteous behavior that we exhibit. While this is indeed praiseworthy,
many of our activities are rooted in obligations; the simple reason is that they
express an outlook of Jewish justice in which not everything we have is truly
ours.
Rav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler explains that a
priori, people may feel that tzedek, righteousness, should demand
that all which they own is truly theirs; however, this is, in fact, viewed as
characteristic of Sedom. Avrahams
beseeching God on behalf of Sedom reveals that there is no tzedek and
there are no tzaddikim in Sedom.
He explains why this is:
Truthfully, when God gives out property to
individuals, he gives out property that in reality belongs to others; if so,
what belongs to my friend is in my possession, even though it is really his. So says the Rambam. My father ztl would say that
even a friendly face when greeting your friend is an entitlement that others
have a right to demand from you, and if you do not provide it for your friend,
then you are performing an injustice
Therefore, the root of tzedaka is
tzedek, because it is unjust not to give to another what, in fact, is
rightfully his. This is Jewish
justice
outside of the realm of chesed.
(Mikhtav Mei-Eliyahu vol. 5, p. 36)
Sedoms outlook stands diametrically opposed to this
Jewish understanding of tzedek.
They espouse the philosophy What I have is mine, and what you have is
yours (Avot 5:10) unless I know how to appropriate what you have
legally. This becomes known as middat Sedom, the behavior, trait or
values-system of Sedom, for all generations.
At first glance, it may seem that the mentality of Sedom is merely
ancient history, necessary for a proper understanding of the passages in
Bereishit discussing the cities of the Jordan Plain. Unfortunately, as the prophets have
already alerted us and as the Talmud has brought the message home,
middat Sedom persists well beyond the
era of the Patriarchs; it is part of modern history and current events as well. It has even insinuated itself, in
certain ways, into the actions of Jews in the past, and it continues to haunt us
in our day. What is worse is that
since middat Sedom is rooted in a
corrupted understanding of tzedek, many who act in this way actually view
themselves as completely righteous. This proves to be a real spiritual
impediment, preventing them from changing their ways.
The Sages are very cognizant of the fact that
middat Sedom is not a thing of the
past, and they outline a gamut of behavior known as middat Sedom,
Sedom-emulating behavior. They not
only advise us against this behavior; at some points, the rabbinic courts even
intercede in order to ensure that people will not, even unwittingly, act in the
manner of Sedom. What lies at the
root of middat Sedom, and how does the Sages awareness of it express itself in
Jewish law?
Middat Sedom
The Mishna in
Avot (5:10) lists four different character types revolving around ones
attitude towards property, both his and others.
One character type is defined by some authorities as representative of
middat Sedom, the outlook of Sedom:
There are four
attributes (middot) among people: a) One who says, What I have is mine,
and what you have is yours, is an average character type, but some
say this is middat Sedom; b) What I have is yours and what you have
is mine, is unlearned; c) What I have is yours and what you have is yours, is
pious; d) What you have is mine, and what I have is mine, is wicked.
Among the character types listed here are the unlearned, the wicked, the
pious, and the initial character type which some define as average and others as
middat Sedom. Regarding this
first individual mentioned in the mishna,
the one who says What I have is mine and what you have is yours, the question
can be asked: how could it be that the two opinions are so divergent?
Some scholars consider this attitude to
be innocuous, average, while others view it as the root of all evil,
middat Sedom. The various commentators attempt to
understand the distinction between the two opinions in ways that would explain
their diverging outlooks. Rabbeinu
Yona asks this question in a very straightforward manner.
This [disagreement]
raises a question. How can it be
that the Sages of the Talmud disagree about the classification of middot?
Everyone is familiar with them and agrees
as to what they are. The prophet
Yechezkel explicitly states that withholding charity is the midda of
Sedom and our Sages (Ketubot 68a) often call one who does so totally
wicked
One can divide the
various explanations into different categories:
A group of
commentators explained that the attitude What I have is mine and what you have
is yours is to be viewed differently depending on ones motives; it is not
identical for all who share this attitude.
For instance, Rabbeinu Yona explains that the Mishna is definitely not
referring to a difference of opinion as to how to view one who does not give
tzedaka. Rather, it must refer
to someone who gives charity for the wrong reasons, and therefore there is room
for different outlooks on this individual.
He identifies the person discussed as one who provides for others out of
a sense of religious obligation, while inside he is selfish; he will, therefore,
only provide what the strict halakha obligates him to give.
It must be that they
only disagree about the specific characteristics which this mishna refers
to, namely giving charity as required by Halakha, because the giver is
God-fearing, but not because he is generous.
By nature he is not a giver, but a miser.
He is not generous, for he does not want the world to benefit from his
property. He also does not want to
benefit from others, because one who hates gifts will live (Mishlei
15:27). This is average; some say it
is the trait of Sedom. However, even
if he is not naturally generous, he still does give to the poor when asked
because he is God-fearing. If so, what
does it matter what sort of nature he has? His behavior is average. Others say that his behavior is
characteristic of Sedom; its roots are evil, and it distances one from
generosity.
Rabbenu Yona seems to imply that the second opinion in the
mishna holds that
middat Sedom can be very subtle; it
does not necessarily refer to someone who refuses to give charity. Even one who provides for the needy
without the proper measure of generosity might fit into this category, which is
a rather scary thought.
Rav Hirsch explains
succinctly that this attitude, while objectively average, is liable to undermine
an individuals caring heart, until it completely corrodes a persons empathy:
It would seem that
the idea that every person should keep that which is his and that no one else
should derive benefit from the property of another is midway between good and
evil. Some, however, feel that it is
a most reprehensible attitude, because it would expunge from the human heart and
mind the guiding principle of loving-kindness without which man would lose his
divinely-given nobility, and human society would be deprived of the goal
ordained for it as its destiny.
Many others
commentators view the directive as societal.
One individual in a community who does not want to share with and does
not expect others to share with him is tolerable.
However, when it becomes the prevalent attitude of society, then one will
witness the cruel and deplorable outlook that will infest the minds of all
inhabitants, so much so that major efforts will be made to protect this
middat Sedom. (See Lachmei
Toda and others.)
Institutionalized Evil
Differentiating between the individual and societal
outlook is essential. As we saw in
last weeks lesson, the extreme evil of the outlook of Sedom is the result of
the institutionalization of evil by an entire society, contrary to Avrahams
embrace of tzedek. The
absence of ten righteous individuals in the city is testament to the fact that
this infectious outlook has become pervasive and requires destruction.
The story is told of a righteous German, a
non-Jewish woman who employed extreme means to try and save a Jewish family
during the Holocaust. She risked her
life numerous times, but she succeeded in harboring a number of Jews during the
terrible ordeal that engulfed the Jewish people of the day. Years later, after a reunion was
organized with the woman and the Jews that she had saved, now accompanied by
their descendants, the survivors finally garnered the courage to ask the
question they had been wondering about for years.
Why did you do it? Why did you
risk your life to change total strangers? You
were a loyal German citizen; what was it?
With a tear in her eye, the woman responded: I was
very afraid of the destruction of Germany in the aftermath of the war. I was familiar with the Biblical
account of the city of Sodom, and thought to myself, if there were at least ten
righteous people then Germany would be saved.
I did it because I wanted to save Germany.
Unfortunately, it appears that there were not another nine righteous
people
The commentators on the mishna
seem to be expressing a slippery-slope argument.
If one individual in the locale espouses a mentality of strict legality:
I will not share my things with you, but do not worry, I will not expect you to
do so in return, the society can continue to function effectively. However, if this mindset becomes
pervasive, then all of society will start resembling Sedom, and one might not be
able to find a true tzaddik in its midst.
As one honestly looks into ones behavior and the mentality of ones
neighbors, one may find that this mindset is not as foreign as originally
thought.
Kofin al Middat Sedom
At some points, the
Talmud tells us, middat Sedom becomes not only disagreeable, but
actionable; the courts will then compel one to exhibit proper behavior. Middat Sedom does not
only appear in Avot in the mishna
we quoted, detailing the proper outlook and personality. In fact, it is a guiding principle in
the interpersonal behavior that our Sages deem improper for people, although it
does not violate the letter of Torah law.
The Talmud (Bava
Batra 12a) deals with the division of property between two partners, or
partners dissolving their partnership.
The Talmud discusses a case in which one brother owns a field adjacent to
his dead fathers land; he stands to gain more if the property is divided in a
way that will give him all the land bordering his property. The other brother resists, with the
claim that legally property is usually divided otherwise; he too prefers the
field closest to his brothers border, for reasons not readily apparent.
One opinion in the
Talmud rules that the second brother has the legal right to claim the standard
division of property; after all the field his brother wants may receive more
rainfall that year (Rashi ad loc.). However,
the Talmud rules in favor of the opinion of Rav Yosef, Kofin al middat Sedom,
We compel for the trait of Sedom.
In other words, this is an instance where the courts will demand of and force
the resisting brother not to emulate the traits of the inhabitants of Sedom. In this case, there is no apparent
loss for the second brother, and the first brother will certainly benefit by
having the estate divided to his advantage; the courts will not allow the second
brother to exhibit middat Sedom,
though he is acting within his biblical rights.
The Talmud continues
to discuss whether the same would hold true in a case where they divide an
estate that includes two tracts of land, each situated on an adjacent irrigation
canal. The Talmud concludes that the
guiding principle is that one party has no right to object to something which
causes him no loss and benefits the other party; in any such case, the court
will not allow the unwilling party to resist.
The crime, exhibiting middat Sedom, consists of upholding the letter of the law for no real
benefit of ones own, but simply in order to cause a loss to ones fellow man.
Obviously, the
guidelines for what determines a loss must be defined clearly, but the lesson is
unambiguous. Even while attempting
to uphold a legalistic view, a person might be expressing the attitude of Sedom. The courts step in to educate the Jew
that this is middat Sedom and will not be tolerated.
The Talmud (Eruvin
49a) applies the same principle regarding a community eruv (see Ritva)
and in other contexts. What emerges
is a principle: the Sages will not allow any behavior wherein one stands to
limit anothers benefits for no reason.
Zeh Neheneh Ve-zeh Lo Chaser
The Talmud in
Bava Kamma deals at length with the question of whether an owner can charge
another who benefited monetarily from his property (zeh neheneh) even
though there was no monetary loss to the owner (zeh lo chaser). Why should it be prohibited to
collect rent in this case? Many
commentators view the basis for the directive as the same principle of Kofin
al middat Sedom, even though this is not invoked explicitly.
The Talmuds initial
discussion deals with a squatter, who would be willing to pay for lodging if
necessary but lives on anothers property without permission, rent-free.
The Talmud poses the question (Bava
Kama 20a):
Can the squatter say
to the owner, What loss have I caused you? Perhaps
the owner can say to him You have benefitted from my property.
In essence the
Talmud is asking if, in a case of Zeh neheneh ve-zeh lo chaser,
the owner can still demand compensation from the beneficiary.
The implications of
Zeh neheneh are far-reaching, dealing with everything from copyright
law to sharing others products and the like.
However, without entering into the legal parameters, the morality of the
rule is obvious: attempting to collect money for benefiting others without any
loss is illegitimate.
Nevertheless, one question which must be addressed is the following: what
is the source of the rule that the court will prevent one from exhibiting
middat Sedom? After all, the
rights-holder only wants to collect what he is entitled to by Torah law, not by
the laws of Sedom, so what could be the problem?
The commentators (see Ezrat Yisrael CM 119) offer a few
different mitzvot as the possible biblical source for this directive;
loving ones neighbor, returning lost objects and the like. What is especially noteworthy,
though, is that none of these mitzvot are usually enforceable in court. The courts cannot normally force
someone to love his neighbor or to return a lost object, but here the courts
intervene to subvert middat Sedom. Evidently, when ones unwillingness
to help another is seen not only as ungenerous but anti-generous, evoking the
behavior of Sedom, then the affront to tzedek is so grave that the courts
feel the need to uproot the behavior, lest the judicial philosophy of Sedom
begin to spread throughout society.
Modern Effects of Middat Sedom
Is middat Sedom
still so tempting to the modern Jew?
While we may recoil at the idea, further analysis calls this assumption into
question. On the one hand, the
Rambam views tzedaka as a defining character trait of the Jew:
We are required to be more careful about the mitzva of giving charity than about
any other positive mitzva, for charity is the sign of the righteous descendants
of Avraham
(Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyim 10:1)
However, even in our
chesed-filled societies, sometimes we fall prey to the attitude of Sedom,
as the following story may indicate.
Rav Levi Yitzchak of
Berdychev assumed rabbinic leadership of his community with the express
stipulation that he only be called to communal meetings when new measures were
to be decided for the community. In
one meeting, he was invited to deal with the novel proposal that those
collecting charity would not be able to go house-to-house in the town; they
would only be allowed to congregate outside the synagogue. After hearing the proposal, Rav Levi
Yitzchak was upset and demanded to know why he was brought to such a meeting. The town elders were surprised and
responded: But the proposal under discussion is new, and we need the Ravs
approval.
Rav Levi Yitzchak
responded, This is not a new idea. The
idea of limiting opportunities for the poor and not wanting to help others
originated in Sedom.
In fact, the
possibility of middat Sedom is a far
greater danger in a wealthy society.
The fertile terrain of the Jordan Plain enabled Sedom to continually build its
wealth. There was plenty for
everyone, but greed prevented the citizens from sharing. In order to ensure that the less
fortunate would not immigrate to the region, they instituted limitations on the
less-fortunate visitors. These
unrighteous decrees reflected a desire not to be bothered by needy guests;
similar sentiments in our day may reflect a measure of a similar attitude, which
must be challenged.
The Talmud in
Bava Batra (7b) goes so far as to say that one may not configure the
entrance to his property in a way that would prevent the poor from being heard
if they should come to his home to collect charity. The Jewish idea of tzedek
requires not only giving tzedaka but also enabling those in need of
assistance to enter and to share with another Jew their needs.
The Effects on Lot
The power of a negative society to affect its
inhabitants and transform their attitudes and actions is reflected by Lots
behavior. Lot, on the one hand, is
seemingly driven by a pursuit of wealth, reflected in his desire to live in
Sedom and the fact that his shepherds quarrel with those of Avraham. Conversely, Lot also spends a great
deal of time living by Avrahams side, and there is reason to believe that
assimilates some of Avrahams values, especially hospitality. The Ramban (Bereishit 19:8)
attempts to identify the deficiencies in Lots behavior.
From the praise of this man, we may glean his
reprehensibility. For on the one
hand, he exerted himself greatly for the sake of his guests to save them because
they had come under the shelter of his roof; but the fact that he sought to
appease the men of the city by relinquishing his daughters to sexual criminality
this was nothing but evil-heartedness, for it showed that the matter of sexual
licentiousness was not repugnant in his eyes, and in his opinion, he was not
doing a great injustice to his daughters.
It seems that the Ramban is indicating that even
though Lot learns values from Avraham, his mindset is still corrupted in Sedom. Rav Yitzchak ben Moshe Arama,
1420-1494, expelled from Spain due to the Inquisition, contrasts in his
commentary, Akeidat Yitzchak (19:12), the hospitality of Lot, who waits
until the last possible moment to invite his guests, with that of Avraham, who
runs to welcome them.
It is evening, the men have nowhere to go; they look
distinguished, and it is a time when it is natural to offer hospitality. Avraham, on the other hand, who has
been busy talking to God, is in physical discomfort. It certainly is not the time of day
when one expects visitors to drop in.
Despite all this and the nondescript appearance of the strangers, Avraham
invites them in a manner that makes them feel as if they are honoring him by
accepting the invitation. Lot
invites the strangers in a manner that makes them keenly aware that they are a
burden upon him. He asks them to
detour, to be gone at the first opportunity in the morning; he does not even
mention food. Only after the men
make it clear that they have no other place to go, that they must spend the
night in the street, does Lot become persuasive, in a belated effort to make up
for the ungracious manner in which he had tendered the invitation originally.
One might offer another explanation. Lot has learnt from Avraham the
importance of the act of inviting guests, but he has not inculcated its true
message. Hospitality is not defined
by a persons actions; it is supposed to be an element of an individuals
personality. Even if Lot has
originally learnt from Avrahams personality, Sedoms outlook has caused his
decay. Furthermore, seemingly Lots
public life is different from his private one.
Once the guests are in his house, he spares no effort on their behalf;
however, on the outside, he acts almost like all the other inhabitants of Sedom,
embodying the adage, When in Rome
Middat
Sedom in the Past
The commentators discuss the striking similarities
between the account of the evils of Sedom and the incident of the concubine in
Giva, a story in Shofetim 19-20 of the gruesome rape and murder of a
concubine by Jews of the tribe of Benjamin in the city of Giva. A number of commentators try to
explain the differences and why the terrible affair of the concubine in Giva
does not approach the level of wickedness of Sedom.
(See Ramban and Abarbanel, Bereishit
19:8.) We will suffice with one
explanation which explains that legalization is what distinguishes Sedom in
their evil.
Rav Yitzchak Arama explains the difference between
one who has sin deeply rooted in his behavior and one who is tempted by sin. He points out that this distinction
is often expressed in varying terms: a rasha is one who is internally
wicked while a choteh is a sinner.
A choteh is one who commits an isolated sin, as opposed to the
rasha, whose mind and spirit have become corrupted. A choteh might be overcome
with passion and then sin, but he will realize the error in his ways after his
lusts have cooled. The rasha,
on the other hand, has a corrupt mentality. He
will, therefore, not have remorse, nor will he ever start the process of
repentance; thus, he is incurable.
This is the difference between Sedom and the Benjamites.
The problem of Sedom was that there was not just a
crime of unbridled passion, ignoring existing laws that should have restrained
the people. These people had crafted
a system in which no law could act as a restraint upon their evil inclinations. They ordained penalties
if someone
were to step out of line and extend help to outsiders. (Akeidat Yitzchak, Bereishit
20)
Sedoms society was upheld by a perverted way of justice, where the legal
system ensured that they would forever continue their evil ways, as reshaim,
wicked individuals who had come to accept improper behavior as just. They had no hope. Members of the tribe of Benjamin, on
the other hand, had done a despicable act in the heat of passion. They needed to be punished for this
behavior reminiscent of Sedom, but they were not destroyed wholesale because
they were only sinners for the moment; there was the hope for repentance. God will wipe out a society for
cruelty only if this behavior has infected the societys mindset.
The Antidote Tzedek
The attribute which stands in direct opposition to
the mindset of Sedom is the Jewish concept of tzedek, espoused by Avraham
and passed down to his progeny. It
is righteousness coupled with the realization that even what I have is mine
only inasmuch as it allows me to be the one to give it to someone less
fortunate. As Rav Yitzchak Arama
writes:
Our Torah has bent over backwards to include a host
of legislation regulating our conduct in matters related to extending help to
others, of a financial or a physical nature: tzedaka, loving-kindness,
interest-free loans
even assisting an enemy when loading and unloading his
donkey. These are all examples of
how not to emulate the behavior practiced by the men of Sedom. (Akeidat Yitzchak, Bereishit
20)
The righteousness of the Torah must be appreciated as it acts as a
guiding light to shape our outlook. As
the Torah states, tzedek is the defining characteristic of the Torahs
laws:
See, I have taught you decrees and precepts as
Lord, my God, has commanded me, to do so in the midst of the land to which you
come, to possess it. You shall
safeguard and perform them, for it is your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of
other nations, who shall hear all these laws and say Surely a wise and
discerning people is this great nation! For which is a great nation that has a
God Who is so close to it, as is Lord, our God, whenever we call upon Him? And which is a great nation that has
righteous decrees and precepts (chukkim u-mishpatim tzaddikim), such as
this entire Torah that I place before you today?
(Devarim 4:5-8)
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!