[Avodah] s&amora

[Micha Berger]

Related to this discussion:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/chavero/14chavero.htm

    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 week's 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 Sedom's 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. Avraham's 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 zt"l 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)

    Sedom's 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.

    ...

    Middat Sedom

    The Mishna in Avot (5:10) lists four different character types...

    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 one's 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 individual's caring heart, until
    it completely corrodes a person's 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.)

...

Continues with the halakhos of kofin al midas Sodom, as I already
raised before reading this mailing (but after printing it up and simply
seeing it).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
micha at aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)