What is the Torah’s Big Picture?
The answer can be achieved by making sense of a one particular perplexing commandment from the Torah Portion Ki Teitzei.
Before doing so, one must understand that the Pentateuch, some opine, was intended to be a nation’s law. To accomplish this goal, the Torah is crafted with commandments that result in employing both unique laws and economic principles. These laws and principles were designed to create a system that would address the totality of societal needs. As such, in the beginning, long before Milton Friedmans or Karl Marxs of this world, God created a system employing both capitalistic and socialistic values.
To understand how this was achieved, the Torah Portion Kei Teitzei’s commandment allowing for the taking of grapes and grain will first be addressed.
The Commandment
Ki Teitzei’s Commandment is as follows: “When you’ll come into your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes as you wish, your fill; but you shall not put any into your container. When you’ll come into your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck ears with your hand; but you shall not lift a sickle at your neighbor’s grain.” Deuteronomy 23:25-26.
As a landowner in antiquity, how did it feel knowing that people were legally permitted to trespass onto their property to take fruits and grains? And, was there a reason that these landowners would happily embrace the imposition?
To understand why a landowner would willingly accept this conduct, one must look at the Torah’s big picture. Before doing so, an analysis of the Ki Teitzei Commandment is indicated.
The Smaller Picture
The Commandment’s ambiguity lends itself to interpretation. Who are these neighbors? In Robert Alter’s translation The Five Books of Moses, A Translation with Commentary, the neighbors are called fellows. Is a neighbor someone next door? Or, are they someone in the neighborhood? And, if in the neighborhood, how big can a neighborhood be?
Rashi, the medieval commentator, appreciated the commandment’s complexity. He interpreted the passage under the guise of employees. The individuals referred to in the statute were employees. Rashi further limited the permissible consumption to those workers involved in harvesting.
The law, in modern terms, allows for a taking. In modernity, government can take individual’s property via eminent domain.
In this instance, the taking is limited. With that, to some extent, the losses from neighbors engaging in foraging or harvesting does not to appear to outrageous. The suggested amount of the taking is limited to perhaps a snack or a meal.
The limitation is emphasized by the fact that the commandment prohibits the use of containers and the use of harvesting instruments for the gathering. Nothing in the commandment indicates that anything should be taken for the purposes of either storage, sale, or distribution.
Further, Rashi’s viewpoint also creates a limit. For him, the provision was meant for laborers, the fruit and grain obtained was essentially a laborer’s meal or snack supplied by their employer.
The Real Estate Picture
The Torah’s bigger picture is the land ownership scheme. God is the declared title holder of Israelite land. The authority for this position comes from Leviticus. It notes that: “But the land shall not be sold permanently, because the land is mine… So in all the land in your possession you shall give redemption for the land.” Leviticus 25:23-24.
With this scheme, landowners obtained property rights which included a perpetual inheritance. With redemption, families would always get their land back. A family’s permanent ownership rights to land was an amazing benefit.
Scripture recognized the importance of both inheritance and property rights. The daughter of Zelophehad took their property rights to the highest of authorities- God- and won! See Numbers 27:1-11.
There was Naboth refusing King Ahab’s request to obtain a vineyard due to it was an inheritance and he was forbidden to dispose of the property. 1 Kings 21:3.
Also, in the Book of Ruth, a whole chapter was devoted to an inheritance law matter. See Ruth 4:1-12.
The fact that Israelite subjects received an amazing land ownership benefit is best documented in the Ten Commandments. The rationale for honoring one’s parents was so that their days would be extended on the land that the Lord gave to them. Exodus 20:12. This served as practical advice when it involved the passing of real estate which contained inheritance rights in perpetuity.
With these great landownership rights came great responsibility. As such, Commandments, such as the one from Ki Teizie, also became part of the Torah law. All societies have individuals in need; it was acknowledged in Deuteronomy: “Because there won’t stop being an indigent in the land.” Deuteronomy 15:11. The Torah’s solution being the commandment to “open your hand to your brother, to your poor, to your indigent in your land.” Supra.
The Exchange?
In essence, part of this property right benefit required that the landowners participate in assisting with God’s social safety net concerns.
God took it upon himself to care for the orphan, widow and alien, See Deuteronomy 10:18. One way of accomplishing this task was through instituting commandments that required citizens to perform social obligations. Asking more from landowners was not unreasonable due to the fact of their special property rights.
Beyond Ki Teitzei’s commandment, there is the most famous provision imposed upon landowners: “And when you reap your land’s harvest, you shall not finish harvesting your field’s corner, and you shall not gather your harvest’s gleaning. And you shall not strip your vineyard, and you shall not collect the vineyard’s fallen fruit. You shall leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord, your God.” Leviticus 19:9-10.
While these social safety net measures provide assistance, they appreciate that there should be a sense of limitation. Thus, how does this fit into the Total Picture?
The Total Picture
In the grand scheme, God leverages real estate inheritance rights in order to get other social safety net tasks addressed.
Thus, the Torah’ format’s economic plan does not come across as either purely capitalistic or socialistic. God, in exchange for legal benefits and protections, required that those benefiting pay for social concerns.
Essentially, community social needs being addressed was the cost of doing business. As such, those afforded protected opportunity and wealth were to directly use their protected resources for social services. These obligations, however, were not meant to cripple or dampen one’s ability to make money. The commandments requiring these services were crafted to not be excessive.
This big picture suggests that the Torah recognized that neither capitalism nor socialism exists in a vacuum. The Commandments suggests that the Torah understood that capitalism is the engine of production for society.
The Torah appreciates that business enterprise could fund some of the necessary social safety net provisions. These items were to be limited; they were to be carefully crafted to meet the needs of the affected.
The Torah, with its limitations on social provisions, speaks of addressing matters of subsistence and reasonableness. It speaks of leaving food product so that other individuals can collect what they need to survive. The provision does not speak of requiring the landowner to literally do everything for those taking the food product. Impliedly, those in need were also required to do some labor to obtain their food. (Note: In doing this, the beneficiaries learn how to gather and prepare their own food.)
Conclusion
The Torah’s Big Picture explains how the Ki Teiztei Commandment allowing for the taking of produce makes sense. The Pentateuch’s laws constituted a national plan which addressed economic policies. In receiving enhanced property rights, landowners accepted the obligation to address social safety net obligations. This concept is present today. Many countries tax the wealthy to pay for alleged social programs.
It is also apparent that God- the ultimate Israelite land title holder- was in favor of agricultural enterprise. The right to be the perpetual landowners with redemption rights was an engine for prosperity. Given a governmental advantage in that pursuit, there was a reasonable expectation that the beneficiaries contributed to bare the cost of taking care of some of God’s other interests; i.e. the needs of the orphan, the widow and the alien.
Thus, Ki Teitzei’s commandment should be viewed as the cost of doing business. In essence, part of maintaining a profitable agriculture business within the Torah scheme required ethical and moral conduct. The social obligation costs required were both limited and reasonable. Modern societies often struggle in making reasonable rules. One major problem is that many countries’ social programs involve allegations of corruption and misuse of funds.
The takeaway is that the Torah commandments employed capitalism as the engine to provide for both a limited and reasonable social safety net provisions for those in need.
Be well!!
Please like, follow, comment or share
The Ten Commandments Project 