Parashat Terumah (5760)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of Parashat Terumah, 5760

Two Types of Contribution: The Moral Foundation of Social Democracy

Our portion opens with God's command to Moses: “Speak to the children of Israel, and let them take for Me a contribution” (Exodus 25:2); “let them take”

— ostensibly, against their will. Yet immediately afterward: “from every person whose heart moves him you shall take My contribution” (ibid.), that is,

the contribution specifically ought to come from the generosity of the heart. Seemingly, taking from a person against his will is a tax

imposed upon him, not a contribution.

Rashi, at the beginning of the portion (on Exodus 25:2), mentions three kinds of “contribution” that were stated here to Moses, and all of them were voluntary except

for the half-shekel designated for purchasing communal offerings. It too is called a “contribution,” even though it is

obligatory, and the amount is not dependent on generosity of heart. If so, there are indeed two kinds of contribution: a contribution

given from the generosity of the heart, and an obligatory contribution.

In Jewish law there are coercive mechanisms for collecting charity, and in the language of the Sages: “One compels giving to charity.” Admittedly,

this is not a tax in the full sense of the word, for we are dealing with charity; yet seemingly there is no genuine contribution here either, since

a person is compelled to give it. One may say that this is a contribution given against a person's

will.

In a modern state there are coercive mechanisms for charity through state institutions. Some of the taxes

are intended to support various kinds of needy people, and if so the state “compels giving to charity.” A tax, in its

original meaning, is only money collected for the benefit of the king himself, or for the benefit of all the citizens for the sake of

shared interests and benefits (security, public order, foreign affairs, education, and the like). Such a tax

is nothing more than a package deal among the citizens, which the authorities are charged with enforcing upon each individual.

A tax for social purposes is not a tax in the classical sense but rather, as stated, coercion by the state upon

the citizens to give charity.[1]

In a state under a communist regime, all taxation is intended for these purposes, for power is

in the hands of the people, and the means of production are distributed equally according to needs and not according to effort or

the benefit the citizen brings to the state. Such was also the case in the kibbutzim. In such a situation, tax and charity are one

and the same, in the sense of “compulsion toward charity.”

In a social structure of this sort, the concept of charity, like that of taxation, loses its meaning entirely, for there are no

needy people and no givers; everything belongs to everyone. No person has an experience of giving, since he is

obligated to do so, and in fact he is not truly an owner of property at all, and consequently he does not even feel

that he is giving anything to anyone.[2]

To the best of my understanding, the Torah does not advocate total collectivism, like the sects of the Judean Desert and similar groups

that attempted to implement such a way of life. The Torah's approach is close to what we would today define as social-

democracy (“democracy” here appears in a socio-economic rather than governmental sense). The state

should collect some of the taxes for the sake of regulated assistance to weaker strata, yet there is certainly

recognition of economic and social stratification.

In a social-democratic structure there is public concern for the needy at some minimal level, yet

the individual's experience of giving, and the various commandments bound up with it, does not disappear. In social-

democracy, as in the Torah, the contribution is divided into two parts: one part is taken from the citizens

by coercion, and the other comes voluntarily.

We often hear citizens claiming that today there is no longer any place for giving a contribution to the needy,

for that is the state's role (National Insurance). It is worth noting that in a non-communist structure

there are large gaps between the needs and what the state provides, and there certainly remains room

for a contribution given from the generosity of the heart.[3]

In my humble opinion, one should not even aspire to a situation in which this element of contribution given from the generosity of the heart disappears. A society

that tries artificially to create a situation in which concepts of giving are no longer needed at all decrees upon itself

moral destruction, and perhaps physical destruction as well.[4] Perhaps this is the meaning of what the Torah

promises: “For the needy shall never cease from the land” (Deuteronomy 15:11).

In our community in Yeruham there is much room for giving, and we must not merely demand from the authorities (local

and national); it is incumbent upon us as well to shoulder part of the burden. For example, these days a scholarship campaign is being conducted for children

from families that find it difficult to finance activities for their children at the community center. Quite a few scholarships have been collected thus far,

but by no means on a sufficient scale. It is important to understand that such activity can sometimes redirect

a child's entire future in positive directions, and prevent possible deterioration, God forbid. Whoever wishes

to participate in the campaign “To Turn One Child's Dream into Reality” is invited to contact the community center and make

his contribution. In giving charity, the giver receives more than the recipient.[5]

Have a peaceful Sabbath.

It may be placed for respectful disposal in any synagogue or yeshiva. Comments and responses will be gratefully received.

———————–

[1] For this reason, some halakhic decisors have written that part of the taxes paid to the state may be paid out of the amount

designated for the charitable tithe.

[2] True, in such a situation meticulous fulfillment of a person's duties at work is a kind of charity,

and the results are well known.

[3] There are social-democratic conceptions according to which the state must provide for the subsistence of every citizen,

even though not all resources are divided equally. Seemingly, in such a society, despite the existence of private

property, there is no room for giving, since every person subsists at a certain level. In practice, in countries that are not

very wealthy, this generally does not happen, and one must continue to contribute.

[4] I feel that this is one of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. There they tried to base the whole

society on the attribute of strict justice, with no place for the attribute of kindness. Despite the good intention (that there be enough for every

needy person), human society apparently cannot exist on justice without kindness. On the other hand, despite

the problems, one should not turn in an extreme way to absolute capitalism. A society built only on the attribute

of kindness is a reverse utopia, which likewise fares no better morally.

[5] In the Talmud (Bava Batra 10a), the wicked Turnus Rufus asks Rabbi Akiva: Why does the Holy One, blessed be He, who loves the poor, not

make them wealthy? Rabbi Akiva's answer is that the Torah and the commandments were given only in order to refine

human beings through them. Giving is for our sake more than for the sake of the poor. See Sefer HaChinukh,

commandment 66.

Biton24.doc