Why Does Excellence Have Such a Bad Name Among Us? A Post in Memory of the Labor Party (Column 82)
With God's help
The Labor Party primaries held last week stirred rather gloomy thoughts in me. A fairly marginal party, whose current standing is low and which has no real chance in the foreseeable future of taking the reins of government into its hands, received nonstop media coverage as though we were dealing with a U.S. presidential election or real-time reporting on World War III. One could have gotten the impression that the question whether Avi Gabbay or Amir Peretz would win the leadership of the Labor Party would determine the fate of the universe for the coming decade. It seemed that only primaries in Meretz could have competed with this media hysteria.
It is quite clear that the main reason for this strange phenomenon is the fact that, within the elite that leads our media circles (=the State of Tel Aviv), the Labor Party and Meretz are the home parties. For most of the leading journalists, the Labor Party is the State of Israel, and everyone else at most stole the country from them. When elections are held there (or in Meretz), those are, from their point of view, the real news. That is their environment; that is what they see and feel around them; that is what they and their friends talk about; those are the people they know, and it is no wonder that this is what occupies them. So from their perspective this marginal and insignificant event is the hottest and most prominent thing happening here. Thus we get wall-to-wall coverage, so that heaven forbid we should miss how Nahman Shai reacted to Avi Gabbay's victory and what Amir Peretz said about his loss. And how Eitan Cabel reacted to what Omer Bar-Lev said about the results of the thirteenth poll of the fifth pollster regarding the shifts in Stav Shaffir's position. Had there not been wall-to-wall coverage, we could have learned about all these dramatic events only about half an hour later (in the news broadcast), and where would that have left us?!
Do not worry, I do not intend to join the discussion of this esoteric subject. It merely prompted thoughts in me about the dominance of the socialist Mapai heritage that prevailed here from the establishment of the state and accompanies us to this day. I would like to touch on it a bit on this occasion.
The Mapai Ethos of Equality
A considerable part of our elites is still controlled by Mapainiks and their socialist way of thinking. This is part of the reason that the Mapai ethos still lies somewhere deep in the cultural infrastructure of many of us. True, there are new winds and capitalist approaches that are forcefully penetrating our society and culture, but the feeling is that these are illegitimate infiltrations. A kind of surrender to the evil inclination and to the lower layers of our humanity. The values of socialism are indeed slowly disappearing, but only on the practical and realistic plane, certainly not on the plane of ethos.
On the one hand, ratings culture and success culture are taking over the popular media and people's way of life as well. But at the same time, the leading broadcasters condemn this populism as a low and alien culture (and rightly so). At the same time, the culture of economic, educational, and academic success is also slowly penetrating (through market forces), but it too is condemned and resisted by those same circles (and this time wrongly).
There is a kind of public atmosphere as though success is a problematic and non-moral phenomenon. Tycoons are the public's most hated targets (sometimes justifiably, but in many cases not). My impression is that, beyond the natural envy of their success, there is also an ideology in the background as though it is not legitimate to succeed. This is contemptible greed and a deviation from lofty socialist values. The wealthier classes that try to advance and give their children more in various areas also absorb torrents of criticism for this. There is a clash here between the socialist value of equality and successful, aggressive capitalism. As noted, the value of equality is ostensibly fighting a rearguard battle on the practical plane, but it survives impressively in the deep layer of the Israeli ethos. This creates a social schizophrenia between ethos and practice on the ground, a dichotomy between the successful and the good and values-driven.
Striving for Excellence
This ambivalence is also expressed in our attitude toward striving for excellence. On the one hand, market forces promote excellence in various fields and it wins public esteem, but at the same time, to many ears it sounds like selfish achievement-orientation that runs contrary to values of helping others, involvement, and caring. There is constant criticism of excellence as though Protestant achievement culture were infiltrating at the expense of Jewish values of cooperation, concern, and fraternity. Achievement is a dirty word, and excellence sounds opposed to the sacred value of equality.
Several times I have heard on the radio that Naftali Bennett boasts of his achievements in terms of the number of students taking the five-unit mathematics matriculation exam, and usually right afterward he is attacked for excessive achievement-orientation, and told that this will not solve our problems but only deepen them, that our problems lie elsewhere. These things became even sharper in the era of Shai Piron ("How can it be that a mathematics teacher who teaches equations sees no reason to mention and discuss the value of equality?!"—one of the pearls of wisdom of his that I particularly remember). Bennett harms the sacred equality, and demands that students work and succeed (instead of volunteering in the community, or just hanging out or being lazy). He could have abolished the five-unit exam, and then wondrous equality would have prevailed, and everyone could have focused on the importance of the value of equality instead of equations. No wonder this is the attitude, since this success-orientation really does contradict the Mapai ethos head-on. Achievements are perceived as a blow to equality, as though they come at the expense of values and social involvement. One would think that the students who do not study mathematics refrain because they have no time owing to all their community volunteering. A very common phenomenon among educated parents (as distinct from wealthy parents; there the situation is usually different) is that they disparage achievement and explain that a child needs to be a child, and that one should provide equal opportunity rather than race up the slippery slope of success.
Success on International Indices
Time and again people here complain about the achievements of Israeli students on international indices, and for many the obvious conclusion is that equality in education must be increased and the weak must be cared for. Will that really help? I very much doubt it. Equality between different populations, such as the periphery and the center, may perhaps contribute to this. But certainly not if what is meant is equality between different levels of ability (that is, suppressing the greater success of the better students).
It should be noted that most of these indices are 'socialist' indices. They examine the national average and the standard deviation in the various skills (mathematics, language, and so on), and compare them across countries. But why is the national average in mathematics important? Why is the standard deviation important (inequality and the gap between the strong and the weak)? Economically as well, we are accustomed to measuring gaps more than the absolute level, and even when an index of progress in the absolute sense is published, the 'social' organizations immediately rise up and present data about gaps and inequality.
It is worth thinking about how many of our students will need mathematics at a level beyond percentages or fractions in their adult lives. I estimate something like one-tenth of one percent at most. I think the top tenth of a percent of our students in mathematics are in perfectly reasonable shape relative to the world, and that is what really matters. I am the last person to belittle the importance of mathematics as a tool for sharpening thought (and not only as vocational training), and as such it is of course needed for all sectors of the population. But when lack of mathematical knowledge is defined as a national problem and as a blow to our GDP and to students' ability to cope with the future, that points to a fundamental misunderstanding.
The equality indices published here day in and day out reflect these approaches very well. These indices examine the degree of equality in society without looking at the absolute situation. It does not matter whether the condition of the weak is better than it was in the past; the question is what their condition is relative to the strong (they keep telling us, over and over again, that although there is more wealth, it is not distributed equally among the various segments of the population. It does not trickle down through the income deciles).
In statistical terminology, one could say that these socialist indices examine the standard deviation or the mean (the average). When one looks at standard deviation, the correction called for by these indices is of course to improve the condition of the weak at the expense of the strong. From the standpoint of the mean, this would indeed lower us a bit, but not by much. Overall, the advance of the weaker strata will offset the decline of the strong, and the mean will remain similar. In terms of equality indices, such conduct does indeed bring improvement. The question is whether these are in fact the correct and relevant indices.
Equality Between Whom and Whom?
The value of equality in education, in culture, in health, and in everything else is taken by many of us as self-evident. When wealthy families manage to give their children education, health, or culture at a higher level, the public is outraged—led by our socialist elite, which controls the media, artistic and bohemian circles, and parts of academia (usually those very parts in which excellence truly does not carry much significance).
But even when one talks about equality, one must focus on what exactly is being discussed. Do we mean equality between the periphery and the center, or between different social groups, or perhaps equality between different talents? Promoting the periphery has a certain logic, since there too there are surely talents, and it is a shame to miss them. But promoting the weak is in many cases a waste of time. Yet even with regard to the periphery, I have a few heretical thoughts. Regrettably, sometimes it is simply not right to invest resources when the chances of success are low. Sometimes it is preferable to give a push to those who are in any case moving upward (with the help of their stronger family and social background). True, a child who has better starting conditions has a better chance of achieving more. But is he guilty of that? Should he be harmed because of it? On the contrary, if there is a good chance of succeeding with him, then he should be encouraged more and more. One should invest in him even more than his parents invest in him (matching their investment). After all, here we have a good chance of success. But social equality is not my topic here. I am speaking mainly about the value of equality that leads to integration between people of different abilities.[1]
It is important to understand that when there are economic, educational, or cultural gaps between different strata in the population, there are two ways to deal with them: one can try to improve the condition of the weak, and one can harm the strong. Socialists usually focus on the second way. They complain about tycoons and about favoritism toward the rich, and they try with all their might to hurt them, while being less truly concerned with the weak. On the contrary, perpetuating weakness is a supreme interest for them, for their doctrine is built on the existence of weak strata and on discrimination and deprivation directed against them. Beyond that, it is much harder to improve the condition of the weak, whereas harming the strong is sometimes just a matter of legislation. Forbid them to provide extra tutoring or additional enrichment classes in the schools even at their own expense, take more taxes from them, and there—you have hurt them. Go try to deal with the condition of the weak. That costs a great deal of money, and not infrequently it is not even a matter of money. In many cases they do not come to the enrichment and reinforcement programs even if you offer them. So equality is created by hurting the strong instead of advancing the weak. I recall hearing many years ago on the radio a principal in Tel Aviv who boasted that he had abolished computer studies in his school because girls were much less successful in them than boys (yes, that is what I heard with my own ears).
There is a similar phenomenon in which people of the social and political left explain to us that the settlements come at the expense of the development towns. Their main aim is that the budgets be taken away from the settlements, since they oppose them politically. They have little interest in diverting budgets to the development towns (and they did not do so when they were in power either. Even then they merely hurt the strong and prevented economic and social progress). But beyond the political tendentiousness, there is here a concern for the value of equality. If no one has budgets, marvelous equality will prevail here. The same thing happens in education and culture.
On Protestant Neuroticism
Protestantism is based on a very strange worldview. On the one hand, it believes in a fate fixed in advance, that is, in determinism. Those whom God loves and cares for will succeed, and those He does not—will not. On the other hand, it believes in very aggressive striving. A person must strive to succeed in order to prove that he is among the 'blessed,' that is, among those whom God loves. The sociologist Max Weber is known, among other things, for his Protestant thesis. He argued that even after the Protestant world underwent secularization, the ethos of success remained intact there. This is the source of the Western neurosis that strives for success at any price and sees success as a central value. Many have pointed out that this thesis has implications even with respect to approaches in psychological and psychiatric diagnosis. Just as socially we judge people by the degree of their success in life, so Protestant psychology diagnoses people by the degree of their ability to stand on their own feet (to manage on their own).
There is a myth, repeated by many, that Judaism advocates the opposite approach. It places caring and helping the other at the center, and not success and achievement. In recent years, a psychological approach has been developing that tries to present an alternative to the Protestant-success model (Mordechai Rotenberg and his students). I do not really see from where this myth is drawn or what it is based on. There is indeed value in helping the weak, but the principle in Jewish law is your life takes precedence over that of your fellow (your life takes precedence over that of your fellow). This is not communist egalitarianism; rather, after my own success I must see the other and help him to the extent that I can. Interestingly, this is learned from the very same verse: and your brother shall live with you (and your brother shall live with you)—your life takes precedence. There is certainly value in helping him, but only after I have succeeded myself, not in my place.
The myth that Judaism and Jewish law have a socialist inclination sounds absurd to me. In my view, the mainstream of Judaism is a deep and fundamental—indeed piggish—capitalism, except that alongside it there is consideration for the weak. There is no policy of distributing the means of production or of equalizing incomes. There is a policy of capitalism that requires its members to assist the weak. Put differently, assisting the weak is not a right of the weak but an obligation of the strong. I do not owe him anything; rather, there is a commandment incumbent upon me to help him. This is contrary to contemporary discourse, which speaks of distributive justice, of the rights of the weak, and the like. The weak have no rights, and there is no justice in an equal distribution of resources. On the contrary, justice is capitalist, except that there is a moral obligation to assist the weak. They cannot demand it. The strong are supposed to demand it of themselves.[2]
So What Do We Do? The Story of Herbie
Eli Goldratt completed a doctorate in physics at Bar-Ilan University, and then turned to the field of management, where he made great success (and a great deal of money). As everyone knows, every three-letter English acronym is a management method. So Goldratt formulated TOC (Theory Of Constraints), which, among other things, points to the importance of dealing with bottlenecks. Think of an assembly line made up of several stations. A good manager thinks about how he can improve the efficiency of each station, and whenever he has an idea he tries to implement it to improve that station. The catch, however, is that there is no point improving the performance of station C if the bottleneck is at station F. Suppose that each station needs to add another screw or some component to the product. If station F manages to finish work on 10 products per hour, and station C handles 14 products, there is no point improving station C and increasing its pace to 18 products. The production rate of the entire assembly line is still controlled by the weakest station (the bottleneck). Therefore, one should always invest resources only in improving the station that is the bottleneck, and not the others.
Goldratt's best-known book is The Goal. Among other things, he tells there the story of a boy named fat Herbie. Herbie went on a hike together with a group of children. The guide wants to reach the destination as fast as possible, and the slowest child is of course Herbie. This is the bottleneck of the group, and it is there that one must deal with the problem. In accordance with TOC, the guide thinks about what to do with Herbie: whether to put him at the front of the line or at the end. The socialist method would tell him to put Herbie at the front so that the others will push him and help him move forward. The capitalist method says to put Herbie at the end. Why? Because if you put him at the front, then the pace of the whole line is determined by Herbie. He will be the first to reach the destination, and the others will straggle in behind him. By contrast, if you put him at the end, then when he reaches the destination, the march is over. If you put Herbie at the front, the walking time is Herbie's time plus the straggling-in time of those who trail after him (Herbie's pace is a lower bound on the arrival time of the line). If you put him at the end, then Herbie's walking time is itself the finishing time (an upper bound). The socialist method will help Herbie himself arrive a bit faster, but the whole line will reach the destination after a longer time. The capitalist method indeed leaves Herbie to crawl along at the end, but the whole line will reach the destination faster.
Excellence and Integration
The analogue in our case is how we structure classes. One option is to divide a class into ability groups according to the level of the students. In such a situation, the weaker group will not receive help from the strong students who are studying in another class, but the strong group will progress much more and will not be held back because of the weak. The egalitarian method does not believe in ability groups. Everyone must study together so that the strong will push the weak. The capitalist method advocates division according to levels so that the strong can progress at the pace that suits them. At most, one may ask the strong to help the weak as an act of charity, that is, at the expense of their free time (after they have reached the destination, run back and push Herbie and help him).
The same is true of elitist institutions and of promoting more talented and more advanced groups. Socialists oppose division according to levels and believe in an egalitarian integration of everyone with everyone. Some do this because they fear that the division will be made according to other criteria (not academic level and talent), but at the end of the day, because of this fear they oppose divisions as such.
This brings us back to the success indices described above. If the measure of success is the standard deviation, that is, the gaps within the group, then clearly the recommendation is to combine the strong with the weak in order to reduce gaps within the group as a whole (which mainly means hurting the strong, because the weak probably will not advance very much. On the contrary, they will be frustrated by the fact that the strong students next to them are succeeding). But if the measure is how far the strong segment will get (the one-tenth of one percent who need mathematics at a high level), then there is no sense at all in this integration. At most, it is worth asking the strong to contribute some of their time to help the weaker ones (charity and not 'distributive justice'). Moreover, I would focus teaching hours more on the strong than on the weak. The contribution of a teaching hour to the weak is relatively small (it will not advance them by much), whereas the strong would benefit from it far more significantly.
Back to Mathematics
With regard to promoting mathematics, the conclusions here too are more complex. It is indeed worth encouraging people to study mathematics at a higher level (5 units), but only those who are talented for it. There is no point investing teaching hours and efforts in the weak. They should be advised to study at a lower level and to focus on other fields. If we look at the distribution of achievement in mathematics as Gaussian, then the standard deviation (the width) is not very important, and even the mean (where the center is, the average) does not really matter. What matters mainly is stretching the upper edge of the Gaussian (improving the achievements of the advanced part of the class—the one-tenth of one percent who will lead our GDP in the future).
The conclusion is that while metrics are indeed needed in order to assess achievement, collective metrics in general, such as standard deviation or mean, are not the correct criterion for examining the achievements of a large educational system. One must look at the individual or at segments at high resolution, and not at the whole as a single block. It really does not matter whether we managed to increase the number of students who got 70 or 80 in 5 units, or the number of those who studied 4 units. It is much more important to increase the number of those who got 100 in 5 units, and best of all to improve the level of the exam itself (to open 6- and 7-unit levels in mathematics). The contribution of ten additional graduates of that kind to the state's GDP is worth roughly what we would gain from another ten thousand graduates who complete 4 units with a better grade.
And What About Torah Study?
At first glance, in Torah study the situation is different. There the goal is not achievement but the study itself. This is the logic of the Torah system in general. Many yeshivot (the better ones among them) do screen candidates, but there is strong criticism of this. It is perceived as weakness and as capitulation to fashion and considerations of prestige, contrary to what is proper and just.
To the best of my judgment, although there is something to this approach, we nevertheless greatly lack excellence in Torah study. The ethos of excellence hardly exists there (mainly because there are no economic measures of success and the like). Therefore we continue to fund every kollel student who wants to study Torah, and we do not dare speak about screening and selection between the more and the less talented. In column 34 I discussed, from a different angle, the need for screening and encouraging excellence in Torah institutions.
This is also reflected in the guidance given to graduates. In most places there is no encouragement of excellence, not even on the Torah plane and still less on the general plane. It is seen as contrary to value-oriented and idealistic guidance. Excellent yeshivot with outstanding students can steer their students toward social work and teaching, or toward community rabbinate, even if they are not really suited for that and will not fulfill their potential in those fields. I hardly know any yeshivot that encourage their graduates to go into academia, economics, and business, and still less to develop start-ups.
There is a little encouragement of Torah excellence at the stage of young kollel students (prizes for an outstanding Torah article and the like), but even there it is mainly intended to encourage the younger students, and not to identify the excellent and promote them individually. At later stages there certainly is no ethos of Torah excellence, of creativity and originality. The ethos is mainly piety and values. I must say, sadly, that with only that one usually does not get very far.
A Few Remarks on the Oversimplification
Clearly, the description here is somewhat simplistic. There is value in experiences of success for the weak. This can push them forward in other areas and give them self-confidence and the ability to overcome obstacles and succeed. There is also a chance that we will discover some strong individuals in a group we thought was weak. Labeling in advance, especially when dealing with populations that have barriers to success (such as economic and cultural weakness), is problematic. All this is true, and still one must take into account the piggish capitalist fact that, in cost-benefit terms, it seems to me that these contributions are less important than those described above.
Be that as it may, my remarks here are a direction of thought and not a final conclusion. As a general rule, it is important to rid ourselves of the socialist ethos that is so deeply ingrained in us. Equality continues to place obstacles in the path of our society's progress, and yet it does not lose its moral luster. We have already passed the age of 17 (at which whoever is not a socialist has no heart). My claim is that equality is not such an important value, and in many cases its damage is greater than its benefit. Freedom (which is the central value of capitalism), self-realization, and success are more important and more beneficial than it, and they are not merely the evil inclination. It is not a bad socio-economic system at all. At least the lesser evil.
[1] Interestingly, integration in the education system did indeed advocate combining students from different social strata, but at the same time it introduced ability grouping, that is, it did not carry out integration at the level of ability and talent. Admittedly, integration did not enjoy tremendous success (and that is what I wrote here too, that even equality between social strata is not always correct), but I can certainly understand the basic idea and the logic behind it.
[2] To be sure, there are mechanisms for collection and coercion in matters of charity, but no one sees this as a redistribution of the means of production. This is charity, except that society tries to ensure that the matter of charity—which is voluntary by its very nature—does not remain entirely in the hands of the strong. In short, these are corrective mechanisms within a capitalist world, and not a socialist essence.
Discussion
You made me laugh—what socialism exactly? Gabbay is a symbol of the alliance of capital and government (does he really care about the children?!). He made millions at Bezeq under Shaul Elovitch (the best home… ) thanks to the monopoly of his friend Bibi the "capitalist," who made sure there wouldn't be competition… in short, it's all a bluff. Maybe what you have is a choice between socialism for cronies and capitalism for cronies…
With the reservation at the end of your remarks, exposing the weak to excellence may not help them, but it could greatly help their children after them by exposing them to it. That is, the fat rabbi is part of a broader picture of the generations that come after him.
In addition, it seems to me that the mistaken opposition to excellence rests on the equation that excellence means someone who takes care of himself, whereas socialist equality means someone who takes care of others.
This equation is deeply embedded in the thinking of our society, especially the religious part of it. (Its roots, in my opinion, are in Buddhism from the Tibetan school called Mahayana, and in Judaism it seems to me that Hasidism has a large share in this. For example, the background to the writing of the Tanya by the Alter Rebbe.)
Something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iix8QIWO8iM
Excellent!
And as Margaret Thatcher already said, a socialist does not care if the poor become poorer so long as the rich become less rich.
(And by the way, I'm glad that at long last you're saying that one can derive capitalism from the principles of Judaism, unlike what you wrote several times in previous columns.)
Indeed there is no need to listen, and believe me I didn't. I'm really not among the listeners to the news and the current-affairs programs, and certainly not to an open-line broadcast about the Labor Party primaries, or at all. (That rebbe most definitely did not retract.)
Indeed, it certainly doesn't hurt to engage a bit with the grass sciences. Even if it's not science, there is great benefit in information and its analysis and understanding the possibilities.
By the way, that same rebbe still mocks them. Sometimes the problem is in the research itself and sometimes with the journalist.
As for Piron, there is a very similar link here below. Maybe it's even the very same one.
Thanks, Itai.
He really sounds convinced of himself. It's hard to understand how people can be so stupid.
Moishe, there is a common mistake in your remarks. The fact that some person is rich, and even if he works as the CEO of a large company, does not mean that he is a capitalist and not a socialist. I don't know where your familiarity with Gabbay and his level of caring comes from, but if you inferred it from the fact that he was Bezeq's CEO—that is a rather hasty conclusion. In any case, I don't know him either.
So in the end, does the Torah have something to say about capitalism and socialism, or does it not have anything to say (because whoever is a socialist will find in it what he wants to find, and whoever is a capitalist will find in it what he wants to find)?
Hello Shlomi.
I agree with all of it. But to see the source of this ethos in Mahayana sounds far-fetched to me. Maybe it exists there too, but how exactly did the influence get from Mahayana to the Israeli Labor Party? There are much closer sources (communism and socialism in Eastern Europe, where they all came from).
The legendary Maggie is right as always.
By the way, I still maintain that one cannot derive a socio-economic outlook from the Torah. What I argued is that the absence of statements about distributive justice, and instead talk about charity, reflects a capitalist spirit. The socialist can always say that it wasn't said because it is self-evident, and that the Torah only spoke in response to the evil inclination. The attempt to derive such outlooks from the Torah is pointless and hopeless.
After I wrote a reply to Yosef, I saw your question. See what I wrote there.
By the way, from my acquaintance with him he is really not stupid. That is part of the same tendentiousness that sees its desires everywhere (and there are claims that I suffer from that too).
A consequence of your argument would be that it is preferable for study-pairs in yeshiva to be within the age cohorts (the "shiurim") and not between different age groups. In the end, two skilled boys will run faster than an unskilled boy.
Don't you believe there is a need for an opposition? Even if everything you said is correct—weak, hopeless, etc.
If there had been no media coverage of the primaries of a party with 24 seats in the Knesset, I would be worried…
I identify very much with capitalism, less with the greed. What about the commandment of the Jubilee? Isn't it supposed to give everyone the possibility of a respectable starting point? What about: "Be careful with the children of the poor, for from them Torah will go forth"?
The reference to Buddhism does not claim direct influence, but rather that this is the earliest source of it (known to me).
Secondly, I refer the collector of sources above to: https://www.idi.org.il/media/4041/pursuing_justice_book.pdf
I very much identify with the general idea of encouraging excellence,
but your remarks are missing a significant discussion of the question of excellence versus achievement orientation.
Let me explain.
As every miserable person who is in academia knows, grades can be absolute or normalized.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but one side effect of normalization is competitiveness.
To get a good result, you need not only to improve your own ability, but also to make sure others are not better.
Any discussion of excellence versus equality should have this point in the background.
In life, success can be achieved in two ways: self-improvement or neutralizing competition. Does that matter to us?
This point is missing throughout the article.
(And I think the suspicion toward tycoons stems in no small part from a basic intuition that in a competitive environment like today,
one who succeeds in an exceptional way probably didn't keep his hand out of the less ethical option either.)
In principle, correct. At least one should think about such a side and not only about assistance as the exclusive value consideration. Obviously, if it doesn't slow things down too much and the help to the younger one is significant, then it is worthwhile. Moreover, it depends whether we're talking about a talented older one who can race ahead and is worth investing in and not hindering, and conversely with the younger one (if he is talented, then it is worth assigning him an older one who doesn't lose so much in order to advance him). Potential should determine things, not the current situation.
As a rule, if he is to study and his son is to study, he takes precedence over his son. All the more so when the dilemma is: he is to study or his fellow is to study.
So do I. And still, to make an open-line broadcast about it is ridiculous.
The commandment of the Jubilee is indeed an almost unique example that can be tied to a measure of socialism. But it is very specific and qualified, and one cannot derive anything from it as a general doctrine. I recall an illuminating article in Akdamot about the Jubilee in Jabotinsky's thought (of course it does not fit with the rabbinic halakhah, but the argument is very interesting about combining capitalism and socialism: capitalism that returns to the starting point every 50 years, so that the children begin again on an equal footing).
As for greed, I highly recommend reading here (David Frenkel is the greatest columnist I know, also a bit personally. Run to read every column of his that you can find. This is an excellent one, but still one of the weaker ones among them):
https://news.walla.co.il/item/1378554
"Be careful with the children of the poor" is a distinctly capitalist statement. In socialism there are no poor, and therefore no children of the poor either. By the way, in Jabotinsky's model mentioned above there are poor people but not children of the poor. Note that well.
In my opinion there are several inaccuracies in your remarks, beyond a few other disagreements between us.
First, the issue of normalized grades is connected to several different aspects. For example, in competitive professions like law, one has to ensure that in competition among students from different years and different universities there will be a uniform yardstick. So there is logic to it. Normalization in a non-competitive profession is indeed, in my view, the wrong thing.
Second, I dispute your linkage between normalization and competitiveness. Normalization does nothing except reorganize the grades onto a uniform scale. The question of competitiveness is connected to something entirely different: are you measuring one's position in the class or an absolute grade? Both of those sides exist with normalized grades as well. When one measures position in the class, that leads to non-constructive competitiveness (where it pays to harm the other and not only improve yourself). But that is not necessarily connected to the question of whether the grades are normalized or not.
Third, regarding neutralizing competition: I am very much against it. Human nature is such that achievement and success are driven by competitiveness. Emcor (Kodkod) games once had a line of non-competitive games that tried to create a different world (games that are not zero-sum). I would guess that Olympic records in such a world would be lower on the absolute scale than records in a competitive world.
Fourth, regarding the suspicions: I assume that anyone else who had the opportunity would also do those things (it reminds me of frustrated salaried employees who accuse the self-employed of tax evasion, mainly because they themselves simply cannot do it). It is hard for me to assume that tycoons are distinguished דווקא by a stronger criminal tendency. It's possible, but by the presumption of probity I prefer to attribute it more to courage, connections, talent, and luck (and rich parents, of course). That is also an option, isn't it? And I prefer to attribute the suspicions to a socialist tendency that always suspects those with money (so long as it's someone else and not them, of course).
Our master of razor-sharp casuistry such as yourself—I would have expected at least some subtlety. Marxism (socialism, communism, and the like) is far more wicked and harmful than you presented it. The excessive power given to the worker at the employer's expense harms both the employer and the consumer; excessive support for the weak (the "disadvantaged") encourages laziness and parasitism; support for large families encourages population explosion; and a million other social ills.
With God's help, 24 Tammuz 5777
It is not clear to me whether there is any connection at all between the Labor Party in its current form and its elected leader, and socialism. It seems to me that the central line there is the aspiration to remove Netanyahu from power for political or cultural reasons, and that well explains the hopes the media pins on the "new broom," which they hope will bring about "the end of the right" 🙂
In any event, I understand that the main thrust of Rabbi Michael Abraham's argument is in praise of competitiveness, which in his view guarantees society's success, and seeing the "fat rabbi" as a nuisance who interferes with the race of life and whom one must deal with in one way or another so that he does not overly delay his fellow runners from achievements.
However, it should be noted that I see no contradiction at all between material and scientific achievement and excellence in the profession of helping others. After all, we are disciples of Abraham our father—a great economic and political success, who was very rich in silver and gold and livestock, who defeated empires in war and was honored by his neighbors as a "prince of God"—and it was precisely he who strove to open his door to unknown guests and honor them royally; he whom his Creator praised, "For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice," and he who pleaded even for the people of Sodom.
The trick is not to push the weak aside so that he will not interfere, but to find the areas in which he excels and in which he can prove himself. A good leader is a "good sexton," who knows the unique point of each of the members of his "community," and channels his abilities there, so that all contribute in their areas of excellence and know how to appreciate their friends in those areas where they are stronger.
As for one who is weak in studies, Rav already instructed his educator-disciple Rav Shmuel bar Shilat on how to deal with a weak student: "If he does not read—let him be a companion to his fellow," and Dr. Mordechai Margaliot explained in the Encyclopedia of the History of the Great Figures of Israel, entry "Rav Shmuel bar Shilat," that the stronger student should serve as a 'mentor' to the weaker one (in my comments to Prof. Nadav Shnarb's article, "To Impart Knowledge—Not to Educate," on the Musaf Shabbat site, I brought several examples of how this principle functioned in Jewish education throughout the generations).
When a student becomes a 'mentor' to his struggling fellow, he develops within himself not only social-moral excellence. His academic achievements also improve, for when one has to explain, one understands better. And one who helps his fellow rises in his own achievements, in the sense of: "From my students more than from all of them."
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
S.Z.L., once again you have put words in my mouth for no fault of my own. I completely agree with what you wrote.
Hillel Gershuni wrote several columns in Mida regarding the (lack of) connection between Judaism and social justice:
The Welfare State and the Sources of JudaismThis Is Not About "Social Justice": Shabbat, the Sabbatical Year, and Interest
There are two links here.
I think you have several fundamental conceptual errors in this article: for example, the convenient leap from equality of opportunity, which those who question "excellence" demand, to some notion of uniform equality in which everyone will be identical—a notion I do not know of any people who actually seek. For example, the far-reaching assumption that in a sophisticated social production system like the one on which the world economy currently rests, one can really identify each person's contribution to GDP by his profession (an example I thought of: a surgeon in a hospital, and even more so in the private sector, earns tens of thousands of shekels a month, and ostensibly justly—he saves lives or significantly improves their quality. But without the foundational work of the contract workers from the cleaning company, those uneducated Arab women who earn minimum wage [at best], the hospital would become an even worse breeding ground for infections than it already is, and many patients would die. But the market does not know how to price this contribution of the cleaners, and sets their wages [as well as doctors' wages] not according to their contribution to society, but according to their social bargaining power).
But I prefer to focus on the Jewish aspect of the claim, and especially on your claim that in the mainstream of Judaism "there is no policy of distributing means of production or equality of income."
In my understanding, you dismiss the commandment of the Jubilee far too easily. It is an unprecedented mechanism (and perhaps never implemented) of redistribution of capital once every fifty years (agricultural land is almost the entire means of production in the ancient world).
If one may so easily ignore a commandment that, to my understanding, is a biblical commandment, perhaps we may and should ignore a few other commandments as well (mainly rabbinic ones, but not only them).
To the Jubilee must be added the restrictions on lending at interest, and of course the Sabbatical year (an equal distribution of GDP one year out of every seven), and even the descriptions of public supervision over fruit-gathering in the Sabbatical year, according to which overseers are stationed at the city gate to check that each person picked according to his needs and no more, or that the public sends workers who gather everything in an organized way and distribute it according to family size (that is, half of the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," as brought in Tosefta Shevi'it:
At first, agents of the court would sit at the entrances of the towns. Whoever brought produce in his hand, they would take it from him and give him from it food for three meals, and the rest they would bring into the storehouse in the city. When the time of figs arrived, the agents of the court would hire workers, gather them, make them into pressed fig-cakes, collect them in barrels, and bring them into the storehouse in the city. When the time of grapes arrived, the agents of the court would hire workers, harvest them, tread them in the winepress, collect them in barrels, and bring them into the storehouse in the city. When the time of olives arrived, the agents of the court would hire workers, pick them, press them in the olive press, collect them in barrels, and bring them into the storehouse in the city. And they would distribute from them on Sabbath eves, each and every one according to his household.
I would certainly be willing to compromise on capitalism if once every fifty years ownership of productive capital were redistributed. No capitalist would agree to the commandment of the Jubilee (nor to the Sabbatical year, nor to the prohibitions of interest).
I agree that claims about a modern economic outlook embedded in the Torah are unfounded, but that is true also of claims concerning capitalist outlooks in the Torah, no less than of claims concerning socialist outlooks. In my opinion, even more so.
There are several unfounded assumptions here. As if really only a handful of geniuses are what drives the economy, and everyone else is a herd of mediocrities whom there is no real point in advancing. Where does this come from? What is the basis for that claim?
As a graduate of a classic Lithuanian yeshiva, where this approach is common, I can say that it doesn't seem to have much substance.
Hello Avshalom.
I'll start at the end. Regarding the difference between deriving a capitalist outlook from the Torah and deriving socialism from it, see my reply above. I agree on the principled level. But there is still an asymmetry. When there is no reference, the meaning is capitalism, not socialism. Socialism means restrictions on freedom, and that needs to be written.
Unlike you, I definitely think one can identify differences between contributions to GDP. To deny this is, at best, disingenuousness (in many cases politically correct disingenuousness). The hospital contract workers are an especially poor example, since in principle the hospital can function without them, which is not true of the surgeon (with all due respect to dirt). But that is only a side comment. To discuss the matter itself, let us take someone who supplies electricity to the hospital or a technician for medical equipment. These are better examples, except that with respect to them too you are mistaken, since such a technician has a relatively cheap substitute. It is easy to train him and no especially high professional level is required. By contrast, a good surgeon is very hard to train and find.
In this context I will only note that within your remarks you implicitly assume socialist premises and determine that the market does not know how to price the contribution of the contract workers. But capitalism teaches us that the market price is always right. The market (= the invisible hand) always knows how to price, except in special cases of failure (and then the capitalist too agrees that regulation or intervention is required). Needless to say, here too you are mistaken on the substance, because contrary to your words the market knows how to price contract workers very well. The considerations for why they are paid less appear in the previous paragraph, so you can find them easily.
Regarding the Jubilee, I mentioned it. And still I have not heard that decisors infer from it an obligation to return property that is not real estate in the Land of Israel, or even to return real estate abroad, or even in the Land of Israel when the majority of its inhabitants are not upon it. You can of course propose such a halakhic suggestion on the basis of the socialist assumption you make, but if you are describing the halakhah as it stands before us, there is no real basis for it. It is a novel interpretation (halakhically) that can certainly fit the plain sense of the verses, and I already mentioned that Jabotinsky (and also Herzl) proposed this.
Needless to say, you are mistaken about the Sabbatical year as well. On all these matters, you can see in Gershuni's article that was linked above.
Correction: only a handful need mathematical knowledge in order to lead the economy. This is based on the unconventional means of observing reality. By the way, among graduates of Lithuanian yeshivot the subject of observing reality is a bit weak, and perhaps worth working on.
Isn't it well known what happened with the arithmetic teacher who discovered that the worst student in the class had become the richest merchant in the city? The teacher asked him: Have you meanwhile acquired knowledge in arithmetic? The student answered him: No. I simply knew that I had to earn 20%, so I buy for 20 shekels and sell for 40 shekels, and that way I earn 20%…
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
Where is the question?
A layman's question—what professions would you recommend to someone who is very talented in mathematics, in order to improve national GDP?
With God's help, 27 Tammuz 5777
Observing reality shows that the success of every enterprise has a great many partners. The organizer and the manager have value, and no less value belongs to the many workers who do their labor faithfully, thanks to whom the whole "business" ticks along. The simple worker must appreciate the organizational ability, vision, and drive of those at the head of the "pyramid," and the "boss" must appreciate the toil and dedication of his workers and strive to reward them generously to the best of his ability.
And when everyone acts with a "good eye" toward one another, the Master of the Universe also acts with a "good eye" and bestows abundant goodness and blessing on all. This is the doctrine of Jewish economics: when a person looks at reality with a "good eye"—it is good for him. No one pushes another aside.
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
It was not for nothing that Cain was punished to be a wanderer on the earth. The more he wandered in the world, the more he saw how great and broad the world is, and how much room there is in it for everyone to be happy.
If he is very talented in mathematics, let him check for himself.
By the way, national GDP is like "final water water."
With God's help, 27 Tammuz 5777
To Shai—greetings,
Whoever wants to improve the health situation in the country should study medicine or health administration; if so, one should say that whoever wants to improve a country's economic condition should study economics or political science.
However, it seems that no less important is that his occupation suit him and his talents and bring him satisfaction. After all, in the end every occupation contributes to the "national product," and the more a person is engaged in what interests him, the more efficient his work and the greater his contribution.
A central consideration in choosing a profession is also the degree of demand for it in the job market. Today there are institutes for diagnosis and counseling in choosing a profession, helping the undecided find the profession that suits them, in accordance with their inclinations, talents, and the state of the market.
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
And what about the remission of debts, and Shabbat, and interest, and the Hebrew slave?
After all, the law only permits rest on the day of rest. Whoever wants to work for 200% can do so. Shabbat mandates rest even if one could ostensibly earn a few extra pennies. It is no coincidence that liberal elements try to erode Shabbat with the claim that their sacred right to consumerism is being harmed. And precisely the social-minded preserve the spirit of the Torah, which imposes Shabbat on the grounds that "for you were a slave in the land of Egypt…".
The remission of debts does not apply in our time because the majority of its inhabitants are not upon it, but I wouldn't object to cutting a mortgage after 7 years.
Regarding interest there is a heter iska, but I do not know whether we always meet its conditions (overdraft?)
I am not speaking about the poor tithe and gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, but in the final accounting the pendulum swings this way and that.
I don't entirely buy it…
In my opinion, one has to balance and distribute efforts and budgets on all planes. There are several important goals—economic, not to mention ethical and value-based. Indeed, one should identify the dozens of most brilliant minds in the country and budget them accordingly (all in all, that's not so expensive). On the other hand, one must also ensure that there are many guys with an 80 in 5-unit math who can be the manpower staffing the companies and startups that the above geniuses manage and establish (what shall we do? import people from India? a topic in itself…). On the third hand, one cannot ignore the fact that weak guys whom we do not help advance (a little) may in the end fall as a burden (economic and not only) on society—a financial loss (and again, not to mention values…).
In short, I completely accept the narrative of Minister Bennett and Rabbi Michi (as opposed to Rabbi Piron, whose approach, as I understand it, consists of nonsense and humanistic drivel—which, even if we respect the grass sciences, is clearly nonsense at the level of ignorant students), but I do not agree with the thin and narrow approach that I inferred from the article, which advocates supporting the top of the top because of the utility in it. Again—clearly there is the value issue, but even aside from that there is a clear economic interest in advancing the whole society, and everyone will find his place in the economy—because you need everyone.
So what is it that you don't accept? Everything is agreed.
Regarding your remarks (end of paragraph 1) that one should help the 'weak' so that they do not become a burden, etc.—it should be added that not infrequently a student who appears 'weak' has very high potential that is not being realized because of some learning disability, which once diagnosed and treated will reveal phenomenal talent. And not infrequently it is not the talented person who succeeds in life but the persistent one, who overcomes all obstacles with his strong will,
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
Or white SSL.
In short: let us excel in all things, and be successful and helpful, let us love truth and kindness, and let each man be responsible for his brother, and then the month of Av will turn to good, and the coming fast will become a 'good Yom Tov,' we will be doubly comforted, and we will see the peace of Jerusalem.
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
In line 2:
…that is not being realized because of a learning disability…
Why, in your view, is normalization in a non-competitive profession the wrong thing? The problem is exams of non-uniform difficulty; a subjective judgment of the level of difficulty is less well-founded than assuming similarity between fairly large populations (at the very least within the same institution in nearby semesters), and therefore, to arrive at the truly fair and representative grade, one must normalize or curve. Indeed, in courses given to few people, or when there is reason to assume the populations are different (for example, the second sitting of the same course, since usually the stronger students already take and pass on the first sitting), then this enters into the factoring and is used less (and indeed in such a case normalizations are not fair).
Hello Rabbi Michi!
I was very glad to read your remarks about the need for achievement orientation in Torah study.
Unfortunately I encounter this phenomenon too. Many people want to 'connect,' and are absolutely anti-covering material and anti-achievement in learning.
Aside from the above, even for those who want to know the Torah and see that as their calling, the problems that interfere with systematic knowledge of Torah are, in my opinion:
1. The utter disorder of the Talmudic laws. All the laws are scattered and mixed up in the Gemara, lines of reasoning come from remote sugyot, every sugya has to be worked out in relation to all the other sugyot. [And however much the Rishonim may come and arrange it (like the Rambam), in the end everything begins and ends with studying the sugya in the Gemara.]
2. The many different explanations of the sugya in the mouths of the Rishonim (and Acharonim). How far should one spread out in studying all the different schools of the Rishonim, and how far should one delve even further into each Rishon on his own—the Rashba as opposed to the Ritva, the Ran and the Nimukei Yosef, etc.
3. The amount of time investment in analyzing the reasoning of the laws, as against the desire to cover and know the whole Torah on a 'basic' level, and to continue deepening over the years (to some extent this is also connected with point 2).
All the above was only about the Gemara and its commentators, and we haven't yet gotten into the methods of halakhic decision-making, later scholars' novellae, and more.
I would be very glad to hear from the rabbi's rich experience about a systematic method of learning for "knowing the whole Torah," as much as possible, that deals with the above difficulties.
Hello.
Forgive the banality and the expected and disappointing answer. I do not think there is one correct method. Each person according to what his heart desires. There are different kinds of excellence, and for every definition of excellence there are several ways to attain it (depending on the person). If one studies seriously and with the motivation to succeed and excel, then one arrives by whatever path.
Beautifully written. If only I knew how to formulate things at this level of precision and clarity.
Though, as I said in the past, sometimes it is worth giving up precision in favor of condensation and brevity.
It is clear to me that condensation will come at the expense of the precision and completeness of the logical inferences.
Nevertheless, there is value in increasing the number of readers and making the material accessible, and condensation plays a central role in that.
I have two comments:
–We have seen that there are populations that have barriers to success—barriers most of which stem from the structure of their family unit, their worldviews, and their immediate environment.
On the other hand, we have seen (for example—the program we saw in the army, on our last tour) that under certain conditions it is possible to distance the better ones among them from most of the barriers, and then their achievements improve significantly and we all profit.
The problem is not simple, and most steps in the direction of equality have failed in this regard (see, for example, integration in schools).
But in my opinion we must continue to act and support this direction. Beyond the conception of equality of opportunity, even from cost-benefit considerations there is an advantage in it, although in the short term it looks like the opposite.
As an aside, I assume that most of the solutions we propose will draw the wrath of the people of "freedom and equality" upon us.
–The description of the elites and their attitude toward the Labor Party seems right to me.
But in my opinion the reason is not that the elites are controlled by Mapainiks, but that it is the closest thing to their "politically correct" conceptions.
That also explains why the values of socialism are disappearing while its ethos is preserved. It is simply another ethos in disguise.
Another comment that does not really belong to the article.
There is an aside in the article about academic departments in which excellence has no great significance.
It seems to me that there is a clear correlation between these departments and ideological homogeneity in socio-economic contexts.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the problem and from there conclusions about what is permitted and proper to do.
I would be glad if, on some occasion, we could talk about all this.
Hello Y.
Thanks for the response.
Regarding the first comment, I completely agree. The point is that one should not belittle cost-benefit considerations, even though that sounds politically incorrect.
I'm not sure I understood which problem is at issue (you asked for an analysis of the problem and conclusions about what is permitted and proper to do). If it is about the ideological homogeneity, then what can be done is to point it out and propose alternatives. Those departments, of course, do their best to prevent the alternatives from being presented, but in my estimation they will eventually fail (that is already beginning to happen these very days, much to their chagrin). This is part of the rear-guard battle of the ethos of equality, which becomes louder the worse its condition. Therefore we should not be impressed by the loudness. It is actually a good sign.
I would be glad to talk.
Goodbye,
Hello Rabbi
…
On this occasion I wanted to make three comments on the rabbi's latest column –
A. One of the big problems of our economic right is that, aside from some small group at the Mida website, most of it completely accepts the left's playing field. I heard an interview with one of Bennett's people (I forgot who). He was asked: Granted, there has been an increase in those successfully finishing 5-unit math, but doesn't this hurt the weaker strata? Instead of giving all the capitalist answers that the two of us know, he began to stammer and get confused. He did not know how to explain that more students finishing 5 units means higher GDP a few years from now and ultimately a more successful country for all of us. He began to squirm with the fact that they also took care of Sderot, and that in Dimona too the number of matriculation finishers went up. True things, but those answers accept the socialist premise of the questioner instead of explaining that he is mistaken in his basic assumptions. Sad.
B. I think the rabbi needs to sharpen the disagreement between the economic right and left as follows – everyone agrees that there should be equality. The right believes in equality of opportunity, and the left believes in equality of outcomes. What lies at the root of the dispute is the understanding of the economic world. The left-wing world thinks everything is always a zero-sum game. If people in Ramat Aviv have a million shekels in their checking account and people in Dimona have 3,000, that means the people in Ramat Aviv somehow robbed the people of Dimona. And similarly regarding matriculation exams – if the children of Ramat Gan did 5 units and the children of Sderot did less, the children of Ramat Gan are "robbing" the children of Sderot, in some way.
It may be that one can point to budgets that the municipality of Ramat Gan manages to transfer that people in the periphery do not receive (although many times the reverse is true), but even if that is true, it is incidental. That is not the essence of the claim. The essence of the claim is that one must arrive at equality in the result, otherwise there is no equality. This is in contrast to right-wing thinking, which says that there can be win-win. If there is another successful high-tech company, there is more money for everyone; one can employ even the least skilled cleaner for more money. There are more iPhones for everyone. There are more taxes that will reach the people of Sderot and Dimona when GDP is higher, etc. etc. Give equality of opportunity, and that means in both directions—that the weak should have an opportunity, and that the strong should not have the fat rabbi who delays the whole column.
C. Regarding the Torah world, I have several comments. 1. My teacher and rabbi told me that nowadays most of the middle class can afford to send its sons to study in yeshiva for 5–8 years quietly, then get a degree and succeed in the world, and this is a great blessing over which one should rejoice. It is good that there is more Torah study, period, even if one does not see achievements from everyone. 2. Alongside this, there has been a significant rise in programs like Rabbi Lichtenstein's at Har Etzion, like Eretz Hemdah, and more. One has to demonstrate excellence to be accepted into these programs; they demand labor and achievements in the sense of frequent exams and writing (although in the area of writing, in my humble opinion, it would be fitting to push more). I think that in our public there is a rise in the level of Torah [the bigger problem is the lack of proportion—a higher percentage than would have allowed itself in the past remains in yeshiva for years, but the number beginning first-year shiur in serious yeshivot is declining. More and more of the public goes to study in a non-serious way for a year or two, or even less. I see a much bigger problem there than in the number knocking on the door of "Eretz Hemdah" and the like]. 3. The issue of money is the problematic issue in this area. A person studied in Yeruham seriously and well for 10 years. Afterwards he went to Eretz Hemdah, reviewed Hoshen Mishpat and Even HaEzer, took side exams on various proficiency topics, wrote significant articles and halakhic rulings, and then … where can he continue? Proportionally, there are many people who do such tracks. In the best case (as in my case!), by a miracle they happen to want to open exactly two programs that will fill his time (and thank God, relatively to what happens in the Torah world, also his pocket…), and he can do significant work. But how many such programs exist? Of those finishing Eretz Hemdah together with me, one went to the Puah Institute, one became a rebbe in a hesder yeshiva (not one of the "serious" ones), one went to teach in Mako"h, and one works in the Department of Hebrew Law in the Ministry of Justice. Thank God, this is considered a class that managed to get by. But we have graduates who after Eretz Hemdah went on to a degree in engineering at Machon Lev, and so on. One of my rabbis also told me that perhaps the time has come to find a profession….
(By the way, I know that Rabbi Blumentzweig sends guys in Yeruham who reached seventh-eighth year shiur to do a degree. He does not want a situation created in which a person just sits and sits if he does not see that he will lead the next generation. Add that to the list.)
My point is –
Suppose that among Eretz Hemdah graduates, 60% really will continue in the Torah world in a significant way (they will write significant articles and rulings, teach in post-high-school frameworks that require a proper level of Torah learning). The rest will be divided between high-school yeshivot or high-tech, etc. Under this assumption one must ask: whom shall we accept to Eretz Hemdah? The 60% should be those who are especially successful in Torah, so that they can lead the next generation. But among the remaining 40%, is it important that they specifically be the successful ones? After all, this group will not lead the Torah learning and halakhic decision-making of the next generation in any case, so why should scholarship be more important than righteousness?
My answer to myself is that much of the sharpening of Torah that I received in recent years was built on sitting in cramped conditions with people who are unwilling to let me get away with not saying the reasoning in the ultimate form. Very sharp people whom you cannot fool, who will insist on the plain meaning in the Rambam and the depth of the reasoning in the Rashba. That is what raises Torah scholars.
And still, there is definitely room to keep people in the Torah world on the basis of righteousness, and not only on the basis of scholarship, if we are talking about the percentage of those who in any event will be rebbes in high-school yeshivot or will go into high-tech.
I do not agree with your remarks. I think you are mixing psychological fallacies with the ideology itself. Leftist ideology does not advocate harming the strong, but rather criteria of comparison (what I said—that the measures are the standard deviation and a bit of the mean). Their psychology brings about hatred of success and successful people, and therefore conduct is created whose aim is to harm the strong regardless of whether this strengthens the weak. But that is a psychological failure and not part of the doctrine itself.
I have no problem at all with Torah study for a few years—on the contrary. My problem is with the fact that the unsuitable learners do not eventually turn to occupations that are more fulfilling for them and for society as a whole. And indeed, the absence of a vocational horizon is part of the matter, but note that if there were only a few learners (in the long term), this too would be less problematic, because they are not learning for the sake of a role but in order to grow. They would be paid for the learning and there would be no need for a vocational horizon. Because today's learning society is too broad, the learning has to end in employment, and that is precisely the problem. I wrote about this in an earlier column on my site (34):
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%96%D7%A7%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9A-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%94/
Of course I have nothing against "righteous people," but it is not desirable that there be many such people. At most they are a marginal auxiliary force.
I agree that the Torah is not socialist, and that charity is a thoroughly capitalist value. But in the Torah there are many balances to capitalism, such as the prohibition of interest, the Jubilee, coercion to give charity. And that is what I meant when I said non-piggish capitalism. I have not managed to understand how Hillel Gershuni, who advocates a completely free market, including child labor exploitation and organ trade, fits with Judaism.
With God's help, Rosh Chodesh Av 5777
It seems to me that in the economic sphere too there are different kinds of excellence. There are entrepreneurs and there are simple workers; there are production people and people of spirit and culture. The main thing is that everyone does his work honestly and faithfully and contributes to society, each in his own way.
With blessings, S.Z. Popper-Levingaus, Hillel Gershuni's neighbor 🙂
I read your article carefully; it is indeed written clearly and wonderfully.
What interests me mainly is the attitude of halakhah to the question of socialism/capitalism. You expressed here a clear position (without proving it in depth, I assume because that was not the purpose of the article) that halakhah is capitalist in the strictest sense.
As a libertarian in my outlook (economically and socially), the thing that bothers me most when people talk about governmental barriers is the halakhic regulation of a sixth-price overcharge.
So of course, in a sixth-price overcharge we are not talking about regulation aimed at equality, but about a conception that sees raising prices as a kind of deceit of the buyer forbidden by the Torah.
Still, in a capitalist world of a free market this is simply something that should not be done, because the market must be allowed to determine the price. I read an interesting article by Nadav Shnarb in "Keren Zavit" arguing that in the halakhic conception, goods have an "objective fixed value" and not a market value.
So even if halakhah is not socialist, it is certainly not classical capitalist.
What is your opinion?
With God's help, 6 Tishrei 5778
To David—greetings,
The Torah relates with very great respect to a person's property. It forbids stealing it and defrauding him, and even coveting property that is not his, and even commands a person to return his fellow's lost property.
On the other hand, the Torah is careful that each person should have an inheritance in the land and that each should preserve his ancestral inheritance, and the land must not be sold permanently. Indeed, people were careful as much as they could not to sell their ancestral inheritance. Even the prince was commanded: "And the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance, to thrust them out of their possession… that my people be not scattered every man from his possession" (Ezekiel 46:18).
The blessing of the people of the Torah is when each man sits under his vine and under his fig tree and enjoys the labor of his hands, without jealousy and competition, as it is written: "It is vain for you to rise early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows" (Psalms 127:2). And in Psalm 112 David praises the man who fears the Lord, for whom "wealth and riches are in his house," yet "his righteousness stands forever." He is gracious and lends to the needy, "he has dispersed, he has given to the poor," and the aspiration for wealth does not make him dizzy.
And the example before his eyes for a man of Israel is his king, who is commanded: "He shall not greatly multiply silver and gold for himself" and "he shall not greatly multiply horses for himself" and "his heart shall not be lifted up above his brethren." A king who, with all his preoccupations in leading the nation, meditates on Torah day and night, and whose main aspiration is "an understanding heart to judge Your people, to discern between good and evil" (I Kings 3:9). A king whose main possession is wisdom, and whose 'capital' is chapters of Psalms.
This is the doctrine of liberal capitalism!
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
Excessive libertarianism may also lead to selling aliyot to the Torah, which will increase the burden on the congregation 🙂
I accept the comment…
What happens with selling aliyot is definitely an example of a problem that requires thought within the capitalist method: after all, it is clear that if the public becomes disgusted with selling aliyot and moves to pray in another synagogue, the sextons will in any event stop the practice (what is called the market balancing itself). The problem is when some of the worshipers are millionaires, and they will stay in order to buy the aliyot (tycoons), such that even with the loss of the money from the public that left, the big money will cover the deficit.
But the point is that even a large part of those rich people will not like the synagogue and will leave, especially at times when they do not want to buy an aliyah. In addition, the honor and importance involved in an aliyah to the Torah (and in purchasing it!) diminishes when there are fewer worshipers.
As for ancestral inheritance, that is a matter closely connected to the holiness of the land and to divine destiny. In real estate we have a tradition that there is no overcharging law for land! (Try telling that to the tent protesters.)
My libertarianism comes not necessarily from an aspiration to wealth (in my opinion, the one who wants the government to give him more is the one thinking about money and not values), but from a moral stance of individual liberty. The Torah demands of us to be better human beings. We need to give charity, not that the government should take money from us by force and give charity with it.
P.S. Regarding the role that Ezekiel gives the king (and by the way cancels the lottery division of inheritances), I heard a wonderful lecture by Rabbi Y. Bin-Nun on the subject. (The Temple in Ezekiel—contradictions with the laws of "Torat Kohanim" in the Torah?!, YouTube. A lecture he gave at Herzog College.) Worth finding the time to listen…
For in Ezekiel the reason is explained: "So that my people be not scattered every man from his possession." And Isaiah cries out, "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land" (5:8).
Even from the law that "there is no overcharging law for land" it is proven that land has a value beyond the market price. A person is willing to pay for land far beyond the market price. There are situations in which a person is in great need of money, and then he sells land cheaply in order to escape an oppressive debt. But a halakhic society in which helping others is a halakhic obligation on the individual and on the community ("they compel charity") will do everything to help the poor person not sell his land and his house, and if he is forced to do so, it will rally to help him redeem it.
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
There are decisors who wrote that nowadays the laws of overcharging do not exist in their Talmudic sense, at least when there is a wide price range (a standard deviation above one-sixth). See a lecture here:
http://dintora.org/show_lesson/8
and my brief remarks here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95/
If a state decides to permit overcharging (for reasons of capitalism and libertarianism), one must discuss whether this has the force of dina de-malkhuta or a valid custom. On the face of it, it seems to me that it does, but this is not the place to elaborate.
On the face of it, it seems that the main point of the prohibition of overcharging is not to prevent a high price, but rather a matter of honesty and "full disclosure," for "one who deals faithfully and says, 'This and this is my profit'—there is no overcharging for him. Even if he said: 'I bought it for a sela and am selling it for ten'—it is permitted" (Rambam, Hilchot Mechirah 14:1)
However, regarding "things that are necessities of life," the Rambam says (ibid.) that "the court is obligated to set prices and appoint officers for this, and not each and every one may profit as much as he wishes, but they shall set one-sixth as their profit, and the seller shall not profit more than one-sixth." And as is well known, the sages treated those who inflate prices with severity, and therefore they instituted the blessing of the years as the ninth blessing, because David prayed about them in the ninth psalm: "Break the arm of the wicked" (Psalms 10:15. The sages counted our Psalms 1 and 2 as one psalm, and therefore our Psalm 10 counted for them as the ninth).
With blessings, S.Z. Levinger
The opening reminded me of a rebbe in yeshiva who used to say that he doesn't listen to the news or read a newspaper, and still doesn't miss anything important. So admittedly he exaggerated (I think he definitely did miss things, and it seems that nowadays he has retracted), but why listen to all that nonsense?! If you're stuck in the car you can listen to music, or Heaven forbid turn the device off.
As for the substance, I think a bit of engagement with the grass sciences wouldn't hurt. Not everyone there is an idiot. There are some people there who manage to come up on their own with this argument or that, and even try to test them empirically. The notion that someone with no knowledge whatsoever will arrive at better conclusions is ridiculous (I recall one of my rebbes—incidentally, the same rebbe as above—who used to mock medical studies, and it was funny because it stemmed only from ignorance—he thought that what gets published in the newspaper actually reflects the research). For example, if one wants to discuss whether economic inequality is good or bad for growth, a huge amount has been written about it. You can't jump to conclusions without knowing the theories and the findings. The same goes for the social benefit of mathematics studies for the entire population—I am sure a lot has been written about that too (though here I am not familiar with it).
P.S. – Did Piron really say that? I'm having trouble finding it on Google. It does fit him, but it seems exaggerated even for him.