What happens when economic principles clash with the Torah’s instructions in handling the finances of our impoverished neighbors? Why would anyone want to buy property if it’s the most unsafe deal around? A look at what it means to understand that in the end we’re all brothers

Someone in our community runs into financial trouble and winds up losing his livelihood. What if any are our obligations toward him?

The answer to this query — which has unfortunately become applicable at every turn in today’s precarious economic climate — is spelled out in this week’s parshah: “If your brother becomes impoverished and his hand falters beside you you shall support him” (Vayikra 25:35).

Parshas Behar presents several scenarios of financial downfall and details the kind of help we are required to give in each situation. Studying the solutions mandated by the Torah the picture that emerges is one of a different sort of economy than the one we see in the world around us.

Here is the first scenario:

“If your brother becomes impoverished and sells some of his inherited property his redeemer who is related to him shall come forward and redeem his brother's sale” (ibid. 25:25).

Eretz Yisrael was an agricultural country in Biblical times. Its economy depended on its land and the financial status of a family depended on the land it owned and its ability to work it. The family received its ancestral estate in the original land distribution that was made among the Tribes after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Thus their land was more than just property; it was part of their essence. The land distribution had to preserve the social and economic balance as much as possible. Over time selling fields was liable to upset the balance of equal distribution concentrating wealth in the hands of a privileged class and creating social chasms.

Still what would happen if an individual found himself facing financial pressures that brought him to sell some of this land? The Torah is explicit: the duty of redeeming the field and returning it to the financially strapped seller falls on this man’s closest relative. Not only is this a mitzvah that falls in the lap of the relative but the original buyer too is required to cooperate with the redeemer. Provided that he is remunerated he may not refuse to return the land to the original owner (see Rashi on the pasuk).

The halachah as we see can interfere with a free market imposing its strictures and reversing situations that were created as a result of free trading. Here is another way in which halachah imposes limits on economic forces:

“And if a man does not have a redeemer but he gains sufficient means for its redemption he shall calculate the years for which the land has been sold and return the remainder to the man to whom he sold it and [then] he may return to his inheritance” (ibid. 25:26–27).

This means that if a man’s financial situation improves even years after the sale he has the right to compel the buyer to return the land to him in exchange for proper monetary compensation (taking into account the number of years of benefit the buyer has already had from the land and deducting a fair amount from the original purchase price).

The Talmud discusses a more complex version of this scenario: What if the buyer has meanwhile sold the land to a second buyer at a profit? In such a case the original owner makes his calculation based on the price he took from the first buyer. What if the first buyer resold the land at a loss? In that case the original owner deals with the last buyer and bases his calculation on the resale price. What if the market value of the land has gone up since he sold it? He bases his calculation on the sale price. If the market value of the land has gone down then he bases his calculation on the current lower value (Arachin 30a).

In every case the Talmud interprets the Torah’s injunction in such a way that the original owner has the upper hand. If there is any discrepancy between the sale price and a later price he redeems his land for the lower price — the Torah makes it as easy as possible for him to return to his ancestral estate. Apparently people who bought land in Biblical times didn’t get a very good deal.

But how can an economy work this way? How can people be forced to act by these guidelines which go directly against their interests and the interests of a free market?

Before answering that question let us look at the next scenario:

A man has sold his field in order to gain financial relief but finds that he is still deep in debt and facing financial ruin. What next?

The parshah goes on to discuss this case:

“If your brother becomes impoverished and his hand falters beside you you shall support him whether a convert or a resident so that he can live with you” (Vayikra 25:35).

An elementary obligation is expressed in this pasuk as the Midrash explains:

“Do not allow him to fall down to a point where it will be hard to raise him back up but take hold of him from the moment his hand falters. What is this like? It is like a load on a donkey’s back [that begins to slip]. While it is still on the donkey’s back one man can grab it and settle it back in place. But once it has fallen to the ground five men won’t be able to get it back in place” (see Rashi on the pasuk).

The Torah mandates that we support a needy person before he collapses. We must help him to repair his faltering business. We are not to take advantage of his situation by forcing a partnership on him that he doesn’t want and certainly not by waiting for him to reach a point where he is forced to sell out at a cut-rate price after he has spent years building it up. On the contrary our duty is to reach out and keep him from falling offering suitable help until he has regained his financial footing.

That means helping him with money of course. Large loans if necessary — and interest-free. As the next pasuk commands us “You shall not take from him interest or increase and you shall let your brother live along with you” (ibid. 25:36).

These verses seem to undermine the entire foundation of an economy based on free enterprise. How is a dynamic developing society supposed to thrive under such conditions? Who is actually capable of acting in accordance with such pious standards?

Let us examine another scenario and the answer will soon become apparent.

Sometimes all the attempted solutions have failed and despite it all a man finds himself in a financial crisis. In desperation he sells himself into servitude a socially accepted institution in ancient times.

“And if your brother becomes impoverished with you and is sold to you do not work him with slave labor” (ibid. 25:39).

Naturally the master bought his slave in order to gain as much productivity as possible from his work. But the Torah dictates a hard life for the master. Here is how the Rambam summarizes the Talmudic rulings on the treatment of a slave:

“A Hebrew slave must not be given hard labor. And what is considered hard labor? Any task that does not have clear limits and tasks that he does not actually need done … [The master] must not tell him ‘Dig under the grapevines until I return’ for he did not give him a limit … And he must not tell him ‘Dig here’ where he does not need [a trench dug].

“A Hebrew slave may not be given degrading tasks… such as carrying his utensils to the bathhouse or removing his shoes” (Hilchos Avadim ch. 1).

This brief glance is enlightening. The halachah mandates that a slave be treated with respect incorporating the fine details of psychology. Even leaving a workload open-ended causes enough mental anguish to classify the task as hard labor.

A further look at the parshah shows the complete equality between the slave and his master:

“As a hired or resident worker he shall be with you …” (ibid. 25:40).

“With you in food; with you in drink; with you in clean garments; that you may not eat fine bread while he eats coarse bread or you drink old wine while he drinks new wine or you sleep upon soft bedding while he sleeps upon straw” (Sifra 21).

That is the slave enjoys total equality in living conditions. And what if the master has only one pillow to sleep on? The principle of equality obliges him to give that pillow to his slave. Thus the Talmud’s conclusion on the matter is fairly obvious: “This is why they say whoever purchases a slave is buying himself a master.”

The question we posed earlier now becomes even stronger. Is this standard of behavior feasible? Is it humanly possible even expected to act according to these rules?

The answer lies in one word that is consistently repeated throughout these Torah passages.

The word is “brother.”

It isn’t just another person in unfortunate circumstances we are called on to help it is our brother. The Torah is telling us to ingrain in our consciousness and our imagination that every Jew is simply our brother. We are always willing to extend ourselves beyond normal boundaries for our brother.

Still why does every Jew have to be my brother?

“For they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt …” (Vayikra 25:42).

The recognition knowledge and belief that the basis for our unity is purely spiritual and comes from G-d before Whom we all stand equal demands and allows for this deep sense of brotherhood with everything the term implies.

For without this we will drift toward selfishness and isolation; social divides will widen; apathy and alienation will increase; and community life economy and free trade will turn into a wrestling ring where the where a  “grab what you can” attitude will rule our lives.

Food for Thought

Accept upon yourself from He Who is above you what you would like the one below you to accept from you

(Rabbeinu Bachya Ibn Pekudei Chovos HaLevavos)