Who is God’s Suffering Servant?
Source: Noahidenations.com
Who is God’s Suffering Servant?
The Rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53
By Rabbi Tovia Singer
www.OutreachJudaism.org
Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors. The speakers in this most-debated chapter are the stunned kings of nations who will bear witness to the messianic age and the final vindication of the Jewish people following their long and bitter exile. “Who would have believed our report?,” the astonished and contrite world leaders wonder aloud in their dazed bewilderment (53:1) .
The stimulus for the world’s baffled response contained in this famed cluster of chapters at the end of the Book of Isaiah is the unexpected salvation of Israel. The redemption of God’s people is the central theme in the preceding verse (52:12) where the “you” signifies the Jewish people who are sheltered and delivered by God. Moreover, the “afflicted barren woman” in the following chapter who is protected and saved by God is also universally recognized as the nation of Israel (54:1).
The well-worn claim frequently advanced by Christian apologists which argues that the noted Jewish commentator Rashi (1040 CE – 1105) was the first to identify the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 with the nation of Israel is inaccurate and misleading. In fact, Origen, a prominent and influential church father, conceded in the year 248 CE — many centuries before Rashi was born — that the consensus among the Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 “bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”
The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel.
Isaiah 41:8-9
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”
Isaiah 44:1
But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!
Isaiah 44:21
Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
Isaiah 45:4
For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I called you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.
Isaiah 48:20
Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it out to the end of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!”
Isaiah 49:3
And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
According to this widespread rabbinic opinion, Isaiah 53 contains a deeply moving narrative which world leaders will cry aloud in the messianic age. The humbled kings of nations (52: 15) will confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our own iniquity,” (53:5) i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as they previously thought, the stubborn blindness of the Jews.
The stunned reaction of the world’s nations to the unexpected vindication and redemption of the Jewish nation in the messianic age is a reoccurring theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures . Israel’s neighbors will be amazed when their age-old assessment of the Jew is finally proved wrong. Throughout Israel’s long and bitter exile the nations mistakenly attributed the miserable predicament of the Jew to his stubborn rejection of the world’s religions. In the End of Days, however, the gentiles will discover what was until then unimaginable: The unwavering Jew was, in fact, all this time faithful to the true God. On the other hand, “We despised and held him of no account” (53:3).
In essence, the final and complete redemption of the Jews to which the stunned nations will bear witness contradicts everything Israel’s gentile neighbors had ever previously anticipated, heard, or considered (52:15). “Who would have believed our report?” the kings will ask with their mouths wide open in amazement (53:1). The curtain of blindness is finally lifted when the “holy Arm of the Lord before the eyes of all the nations, all the ends of the earth will witness the salvation of His people.” (52:10)
The unanticipated vindication of the Jews in the End of Days, however, will raise nagging, introspective questions for Israel’s neighbors: How then can we explain the Jews’ long-enduring suffering at our own hands? After all, the age-old reasons we contrived to explain away Israel’s agony are clearly no longer valid. Who is to blame for Israel’s miserable existence in exile? In short, why did the servant of God seem to suffer without measure or cause?
Therefore, Isaiah 53:8 concludes with their stunning confession, “for the transgressions of my people [the gentile nations] they [the Jews] were stricken.” The fact that the servant is spoken of in the third person, plural (???) illustrates beyond doubt that the servant is a nation rather than a single individual.
The rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 fits in seamlessly with its surrounding chapters which all clearly depict the nation of Israel as “despised, afflicted” (54:6-11), and oppressed “without cause” (52:4) at the hands of the gentile nations.”
According to the most ancient rabbinic commentaries, the identification of Israel as God’s servant is evident throughout the four Servant Songs. As such, rabbinic sources from the Talmudic period identify the servant of Isaiah 53 in the plain sense as the Jewish people, consistent with the previous three Servant Songs .
For example, commenting on Isaiah 53 the Talmud Berachos 5a states:
Rava said in the name of Rav Sachorah who said it in the name of Rav Huna: Whomever the Holy One, blessed is He, desires, He crushes with afflictions as it is stated “And the one whom Hashem desires He crushed with sickness (Isaiah 53:10). Now, one might have thought that this applies even if he does not accept [the afflictions] with love. Scripture therefore states in the continuation of the verse “if his soul acknowledges his guilt” (ibid.)… And if he accepts [the afflictions with love] what is his reward? He will see offspring and live long days. Moreover, he will retain his studies, as it is stated “and the desire of Hashem will succeed in his hand” (ibid.).
The ancient Midrash Rabba on Numbers 23 likewise attests that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel:
“I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey” (Song of Songs 5:1): because the Israelites poured out their soul to die in captivity, as it is said, “Because he poured out his soul to die” (Isaiah 53:12).
Interestingly, the traditional Church did not completely satisfy the Christian mind with their stock interpretation of Isaiah 53. There is, therefore, a consensus among many modern, liberal Christian commentators which is in accord with this prevailing rabbinic exegesis on this most debated chapter. For example, the commentary of the 11th century Rashi and the 20th century Christian Oxford New English Bible are strikingly similar. Both clearly identify the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel, who suffered as a humiliated individual at the hands of the gentile nations.
Conservative Christians, on the other hand, strongly argue against the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 for a number of expected reasons. Historically, the church relentlessly used Isaiah 53 as its most important proof-text in order to demonstrate the veracity of the Gospels. They argue that this chapter proves that Jesus’ death was explicitly prophesized in the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, the author of the Book of Acts claims that Philip converted an Ethiopian eunuch using Isaiah 53 , and the author of Luke , John , and I Peter associate Isaiah 53 with Jesus as well. While evangelicals routinely claim that Jesus is alluded to in several hundred verses throughout the Hebrew Bible, there is only a handful of passages in Tanach that the church insists irrefutably identify Jesus alone as the messiah; Isaiah 53 is chief among these polemical texts.
Consequently, since time immemorial, missionaries fervently used Isaiah 53 to proclaim that the Hebrew prophet Isaiah predicted the advent of Christianity centuries before the birth of Jesus. Accordingly, the traditional Church recoils at the rabbinic interpretation of the fourth Servant Song. Such a monumental concession would require Christendom to abandon one of its most cherished polemical chapters used to defend its own teachings, and a vital part of its textual arsenal used against its elder rival, Judaism.
Besides, the systemic suffering of the Jews plays no essential role in Christian theology. The suffering of Jesus, on the other hand, is the cornerstone of Church doctrine. In fact, widespread Christian teachings throughout history concluded that the suffering of the Jews illustrates the wrongness of their beliefs, while the suffering of Jesus and his followers illustrates the truth and veracity of the Cross. As a result, conservative Christians are unyielding in their rejection of the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53.
Liberal Christian scholars, on the other hand, are frequently in accord with the classic rabbinic commentaries on Isaiah 53. Unlike their conservative coreligionists, liberal Christians do not use or depend on Church dogma or creedal statements to interpret the Bible. In other words, liberal Christian Bible commentators tend to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of the correctness of Church teaching. Instead, they apply the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings to their interpretation of the Bible. Given that Isaiah’s first three Servant Songs clearly identify Israel as God’s servant, and, moreover, the surrounding chapters of Isaiah 53 clearly speak of Israel vicariously suffering as a humiliated individual, liberal Christian scholarship frequently ascribes the servant in Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song to the nation of Israel.
Rabbinic commentaries which state that Isaiah 53 refers to the messiah
According to rabbinic thought, however, when Isaiah speaks of the “servant,” the prophet is not speaking of all the Jewish people. Rather, the “servant” in these uplifting prophetic hymns refers to the righteous remnant of Israel, the most pious of the nation. The faithful members of Israel who willingly suffer for Heaven’s sake are identified in Tanach as God’s servant. These are the devout that call upon the name of the Lord (43:7), bear witness to His unity (43:11), and are therefore charged to bring back the rest of Jacob (49:5).
“You are my witnesses declares the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen” (43:10).
In essence, God’s “servant” are the cherished few – the faithful who walk in the footsteps of Abraham, whom the Almighty called “My friend.”
“But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you, descendants of Abraham My friend” (Isaiah 41:8)
Simply put, the Servant Songs address only the believers of Israel who emulate the first patriarch of the Jewish people. As Abraham endured challenging trials and adversity in his walk with God, so too would His servant, the righteous remnant of Israel, endure trying ordeals and affliction in its sacred path. (Isaiah 49:3; 51:21; 54:11; Psalm 44:11-15)
The Hebrew prophet Zephaniah vividly describes in two seminal verses this cherished remnant in the following manner:
And I will leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall take refuge in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid. (Zephaniah 3:12-13)
In rabbinic thought, all of God’s faithful, gentiles included (Zechariah 13:8-9), endure suffering on behalf of God (Isaiah 40:2; Zechariah 1:15). Thus, Jewish leaders of the past, such as Moses and Jeremiah , Rabbi Akiva , as well as future eschatological figures, such as the messiah ben Joseph and the messiah ben David, are held up in rabbinic literature as individuals who exemplify the “servant” who willingly suffers on behalf of Heaven.
Therefore, when the Talmud describes the predicament of the messiah as he is waiting to be summoned by God, the rabbis cast him “sitting among other paupers, all of them afflicted with disease. Yet, while all the rest of them tie and untie their bandages all at once, the messiah changes his bandages one at a time, lest he is summoned for the redemption at a moments notice” (Sanhedrin 98a). While this story may be understood allegorically, its jarring message is clear: The messiah, like other afflicted members of Israel, endure the agony and trials assigned to the faithful. However, unlike the other suffering saints who completely remove all their bandages before patiently replacing them with a fresh dressing, the messiah must methodically replace each bandage, one at a time. In other words, the messiah does not suffer more or less than other servants of God. Rather, according to the Talmud, the messiah is different from other men of God because he must be ready at a moment’s notice to usher in the deliverance of his beleaguered people. Because he is prepared to be summoned for the redemption at all times, he is never in a predicament where his bandages are fully removed.
When Isaiah speaks of the suffering remnant of Israel, the messianic king is, therefore, included. The final heir of David’s throne is an integral member of the pious of Israel. This is, according to rabbinic interpretation, the pshat, or the plain meaning of the text in Isaiah 52:12 – 53:12. Therefore, when both ancient and modern rabbinic commentators expound on the clear meaning of the text, they ascribe the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 to the nation of Israel.
Moreover, while Ezekiel warned that the righteous can never suffer or die as a sacrificial atonement for the wicked , the Talmud teaches that “Whosoever weeps over the [suffering] of the righteous man, all his sins are forgiven .”
In order to shed much needed light on the famed Servant Songs, numerous rabbinic commentators hold up Jewish heroes as a paradigm of Isaiah 53’s “servant.” Accordingly, while on one hand the Talmud, Zohar, and other ancient rabbinic texts state explicitly that the “servant” of Isaiah 53 refers to the faithful of corporate Jewry , the same sources frequently point to renowned saints of Israel as an archetype of the Suffering Servant. These virtuous individuals include saints such as Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, the messiah the son of Joseph and David – each of them embody perfect examples of God’s servant, the righteous remnant of Israel.
Bear in mind that the rabbinic commentary on Isaiah 53 is not dualistic or multilateral. Meaning, the sages of old did not suggest that Isaiah 53 refers to either the righteous remnant of Israel, Moses, Jeremiah, or an anointed leader. Rather, the servant in all four Servant Songs are the faithful descendants of Abraham. As will be discussed below, because Isaiah 53 attests to an unprecedented worldwide repentance of all of mankind, which will be a redemptive achievement accomplished by no other saint in history, rabbinic commentators lift up the messiah’s name more frequently than the names of other faithful servants of God.
While the bulk of rabbinic commentary seeks to provide the pshat — the principal analysis which illuminates the plain meaning of sacred literature — there is, broadly speaking, a second, distinct stream of rabbinic commentary which explores the drash. In general terms, the drash delves into the deeply profound, yet often less precise homiletic method of exegesis used to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. This sacred material is often referred to as midrashic, literally “derived from a drash.”
In Jewish thought, the pshat conveys the foundational understanding of any text in Tanach; this is the commentary which elucidates the clear and basic meaning of a verse. As the sages declare in the Talmud, “A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning.” (Shabbat 63a; Yev. 11b, 24a). Accordingly, the midrashic interpretation of a biblical verse is never intended to nullify, contradict, or injure the natural sense of a text. On the contrary, the pshat always supplies the primary meaning of a passage. Moreover, it is impossible to fully grasp the inspirational midrashic commentary without first comprehending the simple meaning of a text.
On the other hand, without the sublime illumination of the Midrash, seminal, seemingly-disconnected principles throughout various regions of Tanach can be challenging to harmonize and fully comprehend. In other words, with only the pshat commentary, Biblical principles when studied independently can only be understood on a fundamental level. Yet the separate, straightforward commentaries of the pshat may appear incompatible and disjointed from other regions of scripture without the midrashic commentary. Midrashic literature, generally speaking, weaves together and painstakingly merges Judaism’s Written and Oral tradition into a transcendent revelation. Because the Midrash illuminates rabbinic thought in its fullest holistic expression, it stands out as a vital tool for the student of sacred literature.
Few chapters in Tanach better illustrate the vital role the Midrash plays in expounding Biblical texts than Isaiah 53. The straightforward rabbinic approach to elucidate Isaiah 53 begins by identifying the astonished speakers in Isaiah 53:1-9 and the “Servant” in Isaiah 52:13 and 53:11. The rabbinic commentaries which convey the clear and essential commentary, the pshat, reveal that the contrite kings of nations are speaking in their astonishment when they discover that the faithful members of Israel are God’s true servant. As mentioned above, the identity of the speakers and the servant are evident from the surrounding chapters of Isaiah 53.
The Midrash, however, illuminates a most profound yet often overlooked central theme of Isaiah 53: Never before in history has any servant of God brought about the mass repentance of the gentiles. Whereas the patriarch Abraham redeemed only 70 souls in Haran, the future scion of the House of David will usher in the unprecedented epoch when the gentile kings of nations will repent, as vividly displayed in the fourth Servant Song. In other words, the messiah will bring about an age when the most important feature of Isaiah 53 will materialize: the worldwide repentance of the gentiles.
Whereas Moses drew only a single nation from Egypt into the service of God, the messianic king will redeem the other nations as well. At this crucial, redemptive moment in the future all the nations will grasp that Judaism is the only true faith, as it is written “For then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they all invoke the name of the Lord and serve Him with one accord” (Zephaniah 3:9). Thus, in the messianic age the gentiles will cry aloud the remorseful and repentant words sketched in Isaiah 53. In essence, the sequence of events outlined in the fourth Servant Song will be an unparalleled occasion in history. Never before throughout the annals of time have “the gentiles come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Isaiah 60:3).
Consequently, although various rabbinic literature highlights numerous Biblical saints whose lives exemplify the Suffering Servant of Israel in Isaiah 53, the future messiah is held up more frequently and prominently than any other pious Jew in this startling context. For the future anointed Davidic king will usher in the epoch which marks the dramatic repentance of the gentiles outlined in Isaiah 53. In other words, the stunning narrative outlined in the fourth Servant Song will be made possible by the reign of the messiah, the foremost member of God’s Suffering Servant Israel. Abraham, Moses, and Jeremiah were unable to usher in the unprecedented event which is outlined in Isaiah 53. Only the messiah will accomplish this global achievement in the final redemption. Only the messianic age will spawn worldwide repentance of the nations. Therefore, the rabbis teach regarding Isaiah 52:13: “‘My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly’ – he will be higher than Abraham, more exalted than Moses, loftier than the angels ’” In short, the messiah will ignite the contrition of Israel’s neighbors as outlined in Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song.
Because of the deeply esoteric and widely elastic nature of midrashic writings, these millennia-old texts are vulnerable to misuse by opponents of the Jewish faith; Isaiah 53 – the chapter in the Bible which has for ages formed one of the principal battlefields between Jews and their Christian opponents — is no exception to this rule.
Under ordinary circumstances, traditional Church apologists regard rabbinic commentaries with sneering derision, seeing them at best as damaging to spiritual enlightenment. However, ancient midrashic annotations on Isaiah 53 which can be ripped out of context and portrayed as supportive of Christian teachings are wildly quoted and cheerfully paraded by missionaries with the hope of winning more unclaimed souls to the Cross. The fact that the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 is not supported by the chapters that surround it, only adds to the Church’s desperate feeding frenzy on these ancient rabbinic texts. It is astonishing that missionaries would use rabbinic texts to support Christian doctrines given that each and every one of the rabbis that they zealously quote utterly rejected the teachings of Christianity.
The most quoted rabbinic text in Christian literature is, without doubt, the second-century Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Isaiah 53. Although the word “Targum” literally means a “Translation,” the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel is not at all a word-for-word translation of Tanach. Rather, this unique, highly-regarded Aramaic annotation on the Hebrew Scriptures fuses together both drash and the pshat – the homiletic and plain meaning of a text – in its running, dynamic commentary on the Prophets. Accordingly, it is the messiah who is raised up as God’s ideal servant in the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Isaiah 52:13, yet in the same commentary it is the faithful of the Jewish nation who vicariously suffer in Isaiah 52:14.
As expected, missionaries selectively quote the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Isaiah 52:13, which identifies God’s servant as the messiah.
The Targum’s rendering of Isaiah 52:13 is as followes:
“Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong.”
Yet the Targum’s commentary on the following verse, Isaiah 52:14, identifies Israel as the long-suffering and humiliated servant:
“As the house of Israel looked to him during many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion (darkened) beyond the sons of men.”
As expected, the commentary of Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Isaiah 52:14 is nowhere to be found in Christian missionary material. There is not a single church apologist who quotes the Targum’s elucidation on Isaiah 53:10. For it is upon these words of Isaiah “He is crushed and made ill” where the Targum identifies the suffering servant as the nation of Israel who suffers unbearable chastisement with the following commentary:
“But it is the Lord’s good pleasure to refine and cleanse the remnant of His people in order to purify their souls from sin; they shall see the kingdom of the messiah, they shall increase their sons and daughters, they shall prolong their days; and those who perform the Law of the Lord shall prosper in good pleasure.”
Although the above quotation from Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on Isaiah 53:10 is ignored by Christendom’s missionaries, this two-millennia-old declaration remains immortal. The nation of Israel, God’s servant, suffered unimaginable torment at the hands of her gentile neighbors so that her sins would be washed away.
“Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and declare to her: Her term of service is over, her iniquity is expiated; for she has received at the hand of the Lord double for all her sins.” (Isaiah 40:2)
Simply put, there are 15 verses in the Targum’s annotation on Isaiah 53 (52:13-15 and 53:1-12); yet with surgical precision, missionary conversionist tracts selectively and deliberately ignore almost all of them with the exception of the first verse on Isaiah 52:13. This is a well-worn technique of wielding rabbinic literature as an evangelical sledgehammer to drive home the well-crafted message to unlettered Jews that ancient rabbis concealed that Isaiah 53 is speaking of the messiah and not the nation of Israel. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.
Theft
Source : Moshiach.com
Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky
Definition of theft; criteria for theft; kidnap; land conquest; rape; seduction; usury; overpricing; permissible profit margins; returning stolen objects; punishment; physical abuse; coveting another’s possessions; usurping land; withholding wages
1. Of all the categories of the Seven Universal Commandments, the prohibition against theft may be the hardest to obey. Human history and psychology are in clear agreement with the Talmudic statement, that “Man’s soul has a craving and longing for incest and robbery.”[1] But committing theft, unlike incest, is often a simple matter in which the opportunity presents itself almost constantly. Moreover, the commandment against theft includes aspects that, without thorough study, might elude a person and be thought of as acceptable behavior. Therefore, a frequent review of the laws of theft is important.
2. Theft in the Seven Universal Commandments is one general category with many parts and is virtually identical to Torah Law, which has sixteen commandments dealing with the subject of taking what does not belong to oneself. This means that God’s will concerning theft is virtually identical whether the person involved is an Israelite or a Noahide. The only difference involves the return of a stolen object worth less than a pruta[2] (the smallest coin denomination in the times of the Talmud). If such an object is stolen from a Jew, it need not be returned, for the Israelite is willing to forgive the theft of so small an object and forego its return; but the Noahide does not forego an object worth less than a pruta, and such a stolen object must therefore be returned to him.[3]
3. The commandment prohibiting theft holds men and women equally liable in every aspect and detail.[4]
4. One is liable for punishment whether he brazenly robs in public or sneaks into a house on a moonless night.[5]
5. One is liable whether he steals money or any object or kidnaps a person. And he is liable no matter from whom he steals.
6. A Noahide who steals a beautiful woman from the enemy during time of war is liable for punishment. It is presumed that he kidnapped her and that she is a married woman.[6]
7. The Children of Noah are forbidden to engage in wars of land conquest, but if such a war does occur, and in the process a land is conquered, what the Noahide acquires of this new land belongs to him ex post facto.
8. Later authorities rule that a man who rapes or seduces a woman who is not forbidden to him is liable for punishment because he is stealing from the woman’s worth for his own personal use.[7] This judgment applies only to a man who seduces a woman, not to a woman who seduces a man. A woman is considered unable to truly seduce or rape a man, as a man must have an erection to have intercourse and therefore his involvement in the act is one of acceptance and volition.
9. The early Sages were in disagreement as to whether the Children of Noah were warned concerning usury and overpricing before the giving of the Torah.[8] In either case, these commandments are both in effect today because they were given to Moses at Mount Sinai, not because God commanded Noah to follow them. (A general principle of the Seven Universal Commandments is that they are binding only because they were given on Mount Sinai.) The great sage Nachmanides (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, also known as Ramban), states that overcharging is clearly one of the tenets of the commandment prohibiting theft.[9] This means that a transaction whereby one is greatly overcharged is considered an illegal transaction and may be voided. Usury, the act of lending money at unfair interest rates, is in the same category and is forbidden and considered an illegal transaction.
10. In the category of overcharging is the admonition against using false weights and measures. This applies to any storeowner or salesperson, whether he is selling fish or precious stones, or measuring land for sale, as it is written, “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measuring land, in weight, or in measuring liquids” (Lev. 19:35). And inasmuch as the act of false weighing and measuring is forbidden, it is similarly forbidden to have such false weights or measuring devices in one’s possession, as it is written, “You shall not have in your bag diverse weights, a great and a small” (Deut. 25:13).
11. The idea here is that since one’s sustenance comes from the hand of God, a man should earn it through honesty, not chicanery. In Talmudic times, the fair amount of profit gained was thought to be one?sixth,[10] but since profit margins are considered somewhat relative and subjective, the fair amount remains to be determined by the norms set in each generation.
12. A Noahide is not obligated to return an object that he stole. But since he stole it, he is held accountable for the prescribed punishment in a court of law. This is according to Rashi’s opinion, which holds that when a single act warrants two punishments, the stricter punishment is enforced and the lesser one is foregone. Other authorities argue that this principle applies only to the Jew and the laws of the Torah, and that when a Noahide has stolen, he is obligated to return the stolen article to its rightful owner, despite the fact that he has incurred the death penalty.[11]
13. One may well ask why the thief, who is going to be executed anyway, should bother to return the stolen object. He could just as well leave it to his spouse or child or a friend and therefore have some indirect benefit. The explanation goes right to the heart of the intent of God’s Law, which is just and merciful at the same time. Every punishment meted out through the justice of the Noahide courts serves as an atonement, sparing the transgressor punishment in the Eternal World. This, of course, assumes that the convicted criminal repents for his transgression and returns to God before he is executed. Because of the justice of the courts, therefore, a man can transgress and still receive a share of the World to Come as a righteous person.
14. What happens then, if a man commits a crime and is not punished by the courts? Suppose there are two men, one who killed negligently but without premeditation and another who killed with malice aforethought. There were no witnesses to either crime. God will bring the two men together through Divine Providence. For instance, on a crowded street, the one who killed unintentionally might be driving a car, while the killer is crossing the street as a pedestrian. Not paying attention to what he is doing, the driver runs through a stop sign, killing the pedestrian. So what has God wrought? The murderer is killed, and the manslaughterer is now held as a manslaughterer.[12]
15. A Noahide who strikes another Noahide transgresses the commandment against theft and is liable for punishment by the courts, for the damage he caused brought a physical and psychological loss to the person struck.[13] A Noahide who strikes an Israelite also violates the commandment of kedushat Yisrael, violating the sanctity of the Jew.[14]
16. A person is forbidden to desire the property and physical dwelling place of another as expressed by the scriptural verse, “And you shall not desire your neighbor’s house nor his field, nor his manservant nor his maidservant nor his ox nor his ass nor anything that is his” (Deut. 5:18).[15]
17. Since the Children of Noah are commanded to withhold themselves from committing theft, they are similarly commanded concerning deterrents to that transgression, namely desire.[16] Coveting the belongings of another is in precisely the same category as desiring them, except it takes it a step further, involving action. Whereas desire remains something of the heart, covetousness presupposes that the person does something to fulfill his desire, such as plead with the owner to sell him his house or field.[17]
18. When mankind is judged each year on Rosh Hashanah (the first day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei), God apportions each person’s income and sustenance and all forms of material acquisitions for the coming year. Nothing a person will do can add to what he has been allotted, and no one can take away what has been given to him, as King Solomon wrote, “The blessing of the Lord is that which makes rich, and painful labor adds nothing to it” (Prov. 10:22). So, to desire what belongs to another, and all the more so to covet it, is an act that betrays a lack of faith in God, for it is said, “Who is happy? One who is satisfied with his portion.”[18]
19. One is forbidden to enter another’s property stealthily and take back one’s own object, for thereby he is acting in the manner of a thief. Instead, one should confront the other and say, “This belongs to me, I am taking it.”[19]
20. One is forbidden to add to one’s own property by surreptitiously moving the landmarks into the neighbor’s property, as it is written, “You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark” (Deut. 19:14).
21. This act of usurping one’s land through moving a landmark involves the idea of unfair competition. For example, if a person has a business in an area that will only support one business of that type, and someone moves in across the street and opens the same kind of business, this is said to be removing one’s neighor’s landmark.[20] Or today, the prevalent act of duplicating audio or video cassettes without permission, even for one’s private use, is an act of moving your neighbor’s landmark, for one who does this denies his neighbor the right to make a living.
22. It is forbidden to withhold the salary of a worker. If one hires a worker, it is incumbent on the employer to pay the worker his wages at the conclusion of the day’s work, unless a different arrangement had been agreed upon ahead of time.[21] And it is similarly forbidden to refuse to repay a loan of money when one has the means to repay, or to refuse to return a borrowed object.[22] All these are enjoined by the verse, “You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him” (Lev. 19:13).
23. An employer who works in a field or in a restaurant is permitted to eat the fruits of the field or of the restaurant’s food as he works if it is in connection with his work. For instance, if a person harvests grapes, he is permitted to snack on the grapes as he works. Similarly, if he is a cook, he is permitted to snack on the food he prepares. But, if he merely irrigates the land on which grapes grow, his snacking on grapes is considered theft. Similarly, if he is a dishwasher in a restaurant, his snacking on the restaurant’s food is considered theft. Even in permissible cases, the employee may snack only as he works. If he loads up a basket and takes the food home to feed himself or his family, it is theft.[23]
24. If a person steals anything of worth (more than a pruta) and then another steals it from him, both transgress the commandment prohibiting theft.
The Economist: The End Of Cheap Food
Source: Economist
Rising food prices are a threat to many; they also present the world with an enormous opportunity
FOR as long as most people can remember, food has been getting cheaper and farming has been in decline. In 1974-2005 food prices on world markets fell by three-quarters in real terms. Food today is so cheap that the West is battling gluttony even as it scrapes piles of half-eaten leftovers into the bin.
That is why this year’s price rise has been so extraordinary. Since the spring, wheat prices have doubled and almost every crop under the sun—maize, milk, oilseeds, you name it—is at or near a peak in nominal terms. The Economist’s food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005. No doubt farmers will meet higher prices with investment and more production, but dearer food is likely to persist for years (see article). That is because “agflation” is underpinned by long-running changes in diet that accompany the growing wealth of emerging economies—the Chinese consumer who ate 20kg (44lb) of meat in 1985 will scoff over 50kg of the stuff this year. That in turn pushes up demand for grain: it takes 8kg of grain to produce one of beef.
But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America’s reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America’s (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV’s fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world’s overall grain stocks.
Dearer food has the capacity to do enormous good and enormous harm. It will hurt urban consumers, especially in poor countries, by increasing the price of what is already the most expensive item in their household budgets. It will benefit farmers and agricultural communities by increasing the rewards of their labour; in many poor rural places it will boost the most important source of jobs and economic growth.
Although the cost of food is determined by fundamental patterns of demand and supply, the balance between good and ill also depends in part on governments. If politicians do nothing, or the wrong things, the world faces more misery, especially among the urban poor. If they get policy right, they can help increase the wealth of the poorest nations, aid the rural poor, rescue farming from subsidies and neglect—and minimise the harm to the slum-dwellers and landless labourers. So far, the auguries look gloomy.
In the trough
That, at least, is the lesson of half a century of food policy. Whatever the supposed threat—the lack of food security, rural poverty, environmental stewardship—the world seems to have only one solution: government intervention. Most of the subsidies and trade barriers have come at a huge cost. The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worse food, intensively farmed monocultures, overproduction and world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging markets. And for what? Despite the help, plenty of Western farmers have been beset by poverty. Increasing productivity means you need fewer farmers, which steadily drives the least efficient off the land. Even a vast subsidy cannot reverse that.
With agflation, policy has reached a new level of self-parody. Take America’s supposedly verdant ethanol subsidies. It is not just that they are supporting a relatively dirty version of ethanol (far better to import Brazil’s sugar-based liquor); they are also offsetting older grain subsidies that lowered prices by encouraging overproduction. Intervention multiplies like lies. Now countries such as Russia and Venezuela have imposed price controls—an aid to consumers—to offset America’s aid to ethanol producers. Meanwhile, high grain prices are persuading people to clear forests to plant more maize.
Dearer food is a chance to break this dizzying cycle. Higher market prices make it possible to reduce subsidies without hurting incomes. A farm bill is now going through America’s Congress. The European Union has promised a root-and-branch review (not yet reform) of its farm-support scheme. The reforms of the past few decades have, in fact, grappled with the rich world’s farm programmes—but only timidly. Now comes the chance for politicians to show that they are serious when they say they want to put agriculture right.
Cutting rich-world subsidies and trade barriers would help taxpayers; it could revive the stalled Doha round of world trade talks, boosting the world economy; and, most important, it would directly help many of the world’s poor. In terms of economic policy, it is hard to think of a greater good.
Where government help is really needed
Three-quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas. The depressed world prices created by farm policies over the past few decades have had a devastating effect. There has been a long-term fall in investment in farming and the things that sustain it, such as irrigation. The share of public spending going to agriculture in developing countries has fallen by half since 1980. Poor countries that used to export food now import it.
Reducing subsidies in the West would help reverse this. The World Bank reckons that if you free up agricultural trade, the prices of things poor countries specialise in (like cotton) would rise and developing countries would capture the gains by increasing exports. And because farming accounts for two-thirds of jobs in the poorest countries, it is the most important contributor to the early stages of economic growth. According to the World Bank, the really poor get three times as much extra income from an increase in farm productivity as from the same gain in industry or services. In the long term, thriving farms and open markets provide a secure food supply.
However, there is an obvious catch—and one that justifies government help. High prices have a mixed impact on poverty: they hurt anyone who loses more from dear food than he gains from a higher income. And that means over a billion urban consumers (and some landless labourers), many of whom are politically influential in poor countries. Given the speed of this year’s food-price rises, governments in emerging markets have no alternative but to try to soften the blow.
Where they can, these governments should subsidise the incomes of the poor, rather than food itself, because that minimises price distortions. Where food subsidies are unavoidable, they should be temporary and targeted on the poor. So far, most government interventions in the poor world have failed these tests: politicians who seem to think cheap food part of the natural order of things have slapped on price controls and export restraints, which hurt farmers and will almost certainly fail.
Over the past few years, a sense has grown that the rich are hogging the world’s wealth. In poor countries, widening income inequality takes the form of a gap between city and country: incomes have been rising faster for urban dwellers than for rural ones. If handled properly, dearer food is a once-in-a-generation chance to narrow income disparities and to wean rich farmers from subsidies and help poor ones. The ultimate reward, though, is not merely theirs: it is to make the world richer and fairer.
