A second law is that one must lend to the poor, 15:7-11, and within this law, 15:11 records that "there will never cease to be poor people." The idea here is that a person cannot decline to lend money to the poor by denying that there are poor people. Thus, the Torah states there will always be poor people, that one is always obligated to lend money as a form of charity.
Both verses, 15:4,11, are consistent with the respective laws that they refer to, but, as has long been noted, they appear to contradict each other. How can 15:4 state that there will be no needy amongst the people while 15:11 records that there will always be poor people?
Both verses, 15:4,11, are consistent with the respective laws that they refer to, but, as has long been noted, they appear to contradict each other. How can 15:4 state that there will be no needy amongst the people while 15:11 records that there will always be poor people?
The standard answer (see Rashi on 15:4) to understanding 15:4,11, is that the blessing that there will be no poor amongst the people is conditional on the behavior of the people. If the people obey the laws, then there will be no poor people. However, as there will never be a time when all the people will follow all the laws, then the blessing that there will be no poor people will not be fulfilled, and hence 15:11 is correct that there will always be poor people. This answer is troubling since it means that the blessing of 15:4 will never be actualized, as there will always be poor people.
Furthermore, the Ramban (on 15:11) is bothered that this answers implies that the people are always destined to sin, and hence he modifies the approach to suggest that 15:11 means that only sometimes in the future the people will sin and then there will be poor people. This modification is difficult since 15:11 seems to imply that there will always be poor people, while according to the Ramban, 15:11 only means that there is always the potential for there to be poor people. In addition, I am bothered by this approach as it stigmatizes the poor that they are sinners, and this would encourage people not to lend to the poor.
In order to understand 15:4,11, one must define the term poor. Poverty can be defined into two ways, absolute poverty or relative poverty. Absolute poverty is when a person does not have enough money to live according to some minimum standard, as for example the World Bank commonly uses 2$ and 1$ a day as its standard. Relative poverty is when a person has less money to purchase goods than other people in society. For example, in Israel the poverty line is 50% of the median income, which means the poverty line fluctuates based on the income of the total population. Thus, in year one A can be considered not poor, but in year two, even with no change in A's income or prices in Israel, an increase in the median income of the country can put A below the poverty line. These two definitions lead to different implications whether a person is considered poor. For example, if everybody in a country lives on less than 2$ a day, then using an absolute standard every person in the country is poor, but from a relative perspective there are no poor people in the country. Or, it could be that the income level of the country is unequal, but nobody in the country has an income level of less than 2$ a day. In this case, there would be relative poverty in the country, but no absolute poverty. I believe this latter case is the key to understanding 15:4,11.
15:4 refers to absolute poverty, while 15:11 refers to relative poverty. 15:4 means that if a person follows the laws, then a person will never be reduced to absolute poverty that one cannot purchase the minimum amount of goods needed to survive. Thus, a person should not be bothered by the remission of loans in the seventh year. 15:4 concludes by recording that G-d would bless the land that it would be fruitful enough that no person would be poor, but there is no promise of equality. On the other hand, 15:11 means that there will always be relative poverty, as the national income will never be distributed completely equal in society, and hence there is an obligation to lend to the poor who are less fortunate even if the poor have enough money to survive on a minimal basis. Thus, 15:8 records that one must lend "for whatever he needs," which means that the lending is for all the needs of a person and not just to maintain a minimum level of subsistence.
The Talmud (Ketuvot 67b) explains that while 15:8 does not obligate one to make a person wealthy, yet one is required to give a person whatever he needs, which includes a horse to ride on and to a slave to run before the horse. The horse and the runner are not needed for the poor person to reach a minimal level of existence, and hence we see that the Talmud understands 15:8 as referring to relative poverty.
In the glory days of communism, many people were (still are?) enchanted by the claim that communism would lead to complete equality in society and the end of poverty. I have also heard it claimed that the communist ideal is in accordance with the Torah. The approach suggested above completely rejects this supposed connection between communism and the Torah. If there will always be relative poverty, then the communist ideal of complete equality will never be attained. Furthermore, there is no indication in the Torah that the goal is to remove all inequality in society. The blessing of 15:4 is that there will be no absolute poverty, but there would remain different income levels. This outcome accords better with a capitalist system where income differences are needed as an incentives for people to work harder, and it would be hoped that there would be sufficient economic growth to eradicate absolute poverty for all people.
For a more complete discussion of these issues, see my article, "The vision of Deuteronomy 15 with regard to poverty, socialism and capitalism" in Markets and Morality, vol. 9, no. 2, Fall 2006, pp.251-259.
No comments:
Post a Comment