"Israel has a government-sponsored lottery, which massively subsidizes an apartment for people lucky enough to win it. "
New York City has similar lotteries for "affordable" housing. They have not solved the housing affordability crisis here. The City Council finally realized late last year that supply and demand have something to do with housing prices and it reversed a 60+ year old law that severely restricted the supply of housing. It was fought tooth and nail by many who realized that the value of their own properties will no linger to continue to increase without limit, but that crowd suffered a major defeat for the first time since the 1950s.
When certain people study that Yaakov had all the rights to scam his brother and ultimately his own father to achieve the grabbing The supposedly all important Berakha we are doomed . It goes back to the important saying "The ends dont justify the means". If you studyvthe Torah properly you will see Yaakov is punished and taught many lessons that Trickery and chicanery is being Watched and its never okay to cheat or disguise yourself to achieve ill Goals . If we then readcThe Torahs message we can then live a more
Complete fair life with equal-opportunity and equal opportunity for all
Not only did I defend him elaborately, I refused to acknowledge that there is any other view. Joel Wolowelsky criticized my book very appropriately, and it had a big impact on me.
The Midrash states that the incident of Yaakov's sons fooling him by presenting Joseph's coat covered in goat blood was a punishment for Yaakov fooling his father with goat skins. Rav Moshe Shamah in his phenomenal work "Recalling the Covenant" describes in great detail how the the last few portions of Bereishit deal with some degree of deception (Lavan, Rachel, the brothers, Yosef, Tamara) which all stemmed from Yaakov deceiving his father.
When Jacob has to flee from Esau to the house of his mother's brother, Laban, Laban cheats him by lying about which daughter that Jacob would marry, and extends the period of his dowry from seven years to fourteen years. Those who deceive will ultimately be welcomed only by deceivers. When Jacob next meets Esau, he is not saved by deception, but rather by opening his heart in honesty.
Thank you James. My point is . If one can manipulate the Texts that one lives by ; they will be corrupt in their own decisions. I am not sure which is the dog or which is the tail However I do know Rationolist Judaism. Com is honest and brave in its portrayal and is a very important daily read
Boy it would be nice if the State wasn't involved in building housing (nor a million other things) at all. Simple grants- well-supervised, of course- can then simply be given to veterans.
Once the government starts throwing around money like a drunken sailor, as night follows day, specific groups are going to step up to the trough.
I don’t think Netanyahu’s heart is in the Haredi draft exemption. But if he is to defend the nation—and we know from experience and utterances that there is no substitute—he needs them for his coalition. Those who create this situation by opposing his coalition are hypocritical to complain about it.
This argument isn’t going to stop anyone. Nobody’s going to admit to hypocrisy, and if they did, that wouldn’t stop them from doing it. But there it is.
If those who oppose him would promise (as they have for other issues they agree with) to back him up on this, things could be different. Maybe not, but maybe yes.
Wasn't this one of Netanyahu's intentions in giving them the housing ministry? To pay them to be in the coalition? The Israeli election system encourages this, especially since you have 5-10 seats who aren't allowed to be part of any coalition. This means you need a supermajority to make a govt and you almost never are going to get there without the Charedi parties. Certainly not a rightist coalition.
"Tax collectors" in ancient times were individuals who won a bid from the ruler—whoever offered the highest annual sum of money to the ruler. In practice, they collected "taxes" (personal profit + the bid fee to the ruler) using the force of the "police" they controlled as part of their role. This is the reality that the Halacha refers to.
My words are directed at those who handle public funds in the State of Israel today. They forcefully allocate portions of tax money, using governmental power, to the public who will vote for them in the next elections. This, therefore, constitutes personal gain from public funds. I intentionally did not refer to them as "shepherds" because that is not what they are.
""Tax collectors" in ancient times were individuals who won a bid from the ruler—whoever offered the highest annual sum of money to the ruler. In practice, they collected "taxes" (personal profit + the bid fee to the ruler) using the force of the "police" they controlled as part of their role. This is the reality that the Halacha refers to."
This is what I meant when I refereed to "Tax Farmers". Although I am not sure the situation you have described is correct. Has the Tax Farmer really stolen from the populace if the ruler allows them to collect an arbitrary sum of money (as long at the ruler gets their cut). In my mind theft only take place if they actually collect more then they are entitled to. I will agree that there are a myriad of ethical concerns if the tax-collectors/farmers are exploitative or excessive in what they collect, however, if this is not regulated, how do we determine if they collected to much?
Nor do I think you can relate the halacha you have cited to modern day Israel. I am not even sure that you can call the conduct of the relevant ministers corrupt. The halacha is about collecting more tax from the populace than is legal (or entitled). This is separate from whether the government spends the money appropriately.
From a corruption perspective, does the minister actually misappropriate the money? They are spending the money in a self-interested way (i.e. to prop up their self-interest group). I will agree that it is a disgusting practice, and the laws should be much tighter (and do not get me started on constitutional reform in Israel - bring on an independent electoral commission, and district voting) - but I am not sure it rises to legal corruption.
Thank you, Yossi, for your comments. You are both right and not right. Why right? Because "Dina deMalhuta - Dina" (the law of the land is the law), and if that is the law of the country, then it is not theft. But that is not the case. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu explained it: there is "Dina deMalhuta" (the law of the land), and there is "Dina deGazlenuta" (the law of robbery). The Halacha in the Shulchan Aruch refers precisely to a state where the law allows tax collectors to act in their own self-interest, and the Halacha refers to them as thieves of the public
The halacha you are citing does not support, say or imply what you think it is saying.
For reference, the halacha comes from Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
366
The halacha in total reads:
"A Robber Who Comes to Repent, Whether We Accept from Them; this has four sections: A well-known robber (who was thoroughly engaged in this and for whom repentance is difficult) who comes on their own to repent: if the robbed item still exists, one should not accept it, in order not to prevent them from repenting, but if [the robber] wanted to fulfill Heavenly standards and returned it, we do not prevent the person who was robbed from accepting it. Rema’s gloss: Similarly, if [the robber] did not come on their own to repent, but was sued by the person they robbed, then we do require them to return it."
"For shepherds, tax collectors, and customs collectors, repentance is difficult, because they robbed the masses and do not know to whom to make restitution. Therefore, they should use it for public necessities, such as wells, ditches, and caves."
A couple of things to note - The halacha is NOT telling us that the tax-collector is by default a thief. I think we agree on this (my initial concern about your post was that I thought you were arguing that the tax collector is by default a robber).
The Halacha is saying that if a tax collector identifies ("Robber who comes to repent") that they have taken too much tax then they have an obligation to return it, in order to repent. However, since the monies cannot be returned to the victim, since we cannot identify the victim, then the money should and can be used for public works. This is likely because, this is the reason the money was collected in the first place.
The halacha, here, is silent on ethical questions related to collecting money as tax with a self interested motive (i.e. Tax Farmers).
The analogy, in my eyes, might be the retailer who collects sales tax upon the sale of goods. If through malign intention or through error, the charge too much sales tax, who do they (or the government) repay the overcharge to? Al pi halalcha, since the victims cannot be identified, and the amount of money to be redistributed cannot be calculated, the surplus tax intake is used for public works.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the behaviour of The Minister of Housing, Yitzchok Goldknopf of UTJ. Goldknopf is not the tax collector. The argument might be that he has stolen from the state - but I think the point that Rav Slifkin was making was that even though the programme is being misused in a nepotistic way, it is not actually misappropriating the government money.
As I said, I remain unconvinced that this is even corruption. Parliament members (in the general sense, i.e. government all over the world) are elected to represent their voters. In a proportional representation system, like Israel, the represent the self-interest of the very narrow segment of society that elected them. UTJs electors entirely want their representatives to shower money and resources on them, and by exploiting their ministerial budget to provide those subsidies, they are representing the needs and wants of their electorate. They would be stupid not to do so. Do I think this is ethical conduct ? No. But I think you will be hard pressed to ague this is גְנֵבָה.
You are correct; that is one way to interpret the matter in Siman 366. However, in Siman 369d, Rabbi Yosef Karo defines these individuals as follows: "People who are presumed to be robbers, and all their possessions are presumed to be stolen, because their occupation is that of robbers, such as tax collectors and bandits..."
Ahh, So you are saying the tax collector is a presumed thief.
You would be wrong: Choshen Mishpat 369
בד"א שהמוכס כלסטים בזמן שהמוכס עכו"ם או מוכס העומד מאליו או מוכס העומד מחמת המלך ואין לו קצבה אלא לוקח מה שירצה אבל מוכס שפסקו המלך ליטול דבר קצוב (ואפי' צוה שישראל יתן יותר מעכו"ם מ"מ מקרי דבר קצוב לכל איש) (מהרי"ק שורש קצ"ד) והעמיד מוכס ישראל לגבותו למלך ונודע שאדם זה נאמן ואינו מוסיף כלום על מה שגזר המלך אינו בחזקת גזלן משום דדינא דמלכותא דינא ולא עוד אלא שהמבריח ממכס זה עובר (על לא תגזול) מפני שהוא גוזל מנת המלך בין שהיה מלך ישראל בין שהיה מלך עכו"ם וכן אם ישראל קנה המכס מהמלך המבריח עצמו הרי זה גוזל ישראל שקנאו (וי"א דאפי' ידוע דהישראל לוקח יותר מן הקצבה מ"מ אסור להבריח ממנו דבר הקצוב דהוי כגוזל מן הגזלן דאסור) (ב"י) אבל אם קנאו עכו"ם מותר משום דהוי כהפקע' הלוואתו דשרי במקום דליכא חלול השם: הגה וי"א דאפי' המוכס ישראל אם לא קנאו לעצמו רק גובה למלך אע"ג דאסור להבריח מכח דינא דמלכותא מ"מ אם אדם מבריח אין למוכס לכוף אותו ליתן דהוי כהפקעת הלוואתו דשרי מיהו אם יש בזה משום יראת המלך ודאי יכול לכוף אותו (ר"ן פ"ד דנדרים):
Paragraph 6- When is it true that a tax collector is like a bandit? Where the tax collector is a gentile, he created the tax on his own or the tax is from the king but has no set amount and he can take what he wants. If the tax was set by the king and was a set amount, however- even if the king instructed that the Jew give more than the gentile, it is still considered a set amount for each person- and the king appointed a Jewish collector to collect for him and this person is known as trustworthy and would not add anything to what the king instructed, he is not presumed to be a robber because the law of the government is the law. Moreover, one who evades the tax violates “do not steal” because he has stolen the king’s gift, whether the king was Jewish or a gentile. Similarly, if a Jew acquired the tax from the king, if one evades the tax he is robbing the Jew who acquired the rights to it. There are those who say that even where it is known that the Jew takes more than the set amount, one is still prohibited from evading the set amount, because it is like he is robbing a robber, which is prohibited. If a gentile acquired the tax, however, one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan which is permissible where there is no desecration of God’s name. There are those who say that even if the tax collector is Jewish, if he did not acquire for himself and just collects on behalf of the king, although one is prohibited from evading because of the government law, if a person were to evade the collector cannot force him to give because is like evading a loan, which is permissible. If there is any concern that he is afraid of the king, however, he is certainly able to force him to give.
This passage does requires some unpacking, because I think it can easily be misread - leading to חלול השם.
Firstly, the tax collector who is presumed to be a thief is limited to:
"Where the tax collector is a gentile, he created the tax on his own or the tax is from the king but has no set amount and he can take what he wants."
i.e. When the tax collector would better be described as an extortionist. This might be someone who goes from shop to shop to collect protection money ("created the tax on their own"). The other category is a money collector with no specific target of collection from the ""king" (i.e. Government).
However, a tax collector who collects on behalf of the King, with the authority of the king to raise specific revenue is not considered a thief. ("If the tax was set by the king and was a set amount, however- even if the king instructed that the Jew give more than the gentile, it is still considered a set amount for each person- and the king appointed a Jewish collector to collect for him and this person is known as trustworthy and would not add anything to what the king instructed, he is not presumed to be a robber because the law of the government is the law.")
The halacha is very explicit, in the circumstances where a Jewish Tax collector is collecting a set amount from the King, we have an obligation to pay the tax. It is considered theft not to pay the tax. ("Moreover, one who evades the tax violates “do not steal” because he has stolen the king’s gift, whether the king was Jewish or a gentile.")
As I read the paragraph, even a non-jewish tax collector must be paid if they are collecting a fixed amount for the king.
The section of this paragraph which I believe is prone to misinterpretation is "If a gentile acquired the tax, however, one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan which is permissible where there is no desecration of God’s name."
This section is not permission to tax evade from the government. Specifically, it is referring to a circumstance were a person pays the king the right to tax individuals/populace ("he acquired the tax") and then seeks to recoup his cost by levying the tax from the people. (This is the tax farmer I mentioned earlier.) In this scenario, the tax farmer has paid the king the tax up front, and is now covering his cost by leveraging money from other people (the right that he bought). In this case, the tax collector is still not considered a thief, but rather is considered someone who holds a load that we owe payment to ("one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan").
So lets be clear; This halacha
1) Asserts that tax collectors are NOT presumed thieves - as you previously asserted.
2) The term tax-collector is being used to refer to a number of different people who collect money from other people.
3) amongst the people the term tax-collectors refer to are those who are criminals BECAUSE the collect tax for themselves, and not the government.
4) We have a halachic obligation to pay tax to the government.
Take your blinders off. Yes, I do personally know Charedim. My family are Belzer Chasidim. My affiliation is Chabad. Some of them (Charedim), (not Chabad), individually, are wonderful people. Their communal insularity separates them from klal Yisroel and puts them, as a group, beyond the pale, which is where they want to be. "Women making meals for ppl in need" As long as the people in need are their own community. I have seen many instances of Charedim denying non-chareidim aid and inclusion.
If they don't want me, why should I subsidize them? They can start showing their achdut with the rest of klal Yisroel by signing up for the draft. That would be a good beginning. I don't buy your propaganda that they are the Jewish Amish who subscribe to a simpler, more wholesome life
"If they don't want me, why should I subsidize them?"
The law is set up in a way that they can give you power. Out of self-love, you give them what they want so they give you what you want. Or choose to give nothing and receive nothing.
Because if you can't understand what they're about you will vilify them unnecessarily instead of being a brother pointing out his brother's (large) flaws and working with him on it as brothers would and should do
Don't misunderstand me, please. I think that from reading these essays for months now I do have some understanding re where they are coming from. My point, not adequately expressed to be sure, was that in the end, regardless of "where they are coming from," how does it make sense to reward those who are not earned a reward. I think of the GI Bill in America after WW2. It wasn't used to benefit people who did not serve. I'm sorry. I know these people believe otherwise, but from my perspective it is magical thinking which, in all reality, they do not themselves believe. If they did, they would not need extra help from the government. It just smacks of hypocrisy and unfairness.
I don't condone the hypocrisy at all. I also don't condone the sheer lack of understanding and how someone like Rabbi Doctor can't see anything good at all about the Charedim. Both sides have pretty big faults.
Absolutely there are some VERY GOOD things. I lived in a very observant town in NJ for years and had friends of all types -- chasidim, misnagdim, modern orthodox, while we were "conservadox." Later on I taught at a girl's yeshiva in North Miami Beach and LOVED my girls. Yes yes yes. As with everyone, some good and some faults.
You are so anti-chareidi it’s scary!!! I understand you’ve been marginalised but REALLY— you prove yourself an illegitimate rabbi with this very vindictive attitude! Go for the high road, man!
Thank you. The halachic principle you cited distinguishes between a king whose authority stems from the halachic principle of "Dina d'Malchuta Dina" (the law of the kingdom is binding) and tax collectors appointed by him.
The reality in the State of Israel is entirely different. Therefore, the only lesson to be drawn from these halachot is the legal principle, not its practical application, which differs both socially and legally.
### **The Difference:**
In Israel, the "king's law" derives from the democratic consent of voters to establish a legislative authority — the Knesset. This Knesset appoints a prime minister responsible for implementing the state's laws as legislated by the Knesset. As a result, the laws must be democratic, and thus rights must be equal for all citizens.
In Israeli elections, the head of the largest bloc forms the coalition government and becomes the prime minister.
### **Coalitional Funds and Political Reality:**
Our discussion began with coalition funds paid by the prime minister as part of political patronage. Without meeting these demands, there is no coalition in Israel, no government, no budget — essentially, nothing functions.
When the coalition legislates the distribution of coalition financial benefits, it does so in egalitarian language to prevent any legal grounds for the courts to strike down these laws as discriminatory. Nevertheless, the criteria for distribution clearly lead to a sectoral preference in the allocation of public funds.
### **Halachic Distinction and Fiscal Reality:**
Consequently, there is no "Dina d'Malchuta Dina" in Israel that grants tax collectors a fixed percentage of tax revenue. Instead, the collector effectively determines his share as a self-proclaimed "king."
When you are the Lords of Creation and your hereditary czar speaks with the Voice of Hashem it is only your due.
They didn't teach their sons a trade, so they taught them to steal
"Israel has a government-sponsored lottery, which massively subsidizes an apartment for people lucky enough to win it. "
New York City has similar lotteries for "affordable" housing. They have not solved the housing affordability crisis here. The City Council finally realized late last year that supply and demand have something to do with housing prices and it reversed a 60+ year old law that severely restricted the supply of housing. It was fought tooth and nail by many who realized that the value of their own properties will no linger to continue to increase without limit, but that crowd suffered a major defeat for the first time since the 1950s.
Robert Conquest's First Law of Politics is, "Generally speaking, everybody is reactionary on subjects he knows about."
Based on your post, I imagine you know a lot about housing in New York. :-)
I agree. The charedi should not be eligible for these apartments.
They should, as a group, not be eligible for any government benefits. They have not earned benefits by being outside the contributing community.
When certain people study that Yaakov had all the rights to scam his brother and ultimately his own father to achieve the grabbing The supposedly all important Berakha we are doomed . It goes back to the important saying "The ends dont justify the means". If you studyvthe Torah properly you will see Yaakov is punished and taught many lessons that Trickery and chicanery is being Watched and its never okay to cheat or disguise yourself to achieve ill Goals . If we then readcThe Torahs message we can then live a more
Complete fair life with equal-opportunity and equal opportunity for all
You wouldn't believe what my first book was about.
Did you defend Yaakov?
I once spent almost a semester at YU on this question. The answer is not completely clear.
Not only did I defend him elaborately, I refused to acknowledge that there is any other view. Joel Wolowelsky criticized my book very appropriately, and it had a big impact on me.
"If you studyvthe Torah properly you will see Yaakov is punished and taught many lessons...."
Where and what is this please?
The Midrash states that the incident of Yaakov's sons fooling him by presenting Joseph's coat covered in goat blood was a punishment for Yaakov fooling his father with goat skins. Rav Moshe Shamah in his phenomenal work "Recalling the Covenant" describes in great detail how the the last few portions of Bereishit deal with some degree of deception (Lavan, Rachel, the brothers, Yosef, Tamara) which all stemmed from Yaakov deceiving his father.
Thank you very much.
Does Rav Shama also mention those who find Yaakov Avinu innocent?
When Jacob has to flee from Esau to the house of his mother's brother, Laban, Laban cheats him by lying about which daughter that Jacob would marry, and extends the period of his dowry from seven years to fourteen years. Those who deceive will ultimately be welcomed only by deceivers. When Jacob next meets Esau, he is not saved by deception, but rather by opening his heart in honesty.
Thank you but I was looking for something from the sources, if you can refer.
Thank you James. My point is . If one can manipulate the Texts that one lives by ; they will be corrupt in their own decisions. I am not sure which is the dog or which is the tail However I do know Rationolist Judaism. Com is honest and brave in its portrayal and is a very important daily read
Boy it would be nice if the State wasn't involved in building housing (nor a million other things) at all. Simple grants- well-supervised, of course- can then simply be given to veterans.
Once the government starts throwing around money like a drunken sailor, as night follows day, specific groups are going to step up to the trough.
I don’t think Netanyahu’s heart is in the Haredi draft exemption. But if he is to defend the nation—and we know from experience and utterances that there is no substitute—he needs them for his coalition. Those who create this situation by opposing his coalition are hypocritical to complain about it.
This argument isn’t going to stop anyone. Nobody’s going to admit to hypocrisy, and if they did, that wouldn’t stop them from doing it. But there it is.
If those who oppose him would promise (as they have for other issues they agree with) to back him up on this, things could be different. Maybe not, but maybe yes.
They would be unable to keep such a promise.
I agree with your assessment of this. Yes. What should be is not currently the case.
The last line is excellent:)
Wasn't this one of Netanyahu's intentions in giving them the housing ministry? To pay them to be in the coalition? The Israeli election system encourages this, especially since you have 5-10 seats who aren't allowed to be part of any coalition. This means you need a supermajority to make a govt and you almost never are going to get there without the Charedi parties. Certainly not a rightist coalition.
Thank you, Yossi,
"Tax collectors" in ancient times were individuals who won a bid from the ruler—whoever offered the highest annual sum of money to the ruler. In practice, they collected "taxes" (personal profit + the bid fee to the ruler) using the force of the "police" they controlled as part of their role. This is the reality that the Halacha refers to.
My words are directed at those who handle public funds in the State of Israel today. They forcefully allocate portions of tax money, using governmental power, to the public who will vote for them in the next elections. This, therefore, constitutes personal gain from public funds. I intentionally did not refer to them as "shepherds" because that is not what they are.
""Tax collectors" in ancient times were individuals who won a bid from the ruler—whoever offered the highest annual sum of money to the ruler. In practice, they collected "taxes" (personal profit + the bid fee to the ruler) using the force of the "police" they controlled as part of their role. This is the reality that the Halacha refers to."
This is what I meant when I refereed to "Tax Farmers". Although I am not sure the situation you have described is correct. Has the Tax Farmer really stolen from the populace if the ruler allows them to collect an arbitrary sum of money (as long at the ruler gets their cut). In my mind theft only take place if they actually collect more then they are entitled to. I will agree that there are a myriad of ethical concerns if the tax-collectors/farmers are exploitative or excessive in what they collect, however, if this is not regulated, how do we determine if they collected to much?
Nor do I think you can relate the halacha you have cited to modern day Israel. I am not even sure that you can call the conduct of the relevant ministers corrupt. The halacha is about collecting more tax from the populace than is legal (or entitled). This is separate from whether the government spends the money appropriately.
From a corruption perspective, does the minister actually misappropriate the money? They are spending the money in a self-interested way (i.e. to prop up their self-interest group). I will agree that it is a disgusting practice, and the laws should be much tighter (and do not get me started on constitutional reform in Israel - bring on an independent electoral commission, and district voting) - but I am not sure it rises to legal corruption.
Thank you, Yossi, for your comments. You are both right and not right. Why right? Because "Dina deMalhuta - Dina" (the law of the land is the law), and if that is the law of the country, then it is not theft. But that is not the case. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu explained it: there is "Dina deMalhuta" (the law of the land), and there is "Dina deGazlenuta" (the law of robbery). The Halacha in the Shulchan Aruch refers precisely to a state where the law allows tax collectors to act in their own self-interest, and the Halacha refers to them as thieves of the public
Hi Efraim,
The halacha you are citing does not support, say or imply what you think it is saying.
For reference, the halacha comes from Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
366
The halacha in total reads:
"A Robber Who Comes to Repent, Whether We Accept from Them; this has four sections: A well-known robber (who was thoroughly engaged in this and for whom repentance is difficult) who comes on their own to repent: if the robbed item still exists, one should not accept it, in order not to prevent them from repenting, but if [the robber] wanted to fulfill Heavenly standards and returned it, we do not prevent the person who was robbed from accepting it. Rema’s gloss: Similarly, if [the robber] did not come on their own to repent, but was sued by the person they robbed, then we do require them to return it."
"For shepherds, tax collectors, and customs collectors, repentance is difficult, because they robbed the masses and do not know to whom to make restitution. Therefore, they should use it for public necessities, such as wells, ditches, and caves."
A couple of things to note - The halacha is NOT telling us that the tax-collector is by default a thief. I think we agree on this (my initial concern about your post was that I thought you were arguing that the tax collector is by default a robber).
The Halacha is saying that if a tax collector identifies ("Robber who comes to repent") that they have taken too much tax then they have an obligation to return it, in order to repent. However, since the monies cannot be returned to the victim, since we cannot identify the victim, then the money should and can be used for public works. This is likely because, this is the reason the money was collected in the first place.
The halacha, here, is silent on ethical questions related to collecting money as tax with a self interested motive (i.e. Tax Farmers).
The analogy, in my eyes, might be the retailer who collects sales tax upon the sale of goods. If through malign intention or through error, the charge too much sales tax, who do they (or the government) repay the overcharge to? Al pi halalcha, since the victims cannot be identified, and the amount of money to be redistributed cannot be calculated, the surplus tax intake is used for public works.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the behaviour of The Minister of Housing, Yitzchok Goldknopf of UTJ. Goldknopf is not the tax collector. The argument might be that he has stolen from the state - but I think the point that Rav Slifkin was making was that even though the programme is being misused in a nepotistic way, it is not actually misappropriating the government money.
As I said, I remain unconvinced that this is even corruption. Parliament members (in the general sense, i.e. government all over the world) are elected to represent their voters. In a proportional representation system, like Israel, the represent the self-interest of the very narrow segment of society that elected them. UTJs electors entirely want their representatives to shower money and resources on them, and by exploiting their ministerial budget to provide those subsidies, they are representing the needs and wants of their electorate. They would be stupid not to do so. Do I think this is ethical conduct ? No. But I think you will be hard pressed to ague this is גְנֵבָה.
Shalom Yossi,
You are correct; that is one way to interpret the matter in Siman 366. However, in Siman 369d, Rabbi Yosef Karo defines these individuals as follows: "People who are presumed to be robbers, and all their possessions are presumed to be stolen, because their occupation is that of robbers, such as tax collectors and bandits..."
Ahh, So you are saying the tax collector is a presumed thief.
You would be wrong: Choshen Mishpat 369
בד"א שהמוכס כלסטים בזמן שהמוכס עכו"ם או מוכס העומד מאליו או מוכס העומד מחמת המלך ואין לו קצבה אלא לוקח מה שירצה אבל מוכס שפסקו המלך ליטול דבר קצוב (ואפי' צוה שישראל יתן יותר מעכו"ם מ"מ מקרי דבר קצוב לכל איש) (מהרי"ק שורש קצ"ד) והעמיד מוכס ישראל לגבותו למלך ונודע שאדם זה נאמן ואינו מוסיף כלום על מה שגזר המלך אינו בחזקת גזלן משום דדינא דמלכותא דינא ולא עוד אלא שהמבריח ממכס זה עובר (על לא תגזול) מפני שהוא גוזל מנת המלך בין שהיה מלך ישראל בין שהיה מלך עכו"ם וכן אם ישראל קנה המכס מהמלך המבריח עצמו הרי זה גוזל ישראל שקנאו (וי"א דאפי' ידוע דהישראל לוקח יותר מן הקצבה מ"מ אסור להבריח ממנו דבר הקצוב דהוי כגוזל מן הגזלן דאסור) (ב"י) אבל אם קנאו עכו"ם מותר משום דהוי כהפקע' הלוואתו דשרי במקום דליכא חלול השם: הגה וי"א דאפי' המוכס ישראל אם לא קנאו לעצמו רק גובה למלך אע"ג דאסור להבריח מכח דינא דמלכותא מ"מ אם אדם מבריח אין למוכס לכוף אותו ליתן דהוי כהפקעת הלוואתו דשרי מיהו אם יש בזה משום יראת המלך ודאי יכול לכוף אותו (ר"ן פ"ד דנדרים):
Paragraph 6- When is it true that a tax collector is like a bandit? Where the tax collector is a gentile, he created the tax on his own or the tax is from the king but has no set amount and he can take what he wants. If the tax was set by the king and was a set amount, however- even if the king instructed that the Jew give more than the gentile, it is still considered a set amount for each person- and the king appointed a Jewish collector to collect for him and this person is known as trustworthy and would not add anything to what the king instructed, he is not presumed to be a robber because the law of the government is the law. Moreover, one who evades the tax violates “do not steal” because he has stolen the king’s gift, whether the king was Jewish or a gentile. Similarly, if a Jew acquired the tax from the king, if one evades the tax he is robbing the Jew who acquired the rights to it. There are those who say that even where it is known that the Jew takes more than the set amount, one is still prohibited from evading the set amount, because it is like he is robbing a robber, which is prohibited. If a gentile acquired the tax, however, one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan which is permissible where there is no desecration of God’s name. There are those who say that even if the tax collector is Jewish, if he did not acquire for himself and just collects on behalf of the king, although one is prohibited from evading because of the government law, if a person were to evade the collector cannot force him to give because is like evading a loan, which is permissible. If there is any concern that he is afraid of the king, however, he is certainly able to force him to give.
This passage does requires some unpacking, because I think it can easily be misread - leading to חלול השם.
Firstly, the tax collector who is presumed to be a thief is limited to:
"Where the tax collector is a gentile, he created the tax on his own or the tax is from the king but has no set amount and he can take what he wants."
i.e. When the tax collector would better be described as an extortionist. This might be someone who goes from shop to shop to collect protection money ("created the tax on their own"). The other category is a money collector with no specific target of collection from the ""king" (i.e. Government).
However, a tax collector who collects on behalf of the King, with the authority of the king to raise specific revenue is not considered a thief. ("If the tax was set by the king and was a set amount, however- even if the king instructed that the Jew give more than the gentile, it is still considered a set amount for each person- and the king appointed a Jewish collector to collect for him and this person is known as trustworthy and would not add anything to what the king instructed, he is not presumed to be a robber because the law of the government is the law.")
The halacha is very explicit, in the circumstances where a Jewish Tax collector is collecting a set amount from the King, we have an obligation to pay the tax. It is considered theft not to pay the tax. ("Moreover, one who evades the tax violates “do not steal” because he has stolen the king’s gift, whether the king was Jewish or a gentile.")
As I read the paragraph, even a non-jewish tax collector must be paid if they are collecting a fixed amount for the king.
The section of this paragraph which I believe is prone to misinterpretation is "If a gentile acquired the tax, however, one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan which is permissible where there is no desecration of God’s name."
This section is not permission to tax evade from the government. Specifically, it is referring to a circumstance were a person pays the king the right to tax individuals/populace ("he acquired the tax") and then seeks to recoup his cost by levying the tax from the people. (This is the tax farmer I mentioned earlier.) In this scenario, the tax farmer has paid the king the tax up front, and is now covering his cost by leveraging money from other people (the right that he bought). In this case, the tax collector is still not considered a thief, but rather is considered someone who holds a load that we owe payment to ("one is permitted to evade because it is like evading a loan").
So lets be clear; This halacha
1) Asserts that tax collectors are NOT presumed thieves - as you previously asserted.
2) The term tax-collector is being used to refer to a number of different people who collect money from other people.
3) amongst the people the term tax-collectors refer to are those who are criminals BECAUSE the collect tax for themselves, and not the government.
4) We have a halachic obligation to pay tax to the government.
Take your blinders off. Yes, I do personally know Charedim. My family are Belzer Chasidim. My affiliation is Chabad. Some of them (Charedim), (not Chabad), individually, are wonderful people. Their communal insularity separates them from klal Yisroel and puts them, as a group, beyond the pale, which is where they want to be. "Women making meals for ppl in need" As long as the people in need are their own community. I have seen many instances of Charedim denying non-chareidim aid and inclusion.
If they don't want me, why should I subsidize them? They can start showing their achdut with the rest of klal Yisroel by signing up for the draft. That would be a good beginning. I don't buy your propaganda that they are the Jewish Amish who subscribe to a simpler, more wholesome life
"If they don't want me, why should I subsidize them?"
The law is set up in a way that they can give you power. Out of self-love, you give them what they want so they give you what you want. Or choose to give nothing and receive nothing.
"I have seen many instances of Charedim denying non-chareidim aid and inclusion."
Have you not seen many instances of Chareidim granting non-chareidim aid and inclusion?
"My affiliation is Chabad."
Are you dyed-in-the-wool Chabad? Only affiliated? The former that I've met speak very mildly.
Ouch. Your r-e-a-l-l-y anti-chareidi
You're.
Very kind of you. But no period at the end ; )
In any case, I thought we were all emphasizing the spirit over the letter of the law ...
Welcome. He's not totally unjustified but at the same time he doesn't understand where they're coming from:(
What does it matter where they are coming from?
Because if you can't understand what they're about you will vilify them unnecessarily instead of being a brother pointing out his brother's (large) flaws and working with him on it as brothers would and should do
They aren't brothers.
הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִדַּרְכֵי צִבּוּר - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר עֲבֵרוֹת, אֶלָּא נִבְדַּל מֵעֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְווֹת בִּכְלָלָן, וְלֹא נִכְנָס בְּצָרָתָן• וְלֹא מִתְעַנֶּה בְּתַעֲנִיתָן, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ בְּדַרְכּוֹ כְּאֶחָד מִגּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ*, וּכְאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ מֵהֶן, אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
RDS liked your comment as you agree with his post here
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-charedi-secession-from-klal-yisrael
As you choose to take this Rambam literally, neither are the Chilonim brothers.
A different mehalech hachaim is not poresh midarkei hatzibbur.
We're not talking about a different mehalech. We're talking about not helping them during a war.
That's convenient.
Don't misunderstand me, please. I think that from reading these essays for months now I do have some understanding re where they are coming from. My point, not adequately expressed to be sure, was that in the end, regardless of "where they are coming from," how does it make sense to reward those who are not earned a reward. I think of the GI Bill in America after WW2. It wasn't used to benefit people who did not serve. I'm sorry. I know these people believe otherwise, but from my perspective it is magical thinking which, in all reality, they do not themselves believe. If they did, they would not need extra help from the government. It just smacks of hypocrisy and unfairness.
I don't condone the hypocrisy at all. I also don't condone the sheer lack of understanding and how someone like Rabbi Doctor can't see anything good at all about the Charedim. Both sides have pretty big faults.
Absolutely there are some VERY GOOD things. I lived in a very observant town in NJ for years and had friends of all types -- chasidim, misnagdim, modern orthodox, while we were "conservadox." Later on I taught at a girl's yeshiva in North Miami Beach and LOVED my girls. Yes yes yes. As with everyone, some good and some faults.
Your demeaning (Rabbi Doctor) Rav Slifkin says much about you, and it is not laudable. Tell me about your faults, not mine.
Please point out the good about the Charedim. I don't see any.
Conscription is slavery. Government coercion has no legitimacy.
You are so anti-chareidi it’s scary!!! I understand you’ve been marginalised but REALLY— you prove yourself an illegitimate rabbi with this very vindictive attitude! Go for the high road, man!
Thank you. The halachic principle you cited distinguishes between a king whose authority stems from the halachic principle of "Dina d'Malchuta Dina" (the law of the kingdom is binding) and tax collectors appointed by him.
The reality in the State of Israel is entirely different. Therefore, the only lesson to be drawn from these halachot is the legal principle, not its practical application, which differs both socially and legally.
### **The Difference:**
In Israel, the "king's law" derives from the democratic consent of voters to establish a legislative authority — the Knesset. This Knesset appoints a prime minister responsible for implementing the state's laws as legislated by the Knesset. As a result, the laws must be democratic, and thus rights must be equal for all citizens.
In Israeli elections, the head of the largest bloc forms the coalition government and becomes the prime minister.
### **Coalitional Funds and Political Reality:**
Our discussion began with coalition funds paid by the prime minister as part of political patronage. Without meeting these demands, there is no coalition in Israel, no government, no budget — essentially, nothing functions.
When the coalition legislates the distribution of coalition financial benefits, it does so in egalitarian language to prevent any legal grounds for the courts to strike down these laws as discriminatory. Nevertheless, the criteria for distribution clearly lead to a sectoral preference in the allocation of public funds.
### **Halachic Distinction and Fiscal Reality:**
Consequently, there is no "Dina d'Malchuta Dina" in Israel that grants tax collectors a fixed percentage of tax revenue. Instead, the collector effectively determines his share as a self-proclaimed "king."
Let's all keep on dreaming.