Spiritual and
Ethical Issues Religious and Ethical Challenges of Money [7] by Dr. Meir Tamari ANSWER: If they do not have a minyan they may definitely force Shimon to come to the minyan or to pay a tax so that they can hire somebody else, as we learnt in the B'raita that they can coerce each other to fund all the needs of the community; (Choshen Mishpat 163:1-3). That they may coerce each other to contribute to the community funds to hire the necessary number of men to constitute a minyan, is an accepted custom in all the communities of the galut. This is similar to the ruling [a form of taxation] in the case of the bathhouse keeper, the barber and the baker, who may not leave town to go home to his village just before a festival, when they have a need for his services. However, if there are ten people without him, they cannot compel him on the chance that one of the minyan would need to leave, since there is no end to such scenarios. Should some of the minyan wish to leave before the end of the prayers, they are coerced to pay for the hire of people to take their place. Even though it is clear that all have to participate, the question still remains how the tax burden has to be shared, [whether it is a poll tax or one that is levied according to wealth, a form of progressive taxation]. It seems to me that the tax has to be shared, so that the rich pay a greater share. This is because to the rich, the cost of going to participate in a minyan in another town is greater. They have to leave their money idle and that is costly; so the bother is also a cost". Shalom, Meir ben Barukh Almost the whole world is following the example of lower taxation and lower social payments. This is not a purely economic decision but rather the result of a value judgment for society to assume less fiscal responsibility for social issues and to allow a greater role for personal charity. In order to obtain a Jewish perspective it is important to clarify the distinction between Jewish concepts of social justice and those of philanthropy. The fact that the responsum above addressed to Rabbi Meir ben Baruch [Maharam of Rotenburg - late 13th century], deals with the funding of a purely ritual issue does not alter its importance for Jewish fiscal thought. Neither does the fact that it deals with a community make it irrelevant to a state since the medieval communities were in effect mini-states not voluntary associations. The answer of the Maharam makes it quite clear that a community-state has the moral right to tax its citizens to fund the costs recognized by halakha necessary for it to function. Some of these needs, the community may determine according to the wishes of the majority, whereas some of them are mandated by the Torah. Mandatory needs - building a synagogue, buying a Sefer Torah, building a mikva and paying for torah education for boys - have to be financed communally, even against the will of the majority. They include maintaining a minyan, as we see from our responsum. Halachically, tax money is to be levied either on the basis of wealth or a per capita basis, or a combination of the two. When the use of the tax money was mandated by the Torah, the concept of utility is introduced. All are obligated to share equally in the tasks allotted, however, there is often an additional factor, namely the pleasure or benefit derived from the hidur mitzva or beautifying it. In our case, the benefit that the rich had from having their obligation of communal prayer fulfilled locally rather than their having to go to the nearby town or village, meant that they had to pay for it. In the case of the mikva in Monsey, their benefit was the more luxurious facility demanded; therefore, the additional costs, over and above the simplest mikva which had to be financed equally, was to be borne by the rich (Iggrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 80). In the same way, this idea would make the construction of toll roads, in addition to a slower general system, a halakhically based fiscal policy. This idea of a utility function is based on the principle that one should not have a benefit from other people's money without paying for it. The idea that the costs of defense or infrastructure should be funded by tax money is generally readily accepted; this is not the case with religious services, health, education or welfare. However, halakha makes all these social costs not a subject only of philanthropy but predominantly part of the communal fiscal responsibility and therefore tax evasion akin to theft. "Bet Din seizes assets of tax evaders, even on the eve of Shabbat" (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, Hilkhot Tzedaka 248:1-2). It should not be surprising therefore, for us to find that throughout the ages, most Jewish ritual needs, charity to the poor, education and medical services were funded through tax money. The reliance on tzedaka is a recent phenomenon. In Israel welfare has always been tax-funded until a decade or two ago when searching for freer markets caused a shift to reliance on tzedaka; however, that is very much still a matter for political debate. In the Anglo-Saxon galut where kehilot are voluntary Jewish associations, there is only charity. In most European countries, however, Jews are still bound by secular law to contribute to the Jewish communal funds and religious and educational needs are financed by the tax on kosher meat. Is it fanciful to suggest that a similar communal share in the billion dollar kosher food industry would solve many financial problems facing the Anglo-Saxon golah? That would necessitate solving the conflicts of interest inherent in the existence of some 500 kosher authorities, many of them not communal, but rather private concerns. [The Parshat Vayeishev Homepage]
|
