Thursday, September 10, 2009

Civil Rights and the Dignity of Man (R' Ahron Soloveichik)

Many have been taught that to benefit from ta'us akum [a mistake made by a gentile regarding money matters] is permissable. This is incorrect. It is totally forbidden to take money from a gentile if you have the ability to rectify the situation and return the proper amount to them. It is dishonest, wrong and against the Torah to benefit from lost goods/ money that you have the ability to return to the gentile in question. In fact, to do so is to act in barbaric fashion. I have attached the essay "Civil Rights and the Dignity of Man" from the work Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind by Rav Ahron Soloveichik in this post to demonstrate this. I have also included the specific excerpt regarding this below.

~

(Scroll down for whole essay.)

EXCERPT:

The concept of k’vod habriyos is the basis of all civilized jurisprudence, as well of all the laws of justice in the Torah. Civil law and the misphatim (rational laws) of the Torah, on the whole, bear a remarkable correspondence for the simple reason that every law in modern jurisprudence is based exclusively upon the doctrine of human rights which the nations of the world adopted from the Scriptures. For example, it is a crime to commit homicide, to commit assault and battery, or to trespass upon another’s property, because every human being has a fundamental right to be secure in person and property against any attack, assault or molestation. Everyone has such a right since everyone was created in the image of God and consequently deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

While Jewish jurisprudence in one respect begets modern civil law, in another respect it is distinct and unique. Insofar as the idea of human rights emanating from our common “image of God” is at the core of all mishpatim of the Torah, the two codes of law are similar. However, Torah law is distinct and unique in that, whereas modern jurisprudence is completely and exclusively grounded in human rights, Torah jurisprudence is additionally founded upon the pillar of duties. In the Scriptures we find the term tzedek used together with mishpat (see Psalms 89:15). Mishpat and tzedek both emanate from the doctrine of human rights. In the realm of mishpat and tzedek, the notion of rights comes first and the notion of duties second. Person A is duty-bound to refrain from assaulting person B because B has a basic right to be secure. The right of B thus comes first; from this stems the duty of A. The Talmud says in Maseches Sanhedrin (58b), “Whoever assaults or molests another person, even though he does not harm the other person, is considered wicked.”

Once again, these rights, as the Rambam says in Hilchos Sanhedrin (24: 8-10), apply even to pagans and derive from the ideal of k’vod habriyos. Besides the doctrine of rights, mishpat, Judaism emphasizes the concept of tzedek, righteousness and duty, as a primary motive. In modern society, assaulting a person is a crime but failture to save a human life is not. Civil law finds it inconceivable that a person should have a right to demand help and generosity from another. The Torah’s concept of tzedek, however, gives the person the right to demand aid. The Torah’s two pillars are succinctly described in Toras Kohanim (on Leviticus 19:18), which says, “Rebbe Akiva says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” [ibid] is a paramount and inclusive principle. Ben Azai says “This is the book of the generations of Man. On the day that God created Man, in the likeness of God He made him” [Genesis 5:1] implies a more universal concept.”

The commandment of “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” comprises all those laws that emanate from the concept of brotherly love, while the verse “In the image of God He created Man” is the basis of all those laws which are comprised within the realm of mishpat and tzedek. The commentary of the Korban Ha’eidah on the Talmud Yerushalmi (N’darim) explains why ben Azai called “the image of God” a more universal concept than brotherly love. While the trait of honoring others is to be practiced indiscrimately toward all human beings, Jews, non-Jews and pagans alike, the Torah does not demand and cannot expect that a Jew love a non-Jew or pagan just as one loves oneself—that would be contrary to human nature. The principle inherent in the verse “In the image of God He created Man,” and in the ideal of the “dignity of Man” establishes no distinction between Jews and non-Jews.

The Torah states, “Tzedek, tzedek, you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20). Why should the Torah repeat the term tzedek? Rabbenu Bachaye, the student of the Ramban, in his work Kad Hakemach, interprets that the Torah intimates how the same standard of justice and righteousness that is applied toward our Jewish brothers is also to be applied toward all Gentiles. When one delves into the halachah, one can readily see that the Torah does not make a distinction between Jews and non-Jews within the realm of mishpat and tzedek. A trespass committed against the property of a pagan is just as criminal as one committed against the property of a Jew. It is truth that the aveidah, the lost object of a pagan that inadvertently comes into the possession of a Jew is permitted. However, this halachha is subject to two qualifications. One distinction is between an idol worshipper, whose lost object is permitted, and a non-pagan Gentile, whose lost goods are forbidden. Significantly, the Meiri (in the Shitah M’kubetzes on Bava Kama 113a) writes that based on this difference between the status of pagans and non-pagans, we assume that today there are no pagans for religious worship. Hence, all lost property that comes into possession of a Jew must be returned to its proper owner. The second qualification of the halachah permitting lost goods of a Gentile is mentioned in the Sefer Mitzvos Hagadol: Lost items of a pagan are not really permitted. Rather, such objects do not fall into the category of gezel, stealing, but still involve a violation of “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity or speak lies” (Zephaniah 3:13). Taking and keeping the lost object of a pagan would still be considered an unjust and unfair act inasmuch as it runs counter to the principle of human rights and to the concept of tzedek, which must be shown to Jews and non-Jews alike.

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Bava M’tziya) tells the story of Shimon ben Shetach, who worked in the flax business, struggling to make a living. His disciples advised him to give up the flax business and buy a donkey, which would provide a better source of income. Shimon ben Shetach agreed, and his students bought a donkey from an Arab pagan. After buying the animal, these disciples found a large diamond tied to it, and they brought both the animal and the jewel to their teacher. Upon seeing the acquisitions of his students, Shimon ben Shetach asked, “Did the Arab know that there was a diamond tied to the donkey?” The disciples said, “No.” At that point, Shimon ben Shetach said to his disciples, “Go immediately and return the diamond.” The disciples, however, were curious—is it not stated that all agree that the lost goods of a pagan are permitted to be retained? Shimon ben Shetach responded, “Do you think that I am such a barbarian? I am more interested in hearing the exclamation, “Blessed be the God of the Jews” from the mouths of pagans than I am in making a living.” Although perhaps the act of keeping the diamond might not have been stealing according to the law, it was still forbidden as an act of “barbarism” since “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity or speak lies.” It is inconsistent with k’vod habriyos and human rights.

In this story, Shimon ben Shetach gives a remarkable definition of the term “barbarian.” According to him, anyone who fails to apply a uniform standard of mishpat, justice, and tzedek, righteousness, to all human beings regardless of origin, color, or creed is deemed barbaric.

From this Yerushalmi, coupled with the concept of k’vod habriyos, one must assume that those people who refuse to grant any human being the same degree of respect that they offer to their own race or nationality are adopting a barbaric attitude.


Civil Rights and the Dignity of Man by Rav Ahron Soloveichik





37 comments:

Anonymous said...

מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה

it's a shame his politics influenced his torah in his old age, very very sad. just another victim, just one more example of, if you roll in the mud you'll get dirty.

Anonymous said...

you can now embed pdfs, much more convient than scrib

Chana said...

Anon 9:28 PM,

That's disgusting filth; I can't believe you slander the Gedolei HaTorah in that way. It amazes me that anyone has the chutzpah, and before Rosh Hashana!

In other news, I had forgotten (my father reminded me) that I had discussed this concept before here. See comment 47 here (scroll all the way down) with links to sources by R' Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R' Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, Rabbi Reuven Margolies and Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan regarding the fact that the dinim of aveidas akum/ taos akum do not apply in America.

So Anon 9:28 PM, you just insulted not only R' Ahron Soloveichik but all of those Gedolim as well.

Anonymous said...

twist, twist, twist the truth...

r.a. kaplan wrote, if you have read it, to be choshesh for the rambam that says the doin is only for real ovdei avoda zara, despite that the rambam is a daas yachid. many poskim will disagree with this because one you have the money, the choshen mishpat din would be it says by the current owner until proven otherwise.

however, this has nothing to do with the dignity, humanism, barberism etc. it's a plain din of does ta'us akum apply to non-ovde avoda zara, they could be the most vile evil people. it has nothing to do with the above authors sense of "tzedek"

the other texts are a disgusting distortion of halacha. as seemingly was pointed out in the linked comments. anyone who can get so caught up in an ideology that they can't accept a halacha spelled out in the rema, is anything but a gadol.

now please excuse me as i puke my supper

Anonymous said...

rabenu bachya is talking about when a gentile has a din torah he should not be mistreated, and the laws -whatever they are for him - should be fairly applied.

i noticed in the link comments the yerushalmi he quotes was also twisted. and to top it off, paskening halacha against the SA, based on agada is shows a lack of...

Chana said...

Anon 10:22,

May you be 'rewarded' as God sees fit for the callous, disgusting way in which you talk about Gedolei HaTorah. There's a way to speak if you disagree; unfortunately, you were never taught it.

Anonymous said...

without deleving into the sema, what hes quoted to write is "even though its not stealing, shieris yisroel lo yaseh avleh (and it seems he's talking about a chilul hashem, which is not the discussion here, as we all agree a kidush hashem, should always be made). the author goes and takes it a step further, applying this to an intrinsic property right, thereby deeming it full fledged gezel.

i'm sick to my stomach. al tashlicheni li'es zikna

Anonymous said...

i'm glad to see your outrage because someone offended something personal to you. all the more so, i'm sure you too can understand my outrage when someone tramples on the shulchan aruch, something that has been sacred to me and my ancestors for 500 years. step back from your personal blindness - lo tikach shochad is the pasuk before tzedek tzedek - and see the bigger truth.

Chana said...

Look:

1. If you want to argue regarding these points from a Torah perspective, I'll hear it, although I think that your opinion is gainsaid by the greats

2. Your editorializing ("now please excuse me as I puke my supper, I'm sick to my stomach" and your use of Tehillim 71, etc) is not appreciated, is disgusting, and just demonstrates the fact that no one ever taught you how to speak with respect about those who are far greater and far more learned than you could ever hope to be. To disagree is one thing- to be mevazeh is something completely different. The fact that you can do so before the holiest day of the year astounds me; the fact that you persist in it just demonstrates that for reasons I cannot understand you *want* to provoke God. If you think such slurs upon men who upheld the Torah in ways you can't even dream of will go unrequited, you are totally mistaken. Thus, it saddens me that you believe this is the proper way to make a point- to debate I understand; I don't know which Rabbi taught you it was proper to spew insults and filth about people, however.

Anonymous said...

>There's a way to speak if you disagree

don't confuse an opinion, with a perversion.

Chana said...

The way you speak, sir, is the perversion.

Anonymous said...

a rabbi that was a talmid/contemporary of ras, that started crying when he saw his later works, and said "there are no words, what happened to him?" and continued crying.

Chana said...

I don't believe it; what was the Rabbi's name? Though I think this conversation would better be conducted in a different forum- could you email me?

EJB said...

Funny how one of my Rebbeim who was close to Rav Aharon said quite the opposite, that Rav Aharon was sharp until he stopped giving shiur.

Anonymous said...

while you a right this conversion should end, and certainly not be discussed in public, it's probably pointless to email you, because you not going to change your mind. if you want to continue giving wrong change back kol hakavod, i do it too. i do it to make a kidush hashem, or on the chance it will be a chillul hashem. to go wave around a faulty piece of halacha, is very disingenuous on your part, i'm sure you know he's a daas yachid at best. and in no way does a halacha of being allowed to keep "mistaken monies" in anyway change one's obligation to treat everyone with respect and dignity.

Chana said...

Listen, I don't know who you are or where you came from and why you suddenly descended upon me with your agenda and your hateful words, but here's my thought:

1. The fact that you assume I wouldn't change my mind suggests that you have absolutely no interest in trying to prove what you are saying, only to assert it. Of course I won't listen to you when you are simply being mevazeh in ways that are totally disgusting. I can't believe such filth could come out of anyone's mouth, let alone someone who is under the mistaken impression he is a Ben Torah.

2. "A faulty piece of halacha" - obviously I don't think it is faulty.

3. He's a Daas Yachid when R' Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R' Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, Rabbi Reuven Margolies and Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan concur? That's an interesting definition you have.

4. You're the last person in the world to talk about treating people with respect and dignity; you don't even know how to do it with regard to R' Ahron, let alone with regard to anyone else!

Anonymous said...

>4. You're the last person in the world to talk about treating people with respect and dignity; you don't even know how to do it with regard to R' Ahron, let alone with regard to anyone else!

i was half expecting that childish response, but i gave you the benefit of doubt, oh well.

sorry you can't differentiate between passion and hate.

>3. He's a Daas Yachid when R' Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R' Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, Rabbi Reuven Margolies and Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan concur? That's an interesting definition you have.

>The fact that you assume I wouldn't change my mind

once agin "r.a. kaplan wrote, if you have read it, to be choshesh for the rambam that says the din is only for real ovdei avoda zara... however, this has nothing to do with the dignity, humanism, barberism etc. it's a plain din of does ta'us akum apply to non-ovde avoda zara, they could be the most vile evil people. it has nothing to do with the above authors sense of "tzedek""


if repeating one's self when the other party refuses to understand, is called assertion, then what's the point?

Chana said...

Obviously I haven't read the R' Kaplan you cite. Can you give me the source/ book where that passage is published?

As for your benefit of the doubt, you forgot the other half of that Gemara you quoted at the beginning of this exchange:

והמלבין פני חבירו ברבים אף על פי שיש בידו תורה ומעשים טובים אין לו חלק לעולם הבא

You shame and insult others in a public forum and then you expect me to learn from you. How can you possibly think this is the way to teach another? I would be happy to listen if your words weren't riddled with insults and negative comments; when you humiliate, insult and denigrate another that immediately calls the legitimacy of your Torah into question- there's a concept of תורה עם דרך ארץ‎ for a reason.

Chana said...

Actually, correction- yes, I read that- it's R' Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan you are agreeing with (I'm tired and thought you were citing a different R' Kaplan.)

Benzie said...

Is this anonymous rasha Not Brisker Yeshivish? http://briskyeshivish.blogspot.com/? There is much drivel in this thread: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/hmaryles/2273899885790480372/

EJB, are you a talmid of R' Reichman? Rav Ahron did not stop giving shiur until he died (chol hamoed sukkos 5762). His last Hashkafa shiur was Parshas Nitzavim a few weeks before he died; I don't remember when his last gemara shiur was delivered. I was at Brisk then.

Anonymous said...

(comment partially shortened, because what's the point in trading insults a week before rosh hashana?)

>How can you possibly think this is the way to teach another?

the sheer horror of the post affected my usual levelheadedness.

>when you humiliate, insult and denigrate another that immediately calls the legitimacy of your Torah into question

how many times have you said look at the message not the messenger?

Benzie said...

Ah, EJB, perhaps you refer to the fact that Rav Ahron did not make it to RIETS during his last Elul; luckily he did not board a plane on September 11, 2001, which would have been forced to land somewhere short of LaGuardia.

Anonymous said...

?Is this anonymous rasha Not Brisker Yeshivish?

no

Anonymous said...

Is this anonymous rasha Not Brisker Yeshivish?

no, and thankfully

Harry said...

For the sake of backing up Chana, who I believe it totally in the right in this case. Rav Willig said publicly, in front of several hundred young men and women this past Tuesday night that any and every effort must be made to create a proper atmosphere of Kiddush HaShem by specifically doing things such as returning the change. He was completely correct in pointing out the horrible, horrible incidents of Chillul HaShem that have happened numerous times this year - by both non-frum, and frum people of supposedly the highest caliber involving money. Anyone who feels like they can simply ignore these events and continue spouting garbage like this are certainly considered a naval b'reshus haTorah.

EJB said...

re Rav Willig. Most of his points were right on the dot. But he did mention that EVERYONE agrees stealing from a non-Jew is an Issur Mi'Dioraysa. I was under the opinion that it was a machlokes Rishonim if it was di'oraysa or di'rabanan. I heard based on this that Geneivas Da'as is more stringent than Geneiva, since GD is assur Mi'Dioraysa even in regards to non-Jews. Geneiva, on the other hand, is a machlokes in regards to non-Jews (everyone agrees its assur, though).
I don't remember who says Geneiva from a goy is dirabanan. Anyone?

Anonymous said...

>Rav Willig said publicly, in front of several hundred young men and women this past Tuesday night that any and every effort must be made to create a proper atmosphere of Kiddush HaShem by specifically doing things such as returning the change.

Exactly my point, make the kidush hashem, but if you don't, it's not stealing.

Tobie said...

Um...so...not related to the craziness above, but...

Civil law and the misphatim (rational laws) of the Torah, on the whole, bear a remarkable correspondence for the simple reason that every law in modern jurisprudence is based exclusively upon the doctrine of human rights which the nations of the world adopted from the Scriptures

I am almost certain that Far Eastern legal traditions have principles forbidding murder and theft. That's really not the causation working here.

More generally, however, I agree that religious law tends to be based on duties while civil law tends to be based on rights. Although I'm not sure why this has a nafka mina for respecting the rights of non-Jews.

Anonymous said...

For the baalei machshava a yamim noraim question:
Does stealing from a non-baal brit not leavea mark on your soul, but stealing from a baal brit does? Can you really bifurcate your mind? I recall R'YBS teaching that the reason for hakarat hatov to humans even though all good is from HKB"H is that if we are not makir tov locally, we won't be makir tov globally.
KVCT
Joel Rich

Malka said...

I don't usually like to extend the madness, but I feel compelled to clarify something about my former roommate Chana: although we first met through a vehement disagreement, we agreed to disagree, and became very close friends.

More to the point, however, I personally have witnessed Chana radically change her stance on many, many issues as new facts were brought to her attention. Even when she has a personal reason to dislike what she hears, Chana will put aside her opinions and emotional reaction in order to consider all *facts* carefully. It is a rare and wonderful trait, and Chana uses it constantly, whether using logic leads her in either a "modern" or "yeshivish" direction.

In summation, if there is anyone who is willing to listen to a coherent, respectful argument, and is open to being changed by the argument, Chana is that person.

Harry said...

anonymous - you missed the most important part of what I wrote, namely the end. Having that attitude of "oh, I just missed out on an opportunity to do a tremendous Kiddush HaShem. But AT LEAST I didn't steal al pi halacha" is exactly a naval b'reshus haTorah. According to the strict halacha, we're not going to make you pay the gentile back or give you malkus (an exageration, I know), but that is still a terrible attitude to have and should be frowned upon. And again, any missed opportunity for a Kiddush HaShem, that instead may lend itself to a Chillul Hashem - especially in such an instance where the cashier may think "Oh, of course the Jew would do that!" - is also a major disgrace.

YGB said...

R' Avrohom Elya's views are summarized here:

http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/RAEK-H2.pdf

מצוה לפרסם!

William Dwek said...

The Swine Flu is common in PIGS.

This is a clear indication that it is the Dayanim – ‘Judges’ - and ‘Rabbis’ of today who are the PIGS and swines.

They twist and use the Torah for their own power and commercial benefit.

They are corrupt. And they are interested in only one thing:

MONEY.

Not the Torah.

William Dwek said...

When ‘dayanim’ and ‘rabbis’ use the Torah for their own power and commercial profit, this is the behaviour of a swine i.e. a Pig.

No other ‘rabbi’ will ever act against another ‘rabbi’ - even when he knows his colleague is clearly desecrating the Torah. Each rabbi is only worried about losing his own position.

Therefore, the ‘rabbi’ and ‘dayan’ will never effect justice. And he will never truly stand for the Torah or the Honour of Hashem. His pocket will always prevail.

The Torah must never be used for commercial gain and profit. Am Yisrael can only be lead by those who have the necessary love and respect of Hashem and the Torah.

William Dwek said...

1. The ‘dayan’ and ‘rabbi’ may use lies. They turn the innocent into the guilty, and the guilty, become the innocent. They will not hesitate to tell lies in the Synagogue.

2. The ‘dayan’ and ‘rabbi’ may steal. They steal and siphon off money for themselves, from the community and individuals.

3. The ‘dayan’ and ‘rabbi’ may shame a Jew in public, even repeatedly. This is one of the most vile acts of murder in Jewish law – and they know this.

4. The ‘dayan’ and ‘rabbi’ will not hesitate to use Lashon Hara - the ‘Evil Tongue’ - to suit his own ends. Slander and gossip. This too, is one of the worst acts of murder in Jewish Law. Their slander is never challenged by the community, because they hold positions of power. And the slander may begin with the Rebbetzin herself.

5. The ‘dayanim’ and ‘rabbis’ worship idols and other gods. Their only god is Money. Especially the ‘Dayanim’ – the ‘Judges’ who sit on a Beit Din. They only care about their high incomes and retirement packages. They have little or no love for the Torah or Hashem.

In the case of Lubavitch/Chabad, all their rabbis are carrying out a form of Avodah Zarah – strange worship. They are using mediation and intercession. This is completely forbidden, and against the Torah. We are only allowed to pray to Hashem, directly ourselves.

6. When the NAME of Hashem has been taken in Vain – repeatedly - by reshaim, the ‘rabbi’ will turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the

CHILLUL HASHEM.

This is the abhorrent behaviour of a Pig.

This is an extremely severe and dangerous situation.

There is NO forgiveness for this evil sin and aveirah.

7. The ‘dayan’ and ‘rabbi’ may also offer large bribes, tell lies and bring False Witnesses – when he in fact has committed the crime. These are heinous acts of the most despicable kind. This is especially vile when the ‘dayan’ is sitting on a ‘Bet Din.’

8. The ‘rabbi’ may commit adultery. And when he gets divorced, he may spread slander about his own ex-wife, blackening her name – when in fact he was at fault.

9. The ‘dayan’ and ‘rabbi’ may also desecrate Shabbat – if it suits him. He will use physical violence to assault another Jew or Jewess at any time. This evil and venomous behaviour is 100% against the Torah.

Eliyahoo William Dwek said...

A further word of advice regarding those who masquerade as a ‘dayan’ ‘rabbi’ or false ‘mekubal’:

1. These men may knowingly and willingly, deliberately deceive a Jew or Jewess. e.g. in the area of shidduchim, or offering to perform a ‘pidyon nefesh’.

This abhorrent and deceptive behaviour has caused tremendous harm to people who are innocent and trusting.

2. Do not ever ‘kiss the hands’ of these men (which they might offer to you in public).

3. And do not be duped into queuing and waiting, to see them for their ‘brachot’ (‘blessings’). They peddle ‘brachot’ purely for their own selfish gratification and ‘kavod’ (‘honour’).

Their duplicitous behaviour is nothing short of deception and cunning. In short they are abhorant and causing so much harm to amm israel. They prey on the vulnerable, and those who are naïve, unsuspecting and trusting of these pedlars.

Eliyahoo William Dwek said...

Any man who chooses to be a ‘rabbi’ (‘true teacher’ of Torah) or a ‘dayan’ (‘judge’), or a ‘mekubal’ (‘kabbalist’) should be doing so Voluntarily. Out of his pure love for Hashem and the Torah. And his Ahavat Yisrael.

If he refuses to do community work voluntarily, and wants and accepts payment for everything he does, such a man should not be leading a community. He should get a job and earn a living. He can collect milk bottles or clean the windows. That is what is called ‘earning a living’.

Torah is learned, studied and taught: out of Love. Voluntarily. But the ‘rabbis’ have turned the Torah into their ‘Profession’, from which they earn money.

We are commanded in the Shema to:
‘LOVE Hashem, your G-d, WITH ALL YOUR HEART, and with all your soul and with all your might.’

‘VE’AHAVTA et Hashem Elokecha BECHOL LEVAVECHA uvechol nafshecha uvechol meodecha.’ (Devarim, Vaethanan, 6:4-5)

Is the ordinary man or woman PAID to pray to Hashem, or to say some words of Torah? No. Has veshalom! But the rabbis are. These men can give ‘lovely’ shiurim that they have rehearsed. But they would not give a shiur without being paid for it.

The true hachamim and rabbis of old, all actually worked at proper jobs and professions.

Wake up! Even a little child could have worked this out. These salaried men can never truly stand for the Torah, because in a case of conflict between a correct course of action according to the Torah, and the rabbi or rav’s pocket – his pocket and position will always prevail.

Pirkei Avot: (2:2)
“Raban Gamliel beno shel Rabi Yehuda HaNassi omer: yafeh talmud Torah im derech eretz, sheyegiat shenaihem mashkachat avon. Vechol Torah she’ein imah melacha sofa betailah ve’goreret avon. Vechol haoskim im hatzibbur yiheyu imahem leShem Shamayim……”

“Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabi Yehuda HaNassi, said: It is good to combine Torah study with a worldly occupation, for working at them both drives sin from the mind. All Torah without an occupation will in the end fail and lead to sin. And let all who work for the community do so for the sake of Heaven………”