Background
Out of all the donations that the Torah obligates a person
to give, by far the largest one is ma’aser.[1] From
all produce of the land a tenth must be given to the descendants of Levi. The
reason for this obligation seems to be stated clearly in the Torah- it is “in return
for their service that they perform, the service of the Ohel Mo’ed.”[2]
At a closer look, this payment seems disproportionate to
the extreme. One tribe receive a tenth of all of the staple food, presumably
more than enough to live off permanently (at that time the overwhelming
majority of people worked in agriculture). This would be reasonable if they
were in close to permanent employment, perhaps even if it were part-time. But
already in the desert there were 8,580 levi’im of working age.[3] How
could there possibly be a need for so many workers in the Mishkan?
Clearly the levi’im were not working permanently in the
Mishkan, or later in the Beis Hamikdash. Chazal tell us that Moshe Rabbeinu
instituted that the Levi’im should be divided into eight watches, Shmuel
increased this to sixteen, and David Hamelech eventually made twenty-four
watches.[4] Each
watch worked for a week at a time, meaning that each Levi’s working time was
about two weeks a year![5]
The reason for this is that the levi’im had another, no
less important mission. Part of the beracha given to the tribe of Levi is:
יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב וְתוֹרָתְךָ
לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ וְכָלִיל עַל מִזְבְּחֶךָ: (דברים לג, י)
“They shall teach Your laws to Ya’akov, and Your Torah to
Yisrael. They shall place incense in front of You and burnt-offerings on Your
altar.” (Devarim 33:10)
Chazal derive from this pasuk that the tribe of Levi was
one of two tribes that produced successful halachic rulers.[6] The
Rambam famously explains that in order to be free to perform these two crucial
roles, the tribe of Levi did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael or in the
spoils, nor were they involved in war.[7]
Why then did the Torah say that ma’aser is payment just
for service performed in the Mishkan? I have not seen this question addressed
elsewhere, but to me the answer is obvious. Hashem did not want the teaching of
Torah to be a job. While the levi’im are compelled to serve in the Mikdash
whether they like it or not,[8] their
teaching role is one that they are expected to do of their own accord.
The hugely exaggerated wages that the levi’im receive for
their work in the Sanctuary allowed for the preservation of Torah scholarship
without degrading it. Teaching Torah is something that we are required to do
without the expectation of payment.[9] But
what then is to stop a Levi from shirking this responsibility, if his payment
is not dependent on it?
The answer to this is also clear. Everyone is free to give
his ma’aser to the Levi of his choice.[10] This
created an incentive for the levi’im to show that they were genuinely deserving
of ma’aser, and also limited resentment on the part of the farmers who had to
give it.
Problems
This system works perfectly if people use it in the way it
was intended. However, as with anything else, if it is regularly manipulated
for personal gain society breaks down. Not everyone will necessarily choose who
they give their ma’aser to in an appropriate manner, and some may decide not to
give at all.
This is what happened in the times of the navi Malachi,
who rebukes those who ‘steal from Hashem’ ma’aser and terumah.[11]
Later, Yochanan the Kohen Gadol discovered that only terumah gedolah was
separated by all, and he instituted that one who buys produce from an am
ha’aretz (in this context anyone who has not proved his trustworthiness) must
separate ma’aser out of concern that the seller did not separate.[12]
When deterioration like this occurs, everyone must take
their share of responsibility. The levi’im should ask themselves whether they
have done enough to earn the respect of the people and help them want to
support their mission (and they also have the incentive to do so). The same
Malachi also saw fit to penalise the levi’im for failing to return to Eretz
Yisrael from Bavel, and instructed that ma’aser should be given to the kohanim
instead.[13]
In our time
Nowadays all kosher certification includes an assurance
that ma’aser has been separated whenever halacha requires it. Yet no levi’im
are able to live off ma’aser, and there is ongoing dispute between the
political parties over government support to Torah learning. How did this
happen?
Two major factors here are technical. Firstly, staple
grains in Israel are almost entirely imported. Secondly, even with grain that
is grown here, in modern times the cost of labour means that the value of raw
grain (from which ma'aser is taken from) is tiny compared to the cost of ready
to eat food. There is little we can do about this. However the other reasons
are halachic, and it is important for us to address them (after declaring my personal
interest as a levi).
The Chazon Ish rules that today it is proper for ma’aser to
be retained by the owner of the produce after separation, as giving it to the
levi’im would cause an increase in those falsely asking to be called to the
Torah as a levi.[14] This is
relied on by many companies and kashrus authorities, although unfortunately due
to a lack of transparency it is often not easy to find out which ones.
This novel idea of the Chazon Ish is very hard to
understand, as one who keeps ma’aser for himself is stealing from the levi’im.
Without a Sanhedrin we do not have the power to make a new enactment where
Chazal did not.[15] This
leniency is found only in the Chazon Ish, and many other poskim clearly state
that ma’aser must still be given to a levi.[16]
From what I understand, even the hechsherim that are
particular about giving ma’aser to levi’im do not do so in entirety. Already in
the times of the Mishna, for some it was inconvenient to constantly find
levi’im to hand over ma’aser to. The solution to this was simple, one could
‘prepay’ by lending money to a levi and taking the ma’aser for oneself in
payment of the debt.[17] For
the levi’im it also may have been more conveninent to receive money instead of
grain.
The catch is the calculation of how much ma’aser can be
covered by the amount of money lent. We are informed that this calculation is
based on the ‘cheap rate’, ie that even if the price of grain goes up the
deduction from the loan is according to the price at the time the loan was
given. Although the current value of the grain is more than the money lent,
this does not violate the prohibition of taking interest.[18]
Tosfos take this a step further, and say that even if the
levi agrees to calculate the payment at a price well below the ‘cheap rate’,
there is no interest problem. Based on this Rav Kook takes it as a given that
only a small amount of money can be lent to the levi for a large amount of ma’aser.[19]
The truth is that it is clear that all Tosfos said was
that there is no interest problem if this calculation is agreed upon.
There is no justification for forcing the levi’im to accept such an
arrangement. Elsewhere Rav Kook himself says that the reason we rely on this is
because otherwise the ability of the Jewish community at the time to survive
would be in doubt.[20]
I have little complaint with the kashrus authorities that
rely on this, as they are merely facilitating a limited form of giving ma’aser
instead of giving none. If there was demand from the community as a whole for
the complete fulfilment of this mitzvah (along with the willingness to pay
extra), it would be done.[21] It
is our responsibility to educate and increase understanding of the issues
involved, until this happens. And as in the time of Malachi, it is the
responsibility of the levi’im to earn their ma’aser.
[1]
Throughout this article I am referring to ma’aser rishon. The additional tithe
that must be separated in most years is eaten by the owner as ma’aser sheni,
either in a pure state in Yerushalayim or nowadays after redemption (at
virtually no cost). Only in the third and sixth years of the shmita cycle
ma’aser ani must be given to the poor.
[2]
Bamidbar 18:21.
[3]
Bamidbar 4:48
[4]
Ta’anis 27a. Presumably the changes were due to gradual population increase.
[5] In
fact it was less, as each watch was divided into families and individuals were
assigned to each day of the week. See Rambam Klei Hamikdash 3:9.
[6] Yoma
26a. The second tribe was Yissachar.
[7]
Shmita v’Yovel 13:12. See also Moreh Nevuchim 3:39 where the Rambam explicitly
links the mitzvah of ma’aser to the Torah learning of the levi’im.
[8]
Rambam Klei Hamikdash 3:1
[9] See
Nedarim 37a.
[10] See
Rashi to Bamidbar 5:10
[11]
Malachi 2:8
[12]
Sotah 48a
[13]
Yevamos 86b. See Megila 15a that Malachi was another name of Ezra.
[14]
Shevi’is 5:12. It is worth noting that the Chazon Ish did not believe in other
means of receiving money for Torah learning, see Brown’s biography of the
Chazon Ish pages 55-56.
[16] See
for example Chochmas Adam, Sha’arei Tzedek Mitzvot Ha’aretz chapter 10.
[17]
Gitin 30a
[18] Ibid, with
Rashi. Why this is not considered interest is beyond the scope of this article.
[19]
Mishpat Cohen siman 36. This practice is already mentioned in the Yad Efrayim
(written by R’ Efrayim Zalman Margolies, 1762-1828) in Yoreh Deah 61:10, and
criticised strongly.
[20] Igrot
Hariya 1:119
[21] Ma’aser
Ani is in fact given entirely to the poor, even though a similar trick could be
used. This is mainly because there is no view that condones retaining Ma’aser Ani
entirely (and therefore less pressure to find other leniencies), but perhaps
also because the idea of giving to the poor is more widely understood.
No comments:
Post a Comment