<snip>
The
Mishnah (Avot 5:12) classifies one whose attitude to wealth is “What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours” as being a mediocre person. Such a person is prepared to respect the property of another and operate within the framework of the law.
However, he is not prepared to assist others, nor does he recognize a social obligation in view of the wealth in his possession. “Some say,” continues the Mishnah, “this is the mark of the people of
Sodom.” The people of Sodom have been the archetype of an evil community deserving of destruction ever since biblical times, primarily because of their selfish economic behavior.
The
Malbim (Rabbi Meir Lebush, Hungary, nineteenth century) comments that their sin lay in their refusal to share their wealth with the surrounding nations. It should be noted that while the Aggadah [classical rabbinic legends] is replete with stories of their inhospitality to strangers, the men of Sodom welcomed Lot, Abraham’s nephew. Lot was a wealthy man, and it was only poor strangers who were not welcome in Sodom.
The Sodomite view of absolute private property rejects any obligations to assist others, which is contrary to the Jewish concept of limited private-property rights.
Hearing that in the World to Come evildoers would be punished by not being able to bend their arms, a
chasid queried Divine Justice, saying that this was no punishment. “Well, they will not be able to eat,” answered his master. But the
chasid countered, “Let them sit opposite each other and then they can feed one another with their outstretched arms.” That, however they refused to do. That is their evil way even as it was in Sodom.
However, what made it necessary to destroy Sodom was not the individual selfishness of its citizens, but the fact that this had become an integral part of its communal culture. While a society can exist with cruel and selfish individuals, the moral decay that sets in when cruelty and callousness become hallmarks of that society marks it for Divine retribution.
Rashi, commenting on a verse in Amos--“They who sell the poor for a pair of shoes”--highlights this communal aspect. He notes the difference between a sandal, which is open, and a shoe, which is closed and possesses in Hebrew the same grammatical root as the word for “lock.” This is what the rich did. They closed in the poor farmer’s field and then forced him to sell—a perfectly legal but immoral use of societal legislation.
So
Judea had to be destroyed. In Sodom they gave charity generously. However, all the money was secretly marked so that the storekeepers refused to accept it. When the poor died of hunger, each Sodomite reclaimed his money—legal but abhorrent. Cruelty and callousness are expressed not only in relationships with the poor and weak but also in those between buyer and seller, employer and employee, and even competitors in all spheres of business activity.<snip>
