We are in Maseches Avos, chapter 5, mishnah 10 (in some versions, mishnah 13). This mishnah opens a series of mishnayos that list four types of people, with each mishnah counting them from a different angle.
This time we will not begin by reading the words of the mishnah as we usually do. Instead we will first discuss the subject itself from the outside, and only afterward return to the words themselves. The reason: although the mishnah opens with "arba middos ba'adam" - there are four character types among people, its language as it reads on the surface seems to present five different types, and that is confusing.
The foundation of the subject - one's attitude toward property and property rights:
The mishnah's starting point is that there are different ways in which a person relates to private property, to property rights, and to their enforcement. The typical person feels that whatever he earned through respectable means, honestly and fairly, belongs to him, and whatever his friend earned honestly belongs to his friend. There is no reason for him to share his assets with his friend, and no reason for his friend to share with him, even if his friend is far wealthier than he is. Once he has met his obligations - paid his taxes and given his tzedakah - what remains is rightfully his. We are not speaking about someone who dodges his taxes or withholds his tzedakah, but about what lies beyond and above that; such a person is considered typical.
Above him stands the giver. He says: what is yours is yours, and I will not ask anything of you, for "one who hates gifts will live," and I have no desire for something I did not earn honestly. But what is mine is at your disposal: I will lend you my car, you can host your friends in my basement, and whatever you ask for - gladly. This person wants to give, and he acts beyond the letter of the law, beyond the typical, and he is the one called a chassid.
At the other extreme stands the wicked person. He says: what is mine is mine, I have no reason to share with you, I earned what is mine honestly and fairly and I deserve it. But his sense of entitlement is so great that he believes that what is in his friend's hand is also coming to him, and he sees it as brazenness that his friend does not share with him. In varying degrees he feels that he is permitted to borrow, and even to steal what is not his, to mislead, to cheat and to rob.
These three points are the very heart of the mishnah:
The average person, the typical person: what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.
The chassid, the giver: what is mine is yours, and nevertheless what is yours is yours.
The wicked person: what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine.
Alongside this basic spectrum there are two exceptions, each one at a different extreme.
The first exception - denying private ownership:
There is a person who objects to private ownership on principle. In his view, "mine" is the root of all evil, and he seeks to fix the world through the idea: why don't we all just share together? That way no one will be rich, and everyone will be equal. He wants to live in a commune, on a kibbutz - to abolish private ownership, with each person taking what he needs and everyone sharing with one another, and in this way the world will become a happier place. The Bartenura uses the expression "tikkun ha'aretz" - repairing the land - for this, and Rabbeinu Yonah calls it "tikkun olam" - repairing the world.
This is an idealistic impulse that people felt long before Karl Marx (yet another wayward Jew), already in the time of the mishnah, and it continues to accompany the world to this very day: perhaps we should share everything, each person taking according to his needs and contributing according to his ability, and the world will become an ideal place. In theory it may indeed have been wonderful, but in practice it does not work.
The great communist regimes did not end well, not a single one of them. Even on the communal level, the kibbutz largely belongs to a bygone era: almost no kibbutzim remain, and most of them collapsed because the system simply does not work. The ones that survived are the very wealthy ones, because when there is great wealth you can afford to give everyone private ownership, since there is enough for all. Otherwise, the system does not work.
There are two real problems here:
The incentive problem: The old joke about communist Russia goes: we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us. If a person does not earn more by working harder, he has no incentive to exert himself. And so there is no work, no production and nothing to distribute; those in charge become corrupt and steal, and nothing is left for everyone else.
The loss of the ability to give: This is a serious conceptual problem. When there is no private ownership, a person cannot give of himself. He cannot share his property, because he has no property to share, and so he is left powerless.
Let us explain the second point through the Torah's framework of charity. According to maaser kesafim, ten percent of all income is designated for charity. Rav Hirsch describes it this way: if a person earns one hundred a week, ninety is his to enjoy, and the remaining ten is not his and never was his. It belongs to the poor, and his responsibility is to allocate it.
That allocation may be made by caring for the poor, by lending money to others, by building yeshivos, or in any other way he sees as best. The Holy One, blessed is He, appointed him as His trustee and entrusted him with this small trust fund of a tenth in order to make the world a better place. The privilege of deciding how to distribute it is his alone, and his reward will be given according to how successfully he allocates that money. The point is that the money is his to distribute: once he has private property, he can make the world a better place, and there is empowerment and elevation in that. When a person has no private property, he can no longer do this, and he is deprived of the joy, satisfaction and fulfillment of being a benefactor.
The Torah's approach is that every Jew should see himself as a benefactor, for everyone has income, and by virtue of it he becomes a trustee. The Holy One, blessed is He, appointed every person as His trustee to make the world a better place; from this, each person has his own charity projects, and he feels like a giver rather than a taker, which is an elevating and empowering feeling. A person who sees money as the root of evil and objects on principle to the boundaries of monetary law - his theory is beautiful, but in practice his idea is a bad one. Such a person is called in the Mishnah an "am ha'aretz", loosely translated: the simple, unthinking man.
The second exception - middas Sedom:
At the other extreme stands the opposite exception. Unlike the one who wants to abolish boundaries and laws, this person wants laws for the sake of the laws themselves. In his view, the boundaries of monetary law are good for society in and of themselves, and when you give people what they did not earn and do not deserve, you make society a worse place: they become dependent, they develop a sense of entitlement, and they contribute nothing to society. Therefore, even when a person is in need, sharing with him weakens him and harms society, and the laws must be enforced precisely so that people will not share what is theirs with others.
According to this approach, every person must learn to overcome, to support himself, to take responsibility and to own his problems. And even if he hits rock bottom, better that he should, and from there he will climb up by his own strength and make something of himself. This is middas Sedom, the approach practiced in Sedom, which the Holy One, blessed is He, overturned: enforcing law for the sake of law, to the point that it becomes illegal to do kindness with another person.
Chazal describe this not only as someone who does not want to help another, but as someone who does not want to help even when it costs him nothing at all. The typical, average person says: why should I share? I earned my money honestly. But sometimes sharing costs nothing and does not hurt him in the least. The one with middas Sedom says: even though it does not hurt you, it hurts society, so do not share; that fellow needs to learn to be independent, to take responsibility and to own his life's difficulties rather than lean on others.
People of middas Sedom hold, then, that the boundaries of monetary law must be enforced even for their own sake, for the sake of improving society - and in this they resemble the other extreme, the communists who want to smash everything and abolish private ownership, also for the sake of improving society. The Torah opposes this with full force, and it is inconceivable that this should be the way of the Holy One, blessed is He, for in the end everything comes from Him. For this reason, even clinging to the attitude of "sheli sheli veshelcha shelach" - what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours - stands at the edge of what is improper: in truth none of this is mine or yours, but everything belongs to Hashem. Hashem gave to me, and if He blessed me with more than I need, or even with more than He gave you, why should I not share with you? And one who does not do so, that is a terrible thing.
The Holy One, blessed is He, could not tolerate what went on in Sedom, and He overturned it, as the Midrashim describe. Sedom enforced the rules: a person had to fit exactly within the framework, and hospitality - as in the story of Lot and the angels - was intolerable. This is the Sedom approach, and even today there are people who genuinely feel this way, that one should not share with another because it weakens society.
Let us return to the language of the Mishnah:
So we have counted five types. Now let us read the language of the Mishnah, which contains further subtleties: "Arba middos ba'adam" - four attitudes with regard to private ownership. "Ha'omer sheli sheli v'shelcha shelcha - zu middah beinonis" - one who says "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" - this is the average attribute. This is the typical person, and it is fine. "V'yesh omrim zu middas Sedom" - and there are those who hold that already in this there is the attribute of Sodom, which is something unforgivable.
There are two ways of understanding this line:
The approach of the Bartenura: We have before us only four types, and the intent is not that it is wrong to say "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours," but rather that there is a warning here - this attitude is close to the attribute of Sodom. The difference is this: one who withholds and says, "Why should I give up what is mine at my own expense for your sake? I earned mine honestly" - that is typical. But one who says, "I will not share with you even though it does me no harm and costs me nothing, but on principle" - withholding help from another when there is no loss to the giver, that is the attribute of Sodom, and it is truly disgraceful.
A different approach: This attitude itself is flawed and is literally the attribute of Sodom. For if a person sees everything as coming from Hashem, then even after he has paid his taxes and given his charity, when those around him are in need he should not say "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours," but rather: everything comes from Hashem, and for some reason Hashem gave me a great deal while you are struggling, and therefore here I am to help. And one who does not adopt this attitude - there is in him the attribute of Sodom.
And if you think about it, there are in the world enormously wealthy people, billionaires, for whom giving away everything beyond the first billion would not affect them in the slightest, and even the last hundred million would not be missed in the least. Refusing to give in such a situation is already the attribute of Sodom, and it is unforgivable.
The next type in the Mishnah: "Sheli shelcha v'shelcha sheli" - what is mine is yours and what is yours is mine - there is no private ownership at all. This is the "am ha'aretz" - this is the communist who wants to share everything. A lovely idea in theory: he desires the settling of the land according to the Bartenura, and the perfecting of the world according to Rabbeinu Yonah, but in practice, as we have said, it does not work.
After him: "Sheli shelcha v'shelcha shelcha" - what is mine is yours and what is yours is yours - I take nothing, I only give, and I want nothing. Such a person is a "chassid", above and beyond all of this. The word chassid, from chesed, is the opposite of din, strict justice: chesed means the breaking of boundaries, and he is the one who gives beyond the boundary, and it makes no difference to him.
It is worth noting that Chazal said "the poor of your own city come first," and a person bears responsibility to provide for himself and his household. Therefore, even one who wishes to give of his property should not give more than a fifth of his assets, since he must provide for his own needs and not become a burden on society. The poskim discuss the case of a billionaire who gives not twenty percent but eighty, and is left with two hundred million dollars, on which he can live very comfortably: is he considered to be squandering and exposing himself? This is a dispute among the poskim and is not our subject here, but the point is that one who says he will give away his property is answered by Chazal: go and give, but do not impoverish yourself; your first responsibility is to yourself and to your family.
And finally: "Sheli sheli v'shelcha sheli" - what is mine is mine, and what is yours is also mine. He feels that it is coming to him, and whatever he can get, he will take. Such a person is a "rasha", a wicked person, because he does not respect the property of others, and he sees himself as the center of the universe, thereby rejecting, of course, the Holy One, Blessed is He. That is the definition of a rasha.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned four attributes regarding property and ownership rights. At their foundation stands a sequence of three: the average person ("what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours"), the chassid ("what is mine is yours and what is yours is yours"), and the rasha ("what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine"). Alongside them are two exceptions: the am ha'aretz, who denies private ownership out of an aspiration to settle the land - a system that fails because of the incentive problem and because it denies a person's ability to give and to be a steward of the Holy One, Blessed is He; and the attribute of Sodom, which enforces the letter of the law for its own sake and withholds help even when it costs nothing. We also examined the two ways of understanding "this is the average attribute, and some say this is the attribute of Sodom," and the limits of the chassid's giving.