I ponder often the mystery of the Talmud never being cited by
political thinkers today. After all, the scholars who wrote it were
political wizards in navigating the treacherous governmental byways
of their own time. They not only lived in peace with the rulers of
Iraq and Iran (still called Babylon and Persia 1,500 years ago),
they were granted enormous leeway to lead the indigenous Jewish
population, fielding their own governor and court system.
Most often I conclude that the authors of the Talmud signaled
their own preference for the political sidelines when they wrote
(Shabbat 11a): “If all the seas were ink, all reeds were pens, the
skies were paper, and all humanity were scribes, they would not
succeed in portraying the breadth of governance.” The primary
commentary adds: “It takes a deep heart to govern, because he must
keep track of many states with different tax structures, and of
many wars and legislative matters, all in one day.” This paean to
the profundity of the political class doubles as a sort of
surrender by the academic class.
Still, there is much political wisdom to be mined in those
tomes. The most basic example of this provides a sort of overview
of the entire debate between the socialist and capitalist
worldviews. It is presented (Brachot 3b) in the form of a dialogue
which the Talmud projects backwards into history, positing a
discussion between King David and his advisors.
It dramatizes the scenario by depicting King David as playing
his harp and writing poetry one early morning. His advisors
interrupt him for the daily briefing. Seeking to prod him into
engaging in more creative trade practices with other countries,
they begin by telling him the unemployment figures. His initial
response is: “Let the rich feed the poor.” In other words, levy a
tax and use the money to pay unemployment benefits.
The advisors retort, “A lion is not satisfied with a handful,
and a ditch cannot be refilled with its own earth.” This is
accepted by King David as the last word on the subject and he
acquiesces to their trade policy initiatives.
The classical commentators (11th through 14th Century)
concentrate on the second half of that phrase, taking it to mean
that poverty can never be fully solved by redistribution of income.
Somehow, digging a ditch does not yield sufficient earth to refill
it to the top. Similarly, shifting a static pool of resources
around will only lead to its progressive depletion, as the process
of transfer takes a toll.
This slam against socialist governing seems explicit enough, but
less clear is the opening line that “a lion is not satisfied with a
handful.” The commentators let that one slide without elucidation;
possibly they assume it is making much the same point, that we
cannot possibly give a person a welfare check that will support his
gusty needs.
My own theory is that this refers not to the recipients of the
public dole, but to the producers of the wealth. If we tax away
their advantage in revenue, we have aborted the drive that
engenders economic development. The lion, with motives more
appetent than altruistic, will generate food for all the carnivores
in his area. Thus, Bill Gates wanting a yacht is a boon to the
entire society, catalyzing salaries for thousands, profits for
millions and products for billions.
This insight is replicated in a legal decision of the Talmud
(Bava Kama 85a). In cases of assault, the injurer must pay for
medical care even if a free clinic is available. The victim may
demand to see a paid doctor, because “a doctor who heals for
nothing is worth nothing.”
This legal principle, and the dramatization of King David’s
cabinet meeting, seem to place the Talmudic worldview squarely in
the Republican camp. Indeed, by setting up the dialogue as
interrupting David’s poesy, and by presenting his first inclination
as tax-and-spend, the authors acknowledge that the
redistributionist impulse has a sort of dreamily poetic appeal. It
is the hard-headed long-range vision that calls for freeing up
ambitious achievers to expand the economy for all.
Little wonder, then, that Yeshiva students, almost to a man,
were fervent devotees of Ronald Reagan and continue to be a solid
Republican constituency.
