The Old Work Ethic and more Bava Basra 67-68

67

The Old Work Ethic

Our Gemara on on Amud Aleph discusses circumstances, under which an act to signify acquisition and legal title of one field that is being sold automatically enacts an acquisition of other fields within the sale as well.

If one sold another ten fields in ten different regions, all in a single bill of sale, once he takes possession of one of them, he has acquired them all; and the two cases seem to be analogous. 

The Gemara explains that this is due to the principle of sadna de-ar’ah chad, the land is all located in one geographic block, and it all has one use, i.e., to be farmed. The buyer, therefore, acquires all of the fields when he takes possession of one of them, even if they are not adjacent.

The Nesivos Hakodesh uses this halachic principle to add deeper meaning to a series of verses regarding how Yoseph, in his capacity of viceroy of Egypt, acquired the land of the Egyptians, as well as their permanent servitude to Pharaoh. The verses (Bereishis 47:18-23) tell the story:

וַתִּתֹּם֮ הַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַהִוא֒ וַיָּבֹ֨אוּ אֵלָ֜יו בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשֵּׁנִ֗ית וַיֹּ֤אמְרוּ לוֹ֙ לֹֽא־נְכַחֵ֣ד מֵֽאֲדֹנִ֔י כִּ֚י אִם־תַּ֣ם הַכֶּ֔סֶף וּמִקְנֵ֥ה הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֑י לֹ֤א נִשְׁאַר֙ לִפְנֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י בִּלְתִּ֥י אִם־גְּוִיָּתֵ֖נוּ וְאַדְמָתֵֽנוּ׃

And when that year was ended, they came to him the next year and said to him, “We cannot hide from my lord that, with all the money and animal stocks consigned to my lord, nothing is left at my lord’s disposal save our persons and our farmland. 

לָ֧מָּה נָמ֣וּת לְעֵינֶ֗יךָ גַּם־אֲנַ֙חְנוּ֙ גַּ֣ם אַדְמָתֵ֔נוּ קְנֵֽה־אֹתָ֥נוּ וְאֶת־אַדְמָתֵ֖נוּ בַּלָּ֑חֶם וְנִֽהְיֶ֞ה אֲנַ֤חְנוּ וְאַדְמָתֵ֙נוּ֙ עֲבָדִ֣ים לְפַרְעֹ֔ה וְתֶן־זֶ֗רַע וְנִֽחְיֶה֙ וְלֹ֣א נָמ֔וּת וְהָאֲדָמָ֖ה לֹ֥א תֵשָֽׁם׃ 

Let us not perish before your eyes, both we and our land. Take us and our land in exchange for bread, and we with our land will be serfs to Pharaoh; provide the seed, that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become a waste.” 

וַיִּ֨קֶן יוֹסֵ֜ף אֶת־כׇּל־אַדְמַ֤ת מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ לְפַרְעֹ֔ה כִּֽי־מָכְר֤וּ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֵ֔הוּ כִּֽי־חָזַ֥ק עֲלֵהֶ֖ם הָרָעָ֑ב וַתְּהִ֥י הָאָ֖רֶץ לְפַרְעֹֽה׃ 

So Joseph gained possession of all the farm land of Egypt for Pharaoh, all the Egyptians having sold their fields because the famine was too much for them; thus the land passed over to Pharaoh. 

וְאֶ֨ת־הָעָ֔ם הֶעֱבִ֥יר אֹת֖וֹ לֶעָרִ֑ים מִקְצֵ֥ה גְבוּל־מִצְרַ֖יִם וְעַד־קָצֵֽהוּ׃ 

And he removed the population town by town, from one end of Egypt’s border to the other. 

רַ֛ק אַדְמַ֥ת הַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים לֹ֣א קָנָ֑ה כִּי֩ חֹ֨ק לַכֹּהֲנִ֜ים מֵאֵ֣ת פַּרְעֹ֗ה וְאָֽכְל֤וּ אֶת־חֻקָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֤ן לָהֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה עַל־כֵּ֕ן לֹ֥א מָכְר֖וּ אֶת־אַדְמָתָֽם׃ 

Only the land of the priests he did not take over, for the priests had an allotment from Pharaoh, and they lived off the allotment which Pharaoh had made to them; therefore they did not sell their land. 

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־הָעָ֔ם הֵן֩ קָנִ֨יתִי אֶתְכֶ֥ם הַיּ֛וֹם וְאֶת־אַדְמַתְכֶ֖ם לְפַרְעֹ֑ה הֵֽא־לָכֶ֣ם זֶ֔רַע וּזְרַעְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הָאֲדָמָֽה׃ 

Then Joseph said to the people, “Whereas I have this day acquired you and your land for Pharaoh, here is seed for you to sow the land.

The Ramban (ibid 47:19) notes the discrepancy in the verses where the people offer their land and their bodies, but then the verse says that Yoseph merely acquired the land, and then ultimately there is a concluding verse where Yoseph states that he is acquiring their bodies as well. The Ramban offers his answer, but Nesivos Hakodesh uses lomdus from our Gemara to explain this series of verses and discrepancies.

Yoseph was able to immediately acquire all the land, even by making an action of acquisition of only one land because of the principle that we have seen – sadna de-ar’ah. However, that same principle cannot work regarding acquiring the people as servants, because each person is a distinct unit unlike the linkages of similar land with similar purposes. We must then assume that Yoseph utilized what is known as a kinyan chatzer, which is a Jewish legal device by which other movable forms of property are acquired so long as they are inside an enclosed domain belonging to the person who is trying to acquire it such as a courtyard or home. Therefore, Yoseph acquired the Egyptians by means of them standing in their lands. But there is still one hitch. Shach (CM 198:7) states that kinyan chatzer can only work if the items are introduced into the area after the acquisition is made. Items that were already in the area during the acquisition are not automatically acquired. This now explains verse 21, “And he removed the population town by town, from one end of Egypt’s border to the other.” By moving the people about, when they returned back to their fields, which were now newly acquired by Pharaoh via Yoseph, the people became Pharaoh’s possession.

After all this halachic analysis, we must ask ourselves what is this really all about? Why was Yoseph investing so much energy in this. Why not just be kind and let the Egyptians benefit from the bounty of his interpretation of Pharaoh’s prophetic dream? A simple answer, and maybe that’s the best answer, is that Joseph had a job to do. It boils down to the fact that he was an employee of Pharaoh, granted, a highly paid and distinguished employee, but in the end, just an employee. As an employee, it was his job to do it well. We see this pattern when he worked for Potiphar earlier in the narrative, and even when he worked in the prison. It is a work ethic that is hard for us in our anti authoritarian non-hierarchical milieu to fully buy into. Once in a while, we get a glimpse of that old-style work ethic, when we read in the paper about a loyal employee who worked in McDonald’s or some such place for 25 years and never called in sick. There’s a part of me that finds this degree of obsequiousness repulsive. On the other hand, the way these employees conducted themselves with dignity is as much about their own honor as their boss’s. If their bosses were good men and it helped them provide services and employment to others, all for the better. If they were greedy, shortsighted folk who did not appreciate the sacrifices of their employees, that’s on them. The old-style work ethic was greatly respected by our sages, even to the extent that they made allowances for abbreviated prayers simply to not interrupt the workers (see Berachos 16a). That is a far cry from us every five seconds using our work computers to check up on the latest deals on Amazon.

68

Beware of Heavenly Bureaucracy 

Our Gemara on Amud Beis quotes a verse in Iyov to prove the definition of a particular word known as “Shelachim”, which seems to be certain kinds of fields irrigated by water.

Who gives rain upon the earth and sends [sholeaḥ] waters upon the fields” (Job 5:10)

The Gemara (Ta’anis 10a) uses the same verse to draw a distinction between how the land of Israel is supported by rain versus other lands:

Eretz Yisrael is watered by the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself, and the rest of the entire world is watered through an intermediary, as it is stated: “Who gives rain upon the land, and sends water upon the fields” (Job 5:10).

The implication of this verse is that God himself gives water to Israel, while he “sends” water to other countries.

What is the theological significance between God’s providence that comes directly, versus through one of God‘s messengers and intermediaries? Presumably, if it is through an intermediary, it is harder to ask for mercy or exceptions to the rule. Anybody that has had to work with a lower clerk and bureaucrat has experienced the difference between working with somebody who has the authority to say yes or no, versus somebody who is a lower functionary and has a little latitude. A good tip for anybody in such a frustrating situation is to ask the person directly, “Are you empowered to give a different answer other than no? Do you have the authority, at your discretion, to make exceptions to the rule?” If the answer is negative, don’t waste your time, and respectfully and courteously ask for a supervisor. At that point, the person won’t have much of a reason to object, although they will try to save face and say, “Oh, he, or she won’t be able to give you a different answer.” Don’t believe it for a minute, because life experience has taught many that the supervisor absolutely has the ability to make an exception to the rule. If not, they aren’t really a supervisor. One more thing to keep in mind is that nowadays, everybody is a manager. You go to the chain store, and there’s somebody called an “manager” who makes $.50 more an hour than the other workers. That’s not a person who’s authorized to make decisions, you can be sure of that.

Enough of this digression, let’s get back to the theological significance of what we are learning. As we saw in blog post Psychology of the Daf Bava Basra 66, all these archetypes of relating to God as a king, and such, are there to help us understand the gravity, the humility, but also the beneficence of an omnipotent being. If we throw ourselves on the mercy of God, especially at times or situations where there is no intermediary, exceptions to the rule can be made. We only need to pray for it. 

It is interesting to note, there are certain aggados that perhaps playfully describe a heavenly bureaucracy (Shabbos 88b and Chagigah 15a, where Moshe and other mystics encounter angels and forces who seem to be invested in technical rules which thwarted their spiritual progress.) The sages of the Talmud were quite familiar with bureaucracy in terms of the governmental authorities from Athens and the like. They sometimes used that to their advantage to work around oppressive decrees such as described in Gemara Kesuvos (3b) were they simply switched the customary days of a Jewish wedding to a different day in order to avoid an anti-religious mandate. 

We are heading toward the Ten Days of Repentance between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, a time traditionally understood when God is closer and more receptive to our prayers and repentance (see Rosh Hashanah 18a.) Of course repentance is important, but they are two other pillars of Godly pardon in the liturgy; charity and prayer. Presumably, each of these have a power separately, aside from jointly. I believe this is what is meant by the line in Avinu Malkeinu, in which we ask to be written in the Scroll of Forgiveness and Pardon. Why is there a separate scroll for forgiveness and pardon? Obviously, we are asking for forgiveness and pardon in order that we be written in the Scroll of Life, the Scroll of Success, etc. I believe the answer is that there is a separate scroll and decree for those who pray for pardon and forgiveness, even if otherwise, they would not deserve such an outcome as their deeds and misdeeds are reviewed. 

(BTW, it is a scroll, not a book. The heavenly magistrate operated way before the codex was invented. And, if you’re going to argue that the heavenly court updated itself with new technology, then we might as well say the “Spreadsheet of Forgiveness.” Personally, I’m happy with sticking with the imagery of a scroll.)