Ten Minutes of Talmud #171—Mine and Yours—Rabbi Amy Scheinerman

There are four characteristics among human beings: One says, “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” — this is the character of the beinuni (average, or ordinary person), and some say this is the character of someone from Sodom. [One says,] “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine” — this is the character of an am ha-aretz (ignoramus). [One says,] “What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours” — this is the character of a chasid (pious person). [One says,] “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine” — this is the character of a rasha (wicked person). (Pirkei Avot 5:10)

 

INTRODUCTION

People are quick to categorize others by their commonalities or distinctive features. Slotting everyone into established broad categories seems irresistible, but I doubt that is the Sages’ intent in offering us this mishnah. The Rabbis want us to consider the ethics and impact of our attitude toward property — both money and possessions — and how our attitude and economic choices inform our lives and relationships with others. It might help to display the four possibilities as a two-by-two grid with attitude toward one’s own property heading the columns, and attitude toward someone else’s property heading the rows. 

This makes it clear how the Rabbis evaluate the four combinations of attitudes toward one’s own property and that of others: what makes for desirable or dangerous ethical attitudes? The mishnah also encourages us to ask: which type am I, and why?

COMMENTARY

The two extreme approaches are the easiest to understand. The rasha (wicked), who claims everything for themself, willfully disregards boundaries and has no respect for the claims of others. If what is yours is mine, what prevents me from feeling entitled to appropriate your possessions for myself any time I want? It is difficult to imagine a society functioning with many people acting this way.

Similarly easy to comprehend is the one who claims that what is mine is yours, and vice versa; this person is foolishly ignorant of appropriate boundaries.

The chasid (pious person) is generous, but perhaps to a fault. The chasid is aware of, and acknowledges ownership of possessions, but (we are to presume) they want to share what they  have with others. Perhaps they are inspired by teachings such as that of R. Elazar of Bartota in Pirkei Avot 3:7; perhaps the chasid not only wholeheartedly believes, but is fully prepared to act on the belief that everything comes from God and therefore ultimately belongs to God; the human focus on possession is thereby a distraction from what is truly important in life.

Pirkei Avot 3:7

R. Elazar of Bartota said: Give [God] from what is [God’s], for you and what is yours are [God’s]. Thus it says concerning David, For everything comes from You, and it is Your gift that we have given You (1 Chronicles 29:14).

Arguably, the most difficult category to understand is the “ordinary” person, deemed by some the “attitude of Sodom,” a city populated by wholly wicked people (Genesis 19). At first blush, “what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours” seems merely definitional. The challenge here is to understand why the Rabbis connect this ostensibly reasonable and neutral attitude with Sodom. The biblical city of Sodom was the epitome of inhospitality, corruption, and violence; Sodom is emblematic of social degradation, evil, and a complete breakdown of proper social order. In the extreme, unvarying adherence to legal boundaries results in a society in which people refuse responsibility for taking care of one another: they do not share their resources and donate some of what they have to those in need. Rather, they live in isolated spheres, caring only for themselves and unresponsive to the needs of others. What begins by seeming reasonable ends up cruel and evil. Perhaps the Rabbis are warning us that the “average” masquerades as reasonable, but is dangerous in the extreme, even more threatening than the rasha (evil) because the rasha is easy to recognize, while the “average” masquerades as normal and acceptable.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Which of the “four types” do you think most accurately describes you? Which one would you like to most closely match? Why? 
2. We might compare the “Four Children” of the Passover Haggadah with the “four types” in this mishnah. Just as each of us is a mix of “wise,” “wicked,” “simple,” and “unable to ask,” so, too, at various times we adopt varying attitudes toward possession. Can you identify conditions and  situations that incline you toward each of the four types in M Pirkei Avot 5:10?
3. Clearly, the most troubling attitude is the one we would be most inclined to term “normal,” “reasonable,” or “appropriate.” Consider R. Ovadiah of Bertinoro’s commentary. He warns us of the “I-have-mine” attitude that leads some to disregard the needs of others. Do you see that attitude at play in the world around you? Do you think this attitude can be countered on a societal level?

“The thing is close to coming to the temperament of Sodom because since one who gets accustomed to this, will not want to give benefit to another, even with something that benefits the other, this one does not. And this was the temperament of Sodom because they intended to stop sojourners from staying among them, even though the land before them was broad and they did not lack anything.” (R. Ovadiah b. Avraham of Bertinoro, 15th century, in his commentary on the Mishnah)