Our parasha covers a number of different topics. It opens with the division of jobs in the Mishkan – the Tabernacle – and closes with the sacrifices of the nesi’im – the heads of the tribes – brought as part of its consecration. In the middle we find rules that pertain to guarding the Temple from ritual impurity, together with the laws of nazir and sotah, laws whose focus is also holiness and preventing ritual impurity. The unifying factor of all these matters seems apparent. The introduction of the Mishkan into the daily life of the Jewish people brought with it an abundance of sanctity whose expanding circles impact on the reality of every home and every person. However, the flow of the text dealing with these significant spiritual matters is interrupted by a law focusing on a much more mundane matter – how to atone for the sin of stealing:
Speak to the sons of Israel, `When a man or woman commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the LORD, and that person is guilty, then he shall confess his sins which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged (Numbers 5:6-7).
In order to understand the relevance of this matter to the context of our parasha, we must examine the concept of money in Judaism. The Talmud in Tractate Yevamot brings a lengthy discussion dealing with the question of conversion. The discussion involves the conversion process and its components, the question of the classification of the conversion process as a private, public or judicial proceeding, and attempts to define the essence of conversion. The discussion also presents a description of how the convert is informed of what is expected of him as he joins the community of the Jewish people. This is the description as it appears in the Gemara:
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court, the judges say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are frequently visited upon them? If he says: I know, and although I am unworthy of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court accepts him immediately.
And the judges of the court inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. And they inform him of the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot (TB Yevamot 47a).
The Baraita opens with a description of the short interview that the potential convert undergoes, whose aim is to judge his true motivations in joining the Jewish people. Does he still desire to join the Jewish people given the recurring challenges that they face? Is there any ulterior motive involved in his request to become Jewish? Does he recognize that converting to Judaism is not a reward but a challenge?
The acceptance process also involves learning about the commandments. The court is required to explain to the potential convert the framework of obligations and the possibility of punishment in the event that they are transgressed. It is interesting to note that at the very top of that list the sages chose to place “the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe.” Why are these the commandments that are emphasized? The Gemara clarifies that there is a significant difference between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to returning stolen goods. When a Gentile steals – even a miniscule amount – he is liable to receive the death penalty.
What is the reason to specifically mention these mitzvot? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because a Gentile is executed even on account of stealing less than the value of a peruta, and it cannot be returned.
The explanation offered by the Gemara is still unclear. Why is it so important to inform the convert of the difference in status between Jew and Gentile regarding the laws of stealing? And what connection is there between this and the laws of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field?
Rashi explains: So that they should not view the poor people collecting from the field as thieves, and kill them. For idolators show concern for small amounts of money but Jews are willing to be forgiving.
According to Rashi, we can anticipate that the convert may soon have a field, and when the poor come to collect their due according to the Torah, the erstwhile Gentile may kill the invaders because according to the laws with which he is familiar, every robber deserves the same fate. That is why it is so important to teach him that the poor are harvesting parts of his field by right – according to the Torah’s laws of gifts to the poor. Rashi’s explanation goes even further, however, as he points out a deep conceptual difference between Jews and Gentiles regarding attitudes towards ownership, of which these laws are merely a reflection. According to Rashi, while Gentiles have strict sense of ownership over every penny that belongs to them, Jews are more forgiving. The Jewish perspective on ownership is “softer,” following the Rabbinic dictum “What is mine is yours and what is yours is yours” (Mishna Avot 5:10).
This idea is evident even today when we examine property laws in different countries. In America, if someone discovers natural gas, oil, water, etc. on his private property, he owns those resources. In Israel, however, natural resources such as those are viewed as belonging to the entire nation, even if they happen to be found on the property of an individual citizen. This is the law with regard to archaeological finds, as well. In America it is commonplace to shoot a trespasser, while in Israel such a response is permitted only as an act of self-defense (the “Shai Daromi Law” that allows property owners to defend themselves and their property did not pass easily). In the end, the system of laws of charity found in the Torah influences our general perception that in its essence, physical property really belongs to God and it is He who divides it as he deems appropriate. Ownership – possession of property – is less clearly definitive in Jewish law, and a Jewish person recognizes and accepts that sometimes it may be taken from him.
We find another limitation to property rights in Jewish law in the form of takanat ha-shavim – a rabbinic decree established to assist those who want to repent and return what they stole. According to Torah law, someone who steals is obligated to return the very same object that he took. Nevertheless, someone who steals building materials – beams, for example – from another and uses them to build a building, is not required to tear down the entire structure in order to return the original raw products. In order to encourage him to repent, Jewish law allows him to leave the building intact and to repay the value of the original beams that were taken. Perhaps this hints to the fact that ownership and property title is based on historical battles, agreements and compromises. It would be nearly impossible to investigate fully and fairly who owns a particular object without “tearing down the entire structure” in an attempt to go back in history.
The “softer” Jewish perspective of ownership has its roots in holiness and sensitivity to God’s role in the world. It is based on recognition that it was God’s will that this property was given to us, and it is now His will that it was taken from us and given to another.
Our parasha is laden with holy concepts - "raising our eyes to Heaven." We find sacrifices to the Mishkan, donations and asceticism. Perhaps this is why it is so important to discuss the other side of the coin – that a stolen object must be returned, even though in Jewish law and tradition stealing is not a capital offence. Ownership is important, even if our attitude towards it is softened. Moreover, there is particular concern with issues of stealing when dealing with community efforts or religious ones. These are places where there is a tendency to say that it is being done for a higher purpose, so even if there is an element of overcharging, “no one really gets hurt.”
The Torah hints to this in the continuation of the parasha, where the tribal leaders donate wagons to the Mishkan, and Moshe appears reluctant to accept them. Only after he is ordered by God “Accept these things from them, that they may be used in the service of the Mishkan” (Numbers 7:5), does he do so. It appears that Moshe did not understand why the Levites would need such conveniences. They seemed out of place in the context of the service of the Mishkan. God taught him that they would enhance the service and, as such, should be accepted. At the same time, he was told that the family of Kehat should not receive wagons, since their service involved carrying the Temple vessels on their shoulders and they had no need for them.
Even if property ownership should not be man’s most impressive achievement, nevertheless honesty and integrity regarding monetary matters should be the result of striving for religious holiness and a relationship with God.