Print this Article
Rooting out Middat Sedom
A Shiur Halacha by Dayan Shlomo Cohen on Parashat VaYera
In this week’s Parasha we read about the destruction of the people of Sedom, a town with evil and wayward ways. Hachamim relate many stories of the atrocities they committed. Hashem in all his mercy saw no alternative but to completely destroy Sedom despite Avraham Avinu’s pleas.
What did they do wrong? Did they have any ideology or beliefs?
The Mishna in Pirke Avot gives us some insight into this matter. The Mishna says there are four types of mindsets when it comes to ownership and sharing.
One who says what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours is considered to be a mediocre person, and some say that it is the way the people of Sedom behave. What’s wrong with that? Seems perfectly logical…
But, in truth, if you follow this mantra fully, you will end up telling the rich man not to help the poor man, because he must not give up his money for another.
The Shulhan Aruch rules that if someone lives on your land, if the land is not meant to rent out or to use, you may not charge them. This is true even if there is a benefit to the squatter, as he would’ve rented elsewhere were it not for your property. This is immoral to charge him as it constitutes a Middat Sedom.
The Rema explains, however, that you may prevent them from living to begin with, but you cannot charge them retroactively. [Although there are instances in which we can force an owner to allow someone to use it, for example, if the owner is barred by law or the circumstances from benefitting from the property. We must add that this is only with regards to temporary use.]
The Noda B’Yehuda was asked by an author and a printer, which in those days involved an arduous task of setting plates. Someone printed a commentary on Mishnayot, and the printer wanted to use those plates to print another set of Mishnayot without the commentary – and earn some extra bucks. However, the author claimed that the plates should belong to him. The printer retorted that it was Middat Sedom!
First, the Noda B’Yehuda answered, it would depend on how the printer was paid. If he was paid a lump sum for the entire job, then the plates and all of the work would belong to the printer. If, however, he was paid for each part of the job: for the arrangement of the letters, for the plates, for the printing etc. then the client would own the plates which he paid for, and then the question of Middat Sedom would arise.
He posits that this would be a matter of dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh. The Gemara in Bava Batra discusses two brothers who inherit a field with all the land having equal value. Generally, we would divide the land via lottery. However, one brother has a field next to one of the halves, and he wants the half that is near his property. The other brother objects, claiming that he should be paid for forgoing his right to a lottery. According to the Rambam such a claim would be a form of Middat Sedom, as the objecting brother gains nothing by giving up the other half. However, according to the Rosh, since the land would have been divided via lottery and he might have won the more lucrative half (which his other brother wants…), he may object to giving up his right.
Perhaps, the reasoning behind their dispute is whether or not one can apply the concept of “Middat Sedom” to the extent that one must “give up” his property – in this case, the right to a lottery. Similarly, in the case of the author, the rights to the plates are his property and the Halacha should depend on whether we follow the Rambam or the Rosh. Maran follows the Rambam while the Rema follows the Rosh.
However, in the printer’s story, the Noda B’Yehuda argues, it may be that all would agree that the author can object to the reprint. This is because there may be a loss to the author, in which case the concept of Middat Sedom wouldn’t apply, since, if there wouldn’t be another set of Mishnayot, some people may buy the set printed by the author just for the sake of the Mishnayot.