Jared Rutner
R. Jonathan Sacks remarked in his longstanding weekly parshah series, Covenant and Conversation, that “It was never my ambition or aspiration to be a rabbi. I went to university to study economics.”[1] He reiterated this inclination when recounting his famous encounter with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. He consulted with the Rebbe regarding the following career choices: “a barrister, or an economist, or an academic philosopher.”[2] Despite these other ambitions, R. Sacks followed the Rebbe’s advice and became a rabbi, leaving a distinguished legacy bridging traditional Judaism with modern philosophy, science, and ethics.
Nonetheless, his interest in economics and the Jewish economic worldview never waned. As Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, R. Sacks founded the Jewish Association of Business Ethics (JABE) to unite business leaders and poskim around ethical commercial practice. Furthermore, he remarked that he fulfilled much of his ambition to study economics when noting, “The strange fact was, however, that I fulfilled all those ambitions at the very moment I seem[ed] to be walking in the opposite direction…I delivered Britain’s two leading economics lectures.”[3] Beyond these addresses, R. Sacks developed his economic worldview throughout his broader writings. In particular, he attempted to elucidate the particular economic worldview and system that the Torah and Jewish Sages, Hazal, would support, by drawing on many of his hallmark themes from the ethical responsibility of covenant to the importance of human freedom and dignity.
R. Sacks nonetheless recognized the anachronism inherent in aligning pre-modern Hazal with modern economic systems. He notes on multiple occasions that “there is no direct inference to be made from Torah to contemporary politics…[or] economic theory.”[4] Elsewhere, he adds that “it would be quite wrong to identify a great religious tradition with any particular set of economic institutions.”[5] R. Sacks explains that the incongruity in doing so is that the corpus of the Jewish tradition is multifaceted, overlapping with many modern systems of economic thought. In addition, he argues that ultimately, and fundamentally, Hazal “does not seek to determine a particular economic regime.”[6] Its values are timeless and more concerned with the moral foundations of the market, denoted by the “quality and texture of [people’s] relationships.”[7]
Despite these important qualifications, R. Sacks asserts that there is a certain economic system and set of incentives that most aligns with the worldview of Tanakh and Hazal that can be extrapolated through what he describes as an “alternative interpretive history.”[8] In a variety of places throughout his works, he argues that Hazal “values the free economy”[9] and, “in general, …were in favour of markets and competition.”[10] Drawing widely from well-known pesukim and aggadot to agricultural laws established by the Torah and their interpretations by Hazal, R. Sacks creatively and carefully posits that the Torah and Hazal would most likely subscribe to a system of free market capitalism that is also bolstered by a strong system of self-promoting economic welfare.
I. Biblical and Rabbinic Economic System of Choice: Free Markets
A. Property Rights
For R. Sacks, the Torah’s emphasis on individual property rights is the clearest indicator of its economic orientation.[11] Throughout Tanakh, private property functions both as a safeguard against power and as part of its ideal social vision. R. Sacks cites the story of the dispute amongst Moshe and Korah and his followers. Moshe noted, when defending himself to Hashem in response to the claims of those rebelling, that “I have not taken the ass of any one of them, nor have I wronged any one of them” (Bamidbar 16:15),[12] underscoring Moshe’s respect for property rights despite his leadership position.
R. Sacks also repeatedly points to the motif underlying Shmuel’s warning to the Jewish people that should they request a king, it may lead to the “sacrifice of rights of property and person.”[13] The prophetic ideal envisions a society in which “every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree” (Mikhah 4:4), possessing their own personal domain and rights. This is unlike economic systems of socialism or communism in which there are no individual property rights, especially not over means of economic production such as animals, land, or capital. Instead, it aligns with free markets in which individuals deploy their own human and physical capital.
The emphasis on the importance of property rights in the worldview of Tanakh and Hazal to R. Sacks was not merely a practical concession to the natural human desire for their own territory and personal control. This freedom, R. Sacks argues, is what the Tanakh and Hazal felt was a basic condition to properly serve Hashem, who “seeks the free worship of free human beings.”[14] Thus, it is a necessary precondition for religious and spiritual behavior.
B. Respect for Labor, Self-Sufficiency, and Innovation
R. Sacks consistently argues that the biblical and rabbinic worldview is open to invention and innovation that closely aligns it with a capitalist economic system. He locates this orientation in their strong respect for labor.
On a biblical level, R. Sacks notes that we clearly see this sentiment in the lead up to the flood story. Hashem, with unlimited powers and sovereignty over the world, is about to unleash a devastating flood upon the world, and informs Noah of these imminent plans. Surely, a God capable of unleashing the flood could have saved Noah without human intervention. Nonetheless, Hashem commands Noah to build the ark himself.
In addition, R. Sacks notes that this ethic existed within the purview of Hazal on a deeply personal level, as many of them worked themselves. Rav is famously recorded as saying that “Flay carcasses in the marketplace and do not say: I am a Priest and a great man, and it is beneath my dignity” (y. Berakhot 9:2). R. Sacks goes as far as to say that much of the “source of Rabbinic authority”[15] emanates from their deep practical familiarity with daily struggles that they acquire from laboring themselves.
Similar to his argument concerning property rights, R. Sacks maintains that this positive inclination toward the dignity of labor transcended mere material concerns. It is a stance that inherently argues that work and economic creativity are religious in service of Hashem. While the Torah commands the Jewish people to rest on the seventh day, it states in a famous verse that “Six days shall you labour and do all your work” (Shemot 20:8). R. Sacks posits that Hazal viewed the phrase “shall” as not merely permission to labor but a positive commandment to work just as Hashem had during the period of Creation. It is an act of imitatio dei no less than the act of resting on Shabbat.[16]
Furthermore, R. Sacks argues that Hazal felt that through the act of economic creativity one effectively becomes “partners with God in the work of creation.”[17] The famous Midrash Tanhuma (Tazria 5) records the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Roman, Turnus Rufus, in which Rabbi Akiva argues that Hashem left the world incomplete so that humanity can partner with Him to complete it. R. Sacks maintains that this encounter highlights the importance of human innovation and creativity as a desire of Hashem himself. Biblical and rabbinic thought, according to R. Sacks, “demythologize[d]”[18] and deconsecrated the nature Hashem created, viewing it as something that could be positively improved upon. R. Sacks eloquently summarizes this view as done in the context of property rights that “the creative God seeks creativity from mankind,”[19] a view that aligns with a market system that puts a premium on innovation.
C. A Positive View Toward the Creation of Wealth
R. Sacks argues that Tanakh and Hazal adopt a positive view of both possessing and creating material wealth in a manner that aligns them most closely with a free market system. They possess a positive stance toward it as they simply view it as a blessing from Hashem, given that Hashem created the material world, and, by extension, physical wealth. In support of this claim, R. Sacks quotes the statement from Rav that states that “in the world to come, we will face judgement for every legitimate pleasure we deny ourselves in this life” (y. Kiddushin 4:12). R. Sacks views such a statement from Hazal as their complete rejection of asceticism, not only at a practical level but also as not being part of their view of the ideal religious personality.
Furthermore, R. Sacks creatively reads the dictum “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Bereishit 1:28) as arguing that there is a positive biblical commandment to create material wealth. Since the “market economy is the best system we know for alleviating poverty”[20] and in turn creating wealth, R. Sacks argues that Hazal surely would most align with its set of economic institutions. Nonetheless, R. Sacks qualifies this argument by noting that Hazal seemingly distinguish between wealth and consumption. They did not condone unlimited materialism and consumption. Hazal’s view on proper consumption, R. Sacks argues, can be summarized in the famous phrase from Pirkei Avot (4:1), “Who is wealthy? He who rejoices in what he has,” which is not a rejection of benefiting from the material world but a sentiment of restraint toward it.
D. Tolerance to Personal Motives That Benefit Society
Another key disposition of the biblical and rabbinic worldview that R. Sacks argues aligns it with a free market-based system is their comfort with the positive role of competition and selfishly driven acts that ultimately benefit society. On a biblical level, R. Sacks pointed to the quote which states that “all labor and all achievement spring from man’s envy of his neighbor” (Kohelet 4:4), underscoring a certain necessary acceptance of the fact that societal achievement many a time occurs without the most noble intentions. In addition, Hazal explicitly note that “were it not for the evil inclination, no one would build a house, marry a wife, have children, or engage in business” (Bereishit Rabbah 9:7).
R. Sacks sees these sentiments as aligning quite well with the famous statement of Adam Smith concerning the nature of free market production. Smith argues that each economic participant in such a system “intends only on his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”[21] Smith, thus, underscores the tolerance of the market for actions that benefits the collective, despite being completely self-motivated, with such outcomes unintended, which unusually parallels the attitudes that the Torah and Hazal indicate above in Kohelet and Bereishit Rabbah.
This favorable disposition to positive results that stem from improper intentions may seem at first glance in tension with Hazal and a halakhic legal system in which proper intention or kavanah is a major focal point. R. Sacks reconciles this by arguing that it seems that Hazal distinguish between the realms of bein adam la-haveiro and bein adam la-Makom, interpersonal commandments as opposed to those between man and God. In the latter, and without exception, “purity of heart”[22] is sacrosanct and is the ultimate barometer for evaluating the meaning of any such act. However, amongst humanity, R. Sacks argues, it is not that intention does not matter, but that it is ultimately subservient to the outcome which is the determining factor in evaluating the justness of the action.[23]
E. Disgust of Poverty and the Ideal View of Historical Progress
Related to its role as an immense source of wealth creation, R. Sacks argues that free market economics would likely be the economic system most supported by the biblical and rabbinic worldview, due to it being the “best antidote to general poverty ever invented.”[24] Hazal keenly recognized the pains that came along with economic poverty, and truly thought of it as an inherent evil, even characterizing it as “a kind of death” (Nedarim 7b). They refused to see physical degradation and poverty as some type of value as other cultures did, and “resisted any attempt to romanticize, rationalize or anaesthetize”[25] it. Hazal went as far as to frame it as the worst trouble that could befall a person, declaring that “If all other troubles were placed on one side and poverty on the other, poverty would outweigh them all” (Bereishit Rabbah 31:14). Relatedly, R. Sacks argues that phrases in the Torah that seem to support the institution of poverty are merely meant to transmit that God is always looking to advocate for those in poverty against oppression, and to ensure they have a means out of their current state. They never serve to indicate a validation of the state itself.
While one could construe these sentiments as supporting a more egalitarian and socialistic worldview, R. Sacks maintains that Hazal are not focused on the complete elimination of poverty, since that is merely a “utopian dream.”[26] They understood the reality that there is in practice a distribution of wealth, as it says that “there will always be poor people in the land” (Devarim 15:11). Rather, they are focused on ensuring that those in poverty can mitigate their situation and ascend the ladder, which, R. Sacks argues, the free market has historically been the best system to allow for such promise. Furthermore, such a system aligns well with what R. Sacks describes as Tanakh’s and Hazal’s notion of “linear time,”[27] which saw progress in history and did not think there was a class of poor strictly fixed to their place in the social hierarchy.
R. Sacks maintains that Hazal’s insistence on the deplorable nature of poverty transcends the notion that such people live in overall material need. R. Sacks thought that Hazal veiled poverty primarily due to the humiliation associated with being dependent on others for sustenance, as Hazal proclaimed, “Work at anything, rather than be dependent on others” (y. Berakhot 9:2). Furthermore, R. Sacks thought that Hazal surely agree to the notion from Adam Smith that “nothing tends so much to corrupt and enervate and debase the mind as dependency,”[28] underscoring the destabilizing nature of total dependence on others.
In addition to these material and moral arguments against poverty, R. Sacks argues that poverty in the eyes of Hazal is also a negative religious and spiritual state. In such poverty, Hazal maintain that one could not adequately enjoy the blessing of God’s physical gifts. Furthermore, it prevents one from reaching “stable religious heights”[29] and understanding the depth of Torah. R. Sacks bases this latter argument on the words of Hazal in a famous quote from Pirkei Avot (3:21) that “if there is no meal, there can be no Torah.” Similarly, R. Sacks suggests that a similar sentiment can be seen in the words of Rambam, who notes that “it is impossible to turn the mind to higher things when you are hungry or thirsty or without shelter or in pain” (Moreh Nevukhim III:27).
II. Biblical and Rabbinic Qualifications to Free Markets
Despite this overall alignment with many of the fundamental qualities of free market economics, R. Sacks notes that there are a variety of ethical concepts and institutions embedded within Judaism that run counter to certain aspects of a purely free market based system of economics. These include shemitah, yoveil, and the notion that, ultimately, God owns all property and wealth. However, R. Sacks argues that such points of tension with free markets within the biblical and rabbinic worldview do not serve as a sign of rejection of such an economic system. Rather, they serve as recognition of the limits of free markets and as a means to curtail their deleterious features on society. They act as the “moral environment in which they [free markets] are sustained.”[30] The market relies on “virtues not produced by the market,”[31] without which the organization of economic life around free markets to act as the most effective and welfare inducing tools to allocate resources would not be able to survive.
A. Emphasis on Business Ethics and Cultivation of Societal Trust
R. Sacks emphasizes that Tanakh and Hazal ground business ethics not only in the need for a functioning marketplace, but also in preserving religious and spiritual integrity. Practically, Hazal recognized that morally perfect markets would not arise completely on their own. They recognized the market’s perennial temptations to exploit imbalances of information or power, whether between buyers and sellers or employers and employees. As a result, according to R. Sacks, Tanakh and Hazal place significance on merchants using accurate measurements, and at times were even willing to adopt price controls and other protectionist policies to ensure a certain level of fairness.
R. Sacks illustrates this ethic through a range of halakhic interventions that limit exploitative market behavior. Tanakh commands, “When you buy or sell to your neighbor, do not cheat one another” (Vayikra 25:14), which Hazal operationalize by invalidating transactions priced more than one-sixth above market value. Under the rubric of lifnei iveir, they further prohibit misleading practices such as presenting used goods as new. Pesahim (30a) recounts how merchants raised prices of earthenware vessels before Pesach, following Rav’s stringent ruling requiring their disposal; in response, Shmuel threatened to adopt the lenient view permitting storage instead, thereby curbing demand and limiting price hikes. R. Sacks reads this episode as evidence that Hazal were willing to constrain market outcomes—even by adjusting legal rulings—when profit threatened social welfare. Parallel protections appear in labor law, including prohibitions on delayed wages and allowances for workers to eat from the produce they harvest.[32]
As a direct extension of these preventive measures, the biblical and rabbinic worldview, in the eyes of R. Sacks, also proactively seeks to ensure that there was an ethic in the marketplace that ensures trustworthiness and reliability, as the “the market economy depends on trust.”[33] R. Sacks argues that a clear point of Yeshayahu’s famous rebuke of the Jewish people in the first chapter of Yeshayahu is a hope that Yerushalyim will return to being a kiryah ne’emanah, a “faithful city,” not only in a religious sense, but also in a societal and economic manner in which the streets and markets will no longer be ruled by thieves. Furthermore, this sentiment is highlighted by Rava, who notes that the first question that will be asked upon ascending to heaven for judgment is, “Did you conduct your business faithfully?” (Shabbat 31a). R. Sacks argues that this question not only implies a personal responsibility to act fairly but also to act “in such a way as to inspire trust.”[34]
However, R. Sacks argues that Hazal’s concern to maintain a strong sense of business ethics is also underlined by religious concerns. In their worldview, one cannot merely separate the domains of bein adam la-haveiro and bein adam la-Makom. In essence, Hazal felt that a prerequisite for the cultivation of a genuine religious personality is proper interpersonal behavior and, by extension, “political and economic virtue.”[35] R. Sacks cites Rabbi Yishmael’s teaching in the Mekhilta (Shemot 15:26) that honesty in business is tantamount to observing the entire corpus of halakhah, underscoring Hazal’s view that ethical commerce is central to authentic religious life.
B. The Unifying Experience of Shabbat
Beyond these explicit market rules, R. Sacks argues that Shabbat indirectly limits unrestrained markets by embedding ethical constraints within Jewish law. While it is anachronistic to say that it was “constructed on the basis of economic calculation,”[36] R. Sacks maintains that it nonetheless can be viewed as Tanakh and Hazal declaring to the market: “thus far and no further.”[37] It serves to limit the reach of the market, creating realms unrelated to prices, wealth, and economic productivity.
Shabbat removes an entire day from market logic by prohibiting melakhah, understood as all productive manipulation of nature. In doing so, it suspends economic hierarchies, equalizes social standing across wealth and occupation, and creates a shared communal experience through practices such as hadlakat neirot and seudah shelishit. R. Sacks emphasizes the historical novelty of this institution, noting that contemporaneous cultures lacked any comparable day of rest and often dismissed Shabbat as indulgence rather than moral restraint.
C. Family Life’s Central Role in Religious Practice
R. Sacks argues that the Torah further resists market norms by locating many core mitzvot and peak religious moments within the family home rather than impersonal public spaces. While many mitzvot are practiced communally, R. Sacks points to many of the practices of the main holidays, including the close-knit family havurah eating the korban pesach and the act of sitting together in the sukkah. In addition, R. Sacks argues that this deep sense of familial bond and mutual belonging in the context of commandments can be seen in how interpersonal or social laws are framed in the Torah. They are not framed in the context of the general impoverished class or as those distinct and separate, rather they are consistently framed in a “language of kinship,”[38] such as “If one of your brothers becomes poor” (Vayikra 25:25) and “Do not wrong your brother” (Vayikra 25:14).
Due to this centering of the Jewish familial life in religious practice, R. Sacks argues that Hazal are clearly intimating their view that parental, spousal, and brotherly relationships in halakhah are clearly those of covenant, whose commitment is not formed based on desire for mutual benefit. Rather, they are based on a sense of “mutual belonging” and giving that is surrounded by “a hedge of roses” (Shir Ha-Shirim 7:4 and Sanhedrin 37a),[39] constituting the halakhic family life that is “at odds with a market ethic”[40] focused essentially on furthering only one’s personal gain.
D. Universal Education
R. Sacks argues that Tanakh and Hazal’s commitment to universal, compulsory Torah education both constrains the reach of the market and, over time, strengthens it. R. Sacks notes that the import of universal learning is seen in the phrase that states that every parent has the obligation to “teach these things diligently to your children, speaking of them when you sit at home or travel on the way, when you lie down and when you rise up” (Devarim 6:7).
R. Sacks argues that Hazal genuinely intended for Torah learning to be an act that is both attainable and obligatory for each Jew. He points to Rambam’s interpretation of the Sifri in Hilkhot Talmud Torah (3:1) that declares that, while the crowns of priesthood and kingship are reserved for certain members of the community, the “crown of Torah which transcends them all, lies before you,” the entire Jewish people.[41] Last, this sentiment is seen from Bava Batra (21a), which notes that centuries before any other religion or society, R. Yehoshua ben Gamla established a compulsory educational system for children. R. Sacks highlights that this educational system was supported by the community to ensure that everyone could attend, so that educational access was not left “to the market and to the ability to pay.”[42]
While, as argued earlier, it was precisely in the realm of education that Hazal seem to show favor to the markets, R. Sacks qualifies that Hazal draw a distinction between provision vs. access to education. They were open to competition that resulted in the proliferation of different educational institutions, but they sought to limit the role of the market when it came to granting access to such education, in order to ensure that no one would ever be limited in gaining access to it due to economic standing.
E. God as the Ultimate Property Owner and the Social Agenda of Tzedakah
A key feature of the biblical and rabbinic worldview that acted as a check on some of the deleterious aspects of free markets is their theological view that ultimately everything belongs to God, which R. Sacks argues is the “single most fundamental principle of biblical law.”[43] In other words, there is never any true sense of having any complete ownership over any individual person, piece of land (especially in Israel), or any accumulated wealth. R. Sacks, in support of this contention, quotes the phrase which says that land “shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine: you are strangers and sojourners with Me” (Vayikra 25:23). While the notion of respecting private property is a cornerstone of the argument R. Sacks summons for Hazal’s potential alignment with free market ideas, R. Sacks qualifies this notion by postulating that such a pretense of ownership is only in relation to one’s fellow man. However, with respect to God, the Jewish people hold no actual property rights but merely hold such assets in a “trust for God.”[44]
Due to this recognition about the nature of God’s ultimate ownership of physical assets, the biblical and rabbinic worldview, as argued by R. Sacks, dictates certain “conditions of trusteeship”[45] for that wealth. Those conditions do not relate to ensuring equality of income and wealth. Hazal gave little focus to that, as they did not see “worth in terms of what a person earns and spends.”[46] Furthermore, R. Sacks argues that Hazal are not even most greatly concerned with “equality…of opportunity.”[47]
Rather, the Torah and Hazal stipulate the importance of creating a system that allows for the utmost kevod ha-beriyot, which R. Sacks views as every member of Jewish society being treated with “equal dignity.”[48] In order to best accomplish this, there needs to exist an economic environment that is bent on “restoring people’s capacity to earn their own livelihood as free and independent agents.”[49] This goal can be seen in the Torah and Hazal’s emphasis on personal property rights and respect for personal labor discussed earlier. In addition, in what might be one of his most frequently made points, R. Sacks posits that, in Hazal’s system of tzedakah, this emphasis and purpose toward instilling dignity and independence is quite evident. This is the case according to Rambam, who writes that “the highest degree of charity, exceeded by none, is…by putting him in a situation where he can dispense with other people’s aid” (Hilkhot Matanot Aniyim 7:10). In other words, as R. Sacks extrapolated, the ideal form of tzedakah is one in which the recipient receives economic independence and can free himself from the charity of others.
R. Sacks notes that, while free markets often maximize total societal wealth, they cannot by themselves ensure equitable distribution or fulfill the ethical obligations of holding God’s property. As a result, the Torah and Hazal developed many halakhic institutions that acted as “distributive justice”[50] to correct for such inequalities. R. Sacks offers the novel argument that this is the ultimate definition of tzedakah for the Torah and Hazal . He posits it is a uniquely Jewish concept that is “untranslatable,”[51] as it combines both charity and justice. It is borne out of a “sense of equity rather than generosity,”[52] and is a strict obligation of halakhah unlike in many legal systems, which would view such acts as generous charity.
While Hazal usually do not formally conceptualize social agricultural dictums through the legal rubric of tzedakah, R. Sacks argues that mitzvot such as leket, shikhehah, and shemitah are part of the Torah and Hazal’s vision of tzedakah as a means of redistribution in order to address the flaws that arise within pure free markets. He stipulates that since the Torah and the society that Hazal primarily dealt with were set in an economy consisting of agricultural production, they “pursued its religious and social programme”[53] largely through these realms as opposed to those of direct commerce or trade.
R. Sacks argues that the specific social agenda behind many agricultural laws can be divided based on the frequency of the obligation. The obligations that have constant or near yearly occurrence, including leket, shikhehah, pei’ah, and ma’aseir ani are to ensure that the poor have a constant source of livelihood and means of sustenance. These acts directly accomplish this, as the first three leave certain dedicated parts of one’s field for the poor, while ma’aseir ani, given once every three years, ensures that they would receive a dedicated, more substantive amount of produce.
The less regular ones, shemitah and yoveil, are meant to address more structural and persistent wealth inequality that accumulates at a frequency that would not require “constant intervention[s] in the economy.”[54] R. Sacks says that this was accomplished through shemitah’s freeing of slaveswho had sold themselves into slavery once they could not independently support themselves, and its cancellation of debts.[55] Yoveil accomplished this through its proclamation to return fields sold over time to their initial ancestral owners. These initiatives of yoveil and shemitah thus allowed for the restoration of a more even playing field in the economy and prevented the burden of slavery, debt, and forced sales to perpetuate through future generations.
Over time, however, Jewish society and the broader global economic order became less agrarian and more involved in commerce and trade, while the Jewish people also lost sovereignty over their own land. As a result, R. Sacks argues, the role of this system of tzedakah, for Hazal, as a means to counter the potential inequities that the market produced, shifted its focus from the agricultural domain to the “direct provision of financial aid.”[56] While tzedakah through direct deliverance of money always existed in the Torah and Hazal’s worldview, it had been less of a key tool for social welfare. However, once money and other financial assets became the central tool through which most societies centered their economic exchanges, Hazal adapted the tools to implement their social agendas to help the poor.[57] R. Sacks argues that it was their “systematic attempt to apply the principles of the Bible to new economic circumstances.”[58]
Focusing on periods following the cessation of Jewish political sovereignty, R. Sacks argues that the communally imposed systems of the tamhui and kuppah, communal funds, were examples of systems of tzedakah to ensure that every member of the Jewish community had a source of livelihood. They created, in effect, a “mini-welfare state,”[59] and were widespread across the Jewish world. Rambam notes that “we have never seen or heard about a Jewish community which does not have a charity fund” (Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim 9:3), underscoring the pervasiveness of this sentiment to provide financial support for all of the community.
R. Sacks acknowledges that institutions such as shemitah, yoveil, and mandated communal charity are most sharply in tension with his view that Torah generally endorses regulated free markets. Accordingly, R. Sacks tempers this interpretation, arguing that these institutions do not aim at equalizing wealth, as in socialism, but rather treat redistribution as a necessary corrective rather than an ideal. R. Sacks supports this view through a reading of Berakhot (3b), where the Rabbis reject King David’s proposal for communal support of the poor, likening it to feeding a lion with a handful or filling a pit with its own earth, signaling skepticism toward redistribution as a sufficient solution. R. Sacks argues that the Rabbis were maintaining that “economic growth is more powerful than simple redistribution.”[60]
In conclusion, despite cautioning against directly extrapolating laws rooted in an ancient, God-centered agrarian society, R. Sacks argues that the economic system most consistent with Tanakh and Hazal is a regulated form of free markets. Their respect for property rights, creativity, and wealth creation aligns closely with market principles. At the same time, R. Sacks stresses that unrestrained markets—governed solely by profit and price—conflict with Jewish values, due to persistent inequality and limited social mobility. Through robust business ethics, institutions such as Shabbat and tzedakah, and the recognition of God as the ultimate owner of wealth, Tanakh and Hazal impose moral limits on markets. Together, these constraints and freedoms form an economic vision that treats markets not as a concession to human greed, but as a lekhathilah system capable of honoring human dignity and the image of God.
[1] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Judaism’s Life-Changing Ideas: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible (Maggid, 2020), 127.
[2] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, I Believe: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible (Maggid, 2022), 64.
[3] Sacks, I Believe, 64.
[4] Sacks, I Believe, 182.
[5] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “Morals and Markets” in Morals and Markets: Seventh Annual IEA Hayek Memorial Lecture, ed. Colin Robinson (The Institute of Economic Affairs, 2000), 14.
[6] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Faith in the Future (Darton, Longman and Todd, 1995), 195.
[7] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Essays on Ethics: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible (Maggid, 2016), 205.
[8] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Tradition in an Untraditional Age: Essays on Modern Jewish Thought (Vallentine, Mitchell, 1990), 184.
[9] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations, revised edition (Bloomsbury, 2003), 159.
[10] Sacks, Faith in the Future, 203.
[11] As R. Sacks notes on multiple occasions, for many of the points of similarity between the biblical vision and that of free markets, he draws on the observations and arguments of David Landes in his The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Little Brown 1998).
[12] As it relates to all translations from biblical passages or those from Hazal and related rabbinic texts, I have throughout this essay copied over the exact translation R. Sacks employs in his various writings. This is primarily to remain both consistent in quoting method throughout the paper, and, since in many instances, R. Sacks derives particular translations which bolster his argument.
[13] Sacks, Dignity of Difference, 93. However, he notes in Judaism’s Life-Changing Ideas (48) that such a concern of a king appropriating private property is only condoned in the context of “national necessities, but not for private gain.” This qualification is seen, R. Sacks notes, in I Kings 21, when Eliyahu critiques Ahav for seizing Navot’s vineyard.
[14] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 14.
[15] Sacks, Tradition in an Untraditional Age, 198.
[16] Ibid., 189.
[17] Ibid., 188, in which he notes that this quote is based on Shabbat (10a).
[18] Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 16.
[19] Sacks, Dignity of Difference, 96.
[20] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “The Limits of the Free Market” (May 19, 2012), https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/behar/the-limits-of-the-free-market/
[21] Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Modern Library, 1937), 423.
[22] Ibid., 98.
[23] Although he does not explicitly phrase it this way, R. Sacks seems to be indicating that, in the words of Hazal, mitzvot tzrichot kavanah, mitzvot require proper intent, regarding mitzvot bein adam la-Makom but not necessarily regarding mitzvot bein adam la-haveiro.
[24] Sacks, Morality, 94.
[25] Sacks, Dignity of Difference, 97.
[26] Sacks, Faith in the Future, 200.
[27] Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 17.
[28] Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence (Liberty Classics, 1982), 333. In Faith in the Future (200), I believe R. Sacks mistakenly attributes this quote to David Hume.
[29] Sacks, Tradition in an Untraditional Age, 185.
[30] Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 20.
[31] Sacks, Dignity of Difference, 152.
[32] R. Sacks also discusses workers’ rights and their limits in Tradition in an Untraditional Age, 190-191.
[33] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant & Conversation: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Deuteronomy, Renewal of the Sinai Covenant (Maggid, 2019), 46.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Sacks, Faith in the Future, 202.
[36] Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 23.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Sacks, Faith in the Future, 201.
[39] R. Sacks provides this quotation but does not provide the exact source. I suspect he is drawing off the interpretation of this passage from Shir Ha-Shirim as seen in the statement of Rav Kahana (Sanhedrin 37a).
[40] Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 21.
[41] Sacks, Tradition in an Untraditional Age, 196.
[42] Sacks, “Morals and Markets,” 21.
[43] Sacks, Judaism’s Life-Changing Ideas, 178.
[44] Sacks, “Global Covenant: A Jewish Perspective on Globalization,” in Making Globalization Good: The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism, ed. John Dunning (Oxford University, 2003), 222.
[45] Rabbi Jonathon Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility (Schocken Books, 2007), 32.
[46] Sacks, Faith in the Future, 201.
[47] Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World, 39.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Sacks, Essays on Ethics, 204.
[50] Sacks, “Global Covenant,” 222.
[51] Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World, 32.
[52] Sacks, Tradition in an Untraditional Age, 193.
[53] Sacks, Essays on Ethics, 293.
[54] Sacks, Judaism’s Life-Changing Ideas, 177.
[55] In Tradition in an Untraditional Age, 188, R. Sacks argues that Hillel’s prozbol reflects a shift toward “redistribution yielding to economic growth”: as commerce expanded, debt cancellation began to undermine lending and ultimately harm the poor, justifying Hazal’s effective suspension of shemitah’s debt release.
[56] Sacks, Dignity of Difference, 118.
[57] He makes this point about the rise of money in To Heal a Fractured World, 34.
[58] Sacks, Dignity of Difference, 118.
[59] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “Has Europe Lost Its Soul?” (December 12, 2011), https://www.rabbisacks.org/videos/has-europe-lost-its-soul-pontifical-gregorian-university/.
[60] Ibid., 122.
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.