“There are four types of people [regarding how they view possessions]. One who says, ‘what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours,’ this is the in-between characteristic, and some say this is the characteristic of S’dom (who were punished because of their cruelty). [One who says,] ‘what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine’ is a peasant. [One who says,] ‘what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours’ is pious. [One who says,] ‘what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine’ is wicked.” This Mishnah (Avos 5:10) may seem rather straightforward, but leaves us with one glaring question; if treating one’s own possessions as his or her own is S’dom-like (treating the possessions of others as belonging to those others would seem to be fine, as that is also how one who is “pious” treats them), and treating one’s own possessions as if it belongs to others is considered pious, what would be considered “normal,” i.e. neither wicked nor pious?

Meiri, without posing this specific question, provides us with two possible answers. First, he tells us that there aren’t really two separate opinions about someone whose attitude is “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours,” as each refers to different circumstances. If letting others have/use one’s things causes a loss, it is not considered “S’dom-like.” In circumstances where letting others have/use it will not bring about any loss, on the other hand, not letting them do so is a form of cruelty. Although this answers our original question, as piety could refer to letting others have/use things even if there will be a loss whereas the not-wicked-but-not-pious-either are unwilling to sustain a loss, this approach raises other issues.

For one thing, the wording of “and some say it is the characteristic of S’dom” indicates that both “opinions” are referring to the exact same circumstances (otherwise, it should have said “and if there is no loss involved, it is the characteristic of S’dom”). Secondly, it is not clear that the people of S’dom denied things to others even when it didn’t adversely affect them. True, they would have had enough to eat even if they allowed passers-by to eat from their bountiful land, but wasn’t their fear that if they allowed some to do so, then many, many others would follow, which would impact how much they’d have left? How much money (that is not currently needed) can one have in the bank for it to still be considered a loss if it is given to others instead? Wouldn’t feeding visitors, or letting passers-by eat from their land, automatically mean incurring some kind of loss? Is allowing the demand to increase without proportionally increasing the supply, thereby causing prices to rise, considered a loss? When the men of S’dom attacked Lot for having visitors, wasn’t Lot feeding them from his own food, thereby incurring a loss? Was their sin not allowing Lot to feed his visitors even though it wouldn’t affect anyone’s bottom line except Lot’s? Circling back, weren’t they afraid that it would also affect their bottom line if visitors started coming to town? In other words, we can understand what their wickedness was if (conceptually) it extends to not being willing to risk suffering a loss to help others. But by differentiating between having a loss (saying that in such circumstances keeping your own things to yourself is not “S’dom-like”) and not having one, the wickedness of S’dom becomes harder to pinpoint (practically) unless it refers to their unwillingness to have less, or to risk having less, at some point in the future — which then requires parameters for how much we are allowed to save for the future and what financial risks we must take before being considered cruel. [It should be noted that this issue is not limited to Meiri‘s approach, as several other commentators also understand S’dom’s wickedness to be refusing to let others benefit even though no loss is incurred. Nevertheless, since we are discussing whether Meiri’s approach provides a satisfactory answer to the issue raised, any issue with this approach must be raised as well.]

Whereas other commentators understand the piety of one who says “what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours” to be based on his treating his own things as if it belongs to others (since the “what’s yours is yours” part is shared by the non-pious first category too), Meiri has piety more closely associated with the “what‘s yours is yours” part, as the second category (“what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine) is (he says) the norm, i.e. the way most people look at things, since most realize that we are all dependent on others. If the contrast between “piousness” and being “regular” is between accepting help from others or not accepting any help rather than between helping others and not helping others (with not helping others being cruel), then our question has been answered. However, the overwhelming majority of commentators understand the term “am ha’aretz” to be a derogatory one (denoting an unlearned peasant), and one who treats the possessions of others as if they are yours and your possessions as if they belong to others to be misguided rather than the “middle road” between being pious or wicked.

[Although we are much closer to Shavuos than to Purim, it could be suggested that the answer to our question can be based on whether one is a capitalist or a socialist. More specifically, the opinion that “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” is “the average characteristic” can be attributed to those who support capitalism, and the opinion that it is “S’dom-like” to those who support socialism. Capitalists see the “norm” as having clearly defined “owners,” so pious capitalists will honor those boundaries by not taking or using anything that belongs to someone else yet will offer what they own to others. Socialists see the “norm” as everybody sharing everything equally (“what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine”), with the pious ones offering what’s theirs to others without using what had, or would have, belonged to others if everything wasn’t jointly owned. (Bartenura and Rabbeinu Yonah seem to understand the perspective of the “am ha’aretz” as something close to socialism, with the term being used derogatorily.)]

The assumption the question I posed is based on is that there must be a “middle ground,” a path one can take to avoid doing what’s wrong without having to go beyond what’s required. And it would seem that the first opinion regarding “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” does understands it as the middle ground. The second opinion, though, that having this attitude is “S’dom-like,” disagrees, and the question is therefore what the middle ground is according to this opinion. However, several commentators (e.g. Bartenura) do not explain this second opinion to be that having such an attitude is being “S’dom-like,” but that having such an attitude can easily lead one to develop a “S’dom-like” attitude, i.e. being unwilling to help others when they need it. Since the need to give charity is not under discussion here (see Midrash Sh’muel), as that will be discussed in a later Mishnah (5:13), and not giving charity to those who need it is classified (by all) as being wicked, the kind of sharing being discussed here is with those who have the wherewithal to provide for themselves. Therefore, not providing from one’s own resources is not problematic, just not pious. However, because such an attitude can morph into not providing for those who cannot provide for themselves either, this “middle ground” is not recommended.

Whether there are really two opinions (one that is okay with this “middle ground” and one that isn’t), or, (as some explain it), it is really one opinion that fleshes things out, the bottom line is that even according to the opinion that having such an attitude can lead to being “S’dom-like” (as opposed to the attitude itself being S’dom-like”) there is a “middle ground.” Nevertheless, since this middle ground is wrought with danger, developing a more pious attitude is highly recommended, if not necessary.