By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

Katie Couric is a very famous American journalist and author, who is probably halachically Jewish. She currently serves as Yahoo! Global News Anchor and has been a television host on all Big Three television networks in the United States.

It has recently been revealed that Katie Couric had cut her salary by $1 million when she was anchoring “CBS Evening News” to save others’ jobs at the network.

Agent and author Alan Berger recently wrote that “in the third year of Katie’s tenure . . . upcoming budget cuts would involve significant layoffs . . . from senior-level producers to young associate producers — all key contributors to the production of the daily newscast.”

After Couric met with Sean McManus, CBS News president at the time, “Katie decided . . . to take matters into her own hands” and “voluntarily, and quietly, agreed to cut her CBS salary by over $1 million, creating a savings to preserve the jobs of her associates on the broadcast.”

She insisted on two conditions: “the money would be directly used to pay for her staff so that they would not be terminated,” and that “this would be done quietly and with no public or private acknowledgment or announcement about her gesture.” Couric was at CBS from 2006 to 2011.

SAVING SOMEONE ELSE’S PARNASSAH

Katie Couric went out of her way and gave up a substantial sum of money to save the jobs of her peers. The question is, what does Jewish law have to say about the matter? Was what Katie did a voluntary Mitzvah, a halachic obligation, or perhaps not even a Mitzvah?

THE MAHARAM PADUA’S BUSINESS VENTURE

About four and a half centuries ago, the Maharam Padua, at great personal expense printed the Rambam’s Mishna Torah. A gentile printer, in an attempt to stifle competition, wished to damage the Maharam Padua financially and decided to print the Rambam’s Mishna Torah as well, and to undercut the Maharam Padua’s price.

REMAH’S RULING

Rabbi Moshe Isserles, the Remah, dealt with the issue in a responsa (#10), and prohibited the purchase of the gentile printed Mishna Torah. He writes, “And do not say that it is only in that case (an interest loan referred to in Bava Metzia 71a), where he does not lose his own funds, but merely does not make a profit.. For there is explicit proof otherwise in tractate Avodah Zarah (20a).. The same is true in our case where each man is obligated to establish the hand of his peer.
The Tashbatz (Vol. III #151) also writes about the obligation to purchase from a fellow peer rather than someone else even when there is a price difference.

DOES IT EXTEND TO EMPLOYMENT?

These sources, of course, have to do with purchases. But do we see any authority extending this principle to issues of employment? The answer is yes.

CHIEF RABBI’S VIEW

Rabbi Ben Tzion Meir Hai Uziel (1880-1953), the first Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Israel writes (Piskei Uziel She’elot HaZman 48), “In regard to employment of peers there is not just an obligation of charity – rather there is a brotherly national obligation.. This Mitzvah extends to purchases, employment and matters of business.”

NOT ALL AGREE

It seems from this Remah and from the Chief Rabbi that the issue is an obligatory one, even when there is a significant loss involved. Not all poskim agree with this position, however. Indeed, it seems that the majority position may be otherwise. The Chsam Sofer (Kovetz Teshuvos 46), the Maharsham (Mishpat Shalom 189) and the Shaar HaMishpat (97:1), and Dayan Weiss (Minchas Yitzchok 3:129) all seem to write that when there is a significant amount of money involved there is no obligation.

We do find precedent in the Talmud (Gittin 56a) for providing economic assistance during difficult financial times. The wealthy people of Jerusalem did so during the Second Temple period of destruction. They shared their incomes. Rav Yaakov Epstein in Chevel Nachalaso (2:67) suggests that there is no obligation, of course, when there is a danger that the business will not survive economically. Indeed, it would seem to this author that in such a case it would not even be considered a Mitzvah at all, when there is a strong likelihood of taking one’s own business down. The Gemorah in Bava Metzia (62a), in fact, understands the verse in VaYikrah (25:36) that states, “And your brother shall live with you” on the emphasis on the last word – with you. Your existence has precedence.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion? Katie’s move was certainly a Mitzvah. Rav Uziel would hold it is an obligatory Mitzvah, and so might the Remah, if the extension between purchasing and employment is valid. Others would hold that it is not an obligation, but certainly meritorious. If, there is a strong danger of the entire operation closing then it may not even be a Mitzvah.

The author can be reached at [email protected]