Photo: Kevin LallierDeuteronomy 23:25-26 reflects the limits on altruism:
When thou comest into thy neighbor’s standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn.
It’s O.K. to take a bit of the owner’s produce for sustenance; but to ensure that what is taken is not for commercial purposes, the taker cannot use machinery (a sickle) that would raise his marginal productivity and thus raise his output beyond what might be for immediate sustenance.
The owner does have some protection, but he is also supposed to charitable. This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise between altruism and property rights.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Corn, as in the British corn laws, refers to grain, not maize, which we call corn.
“Corn” can refer to any grain. Wheat, rye, barley, etc.
It’s not anachronistic. Properly defined, “corn” is just a generic term for a cereal crop. England’s “Corn Laws,” for instance, principally concerned wheat and barley. It’s only in American English where we colloquially use the term “corn” to refer only to maize. Kind of like how we sometimes refer to any brand of tissue as a kleenex.
Prior to maize’s introduction, all grains were referred to as corn. KJV would probably reflect that usage.
The clear message here is in relationship to music “piracy”. The Bible is telling us it’s OK to copy a song for personal use, just don’t upload to a fileserver. I like the precedent.
In older forms of English, “corn” or “kernel” was synonymously used to mean basically any grain. This is probably a modern-esque translation, but the original meaning was most likely “wheat” or similar.
In any case, the specific crop does not change the meaning of the passage. I wonder how “fair use” would be affected if this was used as the basis?
The version quoted is the King James Version, translated in 1611. More modern translations use the word grain.
I’m not sure this is a tragedy of the commons is applicable here. Often the sundry laws such as these listed in the Old Testament are geared toward sustaining the poor and needy in the local community by the local community.
Instead of many people using the land to grow their own food those in need can glean from some produce of the land owner.
The passage quoted is generally taken as either a poor person’s right to eat or a worker’s right to eat. The preceding lines say you can pick grapes enough to satisfy yourself but can’t pick them to take away in a vessel. This is often related to the passages in 24:19-21:
19 When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands.
20 When thou beatest thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it after thee; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
And of course this then feeds into the story of Ruth gleaning the fields to feed herself and her mother-in-law. And that connects to a number of stories, including of course the New Testament’s Good Samaritan story, in which a righteous person fulfills their obligations and thus is treated correctly. Ruth the Moabite is recognized for her good and her late husband’s relative Boaz marries her. In the Samaritan story, which is often weirdly interpreted, the Samaritan does the right thing by checking on the body and thus should be recognized as part of the greater community – and though the Samaritans were at odds with the Hebrews about scripture and bunch else (but at least weren’t Moabites). In these stories, everyone does the right thing – including the priest, etc. who can’t touch the body because that would ritually contaminate the entire community.
In other words, the obligations go both ways and that is highly important in Judaism. The obligation of charity in allowing the poor to eat and then glean the fields is coupled with their obligations to make the effort and to stay within those limits. That is the essence of the concept of covenant in Judaism and is why, for example, the highest duty was long considered going to Synagogue, because that would lead to fulfilling more obligations.