The Eight Degrees
First Degree: “Help a person help himself"
One who gives charity to the poor without knowing to whom he gives and without the poor knowing from whom they take. This is how it was done in the Lishkat Hashaim (Chamber of Charity) in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Second Degree: “The Giver and Receiver Unknown to Each Other”
Third Degree: “Receiver Known, Given Unknown”
One who knows to whom he gives, without the poor knowing from whom they
receive. For example, in olden days, our ancestors brought gifts into poor
people’s homes and left without being seen.
Fourth Degree: “Giver Does Not Know Receiver”
The poor man knows from whom he takes but the giver does not know the
receiver. For example, there were men who tied money in the corners of the
cloaks they wore, so that the poor might take it without being seen.
Fifth Degree: “Gives Before He is Asked”
The man who gives before he has been asked, but who puts it into the poor
man’s hand, embarrassing him.
Sixth Degree: “Gives After He is Asked”
The man who gives cheerfully, and as much as he can, but only after being
asked.
Seventh Degree: “Gives Less Than He Should, But Cheerfully”
The man who gives less than he ought to, but with a smile.
Eighth Degree: “Gives Unwillingly”
Lowest on the ladder is the man who gives only because he is forced to do so.
This is the gift of the hand but not of the heart.
I think that this ladder is a perfect portrayal of the levels of Tzdakah. Obviously, at the top is helping someone help them self, giving them a job, teaching them a trade, ETC. Like the common saying: "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a life." It is that same principle that Moses ben Maimon is thinks is most important. This shows up in the movie we watched, accidently, the Duke Brothers taught Billy Ray how to be a commodities trader. He ended up being so good, that he beat the Dukes at their own game.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other ladders, it all comes down to the intent of the charity. If the intent is to donate so you can have a building named after you that is obviously not as good as giving to a charity and asking not to be named as the donor. So, the level all depend on the emotion in which the donation is given.
I agree with everything that Grant said, especially the part about giving the fish and teaching how to fish. however in the text the only thing I disagreed with was the 5th degree "giving before asking but embarrassing the poor." I don't disagree with its placement but i disagree with WHY it was placed 5th. I don't understand why someone would want to purposely embarrass a homeless person, as if they weren't embarrassed as it is. i don't see how or why anyone would do that and i don't think that when someone gives money or objects to needy people that they give it to them before they ask just to embarrass them; i don't think it ever works that way. What satisfaction would they get out of embarrassing someone more needy then them. why do something good with a cruel intention behind it, and if so, if that is the reason that they are giving the money or objects before they are requested than i believed that the 5th degree should be last, after unwilling, because i believe it better someone give something unwillingly but understanding the reasons why they must give rather than someone give just to make themselves look better and hurt someone else.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Sixth Degree should come after the Seventh Degree because everybody who gives only after they are asked should be in the lowest degree possible. Charity is something you should do willingly; "Gives Less Than He Should, But Cheerfully." In this statement the person is still giving to charity without being asked, or forced. He may be giving less but he is still doing a good deed. "Gives After He Is Asked," in this statement the person isn't giving to charity until someone tells him to. But what if no one ever does ask him? Then he would never give to the charity. This isn't what the community wants, everyone should give a little bit of something to help others in need without being asked. Giving without being asked is always better then someone who is only giving when he is asked. The Sixth Degree should be last with the Eight Degree, "Gives Unwillingly." Both of theses degrees are bad for the community, people who are in theses degrees aren't helping anyone around them. Therefore, why should someone help them in need when they end up needing help from others when they haven't done so themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason why Rambam made this guideline of giving tzedakah is to teach us a lesson. He is saying that it is ok to give tzedakah in whatever form is comfortable for you. The guideline is there to show us that we have many options. In Judaism, there is a belief that it doesn't matter where you are on the ladder, rather how you are progressing. So Rambam's theory on tzedakah is teaching us how to improve. He makes all these levels, because they are basically baby steps for us and how we can become better individuals. If you are giving at the eight degree, then it is more then possible for you to eventually give at the first degree.
ReplyDeleteAlso something i believe is important that is relevant to this is who do we give tzedakah to first? Rambam made this great list of how to give tzedakah, but WHO do we give it to?
Well, in Judaism there is also a guideline of who to give to. First is your family, then your neighborhood, then your city, then your country, then pretty much anywhere in the world. This guideline is a bit difficult, because what if someone who is not in your family is in more need then someone who IS in your family? who do you give to first? well according to the guideline it would be the member in your family, but i disagree with this. We should give according to the situation, whoever needs it more should get it. We shouldn't base our giving upon personal relationships, it's just not fair.
I don't agree with the 6th degree being after the 5th. The 5th degree is talking about direct help (putting it into someone's hand). In this case, I think giving after being asked is just as good if not better than giving to some one who's not asking. If someone really needs it, they probably won't be to embarrassed to ask for it. By giving to someone who's not asking, you are embarrassing them and they probably don't need the money as much as someone who is.
ReplyDeleteIt's harder to give "charity to the poor without knowing to whom he gives and without the poor knowing from whom they take" because personally connecting and knowing you made a difference (at least for me) is a big part of giving tedakah. I disagree that neither the giver nor the receiver knowing who they are getting aid from or giving aid to is such a good thing. I think it takes away a lot of the meaning.
According to Ami's additional research, you first give to family. If your family needs so much that it's over 10% of your income and you can't give any more, does that mean that it's impossible for you to give First Degree charity?
A follow up on Ami's post:
Does that mean we're breaking a rule by giving to other places in the world? There are people that need help in our country and city, but before helping them many people are helping other people across the world. I agree with Ami that we should give to those who need it more, not those who are closer.
I personally that this is a wonderful way to show the steps of Tzedakah. By breaking it down so much, it is a way for people to see how far the have come. At the same time, I disagree wit this ladder although it is wonderful. I think that one should give because they want too, not they have too. What if we thought of it as community service? I personally do community service, because I love helping out my community and working with people around the Bay Area. At the same time,we have requirements, at JCHS. I have more than 30 hours. Even though we have to do community service, I don't stop because I want to continue to help out my community. Should Tzedakah be required? And shall we all have to follow these steps? What if we do, what happens? Do we have to reach to the first section? What happens if we stay at the eighth step?
ReplyDeleteTzedakah is an important idea in Judaism, but it is also very broad. Are you really fulfilling the idea of Tzedakah if you make an obligatory donation to your old school, or if you give in to panhandlers hassling? Well, technically you are giving Tzedakah, but could you be doing better?
ReplyDeleteIn order to guidance to well meaning Jews this ladder was created. In the lower rungs of the ladder, there is nuance and one can debate whether this should go above that or visa-versa. I don't think anyone should be fretting over whether three is really that much better than four.
What should be taken away from this, is that you don't give Tzedakah because you're forced to give it, you don't give it because you're asked to give it, and you don't give it to get some net benefit. You give Tzedakah, exclusively to help others.
I believe that degree three and four should be switch so that degree four would come before degree number three. Giving money to someone you know but make it so they do not know who it is, is a great act of charity. But making it so that YOU do not know who you are giving it too is challenging and people who do that truly go above and beyond giving charity. The story that is mentioned above about how people tied money in their coats so that the poor could come and take the money is truly amazing. You always hear stories of secret present giving where the person giving knows to whom but the receiver does not know. However the situation where the giver does not know the receiver is much more uncommon. I feel like that fact should place it higher on the ladder.
ReplyDeletereplying to roza's question. According to the person who wrote those laws, then i guess yes we would be breaking the 'law'. But to me, it's all about the individual. We should give based on whats comfortable for us. If that means giving money to someone across the world, then that's the right thing to do. To us we would not be breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the second degree should be moved toward the end of the ladder or taken off of it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see with the second degree (“The Giver and Receiver Unknown to Each Other”) is that everything is unknown and takes a bit away from the giver. At our school, by the library and in the theater, there are little plaques with the names of people that gave to the school. Why?, because since they donated, they deserve recognition by society. Now, on a smaller scale, if I give my friend money so he can go and buy something, I give to him personally, so he knows I gave it. Another problem I see is that the giver doesn't know who the money is going to. In a way, this makes everything seem not genuine. As if the giver just wants to give so that they could say that he gave tzedakah. I also see a problem that may come up with the receiver. If you give money to a poor person on the street, the person will probably be a lot more thankful than if he found the money on the floor. This leads me to believe that the receiver might not be thankful at all, if he doesn't see from where the money is coming from.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ladder is open up to interpretation. Its purpose is to have people weigh the steps according to their own lives. As Ami said, the steps show our many options on giving Tzedakkah, and that they can be seen as "baby steps".
ReplyDeleteI also think what Arno said was very important. He said, "I don't think anyone should be fretting over whether three is really that much better than four." These steps are just there to provide "guidelines". If a person feels they can only give when asked, then at least they are still giving, and it is appreciated. If a person gives willingly, it is appreciated.
At many organizations nowadays, they accept each of these "steps of giving Tzedakkah". At the Red Cross, http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=f5195032f953e110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d18859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD
a person has a choice of giving blood (the donor will never know the receiver and the receiver will never know the donor), volunteering (the volunteer may know their receiver but the receiver may not know the giver), and many more. Also, the Red Cross asks for donations so many people only give when asked. It also says (in this link) that the Red Cross “is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner…”
I think that these eight steps can make a person wonder about the way they want to give Tzedakkah, but in the end, each of these steps help others in some way. The point of this ladder is to show that anyone can help, in their own way. The steps are only there to make you conscious of your decision.
I do not really like the idea of having degrees of Tzedakah giving, with the sole exception of the first degree. The difference between the first degree and the second is huge as Grant already stated. Teaching someone to live without the help of others makes it so they have a chance to succeed and not forever have to use other people's money.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I think the other degrees should not matter is because as long as you are giving money to the poor they are benefiting regardless of which degree you gave it to them. There is no way to make a list of degrees like this in a way that is completely linear. Putting some money on a bench at night when no one can see me so someone can pick it up later is considered second degree Tzedakah seeing as both the reciever and give are unknown to each other. Supposedly this would be the second best way of giving but in reality since I do not know the receiver someone who does not need it as much as someone who I would choose to give my money to could take it. The person who picks it up might feel guilty for taking money that they found lying around as opposed to actually being given to them. I think in this case it would be much better for me to go to a site asking for money and send them money even if it is sixth degree since I am giving after I was asked.
If I am walking by a homeless man and I give him little bit money after he asked me which is a combination of 7th degree and 6th degree should I feel guilty about myself? I do not think so because it is better than nothing. This list makes it feel as though if I am not giving it in one of the higher degrees it is not good but I do not feel this way. Even if someone who is giving unwillingly but is giving a lot is better that someone who is giving very little cheerfully or nothing at all because the one who is unwillingly giving the poor a lot is still being far more beneficial that either of the other two. Putting myself in a poor mans should I would not care too much about the way the Tzedakah was given to me as long as it would help me survive.
I feel that the purpose of the ladder is to provide a guideline for people who are considering donating to the needy. As Eric stated, the emotions behind the gift have no effect on the final implementation of the gift. In other words, what you feel when you give the gift does not have a huge impact on the recipient, because at the end of the day, the recipient is getting the same thing . . . no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI think that Moses ben Maimon created this list so that people who were consistent givers would be able to track their progress on the hierarchy, eventually and hopefully, working their way up to number one. I agree with Arno, in his statement which says that the “rung” that you give is not as important as giving in general; giving should be from the heart not necessarily an encouraged or forced action. I think that giving always will surpass not giving. It demonstrates a trait of selflessness, which is a quality that all societies benefit from. I don’t what the reader to misinterpret my message though . . . I believe the ladder is a superb idea. I only disagree with it’s emphasis on the placement of one type of giving over another. Moses ben Maimon had clear intentions in breaking down the ladder so much. He was attempting to show people that there is not only one way to give, yet you can take “baby steps” (as quoted from Ami’s blogpost) in order to improve the manner in which you give. The fact that the ladder is broken down in so many levels is helpful for those who want to track their progress, and who some day dream of reaching the top of the ladder.
To respond to a remark that Florencia made, “I don't understand why someone would want to purposely embarrass a homeless person, as if they weren't embarrassed as it is.” I disagree with this statement, and here’s why. I don’t believe that the giver has intentions of embarrassing the recipient, but rather it is unavoidable that the recipient feels a sense of embarrassment when receiving the tzedaka.
And to respond to Roza’s remark, “If someone really needs it, they probably won't be to embarrassed to ask for it.” I also disagree with this statement because I feel that when someone is in a situation where they desperately need money --- does not mean that they won’t be embarrassed to ask for some. True, he/she might have other concerns, but they do not become emotionless when they are in dire need.
It seems that there is a contradiction in Rambam’s Eight Degrees of Tzedakah. The first degree states that one should “help a person help himself,” while the second degree states that the giver should give to an unknown person and the receiver should receive from an unknown person. However by teaching someone to help himself or herself, one is making direct contact with them, therefore knowing who they are “giving” to. The second degree specifically states one should not know to whom they are giving. While there are plenty of explanations as to why this is the case, the blunt fact is that these degrees on a technical level contradict one another. Why is this the case?
ReplyDeleteI think Rambam did a wonderful thing by breaking down the ways of giving Tzedakah. It is helpful because if gets your mind flowing about the different ways to give. I think for the most part the ladder is in the correct order. However I think the third degree, “Receiver Known, Giver Unknown” should be lower on the ladder. If the giver knows who they are giving to, they might decide what they give depending on if they like the family/person. Also, the giver might (not necessarily purposely) treat the person different if they know that they just gave them Tzedakah, this could lead to further problems in the community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amir that the third degree and the fourth degree should be switched, but the fourth degree brings up a question. All it says is “Giver does not know receiver,” does the receiver know who the giver is?
Anna Brodski:
ReplyDeleteA lot of posts above me have concentrated on the actual text before us, but my first question is why? What do these levels really stand for. By giving tzdaka in the First Degree, am I receiving more Olam H’ba points? I disagree with the core of this hierarchy, it is making something entirely personal and entirely selfless, selfish and putting a value on something priceless. I feel like it is turning something that is meant to be a joy and wonderful act into a calculated competition. One might not hand a beggar on the street money, for fear of embarrassing him, and thus the beggar starves. However the person feels content, in not giving the beggar money, because he may be paying for a scholarship of an underprivileged student to get an education. I feel like in this document there should be more emphasis, that although helping the poor help themselves is the highest form of tzdaka, but should not stop us from doing tzdaka in all the ways. Even if we give unwillingly it is better than not to give at all.
I just found a website called; Teach a Man to Fish: Education that Pays for itself. http://www.teachamantofish.org.uk/. It is an organization that teaches people how to educate themselves. It is a non-profit Non Government Organization (NGO) and its mission states: "Creating jobs requires creating entrepreneurs. We believe that the most successful institutions at producing graduates equipped for running their own businesses are those that themselves take an entrepreneurial approach to managing their programs."
ReplyDeleteThis organization is demonstrating Rambam's top level of Tzedakah, “Help a person help himself". This is without a doubt the most influential way one can help another, because if you give them a job they can work to provide for themselves. It is comforting to know that there are organizations working to keep Rambam's ladder alive.
When I am given an assignment, I know that for me the hardest part isn’t actually writing it, its just simply starting. Whether I am distracted by other things on the internet or I cant think of an starting idea, it is always the first couple words that seem to be the most difficult for me to put down on paper. This is the reason why Rambam created this ladder of giving. He provides us with those first words so that we can write the rest. He wants giving to be a comfortable and simple process, and wants everyone to want to give.
ReplyDeleteThe third and second degree to me, are more meaningful that the rest. They are saying that you don’t care if the person who you are giving to knows that you gave to them, but that you are just happy that you gave. They also show a sign of respect, an awareness of embarrassment. It is hard enough to be poor and to be collecting money, but then to also know who gave to you and know that you can’t give back. Even if the collector doesn’t care and wouldn’t be embarrassed, it shows again that you don’t need a recognition, that you can be satisfied by the fact that you gave.
In response to Anna, I do see how Rambam’s ladder can be interpreted as selfish and just creates competition between different tzedakah givers. Though being selfish is obviously a bad trait, I see this as a positive component of the ladder. This is creating a competition with yourself to contribute more and more to the tzedakah fund and try as hard as you can to give in the first degree. When you look at the ladder and evaluate it in the same way that we all are now, you judge the people who give even in the sixth degree and would only be contradicting yourself if you didn’t give any more than that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ami in that we can all learn from this ladder that it is easy enough just to give in the eighth degree, but continue “selfishly” hoping that nobody is giving better than you, and we will all be giving first degree tzedakah.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ladder is broken down to encourage people to do more and give more to the community. It's well known that a primary aspect of human nature is to want to be better than others and be seen and aknowledged as having done more than somone else. This ladder "ranks" people based on the amount of money they give and the manner in which they give it.
ReplyDeleteAs to the specific rungs of the ladder, I agree with the ordering of the bottom 5 or so, but in the case of the top 3, I don't think that the second rung should be above the third. The second degree requires far less actual effort and knowledge than the third, as for the third you have to request that the money be given to a specific person. This means you would have had to talk to the person beforehand to get their name, and figure out a way to give the money to them, as opposed to leaving money somewhere for someone you don't know.
It seems to me like there’s two main things deciding height on the ladder, Humility of receiver (higher humility equals lower degree) and humility of giver (higher humility equals higher degree). This is a great system because it teaches people to give only for the purpose of helping others, without any kind of personal gain. When I first read this text I had the same question as Anna, is it better to let a homeless man who’s asking starve than to help someone on the second or third degree? This ladder is used to teach people to be generous and humble, and obviously there are other things that influence one’s decision of how to give. These include how necessary the charity is, and how far the money can be stretched. We know this ladder isn’t supposed to be taken literally, because if people only ever gave on the first or second levels, then no one would ever admit to needing charity. For example I think it’s better to help people on the sixth degree, because it means that the receiver is so desperate they are willing to embarrass themselves in public, as opposed to the third degree, where someone could mistakenly give something to someone who is not poor. Since public humiliation is a punishable offence in Judaism, would it be possible to be punished for giving tzedakah in an embarrassing way?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.westhartfordnews.com/articles/2010/05/23/news/doc4bf97b0a90ae0497870973.txt
Charity doesn’t always come in the form of money. This story is about 6th graders in West Hartford who teach and talk with kids in Tanzania through a pen pal system. With the organization, Asante Sana For Education, they teach the students English. I think the most important part of this article is that kids in both America and Tanzania are receiving and learning. This shows us that giving tzedakah can have benefits other than feeling good, such as new languages and new relationships.
I mostly agree with Anna, in that the ranking of the ways to give tzedakah makes it more of a competition, instead of something from the heart. My main issue with this is that if you tell people to give tzedakah, and tell them how to give it and specify each rank, will they actually give from the heart? Maybe some people will, but for many, they probably will give tzedakah just to try to be "the best" and to give as much as they can. That takes away the whole point of being selfless. I think the Mishna Torah should explain to people the reason behind giving tzedakah and why we should give, instead of making it more of a legal obligation. It is just like work; if you decide to pursue your hobby/favorite activity as a job, it will usually take away all the meaning, and you will probably end up hating it. It is the same with giving tzedakah. If it becomes more of an obligation with rules and expectations, it will take away the meaning behind it and the whole idea of being selfless.
ReplyDeleteI think that Rambam's Ladder of Tzedakah actually discourages people from wanting to give Tzeddakah. The ladder is a ranking system for what is the best way to give Tzeddakah. Because of this, people may try to aim for giving Tzeddakah in the first or second degree, as opposed to the lower degrees. In this way, people may not have as much of an incentive to give Tzeddakah when they have the oppurtunity, because they think that it isn't "good" enough or "high" enough on Rambam's ladder.
ReplyDeleteReferring to the fifth and sixth degree, what exactely does "ask" mean? Is it only verbal, or could it also be in the form of words, such as a poor person holding a sign that says "please give whatever you want, anything will help". Is that a form of asking?
http://gazetteonline.com/breaking-news/2010/06/01/iowa-city-panhandling-ordinance-passes
This is an article about Iowa city making stricter laws against homeless people/panhandlers, because they beg from people who are eating at a restaurant or in a store. This is a form of the eighth degree, because these panhandlers can be so annoying and insistent that people will be forced to give money or food to get the panhandlers away. That is why Iowa made a law that restricts panhandlers from getting to close to stores and restaurants. Should this type of giving even be considered as Tzeddakah?
To answer so questions that Daniela had I think for some people who don't always give or don't think they have to and they have more money then the person next to them who does give should be made to give Tzedakah. Partly I believe this so that If they do become less wealthy and need help from the community they can receive the help. It's kinds like a security blanket because if they don't give when they're rich why should they money from others that give no matter what? To ther other question I don't think that we have to follow the steps to a tee or in any order its not like were going to go around and say oh well today I did the highest one so I'm above you. I think the steps are merely guidelines to follow. It's a way to be able to see that you could always do more that you can give more. And I don't it's suppose to hang over your head though. It's a way for you to measure yourself and not others just so you know what you can always do.
ReplyDeleteThe "Ladder of Tzedakah" is a tool to demonstrate what the Rabbi's think is the best and worst way of giving Tzedakah to people, and listing them from worst to best. But who says that we should look to this chart, as the #1 right thing? Who says that Moses is in the right? I think since there are emotions stated, especially in the lower rungs of the ladder that these things can not be ordered with such certianty, if any at all. I personally agree mostly with Marie, but even more so. She states that the 6th and 7th rungs of the ladder should be switched because, one states that he gives the right amount after he is asked, and the other states that he gives less than he should, but cheerfully. I think, quite like Marie that someone giving willing, and happily should not be put further down in the list because of the amount that was given. Isn't the Jewish religion all about doing te right thing, wholesomely? So in my opinion, charity, and Tzedakah if given with a smile on ones face, or happily, no matter how much that amount might be should be one of the highest rungs on this ladder.
ReplyDeleteBut i conclude saying again that I do not believe this ladder should be the measure of who is better, I think the most important variable to Tzedakah, is in how you give it, the way you feel, and why you are giving it. I think that cheerfully giving money to those in need, is better than most anything else. That is why I think this ladder does not fit my requirements for ordering and listing how well you are at giving.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShoshana Feld#1. b) The first degree of giving parallels to the famous quote, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” –Chinese Proverb. This quote is exceedingly well respected outside the Jewish religion as the best way to give. Thus having it number one on the hierarchy list is hard to disagree with, plus, teaching one to succeed is the best form of charity because they will no longer need charity, and than they will also be able to help others. This also stops the receiver from feeling embarrassment, and in return, they can have a sense of pride for being able to provide for themselves and others. The last degree of giving is to give to one unwillingly. One might not even count this as giving, for the giver does not want to help others and is only doing so because they are actually being forced, there is no heart involved thus the giving is as mundane a task as going to work in a job one does not like. If one goes to a job even though they do not like it, and they do tasks that they do not like, it is just the same as if they were to give charity unwillingly, as meaningless as working at a job that one does not like. The first and last degree of giving show a summary of how one should give and the emotions involved in giving. In conclusion, the complexity is necessary in the full understanding of charity, and the order of giving is on the noise with the exception of degree three and four that can be switched depending on ones view on the topic.
ReplyDeleteI found a sight that well stated the importance of Tzedakah/ the giving of charity in the Jewish community and summarized the “Eight Degrees.” Its good to check out if your interested: http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm
Post #6
ReplyDeleteThe chart is pretty on top of its game, but the lists number one priority is giving anonymously. It does not want the giver to be known most of all, and the receiver second most all, so that the recipient is not embarrassed. Then it values willingness to give eagerly, and generously. Going back to the top, we see the value of helping others help themselves as part of the greatest way of giving. What we do not see is a value of who gets that help or money, and what the money will be used for after that. This could be because we would have to know whom we were giving it to, to know if they were putting our generosity to good use. In Ketubot 68b: Deuteronomy 15:9; R’ Hanina’s wife found out that the man he had been giving money to (anonymously) was not in need of it. To avoid cases like this where someone is trying to do their part by giving anonymously, but doesn’t want the money to be wasted, a third party organization could be put in place. This organization should consist of people who look for people in need who would put tzedakah to good use, and give them money from anonymous donors, without them without either of the giving or receiving parties knowing of each other.
Michael Bonus #1
ReplyDeleteI think this ladder demonstrates perfectly the 8 best ways to give. I agree the most with the first one. Helping the person will teach him and prepare him for the future so that next time they will be able to help himself. Things that fit into this category are finding a job for the person so he can support himself, or teaching them new skills so that they can learn and not rely on other people.
http://sashadichter.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/reflections-on-maimonedes-8-levels-of-charity-tzedakah/
In the article above, the author talks about what motivates people to give and why they choose what levels of giving. He says that most people give because they want to see an impact or change in the world when they do and I agree with that, because I do not know about everyone but it is definitely a big part of my giving. The eight levels of Tzedakah show that not all ways of giving are equal and some are a lot better than others. Each level makes a different relationship between the giver and the receiver, many of them being anonymous. As the article says and as we talked about in class, it is anonymous so that neither party is embarrassed. Also it kept anonymous so that neither party feels obligation to other one to give back to them or have to give more. The article after that talks about how maybe sometimes it is better not to be anonymous like when you put your name on a plaque with other names of donors. The article says this is important because it shows what can be accomplished with some money and will inspire others. I disagree with this because I think that there is no difference from this or exception and that people should stay giving anonymous so that no one feels obligated or in debt to someone else, especially if it says on a plaque that they gave to you.
i agree with Anthony for two reasons. one of which is that I too, believe that the second degree should be moved toward the end of the ladder if not taken off. i feel like the idea of giving anonymously is for the giver to feel pride in himself, and to feel like he did something to help a certain person out. if i were the giver, i would not want the reciever to be unknown to me, mostly because i personally, would like to observe the reciever from afar and see how they changed or even improved from the money that the giver has sent.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason is that Anthony brings up a sense of recognition to the giver, his analogy about the wall at JCHS with all of the schools big donations, lets students and faculty member acknowledge the fact that these peoples names that we see, are helping out the school. Overall, i like the idea of one or the other being anonymous, but for both the giver and reciever to be anonymous, makes the whole situation complicated, for the giver wont be able to abserve, and the reciever wont be able to acknowledge.