The Miser that Takes but Will Not Give

תנו רבנן אין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס נותנין לו לשום הלואה וחוזרין ונותנין לו לשום מתנה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נותנין לו לשום מתנה וחוזרין ונותנין לו לשום הלואה לשום מתנה הא לא שקיל אמר רבא לפתוח לו לשום מתנה יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס נותנין לו לשום מתנה וחוזרין ונפרעין ממנו

חוזרין ונפרעין הימנו תו לא שקיל אמר רב פפא לאחר מיתה ר"ש אומר יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אין נזקקין לו אין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אומרים לו הבא משכון וטול כדי שתזוח דעתו עליו

ת"ר (דברים טו) העבט זה שאין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס שנותנים לו לשום הלואה וחוזרין ונותנין לו לשום מתנה תעביטנו זה שיש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס שנותנין לו לשום מתנה וחוזרין ונפרעין הימנו לאחר מיתה דברי ר' יהודה וחכ"א יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אין נזקקין לו ואלא מה אני מקיים תעביטנו דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

Talmud Ketubot 67b (continued)
Our Rabbis taught: If a man has no means and does not wish to be maintained [out of the poor funds] he should be granted [the sum he requires] as a loan and then it can be presented to him as a gift; so R. Meir. The Sages, however, said: It is given to him as a gift and then it is granted to him as a loan. ('As a gift'? He, surely, refuses to take [gifts]! Raba replied: It is offered to him in the first instance as a gift.)



If he has the means but does not want to maintain himself, [at his own expense], he is given [what he needs] as a gift, and then he is made to repay it. (If 'he is made to repay it' he would, surely, not take again! — R. Papa replied: [Repayment is claimed] after his death.) R. Simeon said: If he has the means and does not want to maintain himself [at his own expense], no one need feel any concern about him. If he has no means and does not wish to be maintained [out of the poor funds] he is told, 'Bring a pledge and you will receive [a loan]' in order to raise thereby his [drooping] spirit.


Our Rabbis taught: To lend refers to a man who has no means and is unwilling to receive his maintenance [from the poor funds] to whom [the allowance] must be given as a loan and then presented to him as a gift. Thou shalt lend him refers to a man who has the means and does not wish to maintain himself [at his own expense] to whom [the allowance] is given as a gift and repayment is claimed from his [estate] after his death, so R. Judah. The Sages, however, said: If he has the means and does not wish to maintain himself [at his own expense] no one need feel any concern about him. To what, however, is the text Thou shalt lend him to be applied? The Torah employs ordinary phraseology.

So what should the community do with a person who we discover does not need Tzedakah but takes anyways? Should we give it or not? Should they repay it? Should their children? What cases in modern society can you think of in which someone or something takes but does not give back?

Ketubot 67b Part IVa

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבא אמר לו במה אתה סועד אמר לו בתרנגולת פטומה ויין ישן אמר ליה ולא חיישת לדוחקא דציבורא א"ל אטו מדידהו קאכילנא מדרחמנא קאכילנא דתנינא (תהילים קמה) עיני כל אליך ישברו ואתה נותן להם את אכלם בעתו בעתם לא נאמר אלא בעתו מלמד שכל אחד ואחד נותן הקב"ה פרנסתו בעתו אדהכי אתאי אחתיה דרבא דלא חזיא ליה תליסרי שני ואתיא ליה תרנגולת פטומה ויין ישן אמר מאי דקמא א"ל נענתי לך קום אכול

A man once applied to Raba [for maintenance]. 'What do your meals consist of?' he asked him. 'Of fat chicken and old wine', the other replied. 'Did you not consider', [the Rabbi] asked him, 'the burden of the community?' 'Do I', the other replied, 'eat of theirs? I eat [the food] of the All-Merciful; for we learned: The eyes of all wait for Thee, and Thou givest them their food in due season, this, since it is not said, 'in their season' but 'in his season', teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, provides for every individual his food In accordance with his own habits'. Meanwhile there arrived Raba's sister, who had not seen him for thirteen years, and brought him a fat chicken and old wine. 'What a remarkable incident!' [Raba] exclaimed; [and then] he said to him, 'I apologize to you, come and eat'.

Should a wealthy person be provided according to what they are accustomed to? Does God truly provide for all? What is the 'message' of this story, and do you agree with it?

Tzedakah Collectors and Soup Kitchens

 תלמוד בבא בתרא ח :         ו
תנו רבנן קופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה נגבית בשנים שאין עושים שררות על הצבור פחות משנים ומתחלקת בשלשה כדיני ממונות תמחוי נגבית בשלשה ומתחלקת בשלשה שגבויה וחלוקה שוים תמחוי בכל יום קופה מערב שבת לערב שבת תמחוי לעניי עולם קופה לעניי העיר ורשאים בני העיר לעשות קופה תמחוי ותמחוי קופה ולשנותה לכל מה שירצו ורשאין בני העיר להתנות על המדות ועל השערים ועל שכר פועלים ולהסיע על קיצתן

Talmud Bava Batra 8b 
Our Rabbis taught: The charity fund is collected by two persons [jointly] and distributed by three. It is collected by two, because any office conferring authority over the community  must be filled by at least two persons. It must be distributed by three, on the analogy of money cases  [which are tried by a Beth din of three]. Food for the soup kitchen is collected by three and distributed by three, since it is distributed as soon as it is collected.  Food is distributed every day, the charity fund every Friday. The soup kitchen is for all comers, the charity fund for the poor of the town only. The townspeople, however, are at liberty to use the soup kitchen like the charity fund and vice versa, and to apply them to whatever purposes they choose.  

Why the differences between the number of collectors and the number of distributors? Why is the soup kitchen for all, but not the tzedakah fund? Are there some broader principles about Tzedakah we can derive (pull out) from this baraita?

Ketubot 67b Gemara Pt. III

תנו רבנן: מעשה באנשי גליל העליון, שלקחו לעני בן טובים אחד מציפורי ליטרא בשר בכל יום. ליטרא בשר? מאי רבותא? אמר רב הונא: ליטרא בשר משל עופות. ואיבעית אימא בליטרא בשר ממש. רב אשי אמר: התם כפר קטן היה בכל יומא הוה מפסדי חיותא אמטולתיה. ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי נחמיה אמר ליה 'במה אתה סועד?' א"ל 'בבשר שמן ויין ישן.' רצונך שתגלגל עמי בעדשים? גלגל עמו בעדשים ומת. אמר: אוי לו לזה שהרגו נחמיה. אדרבה! אוי לו לנחמיה שהרגו לזה מיבעי ליה! אלא איהו הוא דלא איבעי ליה לפנוקי נפשיה כולי האי.    ו

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that the people of Upper Galilee bought for a poor member of a good family of Sepphoris a pound of meat every day. 'A pound of meat'! What is the greatness in this? — R. Huna replied: [It was] a pound of fowl's meat. And if you prefer I might say: [They purchased] ordinary meat for a pound [of money]. R. Ashi replied: The place was a small village and everyday a beast had to be spoiled for his sake.

A certain man once applied to R. Nehemiah [for maintenance]. 'What do your meals consist of', [the Rabbi] asked him. 'Of fat meat and old wine', the other replied — 'Will you consent [the Rabbi asked him] to live with me on lentils?' [The other consented,] lived with him on lentils and died. 'Alas', [the Rabbi] said, 'for this man whom Nehemiah has killed.' On the contrary, he should [have said] 'Alas for Nehemiah who killed this man'! — [The fact], however, [is that the man himself was to blame, for] he should not have cultivated his luxurious habits to such an extent.


 Your thoughts? Comments? Kushiot?

Rambam's Ladder of Tzedakah

Moses ben Maimon (1135-1205) illucidates a hierarchy of giving- from best to least- in his central work of Jewish law, the Mishnah Torah. Below is the ladder. Your thoughts? Ideas? Disagreements? Why break it down so much? Is this helpful?

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.

'Oh how the mighty have fallen!'

The protagonist in the movie 'Trading Places', Winthorp, comes from a background of priveledge and wealth. His downfall comes swiftly, and he struggles to get a handle on his life. His new reality, his new clothes, the way he is treated are all a shock to him. Should he be treated differently because he comes from wealth? How would the Talmud's concept of Kavod address this problem? Is it too much to ask the community to support a person who has suffered misfortune according to the means they are accustomed to? Blog it.

Travelling Poor- How much do we give?

We have some clear guidelines of what to give to a member of our community in need. But what about a traveling poor person?

The Tur (R' Jacob Ben Asher, Spain, 1269-1343) explains based on the Talmud:
"A poor person that goes from place to place, one cannot give them less than a bread two ounces in weight. And if he is spending the night, give him bedding to sleep on, and clothes to put under his head. And oil, and beans. If it is Shabbat, give him food for three meals, oil, beans, fish and vegetables. And if you are familiar with him, provide him according to his honor. And if you are able to give, give him whatever he asks for, and if not, forward him onto to someone who can help him since God will come to aid." (Yoreh De'ah 250:4)

Is this a reasonable amount? Is it fair that a person who begs should be provided for, no matter how poor the person they are asking? Why should poor people travelling be afforded any rights in a community- shouldn't their own community take responsibility for them? Feel free to add your own questions...

Ketubot 67b- Gemara through שלושה מילין

ת"ר יתום שבא לישא, שוכרין לו בית, ומציעין לו מטה וכל כלי תשמישו, ואחר כך משיאין לו אשה, שנאמר(דברים טו) די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו

די מחסורו - זה הבית. אשר יחסר -  זה מטה ושלחן. לו - זו אשה.   ו

וכן הוא אומר (בראשית ב) אעשה לו עזר כנגדו.  ו

תנו רבנן: די מחסורו - אתה מצווה עליו לפרנסו.  ו

ואי אתה מצווה עליו לעשרו .  ו

אשר יחסר לו- אפילו סוס לרכוב עליו 

ועבד לרוץ לפניו.  ו

אמרו עליו על הלל הזקן שלקח לעני בן טובים אחד סוס לרכוב עליו ועבד לרוץ לפניו .  ו

פעם אחת לא מצא עבד לרוץ לפניו ורץ לפניו שלשה מילין.   ו

Our rabbis taught: an orphan boy than comes to be married, they rent for him a house, and make him a bed and all kinds of furnishings, and afterwards they marry him off to a wife, as it is said (Devarim 15:8) "enough for what he needs, for him that which he lacks." "What he needs"- this is a house. "That which he lacks"- this is a bed and a table. "for him"-  this is a wife. Just as it says, (Bereshit 2:18) "I will make for him a fitting helper."

Our rabbis taught: "What he needs"- you are commanded to provide for him. But you are not commanded to enrich him. "That which he lacks"- even a horse for him to ride and a servant to run before him. It was said of Hillel the Elder that he acquired for one poor man, a son of wealthy parents, a horse to ride on and a servant to run before him. One day, he could not find a servant to run before him, and he (Hillel the Elder) ran before him for three miles.

The Giver's Obligation

Rambam (Moses ben Maimon, 1135-1205) writes in his law code, the Mishnah Torah:

A poor person comes and asks for something he needs, that he cannot obtain for himself- give so that he may be able to accomplish it for himself. And how much? Up to 1/5th of your possessions- this is an exceptional mitzvah; 1/10th of your possessions- this is average; less than this- an evil eye... and even a poor person who is sustained by Tzedakah is obligated to give Tzedakah to another.  (Laws of Gifts to the Poor, 7:5)

What do you think about this law? Is it excessive to give that much? Should the poor really be expected to donate? Why might it good or bad for Tzedakah recipients to also be obligated as givers? Lastly, the New York Times reported that the average American gives 2.2% of their income to charity, the Obamas gave 6% last year, and George W. Bush gave 18%. Does this make the Rambam's law seem more or less appropriate as a guideline of giving?

Answer 1- It takes a village to give Tzedakah

One commentator suggests that when the text says he, it means that when only one person comes to get Tzedakah, an individual Tzedakah distributor can be responsible for deciding how much to give. But when many come to get Tzedakah, many people must be responsible for allocating Tzedakah, hence the word they. This text becomes the basis for most Jewish organizations today having a committee that screens its recipients and decides how to give out the community's resources.

Does this make sense? Why is it better for many to decide how to give Tzedakah than one? Under what circumstances might one person be preferable?