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?
This does make sense because the "Tzedakkah fund" is money collected from the COMMUNITY. This means it does not belong to one person. It is for the community to share with people who need and ask for it.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it makes sense that there would be a committee to decide who gets the tzedakkah. If many people come asking for tzedakkah, it cannot be up to only one person to decide how the money of the community is used.
This might have been the same when an individual comes asking for money, however, when there is just one individual who is in need, why go through all the trouble of organizing a committee? That is why the text says HE. In this case, one person is more preferable to many.
Is the text just giving multiple options to what is possibly happening? How many people is enough people to set forth a committee? Is it just more than one? If yes, why is this so? Can't a Tzedakah distributor handle two or three people?
ReplyDeleteI think it is good for more than one person to set the amount of tzedakkah given, due to the fact that the tzedakkah distributor might have a bias or favor towards one person than another in need. How would he know who needs it more? He might totally forget one's argument or plee for why they need the money, food, or clothes, while the other is begging for money, food, or clothes. A group of people can decide rationally and much more easily than if one person was just rushed into making a decision. One person might be preferable though when you need some personal help or advice; why would you want multiple people hearing you cry and beg for a few dollars? What if you don't want them to hear all your personal stories of why you are poor or are in need? It seems more comfortable, in that case, to come before a group of people for them to decide your fate.
Replying to what Ari said:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said Ari, it is better to have more than one person to set the amount of the tzedakkah given. Just to add to why one person wouldn't be fitting to distribute funds for the whole community. There is always the possibility of corruption, he/she might help out his family and friends instead of the needy . In addition he/she might have an agenda that is not neccasarly benefiting everyone in the community. It's better to have more than one person so everyone can decide on where the money goes, and the needs of as many individuals and causes are met.
Now answering your question, "What if you don't want them to hear all your personal stories of why you are poor or are in need"?
The poor person could always find a neighbor to speak with up front. One person is a good idea for that, because if they are a part of a committee they could help you themselves, just like what Beth said. That one person could help the poor without that poor person having to go to everybody in the committee. There is always alternative routes to this kind of problem.
Answering Ari's question "Cant a Tzedakah distributor handle tow or three people?" I think that the distributor most likely is able to but it is more fitting for more people to make the decision together to prevent bias and to maintain equality.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole it is better for more people to deicide where the Tzedakah should go because each person will see a different side of every case so there are more opinions as to how it should be used. Each person also brings different ideas of Tzedakah usage to the table to it gets spread around more equally.
One person might be preferable if one is dealing with organization and the group deciding on how the Tzedakah is to be used is disorganized and quarreling. If someone is starting a Tzedakah group and is in charge or alone it would be simpler for the up start of the organization if one person held the power.
Ari, you make a good point. I wouldn’t have thought of the Tzedakah distributor having a bias, but it actually is a sensible possibility. Good job!
ReplyDeleteIn response to the original question: Yes, I do think that having many people be responsible for distributing Tzedakah makes sense. Like Beth stated, the “money [is] collected from the COMMUNITY,” therefore, I think the community should be able to have some say in how that money is used. When “many people” come to get Tzedakah, they probably all have a different problem that needs to be taken care of, but how could one person listen and prioritize every individual beggar’s needs by himself in a timely manor? A committee would provide multiple views and opinions and come up with a fair decision that the community would agree with (because the Tzedakah distributors are technically part of the community, so they ‘represent’ the community’s values, etc.).
On the other hand, if it is an individual person asking for charity, I think it is appropriate for an individual Tzedakah distributor to decide how much to give. Again, this could play into the embarrassment factor—it is much more embarrassing to beg in front of multiple people than it is to beg from one person.
I agree with what has been said. It makes sense that a community would chose who its own Tzedakah would help. However I pose this question, who is elected or gets to decide where the money goes toward? Are there any laws? Surely someone who donated more money to the Tzedakah would feel more possessive over where the Tzedakah money was donated. * What laws are there to prevent a person who has donated a large portion of the Tzedakah from having a larger influence on where said Tzedakah goes? What are the requirements for a "Tzedakah decider"? A man, or a woman? Must they be of a certain age? The Tzedakah money is from the community, so it would make since if the group of people who chose where the money went changed ever few months. However if that was the case, would everyone in the town then have equal opportunity to make the choice? Always, there are corrupt or power hungry people who would make bad decisions, what is done to prevent them from having that chance? Or maybe, a technique which would fit to the "he" vs. "they" conundrum, they community used a system similar to that of a jury and judge. In that situation there are both many people and one main person hearing out a "problem", the resolution of which is a combination or from the influence of both the many and the one. Of course the "judge" would be a reliable, unbiased, responsible and empathetic person whereas the jury could be replaced every once in a while. This would prevent a corrupt person from having to much control over important decisions, while still allowing them to make smaller decisions, and would prevent an influenced jury to donate the Tzedakah to an "unworthy" option. The purpose of a Judicial System is to have well balanced and distributed power.
ReplyDeletewhat if it is a mother and a child? does that count as two people? meaning they would need the whole tzedakah community? would they be put ahead of the needs of the people that come alone because it would be helping two lives? what if it were a boy child and a woman child? is there like a seperate person/people for children to go to?
ReplyDeletealso what would happen if someone were to become dependent on the "kis"/tzedakah. Lets say there was a man and he would always come back to the tzedakah person who had pity and would provide him with money. As time when on that man would grow lazy and become fully depedent on the Tzedakah person? would that be a reason to reject giving some one Tzedakah? if not, what would be a reason for the "jury of Tzedakah collectors or just one Tzedakah collector to turn people away?
Based on what this commentator is saying, I'm assuming an individual tzedakah distributor can give her no less that 50 zuz, while a large tzedakah organization provides for her however many they see fit. If this is the case, it could lead to some pretty odd situations. For example, thsi gives the organization no money ceiling, and they could give one orphan 150 zuz, while only giving another 20. It isn't really fair that they get to judge people's "honor," since you could have one well-fed orphan who is ready to present himself to the panel, whereas a starving child wouldn't do as well and thus not get as much. It's a very unjewish and uncharitable way of doing things, inmy opinion. There ought to be a ceiling on how much can be given to one person for another reason, as well: if the organization goes and gives a few people massive amounts of money that are supposed to be for the general use of everyone in the community, that could lead to a fund shortage. It's like frivolously spending taxpayer money. If anything, the people who provide the tzedakah money should have a say in who gets what and how much.
ReplyDeleteAnswering Maya's questions: I feel that just like a minion(not totally sure if thats the right spelling) you are required to have ten MALE figures, you are also required to have a certain amount of people in order to have a COMPLETE community. I don't think that you can call a mother and a child a community... Thats like saying they are also a complete village which they aren't. I feel that to get the "communities" opinion, there should be a board of people in charge of the Tzedakah representing the people or different communities within a city, and they together can decide on whether or not you receive Tzedakah.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the other question, I would have to say that a person is allowed a total amount of the Tzedakah money before he/she would have to give back to the community and REVAMP their "giving-ness" to the people. In other words, they would eventually have to come up with some sort of Tzedakah of their own in order to keep receiving Tzedakah as needed.
I believe that the commentator interpreted the definition of "he" and they doesn't always sense. It is good for many to decide how much tzedakah to give in some situations and it is also better for one to decide how much tzedakah to give in other situations. Like Ari mentioned, it might be risky to have one person give tzedakah because they might have a biased opinion. However, I think that a good thing with having one person give tzedakah is that you can overtime (assuming this distributor always distributes to you) build a relationship with this person. Eventually, the distributor might like you and end up giving you more tzedakah. Now even though this is dishonest, depending on how poor the person is, I think its acceptable. Another situation where one person would be preferable than many is if the Tzedakah distributor knows you in advance. Then,they might sympathize with your situation and give you accordingly, sometimes more and sometimes less. A situation where a group of people giving you the tzedakah would be when the community as a whole is struggling financially. In that case, everyone would get the same amount. Also, a group might be more organized in distributing tzedakah to a community than an individual would be.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with only having one person decide who gets how much tzedakkah is that the person giving out the tzedakkah could be judgmental or biased for some reason against the person who needs the money. When there are multiple people deciding one person's allowance, if you will, the verdict is much more logical and proactive then the singular person. And in the case of giving it to the community, doesn't it just mean people are taking back the money they spent on tzedakkah? and if they gave a small amout to it and are getting it back, couldn't they have more then when they started, making it so the tzeddakah is giving the extra income and not receiving?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Zoe's question, doesn't it just mean people are taking back the money they spent on tzedakkah? I think the people the take from the organization take from the organization because they have no money, if they have no money, how would they be able to give tzedakkah. So, no they would not be taking the money they gave for tzeddakah. And to go along with Zoe's other question, since tzedakkah is there to help others who need it they are there to give people an "extra income", but receive from people who do have an income and dont need the money. What if they don't have enough money to serve everyone that needs it? do they give to the highest priority or no one at all?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brooke's question "What if they don't have enough money to serve everyone that needs it? Do they give to the highest priority or no one at all?" As the Gemara says, "we provide for the girl first and afterwards we provide for the boy, because it is normal for the boy to "return to the doors" (go door-to-door begging. Although this in the specific case of orphan children, I assume from their reasoning (going back to begging door-to-door), that they would provide for girls/women first. Eventually their goal would be to provide for everyone, so they would probably give their money to the most in need instead of no one at all, and then after time, regain enough money to take care of others eventually.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Tzedakah fund could’ve been a system like food stamps, where you have to go apply, and spend hours filling out forms and surveys and then in the end perhaps not even procure the stamps.
In response to the original question of why it’s better to have many people decide who the Tzedakah goes to, and what circumstances might be better for one person, I agree with what Ari said that one person might have a bias and therefore not give to the person who obviously deserves it. However, if someone is in need of assistance immediately, one person would be better because they would be able to quickly decide whether or not/how much the person would get, rather than going through a whole process involving votes and such.
When someone ask for Tzedakah, Does the Tzedakah fund try to evaluate why that person is asking? For example if the person asking was poor because of bad choices they made vs a reason they had no control over? And if so, is there a way a person begging can redeem them selves from the wrong they did that caused them to be poor?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Josh’s question, I believe that it is not whether it was a bad decision that led to them becoming poor that the group allocating the tzedakah should judge them upon but should be based more on how they are acting now that they need help, or rather on their kavod. In Mishnah Ketubot 6:3 it states that you should provide financially for the orphan girl according to her honor. Also in Ketubot 67b Gemara you are commanded to provide “that which he needs” which though does not answer how you choose how to pick one over another to provide for, it shows that it does not matter how he became poor. If a man has become poor from bad decisions and then has no kavod, then maybe the tzedakah fun should consider it. But should we should we be judged for one decision that led to the downfall of our lives even though we still have as much kavod as the one you’re being compared to?
ReplyDelete