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?
As the Torah says in verse 11 in the book of D'varim, "For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land".
ReplyDeleteClearly we can see that the Torah teaches (to its audience) that providing for the poor is important. The phrase "open your hand to the poor" is unclear though, so the Torah leaves it up to us for interpretation.
Rambam's interpretation was as follows: if you donate more than 1/10th of your possessions, then you are considered generous. I think that this is incorrect. Why do I think this is incorrect? Well, because nobody should have their reputation be impaired as a result of poverty. Think about it, a poor person living on welfare cannot afford to donate 10% of their possesions because they need it all to support themselves; in some extreme cases, a person in poverty might not even be able to donate 1% of their possesions because they simply need all of it for themselves (not for selfish reasons but because of physiological reasons).
I think that the amount in which you are required to donate to tzedaka should be dependant on your wealth. A wealthy man can easily afford to donate more than 10% of his possesions, and in extreme cases, a wealthy person may be able to donate over half of their possesions.
I feel that if the poor are capable of donating, then they should. But only in extreme cases should they be exempt from the law of the Torah. Although, it might be bad for tzedaka recipients to also be obligated as givers because the money would end up circulating right back around, resulting in nobody gaining anything.
The Torah states, "For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land." I think it is important to give to Tzedakah because there will always be some people that need help providing for themselves (and it is a mitzvah to assist them). Technically, the Torah commands the people to give to the needy in their community. However, I think how much you give should depend on your income. The poor people need to be provided for, but the people giving also have to provide for themselves and their families (and like we saw in the text of Ben Pertora, R' Akiva and the flask of water, 'your life comes before your friend's life'). So, if a poor person (who can barely provide for himself) is obligated to give Tzedakah, he should only be required to give as much as he can to still be able to sustain his own needs.
ReplyDeleteFor someone that is not poor (and does not need Tzedakah's support), I agree that there should be a minimum (because some people are greedy). There has to be a maximum because, as we have learned, you cannot give all of your money (that would result in you needing Tzedakah's support).
This text simply states that someone is obligated to give to ANOTHER, not specifically to the tzedakkah collectors. It says, "Even a poor person who is sustained by Tzedakah is obligated to give Tzedakah to another." Meaning, when someone asks for help, we should give it. It does not say specifically when someone asks for help, give 1/10 of your money or physical possessions to the Tzedakkah fund.
ReplyDelete"Possessions" may not necessarily mean money and your physical possessions. Tzedakkah means "righteousness". An act of kindness can be a form of tzedakkah. Therefore, if a poor person asks another poor person to help, he can give it in the form of something else besides money and physical possessions.
For example, if a beggar asks a poor man for food, perhaps the poor man can go out of his way to help him find a food bank or an organization with a homeless meal. This can account for part of the 1/10 of possessions, this one being the poor man's TIME.
I think giving 1/10 of your "possessions" to one person who is in need is a lot to ask, but with the possibility of TIME as a possession, I do not think it is an unreasonable law.
In this way, rich people, poor people, and Tzedakkah recipients all have a way of contributing their 1/10 to the community.
SORRY ABOUT THIS BEING SO LONG I SPLIT IT IN TWO PARTS
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that this law entirely applies to today. In the time this was written, many Jews lived in tight communities that supported themselves and knew many people to whom they donated. Today the situation is different. Also I think taxes should partially count as tzedakah.
-Right now in San Francisco, I personally don’t see people dying on the streets. Back then, when people came to beg at your door, it was more personal, you saw these people and knew that they needed your help. Keeping your community happy and healthy was up to you (if you don’t give tzedaka, there would be people dying on the streets). (Versus now, when you pay taxes which are supposed to help people, you don’t exactly know what they’re used for and don’t always agree.) And you knew that if something happened and you became poor, others (maybe even those to whom you gave tzedaka) would help you out. Today, chances are, if you give some homeless person money, they’re going to go and buy drugs; in this case, it’s not even for their good to give them money.
CONTINUED…..
ReplyDelete-Often, people who live on the streets are the only ones that directly ask you for help. We can’t always relate to them for various reasons. For example, every morning when I see people lining up for free food packages, free showers, and soup kitchens, there are others who stand a block away with a rehearsed speech and try to guilt-trip people. A problem is that a huge percent of those homeless people are crazy and therefore have a hard time taking care of themselves. I think it’s a better idea to buy/make food (or clothes) and give it to them instead of money.
-Other people that need help, such as families, don’t often express their need to regular people so it’s hard to help them. Our family friend’s credit card got stolen and the people who stole it went and bought food. You can see from this that they need help, but instead of expressing that need which would be humiliating, they do stuff like stealing. This gives them a bad reputation and I know some people who base their racism and narrow-mindedness on this.
-The Earth is one big global community and we (or many of us feel) that we should help people thousands of miles away. It’s hard to find a good way to donate to and help those people because many organizations are either corrupt or use as much if not more of your money building houses for their staff than actually helping the people.
-Also, this text is avoiding that many people need more than financial and material help; this help doesn’t seem to be included in the yearly amount.
Ben Heyman Said...
ReplyDeleteI feel that people of different classes should have to give more Tzedakah. If you are of the lower class you only have to give about 7% of your income, middle should give about 10% of income, middle upper should give about 10% of net worth (income + owned). The upper class would be greater though. The more fortunate should be able to give more so I say that the upper class should give from 15-25% of their net worth. This should also be based on their years growth. If it was a good year for them, they should give away a greater amount, while on a slower year a percentage of 15% should be given.
Mainly the point to this all should be based on the person's income for the year. The extreme case would be if a person DIDN'T have a job, then what should they do? Well I think that if they are married, they need to perform different community services. Think about the statement "Time is money" well thats exactly what an unemployed person should be asked to do. If they spend a lot of time helping people, then its just as good as giving money to Tzedakah.
Roza, I think it might be a little strong to say that chances are that homeless people will buy drugs with your money. The possibility is there, but if you think of the world in that sense, no wonder would ever help ANYONE. Is that fair? I don't think so. I would think that even those people that are needy or less fortunate have respect for you and your money, and therefore would use it in a respectful manner. If that's not the case, then now you know better. But - if that is the case, then that less fortunate person should be grateful and more willing to help out others in need.
ReplyDeleteSo, I do think that people receiving tzedakkah should give tzedakkah to others, and therefore, a cycle of generosity will occur. The world can be a much better place if people just helped each other out. Of course if you are struggling it might be hard to help out others, but at least giving a minimum of 10% could possibly end with a great ripple/wave effect.
I'm completely aware that in today's society, it is not very easy to give a lot away. An effort goes a long way and people should at least give some to the less fortunate, because, truly, there are always less fortunate people than you. Be grateful for what you have, but let others be grateful for you too.
Setting a minimum makes me uncomfortable though. What if you feel that what you're giving is too much? What if you feel it's not enough but don't know how much is too much? HOW MUCH is TOO much? I don't think people should feel guilty or bad if they're unstable to give a lot: even 10% could be a lot to people. 'And you would have thought' all people were supposed to pay 10%. There should be exceptions to this rule, surely.
I don't agree with the part of the text that says "and even a poor person who is sustained by Tzedakah is obligated to give Tzedakah to another." The reason I don't agree with this sentence in the text is that I feel that you should be financially stable yourself before you give the little money that you have to somebody else that's in the same situation. I feel that with the poor giving away their money they're more likely to stay poor and to not financially grow and be able to fully provide for their families. While there is a need to give back to others I feel that the poor can do that in other ways then by giving away parts of their hard owned salaries and their possessions. I think that the law in the Torah is necessary but it's more necessary for the rich so they don't become to egotistical or look down on others. The poor need more help financially then the rich. We see in another text that your are to drink the water yourself and save yourself before your friend. And I feel that in this case you have to make sure you can survive giving up what you have to someone else, and not all the poor are able to survive while giving away to others. Also, who is to say one poor person is more poor then another.
ReplyDeleteI think this is text is fair in the way that at least 10% must be given. However, I think the word Tzedakkah is loosely defined. It does not necessarily need to be given to the poor. The text that this Mishnah and Gemara are in response to is the Torah. In the times of the Torah, a good portion of the 10% you had to give went to the priests of the Beit Hamikdash. The priests of the Beit Hamikdash weren’t exactly beggars. Today, most Americans give, on average, about 25-30% of their money to taxes. This is more than what was given in the times of the Torah and the times of the Talmud (as far as I know). I am not necessarily saying this excludes us from giving tzedakkah, but I am saying people shouldn’t feel greedy for giving 2.2% to charities.
ReplyDeleteA 10% requirement across the board could possibly not work because while 10% might work for some, 10% might be too little for wealthy people and too much for poor people to handle. I think that the amount of money you should have to give should be measured parabolicly. The more money you have, the higher the percentage you should have to donate. This would function to an extent on the high end because you don't want to have to give up ALL your fortune. This would work, in my opinion because there needs to be a balance between what you want and what you need to function and what you give. And people would be able to give regularly and repeaditly because the amount they give would vary based on thier situation.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone can offer a little bit of something without it being money (according to what Beth said). It is important to give because it makes you feel good inside when you see someone else happy because of what you did for them. For example, if a poor person makes $500 a month, and he/she wants to gives a few dollars out of it, this would actually help and will really make them feel good knowing that they are actually able to give to those less fortunate. It's a great mitzvah to give to the Tzedakah. A poor person should not be excluded from this opportunity. Each person can give what they can, the percentages can vary from month to month according to someone's circumstances and incomes. A community should be made of people who help each other, and everybody should contribute according to their ability.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ari's comment on Rosa's, who are we to tell someone how to manage his or her money? Who are we to tell them how to live their lives? Us not giving money thoughtfully, purposely even to people on the street could be seen a micro example of a dictatorship. We are making sure that they will not get the money we would have given them only because we might not agree with the possible uses of that money. We are not-and shouldn't- be in a position of power like that. We should not be able to dictate how other people spend their money.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the maximum and minimum, I think that the grand majority of us do not give as much as we could. This goes back to self vs. other. We can almost always give more, take less and appreciate what we have. There should not be a numerical limit on how much someone can give because one person might live an extremely simplistic life, and have a high paying job. Having a minimum is questionable because one should not be required to give they should want to give.
"and even a poor person who is sustained by Tzedakah is obligated to give Tzedakah to another"
ReplyDeleteI think that a poor man giving Tzedakah is a very appropriate law. During the self versus other unit we discussed how it's degrading to ask people to help you, when you're not able to provide for your self or your family. Wouldn't things become less degrading if you could give to the poor even if you received? Now, what defines a the word possession? I think that time falls under the category of a possession- because it is something you possess. So, if the poor man donates 20% of his time to the Tzedakah fund, would he be doing an exceptional mitzvah? I think he is doing a mizvah and giving back.
I think people should give what they can to charity. Whether that means time, money, possessions, ect. However, what if there is a single mother, making minimum wage and working eight hours a day to support her family? What if she can only give 1/10 of her possessions? Does that give her an "evil eye"?
I believe that Rambam’s main intent in writing this piece is to convey the importance of community and kindness towards fellow man, similar to the ideas that Beth and Marie discussed in their comments. A quote by Rabbi Menachem Mendle, also known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe, perfectly exemplifies this type of thought, as he says,
ReplyDelete“Intolerance lies at the core of evil.
Not the intolerance that results
from any threat or danger.
But intolerance of another being who dares to exist.
Intolerance without cause. It is so deep within us,
because every human being secretly desires
the entire universe to himself.
Our only way out is to learn
compassion without cause. To care for each other
simply because that ‘other’ exists.”
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/quotes/
One shouldn’t squabble about what amounts to give, but focus more on the action itself of giving, whether it be with possessions or actions of kindness.
3. I agree with Ari (from a few posts back), if we assume that people will only do bad with our money, then nobody would ever give to the homeless. My mom is the president of a food bank in Burlingame, and she explained it to me like this: instead of not giving a dollar to any homeless people for fear of them spending it on drugs/alcohol, give a dollar to EVERY homeless person in hope that one will spend it to better their lives. Oh how much would our world be better if everyone took that approach. As for the amount of money people that should be given to charities. It should matter how much you give, but it is more important the intention of the donation. For example, if there is a wealthy billionaire who signs a check for a million dollars to a non-profit, but does not really care about the people he is donating to, and he never again comes in contact with that organization. Is that a better act then the man who can only afford to give $300, but volunteers time and emotion to the people and the organization he is serving? Well it is true that the organization can do much more with the million than the $300, but the $300 is given with a better intention. It is just something to think about, I'd love to hear your responses.
ReplyDeleteA poor man should not have give 10% of his wealth for a couple of reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe 10% of his wealth is worth a lot more to him than to others. His wealth maybe 500$ and giving away 50$ would force him to lose something very important such as an article of clothing or food. Meanwhile, this 50$ is only .1% of a wealthy man's wealth, so in comparison it adds seemingly very little to the tzedakah box.
What a poor man should have to do instead is volunteer by working at places such as the soup kitchen. His volunteering should be considered as giving away money. The poor man volunteering would bring much more good to society as it would be worth much more than the 10% that he could give away, and at the same time it will be much less of a burden on himself because he does not lose his money, just some of his time.
For a person who is not in need of Tzedakah to give 1\5 of their possessions is not reasonable. For if someone were to give this much, could cause the person to become poor as well, and they would then be in a situation of need. One should only be commanded to give an amount where they will still have enough left, to sustain themselves.
ReplyDeleteA poor person should not be required to give 1\10 of their possessions, for then they will constantly be needing to beg. They should at least be able to re-build their financial stability before becoming donors themselves. However, i agree with Beth, giving Tzedakah does not always have to be in the form of money, or like Beth said, "physical possessions"
At our school we realize this. For example, community service is a big aspect of our school. Since we teenagers don't have the money to donate, rather we donate our time. This too is a form of Tzedakah.
Referring to the New York Times article, i believe that giving is clearly an important thing to do. Though setting a fixed amount of what we are supposed to donate is a little weird, because everyone has their own financial struggles. However some are extremely wealthy, like George W. Bush, that's why he was able to give more then the Obamas and obviously the general population. Though on the other hand, if there is no set amount, then it is possible that no one will give. However, i still believe that everyone should give what they are comfortable with, and like i said before, an amount where they can still sustain themselves.
LISA IS AMI....
ReplyDeleteim on my moms account, i don't know why that happened...
I would like to respectfully disagree with Ben H's idea
ReplyDelete"I feel that people of different classes should have to give more Tzedakah. If you are of the lower class you only have to give about 7% of your income, middle should give about 10% of income, middle upper should give about 10% of net worth (income + owned). The upper class would be greater though. The more fortunate should be able to give more so I say that the upper class should give from 15-25% of their net worth. This should also be based on their years growth. If it was a good year for them, they should give away a greater amount, while on a slower year a percentage of 15% should be given."
The purpose of a set percent income in any situation is to make the expectations for people with less of an income the same as a richer person; in relation to what each of them have. 10% of a salary of 2,000 a month is 200 dollars, if a rich person makes 30,000 a month, they would then have to also give up 10%, 3000 dollars. It isn't necessary to increase the percent for rich people because they would already be giving more then the poorer. Both the poor, the working class, and the rich would carry a similar "financial burden" an amount which corresponds with their wealth.
I understand the thought that poor people may need the Tzedakah more then the wealthy, nevertheless, Tzedakah is a community effort, if richer people wish to donate more let them, but I do not think it should be expected. Regardless of wealth, each member of a community is equally responsible and valuable, why should the wealthier have to "carry a heavier load" then others? People should not be "punished" for their own success. ( I use parenthesis because Tzedakah is not and should not be looked at as a burden or just a responsibility).
(I also completely agree with what Grant said regarding the intentions of each donation.)
I think that it would be good for someone who received Tzedakah to also give Tzedakah. They would be more appreciative of what they received and would try their hardest to give back what they could. I also think that someone who was a recipient of time as a form of Tzedakah would be influenced positively by it and notice how good it made the person feel, so they would go and donate time as if it were money. I agree with Sophie N when she says that the set 10% of income no matter how rich or poor you are works. It is designed to work that way. On the other hand, it might be a bad idea for someone who gives Tzedakah to also receive it since they might not be able to afford it, or it might feel like they are just giving money right back to themselves, and in turn feel less obligated to give in the long run and the happiness that one normally feels after giving money to charities or a community fund would lessen since they are putting in what they have and just getting it right back.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to what a lot of people have been saying, I would like to point out a big negative in forcing the high-middle class to give out a big percentage of their money. Money to a middle to middle-high class person who owns a small business is almost as important as it is to a poor person who is trying to survive. If that 10-15% of his income is needed to keep his small buisness alive, it should be allowed for him to at least delay his tzedakah giving. This is because if his business goes down, so do all the jobs his business was providing. This makes it so instead of one person not giving tzedakah, now 10-50 people who were previously employed need to use up the tzedakah money and can not pay as much as they would have been able to.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe an option to delay the tzedakah giving should be an option if it is not already. This could be done with an interest system, so instead of having to pay the 10% from the previous year and the 10% from the current year, you would have to pay a total of 25% from the 2 years instead of just 20%.
Ben Heyman said...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Eric because I think that because they have the OPPORTUNITY to advance themselves, they still have the obligation to complete a 15% Tzedakah donation etc.
That doesn't necesarily mean that that comes from their income. Like I stated before, time is money so if they donated some of their time towards helping others, that form of Tzedakah is just as acceptable.
Another problem with Eric's post is that you are allowed to make a one time payment of 25% of your NET WORTH and you don't have to pay Tzedakah ever again. This can make the shop owner NOT have to worry about lossing his buisness because he can make the 25% payment at the BEGINNING of their buisness to decrease the amount the buisness owner has to take away from his shop/store/etc.
I agree with eric. The backbone of any economy is the middle class, and forcing them to give more to tzedakah damages them and their families. It's not like they have the advantage of being able to withdraw from tzedakah funds as well, as the poor do, and they typically have larger expenses, such as funding their businesses. The whole point of tzedakah is to give out of the kindness of your heart and the goodness of your being, not because your government forces you to. Besides, ten precent of a pretty well-off person's income is still going to be more than 10 percent of a poor person's income, so they still have to give more money.
ReplyDeleteI would like to pose a question:
ReplyDeleteThis law puts a lot of emphasis on poor people—“people” meaning adults. But what about children? In the Jewish community, a boy becomes an adult when he turns thirteen (twelve for girls), but it doesn’t necessarily mean they do everything adults do [yet]. Are poor thirteen-year-olds required to give anything? Are thirteen-year-olds that are not poor required to give anything? If so, what are they required to give (seeing as though they don’t have a job)?
What happens if, lets say, someone lives in a really small inexpensive house in Nebraska. He also lives alone, no kids spouse or family. This person (we can call him Tom)has a really high paying job even though he lives in Nebraska. Tom only uses a small percentage of his total income because he also gardens, hand washed and air drys his laundry etc. Tom is also Jewish. Can Tom give more than 1/5 of his income to Tzedaka?
ReplyDeleteSo Tom has a cousin (Teo). Teo has a wife, seven kids, his best friend and his mother living in his house. He needs to provide for all of them. He also lives in a really expensive place, Manhattan. His job only barely covers the cost of rent and food for everyone let alone general household products. Teo and his family are all Jewish. Is Teo required to give 1/10 of his income to a Tzedakah?
In Tom's case he very easily could donate more than 1/5 of his net income. Shouldn't he be permitted to do so? Shouldn't Teo be exempt or have a small reprieve from the minimum?
I would like to pose another question (sorry)...
ReplyDeleteDoes the law of giving 1/10th of your possessions to Tzedakah include non-Jews? And for that matter, do you have to give Tzedakah to a non-Jew in need or are you not allowed to? If so, how much? Who is the first priority, a Jew or a non-Jew (most likely a Jew because Jews are 'brethren'), but what if the non-Jew is in much more need than the Jew, then who comes first?
In response to Ellie, I do think that it would be okay for "Tom" to donate more than 1/5 of his net income, just as long as he doesn't donate an amount so large that he isn't financially comfortable anymore, or to the point that he would ever need money from the Tzedakah fund. However, why wouldn’t Tom give his extra money to his cousin “Teo”, who has a lot of expenses? Maybe the Talmud wants us to spend the extra money that we have after giving our 10% on our family or close friends. Also, Teo could also move to a less expensive place than Manhattan, and be able to pay for his rent and food more easily in a less expensive neighborhood. As far as we know, that is a choice he could make to have less financial pressure, which is why the 10% should still be required for him.
ReplyDeleteMy question is similar. Let’s say we have two people. They both make the same amount of money each year. However, one has a family, and one lives alone. Therefore, a much larger percentage of one’s income gets spent on feeding, clothing, and putting a roof over their family’s head. The other has close to no expenses, and has a lot more income left over. Should they have the same donation requirements? (They have the same income, so the amount of money would be the same.) Is this fair?
Answering Alex's question, the requirement of 1/10 does not include non-Jews although Morly they are not exempt from charity. I think that the priority goes to your community not just the Jews in your community. I think that the reason you have more than one person decide who gets the Tzedakah is to fairly decide who is most needy; be it Jew or non Jew.
ReplyDeleteAnswering Alex's question: I strongly believe non-Jews have to give to Tzedakah. As for giving Tzedakah, I think that we are allowed to give to non-Jews Tzedakah. This is because Jews take part in Hamotzi, which is when people cook for the homeless and deliver food to them.
ReplyDeleteAs you stated Alex, you think that Jews are the priority and I have to agree do to the fact that so far on what we have learned is with helping with Jewish Orphan girls and boys. At the same time I have to agree with Ellie when it comes to who is the most needy; jew or non-jew.
Going back to Sophie N's comment, I disagree with one part. It is obviously true that 10% of a rich person's income is much more then 10% of a poor person's income, and thus the rich person will be giving more money to the Tzedakah. I think the issue here is how much 10% of someone's income will effect them. For example, using Sophie's example, if a rich person makes 30,000 dollars a month, giving away 10% (3000 dollars) will not effect them that much, seeing as they would have plenty of money left. But, as for the poor person, who, say, makes 2000 dollars a month, giving away 200 dollars would effect them much more, seeing as they are making so little money already. Thus, 10% of a poorer person's salary would effect them much more then a rich person, and, this would cause problems. So, as some other people have said, maybe someone could use other ways to give charity, not just with money.
ReplyDeleteI think the one of the main issues with this text of "The Giver's Obligation" is that it doesn't address many of the issues it raises (in other words, it is too vague). For example, taking the example Tina mentioned about two people, who both make the same amount of money, but one person has a family to support, while the other person doesn't, is a good example of an issue about "The Givers Obligation". Furthermore, it is unfair to call some "evil" if they give less then 1/10th of their salary to charity. When someone gives to charity, whether it is 1/5th of their salary or 1/20th or their salary, they are showing good intentions-- they want to help people. So, saying that someone is "evil" when they give less then 1/10th of their salary is unjust, because, not only are they showing good intentions, but they may not be able to give more of their money away. Also, wouldn't saying that someone who gives less then 1/10th of their salary to charity is "evil" cause people who could give less then 1/10th of their money to charity give none, because, either way, they would be seen as "an evil eye"? In other words, people who couldn't give more then 1/10th of their money to charity would not give any at all, because, either way, they would be "evil".
It says as a note below the text that the average American gives 2.2% of their income to charities and "tzedakkah" but does this percentage include the money people pay on their taxes? If it does then can you use this and conceivably write this off as tzedakkah and through your taxes claim that you gave enough, or even if your tax money does go to charity, do you have to pay a separate amount designated especially for tzedakkah? Also, is the maximum amount put there so that you don't give too much that you become a person that starts needing tzeddakah? Or is it just there so that you cannot brag that you gave *blank* amount while your colleague could only pay *less then blank*? The only reason I say this last part is not because I needed filler, but isn't human dignity very important in Judaism, and if you upstage someone, aren't you humiliating them?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex's question. "This law puts a lot of emphasis on poor people—“people” meaning adults. But what about children?" Children can give community service like the teenagers do today. Since most of us don't have jobs at our age, we help the community, (i.e. we can work in the food bank). Just because poor children don't have jobs, they can always help the community in many ways without giving money. Everybody can do something to help others around them, and money doesn't have to be the answer. "Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs (15:8). A child could help their elders, or other poor people by doing nice jesters that means something to them. Like this quote says, have an open heart, and help others however you can. Despite being a child, children can help by doing community service.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Zoe's question, "is the maximum amount put there so that you don't give too much that you become a person that starts needing tzeddakah?" Great question. I believe the limit is there for people to not be embarrassed about one's charity. If one can give more than another thats great, but a lot more is embarrassing for the other. The same for the opposite, having a limit for how little you need to give is helpful for the people who can give just the limit, them feeling the same as a person who has given more. Also, what happens if a person is not able to give the lowest amount of charity?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex Ben-Jakov: I think many responses are too caught up in the nitty gritty of the percents and ratios of how much people should give. If we take a step back we see that the goal of these rules is to ensure that people live in a society where giving is a norm, instead of a place where giving is considered “beyond the call of duty.” Although the phrase “it’s the thought that counts” doesn’t apply in feeding a homeless man, I think the point of these rules is to help build a place where people always have that thought in mind. Some people argue that poor people are already needy and can not donate very much, so they shouldn’t have to give tzedakah. I think that if you try to make different rules for different social classes, then people begin to cut corners on how much to give. I can think of two reasons poor people should also give money: 1) in a small town, donated money will eventually return in one way or another. 2) a poor person may not always be poor, so it is a good mindset to enter. If someone is completely incapable of giving without a major sacrifice, then they shouldn’t be labeled with an “evil eye.” I think that everyone giving with the best of intentions would make society a better place than a forced tzedakah tax, even if it wouldn’t generate as much tzedakah. It would be great to hear your responses.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Zoe Lindgren’s question, I think that the rule to only give up to 20% of your annual income plays into my idea above. My idea is that in a society where people are generous and have good intentions in mind is more important than one where giving is motivated by other reasons. I think that the reason you can only give up to 20% is so that you can have enough to give next year. Because of this, the giver will constantly have these good intentions in mind, and give on an ongoing basis instead of once every two or three years.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Alex & Ellie's comments about non-Jews giving Tzedakah, mitzvot are only obligations for Jews. According to Judaism, there are only 7 laws non-Jews must keep in order to peacefully coexist alongside Jews, and Tzedakah is not one of them. That being said, it seems to me that any society in which the majority of people refuse to share their bounty with others is not one I would want to live in.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Roza's post, I like how Max began this entire comment stream- 'for there will never cease to be needy in your land... therefore open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land.' Roza, whether the person has mental health problems ('crazy' isn't an appropriate term) or a drug problem, the Torah expects us to 'open our hand'. I agree with you though that food or clothing would be a better donation than money. And giving to an organization that provides drug treatement or mental health services might be the best option of all.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is stressed in Judaism that it is important to give tzedakah, I don't think that making people give so much is practical at all. First of all, that is completely impractical in terms of economy, as Ben pointed out. But also, it defeats the whole point of tzedakah. Tzedakah is a mitzvah, not a law that you get punished for if you don't fulfill, or at least that it what it seems to be originally,(Of course, in the US they call it taxes and fees.)But while giving tzedakah and helping the poor and benefiting your community is important, it should not be a responsibility that should be imposed on the whole community, especially the poor. I remember we even had a text about that, Bava Batra 60b. It is called “Living in reality, Maintaining your Ideals.” This text is telling us about how we should mourn, or in this case give tzedakah, but not to the extent that we cannot even endure. It specifically says, “…we do not impose on the community a hardship which the majority cannot endure, as it is written, Ye are cursed with a curse, yet ye rob me [of the tithe], even this whole nation.” That is basically saying that we should not give the community a task which they cannot fulfill, and most people would not be able to live very comfortably if they keep giving away so much money.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is that even though the required amount is a percent, and not a certain amount, that is still different for different financial backgrounds. For example, for the president, yes, he may give 18%, but that is 18% of a much greater amount than, lets say, any homeless person on the street. If they paid 18%, or even 6%, and even if they weren’t homeless, just poor, paying that much might not even allow them to get food for the next few days, whereas the president really would not be worried about that.
Again I am going to stick with my firm belief about charity and Tzedakah. I do not think that it is about the amount of money but more the way you do it, why you are doing it and the reasoning behind it. I believe that if a desperate poor person knocked on your door and asked for you to help provide for him, if you gave him 50% of your income begrudgingly, I mean great for the poor person now he is just as wealthy as you, but he did not obtain the money in the right way nor was it given to him in the right way. I think that if he came to the door and asked for money and you went into your purse and pulled out 50 cents happily and with a smile on your face, and said best wishes to you etc... then they would be doing it in the right way and the poor person would be receiving in the right way.
ReplyDeleteBut going back to your original questions, Is this too much? 1/5 is absurd and can not be expected, if you make 100,000 dollars a year are you expected to just hand over 20,000 to a begging poor person?
But I do think that Tzedakah receivers should give some money to poor people in need, this will keep them aware of their money, more cautious with spending it, and a better understanding of what people have done for them continuously.