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.
In class we learned about what the Tzedakah fund has to provide for the orphan boy. Above it states: "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."
ReplyDeleteFor this I have two questions. One, does the Orphan boy, aftter he is married or has a job, need to give back to the tzedakah by giving the tzedakah the amount his rent was worth monthly before the orphan boy started paying for it? My second question is: Is it allowed for an Orphan boy to marry a non orphan girl, and is that okay with the Jewish Laws. My last question is, the following; If you are an orphan boy or girl, does this mean that they have no belonginngs sinced their parents left them or passed away? Or does this mean that they are a lower rank, although they were left with some sort of property or money.
In regards to Daniela's question of how much does an orphan boy give back to the Tzeddakah fund after he is married or has a job, I don't believe that the orphan has to pay them back the rent for the house that was provided for him. It was given to him as a donation, so he is not obligated to repay them. However, as Rambam writes, "even a poor person who is sustained by Tzedakah is obligated to give Tzedakah to another" (Laws of Gifts to the Poor, 7:5). The orphan has to give 10% of his income to Tzedakah, according to this law code, just like everyone else. In that sense, he is repaying them by contributing to the benefit of the community.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, the story of Hillel providing the poor son of a wealthy father with a horse and a servant brings up a few difficulties. Is this to say that some poor people are treated more highly than others? (If the poor person were not the son of a wealthy father, would Hillel have treated him differently?)
I agree with Malkie that the orphan boy does not need to pay back the rent that the Tzedakah fund provides him with, but he does have to fulfill the 10% income donation like everyone else. In response to Daniela’s question, I don’t think its fair to say that an orphan is “lower ranking” at all. Being an orphan doesn’t mean you did anything wrong, it just means that you don’t have parents, which isn’t your fault. I don’t think that the society back then looked down upon them, because I think if they did, they wouldn’t be as interested in taking care of them, and making sure they have everything they need to get married. I think that the issue of leaving money and property is a case by case thing. Maybe some did, and maybe some didn’t. But if their parents left them with property and money, they wouldn’t even need to go to the Tzedakah fund, right?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find some confusion in part of this idea. The main question is, where would the orphan boy be living before he gets married? If he doesn’t have money, a house, furniture, etc., and he is going to the Tzedakah fund to get it, what does he have before? Is he living with relatives? If he is living with relatives, why can’t they provide him with money to get married? If not, where else could he possibly live? Did they have the equivalent of orphanages back then?
In response to Tina's question, "where would the orphan boy be living before he gets married? If he doesn’t have money, a house, furniture, etc., and he is going to the Tzedakah fund to get it, what does he have before? Is he living with relatives? If he is living with relatives, why can’t they provide him with money to get married? If not, where else could he possibly live? Did they have the equivalent of orphanages back then?"
ReplyDeleteIn my own opinion, the orphan boy lives in a foster home, or an orphanage. In this case, he would come out of there with nothing. Our community today has arrangements for kids who can't support themselves and are alone. I'd assume they had these kind of places for children back then. If there wasn't any orphanages, then perhaps the orphan boy did have a family but they could barely support themselves. The responsibility of relatives is limited especially if they are low on funds and have their own children to marry.
My questions are what happens if the orphan boy doesn't find anyone to marry? Is he still provided with a house and job to support himself anyway? What happens if there is not enough money in the Tzedakah box to provide for his needs?
"And they rent for him a house and make him a bed and all kinds of furnishings."
ReplyDeleteFirst off i would like to ask for how long does the Tzedakah fund have to keep on paying the rent for the house? Is it for an X amount of time or is it until he gets a job?
My other question is it says "and make him a bad and all kinds of furnishings" Now a house plus all those things can add up to a large sum, especially if they have to keep on paying rent. My question is how does the Tzedkah fund have money for all this?(especially for EVERY orphan) And if they cannot pay for everything what gets priority?
About the servants being part of the tzeddakah: are they really necessary? Was it that back then you could not function properly without servants? This is the only thing in this passage that does not make sense to me. Obviously back then people had different veiws on slavery and what it meant to be a slave, but they still should have been able to survive on their own. That is, unless they are given the slave for the punishment of the slave. It would certainly make more sense; the person committed a crime, and they were forced to be a slave. instead of going to prison where the Rabbis would be in charge of him, he is sent off to make some poor man's life easier as it is getting started. that would be a good explanation as to why, but I can't prove whether or not that is true...
ReplyDeleteAbout the servants being part of the tzeddakah: are they really necessary? Was it that back then you could not function properly without servants? This is the only thing in this passage that does not make sense to me. Obviously back then people had different veiws on slavery and what it meant to be a slave, but they still should have been able to survive on their own. That is, unless they are given the slave for the punishment of the slave. It would certainly make more sense; the person committed a crime, and they were forced to be a slave. instead of going to prison where the Rabbis would be in charge of him, he is sent off to make some poor man's life easier as it is getting started. that would be a good explanation as to why, but I can't prove whether or not that is true...
ReplyDeleteTo answer Marie's questions, " what happens if the orphan boy doesn't find anyone to marry? Is he still provided with a house and job to support himself anyway? What happens if there is not enough money in the Tzedakah box to provide for his needs?" I think if the orphan boy finds no one to marry, the tzedakah fund won't have to provide as much for him, but still some, because that is what tzedakah is for, to help, and provide for those in need. However, I don’t think the same rules apply-those being giving him ALL that he needs- I think it is rather what he lacks, the necessities. Most likely, a job, food, a home and clothes. Most orphans are provided for, if they can be. If they can’t then I would assume either two things, one, they cut down on how much they should provide for each orphan, or two, they somehow earn more money (through fundraising or maybe saying around what is going on, trying to broadcast the situation to the public so that maybe some people will be more eager to donate). That is just my opinion/a guess, I don’t know for sure though.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to Zoe's question about the superfluity of providing the orphan with servants, and on a more general note as well, as to why so much needs to be provided I believe the following. I will begin my explanation with the phrase, "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." In this situation Hillel is providing a poor man, who used to be the son of wealthy parents, with numerous luxuries... or so it seems. To the son of wealthy parents, a horse and servant are not extravagant things. Although at first glance this situation might seem like Hillel is going beyond "providing" him and actually "enriching" him, to someone of great wealth (who happens to be temporarily poor) these things are not of enrichment, but parts of what used to be his everyday life. If the situation had been that of a poor man, who was the son of poor parents, then a horse and servant would have been excessive, and probably a mere bed and table would have been plenty to "provide" for him.
ReplyDeleteAlso in response to Zoe's question, a servant does not mean a slave. Servants were people who worked in the homes of the wealthy, and in no way property of wealthy. I believe it is similar to a modern day 'butler'. To explain why people would agree to be a servant, the answer is pretty simple: poor people often do not have food or a house to live in, and if these people become servants, they will be provided for with food and a home. So, it is not punishment as much as it is employment. Work for food and shelter, rather than the common work for food.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with Elijah that the Tzedakah fund is to provide for the Orphan for his 'honor' so that the Orphan is comfortable. If an Orphan was once very rich and is now poor, he will not be comfortable with just a table and a bed; he would be more comfortable with a more affluent life style. Similarly, an Orphan who has never grown up with a horse and a servant, giving him one would make him uncomfortable because he is not accustomed to this life style.
In response to Malkie's question: I don't think Hillel the Elder would have treated the orphan a lot differently, but I'm sure it all depended on what the orphan boy was accustomed to. If he was accustomed to a regular life, I'm sure he wouldn't go out of his way to ask for a HORSE and a SERVANT. Hillel the Elder is just trying to preserve the normalcy of the boy's life if he was rich. I agree with Grant about the comfortability aspect of the situation. It is not fair - just because his parents died, he now has to live a poor person's lifestyle. It is also not fair to boys with parents - if a poor boy's parents died and he automatically is given a horse and a servant. Should he even feel comfortable being able to cheat people in that way?!
ReplyDeleteThis line confuses me - "You are commanded to provide for him. But you are not commanded to enrich him." What does 'enrich' mean here? If it means 'teach', how is he supposed to learn or have enough funds to educate himself if he can't even build his own bed? If it means 'give him more than that', is he obligated to get a job and provide everything else? Also, is there a reason that the wife comes after all the rest? Do they just want him to be stable enough for the wife when he meets her, or is there a more specific reason?
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=359069&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16
This news article, about Arab orphans, states that there is an entire week devoted to raise awareness about orphans and help integrate them into society. This text and this news article are very similar in that they both would like to integrate the orphan as much as possible. They should be able to live normal lives, and it is seen hundreds of years ago and it is still seen today.
I agree with Ari. How is it fair to poor boys with parents? Their parents work, and pay at least 10% of their earnings to the Tzedakah fund, so that an orphan boy can be rented a house, bed, table, horse, and servant? Also,wouldn't it be much more beneficial to the society, and orphan if the Tzedakah fund provided him a job instead of a servant? Or, would providing him a job fall under the category of enriching him?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what happened to the orphan's parent's money when they died? Did it all go to the Tzedakah fund, or does it go to family?
"I will make for him a fitting helper."
Does this mean the bride has to have the same economic background as the orphan did before his parents died?
Anna Brodski:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Devon:
There is a story (it is either a midrash or actually part of the story of creation) that talks about how G-d presented all of the animals to Adam, so he could choose for himself a mate out of the animals already present in the Garden of Eden. After Adam had named and declined all of the animals as possible mates G-d made something new, Eve. “fitting helper” could mean that they fit together. Also something else that Rabbi Goodman mentioned in class was that the whole line is “I will make a fitting helper against him”. So while Adam and Eve “fit together” they are still different and complete each other in those differences.
When the moot beit din was summarizing their case, they said that one of their points was that embarrassing someone is equivalent to killing them. Wouldn’t the Rabbi be embarrassed to run before the child like a slave? Who’s “life” is more important the Rabbi’s or the orphans (who might be embarrassed by not having a slave)?
From the text, it says that Hillel the Elder ran three miles with the horse, to uphold the kavod of another. But this presents the question of how this action affects Hillel the elder's own honor. In our soeciety, such an action- an act of courtisy and placing others before you- is very honorable. But how is it looked upon in talmudic era babylonian society?
ReplyDeleteAlso, who determins someones honor? If one says that he was one a really wealthy man from out of town and thus must be treated very well that way, but actually is nothing like that, and lives on the street pretending to be a blind bar kochba revolt veteran who can't use his legs and lives on the street, who is he to be provided for?
To answer Elijah Post's first question, in Talmudic era Babylonian society, courtesy and placing others before you was probably honorable-- why wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem right to say that you must provide for an orphan boy "that which he lacks". Just because an orphan boy lived in a wealthy family doesn't mean you must provide for him all he had before. There are other orphans that must be provided for, and if the Tzedakah spends all their money providing for the orphans who used to be wealthy, then there won't be any for the other orphans. It seems more logical that each orphan should be provided with the basic necessities in life (a house, food, etc...). In this way, all orphans will be provided for.
This brings up a question: what if the Tzedakah cannot provide enough for an orphan? Should they provide him with what they have, or wait till they get more, and then provide for him?
In response to Alex's question: "What if the Tzedakah cannot provide enough for an orphan? Should they provide him with what they have, or wait till they get more, and then provide for him?"
ReplyDeleteI think that they should provide for him as much as they can, and later fill in the gaps, rather then wait until they get more and then provide for him. As we've seen in many other texts, the Tzedakah fund has many obligations to fill; towards orphans in a variety of situations, as well as to provide for other people in bad situations. Because it could be a while until they get enough money to provide everything (a table, a house, a bed and a wife, etc.), they should start with what they have and then add to it as time goes by.
As the Gemara stated, they were required to provide for an orphan girl before an orphan boy.
An orphan girl might come in the meantime while the fund was saving up money for the boy and because they must provide for her first, she would take that money, undoing the progress that they were making towards providing for the boy to get "Enough for what he needs, for him that which he lacks." Therefore, they should provide him with what they have in the moment, rather than wait until they can fully provide for him.
"Our rabbis taught: "What he needs"- you are commanded to provide for him. But you are not commanded to enrich him." I understand this quote and agree with it, however, what happens if by providing the orphan leads to him being enriched at the same time. Let's assume that the one thing the orphan lacks is an education (which is true among most orphans). They provide for him an education which leads to him getting a job which leads to a paycheck. Even though an education is not a material, should it still be provided? In addition, people lack qualities that are essential in life, so should someone teach the orphan how to act?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbn.com/worldreach/articles/article_olderorphans_Ukraine.aspx
In this article, it says that orphans are taught lessons on :Identity, Social Skills, Health and Hygiene, Love and Sex, and Time and Money Management. Certainly, lessons on life are provided to orphans nowadays, but were they provided back then?
In response to Anthony's question "Even though an education is not a material, should it still be provided? In addition, people lack qualities that are essential in life, so should someone teach the orphan how to act?" In the Talmud i believe they are referring to material item ONLY. Although you can provide someone with knowledge, back then it wouldn't nearly get them as far as money or food. Also, it depends on the backround of the boy, like we discussed in class you are commanded to give him what he need (or what he was use to getting before his parents died). If the boy had a butler, you would provide for him a butler, but if the boy had a piece of bread for each breakfast lunch and dinner you are only expected to give him a piece of bread for each breakfast lunch and dinner. Again, in the talmud it only talks about providing material items, not education or to teach them how to act. According to the talmud, you aren't suppose to create a new person, but you are commanded to provide simply only for what he needs, materially.
ReplyDeleteWhile not central to the lesson that the story is trying to teach, the central action in the story, the rabbi running ahead of the orphan on his horse, gives me pause. While it is true that having a prominent rabbi running ahead of you acting as your servant would fill the role of the servant, it might actually reflect poorly on you.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the rabbi running ahead of your horse would be that you would be able to maintain your social status. As a rich person you would be at the top of the social order, and you would have a servant, who would be near the bottom of the order. However, having a rabbi run ahead of your horse does not recreate this situation.
A rabbi is not near the bottom of the social order and sending him to run in front of your horse would probably confuse the people at wherever you go rather than impress them. This would be like showing up at a charity run by Bono looking for a servant to replace the one you lost when you went broke, and having Bono, unable to find a servant for you, running around doing your errands for you all day. While it's true that you would still get to have a servant and you would get your errands done, having someone who is clearly not a servant running around for you doing the errands and following you around would confuse people and draw more attention to you than you would probably desire. This would be the opposite of what you want. In theory it would be self-less for a famous person to be your servant for a day, but in reality it would draw more attention to the famous person than to you.
A rich person could come up with an explanation as to why they didn't have their servant with them, but it would be a lot harder to explain why they had a celebrity (or a famous rabbi) acting as their servant.
In regards to what Arno said, is it not more important to fulfill the way you felt before becoming broke rather than care the way society sees you? If it were not the wish of the Rabbi to run before him three miles and worry about him calling attention to the orphan, then maybe he wouldn’t have done it. Also, it could have been the wish of the orphan to be called attention to so that it was known that no longer was he helpless or in need, but back to where he was before his parents died.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that I agree that an orphan should expect someone of higher social stature to bring himself lower just to make him look better, but that brings the question of fulfilling real needs verse wants and if the orphans needs really are providing a servant, than why not try to fulfill them?