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?
I feel that a wealthy person should not always be given what they are accustomed to, since I can definitely see this being easily exploitable. For example, a child who is born into a rich family would probably never have to work another day in his life, because so long as the community upholds this idea, he will be provided for. Even if his entire family was to die and he was to go bankrupt, it would then fall to the community to ensure that he is pampered and cared for. That's why I believe that this idea is inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I feel a person should be provided for as they prefer, but if they choose the more expensive route (i.e request expensive meats and wines, hire a chauffer, etc) at the expense of the community's money, then he should eventually be expected to pay this debt back. This way, the community doesn't frivolously spend money on the whims of has-been rich people, and can use the tzedakah money for what it was truly intended for - providing means of survival for those who cannot provide for themselves.
I believe that a man should eat to how he is accustomed too and i believe this story agrees with me. I also believe that if the man who is receiving aid from the community just sits on his good fortunes and relays on the community without trying to earn money should not receive the good treatment anymore. He should then get treated to what is financially acceptable. That way the tzedakah fund can give more money to others. I feel like there should also be a separate committee that judges whether this person should be treated to what he is accustomed too or whether he should be treated like a regular man and have a regular meal so that more people can receive aid. And over time the list of people who get special treatment would rotate so everyone could get a chance.
ReplyDeleteLike Ben I agree that just because someone is used to eating a certain type of quality of food or is accustomed to any particular type or quality of life doesn't mean its going to be that way for him/her their whole life. It also doesn't give him/her the right to ask others for what they are accustomed to unless they can pay or give something back in return for it. however i am unsure as to weather the question is asking if the wealthy person should be provided with what their accustomed to before or after they need to relay on the community or if just in general. If before: then absolutely not! Why should the wealthy person take from the poor just to please him or herself with something that they can already pay for without needing to take from someone less fortunate. If after: I again think that since the person is now poor they will eat what everyone else can afford to eat. Just because they started off rich that was why the could afford what they wanted because they themselves were paying for it, not that they cant do that anymore its not up to them to keep living the life style they were before. If in general: my answer again ties to my 'before' answer; why take from people who are already struggling, thats just cruel.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to as weather God provides for all i believe that God gave us the tools to provide for ourselves for everyone, and its up to us to what we do with them. So in a sense yes God does provide for all but to an extent, the rest is up to the person. Lastly, in response to the story, i find the end a little confusing as to why Raba later offers the man food after his sister comes. Is it because since he had more food why not share it with the man? I believe its Raba's choice to eat the expensive food so why does the other man care so much? Is it because he is jealous? If Raba can afford the food and other luxuries than good for him, why should he not buy them? Its not as if he were taking it from people less fortunate than him. So why is he questioning him? maybe the man was asking Raba why he didn't give tzedakah if he could obviously afford it. Maybe I am just misinterpreting this text...
*sorry i meant to say relies instead of relays
ReplyDeleteI have a few questions:
ReplyDeleteWhen it says "bring a pledge", what is it referring to? What defines a pledge and how much is acceptable for a pledge? Is the pledge collateral?
When is says "he is given [what he needs] as a gift, and then he is made to repay it." Doesn't that mean it is just a loan? Why do they refer to it as a gift? Usually, you don't have to pay back gifts.
What if one can't repay a loan? Does the loan ever expire? Is there any limit to when it can be payed back?
If the repayment is claimed from his estate after his death, is it still a loan (because at that point he has no choice whether it is given back or not)?
And finally, How does the Tzedakah fund sustain a needy person if there isn't enough money in the Tzedakah fund itself? We have learned that the Talmud says continuously "provide according to his/her kavod" but what if they are use to really high class things (for example, shopping everyday at Barneys, etc...), what does the Tzedakah fund do then?
Also, I would like to disagree with Amir's opinion on having the once rich people rotate turns to get food that they are accustomed to because that makes no sense and it is making it seem like the once-rich people are priority. Instead, I believe that they should ease into accepting the lifestyle of poorer people, because it shouldn't be the responsibility of the community to just take care of that one person who use to be rich, as oppose to taking care of many other people. So really, it's just a controversy on whether one should help many poor people, or one person who use to be rich just to help them feel accustomed to their old life. I believe that it is better to help more people and save more people, then pamper just one person.
In response to one of Jaels questions: I think that the “loan” the Tzedakah collects give them is not a loan like we know one. It is simply called a loan as to not embarrass the receiver if. If they “loan” this man the money, with no intention of receiving this money back then one, they will not be upset when this man becomes bankrupt and doesn’t give the money back and two, the man receiving will feel as if he is just a normal person taking a loan from a bank.
ReplyDeleteMy only “problem” with this story is I feel that it is unfair to just beg for money when you could either get it or yourself or work for it. I understand that maybe he does not want to collect this money, because of embarrassment again, but I see no issue in applying for a job and working for your money. Now, if that person is still not making enough to support himself or him and his family then I see no issue in giving him or her that extra money needed. But, simply giving him or her the money when they are not trying at all to earn that money, then I don’t think it should be a requirement or even something to feel bad about if you do not help that person. Since he obviously doesn’t want to help himself.
I too agree that a person should not be provided according to what they are accustomed to. One reason for this is like Amir said; it forces the person to heavily rely on the community. Another reason is that since the person so heavily relies on the community, if something goes wrong with the community, then the person gets treated and loses some of his luxuries.
ReplyDeleteLet’s assume that this wealthy person that is being treated with the best care, see’s a poor elderly lady on the street begging for money. Would he give her some money? Probably not. Multiple issues come up here. First of all, he is being ignorant. This man never was poor, so he can’t sympathize with this woman. Does it give him the right to be ignorant though? Off course not. Nowadays celebrities and ordinary people donate and give to the needy from many different financial situations. Second of all, by being so stately, he is belittling the lady in a sense. Here goes this fancy rich man in front of a begging elderly lady. Surely, the lady must feel like the man is more superior and needed then she is. To sum it all up, if the person keeps being treated the way he was before, he will never see and feel what people less fortunate than him do. By doing that, he is being an ignorant person and an ignorant person in his society.
A problem that can come up in the entire community is that the community is running out of money and can barely support everyone. The wealthy person comes and asks for money. If the community gives its money the person, then everyone else suffers. If the community keeps the money for themselves, then the man suffers. My question is what should happen in this case? Does majority rule apply here? Or does the wealthy person gets the money and still be wealthy?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the first question, “Should a wealthy person be provided according to what they are accustomed to?”, in my opinion: no; in the Talmud’s: yes. As we learn from the verse (paraphrased) “אם הקרן יכולים להרשות לעצמם, הם מספקים לפי כבודה” in Mishnah Ketubot 6:3, one should provide for another according to his/her honor. In my opinion, this is flawed. Why? Well, to forward Ben Oreper’s point, I believe that it takes too much energy to sustain a wealthy man’s lifestyle. I.e. with one hundred zoozim you could (hypothetically) buy a rich man expensive fuzzy slippers that he has been inherently accustomed to, while on the other hand, that same hundred zoozim could be spent on wholesale rice and bread for the far more numerous poor. Which option seems practical and ideal to you?
ReplyDeleteIn the next paragraph I will attempt to answer the following question: Does God truly provide for all? First off, this is a tremendously difficult question to answer because there are a myriad of deciding factors that change an answer in half a second. One factor is whether one believes in God, another is how much power does God truly harness? For the sake of fully answering the question, I will conclude that God does in fact exist, and that He harnesses all of the Universe’s power. Now, after coming to this conclusion, I believe that God does provide not provide for all. Where is the proof? Well, if everyone was provided for then why would we have people who need to be provided for? It is contradictory if you assume that God does provide for all. The Talmud, once again, is instilling morals in the generations to come that will, over and over again, read about its’ contents. And the moral that is prominently portrayed in this text is as follows: share even if you are wealthy, and that miracles are possible. I agree with this message.
“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 . . . ”- Ketubot 67b part IVa
A question for Ben Oreper:
What if he requested to be provided for in a luxurious manner, but could not not repay his loan?
In response to Max's question: If he could not repay his loan, he should never have been given it in the first place. There should be a screening process where the loan-taker must confirm that he will be able to pay back the loan. If he does not, he should be punished and forced to work until the loan is paid back.
ReplyDeleteI may be interpreting this wrong but is the person in the text saying that the food he gets from tzedakah is provided to him by God and not the people? That's a problem with the tzedakah steps. He doesn't know what people he's getting from (which according to Moses ben Maimon is the best way), making the guy getting from charity ungrateful and unappreciative of the efforts others put in to provide him with expensive food. If everyone thought that, than tzedakah funds wouldn't get much money, if any at all, so I don't agree with this. If you rely on God for everything and don’t try, you’re not going to get very far in life.
ReplyDeleteEven if “the Holy One, blessed be He, provides for every individual his food In accordance with his own habits,” people create their own habits. For a person to have a habit of eating expensive food, either they or someone else (like their parents) had to work hard to have the money for that habit to form. If you can go from being poor to rich and change your habits to expensive, then when you go from rich to poor you change your habits to inexpensive.
I'd like to comment on Neena's post. It's hard to figure out who could be earning money and providing for themselves and who really can't and needs the help. Very poor people get money from the government and food stamps; this uses a lot of our tax money and they can barely buy anything with food stamps (and it's certainly not going to be very healthy). So this method is not very efficient. Many of those people are capable of providing for themselves but they don't have enough motivation and opportunities. For example, if you are a poor 40 year old who hasn’t even finished high school, what job could you have? On the other hand, if while someone’s working hard to be able to minimally provide for themselves, it’s unfair that someone who has had a chance to do that instead gets money from the government. So everyone should definitely try to provide for those who need something, but not too much so that people still want to work. I think that what the community should do is make sure is that everyone gets enough to live and help them learn to provide for themselves.
I agree with Ben and Florencia but for different reason. I do not think that a person should be provided for according to what they are accustomed to, but I don’t agree with Ben’s reasons. I don’t think it’s the same as a child of a wealthy family never having to work a day in his life. I think its more what Amir was touching on that if the wealthy person does not help the community now and never did when they are rich it shouldn’t be the community’s responsibility to provided them with the same luxuries, especially if it’s putting a hardship on the tzedakah fund and they can’t provide as well for others. The community has a responsibility to all people no matter how much money they come from. Also if the person doesn’t care about the community and didn’t give back when they were rich and never helped poor people or donated to the tzedakah fund then I think they should be given less than those that having being those that were poor or rich. The tzedakah fund should help those that have helped others. It’s not fair that a formally rich person gets more money than an always poor person just because that use to be there way of life. That was the past. This is the present.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, God provided for them, which does happen from time to time. However, in most cases this is not so. If one goes to a homeless shelter, (s)he will find people of varying backgrounds, and varyous walks of life. And now, they all live or are provided for equally at this shelter. I once met a man who was homeless in Mountain Lake Park, and got into an intresting conversation with him. He said that he was once very financially sound, but things happened and now he is sporatically provided for in a way that makes his living conditions far les than before. He did not wish a return to the way things were, nor did he think that they might anytime soon.
ReplyDelete"One I built a railroad, now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?"
-Yip Harburg
I would like to agree and disagree with Max's comment: "I believe that God does provide not provide for all. Where is the proof? Well, if everyone was provided for then why would we have people who need to be provided for?"
ReplyDeleteI believe that everyone is given the tools around them that will help them be provided for, and one such example is the tzedakah fund. I also think this story is a great example of it. We get a verse of Torah to support giving the man fat chickens and old wine, and then: "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." This could either be a coincidence or proof that God, although not directly, did provide for this man. I believe it is proof, since the text added in the fact that the brother and sister hadn't seen each other for thirteen years. I also agree with Max's point though, that if God did provide for everyone, why are there still homeless people and people who need to use tzedakah? I think that one possible answer is that everyone has the tools to become better off but they don't always know how to use them.
A link that supports Jael's opinion which I agree with that one should be eased into the lifestyle of poor people is: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practices/Ethics/Tzedakah_Charity/Requirements/Preventing_Dependency.shtml
It talks about supporting someone who has recently lost money and who will rely upon the tzedakah fund. It also has some opinions about tzedakah today and where it should go.
I think that the message of this story is basically that everything will work out in the end. The man in this story eventually gets to eat his fat chicken and old wine, even though at first, this is not the case. While this concept is ideal, I don’t think that it always happens. It is mentioned above that there are still homeless people, which we have all witnessed. While it could be argued that these homeless people could seek help if they wanted to, a lot of these people have mental disabilities, and do not have the resources to succeed financially, or live in the world without outside support. Maybe in the Talmudic era, there was less diversity, and a lot of these issues weren’t present, which could be a reason that this story made sense and always applied then.
ReplyDeleteI have a question regarding the logistics of this system: Let’s say there are two men who were both very wealthy at one point, and lived very privileged lifestyles. All of a sudden, they both lost a lot of money and became very poor, and had to go to the tzedakah fund to get money for food. However, one of the men had happily donated the maximum 20% of his income to the tzedakah fund every year of his wealthy adult life, and donated to the “food tray” every time the collectors came to his door. The other man grudgingly donated the minimum 10% of his income, and never made extra donations. Should they be treated the same way by the tzedakah fund when they are in need? Should the man who happily donated be provided with enough money to live the way he was accustomed to? Should they both be provided for in this way? Should the man who grudgingly donated the minimum not be provided with as much?
Also, can the community object if they feel like they are providing too much for one person? What happens if someone is using all of the community’s money, which causes more people in the community to need tzedakah?
I completely disagree with the idea that God provides for all. In this Talmud story, I think the only reason it is said God provides for the man is to prove the point that A man should always be provided according to his honor or Kavod. However, it's a huge stretch to say God provides for all. An example to back up my claim of God not providing for all is, in Africa starvation is an everyday struggle. I'm not saying God provides means food will just show up magically, I think God provides means everyone has the ability to get the food they need or want. In an article I'm about to link there is so clearly not a way for people to get food that they need or want.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/25/africa.famine/
I agree with Devon, how is it possible that God provides for all? How is possible that God provides for all, if so many people are without food, why is God not helping them? As Devon said, I don't believe that the food with appear from anywhere, but everyone in this world deserves to live, don't they? Just because in the story, the man was rich and wanted to be fed to accustomed, doesn't mean that everyone should be treated like that. What if someone was poor, and needed a full meal? Does that mean we should give them something simple because we believe that they "deserve" a simple meal? I strongly disagree with this story. Although some may say that we should give the rich who turn poor, their food to their accustom shouldn't all be equal? How is it fair for us to give a poor man simple food, when they are most likely more hungry then the rich man?
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether God provides for all is very dangerous. One could say, rightly so, that the fact that there is starvation and hunger and suffering all over the globe is evidence that God does not provide for all. Following that line of logic, assuming we believe in God, God provides for some but not for others.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that always amazes me is when athletes thank God for their victories. I couldn’t find a video of it, but during halftime of the Celtics/Magic game a couple nights ago Nate Robinson, who plays for the Celtics and was having a great game, told a reporter that the reason he was playing so well was because God and Jesus wanted him to do well.
This would seem to imply that Jesus favored the Celtics over the Magic, which doesn’t really make any sense. While this is a rather mundane example, there are much more troubling issues that can arise from asking why God provides for some and not for others.
When America was discovered and the explorers drove out or killed the natives, did this mean that God favored the explorers? After all, if God did not, then why would he have allowed them to dominate over the natives.
This Talmud story would seem to be implying that we, as people, have what we have because of God. Therefore, if you’re rich, you’re rich because God wants to you to be. That isn’t too bad of a thing to say, except that it would also mean that if you’re poor, it’s because God wants you to be poor, which is a serious issue.
It’s hard for me to really interpret this story in any other way than that God wants us to have what we have. The man starts out sounding selfish and greedy, but then it turns out that God wants him to sustain his lifestyle. So if we want to truly buy into this concept laid out in the story, then we must accept that those who are hungry, are hungry because God wants them to be, which is something that I cannot accept.
In response to Daniela’s question, how it is possible that God can provide for all yet so many people are without food? I believe that this is teaching us something about God. Maybe it is purposeful that God does not feed every person so that we ourselves learn to take care of one another. It is similar to the lesson that we learn in the torah of the journey from Egypt. It is obvious the amount of power that God has when performing the plagues and we question why God would harden pharaoh’s heart as opposed to giving him compassion for the people. It is possible that God simply wanted to have the people believe that he had this power. So that once they left Egypt, they would trust God. I think that God not helping each person in need could be giving us a chance to better each other and better ourselves. It is obvious that we have not as individuals or as a collective reached our full potential because there are still such large groups of people in need.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Daniela’s Question, I don’t think the text is saying that poor people deserve less food. I think its saying that they receive enough food because “He (God) provides for every individual,” but poor people receive less rich food. For example lentils still provide sustenance, but don’t taste as good as chicken.
ReplyDeleteEven though the message behind this text seemed to show how God is benevolent and generous, I was also skeptical at first. It seemed like a statement written by the rich, because it mainly benefits them. This is because they have much more to lose (in terms of food quality). However even if the quality of a poor person’s food is already low, hunger is a huge problem which this story seems to effortlessly mend by saying “He (God) provides for every individual.” But then we must ask, is this even possible? Is it really that easy to solve hunger?
As Devon proves, it is evident in the world today that God definitely does not provide for all. However I think that this text is saying that everyone should have the right to be provided for, even if some get richer foods than others. When is says that God provides for everyone, it could mean that tzedakah funds, community kises, and other donors who represent God provide for everyone. In an ideal Jewish community poor people are provided for by these things, which literally do the “work of God.” In this particular story the rabbi and his wife, who are obviously closely tied to the synagogue, provide for this man. Instead of this story being a guarantee for a world without hunger, I think it acts as a reminder to everyone that can give, that all people, both rich and poor deserve a steady source of food.
It could also serve as a reminder for those receiving food or tzedakah, that it indirectly came from God, and that they should respect God because he is providing for them.
Should a wealthy person be provided according to what they are accustomed to? No, because if this wealthy person has gone poor, they have to accept the state a being they are in, by giving they what there always used to gives them the motivation to not change/adapt. They will just keep asking for what they ideally want, but when you slowly give them what they should be having when their poor, would drive them to get what they are accustomed to and may even change their financial wealth.
ReplyDeleteBut, Josh, what happens when a wealthy person loses their money uncontrollably? There are many examples that prove people should be provided for according to their honor, in moderation. What I mean is, let's say a JCHS student's family has lost a fair proportion of their money because of our unstable economy. Should that student be forced to suffer the consequences of a failed economy at home and at school? Don't you think it's reasonable that school gives financial aide and maybe the community donates more to the school's fund, than to have that student be kicked out of the school? Sometimes it's too hard to adapt, and can ultimately be detrimental to a person's physical and emotional well being when your surroundings change so quickly. Acceptance is an ideal word, yet is not always practical. When the Talmud says provide according to one's honor, I think it means more provide the essentials to a person who has lost everything. In Trading Places, the main character tries to commit suicide because his surrounding have changed so fast and he is unable to adapt, and his community is not willing to provide for him.
ReplyDeleteHere is the definition of community: A social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
I think it's fair and appropriate to say when someone, from your community, loses everything, pitching in to help them maintain part of their old life style is fitting, and somewhat essential.
At first glance, I don't think that a once wealthy, now poor person should be provided to what they are accustomed to because it is a waste of the community's resources. However, after reading what people said, my opinions have changed. I could really relate to Devon's example about financial aid at JCHS. I now think that people should be provided for according to what they are used to, in most cases. I think that providing someone with what they are used to could go too far, and be a complete waste. For example, in Ketubot 67b Gemara, Part 3, Rav Ashi tells a story, saying "There was a small town, and every day, they would waste a whole animal." If the small town is killing an entire animal every day for the sake of one person who used to be wealthy, I think it's gone too far.
ReplyDeleteI think that the story doesn’t actually do a very good job of showing the message that God provides for all, because the man still eats something that someone else gave him. Unless food magically fell from the sky, (like the Manna) it is still people feeding the person, and not God. Yes, God may make it so that the person would receive food from somewhere or someone, but that is still not exactly how the man thinks of it. It is not God giving him food. If perhaps God is even involved, He is making the food come to him through some source, (in this case his sister, showing up out of nowhere) but not actually giving him food himself, so the man would still be receiving food that someone else will not be eating because of him. Also, becuse in the Talmud every sentence is important, the fact that the text mentions that he has not seen his sister in 13 years implies that this was not just a coincidence, but that probably God made it happen. But it is still food that was "someone else's", meaning that if he had not had it, someone else would have, and it was not something that God made/gave him.
ReplyDelete