תנו רבנן אין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס נותנין לו לשום הלואה וחוזרין ונותנין לו לשום מתנה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נותנין לו לשום מתנה וחוזרין ונותנין לו לשום הלואה לשום מתנה הא לא שקיל אמר רבא לפתוח לו לשום מתנה יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס נותנין לו לשום מתנה וחוזרין ונפרעין ממנו
חוזרין ונפרעין הימנו תו לא שקיל אמר רב פפא לאחר מיתה ר"ש אומר יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אין נזקקין לו אין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אומרים לו הבא משכון וטול כדי שתזוח דעתו עליו
ת"ר (דברים טו) העבט זה שאין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס שנותנים לו לשום הלואה וחוזרין ונותנין לו לשום מתנה תעביטנו זה שיש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס שנותנין לו לשום מתנה וחוזרין ונפרעין הימנו לאחר מיתה דברי ר' יהודה וחכ"א יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אין נזקקין לו ואלא מה אני מקיים תעביטנו דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם
Talmud Ketubot 67b (continued)
Our Rabbis taught: If a man has no means and does not wish to be maintained [out of the poor funds] he should be granted [the sum he requires] as a loan and then it can be presented to him as a gift; so R. Meir. The Sages, however, said: It is given to him as a gift and then it is granted to him as a loan. ('As a gift'? He, surely, refuses to take [gifts]! Raba replied: It is offered to him in the first instance as a gift.)
If he has the means but does not want to maintain himself, [at his own expense], he is given [what he needs] as a gift, and then he is made to repay it. (If 'he is made to repay it' he would, surely, not take again! — R. Papa replied: [Repayment is claimed] after his death.) R. Simeon said: If he has the means and does not want to maintain himself [at his own expense], no one need feel any concern about him. If he has no means and does not wish to be maintained [out of the poor funds] he is told, 'Bring a pledge and you will receive [a loan]' in order to raise thereby his [drooping] spirit.
Our Rabbis taught: To lend refers to a man who has no means and is unwilling to receive his maintenance [from the poor funds] to whom [the allowance] must be given as a loan and then presented to him as a gift. Thou shalt lend him refers to a man who has the means and does not wish to maintain himself [at his own expense] to whom [the allowance] is given as a gift and repayment is claimed from his [estate] after his death, so R. Judah. The Sages, however, said: If he has the means and does not wish to maintain himself [at his own expense] no one need feel any concern about him. To what, however, is the text Thou shalt lend him to be applied? The Torah employs ordinary phraseology.
So what should the community do with a person who we discover does not need Tzedakah but takes anyways? Should we give it or not? Should they repay it? Should their children? What cases in modern society can you think of in which someone or something takes but does not give back?
Tzedakah comes from the word tzedek, meaning justice. Doesn’t it imply that the person who gives is doing someone justice and that the person who takes tzedakah should be deserving of it. I think that if the community finds out that someone is getting tzedakah but doesn’t need it (and therefore doesn’t deserve it for continuing to take it), the community should stop giving them tzedakah immediately but only make them pay it back if there isn’t enough tzedakah for someone else. It’s also the tzedakah fund’s fault because they didn’t find out earlier. If after the person dies there’s not enough tzedakah the family shouldn’t have to pay it back because they weren’t receiving it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to http://www.bje.org.au/learning/judaism/ethics/social/tzedakah.html (“Tzedakah - Charity in the Jewish Tradition”-Academy Board of Jewish Education), “it is sinful for a Jew to refuse charity if they are truly in need”. So why are the rabbis making accommodations for someone who is trying to do something sinful? Are they trying to prevent him from doing something sinful?
If it’s a loan, how can it be a gift?
I believe that for someone to take without needing is shameful in general but it depends on more spacific factors to determin what is to happen as a reperation. If one has the means to take care of his or herself but can't because of mental imparement, that person deserves the approiate degree of help. If they do not and instead are freeloading with an understanding of what he or she is doing and with a total disreguard for anyone else's wellfare, this is shameful and he or she should be required to repay the money immeadiatly. If such swift repayment should cause the person to really for real fall into straits, than payment over a longer period of time may be used, possibly extending unto his or her decendants. If there are no decendents or survivors, or none who can pay the debt, than the debt is forgiven.
ReplyDeletei agree with Elijah, it all depends on the situation and background of the person. It is good that the community would still be willing to help some one who has means but isn't using them.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that it was decided to offer it as a gift first then a loan, because the person that refuses a gift is because they have pride. If then they say yes to a loan then they can repay it and no one is embarrassed. If it had been a loan then a gift (to a poor person) that sounds not as reasonable. first of all the person is obviously having trouble getting back on his feet so to make him promise the person giving him the money that he will be able to pay the person back is hard to do. It would be very embarrassing to admit that you will probably not be able to pay it back because then it would seem that you are saying you are incapable of supporting yourself (and whoever else). If the person is offered a gift than refuses it then they are given a loan which makes a lot of sense.
To answer Roza's question, the reason that the rabbis made it a loan was to spare the person who it was offered to embarrassment because embarrassment is like killing someone since it is so humiliating.
ReplyDeleteIf someone was offered the money as a gift, refused, said yes to the loan, it is still a gift. However, if years later they could not pay back the loan, could the money become a gift again? I believe the answer is yes because the fact that the two options (gift then loan, and loan then gift) are in the same text together means they are interchangable.
I also believe that no matter what, if someone takes tzedakah when they don't need it, and they just take it because they can, they should have to repay in full what they took. It is not fair to the people who truly need the tzedakah for someone who doesn't need it to take it unnecessarily. I agree with Elijah that it could be repaid over time, and I also want to add that the tzedakah collectors, who are under an oath of anonymity, should also keep whoever it is that took the tzedakah anonymous and not let the whole town know, as that would cause embarrassment.
I agree with Lila. I think the Rabbis offered loans (after rejected gift) to spare the embarrassment of the receiver.
ReplyDeleteTo address the Rabbi Goodman's question about someone taking from the Tzedakah box when they don't need it, I agree with Elijah Post and Lila. However I also think it's not up to us to decide who needs from the Tzedakah box and who doesn't. Obviously, there are some people who need it more than others but it's kind of inappropriate of one to decide who needs it and who doesn't. Going off of what Elijah said, I think the person who, "doesn't need it" should pay back what they took from Tzedakah when they think they can afford to give back. Either by paying more than 10% of their possessions or straight up giving back the money.
I believe that there must be a reason the person wants the tzedakah if they are going to be taking it in the first place. i think that the rabbis should approach the person and ask them why he or she took the tzedakah when it is evident that the wouldn't need it. if they response of the taker seems to fulfill the role of tzedakah then i believe that they should let the person keep it if not they should either one take it back or make the person earn in back by working or finding other means to earning money for tzedakah. i do not think the children should have to be responsible for what their parent did. a modern day organization which is known in San Francisco to give to the poor but not require anything in exchange is Glide Memorial. Glide provides food and shelter for homeless people in San Francisco and does not expect or require anything in return. http://www.glide.org/
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Florencia's comment, "I think that the rabbis should approach the person and ask them why he or she took the Tzedakah". One feels shame in approaching the Tzedaka fund and collecting money, and would in all cases want to maintain their anonymity (as much as possible). To add more humiliation, you are going to ask the person why they are collecting from the fund? I think that this is downright embarrassing for the person who has mustered up the courage to even approach the fund in itself.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question, “What should the community do with a person who we discover does not need Tzedakah but takes anyways?” The answer is simple: the community should punish the violator. If a person is caught collecting, when they do not need to; thus depriving the ones who are in true need, they should be required to repay more than what they are caught with. For example, if someone is caught stealing 100 frozen enchiladas from the food bank (and they have enough food at home), they should be required to repay 200 frozen enchiladas back to the tzedaka fund. This punishment should be implemented in order to maintain order; meaning, to dissuade people from committing the crime. If the perpetrator cannot afford to repay more than what he/she is caught with, then he/she should be required in another fashion to redeem themselves to the community. One could do community service for example. This is the system that the United States criminal justice system uses.
What cases in modern society can you think of in which someone or something takes but does not give back? As many people mentioned, complimentary food services are in abundance throughout our local communities, but too are credit union robbers, whom take from credit unions but do not give back to them.
Regarding Rosa’s question about the apparent contradiction she found (why are the rabbis accommodating someone who, according to the Bureau of Jewish Education, is sinning by not taking the Tzedakah) I believe the following. The rabbis are trying to make the person come to their senses by helping themselves out, which they deem to be more important than the fact that the person might be sinning.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question of what to do with someone who has taken Tzedakah they don’t need I partially agree with Rosa. The community should stop giving that person Tzedakah, but they should also take it to the next degree. Someone who takes Tzedakah they don’t need is in essence stealing from the poor, which is an act of the utmost repugnance. However I don’t believe this person should be thrown in jail… rather they should be given a second chance. Since they obviously do not understand how bad it is to be poor, they must learn what it is like, so for an extended period should be forced to live on the streets, and try to survive with minimal food and living comforts.
I agree with Elijah’s point that the person who has taken from the tzedakah fund but didn’t need it or essentially has stolen an opportunity from someone in need should feel the way it feels to be forced to live on the streets. But my question is how is this compensating for the money they would be wasting that they already have or the money that they took from the tzedakah fund?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lila that the rabbis should require a person who has taken from the tzedakah fund without needing it first to repay what they have taken over time. I also think that so that they don’t get embarrassed in front of the community, they should simply give tzedakah in the first degree. This way they are able to see what they have taken from someone in need of it and the state that they are in, but also repay it.
The community should provide for everyone who is not providing for themselves, however, they should not give away money to a person with means who simply tries to avoid spending their own money.
ReplyDeleteA community cannot sit idly by while a person, no matter how rich, dies of some easily treatable illness or from hunger or lets their house because a safety hazard.
There is not, however, any obligation for the community to pay for these things and the money needed for this should be taken from the person's assets so that the community is not giving out money to a person with money at the expense of someone, as Elijah and Yael mentioned, who doesn't have money.
The reason that we cannot just give rich people a small amount of money if they ask for it and not worry about going after their assets to account for what they have taken is that if we allowed people of all financial levels to take Tzedakah there would be no incentive for anyone to actually pay for things and this would quickly become troublesome for society.
In terms of whether or not their children should repay. I don’t think the children have an obligation to repay if all of the children’s money comes from the child’s own work. However, if they have inherited a great sum from their parents and the money being taken from them is inheritance then that money can absolutely be seized because it is their parent’s money and we don’t want to encourage parents to hoard their money at the expense of the community so that they can pass it on to their children.
Regarding the question "So what should the community do with a person who we discover does not need Tzedakah but takes anyways?" I believe that a clarification of the question is needed. Often times, people's choice of lifestyle does not always reflect their income. In a situation where a rich person is living a seemingly unnecessarily poor life, the question would be, why are they doing this? What is the community's responsibility toward this person? (Refer to : "http://www.moneyreasons.com/2010/05/people-that-are-rich-but-act-poor/" for possible opinion regarding this matter) What a person chooses to do with their money should not and is not controlled by the community. Some may chose to live simpler lives because they could do without all of the fancy meals, clothes, materialistic things; others may want to save their money for future investments. When it gets down to deciding whether or not this person should receive Tzedakah from the community, the real question that should be asked it, how badly is their choice of poor lifestyle affecting them? The line between letting someone live their life as they chose, though it may not seem like they are doing so to their full potential, and watching someone live so poorly, that their health is being severely affected, are very fuzzy lines.
ReplyDeleteReferring back to the original question "So what should the community do with a person who we discover does not need Tzedakah but takes anyways?" I agree with Elijah Post in that it is shameful for someone who does not need, to essentially, take from those who do. However another question I have is, who's responsibility is giving Tzedakah? Are the Tzedakah givers, and members of the community expected to choose and give to the poor, or are the poor expected to come and ask for what they need? The distinguishing factor being, yes a rich person living poor who goes looking for Tzedakah should feel ashamed, however if the community approaches them, it is a different matter. Again connecting this to my previous comment, at what point, if any, should the community approach the rich person living poor?
So what should the community do with a person who we discover does not need Tzedakah but takes anyways? This core questions really bottles down to the amount of money a person has under their belt. If one takes Tzedakah with out needing it there is a clear issue, If the tzedakah fund were to receive a general idea of where that money they either lent or "gave" they would have a better idea of what to do in the next step in seeing if the money is put to proper use. If people asking from the Tzedakah fund still take the money when they dont need it, I think the fund has the right to take it in some way shape or form because, that money could have been given to someone else or even saved a life.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the person seems to not need the money they have taken it seems as if the money has just been stolen. They have taken a certain amount of money that was taken away from someone actually in need. The Tzedakah collectors may have even given this person more that the average because he came from more wealthy stance. Which leads me to my next point, talking about providing according to ones honor. Many times in these past Gemarah’s we hear a lot to treat a person by his or her honor, to provide for them accordingly. But how then is it fair to give one person, who comes to the Tzedakah collectors for money, more than the other just because one is used to steak and the other only needs bread. I feel that when it comes to the point that the Tzedakah collectors are giving so much to the used-to-be-wealthy-man and then not having enough left over to feed the others it becomes unfair and ridiculous to continue giving the used-to-be-wealthy-man the life he used to have. If we just gave every man the same amount who knows how many more people they could have helped?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I agree with Devon that I don't think it's necessarily up to the Tzedakah collectors to decide who does and doesn't need Tzedakah. If the person admits that they don't need it, and then tries to take it anyway, then that's a problem. If that happens, I think that the Tzedakah collectors have a right to question the person, and definitely make them pay back what they took. However, the person might have other expenses in their lives, or their lives and money might be more complicated and tied up in something else. If said person has an accommodation, I don't think it is the Tzedakah collector's business to choose whether they need Tzedakah or not.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I'd like to think that there was an honor system in the community regarding Tzedakah. Where the community wouldn't lie about what they needed, and the collectors would be able to trust them.
This idea would definitely be an ideal situation, rather than the practical. As we talked about earlier this year in class, although the ideal seems nice, it's not always possible. In Gittin 36a, the Rabbis discuss the Prosbul and the Shmitah year. The ideal situation that the Torah mentions is that after every seven years any debts that people owed to you are wiped. Hillel made the Prosbul which was a contract that made people have to pay back their loans. The problem with what the Torah says is that no one would ever pay back their loans, which is why Hillel instituted the Prosbul, which was the practical way to go.
Similar to this, if the Tzedakah collects relied simply on trust, with no background research, people would lie and get away with it.
This makes me think that the Tzedakah collectors should in fact decide on some level if the people asking for Tzedakah really need it.
Going back to Max's comment on Florencia's statement of: "I think that the rabbis should approach the person and ask them why he or she took the Tzedakah", I think that a poor person asking for money isn't as shameful as Max says. The Tzedakah givers expect poor people to come an ask for money. Since the Tzedakah collectors are used to this, I don't think it is so "shameful" or "humiliating" for a poor person to ask the Tzedakah fund for money. The Tzedakah givers understand when a poor person needs money, that is why there is a Tzedakah fund. If anything, it should be seen as normal for a poor person to ask from the Tzedakah fund. I would think that it would be far more humiliating for a wealthy person to ask for money from the Tzedakah fund.
ReplyDeleteAs for a person who does not need Tzedakah, but takes from the Tzedakah fund anyways, we should deal with that person severely. The community should make the person pay back double of what they took (as Max said). To prevent people from taking from the Tzedakah fund when they don't need it, I do not think that doing "background checks" or asking every person taking Tzedakah questions is the way to go. These methods would probably discourage many people, including the poor, because many people don't like giving out personal information, and, when you start asking people personal questions, it may be embarrassing for them. I think that punishment and the honor system is enough to keep most people who don't need Tzedakah from asking for it. In addition, in our modern society, we don't see many people taking from the Tzedakah (or food kitchens and such) simply because they understand the mission of Tzedakah and they honor it. Of course, there will always be some people who take from the Tzedakah when they don't need it, but, after all, our world isn't perfect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on the situation. If the person is not providing for themselves because they are just too selfish and do not want to spend their money, then the community should not pay for someone like that, because that would not be very practical, and would basically be forcing the community to pay for someone else for no good reason. But still, if the person is really suffering from that, I would think that first the community should try to encourage the person to maintain themselves, but if they still refuse, and are suffering from that, the community probably should give them tzedakah, even though that is not the best solution. So if the person is not really suffering, in that case I agree with Roza, because if it is sinful for Jews to refuse charity when they really need it, then by giving those people charity, essentially, they would be allowing people to steal, which is also a sin. Even though I’m not sure how great a sin not taking charity is, it would still be controversial, as well as a tough decision for the tzedahak fund, because they would want to help a person in need, who is not supporting themselves, but they would also not want to encourage sin, even if its not willingly. So what is more important: doing a great mitzvah or allowing people to sin?
ReplyDeleteTo answer Tina’s question (‘How can the Tzedakah collectors know if someone really needs the money or not?’), Talmud Bava Batra 8b tells us that Tzedakah is collected by two persons [jointly] and distributed by three. Two people collect it, because any office conferring authority over the community must be filled by at least two persons. It must be distributed by three, on the analogy of money cases [which are tried by a Beth din of three].
ReplyDeleteLet’s assume each town had its own Tzedakah fund, so the poor of each town would go to their communal fund, right? So who are the collectors and distributors? Naturally, you can assume that they are also from the town and community that their specific Tzedakah fund is located. Tina asked how the collectors determined eligibility for Tzedakah. Nowadays, like Tina said, when people are in need, they fill out forms showing their incomes, tax returns, and more—for example, when someone is in need of food, they can apply for food stamps, but they need to go through a whole procedure in order to prove that they are actually in need
(http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm). It’s fair to assume that in the time these laws were written, a person was not required to fill out paperwork. However, since this all happened within a COMMUNITY. In a community, mostly everyone is familiar with one another, they help each other, work together, and more. The collectors probably knew who the poor people of the town were, so they wouldn’t have to fill out papers describing who they are and their lifestyles and living situations, etc. because the collector might already be aware of them.
I think that the community's Tzedakah collectors should first give the person with means who has taken from the community's Tzedakah funds the benefit of the doubt. Firstly when something like this happens I believe they should assume someone innocent until proven guilty. Now we all know that the miser is taking money from the Tzedakah funds, so I think the best thing to do would be to go talk to the miser, and ask him his reasoning and motives behind it, similarly to what Elijah said.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I say we should ask, is because it shows that we are not assuming the worst in each other which is always a good trait to have in a community, and with people who are handling money which has always been a touchy issue.
Also another reason we should ask, is because lets say he is rich, but he might possibly have his money tucked away in assets, or in loans to people, and the person might not be able to provide for himself because the moeny isn't physically in his pocket.
But if he is guilty of taking the money, when he has other ways, and other money of his own to provide for him, that is when I feel the civilness should come to a halt.
If this miser, decides to take Tzedakah money, when he clearly is able to have everything he wants without the helpful money of others, then I agree with the Sages, in that "no one shall feel any concern for him".
That way, we don't have to deal with the problem of not having the money returned, and having to retrieve it from the heirs of a miser, because that hardly seems fair.
But for the money that he has already taken, that we have just found out that it was not necessary for him to take, we should sternly and strictly ask for the Tzedakah back, seeing as Tzedakah is for the unfortunate that can not pay for themselves, it is not fit to let this miser/rich man keep the money that should be going to poor people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShoshana Feld #2 a. “The Miser that Takes but Will Not Give” presents a situation that occurs throughout history up until the modern day. There is several ways to go about addressing the question “What should the community do with a person who takes Tzedakah but does not need it?” For one, the problem could be ignored and the givers could keep giving charity in hopes that the poor will also get what they need. Secondly, the benefactors could stop giving money/food/clothing etc. out of fear that wealthy people or people who are not in need will come and collect what is being given. Lastly, the Tzedakah givers could confront and punish the violator who is taking what they do not need. The answer that is most appropriate to me is to punish the one who is taking from people who are truly in need. As Tina said, in most cases there is not enough charity to allow the “wealthy” person and the poor person to take Tzedakah, so if someone is taking what they do not need they are threatening the aid of the people who are truly in need. Taking from people who are truly in need is a sinful act however I agree with Lila that confronting the guilty taker should be done quietly to save that person from embarrassment because two wrongs does not make a right. However, if this person is to be caught taking from the needy again, they should be more publicly asked to stop, while also being required, as Max said, to have to pay more than what they took, for instances “interest” on what they collected. The first time someone is asked to stop it might be a “wake up call,” the person might have not really understood the true sinfulness of the act and now are aware. But if they are asked to stop again after being told to stop, they clearly have been warned about the wrongness of their actions yet do not care about the people who are truly in need and thus it is appropriate for them to be punished.
ReplyDeletePayment should be collected from the “wealthy” person very close to when they took the Tzedakah that they did not need. I do not think that it should be done as the Rabbis’ say, “repayment is claimed from his [estate] after his death,” because than throughout his/her life there will be people without aid because he/she is taking it. (Assuming that there is not enough Tzedakah to go around to every needy person, which is most likely the case). Also, this person’s estate most likely is going to his/her children/family/friends and it is not right to take from the children/family/friends who did nothing wrong and should not be blamed for the “wealthy” person’s wrong action.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShoshana Feld #2 b. In modern society there are many situations where people take but do not give. As people have said food banks are a great example of people taking food and not giving anything in return. Another example is taking free services (from organizations doing community service). For example having someone help to clean houses, unload boxes, clean gardens, drive to the store/supermarket/doctor etc. are all difficult tasks that some people do for free as Tzedakah. However, if someone asks an organization to help them for free yet have the means to hire someone, they are taking the time and energy from these people who are trying to help people who do not have the means. Both the situation of taking from a food bank, and taking unneeded services have the problem of “someone with means” taking what they do not need thus preventing people who are truly in need from receiving Tzedakah. People who catch the “wealthy” taking from the “poor” are all stuck with the situation of letting it slide, ceasing to give, or confrontation. It is most appropriate to confront the “wealthy” so that the needy will not have to be suffer from the “wealthy” persons poor action.
ReplyDeleteI have the same question as Tina. How do you know if someone has means or does not? How does the collection of Tzedakah occur, do the people in need go to the house of study and quietly ask for it there? Do people go to the people in need and give them Tzedakah? If so what if a giver went to a receiver and saw that they lived in a nice home, would they not give Tzedakah any more? What if the receiver was staying with a friend for a while but they only had the shelter of the roof, no other necessities would they now be put in the category of wealthy?