תלמוד בבא בתרא ח : ו
תנו רבנן קופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה נגבית בשנים שאין עושים שררות על הצבור פחות משנים ומתחלקת בשלשה כדיני ממונות תמחוי נגבית בשלשה ומתחלקת בשלשה שגבויה וחלוקה שוים תמחוי בכל יום קופה מערב שבת לערב שבת תמחוי לעניי עולם קופה לעניי העיר ורשאים בני העיר לעשות קופה תמחוי ותמחוי קופה ולשנותה לכל מה שירצו ורשאין בני העיר להתנות על המדות ועל השערים ועל שכר פועלים ולהסיע על קיצתן
תנו רבנן קופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה נגבית בשנים שאין עושים שררות על הצבור פחות משנים ומתחלקת בשלשה כדיני ממונות תמחוי נגבית בשלשה ומתחלקת בשלשה שגבויה וחלוקה שוים תמחוי בכל יום קופה מערב שבת לערב שבת תמחוי לעניי עולם קופה לעניי העיר ורשאים בני העיר לעשות קופה תמחוי ותמחוי קופה ולשנותה לכל מה שירצו ורשאין בני העיר להתנות על המדות ועל השערים ועל שכר פועלים ולהסיע על קיצתן
Talmud Bava Batra 8b
Our Rabbis taught: The charity fund is collected by two persons [jointly] and distributed by three. It is collected by two, 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]. Food for the soup kitchen is collected by three and distributed by three, since it is distributed as soon as it is collected. Food is distributed every day, the charity fund every Friday. The soup kitchen is for all comers, the charity fund for the poor of the town only. The townspeople, however, are at liberty to use the soup kitchen like the charity fund and vice versa, and to apply them to whatever purposes they choose.
Our Rabbis taught: The charity fund is collected by two persons [jointly] and distributed by three. It is collected by two, 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]. Food for the soup kitchen is collected by three and distributed by three, since it is distributed as soon as it is collected. Food is distributed every day, the charity fund every Friday. The soup kitchen is for all comers, the charity fund for the poor of the town only. The townspeople, however, are at liberty to use the soup kitchen like the charity fund and vice versa, and to apply them to whatever purposes they choose.
Why the differences between the number of collectors and the number of distributors? Why is the soup kitchen for all, but not the tzedakah fund? Are there some broader principles about Tzedakah we can derive (pull out) from this baraita?
Back then and now a days people from the community had to volunteer at soup kitchens to help. While with the tzedakah fund people just gave money to a collector. When you are physically volunteering you get more attached to a place than if you just donate money. So becuase of this fact the soup kitchen is open to the public while tzedakah fund is only to the poor of the town. I would like to quote an article from articles.sun-sentinel.com a newspaper in Florida-
ReplyDelete"Let your readers and this woman know that the soup kitchen is able to provide its services to thousands of poor people each year because the community has come together to help them... and more than 800 individuals, rich and poor alike, who collect clothing, canned food, shoes, school supplies, uniforms and money."
This shows the dedication that a community has towards its soup kitchen and this is why in my opinion the Talmud says that the soup kitchen is open to all, while the Tzedakah fund is not.
website: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-12-01/news/0411300359_1_soup-kitchen-thrift-shop-school-supplies
As we talked about in class (A-block) in this text, it is saying that “תמחוי” is translated as soup kitchen but it is literally translated as a food platter which was a platter that the tzedakah collectors would go around with collecting food to give to the poor (as I interpreted it). Why would the text translate this as a soup kitchen? Another thing I would like to point out is that at first is says: “תמחוי לעניי עולם קופה לעניי העיר” which is pretty confusing for me because it first says that it’s a soup kitchen for the poor around the world and then it says it’s a soup kitchen for just the poor in that town. Later, the text clarifies that it only allows the soup kitchen to provide for the poor in the town, so why does the text even mention the poor around the world? Another question I have is, does the number “3” have any significance in this text? It is repeated a few times and I was just curious about that.
ReplyDeleteBelow is an article about Glide Memorial Church which is an organization that daily gives free food to those in need. It shows a perfect example of helping the community and, like in this text, helps those in it’s city (or town). I have personally been there multiple times to volunteer and it is basically the same idea as how these soup kitchens were in the old days.
http://glide.org/Meals.aspx
As to why there are three distributors and two collectors i can only really think of one reason... if two people are willing to go around and ask for tzedakah they must be very dedicated to finding some to give and really care about what they are doing. The three people who distribute it are in a way sort of taking credit for what the other two people did for the community. The only reason i can think of for there to be three is so that it is less likely for someone to steal the tzedakah and take if for themselves. Two people, still unlikely however more possible to make an alliance and take it where as three becomes hard to make an agreement to take yet still possible.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible or allowed for at least one of those people who distribute to be one of the two people who collected the tzedakah?
I believe that the soup kitchen is for all, because food is a basic need. Without it you cannot survive. The soup kitchen has to be open to all people, or it could be blamed for causing the lives of others, due to their exclusiveness.
ReplyDeleteAn article I found related to this discussion is about a person named lynn lovelace, who walks to the soup kitchen every wednesday and thursday to get food. The soup kitchen is being funded by the local church. Though the church will be relocating soon. When the church moves, it is going to drastically effect the distribution of food to the poor. The church is the main fund source, and without them, the soup kitchen will have to turn away many of those in need. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/soup-kitchen
The article above made me realize that everything really depends on us, those who are more fortunate. Without our help, we could potentially cause the lives of others. This teaches me a lesson about tzedakah. It is so important for us to give. It seems like giving money is the hardest thing to do, but when given, it can have a great impact. It is worth every dime, because we have the power to save lives.
A reason why there is a difference between the number of distributors and collectors, is that it does not take much effort to collect money. Anyone who chooses to, can give money. Meaning there isn't really a process of choosing who to collect money from. Where as once the money is collected, the difficult part is deciding who to give it to. Therefore, a bigger committee (3 people) would serve better, because there are more opinions and suggestions about who to give to.
The reason that there are three people to give out the Tzedakah is because when it comes down to making decisions they can have a majority rule when there is conflict. The soup kitchen is not allowed to refuse food to people. If someone is hungry, they should be served without any conditions. However, when it comes down to distributing Tzedakah money, the towns people want to take care of their own community first. The Rambam says that the poor of your city comes first. . It is the natural inclination of people to want to take care of the closest people first.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the first question, as to why there differences in the number of collectors and the number of distributors, I think the answer is clear. I believe that there are more distributors than collectors, because the town wants to show to its citizens that there is an emphasis on giving, as opposed to collecting. I personally would not feel satisfied if I gave my money to 100 tzedaka collectors, and when I went to the distribution hall, I only saw 1 man distributing the funds. This, of course is an exaggeration, but one nonetheless to prove a point. Again, the Talmud is instilling values in its’ readers. Here, one learns that giving is far more significant that receiving.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the following question: “Why is the soup kitchen for all, but not the tzedakah fund?” The soup kitchen is for all because no matter one’s social status, it is morally wrong to deny someone food . . . rich people can be hungry too. Now, I do think that the wealthy class would not come to collect food because they know that they would be depriving the poor, in order to temporarily benefit themselves. But money is an exception; meaning, the wealthy always have money, not food . . . the poor never do. This is why the rule applies as so.
We can see that this form of charity still exists today, even for Jewish people (as they were in the Talmud). As Corey Kilgannon writes in a New York Times article, kosher soup kitchens exist today that provide for people without questioning their income, as to embarrass them. Here is the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/nyregion/12kosher.html . The issue could, hypothetically still occur today, because rich can get food from this organization; but why would they? The only legitamate answer I can come up with is: greed.
As to why the soup kitchen is for everyone while the tzedakah fund isn't:
ReplyDeleteThink of the soup kitchen as an NGO (nongovernmental organization) created through individual initiative. Because of this, anyone who needs to can use it, if the private owners allow you to. The tzedakah fund, on the other hand, is a government organizatio, in that all members of the community are required to donate to it (think taxes) and as such there is a specific set of rules on who can and cannot take from it. Here is an example of a soup kitchen in Detroit which states that "Every person who comes to us for assistance is welcomed, without regard to race, sex, age, color, national origin, religious preference, handicap or income."
http://www.cskdetroit.org/
I think at least two people should distribute the soup because it makes it look like a community is being represented. If one person is knocking at your door, it makes it look like the food is just for them even if they say the food is for the community. You do not have anyway to trust them. If there are two people, it looks like they are at least representing something. For example, if a homeless ask for food for his family on his own, people would be more likely to believe that it is for his family, not just him, if he had a woman that looked like she might be his girlfriend/wife next to him. I think atleast three people should give the food out because three people is a Beit Din and a Beit din is usually what is required to decide matters of law in the Jewish faith. It is saying that there needs to be a Beit Din to decide how much food a person should take and who it is delivered to.
ReplyDeleteI believe the soup kitchen is for all because people that have no financial trouble probably won’t go there that often. The soup kitchen is being a kind-of financial crutch. If a person’s financial situation needs to be fixed, they can at least not have to be paying for food while they are fixing their financial situation. A modern day example would be if someone had many debts and unpaid taxes, they could use some of their grocery money to pay off the debts and unpaid taxes and receive food. With the tzedakkah fund, the community cannot be sure that the receivers of Tzedakkah will use it for the right purposes. Someone could be financially fine and ask for money and uses it to gamble. They wouldn’t suffer financially as much as if a poor person used tzedakkah money to gamble. The Rich man would be taking advantage of the Tzedakkah fund more than the poor person because the poor person has more to lose.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any answers for the questions above, but I do have a question of my own: Why are there more people distributing the Tzedakkah then collecting it? Today in F-block we were talking about how important dignity is to the Talmud, and how anonymity is important to those who receive tzedakkah is. If it is so important, why are more people distributing tzedakkah then collecting? In theory it would be much better to have fewer people know who is or isn't poor, that way everyone stays, in a way, equal. If more people distribute tzedakkah, more people will know who is or isn't poor, and the more people know, the more people are prone to gossiping. The more gossiping, the more people are judging other people just by their money and possesions, and not by the content of their character. We are all in high school, and we all know how bad gossip can be. Recently, a girl commited suicide because bullies at her school were gossiping about her and bullying her, all because she different.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/phoebe-prince-cyberbullie_n_517403.html
This Baraita outlines numerous explicit (surprising for a Baraita) principles of Tzedakah, and how to live life in general. The first principle is that of holding power over a large group of people. To make a modern analogy, this Baraita is endorsing democracy and condemning dictatorship-rule. The Baraita reads, “It is collected by two, because any office conferring authority over the community must be filled by at least two persons.” This means that a powerful position must have multiple people executing it. For example even the President of the United States has advisors.
ReplyDeleteThe second principle the Baraita explains is how a jury, or group of people must make legal decisions. It is self-explanatory as to why the Baraita would say this, however it is important to note the significance of a fair trial in the Tannaic period.
The third and final principle the Baraita elucidates is that of caring for the poor, and of poor people’s rights. As described above in numerous posts, the significance of having the charity fund be specifically for the poor is to highlight the importance of having a source of income that can only be drawn on by those who are in dire need of it.
There is a contradictory in the text that can be seen in the last two lines. The last line describes how the townspeople are free to use the soup kitchen and charity fund in similar manners. However in the line presiding this statement, it bluntly states how the charity fund is for the poor only. If the townspeople are allowed to use the soup kitchen, and also allowed to “to use the soup kitchen like the charity fund and vice versa”, how can it be the poor are the only ones permitted to use the charity fund?
The idea of the soup kitchen being for everyone and the Tzedakah fund only for poor people, is still somewhat exhibited today.
ReplyDeleteTo get financial aid, food stamps, grants, loans, etc. you need to go through a long process and fill out lots of paperwork to make sure you are indeed eligible for the cause.
However, if you go to Glide (http://www.glide.org/meals.aspx), or a number of other soup kitchens in the Bay Area, they don't ask you any questions about you're income or life. It's much more accessible and open to the community. Obviously I'm not saying that if you have excessive amounts of money you are welcome to stroll into Glide and get a free meal, but the whole place is much more accessible. This is similar to how the soup kitchen was open for all, and the Tzedakah fund was only open to poor people.
This Baraita says, "The charity fund is collected by two persons [jointly]" and then proceeds to explain why two people collect it: " because any office conferring authority over the community must be filled by at least two persons". Yet, as the Baraita says, at least two people must fill an office conferring authority over the community, but two people (no more, no less) must collect the charity fund. Why don't at least two people collect the charity fund, since at least two people fill the office?
ReplyDeleteTo answer Florencia's question: "Is it possible or allowed for at least one of those people who distribute to be one of the two people who collected the tzedakah?", I think that the Baraita wants the collectors and distributors to be different people, which is why it makes the number of distributors and collectors of Tzedakah different.
As for collecting and distributing food, it would seem to make more sense that the collectors should also be the distributors, because collecting and distributing are done by the same number of people and are done immediately after each other.