Ketubot 67b
קא מיקליין כרעיה דמר עוקבא אמרה ליה דביתהו שקול כרעיך אותיב אכרעאי חלש דעתיה אמרה ליה אנא שכיחנא בגויה דביתא ומקרבא אהנייתי
... they fled from him and ran into a furnace from which the fire had just been swept. Mar 'Ukba's feet were burning and his wife said to him: Raise your feet and put them on mine. As he was upset, she said to him, 'I am usually at home and my benefactions are direct'.
Do you think direct donations of an item a poor person requests better than giving money? Why or why not?
Post # 5
ReplyDeleteIn the case of money/ items i believe that in most cases it makes more sense for the donor to give the recipient the item rather than the money. As Mar' Ukba's feet were burning his wife told him to put his feet on her since she was blessed by God and could control any situation. If his wife had not been blessed then she would have offered him another form of help, a bucket of water perhaps. When one gives a direct item, it allows them to use it instantly which ultimately fulfills their quest for a greater moment/ life. As im sure many of you will think why not just give money? Ahh, with money a problem arises. Say you give a homeless on the street who is "hungry" $2 to get some food, but instead he waits for you to cross the street and then buy some drugs. This does not serve the purpose and that is why it typically makes more sense to give an item to a poor person/ a person in need rather than supplying them with money.
i agree with jonathan with the fact that if a person receives an item that they are asking for rather than receiving the money to buy it they automatically get what they are asking for. as jonathan says when you give a poor person money you dont know for a fact that they will buy what their asking for. in most cases though it is usually inconvenient or hard to give the person what their asking for so you give them money. even though the right thing to do is to give the person in need the object itself most people do whats convenient for them unless it is a matter of life and death. also if you give the person what their asking directly then you are saving them the time of going to buy that object which in the case of the feet burning would help them because if they just had the money then by the time it took to buy a bucket of water Mar Ukba would probably be dead.
ReplyDelete#2 for the post above
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jonathan and Nikita on their points. However, suppose someone doesn't have time to give direct objects. In Pirkei Avot, we learn from Hillel that we need to tend to ourselves before anyone else, because if we don't, who will, right? So if a person who has to go to school, then play practice until 8:30, then do homework, is he or she entitled to give the ideal charity of direct objects? In this situation, I believe that the giver can give money instead of a direct object, to care for their needs first. In addition, a benefit of giving money instead of direct objects is that you, as the giver, remain anonymous so you do not shame your receiver, and also, they won't feel the need to repay you in any way. Also, I would like to raise a question: If a donor gives anonymously, like in this situation, is the receiver entitled to know who the giver is? Surely the receiver would like to pay respects to the giver to show their gratitude..?
I agree with Jonathan’s point that giving a person in a poor financial situation money can lead to problems. They can spend it irresponsibly or any one of a multitude of things can go wrong. Therefore if you want to aid the person in need you give them the item they desire and help them out. This is well and good, but it is also an extremely ideal case. For this to happen we must assume that the giver has the item the needy requires, or that he has the time to go and purchase what is needed. And if we look at the case where you don’t know exactly what the poor person need, such as Mar’ Ukba’s case was, the idea gets more shaky. In this instance the poor lives in the neighborhood of the giver, so Ukba knows him, his character and what he does. Mar’ Ukba knows not what the man needs, nor has the time to get it if he did as he is a studious man. He therefore goes for the practical way, and gives the money with knowledge that it will be spent in a constructive way. That said it may not apply to all cases.
ReplyDelete#2 ^^
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jonathan and Nikita that the ideal thing to give when being charitable is the object in need. However, as Gabe and David touched on, giving the object is ideal but not practical. In the situation of Ketubot 67b, Mar 'Ukba would like to be charitable while staying anonymous. How could he give the object the poor person needs if he would like to stay anonymous? Mar 'Ukba would have to ask the poor person what he needs thus revealing Mar 'Ukba's identity. Instead of doing this Mar 'Ukba gives money to be charitible and stay anonymous. Though not as ideal as an object, Mar 'Ukba knows money can help with a variety of problems.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Gabe's question; If a donor gives anonymously, like in this situation, is the receiver entitled to know who the giver is?
If the donor would like to stay anonymous he should have his wish be granted. If the donor is generous enough to donate to the needy, people should respect his/her wish to stay anonymous. Yes, the person receiving the donor's generosity would like to thank the donor, but if the donor wishes to stay anonymous his/her wish should be respected.
Another angle at looking why people stay anonymous is for political reasons. During the 2008 proposition 8 campaign donors stayed anonymous so they would not be hassled and/or because they did not want their friends/family knowing about their views. Read here http://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-refuses-anonymity-to-prop-8-donors-36699/
^ number 2
ReplyDeleteComment #5: I agree with David, Gabe, and Ari that giving the object is ideal and not always possible in the real world. We don't know what the poor person needs unless they make it evident. If I come across a man on the street who says that they need money, I don't know what they actually need, I just know that if I give them money then they will buy the object that they need. Like David said, Mar' Ukba knows that the money he gives will be spent constructively so therefore he can give money, but if we do not know the person/ trust the person then it makes more sense to give them the object, if we know what that is. An example of that, is if I see a man on the street who has a sign that says he needs money for a a slice of pizza. I don't trust him or know him but I can go and get him a slice of pizza because I know what he needs. Ultimately, I think that giving money is the way to go over the object because then the receiver has the freedom of picking out whatever they
ReplyDeleteneed.
In response to Nikita and Jonathan: When you go to a birthday party, do you give the birthday boy/girl an object as a present or money. I am assuming most people give money, and that is because then the birthday boy/girl has the freedom to buy anything and you can't go wrong with giving money as a birthday present.
In the case of Japan, I honestly think that it would be better and even more helpful to help re-build, donate toys and items to children and families, donate food, clothing, etc. , rather than just giving money. Of course just writing off a check to someone in need is a very quick and easy task to do. It does not require hands-on, productive help. Giving money is not a bad thing at all, nor does it show a lack of caring, but it is the lack of effort in it that makes me have less respect for it. Giving items to people in need provides a sense of understanding, support, care, and kindness. In a situation of a person who needs help to pay off debts, giving money would most definitely be a more suitable choice. In Africa, I think the children would most likely prefer to be provided with food, clothing, education, and comfortable and safe shelter, rather than a check for a certain amount of money. I would think that it means a lot more to them that you took the effort and sent them those items, rather than just effortlessly writing a check, which won't always go directly to a child.
ReplyDelete#3
ReplyDeleteYes, donations of direct objects such as a sweatshirt and food are better than giving money as a general thing. Giving people exactly what they need weeds out the people who are asking for money for one thing, then buying another thing such as drugs, etc. all of the people who want necessities will get them, and the untrustworthy people won't bother you. However even if a liar in need gains a necessity from you, it is their business what they do with it after, if they trade it to support a drug habit you have still done your mitzvah; in giving someone in need something they need directly, even if they don’t end up using it. Also if your are giving things instead of money, you can use the opportunity to clean up around the house!
^^ #2
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePost #2:
ReplyDeleteI would like to touch on Havneh’s situation which I believe is a very relevant one. I completely agree that donating money for a cause is less helpful than donating objects or a rebuilding effort of sorts, and this claim can be backed up by many instances in our recent world. It may be an afterthought in some of our minds, but the Haiti catastrophe is still in full swing and despite the large amounts of donations and relief funds that have sprung out of the air people in Haiti are suffering and in need of homes, food, and other necessities. This is an instance in which money has appeared to be pumped into a cause from donors all over the world, but, despite their best intentions, seems to not be helping to rebuild the country in need. An article in Maclean’s Canadian News publisher which was released only a few months after the earthquake outlines this perfectly (http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/10/cidas-haiti-earthquake-relief-fund-millions-raised-nothing-spent/). The article tells the story of a man who worked his way through the CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) to find out where the money that had been donated to the Haitian relief fund was going. After severe digging he found that of the over 150 million dollars donated not a single penny had been spent to directly aid Haiti. As the country was diminishing millions of dollars stood at the Canadians disposal and was not touched. If the people who donated this money were to instead buy a plane ticket to Haiti and work to rebuild homes and supply the people there with emergency necessities the country may have been back on its feet today. While a person’s intentions may be fantastic while they are donating money, the ideal was to support those in need is by direct aid and assistance when they need it most.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletepost #2 I think that it is better to give what people need (stuff). When you give money there is a degree of uncertainty regarding what exactly it is going to. This is not only a problem with giving to people directly were they could use it for drugs but it is also a problem with giving money to charities. It is hard to know were your money is going. The money you gave to help people might go to office supplies and or worker’s salaries. However if you donate the things that are really need then you know that those things will be used to help people. Money is like potential energy, it represents what can be done. But it can be converted into many types of energy, not all positive or helpful.
ReplyDeletePost #1
ReplyDeleteI think whats right to do is to give the person in need the object they want, rather then giving that person money. Giving money to the person might lead them off trail, leading them to obtaining objects they do not need. For example in the situation with pizza, a person might be asking for food and you give them money. They might go and use the money that you gave them for drugs. When you give a person a direct object, you know that if you give them food they will eat the food but if you give them money, and that person cant handle the money you give them they might go and use it for something pointless like drugs. However, we don’t know what a person might really need unless we are really close to them. So I think the ideal way is to give objects to the person in need rather then being practical and giving them money. Sometimes you can only be practical but you can always can try and be ideal.
Post #2: To answer Gabe's question, it is valid that the receiver would want to thank the giver and express their gratitude, but sometimes when it's an anonymous donation, which means that the giver purposefully doesn't want the person to know who gave the money/gift. If the person finds out who the giver is this can cause all sorts of awkwardness and pressure for the receiver to pay the giver back in some way. Which is something the receiver may not be capable of. If someone gives anonymously, it is intentional and therefore the receiver shouldn't try to figure out who gave them the money, they should just be grateful.
ReplyDeletepost #5
ReplyDeleteI like the old saying beggars can't be choosers. Ive come across three different types of homeless people that have really impacted me. One woman told me she could not take the pizza I was offering because it was not organic. The second type of homeless person said "not going to lie, it's for beer." The third told me that they didnt want my food and that they only wanted and accepted money. In the first case, the simple explanation is that beggars cannot be choosers and that if they were really hungry or in need of help they would take what i offered with no complaints. The second story is complicated because you know that honesty is the best policy and clearly this man was being honest, but should you support his desire and need for alcohol? If you gave him money, it wouldn't be fulfilling any kind of good deed because he is using your money in a negative way and you are 100% aware of it. But if you gave him your left over chinese food, would he even eat it? Or would he try to profit off it for beer? The third case is by far the most shocking. When giving someone in need, something that is essential in living you would think that person couldn't wait to have the food in their hands. But if they are only accepting money you can make an educated assumption that they will spend the money you give them in either a way to fulfill a drug craving or something that they personally desire for. When it comes to giving i always like giving what is needed of the person rather than handing over a wad of cash because you never know what that person will do or how they will spend your money.
THIS POST DOES NOT BELONG HERE BUT UNDER THE TOPIC:
ReplyDeleteKetuvot 67b - Mar Ukva and Giving in Secret
Number 3. I think Gabe pegged it on the head. Anonymous giving is useful for people so the receiver does not treat the giver any differently than before the donation by the giver. Boris poses a good example with the neighbor. If my neighbor gave me some sort of charity I would feel obligated to pay that person back in some way. Our relationship would change. If people do not want their relationship to change they should give anonymously. Also I agree with Dilara forms of giving can be embarrassing. People are too prideful to ask for help. If the donation is anonymous the receiver can swallow there pride easier.
Another reason people stay anonymous is for political reasons. Prop 8 donors stayed anonymous in 2008 so they would not be harassed. An article on it here: http://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-refuses-anonymity-to-prop-8-donors-36699/
I found this interesting because most people do not give publicly because they do not want to get all the positive attention. However, Prop 8 donors gave anonymously so they would not receive any negative attention. Who you are giving your money to does play a factor in whether to stay public or anonymous about your donation.
comment #3
ReplyDeleteIn response to both dilara's comment and danny's earlier i think it is a good point that personally investing your time in the person in need can be very beneficial. in the case of Danny's comment about haiti he is spot on about the benefits of getting hands on, being onsite and talking and working with the people in need. Money, when put in the right hands, supplies and other essentials are key in helping people in need but also donating your time is the best investment you can make. In the case of Haiti it is very true that those who spend their time and money actually going to Haiti and using their time and energy actually rebuilding and helping them are ultimately going to have to greatest effect on them. also, in the case of dilaras encounters with people in need, in all cases, the person could have benefitted from an investment of time as well. I'm not saying that dilara should have sat down and bought the third one a beer but i do think that taking the time to aid someone or something, in dilaras example you might aid and rebuild someone emotionally from spending time with them the way the volunteers in Haiti rebuild houses and other things.
Generally, i believe that giving your time to someone in addition to some sort of gift of food or another essential can go a long way, even longer then just handing it to them and moving on with your life the way it is often done. A few years ago while volunteering at a homeless lunch for people in need to come and have a hot meal i sat and talking with a few of them while they ate. i was pleased with how excited they were to have someone to tell their stories to. much of what they had to say was interesting and i think that they left with more then just a full stomach, though that was obviously important.
#3
ReplyDeleteI believe that direct donation is much better then just giving money. When you give a direct donation you ensure that the person you are donating to gets exactly what they need. When a person gives a money donation the receiver can do what ever they want with the money. If the person you give money to is a not trusted man, they might not spend the money on what they need, but instead a new flat screen television. It can also be implied that it is better to give a direct donation from looking at the story of Mar Ukba's wife. When Mar Ukba steps on the furnace, his feet burn. When his wife steps on it she is safe because she gives direct donations, but Mar Ukba does not.
Shoshana Feld #5 a. This argument debating whether giving money or stuff is better for the receiver boils down to David’s point of practical verses ideal. Is giving requested stuff better than giving money? Yes, if the needy is asking for something in particular, for example a glass of water, giving them a glass of water would be better than giving them money. For if I give the person money to go buy water instead of giving them the water they asked for, I am in a sense disregarding what the needy is saying and giving what is convenient for me. While giving money is the second best thing to do in this situation as it supplies the needy with the means/ability to go get what they asked for, it is not the best way to go about giving. However, what if the needy person asked for a glass of water in the middle of a desert and I gave him/her money to go buy that water, is the money I am giving even useful in this situation? Could this even be seen as a form of Tzedakah if no good comes out of the money I am giving? Not only are there a number of ways for the money I gave to become lost but also I am not giving what is being asked of me. I am in a sense taking the easy way out as I am giving what is convenient for me and not what is convenient of wanted of the person in need.
ReplyDeleteHowever, is it practical as David said to give this person a glass of water in the middle of a desert? No, this example is similar to what Danny said, the needy person in the desert can represent the people in Haiti, and I can represent the millions of people giving money to Haiti and the person giving money not water to the desert man. Of course, it would be great to be able to fly down to Haiti to help rebuild houses for people in need, and personally supply them with necessitates, but that is not practical. I would have loved to go to Haiti and personally help as many people as I could recuperate from the earthquake/tsunami, however that is an unrealistic wish, for I have school and my family has work. Yet my family and I still wanted to help the people in Haiti so we gave money, because we could not supply any other type of aid. It would have been ideal to be able to directly assist local peoples in Haiti but the practical approach to this situation, which we had to take, was to donate money. In the middle of the desert, is it practical for me to give this man water? No, for I will give this man money in hopes that he can find somewhere to buy water. Mar Ukba wants to give Tzedakah however he is in the house of study all day and staying at home giving requested stuff to people in need is not an option for him. Instead, he does, similarly to what my family and I, and millions of other people around the globe did, which was give money in hopes that we could help the people in need.
To add to Ari’s answer to Gabe’s question: Does the recipient deserve to know whom the money comes from? My answer is absolutely not. Yes, as Ari said the receiver might be dying to know who their benefactor is and might want to give his/her regards to them, however this person never knows the emotions that might be attached when they find out who their benefactor is. The receiver will without a doubt, consciously or not treat his/her giver differently, and the giver might be avoiding that. The receiver might now also feel indebted to their giver. Or the receiver could tell people who is giving to him/her and more people might go to this giver asking for money. If the giver is giving anonymous than they have their reasons for being so, and that should be respected because they are the one giving.
Shoshana Feld #5 b. A modern example of the conflict between givers anonymity is adoption, and the birth parents right to stay anonymous to their child. Here is a blog that about the conflict with this issue. http://chinaadoptiontalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/anonymous-birth-adoption-in-france.html Regarding this blog, I do no think that it is appropriate that the state recognize the adoptive parents as being the ones who “bore” the if they were adopted, but I do agree with the rest of the law that if the anonymous parent wishes to stay anonymous they should have that right.
ReplyDeleteComment 4
ReplyDeleteI beleive that in different situations, different things should be given. The Economist writes What you shouldn't do is give money to charities that are raising money off the disaster. The New York Times' Stephanie Strom explained why last month: "[W]ealthy Japan is not impoverished Haiti. And many groups are raising money without really knowing how it will be spent — or even if it will be needed. The Japanese Red Cross, for example, has said repeatedly since the day after the earthquake that it does not want or need outside assistance. But that has not stopped the American Red Cross from raising [tens of millions of dollars] in the name of Japan’s disaster victims.: It continues, "This isn't to say that you shouldn't give money to charity at all—you should just make sure that the money you do give isn't earmarked for a specific disaster. As Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says , aid to a country should not depend on whether it's in the media spotlight. If you think a charity's work is important, you should be willing to let them use your donation wherever it can do the most good." (http://m.economist.com/gulliver-21515686.php)
Now this was mainly focused on Japan but in the grand scheme of things it relates to all. When you give money to a need individual, if you want that money to go to food you need to make sure, before donating, that it goes there. However like Mr. Wolk and Rabbi Goodman have mentioned if you are donating to give what people WANT not what you think they should have then money is the appropriate answer.
Contemplate this scenario: A man walks up to you and says I am needy and homeless can you spare some money? If you say yes there is a possibility that he will spend it on drugs or alcohol and if you say no for that reason you are depriving him on what may make him the happiest he can be. Is it really our call to say what people want or need and in some cases if it is money will not always be the best thing to donate.
Post #3
ReplyDeleteI personally think that giving someone a direct donation is more charitable then giving that person money. Why I say more charitable is because you’re giving that person an item that can be useful and in some cases that person could think of it useless. What I’m basically trying to say is that when you give a poor man/women money it just gives them an advantage to buy alcohol and drugs and by giving them an item, you know that you’re helping them by not purchasing useless things.
i agree with boris, jonathan and ari, and gab in a sense that giving "stuff" is more useful, to the one in need. although i would like to think that whether you should give money or stuff really depends on your circumstance and how you spend your day. If we are able to give stuff we should, but it is hard because we are out and about most of the day. A way we can give stuff is to donate to the Goodwill and other organizations who will distribute the stuff for you to the people who need it. If you are on the street and people say they need stuff then you should try to buy it for them. But sometimes this is impossible because you cant help EVERYONE, thats just physically impossible, therefore, you pick and choose who and what to give. in a case when it would be moral to give money, if it is clear to you that they will use it on something, valid, like trying to get bus fare. Are you going to get on the bus with them and watch them pay for the ride? Of course not. Even though it’s not ideal that is just the way life works some times.
ReplyDeletePost #3 Daniella Kesel
ReplyDeleteI think the more practical way of giving charity is by giving money. On the other hand the more ideal way is giving direct objects. I think giving direct objects is better because like Nikita said, if you give a person money, you don't know they are going to do with the money you're are giving them so by giving them a direct object you know you are donating towards a good cause. Although, not everybody carries around direct objects when they are walking by a homeless person who asks for something. For example if a homeless person asks for some money to buy something warm because it's cold, you're not necessarily going to be carrying a sweater which you can give them and therefore of course money would be easier and more practical to give them.
I would also like to respond to Havneh’s comment. I agree with the fact that more effort goes into rebuilding Japan or whatever (instead of giving money), but I don’t necessarily agree that it’s any better then giving money. When it’s a holiday for example, personally, I would prefer my relatives give me money or checks instead of a direct object because although more effort goes into finding something specific, I might not necessarily like it and therefore I would prefer to receive money to get myself something that’s actually useful and that I will like. So when talking about the Japan situation, you obviously know they are going to use the money for a good cause unlike a homeless person whom you know less about what they use the money for. So in the situations you give I don’t think it’s fair to say that giving money is worse then direct objects because the money could be more useful then a direct object, which might not even be needed.
my comment was comment 5
ReplyDelete(Levin #8- Bonus 2) I agree with David and Jonathan. If someone is terrible when it comes to money and you give him/her money, they could use it for something besides what they need or gamble it away. If you give someone an item that they need like food or clothes they can't gamble that away and end up with nothing. But what would be better than giving money or even an item is to teach him/her a skill. Like the saying goes "give a man a fish he eats for one night, teach the man to fish he eats forever." If you give the poor man/women food they'll be happy for a night but if you teach them a skill they'll be able to use it for the rest of their life. This is what Machmanidies considers the highest level of tzdekah.
ReplyDelete