תלמוד בבלי כתבות סז עמוד ב
מר עוקבא הוה עניא בשיבבותיה דהוה רגיל לשדורי ליה ארבע מאה זוזי כל מעלי יומא דכיפורא יומא חד שדרינהו ניהליה ביד בריה אתא אמר ליה לא צריך אמר מאי חזית חזאי דקא מזלפי ליה יין ישן אמר מפנק כולי האי עייפינהו ושדרינהו ניהליה כי קא ניחא נפשיה אמר אייתו לי חושבנאי דצדקה אשכח דהוה כתיב ביה שבעת אלפי דינרי סיאנקי אמר זוודאי קלילי ואורחא רחיקתא קם בזבזיה לפלגיה ממוניה היכי עבד הכי והאמר ר' אילעאי באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש הני מילי מחיים שמא ירד מנכסיו אבל לאחר מיתה לית לן בה
Talmud Ketubot 67b
Mar 'Ukba had a poor man in his neighbourhood to whom he regularly sent four hundred zuz on the Eve of every Day of Atonement. On one occasion he sent them through his son who came back and said to him, 'He does not need [your help]'. 'What have you seen?' [his father] asked. 'I saw [the son replied] that they were spraying old wine before him'. 'Is he so delicate?' [the father] said, and, doubling the amount, he sent it back to him.
When he (Mar Ukba)was about to die he requested, 'Bring me my charity accounts'. Finding that seven thousand of Sijan [gold] denarii were entered therein he exclaimed, 'The provisions are scanty and the road is long', and he forthwith distributed half of his wealth. But how could he do such a thing? Has not R. Elai stated: It was ordained at Usha that if a man wishes to spend liberally he should not spend more than a fifth of his possessions (and, consequently, a fifth of his income)? — This applies only during a man's lifetime, since he might thereby be impoverished but after death this does not matter.
Questions for Comprehension
1) What does it mean 'they were spraying old wine before him'?
2) Why does Mar Ukba double the amount that he donates to the man after that?
3) What does that tell us about Mar Ukba's opinion of donating to someone based on their former socio-economic status?
4) What is the dispute of Mar Ukba's opinion and Rabbi Elai's about bequests (end of life donations to charity)? How is it resolved?
Questions for Reflection
5) Do you agree with Mar Ukba's opinion in this case? Why or why not?
6) Should a person give away all, some, or none of their money to a charity upon their death? Why or why not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDanny Robinow Post #3
ReplyDelete1. This means that this man is no longer impoverished, and is able to be careless with expensive possessions such as wine.
2. Mar Ukba doubles the amount because he believes that because this man is used to being poor and has now embodied being rich he will; be foolish with his good fortune and need more money and aid in getting back on his feet.
3. Mar Ukba believes that even if someone gains wealth and no longer appears to need charity, you must give anyway in order to sustain them in the transition from impoverished to sustainable.
4. R. Elai believed that people should live frugally and only spend one fifth of their money on themselves while Mar Ukba distrubuted half of his wealth after he died. It was decided that R. Elai’s thoughts would apply only in one’s lifetime, and as soon as one dies, releasing any epithets of impoverished or wealthy, their wealth may be distributed as they chose.
5. I disagree with Mar Ukba’s decision because this person, whomever he or she may be, needs to learn to be responsible with his or her wealth and if they aren’t going to appreciate it then there are others out there who could use it more. I used to deliver boxed meals to people who need them with my mom, and I felt good about this work. If I were to find out that every time I brought a packaged pasta dish to this man who lives in an apartment building only to later discover that he was throwing the food off his balcony into a dumpster I would not continue to give meals to that person, for there are many others in need who could use a warm meal and would not take advantage of it.
6. I believe that a person should distribute their remaining wealth between family members who need it and charitable sources that need it as well. It is important for someone to leave a mark and lasting effect on their family, and by leaving some wealth the ones who carry on your name will be able to donate or spend that money in a way that will fulfill their life in some way. This considered, it is also important to give to charity in order to fulfill the mitzvah and help others in as many ways as possible. I believe that every last bit of one’s money should be donated for, when it comes down to it, it is just pieces of metal or paper that mean nothing and would serve a much better purpose in someone else’s hands.
QUESTIONS FOR COMPREHENSION:
ReplyDelete1. I think it means that he now has great wealth and can spend it on anything he wishes to. It is like when someone wins they lottery, they waste all their money on things they don’t need or will never use. They just buy it, because they can.
2. I believe that Mar Ukba doubles the money he was giving the man when he finds out the man no longer needs it, because he knows that the “poor” man will loose everything at the rate he is going. It is like what I said earlier about the lottery.
3. From this text we learn that it does not matter, to Mar Ukba, where someone comes from or how they use their money. If they need help then they need help. It is their decision how they use the money and if they need someone to lend them a helping hand, it should not matter where they come from.
4. The dispute is about how much someone should spend on charity. R’ Elai believes that a man shoulod spend more then a fifth of his income on charity. This is resolved, because this rule only applies during a man’s life time. Once the man dies his money can all be spent (AKA: unpaid balances, family members, ect.).
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION:
5. I disagree with Mar Ukba. I think that what he did for the man was very charitable and maybe even honorable, but I also believe that this man needs to learn from his mistakes. If Mar Ukba keaps just throwing him money when ever he runs low he will never learn that it his responsibility.
6. I think that there is a balance to how much someone should give to charity apon their death. If it means that their family will suffer without the money then the family should get all of it. But in most cases I would say that the money should be distributed between many charities and the family. I can not speak for anyone else, but if it were me who lost a loved one and they gave atleast some of their money to a charitable organization I would have been very proud to have known them. For others I would imagine that some would be hurt not getting anything. Therefore I believe that it should be distributed equally amongst the family and the charity.
Lara Prosterman
ReplyDeletePOST #3
Questions for Reflection
5) Do you agree with Mar Ukba's opinion in this case? Why or why not?
In this case I do agree with him. In doubling the amount of money he gave to the poor man he allowed the man to not only get what he needs but what he wants. We could all live with bare minimum food shelter and Water. But instead we all have computers and laptops and phones and fancy hoses with lots of furniture.
6) Should a person give away all, some, or none of their money to a charity upon their death? Why or why not?
I think that it depends on the person. If he has lots of money and no family then he should give all he owns because he dose not need his money after he dies. But if he has a family he should split the money in half. If the person is not rich then he should give the money to his family and if he dose not have a family then to his community.
What id do want to know is he obviously has a family, because he has a son, but dose he give any of his money to his family?
Lara
ReplyDeletePost #3 part 2.
i think that this is a case of extreme charity. but at the same time if someone is wealth like that i think that they have an obligation to give charity.
Genya #4
ReplyDeleteI take this text to mean that even if you’re donating a to a poor man who then becomes rich and doesn’t only receive what he needs but receives what he wants and is basically spoiled then you should continue donating and help him get what he wants as long as you have the money. I disagree with this opinion. I think if you have helped a poor man become rich to the point of spoiled, which is demonstrated by the wine, then you have done enough. Charity is the act of giving to someone who needs it, not to someone who wants it, that is denying the whole point of charity, it’s basically giving away money to people who take it for granted, and will now probably not ever get a job or contribute to society. It is in fact the opposite of what you should be doing, helping someone become self sufficient.
I think you should give away however much of your money you want at your death. I am not saying that if you are particularly greedy you should have all your money buried with you. But, if you take giving to charity to mean giving to the poor or helping people get by or just improving your community, well then you still shouldn’t give it all away. I think part of your money should most definitely go to charity but also some should be left for your children and to pay for your funeral and what not. R. Elai says one fifth should go to charity, and I think that’s a pretty good amount. I think giving one fifth to charity and the other four fifths to your kids or the government is nice. If you’re as rich as Mar Ukba then you can probably give one half to charity and still leave you’re kids rich though.
(Levin #2)- I Disagree with Mar Ukba's opinion. I Believe that the person wasting money should learn from his mistakes and conserve money. Like Danny I would the money to buy food to deliver to people more in need and who don't waste money. I Believe that once a person dies some of their money should be given to charity. Some not none because the person who died dosen't need the money, However, not all because the family needs some of the money to pay for funeral costs and other stuff along the lines of that.
ReplyDeleteWine gets better with time, and old wine is very expensive. The fact that this man had this luxury item seems to mean that he doesn’t need charity. Or, even if he does need charity, it is not because he didn’t have the opportunity to be financially stable- he just isn’t good at managing his money. This poses the question: Do you still give someone money if it’s “their fault” they are poor? Mar Ukba seems to think yes, you should. In fact, you should give them more money because they will need more money to sustain themselves.
ReplyDeleteI can see Mar Ukba’s logic here. He seems to be saying, I want to help this person, but it is not my buisiness to tell him how he spends the money. Does he have the authority to decide how he spends the money if it’s his money?
Although I think this is kind of Mar Ukba, I don’t think he is helping this man out very much. In the ladder of Tzedaka, we learn that the best thing you can do for a person is help them be self sufficient. By pampering this poor man, and allowing him to waste his money on luxury items, he is not teaching him anything. The poor man will think he can continue to spend money until he learns the consequences of his actions.
This is similar to some parenting style. When a kid does something wrong, the parent is generally helping them out to punish them because the kid will then learn their lesson. If they never learned the lesson, they could continue to make the mistake in the real world, where consequences could be much worse than the parent’s comments. When Mar Ukba dies, what will this man do? He has not learned how to manage his money.
Comment #6: The first text talks about the idea of giving money to someone who becomes or already is wealthy. Mar Ukba gives money to a poor man in his neighborhood consistently. One day, his son delivers the money to the man and comes back to his father and tells him that the man is wealthy because he see's that old wine is being used at the house; therefore, he didn't give the man the money. Mar Ukba doubles the amount of money that the man should get next week, making up for what his son didn't deliver. Mar Ukba's opinion is that you should keep giving money to someone who is wealthy but was formerly poor. One could argue that the word "spraying" literally means spraying and the man who is receiving tzedaka is taking advantage of the money. I don't agree with Mar Ukba because this man is obviously taking advantage of Mar Ukba's money. I think that someone who is need should get money, but in this case I think that the man is treating himself to luxuries that are not necessary and he is taking advantage. I think the man crosses the fine line between treating yourself to something you can afford and buying luxuries that are too expensive for you.
ReplyDeleteThe second text is about Mar Ukba and Rabbi Elai's conflict about whether or not to donate all your money before you die. Mar Ukba is close to dying and asks for his charity accounts and after he looks over it, he donates half of his money to charity.Rabbi Elai says that it was said at Usha that if you want to spend your money traditionally, then you can only spend one fifth of it before you die. The loophole around it is that you can give only one fifth during your lifetime but the only reason for the law is so that you will not become poor, and since that doesn’t matter in the afterlife, Mar Ukba can give just as much as he’d like. I think that a man should be able to donate some of his money or give away some of his money before he dies because ultimately, it is their choice. The one downside is if someone hates their family and doesn’t leave anything to them, I think that is wrong because they are family and they should be given a portion of the money so I think that 75% of a man’s money should be given to wherever the man decides, and the other 25% be given to his family.
Comment #1 This text is about Mar Ukba who regularly donates money to a poor man. One day Mar Ukba sent his son to give the money to the poor man, and when the son came back the money was still in his hand and the son said that he doesn't need the money because he was spraying wine. They were spraying old wine means that they were literally spraying old wine everywhere and back then spraying old wine is a fancy way to make your place smell better, wine starts to taste better as it ages and old wine is very expensive. Mar Ukba doubles the amount that he donates to make up what his son didn't donate. Mar Ukba is donating because if you were poor you need to still support them with tzedakah. I agree with Mar Ukba continues to donate to the poor man but even if he saw the poor man with the old wine doesn't mean he is taking advantages of his money because it could have been his friends because it says that they were spraying the old wine on him, it could have been a gift. The dispute between Mar Ukba and Rabbi Elai was that you can't donate more that half your money but Mar Ukba donates half of his money. It is resolved because when you are about to die you have no more use for your money than to give it to someone. Upon death i would give some of my money to charity and some of my money to my family. I would do this because its my family, and they would the same for me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Talia regarding the idea that an old bottle of wine is a delicacy which is not usually available to someone his is poor. Before we are to give tzedakah we should see if that person really needs it and in most cases that is very difficult, but if someone is spraying old bottles of wine then it seems to me that the necessity to give tzedakah is not there.
ReplyDeleteMar Ukba doubled his money in my opinion because it does not look like the man in accustm to having money, by wasting expencive wine the way he does, so Mar Ukba doubles his amount of money that he gives to the man. My computer is about to die will complete later....
Post #3 What Mar Ukba is saying is that he wants to provide them so they can live in the way that they did before they were poor. While this sounds nice it just not a good way to give. IF you give someone money then you want them to spend it on what they need not on extravagances like old wine. There is a food stamp program in this country for families but you can't buy things like pet food and unhealthy foods and alcohol. The program is saying that you should spend their money on good healthy food not on feeding an animal which is a luxury. If you are having money problems then you shouldn't expect expensive things, you should be downsizing.
ReplyDeletepost #6
ReplyDeleteAs I have mentioned before beggars cannot be choosers. I go by this statement for all circumstances. Like the homeless woman I encountered who said she wouldn't take my pizza because it was not organic. If this poor man only wants lavished things he needs to come up with the cash in order to get these things. You don't automatically deserve a porche, although he might of had a lavished life style before he became in need. When you dont have a lot of money you need to prioritize. This man needs to eat beans, and deal with the fact that he can either eat steak tar tar once in a while and risk the fact of being hungry. Or he can eat beans every day and have enough to fill his appetite.
I disagree with Mar Ukba's opinion, because I believe that it is not necessary to give money to someone who does not spend it correctly and wastes it on items that are not needed, like the wine that the poor man uses to make his house smell better. If I give someone money, I expect them to buy the bare necessities, like food, clothing, shelter, etc. Someone in need should be given enough money so that they can support themselves and get themselves back on track. They should not be continuously given money so that they can buy whatever they want and only depend on you for their expenses. Secondly, a person should not give a way all their money away before they die, because that person still needs money to support themselves before death. They need money for a funeral, inheritance, etc. However, after they die, it should not matter where there money goes, because they do not need it any longer.
ReplyDelete^^^ #5
ReplyDelete#4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Havneh, this is a man who is receiving charity, and he is using old wine as an aerosol can. This is blatantly wasting the little money he has. Mar Ukba’s son was right in his outrage when he sees this, however he is sent back with double the money. The way I see it, Ukba gives him double the money so the poor man can have his cake and eat it too. Cake being money, and what he ate is money for the wine. This is wrong. He is allowing a man to live more than comfortably without earning it, charity should not be in order to pus someone over the top, but to bring them up to sustainable levels.
As to giving his fortune away at death; he is also mistaken in principle. He has lived a good life and made a lot of money, even if he is fully righteous and doesn’t care about worldly positions, he owes it to those around him to leave money. By giving away money and not leaving it the family he is undercutting his benefactors.
Natasha 3
ReplyDeleteI somewhat disagree with Genya’s opinion. I think if you have the ability, you should give charity beyond the simple necessities of life. Small luxuries are a huge part of feeling like a human. As we learned in the other story about Mar Ukba, it is essential to not take away the humanity and dignity of someone receiving charity. However, it is very important that this not be taken too far, like in this case. I think the poor man’s lifestyle is ridiculous and self-indulgent, and he is taking advantage of Mar Ukba who could be assisting others. If he continues to live this way he will never change.
I think providing for your family after your death is the most important. If you are able to do that comfortably, excess should be donated. It is impossible to set a percentage of money that should go to charity (in life or in death), because households with different incomes can afford to give different percentages (like tax brackets.) I think it is important that any large sums of money that are given to charity are directed to research or programs that provide things for people, instead of money just be given to needy people (also like in the first story about Mar Ukba.)
Daniella #2
ReplyDeleteI agree with Genya’s opinion. I do not agree with Mar Ukba because I don’t think you should be giving money to people who take money for granted and spend it on things they do not need. I don’t think it was necessary for Mar Ukba to keep on giving money to somebody who clearly doesn’t need his help anymore since he spends it on spraying his house with old wine. I don’t consider this an act of giving charity, when this person clearly does not use his money on things he actually needs. Instead I think Mar Ukba should have found a new person to give charity to, somebody who is actually in a bad situation and needs the money.
I think a person should give however much money to a charity upon there death depending on their families current financial situation. Your family should always come before charity. If that means leaving all your money towards family members in order to help them out and none for charity, then so be it. Family should come first. On the other hand I don’t think you should be too greedy and if your family has no financial needs, I think you should give some money towards charity since leaving your money towards family might not be necessary. On the other hand it’s always nice for family to see that you care about them, so I think you should ALWAYS leave something for your family.
Bonus #2 Post #8
ReplyDeleteI would like to agree with both Genya and Daniella in that Mar Ukba seems to be confused because it is not necessarily correct or right to give money to people who will take it for granted and not use it for the needs that they are claiming. In this story, Mar Ukba continues to give and give but what he does not seem to realize is that although he is fulfilling a mitzvah ( commandment) he is providing someone who is fully capable of standing alone money. This money goes to waste, literally. The spraying of the home with ancient old wine is both pointless and wasteful in every aspect. Like I stated before, this is viewed as giving but not for all of the right reasons. These funds are being used to support a person’s bad habit in being wasteful. In place of what Ukba is continuing to do, I think he should instead invest in another person or group to give to, that will actually use it for their benefit, which ultimately goes back to what Daniella has said. As the Talmud says “Has not R. Elai stated: It was ordained at Usha that if a man wishes to spend liberally he should not spend more than a fifth of his possessions (and, consequently, a fifth of his income)?” we come to see that this is a perfect explanation of the story and the wrongdoing that is occurring in the “poor” man’s home. Although Mar Ukba is a nice and generous man, he needs to conserve his funds for a day when his family and he might not be in the best financial situation. In this case, who will provide him with tzedakah? Prior to death a person should decide where he/she would like to see their money go, and I believe that the majority should be dispersed within the family, allowing the blood relatives to enjoy life just a bit more. Helping your family financially should always come before donating to any other organization.
Post #3
ReplyDeleteI agree with Havneh,I think that Mar 'Ukba gave to much money to the man. I think he might of needed support but not that much. Mar 'Ukba gave him so much money that the man didn’t know how to handle all the money and used them in useless ways. When you help out a person you automatically think that they are using it for food, supporting their family and other things you need in order to survive. You give a person money when they actually need it when you find out that they are not using the money in the right way, I think that means you should stop giving them money. Find someone new who needs the support and start helping the new person out. I agree Mar Ukba, that if you want can donate half of your money. I think it should be half and half, half of your money should go to your family and half to charity
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Genya, I don’t think that it’s smart of Mar Ukba’s to give more money to the poor man because it sounds really unreasonable. I’m not saying that it’s not right to give a poor man money but when it comes to him spending the money on useless things such as alcohol and not on things that will help him in life, like to rise out of poverty. I think that Mar Ukba should stop giving the poor man money until he sees that the poor man is using the money wisely and if he decides to give the poor man money he should give him half the amount that he usually gives to him.
ReplyDeleteMichael #6
ReplyDeleteUsually the older a wine is the better and more expensive it is. So what the story is saying is that the poor man was spraying expensive wine in his house to make it smell better. This is clearly a waste of money because you could use flowers or something cheap but instead he uses expensive wine so we now that this once poor man is probably well off now. Mar Ukba's son tells him this and he replies "Is he so delicate, and doubling the amount he sent him back." So instead of stopping giving this man, who he has for awhile he doubles the amount. I disagree with this because I think that if the person is no longer poor he no longer needs charity but Mar Ukba thinks that even once they are well off that you must continue to give them money. I also think that he doubles the money because from the wine story Mar Ukba sees that the man is wasting money so to make sure that he doesn't go poor again he doubles the amount. Overall for this part I do not agree with Mar Ukba because the simple point of charity is to help people who are need of it. Once a person is well off, like the man Mar Ukba was donating to, he should be able to take care of himself. Charity is like you helping a person up, your not supposed to carry them. Once they are on there feet they should be able to walk without your help, so once they are well of they should be able to live without your money. This way your money will go to a new person that really needs it rather than a person who is now well off.
On the point about giving money after your death, I agree with what was decided in the Talmud. After your death you should be able to give as much money as you want because you no longer need it to support yourself. However if you are still alive, I think the 20% rule is a good rule because this prevents some people from giving everything they have, because if a person gives away everything they have, they are now depended upon charity themselves so they can no longer give to charity but now they must start taking from it to live. One thing that I would like to add though is I think that if a man has family that he is leaving behind when he dies, he should leave some money for them because if he gives it all away he is really putting his family in a bad place. The 20% rule should still apply after death if you have family money that you are trying to give away, because this could really affect and harm your family.
Comment 5
ReplyDeleteI agree with Talia regarding the idea that an old bottle of wine is a delicacy which is not usually available to someone his is poor. Before we are to give tzedakah we should see if that person really needs it and in most cases that is very difficult, but if someone is spraying old bottles of wine then it seems to me that the necessity to give tzedakah is not there.
Mar Ukba doubled his money in my opinion because it does not look like the man in accustom to having money, by wasting expencive wine the way he does, so Mar Ukba doubles his amount of money that he gives to the man. My computer is about to die will complete later....
Continuing, I do not agree with Mar Ukba's acts because the mans actions does not show ones of maturity and so rewarding one for wrong or stupid behavior does not make sense to me. I do not know if this is a bit much but, its like buying a dog giving the dog one treat everyday and one day the dog pees all over the couch and table. When you see what the dog is doing you think well maybe the dog needs more treats to calm down so you double the amount of treats. Giving more for bad behavior is not a healthy remedy.