click here.
Do you agree with the ladder? Your thoughts?
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Rambam's Ladder
click here.
Do you agree with the ladder? Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
click here.
Do you agree with the ladder? Your thoughts?
Genya #2
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ladder for the most part, especially with the first part. Helping someone become self sufficient is greatest form of charity, since then the person can avoid embarrassing themselves anymore. However I disagree with the 7th and 8th points, I think they should be switched positions since giving unwillingly is better than giving less than you should but with a smile, in my opinion. On one hand you could say that at least with a smile you make the person receiving the charity feel welcome and loved, and that is worth more than money, I disagree with that. From our perspective it could seem like receiving love is better than money, but that is because most of us have never lacked money. But I would think if I was asking for money and if I was on that level I would rather receive the maximum I can get rather than a smaller amount and a smile. You can’t eat smiles.
Lara
ReplyDeletePOST #2
This ladder is a great way of breaking down the different levels of giving Charity. There are some things that I don’t understand as Genya said in the last post, If a person gives unwillingly the other person in need still gets the money.
Why is that considered bad? Or is it bad? Is it better or worse than not giving at all?
But then there is also #3 “Receiver Known, Given Unknown” and #4 “Giver Does Not Know Receiver” These two seem very similar to me with one of the people being unknown and I think that they should be at the same level. But in the end I think that as long as the person gets the money that they need then you are helping no matter what. I understand that it might make a diffrence to yourself, but does the person in need really care how you feel as long as they can have food or what they need that day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete# 5 I agree with Genya and Lara in that I disagree with number 7 and number 8 on the ladder. I would rather someone give a normal amount of tzedakah unwillingly then a smaller amount of tzedekah willingly. So what if the person is being forced to give? He is giving more tzedakah than the 7th step on the ladder. I would rather get 10 dollars from someone forced to give it to me than 5 dollars from somebody who gave it to me willingly. Steps 7 and 8 should be switched. Genya brings up a very good point that you cannot eat smiles. The reciever does not care about the giver’s happiness. I also have a problem with Ramban concentrating whether or not the giver knows who the receiver is and wether or not the receiver knows who the giver is. It would make more sense to me if Ramban concentrated more on if you give more, you are higher up on the ladder. Also you would be higher up on my ladder if you gave the object in need instead of money. I am surprised these issues are not mentioned on Ramban’s ladder (except for briefly in step 7.)
ReplyDeleteDanny Robinow Post #4
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lara's inquiry, I believe that attitude and how you feel internally is essential when performing mitzvot such as charity, and the Talmud supports this ideal. As stated in the linked blog post, if the giving is unwilling the "gift is in the hand, not the heart." Even if the outcome is the same as someone who gives anonymously and enriches someone's life to the point that they no longer need charity, if the donation is made in vain or with a bad attitude or remorse, it is as if nothing was given at all. In this sense, Rambam is correct in placing giving unwillingly at the bottom of his ladder, and I believe it should stay there.
#4 i pretty much agree with this list and the order that it is in. before i saw this list though i would think that the first degree would be give without being asked but now that i see how many better degrees there i understand why that degree only is fifth. i also am surprised because most people give unwillingly which is the 8th degree. an example would be our school. in our school we have to do 26 hours of community service a year or else we wont graduate. i am also surprised that giving less the one asked for but with a smile is seventh. i would put that higher because people can only help other people to a certain extent. it is basically saying that if you can’t give everything that the giver asks for but with a smile you are doing one of the lowest degrees. other than the things that i mentioned above i agree with the order and the different degrees.
ReplyDelete#5
ReplyDeleteResponding to Genya:
It is true that as the receiver, you would probably want to get as much money as you need even if it comes from a person who doesn’t actually want to give and doesn’t have a smile on. Yes, the smile may make you feel better, but smiles don’t buy food. However, the ladder of mitzvot is more about the giver then about the receiver. The ladder of mitzvoth is about the level of purity of the mitzvah, and how indicative it is of how good of a person the giver is. One who gives less but willingly is a better person then the one who gives unwillingly and without a smile. The person who gives willingly is a better person because they actually want to give, and they care about the cause. The person who gives unwillingly is furthering the cause more then the person who gives willingly, but the fact stands that he doesn’t actually care about the cause. That is why giving willingly but less is a purer mitzvot the giving more but unwillingly.
I don’t necessarily with #2, 3, and 4. While some level of anonymity should be kept, it is nice to know who the other person is (to an extent) no matter which end you are on. At the soup kitchen for example, I like that I get to see the person’s face when I actually give them the food, it helps me understand just how much the food means to them, and it makes me feel a lot better about what I’m doing. Likewise, as the receiver, it would be nice to be able to thank whoever it is that’s helping you. However, in this situation, there is still some major anonymity. While we can see each other’s faces, neither of us knows who the other person. Neither of us feels embarrassed, and the person I’m helping won’t feel like he is in debt at all.
Eli makes a good point, that sometimes it doesn’t affect the receiver if a person gives willingly or unwillingly, it merely states how good of a person the giver is. I agree that this distinction is in part because of the giver, but I actually think it can affect the receiver. I would disagree with Genya and Lara that smiles aren’t as valuable as money. Yes, smiles don’t buy food but they do give you hope and happiness. In the holocaust, everyone was literally starving. However, the people who survived were the people who were able to maintain hope; not because they got an extra bowl of soup. Studies have been done that prove the more supported a person feels by their community, the better their well being and state of mind becomes. At JCHS, there is a huge emphasis on community for this very reason, people do much better when they have a sense of belonging. When someone gives you a present, it can still make your day even if you don’t like the present- because it is the fact that they gave to you that makes you happy. Givers that give grudgingly could make the receiver feel guilty and discourage them from asking for help in the future, whereas givers that give gladly and also give smiles do so much more than give a person money- they offer them hope and friendship.
ReplyDeleteI really like Lara’s question, I think it makes a good point. If we are forced to do something we don’t want to do yet we do it anyway, is that the worst thing we can do? You could be happy about it, but you could also not do it at all. I think that if someone is forced to be charitable that the person receiving the charity wouldn’t be the absolute happiest or greatful but they would still be greatful. Basicly I think that you could do worst then giving unwillingly.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Genya said about helping someone help themselves. It is like the quote “Give a boy a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” I think that someone in need of charity is most likely someone who does not know how to take proper care of themselves. Teaching them how to do that could change their situation completely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBonus #1, Comment #7: I agree with Ari and Genya that you cannot eat smiles but I still think that giving cheerfully but not that much is better than giving after asked. I think those should be switched around. I also think that giving without being asked is better than giving without knowing the receiver because for example I could still be giving just so that I will feel better about myself but when someone gives before they are asked then they are giving to help someone and not to just increase their ego.
ReplyDeleteI think that a problem with the ladder is that it is ranking what is the best way to give and the worst and therefore people will always aim high and try to give the way that the few degrees tell us to. In my opinion, people will think that they are not fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedaka unless they are giving the best way and if that is not possible then they will not give tzedaka at all.
post 3
ReplyDeleteGive a man a fish feed him for the day, teach him how to catch one, allow him to feed himself for life. This same principle applies to tzedaka. There are a bunch of ways to give money once someone is in need, levels of how yo do it. But there is nothing more righteous than preventing someone from entering poverty. How do we do that? We teach them a skill or trade so they can earn money for themselves, they will not fall into begging but be productive.
Rambam then ranked ways of giving after they entered poverty; telling us the best way of giving. I agree fully with this because it is ensuring that no blowback comes from the act of giving. Like the giver feeling the receiver owes him or the recipient feels he owes the giver.
Bonus # 1 Post #7
ReplyDeleteI agree with Boris, Ari and Genya in that giving cheerfully is all that matters. If you cannot give perhaps $1000 and in place give $750 it too is considered a great contribution regardless of the fact that you did not completely meet the request. I also agree in that one who gives without having to be asked is considered a great and overall welcoming person, instead of one who needs/ requires to be asked. This would mean that a person who constantly has donations and helping out others in mind, is quite important which is what the ladder ultimately shows. Boris made an excellent point in that when one looks at the ladder they assume that the best way to give is the one and only, eliminating all others from the running. If I were to see something listed first I would go back and obviously memorize it and or recall it. A few of the degrees that are less mentioned and less claimed wont make it as far, as the givers just will not simply pay attention to it. This ladder is correct for the most part, but some flaws occur which is what my classmates mainly touched on.
Danny Robinow Post #5
ReplyDeleteI agree with Boris’ point of the human error that may take place with this ladder being structured the way it is. With a tangible list of exactly what kind of giving is better than others, people will be pressured into giving the perfect way, and if they cannot do that they won’t give at all. In addition, with this ladder accepted by the public it opens the floodgates for charity and Tzedakah to become a competition among people. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to give ideally their entire life will inevitably put themselves on a pedestal and call the way they gave charity “better.” While this may be technically true, I do not believe that this was the intention of the ladder. It was not designed for regular people to be the judge and decide what’s best or not, but merely as a jumping off and reference point for people to take into consideration and possibly for the rabbis to judge. While there may be some non-ideal ways to give charity, it is still giving charity and I strongly believe that Tzedakah, no matter how it is given, is ever a bad thing.
Bonus #1 Post #7
ReplyDeleteIn addition to what Danny has said, I believe that one always performs mitzvahs yet this ladder stands a “guideline” for people who are considering giving a donation. At this stage, Rambam seems to have created this list so that people, who were interested in giving, would be able to follow along and see what is appropriate rather than taking the list for its lesser meaning. In this we see that it does not matter how one gives, but rather that they are a giver. If the donation has bad intentions or given with remorse and regret then it is better not to give. Giving should come from the willingness to help others and not from having to be asked or encouraged to. This ladder has many ways of being interpreted in that it emphasizes the orders of these acts, causing people to think that the first act listed is the one viewed by God as “supreme” and “holy”. In fact, this is not the case and it seems to be leading people on in a sense that they are not following the other ways of giving and just going by the first or second one listed. In essence I think that this ladder is not in place to judge or set examples for people to give, but rather to make It possible and very welcoming for those who are interested in donating to the needy and poor in a very open and relaxed manner. Lastly to cover Genya’s point, I would like to agree and say that this ladder is placed in a correct series of ways in that there are endless possibilities for giving and protecting ones identity; a major concern in today’s society. Rambam exemplifies the many ways of helping others, in a correct and tidy fashion using this ladder to separate the unwilling givers from the generous benefactors.
Post #4 I think that this ladder teaches us two main things besides that giving is important, especially anonymously. The first is why its is important to give anonymously. The lowest level of giving is unwillingly. While the people still get the money they need they feel embarrassed and guilty for taking the money. The giver makes the receiver feel like he did something wrong. This teaches us that it is important to respect everybody regardless of their need. This is further reenforced by the fifth level which is giving before asked. While the receiver might appear to be in need they didn’t ask for your money and might be embarrassed that they are seen that way by others. In one episode of Greek, one of my favorite TV shows, a boy has a practical joke played on him which ends with him looking homeless. As he walks around people give him money thinking that he is homeless. He tries to convince everyone that he is in a frat, this is a joke but it just keeps happening. The other thing this teaches us is that we should try our hardest to help people help themselves. “If you catch a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.”
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShoshana Feld #1. I have never thought of giving (charity) in the way that Moses ben Maimon has. Perhaps this is because I have never thought about the emotions involved in the giving and receiving of charity between individuals; as I understand now, his hierarchy of giving, is exceedingly important as it underlines the importance of respect for the feelings of both participants. It is also well thought out as it considers the emotions and actions that are involved while also considering both parties. I wholly agree with Moses ben Maimon’s opinions on the best and “worst” ways to give and feel that the depth he goes in while explaining each degree is necessary in understanding Tzedakah thoroughly. However, as much as I do agree and believe that the complexity is necessary in a chart of giving, the third and fourth degree of giving should be switched. Giving and not knowing the receiver is humbling for the receiver as they do not know who is needy, as it also saves the receiver from embarrassment and than the giver will not feel as awkward towards the receiver because the receiver does not no that it is them who gave. If the receiver is known to the giver but the receiver does not know the giver, than the receiver is more likely to feel cautious of who might be giving them and may feel awkward around anyone who is more fortunate than them because they might think it is their giver. However, depending on how one looks at it those degrees may be well placed, I nevertheless think that saving the receiver from embarrassment and the emotion of feeling lesser than the giver, is one of the top priorities in the giving of charity.
ReplyDeleteThe giving of charity/ Tzedakah is (as mentioned in other comments) one of the fundamental points in Judaism. The act is not only looked well upon, but it is also obligation of Judaism/commandment required by God, in fact, a Jew who does not perform Tzedakah is considered to be equal to an idol worshipper. Moses Ben Maimon broke down the levels of Tzedakah so that people of all different backgrounds (whether highly religious and educated on the giving of charity, or lower class unschooled with the idea of Tzedakah) can understand the true definition of giving from the heart. As Neena said, often times the hardest part of doing something whether it be giving charity, or in her example starting an essay, is the beginning/ the initial starting of the task. Not only does this hierarchy of giving let one see the levels of charity so that it is fully understood to the giver but it also helps one to get a push to start giving, thus cutting out the initial struggle of figuring out how to give on ones own.
Shoshana Feld #1 b. The first degree of giving parallels to the famous quote, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” –Chinese Proverb. This quote is exceedingly well respected outside the Jewish religion as the best way to give. Thus having it number one on the hierarchy list is hard to disagree with, plus, teaching one to succeed is the best form of charity because they will no longer need charity, and than they will also be able to help others. This also stops the receiver from feeling embarrassment, and in return, they can have a sense of pride for being able to provide for themselves and others. The last degree of giving is to give to one unwillingly. One might not even count this as giving, for the giver does not want to help others and is only doing so because they are actually being forced, there is no heart involved thus the giving is as mundane a task as going to work in a job one does not like. If one goes to a job even though they do not like it, and they do tasks that they do not like, it is just the same as if they were to give charity unwillingly, as meaningless as working at a job that one does not like. The first and last degree of giving show a summary of how one should give and the emotions involved in giving. In conclusion, the complexity is necessary in the full understanding of charity, and the order of giving is on the noise with the exception of degree three and four that can be switched depending on ones view on the topic.
ReplyDeleteI found a sight that well stated the importance of Tzedakah/ the giving of charity in the Jewish community and summarized the “Eight Degrees.” Its good to check out if your interested: http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePost #2
ReplyDeleteI think every degree is right until it gets to the Fifth degree. I personally think that the fifth degree should be the seventh degree because it doesn’t matter if you choose to give charity to somebody and not been forced to but it’s still wrong to embarrass the poor man. Of course the poor man appreciated the donation but on the other hand he’s probably questioning like why would he come over to me and embarrass me? He should have gave me the donation anonymously. Basically this puts this poor man in a position where he can’t really hide from because not only just the giver knows who the person is but people around him maybe saw that he was receiving a donation from another person. If I was in that position I wouldn’t want the giver to know who I am and also I wouldn’t want anybody to know that I was receiving money from anybody because then it makes me feel like I have failed to provide things for myself and family.
#5
ReplyDeletei agree with many things that have been said in favor of this text. like others have said, i think that the first degree is very import anf good to keep in mind. although giving someone the skills to succeed is far more beneficial to them then giving them something to help them in the short term only. however it almost always takes more time and resources to do this. its much easier to hand someone a sandwich or five dollars then it is to help them with things that could lead to them paying for their own meals.
For this reason i agree strongly with this text. i also agree with the order of the rest of the degrees. i think the ladder paints a good picture of the different types of tzedakah and the different types of people who give tzedakah. it reminds people what is important and what they should be doing or aiming to do. i think that it is important to give to the highest degree that one can but it one cannot give to the highest or to one of the highest degrees i hope that the ladder does not discourage them from giving at all if they feel bad that they can not do it to the degree that they would like to.
Natasha 5
ReplyDeleteI think it’s difficult to put all kinds of charity on a scale together because there are different elements of ‘good’ giving that are not equitable: anonymity, material vs. cash, need of recipient, etc. I ultimately disagree with the chart. The upper part of the chart is made of steps of differentiations of the anonymity of both the receiver and the giver of charity. In an ideal world, these distinctions would be obsolete because there would be no stigma attached to receiving charity. Also, giving charity would be universally seen as a social and moral responsibility. Everyone capable of it would give charity, and there would be no competition over the amount of charity given as a reflection of wealth (which would make the retaining the anonymity of the donor obsolete as well.)
#3 I agree with most of what was said before, but I must add that having a ladder really is not in the spirit of helping others. This is because it puts things on higher levels, and what if someone is not capable of achieving those levels? What if they don’t know how? This ladder would make it seem as if they were not good enough, as if they were not doing the right thing. Although I agree with the placement of the ways to give, I do not agree with having a ladder in general and I think there should be a note at the end that explains that there is no wrong way to give tzadakah, and that any giving is the right way. I feel like people might make it into a competition; who can give better forms of charity, and people will fight over it instead of giving.
ReplyDelete(Levin-#6) I agree with the ladder. If one gives unwillingly yes its still giving charity but when I think about giving charity I don't conceder it charity if I'm not happy doing it i think of it as a chore. I have a question if you help someone become self supporting doesn't the giver know the receiver and the receiver know the giver? Isn't that going against the 2nd rung?
ReplyDelete