רבי חנינא הוה ההוא עניא דהוה רגיל לשדורי ליה ארבעה זוזי כל מעלי שבתא יומא חד שדרינהו ניהליה ביד דביתהו אתאי אמרה ליה לא צריך מאי חזית שמעי דהוה קאמרי ליה במה אתה סועד בטלי כסף או בטלי זהב אמר היינו דאמר רבי אלעזר בואו ונחזיק טובה לרמאין שאלמלא הן היינו חוטאין בכל יום שנאמר (דברים טו)" וקרא עליך אל ה' והיה בך חטא"
Ketubot 67b
R. Hanina had a poor man to whom he regularly sent four zuz on the Eve of every Sabbath. One day he sent that sum through his wife who came back and told him [that the man was in] no need of it. 'What [R. Hanina asked her] did you see?'
Ketubot 68a
[She replied:] I heard that he was asked, 'On what will you dine; on the silver [coloured] cloths or on the gold [coloured] ones?' 'It is in view of such cases' [R. Hanina] remarked, 'that R. Eleazar said: Come let us be grateful to the rogues, for were it not for then, we would have been sinning every day, for it is said in Scripture, “Do not be mean to your needy kinsman and give him nothing. He will cry to the Lord against you, and you will incur guilt.” (Deuteronomy 15:9)
In a 2009 NY Times article, the United Homeless Organization (UHO) was found to be committing fraud in its use of money that was supposedly for the homeless. What would the Talmud say about this? How do you pick one charitable organization over another? What about investigating individuals and whether they are honest about their needs?
Bonus #1
ReplyDeleteThis opinion of the text seems to be saying no, it isn’t your buisiness whether a person is ‘truly’ in need or not. Admittedly, this would be a hard thing to judge and I believe it is respectable for someone to be able to give without concerns of how they spend the money, but just know that they are helping out. However, other opinions would most definitely disagree with this statement. In the Talmud, Mimonidies has a concept called the 8 steps of Tzedaka, saying that there are different degrees of the ‘best’ way to give. The highest form of giving is helping a man become self sufficient. I would argue by that continuing to give money without helping people learn how to manage it, you are not only not helping them become self sufficient, you are actually discouraging it. If people know they will continue to be able to spend their money on frivolous things and not deal with the consequences, then they will do just that.
If the United Homeless Organizations wants to donate people who may not be in as severe poverty, I believe that is fine. However, they should change their name to indicate that so the donors are not misled and then discouraged to donate in the future.
Bonus #3 Post # 9
ReplyDeleteI seem to have a tough time completely agreeing with Talia yet she does bring up a good point. Personally if I was giving someone money for "food" perhaps, I would ask a question that would immediately let me know whether or not this person is really needy or is just too lazy to pull out the $10 necessary to get something at the hot bar at whole foods. But to provide another view on this, it seems that a person who is visibly in despair or needing assistance does not need to be questioned by me or any other person really. The Torah says that one should not ask or question the receiver but yet just give and let them do what they think is right with the money. Going back to Talia's point I think that the 8 degrees of tzedakah is a perfect example of the ways that even the Torah contradicts itself. If you give a person who claims to be poor and homeless $10 for a good meal, yet they have a Bentley parked around the corner, you are not using tzedakah for all of its right intentions. Today we see plenty of groups and telemarketers who claim to be serving a need such as a “Youth Police Cadet Group" who left a message on my voicemail just yesterday. They claim to be a non - profit that use all of their donations to help put youth through a junior police cadet program; yet when I looked them up on Google I faced tens upon hundreds of links that described this group as scam artists and fake. I would not recommend investigating an individual unless you clearly cannot tell whether they really are in need, or just there to literally steal from you. The Torah frowns up acts such as these, so by investigating in appropriate situations you are abiding by the Torah; the greatest commandment of them all.
Bonus #3, Comment #9: I agree with Talia that the Talmud text is saying that it is not our business whether the person is in need of the money they are receiving. Personally, I would only give money to people who are in desperate need of it because if the receiver is taking advantage of me then they don't really need it and it would be better spent if the money were to go to a man who needs it but only buys things he needs. On the other hand, who's fault is it if I am giving money to a man who cannot manage it? Is it my fault for not teaching him how to manage his money and by simply giving it to him, or is it his fault for not managing it and not learning how?
ReplyDeleteIf I were in a situation where I was giving a good amount of money and could only use it by giving it as tzedakah, I would give 10 needy men a small amount of money instead of giving one man all of it. In the words of this text, I would give one zuz to four different needy men and hope that one of them would do something productive with it. I also think that it is really embarrassing to be investigated if you are the receiver of the money, it is bad enough that you are in need but to be checked on from time to time, I understand the reasoning but I think it is disrespectful.
Natasha 4
ReplyDeleteIt has already been established that the rabbis of the Talmud favored giving objects to the needy instead of money, and that anonymous giving is more righteous than direct charity. I think it can very safely be inferred that they would approve of many of the charity organizations we have today: food pantries, shelters, donation funds, general aid, etc. They allow people to get the things they need. The givers and the receivers both do not know each other, and there is less concern about ‘rogues’ because you are not giving actual money. When there is less concern over validity (ex: anyone can go through the food line at St. Anthony’s) you can leave people their dignity without interrogating them about their financial status. These are reputable charities; an advantage of the internet is that we can check the validity of different organizations on sites like charitynatigator.org. We can make sure that out tzedakah is going to a real, good cause, without violating anyone’s right to privacy or dignity.
Genya #5
ReplyDeleteI find this text especially interesting, especially the part about rogues. I take the rogue part to mean that we must thank God for rogues since we can say, oh I don't want to give him money he is a rogue, or someone who abuses charity, as opposed to having to give money to all poor people since because of what Deuteronomy 15:9 says. So in a way rogues are a loophole in the system of charity. The UHO situation I find less interesting since I think their actions and the Talmud's response is more straightforward. If the fraud was saying you're donating to homeless but donating to your Bentley fund then it's obviously greediness and lies which are both clearly punishable by the Torah. If it is like one of my peers mentioned above, not paying attention to who gets the money and giving it to someone who doesn't necessarily need it then the case is more complicated, but still the sin is uncaring or just laziness which is also I'm sure written about somewhere in the text. About picking one charitable organization over another I think you do what Okun was talking about and just google it, read some reviews, do some research. However if you're deciding whether or not a person actually needs it then it's more complicated. I think you must look him over, look into his eyes, and do whatever else you do to judge someones character. If the person realizes he's being investigated then you've gone too far. Because it is better to give to a rogue then to shame or not give to someone in need.
#6
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Boris when he says that he would give four people one zuz, rather than one person four zuz. I believe that if you give a person a little amount of money, they literally can't do anything productive with it. As we see in Rambam's Ladder of Tzedakah, giving less than you should is one of the lowest forms of charity. Therefore, we see that giving more charity to one receiver is better than giving little charity to many people, because by giving a lot to one individual, at least we might be able to make a difference.
I also want to pose a question: Do we, as donors, have the physical right to investigate the receiver? As earlier posts said, it might be embarrassing for the receiver to be investigated, because obviously we wouldn't be anonymous at that point, and it just shames them. However, we as donors, may or probably want to know where our hard earned money is going before we give it away..?
bonus #1
ReplyDeleteThis is a very controversial article. Here we have a United Homeless Organization that is supposed to be doing justice to the homeless community and donating the money and helping the migrants. But instead they use the money to their advantage causing fraud and not only is it fraud it is terrible. They are supposed to be an organization helping the homeless but instead they use that as a label to get people to donate so that they can use their money to their advantage defeating any kind of purpose. We are not supposed to investigate but yet when something like this happens what are we supposed to do? But if we give money to a person who claims they need it for food but spend it on drugs then we suffer from that because it is seem as a crime essentially for the rabbi's. The one solution would to give the direct item like the women whose feet don't get burned because she gives direct donations. If you give the beggar a direct donation it is not committing any wrong deed. As the UHO goes by giving them blankets or canned foods you are giving a direct donation and although they are con artists they most likely will not use your blankets to profit for themselves. In which case they might end up giving your items to the homeless people to mask what they were or are really doing.
Lara
ReplyDeletePOST #5
I agree with Genya about the rouge part of the text, that this text is telling us to be thankful for the rouges, But i think that in the text it says this because R. Eleazar believed that seeing other commit sin we see how bad it is and we want to do better and do good in the world. what Jonathan brought up was a good point, that there are frauds out there trying to get our money and we have to be aware of the situation. There are many situations though where we might not be able to find out if the person is a fraud or not. In this case we don't really know if the man and his family that R. Hanina was giving 4 zuze to was really a fraud. He could have just been given those table clothes or maybe they inherited them. In some cases we don't know enough about the person who we are donating to and i believe that ultimately if we give money to someone who might be in need we are giving it to them and they can do what ever they want with it. I will not check up on them because that would seem to disrespectful.
Lara
ReplyDeleteSorry i did not see gabe and dilara's post until after i submitted my post.
Entry #7
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud would look at this as a great sin, because it is lying to the people who gave tsedakah, and it invalidates their mitzvah. The people who took the money are also stealing it from people in actual need of it. To pick a charitable organization, you should probably choose a cause that is close to your heart, like if you want to help children, maybe you should donate to homeless children, or places that rehabilitate child soldiers. Investigating individuals and seeing whether they are honest about their needs is also important. But it is good to make sure that the charity is doing that, so there should probably be a couple groups that are in charge of checking up on all of the charities integrity, and making sure they actually give their money to the people they have determined are worthy of it.
Danny Robinow Post #5
ReplyDeleteI believe we are stuck on the idea that we MUST know exactly where the money we give to those in need is going. As we see in Rambam’s ladder, anonymous donations are close to the top of the spectrum. While simple tossing a buck at a homeless man on the street does not come with the luxury of being anonymous, the way in which this money is used, in my opinion, can substitute as the anonymous factor. We have all focused so directly on how exactly this homeless man would use the dollar, be it on drugs, food, a place to live, or other possibilities, but I believe that we can fulfill this mitzvah in a more preferable way, at least according to Rambam. If the way in which the money is used is kept secret, we have successfully created a scenario in which an anonymous factor is maintain, and, furthermore, we have given the power to this homeless man to do whatever he believes correct in his current situation. In this sense, this action can be looked at as a form of the highest level of giving, for we have trusted this man, foolishly or not, to be responsible and care for himself and his own well being.
To echo what Lara and Genya said- "Come let us be grateful to the rogues, for were it not for then, we would have been sinning every day." - R Elezar. The Talmud may argue although what the UHO was bad, they are necessary to this world. We need sinners like the UHO to keep the rest of the world honest. I personally would be mad if my money went into the wrong hands, but the Talmud teaches up to appreciate our honesty when rogues take advantage of us. I believe the Talmud wishes us to try and avoid these rogues by keeping our eyes sideways and watching where are money goes, but it is not the worst if are money goes to fraud.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Gabe's question Do we, as donors, have the physical right to investigate the receiver? I think once you gave money to the receiver, it is their money and they can do whatever they wish with it. If they want to commit fraud or do drugs, it is their choice.
#4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natasha, the Talmud prefers direct donations of tzedukah instead of just giving someone money. To avoid the problem of an invalid charity organization, just like the one we see in the NY Times article, one should donate to charities that accept a direct donation, such as food drives, clothes drives, etc. On the other hand, it is still better to give to an invalid organization, instead of not giving at all. In Ketubot 67b and 68b it says that not giving tzedukah is a sin. The sin of not giving tzedukah is compared to be as bad as worshipping idols. We know that worshipping idols is a MAJOR sin because after God sees that the Israelites made a golden calf on Sinai he has all of them killed. It is better to give to rogues, rather than not giving at all because this still fulfills the mitzvah of tzedukah.
Perri #7 bonus
ReplyDeleteLara discussed being thankful for the rogues saying, “seeing others commit sin we see how bad it is and we want to do better and do good in the world.” I believe that sometimes this may be the case, although, seeing others commit sin could have a negative effect on people as well. It may cause them to be influenced by the rogues, thinking that if the rogue can do it, so can they.
I also agree with Dilara. Because the idea of trusting the recipients use of your money is such an arguable one, the most advisable solution would be to give the person or organization what they need directly, such as the women in the story who gave direct donations so her feet did not burn in the fire. Although, I also would like to add to that an even better act or the best act at that, according to the levels of tzedakah, which would be to help the person help themselves. As long as the person was not in desperate need for that specific item they asked for, teaching the person how to move forward in their life, as the quote goes, “feeds them for a lifetime”. This may be quite a challenge, especially for those who have been homeless for most of their lives, but the great effort put into helping makes it an even higher mitzvah.
I would like to point out that judging and assuming something about someone’s financial situation can be chancy. Sometimes someone may seem like they are well off when in reality they are not. For instance in this text, the wife had heard that the ‘poor’ man was asked, 'On what will you dine; on the silver [coloured] cloths or on the gold [coloured] ones?’ This could have been a sarcastic remark, the cloths could have been gifts, or maybe that was what was left of his belongings after loosing his estate. If your judgement is that he is a rogue when he truly isn’t, as Gary said, you would be risking sinning because ‘any one who shuts his eye against charity is like one who worships idols.’ Yet, I do realize that we can be caught in situations where we are asked for help on the street and must think on our feet because we do not have time to discuss all the talmud arguments and ‘what ifs’ in our head. In that case, I would go with what Genya said and feel it is okay to look at the person and make an educated and logical decision as best I can, although err on the side of trust.
Shoshana Feld Bonus 1 Post #7 a. This issue of fraud and giving Tzedakah can result in a very messy situation. As many people have made good points, one that I would like to reiterate is the over whelming consensus that it would be preferred not to have to investigate each charity you give to because not only would that be seemingly a tedious process but most importantly, it is embarrassing to the receivers, and disrespectful. It is disrespectful to investigate before giving because it would appear to the receiver that you’re going in giving charity excepting them (the receiver) to be a fraud, which is hurtful. Investigating also shows the givers lack of trust, and if the person in the giver position does give the money, it dampens their good deed because they investigated first which can come off to the receiver that the giver does not really want to give. In this situation, the best thing to do would be to avoid giving money, and to instead give the material stuff, as Dilara pointed out as being a good idea. As she said, if you, for example are giving beans to the UHO hoping that they will go to a homeless person, they most likely will because the people at UHO, which seem to be looking for some extra pocket cash aren’t as likely to pocket the givers beans, as they are to pocket the givers money. However, you never know.
ReplyDeleteBoris said, that he would rather give his money “to a man who needs it but only buys things he needs.” I fully agree. Unfortunately there are so many people in the world who live in poverty, or in less than ideal living situations, and I personally wouldn’t want to see the Tzedakah I give go to someone who is not in need when I could be giving it to someone who could really use it. I also would not do what R’Hanina does. Instead of giving four zuz to one man each week, I would split that up as Boris said, because why have one rich, (or comfortable) man and have the rest of the needy community not have anything. It is better, in my opinion to give equally even if it is not enough to fully support the needy person, because at least everyone gets some form of support instead of one person having it all.
Shoshana Feld Bonus 1 Post #7 a. This issue of fraud and giving Tzedakah can result in a very messy situation. As many people have made good points, one that I would like to reiterate is the over whelming consensus that it would be preferred not to have to investigate each charity you give to because not only would that be seemingly a tedious process but most importantly, it is embarrassing to the receivers, and disrespectful. It is disrespectful to investigate before giving because it would appear to the receiver that you’re going in giving charity excepting them (the receiver) to be a fraud, which is hurtful. Investigating also shows the givers lack of trust, and if the person in the giver position does give the money, it dampens their good deed because they investigated first which can come off to the receiver that the giver does not really want to give. In this situation, the best thing to do would be to avoid giving money, and to instead give the material stuff, as Dilara pointed out as being a good idea. As she said, if you, for example are giving beans to the UHO hoping that they will go to a homeless person, they most likely will because the people at UHO, which seem to be looking for some extra pocket cash aren’t as likely to pocket the givers beans, as they are to pocket the givers money. However, you never know.
ReplyDeleteBoris said, that he would rather give his money “to a man who needs it but only buys things he needs.” I fully agree. Unfortunately there are so many people in the world who live in poverty, or in less than ideal living situations, and I personally wouldn’t want to see the Tzedakah I give go to someone who is not in need when I could be giving it to someone who could really use it. I also would not do what R’Hanina does. Instead of giving four zuz to one man each week, I would split that up as Boris said, because why have one rich, (or comfortable) man and have the rest of the needy community not have anything. It is better, in my opinion to give equally even if it is not enough to fully support the needy person, because at least everyone gets some form of support instead of one person having it all.
Samara post #5:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the notion that one should be grateful for rogues because if there were no rogues then people wouldn't give money. This is untrue, if there were no rogues then people wouldn't constantly be suspicious if needy people were actually needy. Then they wouldn't need to interrogate hungry people to make sure they were truly unable of buying themselves a meal. Although being a rogue is wrong I disagree with Harris that a rogue is stealing from someone who is in need. It is completely your own decision if you choose to give to a beggar or not,you use your own instincts to trust if someone is really in need or not. But investigating shouldn't be allowed. Not only is it less of a mitzvah when tarnishing the dignity of someone who already must beg on the streets for food but it is condescending and awkward for both parties. I agree with Perri and Genya, the decision is yours but you should try and make it without questioning someone.
Shoshana Feld Bonus 1 Post #7 b. There are several ways to deal with the issue of fraud. One, the giver could never give in fear that there Tzedakah would be used abusively. Secondly, the giver could investigate each organization/person they give to in hopes that they could stay away from “rouges.” Or the giver could give to any person/organization that asked for Tzedakah with no regards or worry to what the receivers would do with the received money/Tzedakah. (The first option is compared to idolatry, which is one of the three things you are absolutely not supposed to do to Judaism, so that option is ruled out for all Jews.) R’Eleazor would pick the third option. As he has been quoted to say, “Come let us be grateful to the rogues, for were it not for then, we would have been sinning every day, for it is said in Scripture, “Do not be mean to your needy kinsman and give him nothing. He will cry to the Lord against you, and you will incur guilt.” (Deuteronomy 15:9).” Not only does R’Eleazor say that we should give to our needy kinsmen because it is disrespectful and unkind not to regardless of their situation, but he also says that we should be grateful to the rouges! Mar Ukba, R”Hanina, and R’Eleazor are not shaken when they hear that the person they are giving Tzedakah to seems to be well off, controversially, they laugh it off and insist that the money be brought to their receiver regardless to their financial situation. The Talmud does not care whether the receiver is a rogue, or a person in desperate need, instead they think of everyone equally and that everyone who says they need help is deserving of Tzedakah.
ReplyDeleteMy last question is: What if the giver over hears the receiver saying that he/she is a fraud. And the giver is 100% sure that they are, do they continue to give? What happens in this situation?
I also would like to say that Perri made a really good point about the gold and silver table cloths, saying “what if this person was being sarcastic, or the table cloths were a gift…” This point will really cause me to think again before I am quick to judge someone’s financial situation and before I decide if he/she is “in need” or not. The whole idea of “we would all be sinning everyday” as R’Eleazor says forces one to think about every possible situation that the receiver could be in before we give Tzedakah. Should we make sure that the money goes to a deserving person? Or is everyone inclined to Tzedakah if they say they need it?
Michael #5
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Gary and Natasha said about how the talmud prefers direct donations rather than the giving of money. This helps prevent rogues and people that don't actually need the money. It also helps give the people exactly what they need, rather than giving them the money and hoping they will go out and buy useful things with it. The talmud also says that we should be grateful to the rogues even though they take what they don't need because without them we would be sinning every day. This is because in Judaism it is a mitzvah to give to Tzedakah and if you do not do it you are sinning. So what Rabbi Eleazar is saying is that we should be thankful to the people who take even if they do not need because if they didn't then we would have no one to give to so we would be sinning. I think he says this because the point of Tzedakah is to help other people so even if people who don't particularly need money take from it, you are still helping someone so you are still completing the Mitzvah.
About the NY Times article, I think that the Talmud would say it would be bad, but according to Rabbi Eleazar we should still be thankful for them because without them he says we would all be sinning. I don't particularly agree with that in this case. I could see what Rabbi Eleazar meant if this was happening in a small village back in the day when he lived, but today, this large economy with plenty of organizations to give charity, I do not think we should be thankful for these people and their fraud. When one gives a large sum of money to an organization I think he/she should be allowed to do all the investigating that they want. It wouldn't be rude because you aren't denying a person face to face and it would simply make sure that you give money to a valid place. When it comes to picking one valid organization over another, I think it really depends on what you personally care about more. It is impossible to help everyone, and you are not asked to do that so you should just choose what organization you would like to help. Finally, when an individual person comes up to you and asks for something, I think it would be very rude to start questioning them about their life. Based on how the person approaches you, how they look, and how they act, you need to make a decision if you want to help this person. Interrogating them would be wrong and rude because what if they turn out to be someone who really does need your help and really needs that slice of pizza. Asking them a question or two is ok, just to get a brief outline of who they are but one shouldn't really question them too much because it is rude, and unnecessary. If it is a reasonable amount and you have the money, why not give it to them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBonus #1 Blog Post #7 I think that the UHO was a little bit like organized stupidity. People had their suspicions about it yet they still gave their money time after time to a “good cause”. Money isn’t for a good cause until it is being used for a good cause. This organization had no uses for the money it was getting. They didn’t do anything for homeless people. The people collecting on the street were collecting for a name not a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. And its not like people didn’t know but they still gave. I understand Rabbi Hanina’s point of view but I think that if you know that the people don’t need it you should stop giving to them. The people who ran this were smart and they could have run a legitimate business but they choose to rip people off. I think that it is wrong and would never give to them.
ReplyDeleteMy post was number 6..
ReplyDeleteComment 5
ReplyDeleteLike I mentioned in my last post about stuff versus money and how when upon giving money to certain foundations like the red-cross there have been acts of fraud committed. When giving money to a direct foundation or person, they say they will do something with it. Whether they do that exact thing, I am not sure but I try to believe they will. Like Ari said in class, he would not give money to a homeless man if he thought they would use it for drugs because that is not what he wants them to get. I think that when I give money to a homeless person, I do it because with that money I want them to be as happy as they can be with it. Rabbi Goodman spoke of a place where homeless people with drug and alcohol addictions would go as a safe haven but were still permitted to consume drugs and alcohol. It seems like the poor have lost so much, why take away the things they still have, that take their mind off their horrible situation. Danny talks about this in his post saying, "If the way in which the money is used is kept secret, we have successfully created a scenario in which an anonymous factor is maintain, and, furthermore, we have given the power to this homeless man to do whatever he believes correct in his current situation. In this sense, this action can be looked at as a form of the highest level of giving, for we have trusted this man, foolishly or not, to be responsible and care for himself and his own well being." This took the words right out of my mouth and is in my opinion a great way to give tzedakah. By giving money you give the person tools to help better themselves on their own opposed to giving food or something else.
Regarding the notion that we should be grateful for rogues because if there were no rogues then people wouldn't give money I agree with what Ari wrote. "Notion that one should be grateful for rogues because if there were no rogues then people wouldn't give money. " When I give 100 dollars to the Red-Cross Japan I do not want that going towards the CEO's paycheck or some staplers and pens, I want it going to the needy.
Post #4
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Gary and Natasha. The Talmud does teach us its better to give direct donations rather then giving money. We know that there are fake organizations asking us to donate money, but the Talmud doesn’t address whether the organization is real or fake. All the Talmud tells us it to donate; not giving away to charity part of your income is a sin. However, in this story the R. Hanina gives money to the poor man. In the end he finds out that the man doesn’t reallt need his help anymore, but he still continues to give the poor man money. It looks like we don’t really care what the truth is all we want to do it donate money all because we don’t want to sin.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(This is Yarden Nagar using my brothers computer)
ReplyDeletePost #4
I agree with Talia when she says it isn’t our business if the person really needs money or not but on the other hand I agree with boris because I also wouldn’t want to give away my money to someone who’s using it for unnecessary things instead I want to give money to a person who can save it and hopefully rise out of poverty.
When it comes to donating money to organization, I always ask questions before I even think about donating to this organization this is because I want the money to go to a good cause and not to a useless one that are not in need.
I have read many opinions that say we should continue giving to this man because we are helping this man not be poor, but I disagree. We are simply giving some money to man that does not need it, as he dines off of silver and gold. Continuing to give the man charity is like giving him unemployment. He does nothing and yet gives like he works his butt off. if anything we are failing Tzedaka almost completely with him. Not only are we giving to man that does not fully need it, we are not helping him remain self sufficient because he’s not. He’s living off the charity of others. In essence we are catching a fish for him indefinably, and not teaching him to do it himself.
ReplyDeleteHow I interpret R. Eleazar’s response that we should be thankful for rouges, is that charity must be given and if were not to this man, who is more needy than us, but not as much as others, then the sin would happen everyday.
my comment is 6
ReplyDelete(Levin #5)- I agree with Gabe. When giving tzedakah giving more than you should is better than giving less than you should. It is also better to help someone become self supporting. By giving one person 4 zuzim, you are closer to helping that person become self supporting more than you would giving 1 zuz to 4 people.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of how to chose what charity is legitimate, before you give money you need to do a little research. especially now with the internet you should see if the organization has a website and if the website ends in .org or .com. You should also ask around and see if anyone else has heard of the charity.
I agree with Perri. I think assuming that someone could be well off, when they have asked for help or even if they haven't, is not a good idea. We see people on the streets all the time who are asking for money. All we know about them is that they are asking for help, we don't know their financial situation, we don't know where they came from or what they need the money for. We trust that they are being honest. A good community is made up of people who help and trust each other out when they need it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Mathew I think that it is better to give money to someone who doesn't need it then not giving it to someone who does. Trust, like I mentioned is an important part of a strong community. Every area, including San Francisco, has dishonest people, but it is still up to us to use our judgment to help those in need.
In the case of this text I think that the wife should have trusted that this man needed help. Like Perri had said, it could have been a sarcastic remark when he was asked if preferred the gold or silver cloth. The wife should have known that she did not know the whole story and used her better judgment to do the right thing. I know that sounds harsh and I think it is good that she told her husband, but I don't think it is good for someone to make an accusation when they don't know the full story.