For a single adult in 2009, the poverty line was $10,830 in pretax cash income; for a family of four, $22,050.What does the poverty line mean? How does the Talmud look at supporting those who are the poorest of the poor, the לקטי בתר לקטי ?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Who are לקטי בתר לקטי ? TALMUD ADV
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
#6
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good question, one that not only the Talmud struggles with, but also millions of people around the world and the governments that want to help those "below the poverty line." When we, as JCHS students think about what we have, the poverty line for us is almost nonexistent. We can hardly imagine what it would be like to live on $5 a day, that’s how much we spend on our luxurious Starbucks coffee every morning.
I have no real, defined answer for this. How can you tell a poor person who is $1000 over the governments idea of a poverty line, that they are not eligible for help because they make just marginally better than their neighbor? A poverty line is different for every country, and is only officially defined by how much, exact, money a family/person makes. But a real poverty line is those living without the necessary means to support themselves on a daily basis, or those who don’t have enough money to feed every mouth in their family.
The Talmud looks at this through the community helping those who need it. We all take out peyah from our fields and as Jews are taught to give as much as we can for Tzedakah. My question is, really, how do we support the poorest of the poor, and why can only they get support? Are we allowed to help other poor people? Does the Talmud set a standard or do we follow the standard of the country we live in? Are we only obligated to help those in our community, or can we (as we said in class) help those who need it in Marin.
To answer some of my own questions, I think we are obligated to help those in our immediate area first and foremost. We mentioned that if there was some left over, maybe those who lived far away would yeush it, since they aren’t close but I disagree. I think we should help here first, get to the poorest people in San Francisco, take care of problems at home and then, only then I think we should go and seek those who need help elsewhere. I don’t think we should just assume that, had they known about the help they would have yeushed it, I think they would have traveled, if they had the means, to get whatever help they could get. This is why I think that we should help at home, but then go find the other people who need it, because, just because they live somewhere else, doesn’t mean they don’t need and appreciate the help we could have given them.
#5
ReplyDeleteThe Gemara talks about who can take leket after the “poor” take what they want. There are two opinions. Rabbi Yochanan says one can take leket “after the old men with canes go.” This means one can take leket after the slow poor who walk with a cane and see everything on the ground take what they want. Reish Lakish has a different view. He says “the gleaners after the gleaners.” This means that after everyone who qualifies for leket takes what they want, then we (those who don’t qualify) can go and pick up what we want of what is left in the field.
I agree with Reish Lakish’s answer. He says that all gleanings in the field belong to the poor and those who qualify. This means that all gleanings left in the field are for the poor, and by the time all the poor take what they want there will be none left for others who don’t qualify.
This makes me wonder if the rules should change so that poor elders go first in taking leket. Since it takes them longer, they might not get as much as they could have gathered, if they were younger and faster. On the other hand, a poor young person might be in more need of leket than a poor older person. This brings us back to the article that Rabbi Goodman found about where to draw the line for poor people gathering food.
It is hard to qualify who is poor and who is in need. I do think it is unfair if someone is on the verge of qualifying but doesn’t get any gleanings. In the article that Rabbi Goodman found I wonder if there is leniency on how much the family or individual makes per year and can base their gleanings on income. It is hard to turn someone down who is obviously in need of money or food, because they don’t fit the criteria, but still are in need.
No matter where you put the line of who is poor and who is not poor, it will be unjust and someone will benefit and someone will not.
#7 (bonus)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Talia in saying that Reish Lakish is correct. I believe that only those who are need, meaning the poor can take the leket. But I am confused why we cant combine both Rabbi Yochanan's idea and Reish Lakish. As Talia mentioned, shouldn't we give the old poor people the first chance to get the leket. But then, what if we are denying the family of 10 a meal because they are simply not old. This brings us back to the "line" situation. Where do we draw the line? We are unclear what the poverty line is, just like we are unclear what the elder line is.
Would this large family not qualify at all, or what if they waited until it was the end and there was no food left? This is hardly fair, they deserve it just as much as the older person dont they? But if a family of 10 got there first and took everything, then the old man who couldn't get there fast enough due to his age really misses out on food as well. There is a very fine line to walk in this situation, I personally cannot choose between a starving family of 10 and an old man who both equally need food.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePost #7 (Bonus #1)
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to comment on Shai's first post and expand on the question she began to answer: what is poverty, and who is considered poor?
In my opinion, poverty is relative. Mostly to the community you're living in, but you also must consider your community in comparison to others. For example, someone living in an apartment in an area where people live in mansions is considered poor for their community. However, compared to other communities, like those in which people are homeless, they are not living in poverty. Additionally, I think the poverty "line" must be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, poverty can be defined as people who cannot support basic human necessities for themselves and whoever they are responsible for. However, this brings up the question of what "basic human necessities" are, because different people will define this term in different ways.
In response to the Gemara, I agree with Talia and Shai- the old poor people are really getting the short end of the stick. In my opinion, a similar but reformed approach should be taken in this situation. Instead of being based on who can get there first, I think it should be based on who needs it the most. Unfortunately, this concept is hard to enforce because like Shai said, poverty is very hard to define and the definition is different for everyone.
Sophia Gluck
ReplyDeletePost #7 (bonus #1)
Please not that my #6 post is on the blog that came chronologically after this one. Sorry!
What does the poverty line mean? How does the Talmud look at supporting those who are the poorest of the poor, the לקטי בתר לקטי ?
The poverty line means the dividing line between the poor and the middle class and then the rich. In America poverty has always been an issue, homeless people live out of a trash can, and many families are barely holding on.
The Talmud sets standards to help support the poor, leket. Leket is food, if dropped while in the process of being harvested, must be left for the poor. The Talmud also specifies when non-poor people are allowed to sort through the leftover gleanings. The Talmud presents two opinions but I prefer Reish Lakish's side, which says that the non-poor are never allowed to go through the leftover Leket because people will continue to come for it. The other opinion that is given is Rabbi Yochanan, he says that the non-poor can take from the leftover leket after the old men with canes come. he means that the old men will take a long time and search through it carefully and will be the last to look through it, so then we cant take it.
#4
ReplyDeleteI really like what Sharon said a lot. Being poor has a lot to do with the community you're living in.
One thing that I think is good to mention while discussing poverty is that being poor, does not always mean you're homeless. Like Sharon said being poor is not being able to supply basic needs for yourself and anyone you are responsible for. And this relates to my question which is, if not judging poverty level on income, what do u judge it upon? You can be poor and have a home. You can be poor and have clothes. I think it's difficult and stereotypical to judge people's financial situation based on their appearance and usually the case,
assuming all people are homeless. Yet, I still agree with everyone who has
mentioned that it is unfair to the people who are poor but make a little more than
the poverty line.
Referencing what talia said, Reish Lakish says that leket is for the people who qualify as poor and people who don't, even after the poor collect, may not take it. I agree with Reish Lakish. If someone is not in need of leket, they shouldn't take it. The whole reason it's there is to help out people in the community not for people to get extra or re-stock. But, agreeing with Reish Lakish saying leket is for the people who qualify as poor, brings it back what I was trying to figure out before!! What is poor!! How do you qualify?!?! It's endless.
Post #5
ReplyDeleteA poverty line is always a hard distinction to make. Poverty ranges from those who are homeless, begging in the streets to those with small apartments but struggle to put food on the table every night. They both really need help and are struggling to get through day to day life with the money they have. Although it is hard, you must make the distinction somewhere. I think it is most important to support the people who can't afford a place to live first and then if there is extra, we should support others in need.
Jewish Law requires that all Jews leave a corner of their field for the poor (Pe'ah) as well as any stalks of grain dropped during harvesting (Leket). Our Gemara here is dealing with a case of Leket and is trying to figure out when if ever non poor are allowed to take the Leket. R’ Yochanan says after the poor old men are finished. His logic is that since the old men are slow and walk with canes they are likely the last ones to be left collecting hefker because the younger faster poor people would have come first and taken what they need. Resh Lekish says the gleaners after the gleaners. Meaning, once everyone who is entitled to Leket has taken what they want.
I think that since poverty is such a major problem in the world that there will never be enough Leket to satisfy all of the poor people and therefore non poor people should never be allowed to take it. This is agreeing with Rava’s statement that if people in another city don’t know that there is extra Leket left in someone’s field they would not Yeush it and so the non poor are not allowed to take it. If someone is extremely poor and has no money or food they would be willing to do almost anything in order to get food so I think if they found out there was extra Leket in the next town they would go get it.
Post # 4
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Shai and Talia in saying that Reish Lakish’s answer is correct. It makes sense to me that the poor or those who are in need take the leket first. Because if the people in need have a big family and they need to feed all of them and you let the people that don’t need it as much take the leket, the poor should have the right to go first.
Either way, if you let the slow old people go first, than they will take most of the leket and not leave much. And if you let the people in need go first they will take most of the leket and barley leave any for the slow people. Just like Talia said it will always be unjust, someone will take the advantage and someone will not.
I also strongly agree with Sharon in saying that instead of who can get there first it should be by who really needs it and who does not need it as much.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRisa
ReplyDelete#6
I would like to pose a question about the poor and why there is a specific connection to leket and yeoosh shelo midaat in the Talmud. Leket applies only to those who are poor while yeoosh shelo midaat does not distinguish between whether the people who pick up the object or the person who loses it are poor or wealthy. So why this discrepancy? Since leket has to do with yeoosh shelo midaat, it makes sense to compare the two, however what I am confused about is why ONLY leket? And why compare an obligation to a rule (yeoosh shelo midaat)that has two opinions? I believe it is to clarify, provide context for yeoosh shelo midaat, and finally choose between Abayeh and Raba based off of this context.
I think that the above agrees with Abayeh's opinion of yeoosh shelo midaat which states that those in another place, Marin, have no assumption that they will be getting Leket from the place that it is, San Francisco, and therefore they yeoosh shelo midaat-HAVIE YEOOSH!
But why does the Talmud not agree with Raba? Who says that if people in Marin don't know about the leket in S.F then they don't yeoosh it, or lo havei yeoosh. I believe it is because according to Raba there would be a giant lost and found where everything goes for yeoosh shelo midaat lo havei yeoosh.
Pavla #6
ReplyDeleteI wanted to respond to what Sophia said, a point that I believe is no longer valid. She said "The poverty line means the dividing line between the poor and the middle class and then the rich." I understand where you are coming from, but with the way our economy and lifestyles happen to be, I don't consider there to be much of a distinctive line between classes. I don't think we can be so cut and dry in definitions. It is hard to even judge and to also know where we draw the line between middle class and wealthy/upper class. Here is a link to an article from 2006 about American cities and this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/weekinreview/23scott.html
I would be curious to see how the Talmud discusses and gives of examples of what makes a person rich and what makes a person poor. Is it the type of house they live in? Could it be classified by neighborhoods and streets? Would the Talmud say that the "below the line" people are those living in special housing units? (Although I find this a bit unfair because in saying that it would push the "poor" out of the community and set them apart.)
I wonder if the Talmud reacts to the way a person is considered poor--not just how poor they are, or whether their level of poverty makes a distinction for how much food they get, such as leket. Is it just to differentiate between people who are poor for different reasons? Perhaps there was a family tragedy or illness, they were born into poverty, they live on the streets, they live in city funded housing, they have no job, and so on. This all goes back to what we consider poor, and this issue is as relevant today as ever.
#5
ReplyDeletethe poverty line is the line that anyone who is under is considered poor; for example in America the poverty line is a monthly income of less then 908$ and a yearly income of 10,890$; people who are under the poverty line have certain right that people over it don't. i think that lecket should also have some type of limit not every one is in need of lecket and if people who don't need it take from it the poor have less.
Risa
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that in my sixth post I mixed up Raba and Abayeh's names. This was a typo on my part. Sorry for any confusion.
Bonus #2 (post 8)
ReplyDeleteI would really like to reiterate what Pavla said. It is unfair to judge a person's "poorness." Each circumstance is different, "there was a family tragedy or illness, they were born into poverty, they live on the streets, they live in city funded housing, they have no job, and so on." Said so beautifully Pavla.
How can the Talmud differentiate who is poor and who is not, there is no line saying, YOU ARE POOR and YOU ARE NOT. Eligibility for help should come to everyone who needs it. There is leket in the first place to help the poor right? So who is there to judge that one person can have the leket over the other, fair is fair, if you need it you should have it.
But this issue is ever so complicated, so my own solution to this problem would be to have set standards for who can take leket. If we simply say that the poor can have it, that creates chaos. Of course, Im not in favor of setting a bar to high or too low, so again this standard should be according to situation. The Talmud should say that leket is for a poor person, but a poor person who owns a home? What about a poor person with a job? Are they also eligible. I think a little bit of structure from the Talmud would have been nice, I mean they lay EVERY other problem out, why not this one?!