Two people but a single photo: Avot in the real world

Like many Facebook users within Jewish circles, I have FB friends who belong to one of Africa’s Jewish communities. Many of them message me to share their interests and their concerns. Some seek support for communal institutions such as schools, orphanages and healthcare facilities. Others hope to pursue their education abroad. Others again are looking for funding for their business initiatives or to cover medical expenses. I am not a major philanthropist and in any event have my own lengthy list of charitable priorities, but I am always happy to give them moral support and to pray for their well-being.

What does this have to do with Pirkei Avot? Let me explain.

In the past week I have received two requests to cover medical expenses. Let’s say that they came from Albert and Basil. Each sent an accompanying photo of themselves in a state of apparent distress. The problem is that, while Albert and Basil are different people, the supporting photograph of each was identical to that of the other.

Rejecting the improbable scenario that Albert and Basil were identical twins, separated at birth, who had met with the same misfortune, been bandaged in the same manner and posed in the same way, in the same location, for coincidentally identical photos, it can be concluded that at least one of Albert and Basil had falsely depicted themselves to be the subject of their accompanying photo. It is also possible that the person represented in the photograph is neither Albert nor Basil and that the image has been lent to them by a mutual friend or downloaded via Google Image.

Yehoshua ben Perachya teaches (Avot 1:6) that one should judge other people according to their merit, and this is widely taken to mean that one should give them the benefit of the doubt. Does that teaching apply here and, if so, how?

In the first place there exists a mitzvah to give charity. This mitzvah can be fulfilled by giving even a small sum to the recipient. Ideally its parameters are governed by factors such as the means of the donor, the needs of the recipient, the claims to entitlement on the part of other potential recipients and the ability of the latter to secure help from elsewhere. Whether a potential recipient is acting in good faith is also a factor, but it is one that tends to come into consideration mainly when the sums involved are large. We tend to assume good faith in the case of small transactions. For example, when a woman carrying a baby is soliciting donations, people do not normally make inquiry as to whether the baby is hers or is borrowed for the occasion.

Secondly, if a potential recipient deliberately tells a lie or makes a false representation in order to obtain money that is genuinely needed, should that person be allowed to get away with this or should he or she be penalised? This is a big moral question that lies way beyond the content of Pirkei Avot. We learn that truth is one of the three things that keeps the world going (1:18) and that a failure to accept the truth is one of the seven signs of a golem (5:9). On the other hand, another of the three things that keeps the world going is peace—and the telling of lies in order to establish peace is one of the midrashic hallmarks of Aaron, a major figure from our history who remains an important role model in Avot (1:12).

Realistically, the number of possible outcomes is not large. The following are all outcomes that are grounded on one reason or another:

·         Give to Albert and to Basil, since at least one of them is a needy case and should not be penalised by the perfidy of the other;

·         Give to neither, on the ground that one should distance oneself from all forms of falsehood;

·         Give half to each even though the honest one will get less than you would have liked to give him and the liar will get more, since this may have been the outcome that they both contemplated in the unproved event that one of them had lent the photograph to the other;

·         Toss a coin and give the money to Albert if it comes up ‘heads’ and Basil if it comes up ‘tails’, thus acknowledging the power of hashgachah peratit and inviting God to ensure that the money goes to whichever petitioner truly deserves it.

All of the foregoing suggests that, while the teachings in Avot may provide helpful pointers and can assist in framing an analysis of a problem, they do not of themselves provide the answers. Ultimately we must consult a wider body of halachic and mussar material -- as well as our own consciences.

Readers’ responses to this issue are warmly welcome.