Showing posts with label Charity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charity. Show all posts

Thursday, 26 September 2024

Is it normal to begrudge help for others?

An Avot Mishnah for Shabbat (Nitzavim-Vayelech)

This week’s perakim are Perek 5 and Perek 6. The following piece is on a mishnah from Perek 5.

At Avot 5:13 we find an anonymously-authored Mishnah that reflects on human attitudes towards property—both theirs and that of others. It reads:

אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בָּאָדָם: הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי, עַם הָאָֽרֶץ. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלָּךְ, זוֹ מִדָּה בֵינוֹנִית, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים זוֹ מִדַּת סְדוֹם. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלָּךְ, חָסִיד. שֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי, רָשָׁע

There are four types of people:

(i) The one who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" — this is a middle of the road characteristic; others say that this is the character trait of Sodom.

(ii) The one who says "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" is an am ha’aretz [an uncultivated person].

(iii) The one who says "What is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" is a chasid [a generous soul].

(iv) The one who says "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine" is wicked.

The first of these categories has generated much discussion. How can a person be both a middle-of-the-road person and someone who has the character of someone from Sodom?

Rabbenu Yonah clarifies that we are not talking here about someone who does not give charity or help others at all. Everyone agrees that such a person is evil. What we are discussing is the attitude of the giver. Some give begrudgingly, because they are afraid of the consequences in this life or the next if they do not do so. What the rabbis of the mishnah cannot agree on is whether this person’s attitude is perfectly normal or whether it is a character flaw.

Personally I like the account of Gila Ross (Living Beautifully) as to the ambiguity, or bifurcated nature if you prefer, of the “mine’s mine and yours is yours” attitude. She describes the first position of the Mishnah, that such a person as average, and contrasts it with the selfish attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom, then adds this:

“…the Mishnah calls it average for an individual, because an individual can be forgiven for their lack of sensitivity and lack of desire to give to others. However, it’s problematic when this attitude of ‘what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours’ becomes the prevailing viewpoint in a society. Then it becomes cruelty. As long as it’s only an individual, there will be other individuals who will step up to help those in need. If it becomes a societal thing, it becomes cruel because the poor will be neglected”.

A similar explanation can be found in R' Shlomo Toperoff's Lev Avot.

On the whole, Avot is concerned with the conduct of the individual—whether dealing with other individual or with society at large—and not with collective conduct and attitudes. But this interpretation places this mishnah among the exceptions.

If you enjoyed this post or found it useful, please feel welcome to share it with others. Thank you.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Thursday, 19 September 2024

It's not easy to give -- or is it?

An Avot Mishnah for Shabbat (Parashat Ki Tavo)

This week’s perakim are Perek 3 and Perek 4. The following piece discusses a mishnah from Perek 3.

The importance of tzedakah (charity) within the life of every Jew is fundamental. Embedded in Tanach and in midrash, it needs no proof texts here. But how far should one go in performing acts of charity? At Avot 3:8 Rabbi Elazar Ish Bartota sets the scene by suggesting that there is no possession in our hands that we can ringfence or regard as sacrosanct, and exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah, since whatever we have we hold as trustees of God:

תֶּן לוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאַתָּה וְשֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: כִּי מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל וּמִיָּדְךָ נָתַֽנּוּ לָךְ

Give Him what is His, for you, and whatever is yours, are His. As David says: "For everything comes from You, and from Your own hand we give to You" (I Divrei Hayomim 29:14).

Here Rabbi Elazar Ish Bartota is only telling us not to be too fond of our worldly goods. Elsewhere in Avot, at 5:13, we learn that a person who says “what’s mine is yours; what’s yours is yours” is a chasid—someone whose kindness exceeds the usual norm. The two mishnayot operate in different spheres: one speaks to a person’s relationship with God, the other to that person’s relationship with other people. It is possible to agree with Rabbi Elazar Ish Bartota that everything comes from God, yet focus one’s generosity on inanimate objectts such as the purchase of books or the procurement of a Sefer Torah, while contributing to neither public causes such as food kitchens for the poor, nor to the needs of individuals.

In life we can and do learn not just from what people say but from what they do. The Talmud supplies us with evidence that Rabbi Elazar Ish Bartota—who was not a wealthy man—was committed to helping his fellow humans. At Ta’anit 24a we learn how he was so generous with his assets that even the charity collectors would hide when they saw him coming.

As a contemporary slant on this ancient teaching, R’ Yisroel Miller (The Wisdom of Avos) adds a practical note:

“We live in an age of generational decline and verbal inflation. Whereas the term “mesirus nefesh” used to mean literally sacrificing life itself for Hashem (e.g. choosing death rather than worship idols), today the term is commonly used to praise anyone who gives up much time and comfort for Torah and mitzvos. Praiseworthy as such sacrifices are, Rabbi Elazar is saying that is can be made easier if we develop the attitude that ‘sacrifice’ is not actually sacrificing anything at all.

Imagine someone who truly thinks of their own bank account as belonging totally to Hashem. The Divine Owner graciously allows him to take whatever he needs, but asks him to generously distribute a portion to other needy people as well. With that attitude, giving tzedakah is not a ‘sacrifice’ but a naturally pleasant activity.

Such attitudes are not easy to develop, but many people adopt the stratagem of putting a percentage of every paycheck into a separate tzedakah account. Once deposited, it is no longer seen as ‘mine’ and is much easier to give away wholeheartedly”.

The fact that so many people today run charity accounts is a positive endorsement of the wisdom of R’ Miller’s words—though a cynic might comment that these charity accounts are generally tax-efficient, which makes it even easier to give one’s money away wholeheartedly.

If you enjoyed this post or found it useful, please feel welcome to share it with others. Thank you.

Comments and discussion of this post can be found on Facebook, here.

Monday, 15 July 2024

Me, judgemental? No way!

The principle that we should judge others favourably is enshrined in one of the most cited mishnayot in Avot, where Yehoshua ben Perachyah teaches:

הֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת

Judge every man on the scale of merit (Avot 1:6).

This maxim gets bandied about so often that we can easily be blinded to it by that most troublesome of ailments, Mishnah Fatigue. This post urges us to refresh our view of it and to recalibrate our responses in two common situations that require our judgement.

First, a preliminary point. While much of the first chapter of Avot appears to be addressed specifically to judges, lawyers and the legal process, from the earliest commentators onwards this maxim has been taken to refer to the judgements we all make in our daily lives. Jewish judicial proceedings are mainly concerned with matters of evidence and proof, not with the moral standing of the litigants. However, we cannot avoid making moral judgements if we are to live our lives in accordance with the standards laid out in Avot. Thus when Nittai Ha’Arbeli (1:7) advises us to distance ourselves from a bad neighbour and to refrain from teaming up with a wicked person, it is assumed that we must take a plainly judgemental view as to who such people are if we are to act upon this guidance.

The two following scenarios indicate typical situations in which we may find ourselves, where we indulge in judgement without perhaps even realising that we are doing do. 

1.        Why isn’t s/he married, then?

Marriage—and nowadays many a permanent partnership that may not technically qualify as marriage—forms an important part of Jewish life. Throughout the ages it has been a popular activity within all sectors of Jewish society to help friends and acquaintances find an ideal match. Once upon a time this activity, though open to all, was largely the prerogative of the shadchan or shadchanit, the matchmaker. In recent times this activity, like so many others, is assisted by computer dating services.

At any given time, there are a good many Jews who are single. They may only just have reached a stage in their lives in which they are old and/or mature enough to marry. They may have yet to meet a person to whom they are confident to commit the rest of their lives. They may be widowed or divorced. They may be driven by career considerations that are so fulfilling that cannot look beyond them. Tragically, they may through no fault of their own be mamzerim.  And there are other reasons too.

When Yehoshua ben Perachyah teaches us to judge others favourably, this warning extends into the habits of thought that we can easily slip into when it comes to matchmaking. If a person has reached a relatively advanced stage in life without finding a partner, there is a temptation to think “why hasn’t s/he married? There must be something wrong with that person”, or “why is s/he so picky, rejecting so many eligible partners? What’s that person’s problem?”  This is a realm in which we should resist the tendency to form opinions when we don’t know what lies inside the hearts and minds of our fellow humans. 

2.        Would you give this man a donation?

The giving of tzedakah, charitable donations—like marriage—is an ancient and hallowed institution of Jewish life. Solicitations come in many forms: glossy brochures that vaunt the credentials of large institutional charities, mass online appeals and, at the bottom end of the market, individuals who go door-to-door or visit synagogues on weekday mornings. The credentials of major charitable institutions and foundations are easy to establish: accounts are prepared, audited and submitted for examination. But what of the individual who collects in person? How do we know who is a genuine charitable cause—and who is not?

Earlier this month the synagogue at which I was praying was visited one morning by a man who sought funds for major surgery for one of his children. At the end of the prayer service he made a speech in which he explained that this surgery could only be performed in the United States and at great expense; that the need to raise funds meant that he had to leave his job in order to do so; and that he could not support his family. The man’s speech was polished and had clearly been given on many occasions. It was supported by a well-presented flyer that reiterated his needs and gave details for the giving of donations, though it appeared to me that these details had been prepared separately and then scanned on to the document.  The man himself was smartly dressed and evidently well fed. He carried with him a portable credit card reader.

My first thought was that I should not trust this appeal; that the man was a professional and highly skilled beggar who was clearly successful at his job. But then I found myself wondering whether Yehoshua ben Perachyah’s teaching would let me reach that conclusion. After all, the need for surgery for the man’s daughter might be perfectly genuine and it might have been his desperation that led him to present his petition in a form that certainly troubled me (it did not seem to worry most of my fellows in the synagogue, who did not hesitate to donate). In the end, I too made a donation—a modest one, I admit—and made a mental note to myself that any reward for the performance of this mitzvah should go to Yehoshua ben Perachyah rather than to me.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

There are many other instances in which it is easy to slip into judgemental mode and to judge others harshly in one’s professional life and at home. School teachers, medical practitioners, sales assistants—no-one is totally immune. But if we do make critical or damning judgements of others, we should at least be aware that we are doing so and ask ourselves if we are justified in what we decide.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook click here.

Monday, 11 March 2024

Paying double: charitable gifts and donation matching

Three times this week I have been invited to make a charitable contribution to an appeal based on ‘donation matching’, where any amount I give is promised to be matched penny for penny by a usually unnamed donor. Each of these charitable causes is one to which I would have given even if there were no matching donor, but I suspect that I have been gently manipulated by the existence of a matching scheme into giving more than I might otherwise have done.

I’ve often donated to such campaigns over the years and have occasionally wondered about them since, offhand, I don’t think they are subject to formal legal regulation. For example, how do I know whether the matched donations are ever made? And what if the sums donated are so great that the putative provider lacks funds to match them? Apart from this article (‘Donor Match-Making – Legal Considerations for Matching Gift Campaigns’) by Tracy L. Boak of law firm Perlman & Perlman back in 2021 I’ve not found much to go on. In contrast, there is a large and growing literature on how to set up and maximise the effect of such schemes.

Pirkei Avot, however, would appear to give the principle the green light. We learn at Avot 5:16 that donors to charity come in different shapes and sizes:

אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּנוֹתְנֵי צְדָקָה: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתֵּן וְלֹא יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, עֵינוֹ רָעָה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהוּא לֹא יִתֵּן, עֵינוֹ רָעָה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ. יִתֵּן וְיִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, חָסִיד. לֹא יִתֵּן וְלֹא יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, רָשָׁע

There are four types of charity donor. One who wants to give but does not want others to give is begrudging of others. One who wants others to give but does not want to give—begrudges oneself. One who wants to give and that others should give is a chasid [in this context a really good person who displays exemplary moral standards]. One who wants neither to give or for others to give is wicked.

Any matching donor, promising to match the donations of others with his or her own funds, is clearly defined here as a chasid, even though they achieve this covet praise quite literally at the expense of others. 

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook click here.

Monday, 19 September 2022

Do good, feel bad?

For the practising Jew it is axiomatic that one should serve God and do His will with simchah, happiness. Sometimes, though, it is hard to reconcile the reality with this ideal.

The commandment of tzedakah, the making of charitable gifts and donations, is a case in point. Throughout both the written Torah and its oral counterpart we learn of the importance of tzedakah. Pirkei Avot is no exception. Rabbi Elazar Ish Bartota (Avot 3:8) reminds us to give with a good conscience since everything we have in the first place belongs to God In the fifth chapter (Avot 5:16) we learn of the four different types of (non-)donors:
There are four types of givers of charity: (i) one who wants to give but does not want others to give is mean-spirited towards others [since he wants to retain all the glory for himself]; (ii) one who wants others to give but does not want to give himself is mean-spirited towards himself; (iii) one who wants both to give and that others should give is a chasid [essentially someone who is magnanimous]; (iv) one who wants neither himself nor others to give is wicked.
The sixth chapter (Avot 6:6) adds that love of tzedakot is one of the 48 means through which a mastery of Torah is acquired.
So what is the problem? It is one of ends and means.
At base, tzedakah means giving to the needy. In theory we can eliminate all poverty (Devarim 15:4) but in reality (Devarim 15:11) the poor are always with us. With most other commandments, once the action in question is performed the task is complete. However, with tzedakah—unless we are able to make lifestyle-changing donations—the poor remain poor, the hungry hungry and the destitute destitute even after we have done our bit to help them.
Going back to Avot 6:6, another of the 48 steps to acquiring mastery of the Torah is that of not ascribing credit to oneself for the good things one does. This precept is more or less self-fulfilling in the case of tzedakah since it is difficult to pat oneself on the back and congratulate oneself on giving a poor person a good meal today when you know he or she will be foraging for food tomorrow.
On a personal note, I have been trying to help the Abayudaya community in Uganda. This community is struggling to recover from the devastating effects of recent floods. At every step of the way I am reminded of the needs that remain unmet, both at community and individual level, and of the personal suffering and anxieties that will remain even after the flurry of pre-Yom Kippur charitable donations abates.
Of the four types of donor mentioned at Avot 5:16, I am firmly in the camp of those who both give and want others to give. I give with reluctance since it is always hard to part with one’s money, and with a mind full of conflict since there are several other charities that I support and that are closer to heart and home than the Abayudaya, however great may be their suffering. Still, if anyone wishes to make a contribution, here are a couple of causes they may wish to consider:
Abayudaya Emergency Aid Fund: https://tinyurl.com/2p9393p5
Shalom Children’ Care Centre for Orphans: https://tinyurl.com/4eps48xf

Tuesday, 17 May 2022

Rendering unto Caesar

 I have received the following from Avot Today Facebook group member Louis Kessler:

Reading Avot 3:7 (that's 3:8 in most siddurim and many modern editions):

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אִישׁ בַּרְתּוֹתָא אוֹמֵר, תֶּן לוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאַתָּה וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברי הימים א כט) כִּי מִמְּךָ הַכֹּל וּמִיָּדְךָ נָתַנּוּ לָךְ.

Rabbi Elazar of Bartota said: give to Him of that which is His, for you and that which is yours is His; and thus it says with regard to David: “for everything comes from You, and from Your own hand have we given you” (I Chronicles 29:14).

I want to compare/contrast this with Jesus' statement about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

I used to own "Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers" (1962) by R. Travers Herford. Can anyone copy his comment?

I have a copy of R. Travers Herford’s book, in which he writes:

“In this saying there is more than merely a lesson in generosity. The author of it was noted indeed for his alms-giving, and knew the secret of true charity. But his thought is that all that a man has, not wealth alone but body and soul and life itself, are what God has entrusted to him. They are a pledge committed to his care, not to be used for any selfish ends, but to be used in the service of God and held at his disposal. The true giver is to devote to his service what he has entrusted to the giver. The thought was perhaps suggested by the words of David [quoted above], and the quotation of that passage is made not by way of a proof-text but for the sake of the words themselves. The author of the saying gave to the thought contained in them another rendering, which need fear no comparison with the original”.

A Unitarian minister, Travers Herford was a staunch believer that Jewish texts should be interpreted and understood in the light of Jewish law and culture, rather than as merely being precursors of Christianity. He makes no mention in this Mishnah to “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21). In fact, I don’t recall him making any mention of Jesus or any New Testament writings in his work on Avot.

Turning now to the Caesar quote, I’m not qualified to comment on the interpretation of Christian texts but my impression is that “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is unrelated to Rabbi Elazar’s teaching. Rather, it appears to apply to the question whether the Jewish inhabitants of Roman-occupied Israel were obliged to pay taxes to the Romans – the answer being “yes”.

Can readers of this blog shed any further light on Louis Kessler’s request?