You must open your hand to your brothers and sisters. That is the commandment. How you define your brothers and sisters is up to you. The first people who you should be giving to are your immediate family, your friends, your co-workers and those in your congregation. Then there is a type of charity which involves giving to total strangers. There is also a kind of giving which requires giving to people who don't necessarily deserve it. Each of these levels of giving correspond to a variety of commandments from the Torah.
Let me see if I can find another good reference on the internet.
Here is a good one which repeats what I referred to earlier, the gleanings of the corners of the field...
http://www.aish.com/jl/m/48944181.htmlSIMPLE JUSTICE
Support for the disadvantaged in Judaism is not altruism. It is "justice." The Latin term for charity, caritas, implies an act of giving by the "haves" to the "have-nots" -- out of the goodness of their hearts. The "have-not's" may not be strictly deserving of the support because they didn't earn it, but the "haves" want to be merciful and so they share their wealth.
Contrariwise, in Judaism, the term for charity is tzedakah, which derives from tzedek, which means "justice."
G-d gave limited resources to people. Some garner a greater share, some a lesser share. But since all are created equally in the image of G-d, there is a duty that devolves upon the "haves" to give of their substance to the "have-nots" in order to effect justice and to enable the have-nots to survive, as they themselves do.
The laws of charity -- as listed in the Torah -- are described in agricultural terms:
And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I, the Lord, am your G-d. (Leviticus 23:22)
When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless and the widow ... (Deut. 24:19-22)
Every third year, you shall bring out a full tithe of your yield of that year, but leave it within your settlements. Then ... the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in your settlements shall come and eat their fill ... (Deut. 14:28-29).
Explains Maimonides that in the cases described above, the owners of the fields exercise no control over which poor receive the leftover produce, the product of their beneficence! Generally one designates the recipient of one's charity: "A poor man who is a relative, comes before all others," etc. But here the owners have absolutely no rights of selection. The poor come into the field and take their due from the owners -- by right!
The poor come into the field and take their due from the owners -- by right!
Although we do not live in an agricultural society, these laws translate into our economy. The knowledge that Jews are obligated to give these kinds of funds and to operate under such a definition of charity might deter some converts, Rashi explains, so it is necessary to inform them of this in advance. Such is the obligation and such the glory of the Jewish religion.
That Jews are known for their charitable ways is no aberration of history. Giving is indigenous to this people and it echoes through the long corridors of Jewish history, from the brittle voices of ancient ancestors to the tzedakah songs of kindergartners in today's Hebrew day schools.
I have learned that the best way to give charity to a person, if possible, is to give him a job so that he may earn the money. I have been able to provide this level of Tzadeka to a couple of people. Usually the poor people I give to are not bums who hang out in front of liquor stores. I think that you are taking what I am saying to apply to people who are parasites. Torah doesn't require us to feed parasites. But the vast majority of the underpriveledged and homeless people I have encountered are not hopeless alcoholics or gangsters.
But we cannot lump all homeless people or poor people into a category where they are despised. So much of Judaism requires that we provide for others and extend kindness to our brothers and neighbors.
http://www.shemayisrael.com/Parasha/kahn/archives/vayera68.htmhttp://www.vbm-torah.org/yyerush/tzedaka.htm With regards to the allocation of charity, there are existing criteria - family members receive preferential treatment followed by local residents; talmidei chakhamim take preference over the unlearned. In addition, the Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh Deah 251) states that residents of Israel take precedence over Jews of the Diaspora. However, no special mention of Jerusalem is made. Nonetheless, the Chatam Sofer generates a new category which favors residents of Yerushalayim. The source for this is the commentary of the Ran to a sugya in Kiddushin (33b).
The gemara in Kiddushin discusses the mitzva of standing up as a sign of respect when a talmid chakham, parent, or elderly person enters the room. The gemara questions whether a teacher should stand for his father who is also his student, and cites an episode in which Rav Yehuda was urged to stand for his father, Rav Yechezka'el (who was also his pupil). This seemingly proves that a son is never exempt from rising in his father's honor, even if he is his father's Rebbi. However, the gemara rebuffs this proof and claims that Rav Yehuda's father (Rav Yechezka'el) is an exception since he was known as a 'ba'al ma'asim' - someone who performed outstanding mitzvot. As such, this father was deserving of respect both because he was a parent AND a well-known righteous man. One who is not renowned as such (and is also a pupil of his son) might not receive the same treatment.
The Ran deduces from this passage that anyone who is scrupulous in his performance of the mitzvot deserves the same signs of respect that a talmid chakham or elderly person receive. In fact, according to the Ran, a talmid chakham is deserving of our respect ONLY because his erudition will ultimately lead to the performance of mitzvot. Hence the Ran claims there are four people for whom we must stand - a parent, talmid chakham, elderly person, and one who is a ba'al ma'asim.
The Chatam Sofer infers from the statement of the Ran that the attribute of mitzva performance can establish priority in a situation where two people are otherwise equal in stature. The entire question of the gemara was posed based upon the parity between a son (who must stand for his father) and a father-pupil (who must stand for his Rebbi-son). The fact that the father in this case is ALSO a ba'al ma'asim tilts the situation in his favor. Not only does this trait mandate a show of respect but it also tilts the scale in a case in which two people were otherwise equal.
http://www.torah.org/learning/business-ethics/vayigash.htmlIt must be stressed that this obligation doesn't flow from any concept of mutual utility but rather from an understanding that the Fatherhood of God is necessarily translated into the Brotherhood of Mankind. In Judaism, not only is there a vertical relationship between Man and God but also a horizontal relationship between people created in His Image. This is highlighted by the halakhah that we are obligated to support the poor of the nations of the world together with those of Israel. (Tosefta Gittin, chapter 3; Mishneh Torah Shmittah ve Yovel chapter8, halakhah 8; Tur, Choshen Mishpat section 249, subsection 2- see there Prisha, Bach, Taz,Shach).
All the Codes rank the types of charity in a descending order, one that has much significance for present -day welfare issues. At the highest level is the charity that provides employment, makes available funds or knowledge enabling the unemployed or the poor to establish a business, or that in any way prevents people from sinking into poverty and enables them to break the poverty cycle. At the macro economic level this would be translated into public policy of providing employment, technical education and appropriate funding for new business, rather than a continuation of handouts of basic necessities that only perpetuates poverty. If it is not possible for the individual to fund the needs of the poor they are obligated to bring it to the notice of the authorities so they may then use tax money to solve the problem (Ramah, Yoreh Deah, section 250, subsection 1).
Like in everything else in life, there are limitations imposed by the halakhah on charity. "We are not obligated to make the poor rich but only to keep them alive" (Mishneh Torah, Matnot Aniyim,Chapter 7, halakhah 3). Only a person who has net equity of less than 200 zuz [considered enough for a year's sustenance] can avail himself of the agricultural gifts to the poor dictated by Torah and only one who does not have 14 meals for the week or 2 meals for that day may avail themselves of the communal food funds (op. cit, chapter 9, halakhah 13. See also Yoreh Deah, section 250, subsection 4, for similar restrictions). Irrespective of how we define the minimum standards of living to be provided by charity, this concept places a limit on a society's obligation to give. It should be born in mind that there is no society in the world that can provide freely everything that a person needs or wants; a reaction to overshooting in welfare costs is shown in the drastic cuts in welfare payments and the social safety net that we witness in Western economies in last decades.
PS: As a matter of 'coincidence' tonight I am finally sending in my pledges to several Israeli and Jewish charities... I just got my juicy Income Tax refund check yesterday...
PPS: Sorry I kept editing this...
Topic: How Hollywood Humanizes Homeless Trash, plus a torah ethics question. (Read 2738 times)