![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidMy morning class was on the how and how much of giving tzedakah, taught by R. Regina Sandler-Phillips.
General note: I find it much more difficult to summarize hours of discussion that touched on so many different points than it was to write about doing things (in the afternoon class), not to mention writing things in chronological order when there were so many overlapping strands. So this is likely to be a bit more fragmented, not to mention incomplete.
We started with a tune, a niggun to a bit of the davening that has to do with tzedakah. Regian's custom is to start and end every class in song.
Then we paused for a linguistic note about the word tzedakah, which could be broken up into 'tzedek + h." There are other words like this, specifically with the directions ("yamah, v'kedmah, tzafonah, v'negbah"), which mean "in the direction of" or "towards" west/east/north/south. Similarly, we could consider this word tzedakah, usually translated as charity, as being "towards tzedek," which is to say, "towards justice."
Regina quoted a bit of Masechet Sukkot (49b), which discussed three ways in which chessed (lovingkindness is the best translation here, I suppose) is better than tzedakah:
1. Chessed can be done with money or body, while tzedakah is only about money.
2. Chessed can be done for anyone, while tzedakah is only for the poor.
3. Chessed is for the living or the dead, while tzedaka is only for the living.
That said, our focus would be on tzedakah, not on more general acts of chessed, even though in today's monetized society, body/time can be easily seen as a money equivalent.
Then we started in on text study, starting with a passage from last week's parasha, D'varim (Deuteronomy) chapter 15, verses 1-11, which discuss giving loans to the poor while ignoring when in the shmittah cycle it is (shmittah is the seventh year, when the fields lie fallow and all debts between Jews are canceled). As with other mitzvot, if one does give when needed, things will go well, and if not, not.
We went through this first b'chevruta, with a study partner, reading and translating and looking at word choices and repetitions and such before bringing it together for class discussion. Luckily, this class was much smaller than my afternoon class (that had 16-20 students, while this had 6-7 students (there seems to be a bit of drift in the student population...)), which worked out well for class discussion. Also, everyone there was pretty knowledgeable in one way or another, so the chevruta time worked amazingly given that it was random pairings. Really, Regina's a great teacher, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good an experience without the rest of the group.
There were a lot of issues arising from the Torah text that we would continue to discuss throughout the week, including the question of giving or lending (the text has both), of an 'oni' or an 'evyon' (both are words for poor people), of the difference between 'brother' and 'neighbor' (not so easy to distinguish when one is speaking of the whole group of Jews as one family), the role of the repetitious language (traditionally, if something is written with repetition, it is understood that there is a reason for it, not just for emphasis), whether the mitzvah is tied to the land of Israel (given that it's linked to shmittah), and the difference between the beginning of the passage (there will be no poor if you are charitable) and the end (the poor will always be with you).
Hizkuni (a medieval commentator on Torah) says about that last issue that the distinction is that if one gives tzedakah, there will be no poor, but if one does not, there will be. In other words, if we don't do the right thing, will will have poor people. He also notes that this passage uses the Hebrew word 'ki' in four different ways. In v.7, it's if; in v.8, rather; in v.10, for/because/on account of; and in v.11, lest.
We touched briefly on all the issues involved in trying to eradicate poverty. Regina suggested the book Maaser Kesafim for post-class reading, being a thorough look at the requirements from a halachic standpoint. And she gave out readings to look over before the next day's class before we sang ourselves out of the room.
On the second day, we worked on some Talmud excerpts about tzedakah, most of which were couched in the form of stories of rabbis giving tzedakah. Ketubot 67b focused on the need to give to a pauper such that he (all the paupers in the stories were hes) was able to live in the way in which he was accustomed. If that meant riding horses or drinking aged wine, then it was appropriate to give enough for the recipient to live that way. (One story had a rabbi sharing his lentils with a pauper who was accustomed to fatty meat and aged wine, and the pauper died of his lentils. The only time lentils were on the menu in the cafeteria was for the lunch directly after that class. I had to have some, of course :-).
There were a number of other stories, some dealing with the idea that one should give because one never knows when the wheel will turn, and you, or your children, or your children's children, will be in the position of need. In the D'varim verses we looked at the day before, there's an odd construction, 'ki biglal,' which could be translated as 'because because.' The drash on 'biglal' here is to think of biglal as a short for of b'galgal ('in the wheel,' the turning wheel of fate, as it were). Other stories dealt with gaining merit by giving tzedakah, especially towards the end of life, or to avoid early death.
I found the stories fascinating, but we had to move on, looking at Rambam's (aka Maimonides') eight levels of giving*. Interestingly, the beginning of the chapter (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, Chapter 10) starts off with some pretty stark statements about not only the necessity of giving, but the necessity of giving with a cheerful countenance, lifting up the recipient's spirits along with his fortunes (or even without raising fortunes, if the potential giver is unable to give). This was also where things started to become more concrete, more tied to today, as we discussed the levels. I am unlikely to be sharing my lentils, but I am likely to be asked for money. I don't think there was the same level of unknown indigent people as is so often the case in urban areas today, but there were definitely people in need. We discussed the differences in giving to people directly, as compared to an organization, and how one allocates funds among these levels, among other issues.
*In descending order:
1. Support a poor person by giving a present or loan, starting a business partnership, or finding a job.
2. Give so that neither donor nor recipient knows who the other is.
3. Give such that the donor knows the recipient, but not vice versa.
4. Give such that the recipient knows the donor, but not vice versa.
5. Give before the recipient asks.
6. Give after the recipient asks.
7. Give less than is appropriate, but cheerfully.
8. Give with sadness.
The two last days had readings that were much more modern, including short chapters from books about money management, some pamphlets from Debtors Anonymous about planning spending and keeping records, articles showing how wealthy pretty much all Americans are when looking at things globally, and articles from Jewish magazines about giving tzedakah.
And this is where my memory starts to blur things together, so it's going to get even more choppy.
On the 'oni' v. 'evyon' question, Regina brought a source (don't ask me which) about how an oni is someone who lacks something, while an evyon is someone who desires everything (to'ev l'chol davar; to'ev is from the same root as evyon). This is a much bigger kind of lacking.
We talked about whether to give to people who ask on the street, and if so, to whom. Different people had different answers, ranging from always, to sometimes, to never, and a variety of levels of non-monetary interaction as well. This brought up the idea of two kinds of guilt, the externally imposed kind that is the difference between others' expectations and one's actions (guilt trip), and the internally imposed kind that is the difference between how one sees oneself and one's actions. I'm not sure I've heard that dichotomy expressed before; it helped me to hear it verbalized.
If one gives to organizations, how does one balance out monies given to places that feed/clothe/shelter poor people directly with groups that advocate for societal change, not to mention groups that do less obviously related work (a theater group that works in disadvantaged schools, to choose a not-so-random example). How does one balance out all the possibilities? We left this as an open question, more important to be asked and thought about than answered.
How much is enough? Traditional sources say 10%-20% (anything else being either too stingy or too giving; one should not beggar oneself either), but then there's the question of 10% or 20% of what? Total assets? The law evolved in an agrarian society, where wealth was animals and produce, not long-term savings plans. Annual income? But how does one figure out whether it's some kind of equivalent of AGI or something else? What are the "allowable deductions" in this system? Again, no hard answers, but there is, apparently, more detail available in Maaser Kesafim (which translates roughly to "money tithes" or "tithing with money").
There was some talk of microlending (a la Grameen Bank), and how it is analagous to pe'ah, the commandment to leave the corners of the field to be gleaned by those in need.
We touched on setting up charitable giving foundations, which I hadn't heard of before (or hadn't realized that they could be for 'regular' people). The money is put into the plan (deductible for USian taxes in the year the money is put in), and the administrator (read, in this case: whoever set up the plan) has the leisure to figure out where to give the money without being concerned about the date. It can also make it easier to give anonymously, if one doesn't give the fund an eponymous name.
There's also Mazon, which started as a reminder to give out of our plenty, 3% of the cost of a simcha to go to feed the hungry.
One of the other students works for a Jewish nonprofit, and wrote an article published in the May/June Tikkun magazine. I'm hoping he sends a copy of it to the class, since the online archives of the magazine aren't available without a subscription.
The class ended with me wishing there had been much more time to delve into these questions further. It also challenged me to reevaluate my giving, and consider whether I need to be more systematic.
General note: I find it much more difficult to summarize hours of discussion that touched on so many different points than it was to write about doing things (in the afternoon class), not to mention writing things in chronological order when there were so many overlapping strands. So this is likely to be a bit more fragmented, not to mention incomplete.
We started with a tune, a niggun to a bit of the davening that has to do with tzedakah. Regian's custom is to start and end every class in song.
Then we paused for a linguistic note about the word tzedakah, which could be broken up into 'tzedek + h." There are other words like this, specifically with the directions ("yamah, v'kedmah, tzafonah, v'negbah"), which mean "in the direction of" or "towards" west/east/north/south. Similarly, we could consider this word tzedakah, usually translated as charity, as being "towards tzedek," which is to say, "towards justice."
Regina quoted a bit of Masechet Sukkot (49b), which discussed three ways in which chessed (lovingkindness is the best translation here, I suppose) is better than tzedakah:
1. Chessed can be done with money or body, while tzedakah is only about money.
2. Chessed can be done for anyone, while tzedakah is only for the poor.
3. Chessed is for the living or the dead, while tzedaka is only for the living.
That said, our focus would be on tzedakah, not on more general acts of chessed, even though in today's monetized society, body/time can be easily seen as a money equivalent.
Then we started in on text study, starting with a passage from last week's parasha, D'varim (Deuteronomy) chapter 15, verses 1-11, which discuss giving loans to the poor while ignoring when in the shmittah cycle it is (shmittah is the seventh year, when the fields lie fallow and all debts between Jews are canceled). As with other mitzvot, if one does give when needed, things will go well, and if not, not.
We went through this first b'chevruta, with a study partner, reading and translating and looking at word choices and repetitions and such before bringing it together for class discussion. Luckily, this class was much smaller than my afternoon class (that had 16-20 students, while this had 6-7 students (there seems to be a bit of drift in the student population...)), which worked out well for class discussion. Also, everyone there was pretty knowledgeable in one way or another, so the chevruta time worked amazingly given that it was random pairings. Really, Regina's a great teacher, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good an experience without the rest of the group.
There were a lot of issues arising from the Torah text that we would continue to discuss throughout the week, including the question of giving or lending (the text has both), of an 'oni' or an 'evyon' (both are words for poor people), of the difference between 'brother' and 'neighbor' (not so easy to distinguish when one is speaking of the whole group of Jews as one family), the role of the repetitious language (traditionally, if something is written with repetition, it is understood that there is a reason for it, not just for emphasis), whether the mitzvah is tied to the land of Israel (given that it's linked to shmittah), and the difference between the beginning of the passage (there will be no poor if you are charitable) and the end (the poor will always be with you).
Hizkuni (a medieval commentator on Torah) says about that last issue that the distinction is that if one gives tzedakah, there will be no poor, but if one does not, there will be. In other words, if we don't do the right thing, will will have poor people. He also notes that this passage uses the Hebrew word 'ki' in four different ways. In v.7, it's if; in v.8, rather; in v.10, for/because/on account of; and in v.11, lest.
We touched briefly on all the issues involved in trying to eradicate poverty. Regina suggested the book Maaser Kesafim for post-class reading, being a thorough look at the requirements from a halachic standpoint. And she gave out readings to look over before the next day's class before we sang ourselves out of the room.
On the second day, we worked on some Talmud excerpts about tzedakah, most of which were couched in the form of stories of rabbis giving tzedakah. Ketubot 67b focused on the need to give to a pauper such that he (all the paupers in the stories were hes) was able to live in the way in which he was accustomed. If that meant riding horses or drinking aged wine, then it was appropriate to give enough for the recipient to live that way. (One story had a rabbi sharing his lentils with a pauper who was accustomed to fatty meat and aged wine, and the pauper died of his lentils. The only time lentils were on the menu in the cafeteria was for the lunch directly after that class. I had to have some, of course :-).
There were a number of other stories, some dealing with the idea that one should give because one never knows when the wheel will turn, and you, or your children, or your children's children, will be in the position of need. In the D'varim verses we looked at the day before, there's an odd construction, 'ki biglal,' which could be translated as 'because because.' The drash on 'biglal' here is to think of biglal as a short for of b'galgal ('in the wheel,' the turning wheel of fate, as it were). Other stories dealt with gaining merit by giving tzedakah, especially towards the end of life, or to avoid early death.
I found the stories fascinating, but we had to move on, looking at Rambam's (aka Maimonides') eight levels of giving*. Interestingly, the beginning of the chapter (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, Chapter 10) starts off with some pretty stark statements about not only the necessity of giving, but the necessity of giving with a cheerful countenance, lifting up the recipient's spirits along with his fortunes (or even without raising fortunes, if the potential giver is unable to give). This was also where things started to become more concrete, more tied to today, as we discussed the levels. I am unlikely to be sharing my lentils, but I am likely to be asked for money. I don't think there was the same level of unknown indigent people as is so often the case in urban areas today, but there were definitely people in need. We discussed the differences in giving to people directly, as compared to an organization, and how one allocates funds among these levels, among other issues.
*In descending order:
1. Support a poor person by giving a present or loan, starting a business partnership, or finding a job.
2. Give so that neither donor nor recipient knows who the other is.
3. Give such that the donor knows the recipient, but not vice versa.
4. Give such that the recipient knows the donor, but not vice versa.
5. Give before the recipient asks.
6. Give after the recipient asks.
7. Give less than is appropriate, but cheerfully.
8. Give with sadness.
The two last days had readings that were much more modern, including short chapters from books about money management, some pamphlets from Debtors Anonymous about planning spending and keeping records, articles showing how wealthy pretty much all Americans are when looking at things globally, and articles from Jewish magazines about giving tzedakah.
And this is where my memory starts to blur things together, so it's going to get even more choppy.
On the 'oni' v. 'evyon' question, Regina brought a source (don't ask me which) about how an oni is someone who lacks something, while an evyon is someone who desires everything (to'ev l'chol davar; to'ev is from the same root as evyon). This is a much bigger kind of lacking.
We talked about whether to give to people who ask on the street, and if so, to whom. Different people had different answers, ranging from always, to sometimes, to never, and a variety of levels of non-monetary interaction as well. This brought up the idea of two kinds of guilt, the externally imposed kind that is the difference between others' expectations and one's actions (guilt trip), and the internally imposed kind that is the difference between how one sees oneself and one's actions. I'm not sure I've heard that dichotomy expressed before; it helped me to hear it verbalized.
If one gives to organizations, how does one balance out monies given to places that feed/clothe/shelter poor people directly with groups that advocate for societal change, not to mention groups that do less obviously related work (a theater group that works in disadvantaged schools, to choose a not-so-random example). How does one balance out all the possibilities? We left this as an open question, more important to be asked and thought about than answered.
How much is enough? Traditional sources say 10%-20% (anything else being either too stingy or too giving; one should not beggar oneself either), but then there's the question of 10% or 20% of what? Total assets? The law evolved in an agrarian society, where wealth was animals and produce, not long-term savings plans. Annual income? But how does one figure out whether it's some kind of equivalent of AGI or something else? What are the "allowable deductions" in this system? Again, no hard answers, but there is, apparently, more detail available in Maaser Kesafim (which translates roughly to "money tithes" or "tithing with money").
There was some talk of microlending (a la Grameen Bank), and how it is analagous to pe'ah, the commandment to leave the corners of the field to be gleaned by those in need.
We touched on setting up charitable giving foundations, which I hadn't heard of before (or hadn't realized that they could be for 'regular' people). The money is put into the plan (deductible for USian taxes in the year the money is put in), and the administrator (read, in this case: whoever set up the plan) has the leisure to figure out where to give the money without being concerned about the date. It can also make it easier to give anonymously, if one doesn't give the fund an eponymous name.
There's also Mazon, which started as a reminder to give out of our plenty, 3% of the cost of a simcha to go to feed the hungry.
One of the other students works for a Jewish nonprofit, and wrote an article published in the May/June Tikkun magazine. I'm hoping he sends a copy of it to the class, since the online archives of the magazine aren't available without a subscription.
The class ended with me wishing there had been much more time to delve into these questions further. It also challenged me to reevaluate my giving, and consider whether I need to be more systematic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-14 08:08 pm (UTC)This would be so incredibly interesting to go to. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-14 08:15 pm (UTC)It would be great if you could make it; I figure if there's a Roman Catholic priest there (who even gets onto the 'services' schedule with offering a Mass, which made me almost curious enough to go see how many people he got), it's pretty much open to those who want to come :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-15 02:00 am (UTC)I hadn't heard the "-h" explanation applied to "tzedakah" before. I like it.
(Aside: those terms for east/west/north/south obviously have their roots in Eretz Yisrael. Are the terms global? That is, if I'm giving directions to an Israeli here in the US, do I use those words or different ones?)
I have wondered "10% of what?" too. Net worth seems clearly wrong to me, as you'd be giving 10% of it every year even when it doesn't change, thus exceeding the 20% limit after two years. It seems like it should be a portion of income. I use net of AGI as my guideline (that is, my income after taxes). I give more to aid and aid-building (by which I mean things like OxFam) than to advocacy, but I do both. I have not analyzed this closely, but you inspire me to think more on this.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-15 02:37 am (UTC)I'm not totally sure about the directions. I think that I've heard tzafon and kedem used, but not the other two (but I don't know whether that's just happenstance). "Yam" and "negev" don't sound right without the final h, somehow, but it's all by ear, not knowledge.
I don't know that tithing net worth would work additively, as in your example. It could be that each year is an independent event, not cumulative. I have to say, though, net income is more where my brain is, too. I'm going to try to time my next Butcherie run at a time that the Israel Book Shop is open, so hopefully I can pick up a copy of Maaser Kesafim and get a better idea of what net income is for tzedakah purposes. (It's a book in English, btw.)
I know for myself that I hadn't really thought about aid/aid-building rather than advocacy; my axis of consideration (other than what the charity itself did, of course) was relative size: I'd rather give to a small charity where the money is going to do more good than to a large one that doesn't need my [insert not huge amount here], or might use it for office supplies, etc.
In college, I was in a tzedakah collective for a couple of years. We'd do whatever fundraisers and have dues and such, and at the end of the year (semester? I don't remember.), we'd suggest all different recipients. Then we'd discuss things like the balance of monies towards Jewish v. universal access groups, local v. other place v. Israel, minimum donation of usefulness, and winnow things down from there. It was really interesting (and I learned about a bunch of impressive groups who could use funds, too). I kinda wish there was something like that for grown-ups, to keep me thinking about it more actively.
directions
Date: 2007-08-15 11:13 am (UTC)Except for tzafon, the biblical direction words aren't used in modern hebrew, except maybe in poetry which is aiming for an archaic feel. At the same time, the root words which they come from are all four hich are where the directional meanings come from are part of the language and used commonly (especially yam (sea) and negev (desert)). There are also "newer" words for the cardinal directions*.
The translations emphasize that the biblical words describe the geography of ancient israel.
Yama = towards the (Mediterranean) sea, or West.
Kedma = towards the land of Kedem, mentioned in Breishit (25:6) as the place Abraham sends his sons from Ketura, his wife after Sarah. It's sometimes identified as China, but I don't know of any real basis for that except that it's supposedly to the East. When the Garden of Eden is first planted in Breishit 2:8, it's situated "mikedem," or to the East/wherever this is.
Negba = towards the Negev (desert) -- remember that biblical Israel started at about Beer Sheva, so the desert is to the south.
And then there's tzafon, which I've only ever seen translated as North, but I'm sure if I hadn't already packed my etymological dictionary into storage it would have something useful to offer.
*tzafon = north
mizrah = east
darom = south
ma'arav = west
Re: directions
Date: 2007-08-15 01:20 pm (UTC)teaching and learning tzedakah
Date: 2007-08-19 07:36 am (UTC)yasher koach to all, everywhere (yama, tzfona, negba and kedma!)
arnie draiman
www.draimanconsulting.com
www.ziv.org