Tzedakah and Julius Rosenwald

"Investigating the Charities to Which We Contribute", by Rabbi David Golinkin

Question:

A “bag lady” accosts me on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and asks me for a quarter. Should I ask her why she doesn’t go out and get a job? A schnorrer [charity collector] knocks on my door, holds out a letter signed by an eminent rabbi and asks me to contribute to his yeshivah in Jerusalem. Should I check out the letter and the yeshivah? I enter my local Jewish bookstore and see five pushkes [charity boxes] on the counter. Should I automatically put a quarter in each, or should I read the fine print and investigate each charity’s legitimacy? Lastly, I receive many direct mail solicitations every month. Should I send a small donation to each, or investigate every charity that asks for money and send a larger contribution to the one that deserves it most?

Responsum:

Jews have been grappling with these dilemmas for at least 2,000 years. On the one hand, most individuals and organizations that ask for our help are legitimate and really do merit our tzedakah . On the other hand, a certain percentage of those who ask for money are charlatans and crooks.

Some tzedakah experts say that giving is a habit that must be cultivated. Therefore, it is better to give often and spontaneously, even if one is not sure about the credentials of the recipients because, if we stop to think about every contribution, we will get out of the tzedakah habit. Others say we should investigate before we give, because by giving to the wrong people and organizations, we may have technically fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah, but we are in fact depriving those who really need our help. Let us see what Jewish tradition has to say on the subject.

Surprisingly enough, the rabbinic sources have a basically positive attitude toward beggars. Maimonides clearly states:

Whoever sees a poor person asking [for assistance] and ignores him and does not give him tzedakah has transgressed a negative commandment as it is written, “do not harden your heart nor shut your hand against your needy brother” (Deuteronomy 15:7).

We do not know the talmudic source of this statement, but it is clearly in keeping with the following rabbinic passage:

Rabbi Abin said: This poor person stands at your door and the Holy One blessed be He stands at his right hand as it is written: “He stands at the right hand of the needy” (Psalms 109:31). (Vayikra Rabbah 34:9)

On the other hand, other passages recommend kindness to beggars for selfish reasons: “Rabbi Nahman said: This world is like a water wheel—the bucket that is full empties while the empty becomes filled'” (ibid. and parallels). In other words, you should give to beggars now, because one day down the road the tables may be turned—the beggar may become wealthy while you may become a beggar.

Nonetheless, our sages were not blind. They knew that some beggars were frauds and, even if investigated, some would escape detection. Indeed, a number of rabbis were duped by dishonest beggars. Rabbi Hanina, for example, was accustomed to send four zuz to a certain poor person every Erev Shabbat [Friday]. One time he sent the money with his wife. She returned and said to him, “There is no need… I heard them say to him: On what will you dine—on the white linen tablecloths or on the dyed silk tablecloths?”

This type of fraud prompted Rabbi Elazar to say: “Come let us be grateful to the cheaters, for were it not for them we [who do not always respond to every appeal for tzedakah] would sin every day.”

Other sages were not so forgiving. They resorted to cursing the cheaters in order to discourage fraud. The Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:9), for example, states:

Whoever does not need to take yet takes, will not depart from the world until he will be dependent on others… and whoever is not lame or blind and pretends to be, will not die of old age before he becomes like one of them, as it is written: “He who seeks evil, upon him it shall come” (Proverbs 11:27).

This warning was reiterated in four other places in rabbinic literature and was codified in the standard codes of Jewish law.

Yet, despite the fear of possible fraud, none of the sages refrained from giving tzedakah. After all, it is a positive commandment that, according to Rav Assi, is as important as all of the other commandments put together (Bava Batra 9a). Some later rabbis shared the liberal approach of Rabbi Chaim of Tzanz, a nineteenth-century hasidic rabbi:

I give tzedakah to one hundred poor people on the assumption that I may find one out of a hundred who is worthy and I will have the merit of helping him. But you refrain from giving to one hundred poor people… lest one of them be unworthy. Therefore know that the average beggar who holds out his hand is presumed to need the money and you should not concern yourself with hidden matters.

The talmudic sages, however, were more careful with their tzedakah. They realized that if you give to everyone who asks for money, you ultimately deprive those who really need the money. They therefore took precautions against fraudulent beggars:

1. Rabbi Sheilah of Naveh made a play on the word “ha’evyon” [a needy person]: “This needy person hav hunakh [beware] of him.” In other words, beware of cheaters. (Vayikra Rabbah 34:9)

2. Rabbi Abbah did not want to embarrass the poor by having to look at them, following the principle of mattan baseter [giving in secret] (Bava Batra 9b and 10b), but he was wary of cheaters. He therefore would wrap the coins in his kerchief and drag it behind him and walk by the houses of the poor, but out of the corner of his eye he looked for cheaters (Ketubot 67b).

3. There is one talmudic passage that gives explicit advice about avoiding charity fraud: “Rav Huna said: One investigates when asked for food, but not when asked for clothing.” The Talmud explains that in his opinion, clothing is more urgent than food because it causes the beggar shame and should therefore be supplied, no questions asked. “Rav Yehudah, however, said: One investigates when asked for clothing, but not when asked for food.” The Talmud explains that in his opinion, lack of food is more urgent than lack of clothing because it causes physical pain and suffering and should therefore be supplied without investigation. The Talmud concludes with a beraita [teaching of the early sages] which supports Rav Yehudah, and this latter ruling was codified by the standard codes of Jewish law.

It seems, then, that the guiding principle was that one waives investigation when faced with an urgent situation of human suffering: A person who asks for food may be in pain and may die. Therefore, you give him the benefit of the doubt and feed him on the spot. But a person who asks for a change of clothes can wait while you check him out.

Times have changed and beggars no longer ask for food or clothing, but the same principle can be applied: If an emaciated person dressed in rags asks you for a quarter, you should give him the benefit of the doubt. But if a nicely dressed schnorrer comes to your door collecting for his yeshivah [a Jewish day school or institution of higher learning], you can take down his particulars and send him a check after checking out his legitimacy. No one will starve in the interim.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/investigating-the-individuals-to-whom-we-contribute/

"We We Possess, We Do Not Own", by Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Tzedakah cannot be translated because it joins together two concepts that in other languages are opposites, namely charity and justice. Suppose, for example, that I give someone £100. Either he is entitled to it, or he is not. If he is, then my act is a form of justice. If he is not, it is an act of charity. In English (as with the Latin terms caritas and iustitia) a gesture of charity cannot be an act of justice, nor can an act of justice be described as charity. Tzedakah is therefore an unusual term, because it means both.

It arises from the theology of Judaism, which insists on the difference between possession and ownership. Ultimately, all things are owned by God, creator of the world. What we possess, we do not own – we merely hold it in trust for God. The clearest example is the provision in Leviticus: ‘The land must not be sold permanently because the land is Mine; you are merely strangers and temporary residents in relation to Me’ (Leviticus 25:23).

If there were absolute ownership, there would be a difference between justice (what we are bound to give others) and charity (what we give others out of generosity). The former would be a legally enforceable duty, the latter, at best, the prompting of benevolence or sympathy. In Judaism, however, because we are not owners of our property but merely guardians on God’s behalf, we are bound by the conditions of trusteeship, one of which is that we share part of what we have with others in need. What would be regarded as charity in other legal systems is, in Judaism, a strict requirement of the law and can, if necessary, be enforced by the courts.

The nearest English equivalent to tzedakah is the phrase that came into existence alongside the idea of a welfare state, namely social justice.... Behind both is the idea that no one should be without the basic requirements of existence, and that those who have more than they need must share some of that surplus with those who have less. This is fundamental to the kind of society the Israelites were charged with creating, namely one in which everyone has a basic right to a dignified life and equal worth as citizens in the covenantal community under the sovereignty of God.

https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/reeh/tzedakah-the-untranslatable-virtue/

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

24. Priorities in Charitable Distribution

QUESTION: Does tradition set priorities in the distribution of charitable funds which have been collected? In this community there are day schools, afternoon schools, Jewish community center programs, senior adult housing, nursing homes and many other groups which claim priority from the charitable funds. What kind of priorities does the halakhah set? ...

ANSWER:

Charity has been emphasized in Judaism since Biblical times. The Torah suggested that one tenth be collected for the poor, and that corners of the field and the gleanings of the harvest be left for them so that they could participate in the harvest. This was a way of providing for individuals who needed food and basic sustenance (Lev. 19, 27.30 ff; Nu. 18.26; Deut. 12.17; II

Ch. 31.5 f; Neh. 13.12).

Many Biblical books continue this emphasis and frequently chastise those who neglect the poor while amassing fortunes themselves (Deut. 15.7 f; Amos 2.6

ff; Isaiah 1.17; Jeremiah 7.6; Mal. 3.5; Prov. 31.10; Job 29.16; etc.). Categories of poor, such as widows, orphans and the sick were mentioned, but no priorities were established.

These thoughts were reinterpreted by the later Mishnaic and Talmudic literature. By that time, portions of the Jewish population lived in urban settings, so the earlier manner of distribution through gleanings and abandoned corners of the field were no longer appropriate. The Mishnah provided for the poor through the continuation of the tithe as well the placement of gifts in a special area of the Temple from which individuals could help themselves according to their need without shame. There are a variety of rules in the Talmud which deal with the poor and define those eligible for gifts. So, for example, those who still have enough provisions for two meals may participate in public food distribution in a soup kitchen, while those who still possess enough for twenty-four meals may not participate in distributions from a charitable box. Furthermore, those whose possessions consist of two zuzim could not glean in the fields (M. Peah 8.7, 8; J. Peah 29b).

There were, of course, other rules, too, about the sale of possessions and family responsibility for those relatives who were poor (Ket. 68a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 253.1; 257.8). Local poor individuals were always given priority over those at a distance, and members of the family over outsiders (B. M. 71a; M. B. K. 11.9; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 251.3). The Jewish community took care of its own poor and except under special circumstances charity from non-Jews was not accepted. On the other hand, non-Jews could be beneficiaries of Jewish charity (M. Git. 5.8; 61a f; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 254.2). Charity in theform of food or clothing was arranged by loans to the poor (Yeb. 62b f); items were sold below cost when the prices had risen excessively (Sefer Hassidim #1049).

Every effort was made to adopt orphans (San. 19b; Ket. 50a) or to arrange for orphanages although the latter is a development of modern times. The first Jewish orphanage was opened in London in 1831. Different forms of giving were listed but unsystematically and few priorities on distribution were provided; among the noblest was the anonymous gift through which the

recipient and the donor were unknown to each other. A large number of sayings which encourage charity are scattered through the Talmud and the Midrashic literature (M. Avot 1.2; B. B. 9a, b, 109b; Ber. 55a; Ket. 67b; Shab. 156b; Taan 20b, etc.). Even the poor are to be charitable (Git. 7b).

A system for the collection of charitable funds was established in every community and one or two treasurers took care of this task. In fact, no community was to be without such individuals who looked after the poor (Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim, 9.1-3). Efforts to organize patterns for the distribution of charity were undertaken by the twelfth century Sefer Hassidim, and Maimonides (1135-1204) in his Yad (Hil. Matnat Aniyim), as well as Caro (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 250 f) and subsequently by Elijah ben Avraham of Smyrna (Meil Tzedaqah). Each of these works listed various gradations of giving and distribution independently without much reference to any earlier effort. The loftiest goal was the procurement of employment for the poor or the provision of a dowry for an orphaned girl; both would remove the recipients from the rolls of the poor and would eliminate a drain on the community (Shab. 63a.; Mak. 24a; Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim 10.7 f). No distinction was made between Jew and non-Jew (Git. 61a) nor of rank within the Jewish community (Ket. 6, 7a: Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim 8; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 251).

Much effort was expanded on ransom for captives, or if that was not possible, at least proper provisioning for those who were held captive (Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, II, p. 316; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 252.1). This could extend to selling items from the synagogue in order to help captives (Israel Abraham, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 337 ff). Funds were made available for Israel and they were collected by Sheluhim who regularly visited communities (Abraham Yaari, Shiluheh Eretz Yisrael).

In the medieval period, vigorous charitable organizations looked after the feeding, housing, educational and dowry needs of the poor (M. Güdemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und Kultur, I, 50 ff; A. Cronbach, “Me’il Tzedakah,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Vols. 9-14). This was necessary as poverty was endemic in a sizable portion of the Jewish community during many centuries.

Hospitals are mentioned early in the literature, however, they were actually hostels for traders and poor travelers. The first reference to such a Jewish “hospital” is in 1210. A leper hospital existed in Heidelberg, in 1349, but this seems to have been an exception (Abraham Cronbach, Religion and Its Social Setting, p. 131). Few financial provisions were made for sick care, unless the sick were indigent. Every effort was made to assure that they were regularly visited (Or Zarua 2.51). In some cases, individuals unwilling to make such visits were fined (Abraham Cronbach, op. cit. p. 137).

Educational institutions were not recipients of charity, although wealthy individuals endowed them. In the Talmudic and later Medieval periods, it was the duty of each community to establish and support such institutions. Elementary schools were always provided for in conjunction with synagogues; parents of the children paid tuition according to their ability, while poor students were fed and housed by the community (Cronbach, op. cit., p. 128). Considerable sums were expanded on direct support for educational institutions but this was not considered charity. It was an obligation supported by taxes and tuition. Scholarships for poor students were provided in the form of food, lodging or books as a charitable contribution (Turei Zahav to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 249.2; S. Dubnow, Pinqas Hamedinah, #528 and #588). Institutions of higher learning were established and supported by patrons. Their future depended on this help, and when the economic conditions changed, they closed or moved to a new location.

None of these sources dealt with institutions which are now the major recipients of charitable funds such as vocational institutions, special education units, social service agencies, hospitals, etc. In other words, the earlier Jewish communities faced so many basic needs that other matters could not be considered.

We may conclude from this that tradition provides little guidance for our age, especially as we have been fortunate enough to overcome the basic problems of previous ages. All sources agree that communities need

primary education, sick care, and centers of higher learning. They do not deal with their funding in detail. July 1986

https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/carr-39-42/

With appreciation to the Florence Melton School of Adult Jewish Learning's "Ethics of Jewish Living" course,