In today's "Random Torah," we take a look at a ruling in the Shulchan Aruch concerning the obligation to give. How much should we give someone who is lacking?
There's a "funny thing" about society, that those who are a part of it tend to look down on those who lack. When the poor man asks for help, he is often met with a barrage of questions as to how in the world he ever got himself into his current predicament. Yet others don't believe him altogether. It cannot be that someone doesn't have - they say. Some simply push him off with the excuse "There is no money in the world. We're all struggling. Nobody has any money." Yet others recommend he seek psychological help for his problem. And then there are many who even tell others that the reason he is poor is because that is the lifestyle he wants to live. He wants to live on the street and do without food. And so the damaging, painful and humiliating list continues. Indeed, if he would only be in touch with the real "helpful" social workers, he would get back on his feet to where he should be and he'd never have to ask for another dime in his life. But he refuses to follow protocol and so - nebach - he has nothing.
Those who have a little sensitivity know to turn to the Torah to find an answer to their question. While those purporting the real answers as to the poor man's poverty attest to their great knowledge of Torah, those in the know, know well that this is not the Torah approach. It is far from it!
Let us take a look at the ruling the Shulchan Aruch and then discuss a few points following it.
Poverty
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 250:1
כַּמָּה נוֹתְנִין לְעָנִי, דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ. כֵּיצַד, אִם הָיָה רָעֵב, יַאֲכִילוּהוּ. הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְסוּת, יְכַסוּהוּ. אֵין לוֹ כְּלֵי בָּיִת, קוֹנֶה לוֹ כְּלֵי בָּיִת. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הָיָה דַּרְכּוֹ לִרְכֹּב עַל סוּס, וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו כְּשֶׁהָיָה עָשִׁיר, וְהֶעֱנִי, קוֹנֶה לוֹ סוּס וְעֶבֶד. וְכֵן לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. לְפִי מַה שֶּׁצָּרִיךְ. הָרָאוּי לָתֵת לוֹ פַּת, נוֹתְנִים לוֹ פַּת. עִסָה, נוֹתְנִים לוֹ עִסָה. מִטָּה, נוֹתְנִים לוֹ מִטָּה. הָרָאוּי לִתֵּן לוֹ פַּת חַמָּה, חַמָּה. צוֹנֵן, צוֹנֵן. לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו, מַאֲכִילִין. אֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָא לִשָּׂא, מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ. וְשׂוֹכְרִים לוֹ בַּיִת וּמַצִּיעִים לוֹ מִטָּה וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ אִשָּׁה. הַגָּה: וְנִרְאֶה דְּכָל זֶה בְּגַבָּאֵי צְדָקָה, אוֹ רַבִּים בְּיַחַד, אֲבָל אֵין הַיָּחִיד מְחֻיָּב לִתֵּן לְעָנִי דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ, אֶלָּא מוֹדִיעַ צַעֲרוֹ לָרַבִּים, וְאִם אֵין רַבִּים אֶצְלוֹ יִתֵּן הַיָּחִיד, אִם יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת. (בֵּית יוֹסֵף וּדְלֹא כְּמַשְׁמָעוּת הַטּוּר), וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר סִימָן רמ''ט.
How much is to be given to a poor man? Sufficient for his need in that which he lacks. (Deut. 15:8). Thus, if he is hungry, he should be fed; if he needs clothing, he should be clothed; if he lacks household utensils, they should be purchased for him; and even if he had been accustomed before he was impoverished to ride on horseback with a slave running before him, he should be furnished with a horse and a slave. And so each and every one should be supplied with what he needs. (Deut. 15: 8) “… sufficient for his need in that which he lacks,” with emphasis on his and he.
But see Ketub. 67b (a treatise of the Talmud), story of Rabbi Nehemiah. If it is fit to give him [merely] a slice of bread, give him a slice; if it is proper to give him dough, give him dough; if he ought to be provided with lodging, too, provide a bed for him. If it is fit to give him a warm meal, give him warm food; if cold lunch, then cold lunch. If he has to be fed [like an infant] then he must be fed. If he is unmarried and he comes to take a wife, the community should find him a mate; but first they should rent him a home, prepare him a bed and furnish him with necessary household utensils, and then marry him off.
Rema — It appears that all this applies to Gabbaïm over public funds or to many doing charitable work together, but every individual is not bound to satisfy all the needs of a poor man who may chance to come his way. What he ought to do is to arouse public interest in a worthy case; but if he lives far from men, he should give what he can afford.
SENSITIVITY TO THOSE WHO NEED
The Shulchan Aruch's view and opinion is truly amazing! Nowhere does he mention the need for the poor man to visit psychologists. It doesn't mention his desire to want to live the lifestyle he has found himself in. It doesn't criticise him for not working or having a job. It doesn't say anything against the poor man at all.
The only thing the Shulchan Aruch speaks about, is the importance of helping the man who lacks. How much? Really, whatever he lacks. Whatever he needs. Each person is different. It's vital to appreciate that if the poor man lacks water, it won't do to give him food. If he lacks food, it won't help to offer him water. Somewhere, society got the message wrong. Many feel the need to just help as they see fit. But the law is different. The law takes the poor man's needs into account. Whatever he is lacking - is what must be provided.
Even if he needs to marry - and so many will tell him to get his act together, earn a decent income first, make sure he has enough to take care of the wedding expenses himself - and so the list continues. The law says the opposite. We should even try to find a wife for a man seeking to marry but who lacks the means. We should even rent him a place to live if he needs it. We must learn to take care of people...
The Rema says that this only applies to the Gabbaim - which is also fine! There are a variety of large organisations available who seemingly assist those in need. Yet, when those in need approach these huge organisations, they say they have nothing and cannot help. One may even get a phone call from such an organisation asking to donate to them. When you ask them why - they say it is because they help "x" type of person and need the funds. When one then says that one is indeed such an "x" person and could they ask for assistance, they will be told that they do not actually help.
But the law is different, and it is what we should aspire too. And indeed, even though the Rema says that the law seems to only apply to the bigger organisations, there is not much of a difference when it comes to being an ordinary human being who can truly value the needs of another.
Our job is not to be critical of others who lack. Our job is to help. If we can, we do. If we cannot, we apologise, we wish them well and wish them success. Not everybody can provide the "slave" who accompanies the horse that the poor person requires, but still, it is not to be scoffed at. If a poor person has reached a state of poverty that he cannot cope with life - just because of his financial situation - it is for us to help him in any way we can. Life need not be terminated because of a lack of money. What a terrible thing to happen when money is in fact in so much abundance by so many.
Psychologists might be able to help psychologically unwell people. But when it comes to buying something in a store, not all the letters in the world written by the finest psychologists and addressed to the store owner testifying to their work in healing the patient - will pay for the goods the poor person needs. Love won't pay for the goods either! Only money will pay for things that are situated in a store for sale.
It is not for us to refer the poor man on to the "experts" who will guide the poor man on to the path of wealth. Rather, it is for us to help! Of course, if we can offer work that will pay the poor man what he needs, then all the better too, but even so, still, our duty is to help in an active manner.
Help the poor man. Stop criticising him for his predicament. He is living an insulted life already.
No comments:
Post a Comment