| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| Even though a father has permission [from the Torah] to betroth his daughter while she is a minor to anyone that he wants, it is not right for him to do this. Rather, the sages have commanded that a man should not betroth his daughter while she is a minor. Rather, she must become an adult and say, “To so-and-so I wish to be married.” [AJWS translation] |
ואע"פ שיש רשות לאב לקדש בתו כשהיא קטנה וכשהיא נערה לכל מי שירצה אין ראוי לעשות כן אלא מצות חכמים שלא יקדש אדם את בתו כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדיל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה.
|
1. What are the two factors that this text points to as being ethically problematic when a father betroths his daughter while she is still a minor?
2. Where in the world are women still denied agency over their own lives? How can we intervene?
3. What other social justice themes emerge from this text?
| Original |
|---|
|
David Hume noted that our sense of empathy diminishes as we move outward from the members of our family to our neighbors, our society and the world. Traditionally, our sense of involvement with the fate of others has been in inverse proportion to the distance separating us and them. What has changed is that television and the Internet have effectively abolished distance. They have brought images of suffering in far-off lands into our immediate experience. Our sense of compassion for the victims of poverty, war and famine, runs ahead of our capacity to act. Our moral sense is simultaneously activated and frustrated. We feel that something should be done, but what, how, and by whom? |
Suggested Discussion Questions
1. What is the reality Sacks is describing? How has it changed in the last 50 years?
2. In what way are we exposed to compassion fatigue? In what way has our responsibility increased? How are we meant to respond to these changes?
3. What are your answers to Sacks' questions in the last line?
1. What does it mean for humans to have dominion over other creatures? What is the extent of this power?
2. Does this level of power bring responsibility for the world as well?
3. What was given to humankind as food? Do we still follow this today? Why?
1. What is the challenge presented in this text? How is it resolved?
2. What does this text suggest the authorities should have done had they known?
3. What do our governments know that they should act on? How can we urge them to do so?
1) Why do you think the Rabbis would make a causal connection between dying in childbirth and these particular women's mitzvot?
2) Do these three mitzvot relate to one another in any way?
3) How might this halakhah be reconciled in today's world?
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| Therefore, in my humble opinion it seems clear that Rav Saadia Gaon’s words [that one’s own livelihood precedes one’s need to support others] are regarding one who does not have more than a little bread and water. Accordingly, the Gaon brought proof from the Tzarfatit widow, where actual lives were at stake because there was a famine in the world, as we see in the Book of Kings I (17:12). And if there remains extra bread and water, one’s parents get precedence, and then the children. But regarding one who has a large livelihood, like a distinguished member of the community who has sufficient bread, meat, spices, and clothing, and dresses like a wealthy person, this person is definitely obligated to give a tenth or a fifth of their earnings to tzedakah. A large portion of the tzedakah that you give should go to your relatives and the poor of your town. You are also obligated to give a little also to those who live far away, and to the poor of another city. Because if you do not, a city of poor people will diminish in a famine, God forbid. And know that the reason we have these rules in place is because if we didn’t, there would be no limit to the individual’s wealth that precedes [charitable giving], and everyone would say “I need my livelihood, all that I can amass, because there is no limit to what I can keep [for myself].” Therefore, we do exactly as we said before - [the laws of preserving your own livelihood before supporting others] only apply to one who has a little bread to satisfy themselves and their spouse and children. [Translation by AJWS] |
ולכן נלע"ד ברור דזה שכתב הגאון דפרנסתו קודמת היינו באיש שאינו מרויח רק לחם צר ומים לחץ ולכן מביא ראיה מהצרפית שבשם היה תלוי חיי נפש ממש שהיה רעב בעולם כמבואר במלכים שם ואם נותר לו לחם ומים אביו ואמו קודמין ואח"כ בניו וכו' אבל האיש שמרויח פרנסתו כבעל בית חשוב שאוכל כראוי לחם ובשר ותבשילין ולובש ומכסה א"ע כראוי וודאי דחייב בצדקה מעשר או חומש מפרנסתו וחלק גדול מהצדקה יתן לקרוביו ועניי עירו ומעט מחוייב ליתן גם לרחוקים ועניי עיר אחרת דאל"כ עיר של עניים יגועו ברעב ח"ו אלא וודאי כמ"ש ותדע לך שכן הוא דאל"כ איזה גבול תתן לפרנסתו שהיא קודמת וכל אחד יאמר אני נצרך לפרנסתי כל מה שאני מרויח שהרי אין גבול להוצאה כידוע אלא וודאי כמ"ש דלא קאי רק על מי שיש לו רק לחם מצומצם להחיות נפשו ונפש אשתו ובניו ובנותיו הקטנים
|
1. According to the Aruch HaShulchan, what are the necessary staples of life? What do these staples ensure about the nature of your existence?
2. What values guide the way that the Aruch HaShulchan outlines our obligation to support others, both relatives and strangers?
| Original |
|---|
|
Women's Liberation is just a lot of foolishness. It's the men who are discriminated against. They can't bear children. And no one's likely to do anything about that.
|
1. What was Golda Meir's intention with this quote?
2. How does her humorous tone impact the seriousness of the issues at hand?
| Translation | Original |
|---|---|
| We have already explained in another place that the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, stating that one is not obligated to give tzedakah until he has earned enough to support himself, deals only with fixed gifts such as tithes. Everyone – even a poor person who is sustained by tzedakah – is obligated to fulfill the basic mitzvah of tzedakah by giving at least a third of a shekel each year. Now there is something fundamental about the details of the laws above that troubles me deeply. For if we explain the texts that I have cited according to their simple meaning – that certain groups are prior to others – they imply that [one may distribute the entirety of one’s tzedakah money to one group within the established hierarchy] and need not give at all to those who fall outside of that particular group. But it is well known that every wealthy person has many more relatives who are poor, and how much more is that true for people whose tzedakah funds are scant! And if this is the case, poor people without wealthy relatives will die of starvation. Now how is it possible to say this? Therefore, in my humble opinion, the explanation of [tzedakah priorities] is as follows: Certainly every person, whether of modest or significant means, is obligated to give a portion of his [or her] tzedakah money to needy people who are not relatives. But to his [or her] poor relatives, he [or she] should give a greater amount than is given to those who are not related. And so on along the ladder of priorities. Regarding that which is stated that a person’s own welfare comes first, if that is explained according to its plain meaning, then most people would be exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah altogether, excepting the one-third shekel per year. If only it were the case that most Jews could earn enough to meet their needs! But [seeing that they do not], should all but the wealthiest be exempt from tzedakah?! And in places where there are no wealthy residents, should people be left to starve? How is it possible to say this? Nor do people act this way. [translation by Rabbi David Rosenn, AVODAH: The Jewish Service Corps] |
הנה כבר בארנו בסי' רמ"ח סעי' ג' דזה שכתבו שאינו חייב ליתן צדקה עד שיהיה לו פרנסתו זהו בצדקה תמידיות מעשר או חומש אבל לקיים מצות צדקה שלישית שקל בשנה מחוייב כל אדם אף עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה. האמנם בעיקרי הדברים ק"ל טובא דאם נאמר דברים כפשוטן דאלו קודמין לאלו ואלו לאלו דהכוונה שא"צ ליתן כלל למדרגה שאחר זה ולפ"ז הא הדבר ידוע שלכל עשיר יש הרבה קרובים עניים וכ"ש לבעה"ב שהצדקה שלו מועטת וא"כ לפ"ז אותם העניים שאין להם קרובים עשירים ימותו ברעב ואיך אפשר לומר כן. ולכן נלע"ד דבירור הדברים כך הם דבוודאי כל בע"ב או עשיר הנותן צדקה מחוייב ליתן חלק לעניים הרחוקים אלא דלקרוביו יתן יותר מלשאינו קרוביו וכן כולם כמדרגה זו. וגם בזה שכתבו דפרנסתו קודמת אם נאמר כפשוטו א"כ רובן של בעלי בתים פטורין מן הצדקה לגמרי לבד שלישית שקל בשנה וידוע דרוב ישראל הלואי שיספיק להם פרנסתם להוצאתם ולפ"ז יפטורו כולם מן הצדקה זולת עשירים גדולים ובמקומות שאין עשירים יגוועו העניים ברעב ואיך אפשר לומר כן וגם המנהג אינו כן:
|
1. What is the core issue that troubles the author of this text?
2. In what way have you seen his conundrum play out in your own life?
3. What is your response to his answer?
1. What does the "for the sake of peace" mean? Can we talk about peace as positive, not as self-serving?
2. How do we reconcile this text with the common tendency to care for our own first?
1. What causes us to attend to the needs of some over the needs of others?
2. How do both acknowledge that we prioritize our giving and at the same time work to end all hardship?