...(שמות כב, כד) אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך עמי ונכרי עמי קודם עני ועשיר עני קודם ענייך ועניי עירך ענייך קודמין עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת עניי עירך קודמין אמר מר עמי ונכרי עמי קודם פשיטא אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא לא נצרכא דאפילו לנכרי ברבית ולישראל בחנם תניא...
(Exodus 22:24) "If you lend my people money, even the poor with you..." My people and strangers, my people have precedence, a poor person and a rich one, the poor have precedence. Your poor and the poor of your city, your poor have precedence, the poor of your city and the poor of another city, the poor of your city have precedence. The Master says, 'Is it not obvious that your people come first?' Rabbi Nahman answers: Huna told me it means even if the money is being lent to a stranger with interest and to an Israelite without [the latter should take precedence]
1) Why is it important to clarify that one should prefer lending money to an Israelite than a stranger, even if the loan to the stranger would have better terms? Would that be the case for any disparity in terms or only up to a certain degree?
2) How much value should we place on a relationship in terms of determining our obligations? If giving to 'our' poor takes precedence over the poor of far away, is this still true if the poor of far away are starving while 'our' poor are merely deprived of adequate healthcare or education?
(ו) הַנּוֹתֵן לְבָנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו הַגְּדוֹלִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם (שֶׁהֵם יוֹתֵר מִבְּנֵי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים), כְּדֵי לְלַמֵּד אֶת הַבָּנִים תּוֹרָה, וּלְהַנְהִיג אֶת הַבָּנוֹת בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה, וְכֵן הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנוֹת לְאָבִיו (שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפַרְנְסוֹ, רַק מִמְּעוֹת צְדָקָה שֶׁלּוֹ), וְהֵם צְרִיכִים לְכָךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלָל צְדָקָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַקְדִּימוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ בְּנוֹ וְלֹא אָבִיו אֶלָּא קְרוֹבוֹ, הוּא קוֹדֵם לְכָל אָדָם. וַעֲנִיֵּי בֵּיתוֹ קוֹדְמִין לַעֲנִיֵּי עִירוֹ, וַעֲנִיֵּי עִירוֹ קוֹדְמִין לַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְאָחִיךָ לַעֲנִיֶּךָ וּלְאֶבְיוֹנְךָ בְּאַרְצֶךָ. אֲבָל גַּבַּאי צְדָקָה הַמְחַלֵּק אֶת הַצְּדָקָה, צָרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יַרְבֶּה לִקְרוֹבָיו יוֹתֵר מִלִּשְׁאָר עֲנִיִּים (רנ"א רנ"ז).
One who gives to his older sons and daughters, whom he is not obliged to sustain (i.e., those above six years old) in order to teach his sons Torah and train his daughters in a proper path, and similarly, one who gives presents to his father (whom he can only support from his charity money) - should they require it - may consider (these expenses) as charity. Furthermore, he should give them priority over others. Even someone who is neither a son or a father - rather his relative - has priority over others. The poor of one's household have priority over the poor of one's city, and the poor of one's city have priority over the poor of another city, as it is said: (Deuteronomy 15:11) ''... to your brother, to your poor and to your needy, in your land.'' However, the manager of a charitable fund who distributes the charity should be careful not to give his relatives more than other poor.
3) Why does family receive priority over non-family in the allocation of charitable giving?
4) Why is this no longer the case when a person is managing a charitable fund rather than making their own contributions? What might this tell us about the nature of charitable obligations in the Jewish tradition?
(ט) וְגֵ֖ר לֹ֣א תִלְחָ֑ץ וְאַתֶּ֗ם יְדַעְתֶּם֙ אֶת־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַגֵּ֔ר כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
(9) And a stranger shalt thou not oppress; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
(כב) מִשְׁפַּ֤ט אֶחָד֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם כַּגֵּ֥ר כָּאֶזְרָ֖ח יִהְיֶ֑ה כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃
(22) Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am the LORD your God.’
מפרנסים עניי נכרים עם עניי ישראל ומבקרין חולי נכרים עם חולי ישראל וקוברין מתי נכרים עם מתי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום:
Our rabbis taught: We provide for the gentiles' poor with Israel's poor, we visit gentiles' sick with Israel's sick, and we bury the gentiles' dead with Israel's dead, due to the ways of peace.
5) What does it mean to oppress the stranger, as articulated in Exodus 23:9?
6) What do Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 24:22 have in common with each other? What do they each assume about the position of the Israelite people?
7) Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 24:22 are from the Tanakh, whereas the sources we read on Jewish particularism were from the Talmud and a 16th century legal code, written many centuries later. Why might this matter?
8) Comparing Talmudic sources to each other, can we reconcile what we read in Gittin with what we just learned about particularism in Bava Metzia and Shulchan Aruch?
They worship the same God - the Lord and Creator of the Universe, as all other men, as we ourselves, O king, though we call him by different names, such as Zeus or Dis. This name was very appropriately bestowed upon him by our first ancestors, in order to signify that He through whom all things are endowed with life and come into being, is necessarily the ruler and lord of the Universe. Set all mankind an example of magnanimity by releasing those who are held in bondage.'
9) The Letter of Aristeas was written in the 1st Century BCE by a Greek-Speaking Jew, in the voice of an official of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (the Greek King of Egypt in the 2nd Century BCE). It ostensibly tells the story of the creation of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. In this passage, the author is careful to present his Greek narrator as telling the King that Jews worship the same God as the Greeks do, writing that the Jewish God is the same as the Greek Zeus or the Roman Dis. This is unusual, given that both the Greeks and Romans practiced a polytheism that was anathema to the Jewish tradition. What reason might a Jewish author have to characterize the Jewish religion in such terms, particularly to a predominantly gentile audience?