(ה) בָּא הֶעָנִי וְשָׁאַל דֵּי מַחֲסוֹרוֹ וְאֵין יַד הַנּוֹתֵן מַשֶּׂגֶת נוֹתֵן לוֹ כְּפִי הַשָּׂגַת יָדוֹ וְכַמָּה עַד חֲמִישִׁית נְכָסָיו מִצְוָה מִן הַמֻּבְחָר. וְאֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה בִּנְכָסָיו בֵּינוֹנִי. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן עַיִן רָעָה. וּלְעוֹלָם לֹא יִמְנַע עַצְמוֹ מִשְּׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשָׁנָה. וְכָל הַנּוֹתֵן פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה לֹא קִיֵּם מִצְוָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָנִי הַמִּתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְּדָקָה חַיָּב לִתֵּן צְדָקָה לְאַחֵר:
(5) If a poor person comes and asks for what is sufficient to fill his needs and one does not have the means to provide it for him, one gives according to his means. How much is this? One-fifth of one's assets is the choicest way of performing the Mitzvah, but one-tenth is the usual way. Less than this is [the trait] of “the bad eye”, and never should one restrain himself from a third of a shekel a year. Anyone who has not given at least this much has not fulfilled the mitzvah. Even a poor person who lives on tzedakah is obligated to give tzedakah to another.
Questions:
1) Foremost in issues begging our attention is the seeming self-contradictory “one gives according to his means” which is followed by “how much is this?”. If the obligation is to give according to one’s needs, what sense can we make of an immediate cap or maximum that somehow creates an objective standard of affordability? If I give according to my means, certainly I ought to be the one with the responsibility to determine that!
2) The last line of the Halacha also requires some thought. If Tzedakah were primarily an issue of spreading scant resource, what sense is there in having the poor give Tzedakah from funds that they themselves received as Tzedakah? This is completely redundant and useless!
Explanation:
In the first four Halachot, Rambam has introduced Tzedakah in terms of awareness of assets. This took into consideration the assets of the receiver as well as the giver. Rambam was showing that Tzedakah is more about building a deep and meaningful relationship to our assets, than a simple act of giving. Naturally, the conversation turns to the issue of maximums and minimums.
In the simplistic view of charity as being only a demand to be a giver, certainly the more one gives the better. There should not be room for a maximum. Halacha is not into “charity”, as we have noted. It is into the development of a depth of awareness between people and their assets. Included in this awareness is recognizing one’s needs versus wants; others’ needs and wants. It also incorporates the way society and community must feel a responsibility to each other. However, the context is always one of healthy self-development and individual prosperity.
For whatever reason we may give, Rambam sees it as essential for the individual to remain upstanding and prosperous in order to create a context suitable for genuine and authentic Tzedakah. This echoes the words of the great Amorah Rav, who taught ( Bava Metziah 30b): “One’s own must take precedence to that of all other people”. (See also Sefer Chassidim of R’ Yehudah H’Chassid who prohibits giving Tzedakah before outstanding loans have repayment plans in place).
So where do set maximums come in? Why can’t Rambam simply be okay telling everyone to ensure that they could afford what they are giving? Because the natural instinct of a truly altruistic nation is to completely diminish oneself in the face of the needs of another. The Rabbis recognized that it would literally be too difficult for the Jewish people to restrain themselves from overextending the help they provide for the poor. The Rabbis foresaw not only economic collapse in the name of piety, but an actual breakdown in the meaning and true definition of the Mitzvah itself. Therefore they imposed a cap of no more than one fifth for the truly pious, and one tenth as a general benchmark. (10% to charity is not a low benchmark! According to some polling, the average in America sits between 3-5% of gross income, although even that seems like generous polling given that only 53% of households even gave to charity at all in 2016!). This imposition, which was instituted some 2300 years ago as recorded in the Talmud, is the basis of Rambam’s ruling here.
This allows us to perfectly understand the minimum standards set here. Notice how Rambam addresses the maximums before discussing the minimums. This is counterintuitive since the idea of maximums seems less obvious and therefore should follow the more obvious minimum limits. It seems that Rambam did not want us to look at “less than that” as an act of stinginess alone. Rambam wanted us to see the minimums in the context of the caps and maximums. Just as we cap the amount one is allowed to give in order to preserve the true nature of Tzedakah, so too we determine minimums. (Just to reiterate, these numbers are not simply pulled out of the hat, in the Talmud, each number is shown to have a source in the Torah itself). Therefore he only informed us about minimums after telling us about the max limits.
With this in mind, our second question becomes clear. The poor man gives Tzedakah to provide himself the opportunity to reflect and become aware of his own assets - meager as they are. His token contributions are no less important than those of anyone else!!
I think there may be another aspect to this as well. The Jewish people as a whole must develop a collective conscience that integrates the awareness generated by Tzedakah. If even a single Jew opts away from performing this Mitzvah, it creates a void in the wholeness of that collective conscience. Therefore, the poor - insofar that they are just as much a part of the community as anyone else - must be able to connect to this Mitzvah as well. Thankfully, the Talmud allows for two poor people to arrange a nominal exchange of funds between themselves. This is not a token act, though, rather it is a deep connection and consciousness that is being provided even to the poor and by extension to all of the Jewish people. No one is exempt from this primal responsibility.
1) Foremost in issues begging our attention is the seeming self-contradictory “one gives according to his means” which is followed by “how much is this?”. If the obligation is to give according to one’s needs, what sense can we make of an immediate cap or maximum that somehow creates an objective standard of affordability? If I give according to my means, certainly I ought to be the one with the responsibility to determine that!
2) The last line of the Halacha also requires some thought. If Tzedakah were primarily an issue of spreading scant resource, what sense is there in having the poor give Tzedakah from funds that they themselves received as Tzedakah? This is completely redundant and useless!
Explanation:
In the first four Halachot, Rambam has introduced Tzedakah in terms of awareness of assets. This took into consideration the assets of the receiver as well as the giver. Rambam was showing that Tzedakah is more about building a deep and meaningful relationship to our assets, than a simple act of giving. Naturally, the conversation turns to the issue of maximums and minimums.
In the simplistic view of charity as being only a demand to be a giver, certainly the more one gives the better. There should not be room for a maximum. Halacha is not into “charity”, as we have noted. It is into the development of a depth of awareness between people and their assets. Included in this awareness is recognizing one’s needs versus wants; others’ needs and wants. It also incorporates the way society and community must feel a responsibility to each other. However, the context is always one of healthy self-development and individual prosperity.
For whatever reason we may give, Rambam sees it as essential for the individual to remain upstanding and prosperous in order to create a context suitable for genuine and authentic Tzedakah. This echoes the words of the great Amorah Rav, who taught ( Bava Metziah 30b): “One’s own must take precedence to that of all other people”. (See also Sefer Chassidim of R’ Yehudah H’Chassid who prohibits giving Tzedakah before outstanding loans have repayment plans in place).
So where do set maximums come in? Why can’t Rambam simply be okay telling everyone to ensure that they could afford what they are giving? Because the natural instinct of a truly altruistic nation is to completely diminish oneself in the face of the needs of another. The Rabbis recognized that it would literally be too difficult for the Jewish people to restrain themselves from overextending the help they provide for the poor. The Rabbis foresaw not only economic collapse in the name of piety, but an actual breakdown in the meaning and true definition of the Mitzvah itself. Therefore they imposed a cap of no more than one fifth for the truly pious, and one tenth as a general benchmark. (10% to charity is not a low benchmark! According to some polling, the average in America sits between 3-5% of gross income, although even that seems like generous polling given that only 53% of households even gave to charity at all in 2016!). This imposition, which was instituted some 2300 years ago as recorded in the Talmud, is the basis of Rambam’s ruling here.
This allows us to perfectly understand the minimum standards set here. Notice how Rambam addresses the maximums before discussing the minimums. This is counterintuitive since the idea of maximums seems less obvious and therefore should follow the more obvious minimum limits. It seems that Rambam did not want us to look at “less than that” as an act of stinginess alone. Rambam wanted us to see the minimums in the context of the caps and maximums. Just as we cap the amount one is allowed to give in order to preserve the true nature of Tzedakah, so too we determine minimums. (Just to reiterate, these numbers are not simply pulled out of the hat, in the Talmud, each number is shown to have a source in the Torah itself). Therefore he only informed us about minimums after telling us about the max limits.
With this in mind, our second question becomes clear. The poor man gives Tzedakah to provide himself the opportunity to reflect and become aware of his own assets - meager as they are. His token contributions are no less important than those of anyone else!!
I think there may be another aspect to this as well. The Jewish people as a whole must develop a collective conscience that integrates the awareness generated by Tzedakah. If even a single Jew opts away from performing this Mitzvah, it creates a void in the wholeness of that collective conscience. Therefore, the poor - insofar that they are just as much a part of the community as anyone else - must be able to connect to this Mitzvah as well. Thankfully, the Talmud allows for two poor people to arrange a nominal exchange of funds between themselves. This is not a token act, though, rather it is a deep connection and consciousness that is being provided even to the poor and by extension to all of the Jewish people. No one is exempt from this primal responsibility.