(ו) עָנִי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ וְאָמַר רָעֵב אֲנִי הַאֲכִילוּנִי אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא רַמַּאי הוּא אֶלָּא מְפַרְנְסִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. הָיָה עֵרוֹם וְאָמַר כַּסּוּנִי בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו שֶׁמָּא רַמַּאי הוּא. וְאִם הָיוּ מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ מִיָּד וְאֵין בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו:
(6) If a poor person who is unknown [in the area] has said, "I am hungry; please feed me," They do not check into his background lest he be an impostor, but rather they feed him immediately. If he was naked and said, "Clothe me," they do check on his background lest he be an impostor, but if they know him, they clothe him according to his honor immediately and they do not check on him.
Questions:
1) The Rambam does not explain the difference between food and clothes in terms of why by clothing we need to check the poor’s background for fraud whereas food we obtain for the poor immediately. The explanation will greatly affect the way in which this Halacha can be applied to other scenarios.
2) Rambam leaves several key issues somewhat open ended:
a) Is there a requirement to check into someone who is not known, or is this something that is allowed but not required?
b) Regarding a recognized poor person, is there a prohibition against doing a background search?
Clearly, points a) and b) are linked. If there is no requirement to check into someone who is unknown, and it is simply a permission to check into them, then it must be that for point b) there is a prohibition.
3) Rambam seems superfluous in once again informing us to give the poor “according to their honor”. We already know this from previous Halachot, and there does not seem to be anything new here that might compel Rambam to restate this rule?
1) The Rambam does not explain the difference between food and clothes in terms of why by clothing we need to check the poor’s background for fraud whereas food we obtain for the poor immediately. The explanation will greatly affect the way in which this Halacha can be applied to other scenarios.
2) Rambam leaves several key issues somewhat open ended:
a) Is there a requirement to check into someone who is not known, or is this something that is allowed but not required?
b) Regarding a recognized poor person, is there a prohibition against doing a background search?
Clearly, points a) and b) are linked. If there is no requirement to check into someone who is unknown, and it is simply a permission to check into them, then it must be that for point b) there is a prohibition.
3) Rambam seems superfluous in once again informing us to give the poor “according to their honor”. We already know this from previous Halachot, and there does not seem to be anything new here that might compel Rambam to restate this rule?
Explanation:
Rambam turns our attention early to the sad reality of an imperfect society. Ideally, those capable of being responsible would stand up with pride and courage to accept responsibility of their own success and destiny. Unfortunately, many people, instead, shirk the crown of responsibility and opt for scraping through existence in deceit and manipulation. To the chagrin of the givers, we are forced to act responsibly and withhold our funds from all poor people until we can verify their legitimacy. The Sages made a caveat for a poor person who comes begging for food.
1) Regarding the first item in our questions, we might posit three approaches to distinguish between clothes and food:
a) Food is a life-threatening need, whereas clothes generally is not.
b) Food is a need that must be addressed immediately in terms of its harm, whereas clothing is generally an issue that can wait.
c) Starvation and food deprivation result in direct physiological pain; lack of clothing would generally cause psychological pain such as embarrassment.
When given several minutes of thought, the difference between these approaches in how to apply the Halacha to other scenarios (e.g. someone raising money to pay for education, medical treatment etc.) is clear. Observing the language of Rambam carefully, we notice that he writes this Halacha in the form of the poor person telling us “feed me” or “clothe me”. Illustrating the case this way implies that the hunger and nakedness are not entirely apparent on the surface. It is almost as if we notice the need only because the poor person has notified us of it. This might be enough to assert that we are not dealing with life-threatening issues. [Although, we still need clarification about the Halacha where one is begging for food on behalf of their children. Is the verification process more rigid here since there is the additional assumption that this child even exists? Perhaps we only feed the pauper themself without verification, but we would not be required to believe them about any other claim].
Furthermore, we notice that for the hungry pauper, we feed them “immediately”. This is paralleled for the poor person who is recognized in that we also clothe him “immediately”. Perhaps the assumption here is that the issue is not about imminence, as was suggested in the second approach. Rather in all cases we assume the same level of urgency - immediate action required.
We are led to believe that the issue here is one of pain. In fact, this is spelled out explicitly in the Talmud from where Rambam sourced this law. The issue is one of pain. The Talmud sides with the opinion that the physiological pain of hunger is far more severe than the psychological pain of going unclothed. It is only to the acute physiological pain as experienced in hunger to which we are required to forgo any background verification.
Once more, Rambam brilliantly forces us to to be ever more aware and conscious of the contextual details of another’s situation in order to discover the nature of their need and come to full empathy for their pain. Perhaps that is why Rambam forced us to discover the reason for this Halacha by careful analysis of the case facts and not by spelling it out directly.
Rambam turns our attention early to the sad reality of an imperfect society. Ideally, those capable of being responsible would stand up with pride and courage to accept responsibility of their own success and destiny. Unfortunately, many people, instead, shirk the crown of responsibility and opt for scraping through existence in deceit and manipulation. To the chagrin of the givers, we are forced to act responsibly and withhold our funds from all poor people until we can verify their legitimacy. The Sages made a caveat for a poor person who comes begging for food.
1) Regarding the first item in our questions, we might posit three approaches to distinguish between clothes and food:
a) Food is a life-threatening need, whereas clothes generally is not.
b) Food is a need that must be addressed immediately in terms of its harm, whereas clothing is generally an issue that can wait.
c) Starvation and food deprivation result in direct physiological pain; lack of clothing would generally cause psychological pain such as embarrassment.
When given several minutes of thought, the difference between these approaches in how to apply the Halacha to other scenarios (e.g. someone raising money to pay for education, medical treatment etc.) is clear. Observing the language of Rambam carefully, we notice that he writes this Halacha in the form of the poor person telling us “feed me” or “clothe me”. Illustrating the case this way implies that the hunger and nakedness are not entirely apparent on the surface. It is almost as if we notice the need only because the poor person has notified us of it. This might be enough to assert that we are not dealing with life-threatening issues. [Although, we still need clarification about the Halacha where one is begging for food on behalf of their children. Is the verification process more rigid here since there is the additional assumption that this child even exists? Perhaps we only feed the pauper themself without verification, but we would not be required to believe them about any other claim].
Furthermore, we notice that for the hungry pauper, we feed them “immediately”. This is paralleled for the poor person who is recognized in that we also clothe him “immediately”. Perhaps the assumption here is that the issue is not about imminence, as was suggested in the second approach. Rather in all cases we assume the same level of urgency - immediate action required.
We are led to believe that the issue here is one of pain. In fact, this is spelled out explicitly in the Talmud from where Rambam sourced this law. The issue is one of pain. The Talmud sides with the opinion that the physiological pain of hunger is far more severe than the psychological pain of going unclothed. It is only to the acute physiological pain as experienced in hunger to which we are required to forgo any background verification.
Once more, Rambam brilliantly forces us to to be ever more aware and conscious of the contextual details of another’s situation in order to discover the nature of their need and come to full empathy for their pain. Perhaps that is why Rambam forced us to discover the reason for this Halacha by careful analysis of the case facts and not by spelling it out directly.
In this context, our second item in the questions is obvious. Certainly there is a prohibition of keeping a poor person in pain when we already have verification of their state of affairs. In the inverse, there should not be anything disallowing one from giving without a background check to an unrecognized poor person. However, this should be decided with carefully guided common sense, since giving too much without checking can lead to a proliferation of fraud.
It should be noted that there are numerous stories of the holiest Tzaddikim who would engage in Tzedakah without ever dreaming of doing a background search on the poor to whom they gave. One of the most well known is the holy Rabbi Chaim of Sanz.
It should be noted that there are numerous stories of the holiest Tzaddikim who would engage in Tzedakah without ever dreaming of doing a background search on the poor to whom they gave. One of the most well known is the holy Rabbi Chaim of Sanz.
Based on the above, we may conjecture to what compelled Rambam to reiterate that we must give “according to his honor”. The negative side of verifying a person’s claim is that there is the inherent presumption of dishonesty. By telling the poor that we need to first verify their claim, they must go through the uncomfortable assumption that they are being accused of fraud. As fundamental optimists - such that the Torah expects of us - we believe that most people asking for money are honest and truthfully in need. They are in an embarassing enough situation, the last thing we can strip of them is their presumed honesty. Yet due to the sad reality of fraud, this is necessary. See the Mishna in Masechet Yoma 1:5 for a very similar scenario in which we watch the pain of having to assume malicious intent in someone we otherwise would presume innocence if not for the reality of fraud.
In recognition and response to this potential embarassment, Rambam reiterates that Tzedakah must always be given “according to his honor”. Rambam hints that this refrain is not limited to the quantity of funds we provide, but applies equally to the way in which they are given. If we already know and recognize the poor person, we must give in a way that maintains his utmost dignity and impresses on him that we trust him completely. This requires giving without hesitation and without an ounce of suspicion. This is truly “according to his honor”.
In recognition and response to this potential embarassment, Rambam reiterates that Tzedakah must always be given “according to his honor”. Rambam hints that this refrain is not limited to the quantity of funds we provide, but applies equally to the way in which they are given. If we already know and recognize the poor person, we must give in a way that maintains his utmost dignity and impresses on him that we trust him completely. This requires giving without hesitation and without an ounce of suspicion. This is truly “according to his honor”.