Tzedakah
(righteousness) is a hallmark of Jewish tradition. It figures prominently into
our value system and culture. While the term tzedakah covers a range of
righteous behaviors, most often we use it to connote charity. I spent a year in
college studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where every single dorm
room, classroom, meeting room, all bore a plaque of the sort, “Donated by Sadie
and Max Silverstein.” Hundreds of them. Birth, bar mitzvah, and marriage are
celebrated by giving tzedakah. Friends and relatives are mourned by giving
tzedakah in loving memory. It’s Tuesday afternoon and you have nothing to do?
Give tzedakah. Mishei 10:2 (Proverbs) boldly claims: Tzedakah mi-mavet / Tzedakah (righteousness) saves from death. This
has always been interpreted as meaning that the giver is protected by his/her
act of righteousness, but more immediately, the receiver who lacks even basic
food, is saved by someone’s generosity. Given
the importance of tzedakah, it’s natural to ask: How much do I have to give?
Torah doesn’t specify. Mishnah points out this lacuna.
Tractate Peah is
named for the mitzvah of peah that
requires a farmer to leave the corners (peah
means “corner”) of his field unharvested so that the poor may come and
glean. The Book of Ruth jumps
immediately to mind: Ruth gleaned in Boaz’s fields. In the ancient world, this
was an effective way to insure that the poor could obtain food. Mishnah Peah
begins (1:1):
[A] These are the things [i.e. mitzvot] that have no measure: peah (corners of the field), bikkurim (first fruits), rei-ayon (appearing at the Temple on the
pilgrimage festivals, gemilut chasadim (deed of loving kindness) and talmud torah (Torah study).
[B] These are the things [i.e. mitzvot] whose fruits a person
eats in this world, but the principle remains for him in the world-to-come: kibud av v’eim (honoring father and
mother, gemilut chasadim (deeds of
loving kindness), ha’va’at shalom bein
adam l’chaveiro (bringing peace between a two people), and talmud torah k’neged kulam (Torah study
is equal to them all).
The second list
[B] is oft quoted, but it may be a later inclusion, placed here because it is
similar to the first list, which is the Mishnah’s primary interest. The first
list [A], put another way, says: Torah does not prescribe either a minimum or
maximum measure for the mitzvot of the corners of the field, first fruits,
appearance at the Temple, deeds of loving kindness, and Torah study. Not to worry,
the Rabbis will fill that gap.
While the Bavli
has no gemara for Peah, the Yerushalmi does. On the first daf we find a discussion of the obligation of peah from a ground-level viewpoint. The Gemara opens with a
discussion of why terumah is not on the
list. The Gemara compares peah with terumah and decides that they differ
because one can declare his entire field to be peah, but not so with terumah:
there must be a remainder (as with challah).
The obligation of peah is triggered
when the first stalk is cut. Mention of the first stalk initiates this comment:
If the farmer cuts the first stalk and the stalk was burned up
[and hence is no longer in his possession], what is the law concerning [whether
he must] cut a second stalk?
Let us find the answer in the
following [baraita]: If the farmer harvested half [of his
field, and then sold] this harvested produce, [or if he] harvested half [of his
field], and then sanctified [to the Temple], he must declare peah from everything [including what was
sold or sanctified to the Temple].
Now isn’t the produce sanctified to
the Temple like [the stalk that] was burned? This
tells us that if he cut the first stalk and it was burned, he does not have to
cut another stalk [the field is subject
to peah from the moment he cut the
first stalk, even though it was burned
up].
If he finished reaping his entire field [without having
designated a portion as peah] and you
say the obligation to designate peah
devolves on the sheaves, does the obligation of peah devolve also on the first
stalk [that he cut[?
R. Yosi said: Let us derive the rule for peah designated from sheaves from the rule for peah designated from standing grain. Just as with peah set aside from standing grain the
obligation to designate peah does not
apply to the first stalk that has been cut, so in the case of peah set side from sheaves, the
obligation to designate peah does not
apply to the first stalk that is cut.
The Rabbis
make it clear that if some of the harvest leaves the control of the farmer — because it was burned, sold, or sanctified to
the Temple — the farmer’s obligation of peah
is unchanged and applies to the entire field, including the produce that was
burned, sold, or sanctified. The Rabbis obviate a farmer’s ability to an end
run around the obligation of peah by
moving produce out of his possession. In fact, if the farmer harvested the
entire field and tied it in sheaves — which presumably means he cannot fulfill
the obligation of peah since Torah
specifically says (Leviticus 19:9 and 23:22) that peah must remain standing in the field for those in need to harvest
it on their own — this, too, is an ineffective end run around the obligation.
The obligation of the standing grain devolves on the sheaves.
Two things we
might consider here: (a) The Rabbis want to insure that the obligation of peah kicks in as soon as possible:
cutting down one stalk triggers the obligation, and even if that stalk is
destroyed, the obligation remains. (b) The Rabbis want to insure that the
institution of peah remains strong
and functioning, even in the face of inadvertent mistakes and attempts to
cheat.
We are rightly
proud that Judaism places a premium on tzedakah. The Bavli weighs in numerous
times in numerous ways. While we could cite any number of dozens of texts, I
want to share B.Baba Batra 10a because it provides a clever and entertaining
exchange between R. Akiba and Turnus Rufus, the Roman Governor of Judea that
culminates in a verse from the Isaiah haftarah of Yom Kippur we love to quote:
It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: The critic [of Judaism]
may bring against you the argument: If your God loves the poor, why does God
not support them? If so, answer him: So that through them we may be saved from
the punishment of Gehinnom (purgatory).
This question was actually put by Turnus Rufus to R. Akiba: If
your God loves the poor, why does God not support them?
[R. Akiba] replied: So that we may be saved through them from the
punishment of Gehinnom. [R. Akiba does not mention Proverbs 10:2 here, but clearly
that verse is in the background of this understanding.]
On the contrary, said the other, it is this which condemns you to
Gehinnom. I will illustrate with a parable. Suppose an earthly king was angry
with his servant and put him in prison and ordered that he should be given no
food or drink, and a man went and gave him food and drink. If the king heard,
would he not be angry with him? And you are called “servants,” as it is
written, For to me the children or Israel
are servants [Leviticus 25:55].
R. Akiba answered him: I will illustrate by another parable.
Suppose an earthly king was angry with his son and put him in prison and
ordered that no food or drink should be given to him, and someone went and gave
him food and drink. If the king heard of it, would he not send him a present?
And we are called children, as it is
written, Children you are to the Lord
your God [Deuteronomy 14:1].
[Turnus Rufus] said to [R. Akiba]: You are called both children and servants. When you carry out the desires of the Omnipresent you are
called children and when you do not
carry out the desires of the Omnipresent, you are called servants. At the present time you are not carrying out the desires
of the Omnipresent.
R. Akiba replied: The Scripture says, Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the poor that
are cast out into your house (Isaiah 58:7)? When do you bring the poor who are cast out to your house?
Now. And it [also] says, Is it not to
share your bread with the hungry?
This
is a constructed story. I don’t claim the conversation took place, but rather
it was imagined and created to juxtapose two starkly different worldviews and
theologies. For Turnus Rufus people suffer at God’s will since God has the
ability to make it otherwise. Hence tzedakah (here, charity) violates the
divine will. R. Akiba counters that God sometimes withhold good because of
divine anger, but never truly wants people to suffer. It is our job to insure
that everyone is fed, because everyone is a child of God. This theology gave
rise, in our time, to MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger (http://mazon.org). (Note that MAZON suggests a
“measure,” a minimum contribution.)
Building
on R. Akiba’s assertion that we are charged with feeding hungry people, and
when we do, we are doing what God truly wants, B.Ketubot 67 has a lengthy
discussion on our obligation to be God’s hands to feed the hungry. I will quote
only two small sections, which illustrate how seriously the Sages took the
obligation of tzedakah:
Our Rabbis taught: Sufficient for whatever he needs (Deuteronomy 15:8) [implies] you
are commanded to maintain him, but you are not commanded to make him rich; for whatever he needs [includes] even a
horse to ride upon and a slave to run before him. It was related about Hillel
the Elder that he bought for a certain poor man who was of a good family a
horse to ride upon and a slave to run before him. On one occasion he could not
find a slave to run before him, so he himself ran before him for three miles…
It
is generally understood that the reason one leaves the corners of the field for
the poor to come and do the work of gleaning themselves is to protect their
dignity. Here, too, we see that Hillel’s primary concern is the dignity of a
man, once of economic standing, who has fallen on hard times. The story is
hyperbolic — the image of Hillel playing the part of a slave — but the point is
well made that giving is not sufficient; the dignity of the recipient is
important, too. Here is another story from the same daf (Ketubot 67):
Mar 'Ukba had a poor man in his neighborhood to
whom he regularly sent four hundred zuz
on the Eve of every Day of Atonement. On one occasion he sent them through his
son who came back and said to him, “He does not need [your help].” “What have
you seen?” [his father] asked. “I saw that they were spraying old wine before
him.” “Is he so delicate?” [the father] said, and, doubling the amount, he sent
it back to him.
As with the
Hillel story above, we see the effort being made to restore a person to their
previous “lifestyle” but there is an additional factor here that is very
important. Mar ‘Ukba’s son seems offended that a man who lives off their
largess is living so well. Mar ‘Ukba, however, does not choose to interpret
what he has heard that way. He gives the man the benefit of the doubt and
presumes, instead, that his health is so severly compromised that he requires
special treatment. It is easy to become judgmental and accuse poor people of
being lazy, irresponsible, and worse. Mar ‘Ukba’s story is an excellent and
often needed reminder to avoid that.
And finally, a
humorous story told of the Hasidic Rabbi Moshe Leib of Sassov:
One
day Rabbi Moshe Leib of Sassov told his students, “There is no quality and
there is no power of man that was created to no purpose. Even base and corrupt
qualities can be uplifted to serve God.”
One
student raised his hand and asked, "Rabbi, to what end can the denial of
God have been created? Surely there is no purpose to atheism."
Rabbi
Moshe paused and then replied, "This too can be uplifted through deeds of
tzedakah. For if someone comes to you and asks your help, you shall not turn
him off with pious words, saying: ‘Have faith and take your troubles to God!’
You shall act as if there were no God, as if there were only one person in all
the world who could help this person - only yourself.”
Moshe Leib
reminds us that we are the hands of God and even if we don’t believe there is a
God, all the more reason to feed the hungry. Beautiful, isn’t it?
Rosh Hashanah
is around the corner. Time to give tzedakah. May the coming year be one of
blessing and joy, and of course the mitzvah of tzedakah.
© Rabbi Amy
Scheinerman
No comments:
Post a Comment