CHARITY (Jewish Encyclopedia)
From BibleWiki
Contents |
The Lord's Share.
—Ancient and Medieval Times.
Charity is kindness shown to the needy; Hebrew, "ẓedaḳah"="righteousness" (Deut. xxiv. 13; Isa. xxxii. 17; Prov. xiv. 34; Ps. cvi. 3; Dan. iv. 24); "gemilut ḥesed" or "gemilut ḥasadim" = "the bestowing of kindness," is the rabbinical term for personal charity. Charity may be regarded merely as a free tribute of love, as in the New Testament, where ἀγάπη is often translated in A. V. by "charity"; or it may be equivalent to "liberality," a term borrowed from the Roman world, where, as in Greece, only on a larger scale, the freeborn ("libri") or wealthy showed generosity by great donations to the lower classes. But in Judaism charity is an act of duty incumbent upon men of means to provide for those in want. Charity is righteousness in so far as God, the Giver of all blessings, claims from His gifts a share for the poor, and, as the actual owner of the land, claims certain portions of the produce for the fatherless and the widow, the Levite and the stranger: "Thou shalt surely give him [the poor], and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. For the poor shall never cease outof the land: therefore, I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor and thy needy in thy land" (Deut. xv. 10, 11).
A Claim of Righteousness and Love.
In the Mosaic legislation the right of proprietorship does not extend to the corners of the field, the gleanings of the harvest, the forgotten sheaf, and the growth of the seventh year; they "shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow" (Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22; Deut. xxiv. 19-21; Ex. xxiii. 11; compare Lev. xxv. 23). The tithes of the yearly produce also were claimed every third year for the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow (Deut. xiv. 22-29, xxvi. 12 et seq.; compare Mal. iii. 10). So should every enjoyment of God's gifts be shared by the needy (Deut. xvi. 11, 14). Charity from this point of view may be called an assessment of the rich in favor of the poor. This also is the view of the Rabbis. When asked by Tinnius Rufus: "Why does your God, being the lover of the needy, not Himself provide for their support?", R. Akiba replied: "By charity wealth is to be made a means of salvation; God, the Father of both the rich and the poor, wants the one to help the other, and thus to make the world a household of love" (B. B. 10a).
Charity Is Righteousness.
In another aspect charity is righteousness. The helpless has a right to claim the help of his more fortunate brother. The cry of the distressed is an appeal to human compassion which must be responded to, lest the "gracious" God, who "doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow" (Deut. x. 18) hear it and punish those who remain deaf to the call of duty (Ex. xxii. 20-25). The poor are "my people," says God: "If thy brother be waxen poor . . . thou shalt relieve him that he may live with thee" (Lev. xxv. 35). He is "of thine own flesh," and when thou seest him naked thou shouldst cover him, and give him bread when he is hungry, and shelter when he is cast out (Isa. lviii. 7). The idea that the poor and forsaken stand under the special protection of God, who "loves the stranger" and is "father of the fatherless and judge of the widows" (Deut. x. 18; Ps. lxviii. 6, 15), is the underlying motive of such charity as is expressed in Proverbs: "He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord" (xix. 17); "He that honoreth him hath mercy on the poor" (xiv. 31). Compare Ps. xli. 1: "Blessed is he that considereth the poor; the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble," and the whole of Ps. cxii. Accordingly, the ideal type of the righteous man is he who is "eyes to the blind," "feet to the lame," and "father to the poor" (Job xxix. 15); and that of the virtuous woman, she who "stretcheth out her hand to the poor" and "reacheth forth her hands to the needy" (Prov. xxxi. 20).
Charity a Human Obligation.
Charity is a human obligation. Man owes it to his fellow-man as a brother. It is expected of all men and toward all men (Deut. xxiii. 5; I Kings xx. 31; Amos i. 11-ii. 1; Philo, "De Caritate," §§ 17, 18). Abraham is a type of charity and benevolence (Gen. xviii. 3). In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs it is simple-hearted Issachar (Issach. 3, 5, 7) who, by example and precept, teaches charity in "helping the poor and the feeble and sharing every gift of God with the needy." Philo (ed. Mangey, ii. 629), in the fragment preserved by Eusebius ("Præparatio Evangelica," viii. 7) gives, as especial ordinances of Moses the lawgiver, the Buzygian laws; that is, the old Athenian laws of humanity (see Bernays, "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 278 et seq.): "not to refuse fire to any one asking for it, nor to cut off a stream of water; to offer food to beggars and cripples, and to give decent burial to the unclaimed dead; not to add additional suffering to one who is in trouble, nor to treat animals with cruelty." Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 29) also gives as ordinances of Moses regarding all men: "to afford fire, water, and food to such as need them, to show them the road [see Bernays, l.c. p. 78], and not to let any one lie unburied."
With unmistakable reference to a similar rabbinical tradition are the words spoken by Jethro, the God-fearing Gentile, to Moses (Ex. xviii. 20): "Thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws and shalt show them the way which they should walk therein and the work that they should do," as interpreted by Eleazar of Modin in Mek., Yitro (compare B. Ḳ. 99b; B. M. 30b; and Targ. Yer. Ex. xviii. 20), to mean: "Show them the house of life," i.e., the synagogue where the poor are to be sheltered; "the way," that is, to visit the sick; "where they should walk," that is, to bury the dead; "therein," that is, "to bestow kindness" to other persons in need; and "the work they should do," that is, to do "more than is strictly required." "To him who shows mercy to all his fellow-creatures, Heaven will also show mercy; to him who fails to show mercy to his fellow-creatures, Heaven will not show mercy" (Shab. 151b, based upon Deut. xiii. 18 [A. V. 17]). The Israelites are distinguished for charity, modesty, and benevolence (Yeb. 79a). When Moses asked the Lord to show him "His way," He showed him the treasures of heaven in store for those who do works of charity, especially for those who rear orphan children (Tanh. to Ex. xxxiii. 13).
Principles of Charity.
Charity, however, should not be so altruistic as to overlook one's duties toward self and those nearer home. "He commits a crime who imperils his life by refusing to take charity when he is in dire need" (Yer. Peah viii. 21b). Against the tendency prevailing in Essene and Christian circles to sell all one had and "give to the poor" in order to have "treasure in heaven" (Matt. xix. 21), the rabbis at the synod in Usha ordained that "no one should give away more than the fifth of his fortune lest from independence he may lapse into a state of dependence" (Ket. 50a). "He that doeth righteousness at all times" (Ps. cvi. 3) is he who supports his wife and small children (Ket. l.c.). The poor among one's own relatives, and then those in the same town, have the leading claims upon charity (B. M. 71a).
On the other hand, charity is to provide each poor person with "what is sufficient for his need in accordance with what he lacks"; that is to say, his personal claims and wants with a view to his former social position should be considered; "and if he needsa horse to ride on, it should not be withheld from him now that he is in reduced circumstances" (Sifre to Deut. xv. 8; Ket. 67b; Yer. Peah viii. 21b); the fundamental principle being expressed in Ps. xli. 1; see Midr. Teh. to the passage: "Blessed is he that considereth the poor." Furthermore, all possible secrecy should be maintained in order not to offend the recipient of charity (Ket. l.c.; B. B. 9b; see Alms). Of greater merit, therefore, than giving is the helping of the poor by lending him money, or in some other way facilitating his mode of living (Shab. 63a). But greater than all charity is that bestowing of personal kindness ("gemilut ḥasadim") which is enjoined by the words, "to love mercy" (Micah vi. 8). In fact, all charity is valued only by the element of personal kindness it contains (according to Hosea x. 12). "Charity is offered with one's money; kindness, with both one's person and one's money. Charity is bestowed upon the poor; kindness, upon both poor and rich. Charity is offered to the living; kindness, to both the living and the dead" (Suk. 49b). "The bestowal of kindness is one of the three things on which the world is stayed," teaches Simon the Just in the third pre-Christian century (Ab. i. 2). That is to say, the recognition of the needs of suffering humanity calls into existence a body of men who take charge of the various charitable works required for the maintenance of society. Such a body of elders of each city is held responsible for every case of neglect of human life which may lead to disastrous consequences; for why should the elders of that city "next unto the slain man" whose body has been found, "put away the guilt of innocent blood" from among them (Deut. xxi. 1-9), unless they have failed to provide properly for either the victim or the desperate murderer (Sifre, Deut. 210; Soṭah ix. 6).
Charity a Matter of Public Administration.
Here the principle is laid down for all times and places that charity, in its manifold ramifications, is a matter of public safety and public administration; and it is more than probable that the "Anshe Keneseth ha-Gedolah," of whom Simon the Just is said to have been one of the last remnants (Ab. i. 2), were also the organizers of the system of charity. It is one of the radical errors of Uhlhorn ("Die Christliche Liebesthätigkeit," 1882, p. 55) and all Christian writers to ascribe to the Cristian Church the merit of having originated systematic charitable work based on Matt. xxv. 35-39; the burying of the dead, as Uhlhorn says, having been added later to the six branches of charity mentioned there. The fact is that the whole description of the Messianic judgment in Matthew, l.c., rests on the Midrashic interpretation of Ps. cxviii. 19 et seq. (see Midr. Teh. to the passage, where the deeds of charity are enumerated in words almost identical with those of Matthew). Indeed, these familiar Hasidic works of charity were regarded as having been practised from the beginning of the world, the Lord Himself having taught them to the Patriarchs (Soṭah 14a). Daniel, Job, and Abraham practised them (Ab. R. N. iv., vii.; ed. Schechter, pp. 21, 33), Abraham having learned them from Melchizedek (Midr. Teh. Ps. xxxvii.); and there are many indications that the ancient Ḥasidim divided themselves into groups attending to these (seven?) different branches of charitable work (see M. Ḳ. 27b; Sem. xii.; Ab. R. N. viii. 36 et seq.; Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." vi. 279, ix. 7-9; Brüll, "Jahrb." i. 25; and art. Essenes). These seven branches, mutatis mutandis, mentioned in rabbinical literature, are: (1) feeding the hungry and giving the thirsty to drink; (2) clothing the naked; (3) visiting the sick; (4) burying the dead and comforting the mourners; (5) redeeming the captive; (6) educating the fatherless and sheltering the homeless; (7) providing poor maidens with dowries. The "Apostolic Constitutions" (iv. 2) enumerates ten branches.
Systematic Relief.
The Mosaic law, based upon the simple agricultural life of the Hebrews, offered provisions for widows, orphans, and strangers who had entered into a state of dependence; while the shiftless and otherwise unfortunate often sold themselves as slaves with the view of recovering their freedom in the seventh year and their patrimony in the jubilee year. In times of famine, emigration was resorted to (I Kings xvii. 9; Ruth i. 1). It is interesting to notice the changed conditions in Palestine during the first century, when Queen Helena of Adiabene during a great famine bought shiploads of wheat and figs to aid the starving, and her son Izates sent great sums of money "to the foremost men of Jerusalem for distribution among the people" (Josephus, "Ant." xx. 2, § 5). Here is the first historical evidence of the existence of a body of men at the head of the community having relief work in charge. And that the foremost men were selected for the office of charity collectors or overseers ("gabba'e ẓedaḳah"), may be learned from the ancient Mishnah (Ḳid. vi. 5): "He whose fathers belonged to the gabba'e ẓedaḳah is qualified to marry into priestly families without inquiry as to his pure descent." It is also known that at the beginning of the second century R. Akiba held the office of charity overseer (Ḳid. 28a).
The following system of relief was established in Mishnaic times. Every community had a charity-box, called "ḳuppah," or Ḳorban (see Alms), or "area" (Tertullian, "Apologia," xxxix.), containing the funds for the support of the indigent towns-men, who received every Friday money for the fourteen meals of the whole week, and for clothing, as well as the charity for the transient poor, who received only as much as was needed for the day, and on Sabbath eve for three meals; also a charitybowl ("tamḥoi") for the keeping of victuals needed for immediate relief. The charity-box was given in charge of three trustees, who formed a regular bet din to decide on the worthiness and claims of the applicants before giving money; personal merit as well as parentage and former social station being considered. Beggars who went from door to door received nothing, or at best a pittance. For the collection of the money two men of the utmost respectability and trustworthiness were sent, endowed with full power to tax the people and to seize property until the sum required was given them. In order to avoid all suspicion, these collectors were not allowed to separate while collecting or holding the money (see Apostle). The victuals for the tamḥuy were both collected and distributed forimmediate use by three officers. The collections for the ḳuppah were made weekly. A residence in the city for thirty days obliged persons to contribute to the ḳuppah, one of three months to the tamḥuy, one of six months to the clothing, and one of nine months to the burial fund (B. B. 8-9; Tosef. Peah iv. 8-15; Mishnah Peah viii. 7; Yer. Peah 21a, b). The task of the charity administrators—also called "parnasim" ( (image) ), from πρόνοος = "provider"; compare "Apostolic Constitutions," iii. 3, προνοιαν ποτού μενος (Tosef., Meg. iii. 4; Yer. Peah. viii. 21a, b; Sheḳ. v. 4, 48a)—was regarded as extremely delicate, and often entailed great sacrifice; while the reputation of the officers was so high that they were never called to account for their administration (Shab. 118b; B. B. 9a-11a; 'Ab. Zarah 17b).
Modes of Alms-giving.
The leading maxim was that the poor should never be put to shame by receiving charity (Ḥag. 5a). Maimonides ("Yad," Mattenot 'Aniyyim, x. 7-13) enumerates eight different ranks of givers of charity: (1) he who aids the poor in supporting himself by advancing money or by helping him to some lucrative occupation; (2) he who gives charity without knowing who is the recipient and without having the recipient know who is the giver, i.e. in the manner charity was practised in the chamber of the Ḥasshhaim (Essenes) in the Temple at Jerusalem (Sheḳ. v. 7); (3) he who gives in secret, casting the money into the houses of the poor, who remain ignorant as to the name of their benefactor: this was done by great masters in Israel (Ket. 67b), and should be done whenever the public charity is not administered in a proper way; (4) he who gives without knowing the recipient, by casting it among the poor, while the recipient knows who is the giver (Ket. l.c.); (5) he who gives before he is asked; (6) he who gives after he is asked; (7) he who gives inadequately, but with a good grace; (8) he who gives with a bad grace.
Impostors who pretended to have bodily defects, whereby to appeal to the sympathy of the charity officers, are mentioned (Peah viii. 9; Tosef. Peah iv. 14; Ket. 68a). Non-Jewish poor were also supported from the charity fund (Giṭ. 61a), but such Jews as wilfully transgressed the Law had no claim to support as "brothers" (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 251). A woman's claim had precedence of a man's; a student of the Law, over an ignorant man, even though of the highest rank (Hor. iii. 7-8; Ket. 6, 7a; Maimonides, l.c. viii. 15; Shulḥan 'Aruk, l.c.).
Public Inn for Travelers.
Charity was also regarded as a form of sacrifice offered to God on behalf of the poor (see Altar), and was invested with the sacred character of vows and free-will offerings (Deut. xxiii. 24; R. H. 6a). Hence it came that, while only worthy persons should receive charity (B. B. 9b; Ecclus. [Sirach] xii. 1-6 Didache, i. 5-6; "Apost. Const." iv. 3), it was also of great importance that the givers should be of unblemished character (Tosef., B. Ḳ. xi. 9 et seq.; "Apost. Const." iv. 6-10—a very important Jewish chapter on charity, stating that charity has the character of a sacrifice, for which nothing that is abominable to God [Deut. xxiii. 19] may be used, and to which none who is an abomination [Deut. xviii. 10 et seq.] may be a contributor; see Didascalia). Especially idolaters, unless in cases of royal donors, were excluded from contributing to the charity fund (Sanh. 26b; B. B. 10b; Maimonides, l.c. viii. 9). A frequent form of charity practised in the pre-Christian and early Christian centuries was the hospice or public inn ("pandok," πανδοκεĩον), built on the high road to offer shelter and food to the poor traveler and the homeless. Ascribed alike to Abraham and to Job (Ab. R. N. vii., ed. Schechter, p. 34; Soṭah 10a; Gen. R. xlix., liv.; Test. Job iii.; see Kohler, in Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 270, 318; compare Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxiii. 17); this practise was known in Philo's time (Philo, "De Caritate," § 12, and elsewhere), and later on in Babylonia, where Ḥana bar Ḥanilai kept an inn which had its four doors open on four sides, exactly like those of Job and Abraham, to all passers-by; sixty bakers being kept busy baking bread in the daytime, and sixty at night for the bashful poor who would not be seen asking bread by day (Ber. 58b; compare Test. Job iii. 11).
This πανδοχεĩον of the Essenes appears as a Christian institution in the fourth century under the name of "xenodochium" (inn for strangers), and connected with, or serving as, a "ptocheum" or "ptochotropheum" (sick-house) and was, as Hieronymus expressly states, transplanted from the East to the West "as a twig from Abraham's terebinth," a direct allusion to the rabbinical identification of Gen. xxi. 33 with such a hospice (see Uhlhorn, l.c. pp. 319-321, where Hieronymus' words are quoted, but seemingly without a comprehension of their significance). As a matter of fact, the emperor Julian, in instituting inns for strangers in every city, refers to both Jews and Christians, "the enemies of the gods," as models of philanthropy, inasmuch as with the former no beggar was to be found, and the latter also supported the heathen poor as well as their own (Julianus, "Epist." xxx. 49; Sozomen, "Hist. of the Church," v. 16). Abrahams (in his "Jewish Life in the Middle Ages," p. 314, note) is therefore not far from the truth when he suggests a possible connection of the ancient "pandok" with the communal inn of the Middle Ages for the lodging and feeding of poor or sick travelers, which became a special necessity after the Crusades. The halakic rule, fixed for all time, was that no city is worth living in for a devotee of the Law ("Talmid ḥakam") which has not a charity-box, "ḳuppah shel ẓedaḳah"; that is, a systematic relief of the poor (Sanh. 17b). Also the name "heḳdesh" for the Jewish hospital, found as early as the eleventh century in Cologne (see Brisch, "Gesch. der Juden in Coeln," 1879, p. 19; Berliner, "Aus dem Innern Leben der Deutschen Juden im Mittelalter," p. 120), and in the casuistic literature as "betheḳdesh [le 'aniyyim]" ("the house of the things consecrated [to the poor]," see Lampronti, s.v. (image) ), points to a long-established custom of the pious to consecrate property to God for the benefit of the poor (see Ta'an. 24a; B. B. 133b). This heḳdesh served all through the Middle Ages, like the ancient Christian xenodochium (Haeser, "Gesch. der Christl Krankenpflege," 1857, 13), both as a poorhouse and as a hospital for the sick and the aged as well as for the stranger.
As has been shown by Abrahams (l.c. pp. 311-312), the tamḥoi or food distribution of old was gradually superseded either by private hospitality or by communal hostelries and by the benevolent activity of charitable societies formed for this purpose; while the institution of regular relief through the charity fund (ḳuppah) became universal (see Maimonides, l.c. ix. 3). Charity being the universal duty, all were forced to contribute (Ket. 49b), even women and children, and, as far as they could afford it, the poor themselves (B. Ḳ. 119a; Giṭ. 7b). In the synagogue the charity fund was remembered by vows made publicly (Tosef., Ter. i. 10; Tosef., Shab. xvii. 22), especially on occasions of joy or in commemoration of the dead ("Or Zarua'," i. 26; Roḳeaḥ, § 217); and occasionally collections were made at festal banquets (Abrahams, l.c. pp. 31 et seq.). The average Jew was always expected to give one-tenth of his income to charity (Ket. 50a; Yer. Peah i. 15b; Maimonides, l.c. vii. 5); and the rabbis of the Middle Ages endeavored to make this a legal tax rather than a mere voluntary contribution (Abrahams, l.c. pp. 319 et seq.) See also Judah Hadassi, in "Eshkol ha-Kofer."
