Dappim Ketubot 66 and 67 teach an important tzedakah-principle. We need to keep in mind two Hebrew value concepts when giving tzedakah. The first is Kavod (כָּבוֹד), honor, dignity, respect. The second is Bushah (בּוּשָׁה), shame, humiliation, embarrassment, the opposite of Kavod. We should always maximize the needy person’s Kavod and minimize his Bushah.
On yesterday’s daf TB Ketubot 66 we learned about the terrible financial straits of Nakdimon ben Guryon’s daughter found herself in. She was forced to look for barley grains among the dung of animals. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai implied that Nakdimon ben Guryon failed to do God’s will. His story continues how he gave tzedakah.
“The recorded incident implies that Nakdimon lost all of
his wealth after having failed to use it for acts of kindness. The Gemara asks:
And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a baraita:
They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home
to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his
attendants would spread underneath him to walk on, and
with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind
him for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two
possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for
his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense
trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As
people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the
camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically,
Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.” (Sefaria.org translation) When one gives tzedakah, one needs to pay greater
attention to the Kavod of the person
need than his own sense of honor.
Commenting on the verse ‘sufficient
for his deficiency in that which is deficient for him’ if (Deuteronomy 15:8), “the Sages taught:
“Sufficient for his deficiency”; this teaches that you are commanded with respect to
the pauper to support him, but you are not commanded with respect to him to
make him wealthy, as the obligation encompasses only that which he lacks,
as indicated by the word deficient. However, the verse also states: “Which
is deficient for him”; this includes even a horse upon which to ride and
a servant to run in front of him for the sake of his stature, if necessary.
For someone accustomed to these advantages, their absences constitute a true
deficiency, not an extravagant indulgence. The Gemara relates: They said
about Hillel the Elder that he obtained for a poor person of noble descent a
horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him. One time he did
not find a servant to run in front of him, and Hillel himself ran in
front of him for three mil, to fulfill the dictate “which is
deficient for him.”
“The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the
Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city
of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they
provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is
the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said:
It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And
if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra
of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary
meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra
of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for
him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every
day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would
slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although
there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the
village.”
(Sefaria.org translation)
My friend Danny Siegel in his book Gym Shoes and Iries:
Personalized Tzedakah explains
the underpinning Jewish value of these two stories which we should be cognizant
of. These two stories “indicate an important Tzedakah-principal: a person was once well-to-do and who is now
poor must be allowed to adjust gradually to his diminished economic status. The
poor man…was evidently used to finer foods and wine, and …(the story is telling
us) that he is suffering from the trauma of poverty and must be allowed to
reorient himself psychologically and physically is on pace. The ‘bitterness of
soul’ is a factor always taken into account by the rabbis, and it was of
critical importance, particularly for recently impoverished people, to preserve
their sense of Kavod. A story about
Hillel further illustrates this principle (when he ran in front of the horse
and rider). We know from the Megillat
Esther that riding through the streets on a horse led by a servant was a sign
of great honor in ancient times. Hillel, realizing the danger of Bushah for this poor man, took it upon
himself to fulfill this part of the Mitzvah. (Pages 122-3)
No comments:
Post a Comment