February 14, 2006

The Eight Degree= s of Tzedakah in Maimonides: Some Current Implications

Thomas D. Watts

The <= st1:place>University of = Texas at <= st1:City>Arlington

Abstract

The= eight degrees of tzedakah (charity) in Maimonides are discussed with some current implications drawn for poverty p= olicies. The conclusion here is that asset-based policies that stress personal owner= ship would be favored over traditional “welfare,” redistributive policies. Maimonides would favor teaching a person how to fish, rather than giving a person a fish to eat that has already been caught and paid for by someone else (usually, the government). A major supporting principle here is that in the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (10:7-15), the best and highest deg= ree of tzedakah is to enable a person to obtain employment, so that the person = will not be dependent on or requesting charity, or to extend a suitable loan, preferably before they become impoverished, so as to prevent them from bein= g in a state of poverty. Principles of the “ownership society” are d= iscussed in respect to tzedakah. Ultimately, tsedakah is more about justice than abo= ut “charity,” and in that respect is concerned with prevention and empowerment of the individual, rather than creating a dependent situation between the individual and the state.

Introduction=

&= nbsp; Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 CE) is considered one of the most important Jewish thinkers in history. “Rambam” was an appellation that is common= ly used for this Spanish Jewish scholar, philosopher, physician and jurist. His native city of Córdoba was invaded in 1148 CE by a M= uslim group, the Almohads, and he eventually moved away from Spain, eventually ending up in Fust= at, in Egypt. He uniquely incorporated Greek philosophy into Judaism (Noegel & Wheeler, 2002: 277). There are some parallels here wi= th St. Thomas Aquinas, who of course did much the same thing for Christianity. Dobbs-Weinstein (1995) has contrasted the thought of Maimonides and Aquinas= .

&= nbsp; Maimonides wrote many works. One of his most famous is The Guide of the Perplexed. While not regarding himself as a philosopher, nevertheless this book by Maimonides is widely regarded as a major philosophical work (Manekin, 2005). His first major work was the Commentary on the Mishneh. He later wro= te his classic work the Mishneh Torah [The Torah Reviewed], in addition= to his other works. The literature on Maimonides and his work is sizeable inde= ed. A search of the World Cat List of Records (one of the most comprehensive information sources available) reveals a total of 3,177 publications on Maimonides.

Eight Levels of Giving Charity (Tzedakah) According to Maimonides.

&= nbsp; Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:7-14, contains a list by= the Rambam of eight principles of charity. Each principle will be discussed her= e, moving from the lowest level of charity (eighth) to the highest level (firs= t):

8. When donations are given grudgingly. Here giving is done with an uncheerful face, reluctantly, haltingly. This could happen when one is confronted by a begga= r. However, one “clearly may not pass by but must rather notice these pe= ople in recognition of their basic humanity” (Dorff, 2002: 156). If donati= ons are given haltingly, grudgingly, then the basic humanity of the recipient h= as not been recognized (which of course is a key component here). <= /span>

7. When one gives less than they should, but does so cheerfully. Amsel (1994:300) n= otes that “it is preferable, according to Maimonides, to give less than wh= at the person asks or needs but with a happy disposition than to give the full amount asked for but with an uncheerful disposition.”

6. When a person gives assistance directly to the poor, but only after being asked = to do so. True, giving assistance after being asked to do so is better than not giving assistance at all. However, it is better yet to give assistance when there is obvious need without being asked.

5. When one gives assistance directly to the poor, but without being asked to do so. Here again, the basic humanity of the person is enhanced when assistance is offered without being asked.

4 Donations to the recipient who is aware of the donor’s identity, but the donor still does not know the specific identity of the recipient (Jewish Virtual Library, 2005).

3. Here the donor is aware of who is receiving the charitable assistance, but the person receiving the assistance is unaware of the source of the assistance.=

2. Providing assistance so that both the giver as well as the recipient are unknown to e= ach other. At first glance, anonymity would seem to connote a degree of impersonalism. But here anonymity serves the purpose of enhancing the digni= ty of the recipient, while at the same time purifying the donor of any ego or status in the giving process. Sometimes givers want public recognition for their giving [plaques, honors, public acknowledgement, etc.]. St. Paul<= /st1:City> (himself raised in Judaism) espoused a doctrine of Christian charity that “totally avoids any reference to self-interest” (Douglas, 1983: 80). Certainly Maimonides would like to cleanse or purify charity as much as possible of self-interes= t and personal recognition.

1. Finally, the highest form of charity is to sustain an individual before they become impoverished or destitute, by offering a substantial gift, in a dignified a= nd honorable manner, or by making a suitable loan to a person, or by helping t= hem find employment or establish them in business so as to prevent their becomi= ng dependent on others. Prevention and self sufficiency or two key concepts he= re. During medieval times, Widroff (1987) points out, concern in Judaism for the status, the dignity and the overall future prospects of the recipient of assistance was a genuine concern. Dorff (2002:156) states:

= If assistance is necessary, fo= r both practical and moral reasons it is better to proffer employment, a loan, or investment capital to poor people than to give money as a dole. A loan or investment has the potential for making the poor person self-supporting, th= us eliminating the drain on the community’s resources. It also preserves the d= ignity of the poor person now and, if the venture succeeds, for the long term.

Conclusion

&= nbsp; Dalin (1997) avers that from ancient Israel to pre-New Deal America, Judaism emphasized individual self-help and self-sufficiency, not welfare state intervention and control. Friedman (2002:17) notes that the “role of tzedakah creates an environment where individuals can begin to empower themselves.” In the Jewish tradition, tzedakah becomes an entitlement (Goldstein, 1988), rather than charity as we have traditionally understood the term in the Christian tradition. Tzedakah in the Jewish tradition means justice = or righteousness (Friedman, 2002). Tzedakah was balanced by “chesed,R= 21; which means loving kindness. Here charity and social welfare must ideally include both justice on the one hand, and charity on the other hand (Watts, 2006). As the familiar saying goes, no justice, no peace. There must be justice first, before anything el= se. Indeed, the great Jewish social justice tradition, reflected in its concern= for poverty and inequality (Watts, 2006), has been a shining beacon over the course of hu= man history.

&= nbsp; The conclusion drawn here is that Maimonides would favor asset-based policies t= hat stress personal ownership over traditional “welfare,” redistributive approaches. This can be looked at as part of a larger concep= tion of the “ownership society.” A definition of “own” is “to have or possess” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1994: 595). The “aim of the ownership society is to increase for citi= zens the amount of ownership, and choice. In so doing, people have more of an investment in society” (Watts, 2005: 169). The idea of the ownership society has rece= ived support from the Bush Administration. President George W. Bush has stated t= hat “…if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of= our country…” (The White House, 2004). Aristotle noted (1998: 28-29) that “what is held in common by the largest number of people receives= the least care. For people give the most attention to their own property, less = to what is communal…” Thomas Aquinas (1988: 72) agreed, stating th= at “everyone is more concerned to take care of something that belongs on= ly to him…”

&= nbsp; Asset based approaches stress the importance of increasing the total assets of the poor. Individual Development Accounts are special accounts where the saving= s of the poor are “matched” by another party (usually, the governmen= t). This concept was introduced by Michael Sherraden (1991). The Child Trust Fu= nd program in the United Kingdom seems to hold much promise. Maimonides would no doubt approve of IDAs, for the dignity of the poor is respected and indeed enhanced. Here, policies would assist the poor in the knowledge and skills of how to fish, rather than giving the poor a fish tha= t is caught by someone else. Independence is enhanced, rather than dependence.

&= nbsp; Are asset based programs and the ownership society enough? The Rambam would probably answer that they are not enough. Traditional “welfare” programs may be needed for awhile, until a transition can take place to programs that are asset based. Also, asset based programs (and social welfa= re in general) must be adequately organized so that people do not “fall through the cracks.” Needed is a larger change of heart, an awareness= of God’s greatness, justice and mercy. In the view of Maimonides, “= ;it is not God who abandoned us, but we who have turned our backs on him.”= ; (Seeskin, 1991:126).

&= nbsp; Tzedakah, for Maimonides, must be undertaken with a keen awareness (with a strong component of reason, like Aquinas) of the dignity of the human person. The human person has been created by God and is here for a time, only later to return to God. Tzedakah is owed to all of God’s creatures.

References

The American Heritage Dictiona= ry (1994). Boston, MA.: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Amsel, Nachum (1994). The J= ewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues. <= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Northvale<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>, N.J. & London: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Aquinas, St. Thomas and Sigmun= d, Paul, ed. (1998). On Politics and Ethics. New York<= /st1:State>: W.W. Norton & Co.

Aristotle, Translated by Reeve= , C.D. (1988). Politics. Book II. Indianapolis, IN.: Hackett Publishing Co.<= o:p>

Breger, Marshall J., ed. (2003= ). Public Policy and Social Issues: Jewish Sources and Perspectives. Westport, CT.: Praeger.

Dalin, David G. (1997). “Judaism’s War on Poverty,” Policy Review. Issue 85 (Sep./Oct.), pp. 28-34.

Dobbs-Weinstein, Idit (1995). = Maimonides and St. Thomas on the Limits of Reason. = Albany, NY: State= University of New York<= /st1:State> Press.

Dorff, Elliot N. (2002). To= Do the Right and the Good: A Jewish Approach to Modern Social Ethics. Philadelphia, PA.: the Jewish Publication Socie= ty.

Douglas, James (1983) Why Charity? The Case for a Third Sector. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.=

Fisher, Eugene J. and Polish, = Daniel F., eds. (1980). Formation of Social Policy in the Catholic and Jewish Traditions. Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre= Dame Press.=

Freundel, Barry (2004). Con= temporary Orthodox Judaism’s Response to Modernity. Jersey City, N.J.: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.<= o:p>

Friedman, Bruce D. (2002). “Two Concepts of Charity and Their Relationship to Social Work Practice.” Social Thought 21 (2), pp, 3-19.<= /p>

Goldstein, Howard (1988). “Humanistic-Scientific Controversies about the Nature of Social Work Practice: History and Implications.” Social Thought 14(1), pp. 47-58.

Jewish Virtual Library (2005). “Levels of Charitable Giving.” www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

Kellner, Menachem Marc (1991).= Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People. Albany, N.Y.: State= University of New York<= /st1:State> Press. (Computer File).<= /o:p>

Kliksberg, Bernardo (2003). Social Justice: A Jewish Perspective. Jerusalem= and Hewlett, N.Y.: Gefen Pub. House.=

Loewenberg, Frank M. (2001). <= u>From Charity to Social Justice: The Emergence of Communal Institutions for the P= oor in Ancient Judaism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.=

Manekin, Charles H. (2005). On Maimonides. Belmont, CA.: Thomson Wadsworth= .

Noegel, Scott B. and Wheeler, Brannon M. (2002). Historical Dictionary of Prophets in Islam and Judais= m. Lanham, MD., and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Polish, Daniel F. and Fisher, = Eugene J., eds. (1983). Liturgical Foundations of Social Policy in the Catholic= and Jewish Traditions. Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre= Dame Press.=

Seeskin, Kenneth (1991). Ma= imonides: A Guide for Today’s Perplexed. West Orange, N.J.: Behrman House.

Sherraden, Michael (1991). = Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Vorspan, Albert (1968). Jew= ish Values and Social Crisis: a Casebook for Social Action. New York<= /st1:State>: Union of American Hebrew Congregati= ons.

Watts, Thomas D (2005). “A New Policy Direction: ‘The Ownership Society’ and the Natural Law.” Social Justice Review 96(11-12), November-December, pp. 169-172.

Watts, Thomas D. (2006). “Jud= aism and Poverty.” In Odekon, Mehmet, ed. Encyclopedia of World Poverty= . Croton-on-Hudson, N.J.: Golson Books, Ltd., forthcom= ing.

Watts, Thomas D. (2006). “Cha= rity.” In Odekon, Mehmet, ed. Encyclopedia of World Poverty. Croton-on Hudson, N.Y.: Golson Books, Ltd., forthcom= ing.

The White House (2004). Fact S= heet: America’s Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities. Washington, D.C. www.whi= tehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20040809-9

Widroff, Jerome S. (1987). Med= ieval Jewish Social Welfare Institutions. Ph. D. Dissertation. = Yeshiva University. = Ann Arbor= , MI.: UMI Dissertation Inform= ation Service.

N.B. Not all references listed= here are actually cited in the text.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Ms. Lynda Arn= old for her work on the manuscript.