כתובות סז: חלק 2
ת"ר יתום שבא לישא, שוכרין לו בית, ומציעין לו מטה וכל כלי תשמישו, ואחר כך משיאין לו אשה, שנאמר(דברים טו) די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו
די מחסורו - זה הבית. אשר יחסר - זה מטה ושלחן. לו - זו אשה. ו
וכן הוא אומר (בראשית ב) אעשה לו עזר כנגדו. ו
תנו רבנן: די מחסורו - אתה מצווה עליו לפרנסו. ו
ואי אתה מצווה עליו לעשרו . ו
אשר יחסר לו- אפילו סוס לרכוב עליו
ועבד לרוץ לפניו. ו
אמרו עליו על הלל הזקן שלקח לעני בן טובים אחד סוס לרכוב עליו ועבד לרוץ לפניו . ו
פעם אחת לא מצא עבד לרוץ לפניו ורץ לפניו שלשה מילין. ו
Our
rabbis taught: an orphan boy than comes to be married, they rent for
him a house, and make him a bed and all kinds of furnishings, and
afterwards they marry him off to a wife, as it is said (Devarim 15:8)
"enough for what he needs, for him that which he lacks." "What he
needs"- this is a house. "That which he lacks"- this is a bed and a
table. "for him"- this is a wife. Just as it says, (Bereshit 2:18) "I
will make for him a fitting helper."
Our
rabbis taught: "What he needs"- you are commanded to provide for him.
But you are not commanded to enrich him. "That which he lacks"- even a
horse for him to ride and a servant to run before him. It was said of
Hillel the Elder that he acquired for one poor man, a son of wealthy
parents, a horse to ride on and a servant to run before him. One day, he
could not find a servant to run before him, and he (Hillel the Elder)
ran before him for three miles.
What does this text say about the obligations to a person in need? What are obligated to give, and what are we not obligated to give? Is it clear or not? Finally, what does the example of Rabbi Hillel teach us?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMolly Comment #3
ReplyDeleteThis text is saying that you must help an orphan, as they are accustomed to, not by what you think you should give them. It states that you must provide for the orphan, and not enrich them. One example that I thought of providing and not enriching was to give them enough food so that they can survive, but not to give them a feast, with more food than they need to live. It is not stated in the text, but I think that one reason we provide and not enrich is because they could get used to that type of living and then expect that from life. Once you are an orphan, it might be hard to keep up that style of living with more food than you absolutely need. Another example is you should give them a house but not a mansion. There are payments for living in a house and if you give them a mansion, they might have a difficult time keeping up with having a mansion, so it will ultimately end up badly for them. The text is not very clear on what we should give them because it doesn't give specific limits for the minimum and maximum of tzedakah. The example with Hillel teaches us how important it is to provide for the orphan for what they are accustomed to, even if you have to do it yourself.
My question is why would you provide for the orphan what they are accustomed to, if they aren't living that type of lifestyle now? If a boy who is an orphan now, but came from a wealthy background, why should we provide him a lifestyle like he lived when he was wealthy? He some how led himself to become an orphan, or to have less money, so if we treat him how he lived when he was wealthy, how will he ever know how to get back on his feet? I think that you should start to provide for him the necessities of life, but to not give him too much, because it could just hurt him in the long run.
Rachel Comment #4
DeleteMolly brings up some great points. I agree with her about the issues with the orphan, and how we should not give them things that they are not accustomed to. Her point about giving them enough food but not a feast, was correct because thats not too fulfilling. However, as I read through Molly's examples, I couldn't help but think about the story of Annie. Annie was an orphan who was used to nothing, but then she was taken in to a huge mansion full of meals and nice clothing. We could even take the example of Harry Potter,who grew up as an orphan and barely had any food and clothing, and then went to Hogwarts and suddenly was given an abundance of opportunities.This is the opposite of what we learned from this text, and it raised a question of mine. If this text is saying we shouldn't enrich them, but we should give a sufficient amount, why in these classic stories is it the opposite? Because clearly, Annie and Harry were good people, and knew they couldn't take things for granted.Then I realized that when people are orphans and have a hard life, they take it out in two ways. One, they reflect negatively on life. Or two, they reflect positively on life. Harry and Annie clearly reflected positively, and the text is probably talking about someone who reflected negatively, and will be obnoxious or ungrateful of the money that they were just handed.
Another point that Molly adressed was about how someone had started out rich but then led himself to become poor. She said that he should also be treated as a regular orphan, because we won't know how he will turn up in the long run. This was an excellent point, and it changed my previous opinion. At first I thought we should treat him like a rich person right away, because thats what he deserves after being in poverty. But then Molly made me realize that he needs to learn how to get back on his feet.
In the text it says "enough for what he needs, that for which he lacks." In my opinion, this doesn't only have the literal translation of: Stop giving him what he needs, and give him what he doesn't have. I feel like this doesn't refer to only food and water, but something else. Because he's been an orphan for most of his life, what he doesn't have is love. Maybe you have him food and water, but he lacks love in his life. Maybe this wasn't what the point of the text was, but that's what I gathered from it.
Ely Comment #3:
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Molly. I agree that we should not enrich them too much, for it is not fair for every orphan to have an EXTRA-special life solely because they are an orphan. However, I do not think that a male orphan who wants to get married should be provided for according to what they are accustomed to. I interpret the Devarim quote as saying "give him what he needs AND what he lacks." Again, I don't think he should be totally enriched. However, I do believe that every orphan, no matter his "rank," if you will, in society, should be given "a house...a bed and a table", etc., in addition to a wife, of course. Hillel the Elder comes to teach us that an orphan must be treated just as well as a non-orphan, that there should be "a horse for him to ride and a servant to run before him." Granted, this specific orphan was "a son of wealthy parents". However, I believe that not just those orphans should get those things. I believe that EVERYONE should have the same rights to the same things. This has been very significant recently in the news with the beginning of civil-unions in Colorado. Take a look at the article for which I have provided a link at the bottom of my comment. It describes how happy gay and lesbian citizens of Denver were at midnight on May 1st. Why were they so happy? They were being given so many rights to things that they had been denied for years. They were all given those rights, no matter their background, no matter how they had grown up. This is just like our text, in a way. I believe that we are obligated to give every orphan "a house, and make him a bed and all kinds of furnishings", etc. We are obligated to give every orphan both what he needs and lacks that non-orphans have.
Link: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23143747/colorado-couples-celebrating-last-hours-before-midnight-civil
Malka's #3 comment
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand in this piece of Talmud is why give him a servant? Doesn't this Talmud portion/topic say that we shouldn't enrich him? So why should he deserve a servant to do what he wants, that counts as 'enrichment' to me.
To 'enrich'. What does it mean? If we give a man what he lacks, to what extant should we stop giving to show that we aren't enriching? If he has what he needs, and he doesn't need anything anymore, does that mean he has been enriched with enough of things that needs no more to lack? If he has fulfilled all of his needs it counts to me as enriching. In this Talmud we aren't supposed to enrich him. So why should he be given what he lacks if it means that he will be enriched at the end?
Mia Comment #5
DeleteIm going to start off by answering a few of Malka's questions such as why give him a servant. When reading this text giving the poor person a servant seems reasonable, because most likely before the person was poor they had a servant. If this is not clear to you yet then that is where her question about "enrich" and giving him what he lacks. Obviously without an actual explanation giving them a servant seems crazy, but if you're giving him what he lacks then its justified. If he had a servant and you're giving him what he lacks (had before) then a servant falls into this category. Her second question is asking why give him what he lacks when after a while it is enriching him, and I disagree. By giving him what he lacks which means giving him what he had before being poor you are not actually enriching him, you're really just helping him get to a stable spot that he was at before.
By giving him what he had before you are in no means enriching him, you are just giving him what he had before and what is needed to survive. For example, if he had 6 horses and then one day he lost everything and was impoverished and you then decided to help him out by giving him 6 horses then you are giving him what he lacks. But if you were to give him 10 (4 for good luck :)) then you would be enriching him, because you would be giving him all that he had before, and then some. So giving him what he needs and what he lacks is no where near enriching him.
Rabbi Hillel is a great example in this case because he saw that someone begun with something and then lost it, and felt that it was so important for him to be giving what he was lacking that in the end he used himself as a servant so they could have it. This is a great example for the community because it shows them that anything can help, it doesn't only have to be money, it can also be your time.
Natasha Comment #4
ReplyDeleteThe text says that you must help the man but not enrich him. But what does enrichment mean? It could mean lots of things to many people, my thought is that you should feed the orphan boy. But agreeing with Malka you shouldn't give him a servant, because that seems like enrichment to me. Also if I think that giving him a house, a wife, and food is just enough for it to not be enrichment, but others disagree and think that I should give him a servant what should I do? Also I understand the whole not giving too much to an orphan, because if you give that one orphan too many things they might start to think that they will deserve the best, and that they will always be taken care of and have the best food and clothes etc. It is better to just give them what they are expecting and not surprise them with a banquet and a lot of other things that aren't necessary.
On a new note I also agree with Rachel, about how some people don't always take things for granted, and have learned that at some point the stuff could go away and to not get too accustomed. So then why would we be taught the opposite? Are there no exceptions even for those who realize that the privilege to eat good food and have nice clothes could all go away at some point? The whole thing is pretty unclear of whether or not if there is an exception that we can enrich those people. Also Rabbi Hillel's example of being a servant for a while to help the orphan boy was interesting. I don't really understand that even though he knew the orphan that he felt obligated to help him when he could've just assigned someone else to do it instead.
Zachary Comment #3
ReplyDeleteI agree both with what Natasha and Malka are saying. What does the word enrichment mean? They both said that it has to do with food and not giving the orphan too much, just enough to start his life. I think that you should also give him just enough to start his life. He can't rely on everyone else for the rest of his life. The orphan will have his own family one day and will have to provide for them himself. He cannot rely on others forever to help with his problems. So yes, I think it is a good thing to get him started but not good to be supporting him for the rest of his life.
Another question that came to me is why is it even in the question that he should be given a horse and a servant? There is absolutely no reason why an orphan should be given that much. It might be that he has gone through a lot not having his parents so yes he does deserve special treatment. However, he does not deserve to be treated like a king. The orphan needs to accept what has happened and try to make the best of it. The orphan needs to provide for himself in a matter of time. People should never keep giving if the orphan isn't going to even make an effort to change his own life. Although he has a hard life, the best way to help him is to teach him how to help himself.