"…Jews believe in charity, but primarily as a private endeavor. The
tithing obligation, or the dispensing of gifts to the poor in Biblical
times (maasrot, leket, shikcha, pe’ah – known collectively as matnot aniyim, gifts to the poor), are all private ventures, and are not publicly coerced."
Is this statement an accurate representation of Judaism's view of poverty?
…Jews believe in charity, but primarily as a private endeavor. The tithing obligation, or the dispensing of gifts to the poor in Biblical times (maasrot, leket, shikcha, pe’ah – known collectively as matnot aniyim, gifts to the poor), are all private ventures, and are not publicly coerced. Notwithstanding that at different times in history the Jewish community itself intervened and assessed wealthy members a sum of money to care for society’s poor, that was always considered a last resort and not particularly efficient. The king never levied taxes to care for the poor, although the religious establishment might. Charity as a private act lends moral perfection to the donor; the same cannot be said for a coercive taxation system that distributes only a small sum of the monies collected to the poor.
Of course, it would unacceptable in a Jewish context to have a permanent impoverished class – multi-generational families of welfare recipients – as it should be in an American context. The trillions of dollars spent since the Great Society initiated the War on Poverty has in fact exacerbated poverty, not alleviated it, with more poor in both real and proportionate terms today than when the programs started. It should not be difficult to ascertain why. Handouts degrade the recipient and create a dependency – call it now an entitlement – that is not easy to terminate. We know as well that the greatest form of charity under Jewish law is finding a job for someone unemployed, or lending him money so he can start his own business. For the recipient, that is both dignified and effective in the long-term, but for some reason, Jews feel better giving someone a fish than teaching him how to fish; perhaps the latter would cut into the market share of the Jewish-owned fish companies, if there were Jewish-owned fish companies. But current policies are demeaning and debilitating to the recipient, even if they satisfy the compassionate emotions of their advocates.…
Is this the Jewish view of poverty?
No, it isn't.
There are approximately two dozen (!) Torah mitzvot, commandments, governing our relationship with the poor. These mitzvot mandate various forms of charity and make them obligatory. Additionally, they mandate that the poor not be denigrated or oppressed, and that they be treated with respect and compassion.
The claim made above regarding these mitzvot is false.
…Jews believe in charity, but primarily as a private endeavor. The tithing obligation, or the dispensing of gifts to the poor in Biblical times (maasrot, leket, shikcha, pe’ah – known collectively as matnot aniyim, gifts to the poor), are all private ventures, and are not publicly coerced.
A person who failed to leave the gleanings of his or her field for the poor or who refused to give tzedaka, charity, to a poor person could indeed be "publicly coerced," and when Jewish courts had bailiff powers, they did so.
But past that, violations of those mitzvot are privately "coerced" – by God Himself, meaning that God punishes the miserly and the indifferent when, for whatever reason, the Jewish community lacks the bailiff power to do so.
And more than even that, historically a person who advocates withholding support for the poor or who denigrates and embarrasses the poor was not allowed to hold positions of authority or honor in the Jewish community.
A shochet who refused to give tzedaka to the poor could no longer serve as a shochet. A hazzan who belittled poor people was removed from his post.
It doesn't matter now and it didn't matter then whether the hazzan's statements were based on the political philosophy of the tzar, Ayn Rand or Mitt Romney, or if attacking the poor brought benefits to the Jewish community like, for example, a high social or political standing.
…Handouts degrade the recipient and create a dependency – call it now an entitlement – that is not easy to terminate. We know as well that the greatest form of charity under Jewish law is finding a job for someone unemployed, or lending him money so he can start his own business. For the recipient, that is both dignified and effective in the long-term, but for some reason, Jews feel better giving someone a fish than teaching him how to fish…current policies are demeaning and debilitating to the recipient, even if they satisfy the compassionate emotions of their advocates.…
For the sake of discussion, lets agree that "handouts degrade the recipient and create a dependency," and that "the greatest form of charity under Jewish law is finding a job for someone unemployed, or lending him money so he can start his own business."
But we must also agree that the degradation and dependency existed 3300 years ago, 2000 years ago and 500 years ago, as well.
But even though it clearly did, the Torah and rabbinic law both mandated those handouts.
Why?
Because many poor people are too ill, too weak or too old to benefit from a business loan. Others are too busy caring for a sick child or an aged parent to able to work. Some lack the ability to run a business. Many others just lack skills.
Judaism does argue that it's better to teach a person how to earn a living, to give him or her the skills they need, and help them find a job or start a business – but it doesn't do this in a vacuum or put a time limit on the process, and it doesn't think that the sick, disabled, elderly and thos who have to care for them full time should be made to work.
In today's terms, Pell Grants and low interest student loans with long fixed rate payback periods, job training centers and special grants to pay for training in certain high demand fields (like nursing, for example) would all be programs that fit with Judaism's requirements (with the caveat that the low interest student loans should be no interest student loans), as would Food Stamps, WIC, welfare (but with much higher benefits than are currently in place), Section 8 housing (if it were greatly expanded) and other social safety net programs.
To argue that these are "public" and the Torah only mandates "private" and "personal" acts of charity is to completely misrepresent how Jewish communities ran and were organized for (at least) the past two millennia.
Jewish law mandates that each community have a charity fund that is used to support the poor. It mandates a form of tax collection to keep that fund solvent and it mandates sanctions against community members who refuse to do their share to support it.
In other words, the "private" act of tzedaka was in actuality a public act as well.
So why would anyone claim otherwise?
There are two possible answers to that question:
1. The person who wrote the excerpt posted above is ignorant of this area of Jewish law and theology.
2. The person who wrote the excerpt posted above has chosen to disregard what the Torah and rabbinic law says about poverty and the poor.
In this case, which is it? Is this person ignorant or is he intentionally violating Jewish law?
I believe the answer is the latter; this person is intentionally pushing aside Jewish law and theology in favor of Randian Conservatism.
Why do I say this?
Because the person who wrote that excerpt is Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, a judge on the Beit Din of America, an executive member of the Rabbinical Council of America, and a the head rabbi of the largest Modern Orthodox synagogue in the Diaspora. Pruzansky wrote it knowing that it was misleading and that it was in part a lie.
Morally, there is no way the Beit Din of America, the RCA or Pruzansky's congregation can ignore Pruzansky's lies and his intentional violation of Jewish law – but that probably won't stop all of them from ignoring it anyway.
The wounded here – the poor, the elderly, the disabled – are weakest part of society. They're easy to ignore, easy to denigrate, easy to oppress. They have no real value in Modern Orthodox life or society.
That is the message silence about Pruzansky's lies and his roughshod running over Jewish law sends, and Modern Orthodox Jews should be very ashamed by their leaders' silence.