You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing –Psalm 145:16 (Stone Edition Tanakh)
Once, when a poor man came to Rav Shmelke for a donation, the rebbe realized that he had nothing for him, not a penny. After a moment’s thought he recalled that his wife had an expensive piece of jewelry under her pillow. Since he was sure that his wife would be happy to give it for tzedakah he immediately rushed into the next room and brought the jewelry. As the poor man was leaving, obviously thrilled with the windfall, Rav Shmelke’s wife approached her home.
Daf Yomi Digest
Stories off the Daf
“The Delight of Shabbos”
Chullin 111
It is written that one should give a lot of charity on the eve of Succos. One should also invite poor guests for Yom Tov, each person according to his means.
-Sharei Teshuvah section 1
As quoted from A Guide to the Laws of Succos
Jews and Christians, as people of faith, have a tradition of helping the poor and the downtrodden. For Jews during Sukkot, it is a mitzvah, a kindness in obedience to God, to invite the poor into your sukkah to share a meal, so that the joy of one who has plenty may become the joy of one who does not.
But how far does Jewish or Christian “charity” go? I ask because the concept of money, economy, rich, and poor are very much on people’s minds and in the news media right now. The “99 percent” feel as if they have been robbed and cheated out of their fair income and earnings by the “one percent” who control most of the world’s wealth. There is ample evidence of this, at least according to a digg.com article showing information from the Congressional Budget Office. Frankly, seeing the chart in this article’s photo would make just about anyone upset.
However, there are some who believe that the problems of the so-called “99 percent” are a result of people not taking sufficient responsibility for their circumstances and their behavior. I saw a rather interesting photo originally (from my point of view) posted by Tim Davis on Facebook advocating this perspective and the person holding the sign isn’t the only one. The Daily Kos posted a photo of “the 53% guy”, a former Marine who advocates hard work and lives out his convictions, and the blog published a rebuttal to the Marine’s statements from a more liberal perspective. The Daily Kos article, written by Max Udargo, didn’t offer a link to the source of the photo, but I tracked the original source to We are the 53% thanks to FlaglerLive.com. Apparently, there are a lot of “53% guys”.
But who is right, or does it matter? More importantly, as people of faith, what do we believe and what is God’s expectations for our behavior? Let me show you two extremely different points of view. We’ll start with Udargo.
I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you. For instance, I want everybody to have healthcare. I want lazy people to have healthcare. I want stupid people to have healthcare. I want drug addicts to have healthcare. I want bums who refuse to work even when given the opportunity to have healthcare. I’m willing to pay for that with my taxes, because I want to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how much of a loser you are, if you need medical care you can get it.
Now let’s compare this viewpoint with one I found the Mountain Home News.
IT is NOT for the GOVERNMENT to spend our tax dollars on anything else but OUR needs in this country., and it’s right there in Article I, Section VIII,
105 million to Somalia…………..”OK ZOOK…….you’ve already ranted about that on past blogs…………..yes. I have. Now I’m gonna tell ya why it’s so important………..
It’s not just the MONEY……….to you & me, 105 million dollars would be a once in a lifetime lottery win……….to the BUREAUCRATS back there, it’s as casual as a cup of coffee……(after all, it ain’t THEIR money).
That 105 million is a CLEAR PICTURE to the THOUGHT PROCESS back there. Don’t you remember that “debt ceiling fiasco?”……wasn’t all that long ago…….My God, the world was coming to an END…….grandma was going have her medicine taken away, our kids were gonna have to eat worms and die, the nation was about to collapse, all the Social Security and pension checks were gonna stop, everything was gonna come to a screeching halt (except the food stamps, free medical & education for illegals)——–REMEMBER THAT?
This USED to be America, and without your help, it CAN be again. This is NOT the World Welfare Office.
Remember that I said I was going to post extreme viewpoints. I don’t happen to agree with either one.
Mr. Udargo wants to live in a country where free healthcare is provided at the same level for a person regardless of income, lifestyle, and motivation. From his point of view, healthcare services should be identical, regardless of whether you work and earn an income or if you choose not to work and prefer to be unemployed or even choose to habitually abuse drugs. As far as I can tell from reading Mr. Udargo’s article, what a person does shouldn’t matter, only that he or she is a human being. On the other hand, what’s the point of working and working hard to make sure your family’s needs are taken care of if someone is just going to give “free” healthcare to you anyway and let someone else pay for it?
The Mountain Home News blog (certainly a very minor media outlet), holds the opposite point of view and believes that taxpayer money is completely wasted on providing assistance to those the Federal Government deems needy. His rant (I can’t think of a more appropriate word for it) is even more extreme than the position taken by author/philosopher Ayn Rand in her book (which I recently read) Atlas Shrugged, which also advocates self-responsibility and receiving only the benefits that you have earned by your personal efforts. From Rand’s point of view, choosing to be charitable is one thing, but being forced to be charitable by the Government, especially to the point of self-extinction, is virtually a crime.
But in its extreme form, isn’t a type of self-extinction what Mr. Udargo is advocating? Like so many who espouse an economically liberal point of view, they fail to take into consideration the cost. If you impose the level of taxes necessary to provide free and good healthcare to literally every American citizen across the board, including and especially those who refuse to work (as opposed to those who are out of work due to circumstances and who would do anything to find and keep employment), what amount of income would those of us who have work now get to keep from our labors? Right now, economically liberal people believe it is the corporations that are keeping them “poor” (and if we’re talking about 99% of the American population, most of them aren’t destitute and starving), but we all voluntarily purchase most of the goods and services provided by said-corporations. We could inhibit their exorbitant incomes dramatically just by refusing to buy their stuff. On the other hand, it is illegal to refuse to pay our taxes, even though we don’t have a great deal of control about how that tax money is spent.
In ancient Israel; Biblical Israel, when a person couldn’t pay their debts, they sold themselves into slavery. This was really more indentured servanthood and the person would only be a slave for seven years (Exodus 21:1-11). At the end of that time, if the slave chose to leave, the master was supposed to give the slave enough money to basically set him up in his own business so he could provide for himself. This is what I call the “ancient Israeli welfare system”. At no time did a person simply sit back and receive an income for doing nothing.
On the other hand, we have Acts 4:32-35 which states:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Probably the most extreme example of giving in the New Testament was taught by Jesus himself:
Yeshua (Jesus) sat facing the treasury box. He was watching the people placing ma’ot (small silver coins) into the treasury box, and many rich people gave much. A poor widow came and gave two prutot (small copper coins), a quarter of an issar (large copper coin). He called to his disciples and said to them,
Amen, I say to you that this poor widow has given more than all those giving to the treasury box. For all of them gave of their surplus, but she, out of her lack, has given all that she had – her entire living! –Mark 12:41-44 (DHE Gospels)
So what are we to believe and what are we to do? Should we become angry at our lot in life, blame the corporations and their CEOs for what we don’t have in luxuries and for some of us, even necessities, and start protesting. Should we instead pick up signs and march on our local and national government offices and blame them for the same things? Who is at fault for the state of our nation and for the state of the poor?
Does it matter? I suppose in terms of God’s justice, any injustice matters, but what are we to do about it? Should we ignore the poor or help them? Should we only give to those who are out of work and seeking to regain employment, or should we also be giving to anyone, regardless of their circumstances and the choices they are making?
It seems to come down to a matter of choice, and I think that’s what the Bible is trying to tell us. Jesus paid his taxes willingly (Mark 12:17) regardless of how Rome was going to make use to that income. His disciples did sell all that they had and gave the proceeds to the poor among them. Even the poor widow chose to give her entire income to the treasury box. No one made these people (with the exception of the Roman tax) give away their money. They made a conscious decision to do so. It’s not wrong to feed a starving child. It’s not wrong to give to organizations who provide medical care for the needy. It’s not even wrong to give away literally everything you own so that the poor will have something to eat for a day or two (even though, in the process, you make yourself one of the poor).
But you don’t have to. More accurately, you are not compelled to give away literally everything you own for the sake of another. If it is part of your values system to do so, then you can do so. If Max Udargo wants to surrender his entire income, all of his savings, everything he’s got, in order to provide healthcare for even one person, regardless if they choose to work or not, he is completely free to do so. But he shouldn’t be made to do so. If the writer of the Mountain Home News blog doesn’t want to surrender his income for the benefit of others, he shouldn’t be made to do so. It’s not charity if it has to be forced or if the consequence of not giving is to go to jail (such as for income tax evasion).
I can’t tell you that corporate greed isn’t a problem or that adjustments shouldn’t be made in the system, but I’m not going to tell you that those who have worked, and worked hard for their incomes should be deprived of them for the sake of people who choose not to take advantage of the opportunity to work. I can tell you that you can look at who God is and how He has taught us mercy and compassion and you can act accordingly. You can give but it is your choice based on the values you hold dear as a person of faith.
While there is plenty of injustice in the world, including the injustice that is evident in the realms of private business and public politics, we can either be angry or we can look around, see a need, and fill it. I know that won’t solve all the world’s problems and make people be more just, but we can be just by contributing to making the world a little bit better. We don’t have to do this by surrendering our entire income to impoverished drug addicts. We don’t have to do this by quitting our jobs and moving to another country to work with starving children (although we can certainly choose to do those things). We can do this by living out each day, being responsible for our lives, our behavior, and providing for ourselves and our families, and also by opening our hand and providing for someone else who truly needs our help, within the limits of our compassion and our ability. But if you have picked up a sign and protested against corporations but haven’t given even a dollar to the homeless or one can of soup to the food bank, then your values and your priorities are in need of examination.
It’s a broken world and we can’t fix it all by ourselves. However, we can be one part of the solution. We can be a partner with God to help, even a little bit, and if everyone did that, perhaps there would be fewer people who are poor and hungry. You can be the change you want to see in the world. You can choose to be the answer to someone’s prayer.
Morning Meditations 
James,
I appreciate you sharing this with me. I understand your points, but I do disagree with a lot of what you say. I think we have a philosophical difference of opinion here, but I don’t think we’re all that far apart.
1. Udargo doesn’t say that the lazy should have the same benefits as the hard-working. He says everyone should have healthcare. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Of course everyone should have basic healthcare – we pay billions to kill people overseas, so I think we can find a way to keep our citizens healthy. People who work hard would be free to purchase more comprehensive health plans, just as those with enough money are able to purchase whatever food they would like, without relying upon or adhering to the rules/limits of food stamps. People with enough money choose where they want to live, rather than living in Section 8 housing, etc. Most people want more options, more choice, more variety, more more more, so they work hard for it. Simply giving people basic health care is not going to cause anyone to quit working.
2. My work is with people who have serious mental illnesses, and almost every one of them receives government assistance because they are not able to maintain employment. The vast majority of the people who receive government assistance are either actively seeking work, unable to work, or working but not making enough to support their families. If ensuring that every single one of them has their basic needs met means that a few lazy people get their needs met too? It’s worth it to me. In fact, it doesn’t bother me at all, because I don’t begrudge people what they need to survive, even if they don’t live up to the standards set by my personal value system.
3. I think the NT is very clear. No, you don’t have to give your excess to help those in need, but followers of Jesus will do so. Why is it almost impossible for a rich man to enter Heaven? It’s not because the man has money. It’s because rich men have encountered many poor men, but have decided to keep the money, rather than help “the least of these.”
4. For a project in graduate school some years back, I did extensive research on exactly this topic (health care) for months on end. I found that if we, as a nation, were to cover basic health care for all, we would pay significantly less than we do now. We pay for everyone’s healthcare anyway, but we pay much more for it, and the cost in well-being and in lives should be unacceptable, even if we weren’t already paying too much.
5. I will send you a link to my rant on “class warfare.” I cuss a lot in it, but you’ll see where I’m coming from.
–Teresa
My concern is that every time we create an entitlement, people operate at the level of that entitlement. I worked in public mental health and social services in California and I’ve seen several generations of numerous families organized around meeting the standards necessary to qualify for welfare, food stamps and medi-cal (what medicaid is called in California) and nothing more. Of all the families I encountered, I met only one who was using “the system” to their advantage by getting an education so that they could enter into careers and leave welfare behind.
I’m hardly saying that there aren’t people in need and I know what it’s like to go without medical insurance. For several years, I was afraid that a serious injury or illness would wipe out my family, even as I was working full-time at a menial job and going to school full-time to earn another degree and alter my career path. It would be ideal if everyone could be provided with basic medical care on top of basic food, housing, clothing, and education, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We would still have to find a way to pay for it. Can we solve everyone’s needs? Even Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us (Mark 14:7).
Again, I’m not advocating for allowing people to suffer and I am not without compassion. It’s not even just healthcare that I’m concerned about, but everytime an entitlement is created another expectation and “right” is created. When a government imposes its values upon the taxpayers and compels them to support programs they do not agree with, where does it end? Each generation of workers keeps less of its earned income than the last as we are asked to pay more and more to attempt to meet ever increasing needs of the population.
My values include helping the poor and to the best of my ability, I do give, but on top of what I donate, how much more am I, and every other taxpayer, expected to provide? When Max Udargo says, “I want to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how much of a loser you are” (to receive free medical care), he is expressing his values and his desire to pay to support his values. He is also saying he wants everyone else to pay too, whether they want to or not, to satisfy his desires.
This is a difficult sentiment to express because in principle, I agree with you and it would be wonderful if no one had to live without the ability to access medical assistance. But the lived practicality of accomplishing the desired goal may not be within the ability of the government and its citizens to satisfy and if we do initiate something like “Obamacare”, which sounds good and generous on the surface, what sort of expectations are we creating for generations to come, not for those, such as your clients, who authentically require support, but from those who could work but simply will choose not to?
I look forward to your “rant”.
Thanks for taking the time to let me know your thoughts and feelings.
“If anyone doesn’t want to work, he shouldn’t eat (or get anything else he could have gotten if he only got off his lazy *ss).” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) … Was Apostle just being a heartless “anti-social-justice-list” who would rather see this poor man die of starvation, or in other words was he a “Republican”?
That’s true, Gene. I hadn’t considered this verse. Here’s the larger context from 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13:
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.
Paul is specifically addressing fellow believers saying that a life of idleness is inconsistent with a life of faith. One of the values we are taught as disciples of the Master is earning what we receive by our work, including food. The question then is, should we feed the hungry if the hungry are both atheists and people who can work but refuse to?
We know we have a responsibility to feed the hungry, cloth the unclothed, visit the sick and the imprisoned and I’ve already written about that. Do we pick and choose who to obey God in these matters or do we just “do it”?
We keep much more of our tax money today than we have since The Great Depression, especially the wealthy (except for a couple of Regan/Bush years) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#1861_-_2010). The New Deal pulled us out of that financial fiasco in the 1930s, yet it seems politicians today want to do the exact opposite of what history clearly demonstrates as an effective remedy. Spending all of our money waging war, then saving money by coddling the wealthy and investing fewer resources into the neediest among us are some of the reasons we’re in this financial mess to begin with. If we pay for basic health care for everyone, we will pay LESS as a nation than we do today. It helps people and costs less. What’s to oppose?
My opinion regarding Paul’s belief that people who don’t work don’t deserve to eat isn’t going to lead to a productive conversation, because my opinion is: “That’s not what Jesus said,” while I imagine you believe Paul’s writings were inspired. Studying Paul is one of the reasons I am not religious. I find that Paul was a man who molded the church into what he believed it should be, notwithstanding Jesus’ intention. I don’t believe it is my place to judge why someone can/cannot or will/will not work. I believe it IS my place as a fellow traveler in life, and one who can work, to do what I can to ensure my neighbors don’t starve.
But, I’m one of those nutty liberals who notices that nations who tax the Haves to help the Have-Nots (and to help the Haves, for that matter – we all benefit from publicly funded programs) fare much better in almost every way. People helping people leads to good things. I believe strongly that if at all possible, people should not have to go without basic necessities. We provide the basics for the worst among us, those who have horribly harmed other people and entire families — people who are sitting in prison for life. I will do no less for someone whose only “crime” is laziness.
In Udargo’s article, he says he supports a good work ethic, but that’s hard to believe, if it doesn’t matter to him if people work or not. Part of what made our nation great in the past (I don’t think it’s doing so well now) is that we were a nation of people who wanted to work, who valued being productive, who balked at accepting charity unless our circumstances were dire and our children were going hungry.
After looking at your data from Wikipedia, I concede that we seem to be hanging on to more of our income now than in the past (my wife said the same thing yesterday and she’s even more conservative than I am), but the figures do show that the percentage of income taken out for taxes goes up with your income, so the more I make, proportionately, the more is taken away. The figures don’t show that a large number of Americans, either because their incomes are so low or because of a wide variety of deductions, don’t pay federal income tax at all.
I’m not a tax evader. I believe I should pay for the services that the government provides such as building and maintaining roads, bridges, and other aspects of the national and local infrastructure. I believe in libraries, museums, and other institutions that enhance our lives and am willing to pay for their existence. I also believe that those who are disadvantaged in our nation should be cared for. I just believe that those who can work, should work. If we put more people back in the work force, buying goods, and yes, even paying taxes, I believe that we will be better off as a nation, both in a material sense and yes, even in a moral sense. I believe people function better as human beings when their lives have a purpose. I know how worthless I felt as a person when I’ve been out of work and even taking on menial jobs working well over 40 hours a week and hardly seeing my family for days at a time gave me a direction and a drive that I wouldn’t have simply holding my hand out and taking what I didn’t earn.
Saying that we’ll provide for a population who doesn’t want to work, even though they are able bodied and otherwise capable isn’t the national value I want to support. My cousin (almost 30 yrs old) has Downs syndrome and while she doesn’t hold down a fabulous job, she works. It gives her a feeling of purpose in her life, even though she’s disabled and disadvantaged. I’ve known two brilliant computer programmers who are both in wheelchairs, with one paralyzed from the neck down. With some assistance, they are able to continue to be employed and contributing and frankly, I admire them deeply. I’m not sure how I’d face the challenges they live with every day.
I’m not saying everyone who is like them would be able to work, but I am using them as extreme examples of individuals who chose not to give in when they had every excuse to do so. If they can work and earn their way, so can those people who are physically able but who simply choose not to. It’s one thing to need assistance when you cannot provide for yourself, but it’s another thing to simply not want to get off your duff and expect the state and those people who do work to support you.
Again, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with helping out those who cannot help themselves, temporarily or on a permanent basis. I don’t believe, based on the Bible (remember my referencing the “ancient Israeli welfare system”) that the expectation of God is that people are to exist for no purpose other than to take handouts. We were each given skills and abilities to use in our lives. Simply doing nothing but watching television is a waste of human potential and the lives we were given. How can I morally support that?
James, I recently had an exchange on another blog with an American Jewish pastor who currently lives in Israel. He defended “taking from the rich to help the poor” and socialized medicine. It’s an interesting conversation, but as is the case with many proponents of liberal ideals, his arguments quickly got emotional and not at all factual.
You can read it here and judge for yourself: http://rebrez.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/wwdd/#comments
Wow! That was quite an exchange, Gene. It’s interesting because my wife and daughter were invited to a Sukkot get together today at a fellow’s home who they know through the Reform shul. While there, they talked with a woman who is a social worker and who advocated for society providing not only free basic health care, but free basic housing, food, and general income for the poor, regardless of whether or not they chose to work.
With apologies to Teresa, I don’t understand the extreme liberal perspective of “society” (i.e. the population of citizens who work and pay taxes) owing it to those who do not work to provide for all of their basic needs. Again, if someone who cannot support themselves needs help, I agree we must help them, but I don’t understand what sort of obligation I am under to “help” those who simply refuse to work. The Bible commands us to help the needy, but a person is needy when they cannot help themselves, not when they refuse to help themselves.
As far as socialized medicine goes, I agree with your statements on the other blog. I have a friend in Canada who has several chronic medical conditions. She says the waits are horrendous for specialists, medical offices often lose her records, and instead of providing medical care, they shuffle her around from one medical person to another, refusing to take responsibility for managing her treatment.
General practitioners make only 40K a year in Israel? Heck, I make more than that and I can barely put on a band-aid. No wonder there are stories in the Israeli news of doctors taking bribes. In this case, it seems socialized medicine may actually be contributing to corruption in the medical field.