The Cruel Charity: Merit over Need

ה כִּי-תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ, רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ, וְחָדַלְתָּ, מֵעֲזֹב לוֹ--עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב, עִמּוֹ.

5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forbear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him. {S}

~Exodus 23: 5

There is a homeless man who lives outside of the Duane Reade right next to Brookdale.

He's a nice enough fellow. He's cheerful, charismatic, jovial, makes people's days. He banters, makes polite conversation, is relatively sweet. He can be quite hilarious. You give him money and he breaks out into hallelujahs. Depending on your religion, he praises your God. If you're Jewish, it's Jehovah. If you're Christian, it's Jesus. That's how he operates.

The first couple times I saw him, I gave him money- a dollar, some change, whatever it may have been. But I refuse to give him money anymore.

So I was sitting in someone's room when her roommate, an extremely good-hearted and noble individual entered the room, seeming pleased with herself, and informed us that she and her friends had bought the man lunch. They felt that they had done a good deed, a mitzvah, were good Jews. I was slightly taken aback by how pleased they were, and the intimation that as Jews we are supposed to not only buy food for this man but give him money, and said something like, "I guess I take the Ayn Randian approach."

And that is what lead to an extremely heated discussion in which I am, apparently, cruel.

This is what Ayn Rand writes (in shortened version.) This is specifically brought up in Atlas Shrugged, but since I do not have the book in front of me, this is the shortened version.

There is such a thing as the deserving and the undeserving poor. And on a whole, we give to the deserving poor. What does that mean?

In effect, this is the speech regarding ideals and this is the money speech.

In very simplistic terms, Ayn Rand says that one helps out those that deserve help. A man who is down on his luck, who is trying his hardest to get a job but who is unsuccessful, a man who is searching and trying and working but failing through no fault of his own, because he has enemies or is discrimated against or has been laid off without cause...such a person is deserving of help. Because such a person is trying. He is trying to work, to produce, to make money. Such a person has his dignity and self-respect and for him, it is utterly degrading, disheartening and awful to have to beg. He hates it. He would much rather be on his own too feet, supporting himself, and no job is too menial or too low. He simply needs an opportunity, and he is doing his best to create such an opportunity for himself.

Or perhaps there is a system that is in place where no matter how hard the man does try, again, through no fault of his own, he simply cannot find work. Maybe these are the Jews in Nazi Germany, forbidden to work. Maybe there is a war taking place, and opportunities are scarce and rare.

Under these conditions, when the person is trying, of course give him money! Because he is going to put that money to good use, he is going to try to build himself up and get himself into a position where he can earn money and support himself. That is his goal.

But there are a lot of homeless people in New York.

Everyone has a story. Everyone has a reason and some of those reasons are absolutely legitimate. There are people who really were in the Vietnam war, people who have been hurt or abused or are crippled or handicapped or are mentally ill, and they really do have legitimate reasons for not working or trying to earn money. But there are other people as well. And some of those people are scammers and some of them are frauds and some of them are just trying to take advantage of another person's good nature.

And here is what I want to know.

This man, the Duane Reade homeless man, is there very frequently. He could be said to live outside of the Duane Reade near Stern. Every single day he is there with his Diet Coke cup asking for money.

What is to prevent him from getting a job? There are facilities, resources and places for people like him, people who are in good enough health to banter and converse and smile at others, to hold out cups and grin. This is a man who appears to be in good health (notice I say appears; it could be his not) and whose mind certainly seems to be in working order, and yet he spends his life sitting outside a Duane Reade store holding up his cup.

Why should I be obligated to give him money? Why does it fall to me? Why is it a mitzvah to provide this man who ostensibly could be earning money or looking for a job, with sustenance? Is he trying? Is he attempting to be productive?

I say no.

Is that judgmental? Absolutely. But I am a college student, I don't have enough money for everyone, I certainly don't have money for all the homeless people in New York, and there is no way that I am going to give money to a man who appears to have chosen to live his life on people's handouts rather than being productive. Because his only claim upon me is his need. When he holds out that cup, he is claiming, "I need, therefore you should give." But I do not think that is a valid claim. The statement, "I am trying, therefore you should give," in contrast, is.

And that is why, when I see homeless people who are playing musical instruments or challenging bystanders to timed chess games or banging on drums, people who are in some way contributing to society, I will give them money. Because they deserve it! And you're right, perhaps they have chosen to live this way as well. But they are providing a service. They're playing the saxophone or breakdancing in the subway station or selling batteries. The fact is, they are trying. They are doing something.

So the person with whom I was arguing was appalled by my statements. Firstly, I can't know what's going on with a person. Maybe he's actually bipolar and mentally ill and can't hold a job and the only thing he can do is sit outside Duane Reade holding a cup.

Then I offered an example. I said, "What about me? Suppose I put on some ratty old clothes and decided, hey, I, Chana, ignoring all talents and abilities that I have, am going to bum around on the street. I'm going to sit outside Duane Reade with my Diet Coke cup and ask for money and beg. Are you saying that it's a mitzvah to help me?"

"Well, you, Chana, would not last one week on the street. And-and- have you ever tried to beg?"

"No," I said.

"Begging is degrading," she said, and told me a story. She was in Israel and there was this woman with her cart outside a store. She begged for challah for Shabbos, so this girl went and bought her challah. Then she begged for a yartzheit candle, so this girl went and bought it for her. It continued in this fashion until the homeless woman begged for 50 shekels for a taxi.

To me, it seems obvious that this woman was taking advantage of a seminary girl's kindness. But, since the girl I am speaking about is a noble and good individual, she told me that she went and begged for the 50 shekels from other people. On behalf of this woman.

I would never do that.

If this woman needs it so much, then she should beg for it herself. But I? I am going to be recruited into the effort to help a woman I don't even know find money for a taxicab? Why? To do a good deed? Well, tell me, why is this considered a good deed? If you're going to be noble, then be really noble- why spend the fifty shekels here to get her a taxi when you could spend it on food for some other individual?

I believe in helping people who can be helped, who are trying their best, who strive to be productive members of society, who hate the fact that they are in a position where they have to beg. But when someone is so accustomed to it that they don't care at all, they don't seem to have any self-respect, they simply ask anyone and everyone, when they're not even trying, I cannot conceive of any reason that it should be considered a mitzvah to help him.

And that is the idea I brought up and the verse at the top of this post- when the burdens fall from your enemy's donkey, you shall surely help him. But note the last words- you do it with him. And I believe it is Rashi who says that if the man refuses to aid you you have absolutely no obligation to put the packages back all by yourself.

To which the girl I was speaking to responded, "But that's not peshat."

That doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate approach. There is absolutely no reason that it is my responsibility to give money to and care for someone else when they refuse to aid me, when I am not doing it with them but rather for them. In fact, someone who does give them the money or food is only cementing their approach rather than forcing them to work on their own. People have no claim upon me because of their need; if that were the case the whole world could guilt me into giving money to them. They do have a legitimate claim if they are trying their best but for reasons beyond their control, it's not working out.

This need-oriented approach does not work throughout life. I do not get a job because I need it; I get a job because I am talented and skilled and my talents are correct for that job. And I argue it is the same; one does not receive money because they need it; they receive it because they deserve it. In which case, there's really no such thing as "charity," as it were, because you are not giving money to the undeserving, but to the deserving, in which case there is no form of superiority involved. There need be no superiority, pity or condescension, because what you're really saying when you give money is, "I believe in you. I know this is a rough time for you, but I believe that you are trying and you are going to be in a position where you will be able to support yourself and be a productive member of society." You are investing in the person. It is a relationship based on equality; you are helping someone who is truly interested in helping himself.

And that, I would argue, is the true idealism. Not allowing yourself to be taken advantage of, not giving to people who show absolutely no effort or desire to better their lot. No, not this. But supporting those whose efforts you believe in, whose ideas you believe in, supporting those who not only need but who deserve.

You will notice that one of the criteria for judges and leaders it that they be wealthy. There is no crime in having money. There is no shame or guilt in being rich. The question is how one uses one's wealth, what causes they support, which charities and which people.

I am told that this approach is cold, judgmental, unethical, un-Jewish. I am told that I ought to feel it a mitzvah to give to all. I am told that it would have been better had I said, "I don't want to give to this man" rather than giving the reasons I did. And I absolutely agree that I don't know every side to the story. I may be completely wrong. This man may be trying his hardest, maybe somehow he really is looking for a job or he really can't work. I find that immensely hard to believe; at the very least he seems the kind of person who could make an excellent cashier, personable and friendly. Nevertheless, if I tried to delude myself under the auspice of attempting to judge favorably, I could maybe make myself believe that.

But I see no reason to do that. We are given our reason and our intellects, and the way we relate to the world is through them. Rationally speaking, the time this man spends sitting outside Duane Reade with a cup could be spent looking for a job. And it is his choice not to do that. In which case, I certainly don't feel obligated to support him, or to donate to his cause.

The person to whom I was speaking told me that I ought to go over to him and ask him why he doesn't have a job- politely. Or find out his story, before I can judge. I personally don't think I have any responsibility to do that. Why should I be obligated to go up to a homeless man and say, "Please tell me your story and explain to me why you have no job and seem to sit here all day rather than looking for one" (which, by the way, I think is already more cruel because now I'm actively accusing him rather than passively not giving to his cause) before I can determine whether or not to give him money? Maybe it would be a nice thing to do, certainly it'd be nice to hear his story, but I certainly don't see it as my responsibility.

The statement the person to whom I was talking kept on making was, "It's not your place." It's not my place to judge people, to evaluate them and sum them up and determine their worth and productivity level. It's not my place, I am not supposed to do this, and therefore I am supposed to give, to the trumpet-playing homeless man and the one with the cup- alike.

But why isn't it my place? Whose place is it if not mine? How else am I to determine whom to give money to and whom not to? I should simply give to everyone? How come? Why shouldn't there be standards? Why should I forego my right to a rational decision-making process and instead decide that it is their need that determines what I give, rather than their ability and the extent to which they try?

I only have to put the packages back on the donkey with him. It may be a commendable thing to do it all by yourself, but I think it is also a stupid thing to do.

Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

~Atlas Shrugged

And if it is, then I am evil.

But I am also- according to the very laws of the Torah, which believe in reward and punishment, this for that, legal structure, responsibility, action and consequence- right.

In fact,

"Tzedakah" is the Hebrew word for the acts that we call "charity" in English: giving aid, assistance, and money to the poor and needy or to other worthy causes. But the nature of tzedakah is very different from the idea of charity. The word "charity" suggests benevolence and generosity, a magnanimous act by the wealthy and powerful for the benefit of the poor and needy. The word "tzedakah" is derived from the Hebrew root Tzade-Dalet-Qof, meaning righteousness, justice, or fairness. In Judaism, giving to the poor is not viewed as a generous, magnanimous act; it is simply an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty, giving the poor their due. (emph. mine)

~Source

Giving the poor their due. Acting out of a sense of justice and righteousness, giving to those who deserve and who merit, not giving merely to those whose only claim is their need.

Also see the Talmud on Tzedaka.

Note this: "The Sages, however, said: If he has the means and does not wish to maintain himself [at his own expense] no one need feel any concern about him." To what, however, is the text, "You shall lend him" to be applied? The Torah employs ordinary phraseology.

וחכ"א יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אין נזקקין לו ואלא מה אני מקיים תעביטנו דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

-Ketubot 67b

Someone who has and does not wish to mantain himself- no one need feel any concern about him. This is probably stated referring to money. But tell me, is it any less true when referring to talent and the mind? Someone who has the ability, capacity, talent and skill to support himself in some kind of job but does not wish to- shouldn't the same statement apply? "No one need feel any concern about him."

Perhaps my cruel charity is not so cruel, after all.

Perhaps I am not as evil as I seem.