Save " How Do I Decide Between Requests for Donations?"
How Do I Decide Between Requests for Donations?
Julius Rosenwald (1862-1932) was a Chicago Jewish philanthropist who had to decide how to donate his money. (Picture from https://theweitzman.org/only-in-america/). His childhood home is preserved by the National Park Service as part of the Lincoln Home Park in Springfield, IL (https://www.nps.gov/people/julius-rosenwald.htm) and there has been an effort to make a multi-site National Park encompassing Springfield, Chicago, and some of the Rosenwald Schools (https://www.rosenwaldpark.org/; https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=109936; https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/historic-designation-for-rosenwald-schools.htm)

The Dilemma

It is a Jewish value to give tzedakah. Tzedakah is a word usually translated as "charity" but actually coming from the same Hebrew root as "righteous", suggesting that helping others is the right thing to do. However, there are many many people and causes which would like us to give to them, and there is a finite amount of money which we can give. How do we decide?

The Sources

(ז) כִּֽי־יִהְיֶה֩ בְךָ֨ אֶבְי֜וֹן מֵאַחַ֤ד אַחֶ֙יךָ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ בְּאַ֨רְצְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁר־יהוה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ לֹ֧א תְאַמֵּ֣ץ אֶת־לְבָבְךָ֗ וְלֹ֤א תִקְפֹּץ֙ אֶת־יָ֣דְךָ֔ מֵאָחִ֖יךָ הָאֶבְיֽוֹן׃ (ח) כִּֽי־פָתֹ֧חַ תִּפְתַּ֛ח אֶת־יָדְךָ֖ ל֑וֹ וְהַעֲבֵט֙ תַּעֲבִיטֶ֔נּוּ דֵּ֚י מַחְסֹר֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֶחְסַ֖ר לֽוֹ׃ (ט) הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֡ פֶּן־יִהְיֶ֣ה דָבָר֩ עִם־לְבָבְךָ֨ בְלִיַּ֜עַל לֵאמֹ֗ר קָֽרְבָ֣ה שְׁנַֽת־הַשֶּׁ֘בַע֮ שְׁנַ֣ת הַשְּׁמִטָּה֒ וְרָעָ֣ה עֵֽינְךָ֗ בְּאָחִ֙יךָ֙ הָֽאֶבְי֔וֹן וְלֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן ל֑וֹ וְקָרָ֤א עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ אֶל־יהוה וְהָיָ֥ה בְךָ֖ חֵֽטְא׃ (י) נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ כִּ֞י בִּגְלַ֣ל ׀ הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה יְבָרֶכְךָ֙ יהוה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּכׇֽל־מַעֲשֶׂ֔ךָ וּבְכֹ֖ל מִשְׁלַ֥ח יָדֶֽךָ׃ (יא) כִּ֛י לֹא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן מִקֶּ֣רֶב הָאָ֑רֶץ עַל־כֵּ֞ן אָנֹכִ֤י מְצַוְּךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר פָּ֠תֹ֠חַ תִּפְתַּ֨ח אֶת־יָדְךָ֜ לְאָחִ֧יךָ לַעֲנִיֶּ֛ךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ֖ בְּאַרְצֶֽךָ׃ {ס}
(7) If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kin in any of your settlements in the land that your God יהוה is giving you, do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kin. (8) Rather, you must open your hand and lend whatever is sufficient to meet the need. (9) Beware lest you harbor the base thought, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,” so that you are mean and give nothing to your needy kin—who will cry out to יהוה against you, and you will incur guilt. (10) Give readily and have no regrets when you do so, for in return your God יהוה will bless you in all your efforts and in all your undertakings. (11) For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to your brother, to the poor and destitute in your land.
Context: This is from the Biblical Book of Deuteronomy, from a section talking about how we ought to interact with other people. It is part of the Torah reading on Sh'mini Atzeret. The “year of remission” is referring to the 7th year in a 7-year cycle when debts were forgiven; people would not want to make loans to the poor in Year 6 out of fear that they wouldn’t get their money back. Eventually, Hillel came up with the “prosbul”, a legal fiction that allowed loans to still be due even in the 7th year, thus ensuring that poor people got loans at all. The end of Verse 11 (“open your hand to your brother, to the poor and destitute in your land”) will become the source of the “Concentric Circle Model of Tzedakah” that we’ll see fleshed out later.
How does this text help answer our question?
(יד) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי:
(14) Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself, who [will be] for me? But if I am [only] for my own self, what am I? And if not now, when?
Context: This is from Pirkei Avot, a collection of quotes from the Rabbis who lived between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is the only section of the Mishnah that only has life-advice and no law. Hillel lived around the year 1 (BCE and CE).
How does this text help answer our question?
(טז) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא עָלֶיךָ הַמְּלָאכָה לִגְמֹר, וְלֹא אַתָּה בֶן חוֹרִין לִבָּטֵל מִמֶּנָּה.
(16) He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it.
Context: This is also from Pirkei Avot. While it is not applicable as a reason for why a person doesn't do their homework, it does apply in contexts like improving the world. Kol B’Seder (Cantor Jeff Klepper and Rabbi Dan Friedlander) set it to music: https://youtu.be/04-tMMe4lrw?si=etfDpQnbxI_6v4ZW
This saying is like the Starfish Story. In short, a girl was picking up starfish who were stranded after high tide and flinging them back into the ocean. A man asked her, “Given how many starfish are dying on this beach and on beaches around the world, how can you possibly hope to make a difference?” She picked up another starfish, threw it into the water, and replied, “I made a difference to that one.”
How does this text help answer our question?
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים גְּדוֹלָה גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים יוֹתֵר מִן הַצְּדָקָה. צְדָקָה — בְּמָמוֹנוֹ; גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ, בֵּין בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. צְדָקָה — לָעֲנִיִּים; גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — בֵּין לָעֲנִיִּים בֵּין לָעֲשִׁירִים. צְדָקָה — לַחַיִּים; גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — בֵּין לַחַיִּים בֵּין לַמֵּתִים.
The Sages taught that acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity can be performed only with one’s money, while acts of kindness can be performed both with his person and with his money. Charity is given to the poor, while acts of kindness are performed both for the poor and for the rich. Charity is given to the living, while acts of kindness are performed both for the living and for the dead.
Context: This is from the Babylonian Talmud, Masechet (Tractate) Sukkah, which is about Sukkot (as you might expect). It comes from a discussion about the wine libation for the Sukkot sacrifices. Explaining that libation involved an interpretation of a verse from Song of Songs, and this led to other interpretations of verses. See here for a video explaining the difference between acts of kindness and charity (and justice): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUkEDWMbTkQ
How does this text help answer our question?
״וְעִנִּתִךְ״ – אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: אֲפִילּוּ עָנִי הַמִּתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְּדָקָה, יַעֲשֶׂה צְדָקָה.
The Gemara addresses the continuation of the verse: “And though I have afflicted you [ve’innitikh]” (Nahum 1:12). Mar Zutra says: This means that even a poor person [ani] who is sustained from charity must also perform charity.
Context: This is from the Babylonian Talmud, Masechet (Tractate) Gittin, which is about divorces. It comes from a discussion about how husbands should not cause fear in their wives, and a verse is brought to prove this.
How does this text help answer our question?
וּלְכׇל מִילֵּי מִי בָּעִינַן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – לְתַמְחוּי, שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים – לְקוּפָּהּ, שִׁשָּׁה – לִכְסוּת, תִּשְׁעָה – לִקְבוּרָה, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר – לְפַסֵּי הָעִיר!
The Gemara asks: And do we require that one lives in a city for twelve months for all matters? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one lives a in city for thirty days, he must contribute to the charity platter from which food is distributed to the poor. If he lives there for three months, he must contribute to the charity box. If he lives there for six months, he must contribute to the clothing fund. If he lives there for nine months, he must contribute to the burial fund. If he lives there for twelve months, he must contribute to the columns of the city, i.e., for the construction of a security fence.
Context: This is from the Babylonian Talmud, Masechet (Tractate) Bava Batra, which is about civil laws. This particular text comes from a question as to when a person is considered to have lived in a city long enough to be a permanent resident of the city for tax purposes.
How does this text help answer our question?
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לְבַזְבֵּז [יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ], וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ. וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ, וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
§ Apropos the ordinances instituted by the Sages in Usha, the Gemara cites another one. Rabbi Ile’a said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than one-fifth. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who scatters should not scatter more than one-fifth, lest he render himself destitute and need the help of other people. And an incident occurred involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than one-fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say that Rabbi Yeshevav was the one who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so, and who was the friend? Rabbi Akiva.
Context: This is from the Babylonian Talmud, Masechet (Tractate) Ketubot, which is about marriage contracts. There was a law decided in the town of Usha regarding a question about marriage contracts, and this reminded the Sages of something else decided in Usha, which led to our text. Maimonides clarifies that normal behavior is to give 1/10 of one’s income, and giving 1/5 is a ceiling to ensure that people don’t need community support because they were too generous (Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 7:5).
How does this text help answer our question?
(ד) כָּל הַנּוֹתֵן צְדָקָה לְעָנִי בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים רָעוֹת וּפָנָיו כְּבוּשׁוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע אֲפִלּוּ נָתַן לוֹ אֶלֶף זְהוּבִים אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ וְהִפְסִידָהּ. אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת וּבְשִׂמְחָה וּמִתְאוֹנֵן עִמּוֹ עַל צָרָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב ל כה) "אִם לֹא בָכִיתִי לִקְשֵׁה יוֹם עָגְמָה נַפְשִׁי לָאֶבְיוֹן". וּמְדַבֵּר לוֹ דִּבְרֵי תַּחֲנוּנִים וְנִחוּמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כט יג) "וְלֵב אַלְמָנָה אַרְנִן":
(ה) שָׁאַל הֶעָנִי מִמְּךָ וְאֵין בְּיָדְךָ כְּלוּם לִתֵּן לוֹ פַּיְּסֵהוּ בִּדְבָרִים. וְאָסוּר לִגְעֹר בְּעָנִי אוֹ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ קוֹלוֹ עָלָיו בִּצְעָקָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נִשְׁבָּר וְנִדְכֶּא וַהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהילים נא יט) "לֵב נִשְׁבָּר וְנִדְכֶּה אֱלֹהִים לֹא תִבְזֶה". וְאוֹמֵר (ישעיה נז טו) "לְהַחֲיוֹת רוּחַ שְׁפָלִים וּלְהַחֲיוֹת לֵב נִדְכָּאִים". וְאוֹי לְמִי שֶׁהִכְלִים אֶת הֶעָנִי אוֹי לוֹ. אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּאָב בֵּין בְּרַחֲמִים בֵּין בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כט טז) "אָב אָנֹכִי לָאֶבְיוֹנִים":
(4) Whenever a person gives charity to a poor person with an unpleasant countenance and with his face buried in the earth, he loses and destroys his merit even if he gives him 1000 gold pieces. Instead, he should give him with a pleasant countenance and with happiness, commiserating with him about his troubles, as [Job 30:25] states: "Did I not weep for those who face difficult times; did not my soul feel sorrow for the destitute?" And he should speak to him words of sympathy and comfort, as [ibid. 29:13] states: "I would bring joy to a widow's heart."
(5) If a poor person asks one for a donation and he has nothing to give him, he should conciliate him with words. It is forbidden to scold a poor person or to raise one's voice against him while shouting, because his heart is broken and crushed, and [Psalms 51:19] states: "God will not scorn a broken and crushed heart." And [Isaiah 57:15 describes as Divine the attribute of] "reviv[ing] the spirit of the lowly and revitalize[ing] the heart of the crushed." Woe unto he who shames the poor, woe be he! Instead, one should be like a father to him, both in mercies and in words, as [Job 29:16] states: "I am a father to the destitute."
Context: This is from Maimonides' (1138-1204) Mishneh Torah, where he reorganized the laws in the Talmud, taking out all the back-and-forth and just leaving the bottom line.
How does this text help answer our question?
(ז) שְׁמוֹנֶה מַעֲלוֹת יֵשׁ בַּצְּדָקָה זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ. מַעֲלָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנָּה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּךְ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מַתָּנָה אוֹ הַלְוָאָה אוֹ עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ שֻׁתָּפוּת אוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ מְלָאכָה כְּדֵי לְחַזֵּק אֶת יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת לִשְׁאל. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לה) "וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ גֵּר וְתוֹשָׁב וָחַי עִמָּךְ" כְּלוֹמַר הַחֲזֵק בּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִפּל וְיִצְטָרֵךְ:
(ח) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה הַנּוֹתֵן צְדָקָה לָעֲנִיִּים וְלֹא יָדַע לְמִי נָתַן וְלֹא יָדַע הֶעָנִי מִמִּי לָקַח. שֶׁהֲרֵי זוֹ מִצְוָה לִשְׁמָהּ. כְּגוֹן לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. שֶׁהָיוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים נוֹתְנִין בָּהּ בַּחֲשַׁאי וְהָעֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי טוֹבִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִין מִמֶּנָּה בַּחֲשַׁאי. וְקָרוֹב לָזֶה הַנּוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ קֻפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וְלֹא יִתֵּן אָדָם לְתוֹךְ קֻפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַמְמֻנֶּה נֶאֱמָן וְחָכָם וְיוֹדֵעַ לְהַנְהִיג כַּשּׁוּרָה כְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן:
(ט) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁיֵּדַע הַנּוֹתֵן לְמִי יִתֵּן וְלֹא יֵדַע הֶעָנִי מִמִּי לָקַח. כְּגוֹן גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים שֶׁהָיוּ הוֹלְכִין בַּסֵּתֶר וּמַשְׁלִיכִין הַמָּעוֹת בְּפִתְחֵי הָעֲנִיִּים. וְכָזֶה רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת וּמַעֲלָה טוֹבָה הִיא אִם אֵין הַמְמֻנִּין בִּצְדָקָה נוֹהֲגִין כַּשּׁוּרָה:
(י) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁיֵּדַע הֶעָנִי מִמִּי נָטַל וְלֹא יֵדַע הַנּוֹתֵן. כְּגוֹן גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים שֶׁהָיוּ צוֹרְרִים הַמָּעוֹת בִּסְדִינֵיהֶן וּמַפְשִׁילִין לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן וּבָאִין הָעֲנִיִּים וְנוֹטְלִין כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לָהֶן בּוּשָׁה:
(יא) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ בְּיָדוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל:
(יב) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיִּשְׁאַל:
(יג) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ פָּחוֹת מִן הָרָאוּי בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת:
(יד) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ בְּעֶצֶב:
(7) There are eight levels in charity, each level surpassing the other. The highest level beyond which there is none is a person who supports a Jew who has fallen into poverty [by] giving him a present or a loan, entering into partnership with him, or finding him work so that his hand will be fortified so that he will not have to ask others [for alms]. Concerning this [Leviticus 25:35] states: "You shall support him, the stranger, the resident, and he shall live among you." Implied is that you should support him before he falls and becomes needy.
(8) A lower [level] than this is one who gives charity to the poor without knowing to whom he gave and without the poor person knowing from whom he received. For this is an observance of the mitzvah for its sake alone. This [type of giving was] exemplified by the secret chamber that existed in the Temple. The righteous would make donations there in secret and poor people of distinguished lineage would derive their livelihood from it in secret. A level close to this is giving to a charity fund. A person should not give to a charity fund unless he knows that the person managing it is faithful, wise, and capable of administering it in a proper manner as Rebbe Chananya ben Tradyon was.
(9) A lower level than that is an instance when the giver knows to whom he is giving, but the poor person does not know from whom he received. An example of this were the great Sages who would go in secret and throw money into the doorways of the poor. This is a worthy way of giving charity and it is a good quality [to express] if the trustees of the charitable fund are not conducting themselves appropriately.
(10) A lower level than that is an instance when the poor person knows from whom he took, but the donor does not know to whom he gave. An example of this were the great Sages who would bundle coins in a sheet and hang them over their shoulders and the poor would come and take them so that they would not be embarrassed.
(11) A lower level than that is giving [the poor person] in his hand before he asks.
(12) A lower level than that is giving him after he asks.
(13) A lower level than this is giving him less than what is appropriate, but with a pleasant countenance.
(14) A lower level than that is giving him with sadness.
Context: This is from the same source, later on. Based on this, a Jewish Vocational Services organization would be working on a different rung than a Jewish food pantry, but both are crucial to meet the needs of the community, and both would work to protect the dignity of the people they are helping, something that Maimonides’s ladder is concerned with. For stories related to each one of these steps, see: http://www.greenspun.com/regina/tzedakah-ladder.pdf. This text connects to Julius Rosenwald because he built schools for African-American children in the South, thus giving at the highest level of Maimonides’ ladder.
Note that the idea of anonymous giving does not mean that if you give to an organization they shouldn't know who you are, but rather that the person who receives, say a can of food from a food pantry, doesn't know that you gave that can of food. People who are getting services from an organization could look up the donors, but the odds are good that they have more pressing uses of their time so you don't have to list your donor name as "Anonymous" unless you want to for other reasons.
How does this text help answer our question?
(ג) הנותן לבניו ובנותיו הגדולים שאינו חייב במזונותיהם כדי ללמד את הבנים תורה ולהנהיג הבנות בדרך ישרה וכן הנותן מתנות לאביו והם צריכים להם הרי זה בכלל צדקה ולא עוד אלא שצריך להקדימו לאחרים ואפילו אינו בנו ולא אביו אלא קרובו צריך להקדימו לכל אדם ואחיו מאביו קודם לאחיו מאמו ועניי ביתו קודמין לעניי עירו ועניי עירו קודמין לעניי עיר אחרת (כ"מ בסמ"ג וסמ"ק וטור) : הגה והקבועים בעיר קרויים עניי העיר והם קודמין לעניים אחרים הבאים לשם ממקומות אחרים (טור דלא כר"י בר ברוך) ויושבי ארץ ישראל קודמין ליושבי חוצה לארץ: הגה פרנסת עצמו קודמת לכל אדם ואינו חייב לתת צדקה עד שיהיה לו פרנסתו ואח"כ יקדים פרנסת אביו ואמו אם הם עניים והם קודמים לפרנסת בניו ואח"כ בניו והם קודמים לאחיו והם קודמין לשאר קרובים והקרובים קודמים לשכיניו ושכיניו לאנשי עירו ואנשי עירו לעיר אחרת והוא הדין אם היו שבוים וצריך לפדותן (הכל בטור):
(3) Helping one's grown up sons or daughters in need when he is not obliged to—in order to give his sons an opportunity of studying the Law, or to keep his daughters in the right path—and presenting gifts to one's father in need,—all this comes under the general head of Charity. In fact, such charity is to be preferred to other forms. Not only a father or child, but any relative should be given preference to a stranger; a brother of one's father, to a brother of one's mother; the poor of his own house to the poor of the city at large; the poor of his own city to the poor of other cities; and the poor that dwell in the Holy Land to those that dwell in other lands.
Context: This is from the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Joseph Caro's 1563 law code. The particular section it is in is "Yoreh De'ah", which covers giving tzedakah, among other things. There is an untranslated addition to this text written by Rabbi Moses Isserles (so that the Ashkenazi Jews would have their perspective acknowledged when it differs) and it comments that the poor of one's neighborhood comes before the poor of the rest of the city. This is based on Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 7:13, which in turn is based on an interpretation of Deuteronomy 15:11 (See Sifrei Devarim 116:7-8). Ibn Ezra notes that the verse in the Torah talks about “your brother” followed by “your poor” and then “your needy in your land”, and suggests that this means “Your family”, then “your community”, and then “the poor of your city (and then state and then country)” before the poor of other places. The Sifrei suggests that “your land” could mean a preference for the poor of the Land of Israel before other places.
This is known as "The Concentric Circle Model of Decision-Making". How does it help us answer our question?
(י) מי שבא ואמר האכילוני אין בודקין אחריו אם הוא רמאי אלא מאכילין אותו מיד היה ערום ובא ואמר כסוני בודקין אחריו אם הוא רמאי ואם מכירין אותו מכסין אותו מיד:
(10) If one comes and says, "Give me food," no investigation is made to see that he is not an impostor, but he is given food at once. If he is destitute and asks for clothing, the case is investigated, and if he is found worthy, he is immediately furnished with raiment.
Context: Same text, a little bit later. The reasoning is that food is an immediate need, but a person is less likely to die without a change of clothing for a day or two.
How does this text help us answer our question?

Julius Rosenwald: A Case Study

How Julius Rosenwald Made His Money
Julius Rosenwald was born on August 12, 1862, in Springfield, Illinois, the son of Augusta and Samuel Rosenwald. Born in a house across the street from where Abraham Lincoln had lived, Rosenwald was greatly influenced by Lincoln.
In 1879, Rosenwald went to New York to start his business career with Hammerslough Brothers (his uncles' clothing company). In 1885, he left the firm to go to Chicago, where he became the president of Rosenwald and Weil (another clothing company). His company became a supplier of menswear to Sears, Roebuck and Company, and he became involved there, serving as president from 1910 to 1925 and then as chairman until his death in 1932. While there, Rosenwald helped to organize the Sears mail-ordering system so that rural dwellers without access to stores could buy things. He later moved Sears into physical stores. Rosenwald married Augusta Nusbaum of Chicago, and they had five children. His wife died in 1929, and a year later he married Adelaide Goodkin. His net-worth was $80 million, or $1.5 billion in 2024 dollars.
Information from Jewish Heroes and Heroines by Seymour Brody; https://sangamoncountyhistory.org/wp/the-hammerslough-rosenwald-family-clothiers/; https://www.illinoistimes.com/arts-culture/the-man-behind-sears-success-got-his-start-here-11435818;
How Julius Rosenwald Donated His Money
Julius Rosenwald attended services religiously at Chicago Sinai Congregation, where he was also an officer, and helped the Chicago Hebrew Institute (for whom Camp Chi is named) buy a new building (CHI became JCC Chicago). He was one of the founders of the Federation of Jewish Charities (forerunner of Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago), where he was an early chairman of the board (and there is a award named for him now). Rosenwald was very active as a member of the American Jewish Committee, and helped to develop a good financial base for the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati (Reform) and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City (Conservative). He was the single largest donor to the Joint Distribution Committee's 1917 campaign to help Jews affected by pogroms and other violence during WWI, and although he was not a Zionist, he gave generously to the Jews of Palestine and to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
In Chicago, Julius Rosenwald built the Museum of Science and Industry (modeled on a museum in Berlin) and gave it to the city without putting his name on it. He was involved in the Chicago Planning Commission, supported Jane Addams' Hull House, and built affordable housing for African-Americans. Inspired by Booker T. Washington, he funded 5,357 “Rosenwald Schools” for African-Americans across the South, on the condition that local communities helped to raise some of the funds for their own schools (helping 600,000 students, one out of every 3 African-Americans in the South), and created the Rosenwald Fellowship that supported people like Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, and Marian Anderson. While he was not successful in integrating YMCAs, he contributed almost $4 million to build YMCAs and YWCAs for African-Americans across the country. Abroad, Rosenwald helped feed hungry children in Germany after WWI, and contributed to establishing colleges in Syria and Constantinople. President Wilson appointed him to the Advisory Commission of the Council of National Defense in 1916, and he was sent on many missions at home and abroad by the Secretary of War. It was important to Julius Rosenwald to “give while you live”, doing as much good as he could while he was alive, and in his will he stipulated that his $30 million estate, after going to help his family, be spent down within 15 years after his death, which it was. It was more important to him to have the money do good than to have his name be known in the future through his ongoing foundation.
Information from Jewish Heroes and Heroines by Seymour Brody;
https://americanbusinesshistory.org/magnanimous-merchant-julius-rosenwald/; https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/julius-rosenwald.htm
How does learning about Julius Rosenwald help answer our initial question of how to decide between requests for charitable donations?
Aviva Kempner put together a documentary about Julius Rosenwald. You can't see it on YouTube, but you can see a number of interviews and panel discussions with her about the film. To see a version of the trailer that identifies the speakers, see this version from the Weitzman Museum of American Jewish History: https://vimeo.com/169138841
This video, from Unpacked, is both an overview of Julis Rosenwald and focuses on his work with the Rosenwald Schools, pointing out that taking down legal segregation would take a long time, but African-American students needed schools immediately.
Pleasant Plains School, a Rosenwald School in Hertford County, North Carolina, in use 1920-1950 (https://msje.org/a-better-life-for-their-children-julius-rosenwald-booker-t-washington-and-the-4978-schools-that-changed-america/)
This is the Ken-Gar Rosenwald School today, called that because it is halfway between Kensington and Garrett Park in Maryland. For more information about this site, see: https://collections.digitalmaryland.org/digital/collection/p17340coll23/id/9/ (kippah tip to Taibel Duker).
Pictures from the Rosenwald Exhibit at the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia (virtual tour of their “Only In America” exhibit available here: https://nmajhtour.org/onlyinamerica/)
With appreciation to the Florence Melton School of Adult Jewish Learning's "Ethics of Jewish Living" course, the Weitzman Institute, Jewish Heroes and Heroines of America by Seymour Brody, Unpacked, and Rabbi Michael Siegel

Appendices

Appendix A: "Investigating the Charities to Which We Contribute", by Rabbi David Golinkin
Question:
A “bag lady” accosts me on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and asks me for a quarter. Should I ask her why she doesn’t go out and get a job? A schnorrer [charity collector] knocks on my door, holds out a letter signed by an eminent rabbi and asks me to contribute to his yeshivah in Jerusalem. Should I check out the letter and the yeshivah? I enter my local Jewish bookstore and see five pushkes [charity boxes] on the counter. Should I automatically put a quarter in each, or should I read the fine print and investigate each charity’s legitimacy? Lastly, I receive many direct mail solicitations every month. Should I send a small donation to each, or investigate every charity that asks for money and send a larger contribution to the one that deserves it most?
Responsum:
Jews have been grappling with these dilemmas for at least 2,000 years. On the one hand, most individuals and organizations that ask for our help are legitimate and really do merit our tzedakah . On the other hand, a certain percentage of those who ask for money are charlatans and crooks.
Some tzedakah experts say that giving is a habit that must be cultivated. Therefore, it is better to give often and spontaneously, even if one is not sure about the credentials of the recipients because, if we stop to think about every contribution, we will get out of the tzedakah habit. Others say we should investigate before we give, because by giving to the wrong people and organizations, we may have technically fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah, but we are in fact depriving those who really need our help. Let us see what Jewish tradition has to say on the subject.
Surprisingly enough, the rabbinic sources have a basically positive attitude toward beggars. Maimonides clearly states:
Whoever sees a poor person asking [for assistance] and ignores him and does not give him tzedakah has transgressed a negative commandment as it is written, “do not harden your heart nor shut your hand against your needy brother” (Deuteronomy 15:7).
We do not know the talmudic source of this statement, but it is clearly in keeping with the following rabbinic passage:
Rabbi Abin said: This poor person stands at your door and the Holy One blessed be He stands at his right hand as it is written: “He stands at the right hand of the needy” (Psalms 109:31). (Vayikra Rabbah 34:9)
On the other hand, other passages recommend kindness to beggars for selfish reasons: “Rabbi Nahman said: This world is like a water wheel—the bucket that is full empties while the empty becomes filled'” (ibid. and parallels). In other words, you should give to beggars now, because one day down the road the tables may be turned—the beggar may become wealthy while you may become a beggar.
Nonetheless, our sages were not blind. They knew that some beggars were frauds and, even if investigated, some would escape detection. Indeed, a number of rabbis were duped by dishonest beggars. Rabbi Hanina, for example, was accustomed to send four zuz to a certain poor person every Erev Shabbat [Friday]. One time he sent the money with his wife. She returned and said to him, “There is no need… I heard them say to him: On what will you dine—on the white linen tablecloths or on the dyed silk tablecloths?
This type of fraud prompted Rabbi Elazar to say: “Come let us be grateful to the cheaters, for were it not for them we [who do not always respond to every appeal for tzedakah] would sin every day.”
Other sages were not so forgiving. They resorted to cursing the cheaters in order to discourage fraud. The Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:9), for example, states:
Whoever does not need to take yet takes, will not depart from the world until he will be dependent on others… and whoever is not lame or blind and pretends to be, will not die of old age before he becomes like one of them, as it is written: “He who seeks evil, upon him it shall come” (Proverbs 11:27).
This warning was reiterated in four other places in rabbinic literature and was codified in the standard codes of Jewish law.
Yet, despite the fear of possible fraud, none of the sages refrained from giving tzedakah. After all, it is a positive commandment that, according to Rav Assi, is as important as all of the other commandments put together (Bava Batra 9a). Some later rabbis shared the liberal approach of Rabbi Chaim of Tzanz, a nineteenth-century hasidic rabbi:
I give tzedakah to one hundred poor people on the assumption that I may find one out of a hundred who is worthy and I will have the merit of helping him. But you refrain from giving to one hundred poor people… lest one of them be unworthy. Therefore know that the average beggar who holds out his hand is presumed to need the money and you should not concern yourself with hidden matters.
The talmudic sages, however, were more careful with their tzedakah. They realized that if you give to everyone who asks for money, you ultimately deprive those who really need the money. They therefore took precautions against fraudulent beggars:
1. Rabbi Sheilah of Naveh made a play on the word “ha’evyon” [a needy person]: “This needy person hav hunakh [beware] of him.” In other words, beware of cheaters. (Vayikra Rabbah 34:9)
2. Rabbi Abbah did not want to embarrass the poor by having to look at them, following the principle of mattan baseter [giving in secret] (Bava Batra 9b and 10b), but he was wary of cheaters. He therefore would wrap the coins in his kerchief and drag it behind him and walk by the houses of the poor, but out of the corner of his eye he looked for cheaters (Ketubot 67b).
3. There is one talmudic passage that gives explicit advice about avoiding charity fraud: “Rav Huna said: One investigates when asked for food, but not when asked for clothing.” The Talmud explains that in his opinion, clothing is more urgent than food because it causes the beggar shame and should therefore be supplied, no questions asked. “Rav Yehudah, however, said: One investigates when asked for clothing, but not when asked for food.” The Talmud explains that in his opinion, lack of food is more urgent than lack of clothing because it causes physical pain and suffering and should therefore be supplied without investigation. The Talmud concludes with a beraita [teaching of the early sages] which supports Rav Yehudah, and this latter ruling was codified by the standard codes of Jewish law.
It seems, then, that the guiding principle was that one waives investigation when faced with an urgent situation of human suffering: A person who asks for food may be in pain and may die. Therefore, you give him the benefit of the doubt and feed him on the spot. But a person who asks for a change of clothes can wait while you check him out.
Times have changed and beggars no longer ask for food or clothing, but the same principle can be applied: If an emaciated person dressed in rags asks you for a quarter, you should give him the benefit of the doubt. But if a nicely dressed schnorrer comes to your door collecting for his yeshivah [a Jewish day school or institution of higher learning], you can take down his particulars and send him a check after checking out his legitimacy. No one will starve in the interim.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/investigating-the-individuals-to-whom-we-contribute/
Appendix B: "We We Possess, We Do Not Own", by Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Tzedakah cannot be translated because it joins together two concepts that in other languages are opposites, namely charity and justice. Suppose, for example, that I give someone £100. Either he is entitled to it, or he is not. If he is, then my act is a form of justice. If he is not, it is an act of charity. In English (as with the Latin terms caritas and iustitia) a gesture of charity cannot be an act of justice, nor can an act of justice be described as charity. Tzedakah is therefore an unusual term, because it means both.
It arises from the theology of Judaism, which insists on the difference between possession and ownership. Ultimately, all things are owned by God, creator of the world. What we possess, we do not own – we merely hold it in trust for God. The clearest example is the provision in Leviticus: ‘The land must not be sold permanently because the land is Mine; you are merely strangers and temporary residents in relation to Me’ (Leviticus 25:23).
If there were absolute ownership, there would be a difference between justice (what we are bound to give others) and charity (what we give others out of generosity). The former would be a legally enforceable duty, the latter, at best, the prompting of benevolence or sympathy. In Judaism, however, because we are not owners of our property but merely guardians on God’s behalf, we are bound by the conditions of trusteeship, one of which is that we share part of what we have with others in need. What would be regarded as charity in other legal systems is, in Judaism, a strict requirement of the law and can, if necessary, be enforced by the courts.
The nearest English equivalent to tzedakah is the phrase that came into existence alongside the idea of a welfare state, namely social justice.... Behind both is the idea that no one should be without the basic requirements of existence, and that those who have more than they need must share some of that surplus with those who have less. This is fundamental to the kind of society the Israelites were charged with creating, namely one in which everyone has a basic right to a dignified life and equal worth as citizens in the covenantal community under the sovereignty of God.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/reeh/tzedakah-the-untranslatable-virtue/
Appendix C: Priorities in Charitable Distribution
CCAR Responsa (Contemporary American Reform)
QUESTION: Does tradition set priorities in the distribution of charitable funds which have been collected? In this community there are day schools, afternoon schools, Jewish community center programs, senior adult housing, nursing homes and many other groups which claim priority from the charitable funds. What kind of priorities does the halakhah set? ...
ANSWER:
Charity has been emphasized in Judaism since Biblical times. The Torah suggested that one tenth be collected for the poor, and that corners of the field and the gleanings of the harvest be left for them so that they could participate in the harvest. This was a way of providing for individuals who needed food and basic sustenance (Lev. 19, 27.30 ff; Nu. 18.26; Deut. 12.17; II Ch. 31.5 f; Neh. 13.12).
Many Biblical books continue this emphasis and frequently chastise those who neglect the poor while amassing fortunes themselves (Deut. 15.7 f; Amos 2.6ff; Isaiah 1.17; Jeremiah 7.6; Mal. 3.5; Prov. 31.10; Job 29.16; etc.). Categories of poor, such as widows, orphans and the sick were mentioned, but no priorities were established.
These thoughts were reinterpreted by the later Mishnaic and Talmudic literature. By that time, portions of the Jewish population lived in urban settings, so the earlier manner of distribution through gleanings and abandoned corners of the field were no longer appropriate. The Mishnah provided for the poor through the continuation of the tithe as well the placement of gifts in a special area of the Temple from which individuals could help themselves according to their need without shame. There are a variety of rules in the Talmud which deal with the poor and define those eligible for gifts. So, for example, those who still have enough provisions for two meals may participate in public food distribution in a soup kitchen, while those who still possess enough for twenty-four meals may not participate in distributions from a charitable box. Furthermore, those whose possessions consist of two zuzim could not glean in the fields (M. Peah 8.7, 8; J. Peah 29b).
There were, of course, other rules, too, about the sale of possessions and family responsibility for those relatives who were poor (Ket. 68a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 253.1; 257.8). Local poor individuals were always given priority over those at a distance, and members of the family over outsiders (B. M. 71a; M. B. K. 11.9; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 251.3). The Jewish community took care of its own poor and except under special circumstances charity from non-Jews was not accepted. On the other hand, non-Jews could be beneficiaries of Jewish charity (M. Git. 5.8; 61a f; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 254.2). Charity in theform of food or clothing was arranged by loans to the poor (Yeb. 62b f); items were sold below cost when the prices had risen excessively (Sefer Hassidim #1049).
Every effort was made to adopt orphans (San. 19b; Ket. 50a) or to arrange for orphanages although the latter is a development of modern times. The first Jewish orphanage was opened in London in 1831. Different forms of giving were listed but unsystematically and few priorities on distribution were provided; among the noblest was the anonymous gift through which the
recipient and the donor were unknown to each other. A large number of sayings which encourage charity are scattered through the Talmud and the Midrashic literature (M. Avot 1.2; B. B. 9a, b, 109b; Ber. 55a; Ket. 67b; Shab. 156b; Taan 20b, etc.). Even the poor are to be charitable (Git. 7b).
A system for the collection of charitable funds was established in every community and one or two treasurers took care of this task. In fact, no community was to be without such individuals who looked after the poor (Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim, 9.1-3). Efforts to organize patterns for the distribution of charity were undertaken by the twelfth century Sefer Hassidim, and Maimonides (1135-1204) in his Yad (Hil. Matnat Aniyim), as well as Caro (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 250 f) and subsequently by Elijah ben Avraham of Smyrna (Meil Tzedaqah). Each of these works listed various gradations of giving and distribution independently without much reference to any earlier effort. The loftiest goal was the procurement of employment for the poor or the provision of a dowry for an orphaned girl; both would remove the recipients from the rolls of the poor and would eliminate a drain on the community (Shab. 63a.; Mak. 24a; Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim 10.7 f). No distinction was made between Jew and non-Jew (Git. 61a) nor of rank within the Jewish community (Ket. 6, 7a: Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim 8; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 251).
Much effort was expanded on ransom for captives, or if that was not possible, at least proper provisioning for those who were held captive (Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, II, p. 316; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 252.1). This could extend to selling items from the synagogue in order to help captives (Israel Abraham, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 337 ff). Funds were made available for Israel and they were collected by Sheluhim who regularly visited communities (Abraham Yaari, Shiluheh Eretz Yisrael).
In the medieval period, vigorous charitable organizations looked after the feeding, housing, educational and dowry needs of the poor (M. Güdemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und Kultur, I, 50 ff; A. Cronbach, “Me’il Tzedakah,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Vols. 9-14). This was necessary as poverty was endemic in a sizable portion of the Jewish community during many centuries.
Hospitals are mentioned early in the literature, however, they were actually hostels for traders and poor travelers. The first reference to such a Jewish “hospital” is in 1210. A leper hospital existed in Heidelberg, in 1349, but this seems to have been an exception (Abraham Cronbach, Religion and Its Social Setting, p. 131). Few financial provisions were made for sick care, unless the sick were indigent. Every effort was made to assure that they were regularly visited (Or Zarua 2.51). In some cases, individuals unwilling to make such visits were fined (Abraham Cronbach, op. cit. p. 137).
Educational institutions were not recipients of charity, although wealthy individuals endowed them. In the Talmudic and later Medieval periods, it was the duty of each community to establish and support such institutions. Elementary schools were always provided for in conjunction with synagogues; parents of the children paid tuition according to their ability, while poor students were fed and housed by the community (Cronbach, op. cit., p. 128). Considerable sums were expanded on direct support for educational institutions but this was not considered charity. It was an obligation supported by taxes and tuition. Scholarships for poor students were provided in the form of food, lodging or books as a charitable contribution (Turei Zahav to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 249.2; S. Dubnow, Pinqas Hamedinah, #528 and #588). Institutions of higher learning were established and supported by patrons. Their future depended on this help, and when the economic conditions changed, they closed or moved to a new location.
None of these sources dealt with institutions which are now the major recipients of charitable funds such as vocational institutions, special education units, social service agencies, hospitals, etc. In other words, the earlier Jewish communities faced so many basic needs that other matters could not be considered.
We may conclude from this that tradition provides little guidance for our age, especially as we have been fortunate enough to overcome the basic problems of previous ages. All sources agree that communities need primary education, sick care, and centers of higher learning. They do not deal with their funding in detail. July 1986
https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/carr-39-42/
Appendix D: Applying Rabbinic Law on Tzedakah Priorities
The rabbinic sages taught that humans should emulate God by meeting the particular needs of people in trouble. But how should one go about that today?
BY RABBI ARTHUR O. WASKOW
How much of our own income ought we to give in tzedakah? To this the Rabbis replied that no one could avoid giving altogether. Even the desperately poor, who received all their own income from tzedakah, should give small amounts of tzedakah. At the highest level, one might give one fifth of one’s income, but no more than that, probably for fear that a too generous giver would end up becoming a charge on the community or would receive too much honor and power for the community’s good. Normal was giving one tenth of one’s income. How shall we choose to whom among the wide range of the poor we shall give?The Rabbis replied that anyone who asked for food should receive it at once. Even a stranger whom one suspected of fraud should be fed. Hunger is a powerful emergency. Those who were strangers to the community and asked for less urgent help should be queried. The community was responsible to give what they needed and therefore to make sure how much they needed. Yet no one who asked should be turned away utterly empty-handed. Those who were known to the community, and whose needs were known, should not have their tzedakah delayed. Giving should be extended in a series of concentric circles: first, to the poor of one’s own near relatives, then [those] of the extended family, then of the city, and then of other cities and countries.“For the sake of the paths of peace,” said the Rabbis, non-Jews as well as Jews should be given tzedakah. This phrase has two sides. It can be understood either as grudging or as transformative. It might mean that although non-Jews are not really entitled to be helped, keeping peace in the world requires that they be given help. Or it can be understood to mean that for the sake of shalom, the highest communal good and goal, it is not only an obligation but a joy to help all human beings. It may be whichever aspect of this phrase spoke most deeply to people–the fearful and prudential one, or the one that was visionary and hopefully–depended on what the relationships between Jews and their neighbors were in any given time and place. In our own generation, when most Jews are not oppressed or outcasts, both the prudential and the hopeful may fuse into one. How much should different recipients be given? The Rabbis asserted that the psychological dignity of the recipients should be affirmed as well as their biological needs. Those who had been accustomed to a prosperous life should not be doled out a bare handful of food. The community is not responsible to restore their former wealth, but should not make them objects of scorn. The effort–and sometimes the result–of this weave of ethics and law was to strengthen the dignity of the poor in their own eyes as well as those of the prosperous. Tales are told of poor people who went on strike, refusing to accept tzedakah that they deemed too stingy until the amounts were raised, as if their willingness to accept tzedakah were like the willingness of carpenters to build houses. Why would a community respond to such a threat? Only because everyone so strongly felt the obligatory nature of tzedakah that no community could live with a breakdown in its ability to give.The questions facing us today are not only whether we carry out these rabbinic principles, but whether we agree with all of them. Do we affirm the concentric circles of recipients of tzedakah laid out by the Rabbis? Do we agree with Maimonides that preserving the donor’s and the recipient’s anonymity achieves the best results?Since buying a poor person “the fishing rod rather than the fish” costs more, how do we measure the immediate cost against the hope of future transformation? Are large-scale fund-raising appeals, direct mail, telephone calls, and professional experts the most effective means of raising funds? Are they the only effective means? Do they change the process so much that it is important to preserve or restore face-to-face, community-based ways of giving tzedakah? How do we balance the values of meeting the poor face-to-face with the values of far-reaching modern welfare systems?
Reprinted from Down-to-Earth Judaism, by Arthur Waskow. Copyright (c) 1995 by Arthur Waskow. Used by permission of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/applying-rabbinic-law-on-tzedakah-priorities/