How do you interpret Maimonides' levels of charity in a modern context?

March 31, 2022 11:12 AM

I'm putting together a financial plan that includes giving away a lot of money. I'm a very unobservant Jew, but Maimonides' levels of tzedakah is a framework that's always resonated with me, and I'm trying to use it as a framework (leaving out the stupid parts like only giving to other Jews). I'm struggling with how to interpret the top two levels in a modern context, with the laws and norms around charitable giving.

The first few levels, seem very easy to interpret in my modern context: I don't expect anything in return; I intend to give without being asked; and I intend to give anonymously.

However, the second level challenges me. Maimonides calls for mutual anonymity: "to give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from who he received." The first part is easy enough, but how in world do I make donations without knowing where those donations are going? For example, I intend for one of my first donations under this plan to go towards trans rights. If I choose a charity, am I behaving less ethically than if I somehow didn't know where the donation went? How would I even do that, logistically? And, how does any sort of due diligence on the charity itself apply here? There are I'm sure more and less effective charities in this space; is making a choice based on effectiveness less ethical?

The first level also really challenges me. The text itself speaks about loans, but I know it's normally interpreted as "giving to remove the need" -- making gifts that remove the need for future charity. I can think of a few places where that applies -- medical bills, bail funds -- but can't figure out how that would apply to larger societal issues like, again, trans rights. Does a modern interpretation of this first level mean something like prioritizing legal funds looking to challenge transphobic laws over groups support trans people directly? I feel conflicted about that idea, to a large degree.

I'm trying to interpret these things in the context of my Jewish identity, so I'd really like to hear Jewish interpretations of these questions. That isn't to say that I only want to hear from Jews in the replies; what I'm saying is that I'm trying to understand how Jewish communities interpret these rules today, so "this is my personal interpretation" or "this is what non-secular ethicists say" isn't really what I'm hoping to get out of this question.

posted by dorothy hawk to Religion & Philosophy (10 answers total)

You could try a donor-advised fund or consider allovating money for a group (such as your family or colleagues) to donate on your behalf anonymously with the agreement not tell you but not to donate to groups you personally oppose.
posted by parmanparman at 11:18 AM on March 31, 2022

I wonder if for the first issue, you might resolve at least part of the contradiction for yourself by donating to something like the Trans Justice Funding Project . You would know that the funding would go for some sort of trans-led project or projects benefitting the trans community, but you wouldn't have a say on what specific work you are funding. Or even over who chooses the work - they have a rotating panel of people who choose the grantees from year to year. You would essentially just be releasing your funding to be handled by trans people for whatever and whoever they feel moved to give it to, within some pretty broad guidelines, doing whatever diligence they feel is appropriate.
posted by Stacey at 11:31 AM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]

For example, I intend for one of my first donations under this plan to go towards trans rights. If I choose a charity, am I behaving less ethically than if I somehow didn't know where the donation went?

You don't know where the donation went! My understanding of this level (and granted it's been a long time since Hebrew school) is that it's better not to know the identity of the direct beneficiary of your gift, not that you should somehow give in a completely non-directed manner. It's to avoid you feeling superior to the recipient. If you are giving to an organization that supports trans rights generally, you're not really at risk of interacting with individual trans people as if you are their secret benefactor.
posted by babelfish at 11:33 AM on March 31, 2022 [22 favorites]

I would have thought that the kind of anonymity that Maimonides is advocating for is basically what a lot of modern charities do. If I give money to a food bank charity, the recipient has no idea whatsoever who has given that money, they are not obligated to that individual. Similarly the donor has no idea who has received their money, they don't have any ownership of the recipient. If that doesn't sound right to you, then a further extension might be donating to eg grant-making bodies, so you don't even know which specific charity received your funds. In the UK if you donate to Comic Relief, the money is split between the UK and Africa and goes to a wide range of organisations and projects through grants.

On 'removing need' isn't this about ensuring that your donations provide more than a sticking plaster. So, my food bank example wouldn't qualify, it's a sticking plaster. But funding advocacy work, or benefit/welfare advisor might. Similarly, anything that builds a permanent solution to a problem (large or small) is removing need. I don't think you need to define the 'need' you are removing as 'trans people being marginalised'. Funding counselling services is removing need, funding education is removing need, funding a community centre is removing need (where the need is a place for people to meet).
posted by plonkee at 11:43 AM on March 31, 2022 [4 favorites]

Atheist who works in measuring the efficacy of non-profit work here: my take on the ethics of that first rule is that it would make sense to guide folks toward supporting charitable work that feels good but doesn’t address root causes. For example, supporting an street-dog welfare charity that treats mange and other diseases in street dogs but refuses to spay/neuter results in healthy street dogs that have more puppies, ergo more street dogs that suffer from mange and other diseases. In this sense, orgs that address the legal structures that afford or constrain trans rights would definitely be addressing root causes: lack of legal protections is a root cause of inability to seek redress against discrimination in jobs and housing, appropriate medical care, etc. for trans people.

My take on the practical side is that it is very, very difficult to *prove* impact, and so basic vetting (Guidestar/Charity Navigator, looking at annual reports) and confidence that an org is working sincerely on causes you care about (recommendations/testimonials from friends, your own gut feelings, seeing who big orgs with more money for vetting are giving to**) are about as good as you can get on this front.

**To look for more-local-orgs-than-who-is-funded-by-Gates-et-al, you might look for major private foundations in your area and read through their list of grantees/search for news coverage of “funded by X Foundation”, “gift/grant from X Foundation”.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 12:02 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]

The phrase about mutual anonymity is generally interpreted to apply to any kind of giving you would do that's more than handing money to someone on the street - you give to the food bank, they give someone groceries, but the person getting groceries doesn't know that you made that possible and you don't know exactly what person got groceries. However, if you personally bought groceries and gave them to someone, then a social obligation would be formed. That social obligation is what the Rambam was advising against.
posted by epanalepsis at 12:32 PM on March 31, 2022 [5 favorites]

Best answer: Well, this whole anonymity thing was mostly about the shame of the well-born poor - the down on his luck, formerly well off poor person. It was about protecting that kind of poor person's dignity. But nowadays, the intermediate organization isn't the one you are expected to be anonymous in the modern conceptions of Rambam's Ladder, I don't think. You're to be anonymous from the org's client's. So, personally, I think if you are anonymous to the organization's clientele (Aka, your name isn't going on the building) then it's still fulfilling the precepts.
(There's also some weird layers about how the Rambam and his rabbi friends were extra concerned with those well-born "poors". And that we should give MORE charity to them than the....regular poors(? always poors?) because they feel more hard done since they have fallen farther or whatever).
posted by atomicstone at 12:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [3 favorites]

Best answer: The other thing I would add, because that sounded really negative above, is that the "lower" levels are still really important. Perhaps the "highest" most virtuous level of giving may be mutually anonymous, but, naming a building does important work, a free loan from a known person matters, too. I don't think the concept of Rambam's ladder is supposed to STOP you from giving in other ways - instead, and especially as a secular Jew, I think it's highest use might be as an opportunity to reflect upon giving, and how it affects the giver and the receiver, generally, and how that might modify your giving choices. Good luck!
posted by atomicstone at 2:25 PM on March 31, 2022 [2 favorites]

I have always considered supporting collective action organisations, eg. unions, political parties, etc as "giving to remove the need".
posted by Barbara Spitzer at 7:33 PM on March 31, 2022 [1 favorite]

Best answer: I agree that the 2nd level is well satisfied by giving through an organization such that you do not know which individuals have directly benefited from your money and benefitting individuals don't know that the money came from you. The example given in the text is "such as the Chamber of Secrets in the Holy Temple, for there the righteous would give in secret [and leave], and the poor, of good background, would sustain themselves from it in secret. Very close to this is one who gives to the kupah of tzedakah, but one should not contribute to the kupah of tzedakah unless one is certain that the one who counts it is trustworthy and wise and behaves competently, as was Rabbi Chanania ben Teradion." (Sefaria)

I think you are right though that the Rambam's guidelines are really laser focused on poverty and direct relief for those who need money, and are not easily translated into the goals you are talking about.

To achieve the first rank through funding political action would require a really broad interpretation. You have suggested one that I think could work for some people, but it seems like it doesn't really satisfy you yourself.

This makes me think about the difference between directly economically empowering individuals (who can then go on to make their own choices about how they spend their money, including the political action of their choosing) versus supporting political action (where you are still directing the money).

I think that funding political action is super super important. But I'm not sure if it's tzedekah in this sense of giving. I think it would be more tzedek, in the sense of tzedek tzedek tirdof (justice justice you must pursue), that is another obligation that I think can be applied to both personal and political activism.

So I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I guess my advice, for all the 2 cents is worth, is not to try to wedge political/organizational funding into a framework meant for the financial enrichment of individuals living in poverty, but to separate the two out, and take this rung as a reminder that I think some of us moderns need, that direct relief of poverty continues to be an obligation along side political activism. Fulfill this by taking action to financially empower those in your community (however you define it) whom you can (rung one), alongside giving to charitable organizations that enrich, feed, clothe, etc, those who need it (rung two) and funding political activism (tzedek) in addition to that.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:25 PM on April 1, 2022 [4 favorites]