hearttoheartamerican.org Blog

In any specific or general situation that may occur there needs to be some beneficial yet correct communal  response. Thus the most propitious moment to commence an intervention tactic would exist long before the need actually arises. It should however be implemented on an as needed basis and yet prepared to be implemented without the need to wait.

The drama of fund raising as it is practiced, is that most people want to feel as if they are part of the “emergency room relief-syndrome.”  Thus every philanthropist likes to feel as if they were able to directly use their financial clout as part of the success of the response team. These givers do not want to actually be involved until the probability for a problem that is actually on course for deteriorating is actually is in progress. It is the nature of giving.

Developing an interest on the part of philanthropists is the most difficult and challenging in a general sense and how much more so when trying to introduce the concept of participation at the earliest stages of a crisis. There exists some obvious reasons for this and some not so obvious.

Primarily during the earliest stages of crisis there seems to be a lack of focus and attention on the difficulties as they are unfolding. This on the part of the care givers as well as the community at large. Therefore the potential recipients seem much less the issue at that moment and their situation is not at a level of demanding or critical and therefore it remains much less sympathetic.  Finally, while being successful at the very earliest stages prevents the difficulties from escalating and deteriorating to a level requiring community wide participation there still remains a lack of public sympathy and understanding at the earliest phase of crisis. One main reason is that there is always the optomistic view that the situation will be resolved without having to involve others.

In Viyikra (25:35) we are taught that, “If your fellow amongst you becomes needy…you should support him…” The word V’heh cheh zaktah Bo which means “to support him” is translated to mean that he should be supported as soon as he begins to fall, for if not so it will become concomitantly more difficult to do so with the passage of time. (See Rashi)

The rabbinical literature as it relates to these ethical issues of timeliness seems to support this thinking in that it is always better to prevent the deterioration than to wait and attempt to rebuild or rehabilitate the situation after it has collapsed.

One such very well known example is the case of an animal that has fallen under the burden of its load. In this case we are charged with the responsibility of unloading the collapsed beast from its burden, (Gemora Baba Metzia 32A and B) this is all in order to prevent further loss to the owner. There is a second case that needs to be cited as well in which we are charged with the responsibility of lending assistance prior to a journey with the actual loading of an animal (on this point there is a disagreement as to whether the mandate applies to unloading as well, or not, R. Yosse). However it is clear that the act of assisting before the crisis begins is clearly the path better traveled.

The Rambam developed an eight tiered proposal as to how best to give tzeduka. Giving to the recipient at the very earliest stage of need and as anonymously as possible is the ideal method of discharging our obligations in these matters according to the Rambam.

The Rambam also outlines in decending order from the most desirable methods of giving tzeduka to the least desirable methodology and he does this in eight levels or stages.

The primary of these methods is to offer some form of early support that is entirely independent from the welfare system or from the social welfare system. This is accomplished by offering a loan or a gift or a business deal or by providing a tzeduka in the form of employment of some kind without being asked to do so.

The first four levels of tzeduka all provide for anonymity to be maintained and for the recipient to retain their dignity completely intact.

The Rambam is also pointing out that there are considerations that need to be accounted for that have no relationship with the actual material need that is being requested by the recipient and that goes well beyond this plea for help.

In the case of a child born with a disability or a handicap the need for the earliest form of intervention is the ideal model. To delay a response at this or at any other point along the way in childhood or in the development of a person is to wait until a visible crisis arises which will only limit the ultimate preventation which is the earliest possible prescriptive participation.

And let us understand one more important point here and that is that even if the giving of the tzeduka is for the purpose of some personal gain (see the second four categories of giving as listed by the Rambam) or if there is some other hidden motivation on the part of the philanthropist himself, the act of the giving of this tzeduka is a mitzva none-the-less without reservation. (Pesachim 8A, Avoda Zora 19A).

The earlier then that we give, no matter what the motivating factor, the greater the benefit and the potential for prevention and therefore the healthier we will be as a people.