MISHNA: Rabbi GWWC said in the name of Rabbi Singer: It is a mitzvah (good deed) to pledge 10%, but one is not required to take upon himself the chumra (stringency) of the Further Pledge.
GEMARA: Rava asks: One who takes the Further Pledge can be compared to the Nazirite, who is called a sinner, for he is depriving himself of what the Holy One, Blessed be He, has provided him. So how can Rabbi GWWC say that one who takes Further Pledge is a righteous man?
Abaye says in the name of Rabbi Singer: The mashal (parable) of the drowning child brings down that one is obligated to give up all of oneโs possessions to save anotherโs life. For this reason Rabbi GWWC says one who takes the Further Pledge is a righteous man. As Scripture teaches us, โone who saves a life is as though he has saved the world entireโ.
Rava asks: But why then is 10% sufficient, if it is brought down that one must give up all of oneโs posessions to save a life?
Abaye says: In the matter of the city of Sodom, the Lord says that โfor the sake of 10 righteous men, I would not destroy itโ. By homiletic interpretation, if one donates even 10%, for his sake the world will be spared.
If you find anyone who quotes that as an excuse where a modern Halachik authority would rule that they donโt have too much money for that to apply to them, Iโll agree they are just fine only giving 20%. (On the other hand, my personal conclusion is less generous.) But DINKs or single people making $100k+ each who comprise most of the earning to give crowd certainly donโt have the same excuse!
For those who (like me) do not read Hebrewโsee this.
I am guessing this is the part translated: โBut a man should not squander more than one-fifth to charity, so that he might not himself become a public charge. This refers only to his lifetime. Of course, at the time of death one may leave for charity as much as he pleases.โ
It was actually quoting the first bit; โThe amount of charity one should give is that if you can afford to, give as much as is needed. Under ordinary circumstances, a fifth of oneโs property is most laudable. To give one-tenth is normal. To give less than one-tenth is stingy.โ
GEMARA: Rava asks: One who takes the Further Pledge can be compared to the Nazirite, who is called a sinner, for he is depriving himself of what the Holy One, Blessed be He, has provided him. So how can Rabbi GWWC say that one who takes Further Pledge is a righteous man?
Abaye says in the name of Rabbi Singer: The mashal (parable) of the drowning child brings down that one is obligated to give up all of oneโs possessions to save anotherโs life. For this reason Rabbi GWWC says one who takes the Further Pledge is a righteous man. As Scripture teaches us, โone who saves a life is as though he has saved the world entireโ.
Rava asks: But why then is 10% sufficient, if it is brought down that one must give up all of oneโs posessions to save a life?
Abaye says: In the matter of the city of Sodom, the Lord says that โfor the sake of 10 righteous men, I would not destroy itโ. By homiletic interpretation, if one donates even 10%, for his sake the world will be spared.
To ruin the joke, cf. Taanis 9a and even more, Yoreh Deah 249:
ืฉืืขืืจ ื ืชืื ืชื ืื ืืื ืืฉืืช ืืชื ืืคื ืฆืืจื ืืขื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช ืื ืื ืืชื ืขื ืืืืฉ ื ืืกืื ืืฆืื ืื ืืืืืืจ ืืืื ืืขืฉืจื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืช ืคืืืช ืืืื ืขืื ืจืขื
Funnily enough, that verse is often referenced to me by religious Jews when I talk about how many EAs donate >>20%.
If you find anyone who quotes that as an excuse where a modern Halachik authority would rule that they donโt have too much money for that to apply to them, Iโll agree they are just fine only giving 20%. (On the other hand, my personal conclusion is less generous.) But DINKs or single people making $100k+ each who comprise most of the earning to give crowd certainly donโt have the same excuse!
For those who (like me) do not read Hebrewโsee this.
I am guessing this is the part translated: โBut a man should not squander more than one-fifth to charity, so that he might not himself become a public charge. This refers only to his lifetime. Of course, at the time of death one may leave for charity as much as he pleases.โ
It was actually quoting the first bit; โThe amount of charity one should give is that if you can afford to, give as much as is needed. Under ordinary circumstances, a fifth of oneโs property is most laudable. To give one-tenth is normal. To give less than one-tenth is stingy.โ
โUnder ordinary circumstancesโ โ โIf you cannot afford [to give as much as is needed]โ