Re-eh: The Realities of Reality

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Bing Crosby

Truth, justice and righteousness are the cries of the Hebrew Bible Prophets. Jeremiah 4:2. Committing a righteous act, sometimes, isn’t easy. This is particularly the case when it comes to a troubling Torah Portion Re-eh Commandment concerning indigency.

Addressing an indigent’s needs proves quite problematic with the Re-eh provision. The difficulty with the Commandment is so obvious that the law itself addresses the concern. Donor fatigue is the Torah’s worry: the hardening of one’s heart; the closing of one’s fist.

As such, the mechanics of how this this Commandment was navigated is worthy of study. It is a matter of interpretation.

Interpretation

To begin this analysis, one must appreciate interpretation’s nature. Laws can be interpreted both liberally and conservatively. A liberal interpretation is one that is expansive while a conservative approach is restrictive.

Sometimes, legal systems assign the trajectory of the interpretation. Phrases such as “strict scrutiny” or “liberally construe” are instructional. Other times, individuals are free to exercise their own particular jurisprudence.

With Re-eh, a tightrope act is required. The law essentially commands individuals to open their wallet towards others. “How wide open?” and “For how long?” matters. Thus, nature of the interpretation is essential.

The reality is that the Re’eh’s Indigent Commandment liberally construed makes far reaching demands upon donors. This overreaching has consequences; donor fatigue.

Re’eh’s Passage Concerning Indigency

Re’eh’s passage of interest is as follows:

“When there will be an indigent one among you from one of your brothers within one of your gates in your land that the Lord, your God, is giving you, you shall not fortify your heart and shall not shut your hand from your brother who is indigent. But you shall open your hand to him and shall lend to him, enough for his shortage that he has.” Deuteronomy 15:7-8.

The statute has many words to be interpreted: “Who is considered a brother?” “What does one’s gates represent?” and “What is a shortage?”

Give the need for clarification, one authoritative text is Rashi; a leading scholar from the Middle Ages. His commentary assists with respect to much of the verbiage.

Rashi’s Commentary

The Commandment’s possibility of an apparent overreach was not lost upon Rashi. Rashi’s commentary surgically dissected the problematic passage with mostly a conservative interpretation.

Rashi: Identifying the Person

Rashi, for the most part, limits the passage’s reach. He does so in many ways. One approach is focusing on who exactly is the indigent referenced.

With respect to the term indigent aka destitute, Rashi performs triage. He speaks in terms of priority of those in need. “This wording implies that whoever is more wanting takes priority.”

Thus, one individual’s desperate position can arguably be played off of others more fortunate. In doing so, some pressure is taken off of the donor. The donor can dedidicate their resources to the truly needy.

Beyond acknowledging a need for prioritization based upon need, Rashi sets further priorities based upon relations. He notes that: “Your paternal brother takes priority over your maternal brother.”

An additional priority limitation is location based. Rashi, commentating on gates, notes: “The poor of your city take priority over the poor of another city.”

Beyond identifying the indigent, Rashi also addresse the nature of the giving.

Rashi: Identifying the Needs

In addressing the indigent’s needs, rather appreciates the fact any money exchange is unlikely to be paid back: “i.e., if he does not want to accept money as a gift, give it to him as a loan.”

Rashi further addresses the limit:”but you are not commanded to make him wealthy.” Even though he indicates this, Rashi provides a liberal slant was to the notion of providing what is lacking:” i.e., even a horse to ride on and a servant to run in front of him, if he had been previously accustomed to them.” On its face, this is problematic. If indigents are prioritized based upon need, however, it is unlikely that they would be on the top of the list of indigents.

After addressing the nature and extent to the contribution, Rashi address the matter of the heart.

Rashi: Matters of the Heart

Both the Re’eh passage and Rashi address the aspect of donor fatigue.

You must not harden. Since there is a type of person who agonizes over whether to give or not to give, it says: “You must not harden.” Since there is a type of person who opens his hand but reconsiders and closes it, it says: “you must not close your hand.”

The act of giving or lending should not be agony ridden. Rashi softens the blow by creating some means to limit the nature and extent of one’s generosity. The reality is that each individual has their limit.

Modern Problems

Applying a liberal view to this Commandment proves to be quite problematic. This is especially the case in the present.

Who are our modern day indigents? Homeless? Who else?

Who is a brother in modern times? It is not uncommon to be referred to as a brother by a perfect stranger.

Who are inside the gates of one’s land? For instance, Los Angeles- a large city- has a population in the millions. Further, how does one address the fact that other cities and states dump their homeless into Los Angeles. How should these individuals be viewed?

What is a shortage? Shortages, in modernity, typically roll out on a monthly basis. Rent, mortgage payments, car notes, utilities are constantly due. In essence, an indigent’s entire life is one long endless shortage.

How can one’s heart handle it? The reality is that there are so many people in need. For most people, there is only so much that one can afford and remain fiscally responsible for one’s own financial affairs. This is a major concern.

Conclusion

The Hebrew Bible’s commitment to addressing acts of righteous aka kindness is sometimes tested. This is the case with the Torah Portion Re’eh Commandment. Of interest is that Rashi applied a significantly conservative interpretation to the provision. The consequences of a liberal interpretation, in reality, is quite trying. It is apparent, even from the law, that donor fatigue is a concern. In the end, promoting healthy and responsible giving appears to be a Torah value as much as the giving itself.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share