i also want to comment that while maimonides’s list is based on the effects on the recipient, that the moral worth of the giver is also to an extent based on the amount of sacrifice one bears, as jonathan’s post points out. however, while forgoing some amount of comfort or pleasure for the sake of others or for some greater good is of course highly meritorious, suffering for the sake of others is generally not (though of course exceptions exist). i’ve had a number of experiences, because of the nature of my work, in which a person came to me and asked if they should give all or a large percentage of their meager savings to their church. while giving some, as long as the church uses it to give to the more needy, and not simply to add to its coffers or pay dearly for its administrative costs, is commendable, giving more than you can afford to sustain oneself and one’s family, making oneself vulnerable to calamity is not. it is blameworthy. remember, charity begins at home.

furthermore, should the giver be unknown to his beneficiary, this allows the beneficiary to conduct relations with this giver and still feel an equal. moreover, the beneficiary will not feel always beholden to the giver. isn’t this what charity is about? the purpose of a charitable gift is not to oblige the person, purchase them, so to speak, make them feel always indebted, and thus rob them of their freedom, is it?

another famous talmudic comment regarding charity that illuminates the point maimonides makes here, is this: “the white of the teeth is better than the white of milk,” i.e. the way you conduct yourself with people and how you make them feel is even more important than whatever material comfort you can provide. sustenance is necessary, but what is it worth without meaningful human contact?

Giving publicly for the sake of recognition alone must have been very common; many prophets and religious texts (incl Jesus and the Bible) denounce such practices. Also, many Christian and Jewish texts discourage people from praying aloud in a boisterous way (I wish I could remember/quote the text, but I know I’ve read it). I believe religion (i.e salvation) back then relied heavily on good works rather than faith or belief system, as is more concentrated upon in the years after Christ.

I don’t normally write about religion here, but I am fascinated with the historical development of religion in general.

And I don’t agree with items 2-7 follow anyway. The effect and benefit and of charity rarely depends on the anonymity or identity of the doner, whether the poor ask for assistance, or any of the other items. And the nature and intent of the giver cannot be determined by those items either. All these items matter in certain cases, but certainly this does not constitute a universal hierarchy of giving in my opinion.

You see, my new site ( 7m7y.com )aims to ‘give back’ more directly: it will chronicle the journey of my 7 Millionaires … In Training! I am screening for suitably ‘poor’ applicants right now (they just need to have the need and desire to ‘make it’).

Maimomedes was right … something about teaching a person to fish … :) Thanks for the post!

I can’t agree with Jonathan’s post #3 more. Charity should not be an after thought or a ‘whatever you can spare that month’ mentality. People need to start actually thinking about ‘sacrifice’, about giving until it hurts both in their time and their treasures. In the US, we suffer from a severe case of me-ism where everything is about satisfying our own needs first and maybe someone else’s later.

Not to get too religious, but really what is the driving force of charity if it is not rooted in a belief of some higher being. Of a belief that we are tasked to take care of our fellow brothers and sisters.

Take Mother Teresa as an example. In her order, she forbade her sisters from taking anything to eat or drink when visiting the poor. These are the poorest of the poor. Why the rule? Because even the poorest of the poor, having almost nothing to offer, would still willing offer what little clean water or food they had to their guests. Now that’s sacrifice!

Or for a biblical reference:

“I will not offer to the Lord sacrifices which cost me nothing.”
- 2 Samuel 24:24

If only we could get everyone to think charity first and self second!

…getting off my soap box now.

I consider that as falling under “investing to become self-sufficient” since I believe that strong basic education early on in life increases the chance of a productive, independent future.

What would it mean for the poor to know your identity in the context of giving, but not know that you gave? Could someone give an example?

I think a glaring omission in the above list can be summed up in the phrase “widow’s mite”.

Jesus describes a widow, with no wealth or status to speak of, and having barely enough on which to survive. Yet she was convicted to give what she had to charity (the synagogue, in this case), a single penny.

This contribution is more valuable, from a spiritual standpoint, than Warren Buffett’s (albeit generous) giving out of his surplus. Some people are willing to give even *when* it hurts, and this isn’t even alluded to in Maimonide’s list.

Obviously I don’t mean that Buffett gave less, monetarily, than the “widow”; I’m assigning greater value to the widow’s generosity based on what the Bible teaches us about giving.

BTW, who is this Maim?

In Maim’s time, anonymity might have to be worked at, in our time, anonymity is very cheap.