• Printer-friendly version
• Send to a friend

Our masters taught, “Sufficient for one's need” means that you are obligated to maintain one at a basic level, but you wouldn’t be obligated to make that person rich;
“in that which one is lacking” means the obligation would also include even a horse to ride on and servant to run alongside (if that’s what one was used to).
They tell a story about Hillel the Elder that, for a certain man who had come from a rich family and was suddenly poor, Hillel bought him a horse to ride on and a servant to run alongside. When on one occasion he could not find a servant to run alongside, Hillel himself ran alongside a distance of three miles. [Translation by Hillel. Edited for gender neutrality]

1. The Talmud presents two frames of giving, two distinct and independent standards of assessment. What is the difference between “sufficient” and “lacking?”
2. Presuming it is connected with dignity, what are the assumptions about the dignity of a poor person compared to a rich person?
3. What is the standard that we use today to assess need? Do you think this is a good standard? Should it be universal or subjective?