Q&A: Charity
Charity
Question
Hello Rabbi, if a woman wants to give her old clothes to the needy, but they are not modest, is that forbidden? (Short shirts and skirts).
On the one hand, I could say that the girls will use them modestly anyway (they'll add another garment on top), but on the other hand maybe the category of "assisting" applies here?
Or perhaps the category of assisting is not relevant when standing before us is a poor girl who is embarrassed by her clothes, and it's preferable that she dress a bit immodestly so long as she won't be ashamed?
Answer
I think that if it is possible to wear them in a modest way, then that isn't her concern. Whatever the recipient decides is what she will do.
Discussion on Answer
If not, then no. Would you donate pork to a poor person?
That's not the right comparison in my opinion. The correct comparison is: would you donate pork to a poor person who in any case already eats pork…
Also, (maybe I'm mistaken) meat is a Torah-level prohibition, whereas the ramifications of the obligation of modesty are only rabbinic, so maybe there is more room to be lenient when the person before you is a miserable, embarrassed person.
Modesty is a Torah-level obligation/prohibition.
And indeed, I was speaking about a poor person who in any case eats pork. There is absolutely no permission to give him pork as charity.
Okay. Thank you very much, Rabbi.
Why, according to the Torah, must a woman keep her body covered? Because of "do not place a stumbling block" and "do not stray after," or because of something else?
Good morning.
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/1830
Based on that response, the Rabbi really is apparently an educator
Schnarb's article saying there is no modesty—has the honorable Rabbi forgotten? Did the Rabbi change his mind?
There is no such article, and as far as I recall I also never wrote that I agree with what he wrote there.
Hello again, Rabbi,
I saw in Tosafot on tractate Sabbath 3a that it wrote that the Talmud established the law of assisting only in the case of "the two sides of the river," whereas in one side there is only a rabbinic prohibition.
If so, if we are dealing with girls who in any case will not dress modestly (= a nazirite who in any case will drink), then if I give them the clothes I would only violate a rabbinic prohibition. On the other hand, if I throw the clothes in the garbage I would violate a Torah-level prohibition, since these are good clothes and perfectly usable!
Do we really say that because of a rabbinic prohibition one pushes aside a Torah-level prohibition? I am astonished.
By Torah-level prohibition I mean because of the prohibition of needless destruction.
That isn't Tosafot. It's a distinction made by the Talmud itself in Avodah Zarah 6b. The novelty of Tosafot (and other medieval authorities) there is that there is a rabbinic prohibition even on one side of the river.
Throwing immodest clothes in the trash is not needless destruction. It is a commandment to destroy them. Why don't you eat poultry with milk because of needless destruction? And so too regarding any prohibition of eating or deriving benefit, even one that is rabbinic.
And if it isn't possible to wear them modestly, would we say that it's better for someone who in any case already dresses immodestly to be ashamed of her clothes just because we didn't want to assist in a transgression?