אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בְּנוֹתְנֵי צְדָקָה. הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתֵּן וְלֹא יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, עֵינוֹ רָעָה בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהוּא לֹא יִתֵּן, עֵינוֹ רָעָה בְשֶׁלּוֹ. יִתֵּן וְיִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, חָסִיד. לֹא יִתֵּן וְלֹא יִתְּנוּ אֲחֵרִים, רָשָׁע:
There are four types of charity givers. He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others; He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own; He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man; He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man.
Is a truly altruistic act of giving possible?
This is a heavily contested debate among psychologists. Through creative experimental designs, Daniel Batson contends that people can perform purely altruistic acts. Robert Cialdini continually challenges Batson’s methods, arguing that there is no such thing as complete altruism. Any prosocial deed is tinged with personal motivations at the core.
These personal motivations aren’t inherently selfish or egotistical. Naturally embedded within acts of giving is what James Andreoni calls a “warm glow.” Besides for this immediate good feeling generated from giving, generosity is consistently demonstrated to have positive physical and mental health benefits (Allen, 2018). For Cialidini, these positive personal benefits challenge the possibility of a pure altruistic act of giving.
Another potentially non-altruistic motivation for giving is social pressure. People may be encouraged by what Dan Ariely and colleagues (2009) call “image motivation.” We want to signal to others that we are good, moral people. People give more when others are watching, and in particular when they are solicited by peers (Meer, 2011). While we may have assumed that the ideal act of giving would avoid such social motivations, a careful study of our Mishna advocates for harnessing social dynamics to better influence charity giving.
This Mishna articulates “four types of charity givers.” Yet, this Mishna is not about the commandment to provide charity. The poor person is not even mentioned. A closer read of the four categories indicates that the theme of the Mishna is more precisely four types of charity givers in a social setting. According to Maimonides, the highest value of charity is where the giver and the poor person do not even know each other. This ideal setting is not even a possibility within our Mishna. In fact, Rabbi Shaul Brach in his Avot al Banim, argues that the act of piety described in the Mishna is that the person is sacrificing his own optimal way of performing the commandment in private in order to influence others to give.
Several studies demonstrate the contagiousness of generosity. Nook and colleagues (2016) found that an individual’s charity giving amount was heavily impacted by whether he or she previously witnessed another’s either generous or stingy donation. Those who observed the generous donations gave more. Weber and Murnigham (2008) studied the “consistent contributor,” the person in a social group who constantly gives. His or her presence causes others in the group to be more generous and cooperative. James Fowler and Nicholas Christakis (2010) experimentally demonstrated a cascading effect of contributions. One person’s actions influenced people up to three degrees of separation from the parties within the original interaction. Contributions are contagious.
He who desires that he himself should give, and that others should give: he is a pious man;
The pious paradigm of our Mishna is the “consistent contributor.” He understands the importance of charity and the importance of role-modeling. He inspires and influences others to give. Knowing the power of positive social pressure, he initiates the contagious act, generating the cascading effect. He knows the benefits for the poor and wants them to get as many resources as possible. He also understands the “warm glow feeling,” the positive spiritual, mental, and physical benefits of giving and wants to share the psychological wealth with others.
He who wishes to give, but that others should not give: his eye is evil to that which belongs to others;
Someone who wants to give but doesn’t want others to give has a character flaw. He may desire all the social credit or spiritual benefits for himself. His seeming selfishness doesn’t consider the benefits towards his fellow-giver, or more importantly, the importance of charity for the poor person. Monopolizing social or spiritual credit should not be a factor in giving.
He who wishes that others should give, but that he himself should not give: his eye is evil towards that which is his own;
This person is a miser. He understands the importance of charity but is too greedy to part with his own wealth. He is happy to encourage others to give, yet without the proper modeling, he will be an ineffective influencer. Even though he thinks he is protecting himself through his stinginess, in truth “His eye is evil towards that which is his own.” He will ultimately suffer, not gleaning the spiritual, psychological, and social benefits giving charity provides.
He who desires that he himself should not give and that others too should not give: he is a wicked man.
The wicked person described here does not seem to believe in the value of charity. For whatever sinister philosophical or psychological reason, he does not want himself or others to give. Some commentaries were so bothered by the existence of such a person that they offered alternative explanations. Rabbi Henoch Zundel ben Yosef in his Anaf Yosef suggests that the wicked person doesn’t actively dissuade others to give, but his own lack of giving influences others not to give. Others, like Rabbi Moshe Almosnino, suggest that in fact all four prototypes in our Mishna are actually giving charity. That is why they are all labeled as “charity givers.” The key work is “wishes” (rotzeh). What is the person’s desire and intent while giving? The wicked person still gives, but does not want to give, and doesn’t want anyone else to give.
What then should be the motivation for the desire to give and have others give? One possibility is that we should be motivated out of empathy for the poor. While there is validity to such an impulse, there are potential downsides as well. In his book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, Yale psychologist Paul Bloom argues that empathy can skew our charitable decision-making, prioritizing acting on emotion and connection rather than providing what may be the most economic use of money. Commenting on our Mishna, Rabbi Moshe Schick makes a similar critique of empathy. When motivated by empathy exclusively, a person is only moved to give when they see a poor person. Such a may avoid situations where he will be exposed to the poor and therefore circumvent giving charity. The correct motivation for giving, writes Rabbi Schick, is to fulfil the Divine command. A person motivated as such will seek out the poor to provide for them and will also inspire others to give.
