I PURELY COMMENTARY I

DENTS
HIGHEST
RATES

Minimum Deposit of $500
12 MONTH CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT

8.00%
8.243%*

Panhandling

Continued from Page 2

his
for
cominums
character.
Shnorrers considered
themselves respectable
members of an occupa-
tional group. They were
brash, cynical, quick to
take offense, expert in
needling prospective bene-
factors, and quick in
repartee. Their chutzpa
was of a rare and um-
brageous order. They often
baited their benefactors,
haggled over the sum pro-
ffered, denounced those
who underpaid or refused
to cough up.
Many shnorrers con-
sidered they had a license
from the Lord, and were
doing His bidding: after all,
they were helping Jews

Effective Annual Yield'

Compounded Quarterly.

This is a fixed rate account that
is insured to $100,000 by the
Savings Association Insurance
Fund (SAIF). Substantial Interest
Penalty for early withdrawal
from certificate accounts.
Rates subject to change
without notice.

FIRST
SECURITY
SAVINGS
BANK

MAIN OFFICE

1160 Telegraph Rd.

(Just South of
Orchard lake)

MON.-THURS
9:30-4:30
I'
FRI.
9:30-6:00
.77./

......

OuAt “OvS.G

O PPORTUNITY

50

PHONE
33811100
352•1100
HOURS:

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1990

Leo Rosten

discharge solemn obliga-
tions to help the poor and
the unfortunate, through
which noble acts a good
Jew could actually ac-
cumulate mitzvas! Any
man who served as agent
for the acquisition of mitz-
vas was part of God's
marvelous scheme for im-
proving the human race.
Shnorrers seemed to
know that they were both
exploiting and assuaging
one of the most powerful
and pervasive psychologi-
cal forces in the psyche of
Jews everywhere: guilt.
They were also expediting
a symbolic and magical
propitiation of fate: "I,
thank God, am not a
pauper. How small a coin
may avert displeasure
from the Compassionate
One."
On the part of the Jewish
community, shnorrers
were somehow regarded as
performing a social func-
tion. Exactly what this
function was, I could never
fathom, as a child; but
everyone seemed to take it
for granted — and took it
for granted that no ex-
planation was necessary.
(Maybe shnorrers served

this purpose: often ex-
cellent raconteurs, they cir-
culated stories, jokes,
gossip.)
The shnorrer "recoiled
from demeaning himself
. . . from sheer arrogance
and vanity. Since he was
obliged to live by his wits,"
writes Nathan Ausubel,
"he developed all the facile
improvisations of an
adventurer. . . . He would
terrorize his prey by the
sheer daring of his impor-
tunities, leaving him both
speechless and wilted!'
The shnorrer was no fool,
please note, no simpleton.
He often had read a good
deal, could quote from the
Talmud, and was quick on
the verbal draw. Shnorrers
were "regulars" in the
synagogue and, between
prayers, took part in long
discussions of theology
with their benefactors. The
status points involved here
are too delicate for Newto-
nian physics, or Parsonial
sociology, to handle.
The Encyclopedia Judaica
essay is especially valuable
for its resort to historical
aspects. The encyclopedic text
invites attention to folklore as
a factor in beggary:
Although the Bible is
concerned with the poor
and the needy, there is
hardly a reference to beg-
ging or to beggars, and
there is, in fact, no biblical
Hebrew word for it. The
needs of the poor were pro-
vided by the laws of leket,
shikhhah and pe'ah which
were the prequisites of the
ani, the "poor man," or the
evyon, the "needy." The on-
ly possible references are
not to actual begging and
beggars, but are contained
in the complementary
assurances that whereas
the children of the right-
eous will not have to "seek
bread," the children of the
wicked will, after his un-
timely death, be vaga-
bonds "and seek their
bread out of desolate
places?'
During the talmudic
period, however, the itine-
rant beggar who goes from
house to house figures
with some prominence. So
characteristic does it seem
to have been of social life in
those times that the first
Mishnah of tractate Shab-
bat employs the example of
the beggar receiving his
pittance from the house-
holder, and the various
ways in which it might be
handed to him, to illustrate
the important laws concer-
ning the carrying of ar-
ticles from a private to a

Nathan Ausubel

public domain on the Sab-
bath. The Mishnah also
deals with the rights of the
beggar who "goes from
place to place" and who
had sometimes to be pro-
vided with lodging for the
night. It was regarded as
immodest for women to
beg, with the result that
the Mishnah lays it down
that if a man left insuffi-
cient means for his
children, the daughters
should remain at home
and the sons go from door
to door.
The subject of beggary is so
vast and has been treated so
extensively that it has earn-
ed published volumes. The
Jewish traditional commen-
taries need special attention.
There is an excellent evalua-
tion and historical tracing of
the theme in the En-
cyclopedia Judaica. We learn
from it many of its aspects;
they include the following:

The rabbis are censor-
ious of those beggars who
used to feign such afflic-
tions as "blindness, swol-
len belly, and shrunken
leg" in order to arouse the
compassion of the chari-
table. Nevertheless one
rabbi takes a charitable
view of those impostors,
pleading that they perform
the useful function of exer-
cising the charitable in-
stincts of the people. Nor
was the cheerful impudent
beggar unknown, as the
following story in the
Talmud indicates: "A beg-
gar once came to Rava
who asked him 'What do
your meals usually consist
of?' Plump chicken and
matured wine' answered
the beggar. 'Do you not
consider this a burden on
the community?' asked
Rava. The beggar retorted:
`I do not take from them —
I take what God provides.
At that moment Rava's
sister, who had not seen
him for 13 years, appeared

bringing him a fat chicken
and matured wine. 'Just
what I told you!' said the
beggar?'
Nevertheless two factors
tended to keep begging
within bounds. The one
was the delicate custom of
sending food to the poor in
order to spare their feel-
ings and the other was the
highly organized system of
collecting for and distribu-
tion to the poor through
the official kuppah ("chari-
ty fund") and tamhui
("soup kitchen"). As a
result it was laid down that
relief was actually to be
withheld from those who
went begging and they
forfeited their rights to
organized charity,
although a compromise
was arrived at not to send
such a mendicant away
completely empty-handed.

In the early Middle Ages
this was established as the
actual halakhah. Rashi ex-
plains that it is "because
he has accustomed himself
to make the rounds, he
must suffice with that." On
the other hand Solomon b.
Adret, in answer to an en-
quiry from a community
overburdened with beg-
gars, ruled that although
"the poor are everywhere
supported from the com-
munal chest, if they wish in
addition to beg from door
to door they may do so, and
each should give accor-
ding to his understanding
and desire?' In Cracow,
however, in 1595 and in the
Spanish and Portuguese
congregation in London in
the second half of the 17th
century, begging by men-
dicants was completely
outlawed.
This admirable system of
organized relief for the
poor ("We have never
heard of a community
which has no charity fund
for the relief of the poor,
though some have no
tamhui") seems almost to
have eliminated beggars
until the 17th century.

There is fascination in the
many elements that have
combined to make the men-
dicants subjects for deep
Jewish interest. An entire
course of study suggests itself
in this theme.

In the quest for Jewish
humor, there are anthological
treasures in Nathan
Ausubel's several books and
in the many Leo Rosten has
included in his books. The
suggested "Course of Study
in Shnorrerei" could prove a
valuable fascination for
Jewish scholarship. ❑

