| The problem of poor relief became increasingly important in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the sheer number of paupers increased to a point that both Jewish and Christian thinkers were forced to articulate a system that integrated solutions satisfying both religious law and social conditions. This system was deeply intertwined with attitudes toward property and ownership, and prevailing assumptions concerning proper distribution, ownership, and other social obligations of property naturally influenced any measures adopted for poverty relief. Through a close examination of legal writings in medieval Europe, it is apparent that R. Isaac of Vienna (c. 1180-c. 1250), the first Jewish thinker in Ashkenaz to organize these laws, advocates for a theology of charity grounded in the sacred. He does advocate for a strong communal dole that would sustain the poor, but his overall thrust, echoing the approach of the German Pietists known as Hasidei Ashkenaz, tends toward sacralizing even the communal responsibility to give, and this manifests itself in his rulings regarding the authority of the gabbai tzedaka (charity administrator), the gabbai's ability to coerce charity, and the methods used for discriminating between deserving and undeserving poor. This generally contrasts with the approach of the majority of Ashkenazi thinkers, especially the French Tosafists, who envisioned a system of charity that emerged from community governance and social responsibility. A similar contrast emerges from an analysis of Christian sources. On the one hand, canon lawyers were remarkably consistent in trending toward greater civic responsibility and desacralization of charity, mirroring increasing lay participation in eleemosynary activity. On the other hand, many thinkers continued to ground charitable activity in sacred responsibility. This was true of the mendicants, whose absolution of private property and insistence on religious poverty had a deep impact on Church theology in the thirteenth century. It was also the position of figures like Innocent III and Peter the Chanter, who, through their rulings, showed that they were uncomfortable ceding charitable enterprises to the laity. |
