Investing with the poor was considered to be better than a gift (B. Shab. 63a) As a small gift may shame the poor, it would be better to give nothing(B. Hag. 5a). Personal service, gemilut hasadim was valued even higher than monetary gifts(B. Suk. 49D).
The dignity of all human beings was assigned a high value, so giving to the poor publicly and with publicity was considered shameful (B. Hag 5a). With a proud person one should suggest a loan, give it, and then turn it into a gift(J. Peah 21b). Some scholars understood human frailty well, so if a poor person was found eating meat and drinking wine, it was an effort to remove bitterness from his life and did not indicate fraud(J.Peah 21b). Possible fraud, however, should be ignored rather than making a donor overcautious(B. Ket. 68a).
Many acts of tzedakah were recorded for women, sometimes putting even learned men to shame. This was a quiet way of providing a more significant role for women in rabbinic Judaism .
The obligations were clarified so that anyone in residence for thirty days was obligated for kupah and after ninety days for tamhui. After six months he was also obligated for the clothing fund and after nine months for burial(B.B.B. 8a). If some seemed to give beyond their means, their gift was refused(B. Taan. 24a). That limit was set at twenty percent(Ket. 50a). On the other extreme came the suggestion that the twenty percent limit did not apply to estates that could be entirely donated(B. Ket. 67b). Priorities for distribution were discussed, beginning with parents, then older children, followed by other relatives. After this came neighbors, fellow townsmen, then other towns, with the poor of Israel given preference(Tana d’bei Elijahu 27; Sifei Deut. 15:7). There were also some other priorities, so women precede men and scholars precede others(Ket. 67a).