There's a debate between Turnus Rufus and Rabbi Akiva if one should give charity.
Turnus Rufus claims that one shouldn't, since one shouldn't feed those who the king hates, so if The King refuses to support someone, it's a sign that he should stay hungry.
Rabbi Akiva answers that it's only true by servants, but Jews are children.
This implies that the debate is philosophical, not legal
Then Turnus Rufus turns around and says that it's no longer true, as after Jews sin we're slaves and not children.
Now, Rabbi Akiva answered " הלא פרוס לרעב לחמך ועניים מרודים תביא בית" - Won't you give your bread to the hungry and bring the desperate poor to your house?.
When [do] the desperate poor [need to be] brought home? In exile, and nonetheless, the verse says "Won't you give your bread to the poor?"
So Rabbi Akiva gave a legal answer.
This doesn't answer the original question - if Hashem decreed that people suffer, who gives us the right to free them?
And if you want to go technical, there's lots of verses which stress the importance of Tzedakah?
So Rabbi Akiva gave a legal answer.Why do you think that this is a legal answer?
And if you want to go technical, there's lots of verses which stress the importance of Tzedakah?Why is that a problem?