Siman 694

It is a positive commandment of the Megillat Esther to give gifts to the poor, as it is written: "and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor." The law of sending portions will be explained in the next siman. And since it is written "and gifts to the poor" in the plural—therefore one is obligated to distribute to the poor on the day of Purim, and they may not give to fewer than two poor people. One gives to each one a single gift: either money, or types of cooked dishes, or types of food (the Rambam). And we are not exacting with Purim money, to say "this one is upright" and "this one is a deceiver and there is no need to give to him." Rather, anyone who stretches out a hand to take—we give to him, and they do not need to investigate him (ibid.).

It is better for a person to increase in matanot l'evyonim than to increase in his feast and to send many manot. For there is no joy as great and glorious as gladdening the hearts of the poor, orphans, and widows; for one who gladdens the hearts of these unfortunate ones is comparable to the Shekhinah, as it is said: "to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite" (ibid.). And they fulfill their obligation whether they give to men or women. And even to male and female minors, for they also require sustenance. And it appears to me that if one gave to a man and his wife, or to a man and his son or his daughter who are at one table—he has not fulfilled the obligation of two evyonim with this, as they are considered as one. And one is obligated to give specifically on Purim itself. But before Purim, even if he gave explicitly for Purim—it is not effective, for this is specifically an obligation of the day. And it is simple that he does not need to give it himself, and he can give also by means of a messenger. And he can appoint a messenger before Purim to give matanot l'evyonim on his behalf on Purim. And in this mitzvah women are also obligated, for in all the mitzvot of Purim women are obligated like men. And it appears to me that a husband and his wife—both fulfill their obligation with two gifts, for they are like one body. But his son and daughter who are supported at his table—are obligated to give on their own. And one does not give matanot l'evyonim from ma'aser money, or from charity money that he has already set aside. And likewise even a poor person who goes around to the doors—is obligated to give two gifts to two other evyonim, like Hanukkah candles and the four cups (Bach and Magen Avraham).

It appears to me that even though in the Torah "ani" and "evyon" are two different things, as it is written in "Tetzei": "You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor (ani) and needy (evyon)," and they are two things as it is stated in Bava Metzia (111b) that an "evyon" is more pained than an "ani." The term "evyon" refers to one who desires (oveh) and does not attain (Rashi ibid.), and conversely, an "evyon" does not have shame to request, while the "ani" has shame. And we say there regarding a hired servant, that an "ani" takes precedence over an "evyon," see there. However, in any event they are two things, and since in the Megillah it is written "and gifts to the needy (evyonim)" – shall we say specifically an "evyon" and not an "ani"? Nevertheless, it is not so. And the proof is that in Parashat "Re'eh" it is written: "If there be among you a needy person (evyon)... for the needy person (evyon) shall never cease... you shall surely open your hand to your brother, to your poor (aniyecha) and to your needy (evyonecha) in your land" – behold, it opened with "evyon" and concluded with both of them, consequently everything is one. And that which is written "and gifts to the needy (evyonim)" – it is stated as a greater novelty: it is not necessary to state an "ani" who has shame, and regarding the wages of a hired servant he takes precedence, but even to an "evyon" – you have fulfilled your obligation, even though he himself requests from you, and all the more so to an "ani" who is ashamed to request, and you preemptively give to him – that there is a greater mitzvah.

It appears to me that, behold, the custom is to give Purim money to all those who perform sacred work: the rabbis, the cantors, the shamashim, and those similar to them. And it is proper, for the eyes of these individuals are lifted toward the Purim money. Nevertheless, one does not fulfill the obligation of matanot l'evyonim with this. And it is not only necessary to say if they are not אביונים, but even if they are אביונים – he has not fulfilled the obligation, because this is for them like a fixed matter and an obligation, and it has no connection to the matanot l'evyonim of the Purim obligation. There are those who err in this, but to me, it seems clear as I have written.

It is taught in the Tosefta of Megillah (chapter one): The collection for Purim is for Purim, and the collection for the city is for that city. One does not scrutinize the collection for Purim, but rather they buy calves, slaughter them, and eat them, and the remainder shall fall to the charity chest. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the collection for Purim, the poor person may not make a strap for his sandal. Thus far his words, and this is its explanation: For among them, they would perform a collection from the householders before Purim to feed meat to the poor on Purim. And it says that the collector and the people of the city are forbidden to change it for another purpose, even if it appears to them that less is sufficient for the poor. And so too, the collection of this city shall not be given to another. And even though they are permitted to change it sometimes, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah in siman 259, nevertheless here there was an enactment not to change it at all. And they buy meat with all the money, and the poor shall eat as much as they desire, and if any remains from them, it shall fall to charity. And according to Rabbi Eliezer, even the poor person himself is forbidden to change it. But this is not so according to the first Tanna, and the halacha is not like Rabbi Eliezer. And the Tur ruled like Rabbi Eliezer, and they wondered about him, and wrote that his version of the text was "Rabbi Akiva," and the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva. However, the Tosefta is cited in Bava Metzia (78b), and it is proven there that the halacha is not like Rabbi Eliezer. And in our time, there is no collection for Purim at all.

And this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 2: One may not divert Purim funds to another charity. And specifically the treasurers, but the poor person may do with it whatever he wishes. Thus far his words. And there is one who says specifically the treasurers, but the people of the city may divert it like other charity (Mordechai). However, the Tur wrote that even the people of the city may not divert it, according to the plain meaning of the language of the Tosefta (Magen Avraham subsection 5). And there is one who wrote that funds which one thought in his heart to distribute on Purim—they are not permitted to divert (ibid. subsection 4). And this is according to the opinion of those who hold in Yoreh Deah siman 258 that charity is a vow even through thought. See there, and in Choshen Mishpat at the end of siman 212.

And we have already written that one is not exacting with Purim funds, and anyone who extends a hand to take—one gives to him. And in a place where it is customary to give even to a gentile—one gives, for the sake of the ways of peace. For all charities are certainly given to them, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 251, except that Purim funds, since they are only for the joy of Purim—it would be proper to give only to an Israelite. However, nevertheless, where it is customary—it is customary. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: In a place where there are no poor—he may withhold his Purim funds for himself, and give them in any place he desires. Thus far his words, meaning: even in another city, since there are no poor in his city.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: There are those who say that one should give before Purim half of the currency fixed in that place and in that time, as a remembrance of the machatzit hashekel that they used to give in Adar. And since "terumah" is written three times in the parsha, one should give three. And one should give it on the night of Purim, before they pray Mincha. And so is the custom in all these provinces. And one should give three half-gedolim in these provinces, for there is no currency that has the name "half" upon it except this one. And in the province of Austria—they shall give three half-Wiener, which are also called "half." And so for each and every province. And no one is obligated to give it except one who is from twenty years of age and up. And there are those who say that they give machatzit hashekel for tzedakah, aside from these three halves, but we do not practice so. Thus far his words. And according to this in our province of Russia—one must give three half-kopeks, which is the smallest currency. And in a large currency, three half-rubles. And aside from these two—there is no half. And that which he wrote: from twenty years of age—this is not the opinion of the Rambam in the first chapter of Shekalim and most of the poskim. And they hold that an adult from thirteen years of age and up—is obligated to give machatzit hashekel. And a minor whose father began to give the shekel on his behalf—he may not subsequently stop. And also the Kohanim and the Levites are obligated in machatzit hashekel, but not women and minors (see Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And they may give the machatzit hashekel money to any place they wish. And it is not specifically for the repair of the synagogue, which is like the repair of the Temple, for it is nothing but a mere remembrance. And the essence of machatzit hashekel was for sacrifices, which is not applicable now. And there are those who give the machatzit hashekel money to the chazzan, and there is no concern in this (ibid.). And it is also customary to give Megillah money to the reader, and there is no prohibition in the matter and no obligation in the matter.