Siman 249

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 249): The measure of its giving: if his hand can afford it – he should give according to the needs of the poor, as will be explained in siman 250. And if his hand cannot afford that much – he should give up to a fifth of his assets as a choice fulfillment of the mitzvah. And one-tenth – is a medium attribute. Less than this – is an evil eye. And this fifth of which they spoke: the first year from the principal, from here onward a fifth of what he profited each year. Thus far their words. And so too regarding ma'aser the law is thus, obviously. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: A person should not squander more than a fifth, so that he should not come to need the help of others (Ketubot 50a). And specifically all the days of his life, but at the time of his death a person may give to tzedakah whatever he desires. Thus far his words (Ketubot 67a). And it is implied there in the Gemara that up to half of his assets he may distribute at the time of death, and no more. And the reason is simple, so that he should not remove much of the inheritance from the heirs. And up to half he may distribute to tzedakah, for this is like dividing with his heirs: half for him for his soul, and half for his heirs (it seems to me).

It is necessary to understand the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, for why did they write "if his hand can afford it, he should give according to the needs of the poor"? For since he is obligated to give a fifth or a tenth, and more than a fifth he is not permitted to give, if so, it is automatically so? For if he is a very wealthy man, and in his tenth or his fifth there is enough for the needs of all the poor—they will satisfy all their needs. And if it is not sufficient—what shall he do? It should have said that every person is obligated to give a fifth or a tenth, and from this they shall provide for the poor. And it seems to my humble opinion that this is the explanation: for in truth, these measures of a tenth and a fifth are not from the Torah, but are from the rabbis, who based them on the verse "and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You": two tenths, as is explained in Ketubot ibid. For a tenth from the Torah is only for grain, and not for the poor. Rather, the first tithe is for the Levites, and the second tithe is eaten in Jerusalem by the owners. And only once in three years is there a tithe for the poor. And it is a decree of the Torah, and not that through it they were exempt from tzedakah, as is understood.

The obligation of tzedakah is explicit in the Torah in several verses: "If your brother becomes impoverished, you shall support him, and your brother shall live with you"; "You shall surely open your hand to him etc., sufficient for his deficiency which he lacks"; "You shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your needy brother." The measure of this is: however much the needy person requires, as it is written: "sufficient for his deficiency which he lacks." However, it is understood that the Torah would not command one to give everything he has to the poor, while he himself remains poor. And its ways are ways of pleasantness. In truth, during the time when Israel was in the land, and their situation was good, and the poor were few—they were able to fulfill "sufficient for his deficiency etc." But once we were exiled from our land, and the poor increased, and the wealthy decreased, even if the wealthy were to distribute all their money—it would not suffice to complete the deficiency of all the poor. Therefore, the sages instituted a tenth and a fifth, and no more, for it is necessary to set a limit. And as Rava said in Ta'anit (Ta'anit 20b): I can fulfill all of them except for this one, to open the door and say "all who are in need, let them come and eat," because the people of Mechuza are numerous, for there are many poor people there, and the principal would be consumed. See there.

And according to this, this is the explanation of the measure of its giving: If his hand can afford it, meaning that he is very wealthy and the poor there are few—he shall give according to the needs of the poor, even if there is in this neither a fifth nor a tithe, because this is the essence of the mitzvah of tzedakah, to give sufficient for his deficiency. But if his hand cannot afford it, meaning either that he is not so wealthy, or that the poor are numerous—he shall give up to a fifth or a tithe; and even though there is not in this sufficient for his deficiency—behold, more is impossible. And it appears that even one who does not give a tithe, nevertheless, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah, but he has not fulfilled it properly. And this is like terumah where one gives less than a fiftieth, which is the average measure. And like our words, it is implied also in the Rambam at the beginning of the seventh chapter of Matnot Aniyim (Rambam Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim chapter seven) who wrote: It is a positive commandment to give tzedakah to the poor of Israel according to what is proper for the poor person, if the hand of the giver can afford it, etc. and according to what the poor person lacks, you are commanded to give to him, etc. if the poor person came and asked for sufficient for his deficiency, and the hand of the giver cannot afford it—they give to him according to what his hand can afford. And how much? Up to a fifth is the choice way to perform the mitzvah, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explained according to our words.

And according to what we have clarified, the matter is decided like the opinion of the great authorities who hold that ma'aser kesafim has no basis at all from the Torah (Bach at the end of siman 331 and the Responsa of Pnei Yehoshua, 62). And there is one who brought a proof from here that ma'aser kesafim is from the Torah (Taz, ibid.). And I wonder: for according to what we have explained, on the contrary, there is a proof from here to the opposite. The primary obligation of tzedakah from the Torah is to give him "sufficient for his deficiency," while ma'aser and a fifth are a rabbinic enactment. And if you should say: since from the Torah one is obligated to give sufficient for his deficiency, how did the sages come and enact that he should not give more than a fifth even if it will not suffice for his deficiency? This is not difficult: for besides what I wrote in section 3 (siman 249, 3), furthermore, this itself is a Torah law, that a person should not distribute all his money to tzedakah. As we learned in a Mishnah in Arachin (Arachin 28a): A person may declare herem from his flocks and from his herds etc., and if he declared herem on all of them, they are not herem etc. From where are these words derived? For the rabbis taught: "From all that is his" — and not all that is his etc., see there. And so wrote the Rambam at the end of the Laws of Arachin: A person should never consecrate all his possessions. And one who does so violates the intent of the verse, for it says: "From all that is his," and not "all that is his." And this is not piety but foolishness etc. rather, anyone who scatters his money on mitzvot — let him not scatter more than a fifth etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that from the Torah it is forbidden to distribute all his possessions, and if so, it is necessary to give a measure. And for this, the sages gave a measure similar to a Torah measure, ma'aser and a fifth. Because from grain there was the first ma'aser and another ma'aser: either the second ma'aser or the ma'aser for the poor. And they supported it with the verse "And of all that You give me etc.," for everything that the sages enacted — they enacted similar to a Torah law (so it appears clear to me). And it appears to me that for the redemption of captives one is permitted to add more than a fifth, and so too for the hungry and the thirsty and their like, in a matter involving pikuach nefashot. And one is obligated in this to add.

It is explained in the Yerushalmi that the first time, one gives the ma'aser or the chumash from the principal, and afterwards from the profit. And the matter is simple: that a father who gives his son or daughter a dowry or other gifts, even though the father already separated ma'aser from his money, nevertheless when it comes into their hand—they must separate ma'aser or chumash from the principal, and afterwards from the profit. And so too in any similar case, such as one who inherited money from his father or from other relatives, even though they separated the ma'aser—he must separate it anew. And so the great authorities agreed (Shelah and other great authorities, see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 1). And even though regarding ma'aser of grain it is not so, we have already explained that it is not for this reason. Rather, it is merely an analogy.

And so it is a simple matter that the profit is calculated each and every year from Rosh Hashanah to Rosh Hashanah. And if in this year he had business dealings in which some he profited and some he lost—he makes a general accounting, and whatever remains as profit—he gives maaser to tzedakah. And included in profit is considered only the net profit, and all the expenses he had for the business, even what he traveled on the road and ate and drank—it is all considered business expenses, and he deducts everything. And what remains as profit after deducting all expenses—is called "profit." But his household expenses he shall not deduct. Therefore, one who profits one thousand gold pieces per year—gives one hundred or two hundred to tzedakah, even though he is a man of household expenses of even more than one thousand gold pieces, nevertheless he is obligated to give maaser from the profit. And only what was tzedakah within the expenditure, such as if he distributed bread on Monday and Thursday, or gave coins to the poor, or gave food on a certain day to the students of the Talmud Torah, or took a poor guest for Shabbat or for a meal during the day in the manner of the children of Israel—he may deduct from the maaser portion. But the expenses of his small sons and daughters, even though we expound "and those who perform tzedakah at all times"—this refers to one who sustains his sons and daughters when they are small (Ketubot 50a), nevertheless this is not included in tzedakah. And in the manner of homiletics our sages, of blessed memory, said so, meaning: that this too is a mitzvah. But Heaven forbid to think this is included in tzedakah, for if not so, not even a single coin would ever reach the poor. And even one who raises his grandsons and granddaughters or their sons or their daughters, it seems to me that he cannot consider this included in tzedakah from maaser. For grandchildren are like children. But one who raises an orphan boy or girl, from his family or not from his family—certainly it is a great tzedakah, and he may consider this from maaser money. And if he was forced to give some large tzedakah, such that there is not yet that much maaser in his profit—he may give and borrow based on the profit that he will profit afterwards. And then he shall deduct from the profit from the maaser and give to his pocket. And proof for this is from what we learned in Gittin at the end of the third chapter: One who lends to a kohen etc. he separates for them on the presumption that they are still in existence. See there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one should not perform a mitzvah with his ma'aser, such as candles for the synagogue or other matters of mitzvah, but rather he should give it to the poor. Thus far his words. However, to be a sandak, and in exchange for this he gives to women who have given birth or the expenses of the brit milah when the father is poor, and similarly when he gives for hachnasat kallah and the like—certainly these are included in ma'aser (Shach, subsection 3). And similarly, one who purchases an aliyah to the Sefer Torah, and gives in exchange for this a donation to the beit midrash—it is from ma'aser. And similarly, all that he gives as tzedakah to the communal servants—certainly it is included in tzedakah. And it appears to me that what he gives to the holy vessels at the time of the wedding of his son or daughter—it is not included in ma'aser but rather included in the wedding expenses. But if he gives at the time of the event tzedakah to other poor people—it is included in ma'aser.

They further wrote that it is permitted to distribute his maaser to his adult children when they are in need of it, since he is not obligated to care for them, for it is even permitted to give maaser money to his father if the father is poor, all the more so to his children (ibid. in the name of Maharam of Rothenburg). And it requires further study, for in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 32a) they said: A curse shall come upon a person who feeds his father maaser ani. And even though if he wishes to accept the curse he may do so (Beit Yosef in siman 240), nevertheless, to rule so ab initio is a wonder. And perhaps regarding the maaser ani known to all—the matter is more degrading. And it is not similar to maaser money, which is not known to all. However, if we permit him to give to his father and his children from maaser money—behold, nothing will remain for other poor people, and it is not proper conduct. Therefore, one must deliberate on this and find a middle path. And some say further that it is permitted even if he has the ability to support them from another source (ibid.). And this is certainly a wonder. And it is true that in siman 251 it is explained so, that they take precedence over others—this is certainly when his means are not sufficient, the father and children take precedence, and also this is when his children study Torah, as is explained there. But if he is wealthy, it is difficult to say that he can calculate the account of his father and children against maaser money, and thereby exempt himself from giving tzedakah. (And so it is implied from the Shach himself there, subsection 5. And perhaps also the intention of the Shach here is when his means are not sufficient, and certainly so it is.)

They further wrote that it is permitted to purchase books with maaser money and to learn from them, and to lend them to others to learn from them, if it is impossible for him in any other way (ibid.). And this also requires investigation, for if so, shall we permit him to purchase tefillin and a tallit from maaser money, and that others should also pray with them? And likewise shall we permit him to purchase a shofar and an etrog and a sukkah from maaser, and that others should also use them? And if it is because we say in Ketubot (Ketubot 50a): "'And those who perform charity at all times'—this refers to one who writes books and lends them to others," behold, they said similar to this there regarding the food of small children, and despite all this we do not consider it from maaser, as I wrote in section 7. And those who interpret nuances have already said regarding this: "'And he shall not come at all times (be-khol et) into the holy place,'" meaning: that with the charity they interpreted regarding the verse of "those who perform charity at all times (be-khol et)"—he should not come with this into the holy place. Furthermore: that even if we permit him to purchase books from maaser money, nevertheless he is like any other person, and can they not say to him: "It is not our will that you keep the books with you, but rather they should be in the beit midrash, and anyone who wishes may learn from them." Therefore, it is proper to distance oneself from this permission. And likewise, the tuition that he pays for his small sons is not included in charity from maaser, and it is a mitzvah in its own right. And behold, it is like other mitzvot, which one is unable to perform from maaser money. And likewise, one who takes a son-in-law who is a talmid chakham so that he may learn, nevertheless he is unable to count this toward maaser money, even if he pays another on his behalf to learn with him. (So it appears in my humble opinion regarding these laws. And see Pitchei Teshuvah. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

And we have already explained that even a poor person in Israel who begs from door to door, and has nothing with which to perform tzedakah, nevertheless is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah of tzedakah once a year. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Batra 9a): A person should never withhold himself from giving less than a third of a shekel per year. And if he gave less than this – he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah. For the Torah placed the positive commandment of this mitzvah upon every single man of Israel, and they must fulfill it at least once a year like other mitzvot. And the reason for a third of a shekel was learned by our sages, of blessed memory, from a verse in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10:33), for such was the donation for the repair of the Temple, see there. (And perhaps because in a third of a shekel there are 256 perutot, corresponding to the weekdays of the entire year, excluding Shabbat and the eve of Shabbat when one is occupied with the needs of Shabbat, and it amounts to a peruta per day. And furthermore, corresponding to the 256 wings of the holy Chayot, as is explained in the liturgical poem "And the Chayot etc." in the Kedushah of Musaf for Rosh Hashanah, which exalt the Throne, and "tzedakah exalts a nation." Examine it and you will find it simple.) (And see Yerushalmi Shekalim chapter two, halacha 3.)

And our sages, of blessed memory, said there: Tzedakah is equivalent to all the mitzvot, etc., see there. And greater is the one who causes action—meaning, one who collects tzedakah from others as well—than the one who performs tzedakah himself, as it is said: "And the work of tzedakah shall be peace, and the service of tzedakah, quietness and assurance forever" (Isaiah 32:17). And you have no service in the Temple more difficult than collecting tzedakah from others, and therefore its reward is great. And through this, he saves his descendants from receiving tzedakah (and see what I wrote in siman 247, section 5). And the Rambam in the tenth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor, chapter 10) wrote in this language: One who compels others to give tzedakah and causes them to act—his reward is greater than the reward of the giver, as it is said: "And the work of tzedakah shall be peace." And regarding tzedakah collectors and those like them, it is said: "And those who turn the many to righteousness are as the stars." Thus far his words.

Anyone who gives tzedakah to a poor person with an angry countenance, and his face is buried in the ground, even if he gave him a thousand gold pieces – he has lost his merit and forfeited it. Rather, he should give to him with a pleasant countenance and with joy, and commiserate with him over his distress, as it is said: "Did I not weep for him whose day is hard? Was my soul not grieved for the needy?" And he should speak to him words of comfort and consolation, as it is said: "And I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy." And if the poor person asked of you, and it is not in your hand to give to him – appease him with words. And it is forbidden to rebuke a poor person or to raise one's voice against him in a shout, unless it is known that he is a deceiver or the like, because his heart is broken and crushed, as it is said: "A broken and crushed heart, O God, You will not despise." And it says: "To revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the crushed." And woe to one who shames a poor person, woe to him! Rather, he should be like a father to him, whether in mercy or in words, as it is said: "I was a father to the needy." And one should not turn away a poor person who asks empty-handed, even if he gives him only a single dried fig or a kezayit of bread, as it is said: "Let not the crushed return ashamed." And he should show him his good heart, that his desire is to give to him as is fitting, but that his hand cannot reach it. And everyone who has mercy – they have mercy on him from Heaven, as it is said: "And He will grant you mercy and have mercy upon you, etc." And anyone who is cruel and does not have mercy – there is reason to be concerned for his lineage, whether he is from the mixed multitude and not from the seed of Abraham our forefather. For cruelty is only found among the idolaters, as it is said: "They are cruel and will not have mercy." And all of Israel and those joined with them are like brothers, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, is their Father, as it is said: "You are children to Hashem your God." And if a brother will not have mercy on his brother, who will have mercy on him (the Rambam ibid.)?

Gemilut chasadim is greater than tzedakah, for through gemilut chasadim one establishes his status so that he will not need tzedakah. And know that in Shabbat (Shabbat 63a) we say: One who lends is greater than one who performs tzedakah, and one who places [money] into a pouch is greater than them all. Rashi explained: Because the poor person is not ashamed by the matter, when he places money into a pouch to profit from them for half the profit etc.—for one who lends money to his fellow without profit—the borrower is ashamed that he benefits from his fellow, in a way that his fellow does not benefit at all. But one who places into a pouch is not ashamed at all, since both of them benefit. Thus far his words. And the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not write this detail, that placing into a pouch is a great level. And their reason appears to me to be that certainly if one does this only for the sake of the mitzvah of "and you shall strengthen him"—it is obvious that there is no level higher than it. But it is known that most do so for the sake of a livelihood, and this is not within the category of tzedakah at all. And the Rambam counted eight levels in tzedakah, and they are these:

The great level above which there is no higher: one who supports the hand of a destitute Israelite, and gives him a gift or a loan, or forms a partnership (he equated this to a loan, and see what I wrote in the previous section), or finds him work in order to strengthen his hand, so that he will not need to depend on others. Regarding this it is said: "And you shall support him." And in our time, in many cities there are societies that give the youths of the poor of Israel to craftsmen. And it is a very great thing. Only they must supervise them so that they walk in the way of Hashem, and pray every day, and be people of faith toward Heaven and toward others.

The second level: One who gives tzedakah to a poor person and did not know to whom he gives, and the recipient did not know from whom he receives. Like the chamber of secrets that was in the Temple, where they would give in secret, and poor people of distinguished lineage would be supported from it (Shekalim chapter 5 mishnah 6). And it was taught in the Tosefta there that just as it was in the Temple, so it was in every single city. And close to this is one who gives to a tzedakah collection box. And a person should not give to a collection box unless he knows that the one appointed over it is a trustworthy man, wise in leadership, and knows how to conduct himself in this properly. The third level is that the giver knows to whom he gives, and the recipient does not know from whom he receives. Like the great sages who would go in secret and cast [money] at the doorways of the poor (Ketubot 67a). And likewise if he delivers the tzedakah through a messenger, and the messenger does not tell who gave it. And the Tur wrote: And it is proper to do like this, and it is a great merit if those appointed over the tzedakah do not conduct themselves properly. Thus far his words.

The fourth level is where the poor person knows from whom he takes, but the giver does not know to whom he gave. Like the great sages who would tie the coins in their sheets and cast them behind them, and the poor would come and take, so that they would not have shame (ibid.). And it is known that in our time this is impossible to do, for those who are not worthy would snatch the tzedakah, and the worthy would receive nothing at all, as we see in a place where they distribute tzedakah openly. And the fifth level is that he gives to the poor person into his hand before he asks. And this is in the manner of "And it shall be that before they call, I will answer." And regarding this it is said: "She spreads her palm to the poor, and sends her hands to the needy." And his reward is great, and also the Holy One, Blessed be He, will fulfill his needs before he requests. And the great masters of tzedakah maintain this trait. And the sixth level is that he gives to him as is fitting after he asks. And the seventh is that he gives less than what is fitting for him, but with a pleasant countenance. And the last is that he gives to him with a sorrowful countenance. And the great sages would give a perutah to a poor person before every prayer, as it is said: "I, in righteousness, shall behold Your face" (Bava Batra 10b). And all the more so if he gives to a tzedakah box before the prayer, for it is much better (Shach, subsection 10), and as I wrote in siman 92, see there. And to marry off poor orphaned maidens, or the daughter of a poor Torah scholar—these are among the great acts of tzedakah. Therefore, tzedakah gabbaim, when it is in their power to do so—there is no tzedakah greater than this, to forever gladden aggrieved souls (and see Shach, subsection 11). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that what is practiced to pledge tzedakah for the deceased at the time of the remembrance of souls is an ancient custom, and it avails their souls. Thus far his words. And this has already been explained in Orach Chaim at the end of siman 621. And there it was explained based on the Sifrei that even the deceased require atonement, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of this siman (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 249): There is one who says that the mitzvah of a beit knesset is superior to the mitzvah of tzedakah. But the mitzvah of tzedakah for youths to study Torah, or for poor sick people – is superior to the mitzvah of a beit knesset. Thus far his words. And from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 9a, s.v. "shene'emar"), it is clarified that tzedakah is greater than a beit knesset, for they wrote: And even though this verse is written regarding "the house of our God," which is the maintenance of the Temple – all the more so tzedakah. Thus far their words. And if tzedakah is superior to the maintenance of the Temple – all the more so to a beit knesset (see there, and his words are difficult, see there). And aside from this, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, are astonishing. For the source of the law is from the Yerushalmi at the end of Peah, where they were walking in the synagogue of Lod, and they said: How many souls were sunk into this building, were there no people who would labor in Torah? And they read regarding them: "For Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces." And there is another version: who would labor in Torah or sick people lying in bed. And from this it is certainly proven that the mitzvah of Talmud Torah and healing the sick is much greater than a beit knesset. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited from the Maharik, who inferred from this that were it not for Talmud Torah and healing the sick – a beit knesset would be greater than the mitzvah of tzedakah (see Beit Yosef). And their reasoning appears to be that if it were not so – it should have said "were there no poor for tzedakah." But what inference is this, for the Yerushalmi took the most great mitzvot? (The Gra in subsection 19 also criticized him, and cited the Tosafot that we wrote.)

However, in the Yerushalmi it is explained there that there were several batei kenesset, as it says they were walking in those batei kenesset of Lod, see there. According to this, there is no proof at all, as it could be said that their minds were not at ease with the multitude of batei kenesset. Furthermore, it implies somewhat that they were very decorated, and regarding this they spoke, and not regarding the actual building of the beit keneset. Yet in the Maharik (shoresh 128) I saw that he brought the version: And he saw the gate of the beit keneset of Kavni, see there. If so, according to his version, there was only one beit keneset. And it can still be said that their minds were not at ease regarding the decoration and the beauty. And besides all this, is it not explained in the Maharik there that it does not refer at all to the actual beit keneset but rather to donations to the beit keneset, such as a multitude of candles. This is his wording there: And regarding the matter of the vow for the purpose of oil for illumination for the beit keneset etc. that the community has the authority to change the donation to distribute to the poor. And even though from the Yerushalmi it proves that the mitzvah of the beit keneset is greater than the mitzvah of tzedakah etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, it is not understood at all: for what is the relevance of the Yerushalmi to this? For the Yerushalmi deals with the actual building of the beit keneset. And according to this, it is necessary to say that the Maharik interpreted the Yerushalmi regarding the decorations of the beit keneset as I have written. And he compared decorations to illumination, which is also a decoration for the beit keneset.

And according to this, the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is also regarding donations for the needs of the beit knesset, and not regarding the building of the beit knesset itself. And this is certain, for regarding the necessities for the needs of the beit knesset—it is certainly a complete obligation; rather, [the discussion is] regarding luxuries that one can manage without, such as a multitude of candles and the like. And so it is proven in the Maharik and also in the Yerushalmi, for regarding necessities they certainly would not have wavered. And so it appears clear to me that that which they wrote, that it is preferable to tzedakah—they are not dealing with tzedakah to feed the hungry and the like, but rather with tzedakah that is to provide expansion for the poor person, and therefore the expansion of the beit knesset is preferable. And they infer this from the fact that they mentioned in the Yerushalmi the most great matters, implying that regarding other matters, the mitzvah of the beit knesset is greater than them. And in the Tosafot, another intention appears to me when we are precise, for how is it possible to say that tzedakah is preferable to the maintenance of the Temple? Behold, in Nehemiah there it is explicitly stated, "for the showbread, and for the continual meal-offering, and for the continual burnt-offering, etc.," and how is it possible to say that it is better to give tzedakah than to offer the continual offerings and the showbread in the Beit HaMikdash? Rather, this is what the Tosafot are saying: that if regarding the service of the Beit HaMikdash, which belongs to the collective of Israel, where seemingly with a perutah from every individual in Israel much money would be gathered, and nevertheless they required giving a third of a shekel—all the more so tzedakah, which is in every single place, and the poor are many, that one needs a third of a shekel at the very least (so it appears in my humble opinion).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 13 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 249:13) that in any event, a person should not glorify himself with the tzedakah he gives. And if he does glorify himself—not only does he not receive a reward, but they even punish him for it. Nevertheless, one who consecrates an object for tzedakah—it is permitted for him to write his name upon it so that it shall be for him as a memorial, and it is proper to do so. Thus far his words. And specifically one who gave from his own pocket. But a gabbai who exerted effort in the collection of donations for some consecrated object—it is not within his power to write his name (Aruch HaShulchan). And also one who spent from his own pocket—he only has the power to write at the time he delivers it to the hekdesh. But if he delivered it to the community without specification, and afterward wants to write his name—they can protest (Tzemach Tzedek siman 50). And there are those who disagree on this, as it implies so from the Responsa of the Rashba (Part 1, siman 581), because regarding the law there is no practical difference in this, for there is one who says that when he wrote his name upon it—the community is not permitted to change it (Taz subsection 4). But from the Rashba it does not imply so, for he wrote the reason is because it is proper to give a reward to those who perform a mitzvah. Therefore, for the law there is no practical difference, for even when he wrote his name—the community is permitted to change it. Therefore, even afterward he has permission to write his name upon it. (Nekudot HaKesef, but the Tzemach Tzedek wrote another reason for this: that since he delivered it to the community—it became like that which belongs to the community. And it appears to me that this depends on the assessment of the teacher.)