Siman 250

How much do we give to a poor person? It is written: "For you shall surely open your hand to him... sufficient for his lack, which he lacks for himself." And it was taught in the Sifrei: Why were all of these said, meaning all of these repetitive expressions, for is not "sufficient for his lack" enough? And all the more so if it had been written "sufficient for his lack which he lacks," so why do I need it to write "for himself"? Rather, it is to teach you that the givings are not equal for everyone, and we give to each one according to his conduct prior to this. And for this it is written "for himself," meaning: according to his value. And the repetitive expression of "which he lacks": it appears that with "sufficient for his lack" alone, I would have said only regarding eating and drinking alone. It comes to teach us "which he lacks," meaning: everything that is lacking, garments and vessels. And then it is written "for himself," meaning: that in all these things, it is according to his level.

How so? If he was hungry—one must feed him. If he needed clothing—one must clothe him. If he does not have household utensils—one buys him household utensils. And even if it was his way to ride upon a horse and have a servant run before him, when he was wealthy and became poor—one buys him a horse and a servant. And it is brought in Ketubot (Ketubot 67b): They said about Hillel the Elder, that he purchased for a certain poor person of noble descent a horse to ride upon and a servant to run before him. One time he did not find a servant to run before him, and he ran before him for three mil. And likewise a story was brought there from the Upper Galilee, where they lost an animal every day for the sake of one litra of meat, which they required for a poor person of noble descent, see there. Further it was brought there regarding two poor people who requested to eat specifically fatty meat and old wine; to one they gave and to one they did not give, see there. And this is the reason: for this one was accustomed to this from always, and this one was never accustomed to this but rather accustomed himself so in his poverty. And he should not have accustomed himself so, see there.

Therefore, one must give to each and every person according to what he needs, and to each according to his status. One who is fit to be given bread—they give him bread; dough—they give him dough; wheat—wheat; barley—barley. One who is fit to be given warm bread—they give him warm bread. One who is fit to be given cold bread—they give him cold bread. If his habit was to be fed into his mouth, and not that he should take with his hands and eat—they feed him into his mouth. If he was fit for a bed—they give him a bed. And if he is not fit for a bed—he sleeps on the ground. And they see what he lacks, and they give everything. And even if he does not have a wife and needs to marry—they marry a wife to him. And first they rent a house for him, and prepare a bed for him, and purchase his service vessels for him, and afterward they marry a wife to him. And whatever is lacking, they shall fill his deficiency.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 250:1): It appears that all this applies to tzedakah collectors or many people together. However, an individual is not obligated to give a poor person his sufficient lack, but rather informs the public of his distress. And if there are no public groups with him – the individual gives to him if his hand can reach. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all, for whichever way you look at it: if the hand of the individual can reach, such as if he is exceedingly wealthy and the poor are few, such that he can fulfill the sufficient lack for all of them, why is he not obligated? Is not the mitzvah of tzedakah incumbent upon every single one of Israel as is explicit in the Torah, and as I wrote at the beginning of siman 249. And if the hand cannot reach – even the collector is exempt. And the public is exempt if the hands of all of them cannot reach, such as when the poor are many and the wealthy are few, as in our many sins in this time of ours, and likewise in many generations before us. Is it possible to fulfill his sufficient lack, and they are only obligated in a tenth or a fifth according to what I wrote at the beginning of siman 249, see there? (The Bach and the Gra took issue with him. And the Shach in subsection 1 answers that he holds that when the public is with him – he is not obligated alone, even if his hand can reach, see there. And the Gra wrote that his words do not appear correct. And the Taz in subsection 1 also wrote that certainly there is no obligation upon the individual to give him his sufficient lack, see there. And his words are astonishing, for if his hand can reach, why is he not obligated? See there.)

And it appears to me that this is the explanation: for example, when our situation is good, and the majority in the city are wealthy and the poor are few, for certainly the obligation is upon everyone and not upon individuals. And even though the individual can fulfill their lack by himself, nevertheless, behold they are incumbent upon everyone. And this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, that all this refers to a gabbai of tzedakah who stands in the name of the entire city, or many together. But the individual is not obligated to give the entirety of his lack alone, even if his hand can reach it, when there are other wealthy people in the city. And even if the poor person comes to him – he informs everyone and everyone shall give. And in truth, if there are not many with him, for example if they are not in the city or if he dwells alone – he alone is obligated to bear it if his hand can reach it. And so too if the others do not want to give, and it is not in his power to compel them – the obligation is upon him alone. And this is similar to all the mitzvot, for even if there are many wicked people in the city – he is obligated to fulfill the mitzvah when his hand can reach it. (And it appears to me that the intention of the Shach and the Taz is also thus. And this is also the intention of the Beit Yosef, and they criticized him for naught. And also the Tur does not disagree on this, and the Beit Yosef who criticized did so based on the surface of the language. And even this is not certain, see there. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

Our sages, of blessed memory, commanded in Ketubot (Ketubot 67a) that a woman who comes to be married—they should not provide her with less than fifty peshuti zuz. And even if there is nothing in the charity purse—they should borrow and give to her. And if there is much in the charity purse—they should give her much, according to her standing and the standing of her family. And this is according to their time. And according to our time, it is understood that fifty zuz are nothing, and there is no fixed law regarding the measure. Rather, everything is according to the time (Shach, subsection 7), and as I have written below in siman 253.

All these matters and measurements apply to the poor who do not themselves go around to the doors to take coins or slices of bread, but rather sit in their homes and the veil of shame is upon their faces. However, regarding the poor who go around to the doors – there are no measurements for them, and each and every individual gives a small thing. For are they not among the public, and all gates are open before them? And according to the core of the law, there is no need to give them anything from the tzedakah fund, since they go around to each individual on their own. Nevertheless, our sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Batra 9a) that a small thing is given to him even from the fund, for if they see that the gabbai gives him nothing from the fund, they will say of him that he is not decent, and they will not give to him at all, and he will die of hunger. Therefore, they give him a small thing even from the fund.

And this is all regarding the poor of the city. But poor people who pass through the city, and they are from other cities, and regarding them it is not applicable that they be given "sufficient for his needs" as is understood – there are other measures for them. And so the sages taught in the Mishnah of Peah (Peah chapter 8 mishnah 7): They may not give a poor person passing from place to place less than a loaf of bread purchased for a pundion, which is a coin of sixteen perutot when the price of flour stands at four se'in for a sela, and it is a half-kav of flour for a pundion. And the shopkeeper profits half because of the expenses of the wood (Ketubot 64b). It follows that this loaf contains a quarter-kav of flour. And if he stays overnight, they give him the requirements for lodging, which is a mattress to sleep on and a bolster to place under his head. And it is taught in the Tosefta there that they also give him oil and legumes, with which to eat his bread. And if it was Shabbat in the city – they give him the food of three meals, for a person is obligated to eat three meals on Shabbat. And they give him oil and legumes, and also fish and vegetables, for the honor of Shabbat. And this is for a simple poor person. But when they recognize him to be an honorable person – they give according to his honor. And it is simple that this poor person passing from place to place also requires a donation for the sustenance of his household, or to marry off his daughter, and the like, for they also give him small donations. And such is the custom. And how many days the poor person may be in the city such that they would be required to give him meals – it is not explained. And according to what appears from the Mishnah, they are only obligated to give him one meal by day and one by night, for in the loaf that was explained there are two meals (see Shabbat 118a and in the Tosafot there). And now it is common in the mouths of people that a passing poor person has permission to be in the city for three days, and that they should give him to eat all three days. And I do not know its source.

However, from the Mishnah there is no proof at all that he only has permission to be in the city for one day. For it can be said that he has permission to be for several days, and that which they give him only two meals is because the distribution was from the tamchui. For the tamchui was for the poor of the world (Bava Batra 8b), and it was distributed every day (ibid.), for one who has two meals shall not take from the tamchui (Peah ibid.). And if so, it can be said that that which we learned there, that they do not give him less than a loaf etc.—this is for one day. And if he is here tomorrow, they give him more. And a proof for this is from the Yerushalmi of Peah (Chapter 8, Mishnah 5), for we say there: If he left the city and entered it, the giver gives, but the taker should be concerned for himself. That is to say: if this poor person left the city and returned to it, the giver must give, but he should be concerned for himself that he is depriving other poor people. And if it should enter your mind that for more than one day there is no need to give—even if he did not leave the city there would be no need to give to him, and all the more so when he left. Rather, certainly there is no fixed limit to the matter, and therefore only when he left must he be concerned.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 250:5): If the poor of the city are many, and the wealthy say they should beg from door to door, and the middle class say they should not beg from door to door but rather their sustenance should be cast upon the community according to wealth—the law is with the middle class, for the primary obligation of tzedakah is according to wealth. And there are places that are accustomed to give according to a donation, and some according to the tax. And one who gives according to his blessing—is more worthy of blessing. Thus far his words. And all of this is from a responsum of the Rashba (Part Three, siman 380). And he added to say in this wording: The line of the law is like the words of the middle class etc., but the generation has become impoverished and there is no wealth, neither in the pocket nor in the mind. And nevertheless, in all places they provide sustenance according to the communal fund and according to wealth. And if they beg from door to door afterwards—let them beg. And each one shall give according to his mind and his will etc. Thus far his words.

It appears to me in the explanation of these matters: behold, according to what has been explained from the law of the Torah—to give to the poor person "sufficient for his deficiency which he lacks," according to the laws that have been explained. All this was well during the time when Israel was established in their place, when the vast majority were householders, earning an honorable livelihood from their land and a bit from commerce, and the poor were few—the tzedakah was sufficient for the "sufficient deficiency" of the poor. But due to our many sins, it has been many hundreds of years that we have been pushed from one displacement to another, and we have neither lands nor anything permanent. Our livelihood is from the air, and we are sustained by manna like the generation of the wilderness. The majority of Israel live in siege and distress, the poor have increased, and the wealthy have decreased, and it is not within any scope at all to provide for all the poor "sufficient for their deficiency." The tzedakah funds in every single city to provide for the needy have been nullified; rather, the poor person in need goes around to the doorways, and he who is ashamed to go around sits in his house in hunger. There are merciful people who collect for him, as is known in our time, yet with all the abundance of tzedakah, it is not sufficient even for one in ten. For the most part, the simple poor are sated with bread, while the refined ones groan in hunger due to our many sins. And although recently they have exerted effort in some cities to establish a general fund so that they should not go around to the doorways, and they supervise more closely over householders who have lost their wealth; however, at the hearing of the ear our soul faints, for there is no stability because of the multitude of the needy. May Hashem have mercy.

And behold, in the time of the Rashba there were still kuppot and tamchuyin in every single city, as the Rambam wrote in chapter nine, law 3 (Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor, chapter nine), and this is his wording: We have never seen nor heard of a congregation among Israel that does not have a kuppah of tzedakah, etc. Thus far his words. However, in the time of the Rashba, the situation began to collapse, and the poor increased. Therefore, the wealthy said: Since our tzedakot will not suffice for their needs, if so, what benefit is there in a kuppah of tzedakah? Let them go around to the doorways, and each person will give according to the generosity of his heart. And the middle class said: According to wealth, meaning: that there should be a kuppah of tzedakah. And the Rashba ruled that the law is with the middle class, because according to Torah law it is so. And if it is because it will not suffice—let them go around to the doorways afterward. And this is what he means by saying that the generation has become impoverished, meaning: that the kuppah is not sufficient. Therefore, in his time, a change in customs began: there are places that gave according to the generosity of their hearts, and there are those according to the taxes. And all is because of our oppression, this is the hardship. And may Hashem remove the disgrace of His people, and bring us up in joy to our holy land! Amen.