Siman 253

The sages taught in the seventh chapter of Peah: One who has two meals – shall not take from the tamchui; fourteen meals – shall not take from the kuppah. For in their days they would distribute in every city to every poor person two meals per day, and there was a general tamchui collected from the city. And there was also a kuppah collected from the city, and they would distribute fourteen meals every week, and it will be explained in siman 256. Therefore, one who has two meals – he is not to take from the tamchui, for he has enough for this day. And one who has fourteen meals shall not take from the kuppah, since he has enough for the entire week. And even though for Shabbat one requires three meals, and he is missing one meal, nevertheless the sages already said (Shabbat 118a): Make your Shabbat like a weekday. That is to say: that he should eat on Shabbat as on a weekday, and not be dependent on people. And it is not similar to a poor person passing from place to place, to whom they give three meals, as I wrote in siman 250, for it is different there, since he has already begun to take – he may take also for the honor of Shabbat. This is not the case for one who has his own, who shall not begin to take for the sake of the honor of Shabbat (Tosafot, and see Taz subsection 2).

We further learned there: One who has two hundred zuz may not take leket, shikhecha, peah, or ma'aser ani. For thus the sages estimated: that two hundred zuz are sufficient for one year for clothing and food, for him and the members of his household. Therefore, he may not take any tzedakah during this year. Likewise, one who has fifty zuz and he transacts with them—he also may not take, for thus the sages estimated: that fifty that are working are as good as two hundred that are not working. If he had two hundred less one dinar, even if they give him a thousand zuz at once—behold, he may take. The poskim wrote that these measures were only stated in their days, but in this time, he may take until he has a principal in order to support himself and the members of his household from the profit. And these are words of reason, and everything is according to the time and according to the place (see in the Tur).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 253:1), that one who leaves his home and travels from city to city to collect throughout the entire journey that he intended to travel when he left his home—it is called one time. And even if they gave him two hundred zuz in one city—he may receive more. And from this point forward it is forbidden. Thus far his words. For just as we learned above that if he had two hundred minus a dinar—he is permitted to take even a thousand at one time, for he is still considered a poor man with the lack of that one, so too until his return to his home he is considered a poor man, and he may receive much. And he was stringent that it is only the journey that he intended to travel, and no more. And there are two opinions in the Mordechai in the first chapter of Bava Batra. And there is one who holds that there is no limit to this, and as long as he has not returned to his home—he is permitted to take, see there. (The Gra wrote on this, "and it requires further study," and he did not explain his intent. And perhaps it is because before this we learned: a poor man who passes from place to place etc., and it implies that this mishnah of "one who has two hundred zuz" also refers to this, see there.)

We further learned there that if the two hundred zuz were pledged to his creditor or for his wife’s ketubah—he may take. That is to say: if he has a creditor, or if his wife has a ketubah even though she is still with him, as is explained there in the Yerushalmi, they are not included in the calculation, and he is permitted to take. And the reason is simple: for he cannot consume them. And "pledged" is not meant specifically, for they are anyway as if pledged, since he cannot consume them. And there are those who explained specifically when he designated them as an apothiki for his wife’s ketubah (Taz and Shach, subsection 3), for so implies the language "pledged." And one must say the reason is that if not so, he could spend them, and it requires further study. But regarding a debt, this is not necessary, for so it is explained from the language of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, see there.

We further learned there that we do not obligate him to sell his house or his service vessels. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: And if he has a house and many household vessels, but he does not have two hundred zuz – behold, this person may take. And he does not need to sell his household vessels, even if they are of silver and gold. In what case are these matters stated? Regarding vessels for eating and drinking, and clothing and bedding, and the like. But a silver scraper or pestle – he must sell them, and he shall not take from tzedakah. And that which we do not obligate him to sell his service vessels of silver and gold – specifically as long as he does not need to take from the kuppah, but rather takes in secret from individuals. But if he comes to take from the kuppah of tzedakah – they do not give to him until he sells his vessels. Thus far his words. And this is according to the sugya of the Shas in Ketubot (Ketubot 68a) see there, and according to the method of the Rif and the Rambam. And there is another method of Rabbeinu Tam brought by the Tur, that before he comes to take from tzedakah, if he has silver vessels – we obligate him to sell them. But after he has begun to take and these vessels happened to come to him, such as if he inherited them or they were given to him as a gift – we do not obligate him to sell them so that he will not take, see there. (And see Shach, subsection 4, that the same law applies to a silver menorah and a silver table – we obligate him to sell. And he brought the method of Rashi that if after he took tzedakah it became known that he did not need to take, they take from him what he took. And if he does not have enough to pay – they sell his household vessels, and he uses inferior ones. See there.)

And there is another opinion to the contrary: that with vessels he was already accustomed to using—he shall not sell. But if these vessels fell to him as an inheritance after the collection—he shall sell (the Ra'ah there). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that such is the law in a place where there is an enactment not to give tzedakah to one who has a fixed amount—one does not reckon for him his dwelling house and his service vessels. Thus far his words, and this is also according to the opinions that have been explained. He further wrote that anyone who is wealthy—it is forbidden to give to his sons, even though they are adults, if they are supported at their father's table. Thus far his words. That is to say: that if the son is poor, even though he has a wealthy father—it is permitted to give him tzedakah. However, if he is supported at his father's table and we establish that his finds belong to his father, it is as if they are giving to his father, and the father is indeed wealthy.

He further wrote that all this is by way of tzedakah. However, by way of a gift and honor – a person may receive. As we say: One who wishes to benefit – let him benefit like Elisha. Thus far his words. And it is a matter of doubt whether he may receive by way of a gift even if the money is the tzedakah of the giver, or specifically when it is not from tzedakah money. And it is not similar to what I wrote in siman 251, section 20, that one may give to the Rav of the city from his tzedakah, see there. For there, this is the reason: since he performs the service of the city – it is certainly appropriate that they benefit him. This is not the case for any other person, even if he is a talmid chakham, since he has two hundred zuz, and certainly when he has more – why should he deprive the poor by taking from their tzedakah, for when the householder gives to him by way of a gift from his tzedakah, he will deduct from other poor people? Therefore, it appears that from tzedakah money he should not take even by way of a gift. And if it is difficult: if it is not from tzedakah money, what is he teaching us? For it can be said: that he teaches us that he is permitted to take from others, even when he has much. And for this he brought proof from Elisha, even though he was presumably wealthy, for prophecy only rests upon one who is wise, mighty, wealthy, and of tall stature (Shabbat 92a).

There are times when one is wealthy in estates and is permitted to take tzedakah, such as when he cannot find anyone to buy them and he has nothing to eat. As it was taught in Bava Kamma (Bava Kamma 7a): If one had houses, fields, and vineyards, and cannot find anyone to buy them – they feed him ma'aser ani up to half. This is the wording of the Tur: One who has many fields, vineyards, and houses aside from his residential house, and has no money and comes to sell them. If because they see that he is hard-pressed they do not want to buy from him (according to the market price) – we do not obligate him to sell them (cheaply), but rather they feed him from tzedakah until he can sell for their value, and everyone will know that he is not hard-pressed to sell. But if all lands have depreciated, even those of others, even if they have depreciated so that they are not worth half their value, if he can sell them so that he will have two hundred zuz according to the low price – he must sell them, and he shall not take from tzedakah. And if it is during the rainy season, which is not a time for selling, and he cannot find anyone to buy except cheaply, and if he leaves them until the summer months he will sell them for their value – we do not obligate him to sell, but rather they give him from tzedakah until he can sell them for half their value. Thus far the wording of the Tur. And according to his words, that which we learned "up to half" refers to such a case: that he should wait until the summer months. Therefore, if he can receive half the price of the summer months – he is obligated to sell them. But for less than half – he shall wait until the summer months, and now he may take tzedakah. But the matter is puzzling, for why should he have a loss of up to half their value compared to the summer months? And the reason must be stated: since now they are not worth more – this is not a degradation of price. And since he has two hundred zuz according to the present market price – it is forbidden for him to take. But for less than half, the sages had pity on him, and permitted him to take tzedakah until the summer months.

But the Rambam in the laws of tzedakah (Laws of Gifts to the Poor, chapter nine) has another approach in this matter, and this is his wording: One who had houses, fields, or vineyards, and if he sells them during the rainy season he sells them cheaply, but if he leaves them until the summer season he sells them for their worth—we do not obligate him to sell; rather, we feed him the poor man's tithe up to half their value. And he should not pressure himself and sell when it is not the time for selling. If other people were buying at a high price, but he does not find anyone who will buy from him except cheaply because he is pressured and preoccupied—we do not obligate him to sell; rather, he continues to eat the poor man's tithe until he sells for the fair value, and everyone will know that he is not pressured to sell. Thus far his words. And according to his words it is well understood, for we do not allow him to be disparaged at all, but rather he is sustained from tzedakah until he sells at the fair price. However, even this is not understood: for why during the rainy season do we feed him only up to half the value of the properties? And perhaps because it is not common for them to be depreciated more than half from the rainy season to the summer season, and therefore it is sufficient that we assist him from tzedakah for the amount it was depreciated and no more. This is not the case if the cheapness is due to his pressure—there is no measure to the matter. And therefore we also assist him from tzedakah without measure.

And know that even though regarding one who does not have two hundred zuz, they may give him even a thousand zuz at one time, as has been explained; nevertheless, in this case where he has much, but he is unable to sell them now—they do not give him much at one time, but rather enough for each day (Beit Yosef and Shach subsection 5 in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). And the reason is simple: since in truth he is a wealthy man, but is only pressed for the time being as I have written, if so, how can we give him much? Perhaps tomorrow he will find a way to sell at their value, and why should we deprive the poor? And it is sufficient for him to be fed enough for each day, until he finds a way to sell at their value.

The Rambam wrote in the ninth chapter: A homeowner who was traveling from city to city, and his money ran out on the way, and he currently has nothing to eat—behold, he is permitted to take leket, shikhecha, peah, and ma'aser ani, and to benefit from tzedakah. And when he reaches his home, he is not obligated to pay it back, for behold, he was a poor person at that time. To what is this comparable? To a poor person who became wealthy, who is not obligated to pay it back. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 4, and it is a Mishnah in Peah. And the Rambam explained the reason, that this is comparable to a poor person who became wealthy, who is not obligated to pay it back. And even though this is not a perfect comparison, for behold, he currently possesses [wealth], nevertheless, since he is on the road and is forced now to be sustained from tzedakah—behold, at that time he is like a poor person. And I wonder that in the Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam wrote that as a measure of piety—he must pay it back, see there. And why did he not mention this in his composition? And also in the Yerushalmi it implies so, see there. And also in our Shas in Chullin it explicitly implies so, see there. And perhaps in his composition he only wrote what emerges according to the essential law. And know that the matter is simple: that if this homeowner passing from place to place is able to borrow, it is forbidden for him to receive tzedakah (and so I saw in the name of the Gra in the book "Chut HaMeshulash" at the end of siman 17).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 253, 5): One who supported an orphan and intended it for the mitzvah, and when he grew up he demanded from him what he had provided for him—he is exempt, even if the orphan had [assets] at that time, unless he specified that he supported him by way of a loan. And specifically an orphan, but for another person, even if unspecified, we also say that he did so by way of a loan, since he has property. Thus far their words. And these laws depend on the assessment of the beit din as to how this person acted, whether for the sake of the mitzvah or for the sake of reimbursement. Therefore, it was explained in Choshen Mishpat at the end of siman 290 that orphans who relied upon a householder, and he fed them from his own—they are obligated to pay, because certainly he did not intend to feed all of them for the sake of the mitzvah. This is not the case with one orphan whom a householder took in—it is more apparent that he intended it for the mitzvah. But regarding another man, if unspecified, the mind inclines that he did not do this for the sake of the mitzvah. Therefore, regarding a householder traveling from place to place whose money ran out, and someone gave him for expenses—it is closer to say that he did so by way of a loan, unless the matter is recognizable that he did so for the sake of kindness. (And see Shach, small subsection 9, and his words are not so clear. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

We learned at the end of the second chapter of Shekalim: The surplus of poor-funds is for the poor. The surplus of a poor person is for that poor person. The surplus of captives is for captives. The surplus of a captive is for that captive. The surplus of the dead is for the dead. The surplus of a dead person is for his heirs. Therefore, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 253:6) wrote: A poor person for whom they collected to complete that which he lacks, and they exceeded what he needs—the surplus is his. If they collected for the poor in general and they exceeded—they shall be kept for other poor people. Likewise, the surplus of a captive is for that captive. If they collected for captives in general and they exceeded—they shall keep them for other captives. Likewise, the surplus of a dead person is for his heirs, and the surplus of the dead is for the dead. Thus far their words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that if the administrators saw that there is a need of the hour, and they wished to change—the authority is in their hands. Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam in the commentary on the Mishnah there. And so it is in the Yerushalmi there, which says that one does not prevent the administrators in this. Thus far his words. That is to say: if they wish to change. And one should not ask how it is possible to change from the property of this poor person to another matter? For he certainly would not waive this, and he has already acquired the money. For it can be said that in truth, when we examine why any surplus should belong to this man, behold they only gave for his needs and not for luxuries, and it is like a gift given in error. Rather, despite all this, since it was gathered from many people—it is not their intention to be so exacting, and they give based on the discretion of the gabbaim. And the gabbaim themselves intend that even the surplus should belong to the one for whom it was collected. Therefore, if they themselves see fit to give the surplus to another matter—it is permitted, because they give based on their discretion. And there is a dispute of the Rishonim in this, whether they are permitted to change even for a voluntary matter or only for a mitzvah matter, and it will be explained in siman 256. (And the Darkhei Moshe in this siman, sign 3, brought this dispute. And see what I wrote in siman 256, section 9).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: Money that was collected for the redemption of a captive, and he died before he was redeemed – there is one who says they belong to his heirs, and there is one who says his heirs did not acquire them. And toward this opinion it inclines in this time, for we say their intention was that they did not donate with such an understanding. And the same law applies when the captive was lost before he was redeemed. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the same law applies if one vowed to an orphan girl to marry her off and she died, that the heirs did not acquire them. However, as long as she is alive – they belong to the orphan girl. And one must give to her immediately, and we do not wait until her marriage. And if she died the money returns. And see in Choshen Mishpat siman 253 that there are those who disagree. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matter is that the first opinion, which is the opinion of the Rashba in a responsum, holds that just as the surplus belongs to his heirs—so too all the money, since the money was collected with him in mind, and he acquired it from the time of the collection. And the second opinion is the opinion of the Rosh in a responsum, that specifically when the mitzvah is performed—it is appropriate that the surplus belongs to him and his heirs. But as long as they have not yet begun this mitzvah—it is obvious that they did not volunteer with this in mind. And according to the letter of the law, it would be necessary to return the donations to everyone who gave, except that this is an impossibility, and would incur much expense. Therefore, they use them for the needs of the public. And they decided in accordance with the opinion of the Rosh. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding one who vowed to an orphan girl and she died, that the heirs did not acquire it. That is to say: and the money returns to the volunteer, for it is not similar to that which was collected from the public, as is understood. And our rabbis were not concerned to explain this, that in the first law they use it for the needs of the public, and in the second law it returns to the owners, for this is understood on its own. However, when she is alive—it is given to her immediately. But in Choshen Mishpat there are those who disagree, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 253, section 16, ruled that it is given to her before she marries, and her heirs inherit from her. And our teacher, the Rema, ruled otherwise, and we explained this there in section 25, see there that the primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Rema, that it is given to her immediately. And despite all this, if she died—it returns to his heirs and not to her heirs. (And the law of the Rema is also according to the Rashba and is not similar to the public. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 8 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 253:8) wrote: A poor person who gave a perutah for tzedakah – they accept it from him. And if he did not give – they do not obligate him to give. If they gave him new clothes and he returned the old ones – they accept them from him. And if he did not return them – they do not obligate him. Thus far their words, and it is a Tosefta in Pe'ah (chapter four). And there is one who explained that this is the explanation: that even though every poor person is obligated to give tzedakah as I wrote in siman 248, nevertheless they do not obligate him to give, because he can give to another poor person and that poor person will give to him, as I wrote in siman 251 (Bach). And this is nothing but a wonder, for if so, what is it teaching us that they accept it from him, since he is obligated to give (Shach, subsection 11)? And there is one who explained that it is dealing with a poor person who does not have his livelihood, and in siman 248 it is dealing with one who has his livelihood (ibid.). And this all revolves around the path they wrote at the beginning of siman 248. And we have already explained there that they are two matters: for certainly every person is obligated to give a third of a shekel every year, and here it is dealing with one who already gave this and it is not dealing with this, and therefore he is not obligated to give more. And I would have said that even when he gives some tzedakah into the hand of a gabbai they should not accept it from him, since he is a poor person and has already fulfilled his obligation with the third of a shekel. To this it teaches us that nevertheless they accept it from him. And so too if he returned the old clothes – they accept them from him even though he does not need to, for he is not compelled to this according to the law.

A poor person who does not want to receive tzedakah, and we know that he is in need of it, we are obligated to exert effort so that he receives it. And if despite all this he does not want it—we must act with him through deception, which is to say that we give it to him in the manner of a gift and not in the manner of tzedakah. And if he also does not want this—we give it to him as a loan, and afterward we do not demand it from him. And it appears that if he exerts effort to pay and he does not have the ability—we do not accept it from him. But conversely, a stingy wealthy person who is miserly with his money, and starves himself and does not eat—we do not pay him any heed, and let him go in his folly. And it appears to me that if he is ill due to hunger, we feed him and take from him against his will.

Even though one is obligated to give tzedakah to every poor person, even to an am ha'aretz, nevertheless, he is not comparable to a talmid chakham. A poor talmid chakham is supported according to his dignity, for this is the honor of the Torah. And it appears to me that such is the law if he is a true God-fearing person, even if he is not a talmid chakham—one also supports him according to his dignity. And if the talmid chakham does not wish to accept—they occupy themselves with buying merchandise for him, such that they buy for him at a low price and buy from him at a high price, for this is a way of honor. And if he knows how to occupy himself with merchandise—they lend him money to trade with. But regarding an am ha'aretz, they are not commanded in this. And great is the reward of one who places stock into the pocket of a talmid chakham so that they may trade with it. And thus the sages said (Pesachim 53b): Anyone who places stock into the pocket of a talmid chakham merits to sit in the Heavenly Academy, as it is said: "For to be in the shadow of wisdom is to be in the shadow of money."

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 12 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 253:12): One who is in need of others, and wanders for his livelihood, and they gave him tzedakah – creditors cannot collect from what he collected in tzedakah, unless it was written in his collection document that he is indebted to others, for then they gave to him with the intent that he should pay. Thus far their words. And behold, this matter is explicit in the Tosefta at the end of Pe'ah: One does not pay a debt with ma'aser ani, see there. And one should not ask: if so, why is a verse necessary regarding the ha'anakah of a Hebrew slave, "to him" and not to a creditor, as is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 15a)? Is ha'anakah not also tzedakah? For this is not difficult at all; first, because it can be said that ha'anakah is like an obligation that the Torah obligated the master, and I would have said that the creditor takes from this; it comes to teach us that he does not. Furthermore: even if we say it is tzedakah, it can be said that in truth we learn from here regarding all types of tzedakah, since the verse revealed it regarding ha'anakah. However, even without the decree of the verse the reason is simple, for the givers did not give to him with the intent of the creditor. Therefore, if in his collection document it is written that he is a debtor – he must pay, for they gave to him with this intent. (See Shach Choshen Mishpat siman 86, subsection 3, and in Urim VeTumim ibid.)

It is taught in the Tosefta (ibid.): Ma'aser ani – one may not pay from it a loan or a debt. And one may not repay from it favors, and one may not redeem captives with it, and one may not use it for wedding-gifts, and one may not give from it for a matter of tzedakah. But one may send from it a matter of gemilut chasadim, and he must inform him, etc. Thus far its words. And this is the explanation: That one may not pay from this any debt, whether by document or oral. And one may not repay favors, meaning: to one who performed a kindness for him. And one may not redeem captives with it. And even though redeeming captives is greater than tzedakah, as I wrote in siman 252, nevertheless here the Torah gave it to the poor person only for eating and drinking, and he does not have permission to change it. And that which it said that "one may send from it a matter of gemilut chasadim," it appears that this is a cup for a house of mourning or for a bathhouse, as it is found in Nedarim (Nedarim 38b) that it is called a "cup of peace." For it is a small matter, and the poor person must inform the one to whom he sends it, so that he will know that this is from ma'aser ani.

And ostensibly it is difficult regarding our teachers who learned the law of tzedakah from ma'aser ani regarding the payment of debts. If so, why did they not write all these laws that are in the Tosefta? And it must be said that they hold that only regarding the matter of paying a debt should one learn from ma'aser ani, because presumably the donors are particular about this, just as the Torah was particular about ma'aser ani. But for other matters one should not learn, for certainly the donors are not particular about those. And it concluded there in the Tosefta that tzedakah and gemilut chasadim make peace and good advocates between Israel and their Father in Heaven. And so it is in the Gemara (Bava Batra 10a).