Siman 256

In the time of the sages of the Talmud, there was in every single city a kuppah and a tamchui, as will be explained. And even in the time of the early authorities, there was a kuppah in all cities, as the Rambam wrote in the ninth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor, chapter nine), and this is his wording: We have never seen nor heard of a community of Israel that does not have a kuppah of tzedakah. But regarding a tamchui—there are places that did not practice it. Thus far his words. And now, in our iniquities, we have neither a kuppah nor a tamchui, for due to the pressure of livelihood and the multitude of the poor, it is not possible; rather, every individual of Israel gives tzedakah from his own pocket. And the poor have increased by the thousands who go around to the doors, and each person gives him a slice of bread or a small coin. And the incidents have increased in every single city, such that almost every week two people go to collect donations for some individual. And with all the abundance of tzedakah in these days of ours, despite all this, the handful does not satisfy, etc. And we have heard that there are some cities that have established something like kuppot, and it is conducted with difficulty.

What is the kuppah, and what is the tamchui? The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: Every city that has Israelites in it is obligated to appoint from them known and trustworthy tzedakah collectors, who shall circulate among the people from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, and take from each of them what is appropriate for him to give, and the amount assessed upon them. And they distribute the money from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, and give to each and every poor person sustenance sufficient for seven days. And this is what is called the "kuppah of tzedakah." Therefore, one who has sustenance for seven days shall not take from it. And likewise they appoint collectors who take every single day from every single courtyard bread, and all types of food and fruit, or money volunteered according to the value, and they distribute what was collected in the evening, and give from it to every poor person his daily livelihood. And this is what is called the "tamchui." Therefore, one who has a livelihood for one day shall not take from it. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote "who shall circulate among the people from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve"—it is not that they would circulate on Sabbath eve, but rather throughout the entire week, to prepare for the distribution from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. And that which he wrote "and the amount assessed upon them," meaning: that for the kuppah the donations were assessed for every homeowner as such and such. But for the tamchui there was no assessed amount, because the kuppah is for the poor of the city, and there is a calculation for this. This is not the case for the tamchui, which is for the poor of the world (Gemara Bava Batra 8b), meaning: poor people who are passing through. And for this there is no assessment, for sometimes they are many and sometimes they are few.

And they compel regarding this tzedakah. And they would compel one another to bring in guests and to distribute tzedakah to them (Shach, subsection 1, in the name of the Mordechai). The Tur wrote that the gabba'im must be wise and understanding, so that they may scrutinize every poor person to give him what he needs. And they shall scrutinize them so that they are not deceivers, except for one who asks to be fed, for whom they do not scrutinize, as I wrote in siman 251. And if the gabba'im are not wise and fit for this—they remove them, and they shall not collect at all. And if they cannot remove them—it is forbidden to give tzedakah through them, for so the sages said (Bava Batra 10b): A person should not give to a tzedakah fund unless a talmid chakham is appointed over it, and he should distribute it himself. And on fast days, they distribute food to the poor. And our sages, of blessed memory, said (Sanhedrin 35b): On any fast day where the people ate and did not distribute food to the poor—they are like shedders of blood. To what do these words apply? In a place where they are accustomed to distribute bread and fruit. But in a place where they were accustomed to distribute coins or wheat or the like, which are not ready for eating—they are not considered like shedders of blood. Thus far his words. For even if they were to give to them at night, they would not be able to eat from this, and of necessity they must have prepared for themselves beforehand.

The kuppah is not collected by fewer than two, for appointments over the community regarding monetary matters are not made with fewer than two. And this is only for the collection, but after the collection, one is trusted to be a treasurer over it. And it is stated in the Gemara there (Bava Batra 8b): It happened that Rabbi appointed two brothers over the kuppah to be treasurers, even though they are considered as one regarding the matter of testimony. However, regarding the distribution, even two are not sufficient. And there must specifically be three fit individuals, and they must not be related to one another like the law of a beit din, because this is like monetary laws to examine each and every poor person how much is appropriate to give him. And tamchui, just as it is distributed by three for the reason that has been explained, so too it is collected by three, because it is not a fixed amount, and they must examine each and every person how much he shall give. For the tamchui is collected according to the need, and it is not a fixed thing like the kuppah, as I have written. And in the Yerushalmi, eighth chapter of Pe'ah, it is stated that the distribution of tzedakah is like capital laws. And it asks: If so, should it not require twenty-three like capital laws? And it answers: Until he assembles them, he is endangered, meaning: until they all gather, the poor person will come to a state of danger. And therefore they said that three are sufficient, like monetary laws. (See Shach subsection 6, for it is implied from his words that two brothers may also collect. And it requires further study, for from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and likewise from the language of the Shas and Rashi there, it appears explicitly that it is only regarding the matter of trustworthiness, see there. And it is possible that he holds that you automatically hear it from there, and it requires further study. Examine and you will find it easy.)

It is stated in the Gemara there that the people of the city are permitted to make the kuppah into a tamchui, and the tamchui into a kuppah, and to change it for whatever they desire. This is the wording of the Tur: The people of the city are permitted to change from kuppah to tamchui if the poor of the world have increased upon them, and the tamchui they collected for their needs is not sufficient for them. And likewise to change from tamchui to kuppah if the poor in the city have increased, and the kuppah is not sufficient for them. Thus far his words. It is clear from this that even though through this the giving to the kuppah or the tamchui will be diminished from what it was previously—it is also permitted. However, this is certainly when it is impossible to increase the collection beyond what it has been until now, for if it is possible to increase it, why should they deprive the poor? And one should not ask: Does it not state in Shekalim that the surplus of a poor person belongs to that poor person, as I wrote in siman 253, and if so, here when they collected for the needs of the poor of the city, how can they give them to others, and even to less than before? For it can be said that there too we explained according to the Yerushalmi, that if the parnasim saw that there was a need of the hour and wished to change—the authority is in their hands, see there. And here too, the gabba'im themselves are not permitted to change except with the knowledge of the parnasim (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). And so it is clear from the wording of the Shas, which says "the people of the city," meaning: the leaders. And the reason must be said here as well because it is with their knowledge that they give the tzedakah.

The Tur further wrote, and this is his wording: The Ri Migash wrote: Specifically for the needs of the poor may they change them, such as for the needs of clothing and burial and the like, even though they collected them for the purpose of food. But not for the needs of the poor – no. And Rabbeinu Tam explained that for all public needs they may change them. And so he instructed to give to the city guards from the kuppah, and so wrote the Rambam. And to this my lord father, the Rosh, agreed, and wrote: However, specifically the kuppah and tamchui which are a fixed matter, and if they are lacking they will collect another time. But if an incident occurred where they needed to collect for the needs of the poor, such as when they needed to collect for the needs of clothing, or many poor people came and they collected in their name – they shall not change it to give it for the purpose of another matter, and not even for the needs of other poor people. And if there is a chaver ir in the city, that is to say, a great man upon whose discretion everyone collects, and he distributes to the poor according to what appears to him – behold, he may change it for whatever he desires of the city's needs. Thus far the wording of the Tur, and it requires clarification.

And according to the words of the Rosh in the first chapter of Bava Batra (siman 29), the Ri Migash found difficult that which is stated in Shekalim, that the surplus of the poor is for the poor, and how can we say that they are able to change it? Therefore, he explained that the change is within the needs of the poor themselves, such as if they collected for food—they may change it for clothing or vice versa, and the like. But another change—even for a mitzvah—is forbidden. This is the opinion of the Ri, the author of the Tosafot, in the Mordechai there, and also the opinion of the Rif appears so (see Beit Yosef). And it must be said that these, our teachers, maintain that regarding that which we say in the Yerushalmi in Shekalim there, that the administrators are permitted to change it, and if so their initial difficulty does not exist, they maintain that this is only regarding the surplus that they collected and remained over. And I found this reasoning in the Nimukei Yosef there in the name of our teacher, Yonah, and this is his wording: And that of the Yerushalmi etc. refers to when they agreed to change the surplus of the poor for the needs of the community. And so too with the kupot and tamchui, they only collected to give them enough for their sustenance, and when there is a surplus—they are permitted to change it. Thus far his words. And according to this, it appears explicitly that they do not interpret kupah and tamchui as referring to when the poor of the world or the poor of the city increased, like the words of the Tur that we brought in section 5, for in such a case they are not permitted to change it. Rather, it deals with where there are surpluses, and in that case they are permitted to change it. And also, according to their words, there is no difficulty from the beginning of Arachin, that they are permitted to change the donations of the beit knesset, and so too in Megillah regarding a beit knesset where the seven leaders of the city can sell it even for a mundane matter; for that is specifically regarding donations to a beit knesset which they give with the understanding of the seven leaders of the city, and not regarding the tzedakot of the poor (Rosh ibid.).

And one should not ask according to this view: that regarding tzedakah for the poor they are not permitted to divert [the funds], and if so, how can they divert from the poor of the city to the poor of the world, such as from the kuppah to the tamchui or vice versa? For it can be said in one of two ways: either they interpret that this refers to the surplus, according to the view of our teacher Yonah that we brought, or they hold that this is not called a diversion, for all poor people are considered as one, and anyone who gives to the poor—his intent is for all the poor, for whoever’s need is greater. And behold, according to this, that which they said that a diversion among the poor themselves, such as from food to clothing, is permitted, can also be interpreted in two ways: that according to our teacher Yonah, it is specifically for those same poor people that it is permitted to divert and not to others, except for the surpluses. And according to the second answer we explained, they can divert even to other poor people. And from the language of the Tur, who wrote specifically that "for the need of the poor" they may divert, and did not write "for the need of those poor," it implies somewhat like the second interpretation. And even according to this answer, it is specifically when they collected for the poor in general; even though the donation was for the poor of the city, they can divert to the poor of the world, and likewise vice versa. But if they collected explicitly for the need of a certain poor person, or certain poor persons X, Y, and Z—they cannot divert at all except for the surpluses. As we learned in Shekalim there: The surplus of a poor person is for that poor person. Such is the view of these our teachers, in my humble opinion.

The approach of our teacher Tam is that they are permitted to change it even for a mundane matter, and he compares it to that which is in Arachin (Tosafot Bava Batra 8b). This is the opinion of the Rambam, who wrote in chapter nine, law 7: The people of the city are permitted to make the kuppah into a tamchui, and the tamchui into a kuppah, and to change them to whatever they desire of the public needs, even if they did not stipulate so at the time they collected. And if there was in the city a great sage upon whose authority everyone collects, and he distributes to the poor according to what he sees fit—he is permitted to change them to whatever appears to him of the public needs. Thus far his words. Behold, he explained explicitly that the public itself can change to whatever they desire. And only if there is a great sage in the city, then it is not dependent on the public but only on him. And that which he wrote "medinah"—it is known that the Rambam calls a city "medinah." And he follows his approach in the commentary on the Mishnah in Shekalim there, that if the parnasim saw fit to change—the authority is in their hands. And he did not distinguish between the surplus and the entirety of the collection. And although in siman 253, section 13, we wrote this only regarding the surpluses, there we did not delve into this, and we wrote the law according to all opinions. But the Rambam does not distinguish in this.

And also in the Yerushalmi of Shekalim there, it is explicitly proven that it does not only refer to the surplus, for it brought a baraita there: One does not redeem a captive with [funds collected for another] captive, and one does not collect for a tallit with [funds collected for another] tallit, and one does not protest against the parnasim regarding this, see there. Behold, it explicitly refers to all the captive funds, and all the tallit funds that they collected for a specific poor person. And indeed, from this there is a great wonder regarding the Nimukei Yosef and the Ri, who explained this regarding the surpluses. For certainly in the Mishnah there we can explain it thus, but not in the baraita. And in the Mishnah, this matter of "one does not protest" does not appear at all, only in the baraita. And it is a Tosefta at the end of the first chapter of Shekalim, for previously it taught there the law of the Mishnah, and afterward this matter of "one does not redeem etc.", and upon this it concludes with this matter of "one does not protest," see there. And the Rosh wrote there, and this is his wording: And we suggest the reading in the Yerushalmi of Shekalim: "The surplus etc., the surplus of captives for captives, and one does not protest against the parnasim etc." Thus far his words. And it is possible that such was their version of the text. And according to this, one may well say according to the explanation of the Nimukei Yosef and the Ri. But before us, the version of the text is not so.

The Rosh distinguishes in a different manner, and this is his wording: For there in Shekalim it is not dealing with the money of the charity box, but rather by happenstance etc. But the residents of the city who established a charity box without specification—they established it according to their own discretion, and to change them for whatever they desire. And when they require money for the poor of their city—they shall collect another time etc. Thus far his words. And ostensibly, since they established it according to their own discretion, why must he state the reason that they shall collect another time? And it appears that he is stating two reasons: one because they established it according to their own discretion, and furthermore that they shall collect another time. And with this it settles well: for the Tur brought in his name only because they shall collect another time, and why did he change from his wording "that they established it according to their own discretion"? Rather, it is because they are two reasons, and the Tur did not see fit to bring both reasons, and did not wish to be lengthy. And so wrote the Nimukei Yosef, and this is his wording: And to change them for whatever they desire, even for a matter that is not for the need of the poor. For even though they collected it for the poor and they acquired it, nevertheless it is like a loan regarding the community. And if the poor shall require it, it is incumbent upon them etc. Thus far his words.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 256:4) brought only the words of the Rambam. His reason is as he wrote in his great work, that many agreed with his position, and also the custom everywhere is to change even for a discretionary matter, see there. I saw one who wrote upon his words also the words of the Rosh (Shach subsection 7). I am astonished, for it appears explicitly that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not transcribe his words. However, this is all regarding the tzedakah of the public, because the public presumably gives according to the intent of the gabba'im, or according to the intent of the sage in the city. But regarding a donation of an individual, there are other laws in this matter, as will be explained. It will also be explained in siman 259 with the help of Heaven. (See the Beit Yosef who wrote that according to the Rosh, that passage in the Yerushalmi in Shekalim is only to change for the needs of the poor, and not for a discretionary matter. See the Shach there. However, this is according to the opinion of the Rosh, but according to the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam there is no distinction, since they did not make such a distinction. And since the Beit Yosef decided thus for the halacha – we establish it so. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the same law applies to a gabbai appointed by the townspeople, that he may change it for whatever communal needs appear to him. And the same law applies to an individual who volunteered tzedakah and gave it to a gabbai (to the fund). But if he himself appointed gabbaim—the townspeople cannot change it, for he did not volunteer based on their discretion. Similarly, if the donor specified and said they should give it to the poor of the city or to a certain poor person—they may not change it, even for Torah study. Thus far his words. And they challenged him, for a gabbai is not comparable to the community or the sage of the city, as they are permitted to change it even for a discretionary matter. However, the gabbai cannot change it except for a mitzvah matter, for so the poskim agreed. And so it implies in the first chapter of Arachin (Bach and Shach subsection 8, and the Gra subsection 9), unless the custom is such that the gabbai does whatever he wishes (Shach ibid.). For anyone who gives—gives based on the custom. And it appears to me that he was indeed precise in his words regarding the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, which deals with the fund of the townspeople, where all the townspeople appointed him as gabbai to be in place of all the townspeople, and consequently his power is as their power. And this is what he wrote: "And the same law applies to an individual who volunteered tzedakah and gave it to a gabbai," meaning: that the individual, aside from what he gives regularly according to the assessment, gave further to the city fund into the hand of the gabbai. For presumably he gave with this intention, that the gabbai shall do as he wishes. And regarding this he said, "But if he himself appointed gabbaim etc.," meaning: in a matter that did not enter the city's generalities, even the townspeople cannot change it, and all the more so the gabbaim. Similarly, "if the donor specified etc.," meaning: when he specified, even if he gave it to the city gabbai—it is forbidden to change it. And so it is explained in the Maharik (Root 5) that there is a distinction between one gabbai and another, see there. And so it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, himself from what he wrote afterward, as will be explained in the next section with the help of Heaven.

He further wrote: The residents of a city who appointed a gabbai, and the group disbanded and they separated from one another, and the tzedakah funds are still in the hand of the gabbai—if the gabbai initially had the authority to do as he wished, even now he may do as he wishes. And if initially he was required to consult with the residents of the city, even now he must do so. And if it is impossible for him to consult, or if they cannot reach a consensus, the gabbai shall do as he wishes, provided that he uses it for a mitzvah. Thus far his words. And this teaches us that even though they separated and did not command how to act, and if so it is like a waiver and he does not need to ask them (see Bava Kamma 111a), nevertheless, if it is at all possible for him to ask them, he should ask. However, if there is great trouble in this, or if they do not reach a consensus, establish it according to the law that he may do as he pleases. But in this, his power is not as great as the residents of the city or as a gabbai who had the authority to do as he wished, for they are permitted to change it even for a mundane matter. But he may only change it for a mitzvah. For even if we say they waived their rights, nevertheless, they certainly did not waive them for a mundane matter. And it appears to me that if some of them separated and some of them remained in their place, he should ask only those who remained in their place. And in siman 259 more of these laws will be explained; see there.

All residents of the city are obligated to give to all the charities of the city. And so the sages said (Bava Batra 8a) that one who resides in a city for thirty days—they compel him to give charity to the kuppah with all the residents of the city. If he resided there for three months—they compel him to give to the tamchui. If he resided there for six months—they compel him to give charity for the clothing with which they cover the poor of the city. If he resided there for nine months—they compel him to give charity for the burial with which they bury the poor, and they perform for them all the needs of burial. This is according to the version of the Rif and the Rambam. However, the version of the Rosh and the Tur is that thirty days is for the tamchui, and three months is for the kuppah. And such is the version of Rashi. And a reason can be given for this version, because the giving to the kuppah is greater than to the tamchui. For the tamchui is for one day, and the kuppah is for the entire week. Therefore, as long as he has not resided for that long—he is not obligated in a large giving. And the reason of the Rif and the Rambam is that the kuppah is more necessary than the tamchui, for the kuppah is for the poor of the city and the tamchui is for wayfarers. And the Rambam already wrote that the kuppah exists in all places, which is not the case for the tamchui. And it appears to me that this refers to one who resides in the city with the members of his household, and he is like a homeowner here. But one who resides in the city with merchandise, and he himself dwells in another place with the members of his household—his law is like a guest, even if he resided there for a long time.

All these measurements apply when one comes to reside and says that his intention is not yet to settle permanently in the city until he sees if it will be suitable for him. But if he comes to reside and says that his intention is to settle permanently—they compel him immediately, for he immediately becomes like the people of the city. And similarly, the residents of a new city who gathered to dwell in this place—they compel one another immediately for everything. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 256:5) that there are those who say that in this time, we measure everything at thirty days. Thus far his words. And there is no reason for the matter, except that this was the custom because of the exile (Beit Yosef in the name of the Semak). And it can be said that the intention is as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 156, because in their days the settlement was very unstable, and if we wait for a long time—there will be no one to give. (In several editions of the Shulchan Aruch, "Tur" is noted on this law, but it is not so; rather, it is from the Semak. And see the Beit Yosef, who cited in the name of the Yerushalmi that for flour for Pesach, twelve months are required. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in Orach Chaim siman 429 (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 429). And see the Magen Avraham there, who wrote in the name of the Semak that now it is thirty days, and it is also implied in the Beit Yosef. And it requires further study regarding the Rema there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 256) wrote: One who goes from his place to another city for commerce, and the people of the city where he goes assessed him for tzedakah—he gives it to the poor of that city. But if there were many who went there and they assessed them for tzedakah—they give. And when they come back—they bring it with them and support the poor of their city with it. And if there is a chavar ir in the place where they were assessed—they give it to the chavar ir, and he distributes it as he sees fit. Thus far their words. And so wrote the Rambam at the end of the seventh chapter, and this is in Megillah (Megillah 27b). And the explanation of the matters is as follows: for it is not dealing with the fixed tzedakah assessments that are in each and every city, for if so, what right does one city have to decree upon another? And if they request tzedakah from guests who came here as is customary, is it not known that the tzedakah is for the poor of this city? Rather, here it is dealing with a case where some matter arose in the world, such as a plague or epidemic or other decrees, and it remained by agreement in the large city of the province to decree a fast and tzedakah upon all the cities of the province, and they fixed sums for tzedakah. Therefore, an individual from another city, even though it is possible that by the letter of the law he would carry his tzedakah to his city, nevertheless he is nullified by the minority and belongs to the city where he is now. But when many gathered there from another city—the tzedakah belongs to their city. However, because of suspicion, so that they should not suspect them that they will not give this tzedakah at all, they therefore hand it over to the city they are now in, and when they depart from there, they take it from them and distribute it in their city. But when there is a chavar ir, meaning a great man of the generation who looks after all the needs of the cities—they leave it with him, and what belongs to their city he himself will send to them. And it is not the honor of the Torah that they should take it from his hand. (And this is the intention of the Rema there, and the intention of the Shach in subsection 12. And also what he wrote that settlements that purchase a gelilah or another mitzvah in the beit knesset, the tzedakah belongs to that beit knesset—it is simple. And the custom regarding Yom Kippur candles, which he wrote: we are not particular in our regions, and each one should act according to the custom of the city. And it is simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: One who has the money of others for half-profit or in another manner, and they give ma'aser from the profit – he must give the profit to its owner, and he shall give it to whomever he wishes. Unless there is an ordinance in the city to give from everything one earns, even with the money of others. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that he must give the profit to its owner – his intention is half of the ma'aser from the profit, for half belongs to the practitioner, unless the practitioner does not take any of the profit at all. (And see Shach subsection 13, and Taz subsection 7. However, among us there are no ordinances regarding this, and there is no need to elaborate on this.)