Siman 257

It is stated in the first chapter of Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashanah 6a) that regarding sacrifices, when one vows to bring a sacrifice – he is obligated to bring it by the first festival. And when he does not bring it, he violates a positive commandment. And when three festivals pass and he has not brought it, he violates the negative commandment of "do not delay." And it says there that also regarding tzedakah, when one vows, he violates "do not delay" when he does not give to the poor. And we say there that regarding tzedakah, he violates it immediately, for behold, there are poor people present. And the Rashba wrote in his novellae there that he violates a positive commandment immediately, just as with the first festival regarding sacrifices, and after three festivals pass, he violates the negative commandment of "do not delay" just as with sacrifices, for it is a decree of the verse. However, the Ran wrote there that the matter of festivals does not pertain to tzedakah at all; rather, he violates "do not delay" immediately when there are poor people. And when there are no poor people, he never violates it (so it is implied from the Ran, see there). But according to the Rashba and also according to Tosafot, after three festivals he always violates it even if there are no poor people, for it is a decree of the verse.

The opinion of the Rambam at the beginning of the eighth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 8) is like the Ran, as he wrote: Tzedakah is included among vows. Therefore, one who says, "Behold, a sela is incumbent upon me for tzedakah," or "Behold, this sela is tzedakah" – is obligated to give it to the poor immediately. And if he delayed, he has transgressed "do not delay," for it is in his power to give immediately, and the poor are available. If there are no poor there – he sets it aside and leaves it until he finds poor people, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not mention the three festivals at all. And that which he required to set it aside when there are no poor here, it appears that he ruled so based on the sugya there, which says that there are two verses: one where he set it aside but did not offer it, and one where he spoke but did not set it aside. Therefore, he wrote two things: "Behold, a sela is incumbent upon me for tzedakah" – this is where he spoke but did not set it aside. And "Behold, this sela is for tzedakah" – this is where he set it aside but did not offer it, meaning that he did not give it to the poor person. And this is why he says that if there are no poor there, he sets it aside and leaves it, because the Torah decreed thus to set it aside, even though it is impossible to offer it yet (and so it is implied from the Kesef Mishneh, see there).

And the Tur also wrote according to this wording, and wrote in the name of the Rosh that this is specifically when one sets it aside without specification. However, any person can set aside money for tzedakah so that they remain with him to give them little by little as he sees fit. Thus far his words. And the matter is simple, that a condition is effective as in every neder, for according to the condition of his neder – so shall he fulfill. And the Rambam also wrote: And if he made a condition that he will not give until he finds a poor person – he does not need to set it aside. And likewise, if he made a condition at the time he vowed the tzedakah or volunteered it that the gabbaim shall be permitted to change it and to exchange it for gold – behold, these are permitted. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote that a condition is effective. And that which he wrote "and to exchange it for gold," this is its explanation: because it will be explained later that tzedakah gabbaim exchange for others and not for themselves. But according to a condition, it is effective.

The Tur wrote concerning the words of the Rambam, and this is his wording: It appears from his words that a condition is only effective when there are no poor people. But this is not clear. Furthermore: why is a condition necessary when there are no poor people, for is there not no obligation upon him? Rather, because poor people are found at all times, and if so, it is obvious that he is not obligated until poor people happen upon him. Thus far his words. Behold, his second difficulty is not a difficulty at all, for we have already explained the opinion of the Rambam that separation is always required, just as with sacrifices. And this is why he was precise to say "he does not need to separate," and did not say "he does not need to give." But the Tur, because it was obvious to him that this applies only to sacrifices, therefore raised a difficulty against him. However, his first difficulty is certainly difficult. And this is what was difficult for the Tur: since the Rambam did not write the condition even when there are poor people, but rather wrote that he conditioned that he would not give until he finds a poor person, we learn from this that when there are poor people, a condition is not effective. And there is one who wrote that he took the common way of things, for it is not the way to make a condition when there are poor people (Beit Yosef). But it is forced to say so (Bach and Derishah). And there is one who wrote that in truth this is the opinion of the Rambam, that a condition is not effective when there are poor people, just as a condition is not effective regarding sacrifices after three festivals (Bach). And in my humble opinion, even regarding a sacrifice, why would a condition not be effective, if he vows to bring a sacrifice after a year or two? For behold, every vow is within a person's authority, according to his will to vow. And if he vows upon a condition, it is obvious that it is effective. And it appears more likely when we are precise with the words of the Rambam who wrote: "And if he conditioned that he would not give until he finds a poor person, he does not need to separate," thus far his words. For he opened with giving, and concluded with separation. Rather, he comes to teach us a novel point, for the fact that a condition is effective is not a novel point at all, as it is obvious that it is in his power to vow according to his will. Rather, the novel point is that he conditioned that he would not give until he finds a poor person, and one could say his intention was that he would not give to the gabbai until he finds a poor person (Derishah). And I would have said that in any case separation is required—he comes to teach us that in such a case he also does not need to separate (it appears to me). And there is one who says simply that when he conditioned that he would not give, we say that his intention was for separation, for since there is no poor person, to whom would he give? Rather, certainly he intended for separation (Taz, subsection 3). And it appears more likely as I have written, that even if he intended for giving, he does not need to separate. And afterwards he comes to teach us that a condition is effective even regarding the gabbaim, for I would have said that a condition is effective only regarding himself and not regarding the laws of the gabbaim. And he comes to teach us that even in this, a condition is effective.

The primary rule for the halacha is that any type of condition is effective regarding tzedakah. In Shulchan Aruch, section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:3), they wrote the words of the Rambam and also the words of the Tur; see there. Their intention is that they do not disagree, for everyone holds that every condition is effective, even regarding after three regalim. And one is not required to seek out the poor even when three regalim pass. And he did not mention explicitly even regarding after three regalim, but rather that he stipulated without specification; or even if he did not stipulate at all but rather vowed without specification, "this sela is for tzedakah" or "it is incumbent upon me to give a sela to tzedakah" and there are no poor people—he is not obligated to seek them out even after three regalim (so it is implied from Shach, sub-section 5). However, according to the opinion of the Rambam, when there was no condition, he must set it aside when he said, "it is incumbent upon me to give a sela to tzedakah." And according to the opinion of the Rashba and Tosafot, he violates the prohibition after three regalim even when there are no poor people, as I wrote in section 1. Therefore, it is good to stipulate that he shall act according to his will. And in general, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:4), and this is his wording: One must be careful not to vow. And if they are apportioning tzedakah, and he must apportion with them—he should say "without a vow." Thus far his words. And specifically in this time, it is necessary to say so according to all opinions, even according to the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur, for nowadays there are always poor people in every single place, and he violates "do not delay" immediately. Therefore, it is necessary either to say "without a vow," or to stipulate that he shall act according to his will.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:3): And all this applies to tzedakah that he has the authority to distribute himself. But when one vows tzedakah in the beit knesset to give it into the hand of a gabbai, or other tzedakah that he must give to a gabbai — he does not violate it even though poor people are present, unless the gabbai demanded it of him, and then he violates it immediately if poor people are present and the gabbai would have distributed to them immediately. And if it is not known to the gabbai — he must inform the gabbai of what he vowed, so that he may demand it of him. And they are not called "poor people are present" unless they are poor people who need it distributed to them. But if it is not the practice to distribute to them immediately, they are not called "poor people are present." And if he said, "I will give a sela for tzedakah to so-and-so" — he does not violate it until that poor person comes, even though other poor people are present. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words: Even though it would seem that the hand of the gabbai is like the hand of the poor, and if so, just as when one vows to give to the poor and the poor are standing before him he is obligated to give immediately, so too when he vows to give to the gabbai and knows that there are poor people, he should be obligated to give immediately even without the claim of the gabbai. This is not so, for as long as the gabbai does not claim it from him—he does not transgress even when there are poor people. However, this is when the gabbai knows of his vow. But when he does not know—he must inform the gabbai. And if he does not inform him, then he transgresses immediately when there are poor people. However, conversely, there is a stringency regarding the gabbai, for as soon as the gabbai claims it from him he is obligated to give to him, even if the poor are not standing there. And if he did not give to the gabbai, he transgresses "bal te'acher." And the reason: perhaps the gabbai needs to pay debts for himself or to others (Shach, subsection 6). However, when he knows that the gabbai does not need his money now, as there are no poor people and he also has no debts—he does not transgress when he did not give to him immediately when he claimed it. And even when there are poor people, but he knows that they are not distributing to them immediately—he does not transgress.

And similarly, if one vowed to give to a specific poor person—he does not transgress until that poor person comes, even though other poor people are present. And we do not say that this one who vowed to a specific poor person intended for when he comes immediately, but if he delays a long time he should give to other poor people. For it is not so, as even if a long time passes—he does not transgress. (So it appears to me regarding his intention, for if not so, what is he teaching us? Examine it and you will find it easy.) And the Mordechai wrote in the first chapter of Bava Batra, that where one vowed to give to the poor to whomever he wishes—he transgresses immediately if poor people are present and it is in his hand to give to them. For he did not vow to give to the gabbai, where he does not transgress until the gabbai claims it from him. And one cannot say, "Behold, he vowed to give to whomever he wishes, and he can say 'I do not want these but rather others,'" for if so, he would exempt himself with this forever. Thus far his words. That is to say: rather, certainly his intention was to give immediately to whomever he wishes, and therefore if he said explicitly to give "to worthy poor people who find favor in my eyes" at whatever time I find them—he does not transgress until he finds worthy ones, and it is revealed before Heaven.

Tzedakah collectors, just as they must be careful to be blameless before Heaven, so too must they be careful to be blameless before people. As it is written: "And you shall be clear before Hashem and before Israel." And thus the sages taught (Bava Batra 8b): Tzedakah collectors, when they go to collect tzedakah, are not permitted to separate from one another because of suspicion, so that they should not say: This one who collects alone intends to steal (Rashi). But one may separate to a gate and the other to a shop, this one to collect from those sitting at the gate and that one to collect from those sitting in the shop, provided that both are visible as one (ibid.). If he found money in the marketplace, it is his, even though he is walking on tzedakah business. However, he should not put it into his pocket in the marketplace, so that they should not say: He is taking from tzedakah money. Rather, he puts it into the tzedakah purse, and when he arrives at his home, he may take it. And it is not only necessary to say this regarding a find, but even if he was owed a maneh by his fellow, and he repaid him in the marketplace where everyone sees, nevertheless he should not put it into his pocket but rather into the tzedakah purse, and when he arrives at his home, he may take it.

And so too, charity collectors who collected many small coins to distribute to the poor, and now there are no poor people and it is impossible to keep the coins because they will rust and be ruined, and it is necessary to exchange them for silver and gold coins – they exchange with others and do not exchange for themselves because of suspicion. And so too, collectors of the soup kitchen who have no poor people to distribute to, and they need to sell the food – they sell to others and do not sell to themselves. And when he comes to count the charity money – he shall not count them two by two, but rather one by one, so that they do not suspect him of taking one and leaving one. And one should not ask regarding the essence of this law, for we say at the end of the second chapter of Yevamot that two are not suspected (see there in Rashi, s.v. "hi gufa," that two are also not suspected): and charity collectors are indeed two. For it can be said that certainly from the essence of the law they are not suspected, but because of the talk of the people they must distance themselves. And this is explicitly stated in Chullin (Chullin 44b): Everyone is permitted to take, but the sages said, "Distance yourself from what is ugly, etc.," see there.

And just as the gabba'im must be careful in everything that has been explained so that they are not suspected, likewise it is incumbent upon the people to honor them. They should not suspect them after they have trusted them; presumably they are trustworthy men. And so the sages taught (Bava Batra 9a) that one does not calculate the tzedakah with the gabba'im of tzedakah to say: "Where did you give the coins that you collected?" (Rashi); nor in the hekdesh with the treasurers. And even though there is no proof for the matter, there is a remembrance for the matter, as it is stated in Kings (II Kings 12:16) regarding the repair of the Beit HaMikdash: "And they did not reckon with the men into whose hand they delivered the money to give to the workers, for they dealt in faithfulness." And it is not a complete proof, for it is different there as they were completely righteous (Tosafot). And also because there the workers were numerous for many tasks, for the fence-builders and the stone-cutters, for the porters and the donkey-drivers, and for building with wood and hewn stones, and it is impossible to stand upon the calculation. (Rashi. And it is somewhat difficult, for if so, why did it give only the reason "for they dealt in faithfulness"? And it can be settled. And be precise and you will find it easily.)

And nevertheless, the Tur and the Rema wrote that in order that they should be clear before Hashem and before Israel – it is good for them to give an accounting. Thus far his words. And who is greater to us than Moses our teacher, who gave an accounting for the Mishkan, as it is written in Parashat Pekudei. And it is stated in the Midrash there: "A man of integrity shall abound with blessings" – this refers to Moses etc., even though he was a treasurer unto himself – he called others and calculated through them etc., see there. And one should not ask: if so, why did our sages, of blessed memory, not impose upon them to give an accounting because of "and you shall be clear," just as they decreed upon them the matters mentioned above? For it can be said that it is not comparable, for regarding an accounting there is no room for suspicion, but regarding the matters mentioned there is room to suspect them, as has been explained. Furthermore: for regarding an accounting there is much burden, therefore they did not impose it upon them. Furthermore: for regarding an accounting, did they not grant them trustworthiness beforehand? And therefore, certainly if when they appointed them, they appointed them on the condition that they give an accounting – they are certainly obligated to give an accounting. And it seems to me that such is the custom. And it appears to me that in a place where the appointee receives a wage – he is certainly obligated to give an accounting.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257, 2) that all this applies to upright gabbaim. However, one who is not upright, or who was appointed through violence and force—must give an accounting. And the same law applies to all public officials. And when the public wishes, they may remove the gabbai and appoint another, and there is no concern of suspicion here, and the same law applies to other officials. Thus far his words. And this is specifically after the time for which he was appointed has concluded. However, within the time—there is certainly suspicion if they remove him (Shach, subsection 4). And if they did not set a time at all—they may remove him, for there is no suspicion here if the custom is such to change the officials. And it is a simple matter that even if he was appointed with the consent of the public, and he hears that they are complaining against him and suspecting him, that he is obligated to give an accounting (ibid., subsection 3). However, he does not need to give an accounting before everyone who challenges, for if so, there is no end to the matter. Furthermore: there are several public matters where it is not possible to show the expenditures before everyone; rather, he should seek out two or three of the honorable men in the city and give an accounting before them. (And in the Shach there, there is a printing error, and it should say: And the accounting shall not be made before every challenger etc., as the Noda BiYehudah Tanina wrote in siman 157, and the Pri Chadash in the Likkutim, cited in the Pitchei Teshuvah).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:5): When funds are lacking in the tzedakah purse, the gabbai must lend. And when funds are found in the purse after some time, he is repaid from it. And he does not need to take permission from the donors to the purse. Thus far his words. This is similarly explained in the Yerushalmi Ketubot (chapter six, halacha 5) regarding the matter of the marriage of an orphan girl. And although there is a dispute there, see there, it appears there that the halacha follows the one who holds that he must lend. The matter is simple that this refers to when he is certain that there will be money in the purse. And therefore he wrote in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:6) that a gabbai who said, "I lent such and such to the tzedakah purse," is believed without an oath, but not after they removed him. Thus far his words. And some have the version that he is believed even after they removed him, and such is the primary view (Bach). And specifically when he says so at the time they removed him. But if at the time they removed him he said nothing, and after a day or two he says so, he is not believed (Shach, subsection 16). And the phrasing "even after they removed him" does not imply this (ibid.), and it requires investigation for practical application (ibid.). However, regarding a gabbai who is fit and trustworthy, he is certainly believed even after they removed him without an oath (ibid.). And it appears that if he is not so trustworthy, he requires an oath even before they removed him. And although he has a migo, for he could have taken from the purse himself, nevertheless, we do not say a migo to exempt from an oath. However, the beit din can be lenient with him and accept a light oath from him.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:5): One who separates his tithes and lent to a poor person—from his own he separates his tithe, and calculates against that which he lent to the poor person, and retains for himself what he separated. And specifically when the poor person to whom he lent is still alive. But if he died or became wealthy—he does not need to pay, for he was a poor person at that time. And one does not separate upon him, for one does not separate upon that which is lost. And one need not concern himself that perhaps he became wealthy except when it is known. Thus far his words. And this law stems from a Mishnah at the end of the third chapter of Gittin: One who lends money to a kohen, or to a Levi, or to a poor person, see there. And even though we say there that even if he died he takes permission from the heirs, however, this applies to the priesthood and the Levites, for the heirs are also kohanim and Levites, and they stand in the place of their father. This is not the case regarding poverty and wealth. And so it is stated in the Yerushalmi there. And even though in the Gemara there we require that another person subsequently acquire the tithe for them through another, why was this not required here? It is possible that he ruled like the one who said there that they treated one who does not acquire like one who acquires, or like the one who established it there as referring to acquaintances of the priesthood and the Levites, for presumably this poor person to whom he lent is among his acquaintances. Therefore, a person can lend to a poor person, and afterward he may deduct it from his tzedakah. And he should acquire it for him through another, for in this way he fulfills his obligation according to all opinions. But when he dies or becomes wealthy—he cannot deduct it. However, when he lent to the community, he can always deduct on their account, even if some of them died or some of them became wealthy, for the community does not die. And in the Yerushalmi there they said: The entire community does not become poor, and the entire community does not become wealthy.

To be a gabbai tzedakah is a great mitzvah. And he should not be concerned by those who insult him and curse him; on the contrary, through this his reward is even greater. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi at the end of Peah: Rabbi Eleazar was a parnas. One time he came down to his house. He said to them: What did you do? They said to him: A group came and ate and drank and prayed for you. He said to them: There is no good reward. He came down a second time. He said to them: What did you do? They said to him: A group came and ate and drank and insulted you. That is to say: they disparaged and cursed you. He said to them: Now there is a good reward. Thus far his words. However, the gabbai must be careful not to give more to his relatives than to other poor people, for the tzedakah is not his. For certainly one who gives tzedakah from his own pocket may give more to his relatives as he desires, but not a gabbai tzedakah. And even one who gives from his own pocket should not give all of it to one poor person, but rather to this one a little and to that one a little. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said (Eruvin 63a): Anyone who gives his gifts to one kohen brings famine to the world. And also the gabbai should be careful regarding a poor person who has wealthy relatives in the city, that he should not give to him from the tzedakah fund, but rather his relatives should support him. And even though the wealthy people give to the fund, nevertheless he should not give to him from this, for the fund belongs to the poor who do not have wealthy relatives.

One who placed money in the hand of his wife so that from the profit, she shall give to whomever she desires for any matter of a mitzvah, and the principal shall only be under her hand, she is not able to deposit the principal in the hand of another even if he is a righteous man, for it is forbidden to deviate from his intention. And when the agent deviates from the intention of his sender—the agency is void. But if he appointed over this the sage of the city or some great man—we say that his intention was that he should do whatever he desires, whether with the principal or with the profit (Nekudot HaKesef, and not like the Taz subsection 6), unless he explicitly specified that he should not remove the principal from under his hand. And in any case, to his wife and his children he is permitted to hand it over, for everyone who deposits—it is with the intention of his wife and his children that he deposits. (So it appears to me to explain the words of the Shulchan Aruch section 11 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:11) according to the words of the Nekudot HaKesef and according to the words of the Gra subsection 20, see there. And they do not contradict one another according to what we have explained. Examine it and you will find it simple.)