Support in Kollel; Kaddish; Yahrtzeit

Is Support Tzedakah?

The Gemora discusses the obligation for one to support his sons and/or daughters.

The Shulchan Aruch (E”H 71:1) rules that one is obligated to support his children, but only up to the age of six. Beyond that age, the Sages instituted that he support them, but the court has no power to force him to do so.

The Shulchan Aruch (YD 253:3) rules that supporting one’s children is a form of tzedakah, based on the Gemora (Kesuvos 50a) that explains the verse extolling one who is oseh tzedakah b’chol ais – does tzedakah at all times, as referring to one who supports his young children.

The Shach (4) explains that this refers to children above the age of six, whom the father has no enforceable obligation to support.

The Poskim discuss whether one may therefore use money set aside as ma’aser for supporting his children.

The Taz (YD 249:1), echoing the Rama, says that ma’aser is meant exclusively for the poor, and supporting one’s children is like any other monetary obligation, which may not be fulfilled with ma’aser money.

The Shach (YD 249:3) disagrees, based on the Maharam miRutenburg, citing the Gemora in Kesuvos, which refers to supporting one’s older children as a form of tzedakah.

The Igros Moshe (YD 1:143) states that the obligation to support one’s wife includes an obligation to support her children, as long as they live with him. Such an obligation is like any other monetary obligation, which may not be fulfilled with ma’aser money. The Igros Moshe says that even the Shach only meant to include children who are of an age to earn their own living and live on their own, but would agree that one’s support for children living at home may not come from ma’aser money.

The Yechave Da’as (3:76) rules that one may take ma’aser money to support children above the age of six, and rejects the Igros Moshe’s assumption that support of one’s wife includes an obligation to support her children. Further, he rules that one may use ma’aser money for any form of support – including providing food, furnishing an apartment for a new couple, and supporting children learning Torah pre and post marriage. He recommends that one stipulate before earning money that he will use the ma’aser to provide such support, as some Poskim allow such a stipulation to allow use of ma’aser for other purposes. He adds that although the Rabbinate of Israel instituted a rule to force parents to support their children until the age of fifteen, this is simply giving more power to the institution of the Sages, but does not change the nature of such support from the status of tzedakah.

A Daughter First
is a Good Sign for Sons

by: Meoros HaDaf HaYomi

The Maharsha explains that a firstborn daughter prevents any discord that would arise between the sons if one of them were a firstborn, as now all of them inherit equal portions. If, however, a father leaves a firstborn son after him, he gets a double portion and his brothers become jealous. “A daughter first” is therefore a good sign that peace will reign among her brothers.

Others explain that a big sister will care for her brothers willingly and energetically, as she knows that “most sons are like their mother’s brothers.” In other words, when she is ready to marry, people will inquire after her brothers and she therefore has a good reason to help them grow up properly (Peninei Kedem).

Who Supports Whom?

Rabbi Eliezer Gordon eventually became the Rosh Yeshivah at Telz and one of the leading Torah figures of his generation, but after his marriage, he was supported by his father-in-law, who was a rabbi and a great scholar, but exceedingly poor. Still, despite his indigence, he contributed to his son-in-law’s welfare and, moreover, prevented him from responding to any of the many offers tempting him to serve as rabbi in various communities. Witnessing their sorry plight, his wife often tried to convince him to allow their renowned son-in-law to become an officiating rabbi, if only to keep him from resorting to their support. Nonetheless, he refused and once even rebuked her, saying, “Who knows who’s supporting whom?” Eventually, though, his wife prevailed upon him so unrelentingly that he had to agree that Rabbi Gordon should accept the next offer. Such an opportunity soon came and Rabbi Eliezer and his family packed their belongings and moved to another town. The same day the father-in-law suddenly collapsed and passed away. Those who attended the funeral and knew the family echoed his remark: “Who knows who’s supporting whom?”

Those who Learned Mishnayos for their own Departed Souls

Our Gemora highly praises anyone who leaves a son to inherit his estate. A previous Gemora, on 116a, applies the verse “…cry for the one who goes” (Yirmyahu 22:10) to a person who fails to leave a son after him. The Gemora in Sanhedrin explains that sons increase their fathers’ merits and the halachah accordingly stresses the importance of a son’s saying kaddish for his father (Remo in Shulchan ‘Aruch, Y.D. 376:4; Responsa Binyamin Ze’ev, 51).

A Father who Told his Son to Say Kaddish for 12 Months

To be careful for his father’s honor, a son stops saying kaddish for him 11 months after his demise; saying kaddish for the full year of mourning would suggest the father was a rasha, as only the evil stay in Gehinnom for 12 months (Remo, ibid).

Halachic authorities have discussed the question of a son, whose father commanded him to say kaddish for a full year.

HaGaon Rav Shlomo Kluger zt”l commanded his son to do so and the latter asked Rabbi Yitzchak Shmelkes of Lvov, author of Beis Yitzchak, as to how to behave, fearing that such an act would disgrace his father.

The Beis Yitzchak (II, 157) ruled that he should say kaddish for a full year to obey his father, as that would be the best way of honoring him (see ibid as to the halachah concerning the thirteenth month in a leap year).

Hiring a Person to Say Kaddish

If the deceased had no son, some relative should say the kaddish according to the following order of preference: the deceased’s sons’ sons, his daughters’ sons, his father, his brothers and other relatives. In the absence of any relative, a person should be hired to say kaddish for the elevation of his soul and according to the Kaf HaChayim (55:30), the person hired should say before any prayer that the kaddeishim he is about to say are for the elevation of the soul of So-and-so.


May a Daughter Say Kaddish?

Several halachic authorities ruled that if the deceased had no son, his daughter should say kaddish in a minyan at her home, and some even had the custom that if the daughter was very small, she would say kaddish in a synagogue. Still, almost all the Poskim hold that daughters must not say kaddish even at home, and if she wants to increase her father’s merits, she should answer amen after the sheliach tzibur (Penei Baruch: Aveilus BaHalachah, 34:20, in the name of Shevus Ya’akov, etc., and see S.K. 36).

Why Rav Auerbach Said Kaddish for Rabbi Shlomo Kluger’s Granddaughter

HaGaon Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach zt”l used to say kaddish for his relatives who had no one else to say it, and also for a woman called Shasha Mindel bas Rav Chayim Yehudah on her yahrzeit, 24 Nisan.

Shasha Mindel was not his relative and no one paid him to honor her yahrzeit. She was the granddaughter of HaGaon Rav Shlomo Kluger, who lost her father as a girl and was brought up by her grandfather; she passed away many years before Rav Auerbach was born. She suffered much during her short life and had no children.

Rav Kluger dedicated his Nidrei Zeiruzin, on tractate Nedarim, to her memory and in his preface he describes her short life and appeals to any reader to “mention her soul on the anniversary of her demise… He who is not thus dishonored should say kaddish for her… and he who thinks he is thus dishonored should pay a worthy poor person a small amount to say kaddish for her and this will be a true kindness done for the deceased and for me and their reward from Heaven will be double.” As one who learnt Rav Kluger’s works, Rav Auerbach obeyed his request despite the long time since her demise (Halichos Shlomo, Ch. 18, note 78).




Nine Years and One Son-in-Law

Immigrants from Russia recount that Jews in the communist era used to maintain groups for learning mishnayos in the remaining synagogues. The special feature of these groups, however, was that the members learnt mishnayos for the merit of their own souls as in the bitter reality of the Soviet regime, they could not rely on their sons to remember them in any way. A member of one group learnt mishnayos for himself for nine years before he passed away. His daughter eventually emigrated to Eretz Yisroel and wed a Torah scholar, who began to learn mishnayos in his father-in-law’s memory. When? Exactly nine years after his father-in-law’s demise!

HALACHOS FROM THE DAF

Does a Father have to Support his Son in Kollel?

By: Reb Avraham Klein

The Gemora cites Rabbi Meir that says: It is a mitzvah for a person to support his daughters and certainly his sons that learn Torah. This Gemora appears in Maseches Kesubos (49a) as well, and there ,the Gemora infers that it is a mitzvah, but not a chovah (obligation).

At what age is Rabbi Meir referring to? What about the sons that don’t learn Torah?

There are three categories:

1) Children under six years old: Their father is obligated to support them, even if the children have money (one of the only ways that money would be theirs and not automatically belonging to their father is if it was from an inheritance), and even if their mother died. (Shulchan Aruch Even Ha’ezer Siman 71 Sief 1)

2) Children aged six to Bar/Bas Mitzva: Chazal instituted that their father should support them if they don’t have money, even if he himself is not wealthy. If he chooses not to, we scream at him and shame him. If this doesn’t work, then we take even more drastic measures: We publicly announce that this person is a callous cold-hearted man that refuses to support his own children. However, we can’t actually force him to support them. In a case where the father is wealthy and can easily afford to support his children and he doesn’t, then we forcibly take away money from him to support them (ibid).

3) Children that are over the age of Bar/Bas Mitzva (gadlus): The father is obligated to support them like any other poor person (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah Siman 151 Sief 4).

The Bais Shmuel (in Even Ha’ezer ibid) explains that the father’s obligation to these children is equivalent to any other of his relatives. However, regarding the children under gadlus, the father has a greater obligation towards them than he has to other relatives.

A father that gives money to his children who he is not obligated to support, so that they can learn Torah, that money is considered tzedakah (and can be deducted from his ma’aser). Furthermore, he must support them before any other tzedakah. This is true for any relative that learns Torah, not just a son (ibid Sief 3).

There are many other halachos regarding tzedakah and ma’aser that was not mentioned here. One should always ask a competent Posek in this or any other area of halachha. There are many halachos about the order of tzedakah, how much to give, who should one not give to, etc.

Read more!

Adding Years to Someone's Lifetime

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora cites a braisa: It was related of Binyamin the Righteous who was a supervisor of the charity fund. One day a woman came to him in a year of famine, and said to him, “Master, please assist me.” He replied, “I swear by the service in the Holy Temple that there is nothing in the charity fund.” She said, “Master, if you do not assist me, a woman and her seven children will perish.” He accordingly assisted her out of his own funds. Some time afterwards he became deathly ill. The angels addressed the Holy One, Blessed be He, saying, “Master of the Universe, You have said that he who preserves one soul of Israel is considered as if he had preserved the entire world; shall then Binyamin the Righteous who has preserved a woman and her seven children die at such an early age?” Immediately, his decree was torn up. It has been taught that twenty-two years were added to his life.

The Metzudas David asks that this seems to contradict Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in Yevamos (49b), where the Gemora states: I (HaShem) shall fill the number of your days; these are the years that a person is granted to live at the beginning of his life. If he merits, those years will be completed. If he does not merit, they will decrease years from his lifetime; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Evidently, he holds that Hashem completes his years, but He does not add to them!?

He answers according to that which Tosfos writes there: Rabbi Akiva holds that when a person lives for a very long time, those years are not an addition to his allotted life, but rather a blessing from Hashem to live out his allotted time. Hashem does not add years to a person’s lifetime. That is only with respect to his own years. However, if years are deducted from another person’s life, those years can be added to someone else, provided that he deserves it.

Accordingly, it can be said that the twenty-two years which were added to Binyamin the Righteous’ lifetime, were in fact years that were deducted from others. And because Binyamin was so deserving, those years were added to his life.

Read more!

Accepting Charity from an Idolater

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora states: An act of kindness or charity performed by an idolater is regarded as a sin. This is because they are only performing these good deeds to live longer, or that their reign should continue, or in order to glorify themselves, or to rebuke the Jews.

The Gemora in Sotah (47a) states: When there increased the number of Jews who accepted charity from idolaters, the idolaters were on top and Israel was on bottom.

Our Gemora says that when idolaters give tzedakah it serves as an atonement for them. Because it serves as an atonement, Rav Ami refused to accept tzedakah from Ifra Hurmiz. Even Rava only accepted it for the sake of peaceful relationship with the government, but otherwise, he would not have accepted it. This is based upon a verse which teaches us that the idolaters will become weak and broken once their charitable deeds have dried up, and therefore, we don’t give them opportunities for more merits. However, the Gemora says that if we were to use the funds to support non-Jewish causes (which Rashi explains that we support anyway for the sake of peaceful relationship with the government), it would not give them any special merit. It is only if we use the funds to support Jews that it is considered a merit for them.

Tosfos (8a d.h. yasiv) points out that the Gemora in Eruchin (6b) implies that we would accept donations to synagogues that come from idolaters. Why? Tosfos explains that donations to synagogues are considered like korbanos and we do accept korbanos from idolaters.

The Gemora (Nazir 62a) cites a Scriptural source to teach us that an idolater can vow vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings just like Jews.

The Haga’os Ashri (here) brings the following question in the name of the Maharich: Why are we not allowed to accept charity from an idolater, but we are permitted to accept his korbanos?

He answers in the name of his Rebbe: A voluntary korban is not brought to serve as atonement, and therefore, we are not concerned if they offer a sacrifice, for those do not bring about forgiveness and they will not serve as a protection for them. However, one who gives charity receives atonement for his sins, and merits protection for his good deed. It is not in our best interests to assist them in this matter.

What does the Haga’os Ashri mean that vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings are not meant for the purpose of atonement? What is accomplished for the idolaters aside from atonement? Furthermore, the Gemora says in Sukkah (55b) that the idolaters destroyed the Holy Temple, not realizing what they will be losing. When we had the Temple, the Altar served as an atonement for them, but now they have nothing to atone for them. The Gemora in Sukkah clearly implies that the purpose for their korbanos were to be an atonement, which contradicts the Haga’os Ashri?

The distinction of the Haga’os Ashri is found in the Shach and Taz (Y.D. 254:4) to explain the Rama who says that we do accept donations to synagogues from idolaters, but don’t accept tzedakah from them (unless the money was air-marked for tzedakah and must be accepted for the sake of peaceful relationship with the government).

Reb Avi Lebowitz suggests the following: Perhaps the Gemora in Sukkah is not referring to the vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings that the idolaters bring, rather the Holy Temple, in general, served as an atonement for the entire world, including the idolaters. But the vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings, and donations to synagogues that we accept from idolaters is because it allows them to have a share in our prayers, but it will not serve as an atonement to prevent them from being destroyed for sins that they have committed. Tzedakah to the poor which would serve as an atonement for sins that they have committed, we refuse to accept from them unless we have no choice (such as for the sake of peaceful relationship with the government).

The Chochmas Adam (146:3) explains this idea a bit further: Tzedakah to the poor is tantamount to a korban chatas which we do not accept from idolaters because we don’t give them opportunity for atonement, but freewill-offerings, we do accept from them, so we can also accept gifts to synagogues.

It would seem that this prohibition, which forbids accepting tzedakah from them, only applies to tzedakah to the poor, but donations to Yeshivos and donations for kindness activities which do not go to the poor, would be like vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings that we can accept from them. But perhaps when it comes to the studying of Torah, where the donation buys them a share in the Torah, we should not provide them with that opportunity either.

Read more!

Reckoning with the Charity Collectors

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora cites a braisa: The charity collectors are not required to give an account of the monies entrusted to them for charity. And the treasurers of the Temple are not required to reckon the funds given to them for the Temple purposes. And although there is no actual proof of this in the Scriptures, but there is a hint of it in the following verse: And they would not reckon with the men into whose hand they delivered the money, to give to those that did the work, for they dealt faithfully.

Rabbi Elozar said: Even if a man has in his house a treasurer on whom he can rely, he should tie up and count out all money that he hands to him, as it is written: They bound it in in bags and counted the money.

Rashi writes that although he has no intention of demanding an accounting afterwards, he still should tie up and count out all money that he hands to him.

What is the purpose of such a counting?

The Meiri explains that if he will not count it in the beginning, he will certainly suspect the treasurer that he accepted more money then he actually spent. Now that it is counted, at least they are both aware as to the amount of money which was given over to him. One should always make an effort not to suspect a person of committing a wrongdoing.

The Maharsha writes that the money is counted in order that the mazikin (spiritual damagers) should not have any control over the money, for money that is tied, sealed, or counted they cannot have any effect over.

The Ein Eliyahu answers that it is counted in order that the treasurers themselves can make a calculation at the end, if they so desire.

Read more!

The Designation of Money and the Timeliness of a Mitzvah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora cited a braisa: The Purim collections must be used for Purim only, and we are not required to be so precise in the matter (how much is needed for Purim, and how much the poor of the city needs). The poor may not even buy straps for their shoes, unless it was stipulated in the presence of the townspeople that such shall be granted; these are the words of Rabbi Yaakov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient in the matter (and allows the poor person to use the charity funds for other uses besides the Purim feast).

The Chavos Yair quotes a Sefer Chasidim, who derives from this Gemora that if one sends his fellow a gift of food to be eaten on Shabbos, it is forbidden for the recipient to eat it during the weekdays. If he has leftover, he should let the rest of household partake in it, but only on Shabbos. If the donor explicitly stipulated that he should be the only one to eat from it, he may not give it to others.

It would seem from our Gemora that this is not merely an act of piousness; but rather, it is halachically mandated. We can extrapolate further that if one gives money or wine to his fellow and he tells him that is should be used for Kiddush, he must use it for Kiddush, and nothing else. It would be forbidden to buy fish for Shabbos with this money, for Kiddush is a Biblical mitzvah, and eating fish on Shabbos is merely a Rabbinic one.

However, according to the prevailing custom that money is given to Torah scholars, and they are told to use it for Shabbos and Yom Tov, that is only out of respect, but they are not actually being particular as to what it should be used for; in such cases, they could use the money for whatever they desire.

Reb Yosef Engel cites the following Yerushalmi: If one vows to bring a flour-offering on Yom Tov, he should not bring it on a weekday. This is why the seforim write that a transgression committed on Shabbos is more severe than one committed on a weekday, for the holiness of the day plays a role. So too it may be said regarding the performance of a mitzvah; There will be a greater reward for a mitzvah performed on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Read more!

Saving the Whales

by: Reb Avi Lebovitz

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora suggests a kal vachomer that would result in their being a mitzvah of preserving the life of animals. Although one may have a mitzvah to feed his own animals, the Gemora concludes that there is surely no mitzvah to support the animal (when it is no longer profitable), and certainly one is not obligated to support animals that are not his.

The Tosfos HaRosh asks in the name of Rabbeinu Meir: Why would we have thought differently? There should be an obvious challenge to this kal vachomer from the fact that one is not allowed to slaughter people, but may slaughter animals - this obviously shows that there isn’t any mitzvah to preserve the life of animals!?

The Tosfos HaRosh responds to this question by saying that we would have thought that this mitzvah would apply to animals that one is not allowed to slaughter, such as a bechor that is intermingled with an ox that is destined to be stoned (shor haniskal).

Aside from the actual question of the Tosfos HaRosh, the entire thought that one would be obligated to support animals and help them survive seems a little strange. Especially since in the end, the mitzvah of preserving a life only applies to a Jew and not to an idolater!?

The Biur Halachah (330:2) writes that one is obligated to help a ger toshav woman give birth because on a ger toshav, there is a mitzvah to preserve their life. He entertains the possibility that the Jew can even violate a Rabbinic prohibition to help the ger toshav give birth because when there is a mitzvah to preserve a life, the Rabbis did not issue their decrees. Based on this application of the mitzvah to preserve a life, the mitzvah goes beyond tzedakah; it compels one to actually take care of others and help them through physically challenging circumstances.

Read more!

The Designation of Money and the Timeliness of a Mitzvah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

The Gemora cited a braisa: The Purim collections must be distributed for Purim (and nothing else). The local collections belong to that town only, and we are not required to be so precise in the matter (how much is needed for Purim, and how much the poor of the city needs), but calves are purchased in abundance, slaughtered and eaten, and the surplus goes to the charity fund. Rabbi Eliezer said: The Purim collections must be used for Purim only, and the poor may not even buy straps for their shoes, unless it was stipulated in the presence of the townspeople that such shall be granted; these are the words of Rabbi Yaakov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient in the matter (and allows the poor person to use the charity funds for other uses besides the Purim feast). [We may derive from here that Rabbi Meir holds that we cannot deviate from the owner’s intent.]

The Gemora notes that this braisa does not prove that (whoever deviates from the owner’s stipulation is regarded as a thief), for perhaps there too, the reason is that the donors gave the charity only that it should be used for Purim, and not for any other purpose? [Regarding charity funds, there is a significant difference between the two purposes, whereas the two routes discussed in our case are not significantly different than each other, for one is not more dangerous in any way than the other.]

The Chavos Yair quotes a Sefer Chasidim, who derives from this Gemora that if one sends his fellow a gift of food to be eaten on Shabbos, it is forbidden for the recipient to eat it during the weekdays. If he has leftover, he should let the rest of household partake in it, but only on Shabbos. If the donor explicitly stipulated that he should be the only one to eat from it, he may not give it to others.

It would seem from our Gemora that this is not merely an act of piousness; but rather, it is halachically mandated. We can extrapolate further that if one gives money or wine to his fellow and he tells him that is should be used for Kiddush, he must use it for Kiddush, and nothing else. It would be forbidden to buy fish for Shabbos with this money, for Kiddush is a Biblical mitzvah, and eating fish on Shabbos is merely a Rabbinic one.

However, according to the prevailing custom that money is given to Torah scholars, and they are told to use it for Shabbos and Yom Tov, that is only out of respect, but they are not actually being particular as to what it should be used for; in such cases, they could use the money for whatever they desire.

Reb Yosef Engel cites the following Yerushalmi: If one vows to bring a flour-offering on Yom Tov, he should not bring it on a weekday. This is why the seforim write that a transgression committed on Shabbos is more severe than one committed on a weekday, for the holiness of the day plays a role. So too it may be said regarding the performance of a mitzvah; There will be a greater reward for a mitzvah performed on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Read more!

Spending Money for a Mitzvah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

Tosfos (Bava Kamma 9b) writes that it is evident from our Gemora that a person is not obligated to give up all of his possessions in order to fulfill a mitzvah, and even for a mitzvah that will pass in time, such as an esrog. It is further evident from the conclusion of the Gemora that one is not even obligated to give up a third of his possessions in order to fulfill a mitzvah. And furthermore, it is said regarding charity: One who gives liberally to charity should not give more than a fifth of his money, for then, he will be forced to beg for support himself.

All Mitzvos

The Rosh writes that this halacha applies by all mitzvos; one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth on any specific mitzva, such as esrog or lulav. The Rambam and Rema seem to rule accordingly.

Why not Spend?

The Rishonim ask: Why would someone be exempt from performing a mitzvah just because it costs more than a fifth of his wealth? The Ra’avad answers that this is similar to halacha that one should make his Shabbos like an ordinary weekday, and not be forced to be supported from charity. This is because poverty is regarded as death, and one is not obligated to give up his life for an ordinary mitzvah.

The Biur Halachah writes (in his explanation of an opinion from the Beis Yosef) that not all mitzvos are compared to charity, for charity is a mitzvah that will not pass in time, and even if the poor people are before him, they can be supported by another person. That is why one would not be obligated to spend more than a tenth of his possessions. However, with respect to a mitzvah that will pass in time, it is possible that there would be an obligation to spend more than a tenth.

Reb Yaakov Emden asks: Why isn’t there an obligation to spend more for a positive commandment? Did we not learn regarding one who does not want to fulfill a positive commandment – we beat him until his soul departs him? Do we treat his money stricter than his life?

The Maharitz Chayus answers that we only beat him until his soul departs him when he is rebelling against the fulfillment of mitzvos; otherwise, we do not beat him, and he would not be required to spend all his money for it.

Lo Sa’aseh is Different

The Ra’avad adds that this halacha applies only to a positive commandment; however, one would be required to spend his entire wealth in order not to transgress a negative precept.

Must he Spend a Fifth?

The Gemora (Kesuvos 50a) states that one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth to fulfill a mitzvah; is one halachically required to spend up to that amount, or is it only regarded as a mitzvah?

The Beis Yosef (Y”D; 249) writes that it is considered a mitzvah in the preferable manner if one spends up to a fifth of his wealth in order to perform a mitzvah. The Beis Yosef adds that although one can imply from the Gemora that it is not even a mitzvah to spend that amount because the Gemora states: One who spends liberally should not give more than a fifth of his wealth; however, even less than that would be regarded as spending liberally, and there would be no mitzvah whatsoever to spend that amount. Nevertheless, there is a Yerushalmi in Pe’ah that seems to indicate that there is a mitzvah to spend up to one-fifth of his wealth for a mitzvah.

In the sefer Ahavas Chesed, the Chafetz Chaim cites a Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos, who writes that there is a halachic obligation to spend up to one-fifth of one’s wealth for charity. He asks form our Gemora, which would seem to indicate that there is no such obligation. He answers that our Gemora is discussing a case where the poor people are not present and someone is searching to find them in order to give them charity. In such a situation, there is not even a mitzvah to give up to one-fifth. However, the Yerushalmi and the Rambam are speaking about a case where the poor person is in front of you; then, there would be a halachic obligation to give up to one-fifth.

Spending More than a Fifth

What if one wants to spend more than a fifth? Is he allowed to? It is evident from the Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos that it is regarded as virtuous (midas chassidus) for one to spend more than a fifth. However, it can be inferred from the Rambam in halachos that one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth on a mitzvah.

The Chafetz Chaim reconciles the two rulings of the Rambam in the same manner as before. If the poor person is present, it would be regarded as midas chassidus to spend more than a fifth, and that is what the Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos is discussing. However, when the poor people are not present and one is chasing after them, he should not spend more than a fifth.

The Shitah Mekubetzes writes that one is permitted to spend more than a fifth of his wealth if it is to support the studying of Torah. The Ahavas Chesed explains the reasoning for this. One who supports another fellow to learn Torah is creating a partnership with him; the supporter receives a reward together with the one who is learning the Torah. One is permitted to purchase this reward for himself even if it will cost him more than a fifth.

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe (Y”D, 4:37) rules that this is correct only if the supporter specifically negotiates with the one studying Torah to create a partnership of Yissochar and Zevulun. However, if the provider is just donating money to support Torah, he is not permitted to give more than a fifth.

The Ibn Ezra in Mishlei (4:7) writes that one is permitted to spend more than a fifth of his wealth in order to study Torah himself. The Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos (Yoma 12a) also rules like that. However, the Netziv in the Shiltos states that this is a matter of dispute between two Amoraim. The Gemora in Eruvin cites the verse that Torah is not in the Heavens. Rav Avdimi says: If it would be in the heavens, one would be obligated to go there and learn. It is evident that one would be forced to spend more than a fifth of his wealth to study Torah, for otherwise, he could claim that it costs too much to travel to the Heaven. However, Rava disagrees regarding the interpretation of that verse, and according to him, one would not be allowed to spend more than a fifth in order to study Torah.

The Rema (Y”D, 249:1) seems to hold that one can give away more than one-fifth of his wealth to charity right before he dies. It is brought in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah that even then, he should not.

It is written in Ahavas Chesed that one who is a free-spender in regards to himself and his family, i.e., he splurges on expensive clothing, builds for himself a fancy mansion and generally leads a luxurious lifestyle; it is permitted for him to give to charity more than a fifth of his wealth.

Some say that if one finds himself in dire straits, he is permitted to spend more than a fifth with the intention that it should be on account of this deed that he will merit a salvation. It is brought in the name of the Bnei Yissoschar that one who requires atonement on a specific sin is also permitted to give away more than a fifth.

Read more!

Accepting Charity from an Idolater

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Sotah 47b) states: When there increased the number of Jews who accepted charity from idolaters, the idolaters were on top and Israel was on bottom.

The Gemora (Nazir 62a) cites a Scriptural source to teach us that an idolater can vow vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings just like Jews.

The Haga’os Ashri (in Bava Basra) brings the following question in the name of the Maharich: Why are we not allowed to accept charity from an idolater, but we are permitted to accept his korbanos?

He answers in the name of his Rebbe: A voluntary korban is not brought to serve as atonement, and therefore, we are not concerned if they offer a sacrifice, for those do not bring about forgiveness and they will not serve as a protection for them. However, one who gives charity receives atonement for his sins, and merits protection for his good deed. It is not in our best interests to assist them in this matter.

Read more!

Accepting Charity from an Idolater

The Gemora (Daf Yomi: Nazir 62a) cites a Scriptural source to teach us that an idolater can vow vowed-offerings and freewill-offerings just like Jews.

The Haga’os Ashri (in Bava Basra) brings the following question in the name of the Maharich: Why are we not allowed to accept charity from an idolater, but we are permitted to accept his korbanos?

He answers in the name of his Rebbe: A voluntary korban is not brought to serve as atonement, and therefore, we are not concerned if they offer a sacrifice, for those do not bring about forgiveness and they will not serve as a protection for them. However, one who gives charity receives atonement for his sins, and merits protection for his good deed. It is not in our best interests to assist them in this matter.

Read more!

Distinction between Charity and Returning a Lost Object

The Gemora (Kesuvos 108a) states regarding one who is forbidden by a vow to derive benefit from his fellow; the fellow is permitted to return his lost property to him. This is permitted because his primary intention is to fulfill the mitzvah, and he is not intending to provide pleasure to his friend.

This, explains the Shitah Mikubetzes, is in contrast to the mitzvah of giving charity, which would be forbidden. What is the difference between the two mitzvos? He explains: When charity is given to him, he is benefiting directly from the money; therefore, it is forbidden. When his lost object is returned, he is not deriving pleasure from the item; he is getting benefit from the fact that his fellow troubled himself to return the object to him. Regarding his fellow’s exertion, it may be said that his intention is to fulfill the mitzvah, and not to provide pleasure.

Others make the following distinction: Charity may be given to any poor person; it does not have to be given to this specific poor person. That is why it is prohibited to give this particular poor person charity. However, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of returning a lost object, it must be returned to the one who lost the item, and therefore, it would be permitted.

Read more!

Showing Gratitude to the Swindlers

The Gemora (Kesuvos 68) cites an incident: Rabbi Chanina had a poor man to whom he regularly sent four zuz on every Erev Shabbos. One day he sent the money with his wife who came back and told him that the man was in no need of charity. Rabbi Chanina asked her, “What did you see?” She replied, “I heard that he was asked, ‘On what would you like to dine? Would you like silver or gold tablecloths?’” Rabbi Chanina remarked, “It is because of such cases that Rabbi Elozar said: Come and let us be grateful to the swindlers (who pretend to be poor), for were it not for them, we would have been sinning every day (on account of ignoring the poor).

*** The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse proving that one is regarded as a sinner if he does not give charity to a poor person. Why is a special verse necessary? The mitzvah of giving tzedakah should be like any other mitzvah, and one who refrains from giving to a pauper should automatically be transgressing this mitzvah?

*** How can we give gratitude to the swindlers; it is prohibited to provide assistance for one who is committing a transgression? Cheaters and swindlers are from the group that will not merit seeing the Shechina; wouldn’t it be better if there weren’t any swindlers at all?

*** What sin are we showing gratitude to the swindlers for? Is it for the sin of ignoring a genuine poor person, or perhaps, it is only if we ignore a person whom we are uncertain if he is actually poor or not?

Read more!

Who Needs the Horse?

There once was an incident, where a certain Rebbe came to visit the Kotzker Rebbe. The Kotzker Rebbe gave him tremendous honor, and arranged for him a lavish feast. His disciples were astonished, for they knew that the Kotzker Rebbe did not hold this other individual in such high esteem.

The Kotzker explained: The Gemora (Kesuvos 67b) states: You are commanded to support a poor person, but you are not commanded to make him rich. You must provide for him a horse to ride on and a servant to run before him.

Now, it is understandable, the Rebbe said, that a person might need a horse to ride on, for perhaps, he is weak or ill, but what is the necessity in having a servant running before the horse? That is silly!

It is therefore evident, the Rebbe concluded, that one is obligated to provide even foolish things for a fool. This guest, although he might not be worthy of the honor we bestowed upon him, it is obvious that this is the manner in which he wishes to be treated. It is therefore our obligation to honor him.

Read more!

How the Mighty have Fallen

The Rabbis taught in a braisa (Kesuvos 66b): There was an incident with Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai who was riding on a donkey on his way out of Yerushalayim, and his students were following him on foot. H saw a young girl who was picking barley out of the dung of Arab-owned animals. When she saw him, she covered her face with her hair and stood before him saying, “Master, give me food!” He said, “My daughter, who are you?” She replied, “I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion.” He asked her, “My daughter, where did your father’s money go?” She replied, “Don’t they say the following parable in Yerushalayim: “The salt of money is its shortage (if you want your money to be preserved, lessen it through charity)?” Others say that it is through kindness. (As the members of her family were not charitable they lost their money.) He asked, “Where did the fortune of your in-laws go?” She replied, “This one came and destroyed that which belonged to the other (my father’s money and his money were mixed up together, and when one was lost, the other disappeared with it).” She continued, “Master, do you remember when you signed my kesuvah?” He turned to his students and said, “I remember when I signed on her kesuvah, and I read about a million gold dinarss that were pledged by her father alone, besides of that of her in-laws.” Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai started crying. He said, “Praised are you Yisrael! When you do the will of Hashem, no nation can rule over you! When you do not do the will of Hashem, He delivers you into the hands of a low nation. And not into the hands of a low nation, but in the hands of the animals of a low nation!”

The Gemora asks: Didn’t we learn that Nakdimon gave generously to charity?

The Gemora answers: Either he gave for his own honor or he did not give as much as he should have.

*** What can we derive from the fact that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai was riding on a donkey, and his students were following him on foot?

*** How could she have covered her face with her hair; isn’t the hair of a woman regarded as ervah?

*** Why did Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai question her regarding the money of her father; didn’t he know about the fire that destroyed all of his storehouses?

*** The Hafla’ah writes a fascinating interpretation of the proverb said over in Yerushalayim: “The salt of money is its shortage.” If one shortens the word “mamon,” it will be spelled: mem, mem and nun. If you spell out these letters, the letters mem, mem, vav and nun will appear, spelling “mamon” in its entirety. This demonstrates that if one creates a deficit in his money by giving generously to charity, his money will be preserved and he will be repaid many times over.

Read more!

Spending More than a Fifth

Rabbi Ila said: It was decreed in Usha that one who gives liberally to charity should not give more than a fifth of his wealth (for then, he will be forced to beg for support himself).

A braisa is cited to support this ruling: One who gives liberally to charity should not give more than a fifth of his money, for then, he will be forced to beg for support himself. There was an incident with a fellow who wished to give to charity more than a fifth of his wealth and his friend did not allow him to. Who was this friend? Rabbi Yesheivav. Others say: Rabbi Yesheivav wished to give to charity more than a fifth of his wealth and his friend did not allow him to. Who was this friend? Rabbi Akiva.

The Rosh writes that this halacha applies by all mitzvos; one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth on any specific mitzva, such as esrog or lulav. The Rambam and Rema seem to rule accordingly.

The Rishonim ask: Why would someone be exempt from performing a mitzvah just because it costs more than a fifth of his wealth? The Ra’avad answers that this is similar to halacha that one should make his Shabbos like an ordinary weekday, and not be forced to be supported from charity. This is because poverty is regarded as death, and one is not obligated to give up his life for an ordinary mitzvah.

The Ra’avad adds that this halacha applies only to a positive commandment; however, one would be required to spend his entire wealth in order not to transgress a negative precept.

The Gemora stated that one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth to fulfill a mitzvah; is one halachically required to spend up to that amount, or is it only regarded as a mitzvah?

The Beis Yosef (Y”D; 249) writes that it is considered a mitzvah in the preferable manner if one spends up to a fifth of his wealth in order to perform a mitzvah. The Beis Yosef adds that although one can imply from the Gemora that it is not even a mitzvah to spend that amount because the Gemora states: One who spends liberally should not give more than a fifth of his wealth; however, even less than that would be regarded as spending liberally, and there would be no mitzvah whatsoever to spend that amount. Nevertheless, there is a Yerushalmi in Pe’ah that seems to indicate that there is a mitzvah to spend up to one-fifth of his wealth for a mitzvah.

In the sefer Ahavas Chesed, the Chafetz Chaim cites a Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos, who writes that there is a halachic obligation to spend up to one-fifth of one’s wealth for charity. He asks form our Gemora, which would seem to indicate that there is no such obligation. He answers that our Gemora is discussing a case where the poor people are not present and someone is searching to find them in order to give them charity. In such a situation, there is not even a mitzvah to give up to one-fifth. However, the Yerushalmi and the Rambam are speaking about a case where the poor person is in front of you; then, there would be a halachic obligation to give up to one-fifth.

WHEN CAN ONE SPEND
MORE THAN A FIFTH ?

What if one wants to spend more than a fifth? Is he allowed to? It is evident from the Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos that it is regarded as virtuous (midas chassidus) for one to spend more than a fifth. However, it can be inferred from the Rambam in halachos that one should not spend more than a fifth of his wealth on a mitzvah.

The Chafetz Chaim reconciles the two rulings of the Rambam in the same manner as before. If the poor person is present, it would be regarded as midas chassidus to spend more than a fifth, and that is what the Rambam in his explanation to the Mishnayos is discussing. However, when the poor people are not present and one is chasing after them, he should not spend more than a fifth.

The Shitah Mekubetzes writes that one is permitted to spend more than a fifth of his wealth if it is to support the studying of Torah. The Ahavas Chesed explains the reasoning for this. One who supports another fellow to learn Torah is creating a partnership with him; the supporter receives a reward together with the one who is learning the Torah. One is permitted to purchase this reward for himself even if it will cost him more than a fifth.

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe (Y”D, 4:37) rules that this is correct only if the supporter specifically negotiates with the one studying Torah to create a partnership of Yissochar and Zevulun. However, if the provider is just donating money to support Torah, he is not permitted to give more than a fifth.

The Ibn Ezra in Mishlei (4:7) writes that one is permitted to spend more than a fifth of his wealth in order to study Torah himself. The Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos (Yoma 12a) also rules like that. However, the Netziv in the Shiltos states that this is a matter of dispute between two Amoraim. The Gemora in Eruvin cites the verse that Torah is not in the Heavens. Rav Avdimi says: If it would be in the heavens, one would be obligated to go there and learn. It is evident that one would be forced to spend more than a fifth of his wealth to study Torah, for otherwise, he could claim that it costs too much to travel to the Heaven. However, Rava disagrees regarding the interpretation of that verse, and according to him, one would not be allowed to spend more than a fifth in order to study Torah.

The Rema (Y”D, 249:1) seems to hold that one can give away more than one-fifth of his wealth to charity right before he dies. It is brought in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah that even then, he should not.

It is written in Ahavas Chesed that one who is a free-spender in regards to himself and his family, i.e., he splurges on expensive clothing, builds for himself a fancy mansion and generally leads a luxurious lifestyle; it is permitted for him to give to charity more than a fifth of his wealth.

Some say that if one finds himself in dire straits, he is permitted to spend more than a fifth with the intention that it should be on account of this deed that he will merit a salvation. It is brought in the name of the Bnei Yissoschar that one who requires atonement on a specific sin is also permitted to give away more than a fifth.

Read more!

Story from the Daf - Yevamos 119 - Daf Yomi

The Zidichover Rebbe was deathly ill in Levov, and the people standing by his bedside observed that he was almost in a vegetable state. The Rebbe instructed them to give charity to the tzedakah of Rabbi Meir ba’al haneis. He explained: The majority of people, who are in a vegetable state will die; most people who are ordinarily sick will survive. Rabbi Meir is the Tanna, who is always concerned for the minority; this is why giving charity to a tzedakah in Rabbi Meir’s merit can produce a recovery from the locks of death.

Read more!