Question: When a stranger approaches a congregant in shul asking for tzedakah, should the congregant verify that the person’s need is genuine? Furthermore, what constitutes tzedakah? Is a donation to a synagogue, yeshiva, or hospital considered tzedakah?
Zvi Kirschner
(Via E-Mail)
Summary of our response up to this point: We noted that one never becomes impoverished from giving charity. We also explained the importance of giving charity, especially via a loan so as not to embarrass one’s fellow. The Gemara (Kettubot 67b) discusses the lengths to which one must go to accommodate the needs of a poor person who formerly was wealthy.
We sought to determine who is classified as an impoverished person and thus entitled to charity funds. We also noted the dispute (Baba Batra 9a) between R. Huna and R. Judah regarding one how one verifies that one is needy.
We delved into two differing sources (and views) regarding the economics of poverty (a mishnah in Pe’ah and a mishnah in Eruvin). The Aruch Hashulchan explains that the mishnah in Pe’ah refers to earlier times. We also cited Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss (Responsa Minchat Yitzchak) who discusses this matter in detail and cites the Chatam Sofer who connects the monetary measures set forth by our sages to leket, shikchah, and peah, which we no longer have. The Chatam Sofer connects our charitable giving to the recipients’ most basic needs.
We noted that there are sinners might not be entitled to our largesse, namely sinners. The Mechaber notes that there is a difference between one who transgresses due to an insatiable desire – mumar l’te’avon – and one who does so out of spite – mumar l’hash’chit. We are more lenient with regard to the former, and today there are few today who can be considered sinners out of spite.
We discussed to whom we should give our charity funds first; gabba’ei tzedakah; and the propriety of giving tzedakah funds to institutions like yeshivot and hospitals. We noted that a person should give charity relative to his means. We also discussed whether one may use one’s charity money for another mitzvah.
We then sought to define the annual amount of tzedakah one must give. The Mechaber, based on the Gemara (Bava Batra 9a), says the minimum is a third of a shekel. The Shach, in the 17th century, says it is one Polish zloty. Perhaps the requirement to give this minimum amount is why many shuls have the minhag of having the gabbai circulate the synagogue, collecting charity. In this manner, everyone is sure to at least give the minimum amount over the course of a year.
We also noted the importance of giving tzedakah in a good frame of mind and never turning anyone away empty handed. We also went through the eight levels of charitable giving and noted the importance of maintaining the right temperament when giving charity.
We cited from a related article by my uncle HaRav Sholom Klass, zt”l. He was asked, “Until what age is a father to support his children and may he use his charitable donations for their support as well as paying for their Torah education?” He cited the Gemara to the effect that one must support them until age six; if he is wealthy, he must support them after that as well. The Rambam, based on the Gemara, notes that a father who refuses to support them should be shamed into doing so.
Rabbi Sholom Klass also discussed supporting children from one’s charitable funds and cited many authorities who permit doing so. We cited authorities who disagree. Even Birkei Yosef who claims that it is permitted discourages doing so. The Aruch Hashulchan claims that one deprives the poor of support by using charitable funds for one’s own children. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein notes that social conditions have changed in that children today remain dependent for much longer thus obviating use of ma’aer kesafim for their support.
We cited from Responsa Me’ah She’arim, where Rabbi Yitzchak Silberstein relates an incident involving a fundraiser who asked an elderly Rav Dovid Karliner for funds for the famed Navharodoker Yeshiva. After having received the elderly gaon’s donation he was caught by surprise when the gaon offered to give him another donation, having forgotten that he had just, moments earlier, given him money.
We cited the Rambam (to Avot 3:5) who writes that merits are attained according to the number of one’s deeds. Thus, giving a small sum to many poor people is better than giving one large sum to one needy person. The Chofetz Chayim adds that acting in this manner accustoms a person to giving charity.
We noted that giving numerous times to the same individual also helps a person overcome his yetzer ha’ra. We noted the Chazon Ish’s view that if a giver has the wherewithal and the receiver has the need, he must give him. He notes, though, that our sages caution not to impoverish oneself through giving. Rabbi Silberstein also stresses that a person who asks for funds numerous times from the same individual is guilty of wrongdoing since he deprives other poor people of funds. He notes that it is imperative for a fundraiser to remind an elderly person that he gave him once before. Otherwise, he is guilty of geneivat da’at.
We referred to a unique application of the dictum of Avot 3:15:“Everything is [measured] according to the preponderance of one’s actions” and the Rambam’s explanation that “merits are not attained by a person according to the magnitude of a single action but rather according to the preponderance of the number of one’s many actions.” A person who donates a mezuzah to a synagogue entrance, we suggested, will reap the merits of those who enter and depart each and every day.
We noted, citing Tractate Arachin, that once money reaches the possession of the gabbai tzedakah it no longer belongs to the donor. We presented a dilemma presented to the Noda BiYehuda regarding a charity donation that became mixed with the gabbai tzedakah’s mundane money. He ruled that the gabbai must go to great lengths to determine what the donor might have given.
We discussed a case that came before the Chatam Sofer: someone pledged money “to one of the charities of the city” but did not specify which one. The Chatam Sofer ruled that must give everyone. At the very least, he should place the sum before all of them and quickly depart and let them deal with the matter.
We noted that Rabbi Moshe Stern, the Debrecener Rav (Responsa Ba’er Moshe), was asked whether ignoring a solicitation letter is considered a violation of “lo t’ametz levov’cha” – hardening one’s heart (Deuteronomy 15:7). He replied that one must respond if reputable rabbis sign the letter, but need not if the request is not explicit (e.g., a New Year card sent by a charitable organization in the hope that the recipient will give a donation). He noted the Chatam Sofer’s discussion of testimony – that it must be submitted in person, not in writing. One could perhaps make the same distinction regarding requests for charity.
We also noted a difficulty. The Torah states, “one who turns away from charity…” Why doesn’t it state “one who turns away from a poor person”? Does this unexpected wording indicate that the poor person need not make his request in person for the prohibition against refusing him to apply?
Rabbi Stern cited sources that prove that individuals of impeccable standards can offer testimony through the written word. Thus, someone who disregards a solicitation letter signed by reputable rabbis violates “lo t’ametz levov’cha – you shall not harden your heart” (Deuteronomy 15:7).
* * * * *
In his Limudei Nissan al Ha’Torah (vol. 1, Parshat Vayera) Rabbi Nissan Alpert, late rosh yeshiva in RIETS, discusses the following verse (Genesis 18:1): “Vayera eilav b’eilonei mamrei v’hu yosheiv petach ha’ohel k’chom hayom – Hashem appeared to him in the plains of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day.” Rashi explains that Hashem brought about a heat wave so as not to burden Abraham with guests on the third day after his brit milah when he was in great pain. However, when Hashem saw that Abraham was distressed at not having any guests, He dispatched three angels in the guise of human wayfarers to appear before Abraham.
Rabbi Alpert asks: Why didn’t Hashem send Abraham real travelers in need of a meal? Had Hashem done so, Abraham would have been able to properly fulfill the mitzvot of tzedakah and hachnasat orchim (which apparently he did not by serving angels)?
Rabbi Alpert explains that Hashem sent Abraham angels to teach us the following basic principle concerning both charity and hospitality: A person shouldn’t think that if not for his charity, a particular indigent individual would die from starvation; the Omnipresent has many messengers and He can provide him sustenance in many different ways. It is the giver who benefits from giving charity – just as Abraham benefited (by think he was helping).
Rabbi Alpert concludes with the following exchange in the Talmud (Bava Batra 10a): Turnus Rufus, the Roman ruler of Judea, asked Rabbi Akiba: “If your G-d loves the poor, why doesn’t He support them? Rabbi Akiba answered: “In order that we be saved from the punishment of Gehinnom.” Turnus Rufus retorted: “To the contrary, this is what condemns you to Gehinnom. I will offer to you the following parable. A king of flesh and blood was angered by his servant and so he imprisoned him and ordered that he be given neither food nor drink. Along came a man who gave him both food and drink. Were the king to hear this news, would he not be angry with him? And you [Israel] are called servants, as [Leviticus 25:55] states, “Ki li Bnei Yisrael avadim – For unto Me the children of Israel are servants.”
Rabbi Akiba retorted: “I will offer you another parable. A king of flesh and blood was angered by his son and so he imprisoned him and ordered that he be given neither food nor drink. Along came a man who gave him both food and drink. Were the king to hear this news, would he not send him a present? And we are called sons, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states, “Banim atem la’Shem Elokeichem – You are sons to Hashem your G-d.”
Turnus Rufus replied: “You are called both sons and servants. When you fulfill the desires of Hashem you are referred to as ‘sons,’ but when you do not fulfill the desires of Hashem you are referred to as ‘servants.’”
Rabbi Akiba replied: “[Isaiah 58:7] states: ‘Ha’lo pros l’ra’av lach’mecha va’aniyim merudim tavi bayis ki tir’eh arom v’chisito u’mi’b’sor’cha lo tit’alem – Surely you should break your bread for the hungry and bring the poor that are cast out to your house; when you see a naked person, clothe him, and from your flesh and blood [your kinsman] you shall not hide.’ When does one bring those who are cast out to your house? Now – as it says, ‘Ha’lo pros l’ra’av lach’mecha – Surely you should break your bread for the hungry.’
The Maharsha (ad loc.) writes that Rabbi Akiba’s first reply should have been sufficient to settle the matter, but the non-believing Turnus Rufus refused to let the matter go. Therefore, Rabbi Akiba had to cite another verse (the one from Isaiah), which the Maharsha explains as follows: Who are the poor cast out of their homes? Those who suffer at the hands of the king’s tax collectors who unjustly force them out of their homes.
Hashem is the ultimate provider, but we must train ourselves to be compassionate and ever-cognizant of the needs of those less fortunate than us for they too are Hashem’s children. Unfortunately, one who fails to take heed, in Rabbi Akiba’s words, is destined for Gehinnom.
(To be continued)