(א) גודל שכר צדקה ואם כופין עליה. ובו ד' סעיפים:
מצות עשה ליתן צדקה כפי השגת יד וכמה פעמים נצטוינו בה במצות עשה ויש לא תעשה במעלים עיניו ממנה שנאמר לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפוץ את ידך וכל המעלים עיניו ממנה נקרא בליעל וכאילו עובד אלילים ומאד יש ליזהר בה כי אפשר שיבא לידי שפיכות דמים שימות העני המבקש אם לא יתן לו מיד כעובדא דנחום איש גם זו:
(ב) לעולם אין אדם מעני מן הצדקה ולא דבר רע ולא היזק מתגלגל על ידה שנאמר והיה מעשה הצדקה שלום:
(ד) הצדקה דוחה את הגזירות הקשות וברעב תציל ממות כמו שאירע לצרפית : הגה והיא מעשרת ואסור לנסות הקב"ה כי אם בדבר זה שנאמר ובחנוני נא בזאת וגו' (טור מגמרא פ"ק דתענית) וי"א דוקא בנתינת מעשר מותר לנסות הקב"ה אבל לא בשאר צדקה (ב"י דכך משמע מש"ס שם):
(1) It is a positive Biblical command to give Charity according to one's means. There are numerous positive commands as to Charity; and also a negative command not to close one's eyes to charity, for it is written, "Thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shut thy hand [from thy poor brother]." And he who closes his eyes to it is called "wicked" and is regarded as if he worships idols. One should take great heed in giving alms that he be not the cause of bloodshed, for the poor man in need may die before help reaches him if it is not offered quickly, as in the story of Nahum of Gimzo.
(2) No man is ever impoverished from giving alms, nor is evil or harm ever caused by it; as it is written, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace."
(3) Whosoever has compassion on the poor, the Holy One, blessed be He, has compassion on him. RMI.—Let man realize that he himself is forever seeking sustenance at the hand of God, and just as God answers his prayer, so should he answer the prayer of the poor. Let him also realize that the world is a revolving sphere, and that eventually he or his son or his grandson may be reduced to such circumstances.
(4) Charity prevents threatened punishment from Heaven, and in famine it delivereth from death, as in the story of the widow of Zarephath.
דרש רב עוירא זימנין א"ל משמיה דרב אמי וזימנין אמר לה משמיה דרב אסי מאי דכתיב (נחום א, יב) כה אמר ה' אם שלמים וכן רבים וכן נגוזו ועבר וגו' אם רואה אדם שמזונותיו מצומצמין יעשה מהן צדקה וכ"ש כשהן מרובין
say them with calmness so that they will accept instruction from him. Rav Ashi said: I did not hear this statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and yet I fulfilled it through my own reasoning. Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as a great man imposed excessive fear upon his household and they fed him something that carried a great prohibition. The Gemara asks: And who was this individual? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel. The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say that they actually fed him forbidden food? Now consider that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not cause an error to be performed through the animals of the righteous. With regard to the righteous themselves is it not all the more so? How can you say that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel ate forbidden food? Rather, it means that they sought to feed him something that carried a great prohibition. And what was this? A limb from a living animal. One day the animal they brought him was missing a limb, and as the members of his household were very fearful they severed a limb from a living animal to make his meal appear whole, and he almost ate it. § After mentioning letters sent from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and the issue of scoring parchment, the Gemara relates: Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, sent a letter to Rabbi Elazar, who was in Eretz Yisrael, in which the following was written: With regard to people who stand over and torment me, and I have the power to deliver them into the hands of the government, what is the halakha? May I hand them over to the authorities or not? Rabbi Elazar scored parchment and wrote to him the following verse: “I said: I will take heed to my ways, that I do not sin with my tongue; I will keep a curb upon my mouth, while the wicked is before me” (Psalms 39:2). Rabbi Elazar quoted this verse to allude to the following response: Even though “the wicked is before me,” “I will keep a curb upon my mouth.” Mar Ukva sent word to him again: They are tormenting me a great deal and I cannot stand them. Rabbi Elazar sent to him in response: “Resign yourself to the Lord, and wait patiently [hitḥolel] for Him; do not fret yourself because of he who prospers in his way, because of the man who brings wicked devices to pass” (Psalms 37:7). This verse indicates: “Resign yourself to the Lord,” i.e., do not do anything, and He will strike them down as many corpses [ḥalalim]. Rise before and stay later than them in your visits to the study hall, and they will disappear on their own. The Gemara relates: The matter emerged from the mouth of Rabbi Elazar, and Geneiva, Mar Ukva’s tormentor, was placed in a neck iron [kolar], as one sentenced by the government. The Gemara further relates: They sent the following question to Mar Ukva: From where do we derive that song is forbidden in the present, following the destruction of the Temple? He scored parchment and wrote to them: “Rejoice not, O Israel, to exultation, like the peoples” (Hosea 9:1). The Gemara asks: And let him send them a response from here: “They do not drink wine with a song; strong drink is bitter to them who drink it” (Isaiah 24:9), indicating that song is no longer allowed. The Gemara answers: If he had answered by citing that verse, I would say that this matter applies only to instrumental music, in accordance with the previous verse: “The mirth of tabrets ceases, the noise of them who rejoice ends, the joy of the harp ceases” (Isaiah 24:8); however, vocal song is permitted. Therefore, Mar Ukva teaches us that all types of song are forbidden. In connection to the incident in which Mar Ukva was instructed not to take revenge against his tormentors, the Gemara relates similar discussions. Rav Huna bar Natan said to Rav Ashi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Kina, and Dimonah, and Adadah” (Joshua 15:22)? He said to him: The verse is listing the cities of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Huna said to him: Is that to say that you think I don’t know that the verse is listing the cities of Eretz Yisrael? This is certainly the straightforward meaning of the verse. Rather, Rav Geviha from Argiza said an explanation of this verse, suggesting that it is an allusion to the following idea: Anyone who harbors jealousy [kina] toward another, and yet remains silent [domem], He who dwells for all eternity [adei ad] performs judgment on his behalf. Rav Ashi said to him: If that is so, you should also expound the verse: “Ziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah” (Joshua 15:31), in a similar manner. Rav Huna said to him: If Rav Geviha from Bei Argiza was here, he would say an explanation for it. The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa from Bei Ḥoza’a said this about that verse: Anyone who has a complaint against another over a sip [tza’akat legima], i.e., he has a claim that someone did not give him food, and remains silent [domem], the One who dwells in the burning bush [seneh] performs judgment on his behalf. The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: From where do we derive that it is prohibited to place a garland on a groom’s head? Rav Huna said to him: It is prohibited by rabbinic law, as we learned in a mishna (Sota 49a): In the war [pulmus] of Vespasian they decreed upon the garlands of bridegrooms, meaning that bridegrooms may no longer wear garlands, and they decreed upon the drum [irus], meaning they also banned the playing of drums. In the meantime Rav Huna stood to relieve himself, and after he left, Rav Ḥisda, who had not spoken up to that point out of reverence for his teacher, Rav Huna, said to the Exilarch: A verse is written with regard to this matter: “Thus says the Lord God: The mitre shall be removed, and the garland taken off; this shall no more be the same; that which is low shall be exalted, and that which is high abased” (Ezekiel 21:31). But in what way is a mitre connected to a garland? These two are not placed on the head of the same type of person. Rather, this verse serves to say to you: When the mitre is found on the head of the High Priest, i.e., when the Temple is standing, then a garland may be found on the head of every man at his wedding. However, once the mitre is removed from the head of the High Priest, the garland is removed from the head of every man. In the meantime, Rav Huna came back and he found them sitting and discussing this matter. He said to Rav Ḥisda in the form of an oath: By God! This prohibition applies by rabbinic law. However, your name is Ḥisda and your words find favor [ḥisda’in], as you have discovered a fine source for this halakha. The Gemara relates: Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi braiding a garland for his daughter upon her marriage. He said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the aforementioned halakha derived from the verse: “The mitre shall be removed and the garland taken off”? He said to him: This prohibition was stated in reference to one who is similar to a High Priest, and is only applicable with regard to men. However, with regard to women, the Sages did not issue this decree. With regard to the above verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: “This shall no more be the same”? Rabbi Avira interpreted this verse homiletically. Sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Ami, and sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Asi: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people at the time of the destruction of the Temple: “Remove the mitre and take off the garland,” the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, is this the appropriate treatment for the Jewish people, who, at the giving of the Torah at Sinai, preceded the statement of: “We will do” to the statement: “We will hear” (Exodus 22:7)? God said to them: Is this not appropriate for the Jewish people, who lowered the exalted and who exalted the lowly, i.e., they did not serve God, and instead worshiped idols when they established an idol in the Sanctuary? This response is alluded to in the verse: “This shall no more be the same.” The Gemara cites another statement by the same Sages. Rav Avira interpreted a verse homiletically. Sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Ami, and sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus says the Lord: Though they be in full strength [shelemim], and likewise many, even so shall they be cut down, and he shall pass away; and though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more” (Nahum 1:12). This means: If a person sees that his sustenance is limited he should use it for charity, and all the more so when it is plentiful. In other words, if his livelihood has finished [nishlam] he should perform charity, and he should certainly act in this manner if his means are plentiful. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Even so shall they be cut down [nagozzu], and he shall pass away”? A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anyone who shears off [gozez] some of his property and performs charity with it will be saved from the judgment of Gehenna. The Gemara offers a parable that compares this case to two sheep that were passing through the water. One of them was shorn and the other one was unshorn. The shorn sheep crossed to the other side, but the unshorn sheep did not cross, as its wool absorbed the water and it drowned. Similarly, one who shears off his property and gives it as charity will not descend to Gehenna. The Gemara addresses the continuation of the verse: “And though I have afflicted you [ve’innitikh]” (Nahum 1:12). Mar Zutra says: This means that even a poor person [ani] who is sustained from charity must also perform charity. With regard to the expression: “And I will afflict you [a’anekh] no more,” Rav Yosef teaches: This means that if he gives charity to others, God will no longer show him signs of poverty [aniyyut]. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem and eastward is considered to be a country overseas, from Akko and northward is also outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Akko is located to the north of Eretz Yisrael? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 18:14) that indicates that Akko is not on the northern border of Eretz Yisrael: If one was traveling from Akko to Keziv, the area on his right, to the east of the road, is impure due to the impurity of the land of the nations, and that area is exempt from the obligation to separate tithe from its produce and from the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year, as it is assumed to be outside of Eretz Yisrael, until he arrives at a place where it is known to you that it is obligated. The baraita continues: Conversely, the territory on his left, to the west of the road, is pure with regard to the impurity of the land of the nations, as it is assumed to be within Eretz Yisrael, and obligated in the mitzva to separate tithe from its produce and in the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year, until he arrives at a place where it is known to you that it is exempt. Until where does this halakha apply? Until Keziv. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: Until the place known as Lavlevu. In any case, this indicates that Akko is not considered the northern border of Eretz Yisrael, as the description in the baraita indicates that Keziv is further north than Akko. Abaye said: A strip extends northward from Akko, which is still considered part of Eretz Yisrael, but the general border is at the latitude of Akko. The Gemara asks: But would the tanna of the baraita provide a sign in this manner for an area of a strip of land? The Gemara answers: Yes, and a verse also provides a sign in this manner, as it is written: “And they said: Behold, there is the feast of the Lord from year to year in Shiloh, which is on the north of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah” (Judges 21:19). And Rav Pappa said: The expression: “On the east side,” should be understood as meaning to the east of the highway. This verse demonstrates that an area as narrow as a road can be used as a sign. § The Gemara presents a contradiction between two baraitot. It was taught in one baraita: One who brings a bill of divorce that was written on a boat in Eretz Yisrael is considered to be like one who brings it in Eretz Yisrael, and therefore he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. And it is taught in another baraita (Tosefta 1:1) that one who brings a bill of divorce written on a boat in Eretz Yisrael is like one who brings a bill of divorce outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is not difficult, as one can say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 2:2): With regard to soil from outside of Eretz Yisrael that is brought on a boat to Eretz Yisrael, anything that grew in that soil is obligated in tithe and in the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year. According to this opinion, soil is considered part of Eretz Yisrael once it arrives there, which means that the plants growing in it are considered to be in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yehuda said: When did the Sages say this ruling? When the boat is skimming [gosheshet] the sea floor, as it is weighed down in the water. However, when the boat is not skimming the sea floor, the soil is exempt. The Sage who maintains that the boat is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael with regard to a bill of divorce holds in accordance with the Rabbis of this mishna, and the one who maintains that the boat is not like Eretz Yisrael for the purposes of a bill of divorce holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: It is possible to say that both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not difficult: Here, the baraita where the soil is considered outside of Eretz Yisrael, deals with a situation when the boat is not skimming the sea floor; and there, in the baraita that states that the soil is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael, it is referring to a case when the boat is skimming the sea floor. Rabbi Zeira says: In the case of a perforated pot that is resting on pegs, if something grew in it, we have arrived at the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning the soil on the boat. Just as the Rabbis maintain that the soil is considered attached to Eretz Yisrael even if the boat does not actually touch the sea floor, the same applies to a perforated flowerpot on pegs, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that in both cases the soil must actually be in contact with the earth for it to be considered part of Eretz Yisrael. Rava said, in rejection of this claim: Perhaps that is not so, as Rabbi Yehuda says his opinion only there, with regard to a boat,