(1) Every seventh year you shall practice remission of debts. (2) This shall be the nature of the remission: all creditors shall remit the due that they claim from their fellow [Israelites]; they shall not dun their fellow [Israelites] or kin, for the remission proclaimed is of Ad-nai. You may dun the foreigner; but you must remit whatever is due you from your kin. (4) There shall be no needy among you—since Ad-nai your God will bless you in the land that Ad-nai your God is giving you as a hereditary portion— (5) if only you heed Ad-nai your God and take care to keep all this Instruction that I enjoin upon you this day. (6) For Ad-nai your God will bless you as promised: you will extend loans to many nations, but require none yourself; you will dominate many nations, but they will not dominate you. (7) If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kin in any of your settlements in the land that your God ה' is giving you, do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kin. (8) Rather, you must open your hand and lend whatever is sufficient to meet the need. (9) Beware lest you harbor the base thought, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,” so that you are mean and give nothing to your needy kin—who will cry out to Ad-nai against you, and you will incur guilt. (10) Give readily and have no regrets when you do so, for in return Ad-nai your God will bless you in all your efforts and in all your undertakings. (11) For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kin in your land.
~ What is the basic assumption regarding the homeowner in this text?
~ What are the basic assumptions regarding the poor?
~ The text presents an internal tension. What is it?
~ Who defends the poor in this text?
(י) קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נוֹשֵׂא אֶת פְּלוֹנִית כְּעוּרָה, וַהֲרֵי הִיא נָאָה. שְׁחוֹרָה, וַהֲרֵי הִיא לְבָנָה. קְצָרָה, וַהֲרֵי הִיא אֲרֻכָּה, מֻתָּר בָּהּ. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְעוּרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית נָאָה, שְׁחוֹרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית לְבָנָה, קְצָרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂית אֲרֻכָּה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנֶּדֶר טָעוּת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁנָּדַר מִבַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ הֲנָיָה, וְהִכְנִיסוּהָ לְבֵית רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְיִפּוּהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בְּנִי, לָזוֹ נָדָרְתָּ. אָמַר לוֹ, לָאו. וְהִתִּירוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּכָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר, בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָאוֹת הֵן, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָעֲנִיּוּת מְנַוַּלְתָּן. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הָיוּ בְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹשְׂאוֹת קִינָה וְאוֹמְרוֹת, בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּכֶינָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁאוּל (שמואל ב א) בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל שָׁאוּל בְּכֶינָה:
(10) The mishna continues: If a man said: Marrying ugly so-and-so is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if, in vowing not to marry her, he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if, in vowing not to marry her, he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset. The Gemara relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against deriving benefit from the daughter of his sister, as he did not wish to marry her. And they brought her into the house of Rabbi Yishmael and he beautified her. When she was later brought before the one who took the vow, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, did you vow that you would not derive benefit from this woman? He said to him: No, and Rabbi Yishmael permitted her to him, as he demonstrated that the vow had been made in error. At that time Rabbi Yishmael wept and said: The daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty makes them ugly. And when Rabbi Yishmael died, the daughters of Israel raised a lamentation, saying: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Yishmael. And it likewise states about Saul, who also concerned himself with the welfare of the daughters of Israel: “Daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel” (II Samuel 1:24).
~ Leave the questions of the place of women aside for this discussion - they are important, but poverty is our focus.
~ Notice that the focus of the text is how vows become annulled.
~ Niece and uncle share a specific familial bond in Rabbinical tradition. Please have in mind that the age difference is not necessarily as large as it is in common our society.
~ Can you summarize what happened in the house of Rabbi Yishmael, and why?
~ What is Rabbi Yishmael's reaction? How is poverty portrayed?
"Poverty is an actor in this statement. To poverty is ascribed the action of disfiguring. Since that action is remediated by Rabbi Yishmael one cannot say that the reification of poverty is merely metaphorical. Poverty is acting in the world in such a manner as to cause harm, or disfigurement, to a woman. Actually, to Rabbi Yishmael, to many women. This action is a violent action." (Rabbi Dr. Aryeh Cohen, in: The Violence of Poverty" in Wealth and Poverty in Jewish Tradition, Leonard Greenspoon ed., Purdue University Press, p. 35)
... שְׁמוֹנָה שֵׁמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ לֶעָנִי: עָנִי, אֶבְיוֹן, מִסְכֵּן, רָשׁ, דַּל, דָּךְ, מָךְ, הֵלֶךְ. עָנִי, כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. אֶבְיוֹן, שֶׁמְתָאֵב לַכֹּל. מִסְכֵּן, שֶׁהוּא בָּזוּי לַכֹּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (קהלת ט, טז): וְחָכְמַת הַמִּסְכֵּן בְּזוּיָה. רָשׁ, מִן הַנְּכָסִים. דַּל, מְדֻלְדָּל מִן הַנְּכָסִים. דָּךְ, מְדֻכְדָּךְ, רוֹאֶה דָּבָר וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, רוֹאֶה דָּבָר וְאֵינוֹ טוֹעֵם וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹתֶה. מָךְ, שֶׁהוּא מָךְ לִפְנֵי כֹּל, עָשׂוּי כְּמִין סְקוּפָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, לְפִיכָךְ משֶׁה מַזְהִיר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ.
(6) ... There are eight names for a poor person: ani, evyon, misken, rash, dal, each, mach, helech. Ani [afflicted] means literally “poor”. Evyon [one who longs] because he longs (mita’ev) for everything. Misken [despised] because he is despised by all as it says “The poor man’s (misken) wisdom is despised.” (Eccl 9:16). Rash [impoverished] because he is dispossessed (mitroshesh) of property. Dal [detached] because he is detached (meduldal) from property. Dach [oppressed] because he is crushed (meduchdach); he sees a thing but cannot eat it, he sees a thing and cannot taste it, and cannot drink it. Mach [trampled upon] because he is lowly before everyone, like a kind of lowest threshold. Helech [vagrant] or Chelech [weak]. Therefore Moses warns Israel: "if your brother becomes poor…"
~ Why should the Jewish tradition have all these names for the poor?
~ How does this source try to explain to us what it means to be poor?
A creative midrash in English - make it your own
There are eight names for a poor person:
down-and-out
indigent
destitute
penniless
broke
needy
beggar
homeless
~ The question is this Gemara is which worker does the employer give precedence, if the employer does not have the money to pay all the employees on time. The employer is to use a scale of need, ie, the needier employee gets the money first. First the line workers and then the CEOs in our days. But what interests us is what Rashi explains:
אביון - מעונה מעני ולשון אביון האובה ואינו משיג מה שנפשו מתאוה לכל טוב ואשמעינן קרא דעני קודם לאביון משום דעני כסיף למיתבעיה אף על גב דצריך:
Evyion - poorer than [the term] poor ['ani], and the expression comes from "oveh" [longing], and is not able to reach for what good they desire, and we learn from the text that the 'ani [poor] comes first to receive wages since the 'ani is [still] embarrassed to ask, even though they need.
~ Is the evyion embarrassed to ask for what they want?
~ What has happened in term of embarrassment between those two stages of poverty, being 'ani and being evyion? In other words, what was lost by the evyion that the 'ani still has?
~ What is the main argument of Turnus Rufus? Who or what does he represent, in your opinion?
~ What is the argument of Rabbi Akiva?
~ How does Turnus Rufus look at people in general and at the poor in particular? How does that differ from Rabbi Akiva's understanding?
~ What is the metaphor for poverty in the parable that both Rabbi Akiva and Turnus Rufus use?
~ Does Rabbi Akiva ever go to jail? What happens to him afterwards?
~ Does R. Binyamin doubt the woman? Why?
~ What is the possibility in front of Rabbi Binyamin? How can poverty kill?
~ What do the angels do, and why?
~ This story is "in praise of tzedakah". How so?
§ Rabbi Ila said that Rav said: If one ostracized another individual in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence. If one ostracized him not in his presence, one may dissolve it for him in his presence or not in his presence. Rav Ḥanin said that Rav said: One who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him for doing so. And if he did not ostracize him, he himself, the listener, shall be ostracized, as wherever mention of God’s name in vain is common, poverty is also common there. And poverty is so harsh that it is considered like death, as it is stated: “For all the men are dead who sought your life” (Exodus 4:19). And additionally, it is taught in a baraita: Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes on a particular individual, the result was either death or poverty.
~ The question is how to react when someone uses God's name in vain - and the answer is with nidui, a lighter form of excommunication, here translated as ostracism.
~ The question that concerns us is how poverty is used here. Who brings it about? To what else is it connected?
~ This is how the Jerusalem Talmud opens the discussion regarding poverty. What do you think of this curse? Why is it there?
~ What is happening?
~ What is the reaction of Shmuel's father? Why do you think this is so? What is Samuel's father trying to teach Shmuel?
~ What are the points of this story? How many lessons can you take from it?
~ What is the violence implied?
~ What is this story about?
~ How does it help understand the previous one, with Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan?
~ What is the attitude regarding this specific poor person who has expensive tastes?
~ How much can a dinar buy? [One house is value in 10 dinars]
~ How does this one brings a tension in asking for money for others? How is this in tension with the other stories?
~ What is the problem with a society that is based on "providers" to support its poor?
Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappai used to distribute his [money] in the night. Once the prince of spirits/demons encountered him. He said to him, did not our teacher teach us (Deut 19:14): “Do not displace your neighbor’s boundaries.” He said to him: it is not also written (Prov. 21:14): “A gift in secret appeases anger”? He was afraid of him and fled from him.
~ What is the prince of demons doing here? Why is he challenging Rebbi Hinena bar Pappai? What boundaries are being crossed?
~ Why does the verse quoted by Rabbi Hinena make the prince flee from him?
~ What is the lesson in this story?
~ Why is Rabbi Yonah doing this?
~ How does this story help illustrate the idea of 'ani vs. evyion, that we had before?
~ Why were they receiving tzedakah between RH and YK, but not the rest of the year?
~ What does this story say about the agency of the poor?
~ What is the implication about the dependency of the giver towards the receiver?
~ What is this cautionary tale cautioning against?
~ What is the violence of poverty? What is the violence of the not-knowing about poverty’s effects?
Naḥum the Gam-zo man was carrying a gift to the house of his father-in-law when he met a person afflicted with boils who asked him, acquire merit from what you have on you. He said to him, when I shall return. He returned and found him dead. He said before him, his eyes which saw you and did not give to you shall go blind, his hands which did not stretch out to give to you shall be cut off, his feet which did not run to give to you shall be broken. This happened to him. Rebbi Aqiba came to visit him and said, woe to me that I see you in this state. He answered, woe to me that I do not see you in this state. He asked, why do you curse me? He answered, why are you contemptuous of suffering?
~ The story of Nahum Ish Gam-Zo is famous.
~ What happened to him? How is poverty creating violence in this story?
~ His name is given by the fact that he would always say "Gam zo le-tovah" - this too is for good. Apparently, he acquires this name after this story.
~ What does he teach Rabbi Akivah?
~ What are the violences present in this story?
~ There are two stories in this coda. What are the connecting themes of the two?
~ Why, in the first story, the blind teacher is not asked to come and eat? How does the teacher react? Why? What violence is prevented here?
~ How does sitting below someone is seen as an act of respect? Is the blind man in the second story a teacher? Why would Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov act like this?
~ How does this second story inform the idea of tzedakah, and how does the first one inform that too?
Clarification. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaiah were strolling through the synagogue of Lod. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rebbi Hoshaiah: How much money did my forefathers invest here! He answered him: How many souls did your forefathers invest here, there was no one in here to study Torah!
~ What is this “clarification” doing to the idea of tzedakah?
~ What are the two Rabbis disputing?
~ This is the last point of the tractate. What are the last ideas?
~ How are we to reapply this to the first stories? Where does the idea of poverty as violence take us in all these stories?
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל נַחוּם אִישׁ גַּם זוֹ שֶׁהָיָה סוֹמֵא מִשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו, גִּדֵּם מִשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, קִיטֵּעַ מִשְׁתֵּי רַגְלָיו, וְכׇל גּוּפוֹ מָלֵא שְׁחִין. וְהָיָה מוּטָּל בְּבַיִת רָעוּעַ, וְרַגְלֵי מִטָּתוֹ מוּנָּחִין בִּסְפָלִין שֶׁל מַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ עָלָיו נְמָלִים. פַּעַם אַחַת בִּקְּשׁוּ תַּלְמִידָיו לְפַנּוֹת מִטָּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ לְפַנּוֹת אֶת הַכֵּלִים. אָמַר לָהֶם: בָּנַיי, פַּנּוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פַּנּוּ אֶת מִטָּתִי, שֶׁמּוּבְטָח לָכֶם שֶׁכׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֲנִי בַּבַּיִת אֵין הַבַּיִת נוֹפֵל. פִּינּוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּינּוּ אֶת מִטָּתוֹ, וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁצַּדִּיק גָּמוּר אַתָּה, לָמָה עָלְתָה לְךָ כָּךְ? אָמַר לָהֶם: בָּנַיי, אֲנִי גָּרַמְתִּי לְעַצְמִי. שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְבֵית חָמִי, וְהָיָה עִמִּי מַשּׂוֹי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲמוֹרִים, אֶחָד שֶׁל מַאֲכָל, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִינֵי מְגָדִים. בָּא עָנִי אֶחָד וְעָמַד לִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְאָמַר לִי: רַבִּי, פַּרְנְסֵנִי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאֶפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר. לֹא הִסְפַּקְתִּי לִפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ. הָלַכְתִּי וְנָפַלְתִּי עַל פָּנָיו, וְאָמַרְתִּי: עֵינַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל עֵינֶיךָ — יִסּוֹמוּ, יָדַיי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל יָדֶיךָ — יִתְגַּדְּמוּ, רַגְלַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל רַגְלֶיךָ — יִתְקַטְּעוּ. וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתִּי עַד שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי: כׇּל גּוּפִי יְהֵא מָלֵא שְׁחִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אוֹי לָנוּ שֶׁרְאִינוּךָ בְּכָךְ! אָמַר לָהֶם: אוֹי לִי אִם לֹא רְאִיתוּנִי בְּכָךְ. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵיהּ נַחוּם אִישׁ גַּם זוֹ — דְּכׇל מִילְּתָא דַּהֲוָה סָלְקָא לֵיהּ, אֲמַר: גַּם זוֹ לְטוֹבָה.
They said about Naḥum of Gam Zu that he was blind in both eyes, both his arms were amputated, both his legs were amputated, and his entire body was covered in boils. And he was lying in a dilapidated house, and legs of his bed were placed in buckets of water so that ants should not climb onto him, as he was unable to keep them off in any other manner. Once his students sought to remove his bed from the house and afterward remove his other vessels. He said to them: My sons, remove the vessels first, and afterward remove my bed, as I can guarantee you that as long as I am in the house, the house will not fall. Indeed they removed the vessels and afterward they removed his bed, and immediately the house collapsed. His students said to him: Rabbi, since you are evidently a wholly righteous man, as we have just seen that as long as you were in your house it did not fall, why has this suffering befallen you? He said to them: My sons, I brought it upon myself. Naḥum of Gam Zu related to them the following: As once I was traveling along the road to my father-in-law’s house, and I had with me a load distributed among three donkeys, one of food, one of drink, and one of delicacies. A poor person came and stood before me in the road, saying: My rabbi, sustain me. I said to him: Wait until I unload the donkey, after which I will give you something to eat. However, I had not managed to unload the donkey before his soul left his body. I went and fell upon his face and said: May my eyes, which had no compassion on your eyes, be blinded; may my hands, which had no compassion on your hands, be amputated; may my legs, which had no compassion on your legs, be amputated. And my mind did not rest until I said: May my whole body be covered in boils. Naḥum of Gam Zu prayed that his suffering might atone for his failure. His students said to him: Even so, woe to us that we have seen you in this state. He said to them: Woe is me if you had not seen me in this state, as this suffering atones for me. The Gemara inquires: And why did they call him Naḥum of Gam Zu? The reason is that with regard to any matter that occurred to him, he would say: This too is for the good [gam zu letova].
~ Compare this story of Nahum Ish Gam-zo with the original story in the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud).
~ How does the story end?
~ What are the basic differences? Note how the Yerushalmi and the Bavli portray the request by the poor person.
~ What is similar?
~ The first piece here is just for context. What really interests us is the second part, of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Aher’s daughter.
~ How is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi forced to give tzedakah to this woman? Why does this happen?
~ How violent is this scene? What are the violence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s words, and what is the violence that heaven does to him?
~ Nakdimon is seen as one of the wealthiest men in the Talmud.
~ What has happened to his daughter, and why?
~ How is the violence of poverty depicted here?
~ What is the warning that this story gives us?
~ Is “according to the camel, so is the burden” a phrase used in other contexts in secular life? Is it appropriate in this context? What about the general context, suffering?
~ What does the beginning of this story seems to point to?
~ Is Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi really generous?
~ What is his "test" for those who are permitted to get food?
~ How does the anonymous sage (Yonatan ben Amram) move Rabbi to give food to a person who seems to be an ignoramus?
~ Do his words change Rabbi's policy in general?
~ What makes the policy be changed?
~ What lessons can you find in this story?
~ How is this in tension with people pretending to have needs?
~ What is this piece saying?
~ How does it relate to the story of the daughter of Nakdimon?
~ What is the story of King Munbaz teaching us regarding tzedakah?
~ Is there a limit to how much a king can give as tzedakah?
Background: Munbaz was the king of Adiabene at the end of the Second Temple period. Adiabene was a small kingdom in the north of Syria on the banks of the Euphrates. In the generation prior to the destruction of the second Temple, Queen Helene, together with her sons Munbaz and Izitus, began to study Torah with Jews who traveled through their kingdom, and eventually converted to Judaism. It appears that other members of the ruling elite did so, as well. Helene visited Jerusalem a number of times and made donations both to the Temple and to the destitute people living there. Her children followed in her footsteps, and even sent troops to support the Jewish uprising during the Great Revolt. Upon his mother’s death, Munbaz declined the position of monarch, allowing his brother to become king, but he took the throne upon his brother’s death. Stories about this family, including detailed accounts of their conversion, appear in Josephus. Several of the practices of the court of King Munbaz appear sprinkled in the Talmud, all with praise.
(א) מֵאֵימָתַי כָּל אָדָם מֻתָּרִין בְּלֶקֶט. מִשֶּׁיֵּלְכוּ הַנָּמוֹשׁוֹת. בְּפֶרֶט וְעוֹלְלוֹת, מִשֶּׁיֵּלְכוּ הָעֲנִיִּים בַּכֶּרֶם וְיָבֹאוּ. וּבְזֵיתִים, מִשֶּׁתֵּרֵד רְבִיעָה שְׁנִיָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַהֲלֹא יֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָם מוֹסְקִין אֶת זֵיתֵיהֶם אֶלָּא לְאַחַר רְבִיעָה שְׁנִיָּה. אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הֶעָנִי יוֹצֵא וְלֹא יְהֵא מֵבִיא בְּאַרְבָּעָה אִסָּרוֹת:
(ב) נֶאֱמָנִים עַל הַלֶּקֶט וְעַל הַשִּׁכְחָה וְעַל הַפֵּאָה בִּשְׁעָתָן, וְעַל מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בְּכָל שְׁנָתוֹ. וּבֶן לֵוִי נֶאֱמָן לְעוֹלָם. וְאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם נוֹהֲגִין כֵּן:
(ג) נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַחִטִּים, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקֶּמַח וְלֹא עַל הַפָּת. נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַשְּׂעוֹרָה שֶׁל אֹרֶז, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו בֵּין חַי בֵּין מְבֻשָּׁל. נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַפּוֹל, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַגְּרִיסִין, לֹא חַיִּים וְלֹא מְבֻשָּׁלִין. נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן לוֹמַר שֶׁל מַעְשַׂר עָנִי הוּא, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו לוֹמַר שֶׁל זֵיתֵי נִקּוּף הוּא:
(ד) נֶאֱמָנִים עַל הַיָּרָק חַי, וְאֵין נֶאֱמָנִים עַל הַמְבֻשָּׁל, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ דָּבָר מֻעָט, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִהְיוֹת מוֹצִיא מִלְּפָסוֹ:
(ה) אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לָעֲנִיִּים בַּגֹּרֶן מֵחֲצִי קַב חִטִּים וְקַב שְׂעוֹרִים. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, חֲצִי קַב. קַב וָחֵצִי כֻסְּמִין, וְקַב גְּרוֹגָרוֹת, אוֹ מָנֶה דְּבֵלָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, פְּרָס. חֲצִי לֹג יָיִן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רְבִיעִית. רְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, שְׁמִינִית. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת, אָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְכְּרֵם וְיִקַּח בָּהֶם מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת:
(ו) מִדָּה זוֹ אֲמוּרָה בְּכֹהֲנִים וּבִלְוִיִּם וּבְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים. הָיָה מַצִּיל, נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצָה וְנוֹתֵן מֶחֱצָה. הָיָה לוֹ דָבָר מֻעָט, נוֹתֵן לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְהֵן מְחַלְּקִין בֵּינֵיהֶם:
(ז) אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לֶעָנִי הָעוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם מִכִּכָּר בְּפוּנְדְיוֹן, מֵאַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע. לָן, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ פַּרְנָסַת לִינָה. שָׁבַת, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שָׁלשׁ סְעֻדּוֹת. מִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת, לֹא יִטֹּל מִן הַתַּמְחוּי. מְזוֹן אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה סְעֻדּוֹת, לֹא יִטֹּל מִן הַקֻּפָּה. וְהַקֻּפָּה נִגְבֵּית בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת בִּשְׁלשָׁה:
(ח) מִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, לֹא יִטֹּל לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. הָיוּ לוֹ מָאתַיִם חָסֵר דִּינָר, אֲפִלּוּ אֶלֶף נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְאַחַת, הֲרֵי זֶה יִטֹּל. הָיוּ מְמֻשְׁכָּנִים לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לִכְתֻבַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִטֹּל. אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְכֹּר אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶת כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁוֹ:
(ט) מִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז וְהוּא נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בָּהֶם, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִטֹּל. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל וְנוֹטֵל, אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וְכָל מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִטֹּל וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל, אֵינוֹ מֵת מִן הַזִּקְנָה עַד שֶׁיְּפַרְנֵס אֲחֵרִים מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְעָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר בָּרוּךְ הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר יִבְטַח בַּה' וְהָיָה ה' מִבְטַחוֹ (ירמיה יז). וְכֵן דַּיָּן שֶׁדָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִתּוֹ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא חִגֵּר, וְלֹא סוּמָא, וְלֹא פִסֵּחַ, וְעוֹשֶׂה עַצְמוֹ כְּאַחַד מֵהֶם, אֵינוֹ מֵת מִן הַזִּקְנָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז) צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף. וְכָל דַּיָּן שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ שֹׁחַד וּמַטֶּה אֶת הַדִּין, אֵינוֹ מֵת מִן הַזִּקְנָה עַד שֶׁעֵינָיו כֵּהוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) וְשֹׁחַד לֹא תִקָּח כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר פִּקְחִים וְגוֹ':
סְלִיק מַסֶּכֶת פֵּאָה
(1) From when are all people permitted to take gleanings, [forgotten sheaves and peah]? After the old ones of the poor have gone. And in the case of peret and defective clusters? After the poor have gone into the vineyard and come back again. And in the case of the olive trees? After the descent of the second rainfall. Rabbi Judah said: But aren’t there those who do not harvest their olives until after the second rainfall?” Rather, once the poor man has gone out [to gather the agricultural gifts taken from olive trees] and cannot bring back with him [more than the value of] four issars.
(2) They [poor people] are to be believed concerning gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah during their [harvest] season, and concerning the poor man’s tithe during its whole year. A Levite is always to be trusted. They are only believed in those things which men are accustomed to give them.
(3) They are trusted concerning wheat, but they are not trusted when it is flour or bread. They are trusted concerning rice in its husk, but they are not trusted when it is either raw or cooked. They are trusted concerning beans but they are not trusted when they have been pounded, neither raw nor cooked. They are trusted when concerning oil, to declare that it is from the poor person’s tithe, but they are not trusted over [oil] when they claim that it is from the olives [left on the] top [of the tree.]
(4) They are trusted concerning raw vegetables, but they are not trusted concerning are cooked ones, unless he has only a little bit, for so it was the custom of a householder to take out of his stew-pot [and give a little to the poor].
(5) One may not give to the poor from the threshing-floor less than a half-kav of wheat or a kav of barley. R. Meir says: [only] half a kav [of barley]. [They must give] a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs or a maneh of pressed figs. Rabbi Akiva says: half a maneh. [They must give] half a log of wine. Rabbi Akiva says: a quarter. [They must give] a quarter [log] of oil. Rabbi Akiva says: an eighth. As for other kinds of produce: Abba Shaul says, [they must give enough] so that he can sell it and buy food enough for two meals.
(6) This measure was stated for the priest, Levite and Israelite alike. If he was saving some [to give to his poor relatives], he can retain half and give the other half away. If he has only a small amount, then he must place it before them and they then divide it among themselves.
(7) One does not not give a poor person wandering from place to place less than a loaf worth a pundion at a time when four seahs [of wheat cost] one sela. If he spends the night [at a place], they must give him the cost of what he needs for the night. If he stays over Shabbat they must give him enough food for three meals. He who has the money for two meals, he may not take anything from the charity dish. And if he has enough money for fourteen meals, he may not take any support from the communal fund. The communal fund is collected by two and distributed by three people.
(8) One who possesses two hundred zuz, may not take gleanings” the forgotten sheaf, peah or the poor man’s tithe. If he possesses two hundred minus one denar, then even if a thousand [men] each give him at the same time, he may accept. If he had [two hundred zuz] mortgaged to a creditor or to his wife’s ketubah, he may take. They do not force him to sell his house or his tools.
(9) One who has fifty zuz and he is using them for his business, he must not take. And anyone who does not need to take [charity] and yet takes, will not depart from this world before he actually needs [charity] from others. And anyone who needs to take and does not take, will not die of old age until he supports others with his own money. Concerning him the verse says: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose hope is the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:7). And so too a judge who judges in truth according to its truth. And anyone who is not lame or blind but pretends to be as one of these, he will not die of old age before he actually becomes one of these, as it is said, “He who searches for evil, it shall come upon him” (Proverbs 11:27) and it is also said: “Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). And any judge who accepts a bribe or who perverts justice will not die in old age before his eyes have become dim, as it is said: “And you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of those who have sight. (Exodus 23:8)”
~ What are the limits for giving to the poor?
~ Why do the rabbis imposed such limits, in your opinion?
~ Why are the poor trusted about certain things, and not others?
~ What are the threats to those who ask when they do not need? What are the promises for those who are in need but do not take from the tzedakah fund?
~ Why is there a limit?
~ To whom do you believe these rules apply? What about millionaires?
Since the reason for the Takanah was to make sure that someone does not become destitute, it applies only to someone whose income does not provide generously for his family. Someone who has a job or business that provides adequately for his family is permitted to give everything above his needs to tzedakah even if it is more than twenty percent of his income or his holdings.
~ How many people should take care of the tzedakah fund? Why?
~ What are the guidelines for when one examines the requests of the poor?
~ Why is this here?
~ What is Rav making Rabbah bar bar Hanan do? [2 things]
~ Why does Rav do that? In what does he base his ruling? Is it surprising to you that he does not quote Deuteronomy or Leviticus above?
~ Does Rav doubt the porters? Why do you think this is so?
~ There are two prohibitions regarding wage theft, ESHEK (in Leviticus) and HANALAT SACHAR (in Deuteronomy). Initially the Talmud attempts to distinguish between the two, but eventually the rabbis let go of that attempt and assume that the reason the text brings both is to hold the transgressor liable for two transgressions and not just one. (Rabbi Dr. Aryeh Cohen)
ואידך מואליו הוא נושא את נפשו נפקא דבר המוסר נפשו עליו ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (דברים כד, טו) ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו מפני מה עלה זה בכבש ונתלה באילן ומסר את עצמו למיתה לא על שכרו דבר אחר ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו כל הכובש שכר שכיר כאילו נוטל נפשו ממנו
The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, i.e., the first tanna, derive this halakha that one needs to pay all their laborers on time? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “For he sets his soul upon it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). This indicates that one is liable for delaying the payment of wages due for any work; as a laborer obligates himself to perform the work, it is something for which he gives his soul. The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, the second tanna, derive from this verse? The Gemara responds: That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The expression “for he sets his soul upon it” explains why one must be so precise when paying a laborer his wages: For what reason did this laborer ascend on a tall ramp or suspend himself from a tree and risk death to himself? Was it not for his wages? How, then, can his employer delay his payment? Alternatively, the words “for he sets his soul upon it” teach that concerning one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is as though he takes his soul from him.
~ What possible meanings of "he sets his soul upon it" are debated here?
~ What is the conclusion regarding the need of the laborer for their wages?