×
Friend,    With Purim right around the corner, Sefaria is busy preparing for the “Purim bump” — the increase in users who visit Sefaria to celebrate the holiday. Last year, more than 100,000 people visited the library or used the app to connect with the holiday or read along with Megillat Esther. This year we’re expecting even more.    To help with our text and tech preparations ahead of this busy time, a generous Jewish foundation is matching all gifts to the library up to $36,000.    Please give today to help us meet your learning needs!     
Save "Preparations for Rosh Hashanah (Re'eh) ~ Poverty as violence
"
Preparations for Rosh Hashanah (Re'eh) ~ Poverty as violence
(א) מִקֵּ֥ץ שֶֽׁבַע־שָׁנִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה שְׁמִטָּֽה׃ (ב) וְזֶה֮ דְּבַ֣ר הַשְּׁמִטָּה֒ שָׁמ֗וֹט כׇּל־בַּ֙עַל֙ מַשֵּׁ֣ה יָד֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַשֶּׁ֖ה בְּרֵעֵ֑הוּ לֹֽא־יִגֹּ֤שׂ אֶת־רֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ וְאֶת־אָחִ֔יו כִּֽי־קָרָ֥א שְׁמִטָּ֖ה לַה'׃ (ג) אֶת־הַנׇּכְרִ֖י תִּגֹּ֑שׂ וַאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה לְךָ֛ אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ תַּשְׁמֵ֥ט יָדֶֽךָ׃ (ד) אֶ֕פֶס כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־בְּךָ֖ אֶבְי֑וֹן כִּֽי־בָרֵ֤ךְ יְבָֽרֶכְךָ֙ ה' בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ ה' אֱלֹקֶ֔יךָ נֹֽתֵן־לְךָ֥ נַחֲלָ֖ה לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃ (ה) רַ֚ק אִם־שָׁמ֣וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַ֔ע בְּק֖וֹל ה' אֱלֹקֶ֑יךָ לִשְׁמֹ֤ר לַעֲשׂוֹת֙ אֶת־כׇּל־הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּֽוֹם׃ (ו) כִּֽי־ה' אֱלֹקֶ֙יךָ֙ בֵּֽרַכְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּר־לָ֑ךְ וְהַֽעֲבַטְתָּ֞ גּוֹיִ֣ם רַבִּ֗ים וְאַתָּה֙ לֹ֣א תַעֲבֹ֔ט וּמָֽשַׁלְתָּ֙ בְּגוֹיִ֣ם רַבִּ֔ים וּבְךָ֖ לֹ֥א יִמְשֹֽׁלוּ׃ {ס} (ז) כִּֽי־יִהְיֶה֩ בְךָ֨ אֶבְי֜וֹן מֵאַחַ֤ד אַחֶ֙יךָ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ בְּאַ֨רְצְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁר־ה' אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ לֹ֧א תְאַמֵּ֣ץ אֶת־לְבָבְךָ֗ וְלֹ֤א תִקְפֹּץ֙ אֶת־יָ֣דְךָ֔ מֵאָחִ֖יךָ הָאֶבְיֽוֹן׃ (ח) כִּֽי־פָתֹ֧חַ תִּפְתַּ֛ח אֶת־יָדְךָ֖ ל֑וֹ וְהַעֲבֵט֙ תַּעֲבִיטֶ֔נּוּ דֵּ֚י מַחְסֹר֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֶחְסַ֖ר לֽוֹ׃ (ט) הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֡ פֶּן־יִהְיֶ֣ה דָבָר֩ עִם־לְבָבְךָ֨ בְלִיַּ֜עַל לֵאמֹ֗ר קָֽרְבָ֣ה שְׁנַֽת־הַשֶּׁ֘בַע֮ שְׁנַ֣ת הַשְּׁמִטָּה֒ וְרָעָ֣ה עֵֽינְךָ֗ בְּאָחִ֙יךָ֙ הָֽאֶבְי֔וֹן וְלֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן ל֑וֹ וְקָרָ֤א עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ אֶל־ה' וְהָיָ֥ה בְךָ֖ חֵֽטְא׃ (י) נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ כִּ֞י בִּגְלַ֣ל ׀ הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה יְבָרֶכְךָ֙ ה' אֱלֹקֶ֔יךָ בְּכׇֽל־מַעֲשֶׂ֔ךָ וּבְכֹ֖ל מִשְׁלַ֥ח יָדֶֽךָ׃ (יא) כִּ֛י לֹא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן מִקֶּ֣רֶב הָאָ֑רֶץ עַל־כֵּ֞ן אָנֹכִ֤י מְצַוְּךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר פָּ֠תֹ֠חַ תִּפְתַּ֨ח אֶת־יָדְךָ֜ לְאָחִ֧יךָ לַעֲנִיֶּ֛ךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ֖ בְּאַרְצֶֽךָ׃ {ס}

(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

ות"ק האי כי עני הוא מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי להקדים עני לעשיר ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה ההוא מלא תעשק שכיר עני ואביון נפקא
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the first tanna, who does not address this verse of: “For he is poor,” what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to give precedence to a poor person over a wealthy person if the employer does not have enough money to pay all his workers. And how does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derive that halakha? In his opinion that halakha is derived from: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy” (Deuteronomy 24:14).

~ 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?

תַּנְיָא הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ לְבַעַל הַדִּין לַהֲשִׁיבְךָ וְלוֹמַר לְךָ אִם אֱלֹקֵיכֶם אוֹהֵב עֲנִיִּים הוּא מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ מְפַרְנְסָן אֱמוֹר לוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁנִּיצּוֹל אָנוּ בָּהֶן מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם וְזוֹ שְׁאֵלָה שָׁאַל טוֹרָנוּסְרוּפוּס הָרָשָׁע אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אִם אֱלֹקֵיכֶם אוֹהֵב עֲנִיִּים הוּא מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ מְפַרְנְסָם אָמַר לוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁנִּיצּוֹל אָנוּ בָּהֶן מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם אָמַר לוֹ [אַדְּרַבָּה] זוֹ שֶׁמְּחַיַּיבְתָּן לְגֵיהִנָּם אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁכָּעַס עַל עַבְדּוֹ וַחֲבָשׁוֹ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין וְצִוָּה עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא לְהַאֲכִילוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁקוֹתוֹ וְהָלַךְ אָדָם אֶחָד וְהֶאֱכִילוֹ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא כּוֹעֵס עָלָיו וְאַתֶּם קְרוּיִן עֲבָדִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁכָּעַס עַל בְּנוֹ וַחֲבָשׁוֹ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין וְצִוָּה עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא לְהַאֲכִילוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁקוֹתוֹ וְהָלַךְ אָדָם אֶחָד וְהֶאֱכִילוֹ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דּוֹרוֹן מְשַׁגֵּר לוֹ וַאֲנַן קְרוּיִן בָּנִים דִּכְתִיב בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה׳ אֱלֹקֵיכֶם אָמַר לוֹ אַתֶּם קְרוּיִם בָּנִים וּקְרוּיִן עֲבָדִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁאַתֶּם עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אַתֶּם קְרוּיִן בָּנִים וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אַתֶּם קְרוּיִן עֲבָדִים וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵין אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂים רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר הֲלֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת אֵימָתַי עֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת הָאִידָּנָא וְקָאָמַר הֲלֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ:
§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: An opponent may bring an argument against you and say to you: If your God loves the poor, for what reason does He not support them Himself? In such a case, say to him: He commands us to act as His agents in sustaining the poor, so that through them we will be credited with the performance of mitzvot and therefore be saved from the judgment of Gehenna. And this is the question that Turnus Rufus the wicked asked Rabbi Akiva: If your God loves the poor, for what reason does He not support them Himself? Rabbi Akiva said to him: He commands us to sustain the poor, so that through them and the charity we give them we will be saved from the judgment of Gehenna. Turnus Rufus said to Rabbi Akiva: On the contrary, it is this charity which condemns you, the Jewish people, to Gehenna because you give it. I will illustrate this to you with a parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his slave and put him in prison and ordered that he should not be fed or given to drink. And one person went ahead and fed him and gave him to drink. If the king heard about this, would he not be angry with that person? And you, after all, are called slaves, as it is stated: “For the children of Israel are slaves to Me” (Leviticus 25:55). If God decreed that a certain person should be impoverished, one who gives him charity defies the will of God. Rabbi Akiva said to Turnus Rufus: I will illustrate the opposite to you with a different parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his son and put him in prison and ordered that he should not be fed or given to drink. And one person went ahead and fed him and gave him to drink. If the king heard about this once his anger abated, would he not react by sending that person a gift? And we are called sons, as it is written: “You are sons of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Turnus Rufus said to him: You are called sons and you are called slaves. When you fulfill the will of the Omnipresent, you are called sons; when you do not fulfill the will of the Omnipresent, you are called slaves. And since now you do not fulfill the will of the Omnipresent, the parable that I offered is more apt. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The verse states: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house?” (Isaiah 58:7). When do we bring the poor that are cast out into our houses? Now, when we have to billet the Roman soldiers in our homes; and about that very time, the verse states: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?”

~ 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?

Poverty and death
תַּנְיָא אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל בִּנְיָמִין הַצַּדִּיק שֶׁהָיָה מְמוּנֶּה עַל קוּפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה פַּעַם אַחַת בָּאתָה אִשָּׁה לְפָנָיו בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת אָמְרָה לוֹ רַבִּי פַּרְנְסֵנִי אָמַר לָהּ הָעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֵין בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה כְּלוּם אָמְרָה לוֹ רַבִּי אִם אֵין אַתָּה מְפַרְנְסֵנִי הֲרֵי אִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעָה בָּנֶיהָ מֵתִים עָמַד וּפִרְנְסָהּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לְיָמִים חָלָה וְנָטָה לָמוּת אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ כׇּל הַמְקַיֵּים נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּאִילּוּ קִיֵּים עוֹלָם מָלֵא וּבִנְיָמִין הַצַּדִּיק שֶׁהֶחֱיָה אִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעָה בָּנֶיהָ יָמוּת בְּשָׁנִים מוּעָטוֹת הַלָּלוּ מִיָּד קָרְעוּ לוֹ גְּזַר דִּינוֹ תָּנָא הוֹסִיפוּ לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה עַל שְׁנוֹתָיו
§ It is taught in a baraita: The following was said about Binyamin the righteous, who was appointed supervisor over the charity fund. Once, a woman came before him during years of drought and said to him: My master, sustain me. He said to her: I swear by the Temple service that there is nothing left in the charity fund. She said to him: My master, if you do not sustain me, a woman and her seven sons will die. He arose and sustained her with his own funds. After some time, he fell deathly ill. The ministering angels said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You said that anyone who preserves a single life in Israel is regarded as if he has preserved an entire world. Should then Binyamin the righteous, who saved a woman and her seven sons, die after these few years, still in his youth? They immediately tore up his sentence. A Sage taught: They added twenty-two years to his life.

~ 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?

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר רַב נִדָּהוּ בְּפָנָיו אֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו נִדָּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו מַתִּירִין לוֹ בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו אָמַר רַב חָנִין אָמַר רַב הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ הַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם מִפִּי חֲבֵירוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ וְאִם לֹא נִידָּהוּ הוּא עַצְמוֹ יְהֵא בְּנִידּוּי שֶׁכׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהַזְכָּרַת הַשֵּׁם מְצוּיָה שָׁם עֲנִיּוּת מְצוּיָה וַעֲנִיּוּת כְּמִיתָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי מֵתוּ כׇּל הָאֲנָשִׁים וְתַנְיָא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים עֵינֵיהֶם אוֹ מִיתָה אוֹ עוֹנִי

§ 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?

Poverty, action and inaction ~ the Jerusalem Talmud weighs in
הַמְּסַמֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהַמְּנַפֵּחַ אֶת שׁוֹקָיו וְהַמְּצַבֵּא אֶת כְּרֵיסוֹ אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ כֵּן.
He who blinds his eye or swells his legs or blows up his belly does not leave this world until it really happens to him.

~ This is how the Jerusalem Talmud opens the discussion regarding poverty. What do you think of this curse? Why is it there?

שְׁמוּאֵל עֲרַק מִן אָבוֹי אֲזַל וְקָם לֵיהּ בֵּין תְּרֵין צְרִיפִין דְּמִסְיכֵּנִין שְׁמַע קָֽלְהוֹן אָֽמְרִין בְּהָדֵין אַרְגֶּנְטִין אֲנָן אָֽכְלִין יוֹמָא דֵין בְּאַרְגֶּנְטוֹרִין דֲּהָבָא בְּאַרְגֶּנְטוֹרִין כַּסְפָּא. עֲאַל וַאֲמַר קוֹמֵי אָבוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לְהַחֲזִיק טוֹבָה לָרַמָּאִין שֶׁבָּהֶם.
Samuel ran away from his father and stayed between two huts of the poor. He heard their voices saying, on which silver will we eat today, on golden silverplate or silver silverplate? He returned and told his father about it. He said to him, we have to give thanks to the dishonest among them.

~ 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?

דלמא ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש עלון מיסחין בהדין נימוסין דטבריא פגע בון חד מסכן אמר לון זכין בי א"ל מי חזרון מי חזרון אשכחוני' מית אמרו הואיל ולא זכינין ביה בחייו ניטפל ביה במיתותיה כי מיטפלון ביה אשכחון כיס דינרי' תלוי ביה אמרו הדא דא"ר אבהו א"ר אלעזר צריכין אנו להחזיק טובה לרמאין שבהן שאילולי הרמאין שבהן היה אחד תובע צדקה מן האדם ולא נותן לו מיד נענש
Clarification. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish went to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias. A poor man met them and said to them: acquire merit by me. They said to him, when we return, when we return. When they returned, they found him dead. They said, since we did not acquire merit during his lifetime, let us care for him in his death. While they were occupied with him, they found a pouch of denars hanging on him. They said, that is what Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We have to give thanks to the dishonest among them, because if there were no dishonest persons among them, if one of them was requesting alms from a man and he would not give him, he would be punished immediately.

~ What are the points of this story? How many lessons can you take from it?

~ What is the violence implied?

אַבָּא בַּר אַבָּא יְהַב לִשְמוּאָל בְּרֵיהּ פְּרִיטִין דִּפְלַג לְמִיסְכֵּינָיָא נְפַק וְאַשְׁכַּח חַד מִסִכֵּן אֲכַל קוּפָּד וּשְׁתֵי חֲמָר. עֲאַל וַאֲמַר קוֹמוֹי אָבוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַב יְתִיר דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ מְרָתֵיהּ.
Abba bar Abba gave coins to his son Samuel to distribute to the poor. He found one poor who ate red meat and drank wine. He returned and told his father about it. The latter said to him, give him more since his soul is bitter.

~ 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?

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי וְרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן הֲווֹן פַּרְנָסִין וַהֲווֹן יְהָבִין לְרִבִּי חָמָא אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא חַד דֵּינַר וְהוּא יְהַב לֵיהּ לְחוֹרָנִין. רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה חַתְנֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לֵוִי הָיוּ הַכֹּל מְלִיזִין עָלָיו אָֽמְרוּ דְּלֹא צָרִיךְ וְהוּא נְסַב. כַּד דְּמַךְ בָּֽדְקוּן וְאַשְכְּחוּן דַּהֲוָה מִפְלִיג לֵיהּ לְחוֹרָנִין.
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman were providers and gave a denar to Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rabbi Oshaia, but he gave it away to others. All were saying evil things about Rebbi Zachariah, the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi; they said that he was taking while he did not need it. When he died, they checked and found that he was splitting it up for others.

~ 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?

רִבִּי חִינְנָא בַּר פַּפַּא הָיָה מַפְלִיג מִינֵיהּ בַּלַּיְלִיָּא. חַד זְמָן פְּגַע בּוֹ רַבְּהוֹן דְּרוּחָיָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ לָא כָּךְ אוּלְפָּן רִבִּי לֹא תַשִּׂיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא כֵן כְּתִיב מַתָּן בְּסֵתֶר יִכְפֶּה אָף וַהֲוָה מִסְתַּפֵּיהּ מִינֵיהּ וַעֲרַק מִן קוֹמוֹי.

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?

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אַשְׁרֵי נוֹתֵן לְדָל אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא אַשְׁרֵי מַשְׂכִּיל אֶל דָּל. וְהוּא שֶׁמִּסְתַּכֵּל בַּמִּצְוָה הֵיאַךְ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ. כֵּיצַד הָיָה רִבִּי יוֹנָה עוֹשֶׂה כְּשֶׁהָיָה רוֹאֶה בֶּן טוֹבִים שֶׁיָּרַד מִנְּכָסָיו הָיָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ בְּנִי בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לָךְ יְרוּשָׁה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר טוּל וְאַתְּ פּוֹרֵעַ. מִן דַּהֲוָה נְסַב לֵיהּ אָמַר לֵיהּ מַתָּנָה.
Rebbi Jonah said, it is not written, “hail to him who gives to the needy,” but (Ps. 41:2): “Hail to him who is considerate to the needy;” this refers to him who fulfills this commandment intelligently. How did Rebbi Jonah do it? When he saw a son of a prominent family who had lost his property, he used to say to him: My son, since I heard that an inheritance fell to you at another place, take and you will pay back. When he had taken it, he said to him, it is a gift.

~ Why is Rabbi Yonah doing this?

~ How does this story help illustrate the idea of 'ani vs. evyion, that we had before?

אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אָדָא אִית הֲווֹ סַבִּין בְּיוֹמֵינוּ מָן דַּהֲוָה יְהָבִין לוֹן מִבֵּין רֵישׁ שַׁתָּא לְצוֹמָא רַבָּא הֲווֹן נָֽסְבִּין. מִן בָּתָר כֵּן לַא הֲווֹן נָֽסְבִּין אָֽמְרֵי רְשׁוּתָא גַּבָּן.
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, in our days there were old people who used to take if somebody gave to them between New Year’s Day and the Great Fastday. After that, they were not taking. They said, there is permission for us.

~ 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?

נְחֶמְיָה אִישׁ שִׁיחִין פְּגַע בֵּיהּ יְרוּשַׁלְמִי אֶחָד אֲמַר לֵיהּ זְכִי עִימִּי הָדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֵי לָךְ טִימִיתֵיהּ וְזִיל זְבִין קוּפָּד וְאָכַל וָמֵת. וְאָמַר בּוֹאוּ וְסִפְדּוּ לַהֲרוּגוֹ שֶׁל נְחֶמְיָה.
Neḥemiah from Shiḥin met a Jerusalemite who said to him, acquire merit by giving me that chicken. He said to him, here is its value, go buy red meat; he ate and died. He said, come and eulogize him whom Neḥemiah killed.

~ 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?

נָחוּם אִישׁ גַּם זוּ הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ דּוֹרוֹן לְבֵית חָמוֹי פָּגַע בֵּיהּ מוּכֶּה שְחִין אֶחָד אָמַר לוֹ זְכֵה עִמִּי מִמָּה דְּאִית גַּבָּךְ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מִיחְזָר חָזַר וְאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ מֵית. וַהֲוָה אֲמַר לְקַבְּלֵיהּ עֵינֵיהּ דְּחָמוּנָךְ וְלָא יְהָבוּן לָךְ יִסְתַּמְּיָן. יָדֵיהּ דְּלָא פָֽשְׁטָן מִיתֵּן לָךְ יִתְקַטְּעוּן. רַגְלָיָא דְּלָא רְהָטִין מִיתֵּן לָךְ יִתְבְּרָן. וּמָטָתֵיהּ כֵּן. סְלִיק לְגַבֵּיהּ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר לֵיהּ אֵי לִי שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹאֶה אוֹתָךְ כֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ אוֹי לִי שֶׁאֵינִי רוֹאֶה אוֹתָךְ כֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַה אַתְּ מְקַלְלָנִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ וּמַה אַתְּ מְבָעֵט בְּיִיסּוּרִין.

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?

רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא רַבָּה הֲוָה רַבֵּיהּ דִּבְרֵיהּ חַד דְּסַגְיָא נְהוֹרָא וַהֲוָה יְלִיף אֲכַל עִימֵּיהּ בְּכָל־יוֹם. חַד זְמָן הֲוָה אָֽרְחִין וְלָא מְטָא מֵיכוּל עִימֵּיהּ. בְּרוּמְשָׁא סְלִיק לְגַבֵּיהּ לֹא יִכְעוֹס מָרִי עָלָי בְּגִין דַּהֲוָה לִי אָֽרְחִין וְלַא בְּעִי מִיבְזֵיָּא אִיקָּרֵיהּ דְּמָרִי. בְּגִין כֵּן לָא אָֽכְלִית עִמָךְ יוֹמָא דֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַתָּה פִּייַסְתָּ לְמָאן דְּמִיתְחָמִי וְלָא חָמִי דֵּין דְּחָמִי וְלַא מִיתְחָמִי יְקַבֵּל פִּייוּסָךְ. אָמַר לֵיהּ הָדָא מְנָא לָךְ אָמַר לֵיהּ מֵרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב עַל חַד דְּסַגְיָא נְהוֹרָא לְקַרְתֵּיהּ יְתַב לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לְרַע מִינֵיהּ דִּי אָֽמְרִין דְּאִילּוּלֵי דְּהוּא בַּר נַשָּׁה רַבָּא לָא יְתִיב לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לְרַע מִינֵיהּ. עָֽבְדּוּן לֵיהּ פַּרְנָסָה דְּאִיקָר. אָמַר לָהוּ מַהוּ הָכֵין. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב יְתִיב לְרַע מִינָּךְ. וּצְלִי עֲלוֹי הָדָא צְלוּתָא אַתָּה גָמַלְתָּ חֶסֶד לְמָאן דְּמִיתְחָמִי וְלָא חָמִי. דֵּין דְּחָמִי וְלַא מִיתְחָמִי יְקַבֵּל פִּיוּסָךְ וְיִגְמוֹל יָתָךְ חֶסֶד.
The teacher of the great Rebbi Hoshaia’s son was blind and he used to invite him to eat with him every day. One day there were guests and he did not ask him to eat with him. In the evening, he went to him and said: Please, Sir, do not be angry with me. Since I had guests, I did not want risking injuring the Sir’s honor, therefore I did not eat with you today. He said to him, you assuaged him who is seen but does not see; may He be appeased by you Who sees but is not seen. He asked him, from where do you have this? He said, from Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. For there came a blind man to Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob’s town; Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below him so that they should say if he were not a great person, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob would not sit below him. They provided for him in honor. He asked them, what is this? They told him, because Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob sat below you. He prayed for him the following prayer: You did a good deed for one who is seen but does not see; He Who sees but is not seen may be appeased by you and do good for you.

~ 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?

דֵּלֹמָא רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא וְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הֲווֹן מְטַייְלִין בְּאִילֵּין כְּנִישְׁתָּא דְּלוֹד. אָמַר רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא לְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כַּמָּה מָמוֹן שִׁיקְעוּ אֲבוֹתַי כָּאן. אָמַר לֵיהּ כַּמָּה נְפָשׁוֹת שִׁיקְּעוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ כָּאן. לַא הֲוָה אִית בַּר נַשׁ דְּלָעִייִן בְּאוֹרָֽיְתָא.

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?

רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִנֶּנָּא כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא כָּל־מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים וְאָסוּר לְהִתְרָחֵם עָלָיו. עַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ לֹא חַייֵס עַל חוֹרָנִין לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. כָּל־מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל וְנוֹטֵל אֵינוֹ מֵת מִן הַזִּקְנָה עַד שֶיִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבִּרְיוֹת. וְכָל־מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֵינוֹ מֵת מִן הַזִּקְנָה עַד שֶיְּפָֽרְנֵס לַאֲחֵרִים מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר בָּרוּךְ הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר יִבְטַח בַּײ֨ וְהָיָה ײ֨ מִבְטָחוֹ.
Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, so is the Mishnah: Everybody who needs to take and does not take commits suicide and one may not have mercy on him. If he does not care for himself, would he care for others? Everybody who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures. Everybody who needs to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; on him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal; the Eternal will be his trust.”

~ 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?

Rabbi, sustain me - stories of poverty in the Babylonian Talmud

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?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גְּבוּרְתָּא לְמִיקְלֵי רַבֵּיהּ? חַד הֲוָה בֵּינַנָא וְלָא מָצֵינַן לְאַצּוֹלֵיהּ? אִינְקְטֵיהּ בְּיָד, מַאן מַרְמֵי לֵיהּ מִן. אָמַר: מָתַי אָמוּת, וַאֲכַבֶּה עָשָׁן מִקִּבְרוֹ. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּסַק קוּטְרָא מִקִּבְרֵיהּ דְּאַחֵר. פְּתַח עֲלֵיהּ הַהוּא סַפְדָנָא: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר הַפֶּתַח לֹא עָמַד לְפָנֶיךָ, רַבֵּינוּ! בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר אָתְיָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, פַּרְנְסֵנִי. אָמַר לָהּ: בַּת מִי אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר אֲנִי. אָמַר לָהּ: עֲדַיִין יֵשׁ מִזַּרְעוֹ בָּעוֹלָם?! וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״לֹא נִין לוֹ וְלֹא נֶכֶד בְּעַמּוֹ וְאֵין שָׂרִיד בִּמְגוּרָיו״! אָמְרָה לוֹ: זְכוֹר לְתוֹרָתוֹ, וְאַל תִּזְכּוֹר מַעֲשָׂיו. מִיָּד יָרְדָה אֵשׁ וְסִכְסְכָה סַפְסָלוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי. בָּכָה וְאָמַר רַבִּי: וּמָה לַמִּתְגַּנִּין בָּהּ — כָּךְ, לַמִּשְׁתַּבְּחִין בָּהּ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Was this a mighty deed on Rabbi Meir’s part, to burn his teacher? Was this the only remedy available? Can it be that there was one Sage among us who left the path and we cannot save him? If we hold him by the hand, who will remove him from our protection; who? Rabbi Yoḥanan continued and said: When I die I will have the smoke extinguished from his grave, as a sign that he has been released from the sentence of Gehenna and brought to the World-to-Come. Indeed, when Rabbi Yoḥanan passed away, the smoke ceased to rise up from the grave of Aḥer. A certain eulogizer began his eulogy of Rabbi Yoḥanan with the following: Even the guard at the entrance could not stand before you, our rabbi. The guard at the entrance to Gehenna could not prevent Rabbi Yoḥanan from arranging the release of Aḥer. The Gemara relates: The daughter of Aḥer came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: Rabbi, provide me with sustenance, as she was in need of food. He said to her: Whose daughter are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Aḥer. He said to her, angrily: Is there still of his seed remaining in the world? But isn’t it stated: “He shall have neither son nor grandson among his people or any remaining in his dwellings” (Job 18:19)? She said to him: Remember his Torah, and do not remember his deeds. Immediately, fire descended and licked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s bench. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: If God protects the honor of those who treat the Torah with contempt in such a manner, as Aḥer despised the Torah and relinquished its teachings, how much more so would He do for those who treat it with honor.

~ 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?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן שֶׁפָּסְקוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זְהוּבִים לַקּוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אָמְרָה לָהֶם: כָּךְ תִּפְסְקוּ לִבְנוֹתֵיכֶם, וְעָנוּ אַחֲרֶיהָ אָמֵן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהָיוּ תַּלְמִידָיו מְהַלְּכִין אַחֲרָיו. רָאָה רִיבָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלַקֶּטֶת שְׂעוֹרִים מִבֵּין גֶּלְלֵי בְהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל עַרְבִיִּים. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה אוֹתוֹ, נִתְעַטְּפָה בִּשְׂעָרָהּ וְעָמְדָה לְפָנָיו. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, פַּרְנְסֵנִי. אָמַר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, מִי אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בַּת נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן אֲנִי. אֲמַר לַהּ: בִּתִּי, מָמוֹן שֶׁל בֵּית אָבִיךָ הֵיכָן הָלַךְ? אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, לָא כְּדֵין מָתְלִין מַתְלָא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: ״מֶלַח מָמוֹן — חֶסֶר״? וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: ״חֶסֶד״. וְשֶׁל בֵּית חָמִיךְ הֵיכָן הוּא? אָמְרָה לוֹ: בָּא זֶה וְאִיבֵּד אֶת זֶה. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, זָכוּר אַתָּה כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתָּ עַל כְּתוּבָּתִי? אָמַר לָהֶן לְתַלְמִידָיו: זָכוּר אֲנִי כְּשֶׁחָתַמְתִּי עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, וְהָיִיתִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ: אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל חָמִיהָ. בָּכָה רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וְאָמַר: אַשְׁרֵיכֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּזְמַן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם אֵין כׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶם, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, מוֹסְרָן בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה. וְלֹא בְּיַד אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה, אֶלָּא בְּיַד בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל אוּמָּה שְׁפָלָה. וְנַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן לָא עֲבַד צְדָקָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, כְּלֵי מֵילָת הָיוּ מַצִּיעִין תַּחְתָּיו, וּבָאִין עֲנִיִּים וּמְקַפְּלִין אוֹתָן מֵאַחֲרָיו! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לִכְבוֹדוֹ הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּדְבָעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד לָא עֲבַד. כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: לְפוּם גַּמְלָא שִׁיחְנָא.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. When the Sages designated for her four hundred gold coins for her account of perfumes, from her late husband’s estate, for use on that same day, she blessed them and said to them: This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters, and they answered after her: Amen. Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him. She said to him: My teacher, sustain me. He did not recognize her, so he said to her: My daughter, who are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. He said to her: My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [ḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together. She said to him: My teacher, do you remember when you signed on my marriage contract? He said to his students: I remember that when I signed on the marriage contract of this woman, and I read in it, it listed a thousand thousands, i.e., one million gold dinars as a dowry from her father’s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai cried and said: How fortunate are you, Israel, for when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or tongue can rule over them; and when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent, He delivers them into the hand of a lowly nation. Not only are they delivered into the hand of a lowly nation, but even into the hand of the animals of a lowly nation, as in the pitiful instance of Nakdimon’s daughter. The recorded incident implies that Nakdimon lost all of his wealth after having failed to use it for acts of kindness. The Gemara asks: And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his attendants would spread underneath him to walk on, and with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind him for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give.

~ 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?

רַבִּי פָּתַח אוֹצָרוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת אָמַר יִכָּנְסוּ בַּעֲלֵי מִקְרָא בַּעֲלֵי מִשְׁנָה בַּעֲלֵי תַלְמוּד בַּעֲלֵי הֲלָכָה בַּעֲלֵי הַגָּדָה אֲבָל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ אַל יִכָּנְסוּ דָּחַק רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם וְנִכְנַס אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי פַּרְנְסֵנִי אָמַר לוֹ בְּנִי קָרִיתָ אָמַר לוֹ לָאו שָׁנִיתָ אָמַר לוֹ לָאו אִם כֵּן בַּמָּה אֲפַרְנְסֶךָ [אָמַר לוֹ] פַּרְנְסֵנִי כְּכֶלֶב וּכְעוֹרֵב פַּרְנְסֵיהּ בָּתַר דִּנְפַק יְתֵיב רַבִּי וְקָא מִצְטַעַר וְאָמַר אוֹי לִי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי פִּתִּי לְעַם הָאָרֶץ אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי שֶׁמָּא יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם תַּלְמִידְךָ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לֵיהָנוֹת מִכְּבוֹד תּוֹרָה מִיָּמָיו בָּדְקוּ וְאַשְׁכַּח אָמַר רַבִּי יִכָּנְסוּ הַכֹּל
It is related that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once opened his storehouses to distribute food during years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of halakha, masters of aggada may enter and receive food from me, but ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, pushed his way in, and entered, and said to him: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sustain me. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My son, have you read the Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him, out of modesty: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: Have you studied Mishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: If so, by what merit should I sustain you? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven, who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and fed him. After Rabbi Yonatan left, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat, and was distressed, and said: Woe is me, that I have given my bread to an ignoramus. His son, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: Perhaps he was your disciple Yonatan ben Amram, who never in his life wanted to materially benefit from the honor shown to the Torah? They investigated the matter and found that such was the case. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then said: Let everyone enter, as there may also be others who hide the fact that they are true Torah scholars.

~ 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?

כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר רש ואיש תככים נפגשו מאיר עיני שניהם ה' בשעה שעני הולך אצל בעל הבית ואמר פרנסני אם מפרנסו מוטב ואם לאו עשיר ורש נפגשו עושה כולם ה' מי שעשאו עשיר לזה עושה אותו עני עני לזה עושה אותו עשיר
On a similar note, you say an interpretation with regard to the verse: “The poor man and the oppressor meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them” (Proverbs 29:13). When a poor person goes to a homeowner and says: Provide for me, if he provides for him, that is good. But if not, then it is stated: “The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2). This verse indicates that He Who made this one wealthy now makes him poor, and He Who made that one poor now makes him wealthy.

~ What is this piece saying?

~ How does it relate to the story of the daughter of Nakdimon?

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מַעֲשֶׂה בְמוֹנְבַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁבִּזְבֵּז אוֹצְרוֹתָיו וְאוֹצְרוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו בִּשְׁנֵי בַּצּוֹרֶת וַחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו אֶחָיו וּבֵית אָבִיו וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ גָּנְזוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ עַל שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָם וְאַתָּה מְבַזְבְּזָם אָמַר לָהֶם אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ לְמַטָּה וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמָח וְצֶדֶק מִשָּׁמַיִם נִשְׁקָף אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַיָּד שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַיָּד שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאֶךָ אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק כִּי טוֹב כִּי פְרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם יֹאכֵלוּ אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ [אוֹצְרוֹת] מָמוֹן וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי אוֹצְרוֹת נְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר פְּרִי צַדִּיק עֵץ חַיִּים וְלוֹקֵחַ נְפָשׁוֹת חָכָם אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ לַאֲחֵרִים וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי לְעַצְמִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ לָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ כְּבוֹד ה׳ יַאַסְפֶךָ:
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving King Munbaz, who liberally gave away his treasures and the treasures of his ancestors in the years of drought, distributing the money to the poor. His brothers and his father’s household joined together against him to protest against his actions, and they said to him: Your ancestors stored up money in their treasuries and added to the treasures of their ancestors, and you are liberally distributing it all to the poor. King Munbaz said to them: Not so, my ancestors stored up below, whereas I am storing above, as it is stated: “Truth will spring out of the earth and righteousness will look down from heaven” (Psalms 85:12), meaning that the righteous deeds that one has performed are stored up in heaven. My ancestors stored up treasures in a place where the human hand can reach, and so their treasures could have been robbed, whereas I am storing up treasures in a place where the human hand cannot reach, and so they are secure, as it is stated: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Psalms 89:15). My ancestors stored up something that does not generate profit, as money sitting in a treasury does not increase, whereas I am storing up something that generates profit, as it is stated: “Say of the righteous, that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings” (Isaiah 3:10). My ancestors stored up treasures of money, whereas I am storing up treasures of souls, as it is stated: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he that wins souls is wise” (Proverbs 11:30). My ancestors stored up for others, for their sons and heirs, when they themselves would pass from this world, whereas I am storing up for myself, as it is stated: “And it shall be as righteousness to you” (Deuteronomy 24:13). My ancestors stored up for this world, whereas I am storing up for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rearguard” (Isaiah 58:8).

~ 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.

A more practical side - or regulating tzedakah

(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?

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לְבַזְבֵּז [יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ], וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ. וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ, וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, מַאי קְרָא: ״וְכׇל אֲשֶׁר תִּתֶּן לִי עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ לָךְ״. וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי עִישּׂוּרָא בָּתְרָא לְעִישּׂוּרָא קַמָּא! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: ״אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ״ לְבָתְרָא כִּי קַמָּא.
§ Apropos the ordinances instituted by the Sages in Usha, the Gemara cites another one. Rabbi Ile’a said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than one-fifth. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who scatters should not scatter more than one-fifth, lest he render himself destitute and need the help of other people. And an incident occurred involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than one-fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say that Rabbi Yeshevav was the one who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so, and who was the friend? Rabbi Akiva. Rav Naḥman said, and some say it was Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov who said: What is the verse that alludes to this maximum amount of charity? “And of all that You shall give me, I will surely give a tenth of it [aser a’asrenu] to You” (Genesis 28:22). The double use of the verb that means to donate one-tenth indicates that Jacob, who issued this statement, was actually referring to two-tenths, i.e., one-fifth. The Gemara asks: But the latter tenth is not similar to the first tenth, as it would be one-tenth of what remained after the first tenth had been removed. Consequently, the two-tenths would not equal one-fifth of the original total. The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: Since the verse could have said: I will surely give one-tenth [aser a’aser], and instead stated: “I will surely give a tenth of it [aser a’asrenu],” it thereby alludes to the fact that the latter tenth is like the first one.

~ Why is there a limit?

~ To whom do you believe these rules apply? What about millionaires?

ג. ודע, דמה שהתקינו חז"ל, שלא לפזר יותר מחומש, נראה דהינו, דוקא כשמבזבז נכסי ביתו על ידי זה הפזור, כדמשמע לשון 'המבזבז'; אבל בדבר מועט, כגון, שיש לו איזה מלאכה או עסק קבוע, שמשתכר בה כדי מחיתו כל שבוע ויותר מעט - מתר לו לפזר היותר לצדקה, אף שהוא עולה יותר מחומש לפי ערך.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן קוּפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה נִגְבֵּית בִּשְׁנַיִם וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה נִגְבֵּית בִּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂים שְׂרָרוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת תַּמְחוּי נִגְבֵּית בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁגִּבּוּיָהּ וְחִלּוּקָהּ שָׁוִים תַּמְחוּי בְּכׇל יוֹם קוּפָּה מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת תַּמְחוּי לַעֲנִיֵּי עוֹלָם קוּפָּה לַעֲנִיֵּי הָעִיר וְרַשָּׁאִים בְּנֵי הָעִיר לַעֲשׂוֹת קוּפָּה תַּמְחוּי וְתַמְחוּי קוּפָּה וּלְשַׁנּוֹתָהּ לְכׇל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ וְרַשָּׁאִין בְּנֵי הָעִיר לְהַתְנוֹת עַל הַמִּדּוֹת וְעַל הַשְּׁעָרִים וְעַל שְׂכַר פּוֹעֲלִים וּלְהַסִּיעַ עַל קִיצָתָן
§ In connection with the previous discussion concerning charity distribution, the Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught: Money for the charity fund is collected by two people and distributed by three people. It is collected by two people because one does not appoint an authority over the community composed of fewer than two people. And it is distributed by three people, like the number of judges needed in cases of monetary law, since the distributors determine who receives money and who does not, as well as how much each person receives. Food for the charity platter is collected by three people and distributed by three people because its collection and its distribution take place on the same day. Food for the charity platter is collected and distributed every day, and therefore a third individual must participate in the collection so that he will be available to take part in the distribution without delay; whereas the money of the charity fund is distributed only once a week, on each Shabbat eve. There are additional differences between these two types of charity operations: The food from the charity platter is distributed to the poor of the world, meaning, to any poor individual arriving in the city; the money of the charity fund is allocated exclusively to the poor of the city. But it is permitted for the residents of the city to use money that has been collected for the charity fund to purchase food for the charity platter to feed the poor; and similarly they may use food that had been collected for the charity platter for the charity fund. In general, it is permitted for them to change the purpose toward which charity will be used to whatever they want, in accordance with the needs of the community. Similarly, it is permitted for the residents of the city to set the measures used in that city, the prices set for products sold there, and the wages paid to its workers, and to fine people for violating their specifications, in order to enforce observance of these halakhot. This marks the end of the baraita, the details of which the Gemara proceeds to analyze.

~ How many people should take care of the tzedakah fund? Why?

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בּוֹדְקִין לִמְזוֹנוֹת וְאֵין בּוֹדְקִין לִכְסוּת אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא הַאי קָא מִבַּזֵּי וְהַאי לָא קָא מִבַּזֵּי אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא הֲלֹא פָרֹשׂ לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ בְּשִׁין כְּתִיב פְּרֹשׁ וַהֲדַר הַב לֵיהּ וְהָתָם כְּתִיב כִּי תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ כִּי תִרְאֶה לְאַלְתַּר וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר בּוֹדְקִין לִכְסוּת וְאֵין בּוֹדְקִין לִמְזוֹנוֹת אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא הַאי קָמְצַעֲרָא לֵיהּ וְהַאי לָא קָמְצַעֲרָא לֵיהּ אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא הָכָא כְּתִיב הֲלֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ פְּרוֹס לְאַלְתַּר וּכְדִקְרֵינַן וְהָתָם כְּתִיב כִּי תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ כְּשֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לְךָ תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר כַּסּוּנִי בּוֹדְקִין אַחֲרָיו פַּרְנְסוּנִי אֵין בּוֹדְקִין תְּנַן הָתָם אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לְעָנִי הָעוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם מִכִּכָּר בְּפוּנְדְּיוֹן מֵאַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע לָן נוֹתְנִין לוֹ פַּרְנָסַת לִינָה מַאי פַּרְנָסַת לִינָה אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא פּוּרְיָא וּבֵי סַדְיָא שָׁבַת נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שָׁלֹשׁ סְעוּדוֹת תָּנָא אִם הָיָה מַחֲזִיר עַל הַפְּתָחִים אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ הָהוּא עַנְיָא דַּהֲוָה מְחַזֵּיר עַל הַפִּתְּחִים דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא לָא מִזְדְּקִיק לֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יֵיבָא לְרַב פָּפָּא אִי מָר לָא מִזְדְּקִיק לֵיהּ אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא לָא מִזְדְּקִיק לֵיהּ לֵימוּת לֵיהּ וְהָא תַּנְיָא אִם הָיָה עָנִי הַמְחַזֵּיר עַל הַפְּתָחִים אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ לְמַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה אֲבָל נִזְקָקִין לוֹ לְמַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת אָמַר רַב אַסִּי לְעוֹלָם אַל יִמְנַע אָדָם עַצְמוֹ [מִלָּתֵת] שְׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשָׁנָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת לָתֵת עָלֵינוּ שְׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בַּשָּׁנָה לַעֲבֹדַת בֵּית אֱלֹקֵינוּ וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי שְׁקוּלָה צְדָקָה כְּנֶגֶד כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת וְגוֹ׳ מִצְוָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא מִצְוֹת (סִימָן גָּדוֹל מִקְדָּשׁ מֹשֶׁה) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר גָּדוֹל הַמְעַשֶּׂה יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָיָה מַעֲשֵׂה הַצְּדָקָה שָׁלוֹם וַעֲבֹדַת הַצְּדָקָה הַשְׁקֵט וָבֶטַח עַד עוֹלָם זָכָה הֲלֹא פָרֹשׂ לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ לֹא זָכָה וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא בְּמָטוּתָא מָנַיְיכוּ עוּשׂוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֶיהְוֵי לְכוּ שְׁלָמָא בְּמַלְכוּתָא וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים אָדָם שׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים אִם עוֹשִׂין צְדָקָה מוּטָב וְאִם לָאו בָּאִין אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְנוֹטְלִין בִּזְרוֹעַ וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נֶחְשָׁב לָהֶן לִצְדָקָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנֹגְשַׂיִךְ צְדָקָה
Rav Huna says: Charity collectors examine the level of poverty of one who asks for food, but they do not examine the level of poverty of one who asks for clothing. If a person comes before the charity collectors in tattered clothes, he is given clothing without any questions being asked. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived via logical reasoning. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning: This one who stands before us in rags is exposed to contempt, whereas that one who is hungry is not exposed to contempt. If you wish, say instead that this distinction is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Is it not to share [paros] your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7). The word paros is written with a shin, alluding to the word parosh, meaning examine and investigate, and only then should you give him. And there in the same verse it is written with regard to clothing: “When you see the naked, that you cover him,” indicating that “when you see” him you should immediately cover him. And Rav Yehuda says just the opposite: Charity collectors examine the level of poverty of one who asks for clothing, but they do not examine the level of poverty of one who asks for food. He too adduces supports for his opinion. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning; if you wish, say instead that it is derived from a verse. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning: This one who is hungry suffers, whereas that one who is in tattered clothing does not suffer in the same way. And if you wish, say instead that this distinction is derived from a verse. Here, it is written: “Is it not to share [paros] your bread with the hungry?” meaning, share it immediately, just as the word is read. Since the word is read with a samekh, Rav Yehuda does not understand it as alluding to examining the recipient. And there, it is written: “When you see the naked, that you cover him,” meaning, when it will be clearly apparent to you, after you have investigated the matter and found that the supplicant is deserving, then you shall cover him. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: If a poor person said: Cover me with clothing, the charity collectors examine him; but if he said: Sustain me with food, they do not examine him. We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 8:7): One does not give a poor person who is traveling from place to place requesting charity less than a loaf worth a pundeyon, one forty-eighth of a sela, when the standard price of grain is four se’a for a sela. If the poor person sleeps in that place, one gives him provisions for lodging. The Gemara asks: What is meant by provisions for lodging? Rav Pappa said: A bed and a pillow [bei sadya]. And if he spends Shabbat in that place, one gives him food for three meals. A Sage taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him and give him money from the charity fund. It is related that a certain poor person who was going door to door requesting charity came before Rav Pappa, the local charity collector, but Rav Pappa did not attend to him. Rav Sama, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Rav Pappa: If the Master does not attend to him, nobody else will attend to him either; should he be left to die of hunger? Rav Pappa said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him? Rav Sama said to him: That baraita means to say that one is not required to attend to him and give him a large gift, since he is already collecting money as he goes door to door, but one does attend to him and give him a small gift. Rav Asi says: A person should never prevent himself from giving at least one-third of a shekel a year in charity, as it is stated: “And we also established mitzvot upon ourselves, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the House of our God” (Nehemiah 10:33). And Rav Asi says: Charity is equivalent to all the other mitzvot combined, as it is stated in that verse: “We also established mitzvot upon ourselves.” A mitzva is not written here, but rather mitzvot, in the plural, thereby teaching that this mitzva is equivalent to all the other mitzvot. The Gemara offers a mnemonic device for the following statements extolling the mitzva of charity: Greater; Temple; Moses. Rabbi Elazar says: One who causes others to perform [me’aseh] a meritorious act is greater than one who performs that act himself, as it is stated: “And the causing [ma’aseh] of righteousness shall be peace, and the work of righteousness, quietness, and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). If one merits, the following verse is applied to him: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7), i.e., he will wholeheartedly give charity to the poor. If he does not merit, the latter clause of that verse is applied to him: “You shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house,” i.e., he will be compelled by the government to billet soldiers in his house and sustain them against his will. Rava said to the people of Meḥoza: I beg of you, strive with each other to perform acts of charity and righteousness, so that you will live in peace with the government, since if you do not act charitably toward each other, you will end up paying fines to the government. And Rabbi Elazar says: When the Temple is standing, a person contributes his shekel for the Temple service and achieves atonement for his sins. Now that the Temple no longer stands, if people act charitably, it will be well for them; but if not, the nations of the world will come and take their money by force. The Gemara comments: And even so, the money taken from them by force is credited to them as if they had freely given charity, as it is stated: “And I will make your oppressors charity” (Isaiah 60:17).

~ What are the guidelines for when one examines the requests of the poor?

~ Why is this here?

The employer and the wages
(יג) לֹֽא־תַעֲשֹׁ֥ק אֶת־רֵֽעֲךָ֖ וְלֹ֣א תִגְזֹ֑ל לֹֽא־תָלִ֞ין פְּעֻלַּ֥ת שָׂכִ֛יר אִתְּךָ֖ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר׃
(13) You shall not defraud your fellow [Israelite]. You shall not commit robbery. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning.
(יד) לֹא־תַעֲשֹׁ֥ק שָׂכִ֖יר עָנִ֣י וְאֶבְי֑וֹן מֵאַחֶ֕יךָ א֧וֹ מִגֵּרְךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּאַרְצְךָ֖ בִּשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ (טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ֩ תִתֵּ֨ן שְׂכָר֜וֹ וְֽלֹא־תָב֧וֹא עָלָ֣יו הַשֶּׁ֗מֶשׁ כִּ֤י עָנִי֙ ה֔וּא וְאֵלָ֕יו ה֥וּא נֹשֵׂ֖א אֶת־נַפְשׁ֑וֹ וְלֹֽא־יִקְרָ֤א עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ אֶל־ה' וְהָיָ֥ה בְךָ֖ חֵֽטְא׃ {ס}
(14) You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow Israelite or a stranger in one of the communities of your land. (15) You must pay out the wages due on the same day, before the sun sets, for the worker is needy and urgently depends on it; else a cry to ה' will be issued against you and you will incur guilt.
רבה בר בר חנן תברו ליה הנהו שקולאי חביתא דחמרא שקל לגלימייהו אתו אמרו לרב אמר ליה הב להו גלימייהו אמר ליה דינא הכי אמר ליה אין (משלי ב, כ) למען תלך בדרך טובים יהיב להו גלימייהו אמרו ליה עניי אנן וטרחינן כולה יומא וכפינן ולית לן מידי אמר ליה זיל הב אגרייהו א"ל דינא הכי אמר ליה אין (משלי ב, כ) וארחות צדיקים תשמור
The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Certain porters broke his barrel of wine after he had hired them to transport the barrels. He took their cloaks as payment for the lost wine. They came and told Rav. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Give them their cloaks. Rabba bar bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “That you may walk in the way of good men” (Proverbs 2:20). Rabba bar bar Ḥanan gave them their cloaks. The porters said to Rav: We are poor people and we toiled all day and we are hungry and we have nothing. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Go and give them their wages. Rabba bar bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “And keep the paths of the righteous” (Proverbs 2:20).

~ 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?

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור