Question: When a stranger approaches a congregant in shul asking for tzedakah, should the congregant verify that the person’s need is genuine? Furthermore, what constitutes tzedakah? Is a donation to a synagogue, yeshiva, or hospital considered tzedakah?
Zvi Kirschner
(Via E-Mail)
Summary of our response up to this point: We noted that one never becomes impoverished from giving charity. We also explained the importance of giving charity, especially via a loan so as not to embarrass one’s fellow. The Gemara (Kettubot 67b) discusses the lengths to which one must go to accommodate the needs of a poor person who formerly was wealthy.
We sought to determine who is classified as an impoverished person and thus entitled to charity funds. We also noted the dispute (Baba Batra 9a) between R. Huna and R. Judah regarding one how one verifies that one is needy.
We delved into two differing sources (and views) regarding the economics of poverty (a mishnah in Pe’ah and a mishnah in Eruvin). The Aruch Hashulchan explains that the mishnah in Pe’ah refers to earlier times. We also cited Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss (Responsa Minchat Yitzchak) who discusses this matter in detail and cites the Chatam Sofer who connects the monetary measures set forth by our sages to leket, shikchah, and peah, which we no longer have. The Chatam Sofer connects our charitable giving to the recipients’ most basic needs.
We noted that there are sinners might not be entitled to our largesse, namely sinners. The Mechaber notes that there is a difference between one who transgresses due to an insatiable desire – mumar l’te’avon – and one who does so out of spite – mumar l’hash’chit. We are more lenient with regard to the former, and today there are few today who can be considered sinners out of spite.
We discussed to whom we should give our charity funds first; gabba’ei tzedakah; and the propriety of giving tzedakah funds to institutions like yeshivot and hospitals. We noted that a person should give charity relative to his means. We also discussed whether one may use one’s charity money for another mitzvah.
We then sought to define the annual amount of tzedakah one must give. The Mechaber, based on the Gemara (Bava Batra 9a), says the minimum is a third of a shekel. The Shach, in the 17th century, says it is one Polish zloty. Perhaps the requirement to give this minimum amount is why many shuls have the minhag of having the gabbai circulate the synagogue, collecting charity. In this manner, everyone is sure to at least give the minimum amount over the course of a year.
We also noted the importance of giving tzedakah in a good frame of mind and never turning anyone away empty handed. We also went through the eight levels of charitable giving and noted the importance of maintaining the right temperament when giving charity.
We cited from a related article by my uncle HaRav Sholom Klass, zt”l. He was asked, “Until what age is a father to support his children and may he use his charitable donations for their support as well as paying for their Torah education?” He cited the Gemara to the effect that one must support them until age six; if he is wealthy, he must support them after that as well. The Rambam, based on the Gemara, notes that a father who refuses to support them should be shamed into doing so.
Rabbi Sholom Klass also discussed supporting children from one’s charitable funds and cited many authorities who permit doing so. We cited authorities who disagree. Even Birkei Yosef who claims that it is permitted discourages doing so. The Aruch Hashulchan claims that one deprives the poor of support by using charitable funds for one’s own children. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein notes that social conditions have changed in that children today remain dependent for much longer thus obviating use of ma’aer kesafim for their support.
We cited from Responsa Me’ah She’arim, where Rabbi Yitzchak Silberstein relates an incident involving a fundraiser who asked an elderly Rav Dovid Karliner for funds for the famed Navharodoker Yeshiva. After having received the elderly gaon’s donation he was caught by surprise when the gaon offered to give him another donation, having forgotten that he had just, moments earlier, given him money.
We cited the Rambam (to Avot 3:5) who writes that merits are attained according to the number of one’s deeds. Thus, giving a small sum to many poor people is better than giving one large sum to one needy person. The Chofetz Chayim adds that acting in this manner accustoms a person to giving charity.
We noted that giving numerous times to the same individual also helps a person overcome his yetzer ha’ra. We noted the Chazon Ish’s view that if a giver has the wherewithal and the receiver has the need, he must give him. He notes, though, that our sages caution not to impoverish oneself through giving. Rabbi Silberstein also stresses that a person who asks for funds numerous times from the same individual is guilty of wrongdoing since he deprives other poor people of funds. He notes that it is imperative for a fundraiser to remind an elderly person that he gave him once before. Otherwise, he is guilty of geneivat da’at.
We referred to a unique application of the dictum of Avot 3:15:“Everything is [measured] according to the preponderance of one’s actions” and the Rambam’s explanation that “merits are not attained by a person according to the magnitude of a single action but rather according to the preponderance of the number of one’s many actions.” A person who donates a mezuzah to a synagogue entrance, we suggested, will reap the merits of those who enter and depart each and every day.
We noted, citing Tractate Arachin, that once money reaches the possession of the gabbai tzedakah it no longer belongs to the donor. We presented a dilemma presented to the Noda BiYehuda regarding a charity donation that became mixed with the gabbai tzedakah’s mundane money. He ruled that the gabbai must go to great lengths to determine what the donor might have given.
We discussed a case that came before the Chatam Sofer: someone pledged money “to one of the charities of the city” but did not specify which one. The Chatam Sofer ruled that must give everyone. At the very least, he should place the sum before all of them and quickly depart and let them deal with the matter.
We noted that Rabbi Moshe Stern, the Debrecener Rav (Responsa Ba’er Moshe), was asked whether ignoring a solicitation letter is considered a violation of “lo t’ametz levov’cha” – hardening one’s heart (Deuteronomy 15:7). He replied that one must respond if reputable rabbis sign the letter, but need not if the request is not explicit (e.g., a New Year card sent by a charitable organization in the hope that the recipient will give a donation). He noted the Chatam Sofer’s discussion of testimony – that it must be submitted in person, not in writing. One could perhaps make the same distinction regarding requests for charity.
We also noted a difficulty. The Torah states, “one who turns away from charity…” Why doesn’t it state “one who turns away from a poor person”? Does this unexpected wording indicate that the poor person need not make his request in person for the prohibition against refusing him to apply?
Rabbi Stern cited sources that prove that individuals of impeccable standards can offer testimony through the written word. Thus, someone who disregards a solicitation letter signed by reputable rabbis violates “lo t’ametz levov’cha – you shall not harden your heart” (Deuteronomy 15:7).
Rabbi Nissan Alpert (Limudei Nissan) asked: Why if Abraham sought to perform charity and hospitality did Hashem send him angels cloaked as people, for whom his efforts would really have no benefit? Why didn’t He send him real people? He explains that a person shouldn’t think that if not for his charity, the indigent would die. Hashem has many agents who do His bidding. At times, the point of charity is to benefit the giver, not the recopient.
* * * * *
The Talmud relates the following story (Ta’anit 23a-b): Abba Chilkiah was a grandson of Choni Hama’gal, a very righteous sage who, during times of drought, would draw a circle, enclose himself within it, and declare that he won’t leave it until G-d causes rain to fall. His righteous grandson Abba Chilkiah was looked upon highly as well and his prayers for rain, like those of his grandfather, were answered too.
One particular time Eretz Yisrael desperately needed rain and the sages sent a couple of scholars to ask Abba Chilkiah to pray for rain. They did not find him at his house, so they proceeded to the fields where they found him hoeing. They greeted him, but he offered no response. Towards evening he gathered some wood and placed the wood and a rake on one shoulder and his cloak on the other. The sages beheld that he walked barefoot, but when he reached a stream he put his shoes on. When he came upon thistles and thorns, he lifted his garments up. When he reached the city, his wife came to greet him bedecked in her finest garments. When they arrived home she entered first, he followed, and the scholars followed him. When he sat down to eat, he did not bid the scholars to join him. Sharing the meal with his two sons, he gave his older son one portion and his younger son two portions.
He then said to his wife, “I know the scholars have come on account of rain, let us go up to the roof and pray; perhaps the Holy One Blessed be He will have mercy and rain will fall without credit being given to us.” He stood in one corner and she in the other. At first the clouds appeared over the corner where his wife stood. When he came down he asked: “Why have you scholars come here?” They replied: “The sages have sent us to you, sir, to ask that you pray for rain.” Thereupon he exclaimed: “Blessed is Hashem who has made you no longer dependent on Abba Chilkiah.”
Knowing otherwise, they replied: “We know that the rain has come on your account, but tell us, sir, the meaning of your mysterious acts which leave us bewildered. Why did you not take notice of us when we greeted you?” He answered: “I am hired out as a day laborer; as such I was not allowed to relax from my work.” “And sir, why did you carry the wood on one shoulder and the cloak on the other?” He responded: “It was a borrowed garment; I borrowed it to wear and not for any other purpose [such as placing wood and implements upon it].” “Why, sir, did you go barefoot throughout the journey but upon approaching the stream you put your shoes on?” He replied: “I was able to see what was on the road, but not what was in the water.”
Next, they asked: “Why, sir, did you lift your garments whenever you came upon thorns and thistles?” Not being a man of means he responded: “This one [the body] heals itself, the other [clothing] does not.” They continued: “Why, sir, did your wife come to greet you bedecked in her finery when you entered the city?” He replied: “In order that I not set my eyes upon another woman.” Next they asked: “Why, sir, did she enter the house first, then you, and then we?” He responded: “I did not know your character.” They asked further: “Why, sir, did you not ask us to join you at the meal?” To this he answered: “There was not sufficient food.” They pursued in their questioning: “Why, sir, did you give your older son one portion and your younger son two portions?” He replied, “The one stays at home but the other spends the day at the synagogue [study hall].
With one last question the exchange came to an end: “Why, sir, did the clouds appear first in your wife’s corner and then in yours?” He responded: “A wife is found at home and gives bread to the poor which they can enjoy at once, while I give them money which [they must first exchange for bread and thus] cannot enjoy at once. Or perhaps it may have to do with certain robbers in our neighborhood; I prayed that they might die, but she prayed that they might repent [and repent, they did].”
From the above we see not only the righteousness of Abba Chilkiah but also his great wisdom. And he acknowledges the righteousness of his wife as well. He, too, was righteous, but her prayers were answered first because she fed the needy and thus possibly saved them from starvation. Abba Chilkiah’s reply seems to indicate that he believed that if not for the efforts of his wife many an individual would have expired from hunger.
And yet, we can understand his words in a different manner. In Megillat Esther (4:11) Mordechai reveals Haman’s evil decree to Esther and asks her to appeal to the king to overturn it. She, however, demurs explaining the severity of approaching the king without permission. Mordechai then responds, “Al t’dami b’nafshich l’himalet beit hamelech mi’kol ha’yehudim ki im ha’chareish tacharishi bo’eit ha’zot revach v’hatzalah ya’amod la’yehudim mi’makom acher v’at u’beit avich toveidu u’mi yodea im l’eit ka’zot higa’at l’malchut – Do not imagine in your soul that you will be able to escape the king’s palace any more than the rest of the Jews. For if you persist in keeping silent at a time like this, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, while you and your father’s house will perish, and who knows whether it was just for such a time as this that you attained the royal position.”
Mordechai’s message is very clear. The Jewish people are in need of immediate salvation, and Hashem has many messengers. However, if you seize the moment, you will be the instrument of their salvation; if not, you are headed to oblivion.
Similarly, when a needy person appears at our doors, we have a choice of giving or not giving. If Hashem wants him to continue living, he will get support. The only questin is: Will it be through our efforts or some other source?
May it be our merit to aid those in their time of need in a truly charitable manner, thus making us worthy of the true redemption – may it come very soon.
