Matnot Aniyim - Chapter 7

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 195) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 479) include this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Note, however, Halachah 7.

I.e., his needs as defined by his social standing.

I.e., he is not obligated to borrow to give charity to a colleague. Alternatively, he is not obligated to give more than one fifth of his own resources, as stated in Halachah 5 (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Tzaphnat Paneach states that the negative commandment is violated only when the poor person asks. If he does not, there is no prohibition.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 232) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 478) includes this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

To announce his coming.

Ketubot 67b relates that a person from a dignified family became impoverished and the great Sage Hillel would hire a servant to run before him and announce his coming. Once Hillel could not find such a servant and performed this service himself.

Because of his previous lifestyle, this person feels a severe lack if he does not have these conveniences.

Thus there are times when providing a certain person with what he feels are his needs will require a greater expense than providing another with what he views as luxuries.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 250:1) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama states that this ruling applies to a collector of charity or to the community at large, but not to an individual person. An individual is not required to personally attempt to meet all of a colleague’s needs. Instead, it is sufficient for him to inform the community of the problem. If, however, there are no communal resources, he is individually obligated to help the person if he has the capacity. See also Halachot 5 and 7 and notes.

I.e., first we provide him with those matters that are essential· for him to maintain a household. Only afterwards do we assist him in marrying. See also Hile hot De’ ot 5:11 which states that a person should build a home and find a profession before marrying.

This also reflects an upper limit. As Ketubot 50a states: “Even a person who distributes money to charity with largess should not distribute more than a fifth.” This concept is derived from Jacob’s vow to tithe (Genesis 28:22). There the verb which conveys the promise to tithe is repeated, allowing for the concept of giving two tithes. See also Hilchot Arachin 8:13 which cites Leviticus 27:28 which speaks of a person designating a dedication offering “from all that is his.” The Rambam continues:
[Implied is that he should not give] “all that is his,” as our Sages explained. This is not piety, but foolishness, for he will lose all his money and become dependent on others. We should not show mercy to such a person. In a similar vein, our Sages said: “A man of foolish piety is among those who destroy the world.” Instead, a person who distributes his money for mitzvot should not distribute more than a fifth, and he should conduct himself as our Prophets advised [cf. Psalms 112:5]: “He arranges his affairs with judgment,” both with regard to matters involving Torah and worldly concerns.
Yayin Malchut notes that in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 1:1), the Rambam writes that as an act of piety, a person may give more than a fifth. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam is speaking about giving to a needy person who asks for alms. In response to that acute need, one may give more than a fifth. Here the Rambam is speaking about giving to charity when there is no acute need. Hence a limit can be established. See also Ketubot 67b which states that these restrictions apply during a person’s lifetime. He may leave a greater percentage of his resources to charity in his will.
In Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi states that one may give more than a fifth of his resources to charity to atone for his sins, for just as one is not concerned with the amount one gives when it comes to healing a physical wound or blemish, so too, one should not be worried about cost when healing a spiritual blemish.

The Sifri derives this from the fact that Deuteronomy 14:22, the verse that conveys the Biblical command to tithe repeats the verb, implying an obligation to tithe not only one’s produce - but all income.

This is slightly less than seven grams of silver.

For hunger involves a risk to life. Clothing, by contrast, does not (Bava Batra 9a).

According to his social standing.

For we are familiar with his character and do not think that he will prove to be a deceiver.

One might interpret the Rambam’s words as implying that only when a gentile comes together with a Jew should he be given charity, lest he feel that he is being subjected to discrimination. The Siftei Cohen 251 :2, however, does not accept this interpretation and maintains that even if a gentile comes alone, he may be given charity.

This clause refers to a Jew.

For he is appealing to people at large for help. Hence, no one individual feels the onus to deal with his problem entirely.

Half a me’ah. A pundiyon is equivalent to eight barleycorns of pure silver, approximately 4 grams in contemporary measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:7), the Rambam explains that this is a loaf of bread made from a quarter of a kab of flour. The commentaries explain that a loaf this size provides food for two meals. Thus the intent is that we provide him with the minimum necessary for his immediate needs.

In Hilchot Eruvin l: 12-13, Hilchot Shekalim 1 :23, Hilchot Arachin 4:3-4.

Which must be eaten in honor of the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 30:19).

The· Radbaz adds that we should also provide him with a meal for Saturday night. We assume that he will have with him provisions for at least one meal which he will use Sunday morning.

For in this way, he will not be embarrassed to take.

I.e., we do not support him with charity.

A punishment instituted by the Sages in many instances including the failure to observe a positive Scriptural commandment.

But not in his absence (Ketubot 48a; Sifiei Cohen 248:4). See also the ruling in Hi/chot /shut 12:15.

I.e., we do not excuse a person from giving based on the rationale that he is preoccupied with his Sabbath preparations.

Taanit 24a relates that Rabbi Elazar of Birta would give all of his money to charity. The charity collectors would flee from him so that he would not see them

I.e., orphans who are under majority.

Which is of the highest level of charity, as indicated by Chapter 8, Halachah 10

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 248:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama states that if the donation to charity is for a specific and limited purpose or that withholding the donation will bring shame upon the orphan’s family, donations may be taken from them.

I.e., that they receive renown as persons of wealth. This is permitted if the court thinks that acquiring such a reputation will be to their benefit.
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De ‘ah 248) states that if the orphans already have a reputation as wealthy individuals, it is forbidden to assess such a levy upon their estate.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 248:4) emphasizes that if a woman’s husband objects, it is forbidden to accept any donations from her.

Thus what would be considered a small donation for some would be considered as a large donation for others.

“Your brother” is mentioned first implying that a person’s first responsibility is to his family.

I.e., the prooftext mentions “your land,” to imply that one’s first obligations is to give the poor that are in his immediate proximity.
Although the poor of Eretz Yisrael are given priority over the poor of other cities, they are not given priority of the poor of one’s own city (Siftei Cohen 25 l :6).

It was customary in Talmudic times, for a community to request that a percentage of the profits from business dealings be given to charity.

Since he is only one person, he cannot argue that his failure to give charity will have a significant effect on the fortunes of the poor of his own city.

The Radbaz states that we are speaking about an instance where the majority of the people in a city journey to do business in another city. Hence when they return home, it is proper that they take the money that they gave to charity with them so that they will be able to support the poor in their own city. For, otherwise, there will be no one to support them. Alternatively, he states that it applies even if only three people from one city go to another city. Since they are a significant group, they are considered as an independent entity.

And give it to the charity collector in that city to show that they respect the ordinances of that city (Rashi, Megilah 27a).

I.e., a Torah scholar charged with the administration of the needs of the city (ibid. 27db).

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 253:23) quotes this law with regard to a person’s division of his estate on his deathbed. This interpretation explains why we do not simply ask him to clarify his intent.

For it is most likely that this was his intent.

Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz. With regard to a Torah scroll that cannot be divided, it should be read in one synagogue half of the time and half of the time in the other.

For we assume that he desired to give the gift to those whom he is obligated to support.