Tzedakah: Communal and Individual Responsibilities

The Torah has numerous verses commanding us to give charity (tzedakah) to the poor.  One verse (Vayikra 25:35) commands supporting the poor person so that he may live with you.  Another set of verses (Devarim 15:7-11) requires one to open one's hand to the poor individual and supply him with whatever he is lacking and prohibits turning the poor person away.  In this issue, we will discuss which aspects of tzedakah are a communal responsibility and which are an individual responsibility. [In a previous issue, we discussed the mitzvah of matanot la'evyonim that applies on Purim.]

The Kupah System

Rambam (1138-1204), Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 9:1, writes that each city has an obligation to appoint trustworthy individuals to collect money from the community and distribute it to the poor.  The source for Rambam's ruling is the Mishna, Pe'ah 8:7, which describes two different types of collections.  The tamchui is a collection dedicated to feeding those who require food on a daily basis.  The kupah is a collection dedicated to feeding those who require food on a weekly basis.  Rambam, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 9:3, writes that while establishing a tamchui is optional, "we have never seen or heard of a Jewish community that did not have a kupah."

The Gemara, Baba Batra 8b, states that the community can establish a system of taxation to support the kupah and other collections.  Rashba (1235-1310), in a responsum (3:380), writes that the money collected for the kupah should be based on wealth such that those who can afford to give more should contribute a larger portion than those who aren't as wealthy.  However, in another responsum (cited in Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah no. 250) Rashba acknowledges that some communities attempt to collect their needs on a voluntary basis which doesn't always correspond to the wealth of the community members.  Shulchan Aruch and Rama, Yoreh De'ah 250:5, codify these responsa.

The Gemara, Baba Batra 9a, states that if someone tries to collect by knocking on doors, he is only given a small amount.  Rashi (1040-1105), ad loc., s.v. Ain Nizkakin, explains that he is only given a small amount from the kupah because we assume that the he already collected a significant amount from going door to door.  Rambam, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 7:7, implies that this ruling applies to an individual who is asked for tzedakah by someone collecting door to door.  Rambam states that one should never completely turn away a poor person and should therefore give him a small amount, even if it means giving the collector a single fig.

Radvaz (d. 1573), Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, 7:7, suggests that Rambam doesn't disagree with Rashi.  Rather, Rambam is simply stating that that the prohibition against an individual to turn away a poor person applies even to a door to door collector.  This idea is reflected in the rulings of Shulchan Aruch and Rama.  Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 250:3, rules that a kupah should give a small amount to the door to door collector.  Yet, Rama, Yoreh De'ah 249:4, quotes that language of Rambam regarding turning away a poor person.  R. Chaim Kanievski, Derech Emunah, Matnot Aniyim 7:48 (and note 114), adds that the prohibition against turning away a collector only applies to a collector who is collecting for his own needs.  If he is collecting for others, there is no prohibition against turning him away, even if the collector himself is poor and is receiving a commission.

R. Yisrael M. Kagan (1838-1933), Ahavat Chesed, Vol. II, ch. 17, notes that the Gemara's limitation on door to door collectors is not a license to ignore those who collect door to door.  Even though well intentioned individuals may feel that the system provides better benefit to the poor when everyone collects from the kupah, one must still give a small amount to those who collect door to door, even if they are not members of the community.  R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah 1:149, follows a similar approach and explains that door to door collection will produce a greater yield but it involves embarrassment.  The kupah allows the poor to collect in a more dignified manner.  However, those who wish to collect door to door are entitled to do so and each individual person can decide how much to give to those collectors.

The Requirement to Provide what is Lacking

The Torah (Devarim 15:8) states that one should provide to the poor whatever they are lacking.  The Gemara, Ketuvot 67b, states that this means providing them with more than just the basics.  Even if a person was used to having a horse to ride on and servant to accompany him before he became impoverished, one must provide that to him.  R. Ya'akov ben Asher (1269-1343), Tur, Yoreh De'ah no. 250, writes that according to Rambam, there is no obligation to give this amount to someone who collects door to door.  R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Beit Yosef, ad loc., notes that Tur's comments imply that if not for the fact that the collector was going door to door, an individual would be required to provide a poor person with whatever he is lacking.  R. Karo disagrees and asserts that the obligation to provide what is lacking is a communal responsibility and should not fall on any single individual.

R. Yehoshua Falk (1555-1614), Derisha, ad loc., defends Tur's opinion and claims that Tur never meant to place the responsibility of providing what is lacking on an individual.  Rather, Tur was simply stating that one is not required to give a large gift to a door to door collector.  Ordinarily, an individual should give the poor person enough to eat or purchase one meal.  However, if the poor person is collecting door to door, one may give less than that.  R. Yoel Sirkes (1561-1640), Bach, ad loc., assumes that Tur does require an individual to provide what is lacking.  When an individual is asked for tzedakah, he should give the poor person whatever is in his means to give.  If it is in his means to provide the poor person with everything he is lacking, he cannot exempt himself on the basis that the community should be providing anything beyond what is necessary to survive.

Rama, Yoreh De'ah 250:1, and R. Shabtai Kohen (1621-1662), Shach 250:1, rule that the obligation to provide what is lacking is a communal obligation.  The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797), Bei'ur HaGra, Yoreh De'ah 250:3, sides with the opinion of Bach that there is an individual responsibility.

R. Yechiel M. Epstein (1829-1908), Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh De'ah 250:4-5, suggests that there is no real dispute between Rama and Bach.  If the community has many wealthy individuals and few poor individuals and there is enough money to provide the poor with everything they are lacking, the obligation falls on the entire community.  The fact that one individual can afford to support the poor doesn't exempt other wealthy people in the community.  However, if there are no other people who can support the poor or there is no communal system set up, an individual who has the means of providing the poor with what they are lacking is obligated to do so.  By contrast, if the community has few wealthy individuals and many poor individuals such that there are insufficient funds to provide everyone with what they are lacking, then even the community is exempt from providing the poor with what they are lacking (i.e., there is no obligation on the wealthy individuals to contribute beyond their means to reach this level of funding).

There is a responsum of R. Moshe Sofer (1762-1839) that highlights the challenges of providing what is lacking when there are insufficient funds.  In 1801, a fire destroyed many homes in the town of Matersdorf (currently Mattersburg, Austria).  Money was collected to help the people of the town and R. Sofer, Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah no. 239, was asked how the money should be distributed.  R. Sofer suggested dividing the people who lost money into three groups: poor, middle class and wealthy and then to ask each individual to divide their losses into two categories: items that one needs and items that one can do without.  He then suggested apportioning the funds by providing the poor with 100% funding for replacement of necessary items and 50% for items they didn't consider necessary.  The middle class would receive 66% funding for replacement of necessary items and 33% for items they didn't consider necessary.  The wealthy would receive 33% for all items.