אלא אם כן ממונה עליה כרבי חנניא בן תרדיון—Unless someone like רבי חנניא בן תרדיון is appointed over it

OVERVIEW רבי אליעזר בן יעקב said that a person should not give a פרוטה to an ארנקי של צדקה, unless someone like רחב"ת is appointed over it. תוספות explains what is meant by someone like רחב"ת.

פירוש נאמן כמותו אבל צדיק כמותו לא – It means that the ממונה should be as trustworthy as רחב"ת, but it does not (necessarily) mean that the ממונה should be as righteous as רחב"ת – דהא גבאים דבימי אמוראים¹ לא היו צדיקים כמותו² – For the גבאי צדקה in the times of the אמוראים were not as great צדיקים as רחב"ת was. תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:³ ולהכי נקט רבי חנניא בן תרדיון משום מעשה שבא לידו – And the reason ראב"י mentioned רחב"ת is because of the episode which happened with רחב"ת – דאמר פרק קמא דמסכת עבודה זרה (דף יז,ב) – As the גמרא relates in the first פרק of מסכת ע"ז, that רחב"ת stated – מעות פורים נתחלפו לי במעות של צדקה וחלקתים לעניים⁴ – Monies designated for פורים became exchanged by me with צדקה money, and I disbursed all the exchanged money to the poor. תוספות offers a similar example (where a name is mentioned for a specific incident). וכן⁵ בפרק במה טומנין (שבת דף מט,א ושם) דאמר תפילין צריכין גוף נקי כאלישע – And similarly in פרק במה טומנין the גמרא states that ‘donning תפילין requires a clean body like אלישע’; there too – לא צדיק כאלישע קאמר אלא גוף נקי שידע ליזהר שלא ישן בהם ושלא יפיח בהם קאמר – The גמרא did not mean that one has to be a צדיק like אלישע in order to don תפילין, but rather the גמרא meant that the person should know how to be careful while wearing תפילין, that he should not sleep or pass gas while wearing them – ולא נקט אלישע אלא משום דאיתרחיש ביה ניסא:⁶ And the גמרא only mentioned אלישע because a miracle occurred to אלישע with תפילין.****

SUMMARY The גמרא mentions רחב"ת (not because of his צדקות [which is not required], but rather) because he was exemplary in his נאמנות as the גמרא relates elsewhere.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Seemingly the comparison (of רחב"ת and נאמנות) to אלישע and גוף נקי is not appropriate;⁷ for there the גמרא clearly states that a גוף נקי כאלישע is required (but not that he be a צדיק כאלישע); however here the גמרא only states כרחב"ת but it does not say נאמן כרחב"ת. How does תוספות compare the two?!
2. Regarding רחב"ת there is a story which proves his נאמנות, therefore it is understood why ראב"י mentions רחב"ת (for נאמנות is the issue at hand); however why mention אלישע regarding גוף נקי when the story תוספות alludes too,⁸ is not regarding a גוף נקי?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ ראב"י was a תנא; however, the גמרא here concludes that nowadays (in the times of the גמרא) one should give לארנקי של צדקה (only) if ממני עלה כרחב"ת. ² רחב"ת was burnt עקה"ש by the Romans together with a ס"ת because he was מקהיל קהילות ברבים (see ע"ז there). ³ If the גבאים do not have to be at the level of רחב"ת in צדקות just in נאמנות, why mention רחב"ת altogether, there certainly were other people (in the times of the ראב"י) who were an example of the required נאמנות. ⁴ רש"י there בד"ה נתחלפו explains that he collected monies for סעודת פורים לעניים (and it cannot be used for anything else); however רחב"ת confused these monies and he thought it was regular צדקה money, so he distributed it to the poor (not for סעודת פורים). רחב"ת then repaid the סעודת פורים money from his own pocket (and not from the קופת צדקה). See רש"י there for an additional interpretation as well as תוספות there ד"ה מעות who asks on פרש"י and offers a different interpretation, עיי"ש. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁶ The גמרא there relates that the מלכות רומי הרשעה decreed that whoever puts on תפילן will have his brain pierced. However, אלישע ignored the decree and went in the marketplace with תפילין. A Roman officer saw him and chased after him. When he reached him, אלישע had already taken off the תפילין and was holding it in his hands. In response to the officer’s question, אלישע said he is holding dove wings and indeed when אלישע opened his hands, there were the dove wings. From that incident onwards he was called אלישע בעל כנפים. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ See footnote # 5. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ See תוספות שבת מט,א ד"ה כאלישע.

עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה—The higher were below and the lower were above

OVERVIEW רב יוסף the son of ר' יהושע passed out and (after his recovery) he told his father that he observed (in שמים) an opposite world where עליונים were למטה and תחתונים למעלה. His father told him, ‘you saw a clear world’. רש"י interprets עליונים ותחתונים as referring to the rich and poor; תוספות offers a different perspective.

פירש רבינו חננאל דאמרו הגאונים שקבלה בידם רב מפי רב – The ר"ח explained that the גאונים said that they have a tradition, each רב (of the גאונים) from the mouth of a previous רב – דעולם הפוך היינו שראה שמואל דהוה יתיב קמיה דרב יהודה תלמידיה¹ – That the upside down world means, that רב יוסף בריה דר' יהושע saw that שמואל was sitting as a student before רב יהודה his pupil. The reason this reversal took place is- משום דמיחה בשמואל בפרק במה בהמה (שם דף נה,א) – Because רב יהודה protested the conduct of שמואל as related in פרק במה בהמה – גבי ההיא איתתא דאתיא וצוחא קמיה דשמואל ולא אשגח בה² – Regarding that woman who came and screamed before שמואל and שמואל paid her no attention – אמר ליה רב יהודה לית ליה למר אוטם³ אזנו מזעקת דל וגומר:⁴ רב יהודה said to שמואל is not the master concerned for the פסוק which states, אוטם אזנו מזעקת דל, etc. גם הוא יקרא ולא אענה (one who closes his ear from the shout of the poor, when he will call I will also not answer).

SUMMARY שמואל sat as a pupil before ר"י (in שמים) since ר"י protested the insensitivity of שמואל to the crying woman.

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of פרש"י and פר"ח?

footnotes: ¹ This was the עולם הפוך which he saw. ² See the גמרא there how שמואל justified his action. ³ משלי כא,יג. ⁴ That is why in reality it was an עולם ברור, since רב יהודה was sensitive to the cries of the woman while שמואל was not, therefore ר"י was accorded this honor in שמים, that his master שמואל sit before him as a pupil (see מהר"ם).

ויבא ויעש ה' כאשר דבר כי חטאתם וגומר—And ה' came and did as he spoke because you sinned, etc.

OVERVIEW רבי אלעזר המודעי stated that the פסוק of וחסד לאומים חטאת teaches that any צדקה וחסד which the עוכ"ם do is a sin, because their intent is to shame the Jews. The גמרא proves this from the פסוק in ירמיהו where נבוזראדן said the following פסוק to ירמיה that ה' did what he promised because you (the Jews) sinned. This indeed is shameful for the Jews but where is the צדקה וחסד which נבוזראדן did (in order to shame the Jews). תוספות resolves this difficulty.

ואותה שעה עשה צדקה¹ שהיה² מקנא להקדוש ברוך הוא³ – And at that moment when נבוזראדן said this פסוק he did צדקה for he was [apparently] avenging the honor of הקב"ה. תוספות offers an alternate explanation:

Or you may also say; נבוזראדן was releasing ירמיה from the shackles as it is written there.

SUMMARY The apparent צדקה was either the avenging of ה', or the releasing of ירמיה from his shackles.

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of each of תוספות explanations?

footnotes: ¹ The term צדקה needs to be understood in a wider perspective that it refers to any ‘good’ deed (not necessarily an act of kindness). ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, שהיה נראה כמקנא ³ However in truth his intent was not to stand up for הקב"ה but rather to shame ישראל therefore this צדקה is a חטא. ⁴ ירמיהו מ,ד reads; ועתה הנה פתחתיך היום מן האזקים אשר על ידך. This פסוק follows immediately after the פסוק of ויבא ויעש ה' וגו'. ⁵ The צדקה (kindness in a literal sense) to ירמיהו was preceded by the פסוק of ויבא to tell ירמיה, ‘I am kind to you because you are not like the rest of the Jews (who are in shackles) who sinned against ה'’. The kindness was a sin, because his intent was to demean the (rest of the) Jews.