ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר—And even though there is no proof for this; there is mention of this

OVERVIEW The ברייתא stated that no reckoning is made with either the גבאי צדקה or with the הקדש treasurers. The ברייתא continues that even though there is no proof for this ruling, nevertheless there is a זכר לדבר from the פסוק which states ולא יחשבו את האנשים וגו' כי באמונה הם עושים. Our תוספות explains why this פסוק is merely a זכר, but not a ראיה.¹

ראיה גמורה אינה² דשאני התם שהיו צדיקים גמורים:³ It is not a complete proof; because there in the case of the פסוק it is different from our case, for the people in the פסוק were perfect צדיקים, so we cannot compare the current גזברי הקדש and גבאי צדקה to those in the time of the פסוק**.**

SUMMARY The גזברים in the time of יואש were צדיקים גמורים.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does not תוספות accept פירש"י⁴?⁵
2. Can there be a difference in the reason why we do not require an accounting whether it is because they are צדיקים גמורים, or because they are trustworthy?⁶

footnotes: ¹ רש"י בד"ה שאין maintains that it is a ראיה for גזברי הקדש but not for גבאי צדקה (since גזברי הקדש are too preoccupied with the various workers, therefore we cannot expect an accounting from them). עיי"ש. ² תוספות maintains that it is not proof even for (the current) גזברי הקדש; since they are not צדיקים גמורים as in the times of the פסוק. (See previous footnote # 1.) ³ It is nevertheless a זכר לדבר, since the פסוק states the reason why לא יחשבו is because כי באמונה הם עושים, therefore the גזברים and גבאים of today who work באמונה (see תוס' י,ב ד"ה אלא), do not have to give an accounting. ⁴ See footnote # 1. ⁵ See מהר"ם and מהרש"א (בח"א על הגמרא). ⁶ See נח"מ.

אין פוחתין לעני העובר ממקום למקום מככר בפונדיון כולי—We do not give to a poor man who is traveling from place to place, less than a loaf of bread worth a פונדיון, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה which states that for an עני who travels from place to place, he is to be given (in every place) a loaf of bread worth a פונדיון (when wheat is being sold at four סאה for a סלע). תוספות discusses the size of the ככר and why it is necessary to give ‘this much’.

הככר עולה ששה ביצים דצא מהן מחצה לחנווני¹ – This loaf, which is worth a פונדיון, amounts to a size of six eggs, for half goes to the storekeeper, for his work and profit – והוא מזון שתי סעודות כדתניא בפרק כיצד משתתפין² (עירובין דף פב,ב) – And this ככר (the size of six ביצים) is sufficient food for two meals, as we learnt in a ברייתא in פרק כיצד משתתפין. תוספות asks: וקשה לרבינו יצחק דבפרק כל כתבי (שבת דף קיח,א ושם) משמע – And the ר"י has a difficulty; for in פרק כל כתבי it seems – שהוא רגילות דאיכא סעודה בהדיה – That it is usual that the poor man has a meal with him, while he is traveling – דקאמר התם דכי אזיל מלווינא ליה סעודה בהדיה דכי אזיל לאו בריקן אזיל – For the גמרא states there that when the עני leaves the city we send along a meal with him so that when he goes, he does not go empty-handed.**** This concludes the citation from that גמרא – ואם כן למה נותנין לו שתי סעודות די לו בסעודה אחת – And if indeed it is so (that he receives an extra meal for the way), why do we give him two meals; it is sufficient for him to receive just one meal – ההיא סעודה דאיכא בהדיה יאכל מיד וסעודה שנותנין לו עכשיו יוליכנו עמו – The meal that accompanied him from the city which he left; he can eat immediately (in the new city), and the meal which we give him now, that meal, he will take along with him to the next city.³ תוספות answers:**** ונראה לרבינו יצחק דאין מחלקין תמחוי בלילה – And it appears to the ר"י that תמחוי is not distributed by night; only by day – לפי שאינן יכולין להבחין למי נתנו ולמי לא נתנו – Because (at night) we cannot distinguish to whom food from the תמוחי was given and to whom it was not given. תוספות proves that תמחוי is not distributed at night: וכן משמע מדקאמר לן נותנים לו פרנסת לינה ומפרש דהיינו פוריא ובי סדיא – And so it seems, since the משנה (cited here) states, ‘if the עני sleeps over we give him the necessities for sleeping’, and רב פפא explained that the necessities are a bed and a cushion, this concludes the citation from the גמרא – אבל ככר אין נותנין לו – However we do not give him a loaf of bread (since it is at night) – ולכך נותנין לו ב' סעודות שיאכל אחת בלילה ואחת למחר⁴ דכי אזיל לאו בריקן אזיל⁴ – And so therefore it is understood that we give him two meals, that he should eat one at night and one tomorrow so that he does not go away empty-handed – וטעמא דבעינן שלא ילך ריקם דאינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו – And the reason we require that he not leave empty-handed, is because we cannot compare one has bread in his basket to one who does not have bread in his basket, for if he has פת בסלו – ולא יהא רעב כל כך – He will not be so hungry when he travels to the next city. תוספות rejects an alternate explanation why we send along a meal with him: אבל אין לפרש דהטעם שמא לא יגיע בין היהודים ויהא לו מה לאכול – However we cannot explain that the reason we send along an extra meal is because perhaps he will not reach by the next day a place among Jews, and he will not have what to eat (so he will eat the meal-to-go) – תוספות explains why he rejects this explanation: דאי חיישינן להכי היה ליתן לו שלש סעודות – For if we are concerned that he will not find a Jewish settlement, we should give him three meals – כי גם בלילה לא יתנו אף כשיגיע בין היהודים שאין מחלקין תמחוי בלילה⁵ – For even when he will eventually reach a Jewish settlement they will not give him any food that night as well, for as תוספות just pointed out the תמחוי is not distributed by night. תוספות anticipates a possible rebuttal and that indeed the concern is that he will not reach a Jewish settlement (and that is why he receives a meal to go): ואין לומר דלעולם מחלקין⁶– And we cannot say that really the תמחוי is distributed at night – ולכך נותנין שתים דחיישינן שמא לא יגיע בין היהודים שתי פעמים⁷ – And the reason we give him two meals, is because we are concerned that he will not reach a Jewish settlement two times (for the evening meal and the morning meal) – תוספות offers an alternate concern:⁸ אי נמי לא חיישינן אלא לפעם אחת והשניה נותנין לו כדי שיהא לו פת בסלו – Or you may also say; we are only concerned about his missing a meal once, and the second meal is given in order that he should have פת בסלו; however the reason we give him a meal to go is because he may not reach a Jewish settlement. תוספות reject these two approaches: דאם כן היכי קאמר התם דמלוינן ליה סעודה אחת בהדיה – For if this is indeed so, how can the גמרא say there (in מסכת שבת) that we give him one meal to go – ואם יש לחוש שמא לא יגיע בין היהודים היה לו ליתן שתים לכך נראה כדפרישית:⁹ For if there is a concern that he will not reach a Jewish settlement, we should give him two meals to go. Therefore תוספות prefers as he explained previously, that there is no תמחוי at night, and no concern that he will not reach a Jewish settlement and the extra meal is only because of פת בסלו.

SUMMARY תמחוי is not distributed at night. An עני is given two meals; one for the upcoming evening meal and one for פת בסלו. There is no concern he will not reach a Jewish settlement before the next meal.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות in his initial question assumed that תמחוי is distributed at night (as well as by day). Seemingly then each time a person (who travels ממקום למקום) comes to the תמחוי he receives two meals. The question should be why we give him two meals, when he already has a meal (from the previous תמחוי [where he was also given two meals]; one meal should suffice! Why does תוספות find it necessary (for his question) to cite the גמרא in שבת that מלווינא ליה סעודה בהדיה?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה מככר. The price of wheat is four סאה for a סלע. There are 48 פונדיונין in a סלע. One סאה cost 12 פונדיונין (48/4=12). There are 144 ביצים in a סאה (6 ביצים in a לוג, 4 לוגין in a קב, and 6 קבין in a סאה; 6x4x6=144). One פונדיון buys 12 ביצים (144/12=12). However the merchant who sells the ככר takes half for his labor and profit, resulting in that one ככר for a פונדיון is the equivalent of six ביצים (12/2=6). ² The משנה there states regarding the שיעור for עירובי תחומין that - כמה הוא שיעורו מזון שתי סעודות, and continues: ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מככר בפונדיון מד' סאין בסלע. We see that מככר בפונדיון is מזון ב' סעודות. [According to some a ביצה is approximately two ounces.] ³ An עני is entitled to receive two meals from the תמחוי (every day) and no more. Initially we understand that we give this traveling עני two meals; one he will eat now and the other at night (wherever he will be; either here or in the next city). The next day he will receive his two meals from that city. However now that we know that he had an extra meal when he came here, we should give him one meal (in the morning). He will eat the morning meal from his previous ככר (which he received in the other city) and the other meal he will (take along with him and) eat (it) at night when he arrives in the other city. If he intends to remain here overnight, then at night he will go to the תמחוי and will receive an additional meal (and he will still have a meal to accompany him). ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, למחר כשילך דכי. ⁴ We must always give him two סעודות since there is no תמחוי at night. The ככר which he brought along will be his morning meal, and the two סעודות which we give him from the תמחוי will be for the evening meal and for a meal to go (so he should have פת בסלו). ⁵ We need to give him three meals; one for the evening meal of today, the second for the morning meal tomorrow and (since he may have not reached a Jewish settlement by morning when they distribute the תמחוי) a third meal for tomorrow night. Since we give him only two meals that means we are not concerned that he will not reach a Jewish settlement, and so the reason we give him a meal to go is that he should have פת בסלו. ⁶ So seemingly we should not give him two meals, since he will receive an evening meal from the תמחוי, nevertheless it is necessary to give him two meals as תוספות continues. ⁷ We do not give him the extra סעודה because of פת בסלו but rather because we are concerned that he will miss (the next) two meals. ⁸ This א"נ assumes that we are not concerned that he will miss two meals (as the ואין לומר assumed), and that תמחוי is distributed at night (as the ואין לומר assumes), and nevertheless we are required to give him two meals (in the morning). One because he may not reach a Jewish settlement for his next meal and another so that he should have פת בסלו (even though he will reach a Jewish settlement before his second upcoming meal). ⁹ The rule (to which all agree) is that we give him two meals; [only] one of which is a meal to go. If there is a concern that he will not reach a Jewish settlement (for at least one meal), so how can the גמרא (in שבת) state that he is given only one meal to go, he should be given two meals to go (either [according to the וא"ל] for the two meals that he may miss, or [according to the א"נ] for the one meal he will miss and for the פת בסלו). ¹⁰ See מטה יוסף.

שבת נותנין לו מזון שלש סעודות—He stayed for שבת; we give him food for three meals

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה that if the (traveling) עני spends שבת in a city, we give him food for three meals. תוספות discusses when and why it is given to him.

פירוש¹ בשבת בצהרים² – The explanation of 'שבת', is that we give him the מזון ג' סעודות on שבת afternoon – אותן שתי סעודות שנתן לו אתמול בערב שבת אכל ליל שבת³ ושבת שחרית – [Because] the two meals that were given to the עני yesterday on ערב שבת, he already ate them on Shabbos eve and שבת morning – ושלש סעודות שנותנים לו בשבת יאכל אחת בשבת בסעודה שלישית ואחת למוצאי שבת – And the three meals that we give him on שבת, he should eat one on שבת for the third שבת meal, and the second on מוצאי שבת – ושלישית ישאר לו למחר בדרך⁴ שלא ילך ריקם ואין להאריך – And the third meal will remain by him for the trip tomorrow (Sunday) so that he should not leave us empty-handed. And there is no need to elaborate further. תוספות asks: וקשה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם הא דתנן במסכת פאה (פרק ח' משנהז') – And the רשב"א has a difficulty regarding this which the משנה teaches in מסכת פאה – ומייתי לה בפרק כל כתבי (שבת דף קיח,א ושם) – And this משנה is cited in פרק כל כתבי, which reads as follows – מי שיש לו מזון שתי סעודות בביתו⁵ לא יטול מן התמחוי – Whoever has food for two meals in his house, should not take from the תמחוי. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in שבת. תוספות continues with the question – ואמאי הא אחד יאכל מיד ואחד בלילה ואם כן כי אזיל ריקם אזיל – But why should he not take from the תמחוי if he has only two meals, since one meal he will eat immediately in the morning and the other by night, and therefore when he leaves, he is going empty-handed; there is no food left in the house. We just mentioned that a person is always given a meal in order that he should not be left empty-handed. תוספות answers: וצריך לפרש דמזון שתי סעודות דקאמר היינו בלא אותה שיש לו לאכול מיד⁶ – And it is necessary to say that when the משנה stated whoever has two meals, etc. it meant two additional meals besides the meal which he will eat immediately. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר שבת אמאי נותנין לו שלש סעודות – And if you will say; why do we give the עני three meals on שבת – והא הך מתניתין רבי עקיבא היא – For since this משנה is according to ר"ע. תוספות shows that this משנה is according to ר"ע – דקתני רישא כל מי שיש לו מזון י"ד סעודות לא יטול מן הקופה⁷ – For it states in the רישא of this משנה, whoever has food for fourteen meals should not take money from the קופה – ופריך בפרק כל כתבי הקדש (שם) מני אי רבנן חמיסר הויין⁸ אי רבי חדקא שיתסר הויין – And the גמרא in פרק כל כתבי הקודש asks, according to whom is this משנה, if it is according to the רבנן there are fifteen meals a week, and if it is according to רבי חדקא there are sixteen meals a week; why does the משנה state if you have fourteen meals that is sufficient. ומשני הא מני רבי עקיבא היא דאמר עשה שבתך חול⁹ – And the גמרא there answered, this משנה is according to ר"ע, who says make your שבת into a weekday and do not take charity**** from others. Therefore if you have fourteen meals that is sufficient even though you will only have two meals on שבת. תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דבשביל סעודת שבת אין לו להתחיל וליטול – And it is the view of the רשב"א that (if he has fourteen meals) he should not begin and take from the קופה, because of the extra שבת meal that is required, but rather he should make his שבת חול (since he has enough food for two meals every day [including שבת]) –

However where he already needs to take (from the תמחוי) because he does not have even two meals, so once he is taking, he may also take enough for three שבת meals. If one can refrain from taking צדקה by eating only two meals on שבת, then we sayעשה שבת חול and don’t take any צדקה at all. However if one must take צדקה for שבת (for he does not have enough even for two meals), then he may take even for a third שבת meal.

SUMMARY The three שבת meals are given for the (extra) third שבת meal, the מוצאי שבת meal and one as a meal to go. One may not take from the תמחוי if he has two meals, besides the current meal. If one has sufficient food [if he will only eat two meals on שבת], he should not take from צדקה; if however he does not have enough for even two meals for שבת, he may take three meals for שבת.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that on שבת afternoon we give him three meals, one of them is for מוצאי שבת and the other for Sunday.¹⁰ Seemingly this is preparing from שבת to the weekdays; how is this permitted?!¹¹
2. תוספות writes regarding the taking מן התמחוי that if we only give him two סעודות, then he will not have anything when he leaves. However תוספות writes that he has מזון ב' סעודות בביתו,¹² so he is not leaving and he does not need the extra סעודה?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ The word שבת can be read either ‘השין קמוצה והב' רפויה ופתוחה (which is a verb, rested) or השין פתוחה והב' דגושה וקמוצה (which is the noun Sabbath)’. From רש"י in שבת it appears that he reads it as a verb for his comment on שבת is:אצלם בשבת. However תוספות here disagrees and maintains that שבת is a noun and it means that we give him מזון ג' סעודות on שבת. That is (perhaps) why תוספות writes פירוש to exclude פירש"י. ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, בצהרים כי אותן. ³ On Friday morning he ate the meal to go, which he received in the previous city. See previous תוס' ד"ה אין. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ #1. ⁵ In the משנה in פאה and in מסכת שבת the word בביתו is omitted. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ Therefore the meal which has for now will be eaten now in the morning, so there is no need to take from the תמחוי for he still has two remaining meals; one for the evening meal and one שלא ילך ריקם (and tomorrow he may take מן התמחוי). ⁷ See previous עמוד that the קופה was money collected for the עניי העיר and was distributed once a week. If one has מזון יד סעודות, he then has sufficient food for the week; therefore he is not permitted to take from the קופה. ⁸ The רבנן maintain that on שבת one eats three meals, therefore there is a total of fifteen meals for the week (twelve for the six days [two meals a day], and three for שבת. ר' חדקא maintains that one eats four meals on שבת, so there are sixteen meals a week. ⁹ According to ר"ע he should only receive two meals for שבת (since עשה שבתך חול); why does the משנה afford him three. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4. ¹¹ See נח"מ. ¹² See footnote # 5. ¹³ See נח"מ.

לא אזדקיק ליה—He did not mind him

OVERVIEW The גמרא relates an incident that there was this עני who was collecting door to door and רב פפא ignored him when the עני came to him. רב סמא said to רב פפא if you ignore him, others will also ignore him, so should he die! תוספות clarifies the story.

רב פפא גבאי היה ולא נתן לו מן הקופה¹ – רב פפא was a גבאי צדקה and he did not give money from the קופה to this עני – כדתניא אין נותנין לו מן הקופה כיון שמחזר על הפתחים – As the ברייתא teaches, ‘we do not give him money from the קופה since he is collecting door to door’ – ואמר ליה רב סמא אי מר לא אזדקיק ליה לתת לו מן הקופה היינו כדי סעודה² – So רב סמא said to רב פפא, ‘if the master is not responding to him by giving him money from the קופה (meaning for (at least) one סעודה), then – כל שכן שגם אחרים לא יתנו לו – It is certain that others will also not give him (and he may die)³ –

And רב סמא concluded that when the ברייתא states, we do not give him from the קופה, that means we do not give him sufficient funds for a meal, but we give him a paltry sum.****

SUMMARY We do not give from the קופה to an עני המחזר על הפסחים only a דבר מועט. However privately one should give him.

THINKING IT OVER If we assume that רב פפא gave a donation משלו (just not מן הקופה),⁵ why would the others not give?⁶

footnotes: ¹ רב פפא may have given him a personal donation (at home), but when the עני came to collect from the קופה (like the other עניים), רב פפא declined to give him since he was מחזר על הפתחים. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² The הגהות הב"ח deletes the last three words; היינו כדי סעודה. The מהר"ם amends it to סעודה קטנה. See footnote # 4. ³ The people (when they realize that רב פפא refused to give anything to the עני) may assume that רב פפא refused to give him (even) from his private money. They will therefore also refuse to give him anything. ⁴ This (word סעודה) explains why the ב"ח and the מהר"ם alter the גירסא previously (footnote # 2). Here רב סמא agrees that we do not give him a סעודה, therefore we cannot be גורס previously that he should give him כדי סעודה. ⁵ See footnote # 1 (& # 3). ⁶ See סוכ"ד אות ח.

שנאמר והעמדנו עלינו מצות—As it says; and we placed upon ourselves מצות

OVERVIEW רב אסי ruled that everyone should give at least a third of a שקל yearly for צדקה, because it is written (regarding the בית המקדש) that the בנ"י accepted upon themselves to support the ביהמ"ק with the sum of a third of a שקל annually.² תוספות explains how this relates to צדקה nowadays.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ואף על גב דהאי קרא גבי בית אלהינו כתיב דהיינו בדק הבית כל שכן צדקה:³ And even though that this פסוק (of והעמדנו עלינו וגו') is written regarding the ביהמ"ק, which means they committed themselves for the upkeep and repair of the בית המקדש (but it is not regarding צדקה), nevertheless תוספות argues that for certain one must commit (at least) the same amount for צדקה.

SUMMARY Giving צדקה for the poor is greater than giving for the בדק הבית.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How can we derive from the voluntary commitment (of an annual שלישית השקל) to the בדק הבית, that one should be obligated to give a שלישית השקל annually to צדקה?
2. If we can derive the obligation to give a שלישית השקל to צדקה from a voluntary commitment to the בדק הבית, why do we not derive from the תורה obligation to give a מחצית השקל every year,⁴ that for צדקה too, one should give at least a מחצית השקל?⁵

footnotes: ² This was in addition to the מחצית השקל (which was for קרבנות צבור). See אבן עזרא ומצו"ד שם. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ It is apparent that תוספות maintains that giving צדקה to the poor is a greater מצוה than giving to the בדק הבית. ⁴ See footnote # 1. ⁵ See מהרש"א בח"א.