Charity: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
* Tosfot Taanit 9a quotes the Sifrei that implies that there is a concept of giving a tenth of one’s profits to tzedaka. Shaar Efraim 84 quotes this Tosfot as halachically binding that it is a halacha to give maaser kesafim. Teshuva Mahava 1:87 rejects the proof from Tosfot who was only dealing with reward if one gives it. Taz 331:32 holds that it is an absolute obligation to give maaser kesafim. These sources imply it is a biblical obligation. Laws of Tzedakah and Maaser p. 118 quotes Chavot Yair 224 who understood the Taz that it is only a rabbinic obligation, while the Aruch Hashulchan 249:5 understood that it is biblical. Maharil (responsa 54 s.v. vnireh li) writes that maaser kesafim is only rabbinic. | * Tosfot Taanit 9a quotes the Sifrei that implies that there is a concept of giving a tenth of one’s profits to tzedaka. Shaar Efraim 84 quotes this Tosfot as halachically binding that it is a halacha to give maaser kesafim. Teshuva Mahava 1:87 rejects the proof from Tosfot who was only dealing with reward if one gives it. Taz 331:32 holds that it is an absolute obligation to give maaser kesafim. These sources imply it is a biblical obligation. Laws of Tzedakah and Maaser p. 118 quotes Chavot Yair 224 who understood the Taz that it is only a rabbinic obligation, while the Aruch Hashulchan 249:5 understood that it is biblical. Maharil (responsa 54 s.v. vnireh li) writes that maaser kesafim is only rabbinic. | ||
* Hagahot Mordechai b"b 659 quotes Rav Yechezkel who learns that there is an obligation to give ten percent of one's money from the Yerushalmi Peah 1:1. It is derived from giving maaser. See Yaskil Avdi YD 1:13 who discusses this derivation. Another possible source is the Sifrei cited by Tosfot Taanit 9a that derives from maaser the concept of giving maaser from one's money. Gra 249:2 cites these sources for the concept of giving one tenth. The Rambam (Matanot Aniyim 7:5) seems to understand that one tenth is considered an average amount to give for tzedaka but it isn't a separate obligation. Thus, Yavetz 1:3 opines that maaser kesafim is merely a standard percentage recommended by chazal to give tzedaka. | * Hagahot Mordechai b"b 659 quotes Rav Yechezkel who learns that there is an obligation to give ten percent of one's money from the Yerushalmi Peah 1:1. It is derived from giving maaser. See Yaskil Avdi YD 1:13 who discusses this derivation. Another possible source is the Sifrei cited by Tosfot Taanit 9a that derives from maaser the concept of giving maaser from one's money. Gra 249:2 cites these sources for the concept of giving one tenth. The Rambam (Matanot Aniyim 7:5) seems to understand that one tenth is considered an average amount to give for tzedaka but it isn't a separate obligation. Thus, Yavetz 1:3 opines that maaser kesafim is merely a standard percentage recommended by chazal to give tzedaka. | ||
* Bach 331:19 held it isn’t a biblical or rabbinic obligation, rather it is only a halacha within tzedaka that a medium standard of tzedaka is one tenth. This is also the opinion of the brother of the Maharil (responsa 54 s.v. vdochak), Chavot Yair 224, and Shelat Yavetz 1:3 and 1:6. Teshuva Mahava 1:87 suggests this as well. Maharam (Prague responsa 74) writes that it is only a minhag. Pitchei Teshuva 331:12 quotes this as a proof. However, Orach Miyshor YD 249 writes that the Maharam agrees it is an obligation but the fact that we give it to the poor is a minhag. Teshuva Mahava 1:87 delibrates about the meaning of the Maharam on this topic, whether it is a minhag or a rabbinic. Derisha 215:1 quoting Rav Pinchas implies it is only a minhag. | * Bach 331:19 held it isn’t a biblical or rabbinic obligation, rather it is only a halacha within tzedaka that a medium standard of tzedaka is one tenth. This is also the opinion of the brother of the Maharil (responsa 54 s.v. vdochak), Chavot Yair 224, and Shelat Yavetz 1:3 and 1:6. Teshuva Mahava 1:87 suggests this as well. Maharam (Prague responsa 74) writes that it is only a minhag. Pitchei Teshuva 331:12 quotes this as a proof. However, Orach Miyshor YD 249 writes that the Maharam agrees it is an obligation but the fact that we give it to the poor is a minhag. Teshuva Mahava 1:87 delibrates about the meaning of the Maharam on this topic, whether it is a minhag or a rabbinic. Derisha 215:1 quoting Rav Pinchas implies it is only a minhag. | ||
* In practice most poskim hold that maaser kesafim is a minhag. | * In practice most poskim hold that maaser kesafim is a minhag. This is the view of Bach 331:19, Yavetz 1:3, Pri Yitzchak 2:27, Chatom Sofer YD 231, Aruch Hashulchan 249:5, Yabia Omer 10:58:29, and Badei Hashulchan 249:3. Laws of Tzedakah and Maaser p. 118 quotes Derech Emunah 7:27 and Ahavat Chesed 2:18:2 who think it is just a minhag. Shevet Halevi 4:124:2 and 5:131:1 writes that we do not hold that maaser kesafim is biblical. Chatom Sofer YD 232 writes that the Maharil held that maaser kesafim is biblical but in YD 231 he assumed it was a minhag. Also Pri Yitzchak 2:27 proves that the Maharil (responsa 54) held it was either a minhag or derabbanan but certainly not biblical.</ref> | ||
#If you took it upon yourself once thinking that you’re going to continue or do it three times even if you didn’t think about it, then you have an obligation to continue to do it. However, if you did not you can do it with stipulating that it is bli neder so that it isn’t binding upon oneself in the future.<Ref>Chatom Sofer YD 231, Leket Yosher YD 76a</ref> | #If you took it upon yourself once thinking that you’re going to continue or do it three times even if you didn’t think about it, then you have an obligation to continue to do it. However, if you did not you can do it with stipulating that it is bli neder so that it isn’t binding upon oneself in the future.<Ref>Chatom Sofer YD 231, Leket Yosher YD 76a</ref> | ||
====Someone Receiving Money to Learn==== | |||
#If a father-in-law is supporting a son-in-law to learn and if the son-in-law gives maaser the father-in-law will need to give more support to the son-in-law, the son-in-law should not give maaser.<Ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:212 rejects the reason that the money wasn't already maaser'ed because maaser applies to the person and not the money. However, he accepts the claim that the father-in-law doesn't want the son-in-law to give maaser because if he does the father-in-law will need to give more support.</ref> | |||
===Supporting Children=== | ===Supporting Children=== | ||
