The Gvir versus the Rosh Kollel: a Halachic Analysis

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

I was once asked to translate for a well-respected Rosh Kollel from an illustrious Torah family.  The conversation went something like this:

RK: Shalom uvracha.  I need a fairly large check from you for the Kollel.

Gvir:  I give tzedakah generously.  I apportion it out throughout the year to 20% of my yearly income.  I had asked a shailah as to how I should prioritize andhow I should go about it.  I end the maser year on erev Rosh Hashana, and on that day, I apportion out whatever is left over from my 20%.  I choose from the tzedakos that I have encountered throughout the year and from the past.  I am not allowed to give more.

RK:  Yes, but my particular mossad is true pikuach nefesh.  So, it does not fit into the aforementioned rule of 20%.

Gvir: Really?

RK: Yes, I am afraid so.

Gvir: So, according to what you are saying – how much must I give?

RK:  You should leave yourself enough that you are still comfortable and not indigent.

Gvir: Are you saying that I have to give you all of it?

RK:  Yes, I am – at least.

Gvir: So you are saying there is no 20% limit for your case?

RK:  Yes, that’s right.

Gvir:  Assuming that you are correct – and you do have the upper hand because you are a learned Talmid chochom – but what about other people who also have pikuach nefesh mosdos and will come later?  And maybe their percentages of success are better than yours?

RK:  My Pikuach Nefesh case is right here now standing before you.  It takes precedence.

Gvir:  I understand what you are telling me.  However, I am sure that some of the cases that came before you came to me are also Pikuach Nefesh cases too.  And my understanding is that there is a concept of precedence.  So, I will give you my check for X amount now.. and I will put you on the list and will check with my Rav about the more than 20 percent point that you mentioned.

RK: Yes, but I am afraid I must insist because this is pikuach nefesh.  You can call your Rav now if you like.

Gvir:  I will call my Rav this evening when he is available for me.  In the meantime, I can mail you the check should I do that?

RK: No, I will take it now.

Gvir:  Okay.  I will take your number if my Rav feels that I should give you all of my money.  Thank you for the information.

ANALYSIS: 

Okay, so let’s analyze, for now, just one aspect of this conversation – the prohibition of giving more than 20% and its exceptions

The Ramah in Yore Deah 249:1 writes that one may not give more than 20 percent and it is a takanas Usha.  After the persecutions of Hadrian in 135 – the Sanhedrin which was in Yavneh moved to Usha (2/3rds of the way from Tveria to Haifa if you draw a straight line west).

The implication of this Ramah, and the way most Poskim understand this Ramah is that there is a true, across the board 20% limit.  The Chasam Sofer in a responsum (YD  229) writes that prior to the Takana made by the Sanhedrin in Usha – by Torah law – he would have had to give the money but that Usha limited the Biblical obligation to 20%.  The Maharam Shick (YD 230) understands it in a slightly different manner.  He writes that the Biblical obligation was always a maximum of 20%.  It was forgotten, however, and at Usha the original Biblical parameters were restored.  As a proof, he cites a Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Pe’ah.

The Chochmas Odom (144:10) understands it in a very different manner. He writes that a very very wealthy individual (an ashir muflag) may give more than 20% of his income.  The Chofetz Chaim, in chapter two of his Ahavas Chessed gives a few illustrations that kind of back up our Rosh Kollel’s view.  He writes that if genuine poor people are standing in front of him that need to be fed and clothed – he should go over the twenty percent.

However, it is this author’s view that one can infer from the exact wording of the Chofetz Chaim that the poor people need to be before him right now – and that it would not be sufficient to have a Gabbai serve in their place to create this obligation.

As in all matters of halacha, one should of course always consult with one’s own Rav or Posaik.

***There is a Bais Yaakov alumnus who, unfortunately, was hit hard financially by COVID.  It would be a huge help and relief to her if we can get her some financial assistance. Below is a Chessed Fund Link. Tizku l’Mitzvos***

https://thechesedfund.com/zechornilah/bygirlhitbypandemic

A work printed a few years ago in Yerushalayim by Rabbi Avrohom Moshe Zemmel, entitled “Ahavas Tzedakah,” provides us with a number of answers.

THREE CHARITIES PRECEDE ALL OTHERS

There are three types of tzedakah where the phrase “kodemes lakol” (it precedes everything else) is employed. The three types are:

1. Charity given to a Torah educational institute whose very existence is threatened with closure and the future of Torah for K’lal Yisrael, the Jewish People, is at stake. There are only three things for which we must sacrifice our lives—to avoid the sins of murder, arayos, and idol worship. Yet we see that Rabbi Akiva sacrificed his life in order to teach Torah. How could this be? The answer is that it involved the future of Torah for the Jewish People. (This is based upon the words of Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l in the introduction to the Birchas Shmuel on Bava Basra.)
2. Charity given to save a Jew from conversion in a situation where it is permissible to violate the Shabbos in order to save him (see Orach Chaim 306:14).
3. Charity given to save a life—or to possibly save a life—i.e., pikuach nefesh.

Regarding charity for the poor, the precedence is as follows:

• A poor person who is a relative receives precedence over a poor person who is unrelated. (Of course, if he will starve, the hungry poor person comes first.) A related poor person takes priority over the unrelated poor person even if the unrelated one is a Torah scholar (see Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Y.D. 251:3).

The question is which relative “beats” the other relatives in a “claim” for charity? Are there criteria as to which relative should be supported first?

The answer is also yes.

THE PRECEDENCE OF RELATIVES

• The first relative that deserves one’s charity is yourself. If you cannot make a living, you should not be giving to others before yourself. This is based upon the pasuk “V’chai achicha imach—and your brother shall live with you”; your existence comes first (Tur, Yoreh Deah, chapter 251, citing Rav Saadya Gaon).
• The next relative is one’s parents. A father and mother come before anyone else.
• A son and daughter come next.
• A brother and sister come next.
• A paternal sibling comes before a maternal sibling.
• One’s spouse’s relatives come before strangers.
• One’s ex-spouse comes before others (see Rema 119:8). There are a number of people that will be pretty upset about this one – but halacha is halacha.
• A talmid chacham (Torah scholar) non-relative precedes a non-relative who is not a talmid chacham, even if the talmid chacham is not from one’s own city.
• Unrelated poor people from one’s own city precede poor people from another city—but not when the poor of another city have greater needs (see Y.D. 251:3 and Responsa Chasam Sofer Y.D. 234).
• The poor of Eretz Yisrael have precedence over the poor of another city, but not over the poor of one’s own city (see commentaries of Shach and Bach, Y.D. 251:6).

This last criterion is key. According to most poskim our local charitable cases beat out the poor of Eretz Yisrael. This would mean that the local charity fund would have precedence over the Israel charity cases. (There is, however, an opinion of the Debreciner Rav’s older brother, the BeTzel HaChochmah [Vol. IV, 163:16] that there are two mitzvos involved regarding the poor in Israel: the mitzvah of settling the Land as well as the mitzvah of tzedakah. He opines that the poor of Israel would beat out the poor in our own city. One should consult one’s rav, but the simple answer seems to be like the Shach and Bach, that the local poor people have precedence.)

TWO EQUALLY RELATED RELATIVES

What about where we have two equal relatives? Is there another criterion that comes into play? For example, if one has two siblings, both in need of assistance, which one comes first?

• The one who is a greater Torah scholar receives precedence over the other.
• The next criterion is based upon gender; a sister’s needs take precedence to a brother’s.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF TORAH SCHOLARS

Are there different grades of talmidei chachamim? In other words, if there are two Torah scholars and one of them has a much wider breadth of knowledge but the other has a deeper breadth of knowledge, who precedes the other? The Vilna Gaon (Shulchan Aruch 251:18) cites the Talmud Yerushalmi that the breadth-of-knowledge scholar receives precedence to the depth-of-knowledge scholar.

It is important to note that one should make every effort possible to avoid supporting one’s parents with tzedakah money. The Gemara tells us (Kiddushin 32a) that a curse should come upon a person who supports his parents through money that is destined for charity. This means that the money he should spend on them should be aside from money that he should give to charity. Of course, if there is no other option—if he cannot afford to give both—then there is nothing wrong with giving to his parents. The Talmud is only referring to a case where a person could have afforded to do otherwise.

PRIORITIES OF DIFFERENT TZEDAKOS

There are also other criteria for priority of tzedakah:

Pidyon shvuyim (redeeming captives) is primary.

• Supporting a mikveh, in a place where there is no other mikveh and there is a chance that people will stumble in prohibitions that involve kareis—takes precedence over supporting a yeshiva.

• Charity so that children can study Torah is next (i.e., a yeshiva).

• There is a debate as to whether tzedakah to run the day-to-day activity in the beis ha’knesses (for example, the electricity bill) receives precedence over tzedakah to poor people.

The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 251:16) rules that the synagogue needs come first, while the Vilna Gaon (Y.D. 251:20) rules that the poor people receive precedence. Clearly, everyone agrees that it is only the day-to-day activities being discussed and not the building fund (see Aruch HaShulchan, ibid). Indeed, Rav Vosner questions how some institutions can be requesting tzedakah funds to build beautiful edifices when there are poor people who are literally starving.

• The issue of need is also important. If one person needs money now while another needs it later, Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that the more pressing need takes precedence (Igros Moshe, Y.D. Vol. I, No. 144).

The bottom line is that tzedakah precedence and the decision of who to give to is not something that should be approached flippantly or without thought.

The author can be reached at [email protected]