מה הוא שיעור חובת הנתינה לצדקה? האם חייבים לתת מעשר כספים דווקא?

אא

מקורות

דברים טו ז -ח מה היא חובת הנתינה על פי פשט הכתוב?
מדרש תנאים (דברים טו ח) על המילים "די מחסורו"
בבא בתרא יא. מעשה במונבז המלך
כתובות נ. אמר ר אלעא באושא התקינו - אעשרנו לבתרא כי קמא
כתובות סז: תנו רבנן די מחסורו - אבל לאחר מיתה לית לן בה
בבא בתרא ט. אמר רב אסי לעולם אל ימנע
ירושלמי פאה א. גמילות חדסדים: "הדא דתימא בגופו - יגיעים בו"
תוספות תענית ט. אעשר תעשרנו
רמב"ם מתנות עניים פרק א הלכה א -ה
רמב"ם ערכין וחרמין פרק ח הלכה יג + דעות פרק ה הלכה יב
פיורש הרמב"ם לפאה פרק א משנה א "ואמרו כאן שגמליות חסדים אין לה שיעור
שו"ע יורה דעה רמט,א

(ז) כִּֽי־יִהְיֶה֩ בְךָ֨ אֶבְי֜וֹן מֵאַחַ֤ד אַחֶ֙יךָ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ בְּאַ֨רְצְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁר־ה' אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ לֹ֧א תְאַמֵּ֣ץ אֶת־לְבָבְךָ֗ וְלֹ֤א תִקְפֹּץ֙ אֶת־יָ֣דְךָ֔ מֵאָחִ֖יךָ הָאֶבְיֽוֹן׃

(ח) כִּֽי־פָתֹ֧חַ תִּפְתַּ֛ח אֶת־יָדְךָ֖ ל֑וֹ וְהַעֲבֵט֙ תַּעֲבִיטֶ֔נּוּ דֵּ֚י מַחְסֹר֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֶחְסַ֖ר לֽוֹ׃

Deuteronomy 15:7-8

(7) If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kinsmen in any of your settlements in the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kinsman. (8) Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs.

הצדקה מגיעה בהקשר לשנת המשמיטה
מה אפשר ללמוד מזה?
הפסוקים מדברים על שני הכיוונים בצדקה:

פסוק ז מדבר יותר על ההרגשה הפנימית של האדם הנותן צדקה "לא תאמץ את לבבך" לא להיות קמצן
פסוק ח מדבר על הצדקה על כמה צריך לתת על המעשה של הצדקה "די מחסרו" הגבלת הנתינה

מה זה "די מחסרו"?
באופן הפשוט כל מה שעני צריך

רש"י על דברים ט״ו:ח׳:ג׳

והעבט תעביטנו. אִם לֹא רָצָה בְמַתָּנָה תֵּן לוֹ בְּהַלְוָאָה (עי' שם; כתובות ס"ז):

Rashi on Deuteronomy 15:8:3

והעבט תעביטנו AND THOU SHALT LEND HIM ON PLEDGE — If he does not want a gift, give it to him as a loan (cf. Sifrei Devarim 116:14; Ketubot 67b).

מדרש תנאים לדברים פרק טו פסוק ח
"די מחסורו" - אתה מצווה עליו להחיותו ואין אתה מצווה עליו לעשרו:
אשר יחסר לו הכל לפי כבודו אפלו סוס לרכב עליו ועבד לרוץ לפניו:

אמרו עליו על הלל הזקן שלקח לעני בן טובים אחד סוס לרכוב עליו ועבד לרוץ לפניו שלא היה יכול לאכול עד שיהא מתעמל והעבד משמשו מקרה פעם אחת לא מצא עבד לרוץ לפניו ורץ(הלל הזקן) לפניו שלשה מילין:
מעשה באנשי גליל העליון שהיו לוקחין לעני בן טובים אחד ליטרא בשר בכל יום:

די מחסרו הרי שפגע בעני חייב להשלים לו חסרונו שנ' די מחסרו לא היתה יד הנותן משגת נותן לו כפי השגת ידו וכמה עד חומש נכסיו מצוה מן המובחר ואחד מעשרה בנכסיו בינוני פחות מיכן עין רעה:
אשר יחסר לו זו אשה:
ד"א די מחסורו יכול אפלו שעה ת"ל אשר יח' לו פרנסת יום יום מיכן אמ' אין פוחתין לעני העובר ממקום למקום מככר בפונדיון מארבע סאין בסלע לן נותנין לו פרנסת לינה שבת נותנין לו מזון שלש סעודות:

הצדקה נועדה להחיות את הבן אדם ולא להעשרו כלומר הצדקה צריכה להחזיק את הבן אדם במעמדו לא פחות ולא יותר
מסופר על הלל שרץ 3 מילין בשביל עני
לא מדובר רק בכסף אלא במחסורו הנפשי
מה זה אומר נכסיו? (כל הנכסים, משכורת חודשית,..)
הגדרותת לנתינת לצדקה

נותנים כדי להחיותו
אם אין כסף צריך להביא או חומש מצווה מן המובחר מעשר בינוני
נותנים משכורות לפי המשכורת של העני יומית או חודשית

איפה הגבול בין פגיעה בך לבין הפגיעה בנתינת הצדקה?

בבא בתרא י״א א

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מַעֲשֶׂה בְמוֹנְבַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁבִּזְבֵּז אוֹצְרוֹתָיו וְאוֹצְרוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו בִּשְׁנֵי בַּצּוֹרֶת

וַחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו אֶחָיו וּבֵית אָבִיו וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ גָּנְזוּ וְהוֹסִיפוּ עַל שֶׁל אֲבוֹתָם וְאַתָּה מְבַזְבְּזָם

אָמַר לָהֶם אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ לְמַטָּה וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמָח וְצֶדֶק מִשָּׁמַיִם נִשְׁקָף
אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַיָּד שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַיָּד שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאֶךָ
אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק כִּי טוֹב כִּי פְרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם יֹאכֵלוּ
אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ [אוֹצְרוֹת] מָמוֹן וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי אוֹצְרוֹת נְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר פְּרִי צַדִּיק עֵץ חַיִּים וְלוֹקֵחַ נְפָשׁוֹת חָכָם
אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ לַאֲחֵרִים וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי לְעַצְמִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה
אֲבוֹתַי גָּנְזוּ לָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וַאֲנִי גָּנַזְתִּי לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ כְּבוֹד ה׳ יַאַסְפֶךָ:

Bava Batra 11a

those who reported the story to him did not conclude it before him; consequently, Rav Ami was not informed that Rava had indeed given the money to the gentile poor. § It is taught in a baraita: The following was said about Binyamin the righteous, who was appointed supervisor over the charity fund. Once, a woman came before him during years of drought and said to him: My master, sustain me. He said to her: I swear by the Temple service that there is nothing left in the charity fund. She said to him: My master, if you do not sustain me, a woman and her seven sons will die. He arose and sustained her with his own funds. After some time, he fell deathly ill. The ministering angels said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You said that anyone who preserves a single life in Israel is regarded as if he has preserved an entire world. Should then Binyamin the righteous, who saved a woman and her seven sons, die after these few years, still in his youth? They immediately tore up his sentence. A Sage taught: They added twenty-two years to his life. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving King Munbaz, who liberally gave away his treasures and the treasures of his ancestors in the years of drought, distributing the money to the poor. His brothers and his father’s household joined together against him to protest against his actions, and they said to him: Your ancestors stored up money in their treasuries and added to the treasures of their ancestors, and you are liberally distributing it all to the poor. King Munbaz said to them: Not so, my ancestors stored up below, whereas I am storing above, as it is stated: “Truth will spring out of the earth and righteousness will look down from heaven” (Psalms 85:12), meaning that the righteous deeds that one has performed are stored up in heaven. My ancestors stored up treasures in a place where the human hand can reach, and so their treasures could have been robbed, whereas I am storing up treasures in a place where the human hand cannot reach, and so they are secure, as it is stated: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Psalms 89:15). My ancestors stored up something that does not generate profit, as money sitting in a treasury does not increase, whereas I am storing up something that generates profit, as it is stated: “Say of the righteous, that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings” (Isaiah 3:10). My ancestors stored up treasures of money, whereas I am storing up treasures of souls, as it is stated: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he that wins souls is wise” (Proverbs 11:30). My ancestors stored up for others, for their sons and heirs, when they themselves would pass from this world, whereas I am storing up for myself, as it is stated: “And it shall be as righteousness to you” (Deuteronomy 24:13). My ancestors stored up for this world, whereas I am storing up for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rearguard” (Isaiah 58:8). § The Gemara resumes its analysis of the mishna, which taught that one must reside in a place for twelve months in order to be considered a resident for the purposes of issues such as paying taxes. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he bought any amount of land in the city, and not necessarily a residence, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught otherwise in a different baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one bought land that is suitable for a residence, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city. This contradicts the first baraita. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. MISHNA: The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, i.e., this minimum area for each of the joint owners. And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. And the court does not divide a jointly owned garden unless there is space in it to plant a half-kav of seed for this one and a half-kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Akiva says that half that amount is sufficient, i.e., the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova]. Similarly, the court does not divide a hall [hateraklin], a drawing room, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, an olive press, and an irrigated field unless there is enough for this one to use the property in the usual manner and enough for that one to use the property in the usual manner. This is the principle: Anything for which when it is divided, each of the parts is large enough to retain the name of the original item, the court divides it. But if the parts will not retain the original name, the court does not divide it. When does this rule apply? It applies when the joint owners do not both wish to divide the item; when only one of the owners wishes to divide the property, he cannot force the other to do so. But when both of them wish to divide the item, they may divide it, even if each of the owners will receive less than the amounts specified above. But in the case of sacred writings, i.e., a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible, that were inherited by two people, they may not divide them, even if both of them wish to do so, because it would be a show of disrespect to cut the scroll in half. GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The four cubits of the courtyard which they said each of the joint owners must receive is in addition to the space in front of the entrances to each of the houses that is assigned to the owner of the house for loading and unloading. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: The court does not divide a courtyard unless its area is sufficient so that there will be in it eight cubits for this one and eight cubits for that one. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that it suffices that there be four cubits for this one and four cubits for that one? Rather, conclude from it that the baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that it is so. And there are those who raise the baraita as a contradiction to what is taught in the mishna and use the previously mentioned point to reconcile the two texts. We learned in the mishna: The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The court does not divide a courtyard unless there are eight cubits for this one and eight cubits for that one? About this Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The four cubits of the courtyard which they said each of the joint owners must receive is in addition to the space in front of the entrances to each of the houses. Further with regard to the division of a courtyard, Rav Huna says: A courtyard is divided according to its entrances. Each of the owners receives a share of the courtyard in proportion to the number of entrances that his house has opening onto the courtyard. And Rav Ḥisda says: Four cubits are allotted to each of the owners for each and every entrance, and the rest of the courtyard is then divided equally between them. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda: Each of the entrances opening to a courtyard is allotted four cubits. If this one has one entrance and that one has two entrances, the one who has one entrance takes four cubits, and the one who has two entrances takes eight cubits, and they divide the rest of the courtyard equally between them. If this one had an entrance eight cubits wide, he takes eight cubits adjacent to the entrance and four cubits in the courtyard. The Gemara expresses surprise: What are these four cubits in the courtyard doing here? Doesn’t it all depend on the size of the courtyard? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: For the entrance he takes eight cubits along the length of the courtyard and four cubits along the width of the courtyard. In other words, he takes a strip four cubits wide along the entire length of his entrance. Ameimar says: A pit for holding animal food [peira desuflei] has four cubits on each and every side so that there will be sufficient space for the animals to stand. The Gemara adds: And we said this only when the pit has no special entrance to reach it, but rather it is accessed from all sides.

כתובות נ׳ א

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ הַמְבַזְבֵּז אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי הַמְבַזְבֵּז אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת

וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לְבַזְבֵּז [יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ] וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וּמַנּוּ רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וּמַנּוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מַאי קְרָא וְכׇל אֲשֶׁר תִּתֶּן לִי עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ לָךְ וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי עִישּׂוּרָא בָּתְרָא לְעִישּׂוּרָא קַמָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ לְבָתְרָא כִּי קַמָּא

Ketubot 50a

and I forced them to feed him, for which he is grateful. The Gemara interprets this incident in light of the issue at hand: Granted, if you say that this was not according to the halakha, i.e., the man’s sons had the right to refrain from sustaining him, due to that reason Rabbi Yonatan had to force them to feed their father; but if you say this is the halakha, i.e., the man’s sons were required to sustain him, why did he need to force them to provide the sustenance of their own accord? The court could have simply requisitioned the necessary amount from the property. This shows that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ile’a. § Apropos the ordinances instituted by the Sages in Usha, the Gemara cites another one. Rabbi Ile’a said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than one-fifth. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who scatters should not scatter more than one-fifth, lest he render himself destitute and need the help of other people. And an incident occurred involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than one-fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say that Rabbi Yeshevav was the one who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so, and who was the friend? Rabbi Akiva. Rav Naḥman said, and some say it was Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov who said: What is the verse that alludes to this maximum amount of charity? “And of all that You shall give me, I will surely give a tenth of it [aser a’asrenu] to You” (Genesis 28:22). The double use of the verb that means to donate one-tenth indicates that Jacob, who issued this statement, was actually referring to two-tenths, i.e., one-fifth. The Gemara asks: But the latter tenth is not similar to the first tenth, as it would be one-tenth of what remained after the first tenth had been removed. Consequently, the two-tenths would not equal one-fifth of the original total. The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: Since the verse could have said: I will surely give one-tenth [aser a’aser], and instead stated: “I will surely give a tenth of it [aser a’asrenu],” it thereby alludes to the fact that the latter tenth is like the first one. With regard to the above statements concerning the Sages’ ordinances in Usha, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: And these halakhot continually decrease. The first statement was stated by Rabbi Ile’a, quoting a statement by Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. The second halakha was delivered by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Reish Lakish, while the third was taught by Rabbi Ile’a without quoting another Sage. And this is your mnemonic for the order of these halakhot: Minors wrote and dispensed. This alludes to the ruling requiring a father to support his children while they are minors, the ruling about one who wrote a document granting all of his property to his sons, and the ruling about one who dispenses large sums to charity. § Rav Yitzḥak said: In Usha the Sages enacted that a person should treat his son gently, even if he does not want to study, until his son is twelve years old. From this point forward he harasses him in all aspects of his life in order to force him to study. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav say to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, who taught children: With regard to a child less than six years old, do not accept him; if he is six years old, accept him and stuff him like an ox, i.e., just as an ox is force-fed, you should force the students to study Torah. The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction here, as yes, one must stuff him like an ox and teach him intensively; however, if the student refuses to learn, one does not harass him in all aspects of his life until after he is twelve years old. And if you wish, say that this is not difficult for a different reason: This halakha, which prescribes forcing the students to study from the age of six, is referring to the Bible, whereas that halakha, that one should not harass a boy to study until he is twelve, is referring to the Mishna. This is as Abaye said: My foster mother told me that a six-year-old is ready for Bible study and a ten-year-old is mature enough to study Mishna. Additionally, a thirteen-year-old is sufficiently developed to fast for twenty-four hours like any other adult. And as for a girl, she must start observing fasts when she is twelve years old. The Gemara cites another statement of Abaye in the name of his foster mother. Abaye said: My mother told me that a six-year-old child who is stung by a scorpion on the day that he completes six years will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? The bile of a white vulture in beer. One should rub him with this mixture and make him drink it. She further said to him: A one-year-old child who is stung by a hornet on the day that he completes a year will not live without emergency treatment. What is his cure? Palm-tree fiber in water. Again, one should rub him with it and make him drink it. Rav Ketina said: Anyone who brings his son to school when he is younger than six years old will run after him and not catch him. In other words, he will worry about his welfare for a long time afterward, as the child will be weakened by his studies. There are those who say that his friends will run after him in their studies and not catch him, i.e., his early start will enable him to be far more successful. The Gemara comments: And both are correct; he will weaken physically and learn well. If you wish, say that these two statements can be reconciled differently: This case is dealing with a weak child, who should not be brought to school at such a young age, whereas that statement is referring to a healthy boy, who can go to school at a tender age and succeed in his studies. § Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, which is property that belongs to her but whose produce belongs to her husband, in her husband’s lifetime, and then she died, the husband can repossess it from the purchasers. The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef found Rabbi Abbahu standing among the congregation [ukhlusa] of Usha. He said to him: Who is the Master who disseminated the halakha that was instituted in Usha? He said to him: Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. He learned it from Rabbi Abbahu forty times, and from that point onward he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as though it were placed in his pocket. The Gemara discusses a point related to one of the ordinances of Usha. The verse states: “Happy are they who keep justice, who perform charity at all times” (Psalms 106:3). But is it possible to perform charity at all times? Is one always in the presence of paupers? Therefore, our Rabbis in Yavne taught, and some say it was Rabbi Eliezer: This is referring to one who sustains his sons and daughters when they are minors. As stated above, he is not formally obligated to support them, and therefore when he does so, it is a form of charity that he gives on a constant basis. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This is referring to one who raises an orphan boy or an orphan girl in his house, takes care of them, and marries them off. The Sages likewise expounded the verse: “Wealth and riches are in his house, and his charity endures forever” (Psalms 112:3). How can one’s wealth and riches remain in his house while his charity endures forever? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda disputed this issue. One said: This is referring to one who studies Torah and teaches it. He loses nothing of his own, while his charity toward others will endure. And one said: This is one who writes scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, and lends them to others. The books remain in his possession, but others gain from his charity. With regard to the verse: “And see your son’s sons; peace be upon Israel” (Psalms 128:6), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once your children have children of their own, there is peace upon Israel, as they will not come to require the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza] or levirate marriage, which are necessary only if a man dies childless. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Once your sons have sons there will be peace upon the judges of Israel, as relatives will not come to quarrel with the judges over the inheritance. § The Gemara returns to the mishna: This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne: Just as the sons inherit only after the father’s death, so too, the daughters are sustained from his property only after their father’s death.

מה זה המילה בזבוז?
מבזבז זה אדם שמוציא בלי חשבון מבזבז כסף
האם זה בא כתיאור בעייתי?
או שזה אומר שהוא הוציא?

בראשית כ״ח:כ׳-כ״ב

(כ) וַיִּדַּ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב נֶ֣דֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־יִהְיֶ֨ה אֱלֹקִ֜ים עִמָּדִ֗י וּשְׁמָרַ֙נִי֙ בַּדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָנֹכִ֣י הוֹלֵ֔ךְ וְנָֽתַן־לִ֥י לֶ֛חֶם לֶאֱכֹ֖ל וּבֶ֥גֶד לִלְבֹּֽשׁ׃

(כא) וְשַׁבְתִּ֥י בְשָׁל֖וֹם אֶל־בֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑י וְהָיָ֧ה ה' לִ֖י לֵאלֹקִֽים׃

(כב) וְהָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹקִ֑ים וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י עַשֵּׂ֖ר אֲעַשְּׂרֶ֥נּוּ לָֽךְ׃

Genesis 28:20-22

(20) Jacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, (21) and if I return safe to my father’s house—the LORD shall be my God. (22) And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.”

כתובות ס״ז ב

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן "דֵּי מַחְסוֹרוֹ" אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עָלָיו לְפַרְנְסוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עָלָיו לְעַשְּׁרוֹ "אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ" אֲפִילּוּ סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו

אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלָּקַח לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים אֶחָד סוּס לִרְכּוֹב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו

פַּעַם אַחַת לֹא מָצָא עֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו וְרָץ לְפָנָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה מִילִין

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁלָּקְחוּ לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים אֶחָד מִצִּיפּוֹרִי לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר בְּכׇל יוֹם לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר

מַאי רְבוּתָא?

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר מִשֶּׁל עוֹפוֹת
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּלִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר מַמָּשׁ

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר הָתָם כְּפָר קָטָן הָיָה בְּכׇל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מַפְסְדִי חֵיוְתָא אַמְּטוּלְתֵּיהּ הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר לֵיהּ בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּבָשָׂר שָׁמֵן וְיַיִן יָשָׁן רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתְּגַלְגֵּל עִמִּי בַּעֲדָשִׁים גִּלְגֵּל עִמּוֹ בַּעֲדָשִׁים וָמֵת אָמַר אוֹי לוֹ לְזֶה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ נְחֶמְיָה אַדְּרַבָּה אוֹי לוֹ לִנְחֶמְיָה שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזֶה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אֶלָּא אִיהוּ הוּא דְּלָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפַנּוֹקֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר לוֹ בַּמָּה אַתָּה סוֹעֵד אָמַר לוֹ בְּתַרְנְגוֹלֶת פְּטוּמָה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא חָיְישַׁתְּ לְדוּחְקָא דְּצִיבּוּרָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַטּוּ מִדִּידְהוּ קָאָכֵילְנָא מִדְּרַחְמָנָא קָאָכֵילְנָא דְּתָנֵינָא עֵינֵי כֹל אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּ וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן לָהֶם אֶת אׇכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ בְּעִתָּם לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא בְּעִתּוֹ מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פַּרְנָסָתוֹ בְּעִתּוֹ אַדְּהָכִי אֲתַאי אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא דְּלָא חָזְיָא לֵיהּ תְּלֵיסְרֵי שְׁנֵי וְאַתְיָא לֵיהּ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת פְּטוּמָה וְיַיִן יָשָׁן אָמַר מַאי דְּקַמָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ נַעֲנֵתִי לְךָ קוּם אֱכוֹל תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה הָא לָא שָׁקֵיל אָמַר רָבָא לִפְתּוֹחַ לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ תּוּ לָא שָׁקֵיל אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ אֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הָבֵא מַשְׁכּוֹן וָטוֹל כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּזוּחַ דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הַעֲבֵט זֶה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס שֶׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ לְשׁוּם הַלְוָאָה וְחוֹזְרִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה וְחוֹזְרִין וְנִפְרָעִין הֵימֶנּוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם מָר עוּקְבָא הֲוָה עַנְיָא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל כׇּל יוֹמָא דְּשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי בְּצִינּוֹרָא דְּדַשָּׁא (יוֹם אֶחָד) [יוֹמָא חַד] אֲמַר אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי מַאן קָעָבֵיד בִּי הָהוּא טֵיבוּתָא הָהוּא יוֹמָא נְגַהָא לֵיהּ לְמָר עוּקְבָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא אָתְיָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיֵוהּ דְּקָא מַצְלֵי לֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא נְפַק בָּתְרַיְיהוּ רְהוּט מִקַּמֵּיהּ עָיְילִי לְהָהוּא אַתּוּנָא דַּהֲוָה גְּרִופָה נוּרָא הֲוָה קָא מִיקַּלְיָין כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ שְׁקוֹל כַּרְעָיךְ אוֹתֵיב אַכַּרְעַאי חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ אֲנָא שְׁכִיחָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ דְּבֵיתָא וּמְקָרְבָא אַהֲנָיָיתִי

וּמַאי כּוּלֵּי הַאי? דְּאָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי נוֹחַ לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר עַצְמוֹ לְתוֹךְ כִּבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָּרַבִּים

מְנָא לַן? מִתָּמָר דִּכְתִיב הִיא מוּצֵאת

מָר עוּקְבָא הֲוָה עַנְיָא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה רְגִיל לְשַׁדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי כׇּל מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְּכִיפּוּרָא

יוֹמָא חַד שַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיַד בְּרֵיהּ אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ אָמַר מַאי חֲזֵית חֲזַאי דְּקָא מְזַלְּפִי לֵיהּ יַיִן יָשָׁן אָמַר מְפַנַּק כּוּלֵּי הַאי עַיְיפִינְהוּ וְשַׁדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ כִּי קָא נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ אֲמַר אַיְיתוֹ לִי חוּשְׁבְּנַאי דִּצְדָקָה אַשְׁכַּח דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ שִׁבְעַת אַלְפֵי דִּינָרֵי סְיָאנְקֵי אֲמַר זַוְודַאי קַלִּילֵי וְאוֹרְחָא רַחִיקְתָּא קָם בַּזְבְּזֵיהּ לְפַלְגֵיהּ מָמוֹנֵיהּ הֵיכִי עֲבַד הָכִי וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ הַמְבַזְבֵּז אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ הָנֵי מִילֵּי מֵחַיִּים שֶׁמָּא יֵרֵד מִנְּכָסָיו אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתָה לֵית לַן

Ketubot 67b

who have come to appeal to the charity fund to be married off, the administrators marry off the orphan girl first and afterward they marry off the orphan boy, because the humiliation of a woman who is not married is greater than that of an unmarried man. The Sages taught: Concerning an orphan boy who has come to marry, the community tries its utmost to provide for all of his needs. The charities rent a house for him, arrange for him a bed and all his utensils, and thereafter they marry him a wife, as it is stated: “But you shall surely open your hand to him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his deficiency in that which is deficient for him” (Deuteronomy 15:8). With regard to the phrase “sufficient for his deficiency,” this is referring to the house. “Which is deficient”; this is referring to a bed and table. “For him [lo]”; this is referring to a wife. And similarly the verse states: “I will make him [lo] a helpmate for him” (Genesis 2:18), when God created a wife for Adam. Concerning this issue, the Sages taught: “Sufficient for his deficiency”; this teaches that you are commanded with respect to the pauper to support him, but you are not commanded with respect to him to make him wealthy, as the obligation encompasses only that which he lacks, as indicated by the word deficient. However, the verse also states: “Which is deficient for him”; this includes even a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him for the sake of his stature, if necessary. For someone accustomed to these advantages, their absences constitute a true deficiency, not an extravagant indulgence. The Gemara relates: They said about Hillel the Elder that he obtained for a poor person of noble descent a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him. One time he did not find a servant to run in front of him, and Hillel himself ran in front of him for three mil, to fulfill the dictate “which is deficient for him.” The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said: It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the village. The Gemara relates another incident concerning charity. A certain person came before Rabbi Neḥemya to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: I usually dine on fatty meat and aged wine. Rabbi Neḥemya asked him: Is it your wish to belittle yourself and partake together with me in a meal of lentils, which is my regular food? He partook with him of lentils, and he died, since he was not accustomed to this food. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Woe to this one who was killed by Neḥemya. The Gemara wonders: On the contrary, Rabbi Neḥemya should have said: Woe to Neḥemya who killed this one. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Neḥemya meant that it was he, the pauper, who should not have pampered himself so much. The poor man was to blame for his own death. His excessive indulgence rendered him incapable of digesting simple foods such as lentils. The Gemara relates another story. A certain person came before Rava to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: On a fattened hen and aged wine. He said to him: And were you not concerned for causing a burden to the community by expecting such opulent foods? He said to him: Is that to say that it is from their funds that I eat? I eat from the support of the Merciful One. This would seem to be a reasonable argument, as we already learned that in the verse “the eyes of all wait for You, and You give them their food in its time” (Psalms 145:15), the phrase: At their time, is not stated, rather “in its time.” This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives each and every one his personally appropriate sustenance at its proper time, and the community is merely His agent in discharging His will. Therefore, the man is justified in maintaining his standard. In the meantime, while they were talking, Rava’s sister, who had not seen him for thirteen years, came. And as a gift, she brought him a fattened hen and aged wine. Rava said to himself: What is this that happened in front of me that suddenly I am brought food that I do not usually eat? He then understood that this was a providential response to what he had earlier said to the man. Rava said to him: I have responded [na’aneti] to your contention. Arise and eat. § The Sages taught: If an individual does not have sufficient means of support and does not want to be supported from charity funds, the charities provide him funds as a loan in a dignified manner, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a gift; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They give him funds as a gift, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a loan. The Gemara wonders about the Rabbis’ ruling: How can we give it as a gift? After all, he does not want to take it as a gift. The Gemara answers that Rava said: The Rabbis’ instruction is to begin discussions with him by offering the assistance as a gift. If he refuses, the charities give it to him as a loan, but they treat it as a gift and refrain from attempting to collect a debt. If he has sufficient funds of his own but does not want to support himself by his own funds without the assistance of charity, the charities give him aid as a gift, and then they go back and collect the debt from him. The Gemara asks: How can the administrators of the fund go back and collect from him? Would their efforts not be in vain, as subsequently he would not take their support, knowing that he would still have to pay for it? Rav Pappa said: The charities collect the accrued debt from his estate only after his death. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says, disputing the opinion of the Rabbis: If he has sufficient funds and does not want to be supported by his own means, they do not get involved with him, as the community is not obligated to support him. If he does not have and does not want to be supported from charity, the charities say to him: Bring collateral and take a loan, so that his mindset should be raised for him, with the false impression that he is not receiving a handout. The Gemara cites a dispute related to the previous discussions. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the double expression in the Torah: “You shall open your hand to him [ha’avet ta’avitenu]” (Deuteronomy 15:8). “Ha’avet”; this is referring to one who does not have funds and does not want to be supported by charity. The policy is that the charities provide him funds as a loan and go back and give the funds to him as a gift. “Ta’avitenu”; this is referring to one who has means and does not want to support himself. The policy is that the charities provide money as a gift, and then they go back and collect from his estate after his death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: If he has money and does not want to support himself, they do not get involved with him. The baraita asks: How then do I uphold the double expression “ha’avet ta’avitenu”? The baraita answers: The Torah spoke in the language of men, and the double form does not have halakhic significance. The Gemara recounts another incident related to charity. Mar Ukva had a pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed every day to toss four dinars for him into the slot adjacent to the hinge of the door. One day the poor person said: I will go and see who is doing this service for me. That day Mar Ukva was delayed in the study hall, and his wife came with him to distribute the charity. When the people in the poor man’s house saw that someone was turning the door, the pauper went out after them to see who it was. Mar Ukva and his wife ran away from before him so that he would not determine their identity, and they entered a certain furnace whose fire was already raked over and tempered but was still burning. Mar Ukva’s legs were being singed, and his wife said to him: Raise your legs and set them on my legs, which are not burned. Understanding that only his wife was spared from burns, because she was more worthy, Mar Ukva became distraught. By way of explanation, she said to him: I am normally found inside the house, and when I give charity, my assistance is ready and immediate, insofar as I distribute actual food items. Since you distribute money, which is not as readily helpful, my aid is greater than yours. The Gemara asks: And what is all this? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to avoid being discovered? The Gemara answers: It is as Mar Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment. The Gemara relates another incident involving Mar Ukva. Mar Ukva had another pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed to send to him four hundred dinars every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he sent the money to him by the hand of his son. The son returned and said to him: The poor individual does not need the charity. Mar Ukva said: What did you see that prompted you to say this? He said to him: I saw them spilling old wine on the ground for him, to give the room a pleasant smell. Mar Ukva said: If he is pampered this much and requires even this luxury, then he needs even more money. He doubled the funds and sent them to him. When Mar Ukva was dying, he said: Bring me my charity records. He found that it was written there that he had given seven thousand fine, siankei, i.e., gold, dinars, to charity. He said: My provisions are light, and the way is far. This meager sum is insufficient for me to merit the World-to-Come. He got up and spent half of his remaining money on charity. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? But didn’t Rabbi Ilai say: In Usha they instituted: One who spends money on charity, he should not spend more than one-fifth of his money for this purpose. The Gemara answers: This restriction on giving too much charity applies only while he is alive, because perhaps he will descend from his holdings and become destitute. Therefore, for his own financial security, he should never distribute more than one-fifth. But after death, we have no problem with it. One need not save money in his estate anymore. The Gemara recounts more stories related to charity. Rabbi Abba would wrap coins in his scarf and toss the money behind him over his shoulder. And he would place himself at the homes of the poor without being seen, so the poor could receive the aid without being embarrassed. And he would incline his eyes just enough so he could safeguard the handouts from swindlers who might take the money dishonestly. Rabbi Ḥanina knew a certain pauper and was accustomed to send to him four dinars on every Shabbat eve. One day he sent it in the hand of his wife. She came back home and said to him: The man does not need charity. Rabbi Ḥanina asked her: What did you see that prompted you to say this? She said to him: I heard them saying to him inside the house: With what do you normally dine:

בבא בתרא ט׳ א

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי לְעוֹלָם אַל יִמְנַע אָדָם עַצְמוֹ [מִלָּתֵת] שְׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשָׁנָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת לָתֵת עָלֵינוּ שְׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בַּשָּׁנָה לַעֲבֹדַת בֵּית אֱלֹקֵינוּ וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי שְׁקוּלָה צְדָקָה כְּנֶגֶד כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת וְגוֹ׳ מִצְוָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא מִצְוֹת (סִימָן גָּדוֹל מִקְדָּשׁ מֹשֶׁה)

Bava Batra 9a

and stipulate about it with the people of your city that the money collected will be given to whomever needs it, he too made only one purse and stipulated with the people of his city about it. Rav Ashi said: I do not even need to make a stipulation, as whoever comes to donate to this charity fund comes relying on my discretion and understanding that I will give the funds to whomever I want. The Gemara relates: There were these two butchers who made an agreement with each other that whichever one of them worked on the day assigned to the other according to their mutually agreed-upon schedule would tear up the hide of the animal that he slaughtered that day. One of them went and worked on the other’s day, and the other butcher tore up the hide of the animal that he slaughtered. They came before Rava for judgment, and Rava obligated him to pay the butcher who slaughtered that animal. Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya raised an objection to Rava: Isn’t it stated among actions that the residents of a city may take: And to fine people for violating their specifications, i.e., those ordinances that the residents passed? Rava did not respond to him. Rav Pappa said: He did well that he did not respond to him, as this matter applies only where there is no important person in the city, in which case it is permitted for the residents of the city to draw up ordinances on their own. But where there is an important person, it is not in the residents’ power to make stipulations, i.e., regulations; rather, they are required to obtain the approval of the city’s leading authority to give force to their regulations. § The Sages taught: One does not calculate sums with charity collectors concerning the money they collected for charity, to verify how much they received and how much they distributed, nor does one calculate sums with the Temple treasurers concerning the property consecrated to the Temple. And even though there is no explicit proof of the matter from the Bible, there is nevertheless an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And they did not reckon with the men into whose hand they delivered the money to pay out to the workmen; for they dealt in good faith” (II Kings 12:16). Rabbi Elazar says: Even though a person has a trusted treasurer in his house like the aforementioned Temple treasurers, who were fully trusted, he should nevertheless tie up his money and count it, as it is stated: “And the king’s scribe and the High Priest came up, and they tied it in bags and counted the money…And they gave the money that was counted into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the House of the Lord” (II Kings 12:11–12). Rav Huna says: Charity collectors examine the level of poverty of one who asks for food, but they do not examine the level of poverty of one who asks for clothing. If a person comes before the charity collectors in tattered clothes, he is given clothing without any questions being asked. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived via logical reasoning. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning: This one who stands before us in rags is exposed to contempt, whereas that one who is hungry is not exposed to contempt. If you wish, say instead that this distinction is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Is it not to share [paros] your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7). The word paros is written with a shin, alluding to the word parosh, meaning examine and investigate, and only then should you give him. And there in the same verse it is written with regard to clothing: “When you see the naked, that you cover him,” indicating that “when you see” him you should immediately cover him. And Rav Yehuda says just the opposite: Charity collectors examine the level of poverty of one who asks for clothing, but they do not examine the level of poverty of one who asks for food. He too adduces supports for his opinion. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning; if you wish, say instead that it is derived from a verse. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning: This one who is hungry suffers, whereas that one who is in tattered clothing does not suffer in the same way. And if you wish, say instead that this distinction is derived from a verse. Here, it is written: “Is it not to share [paros] your bread with the hungry?” meaning, share it immediately, just as the word is read. Since the word is read with a samekh, Rav Yehuda does not understand it as alluding to examining the recipient. And there, it is written: “When you see the naked, that you cover him,” meaning, when it will be clearly apparent to you, after you have investigated the matter and found that the supplicant is deserving, then you shall cover him. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: If a poor person said: Cover me with clothing, the charity collectors examine him; but if he said: Sustain me with food, they do not examine him. We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 8:7): One does not give a poor person who is traveling from place to place requesting charity less than a loaf worth a pundeyon, one forty-eighth of a sela, when the standard price of grain is four se’a for a sela. If the poor person sleeps in that place, one gives him provisions for lodging. The Gemara asks: What is meant by provisions for lodging? Rav Pappa said: A bed and a pillow [bei sadya]. And if he spends Shabbat in that place, one gives him food for three meals. A Sage taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him and give him money from the charity fund. It is related that a certain poor person who was going door to door requesting charity came before Rav Pappa, the local charity collector, but Rav Pappa did not attend to him. Rav Sama, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Rav Pappa: If the Master does not attend to him, nobody else will attend to him either; should he be left to die of hunger? Rav Pappa said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him? Rav Sama said to him: That baraita means to say that one is not required to attend to him and give him a large gift, since he is already collecting money as he goes door to door, but one does attend to him and give him a small gift. Rav Asi says: A person should never prevent himself from giving at least one-third of a shekel a year in charity, as it is stated: “And we also established mitzvot upon ourselves, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the House of our God” (Nehemiah 10:33). And Rav Asi says: Charity is equivalent to all the other mitzvot combined, as it is stated in that verse: “We also established mitzvot upon ourselves.” A mitzva is not written here, but rather mitzvot, in the plural, thereby teaching that this mitzva is equivalent to all the other mitzvot. The Gemara offers a mnemonic device for the following statements extolling the mitzva of charity: Greater; Temple; Moses. Rabbi Elazar says: One who causes others to perform [me’aseh] a meritorious act is greater than one who performs that act himself, as it is stated: “And the causing [ma’aseh] of righteousness shall be peace, and the work of righteousness, quietness, and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). If one merits, the following verse is applied to him: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7), i.e., he will wholeheartedly give charity to the poor. If he does not merit, the latter clause of that verse is applied to him: “You shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house,” i.e., he will be compelled by the government to billet soldiers in his house and sustain them against his will. Rava said to the people of Meḥoza: I beg of you, strive with each other to perform acts of charity and righteousness, so that you will live in peace with the government, since if you do not act charitably toward each other, you will end up paying fines to the government. And Rabbi Elazar says: When the Temple is standing, a person contributes his shekel for the Temple service and achieves atonement for his sins. Now that the Temple no longer stands, if people act charitably, it will be well for them; but if not, the nations of the world will come and take their money by force. The Gemara comments: And even so, the money taken from them by force is credited to them as if they had freely given charity, as it is stated: “And I will make your oppressors charity” (Isaiah 60:17). Rava said: This following matter was told to me by the infant

תלמוד ירושלמי פאה א׳:א׳

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרִבִּי יְשֵׁבָב שֶׁעָמַד וְהֶחֱלִיק אֶת כָּל־נְכָסָיו לַעֲנִייִם.

שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וַהֲלֹא אָֽמְרוּ חוֹמֶשׁ מִנְּכָסָיו לְמִצְוֹת

וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא קוֹדֶם לְאוּשָׁא הָיָה!.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לֵוִי כַּךְ הָֽיְתָה הֲלָכָה בְּיָדָם וּשְׁכָחוּהָ וְעָֽמְדוּ הַשְּׁנִייִם וְהִסְכִּימוּ עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁכָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נוֹתְנִין נַפְשָׁן עָלָיו סוֹף הוּא מִתְקֵייֵם. כְּמַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי.

וַאֲתְייָא כַּה' דָּמַר רִבִּי מָנָא "כִּי לֹא דָּבָר רֵק הוּא מִכֶּם". וְאִם הוּא רֵק מִכֶּם לָמָּה שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם יְגֵיעִין בּוֹ. כִּי הוּא חַיֵּיכֶם. אֵימָתַי הוּא חַיֵּיכֶם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאַתֶּם יְגֵעִין בּוֹ.

רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רַב חוּנָא וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶּן חוּר לְמַטֶּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה אֶת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אוֹתוֹ מֹשֶׁה אֵין כְּתִיב כַּאן אֶלָּא אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ײ֨ אֶת מֹשֶׁה אֲפִילוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ הִסְכִּימָה דַּעְתּוֹ כְּמַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָייָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ײ֨ אֶת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ. וְכֵן צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְכֵן עָשָׂה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא הֵסִיר דָּבָר מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אוֹתוֹ מֹשֶׁה אֵין כְּתִיב כַּאן אֶלָָּא אֵת אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ײ֨ אֶת מֹשֶׁה. אֲפִילוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ הִסְכִּימָה דַּעְתּוֹ כְּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָיָה רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת הָֽיְתָה בְפִיהוּ. אֲפִילוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁשָּׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ. וְעַוְלָה לֹא נִמְצָא בִשְׂפָתָיו. אֲפִילוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ.

וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין כִּי ײ֨ יִהְיֶה בְכִסְלֶךָ וְשָׁמַר רַגְלְךָ מִלָּכֶד. אֲפִילוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאַתְּ כְּסִיל בָּהֶן וְשָׁמַר רַגְלְךָ מִלָּכֶד.

רִבִּי דוֹסָא אָמַר מִן הַהוֹרָייָה.
וְרַבָּנָן אָֽמְרֵי מִן הָעֲבֵירָה.
רִבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מִן הַמַּזִּיקִין.

אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא אִם נָתַתָּ מִכִּיסְךָ צְדָקָה הַקָּדוֹש בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְשַׁמְּרָךְ מִן הַפִּיסִין וּמִן הַזִּימִיּוֹת וּמִן הַגּוּלְגּוֹלִיּוֹת וּמִן הָאַרְנוֹנִיּוֹת.

מוֹנְבַז הַמֶּלֶךְ עָמַד וּבִזְבֵּז אֶת כָּל־נְכָסָיו לַעֲנִּיִּים שָֽׁלְחוּ לוֹ קְרוֹבָיו

וְאָֽמְרוּ לוֹ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ הוֹסִיפוּ עַל שֶׁלָּהֶן וְעַל שֶׁל אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן. וְאַתְּ בִּיזְבַּזְתָּה אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְאֶת שֶׁל אֲבוֹתֶיךָ.

אָמַר לָהֶן כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן אֲבוֹתַי גָּֽנְזוּ בָאָרֶץ. וַאֲנִי גָנַזְתִּי בַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמָח וְצֶדֶק מִשָּׁמַיִם נִשְׁקָף. אֲבוֹתַי גָּֽנְזוּ אוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת. וַאֲנִי גָנַזְתִּי אוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק כִּי טוֹב כִּי פְרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם יֹאכֵלוּ. אֲבוֹתַי כָּֽנְסוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהַיַּד שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ. וַאֲנִי כָנַסְתִּי בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַיַּד שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאוֹ. אֲבוֹתַי כָּֽנְסוּ מָמוֹן. וַאֲנִי כָנַסְתִּי נְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלוֹקֵחַ נְפָשׁוֹת חָכָם. אֲבוֹתַי כָּֽנְסוּ לַאֲחֵרִים. וַאֲנִי כָנַסְתִּי לְעַצְמִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּלְךָ תִהְיֶה צְדָקָה. אֲבוֹתַי כָּֽנְסוּ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וַאֲנִי כָנַסְתִּי לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת. וְלָא מִית אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת מִיתָה לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא.

צְדָקָה וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים שׁוֹקֶלֶת כְּנֶגֶד כָּל־מִצְוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. שֶׁהַצְּדָקָה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּחַיִּים וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים נוֹהֶגֶת בַּחַיִּים וּבַמֵּתִים.

הַצְּדָקָה נוֹהֶגֶת לַּעֲנִיִּים וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים נוֹהֶגֶת לַעֲנִיִּים וְלַעֲשִׁירִים.

הַצְּדָקָה נוֹהֶגֶת בִּמְמוֹנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בִּמְמוֹנוֹ בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:1

MISHNAH: These are the matters that have no measure: Peah, first fruits, appearance, works of kindness, and Torah study. These are the matters whose product a person eats in this world and whose capital remains for him in the future world: Honoring father and mother, works of kindness, making peace between people; the study of Torah is worth all of these. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah, but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing. Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so. But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah did not say anything unless he reserves part of it.” Is the first ear obligated for peah? It is impossible to say that it obligated the entire field for peah and itself should be obligated for peah. If he cut the first ear and it was burned, does he have to cut another one a second time? Let us hear it from the following: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, or he sold what he had cut, if he cut half the field and dedicated what he had cut, he gives from the leftover for everything.” If it is dedicated is it not as if it was burned? This says that if he cut the first ear and it was burned, he does not have to cut a second time. If he finished the field, you say that peah devolves on the sheaves. Would peah turn back to the first ear? Rebbi Yose said, let us learn peah of sheaves from peah of standing grain. Since peah from standing grain does not return to the first ear, peah of sheaves likewise should not return to the first ear. Peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure. First fruits and appearance have neither minimum nor maximum measures. There are those who state: Peah, first fruits and appearance have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum. What is the difference between them, is it not one in sixty? According to him who says that peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure: What he gave, he gave; if he had second thoughts and added to it, it is subject to tithes until he makes up for it. According to him who says peah, first fruits and appearance sacrifices have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum: What he gave already freed from the obligation; if he has second thoughts and adds, that is subject to tithes. Rebbi Berekhiah asked: Why did we not state the dust for the straying? Why did we not state the ashes of the heifer? Why did we not state the spittle of the sister-in-law? Why did we not state the blood of the bird for the “leper”? Our Mishnah deals only with things to which he may add and adding is a worthy deed. As for those, even though he may add to them, doing so is no worthy deed. “Appearance”. Our Mishnah is about appearance with a sacrifice, but appearance in person has a measure. This agrees with what R. Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah”. Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion since Rebbi Hoshaia said: He who eats forbidden food in the present time has to note down the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further. “Works of kindness.” That means with his person. But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? In five years he will have lost everything! He said to him: The first time from the capital, from there on from net gain. Rav Huna said, for religious purposes up to a third. What does he mean, for all religious purposes or just for one purpose? They thought that this means, for all religious purposes up to one third. Rebbi Abun said, even for one purpose only. Rav Ḥabiba in the name of the rabbis from there: What means “up to a third?” For its cost! How is that done? A man buys a religious article and sees another one which is more beautiful, until when does one bother him? Up to one third. Rebbi Ismael stated: (Ex. 15:2) “This is my God and I will glorify Him!” Is it possible for a human to glorify his God? Rather I shall appear beautiful before Him with religious articles. I shall make before Him a beautiful lulab, a beautiful sukkah, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ẓiẓit, beautiful tefillin. Abba Shaul said, I want to be like Him! Just as He is merciful and gracious, so you also should be merciful and gracious! It happened that Rebbi Yeshebab went and let his entire property be distributed to the poor. Rabban Gamliel sent to him: Did they not say one fifth of one’s property for good deeds? And was not Rabban Gamliel before Usha? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Levi: That was the current practice, they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones, to teach you that everything the Court insists on will come to be in the end, just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: It does not say (Ex. 38:22) “Bezalel ben Uri ben Ḥur of the tribe of Judah made everything Moses had commanded him,” but “that the Eternal had commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from Moses he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah (Jos. 11:15): “As the Eternal had commanded His servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua executed it.” It does not say “he did not omit anything Moses had commanded him,” but “everything the Eternal commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from his teacher, he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi: (Mal. 2:6) “True teaching was in his mouth,” these are the things he heard from his teacher, “injustice was not found on his lips,” even in matters he did not hear from his teacher.” And the rabbis say (Prov. 3:26): “For the Eternal will stand by your confidence and prevent your foot from being caught.” Even in matters in which you are stupid, He will prevent your foot from being caught. Rebbi Dosa said, in religious decisions. The rabbis say, in sin. Rebbi Levi said, from damaging spirits. Rebbi Abba said, if you gave charity from your wallet, the Holy One, praise to Him, will guard you from taxes, penalties, head taxes, and contributions. King Monobaz distributed all his property to the poor. His relatives sent to him: Your forefathers added to what they had and to what their forefathers had, and you wasted yours and that of your forefathers. He said to them, that is correct! My forefathers locked it up in the earth, I locked it up in Heaven, as it is said (Ps. 85:12): “Truth will sprout from the earth, but charity will gaze from Heaven.” My fathers locked up treasures that bring no interest, but I locked up treasures that bring interest as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Say to the giver of charity that he did a good deed, that they will eat the fruits of their intentions.” My forefathers collected in a place over which a (human) hand rules, but I collected in a place over which no hand rules, as it is said (Ps. 97:2): “Charity and truth are the foundations of His throne.” My forefathers collected money but I collected souls, as it is said (Prov. 11:30): “He who acquires souls is wise.” My forefathers collected for others but I collected for myself, as it is said (Deut. 24:13): “Charity will be your property.” My forefathers collected in this world but I collected for the future world, as it is said (Prov. 10:2): “But charity will save from death.” And does he not die? But that he should not die an eternal death in the future world. Charity and works of kindness are as important as all commandments of the Torah. Charity applies to the living, works of kindness apply to the living and the dead. Charity applies to the poor, works of kindness apply to poor and rich. Charity is through a person's money, works of kindness through his money and his person. Rebbi Johanan bar Maria in the name of Rebbi Johanan: We do not know what is more beloved, charity or works of kindness. Since it says (Ps. 103:17): "The kindness of the Eternal is from eternity to eternity on those who fear Him, and His charity towards men," that means that works of kindness are more beloved than charity. And Torah study. They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me if I ever heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan. “Honoring father and brother.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They asked Rebbi Eliezer, how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council. Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost. They inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and and agreed on 100 denars. He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants wore money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount mentioned last, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23): “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles. Rebbi Tarphon’s mother went to promenade in her backyard on the Sabbath. Rebbi Tarphon went and put his two hands under her feet and she walked on them until she got to her couch. Once he fell ill and the sages came to visit him. She told them: Pray for my son Tarphon because he honors me too much. They asked her, what did he do for you? She told them what had happened. They said to her, even if he did this a million times, he did not yet reach even half of the honor that the Torah requires. Rebbi Ismael’s mother came and complained to our teachers about him. She said to them: Scold my son Ismael because he does not honor me! At that, the faces of our teachers became saffron colored. They said, is it possible that Rebbi Ismael does not honor his parents? They said to her, what did he do to you? She said, when he comes from the house of assembly, I want to wash his feet and drink from it, and he refuses. They said to him, since it is her wish it is her honor. Rebbi Mana said: The millers are correct when they say that each and every person has in his chest that which is appropriate for him. Rebbi Tarphon’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately, Rebbi Ismael’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately. Rebbi Zeïra was sorry and said, if only I had father or mother that I could honor them and inherit paradise. When he heard these two instructions, he said: Praise to the All-Merciful that I have neither father nor mother. I could not have done as Rebbi Tarphon did and I could not accept what Rebbi Ismael accepted. Rebbi Abun said, I am free from honoring father and mother. They said, his father died when his mother was pregnant and she died in giving birth. Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise. It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of Heaven. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent. Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in his creation. What is fear? He may not sit in his place and may not speak in his stead nor contradict his words. What is honor? He feeds and gives him to drink, clothes him and puts on his shoes, leads him out and in. From whose money? Huna bar Ḥiyya said, from the old man’s. Some want to say, from his own. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: From where do we know that even if his father tells him to throw the wallet into the sea that he should obey him? That is, if he has another one and if it helps to quiet his father’s spirit. Both men and women. Only the man has the power in his hand, but the woman does not have the power in her own hand because others have disposition over her. If she is widowed or divorced, the power is in her own hand. The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” When do you start to honor Him? When He was gracious to you! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah,lulav, and shofar,tefillin and ẓiẓit, one feeds the poor and hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not own property, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov.5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully all which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them will life come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away the mother. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for something that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov.30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it. Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Yannai were sitting together. There came a man and kissed Rebbi Jonathan’s foot. Rebbi Yannai said to him: What kindness did he pay you back for from former days? He said to him: He once came and complained to me about his son that he should support him and I told him, go, assemble a congregation and humiliate him. He said to him, why did you not force him? He said to him, does one force him? He said to him, you still have questions about that? Rebbi Jonathan changed his opinion and fixed it as a tradition in his own name. The result is: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one forces the son to feed his father. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if only all traditions were so clear to me as this one: One forces the son to feed his father. “Works of kindness.” As it is written (Prov. 21:21): “He who pursues charitable donations and works of kindness will find life, justification, and honor.” Honor in this world and life in the world to come. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac used to take branches and danced while singing before brides. Rebbi Zeïra saw him and hid himself before him; he said, look at that old man, how does he make us ashamed! But when he died there were three hours of thunder and lightning in the world. An echo came from Heaven and said: Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, the worker of charity, died, come out to do charity for him! Fire came down from Heaven that was formed like a fiery branch and separated between the bier and the people; the creatures were saying: Look, his branch stood up for the old man! “Making peace between people.” It is written (Ps. 34:15): “Move away from evil and do good, look for peace and pursue it.” Look for peace at your place, pursue it at another place. Rebbi Tavyome said: It says pursuing, pursuing. Just as it was said there, honor in this world and life in the world to come. “And Torah study.” Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin. One said that the entire world is not worth even one saying of the Torah. The other said that even all commandments of the Torah are not worth even one saying of the Torah. Rebbi Tanḥuma and Rebbi Yose ben Zimra, one said like the first and one said like the second. Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari, in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One verse says (Prov. 8:11) “all desirables do not equal it;” the other verse says (Prov. 3:15) “your desirables do not equal it.” “Desirables” are gems and pearls, “your desirables” are the words of the Torah, for it is written (Jer. 9:23): “For these I desire - saying of the Eternal.” Artaban sent a priceless precious pearl to our holy teacher and said to him: Send me a thing of equal value. He sent him a mezuzah. He said to him: I sent you a priceless thing and you send me something worth a follis! He said to him, your possessions and mine together are not equal to it! Not only that, but you sent me something that I have to watch over and I sent you something that watches over you while you are sleeping, as it is written (Prov. 6:22): “I will make you rest when you are rambling.” Rebbi Mana understood all of them from this verse (Deut. 32:47): “Because it is not an empty word from you,” that is the study of Torah, “because it is your life,” that is honoring father and mother, “and by this you will have a long life,” that are works of kindness, “on the earth,” that is making peace between men. Correspondingly, there are four things that a person has to pay for in this world and the principal remains for him in the future world: Idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder. But slander is equivalent to all of these. Idolatry from where? (Num. 15:31) “This soul shall certainly be cut off, its sin is inside it.” Why does the verse say “its sin is inside it?” This teaches that the soul is destroyed and its sin is still inside it. And it is written (Ex.32:21): “Please, this people has committed a grave sin, they made for themselves golden gods.” Incest and adultery from where? (Gen. 39:9) “How can I commit that grave evil and sin before God.” Murder from where? (Gen. 4:13) “Cain said to the Eternal, my sin is grave, it cannot be removed.” When he comes to calumny, it does not say in the singular “grave” or “the grave” but in the plural “grave” (Ps. 12:4): “May the Eternal cut off all slippery lips, all tongues peaking grave words.” In its written (Gen. 37:2): “And Joseph reported their evil slander to their father.” What did he say? Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meir said, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal. Rebbi Jehudah said, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, they are infatuated with local girls. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, (Prov. 16:11) “Balance and scales of justice are the Eternal’s; all weight-stones are His work. “What did he say, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal? The Holy One, praise to Him, said: So I testify for them that they first slaughter and then eat, (Gen. 37:31) “they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat into the blood.” What did he say, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves? (Ps. 105:17) “Joseph was sold as a slave.” What did he say, they are infatuated with local girls? Lo, a she-bear will attack you, (Gen. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Joseph, etc.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who calumniates does not speak until he has disowned the principle. What is the reason? (Ps.12:5) “Who said, by our tongues we shall overcome, our lips are with us, who is master over us?” All sins a person commits on earth, but this one they commit both in heaven and on earth. What is the reason? (Ps.73:9) “They put their mouths in heaven and their tongue wanders about the earth.” Rebbi Isaac said157 (Ps. 50:22): “Understand that, those who are forgetting God, lest He will tear and nobody may rescue.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said (Ps. 50:20): "You sit, talk against your brother, you find fault with your mother’s son.” What is written there? (Ps. 50:16) “God said to the evildoer, what right do you have to speak about My laws, to keep My covenant in your mouth?” Where is a warning about calumny159? (Deut. 23:10) “Keep yourself from every evil word!” Rebbi La said that Rebbi Ismaël stated (Lev.19:10): “Do not walk around as slanderer among your people,” that is slandering, calumny. Rebbi Nehemiah stated that you should not be like a trader who carries things from one person to another and vice versa. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Come and see, how hard is even a hint of calumny that the verses spoke untruth in order to make peace between Abraham and Sarah. (Gen. 18:12) “Sarah laughed to herself, saying: After having wilted I became dainty, but my master is old.” To Abraham He does not say so, but rather (Gen. 18:13): “Why now did Sarah laugh, saying how can I give birth, being old?” It is not written “my master is old” but “I am old”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Come and see, how hard is even a hint of calumny that the verses spoke untruth in order to make peace between Joseph and his brothers. That is what is written (Gen.50:16–17): “They empowered [a messenger] to Joseph to say: Your father commanded before his death, saying: So you shall say to Joseph, please forgive etc.” We do not find that he (Jacob) commanded anything. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One may calumniate disruptive persons. What is the reason? (1K. 1:14) “I shall come after you and confirm your words.” Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Why was Adoniah ben Ḥaggit killed? Because he asked for Avishag of Shunem? He said to him, they were looking for a pretext to proscribe the lives of disruptive persons. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Who is guilty of calumny? He who says it and he accepts it The linen traders had an assembly. There was one whose nickname was Bar Ḥovez (son of the cheesemaker) who did not appear. They said: What are we going to eat today? One said: cheese, then the cheeser will come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one was calumniating in secret. The city councilmen of Sepphoris had an assembly. There was one by the name of Joḥanan who did not appear. One said to the other, let us visit Rebbi Joḥanan today. They said, Joḥanan will come. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this one calumniated justly. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the generation of David were all just but because there were informers among them they went to war and were falling. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9–10): “My soul, among lions I am lying down with blazing fires.” “My soul, among lions,” these are Abner and Amasah who were lions in Torah; “I am lying down with blazing fires;” these are Doeg and Aḥitophel who were eager for calumny. “The people, their teeth are spear and arrows,” these are the owners of Qe‘ilah, as it is written (1Sam. 23:11): “Will the owners of Qe‘ilah deliver me in his hand, will Saul come?” “Their tongue is a sharp sword,” these are the people of Ziph (Ps. 54:1): “When the people of Ziph came and told Saul. “At that moment, David said before the Holy One, praised be He: Master of the Universe, why should Your glory descend among them? Remove Your glory from them! That is what is written (Ps. 57:6): “Rise over the Heavens, o God, higher than all earth Your glory!” The generation of Ahab were idolaters but since there was no informing among them they went to war and were victorious. That is what Obadiahu said to Elijah (1K. 18:13): “Certainly it was told to my lord what I did when Izebel slew all prophets of the Eternal etc., and I provided them with bread and water.” [If bread, why does he have to mention water, and if water, why does he have to mention bread. This teaches you that it was more difficult for him to provide them with water than with bread.] But Elijah was standing on Mount Carmel and declaring (1K.18:22): “I remained alone as prophet for the Eternal,” and everybody knew and nobody informed the king Why is it called “triple?” Because it kills three: The one who says it, the one who accepts it, and the one calumniated. And in the days of Saul, four were killed: Doeg who said it, Saul who accepted it, Aḥimelekh who was calumniated, and Abner. Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us, and Joab said, let them get up.” R. Simeon ben Laqish, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David. The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling of this one, it was torn off by thorns. But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene. (Ps. 120:4) “The arrows of a hero are sharpened over hot broom coals.” All weapons kill at their place but this kills at a distance. All other charcoal that is extinguished on the outside, is also extinguished on the inside, but these, even though they are extinguished on the outside, are still burning on the inside. It happened to one that he put down burning charcoal on Sukkot and came and found them still burning on Pesaḥ. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman said: One says to the snake, why when you move does your tongue flow? It said to them, that caused it for me. What profit do you have from biting? A lion tears up and eats, a wolf tears up and eats; you, what profit do you have from biting? It said to them (Eccl. 10:11): “If the snake would bite without a whisper,” I would not bite unless it was said to me from heaven: bite! Why do you bite one limb and all limbs feel it? It said to them: Why do you ask me? Ask the master of the tongue who speaks here and kills in Rome, speaks in Rome and kills in Syria. Why are you found among fences? It said to them, I broke the fence of the world Merit has capital and yield; sin has capital but no yield. Merit has capital and has yield, as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Tell the just that it is very well, that they will eat the fruit of their actions.” Sin has capital but no yield, as it is said (Is. 3:11): “Woe to the bad criminal, the retribution for his actions will be come upon him.” How can I confirm (Prov. 1:31): “They will eat from the fruits of their way?” Every sin that produces fruit has yield, that which does not produce fruit has no yield. The Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds. The Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds as it is written (Mal. 3:16): “Then those who fear the Eternal will speak together, each man with his neighbor.” The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds (Ps. 66:12): “If I saw mischief in my heart, the Eternal would not listen.” That refers to Israel, but for Gentiles it is the reverse; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention; bad intention the Holy One, praise to Him, does add. The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention, as it is written (Dan. 6:15): “Until sundown he tried to rescue him;” it does not say “to save him.” The Holy One, praise to Him, adds bad intention: (Obad. 9–10) “From killing. Because of the oppression of your brother Jacob.” But did he kill him? This teaches that he thought about killing him and the verse counts it as if he had killed him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: If a person was perfectly just all his days and at the end he rebelled, he lost all he worked for his entire life. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:18) “If a just person reverts from his justness and does mischief.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wonders about his earlier deeds. If a person was perfectly evil all his days and at the end he repents, the Holy One, praise to Him, receives him. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:27) “If a sinner returns from his wickedness.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only that but all transgressions are counted as merits for him. What is the reason? (Ps. 45:9) “Myrrh, aloe, cassia, all your faithlessness.” All faithless acts in which you were faithless towards Me are like myrrh, aloe, and cassia. From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain. There (Sanhedrin 10:1) we have stated: The following have no part in the Future World: He who says there is no resurrection of the dead, that the Torah is not from Heaven, and the Epicurean. Rebbi Aqiba says, also he who reads apocryphal books. And he who recites magical spells over a wound and says (Ex. 15:26): “Any disease that I put upon Egypt I shall not put on you because I am the Eternal, your Healer.” Abba Saul says, also he who pronounces the Name by its letters. They added him who tears away the yoke, him who breaks the Covenant, and him who finds aspects in the Torah to those who have no part in the Future World. He who breaks the yoke is one who says the Torah is obligatory but I cannot stand it. He who breaks the Covenant is one who pulls himself a prepuce. He who finds aspects in the Torah is one who says that the Torah was not given from Heaven. But did we not state separately: “He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven?” Rebbi Ḥanania Entanayah stated before Rebbi Mana: That is one who publicly transgresses the words of the Torah in the manner of Joiakim, king of Judah, and his circle. He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: It does not say “He lifts sins,” but rather (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He lifts sin.” The Holy One, praise to Him, seizes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rebbi Eleazar said (Ps. 62:13): “Kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay to everyone according to his deeds,” and if he has none, You give him from Yours. That is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said (Ex. 34:7): “And much kindness,” He turns towards kindness. Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: (Pr. 13:6) “Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner.” (Pr. 13:21) “Evil deeds will pursue sinners but He will reward the just.” (Pr. 3:4) “While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek.” (1Sam. 2:9) “He will watch over the feet of His pious, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness.” (Pr. 3:35) “The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones.” Fences are made fences and doors doors. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If a person watches himself the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? (Job 33:29) “All this God will do twice, three times, with a man.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but only if the person does not revert. What is the reason? It does not say “The triple thread will never snap” but rather (Eccl. 4:12) “The triple thread will not quickly snap.” If you work on it, it will split. Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? It is written (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He forgets sin.” And so David says (Ps. 85:3): “You forgot your people’s sin, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”

ההבדל בין הירושלמי לבבלי
בירושלמי - בזבז כל נכסיו
בבלי - בזבזב אוצרתיו
בבלי הדגשי הוא שזה לא על כל הכסף ואילו בירושלמי מדובר על כל הנכסים
המלך מונבז
במקרה של מונבז המלך שני הגמרות רואות אותו באור חיובי
איך הבבלי לא צועק עליו תקנת אושא?
מונבז חי הרבה לפני תקופת אושא לכן כנראה שהתקנה לא הייתה חלה עליו
למה דווקא באושא תקנו את התקנה?
הסנהדרין עברה לאושא מיבנה אחרי מרד בר כוכבא ובאותו תקופה המצב היה מאוד קשה אחרי המרד היה הרבה עניים והצורך לתת צדקה גבר היה קומץ אנשים שהיה להם כסף
מקומות בגליל שלא השתתפו במרד ולכן נשארו עמידים לעומתם עומדים כמות מטורפת של עניים
מה יעשו?
לכן נראה לי שהיה צורך לעגן את התקנה
הירושלמי מגיב מה הם יצרו דבר חדש?
הירושלמי מביא כמה תשובות:

התקנה כנראה הייתה נמצאת גם אז פשוט שכחו אותו ובאושא הזכירו
כאשר אתה יגע בתורה אתה הופך שזה חייך
מביאים דוגמה בצלאל שבונה את המשכן מדעתו
כנ"ל לגבי יהושע

איך לא צעקו על מונבז?

מצב התקופה - בזמן מונבז המצב של העם היה טוב אבל בזמן אושא הייתה בצורת המצב היה רע
מונבז היה מלך - מונבז הוא המלך הוא לא יכול לרדת למצב של עני מרוד התקנה באושא מדברת על האנשים בעם

משנה ערכין ח׳:ד׳

(ד) מַחֲרִים אָדָם מִצֹּאנוֹ וּמִבְּקָרוֹ, מֵעֲבָדָיו וּמִשִּׁפְחוֹתָיו הַכְּנַעֲנִים, וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ. וְאִם הֶחֱרִים אֶת כֻּלָּן, אֵינָן מֻחְרָמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מָה אִם לַגָּבֹהַּ, אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהַחֲרִים אֶת כָּל נְכָסָיו, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם חַיָּב לִהְיוֹת חָס עַל נְכָסָיו:

Mishnah Arakhin 8:4

(4) A person may dedicate, for sacred or priestly use, some of his flock and some of his cattle, and some of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all that he has of any type of property, they are not dedicated, i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give all of it to others.

ערכין כ״ח א

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא כז, כח) מכל אשר לו ולא כל אשר לו מאדם ולא כל אדם מבהמה ולא כל בהמה משדה אחוזה ולא כל שדה אחוזה יכול לא יחרים ואם החרים יהו מוחרמין ת"ל אך דברי רבי אליעזר אמר ר"א בן עזריה מה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי להחרים כל נכסיו על אחת כמה וכמה שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו.... אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אם לגבוה אין אדם רשאי כו': היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו דרבי אילא דאמר רבי אילא באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש מעשה באחד שבקש לבזבז יותר מחומש ולא הניחו לו חבריו ומנו רבי ישבב ואמרי לה רבי ישבב ולא הניחו לו חביריו ומנו רבי עקיבא:

Arakhin 28a

What are the circumstances of such an offer? It is in a case where the owner initially said he would purchase the field for twenty-one sela. In such an instance, the additional one-fifth amounts to five sela and one dinar, which means that the total payment of the owner is twenty-six sela and one dinar, greater than the offer of the other person. Accordingly, the owner takes precedence, and when the one-fifth is added to the twenty-six sela offer of the other person, the total price paid by the owner is equal to thirty-one sela and one dinar. And if the payment of the owner does not exceed the offer of the other person even when accounting for the additional one-fifth, then the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession. MISHNA: A person may dedicate, for sacred or priestly use, some of his flock and some of his cattle, and some of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all that he has of any type of property, they are not dedicated, i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give all of it to others. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, stated in the mishna, derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate “of all that he has” but not all that he has; likewise “of man” but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; “of man or animal” but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate “of his ancestral field” but not all of his ancestral field. It might have been thought that one may not dedicate all his properties ab initio, but if he did dedicate all of them, they should be dedicated. Therefore the verse states: “Notwithstanding,” to teach that they are not dedicated. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to derive this halakha with regard to all the categories in the verse. As, if the Merciful One had written only: “Of all that he has,” I would say that one may not dedicate all that he has, but let him dedicate all of one type of property. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “of man,” to teach that he may not dedicate every man. And if the Merciful One had written only: “of man,” one might say that he may not dedicate all of his slaves, as it is not possible for him to be without a slave to perform his work; but with regard to a field, it is possible for him to maintain a livelihood by sharecropping [distoran]. And if the Torah had taught this halakha with regard to only these two types, i.e., ancestral fields and slaves, one might say these may not be dedicated in their entirety because here there is livelihood and here there is also livelihood. But in the case of movable property, on which maintaining a livelihood does not depend, let him dedicate all of them. Therefore, all of these derivations are necessary. The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state “or animal”? The Gemara explains it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought a person can dedicate his son or his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field. Therefore, the verse states “animal” to teach that just as an animal is an item that he has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he has permission to sell. He cannot dedicate an item that he does not have the ability to sell. The baraita continues: But in the case of his minor daughter, he has permission to sell her as a Hebrew maidservant. If so, one might have thought he may dedicate her. Therefore, the verse states “animal,” indicating that just as an animal is an item that he always has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he always has permission to sell, whereas one may not sell his daughter once she reaches majority. A field as well can be sold only until the Jubilee Year. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that one should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits the dedication of all one’s property. The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the statement of Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than a fifth. Rabbi Eliezer, who did not state that one should spare his property, rules that one may give all his money to charity, provided he keeps a small portion for himself, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that one should not give more than a fifth. The Gemara relates that there was an incident involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than a fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? It was Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say it was Rabbi Yeshevav who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so. And who was the friend? It was Rabbi Akiva. MISHNA: In the case of one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field, those items are not considered dedicated, as a person may not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate their property; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate their property, as all dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, as it is stated about the land of the Levites: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property, which the Levites may dedicate, as dedicated property is not theirs. It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate property, as dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the gifts of the priesthood. But why are Levites unable to dedicate their property? Granted, they may not dedicate land, as it is written: “As that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing, that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse juxtaposes the dedication of movable property to that of land. Accordingly, as Levites cannot dedicate land, they cannot dedicate movable property either. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Shimon, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate their property, as we stated above, because dedicated property is theirs. But why may Levites dedicate their property? Granted, let them dedicate movable property, as Rabbi Shimon does not juxtapose movable property to land. But why may Levites dedicate land? Isn’t it written: That is their perpetual possession? The Gemara answers: What does Rabbi Shimon mean when he says Levites may dedicate property? He means they may dedicate only movable property. The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, and the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property; by inference one may conclude that Rabbi Shimon also says Levites can dedicate their land. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct even to Rabbi Shimon with regard to land belonging to Levites, as even Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda about the ability of Levites to dedicate property only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land, Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that the Levites cannot dedicate it. § Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says: One who dedicated movable property may give it to any priest that he wishes, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel

רש"י על ערכין כ״ח א:י׳:ב׳

חומש - דגמרינן מיעקב דכתיב ביה תרין עישורין. ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אית ליה דרבי אילא דהא אתא לאשמועינן שיהא אדם חס על נכסיו ר"א לית ליה דרבי אילא דאי בזבז טובא לא איכפת לן אלא ששייר לעצמו קצת דומיא דחרם:

Rashi on Arakhin 28a:10:2

...

גבורת ארי מסכת תענית דף כד עמוד א
הוו טשו מיניה . . . ומשמע ודאי דאלעזר איש ברתותא בימי אמוראים ובתר תקנת אושא הוה.

תוספות על תענית ט׳ א:א׳:א׳

עשר תעשר. הכי איתא בסיפרי עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך היוצא השדה שנה שנה אין לי אלא תבואת זרעך שחייב במעשר רבית ופרקמטיא וכל שאר רווחים מנין ת"ל את כל דהוה מצי למימר את תבואתך מאי כל לרבות רבית ופרקמטיא וכל דבר שמרויח בו והכי נמי איכא בהגדה היוצא השדה שנה [שנה] כלומר אם לא תעשר שדך כהוגן לא יהיה לך אלא היוצא מן השדה כלומר לא יעשה שדך אלא כפי מעשרות שהיו קודם לכן דהיינו היוצא מן השדה כלומר מה שהיית רגיל להוציא למעשר מן השדה

ומעשה באדם אחד שהיה עשיר והיה לו שדה שעשתה אלף כור והיה אותו עשיר נוטל ק' כורין למעשר ומפריש כל שנה ושנה וכן עשה כל ימיו כשחלה למות קרא לבנו ואמר לו בני דע ששדה זו שאני מוריש לך עושה בכל שנה ושנה אלף כורין הזהר שתפריש ק' כורין כאשר עשיתי ומת אותו האיש ועמד הבן במקומו ועשה השדה אלף כורין כאשר היה עושה בחיי האב והפריש ממנה ק' כורין בשנה שניה נסתכל וראה הבן שמעשר היה דבר גדול ואמר שלא יפריש

לשנה אחרת נתמעט השדה ולא עשה כי אם מאה כורין נצטער עליו ושמעו קרוביו שכך מיעט ולא הפריש מעשר באו כולם אצלו מלובשים לבנים ושמחים

אמר להם כמדומה לי שאתם שמחים בקלקלתי

אמרו לו נצטער עליך כי גרמת לך כל הרעה הזאת ומפני מה לא הפרשת מעשר כראוי היטב בא וראה כי מתחלה כשבא השדה לידך היית בעל הבית והקב"ה כהן שהיה המעשר חלקו ליתן לעניים ועכשיו שלא הפרשת חלקו לו היה הקב"ה בעל הבית ואתה כהן שאין שדך עושה מה שהיה עושה מתחלה אלף כורין והפריש לך מאה כורין והיינו דכתיב (במדבר ה) ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו כלומר כשאינו מפריש כהוגן לא יהיה לו אלא הקדשים כלומר המעשר ועל זה אמרו חכמים המעכב מעשרותיו לסוף בא שלא יהיה לו אלא אחד מעשר כדכתיב (ישעיהו ה) וזרע חומר יעשה איפה דהיינו המעשר דאיפה ג' סאין ובחומר יש (לו) ל' סאין וכן כתיב כי עשרת צמדי כרם יעשו בת אחת וה"ר נתן האופניא"ל פי' היוצא מן השדה כלומר ואם לאו שאין אתה מפריש העישור יהיה לאותו היוצא לשדה דהיינו עשו הרשע כלומר שיקחוהו העובדי כוכבים:

Tosafot on Taanit 9a:1:1

You shall set aside a tenth part - This is what is written in the Sifri: "You shall set aside a tenth part of all the yield of your sowing that is brought from the field every year" (Deut. 14:22) [from a superficial reading] I can only find that one is obligated to tithe the yield of sowing, from where do I know that he is obligated on tithing also on interest and merchandise and all other types of gain? The text says "all" - it could have said simply "the yield of your sowing", why [does it have the word] "all"? To include interest and merchandise and all other types of ways of gain. And this too is in the Hagadah (?): "that is brought from the field every year" - that is to say if you don't tithe your field properly, you will be left only with "what comes from the field", meaning, your field only produces according to the tithes that were taken previously, therefore, "what comes from the field" - that is to say what you were used to take to tithing from the field. A story: a certain rich man who had a field that produced a thousand kor, and that same rich man gave 100 kor for tithes, and he separated this every year, and did so all his days. When he got sick to the point of dying he called his son and said to him: 'my son, know that this field that I am giving you for inheritance gives a thousand kor every year, make sure that you will separate 100 kor as I did'. Then he died. His son stood on his place and the field produced a thousand kor as it did when the father was alive, and [the son] separated 100 kor. In the second year the son looked and understood that tithing was a great thing. He said: 'We will not separate for the next year' And the field diminished [its production] and produced only 100 kor. He was disappointed, and his relatives heard that the field diminished and that he did not separate the tithes. They all came together near him, wearing white and happy. He said to them: 'I am under the impression that you are happy with my disgrace.' They said to him: 'We are disappointed in you since you brought upon yourself all this disgrace, and why did you not separate the tithe as it would have been right to do? Come and see that in the beginning, when the field first came to your hands,you were the owner of the house and the Holy One of Blessing was your kohen, whose part [in your field] was the tithe to be given to the poor and now that you didn't separate the part of the Holy One of Blessing, the Holy One is the master of the house and you are His kohen, in that your field will not do the thousand kor it did in the beginning, when you did separate the 100 kor. And this is why it's written "to each man his holy things will be his [and whatever he gives to the kohen will be his]" (Numbers 5:10) - that is to say, when he does not separate as appropriate the only thing that will be his is his holy portion, that is, the tithe. And on this our sages said: 'the one who delays his tithes will in the end have only one tithe, as it is written '[For ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bat] the seed of a homer will yield an ephah' (Isaiah 5:10). The tithe of an ephah is is three se'ahs and in a homer there are thirty se'ahs and it is written 'For ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bat' and Rav Natan Haophaniel (?) explains 'what comes out of the field' that is - if not, if you do not separate the tenth will be for the one that comes out to the field, which is, the wicked Esav, which is: the idolaters will get it.

מה ההבדל בין ההבבלי לירושמלי?

הבבלי - יותר מתרכז ביחס בין הנותן צדקה לעני מה יקרה לעני? כמה צריך לכבד אותו? איך לתת לו? מה להגיד לו שזה הלוואה או מתנה?
הירושלמי - מדבר על היחס בין הנותן צדקה לה' תקנת אושא מאיפה מקורה? מה הסמכות שלה?

משנה תורה, הלכות מתנות עניים ז׳:א׳-ה׳

(א) מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִתֵּן צְדָקָה לָעֲנִיִּים כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לֶעָנִי. אִם הָיְתָה יַד הַנּוֹתֵן מַשֶּׂגֶת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ח) "פָתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ לוֹ" וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לה) "וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ גֵּר וְתוֹשָׁב וָחַי עִמָּךְ" וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לו) "וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ":

(ב) וְכָל הָרוֹאֶה עָנִי מְבַקֵּשׁ וְהֶעֱלִים עֵינָיו מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ צְדָקָה עָבַר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ז) "לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת יָדְךָ מֵאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן":

(ג) לְפִי מַה שֶּׁחָסֵר הֶעָנִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּה לִתֵּן לוֹ. אִם אֵין לוֹ כְּסוּת מְכַסִּים אוֹתוֹ. אִם אֵין לוֹ כְּלֵי בַּיִת קוֹנִין לוֹ. אִם אֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה מַשִּׂיאִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִשָּׁה מַשִּׂיאִין אוֹתָהּ לְאִישׁ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה הֶעָנִי לִרְכֹּב עַל הַסּוּס וְעֶבֶד רָץ לְפָנָיו וְהֶעֱנִי וְיָרַד מִנְּכָסָיו קוֹנִין לוֹ סוּס לִרְכֹּב עָלָיו וְעֶבֶד לָרוּץ לְפָנָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טו ח) "דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ". וּמְצֻוֶּה אַתָּה לְהַשְׁלִים חֶסְרוֹנוֹ וְאֵין אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּה לְעַשְּׁרוֹ:

(ד) יָתוֹם שֶׁבָּא לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. שׂוֹכְרִין לוֹ בַּיִת וּמַצִּיעִים לוֹ מִטָּה וְכָל כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשִּׂיאִין לוֹ אִשָּׁה:

(ה) בָּא הֶעָנִי וְשָׁאַל דֵּי מַחֲסוֹרוֹ וְאֵין יַד הַנּוֹתֵן מַשֶּׂגֶת נוֹתֵן לוֹ כְּפִי הַשָּׂגַת יָדוֹ וְכַמָּה עַד חֲמִישִׁית נְכָסָיו מִצְוָה מִן הַמֻּבְחָר. וְאֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה בִּנְכָסָיו בֵּינוֹנִי. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן עַיִן רָעָה. וּלְעוֹלָם לֹא יִמְנַע עַצְמוֹ מִשְּׁלִישִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשָׁנָה. וְכָל הַנּוֹתֵן פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה לֹא קִיֵּם מִצְוָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָנִי הַמִּתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְּדָקָה חַיָּב לִתֵּן צְדָקָה לְאַחֵר:

Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 7:1-5

(1) It is a positive mitzvah to give tzedakah to the poor according to what is fitting for the poor person if he has the means to do so, as it is said, (Deut. 15:8) Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs. And it is said, (Lev. 25:35) [If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority,] and you hold him as though a resident alien, [let him live by your side:] And it is said (Lev. 25:36), [Do not exact from him advance or accrued interest, but fear your God.] Let him live by your side as your kinsman.

(2) Anyone who sees a poor person begging and averts his eyes from him and does not give him tzedakah transgresses a negative mitzvah, as it is said, (Deut. 15:7) [If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kinsmen in any of your settlements in the land that the LORD your God is giving you,] do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kinsman.

(3) One is commanded to give to a poor person according to what he lacks. If he has no clothes, they clothe him. If he has no utensils for a house, they buy [them] for him. If he does not have a wife, they arrange a marriage for him. If [the poor person] is a woman, they arrange a husband for marriage for her. Even if it was the custom of [a person who was rich but is now] a poor person to ride on a horse with a servant running in front of him, and this is a person who fell from his station, they buy him a horse to ride upon and a servant to run in front of him, as it is said, (Deut. 15:8) Sufficient for whatever he needs. You are commanded to fill whatever he lacks, but you are not commanded to make him wealthy.

(4) In the case of an orphan who wants to marry a woman [and lacks the means to do so], [first] they pay for a house for him and arrange for a bed for him and all that he needs for the household, and afterwards they arrange a marriage for him.

(5) If a poor person comes and asks for what is sufficient to fill his needs and one does not have the means to provide it for him, one gives according to his means. How much is this? One-fifth of one's assets is the best possible way, but one-tenth is the usual way. Less than this is a bad sign, and never should one restrain himself from a third of a shekel a year. Anyone who has not given at least this much has not fulfilled the mitzvah. Even a poor person who lives on tzedakah is obligated to give tzedakah to another.

משנה תורה, הלכות ערכים וחרמין ח׳:י״ג

(יג) לְעוֹלָם לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ אָדָם וְלֹא יַחֲרִים כָּל נְכָסָיו. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה כֵּן עוֹבֵר עַל דַּעַת הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כז כח) "מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" וְלֹא כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאֲרוּ חֲכָמִים. וְאֵין זוֹ חֲסִידוּת אֶלָּא שְׁטוּת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מְאַבֵּד כָּל מָמוֹנוֹ וְיִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וְאֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו. וּבָזֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה מִכְּלַל מְבַלֵּי עוֹלָם. אֶלָּא כָּל הַמְפַזֵּר מָמוֹנוֹ בְּמִצְוֹת אַל יְפַזֵּר יוֹתֵר מֵחֹמֶשׁ. וְיִהְיֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁצִּוּוּ נְבִיאִים (תהילים קיב ה) "מְכַלְכֵּל דְּבָרָיו בְּמִשְׁפָּט" בֵּין בְּדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה בֵּין בְּדִבְרֵי עוֹלָם. אֲפִלּוּ בְּקָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁאָדָם חַיָּב בָּהֶן הֲרֵי חָסָה תּוֹרָה עַל הַמָּמוֹן וְאָמְרָה שֶׁיָּבִיא כְּפִי מִסַּת יָדוֹ. קַל וָחֹמֶר לִדְבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת נִדְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִנְדֹּר אֶלָּא כָּרָאוּי לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז יז) "אִישׁ כְּמַתְּנַת יָדוֹ כְּבִרְכַּת ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָךְ":

Mishneh Torah, Appraisals and Devoted Property 8:13

...

משנה תורה, הלכות דעות ה׳:י״ב

(יב) וְאָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לְהַפְקִיר אוֹ לְהַקְדִּישׁ כָּל נְכָסָיו וְיַטְרִיחַ עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת. וְלֹא יִמְכֹּר שָׂדֶה וְיִקְנֶה בַּיִת וְלֹא בַּיִת וְיִקְנֶה מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בִּדְמֵי בֵּיתוֹ. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר הוּא מִטַּלְטְלִין וְקוֹנֶה שָׂדֶה. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר יָשִׂים מְגַמָּתוֹ לְהַצְלִיחַ נְכָסָיו וּלְהַחֲלִיף הַכָּלֶה בְּקַיָּם. וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה כַּוָּנָתוֹ לֵהָנוֹת מְעַט לְפִי שָׁעָה אוֹ לֵהָנוֹת מְעַט וְיַפְסִיד הַרְבֵּה:

Mishneh Torah, Human Dispositions 5:12

(12) A man is forbidden either to give away or to make holy all of his property and burden society for his support. He should not sell a farm and buy a house, or a house and buy moveables; or engage in merchandise with the proceeds of his house; but he may sell moveables and buy a farm. As a general rule in such matter, he should set his mind to increase his property successfully and exchange the thing which is perishable for the thing which is lasting; he should not direct his intention to find a bit of temporary joy, or enjoy for a while and thereby sustain great loss.

משנה פאה א׳:א׳

(א) אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁעוּר. הַפֵּאָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּמֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כֻּלָּם:

Mishnah Peah 1:1

(1) These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all.

רמב"ם משנה פאה א׳:א׳:ג׳

ומה שאמר בכאן גמ"ח אין לה שיעור רוצה לומר לעזור האדם בגופו אך שיעזור אותו בממונו יש לו שיעור והוא חמישית ממונו ולא יתחייב לתת יותר מחמישית ממונו לבד אם עשה כן במדת חסידות ואמרו (כתובות דף נ.) נמנו באושא להיות אדם מפריש חומש נכסיו למצוה וביאור זאת ההלכה אצלי מה שאומר והוא כשהאדם יראה שבוים שהוא חייב לפדותם כאשר צוה הקב"ה או רעבים או ערומים שהוא חייב להשביעם ולכסות מערומיהם כמו שאמר די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו (דברים ט״ו:ח׳) ופירושו למלאות חסרונם כשיהיה מה שיחסר להם או מה שיצטרכו לפדיונם פחות מחמישית ממונו או כפי חמישיתו אבל אם יצטרך לתת להם יותר מן החומש יתן חמישית בלבד ויסתלק מלתת עוד ולא יהיה עון עליו בהמנעו להשלים כל מה שצריך להם לפי שצרכם יותר מן החומש אבל אם לא נזדמן לו דבר מאשר זכרנו יוציא החומש מן הריוח ולא מן הקרן ויתנהו בצרכי מצות:

Rambam on Mishnah Peah 1:1:3

...

יורה דעה רמ״ט:א׳

(א) כמה חייב ליתן וכיצד יתננה. ובו ט"ז סעיפים:
שיעור נתינתה אם ידו משגת יתן כפי צורך העניים ואם אין ידו משגת כל כך יתן עד חומש נכסיו מצוה מן המובחר ואחד מעשרה מדה בינונית פחות מכאן עין רעה וחומש זה שאמרו שנה ראשונה מהקרן מכאן ואילך חומש שהרויח בכל שנה: הגה ואל יבזבז אדם יותר מחומש שלא יצטרך לבריות (ב"י בשם הגמ' פ' נערה שנתפתתה) ודוקא כל ימי חייו אבל בשעת מותו יכול אדם ליתן צדקה כל מה שירצה (ג"ז שם פ' מציאת האשה ומייתי לה רי"ף ורא"ש ור"ן ומרדכי) ואין לעשות ממעשר שלו דבר מצוה כגון נרות לבית הכנסת או שאר דבר מצוה רק יתננו לעניים (מהרי"ל הל' ראש השנה):

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 249:1

(1) The amount of charity one should give is as follows: if one can but afford, let him give as much as is needed. Under ordinary circumstances, a fifth of one's property is most laudable. To give one-tenth is the average disposition. But to give less than one-tenth is niggardly. When the Rabbis said a "fifth" they meant a fifth of the property the first year only and a fifth of the profits in succeeding years.
RMI.—But a man should not squander more than one-fifth to charity, so that he might not himself become a public charge.This refers only to his lifetime. Of course, at the time of death one may leave for charity as much as he pleases.