(ד) אֶחָד הָאוֹמֵר סֶלַע זוֹ צְדָקָה אוֹ הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי סֶלַע לִצְדָקָה וְהִפְרִישׁוֹ. אִם רָצָה לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ בְּאַחֵר מֻתָּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ לְיַד הַגַּבַּאי אָסוּר לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ. וְאִם רָצוּ הַגַּבָּאִים לְצָרֵף הַמָּעוֹת וְלַעֲשׂוֹתָן דִּינָרִין אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין אֶלָּא אִם אֵין שָׁם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק. מְצָרְפִין לַאֲחֵרִים, אֲבָל לֹא לְעַצְמָן:
(4) If one says, "This selah is for tzedakah," or one who says, "I owe a selah for tzedakah," and sets one aside, if he wants to, he may exchange it [that particular coin] for another, but if it has reached the hand of the collector, it is forbidden to exchange it. If the collectors want to combine the small coins for dinarin [which are either of larger value, or of a more durable metal], they are only permitted to do so if there are no poor people around to whom they need to distribute it. They may combine the coins [for coins of larger value] by trading with others, but they may not trade it to themselves.
Questions:
1) What is it about the collector - Gabbai - that makes it forbidden to change the coin versus the permissibility to do so while the coin is still in the possession of the owner? If sanctity is conferred through the vow itself, what changes in the status of the coin from before to after it reaches the hand of the collector?
2) We also need to clarify the reasoning of the second half of the Halacha. Does the second half somehow shed light on the first part of the Halacha?
Explanations:
We were briefly introduced in the first Halacha of the chapter to the issue of changing or exchanging the coin of Tzedakah. Rambam saw this issue to be very relevant in figuring out the Kedusha of the coin itself. After detailing the nature of this sanctity by introducing the topi of vows, and subsequently calling our attention inwards in Halacha 3 so that we could properly grow from and apply the concepts herein, Rambam returns to discuss more at length concepts he had merely hinted to by way of introduction.
In Halacha 1, Rambam clearly hinted to our Halacha: “if he makes a condition… that the collectors are permitted to exchange…”. Rambam makes the condition needed only for the collectors, inferring that before it gets to their hand it can obviously be changed. Rambam is revisiting that statement, and Rambam does not revisit issues without deliberate reason to do so.
It seems that Rambam is adding an important element to the introduction of “exchanges”. In the introduction, it was important to realize that the sanctity of the coin was real and consequential. It was also important to Rambam to mention that that sanctity could be toyed with. The sanctity is “vow Kedusha” and therefore subject to the wording and intentions of the onee making the vow.
In this Halacha, however, Rambam is adding a lot more detail.
Clearly, the Kedusha on the coin goes through stages. First, the vow as a commitment of “a” coin. Then the commitment being specified to a particular coin - “this coin” and “he sets one aside”. Third, it gets passed to the collector.
In the first stage there is no coin in particular, only a human obligation to act to create sanctity on a coin. In the second stage, the coin can be exchanged, but the Kedusha must remain in the form of currency. In the third stage, the collector’s hand, it cannot be exchanged by default - unless stipulated explicitly as was described in Halacha 1 - except for the good of the poor, and even then it must remain in the form of currency.
The last line Rambam seems to clarify the entire Halacha.
Once the coin is specified, its Kedusha is set. The nature of this Kedusha defines the currency character of the donation and requires an exchange, i.e. a recognition of the sanctity as extant and needing to b transferred from the coin, not a mundane picking of another coin.
The hand of the collector does not change much except bring to the fore another element of the human relationship to money. We no longer hand out trust. The donor must be trusted because, after all, they didn’t need to make the commitment in the first place. The donor has proven themmself to be capable of separating themselves from their coins. The collector? He’s a whole other story. We have no reason to do anything other than suspect fraud in due caution.
This is the meaning of the last line. They cannot begin doing anything even the simplest of transactions with themselves. Once the coin becomes malleable, there is nothing strong enough to brake the slippery slope of fraud and laundering. Therefore exchanging the coin is forbidden entirely except when done for the benefit of the poor. Yet, even when he seems to be acting altruisticly we remain cautious and allow trade only with third parties, not between him and himself.
Rambam once more flashes his inimitable ingenuity as he designs Halacha 4 to become a beautiful follow up to Halacha 3. He allows us to discuss in further detail the nature of the sanctity that rests on the coin itself in addition to noticing more and more about the human condition vis-a-vis its volatile relationship to money.
It is the following Halacha, however, that will truly begin to delve into this mysterious Kedusha.
1) What is it about the collector - Gabbai - that makes it forbidden to change the coin versus the permissibility to do so while the coin is still in the possession of the owner? If sanctity is conferred through the vow itself, what changes in the status of the coin from before to after it reaches the hand of the collector?
2) We also need to clarify the reasoning of the second half of the Halacha. Does the second half somehow shed light on the first part of the Halacha?
Explanations:
We were briefly introduced in the first Halacha of the chapter to the issue of changing or exchanging the coin of Tzedakah. Rambam saw this issue to be very relevant in figuring out the Kedusha of the coin itself. After detailing the nature of this sanctity by introducing the topi of vows, and subsequently calling our attention inwards in Halacha 3 so that we could properly grow from and apply the concepts herein, Rambam returns to discuss more at length concepts he had merely hinted to by way of introduction.
In Halacha 1, Rambam clearly hinted to our Halacha: “if he makes a condition… that the collectors are permitted to exchange…”. Rambam makes the condition needed only for the collectors, inferring that before it gets to their hand it can obviously be changed. Rambam is revisiting that statement, and Rambam does not revisit issues without deliberate reason to do so.
It seems that Rambam is adding an important element to the introduction of “exchanges”. In the introduction, it was important to realize that the sanctity of the coin was real and consequential. It was also important to Rambam to mention that that sanctity could be toyed with. The sanctity is “vow Kedusha” and therefore subject to the wording and intentions of the onee making the vow.
In this Halacha, however, Rambam is adding a lot more detail.
Clearly, the Kedusha on the coin goes through stages. First, the vow as a commitment of “a” coin. Then the commitment being specified to a particular coin - “this coin” and “he sets one aside”. Third, it gets passed to the collector.
In the first stage there is no coin in particular, only a human obligation to act to create sanctity on a coin. In the second stage, the coin can be exchanged, but the Kedusha must remain in the form of currency. In the third stage, the collector’s hand, it cannot be exchanged by default - unless stipulated explicitly as was described in Halacha 1 - except for the good of the poor, and even then it must remain in the form of currency.
The last line Rambam seems to clarify the entire Halacha.
Once the coin is specified, its Kedusha is set. The nature of this Kedusha defines the currency character of the donation and requires an exchange, i.e. a recognition of the sanctity as extant and needing to b transferred from the coin, not a mundane picking of another coin.
The hand of the collector does not change much except bring to the fore another element of the human relationship to money. We no longer hand out trust. The donor must be trusted because, after all, they didn’t need to make the commitment in the first place. The donor has proven themmself to be capable of separating themselves from their coins. The collector? He’s a whole other story. We have no reason to do anything other than suspect fraud in due caution.
This is the meaning of the last line. They cannot begin doing anything even the simplest of transactions with themselves. Once the coin becomes malleable, there is nothing strong enough to brake the slippery slope of fraud and laundering. Therefore exchanging the coin is forbidden entirely except when done for the benefit of the poor. Yet, even when he seems to be acting altruisticly we remain cautious and allow trade only with third parties, not between him and himself.
Rambam once more flashes his inimitable ingenuity as he designs Halacha 4 to become a beautiful follow up to Halacha 3. He allows us to discuss in further detail the nature of the sanctity that rests on the coin itself in addition to noticing more and more about the human condition vis-a-vis its volatile relationship to money.
It is the following Halacha, however, that will truly begin to delve into this mysterious Kedusha.