The Welfare State: Is the Jewish Approach to Poverty Individual or Communal?

(1) Any city with a Jewish population must establish tz'dakah gabbaim, men who are known and reliable, who will go about among the people from one Friday to the next, taking from each what he ought to give and that which is fixed for him, and they distribute the money for the Friday-to-Friday period, giving to each poor person enough food for seven days, and this is what is called "kupah."
(2) And likewise they establish gabbaim who will take each day, from each courtyard, bread and foodstuffs, or fruit, or money from whoever donates at that time, and they distribute the collection in the evening among the poor people, giving from it to each poor person a day's sustenance, and this is what is called "tam'hui."
(3) We have never seen or heard of a Jewish community that does not have a kupah of tz'dakah, but as regards a tam'hui, some places have the practice of having one, and some places do not, and the general practice today is that the gabbaim of the kupah go about each day and distribute for the Friday-to-Friday period. [RF transl.]

(1) One who has food to suffice for two meals must not take any from the Tamhuy. One who has enough for fourteen meals must not take anything from the Kuphah. And if he has two hundred Zuz uninvested or fifty Zuz invested, he should receive no charity. But if he has two hundred Zuz minus one denar uninvested, he may accept charity, even if the sum of a thousand Zuz be given him at one time. [Isserles: One who leaves home and goes from town to town to collect the entire way that he planned to travel when he left home is assessed only once; even if they give him 200 zuz in one town, he may accept more, but from there on, he may not.] And if he has much money in his possession, but is indebted to others, or the money is the security of his wife's widowhood-endowment, he is entitled to charity. If one possesses a house and many household utensils but no two hundred Zuz, he may accept charity; and he does not have to sell his household goods, even if they be vessels of gold and silver. This applies only to eating and drinking utensils, articles of clothing, bedclothes and the like; but if he has a silver strigil or pestle, he should sell it and not depend on charity. Further, this law that he is not required to sell his gold and silver utensils applies only where he does not have to touch the public charity-fund but depends upon secret private assistance. But where he asks to be maintained out of the Kuphah, he should be refused until he sell the utensils.

RMI.—And so, in communities where it is a rule not to give charity to anyone having a definite capital, the dwelling and the necessary household utensils are not reckoned as "definite capital."

(2) Some authorities hold that the limits spoken of here, were meant only for their days, but that to-day one may depend on charity until he possesses a large enough principal to yield a sufficient income with which to support himself and family—and there is sound reason in this view.

(3) If a poor man possesses a piece of land which he would have to sell cheaply if he sold it in the winter time, but which he could sell at full value if he waited till the summer, then he is not obliged to sell at a loss: he should be maintained by the tithes-of-the-poor to the extent of half the value of the property, so that he should not be driven to sell out of season. (But some hold that he is to be supported until he is able to sell at half-price.) If others are buying at a high price, but he is unable to find a purchaser except at a low price, because he is occupied, he is not compelled to sell but may live on the tithes-of-the-poor until he can sell at a fair price; so that all may know that he is not pressed to sell.

(4) If, while journeying from place to place, one's funds give out, he may resort to charity, and on returning home he is not compelled to refund (for the law in this case is like that of a poor man who later grows rich,—he does not have to repay).

(5) If the poor of the city are many, and the wealthy say, "Let them go door to door," and the middle class say that they should not go door to door but that their sustenance rest on the community according to wealth, the law is with the middle class. .... [RF transl.]

(5) One who gives his money to the gabbaim for tz'dakah, neither he nor his heirs have any control over it; the community may do with it what is fit in the eyes of God and people. [Isserles: But before the money has reached the gabbai, if he vowed to give without specifying [an object], they give [the funds] to his poor relatives, since they estimate that his intent and purpose were for his relatives. And this applies specifically when he had poor relatives at the time he made the vow, but if they were rich and [subsequently] became impoverished, they [the gabbaim] don't give to them [the now-poor relatives]. And all of this applies only when one gives tz'dakah alone, but when gives along with the [other] residents of the city, he has pledged contingent on the intent of the [other] residents, and they may do what they wish. (All of this in the Mordechai, ch. 1 of B.Bat.; T'shuvah of MaHaRaM.)] [RF transl.]

Verily the name of that man is to be blessed, to wit Joshua ben Gamala, for but for him the Torah would have been forgotten from Israel. For at first if a child had a father, his father taught him, and if he had no father he did not learn at all. By what [verse of the Scripture] did they guide themselves? — By the verse, "And ye shall teach them to your children" (Deut. 11:19), laying the emphasis on the word 'ye'. They then made an ordinance that teachers of children should be appointed in Jerusalem. By what verse did they guide themselves? — By the verse, "For from Zion shall the Torah go forth." (Isa. 2:3). Even so, however, if a child had a father, the father would take him up to Jerusalem and have him taught there, and if not, he would not go up to learn there. They therefore ordained that teachers should be appointed In each prefecture, and that boys should enter school at the age of sixteen or seventeen. [They did so] and if the teacher punished them they used to rebel and leave the school. At length Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young children should be appointed in each district and each town. and that children should enter school at the age of six or seven. ...

(1) There is a positive mitzva on the man to teach his son Torah. And if his father has not taught him, he is obligated to teach himself. (...)

(2) If he [the father] needs to learn, and he has a son to teach, and his means do not suffice to provide for both, if they are equal [in ability], he takes precedence over his son, but if his sun is discerning and gains in knowledge from his study more than he does, his son takes precedence over him, but he [the father] should nevertheless not desist.

...

(7) We are to establish teachers of young children in every single city. And we excommunicate any city that lacks a teacher of young children. And if they [still] have not established [a teacher], we destroy the city, for the world is sustained solely by the breath of schoolchildren. (...) [RF transl.]

[To revert to] the above text: 'Whence do we know that if a man sees his neighbour drowning, mauled by beasts, or attacked by robbers, he is bound to save him? From the verse, "Thou shalt not stand by the blood of thy neighbour." (Lev. 19:16). But is it derived from this verse? Is it not rather from elsewhere? Viz., Whence do we know [that one must save his neighbour from] the loss of himself? From the verse, "And thou shalt restore him to himself!^" (Deut. 22:2) — From that verse I might think that it is only a personal obligation, but that he is not bound to take the trouble of hiring men [if he cannot deliver him himself]: therefore, this verse teaches that he must.

(1) If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him; (2) then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain. (3) And it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke. (4) And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which may neither be plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. (5) And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near—for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be. (6) And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley. (7) And they shall speak and say: ‘Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. (8) Forgive, O LORD, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Thy people Israel.’ And the blood shall be forgiven them. (9) So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD.

(6) The elders of that city wash their hands with water in the place where the heifer's neck was broken and they say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it” (Deuteronomy 21:7). But did we really think that the elders of the court are shedders of blood! Rather, he did not come to us and we dismissed him without supplying him with food and we did not see him and let him go without escort. Then the priests exclaim, “Absolve, O Lord, Your people Israel, whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among your people Israel” (vs. 8). They did not need to say, “And they will be absolved of bloodguilt” (ibid), rather the Holy Spirit announces to them, “When you act in this way, the blood is forgiven you.”