Tithing Money - Rabbi Shaul Silam shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast of Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Hello. We’re now going to begin a series of two classes on maaser kesafim—tithing one’s income. The first class is more theoretical, but it covers foundations that are very important for what follows. The second is more about practical halacha: what to give, whom to give it to, how to give it, and all of that. We’re now in the first class. Part one: Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Although we observe the Torah because it was given at Mount Sinai, it’s interesting that in various places in the teachings of our Sages, we find that Avraham Avinu, Yitzchak Avinu, and Yaakov Avinu all set aside maaser kesafim. We also know that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov observed the entire Torah, including rabbinic mitzvos and customs. But it’s interesting to see that there are even textual supports specifically for maaser kesafim. As for Avraham Avinu, right after the war of the kings in Parshas Lech Lecha, he gives a tithe to Malki-Tzedek, king of Shalem—the Jerusalem of today. “And he gave him a tenth of everything,” as the verse says. So that’s an indication that Avraham Avinu set aside a tithe of his wealth. As for Yitzchak Avinu, in Parshas Toldos, when he is in Gerar, it says, “Yitzchak sowed in that land and found in that year a hundredfold, and Hashem blessed him.” A hundredfold—he found a hundredfold. Our Sages say, as Rashi quotes, that this means a hundred times more than the land was expected to produce, based on the estimate they had made. And what was that estimate for? Why did they make one? Why did Yitzchak Avinu assess what the land was expected to produce? Rashi says it was to calculate the tithes. So that’s another indication, another textual support, that Yitzchak Avinu set aside maaser. As for Yaakov Avinu, in Parshas Vayeitzei, after his encounter with Hakadosh Boruch Hu there at Beis El—which is essentially Jerusalem, when he reached Beis El and the whole Land of Israel folded up into that place—Yaakov Avinu says

02:23 Speaker 2 at the end of the passage, “And of all that You give me, I will surely give a tenth to You.” He says he will set aside a tenth; that’s fairly clear. Even so, as we said, we don’t set aside maaser kesafim because Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov did. We do it for another reason, and that’s the second point I wanted to address: What is the source? Is it a Torah obligation? Is it a rabbinic mitzvah? Is it a custom? It’s very interesting to see just how varied the opinions are. Let’s begin with the view of Tosafos: that the obligation to set aside a tenth of one’s financial earnings is a Torah mitzvah. In Parshas Re’eh, there is a verse whose plain meaning concerns separating the tithes from produce: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed that comes forth from the field, year by year.” Tosafos, in Tractate Taanis 9a, focus on “all the produce of your seed.” Why does it say “all”? Citing the Sifrei, they say that “all” comes to include maaser kesafim as well—the income we earn. So according to Tosafos, as is also brought in the responsa of the Tashbetz, setting aside maaser kesafim is a Torah mitzvah. That’s the first view. Then there’s a view at the opposite extreme, that of the Bach, who says there is no such mitzvah at all—no obligation, neither from the Torah nor from the Rabbis, to set aside maaser kesafim. The Taz, who was the Bach’s son-in-law, challenges this. He says: But it’s an explicit Sifrei quoted by Tosafos! How can you disagree with it? The answer is very simple. In the Sifrei we have—yes, in the version quoted by Tosafos, there is this wording and this interpretation of “all the produce of your seed.” But in the Sifrei that the Bach had, and in our version too, this passage does not exist. That is how the Shevus Yaakov explains the Bach’s position. It’s true that Tosafos cite this source, but according to our version of the Sifrei, there is no such passage and therefore no such source or interpretation. That’s the Bach’s view. According to this view, although we see that people do set aside maaser kesafim, it’s only a custom. The Bach, too, acknowledges that it’s a custom. That’s the second view. And the view of the Alter Rebbe is interesting. Although we don’t have these halachos in the Alter Rebbe’s works, there is much we can learn from other places. In Toras Menachem—Hisvaaduyos, volume 34, page 272, for anyone who wants to look it up, the Rebbe draws an inference from the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah that the obligation to set aside maaser kesafim is rabbinic. Here is the Rebbe’s explanation in brief: If it were a Torah obligation, the money would be designated for the poor. They would acquire a right to it as soon as it was set aside, and it could not be used for other purposes. But in the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah, we see that there are other expenses—such as the cost of educating one’s older sons—that, under certain conditions, may be paid from maaser money. We’ll return to that point. So we see that, according to the Alter Rebbe, maaser money can be used for something other than the poor, and the Rebbe infers from this that the obligation is rabbinic. We thus have three views: the view of Tosafos in Taanis, that it is a Torah obligation; the Bach’s view, that it is only a custom; and the middle view, our view—the Alter Rebbe’s view. The Aruch Hashulchan also takes this position, writing explicitly in Yoreh De’ah, section 249, that the obligation to set aside maaser kesafim is rabbinic. The third thing, a very interesting subject worth addressing, is what happens if you don’t set it aside. We don’t want to frighten anyone here, but there are some very, very fascinating points.

04:32 Speaker 2 That doesn’t exist, and so the Shevus Yaakov uses this to answer the Bach. True, the Tosafists have that source, but according to our version of the Sifrei, there is no such thing, and therefore no source for that interpretation. That is the Bach’s position. According to this view, we do see that people observe the practice, but it is only a custom. It’s a custom. The Bach also recognizes that it is a custom. That’s the second position. And the Alter Rebbe’s position is interesting: although we don’t have these laws in the Alter Rebbe’s writings, there is a lot we can learn from other places. In Toras Menachem Hisvaaduyos, volume 34, page 272, for anyone who wants to look it up, the Rebbe draws an inference from the Alter Rebbe’s Laws of Torah Study: the obligation to set aside tithes from one’s money is rabbinic. That’s the Rebbe’s explanation in brief. If it were a Torah obligation, the money would be designated for the poor, and they would acquire a right to it as soon as it was set aside; it could not be used for other purposes. But we see in the Alter Rebbe’s Laws of Torah Study that there are other things—such as the costs of educating one’s older sons—that, under certain conditions, may be paid from maaser funds. We’ll return to that point. So we see that, according to the Alter Rebbe, it is possible for the money not to go to the poor, and the Rebbe infers from this that the obligation is rabbinic. That leaves us with three positions: the position of the Tosafists in Taanis, that it is a Torah obligation; the Bach’s position, that it is only a custom; and the middle position, our position, that of the Alter Rebbe. The Aruch Hashulchan also takes this position, writing explicitly in Yoreh De’ah, section 249, that the obligation to set aside maaser from one’s money is rabbinic. The third point, a very interesting one worth addressing, is: what happens if you don’t set it aside? We don’t want to frighten anyone here, but there are things

06:45 Speaker 2 In that same Tosafos I mentioned, the one I quoted from Tractate Taanis, there’s a very interesting addition at the end. Tosafos cite Rabbi Nasan HaOfniel. His name isn’t very familiar, and he offers an interpretation there. We quoted the verse from the Torah, in Parshas Re’eh: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed that comes forth from the field, year by year.” So what is his interpretation? “Comes forth from the field” refers to what grows in the field. But Rabbi Nasan HaOfniel says: If you do not—if you do tithe “all the produce of your seed,” then we have the interpretation of “all,” right? Tosafos said it includes maaser kesafim. But what happens if you don’t set it aside? Then “what comes forth from the field, year by year” will go to the one who goes out to the field. Who is the one who goes out to the field? Eisav the wicked, who is “a man of the field.” So either you set it aside—this is certainly an interpretive teaching, right? It sounds like a sort of vort, but it’s in Tosafos—or, if you don’t set aside a tenth of “all the produce of your seed,” including maaser kesafim, then “what comes forth from the field” goes to the one who goes out to the field. In other words, idol worshippers, represented by Eisav the wicked, will take it. That’s the interpretation. Why did we bring this up? Because, in truth, it’s not only Tosafos. This point is discussed at much greater length in Tractate Bava Basra, and for some reason that passage isn’t well enough known, even though it’s on pages studied in yeshivos. On page 10a, there’s an account based on the well-known passage in Tractate Beitzah. Everyone knows that the Gemara says in Beitzah 17 that all of a person’s sustenance is allotted to him from Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur, except for his Shabbos expenses, Yom Tov expenses, and the cost of his children’s Torah education. Fine, that’s well known. Hakadosh Boruch Hu allots it at the beginning of

08:34 Speaker 2 What we will earn this year is fixed, and everything else—what we spend on Shabbos, on Yom Tov, and on our children’s Torah education—is in addition. If he spends more, Hakadosh Boruch Hu will add to what he receives; if he spends less, Hakadosh Boruch Hu will give him less. That is what the Gemara says there; it’s well known. But the Gemara in Bava Basra says this: just as a person’s sustenance is allotted to him from Rosh Hashanah—that familiar teaching—so too are his losses allotted to him from Rosh Hashanah. The same applies to losses. It isn’t only written how much I’ll earn; it’s also written how much I’ll lose, how much I’ll be short. So what does that mean? What counts as a person’s losses? Rather than introduce it, let’s tell the story there, and then we’ll learn something truly wonderful from it. The Gemara says that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai went to his sister’s sons and told them to give seven hundred dinars—a very large sum—to his institutions. Well, they scraped around in their drawers and gave him the money, but held back seventeen dinars. In other words, they gave him six hundred and eighty-three. Fine, that was what they gave. A few days later, representatives of the emperor came to their home and told them that, according to their calculations, they owed taxes. How much did they owe? Seventeen dinars. Wow, that was exactly what they had held back from Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. He had asked for seven hundred dinars, they had given him six hundred and eighty-three, and that evening tax collectors sent by the emperor came to ask them for seventeen dinars. They realized there was something behind it. They went to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and told him what had happened, and he said, “Yes, yes, that’s right.” They asked him, “How did you know?” They understood there was something to it, so

10:28 Speaker 2 he told them that he had dreamed they were going to lose seven hundred dinars, and he had preferred that the money go to tzedakah. They had given six hundred and eighty-three, so the remaining seventeen had to be made up. They asked him, “Why didn’t you tell us?” He said, “No, I wanted you to give it for the sake of Heaven.” Otherwise, that would be no great feat. What do we learn from this? Something truly remarkable, which unfortunately isn’t well enough known. We learn that all of a person’s losses—money we suddenly have to pay a tax collector, and I imagine this includes all sorts of unexpected expenses, a broken water heater, a burned-out car engine, and there’s no shortage of examples. I don’t want to tempt fate by suggesting more, but these things, too, are fixed at the beginning of the year. The point is that the total amount of losses set at the beginning of the year also includes tzedakah. If it was determined that a person would be out twenty thousand shekels this year, he has several possibilities: all twenty thousand could go toward losses and things breaking down, or he could give twenty thousand to tzedakah, or anything in between—fifteen thousand to tzedakah and five thousand to repairs, or fifteen thousand to repairs and five thousand to tzedakah. And this explains the Rambam’s words at the end of the laws of Shemitah: a person never becomes poor from giving tzedakah. In any case, that money would have gone out another way. So when you give tzedakah, you not only don’t become poor—the money was going to go out anyway. Beyond that, of course, there is all the blessing in “Tithe so that you may become wealthy,” and we’ll see a few more things. So a person truly loses nothing by giving tzedakah. This teaching, that a person’s sustenance is allotted to him on Rosh Hashanah—

12:32 Speaker 2 which is complemented by the teaching about his—sorry, his expenses being allotted to him on Rosh Hashanah—really is very, very important. That was the third point I wanted to touch on. The second part is: what may maaser money be used for? Is it only for the poor, or for other things as well? There is a Rema in Yoreh Deah, section 249, paragraph 1, who holds that maaser must be given only to the poor and nothing else. That is the Rema’s ruling. But here—though it really isn’t common for us not to follow the Rema—most of the later authorities, including the Shach, one of the leading later authorities, hold that maaser may be used for any mitzvah, unlike the Rema’s view. Someone is holding a siyum on the entire Shas at home and wants me to help with the meal, or there’s a seudas mitzvah at the shul that I want to contribute to, or an aliyah to the Torah—we’ll discuss that shortly. Maaser money may be used for any mitzvah, but I need to qualify that. What does “any mitzvah” mean? Any mitzvah that I am not personally obligated to do. Obviously, buying tefillin for myself, or for my son’s bar mitzvah, is something I am obligated to do. So a lulav, tefillin, and Shabbos candles are not things I would pay for with maaser money; I am obligated to provide those. But what is a mitzvah I’m not obligated to do? I have a friend who is genuinely in need. His son is having a bar mitzvah, and he can’t afford Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin. I have a sum of a few thousand shekels. Of course I can buy tefillin for his son, because I am not obligated to buy them for him. There is certainly a mitzvah to put on tefillin, but I am not responsible for

14:35 Speaker 2 his son’s tefillin. So I can certainly use maaser money to pay for my friend’s son’s tefillin. What do I mean by “certainly”? The Rema holds that maaser is only for the poor, right? Though here perhaps even the Rema would agree, because this person is poor; it’s like giving him money. But with another mitzvah—say I contribute to the shul for a seudas mitzvah on 9 Kislev, which has nothing to do with helping the poor—the Rema would say that I cannot use maaser money. That, however, is not how the halachah is ruled. In the end, I may contribute to that too, because it is not a mitzvah I am obligated to do. I am not obligated to give the shul money for a farbrengen on 9 Kislev. What about buying books with maaser money? The Shach and the Taz cite the Drishah as saying that one may. According to their view, one may certainly buy books—we’ll qualify this considerably in a moment—and mark them as available for public use. I have several bookshelves at home with books bought using maaser money, and I lend those books out. Today, most halachic authorities say you can’t do this, because books are more—back then, they really were expensive; today they’re cheaper. People aren’t going to come to your home to borrow a book, so it doesn’t quite work. Also, afterward those books cannot be passed on as an inheritance, because they don’t belong to me. So there’s this approach of buying books, which many people want to do, and there is also the Rebbe’s campaign for a home filled with books. Incidentally, let’s take this opportunity to mention that at one of the farbrengens, the Rebbe sets the upper standard for a home filled with books. The Rebbe says that as long as there are books that a Jew ought to have in his home and they aren’t there, he has not yet fully fulfilled the campaign for a home filled with books. That closes the aside. But

16:32 Speaker 2 One point that isn’t well enough known: a house full of books really means a house full of books. To return to the point, the bottom line is that you can’t just fill your home with books. Ultimately, that’s a bit of a loophole, and it’s really inappropriate. A person will stop giving money to tzedakah, fill his home with books, and there won’t exactly be people coming to borrow them. It doesn’t work. Of course, if I want to donate books to a beis midrash or a shul, I can use maaser money. That’s different. The books really aren’t with me; they aren’t mine. But as for anything that stays with me, despite the requirement cited in the name of the Shach and the Taz, today one cannot buy books with maaser money. That is how many poskim rule, and that would seem to be the bottom line. Can one use maaser money to buy an aliyah to the Torah or things like that? Yes, but this needs some qualification. Suppose I want an aliyah now—I haven’t had one in a while—and I bid one hundred, two hundred, three hundred. I bid three hundred, and afterward I say, “That’s a lot of money. Well, I can take it out of my maaser money. I have two thousand shekels to give; okay, that leaves eighteen hundred.” I can’t do that, because when I bid three hundred, I didn’t intend it to come from maaser money. I got carried away and didn’t think about it. Of course, if a person has established once and for all that it will always come from maaser money, that’s different. But if I hadn’t thought about it, I can’t take those three hundred shekels out of maaser money; they have to be in addition. If, however, before I make the donation, before I bid three hundred, I say to myself, “All right, I—

18:24 Speaker 2 but this is coming from maaser money,” then even if the bidding reaches two or three thousand for opening the aron kodesh on Yom Kippur, or for Maftir Yonah, or any of those things, yes, I can use maaser money if I want. There’s no problem with that. Some poskim nevertheless limit this when a person has an obligation. Say someone has a yahrzeit that week, so he wants to have maftir and buys it. Since, according to the custom, he has an obligation—at least according to that custom—it is like a mitzvah he is obligated to fulfill, like the tefillin we discussed. Even if it is less weighty and not a Torah commandment, it is still considered an obligation, so he cannot pay for it with maaser money. This is also brought in the poskim. Expenses for one’s sons and daughters: this is a very complicated issue. The Gemara holds that a child can work from age six, and therefore what I spend on the child can come from maaser money. That is not the halachah. Some poskim say that today the age is twelve for a girl and thirteen for a boy. Some say fifteen, some say eighteen, and some say that as long as they are unmarried, one cannot use maaser money—only for married children. What is generally fairly accepted is that, under the laws of the country—in most countries—a child under eighteen is in my care, and I have to provide for them. That is also why there are child benefits. In other words, that is how society is structured, even though the benefits are far less than the costs. In any case, it would seem that we should set the limit at eighteen. In other words,

20:27 Speaker 2 when counting expenses for one’s sons and daughters—I’m not talking now about their Torah education, which is a separate issue—the other expenses, food, clothing and travel for children under eighteen, would seemingly not be deducted from maaser money. Some poskim will say otherwise; there is quite a range of views here, so everyone should ask their own rabbi. But in the absence of specific guidance, eighteen seems a fairly reasonable cutoff. What about the costs of one’s sons’ Torah education? One can infer from the Alter Rebbe’s Hilchos Talmud Torah, more precisely from its first chapter, that someone who cannot afford the educational expenses of sons over thirteen may deduct them from maaser money. But there are discussions, differences of opinion, and many considerations here. I’ll tell you directly what it is advisable to do in practice, and I refer you here to Toras Menachem—Hisvaaduyos, volume 34, page 273. The Rebbe says something very practical, the kind of thing said at a farbrengen. The Rebbe says that since there are many opinions and disagreements about paying for one’s sons’ Torah education, rather than getting into a complicated debate over whether I can count those expenses as maaser when I cannot afford them, there is another approach. After all, Hakadosh Boruch Hu says, “Please test Me in this.” I can pay out of my own money and, in addition, give money to tzedakah, and I can put Hakadosh Boruch Hu to the test—and then I’ll receive the money back. That’s the idea. In other words, the Rebbe says that from the outset, we should not deduct the Torah education expenses of sons over thirteen from maaser money, even if we cannot afford them. But if someone wants to get that money back, fine: let him give money to tzedakah and put Hakadosh Boruch Hu to the test. We said in the previous class that the Rebbe says this

22:41 Speaker 2 is not merely permission to test Hakadosh Boruch Hu; it is a request. Hakadosh Boruch Hu asks us, “Please test Me in this.” And the Rebbe says more in that same farbrengen we cited in the previous class: one reason for the mitzvah of tzedakah is to see that tzedakah—and mitzvos in general—brings wealth. Therefore, it is a mitzvah, a great mitzvah, to give tzedakah and test Hakadosh Boruch Hu in this. That is what people should do, rather than get into this intricate debate about whether they can use maaser money for their sons’ Torah education. When anyone asks me about these slightly complicated questions, about how to count the expenses, this is what I answer: don’t pay for them with maaser money. Hakadosh Boruch Hu will repay you many times over. What about giving maaser money to one’s father and mother? This is very interesting. There is a Gemara in Kiddushin that defines honoring one’s parents and showing reverence for them. Reverence involves more of the things one must not do: not standing in a parent’s place, not sitting in a parent’s place, not contradicting their words. Honoring one’s parents means giving one’s father and mother food and drink, clothing them—yes, covering them, helping them out and helping them in. These are things one does. The Gemara asks: But whose money pays for this? The Gemara says that honoring one’s parents means giving my father and mother food and drink. Fine, but someone has to pay for the food. So who pays? The amoraim disagree. Rav Yehudah says it comes from the son’s money. Rav Nassan bar Oshaya says no, it comes from the father’s money. In other words, if he needs help shopping, I am indeed obligated to do the shopping, bring the food to him, and perhaps feed him if necessary. But if he has money, it comes from his money, not mine. What’s interesting is that in the Gemara—the Gemara there in Kiddushin—

24:42 Speaker 2 It remains with both opinions and no ruling, but most of the Rishonim rule that it comes from the father’s funds. That is also the ruling in Shulchan Aruch, siman 240, se’if 1: honoring one’s father and mother certainly includes feeding them if they need it, but they are fed from the father’s funds—using the father’s money. What happens if the father has no money? He is not well off and is really struggling, so the son needs to support his parents. In that case, when the father cannot afford it, the son is obligated to pay out of his own pocket to feed his father and mother, and the beis din can even compel him to do so. That is what the sources say. How much of that money can I count toward my maaser? Here it gets very interesting. The Rema says that if his father and mother really cannot afford it, he will have to pay from his own money. Now, can I pay for this with maaser money, with tzedakah money? The Rema says: “If he can afford it, a curse should come upon one who supports his father from his tzedakah money.” In other words, the structure is this: under the obligation to honor my father and mother, I must feed and provide drink for them if they need help. With whose money? The ruling is: the father’s money. If the father cannot afford it, I must pay. But does it really have to be from my own money, or can it come from tzedakah funds? If someone can afford it, it should come from his own money. That means he has already given his maaser and still has money left; he is not struggling. So he needs to pay this in addition. If he tries to be clever and count it as tzedakah, as maaser money, “a curse should come upon him,” says the Rema. So he certainly should not do that. But if he cannot afford it—if a person

26:50 Speaker 2 is really struggling, and the father is struggling too, apparently even more—then the son, out of the eight thousand shekels he earns, can barely manage to set aside eight hundred shekels for maaser. In that case, he can use some or all of those eight hundred shekels to feed his father and mother. If, as the poskim put it, “he cannot afford it,” there is no problem with that. The curse does not apply to someone who supports his father and mother from maaser funds when he cannot afford otherwise. But someone who can afford it certainly must not do so, as we said in the name of the Rema. Another question is whom to give to. We have just discussed one’s father and mother. There is a reason to give priority to those who toil in Torah study. This is brought in Ahavas Chesed and by several other poskim. Ideally, says the Chofetz Chaim, at least a substantial portion of the money—most of it, or half of it—should go to people who are poor and also study Torah. That way we fulfill two mitzvos together: supporting Torah study and giving tzedakah to the poor. Another point: the poor of Eretz Yisroel. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, siman 251, se’if 3, says that the poor of Eretz Yisroel take precedence. Even so, the later authorities cite the Chasam Sofer as saying that they do not take precedence over the poor of one’s own city. That is, if someone lives in New York and can give either to poor people in New York or to Eretz Yisroel, then if there is a poor person in his own city whom he could help, the poor of his city take precedence, even over the poor of Eretz Yisroel. But if the alternative is another city abroad—say, there is a poor person in Chicago, and he is deciding whether to give to him

28:59 Speaker 2 from his home in New York, or to a poor person he has found in Haifa—he should give priority to the poor person in Eretz Yisroel. That is the point. Beyond that, the Chasam Sofer writes that among the cities of Eretz Yisroel, the poor of Jerusalem take precedence over the poor of other cities. Another point: forgiving a poor person’s debt. Someone borrowed money from me through a gemach and owes me two thousand shekels. Can I forgive the debt? He has not paid me back for quite a while, and now I have two thousand shekels of maaser to give. Instead of giving out another two thousand shekels, can I settle it by telling that poor person, “You know what? Keep it. I’m giving it to you as maaser money,” and spare myself having to chase him for repayment? That is possible, but only if the money was not already lost to me. In other words, if the person is aggressive and tells me, “Listen, I’m not paying you back,” the money is lost. Or the person has millions, but he is about to go to prison and will not pay the money back. It is not that he does not want to; he is going to get into trouble and will not pay. That money is lost. I cannot pass my loss on to tzedakah, so I cannot do it in that case. But if the person really was likely to repay me—he probably would have, only it would take some time and be a bother for me—then I can settle the debt that way. That is the dividing line. There is another question: does a poor person need to set aside maaser from his money? This is interesting, because at first glance there is a contradiction between Shulchan Aruch in siman 248 and the Rema in siman 251. According to Shulchan Aruch in siman

30:47 Speaker 2 248, “even a poor person who is supported by tzedakah is obligated to give from what he receives.” That is what Shulchan Aruch writes. But the Rema in Yoreh De’ah, siman 251, writes that he is not obligated to give tzedakah until he has enough for his own livelihood. Apparently, someone who truly cannot afford it is not obligated. The Shach says that Shulchan Aruch and the Rema do not disagree. There are different levels of poverty. There is a poor person who can get by if he stretches himself; he must stretch himself and give. If he received five hundred shekels in tzedakah today, he will need to give fifty shekels, or a hundred shekels, from it. But if he cannot—he truly cannot, and has no way to do so—then the Rema says he is exempt. Incidentally, what about someone who cannot afford it now, though perhaps he will be able to in the future? There are several letters from the Rebbe with guidance on this. In some cases, the Rebbe apparently understood that the person was simply complaining: he actually could give, but felt he could not and was feeling a little too sorry for himself. The Rebbe then told him, “Since giving a fifth brings wealth, if you say you cannot manage when you give maaser, give twice as much, and you will see even more blessing.” So a person complains to the Rebbe that he cannot give maaser, and the Rebbe tells him, “Give twice as much.” Well, the Rebbe certainly saw that the person could afford it, and that is why he gave that advice. But there are other letters in which someone tells the Rebbe that he cannot manage to give maaser. I am not talking about a fifth now—just ten percent. The Rebbe says: Fine, give half of it now, five percent. Write down the other five percent, and pay it when you are able. There are

32:35 Speaker 2 even cases where the Rebbe tells someone to give maaser from the maaser—that is, one percent. If a person earns three thousand shekels, the Rebbe tells him to give thirty shekels, and to give the rest when Hashem grants him more means. So it really all depends on the circumstances. The next question is: who is considered poor and may receive tzedakah? Many people ask this. Someone says, “Listen, I have a son. Can I give him two thousand shekels?” If the son is married, then yes, we said that this is certainly possible. It can also be a friend, and there are many other cases. But people often ask how much of the help they give a son can really come from maaser funds. We have already seen that, according to all opinions, it is possible when the son is married. The question here, though, is different: what if the person is not actually poor? Who is considered poor? To whom can I give? A father certainly helps his son; he can give even a son who is not poor a gift. There is no problem with accepting a gift from one’s father. But when it comes to tzedakah, not everyone may receive tzedakah. Again, receiving something from one’s father is different, because it need not be tzedakah; it can be a gift. But if someone wants to help another Jew by giving him money, that person cannot accept it as tzedakah unless he is actually poor. So who may receive it? First of all, Chazal certainly teach us that accepting tzedakah should be a last resort. Someone who is genuinely entitled to receive tzedakah given his circumstances, but does not accept it, is promised by Hakadosh Boruch Hu that he will become wealthy. So certainly there is

34:23 Speaker 2 There’s the principle, “Make your Shabbos like a weekday rather than depend on others.” There are many teachings of Chazal like that, about not accepting charity. But here we’re talking about someone who is genuinely hard-pressed and has to accept charity. That’s exactly the point. In other words, someone who can’t make ends meet in a normal way. I’m not talking about someone who needs three thousand shekels because he wants to go to a hotel with his wife for a few days. That’s obviously completely out of the question. But a person who doesn’t have enough to get through the month—clothing, food, housing, a car if he genuinely needs one. Usually a car isn’t a luxury, though that also depends on the car. We’re not talking about a young couple who can take the bus. We’re talking about someone who needs a car. These are things that really count as basic needs, and each person should work out for himself, together with his mashpia, exactly what those needs are. So if I don’t earn enough to cover those expenses, then certainly I can accept charity. That’s the point: can you make ends meet or not? Maybe we’ll finish with one last point, something many people ask about. There are many shluchim who also have a source of income. A person works as a teacher but also does a great deal of outreach. Yet they don’t bring enough money into their institution to draw an additional salary for that work. So they ask how much they can offset against what they earn. A person teaches at a school and earns eight thousand shekels, and he also does a lot of outreach. If he could, he would pay himself for that work—he’s a shliach and has an institution of his own. He would

36:25 Speaker 2 issue himself a payslip and receive a certain amount. So if he can’t afford it—and this is what I was advised after consulting leading halachic authorities—the guidance I received was this: if he can’t afford it and he needs the money, he can offset it and use his maaser to pay himself for his work. In other words, of the eight thousand shekels he earns, he would have had to give eight hundred shekels. If he actually did work for which, had the money been available, he would have been paid more than eight hundred shekels, he can keep those eight hundred shekels for himself. It certainly isn’t desirable; this is only if he can’t afford it, if he has no other way to manage. It certainly isn’t desirable to make all these offsets and end up giving no money out at all. That isn’t desirable. But offsetting to some extent, if he can’t afford otherwise, is possible. The fourth topic is giving a chomesh, a fifth. It’s also very interesting to see how the subject appears in the sources. We’re used to the Rebbe instructing us to give a chomesh. But how did this develop? It’s interesting, because when it appears in Chazal, the whole discussion begins in Tractate Kesubos. There’s an enactment made in Usha: “One who gives generously should not give more than a fifth, lest he come to depend on others.” What’s interesting is that Chazal don’t phrase it as an obligation to give a fifth. Quite the opposite: it’s an upper limit. Don’t go over twenty percent, don’t give more than a fifth: “One who gives generously should not give more than a fifth, lest he come to depend on others.” Don’t give more than that. And that’s interesting, because nowhere in the Babylonian Talmud is there a source saying that one should give a fifth. The Beis Yosef emphasizes this point at the beginning of section 249 in Yoreh De’ah. But

38:39 Speaker 2 he says that in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Pe’ah, the matter is indeed stated explicitly. And even when the Babylonian Talmud says not to give more than a fifth, that does rather imply that giving a fifth is worthwhile and certainly desirable. So according to the Beis Yosef, there is such guidance: we can infer from the Babylonian Talmud that it’s desirable, and in the Jerusalem Talmud, in Tractate Pe’ah, it’s fairly clear that this is what one should do. That’s why, when the Shulchan Aruch rules on maaser kesafim and the laws of charity at the beginning of section 249, its author, Rabbi Yosef Karo, gives several levels. He says that giving a fifth of one’s assets is the optimal way to fulfill the mitzvah. Giving maaser, ten percent, is the intermediate measure, and giving less than that is stinginess. In other words, there are three approaches. There’s giving a fifth—that’s the optimal fulfillment of the mitzvah. There’s the intermediate measure, giving ten percent. And there’s the third level, stinginess. That certainly isn’t a recommendation; it’s mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch so we understand that it isn’t what we should do. There’s a fascinating book called Ahavas Chesed by the Chofetz Chaim, the author of the Mishnah Berurah. The book discusses acts of kindness, charity, and all these matters, and he says some truly wonderful things there. Regarding the fifth, the Chofetz Chaim says in Ahavas Chesed that he found in other works a connection between the fifth and the tithes of produce. Just as the Tosafists connect maaser kesafim with the tithe of produce—which is the only tithe explicitly stated in the Torah, as we said, in Parshas Re’eh—the Chofetz Chaim says: When the tithes of produce were taken, as they still are in Eretz Yisroel today, though today the obligation is rabbinic, there was the first tithe. After the first tithe, which we

40:55 Speaker 2 give to a Levi, there is the second tithe or the tithe for the poor, depending on the year: either the second tithe, which is eaten in holiness in Jerusalem, or the tithe for the poor, which is given to the poor. So there are two tithes, and two tithes come to a fifth. The Chofetz Chaim continues: Strictly speaking, that isn’t exact. If you start with a hundred, ten percent of that—the first tithe—is ten. That leaves ninety, and ten percent of ninety is nine. So it comes to nineteen percent, not exactly twenty. But, he says, that’s true only until you add terumah gedolah, which is one-fiftieth and is given to a kohen before anything else, before separating the first tithe. Then it comes to a little more than a fifth. There’s something really delightful here, because apart from the Chofetz Chaim, I haven’t seen anyone connect this practice—this good practice of giving a fifth, mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch—with those verses about the tithe of produce. That’s the Chofetz Chaim’s insight here: there is a connection, and the practice also recalls that tithe. And incidentally, though it’s less directly related, Ahavas Chesed brings another point there. Actually, it isn’t later on; it’s a little before the passage I was talking about. He quotes Chazal on the verse, “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed”—which we’ve already seen. “Tithe so that you may become wealthy.” But he continues and says, citing Midrash Tanchuma, that there are two interpretations. The Midrash Tanchuma asks: “You shall surely tithe”—why is the word repeated? “Tithe so that you may become wealthy.” In other words, we interpret the second use of “tithe” as an allusion to wealth. And there’s another interpretation in Midrash Tanchuma: “Tithe so that you will not suffer a loss.” “Tithe so that you may become wealthy”; “tithe so that you will not

42:52 Speaker 2 Be diminished. So the Chofetz Chaim asks there: “Just a second. If I give maaser so that I’ll become wealthy, surely that means I won’t be diminished. What’s the big novelty? If I’m promised that when I give maaser—maaser on my income—I’ll become wealthy, why add that I won’t be diminished? Obviously, if I become wealthy, I won’t lose out.” And his answer is wonderful. The Chofetz Chaim says there’s a passage in Tractate Sukkah, page 29b, listing things that can cause a person’s property to be lost. Among them is withholding a worker’s wages: someone has employees, workers, and doesn’t pay them on time. Or arrogance, for example—that’s one of the things. If we knew that about arrogance, we’d really be more careful and have more bittul. But it, too, can diminish a person’s livelihood. So the Chofetz Chaim says this: If a person gives maaser and doesn’t have those traits that cause him to lose his livelihood and fall into poverty, then yes, the promise “Give maaser so that you’ll become wealthy” is fulfilled. But if a person gives maaser while also being arrogant, withholding a worker’s wages, or doing other things that cause his assets to dwindle and him to become poor, then perhaps the mitzvah of maaser will indeed keep him from becoming poor, but he won’t become wealthy. In other words, the two will balance out. And that’s precisely the teaching: Give maaser so that you’ll become wealthy—if there are no obstacles alongside it in your behavior that would cause poverty. But if you do have those obstacles and you nevertheless give maaser,

44:59 Speaker 2 then the two will balance out, and at least you won’t be diminished. That’s what he says. An interesting point that we mentioned because it’s in the same book by the Chofetz Chaim. Wonderful insights. Let’s get back to the matter of giving a fifth. Before people learn about it, they’re really sure that giving a fifth was perhaps an innovation of the Rebbe’s or of the Alter Rebbe’s. But as we’ve seen, it certainly has a basis in the Jerusalem Talmud, and at least an allusion in the Babylonian Talmud, as the Beis Yosef says. And it appears in the Shulchan Aruch as an ideal way to fulfill the mitzvah. But it’s true that it also appears in Tanya. It appears in several places in Tanya: at the end of chapter 3 of Igeres Hateshuvah, and in section 10 of Igeres Hakodesh. There the Alter Rebbe says something that goes even further than giving a fifth. He says: It’s true that there’s a Talmudic passage stating that one who gives away his money should not give away more than a fifth. But when was that said? When a person doesn’t need to redeem himself from fasts and afflictions. You know, when, thank G-d, everything he does is according to the rules and he has nothing serious to rectify. But if he does have such things, giving tzedakah to redeem himself from fasts and afflictions is certainly no less important than healing the body. After all, if a person has already given twenty percent and now needs to go to a doctor and pay, G-d forbid, for surgery or other medical expenses—may we all be healthy—he certainly won’t forgo treatment just because he’s already given twenty percent to tzedakah. That has nothing to do with it. He’ll spend money to eat, to dress, to heal, and for everything else. And the Alter Rebbe says: It’s a kal vachomer, an a fortiori argument. If you spend beyond the twenty percent, the fifth you’ve already set aside, to heal the body, then surely you’ll also spend it to heal the soul. Therefore, this limit

47:15 Speaker 2 mentioned in the Talmud—that one who gives away his money should not give away more than a fifth—was said about people who don’t have much to rectify. But as for us, we can go beyond twenty percent without worrying. Just as an interesting aside, there’s a letter in the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh—I’ll give the source because it’s so wonderful, and in case anyone wants to pass it along: volume 16, page 14. A Jew asked the Rebbe, as we understand from the letter there: “What’s the Alter Rebbe’s source? After all, we have an explicit teaching of our Sages that one who gives away his money should not give away more than a fifth. How can the Alter Rebbe now develop an argument in Tanya to say that one may, and qualify that teaching as applying only to someone who has no need to redeem himself from fasts and afflictions? Where does this novel idea come from?” That’s what they ask the Rebbe there. And the Rebbe says that it’s sound reasoning. “Plain logic,” the Rebbe says, “is the most valid source.” In other words, it’s a reasoned argument—and not just anyone’s argument, but the Alter Rebbe’s. So that’s the source. If you ask where the source is, the Alter Rebbe is the source. The Alter Rebbe doesn’t need a source for a kal vachomer. A kal vachomer isn’t something that has to be received by tradition from Moshe Rabbeinu. Anyone can make a kal vachomer; it’s one of the principles by which the Torah is interpreted, and one can make a kal vachomer without a tradition for that particular argument. Here it’s sound reasoning, plain logic, the Rebbe says, and that’s the source. Another point appears in Tanya, chapter 34 of Likkutei Amarim. It’s an interesting point about the blessing that giving a fifth brings—and certainly maaser does too, all the more so when one gives a fifth. I’ll read the Alter Rebbe’s words: “And although he gives

49:20 Speaker 2 only a fifth”—a person received the full amount, say eight thousand shekels, and now he’s given a fifth, sixteen hundred. What happens to the rest of the money? Where’s the blessing? True, there’s a blessing in the sixteen hundred he sets aside, but who promises a blessing in the sixty-four hundred shekels he has left? So the Alter Rebbe says, “And although he gives only a fifth, that fifth elevates the other four parts with it to Hashem.” After he sets aside that portion, all his money has a certain holiness. So there’s certainly a blessing in the money from which he set aside maaser on his income. The Rebbe also says in Igros Kodesh, volume 18, page 222, that the teaching “Give maaser so that you’ll become wealthy” retains its plain meaning. It means exactly what it says. And the Rebbe adds, “As the portion given to tzedakah grows, so too will the wealth.” In other words, it’s proportional to what you set aside. The more I set aside, the wealthier I’ll become. It’s simply win-win. I benefit, and Hakadosh Boruch Hu, the source of all life, gives us many times more. So there’s only something to gain in this. The Rebbe brings another very interesting point in Likkutei Sichos, the first volume, at the end of Parshas Terumah. He relates that the Baal Shem Tov would give more than a fifth. He would give away his money. So they asked him, “Doesn’t it say that one who gives away his money should not give away more than a fifth?” And the Baal Shem Tov answered as follows. He says—the word “gives away” lends itself to another interpretation, and it’s a delightful one. The Baal Shem Tov says that the Hebrew word for “one who gives away” is related to the word for “spoils.” And spoils are associated with war. So this whole saying has another meaning. In other words, we have what the Alter

51:33 Speaker 2 The Alter Rebbe will later speak, after the Baal Shem Tov, about the possibility of giving more, based on the kal vachomer we mentioned. But before that, the Baal Shem Tov had already said something entirely different. He says that the statement “One who gives away his money should not give away more than a fifth” applies when giving feels like a struggle—a battle a person has to fight in order to part with the money. A person can be so attached to his money that when he gives it away, he feels as though he is giving away a part of himself. So that is a struggle, a battle, and there the limit really is a fifth. But the Baal Shem Tov says: After giving my twenty percent, if I wanted to use my money to buy all sorts of pleasures, I certainly could, right? Good food—fine, that is enjoyable. There is no prohibition against it. But if my pleasure is giving away my money, then it is not a struggle or a battle. In a battle, I cannot fight with more than twenty percent of my money; I have to stop. But for me it is not a battle, not a struggle. Giving money to tzedakah is my delight. So I can go beyond the twenty percent when giving is a pleasure—a kal vachomer from worldly pleasures, on which I may spend my money too. It is very interesting: We have the Baal Shem Tov’s kal vachomer and the Alter Rebbe’s kal vachomer. The Baal Shem Tov says you may go beyond twenty percent just as you would spend money on pleasures; all the more so may you give money to tzedakah. The Alter Rebbe says you may go beyond twenty percent just as you would spend money to save your life, going to a doctor and spending

53:20 Speaker 2 the money to heal your body—sorry, your body. You would pay the doctor, so to redeem your soul you certainly may give the money too. Those are the two ideas. That concludes the fourth part, concerning the fifth. The fifth and final part of the first lesson is the idea of testing Hakadosh Boruch Hu through tzedakah. It is a very interesting point, and the Rebbe offers a tremendous insight here. The Gemara in Tractate Taanis relates an interesting story. Earlier we brought a story from Bava Basra about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai; here it is about Rabbi Yochanan. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was a Tanna, from the early Tannaim, while Rabbi Yochanan was an Amora. He compiled the Jerusalem Talmud. Rabbi Yochanan meets his nephew, a young boy, and says to him, “Tell me your verse.” What did you learn? “Tell me your verse,” as the Gemara in Taanis puts it. What did you learn today? Did you learn Torah? The little boy says, “You shall surely tithe.” I learned the verse “You shall surely tithe”—the one we saw: “You shall surely tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field, year by year.” And then, as Rashi explains, the boy asks Rabbi Yochanan: What does “You shall surely tithe” mean? What does this verse I’m telling you, Uncle, really mean? Rabbi Yochanan apparently understood that this young child was perceptive enough that he was not asking about the plain meaning, which he certainly understood. So Rabbi Yochanan gives him the interpretation: “Tithe so that you will become wealthy.” The words “You shall surely tithe” are repeated, allowing us to interpret them as “Tithe so that you will become wealthy.” The boy asks him—he was a stubborn boy, not accepting everything from his uncle, a leading sage of the generation—

55:39 Speaker 2 “How do you know? Where does this interpretation come from?” In other words, how do you know it works? That is the meaning there. So Rabbi Yochanan says, “Try it and see. Give money to tzedakah and you’ll see that you become wealthy. Tithe and become wealthy.” The little boy says, “But it says in Parshas Vaeschanan, ‘You shall not test’ Hashem.” It is forbidden to test Hakadosh Boruch Hu. So you’re telling me there is a verse from which we learn that I should tithe in order to become wealthy. I ask you how you know, and you tell me to try it. But the Torah says you may not test Hashem. Rabbi Yochanan answers in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The prohibition against testing Hakadosh Boruch Hu applies to everything except tzedakah. And how do I know that with tzedakah I may test Hakadosh Boruch Hu? Rabbi Yochanan cites, in the name of Rabbi Oshaya, a verse from Malachi. As is known, Malachi is Ezra. Here Malachi is speaking about the return to Jerusalem and the building of the Second Beis Hamikdash, which was built through Ezra—again, according to Chazal, Malachi is Ezra. There is a verse in chapter 3 of Malachi where the prophet says: “Bring the entire tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now with this, says Hashem of Hosts: Will I not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out blessing for you beyond measure?” We certainly know “I will pour out blessing for you beyond measure”—there is a well-known niggun with those words. But what is the context? The prophet Malachi says in the name of Hakadosh Boruch Hu: Bring the tithe. In its plain meaning there, this is the tithe of produce, which, as we said, is what the Tanach is discussing. There are also those who hold, as we saw, that the obligation to tithe money is written there, but that is still an interpretation, as the Tosafists explain. So

57:36 Speaker 2 the prophet says there: Bring your tithe into the storehouse, “and test Me now with this.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu says: You may test Me to see whether, when you do this, I open for you the windows of heaven and bring you blessing beyond measure. That is what it says. So from this Gemara we learn that one may indeed test Hakadosh Boruch Hu, as Rabbi Yochanan told his nephew. The halachic authorities disagree, though, about whether this permission to test Hakadosh Boruch Hu applies only to the tithe of produce, as is the plain meaning in Malachi—the view of the She’elas Yaavetz, the Shelah, and several other authorities—or whether it also applies to tithing money. The Rema states explicitly that it applies to tithing money as well, in Yoreh Deah 247:4. The Chofetz Chaim rules that way too, and so does the Rebbe. So in practical halachah, despite this dispute among the great later authorities, the bottom line is that one may—and we’ll see that it is more than just “may,” but for now, one may—test Hakadosh Boruch Hu when tithing money. When I give my monetary tithe, I can give it with the intention of testing Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Yes, Hakadosh Boruch Hu, I am giving this and testing You: Let’s see whether it really brings the blessing You spoke of when You said, “I will pour out blessing for you beyond measure.” Let’s see that blessing beyond measure. It sounds quite brazen. It sounds brazen, but that is the idea. And here perhaps I’ll pause to tell you that this happened to me personally—not just once. I did this three or four times over the past thirty years, and every time there really was an open miracle.

59:48 Speaker 2 So you could ask: Why not do it more often? Simply because I didn’t know enough. Later we’ll see exactly what the Rebbe says about it. But I will tell you one story. Many years ago, a little less than thirty years, I was a young married student learning in the beis midrash at Yeshivas Beis El in the Shomron. Our finances were very tight. As they say, the money ran out before the month did, and halfway through the month we found ourselves with twenty shekels. I had a twenty-shekel note in my pocket that day, and we still had perhaps ten days to get through. Then a man collecting donations came into the beis midrash. True, twenty shekels isn’t much, but back then, to me, it was like five hundred shekels today. This Jewish man was collecting money to help a bride get married. So I said to myself: This is it. I had probably learned shortly before that one could test Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so I thought, here’s the opportunity. I gave him the note and, probably quietly or in my thoughts, said to Hakadosh Boruch Hu: Well, I’m testing You with this. Here are twenty shekels I’m giving now to help a bride get married. Let’s see. You say it’s permissible to test You, so I can test You. To tell the truth, I remember that at the time I knew the later authorities disagreed about whether it was permissible. As we said, some hold that it applies only to produce, and I probably didn’t know the bottom line—that according to the Rema, the Chofetz Chaim, and the Rebbe, it applies to tithing money too. I think I made a kind of stipulation at the time: Hakadosh Boruch Hu, if I’m allowed to test You, then I’m testing You. I think that’s what I did. Well, whatever would happen. I gave the twenty shekels, and that was that. We now had about ten days to get through.

1:01:56 Speaker 2 With no money at all. Well, at the time I was teaching physics for the matriculation exams at a girls’ school in Beit Meir. There was no internet then to check where we stood with our bank account. Only when I traveled to Jerusalem would I stop by the Mizrahi Bank branch in Givat Shaul, print out a statement, and see where we stood. That’s what I did that day. One day a week I taught there from morning until evening, and beforehand I stopped at the bank to get a statement. It was two days after that donation of twenty shekels, and there I saw a line from the National Insurance Institute: 1,620 shekels had come in. I didn’t know where it was from. I thought, we had no children, or perhaps one little girl. It certainly wasn’t what you get for children; it came nowhere near that amount. It was a huge sum. 1,620 shekels was a huge sum back then. And I also saw a little wink in it: 1,600 is eighty times twenty, and I’m giving you your twenty back too. That’s how I understood it. But still, there could have been a mistake. Wonderful, we had received 1,620 shekels, but perhaps we would have to return it, so I wasn’t entirely at ease. A few days went by, perhaps a week, and I received a letter that I wish everyone would receive. Sadly, ever since then I keep looking in the mailbox for another letter like it and never find one. It was a letter from the National Insurance Institute—so believe me, this happens too. It said, “We checked and saw that we made a mistake over the past few years. You paid too much in National Insurance contributions, and you are owed a refund of 1,620 shekels.” It was simply an open miracle. I had proof

1:04:13 Speaker 2 that you can. What do I mean, “you can”? That it works, it works. Not that I was—not that we needed it. Yes, Rabbi Yochanan says there, “But this happened to me personally.” What’s interesting, though, goes further than that. The Rebbe says something more. Look in Likkutei Sichos, volume 5, Parshas Lech Lecha, at the end of the second sicha. The Rebbe says something there that I’ll read, because it’s simply remarkable. What we’ve learned until now is that one may even test Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Right? It’s permitted. With tzedakah, one may test Hakadosh Boruch Hu. But what the Rebbe says there goes much further. I’m reading an actual quote. The Rebbe says: “Regarding the mitzvah of tithing, it is said, ‘Tithe so that you will become wealthy.’ The purpose of giving a tithe is to demonstrate that a mitzvah brings wealth.” In other words, the whole point of giving a tithe is to see that mitzvos bring wealth—not only the mitzvah of tzedakah, but mitzvos. That is why you can test Hakadosh Boruch Hu, as the Rebbe continues: “And Hakadosh Boruch Hu asks.” It isn’t as we understood until now, that Hakadosh Boruch Hu gives us the option of testing Him. When we learn the Gemara in Taanis, there’s that young boy, Rabbi Yochanan’s nephew, who says, “What? May you test Hashem? Isn’t that forbidden by the Torah?” And from Rabbi Yochanan’s answer, we understand that no, in this case it’s permitted. But so far we understand only that it’s permitted. That’s also what seems to follow from the Rema and the halachic authorities we quoted. In general, not all the authorities apply this to money; some apply it only to produce. But they discuss it as a permission. Here, though, the Rebbe adds something new: Hakadosh Boruch Hu asks, “Please test Me in this.” Despite the prohibition against testing Hashem, the Rebbe says, because with the mitzvah of tithing,

1:06:21 Speaker 2 the purpose is to demonstrate the wealth one gains through a mitzvah. That’s what the Rebbe writes. It’s simply remarkable and needs to be shared: not only is it permitted to test Hakadosh Boruch Hu in this matter, but there is also a mitzvah to test Him. So I truly invite everyone to give maaser kesafim, and even chomesh, a fifth, as is explicitly stated in the Shulchan Aruch. More than a fifth—to give even more. Yes, that is what they learned from the Baal Shem Tov. That is what they learned from the Alter Rebbe: that this is possible, and, moreover, that one can test Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And that way, with Hashem’s help, we become wealthy. Setting aside maaser kesafim. Second lesson. We’ll spend just three or four minutes reviewing at least the main points of the first lesson. First point: We saw that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov—all three, in different verses in Parshas Lech Lecha, Parshas Toldos, and Parshas Vayeitzei—are all alluded to, and perhaps more than merely alluded to, as having set aside maaser kesafim. Certainly they observed the entire Torah, but this matter of maaser kesafim is even alluded to in the verses. Second: We saw three views on maaser kesafim. According to the Tosafists, it is a Torah obligation. At the other end is the Bach’s view that there is no such obligation; at most, it is a custom. And the view of the Alter Rebbe, also based on the Shulchan Aruch, is that it is a rabbinic mitzvah. That was the second part. In the third part, we learned that just as a person’s sustenance is allotted to him from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur, his losses are also fixed and allotted to him from the beginning of the year. Those losses include everything I’ll lose through taxes and things like that, as well as tzedakah. So the more tzedakah I give, the less I’ll lose elsewhere. That’s the point: I have only to gain from tzedakah. That was the third part, which we discussed at length. The fifth part—uh, the fourth—we saw

1:08:36 Speaker 2 the whole subject of giving a fifth. Where do we learn about giving a fifth? What is ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, and what does Chassidus say about it? What does the Chofetz Chaim say about giving a fifth, and the importance of doing so? The fifth part was about the permission—and we added, in the Rebbe’s name, the mitzvah and Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s request that we test Him by giving tzedakah. “Please test Me in this,” it says in the book of Malachi. We saw how important this is and how well it works. Now we’ll turn more to practical halachah: how to calculate maaser, to whom it may be given, and so on. The first part is what income maaser kesafim must be set aside from, and also a little about how to calculate the amounts. First, we certainly give maaser kesafim from our salary. When I say maaser kesafim, I mean either a tenth, for someone who gives the intermediate amount mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, or a fifth, for someone who gives a fifth, which the Shulchan Aruch describes as the preferred way to fulfill the mitzvah—and which, it seems, the Rebbe asks us to give. So how do we calculate it? That isn’t difficult. It’s certainly not based on gross salary but on net salary. Say a person earns 10,000 shekels, of which about 1,500 goes to taxes and National Insurance. His actual income is only 8,500 shekels, and from that he gives either 850 or 1,700, depending on whether he gives a tenth or a fifth. That’s the point. There is a ruling by Rabbi Auerbach that says we may also deduct the municipal tax we pay. Municipal tax isn’t part of the salary calculation, but if a person pays another 400 shekels in municipal tax, he can deduct that from his income. In other words,

1:11:00 Speaker 2 According to what I said, someone who earned ten thousand shekels and had fifteen hundred deducted from his gross pay for various taxes and other things is left with eight hundred—eight thousand five hundred. If he pays four hundred shekels in municipal tax, it is as though he earned only eight thousand one hundred, and he calculates his maaser or chomesh from that. That is the approach according to Rabbi Auerbach’s ruling, and one can indeed do that. There is something we need to mention so that we know what not to do. There is a well-known collection of responsa called Avkas Rochel. It is attributed to Rabbi Yosef Karo, but some of the responsa in it apparently are not his. What I am about to say, according to some poskim, does not come from the author of the Shulchan Aruch. But the author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch also cites and rules according to the approach I am about to describe. I am mentioning it because this approach of Avkas Rochel and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch exists, but almost no poskim rule this way. Perhaps poskim who hold that there is no obligation in any case to give maaser, that it is only a custom, might say what I am about to say. But we said that this is not the Alter Rebbe’s position. Certainly, according to the Alter Rebbe, giving maaser is an obligation—a rabbinic obligation, but an obligation—so what I am about to say would certainly not be correct. Still, we need to know that this approach exists, because if someone shows you what I am about to quote from the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, it could unsettle us a little. The approach of Avkas Rochel and the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch is that, when calculating earnings, we deduct not only what I mentioned—taxes, National Insurance, and any other deductions that are allowed—but also all a person’s personal expenses, such as food and clothing. Those expenses

1:13:08 Speaker 2 are deducted too, and only then do we give maaser on what remains. According to this approach, nowadays a person might spend all his money on personal expenses and then not know how to make it through the month. If someone earns twelve thousand shekels and manages to put aside a thousand, that is truly a miracle. So according to this approach, if someone earns twelve thousand shekels but eleven thousand goes on taxes, food, and clothing, leaving him with only a thousand, he would have to give just a hundred shekels to tzedakah and no more. This approach is rejected by most poskim, and it is certainly not the Alter Rebbe’s approach. I’ll close that parenthesis. It is important to know that such an approach exists. Now, we give maaser on earnings from a salary, on earnings from work. A person receives a salary and gives maaser on it. But it is not just salary; it is almost everything we earn. A person makes a deal. He has a salaried job, but he also does business on the side, buying and selling. He must give maaser kesafim on whatever profit he makes, as the later authorities write. If someone trades on the stock market, he must give maaser kesafim on his stock-market profits too. Every few months he can look at what he gained and what he lost. Of course, they offset one another, and if he made a net profit, he must give maaser kesafim on that profit, or chomesh if he regularly gives chomesh. A person also rents out property. He has several houses; he lives in one, but he has

1:14:55 Speaker 2 another house, or two or three—may there be many more—that he rents out. He certainly deducts the expenses he has on those properties, but he must give maaser kesafim on what he earns from the rent. When someone sells a property, things are a little more complicated. I am not going to address the case of someone moving house who sells one property to buy another. That is a little more complicated; anyone in that situation should ask his rabbi. I mean someone who profits from real estate. He has his own home, but that is not what we are discussing. He also has a house that he bought for a million shekels ten years ago, and now he sells it for a million and a half. What exactly does he give maaser on? At first glance, he has made five hundred thousand shekels. But according to most poskim, you have to adjust that original million for inflation to see what it is worth today, and give maaser only on the real profit. So if the million he paid ten years ago is worth one million three hundred thousand today, after adjusting for inflation, he has earned only two hundred thousand. He bought it for a million, which in today’s money is one million three hundred thousand; he sold it for one million five hundred thousand, making a profit of two hundred thousand. He would give twenty thousand at the standard rate, or forty thousand if he gives chomesh. That is the calculation. Suppose someone finds money. Rabbeinu Yonah wrote several books, one of them Sefer Hayirah, and it says there that one gives maaser kesafim on money one finds, too. So a person finds a bundle of money. He needs to learn the laws of returning lost property: sometimes he must return it and sometimes he does not, depending on whether there is an identifying mark.

1:16:58 Speaker 2 It depends on how the money was found. But if he found a single banknote, an identifying mark does not help in that case. If he found a hundred-shekel note, he must give ten or twenty shekels to tzedakah. If a person receives an inheritance, the Alter Rebbe states explicitly in Seder Birchos Hanehenin, chapter 12, that he gives maaser on that too. But that refers to an inheritance of money. I am not talking about property right now. If he inherited a house, then when he sells it, that will be considered the point at which he receives the money, and he will give maaser. I mean money that he receives immediately as an inheritance. If he receives a million shekels, he must give a hundred thousand to tzedakah, or two hundred thousand if he gives chomesh. If someone receives a stipend, it is also brought in Shulchan Aruch Chaim, and there is a responsum from Rabbi Auerbach as well, that one gives maaser on that too. Then there is a tax refund a person receives for donations he made. A person donated to tzedakah and receives a tax refund. It is not that this tax refund itself has to go to tzedakah. At first glance, one might think that once he gets back part of what he gave, it appears he gave less than maaser. A person earned ten thousand shekels and gave a thousand shekels to tzedakah as maaser. He gets three hundred shekels back from the tax authorities. At first glance, you could say he was supposed to give a thousand but ended up giving only seven hundred, so perhaps he has to give the three hundred to tzedakah. The answer in the responsa of Minchas Yitzchak and several other collections of responsa is no: these are two separate things. He gave the thousand to tzedakah, and the tzedakah received the thousand. But now he has

1:18:52 Speaker 2 another kind of income. He does not have to give the entire three hundred to tzedakah, but he does have to give maaser on those three hundred shekels—thirty shekels. So although the thousand-shekel donation cost him seven hundred and thirty shekels in the end, it is still considered that he gave a full thousand. That is regarding a tax refund. So it turns out that we give maaser on almost everything: we mentioned salary, various profits, rental income, stock-market profits, found money, inheritances, stipends, and tax refunds. We give maaser kesafim on almost everything we earn, everything that comes in. There is, however, something on which we do not: gifts that are not cash. If it is a gift of money, maaser must be given on that too. But if a person receives a refrigerator, a car, or other objects, the custom is not to give maaser on them. There is another case similar to this one, where we need to distinguish between situations. It is common for parents to help young couples. A young couple now needs to buy a car, and it is not a luxury—they really need it—or a refrigerator. Their refrigerator broke, or a young couple has no refrigerator. Now, if the parents gave them a sum of money to buy the refrigerator, according to many poskim, even if it covers only part of the price and not the whole amount—some say that what I am about to say applies only if it covers the whole amount, but one can be lenient even if it covers only part—a person wants to buy a refrigerator for three thousand shekels, and the parents helped with fifteen hundred. But that money is for the refrigerator, so it is not considered that I received fifteen hundred shekels and have to give a hundred and fifty on it, or

1:20:53 Speaker 2 Three hundred shekels. That’s considered as though I received half a refrigerator, which is like receiving an item, because the money was given for a very specific purpose. So I won’t have to give maaser on it. That’s another important point. That concludes the first part: what we give maaser on.