Despair without knowing it in poor gifts
Hello Rabbi,
In the Law of Gifts to the Poor, Halacha 10, Maimonides writes (apparently based on Paha 58 Mishnah 1) that gifts to the poor that were not requested are permitted for every person. Is this because of the lack of alms? If so, is it not the lack of alms unknowingly? Or is this a specific scriptural ruling that states that gifts to the poor become alms when they are not requested, so that they are not left for crows and bats?
First, it can be linked to the verse. Although, in simple terms, it seems that the lesson from the verse is only needed to teach that there is no obligation to give them to the poor (to seek the poor), since it says, “Leave them alone” (and do not give them). Therefore, it means that once it is renewed, there is no obligation to give, it is already a profligate and not from the renewal of the verse.
I saw in the Path of Faith that it was written that the poor near know and have probably despaired, and only in the poor far away is it despair without knowing. But it seems urgent to me.
It is more likely in my opinion that although gifts from the poor are from the wealth of the poor tribe, there is no real ownership here, only the right to take. In any case, a pauper is not required. Either because the owner is a pauper and now has no poor claimants, or because even if it is from the wealth of the poor tribe, there is no tangible ownership here (if only because there are many owners here and there is no defined head who should despair. They do not have a head of the tribe), and therefore despair without knowledge is enough to turn them into paupers. And this is of course also according to the law that despair without knowledge is not despair, with the wealth of the poor tribe, despair is.
I understand. Makes sense. Do you think it's reasonable even in a situation like today, when most of the poor probably don't even know that there is such a thing as poor gifts? After all, here there is apparently not even minimal "collective consent".
I think in a situation like that it's even more of a no-no. Of course it's appropriate to inform them, but if they don't even have a phone to take then it's really a no-no.
The Gemara Bava Metzia cites the case and says that this is not a case of despair without knowledge…
” T”S Since when is it permissible for a person to collect the spoils that he has thrown into it and to say that they are spoils? And Rabbi Yochanan, my grandfather, from that time, the Reish of Lakish, said to the Kuti, the son of the Kuti, and my mother, be careful not to despair, saying, "Because you are poor, here you are, from the beginning, despairing, and saying, 'The poor are those who have gathered for me.'"
This is exactly the source that Rabbi Kanievsky relies on. But as I wrote, it is unlikely in my opinion, at least for today.
Thank you very much.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
