The Rabbi’s Opinion on the Issue of Redemption of a Soul and the Obligation of Charity

Regarding "compelling charity", what is the difference in fact if in "compelling charity" (which is a legitimate thing) a rabbi or a court forces a person to give charity - isn't this a type of "redemption of the soul"?

Coercion of charity is a halakhic principle that already appears in the Gemara. It is not a rabbi or a posek, but a beit din, that is, the institutions of the community (like taxes in the state). The purpose of coercion is to help the poor and not to redeem the soul of the giver, no one forces someone to do something for their own sake. Search the Internet for coercion of charity and you will find a lot of material.

I don't know if it works or not, but this concept (in terms of its content) is not a new invention. The Bible is full of concepts of redeeming a person's soul from Sheol (or death in one of its names). The concept was that a person who is due to die for some reason belongs to Sheol and if they want to redeem him from it (like redeeming slaves from a master who sold them to him) they have to give another exchange in its place. Like “A brother cannot redeem…But God will redeem my soul from the hand of Sheol”. “I have redeemed my soul from death”. “In place of whom I have loved you..and I will give man in your place and nations in place of your soul“. And according to the Gemara Midrash (the story with Rabbi Akiva and his daughter) about "charity will save from death", then there is a type of charity (perhaps any charity) that can function as atonement for a soul.

Thank you Ailon. The question is, are there any rabbis today who are great enough to tell a person that if he gives x charity, his situation in y will improve (or even improve in general).

In my humble opinion, in the case of Rabbi Akiva's daughter, and also in the case of Mr. Ukba and his wife who entered the oven (if I'm not mistaken), there was no foreknowledge, but rather spontaneous salvation
that came as a result of giving true and correct charity.

Regarding the quotes from the Tanakh, they are not dealing with monetary redemption, right?

I don't know about great rabbis. The story of R’ Akiva was certainly not a case of redemption of a soul like here, but of one that occurred in retrospect. But the Gemara explicitly states that she was indeed destined to die, but that the charity she gave to the poor actually redeemed her from death (it also happened that day). In any case, our redemption of a soul can also be, as you say, "true and genuine giving of charity." It is written, "He who says, 'From this money to charity, so that my son may live (he will be healed), he is a complete righteous man.'" This is fine and is considered true charity (I will not go into why this is so, but it is indeed so), it is only important that he does not regret it even if his son does not live (he does not break the mitzvah, as the Poskim say. And the Holy One, the One who examines and examines the heart, knows this even before it happens). It is considered an investment that has value for the investment itself even without the immediate material return. That is, charity can be a fund that stands for life in this world and eats its fruits in the hereafter. But this is on the condition that there was spirituality here (this world. That is, that he saw value in fulfilling the mitzvah itself (and therefore did not regret it later). In such a situation, charity can indeed increase the chances of the son's healing)

In relation to the Bible, redemption in general can indeed be in money (the value of a person. At the end of Leviticus). But apparently Saul does not care about money and only wants souls. So the redemption there is a soul for a soul. A person for a person. And God, the Almighty, redeems the righteous with the soul of the wicked. (A righteous person is delivered from trouble and a wicked person comes in his place). This is the biblical thought on the matter.

By the way, just to be clear. The assumption is that these rabbis transfer the money to charity, which they distribute as they see fit. The idea is that you come to them so that they can pray to God for you (because you don't know how to pray for yourself) and you need to have some merit in order for Him to have mercy on you. Charity works as a kind of mercy in law. You have mercy on the poor and the righteous pray for you so that He will have mercy on you for this merit (and as measure for measure). The money is given to them because they know who can be given and who is a fraud and who should not be given to. Because "no charity is paid to God according to the kindness in it". And charity to fraudsters does not grant the rights of charity. Just as Jeremiah prayed for his enemies so that they would fail in giving charity to those who are not honest. (Babba Batra)

When I wrote that the Bible does not speak of redemption with money, I was of course referring to the mystical level (like the rabbis of our time who do “redemption of a soul”). The redemption of a slave is on the technical level (just like a transaction), and this is of course mentioned in the Bible, as you mentioned.

By the way, it seems to me that there are opinions that charity to ”fraudsters” is also considered charity.

Besides, it is sometimes really difficult to know whether the use of charity money on the receiving side was fraud or a legitimate use of charity money.

There is also a ransom for a life in money (usually the sacred): “If a ransom is laid upon him…and he shall give the redemption of his life according to all that is laid upon him”, “And let every man give the ransom of his life to the Lord’ in that he shall be judged, and there shall be no offence in them in that he shall be judged… to make atonement for your souls”…, ” Any thing that is condemned that is condemned by man shall not be redeemed, he shall be put to death”, “…and let no man be lacking from it. And let us offer the offering of the Lord; ’ to make atonement for our souls before the Lord’ “, “And you shall not take a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death ” ..

I think this explains the duality of the concept of ”haram”. One of its meanings is a kind of consecration (this is also the case in Arabic – something that is forbidden to be enjoyed) like the consecration of the spoils of the city of Jericho that Achan enjoyed, and the second is killing (not a soul will live. For the consecration will consecrate them..) The assumption was that it was forbidden to use prisoners of war (slavery) in wars in which the ’ was the main fighter (his spoils. Like the material spoils in Jericho) or the captives were wicked. Then they are a kind of consecration to ’ and killing them is like offering a sacrifice. In wars in which we were on the verge of destruction, it was as if we already belonged to death (the underworld), and therefore when we emerged from darkness (death) into the light, we had to give it to the wicked who wanted to kill us. (This explains the killing that took place on Purim, for example) and this is part of the explanation of the righteous being delivered from trouble, etc. There is also an explicit verse in Proverbs that says that the wicked is a ransom for the righteous: "A wicked person is a ransom for the righteous, and under the righteous a traitor is a traitor." This also explains the Toshish's sermon of "Anything that is forbidden by a person will not be redeemed," whose simple explanation is that it is a holy thing (actually a holy thing. It is a holy thing of a higher level. The equivalent of the holy things of an altar in things that are not pure animals) of a real person, as in the case of Jephthah's daughter. And the sermon says that these are people sentenced to death (four deaths in the Bible) who cannot give a ransom, as in the case of a murderer.