Page 83 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ ׳ב הרז הדובע תוכלה · 81

But even if this analysis is correct, although discrete manner that the king should not hear.”
the Gemara in Sanhedrin, focuses on one specific Here, the Rambam states that there is a prohi-
type of chillul Hashem, which may have a limit- bition, and not just a character flaw for testimo-
ed prohibition; nevertheless surely there is also a ny. The first part of the halacha states explicitly
that the prohibition is only when done in public.
de facto result (which is stressed in Bava Batra). However, the Rambam states categorically that
Why then is there no all-encompassing prohibi- when the king sends it, we can’t receive it as char-
tion? We could answer this question on Rashi if ity (rather it must be given to non-Jewish poor).
we were to adopt the explanation of the Shenot The simplest answer seems to be either that the
Chayim as we will elaborate later on. Rambam understood that if something is sent by
a king, by definition it is already done in public,
The Opinion of the Rambam or that there is a unique prohibition of accepting
The Rambam mentions this halacha of receiv- charity from the ruler. This could be explained
ing charity from gentiles in three different plac- similar to how Rashi understood the two ele-
es in his Mishneh Torah, each time with slight ments of chillul Hashem.
nuances. Through these sources we will try and If so, one could argue that the Rambam held
understand how the Rambam understood the the exact opposite of the Derisha. Whereas the
two Gemarot. Derisha held that the Gemara in Bava Batra gave
9
The Rambam in Hilchot Edut lists certain an outright prohibition, and the Gemara in San-
people who are invalid to testify miderabanan, as hedrin limited the prohibition to when it is done
they have no shame, and we assume they will not in public; the Rambam understood that there is
be concerned to lie in court either. In this list, he only a prohibition to receive charity in public.
mentions people who receive money from gen- The Gemara in Bava Batra was referring to a pub-
tiles in public. From this source alone one could lic event such as where the money was sent by the
understand that there is no prohibition per se to king’s mother, or held that there is a unique pro-
receive charity from gentiles; rather, it merely il- hibition when receiving charity from the king.
11
lustrates a certain type of character whom we do But in Hilchot Melachim the Rambam makes
not trust to give testimony. a distinction not mentioned until now. “A ben
However, the Rambam in Hilchot Matanot Noach who wants to do a mitzva of the rest of the
mitzvot of the Torah (i.e., other than the seven
Aniyim states explicitly: “It is prohibited to take Noachide laws)… we do not prevent them from
10
charity from the gentiles in public. But if one can- doing so; if he brought a burnt offering we accept
not survive with the charity from Jews and can- it, if he gave charity we accept it, and it seems to
not receive it from the gentiles in private, it is me that we give it to the poor Jews… but if a gen-
permitted. If a king or ruler of the gentiles sent tile [goy] gave charity we accept it and give it to
money to the Jews as charity, we don’t return the poor gentiles.” 12
money due to peace with the kingdom; rather The Rambam here makes a distinction be-
we receive it and give it to the gentile poor in a tween idol worshippers and a ben Noach (a

9. Rambam, Hilchot Edut 11:5
10. Rambam, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8:9
11. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 10:10
12. Even though here the Rambam didn’t mention that this applies only in a case of shlom malchut, the Lechem Mishneh explains that he relied on
what he wrote in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim.

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.