Page 84 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

82 · Hilchot Avoda Zara Ii Tzurba M’Rabanan

non-Jew who accepts the seven Noachide laws). consideration of prolonging the exile. However,
We are only concerned about receiving charity for a poor person who himself benefits directly
from idolaters, but not from a ben Noach. How from the charity – it would be permitted to receive
does this relate to the two halachot quoted pre- the money if given in private.
viously in the Rambam? Perhaps when the Ram- This answer seems to be very problematic.
bam here prohibited receiving charity from Just because one is poor and derives direct ben-
idolaters, (and made no distinction between in efit, does this legitimize transgressing a sin? This
public and in private), he relied on what he said question on the Derisha was posed by Rav David
previously where he highlighted the distinction HaLevi Segal, in his commentary Turei Zahav
13
(see, for example, Mishneh L’melech ). If so we (known as the Taz) on the Shulchan Aruch.
15
can summarize the Rambam’s opinion as follows: The Taz makes his own distinction as follows:
There is only a prohibition when receiving char- The Gemara in Bava Batra completely prohibits
ity in public. This is possibly based on the chillul receiving such charity, since the money was spe-
Hashem element mentioned by Rashi. Further- cifically given for Jews only. This is considered
more, someone who does so becomes invalid to a great merit for the giver, and therefore would
testify. However, this applies only if the non-Jew indeed prolong the exile. However, if the chari-
is an idolater, but if he is a ben Noach, there is no ty is given to all in need, both Jew and non-Jew
problem at all. According to the Rambam, per- alike, it would be permitted to receive the money
haps there is a third definition of chillul Hashem – in private. The Taz opines that this is indeed the
strengthening idolatry and its worship is a more scenario referred to by the Gemara in Sanhedrin. 16
general type of chillul Hashem that one has to dis- Rav Yaakov Etlinger, in his Responsa Binyan
tance oneself from. This is in line with the notion Tzion draws a different distinction. He distin-
17
of lo maalin vlo moridin… 14 guishes between two types of charity: 1) One
Suggested Answers By the Acharonim to who gives in response to being asked – this level
is called chessed. This is not as great as the second
the Seeming Contradiction Between the level, as there is self-interest involved, for one
18
Gemarot
feels guilty not to give when one’s compassion
The Derisha answers the seeming contradiction is stirred. 2) A higher level of giving is not in re-
between the Gemarot as follows: The Gemara in sponse to any request. Rather, one realizes that
Bava Batra, which prohibited receiving charity Hashem has bestowed one with material wealth
outright, is discussing a scenario where the poor that doesn’t truly belong to him. Hashem is using
are not receiving the money directly from the non- him to divide this bounty, and the person is mere-
Jews, rather the money is first given to Jewish com- ly a conduit to distribute Hashem’s money. When
munal leaders acting as intermediaries, who are one is cognizant of this and gives charity in this
in charge of distributing funds to the poor. Since manner it is called tzedaka.
the intermediaries do not benefit from the chari- According to the Binyan Tzion, the Gema-
ty themselves, they have to be concerned with the ra in Bava Batra is dealing with this higher level

13. Mishneh L’melech, ibid.
14. Masechet Avoda Zara 26a
15. Taz, Y.D. 254:2
16. Cf. Rishon Letzion, who challenges the Taz’s assumption.
17. Responsa Binyan Tzion, Siman 63
18. Cf. Maharsha, Bava Batra 10b, s.v. Lefi

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