Click on any scan to see it larger.
This teshuva addresses the question covered in previous posts, whether one can pay tuition with maaser money.
Siman 27
To Rav Gershon Litch Rozenbaum, haLevi:
That which you (kevod Torato) have investigated for us in the matter which you were asked from a man who walks uprightly, who was accustomed for many years previous to separate maasar from all that he profited, and now his livelihood is not as profitable as it was before. And the aforementioned man raised all his sons on the Torah, and now the question comes if it is permitted for him to pay, from maaser money which he separates from this day all, the teacher of Torah of his son, who is now 15 years old. And you (kevod Torato) wrote at length about this, and wrote that you did not find a permit for this. Behold, here is not the place to write at length about this, and I write only that which appears to be true in my humble opinion, briefly, that there is no place to be stringent at all in this, and it is permitted ab initio {lechatchila} to pay the wages of the teacher from maaser money, since he {the questioner} is hard pressed at this time.
And behold, in Darkei Moshe, Yoreh Deah siman 249, he writes in the name of the Maharil, and this is his language: Those people who give their maaser for the lights of the synagogue are acting not in accordance with din, for the maaser is supposed to go to benefit paupers. And so it would seem in Beitza 20b. And so is it in Hagahot Shulchan Aruch in the aforementioned siman, that one should not use his maaser money for a matter of commandment {mitzvah}, etc., but rather should give it to papers.
However, the Derisha wrote in the name of Teshuvot haRav Menachem that any commandment which comes to his hand, such as to be a baal berit or to usher in a groom and bride to the wedding canopy, and so too to purchase sefarim to learn in them, if he does not have the ability on his own accord such that he would not otherwise do this commandment, he is able to purchase it from the maaser. End quote. And he also brings the Shach and the Taz there. And behold, certainly the Maharil and haRav Menachem argue on one another.
And the Baal Beer haGolah who writes that this that one should not do a commandment with maaser money, the explanation is that without this, he would still be obligated to do this commandment. However, if he wishes to do this commandment, which he is not obligated in, he is already permitted.
In She'elot uTeshuvot Chatam Sofer, he already argued on him, in siman 231, that the Maharil writes explicitly that the reason is that maaser is supposed to go to paupers, and how is he able to take lights for the synagogue from money of paupers? Even if he is not obligated to give them, how is he able to steal from paupers. See there.
And there, in siman 232, he argues as well on the Beer haGolah and writes that the Maharil maintains that the obligation of separating maaser of money is absolutely Biblical, and it is to the paupers, and the owners {current possessors} do not have anything in it except for tovat hanaah {that is, the choice of which pauper to give it to}.
However, those who differ, who the Shach brings, maintain that maaser or money is not comparable to maaser of the threshing floor, which is absolutely Biblical, but is rather from a derasha in the Sifrei -- "Aser Taaser" - from here that we separate maaser to those who engage in learning Torah. And not specifically those who engage in Torah but rather to any matter of commandment. See there.
And according to the opinion of the Chatam Sofer, that the Maharil and haRav Menachem argue about this, whether maaser of money is Biblical, and the Maharil maintains that it is absolutely Biblical and therefore one may not do a matter of commandment with this -- according to this, it appears to be the case that we do not establish like the Maharil in this. For the Acharonim have already reaches a consensus that maaser of money is not comparable to maaser ani {which is Biblical}. And the Bach, in siman 331 wrote that there is not in it an obligation, not Biblically nor Rabbinically. And so is written in the She'elot and Teshuvot of Penei Yehoshua, siman 2. And so is proven in clear proofs in Sheelot uTeshuvot Shevut Yaakov, siman 85 (?). See there.
And even according to the opinion of Rav Dovid Oppenheim, who asks on the aforementioned Bach in She'elot uTeshuvos Chavos Yair siman 224, even so, all that exceeds is only Rabbinic. And according to this, we do not establish like the Maharil.
However, I am confounding regarding the Gaon Chatam Sofer, who wrote that maaser of money is absolutely Biblical. For Maharil writes explicitly in She'elot uTeshuvot siman 54 -- this is his language: "However, maaser money which we take from the profit is only a minhag. Therefore he need not stipulate. Even so, since it has a support from Scriptures, etc." Behold that the Maharil maintains that it is only a minhag, except that it has a support from Scriptures. And from the language of the Maharil it is implied that there is not even a complete obligation on the Rabbinic level, but rather it is merely a support, and as the Bach writes, and as in the Teshuvor of Penei Yehoshua.
Rather, it is clear that the Maharil held that even though maaser of money is only a minhag, still it is supposed to go to paupers, and one should not use them for a matter of commandment, for we are already accustomed to give them to paupers.
And behold, this din which the Maharil wrote, I found explicitly in She'elot uTeshuvot Maharam MiRutenberg siman 75, and this is his language: maaser money it seems that after {/since} it is a chazaka to give them to paupers, one should not change them to another commandment, for it appears like robbing the paupers. For even though it is not Biblical but rather a minhag, the paupers have already acquired it {zachu} based on the minhag. For so does the entire Diaspora do, and one should not change from paupers to another commandment which the paupers have no need for. End quote.
Thus, the Maharam also holds that it is only a minhag, but still maintains that one should not change them to go towards another commandment, for all the Diaspora have conducted themselves so. And it is clean that this is also the opinion of the aforementioned Maharil. And the Chatam Sofer also contradicts his own words, in what he wrote there in his Teshuvot in siman 231, that also to the Maharil there is no absolute obligation.
In any case, since according to the words of the Maharil it explained, and also according to the Maharam miRutenberg, if so, it is clear that so we establish, and we cannot be lenient in this based on the words of haRav Menachem which the Derisha brought.
However, all of this is for other matters of commandment, such as lights for a synagogue and the like. But to pay wages for a teacher of Torah with his son, it is obvious that it is permitted according to all.
And behold, you (kevod Torato) wrote, and these are your words:
"And behold, in Shulchan Aruch siman 251 the Mechaber (=Rav Yosef Karo) ruled that one who gives his adult sons, whom he is not obligated in supporting, in order to teach the sons Torah, this is within the realm of charity. And this is learned from Ketubot 50a, which they darshen {from Tehillim 106:3}: "that do righteousness {=charity, tzedaka} at all times" -- this is one who supports his sons and daughters.So ends your (kevod Torato) language.
And according to this, according to what the Taz wrote in siman 249 plainly, and these are his words: "And would it arise in your thoughts that he is able to support his sons and daughters from maaser money, even though if it charity." See there.
And according to this, even for {children who are} adults, it is forbidden to give them from maaser money.
However, in my humble opinion, the Mechaber who selected in siman 251 his adult sons, it appears that he distinguishes between the adults and minors. And according to this, it is possible that for adults, to whom alone it is charity, it is permitted to give them from maaser money. However, it appears that since we force the father to support {לזון} his pauper son, even if he is an adult, if so even if it is charity, still it is a matter which is of obligation, and it only comes from the "unconsecrated" according to the opinion of the Maharil. And so we rule in siman 245, that the father is obligated to hire a teacher for his son who will teach him the entire written Torah. And even Mishnah and Gemara, the Shach writes in seif katan 6, that if it is possible, he is obligated to teach him. And perforce I have not found a permit to pay the wages of a teach from maaser money."
And behold, this write you wrote in the name of the Raz, that he wrote "And would it arise in your thoughts that he is able to support his sons and daughters from maaser money...," and that according to this, even for adults it is forbidden to give them from maaser money, it would appear that I am astounded upon him. For behold, these are the words of the Taz, "that behold also what a man supports his minor children, we say in perek naarah that it is within the realm of 'he does righteousness {/tzedaka, charity} at all times.' And would it arise in your thoughts that a man can expend his maaser money to support his minor children." End quote.
Behold that the Taz writes explicitly only that it is not possible {/allowed} for a man to expend his maaser to support his minor sons, but of the adult sons, he does not speak at all. And it is possible that for adult sons, the Taz admits that it is permitted to support them from maaser money.
However, after delving, his words are correct. For behold, the Taz is speaking about minor sons who are within the realm of "he does righteousness {/charity} at all times," and upon this he writes that he does not expend from maaser money to support them. And behold, the gemara that takes out this verse of "he does righteousness {/charity} at all times," that this is one who supports his children when they are minors, this is by minors who are older than 6 years old, whom he is not obligated to support, for the halacha is not like the enactment at Usha, and is elucidated in Ketubot there, that when less than 6 years old, he is obligated to support them as a legal requirement. And see Tosafot there that really young ones, according to all opinions, he is obligated. And to is the explanation of Rashi there "this is one who supports, etc." And this is charity which is not an obligation upon him in them. And so writes the Bet Yosef in siman 251, that the gemara is speaking about minors who are older than 6 years old.
And also, that which the Rambam and the Tur wrote, that one who gives to his "adult" sons and daughters to whom he has no obligation in their support, this is within the realm of charity, upon this writes the Bet Yosef: that that is to say that they are older than 6 years old, for if they are younger than 6 years old, he is obligated in their support, as is stated at the end of Perek Af Al Pi. And we say in perek naarah 'he does righteousness {/charity} at all times' -- this is one who supports his minor sons who are older than 6, that he is not obligated in their support, and when he sipports them, it is considered charity {/righteousness, tzedaka} to him. End quote.
Behold that all who are older than 6 are called "adults" {gedolim} who he is not obligated to support, and it is only in the realm of charity, and there is no difference between older than 6 to an actual adult, that all of this is within the realm of charity, as is understood from the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch.
However, even so, we force the father to support his pauper son, even if he is an adult. And this is like what the Rashba wrote, and so it is in Shulchan Aruch seif 4. And this is only within the law of charity, and we force regarding charity, and his son is first. And see in the Biur haGra there.
And even so, according to this, the Taz who wrote that by minors who are older than 6, one should not support them from maaser money, it appears that the same law would be so for adults who are paupers, for there is no distinction at all, for even minor, anyone older than 6, he is not required to support.
And according to this, the words of the Taz require great iyun {tzarich iyun gadol}. For behold, in the She'elot uTeshuvot Maharam MiRutenberg, siman 76, he writes explicitly, "and to distribute his maaser to his adult sons, with whom he is not obligated to deal, it is permitted, for even to his father, it is permitted to give, if he be a pauper, if not for the honor of his father."
And it appears that this which he {=Maharam MiRutenberg} wrote "his adult sons," these are the ones older than 6, anyone who he is not obligated in their support, and as the Rambam and Tur wrote, "one who gives to his 'adult' sons," and these are the ones older than 6, as the Bet Yosef and Shach wrote.
And therefore, it is permitted to give them from maaser money, since it is not an obligation upon him to support them, but rather from the realm of charity, and as we wrote above, and we do not force concerning this.
And behold, the proof of the Maharam is clear, for behold, even to his father he is permitted to give if he is a pauper, if not because of honor of his father, and his father is before his son, for he is not obligated in their support, as is clear in Shulchan Aruch siman 251. See there.
And this which is explained in Ketubot {49b} that if he is wealthy, we force him, this is based on the law of charity, and as Rashi explains, it is only charity. And therefore, it is permitted to support them from maaser money.
And so wrote the Maharil in her Teshuvot in siman 45, these are his words: And for this reason, by maaser of money which is Rabbinic, the Gadol haDor mahaRi Oppenheim permitted in a Teshuva to feed his mother and father, for if Biblical, curses should come upon him. And according to this, certainly his sons. And so it appears to me.
And now, the words of the Taz require great iyun {that is, they are difficult}. And according to this, also that which you {kevod Torato} wrote, that "since we force the father to support his pauper son, even if he is an adult, if so, even if it is charity, still it is a matter which is an obligation and does not come except from 'unconsecrated,' according to the opinion of the Maharil," this is greatly astounding, for the Maharam wrote explicitly that maaser money is only for paupers, and even so he holds that he is able to support his pauper sons. And also the Maharil holds that he is able to support his father from maaser money, even that we force him also from the realm of charity, and before his son, as written above. And this that the Maharil wrote that one should not give maaser for a matter of commandment, it is not because it is a matter of obligation. And in the Teshuvot of the Penei Yehoshua he already argued on him about this in siman 2, but rather, the Pnei Yehoshua wrote that maaser of money only a minhag. And see in Yad Shaul, siman 249. However, according to the words of the Pnei Yehoshua, it is clear in the Maharam and Maharil that it is only a minhag, and the reason is as the Maharam wrote, because they were already accustomed to give them to paupers, and as written above.
And after it has been made clear that it is permitted to support his sons who are older that 6 from maaser, and not like the Taz. If so, it is apparent that certainly it is permitted to give of maaser money for his 15 year old son's tuition. For he is not required to teach him via payment anything but Written Torah, and he is not obligated to teach him via payment Mishna and Gemara, and as was explained in Shulchan Aruch siman 245. And behold, to give maaser money to children of paupers to teach them Torah, it is plain that this is the primary mitzvah, and there is no charity greater than this, and as the Maharik wrote, and see in Knesset haGedolah sinam 249, see there.
And according to this, the same is true that he is able to pay tuition for his son for Mishna and Gemara, since the times are difficult for him. And even though where it is possible for him, it is a commandment {mitzvah} to teach him Mishna, gemara, halacha, and aggadah, still, it appears that since we do not compel regarding this, and it is not an obligation but rather only a mitzvah, it is permitted to pay from maaser money, for there is no greater mitzvah than supporting his father and mother, and even according to the opinion that this is of the father {'s assets}, certainly there is a mitzvah, for there is no mitzvah like honoring your father, which is attached to honoring the Omnipresent. And yet, since there is no obligation and we do not compel, it is permitted to support him from maaser money if not because of honor of his father. And according to the opinion of the Gadol haDor, MahaRi Oppenheim, even ab initio {lechatchila} as well. If so, the same is true that he is able to pay tuition for his son to teach him Mishna and Gemara, even where it is possible for him, and as written above.
And all of this is about money which was already separated, and certainly where he separated it in the first place on this condition. And certainly where the person giving this charity is a pauper, and the times are difficult for him. And as you {kevod Torato} wrote in the name of the Knesset haGedolah, in such an instance.
And according to this, there is no place to be strict at all in this, and as written above, and more that this, at this point, I will not elaborate.
No comments:
Post a Comment