Sunday, October 21, 2007

Igros Moshe on Tuition, part ii

This is from Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah Chelek 2 Siman 113.
He discusses whether one can use maaser money to pay tuition for e.g. Beis Yaakov. More on this later, beli neder. For now, the scans and a rough translation.

"Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah Chelek 2 Siman 113.
If We Are Able To Pay Tuition For Daughters With Maaser Money
18 Elul, 5728
To Rav Aharon Shmuel Brody (?) Shlita:

Behold, in the matter of if one is allowed to pay tuition for daughters in schools called Beis Yaakov, from maaser money, certainly there is a distinction between sons and daughters as a matter of law. For learning Scripture, behold the father is obligated to teach his sons even through payment {to someone else to teach}, and thus it is a matter of obligation, which he is not allowed to pay from the maaser. However for daughters, where it is not an obligation on the father to teach them Torah, behold it is not a matter which is an obligation, and {thus} if there is a need, it is feasible to permit to give from the maaser money.

However, in out country here, that we are obligated by the law of the land to teach them in their own {public} schools, and via the chessed of Hashem Yisbarach upon Israel, there is the permission to teach them in schools which are under the direction of kosher Jews and those who fear Hashem, such that if he does not give his daughter to learn in a kosher school, such as this Beis Yaakov or the like, to be instructed there in the path of the Torah, of faith, and of keeping of the commandments, he would be required to give her over to a state school, which chas veShalom has neither Torah nor faith. For this one is obligated to also see to it that his daughter is kosher, to believe in Hashem and His Torah, and to fulfill all His commandments, even with expenditure of money. Therefore, it is a matter of obligation.

And see in Orach Chaim, siman 306, seif 14, that if the father does not wish to endeavor in the saving of his daughter, when they are attempting to take her out from being an Israelite, we force him. Thus it is clear that upon the father there is an obligation on this. And even though in the Mishnah Berurah, in Shaar HaTziyon her wrote that they took the daughter {as the example} because of the end, that if he does not wish, they force him, for he is her goel and relative, implying that it is not because of the law of an obligation on the father but rather from the obligation on all people in the world, and it is only because he is a close relative, this obligation comes upon him because of the law that the closest relative is first, which according to this it is logical that he is able to take from maaser money.

But this is confounding, firstly, for behold it is plain that even though according to Resh Lakish there is on Nazimr 29 there is no obligation of chinuch for a daughter, the halacha is not so, but rather as it was plain there in the gemara that the obligation is also in the chinuch for his daughter, until it asked "but according to Resh Lakish, ought not the same to be true of a daughter?" And as was explained in the Mishna in Yoma daf 82 that we train {mechanchin} tinokot to fast on Yom Kippur, and we elaborate in the gemara this includes daughters who are tinokot. And furthermore, even according to this answer according to Resh Lakish, this is only in training in commandments, but to teach her to believe in Hashem and his Torah, and to guard from prohibitions, certainly he is obligated. And it is plain, in my humble opinion, that even for payment he is obligated, whether for a son or for a daughter. And thus it is also something which is an obligation which he is not permitted to take from maaser money, and this requires delving in the words of the Shaar haTziyon.

However, practically, that which is possible according to his livelihood to pay, this he is not permitted to take from maaser money, and if they request more, he is able to take the addition from maaser money. And this is true also for tuition for sons.

And according to the accounting of his maaser, it is apparent that he profits less that his expenditures, such that according to the din, he is exempt, for his own parnassa {/support} comes before every other man, as is {stated} in the Rema, siman 251 seif 3. And it is as an extra level and middat chassidut to give the maaser to charity, and to have difficulty in expenditures for his family, certainly there is not to be stringent in this."

1 comment:

Orthonomics said...

Thanks for posting. Looking forward to the next post.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin