Vol.

17 Issue #8

Parshas Vayetzei
Maaser Kesafim

10 Kislev 5773

etuu| `|v{tx gtux

When Yaakov Avinu, while running away from his brother Eisav, awakens after dreaming about the Malachim ascending and descending the ladder, he davens to Hashem, and vows that if Hashem will provide for his needs and see that he will return safely to his fathers home, he will give Hashem one tenth of whatever he has (Bereishis 28:20-22). In the Daas Zekeinim MiBaalei HaTosafos (ibid posuk 20 s.v. im), a Midrash is cited which indicates that Yaakov at that time instituted that one should give away one tenth of ones money to Tzedakah. Although the Torah itself clearly presents elsewhere the Mitzvah to support the poor by giving Tzedakah (Vayikra 25:35, Devarim 15:7-8), no guidelines are given as to specifically how much money or what percentage of ones income must be given to Tzedakah in order to properly fulfill this Mitzvah. The idea of giving one tenth of ones agricultural produce to the poor is indeed documented in the Torah (Devarim 26:12); this is known as Maaser Ani, which was given in years three and six of seven year Shemittah cycle. No other mention, however, of a requirement to give specifically one tenth of anything to the poor is found in the Torah. Based upon a Posuk in Mishlei (3:9), however, the Yerushalmi in Peiah (Perek 1 halacha 1, 3b) implies that one is required to give Maaser Ani, a tithe of one tenth to the poor, from all of ones possessions, not just from agricultural produce. This view is cited by the Mordechai, in his commentary on the Gemara in Bava Kamma (siman 192, daf 53: Bdapei Harif), where it is presented as a source for the Mitzvah to give Maaser Kesafim. Another source is found in the commentary of Tosafos on the Gemara in Taanis (9a) which expounds upon a Posuk later in the Torah (Devarim 14:22) that contains the seemingly extraneous double use of a word in relationship to tithes (Aser Taser).

Tosafos (ibid s.v. aser) cites a statement in the Sifrei (which is not found in our current standard editions) that extrapolates from this entire expression that there are indeed two tithes which must actually be given. The first is the one tenth to be separated from ones agricultural produce, the second is the one tenth to be given to the poor from any other potential source of income, such as business or other capital gains that one may have. This too, then, is a source for the Mitzvah of Maaser Kesafim. It is worth noting that this same idea appears in the Yalkut Shimoni, in Parshas Reeih (remez 893) and in the Midrash Tanchuma (ibid os 18), where it is mentioned that this gift of one tenth of ones business income should be given specifically to those who are involved in Torah study. The implication of the above sources is that the obligation to give Maaser Kesafim to the poor is rooted in the Torah, a view which seems to be accepted by the Shaloh (Shnei Luchos Habris, Maseches Megillah inyan tzeddakah umaaser, s.v. umikol makom), among others. Most other Poskim, however, do not consider this to be a Torah based obligation. The Maharil, for example (shut Maharil, siman 54, 56), writes clearly that the Mitzvah of Maaser Kesafim is MideRabbanan, and he consequently allows for certain leniencies in this obligation. The Chavos Yair too (shut Chavos Yair siman 224), in a lengthy Teshuvah where he discusses, among other things, what exactly is considered income and how to treat business expenses in this regard, likewise quotes an opinion that the obligation of Maaser Kesafim is MideRabbanan, and that the Pesukim mentioned above are just a remez, a hint to the idea in the Torah. He notes there as well that the aforementioned Yalkut Shimoni (ibid) writes specifically that the Posuk in the Torah is only a remez. The Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Deyah, siman 249 seif 2) likewise writes that the requirement to give one tenth of ones money to the poor is only MideRabbanan, and it is merely hinted at by the Posuk in this Parsha (Bereishis, ibid posuk 22) referred to above; the Maaser

 actually required by the Torah relates only to ones agricultural products, and is given to the poor only once every three years.
Page 2

Still other authorities rule that giving Maaser Kesafim to the poor is required neither by the Torah nor by the Rabbanan, but is rather a Minhag, a proper custom. This position is articulated by the Bach, in his commentary on the Tur (Yoreh Deyah, siman 331 s.v. av), when he discusses what type of Tzedakah may be given with Maaser Kesafim money, as opposed to Maaser Ani money, and is agreed to by Rav Yaakov Emden (shut shailos Yaavetz vol. 1 siman 6), who, quoting the above cited Posuk in this Parsha (ibid), writes that giving Maaser money to the poor is a Middas Chasidus, an act of piety learned form Yaakov Avinu; he then proves that there is no actual obligation, even on the level of a Mitzvah MideRabbanan. In an earlier Teshuvah (ibid, siman 1), Rav Yaakov Emden quotes from his father the Chacham Tzvi that the Bachs position is correct, and he himself brings proofs to his fathers view in a subsequent Teshuvah (ibid, siman 3). The Chavos Yair, in the aforementioned Teshuvah (ibid), agrees to this position himself as well; this seems to be the majority view. The Pischei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deyah, ibid, seif katan 12) notes that this position that giving Maaser Kesafim is only a Minhag was actually presented much earlier by the Maharam of Rothenburg. He then adds, however, that some hold that although it is only a Minhag, once one has observed the Minhag, he shouldnt stop doing so except in a situation of great need. Some of the above quoted Poskim discuss how many times one must observe this practice before it is considered that he has permanently adopted the Minhag. One of the issues which depends upon whether giving Maaser Kesafim is an actual Mitzvah (from the Torah or from the Rabbanan) or whether it is simply a Minhag is the question of to whom one is required to give Maaser Kesafim money. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deyah siman 249 seif 1) writes that one must support the poor by giving them as much as they need, keeping in mind how much he can afford; giving one tenth is considered the average contribution, while one who wishes to be generous should give one fifth, as suggested by the Gemara in Kesubos (50a). The Ramo (ibid) adds, though, that Maaser Kesafim money must be used specifically to be given to the poor, and not for any other Mitzvah or to assist any other worthwhile cause. The Shach (ibid) quotes those who disagree and say

Vol. 17 Issue #8 that expenses for a Mitzvah which one otherwise would not have done may be paid for with ones Maaser money. The view of the Ramo (ibid) is most likely based on there being a strong connection between Maaser Kesafim and Maaser Ani; the latter had to be given to poor people and not used even for Mitzvos. The view of the other Poskim probably is that since giving Maaser Kesafim is simply a Minhag, its rules do not necessarily parallel those of the Mitzvah to give Maaser Ani. The Chasam Sofer (shut Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deyah siman 232) makes this very distinction; in his previous Teshuvah (ibid, siman 231) he suggests that if when one first decides to undertake the practice of giving Maaser Kesafim, one has in mind specifically that he would like to use the money to pay for other Mitzvos or to support other charitable causes and not just give it to the poor, he may do so.

In terms of how to calculate ones income for the purpose of determining how much the one tenth is that he must give away, Rav Moshe Feinstein (shut Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deyah vol.1 siman 143) writes that money which is held back from ones paycheck for withholding taxes is considered as if it was never his, and thus is not viewed as part of his income; Maaser Kesafim need not be deducted from that portion of ones salary. This is unlike money which one actually has, but uses to pay for sales tax and the like, which is nevertheless considered part of ones income. He also discusses how to treat household expenses, such as funds needed for child support, in terms of whether such money is subject to Maaser Kesafim. Rav Yosef Karo, in one of his Teshuvos (shut avkas rochel siman 3), seems to rule that funds spent on all essential household needs are not subject to the requirement of Maaser Kesafim, but it is questionable as to whether or not this view is accepted; Rav Ovadyah Yosef (shut yichaveh daa vol. 3 siman 76 os 4) discusses this matter, quoting numerous opinions. It is worth noting that the Chofetz Chaim, in his treatise entitled Ahavas Chessed (inyan maaser kesafim, perek 18 os 2), offers specific guidelines as to how to properly observe the practice of giving Maaser Kesafim, including recommendations that one keep written records in a notebook about how much he gives to Tzedakah, as well as that one should take a reckoning of ones income and ones Tzedakah contributions once or twice a year. He adds later (ibid perek 20 os 6) that one who is careful

Page 3 about giving Maaser Kesafim is treated as though Hashem by marrying him. Now we realize that there is a dark cloud Himself were his partner in business. hanging over this marriage. Rachel could decide to tell Leah the truth at any moment. Through this episode, though, Rachel proved that she would not do that. Leah accused her The Zechus of Rachel of stealing Yaakov, which was the ultimate test to see if Rachel would keep her silence. She passed, proving that Yaalx{wt gtzx kovs psak was correct, thus making it okay for Rachel to In this weeks parsha, Hashem remembers Rachel have children. That is why this episode is an essential preland gives her a child. This comes right after the story of the ude to the birth of Yosef, because only now do we know dudaim, in which Rachel asks Leah to share her special flow- that Rachel was allowed to marry Yaakov. ers. Rashi explains that the reason Hashem remembered We now see why Rachel is the one whose cry HaRachel is because she gave Leah the simanim. However, we shem will listen to. The Avos each had several extraordinarmust ask why this zechus did not help her earlier, and what ily special moments in their lives, such as the akeida. Howaspect of the story of the dudaim strengthened this zechus. ever, Rachel made a decision to make every day of her life We know that normally it is asur to marry two sis- much harder. She never gave in and told Leah. Rather she ters; and we know that the Avos kept the entire Torah. kept her feelings to herself and let Leah enjoy some peace However, Chazal tell us that the Avos had the right to use and happiness. When Avraham comes to Hashem and tries the reasons of the mitzvos to decide when they apply. The to invoke the zechus of the ten tests, Hashem will point out reason for this mitzvah is that we are afraid that the two specific times when he did something extraordinary on bewives will fight if they are sisters. Yaakov thought that Ra- half of Bnei Yisrael. However, Rachel made an ongoing chel and Leah were above that, so he was able to marry commitment to forgo her own comfort on behalf of her sister, and she will demand that Hashem do the same, givthem both. ing us what we need and ignoring our indifference. Hashem First, Yaakov married Leah and they were able to should listen to Rachels pleas soon and restore peace to us have children. Then, he married Rachel. Though he and to all of his children. paskened that this marriage was mutar, Rachel had to prove it before she was granted children. She had to prove that she would not antagonize Leah; otherwise, her children would Yaakov and Leah: A Remarkable Relabe considered lower class Jews because they came from a tionship woman whom Yaakov was not supposed to have married.

Vol. 17 Issue #8

Rachel gave Leah the simanim, enabling her to marry Yaakov in her stead. This one-time act of generosity was not enough to prove that the marriage was mutar. She needed to continue her good feelings long enough that Yaakov would be proven correct. That is why she had to wait. When Rachel asks Leah for the dudaim, Leah replies: you already took my husband, do you want my flowers too? This sounds obnoxious because Rachel gave Leah the simanim. Yaakov was supposed to be Rachels husband, not Leahs, but Rachel gave it to Leah. Rav Druk suggests that the reason Leah was able to respond this way is that Rachel gave the simanim over in such a way that Leah did not even know that Rachel was supposed to marry Yaakov. That is why she thought that Rachel had stolen her husband

T{x Y|~xx|

The seemingly sorry state of the relationship between Yaakov and Leah has baffled many throughout the ages. Firstly, how could Yaakov, a righteous man, hate his wife? Making matters even more confusing, the nature of Yaakovs relationship with Leah seems to be described in contradictory terms in two pesukim. In one passuk (29:30), it says Yaakov, loved Rachel even more than Leah, implying that although he loved Leah, he simply loved Rachel more. In the following passuk it says that, Hashem saw that Leah was hated, so he opened her womb. Was Leah hated or simply loved less than Rachel? Perhaps it can be suggested that from Yaakovs perspective, he loved both of his wives, but loved Rachel more. From Leahs perspective however, her inferiority in the eyes of

Page 4

Vol. 17 Issue #8

Yaakov emanated from hatred. The Midrash Tanchuma suggests that when the passuk says Leah was hated, it does not mean that Yaakov hated her; rather it means that the actions of Esav were hated by her. According to the Midrash, people would say that as the older daughter of Lavan, Leah should marry Rivkahs oldest Esav, and Lavans youngest, Rachel, should marry Rivkahs youngest Yaakov. Hearing that she would marry the evil Esav caused Leah much anguish and this is what it means that she was, hated. The Kli Yakar in contrast, suggests that when it says that Yaakov loved Rachel more than Leah, it is not meant to imply that he loved Leah. Rather, it simply means that Yaakov loved Rachel more because of Leah; appreciating Rachel in contrast to Leah made Yaakov love Rachel even more. According to the Ramban however, the expression, hated is merely a generic term that applies to the less-loved wife in any family, and does not necessarily imply that Yaakov actually hated Leah. With the approaches of the Midrash Tanchuma and the Ramban in mind, we can better understand the nature of Yaakovs relationship with Leah. Yaakov did not hate Leah; nevertheless, she was clearly the less-loved wife. Although this favoritism may seem unbecoming of a man of Yaakovs stature, when one closely examines the story of Yaakov and Leah, one appreciates how remarkable it is that they were able to have a functioning relationship at all. First off, Leah was undoubtedly less attractive than her sister, as the pesukim make clear. Then, Leah married Yaakov by tricking him. Making things worse, she was already rumored as the appropriate wife for Esav. Taking all this into account, it is hard not to admire Yaakovs ability to not hate her, although we can certainly understand why Leah was less loved than Rachel. Stones of Unity

Obviously, there is a distinct change in the facts surrounding the stones. When he went to sleep there were many and when he arose there was only one. Rashi brings us the explanation that the Midrash offers. He says the stones began quarreling with one another. One said, Upon me let this righteous man rest his head, and another said, Upon me let him rest his head. Immediately, Hashem made them into one stone. This sounds like a fanciful story bordering on a fairy tale. The truth, however, is that the Midrash is endeavoring to teach us a significant message that we should be aware of constantly. The Jewish people have all kinds of individuals. Many have varying opinions of what Judaism stands for. These opinions may differ widely and some may stray far afield. Some may hold theories that are so distant from what Judaism really is. When it comes, however, to the survival of the Jewish people we should all be united. Especially in a time like we are in now when we are being attacked, it is crucial for us, the Bnei Yisrael to come together as one. We may be different in our thinking like the many stones that Yaakov gathered, but when it comes to our continued existence we should all be united and stick together. We are all responsible for each other and must be like the one stone that Yaakov took when he arose from his dream. Rosh Yeshiva: Rabbi Michael Taubes Rabbinic Advisor: Rabbi Baruch Pesach Mendelson Editors in Chief: Meir Finkelstein and Yoni Schwartz Layout Editor: Ori Putterman Associate Editor: Akiva Schiff Distribution Coordinator: Binyamin Pfeiffer Publication Manager: Philip Meyer Head Of Writing Staff: Yehuda Tager

T| fxuutz
The Torah tells that when Yaakov was ready to lie down to sleep, Vayikach Meavne Hamakom, he took from the stones of the place which he arranged around his head (28, 11). When he arose the Torah says, Vayikach Et Haeven, and took the stone that he placed around his head (28,18).