DailyHalacha.com for Mobile Devices Now Available

Click Here to Sponsor Daily Halacha
"Delivered to Over 6000 Registered Recipients Each Day"

      
(File size: 978 KB)
Can A Congregation or Community Rely On A Designated Charity Fund and Restrict People From Soliciting From Individuals

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Dei'a section, 256:1; listen to audio clip for precise citation) writes that every Jewish community bears the obligation to establish a "Kupa" – a fund that collects money from every member of the community and distributes it to those in need on a weekly basis. Beyond the required Kupa, the Shulchan Aruch adds, some communities also maintain a "Tamchui," a soup-kitchen that provides food for the poor on a daily basis. The Shulchan Arukh rules that whereas the establishment and maintenance of a communal Kupa is mandatory, a community does not bear a strict obligation to run a Tamchui.

The question arises as to whether a community with a Kupa fund is entitled to bar a needy person from soliciting from individuals. May the managers of the communal fund tell the individual that after receiving money from the fund he is no longer entitled to go door-to-door to collect money from the community members?

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in his Iggerot Moshe (Y.D. 1:169), rules unequivocally that this is forbidden. The Kupa system was established not to supplant private solicitation, but rather as an additional measure to assist the poor. Even after a needy person collects from the communal fund, he is still entitled to approach the donors individually to ask for further assistance.

Likewise, an individual donor may not proclaim himself as the exclusive donor representing the rest of the community or congregation. It is told that a poor person once came to collect charity in a synagogue, and one congregant handed him $100 and said that this donation is given on behalf of everyone in the synagogue. This donor thought he was acting magnanimously by contributing on behalf of the others, but in truth, he actually impaired the poor person's efforts by restricting his access to other potential donors. Had this person been able to approach the other congregants, he may have very likely received larger sums. Just as the communal fund cannot claim to represent every community member's exclusive donation to the given cause, so may a private individual not proclaim himself the representative donor on behalf of others.

Summary: A poor person who received a donation from the community's charity fund may nevertheless approach the community's members individually to request further assistance. Similarly, a person should not give a poor person an amount of money and claim that he gives on behalf of the entire community, barring the poor person from collecting privately.

 


Recent Daily Halachot...
May a Seller Charge a Higher Price if Payment is Delayed?
May a Lender Charge a Penalty for a Delayed Payment of the Debt?
Seizing a Debtor's Property in Lieu of Payment
Defining "Ri’bitt " (Interest)
"Ri’bit": The Prohibition Against Receiving or Paying Interest
Is It Permissible To Poach (Take Away) A Customer
The Halachic Propriety of Opening a Competing Business
Exceptions to the Rule Allowing a Neighbor the Right of First Refusal
Can a Neighbor Exercise His Right of First of Refusal if He Did Not Do So Immediately; a Business Partner's Right of First Refusal
Offering First Right of Refusal to a Partner or Neighbor
Damaging Somebody’s Property for the Purpose of Saving a Life
Is There a Liability When a Child Damages Somebody’s Property?
If One Damages Somebody’s Property In His Sleep, Under Intoxication, While Celebrating, or During a Sports Game
Liability for Damages Caused While Walking or Running in a Public Domain
The Extent of Liability for Property Damages
Page of 239
3585 Halachot found