Bava Batra 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

For

the redemption of captives is a great mitzva

greater than the mitzva of charity.

Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived?

What is the source for the statement

that the Sages said that the redemption of captives is a great mitzva?

He said to him: As it is written:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jeremiah: Prophesy to the people of Israel that I have decreed that they be expelled from My land, and they will leave it . And the Holy One, blessed be He, added and said to Jeremiah [Jeremiah 15:1]: ‘

And it shall be, when they say to you: Where shall we go? And you shall say to them: So said the Lord: Those destined for death, to death; those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine; and those destined for captivity, to captivity’—

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Every

punishment

that is

mentioned

later in this verse is more severe than the one preceding it.

And the second punishment mentioned in the verse,

sword,

this punishment

is more severe than death.

And the Gemara explains what the source is for the assertion that death by the sword is more severe than death—

Alternatively, if you wish,

it can be proved from a

verse,

the verse explained below;

and alternatively, if you wish,

this matter is based on

reasoning.

And the Gemara explains:

Alternatively, if you wish,

this matter—that death by the sword is more severe than death—is learned from

reasoning,

because

this one

who dies by the sword

is disgraced,

becoming soiled in his blood.

But

if

this one

who dies in his bed,

is he not disgraced!

And alternatively, if you wish,

this matter—that death by the sword is more severe than death—is learned from a

verse,

as it is stated in Psalms: “

Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones.”

And the Gemara expounds that the meaning of the verse is that it is an honor for the pious to die a natural death, and not by the sword or through famine.

And likewise

famine,

which is the third punishment mentioned in the verse,

is more severe than

death by

the sword,

which is mentioned before famine.

And the Gemara explains what the source is for the assertion that death by famine is more severe than death by the sword.

Alternatively, if you wish,

it can be proved from a

verse,

the verse explained below;

and alternatively, if you wish,

it is based on

reasoning.

Alternatively, if you wish, the reasoning is:

for

this one

who dies from famine

suffers

until he dies,

but

if

this one

who dies by the sword,

he does not suffer,

because he dies immediately.

And

alternatively, if you wish, the verse

states in the Scroll of Lamentations: “

Better were the slain of the sword than the slain of famine”;

thus, famine is more severe than the sword.

Captivity,

which is the last punishment mentioned in the verse,

is more severe than all of them,

because

all of them are present in it.

For this punishment includes all the other punishments: The captive is in the hands of his captors, and they can do with him whatever they wish—to let him die [see note ], or to kill him by the sword or through famine. This is the source for the fact that redeeming captives is a great mitzva .

The Sages taught: A charity fund is collected

from the public

by two,

and one person may not collect money from the public alone.

And it is distributed

to the poor

by three

people.

The reason is:

It is collected by two,

because

authority is not exercised over the public by fewer than two.

Below it will be explained why collecting charity constitutes an exercise of authority.

And it is distributed by three,

because when they determine how much money each poor person requires, this is

like monetary law,

and monetary law is not adjudicated by fewer than three.

A food-distribution fund,

the tamchui,

from which types of food are collected from the townspeople and distributed to the poor,

is collected by three

people

and distributed by three.

The reason it is collected only by three people is

that its collection

and distribution are equivalent.

On the very day that food is collected from the townspeople, that same day the food is distributed to the poor, as will be explained below. Since distribution requires three, as we learned above, because it is like monetary law, collection also requires three, so that they will not need to trouble themselves each day to find a third person for the distribution. This is unlike a charity fund, from which money is distributed only once each week.

The tamchui,

food for the poor, is distributed

every day.

But

the charity fund,

which consists of money, is distributed only

from one Friday to the next,

and the poor are sustained from this money throughout the week.

The tamchui,

may be given even

to the poor of the world,

who are not the poor of this town. But

the charity fund,

the money collected from the townspeople, may be given only

to the poor of the town

alone.

And the townspeople are authorized,

if the poor of the world have become numerous in the town,

to turn the charity fund into a tamchui

so that it too may be given to the poor of the world.

And

they are likewise authorized to turn the

tamchui into a charity fund

and give it only to the poor of the town.

And

they are likewise authorized

to alter

the purpose of the charity funds, and

to

use them for

whatever they wish

for communal needs.

And the townspeople are authorized to stipulate regulations concerning measures,

to establish the measures of volume and weight by which goods will be sold in the town—for example, to determine the size of a se’a, whether it is a heaped measure or a level measure.

And concerning

prices,

to establish the price of wheat and wine, so that they will not sell above that price;

and concerning the wages of laborers,

to establish the wages of laborers in the town.

And to enforce,

to penalize anyone who transgresses

their stipulations,

the regulations established by the townspeople .

The Master said,

we learned above:

Authority is not exercised over the public by fewer than two.

From where are these matters derived?

What is the source for this?

Rav Naḥman said: The verse states,

with regard to the donations for the Tabernacle: “

And they

[the wise-hearted men]

shall take the gold, and so on,”

in order to make the garments from it. From this verse, which says “they,” in the plural, we see that public funds are not collected by fewer than two .

The Gemara infers from this verse that specifically

authority,

an appointment over the public,

may not be exercised

by fewer than two; therefore, only two may collect money from the public.

But with regard to appointment as trustees,

as far as trustworthiness is concerned,

one is trusted

to serve as treasurer.

And this matter

supports Rabbi Ḥanina.

For Rabbi Ḥanina said: It once happened that Rabbi appointed two brothers

to serve as treasurers

over the fund,

and relatives are not considered trustworthy as two, yet Rabbi appointed them as treasurers, for even one person is trusted to serve as treasurer .

And the Gemara asks:

What is this authority,

what authority do charity collectors possess?

And it explains:

For Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Because the collectors distrain

the property of those who refuse to give

for charity

from those who do not wish to give,

even on the eve of Shabbat,

and the person cannot say, “I am occupied.”

This is the authority: The collectors are appointed to distrain the property of the townspeople against their will .

And we challenge this:

Is that so!

Is it indeed the case that the property of one who does not wish to give charity is distrained?

But it is written,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, promises [Jeremiah 30:20]: “

I shall punish all his oppressors”

[I shall take notice of all those who oppress the people of Israel in order to punish them].

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav: Even the charity collectors!

If so, it is proven that it is forbidden to distrain the property of one who does not wish to give charity.

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

statement that we learned, that the property of one who does not wish to give charity is distrained, concerns a person

of means,

who has money but does not wish to give.

Whereas

the statement inferred from Rav’s words, that property may not be distrained, concerns a person

without means,

who has no money.

The Gemara brings proof that one who has means is compelled to give charity:

As in the case of,

for example,

Rava,

compelled Rav Natan bar Ami,

who was extremely wealthy ,

and took from him

and received from him

four hundred dinars for charity.

It is stated in the Book of Daniel (12:3): “

And the wise shall shine like the radiance of the firmament,”

and “those who bring merit to the many, like the stars forever and ever.” The Gemara expounds:

And the insightful will shine like the radiance of the firmament'. The “insightful” refers to

a judge who

is insightful

and adjudicates a true judgment

truly . '

And those who vindicate the many are like the stars forever and ever',

these are the charity collectors

who bring merit to the many through the mitzva of charity .

In a matnita it was taught:

the beraita expounds the verse differently: '

And the insightful will shine like the radiance of the firmament'.

The “insightful”

refers to a judge who adjudicates a true judgment truly, and

likewise

charity collectors

who are discerning enough to know what each poor person needs. '

And those who vindicate the many are like the stars

forever and ever':

these are teachers of young children,

for they bring merit to the many by teaching and educating the children in the proper path .

For example, who?

Who is an example of a teacher of young children considered one of “those who vindicate the many”?

Rav said: For example, Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat.

He was a devoted teacher of young children, as we find in the following incident.

For Rav encountered

met

Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, who was standing in a garden

standing in a garden.

He said to him:

Rav said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat: Have you

left

abandoned

your position?

Were you not accustomed to teaching your students faithfully and sitting with them constantly?

He said to him: It has been thirteen years that I have not seen them,

for thirteen years I have not seen them, having left my students,

and even now, my mind is upon them.

Nevertheless, even now, while I am standing here, my thoughts are with them.

After the beraita has established that judges will shine like the light of the firmament, while teachers of young children will shine like the light of the stars, the Gemara asks:

And the Sages—what of them?

With what light will Torah scholars who constantly sit and engage in Torah be rewarded?

Ravina said:

Concerning them, the verse says:

“And those who love Him will be like the sun going forth in its might.”

This light is superior to all the other lights.

The Gemara now cites a beraita in which several regulations governing charity collectors are stated, so that they will not be suspected of being thieves.

The Sages taught: Charity collectors are not permitted to separate from one another,

but must collect together, because if people see only one of them collecting, they will suspect him of wanting to steal.

But one may separate, with one going to the gate and the other to the shop,

provided that those in the shop and those at the gate can see the other collector from their respective locations.

And if

he finds

a charity collector

money in the marketplace,

even though this money belongs to him, since money found in the marketplace belongs to the finder, nevertheless

he may not place it in his pocket,

because people who see him putting money into his pocket will suspect him of stealing charity funds.

Rather, he places it in the charity purse, and when he comes home he takes it

for himself.

Similarly,

if

the

charity collector

was owed one hundred dinars by his fellow, and the latter repaid him

his fellow

in the marketplace, he may not place it in his pocket,

lest they suspect him of stealing charity funds;

rather, he places it in the charity purse, and when he comes home, he takes it.

The Sages taught: Charity collectors who

have copper coins of charity and

have no poor people to whom to distribute them, exchange

the copper coins in their possession for silver coins, so that the coins will not corrode. But they exchange them only

for others,

who give them silver coins, while the collectors give them copper coins in return.

But

they may not exchange them for themselves.

They may not give their own silver coins and take copper coins in return, lest people say that they exchanged the coins for themselves at a favorable rate.

Likewise,

charity-dish collectors who

have various kinds of food and

have no poor people to whom to distribute them sell them to others

the food,

but may not sell them to themselves,

lest people say that they sold them to themselves at a favorable rate. The Gemara in Pesaḥim [13a] explains that this law is derived from the verse: “And you shall be clear before the Lord and Israel.”

When the collectors count

charity money, they may not count it two

at a time, lest people say that the collector takes two and counts aloud only one.

Rather,

they count the money

one by one.

Abaye said: At first,

initially,

the Master would not sit

would not sit

Master

Rabba

on the mats

on mats

of the synagogue

in the synagogue, since these mats had been purchased with money from the charity fund, and Rabba held that it was forbidden to purchase other things with charity funds.

But

once he heard that which was taught: “‘

and to change it for whatever they wish,’”

that it is permitted to use charity funds for whatever the community wishes,

he would sit

Rabba sat on those mats .

Abaye said: At first

initially

the Master would make

Rabba made

two purses

two charity purses, one

for the poor of the world

who were not residents of that city,

and

one

for the poor of the city

for the poor of the city, because Rabba held that money collected for the poor of the city should not be given to poor people from elsewhere.

But

once he heard this, which Shmuel said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi: Make one purse.

Make only one purse for charity funds,