Due to this issue, the poskim in Eretz Yisrael recommend that the tzedokah organization obtain a large amount of cash and distribute it to poor people on behalf of anyone who donates with a credit card. For example, if the donor wishes to donate fifty dollars to a specific poor person with his credit card, the organization will immediately give fifty dollars to that poor person. They will be reimbursed by the credit card company after a few days.
Matanos l’evyonim with a Bank Transfer
On the one hand, a direct bank transfer from the donor to the poor person is seemingly worse than a check since it cannot be used for merchandize until the poor person withdraws the money from the account. On the other hand, it would seem to be better, since his bank account is immediately credited with the money. However, although the computer records a credit from the transferring account to the account of the beneficiary, nevertheless the beneficiary did not yet receive any payment, rather, the bank owes him this amount of money.
R' Ovadia Toledano writes that this question depends on the machlokes haposkim in regard to whether money registered in one’s name in a bank is considered muchzakus b’kesef (holding onto money):
Some poskim maintain that money in the bank is like a loan, meaning that the bank borrows from the account holder, and pays it back when the latter wants to withdraw money, and some maintain that it has the status of a pikadon [deposit]. R’ Ovadia Yosef (Vol.8, Choshen Mishpot 8) understands that it has the same status as money deposited by a moneychanger which is considered “ra’ui” (money that is due) but not muchzak (in the depositor’s possession). However, the Minchas Asher (1:109) concludes that money in the bank is considered muchzak since it is not “lacking collection” (מחוסר גוביינא). That is, the depositor can go to the bank whenever he wishes and without impediment, immediately withdraw the money. It is therefore considered a pikadon.
If we maintain that money in a bank is considered a pikadon on behalf of the account holder, it stands to reason that the donor did in fact give him money on Purim. If, however, it is considered a mere debt to the account holder, the giver never gave actual money to the poor person.
R’ Toledano therefore concludes that “it is best not to fulfil the mitzvah in this way, especially considering that the poor person does not have any way to immediately access the money transferred to his account. However, according to the Shevet HaLevi cited above, that one is able to fulfil matanos l’evyonim with credit card, “since ultimately, money reached the poor person as a result of his actions,” it would appear that in a case of a bank transfer as well, if the poor person received money on Purim even though it was not handed from the giver to the poor person, he nevertheless fulfils his obligation, since the poor person received money because of him.
