Using Ma’aser Money to Support Married Children
If one agrees to support a married child for five years, may he use ma’aser money to help with the cause?
Teshuvah from Chasam Sofer
The Chasam Sofer has a Teshuvah (Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 231) on this exact question. Someone had arranged a shidduch for his son with the daughter of a prominent talmid chocham with the following understanding: The father of the son accepted that he would pay every week a certain amount to his mechutan, the kallah’s father, who would sustain the young growing family in his home, thus enabling the son-in-law to continue his learning under his father-in-law’s direction. The father of the chosson however, was finding it difficult to fulfill his weekly obligation, and he wanted to know if he could use the ma’aser money from his business endeavors to provide the support for which he was responsible.
Using Ma’aser Money for Mitzvos
The Chasam Sofer opens his discussion by quoting two opinions that seem to dispute whether it is acceptable to use ma’aser money for such an expenditure. The Rema, quoting the Maharil, contends that it is not permitted to use ma’aser money to pay for a mitzvah, such as donating lamps and candles to the shul, whereas the Shach states, in the name of the Maharam, that it is permitted to use ma’aser money for mitzvos. Thus, whether one may pay for mitzvos, other than supporting the poor, from maaser money appears to be a dispute among early authorities.
The Chasam Sofer then quotes the Be’er Hagolah, who explains that the two above-quoted opinions are not in dispute. All authorities prohibit using ma’aser money to fulfill a mitzvah that someone is already obligated to observe. The Maharam, who permitted using ma’aser money for mitzvah purposes, was discussing a case in which the donor intended to use ma’aser money for this mitzvah from the outset, whereas the Maharil is discussing a situation in which the donor has been using his ma’aser money to support the poor, in which case he cannot now divert it for other mitzvos that do not qualify as tzedakah for the poor.
Thus, according to the Be’er Hagolah, whether the father can begin meeting his obligations to his son and mechutan with his ma’aser money will depend on whether he has already accepted the obligation on himself to pay this from other funds, in which case he cannot use ma’aser money for it, or if it is an obligation that he is now accepting upon himself, in which case he can specify that he wants to use ma’aser money to fulfill it.
The Chasam Sofer does not consider the approach of the Be’er Hagolah to be fully correct. He (the Chasam Sofer) notes that the Maharil wrote that ma’aser moneys are meant to support the poor and not for the acquisition of mitzvos. Therefore, use of ma’aser money for any type of personal mitzvah is inappropriate, whether he is already obligated to fulfill the mitzvah or not.
The Chasam Sofer concludes that when someone begins donating ma’aser money, he may stipulate that, sometimes, the money will be used for a mitzvah donation, such as the lighting in shul. However, once he has begun donating his ma’aser money regularly to the poor, he must continue using it for tzedakah.
Family First
Having determined that there are definitely situations in which ma’aser money must be given to the poor, the Chasam Sofer then discusses when and whether money designated for the poor can be used to support an individual’s extended family. There is a general rule that one is obligated to the poor to whom one is closest – close family first, more distant family next, neighbors third, members of one’s city next and the out-of-town poor next.
Greater Needs
Notwithstanding that family should be supported first, the Chasam Sofer quotes from his rebbi, the author of the Hafla’ah, that the rules of “closest first” or “family first” are only when the funds are necessary for the same level of need, for example, all have enough to eat but not enough for clothing. However, if some are short of food, and others have enough to eat but are short on clothing or other needs, the responsibility to make sure that someone has enough to eat comes first, even for someone out of town, regardless of whether there are neighbors or locals who are needy, as long as they have sufficient food.
Yet, concludes the Chasam Sofer, this prioritization is not absolute. All needs of someone’s family are considered his responsibility before the basic needs of others. In other words, the priorities should be as follows:
- Family needs.
- Most basic needs – food – regardless of location of the needy.
- People of one’s city.
- The out-of-town poor.
Chasam Sofer’s Conclusion
If the father had stipulated at the time of obligating himself to support his son that he would use ma’aser money for this obligation, he would be able to use it. Even then, the Chasam Sofer recommends that he use only up to half of his available ma’aser money to support his son. His reasoning is based on a Mishnah (Peah 8:6) which says that someone is permitted to save his ma’aser ani to support those that he chooses to, but he should not set aside more than half of his ma’aser ani for this purpose; the rest should be given to the local poor.
However, this is only when he had originally planned to use ma’aser money for this purpose. Otherwise, once he created an obligation upon himself to support his son, it is similar to any other obligation that he has, and he may not use his ma’aser money for this purpose.
May One Take Torah Pamphlets on Shabbos with the Intention of Paying After Shabbos?
Question: A number of different companies distribute weekly pamphlets containing lots of different weekly parsha sheets inside, and they charge a small amount for a copy, i.e., 5 shekel. These companies often distribute multiple copies around a number of shuls, and they charge anyone who takes a copy 5 shekel. A number of the companies say explicitly that a copy can’t be taken on credit, however some are more easy going an allow taking on credit. If there are a number of copies left unsold on Shabbos, may one take a pamphlet on Shabbos with the intention of paying after Shabbos, or would this constitute an act prohibited as mekach u’memkar [commerce] on Shabbos?
Answer: The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 323) rules that one may take what they need for Shabbos from a shopkeeper on Shabbos, provided no mention is made of specific measures, quantities, or prices, as detailed in the halachos there.
However, the question here is whether this leniency applies exclusively to food and drink which is for oneg Shabbos, or whether it extends to other Shabbos needs as well—such as our case, where one wishes to take a Torah pamphlet in order to read it on Shabbos.
We must further consider: Since the distributor permits taking the pamphlet on credit during the week, taking it on credit on Shabbos is no different from weekday procedure. If so, there may be no change from ordinary weekday commerce, which would render it forbidden due to mekach u’memkar, even for the sake of Shabbos.
Additionally, even if we assume that taking the pamphlet itself poses no prohibition, one must be careful to intend not to acquire ownership until after Shabbos, for it is forbidden to make a halachic kinyan on Shabbos. In light of the above, many prominent contemporary poskim have ruled that it is permissible to take the pamphlet on Shabbos and pay afterward. Some have added that since most distributors never allow their material to be taken on credit, doing so is not generally considered the normal manner of purchase—even if this particular distributor grants permission. Accordingly, there is no concern of engaging in weekday-like commerce.
The Rema (Orach Chaim 323:4) writes: “Although it is forbidden to mention monetary amounts, this applies only when the price is not known. But when the value is known, merely telling him ‘give me this amount’ is permitted, provided he does not state the actual sum. And although some authorities are stringent in this regard, the custom in these lands has long been to be lenient, in accordance with the reasoning mentioned.” We thus see that even mentioning price may be permitted when the cost is fixed and known. Although the Mishnah Berurah (323:20) is stringent lechatchilah, we may nevertheless derive from the Rema’s ruling room for leniency in our case—where no mention of price is made at all—and there is therefore no concern of weekday-like conduct.
