and stipulate about it with the people of your city that the money collected will be given to whomever needs it, he too made only one purse and stipulated with the people of his city about it. Rav Ashi said: I do not even need to make a stipulation, as whoever comes to donate to this charity fund comes relying on my discretion and understanding that I will give the funds to whomever I want.

The Gemara relates: There were these two butchers who made an agreement with each other that whichever one of them worked on the day assigned to the other according to their mutually agreed-upon schedule would tear up the hide of the animal that he slaughtered that day. One of them went and worked on the other’s day, and the other butcher tore up the hide of the animal that he slaughtered. They came before Rava for judgment, and Rava obligated him to pay the butcher who slaughtered that animal.

Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya raised an objection to Rava: Isn’t it stated among actions that the residents of a city may take: And to fine people for violating their specifications, i.e., those ordinances that the residents passed? Rava did not respond to him. Rav Pappa said: He did well that he did not respond to him, as this matter applies only where there is no important person in the city, in which case it is permitted for the residents of the city to draw up ordinances on their own. But where there is an important person, it is not in the residents’ power to make stipulations, i.e., regulations; rather, they are required to obtain the approval of the city’s leading authority to give force to their regulations.

§ The Sages taught: One does not calculate sums with charity collectors concerning the money they collected for charity, to verify how much they received and how much they distributed, nor does one calculate sums with the Temple treasurers concerning the property consecrated to the Temple. And even though there is no explicit proof of the matter from the Bible, there is nevertheless an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And they did not reckon with the men into whose hand they delivered the money to pay out to the workmen; for they dealt in good faith” (II Kings 12:16).

Rabbi Elazar says: Even though a person has a trusted treasurer in his house like the aforementioned Temple treasurers, who were fully trusted, he should nevertheless tie up his money and count it, as it is stated: “And the king’s scribe and the High Priest came up, and they tied it in bags and counted the money…And they gave the money that was counted into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the House of the Lord” (II Kings 12:11–12).

Rav Huna says: Charity collectors examine the level of poverty of one who asks for food, but they do not examine the level of poverty of one who asks for clothing. If a person comes before the charity collectors in tattered clothes, he is given clothing without any questions being asked. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived via logical reasoning.

If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning: This one who stands before us in rags is exposed to contempt, whereas that one who is hungry is not exposed to contempt. If you wish, say instead that this distinction is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Is it not to share [paros] your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7). The word paros is written with a shin, alluding to the word parosh, meaning examine and investigate, and only then should you give him. And there in the same verse it is written with regard to clothing: “When you see the naked, that you cover him,” indicating that “when you see” him you should immediately cover him.

And Rav Yehuda says just the opposite: Charity collectors examine the level of poverty of one who asks for clothing, but they do not examine the level of poverty of one who asks for food. He too adduces supports for his opinion. If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning; if you wish, say instead that it is derived from a verse.

If you wish, say that this distinction is derived via logical reasoning: This one who is hungry suffers, whereas that one who is in tattered clothing does not suffer in the same way. And if you wish, say instead that this distinction is derived from a verse. Here, it is written: “Is it not to share [paros] your bread with the hungry?” meaning, share it immediately, just as the word is read. Since the word is read with a samekh, Rav Yehuda does not understand it as alluding to examining the recipient. And there, it is written: “When you see the naked, that you cover him,” meaning, when it will be clearly apparent to you, after you have investigated the matter and found that the supplicant is deserving, then you shall cover him. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: If a poor person said: Cover me with clothing, the charity collectors examine him; but if he said: Sustain me with food, they do not examine him.

We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 8:7): One does not give a poor person who is traveling from place to place requesting charity less than a loaf worth a pundeyon, one forty-eighth of a sela, when the standard price of grain is four se’a for a sela. If the poor person sleeps in that place, one gives him provisions for lodging. The Gemara asks: What is meant by provisions for lodging? Rav Pappa said: A bed and a pillow [bei sadya]. And if he spends Shabbat in that place, one gives him food for three meals. A Sage taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him and give him money from the charity fund.

It is related that a certain poor person who was going door to door requesting charity came before Rav Pappa, the local charity collector, but Rav Pappa did not attend to him. Rav Sama, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Rav Pappa: If the Master does not attend to him, nobody else will attend to him either; should he be left to die of hunger? Rav Pappa said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him? Rav Sama said to him: That baraita means to say that one is not required to attend to him and give him a large gift, since he is already collecting money as he goes door to door, but one does attend to him and give him a small gift.

Rav Asi says: A person should never prevent himself from giving at least one-third of a shekel a year in charity, as it is stated: “And we also established mitzvot upon ourselves, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the House of our God” (Nehemiah 10:33). And Rav Asi says: Charity is equivalent to all the other mitzvot combined, as it is stated in that verse: “We also established mitzvot upon ourselves.” A mitzva is not written here, but rather mitzvot, in the plural, thereby teaching that this mitzva is equivalent to all the other mitzvot.

The Gemara offers a mnemonic device for the following statements extolling the mitzva of charity: Greater; Temple; Moses. Rabbi Elazar says: One who causes others to perform [me’aseh] a meritorious act is greater than one who performs that act himself, as it is stated: “And the causing [ma’aseh] of righteousness shall be peace, and the work of righteousness, quietness, and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). If one merits, the following verse is applied to him: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7), i.e., he will wholeheartedly give charity to the poor. If he does not merit, the latter clause of that verse is applied to him: “You shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house,” i.e., he will be compelled by the government to billet soldiers in his house and sustain them against his will.

Rava said to the people of Meḥoza: I beg of you, strive with each other to perform acts of charity and righteousness, so that you will live in peace with the government, since if you do not act charitably toward each other, you will end up paying fines to the government. And Rabbi Elazar says: When the Temple is standing, a person contributes his shekel for the Temple service and achieves atonement for his sins. Now that the Temple no longer stands, if people act charitably, it will be well for them; but if not, the nations of the world will come and take their money by force. The Gemara comments: And even so, the money taken from them by force is credited to them as if they had freely given charity, as it is stated: “And I will make your oppressors charity” (Isaiah 60:17).

Rava said: This following matter was told to me by the infant