Does halakha require giving a tenth of one’s income, and to whom is it given?
Tithing among the Patriarchs
Avraham seemingly gave a tenth of the spoils of war to Malki-Tzedek, king of Shalem and priest of God Most High: “And he gave him a tenth of everything” (Bereshit 14:20). However, according to the Chizkuni and the Radak, it was Malki-Tzedek who gave the tithe to Avraham: as a mark of appreciation, or because it was his by right, since one who rescues another’s property is entitled to a tenth of it.
Yitzchak: many midrashim learn from the verse “Yitzchak sowed in that land, and in that year he reaped a hundredfold, and Hashem blessed him” (Bereshit 26:12) that Yitzchak too set aside a tithe from the yield of the land.
Maimonides (Laws of Kings 9:1) describes how the mitzvot were added before the giving of the Torah. Adam had six mitzvot, and Noach added the prohibition of a limb torn from a living animal. Avraham was commanded in circumcision and prayed Shacharit. Yitzchak set aside a tithe and prayed Minchah. Yaakov added the sciatic nerve and prayed Arvit. Until Moshe Rabbeinu came, and the Torah was completed through him.
But why was it specifically Yitzchak who set aside a tithe, and not Avraham?
The Raavad objects that it should have said that Avraham set aside a tithe.
The Migdal Oz explains that the midrashim disagree. Some say Avraham began, when he gave a tithe to Malki-Tzedek; this is the Raavad’s view. Others say Yitzchak began; this is Maimonides’ view. And in his opinion Maimonides is right: Avraham took nothing from the spoils, as he said: “Not a thread or a sandal strap, nor anything that is yours, so that you shall not say: I made Avram rich” (Bereshit 14:23). If so, from what could he have given a tithe?
The Radbaz adds that tithing applies only to crops, and that is why Maimonides chose the midrash about Yitzchak: “Yitzchak sowed… and reaped.”
The Kesef Mishneh explains that Avraham gave a tenth of the spoils, but not as a tithe. He wished to honor Malki-Tzedek, who had brought out bread and wine for him and blessed him. Yitzchak was the first to tithe the yield of his own land as a tithe. And in Maimonides’ view, the Patriarchs kept all these mitzvot of their own accord, which is why he wrote “was commanded” only regarding circumcision.
Yaakov promises to set aside from his possessions for Hashem: “And of all that You give me, I will surely give a tenth to You” (Bereshit 28:22). But Yaakov’s vow does not bind us, and it contains no general command to the Children of Israel. It expresses the inclination of his heart and Yaakov’s personal promise to the Holy One, blessed be He, and one cannot bring proof for the laws of Israel from the deeds of the Patriarchs.
Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer and the Sifrei
Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (33) expounds the verse “Yitzchak sowed” to mean that Yitzchak set aside a tithe from his money. But this exposition has no binding halakhic authority. It is a late midrash, compiled in the Land of Israel in the eighth or ninth century, some 200–300 years after the close of the Babylonian Talmud. Although it preserves ancient traditions, the view that it was written in the time of the Tannaim is not accepted. So this exposition reflects a late conception, and it also does not fit the wording of the verse, which says explicitly “he sowed.”
The Sifrei cited by Tosafot (Taanit 9a) expounds the verse about maaser sheni: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed that comes forth from the field year by year” (Devarim 14:22). How do we know that interest, trade and all other profits are also subject to the tithe? From the words “all the produce.” And in the Daat Zekenim of the Baalei haTosafot (Bereshit 28:22), it is written in the name of the Midrash Rabbah that Yaakov instituted giving a tithe of money.
It is interesting that the Sifrei compares maaser sheni to maaser kesafim. But maaser sheni is not given to anyone: the owner eats it himself in Jerusalem. That is why the Sages learned several laws of the animal tithe from this same verse (Rosh Hashanah 8a; Bekhorot 53b), precisely because the animal tithe is not given to anyone either: the owner eats its meat in Jerusalem. So what did they mean?
Perhaps they meant that maaser sheni is eaten in Jerusalem so that its owner will draw close to the Kohanim and Levites who serve in the Sanctuary, and learn Torah and the fear of Heaven from them. The verse says so explicitly: “So that you may learn to fear Hashem your God all the days” (Devarim 14:23). In other words, the tithe is meant to bring a person to Torah study. On this view, maaser kesafim can be seen as giving to someone who fills an equivalent spiritual role, and the giver earns a spiritual return through his contribution. One could argue that today maaser kesafim should be given to whoever can provide this service.
In any case, their words cannot be taken as a halakhic directive. So wrote Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Peah 1:1). And the author of Teshuvah meAhavah (responsum 87) proved that even the Baalei haTosafot, citing the Sifrei, did not mean a law but a reward: “Tithe so that you will become rich.” That is why they did not include it in their rulings. Moreover, this Sifrei does not appear in our editions, and no other Rishonim cite it. The midrash about Yaakov is not found in the midrashim we have either.
This raises a question about the poskim who saw it as an obligation: the Vilna Gaon (Yoreh De’ah 249:2), the son of the author of Shaar Efraim (84), Rabbi David Oppenheim (in Chavot Yair 224), the Chatam Sofer (II, Yoreh De’ah 232), the Noda biYehudah (Kamma, Yoreh De’ah 73) and the Birkei Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 249:3). The Chatam Sofer wrote in the name of the Maharil that it is a Torah obligation. But it is clear that the Maharil only meant that by giving maaser kesafim to the poor, as is the custom, one fulfills the mitzvah of tzedakah, which is from the Torah.
Tanchuma and Yalkut: for those who toil in Torah
Other midrashim direct the tithe to those who study Torah:
Tanchuma (Buber, Re’eh 17): “Aser te’aser – tithe so that you will become rich, so that you will not lack. A hint to seafarers to give one tenth to those who toil in Torah.”
Yalkut Shimoni (Torah, 893): “Rabbi Abba said: a hint to pragmatutin (great merchants) and seafarers, that they give one tenth to those who toil in Torah.”
And similarly in the Midrash Kohelet Rabbah: “Cast your bread upon the waters. Rabbi Bivi said: if you wish to give tzedakah, give it to those who toil in Torah. For ‘waters’ here means nothing but the words of Torah, as it says: ‘Ho, all who are thirsty, come to the waters.’”
Here too, their words cannot be taken as a halakhic directive. The Tanchuma (Buber) is a midrash from the Geonic period (around the 8th–9th century), though it contains older material. The Yalkut Shimoni is a 13th-century anthology that gathers sayings of the Sages from many midrashim. Kohelet Rabbah was also probably compiled late, around the 8th century. All of these are relatively late midrashim.
True, the teaching already appears in the Pesikta deRav Kahana (chapter 10), an earlier Amoraic midrash compiled in the Land of Israel around the fifth century. But it seems that the maaser kesafim hinted at there falls mainly on great merchants. Moreover, the midrashim themselves say it is a “hint” and not a law, and not every good practice mentioned in a midrash becomes a halakhic obligation.
Sefer Chasidim and its circle: a tithe for the poor
Sefer Chasidim (144) expounds the verse “Bring all the tithes into the storehouse… and test Me now with this” (Malachi 3:10). Great is the setting aside of tithes, about which the Holy One, blessed be He, said “test Me,” whereas in everything else it is forbidden to test Him, as it says: “You shall not test Hashem your God.” And that tithe is maaser ani (the tithe for the poor): giving the poor a tenth of everything a person earns, from interest, from wages, and from any profit that comes into his hands. Even if he found stolen goods, or stolen goods were brought to him, he must tithe them. According to him, the verse does not mention interest because Israel did not yet live among the nations and did not lend at interest. This is difficult, since the Torah says: “You may lend at interest to a foreigner.” And he concludes: “Woe to those who withhold their tithes, for in the end nothing will remain in their hands but the tithe.” And this is the meaning of “Every man’s holy things shall be his” (Bamidbar 5:10).
The author of the Or Zarua, a student of Rabbi Yehudah haChasid (III, Piskei Bava Batra 81), derives from this: when a person regularly gives tzedakah and tithes to a particular poor man, such as a relative, companion or friend, the poor man acquires the money as soon as it is set aside, even before it reaches him. The giver cannot retract, and if the poor man dies, his firstborn son takes a double portion of it.
The Tzeidah laDerech (Maamar 1, Klal 4, chapter 6) writes: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed” – including seafarers and traveling merchants. And since today we have no tithe from the produce of our seed, every person must tithe everything that comes into his hands, and by this he will prosper in his wealth.
These authorities compare maaser kesafim to maaser ani, and therefore in their view it should be given to the poor. But if so, would they hold that it need only be set aside in the third and sixth years of the shemitah cycle, like maaser ani?
In any case, it is inconceivable that Sefer Chasidim and its circle would interpret the reason for a verse in order to expand the mitzvah of maaser ani, or introduce new measures into the laws of tzedakah. They have no authority to do so. So their words cannot be taken as a halakhic directive. At most, this is an important custom in the spirit of maaser ani, or a recommended measure for fulfilling the mitzvah of tzedakah.
And so wrote the Maharam of Rothenburg (Responsa, Prague edition, 74): since it has become the practice to give tithe money to the poor, it may not be diverted to another mitzvah, because that would look like robbing the poor. True, this is not a Torah law but a custom. But “things that are permitted, which others treat as forbidden, you may not permit in their presence” (Nedarim 15a). This is unlike someone who donated a lamp and candelabrum to the synagogue, which may be redirected to another mitzvah (Arakhin 6b): there, both are mitzvot directed to Heaven. But the money of maaser kesafim has already been acquired by the poor, by virtue of the custom practiced throughout the diaspora. It may not be taken from the poor for another mitzvah, as we learned (Shekalim 2:5): “What is left over for the poor goes to the poor.”
Enactments and customs
Rabbeinu Gershom Me’or haGolah and the Rosh each enacted, in his own region, the setting aside of maaser kesafim for the needy. The Rosh’s enactment opens: “Since in the land from which we came, our fathers and our fathers’ fathers were accustomed to set aside one part in ten for Heaven, for tzedakah, for the needs of mitzvot, from all that they earned in trade…” The very fact that it had to be enacted suggests that in their view there is no obligation, and only a person or community that has accepted it upon themselves is bound by it.
Rabbeinu Tam: the short Tzror haKesef (third path, gate 3) reports: “Rabbeinu Tam wrote in a responsum: they are not prevented if they give the tithe to tzedakah.” And the long Tzror haKesef (ibid.) explains. According to halakha, the residents of a town may prevent outsiders from earning a living there. For example, people from one town who came to another to lend at interest and profit there: the local residents may stop them, because the outsiders are taking their livelihood. But if the outsiders give a tenth of their profit to the town’s tzedakah, they can no longer be stopped. Whoever pays for the community is considered one of the townspeople, like residents who pay taxes. The outsiders are no longer only taking; they also share the public burden. It follows that the tithe served as an accepted payment to tzedakah, but these words do not prove a fixed halakhic obligation.
The Maharil (Laws of Rosh Hashanah; cited by the Rema, Yoreh De’ah 249:1): tzedakah given to the poor on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, like all tzedakah, should be given generously. And those who give their tithe for the candles lit during prayer “are not acting properly, for the tithe belongs to the poor.” One should give them the tzedakah in the morning, so that they can buy what they need for the festival. And if the poor man is used to lavish meals, one should not say “Why should I help this spendthrift?” On the contrary, one is all the more obligated to help him, as it says: “sufficient for his need.”
Here the tithe is meant specifically for the poor, as tzedakah. And again, there is no special halakhic directive for maaser kesafim here. The custom is simply seen as part of the mitzvah of tzedakah, and so the money is meant for the poor alone.
The Bach and the Taz: is maaser kesafim like maaser ani?
The source of the rule. The Tosefta (Peah 4:16) states that from maaser ani “one may not repay a loan or a debt, nor pay back favors (returning a kindness), nor redeem captives… nor give any of it to tzedakah.” So ruled Maimonides (Gifts to the Poor 6:17) and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 331). The reason: maaser ani belongs to the poor by Torah law. Whoever uses it to pay a debt, or for a mitzvah he is himself obligated in, is “paying his debt” with money that is not his.
The Bach (Yoreh De’ah 331) writes that this rule applies only “to maaser ani from the seed of the land, which is a positive Torah commandment.” But what a person tithes from business profits and other gains is not included. From this money one may give to tzedakah and to redeem captives, “since he is not obligated in it, neither by the Torah nor by the Rabbis.”
The Taz (ibid., 32) responds: it seems that the tithe set aside from monetary profit should be compared to the law of maaser ani on grain and fruit. My father-in-law (the Bach) wrote that our tithe on money is not an obligation, neither by the Torah nor by the Rabbis. I am surprised, for at the beginning of chapter 249 it is clear that it is a full obligation, as all the poskim wrote, and the Beit Yosef in the name of the Yerushalmi. The Taz therefore copies the Tur’s words on maaser ani in brief, and concludes: all of this seems to apply also to the tithe set aside from the profit that the Holy One, blessed be He, gives to people. And earlier, in chapter 251, the Beit Yosef wrote in the name of the Mordechai that maaser ani is like someone who sets money aside for tzedakah.
So the Taz’s comparison runs in two directions: maaser kesafim is like maaser ani, and maaser ani is like tzedakah.
Questions on the Taz’s view
Authority: by what right can the Taz compare maaser kesafim, which does not appear in the Talmud, to the mitzvah of maaser ani, which is from the Torah? Moreover, by Torah law maaser ani applies only to the produce of the land, not to monetary profit. And according to most poskim, it must even be given to the poor man in the form of the produce itself; only in case of need do some permit giving its value.
When the obligation applies: according to the Taz, maaser kesafim should apply only in the third and sixth years of the shemitah cycle, like maaser ani. And if you say that as regards timing it is like tzedakah, which applies every year, then the Taz is taking from each mitzvah whatever suits him: from maaser ani, the laws of the money; from tzedakah, the timing of the obligation.
Separate mitzvot: maaser ani and tzedakah are two separate mitzvot. Tzedakah has no fixed Torah measure; the obligation is to give the poor man “sufficient for his need, whatever he lacks” (Devarim 15:8). The Sages ruled that one should not give away more than a fifth (Ketubot 50a), and that one should never refrain from giving a third of a shekel a year; whoever gives less has not fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah. Maimonides (Gifts to the Poor 7:5) added practical measures: a fifth is the choicest way of fulfilling the mitzvah, a tenth is the average measure, and less than that is miserly. But these measures are not mentioned in the Talmud.
The Mordechai’s comparison: maaser ani is not based on a resemblance to tzedakah. It is an explicit Torah mitzvah, with a fixed measure. The Mordechai’s comparison concerns only certain laws, such as relatives taking precedence, and not the source of the obligation.
In short: whoever has fulfilled the mitzvah of maaser ani has not thereby fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah, and vice versa. True, whoever gave no tzedakah this year and gave only maaser kesafim has certainly fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah. That is not the case for someone who fulfilled only the mitzvah of maaser ani.
Is there a dispute here?
Perhaps there is no real dispute here. The Bach is speaking of someone who gives tzedakah properly, for whom maaser kesafim is an addition with no obligation. The Taz is speaking of someone who fulfills his obligation of tzedakah through maaser kesafim, and so for him it is a full obligation.
Yet a difficulty remains: the Taz forbids paying from maaser kesafim the tzedakah that the townspeople have imposed on a person, because he would be “paying his debt.” But if maaser kesafim is itself the tzedakah he is obligated to give, why can he not pay the town’s tzedakah from it? It is the same mitzvah. It seems, then, that the Taz sees the tithe as something in addition to the obligatory tzedakah, and not the tzedakah itself.
Only a custom
The Penei Yehoshua (Responsa I, Orach Chaim 2) writes that it is “wasted effort” to compare our tithe to the Torah’s tithe, “since it is only a custom.” And in a matter that is not clear in the Gemara or in the verses, and is only a custom, “it is not my way to enter into the depths of pilpul – go out and see what the people do.”
The Shevut Yaakov (Responsa II, Yoreh De’ah 85) writes the same. But in his view, where the custom has spread, or when a person wishes to be strict with himself and set aside a tithe, if his intention is that it have the full status of maaser ani, there may also be a vow for a mitzvah involved. If so, he may not use it to pay his debts.
The Yaavetz (She’ilat Yaavetz I, 6) writes that maaser kesafim is not even a rabbinic enactment. But “Israel is holy”: they were strict with themselves and established maaser kesafim everywhere, at least on dowry money.
He brings a proof that the Amoraim did not know of maaser kesafim at all. The Gemara in Eruvin (64a) asks: someone who acquired the property of a convert who died without heirs, what should he do so that the property remains in his hands? He should buy a Torah scroll with it. Rav Sheshet said: likewise a husband who acquired his wife’s property. Rava said: even one who did business and made a profit. Rav Papa said: even one who found a lost object. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: even if he had tefillin written with this money. In other words, the Gemara gives good advice: do some mitzvah with the money, and that is enough. If one had to tithe, why would a Torah scroll or tefillin also be needed? Tzedakah is, after all, a great mitzvah. This proves that this obligation has no basis at all, not even rabbinic. This proof was not accepted by all: the Birkei Yosef (249:6) writes of it, “it can be rejected, as one who examines it will see.” And the Chavot Yair (224) also wrote as the Yaavetz did.
The Igrot Moshe (Even haEzer III, 43) cites the sources of maaser kesafim: Tosafot in Taanit citing the Sifrei, which includes profits from interest and trade, and the Yalkut: “a hint to merchants and seafarers that they give one tenth to those who toil in Torah.” The Vilna Gaon (249:2) also brought a source from the Yerushalmi. Even so, in his view there is no obligation, not even rabbinic. It is a great virtue, but whoever does not set aside a tithe for tzedakah is not a sinner, as long as he gives a third of a shekel a year.
There is one case in which he is obligated: when a poor person has asked him for support. Then he transgresses “You shall not harden your heart” and “You shall not shut your hand,” as well as “You shall surely open your hand,” even if he gave a third of a shekel. And it stands to reason that even if he has already given a tithe, he is obligated then. All the more so when there is an enactment of the townspeople assigning each person a share in supporting the poor, which is like a poor person asking him specifically. But the obligation to set aside a tithe apart from all this is an asmachta – a support from the verses – and not a real obligation, not even rabbinic.
Conclusion
Most of the Geonim and Rishonim did not mention maaser kesafim at all, not even as a good custom for individuals. When one checks which Rishonim mention it as a practiced law, it appears that only in the middle of the period of the Rishonim, among the Chasidei Ashkenaz, did maaser kesafim become established as an obligation practiced by the community. And even then, not everyone set it aside. In Eastern Europe, for example, it was not practiced. And so it is today: some set it aside, and some do not.
Many poskim cite a “dispute” on the subject. But in truth there is no dispute here, and there cannot be one, since there is no binding source.
And even for those who practice it, the custom itself is unclear. As a rule, whoever sees maaser kesafim as a custom separate from the law of tzedakah will tend to allow the money to be used for a wide range of purposes. And whoever sees it as part of the mitzvah of tzedakah will, as a matter of course, limit it to the needs of the poor alone.