Ta’anit 20b records a fascinating practice of Rav Huna (from the William Davidson edition of the Talmud): “Rafram bar Pappa further relates: ‘And every Shabbat eve, in the afternoon, Rav Huna would send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardeners who sold their crops, and throw them into the river.’ The Gemara asks: “But why did he throw out the vegetables? Let him give them to the poor.” The Gemara answers: ‘If he did this, the poor would sometimes rely on the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, and they would not come to purchase any. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood.’ The Gemara further asks: “And let him throw them to the animals.” The Gemara answers: ‘He holds that human food may not be fed to animals, as this is a display of contempt for the food.’”

Ki Eshmera Shabbat

It is clear from our sugya that Rav Huna was a wealthy individual. Perhaps, the kavod he extended to Shabbat merited this blessing, similar to the stories related to Shabbat 119a. As the well-known piyut (liturgical poem) states, “Ki eshmera Shabbat, Keil yishmereini—Hashem blesses Shabbat observers.” Moreover, when one extends extraordinary kavod to Shabbat, Hashem reciprocates with exceptional blessing.

I experienced this phenomenon on a Friday in early July, 2022. My hair was cut 10 days before, but I decided to extend extra kavod for Shabbat by getting a trim that Friday for extra kavod Shabbat.

When my son, Binyamin, trimmed my hair, he found a tick lodged in my skin, which I apparently caught while reviewing an out-of-town eruv the day before. Tests showed that Binyamin removed the pest before it did damage. What an example of “Ki eshmera Shabbat Keil yishmereini!”

Economic Wisdom

Rav Huna recognized that his “artificial” interference in the market could wreak havoc. Therefore, he took the counterintuitive step of casting the extra vegetables into the river.

The Gemara explains that had Rav Huna given the vegetables he bought to the needy, they would not have purchased vegetables on future Fridays. Rashi explains that they would not have vegetables for Shabbat because Rav Huna might not have leftover vegetables to buy and give to the poor.

We suggest another explanation: Had Rav Huna given the extra vegetables to the poor, they would not have purchased vegetables for Shabbat, for they expected a handout from Rav Huna. This step would have disrupted the marketplace, as fewer vegetables would be bought. More vegetables would be left over, leaving Rav Huna to purchase more. Moreover, the poor would have less motivation to free themselves from poverty. The vegetable handouts would worsen poverty, not ease it. In the long term, handouts would harm the poor instead of helping them.

Maaser Ani

I suggest the same applies to maaser ani (the tithe we must give the poor in the third and sixth years of the shemitah cycle). One might wonder why the Torah does not obligate us to give maaser ani yearly. While the Torah wishes to provide some relief to the poor, it does not want to make the poor overly dependent on handouts.

Vegetables Downstream

According to Rashi’s second explanation, the vegetables would be recovered by those living downstream. This move would not disrupt markets since the food was unexpected and undependable, as they would not know its source.

Pesach

Nonetheless, Rav Huna did not let those in genuine need starve. The Gemara relates: “When Rav Huna would eat bread, he would open the doors to his house, saying: ‘Whoever needs, let him come in and eat—כׇּל מַאן דִּצְרִיךְ לֵיתֵי וְלֵיכוֹל.’” By inviting the poor to his home, Binyamin observes, Rav Huna provides the poor with dignity. They are honored guests, not recipients of handouts. Sadly, as Rava notes, it is not practical to implement Rav Huna’s practice. However, one night a year we do so—at the Seder.

Extending extraordinary hachnasat orchim at the Seder is so appropriate, as the first form of Pesach—with Avraham Avinu and Lot—involved exceptional hachnasat orchim. Avraham Avinu extended extraordinary hachnasat orchim as described in the Torah. Although he served dramatically less, Lot also acted exceptionally well since in Sedom, hachnasat orchim was punishable by death.

Conclusion: Welfare Policy

Concern for the poor is a high Torah priority. A Jewish community that does not engage in tzedaka is not a Jewish community. Rambam (Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 9:3) writes, “He has never heard of or seen a Jewish community that does not maintain a charity fund.” If a Jewish community does not have such a fund, Rambam implies that it is not worthy of calling itself a Jewish community.

However, a balance must be drawn to avoid creating a welfare culture among the poor. Bergen County’s Project Ezra is an excellent example of effective tzedaka. By design, it works to help the needy by giving them the tools to overcome their economic challenges. We must never let our societies descend to the awful standards of Sedom. On the other hand, responsible and thoughtful tzedaka giving avoids counterproductively motivating permanent poverty.

Rabbi Jachter serves as the rav of Congregation Shaarei Orah, rebbe at Torah Academy of Bergen County and a get administrator with the Beth Din of Elizabeth. Rabbi Jachter’s 18 books may be purchased at Amazon and Judaica House.