- Jewish Laws and Thoughts
- Charity and Lending Money
Returning the Donations After the Recipient Died
(based on Shut Chatam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat 147)
Case: A poor man died, leaving a widow, a son and a daughter, for whom the community raised weekly support. Then the widow died. Thegabbai tzedaka set up a fund for the son to use for a business when he becomes ready and for the daughter’s future dowry. The son grew up and received his money but died soon thereafter. His sister inherited the money, giving her a total of 600 gold coins, but she too died before she got married. The donors want their donations back, whereas the rabbi wants to use the money for community projects for the benefit of all.
Ruling: It is surprising that there is no mention of the daughter’s closest living relative’s claim. Apparently, there is no known relative, in which case the money is used for communal needs (Rosh, cited by Tur, Choshen Mishpat 283).
The Beit Yosef (CM 253) cites the Rashba that if one gave money for a poor girl’s dowry and she died, her inheritors keep the money. This is because once a poor person receives money, it is his, and he can even use it for uses that the donor did not intend. The Rama (CM 253:16) brings dissenters based on the following sugya (Bava Kama 110a-b). If someone stole money from a convert with no inheritors and swore falsely about it and then the convert died, he gets atonement by returning the money to kohanim and bringing a korban. If the thief paid the kohanim and died before bringing the korban, the money is not returned to his inheritors because the payment brought an element of atonement even without the korban. This implies that if the money given did not have its intended impact, the money would return to his inheritors. The Hagahot Maimoniot (Gezeila 8) learns from this that if one raised money for his daughter’s wedding and she did not get married, the donors can ask for the money back, as their intentions were not fulfilled. Similarly, the Mordechai (Ketubot 177) discusses one who promised to pay for a woman’s marriage, and then she died. He cites Rav Chaim Kohen as exempting the donor to pay and the Raavya as obligating him to give the money to the woman’s inheritors. The above gemara seems to contradict the Raavya.
However, I believe that there is no machloket but different situations. The Rashba is right that once the poor person receives money, the mitzva has been fulfilled and there is neither a need to return the donation with his death nor a prohibition for the recipient to use the money for something else. The Hagahot Maimoniot discusses a case where the father collected money for his daughter’s dowry but she did not receive it, in which case if she will not be getting married, the money is returned. The Mordechai is talking about a case in which the money has not been given yet, and the machloket is whether or not the fact that it has been earmarked is as if it was given.
Applying these distinctions to our case, the money which already reached the orphan son became his and after it went to his sister and she died, it goes to her inheritors (or the community if they cannot be found). One can deliberate about money raised directly for the daughter and is in the hands of guardians, whether it is considered like money in the father’s hands, which is returned. However, it is more logical that the guardians are considered an extension of her, in which case, the money does not return to the donors.
Case: A poor man died, leaving a widow, a son and a daughter, for whom the community raised weekly support. Then the widow died. Thegabbai tzedaka set up a fund for the son to use for a business when he becomes ready and for the daughter’s future dowry. The son grew up and received his money but died soon thereafter. His sister inherited the money, giving her a total of 600 gold coins, but she too died before she got married. The donors want their donations back, whereas the rabbi wants to use the money for community projects for the benefit of all.
Ruling: It is surprising that there is no mention of the daughter’s closest living relative’s claim. Apparently, there is no known relative, in which case the money is used for communal needs (Rosh, cited by Tur, Choshen Mishpat 283).
The Beit Yosef (CM 253) cites the Rashba that if one gave money for a poor girl’s dowry and she died, her inheritors keep the money. This is because once a poor person receives money, it is his, and he can even use it for uses that the donor did not intend. The Rama (CM 253:16) brings dissenters based on the following sugya (Bava Kama 110a-b). If someone stole money from a convert with no inheritors and swore falsely about it and then the convert died, he gets atonement by returning the money to kohanim and bringing a korban. If the thief paid the kohanim and died before bringing the korban, the money is not returned to his inheritors because the payment brought an element of atonement even without the korban. This implies that if the money given did not have its intended impact, the money would return to his inheritors. The Hagahot Maimoniot (Gezeila 8) learns from this that if one raised money for his daughter’s wedding and she did not get married, the donors can ask for the money back, as their intentions were not fulfilled. Similarly, the Mordechai (Ketubot 177) discusses one who promised to pay for a woman’s marriage, and then she died. He cites Rav Chaim Kohen as exempting the donor to pay and the Raavya as obligating him to give the money to the woman’s inheritors. The above gemara seems to contradict the Raavya.
However, I believe that there is no machloket but different situations. The Rashba is right that once the poor person receives money, the mitzva has been fulfilled and there is neither a need to return the donation with his death nor a prohibition for the recipient to use the money for something else. The Hagahot Maimoniot discusses a case where the father collected money for his daughter’s dowry but she did not receive it, in which case if she will not be getting married, the money is returned. The Mordechai is talking about a case in which the money has not been given yet, and the machloket is whether or not the fact that it has been earmarked is as if it was given.
Applying these distinctions to our case, the money which already reached the orphan son became his and after it went to his sister and she died, it goes to her inheritors (or the community if they cannot be found). One can deliberate about money raised directly for the daughter and is in the hands of guardians, whether it is considered like money in the father’s hands, which is returned. However, it is more logical that the guardians are considered an extension of her, in which case, the money does not return to the donors.

Paying a Poor Person’s Guaranteed Loan from Ma’aser Money
Rabbi Daniel Mann | 5775

Accidentally Paying Back Early
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Iyar 7 5781

The Bankrupt Borrower
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Confronting Corona – a Halachic Proposal to Consider
Rabbi Stewart Weiss | Av 5 5780

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Rent on Ruling Based on Unclaimed Claims
5773

Historical View of Rav Mordechai Yaakov Breish (Chelkat Yaakov)
5775

Damages by a Dry Cleaner
5772

General Praise Built on Specific Ones
5773

Double Wrapping Food in a Treif Oven
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Kislev 4 5777

Double Wrapping Food in a Treif Oven
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Kislev 4 5777

The Halachos of Pidyon Haben
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Sivan 29 5778

The Halachos of Pidyon Haben
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Sivan 29 5778
Law and Commandments
Rabbi Berel Wein | Tamuz 2 5782
Daily Mishna - Terumot 3, 6-7
Rabbi Moshe Leib Halberstadt | Sivan 27 5782
Daily Mishna - Terumot 4, 1-2
Rabbi Moshe Leib Halberstadt | Sivan 29 5782
