Do the Rules of Perika/Te'inah Apply to Tzedaka and Chesed.

 Mishpatim, Shemos 23:5

כי תראה חמור שנאך רובץ תחת משאו וחדלת מעזב לו עזב תעזב עמו

There are two chidushei dinim in this parsha. One is that if the owner of the animal refuses to work alongside you as you help him, you have no mitzvah. You are welcome to walk away. The other is that given the option of helping a friend, an Oheiv, with Perikah, or a Sonei, some lowlife, with Teinah, you should help the one whom you justifiably dislike. There is a machlokes Rishonim (familiar to most of us as the Tosfos in BM and the Tosfos in Pesachim) whether it's a real rasha, or just a nasty kind of person, and the Rama paskens it is not a real rasha. But it certainly is a lowlife.

Do these dinim apply to the general parsha of Tzedaka and Chesed?  Do we make a binyan av from Pr'uT? If not, why not?

The second halacha, the din that a sonei comes before a not sonei. 

BM 32a:

אוהב לפרוק ושונא לטעון מצוה בשונא כדי לכוף את יצרו

Is this true by Tzedaka? How about helping someone change his tire. Your friend and someone that it is a mitzvah to dislike are both on the side of the road, in the rain, with flat tires. Or need to be pushed out of the snow. Do you have to prefer the person you dislike? I hope not, because that would eliminate the whole concept of Tovas Hanaah. Besides being somewhat absurd.

The answer, as my brother Harav Akiva mordantly pointed out, is, "of course not." 

In the parsha of Tzedaka, the Torah says the instructive word "Achicha." 

(דברים טו, ז): “כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחַד אַחֶיךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּאַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר ה’ אֱלֹוהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת יָדְךָ מֵאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן”. 

In YD 251:

למי נותנין הצדקה ואיזה קודם לחבירו. ובו י"ד סעיפים:

מי שהוא עבריין במזיד על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה ולא עשה תשובה אינו חייב להחיותו ולא להלוותו  (ומפרנסים עניי עובדי כוכבים עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום) (טור בגמרא פ' הניזקין):

Gaon there - 

מי שהוא כו'. לשון סמ"ג ור"ל מומר לתיאבון כמש"ש ומ"ש בספ"ד דגטין (מ"ז א') שר' אמי רצה לפדותו לפנים מש"ה דעבד וטעמו כיון שהוא עבריין אינו אחיך ואינו מצוה על מאחד אחיך ועל וחי אחיך עמך עד שילקה וכמ"ש במכות כ"ג א' במתני' וכ"כ סמ"ק וכמ"ש בס"ב וכן דייק הב"י מלשון הרמב"ם שכתוב בס"ב מי שהוא עבריין להכעיס כו' משמע דלתיאבון אין איסור אבל ג"כ אין חיוב וכמש"ש בהג"ה אבל עבריין כו' ואין מוכרח ותוס' בעבודת כובכים כ"ו ב' ד"ה אני כתבו דמחוייבין לפדותו ולהלוותו וכן עיקר:,

There you have it. By regular Tzedaka, there is a din of Achicha, and Achicha means bemitzvos, and the more achicha, the more priority. Based on the other dinim of kedima, it appears that Achicha is interpreted in its normal meaning as well - your brother, your compatriot, your friend. In seif 9,

היו לפניו עניים הרבה ואין בכיס לפרנס או לכסות או לפדות את כולם מקדים הכהן ללוי והלוי לישראל והישראל לחלל והחלל לשתוקי והשתוקי לאסופי והאסופי לממזר והממזר לנתין והנתין לגר והגר לעבד משוחרר במה דברים אמורים בזמן שהם שוים בחכמה אבל אם היה ממזר ת"ח וכ"ג עם הארץ ממזר תלמיד חכם קודם (ואפילו חכם לכסות ועם הארץ להחיות ואשת חבר כחבר) (ב"י מהירושלמי) וכל הגדול בחכמה קודם לחבירו ואם היה אחד מהם רבו או אביו אע"פ שיש שם גדול מהם בחכמה רבו או אביו שהוא תלמיד חכם קודם לזה שהוא גדול ממנו:

So it is clear that the din of favoring a sonei does not apply to other dinim of Tzedaka and Chesed. 

However, it appears that the other din in Pr"uT does apply generally.

Mishna BM 32a:

 הלך וישב לו ואמר הואיל ועליך מצוה אם רצונך לפרוק פרוק פטור שנאמר עמו

Of course, this is only where the owner is an az panim, as the Meiri says.

הלך וישב לו כלומר שהיתה בהמה זו רבוצה והיה בעליה עז פנים והלך וישב לו ואמר לזה שפגע בו הואיל ועליך מצוה אם רצית לפרוק פרוק פטור ועל זה נאמר עמו ואם היה זקן או חולה ר"ל בעל הבהמה זקן או חולה ואין בו כח לעזור ואינו עושה כן מתוך עזות אלא מתוך חולי או זקנה חייב זה לפרוק ולטעון עמו לבדו:

YD 253:10:

עשיר המרעיב עצמו ועינו צרה בממונו שלא יאכל ממנו אין משגיחין בו:

and Maharashdam YD 166:

 כל הנהו עובדי כתובות מז ע"ב דהלל שלקח לעני בן טובים סוס לרכוב עליו ואנשי גליל שלקחו לעני ליטרא בשר היינו שהיו מלומדים בכך דלא מיירי אלא במי שהורגל ואין לו יכולת עתה בשום צד למצוא הרגלו ולימודו ואפשר יסתכן על זה אמרה תורה אשר יחסר לו לא על מי שאבותיו ואחיו וארץ מולדתו רגילים להתפרנס מטרחם ועמלם ויגיע כפיהם והוא רוצה להתנהג מעונג בלתי עמל דאין זה נקרא יחסר לו כי הוא מחסר את עצמו ושאיש כזה אין על הצבור מוטל לפרנסו ולא על קרוביו הוי כמי שיש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס משלו שאין נזקקין לו 

 פשיטא שאין חלוק בין מי שיש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס למי שאין לו מעות בעין ויכול להתפרנס ממקום אחר ממלאכה או אומנות או סחורה שאם יעלה בדעת שכל מי שאין לו מאתים זוז בעין ויכול להרויח מזונותיו במלאכה או בענין אחר כנזר יתפרנס מן הצדקה אין ספק שהיה זה מן הנמנע שרבו מאד האנשים שאין להם מעות בעין והם בעלי מלאכה או ד"א שיתפרנסו מן העשירים ולא היה הקומץ משביע את הארי 

 And his slightly younger contemporary, the Kli Yakar, in Mishpatim, directly relates this to the parsha of Pru'T:

 מכאן תשובה על מקצת עניים בני עמנו המטילים את עצמם על הציבור ואינם רוצים לעשות בשום מלאכה אף אם בידם לעשות באיזו מלאכה או באיזו דבר אחר אשר בו יכולים להביא שבר רעבון בתיהם וקוראים תגר אם אין נותנים להם די מחסורם כי דבר זה לא צוה השם כי אם עזב תעזב עמו הקם תקים עמו כי העני יעשה כל אשר בכוחו לעשות ואם בכל זה לא תשיג ידו אז חייב כל איש מישראל לסעדו ולחזקו די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו ועזב תעזב אפילו מאה פעמים 

and Sefer Chasidim 

יש צדקה שאינה נראית כצדקה והוא לפני הקב"ה צדקה מעולה, כגון עני שיש לו חפץ למכור או ספר שאין חפצים לקנות, ואדם קונהו מידו, וכן עני שחפץ לכתוב ואין אחרים רוצים להשכירו והוא משכירו, אין צדקה למעלה ממנה, שהוא יגע בכתיבה ואתה נותן לו רווחים, אבל אם תראה איש שיכול ללמוד והוא מבין וסופר שיכול לכתוב ואינם רוצים ללמוד ולכתוב, אם תתן להם צדקה קורא אני עליהם "לצדקה והנה צעקה" (ישעיה ה') שנאמר (שם כ"ז י"א) "כי לא עם בינות הוא על כן לא ירחמנו עושהו ויוצרו לא יחוננו. (תתרלב-ה) (ספר חסידים [מהד' הרב מרגליות], סימן אלף ל"ה). 

(I have to admit that the Sefer Chasidim is most likely focusing on the problem of enabling and perpetuating dependency and its destructive consequences, or taking limited communal funds that are needed by the weak and destitute. He seems to not want to derive it from the parsha of Pr'uT, perhaps because such a derivation is not necessary.)

In any case, it seems clear that the din of עמו, as stated in the parsha of Pr'uT, does apply to all kinds of Chesed, directly or indirectly.

Several years ago, my nephew, the תלמיד חכם and עוסק בצרכי ציבור באמונה, Rav Tzvi Ray, said something deeply true. It may be that you have no mitzva to support someone that is capable of supporting himself. But that is not the question you should be asking. Your reaction should be "How can I help." 

I found that the Smak says exactly what Reb Tzvi says, and he says it with an iron fist. The Smak is in 20:

שלא לאמץ לבבו מליתן צדקה כדכתיב (דברים טו) לא תאמץ ולא תקפוץ פי' קפיצת ידים שלא יאמר אם אתן פרוטה לעני לא יהא קרני שלם מוטב שלא אתן תלמוד לומר לא תקפוץ: ולא תאמץ שלא יאמר מה לנו לסייע לפלוני אם היה רוצה היה מרווח יותר מצרכו ת"ל לא תאמץ: שאפילו אתה נותן מהמחשבה הזאת אתה עובר בלא תאמץ:

You might say that this is a Smak in the face. He says forget about not giving. Even if you do give him, but you are THINKING this when you give him, you're over an issur deoraysa of לא תאמץ את לבבך. If you know it as a fact, that's one thing. But until you know it, thinking it is a symptom of רוע לב.

My cousin, Harav Moshe Kaufman, Harav Mordechai Tendler's son in law, Dayan at Midwest Beis Hora'ah, added something to this. He said that he feels that this was what Eliezer eved Avraham was looking for. When he asked Rivka to give him some water, it would have been natural and perfectly fine for Rivka to say, "Please, go ahead! Help yourself." Eliezer was travelling with an entourage, and he was a very capable man himself, so she could easily have offered him access to the water. But instead, she said to herself, if he is asking me to draw the water, there must be some reason that he can not draw the water himself, so I will help him. That was the kind and throughtful heart that Eliezer was looking for.

And this is really evident in the Maharashdam as well!

לא על מי שאבותיו ואחיו וארץ מולדתו רגילים להתפרנס מטרחם ועמלם ויגיע כפיהם והוא רוצה להתנהג מעונג בלתי עמל 

He is clearly saying that you have to take into account the man's cultural milieu. If he comes from a place where this kind of behavior is expected, he can not be criticized or penalized. You should help him באשר הוא שם.

So:

As far as preferring the Sonei over the oheiv, this is unique to Pr'uT, and does not apply anywhere else. Despite the benefit of לכוף את יצרו.

As far as a beggar that prefers to take tzedaka but he could earn his own living,  we have the Sefer Chasidim, and Kli Yakar, and Maharashdam, and the Mechaber in YD, and that is all fine. But the bottom line is, for Shleimus Ha'adam, for being a baal Chesed, make sure you are not asking the wrong question. If you do, you are oveir on the Smak's issur deoraysa.

As the Maharashdam indicates, we tend to be judgmental, and often fail to consider a person's behavior in its context. The reality is that some people have a much harder time being effective and functional. The alcoholic, the procrastinator, the feckless, the obese, the member of a family that learned at his father's knee to grow up subsisting on charity.....one would be well advised to leave the criticism for one's self and to marshal only pity and empathy for others.  I think that this is the pshat in the Smak. It is your ometz haleiv that makes you think that he is lazy and willfully poor. You can not possibly know that for sure, and if you are thinking it, there's something wrong with you.

I just saw something interesting in the latest Masores Moshe, Volume IV p 277, (edited by Harav Moshe Kaufman) which I think is a good mussar haskeil about the proper attitude of a person that is asked for tzedaka. 

רמ] ואחר מהﬠניים השיכורים הבאים מדי פﬠם בפעם לבקש צדקה בישיבה, בא כדרכו לבקש גם מרבינו, והשיב לו רבינו: אתמול נתתי לך המון כסף [וסיפר לי שנתן לו כמה דולרים] ולא יתנו לו ﬠוד היום, ואח"כ אמר לי רבינו שקצת לא ברור האם שייך במקרה כזה הﬠנין של “די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו“, מאחר שהעני משתמש בכסף לקנות יין שרף לשתות, דבשלמא אם הﬠני רוצה דבר משונה ויקר שטוב לו שייך בזה הﬠנין הזה, אבל במקרה זה שמבקש דבר שמזיק לו יתכן שלא שייך במקרה זה הﬠנין של “די מחסורו“, או אולי מאחר שמצטﬠר הרבה כשאין לו יין שרף, וגם קצת משוגﬠ בפרט זה או כן שייך הﬠנין הזה.

The encyclopedic Mechaber, Harav Avraham Bukspan, as always, has a great mareh makom on this topic. One is from Reb Yaakov, which is a perfect example of the central message of this post:

באמת ליעקב " (יו"ד סי ' רנג הערה קמ"א) כתב על אחד שיש בכוחו לעבוד ולהתפרנס אך הוא מסרב לעשות כן והוא נתמך ע"י אחרים , שמותר ואף צריך להפסיק לתומכו , כדי להכריחו לעבוד , אלא שיש להתחשב באפשרות שיתכן שהוא חולה וזה חלק ממחלתו שאינו יכול או אינו רוצה לעבוד, וצריך לבדוק כל מקרה לגופו.

And another one attributed to the Chofetz Chaim, although I have my doubts, both about whether the Chofetz Chaim said it and whether that is the pshat in the Medrash.

. ובספר באורח צדקה הביא ( עמ ' שפג ) במכתב מבעל הדרך אמונה שכתב , החפץ חיים היה אומר שכאשר נגזר על האדם עניות הקב "ה נותן בו עצלות שלא יכול לעבוד. וכן הוא במדרש רבה ( בהר ל"ד ד' ) אמר העשיר לאותו עני לית את אזיל לעי ונגיס [ מדוע אינך עובד בשביל שיהיה לך לאכול,] חמי שקין חמי כרעין חמי כרסון חמי קפרן [ראו שוקיו , רגליו כריסו ובשרו כמה בריא הוא ומדוע אינו עובד]. אמר לו הקב"ה לא דייך שלא נתת לו משלך מאומה אלא גם במה שנתתי לו אתה מכניס לו עין רעה. עיי"ש.

It is interesting, though, that it appears that we really should and do extrapolate from Prika and Te'ina to other types of chesed, as we do for the din of עמו, but we can not do that for the din of שונאך because, in contradistinction to Prika where it says שנאך, by regular Tzedaka it says אחיך. 

Doing the DAF- Donor Advised Funds and Hilchos Tzedakah

When a person makes a profit, he will want to to give Maaser Kesafim, and to reduce his tax liability through charitable donation.  He does not necessarily want to disburse the entire amount immediately, preferring to distribute the charity over a long period.  For example, a person sells an asset he spent a lifetime developing.  This is a singular event. He intends to give maaser kesafim, so he'll give at least ten percent to tzedaka.  From a tax perspective, it makes sense for him to give the money away the same tax year as his profit, so he can deduct the charitable donation from his income and only pay on ninety percent.  (Actually, it would be better for him to give a percentage of appreciated asset to tzedaka, which will enable him to deduct the appreciated value from his income. This will reduce his tax liability even more.)  But he wants to distribute it over time. How do you give it all away immediately, and still give it away over a long period?  By creating a Donor Advised Fund (hereinafter DAF.)

A DAF is a convenient giving vehicle that has mostly replaced family foundations. The donor makes an irrevocable contribution to an account within the fund, getting an immediate tax deduction.  At that point, he names the account (e.g., The Eisenberg Foundation for Clever Online Torah, hereinafter EFCOT) and becomes the account advisor.  The advisor and his named successors may make subsequent additions/donations to the fund.  As Advisor, there are two things he can do: He can choose among multiple investment pools where the funds might grow over time. Most importantly, he can "recommend" grants to charities he selects.

It is important to emphasize that from the legal perspective, the donor gives up all ownership and legal control over the money in the fund.  (If the fund goes bankrupt, all the money deposited with them is lost and gone forever.)  In this peculiar but perfectly valid arrangement, the sponsoring organization, the manager of the DAF, is not legally obligated to follow the wishes of the donor.   Still, the reality is that the funds or assets will be invested and distributed exactly as advised by the donor.  

Approval of grant recommendations is essentially automatic, as long as the fund's rules and IRS regulations are satisfied.  Generally, all that is required is that the recipient be a 501 (c) charity in good standing.  (There may be exclusions that prevent the advisor from naming charities where the adviser or a close relative would benefit from the gift- obviously, grants made from DAF’s must be made for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor or to pay a grandchild's tuition.)  The Adviser instructs the manager to send a check in the amount of X to "Kollel Hora'ah of Marlboro" and the manager of the DAF will send out the check.

What if the fund would refuse to follow donor advice and would give the money to a different charity?  As far as I know, this has never happened. My guess is that the donor would have an action for fraud, but not for conversion.

DAFs are available at Vanguard, Fidelity, and other large investment houses.  There are some Jewish DAFs as well, with slightly higher carrying costs.

As I said, one big advantage of a DAF is that a person might sell a large asset that he has spent a lifetime building, and set aside a percentage, such as maaser, for tzedaka.  But he might not want to distribute the maaser all at once, but rather over a period of several years- or decades.  This will enable the donor to give his entire maaser to the DAF, and distribute it to charitable organizations over time. Another benefit is the option of anonymous philanthropy.

There are several halachic ramifications that arise.

1. If he promises the money to tzedaka, he will have a bal te'acheir problem, because giving the money, or the asset, to the DAF, is not giving tzedaka al pi halacha.  The IRS, of course, views the charitable contribution as having taken place when you fund the DAF.  But it is likely that funding a Fidelity DAF is not called giving tzedaka.  If you haven't given the tzedaka, then you haven't fulfilled your neder, and you'll be over on the issur de'oraysa of Bal Te'acher.

2.  So, of course, one should not promise the money to tzedaka.  Just fund the DAF and give when you want.  The problem is that in that case, you're not really giving maaser, are you?  Maaser ought to be given within a certain time.  For example, the Noda Biyehuda in YD II 198 says that it must be given annually.  So how can I keep it on ice for ten years?

3.  Maybe the DAF administrators can be viewed as the Gabbai, odd as that may seem, and the Gabbai can give when he wants.  But first of all, you would have to give it to what we would consider Tzedaka, not The Vanguard Donor Advised Fund definitely does not fall into that category.  And even if you gave it to a Jewish administered DAF, the fact remains that you have the tovas hana'ah, and the administrator cannot give it away without your approval, so is he really a gabbai?  I lean toward the idea that the DAF administrators do have the din of gabbaim, but this can be argued either way.

4.  A DAF can be invested, like any account.  It is possible that you can designate tzedaka, and then invest on behalf of the nitzrachim, and still call it maaser right now.  I'm not sure what the result as far as Bal Te'acheir will be if you designate tzedaka and invest it on behalf of tzedaka but don't give it to them for years.


In sum, there are two major questions.
1. Is this person creating a problem of the issur deoraysa of Bal Te'Acheir by setting aside tzedaka and not giving it quickly enough.
2. Does a person who funds a DAF fulfill a mitzvah of Tzedaka?  Is he doing a mitzva of Tzedaka at the initial funding, or is the mitzva only when he disburses the funds ten years from now.
3. If he is not doing a mitzvah of tzedakah now, is he fulfilling the din of Maaser Kesafim now?

Answers:
1. Yes, but this can be easily avoided if you know what to do.
2. Probably not.
3. Remarkably, yes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bal Te'Acheir problem:
 It says in YD 257

 הרי עלי סלע לצדקה או הרי הסלע זו צדקה, חייב ליתנה לעניים מיד. ואם איחר עובר בבל תאחר שהרי בידו ליתן מיד,

 ועניים מצויים הם. ואם אין שם עניים, מפריש ומניח עד שימצא עניים. ודוקא במפריש צדקה סתם, אבל כל אדם יכול להפריש מעות לצדקה שיהיו מונחים אצלו ליתנם מעט על יד על יד, כמו שיראה לו 

which indicates that if you give with a tnai that you can distribute it when you want, you're not over bal te'acheir at all.  As the Tur says, this is a machlokes between the Rosh and the Rambam, but he and the Mechaber pasken like the Rosh.

 הצדקה היא כמו הנדר לעבור עליה משום בל תאחר, לפיכך האומר הרי עלי סלע לצדקה, או סלע זו לצדקה, חייב ליתנו מיד לעניים ועובר משום בל תאחר אם לא יתנו מיד, שהרי עניים מצויים לו בכל שעה, וכתב א׳׳א הרא׳׳ש ז׳׳ל, דוקא דמפריש צדקה סתם אבל כל אדם יכול להפריש מעות לצדקה שיהיו מונחים אצלו ליתנם מעט על יד על יד כמו שיראה לו, והרמב״ם כתב, אם אין עניים יפריש וכו', ואם התנה אין צריך להפריש וכו', נראה מדבריו שאין תנאי מועיל אלא כשאין עניים, ולא נהירא

The bottom line is that you can give money to tzedaka and avoid the whole Bal Te'Acheir problem by making a tnai that you will give it out when and to whom you want.  The Bach disagrees with the Beis Yosef and the Tur's psak against the Rambam, but I don't think that matters.  We will go with the Tur and the Mechaber.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Tzedakah and Maaser Kesafim problem- is he fulfilling either of these dinim with a DAF?

Is it called giving Tzedaka or Maaser when there's a hafrasha now and the nesina is in ten years?  It is obvious that the only purpose of Tzedaka is so that nitzrachim receive what they need.  If so, the designation of assets as Tzedaka is by no means a fulfillment of any mitzvah.  If and when you deliver it, then you fulfill a mitzvah, but not before that.  So what good is it that you have a hafrasha and you put it in to a DAF?  You have done exactly nothing until the nitzrachim receive it.  If from a Mitzvas Tzedaka perspective you've done nothing, then you haven't fulfilled the din of Maaser.  All you've done was obligate yourself to give money in the future.  Ten years from now, when you give it away, at that point you've fulfilled the din of Maaser, but we saw that Maaser is an annual requirement. Until that point, you've done nothing but promise to do something in the future.

I'm putting it in here in Hebrew so that someone might find it in a search.

השאלה

אם האדם מקיים מצוות מעשר כספים ע"י הפרשה בלי נתינה מיידית 

I believe that we've resolved this question as well.  As you will see, it appears that hafrasha/designation does immediately fulfill the din of Maaser Kesafim.

1.  Reb Moshe in the Dibros in Gittin p. 117-8 says that Rav Saadiah Gaon as brought in the Tur is mashma that the hafrasha is a not mitzva on its own.  Either you're chayav to give, or don't bother with hafrasha.   Therefore, a person that only earns enough for his basic needs is simply not chayav in the mitzva of tzedaka.  The Rama there seems to say that there are two dinim in Tzedaka, hafrasha and nesina.   Therefore, a person that only earns enough for his basic needs has to be mafrish tzedaka and then, based on the din of kedima, he takes it for himself.
Reb Moshe says a nafka minah would be where a person is noheig to give Maaser Kesafim, but now he earns only what he himself needs.  According to the Rama, he will have to be mafrish maaser, and he'll take it for himself; the idea is that the minhag of Maaser is to be meyacheid it for Tzedaka, and then you apply the dinim of tzedaka to the money.  So fine.  Be meyacheid, and by doing so you've fulfilled the minhag of MK, and then take it for yourself.  According to RSG, since his minhag to give maaser was only when he was chayav to give tzedaka.  Now that he's not chayav to give tzedaka, he has no reason to be mafrish or be meyacheid anything.
It is clear as day that according to Reb Moshe, our question will depend on the difference between RSG and the Rama.
According to RSG that the mitzva of tzedaka is the nesina alone, then hafrasha really does nothing.  According to the Rama that just like leket, there is a din of hafrasha besides the din of nesina of tzedaka, then in our case, the hafrasha is all that is needed to fulfill the minhag of Maaser Kesafim.  Once I was mafrish and it's in the parsha of Tzedaka, I follow the dinim of Tzedaka.  One of the dinim is that, according to the Rosh/Tur, I can be masneh to give it over a long period.

Reb Moshe's diyuk in the almost invisible difference between the language of RSG ( חייב אדם להקדים פרנסתו לכל אדם ואינו חייב לתת צדקה עד שיהיה לו פרנסתו)and the Rama (פרנסת עצמו קודמת לכל אדם ואינו חייב לתת צדקה עד שיהיה לו פרנסתו) seems like a very slim reed to support this tremendous difference in the din of Tzedaka.  Reb Moshe himself says later in the piecee that this diyuk is tzarich iyun le'dinah, because the idea that there's a mitzva of hafrasha alone, based on an asmachta to matanos from produce, is far fetched.  But in the end he says that he believes that the diyuk in the Rama is valid, and if Reb Moshe says so, you can take that to the bank with you.

2.  Rav Wozner, in vol 5:131, on YD 247, brings that there are those who hold that Maaser kesafim obligates hafrasha even where there is no recipient- you're chayav to do the hafrasha even when there's no nesina.  He argues.  It appears that he holds that hafrasha alone is nothing as far as the idea of Maaser Kesafim.  On the other hand, it appears that the shittah he is arguing with, the Rishon LeTzion from the Pri Toar (brought more clearly in his vol 4:124) holds that the hafrasha is a kiyum of MK; if so, maybe the DAF will work.
Here's the Pri Toar:

מצות עשה ליתן צדקה — מצוה זו יש בה כמה פרטים הא׳ — דאפילו מבלי תובעים אותו מצוה על האדם להפריש מממונו צדקה ולחפש עני לתתה לו, וההפרשה היא אחת מעשרה וראי׳ ממה דאיתא בספרי וכתבוהו תוס׳ תענית ע׳ ע״א וז״ל תעשר וכו׳ אין לי אלא תבואת זרעך מנין לרבות רבית ופרקמטי׳ ושאר רווחים ת״ל את כל וכו׳ — הרי דדמיא למעשר ומזה אתה למד דהויא כמעשר דהגם דאין לו תובע לא יפטר מלעשר אלא יעשר ויניח עד שימצא לוי לתתו לו ויש בזה מצות עשה, אבל אין בה לאו אלא דוקא אם בא העני ושאל אי נמי שיודע שיש עני נצרך והוא מעלים עין ולזה כ׳ הרמכ״ם פ״ז ממתנת עניים וז״ל כל הראה עני מבקש ומעלים עין ממנו עובר בלאו הרי דלא עבר בלאו אלא בכה״ג 

Rav Wozner says that there is no mitzva when there are no aniyim, there is no din of hafrasha that is separate from nesinah.  Either you give it to the ani, or you've done nothing.
According to this, Rav Wozner would not view our hafrasha as a fulfillment of any sort of mitzva of tzedaka.  The Pri Toar would.
However, if you'll read the teshuva, it appears that Rav Wozner agrees that as far as the din/minhag of Maaser Kesafim, it could be that there is a new mitzva of hafrasha.  His words-

אלא כנ״ל דמה״ת ודאי לא חייב רק בקיימי עניים, או בעניים תובעים, או לתת לגבאים שיש להם עניים מקבלים, אבל בלא הא ליכא דין הפרשה מה״ת וצדקה אם לא ממדת חסידות או מתקנת רז״ל כמש״כ בפוסקים בדיני מעשר כספים

So even Rav Wozner would agree that you fulfill the din of Maaser Kesafim with the immediate hafrasha.



We are assuming that my funding of a DAF is called a hafrasha, and the administrators have the status of gabbaim, since ultimately we know for a fact that they will give the money to the tzedaka I advise/designate.



I discussed this issue with Harav Shmuel Fuerst, and he stated clearly that creating a DAF with the intention of giving the money to tzedaka over time does fulfill the din of Maaser Kesafim.  I asked him about the hafrasha/nesina issue, and he said that based on the Rosh/Tur we mentioned, it is a kiyum of the din of Maaser Kesafim.


So it appears that everything is fine.  I had a very hard time understanding how you can fulfill anything that has to do with Tzedaka with a hafrasha.  Who cares that you're mafrish?  א"ר אלעזר אין צדקה משתלמת אלא לפי חסד שבה שנאמר זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד

The answer has to be that, as Rav Wozner says clearly and Reb Moshe discusses as well, that ein hachi nami, Tzedaka per se is only meaningful when it gets to the ani, and a hafrasha has nothing to do with the mitzvah of tzedaka.  But Maaser Kesafim is akin to matanos, and matanos have a din hafrasha besides the din of nesina.  


For the moment, I'm going to link to some relevant articles.  I'll winnow them out later.

Here is the biggest Jewish DAF.  While administrative costs are higher, at least it's going to a Jewish fund. https://www.jcfny.org/
Re that fund, see
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/jewish-communal-fund-sees-11-percent-increase-in-grants-totaling-297-million/2015/08/07/
On the other hand, see
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/expose-jewish-communal-fund-seeks-to-cover-up-their-7-figure-funding-of-israel-boycott/2015/08/27/
and
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/03/12/why-is-the-jewish-communal-fund-allowing-grants-to-nif/#

One must remember that they were not acting on their own initiative, merely doing what the fund donor advised.  Still, it weakens the claim to be an organization that exists for the betterment of Judaism and the Jews.

Generally-
http://jewishlinknj.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7768:ez-daf-enhanced-tzedakah-with-donor-advised-funds&catid=160:business-spotlight&Itemid=572


The following is a general discussion of the idea that in Matanos there might be two dinim, hafrasha and nesina.

Here's the Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvos regarding the separation of hafrasha and nesina into two mitzvos.  From the Ramban, you will see that the Rambam holds not like this.  And in any case, again, this makes more sense by matanos than by stam tzedaka.

והראייה עוד שהיא מצוה חיובם לברך על הפרשתם כמו ששנינו (תרומו' פ"א מ"ו) חמשה לא יתרומו ואם תרמו תרומתן תרומה האלם השכור הערום ובעל קרי. והיינו מפני שאינן יכולין לברך. ומפורש בתוספתא באחרון שלברכות (הי"ט) ההולך להפריש תרומה ומעשרות אומר אקב"ו להפריש תרומה ומעשרות מאימתי מברך עליהם משעה שמפרישן. ואילו היה המצוה עלינו הנתינה לכהן מפסוק ראשית דגנך תירושך ויצהרך תתן לו בלבד לא היו גוזרין עלינו לברך בשעת הפרשה מן הכלל המסור לנו מהם כל מצוה שעשייתה אינו גמר מלאכתה כגון תפלין אין צריך לברך כמו שנתבאר (בחמשי) [ברביעי] שלמנחות (מב ב)  וכיון שאמרו לנו לברך בשעת הפרשה אקב"ו להפריש תרומה או להפריש מעשר למדנו שבהפרשה מצוה. ועוד שהרי הכהנים עצמם מפרישים תרומה ומעשרות ומברכין גם כן עליהם כמו שדרשו [הובא פ"א ממעשר סה"ג] מפסוק כן תרימו אלו לויים גם אתם אלו כהנים. ואילו לא היה במצוה אלא הנתינה בלבד היו הם פטורים מזה. ועוד שהרי בחלה טמאה מברך בהפרשתה ואינה ניתנת לכהן אלא משליכה באור כמו שמוזכר בגמר בכורות (כז א) ואם כן ראוי שנמנה שתי מצות בתרומה הפרשתה מפסוק תרימו תרומה לי"י ונתינה לכהן מפסוק תתן לו... ויעלו בידנו במנין הפרשת החלה והתרומה והמעשרות הראשון ושל העני ונתינתן הם מצות משלימות לנו החשבון:

And the Chazon Ish in Maasros 7:24, that if you think that hafrasha by Truma is only a hafrasha when he intends to give it to the Kohen, but if he intends to be mafrish and pour it out, what good is the hafrasha?  He says you would be wrong.  It's a hafrasha nonetheless.

 והדין מבואר גם בגמ' שבת י"ז ב' דאמר משום תרומה ביד ישראל ופריך אם איתא דרוצה לקפח את הכהנים היה מפריש חטה אחת ואם איתא דלא מיתקן הכרי הו"ל למפרך הא קאכיל טבלים ואפרושי נמי לא לפרוש ובמכות י"ז א' אמר טעמא דר"א שא"צ לקרוא שם למ"ע דכיון דממונא הוא מפריש לי' ואינו נותן אלמא שהכרי מתוקן ובבכורות ל' א' פי' תו' החשוד על המעשרות היינו לאכלן חוץ לירושלים אבל אינו חשוד על הפרשה ופירשו כן הא דאמר חושש משום מעשר ואם איתא דמפריש מע"ש ע"מ לאכלן בבית אין הכרי מתוקן א"כ אין כאן מ"ש כלל אלא טבל ולמה חושש משום מעשר הרי יש כאן משום טבל ויכול לתקן דמאי ואין כאן משום מעשר ובב"ק קט"ו ב' לימא מהפקירא קזכינא כו' וראה שהן משתברות וכו' ומאי ראיה דילמא שאני תרומה דהמפריש ע"מ לשופכו אינו תרומה דעיקרה הנאת כהן אלא בודאי המפריש ע"מ לשפוך לארץ הוי תרומה ואפי' שפכן אח"כ 

And here is something I wrote ten years ago about Challah:

.......machlokes the Magen Avraham and Reb Akiva Eiger and Rashi (and maybe the Rambam) against the Taz and the Gaon (and maybe the Ramban).  The  Magen Avraham  in OC 8:2 asks why the mishna in Challa allows the bracha on hafrashas challa while seated, when in general brachos should be said while standing.  He answers that this mitzva is only a mattir, like Shechita, so it is not like other mitzvos.  The Gaon there disagrees, as follows: ודברי מג"א שחלה אינה מצוה, דבריו אין להם שחר, והלא אסור לעשות עיסתו קבין כדי להפקיע חיוב חלה כאמור ביו"ד סי' שכ"ד סי"ד ואמרי' בפ"ג דפסחים [מח,ב,] מאי דעתך לחומרא חומרא דאתי לידי קולא, דמפקע ליה מחלה   The Taz in YD 1:17 says clearly that there is a mitzva to be mafrish even if you have no intention of eating the rest and don't need a mattir.  Reb Akiva Eiger there mentions the Magen Avraham and holds like him, against the Taz:  לא מצאתי זה, דבפשוטו הוא רק כשרוצה לאכלו אסור עד שיפריש תרומה, ובמג"א ריש סי' ח' כתב כן לענין חלה ע"ש, וה"נ בתרומה.  Reb Aharon and the Chavatzeles Hasharon (Carlebach) point out that the passuk in Shlach, Bamidbar 15:19, and a similar passuk by Teruma in Devarim 14:22, use the word "B'achlechem," which seems to support the Magen Avraham.  Also, see Rashi in Gittin 47b: ד"ה מדאורייתא: דביכורים מצוה דרמיא עליה היא ולא טבלי לאסור פירות באכילה וכו'. ולא דמי למעשר וכו' דמעשר טביל ואסר ליה באכילה, ולא מצוה דרמיא עליה היא, אלא אם כן אוכלן או מוכרן דקא משתרשי ליה, clearly like the Magen Avraham.

Obviously, our case is different, because he does intend to give it eventually.  My only question was whether he's mekayeim the mitzva of tzedaka with the hafrasha, or only later when he actually gives it to the nitzrachim.

Just for shleimus, here's a conversation I and another commentator had on Reb Chaim B's blog regarding the question that chita achas poteres, but there's a din of kdei nesina:

pellehDin9:05 AM

As at Shlach 15:20, Rashi is saying pshat in the concept of titain/titnu - k'dei nesina. Although chitta achas poteres es ha'kri, it is not mekayem the d'oraysa of k'dei nesina. 

However, k'dei nesina implies a certain minimal amount, similar to the minimum amount to give each oni from ma'asar oni. This minimal amount would satisfy the obligation regardless if it was given from 100 pounds of challah or grain, or from 100 tons. Continues Rashi that the Chachamim said pshat in k'dei nesina that it is proportional to the amount being tithed.
This is not a takana or gzeira: this is nosnu shiur. K'dei nesina means a minimal amount or a proportional amount, whichever is greater. One who gives the minimal amount when it is less than one in sixty is not mekayem k'dei nesina. Perhaps more than by the melochos asuros on Chal Hamo'ed, this shiur is de'oraysa for k'dei nesina, because it is not a value judgement by the Chachamim but rather the pshat in the words.
However, the halacha of chitta achas poteres es hakri remains regarding tevel, because that is a din in torimu, not titnu.

Eliezer Eisenberg10:35 AMFor pellehDin to say that there are two dinim deoraysa in matanos, hafrasha which has no shiur and nesina that has a shiur, is a blithe assertion of an unprecedented proposition of such novelty that it requires a good deal more support than "how do I know so, because I think so."Fortunately, the Noda beYehuda in Tinyana YD 201 says exactly what he says.

Eliezer Eisenberg10:45 AMI just want to add that the Noda beYehuda himself says "ויש לי לומר בזה דבר חדש לא קדמני בזה שום מפרש או פוסק," and indeed the Aruch haShulchan (Trumos 60:4-5) disagrees. He says you can't say you're not yotzei nesina midorasa, Instead, you're yotzei, but the Torah calls it a chet, like min ha'ra'ah.

pellehDin11:25 AMAccording to both, however, k'dai nesina is separate from hafrasha. The parameters of which Rashi is clearly elucidating.

pellehDin11:33 AM
And BTW, the fact that one is yotzai harama min haTorah even min ha'ra'ah seems to be the makor for chazal establishing three shiurim for nesina by teruma.

I realize that this is booooring if you're not in the parsha or in the sugya, but if anyone has any experience or expertise with this matter, I would appreciate your thoughts.

Re'ey, Devarim 15:7-8 Tzedaka as It Ought To Be Done

כי יהיה בך אביון מאחד אחיך באחד שעריך בארצך אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפץ את ידך מאחיך האביון  כי פתח תפתח את ידך, לו והעבט תעביטנו די מחסרו אשר יחסר לו

The Gemara (BB 10a) relates a conversation between Rebbi Akiva and TurnusRufus.  The Roman asked Rebbi Akiva,  “If your G-d truly cares for poor people, why doesn't He provide for them?” Rebbi Akiva answered that Hashem allows them to remain poor to provide us the merit of giving them charity, which will protect us from punishment.

The Alter of Kelm questions Rebbi Akiva’s explanation. Although the mitzvah of giving tzedakah is certainly a great one, aren’t there enough other commandments that we can do to save us from punishment? What is so unique and special about giving charity, and why must the poor suffer to enable us to specifically perform this mitzvah?

The Alter answers that the mitzvah of tzedakah has a singular and vital function. Although one fulfills the letter of the law by distributing charity to those in need, in order to perform this mitzvah at its highest level a person must do more than this. It isn’t sufficient to give charity simply because Hashem commanded us to do so and we want to perform His will. A person dispensing tzedakah should feel the pain of the poor beggar as if it were his very own. Just as a person who feels his own hunger naturally responds by feeding himself, so too should we strive to identify with the pauper’s anguish to the point that we would be moved to assist him even if we weren’t obligated to do so. (See what we said from Reb Moshe on לא בחסד ולא במעשים באנו לפניך in  #5 here.) God created an imperfect world davka because he wanted to give mankind the opportunity to be Godlike- to do good autonomously because of an intrinsic desire.  

➣ This Mitzva's unique character is highlighted by the fact that our baalei machshava say that we should do Mitzvos Sichliyos only because of Hashem's tzivuy (as we brought from the Netziv, the Sfas Emes, and the Aruch HaShulchan here in Parshas Chukas.)  Here, in perfectly diametric opposition, we are told to learn to do this Mitzva shelo lesheim shamayim, in a manner of speaking!


As the Rambam (Peirush HaMishnayos Avos 3:15) says, given the choice between giving a great deal to one or smaller amounts to many, it is best to give smaller amounts to many, because the repeated act of giving to the poor will make you into a giving person, a person that will naturally love to help the needy.

אחר כך אמר, שהמעלות לא יושגו לפי שעור גודל המעשה, אלא לפי רוב מספר המעשה. וזה, שהמעלות אמנם יושגו בכפול מעשי הטוב פעמים רבות, ובזה יושג הקנין, לא בשיעשה האדם מעשה אחד גדול ממעשי הטוב, שבזה לבדו לא יושג קנין. משל זה, שהאדם אם יתן למי שראוי אלף דינר, בפעם אחת ולאיש אחד, לא תושג לו מעלת הנדיבות בזה המעשה האחד הגדול, כמו שתושג למי שיתנדב אלף פעמים באלף דינר, ויתן כל דינר מהם על צד הנדיבות, לפי שזה ייכפל על ידו מעשה הנדיבות אלף פעמים, ויושג קנין חזק, וזה פעם אחת בלבד התעוררה הנפש התעוררות גדולה למעשה טוב, ואחר כן פסקה מזה. וכן בתורה אין שכר מי שפדה אסיר במאה דינר, או נתן צדקה לעני במאה דינר שהיו די מחסורו, כמו מי שפדה עשרה אסירים, או השלים חסרון עשרה עניים, ואפילו בעשרה דינרים. ולזה תקיש. וזה הוא ענין אומרו: לפי רוב המעשה אבל לא על פי המעשה

I saw Rav Sternbuch brings a Gaon on the words לא תקפץ את ידך, do not close your hand.  The Gaon says that when you fold your fingers into your palm, they appear to all be the same length.  Only when they are extended do you see that each is different.  So, too, the Gaon says, the passuk of לא תקפץ את ידך is telling you that you should not give each poor person the same amount.  You are supposed to find out where he is holding in his life, what his needs are and what he is facing, and give accordingly, and that is what is meant by פתח תפתח את ידך, open your hand.  Look, your fingers are all different sizes.  Look, each poor person has different degrees and kinds of need.  If you give the same to everyone, then you are doing it just to be mekayeim the mitzvah- and if so, you are transgressing the issur of לא תקפץ את ידך!

The idea is that we need to develop our empathy to such a degree that we experience personal pain when we realize that others are suffering.  The only way this can possibly occur is if there is pain in the world.

There is a story in the Gemara about the great Tanna Nachum Ish Gamzu.  His life ended in abject misery- he lost all four limbs and lay helpless and sick in bed.  He said that he brought this upon himself when he realized his failure of compassion.  He was once on a donkey, during years of hunger, and a poor man came and asked for a bite of food.  He immediately got off the donkey and put his hand into his bag to find food.  Before he could hand it to the starving man, he died.  Nachum cursed himself for not giving him food more quickly.  Why did he feel he was so terrible for not giving the food more quickly?  He did the best he could under the circumstances!  The answer, as my father in law, HaRav Reuven Feinstein says, is that if Nachum knew that a moment might come when he will suddenly, without warning, be stricken with hunger pains in extremis, he would not put his food in his saddle bag.  He will put his food in his pocket, so he won't suffer even a moment.  Nachum realized that if he would have had degree of love of his fellow man that the Torah requires, he would have anticipated that he, in a manner of speaking, might suddenly have a desperate and immediate need for sustenance, and he wouldn't have put it in his saddle bag.  He realized he was lacking the degree of love for his fellow human beings that results in empathic suffering, which is a real suffering.  He felt that he needed not only penance, but to experience physically what he ought to have experienced emotionally.  (I once injured my knee, and I found that I suddenly had much more sympathy for my mother, who had been suffering from arthritis for many years.  My injury wasn't even that bad, compared to what she went through.  I realize that this is a sad comment on my compassion, but it's true.)

(Thank you, Steve, for your comment.)

I originally titled this post "My Father's Zatzal mitzva of Tzedaka" because this is exactly what he did.  My father literally saved many people from starvation (in Samarkhand and Yerushalayim,) he helped many people get their start in business that took them from hopeless poverty to great wealth, he founded and supported and led many yeshivos.  But he once said that he doubts that he will get schar in Olam Haba for the chesed he did in his life, because he loved it with his whole heart, and he got the greatest pleasure out of helping a needful person. Why would he be rewarded for indulging himself??? That is the apex of the Mitzva to BE a Baal Tzedaka.  My father searched for the needy, for people who might be ashamed to ask, for people who had given up on themselves and everyone else had given up on, and he gave with- as the Gaon says- an open hand.

Behar: The Juxtaposition of Shmitta and Tzedaka.

After the dinim of Shvi’is and Yovel, the Torah talks about Ki Yomuch. Harav Menachem Ben-Tzion Zachs, in his sefer, Menachem Tzion, explains the smichus of these two parshios.

Shvi’is and Yovel demand tremendous bitachon (giborei koach.) But if a poor man comes to the door, we cannot free ourselves from the chiyuv of tzedaka by telling him to have bitachon, that Hashem will provide— we have to help him as much as we can as quickly as we can and not wait for Hashem to provide for him. So the Torah is illustrating this dichotomy of hashkafa by putting the two dinim next to each other: for yourself, have bitachon, and say that Hashem will provide. For the other, don’t rest until you have done everything you can do, and say that if you do not help him he will die.

I saw the Dubner Magid quoted as saying this too. He says there are people who have, but worry about tomorrow, and people who don’t have, but trust that Hashem will provide. Ironically, you will often find that when you ask these two types for tzdakah, the first type will excuse themselves in their hearts by thinking that Hashem will take care of the poor just as they deserve, and the second type will give without any hesitation, because the person is hungry and needs immediate help.

All this is certainly true, but the fact remains that there seems to be a philisophical inconsistency in encouraging faith for one's own affairs, and ignoring the condign justice of God when it comes to the needs of the poor. This requires explanation: if a person is a ba’al bitachon, and truly believes that Hashem will take care, how can he ‘switch off’ his faith?

The answer is that when an opportunity to give tzedakah arises, your intervention is precisely what Hashem is seeking. On the other hand, in the case of seeking personal parnassa, it is not likely that Hashem is waiting for you to do whatever it is that earns you the money. God did not create the world so that you could balance those books or make that sale. Hashem's intention is that you turn to Him in recognition that it is His will that determines whether your efforts succeed or fail.

This explanation is suggested by the discussion in the Gemara Bava Basra 10a, where Turnusrufus asked Reb Akiva “if your God loves the poor, why doesn’t he take care of them?” and “if your God wants them to be poor, aren’t you subverting his will by caring for them?” Reb Akiva answered that we are God's agents, and our job is to take care of those among His beloved children who have nothing of their own. This is similar to the discussion of the appropriateness of intervention and tefilla for a choleh, whose illness is an expression of God's will (Bava Kamma 85a). Similarly, Chazal tell us that when one is ill, he should assume that his condition stems from his sinfulness. But one does not fulfil the mitzva of bikur cholim by telling the choleh that he is sick because he is sinful. And this is true for nichum aveilim as well: don't tell the bereaved that the person who died deserved it. Tziduk Hadin is important for the aveilim, but it is not a proper topic for the people who are coming to console them.

Charles Barsotti illustrated the concept nicely, here:
In case it doesn't work, it shows a stout and suited plutocrat walking by a disheveled panhandler, looking up at the sky and saying "Help this poor wretch, Lord."