Tzedakahצדקה

Employment as Tzedakah and Maaser Kesafim

Sources address the hierarchy of charitable giving, with employment ranked as the highest form of tzedakah, and discuss the rules governing maaser kesafim (the charitable tithe). However, the sources do not directly address whether wages paid for employment given as an act of tzedakah may be deducted from one's maaser kesafim obligation.

מַעֲלָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנָּה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל

27 sources · 23 verified

Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.

What the sources say

This question actually raises two separate halachic questions: whether providing someone a job qualifies as the highest form of tzedaka, and, separately, whether wages paid for that job may be counted toward or deducted from one's maaser kesafim obligation.

Employment as tzedaka

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 10:7) identifies the greatest of the eight levels of tzedaka as strengthening a Jew who has become poor by giving him a gift, a loan, forming a partnership with him, or finding him employment, so that he will not need to ask others for help — deriving this from the pasuk "וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ" (Vayikra 25:35), which he reads as an instruction to support the person before he falls. Sefer Chasidim (Sefer Chasidim 1029) similarly favors giving tzedaka in a form that produces ongoing livelihood for the poor person — such as lending for profit-sharing — over a simple handout, when the recipient is trustworthy enough to be given principal to work with.

Menorat HaMaor (Menorat HaMaor) draws a terminological distinction between tzedaka proper — giving money to a poor person who is in need, which one is in some sense obligated to do — and chesed, which includes assisting another person with one's own body or effort (such as labor) even for someone not technically poor, done without any formal obligation; this distinction bears on whether furnishing paid employment is tzedaka in the strict sense or falls instead under chesed.

Ketubot 67b (Ketubot 67b:8) describes how the Sages structured charitable assistance as a loan followed by a gift (or vice versa) specifically to preserve the dignity of a recipient who does not wish to accept outright charity, illustrating that the form in which support is extended affects its character as tzedaka.

Maamar Mordechai (Maamar Mordechai Limot HaChol 25:2) rules that a worker's wages must be paid promptly, before one recites minchah, treating timely payment of a hired worker as a distinct halachic obligation that is discussed alongside, but is not identical to, the separate practice of giving tzedaka before minchah.

Explore this topic

Maaser kesafim obligations

The baseline obligation is set out in the Shulchan Arukh (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 247:1-2), which establishes tzedaka as a Torah-level obligation calibrated to one's means, and in Ketubot 50a (Ketubot 50a:2), which records the Ushan enactment that one who distributes charity should not give away more than one-fifth of his assets, lest he himself become destitute. Taanit 9 (Taanit 9:1) adds the drashah that one should tithe "so that you will become wealthy," framing maaser as a tested source of blessing rather than a mere deduction from income.

Arukh HaShulchan (Arukh HaShulchan, Yoreh De'ah 249:7-10) rules that maaser is calculated annually on net profit after deducting the genuine costs of earning that profit — including travel and business expenses — but ordinary household expenses may never be subtracted before calculating the tithe, meaning personal living costs are not a legitimate deduction from maaser.

Several sources establish that maaser funds may not be used to discharge an obligation one already owes: the Taz (Turei Zahav on Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 249:1) rules that paying taxes or one's own debts from maaser is forbidden because this merely satisfies a personal obligation through charity money, and the Shach (Siftei Kohen on Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 249:3) and Chatam Sofer (Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 232:4-5) likewise distinguish a mitzvah one is independently obligated to perform, which cannot be funded from maaser, from an optional act of support, which can.

By contrast, supporting grown children or other relatives whom one is not legally obligated to maintain is treated as genuine tzedaka that may be funded from maaser: the Beit Yosef (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 251:3) and the Shulchan Arukh (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 251:3) rule that aiding grown sons, daughters, or a needy father falls under tzedaka and even takes priority over strangers, a priority order likewise detailed by the Tur (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 251), the Chatam Sofer (Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 229:2-3), Ahavat Chesed (Ahavat Chesed, Part II 19:1-2), and Rabbeinu Bahya (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 47:28), who ranks giving to one's own poor above giving to the poor of another city.

Ahavat Chesed (Ahavat Chesed, Part II 18:3-4) rules that maaser must first be separated from the principal itself and only afterward from ongoing profit, and suggests that one may structure the separated maaser as a gemach fund from which he may also borrow, provided he actually lends an equivalent sum to another borrower first, so that the arrangement still fulfills the mitzvah of maaser.

Directly addressing payment for labor, Avnei Yashfeh (Avnei Yashfeh 7:103) holds that where the recipient would have been willing to pay the going rate for the work performed, and the craftsman himself values the work as a monetary contribution toward maaser, the value of that labor may properly be counted as maaser funds.

Minchas Yitzchak (Minchas Yitzchak 8:5) rules that an expense falling outside the standard categories of what maaser may fund can nonetheless be paid from maaser if the possibility of using it for that purpose was stipulated at the time the maaser was separated, though he notes it may be preferable to be stringent and avoid relying on this.

Minchas Yitzchak elsewhere (Minchas Yitzchak 6:101) permits using maaser funds first to cover one's own and one's household's basic necessary livelihood when ordinary income falls short, provided the maaser is properly separated beforehand, with any surplus beyond those needs directed to other poor people.

Maamar Mordechai (Maamar Mordechai Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2 28:25) states the general rule that anything one is already obligated to pay cannot be covered from maaser kesafim — for example, a customary annual synagogue honor payment — though any amount given beyond what one ordinarily gives, purely to fulfill an additional mitzvah, may be paid as a voluntary contribution from maaser.

B'Mareh HaBazak (B'Mareh HaBazak Volume III 130:6-7) addresses a case closely analogous to deducting wages: where one wishes to forgive part of a debt (such as rent) as tzedaka, he rules that to satisfy all opinions one should first fix the full amount owed and then formally forgive a portion as tzedaka, so that the forgiven difference can be counted as maaser kesafim for all views.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 32a:2-4) discusses a related boundary question — whether supporting a parent or discharging an existing partnership obligation "converts" money already owed into tzedaka — concluding that where one would otherwise be repaying his own debt from the funds of the poor, this is not treated as a tzedaka outlay, only genuine additional expenditure ("ha'adafah") qualifies. Malbim (Malbim on Bamidbar 18:23) separately notes that the Levite's tithe was tied to an ongoing service obligation and remained due even when exemptions might otherwise apply, underscoring that a tithe obligation is not automatically satisfied by other arrangements.

Explore this topic

Source 1 · Chazal

Verified

Kiddushin 32a

קידושין ל״ב א — ד"ה מֵיתִיבִי

Kiddushin 32a:2-4

Chachmei Bavel discuss whether honoring a father requires the son’s financial loss, explaining that even if the father’s money is used, the son loses through neglecting his work, and that feeding a father maaser ani can be permitted when it represents an excess beyond the son’s obligation.

מֵיתִיבִי: נֶאֱמַר: ״כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר: ״כַּבֵּד אֶת ה׳ מֵהוֹנֶךָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, אַף כָּאן בְּחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל אָב, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? לְבִיטּוּל מְלָאכָה. תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנֵי אַחִים, שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין הָאָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ – פּוֹדִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וּמַאֲכִילִין זֶה לָזֶה מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשֶּׁל בֵּן, נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים! – לָא צְרִיכָא, לְהַעְדָּפָה.

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: It is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9), which teaches the following verbal analogy: Just as there one honors God “with your wealth,” i.e., through monetary loss, so too here one must honor his father through monetary loss. And if you say that one honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son, i.e., what monetary loss does he suffer? The Gemara answers: It makes a difference to him with regard to the neglect of his work. Although he is not required to spend his own money, the son must leave aside his work to honor his father, which will cause him some financial loss. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Two brothers, or two partners in the ownership of produce, or a father and son, or a rabbi and his student, may redeem the second tithe for each other without adding one-fifth, as one who redeems the tithe of another, including these individuals, is not required to add one-fifth. And they may feed each other the poor man’s tithe. If one of them is poor, the other may give him the poor man’s tithe that he separated from his produce, and it is not considered as though the pauper ate the poor man’s tithe from his own produce. The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita. And if you say that the obligation to honor one’s father is from the money of the son, one finds that this son repays his obligation from the produce of the poor, as he is taking care of his father with produce that should go to the poor. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where he has covered all of his father’s basic needs with his own money. At this stage, if his father needs surplus money, he may give it to him from the poor man’s tithe.

Employment as tzedaka

Maaser kesafim obligations

Kiddushin 32a

Ketubot 67b

Ketubot 50a

Taanit 9

Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 10:7

Tur, Yoreh De'ah 251

Sefer Chasidim 1029

Menorat HaMaor

Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 47:28

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 249:1

Arukh HaShulchan, Yoreh De'ah 249:7-10

Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 251

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah

Taz, Yoreh De'ah 249:1

Shach, Yoreh De'ah 249:3

Ahavat Chesed, Part II, chapter 19

Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 232

Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah 229

Ahavat Chesed, Part II, chapter 18

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 247:1-2

Malbim on Numbers 18:23

Avnei Yashfeh 7:103

Minchas Yitzchak 8:5

Minchas Yitzchak 6:101

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Maamar Mordechai Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 2 28:25)

B'Mareh HaBazak Volume III 130

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Maamar Mordechai Limot HaChol 25:2)

Related sheets

Chesed as Origin and Expression of Love

Abraham, Joshua, and Samuel: Models of Answered Prayer

The Role of Salt in Torah Offerings

Bal Tosif and Lo Sasur: Adding and Subtracting from Torah

Salt as a Covenant in Jewish Sacrifice

Counting the Omer as Spiritual Preparation