Clarification of 18 Polish gulden, sum the Alter Rebbe suggests donating to charity to redeem a day of fasting undertaken for teshuvah - Letter No. 199:

This letter is a response to a question posed to the Rebbe which appeared in Kovetz Lubavitch. The letter is not dated, but based on comparison to the other material published in that volume of the Kovetz, it would appear that the letter was written in 5706. As in the previous letter, the query of the questioner is restated by the Rebbe and the note to the question is the Rebbe’s.

Question: The Alter Rebbe writes (Tanya, Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 3) in the name of the halachic authorities that one should give the value of eighteen Polish gulden for every day of fasting undertaken for teshuvah.1 Please clarify what is the value of that sum at present.

R. M. Z. Shechter, New Haven, Conn.

Reply: I) The source for the Alter Rebbe’s statement is the ruling of Rama in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:26: “If a person transgressed and desecrated (the Shabbos), he must fast 40 days.... In compensation for the sin offering [which he is required to bring], he should give 18 peshitim2 to tzedakah. If he desires to redeem his fast, he should give 12 peshitim for each day.” Commenting on this, Magen Avraham writes in the name of the Levush that every peshit is equivalent to one and a half Polish gulden.3 Thus twelve peshitim are equivalent to 18 Polish gulden as the Alter Rebbe writes in Iggeres HaTeshuvah.

The value of these coins in the present age is explained by the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch at the conclusion of sec. 334. [He states that] 18 peshitim are equivalent to a sela as prescribed by Scriptural Law. Thus 18 Polish gulden are equivalent to two-thirds of a sela as prescribed by Scriptural Law. And the value of a sela can be known in every country based on the sum through which a firstborn is redeemed, five selaim.4 With regard to the redemption of the firstborn, however, we are stringent with regard to the measure since a Scriptural commandment is involved, while in the present instance, that is not the case.

* * *

II) It is still necessary to clarify if these measures are accepted in all times and in all places. From the Alter Rebbe’s wording in his Shulchan Aruch and in Iggeres HaTeshuvah, it appears obvious that these measures — both the measure given in place of a sin offering and the measure to redeem a fast — are equal at all times, except that a rich man should add according to his wealth. It is worthy to clarify his opinion concerning this, for Magen Avraham (334:34) — and based on his ruling, Machzis HaShekel and Chayei Adam — differ [with that approach]. This also appears to be the opinion of Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah, Responsa 155).

* * *

Magen Avraham questions Rama’s statements (made in the name of Piskei Mahari) which define the measure given in place of a sin offering as 18 peshiti — which Magen Avraham considers as the equivalent of 27 silver meah. For one fulfills his obligation for a sin offering if he brings [a sheep] worth a danka — i.e., one meah — as a sin offering, as stated in Zevachim 48a. As a result, [Magen Avraham] comes to the conclusion that the measure given in place of a sin offering is dependent on the price of a sheep in the time the sinner lived. In the Talmudic era, the price of a sheep was a danka, but in the time of Mahari, its price escalated, rising to 27 meah.

Based on the above, in our era, it is necessary to give the amount of money necessary to buy a sheep in the country where the sinner lives. This appears to be the intent of the wording used by Magen Avraham. We do not evaluate the amount based on the price in Eretz Yisrael. Although in the time the Beis HaMikdash stood, they would bring sheep from Chevron (Menachos 87a), [sheep] brought from any land were acceptable. It is just that those from Chevron were the choicest.

Seemingly, since the measure of twelve peshiti — to redeem a fast — is mentioned together with the measure [given in place of a sin offering], it is possible to say that according to Magen Avraham, it is also dependent on one’s time and place. We estimate the feelings of a person in his era and locale, calculating the extent of the discomfort caused by the loss of a particular sum in relation to the discomfort caused by a fast, in a manner comparable to the statements of Magen Avraham 568:12.5

According to this rationale, a difficulty arises: [True,] an upper limit has not been established, i.e., a rich man must add according to his wealth. But on the surface, there should not be a lower limit either. For certainly there are indigent people in every generation who find a small financial loss more difficult to bear than the discomfort of a fast.

Why is there not one halachic authority who states that the measure of twelve peshiti mentioned by Mahari is an intermediate measure and a poor person may give less than that?6 For this reason, it appears appropriate to say that even according to Magen Avraham, the measure of 12 peshiti is the absolute minimum; one should never give less.7
* * *

In his Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe (at the conclusion of sec. 334) cites the measures of eighteen and twelve peshiti, but does not cite the opinion of Magen Avraham that the measure of eighteen peshiti fluctuates according to the price of sheep. On the contrary, the fact that he states the equivalent in the coinage of his day indicates that he maintains that the measure of eighteen peshiti did not change in our time.

The Alter Rebbe resolves the question raised by Magen Avraham — on which his decision that the measure is dependent on the price of sheep at that time — by adding the phrase “It (eighteen peshiti) is the measure of a sela according to Scriptural Law.” Accordingly, the fact that he is obligated for eighteen peshiti despite the fact that it is sufficient for him to bring a sin offering worth a danka is no longer difficult to understand. A sin offering worth a danka is sufficient for him not to be called a sinner. Nevertheless, in general, a sin offering would be worth a sela, as stated in Tosafos, Kerisos 10b, s.v. michlal. From Rashi, Menachos 107b, it appears that this value applies also with regard to the Oral Law. (See the gloss Lechem Mishneh to Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos 16:4.8 )9 Thus if the foundation [of the thesis of Magen Avraham] has collapsed, there is no longer any proof for his ruling that the measure of eighteen peshiti fluctuates.

Moreover, there are difficulties according to the ruling of Magen Avraham that the amount of money given in exchange for a sin offering is dependent on the price of sheep. [Among them:]

a) How is it possible that the halachic authorities remain silent concerning this matter and do not explain it?

b) If we say — as is the Alter Rebbe’s opinion — that the sum given in exchange for a sin offering is fixed, we can appreciate why the halachic authorities delineated the equivalent of that measure in the coinage of their country and yet, their calculation served as a ruling for all countries. For wherever a sinner will give eighteen peshiti, he will fulfill his obligation. The country in which he dwells is of no consequence.

With regard to the opinion of Magen Avraham, by contrast, even with regard to Maharam [of Rutenberg] who [first] cited the measure of eighteen peshiti, the law would apply only with regard to those places in his immediate vicinity where the price of a sheep was eighteen peshiti. Certainly, this price fluctuated from city to city, and surely, from country to country. How then could he cite a figure in a text as a directive for people at large?10

c) The title Moram — the originator of the measure of eighteen peshitim quotedbyMahari in his Responsa — appears to refer to Maharam of Rutenberg who wrote his responsa in the beginning of the sixth millennium in Germany. The responsa of Mahari were written about 200 years afterwards in Austria. The gloss of Rama to the Shulchan Aruch waswritten in Poland more than 100 years after the responsa of Mahari. How is it possible that despite this extended length of time and changes from country to country, the price of a sheep did not fluctuate from its value at the time of Maharam and [remained] eighteen peshiti, no less and no more?!

« Previous

Rosh HaShanah blessings; Rosh HaShanah as “the head of the year”

A lengthy treatise concerning the concept of Resurrection, discussing many issues in detail

Footnotes

The Alter Rebbe is precise in speaking about a fast undertaken for teshuvah. For it is only such a fast that can be redeemed monetarily if one suffers greatly. If, however, a person accepted a fast as a vow, he must fulfill his vow as stated in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 568:2.

Seemingly, the term peshit is the name of a coin. It is necessary to search to see whether the appropriate name is peshut (with a vav) or peshit (with a yud).

It appears appropriate to say, however, that the term is not the name of a specific coin, but rather it means “a small coin.” We find the term used several times in the Talmud in that context. Their value is determined differently in every place and with regard to every statement of our Sages. Similarly, in the appendix to the Aruch (the second Maareches Pshat), peshitim are defined as small coins that cannot be changed to coins of lesser value.

This theory should not be questioned based on our Sages’ statement (Kesuvos 65b; 67a) which speaks of “zuzim peshiti.” Although there are coins of lesser value than a zuz, that does not represent a difficulty, for in this context, peshiti is the description of zuzim. It is as if it said: The zuz of the least value, i.e., the zuz used in Eretz Yisrael and not the zuz of Tzur.

Similarly, a question should not be raised from Chullin 54b which speaks of “small peshiti.” Seemingly, according to the interpretation of the appendix to the Aruch, the adjective “small” is unnecessary. It is, however, possible to explain that in the Talmudic era, the coins of the least value were of the same weight — for the worth of the coin was dependent on that. They were not, however, equal in their size and thickness. Some were thicker and less wide and some were wider and thin. In Chullin, loc. cit., the passage deals with the width of the coin. By adding the adjective “small,” it clarifies that the intent is the coin with the smallest width among the peshiti themselves. This is indicated by the conclusion there: “It is found among the peshiti of Pumbedisa.”

There are several coins called gulden(godol in Hebrew) mentioned by the halachic authorities; they are not of equal value. With regard to the relative value and the worth of the coins mentioned by our Sages and Rabbis, see the conclusion of the Responsa of Chut HaShoni and the Responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek (Yoreh Deah, Responsa 223) and the sources cited there.

[In his Shiurei Torah (3:43), Rav Chayim Naoh defines the five selaim required for the pidyon habein as being equivalent to 96.15 grams, but suggests that because a Scriptural commandment is involved, one should give the equivalent of 101 grams. Thus when there is no need to include that stringency — as in the present instance — a sela is equivalent to 19.23 grams of pure silver.]

[There Magen Avraham makes such statements when speaking about a person who is suffering substantially and therefore desires to redeem a fast that he vowed to undertake.]

Chesed LiAvraham (Maayan 4, Nahar 45) writes that a person may redeem a fast (of [24 hours, i.e.,] day and night, as evident from his statements) by giving one isar [a coin of far lesser value] to tzedakah, differing with the authorities mentioned above. [His statements require] much clarification.

While mentioning [his work], there is another novel concept stated by Chesed LiAvraham in that source: that a person can live for seven days, four hours, and 48 minutes without eating or drinking. Until the present, I have not found any authority who notes an opinion that differs with Rambam who states (Hilchos Sh’vuos 5:20) that a person is incapable of fasting an entire week.

It is possible to explain that the measure of twelve peshiti was instituted to redeem a fast undertaken for the sake of teshuvah for the following reason: In general, one should undertake forty fasts for the sake of teshuvah, as stated by Chesed LiAvraham, loc. cit. (see the rationale which he mentions). See also the statements of Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 568:4) and commentaries.

It is possible to say that this is the reason we see mention of fasts of 40 days in several places in the Talmud (e.g., Moed Kattan 25a, Bava Metzia 33a, 85a, see the gloss of the Maharshal). According to the statements of Chesed LiAvraham, loc. cit., and the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit., that a fast of three consecutive days is equivalent to a 40 day fast, one may also cite the fast [decreed by] Esther.

As a whole, teshuvah — and particularly, a fast undertaken for the sake of teshuvah — is an exchange for death. As our Sages state (Talmud Yerushalmi, Makkos 2:6):

Prophecy was asked: “What is the punishment appropriate for a sinner?”

“The soul of the sinner shall die.”...

They asked the Holy One, blessed be He....

He replied: “He should do teshuvah and he will achieve atonement.”

See also Berachos 17a and the commentary of Ramban to the Torah (Vayikra 1:9) among other sources.

When our Sages desired to ordain the minimum sum to be given as atonement for the soul of any person, whether of great stature or lesser stature, even a servant or maidservant, they sought a support from the Torah. Since the Torah (Shmos 21:32) established a uniform fine — 30 shekalim — for killing any servant or maidservant, whether adult or child, male or female, this sum was considered as the equivalent of a 40-day fast. Thus [when dividing 30 by 40], the equivalent of a one-day fast is three-fourths of a shekel or eighteen meah. This equals twelve peshiti according to the reckoning of Magen Avraham.

(Based on the explanations in Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvas Yiud O Pidyon Amah HaIvriyah, we can understand the connection between sin and atonement offering mentioned above and the fine paid for killing a Canaanite servant. This is not the place for extended discussion concerning the matter.)

It is also possible to explain that a fast [is effective] because of the discomfort resulting from the lack of eating and drinking. Although the license is granted to redeem a fast with money, at the very least, one was obligated to give no less than the worth of the meals of that day, even if he would suffer the discomfort of a fast for a much lesser amount of money. Since he was granted the leniency of not having to fast, stringency was applied with regard to the worth of the meals for which he is exchanging. Thus we measure [the worth of the meals of] the day on which we are commanded to delight, Shabbos, when we eat three meals. Although there is no upper limit with regard to the worth of a significant meal, there is a lower limit: a dinar (Bava Basra 146a). Thus the worth of three meals is three dinarim which are equivalent to twelve peshiti as above.

All of the above follows the reckoning of Magen Avraham who calculates that a Polish gulden is equivalent to a meah. According to the Alter Rebbe who, by contrast, considers it as slightly less than a meah, clarification is necessary with regard to the rationale [why] twelve peshiti was established as the measure [for the redemption of a fast].

[There Lechem Mishneh cites sources that state that an average sin offering costs a sela, according to both Scriptural and Talmudic Law.]

Sec. 334, in the gloss Nefesh Chayah to Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim), authored by R. Reuven Margolios, cites as a source for this law the Responsa of Maharam of Rutenberg, Vol. III, Responsum 431 (they are not accessible to me) and the Tashbeitz Kattan, Hilchos Shabbos, sec. 68. The Tashbeitz states: “When a person desecrates the Shabbos... in the time of the Beis HaMikdash, he was obligated to bring a sin offering. A sin offering could be brought for a danka,... but the fundamental mitzvah is for it to cost a sela.... This is equivalent to 5 hailush dinarim. That sum should be given to tzedakah.”

Significantly, the wording of Piskei HaMahari (Responsum 60) requires some clarification [to be reconciled with] the Alter Rebbe’s perspective. There it states: “Every person who desecrated the Shabbos should give the measure equivalent to a sin offering that costs a danka. Maharam calculated this to be eighteen peshitin.”