From the sources by Eliezer Segal: …Like Casting Stones into the Sea

By Eliezer Segal

(AJNews) – When Mordecai instituted the celebration of Purim, he ordained that it be observed as a time for “sending portions each to one’s fellow, and gifts to the poor.” As regards the “sending of portions,” it seems clear that the reference is to distributing edible treats to fellow-Jews. Purim is, after all, the commemoration of a distinctly Jewish deliverance.

As regards the “gifts to the poor,” however, the matter is not quite as obvious. Most rabbinic authorities assumed that one fulfils the obligation by giving charity to a poor Jew. Maimonides explained that this is not a normal instance of charitable generosity, but a specific expression of the rejoicing appropriate to this festival.

Yet other texts from the medieval era tell of a custom in the Rhineland communities of including non-Jews among the recipients of Purim charity. In a statement ascribed (incorrectly) to Rashi, Rabbi Kalonymus ben Isaac the Elder of Speyer (11^th – 12^th centuries) voiced his opposition to the practice of giving holiday gifts to gentile household servants. He argued that those who did so were thereby depriving the legitimate Jewish poor of their proper entitlement. Furthermore, they were creating the misleading impression that they were properly fulfilling the scriptural precept.

Rabbi Kalonymus recognized that the custom was pervasive in his local community; however, he argued that it had originated under specific circumstances. At first, indigent Jews were embarrassed to approach their more affluent coreligionists directly to ask for the alms, so they sent children to knock on their doors; and for that purpose they would be accompanied by non-Jewish maidservants or wetnurses (the theory seems to assume that even members of the poorer classes employed their own servants and nannies). Eventually, the servants came to feel that they were entitled to the gifts independently of any children that they might have been escorting.

Rabbi Kalonymus dismissed that custom as a religiously meaningless act equivalent to “casting a stone into the sea.” This capriciousness only served to discredit their otherwise admirable generosity. Those fools who hand out gifts to ineligible non-Jews were demonstrating that their initial donations to the Jewish poor were no more than habitual acts of kindness and should not count as fulfillment of their Purim observance.

From a responsum of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (thirteenth century), we may get an idea of how firmly the practice had become entrenched. He wrote expressing his opposition to “the custom of bestowing gifts upon maidservants in new towns where there was no established custom.” In such recently established localities, we must take care not to introduce it.

In support of his position, Rabbi Meir cited a remarkable exposition by Rabbi Ephraim (apparently of Regensburg, 12th century) that was virtually identical with that of Rabbi Kalonymus, who compared the Jews’ misdirected generosity to that of the Israelites in the wilderness.

Both interpreted the words of the prophet Hosea, “and I multiplied her silver and gold which they prepared for Baal,” to imply that after earning spiritual merit for their willingness to devote their gold jewelry to the sacred project of constructing the holy tabernacle, the Israelites forfeited that merit and trivialized their motives when they proved themselves to be indiscriminately magnanimous by contributing to the fashioning of the idolatrous golden calf.

Rabbi Meir conceded, however, that in localities where the practice of giving to gentiles had already taken root, it need not be abolished. He adduced justification for the custom by referring to instances in the Mishnah that mandate supporting gentile poor alongside the Jews in the interest of “the ways of peace.”

The fact that the issue was still not resolved in the generations of Rabbis Ephraim and Meir, some two centuries after its earliest mention by Rabbi Kalonymus, attests to the persistence of communal customs among Ashkenazic Jews, as well as to the fluidity in the establishment of new Jewish communities in central Europe.

A very different attitude was indicated by a text in the Jerusalem Talmud which stated that “one should give to any person who extends their hand.” Based on this, Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban) in thirteenth-century Gerona wrote that “it is the prevalent custom throughout Israel to give Purim alms even to non-Jews. Since we are not required to verify their eligibility too thoroughly, one may give it to anybody.  Otherwise, it might provoke hostility; and we have learned in the Mishnah that ‘we support the non-Jewish poor along with the Jewish poor for the sake of the ways of peace.’”

Rabbi Yom-Tov Ishbili inferred that, because the obligation is part of the festival rejoicing and not motivated by generic philanthropy, it may be observed even by donating to people who are not needy. “For this reason it is customary to give Purim money to gentiles and even to the wealthy.”

The attitudes of subsequent generations continued to diverge on this issue. The heirs to the Spanish tradition did not discourage distributing Purim donations to gentiles, in order to promote peaceful coexistence, and out of concerns for arousing hostility. Ashkenazic authorities, on the other hand, were more insistent about following the teachings of Rabbis Kalonymus, Ephraim, Meir of Rothenburg and others who were determined to uphold the distinctly Jewish religious character of the holiday and its observances.

In the talmudic retelling of the Purim story, the Persian Jews accepted Ahasuerus’ invitation to attend his banquet (where they were provided with kosher food) – but some rabbis questioned whether they should have stressed their religious distinctness by distancing themselves from the general feasting.

It appears that the complexities of the relationships between the Jewish community and its non-Jewish neighbours have remained a major theme in the interpretation and celebration of Purim – though concealed in an ostensibly technical question of religious law.