Megillah, Daf Kaf Zayin, Part 2
וכן במותריהן. אמר רבא: לא שנו אלא שמכרו והותירו, אבל גבו והותירו מותר.
The same applies to any money left over. Rava said: They taught this only if they had money left over from a sale; but if they had money left over from a collection, it is permitted [to use it for any purpose].
The mishnah says that if one sells something sacred all of the proceeds must be used to buy something even more sacred. If he buys something more sacred and money is left over, then he must also use the extra money to buy another more sacred item.
Rava limits this to a case of selling one sacred item to buy another. If money is collected to buy a Sefer Torah and there is left over from the purchase, the money can be used to buy less sacred items, and potentially even non-sacred items.
איתיביה אביי: במה דברים אמורים שלא התנו, אבל התנו – אפילו לדוכסוסיא מותר. היכי דמי? אילימא שמכרו והותירו – כי התנו מאי הוי? אלא שגבו והותירו, טעמא – דהתנו, הא לא התנו – לא!
Abaye objected: When does this rule apply? If they made no stipulation; but if they made a stipulation, they may even give it to the dukhsusya.
What was this a case of? If we say that they sold [something sacred] and had money left over [after purchasing a new one], then even if they made a stipulation [that they could do what they liked with it], what does it matter?
Rather, we must say that they collected money and some was left over, and the reason is given that "they made a stipulation" but if they made no stipulation they cannot [use the left over].
Abaye cites a baraita in objection to Rava. The baraita says that if they "made a stipulation" and money is left over, they may even give it to the "dukhsusya" a word which the Talmud will interpret below. The question is what does this refer to? If it refers to a sale, then the left over money can certainly not be used for any purpose. Therefore it must refer to a collection. But even when it comes to a collection they have to stipulate at the outset that if there is leftover money it can be put to other purposes. Otherwise, even in the case of a collection it is prohibited. For instance, if they collect money to write a Sefer Torah and they stipulate at the outset that any left over money will be used to pay to have the pipes fixed, then it is okay. But without a stipulation the money could not be used in this way.
לעולם שמכרו והותירו, והכי קאמר: במה דברים אמורים – שלא התנו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר, אבל התנו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר – אפילו לדוכסוסיא נמי מותר.
[No, what is meant] is that they sold and had something left, and this is what it should say: When does this rule apply? When the seven "good men" of the town did not make any stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople; but if the seven good men of the town made a stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople, it may be used even for paying a dukhsusya.
Rava emends the baraita so that it reads something else entirely. If the seven good men of the assembly who are allowed to sell sacred items do not stipulate that if there is left over money they may use it for other purposes, then the left over money remains sacred. But if they stipulated that the left over could be put to other use, then they may do so. The implication is that if they just collected the money, they can put it to whatever use they want.
אמר ליה אביי לההוא מרבנן דהוה מסדר מתניתא קמיה דרב ששת: מי שמיע לך מרב ששת מאי דוכסוסיא?
אמר ליה: הכי אמר רב ששת: פרשא דמתא.
אמר אביי: הלכך, האי צורבא מרבנן דשמע ליה מילתא ולא ידע פירושא – לישיילה קמיה דשכיח קמיה רבנן, דלא אפשר דלא שמיע ליה מן גברא רבה.
Abaye said to a one of the rabbinical students who used to arrange his mishnah in front of R. Sheshet: Have you ever heard from R. Shesheth what is meant by dukhsusya?
He replied: This is what R. Shesheth said: The town horseman.
Abaye said: This shows that a rabbinical student who has heard something of which he does not know the meaning should ask one who is frequently in the company of the Rabbis, since he is almost certain to have heard the answer from some great man.
Abaye sees a student who used to recite and arrange his mishnah, the halakhot that he knew, in front of R. Sheshet. This refers to a type of memorization learning that was common in Talmudic times. Abaye asks the student what a "dukhsusya" is. The answer is the town horseman. Under certain circumstances the extra funds from the sale of a Torah or from a collection to fund a Torah may even be used to pay the town horseman to bring packages and messages from place to place.
Abaye learns from here that it is in general a good idea to ask questions of students who are frequently in front of "great men" such as R. Sheshet. In my opinion, this is still good advice.
אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי מאיר: בני העיר שהלכו לעיר אחרת ופסקו עליהן צדקה – נותנין, וכשהן באין מביאין אותה עמהן, ומפרנסין בה עניי עירן,
תניא נמי הכי: בני העיר שהלכו לעיר אחרת ופסקו עליהן צדקה – נותנין, וכשהן באין מביאין אותה עמהן. ויחיד שהלך לעיר אחרת ופסקו עליו צדקה – תנתן לעניי אותה העיר.
R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: If the people of one town go to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed them for charity, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money back with them to assist with it the poor of their own town.
It has also been taught in a baraita: If the people of one town go to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed them for charity, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money back with them. If an individual, however, goes to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed him for charity, it is given to the poor of that town.
If a group of people from one town visit another town, and the charity collectors there assess them to pay the charity tax, they should pay it. But when they leave, they may reclaim the money and use it to provide for the people of their own town. This is sort of like a tax agreement between the two towns.
However, if an individual goes from one town to another and pays the charity tax there, he may not reclaim it. The Talmud does not explain why there is a difference between these two situations. Probably the assumption is that if there is a group of people, then their charity really belongs to the people of their own town.
רב הונא גזר תעניתא, על לגביה רב חנה בר חנילאי וכל בני מתיה, רמו עלייהו צדקה ויהבו. כי בעו למיתי, אמרו ליה: נותבה לן מר, וניזול ונפרנס בה עניי מאתין! – אמר להו: תנינא, במה דברים אמורים – בשאין שם חבר עיר אבל יש שם חבר עיר – תינתן לחבר עיר. וכל שכן דעניי דידי ודידכו עלי סמיכי.
R. Huna once proclaimed a fast day. R. Hana b. Hanilai and all the men of his place happened to visit him [on that day], and he made them give charity and they gave it. When they were about to leave, they said to him [R. Huna]: Please return it to us so that we may go and provide for the poor of our own town.
He replied to them: We have learned: When does this rule apply? When there is no town scholar in charge there; but if there is a scholar in charge [of charity] there, it should be given to the town scholar, and all the more so in this case, seeing that both my poor and your poor depend upon me.
R. Huna declared a fast day, probably due to some distress that his city was experiencing. R. Hana b. Hanilai and other men were visiting him and R. Huna made them give some charity. When they were leaving, they asked for it back, in accordance with the baraita from above. R. Huna cites a different baraita that said that he has to give it back only when there is no person in charge of the tzedakah in that city. But if there is a person in charge of giving out the tzedakah, then he receives it. R. Huna would have made a great fundraiser in our times as well.