Rashi to Kesubos 67B apparently tells us that one can recover a loan given to an extreme miser who would not accept a loan, but which was given to the miser as a gift - that one can recover that loan back from his heirs.
I would like to better understand all matters of this situation for personal reasons.
Both the story behind the gemara, and the applicable halachos today.
Robert
It is the Gemara in Kesubus 67B which said that it is proper to trick the miser into receiving a gift which rightfully can be taken back after his death. This opinion is not the Halachah. The Halachah is that we don't care for him.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
I understand that there is a halacha that if a family falls upon hard times, such as the wage-earner becoming disabled, that the klal has an obligation to support the family to their previous level.
While I cannot quite put a finger on a great question, I feel there is some conflict between these two halachos, and perhaps the "don't care" approach might be a bit too harsh.
And that the klal's responsibility would even be where the wage earner has become a miser, or even if he had become a miser while the change in status was happening.
Could I please hear more about this Kesubus 67B scenario and the halacha you cite in light of this other halacha?
While I do not know the halachic citation, my source is Rav Aaron Tendler of Baltimore who verified the halachic basis of something I had read. Is it necessary to have a citation, or perhaps this halacha is well known?
Thank you and Kol tuv.
--Robert
Robert
The Shulchan Aruch explains Hilchos Tzedaka in Yoreh Deah chapter 247 until chapter 259.
Definitely the Klal has an obligation to support the poor. However, "a rich person who hungers himself and is stingy with his money not to eat from it, is not to be paid attention to"(253:10). (But I think it is clear that we will not let him die.)
Of course, his wife and children are not to suffer because of him. They should be supported as all poor people. Care should be taken that support is sent to them only. If money cannot be directed to them without the miser taking for himself, it would seen that this is not any worse than other expenses which must be taken into account in supporting the poor.
All the best
Reuven Weiner