the necessities of life and led to major communal legislation in the succeeding centuries.'®
The path taken was highly creative and is worth outlining. At the end of the tractate Peah, in chapter eight, the Mishnah was revolutionary; it turned to the urban poor. None of this had anything to do with the previous legislation about“corners” and“gleanings.” The legislation was detailed and therefore enforceable and effective. I will describe it in some detail, so that we may understand how far it went, how intrusive it was, and how expensive for the upper classes.
It began by specifying a minimal support of the poor with the additional statement that it must suffice for two meals. Then follows a set of statements that established a system of dealing with both the itinerant and local poor through two collections, tamhui and kupah'? along with the regulations for distribution. Kupah took care of the longer term needs of the poor on a weekly basis and so dealt with the local poor. The sums were generally distributed on Friday by three officials and were intended to provide fourteen meals, two per day, for an entire week. Funds were collected by two communal officials from anyone who had been in residence for three months. Gabbai or parnas were the titles used to designate these collectors; they were leaders of the community. The task was an honor but involved much work and responsibility. The intermingling of funds as well as the exchange of coins, and so on were prohibited. Everything possible was done to raise the system above suspicion.
Tamhui consisted of daily collections, that were immediately distributed and so were largely intended for the itinerant poor; this was a kind of soup kitchen. Collection of it— in kind or moneys—, was mandatory and was gathered by two communal officials and distributed by three; in other words the equivalent of a bet din. The distribution was considered more difficult than the collection(B.Shab. [18a). These individuals were given absolute trust and were not