was created to deal with this need. The limits of eligibility were expanded to exclude garments not only for weekdays, but also for shabbat. In other words, for a more prosperous society.
The discussions in the Jerushalmi testify that the laws of gleanings and“corners” continued to be in effect in the Land of Israel through the Byzantine era, but it was not enforced elsewhere, probably because of agricultural competition. Jews who lived elsewhere were not included. 7amhui and kupa replaced them.
As the Babylonian Talmud did not discuss the agricultural laws that applied only to the land of Israel and therefore not the laws about poverty, its material is widely scattered. The legal obligation was expanded by various scholars who also cited the ethical obligation. New issues such as ransoming captives were discussed and the duty toward orphans was emphasized.
There was some debate about whether charitable giving could be made compulsory; as Rava forced R. Nathan bar Ami to give four hundred zuzim, this was cited subsequently as a basis for communal enforcement(B. B.B. 8b; B. Ket. 49b). These discussions were continued into the Middle Ages, but never disrupted the system of enforced collections.” The Babli and Jerushalmi permitted the movement of funds between tamhui and kupah according to need (B.B.B. 8b; J. Peah 8.6). Orphans were helped, especially with a dowry and in setting up a home(B. Ket 67a).
Numerous statements in the talmudic and midrashic literature encouraged zedakah so that this went beyond the legal implications. Tzedakah, both when mandated by the communal officials and when given voluntarily was considered more important than any sacrifices