kitchen. Collection for it— in kind or money—, 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. 118a). These individuals received absolute trust and were not required to present an audit(B.B.B. 9a). Those that did not contribute were subject to fines, whipping, or the ban.
This Mishnah in this legislation defined poverty as possessing less than 200 zuzim in money or property. The discussions indicated that the details of eligibility had been well worked out. If these funds were pledged to a creditor, for example, or represented a wife’s marriage contract, the man was eligible. The poor person was not compelled to sell his house or his clothing; if he received an expensive gift of pottery after he had been accepted as poor, he remained eligible. He was also not considered poor if he had 50 zuzim in working capital(Peah 8:8 and 9). These sums dealt with a single individual, not a family unit. This legislation had no foundation of any kind in the Bible although it was followed by a number of general moral injunctions from Scripture.
This section of the Mishnah defined poverty and set broad standards for welfare that were to endure through the centuries. It dealt with itinerants and local poor. This revolutionary system was presented as if it had always existed and became the foundation of all future poor relief. We may speculate about dating this revolutionary approach, but the texts provide no hints. The talmudic discussion provide further detail, but never question the basic premise, the need for communal action, an appropriate model for governmental efforts in our time.
As food shortages were common, these decisions were