They knock on your door asking for funds. No, they are not meshulachim from Israel. Nor are they the regular fundraisers for our worthy hometown mosdos.
These are people that you have to look down lower to greet.
They are children from the neighborhood yeshivos who have been recruited by various tzedakah organizations to knock on doors and raise funds for the organization.
The whole concept raises a number of questions.
1. We must ask whether it is appropriate for these organizations to recruit children to do their work for them in the first place. The Gemara in Shabbos (119b) tells us that we do not stop the study of tinokos shel beis rabban even for the building of the Beis HaMikdash. Reish Lakish is quoted there as saying that the world does not exist except on account of the sound of children studying Torah. So, is it appropriate for the yeshiva to set aside school time to explain the tzedakah program? It seems that this is the type of question that should be reserved only for a renowned poseik, one who is apprised of all the details (including when and where the children are going out collecting).
2. Is it such a simple matter that so many young children can afford to take off homework time? While it is true that it is the parents’ responsibility to train their children in mitzvos—which certainly includes giving, and perhaps even soliciting charity when necessary—it might be more appropriate for the parents to involve their children with them in their own charitable acts. Young children going off collecting on their own is not the ideal method of teaching our children about tzedakah.
3. Do the charitable organizations take into account the risks of traffic accidents? Traffic accidents happen all too often, and children are not always careful. It is a grave responsibility to have young children traveling door to door, block to block, crossing street after street. Even children trained in looking both ways before they cross sometimes make mistakes when they are thinking about other things or when they are fussing with an envelope or counting money. It happens.
4. What about other types of dangers? There was a recent near-miss incident where a child was almost taken by someone that was “less than wholesome.” Do the organizations tell the children what to do in these types of situations? Often there is not much that can be done in such circumstances.
5. Can the child be trusted with the funds? Tosefos in Kesubos (28b) write that a child is not believed, whether for heter (to permit something) or for issur (to forbid something). The testimony of a child, according to Tosefos, is merely given the halachic status of a kol—a rumor that should be investigated.
We also find a halachah in regard to tevillas keilim, the immersion of vessels. Although if a child did put the vessels in a mikveh to immerse them the immersion is valid, the child is not believed to say that he has immersed them (see Yoreh Deah 120:14). The explanation is that on a biblical matter a child does not have legal credibility. In Yoreh Deah, chapter one, there is a discussion as to whether a child is believed to say that an animal was slaughtered properly. Although generally speaking a child is not believed (See Shach 1:27 citing the Raah and the Maharshal), there are situations when a child is believed.
For example, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (the first Lubavitcher Rebbe) writes that when there is a chazakah (a legal psycho-statistical based assumption) that a child will not mess something up, a child is believed (Y.D. 1:42). His example deals with sending an animal with a child to the slaughterer. Another example he cites is when a child is sent to ask a rav a question as to the kashrus of something. Since the child is fearful that they will check up on things with the rav, he is believed.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav qualifies it further by saying that only a child who is known to be honest may be relied upon. According to this ruling, then, one may trust a child with funds only if one knows him to be honest. This view is also the opinion of the Simlah Chadashah 1:35. Indeed, the Simlah Chadashah writes that one should ascertain whether a child’s behavior is good before one believes him.
The Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Deah 1:48), however, seems to understand things slightly differently. He limits the Talmudic notion of the non-believability of a child to difficult situations. However, sending something through a child is a rather simple matter, and he writes that a child would be believed under such circumstances. He provides the caveat that the child cannot be too young, however. (The Magen Avraham (O.C. 399:7) writes that a child is believed on the kashrus of an item if it is “beyado”—within his ability—to, in fact, make it kosher. This, however, does not bear on our case as to whether to believe the child, since the concept of “beyado” is not applicable.)
In conclusion, if one clearly knows that the child is trustworthy, it is permitted to entrust him with money. If one does not know the child, it seems that there would be a debate between the Aruch HaShulchan and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav as to whether the child is to be trusted, and there is a concern of lifnei iver—providing a temptation for the child to take the money for himself. If one knows that the child engages in misdeeds, then it would be a problem of lifnei iver to give him the money.
The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com
