A siman in Shulhan Arukh related to the mitsvah of etrog gives us the opportunity to begin to consider what halakhah has to say about how we spend our money. While the specific context is the mitsvah of buying an etrog, the principles we discuss here are assumed to apply to mitsvot generally.

Siman 656 in Orah Hayyim discusses what a person should do who bought an etrog that is very small, although just on this side of acceptability (just over the size of an egg). This person then finds another etrog that is larger, but also costs more. The Shulhan Arukh says that the person should spend up until a third more to buy the second etrog. While the gemara is unsure as to what we mean by a third, the Shulhan Arukh means a third of the original purchase price. The Shulhan Arukh adds that if a person is considering whether to buy one of two etrogim, that person should similarly spend a third more for the finer etrog, rather than be content with the less good one.

The Mishnah Berurah notes that all agree that if a person has already bought a perfectly fine etrog and then finds another one that is nicer, he (or she) is under no obligation to buy the second one. It is only when one has not yet bought an etrog, or has bought one that is barely acceptable, that we consider the question of a third of its value.

That discussion assumes that the person has the extra money. Mishnah Berurah points out that there are authorities who believe that a wealthy person should spend even more than a third, since the money is relatively unimportant to him. The gemara cites a tradition from Israel that up until a third extra is just the person’s mitsvah, to be repaid in the next world; beyond a third, however, is considered a loan to God that will be repaid in this life. From there, we can conclude that it is permitted to spend more on an object of mitsvah, just not required (more on that in a moment). On the other hand, Mishnah Berurah notes authorities who free particularly poor people from the requirement to spend a third extra, since for them that would constitute an undue burden, and they could fulfill the mitsvah without spending that money.

The next issue to address in this context is if you cannot fulfill a mitsvah except by spending a significant amount of money. Rema rules that one is not allowed to spend more than a fifth of one’s assets to fulfill a positive commandment, based on an analogy to tsedakah, where we rule that even a generous person should not spend more than a fifth of his assets on charitable donations. (R. Moshe Feinstein actually suggested that the Shulhan Arukh might have thought that extremely wealthy people could spend more than a fifth, but that’s a different discussion). Furthering the analogy, Mishnah Berurah quotes some authorities who assumed that one would be required to spend a tenth of one’s assets (or income, if one has already given tsedakah of a tenth of those assets) to fulfill a mitsvah. Mishnah Berurah adds that he thinks they did not mean to limit the obligation to a tenth, but to say at least a tenth. That would mean that Mishnah Berurah was perfectly comfortable ruling that a person would have to spend a tenth of his income on an etrog, if there were no other one available.

In a teshuvah about writing a Sefer Torah, R. Moshe Feinstein (Yoreh Deah, Part I, 143) mentions that he had previously expressed his view that according to most authorities, one is not required to spend a significant some for any particular mitsvah, certainly not a tenth. He also says that he believes that Judaism (or hakhamim, those who are qualified to speak for Judaism) would disapprove of a person spending a fifth of his income to write a Sefer Torah, as that would take away from the amount of money that person would have for fulfilling other mitsvot. Up to a tenth, however, since there are authorities who would require it, R. Moshe thought it was at least admirable (although he is clear that he feels comfortable relying on those authorities who do not even require it).

All that we have said so far, however, only applies to positive commandments. When it comes to prohibitions, we are required to spend all our money, if necessary. If, for example, all suitmakers were to suddenly mix wool and linen in all but the most expensive suits, Jews would still not be allowed to buy and wear a suit made of shatnes, regardless of price. In a more heartbreaking example that was true of this country in the early parts of this century, a Jew would not be allowed to work on Shabbat, even if it meant losing his job and having no other job to find. In issues like these, we are required to rely on God for help, but we are not allowed to transgress the Torah’s prohibitions because of monetary considerations.

To finish with an example along these lines, R. Moshe was asked about a woman who could only find a job in an establishment that required that she not cover her hair. Since R. Moshe, like most authorities, considered the requirement for a married woman to cover her hair as stemming from the Torah (there is a small group of authorities who feel that the requirement is rabbinic, in which case it might also be socially conditioned), this would present the same problem. R. Moshe, however, rules that hair-covering is a positive mitsvah rather than a prohibition, and therefore one would not be required to give up a job (which involves a loss of more than a fifth of one’s income) in order to fulfill it.

HALAKHAH IN BRIEF WILL TAKE OFF FOR SUKKOT, AND CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION THE WEEK AFTER, BE"H. A HAG KASHER VE-SAMEAH TO ALL.