THE SYNAGOGUE: ORIGINS AND DIFFUSION 229
The Mishnah’s main deviation from the Pentateuch’s redistributive pro-
gra mis in its discussion of thekuppah(lit., “box” or “chest”) and thetamhui
(lit., “cooking pot”), charitable funds whose precise character the Mishnah
doesnotspecify(M.Peah8:7–9).Infact,thoughthesecondpartoftheMish-
nah’sdiscussionseemstoconcernimpoverishedlocaltownspeople,theMish-
nahneversaysthatthelocalpoorhavepriorityoverothers,northatthepeople
have any special obligation to contribute to local funds. Indeed, 8:7 specifies
theitinerantpoorasthemainclientsofthekuppahandtamhui.TheMishnah
isalsoatypicallyhomiletic:“Whoeverdoesnotneedtotakebuttakeswillnot
pass fro mthe world until he beco mes dependent on his fellow creatures; and
whoever needs to take but does not, will not die of old age until he supports
othersfromwhatishis”(8:9).Suchmoralizingmaybeanattempttocompen-
satefor lackofreal control;or,like theemphasison theitinerantpoor, itmay
reflect an urban environment whither itinerants would tend to gravitate, and
where even the local poor might be unknown to the charity distributors. In-
deed, the Mishnah may be legislating here primarily for groups consisting of
rabbis and their close followers, who lived mainly in cities, and for them the
distribution of charity may have been less a redistributive than a publicistic
strategy.
A slightly different picture emerges from the parallel passage in the Tosefta
(Peah 4:8–21). It is, in the first place, massively more detailed than the Mish-
nah. Some of the detail simply adds specificity; for example, where the Mish-
nah states that the itinerant pauper who spends the Sabbath is to be given
foodforthreemeals,theToseftaspecifiesthathe istobegiven(inadditionto
bread, presumably) oil, beans, fish, and vegetables (which seems remarkably
generous). This type of expansion is characteristic of the Tosefta. The same
passage also provides details about the differences between thetamhuiand
thekuppah; for example, the former is open daily and the latter functions
only on Fridays. But here the Tosefta introduces a distinction that is foreign
to, indeed, contradictory of, the Mishnah: thetamhui, which apparently pro-
videsonlythemostbasicsustenance,isopentoallthepoor,whilethekuppah
serves “only the poor in its own town.” (In the Mishnah, both funds seem
to be intended for itinerants.) Similarly, T. Gittin 5[3]:4–5 presupposes the
primarily local character of charity distribution: “In a town which contains
bothIsraelitesandgentiles,theparnasimcollectfrombothIsraelitesandgen-
tiles, because of the ways of peace; they support (both the Israelite and) the
gentile poor, because of the ways of peace; they eulogize the gentile dead,
and console the gentile mourners, and bury the gentile dead, because of the
waysofpeace.”^43 Finally,T.Megillah2[3]:15statesthemattermostexplicitly:
“Anindividualwhopledgedcharityinhistowngivesittothepoorofhistown;
inadifferenttown,hegivesittothepoorofthattown;parnasimwhopledged
(^43) Cf. also T. Demai 3:16; T. Bava Metzia 11:23.