בדף הקודם ראינו מקורות על כך שמצוות פדיון שבויים היא הגדולה שבמצוות הצדקה. בדף הקרוב נעיין במקור קביעה זו.
אִיפְרָא הוֹרְמִיז, אִימֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא, שַׁדַּרָה אַרְנְקָא דְּדִינָרֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַרָה: לֶיהֱוֵי לְמִצְוָה רַבָּה. יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף וְקָא מְעַיֵּין בַּהּ, מַאי ״מִצְוָה רַבָּה״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִדְּתָנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: אֵין פּוֹסְקִין צְדָקָה עַל הַיְּתוֹמִים אֲפִילּוּ לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם מִצְוָה רַבָּה הִיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבָּה בַּר מָרִי: מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן דְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם מִצְוָה רַבָּה הִיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ אָנָה נֵצֵא, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כֹּה אָמַר ה׳, אֲשֶׁר לַמָּוֶת – לַמָּוֶת, וַאֲשֶׁר לַחֶרֶב – לַחֶרֶב, וַאֲשֶׁר לָרָעָב – לָרָעָב, וַאֲשֶׁר לַשְּׁבִי – לַשֶּׁבִי״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְאוּחָר בְּפָסוּק זֶה קָשֶׁה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ. חֶרֶב קָשָׁה מִמָּוֶת – אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא – הַאי קָא מִינַּוַּול, וְהַאי לָא קָא מִינַּוַּול. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא – ״יָקָר בְּעֵינֵי ה׳ הַמָּוְתָה לַחֲסִידָיו״. רָעָב קָשֶׁה מֵחֶרֶב – אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: הַאי קָא מִצְטַעַר, וְהַאי לָא קָא מִצְטַעַר. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: ״טוֹבִים הָיוּ חַלְלֵי חֶרֶב מֵחַלְלֵי רָעָב״. שֶׁבִי [קָשֶׁה מִכּוּלָּם] – דְּכוּלְּהוּ אִיתַנְהוּ בֵּיהּ.
these are Torah scholars, and towers do not require additional protection? The Gemara comments: And Reish Lakish, who did not cite this verse, holds in accordance with the way that Rava expounded the verse: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls. It is similarly related that Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda once imposed payment of the poll tax [karga] even on the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have transgressed the words of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. You have transgressed the words of the Torah, as it is written: “Even when He loves the peoples, all His holy ones are in Your hand” (Deuteronomy 33:3), which is understood to mean that Moses said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when You hold the other nations dear and grant them dominion over Israel, let “all His holy ones,” meaning the Torah scholars, be exclusively in Your hand and free from the authority of the nations, and therefore be exempt from pay-ing taxes. The continuation of that verse can also be understood as referring to Torah scholars, as it states: “And they sit [tukku] at Your feet, receiving Your words” (Deuteronomy 33:3), and Rav Yosef teaches: These are Torah scholars who pound [mekhatetim] their feet from city to city and from country to country to study Torah; “receiving [yissa] Your words,” to discuss [lissa velitten] the utterances of God. And you have transgressed the words of the Prophets, as it is written: “Though they have hired lovers [yitnu] among the nations, now I will gather them, and they will begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of kings and princes” (Hosea 8:10). With regard to this verse, Ulla says: Part of this verse is stated in the Aramaic language; the word yitnu should be understood here in its Aramaic sense: To learn. And the verse should be interpreted as follows: If all of Israel learns Torah, I will gather them already now; and if only a few of them learn Torah, they will be excused from the burden imposed by kings and princes. This indicates that those who study Torah should not be subject to paying taxes. And furthermore, you have transgressed the words of the Writings, as it is written: “It shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost or toll upon them” (Ezra 7:24), i.e., upon the priests and Levites who serve in the Temple. This halakha would apply to Torah scholars as well. And Rav Yehuda says: “Tribute”; this is referring to the king’s portion, a tax given to the king. “Impost”; this is referring to the head tax. “Toll”; this is referring to a tax [arnona] paid with property that was imposed from time to time. It is related that Rav Pappa once imposed a tax for the digging of a new cistern even on orphans. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: Perhaps they will dig, but in the end they will not draw any water from there, and it will turn out that the money will have been spent for nothing. The rest of the townspeople can relinquish their rights to their money, but orphans who are minors cannot do so. Rav Pappa said to him: I shall collect money from the orphans; if they draw water, they will draw water, and if not, I will return the money to the orphans. Rav Yehuda says: All of the city’s residents must contribute to the building and upkeep of the city gates [le’aglei gappa], and for this purpose money is collected even from orphans. But the Sages do not require protection and are therefore exempt from this payment. All of the city’s residents must contribute to the digging of cisterns [lekarya patya], and for this purpose money is collected even from the Sages, since they too need water. The Gemara comments: And we said this only when the people are not required to go out en masse [be’akhluza] and do the actual digging, but are obligated merely to contribute money for that purpose. But if the people are required to go out en masse and actually dig, the Sages are not expected to go out with them en masse, but rather they are exempt from such labor. It is related that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once opened his storehouses to distribute food during years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of halakha, masters of aggada may enter and receive food from me, but ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, pushed his way in, and entered, and said to him: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sustain me. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My son, have you read the Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him, out of modesty: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: Have you studied Mishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: If so, by what merit should I sustain you? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven, who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and fed him. After Rabbi Yonatan left, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat, and was distressed, and said: Woe is me, that I have given my bread to an ignoramus. His son, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: Perhaps he was your disciple Yonatan ben Amram, who never in his life wanted to materially benefit from the honor shown to the Torah? They investigated the matter and found that such was the case. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then said: Let everyone enter, as there may also be others who hide the fact that they are true Torah scholars. Commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conformed to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses. This is like the incident of the crown tax [kelila] that was imposed on the residents of the city of Tiberias. The heads of the city came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we will run away and the entire burden will fall on the Torah scholars. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. Half of the city’s residents ran away. The authorities then waived half the sum that they had initially imposed on the city. The half of the population that remained in the city then came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we too will run away. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. They all ran away, so that only one launderer was left in the city. The authorities imposed the entire tax on the launderer. The launderer then ran away as well. The crown tax was then canceled in its entirety. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: You see from this that suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses, for as soon as they all fled from the city, the crown tax was completely canceled. § The mishna teaches: And how long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city? Twelve months. And we raise a contradiction from what is taught in a baraita: In the case of a donkey caravan or a camel caravan that was journeying from place to place, and it lodged inside an idolatrous city, and its members were led astray along with the other residents of the city, and they too engaged in idol worship, they, the members of the caravan, are liable to death by stoning like ordinary individual idolaters, and their property escapes destruction, i.e., they are not treated like the residents of an idolatrous city, who are liable to death by the sword and whose property is destroyed. The baraita continues: And if the caravan members had remained in that city for thirty days, they are liable to death by the sword and their property is destroyed, just as it is for the rest of the residents of the city. This seems to indicate that once an individual has lived in a city for thirty days, he is already considered one of its residents. Rava said: This is not difficult. This period, i.e., twelve months, is required in order to be considered one of the members of the city; and that period, i.e., thirty days, suffices in order to be considered one of the residents of the city. As it is taught in a baraita: One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the people of a particular city is prohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed there for twelve months, but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for less time than that. By contrast, if he prohibited himself by way of a vow from deriving benefit from the residents of a particular city, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed there for thirty days, but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for less time than that. The Gemara asks: And do we require that one live in a city for twelve months for all matters? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one lives in city for thirty days, he must contribute to the charity platter from which food is distributed to the poor. If he lives there for three months, he must contribute to the charity box. If he lives there for six months, he must contribute to the clothing fund. If he lives there for nine months, he must contribute to the burial fund. If he lives there for twelve months, he must contribute to the columns of the city [lepassei ha’ir], i.e., for the construction of a security fence. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When we learned twelve months in the mishna, we learned that with regard to contributing to the columns of the city, money used for protecting and strengthening the city, but not for other matters. And Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All are required to contribute to the columns of the city, and money is collected for that purpose even from orphans. But the Sages are not required to contribute, since the Sages do not need protection. Rav Pappa said: Money is collected even from orphans for the city wall, for the city horseman, and for the guard [uletarzina] of the city armory, but the Sages do not require protection. The principle of the matter is: Money is collected even from orphans for anything from which they derive benefit. It is reported that Rabba imposed a contribution to a certain charity on the orphans of the house of bar Maryon. Abaye said to him: But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teach: One does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, since they are minors and are not obligated in the mitzvot? Rabba said to him: I did this to elevate them in standing, i.e., so that people should honor them as generous benefactors; not in order that the poor should benefit. Incidental to this story, the Gemara relates that Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur, king of Persia, sent a purse [arneka] full of dinars to Rav Yosef. She said to him: Let the money be used for a great mitzva. Rav Yosef sat and considered the question: What did Ifera Hurmiz mean when she attached a condition to the gift, saying that it should be used for a great mitzva? Abaye said to him: From what Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught, that one does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, learn from this that redeeming captives is a great mitzva. Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: Concerning this matter that the Sages stated, that redeeming captives is a great mitzva, from where is it derived? Rabba bar Mari said to him: As it is written: “And it shall come to pass, when they say to you: To where shall we depart? Then you shall tell them: So says the Lord: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity” (Jeremiah 15:2). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whichever punishment is written later in this verse is more severe than the one before it. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The sword is worse than death. If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived by way of logical reasoning. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This punishment, i.e., death by sword, mutilates the body, but that punishment, i.e., natural death, does not mutilate it. And if you wish, say that the fact that the sword is worse than death is learned from a verse: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” (Psalms 116:15). Famine is worse than the sword. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This one, who dies of famine, suffers greatly before departing from this world, but that one, who dies by the sword, does not suffer. If you wish, say instead that the fact that famine is worse than the sword is learned from a verse: “More fortunate were the victims of the sword than the victims of famine” (Lamentations 4:9). And captivity is worse than all of them, as it includes all of them, i.e., famine, the sword, and death. § In connection with the previous discussion concerning charity distribution, the Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught: Money for the charity fund is collected by two people and distributed by three people. It is collected by two people because one does not appoint an authority over the community composed of fewer than two people. And it is distributed by three people, like the number of judges needed in cases of monetary law, since the distributors determine who receives money and who does not, as well as how much each person receives. Food for the charity platter is collected by three people and distributed by three people because its collection and its distribution take place on the same day. Food for the charity platter is collected and distributed every day, and therefore a third individual must participate in the collection so that he will be available to take part in the distribution without delay; whereas the money of the charity fund is distributed only once a week, on each Shabbat eve. There are additional differences between these two types of charity operations: The food from the charity platter is distributed to the poor of the world, meaning, to any poor individual arriving in the city; the money of the charity fund is allocated exclusively to the poor of the city. But it is permitted for the residents of the city to use money that has been collected for the charity fund to purchase food for the charity platter to feed the poor; and similarly they may use food that had been collected for the charity platter for the charity fund. In general, it is permitted for them to change the purpose toward which charity will be used to whatever they want, in accordance with the needs of the community. Similarly, it is permitted for the residents of the city to set the measures used in that city, the prices set for products sold there, and the wages paid to its workers, and to fine people for violating their specifications, in order to enforce observance of these halakhot. This marks the end of the baraita, the details of which the Gemara proceeds to analyze. The Master said in the baraita: One does not appoint an authority over the community composed of fewer than two people. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Naḥman says that this is derived from a verse referring to those engaged in building the Tabernacle and weaving the priestly vestments, who received the community’s donations. The verse states: “And they shall take the gold, and the sky-blue wool, and the purple wool” (Exodus 28:5). The plural “they” indicates that the collection must be performed by two people. The Gemara comments: The baraita indicates that authority may not be exercised by less than two people, but even a single individual is trusted to be a treasurer. That is, money for the charity fund is collected by two people, not because a single individual is not trusted not to misappropriate the money, but rather because a single individual should not be given authority over the community. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: There was an incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi appointed two brothers to administer the charity fund. Even though the brothers were relatives who are not trusted to testify against each other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not concerned and he appointed them. The Gemara asks: What authority is associated with collecting charity? The Gemara answers: As Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Because they can seize collateral for the charity; i.e., they can collect charity by force, and even on Shabbat eve, when people are busy and might claim that they have no time or money. The Gemara objects: Is that so? But isn’t it written: “I will punish all that oppress them” (Jeremiah 30:20), and Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And punishment will be meted out even to charity collectors? If charity collectors are permitted to force people to contribute charity, why are they counted among Israel’s oppressors? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, Rabbi Naḥman’s statement, applies when the contributor is rich, in which case the collectors may seize money from him even by force. That, Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement, applies when he is not rich, in which case the collectors who take money from him by force are termed oppressors of Israel. This right to force contributions from the rich is like what occurred in the incident in which Rava compelled Rav Natan bar Ami and took four hundred dinars from him for charity. Having raised the issue of charity collection, the Gemara cites various rabbinic expositions with regard to the matter. The verse states: “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever” (Daniel 12:3). “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament”; this is a judge who judges an absolutely true judgment, as his wisdom and understanding lead him to a correct judgment. “And they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever”; these are the charity collectors, who facilitate the giving of charity. It was taught in a baraita: “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament”; this is a judge who judges an absolutely true judgment and also charity collectors. “And they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever”; these are schoolteachers. The Gemara asks: Like whom? Certainly not every schoolteacher is worthy of such accolades. Rav said: For example, Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat. As it is told that Rav once found Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat standing in a garden. Rav said to him: Have you abandoned your trust and neglected your students? Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat said to him: It has been thirteen years now that I have not seen my garden, and even now my thoughts are on the children. In light of the praises heaped upon judges, tax collectors, and schoolteachers, the Gemara asks: And what was said about the Sages? Ravina said that about them it is stated: “But let them that love Him be as the sun when it comes out in its might” (Judges 5:31). The Gemara resumes its discussion of the halakhot of charity collection: The Sages taught in a baraita: Charity collectors may not separate from each other, each one collecting in a different place; but in a place where the two can see each other, one collector may separate from the other, e.g., this one going to the gate of a house and that one going to a store. If a charity collector found coins in the market, he may not put them into his own pocket, but rather he must put them into the charity purse, and then later when he comes home, he may take them from there. This is necessary so that people should not suspect him of taking charity money for himself. Similarly, if the charity collector was owed one hundred dinars by another, and the latter repaid his debt in the market, the collector may not put the money he received into his own pocket, but rather he must put it into the charity purse, and then later when he comes home, he may take it. The Sages taught in a baraita: Charity collectors who have no poor people to whom they can distribute the money, may exchange [poretin] the money, i.e., exchange the copper coins, which tend to rust, for silver dinars, with other people, but they should not change it by themselves, i.e., with their own coins, to avoid any suspicion of wrongdoing. Likewise, collectors of food for the charity platter who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food may sell the food to others, but they should not sell it to themselves, for a similar reason. Coins of charity are not counted two by two, but rather one by one, to avoid errors in tallying. Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would not sit on the mats in the synagogue because they had been purchased with charity funds. Once he heard that which is taught in a baraita, that it is permitted for the residents of a city to change the purpose toward which charity will be used to whatever they want, he did sit on them. Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would make two purses, one for the poor of the rest of the world, and one for the poor of his city. Once he heard what Shmuel said to Rav Taḥalifa bar Avdimi: Make only one purse,
איפרא הורמיז אימיה [אימו] של שבור מלכא [מלך פרס] שדרה ארנקא דדינרי לקמיה [שלחה ארנק דינרים לפני] רב יוסף, אמרה לו: ליהוי [שיהיה] למצוה רבה [גדולה]. יתיב [ישב] רב יוסף וקא מעיין [והיה מעיין] בה בשאלה זו, מאי [מה פירוש] "מצוה רבה" [גדולה] שיוכל לקיים בה את התנאי במתנה זו? אמר ליה [לו] אביי: מדתני [ממה ששנה] רב שמואל בר יהודה: אין פוסקין צדקה על היתומים אפילו לפדיון שבוים, שמע מינה [למד מכאן] כי
פדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא. אמר ליה [לו] רבא לרבה בר מרי: מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן [מנין דבר זה שאמרו חכמים] שפדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא? אמר ליה [לו], דכתיב [שנאמר]: "והיה כי יאמרו אליך אנה נצא ואמרת אליהם כה אמר ה' אשר למות למות ואשר לחרב לחרב ואשר לרעב לרעב ואשר לשבי לשבי" (ירמיה טו, ב). ואמר ר' יוחנן: כל המאוחר בפסוק זה קשה מחבירו. חרב קשה ממות רגיל — אי בעית אימא קרא, ואי בעית אימא סברא [אם תרצה אמור מן הכתוב, ואם תרצה אמור מן הסברה]. אי בעית אימא סברא [אם תרצה אמור מן הסברה]: האי קא מינוול והאי לא קא מינוול [זה במיתת חרב מתנוול, וזה במיתה רגילה, אינו מתנוול]. ואיבעית אימא קרא [ואם תרצה אמור מן הכתוב], שנאמר: "יקר בעיני ה' המותה לחסידיו" (תהילים קטז, טו). רעב קשה מחרב — איבעית אימא סברא [אם תרצה אמור סברה בדבר], שכן האי קא [זה] מצטער הרבה קודם לכן, והאי לא קא [וזה אינו] מצטער. איבעית אימא קרא [אם תרצה אמור מן הכתוב], שנאמר: "טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב" (איכה ד, ט). שבי קשה מכולם, דכולהו איתנהו ביה [שכולם נמצאים בו] שהרי בשבי יש רעב וחרב ומוות.
פדיון שבוים קודם לפרנסת עניים. פרנסת עניים קודם מלכסותם ואין מצוה גדולה כמו פדיון שבויים. שהשבוי עומד בסכנת מות וחרב ורעב... ואין לך מצוה רבה כפדיון שבויים.
רבי יוחנן לומד מהפסוק ששבי הוא הקשה ביותר כיוון שיש בו גם מוות וגם חרב וגם רעב. מכאן שמצוות פדיון שבויים היא "מצווה רבה" - מצווה גדולה.
רבי אליהו הכהן מאזמיר מביא טעם אחר שמצוות פדיון שבויים היא מצווה גדולה כל כך:
מעיל צדקה לרבי אליהו הכהן מאזמיר סי' תתשנ"ח
לגודל מצות פדיון שבוים שבח הבורא ברוך הוא עצמו בפדיון שבוים דהיינו שאמר אשר הוצאתיך ולא אמר אשר בראתי שמים וארץ כי רצה להזכיר מצות פדיון שבויים של ס' רבוא יותר מן הפלא העצום של בריאת העולם... עוד יש לומר למה פדיון שבויים גדול מבריאת שמים וארץ יש לומר משום שתכלית בריאת שמים וארץ הוא בעבור האדם וכיון שכן כשהאדם בצער הגלות שהוא בתוך המות כי העולם חשך בעדו נמצא שבריאת שמים וארץ לגביה היה לבטלה לכן גדול פדיון שבויים לבריאת שמים וארץ ונכון.
מצוות פדיון שבויים היא המצווה היחידה שמכונה "מצווה גדולה", על פי המקורות בדפים הקודמים נסו לחשוב מדוע מצוות פדיון שבויים גדולה כל כך? האם זה בגלל הערך הרב לחיי האדם - ששבי הוא הקשה ביותר? או שתכלית בריאת העולם היא האדם? האם זה בגלל ההקשר ההיסטורי של המצווה (עיינו בדפים 1-3 ובדברי רבי אליהו הכהן בדף זה).
במקורות רבים אנחנו עדים להשתדלות האדירה ולהירתמות של כולם לקיום מצווה גדולה זו. למשל באזמיר שבטורקיה, הרב חיים פאלאג'י מתאר שכאשר היה חסר כסף לפדיון שבויים כל תושבי הערים הסמוכות היו מתגייסים למאמץ של תושבי העיר אזמיר ותורמים את חלקם:
רוח חיים, רבי חיים פאלאג'י, ח"א יו"ד סי' רנב, או' ב
בשנת התקפ"ב במהפכה של הערלים שבאו לעירנו אזמיר יע"א הרבה שבוים ששבו אותם ולא היו יכולים בני העיר להספיק להם אם יכולים ב"ד לכוף לכל שאר הערים הקרובות אליהם שגם המה בצדקתם יתנו סיוע לזה... ושלי"ת כל הערים אשר סביבותינו דהן תחת ממשלת אזמיר יע"א נכתב להם וכל מקום לפום חיליה שלחו מתם לעזר וסיוע מן הבא בידם אשריך ישראל קדושים.