Many people give their friends money to give to Tzedakah when they are traveling. The reason they do this is that it says "Shluchei Mitzva Ainom Nizakim". If someone is travelling to Eretz Yisroel which is in itself a Mitzva - or to do a different Mitzva is there still a need for Shliach Mitzva money?

  • 2
    Gershon, I am very tempted to shoot from the hip and answer with sevaros, but I know that there are plenty of commentaries on this sugya. One thing to think about- Shluchei Mitzvah are people sent to do someone else's mitzvah, not their own. Nowhere is there a promise that "osei Mitzvah einan nizokin". Perhaps the key is in the fact that Shluchei mitzvah are acting for someone else's cheshbon and not their own.
    – Yahu
    Commented Nov 2, 2010 at 6:28
  • 1
    I don't know that this diyuk is correct. In Pesachim 8a-b the Gemara cites this adage in connection with searching for chametz, Shmuel's going to anoint David, and aliyah leregel; in all of these the person is performing his own mitzvah (and is thereby a shliach of Hashem).
    – Alex
    Commented Dec 9, 2010 at 18:02
  • Sh'muel was more of a shaliach than most ose mitzva.
    – msh210
    Commented Dec 9, 2010 at 22:09
  • True, but the person searching for chametz is not.
    – Alex
    Commented Dec 10, 2010 at 4:46
  • Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/17227/472 Commented Oct 14, 2012 at 18:56

2 Answers 2


The Kaf HaChayim 110:27 says that one who is traveling should endeavor to be made a Shliach Mizvah. It does not mention money specifically.

Then it says that one who is not made an emissary should himself designate a coin and say that, Bli Neder, when he arrives at his destination he will, with G-d's help, give the coin to Charity in the honor of R' Meir Baal HaNess. (the Kemach Solet linked below says he saw this in the name of someone, but I can't decipher the name)

One of the sources for the Kaf HaChayim, the Kemach Solet (pg.121) brings Tzedakah as an example of Shliach Mitzvah.

From this it seems that making oneself any emmisary for any mitzvah will do, but if one is unable to become an emissary he should specifically give charity. Probably because Charity can save from death, as mentioned here.

  • Kaf HaChayim Translated in english in the first and third paragraph of Halacha 4: chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/289765/jewish/…
    – Menachem
    Commented Jun 22, 2012 at 21:19
  • 1
    +1. Re "in the name of someone, but I can't decipher the name", it looks like it says "kach matzasi b'shem sefer Chuke Chayim". Not sure, though.
    – msh210
    Commented Jun 22, 2012 at 21:42
  • @msh210: It looks like the only one on hebrewbooks.org that predates the Kemach Solet is this one, but I don't have time to search through it right now: hebrewbooks.org/23853
    – Menachem
    Commented Jun 22, 2012 at 21:56
  • Here is a more clear reprint: hebrewbooks.org/8674
    – Menachem
    Commented Jun 24, 2012 at 1:47

Maybe we can derive something about this from the episode where Hashem tells Shmuel to go and anoint David, mentioned in the Gemara (end of Chullin and in a couple of other places) as an example of a shliach mitzvah who is not guaranteed protection from harm because קביע הזיקא - the danger is definite.

Shmuel is concerned: "How can I go? Shaul will hear about it and kill me!" (I Sam. 16:2). To this Hashem responds, "Take a calf with you, and say, 'I have come to sacrifice it to Hashem'" (end of the same verse).

So we might consider what Hashem's intention is with this last statement. Is it just to establish an alibi (and any other plausible action might have served the same purpose)? If so, then maybe it can't be much of a precedent. But if the idea is that Hashem is telling Shmuel to bring a korban in order for the merit of that mitzvah to protect him from harm - why, then, we have a case where a shliach mitzvah still needs another shlichus mitzvah for added protection.

[On the other hand, it may just be that this proves that an extra shlichus mitzvah which removes the קביע הזיקא is meaningful, as in this case, where taking along the korban would allay Shaul's suspicions. Where this is not so - carrying tzedakah money doesn't (in the natural order of things) make a trip any less dangerous - then perhaps it indeed doesn't make a difference, like in the case of the boy who climbed a rickety ladder to perform two mitzvos (also mentioned in Chullin loc. cit.), where the extra mitzvah didn't do anything to reduce the danger.]

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .