In this week's parsha, we learn about the mitzvah of tzedakah. Rashi, commenting on the phrase in the first verse, "Take for Me terumah," explains that "for Me" means "for My sake – l'shem Shamayim." The Baal Shem Tov clarifies that this does not mean the donor must give tzedakah l'shem Shamayim, as the mitzvah is fulfilled as long as the recipient receives the funds. Rather, it teaches that the recipient must accept tzedakah l'shem Shamayim—meaning he may not take charity for needs beyond his or his organization’s essential expenses.
This highlights an important principle: anyone receiving charitable funds, whether an individual or an organization, must ensure that the funds are obtained in the most kosher manner.
With this in mind, let’s examine a real halachic dilemma that came before Rav Zilberstein (names changed).

Bart, the ever-dedicated friend of IJE, decided to launch a special tzedakah box project. He knew quite a few store owners along Gelt Gutter Avenue (where the sidewalks sparkle with credit card points), and he approached each one, asking if they’d be willing to place a tzedakah box at the register and encourage their customers to support this worthy cause.
The response was overwhelmingly positive—especially from Sidney Snatcher, the owner of Swipe & Splurge, a high-end gift shop with a steady stream of well-to-do customers eager to spend. As the months rolled by, the project was a smashing success, raising thousands of dollars. The box at Swipe & Splurge alone reliably collected around $1,500 each month, and Bart was thrilled.
That is, until one day, his Gemara Sleuth buddy, Rob, pulled him aside with a grave expression. Rob, an expert in gift display arrangements (a skill that earned him the nickname The Presentation Sensation), was occasionally called in by Sidney to rearrange the shop’s wares. One evening, as he was setting up a particularly fancy menorah display, he caught sight of Sidney engaged in an unusual activity—using a mini vacuum cleaner to suction a healthy stack of fives and tens out of the tzedakah box!
Sidney, blissfully unaware that he’d been spotted, carried on as if nothing had happened. But Rob had seen enough. And when, on a separate occasion, he witnessed the same shtick again, he knew he couldn’t stay silent. He told Bart everything.
Now Bart faced a serious moral and legal dilemma. Should he confront Sidney and call him out? If he did, Sidney might deny everything—or worse, remove the tzedakah box from the store altogether, cutting off the much-needed donations to IJE. Or maybe, Bart thought, he should change the box for one that had a padlock on it. But being that Sidney would see all the other tzedakah boxes in the others stores that do not have padlocks on them, he would be suspicious that his scam was discovered and stop allowing the box to remain in his store. And if Bart stayed silent, he’d be allowing Sidney to continue siphoning off tzedakah money like a back-alley ATM withdrawal.
What was the right thing to do? Bart and Rob launched into a fierce debate, armed with Gemaras, commentaries, and moral musings, analyzing every angle of this heist in halacha.

Similarly, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l (Teshuvos Minchas Shlomo 1:7) discusses the case of a borrower who refuses to return the loan and threatens that if the lender sues him in court, he will curse Hashem’s Name. Even if the lender knows that the borrower will make good on his threat, he may still sue him. This is not considered placing a stumbling block before the blind. It is no worse than any normal case of a borrower who denies owing money. The lender may demand an oath from him in Beis Din, even if he knows that the borrower will lie under oath. False oaths are so severe that the entire world can be punished for it. Nevertheless, this is the lying borrower’s problem, not the honest lender’s. The lender may demand an oath for the money he is owed, and need not concern himself with the sinful false oath that the borrower will make as a consequence.