This paper explores how “the poor” is constructed as a distinct category with social, ethical and cosmological valences in the discourse of Sasanian Iran’s Zoroastrian elite (this narrow focus does not reflect any intentional “elitism,” of course; this is simply the only level of Sasanian society whose views on this topic can be recovered in any depth), and suggests how this discourse might fit into a broader context of interaction and conversation with non-Iranian states, non-Zoroastrian religious communities and non-elites. In general, my analytic framework and guiding questions follow those laid out in Peter Brown’s Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (2002) which traces the idea of the “poor” (and particularly the “care for the poor”) as a historical phenomenon in Sasanian Iran’s western neighbor; to work toward an even more comprehensive and nuanced picture of late antique social imaginations is the main aim here. On the Iranian side, this treatment draws mainly on the methodologies and findings of Werner Sundermann’s Commendatio Pauperum (1976) and Iris Colditz’s Zur Sozialterminologie der iranischen Manichäer (2000). The main source base is the Book Pahlavi corpus, but other texts that reflect Sasanian ideologies on some level (whether due to Sasanian provenance or influence) in Avestan, Arabic, New Persian, Armenian and Syriac, as well as some sigillographic and epigraphic evidence, are drawn on as well, as I show how discussions of (what is generally translated as) “the poor” or “poverty” participate in larger conceptual systems of social structure, ethical obligations and cosmology. In particular, I focus on three characterizations of the “poor,” each corresponding to a specific Pahlavi adjective associated with words for “poor” (mainly driyōš and škōh) in the sources: “content” (hunsand), “deserving [of advocacy, provisions, etc.]” (arzānīg) and “noble” (ahlaw). The first two reflect an ideal of social harmony and mutual obligation; the latter may point toward a more problematic blurring of foundational social boundaries, as there are indications that some within the Zoroastrian community conceived of material “poverty” as an absolute virtue and sought it out for themselves (this perhaps reflecting contact with Indic or Christian asceticism). Insofar as discourse and “reality” are in constant dialogue, and given the fact that many of the authors and audiences of our sources actually influenced state policies, these conclusions have implications that extend beyond “abstract” discourse into the “real life” of Sasanian Iran (and, by extension, the Islamic world that directly succeeded it).