Charity Mitzvahs
I heard in the rabbi’s lesson that the mitzvah of charity is an existential mitzvah, and Rav Yosef, regarding the one who saves a lost property, means that if he were not saving a lost property, then he would be obligated to give a penny to the poor, and it cannot be argued that this is an obligation of the mitzvah of charity, because if so, what is the benefit to him? After saving a lost property, he is still obligated to give, and why would he be considered a wage earner?
This is an existential commandment beyond the minimum threshold of a third of a shekel per year.
Your question is not about me, but about the Rambam and the halakha itself. It can be resolved in several ways. 1. If he is busy preserving the lost property, he is exempt from the mitzvah of charity and is not required to give anything in that place. 2. There may be situations where you are required to give charity beyond a third of a shekel, if a poor person arrives in a certain situation and there is no one else. And if you are engaged in the mitzvah, you will be exempt.
It should be remembered that Rav Yosef’s entire calculation is hypothetical. If a poor person comes. But this is true even if a poor person does not actually come. Therefore, when he keeps the loss and a poor person comes at the same time, he is exempt from giving him even if he did not give a third of a shekel that year. And if he did give, it can still be defined as a shekel because hypothetically he could not have given.
Does this mean that if the poor person is in a situation where there is no one else to give and I don't bring it to him, do I nullify the deed?
I said it was a possibility. It depends on how you understand the law of one-third of a shekel. By the way, in charity there is also a no.
And one more thing regarding an existential mitzvah: apparently, there is no mitzvah that is entirely like this, but rather any existential mitzvah, such as tefillin or a priestly blessing that I have already performed, then on that day it becomes an existential mitzvah, and so it also results in tzedakah. So are all positive mitzvahs like this?
Where did you get the idea that after I left the house and did it again, I fulfilled another mitzvah? Simply put, after it exists, there is no mitzvah here at all, neither positive nor existential.
Regarding the blessing of priests, the Rabbis 28 say: "If I give it to the public, whether I bless or not, that is, after he has fulfilled the mitzvah, if he wants to bless, he blesses (an existential mitzvah according to the Rabbi's definition), and most of the poskim say that he can also bless what we have sanctified, etc." So we see that there is indeed a mitzvah after I have fulfilled my obligation, and so is the case with tefillin, if I put it on and took it off and distracted myself, if I put it on again, I must also bless. So it seems that even after I have fulfilled my obligation, I am still fulfilling the mitzvah.
This is only in certain commandments.
By the way, you misquoted the Gemara, and that reverses the meaning.
Forgive me for digging, I ask to understand,
Can the rabbi finally bring a mitzvah that is initially existential?
I didn't understand. Who said there is such a thing? On the contrary, I have claimed several times that there is not.
Although I brought up a disagreement between the Ha-Jewish Rabbi who claimed that the settlement of Ai is existential and R. A. Shapira who claimed that there are no mitzvot that are completely existential.
I remember someone suggesting another mitzvot like this here, but I can't remember anymore.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
