Q&A: Jewish Law
Jewish Law
Question
Hello
Is it, in your view, necessary to give three perutot to charity—
one because of compassion, one because of Jewish law, and one because of morality?
Answer
You don’t need to give, because morality and compassion are not obligations but optional. A more precise formulation of the question is: when someone gives a perutah to a poor person as part of the commandment of charity, is that also considered a moral act? If the motivation is also moral, then yes. And compassion is not connected here at all, because there is no obligation to feel compassion, and certainly not to give charity in order to cultivate the feeling of compassion. It’s just an emotion.
Discussion on Answer
I know.
This isn’t a question of actual intention. If, when you gave the charity, you didn’t do it out of moral or halakhic motivation, still, if you didn’t feel like giving and nevertheless would have given for a religious reason, that counts as the commandment of charity. If you didn’t feel like giving and would have given for a moral reason, that counts as a moral act. If both, then the same act is both (because you are both moral and religious).
In the Talmudic passage, “on condition that my son may live,” I have indeed always wondered whether the meaning is that one acts for the sake of the commandment, but the commandment is done for the merit of my son, or whether, were it not for my son’s problem, I would not have given. My intuition is that in the second case, you have no commandment.
Hello
It seems you didn’t answer the question whether morality isn’t a full obligation?
And what about the rule that one should not perform commandments in bundles?
What does “not a full obligation” mean? There is no need here to discharge separate obligations. If there is a poor person in need, there is an obligation to give him charity. There is no reason at all to give him twice because I want to fulfill both the obligation of Jewish law and of morality. And if he needs two perutot, then I must give him that even on the halakhic level alone.
I don’t see much point in these hair-splittings. I suggest we wrap this up.
Hello
Giving out of compassion was only meant in the spirit of the stories about the righteous, who would give in order to neutralize the feeling so that afterward they could give for the sake of Heaven [I thought you knew that].
But isn’t morality still a full obligation even if it isn’t halakhic?
And also, regarding one who gives a sela to charity on condition that … “this person is a completely righteous person”—but for the optimal way of performing the commandment, shouldn’t it all be purely for the sake of Heaven?