But is there such a moral obligation?
Because if so, what is its limit?
Do I need to give charity to every needy person I see on the street?
Do I need to give charity at every opportunity I have?
If so, I won’t have any money left, because there are always people who need charity and I can donate to them through the phone I always have on me.
So is there such a moral obligation, or is it simply a good deed?

There is no difference between a moral obligation and a good deed. All of these are benefits to others, and there is no sharp definition of the obligation. Each person according to the generosity of his heart and according to his circumstances. There are moral prohibitions against harming others. Those have sharper and more objective definitions.

There is no difference between a moral obligation and a good deed. All of these are benefits to others, and there is no sharp definition of the obligation. Each person according to the generosity of his heart and according to his circumstances. There are moral prohibitions against harming others. Those have sharper and more objective definitions.

Is a person who does not give charity a less moral person?
Is there a moral obligation to give charity?
After all, the categorical imperative says that I must do all my actions in such a way that the practical rule by which I act could become a universal law, and I don’t think that someone who does not give charity is less moral.
So what is the obligation to give charity?
Isn’t there a point in distinguishing between kindness and obligations?
And if not, then what defines a moral act?

You’re just repeating the same thing again. It was all already answered.

In morality there are only prohibitions, not obligations.