Sources:
“You shall surely give”—even one hundred times
The Sifrei on Devarim, Parashat Re’eh, expounds: “From where do we know that if you gave once, you should give him even one hundred times? Scripture states: ‘You shall surely give.’” This is also cited by Rashi on the Torah, Devarim 15:10. The Sifrei further states: “From where do we know that if you opened [your hand] once, open it even one hundred times? Scripture states: ‘For you shall surely open your hand to him.’” This exposition is ruled in Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 479.
It is possible to consider the intent of the Sifrei: does it mean that even when that same poor person asks him repeatedly, he must give him? Or does it mean that even if one hundred poor people ask him, he must give all of them? According to the latter possibility, it teaches that one has not discharged his obligation of tzedakah by giving to the first poor person who asked, but must give to all the poor people who ask, up to one-fifth of his funds. Seemingly, the plain wording, “give him even one hundred times,” more strongly indicates the first possibility. Yet this is not conclusive, since it begins, “if you gave once,” without saying “to him”; meaning, if you gave tzedakah once to one poor person and another poor person comes, give “him” as well.
Many later authorities appear to have understood it according to the latter possibility: many poor people came to him, and it teaches that he must give to all of them. This appears from the wording of the gaon, author of Or HaChaim HaKadosh, in his Rishon LeTzion, siman 247 סעיף 1, who uses the plural expression “impoverished poor people” regarding this exposition of “you shall surely give.” So too appears to be the view of Maran the Chida in Mar’it HaAyin on Avot 3:15, where he explains this exposition in accordance with the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah in Avot there: “Everything depends on the frequency of the deed”—it is preferable to give one coin each to one hundred poor people than to give one hundred coins to one poor person. (However, in Nachal Kedumim, Parashat Re’eh, he cites the wording of the Pesikta that will be mentioned below.) This also appears in Shut Beit Yitzchak Shmelkes, Orach Chaim, introduction, letter 4, who explains that even if one has become accustomed to hearing the cries of poor people—having heard poor people ask one hundred times, such that his natural compassion has become dulled—he must nevertheless give them. Shut Levushei Mordechai, Orach Chaim, first edition, introduction, s.v. “Ve-rabbim omrim,” likewise understands that the Torah means that even if many poor people ask, even one hundred, one must give to all of them and not fear financial loss. Torah Temimah, Parashat Re’eh, note 35, likewise understands it this way, and therefore asks why it is self-evident.
However, Pesikta Zutarta, Devarim 25a, states: “ ‘You shall surely give him’—even if you gave him one hundred times, give him again; whenever he comes, give him.” Thus, this exposition applies even to the same poor person, and since the Pesikta states this explicitly, the Sifrei should likewise be explained this way.
Similarly, the Chafetz Chaim writes in Ahavat Chesed, part I, chapter 1, letter 7, that the exposition of the Sifrei cited by Rashi refers to the same poor person: “There is no limit to the mitzvah of acts of kindness, even up to one hundred times. One should not feel distressed, thinking: How much does this person constantly trouble me by taking money and repaying it? Just as one does not become angry with one who continually knocks at the entrance of his shop to provide him profit in his business. He should know that each time he fulfills a positive Torah commandment, and a blessing will come to him from Hashem, as Scripture says concerning tzedakah: ‘You shall surely give him’—even one hundred times, as Rashi explains—and ‘your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, for because of this matter Hashem your G-d will bless you,’ etc.”
Ma’aseh Ish, part IV, p. 138, reports that the Chazon Ish zt”l was asked whether one must give to a poor person who comes to ask several times in one day. He answered that if the giver has means and the recipient needs it, certainly he must give; the Sages have already said that one who spends should not spend more than one-fifth. See there. This is also written in Pri Ganei HaNig, part IX, Yoreh De’ah, siman 241.
Shut Shevet HaLevi, part V, siman 131, writes: “The Sifrei says: ‘You shall surely give,’ even one hundred times—if you gave him once, you give him even one hundred times. The principal teaching appears to be that although a person should not give all his tzedakah to one poor person alone—see Eruvin 63a, Yoreh De’ah 257:9, and Tosafot Kiddushin 27a, s.v. ‘Naton’—it teaches that sometimes this is the mitzvah: to give him little by little, one after another, in order to complete what he lacks. This is precise in the wording of the Sifrei: if you gave him, you give him—meaning, to that same poor person. This answers the difficulty raised by Torah Temimah concerning the apparent obviousness of this exposition.”
Chashukei Chemed on Avodah Zarah 17b writes: “It appears that this is the case addressed by the verse: a person who has not yet given his full fifth to tzedakah and distributes all his tzedakah among one hundred poor people. A poor person passed by and he gave him a perutah; even if he passes a second and third time, even one hundred times, he must give him, for the reason one must distribute tzedakah among one hundred poor people is in order to battle one’s evil inclination. All the more so, when he gives one hundred times to the same poor person, he is battling his evil inclination. What difference does it make whether he gave it to one poor person or to one hundred poor people?”
However, one might seemingly challenge the Pesikta from Avot DeRabbi Natan, addendum 2 to version A, chapter 3: “He would say: If you gave a perutah to a poor person in the morning, and another poor person comes and stands before you, if you have the means to give him, give him; and if not, dismiss him immediately. Do not say, ‘I will not give you, but give him,’ for you do not know which will prosper,” etc. This implies that specifically another poor person must be given to, but not the same poor person. [In truth, Avot DeRabbi Natan also seems to contradict the Sifrei, since it implies that one must give to the second poor person only because of the consideration, “you do not know which will prosper,” and not because of “you shall surely give him.” However, Midrash Tanna’im, Parashat Re’eh 15:10, and Midrash HaGadol there cite an exposition resembling Avot DeRabbi Natan on the verse “you shall surely give him.” Midrash Tanna’im also cites both the Pesikta and the above Avot DeRabbi Natan. See there and further below.]
All agree that this does not mean one must give again during the same encounter
Rabbi Mordechai Gross shlit”a, in a lecture printed in Kovetz Tal Talpiyot, Pesach 5767, p. 20, although maintaining that the Sifrei means one must give to the same poor person, explains that this applies only when it is not during the same encounter; during the same encounter there is no obligation. His principal proof is from the aforementioned Avot DeRabbi Natan: “The Sifrei states concerning the mitzvah of ‘you shall surely give’—even one hundred times. This does not mean that if one gave tzedakah to a poor person and the poor person returns a moment later and asks again, one must give again. For Avot DeRabbi Natan explains that if one gave tzedakah to one poor person and another poor person subsequently comes before him, he should not say that he has already given tzedakah today and need not give again; rather, he should give again, as stated in Kohelet, ‘for you do not know which will prosper, this or that.’ Here too, one does not know which of them is worthy, and therefore must give to the second as well. If we explain the Sifrei literally, that one must give again even to the same poor person, then certainly another poor person is no less than the same poor person; why then did Avot DeRabbi Natan require the verse in Kohelet? Rather, certainly one is not obligated to give again to the same poor person on that day. One must only determine the interval after which one must give again to that poor person. In any event, at closely proximate times one is exempt from the mitzvah of giving, and certainly does not transgress a prohibition.”
[Incidentally, in the alternate version of Avot DeRabbi Natan, the first poor person arrived in the morning and the second arrived in the evening, yet the verse from Kohelet is still required, which is novel.]
Indeed, this may also be inferred from the wording of Pesikta Zutarta cited above: “ ‘You shall surely give him’—even if you gave him one hundred times, give him again; whenever he comes, give him.” Clearly, the requirement to give again to the same poor person is conditioned on the poor person “coming” again. In contrast, if they remain in the same place, this is not the case to which the obligation to give again was stated.
The Chafetz Chaim, cited above in Ahavat Chesed, who understands the Sifrei as referring to the same poor person, also clearly understood it as referring to a poor person who knocks on his door from time to time—not one who asks again at that very moment—since he compares this to “one who continually knocks at the entrance of his shop.”
Likewise, regarding the report of the Chazon Ish’s ruling above, since the details are unknown, it is reasonable to assume that it concerns a case in which the poor person did not ask again during the very same encounter, but after a day or the like.
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky zt”l was asked in Shut She’elat Rav, part II, p. 87, about one who gave money to a poor person “and during that same encounter the poor person asked for more.” Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky answered: “There is no need to give him.”
Similarly, rulings of Rabbi Sherayah Deblitzky zt”l, printed in Kovetz BeNetivot HaHalachah, vol. 51, p. 185, state: “A poor person who goes around a synagogue and asks the same person several times during the same prayer service need not be given to again on account of the statement, ‘You shall surely give,’ even one hundred times. Since it is the same encounter, it is not reasonable that if he stretches out his hand several times, one must give him again. It appears that if he comes to collect money at Shacharit and later comes again at Minchah, since this is no longer the same encounter, one should give him again; this requires further study.”
Likewise, in rulings on tzedakah by Rabbi Azriel Auerbach shlit”a, printed in Kovetz Mah Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov, vol. 8, p. 321, it states: “A poor person, etc., who sits at the entrance of a synagogue and requests tzedakah from someone when he enters the synagogue and when he leaves it, need not be given to more than once, notwithstanding Rashi on Devarim 15:10 in the name of the Sifrei, ‘You shall surely give,’ even one hundred times, because this is considered the same encounter.”
There must be a new reason for the second donation
For a somewhat different rationale, see Orech Tzedakah by Feinhandler, chapter 6, note 80. He writes that he asked Rabbi Nissim Karelitz zt”l whether one is obligated to give a poor person in the synagogue when he asks a second time. He answered that one is not obligated to give a second time, “because no new reason to give him has arisen in the interim.”
Shut Mishnat Shalom Pollak, part III, siman 9, similarly cites this rationale in the name of Kuntres Pato’ach Tiftach, from Rabbi Yitzchak Tzvi Einhorn, dayan of the Skver community in Beit Shemesh.
VeYevarech David Harfenes on prayer, part I, p. 441, writes: “Perhaps the positive commandment of ‘you shall surely give,’ even one hundred times, applies specifically to a poor person who has nothing to eat, for every day he needs to eat at least twice. Thus, each time he has new needs [meaning, when he asks the second time on another day, or at least during another encounter]. But one who collects tzedakah for hachnasat kallah, or a resident of Eretz Yisrael who went abroad because of his debts, may be different: since one has already given him for that matter for which he is collecting, he is no longer obligated to give him again for that need.” [However, he later investigates what constitutes a “new reason” for which we expound “you shall surely give.” If a person gave once to a poor person and the latter has already spent all that he received and now needs again, that appears to be the ordinary law of tzedakah and not merely the law of “you shall surely give.” He therefore remains uncertain as to which case constitutes a new reason that would obligate one only by virtue of “you shall surely give,” rather than the basic obligation of tzedakah. Perhaps one may say that, for example, he received money for breakfast and has coins remaining which he wishes to save for supper, and now requests money for lunch. Under the ordinary law of tzedakah alone, one might say that the donor is exempt from giving a second time, since the poor person still has money given in the morning and can use it for lunch. Yet by virtue of “you shall surely give,” one must give again when he asks again at lunchtime, because after the morning gift the need for lunch has arisen.]
Regarding a fundraiser collecting for Torah support, such as a kollel of avreichim, who returns after a month to request again: seemingly, the kollel is not considered “one need,” but is comparable to a poor person asking for his livelihood. The fundraiser distributes the funds monthly, and thus each month a new reason arises.
The words of the Yerushalmi
Furthermore, the Yerushalmi, Peah 8, end of halachah 5, states: “Rabbi Ba bar Ba bar Mamal asked before Rabbi Ila: They saw him leave the town and re-enter it. He said to him: The giver should give, and the recipient should be concerned for himself.” (See also Yerushalmi Demai 2:1 and Shevi’it 10:1.) This means: A poor traveler is given food for that day. Rabbi Ba bar Ba asked Rabbi Ila: if they saw a poor person traveling from place to place, who had received his portion, left the town, and returned to it, should he receive again? Rabbi Ila answered: the giver should give, but the poor person should be concerned for himself, because he acted improperly. Several later authorities sought to derive from here that one must give to a poor person in the synagogue who asks twice. However, there are several responses:
First, it is not at all clear that the Yerushalmi means one is obligated to give; perhaps it means only that if one gave in error, it is nevertheless considered tzedakah. This is how Yedid Nefesh explains the Yerushalmi: “The giver should give, and the recipient should be concerned for himself—the giver performed tzedakah, while the poor person who acted deceptively should be concerned about theft, for had the householder known that he had already received, he would not have given him.”
Second, “the giver should give” may mean that he is permitted to give. It teaches that even though this may seemingly harm the other poor people, because he takes from the communal food fund, it is nevertheless permitted. It does not teach an obligation to give.
Third, here he at least left the town and returned. Therefore, he is included in the enactment of the Sages that one gives a day’s food to one who enters a town; the Sages did not distinguish. In contrast, regarding a poor person standing at the synagogue entrance who neither rises nor moves from there, or even a poor person circulating in the synagogue during the same encounter, where no new reason to give has arisen—who says one must give him again?
In Derech Sichah (responses of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky zt”l), Parashat Re’eh, p. 560, he was asked, “When a poor person asks several times a day, is one obligated to give him?” He answered based on the above Yerushalmi: “That is, the poor person acts improperly, but the giver gives.” He repeated this ruling in response no. 36 printed in the BeDarko Emunah leaflet, Parashat Re’eh, 5779. However, in Shut She’elat Rav cited above, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky zt”l was expressly asked whether the Yerushalmi teaches a law regarding a poor person who asks and asks again, and he answered, as stated, “there is no need to give.” The distinction between the responses appears clear: in Shut She’elat Rav, the questioner mentioned that the poor person asked “during the same encounter.” Thus, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky’s view may be that when it is the same encounter, one is exempt from giving even according to the Yerushalmi.
Additional explanations of the Sifrei exposition
In Yere’im, siman 167, the exposition of the Sifrei is explained as a blessing rather than a mitzvah: “ ‘You shall surely open’—if you opened once, you will ultimately open one hundred times, because the Holy One, blessed be He, will provide for you and make money available to you. If you gave once, you will ultimately give one hundred times, as it states: ‘You shall surely give.’” According to this, the exposition of “you shall surely give” may likewise be a blessing, since the continuation of that verse is also a blessing. Torah Temimah independently writes similarly on “you shall surely give,” as will be mentioned below. See also To’afot Re’em on Yere’im there. Ha’amek HaNetziv on the Sifrei similarly explains the exposition of “you shall surely open,” even one hundred times.
Rabbi Ahavat Shalom of Kosov zt”l, in Aseret Tzachtzachot, 33b, letter 26, cites the Sifrei’s exposition and understands it to concern the same poor person who returns to ask. Yet he maintains that “you shall surely give him” applies only if the poor person returned the money he received and asked for more. See there. [This is also a novel stringency, that one must give the poor person the full amount of his request, and it requires study as to its source.] Rabbi Yeshuot Moshe of Vizhnitz zt”l, in a talk cited in Otzar Divrei Rabbeinu, p. 61, quoted Rabbi Ahavat Shalom’s words differently, as imposing an obligation to give every time the poor person comes to ask. However, one who examines the words of the holy Rabbi of Kosov will see clearly that his intent is as presented here.
Additional distinctions according to the stringent view
Shut Chayei HaLevi, part IV, siman 7, letter 2, understands the Sifrei as referring to the same poor person, whom one must give to repeatedly whenever he asks, even during the same encounter. He nevertheless makes two distinctions:
- First: If the reason the poor person asked again is that he forgot that he had already asked him—as commonly happens with beggars who circulate in the synagogue and ask every person indiscriminately, without remembering from whom they received, and therefore ask again—then, since his request is made in error, it is not considered a request and there is no obligation to give a second time. Had the poor person known that he had already asked this person, he would not have asked again. Rabbi Chayei HaLevi adds that one need not investigate whether the poor person forgot, because it may be assumed that his second request is ordinarily due to not remembering. VeYevarech David Harfenes on prayer, part I, p. 441, writes similarly. Shut Shevet HaKehati, part I, Yoreh De’ah, siman 255, likewise gives this rationale, but writes that one should tell the poor person, “I already gave you,” so that he should not think that the person does not wish to give him and become distressed.
- Second: If one has already given ma’aser or one-fifth to tzedakah, thus discharging his obligation of tzedakah, it is enough that he gives the poor person some amount the first time he asks. This does not apply if the giver is wealthy and obligated beyond one-fifth according to the needs of the poor, in which case he must give even the second time the poor person asks. [However, we already cited the author of Or HaChaim’s words in Rishon LeTzion, where he understands the obligation of “you shall surely give” to apply even to one who has already given ma’aser or one-fifth, though he understands it as referring to multiple poor people.]
Does the Talmud disagree with the Sifrei exposition?
It must be considered whether, in practical halachah, we follow the expositions of the Sifrei and Pesikta on “you shall surely open” and “you shall surely give.” The Gemara in Bava Metzia 31b expounds differently: “ ‘You shall surely open’—I know only the poor of your city; from where do I know the poor of another city? Scripture states, ‘You shall surely open’—in every case. ‘You shall surely give’—I know only a large gift; from where do I know a small gift [Rashi: if you cannot give a large gift]? Scripture states, ‘You shall surely give’—in every case.” [Moreover, the Semag, positive commandments 162, maintains that the mitzvah of “you shall surely give” refers to the mitzvah of lending, not tzedakah.]
Shut Mishnat Shalom Pollak, part III, siman 9, further notes that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch omitted the above expositions of the Sifrei. Seemingly, this indicates that they did not accept these expositions. He cites that Kuntres Pato’ach Tiftach, p. 70, already addressed this. Nevertheless, he concludes that the Talmud also presumably agrees with the Sifrei, since “naton” by itself can be expounded as “even one hundred times.” Accordingly, the Rambam’s omission of this exposition is not because he rejects it, but because the Talmud did not cite it. Just as we explain that the Talmud agrees with the Sifrei, we explain the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch accordingly.
Torah Temimah, Devarim 15, note 35, notes that the Talmud expounds the repetition of “naton titen” for another matter. He writes that perhaps according to the Talmud no exposition is needed for this, because it is self-evident—indicating that he understands the Sifrei as referring to multiple poor people, not the same poor person. He further answers: “Or one may say that the Gemara explains this exposition as a blessing rather than a mitzvah”—similar to the view of the Yere’im cited above.
Additional grounds for leniency
Shut Shevet HaKehati, part I, Yoreh De’ah, siman 255, offers an additional ground for leniency: “The Rama in siman 250:1 writes that the requirement to provide a poor person with all that he lacks applies to the tzedakah administrator or to the community collectively. An individual is not obligated to provide a poor person with all that he lacks; rather, he informs the public of his distress, and if no public is available, the individual gives if he has the means. The requirement to give even one hundred times is in order that the poor person have all that he lacks[1]; when he asks again, this shows that he still lacks what he needs. But poor people standing in the street announce their distress to the public, and an individual is not obligated to provide all that they lack [and consequently need not give them the second time they ask, only the first time]. However, he should inform him that he already gave, so that the poor person should not think that he is closing his ear to the cry of the needy and be distressed.”
[In part V, siman 176, Rabbi Shevet HaKehati writes even more broadly: regarding poor people standing at the synagogue entrance and publicizing their need to the public, perhaps there is no halachic obligation even to give the first time. He cites that Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzensky zt”l, author of Shut Achiezer, ruled this way for the author of Kehillot Yaakov, Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky zt”l: “He is not obligated to give to every poor person who asks, when he also asks others.” However, this ruling is difficult, for the fact that he asks others—that is, announces his distress to the public—seemingly affects only the obligation to provide all that he lacks, as the Rama writes, but not the obligation to give even a perutah. Kovetz Or Yisrael, Monsey, Tishrei 5772, p. 299, cites Rabbi Shevet HaKehati’s words in the name of Rabbi Chaim Ozer and strongly questions them. To reconcile the reasoning, it might be suggested that since the poor person continually asks everyone he sees indiscriminately, he is not considered as explicitly asking that particular individual, but rather as making a general request of the public, even though in practice he approached and asked him. However, the source is now seen to be Toledot Yaakov, end of chapter 4, where the Steipler zt”l asked because he did not have sufficient funds to give to every poor person standing at the synagogue entrance, as they were numerous. Rabbi Chaim Ozer zt”l ruled that since it was impossible, he was not obligated. See also Sha’arei Tzedek Gartner, p. 53, for another explanation. Accordingly, the report in Shevet HaKehati, part V, is not precise. The practical difference is that one who can afford to give one perutah to every poor person is obligated to give at least the first perutah; only regarding an obligation to give again to that same poor person do we say that he is not obligated, as Rabbi Shevet HaKehati writes in part I.]
One may also combine the consideration mentioned in Ketubot 68a: “Let us be grateful to the deceivers,” etc. Although this serves only as a basis for judging favorably, where other grounds for leniency exist in any case, concern that the person may be deceptive may be combined—unless one knows that the poor person is not deceptive. Especially nowadays, there is testimony related by an important Torah scholar concerning the admission of one beggar in the Geulah neighborhood that he collects three or four times an avreich’s monthly salary each month. See also Orchot Rabbeinu, new edition, part III, p. 179: “My teacher told me that today there are no destitute people, for the beggars in the streets are not destitute; they have tens of thousands of liras in the bank,” etc. See also Nifgashim BaParashah, p. 166, which makes remarkable statements on this matter, though it is not known whether that work is precise. Even if these reports are not precise and the situation is far worse, there is nevertheless some weakening of the presumption of poverty of beggars. Thus, while one should give them the first perutah they request, when they ask to be given again, it is reasonable that one is not obligated, since there are doubts and mitigating considerations as to whether such an obligation exists to give twice during the same encounter, as above.
Regarding the poor person himself: is it proper for him to ask again?
Regarding whether the poor person should refrain from asking again during the same encounter, we cited above the similar statement in Yerushalmi Peah 8:5: “the recipient of the tzedakah should be concerned for himself.” However, this can readily be distinguished based on all that was explained above, especially according to the explanation of Yedid Nefesh cited above.
Seemingly, the matter depends somewhat on whether the donor is truly obligated to give every time the poor person asks, even during the same encounter, or whether he gives beyond the letter of the law. If he is obligated, the poor person effectively compels the donor to give repeatedly after he has already given what he wished to give. In contrast, if the householder acts generously in giving, the poor person does not compel him to do something beyond his choice—though it may perhaps still reflect a lack of proper manners on the poor person’s part.
In the response of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky zt”l cited above, he explicitly writes in this case that the poor person commits an “injustice.” Chashukei Chemed on Avodah Zarah 17b writes that it is improper for a poor person to ask again and again because he takes all the householder’s money and leaves nothing for other poor people. In Chashukei Chemed on Menachot 104b, he distinguishes: “It appears that all this—that it is improper for a poor person to ask several times a day—applies where the poor person can continue going from door to door and collecting tzedakah from the public. But where he urgently needs money and it is difficult for him to obtain it elsewhere, he may come and ask several times a day.”
Maran Malka Rabbeinu Ovadia Yosef zt”l, in Shut Yabia Omer, part VII, Orach Chaim, end of siman 22, writes briefly, regarding fundraising for construction of a synagogue, that “it is not proper initially to approach them [the donors] again and request that they donate to the synagogue.” He cites Shut Beit She’arim, Orach Chaim, siman 61, which writes likewise, but concludes that some disagree, as one will see in Shut Kol Aryeh, siman 14, and Shut Teshuat Shai, part I, siman 15. [In any event, Yabia Omer’s discussion is not about the obligation to give a second time, for it is obvious that there is no obligation to give again for synagogue construction; rather, the question concerns whether the requester acts properly.]
All this applies where the donor remembers that he already gave. But if the donor forgot that he had already given and gives again in error, Rabbi VeYevarech David Harfenes writes that this is actual theft, especially if the donation is not from ma’aser funds. Rabbi Yitzchak Zilberstein writes that it constitutes geneivat da’at. This requires further discussion.
This is the conclusion of the matter
Thus, several doubts exist: A. Perhaps the halachah does not follow the Sifrei on this matter, as appears from Bava Metzia and from the omission by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. B. Even if we follow the Sifrei’s expositions, perhaps the Sifrei intends a blessing and not a mitzvah, as the Yere’im maintains. C. Even if it refers to a mitzvah, perhaps the Sifrei refers to a case where many poor people ask him, not where the same poor person asks again. D. Even if it refers to the same poor person asking again, it is reasonable that this applies only when it is not the same encounter, or when a new reason for the request has arisen; in contrast, when they are still in the same encounter—such as when one enters for Shacharit and exits Shacharit—there is no obligation to give again. E. Perhaps this obligation applies only to one who has not given ma’aser from his funds. F. Perhaps it applies only to a poor person who has not publicized his distress to the public, unlike beggars and other poor people who ask many people. G. Perhaps this poor person is deceptive and does not need tzedakah. There are also several other considerations mentioned above.
Nevertheless, one who does give will receive a blessing of goodness, for he performs a great mitzvah by giving again to this poor person despite having already given from his funds. Fortunate are Israel, who are asked and give, asked and give. (The source of this statement is Yerushalmi Shekalim 1:1, where it is not specifically praise; nevertheless, later sefarim cite it as praise. Although this case differs because they are asked by the same poor person, all the more so, if they give nevertheless, it is praiseworthy.) It may also be said that thereby one cleaves to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, for Bereishit Rabbah, parashah 66, siman 3, expounds: “ ‘And may He give you’—may He give, and give you again.”
Notes:
[1] See Panim Yafot, Parashat Korach 18:8: “Our Sages said [Sifrei], ‘You shall surely give,’ even one hundred times—meaning, until the poor people have sufficient for satiation.” This may be discussed.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
