Hi good morning Shavuah Tov Aleichem. I hope it begins from Michtav Tes Zayin, the second half of the medrash, the second half of the letter, excuse me. The letter is on its way down from the cloud and should be on your computer screens shortly, im yirtzeh Hashem. Okay, so the footnote is writing as follows: ועכשיו בנוגע לקושיתך על המדרש. This young bochur had written to him with a kasha in halacha about the Tosafot in Gittin and then also a kasha in medrash and machshava, referring as the note here identifies, referring to the famous medrash Tanchuma. Tosafot in Shabbos asks a kasha on the Gemara of Vayisatzvu b'sachtis ha'har מלמד שכפה עליהם הר כגיגית. That kavyachol there was some coercion as it were, at least that's what it means literally, whatever it really means. So Tosafot had asked a kasha: what need was there for this כפה עליהם הר כגיגית? They had already willingly said na'aseh v'nishma. So Tosafot says: yeah, but shema they were going to regress and the כפה עליהם הר כגיגית was to prevent and preempt that regression. The velt quotes that the medrash Tanchuma already deals with Tosafot's kasha and the medrash Tanchuma gives a different answer. The medrash Tanchuma suggests that the na'aseh v'nishma was on the Torah she'bichtav and the need for the כפה עליהם הר כגיגית was for the Torah she'baal peh. Okay, so here is the background to where the letter is beginning. ועכשיו בנוגע לקושיתך על המדרש כותב אתה כי פירוש נעשה קודם לנשמע הוא שהם מוכנים לעשות הכל בלי שמיעה מה יקבלו והיך יכולים לומר שזה קיבל וזה לא קיבל לכאורה זה סותר עצם הפירוש של נעשה ונשמע עד כאן לשונך.
So what room is there for the explanation of the medrash Tanchuma? Na'aseh v'nishma, when you put na'aseh before nishma, it means unconditionally, right? If you say nishma v'na'aseh, it means we will hear and we will assess and we will deliberate and then whatever we agree with, whatever resonates with us na'aseh. But by beginning, by placing the na'aseh first, what that represents is an unconditional, unqualified commitment. So what do you mean that it was conditional to Torah she'bichtav and qualified? הכוונה בדברי המדרש היא, here comes the footnote's answer, כי בוודאי שהם קיבלו על עצמם לעשות הכל בלי שמיעה.
No, you are certainly right. That is what na'aseh v'nishma means, that it is unconditional. ובוודאי שהם יעשו גם את כל המובא לעשות בדברי תורה שבעל פה.
And if there is an unconditional, unqualified commitment, so that clearly encompasses Torah she'baal peh as well. כי לעולם אי אפשר כלל לעשות דברי תורה שבכתב בלי דברי תורה שבעל פה.
Because it is impossible to fulfill one, to implement, to fulfill Torah she'bichtav without Torah she'baal peh. שהלו מן התורה שבכתב איננו יודעים שום דין. I will keep Shabbos based on Torah she'bichtav, so what is a melacha? I will be מקיים מצוות ישיבת סוכה based on Torah she'bichtav, what is a sukkah? It is inseparable. That is why it is for this reason that on the one hand at times Chazal will refer to Torah she'bichtav and Torah she'baal peh as two Torahs. For instance, עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וישמור משמרתי מצוותי חוקותי ותורותי,
both of my Torahs. So that is an allusion to Torah she'bichtav and Torah she'baal peh. There is Torah which was given to Moshe b'chsav and there is Torah which was given to Moshe ba'al peh. Me-idakh gisa, at some times Chazal refer to it as one Torah with two parts. For instance, משה קיבל תורה מסיני. So clearly what that means, Rabbeinu Yona for instance spells this out in his peirush on Avos is that Moshe was mekabel both Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh. So why is it that here, again, that Chazal see a reference to Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh in the lashon rabbim I understand. But why is it that at times Chazal themselves will forgo the lashon rabbim and say the lashon yachid? Because on the one hand, it depends upon what you're looking to emphasize. On the one hand, there are two Toras, Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh, but on the other hand, they're not two Toras, they're one inseparable Torah because the Torah shebichsav is meaningless without the Torah shebe-al peh and the Torah shebe-al peh has no point of reference without the Torah shebichsav. That's what Rav Hutner is saying, that when the Medrash is saying that they were mekabel Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh, it can't be understood literally that that's what the Medrash means because that's totally untenable. What the Karai'im, what the Tzedukim baitussim invented was something which was and is totally untenable. The Rambam says and they themselves only did it as a ploy and as a strategy. It's not that they themselves really believed such a thing was tenable either, they really were rejecting everything. But they realized that that would seem too radical and that would be recognized for what it was as heretical. So because of that they postured and tried to bifurcate. But really it's not tenable. That's why the Medrash Tanchuma, that's why in Avos it says משה קיבל תורה מסיני and that means Torah shebichsav, means Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh. The Rambam in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim has unlike the way he does in פרק ג הלכות תשובה has only one ikkar of Torah min hashamayim and within that one ikkar he says that that means Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh. There are two Toras but it's really one, it's shnayim she-heim echad. And therefore the Medrash Tanchuma has to mean that they were mekabel Torah shebichsav and Torah shebe-al peh. So then what does the Medrash Tanchuma mean that the kfiya of har kegigis was for Torah shebe-al peh? אלא שהכוונה במדרש בנוגע להנשמע עצמו כלומר הם קיבלו על עצמם את היגיעה הנוראה של לימוד תורה שבעל פה.
What the Medrash Tanchuma means Rav Hutner suggests that they were mekabel Torah shebe-al peh, of course they were mekabel to fulfill Torah shebichsav על פי פירושה הוא תורה שבעל פה but they were mekabel upon themselves that intense effort, that mesirus nefesh needed to be koneh a kinyan in Torah shebe-al peh, to makif the Torah shebe-al peh. הם קיבלו על עצמם את היגיעה הנוראה של לימוד תורה שבעל פה והלימוד הוא בכלל הנשמע ולא בכלל הנעשה אלא שמכיוון שבלימוד תורה שבכתב גרידא אין בזה כל כך הרבה יגיעה.
This yegiya is needed not so much for Torah shebichsav but yegiya is needed for the Torah shebe-al peh. It's the Torah shebe-al peh which is so vast, it's the Torah shebe-al peh which is so challenging. לכן אמר המדרש שהכפייה הייתה על התורה שבעל פה. It's interesting the Gemara in Gittin at the end of Hanizakin says that לא כרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל דברים שבעל פה שנאמר כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית.
and Yisrael. So again, even though obviously on one level Torah shebichtav and Torah shebal peh are inseparable, but that notwithstanding the dogish chazak in the bris between Hakadosh Baruch Hu and Yisrael is on the Torah shebal peh. Yitachein the pshat is as follows. Maybe just to give a mashal. I think over the years we've seen the Meshech Chochma's pshat in Avos, בעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך.
So the Meshech Chochma asks why do Chazal darshen the pasuk as referring to bazman hazeh when there's no korban pesach? Why did they darshen the pasuk referring to the Beis HaMikdash when olam k'tikuno and knowing the way it should be בשעה שיש פסח מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך? So the Meshech Chochma gives a mashal to a couple that marry off their daughter. And initially so the son-in-law is auf kest, the in-laws are supporting him. And Baruch Hashem it's already a half year into the marriage and the wife says to her husband, the parents of the kallah, Baruch Hashem look how nicely he treats our daughter, Baruch Hashem. And the husband answers his wife, that judgment is premature. That's a premature judgment. He says kol zman that the eidem is al mei menuchos, he says he's living off of man. He says things are good, things are easy, no stress, no strain. Yeah, so he treats her nicely. The real test will be whether or not that devotion will be there and that same attitude will be maintained and sustained even in difficult times, even when he has the challenges of the ol haparnasa and even when he's no longer receiving man. Then we'll be able to discern and reach and make a judgment as to how he treats her. So too says the Meshech Chochma, Hakadosh Baruch Hu ba'avur zeh, Hakadosh Baruch Hu took us out of Mitzrayim that we should be avdei Hashem, that we should be committed, that we should be devoted, we should be moser nefesh to be committed and devoted b'mei David u'Shlomo when it was איש תחת גפנו ואיש תחת תאנתו, when it was yad Yisrael takifa, he says is not such a kunst. It doesn't demand so much to throw your, to cast your lot with the winning side. He says the test, ba'avur zeh, Hakadosh Baruch Hu wants to see whether or not we'll remain committed, whether or not we'll remain faithful avdei Hashem when it's only מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך, when it's a time of churban. לא כרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ברית, again a shtikel mashal, l'ma davar domeh, לא כרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל דברים שבעל פה.
The bris is measured by, the bris is mekuyam through mesirus nefesh. Not a more casual involvement and engagement, no, but an engagement that demands steadfastness, that demands again not just a quantitative commitment to talmud Torah, but a qualitative commitment to talmud Torah. Right, the ba'alei, people like to talk about there's bitul Torah b'kamas, there's bitul Torah b'eichus. Bitul Torah b'kamas, if I waste time, that's bitul Torah b'kamas. If I'm learning, but I'm not learning l'omek hadvarim to the extent that That I'm capable, k'davoy, so that's a bittel Torah b'aichus. So a bris is measured by, a bris is m'kuyam through again that commitment, that steadfastness, that yegiah again not only, not only to quantitatively capitalize on on on on our time for talmud Torah, but also qualitatively to to to to capture the divrei Torah and and the meaning of the divrei Torah. That's only present in Torah she'bal peh. Torah she'bal peh again has the challenge of of מדמה מילתא למילתא להבין מתוך דבר to have to be makif inyan after inyan. That which the kfiyah of Har k'Gigis was needed for, that can create a bris. That's a way of fulfilling a bris. That's the way of reflecting a bris. That's the way of showing devotion. Not when it's פסח מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך, but when it's only מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך. M'idach gisa, l'chora this is also part of the mechuvon Chazal. It's for that reason what it it it not for that reason alone, but for that reason as well, the Torah she'bal peh again until until Rabbeinu Hakadosh's Eis La'asos was purely and exclusively a Torah she'bal peh. How how so? The Smag, the Sefer Mitzvos Gadol has in his Hakdamah many of the Rishonim talk about why did HaKadosh Baruch Hu what havanah can we have in in this again this split in terms of the Torah she'bicsav HaKadosh Baruch Hu sees fit that it should be b'chsav, mashen ken the Torah she'bal peh HaKadosh Baruch Hu wanted initially that it should be bal peh. Why not why not write down the Torah she'bal peh even initially? Different different explanations. The Rambam says because eino domeh the clarity a person can gain in learning when he learns panim el panim from the Rebbe as opposed to when he's learning mitoch aksav. There's much more room for ambiguity, for confusion, for misunderstanding, for lack of clarity when a person is learning mitoch aksav. Does it mean this or does it mean that? Mashen ken, a person is learning mipichem v'lo mipiksavam, a person is learning Torah she'bal peh, so that if it's not clear so the person asks the Rebbe and and and seeks to get that clarification. Maybe even preemptively, proactively the Rebbe sees on on on the face of the talmud or on the faces of the talmidei that things are not sufficiently sufficiently clear. So that's one, that's the Rambam's that's the Rambam's perspective on on on Torah she'bal peh. So the Smag offers a different perspective. The Smag says the historicity of of this, its historical accuracy depends upon two nuschaos in the Igeres of Sherira Gaon. The the Smag says as follows, that galui v'yaduah l'fanav HaKadosh Baruch Hu, HaKadosh Baruch Hu knew at Ma'amad Har Sinai that there were going to be impostor religions that were going to lay claim to the truth and mantle of Torah. You know historically, if if one looks at the polemics that that Christianity engaged in, so Christianity attempted to prove, to establish, both in quotations, its claim through their twisted christological interpretations of pesukim in Tanach. Why? Why not just say no, forget that. Here's here's a new and and better religion. It's much easier, you don't have to do anything. You do whatever you want and then you just occasionally you go go tell the galach that what you did and that you're sorry and then right, you can continue doing what you want. It's it's a good system. So what did they have to, what did they have to twist that this pasuk means this and this pasuk means that? No, it was because besides the fact that they were again trying to attract Jews as well, but even after that, even when they were out of that direct and because it was known that the Torah was true and therefore if you wanted to be able to substantiate kavyachol, you were looking to fraudulently substantiate your own claim so you had somehow anchor yourself in in in in Torah. So galuy veyadu'a lefanecha says the Smag, that both Christianity and Islam would come and they would look and they would distort and say no, the Torah's referring to us and it's not Yitzchak, it's Yishmael vechulu vechulu. So what did Hakadosh Baruch Hu do? Hikdim refu'ah lemakkah. So Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave part of Torah shebe'al peh which was inaccessible and couldn't be stolen and couldn't be plagiarized by umot ha'olam. So when others claimed that no, we're the authentic continuation of this tradition of Torah, so then the challenge was but you can't begin to know or understand what Torah is because you don't have the indispensable complement to the Torah shebichtav, hainu the Torah shebe'al peh. And that's why Hakadosh Baruch Hu kept the Torah shebe'al peh oral, and that's why Hakadosh Baruch Hu allowed historical circumstances to delay the Torah shebe'al peh being written down, because it wasn't written down until after both of the major competing Western religions had already appeared on the scene. So the Smag is assuming, this mumar explained to me, the Smag is assuming we have two nuscha'ot of the אגרת רב שרירא גאון. One of the very, very, very substantive differences between those two versions, those two nuscha'ot of the Iggeret, is what Rabbeinu Hakadosh did. Did Rabbeinu Hakadosh simply compile and arrange and formulate shisha sidrei Mishnah or did he also commit it to writing, did he also write it down? So we're more familiar with the second view because that's the view that the Rambam presents, that Rabbeinu Hakadosh, it's not just that he composed, compiled, again, after formulating and arranged the shisha sidrei Mishnah, but he also wrote it down. But the one nusach, which is one nusach of the אגרת רב שרירא גאון, but the other nusach of the אגרת רב שרירא גאון says no, Rabbi did all that but he didn't write it down. It wasn't written down until later. So according to that nusach, so then what the Smag says stimms historically. So yitachen hapshat is like this. Lichora Hakadosh Baruch Hu karat berit with Yisrael al bishvil Torah shebe'al peh. So the Torah shebe'al peh on the one hand because of the nature of the limud of Torah shebe'al peh, it's the fact that it demands yegi'ah and amal, in the Nefesh Hachaim's words, yegi'ah nora'ah, that's why that's the measure of, that's the kiyum of the berit. But me'idach gisa, simultaneously because that's the berit between Hakadosh Baruch Hu and Yisrael, so then it's safeguarded by being be'al peh and by not being open or available or accessible to anyone else. So that's the other side of the coin of the Torah shebe'al peh. And that's why agav, if you take a look in the beginning of the English ArtScroll, so they have I think more haskamot than, I don't know, I don't really know, but one is tempted to say more than any other sefer ever, ever had. So what do you need so many haskamot for? So... There are different different reasons. One of the reasons is that the more potentially controversial what you're doing is, the more need there is for haskama. So what's so potentially controversial about about a translation? Now to translate תורה שבעל פה is is taka is an eis la'asos, is an eis la'asos. Okay so that's what all the gedolim were maskim that that was an eis la'asos to to do but because because לא כרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל תורה שבעל פה, תורה שבעל פה
is supposed to remain a private communication since it's לא כרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל תורה שבעל פה
for that chelek of Torah because of the yegiah involved that chelek of Torah is mechayev. So mimeila that chelek of Torah is also because that's the bris so the bris what's most holy has to be most private. That's the rov's yesod. What's most holy has to be most private. That's why the holiest place in in on the earth, the Kodesh HaKodashim, so it was the most private the Kohen Gadol could only come in once a year. What's most holy has to be most private. So the emes is the way it remains private is at least that there should be again even once Rabbeinu HaKadosh, Rabbeinu or Rav Ashi, whatever point in history it happened, even once it was written down but at least that there are linguistic barriers and linguistic walls and and and all kinds of necessary yedios to access the תורה שבעל פה. But to tear down those walls and translate is taka not not poshut. That's why that's why they got all those haskamos. Okay so the gedolim paskened thought that it was one one rav, I don't know forty years ago, whenever it was, whenever they started this I don't know what the chronology is, wrote a whole kuntres against the Artscroll and about this nekuda about them not translating תורה שבעל פה. But nimnu ve'gamru that everything we're saying notwithstanding so now at this point in history it's an eis la'asos to to do the to do the translation. Maybe since we're not having the twelve o'clock shiur today maybe we'll just continue for a few more minutes. The previous michtav, michtav tes vav, very totally different topic matter. הריני בזה לרשום איזה שמץ לבבי בנוגע להערתו. הפוסקים מבורר כנתינת צדקה באופן שאינו מקבל יודע ממי נטלה. נחשבת אמנם למעלה אבל אין בזה כל מצד עיקר הדין.
When the Rambam talks about the shmona ma'alos bitzdaka so he says that one of the ma'alos is to give tzdaka in a way that the mekabel doesn't know who his benefactor is. But that's a ma'ala. There's no chiyuv to to give tzdaka that way. It is it is certainly a mitzvah, I don't say permissible it's a mitzvah if a person gives the tzdaka directly to the oni and the oni knows who the nosan is. ועל זה היה קרוא תוסו דלמה לא ישים עיקר הדין לנהוג כך? כי מאחר שאיננו אונס במצות צדקה מהו ההיתר לבייש את המקבל?
If that possibility exists to sort of clandestinely channel him the money so that he won't know who his benefactor is so then you'll save him the embarrassment. So shouldn't that be a chiyuv mitzad the issur of halbanas panim? כי הלא מכיון שנצרך אדם לבריות פניו משתנות כידוע. והנה הגם שאף מצד הסברא גרידא קשה טובא כדברי תורתו.
says the kasha is a kasha even misvara be'ofen she'ness. עדיין תוקד עצמי מעובדא דמר עוקבא בכתובות סו she'heidi mefurash bagemara that bizman shehaya choshesh שיודע המקבל מי הנותן so he used to throw it in through a through the mail slot or whatever and then the oni wanted to know who his benefactor was so the oni was one day to sort of lay in ambush as it were and then one day was chasing after Mar Ukva so Mar Ukva ran and hid in a furnace, in in a heated furnace to avoid detection. שבזמן שחושש כי ייוודע למקבל מי הוא הנותן קיים מר עוקבא בעצמו מוטב שיפיל עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חברו ברבים.
V'al pi zeh, so doesn't this Gemara exactly corroborate the kasha? It sounds like that there is a chiyuv me-ikar hadin, not even in the context of tzedakah, if possible to avoid the shame that the ani would feel. ולפי זה בוודאי תקשה על ששנו הפוסקים דבריהם בעניין זה בלשון מעלה ולא בלשון מניעת חטא. והנראה בהקדמת ההנחה.
So this is what the footnote says on the kasha. והנראה בהקדמת ההנחה כי אין החזקת טובה עניין של שיפור המידות.
To be machzik tovah is not just a question of having proper middos, אלא שהוא פשוט השתעבדות גמורה של מקבל הטובה לנותנה. No, but it's a bein adam l'chaveiro. It's not just a מידה בין אדם לעצמו. No, it's a chiyuv, it's a shibbud, again, bein adam l'chaveiro, not just a middah which plays out bein adam l'chaveiro, but a shibbud bein adam l'chaveiro. That's what the footnote suggests. ועל כן כשם שאין חיוב להוציא חפץ לעושר מבלי תשלומים אף על פי שהעושר מצטער מזה.
Let's say the osher comes into your store and he wants to buy a computer and you tell him it costs $500. He doesn't want to spend $500 on the computer, but it's worth $500. So you have every right to say, listen, this is what the price that you're obligated to pay. כמו כן אין חיוב נתינת צדקה לעני מבלי חליפין של החזקת טובה.
So so too, the same way that under in the context of a mechira, a person the koneh is mechuyav to pay, so so too in the context of tzedakah, the ani is mechuyav to be machzik tovah. כי לגבי החזקת טובה גם העני עושר הוא. He's also has the resources to be machzik tovah, ואף על פי שהחזקת טובה של העני כרוכה היא בצערה
ein mikach chov שזה ממש כמו שהעושר היה מצטער משהיו מוכרחים אותו לשלם ובפרט שגוף שינוי הפנים של אדם הנצרך לבריות הוא דווקא מצד שקבלת הטובה משעבדתו לנותנה. ואלמלא לא היה בעולם עניין של החזקת טובה כל עיקר לא היו פניו של הנצרך לבריות משתנות.
The reason the reason panav mishtanos, the reason a person pales or blushes when he has to ask, when he has to receive, is because gufa, because of the indebtedness that goes along with that. ועצם השינוי פנים של הנצרך לבריות בא משום שכבודו של אדם הוא בחירותו ומכיוון שקבלת הטובה מטילה עליו שעבוד של החזקת טובה חירותו נפגמת וגירעון חירות זה משנה פנים ועל כן אין מעיקר הדין חוב למנוע שינוי פנים זה.
The same way you're not mechuyav as a mocheir, you're not mechuyav to be mevater on the price, as a noten tzedakah, you're not mechuyav to be mevater on the hachzakas tovah because hachzakas tovah is a shibbud. אומנם כל זה הוא מעיקר הדין אבל מצד עדיפות המעלה יש לנותן למחול על שעבוד החזקת טובה של המקבל מאחר שסוף סוף כרוך בזה בעניין של צער.
De-it me-ikar hadin. But the same way, if you want, you can give someone a present and then you don't have to always demand payment for it, so here, even more so, it's an inyan that no, I understand I'm entitled to his hakaras ha-tov. But I also understand how difficult it is for him to be makir tov, אבל ומוחל לו על זה. או, ומכאן שאחרי המחילה הזו שוב הלבנות של המקבל נידונות ככל הלבנת פנים דעלמא.
But once once a person was mochel that hakaras ha-tov, so then that there should be any embarrassment associated with tzedakah, so then that taka will just have the din of halbunas panim of kol ha-Torah kullah. ונמצא דעל צדקה ישנה זו מחל מר עוקבא על השעבוד של החזקת טובה וממילא אין כאן אלא הלבנת פנים גרידא ועל כן קיים מר עוקבא בנפשו לעולם יפיל עצמו לכבשן האש.
Ad kan devarav. וראויים הדברים למי שאמרם, a footnote type mahalach. There's a neder and if it's mutar to say simpler answer to that to the kasha of why preventing the mekabel from realizing who the nosei is is begeder maila and not me'ikar hadin. Let's give a moshel. It's only a moshel because obviously you can be mechaleik between the two cases, but משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say you have a tveia against someone that the and the tveia is sort of black and white and you have to take him to beis din to collect the five hundred dollars. Maybe it's five dollars. Maybe it's a peruta. Now to be toen in beis din you have to engage in what in another context would be lashon hara. Right? You have to tell beis din I lent him the money and he didn't pay back, he broke my window and didn't pay for the damages. There's going to be what in a different context would be lashon hara. And yet there is no chiyuv kihu zeh for the person to be mevater even on a peruta. You can take him to beis din אין בית דין נזקקים לפחות משווה פרוטה. If it's pachos mishaveh peruta okay you've got to live with that. But if it is a peruta so then and beis din are nizkak to that, so then the person is it's not considered lashon hara. It's not considered lashon hara because it's not something which is incidental. It's inherent in the process of beis din that you have to be toen. And there's only so many shvachim that you're going to be able to say in your te'ana and at a certain point you've got to come to a point and say he broke my window and he just walked away without paying. So it's bechlal not a kasha of why you don't have to be nizaher on lashon hara in this context because it's gufa mitzvaso bekach. Right? Mitzvaso bekach. How can it be that a kohen doesn't have to be nizaher on issur kilayim, he's wearing kilayim? Mitzvaso bekach. The bigdei kehuna the avnet is shatnez. It's mitzvaso bekach. Ke'ein zeh the pashta says is the pshat in mitzvas tzedaka. I don't think it really needs a rayah but if it does, when you look in the Hilchos Matnos Aniyim, so tzedaka is both mitzvas asei as well as mitzvas lo sa'asei. It's mitzvas asei of פתוח תפתח את ידך and it's also a mitzvas lo sa'asei of לא תקפוץ את ידך לא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון.
The Rambam says the trigger for the lo sa'asei is when a person encounters the ani. He encounters the ani being the mevakesh. The fact that I know that two blocks away rachmana litzlan there's an ani who's in need of funds and I don't give him, so that I'm not I don't necessarily think that I would be too good of a candidate for man of the year at the yeshiva's dinner but I'm not over the lo sa'asei of lo sikpotz kehai gavna. Lo sikpotz is when the person sees the ani being the mevakesh. So the whole mechayev at least on the lo sa'asei level of mitzvas tzedaka is that encounter between the ani hamekabel and the potential nosei ba'al habayis hanosei. It's again a ke'ein of that same hagdarah of mitzvaso bekach. The footnote's teirutz, it plugs into this also. Having given the tzedakah already, so then l'achar ma'aseh, ex post facto, so then ma'ukva is again even if you hold that what ma'ukva's doing is me'ikar hadin, ma'ukva's what ma'ukva's doing is, but l'ma'aseh, hayos that I already went lifnim meshuras hadin, so now it's no longer the mitzvasa b'cha. Okay, so so we'll stop there for now, b'ezras Hashem.