Masei

[EveH...@aol.com]

Shavua tov from Prague, Gabi!

 

We are trying to think what other mitzvah or action might be comparable.

For example, is this comparable to hidur mitzvah, in that if you do the hidur, you get an additional mitzvah, but if you don't do it, you are not violating a mitzvat aseh or a lav........

..........or is it similar to kidush levana, and if so, would we say that one who did not say kidush levana violated a mitzvat aseh, or just that you missed a chance to do a mitzvah? The latter would seem to be the attitude taken by Reb Moshe. We miss opportunities to do mitzvot all the time, but not all of them are violations of either a mitzvat aseh or a lav.And of course not all of them are of the magnitude of yishuv ha'aretz.

 

 

 

[Gabi Spiewak]

I think we've actually seen a similar characteristic in mitzvat tzitzit. Just like tzitzit is a mitzva kiyumit until you wear a four-cornered garment at which point it becomes a mitzvah chiyuvit so too yishuv haaretz is a mitzvah kiyumit according to reb moshe until the point that you are already settled in E"Y at which point it becomes chiyuvit.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shitat Hashavua" group.
To post to this group, send email to shitat-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shitat-hashav...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shitat-hashavua?hl=en.

[Shimon Niren]

Soo a person is only chayiv in tzisis when he wears a four cornered garment. Then when does a person becone CHAYIV for kiddush l'vana?

[EveH...@aol.com]

If a man does not wear a four-cornered garment, he is not able to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit, nor does have the obligation to do so. But we deliberately wear such garments in order to put ourselves in the position of being obligated to fulfill the mitzvah. The making of the garment is not the mitzvah.

 

If a person does not see the moon, he has no ability, and no chiyuv to say kiddush levana. But we go outside and look up in order to put ourselves in the position of having this chiyuv as well.

 

Similarly,  aliyah may be considered as putting ourselves in the position of having the obligation to fulfill all the mitzvot hat'luyot ba'aretz. This of course depends on whether we take Ramban's or Rambam's position on this matter,

[Michael Poppers]

On Aug 1, 5:55 pm, EveHe...@aol.com wrote:
<<snip>>

> Similarly,  aliyah may be considered as putting ourselves in the  position
> of having the obligation to fulfill all the mitzvot hat'luyot ba'aretz.  
> This of course depends on whether we  take Ramban's or Rambam's position on
> this  matter,
>

I noted to Gabi (I think it was on motzoei Shabbos) that the "side-
effect" of yishuv ha'aretz noted by Rav Moshe z'l' (RMF) may relate to
q'dushas haAretz and the greater severity of doing something wrong
baAretz compared to doing it chutz laAretz. Please note the language
of Rabbeinu Chayyim in the Tos'fos RMF mentioned (BT K'suvos 110b,
d'h' hu omeir la'alos -- http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=110b
): "...now, dwelling in e'Y' is not a mitzvah because there are many
mitzvos related to [dwelling in] e'Y' and many punishments [for not
fulfilling those mitzvos] re which we do not have the ability to be
careful and [re which we cannot] withstand." As a result, I don't
think one could draw a general conclusion (which Gabi seems to do in
his preamble's 2nd paragraph) about what happens when one seeks to
fulfill a mitzvah qiyumis from the mitzvah of yishuv haAretz, as the
latter's "side-effect" is specific to that mitzvah.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

[Gabi Spiewak]

Excellent he'arah Michael!

 

I think it's a fantastic chiddush to understand this Tosafot as articulating the unique pedestal upon which we place mitzvot affected by kedushat haaretz. 

 

At the same time, I think it's equally possible to read this tosafot (and especially within your translation of it) as a general comment on the frightening prospect of shortshrifting any mitzvot that are particularly difficult to fulfill adequately.  Let's apply this to our point of comparison. Were we to assume that tzitzit was much more challenging to fulfill, would it be surprising if R' Chaim would have used similar language to say 

 "wearing 4 cornered garments is not a mitzvah because there are .. harsh punishments [for not fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzit] re which we do not have the ability to be careful and [re which we cannot] withstand"?

 

Another reading of this tosafot might point to a quantitave dimension to mitzvot hateluyot baaretz that distinguishes them rather than the qualitative dimension that Michael advanced. In other words, as a block of mitzvot, mitzvot hateluyot baaretz present so many challenges within one area of religious life, that we'd be better off searching for more incremental ways of incorporating religious/spiritual growth into our lives.

 

To recap, this Tosafot  could be read in 3 distinct ways:

1. With all mitzvot, be careful of thrusting unnecessary obligations upon yourself. (This was the general idea presented in "the preamble")
2. Mitzvot Hateluyot Baaertz are uniquely intimidating because:

A. there are numerous obligations which may overwhelm your capacity to carry them out. (incidental approach)

 

B. we are hyper-sensitive to anything that may compromise the integrity of kedushat eretz yisrael (Michael's fundamental approach).

For the record, I like the implications of Michael's reading (2B) the best! I wonder if there are ra'ayot or other evidence of this position in other statements of chazal/rishonim....

[Gabi Spiewak]

Might this Ba"Ch (second half of d"h "v'katav") be along the lines of your idea, Michael?

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14265&st=&pgnum=358

He writes some pretty powerful lines (as does the Tur upon which he argues in the opposite direction.)  It would be nice to maybe use this source for shitat hashavua in a couple weeks but we've seen the Ba"Ch already I think so I probably won't anyways.

[Michael Poppers]

On Aug 4, 8:33 pm, Gabi Spiewak <gspie...@kean.edu> wrote:
> Might this Ba"Ch (second half of d"h "v'katav") be along the lines of your
> idea, Michael?
>
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14265&st=&pgnum=358
>
> He writes some pretty powerful lines (as does the Tur upon which he argues
> in the opposite direction.)  It would be nice to maybe use this source for
> shitat hashavua in a couple weeks but we've seen the Ba"Ch already I think
> so I probably won't anyways.
>

If I'm understanding correctly what the BaCH is writing, I would say
his idea (of the Shchinah leaving because of our actions) is
relatively "p'shita," given our m'sorah of what happened at the time
of either Churban...but since he mentioned the parasha in P'Mas'ei,
perhaps the comments of RaMBaN on Num 35:33 (specifically, "v'hechmir
b'yosh'vei haAretz yoseir") are pertinent to this thread.

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom
and all the best from