Why? - Answer
There is a principle that I heard once from the Tolna Rebbe Shlita and also saw in the writings of the Rogochover Gaon in a different context, but it could be applied to our question as well.
Most mitzvos HAVE a shiur. For example, there is a mitzva to eat matza on Pesach and the shiur is a kezais. However, there are some mitzvos where the shiur IS the mitzva. The shiur DEFINES the mitzva. Without a shiur there is no mitzva to talk of.
In the former instance we can consider whether or not "chatzi shiur mitzva". In the latter case where the shiur IS the mitzva, in the absence of a complete shiur everybody would agree that there is no fulfillment at all, not even a partial one.
The Sefer Avnei Chen suggests that with respect to the chavitin of the kohen gadol the shiur of issaron IS the mitzva. That is why there is no reason to bring it if the kohen has only a half of an issaron.
Subtle difference - major ramifications.
Most mitzvos HAVE a shiur. For example, there is a mitzva to eat matza on Pesach and the shiur is a kezais. However, there are some mitzvos where the shiur IS the mitzva. The shiur DEFINES the mitzva. Without a shiur there is no mitzva to talk of.
In the former instance we can consider whether or not "chatzi shiur mitzva". In the latter case where the shiur IS the mitzva, in the absence of a complete shiur everybody would agree that there is no fulfillment at all, not even a partial one.
The Sefer Avnei Chen suggests that with respect to the chavitin of the kohen gadol the shiur of issaron IS the mitzva. That is why there is no reason to bring it if the kohen has only a half of an issaron.
Subtle difference - major ramifications.
What would it be about the chavitin that would allow such a chiluk between it and other shiur mitzvas? I could understand why this would be the case with *number* shiurim, like three walls, four corners, but why here?
Why not simply say that the MC sides with the p'shat that chatzi shiur is *not* a mitzvah? I didn't see the sefer Parshas Drachim inside, but whatever he says there is probably what the MC is saying.
Posted by
BlackBeltStep |
7:56 PM
I agree. I don't know when to say this way or that way, but if we find instances where less than a shiur is considered nothing then we are compelled to explain that the shiur is the mitzva. Rav Chaim Soloveichik used to say that we don't ask WHY but WHAT. Why is a Divine secret. What is Torah. That of course is also subject to debate.
Why didn't the MC or PD simply say that it is talui in that machlokes [even if they personally hold one way].
You looked it up inside!!! G-d bless you!!!
All the best.
Posted by
Rabbi Ally Ehrman |
12:44 AM
But what about this situation:
The Kohen Gadol has half a issaron, should he offer it or not? If he offers it, then he has emunah in HaShem to provide him with the other half.. If he doesn't offer it, he lacks emunah, no?
If he doesn't offer it and then receives the other half after noon, is he chayav or patur? (after all, he had half an issaron in the morning and didn't offer it, and now he has another half-issaron in the afternoon and cannot offer it--since he didn't bring the morning one.)
Also, if the Kohen Gadol dies in the middle of the day, does the new Kohen Gadol bring his afternoon Issaron -- i would think so since a Tamid should be done by the person who did the morning Tamid, but someone else can still do it, but on the other hand the Chavitin isn't a public but rather a private karbon.(right?) (Though If i recall correctly, children bring a father's karbon (in the event that chas v'shalom he passed away) if it was already set aside, no? (depending on the type of karbon))
Where can I look this stuff up? (Mishna, the Rambam?)
Posted by
yitz |
12:11 PM
Does the fact that halacha is derived from the 13 middot mean that when none of the middot applies to a case, that case cannot be an exception? If so does this mean we have to consider the "why" sometimes?
Posted by
Beisrunner |
3:09 PM
Yitz - menachot end of the fourth perek.
Beis - I don't understand your question.
Posted by
Rabbi Ally Ehrman |
1:59 AM
Post a Comment