Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
If one makes a vow not to derive benefit from his friend and his friend blew shofar for him, he has fulfilled his obligation. This is because of Rava’s statement in the Gemora that the mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit, rather they were given as a yoke upon one’s neck.
The Ran cites an interesting Baal Hameor who writes that this is so only if the mitzva was a Biblical mitzva; however, for a Rabbinical mitzva, for example a person who made a vow not to derive benefit from his friend and his friend blew trumpets on a fast day (which is only a Rabbinical mitzva), he must leave the shul, as we do not say that the mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit by a Rabbinical mitzva.
The Ran questions that if so, how can the person stay past the first nine blasts on Rosh Hashanah, as the remaining blasts are not Biblical but Rabbinic? Perhaps we can answer that evn though the remaining blasts are Rabbinic but they are considered to be part of the Biblical mitzva.
What is the difference between a Biblical mitzva for which we say that the mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit and a Rabbinical mitzva that we do not? How are we to understand this Baal Hameor?
Mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit means that the mitzvos are given as yoke upon one’s neck. Perhaps we can say that a Biblical mitzva is qualitatively stronger than a Rabbinical mitzva (for example when it comes to a doubt on a Biblical mitzva, we rule stringently and yet we are lenient on a Rabbinical mitzva). Therefore, the strength of the commandment that is Biblical negates any benefit from the mitzva. A Rabbinical mitzva, however, is not as strong and cannot negate the benefit from the mitzva.
The Keser Dovid elaborates and writes that while a Biblical mitzva has one step (from Hashem to us directly), a Rabbinical mitzva has two steps, from Hashem to us via the mitzva of “lo sassur” - do not sway from the teachings of the Sages.
The Ran cites an interesting Baal Hameor who writes that this is so only if the mitzva was a Biblical mitzva; however, for a Rabbinical mitzva, for example a person who made a vow not to derive benefit from his friend and his friend blew trumpets on a fast day (which is only a Rabbinical mitzva), he must leave the shul, as we do not say that the mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit by a Rabbinical mitzva.
The Ran questions that if so, how can the person stay past the first nine blasts on Rosh Hashanah, as the remaining blasts are not Biblical but Rabbinic? Perhaps we can answer that evn though the remaining blasts are Rabbinic but they are considered to be part of the Biblical mitzva.
What is the difference between a Biblical mitzva for which we say that the mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit and a Rabbinical mitzva that we do not? How are we to understand this Baal Hameor?
Mitzvos were not given for the sake of deriving benefit means that the mitzvos are given as yoke upon one’s neck. Perhaps we can say that a Biblical mitzva is qualitatively stronger than a Rabbinical mitzva (for example when it comes to a doubt on a Biblical mitzva, we rule stringently and yet we are lenient on a Rabbinical mitzva). Therefore, the strength of the commandment that is Biblical negates any benefit from the mitzva. A Rabbinical mitzva, however, is not as strong and cannot negate the benefit from the mitzva.
The Keser Dovid elaborates and writes that while a Biblical mitzva has one step (from Hashem to us directly), a Rabbinical mitzva has two steps, from Hashem to us via the mitzva of “lo sassur” - do not sway from the teachings of the Sages.
0 comments:
Post a Comment