A ben noach is not permitted to offer an animal missing a limb as a korban. Tosfos (A"Z 5a) asks why this issur is not counted among the 7 mitzvos bnei noach and answers that the 7 mitzvos bnei noach are all prohibitions; in this case the ben noach has a positive commandment to bring a kosher korban. (I believe I once before posted my wife's suggestion in a moment of Brisker genius: the 7 mitzvos are all issurei gavra; an animal missing a limb is an issur cheftza, and hence not counted.)
What exactly is the positive commandment obligating the ben noach to bring a kosher korban? The Mishna laMelech (Hil Melachim 10:7) concludes from here that a ben noach is included in the commandment of bal yacheil... kol hayotzei m'piv ya'aseh, the command to fulfill one's pledges. The Yerushalmi (Nazir 9:1) debates whether a ben noach can have a vow absolved by a chacham, also implying as well that a ben noach's vows and pledges are binding. The Ml"M is incomfortable with his these, as the parsha of vows and pledges seems to have been given only to the Jewish people, but he does not offer an alternate answer.
The Avnei Miluim (1:2) suggests another way out. The halacha is "amiraso l'gavoha k'mesiraso l'hedyot", a pledge to the mikdash is like a finalized sale. Failing to deliver a korban is like failing to deliver goods after selling them to a vendor -- it is no different than theft, one of the seven ben noach laws.
The Ml"M makes another an interesting point. Even if keeping nedarim are not obligatory for a ben noach, it does seem from simply reading chumash that a ben noach must keep a shevu'ah. We find numerous examples in Sefer Braishis of shevous being made: Avraham asks Eliezer to take a shevu'ah, Avraham swears to Avimelech, etc. One could argue that the Avos kept the Torah and went above and beyond the requirement of other bnei noach, but that theory does not resolve every example he gives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is not an issur cheftzah. It it is a psul in the kurbon.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>>>It is not an issur cheftzah. It it is a psul in the kurbon.
ReplyDeleteAssuming bal yacheil, nedarim are issurei cheftza as opposed to other issurim.
R'Chaim,
ReplyDeletenidrei issur are issurei cheftza; nidrei hekdesh may or may not have an cheftza component to them (may be taluy in two peshatim in the ramban in the beginning of this weeks parsha and possibly other sources in the rishonim as well).
I was referring to bringing a kaorbun with a mum. It might indirectly cause the neder not to be fulfilled, but there is no issur cheftzah (the issur was chal on a chetzah)
ReplyDeleteBesides, that the neder to do a positive act, similar to the new din of a neder to due a mitzvah, which is an obligation to perfrom an act (not an issur cheftzah), I would assume that bal yachel is the same thing. Anyways, it's been a long time.....
I always thought the whole issur was that it is an issur to bring an animal onto the mizbeach that is not shalaim. So a goy could bring it, but a kohen can't sacrifice it. SO really it is not a problem on the goy, just that the kohen can't bring it on the mizbeach.
ReplyDeleteI like the Avnei Miluim's approach.
ReplyDeleteIs it also possible that bal yahel comes under the heading of avodah zarah, since many mefarshim link violation of shevuah with denial of metziyut Hashem? I realize that is more of a philosophical/derush explanation, but it might help resolve the difficulty here.
Maroof
ReplyDeleteYou're a big michutzef. You like the Avney Miluim's pshat??
Huh?
ReplyDeleteyeah Not Brisk, what is your problem with the "Avnei Miluim's pshat" ?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, why is there a "not" before "brisk".
Also, I love the way he logically referenced the original commandment "do not steal" conveniently located on the original lapis tablet, as a source.
Not some sneaky misleading circuitous dishonest understanding.
The kind everyone loves playing around with and using and deliberately misconstruing and re-configuring in a new fashionably permissable and oh so forgiving and loophole oriented text format,on a given argument.
jaded topaz
Chaim
ReplyDeleteIt smacked from arrogance and presumptiousness to declare that he personally prefers a pshat from one of the Gedoley Achronim
At least where I come from
Jaded
Did you say something about learning Torah with women?
Not Brisk, what are you talking about? Why is it arrogant to say that you prefer one pshat to another? I can't say I like Rashi's pshat more than Ramban? Are you serious? Or do you just dislike Rabbi Maroof?
ReplyDeleteNòt Nòt Brisk,
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate just a little on your questionable inquiry concerning Women and learning torah with them.
Many thanx ;-)
Keep in mind there are exceptions to every rúle. And to be Crystal clear with you im quite the exceptionál exception on so many different levels i get dizzy just typing about it tartly and in the most húmblest of ways in my blackberried response.
Sort of like húmble pie only tartlier.
Jaded topaz
e-man
ReplyDeletedead serious. I have no clue who Maroof is
Brisk,
ReplyDeleteAnd you do have a clue who the author of Avnei Miluim was ?
jaded topaz
doesn't "acharon acharon chaviv" also apply to the sages .
ReplyDeletejaded topaz
Born Again and Brisk,
ReplyDeleteSee here for starters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryeh_Leib_Heller
And here
http://www.revach.net/article.php?id=3281
And here
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fg5eCThNlb4C&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=aryeh+leib+heller&source=bl&ots=rCgNwqhg8S&sig=QBcxOS45tJyD30cGakFY4zWMsR8&hl=en&ei=uJBmSpahK8uwtgertmQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
jaded topaz
Brisk,
ReplyDeleteWhat did you mean by this question
"Did you say something about learning Torah with women?"
I hope you were referring to my wordy sentences and not G-d forbid the Avnei Miluim and or it's author.
Judging by your use of the words "gedolei acharonm" I will assume that its my sentences you're mocking by insinuation.
But then again you also shouldn't using the word "mechuztef" either if a Rabbi (Maroof) prefers his understanding.
(Can women give good mussar thread-speeches or is that just for men too ;-)
With that being said though, can you and or anyone reading this thread verify the veracity of the opening statement in the following link
http://www.revach.net/article.php?id=3281
It makes no sense logically, or I'm having a hard time understanding the logic employed at that particular marriage arrangement and separate living arrangements and want to make sure that story is accurate.
I don't understand what being poor has to do with living separately.
I hope no one would make up something like but I just want to verify the facts on that. So if anyone has any factual information on that story I would especially appreciate it.
Nothing that would constitute speculative "loshon hara" though. and I guess if one is not sure but has additional information on that lived separately marriage concept then can you email me instead jadedtopaz1@gmail.com
I don't want to be the cause of public speculation, but that marriage arrangement of his parents has got to be the oddest concept I've ever read about.
thanx
jaded topaz
I was referred to this blog by a friend of yours that knows you from Lakewood or Monsey.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is Chutzpah. Causing more controversy in the Jewish Community than bnefit it provides.
If yiou need an outlet to articulate your hateful loshon horah please buy a journal its worth the investment.