Wednesday, April 02, 2014

"badad yeishev" -- ma'aseh mitzvah or chalos?

I've been working on inyana d'yoma reviewing Pesachim and Rashi on 67a caught my eye since it connects to our parsha.  A metzora is expelled from machaneh yisrael, which would include his not being allowed to enter a walled city.  The gemara quotes a din from R' Chisda (that the gemara will end up saying is a machlokes Tanaim) that if the metzorah violates the issur of entering the machaneh, he does not get malkos because the issur is a lav hanitak l'aseh:

אמר רב חסדא מצורע שנכנס לפנים ממחיצתו פטור שנאמר בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו בדד ישב לבדו ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו הכתוב נתקו לעשה

Why is it considered nitak l'aseh when this pasuk of "badad yeishev" is not written anywhere near the lav of "v'lo yitamu es machaneihem?"  Rashi gives two explanations:

 ואע"ג דלאו בתר לאו כתיב ע"כ לנתוקי לאוי אתא דקי"ל לאו שניתק לעשה אין לוקין עליו דאי לאטעוניה עשה ול"ת הא כתב ביה עשה אחרינא וישלחו מן המחנה אבל זבין וטמאי מתים לא נתקו לעשה ואע"ג דעשה יתירי כתיבי כל חד וחד למילתיה מדריש בספרי ועוד דבהאי כתיב כל ימי אשר הנגע בו וגו' משמע כל ימיו בבדד ישב קאי דאם עבר ונכנס יחזור ויצא ואין בו עונש אחר כדדרשינן כל ימיו דאונס את הנערה במס' מכות (דף טו.) כל ימיו בעמוד והחזר קאי ומנתקינא ליה ללאוי:

1) "Badad yeishev" is an extra pasuk because we already have an aseh of "V'ishalchu min hamachaneh..."  The extra words tell us this is a lav hanitak l'aseh.

2) "Badad yeishev" is a continuous chiyuv.  Were the metzorah to walk back into the machaneh yisrael, he is obligated to immediately leave and return to that state of "badad yeishev."

It sounds like the two expanations reflect two different models of the mitzvah in lomdus.  According to the first explanation of "badad yeishev" it seems that once the act of leaving is done, the mitzvah is over.  According to Rashi's second explanation, it seems that the mitzvah is not the one-time act of leaving, but rather is about maintaining the state of being "badad yeishev." 


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Very good synopsis. I think the 2 explanations are really 2 steps. First is the badad yeshev itself (in pshat ) is that it's a chiyuv on it's own. Second in contrast and perspective with the rest of the parsha, it's extra so it's open for a drasha.  Also maybe a regular lav hanituk is in essence, it's built that way. But here it's not, it's from a drasha not the pshat, so it's a mchudash type of lav hanituk.