I saw something that struck me as very hard to understand in R' Moshe Shternbruch's teshuvos (vol 1 #18). Without getting into the specific topic of the teshuvah, he makes the point that when it comes to fulfilling a mitzvas aseh, one is **obligated** to try to be yotzei kol ha'deyos and not simply rely on being yotzei according to rov poskim. Rov, he writes, is sufficient when dealing with a lav, e.g. if you have a taaroves of kosher and treif meat, you can rely on rov and assume the meat is kosher. However, when you are dealing with a mitzvas aseh, there is a special chiyuv of "u'shmartem is ha'matzos" / mitzvos which obligates a person to go the extra mile and ensure 100% that the mitzvah is done properly.
To back up this chiddush he refers to a Meshech Chochma at the end of P' Bo (here). There is a Mechilta that says you have to check your tefillin once a year. Mishkenos Yaakov infers from here that there is also a chiyuv d'oraysa to check the lungs of an animal to make sure it is not a treifa. M.C. disagrees and distinguishes between mitzvos aseh and lo taaseh. When it come to a lav, you can rely on rov because even if you end up eating maachalos assuros, the halacha excuses you -- acharei rabim l'hatos. When it comes to a kiyum aseh, that doesn't work. Even if you have an excuse for failing to do the mitzvah, bottom line is that you haven't done it. You only get credit for what was done, not for excuses.
This is not quite the same thing as R' Shternbruch's chiddush. The M.C. is talking about a rov in metziyus, the physical fact of whether the tefillin are damaged or whether the lung is punctured. R' Shternbruch is talking about a rov of poskim. The entire Shulchan Aruch is built on the premis of ruling based on rov when there are competing views!
I don't get "when it comes to fulfilling a mitzvas aseh, one is **obligated** to try to be yotzei kol ha'deyos and not simply rely on being yotzei according to rov poskim." Isn't one obligated to עשה לך רב and follow his pesaqim? When did it become assumed that EVERY machloqes is a safeiq?
ReplyDeleteTefillin is an interesting example. There is no way to fulfil all shitos on checking them. Because R SZ Auerbach noted that the way we make ink nowadays, the primary cause for new pesulim is unrolling and rolling the kelaf for checking. And so he advises against checking one's tefillin and mezuzos (some versions: only indoor mezuzos) more often. So, chumeros both ways. And how do you fulfill every shitah with the number of strings that should be tekheiles? Follow Rashi and Tosafos (2 full strings) and you aren't wearing enough lavan strings for the Raavad (one full string of tekheiles) or Rambam (one string end, i.e. only one of 8 tekehiles).
But even if you had a clear case of a chumerah with no consequent qulos... I am back to my primary concern. Doesn't this dichotomy show a lack of faith in kelalei pesaq? I mean, I know Briskers don't believe in pesaq after Rav Ashi and Ravina (רב אשי ורבינא סוף הוראה -BM 86a). But I thought that hit MAJOR opposition.
>>>Isn't one obligated to עשה לך רב and follow his pesaqim?
ReplyDeleteThe Rav is obligated to try to guide a person to be yotzei as many shitos as possible when asked
>>>When did it become assumed that EVERY machloqes is a safeiq?
When did it become assumed not that way? Question in Achronim twhether you can say kim li against the psak of the Beis Yosef, but that is the Beis Yosef who was musmach. I dont think even R' Ovadya extends that to all poskim.
Your BIL RYGB had an article in this JO on a similar idea (p. 27) https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JO1998-V31-N10.pdf
ReplyDelete