Rabeinu Yonah: the one thing teshuvah cannot cure

The Tiferet Shlomo on our parsha comments that the pasuk כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע derech remez alludes to Rosh haShana, a time when the machanot of angels of the sitra achara gather and try to ruin our upcoming year. How can a person assure that they are zocheh to a good year? He writes:

ועיקר ההכנה על יום הנורא הזה להיות אחוה וריעות בין בני ישראל כמ"ש בחצוצרות וקול שופר הריעו לפני המלך ד' לשון אחוה וריעות

Rosh haShana is a "yom teru'ah," meaning, a dat of re'us, i.e. v'ahavta l'rei'acha. If you get along with others, then you have nothing to worry about. Hashem will make sure that He gets along with you.

How do you do that? By training yourself to to not speak ill of other people. ונשמרת מכל דבר רע means דיבּור רע.

וזה הרמז בפ' שהתחלנו כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע. לבל ידבר ח"ו רע על חבירו ולא יראה כלל בחסרונו רק במעלות חבירו וז"ש מי האיש החפץ חיים לבקש בר"ה כתבנו בספר החיים. נצור לשונך מרע לבל ידבר על חבירו סור מרע ועשה טוב. וזהו הכנה ליום הדין להוציא משפטינו לאורה. כי אם האדם מחזיק את חבירו בחזקת צדיק אזי גם אותו יכתוב בספרי הצדיקים:

We can use our words to build people up, to spread positivity. You can make the lowest person feel great. If you do that, Hashem then no matter where you are in life, Hashem will inscribe you for a good din and make you feel great too.

Rabeinu Yonah writes something in his Sefer haYirah (and the GR"A references it in his Iggeret) that should make you shake:

לכּל ישׁ רפואה חוץ מלשׁון הרע

(This line needs explanation, as R"Y himself in Shaarei Teshuvah 3:210 based on Archin 15b writes וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מַרְפֵּא לָשׁוֹן הָרַע לְהִנָּצֵל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁיַּעֲסֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ט"ו:ד') מַרְפֵּא לָשׁוֹן עֵץ חַיִּים. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים ל"ט:ב') אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם וְגוֹ' פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה כִּי הַמַּחְסוֹם הוּא הָעֵסֶק בַּתּוֹרָה.

He is quoting the sugya in Archin 15b

מר רבי חמא בר' חנינא מה תקנתו של מספרי לשון הרע אם תלמיד חכם הוא יעסוק בתורה שנא' מרפא לשון עץ חיים ואין לשון אלא לשון הרע שנאמר חץ שחוט לשונם ואין עץ יא] אלא תורה שנאמר עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה ואם עם הארץ הוא ישפיל דעתו שנאמר וסלף בה שבר רוח רבי אחא ברבי חנינא אומר סיפר אין לו תקנה שכבר כרתו דוד ברוח הקדש שנאמר יכרת ה' כל שפתי חלקות לשון מדברת גדולות אלא מה תקנתו שלא יבא לידי לשון הרע אם תלמיד חכם הוא יעסוק בתורה ואם ע"ה הוא ישפיל דעתו שנאמר וסלף בה שבר רוח

It could be that R"Y paskens like the second opinion, and לְהִנָּצֵל מִמֶּנּוּ means to avoid speaking lashon ha'ra.)

It is a frightening thought that as powerful as teshuvah is, there is some things it won't work for. The Shem m'Shmuel (beginning of Metzora) tries to soften it and say that regular teshuvah is not enough, but teshuvah on some higher level does work, but whatever the hesber, it shows the seriousness of the sin of lashon ha'ra.


We don't need really need to reach for remazim to this idea in our parsha, as the Rishonim spell it out in pshat in the pesukim 24:8-9):

הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמֹ֥ר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַעֲשׂ֑וֹת כְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁר־יוֹר֨וּ אֶתְכֶ֜ם הַכֹּהֲנִ֧ים הַלְוִיִּ֛ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּיתִ֖ם תִּשְׁמְר֥וּ לַעֲשֽׂוֹת

זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֧ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֛ה יְקוָ֥ק אֱלֹקיךָ לְמִרְיָ֑ם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

Rashi explains that Miriam was afflicted with tzaraas because she spoke lashon ha'ra; therefore, if you want to be careful to avoid tzaraas, don't speak ill of people.

I've written about these pesukim a few times in the past, but for some reason Rashbam never caught my eye until this year. He offers a different takeaway than Rashi. Where I work, there are policies and procedures, but there are always people who assume those are for everyone else, not them, or they assume that their need is special, their circumstance is special, and so the rules don't apply. Rashbam address himself to the first half of that argument. Our pasuk warns that if someone is afflicted with tzaraas, no matter who it is, no matter how chashuv a person, they are not immune from punishment. We don't play favorites. The policy applies to everyone equally. אפילו הוא מלך כעוזיה לא יכבדוהו, אלא יסגירוהו וישלחוהו ובדד ישב. Look no further than Miriam, who despite being a nevi'ah, despite being Moshe's sister, was forced to sit outside the camp until her tzaraas was cured. (The Netziv here is a peleh, as he explains Rashbam here as follows: ורשב״ם פירש שלא יהיה עליך שמירת דיני צרעת למשא, שהרי גם מרים נהגה כך. I don't understand how he read it that way.)

This fits well with a midrash I quoted over a dozen years ago:

רבנן אמרי:

למה הדבר דומה? למלך שעלה מן המלחמה קילסה אותו מטרונה.

אמר המלך: תיקרי אומן של סנקליטור. לאחר ימים התחילה לערב אוננא של מלך.

אמר המלך: כך עשית?!

תיטרד למטלון!

כך, בשעה שעשה הקב"ה מלחמת הים אמרה מרים שירה ונקראת נביאה, שנאמר: (שמות טו) ותקח מרים הנביאה. כיון, שאמרה לשון הרע על אחיה, אמר הקב"ה תיטרד למטלון! שנאמר: (במדבר יב) ותסגר מרים:

R' Shlomo Kluger in Imrei Shefer explains that Midrash comes to explain why our pasuk needs to mention בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם. He reads the Midrash in a way that is similar to Rashbam. An important person usually has "protektzia."  The Midrash compares Miriam to an official appointed by the king as a reward for great service. Remember the shirah she sang when Bn"Y left Egypt, בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם? How great was that! Only a major blunder would cause a person on that level to come under scrutiny or be punished for an infraction. Well, lashon ha'ra is a major blunder on that level.

Ralbag / Abarbanel address the second argument, that due to extenuating circumstances, policy and procedure goes out the window and we can make exceptions. Bn"Y were en route to Eretz Yisrael and anxious to get there. Under those circumstances, you might have said to forget about Miriam's tzaraas so as to keep moving. That's not what happened. Even if everyone had to wait, Miriam's tzaraas had to be addressed and tended to. There is no "emergency" that trumps tzaraas because there is no need that is greater than demonstrating the severity of lashon ha'ra.

I still prefer the interpretation of the Midrash that I posted way back when. The greater the gifts and ability a person has, the greater hi/her responsibility to develop and use those talents wisely and properly. It is davka because Miriam sang shirah and understood the power of words that she is faulted for tripping up and using that power of speech improperly to criticize Moshe.

Bn"Y are lauded for being able to use words correctly. "HaKol kol Yaakov" -- our voice is meant to be used for tefillah and for Torah. That is what brings chiyus to a person. That is why מה תקנתו של מספרי לשון הרע אם תלמיד חכם הוא יעסוק בתורה. Precisely because we have that gift, we are held to account for lashon ha'ra, we are held to account when we improperly using our voice. As the Tif Shlomo says, ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, meaning דיבּור רע, is the key to a kesiva v'chasima tovah.

Who are you going to believe -- Sanhedrin or your eyes?

For better or worse, our worldview of Torah is shaped by chumash and Rashi that we learned as children and that we re-learn every week (sadly often advancing no further in our understanding).  We all "know" that Avraham sent Eliezer to fetch Rivka and bring her to his home, but nowhere does it say this in the text.  It speaks about Avraham's eved, but Eliezer is not named.  We just assume it because Rashi told us that's who the perek is talking about.  It's an innocuous example, but not all examples are so innocuous.  Rashi in our parsha comments:

 לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידֽוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃

 

ימין ושמאל – אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, ועל שמאל שהיא ימין, וכל שכן שאומרים לו על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל.

 

This Rashi is so well known that I think comes as a shock to most people to discover it is against a black on white gemara.  The first Mishna in Horiyot has a din: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ אוֹ תַלְמִיד שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָייָה וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה – הֲרֵי זֶה חַייָב

 

The gemara tries to figure out what case this could be talking about.  מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן.  The gemara (I am quoting the Yerushalmi) posits that we are dealing with someone who is a baki b'halacha like Shimon ben Azai.  If so, m'mah nafshach: if he made a mistake in the din, then he is not really an expert; if he didn't make a mistake but rather intentionally violated the din, then he is not chayav a chatas because he is not shogeg.  Answers the gemara: אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא כְטוֹעֶה לוֹמַר: תּוֹרָה אָמְרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵיהֶם  The person is an expert in the case before B"D and knew that they made a mistake, but thought there is a chiyuv to follow them anyway.  At this point the Bavli stops, but the Yerushalmi goes a step further and says that can't be the mistake because someone of a R' Shimon ben Azai would not err in something like that:

 

אֵין זֶה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי: יָכוֹל אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יְמִין שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא יְמִין תִּשְׁמַע לָהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לָלֶכֶת יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל, שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יָמִין שֶׁהוּא יָמִין וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל

 

Exactly the opposite of the derasha Rashi quotes!  If B"D makes the wrong call and you know they are mistaken, of course you don't have to follow them.  (The only difference between Bavli and Yerushalmi is the Bavli accepted the thought that following B"D even if they are in error is a potential mistake someone can make; the Yerushalmi thinks a Shimon ben Azai type expert would not make that mistake, but they both agree that it is a mistake.  I quoted the Ylmi because it spells out the derasha that stands in sharp contrast to Rashi; the Bavli doesn't quote the derasha.)

 

If someone starts with Rashi's comment as their baseline, esp if they are not aware of the contradictory sugya, then a person might come to accept all kinds of things as true even if the face of evidence to the contrary.  Call it emunah peshuta, call it daas Torah, call it some other name, at the end of the day it means the answer to Groucho Marx's question, "Who are you going to believe -- me or your own eyes? is "me" when that "me" is a Rabbi.   That's a dangerous thing.  There is no proof that will shake someone out of this state ut of their reverie, as what good is proof when the Torah says you have to believe אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, ועל שמאל שהיא ימין?  L'havdil, this is the same mindset of people still singing the accolades of Fauci, who still believe Russiagate, and who think Joe Biden had 81 million people who voted for him.

 

When you start with the Yerushalmi as your baseline, you start with the assumption that reality is reality, left is left and right is right, and there is no reason to listen to anyone, even the Sanhedrin, if they tell you otherwise. G-d does not want us to turn our brains off and unquestioningly accept falsehood.

 

What should be the baseline we start with?  How do we square Rashi with the Yerushalmi?  First off, who says we have to?  Perhaps the two sources disagree, end of story.  See Shu"T Melamed l'Ho'il who wants to be toleh the two derashos on the issue of whether yesh aim l'mikra or yesh aim la'masoret and you don't need to reconcile the two.  At the end of the day, Rashi on chumash is a mefareish, not a posek.   When it comes to halacha, if I am not mistaken, the derasha he quotes in not brought by the Rambam.  This is far from the only place where Rashi's peirush on chumash is not consistent with the maskana l'dina.  Rashi's concern is peshutp shel mikra, and if a derasha that is not k'halacha does a better job at explaining the pasuk (see Kli Yakar), that will be what Rashi goes with.   

 

The problem gets sticky when we look at Ramban, who not only quotes Rashi, but expands upon it and holds that this is the normative view:

 

וענינו: אפילו תחשב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר: איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר: כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו  במקום אשר יבחר, ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו. וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם רבן גמליאל ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (בבלי ר״ה כ״ה.)

 

.כי על הדעת שלהם הוא נותן לנו התורה, אפילו יהו בעיניך כמחליף הימין בשמאל. וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין, כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו, לעולם נשמרו (תהלים ל״ז:כ״ח) מן הטעות ומן המכשול.

 

The Ramban is a bit unclear (see the whole thing inside and R' Elchanan in Kuntres Divrei Sofrim in Koveitz Shiurim) as to whether he holds you have to listen to B"D because it's just your impression that they are in error, or whether he holds you have to listen because even if they are in fact wrong, Hashem wants you to listen to them anyway.

 

I thought Ramban's amguity should be seen in light of Ramban later in our parsha by eidim zomimim, who asks why it is that if eidim are discovered to be zomimim after B"D carries out punishment on the defendant, they get off with no punishment.  Why shouldn't they be liable for causing de  or pain to the defendant?  Ramban answers that if B"D meted out justice based on their testimony, then it means the defendant is guilty of some crime.  Hashem would not allow B"D to mete out punishment in error to an innocent party.  From that Ramban is would seem that a person might have the *impression* that B"D got it wrong, but in reality, they did not (I found R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Shu"T Bnei Banim II:23 also links these two parshiyot).  Chasam Sofer goes down this same road.  He writes that the reason you have to listen to B"D אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל is because Hashem would not allow righteous people to make such an error.  The Lubavitcher Rebbe writes (Likutei Sichos v 5 end of the second piece on Toldos) that B"D's psak can change reality (see Yerushalmi (Kesubos 1 halacha 2) regarding the regrowth of besulim in response to psak of B"D).  Therefore, if they tell you left is right, that will become the reality.  All that being said, we know that B"D can make mistakes, otherwise we would not have a parsha of par he'elem davar shel tzibur!

 

What did Ramban do with the Yerushalmi? 

 

Ramban elsewhere, in Sefer haMitzvos, tries to answer this question.  Ramban writes that if B"D makes an error, you can do what you like until you raise the issue with B"D (which is what you should do) and have your day in court.  Once you do have your day in court and B"D has heard your side of the story and still rejected it, then from that point onward you are bound to follow their view.  Ramban is a but difficult to read into the sugya in the Yerushalmi.   מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן -- when it says יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן it means someone present in B"D but did not raise their own view for discussion?

 

Chida goes a step further and writes that there is no obligation to follow B"D unless you are dead wrong.  Most things in life, halacha included, are seldom black and white.  Chid"a suggests that if you make your argument to B"D and they think you are mistaken, then you have to follow their view. However, if things are not so clear cut -- your argument has merit, but for whatever reason, the majority of B"D feels their position has more merit -- you don't have to follow. 

 

Other Achronim throw their own hat into the ring and offer other suggestions to resolve the discrepancy, but I am not going to do a full review of every shita here as this is as blog post, not a journal article.  I do want to make just two other points:

 

1) Facts are facts.  B"D can't pasken against empirical evidence.  Yevamos 92a: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה חַמָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף זָרְחָה — אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה, אֶלָּא טָעוּת.  

 

Along the same lines, Ksav v'haKabbalah explains Rashi as follows:

 

פי׳ דלפי מראה עיניך הם טועין בדין מ״מ תשמע להם; אבל אם ידוע בודאי שהם טועים, כבר אמרו בירושלמי (רשפ״ק דהוריות) אם יאמרו על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין אין לשמוע להם

 

What he doesn't explain is how you know with certainty that you are right and they are wrong.  Is it a case of factual error?  Or perhaps it is a case where you have a kabbalah ish m'pi ish and B"D doesn't and is trying to figure things out mi'sevara.  See end of ch 5 of Ediyot regarding עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל). 

 

2) B"D alone can determine public policy.  To use an example from last week's post, if B"D says not to blow shofar on Shabbos, arguing that they are wrong because the Torah allows it is a non-starter.  A gezeira or a hor'as sha'ah deliberately upends the din.  Yes, B"D is going against what the Torah says, but they have a right to do so for the sake of public policy.  You may disagree with their ruling, but that is a matter of perception, not one of clear cut error.

So much for matters of halacha.  What can we walk away with from this pasuk?  Derech derush the Divrei Shaul explains it as as a warning to follow the Rambam's famous golden mean.  Don't become an extremist.  (Everyone of course thinks he/she is a centrist and the other guy is the extremist.)  ֹֹ֣֣לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר...יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃  Stick to the middle of the road. 

 

I would like to suggest derech derush another interpretation based on Shabbat 63a (I later found that Chasam Sofer also uses this gemara derech derush to explain the pasuk, but takes it in a different direction than I do):

 

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַאי דִכְתִיב אֹרֶךְ יָמִים בִּימִינָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאלָהּ עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד אֶלָּא בִּימִינָהּ אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אִיכָּא עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד לֵיכָּא אֶלָּא לַמַּיְימִינִין בָּהּ אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אִיכָּא וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד לַמַּשְׂמְאִילִים בָּהּ עוֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד אִיכָּא אוֹרֶךְ יָמִים לֵיכָּא

 

Rashi comments:

 

למיימינין. של תורה שמפשפשין טעמיהן בדקדוק ובוררין כימין המיומנת למלאכה

 

למשמאלין בה. שאין יגעים בה כל צרכן אי נמי מיימינין בה עוסקין לשמה משמאילים שלא לשמה

 

Sometimes a person thinks he is giving 110% in his learning, but his Rebbe, like a good coach, knows that in reality he has more to give and can work harder.  His "yemin" = hard work is in reality "smol."  By the same token, sometimes a person thinks that they are doing far less than they should be doing, leading to their feeling depressed.  A Rebbe can right the ship and explain that what this person thinks is "smol" is really "yemin."  Maybe he is already maxed out and there is no need for stress or depression.  Sometimes we need someone who can look a things more objectively to guide us in how we measure ourselves.  אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, it's a good idea to listen.

bal tigra (II)

Yesterday we saw that the Turei Even understood the Rashba to be saying that failing to fulfill a mitzvah would be a violation of bal tigra.  Turei Even argued that this is incorrect.  It's doing a mitzvah in an incomplete way which is bal tigra, not failing to do the mitzvah at all.

The T.E. raised two questions.  I want to focus on the second one.  He proved his point from a gemara in Sukkah :

אמר מר לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר פשיטא מהו דתימא לייתי כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג קמ"ל זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה דאתי למסרך

The gemara has a hava amina that if there is no esrog available, take some other fruit so that you at least remember that there is a mitzvah of lulav and will do it properly next year.  According to the Rashba, how can you have such a hava amina?  Taking only 3 of the 4 minim does not fulfill the mitzvah, so it would violate bal tigra.  Can you violate a lav just to have a zecher?!

My wife's grandfather quotes a solution to this question in the name of his BIL R' Yosef Holzberg which is echoed by the Sefas Emes in his chiddushim on R"H.  When you have an incomplete mitzvah and are in violation of bal tigra, yesh lachkor the following lomdish chakira: does the issur stem from what you are *doing*, or does the issur stem from what you have *failed to do*?  Is it the mitzvah action which is the problem because it will prove to be defective; or is the piece that you left out which is the issue? 

The answer is black on white if you read the classic case of bal tigra (R"H 28) carefully:

דתנן הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין מתנה אחת ינתנו מתנה אחת מתן ד' במתן ד' ינתנו במתן ד' מתן ד' במתן אחת ר"א אומר ינתנו במתן ד' רבי יהושע אומר ינתנו במתן אחת אמר לו ר"א הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר לו ר' יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף א"ל ר"א לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו אמר לו ר' יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך כשנתת עברת על בל תוסיף ועשית מעשה בידך

 

R' Yehoshua's argument is that bal tigra entails no action:  ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך.  If the issue was with what you are doing, the incomplete act, it would be a lav which has a maaseh.  לא עשית מעשה בידך implies that it's what's being left out which is the issue.

 

Coming back to the Turei Even's proof from the gemara in sukkah: Had the issur of bal tigra been the action that will remain incomplete, then taking the lulav, taking the hadas, the arava, would be a problem.  But the issur of bal tigra is in what you are missing, not what you are doing.   In this case, what can you do if no esrog is available?  Ones Rachmana patrei!  Maybe Rashba is right, that missing an entire mitzvah potentially is bal tigra, but in this particular case you would still be off the hook.

I have a thought experiment to help illustrate this point: The halacha says that you only have to spend up to 20% of your money to fulfill a mitzvas aseh and no more, but you have to give up every penny to avoid violating a lav.  Let's say a lulav and esrog will cost more than 20% of my money.  I should be exempt from the mitzvah.  But if I don't fulfill the mitzvah, according to Rashba, won't I be in violation of the lav of bal tigra, and therefore shouldn't I have to give up every penny to avoid the lav?

It must be that since the halacha says that I don't have to spend more than 20%, I'm not in violation of the lav if I don't do the mitzvah.  So too, the same holds true if no esrog is available, I'm not in violation of anything if it is missing because I have a ptur ones.  

 

This chiddush helps us with all kinds of things.  The Minchas Chinuch (see Aruch haShulchan as well) discusses whether there is any value to eating 1/2 a k'zayis of matzah if you don't have enough for a full shiur.  There is a concept of chatzi shiur by issurim.  Is there a similar concept by a kiyum mitzvah?  According to the Rashba, the whole question shouldn't even get off the ground.  If you fail to fulfill the mitzvah, you run the risk of bal tigra! 

 

The Chashmonaim found only enough oil for one day.  The Beis Yosef suggests that having no other choice, they divided what they had into 8 parts.  Miraculously, the oil burned throughout the night on each night even though it was far less than the shiur.  According to the Rashba, what was their hava amina?  Barring the miracle, wouldn't they be violating bal tigra by lighting less than the required shiur and failing to do a proper hadlaka? 

 

The answer is the same for all these examples.  Do what you can because the issur of bal tigra is not in what you are doing, it's in what you are leaving out.  Like in the case of esrog, in these cases you have no other choice than to not complete the mitzvah and leave something out -- you are in a situation of ones.  Therefore, there is no chiyuv bal tigra on what's missing.

 

The final example of the Sefas Emes is wearing tzitzis without techeiles.  There is no bal tigra because you are ones; techeiles is not available.  Therefore, you cannot be chayav for doing an incomplete mitzvah. That argument may have held true in the time of the Sefas Emes, but today, techeiles IS available.  Even if you are not 100% it is the right thing, what's the downside, given that not wearing it might put you in the bind and in violation of bal tigra? 

Turei Even on bal tigra (I)

I'm going to try to do this in two parts this week because the topic is pretty long.

The issur of bal tosif appears both in our parsha and earlier in parshas va'eschanan.  The GR"A (quoted by Torah Temima in va'eschanan) suggests that we have two pesukim because there are two different types of bal tosif: 1) creating/adding a new mitzvah which does not appear in the Torah; 2) changing the parameters of a mitzvah that does appear in the Torah and adding to it, e.g. adding an extra parsha in tefillin. 

 

Rashi does not seem to subscribe to this distinction.  In fact, he seems to not distinguish between the two pesukim at all.  Rashi comments in our parsha (13:1) לא תסף עליו – חמש טוטפות, חמשה מינין בלולב, ארבע ברכות לברכת כהנים and in va'eschanan (4:2) he comments לא תוסיפו – כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות.  The two comments are *almost* word for word the same.  I highlight *almost* because every stroke of ink in Rashi makes a difference, and here the slight difference in Rashi's words may in fact point to the difference between the two commands.  See Gur Aryeh; the L Rebbe also has a brilliant sicha on this Rashi.

 

Something like 20 years ago I did a post on a machlokes Tos and Rashba with regards to bal tosif.  Tos asks why blowing tekiyos d'meyushav on R"H is not a violation of bal tosif?  Aren't we adding to what the Torah requires?  Tos is mechadesh that that doing a mitzvah repeatedly is not bal tosif.  The Rashba gives what seems a far simpler answer: you can't incur bal tosif when you are fulfilling a takana derabbanan.  The Torah gives license to Chazal (lo tasur -- next week's parsha) to make takanos and gezeiros.  If you are following what Chazal mandate, there cannot be bal tosif.  This is such a fundamental yesod that one has to wonder why Tos did not offer this answer, and for that you can read some of the previous posts.

 

As to why Chazal are not in violation of bal tosif, the Rambam in Hil Mamrim explains that halacha clearly demarcates between Rabbinic law and Torah law.  Since a takana cannot be mistaken to be a Torah law, it is not bal tosif.

 

This year I want to turn to the conclusion of the Rashba and the issur of bal tigra.  Rashba adds that just like a takana to do something cannot be a violation of bal tosif, a takana *not to do something* cannot be bal tigra, e.g. when Chazal mandated that we do not blow shofar on Shabbos, this subtraction from the mitzvah is not a bal tigra problem.

 

The Turei Even asks two questions on this Rashba:

 

1) Bal tigra doesn't mean missing doing a mitzvah once; it means erasing a mitzvah permanently from the list of 613 things to do.  Were that not the case, then any time someone misses doing a mitzvah they would be in violation of bal tigra.  Someone who, for example, neglected to put on tefillin, should get malkos for bal tigra in addition to the bitul aseh.  That obviously can't be. 

 

When Chazal said not to blow shofar on Shabbos, they were not erasing the mitzvah of shofar.  They were telling you to skip it that one time.  Hence, no bal tigra.

 

2) Turei Even argues that bal tigra doesn't mean failing to do a mitzvah.  What it means is failing to do a mitzvah *in a complete way.*  The mitzvah is still valid, just incomplete.  A classic case (R"H 28b):

 

דתנן הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין מתנה אחת ינתנו מתנה אחת מתן ד' במתן ד' ינתנו במתן ד' מתן ד' במתן אחת ר"א אומר ינתנו במתן ד' רבי יהושע אומר ינתנו במתן אחת אמר לו ר"א הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר לו ר' יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף א"ל ר"א לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו אמר לו ר' יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך כשנתת עברת על בל תוסיף ועשית מעשה בידך

 

A korban which requires מתן ד is kosher if you sprinkle only מתן אחת; it just hasn't been performed 100% the way it should have been.  In that case, the issue of bal tigra comes up.  However, let's say you had a korban and didn't do zerikas ha'dam at all.  That's not bal tigra -- that's a pasul korban!  That's a bitul aseh of offering korban. 

 

The Turei Even proves his case from the following gemara (Sukkah 31b):

 

אמר מר לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר פשיטא מהו דתימא לייתי כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג קמ"ל זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה דאתי למסרך

 

The gemara has a hava amina that if there is no esrog available, take some other fruit so that you at least remember that there is a mitzvah of lulav and will do it properly next year.

 

Turei Even asks: according to the Rashba, how can you have such a hava amina?  Taking only 3 of the 4 minim means failing to fulfill the mitzvah, which according to Rashba  bal tigra.  You can't violate a lav just so you have a zecher?!

 

It must be that there is no bal tigra in this case because since you are missing the esrog, you are not fulfilling any mitzvah.  It's not just an *incomplete* kiyum; it's a nothing kiyum.  When you are missing the mitzvah entirely, that’s' not bal tigra. 

 

This question is not only a problem for the Rashba, but is a problem in shitas Rashi as well.  Rashi explains that bal tosif is something like adding a parsha to tefillin; bal tigra is the inverse, i.e. taking a parsha away.  That's not an *incomplete* kiyum; it's a nothing, and like the Turei Even proves, there is no bal tigra on doing a nothing.