Wednesday, May 27, 2009
R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explained that the Torah is an intellectual delight for all those who delve into its study -- one cannot help but be filled with joy while learning on the very day that the Torah was given! Yet, that joy is insufficient. It's not enough to have personal pleasure in learning, but as a careful reading of Rashi indicates, one must demonstrate that joy to others -- one must eat and drink and act like a joyous person. It's not enough to have internal happiness in one's learning, but on this day one must externally demonstrate that joy and love of learning so it is apparent to others as well.
R' Shlomo Zalman's point is well taken for the rest of the year as well. If you learn a nice idea, share it with your friend on the train, with your family, with your kids, with your neighbor, with the internet -- demonstrating love of learning and enthusiam for Torah (whether with a seudah or not : ) is the best way to encourage others to participate and join in Torah study as well. And in particular on the yom she'nitna Torah, an essential aspect of a true kabbalah is sharing that experience with others. Enjoy the cheesecake!
Many achronim disagree with this entire approach of R' Akiva Eiger (a discussion for another time). R' Shlomo haKohen, the dayan of Vilna (Shu"T Binyan Shlomo vol II, O.C. 48), however writes that even if one accepts R' Akiva Eiger's premis, not all Yamim Tovim are alike. Chazal tell us (Pesachim 68) that even those Tanaim who otherwise allow fasting on Y"T agree that a seudah on Shavuos is obligatory as that is the "yom she'nitna bo Torah", the day the Torah was given, a day which requires celebration. Just like women are obligated in tefilah because the obligation stems from sevara, a logical argument (do women not need to beseech G-d for their needs?), here too, women are obligated in seudas Yom Tov on Shavuos because the source of the obligation is a logical argument (see Tosfor d"h haKol). Therefore, all would agree that a woman who forgets ya'aleh v'yavo on Shavuos must repeat her birchas hamazon.
When R’ Yom Tov Glaser was here from Israel lecturing for B’Derech we spoke to a group of (formerly) chassidish young men in Monsey. They all exclaimed that they have no idea what it means to be Jewish. In their view, it’s all about money and a dress code. As long as you either give money or wear the right clothes and appear on the outside as frum, then you are accepted, regardless of what is going on inside your heart. Rabbi Glaser, who is a Baal Teshuva, returned to Eretz Yisroel shattered by what he saw and heard. Rabbi Glaser said that Chassidim have 90% of Yiddishkeit intact; but, that we’re missing the first 10% -- the essential foundations of Yiddishkeit!
I would say things are not much different in the modern community other than the conformity in dress revolves aroung the latest secular styles instead of the jacket/hat uniform. The question is why with all the awareness, the yeshiva programs that have been developed, the lectures given, the funds raised to deal with this problem of "kids at risk", nothing is really working and the problem is getting worse. The answer (as the quote above reveals) seems to me to be that you can preach to kids all you want, but when they see that in the "real" world of our society all that matters is chitzoniyus, what do you expect their attitude to be?
“Ad m’macharas hashabbos hashevi’is tisperu chamishim yom…” – Until after the seventh week, count for yourself fifty days (23:16). The meaning of the pasuk is to count fifty days until seven complete weeks have been counted, but translated literally the pasuk implies that we have until a full seven weeks have passed to count fifty days, i.e. 50 days can counted any time during this seven week period ends, even on the very last day!
The Rebbe of Tchotekov explains that on each day of the fifty days of sefirah we take another small step in the process of perfecting our character traits, making a stronger commitment to avodas Hashem, and growing in our anticipation for kabbalas haTorah on Shavuos. But what if a few days or even minutes before Shavuos a person suddenly realizes that he has not utilized this time period appropriately? What if, rather than feeling the joy of Yom Tov approaching, a person looks back with regret at the weeks of wasted moments and wasted opportunities that have passed?
The pasuk answers, “Until seven weeks have passed” – until the very last second before Yom Tov arrives – “count for yourself fifty days” – one can still accomplish all of the necessary growth that should have been accomplished in the count of the past 50 days. There is no need to surrender to regret and remorse as so much can be accomplished in even seconds before Yom Tov.
The reason why there is no tosefes allowed for Shavuos is because the Torah wants to maximize the opportunity that we have to prepare ourselves to enter Yom Tov properly. Without proper preparation Yom Tov and kabblas haTorah cannot be celebrated in a meaningful fashion.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
1) If you try to use a saw to drive in a nail or a hammer to cut wood, you will probably not be successful, though I doubt anyone would conclude that nails and wood are therefore faulty building materials. Even if you use a saw to cut wood, I can attest from personal experience that your chances of accuracy and success are not the same as a carpenter's. Please, Mr. Paulos, stick to using math and logic to explain math and logic. These are not necessarily the best tools to analyze religion, and when wielded by an amateur the risk of harm outweighs any chance of good.
2) Imagine a two page summary of a book hundreds of pages long written by the most respected brain surgeons in the world. Imagine the summary concluding that these experts are wrong. Imagine the summary written by someone whose regular job is a plumber. Now you have a taste of Irreligion. I kid you not that most chapters are less than five pages, nor do I kid you that in less reading time than it takes for the commercials to play in a TV break Paulos thinks he has summarized and demolished centuries of philosophical speculation. The single word ga'avah kept running through my head.
3) Is there anyone out there who woke up one morning and said, "Eureka, I now believe because the ontological proof is so convincing!", or who went to sleep muttering, "I'm glad I read that proof by design because now I can resume praying"? I'm pretty confident that is not how faith works. If the "proofs" that Paulos addresses are not the cause of belief, can shattering them really call into question the reasons for anyone's faith?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Midrash (BaMidbar Rabbah 1:3) tells us that before there was an Ohel Moed G-d spoke to Moshe from a burning bush in Midyan, G-d spoke to Moshe in Egypt, G-d spoke to Moshe from Har Sinai. However, now that there was an Ohel Moed G-d spoke only privately from that tent to fulfill the ideal of "hatzneya leches".
A number of points can be learned from this Chazal:
1) The source for the concept of tzniyus is rooted in the idea of imitating G-d. Just as we learn elsewhere mah hu rachum af atah..., we must act with kindness and mercy because G-d acts in this manner, so too "hatzneya leches im Elokecha", act with modesty not just before G-d, but along with G-d, meaning imitate the tzanu'a behavior which G-d has demonstrated. G-d does not call a news conference and make sure it is carried on all the major networks to say what he wants to; G-d speaks from the privacy of the Ohel Moed to those who are invited to listen.
2) Tzniyus means privacy. Even speaking anthropomorphically, I don't think the Midrash means that G-d wore a skirt below the knees and a blouse down to the wrists. Modesty and privacy are not the same thing. A person's dress can meet all the technical details that halacha requires but he/she can be a very loud and flashy person.
3) The Midrash continues that the paradigm of tzniyus was Moshe, about whom it is written, "kol kvuda bas melech pnima". Moshe was literally raised by a "melech", as he was adopted by Pharoah's daughter, but many of the meforshim explain the appelation of "bas melech" to refer to Moshe's relationship with Torah or he was the melech and the Torah itself is the "bas melech". In any event, this is clear: Moshe Rabeinu obviously did not shun taking a public leadership role as a result of his tzniyus. Tzniyus should not be an excuse to deny worthy men or women a public position.
What exactly is tzniyus? Chazal tell us that Torah requires tzniyus (Sukkah 49). Maharal (Nesiv haTzniyus ch 1.) explains that this is so because Torah has a "madreiga pnimis", a "madreiga nisteres." Torah has depth. Every parsha and sugya is like the top of an iceberg that protrudes above the sea, providing just a hint of the vastness which lies below. A person who embodies tzniyus is a person of depth, a person who is defined not by their clothes or hat or by a sound-bite, but a person whose character remains hidden behind a concealing veil and not on public display. Just when you think you have the person buttonholed, you discover that there is a deeper more pnimiyus aspect to the person's whole personality that you had previously overlooked or not seen. That's a person who is tzanu'a.
If we deconstruct the way tzniyus is taught and emphasized in our society, it pretty much turns this entire idea on its head. Rather than emphasize depth and inner-meaning, the emphasis is placed on externals: skirt length, sleeve length, hat size/color, etc. Don't get me wrong -- some of these details are important and halachically crucial. But these details are just the superficial siman of what defines tzniyus. What is missing is the stress on tzniyus as pnimiyus. We need to cultivate depth of character, not just a superficial commitment to a particular mode of dress.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
I'm actually glad that some people can plunk down a few million on homes around my neighborhood and can afford to spend $17 bucks on a hot dog and fries. For a moment there, I thought there was a financial crisis going on, but I guess I must be mistaken.
The answer is that the issue of paternity is a completely independent from the issue of whether or not the kohein must be paid. First we use rov to determine paternity; once the issue of paternity has been resolved, an offshoot of that determination is that the person we label the father is now obligated to pay for pidyon.
The same approach can be used to resolve R' Akiva Eiger's question. Where a person who is chayav sereifah gets mixed up in a group of people all of whom are chayav sekilah, we cannot use rov to directly address the question of what form of misa to administer. However, we can use rov to first determine paternity; once the issue of paternity is resolved, it follows that killing the person who was labelled "father" through rov may deserve a more stringent form of punishment.
Getting back to the main point, the gemara (Sukkah 56) has a debate whether the bracha of sukkah or the bracha of zman (she'hechiyanu) is said first when eating in a sukkah for the first time. We pasken like Rav that the bracha of sukkah is said first. The gemara explains that even though the bracha of zman is tadir because it is said more frequently, the bracha of sukkah comes first because it is the special mitzvas hayom.
Question: since the sefira count of each night is the special mitzvas hayom of that night (or at least the time period between Pesach and Shavuos), why should sefira not take precedence over the tadir mitzva of ma'ariv?
Monday, May 18, 2009
? וַיֹּאמֶר הָעָם אֶל-שָׁאוּל, הֲיוֹנָתָן יָמוּת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הַיְשׁוּעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
The story ends that the people redeemed Yohanasan and he was not killed.
The simple reading of the people's response is that they refused to accept that their hero should be put to death for a minor crime. However, the Ramban at the end of Bechukosai understands this pasuk as saying much more. Ramban introduces a theological principle: G-d does not deliver miracles through sinners. The pasuk can now be read as advancing a theological argument: Had Yohanason been guilty of intentionally violating his father's oath, then the miracle of victory over the Plishtim could not have come about through his hands -- the very fact that Yehonasan was the instrument of "yeshua gedolah", a great deliverance, proves his innocence!
At the end of this week, if you spend a moment thinking back about the events of 1967 (it's not on my kids' school calendar, and when I asked one about it last night she did not even know what Yom Yerushalayim was), think about this Ramban. I heard a Rav who subscribes to Satmar ideology say that there was no "yeshua gedolah", as he dug up some CIA documents that showed that intelligence agencies had predicted the Israeli's would win, so the victory was no big deal. I personally find that ludicrous. Yet, if a yeshua gedola did occur, we must accept that it was brought about through soldiers many of whom were not particularly religious. Or were they? A Ramban worth reading...
Friday, May 15, 2009
The gemara (Sanhedrin 84b) questions how we know the pasuk "makeh Aviv v'Imo mos yumas" refers to hitting a parent -- perhaps the pasuk is referring to murder? The gemara answers that this cannot be. The penalty for violating this pasuk is death by chenek; the penalty for killing a non-parent is sayeif -- it makes no sense to say that killing a parent should be less severely punished than killing a non-parent. This logic assumes that sayeif is the more severe punishment. However, asks the gemara, how would one answer the question if one assumes (like other opinions do) that chenek is more severe?
R' Akiva Eiger objects to the whole question and argues that even if chenek is the more severe punishment, the pasuk still cannot be read as referring to the murder of a parent. Remember that the murderer is chayav at a minimum the punishment of sayeif. The theoretically more severe penalty of chenek would apply only if the victim were the murderer's father. How do we know who the murderer's father is? Paternity is determined based on the principle of rov be'ilos achar haba'al. In effect, therefore, the gemara's question amounts to using a rov to determine which form of death to deliver. Since rov cannot be used to determine what type of death penalty to deliver (as we learned from Tosfos), the whole question of the gemara does not seem to get off the ground.
R' Akiva Eiger gives four answers, at least two of which are "easy" ones (whenever I tell my son that it's an easy one, he objects to my estimation. To his credit, this time he answered the kashe almost immediately by quoting a Hafla'ah at the end of the first perek of Kesubos. He is getting better at this game : )
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Rashi: And when you make a sale to your fellow-Jew or make a purchase from your fellow-Jew: Its simple meaning is obvious. The verse can also be expounded [to teach us the following lesson]: How do we know that when you wish to sell, you should sell to your fellow-Jew? For Scripture says, “ וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶ,” i.e., “And when you make a sale-sell to your fellow-Jew!” And how do we know that if you come to buy, you should buy from your fellow-Jew? For Scripture continues here: “ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִתֶי אוֹ,” i.e., “or when you buy-buy from your fellow-Jew!”
Yesterday's news carried the following story about the "buy black" empowerment experiment:
It's been two months since 2-year-old Cori pulled the gold stud from her left earlobe, and the piercing is threatening to close as her mother, Maggie Anderson, hunts for a replacement.
It's not that the earring was all that rare — but finding the right store has become a quest of Quixotic proportions.
Maggie and John Anderson of Chicago vowed four months ago that for one year, they would try to patronize only black-owned businesses. The "Empowerment Experiment" is the reason John had to suffer for hours with a stomach ache and Maggie no longer gets that brand-name lather when she washes her hair. A grocery trip is a 14-mile odyssey.
If the AP story is what you would call reverse discrimination, then what do you make of Rashi? The same or different?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
I happened to see an Aruch haShulchan that left we wondering if there is more to this issue. If a second bottle of wine is served at a meal a bracha of hatov v'ha'meitiv must be recited (see O.C. 175 for the relevant details). There is a three-way dispute in the Rishonim as to what type of wine this bracha applies to:
1) Rabeinu Tam -- any wine, as the bracha is on the new bottle, not the quality
2) Rambam, BaHa"G, Rashbam -- only on better quality wine or a different variety of wine
3) Rosh, Tosfos -- any wine not of poorer quality than the first
The Shulchan Aruch (175:2) rules that as long as the second bottle is clearly not of inferior quality than the first, even if there is a doubt whether it is in fact better, a bracha may be recited.
Why did the Shulchan Aruch not rule like Rabeinu Tam? It would seem that this accords with the well known rule of safeik brachos l'hakeil -- when in doubt, no new bracha is recited. Since Rabeinu Tam's view is in the extreme minority, the chance that he is right is not sufficient to warrant a new bracha. However, what is more problematic is understanding why the Shulchan Aruch rules like the Rosh and Tosfos and not like the Rambam. Based on the principle of safeik brachos l'hakeil we should not recite a new bracha unless the second bottle is clearly of better quality so as to satisfy even the Rambam's view. Why chance relying on the Rosh and Tosfos when it may lead to an unnecessary bracha?
The Aruch haShulchan answers (175:4) that this is an example of a sfeik sfeika l'hachmir. There is a 50-50 chance whether the second bottle is in fact better. Even if the second bottle is not better, in fact, even if it is worse, one still has Rabeinu Tam's view to rely on that any second bottle requires a bracha. This second safeik tilts the odds in favor of reciting a new bracha.
Is there a possiblr difference between safeik brachos l'hakeil where according to the Aruch haShulchan the rule sfeik sfeika l'chumra applies and sfeika derabbanan l'kula where it doesn't?
Thursday, May 07, 2009
So what drove Shalom away? Was it the fact that his father was a drunk, his mother was a typical guilt-inflicting jewish mother, and his home life was filled with conflict? Was it incidents in his yeshiva eduction, such as when a Rebbe told the class, after announcing that a student's father has passed away, that Hashem punishes parents for the sins of children (how's that for motivating kids to learn?) Was is the hypocrisy he witnessed? Or was it the pull of drugs, pornography, and hedonism in secular society that drew him in? Perhaps it was all of the above.
I found it interesting that Auslander and I are about the same age (based on the years he said he was in MTA), yet we are so radically different. That difference has little (I think) to do with religion and more to do with personality -- I have as little desire to smoke pot or hang out in Times Square as Auslander probably does to observe Shabbos. I honestly cannot think of an "answer" or approach that would inspire the likes of Auslander because I simply cannot empathize with his needs and lifestyle. That says as much about me as it does him (and is why kiruv is not what I do for a living).
On that note, I got a definite sense that his teachers had no idea of the world Auslander lived in -- what meaning could a gemara or Nach shiur have to a boy living interested in drugs, girls, and shoplifting. In that regard the system did fail Auslander and it continues to fail many like him. What parent wants to hear from a Rebbe, "No we have not learned a single word of gemara this year because there are bigger issues we need to work on." Yet, if our schools are honest, that's exactly what needs to happen in many, many cases. Don't get me wrong -- I am not advocating the coddling, no rules approach. Auslander had that too and it did not make any difference. A teenager who is smart enough to read Beckett on his own and skips school to hang out at the Met and Moma because he senses there is something real and deep there is being done a disservice by a hands-off approach. What he needs is a hands-on approach that would show that there is something real and deep to what religion offers beyond technical legalism and threats of next and this-worldly punishment.
Auslander comes across as angry -- angry at G-d, angry at his parents who do not accept him for what he is, angry at the community in which he cannot find a place or earn acceptance because he just won't play by the rules. On the one hand, does Auslander not realize that his choice to define himself as an outside carries the consequences of being treated as such? On the other hand, in some sense I commiserated with Auslander -- a third grade Rebbe telling children that G-d kills parents because of their sins is stupid. How do we respond? Some would defend the authority of the rebbe at all costs. Some, like Auslander, drop out. Both of these approaches fail because they do not separate the values of religion from its mere supposed representatives on earth, who unfortunately are often fallible and even stupid.
As far as his skills as a writer, Auslander is funny and cute, but at the same time I felt he was superficial. The book makes for a nice comedy skit and a quick read, but I would have appreciated more intropection on his part. By comparison, l'fi aniyus da'ati the best young American writer who happens to be Jewish is Michael Chabon, whose Kavalier and Clay places him in a different league entirely than Auslander.
My wife half-humorously warns me that admitting to reading Auslander and such kefirah is a black mark in the shidduch world. Since I'm married I don't care : ) -- let my kids fend for themselves when the time comes in a few years. But I will say that closing our minds to the Auslanders of the world will not make them go away. Perhaps every Rebbe in MTA and the likes should read this book. These are the kids in our system as they really are, without sugarcoating, at there very worst. What are we going to do about it?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
In light of the Chasam Sofer's claim that writing torah sheba'al peh constitutes an issur d'oraysa (see Tos. Yeshanim, Yoma 70) it is striking that the Rambam does not once even mention this halacha. Rav Solovetichik explained (Perach Mateh Aharon p. 48-49) that the Rambam did not in fact leave this halacha out. The Rambam understood the prohibition of writing torah sheba'al peh is not an independent issur, but is a function of the fact that certain elements of Torah are categorically designed to be transmitted by mesorah from teacher to student just as other elements of Torah are categorically designed to be conveyed as text. When the Rambam in his introduction to the Yad records the passing of tradition from generation to generation from Moshe Rabeinu to the days of Rav Ashi, that chain of mesorah represents the fulfillment of this halacha which prohibited writing torah sheba'al peh. However, once that chain was broken, once the transmission of mesorah from teacher to student was lost and replacedby written text, this halacha ceases to have any practical bearing. We no longer have an oral mesorah.
Based on this approach, there is no basis for the Chasam Sofer's claim. The reason we are permitted to write divrei Torah is not based on eis la'asos, but is based on the fact that our methodology of transmitting the mesorah has changed from the person to person link that was operative until the completion of the Talmud. This approach also resolves the question raised by R' Shternbruch (and quoted by R' Ahron Soloveitchik in the name of R' Elchanan Wasserman) whether once Mashiach arrives we will still be permitted to use text to study Torah sheba'al peh -- since mala'ah ha'aretz de'ah and there is no chance for forgetfullness, what might be the eis la'asos permissability of using a text? The answer is that it is not the necessity of avoiding forgetfullness which is the basis of our heter to write torah, but rather it is the fact that the knowledge we record was never part of a chain of mesorah that was exclusively orally transmitted person to person. That fact will not change even with the coming of Moshiach.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
This approach resolves a number of questions raised on the Rambam. For example, the gemara (R"H 13) discusses how Bnei Yisrael offered the korban ha'omer when they first entered Eretz Yisrael. How did they obtain wheat which would satisfy the requirement of "bkutzrichem", wheat grown and harvested by Jews, when the Jewish people crossed the Jordan just days before the korban had to be brought? The gemara answers that they used wheat which had grown less than 1/3 under non-Jewish ownership and then ripened under Jewish ownership in those few intervening days. Asks the gemara, but how could they tell the difference if the wheat was already 1/3 grown yet or not -- there was still a chance that the wheat they harvested was not acceptable!?
If sfeika d'oraysa is permitted under all circumstances, then what is the gemara's question -- true, there was a chance that the wheat was not acceptable, but md'oraysa we don't need to be concerned about a safeik!
Based on the analysis of the Chavos Da'as the gemara makes perfect sense. Only a safeik issur is permitted min haTorah according to the Rambam, but even the Rambam would agree that a kiyum mitzvah can be fulfilled only if done in a way that fulfills the Torah's criteria with certainty.
Monday, May 04, 2009
What is marketed as tradition by the wedding industry could better be called the traditionalesque -- a pleasing melange of apparently old-fashioned, certainly nostalgic, intermittantly ethnically authentic practices that may have little relevance to the past or future and are really only illustrative of the present in which they emerge. Tradition is one of those words like homeland or motherhood, that is most frequently invoked when what it represents is under threat, or is in abeyance; and the emphasis placed upon the notion of tradition by the wedding industry pointsI have a hunch my reading audience is mostly male and not particularly interested in how bridal services are marketed , but I offer the quote because I think Mead's term (my wife and I were debating if she coined it or not) traditionalesque can also be used to describe the culture and practice in vogue in large parts of Orthodoxy today. I can walk into just about any synagogue in my neighborhood and find people engaged in an odd hodge-podge of practices and dress in an effort to capture some of the flavor of tradition they were either not brought up in (esp. in the case of BTs) or which they have morphed into something the grandparents or great-grandparents they are trying to emulate would only be confused at seeing. It's the quaint fuzziness of an imagined past that has been created and marketed as "frumkeit".
to a contradiction at the industry's core: The imperitive of economic expansion demands the introduction of new services and new products, but those services and products must be positioned not as novelties but as expressions of enduring values.
A local Rav who teaches in a girls' school recounted in a speech that he was once asked by a girl if wearing a certain dress or accessory was halachically permitted. His response, which drew approval from the audience, was that as far as he knew "the Chasam Sofer's mother" would not wear such a dress -- case closed.
If you close your eyes for a few seconds and allow your mind to wander you probably can conjur up some image of what you think the Chasam Sofer's mother looked like (let's be real -- it's probably something like your grandmother). Unless you are a very special person, if you close your eyes and allow your mind to wander I doubt you can conjur up the details in Shach and Taz that may address an issue in Yoreh De'ah.
The reality of halacha is tradition; "what the Chasam Sofer's mother wore" is traditonalesque.
Like the bride who overspends on her dress and accessories because the industry tells her that this is what "traditionally" brides have done, in our world the newly minted observant or newly more observant, the MO high school kid who "frums out" in Israel somewhere, the parents of girls in the shidduch circut who are under such pressure to conform and fit in -- in all these cases and more a manufactured set of do's and don'ts that are a fictitious (mis)representation of mythological past have become hallmarks of "tradition" that is a more cultural myth than a directive from Sinai.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
R' Ovadya Yosef has a long footnote in Yechaveh Da'at (III:70) where he addresses both of these questions in greater detail. Regarding the first point R' Ovadya notes that it could be argued that a person has a chazakah of not being old until proven otherwise -- e.g. Tosfos (Yevamos 68) writes with respect to a safeik whether a boy is 9 years old and capable of bi'ah or not that there is a chezkas katnus in addition to the chezkas kashrus of the woman which must be factored into the question. Achronim debate this issue at length, as a person ages by the minute -- is a chazakah he'asuya l'histanos, a situation constantly undergoing change, classifiable as a chazakah?
The same question may be raised regarding the second point as well. No one is born a talmid chacham, and it may be said that we all start with a chazakah of ignorance. Hopefully that situation is asuya l'hishtanos as we grow in learning throughout our lives.
I haven't thought of any mareh mekomos offhand -- Anyone have any ideas? (Same chakirah in Makos 16 kiymo v'lo kiymo vs. bitlo v'lo bitlo, but that's a different context. Rambam/Ra'avad seem to have a similar debate in hil. milah whether that mitzvah is violated every second it remains unfulfilled or only at death when it becomes impossible to fulfill.)