Friday, August 02, 2019

Ptur ones in kiyum Hamitzvos (II)

Coming back to the question from earlier in the week: according to the Mordechai's opinion that you can wear a 4 cornered garment on shabbos without tzitzis because the issur of tying gives you a ptur ones from the mitzvah of tzitzis, why can't you use a kli that you have not toiveled on shabbos since you are ones and cannot bbe toivel the kli?

Rav Gestetner surprisingly does not point out that a similar question was already asked by R Shlomo Eiger (YD 28:20).  The SA paskens that you can't shecht unless you have dirt prepared for kisuy ha'dam.  Why not shecht and then if it turns out that you have no dirt, eg it is Yom Tov and you did not prepare any dirt in advance to not be muktzah, so what -- you are in a situation of ones and are therefore exempt from the mitzvah.  What's the difference between putting on a talis knowing it has no tzitzis and you cannot tie any on and shechting knowing you have no dirt?

The Steipler (printed in Baba Basra in the new editions) says there is a big difference, and this will answer R Gestetner's question was well.  Even if you put tzitzis on that talis tomorrow, it can't help you with the mitzvah of tzitzis that you have today.  Tomorrow is a new opportunity to do tomorrow's mitzvah, but in terms of today, you lost the mitzvah.  The same is not true of kisuy ha'dam or tevilas kelim.  The mitzvah in those cases is to be toivel the kli, to cover the dam -- the mitzvah is on the cheftza, which will be the same tomorrow as it is today.  If you delay the shechita or delay using the kli you haven't lost a mitzvah opportunity, you've simply postponed the same opportunity for a different time.

(Consider this a starting point on the issue.)


  1. About "petur oneis"... Interesting (to me, anyway), just this morning I encountered an Arukh haShulchan where RYME argues that a given case cannot be describing a man who lacks a forearm as being patur in tefillin, as it's a physical impossibility. Rather, the word "patur" is taken as proof that the case isn't oneis. Although compulsion oneis might be different than impossibility.

    AhS OC 27:6 uses this as one of his arguments that the case must be where the person is missing a forearm, but the arm is intact above the elbow.

  2. does this analogy persevere?

    the wearer of the 4-cornered garment benefits from its coverage, its 'garment function', even in the absence of tzitzis; if we switch the shechting and toiveling examples from cheftza to gavra, can the same be said regarding hana'ah? the mitzvah to enjoy meat on Yom Tov-- if one delays shechting in order to get the mitzvah of kisuy ha'dam tomorrow, will he yet benefit from the 'food function' of the chayah today [despite the meat mitzvah lost]? if there is now, for Shabbos kiddush, only one cup in the entire household, of metal, made outside of Israel, yet to be immersed, will that cup still serve for drinking water (though not for kiddush), that is, still fulfill its 'drinking vessel function' today [despite the mitzvah lost vis-a-vis this very cup {this very tallis}]?

  3. I'd love to hear the answer explained further, please!

    I understand (I think) the Steipler's distinction. But if ones is a sufficient excuse to not perform a mitzva *at all* (like wearing a four-cornered garment on Shabbat w/o tzitzis), then kal va-chomer shouldn't ones also be a sufficient excuse to merely *delay* a mitzva by 1 day for kisui ha-dam and tvilas keilim??

  4. Great answer! Very well done application to tvilas keilim.

    (Reminiscent of the Tzlach on davar she-yesh lo matirin.)