Which Mitzvot Take Precedence?: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 33: Line 33:
# If a person has an opportunity to either fulfill a mitzvah in the most ideal fashion himself or help another person fulfill the mitzvah on a basic level but sacrifice his ideal mitzvah and only fulfill a basic mitzvah, it is preferable to do the basic mitzvah and enable another Jew's mitzvah.<ref>Magen Avraham 658:12 writes a case in which a person has a personal etrog that he could use for the mitzvah and another town doesn't have any etrog. If he could still borrow an etrog for someone in his town and fulfill his basic mitzvah he should donate his etrog to the other town. The [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=628&pgnum=166 Bet Yakov 114] posits that this is only true if his donation would enable many more Jews to fulfill a mitzvah, but if it is a choice between keeping his etrog or donating it to an individual who otherwise couldn't fulfill the mitzvah at all and him just borrowing, it is better to keep his own etrog. His logic is based on the answer of Tosfot Shabbat 4a that one can do a minor sin to help out a multitude of Jews. The Eliya Rabba 658:12 disagrees and thinks that it is always best to donate the etrog to enable another Jew's mitzvah even if it is an individual Jew as long as he could still borrow an etrog. He adds that this is only true if that individual wasn't negligent. Furthermore, regarding chanuka candles, the Magen Avraham 671:1 comments that it is better to give up some of one's oil for another Jew to fulfill the basic mitzvah even if that means he too will fulfill the basic mitzvah as opposed to him selfishly doing the enhanced mitzvah himself. Chemed Moshe 671:2 disagrees with the Magen Avraham's application in Chanuka because he holds it is in fact mandatory to light according to the number of the night.</ref>
# If a person has an opportunity to either fulfill a mitzvah in the most ideal fashion himself or help another person fulfill the mitzvah on a basic level but sacrifice his ideal mitzvah and only fulfill a basic mitzvah, it is preferable to do the basic mitzvah and enable another Jew's mitzvah.<ref>Magen Avraham 658:12 writes a case in which a person has a personal etrog that he could use for the mitzvah and another town doesn't have any etrog. If he could still borrow an etrog for someone in his town and fulfill his basic mitzvah he should donate his etrog to the other town. The [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=628&pgnum=166 Bet Yakov 114] posits that this is only true if his donation would enable many more Jews to fulfill a mitzvah, but if it is a choice between keeping his etrog or donating it to an individual who otherwise couldn't fulfill the mitzvah at all and him just borrowing, it is better to keep his own etrog. His logic is based on the answer of Tosfot Shabbat 4a that one can do a minor sin to help out a multitude of Jews. The Eliya Rabba 658:12 disagrees and thinks that it is always best to donate the etrog to enable another Jew's mitzvah even if it is an individual Jew as long as he could still borrow an etrog. He adds that this is only true if that individual wasn't negligent. Furthermore, regarding chanuka candles, the Magen Avraham 671:1 comments that it is better to give up some of one's oil for another Jew to fulfill the basic mitzvah even if that means he too will fulfill the basic mitzvah as opposed to him selfishly doing the enhanced mitzvah himself. Chemed Moshe 671:2 disagrees with the Magen Avraham's application in Chanuka because he holds it is in fact mandatory to light according to the number of the night.</ref>
# A person should not be a hog of mitzvot and claim them all for oneself if it is beyond what is normal for one person to do.<ref>Sukkah 52b tells about the son of Marta Bat Baytus, a very strong man, who wanted to take an extra large portion of a korban to the mizbe'ach and the rabbis did not let him because he should have shared it with others. Gevurat Ari Yoma 26b s.v. aval, Sfat Emet Sukkah 52b, and Meromei Sadeh Sukkah 52b all agree to this point that it is wrong to take more than a normal share of mitzvot. See Sfat Emet who says that the rabbis broke up the mitzvah of bringing the korban to as many parts as possible in order to facilitate as many people taking part in the mitzvah. However, at some point where multiple kohanim would carry a small piece of the korban that wouldn't be considered a mitzvah at all, they had one kohen do that job. Another aspect can be gleaned from Magen Avraham 147:11 who says that if one is unable to do the mitzvah of hagbah and gelila oneself one should honor someone else with the gelila and he should do the hagbah. This implies that it were to be possible to do it oneself one should do so in order not to give up a partial mitzvah that could easily be done by oneself.</ref>
# A person should not be a hog of mitzvot and claim them all for oneself if it is beyond what is normal for one person to do.<ref>Sukkah 52b tells about the son of Marta Bat Baytus, a very strong man, who wanted to take an extra large portion of a korban to the mizbe'ach and the rabbis did not let him because he should have shared it with others. Gevurat Ari Yoma 26b s.v. aval, Sfat Emet Sukkah 52b, and Meromei Sadeh Sukkah 52b all agree to this point that it is wrong to take more than a normal share of mitzvot. See Sfat Emet who says that the rabbis broke up the mitzvah of bringing the korban to as many parts as possible in order to facilitate as many people taking part in the mitzvah. However, at some point where multiple kohanim would carry a small piece of the korban that wouldn't be considered a mitzvah at all, they had one kohen do that job. Another aspect can be gleaned from Magen Avraham 147:11 who says that if one is unable to do the mitzvah of hagbah and gelila oneself one should honor someone else with the gelila and he should do the hagbah. This implies that it were to be possible to do it oneself one should do so in order not to give up a partial mitzvah that could easily be done by oneself.</ref>
#If a person could either fulfill a rabbinic mitzvah that he already fulfilled previously and someone else who hasn't had an opportunity to fulfill it at all some poskim hold that he should sacrifice his mitzvah for that other person since enabling his mitzvah is biblical chesed and that trumps the rabbinic mitzvah.<ref>Michtam Ldovid OC 6</ref>
#If a person could either fulfill a rabbinic mitzvah that he already fulfilled previously and someone else who hasn't had an opportunity to fulfill it at all some poskim hold that he should sacrifice his mitzvah for that other person since enabling his mitzvah is biblical chesed and that trumps the rabbinic mitzvah.<ref>Michtam Ldovid OC 6, Chazon Ovadia v. 2 p. 819</ref>


==Sources==
==Sources==
<references />
<references />
[[Category:Meta Concepts of Halacha]]
[[Category:Meta Concepts of Halacha]]

Revision as of 19:07, 19 May 2021

Note: This page is a stub and needs to be expanded
There are a number of principles that determine which Mitzvah takes precedence over another Mitzvah whenever two Mitzvot come into conflict.

The more common Mitzvah

  1. One of the major principles is Tadir VeSheino Tadir, Tadir Kodem; the more frequent of the two mitzvot takes precedence. [1]
  2. Examples of this principle can be found in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 10:2 regarding putting on Tallit before Tefillin, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 76:12 regarding saying Mincha before Mussaf, and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 139:14 regarding the Torah reading for Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh.

Mitzvah d'gufa

  1. A mitzvah that applies directly to oneself. For example, a father and his son have yet to be redeemed from a cohen(pidyon haben); in the situation where the father only has enough to redeem himself or his son, he is to redeem himself and then his son. [2]

Mitzvah overet

  1. A passing mitzvah. For example, when faced with the choice of performing a mitzvah that may be done only within the next five minutes versus one that may be done over the next hour, we are to perform the mitzvah that applies immediately and move on the next.[3]

Learning Torah and Other Mitzvot

  1. While learning Torah is one of the most important mitzvot[4] if it comes into conflict with a mitzvah that only you can do, the mitzvah takes precedence.[5] If you can get someone else to do the mitzvah, then you can continue learning Torah.
    1. One explanation for this halacha is that a person's learning should lead up to fulfilling the mitzvot and if a person abandons fulfilling mitzvot in order to learn Torah, it indicates that one's learning isn't done in order to fulfill the mitzvot.[6]
    2. Another explanation for this is that learning Torah is all encompassing and really one should learn all of the time. If one wouldn't interrupt learning in order to do other mitzvot, one would never get a chance to do any mitzvot which Hashem commanded.[7]
  2. In a general sense, learning Torah is more important than Kibbud Av VeEm.[8]

Middot versus Mitzvot

  1. It is better to give up a mitzvah so others can do it rather than fight over it.[9]
  2. It is worth fighting to be able to do a mitzvah if otherwise no one will do the mitzvah.[10]
  3. When deciding between two mitzvot generally it is preferable to do the option that will improve one's middot even if it the smaller of the mitzvot.[11]

Personal Mitzvot versus Other's Mitzvot

  1. A person can not give up his own mitzvah to enable someone else's mitzvah. One needs to take care of their own mitzvot first.[12]
  2. One should sacrifice a tenth of one's time available to learn towards helping teach others who need more help learning Torah.[13]
  3. Some permit deceiving someone else in order to get a mitzvah that is ownerless[14] and doesn't "belong" to any individual.[15] This only applies to stealing mitzvot that are personal, however, it is forbidden to deceive someone out of a communal mitzvah.[16]
  4. If a person has an opportunity to either fulfill a mitzvah in the most ideal fashion himself or help another person fulfill the mitzvah on a basic level but sacrifice his ideal mitzvah and only fulfill a basic mitzvah, it is preferable to do the basic mitzvah and enable another Jew's mitzvah.[17]
  5. A person should not be a hog of mitzvot and claim them all for oneself if it is beyond what is normal for one person to do.[18]
  6. If a person could either fulfill a rabbinic mitzvah that he already fulfilled previously and someone else who hasn't had an opportunity to fulfill it at all some poskim hold that he should sacrifice his mitzvah for that other person since enabling his mitzvah is biblical chesed and that trumps the rabbinic mitzvah.[19]

Sources

  1. ↑ For the source of this halacha, see Gemara Brachot 27a, 51b, Pesachim 114a, Megillah 29b, Sukkah 54b, and Zevachim (Mishna 10:1).
  2. ↑ Kiddushin 29a
  3. ↑ Kiddushin 29b, Berachot 27a
  4. ↑ Mishna Peah 1:1
  5. ↑ Gemara Moed Katan 9b, Rambam (Talmud Torah 3:4)
  6. ↑ Rabbenu Yonah (Brachot 9b at the top)
  7. ↑ Chida in Chaim Shaal 1:71:2, Gra in Sadeh Eliyahu Peah 1:1
  8. ↑ Gemara Megillah 16b, Rambam (Mamrim 6:13)
  9. ↑ Yoma 39a, Binyamin Zeev 163, Darkei Moshe 53:11, Magen Avraham 53:26, Mishna Brurah 53:66. Machasit Hashekel 53:26 based on Rashi and Tosfot Yeshanim learns that only if one stands to lose out on a partial mitzvah one shouldn’t get involved with something that could lead to a fight. But if he is going to lose out on a real mitzvah he shouldn’t get involved if it is definitely going to cause a fight. The Mishna Brurah understands the gemara to mean even if you’re going to lose a real mitzvah it is worth it not to fight.
  10. ↑ Mishna Brurah 53:66
  11. ↑ The Gemara Bava Metsia 32b establishes that if is a person is confronted with two mitzvot, either unloading an overloaded animal or loading an animal that isn't yet laden, one should do the unloading since it also relieves the animal of pain. Nonetheless, if the owner of the animal which needs loading is one's enemy one should give precedence to that mitzvah in order to overcome one's yetzer hara. Rambam Rotze'ach 13:13 and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 272:10 codify this gemara as halacha.
  12. ↑ Igrot Moshe EH 4:26:4 and OC 5:32:4 based on Kiddushin 29b and Bava Metsia 62a. The Rabbis opinion in Kiddushin 29b, which is codified as the halacha, is that it is more important to learn Torah oneself over affording one's children the opportunity to learn Torah if it is only possible for one of them to learn. If it is true about oneself and one's child that one comes first certainly a person takes precedence over other people. Rabbi Akiva in Bava Metsia 62a holds that it is necessary to save oneself over saving someone else if there's only resources for one to survive. Rav Moshe applies these principles to mitzvot and says that it is obvious that if one has the opportunity to do a mitzvah one should not and may not sacrifice it so that someone else can fulfill it. He quotes a Chatom Sofer who seems to imply otherwise and disagrees.
  13. ↑ Igrot Moshe EH 4:26:4 and OC 5:32:4 based on Ervin 54b and Bava Metsia 33a. In Eruvin, Rabbi Perida spent a lot of time teach a student 400 times and when he didn't understand it another 400 times. Bava Metsia 33a establishes that although a person may take care of their own monetary needs before others, he shouldn't be too exacting upon taking care of himself otherwise he'll abolish the principle of chesed. Rav Moshe says that although there is no fixed amount of time to allot to teaching Torah to those who need it, it is reasonable that a tenth of one's time is appropriate just like we find in the area of giving maaser of one's money to tzedaka. He adds that whereas for tzedaka it is recommended to give up to twenty percent of one's money, there is no such recommendation with regards to teaching since one needs to learn himself.
    • Yad Melachim p. 95 agrees with Rav Moshe and discusses the proof from Eruvin. Yalkut Gavriel Tzedaka 249:26 p. 39 quotes Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Derech Sicha p. 509) that one doesn't have to chase this opportunity but if approached one should give a tenth of one's time to teach in line with Rav Moshe. Yisrael Arevim 16:22 quotes that Rav Shimon Schkop (Intro to Shaarei Yosher) gave one tenth of his time to teaching. Shaarei Mechila v. 2 p. 326 quotes that he heard directly from Rav Ovadia Yosef that he agreed with Rav Moshe and also commented that Rav Ovadia personally followed that ruling. Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:281 agrees with Rav Moshe and quotes it from Rav Shneider as well.
  14. ↑ Shaarei Teshuva 482 quotes the Igeret Shmuel on Rut 4:5 that it is permitted to deceive another Jew into missing a mitzvah opportunity and doing it oneself. The Igeret Shmuel learns this from his interpretation that Boaz intentionally told Ploni hinted that he should not marry Rut since she is from Moav and potentially it is forbidden to marry a convert from Moav.
  15. ↑ Stealing a mitzvah that belongs to a person is forbidden and there is a penalty imposed by Rabban Gamliel to pay 10 gold coins (Chullin 87a).
  16. ↑ Shaarei Teshuva 658:12 writes that it is only permitted to deceive someone to take a personal mitzvah, however, regarding communal mitzvot obviously the mitzvah should be given to the greatest individual deserving of the mitzvah.
  17. ↑ Magen Avraham 658:12 writes a case in which a person has a personal etrog that he could use for the mitzvah and another town doesn't have any etrog. If he could still borrow an etrog for someone in his town and fulfill his basic mitzvah he should donate his etrog to the other town. The Bet Yakov 114 posits that this is only true if his donation would enable many more Jews to fulfill a mitzvah, but if it is a choice between keeping his etrog or donating it to an individual who otherwise couldn't fulfill the mitzvah at all and him just borrowing, it is better to keep his own etrog. His logic is based on the answer of Tosfot Shabbat 4a that one can do a minor sin to help out a multitude of Jews. The Eliya Rabba 658:12 disagrees and thinks that it is always best to donate the etrog to enable another Jew's mitzvah even if it is an individual Jew as long as he could still borrow an etrog. He adds that this is only true if that individual wasn't negligent. Furthermore, regarding chanuka candles, the Magen Avraham 671:1 comments that it is better to give up some of one's oil for another Jew to fulfill the basic mitzvah even if that means he too will fulfill the basic mitzvah as opposed to him selfishly doing the enhanced mitzvah himself. Chemed Moshe 671:2 disagrees with the Magen Avraham's application in Chanuka because he holds it is in fact mandatory to light according to the number of the night.
  18. ↑ Sukkah 52b tells about the son of Marta Bat Baytus, a very strong man, who wanted to take an extra large portion of a korban to the mizbe'ach and the rabbis did not let him because he should have shared it with others. Gevurat Ari Yoma 26b s.v. aval, Sfat Emet Sukkah 52b, and Meromei Sadeh Sukkah 52b all agree to this point that it is wrong to take more than a normal share of mitzvot. See Sfat Emet who says that the rabbis broke up the mitzvah of bringing the korban to as many parts as possible in order to facilitate as many people taking part in the mitzvah. However, at some point where multiple kohanim would carry a small piece of the korban that wouldn't be considered a mitzvah at all, they had one kohen do that job. Another aspect can be gleaned from Magen Avraham 147:11 who says that if one is unable to do the mitzvah of hagbah and gelila oneself one should honor someone else with the gelila and he should do the hagbah. This implies that it were to be possible to do it oneself one should do so in order not to give up a partial mitzvah that could easily be done by oneself.
  19. ↑ Michtam Ldovid OC 6, Chazon Ovadia v. 2 p. 819
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Which_Mitzvot_Take_Precedence%3F&oldid=29848"