Anonymous

Aseh Doche Lo Taaseh: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 7: Line 7:
# One aseh can't override both a lo taseh and aseh. This idea is found in Beitzah 8b and Shabbat 133a with respect to Yom Tov.</ref>
# One aseh can't override both a lo taseh and aseh. This idea is found in Beitzah 8b and Shabbat 133a with respect to Yom Tov.</ref>
#In the bet hamikdash. Rava in Zevachim 97b says that we don’t apply aseh doche lo taseh in the bet hamikdash. His proof is that otherwise we should allow breaking the bones of a korban pesach to eat the meat inside the bones since eating the korban is a mitzvah. Rashba Eruvin 100a s.v. bha and Ritva 100a s.v. amar cites Tosfot as using this rule to explain why aseh doche lo taseh doesn't apply to sprinkling a mixture of bechor and olah blood. Rashi and Tosfot Eruvin 100a seems to ignore this rule and the Turei Even Rosh Hashana 28b s.v. hari points this out.  
#In the bet hamikdash. Rava in Zevachim 97b says that we don’t apply aseh doche lo taseh in the bet hamikdash. His proof is that otherwise we should allow breaking the bones of a korban pesach to eat the meat inside the bones since eating the korban is a mitzvah. Rashba Eruvin 100a s.v. bha and Ritva 100a s.v. amar cites Tosfot as using this rule to explain why aseh doche lo taseh doesn't apply to sprinkling a mixture of bechor and olah blood. Rashi and Tosfot Eruvin 100a seems to ignore this rule and the Turei Even Rosh Hashana 28b s.v. hari points this out.  
#If the mitzvah isn’t fulfilled simultaneously with the prohibition (B’idna). The Gemara Beitzah 8b establishes that one can’t violate an aseh that is overriding a lo taseh if they aren’t simultaneous. The example is that it is forbidden to dig dirt in order to fulfill the mitzvah of kisuy hadam on Yom Tov. Piskei Tosfot Zevachim n. 69 writes that there is no requirement that the mitzvah and sin are simultaneous if by definition there is no other way to fulfill the mitzvah unless a sin is performed. (See Ri Chaver’s question on this Piskei Tosfot.)  
#If the mitzvah isn’t fulfilled simultaneously with the prohibition (B’idna). The Gemara Beitzah 8b establishes that one can’t violate an aseh that is overriding a lo taseh if they aren’t simultaneous. The example is that it is forbidden to dig dirt in order to fulfill the mitzvah of kisuy hadam on Yom Tov. Piskei Tosfot Zevachim n. 69 writes that there is no requirement that the mitzvah and sin are simultaneous if by definition there is no other way to fulfill the mitzvah unless a sin is performed. (See Ri Chaver’s question on this Piskei Tosfot.) See Tosfot Bava Batra 13a who writes that a maaseh biyah isn't bidna of the kiyum of pru urevu even though it is necessary for the mitzvah.
#If the aseh was created because of your peshiya. Tosfot Eruvin 100a writes that if the prohibition is created by your negligence we don’t allow an aseh to override a lav. Tosfot Harosh 100a s.v. rabbi agrees. Rashba Eruvin 100a s.v. bha and Ritva 100a s.v. amar cite this from the Raavad and agree. Ayelet Hashachar Zevachim 80a adds that this is true even if the person who was negligent isn't the kohen who is doing the mitzvah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger Ketubot 40a asks on Tosfot because the gemara Ketubot 40a applies aseh overriding a lo taseh to a man who raped or seduced a single woman who is forbidden to him even though that mitzvah was created by his negligence. He answers that only if the mitzvah by definition is created by negligence we apply aseh doche lo taseh, otherwise we wouldn’t apply aseh doche lo taseh if the aseh could have been created without negligence and in this instance it is. Sfat Emet Zevachim 80a agrees based on Pesachim 83 that applies aseh doche lo taseh to burning notar on Yom Tov even though the mitzvah was created through negligence since by definition notar is always created through negligence.
#If the aseh was created because of your peshiya. Tosfot Eruvin 100a writes that if the prohibition is created by your negligence we don’t allow an aseh to override a lav. Tosfot Harosh 100a s.v. rabbi agrees. Rashba Eruvin 100a s.v. bha and Ritva 100a s.v. amar cite this from the Raavad and agree. Ayelet Hashachar Zevachim 80a adds that this is true even if the person who was negligent isn't the kohen who is doing the mitzvah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger Ketubot 40a asks on Tosfot because the gemara Ketubot 40a applies aseh overriding a lo taseh to a man who raped or seduced a single woman who is forbidden to him even though that mitzvah was created by his negligence. He answers that only if the mitzvah by definition is created by negligence we apply aseh doche lo taseh, otherwise we wouldn’t apply aseh doche lo taseh if the aseh could have been created without negligence and in this instance it is. Sfat Emet Zevachim 80a agrees based on Pesachim 83 that applies aseh doche lo taseh to burning notar on Yom Tov even though the mitzvah was created through negligence since by definition notar is always created through negligence.
#If the aseh is ita b’shayla and the lo taseh isn’t. Turei Even Rosh Hashana 28b writes that the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua didn’t allow applying aseh doche lo taseh to a case of a mixture of bloods is because the aseh wasn’t as serious as the lo taseh. That is, when the blood of an olah mixes with a bechor since the olah could be undone with hatarat nedarim the aseh isn’t as powerful as the kedusha of bechor which couldn’t be undone with hatarat nedarim. The type of logic is also found in Yevamot 5a.
#If the aseh is ita b’shayla and the lo taseh isn’t. Turei Even Rosh Hashana 28b writes that the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua didn’t allow applying aseh doche lo taseh to a case of a mixture of bloods is because the aseh wasn’t as serious as the lo taseh. That is, when the blood of an olah mixes with a bechor since the olah could be undone with hatarat nedarim the aseh isn’t as powerful as the kedusha of bechor which couldn’t be undone with hatarat nedarim. The type of logic is also found in Yevamot 5a.