Question

Hello Rabbi,
I still haven’t finished reading the columns about the different kinds of commandments, but a question came up for me, and in a quick skim I didn’t see an answer to it later on in the discussion (if I’m mistaken, I’d be glad if you would correct me).
The distinction between a positive commandment and a prohibition is that a positive commandment indicates a requirement to fulfill something with positive significance, whereas a prohibition indicates a requirement to refrain from something negative.
Accordingly, someone who does not fulfill it simply does not advance, but also does not do something negative; rather, he remains at point zero. And this is indeed what we find: with a voluntary positive commandment there is no real problem in not fulfilling the positive commandment, though there is an advantage in fulfilling it.
However, with an obligatory positive commandment, it is explained that there is something problematic about neglecting the positive commandment. If I remember correctly, you wrote that the problem stems from the fact that there is an obligation to rise to that positive level, and it is not merely an option.
I agree with all this; I just thought the point could perhaps be sharpened based on what Kovetz Shiurim brings (and which has been cited here on the site several times): that in every commandment and transgression there are two elements: (a) the object-level substance of the transgression or commandment, meaning the benefit or harm inherent in it; (b) the command itself. I thought one could say that in neglecting a positive commandment, one violates the command, even though there is no problem of an actual transgressive reality (in the object-level substance). Agreed? It may be that the Rabbi already wrote this and I simply didn’t notice; if so, I apologize for the bother.
Thank you