Kosher Mitzvah
In the tenth root, you explained that kosher mitzvah has a certain halakhic status (as a means to a mitzvah), and yet it is not counted among the mitzvot.
A. In the end, why is it not listed? Because it is not yet a commandment in the strict sense of the word (analytical reasoning), or because the details of the commandments cannot be listed (enumeration reasoning)? If the first is true, why do we need the second reason?
on. Where do you get the idea that we must distinguish between the kosher we are commanded to do, which has a certain halakhic status, and the actual kosher (not necessarily necessary) such as buying a lulav, which has no halakhic status?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Someone argued to me that there is apparently no mitzvah that comes with the sin of procreation (someone who goes with a prostitute and has a son, fulfills the law of the land), and this proves that the kosher mitzvah (bringing forth) was not part of the mitzvah (may I have a son and a daughter).
I told him that even if we accept his logical conclusion (if there is no mitzvah, then it is not part of the mitzvah itself. By the way, do you agree?), there is a difference between the kosher mitzvah and the mitzvah of the land. The difference is that the mitzvah with regard to the mitzvah of the land of the land is not kosher, but rather the act of the mitzvah itself, but the mitzvah is the result, but the act is the act of bringing forth, which was not just kosher (and even in the act of the mitzvah it does not belong to the law of the land). He did not accept my words and said that there is no difference, and in essence:
The action of the mitzvah in a consequential mitzvah = the kosher mitzvah.
Who do you think is right?
I
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
