Territory of a halakhic field
Hello Rabbi,
I’m having trouble formulating the question, so I’ll start with examples:
- There are poskim (for example, Aruch Shulchan Yod 1999, 39) who permitted the use of large vessels that cannot be immersed.
- There are some jurists who have permitted, in certain cases, going on a trip to a place where there is no minyan.
- In several places in the laws of doubt in blessings (for example, the Laws of the Blessing of Fruits, R. Y., 1), Maran does not require one to avoid or change what one wants to eat in order to avoid doubt, but only defines it as a recommendation (“it is good to be careful”).
Some of the above permissions are based on sources. However, there still seems to be a strong assumption in the background that a halakha on a particular subject is not “permissible” to go beyond its scope and prohibit another subject. Minyan halakha cannot prohibit going on a trip, and birakhot halakha cannot prevent eating in a certain quantity. This is especially clear regarding the immersion of vessels, where I have not seen any anchoring in the sources, but only an assumption.
Although there are some general issues in the background that are related to some of the cases (here, here, here, etc.), do you think it is correct to say that there is an opinion, as I wrote, regarding the territorial boundary of a halakhic field?
I don’t think it’s a relationship between different matters. If you engage in any activity in your own way, you are allowed to do so even if it raises a halakhic problem. You would be coerced. Therefore, I don’t think it has to do with territorial considerations.
For example, the Ritva discusses a person who blessed and now regrets and does not want to eat the fruit. Does he have to eat to save the blessing? He argues that he does not. This is a fairly similar argument (one should elaborate on this), and it deals with the same issue (eating and blessing over it) and not two different issues.
Interesting. In my opinion, what you suggest can explain the exemption from the minyan, but not the exemption from immersion. The person is not concerned with anything here, but rather chooses whether to use the vessel or not. As for the words of the Ritva, they are actually evidence of my words. The laws of blessings can dictate to you what to say, but they cannot force you to eat.
If my words explain the exemption from the quota, they also explain everything else. After all, if even in the case where there are not two matters, there is a similar principle, then even when there are two matters, the same thing is said and there is no need to assume that they are actually two different matters. That is what I wrote.
If eating and blessing are two matters, I don't know what would be called one matter from your point of view. This completely empties your proposal of its content.
Specifically regarding the Ritva, of course these are different matters. The same matter is blessings – yes/no/what to bless. The question of whether or not to eat after you have already blessed, goes beyond the rules of blessings.
But it doesn't matter, because what you said in the first paragraph is true. Thanks. I need to think about that.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
