An Existential Commandment versus ‘One Who Is Not Commanded and Performs’

Opening post by the rabbi

An Existential Commandment versus ‘One Who Is Not Commanded and Performs’

Posted on 23/11/2006

| |

An Existential Commandment versus ‘One Who Is Not Commanded and Performs’

Here is another pathetic attempt to raise a topic that does not concern Reform Jews, Ethiopians, Haredim, Zionism, the historical truth of myths, SHQK, or AAS. Perhaps this time there will be more than 5 responses?

It is customary in halakhah to divide positive commandments into obligatory and existential ones. Ordinary positive commandments are obligatory. For example, the commandment of phylacteries, which one is obligated to put on every day. One who puts them on has fulfilled a positive commandment, and one who does not has failed to fulfill a positive commandment. By contrast, there are commandments that are not obligatory, and they are called ‘existential’ commandments (= commandments for one who fulfills them). There is no obligation to fulfill these commandments, but if you do fulfill them, you have fulfilled a commandment. For example, according to some views among the medieval authorities: Torah study beyond the morning and evening recitation of the Shema (according to the straightforward reading of Talmud Nedarim 8, and Rabbenu Asher’s commentary there). If I did not study, I did not violate a prohibition (it is not a failure to fulfill a positive commandment, although it is ‘neglect of Torah study,’ but this is not the place to discuss it), yet if I studied I fulfilled a positive commandment. The same is true of charity beyond what one is obligated to give.

The commandment of fringes, which is sometimes associated with existential commandments, is not an existential commandment but a conditional obligation (= one who wishes to wear a four-cornered garment is obligated to put fringes on it), exactly like Grace after Meals, which is conditioned on eating bread and having a formal meal, and no one would say that it is existential. The same applies to ritual slaughter.

An optional matter is a third category. Rabbi Lichtenstein already pointed out that an optional matter is not necessarily something neutral. Sometimes it is something very important, but from a formal-halakhic perspective it is not obligatory. Some would classify in this way work on character traits (although ostensibly it is included in the commandment to emulate God’s attributes). True, one who neglects an optional matter has not committed a transgression, but he is nevertheless different from an existential commandment, because even one who fulfills it has not fulfilled a halakhic positive commandment.

We now move to another category. According to most views among the medieval authorities, women can fulfill commandments from which they are exempt (time-bound commandments, or laying on of hands on offerings — women may lay hands voluntarily). There is, however, a dispute regarding the blessings over these commandments.

When women fulfill such commandments as those who are not commanded and yet perform, is this an optional matter? Or perhaps it is an existential commandment?

The Ra’avad’s comments at the beginning of Torat Kohanim are well known: women may fulfill these commandments just like men, that is, even where this involves a prohibition. For example, a mixture of wool and linen in fringes, or laying on of hands on offerings (= which entails the prohibition of performing sacrificial service). At first glance, if they are not obligated in the commandment, they are violating a prohibition (mixed fibers, or sacrificial service), and yet it is permitted to them. This implies that it is not an optional matter, since it is unreasonable that anyone would permit a prohibition in the case of an optional matter.

If so, apparently there is here something like an existential commandment. But my intuition says that this is not an existential commandment, but a separate category. After all, women are not commanded in these commandments at all. These commandments do not address them at all. It is like a minor who fulfills commandments (at least certain commandments, but this is not the place to discuss it). Put differently: if an existential commandment can be included within the system of commandments, the fulfillment by one who is not commanded seems not to belong to that system.

My questions:

1. A side question: are there commandments in the system of commandments that are only existential (charity and Torah study are obligatory commandments up to the halakhic threshold; only beyond that are they existential)?

2. Is the intuition that one who is not commanded and yet performs is different from an existential commandment correct? Is there evidence for this? Is there any practical ramification (perhaps regarding the rule that a positive commandment overrides a negative one. But in the case of fringes, according to the above Ra’avad, we see that there is not)?

3. If these are indeed two different categories, what is the definition of the difference between them? In what way does women’s fulfillment of these commandments differ from the fulfillment of existential commandments?

_________________

Source (the forum "Stop Here, Think"): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2090933&forum_id=1364