Q&A: The Relationship Between a Commandment Fulfilled Through a Transgression and a Positive Commandment Overriding a Prohibition
The Relationship Between a Commandment Fulfilled Through a Transgression and a Positive Commandment Overriding a Prohibition
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask: what is the relationship between “a commandment fulfilled through a transgression” and “a positive commandment overrides a prohibition”?
On the face of it, the concepts seem contradictory: if a positive commandment and a prohibition conflict, then on the one hand the positive commandment overrides the prohibition, but on the other hand the positive commandment is not really a commandment since it comes through a transgression—so how could it override a prohibition?
Can one say with certainty that these are separate rules, meaning that there is never any case in which they would collide, based on the detailed conditions of each rule—for example, the requirement of simultaneity in the rule that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition, which limits that rule?
Or can one say that one rule takes precedence over the other, and when it does not apply we relate to the second rule?
Or is there some other way to reconcile the two rules?
Thank you very much!
Answer
A great many answers to this were already given by the medieval authorities (Rishonim), especially Rabbi David and Maharam Halawa in tractate Pesachim. Some wrote that “a commandment fulfilled through a transgression” applies only in cases of theft, whereas in other transgressions the prohibition is overridden. Others distinguished that “a commandment fulfilled through a transgression” applies when the conflict is not simultaneous. Others wrote that this principle applies only to commandments meant to bring appeasement, such as offerings and the four species, and there are many more approaches.
Any search you do online will turn up many sources.