Q&A: The Reasons for a Rabbinic Ordinance and the Principle of “The Rabbis Did Not Distinguish”
The Reasons for a Rabbinic Ordinance and the Principle of “The Rabbis Did Not Distinguish”
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask: when the medieval authorities (Rishonim) write the reason for a rabbinic commandment’s enactment, then if a person does not fulfill the reason behind the enactment, does that also mean he has not fulfilled his obligation?
For example, regarding Purim, with gifts to the poor: if we say that the main enactment is for the sake of joy, then someone who gives a gift to a poor person on condition that it be returned has certainly given a gift, but there is no joy here. So do we nevertheless say that “the Rabbis did not distinguish,” and he has fulfilled his obligation?
Or do we say that “the Rabbis did not distinguish” applies only to protective fences and not to a positive commandment?
Kobi
Answer
It seems to me that with rabbinic ordinances we follow the wording of the ordinance, not its rationale (see at length the article by Rabbi Ze’ev Nechemiah Goldberg in Mevakshei Torah — Yom Tov, volume 2, in memory of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach).
My intention is to say that this is what is halakhically indispensable. But of course it is proper to act in a way that the rationale is achieved as well.
It seems to me that here there is no need to invoke “the Rabbis did not distinguish,” because the wording of the ordinance itself does not distinguish. Perhaps the sages who formulated it this way themselves made a consideration of “the Rabbis did not distinguish.” We merely observe the ordinance according to its wording.