Q&A: Existential Commandment
Existential Commandment
Question
With God’s help,
Hello Rabbi,
In a previous correspondence, the Rabbi mentioned that an existential commandment is a commandment that cannot be negated (as opposed to a conditional obligatory commandment).
1. Is there a source among the medieval authorities (Rishonim) / later authorities (Acharonim) that defines an existential commandment this way? I would appreciate it if the Rabbi could write one for me.
2. In searching online I came across this article, and it quite clearly seems that the Rabbi was involved in writing it. https://gabihazut.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A814-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%91.pdf
You touched there on the point of fulfilling an existential commandment in a situation of danger, but I didn’t find much elaboration.
My question is: does an existential commandment also override commandments that conflict with it? Can one fulfill an existential commandment in a situation of danger (assuming an obligatory commandment can be)?
Thank you very much,
Answer
1. I don’t currently remember a source, but I also don’t know what kind of source is needed. This is only a semantic question. What practical difference does it make whether this falls under the heading of an existential commandment or not? What matters is that there is such a category (if there is), and that it is not identical to conditional obligatory commandments (which can be negated). There is a well-known dispute between Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Avraham Shapira about the commandment of settling the Land of Israel. Rabbi Moshe argued that this is an existential commandment, and Rabbi Shapira argued against him that there is no such thing in Jewish law.
2. There is a Raavad at the beginning of the Sifra who discusses women performing laying-on of hands voluntarily (the fulfillment of commandments from which women are exempt, such as time-bound positive commandments), and says that even for women they override a prohibition. I argued (there or elsewhere) that fulfilling such commandments by women is of a lower order than existential commandments, since they are not commandments at all for them. With existential commandments, we are commanded, except that the type of command is existential (it is defined as fulfillment of a commandment, and there is no possibility of negating it; for women this is not even defined as a commandment). Therefore it is reasonable that an existential commandment would override a prohibition, at least according to the Raavad.
I have now found this (the thread is mine): https://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?cat_id=24&topic_id=2090933&forum_id=1364
Discussion on Answer
You mean if there is an existential positive commandment versus an obligatory positive commandment, which one overrides which.
Seemingly the obligatory positive commandment would override, since if you fulfill the existential one you have negated the obligatory positive commandment.
With God’s help,
I’m aiming more at an existential positive commandment versus x, and an obligatory positive commandment versus x.
Could it be that the outcomes would be different in the two cases?
In principle, yes. Why not? Even the Raavad’s view (that an existential positive commandment overrides a prohibition) is probably not universally accepted. One can think about the obligation to spend up to one-fifth of one’s assets on a positive commandment; perhaps that was not said regarding an existential positive commandment.
With God’s help,
Thank you very much.
1. True, and still I prefer not to define things myself unless I have to, but rather to rely on earlier definitions.
2. This is an example where there is no difference between an existential commandment and an obligatory commandment—both are commandment-acts, and therefore they are on a high level (override a prohibition, etc.).
I’m trying to understand whether there is priority for fulfilling an obligatory commandment over an existential commandment, or whether there really is no difference between them—aside from perhaps the category of one who is not commanded and yet performs.
In short, is giving one-third of a shekel during the year a stronger commandment, in terms of the rules of Jewish law, than giving the additional “epsilon” of charity?
Thanks,