Q&A: A Distinction Within Conditional Commandments
A Distinction Within Conditional Commandments
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Do you think it is correct to distinguish within conditional commandments between:
A. Commandments that it is fitting to strive to fulfill and to become obligated in. For example: tzitzit — it seems reasonable to me to say that God would want everyone to go around wearing tzitzit, which would keep him from straying after his heart and eyes, and would remind him of the commandments.
B. Commandments where the Torah is ambivalent to the situation that creates the obligation. For example: a guardrail. The Torah has no particular interest in building a house, neither positively nor negatively, but it directs a person how to build it properly.
C. Commandments where the Torah views the situation negatively in principle, but directs how to act properly within it. For example: a bill of divorce. The Torah does not want a man to divorce his wife, but if we have reached that situation, it commands how to conduct oneself properly within it.
Answer
The first two types are not really different. There is no halakhic obligation, but there is value in gaining a commandment. If you want to — do it. If you do not want to — nothing happened.
The third type is, simply put, a procedure and not a commandment. If you did it, the woman is divorced, and if not, then she is not divorced. But in the article I explained that this is not the case. At least according to the Sefer HaChinukh, there is a commandment to divorce one’s wife with a bill of divorce if he has set his mind on divorcing her. He writes that one who did not do so has neglected this positive commandment, and his punishment is severe.