Q&A: A Positive Commandment Overrides a Prohibition
A Positive Commandment Overrides a Prohibition
Question
Following the column on “the accursed”… If we assume that in every prohibition there is a problem beyond the mere fact that it was commanded against (and that this is the reason for the prohibition, meaning that without it there would be no prohibition), then I understand that when there is a rule like “a positive commandment overrides a prohibition,” the meaning is that, for the Torah, the “good” act of the positive commandment is worth more than the “bad” act of the prohibition. Otherwise, even without the prohibition he would not be able to do it because of the act itself. In my opinion this is also the explanation of the rule of “when both can be fulfilled,” etc. If so, what is the meaning of the limitation of “not at the same time” regarding override? If I know that the Torah’s will is that this act be performed even at the price of committing an act that is not good, then the timing seems irrelevant to me. Unless we say that the command exists even when there is no wrongful act, or we force the claim that the Torah’s preference for good acts applies only in their direct implementation, but that doesn’t sound plausible to me.
Thank you!!
Answer
None of these claims is necessary.
There is no necessity to say that, for the Torah, performing the act is worth more than the result of the transgression. It may be that the negative value is nullified if the act is done for a good purpose. That is the view of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) who hold that the prohibition is permitted in the face of the positive commandment; no prohibition exists. Therefore, when it is not at the same time, there is also no override. I also do not think that the relationship between the values necessarily follows from weighing the benefits, because there may be some other consideration for why a positive commandment overrides a prohibition: a desire to encourage people to fulfill commandments and not be afraid. An effect on the person, that love is greater than fear. And so on.
(I didn’t understand the proof you brought in parentheses.)
Discussion on Answer
To say that a positive commandment overriding a prohibition is considered as though there is nothing bad here at all is itself rather strange. Who said the permission should be expanded that far? Besides, it would mean that the commands are not fixed but changing. And indeed, most of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagree with this and hold that it is override, except in cases where that is its very commandment and the like. In my opinion, the existence of the negative value can be proven from the fact that when it is possible to fulfill both, and he nevertheless uses override, he commits a prohibition.
To say that a positive commandment overriding a prohibition is considered as though there is nothing bad here at all is itself rather strange. Who said the permission should be expanded that far? Besides, it would mean that the commands are not fixed but changing. And indeed, most of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagree with this and hold that it is override, except in cases where that is its very commandment and the like. In my opinion, the existence of the negative value can be proven from the fact that when it is possible to fulfill both, and he nevertheless uses override, he commits a prohibition.