Q&A: Lesson 4 in Kiddushin
Lesson 4 in Kiddushin
Question
Lesson 4 in Kiddushin
- At the beginning of the lesson you presented Rashi’s understanding of “it is more of a commandment for him to do it himself than through his agent,” namely that he understands that if one handles the kiddushin himself he receives more reward (because “according to the effort is the reward”), and afterward you said that there is room to understand it differently: that it is a greater commandment when done by oneself because the commandment, when you do it yourself, is more enhanced. But how is that different from Rashi?? I didn’t understand. Indeed one receives more reward, because one invests more in it, and that is an expression of the fact that it is more enhanced.
- Is someone who did not violate a prohibition only in an intermediate state and not also righteous?? Is someone who is about to violate forbidden sexual relations and at the last moment hestops himself and overcomes his inclination is he only intermediate and not righteous???
- Does the rule that commandments require intent apply only to positive commandments?? And does the rule that commandments require belief (from your Torah) also apply only to a positive commandment? In other words what is the status of a person who restrains himself from violating a prohibition because he understands that the prohibition is bad and not becausethe Holy One, blessed be He, commanded it?
Answer
1. The claim is that the kiddushin are better or more valid, as opposed to an addition of reward that accompanies effort and not the quality of the kiddushin. Reward can be given either because the commandment came out more enhanced or because the person performing it invested more effort.
2. “Intermediate” is an expression for the zero-state that I defined there. If you want to expand on it, see my article on the sixth root.
3. A person who refrains from a transgression did not commit a transgression. What is the question? The opposite question is the relevant one: what is the status of a person who committed a transgression but does not believe in God and His commandments? In my opinion there is no transgression here. It is like performing commandments because of Maimonides’ rational determination at the end of chapter 8 of the Laws of Kings.
Discussion on Answer
I wrote it already. There is something of higher quality in this kiddushin. Just as there are commandments performed in a more enhanced way (an etrog or a lulav). Is there not enhancement of a commandment in Jewish law? That is what I brought from Birkat Shmuel regarding invalid bills of divorce.
I referred you to my article on the sixth root.
Do you also teach chapter 2 and chapter 3? To the same group? Is there a lesson every day or once a week? Do you give them source references, meaning do they need to prepare the passage first or not?
Two different groups. On Tuesdays they learn chapter 2 and on Thursdays chapter 3. There are no sources for preparation. Sometimes I tell them orally to look at something.
I wanted to thank you for the material you upload. It’s all so vital.
By the way, did you perhaps take teacher-training courses at Herzog College? You manage to turn something difficult into something obvious. I can’t imagine myself explaining something the way you do.
No. But don’t worry. Teachers don’t need that, because they don’t really study analytical learning at high-school ages, so they don’t have a problem explaining subtle ideas. Unfortunately, they deal mainly with translating the Aramaic.
In By Sending Forth Its Roots, sixth article, on pages 476 and 477 you bring various practical differences for the distinction between a positive commandment and a prohibition. And there you distinguish between the practical differences that appear on page 476 and those that appear on page 477. And I didn’t understand the difference between them. Could you clarify?
Why are you asking this here? On page 476 I bring halakhic implications of the difference between a prohibition and a positive commandment, but as I wrote, I am looking for the definition of the difference and not the implications. I am really looking for what causes those differences. On page 477 I explained the fundamental difference between a prohibition and a positive commandment. The case of coercion demonstrates that difference itself (it is not only an implication of it).
On page 517 in By Sending Forth Its Roots you explained that someone who keeps himself from violating a prohibition does not fulfill a commandment, but perhaps before the Holy One, blessed be He, it is good and he will receive reward. You wrote that you would not deal with this topic in the book. This relates to question 2 that I asked at the beginning. Maybe the time has come to deal with this topic? Does someone who overcomes himself and keeps himself from violating a prohibition really not fulfill a commandment??? Is that possible?
What is there to discuss? Clearly not.
So how can that be? Not a day goes by in my life that I don’t hear, “Strengthen yourselves over this, keep yourselves from doing that, and you’ll be righteous, and you’ll receive reward, and it’s a very great act that you overcome the inclination,” etc., etc.
Do you really think that someone who has a desire to sin and overcomes it is not doing a commandment here?
You are mixing up two things. The question whether he will receive reward for his efforts and the question whether by this he fulfills a commandment. Those are two completely different questions. There is no doubt that there is no commandment here; regarding reward, apparently there is.
What does “more valid” mean? Either something is valid, or it isn’t. There can be significance to the way the validity takes effect (more effort/more enhanced), but validity itself doesn’t come in degrees. No?
A person who refrains from a transgression did not commit a transgression, and by that fulfilled a commandment. Is it conceivable that someone who overcomes his inclination to commit a sexual transgression did not thereby fulfill a commandment, did not thereby bring joy to the Holy One, blessed be He, and will not receive enormous reward for it???? Therefore the question should be asked just as I asked it.