Q&A: Does a conditional positive commandment override the neglect of a conditional positive commandment?
Does a conditional positive commandment override the neglect of a conditional positive commandment?
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
If someone normally wears tzitzit with a tekhelet thread, and it happens that he finds himself in a situation where he has no access to tzitzit with tekhelet but does have access to tzitzit without tekhelet—may he wrap himself in tzitzit without tekhelet? In other words, does the conditional positive commandment of the white strings override the neglect of the conditional positive commandment of tekhelet? Or perhaps is it preferable for him to refrain from wearing tzitzit altogether?
Best regards,
Answer
An interesting question. Common practice is indeed to put on white strings without tekhelet and not to refrain from wearing a four-cornered garment. That was also always the case before tekhelet was rediscovered. The question is why people indeed did not refrain from wearing the garment in order not to enter into neglect of the positive commandment of tekhelet. It is possible that fulfilling the positive commandment of the white strings at the price of being unable, under compulsion, to fulfill tekhelet is equivalent. You are performing an act of tzitzit and fulfilling it. What can be done if it carries with it the price of neglecting the positive commandment of tekhelet?!
For some reason, the reasoning seems to me to be that not wearing the garment cannot be preferable to wearing it and partially fulfilling the commandment. This reminds me of the Minchat Chinukh, who writes that certainly someone who did not recite confession together with repentance has not neglected the positive commandment of confession, for it is not reasonable that his situation should be worse than that of someone who did not repent at all.
But the matter still requires further consideration.
Discussion on Answer
I did not understand why this should depend on wearing tzitzit only when there is some uncertainty. Even when there is no tekhelet at all, or when it is clear to us that the tekhelet is not authentic, should we refrain from wearing a four-cornered garment because of neglecting the positive commandment of tekhelet? According to your approach at the end of your comment, why did people wear four-cornered garments throughout all the generations until our own day? After all, they were neglecting the positive commandment of tekhelet.
As for repentance, it really is similar. The Minchat Chinukh examines the position that this is a conditional positive commandment—meaning that if one repents, he is then obligated to confess. If so, there is no obligation to repent and not confess. Only if he repents and does not confess has he neglected the positive commandment of confession. And about this he writes that it is not reasonable that someone who repented and did not confess should be worse off than someone who did not repent at all, even though there is no obligation to repent.
I didn’t notice and I was mistaken. (I had in mind the case of doubtful tekhelet mentioned there in the quotation from Rabbi Saar Meisel’s words, and not like in the question, where there is no tekhelet at all.) In truth, when tekhelet is impossible, I have no opinion.
When he repents, confession becomes obligatory for him, but already now he is obligated to repent. Confession is a derivative obligation and not really similar to a conditional one. In other words, with tzitzit one can avoid a four-cornered garment and neglect nothing at all, but with repentance, if he does not repent he neglects the positive commandment of repentance. So the Torah did not say, “Repent,” only to create a stumbling block. What is the comparison?
I apologize for the mental fog; there’s no need to respond to all of the above.
Here, in the quotation, a claim is brought (from an expert advocate) that someone who has doubts about tekhelet because of uncertainty should not wear a four-cornered garment at all.
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=57924#p733893
As for the reasoning: the comparison to repentance does not seem sufficient, because there from the outset he is obligated to repent and confess. If he fulfilled part of his obligation, then certainly it cannot be that he is worse off (presumably that is what you meant anyway, but why?). But with tzitzit, why shouldn’t he simply take off the four-cornered garment and not neglect anything at all?
And regarding the main question, I did not understand why it is not obvious that it is forbidden and there is no override here, because one positive commandment does not override another positive commandment, and a conditional positive commandment, once the condition is met, is a regular positive commandment, as explained there and there. However, in your answer a new issue enters: partial fulfillment of a commandment—can it be that different parts interfere with one another?