Q&A: Exemption from an Obligation
Exemption from an Obligation
Question
Regarding the exemption that a person is not required to spend more than one-fifth of his assets in order to fulfill a positive commandment: does that mean that beyond one-fifth he is no longer considered "obligated in the commandment" at all (as if he were a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor), or does it mean that the obligation still rests on him, but in any case he is exempt from the actual fulfillment of that obligation in practice?
It seems clear to me like the second side, but it is a bit hard to formulate that well: how can it be that he is obligated and at the same time exempt from fulfilling what he is obligated to fulfill? It sounds like an oxymoron.
Answer
You didn’t define what exactly you mean. What does it mean that he is obligated but there is no obligation to fulfill it? Literally, that is indeed an oxymoron, but one can suggest definitions that still leave meaning to that statement. For example, that the failure to fulfill it is deferred, not permitted. For example, perhaps there is still reason for him to try to obtain more money so that he can fulfill the commandment. But if it is permitted, then there is no such reason. Although regarding the practical difference between something being permitted and being deferred, I already wrote in the past that I’m not sure there really are any. Tirgitz suggested something, and I no longer remember what.
And perhaps a practical difference would be if he had no money in the morning and therefore did not buy tefillin, but at noon he won the lottery. Is he considered deferred from that commandment, or is he required to buy tefillin already today?
https://mikyab.net/posts/76482/#comment-62910 🙂