the "Mitzva" of Tevilas Mikva
The Talmud in Maseches Yoma 30b asks (according to girsas rashi) whether according to R' Yehuda who says that the Tevila of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Hakipurim is only "Mipnei Srach Tevila" meaning that it is not to make him Tahor necessarily but rather to get the Kohen Gadol to think about what he is going to do, if this Tevila has a problem of Chatzitza. The question the Talmud is asking is if the Rabanan established a new paradigm with new technical requirements or they left all the requirements as is, as if the Tevila was De'oraisa.
Why would the Talmud assume that Tevila is any different than anything else with the technical requirements remaining? If the Rabanan required that the Kohen Gadol put on Tefilin for some reason or other should we assume that the Tefilin don't have the requirements of regular Tefilin?
Tosfos in Nida 64b states that you cannot have a lechatchila/b'divevd halacha with regard to tevilas mikva because you are either tahor or not and either the mikva serves its purpose or not, if it does then you are tahor and if not then you are still tameh.
Tosfos says that lechatchila/b'edieved is only by mitzvos where the Torah says that there is a best way to do something and a less preferred method. However, where we are looking for a result or outcome of a specific ma'aseh then we cannot say one way of doing it is preferred if they both produce the same outcome.
We see from Tosfos that Tevilas Mikva is NOT a mitzva like other mitzvos so if the Rabanan required someone to do a Tevilas Mikva for some reason other than to become Tahor the requirements would be different and we should be able to say lechatchila/b'edieved.
This would explain the Talmud's question in Yoma does the Tevilas Mikva of the Kohen Gadol have a chatziza requirement because it is a whole different Tevila than the Tevela in the Torah which is not a Mitzva just a way for one to become Tahor.
(See also Tosafos in Eruvin 21B regarding Eruv. Very similarly Tosafos says that an Eruv cannot have "Bdiavad" and "Lechatchila". Just like Mikva, Eruv is a "Tikun", meaning it creates a factual situation and is not particularly a mitzva and therefore the concept of "Lichatchila, Bdieved" cannot apply. One cannot walk around alive only bideved but lichatchila be dead. A being is either dead or alive period. You can be "Mikayem" a Mitzva only bdiavad but cannot create facts on the ground which are only bdiavad. Think about it this way. If a person was only Yotzeh mikva bideved then everything he touches would be lechatchila tameh and only bideved tahor and so forth down the line. That makes no sense.
Why would the Talmud assume that Tevila is any different than anything else with the technical requirements remaining? If the Rabanan required that the Kohen Gadol put on Tefilin for some reason or other should we assume that the Tefilin don't have the requirements of regular Tefilin?
Tosfos in Nida 64b states that you cannot have a lechatchila/b'divevd halacha with regard to tevilas mikva because you are either tahor or not and either the mikva serves its purpose or not, if it does then you are tahor and if not then you are still tameh.
Tosfos says that lechatchila/b'edieved is only by mitzvos where the Torah says that there is a best way to do something and a less preferred method. However, where we are looking for a result or outcome of a specific ma'aseh then we cannot say one way of doing it is preferred if they both produce the same outcome.
We see from Tosfos that Tevilas Mikva is NOT a mitzva like other mitzvos so if the Rabanan required someone to do a Tevilas Mikva for some reason other than to become Tahor the requirements would be different and we should be able to say lechatchila/b'edieved.
This would explain the Talmud's question in Yoma does the Tevilas Mikva of the Kohen Gadol have a chatziza requirement because it is a whole different Tevila than the Tevela in the Torah which is not a Mitzva just a way for one to become Tahor.
(See also Tosafos in Eruvin 21B regarding Eruv. Very similarly Tosafos says that an Eruv cannot have "Bdiavad" and "Lechatchila". Just like Mikva, Eruv is a "Tikun", meaning it creates a factual situation and is not particularly a mitzva and therefore the concept of "Lichatchila, Bdieved" cannot apply. One cannot walk around alive only bideved but lichatchila be dead. A being is either dead or alive period. You can be "Mikayem" a Mitzva only bdiavad but cannot create facts on the ground which are only bdiavad. Think about it this way. If a person was only Yotzeh mikva bideved then everything he touches would be lechatchila tameh and only bideved tahor and so forth down the line. That makes no sense.
posted by funnyfundamentalist at 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home