החיים והלכה
There are many halachos pertaining to brachos, for example:
מי שאכל בחוץ, כל זמן שהוא רואה את המקום שבו בירך בתחילה, עדיין נחשב שלא שינה את מקומו. ואם היה מהלך בדרך ובירך על אכילה או שתייה, אין שינוי מקום נחשב הפסק לגביו, שכל הדרך היא מקומו (שו"ע קעח, ד, מ"ב מב).
If a person is eating an ice cream cone outdoors and is moving around it can get very complicated. I once heard a rabbi telling his students not to eat while moving around because it creates many shailos. What always bothered me was; instead of telling people not to do something why dont you teach the halachos pertaining to that situation as opposed to preaching about NOT living normally. We live our lives and halacha guides us on when and how to make a bracha, for example. Hilkchos Brachos does t tell us not to eat ice cream. That kind of advocacy is not what halacha is about. We should be teaching people that they must know שו"ע או"ח סימן קע"ח.
The Gemara in Eiruvin 32:A,B, discusses a case where a "Chaver" tells an עם הארץ that he can pick fruit from the Chaver's tree. The question then arises whether the Chaver has to worry if the עם הארץ is going to be מפריש the required תרו"מ. Should the חבר go and be מפריש so that the עם הארץ won't eat תבל or should the חבר not go and be עובר an איסור of being מפריש שלא מין המוקף just so that the עם הארץ won't be עובר an איסור of תבל?. The גמרא calls that an איסור קלילא, a light איסור. Should one allow himself to be עובר a light איסור so that someone else shouldn't be עובר an איסור חמור.
Why dont we say that a חבר shouldn't allow an עם הארץ to pick fruit from his tree if ממה נפשך an איסור will be being performed? The answer is that he is not being עובר the איסור of לפני עור because he can be מפריש. Even though that is an "issur Klilah". Therefore chazal cannot tell a person in a situation where there is no איסור not to do something. The only thing the חכמים can do in that situation is to tell him HOW to act, whether he should be עובר and be torem sheloh min hamukaf or not.
Halacha tells us what we can and can't do as it pertains to our daily lives. Halacha tells us sometimes what we must or must not do. However, Halacha will not invade a space where it doesnt belong simply because we are then, by our actions, put in a situation that complicates the halachic implications.
We don't refrain from flying on chanukah because we might then not be able to light נרות. We rather travel and follow the halachic guidelines as to what a traveler is obligated to do. If he doesnt have to light because he is flying over night then so be it.
מי שאכל בחוץ, כל זמן שהוא רואה את המקום שבו בירך בתחילה, עדיין נחשב שלא שינה את מקומו. ואם היה מהלך בדרך ובירך על אכילה או שתייה, אין שינוי מקום נחשב הפסק לגביו, שכל הדרך היא מקומו (שו"ע קעח, ד, מ"ב מב).
If a person is eating an ice cream cone outdoors and is moving around it can get very complicated. I once heard a rabbi telling his students not to eat while moving around because it creates many shailos. What always bothered me was; instead of telling people not to do something why dont you teach the halachos pertaining to that situation as opposed to preaching about NOT living normally. We live our lives and halacha guides us on when and how to make a bracha, for example. Hilkchos Brachos does t tell us not to eat ice cream. That kind of advocacy is not what halacha is about. We should be teaching people that they must know שו"ע או"ח סימן קע"ח.
The Gemara in Eiruvin 32:A,B, discusses a case where a "Chaver" tells an עם הארץ that he can pick fruit from the Chaver's tree. The question then arises whether the Chaver has to worry if the עם הארץ is going to be מפריש the required תרו"מ. Should the חבר go and be מפריש so that the עם הארץ won't eat תבל or should the חבר not go and be עובר an איסור of being מפריש שלא מין המוקף just so that the עם הארץ won't be עובר an איסור of תבל?. The גמרא calls that an איסור קלילא, a light איסור. Should one allow himself to be עובר a light איסור so that someone else shouldn't be עובר an איסור חמור.
Why dont we say that a חבר shouldn't allow an עם הארץ to pick fruit from his tree if ממה נפשך an איסור will be being performed? The answer is that he is not being עובר the איסור of לפני עור because he can be מפריש. Even though that is an "issur Klilah". Therefore chazal cannot tell a person in a situation where there is no איסור not to do something. The only thing the חכמים can do in that situation is to tell him HOW to act, whether he should be עובר and be torem sheloh min hamukaf or not.
Halacha tells us what we can and can't do as it pertains to our daily lives. Halacha tells us sometimes what we must or must not do. However, Halacha will not invade a space where it doesnt belong simply because we are then, by our actions, put in a situation that complicates the halachic implications.
We don't refrain from flying on chanukah because we might then not be able to light נרות. We rather travel and follow the halachic guidelines as to what a traveler is obligated to do. If he doesnt have to light because he is flying over night then so be it.
posted by funnyfundamentalist at 8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home