Hi Rabbi Kornfeld and Rabbi Chrysler!
I can't tell when the below question was asked/answered but I did like the question. Even if the Chachamim can be mevatel a mitzvah b'shev v'al taaseh, that does not mean that the person can go ahead and put himself voluntarily in a situation where he needs to bench...does this mean that the baal keri can only go ahead and eat bread when he has a chiyuv (i.e. Shabbos) but during the week he must refrain so as not to put himself in a situation that would then cause him to violate a mitzvah d'Oraysah due to a d'Rabbanan? And...even on Shabbos maybe he is better not eating...?
I am considering this specifically in regard to the mitzvah of Reiyah. In Chagigah we see that there is an aseh of Reiyah and a lo saaseh of coming without a korban. What if a person cannot afford a korban or cannot acquire a korban? Should he go anyway to get the aseh or should he stay away so as not to violate the lav? Here there is the added question of aseh docheh lo saaseh which may, nevertheless, not apply in the Mikdash in any case but the above would go along way to helping understand this question. Can he put himself in a place where he will be b'ones on a lav even if it is for the purpose of being mekayem an aseh?
Wondering if you may have any thoughts here.
Thanks so much!
Yeshayahu
Yaakov asked:
>>The Mishnah says that a Ba'al Keri does not make the Berachah beforehand and is Meharher afterword (for Birkas Ha'Mazon). According to Rav Chisda who holds that Hirhur Lav k'Dibur Dami, it comes out that he is bringing himself to a situation of Ones through eating bread since the Chachamim forbade him to Bentsch.<<
The Kollel replied:
>>A Ba'al Keri is also Chayav to Daven, yet Takanas Ezra stops him from doing so. So why is Birkas ha'Mazon more of a problem than Tefilah (which is also basically d'Oraisa, according to many Poskim; Keri'as Shema certainly is), yet they forbade him to do so?
Are you suggesting that he should not eat in order not to bring about a Chiyuv to recite Birkas ha'Mazon?
The answer to these questions is based on the established principle that the Chachamim have the right to issue decrees which prevent people from performing Mitzvos (such as not blowing Shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos, and not holding the Lulav when Sukos falls on Shabbos) as long as they are "b'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh," which all of the above cases are (and not "Kum va'Aseh" (such as violating Shabbos or eating a forbidden food).
Eliezer Chrysler<<
I am going, bs'd, to try to tackle the question mentioned in the second paragraph of the first question: "Should he go anyway to get the Aseh or should he stay away so as not to violate the Lav?... Can he put himself in a place where he he will be b'Ones on a Lav even if it is for the purpose of being Mekayem an Aseh?"
1) We may be able to understand this more if we look at Kesuvos 40a and Tosfos there, DH Kegon. The Gemara states that we only say that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh with a Mitzvah similar to Milah when there is Tzora'as on the place of Milah. It is impossible to perform the Mitzvah of Milah unless one cuts the Tzora'as, so one is allowed to remove the Tzora'as (which is normally prohibited by a Lav). However, the case of the person who was Me'anes a Mamzeres, mentioned in the Mishnah in Kesuvos 39a, is different. There we do not say that he must marry her in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of "and she shall be his wife" (Devarim 22:19), even though this transgresses the prohibition of marrying a Mamzeres. In that case, there is a way of avoiding the application of the Mitzvah of marrying her -- namely, if she says she does not want to marry him. Therefore, we instruct her to say that she does not want him (Rashi).
2) Tosfos (DH Kegon) asks why is it permitted to wear Tzitzis of Sha'atnez? There should be a way of "Efshar l'Kayem Shneihem" in that case as well: one can do the Mitzvah of having wool as the strings of Tzitzis if one is careful that the four-cornered garment also be woolen, and this way it is not necessary to transgress Sha'atnez! The Ri answers that for a linen garment it is not possible l'Kayem Shneihem. Since Techeles is wool, the only way of doing the Mitzvah of Tzitzis on a linen garment is by transgressing the Lav of Sha'atnez.
3) Tosfos then has another idea. Perhaps we should say that since it is possible to wear wool, we should say it is forbidden to wear a linen garment. Tosfos answers that this solution is not considered "Efshar."
4) The Pnei Yehoshua explains that this is not considered "Efshar" because some people want to wear specifically a linen garment, while they are not particular whether the strings should be wool or linen.
5) I would like to suggest that the same idea might apply with the Ba'al Keri eating bread. Some people want to eat bread. Just as the Pnei Yehoshua writes that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh applies and allows the person to fulfil his desire to wear linen, so, too, we say that we permit the Ba'al Keri to eat bread.
6) However, looking again at Yeshayahu's question it is not clear to me what exactly is the connection between the Sugya we have been learning recently in Dafyomi -- about the Berachos of the Ba'al Keri in the Mishnah (Berachos 20b) -- and the question of the pauper who cannot afford the Korban necessary in order to be able to enter the courtyard of the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Tov. In the Sugya in Berachos 20b, blessings are a Din d'Rabanan, and a Ba'al Keri not saying words of Torah is also a Din d'Rabanan, so the Rabanan have the power to tell the Ba'al Keri not to recite their Berachos. The only question would be according to Rav Chisda who says that the Ba'al Keri may not even think in his mind Birkas ha'Mazon, which is mid'Oraisa, as Yakov asked, and on that Rav Chrysler answered that the Chachamim have the right to prevent people from performing Mitzvos "b'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh." We also learned this recently in Dafyomi (beginning of Berachos 20a). Rashi (DH Shev) writes, "There are many matters for which Chazal permitted uprooting a Torah Mitzvah in order to make a fence for the Torah... if the Torah Mitzvah is not uprooted actively, but only passively."
7) Back to the question of the pauper entering the Azarah: This seems to be connected to the Gemara in Kidushin 29b which states thst if a person has in front of him two Mitzvos -- (a) redeeming his firstborn son, (b) going up to the Beis ha'Mikldash on Yom Tov -- and he possesses enough money to do only one of these Mitzvos, he should first do Pidyon ha'Ben and only afterwards go up to Yerushalayim. The question is, what is the point of going up to the Beis ha'Mikdash if he has now just used up all his money on redeeming his son and he has no money left with which to buy a Korban? He will not be able to enter the Azarah anyway! The Rashash answers that he should go up because possibly he might obtain a loan in Yerushalayim, or somebody may give him an animal as a present to use as his Korban Re'iyah.
8) The Or Chadash on Kidushin answers by asserting that when the Rambam (beginning of Hilchos Chagigah 1:1) writes that someone who came to the Azarah on the first day of Yom Tov and did not bring an Olah has not only failed to fulfill the positive Mitzvah but has also transgressed a negative prohibition, this applies only to someone who has the financial capablity of buying a Korban. A very poor man who cannot afford a Korban does not transgress the Lav and is allowed to appear in the Azarah without a Korban.
9) We notice that neither the Rashash nor the Or Chadash mention the idea of Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh to allow a pauper to come to the Azarah without a Korban. We can say, like you pointed out, Yeshayahu, that this is because the Gemara in Zevachim 97b states that Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh does not apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom