(1) Together with...

(2) - Although I understand where you got the phrase "redundancy for emphasis" (La'avor Alav b'Lav v'Aseh - Bava Basra 112a) the term is somewhat inaccurate. In general, whenever the Torah mentions both a Lo Saseh and Aseh, there are Halachic differences which result. One of these would be applying the principle "Aseh Docheh Lo Saseh" -- "A positive commandment pushes off a negative commandment," which is impossible due to the added Aseh (as we do not say "Aseh Docheh Lav v'Aseh"). If the Lav can be transgressed with an action, the Lav will make the transgression punishable by Malkus (as the Rashbam points out in Bava Basra) and will affect the type of Teshuvah that is required of him (see Yoma 86a, and Rashi on Vayikra 1:3 DH "Yakriv").

(3) - However, in this case we do not have to go this far, as you yourself mentioned in #3 that there is a difference between One Regel and Three Regalim. This is not circular logic at all, as the verses themselves imply that there are Halachic differences between the two commandments.

(4) - If you would like to see more differences between the Aseh and Lo Saseh of Bal Te'acher, look at the Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 575:12). The Sefer Hachinuch and Minchas Chinuch on Mitzva (575) are a good place to look for more information on this Mitzvah in general.

All the best,

Yaakov Montrose

Dear Norman

Shalom and thanks for your questions. The truth is that I wasn't able to review the sources you quoted, but I will refer you to Pesachim 24a. The Gemara explains that in any case where we can apply the two prohibitions to different cases, we do so rather than say they are redundant. Otherwise we say the second prohibition is just coming to add another Lav. This should help clear up the issue.

Kol tuv.

Y. Landy

There is a fundamental difference between every Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh, which is illustrated sharply in our case.

The Vilna Gaon in Even Sheleimah (5:9) writes that when someone consciously decides that he will not perform a Mitzvas Aseh, he transgresses the Mitzvah constantly during the time when he could possibly fulfill the Mitzvah. For example, someone who makes a conscious decision that he will not shake a Lulav on the first day of Sukos, transgresses the Mitzvas Aseh of Lulav (or at least an aspect of the Mitzvah) the entire first day. On the other hand, someone who transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh only does so at the point of transgression.

It seems that the Vilna Gaon and others understand the difference between an Aseh and Lo Saseh as a difference between a commandment to actively do something which is a constant commandment until the Mitzvah is done, versus a commandment to avoid a certain action or result.

It is important to add that whereas a Mitzvas Aseh is stringent in this regard, the severity of the actual sin of a Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh is viewed as greater than that of a Mitzvas Aseh (for more on this topic, see Yoshev Ohalim on Parshas Vayikra 1:4). This difference is especially apparent in our case, where the Mitzvas Aseh is to perform the Mitzvah on the first possible Regel, since the commandment is to actively perform it, while the Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh which is not to delay the offering for three Regalim.

All the best,

Yaakov Montrose

Note also that the Gemara learns from different verses how long the delay must be to transgress the Aseh and how long the delay must be to transgress the Lo Sa'aseh

M. Kornfeld

With regard to the Aseh of Bal Te'acher we can apply the Ga'on's principle as well. After one Regel elapses one is obligated to bring the Korban to the Azarah. He transgresses the Aseh every minute that he does not do so.

As for the Lo Sa'aseh, according to Rava the Lo Sa'aseh is not to delay bringing the Korban to the Azarah after three Regalim. It is not that one must bring the Korban within three Regalim. Every second that one delays the Korban is a new "point of transgression," which is why he once again transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh.

Best regards,

Mordecai Kornfeld