[Avodah] Mitsvat Sukkah is almost unique

[Michael Kopinsky]

On 10/9/07, Joseph Kaplan <jkaplan at tenzerlunin.com> wrote:
>
> REMT Writes: "I have seen it written in the name of the Vilner Gaon
> that the only two mitzvos encompassing the entire body are sukkah and
> yishuv Eretz Yisrael, with which he associated the pasuk "Vayhi
> v'shaleim --sukko um'onaso b'Tziyon."


When I heard R. Riskin quote
> that in a public lecture many years ago, one woman in the audience
> called out:  "what about mikvah?"  R. Riskin then added that to his
> list.


a) The mitzvah of tevillah in cases where it does exist d'oraisa is
"v'rachatz es b'saro bamayim v'taheir".  Is b'saro the same as kul gufo?

I actually can't figure out what b'saro means.  There are some places where
it clearly means meat - v'achal b'saro b'makom kadosh (source?)
skin - umichn'sei vad yih'yu al b'saro
In Tazria, it is clearly not skin - the pasuk uses (repeatedly) the term 'or
b'saro
What about yimol b'sar orlaso?  Are orlah and b'sar orlaso different things?

b)  Is the mitzvah of sukkah even kol gufo?  All you really need is rosho
v'rubo.  I assume that when the GR"A said it is different from other
mitzvos, he was focusing on the verb (teishvu, same as Yishuv E"Y) rather
than which body parts are necessary.  But how is teishvu (a state of being,
really*) different from v'halachta bidrachav?  Or v'chai bahem?  I guess
those aren't mitzvos sheyeish bahem maaseh.  Maybe Sukkah and YEY are the
only 2 mitzvos sheyeish bahem maaseh that involve a state of being.

*(which fits well with the GR"A's connection to the pasuk Vay'hi shalem)


> RAF writes concerning whether mikveh should be included in the mitzvot
> encompassing the entire body: "The mitzvah isn't to be in the mikveh, but
> to
>
> abstain from certain activities while tamei, and perhaps also to be as
> tahor
> as can be. The mikveh is the
> facilitator, but not the mitzvah itself. KNLAD."
>
> But the woman makes a bracha "asher kidshanu bemitzvotav v'tzivanu al
> hatevilah" implying that it is the tevilah -- that is, the immersion in
> the
> mikveh -- that is the mitzvah.
>

Is the nusach of the bracha always indicative of the maaseh mitzvah?  Take
al mitzvas tzitzis or l'his'atef b'tzitzis - is the nusach habracha a ra'aya
that the mitzvah is to wear a tallis / tallis katan?  The mitzvah is that
every tallis ( = 4 corned garment) that we wear should have tzitzis ( =
strings) attached.  The nusach habracha corresponds to the most visible
kiyyum hamitzvah, namely putting on the tallis, or dipping in the mikvah.
That doesn't mean it is the ikkar mitzvah.

That being said, I think there some cases where the tevillah may be the
ikkar mitzvah, or at least an integral part of the mitzvah, as opposed to a
machshir or a mattir.  Where the Torah says "v'rachatz es b'saro bamayim",
that may be saying that the t'vilah is the (or a) maaseh mitzvah.
Alternatively, it could just be a mattir - "v'achar kach yavo el
hamachaneh".  In the case of niddah, the passuk does not explicitly say she
has to dip.  (Vayikra 23:28 - "V'safrah lah shivas yamim, v'achar tithar.")
This is unlike zav, where it does explicitly say (15:13) he has to dip
("v'safar lo...v'chibes...").  Without seeing the gemaras*, I would not
likely be mechalek between niddah and the other cases, since it does have
the verb "v'achar tithar."  So either all the cases are a maaseh mitzvah, or
they're all a mattir (albeit for different things).  But I don't think the
nusach habracha is a ra'aya one way or the other.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071011/17304fa6/attachment-0002.htm>