<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Rn. Toby Katz writes:<BR> <BR>> To me the difference is so intuitively obvious that I am having trouble even <BR>> putting it into words. There is one kind of mitzva that you are lechatchila <BR>> obligated to do -- like sukka, matza, shofar and a whole bunch more -- but <BR>> if something goes wrong, then you are patur (if you get sick, for example). <BR>> Then there is a whole nother kind of mitzva that only kicks in in the first <BR>> place if something goes wrong, if something needs to be corrected -- e.g., <BR>> going to the mikva if you became nidah (which status -- nidus -- would <BR>
> not even exist but for Chava's sin). <BR>> <BR>> In the first set of mitzvos, you seem to be saying something like, "There is <BR>> no chiyuv to make sure you are not exempt from these mitzvos." But <BR>> actually, there /is/ such a chiyuv. That is, you are not allowed to do something <BR>> deliberately that will cause you to be exempt from these mitzvos. Like, you <BR>> can't make yourself sick on purpose so that you won't have to eat in the sukka.<BR>> <BR> <BR>It seems to me you've named an issur, not a chiyuv: AVOID becoming patur. There are cases where we take positive steps to make sure we're chayav <BR>(arba kanfos comes to mind), but I don't think you're speaking of that.<BR> <BR>I question the idea that niddah is a case of something going wrong. Adaraba: <BR>if you're not menstruating, you're not ovulating; becoming niddah indicates that <BR>your body is functioning properly. (My daughter was having trouble with the <BR>frequency of her periods, and mentioned that if it weren't corrected, it could lead <BR>to cancer!)<BR> <BR>The physiology being thus, I don't see a reason to think of niddah as the <BR>result of Chava's sin. The pasuk only mentions pain of childbirth. You could <BR>add cramps to that, I suppose, but menses are normal and probably would <BR>have been, chet or no.<BR> <BR>As an aside, tumah is not intrinsically a bad thing. It's a barrier to, say, <BR>entering the Beis Hamikdash, in order to emphasize the kedusha of that <BR>place; and in the case of niddah, marital relations. But you become tamei <BR>
through tending to the dead, giving birth, and other aspects of normal living we <BR>
consider to be desirable within Torah.<BR> <BR>> You can't seriously be claiming that being in good health is just a <BR>> "situational" grounds for keeping the mitzva of Sukkos the way "getting divorced" > is a situational grounds for giving a get or becoming nidah is a situational <BR>> grounds for going to the mikva.<BR> <BR>No, I'm not. I didn't offer any examples of situational mitzvos, and didn't <BR>intend to imply that sukkah is one. Please forgive the confusion.<BR> <BR>I think Michael Kopinsky's reply better expresses what I was trying to say <BR>
when I suggest that mikvah is every bit as much a mitzvah as sukkah, <BR>
and therefore every bit as much a mitzvah performed with the entire <BR>
body:<BR> <BR>> I agree with your distinction between mitzvos for which the chiyuv is only<BR>> generated by the circumstances (like tevillas nidah) and mitzvos where the<BR>> chiyuv exists l'chatchila, even if the circumstances sometimes create a<BR>> p'tur. However, I don't know to what extent that is relevant. Birchas<BR>> hamazon is a mitzvah that is only generated by the circumstances, but it is<BR>> certainly a full mitzvah, and is counted in the various minyanei hamitzvos.<BR> <BR>Elly<BR><BR><BR><br /><hr />Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! <a href='http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews' target='_new'>Try now!</a></body>
</html>