Responsa for Bava Batra 260:12
א"ל ר' אסי לר' יוחנן כי אמר לן מר הלכה הכי נעביד מעשה אמר לא תעבידו עד דאמינא הלכה למעשה
and the [other] Master holds that a practical decision is [of] greater [importance].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, 'is a teacher', (Jast.) Since a practical case has been decided in agreement with R. Johanan, one may decide similar cases accordingly. A statement that the halachah is in agreement with R. Johanan would not enable one to act accordingly, unless, as stated infra, it was specifically added that it was to be taken as a guide for practical decisions. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Shut min haShamayim
They responded: we do not make comparisons between commandments. 3cf. Bava Batra 130b:11, אין אומרין בטרפות זו דומה לזו. For there are simple commandments, such as Sukkah and Lulav, and the punishment for negating them is severe, because it is tantamount to a rejection. Negating part of a commandment is not the same as negating all of it, for 'the Torah was not given to heavenly angels'.4The Torah is not stricter than normal people can bear. Cf. Yoma 30a:2 etc. All this they responded to me in truth. It seems that the punishment is not as severe as for one who negates the commandment of sitting in a Sukkah. Nonetheless, we are still at fault. For we do not put on tefillin for fear lest we flatulate or fall asleep while wearing them. Yet it is better to negate part of a commandment than all of it.*A similar ambiguity is noted by Tosafot on Shabbat 49a:6 - without denying that Tefillin should ideally be worn all day long, they note that 'we are lax with tefillin, just as they were lax in Talmudic times too'.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy