Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba."

b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use to be able to do mitzvos and thereby come closer to the ultimate Good -- HaShem Himself.  Since HaShem cared enough to give the very best, He isn't going to give second rate best.

What b'di'avad really means is: given the current situation, what is the best course of action.  Not, "if I don't feel like doing my best, what can I do?"  To put this in concrete terms, imagine someone had a dental cavity.  Really he should have it filled right away.  Suppose he didn't take care of it, but fiddled around for a couple of years and now has a decay down to the bone in that tooth (I had reasons, k?).  Now there is lots of decay so we are looking at an extraction.  Using the vernacular, we would say, "L'chatchila have the cavity filled, b'di'avad having an extraction works."  It certainly does not mean that extraction is as good as a filing!  Rather it means that given the current situation, there is a new l'chatchila approach.  This is a great example, because even though having a filling is still an option, it's not a good option any more.  At this point a filling would cause more problems than it solves.

Taking an example from brachos: you are not allowed to make a bracha of "she'hakol n'h'yeh bid'varo" on cake.  However, once he has uttered that bracha, the option of making a "borei minei m'zonos" is no longer a good option because it would mean saying one Shem l'vatala.  Hence, the l'chatchila course of action at this point (having already made the she'hakol), is to eat the cake.

It comes out then, that halacha always demands that we choose the l'chatchila course of action, but b'di'avad (after the situation has changed) then the l'chatchila may change.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: Yetzer HaRa -- Spiritual Force of Tuma vs Physical Ta'avos

In any project planning, there are two basic approaches: top down and bottom up.  Top down starts with describing what you want done at the highest level that seems reasonable.  You then break that down into a list of things that are smaller in scope (they only accomplish part of the job) and are therefore easier to actually accomplish.  That process can is then repeated with each sub-project.  Each iteration produces a new set of smaller projects.  For any of the projects, the level above provides the "why" for the project of interest, and the projects below provide the "how" for the current project.  Bottom up starts, as it's name suggests, from the lowest level -- here is stuff I know I can do, and proceeds by asking "what can I do by putting this stuff together?" For example, I have a project to slake my thirst.  Top down would start by a requirement to get a cool drink into a container from which I can drink.  That breaks down into: (1) fin...