Mitzvah Ha'Bah B'Aveirah: Part 1
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
ShareWhile reading these texts, take note of where the term מצוה הבאה בעבירה (a mitzvah achieved through transgression) is used, and whether it's brought by the gemara or Rashi. These are all the cases that appear explicitly in Talmudic literature; is there anything they have in common? Is this concept being used similarly throughout, or does it carry different connotations within different cases?
In particular, note uses that seem more formalistic/legalistic and uses that appear to be drawing more on moral reasoning.
(א) לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל.
(1)A lulav that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. The lulavof a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] and a lulavfrom a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, which must be burned along with all the city’s property, are unfit.
גְּמָ׳ קָא פָסֵיק וְתָנֵי, לָא שְׁנָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן, וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי. בִּשְׁלָמָא יָבֵשׁ — ״הָדָר״ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא. אֶלָּא גָּזוּל, בִּשְׁלָמָא יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״לָכֶם״ — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם. אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי אַמַּאי לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת הַחוֹלֶה״. גָּזוּל דּוּמְיָא דְּפִסֵּחַ, מָה פִּסֵּחַ לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא — אַף גָּזוּל לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, לָא שְׁנָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ וְלָא שְׁנָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ — ״אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ — הָא קַנְיֵיהּ בְּיֵאוּשׁ! אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֲנִי יהוה אוֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט שׂוֹנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה״ — מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס, אָמַר לַעֲבָדָיו: תְּנוּ מֶכֶס לַמּוֹכְסִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמֶּכֶס כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ הוּא? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִמֶּנִּי יִלְמְדוּ כׇּל עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים וְלֹא יַבְרִיחוּ עַצְמָן מִן הַמֶּכֶס. אַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר: ״אֲנִי יהוה שׂוֹנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה״, מִמֶּנִּי יִלְמְדוּ בָּנַי וְיַבְרִיחוּ עַצְמָן מִן הַגָּזֵל. אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: יָבֵשׁ פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָדָר, גָּזוּל פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה.
GEMARA: The ruling in the mishna is that a stolen lulav is unfit. ...Granted, a drylulav is unfit both on the first day and subsequently. It is unfit for use because the term hadar is used with regard to the four species, from which it is derived that we require beauty. And since in a dry lulavthere is not beauty, it is unfit. However, with regard to a stolenlulav, granted, on the first day of the Festival it is unfit, as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40), indicating that the four species must be taken on the first day from your own property. However, beginning on the second day of the Festival, why does one not fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, before the despair of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. The Merciful One says: “When a person sacrifices from yours an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). The term “from yours” indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, and this stolen animal is not his. However, after the despair of the owner, didn’t the robber acquire the animal with the despair? Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? Rather, is it not because the offering is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression? Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering” (Isaiah 61:8)? The Gemara cites a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn’t all the tax in its entirety belong to you? If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? He said to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and will not evade payment of the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I the Lord... hate robbery in a burnt-offering.” Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: From My conduct, My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery, even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings. It was also stated: Rabbi Ami said: A dry lulav is unfit because it does not meet the criterion of beauty, and a stolenlulavis unfit because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression.
שונא גזל בעולה - בעולות שאתם מביאין לי אני שונא את הגזל שאתם גוזלים אותם ואע"פ שהכל שלי ואף מתחלה שלי היתה:
I hate robbery in a burnt offering - In the Olah offerings you bring me I hate those which are stolen in that YOU stole them. And this is even though everything belongs to Me and even from its beginning it belonged to Me. [Why would G-d despise a stolen sacrifice if everything in the world already belongs to G-d?]
משנה: לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁירָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת פָּסוּל...
הלכה: לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ פָּסוּל כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם. מִשֶׁלָּכֶם. וְלֹא הַגָּזוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. זֶה שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל לוּלָב גָּזוּל לְמָה הוּא דוֹמֶה. לְאֶחָד שֶׁכִּיבֵּד אֶת הַשִּׁלְטוֹן תַּמְחוּי אֶחָד וְנִמְצָא מִשֶׁלּוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ. אִי לוֹ לָזֶּה שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה סֻנֵיגוֹרוֹ קַטֵּיגוֹרוֹ. שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשֶׁלְעִיר הַנִּידַּחַת. רִבִּי לָֽעְזְר אָמֵר. כָּשֵׁר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. כָּשֵׁר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. פָּסוּל. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּלּוּלָב שֶּׁהוּא פָסוּל. מַה בֵין שׁוֹפָר וּמַה בֵין לוּלָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. בַּלּוּלָב כָּתוּב וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם. מִשֶׁלָּכֶם. לֹא מִשֶּׁלְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָייָה. בְּרַם הָכָא י֥וֹם תְּרוּעָ֖ה יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶֽם: מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. אָמֵר רִבִּי לָֽעְזְר. תַּמָּן בְגוּפוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא. בְּרַם הָכָא בְקוֹלוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא.
MISHNAH: A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified. Of an ashera or a seduced city, it is disqualified...
HALAKHAH: “A robbed or dried up lulav is disqualified,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Rebbi Levi said, to what is one compared who takes a robbed lulav? To one who honored the ruler with a basket and it turned out that it belonged to the latter. One says, woe to this one whose defender became his prosecutor.
A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city: Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for benefit. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound.
דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר הרי שגזל סאה של חטין טחנה לשה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה כיצד מברך אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ ועל זה נאמר (תהלים י, ג) בוצע ברך נאץ יהוה...ועד כאן לא קאמר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב התם אלא לענין ברכה משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה
The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of one who robbed another of a se’a of wheat, then ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and he then separated ḥalla from it, i.e., he separated the portion of the dough that one is required to separate and then give to a priest, how can he recite the blessing over the separation of ḥalla? This individual is not reciting a blessing, but rather he is blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: “The robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord” (Psalms 10:3), which is referring to a robber who recites a blessing upon performing a mitzva with an item he stole...
And perhaps Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov states his opinion there, where one robbed another of wheat, only with regard to a blessing, because this is a mitzva that is performed through commission of a transgression, but this does not indicate that a change is insignificant with regard to other matters.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: תִּשְׁעָה וְעֶבֶד — מִצְטָרְפִין. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְלֹא מָצָא עֲשָׂרָה, וְשִׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה. שִׁחְרֵר — אִין, לֹא שִׁחְרֵר — לָא. תְּרֵי אִיצְטְרִיכוּ, שַׁחְרֵר חַד וְנָפֵיק בְּחַד. וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה כׇּל הַמְשַׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״? לִדְבַר מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי: מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הִיא! — מִצְוָה דְרַבִּים שָׁאנֵי.
On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten...With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose (to make a minyan).
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח: בְּחִטִּים, בִּשְׂעוֹרִים, בְּכוּסְּמִין וּבְשִׁיפוֹן וּבְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל. וְיוֹצְאִין בִּדְמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בַּחַלָּה וּבַתְּרוּמָה. אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. חַלּוֹת הַתּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר, עֲשָׂאָן לְעַצְמוֹ — אֵין יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. עֲשָׂאָן לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק — יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן.
MISHNA:These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matzaon the first night of Passover...And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made from properly tithed grains, but even withmatza made from doubtfully tithed produce, andmatza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed...However, one may not fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor withmatza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor withmatza made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed.
דמאי הא לא חזי ליה - ואמרינן לקמן מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל חמץ לבדו אתה יוצא בה לשום מצה יצא מי שיש לו איסור אחר א"נ הויא לה מצוה הבאה בעבירה:
Isn't doubtfully tithed produce not suitable for [matzah]--And we say later on, that which [would be] forbidden only because of the prohibition "do not eat chametz," can fulfill the obligation of matzah; this excludes things that possess another prohibition. Alternately, it is a mitzvah achieved through transgression.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.
We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.
רש"י פסחים לה:
טבול מדרבנן–ואפ"ה מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא חשיב לה...
Rashi on Pesachim 35b
Untithed produce by rabbinic law--And even so, this is concerned a mitzvah accomplished through transgression...
