Sunday, December 27, 2015

When Does "Mitzvos Lav Leyhanos Nitnu" Not Apply?

Yaacov Avinu commanded his children to bury him [Breishis 47/3]. The gemara [Sanhedrin 46] derives the mitzva to bury a corpse from the pasuk קבר תקברנו and the sons of Yaakov buried him in order to fulfill this mitzva [עיי"ש בגמרא וברש"י ד"ה ונימא].

The gemara [Sanhedrin 48a] teaches that according to the opinion that holds הזמנה מילתא [merely setting an item aside for a certain purpose already gives it a status of having been used for that purpose] if a grave was dug for one corpse, we may not bury a different corpse in that grave since the grave now has the status of being forbidden for benefit [since it was set aside as a grave, it adopts the status of a grave that has already been used].

The question is that the rule is that מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו [mitzvos were not given for benefit and are thus not considered benefit] so why is there a problem in using the grave for the mitzva of burying a different corpse?? There is no forbidden הנאה here because מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו??

Ahhhhh!!!!:-)

Answers the legendary “Rabbi Abraham Isaiah Karelitz” [חזו"א אהלות סי' כ"ב סקכ"ז] that we see from here that this rule of מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו only teaches that the very benefit or pleasure derived from a mitzva is not considered benefit. Therefore, the rule would apply only in an instance where the mitzva can be performed with no financial expenditure. However, when the mitzva costs money, it emerges that the person is deriving financial gain as well when he benefits from this item and that is forbidden.

Therefore one may not use this grave for a different corpse because graves cost money and by using the grave he is saving money he would have had to otherwise spend.

The proof for this is that the Ran says that it is permitted to learn Torah from an individual from whom one is מודר הנאה [forbidden to derive benefit] applies only to an instance when Torah is taught for free. But if he is saving money by learning from this person it is forbidden because it is considered benefit.

Not so fast…. A few notes [known in Lakewood as "הערות"]:

The Imrei Bina [Nedarim 16] affirms this principle from earlier sources but asks based on the Tosfos in Chullin [ק"מ ד"ה למעוטי] who says that it is permitted to bring an animal that is forbidden for benefit because מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו and we don't forbid it on the basis of the fact that the person is saving money for he will now not have to purchase another animal. So we see that even when saving money the rule of מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו applies.

The gemara in Nedarim [16b] says that one may benefit from a succah that is אסור בהנאה even though a succah costs money and he is saving money on shelter.

The Pri Megadim [Mishbatzos Zahav 32/27] says that one may benefit from tefillin that was made from leather forbidden for pleasure. This is despite the fact that the person is saving the money that other leather [not אסור בהנאה] would cost. We see again a proof against the principle that when saving money we don't employ the rule of מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו.  

מאוצרות הגר"א גנחובסקי זצ"ל ועוד האריך בזה


לרפואת 

אביגדור זאב הכהן בן ביילא

דוב בער בן שבע

יהודית בת חיה שרה

יונינה בעס בת תעמע

יעקב בן אסתר

עטרה רחל בת שרה מרים

רוזה פייגא בת קיילה