Tuesday, September 12, 2006

tekiyas shofar and mitzvot lav le'henot nitnu

The gemara (R”H 28) tells us that it is permitted to use a shofar from a korban olah or shelamim because “mitzvot lav le’henot nitnu” – fulfilling a mitzvah is not considered a form of hana’ah. The Ba’al haMaor writes that this halacha applies only to the tekiyos of Rosh haShana which are mitzvos d’oraysa, but tekiyas chatzotzros which was done on a ta’anis would be prohibited. (It is unclear from the Ba’al HaMaor whether all tekiyos of R”H are permitted, or only the shiur needed to fulfill the mitzvah d’oraysa). At first glance this opinion of the Ba’al HaMaor is very difficult to understand. Firstly, tekiyas chatzotzros is also a mitzvah d’oraysa and not derabbanan – what distinction is the Ba’al haMaor trying to draw? Secondly, if the hana’ah one gets from having fulfilled a significant mitzvah d’oraysa which one would otherwise have to find some other way of accomplishing is not considered enough hana’ah to prohibit using the shofar, doesn’t it stand to reason that the hana’ah received from being able to fulfill a more minor mitzvah derabbanan is not considered significant enough hana’ah to create an issur? IOW, if mitzvos lav le’henot is a function of the shiur (quantity) of hana’ah received, then one would expect to draw the opposite conclusion as the Ba’al haMaor? There must be some other model of understanding mitzvot lav le'henot nitnu which the Ba'al haMaor subscribes to - to be continued bl"n...

10 comments:

  1. Perhaps as a thought one could make a distinction between shofar which is a mitzva to be shomea (acc to some rishonim) and therefore the pleasure of the listening does not bother us for one is fulfilling his mitzva with that, however by chatzotzros which the rambam states is a mitzva to blow them on a taanis similar to tefillah, there we are concerned on the benefit he would be getting from listening without getting a mitzva with that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:43 PM

    Is the BH"M referring to the shofar that is blown next to the chatzotzros on a ta'anis, or the chatzotzros themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Arthur Digby Sellers4:50 PM

    What is the heter to use this shofar (it's assur b'hana'a)?

    The answer is, I'm fulfilling a bona-fide mitzva, and that use is not classified as hana'a. If, however, I'm just being mikayeim an auxilliary mitzva (like the shofar on the sides of the chatzotzros), that is not enough of a "matir" to allow me the use of the chefta shel issur. The product of the use of that cheftza is still deemed hana'a.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon: I didnt see it, but if its from an olah or shelomim, id assume he means a shofar - chatzotzros were made of silver.

    A.D.S. I hear what you are saying, but if the mitzva is to blow, then what benefit is he getting? Are you saying the B"hM maintains that the hannah of fulfilling the mitzva is ossur here even though mitzvos lav lehonos, but thats only by a real mitzva?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Avromi, your original sevara (pleasure of listening) is said by the Sha'ar haMelech (though I may be misremembering the source). It seems to reduce the Ba'al haMaor's chiluk to ancillary pleasure vs. no ancillary pleasure, not d'oraysa vs. derabbanan. The Shu't HaRashba raises the issue of giving a lulav to a friend one is mudar hana'ah from on Yom Tov sheni - no ancillary pleasure from picking up a lulav, but the mitzvah is only derabbanan. Rashba says mutar, which fits your hesber nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Arthur Digby Sellers5:25 PM

    The mitzva of tekias shofar by a taanis does not constitute a "matir". Use of this shofar is prohibited. You need a good reason to remove that prohibition. A quasi-mitzva is not enough of a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. mitzvos lav lehonos nitnu

    ReplyDelete
  8. For a nice kasha from oneg yom tov and discussion, you can see here.
    http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2006/09/daf-yomi-sukkah-9-sukkah-in-rain.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, you're Avromi from daf notes! I added a link to you on the side.

    ReplyDelete
  10. thanks and im waiting for part 2 of your shtikel

    ReplyDelete