Thursday, August 30, 2007

mitzvos lav l'henos nitnu (II)

R’ Shterbruch in Moadim u’Zmanin answers the Avnei Miluim’s question on mitzvos lav l’henos nitnu (see post here). The Ritva describes the heter to remarry as incidental to chalitzah and the status of tahara as incidental to tevila and not direct hana’ah. However, the case of eiruv is different. The issur of techum is not an extrinsic issur which eiruv happens to lift, but is intrinsically related to the eiruv. The issur techum depends by definition on one’s makom shevisa; eiruv does not lift that issur, but simply moves the makom shevisa so the techum has different boundaries. One might very well say that eiruv is not a matir at all, but is what defines the issur of techum. Therefore, since the hana’ah of moving the techum is a direct attribute of the eiruv, one cannot apply the principle of mitzvos lav l’henos nitnu.

The Rashba and Ran debate whether mitzvos lav l’henos nitnu means simply that the reward for mitzvos is not considered a hana’ah (which is what the Ritva’s question suggested) or whether it means that the physical pleasure that may accompany a mitzvah is also not considered hana’ah. The Ran asks: according to the Rashba’s opinion that mitzvos lav l’henos nitnu applies even when there is actual physical hana’ah, how does one understand the gemara prohibiting tevilah in a cool spring on a hot day (RH 28)? Why in that case is the physical hana'ah a block to performing the mitzvah?

4 comments:

  1. Chaim
    I have 2 questions on R’ Shterbruch's answer:
    1: how does it address the "sakin shel A"Z" case you mentioned
    2: Even if you say that the ability to travel is definitivly part of Eiruv. How does that answer the question, the Hanaah is not the traveling per se but rather whatever it is that you will be doing there. being able to do that is an indirect benefit of traveling

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2. The benefit is having the heter to travel, just like the benefit of chalitzah is the heter to remarry and the benefit of tevilah is the chalos tahara.

    Will get back to #1 when I have some more time bl"n

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chaim
    If the Heter is to travel per se why shoud it make a difference if it is for Tzorech Mitzvah or for any Tzorech the traveling is the same. the only difference is the Hannah when you get there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't understand - the gemara says that heter for eiruv in beis hakevaros is only if you hold that eiruv must be for tzorech mitzvah - without the tzoreh mitzvah you have a problem of hana'ah. It sounds like your question is the same as the A"M - the mitzvah of eiruv itself should take off the issur hana'ah without the need to come on to another tzorech mitzvah.
    Re: shechita, not exactly what R' Shternbruch says, but I would say that the chisaron of shechita is the issur of aina zevucha (see Shav Shmeytza who brings up this issue and the shitos rishonim on it). Again, shechita creates an issur, it is not matir an issur. By tevilah/chalitzah, the din tumah is not just a chisaron tevilah, but is an independent din, same with yevamah lashuk.

    ReplyDelete