Rashi and Tosfos disagree as to whether the issur of "lo tishchat al chameitz dam zivchi" applies only to the one offering the korban or whether all of the bnei chaburah participating violate an issur. In either case, Tosfos (Pesachim 63a d"h hashochet) writes that the korban itself does not become pasul.
Question for thought: why is the korban not pasul because of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira?
The simple answer is as follows: Tosfos (Sukkah 30) distinguishes between a lulav made from an asheira tree, which is not pasul because of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira, and a stolen lulav, which is. In the former case, the aveira does not *cause* the mitzvah to happen; stealing a lulav *causes* you to be able to have a lulav to shake. Similarly, owning chametz does not *cause* the korban to be kosher; it's an ancillary detail.
Nice try, but it doesn't work. The very same Tosfos that draws (or seems to draw) goes on to ask why matzah made of tevel is not pasul because of mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira. Tosfos leaves the question unresolved. The issur tevel does not *cause* the matzah to come into being -- it's just an ancillary defect. It should be just like the lulav from the asheira tree. Yet Tosfos does not answer the question, which suggests that the key factor in defining mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira is not simply causation.
If matzah shel tevel is theoretically mitzvah haba'ah b'aveira according to Tosfos, why not a korban pesach offered while chametz is in one's possession? What's the chiluk?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the Yerushalmmi's version of Lulav haGazul (Sukkah 12a in the Vilna edition) the explanation is:
ReplyDeleteא"ר לוי זה שהוא נוטל לולב גזול למה הוא דומה לאחד שכיבד את השלטון תמחוי אחד ונמצא משלו. אמרו אי לו לזה שנעשה שניגורו קטיגורו.
If it's related to ein qateigor na'aseh saneigor, it appears to be about the cheit causing a pesul in the cheftza.
Having chameitz in your posession doesn't taint the matzah -- different cheftza.
Tosfos clearly does not learn like this yerushalmi or there would be no question from matzah shel tevel.
DeleteI found this https://www.etzion.org.il/en/mitzva-ha-baa-be-aveira-part-ii when looking for a Brisker discussion of mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveira and cheftza. (Felt like it would be a natural.)
DeleteBut I don't get your question... A matzah made of tevel would be a pesul in the cheftza, or in the Y-mi's idiom, turning the matzah into a qateigor. So if Tosafos do hold that MhBbA is a din in cheftza, they would ask this question and not necessarily have an answer.
"why is the korban not pasul...?"
ReplyDelete[figuratively speaking,] because the original korbans pesach had been shechted in the presence of internal chameitz-- bnei Yisrael went out next day b'yad ramah (nonetheless, Hashem redeemed them; Hashem, v'lo malach; Hashem, vlo saraf...)
Consider this chakirah about the prohibition of lo tishchat al chametz:
ReplyDeleteDoes the sin focus on the act of *sacrificing* this korban, at a time when you still own chametz?
Or does it focus on the act of *owning chametz*, at a time when you are bringing the korban pesach?
I propose that if option 1 is true, then your question is strong. This person fulfills the mitzvah through an act which itself is also a ma'aseh aveira. Much like eating matzah shel tevel.
But if option 2 is correct, then we can distinguish tevel, because here the sinful *act* is possessing the chametz -- not bringing the korban. The korban is ancillary to the aveira, and it's just a condition (time) for the sin of possessing chametz. Unlike tevel, where the act of eating this matza is precisely the same act which performs the mitzvah and the aveira.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteיש לומר כמו שאוכל מצה ויש לו חמץ אינו מצוה באה בעבירה ה״נ האיסור לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי הוא עוד זמן שהוא אסור לשהות חמץ ברשתו הוא לאו יתירא וזמן חדש לאיסור חמץ
ReplyDelete