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 |
