mitzvah

He sent him back word saying, You have fulfilled with us, O our master, the mitzvah of sending portions one to another (and gifts to the poor).

Ravina raised a difficulty: And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashteranim bene ha-ramakhim (Esther 8:10)? Rather we perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle. So too they perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle.

Ravina raised a difficulty: And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashteranim bene ha-ramakhim (Esther 8:10)? Rather we perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle. So too they perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle.

Where it is the custom to say a blessing, he should say it. Abaye said: They taught this only about the blessing after the reading, but before the reading it is a mitzvah to say a blessing, since Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: All of the mitzvoth—one says a blessing on them as one passes [over] them to perform them.

“If the first reads four verses he is praiseworthy”, as we have learned “There were three baskets holding three se’ahs each, in which the priests take up the money-offerings out of the [shekel] chamber, and on them were written Aleph, Beth, Gimel, so as to show which was taken out first, so that sacrifices could be brought from that one first, since it is a mitzvah to offer from the first.

Our rabbis taught: Accessories used in a mitzvah [when worn out] may be thrown away; accessories of holiness are must be placed in a geniza. The following are accessories used in a mitzvah: A sukkah, a lulav, a shofar, tzitzit. The following are accessories of holiness: large sacks for scrolls of Scripture, tefillin and mezuzot, a mantle for a Sefer Torah, and a tefillin bag and tefillin straps.

Our rabbis taught: Accessories used in a mitzvah [when worn out] may be thrown away; accessories of holiness are must be placed in a geniza. The following are accessories used in a mitzvah: A sukkah, a lulav, a shofar, tzitzit. The following are accessories of holiness: large sacks for scrolls of Scripture, tefillin and mezuzot, a mantle for a Sefer Torah, and a tefillin bag and tefillin straps.

Mar Zutra said: The covers of scrolls which have worn out may be used for making shrouds for a met mitzvah; and this constitutes their “storing away.”

Assi said: A synagogue in which people make calculations, they leave a dead body overnight in there. You really think they leave a dead body overnight in it? Is this really necessary? Rather say in the end a met mitzvah will be kept there overnight.

“And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44)—it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.

Without mitzvot! Do you really think? Rather Abaye said: He is buried naked without that mitzvah.

“And Moses told the children of Israel of the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44). It is part of their mitzvah that [the section relating to] each one of them should be read in its season. Our rabbis taught: Moses established for Israel that they should enquire and give derashot concerning the subject of the day the laws of Pesah on Pesah, the laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, and the laws of Sukkot on Sukkot.

And if this is how the Torah punishes to one who facilitated the doing of a transgression like the ones transgressing, how much more so will the Torah grant reward to those who facilitate the doing of a mitzvah like the ones doing the mitzva.

The one who throws the stone, etc. One of the rabbis said to Rava: From what [basis are we stating the case] that he is cutting wood because it is optional? Perhaps he is cutting wood because [it is for a] sukkah or cutting wood [for the altar] (which would be a requirement and not an option), and even this, Scripture said, he should be exiled [for doing something required]?! He (Rava) said to him: since he found it cut and he does not cut [it himself], it is not a mitzvah, also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah.

The one who throws the stone, etc. One of the rabbis said to Rava: From what [basis are we stating the case] that he is cutting wood because it is optional? Perhaps he is cutting wood because [it is for a] sukkah or cutting wood [for the altar] (which would be a requirement and not an option), and even this, Scripture said, he should be exiled [for doing something required]?! He (Rava) said to him: since he found it cut and he does not cut [it himself], it is not a mitzvah, also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah.

Ravina challenges this to Rava: [this case] excludes the father who strikes his son, the teacher who rebukes his student, and the messenger of the court, lets say, that since [the child is already] learned, it is not a mitzvah [to strike his son], also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah [and therefore not required]. There, even though he is learned, it is a mitzvah [to strike him], as it is written: ... “correct your son and he will please you. He will give delight to your soul.” (Proverbs 29:17).

Ravina challenges this to Rava: [this case] excludes the father who strikes his son, the teacher who rebukes his student, and the messenger of the court, lets say, that since [the child is already] learned, it is not a mitzvah [to strike his son], also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah [and therefore not required]. There, even though he is learned, it is a mitzvah [to strike him], as it is written: ... “correct your son and he will please you. He will give delight to your soul.” (Proverbs 29:17).

Ravina challenges this to Rava: [this case] excludes the father who strikes his son, the teacher who rebukes his student, and the messenger of the court, lets say, that since [the child is already] learned, it is not a mitzvah [to strike his son], also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah [and therefore not required]. There, even though he is learned, it is a mitzvah [to strike him], as it is written: ... “correct your son and he will please you. He will give delight to your soul.” (Proverbs 29:17).

Rava returned and said: "I said nothing! [This is what I should have said:] 'When he comes with his friend into a forest' (Deuteronomy 19:5). What [does it mean] 'forest'? If he goes or if he didn't go [i.e. it's an optional act]. And if you were to think it were a mitzvah, could he be sufficient [in meeting his obligation] if he didn't go?"

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rava: "Is every case where it's written 'when (asher)' an optional action? From this [reasoning], 'When (asher) anyone has become impure fails to purify himself [they will be cut off from their people]' (Numbers 19:20)—if he wants to [touch a corpse], he can be impure, and if he doesn't want to he isn't impure; and a mitzvah corpse (of an unknown stranger) where it is not possible that [the finder] would become impure—would he be exempt [from the penalty of entering the Sanctuary while impure]?"

Rabbi Yishmael says (his response because he sees the verse as referring to Shabbat): Just as plowing is optional (not a Mitzvah) so too reaping is optional (i.e. these acts are only forbidden on Shabbat if they are done voluntarily as opposed to for Mitzvah reasons). It excludes the reaping for the omer (offering) as it is a Mitzvah.

Rabbi Yishmael says (his response because he sees the verse as referring to Shabbat): Just as plowing is optional (not a Mitzvah) so too reaping is optional (i.e. these acts are only forbidden on Shabbat if they are done voluntarily as opposed to for Mitzvah reasons). It excludes the reaping for the omer (offering) as it is a Mitzvah.

Rabbi Yishmael says (his response because he sees the verse as referring to Shabbat): Just as plowing is optional (not a Mitzvah) so too reaping is optional (i.e. these acts are only forbidden on Shabbat if they are done voluntarily as opposed to for Mitzvah reasons). It excludes the reaping for the omer (offering) as it is a Mitzvah.

A certain Rabbi asked Rava: From where do you know (really R. Yishmael) that this plowing is voluntary? Maybe it is plowing for the Mitzvah of the Omer and even in this case, God said, "you shall desist." He said to him: If he were to find the (field) already plowed, then he would not have to plow again.(Therefore), plowing is not a Mitzvah.

A certain Rabbi asked Rava: From where do you know (really R. Yishmael) that this plowing is voluntary? Maybe it is plowing for the Mitzvah of the Omer and even in this case, God said, "you shall desist." He said to him: If he were to find the (field) already plowed, then he would not have to plow again.(Therefore), plowing is not a Mitzvah.

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

He returned and said: That which I said before is not a thing (I could have given a better answer). Reaping is similar to plowing. Just as with plowing, if one found already plowed material, he does not have to plow another, so too with reaping, if he found it reaped, he does not have to reap again. And if you should think (that reaping, as brought by the verse) is a Mitzvah, if he found grain, (would he) not have to still reap? (Rather), it is a Mitzvah to reap and bring (new grain).

He returned and said: That which I said before is not a thing (I could have given a better answer). Reaping is similar to plowing. Just as with plowing, if one found already plowed material, he does not have to plow another, so too with reaping, if he found it reaped, he does not have to reap again. And if you should think (that reaping, as brought by the verse) is a Mitzvah, if he found grain, (would he) not have to still reap? (Rather), it is a Mitzvah to reap and bring (new grain).

Gemara: "The father is exiled for his son." But didn't you say (in an earlier Mishnah) that a father who strikes his son is not exiled? But he was learned (which is why he would be exiled, since it was not a hit of a Mitzvah). But you said, even when he is learned, it actually is a Mitzvah that he is doing [so he would not be exiled]. [Here, we're talking about when the father is a carpenter and his son] is a carpenter's apprentice [so he is just teaching him a trade—and he would not be exiled].

Gemara: "The father is exiled for his son." But didn't you say (in an earlier Mishnah) that a father who strikes his son is not exiled? But he was learned (which is why he would be exiled, since it was not a hit of a Mitzvah). But you said, even when he is learned, it actually is a Mitzvah that he is doing [so he would not be exiled]. [Here, we're talking about when the father is a carpenter and his son] is a carpenter's apprentice [so he is just teaching him a trade—and he would not be exiled].

Rabbi Simai expounded: "What is that which is written, 'One who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor one who loves wealth with income' (Ecclesiastes 5:9)? 'One who loves money will not be satisfied with money'—that's Moses our teacher, who knew that the three cities across the Jordan would not be effective at providing refuge until the three in the land of Canaan were chosen, but he said: 'A mitzvah has come to my hand and I will fulfil it!' [Understanding 'money' here to be 'mitzvot].

And Rebbi Elezar also said, a city that has no elders does not provide protection because we need "elders of the city", and they are lacking. It was said, a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It provides protection. And one says, It does not provide protection. According to the opinion that it doesn't provide protection, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it does provide protection, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can make a ben sorer omorer [a rebellious son]. And one says, It can not make a ben sorer omorer. According to the opinion that it can not make a ben sorer omorer, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can make a ben sorer omorer, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And a city that has no elders [is subject to a dispute between] Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Assi. One says, It can bring an eglah arufah [a decapitated cow]. And one says, It can not bring an eglah arufah. According to the opinion that it can not bring an eglah arufah, we need "elders of the city" and they are lacking. According to the opinion that it can bring an eglah arufah, it is just a mitzvah [to use elders].

And [a killer] can not go out [of the city of refuge], not to testify fro a mitzvah, not to testify for monetary cases, not to testify for capital cases. And even if Isreal needs him, and even if he is a great general of Isreal like Yoav ben Tzruyah, he can not ever go out, as the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25), "that he fled there". "There" shall be his dwelling. "There" shall be his death. "There" shall be his grave.

Just as the city protects, so to it's boundary protects. A killer who went outside of the boundrary [of the city of refuge] and the goel hadam found him. Rebbi Yosi haGalili says, It's a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and permitted for everyone else. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permitted in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and everyone else is liable for [killing] him.

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".

That we learned in a baraisa, The mitzvah of pea'uh is to separate from the standing grain. If one did not separate from the standing grain, he should separate from the bundles. If he did not separate from the bundles, he should separate from the pile until he smooths it. Once he smoothes it, [making it subject to maiser] he should separate maiser and then give it [to the poor. Thus it is subject to nullification if he makes it into dough. So why is this not also a good example of a case where it's possible to nullify the remedial commandment?].

Rather [when Rebbi Yochanon said] this and one other case, he was referring to [Pe'uh], but not oniess. Because where do we say that a vow made on public consent cannot be annulled? For an optional matter. But [a vow] related to performing a mitzvah is subject to annulment.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deutermony 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deutermony 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

And the reader reads. etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], The greatest of the judges reads, the second counts, and the third one says "strike him". In times when the lashes are many, he lengthens [the recital]. In times when the lashes are few, he shortens [the recital]. But we learned in our mishna, that he returns the beginning of the verses. [Why then does the baraisa say to adjust the length]? The mitzvah is to be precise, but if one is not precise then he returns to the beginning of the verses.

And Rebbi Chanania ben Gamliel also said, If one who transgresses a single sin looses his soul over it, one who performs a single mitzvah how much so does his soul be given to him. Rebbi Shimon says, It can be learned from its own place. That the Torah says (Leviticus 18, 29) "And the soul which performs will be cut off etc" and it says elsewhere

(Leviticus 18,5) "That a person will perform and live through them". This means that anyone who refrains and does not transgress a sin is given reward as if he does a mitzvah.