משנה: הַקּוֹרֵעַ בַּחֲמָתוֹ וְעַל מֵתוֹ כָּל־הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין. וְהַמְקַלְקֵל עַל מְנָת לְתַקֵּן שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּמְתַקֵּן׃ MISHNAH: He who tears in his rage or about a deceased person44It is a rabbinic obligation to tear one’s clothes in mourning for a close relative. The question is whether such tearing, which in Mishnah 3 is declared not to induce liability for a purification sacrifice, satisfies the duty of tearing or whether another tearing will be needed after the end of the Sabbath., any who spoil are not liable. The measure1The minimum which makes liable. for one who spoils in order to repair is as for repairing.
הלכה: ג׳. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי בָּא. הֵיךְ מַה דְאַתְּ אֲמַר תַּמָּן. הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאתוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת כִּיפֵּר וּמֵבִיא אֲחֶרֶת. וַאֲמַר אוּף הָכָא. לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי קִירְעוֹ. אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ צוֹרֶךְ בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁלְדָּבָר. אֲמַר לוֹן. תַּמָּן הוּא גָרַם לְעַצְמוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא אַתְּ גָּרַמְתָּ לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וַאֲפִילוּ תַמָּן אַתְּ גָּרַמְתָּ לוֹ. שֶׁאִילוּלֵא שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לוֹ שֶׁיָּבֹא הֵיאַךְ הָיָה מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ מֵימַר דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there42Tosephta Pesaḥim 5:7, Menaḥot 5:3., “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one43For the unintentional Sabbath violation.,” so one should say also here44It is a rabbinic obligation to tear one’s clothes in mourning for a close relative. The question is whether such tearing, which in Mishnah 3 is declared not to induce liability for a purification sacrifice, satisfies the duty of tearing or whether another tearing will be needed after the end of the Sabbath., he did not accomplish his tearing. But it45Mishnah 3. The implication is that R. Jehudah would declare the person tearing his clothes a Sabbath violator since he declares liable for a Sabbath violation even if no particular intent was satisfied. must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself46By unintentional sinning he created the liability for a sacrifice., but here you caused it to him47Either this means that the relative caused it by dying or the rabbis caused it by decreeing the duty to tear one’s clothes.. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come48Since a purification sacrifice cannot be brought voluntarily, the priests’ court has to confirm his liability. how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon49The Mishnah may as well be R. Jehudah’s who also will agree that damaging actions are not sanctionable on the Sabbath.?
חֲבֵרַייָא בְעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. מַצָּה גְזוּלָה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בָהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. אֲמַר לוֹן. תַּמָּן גּוּפָהּ עֲבֵירָה. בְּרַם הָכָא הוּא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. הוֹצִיא מַצָּה מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בָהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin50The robbed or stolen mazzah is a forbidden object in his hand; neither the animal selected for the purification sacrifice nor the garment to be torn are intrinsically forbidden.. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover51Since the Sabbath violation has no connection with the Passover obligation, it is obvious that the answer is negative.?
תַּנֵּי. מַצָּה גְזוּלָה אָסוּר לְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. עַל שֵׁם וּבוֹצֵעַ בֵּ֝רֵ֗ךְ נִ֮אֵ֥ץ ׀ יְי: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. בַּתְּחִילָּה. אֲבָל בַּסּוֹף לֹא דָמִים הוּא חַייָב לוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. אֵין עֲבֵירָה מִצְוָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אֵין מִצְוָה עֲבֵירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. אֵ֣לֶּה הַמִּצְוֹ֗ת. אִם עֲשִׂיתָן כְּמִצְווֹתָן הֵן מִצְוֹת. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָן מִצְוֹת. 52This is from Ḥallah 1:9 (ח), Notes 218–223. In the Babli (Sanhedrin 6b, Bava Qamma 94a) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin1:1 (Notes 70–72) this is a tannaitic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating mazzah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed. It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes53Ps. 10:3. Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal! The Tosephta (Sanhedrin 1:2) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation54The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace.? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed55A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty.. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin56He accepts R. Jonah’s original logic.. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments57Lev. 27:34.. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds58He sides with R. Jonah’s final position against R. Yose..