Koireia b'chamosoi

[TakehBored]

In Gemora Shabbos 105b it says that it is mutor to rip clothes in a show of anger if it is lemirma imsa a'inshei beisei (to instil fear in his household), and it brings some dugmaois of Amoira'im that actually did it. And that's takeh how that the Rif and Rosh pasken in that sugya, that's it's mutor.

The question is that the Alter Rebbe in Shu"a (Shemiras guf v'nefesh uBal tashchis se'if 14) paskenes that anyone who destroys anything of his property is oiver on the Loi sa'ase of Loi sashchis es eitza, and even if his intention is to show anger to instil fear in his household who aren't acting properly he is still oiver. And the question is what is the mokor of the Alter Rebbe for what he writes? Seemingly there is a b'feirushe gemora opposite of what he paskenes, and the poskim pasken like that Gemora, so what is the Alter Rebbe's mokor?

Shuv ro'isi that the Lechem haponim already asked the question in Kitzur Shulchan aruch (siman 190 hagaho 2).

[The Rambam takeh Doesn't bring that it is mutor to be destroy in order to be matil eima, he only writes generally (Melochim P6 H10) that " not only trees are included in the Isur (which is the original isur in the posuk), even someone who breaks vessels or tears clothes... Transgresses the is ur of bal tashchis, ak"l. Which from the Rambam words one might deduce that the Rambam also holds that it is osur, but the Hagahois Maimoniyois there writes that the Rambam is only speaking in a case of destroying without reason, but in a case where he is doing it l'hatil eima it would be mutor, v'duk.

Oid yesh leayen b'shitas hoRambam is if he holds it's a Isur d'oiraisa but you don't get Malkus, or it's only an Isur d'rabanan, but from the Alter Rebbe it is muchach that he holds that it's an isur d'oiraisa.]

The S'dei chemed (P'as hasodeh, Kelolim, Ma'areches habeis siman 47, page 1592d) bring from some Rov in Liadi who wrote in the kuntres Koiheles shloime to answer the question that the Alter Rebbe holds like the S'mak (siman 175) who is mechalek between keilim chadoshim which are osur to keilim yeshonim which are mutor, and the koiheles shloime wanted to answer l'fi zeh that when the Alter rebbe writes osur he learned like the S'mak, and was reffering to keilim chadoshim, but keilim yeshonim are always osur.

But the s'dei chemed asks on this terutz, that we find that the Rif and Rosh in the sugya in Shabbos don't hold like the Smak as mentioned earlier, in this that they brought the gemora kiksovoi without being meachlek, and nuch mer that Toisfoif in Kidushin (32a D.H. Rav Yehuda) holds clearly that the heter applies even to keilim chadoshim, and so too is the dei'ah of the Smag (lavin 229) who writes that it is mutor to be koireia to be matil eima because the gain of hatolas eima is greater that the hefsed of hashchasa, and he clearly holds that there is no chiluk. And therefore, concludes the Sdei chemed it is not mistaber that the Alter Rebbe would pasken like a yochid (the Smak) neged roiv Rishonim (Rif, Rosh, Toisfois, Smag).

The Sdei chemed answeres that B'etzem the Alter Rebbe holds that it is mutor even by keilim shleimim vechadoshim, and this that he writes not to do it is al pi divrei ha'Me'iri in the sugya there who writes that even though it is mutor, nevertheless a person should not get himself used to doing this (er zol zich nit aingevoinen in dem) so anoshim she'einom mehugonim should not learn from his ways. And even though the Alter Rebbe could not have seen the Me'iri, as the Me'iri was printed after the Alter Rebbe's times, but the da'as of the Alter Rebbe was mechaven l'da'as haMe'iri, ad kan toichen tirutzoi shel haSdei chemed.

But Tirutzoi dorush biur LA"D, because the Alter Rebbe writes that he's mekalkel, and if medina it is mutor and only mishum sheloi yilmedu vechulhu it shouldn't be done, it is not a kilkul. And even more if medina it is mutor how can koireia lhatim eima be oiver the isur of bal tashchis, and from the words of the Alter Rebbe it is clear that he is oiver?

Va'avakesh mikoirei hagilyon leho'ir baze.

[Torah613]

Interesting issue.
2 points:
1) See LS v 18 p 465 where apparently he learns the AR like the Smak, Chinuch (and Rosh!) - but interesting that he doesn't bring the Sdei Chemed. He also doesn't bring the Rambam.
2) I'm afraid you didn't translate properly, the Smak is being mechalek between broken and whole keilim/ not old and new (see also Encyclopedia Talmudis v 3 p 337).

[Torah613]

Slightly related:
See R' Alteins haoro in last weeks Haoros ubiurim (if you don't have it - go to the website).

[BitulTorah]

See also Eikev 5719
Lahak printed it a couple of yrs ago

[TakehBored]

Torah613, you're right. Since I don't have seforim with me I was quoting from memory and I translated incorrectly. When I'll have a chance I'll correct it.

I don't have the old sichos from Lahak, is there any way to get it online?

Rabbi Altein brings in a connection to M'leches Shabbos, B'emes the Lechem haponim is metzayen to the Magid mishne (Shabbos p8 h8, in the defus in kitzur it says h7, but licheoira it's muchach that he means h8) who writes that the mokor to the din of Choivel b'soin'oi is chayov for the hoitzo'as dam that he did even though it's a kilkul, is because he has hano'ah from it, and the mokor for this din is koirei al meisoi (Shabbos 105b, Rambam Shabbos p10 h10) which is the same place in rambam where the Rambam brings the chiyuv of koireia b'chamosoi, and from there he brings a ra'ya that it's mutor according to the Rambam.

so we see that al kol ponim to the ba'al Lechem haponim (R' Shloime Gantzfried ?) they are connected. ma she'ein ken if it would be a kilkul according to the Rambam one would not be chayov, as is muvan b'pashtus from the Gemora there when it learned koireia b'chamosoi kipeshuto it said that you can't be chayov because it's k'ilu oived avoda zara and is not a tikun.

[Ude'asinan lehochi yesh l'hoir, even though it should be koiveia a thread for itself, that in m'leches koirea if koireia al menas lesaken is chayov or potur is a big sibuch. Starting with R' Akiva Eger's question on Toisfois Shabbos 73b. And the same kashya is also on the Alter Rebbe, that in siman 278 se'if 2-3, siman 317 se'if 6 he writes that koirea sheloi al menas litfor is chayov, but in siman 340 se'if 17 and in siman 508 se'if 3 it seems that as long as he is not mekalkel he is chayov, implying that koireia al menas lesaken even though it's sheloi al menas litfor is chayov. Same question is also on Beis Yosef Between siman 317 and siman 340.

And in siman 302 se'if 4 the Alter Rebbe seems to go both ways, on the hand he starts that koirea sheloi al menas litfor is potur, but in the second half of the se'if he brings the case of nistabechu b'godov bekoitzim, that in the mekorois to that se'if (Yerushalmi Shabbos 49a, Rambam Shabbos p22 h24) it is clear that one would be chayov, (ach yesh lidchoik that the Alter Rebbe changed the loshoin slightly from the Rambam), and in the end of that se'if he brings the case Ptzias egoz b'matlis and he is metzayen to what he's going to write there, and over there it seems that bhe holds that you're chayov.

Ukevar he'erichu baze hoacharonim and most of them are seemingly very shver (to put it mildly), see Mishna berura siman 340 Biur halacha D.H. Veloi, Afikei yom Chelek 2 Siman 4 anaf 6, Avnei nezer (nidfas b'eglei tal hasholem simonim 30, 179. One of his answers is sheloi aliba dehilchesa, one answeres RAE's kashya but he learns different than poshut pshat in Toisfois, un in Alten Rebben geit es nit, he doesn't mention the Alter Rebbe).

The best answer that I have found so far is the answer of The Badei hashulchan (Siman 141 se'if koton 24) to be mechalek between Tikun b'guf habeged and tikun b'guf ho'odom, that on shabbos one is only chayov for something that is ( al kol ponim also) a tikun b'guf ho'odom, and with this mehalech it's shayach to farenfer all the setiros, u'bemes kevar kodmoi baze the mirkeves hashulchan in Hilchois shabbos perek 8 halacha 8. Vyesh lha'arich oid harbeh baze ki kotzarti baze bimeoid.

And once I have brought this badei hashulchan, ulai yesh loimar to farenfer Rabbi Altein's question by shabbos what is needed is a tikun b'guf ho'odom and therefore even though the tikum is not in the ma'ase that he did, but b'gufoi the tikun was done. Ma she'ein ken by bal Tashchis in order for the it to be al menas lesaken and not be considered a hashchasa the tikun has to be in the guf habeged. But I don't think that this could be an answer for the Alter Rebbe's psak because the original question was why does the Alter Rebbe pasken different than the rishonim, and this wasn't answered, but al kol ponim maybe this is an answer to Rabbi Altein's question].

[ChilinInCali]

Takebored, Ishtamet mimecha what the Yeshu'ois chochma writes in his hagahos to Kitzur SHU"A siman 190, (yesh loimar that the reason you didn't see it is because most prints don't have that part), and over there he writes that contrary to what was written in the kitzur, the Ri"f and Ros"h don't hold that it's mutor to be koire'a a beged sholem b'chamosoi.

And the ra'ya to this he brings from the fact that when the Ri"f and the Ros"h quote the gemora in Shabbos lahalacha they leave out the case of "Tovar nichtema" which is a dovor sholem. Also the chinuch in Mitzva 529 (hoitzoas Machon Yerusholayim and a couple of times in Likutei sichos, but in hoitzoas Moisad horav kuk they bring it as mitzva 530) writes that "umikol mokom hashgochosom hoyso bohem sheloi yehei dovor sheyehei nishchas baze", d'hainu he holds that it is osur. This is also the opinion of the Maharsha in chidushei agados in shabbos there.

Venamtzinu that contrary to what the sdei chemed writes, the majority of Rishonim (Rif, Rosh, Smak, Chinuch) actually hold that it is osur, and the Alter Rebbe actually paskened like the roiv. Vesoroh t'mihas ba'al lechem haponim.

BTW Torah613, this answeres how the Rebbe in Likutei Sichos writes that the Alter Rebbe holds like the Rosh.

[V'ein lehakshois why doesn't the Alter Rebbe write that it is mutor to be koire'a b'chamosoi if it's begodim mekulkolim that that is for sure the dei'ah of roiv horishonim? Because the Alter Rebbe is writing about hilchois ba'al tashchis, and not hilchos dei'os. v'ulai yesh loimar that even by begodim mekulkolim yehs l'himona mize k'chol d'efshor, u'r'eh Rambam Dei'os perek 2].