Keser Rosh(132) An aveira Leshma has not been permitted at all from the time of the giving of the Torah otherwise why have the 613 Mitzvos
Horayos (10b) A transgression with good intent is more meritorious than the performance of a commandment with no intent; for it is said, Blessed above women Jael be, the wife of Heber the Kenite, above women in the tent shall she be blessed. Who are the women in the tent? Sarah, Rebeka, Rachel and Leah.
Nazir (23b): A transgression performed with good intention is better than a precept performed with evil intention.
https://minchasasher.com/shiur/parsha-shiurim/aveira-good-intentions-5776/
It would have seemed from this Gemara that one has an open license to commit an Aveira if one has a good intention in mind. However, Rav Chaim Volozhiner[5] flatly rejects such an interpretation. He says that if that were the case then there is no need for 613 Mitzvos. All one would need is good intentions; there would be no need for a structured list. He therefore says that once Torah was given that is the absolute rule. Only before Torah was given, and during our time to the B’nei Noach, there is permission to act in accordance to what seems to be correct, even if it’s an Aveira. What about Ya’el? To that he has two answers. Firstly that she knew and perceived deep Kabbalistic secrets pertaining to this relation. But none of us nowadays have such knowledge. Secondly, it was done to save all of Klal Yisrael.
The Ramchal[6] has a similar opinion to Rav Chaim Volozhiner. These Gemarahs play no practical role nowadays. Ya’el’s actions were a specific ruling due to deep Kabbalistic reasoning.
There are lots of approaches, and this has nothing to do with being before matan Torah. The events were after matan Torah.
ReplyDeleteThere is also oseh doche lo taaseh.
The Gemara says that gedolah aveirah lishma m'mitzvah shelo lishma
Problem is that shabbetai zvi used this Gemara with deep kabbalistic insights.
There is also eit leasot... Again not to do with Kabbala or Bnei noach.
First of all, remember that the entire thing about Yael being intimate with Sisera is midrash. There is no indication anywhere in the actual pshat that she did anything other than give him tryptophan laden foods that put him to sleep allowing her to kill him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a "the ends justify the means" excuse in halakha - es l'a'sos laShem!"
I don't understand the argument that if a sin leshem shamayim was mutar there would be no need for Taryag. The sin spoken about here obviously has to be of benefit, whereas a mitzvah is a mitzvah even if is not providing an immediate benefit. As others noted here, Rav Chaim and the Ramchal are prob. reacting to Shabsai Tzvi.
ReplyDeleteIn certain cases, sakana is more severe than issurim.
DeleteSo why not apply the same argument to that as well and say it's not valid?