A charge for neglecting to purchase wood

Hello Rabbi, on this website: https://shviit.co.il/ they offer the purchase of land in a tabu in order to fulfill the mitzvah of desertion during Shmita.

This initiative feels a bit strange, because I am buying land to fulfill a mitzvah and simply do nothing and thus fulfill a mitzvah…

Is it agreed among the poskim that such a move is indeed fulfilling a mitzvah?

Thank you!

You are abandoning your land/tree. What is the problem?

The intent of my question is whether there is value in it?
For example, we have accepted that there is value in wearing a four-panel garment because that way I commit to the mitzvah of tzitzit and then I put tzitzit on the garment and actively fulfill a mitzvah.

Is there value in making myself commit to a mitzvah that only requires me to be passive?

In other words, is there value in joining a venture and buying agricultural land in the land registry/buying wood? (Regardless of what is actually done with my money).

Thank you!

And again I will ask why not? Is there value in abandoning your land? Yes (even though it is in vain. Although it is worth discussing whether the act of abandoning is not a qa’a. Assuming that actual abandonment is necessary, as we will see). So now there is land that is yours. Its abandonment is a mitzvah. If so, buying the land caused you to perform another mitzvah. Why wouldn’t there be value in that? The discussion is about the mitzvah and not about entering into the obligation of the mitzvah.

Is there also value in buying a donkey so that it can rest on Shabbat and fulfill the “so that your ox and donkey may rest”?

Why not? If it was not – then no. But it did.

We do not find that people buy donkeys to pursue the mitzvah of the strike of the beast.

Possible explanations:
1. People do not pursue mitzvahs and are not good enough. In fact, we all need to start buying donkeys to rest on Shabbat.

2. We do not need to force ourselves into fulfilling a mitzvah, especially if it is passive (I wrote passive to distinguish it from the mitzvah of the tzitzit, where we do find that we force ourselves into an active obligation). If so, we do not need to force ourselves into buying land on Shabbat.

3. On Shabbat, we ourselves strike, the donkey is only a quantitative addition to the strike and therefore there is no need to pursue it. In light of this, it seems that it is enough to buy some land and not spend hundreds/thousands of shekels on buying land.

4. I came up with a startup that no one thought of and I will start selling shares of donkeys that strike on Shabbat …

I would be happy if the rabbi could point out the reasonable explanation why we still do not find that people pursue the mitzvah of striking your livestock and especially why on Shmita it is actually worth pursuing the mitzvah of striking land by buying land in the land registry?

Thank you very much!

In sending the nest, it is specifically written “because it calls”. Our rabbis taught that if a bird's nest calls before you, what is it to be said, since it is said, "Send, send the mother and take the young to you?" It is possible that it will return to the mountains and hills so that it can find a nest. It is to be said that it calls, in the event before you.
Perhaps if it returned to the mountains and hills, then even if it sent, it did not fulfill the mitzvah because it did not meet the conditions (and it is also somewhat similar to every word that says, "In the mercy of God, you will not work, if you do not work, not for your own good." And not only because of the reason it was read, but because of the language of the verse. And so in other mitzvots, there is no reason to think that if it returned to the mountains and hills, then it was not fulfilled. And if after returning to the mountains and hills there is a mitzvah, then simply there is also a matter of returning to the mountains and hills.

Azriel,
Many have already preceded you to this startup. Like those who sell donkey fat, etc.
But I don't understand your question. It is clear that there is no obligation, but it is equally clear that if you do so, you have a mitzvah. Is there value in accumulating mitzvahs? Absolutely. But there is no obligation to accumulate mitzvahs. And if you are busy with another mitzvah, there is certainly no reason to leave it to engage in this one. Therefore, I see no difficulty, and I don't understand what the discussion is about.

It is possible to discuss how much reward you will receive for such a mitzvah (because the reward is apparently according to the effort – le pom ts'era), but this is also true for someone who kills a donkey he has, just like someone who bought a donkey to kill.

Sando,
As is known, the Kabbalists disagree on this gemara (and the Rabbis there), and he already emphasized this in Havat Yair.

I didn't know that the Kabbalists were divided. I didn't find the ren. Neither on the ren nor in the niddushim.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37967&st=&pgnum=680
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14455&st=&pgnum=106
I will find the Yair farms in the evening and look into it.

In fact, according to the Gemara, only in the event before him, if he needs the chicks and eggs but he didn't go looking for bird nests for that, he went back and forth in the mountains and hills, found a nest and sent it. Is there a mitzvah? Or since it is not an event before him, then it is like putting a tzitzit on a garment that doesn't have four flaps.

From the wording itself, I would not conclude that there is no mitzvah in the case of the בקה. Although, from an explanation, it would seem that the entire definition of the mitzvah according to the Babylonian is that if one wants the chicks or eggs, one should send them, and then if one sends them and takes them only for the sake of the mitzvah, there is no mitzvah at all. The mitzvah is intended to prevent cruel taking (despite Mishnah 4, which says, “Your mercy shall reach a bird’s nest”), and not that there is a mitzvah of sending them. And the Kabbalists are ambivalent about this.

It is agreed that there is no mitzvah in a cruel take. But a non-cruel take when he returned to the mountains and hills (he wanted a ardilla and chicks to eat with dessert, but instead of going to his neighbor, the owner of the coop, he said for the sake of uniqueness and went out with a backpack and a stick) I did not understand why you would not conclude from the Gemara that even if he found there is no mitzvah.
It is clear that the Gemara did not think in Hava Amina that there is an obligation to return to the hills (because why think of such a thing that does not exist in any other conditional positive commandment such as tzitzit), and in ”matters” I do not think that the Gemara deals with and learns from verses. Therefore, Hava Amina, if he returned and found and sent, there is a mitzvah and the conclusion is no. How do you understand the course of the baraita if that is not so?

The Lord said that this was an unconditional commandment, and we learned from the verses that it was conditional.

[I'm not sure it's necessary, but I assume that even if we conclude laws based on the language of the verse and not on the reason for reading (or the scope of the mitzvah), then the reason for reading can still be used as an explanation and prevent the construction of a father (the explanation of what the mitzvah is, that such and such)]

Why do other conditional commandments know that they are conditional even without a verse? The tzitzit railing, the return of one's divorced wife, etc.

The Havat Yair (67) writes that one must send even if one is not interested in sons, and in accordance with the Zohar that the mercy of the place should be shown to his sons, as the bird grieves over its sons (and why should not a thousand thousands of birds and other animals and humans be shown to their sons who die and are lost to them. Job 33:11 “The wing of a swift and feathered bird is fastened, because it leaves the earth with its eggs, and on the dust it warms itself. And it forgets that the foot will be broken and the beast of the field will trample it. The one who hardens her children without her, in vain she will labor without fear. For the Lamb is wise, and she has no part in understanding”).
And there he proves that the Lord who returns to the mountains and hills means that in the event he is always obliged, so he can even in the event assume that from the heavens he must return to the mountains. I did not understand this evidence at all, what is the problem with interpreting that only if he needed chicks and was buying in the market, he would reproduce the word that whistled in the event.

There are several options for understanding the verse and the conclusion:
A. The verse is obliged from morning to evening to wander in the mountains to find birds. The verse is not obliged.
B. It is a good habit to wander in the mountains. The verse is not obliged.
C. The verse is if he wandered in the mountains and sent a message, he is fulfilling a mitzvah. The verse does not exist.

Option A is very remote. And that he will look for birds all his life. And why did they not demand that a new house be built? A builder of houses can build it all his days. If you strike an ox of your enemy, you will return it. He may search for oxen all his days, because you will strike. If you hear in one of your cities, a distant city, he may travel through the cities all his days, because you will hear.
Option B does not seem reasonable to me that the baraita requires verses regarding fear of God and chaste virtues. If there are other places where the Torah itself deals with the era of what is there that have chaste virtues, I would like to see them.
Therefore, option G: As the oleh blossoms, its buds ripen, grapes. And he is actually in the process of sending the nest, but a new house and an enemy's ox and a distant city if he built and searched for an ox and went to hear the cities, he merited the mitzvah.

In other commandments, this is also learned from the verses in one way or another. Sometimes it is presented as an explicit sermon and sometimes it is implicit in the interpretation just like that. Thus in the case of the tzitzit einan knafeot and this is learned from the verse.
I agree with your option c, but in my opinion it is just an expression of my interpretation (the meaning is that it is not conditional, and the meaning is that it is conditional).

A. From what I understand, your interpretation is option A. And it is not at all clear that even in the case of a va'a amina, he is obligated day and night to perform a positive mitzvah to find birds. And when will he harm enemy bulls? And will he listen to distant cities? This is an impossible va'a amina and not special to sending the nest.
B. Where do you learn about the other mitzvahs? Not that I would know if it was true, but it doesn't sound reasonable to me. Showing a place would be very helpful.
C. I didn't understand what the connection is with the wings on the tzitzit. We learn about the conditions in the mitzvah, what's the novelty?
D. According to option C, if he needs birds and goes out to woo in the mountains and sends them, he doesn't fulfill the mitzvah. Do you agree with that? According to option C, it is clear to everyone that sending the nest is a bad mitzvah because they are doing something bad. Therefore, the sermon specifically says here that it is so bad that if he woos, he has no mitzvah. But the other mitzvahs are conditional. If he woos to qualify for the conditions and fulfills the mitzvah, then he is blessed.

No one claims that he is obligated from morning to evening. The obligation can be formulated in several ways (such as once a day, for example, as they did in tefillin without a real source for this). It can be linked to a situation where he needs chicks or eggs that he must specifically look for a nest where the mother is laying on them, and so on.
B-C. In every conditional mitzvah, there must be a source for it to be conditional. Either from the exegesis of the Scriptures, or from the midrash, or from the rabbinical commentary, or from the commentary. I did not understand your question about the tzitzit. There is a condition there and the question is where it is learned. The fact that it must be a garment of the wings is learned from the ”tzitzit ha-knaf”.
D. I do not agree with this. In short, I explained the point in my opinion, and it does not really matter which of your formulations is similar to it.

So in your opinion, this hawa amina is not special for sending the nest. And why is it that in the other mitzvot that I cited (that you build a house because an ox strikes because it hears in one of your cities) I am not aware of such a sermon for the time when a person has a positive mitzvot upon him throughout his life? In your opinion, there is no answer to this unless you find a sermon for each such mitzvot.
I said that it is clear that the mitzvot is conditional and not an obligation throughout his life and that there is no need for a baraita. And the baraita came to raise a special issue regarding sending the nest, which is a bad mitzvah. With the tzitzit, it is not clear that only the four corners, therefore, require a sermon and it is not of our concern at all. I will look into the matter of tefillin. Let the chooser choose.

First, here too it is not necessarily a sermon. It is from the meaning (see Appendix B of the Book of Kiddushin regarding veshilach and shelcha). It is only formulated as a conclusion and conclusion, in order to teach what the verse of “ki yikra” is intended to teach. But we learn it from these words.
Beyond that, wherever the commandment is conditional, there must be a source for it. Otherwise, how do we know? Whether the source is presented in a commentary or not, it really doesn't matter. If it is an interpretation or sermon, it doesn't matter either. There is always a commentary or sermon or explanation or halm”m. That is by definition, why do we need sources. I gave a striking example of learning this from ”knaf”, which is conditional on a garment with fringes. You say that there is no clarity without the sermon, but I argue that this is not a sermon but the meaning of the scripture. And so it is here. It was possible to understand that this is an unconditional mitzvah, and therefore the verse wrote “that it may happen” to teach that it is conditional. It is clear to you, but only after the verse is written this way and by virtue of the fact that it is written this way.
I really don't understand the discussion here.

https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%97-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%96/
I found a lesson by R’ Asher Weiss that covers the whole matter. You were right. He says that indeed the Ho”a should not be interpreted as a positive mitzvah day and night, and the prophet interpreted it as if you were suggesting that the obligation is limited like tefillin and said that the Ho”a is obligated to return to the mountains once in his life to fulfill the mitzvah. R’ Who wondered there about the fact that it is a positive commandment (my first option) and suggests that the fact that it is a measure of chassidut and that even this does not exist (my second option). Although this is a new sermon for my era from the measure of chassidut. The face of horror for the Bible and I thought that in the verses there are only permitted and prohibited and perhaps decrees but not "matters".
And the main thing is the Shel who brings more sermons like this. In Jerusalem regarding a decapitated wagon “that a hollow is found in the ground” and not that one should search. Regarding a remote city I found that there is no such sermon and it turns out that there is and in my book “that you will hear in one of your cities“ and not the repeater. And another general sermon in the Midrash Rabbah that all the mitzvot in which it is written that you will see that you will be harmed because it is called, if a mitzvah comes to you, you need to do it and if not, you don't. As you said. Therefore, my option C, which is specific to sending the nest, falls off the agenda and we are going to options A-B.

I didn't see your last response when I sent mine. Indeed.

Hopefully, the Lord did not forget to bless “Baruch, who has directed me” (I have already blessed in the name and kingdom: Blessed is he who has shared his wisdom with me). 🙂

🙂
You mean that the prophet will bless
the commentary of the Gemara itself, R., which interprets the degree of Hasidism to return to the mountains as not even this.