(When) Do the Ends Justify the Means?

MISHNA: A lulav that was stolen...is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species.

It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.

§ Apropos the unfitness of four species acquired through robbery, the Gemara relates: Rav Huna said to the merchants [avankarei] selling the four species: When you purchase myrtle branches from gentiles, don’t you cut them off the tree? Rather, let the gentiles cut them and give them to you. What is the reason for this advice? It is because typical gentiles are land robbers,

and land is not stolen. When one seizes land, the land remains the property of its original owner, even if that owner has despaired. In this case, there is concern that these myrtle branches were stolen from Jews. Therefore, let the gentiles cut the myrtle branches, so that the despair of the owners will be when the myrtle branches are still in the hands of the gentiles and the change of possession will be accomplished through their purchase and transfer into your hands. The combination of owner’s despair and change of possession will render the myrtle branches the property of the merchants, and it will not be a mitzva fulfilled by means of a transgression.

HALAKHAH: ...Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Rebbi Levi said, to what is one compared who takes a robbed lulav? To one who honored the ruler with a basket and it turned out that it belonged to the latter. They said: Woe to this one whose defense attorney has become their prosecutor!

MISHNA: The mishna begins to discuss the primary mitzva of Rosh HaShana, sounding the shofar. All shofarot are fit for blowing except for the horn of a cow, because it is a horn [keren] and not a shofar...

Ulla said: This is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that the horn of a cow is unfit for sounding on Rosh HaShana. They say this in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: For what reason does the High Priest not enter the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, with his golden garments to perform the service there on Yom Kippur? It is because a prosecutor [kateigor] cannot become an advocate [sanneigor]. Since the Jewish people committed the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf, the High Priest may not enter the Holy of Holies to atone for the Jewish people wearing golden garments, as they would bring that sin to mind. The Gemara asks: But do we not use a cow in the Holy of Holies? But there is the blood of the bull that is brought there to be sprinkled on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that the Jewish people sinned with a calf. The Gemara answers: Since it has changed, i.e., it is not the bull itself, but only its blood, then it has changed, i.e., so it does not bring the sin of the Golden Calf to mind. The Gemara raises another difficulty: But there is the Ark, the Ark cover, and the cherub, all of which are plated with gold. If this is problematic, why are they in the Holy of Holies? The Gemara explains: What we are saying is that a sinner seeking atonement should not bring something made of gold into the Holy of Holies, as it would bring the sin of the Golden Calf to mind. The Gemara asks further: But there is the spoon and coal pan that are brought into the Holy of Holies, and they are made of gold. The Gemara answers: What we are saying is that a sinner seeking atonement should not adorn himself with ornaments of gold. The Gemara raises yet another question: But there are the golden garments the High Priest wears outside the Holy of Holies. The Gemara answers: What we are saying is that a sinner should not adorn himself with gold inside the Holy of Holies, but outside there is no concern. The Gemara continues this line of questioning: If so, the shofar is also outside, since it is not brought into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara answers: Since the shofar is sounded in order to evoke God’s remembrance, it is considered as if it were sounded inside the Holy of Holies.

Ulla said: Tamar engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with her father-in-law, Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri ben Salu also engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers, chapter 25). Yet despite the similarity between their actions, Tamar merited that kings and prophets descended from her. Conversely, several multitudes of Israel fell due to Zimri(see Numbers 25:9).

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Greater is a transgression committed for its own sake, i.e., for the sake of Heaven, than a mitzva performed not for its own sake.