Bal Tashchis\Parashat Shoftim
In Parshas Shoftim, we learn of the prohibition of “Bal Tashchis”, destroying any useful item. The actual example in the Torah is about destroying a fruit-bearing tree, and therefore according to the Rambam only such a transgression warrants malkus, lashes, but also any kind of destruction is in fact included in this lav, prohibition. Rabbeinu Peretz in Hagahos Smak, Mitzva קעה, adds that this Mitzvah also forbids us from wasting our money, even one prutah.
The Gemara in Shabbos tells of Amoraim who broke vessels in order to instill necessary fear into their households (this obviously is done to the appropriate degree). The question that is raised is what happened to the "Issur of Bal Tashchis." A few different answers are offered by the Rishonim. The Sefer HaChinuch in Mitzvah תקכט understands that this case must be speaking of broken vessels in the first place. It seems that since they didn’t serve a purpose in the first place there is no violation of Bal Tashchis in destroying them, similar to what the Gemarah in Bava Kammah teaches that the issur doesn’t apply to barren trees.
The Sefer Hayerayim in Mitzvah שפג explains differently. He writes that the rule is that the Issur is only if the loss is greater than the gain. Therefore, it is permitted to break vessels for the purpose of instilling fear because such a gain is greater than the loss of the utensil. Worthwhile to note is that the Rambam (הלכות מלכים פרק ו') seems to explain this clause somewhat differently, that the Issur is only דרך השחתה and when one tree is damaging another tree and the like it is not considered דרך השחתה cut it down. According to the Rambam’s words it would seem that an incidental gain would not be enough to permit breaking something because it is still being broken דרך השחתה, as opposed to according to the Yerayim it would seem to be permitted as long as one’s ‘net gain’ is greater than his loss.
The Smak (Sefer Mitzvis Katzar) in Mitzvah קעה seems to combine the two answers. He writes like the Yerayim that in the case of instilling fear the gain is greater than the loss, yet stipulates that this is only in the case of broken vessels. It seems from his words that even the broken vessels that we speak of are not completely useless rather they are merely considered to be somewhat dispensable.
The Gemarah also teaches that if a tree is more valuable for its wood than its fruit it is permitted to cut it down. Another permissible case can be found in the Ramban on the Parsha, who writes that if it will advantageous to the siege to destroy the trees, i.e. the trees serve as a protection for the enemy, then it is also permitted to cut them down.
Another example in the Gemarah (Shabbos קכט.) is that Amoraim made firewood from their furniture when they needed a fire for their health. In explanation of why this wasn’t a violation of Bal Tashchis the Gemarah writes that בל תשחית דגופאי עדיף לי, Bal Tashchis of my body is of more importance, meaning that one’s physical health outweighs one’s possessions. The Gemarah (Shabbos קמ:) uses similar logic about the following case. The Gemarah first says that to use wheat when one can use barley or wine when one can use beer is a problem of Bal Tashchis, being that wheat and wine are more expensive products. The Gemarah concludes, though, that בל תשחית דגופא עדיף, that being that barley and beer are not good for the stomach it is better to use wheat and wine. We can learn from here that spending money on healthy foods would not be an issue of Bal Tashchis.
Yet another interesting case is what is referred to as the Ta’anis HaRaavad, the fast of the Ra’avad. The Ra’avad, in his sefer Baalei Hanefesh, writes that an act of Prishus, abstinence, in substitution of fasting is for one to always leave over a little bit of food and not finish everything he was meant to eat. It would seem that the reason this is not a breach of Bal Tashchis is also because the benefit of such prishus outweighs the loss of the food.
